ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on January 30, 2012, 02:58:58 PM
-
I've decided to add a houserule (or possibly a clarification) to the grapple rules that I'd like to vet on here before sending it out to the group:
The target of the grapple has the option to reverse the grapple. They may roll Might against the strength of your block. If the roll succeeds, the target is now blocked at your Might result and grappled.
I don't actually think this is a houserule, but find it easiest to describe it as such. Basically, on YS211:
However, the target is not lacking in options when he gets grappled—he can still roll to attempt any action. If the target cannot beat the block strength of the grapple, it’s assumed that the grappler is still holding onto him, giving the grappler his entire set of supplementary options next round. If the target beats the grapple strength, however, the action succeeds. Additionally, if the action is something that could reasonably break the grapple—an attack, a spell, even a threatening look—the grapple is automatically “released.”
Emphasis mine.
So I see no reason why the target cannot attempt a grapple of its own. I think this would break the grapple (as the opponent is now at a disadvantage).
As far as the appropriate aspect goes...well I see that as something which is a given if someone is grappling you, but could see a Fists, Alertness, etc. declaration being necessary. I just probably wouldn't make the difficulty very high.
What do you guys think?
Also, I allow weapon ratings of certain weapons (knives, claws, etc) to apply to the single stress hit, but may require a declaration to justify it (like using a staff to strangle an opponent).
-
Like you said, i wouldn't call it a house rule so much as a clarification of the existing rules, but I like it! There is no reason that reversing the grapple shouldn't be one of the stated options for the one being grappled.
-
Hm. I like it. Definitely a houserule if you don't require a declaration - and, er, I don't think a declaration is really appropriate here (unless, say, you can declare that they're trying to use a joint lock all unknowing that you've got extra joints you shouldn't have...)
Just keep in mind: a grapple is still a block. So if they establish a grapple at 4 shifts, and you beat that with a 5 shift counter-grapple - they're only grappled at 1 shift of effect.
-
Just keep in mind: a grapple is still a block. So if they establish a grapple at 4 shifts, and you beat that with a 5 shift counter-grapple - they're only grappled at 1 shift of effect.
No. A block is not armour. It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.
-
No. A block is not armour. It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.
This.
-
Does anyone else think it's odd that the grapple rules don't mention a specific roll to begin a grapple, only that an Aspect needs to be tagged?
Are GM's supposed to run grapples that way: Tag an apropriate aspect, then roll Might to see the block level?
If so, than reversing a grapple means establishing an appropriate taggable aspect (Even a fragile one), then tagging it, right?
-
The only houserule I see here is removing the aspect-invocation requirement for grappling people who are already grappling you.
Which sounds reasonable enough to me.
-
The only houserule I see here is removing the aspect-invocation requirement for grappling people who are already grappling you.
Which sounds reasonable enough to me.
I guess I mostly see not removing this as becoming a situation of:
"I roll Alertness to declare that the octopus is grappling me."
"Okay, you have the aspect Grappled by Octopus."
"I tag it to initiate a grapple on it."
Or other similarly absurd declaration based lip-service and extra step that simply complicates the process.
-
No. A block is not armour. It provides a minimum level of defense/resistance, but does not stack with 'active' defenses such as subsequent opposed rolls.
I agree with your second and third sentences, but fail to see how they are in any way relevant - neither armor nor active defenses are involved. A block, very simply, prevents actions with fewer total shifts, or reduces (by the block strength) the effective shifts of an action that beats the block.
For example: You use a gun to lay down covering fire, establishing a four shift block against people trying to move out of some zone. I decide to take a sprint action, and get five shifts on my athletics check. End result: I get to move one zone (spending most of my effort vaulting over your line of fire), not five. This does not break your block, however, and anyone else trying to move still needs to contend with there being a hail of bullets in the way.
Example Two: You grapple me, establishing a four shift block against everything. I decide to attack you, and get five shifts on my fists roll. Because this is an attack, you also get to roll defense - say you get a three on fists to defend. Those three shifts don't stack with the block from your grapple - you take just the better result for your defense, which in this case is the four shift block. I hit for one shift (plus any weapon rating I might have from, say, Claws, and minus any armor you might have). This also breaks the grapple.
Example Three: You grapple me, establishing a four shift block against everything. I decide to counter-grapple, and get five shifts on my might roll. Because this is not an attack, there is no active defense - but my effort is still reduced by your block, resulting in a one-shift grapple on you. This also breaks your grapple.
-
Your third example is wrong.
The result is a 5-shift grapple opposed by a minimum of 4 shifts (which, since it doesn't exceed the block, ultimately means nothing).
-
From YS210, emphasis mine:
If he meets or exceeds the block strength, the action resolves normally, with benefits for extra shifts if the roll beats the block strength by a wide margin.
To put it another way, the block provides a minimum level that an action must achieve to surpass it. It isn't a reducing effect, that's what armor does.
Attacks are a bad example because stress is calculated by the number of successful shifts.
-
From YS210, emphasis mine:
To put it another way, the block provides a minimum level that an action must achieve to surpass it. It isn't a reducing effect, that's what armor does.
Attacks are a bad example because stress is calculated by the number of successful shifts.
Your own quote doesn't support your opinion. Look at the second half - "with benefits for extra shifts...", etc. So, a maneuver that beats the block strength just succeeds - maneuvers don't benefit from extra shifts. Blocks, attacks, and movement do - they're measured by the number of shifts you get, so those extra shifts matter.
-
Wyvern, perhaps you'd like to dig up a reference that supports your position?
-
InFerrumVeritas already found the one quote that (I believe) supports my position. Given that he posted it with the claim that it supports your position instead, I suspect we're at an impasse.
I haven't found (with admittedly only a few minutes spent searching) anything else that would support either of our opinions - the two examples in the book feature a block being broken by an attack (one of two instances where we agree on the mechanics), and a block being broken by a maneuver (or, technically, counter-maneuver - but in either case, it's a binary action that makes no use of the extra shifts, and thus the other case where we agree on the mechanics).
So - unless you can find anything that supports your opinion, I think this discussion is probably done.
-
The use of the term 'wide margin' in IFV's quote does not seem to follow as the basis for an interpretation where each and every shift above the block value contributes benefits.
-
The use of the term 'wide margin' in IFV's quote does not seem to follow as the basis for an interpretation where each and every shift above the block value contributes benefits.
Then what would you interpret that second part to mean? By your interpretation, it's just totally irrelevant garbage, as far as I can tell.
I think the difference in interpretations is this:
You're looking at it as "Well, I just made a strength 5 block, so his strength 4 block doesn't affect that because it's fewer shifts". I.E. somehow your counterblock springs into existence fully-formed, and you don't even look at the existing block until your roll is already resolved. This makes absolutely zero sense to me - it's like saying "Well, that wizard just put a wall in my path (four shift block against movement), but my athletics roll of 5 still lets me move five zones because I beat the block; the wall doesn't even slow me down."
Whereas I'm looking at it as "I'm trying to establish a block, but there's a block against that - I rolled a 5, which gives me a total of one shift of result, so my block strength is 1."
-
If we want to toss out biased comparisons, your interpretation is more along the lines of:
'Well, I've got a block against my opponent's attacks at 5 shifts, and a rolled 4 for defense, so his attack of accuracy 8 and weapon 3 inflicts no stress.'
-
@wyvern
What about YS230 where it lists a threshold acting as a block and as a suppressor as separate things. If your interpretation were correct, the second listing wouldn't be necessary. I'll admit that I'm reaching, but I'd be reaching to find evidence to support your side of the argument as well. It seems that it is unclear (if it can indeed be read two different ways).
I really do wish that DFRPG were to have official errata every once in a while.
-
Errata is for broken games like Exalted, not for vague ones like DFRPG.
In my opinion.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I see the reason behind this argument. wyvern is arguing that blocks and grapples are performed by default against a defence roll of 0, and that their strength comes from extra shifts. I don't think that this should be taken to be correct, because it's weird and it makes it nearly impossible to block through a block. Better to treat blocks like maneuvers, which just succeed or fail.
-
Is this at the time of the grapple attempt, or is this on that players next turn?
-
If we want to toss out biased comparisons, your interpretation is more along the lines of:
'Well, I've got a block against my opponent's attacks at 5 shifts, and a rolled 4 for defense, so his attack of accuracy 8 and weapon 3 inflicts no stress.'
How is that in any way a comparison here? There is no defense roll involved; there is no double-dipping anywhere.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure I see the reason behind this argument. wyvern is arguing that blocks and grapples are performed by default against a defence roll of 0, and that their strength comes from extra shifts. I don't think that this should be taken to be correct, because it's weird and it makes it nearly impossible to block through a block. Better to treat blocks like maneuvers, which just succeed or fail.
I disagree. And as far as this making it "nearly impossible" - it makes it no harder or easier than doing anything else through a block. A block is a block, and it does the same thing regardless of what type of action is opposing it - it reduces the number of shifts generated, or completely blocks the action if the shifts end up less than zero. This is exactly the same thing that happens with any other action that's being opposed by a block - why should an attempt to counter-block get a special exemption?
Now, there is some wording saying that a GM can declare that certain actions aren't blocked by a grapple. I could see a house rule being that attempts to grapple aren't blocked by a grapple - in which case what you'd end up with is person A is still grappled (block strength 4) and person B is now also grappled (block strength 5). This would be an entirely legit-by-the-book houserule, but I don't see it as being the default state of affairs.
-
@wyvern
What about YS230 where it lists a threshold acting as a block and as a suppressor as separate things. If your interpretation were correct, the second listing wouldn't be necessary. I'll admit that I'm reaching, but I'd be reaching to find evidence to support your side of the argument as well. It seems that it is unclear (if it can indeed be read two different ways).
I really do wish that DFRPG were to have official errata every once in a while.
YS230 is interesting, in that - if you look at it - the second listing is actually mechanically very different from a block; the "suppressor" option seems to function like armor, reducing weapon rating before it affects accuracy of attacks, and having other non-standard effects subject to GM whim & negotiation with affected players.
I can totally agree with that wish; I actually went to look up blocks under the Spirit of the Century online rules, to see if anything was more clear there; no such luck.
-
How is that in any way a comparison here? There is no defense roll involved; there is no double-dipping anywhere.
There's no movement roll, either, but you seemed to think that a valid comparison.
As to 'double-dipping' and defense rolls, the defense roll against a block is effectively whatever action that block blocks, so yes, there effectively is.
-
If I've followed the debate correctly, Wyvern is almost correct. The attacker has to beat the higher of the defender's defense roll or applicable block. If he does, the difference between the two is the margin of success. (See blocks on YS210 - the example with Harry veiling Molly makes it reasonably clear.)
So if A grapples B and succeeds enough to set up a block:4, B must beat 4, or A's defense roll if higher than 4, to reverse the grapple. The reversed grapple's block value is B's Might result minus A's defense (higher of skill or block) just as the initial grapple's value was equal to A's Might roll minus B's defense roll.
Hopefully that's less confusing than it sounds when I read it back to myself. :/
As for the OP's suggestion - I agree with Sanctaphrax's analysis. The only difference from the rules is the lack of tagging an aspect. Personally, I'd simply make declaring "He Grabbed Me!" trivially easy and keep the standard rules. But either works.
-
There's no movement roll, either, but you seemed to think that a valid comparison.
As to 'double-dipping' and defense rolls, the defense roll against a block is effectively whatever action that block blocks, so yes, there effectively is.
The movement comparison was a simple example of "You take some action, with shifts X. It is opposed by a block with shifts Y. Result is action with total shifts = X-Y".
That said, I can finally see where you're coming from, from a game-mechanical perspective - the difference in interpretation, then, is that I don't see a block as something you "defend against", while you see it as an attack that's defended by whatever action the target takes.
And, if you require the guy trying to counter-grapple to have a tag on an aspect (and not just a well-duh "I'm being grappled by an octopus" declaration*) - then I could see using your interpretation. Otherwise, it just makes the counter-grapple too powerful - the first guy spent an entire aspect tag, and all he gets out of it is to effectively give that free tag to an opponent? No.
*Footnote: if someone was so foolish as to declare such an aspect in a game I was running, I would laugh maniacally, ask "are you sure you want to do that?" and then, if they proceeded, offer a compel to have them removed from the scene as they get dragged into the depths - because, well, they're being grappled by an octopus. They just declared it, so it must be true, right?
-
Actually, come to think of it, the ability to counter-grapple might make a good stunt; it's a two shift effect (i.e. an aspect tag equivalent) that applies to a limited situation - I'd probably name the stunt something like "Aikido Master" - since that's an art based on turning the aggressor's actions against them.
-
If I've followed the debate correctly, Wyvern is almost correct. The attacker has to beat the higher of the defender's defense roll or applicable block. If he does, the difference between the two is the margin of success. (See blocks on YS210 - the example with Harry veiling Molly makes it reasonably clear.)
So if A grapples B and succeeds enough to set up a block:4, B must beat 4, or A's defense roll if higher than 4, to reverse the grapple. The reversed grapple's block value is B's Might result minus A's defense (higher of skill or block) just as the initial grapple's value was equal to A's Might roll minus B's defense roll.
The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.
Roll your Might skill (unless you have
a stunt that allows you to use another
skill). The result establishes the block
strength of the grapple.
To paraphrase, the strength of the grapple is determined by the roll of your Might skill.
Note the distinct absence of any 'minus the target's defense roll' or any other resisting numerical value, for that matter.
Blocks substitute for defense rolls or other resistance values if those values are lower than that of the block.
If there is no resistance to an action, blocks do not affect it.
The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.
-
The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.
To paraphrase, the strength of the grapple is determined by the roll of your Might skill.
Note the distinct absence of any 'minus the target's defense roll' or any other resisting numerical value, for that matter.
Blocks substitute for defense rolls or other resistance values if those values are lower than that of the block.
If there is no resistance to an action, blocks do not affect it.
Hey look! Another difference of opinion - though I'd like to point out that you can totally establish a block against things that normally don't allow resistance or defense rolls, such as movement, perception, some sorts of declarations (say, using resources to block a would-be thief from declaring security flaws), and so on and so forth. Again, I don't see a reason to treat blocks as being special things that get to ignore other blocks.*
The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.
Actually, it only gives an initial advantage, not a persistent one. Which is fair, given that the initial grappler needed to spend an aspect tag. You can easily see this if you compare two grapplers where, say, the initial one always gets 4, and the second one always gets 5 - over the course of a few exchanges, the one who is better will eventually entirely overcome that initial disadvantage. This is much the same as a sprinter gaining an advantage from initiative - the guy who goes first gets an initial advantage, and may win a short race, but over several exchanges will be overtaken by someone who can just run faster.
*Footnote: though you totally can if you want to - the rules are quite clear that it's legit to say "blocks don't work against some things, as determined by the GM / Table" - so if you want to say that blocks don't block other blocks, ever, doing so is entirely RAW legal.
-
Hey look! Another difference of opinion - though I'd like to point out that you can totally establish a block against things that normally don't allow resistance or defense rolls, such as movement, perception, some sorts of declarations (say, using resources to block a would-be thief from declaring security flaws), and so on and so forth. Again, I don't see a reason to treat blocks as being special things that get to ignore other blocks.
All of those things that you listed as not having defense rolls DO have some form of minimum value to determine success, if not an (unrolled) resistance value (ex. zone borders for movement rolls).
The same is not true for blocks.
Actually, it only gives an initial advantage, not a persistent one.
The advantage in the first exchange perpetuates into subsequent exchanges. In other words, it persists, or is persistent.
-
I think the Stunt idea makes the most sense--think of it like Riposte. Make reversing the grapple an option when trying to break it, but only if you have that stunt. The grapplee might roll a 5 against the guy's 4 and only get a block of 1--or he might get lucky and roll an 8. Or the grappler might blow a roll to renew the block and the grapplee then sees an opportunity to break it and turn the tables.
Point being, if you roll just barely enough to break the grapple, you can just do that instead of creating your own weak block. If any of you guys have wrestled, this makes sense.
-
The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.
Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).
This is a bit of a problem.
-
The problem, here, is that a grapple is not opposed by a defense roll.
I see...and you're correct.
The consequence, then, of implementing this interpretation is that the initial grappler gains a substantial persistent advantage, as the counter-grapple's value will be lowered by an unresisted block, which will in turn reduce the resistance to the counter-counter-grapple, etc.
Yep. Looks like a good grappler is even more of a threat than I'd thought. Hmm, that makes 'counter-maneuvering' immediately and removing aspects more important.
Think I'll go make a Jujitsu Master NPC now... ;D
-
The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.
That was kind of my point: The stunt would give the guy breaking the grapple options--if he rolls well, but not too well, he can elect to simply break the grapple entirely. If he rolls really well, or his opponent botches his own grapple roll, it'd be like in a wrestling match where someone's weight shifts just the right way, allowing the advantage to shift substantially. It happens quite often in wrestling (I mean, college/high school, not WWE).
Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).
This is a bit of a problem.
I see it differently, and I think that's why the stunt is necessary. I mean, Riposte lets you reverse an attack, which is normally impossible, so why not reverse a grapple with a stunt?
-
All of those things that you listed as not having defense rolls DO have some form of minimum value to determine success, if not an (unrolled) resistance value (ex. zone borders for movement rolls).
The same is not true for blocks.
Actually, if you're going to go that route, blocks also have a minimum value to determine success. If you try to establish a block and roll zero or less - you fail.
The advantage in the first exchange perpetuates into subsequent exchanges. In other words, it persists, or is persistent.
Again, different definitions in play - I look at the words "persistent advantage" and read "an advantage that is difficult to remove", rather than "an advantage that has effects in subsequent exchanges." In fact, I would hold that any advantage that does not have any effect on subsequent exchanges, wasn't an advantage - such as the initial grappler under your interpretation, who is in fact penalized for his aspect tag (by allowing the counter-grapple to happen).
The problem is that a block with low strength is essentially nonexistent.
This depends on what you're blocking. In the case of a grapple, in particular, even a low block strength can make a large difference - for an example from a game I was in, a mere strength 2 grapple caused a caster to fail to fully control a spell (because the block reduces the margin of success). Likewise, a low strength block can hamper someone's attempts to flee, making it easier to catch up.
A good example here is two runners, a slow one who got a head start, and a fast one who's trying to catch the other. The second one, each exchange, sprints to the zone the first one is in - and uses overflow to establish a block against further movement. In a couple of exchanges, movement will no longer be an option for the slower one, and he'll have to face his pursuer, try some sort of clever maneuver, or otherwise find a way to make the situation stop being a straight race. Low strength blocks are only useless if they're specifically against attacks and are too far below your normal defenses.
Also, blocks are never defended against under normal circumstances. They are established, then people try to break them. So where a block normally replaces a defence roll, against a block it creates one (the way you read the rules, at least).
This is a bit of a problem.
I don't see the problem - but if you do, see my previous statement on disallowing blocks to block blocks. Doing so is RAW legal, just (imo) not RAW required. But out of curiosity - suppose that you just took a consequence in combat, and you're fighting grapple-monster-of-doom - what sort of game mechanic would you use for taking action to try and prevent it from grabbing you?
-
so why not reverse a grapple with a stunt?
Because that's not impossible in the absence of a stunt?
Actually, if you're going to go that route, blocks *also* have a minimum value to determine success. If you try to establish a block and roll zero or less - you fail.
A block of -1 prevents any affected action from succeeding on a roll of -2 or less.
Again, different definitions in play - I look at the words "persistent advantage" and read "an advantage that is difficult to remove", rather than "an advantage that has effects in subsequent exchanges." In fact, I would hold that any advantage that does not have any effect on subsequent exchanges, wasn't an advantage - such as the initial grappler under your interpretation, who is in fact penalized for his aspect tag (by allowing the counter-grapple to happen).
A fragile aspect is not a persistent advantage, but a momentary one which may result in some other advantage in later exchanges.
The advantage you propose implementing propagates itself through subsequent exchanges (to diminishing degrees) while also making it easier to achieve other advantages which will persist or not just as those achieved through tagging a fragile aspect.
(because the block reduces the margin of success)
Please provide a quote to back this up.
Do not use an example involving an attack, movement, or the like that inherently is subject to a defense or resistance value which itself 'lowers the margin of success'.
what sort of game mechanic would you use for taking action to try and prevent it from grabbing you?
Choose a consequence that would not be a reasonable instigator of a grapple.
-
I would argue it should need a stunt, because reversing a grapple isn't something you'd necessarily be able to pull off as easily as establishing one. Anyone can just wrap their arms around someone and hold tight, but it takes some skill and technique to not just break a hold but to turn it around on your opponent. Plus, as mentioned, to establish a grapple you're supposed to invoke or tag an aspect--having a stunt effectively takes the place of that.
-
@Mr. Death: Wasn't talking to you. Sorry for the vagueness. For what it's worth, I like your idea. But I'd need to see the stunt actually written before passing judgement.
@wyvern: Nobody thinks that blocks can't block blocks. It's just that Tedronai and I think that a block which another block unsuccessfully attempts to block should be just as strong as it would have been if no blocking attempt had been made.
Essentially, my position is that a block does not derive its strength from extra shifts. It just has a strength equal to the roll made to create it.
Incidentally, your description of a grapple messing up a spellcaster sounds off to me. Could you elaborate?
-
Essentially, my position is that a block does not derive its strength from extra shifts. It just has a strength equal to the roll made to create it.
Interesting. The book does appear to support that position...though I really don't like what that does to play.
Incidentally, your description of a grapple messing up a spellcaster sounds off to me. Could you elaborate?
If you can block the Discipline roll you potentially force the caster to choose between backlash and fall out. The first will may give the caster one or more consequences even if the spell allows escape while the second may reduce the spell to relative ineffectiveness...though the fall out may be interesting.
-
Hm. Finally found one thing in YS that actually supports a position: the margin text on YS212. Unfortunately, it does not support my position. This has a number of effects that I really don't like:
1) it means that attack actions are special cookies that interact with blocks in very nonstandard ways - which is unfortunate, given that all of the obvious examples of blocks in the book are based off of attacks.
2) it means that weak blocks are in fact useless.
3) it means that using earth magic to put a wall in front of someone either stops them flat or has no effect.
4) it means that certain mechanically elegant solutions (like the two sprinters problem I listed a few posts back) simply don't work, and you're back to the problem of being totally unable to run someone down without GM fiat, as long as they can get at least two zones away every exchange. (Or three or more if there are speed powers involved, but hopefully you see the point).
For these reasons, I will be houseruling my games to run with blocks actually, y'know, blocking things, instead of being simple pass-fail checks that then get ignored when determining effect of action.
And, to get back to the original topic: Given this, I would strongly suggest not houseruling in a countergrapple ability. Allowing it as a stunt is fine; allowing it as a default action for everyone makes grappling a vastly riskier tactic.
-
I'd add a fifth concern - it incentivizes blocks over attacks. That may just be a personal concern though, I prefer a more action oriented game than one which starts by trying to set up the biggest block you possibly can.
-
I have found a seperate concern regarding grapples. They require a maneuver or aspect to use...which sort of balacnes them yes? The problem is that if applying the aspect is successful, the fate points spent on it are lost even if the aspect is removed or grapple is broken...since the action was successful. This makes grapples kinda risky in that regard.
-
Well, yes, that too - I'd probably lump that under "weak blocks are useless" - it means that, unless your character is built as a grappling monster of doom, you should probably avoid even trying to grapple, since the target can generally try to break out with whatever their best skill is - which will (unless they used that skill to attack) be no different than if you'd if you'd just burned a fate point to stand around and do nothing.
-
That page only talks about him controlling the spell--it doesn't mean that the block wouldn't apply to the damage roll. It could be that if Harry rolls a 5 in that example, against the 5 block, he controls the spell perfectly, but the block still acts to block the attack, meaning the thug only takes the weapon stress.
And yeah, weak blocks are useless--and so are weak attacks. Or weak spells. It only makes sense to me that you'd typically try a tactic if you're good at it, so why should grappling be different?
@Mr. Death: Wasn't talking to you. Sorry for the vagueness. For what it's worth, I like your idea. But I'd need to see the stunt actually written before passing judgement.
How about:
Judo Master: You are a master of body position, and are good at turning your foe's tactics against him. When using Might to successfully break a grapple, you may perform a reversal and establish your own grapple equal in strength to the number of shifts gained when breaking the initial grapple.
-
That page only talks about him controlling the spell--it doesn't mean that the block wouldn't apply to the damage roll. It could be that if Harry rolls a 5 in that example, against the 5 block, he controls the spell perfectly, but the block still acts to block the attack, meaning the thug only takes the weapon stress.
If the spell was an attack, maybe - but see "attacks are special cookies that interact in a unique manner with blocks." And it's not clear that it would even then - after all, simply succeeding on the control check might be judged enough to break the grapple - at which point the spell would take full effect.
And yeah, weak blocks are useless--and so are weak attacks. Or weak spells. It only makes sense to me that you'd typically try a tactic if you're good at it, so why should grappling be different?
Weak attacks can rack up stress that slowly whittles away an attacker - this is something I did recently, where I eventually just ran my opponent out of stress boxes entirely - we both had strong defenses, but I didn't have strong attacks. Weak spells can set up maneuvers (eventually leading to strong spells) or whittle away at opponents with attacks. Weak blocks just do nothing. And personally, I'd really prefer a game system where you aren't limited to just the tactic you're best at, and where non-combat characters can still make small but useful contributions if they do end up in a fight. Maneuvers are one option for this sort of thing. I would prefer for blocks to be another.
-
3) it means that using earth magic to put a wall in front of someone either stops them flat or has no effect.
Wouldn't this be more creating a zone border, and less of a grapple-type block?
-
1) it means that attack actions are special cookies that interact with blocks in very nonstandard ways - which is unfortunate, given that all of the obvious examples of blocks in the book are based off of attacks.
I think this is a bit of a simplification that is actually sort of inverted. Think about it this way.
An attack is a contest (an opposed action) where the margin of success is important. Blocks reduce their effectiveness.
A maneuver is also a contest, however the margin of success is less important. The only time when blocks reduce their effectiveness is when the block strength and the shift value of the maneuver are both dead even. A rare event, but technically still an instance of the block reducing the effectiveness of a maneuver.
A block is a simple action (in other words an unopposed roll) with no difficulty. Even a grapple is unopposed despite being directly conflicting. Having no difficulty means that there are no margins of success or failure. A block does not reduce it's effectiveness, because the block has no margin of success, it succeeds or does not.
So to be technical it is actually the block that interacts differently with a block. The attack works the same way as any other contest.
Personally though I think I would apply the block strength as a penalty to the margin of success in some things but not others (attack, maneuver, move, spell control but not blocks, or non-conflict actions). I'm thinking it would primarily have to do with whether the margin of success was important, not whether the action is opposed. But that's because it's the game I want to play, not cause the rule book says so.
-
Weak attacks can rack up stress that slowly whittles away an attacker - this is something I did recently, where I eventually just ran my opponent out of stress boxes entirely - we both had strong defenses, but I didn't have strong attacks. Weak spells can set up maneuvers (eventually leading to strong spells) or whittle away at opponents with attacks. Weak blocks just do nothing. And personally, I'd really prefer a game system where you aren't limited to just the tactic you're best at, and where non-combat characters can still make small but useful contributions if they do end up in a fight. Maneuvers are one option for this sort of thing. I would prefer for blocks to be another.
Apologies, I meant a weak attack roll. As in, if you can't reliably get past a defense to cause those shifts in the first place.
And I agree with Sinker, I think: A block would set a difficulty of something that normally wouldn't, and affect the outcome.
My question is, does this count for defenses? Like, if you've grappled a speedster (Let's say, Athletics at 5 with Supernatural Speed) specifically so that an ally can gank him while he's pinned down. Now, in my mind, if you've got, say, a 4 strength grapple on him, should he really get the full benefit of his 7 dodge roll? It makes more sense to me to apply the block as a penalty to that as well--he'd still get the dodge roll, it'd just be reduced because of the block. (Thinking of, say, Goku and Piccolo vs. Raditz here).
-
My personal interpretation of blocks is that they establish an alternate defense against some action. All actions can, at most, have a single defense against them (for simplicity's sake) and therefore, you only take the higher defense into account. The weaker "defense" provided by a block is ignored. In situations where a defense is not normally allowed, the block becomes the only defense (but a defense nonetheless).
... (Thinking of, say, Goku and Piccolo vs. Raditz here).
In this case, I would say that Goku allowed Piccolo to tag a series of Aspects he placed on Raditz with maneuvers. The grapple is only the thematic and visual explanation of what happened.
-
A block can not ever influence a defense roll. If you want to prevent someone from defending you have to create an appropriate aspect and then compel them, and even then it may not happen because depending on the situation or the aspect the GM may determine that to be a "weak" compel.
-
A block can not ever influence a defense roll. If you want to prevent someone from defending you have to create an appropriate aspect and then compel them, and even then it may not happen because depending on the situation or the aspect the GM may determine that to be a "weak" compel.
Or the player may negotiate with the GM for some other effect, or refuse the compel entirely (and pay a FP to the GM in the process).
-
Agreed. More than anything I suppose that I was trying to say that, circumstances notwithstanding, I find "He doesn't get to defend" to be a very weak compel.
-
'automatically fails anything that would require movement (most forms of attack or maneuver, defense against the same, actual game-mechanic movement, etc) for the duration of one exchange' might be less so, though
-
In general I would compare it to the declaration/compel that is mentioned in the book. "Dr so-and-so drops dead of a heart attack." Under most circumstances it's going to take more away from the game than it adds.
-
I agree with sinker and Vargo Teras here.
Not sure how Judo Master is meant to work. If I break a 4-strength grapple with a 7-shift Might maneuver aimed at producing a KNOCKED FLAT aspect, what happens?
-
I didn't say they wouldn't get to roll defense, or that the defense would automatically fail, just that the grapple would reduce the defense (someone rolling at 7 to defend while under a 4 strength grapple would effectively be rolling from 3 instead).
Or maybe treat it like an Ambush with an aspect tagged or invoked? As he's attacked, the grapplee gets one last chance to break the grapple block (similar to that last chance to avoid the ambush)--if it fails, he's rolling from 0, if he succeeds, roll defense normally?
@Sanctaphrax: I meant if you're just using Might to break out of the grapple--as in, that's the action itself. If you break the grapple with a maneuver aimed at producing KNOCKED FLAT, then you produce that maneuver, and can probably tag that in a subsequent turn to establish a grapple, but not turn it directly into a grapple that turn. Though I suppose it'd be kosher if the player with that stunt can replace the maneuver with the grapple, if the GM says so.
-
Just as a note for those who'd like grapple to affect the victim's defense: the rules as written allow you to do this via the 'free maneuver' option, which allows you to place an unopposed maneuver aspect each exchange. Letting your buddy tag this aspect for his attack is almost the same thing as a -2 to defense (though only one buddy per exchange gets to use this for free; the others would have to pay Fate).
If you wanted to grapple someone and let your friends pummel him, the best way to represent this is probably to have all but one of them maneuver aspects each exchange, with the last one tagging them all (plus yours from the grapple) to represent the group pummeling.
-
Hm...Would it make sense to, instead of offering up an aspect tag on that freebie the grapple offers for the +2 to hit, let someone tag it for the effect of not letting the target defend with one particular skill? Going back to the speedster example, if you've grappled him in the hopes of holding him down long enough to hit him, could you have the grappler put a temporary aspect like ARM LOCK or HEADLOCK and have the punch-thrower tag it to say that he couldn't use his Athletics to dodge that one attack, but instead had to use Fists or some other applicable skill, rationalizing it with, "Well, I'm holding him down, so he can't sprint or backflip out of the way"?
Because that +2 on the temp aspect can be done a lot easier and quicker without grappling in the first place--why A. create a temp aspect, B. tag it for the grapple, and C. put on another temp aspect to tag--and risk the target breaking the grapple anyway--when you can just go A. create a temp aspect, B. have your buddy tag that to punch?
-
The grapple has other obvious advantages. It all depends on your strategy.
Personally I like the can't defend with athletics compel better than the can't defend at all compel.
I'm wondering if the choice of the "Grapple" term might not have been a great idea. The thing that comes to mind immediately is one guy wrapped around the other guy on the floor, but I don't think that image is really appropriate to the mechanic.
-
The way I see it, outside of stunts, the main advantage of a grapple is that it lets you oppose nearly everything the target can do while still eventually taking them out. For the most part, it's one more enemy your friends don't need to worry about.
-
Well, yeah, that's the main advantage. I'm just trying to figure out the game mechanics for what should also be a logical advantage.
-
I'm wondering if the choice of the "Grapple" term might not have been a great idea. The thing that comes to mind immediately is one guy wrapped around the other guy on the floor, but I don't think that image is really appropriate to the mechanic.
That's an interesting point. Many of the pins and holds that one might normally think of as a grapple, are actually much better modeled in-game as the result of a concession or take-out.
-
Or a compel.
Even the example in the book sort of gives you the idea of a different kind of...close combat. A thug grapples Harry, and then attempts to create the aspect of "Pinned" or whatever. If Harry is grappled (again the image of Harry completely locked) then why does the thug need to pin him?
-
I see no solid reason why it should be easier to shoot someone who's being grappled. If anything, it would be harder because you'd be likely to hit the grappler.
Also the mechanical fairness of having blocks affect defences is highly questionable.
Anyway, I don't think there's any such thing as a Might action specifically to break a grapple. The way I understand it, any action which could reasonably break a grapple does so if successful.
-
I didn't say they wouldn't get to roll defense, or that the defense would automatically fail, just that the grapple would reduce the defense (someone rolling at 7 to defend while under a 4 strength grapple would effectively be rolling from 3 instead).
Except that blocks don't ever do anything even comparable to this. The mechanic you're looking for is called armour.
-
Armor would defend the target from the attack, not lower the target's defense. Besides, I'm not in favor of that any more for the reasons pointed out--it's dicey at best when it comes to the rules as written. If/when it comes up in my game, I'll go with the 'tag/compel one of the aspects to keep them from rolling Athletics as defense' option.
@Sanctaphrax: That would be a great compel for the grappler, particularly if the grapplee manages to break the hold and roll a successful defense. That said, it doesn't have to be shooting: It could be one guy grabbing another, while a third kicks him in the nadgers.
And why couldn't you use Might to break out? They rolled Might to put you in it, you should logically be able to use Might to overpower the block. Look at the grappling example: Harry's action that last turn is Athletics, described just to squeeze out of the grapple, not any other action. Speaking, again, as a wrestler, just breaking yourself out of a hold is a worthwhile move in and of itself.
That said, the point of the stunt was that you could only establish the reversal if you were using Might to break out, because Might is what sets grapples in the first place.
As for the terminology, none of you guys have wrestled, have you? Grappling doesn't solely mean pinned to the ground. It could mean that the thug has just grabbed Harry's wrist and throat. Or has his arms pinned in a bearhug. "Grappling" just means grabbing the guy, there's dozens of different ways this could happen, not all of them having to put the guy on the ground first. Think of Metal Gear Solid. Any time you grab a guy in a choke hold is a grapple block without having him already on the ground.
-
Armor would defend the target from the attack, not lower the target's defense.
Armour is the mechanic that reduces an affected roll regardless of whether or not that roll exceeds the armour value.
A Block is the mechanic that stop an affected roll from succeeding if it fails to at least match the block value, and sets a bar from which additional success is measured (stress in excess of weapon values, etc).
And why couldn't you use Might to break out? They rolled Might to put you in it, you should logically be able to use Might to overpower the block. Look at the grappling example: Harry's action that last turn is Athletics, described just to squeeze out of the grapple, not any other action. Speaking, again, as a wrestler, just breaking yourself out of a hold is a worthwhile move in and of itself.
You CAN use Might to break out of a grapple.
For any action that would be affected by the block, if that action's roll exceeds the value of the block, the block is broken.
That said, the point of the stunt was that you could only establish the reversal if you were using Might to break out, because Might is what sets grapples in the first place.
No stunt is needed.
The only opportunity, by RAW, for such a stunt to 'allow' reverse grapples is by obviating the need for an aspect to be tagged/invoked representing the opportunity to engage in the grapple. And given the likely ease with which a declaration could be made to satisfy that requirement, the usefulness of such a stunt is highly questionable.
-
You CAN use Might to break out of a grapple.
For any action that would be affected by the block, if that action's roll exceeds the value of the block, the block is broken.
I know. I was responding to Sanctaphrax when he said, "Anyway, I don't think there's any such thing as a Might action specifically to break a grapple."
No stunt is needed.
The only opportunity, by RAW, for such a stunt to 'allow' reverse grapples is by obviating the need for an aspect to be tagged/invoked representing the opportunity to engage in the grapple. And given the likely ease with which a declaration could be made to satisfy that requirement, the usefulness of such a stunt is highly questionable.
Not necessarily. "I'm being grappled," the example given before, isn't really an aspect that justifies you being able to reverse it on its own. It would take a lot of the bite out of the initial grappler's action and is, frankly, unrealistic unless you're a skilled grappler, which would be reflected in the stunt.
If someone tried that kind of declaration, I don't think a GM should allow that aspect alone to justify initiating a grapple. It'd be like, "So, your declaration is establishing that, as stated, he's got your arm pinned behind your back, and he's got his arm around your windpipe, and somehow this gives you enough of an advantage to put him in a grapple?"
If anything, without the stunt I'd rule you'd need to actually maneuver to create an aspect on the opponent giving you the opening to reverse the grapple on a later turn, which would mean you're breaking the grapple anyway by succeeding at the maneuvering roll. You could maybe guess/declare one of the target's aspects, like, "I roll Fists to declare he has SLOPPY TECHNIQUE," but otherwise, just declaring, in essence, that you're at a disadvantage shouldn't cut it.
-
@Tedronai: I don't think it's sensible to balance against the assumption of Declarations. But even if you were to do so, any aspect that can be invoked to justify a grapple can be invoked to give +2 to a grapple roll. So the stunt remains useful.
@Mr. Death: I've wrestled a little, but not often and not well.
You can use Might to break a grapple, but I don't think that there is a such thing as a "break grapple" action. Breaking a grapple is a side effect of another action.
And my point about hitting your friend is that I see no reason to penalize the defence of the grappled. Depending on the narration, being grappled could hinder or help one's defence. So penalizing the defence of the grappled doesn't really make narrative or mechanical sense.
-
There's nothing in the rulebooks saying that breaking the grapple is only the side effect of another action--and as I pointed out, in the book's example, Harry's action that breaks the grapple is only described as doing that: He's not sprinting to another zone, or putting a maneuver on his attacker, he's just using Athletics to slink out of the hold. It's like a counterspell--it's a very specific usage of the skill, but I see no reason it would be invalid.
And I can see plenty of narrative and mechanical reasons why a grapple would hinder someone's defense.
If someone's a speedster, and their bread and butter is acrobatically leaping and running about to avoid attacks with their Epic speed rating, then yes, someone grabbing him and holding him down really ought to keep them from leaping and running about to dodge.
Or if someone relies on their Superb Fists skills to parry and counter punches, it makes mechanical and narrative sense if someone grappling them and pinning their arms behind their back prevents them from using it.
Or if someone is a sword-and-board warrior, and your grapple is to grab onto their shield-arm and pin it at their side, that should prevent them from blocking with the shield.
It's honestly harder for me to imagine situations where being grappled would not affect someone's defense in some manner.
-
If someone tried that kind of declaration, I don't think a GM should allow that aspect alone to justify initiating a grapple. It'd be like, "So, your declaration is establishing that, as stated, he's got your arm pinned behind your back, and he's got his arm around your windpipe, and somehow this gives you enough of an advantage to put him in a grapple?"
It's not establishing that you are at a disadvantage, it's establishing that you already have the close physical contact needed to establish a grapple, like the GRABBED aspect. The fact that your reversal has to breach the opponents grapple (and defense?) to have any chance of working is a rather significant disadvantage over the initial grapple that only had to overcome your defense.
Also, as a side note, I thought the aspect used to justify the grapple still gave the +2? The examples I've found in the book seem to indicate that.
-
Being grabbed and grappled is a disadvantage. The whole point of grappling someone is to put them at a disadvantage. Just having "close contact" isn't, in my opinion, enough to justify setting a grapple. The aspect that helps initiate a grapple has to narratively justify the idea that you're grabbing and restraining someone. Just being close to one another wouldn't cut it, in my opinion, and if you're already being grabbed and restrained, as the target of a grapple, you're generally not going to be able to reverse it without particular training (the stunt), or if the other guy's sloppy (declaring "he has NO TECHNIQUE" instead of "We're close to one another").
And as I understand it, no, the tag just lets you establish the grapple, it doesn't give you the +2. And initiating the grapple doesn't have to get past your defense--there's no defense roll against a block; the block is established, and then you have to break it.
-
Just a thought, but perhaps using Might to attempt to break a Grapple is an attempt to place an aspect on yourself, like "Free and Clear", or on the grappler, like "Lifted off His Feet", representing using Might toward getting out of the grapple and having some positive outcome from it. Narratively you were trying to get out of the grapple, but in a Meta sense you're rolling an attempt to do something that represents your freedom from GrappleTown.
-
As for the terminology, none of you guys have wrestled, have you? Grappling doesn't solely mean pinned to the ground. It could mean that the thug has just grabbed Harry's wrist and throat. Or has his arms pinned in a bearhug. "Grappling" just means grabbing the guy, there's dozens of different ways this could happen, not all of them having to put the guy on the ground first. Think of Metal Gear Solid. Any time you grab a guy in a choke hold is a grapple block without having him already on the ground.
I find it odd that you have this view of grappling, and yet feel that a grapple should hinder a defense. My point was all about the fact that we're assuming that a grapple means complete and total control over the other person, when I would think it's considerably less effective. Like grabbing someone in general (not having them in a lock or similarly controlling position).
For example, I'm a thug and I grab some person by the wrist. They are grappled. They still have plenty of room to maneuver in though, considering the length of my arm, their arm and the fact that I'm probably not rooted to the ground.
If someone's a speedster, and their bread and butter is acrobatically leaping and running about to avoid attacks with their Epic speed rating, then yes, someone grabbing him and holding him down really ought to keep them from leaping and running about to dodge.
This is what I'm talking about. We should explore this exact example but in mechanical detail. I grapple this person on my action. I have a hold on them, but the assumption that they are instantly "held down" is a false one. During the next turn it does not effect their defense because they are free to maneuver, but not quite as much as they might normally be capable (no moving to other zones) because they are grabbed. On my next turn I use a supplemental action to put the aspect "Held down" or "Pinned" and I tag it for effect. Now it does effect their defense, mechanically because they are compelled, but also because the narrative states that they are "Held down."
There's nothing in the rulebooks saying that breaking the grapple is only the side effect of another action--and as I pointed out, in the book's example, Harry's action that breaks the grapple is only described as doing that: He's not sprinting to another zone, or putting a maneuver on his attacker, he's just using Athletics to slink out of the hold. It's like a counterspell--it's a very specific usage of the skill, but I see no reason it would be invalid.
If you look at the example Harry is actually counter-maneuvering to escape the grapple. He is using an athletics maneuver to remove the aspect "Pinned." Since the mechanical impact isn't as important they simply didn't focus on that fact. But since the person will likely already have the aspect used to initiate the grapple they would also be able to escape a grapple in such a manner. The only weirdness is if they used a fragile aspect. Then the grapple would actually be a little more difficult to get out of.
-
I'm more or less in agreement with you on the first two bits, since I've abandoned the "grapple strength as block against defense" position. Yes, the initial grapple wouldn't affect the defense--the grappler would have to spend their supplemental action to really pin the guy down to actually do it. Though I'd argue that just grabbing a wrist might not be good enough for a grapple, but that sort of thing is probably left up to the strength of the rolls and how the GM and players narrate it (grabbing a wrist might be the result of a Fair grapple roll, while a Superb one might be a headlock, for example).
As for the last bit, I'll have to recheck the rule book, because I seem to be remembering it differently. That said, I still don't see why Might can't be used just to escape the grapple. Sure, you wouldn't get any other effect aside from that, but getting free of a grapple to start fresh is a viable move on its own. If just maneuvering to remove an aspect is a viable action (you take a full action just to remove a disadvantage), why using the skill used for grappling to break a grapple (taking a full action to remove yourself from a disadvantaged position) not?
Related question: What about a third party breaking the grapple? Say, in the book example, Billy Borden is there and decks the thug--does that break the grapple? Does Billy have to overcome the grapple's strength to break it (after all, it's a block specifically on Harry)?
And what about just really bad rolls? Say the thug in the example, with an apparent Might score of 3, rolls abysmally and ends up with a -1. That'd automatically break the grapple, right?
-
And what about just really bad rolls? Say the thug in the example, with an apparent Might score of 3, rolls abysmally and ends up with a -1. That'd automatically break the grapple, right?
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
None of these options is particularly appealing to Harry.
Well, no. But when does Harry ever get appealing options?
-
Well, no. But when does Harry ever get appealing options?
Rarely, yes. But even those options usually end up biting him in the a**.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Indeed, RAW does not allow this. An ambush isn't a block, it's an ambush.
A block is an action made to prevent someone from doing something, with the roll result being the difficulty the target has to overcome. An ambush starts with an action made to prevent someone from detecting you, with the Stealth roll result being the difficulty the target has to pass to overcome it. Sounds like a block to me.
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.
Mostly mirroring the wording of the Ambush rules, but I also meant that the roll to break the block would be in addition to the actual dodge roll (so you might roll to break the block with Might or Fists, then if successful use Athletics).
-
There is no dodge roll against a block. Blocks don't work that way.
And while ambushes are similar to blocks, they are not the same thing. Lemons and limes are both citrus fruit, but one's a lemon and the other's a lime.
-
You make some interesting points Death, but it's not an interpretation of the rules that we're talking about, it's direct RAW.
When you create
a block, the block has to be specific and clear in
two ways: who it’s intended to affect, and what
types of action (attack, block, maneuver, move)
it’s trying to prevent. Generally speaking, if the
block can affect more than one person, it can
only prevent one type of action. If the block only
affects one person, it can prevent several types of
action—up to all of them—as context permits.
You can’t use a block to prevent someone from
making a defense roll.
-
That passage is talking about preventing someone from rolling at all. That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that it would lower what the roll is made from, not that it would stop you from rolling.
@Sanctaphrax: Where did I say anything about a dodge roll against a block?
-
Sanctaphrax is right by the raw you can't block defences rolls, (though you could rules lawyer it by stating your blocking a skill, aka athletics whilst still leaving the target other options for defence). Though I agree with you the main point of a grapple in media is either to knock the enemy unconscious (better done with a direct attack) or to hold them down for someone else to beat on (can't be done with the current rules) making the grapple rules a bit sub par in my opinion.
-
Mostly mirroring the wording of the Ambush rules, but I also meant that the roll to break the block would be in addition to the actual dodge roll (so you might roll to break the block with Might or Fists, then if successful use Athletics).
Given that you said that you were mirroring the ambush rules, I assumed that you meant to allow two chances to defend. Because that's how ambushes work.
And given that no block can ever prevent a roll, I'm pretty sure that sinker is interpreting correctly. I'm prepared to reinterpret the word making to prove that may opinion is RAW if necessary.
-
Two things, firstly having someone defend at zero (I.E. without the benefit of their defense roll) is preventing a defense roll. I don't know how you could be more clear. If you are suggesting that they would still get a roll, but not the benefit of their skill then you're just making rules up (which isn't a bad thing, just isn't something you can stand on in a rules discussion), because nothing else does that (maybe a maneuver/invoke for effect, but that's not enumerated in the rules either).
Secondly if you read the earlier part of the passage (I included it intentionally) it states that a block must prevent an action. A defense is not an action, but is actually a part of the opponent's attack.
-
If you are suggesting that they would still get a roll, but not the benefit of their skill then you're just making rules up (which isn't a bad thing, just isn't something you can stand on in a rules discussion), because nothing else does that (maybe a maneuver/invoke for effect, but that's not enumerated in the rules either).
Ambushes do exactly that, as I said.
Secondly if you read the earlier part of the passage (I included it intentionally) it states that a block must prevent an action. A defense is not an action, but is actually a part of the opponent's attack.
Alright, fair enough.
-
You can block skills veils are a block vs alertness. They also happen to represent a block against a non-direct action (seeing).
-
Ambushes do exactly that, as I said.
Ahh, you're right, my apologies. Shows how often I use the ambush rules.
They also happen to represent a block against a non-direct action (seeing).
....Seeing is still an action taken on your part though. Strictly speaking you decide to roll perception (though we mitigate the necessity to roll constantly by having the GM tell us when it is pertinent), you do not decide to roll defense.
-
Ahh, you're right, my apologies. Shows how often I use the ambush rules.
....Seeing is still an action taken on your part though. Strictly speaking you decide to roll perception (though we mitigate the necessity to roll constantly by having the GM tell us when it is pertinent), you do not decide to roll defense.
If that is the case then you can't choose not to defend which is just silly. Also seeing is mostly passive rather than an action ( you can do it without it taking up your turn or requiring a roll).
-
But it's actually the way it works. Think about it, your defense is necessary for an attack to be resolved. You can't determine stress dealt unless there is a number to compare the attack to. You can choose how you defend, or to defend at zero, but you can never choose not to defend.
-
But it's actually the way it works. Think about it, your defense is necessary for an attack to be resolved. You can't determine stress dealt unless there is a number to compare the attack to. You can choose how you defend, or to defend at zero, but you can never choose not to defend.
But your description is rather silly. If I want to be hit, I should "not defend" against getting hit.
Let's say I'm an actor in one of those old-timey movies. My costar throws a banana cream pie at me. I want to be hit by it. How would I do this if not for "not defending" myself?
I am going to offer no resistance to the outcome.
-
It's the way it's described in the book. A while back we had a discussion about this very same topic and I went looking for a description of defense. You want to know the only place it describes defending? Under attacks. Specifically under resolving attacks. You can't resolve an attack without a defense of some kind.
Let's say I'm an actor in one of those old-timey movies. My costar throws a banana cream pie at me. I want to be hit by it. How would I do this if not for "not defending" myself?
You would choose to defend at zero. You still have to have a number to compare the attack to. Although if you want to get technical he's not attacking you. His goal isn't to cause you stress, it's to effect another target through comedy. You and he together are probably making unresisted maneuvers to increase the quality of the film.
-
A better example for that would be one of those, "Give me a black eye so it doesn't look like I gave up without a fight," deals, like Mal talking to the bank guard at the start of Serenity.
-
Even that's...odd since the goal still isn't to take you out. My bet would still be on the maneuver to effect a third party.
-
Or maybe some kind of reverse crafting/consequential contest roll. You want to create a Moderate consequence, and have to roll a certain difficulty to shoot the person exactly right so that it looks convincing, but a failed roll botches it into a Severe or worse consequence?
Though it would just be weird that a lower Guns roll might result in a higher level of consequence.
-
Lately I've been thinking of consequences more as narrative armor, so in that case I think the maneuver is more appropriate. Making someone significantly reduce their effectiveness for a little believability is a little more than I would usually require. Though I guess in some circumstances I might call for a consequence instead (like if it needed to be a gunshot wound instead of a black eye).
-
Yeah, it would depend on the situation, but that's splitting hairs, really. A consequential contest is still kinda a maneuver inasmuch as it creates a temporary aspect on the target, just a more, um, extreme one.
Most situations I can think of where you're trying to get hit (or at least not avoiding it) tend to be while you're trying to do something else--convincing someone you resisted, blocking someone else from being hit, that sort of thing, which you would probably be better off modeling as a roll to attempt that thing, with getting hit as a separate consequence.