Grappling in DCC?

[geordie racer]

To be honest, will the MDoA just be a point of contention between the DM and players. What is the limit of actions?

In my opinion, contention is a feature not a bug of an involved gaming group engaged in the moment. As long as the rulebook has a few examples, I think it's totally workable. The limit of actions, well, a MDoA is not a critical hit.

[GnomeBoy]

To be honest, will the MDoA just be a point of contention between the DM and players. What is the limit of actions?

In my opinion, contention is a feature not a bug of an involved gaming group engaged in the moment. As long as the rulebook has a few examples, I think it's totally workable. The limit of actions, well, a MDoA is not a critical hit.

Contention being good or not, I got the feeling that MDoA -- or Feats of Strength & Daring, as it is on my warrior's character sheet -- is largely a question of "Is this a cool, exciting move?". It may also be a question of "Can you describe what you are doing in X words or less?" to eliminate the cheese factor. But FoSaD was described with the example of "I leap at the back of the giant frog and bound into the air to cleave one of the flying skulls with my sword!", and by making the die roll, you succeed. What holds you back, and keeps it from getting out of hand, is the chance that you'll fail, and may well be worse off than you were before you tried. In this game, it appears that bones break, concussions happen, and scrolls of restoration may be nonexistent...

[goodmangames]

I agree, grappling rules have always sucked, and by God I do not want to contribute to that ignominous chapter of D&D history!

DCC RPG has a mechanic called the Free Whack. If you want to try something in combat that leaves you open, your opponent gets a Free Whack. (I suppose I should come up with a more technical term but in actual game play I always end up saying, "Okay, if you try that he gets a free whack!") If you want to grapple him, he gets a Free Whack, then you make an opposed Strength check. If you win, he's tied up in the grapple. On the next round, the enemy can get out if he makes another opposed Strength check against you.

Thus far, that's the extent of the grappling rules, and they've worked out okay in a couple games that have involved them. Most of the grappling so far has involved bestial denizens of deep caves who are manhandling villagers, and the occasional sacrificial virgin, as they carry them off to be sacrificed...not grappling in the D&D rules sense per se but we have had quite a few situations of "practical application of grappling rules by angry cultists."

Warriors with a Mighty Deed of Arms could do something even more cool than the basic grapple. But that's as far as I've gotten.

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

[smathis]

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

What you've described sounds fine to me. Improvisation might lead to some interesting possibilities for the DCC annual.

[joela]

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

Uh, no offense but I can immediately see that'll be one of the first things DCC RPG buyers will be clamoring for clarification, especially if they're coming from 3.x/Pathfinder/4E backgrounds. And I've already seen some (mild) flame over the DCC RPG (and Goodman Games) on some forums when the rules aren't even out yet

[Ravenheart87]

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

Uh, no offense but I can immediately see that'll be one of the first things DCC RPG buyers will be clamoring for clarification, especially if they're coming from 3.x/Pathfinder/4E backgrounds. And I've already seen some (mild) flame over the DCC RPG (and Goodman Games) on some forums when the rules aren't even out yet

Well, those are the guys who won't buy the game anyway, because "OMG race as class" and "no feats, that's lame". They can stay with their beloved 3e/Pf and 4e. Or if they do like the game, they can ask on the forums. The above metioned "Free Whack and opposed Str check" method is quite simple and elegant way to solve the grapple, if someone can't handle THAT, well, he should give up pnp rpgs I think.

[joela]

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

Uh, no offense but I can immediately see that'll be one of the first things DCC RPG buyers will be clamoring for clarification, especially if they're coming from 3.x/Pathfinder/4E backgrounds. And I've already seen some (mild) flame over the DCC RPG (and Goodman Games) on some forums when the rules aren't even out yet

Well, those are the guys who won't buy the game anyway, because "OMG race as class" and "no feats, that's lame". They can stay with their beloved 3e/Pf and 4e. Or if they do like the game, they can ask on the forums. The above metioned "Free Whack and opposed Str check" method is quite simple and elegant way to solve the grapple, if someone can't handle THAT, well, he should give up pnp rpgs I think.

They'll buy: if there's one thing I've learned about gamers, they're a curious lot and are always on the lookout to check out other games even if to mine them for ideas. C&C GMs, OSR GMs, as well as the above GMs/DMs, will check out the DCC RPG. And will spot the "lack of grappling" rules. And will question the lack of formal rulings.

[Hamakto]

I agree, grappling rules have always sucked, and by God I do not want to contribute to that ignominous chapter of D&D history!

DCC RPG has a mechanic called the Free Whack. If you want to try something in combat that leaves you open, your opponent gets a Free Whack. (I suppose I should come up with a more technical term but in actual game play I always end up saying, "Okay, if you try that he gets a free whack!") If you want to grapple him, he gets a Free Whack, then you make an opposed Strength check. If you win, he's tied up in the grapple. On the next round, the enemy can get out if he makes another opposed Strength check against you.

Thus far, that's the extent of the grappling rules, and they've worked out okay in a couple games that have involved them. Most of the grappling so far has involved bestial denizens of deep caves who are manhandling villagers, and the occasional sacrificial virgin, as they carry them off to be sacrificed...not grappling in the D&D rules sense per se but we have had quite a few situations of "practical application of grappling rules by angry cultists."

Warriors with a Mighty Deed of Arms could do something even more cool than the basic grapple. But that's as far as I've gotten.

If I leave it open and undefined in the rules, can you all just improvise and not blame me for the bad grapple rules?

While that is an interesting take on a rule set, you are dealing with a different mindset in todays games. In DnD it is definitely easier to take someone out via grappling (i.e. have the guards dog pile someone) and actually try to hit their AC. Please correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't touch AC getting dropped from DCC? This makes it more difficult to to do grapple on warriors in armor because of their higher AC's.

(As a side point I like 'Free Whack' over AOO)

But I digress.

How many higher campaigns have you run with the rule set (i.e. level 5-10 or even 9-12)?

I do not see grapple being as big of an issue in lower level campaigns... but in every high level one it has become more of an issue.

Is there an easy answer for it? No I do not think so because of the way DnD and DCCRPG does HP.

[goodmangames]

Another way to think about it is: when did D&D rules sets first get grappling rules, and why did we need them differentiated from a normal attack?

I seem to recall many years of playing as a kid with no knowledge of grappling rules. If you wanted to tackle the guy, you still had to roll an attack against his AC. I think the descriptions of combat actions in at least one of the early D&D rules sets actually included "wrestling someone to the ground" as an example of something you could do in that long 1-minute combat round...I will have to look again and see if I can find it.

I just re-read the grappling rules from the AD&D DMG and they gave me a headache - basically a complex subsystem. Interestingly, the early dragon entries in the various OD&D monster manuals included specific instructions on how to subdue a dragon, as another subsystem. I'm looking at my AD&D MM right now and it has half a page on the subject.

So, should grappling just be a normal attack mode? And should the "dragon subdual process" be expanded to select other creatures, including humanoids?

Forget "real-world detail" for a moment - you can make any rules system extremely complex by trying to accurately reflect a roll for each step of the real-world process. If the BAB represents combat skill, why not start with that? And an opponent with thick armor would be harder to hold down: imagine trying to get a grip on plate mail...

"Just talking here," but I can remember years as a kid of rolling combats without ever using grappling rules. It's a weird D&D-ism, versus something you find in Appendix N literature, or even the movies -- did any great fantasy hero ever take out the evil sorcerer with a headlock?? Perhaps the grappling rules should simply be part of the standard combat mechanics...

[mshensley]

My biggest problem with separate grappling or unarmed rules in D&D - why is either more complicated than hitting someone with a sword or an arrow?

[mshensley]

"Just talking here," but I can remember years as a kid of rolling combats without ever using grappling rules. It's a weird D&D-ism, versus something you find in Appendix N literature, or even the movies -- did any great fantasy hero ever take out the evil sorcerer with a headlock?? Perhaps the grappling rules should simply be part of the standard combat mechanics...

Well, Conan did grapple with several monsters although they were the ones who usually started it and then he escapes and stabs them with his knife. He does punch the crap out of people all the time though, which is something that D&D rules (in all editions) have a real hard time simulating past first level or so due to ever escalating hit points.

[Hamakto]

My biggest problem with separate grappling or unarmed rules in D&D - why is either more complicated than hitting someone with a sword or an arrow?

Because hitting someone with a sword does not directly hurt them... it just burns HP from a generic pool.

Tackling someone can take them out w/out burning through their HP's.

If someone has fixed HP (i.e. 15)... then DR and Grapple works well inside the combat system. When you start to scale HP, you start to get some very interesting sub-systems developed to bring different combat styles under the same roof.

Example:

Boxing: Works with existing HP system
Tacking someone: Does not work with existing HP system because you did not actually hurt them (much) but they are still out of combat.
Restraining someone: Once again, you did not deplete HP's but they are effectively out of combat.
Tripping someone: Very little damage, but you knocked them down.

If they all use the same mechanic as regular combat, then either grappling is WAY to effective or not worth doing (i.e. you have to burn through HP's first)

"Just talking here," but I can remember years as a kid of rolling combats without ever using grappling rules. It's a weird D&D-ism, versus something you find in Appendix N literature, or even the movies -- did any great fantasy hero ever take out the evil sorcerer with a headlock?? Perhaps the grappling rules should simply be part of the standard combat mechanics...

I do agree with you that it was not as big in our group when younger. But sometimes, it is something you just need to do and we did do it. It is a good tactical option when you want information and it is not as annoying (or abstract) as the 4e mechanic.

[geordie racer]

He does punch the crap out of people all the time though, which is something that D&D rules (in all editions) have a real hard time simulating past first level or so due to ever escalating hit points.

And it's here where I think MDA and an unarmed crits table would help out as you level up. I would prefer that the grappling rules were just part of the standard combat system, and that players didn't have to remember another sub-system.

[Black Dougal]

I like the Free Whack then opposed STR check to grapple. Then subsequent STR checks to escape. There is one small problem, however. It does not take into account evasion. So, maybe make it Free Whack, then opposed DEX check to get into range, then opposed STR check to make the grapple. Keep it simple. This is what attribute checks in combat are for. There is no need to burn through HP since no physical damage is being done. Unarmed attacks are a different kettle of fish. In an unarmed attack actual physical damage is being done.

I also don't like the concept of "subdual damage". In real life punching someone does real physical damage. You can kill someone if you punch them often enough, or in the right places. "Subdual damage" is simply hurting the person just enough so that they don't die, they just get dazed or go unconscious. I think this is modeled well enough in the classic HP system. At 0 HP you are unable to act (call it dazed, or unconscious, or whatever you want), at -CON you are well and truly dead.

Also if you add the level appropriate Zocchi die into unarmed attacks, the scaling of HP should be less of a problem for the 8th level fighter that wants to punch an opponent until they stop moving.

Keep it simple, stupid.

[smathis]

Well, Conan did grapple with several monsters although they were the ones who usually started it and then he escapes and stabs them with his knife. He does punch the crap out of people all the time though, which is something that D&D rules (in all editions) have a real hard time simulating past first level or so due to ever escalating hit points.

Yeah. And this is kinda where I'm coming from on this.

The fiction of Appendix N features people getting knocked out, restrained, wrestled, etc. And I was wondering how DCC with a traditional hit point system could do that without someone getting killed.

Maybe it's as simple as the attacker dropping someone to zero hit points and determining whether that person is dead or unconscious.

Or the "Cry Uncle" thing where a character taking so many hit points of damage can opt to get knocked out, restrained or captured instead of taking the hit point loss. Even DMs could keep their precious NPCs alive with this option.

Or a Massive Damage Threshold like in CoCd20 where a character taking damage higher than their CON/STA has to roll a Fortitude save with a DC of 10+the amount of damage taken to remain conscious.

Perhaps a "grapple" attack that scores a MDoA can force a Fort save with a DC of 5+the attacker's strength rating to avoid being restrained?

I'd rather not have an over-complex sub-system just for grappling and subdual. I think there's enough there that we can work within the system for a solution rather than tack something on for the sake of "realism". I think the goal is to emulate Appendix N, not the "real world".

In Appendix N, people get knocked out by a thug with a blackjack. Heroes get captured instead of slain. Monsters attempt to use their overbearing strength to restrict the movement of their smaller and weaker foes.

Three options are listed above that could possibly answer those questions. I'm sure there are more. But I'd be reluctant to use anything that took more than 150 words to explain.

[Fullerton]

grappling [can be anywhere between] WAY to effective or not worth doing (i.e. you have to burn through HP's first)

Yes, that's the key. It's tricky to get explicit grappling rules right, especially in a way that preserves the flavor of the inspirational material at both high and low levels in a typical D&D hit-point-based & adventuring party-based game.

If the choice is between no grappling rules and explicit-but-dysfunctional grappling rules, I'd choose no grappling rules. After all, even with no explicit grappling rules, there's still MDoA, ad-hoc rulings, spells, and unique monster abilities.

If DCC RPG indeed goes for the no explicit grappling rules option, it's probably worth a couple sentences explaining that philosophy. As a bonus, this can be framed in a "What if a player wants to do something that isn't explicitly covered by the rules" section that generally reinforces the "wing it" concept, and possibly points at a couple general resolution mechanics, much like the Basic/Expert D&D books did (X-in-6 rolls, stat rolls, saving throws, attack rolls, initiative rolls, surprise rolls, etc.).

I do agree with you that it was not as big in our group when younger. But sometimes, it is something you just need to do and we did do it. It is a good tactical option when you want information and it is not as annoying (or abstract) as the 4e mechanic.

Be careful conflating the need to restrain an opponent with the need to inflict non-lethal damage. While they commonly overlap, they're not generally the same thing. Based on my 3e and pre-3e experience, the rules for the former are much more PC-exploitable (in a bad way) than the rules for the latter.

With 3e, I found that the restraining rules (grappling, tripping, whatever) were used frequently to kill an enemy faster as opposed to incapacitating an enemy without killing him.



And I think it's also dangerous to conflate the aforementioned two needs with the need to quickly eliminate an unaware opponent. (Think: Sap to the head of a completely surprised foe, or a throat slice to the same.) One concrete mechanic that tries to meet all three needs is hard to get right.

A set of well-explained general tools is strongly preferable, and D&D-like games already have plenty of those. Then trust the DM to choose a good tool based on the circumstances.

[GnomeBoy]

How about it's part of MDoA, and it gives you a bonus (how much you made the MDoA by?) to do whatever it is you want to do while the foe is grappled? They aren't completely at your mercy, but they are vulnerable. Want to knock them out? kill them? dress them up funny? "You made your MDoA by three above what you needed, so you get a plus three -- roll..."

[Hamakto]

How about it's part of MDoA, and it gives you a bonus (how much you made the MDoA by?) to do whatever it is you want to do while the foe is grappled? They aren't completely at your mercy, but they are vulnerable. Want to knock them out? kill them? dress them up funny? "You made your MDoA by three above what you needed, so you get a plus three -- roll..."

I am going to ask a (possibly silly) question here? Isn't MDoA a Warrior class ability? Does that apply to Wizards, Thief and Cleric classes?

It was originally presented as an ability of a Warrior with no mention as an ability for another class. If that is true, then about half of this thread talking about MDoA needs to be deleted.

[DCCfan]

My biggest problem with separate grappling or unarmed rules in D&D - why is either more complicated than hitting someone with a sword or an arrow?

My feelings as well. Why does it take a whole page or more to describe grappling and a twelve step process to complete?

[Fullerton]

I am going to ask a (possibly silly) question here? Isn't MDoA a Warrior class ability? Does that apply to Wizards, Thief and Cleric classes?

Yes, MDoA is a warrior class ability, and as such, isn't available to other classes. (Based on the DunDraCon playtest, anyway.)

I was originally presented as an ability of a Warrior with no mention as an ability for another class. If that is true, then about half of this thread talking about MDoA needs to be deleted.

Can you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that because MDoA isn't applicable to all classes, then it's not an acceptable way to handle grappling?

[Hamakto]

I am going to ask a (possibly silly) question here? Isn't MDoA a Warrior class ability? Does that apply to Wizards, Thief and Cleric classes?

Yes, MDoA is a warrior class ability, and as such, isn't available to other classes. (Based on the DunDraCon playtest, anyway.)

I was originally presented as an ability of a Warrior with no mention as an ability for another class. If that is true, then about half of this thread talking about MDoA needs to be deleted.

Can you clarify what you mean? Are you saying that because MDoA isn't applicable to all classes, then it's not an acceptable way to handle grappling?

What I am saying is that any reference to MDoA and grappling needs to be removed from this thread. Or are we willing to say only Warriors can grapple? I do not think that people would want to go that far. I would honestly say that a Thief has more reason to grapple than a fighter if he is trying to take someone out quietly.

The goal of the grappling discussion is to find a way to possibly add it to DCC RPG (or even not add it is an option) with a consistent rule. Having one rule for warriors and one for everyone else would not be consistant.

[geordie racer]

What I am saying is that any reference to MDoA and grappling needs to be removed from this thread. Or are we willing to say only Warriors can grapple? I do not think that people would want to go that far. I would honestly say that a Thief has more reason to grapple than a fighter if he is trying to take someone out quietly.

The goal of the grappling discussion is to find a way to possibly add it to DCC RPG (or even not add it is an option) with a consistent rule. Having one rule for warriors and one for everyone else would not be consistant.

I don't think anyone is saying only Warriors can grapple, but I do think they would be more seasoned grapplers than other classes, hence their access to MDA. In my mind that is consistent with their class and the source literature.

[Fullerton]

What I am saying is that any reference to MDoA and grappling needs to be removed from this thread. Or are we willing to say only Warriors can grapple? I do not think that people would want to go that far. I would honestly say that a Thief has more reason to grapple than a fighter if he is trying to take someone out quietly.

The warrior-only use of MDoA for "grappling" would not preclude other classes/creatures from "grappling" via other mechanisms.

(I put "grappling" in quotes because I think it's too generic of a term. The examples in this thread have been of many different things: Quick eliminations, restraining, tripping or otherwise making someone prone, knocking out instead of killing, what else?)

The goal of the grappling discussion is to find a way to possibly add it to DCC RPG (or even not add it is an option) with a consistent rule. Having one rule for warriors and one for everyone else would not be consistant.

I disagree with your conclusion. The means for "grappling" are far more varied than one mechanic can/should represent. And even if warriors have a built-in way to "grapple" a foe (MDoA), there's nothing precluding warriors from using other options to "grapple" (i.e., the breadth of options implicitly available).

Similarly, even if thieves have a built-in way to scale a wall (free-climbing using their climb ability), there's nothing precluding thieves from using any of the wall-scaling options available to other classes (rope & pitons, for example).

MDoA just gives warriors an additional affordance for achieving some of the effects of "grappling."

[goodmangames]

And it's here where I think MDA and an unarmed crits table would help out as you level up.

Well, I am a big fan of crit tables...

Some good ideas in this thread. I like the idea of something that plays off the basic "crit table" concept. Maybe a grapple is a normal attack roll...then there's a "grappling result table"...and you roll on that table to determine the result? And maybe the roll on the table is influenced by opposed Str scores: subtract the target's mod from your mod, and apply the net modifier. So you roll to hit, you roll dX on the grapple table, and if your Str is +3 and his is +1 then you add +2 to the result. That's just one idea but several of the concepts in this thread would work.

Andy, you're right, Mighty Deed of Arms is only a warrior (and dwarf) class ability. But it could be integrated somehow as a modifier, especially if the grapple action is derived from the basic attack roll.

[smathis]

Some good ideas in this thread. I like the idea of something that plays off the basic "crit table" concept. Maybe a grapple is a normal attack roll...then there's a "grappling result table"...and you roll on that table to determine the result? And maybe the roll on the table is influenced by opposed Str scores: subtract the target's mod from your mod, and apply the net modifier. So you roll to hit, you roll dX on the grapple table, and if your Str is +3 and his is +1 then you add +2 to the result. That's just one idea but several of the concepts in this thread would work.

I think that would work. I'm all about simple and straightforward. A grappling result table is as good a solution as any.

What about the "getting knocked unconscious" thing?

I think grappling is more of an issue of "players are going to want to try this so let's cover some bases" while the "knocked unconscious" thing is more of an Appendix N thing. Any ideas there?