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

[Ultraviolet]

Ok, yet another TG question, although this time theoretical rather than from my Cliffhanger campaign.

Fighter A performs a takedown of some kind (a sweep, force posture change from a grapple etc) on Fighter B.

Fighter B already has a grapple on Fighter C. Fighter C doesn't do anything worthwhile in this example, instead of remaining standing.

As I read the rules, B loses his grip on C as he falls prone. Doesn't it matter how many CP B has on C?
A is indirectly performing a Break Free, on behalf of C, by taking B to the ground. But with total disregard of the CP of B's grapple on C. So a weak CP 1 grapple is as easy to break this way as a maxed out grapple of a stroing and trained fighter, say 16 CP?
Won't C ever be pulled down along B, if he is too weak to resist? Should B check for this, by performing a Force Posture Change on C? Naturally with penalties based on A's CP on B.

Or should there be performed some kind of Break Free roll to check if C and B separate. IMHO this should not be based just on C's ST, because A is doing the hauling.
Maybe C is allowed an automatic Break Free success, and rolls CP to reduce the grapple - the B's grapple is effectively reduced by the amount of CP A has on B? So if A has a better grapple on B than B has on C, C is guaranteed success. But if A only has a weak grip on B, then C has a problem.

[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.

[Ultraviolet]

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.

In my example I assume that B wants to pull C down with him, just for spite, and that C would rather not.
If A and C are allies I’d rather not insist A make a Rapid Strike takedown on C, through an intermediary.

But if no current rules cover this I may need to get creative. I’m sure this’ll happen at some point in my Cliffhangers campaign.

It could be done in several ways.
The takedown of B could result in a Force Posture Change on C, but since B is not in control he should not get any bonus for found down himself, plus penalised by A’s CP. That should tip the odds in C’s favour.
Or C could be allowed a Break Free roll as a free action, or even an automatic success so only the CP removal need to be rolled. And if B’s CP aren’t all removed then C gets taken along down.
I think I like the first one better.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

If A and C are allies I’d rather not insist A make a Rapid Strike takedown on C, through an intermediary.

My reading is that Doug is saying have B make the takedown at -6 as though he were Rapid Striking... if B fails he loses his grip, etc.

[Ultraviolet]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

My reading is that Doug is saying have B make the takedown at -6 as though he were Rapid Striking... if B fails he loses his grip, etc.

Ah, yes. Forcing B to make an inconvenient attack out of sequence to try and pull C down with him.
I misunderstood.

But I like this method.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

My reading is that Doug is saying have B make the takedown at -6 as though he were Rapid Striking... if B fails he loses his grip, etc.

Originally Posted by Ultraviolet

Ah, yes. Forcing B to make an inconvenient attack out of sequence to try and pull C down with him.
I misunderstood.

But I like this method.

Yah, eeyore has the right of it: A does something to B; B has to respond, but since he's also trying to defend himself against A at the same time, it's harder. Rightfully, the -6 should apply to both the Quick Contest to resist the posture change from A AND the QC to maintain grip/do an FPC on C. One thing if you're playing with the encumbrance modifiers from TG is that the weight that C is trying to resist is likely A+B, not just B.

[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.

Whether or not the grip is lost might also be influenced by relative postures. If I'm standing and have grappled some guy trying to kick me in the head by the ankle and am preventing him from putting his foot back on the ground, then if I'm knocked down it's possible there's a 3rd option: maintaining my grip but not actually taking them down: but in the process they're put into a more comfortable foot-on-ground situation instead of foot-in-air position.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by Plane

Whether or not the grip is lost might also be influenced by relative postures. If I'm standing and have grappled some guy trying to kick me in the head by the ankle and am preventing him from putting his foot back on the ground, then if I'm knocked down it's possible there's a 3rd option: maintaining my grip but not actually taking them down: but in the process they're put into a more comfortable foot-on-ground situation instead of foot-in-air position.

In this case, I either wouldn't charge the -6 (the PC isn't trying to force a reactive takedown, just a reactive "maintain grapple") or, if they were trying to force a takedown, I'd charge the -6 and if they failed by the -6 charge some amount of their CP to maintain the grapple. If they outright fail by more than -6, they completely lose the grapple.


If I'm understanding TG well enough... I've never gotten to use it in game.

[johndallman]

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.

And if B willingly lets go, they can do so?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by johndallman

And if B willingly lets go, they can do so?

Always, I think.