[Martial Arts] Technique to offset -4 for grappled

[JoelSammallahti]

I was looking through Martial Arts to see if there's a technique for reducing or eliminating the -4 penalty for being grappled. (I'm writing up a vampire hunting martial arts style for my blog.) There isn't. So, I was thinking of designing one, and I figured I'd make it work exactly like Ground Fighting, including the defense penalty reduction.

However, I started wondering whether maybe there's a reason such a technique doesn't appear in the book - it would, I think, logically be a part of most styles that teach grappling skills. So, is this perhaps too powerful a technique? I would think that it's about as valuable as Ground Fighting, being that fighters fall down not only from Judo throws, sweeps and takedowns, but also from failed DX rolls after kicking or suffering knockback, and failed knockdown rolls.

Of course, there's also the argument that such a technique is unrealistic, but even if completely eliminating the -4 is too much, I would think reducing it to -2 or -1 should be ok.

Any advice? Has there been discussion of such a technique before?

[McAllister]

I think eliminating the penalty is completely unrealistic. If you're not imposing a penalty on someone's actions, you don't have them grappled in any meaningful sense of the word. I could accept that the penalty could be reduced from -4 to -2 with training, but I would definitely charge more than 3 points for it, so it wouldn't be a good Technique. Halving the grappled penalty for attacks that use a specific skill, that sounds like a good Technique to me. Halving or eliminating the grappling penalty altogether sounds like an Advantage.

[evileeyore]

Ditto on McAllister.

I'd require a Special [SKILL] Training Perk, then allow a Hard Technique that could be bought to [SKILL]+2.


The reason this is more powerful than Ground Fighting is thus: Ground Fighting is only saving the Character an action, they don;t have to stand up. No Penalty If Grappled means you can be grappled, even by something that you could not break free from, and still fight 'normally'.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by JoelSammallahti

However, I started wondering whether maybe there's a reason such a technique doesn't appear in the book - it would, I think, logically be a part of most styles that teach grappling skills. So, is this perhaps too powerful a technique?

When I wrote Technical Grappling, it never even occurred to me as I was re-jiggering the penalties to make a technique to be able to ignore the penalties of a grapple. The penalties are the entire point of grappling someone - they represent restricted motion and a reduced ability to bring your strength to bear.

And there is a technique (an action, really) to reduce the penalties already - it's called Break Free (or attack to break free in Technical Grappling).

If a player brought that technique to me on a character sheet, I'd veto it on the spot.

From a game design perspective, the penalties are not the same kind of penalties you get for "I'm doing something hard." The penalties are the grappling equivalent of damage. They're the effect.

Now, you could potentially buy "slipperiness" (Control Resistance in Technical Grappling) that makes it harder to achieve that effect in the first place. There are already advantages that give you bonuses on skill rolls to break free. So there are things that make you difficult to grab, and difficult to hold on to, already. I'd look to those.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

When I wrote Technical Grappling, it never even occurred to me as I was re-jiggering the penalties to make a technique to be able to ignore the penalties of a grapple. The penalties are the entire point of grappling someone - they represent restricted motion and a reduced ability to bring your strength to bear.

Interesting. Certainly you've put a lot more thought into the grappling rules than I have, considering you rewrote them ;)

I think calling the penalties "the entire point of grappling someone" is a bit too much, though. As I see it, there are two other big effects you get from a grapple, and I've certainly seen lots of grapples in my campaigns motivated by them: firstly, you prevent the opponent from moving around, and secondly, you get to follow up with potentially fight-ending moves like a takedown, Arm Lock, or Choke. So, I don't think this hypothetical technique negates the whole point of grappling any more than Ground Fighting negates the whole point of sweeps and throws.

[the_matrix_walker]

I would allow this technique, but it would not be worth buying in all likely hood. I would say that to train the penalty away, you would need to specify the body part that is subjected to the grapple. So the torso, head, and each limb would each require their own technique.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by the_matrix_walker

I would allow this technique, but it would not be worth buying in all likely hood. I would say that to train the penalty away, you would need to specify the body part that is subjected to the grapple. So the torso, head, and each limb would each require their own technique.

Okay, is there a reason you'd prefer a technique that you don't think is worth buying? Like, is there a precedent or principle you're thinking of?

[the_matrix_walker]

Preference doesn't enter into it. Dealing with having a point anchored is a different set of variables for each body part location. Just seems logical to me.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

When I wrote Technical Grappling, it never even occurred to me as I was re-jiggering the penalties to make a technique to be able to ignore the penalties of a grapple. The penalties are the entire point of grappling someone - they represent restricted motion and a reduced ability to bring your strength to bear.

And this is what Peter said on the subject:

Originally Posted by Peter V. Dell'Orto

Buying off the penalty to DX while grappled, even on a per-skill basis, was one we rejected on the realism grounds. It's just never as easy to fight when someone is holding you as it is when you're not being grappled at all, no matter how much you train. That was the consensus all the grapplers and strikers who grapple that I talked to, and it also reflected what we found. Not a single striker, even ones who like to strike while grappled, have said that it is easier.

That said, you could a) ignore what I said and make the technique anyway, or b) make the technique but cap it below full skill, so you can get a little better but never as good as if you didn't have an active opponent holding on to you and by his or her actions interfering with your actions. b) is more realistic, although it's still pretty optimistic - even with lots of training you are vastly better off if your opponent doesn't grab you back.

and Kromm said:

Originally Posted by Kromm

My definition was just Peter's rephrased. The important element, which I repeated in various words, was this:

In this case, you have the first part but not the second. Reality checking shows that there's no specific training that makes you as good at fighting when restrained as when free. It doesn't exist. Being restrained is inherently bad in a fight. It's a result of screwing up and being hit with an attack, except that where a striking attack costs you HP, a grappling one costs you effective DX. But you can't buy off the DX penalty any more than you can learn Fighting While Wounded to avoid shock penalties when injured.

Ground Fighting is different because it doesn't eliminate the essential flaw of being on the ground (you're less mobile, limited in what you can reach and do, and a target for a dogpile), it just makes use of a firm foundation (the back) and a four-limbed guard position to compensate for lack of reach and mobility. When you're grappled, you have fewer body parts free, not more, and your foundation is shaky, not firm, because it's at your assailant's mercy. And there's no good way to justify that being as easy a position to fight from as not being grappled.

[JoelSammallahti]

Thanks, mate, for digging those up! Very edifying. Eliminating the penalty seems right out, but I might still go with Dell'Orto's option b) and cap the technique at Skill-2. (I think there's some confusing stuff in there, though - I don't think anyone would suggest a technique actually making fighting while grappled easier than ungrappled, just not as difficult as without specific training.