Big creatures grabbing small ones & Tentacles
Paul Grogan
had a situation last night where an Umber Hulk attempted to grapple a
character for the purposes of taking him away.
Now, As I understand it, a creature can make one grapple check in
place of an attack. The Hulk has Claw/Claw/Bite, so if it chooses the
full attack option, it can try with all 3.
SideQ: Can it (or even characters with multiple iterative attacks)
choose the full attack option and mix and match grapple checks and
attacks. i.e Can a 6th lvl ftr grapple and then if successful (or
even not), stab with a dagger. Similarly, can they break free and
then attack.
Anyway, the Hulk provoked an AoO, but the character it wanted to grab
had his eyes closed, and 100% concealment means no AoO, so it hit and
then won its grapple check and dealt its normal claw damage.
From that point on, the Hulk and the character were grappled, so I
used up the remaining claw and bite on the grappled character (at -4).
Next round, after the character had tried to break free twice (BAB
+8/+3), the Hulk dragged him away. This is a standard action, you
make a grapple check, and if you win, you move at half rate. It won,
and moved 10ft away. Since that was its standard action, it couldnt
do anything else, which seemed a bit bad.
But it got me thinking. What if the character is grabbed was something
like a halfling, or even a pixie or something small. Its bound to win
the grapple check, but surely it could just walk off with the creature
in its grasp? Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
grapple, so this isnt possible.
On another note, I'd had little success with the -20 rule, especially
with creatures with big tentacles. Take a big evil giant octopus
thing with 20ft long tentacles and it has a Str of 30. It should be
able to grab a character and hold onto them but not be considered in a
grapple, keeping the character at range, squeezing him.
The only way I can see this being possible in the rules is for the
octopus thing to take a -20 on its grapple check, which in my
experience of big tentacled monsters makes it difficult to succeed. I
think in the case of certain monsters who should be able to
independantly control their tentacles, taking a -20 effectively means
they cant do what you would imagine they should be able to do.
Thought / Comments ?
Michael Scott Brown
news:2fe26b0d.04031...@posting.google.com...
> Now, As I understand it, a creature can make one grapple check in
> place of an attack. The Hulk has Claw/Claw/Bite, so if it chooses the
> full attack option, it can try with all 3.
Yes. 3.5 is much cleaner on this than previous editions.
> SideQ: Can it (or even characters with multiple iterative attacks)
> choose the full attack option and mix and match grapple checks and
> attacks.
Absolutely. When you are grappled, you take Move+Standard or
Full-Attack action just like always.
Some actions allowed in a grapple are Standard actions in their own
right (such as using Escape Artist), or Move actions (like getting out a
weapon), but the rest of them simply "replace an attack", such as making a
grapple check to damage your opponent, making a grapple check to Pin, making
a grapple check to escape, etc. You can attack (at -4), or use one of these
replacement actions as your BAB permits.
> Can a 6th lvl ftr grapple and then if successful (or even not), stab with
a dagger. Similarly, can they break free and
> then attack.
Absolutely. If you full attack you have total control over how you use
those attacks, save that while you are grappled there's only one person you
can fight with.
> From that point on, the Hulk and the character were grappled, so I
> used up the remaining claw and bite on the grappled character (at -4).
Correct.
> Next round, after the character had tried to break free twice (BAB
> +8/+3), the Hulk dragged him away. This is a standard action, you
> make a grapple check, and if you win, you move at half rate. It won,
> and moved 10ft away. Since that was its standard action, it couldnt
> do anything else, which seemed a bit bad.
That does seems funny, doesn't it? Perhaps moving the grapple should be
revised to a Move action?
> But it got me thinking. What if the character is grabbed was something
> like a halfling, or even a pixie or something small. Its bound to win
> the grapple check, but surely it could just walk off with the creature
> in its grasp?
Monsters with improved grab had the option of taking -20 on their
grapple checks to be treated as if they weren't grappling; this works just
fine for big monsters (with grapple bonuses) against little creatures (with
grapple penalties), and in that situation, since the Umber Hulk wouldn't
itself be grappled anymore, it would be able to walk off .
The 3rd edition FAQ extended this option to any grappler, but the option
has been removed from the 3.5 FAQ.
However, it certainly seems like the appropriate model to use in this
case, particularly given that a halfling's -4 or a pixie's -8 grapple
modifiers put the -20 option "in play".
> Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
> human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
> grapple, so this isnt possible.
I suppose that's what the "snatch" feat is for.
> On another note, I'd had little success with the -20 rule, especially
> with creatures with big tentacles. Take a big evil giant octopus
> thing with 20ft long tentacles and it has a Str of 30. It should be
> able to grab a character and hold onto them but not be considered in a
> grapple, keeping the character at range, squeezing him.
A giant squid (12 hd, 26 strength, huge) has +8 str, +8 huge, + 9 BAB
(and a "+4 racial bonus") for a total of +29 on its grapple checks;
grappling at -20 it is still +9, and this is more than enough to stifle a
typical human (+0), and has decent odds against up to ~6th level fighters or
their equivalents (depending on your STR settings). This is a CR 9 monster,
and 9th level front line fighters will be able to defeat these grapples
(~+12 grapple check) maybe 2/3 of the time (suggesting that the monster will
have to go whole-hog against such a Hero - at which point it will spank them
like a red-headed stepchild), but the party cleric and wizard are vulnerable
to this attack form at level 9.
Seems OK to me.
The numbers as they are establish that such a monster is *devastating*
against your basic ship full of mooks, but experienced heroes can hold their
own. Isn't that typical for D&D monsters?
-Michael
Peter Meilinger
>"Paul Grogan" <pa...@runestonegames.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:2fe26b0d.04031...@posting.google.com...
>> Next round, after the character had tried to break free twice (BAB
>> +8/+3), the Hulk dragged him away. This is a standard action, you
>> make a grapple check, and if you win, you move at half rate. It won,
>> and moved 10ft away. Since that was its standard action, it couldnt
>> do anything else, which seemed a bit bad.
> That does seems funny, doesn't it? Perhaps moving the grapple should be
>revised to a Move action?
I'd say no. As you pointed out, if the grappler takes a big hit to
his checks, he can act as he pleases. If he can't afford to do that,
it means his target is giving him at least a fair bit of trouble,
enough to keep him from moving around as much as he wants. In
the example given, I'd say the grappled character would be REALLY
motivated to keep the Umber Hulk from dragging him away. Even if
he couldn't break the grapple, he'd be doing everything in his
power to slow the Umber Hulk down.
Pete
Cavalorn
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
>> Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
>> human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
>> grapple, so this isnt possible.
>
> I suppose that's what the "snatch" feat is for.
That was my initial reaction, but I don't see anything in the
description of the Snatch feat that suggests that the creature is any
less 'in a grapple' than it would ordinarily be:
'The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or
bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack. If the
creature gets a hold on a creature three or more sizes smaller, it
squeezes each round for automatic bite or claw damage...'
... the main point presumably being that it doesn't even need to take a
Grapple check to do so, unlike such special attacks as 'constrict'.
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
Spinner
small ones' testicles"? I simply pictured some cruel minotaurs and some sad
kobolds.
Spinner
Michael Scott Brown
news:c3ferd$rn$2...@news3.bu.edu...
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > That does seems funny, doesn't it? Perhaps moving the grapple should
be
> >revised to a Move action?
>
> I'd say no. As you pointed out, if the grappler takes a big hit to
> his checks, he can act as he pleases. If he can't afford to do that,
> it means his target is giving him at least a fair bit of trouble,
> enough to keep him from moving around as much as he wants.
Your justification is plausible, though moving twice as far isn't
necessarily a dent in that rationale.
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>SideQ: Can it (or even characters with multiple iterative attacks)
>choose the full attack option and mix and match grapple checks and
>attacks. i.e Can a 6th lvl ftr grapple and then if successful (or
>even not), stab with a dagger. Similarly, can they break free and
>then attack.
Yes. A grapple check, in and of itself, is not an action. A grapple check is
just a way of *resolving* certain actions. Initiating a grapple, for example,
is a melee attack action which is resolved using a grapple check.
>But it got me thinking. What if the character is grabbed was something
>like a halfling, or even a pixie or something small. Its bound to win
>the grapple check, but surely it could just walk off with the creature
>in its grasp? Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
>human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
>grapple, so this isnt possible.
Yeah. In general, the grapple rules don't take the respective sizes of the
creatures involved into account. For silly results in the other direction,
watching a high level pixie pin a Huge red dragon is a positively surreal
experience.
>On another note, I'd had little success with the -20 rule, especially
>with creatures with big tentacles. Take a big evil giant octopus
>thing with 20ft long tentacles and it has a Str of 30. It should be
>able to grab a character and hold onto them but not be considered in a
>grapple, keeping the character at range, squeezing him.
Possible house rule to consider: Make this a -10 penalty, and allow the
maneuver to be performed by any creature with Improved Grab or any creature two
sizes larger than the creature they're attempting to grapple.
But before implementing this, I'd pay close attention to MSB's analysis of the
probabilities involved.
In any case, allowing any creature two sizes larger to take the penalty
(whether its -10 or -20) seems like a reasonable rule.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justisaur
news:c3fhtr$27niq5$1...@ID-194018.news.uni-berlin.de:
> Okay, didn't anyone else read this subject line as "Big creatures
> grabbing small ones' testicles"? I simply pictured some cruel
> minotaurs and some sad kobolds.
>
Kobolds are reptilian right? That means they don't have testicles. No
wonder they won't fight mano-a-mano, they are small cowardly creatures, and
they literally have no balls.
Poor Kobolds.
--
Justisaur
http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator, xp
calculator & other files.
Justin Bacon
>In article <wPG6c.29097$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
>>> Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
>>> human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
>>> grapple, so this isnt possible.
>>
>> I suppose that's what the "snatch" feat is for.
>
>That was my initial reaction, but I don't see anything in the
>description of the Snatch feat that suggests that the creature is any
>less 'in a grapple' than it would ordinarily be:
>
>'The creature can choose to start a grapple when it hits with a claw or
>bite attack, as though it had the improved grab special attack.
Creatures with the improved grab special attack can take the -20 penalty to
grapple others while remaining ungrappled themselves.
JB
Cavalorn
<tria...@aol.com> writes
>Creatures with the improved grab special attack can take the -20 penalty to
>grapple others while remaining ungrappled themselves.
Yes, but we were discussing the specific ramifications of the Snatch
feat. :)
Paul:
> Or what if it was a ancient red dragon who grabbed a
> human and wanted to carry him off. Strictly speaking, they are in a
> grapple, so this isnt possible.
MSB:
> I suppose that's what the "snatch" feat is for.
Me:
> I don't see anything in the description of the Snatch feat that
> suggests that the creature is any less 'in a grapple' than it would
> ordinarily be.
Sure, the 'as if it had improved grab' aspect of Snatch allows the
creature the *option* to take -20, but given that the *automatic damage*
aspect of Snatch suggests (to me at least) that the limb in question is
operating as it were on autopilot without involving the rest of the
creature, one could be justified in tweaking Snatch so that once the
initial Grapple check was made and the creature was inflicting automatic
damage, the creature itself no longer counted as being 'in a grapple'
(although the mouth, claw or whatever would be) and could therefore fly
off at full normal movement.
What the rules don't seem to cover is whether a creature with improved
grab can switch between the different modes of grappling *during* a
grapple. If so, it could use its full attention (as it were) to grab
and grapple a creature, then switch to -20 mode to fly or walk off with
it. This would make it easier for the grappled creature to escape, but
allow the grappler to move more freely.
Werebat
is really inappropriate for a newsgroup that is read by children. You
should really try to clean up the language.
- Ron ^*^
tussock
>
> What the rules don't seem to cover is whether a creature with improved
> grab can switch between the different modes of grappling *during* a
> grapple.
The obvious rule extension would be to allow an opposed grapple
check at -20 as an attack to allow you to break free but maintain the
hold on your opponent.
> If so, it could use its full attention (as it were) to grab
> and grapple a creature, then switch to -20 mode to fly or walk off with
> it. This would make it easier for the grappled creature to escape, but
> allow the grappler to move more freely.
You can't ungrapple yourself without winning an opposed check, this
is a sensible thing.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Bradd W. Szonye
> In general, the grapple rules don't take the respective sizes of the
> creatures involved into account. For silly results in the other
> direction, watching a high level pixie pin a Huge red dragon is a
> positively surreal experience.
A pixie can't pin a Huge dragon; it can't grapple the dragon at all.
Grappling has a size limit, just like tripping does.
>> On another note, I'd had little success with the -20 rule, especially
>> with creatures with big tentacles. Take a big evil giant octopus
>> thing with 20ft long tentacles and it has a Str of 30. It should be
>> able to grab a character and hold onto them but not be considered in
>> a grapple, keeping the character at range, squeezing him.
> Possible house rule to consider: Make this a -10 penalty, and allow
> the maneuver to be performed by any creature with Improved Grab or any
> creature two sizes larger than the creature they're attempting to
> grapple.
This came up in one of the earlier grappling threads. The -20 "one hand"
rule is far too severe, IMO. A -10 or -12 penalty would be more
reasonable.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Justin Bacon
>Justin Bacon <tria...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In general, the grapple rules don't take the respective sizes of the
>> creatures involved into account. For silly results in the other
>> direction, watching a high level pixie pin a Huge red dragon is a
>> positively surreal experience.
>
>A pixie can't pin a Huge dragon; it can't grapple the dragon at all.
>Grappling has a size limit, just like tripping does.
Well, Step 3 of initiating a grapple (Hold) has a size limit. But AFAICT,
nothing else does. So the pixie would need the dragon to initiate the grapple,
but wouldn't have any problem (per the rules) with pinning him after the fact.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
news:20040321211006...@mb-m06.aol.com...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
> >A pixie can't pin a Huge dragon; it can't grapple the dragon at all.
> >Grappling has a size limit, just like tripping does.
>
> Well, Step 3 of initiating a grapple (Hold) has a size limit. But AFAICT,
> nothing else does. So the pixie would need the dragon to initiate the
grapple,
> but wouldn't have any problem (per the rules) with pinning him after the
fact.
Except, of course, for the massive gulf in size modifiers ...
-Michael
Justin Bacon
That's why I specified a high level pixie in my original post.
JB
Hong Ooi
Pixie: size S, grapple modifier -4.
Pixie Str: 7 base, modifer -2.
Pixie BAB: +0.
Total grapple check: -6 base.
Young adult red dragon: size H, grapple modifier +8.
Dragon Str: 31 base, modifier +10.
Dragon BAB: +19.
Total grapple check: +37.
That would have to be one damn high level pixie!
--
Hong Ooi | "You're not funny, not biting,
ho...@zipworld.com.au | you're simply making noise"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- M_C
Sydney, Australia |
Michael Scott Brown
> >That's why I specified a high level pixie in my original post.
>
> Pixie: size S, grapple modifier -4.
Not Tiny/-8?
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
>> A pixie can't pin a Huge dragon; it can't grapple the dragon at all.
>> Grappling has a size limit, just like tripping does.
Justin Bacon wrote:
> Well, Step 3 of initiating a grapple (Hold) has a size limit. But
> AFAICT, nothing else does. So the pixie would need the dragon to
> initiate the grapple, but wouldn't have any problem (per the rules)
> with pinning him after the fact.
Looking over the grappling rules again, I see that most of the maneuvers
work fine in a pixie vs dragon contest. For example, it's not too crazy
for a pixie to wrest a weapon away from a giant, if the pixie is
actually strong enough to hold the weapon and win the contest. Pinning
is the only maneuver that doesn't make sense.
The SRD states, "You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by
winning an opposed grapple check." Compare that to the rule for
initiating a grapple: "You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the
target is two or more size categories larger than you are." You could
easily rule that the "no holds" clause applies both to initiating a
grapple and to pinning.
JB
No they're small.
JB
You need to establish a hold before you can pin anyway don't you? That
would make any more clauses redundant.
Spinner
> >>AFAICT, nothing else does. So the pixie would need the dragon to
> >>initiate the grapple, but wouldn't have any problem (per the rules)
> >>with pinning him after the fact.
> >
> >
> > Looking over the grappling rules again, I see that most of the maneuvers
> > work fine in a pixie vs dragon contest. For example, it's not too crazy
> > for a pixie to wrest a weapon away from a giant, if the pixie is
> > actually strong enough to hold the weapon and win the contest. Pinning
> > is the only maneuver that doesn't make sense.
> >
> > The SRD states, "You can hold your opponent immobile for 1 round by
> > winning an opposed grapple check." Compare that to the rule for
> > initiating a grapple: "You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the
> > target is two or more size categories larger than you are." You could
> > easily rule that the "no holds" clause applies both to initiating a
> > grapple and to pinning.
>
> You need to establish a hold before you can pin anyway don't you? That
> would make any more clauses redundant.
Not if your opponent establishes the hold. I think. So I guess technically
you could rule that the dragon could grapple the pixie and *then* the pixie
could pin the dragon (serves him right for trying). Is that right?
Spinner
Spinner
Bradd W. Szonye
>> You need to establish a hold before you can pin anyway don't you? That
>> would make any more clauses redundant.
Spinner wrote:
> Not if your opponent establishes the hold. I think. So I guess
> technically you could rule that the dragon could grapple the pixie and
> *then* the pixie could pin the dragon (serves him right for trying).
> Is that right?
Right; that was Justin's argument. I think it's reasonable to rule that
pinning has the same size requirement as initiating a grapple, because
in both cases you're trying to hold your opponent. That ruling relies on
a little rules-laywer skullduggery, but I think it fits the spirit of
the rules if not the letter of them.
Spinner
--
-------------------------------------------
Brad Prentice
Systems and Data Coordinator
Huron University College
(519) 438-7224 x285
bpre...@uwo.ca
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnc5ufhu.c...@szonye.com...
> JB wrote:
> >> You need to establish a hold before you can pin anyway don't you? That
> >> would make any more clauses redundant.
>
> Spinner wrote:
> > Not if your opponent establishes the hold. I think. So I guess
> > technically you could rule that the dragon could grapple the pixie and
> > *then* the pixie could pin the dragon (serves him right for trying).
> > Is that right?
>
> Right; that was Justin's argument.
Oops -- sorry! Thought you'd missed it.
> I think it's reasonable to rule that
> pinning has the same size requirement as initiating a grapple, because
> in both cases you're trying to hold your opponent. That ruling relies on
> a little rules-laywer skullduggery, but I think it fits the spirit of
> the rules if not the letter of them.
> --
Me too.
Spinner
Justin Bacon
> >That's why I specified a high level pixie in my original post.
>
> Pixie: size S, grapple modifier -4.
> Pixie Str: 7 base, modifer -2.
> Pixie BAB: +0.
> Total grapple check: -6 base.
>
> Young adult red dragon: size H, grapple modifier +8.
> Dragon Str: 31 base, modifier +10.
> Dragon BAB: +19.
> Total grapple check: +37.
>
> That would have to be one damn high level pixie!
A level 16 pixie fighter, per standard MM advancement rules:
(1) Elite array with the 15 put in Strength (Strength 12).
(2) Four ability increases to Strength (Strength 16, +3).
(3) +16 BAB.
(4) -4 size modifier on grapple checks
Total grapple check: +15
If we assume this 16th level character has picked up something as
simple as a Belt of Giant Strength +4, the pixie can pin the dragon.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> That's why I specified a high level pixie in my original post.
Hong wrote:
>> Pixie: size S, grapple modifier -4.
>> Pixie Str: 7 base, modifer -2.
>> Pixie BAB: +0.
>> Total grapple check: -6 base.
>>
>> Young adult red dragon: size H, grapple modifier +8.
>> Dragon Str: 31 base, modifier +10.
>> Dragon BAB: +19.
>> Total grapple check: +37.
>>
>> That would have to be one damn high level pixie!
> A level 16 pixie fighter, per standard MM advancement rules:
Pixies have a +4 minimum level adjustment, so that's a 20th-level
character. I think that counts as "damn high level."
> (1) Elite array with the 15 put in Strength (Strength 12).
> (2) Four ability increases to Strength (Strength 16, +3).
A pixie's Strength modifier is -4 (not -3), so a 16th-level pixie will
only have a +2 Strength bonus.
> (3) +16 BAB.
> (4) -4 size modifier on grapple checks
>
> Total grapple check: +15
>
> If we assume this 16th level character has picked up something as
> simple as a Belt of Giant Strength +4, the pixie can pin the dragon.
With the correction above, the pixie would still need to roll a natural
20 to win the check, at which point the dragon's roll is irrelevant,
because grapple checks are attack rolls, and 20 always succeeds. That's
actually the bigger problem here: The "20 always hits" rule would make
it possible for even a stock, 4th-level pixie to pin the dragon.
I think you pretty much need to apply the limit on size difference for
holds to avoid craziness like this.
Rupert Boleyn
upon a tablet of ether:
> Hong Ooi <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message news:<hhht505d2mk9av094...@4ax.com>...
> > >That's why I specified a high level pixie in my original post.
> >
> > Pixie: size S, grapple modifier -4.
> > Pixie Str: 7 base, modifer -2.
> > Pixie BAB: +0.
> > Total grapple check: -6 base.
> >
> > Young adult red dragon: size H, grapple modifier +8.
> > Dragon Str: 31 base, modifier +10.
> > Dragon BAB: +19.
> > Total grapple check: +37.
> >
> > That would have to be one damn high level pixie!
>
> A level 16 pixie fighter, per standard MM advancement rules:
> (1) Elite array with the 15 put in Strength (Strength 12).
Actually that becomes Str 11 (Pixies have a -4 Str mod). I suggest
claiming the use of a wish.
> (2) Four ability increases to Strength (Strength 16, +3).
> (3) +16 BAB.
> (4) -4 size modifier on grapple checks
>
> Total grapple check: +15
>
> If we assume this 16th level character has picked up something as
> simple as a Belt of Giant Strength +4, the pixie can pin the dragon.
Total grapple check then becomes +17, +18 if the pixie has a +6 Str
booster. And unless the pixie has that +18 boost it can't pin the
dragon, as the minimum the dragon can roll is 38.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
JB
Ok. I see we're you're all coming from and I agree that the size
restriction should apply to pin attempts too.
Justin Bacon
>Right; that was Justin's argument. I think it's reasonable to rule that
>pinning has the same size requirement as initiating a grapple, because
>in both cases you're trying to hold your opponent. That ruling relies on
>a little rules-laywer skullduggery, but I think it fits the spirit of
>the rules if not the letter of them.
That makes sense to me.
JB
Justisaur
> With the correction above, the pixie would still need to roll a natural
> 20 to win the check, at which point the dragon's roll is irrelevant,
> because grapple checks are attack rolls, and 20 always succeeds. That's
> actually the bigger problem here: The "20 always hits" rule would make
> it possible for even a stock, 4th-level pixie to pin the dragon.
>
Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed to
boot.
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns94B4AE536B...@63.240.76.16...
> Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed to
> boot.
RTM.
-Michael
Senator Blutarsky
>
> "Justisaur" <just...@removespam.net> wrote:
>
> > Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed to
> > boot.
>
> RTM.
Could you be more specific?
-Bluto
Michael Scott Brown
news:405FAFC5...@comcast.net...
The description of grapple checks would be a start.
-Michael
Senator Blutarsky
>
> "Senator Blutarsky" <mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > >
> > > "Justisaur" <just...@removespam.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed
> to
> > > > boot.
> > >
> > > RTM.
> >
> > Could you be more specific?
>
> The description of grapple checks would be a start.
So, you're interpreting "a grapple check is *like*
a melee attack roll" to mean "a grapple check *is*
a melee attack roll"? Or am I missing something?
-Bluto
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > The description of grapple checks would be a start.
>
> So, you're interpreting "a grapple check is *like*
> a melee attack roll" to mean "a grapple check *is*
> a melee attack roll"? Or am I missing something?
Very good. Now keep reading, and observe that the only difference
between the two is the use of a "special size modifier" instead of the usual
one.
-Michael
Spinner
> >
> > So, you're interpreting "a grapple check is *like*
> > a melee attack roll" to mean "a grapple check *is*
> > a melee attack roll"? Or am I missing something?
>
> Very good. Now keep reading, and observe that the only difference
> between the two is the use of a "special size modifier" instead of the
usual
> one.
>
Spinner
Michael Scott Brown
news:c3pg31$2bdq56$1...@ID-194018.news.uni-berlin.de...
Just like a great many attack roll contests.
-Michael
Justin Bacon
...and the fact that it's described as a "check" rather than an "attack roll".
There's a pretty obvious reason why they do it that way, too: They didn't want
to add a special case rule for two characters both rolling a natural 20 on
their grapple check.
(I can easily imagine what the special case rule would be, but I'm just as glad
they didn't add it.)
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>> With the correction above, the pixie would still need to roll a natural
>> 20 to win the check, at which point the dragon's roll is irrelevant,
>> because grapple checks are attack rolls, and 20 always succeeds. That's
>> actually the bigger problem here: The "20 always hits" rule would make
>> it possible for even a stock, 4th-level pixie to pin the dragon.
Justisaur wrote:
> Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed
> to boot.
All of the usual attack roll modifiers apply: Weapon Focus, iterative
modifiers, secondary weapon modifiers, etc. Plus, it's based on Base
Attack Bonus. Most importantly, the D&D 3.0 FAQ stated:
Q: When rolling opposed attack rolls (such as in a grapple or a
disarm attempt), does a natural 1 mean automatic failure as it does
for a normal attack roll?
A: For the attacker (that is, the character trying to disarm a foe
or accomplish something with a grapple check) a natural 1 fails and
a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the defender rolls. Although
the defender s roll is called an opposed attack roll, the defender
is really just setting the DC for the attacker: 1s and 20s aren t
special for the defender ....
All of the foregoing assumes that you are indeed making an opposed
attack roll, which is subject to automatic success or failure.
Checks are not subject to automatic success or failure. For example,
if you are making an opposed check (as you would when making a Hide
check opposed by a foe s Spot check), a roll of 1 or 20 has no
special significance.
The last paragraph distinguishes between opposed attack rolls and other
kinds of opposed checks. The key thing is that the natural 20 rule only
applies to attacks (regardless of whether they're opposed rolls). The
saving throw for an attack spell, the attack roll for a melee attack,
and the grapple check for a pin are all rolls to resolve attacks, so the
nat 20/1 rule applies to all of them.
I'm not sure whether the rule applies to grapple checks or Escape Artist
checks made to escape from a grapple, though. It's not an attack, but
the former uses an attack action, and both serve much the same purpose
as a saving throw.
Bradd W. Szonye
> So, you're interpreting "a grapple check is *like* a melee attack
> roll" to mean "a grapple check *is* a melee attack roll"? Or am I
> missing something?
No. A grapple check is not a *melee* attack roll, but it's still an
attack roll, and it's most simliar to a melee attack roll.
Michael Scott Brown
news:slrnc616sr.h...@szonye.com...
> I'm not sure whether the rule applies to grapple checks or Escape Artist
> checks made to escape from a grapple, though. It's not an attack, but
> the former uses an attack action, and both serve much the same purpose
> as a saving throw.
Escape Artist checks are not attack rolls and don't count as or replace
attacks; they're Standard Actions in their own right. They don't fall
under the 1/20 model in any way, shape, or form, and confusion on such a
topic is indicative of mental deficiency.
Grapple checks to escape are "replace an attack" actions and are
*certainly* attack rolls for the character initiating them (the character
defending is just 'setting the DC') - this is no different from grapple
checks to do damage.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > Very good. Now keep reading, and observe that the only difference
> >between the two is the use of a "special size modifier" instead of the
usual
> >one.
>
> ...and the fact that it's described as a "check" rather than an "attack
roll".
<rolls eyes>
When the passage says a grapple check is *like an attack* ...
> There's a pretty obvious reason why they do it that way, too: They didn't
want
> to add a special case rule for two characters both rolling a natural 20
on
> their grapple check.
They don't have to. The defending character is not making an attack -
the initiating character is.
If one were being truly nit-picky on the matter, the contest between
two characters would be a grapple *attack* roll against a grapple *check*
(by the defender).
-Michael
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Bradd wrote:
> >> With the correction above, the pixie would still need to roll a natural
> >> 20 to win the check, at which point the dragon's roll is irrelevant,
> >> because grapple checks are attack rolls, and 20 always succeeds. That's
> >> actually the bigger problem here: The "20 always hits" rule would make
> >> it possible for even a stock, 4th-level pixie to pin the dragon.
>
> Justisaur wrote:
> > Grapple *CHECK*. Not Grapple Attack, or Grapple Save.. It's opposed
> > to boot.
>
> All of the usual attack roll modifiers apply: Weapon Focus, iterative
> modifiers, secondary weapon modifiers, etc. Plus, it's based on Base
> Attack Bonus. Most importantly, the D&D 3.0 FAQ stated:
[snip FAQ commentary]
> The last paragraph distinguishes between opposed attack rolls and other
> kinds of opposed checks. The key thing is that the natural 20 rule only
> applies to attacks (regardless of whether they're opposed rolls). The
> saving throw for an attack spell, the attack roll for a melee attack,
> and the grapple check for a pin are all rolls to resolve attacks, so the
> nat 20/1 rule applies to all of them.
>
> I'm not sure whether the rule applies to grapple checks or Escape Artist
> checks made to escape from a grapple, though. It's not an attack, but
> the former uses an attack action, and both serve much the same purpose
> as a saving throw.
Thank you, Bradd.
I accept the authority, but I'm not sure about the
wisdom of the ruling.
-Bluto
Senator Blutarsky
>
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> So, you're interpreting "a grapple check is *like*
> >> a melee attack roll" to mean "a grapple check *is*
> >> a melee attack roll"? Or am I missing something?
> >
> > Very good. Now keep reading, and observe that the only difference
> >between the two is the use of a "special size modifier" instead of the usual
> >one.
>
> ...and the fact that it's described as a "check" rather than an "attack roll".
>
> There's a pretty obvious reason why they do it that way, too: They didn't want
> to add a special case rule for two characters both rolling a natural 20 on
> their grapple check.
>
> (I can easily imagine what the special case rule would be, but I'm just as glad
> they didn't add it.)
It would probably look something like: "In case of
a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check
modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to
break the tie."
Oh, crap.
-Bluto
Justin Bacon
> Escape Artist checks are not attack rolls and don't count as or replace
>attacks; they're Standard Actions in their own right. They don't fall
>under the 1/20 model in any way, shape, or form, and confusion on such a
>topic is indicative of mental deficiency.
> Grapple checks to escape are "replace an attack" actions and are
>*certainly* attack rolls for the character initiating them (the character
>defending is just 'setting the DC') - this is no different from grapple
>checks to do damage.
Wait a second... You've got two characters, both doing the exact same thing,
and you're claiming that one of them is making an attack and the other isn't?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
They are not doing the exact same thing, or the grapple would already be
over. Like other attack roll contests in D&D (sunder & disarm) the
initiating party is "making the attack" and the passive character is setting
the DC. When it's the 'other' guy's turn in a moment, *he* will be the one
making attack rolls while his victims must resist.
-Michael
Spinner
> > >*certainly* attack rolls for the character initiating them (the
character
> > >defending is just 'setting the DC') - this is no different from grapple
> > >checks to do damage.
> >
> > Wait a second... You've got two characters, both doing the exact same
> thing,
> > and you're claiming that one of them is making an attack and the other
> isn't?
>
> They are not doing the exact same thing, or the grapple would already
be
> over. Like other attack roll contests in D&D (sunder & disarm) the
> initiating party is "making the attack" and the passive character is
setting
> the DC. When it's the 'other' guy's turn in a moment, *he* will be the
one
> making attack rolls while his victims must resist.
>
grapple!? Can the "defender" against a break free attempt just "take 1" and
let the other person go? If the "attacker" in that break free attempt (ie.,
the person trying to break free) rolls a 1 and the "defender" *wants* to
leave the grapple too -- are they just stuck there? Maybe their armor
plates got locked ... or they had a moment of unexpected passion ... ?
Spinner
Justin Bacon
No, Michael. Both guys are attempting to escape the grapple. Read your message
again if you've lost track of what you've been saying.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
> That makes me wonder ... what if two people both want to escape the
> grapple!?
You can't be this stupid.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > They are not doing the exact same thing, or the grapple would already
be
> >over. Like other attack roll contests in D&D (sunder & disarm) the
> >initiating party is "making the attack" and the passive character is
setting
> >the DC. When it's the 'other' guy's turn in a moment, *he* will be the
one
> >making attack rolls while his victims must resist.
>
> No, Michael. Both guys are attempting to escape the grapple. Read your
message
> again if you've lost track of what you've been saying.
Both guys are *what*?
You are particularly incompetent this week.
-Michael
JB
> No, Michael. Both guys are attempting to escape the grapple. Read your message
> again if you've lost track of what you've been saying.
If both guys are attempting to escape the grapple then there is no grapple.
Spinner
> > grapple!?
>
> You can't be this stupid.
>
Spinner
Justin Bacon
>> No, Michael. Both guys are attempting to escape the grapple. Read your
>> message again if you've lost track of what you've been saying.
>
> Both guys are *what*?
Escape the grapple. Both the guy making the Escape Artist check to escape the
grapple and the guy making the grapple check to escape the grapple are trying
to escape the grapple.
Learn to read English, Michael.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
Non sequitur. The two characters in question aren't even necessarily in the
same grapple. Nor, according to the rules of the game, could *any* two
characters be attempting to *simultaneously* escape the same grapple.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Bradd W. Szonye
>> There's a pretty obvious reason why they do it that way, too: They
>> didn't want to add a special case rule for two characters both
>> rolling a natural 20 on their grapple check.
>>
>> (I can easily imagine what the special case rule would be, but I'm
>> just as glad they didn't add it.)
Senator Blutarsky <mona...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It would probably look something like: "In case of a tie, the
> combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a
> tie, roll again to break the tie."
>
> Oh, crap.
The D&D 3.0 FAQ actually answered this question. The nat-20/1 rule only
applies to the attacker's roll.
Bradd W. Szonye
> That makes me wonder ... what if two people both want to escape the
> grapple!? Can the "defender" against a break free attempt just "take
> 1" and let the other person go?
You don't need to keep somebody in a grapple if you don't want to. It
says so right in the description of the "Escape from a Grapple"
maneuver.
> If the "attacker" in that break free attempt (ie., the person trying
> to break free) rolls a 1 and the "defender" *wants* to leave the
> grapple too -- are they just stuck there?
No. RTM.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> If both guys are attempting to escape the grapple then there is no grapple.
Justin Bacon wrote:
> Non sequitur. The two characters in question aren't even necessarily
> in the same grapple. Nor, according to the rules of the game, could
> *any* two characters be attempting to *simultaneously* escape the same
> grapple.
Incorrect. When somebody tries to escape from a grapple, the first thing
you do is ask whether anybody else wants to keep holding him. If not, he
escapes automatically. "Opponents dont have to try to hold you if they
dont want to" (SRD). Therefore, if two characters both want to leave the
grapple, they will indeed simultaneously escape.
Michael Scott Brown
You first, Justin. Bradd's question was in the context of using
*either* Escape Artist checks or grapple checks (in place of attacks) in
order to escape a hold, both of which are opposed by the opponent's grapple
check - not some ridiculous fight to simultaneously disengage.
I repeat: you are *shockingly* incompetent this week.
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>> Escape the grapple. Both the guy making the Escape Artist check to escape
the
>> grapple and the guy making the grapple check to escape the grapple are
>> trying to escape the grapple.
>>
>> Learn to read English, Michael.
>
> You first, Justin. Bradd's question was in the context of using
>*either* Escape Artist checks or grapple checks (in place of attacks) in
>order to escape a hold, both of which are opposed by the opponent's grapple
>check - not some ridiculous fight to simultaneously disengage.
Well, we seem to have got you to admit that you can use both an Escape Artist
check and a grapple check to escape a grapple.
Now we just need to get you to answer the fucking question: Why is one person
attempting to escape a grapple with a grapple check considered an attack while
another person attempting to esape a grapple with an Escape Artist check isn't
considered an attack?
> I repeat: you are *shockingly* incompetent this week.
And, like I said: Learn to read English, Michael. You've been dodging the
question for half a dozen posts now. Why is that?
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
JB
What he said. There is precedent for this kind of thing (choosing
actions out of turn) otherwise you'd be compelled to make all AoO
attempts.
Spinner
> > grapple!? Can the "defender" against a break free attempt just "take
> > 1" and let the other person go?
>
> You don't need to keep somebody in a grapple if you don't want to. It
> says so right in the description of the "Escape from a Grapple"
> maneuver.
>
> > If the "attacker" in that break free attempt (ie., the person trying
> > to break free) rolls a 1 and the "defender" *wants* to leave the
> > grapple too -- are they just stuck there?
>
> No. RTM.
>
Too lazy -- sorry everybody! It was a casual thought. Thanks for using the
polite version of RTM though! Much appreciated.
Spinner
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > You first, Justin. Bradd's question was in the context of using
> >*either* Escape Artist checks or grapple checks (in place of attacks) in
> >order to escape a hold, both of which are opposed by the opponent's
grapple
> >check - not some ridiculous fight to simultaneously disengage.
>
> Well, we seem to have got you to admit that you can use both an Escape
Artist
> check and a grapple check to escape a grapple.
> Now we just need to get you to answer the fucking question: Why is one
person
> attempting to escape a grapple with a grapple check considered an attack
while
> another person attempting to esape a grapple with an Escape Artist check
isn't
> considered an attack?
That's not the question.
> > I repeat: you are *shockingly* incompetent this week.
>
> And, like I said: Learn to read English, Michael. You've been dodging the
> question for half a dozen posts now.
Justin, available evidence is that you don't even understand the
question.
I have been dodging *nothing*.
You might consider treading a little more carefully, given the blatantly
stupid conclusions you've made this week.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
No problem. I try to be nice to other Brad(d)s.
Watson GM
> creatures involved into account. For silly results in the other direction,
> watching a high level pixie pin a Huge red dragon is a positively surreal
> experience.
While living on that farm, I've seen a 11 year old boy bring a 1.5 ton
bull to its knees by grabbing the ring in its nose and twisting
clockwise. It's all about leverage, and knowing where to grab :)
Spinner
> >>
> > Too lazy -- sorry everybody! It was a casual thought. Thanks for using
the
> > polite version of RTM though! Much appreciated.
>
> No problem. I try to be nice to other Brad(d)s.
> --
Spinner
Justisaur
news:c3vgjp$2b0p7i$1...@ID-194018.news.uni-berlin.de:
Funny. I find I don't like other Richards. Especially ones who go by Rick
or Dick (which I don't).
--
Justisaur
http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator, xp
calculator & other files.
Jim Davies
>Looking over the grappling rules again, I see that most of the maneuvers
>work fine in a pixie vs dragon contest. For example, it's not too crazy
>for a pixie to wrest a weapon away from a giant, if the pixie is
>actually strong enough to hold the weapon and win the contest.
Except that the weapon is probably rather bigger than the pixie. As
such, I think the more likely outcome would be the giant swinging his
club around his head, trying to shake off the pixie clinging to it.
>Pinning
>is the only maneuver that doesn't make sense.
Not if you think of it as a straight grapple. But in the same way that
the pixie wouldn't disarm the giant by knocking the club out of its
grasp, but by stabbing it in the thumb, the pixie would "grapple" the
giant by stuffing his arm up its left nostril. This would be
sufficiently annoying to deprive the giant of much activity
--
Jim Davies
----------
No, not that one.
Justin Bacon
>> Well, we seem to have got you to admit that you can use both an
Escape
>> Artist check and a grapple check to escape a grapple.
>> Now we just need to get you to answer the fucking question: Why is
one
>> person attempting to escape a grapple with a grapple check
considered an
>> attack while another person attempting to esape a grapple with an
Escape
>> Artist check isn't considered an attack?
>
> That's not the question.
That's funny. It's the question I remember asking.
And look! Google Groups seems to think it's the question I asked, too!
Justin Bacon: "Wait a second... You've got two characters, both doing
the exact same thing, and you're claiming that one of them is making
an attack and the other isn't?
>> And, like I said: Learn to read English, Michael. You've been
dodging the
>> question for half a dozen posts now.
>
> Justin, available evidence is that you don't even understand the
> question.
LOL. I don't understand the question I asked?
Still waiting for an answer, Michael.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
>
> That's funny. It's the question I remember asking.
>
> And look! Google Groups seems to think it's the question I asked, too!
> Justin Bacon: "Wait a second... You've got two characters, both doing
> the exact same thing, and you're claiming that one of them is making
> an attack and the other isn't?
Your confusion about what Bradd's question was is irrelevant.
Why do you think that two characters grappling one another are doing
"exactly the same thing" when one is trying to escape the grapple and one
is trying to stop him?
> LOL. I don't understand the question I asked?
You understand very little this week, Bacon. Remember the recent
difficulty with eggs?
You still haven't apologised for that, you know. Tsk. Tsk.
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:ead87502.04032...@posting.google.com...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:<_KD8c.212
>>>> person attempting to escape a grapple with a grapple check considered an
>>>> attack while another person attempting to esape a grapple with an Escape
>>>> Artist check isn't considered an attack?
>>>
>>
>> That's funny. It's the question I remember asking.
>>
>> And look! Google Groups seems to think it's the question I asked, too!
>> Justin Bacon: "Wait a second... You've got two characters, both doing
>> the exact same thing, and you're claiming that one of them is making
>> an attack and the other isn't?
>
> Your confusion about what Bradd's question was is irrelevant.
(1) I'm not Bradd. Nor is Bradd's name Justin Bacon.
(2) Why are you so adamant in refusing to answer this question?
> Why do you think that two characters grappling one another are doing
>"exactly the same thing" when one is trying to escape the grapple and one
>is trying to stop him?
I don't. I think when you've got two characters grappling and they're both
trying to escape the grapple, then they're borth doing "exactly the same
thing". Learn to read English, Michael.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
> > Why do you think that two characters grappling one another are doing
> >"exactly the same thing" when one is trying to escape the grapple and one
> >is trying to stop him?
>
> I don't. I think when you've got two characters grappling and they're both
> trying to escape the grapple, then they're borth doing "exactly the same
> thing". Learn to read English, Michael.
<sigh> Justin, if they're *both* trying to escape "the grapple", the
grapple ends on the spot!
What the hell is wrong with your brain?
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>> I don't. I think when you've got two characters grappling and they're both
>> trying to escape the grapple, then they're borth doing "exactly the same
>> thing". Learn to read English, Michael.
>
> <sigh> Justin, if they're *both* trying to escape "the grapple", the
>grapple ends on the spot!
Michael, why do you refuse to answer the question? Let me restate it, yet
again, in terms so plain that even you will hopefully be unable to deliberately
misinterpret it:
you will hopefully be unable to deliberately misinterpret:
1) You've got one character in Greyhawk. He's attempting to escape a grapple
using a grapple check. According to you, this character is making an attack.
2) You've got a completely different character. They're in Waterdeep. In a
completely different grapple. He's attempting to escape this completely
different grapple with an Escape Artist check. According to you, this character
is NOT making an attack.
Neither character's opponent wants to leave the grapple.
So, you've got two characters, both doing the exact same thing (escape a
grapple), why are you claiming that one of them is making an attack and the
other isnt'?
Do you think you can answer the question this time, Mikey, or are you going to
pretend that you're stupid for a few more messages?
> What the hell is wrong with your brain?
At this point, the person who needs to be answering that question is you.
Either you're a moron who can't read English or you're an asshole who's
refusing to answer a perfectly simple question. Take your pick.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> >> I don't. I think when you've got two characters grappling and they're
both
> >> trying to escape the grapple, then they're borth doing "exactly the
same
> >> thing". Learn to read English, Michael.
> >
> > <sigh> Justin, if they're *both* trying to escape "the grapple", the
> >grapple ends on the spot!
>
> Michael, why do you refuse to answer the question? Let me restate it, yet
> again, in terms so plain that even you will hopefully be unable to
deliberately
> misinterpret it:
> you will hopefully be unable to deliberately misinterpret:
> 1) You've got one character in Greyhawk. He's attempting to escape a
grapple
> using a grapple check. According to you, this character is making an
attack.
> 2) You've got a completely different character. They're in Waterdeep. In a
> completely different grapple.
Ok, Justin. Now let's play a little game called "learn to SPEAK
English". When you say "you've got two characters grappling" and they are
*both* trying to escape *the* grapple, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
DESCRIBING? News flash - it is *not* two people grappling completely
different opponents. You phrased the question in terms of *one* grapple.
How is it that you keep finding ways to stick *more* egg on your face,
you moronic jackass?
> So, you've got two characters, both doing the exact same thing (escape a
> grapple), why are you claiming that one of them is making an attack and
the
> other isnt'?
One is using a different technique than the other, of course. RTFM!
One is obviously a combat technique. You can make as many grapple checks as
you have attacks (if you full attack and take actions that replace attacks,
of course). A successful grapple check allows you to pin, to damage your
opponent; it is representative of you having fought for and achieved some
measure of control over your foe. You can use that control to his further
detriment *or* to pull away. This is obvious attack-roll fodder!
The other technique is not a _combat_ technique; you only get one try
regardless of BAB, it doesn't *depend* on BAB - whatever squirrely
wriggly-101 factor allows a character to escape bonds has been postulated to
also work in escaping grapples; you escape not by binding your foe but by
making yourself difficult to hold; your opponent is just another binding as
far as this exercise is concerned. You can't use escape artist skill to
bind your opponent or hurt him, it doesn't control *them* at all.
Different methods, different mechanics - perfectly reasonable - and
excruciatingly obvious.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
> Either you're a moron who can't read English or you're an asshole
> who's refusing to answer a perfectly simple question. Take your pick.
Hi, Pot!
Justin Bacon
>Justin Bacon wrote:
>> Either you're a moron who can't read English or you're an asshole
>> who's refusing to answer a perfectly simple question. Take your pick.
>
>Hi, Pot!
That would be a bizarrely stupid thing to say... except that you're saying it,
so it's just par for the course.
Unless, of course, you can point to a question I've been refusing to answer.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
> Ok, Justin. Now let's play a little game called "learn to SPEAK
>English". When you say "you've got two characters grappling" and they are
>*both* trying to escape *the* grapple, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
>DESCRIBING?
Once you've gotten done snipping the context enough times, that sure does look
strange. Meanwhile, back in reality land, the question was originally asked in
the context of this:
You said: "Escape Artist checks are not attack rolls and don't count as or
replace
attacks; they're Standard Actions in their own right. They don't fall
under the 1/20 model in any way, shape, or form, and confusion on such a
topic is indicative of mental deficiency.
Grapple checks to escape are "replace an attack" actions and are
*certainly* attack rolls for the character initiating them (the character
defending is just 'setting the DC') - this is no different from grapple
checks to do damage."
In point of fact, *you* were the first one to assert that the two characters
were engaged in the same grapple. I have *repeatedly* stated that they were
not.
> Different methods, different mechanics - perfectly reasonable - and
>excruciatingly obvious.
Thank you for finally answering the question. One can only wonder why you felt
it necessary to scream and yell and flame and delay in doing so.
For such a smart guy, Michael, you sure can be dumb sometimes.
For those of you who came in late, allow me to sum up:
(1) I asked Michael why two characters doing the exact same thing would be
considered to be taking different types of actions.
(2) Michael then stated that they were not doing the same thing.
(3) I then pointed out that, in point of fact, both the guy making the Escape
Artist check and the guy making the grapple check were trying to escape the
grapple -- they were doing the exact same thing.
(4) Michael then asked what both guys were trying to do.
(5) I stated, once again, that they were bothing trying to escape the grapple.
(6) Michael then insisted that his had nothing to do with Bradd's question.
(Which was, of course, stupid because I asked the question, not Bradd.)
(7) I pointed out that this was stupid. I then asked the question again, trynig
to be clearer: "Why is one person attempting to escape a grapple with a grapple
check considered an attack while another person attempting to esape a grapple
with an Escape Artist check isn't considered an attack?"
(8) Michael insisted this wasn't the question.
(9) I pointed out that this was the question.
(10) Michael then insisted that this wasn't Bradd's question, perpetuating his
earlier stupidity.
(11) I pointed out, yet again, that it was my question, not Bradd's, that
Michael was refusing to answer.
(12) Michael flames me for his stupidity and finally answers the question.
The funny thing is that Michael thinks I'm the one who's having cognitive
problems. He can't even figure out who's talking to him.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
Wow. I mean, you're digging your own hole with such *gusto*.
This might come as a shock, Bacon, but you've been caught dead to
rights being inept. Take your lumps like an adult, apologize to the group
for being stupid, and move on.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Ok, Justin. Now let's play a little game called "learn to SPEAK
>> English". When you say "you've got two characters grappling" and they are
>> *both* trying to escape *the* grapple, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE
>> DESCRIBING?
Justin Bacon wrote:
> Once you've gotten done snipping the context enough times, that sure
> does look strange. Meanwhile, back in reality land ....
In "reality land," it's becoming increasingly obvious that you are
incapable of comprehending or producing coherent, written English. Once
you realize that the problem is on your end, you might not encounter so
many "liars" and "hypocrites."
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Either you're a moron who can't read English or you're an asshole
>>> who's refusing to answer a perfectly simple question. Take your pick.
Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Hi, Pot!
> That would be a bizarrely stupid thing to say... except that you're
> saying it, so it's just par for the course.
Hi, Kettle!
> Unless, of course, you can point to a question I've been refusing to
> answer.
Hint: What part of the word "or" do you not understand?
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> > Ok, Justin. Now let's play a little game called "learn to SPEAK
> >English". When you say "you've got two characters grappling" and they
are
> >*both* trying to escape *the* grapple, WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU
ARE
> >DESCRIBING?
>
> Once you've gotten done snipping the context enough times, that sure does
look
> strange.
Sorry, honey, but I quoted your statement in exactly the context you
offered it.
For some reason, you want to live in a fantasy world where you get to
blame other people for your own intellectual deficiencies.
> In point of fact, *you* were the first one to assert that the two
characters
> were engaged in the same grapple. I have *repeatedly* stated that they
were not.
Except, of course, when you wrote questions that indicated that they
were. Oops!
> Thank you for finally answering the question. One can only wonder why you
felt
> it necessary to scream and yell and flame and delay in doing so.
Because you kept asking what the answer to "what if they both try to
escape THE grapple" was.
> For such a smart guy, Michael, you sure can be dumb sometimes.
Oh, the irony. Bad news, buckwheat, but the only person being stupid
and illiterate here was *you*.
Your misinterpretation of the conversation is amusing, but
unfortunately, the problem is one of your own making by mis-stating the
question you actually wanted answered.
<waves paw dismissively>
-Michael
Justin Bacon
>> In point of fact, *you* were the first one to assert that the two characters
>> were engaged in the same grapple. I have *repeatedly* stated that they
>>were not.
>
> Except, of course, when you wrote questions that indicated that they
>were. Oops!
...which is, of course, an admission that:
(a) I had explicitly clarified this several times.
(b) You knew this context very well, yet claimed the contrary.
(c) You were still refusing to answer the question.
So, anyway, we're done here. You've *finally* answered the question, even if
you could only do so by posting a bunch of nonsensical flames which
accomplished absolutely nothing. I have no idea why you felt the need to drag
this thread needlessly through the mud, but you've succeeded brilliantly.
You can go back to wallowing in your cesspool now.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown wrote:
> So, anyway, we're done here. You've *finally* answered the question, even
if
> you could only do so by posting a bunch of nonsensical flames which
> accomplished absolutely nothing. I have no idea why you felt the need to
drag
> this thread needlessly through the mud, but you've succeeded brilliantly.
> You can go back to wallowing in your cesspool now.
Aww, how cute. Justin is trying to blame *me* for what *he*
miscommunicated!
Whine, whine, whine. <yawn>
Quit yer bitchin', you gibbering git. You're a fuckup this past
sevenday. Neither mathematics nor the english language appear to be within
your grasp. Find the pills you lost and start takin' 'em again.
-Michael