[TG] A takes down B, who has grappled C - loses grip?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Spitballing here, but maybe roll a Quick Contest for a Takedown of B on C, but at -6 as if they're doing a Rapid Strike. If they fail, they lose their grip; if they succeed, C goes down with.

Oh hey, since this is a TG thread, wouldn't it be Force Posture Change now?

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by Plane

Oh hey, since this is a TG thread, wouldn't it be Force Posture Change now?

Yes. Event though there are several ways to perform a "takedown", and that A may do either a Sweep, Judo Throw, Throw from Lock, og Force Posture Change - I think the thing B must do in order to keep his grapple on C *must* be a Force Posture Change.

[Varyon]

As B can stabilize himself with his grip on C, while A’s actions risk loosening said grip, another possibility would be to allow B to retroactively spend CP from his grapple on C to resist the takedown. Successfully resisting means he manages to keep his grip, bringing C down with him, but loses the retroactively-spent CP and falls anyway. So, if he has a 10 CP grip, and would have outright avoided the takedown by spending 6 CP before rolling, he maintains a 4 CP grip and brings C down with him. If C had any CP on B from the mutual grapple, I’d let those apply one-for-one to negate the CP B retroactively spent to resist the takedown (above, if C had a 4 CP grip, he could spend all 4 to reduce B’s grip to 0 CP; if he had 5 or more, he could break free of B’s grapple during the takedown).

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Yes. Event though there are several ways to perform a "takedown", and that A may do either a Sweep, Judo Throw, Throw from Lock, og Force Posture Change - I think the thing B must do in order to keep his grapple on C *must* be a Force Posture Change.

Yes, Force Posture Change. I was using the more-casual language.

[Ultraviolet]

I was posting a reply yesterday morning, but the system ate it. I am now sufficiently un-annoyed to try again.

I'm wondering if the fact that B has a grapple on C affects A's attempt at Force Posture Change?
Is B harder to take down, because he is holding on to C? If C is resisting and pulling back, does A have to pull them both down at a penalty? Is this an instance where Grappling Enc comes intpo play? I'd hate to, because this takes time to figure out.

To check to see if A does this, or if his pull breaks B's hold on C, we've established that B if forced to make an out-of -sequence FPC as a Rapid Strike (-6). THis is only a skill penalty, his ST is not penalized by this. Although the CP of A's grapple on B does affect this.

But because this is a wierd situation, should B's CP on C in any way affect A's FPC? Does it matter if B has a weak grip (1 or even 0 CP) or maxed out to his Trained ST? It would be easier not to, but I can't grasp if it should.

But what if C isn't resisting, but in fact intending to help A's FPC by voluntarily going down? If you allow teamwork, without C needing to have come first in the sequence and called Wait, C would normally be allowed to spend any CP of his own in B. But if he doesn't have any, does anything he does affect A in any way? How about the FPC modifier for going down voluntarily?

What if things were done differently?
If A performs FPC on B, who wants to keep his hold on C, who in turn wants to remain standing...What if A, if his FPC succeeds, instead rolls a Break Free on behalf on C on B's grapple on C?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

I was posting a reply yesterday morning, but the system ate it. I am now sufficiently un-annoyed to try again.

I'm wondering if the fact that B has a grapple on C affects A's attempt at Force Posture Change?
Is B harder to take down, because he is holding on to C? If C is resisting and pulling back, does A have to pull them both down at a penalty? Is this an instance where Grappling Enc comes intpo play? I'd hate to, because this takes time to figure out.

To check to see if A does this, or if his pull breaks B's hold on C, we've established that B if forced to make an out-of -sequence FPC as a Rapid Strike (-6). THis is only a skill penalty, his ST is not penalized by this. Although the CP of A's grapple on B does affect this.

But because this is a wierd situation, should B's CP on C in any way affect A's FPC? Does it matter if B has a weak grip (1 or even 0 CP) or maxed out to his Trained ST? It would be easier not to, but I can't grasp if it should.

But what if C isn't resisting, but in fact intending to help A's FPC by voluntarily going down? If you allow teamwork, without C needing to have come first in the sequence and called Wait, C would normally be allowed to spend any CP of his own in B. But if he doesn't have any, does anything he does affect A in any way? How about the FPC modifier for going down voluntarily?

What if things were done differently?
If A performs FPC on B, who wants to keep his hold on C, who in turn wants to remain standing...What if A, if his FPC succeeds, instead rolls a Break Free on behalf on C on B's grapple on C?

Ultimately, this didn't come up in the playtest. There are probably a few ways to deal with it:

1) Ignore it. Just do what you need on a one-on-one basis.

2) Treat everyone as grappling everyone else, and if A wants to impact B but not C, B has to explicitly allow it. Otherwise, A has to overwhelm the control points B has on C at the same time he does whatever he does (FPC) to B in order to do what he wants. If C has CP on B to spend during the contest, he can probably do so. The short version of this is "let Control Points be the only thing that matters."

3) Everyone's still grappling everyone else, but now you look at weight, grappling encumbrance, etc. This is probably the most "realistic" way to do it. I will also note that grappling encumbrance appears nowhere in Fantastic Dungeon Grappling for a darn good reason.

[Black Leviathan]

I don't think B is in a position where his grip magically erodes just because his feet go out from under him. In the case of Roman Wrestlers splaying their stance for leverage on an opponent, finding their feet suddenly above their head means that grapple is in jeopardy. But a land-squid with 4 tentacles wrapped around their target isn't going to be flustered in the least by having two of their tentacles swept.

I think if you're grappling a target and fail a knock-down from something happening outside of your turn, you go "down" and your grappled target also makes a check versus knockdown. If you fail and they succeed your grapple is lost. If they fail you're both prone in with the grapple sustained but you lose any CP accumulated and they get a.. i dunno +2 in their following turn to break the grapple? You've lost a lot of leverage and probably aren't holding them as secure as you were before.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Yes. Event though there are several ways to perform a "takedown", and that A may do either a Sweep, Judo Throw, Throw from Lock, og Force Posture Change - I think the thing B must do in order to keep his grapple on C *must* be a Force Posture Change.

I'm not sure about sweeps but I'm pretty sure I remember something about being able to maintain a grapple on a thrown opponent as long as you are in a posture to maintain a grapple on a specific part.

For someone thrown on the ground, that's probably going to require at least crouching (if not kneeling) to maintain a grip on a torso/head unless you have some kind of arm-stretching ability. You might be able to remain standing if maintaining a grapple on a foot though since the leg is a reach 1 weapon.

Originally Posted by Varyon

As B can stabilize himself with his grip on C, while A’s actions risk loosening said grip, another possibility would be to allow B to retroactively spend CP from his grapple on C to resist the takedown.

Sounds like a good idea. If you have an iron grip on someone then you can basically use them like an additional leg?

Sort of like how it ought to be slightly harder to do a takedown on someone who has a cane planted on the ground to help them keep their balance. I don't think TG covered that.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Plane

Sort of like how it ought to be slightly harder to do a takedown on someone who has a cane planted on the ground to help them keep their balance. I don't think TG covered that.

See Stability, p.10 and extrapolate.

[Ultraviolet]

I would rather use just CP than try to figure out Grappling Enc. For some things I may still want to use that, for instance for Pickups or Weight Advantage, but otherwise not.

My initial point was to figure out if it makes any difference whether B has 0 or 20 CP on C, when A pulls him down.

If B is using his grip on C to stabilize himself, to make himself harder for pull down for A, then maybe B should be able to use CP he has on C for this?
I'm thinking maybe on a 2:1 basis, because it should be worse than using CP he may have had on A.

So A's attempt at FPC on B gets harder, because B resists better, by holding on to C.

If A still succeeds, I still want to figure out if B still has the grapple and if C is pulled down or not. And I want it to matter how good a grip B has on C

Ideally I'd like A's FPC roll to decide the matter, rather than adding rolls.

Maybe this:

*A attempts FPC on B, who has a grapple on C
*B decides whether to let go of C. If not
*If not: B decides whether to spend any of his CP from C to resist A, +1 QC per 2 CP spent
*C decides whether to help A or resist B
*If help A: Add bonus to A's FPC roll for C's posture change (at least as much as A it attempting on B)
*If resist: B is forced to make a Rapid Strike FPC on C.
*If succesful: C is pulled with B down, B keeps grapple on C
*If failure: C remains standing, B loses grapple on C