Grappling in DCC?

[rabindranath72]

Joseph,
you might want to have a look at the unarmed combat rules in Unearthed Arcana (System I, and snippets of System II.)
They are essentially a normal attack, with some "special effect" tackled on. They are very fast and easy to use, and provide effects which weapons don't, so they are something a player might decide to use.

[GnomeBoy]

I'm comfortable with Warriors using MDoA and with Thieves using some variant of their 'sneak attack' (which I'm unfamiliar with in these rules, but fairly sure there exists something along these lines).

I'm also aware that not everyone is going to like that. Aren't most wizards in the source materials bad wrestlers? Except maybe against each other... Class vs. Class and Race vs. Race sub-rules are a can of worms, though, aren't they...?

[Hamakto]

I'm comfortable with Warriors using MDoA and with Thieves using some variant of their 'sneak attack' (which I'm unfamiliar with in these rules, but fairly sure there exists something along these lines).

I'm also aware that not everyone is going to like that. Aren't most wizards in the source materials bad wrestlers? Except maybe against each other... Class vs. Class and Race vs. Race sub-rules are a can of worms, though, aren't they...?

That is what I am trying to avoid here. Having to go look into the rules to see how a particular class works for something or even to consult extra tables.

A grapple table would be on a DM screen, but I should be able to know how the combat (i.e. grapple works) without looking up how class X does grapple.

[Jim Skach]

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.

In a way, from about 50,000 feet, this is similar to what is in the 1e DMG.

There are, of course, complications that when combined with a lack of regular use make the system seem overly complex. For example, it's not d20/AC approach used, but a percentile approach that uses AC as a base. Or the secret value for each side.

But it is at its root a to-hit-results-table approach. And I think simplifying that process would be a great mix of old and new...

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

[fireinthedust]

If I'm put in a headlock, that doesn't mean I'm down to 0hp. In fact, that's a silly concept: what, I'm put in chains and I'm at 0hp, but put a key in the lock, release me from the chains, and I'm "healed" up to my full HP? I don't think so.

MDAs will cover a lot, especially if the book is going to be only 64 pages(!?!)



I'm under the impression there won't even be a grid map for dungeons, like miniatures.

Also that there will be only 2 classes (Joe only said Warrior and Wizard, that I can remember; and a reference to clerics through discussion of Turn Undead (and other stuff); everyone else here has been claiming that involves thieves and clerics and other classes). I could be wrong on that one. Oh yeah, also Race-as-class rules... (I just know someone somewhere is going to want to play a "gypsy", a 3pp will think this is where the market is heading, and then all the stereotypes will have 20 level classes and an xp chart... which fits for some of the Appendix N writers, I guess ). And a lot of tables for things.

And that's it.

At any rate, I was talking with some guy years back who'd played FR at a Con with Ed Greenwood. He said it was fun because Ed had allowed all sorts of crazy actions like swinging from chandeliers, and things that weren't covered by the rules normally.
I also have run some fairly legendary sessions (imho) in 4e where I said "okay, combat is a grind, let's get off the grid and use our brains" and had the PCs run about stealing things. It was great fun.

Basically, if DCCrpg has a solid set of rules for winging it, it won't need a fully automatic simulationist or gamist set of rules options. Frankly, looking at my reams of hardcovers, I've already got books of that sort of thing for other 3e OGL games. In fact, I'm guessing that it won't be all that hard to port over rules subsystems from other 3e games that I like (CMD/CMB I'm looking at you!).

For that reason, a good conversion guide would be handy.

[GnomeBoy]

...a can of worms...

That is what I am trying to avoid here. Having to go look into the rules to see how a particular class works for something or even to consult extra tables...

Well, my point is maybe only Warriors and Thieves have that ability, per se. It's simple, it fits the source material (as far as I can tell) and makes for no rules look-up.

I also think giving up your action to stop someone else's action, and besting them in strength vs. strength or agility vs. agility is simple and works, too. Want to also do them subdual damage? Just open yourself up to subdual damage from them also. All other variations, cases and shadings could boil down to the specific situation, adjudicated by the DM (i.e. no rules).

[mshensley]

If I'm put in a headlock, that doesn't mean I'm down to 0hp. In fact, that's a silly concept: what, I'm put in chains and I'm at 0hp, but put a key in the lock, release me from the chains, and I'm "healed" up to my full HP? I don't think so.

I saw a great episode of this sports science show once where they had an mma fighter put a choke hold on a volunteer to see how long it takes to knock someone out. It took 4 seconds.

[smathis]

Regarding Grappling... I'd like to see something simple. It really breaks down to two things for me.

1) Restraining another character. How do you do it? What does restraining a character do to that character? And how do they get out of it? That shouldn't take more than a paragraph or two, really.

2) An option to lose a combat in some way besides being killed. Like getting knocked out or something. How does that happen? Because it happens a good deal in Appendix N and I don't feel like the ruleset will accurately reflect the inspiration without something like that. And, again, it's something that I think could be defined in a couple of paragraphs.

[jmucchiello]

Minor derail, I'm utterly intrigued by the two word description of "Free Whack". This sounds like a tool you give to the players as currency to do something beyond what would normally be possible. Can I jump over the guard and grab the mad wizard's arm if I give the guard a "free whack"? Not sure how it interacts with MDoA except perhaps giving a free whack allows you to roll more than one MDoA die (or a first MDoA die if you are not a fighter) and you get the best die roll (or heck, just add them both in).

[smathis]

Minor derail, I'm utterly intrigued by the two word description of "Free Whack". This sounds like a tool you give to the players as currency to do something beyond what would normally be possible. Can I jump over the guard and grab the mad wizard's arm if I give the guard a "free whack"? Not sure how it interacts with MDoA except perhaps giving a free whack allows you to roll more than one MDoA die (or a first MDoA die if you are not a fighter) and you get the best die roll (or heck, just add them both in).

Yes, me too. It appears to move the concept of "Attacks of Opportunity" into setting the stakes of a contest. So rather than AoOs being this mish-mash of "when-do-they-happen, when-don't-they-happen", it's more of a negotiation.

"I'm going to charge across the room to hit the monster that's grabbed the Cleric."

"That's cool. But the monster you're engaged in melee with will get a Free Whack."

It could also introduce the idea of "stickiness" in that sometimes a skilled opponent could head you off with a successful MDoA.

"The creature attempts to flee. You get a free whack."

"I hit and score an MDoA! He stays right where he is."

I do wish there was a "scale" for the effect of an MDoA, though. With sample ideas of what type of roll could get what type of result.

Something like....

3: Stop an opponent from disengaging in combat, give an opponent -1 to their next attack, disengage from opponent and move 10'
5: Trip an opponent or knock them prone. Give an ally a +2 to hit the opponent (flanking). Give the opponent -2 to their next attack. Daze the opponent for a round (opponent can only move and at half speed).
7: Blind an opponent for a round (-5 to hit). Stun the opponent for a round (opponent can take no action). Disarm the opponent. Allow an ally of your choice to disengage from the opponent with no Free Whack.

Just some sort of scaled guidelines. Not all MDoAs are created equal, in game terms. And having the guidelines could give people some ideas of the mechanical value of an MDoA, while still leaving lots of room for stunts and interpretation. Also, having the scale makes those "auto-MDoAs" at higher level less valuable. There's a lot of coolness to saying "I want to knock all adjacent opponents prone" and having the ability to roll a 9 on that MDoA to do it.

[nanstreet]

I do wish there was a "scale" for the effect of an MDoA, though. With sample ideas of what type of roll could get what type of result.

Something like....

3: Stop an opponent from disengaging in combat, give an opponent -1 to their next attack, disengage from opponent and move 10'
5: Trip an opponent or knock them prone. Give an ally a +2 to hit the opponent (flanking). Give the opponent -2 to their next attack. Daze the opponent for a round (opponent can only move and at half speed).
7: Blind an opponent for a round (-5 to hit). Stun the opponent for a round (opponent can take no action). Disarm the opponent. Allow an ally of your choice to disengage from the opponent with no Free Whack.

Just some sort of scaled guidelines. Not all MDoAs are created equal, in game terms. And having the guidelines could give people some ideas of the mechanical value of an MDoA, while still leaving lots of room for stunts and interpretation. Also, having the scale makes those "auto-MDoAs" at higher level less valuable. There's a lot of coolness to saying "I want to knock all adjacent opponents prone" and having the ability to roll a 9 on that MDoA to do it.

I'd like something like that, but made really simply and smooth to run. Maybe just two catagories, MDoA and Greater MDoA, and the second keyed to the opponent's level. For example, on a regualer MDoA the opponent could have their weapon knocked askew and take a -2 penalty to hit and damage next round, but if the MDoA roll also matches or exceeds the opponent's HD, their weapon goes flying as well.

[jmucchiello]

Yes, me too. It appears to move the concept of "Attacks of Opportunity" into setting the stakes of a contest. So rather than AoOs being this mish-mash of "when-do-they-happen, when-don't-they-happen", it's more of a negotiation.

Exactly. That's what makes it cool, it gives a bit of narrative control to the players. The rules would say you can only do X, Y and Z. Everything else might give the opponent a free whack depending on the situation as judged by the DM. Heck, to do something off the wall (and incredibly stupid) the DM could respond, "Okay, you can jump past the defending line of pikement but all 4 of them get a Free Whack."

I do wish there was a "scale" for the effect of an MDoA, though. With sample ideas of what type of roll could get what type of result.
3: Stop an opponent from disengaging in combat, give an opponent -1 to their next attack, disengage from opponent and move 10'
5: Trip an opponent or knock them prone. Give an ally a +2 to hit the opponent (flanking). Give the opponent -2 to their next attack. Daze the opponent for a round (opponent can only move and at half speed).
7: Blind an opponent for a round (-5 to hit). Stun the opponent for a round (opponent can take no action). Disarm the opponent. Allow an ally of your choice to disengage from the opponent with no Free Whack.

I like this as well but it would have to be couched in terms of "in an average situation..." to prevent rules lawyering. But giving the DM guidelines for what a MDoA roll of 6 can do that a 3 cannot doesn't sound like the direction Joe is going but it sounds like a cool variant rule. Saying 6 is the minimum MDoA for swinging across the room on a chandelier and kick three swordsmen off the opposite balcony or a 4 is needed to knock someone backward off a ledge into a volcano reduces what 1st level fighters can do with a MDoA. Should the rules say what is or isn't possible with a MDoA? Perhaps. Perhaps not. But I definitely agree: not all MDoAs are created equally. So it also seems natural that there should be "levels of MDoAs".

[moes1980]

how about this:

Every character has subdual damage "hps" equal to their con score. If they take subdual damge equal to or geater than their con (um, I mean, stamina) than they pass out for d14 hours or something like that. But, only certain weapons can deal subdual damage. There is no dealing subdual damage with a long sword or dagger or a sword unless a MDoA is made, but even in that case it is just the pommel of a sword that is used to deal subdual damage but it would still be equivlent to punching, kicking, etc. Subdual damage should allways be something like a d3 or d4+str, no matter what form the attack is, as its allways going to be a simple bop on the head to try and knock some one out.

In the case of using the pommel of a weapon instead of a fist or special subdual damage dealing weapon, the MDoA is required. If the attack roll hits but the MDoA roll was not high enough, real and full damage of the weapon is delt by accedent.

If you wanted to make it just a tad bit more complicated, you could say that when ever a subdual damage is delt, the suffering target has to make a fort check DC 10+subdal damage delt or the damage is not suffered. This way, players won't try to to spam this form of attack as a way to bypass hps. Taking an enemy alive is difficult and a player should only be bothered with the hassle if they need the enemy alive.

Finally, subdual attacks should only work against other humans and demi humans. No subduling trolls, dragons, oozes, undead, minators, giant apes, lions, tigers, eye tyrants, demons, dameons, devils, angels, elementals, dopplegangers, giant vermin, giants, constructs, animated objects, dieties, or traps etc.

Dose this seem like a simple enough mechanic for handling subdual attempts?

[echoota]

30 years ago I was often frustrated at the lack of rules that would allow for "practical" ways of dealing with a situation. DMs would either not allow for more immersive and intentional actions and default to the abstract hit point system, or they'd just hand wave it and allow for something on the spot. It was that kind of vagueness that eventually made me drift away from D&D to find other systems that would go into more detail. However, other systems were long, overly detailed and cumbersome.

I'd love to see a Goldilocks "just right" maneuver system. Pathfinder's combat maneuver system works fairly well at this, though it still doesn't nail it for me as it requires a great deal of specialization of the character to do it effectively, and the numbers are scaled to discourage its use over a character's career.

Last night when we were playing a funnel game, our surviving party of village residents encountered a 4th level fighter armed with a spear. People were getting slaughtered by that spear and we wanted it out of the fighter's hands to help even the odds. So a bunch of the character's simply announced, "we all charge and just try and overwhelm the guy and pull the spear from his hands."

Now, a 4th level fighter ought to be able to deal pretty well against a small mob of people, I won't deny that, however the fighter was cornered, and in real life it would be movement that would allow the fighter to remain standing. Our GM let us make rolls and and try and pull this stuff off, but it was basically playing D&D 30 years ago again, with just a bunch of on the fly hand waving. What ended up happening was that through the (highly random) rolls a halfling and dog were latched onto the legs of the fighter. A round later more PCs ran over and shoved the guy off the edge of the platform we were all fighting on.

The whole sequence was fine and fun, but it was ephemeral in terms of any real system behind what happened. What happens the next time?

I've played a fair amount of Dagorhir and Darkon and swarming and overwhelming an experienced opponent is pretty effective if they can't maneuver away from the mob. Plus, you could grapple (at least in Dagorhir) and that made it possible to get pretty much any weapon save for a dagger put out of commission. People that used spears had to become VERY proficient and have a lot of maneuver room if they didn't want people to just grab the haft of the weapon and transform it into a real liability for the user.

I totally understand the problem. You've got the core hit point mechanism in place that is supposed to be used to determine when someone is defeated, but that system is an abstraction that demands that we have to constantly interpret actions in how much of the ablative effect is actually happening.

The only way that I can see combat maneuvers working would be for some kind of system that applies condition effects or induces saving throws. Condition effects are fine in a 3.0+ system that is completely built up to handle all sorts of key words. DCC isn't that kind of game and so whatever it would entail would have to be minimal, require no look up, and keep things moving along. If it were saving throws then it would have to be figured out just how capricious they would be, since they do bypass the HP system.

In terms of DCC, I wouldn't mind seeing die-step modifications. I like the funky dice and I'd want to see them getting used all the time via die steps instead of using lots of modifiers. If someone wraps their body around someone's spear then make the spearman's attack just be a d14 attack. You can't crit when the weapon is that impaired.

Overall I'd want to see combat manuevers as ways to "set up" and exploit a situation. Get the weapon out of the guys hands, make the guy immobile and have him hope he has a dagger handy, make a shield wall in a narrow tunnel and just push your opponents down the hallway, etc.

It's about trying to find the right balance between the specific physicality that mechanically does something, but also give preserve the narrative arc that hit points provide.