[Technical Grappling] Teach me using examples

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Icelander

What is your ST for a wrestling move executed from a mutual grapple where you are using no hands and no legs, like the aformentioned CP 0 shirt lapel grapple?

Force Posture Change doesn't say to use Grip ST, so I wouldn't think it matters even if you are doing it ST-based rather than using the DX/skill-based Technique.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Force Posture Change doesn't say to use Grip ST, so I wouldn't think it matters even if you are doing it ST-based rather than using the DX/skill-based Technique.

Are you sure that you can execute Moves after a Grapple with the ST-based stat without reference to the ST of the limbs that you are using to grapple with?

Because that seems... off.

Edit: On p. 34, there is the rule that for all Techniques using one-hand to grapple reduces the ST used in Contests. I presume that this is a generic rule that when you roll your ST as part of a Contest called for by a Technique, you do as based on your Grip ST.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Are you sure that you can execute Moves after a Grapple with the ST-based stat without reference to the ST of the limbs that you are using to grapple with?

Because that seems... off.

Edit: On p. 34, there is the rule that for all Techniques using one-hand to grapple reduces the ST used in Contests. I presume that this is a generic rule that when you roll your ST as part of a Contest called for by a Technique, you do as based on your Grip ST.

Yeah, that looks right.

No problem if you roll the skill rather than Trained ST, though.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yeah, that looks right.

No problem if you roll the skill rather than Trained ST, though.

That is a bit odd. What other Actions After a Grapple can one perform without limbs at full DX-based skill, according to the RAW?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That stat vastly predates Technical Grappling, and I don't see any reason to think it was set with technical parries in a grapple in mind.

Fair enough. On the other hand, Technical Grappling doesn't note any change in that stat. And a Parry with an unarmed skill, Hands-Free or not, is not noted as being effective beyond the Reach of your unarmed attacks.

The rules as written don't appear to address the issue of having an armed grapple on someone who is beyond your Reach otherwise.

Perhaps the cleanest way would be to impose a penalty to Hands-Free Parries for every hex of Reach beyond that of your unarmed attacks. Either -1 or -2 per hex. I'd favour the latter.

It seems fair that Hands-Free Parries would be at full skill only when you can use your whole body effectively to perform counters. Being limited to only those counters possible through an extended weapon used to grapple should limit your facility.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Your movement is constrained, but you are in control of the shaft. You don't need to strike your opponent's hands away or move your weapon out of reach to make it hard to grab hold.

How do you do that without moving the hook from the hookee? You can't turn the shaft and you can't move the weapon head anywhere that your hookee is not standing, because if you do, you'll lose your grip on the back of his knee.

I'm not saying that it should be impossible to do it, but the sharp constraints on your freedom of movement and number of possible counters ought to impose a penalty, just like any other situation that restricts the defensive options available does.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

No, being good at shedding enemy CP is very desirable when you intend to be in grapples, where you are likely to get CP put on you.

Yes, but why are you likely to get CP put on you? By the RAW, there is no special reason to counter-grapple (subject to a Hands-Free Parry by the grappler) instead of striking the grappler (does not allow a Parry if the grappler has no free arm).

Because high-skill fighters will have Parries that are usually massively higher than their Dodge, that's a huge difference in defensive effectiveness.

Before TG, I interpreted some line in MA so that you could perform Hands-Free Parries with a grappling skill, not any unarmed one, and that it worked against grapples and strikes made by the grapplee both. In retrospect, there probably ought to have been a basic penalty to that roll, but with a cap of only a -4 penalty inflicted on the subject of your grapple, grappling (as opposed to locks and throws, which were great) was otherwise so ineffective that I didn't feel the need.

Now, I'd probably allow Hands-Free Parries against strikes as well as grapples, but unless the strikes are made by the grappled limb or weapon, I'd impose a penalty. Probably -2 if you have his neck, head or torso grappled, -3 for Hands-Free Parrying a strike through a grapple on another limb.

I'd also consider that all Active Defences made against attacks (whether strikes or grapples) on limbs or weapons you are currently using to grapple suffer a -2 penalty unless you are willing to let go.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

And while the usual efficiency note applies to Break Free, Escaping Parry is a defensive technique, which makes the math a bit different. If you are one of those grapplers who the Technique description states "will often attempt every parry using this technique", you'd be mad to not drop the 3 points.

That's true, I suppose. A note for Sir Michael's player, then, that he'll do well to think about picking up Escaping Parry when next he has points to spend on grappling.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Grappling the leg from that position would likely require a posture change, which would be seriously problematic even with a weak grapple on you.

Do the rules forbid grappling legs while standing? If they do, I expect that a Crouch will do.

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

How does getting the arm compare to counter-grappling their torso?

About equal in difficulty, but grappling their grappling arm has the advantage that the most effective defences against it require the opponent to let go of the grapple.

[Icelander]

Now, where I was in the example, Sir Michael had established a grapple on the halberd Master Braelgar is using. He didn't go for a Bind Weapon, largely because in my campaign the player would have wanted to take advantage of a houserule for Feint that rewards Feinting with a weapon that the opponent is likely to be the most wary of and attacking with a less effective attack.

If he had used Bind Weapon, though, would the -2 to DX to both parties that is a feature of the rules in MA apply or do the new rules in TG overrule MA in this case?

I ask because the Bind Weapon mechanism are completely different in TG, so it would not be unreasonable if nothing from the MA description applied any more. On the other hand, I could see Bind Weapon applying a DX penalty to both parties easily enough, even under the new rules.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Icelander

If he had used Bind Weapon, though, would the -2 to DX to both parties that is a feature of the rules in MA apply or do the new rules in TG overrule MA in this case?

Overruled. The Control Point mechanic and the variable DX and ST penalties they impart to the victim take over that function.

We did not consider reverse-penalties (to answer the next question). It would be a reasonable house rule. Say, impart referred control penalties to user, plus of course you have to maintain the grapple, so limb uses are restricted to "hang on," and "do grappling stuff."

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

Overruled. The Control Point mechanic and the variable DX and ST penalties they impart to the victim take over that function.

Ah, very good.

My next question was actually going to be whether the reference to one-handed Grip ST in the Bind Weapon technique is due to all weapons noted in the technique as capable of it being one-handed or whether it is a deliberate limitation, so that you don't gain any additional leverage from adding an extra hand on the weapon.

I personally don't see the need for such a limitation, as I don't think that there is anything inherent about Bind Weapon that makes it harder to apply full two-handed ST while performing it with a properly-equipped two-handed spear than it would be to apply full two-handed ST on an armed Hook, Sweep, Disarm or Judo Throw (used with Skill Adaptation).

And there is plenty of incentive to make the Bind Weapon one-handed if you can, in that it gives you a free hand to do nasty stuff to your foe while he is momentarily hindered in using his weapon. So Bind Weapon will still mostly be a one-handed fencing move, except maybe for the odd longsword fighter who might use it with Skill Adaptation as a prelude to a Disarm.

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

We did not consider reverse-penalties (to answer the next question). It would be a reasonable house rule. Say, impart referred control penalties to user, plus of course you have to maintain the grapple, so limb uses are restricted to "hang on," and "do grappling stuff."

Personally, I'd feel disinclined to have any kind of malus connected to getting a good grapple, as opposed to a bad one. Having a high CP while your opponent has a low one seems to me to reflect a situation where you have the maximum freedom of movement and action possible in a grapple. It seems much fairer to give a flat penalty to stuff that ought to be harder while grappling, so that if your CP is high enough you more than make up for it relative to your foe, than to make a very successful grapple take you out of position too.

[chandley]

I asked about the two-handed bind weapon question (I put some tines on my unnatural pollaxe), and the answer I got from Doug then was "yes, use two-handed ST". Presumably, use the ST for all the limbs you have on the weapon, as your base ST for bind weapon.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by chandley

I asked about the two-handed bind weapon question (I put some tines on my unnatural pollaxe), and the answer I got from Doug then was "yes, use two-handed ST". Presumably, use the ST for all the limbs you have on the weapon, as your base ST for bind weapon.

Ok, that's nice.

Then Mickey will use Bind Weapon like crazy, especially to defend.

Incidentally, MA had defensive Bind Weapon attempts take an attack, made after the Parry. Is TG deliberately removing the neccessity for that attack or is this just an example of older rules retaining their force unless otherwise specified? In other words, does Bind Weapon really allow a full Control Point grapple on a weapon as a Parry based on skill-3, that can be improved to full skill for 4 points through raising a non-cinematic technique to skill+0?

Apart from being non-cinematic, it's more-or-less in line with Grabbing Parry, I guess. Still, it's a bit odd that defensive Bind Weapon (an Active Defence, no extra drawbacks) and offensive Bind Weapon (uses up an attack) are equally good. Well, not equally good, even, in that defensive Bind Weapon doesn't allow an Active Defence against it...