Allowed Defenses while Grappling?

[laserdog]

Alright, I'm confident someone is going to point out where these rules are, but I've looked through Campaigns, Martial Arts and tried searching the forums.

I'm looking for rules on dodging while grappling a foe and while being grappled?

Is it allowed?

The rules say the guy who is grappled cannot move out of their hex without breaking free, but doesn't say anything about whether they can dodge, or whether the DX-4 penalty also lowers their speed which lowers their dodge?

Also it's not clear if the guy doing the grappling can dodge without losing their grip.

Again, I'm sure the rules address it somewhere, I'm just sick of looking. =)

Thanks in advance.

(Also, for bonus points, can anyone clarify whether the DX-4 is *cumulative* if there are more than one person grappling you? And how two people grappling you could work together to bring you down?)

[laserdog]

Found my answer via this Kromm post (MA p121-122):

http://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.p...48&postcount=3

It seems strange to me that a man grappling someone with both arms has no penalties to dodge... I may have to house rule that.

Also, the wording there seem to indicate that the DX-4 is *not* cumulative.

[Kromm]

1. The -4 to DX is the cause of the defense penalties, not a separate effect; having -4 to DX also happens to give -2 to Block and Parry, and -1 to Dodge. Thus, stacking would make no sense.

2. Why should a standing grappler have a penalty to Dodge if he isn't himself grappled? He can still lean to either side, duck, and now has the new option of hiding behind the guy he grappled. What he can't do is step aside or perform backflips . . . and the rules cover that, since when you're grappling someone, you can't retreat or use Acrobatics. This last point was subject to rigorous playtesting and reality-checking. Consensus was that grappling someone doesn't affect what GURPS calls "Dodge," only what the game calls "retreat" (and its variants). But if the guy you're grappling grapples back, then you both have penalties. Where it gets confusing for some gamers is that GURPS doesn't assume automatic mutual grappling, while real-life fights tend to move right to that step.

3. Multiple fighters grappling you produce no additional effects. But their ST and DX stack up (p. B392), which makes it unlikely that you'll break free and very likely that you'll end up dogpiled and pinned. Once that happens, it's free shots for all. Until that happens, though, they're actually likely to be in each other's way, making it harder -- not easier -- to land a blow on you.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Kromm

2. Where it gets confusing for some gamers is that GURPS doesn't assume automatic mutual grappling, while real-life fights tend to move right to that step.

Interesting and worth repeating that you don't get to assume you've grappled the other guy until you declare it so, even if he's bear hugging you from the front with your own arms outside of his (my wife and I call this the "idiot's bear hug" when we learn defenses against it).

Unless you declare it, you're just standing there like Fezzik from The Princess Bride being grappled by the Man in Black. "I just wanted to you think you were doing well. I hate for people to die embarrassed."

[joelbf]

Originally Posted by laserdog

Also, the wording there seem to indicate that the DX-4 is *not* cumulative.

My interpretation is that DX -4 in general does not reduce your active defences as stated in the sidebar of Camaigns p. 421. Using only basic set, being grappled gives you -4 to DX, no penalties to defences.

In MA there is an optional rule that states that you also have reduced active defences.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Interesting and worth repeating that you don't get to assume you've grappled the other guy until you declare it so, even if he's bear hugging you from the front with your own arms outside of his (my wife and I call this the "idiot's bear hug" when we learn defenses against it).

Yep. Grappling back is always an attack action. Until your foe does it, you're assumed to have him securely gripped whilst remaining unimpeded. This is a bit of a break from real life not because the rules are bad (they're fine) but because most gamers react to "He grapples you" with "I try to break free" and not with "I grapple him right back." But the latter is what happens 90% of the time in reality, and why people have trouble visualizing what grappling means in the game.

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yep. Grappling back is always an attack action. Until your foe does it, you're assumed to have him securely gripped whilst remaining unimpeded. This is a bit of a break from real life not because the rules are bad (they're fine) but because most gamers react to "He grapples you" with "I try to break free" and not with "I grapple him right back." But the latter is what happens 90% of the time in reality, and why people have trouble visualizing what grappling means in the game.

I always assumed it was because "grappling" doesn't mean "I've got a hand on his collar", it means "I've got him controlled, so he can't get away and will have a much harder time fighting me".

Hence why it's good to grab the other guy first.

[Kromm]

Well, yes. In close combat, when neither A nor B is grappled or when A and B are mutually grappled, nobody has a defensive penalty relative to the other. But when A is grappled by B, A does have a relative penalty -- as well he should, since B burned an action to grapple A and overcame A's defense, while A obviously did not return the favor -- and B is in control and better able to defend by definition. Were B also penalized on defense, I think the rules would be broken. Being "in control" is a significant advantage, and shouldn't hose you as much as it helps you.

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Well, yes. In close combat, when neither A nor B is grappled or when A and B are mutually grappled, nobody has a defensive penalty relative to the other. But when A is grappled by B, A does have a relative penalty -- as well he should, since B burned an action to grapple A and overcame A's defense, while A obviously did not return the favor -- and B is in control and better able to defend by definition. Were B also penalized on defense, I think the rules would be broken. Being "in control" is a significant advantage, and shouldn't hose you as much as it helps you.

Mutual grappling is much more of a penalty to two unskilled fighters than to highly skilled ones. For people with Skill 20, that -4 just means they can afford two less levels of Deceptive Attack against their opponent, whose Parry just dropped by two anyway.
For two DX 10 dudes with no skill, you've both just dropped to an effective skill of 6 for punching each other, so Telegraphic Attacks to bring your odds back up to 50% looks awful tempting... though again, that evens things back out for your enemy's Parry...
But really, that's what mutual grappling is all about at low skill: Severely limiting your enemy's options and dropping the chances of either of you really getting hurt.
Especially once you start rolling around on the floor, further penalising your skills. :)

[Matuku]

Originally Posted by Boobis

My interpretation is that DX -4 in general does not reduce your active defences as stated in the sidebar of Camaigns p. 421. Using only basic set, being grappled gives you -4 to DX, no penalties to defences.

I was also under this impression; I thought temporary stat drops didn't affect your defences?