Size Matters

[Goodlun]

 In a real fight you aren't constrained by things like MMA rules (you can't bite, claw, knee to the crotch, fist to the throat, elbow to the soft spot on the back of the head right above the neck, etc.).  A lot of grapples become very easy when you know your opponent isn't going to take his fingernails to your throat and start squeezing or jab his thumb in your eye.

This is one of those things that "traditional" and "self defense hacks" try and tell you, the truth of the matter is the grappler has a significant advantage in a dirty fight.  Hell originally MMA didn't have these rules and there are still vale tudo fights that don't. Truth of the matter is if I have you in my gaurd or you are mounted your not going to be able to bite, hit me in the throat, and most certainly not going to be able to elbow me in the back of the neck how ever I will be able to do any of those things to you at will.

[Krensky]

Mr. Assassin, Agent of Violent Change, versus the Dealer of Death

Mr. Assassin is a 10th level Assassin with Str and Dex of 14 each. The Dealer of Death is a 10th level Explorer with Ambush Basics, Ambush Mastery, and Ambush Supremacy. The Dealer of Death, bored of strangling wild boars with his bare hands, decides to pop Mr. Assassin's head off. He makes a full round action and grapples Mr. Assassin. Mr. Assassin, fit fellow that he is, gets +2 on his Athletics check, but is tragically, untrained, and can roll no higher than a 15. Meanwhile, the Dealer of Death cannot roll less than a 30. He grabs Mr. Assassin, doesn't error, then over the next few rounds begins to squeeze, dealing an extra 2d6 sneak attack damage every round. Mr. Assassin flails helplessly, trying to get a 20 and crit while avoiding a 1-3 and erroring. Soon their struggle ends.

You might think Lance would fare better, but alas, even with maxed out Athletics of 13 ranks and a +4 Strength bonus, he only has +17. Unless he rolls at least 13, there is no possible way for him to win. Even on a fair roll, against the Dealer's cousin, Vinny, he has only a 50% chance of escaping Vinny's crushing, +4d6 sneak attack Scout wrestling  technique. Dealer's little syster, Monica, is an Explorer 2/Scout 8, which means she she is equally capable as Vinny, buy can automatically murder Mr. Assassin or any other untrained character as well as the Dealer himself does, doing Vinny's superior damage.

If your players are trying to kill each other you have larger issues then your perception of a problem with the grappling rules.

[jolt]

This is one of those things that "traditional" and "self defense hacks" try and tell you, the truth of the matter is the grappler has a significant advantage in a dirty fight.  Hell originally MMA didn't have these rules and there are still vale tudo fights that don't. Truth of the matter is if I have you in my gaurd or you are mounted your not going to be able to bite, hit me in the throat, and most certainly not going to be able to elbow me in the back of the neck how ever I will be able to do any of those things to you at will.
[/quote]

This just isn't true.  In early MMA most wrestler fights ended up on the ground with a lot of nothing happening until one fighter would get frustrated, do something stupid, and lose.  Also, at that time, Brazilian Jiujutsu was not as developed in the states as it is today.  They couldn't even pass guard half the time assuming they knew to do that in the first place.

Having been the victim of multiple mugging attempts, I can say with full assurance that I can do all the things you just said I can't.  Sure, if I'm rear mounted or already in a submission I'm pretty screwed but if you're just sitting on my stomach or waist I'm just going to punch you in the crotch.  Why wouldn't as both my arms are free?  And if you're passed guard and are across my body, I'm going to grab your hair and pound mercilessly on the back of you neck.  I've had to do these things when I stupidly walked through a bad portion of San Juan at night and ended up with some guy sitting on my chest trying to bash my face in with a rock.

True on-the-ground fighting skills, outside of sports, are very rare.  And martial arts training, of any kind, doesn't help as much if you fight stupid.

Taking someone down is one thing, knowing what to do afterwards when your foe doesn't have to follow any fighting "etiquette" is another.  Talk to a lot of these MMA fighter and they all say the same thing: "With light gloves to no gloves, everyone's a good striker."  MMA is a sport; it's two people in a contained area with virtually no environmental factors.  If you get into a real fight under those conditions, count yourself lucky.

jolt

[Crafty_Alex]

Again - not changing grappling (or other attack actions) from being skill-based. Will not happen. Period. No amount of perceived greivances will convince me to fundamentally change all of Chapter 5. Feel free to house rule as you like, but that's just not the game we've written. I'm not saying this as a reprimand, but I want you to understand where I'm coming from and where this discussion can be productive and where it won't

Pawsplay - yes in your scenarios the other guy is at a disadvantage. But they have a choice. If Lance wants to not be shafted by Trips, he can invest in an Origin skill. He can do so with no special investment beyond the skill ranks, as every skill is available through Origin skills at no cost to the character. If he chooses not to take Acrobatics, he's vulnerable. That is not a bug, it's a feature - he's made a choice to have other advantages over being Acrobatic. Lance should not just be "better" at everything because he's of a higher level. That's a 4e mindset IMO, but it's not what we're going for - level is not the only thing that matters. The difference is that Lance can later grab a feat to get Acrobatics as an origin skill, then use his skill points to increase his Acrobatics - the same could not be said for the Scout who does not have the BAB difference. And BAB "costs" something - in fact, it costs a LOT more than skill ranks. You have to invest levels in classes with high BABs (which often do not have as many skill points or class skill options), level upon level of development, and often taking abilities that may not match your concept. A level is far more "costly" to a character than skill points are.

In regards to the Assassin vs. Explorer, you need to look at the larger situation around combat, because there is much more than an Athletics check that goes into a grapple. One - Dealer of Death has been built to grapple and do one thing, in the process giving up TONS of other options. Should we punish a character for being built to be good at something? Mages are better at magic than Priests, point for point, too; burglars are sneakier than most other characters; etc etc. The Assassin made his choice not to be good at Athletics, and he's up against an Athletics specialist - if you pit me in a fist fight against Mike Tyson, I guarantee you I would lose, too. Best for the assassin to use tactics rather than try to walk up and hit him - it's not unfair to run away when you need to

The example of Lance, who is even with our Grappler in ranks and so forth, "only having" a roughly 50/50 shot of beating him is not convincing. The Grappler's invested feats, max ranks, and many levels in being good at Athletics - lance has invested skill ranks, and still ha a fighting chance (esp when he throws an action die into the mix). Sure, if he loses it hurts...grappler's built to grapple. But then,  Lance could use tactics and stay on his horse and bull rush and traple the crap out of the grappler, or ride off into the sunset.

All you need to be is 10 ft. away from that grappler each round and he can't grapple you. So don't stand toe to toe with him, and don't fight on his terms! Additionally, every round that grappler's wrestling, he's not moving or fighting anyone else - first time he runs into a horde he will beat one or two guys, while the party does the rest fo the work. And he's also vulernable to someone else, like the Assassin or Lance's personal lieutenant or party member, coming up and sneak attacking him to death too. There are always ways around the situation - bending the math to support unimaginitive play or to punish those who desperately try to be good at something is not any more fair than letting the people who are bad at grapple consistently lose at grapples.

[Doublebond]

Again - not changing grappling (or other attack actions) from being skill-based. Will not happen. Period. No amount of perceived greivances will convince me to fundamentally change all of Chapter 5. Feel free to house rule as you like, but that's just not the game we've written. I'm not saying this as a reprimand, but I want you to understand where I'm coming from and where this discussion can be productive and where it won't

Pawsplay - yes in your scenarios the other guy is at a disadvantage. But they have a choice. If Lance wants to not be shafted by Trips, he can invest in an Origin skill. He can do so with no special investment beyond the skill ranks, as every skill is available through Origin skills at no cost to the character. If he chooses not to take Acrobatics, he's vulnerable. That is not a bug, it's a feature - he's made a choice to have other advantages over being Acrobatic. Lance should not just be "better" at everything because he's of a higher level. That's a 4e mindset IMO, but it's not what we're going for - level is not the only thing that matters. The difference is that Lance can later grab a feat to get Acrobatics as an origin skill, then use his skill points to increase his Acrobatics - the same could not be said for the Scout who does not have the BAB difference. And BAB "costs" something - in fact, it costs a LOT more than skill ranks. You have to invest levels in classes with high BABs (which often do not have as many skill points or class skill options), level upon level of development, and often taking abilities that may not match your concept. A level is far more "costly" to a character than skill points are.

In regards to the Assassin vs. Explorer, you need to look at the larger situation around combat, because there is much more than an Athletics check that goes into a grapple. One - Dealer of Death has been built to grapple and do one thing, in the process giving up TONS of other options. Should we punish a character for being built to be good at something? Mages are better at magic than Priests, point for point, too; burglars are sneakier than most other characters; etc etc. The Assassin made his choice not to be good at Athletics, and he's up against an Athletics specialist - if you pit me in a fist fight against Mike Tyson, I guarantee you I would lose, too. Best for the assassin to use tactics rather than try to walk up and hit him - it's not unfair to run away when you need to

The example of Lance, who is even with our Grappler in ranks and so forth, "only having" a roughly 50/50 shot of beating him is not convincing. The Grappler's invested feats, max ranks, and many levels in being good at Athletics - lance has invested skill ranks, and still ha a fighting chance (esp when he throws an action die into the mix). Sure, if he loses it hurts...grappler's built to grapple. But then,  Lance could use tactics and stay on his horse and bull rush and traple the crap out of the grappler, or ride off into the sunset.

All you need to be is 10 ft. away from that grappler each round and he can't grapple you. So don't stand toe to toe with him, and don't fight on his terms! Additionally, every round that grappler's wrestling, he's not moving or fighting anyone else - first time he runs into a horde he will beat one or two guys, while the party does the rest fo the work. And he's also vulernable to someone else, like the Assassin or Lance's personal lieutenant or party member, coming up and sneak attacking him to death too. There are always ways around the situation - bending the math to support unimaginitive play or to punish those who desperately try to be good at something is not any more fair than letting the people who are bad at grapple consistently lose at grapples.

Rootwalker Luchador ho!

[Goodlun]

This is one of those things that "traditional" and "self defense hacks" try and tell you, the truth of the matter is the grappler has a significant advantage in a dirty fight.  Hell originally MMA didn't have these rules and there are still vale tudo fights that don't. Truth of the matter is if I have you in my gaurd or you are mounted your not going to be able to bite, hit me in the throat, and most certainly not going to be able to elbow me in the back of the neck how ever I will be able to do any of those things to you at will.

This just isn't true.  In early MMA most wrestler fights ended up on the ground with a lot of nothing happening until one fighter would get frustrated, do something stupid, and lose.  Also, at that time, Brazilian Jiujutsu was not as developed in the states as it is today.  They couldn't even pass guard half the time assuming they knew to do that in the first place.

Having been the victim of multiple mugging attempts, I can say with full assurance that I can do all the things you just said I can't.  Sure, if I'm rear mounted or already in a submission I'm pretty screwed but if you're just sitting on my stomach or waist I'm just going to punch you in the crotch.  Why wouldn't as both my arms are free?  And if you're passed guard and are across my body, I'm going to grab your hair and pound mercilessly on the back of you neck.  I've had to do these things when I stupidly walked through a bad portion of San Juan at night and ended up with some guy sitting on my chest trying to bash my face in with a rock.

True on-the-ground fighting skills, outside of sports, are very rare.  And martial arts training, of any kind, doesn't help as much if you fight stupid.

Taking someone down is one thing, knowing what to do afterwards when your foe doesn't have to follow any fighting "etiquette" is another.  Talk to a lot of these MMA fighter and they all say the same thing: "With light gloves to no gloves, everyone's a good striker."  MMA is a sport; it's two people in a contained area with virtually no environmental factors.  If you get into a real fight under those conditions, count yourself lucky.

jolt
[/quote]
You have to be kidding me right? 
Here is the truth I have seen MANY blue belts(someone who pretty much just have shown to be competent with techniques) in none sport fights with long term(typically dan level) practitioners of striking arts that teach the defenses against grappling that your talking about, the end result has virtually always been in with the striker being far worse for ware.
Also BJJ and Judo have been available where I live for at least the last 25 years I know I started at the age of 5
I think you make the point very well why people need to learn to grapple "With light gloves to no gloves, everyone's a good striker."  This is very true, this is why taking the fight to the ground before it becomes a boxing match is important.
Grappling is not only necessary in sport combat, it is also street effective and its necessity goes up even more.
Like I said if I have you in my guard or mount you are not going to get me in my nuts nor are you going to grab my in my neck or grab my hair.  This I know from being in more conflicts then I would like to admit to.
However relevance to FC as this is a FC forum.
Clearly Striking and grappling are different, The skill system is why I switched to Spycraft and then later Mastercraft.
I agree with Alex 100% this is part of the core design and should not change.
If you are an adventure taking on all sorts of monsters far and wide its not a far stretch to think that maybe just maybe your character should know how to grapple.  Not to mention also its not a far stretch that at courtier may learn to grapple cause virtually every civilization has done so for sport.  We all know that athletes have been held in high regard by most civilizations.  So a wrestling noble  is not so wacky.

[Doublebond]

Imaginary Wrestling: Serious Business.

[Goodlun]

Imaginary Wrestling: Serious Business.

Isn't that what this whole thread is about?

[pawsplay]

Again - not changing grappling (or other attack actions) from being skill-based. Will not

happen. Period.

Totally respect that. Nonetheless,

- yes in your scenarios the other guy is at a disadvantage. But they have a choice. If Lance wants to not be shafted by Trips, he can invest in an Origin skill. He can do so with no special investment beyond the skill ranks, as every skill is available through Origin skills at no cost to the character.

Using one of two origin skills is definitely a cost. It's 50% of your origin skill budget to be exact.

If he chooses not to take Acrobatics, he's vulnerable. That is not a bug, it's a feature - he's made a choice to have other advantages over being Acrobatic. Lance should not just be "better" at everything because he's of a higher level.

Not at all my point. We are talking about basic combat maneuvers. While I can understand why making skills valuable in combat is a feature, not a bug, that doesn't mean the system is without bugs. In this case, one thing I've noticed is that many characters who should be well-rounded in melee are at a disadvantage unless they build up Acrobatics, which is 1) not obvious to the newcomer to FC, 2) requires prowess in a skill that is not usually associated with armored cavaliers and such characters, and 3) is in many ways more expensive to Lance than to the tripper, since Lance is taking feats and skill ranks away from his core concept in order to have half a chance against Joe Trippy.

That's a 4e mindset IMO, but it's not what we're going for - level is not the only thing that matters.

Hey, now. 4e mindset? You kiss your mother with that mouth?

The difference is that Lance can later grab a feat to get Acrobatics as an origin skill, then use his skill points to increase his Acrobatics - the same could not be said for the Scout who does not have the BAB difference.

Lance cannot significantly catch up. Unless he takes Prodigal Skill or somesuch at 1st level, he will have a hard time catching up. To get within 5 points of Joe Trippy, he will need to spend 8 skill ranks, which is about two entire levels of Lancer skills.

And BAB "costs" something - in fact, it costs a LOT more than skill ranks. You have to invest levels in classes with high BABs (which often do not have as many skill points or class skill options), level upon level of development, and often taking abilities that may not match your concept. A level is far more "costly" to a character than skill points are.

Everyone gets at least half a point of BAB per level. Not everyone gets Acrobatics. The mage doesn't have to pay anything they don't already have in order to improve BAB or Defense. It will improve, albeit slowly.

So, to review: Build a skill, spend two entire levels worth of skill ranks (also, by the way, remaining vulnerable to every OTHER skill-based combat move), vs. take levels in class you were already taking levels in.

Should we punish a character for being built to be good at something?

Should we punish Lance for not being a the Boy Wonder? I don't think punishment is the issue. I'm not trying to punish anyone and I don't think you are either.I don't hate grapplers, it's just that I don't see how it is going to work out well when grapplers can so easily overwhelm characters who lack Athletics, whereas straight up swordsman have to face Defense and Vitality which everyone develops. Mr. Assassin has the same defense against grappling at 10th level he did at 1st level, unless he takes preventative measures. His defense climbs by 6 points and his BAB by 7.

And how about those untrained checks for resistance? Ouch.

So to bring this back around to the original topic... in my view, anything that helps someone use conventional defenses to help against grappling is probably a good thing if it doesn't make grappling useless. Allowing dodge bonuses seems like a good start.

Setting some kind of BAB-based minimum... I still don't understand the objection. Unless you set a really high minimum, it won't matter much. However, it will help characters who are untrained in a skill survive some basic maneuvers. I wouldn't set a 10 + BAB floor or anything like that, but I'm wondering if allowing a melee attack roll in place of an Athletics or Acrobatics check for defense might work. It makes sense for the Dealer of Death to excel at grappling, it does not make sense for all characters untrained in Athletics to be pathetic.

Larger creatures have higher Str scores, for the most part. Reducing the bonus per category to +2 or even +1, or using a Pathfinder-like progression, would mitigate the more extreme cases. Size already limits who is a possible target of grapple, so I think the disparity in Athletics checks already covers the size advantage. Larger differences may have made more sense in Spycraft, where size differences were smaller and hence the differences more worthy of being emphasized, and in which most fights were probably resolved with guns, but for FC, the level of abstraction leads to those modifiers being disproportionately important. Capping the bonus at +4, period, instead of per category, might work, simply because it might apply at the level of abstraction being used, it might be true that being much, much bigger doens't help, since you have to grab first.

I definitely don't endorse anything that invovles lots of recalcuting bonuses using different attributes or whatever round by round.

[Krensky]

Gentlemen,

Put it away or continue the comparison in PM.

The effectiveness of any ground fighting technique or your relative skill with them isn't really relevant. It's a game, the grappling rules are simple, easy to use, and plenty good for the game.

If you don't like them, feel free to houserule away and turn it back into an action people avoid because it's too baroque.

As for comparing builds, I don't care what a 10th level char can do to a 20th level one. It's never gonna come up because they're both PCs.

[Sletchman]

The people who think big-ness for grappling and tripping is too good, have you guys actually run games with big characters with martial arts driven builds?

My current player group has a guy who is a pro-wrestler [yes, literally, and in an early victorian era setting], and he discovered he can do more in combats when he's not just grapling one guy, all the time.  His favourited trick is actually clothesline [which is a trip that doesn't use acrobatics, and is resisted by a fort save].

The game doesn't fall apart, he doesn't outshine everyone else, and no one feels useless because Captain Big is around, they have other tricks.

If you want to add more MMA moves, then look at converting some of the spycraft unarmed feats, they have plenty of extra options and modelable* fighting styles.

My only complaint about the grapple rules is that Pin wasn't listed as a grapple advantage, and it took our group a while to figure out what to do [esp in regards to abilities that require a pin], but once we read it more carefully we saw how it worked.  So even my only complaint is minor.

_{*Is that even a word?}

[Khaalis]

I still say keep it simple.   Allow Dodge bonuses to the Defender vs. these maneuvers and decrease the size bonus from +4 to +2.

A possible House Rule people could use for that "extra" realism is: "Allow the better of Athletics, Acrobatics or BAB" as the opposed check for these maneuvers.

In 90+% of the cases, you can explain a reason for the alternate check via RP (which is good to me if it encourages RP during combat, not just dice rolling) and it allows even a character like a Mage some basic fighting chance in such situations, even if its really not enough to make a difference in the final outcome. However, it can be the difference in the player "Feeling" like they have a chance. Getting a +5 from your BAB as a mage "seems" better than a +0 from Athletics or Acrobatics because you have low physical attributes and no training in those skills. Versus a real grappler, +5 isn't really going to matter when you have the grappler with something like a +15 bonus, but the player at least "feels" better about the roll because they have a bonus.

It is still fairly simple and I think can cover just about any argument for how these maneuvers "should work in reality".

JMHO.

[Goodlun]

I think the size bonus is critical to good tactical play as well as good roleplay.  Lets face it you see something that is 2+ size categories larger then you and you want to walk up and hit it with a sharp object?  I mean really? you really want to do that?  Honestly what would you rather do shoot an elephant or walk up to it and stab it with a long sword knowing full well that a long sword is actually going to do a lot more physical damage.  Now replace elephant with dragon something that can grab you and I just have a hard time imagining any character with a lick of sanity is going to want to stand toe to toe with it.  There is a reason most big game hunting weapons have been usable as range weapons.

[Sletchman]

I've run a couple of encounters Shadow of the Collossus style, you don't grapple it, you climb up it, and stap it in the neck area.

[pawsplay]

I still say keep it simple.   Allow Dodge bonuses to the Defender vs. these maneuvers and decrease the size bonus from +4 to +2.

That sounds pretty good to me, along with allowing a melee attack roll as a defense, particularly in light of how untrained skill checks work. A mage's +5 BAB is probably not going to do much, but heck, maybe he'll roll well, and maybe an Action Die will help.