Grabs (M&M 3e)

This is the catch-all forum, for Mutants & Masterminds threads that you're not quite sure where to put.
Kinematics
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Kinematics »

Warning: long


I've been wrestling with the rules regarding grabs (sorry, bad pun) for a bit, trying to make sense of them. It finally occurred to me that the issue is that the grab mechanic is attempting to incorporate two (possibly three) separate concepts into a single action.

Breaking things down, this is my current view on the progression of actions:

1) Attacker attempts to grab. This would be grab skill vs target's parry (if close range/similar size) or dodge (long range or dissimilar sizes, such as a giant attempting to grab a smaller creature) to succeed.

If the attacker succeeds, the target is grabbed. Grabbed state remains until the target successfully escapes. No other restrictions are (yet) applied to the target, whereas the attacker can now use grab-based attacks (which must make normal attack checks of their own at this point).

2) If the intent of the grab was for subdual or restraint, the defender may now make a str resistance check. If the resistance check succeeds, nothing else happens; the target remains in a grabbed state, but is not otherwise affected (ie: they can still use standard defenses against further attacks). If the target fails the resistance check then they may now be under a hindered or immobile affliction status. If so, then the attacker automatically succeeds on additional attack checks until the target successfully resists the restraint, or escapes the grab (two entirely separate effects, though escaping the grab implicitly removes the restraint).



Example:

Jimmy Olsen (foolishly) grabs Superman's cape and attempts to drag him into an alley to hide. Superman doesn't notice and continues to walk down the street (dragging Jimmy along with him). Jimmy has successfully grabbed, but has not successfully restrained Superman, who succeeded on the restraint resistance check as a routine action.

Jimmy still has a successful grab effect in place, and may make an attack roll to pound on Superman's back to try to get his attention. Superman notices, and sweeps his cape away, flinging Jimmy to the ground. Superman thus successfully escapes from the grab.

Superman reaches down and picks Jimmy up by the shirt collar. He has successfully grabbed Jimmy. Jimmy's struggles against Superman's grip are for naught, and he fails the restraint resistance check. He is thus now both grabbed and immobile (hanging in the air), so any attacks Superman made against him would automatically hit.

Jimmy decides he doesn't really need his shirt, and shimmies out of it, dropping from Superman's immediate grasp. He has escaped the grab, and thus also negated the immobile affliction.



The issue is a couple character concepts where the hero wants to be able to grab a target, and may want to use grab-based attacks on the target, but is not even vaguely attempting to restrain the target. Given that the hero concepts are low-strength, any high-strength target (ie: the very types they are likely to -want- to grab onto), or targets with average or better dodge, get trivial, near-automatic neutralization of the grab simply by virtue of the mechanics allowing them a resistance check against an effect that isn't even being attempted in the first place.

Think along the lines of Spiderman grabbing hold of Juggernaut while attempting to remove his helmet. Any strength resistance check by Juggernaut will wipe the floor with Spidey, making the very idea of a grab nonsensical under current mechanics. Another example would be Wesley vs Fezzik in The Princess Bride. Wesley grabs Fezzik, and then proceeds to a chokehold, because a straight strength-vs-strength test would be an instant loss for him. However he doesn't attempt to restrain Fezzik, and takes the damage Fezzik can dish out due to not being restricted in how he can move (though restricted in which movements can target Wesley).


So the question is, am I thinking about this right? Everything in the rules seems to assume that a grab must necessarily be combined with a grapple/restraint action as well. (Though the rule on Chokehold requires that you both grab -and- restrain the target, implying at least a subtle understanding of the individual elements involved.)

There seem to be a number of comments about grabs being overpowered without that extra resistance check, but I wonder if that's because they're combining two actions in one? Or is there something else about the grab itself (without an accompanying restraint) that is unbalanced without an additional resistance check?



Mechanics-wise, it seems like it would work as:

1) Grab check: standard grab bonus (grab skill + combat attack + fighting) vs active defense (dodge or parry, as appropriate). Effect rank of success is added to the difficulty of escaping the grab.

2) Grapple check (ie: attempt to restrain the target): any one of defender's: str, dodge or parry (character and situation-dependant) vs the attacker's str or dex, depending on the type of grapple being attempted (eg: Hulk str or Batman martial arts), using a simple opposed check. (Might possibly use fighting as the resistance stat instead of dex, though.)

Grabbing Finesse would determine the type of grapple attempted. Without it, it would be pure strength; with it, it's martial arts/police subdual/etc.

For dodge vs parry, I assume that for these purposes dodge means just squirming around to make it difficult to hold on, while parry means applying actual fighting skill to counter the attacker's moves. Either is fine to use.

The target could also use the Defensive Attack maneuver to gain an extra +5 on their resistance check vs the grappling restraint. A character with 15 dodge and going full defensive would be almost impossible to pin down, as would seem appropriate.



The Grab check is a move action (similar to the Escape check). If successful, you then are also moved whereever/whenever the grab target moves, as long as it's feasible (eg: If you grabbed a teleporter, you'll move with them every time they teleport, as long as their teleport can transport your weight. If it can't, it might prevent their teleport from working, or reduce its range to compensate.) Would also allow things like Hulk vs Hulk standoffs, where neither can get away from the other, but neither is actually 'restrained', either.

Grapple check is a standard action. As long as you maintain the grab, you can re-attempt the grapple check each round until you succeed, if that's what you want to use your action for. You can also use it on an already grappled target to improve the hold. The defender gets a resistance reaction on any grapple attempt.

The defender can attempt an escape (from the grab) as a move action, or actively fight against a current grapple as a standard action (reducing its effect until you're merely grabbed).

Since the initial grab is a move action, while the grapple is a standard action, the grappler would also need to start at close proximity to the target in order to complete the grapple in one action, as opposed to the current design which allows a separate move action before the grab/grapple, which is entirely completed in one standard action. Not sure how much of an impact that would have on the overall balance.


A grabbed, but not restrained target can move normally on their action, if they don't attempt to escape (though may occasionally have circumstance penalties, such as 'carrying' a great deal of weight if the grabber is especially heavy). Movement in that case is a str contest (assuming standard walking) if the attacker doesn't wish to move with the target, or potentially other contests vs other movement types. They are also free to attack the grabber (though again, possibly with circumstance/cover penalties, depending on how the grabbing is done; Spiderman on Juggernaut's back would have a substantial amount of cover).


A strong character (12 str) grabs a target, and attempts to restrain. Assuming they maxed out their grab skill and either got a decent Grab roll or did a power attack to enhance it, they might end up with a +3 effect bonus, for +15 total on the opposed check.

In order to balance the math, I'd probably say that the restraint has a base challenge value of +5 (ie: something like a circumstantial bonus for having already completed the grab). Thus the above grab attempt would have a DC 20 for the target to resist against. IE: it should be a challenging, though not insurmountable feat, for most characters (~10 dodge). If they go defensive, they should succeed most of the time.



Now, a fully restrained character is 'vulnerable' -- that is, their active defenses (dodge and parry) are halved. This seems like a potential balance issue, in that once grappled, the ability to escape the grapple is severely reduced. However there appears to again be two separate factors here: the ability to (say) dodge a fire bolt aimed at the character while he can't move (dodge is halved) and the ability to use dodge to escape the grapple itself.

In the case of the latter, it seems logical to consider that, to the same extent that the grappler does not need to roll to hit the target, the target doesn't need any exceptional degree of freedom to work on escaping the grapple. In other words, while dodge and parry are halved vs outside attacks, they should be at full strength when used to resist the grapple.

I'd probably also only allow a max of 1 degree of success on a grapple attempt, though. First success is always Immobile, and you need to attempt an improvement to increase the condition to Vulnerable. Doing that, allowing a Vulnerable grapple state to restrict dodge/parry vs the grapple itself may be more viable, since they'd have to have failed to resist twice before they'd actually start being limited by that aspect.


I'd likely adjust Improved Grab (the ability to manage a grab with only one hand) to be limited to one degree of success -- you can make the target immobile, but not vulnerable, unless you use both hands.


On the escape side, the book says the difficulty is the attacker's strength or grab effect rank. Given the horribly ambiguous terminology used in the game, I'm guessing that the "grab effect rank" is another way of stating "a DC target of 10 + 5 * degrees of success on the grab attempt". Given that that has a minimum value of 15 (since it necessarily succeeded if we're attempting an escape), allowing str as an alternate target value seems silly, so I'm just going to ignore that. Might want to add 5 * current grapple effect rank to it, though.

Since it's fairly hard to get better than 3 degrees of success against an average dodge/parry value, that puts the typical top end difficulty of escaping the grab at 25, which is an appropriate difficulty range. If you add the grapple effect to it, that increases to (potentially) the 30-35 range, making escape impractical; you'd want to work on reducing the grapple effect first before trying to escape.



Anyway, I've taken this much farther than I originally intended, but I still want to know whether this all seems sensible.

Kinematics
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Kinematics »

Addendum: I'd spent all day working on this, reading as many threads as I could find discussing this part of the system, and not two minutes after posting I find a bit that points out I made a couple mistakes in my understanding of the current mechanics.

1) Afflictions when grabbed under the current system are hindered+vulnerable for the first tier, not hindered for the first tier and vulnerable for the second. Given that, I'd keep the adjustment that vulnerable doesn't apply to the resistance check against the grapple itself, and that defenseless (second+ tier of a grapple effect) be counted as vulnerable when attempting to resist the grapple.

The idea of allowing only one tier of effect per grapple attempt then doesn't impact the rendering of the status afflictions.

2) With considerations of multiple effect tiers of the grapple, and the ideas of varying effects in limiting the actions of the defender, I would consider moving the defenseless/etc effects up to a third tier effect, and make second tier give the option of applying one significant limitation on the actions of the defender -- pinned arms, covered mouth, covered eyes, etc., or possibly bring into play a threat, such as a knife to the throat.

3) I'd left out consideration of how Elongation and Extra Limbs impact things. Initial inclination: Elongation helps with the grapple, but not the grab. Extra Limbs helps with the grab, but not the grapple. That would imply Extra Limbs adds to the grab check, and is PL limited, while Elongation adds to the resistance difficulty, probably at rank/2 (rounded down), with a max of +5.

4) A whole bunch more thoughts came to mind on limitations or enhancements on the ability to escape the grab (eg: deception + slight-of-hand; if the defender has a higher str than the grappler; etc), but overall that seems to be getting overcomplicated in terms of describing things here, and best just dealt with as it comes up in game.

Hellhound
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:11 pm
Location: México

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Hellhound »

Kinematics wrote:
If the attacker succeeds, the target is grabbed. Grabbed state remains until the target successfully escapes. No other restrictions are (yet) applied to the target, whereas the attacker can now use grab-based attacks (which must make normal attack checks of their own at this point).
Grab in Chapter 8 Action & Adventure

"You attempt to grab a target. Make an attack check against the target. If successful, the target makes a resistance check against your Strength (or the rank of a grabbing effect) using the better of Strength or Dodge. If you win with one degree of success, the target is restrained (immobile and vulnerable). Two or more degrees leave your opponent bound (defenseless, immobile, and impaired).
You can attempt to improve an existing hold with another grab action on a following turn. Any resulting degrees of success are cumulative, but if you lose, the target escapes."

So even if the attacker succeeds the target is not grabbed until he makes a resistance check and failed, if the target wins the resistance check he is no longer grabbed.
The treachery of demons is nothing compared to the betrayal of an angel.

Kinematics
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Kinematics »

Yes, I realize that's what the book says. However the book seems to necessarily require that any grab attempt -also- be a grapple attempt, whereas I was trying to show that those are two separate concepts.

Also, that there are two different ways to escape a grab/grapple: the resistance check on initiation of the grab, and an escape check on additional rounds. However the resistance check seems to be explicitly about resisting the afflictions that grab inflicts (via its grappling aspect), whereas the escape check is vs the grab effect rank (ie: the initial grab skill check, not the affliction resistance check).

Overall, the rules seem to be conflating two separate concepts into one, while hindering the ability to use things in a more dynamic manner in game. I'm trying to get feedback on that overall view -- whether it makes sense, whether it seems a more reasonable approach, whether I'm missing any specific exploits on how that would work, etc.

cochramd
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:20 am

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by cochramd »

Ultimately, the grappling system is a simplification of something that is very complicated. If you can't accept the simplification, then either work out house rules with the GM or find a different system.

That said, there are some more creative ways to get out of a grapple without house ruling. For example, say you're being grabbed. On your turn you prepare an action that will go off when foe the grabbing you inflicts his strength bonus in damage on you. When that happens, you go limp and make a Deceive check. If it succeeds, then the foe will think he's defeated you and will probably release you from the grab. If I were the GM I'd consider that a completely legitimate way to get out of a grab, and I'll bet most other people would too.

saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by saint_matthew »

Kinematics wrote:Jimmy Olsen (foolishly) grabs Superman's cape and attempts to drag him into an alley to hide. Superman doesn't notice and continues to walk down the street (dragging Jimmy along with him). Jimmy has successfully grabbed, but has not successfully restrained Superman, who succeeded on the restraint resistance check as a routine action.

Jimmy still has a successful grab effect in place, and may make an attack roll to pound on Superman's back to try to get his attention. Superman notices, and sweeps his cape away, flinging Jimmy to the ground. Superman thus successfully escapes from the grab.
your issue seems to be one of nomenclature. By definition Jimmy has not made a successful grab attempt. Firstly what you are describing is not a grab attempt, its simply putting your hands on someone, which does not require any kind of roll unless the character is specifically trying to avoid being touched (as is normal for combat, which then requires attack rolls).

Secondly he's not made a successful grab check at all, since a grab immobilises the person grabbed. Your issue seems to be that what you are describing is not the mechanical grab.
Kinematics wrote:Superman reaches down and picks Jimmy up by the shirt collar. He has successfully grabbed Jimmy. Jimmy's struggles against Superman's grip are for naught, and he fails the restraint resistance check. He is thus now both grabbed and immobile (hanging in the air), so any attacks Superman made against him would automatically hit.

Jimmy decides he doesn't really need his shirt, and shimmies out of it, dropping from Superman's immediate grasp. He has escaped the grab, and thus also negated the immobile affliction.
The GM may want to explain it that way if Jimmy makes his dodge check to escape. In fact if I had a player who described the grab like that I would actually make it an automatic success, but that's because I use the system as an engine to tell a story, rather than playing the system.
Kinematics wrote:The issue is a couple character concepts where the hero wants to be able to grab a target, and may want to use grab-based attacks on the target, but is not even vaguely attempting to restrain the target.
Then its not a grab attempt. Grab is a mechanical system, if you aren't trying to do what grab does, you aren't grabbing.
Kinematics wrote:Think along the lines of Spiderman grabbing hold of Juggernaut while attempting to remove his helmet. Any strength resistance check by Juggernaut will wipe the floor with Spidey, making the very idea of a grab nonsensical under current mechanics.
It would also be nonsensical under the story constraints as well & so its achieved its goal of emulating the comics. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what you salient complaint is at this point. Maybe I missed something.
Kinematics wrote:Everything in the rules seems to assume that a grab must necessarily be combined with a grapple/restraint action as well.
It doesn't assume that you are combining them, because there is nothing to combine... Grab is what you are referrinf to as grapple, since grab is a mechanical condition in which one grapples for a specific mechanical outcome. If one is not going for that outcome, one is not grabbing.
Kinematics wrote:There seem to be a number of comments about grabs being overpowered without that extra resistance check,
An those people would be wrong. Not only can you use either Dodge or Strength to attempt to escape a grab, you can also use your dexterity if you've got the right advantage for it, or the acrobatics or athletics skill.

I'm going to skip the rest because I'm pretty sure I've found your issue with the presumption that grab & grapple are two different things... They aren't. Grab is a mechanical concept, not to be mistaken with things that are not mechanically grab. If one is not trying to do the thing that grab is mechanically doing, than one is not by definition grabbing.
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

FuzzyBoots
Cosmic Entity
Cosmic Entity
Posts: 9719
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 10:15 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by FuzzyBoots »

saint_matthew wrote:
Kinematics wrote:The issue is a couple character concepts where the hero wants to be able to grab a target, and may want to use grab-based attacks on the target, but is not even vaguely attempting to restrain the target.
Then its not a grab attempt. Grab is a mechanical system, if you aren't trying to do what grab does, you aren't grabbing.
I'd argue that it might simply be a valid choice of grab options ("I don't want to try to restrain him or prevent his movement, just to be taken along for the ride"). But it would fall under a house rule category (personally, I'd allow for it, and even allow it to bypass Size bonuses when grappling for that purpose, the ever-popular "cling to the giant robot" tactic).

Kinematics
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Kinematics »

cochramd wrote:That said, there are some more creative ways to get out of a grapple without house ruling. For example, say you're being grabbed. On your turn you prepare an action that will go off when foe the grabbing you inflicts his strength bonus in damage on you. When that happens, you go limp and make a Deceive check. If it succeeds, then the foe will think he's defeated you and will probably release you from the grab. If I were the GM I'd consider that a completely legitimate way to get out of a grab, and I'll bet most other people would too.
Indeed, I alluded to something similar to that at the end of my second post -- using deception and sleight-of-hand to escape. But as I said, that's starting to get into the more particular and circumstantial details of the different ways things can be done, and getting out of scope of the more general concept of what I was trying to discuss.
cochramd wrote:Ultimately, the grappling system is a simplification of something that is very complicated. If you can't accept the simplification, then either work out house rules with the GM or find a different system.
Yes, grappling as a whole can be quite complex, and I definitely understand the desire to simplify it as much as possible, to the same degree that doing damage to someone is largely simplified down to a roll of whether you hit, and a roll of how much damage was done. Or, from a more abstract level: did you succeed in what you attempted to do, and what sort of effect did your action have on the target?

My question largely hinges on whether this simplification is simply for the sake of simplification (and specifically whether it was simplified -too- much), or simplification for the sake of game balance. It's not a matter of 'accepting' it, it's a matter of understanding it. I know the system was changed between 2E and 3E, but since I never used 2E I have nothing to compare against; thus the questions, "Does this make sense?"; "Is this a reasonable approach?"; "Is this exploitable?"; etc.

I went into a great deal of detail on my perspective so that I could be completely clear about what I meant, in as explicit a manner as I could, so as not to muddy the issue with ambiguities while still trying to keep things as simple as possible (though saint_matthew still doesn't seem to have quite grasped the difference between system terms and abstract descriptions).
saint_matthew wrote:your issue seems to be one of nomenclature
Despite a poor grasp of abstract conceptualization on saint_matthew's part, I think this is ultimately the answer with respect to the current system. That is, poor choice of terminology on the game's part causing a conflation of concepts: Grab skill has nothing to do with grabbing, and is solely about grappling/restraint.

Separating the concept from the term, I can see that what I described as 'grab' could perhaps be handled by athletics or acrobatics instead, though it annoys me to not be using the skill with the name that exactly matches the conceptual term.
saint_matthew wrote:but that's because I use the system as an engine to tell a story, rather than playing the system
You seem to fail to understand that this issue is -explicitly- about how to tell a story, and having a system that supports easily being able to do so. There are a wide variety of scenarios where a grab (concept, not mechanical term) is what you want to be able to do, but the system forces it to be something else by using the term to identify a different effect than the word itself implies.

Basically, the system terminology forces certain blinders in place: I want to grab. There's a skill called Grab. Why can I not use that skill to do what I want to do? Because the skill doesn't have anything to do with the actual concept of grab.

However, since the concept of grab is closely related to the effect that the Grab skill generates, I got a bit too tied up in how they might be separated while still being extracted from the same skill. By letting go of that, I can summarize a conclusion as follows:

Use the Atheletics or Acrobatics skills to grab.
Use the Grab skill to grapple.

cochramd
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:20 am

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by cochramd »

You're looking waaaay too deeply into this. If Spiderman grabs onto the Juggernaut to try to remove his helmet, then that's just the descriptor portion of his Disarm attempt. If Jimmy Olsen wants to hang onto Superman as he flies away, he makes a Strength or Athletics check to hang on, maybe Superman makes an opposed strength check if he doesn't care to drag Jimmy with him.

Kinematics
Bystander
Bystander
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 4:27 pm

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Kinematics »

While I recognize that that particular example could be interpreted that way, please understand that I'm trying to provide easily recognizable (in the case of Spiderman and The Princess Bride) and simplified (in the case of Superman) examples to illustrate the concept I'm trying to speak of. Reinterpreting one specific example doesn't help in understanding the broader concept.

Spending time thinking hard about it outside the game means I don't have to spend time on it -inside- the game. Spending time interpreting and arbitrating rules inside the game isn't fun.


Further, there are mechanics effects that are implied that may interfere with other rules.


Aside: I really need a better term to use to avoid confusion between the grab concept and the Grab skill/mechanic. From here on I'll use 'Cling' for the grab concept (from FuzzyBoots' comment), and 'Grab' for the game system mechanic. Not the best terminology, but workable for the moment.


For example, in the basic Cling, it's implicit that the user will always move with the target -- ie: they're holding onto the target, so the distance between them can't increase; this is shown in all of the above examples (Spiderman/Juggernaut, Wesley/Fezzik, Jimmy/Superman, and FuzzyBoots' giant robot). That's in conflict with the Grab skill mechanic, which is explicitly the other way around: the target of the Grab is immobile, while the grabber is free to act; thus the attacker can't move in step with the target because the target can't move, whereas the grabber -can- move the target.

A Cling would also explicitly occupy the user's move actions -- holding onto another character means you have no choice about where you move to (though if you fight against it you may be able to reduce the speed with which you are moved). Since Cling would itself be a move action, you're trading your move for the opponent's move (and possibly losing a move of your own, depending on whether disengaging from the hold is a free or move action).

Compare that to using just Disarm to explain the Spiderman/Juggernaut setup -- Spiderman can move, then Disarm, and, in the time he attempts to disarm get -additional- move based on where Juggernaut moved while Spiderman attempted the disarm. Generally not game-breaking, but it's an end-run around the move mechanics.

In a sense, Cling self-inflicts the Immobile status for the duration of the hold, though only relative to the target clung to. Again, the exact opposite of the Grab skill mechanic.

Part of the reason I was trying to explain it in terms of the Grab mechanic is that it looks like it's merely different ends of the same spectrum: the degree to which both the grabber and the grabbee have control over each other's movements, along with additional side-effects depending on the means by which it was accomplished (eg: Vulnerable affliction for the target at the far Grab end, vs additional cover for the user at the far Cling end, vs a completely movement/action deadlock at the center).


I was also encouraged towards this approach by the way the game in general tends towards more abstract concepts. EG: Blast and Strike are just extensions of the base Damage power, and types of damage are just descriptors on each of those individually, etc. In other words, there's usually just a fundamental idea that's being provided by the rules, and you can expand and extend that through more specific manipulations.

saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by saint_matthew »

Edit: glitching out. BRB

Edit: Okay glitch fixed.
Kinematics wrote:I went into a great deal of detail on my perspective so that I could be completely clear about what I meant, in as explicit a manner as I could, so as not to muddy the issue with ambiguities while still trying to keep things as simple as possible (though saint_matthew still doesn't seem to have quite grasped the difference between system terms and abstract descriptions).
There is no difference between the mechanical grab & what you are calling a grapple. It is purely a nomenclature issue you appear to be having. :D
Kinematics wrote:I think this is ultimately the answer with respect to the current system. That is, poor choice of terminology on the game's part causing a conflation of concepts: Grab skill has nothing to do with grabbing, and is solely about grappling/restraint.
Except that the system doesn't conflate anything of the sort. It appears as if the issue here is a preconceived idea of what grab is: Grab is the ability to do something mechanical, if you are not doing that then what you are doing is not "grab." Now what you have to understand is that M&M is an effect based game & grab is a specific effect: If you are not trying to achieve that effect, then you are using a different effect. :D

Grab works exactly as its meant to & requires no house rule to fix, as its not broken. If you want to call grab grapple, so to fix any cognitive dissonance you are having between the name & your conception of the name then please feel free to do so. However as it stands there is nothing wrong with how grab works mechanically.

Green Ronin changed the name of grapple to grab, to distance its self from the balls-up that is D&D 3.5 grapple system which was the base for the grapple for previous editions of M&M.
Last edited by saint_matthew on Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:19 am, edited 9 times in total.
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

Flying Cobra
Zealot
Zealot
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:02 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by Flying Cobra »

:roll:
Last edited by Flying Cobra on Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by saint_matthew »

@Kinematics: Because I forgot before, welcome to the Atomic Think Tank. If you need any help finding anything, please feel free to ask. We are here to help. :D :wink:
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

saint_matthew
Overlord
Overlord
Posts: 4381
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Perth, AUSTRALIA

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by saint_matthew »

cochramd wrote:That said, there are some more creative ways to get out of a grapple without house ruling. For example, say you're being grabbed. On your turn you prepare an action that will go off when foe the grabbing you inflicts his strength bonus in damage on you. When that happens, you go limp and make a Deceive check. If it succeeds, then the foe will think he's defeated you and will probably release you from the grab. If I were the GM I'd consider that a completely legitimate way to get out of a grab, and I'll bet most other people would too.
Nicely played. Of course there is also the possibility of power stunting your way to freedom, or possibly even flying your way to freedom if you have the right descriptor & the GM understands how the game works when played at its optimum level of creativity.

There are a whole plethora of fun ways in which you can get out of a grab & really that's what attracts me to M&M over the other superhero games on the market. But I wouldn't have thought of feigning death as one of them until now.
“Anti-Intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
-Isaac Asimov

cochramd
Groupie
Groupie
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:20 am

Re: Grabs (M&M 3e)

Post by cochramd »

You know, I think I could get behind a homebrewed "Cling" action, but there would have to be some constraints. For example, the Cling action could only be performed on someone that was at least 2 ranks of Growth worth larger than you and strong enough to carry your weight around with penalty, because that would fulfill the genre conventions.

Genre conventions also says that guy being clinged to is often very slow and/or does not caring of smaller, weaker people grabbing onto him, so once the clinger makes his attack roll the clingee doesn't get a resistance check. Should the clingee actually care about someone clinging onro him, he can take a standard action to try to remove the clinger. If he doesn't take that action, then some of actions his will have a low chance of removing the clinger (normal movement, normal attacks) and some of his actions (movements of a superhuman nature, Power Attacking and/or All Out Attacking, crashing through walls) will have higher chances of removing the clinger, possibly chances that are equal or greater than spending a standard action.

And finally, the clinger would use Athletics to stay on, and if the clingee was large enough the clinger would also use Athletics checks to change positions on the clingee.

Locked