Grapple Houserule/possible clarification

[sinker]

Conveniently I have the book right here. The emphasis is mine, and the reason why I believe that he is counter-maneuvering.

In the third exchange, the thug decides to
go for a Pinned maneuver, pushing Harry
down to the floor. He uses his supplemental
action to give Harry Pinned, the thug’s knee
pushing down on Harry’s back. The thug rolls
the grapple again, at a –1 for the supplemental
action, but this time he only gets a Fair (+2)
result, and Harry sees his chance. He tries to
use Athletics to undo the grapple and wriggle
free. He makes a Great (+4) Athletics roll,
giving him two shifts over the block; he cancels
out the maneuver and gets free of the grapple.

As for someone else breaking the grapple, I would think that they could 1) Establish a block against the grapple which would make it tougher (but not impossible) to reestablish the grapple next round, 2) Create an aspect that would narratively make it difficult for that person to grapple and then tag it for effect, initiating a compel, or 3) Take the grappler out. Mechanically those are the only options I could see since they aren't the target of the grapple and thus can't actually run against the block to break it.

[sinker]

No, it would not.  It would mean that the grapple almost guaranteed to be broken on the grapplee's turn (they could still roll a -2, after all), but the grappler would still be capable of taking their supplemental action to land some automatic stress, or place an automatic maneuver, etc (though doing so would lower the grapple's strength to an effective -2, further ensuring its short life expectancy)

On a side note (and really a fairly irrelevant one) I was always under the impression that the supplemental action had to be taken first since it later effects the roll.

[Mr. Death]

Conveniently I have the book right here. The emphasis is mine, and the reason why I believe that he is counter-maneuvering.

As for someone else breaking the grapple, I would think that they could 1) Establish a block against the grapple which would make it tougher (but not impossible) to reestablish the grapple next round, 2) Create an aspect that would narratively make it difficult for that person to grapple and then tag it for effect, initiating a compel, or 3) Take the grappler out. Mechanically those are the only options I could see since they aren't the target of the grapple and thus can't actually run against the block to break it.

I suppose a fourth alternative would be if the attack angers the thug, or otherwise draws his attention enough, to the point where he just lets go of Harry to take a swing at Billy on his next turn instead. Though that might be the Maneuver/Compel mechanically, at least if it's interpreted as Billy's player "forcing" the guy off as opposed to the thug's player (i.e., the GM) just having him act that way.

No, it would not.  It would mean that the grapple almost guaranteed to be broken on the grapplee's turn (they could still roll a -2, after all), but the grappler would still be capable of taking their supplemental action to land some automatic stress, or place an automatic maneuver, etc (though doing so would lower the grapple's strength to an effective -2, further ensuring its short life expectancy)

So...would that mean that the negative strength of the block adds to the shift total of, say, an attack made to break the block (barring the grappler's basic defense roll, anyway)?

[Tedronai]

A negative value defense (being the better of all relevant blocks as well as rolled defense) does add to the stress inflicted by an attack, yes.

If an attack of effort 5 is met with a defense of -3 and a block of -2, the attack will inflict 7 stress, modified from there by armour and weapon values.

[Mr. Death]

Something related that just came to mind: Can two people grapple one person, and if so, how should this be done in the rules?

Say Harry is up against two thugs in the example, and ends up with one grabbing each arm pinned behind his back (say because they want to drag him in front of Marcone for some reason. Might that be treated as two grapples (first thug grapples, then creates an aspect the second thug tags), or as the second thug making a maneuver the first tags to renew his own grapple?

If it's two grapples on Harry, how does he go about breaking out of it? Does attacking whichever the weaker grapple is still have to surpass the block of the stronger grapple?

[Becq]

I think the thugs have a couple of options here:

Option 1 is that they each grapple Harry.  If Harry tries to act, his action will fail unless it beats the larger grapple strength.  It's not entirely clear what the RAW ruling on what happens if Harry beats the lower stength but not the upper strength: either nothing happens since its the action's success that causes the grapple to break, or the lesser grapple breaks because beating the grapple strength breaks the grapple in addition to (potentially) allowing the action to succeed.  (I'd vote the latter, but the RAW is unclear.)  Regardless, each grapple that is maintained carries the potential of a 1-shift action (including stress).

Option 2 is that one thug assists the other.  In this case, one thug is generating maneuvers and allowing the first to tag the resulting aspect for a +2 to his grapple roll.  Therefore the grapple strength will be higher and harder to break out of.

Option 3 is for one thug to grapple and use the maintenance action to maneuver, and the other to tag the resulting aspects to boost his attack rolls as he punches Harry in the gut.

None of these options is particularly appealing to Harry.

[Tedronai]

This is my interpretation:
The thugs have essentially two options.  They can either each put up their own block, in which case they can both use the supplemental action options in subsequent rounds but only the stronger block actually affects the victim's actions, or one of the thugs can apply a block while the other performs supporting maneuvers and 'hand off' the tags to the grappler, gaining a stronger block at the cost of fewer of the supplemental actions.

I'm not entirely decided on whether beating the weaker of two blocks will break that block (though the action would obviously still fail), but if it would, the only substantive gain would be from preventing one of the two supplemental actions the following round (because they're only available if the grapple has been maintained since the previous round).


So...basically what Becq ninja'd

[Mr. Death]

None of these options is particularly appealing to Harry.

Well, no. But when does Harry ever get appealing options?

[Becq]

Well, no. But when does Harry ever get appealing options?

Rarely, yes.  But even those options usually end up biting him in the a**.

[Mr. Death]

I wonder if it's against the laws of magic to practice necromancy on a dead thread...It's a risk I'm willing to take!

Anyway, a thought occurred to me the other day when I was looking over the ambush rules: Why not treat the "stop him from moving to curb his defense" similarly with blocks?

So, what are your thoughts on this: Character A creates a block against Character B to stop B from using his Athletics to dodge. Character C then attacks B. B then gets one last chance to break the block--if he succeeds, he rolls defense as normal, if he fails, he rolls from 0, just like if it'd been an ambush.

[Silverblaze]

Possibly legal by rules.

I'd call it a dick move.  I'd fear GM reprisal - in other words the NPCs start doing it to the PCs then.  I'd be pretty irritated if th GM did it first or much at all.

I don't care for it, but it may work by rules.

[devonapple]

Sounds like A holds B, while C punches him. Happens all the time in detective novels, but those scenes are usually to let the investigator know they are on the right track, and they never seem to result in the consequence "Nevermind, I'll Keep Out of That Mess".

[sinker]

I wonder if it's against the laws of magic to practice necromancy on a dead thread...It's a risk I'm willing to take!

We don't mind so much, but expect a warden shortly.

Anyway, a thought occurred to me the other day when I was looking over the ambush rules: Why not treat the "stop him from moving to curb his defense" similarly with blocks?

So, what are your thoughts on this: Character A creates a block against Character B to stop B from using his Athletics to dodge. Character C then attacks B. B then gets one last chance to break the block--if he succeeds, he rolls defense as normal, if he fails, he rolls from 0, just like if it'd been an ambush.

RAW does not allow for this. The rules state that you can't block defense rolls. But if you want to try it tell me how it goes, I'd be interested in how it works in practice.

[Mr. Death]

RAW does not allow for this. The rules state that you can't block defense rolls. But if you want to try it tell me how it goes, I'd be interested in how it works in practice.

That's pretty much exactly what an ambush is, though: A block that, if not beaten, cripples your defense in exactly this way.

[Sanctaphrax]

Indeed, RAW does not allow this. An ambush isn't a block, it's an ambush.

Also I have an instinctive dislike of this as a houserule. Pretty sure it's a bad idea, but I'd have trouble explaining why.

I suggest you use a maneuver instead.

But if you do give it a try, please tell me how it goes.

PS: Why do you use the words "one last chance"? So far as I can tell, there's only one chance to oppose the block.