I'm going to go on a limb here and assume this last post was tongue in cheek.   If not, PM me and I'd be happy to explain further.

Pretty sure you were joking tho. That's what Grab will be turning into after the first Combat & Tactics style book comes out.

Zen

FormCritic wrote:
500+ posts and this is how you're acting?

What are you so mad about, man?

You are absolutely right. I should never bother you again.

Zenfinite wrote:I'm going to go on a limb here and assume this last post was tongue in cheek.   If not, PM me and I'd be happy to explain further.

Pretty sure you were joking tho. That's what Grab will be turning into after the first Combat & Tactics style book comes out.

Zen

I am just making the point that changing "grapple" to "grab" does not erase all of the myriad problems with a system in which opponents wrestle.

The concept does not fit well with the core concept of D&D combat...which assumes that opponents are wearing each other down with moves and counter-moves, with relative vulnerability to a finishing blow expressed as hit points.

There needs to be an "instant kill" rule that says, essentially:

"If you imobilize yourself by being so stupid as to grapple with a melee opponent, no matter how high level you are, a second armed opponent may simply and automatically choose to kill you in any succeeding action."

Otherwise...wrestling would have been a key feature of ancient and medieval battle.  There is a reason why it wasn't.

The concept of "grabbing" an opponent ought to be limited to specific creatures with the unique physiology to grab opponents and/or the size to completely outclass a smaller opponent.

One simple way to get around this would be the concept of "subdual" as a final, non-lethal blow to an exhausted or otherwise vulnerable opponent.

Another way to get around it would be with unarmed moves...disarm...shove...stagger...smooch...whatever...that are peformed as single, very-unlikely-to-work attack actions.

sauromatian wrote:
You are absolutely right. I should never bother you again.

How about just being civil?  

There is no reason to go off angry unless you really are angry about something.  I cannot see a thing here to be mad about.  Not a thing.

I've used the unarmed attack method from I think the 2nd edition Fighter's handbook as written with no problems, and grapple from the 3.x with more go with either my decision or if a player knew the rule well go along with that.  The 4e version seems to be a bit in between and can see it working pretty good (especially to speed up the process).

ShaneG.

FormCritic wrote:
I am just making the point that changing "grapple" to "grab" does not erase all of the myriad problems with a system in which opponents wrestle.

The concept does not fit well with the core concept of D&D combat...which assumes that opponents are wearing each other down with moves and counter-moves, with relative vulnerability to a finishing blow expressed as hit points.

There needs to be an "instant kill" rule that says, essentially:

"If you imobilize yourself by being so stupid as to grapple with a melee opponent, no matter how high level you are, a second armed opponent may simply and automatically choose to kill you in any succeeding action."

Otherwise...wrestling would have been a key feature of ancient and medieval battle.  There is a reason why it wasn't.

The concept of "grabbing" an opponent ought to be limited to specific creatures with the unique physiology to grab opponents and/or the size to completely outclass a smaller opponent.

One simple way to get around this would be the concept of "subdual" as a final, non-lethal blow to an exhausted or otherwise vulnerable opponent.

Another way to get around it would be with unarmed moves...disarm...shove...stagger...smooch...whatever...that are peformed as single, very-unlikely-to-work attack actions.

As funny as it sounds, I actually could have answered every question you asked earlier completely seriously. Grappling (or grab now) only does one thing. It takes away your move action. Immobilize is actually a keyworded status condition, to make things more even I suppose. So, as I read it, you could still do anything you could do in your turn that doesn't involve moving. Actually, I misspoke slightly. You can drag the immobilized character or monster at half your move as well. Whatever. The point remains valid. They cleaned up "grappling" by simplifying what it actually does. It's not actually wrestling or anything more than just a bear hug or thereabouts.

In 9 out of 10 situations, when comparing it to 3.x, just assume it's simpler. It's not as simple as 1st Ed, obviously, but I'd rate it only about as complicated as 2nd Ed. Kind of why I like it I think.

Zen

P.S. The indexes really do suck that hard. We're not beating a dead horse, it's just difficult to describe an index that bad. 318 page PHB with ONE single index page, compared to 3.x with under 300 pages and THREE pages of index. It's just that bad.

FormCritic wrote:

Can I, for instance, "join a grab" for free?

I read this sentense and for some reason felt a little dirty - I'm off to wash my hands - and grab a coffee

Xaxaxe wrote:Tell me you're kidding. Please.

Yes, that was a joke.  I had a long and angry post typed out about twenty times.  You really had me steamed there for a bit, and then I realized this thread could use some humor.  It would appear a more lengthy, and less fun post is now in order.

Involved discussion of 4E should be relegated to our sole off-topic thread, as it has about as much to do with D&D collectibles as do the various sports/political discussions contained therein.  At the very least, the discussion might be moved to the "Non-TSR" forum, as one thing we can all agree upon is that 4E was not written by TSR.  Clearly, I'm approaching that from a socio-cultural perspective, not an administrative one, as I cannot force anyone to do anything.

Some of our newer members might take note that we don't frequently discuss playing any version of D&D -- or any other game for that matter.  We certainly don't act as a marketing platform for WotC or any other game company.  So can it, unless you really want me to babble incoherently about Lejendary Adventure, TLG, and Hekaforge every three minutes.  Those of you that frequent the chat know I'm not kidding about that, either.  

Sauro, with regards to your recent jabs, I'm simply going to assume that was humor -- poorly done humor.  Watch and learn, ya mangy *BLOCK_WIPE*!!!  (See folks, that one never gets old.)

Xaxaxe wrote:I might disagree with him on this one, but Deimos is clearly one of the most valued and respected members here. He's earned the right not to have to read such babble.

Wait...what?  When the hell did that happen?  Was there a party?  Thanks for the kind words, anyway.

On a more serious note, while I am quite frustrated that some (indeed most) of the other long-time Acaeum members are taking an eternally forgiving/forgetting/optimistic stance with regards to WotC and their products, ultimately they will have to make the decision for themselves.  

However, what I see here is history clearly repeating itself.  I'm saddened when I hear that so many of you are going to be dumping $65+ into yet another WotC edition, when it seems to me you're very likely to be disappointed in it.  As a reminder, most of us have been down this road before, and nearly everything that's being said about 4E now was said about 3E then.  I'd be a pretty sorry friend if I didn't at least try to give you folks pause.  I'm not even trying to stop the entire 4E freight train, that's clearly impossible.

With regards to simply ignoring the thread, "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."  Talking about 4E in passing is one thing, but as long as members insist on promoting 4E here, I feel justified in providing a counter-balance of sorts.  It's no secret I'm not a fan of WotC.  They are essentially the Rob Schneider of gaming companies.  I'd rather see that money going to the *BLOCK_WIPE* himself.  (See...never.)

deimos3428 wrote:Wait...what?  When the hell did that happen?  Was there a party?  Thanks for the kind words, anyway.

On a more serious note, while I am quite frustrated that some (indeed most) of the other long-time Acaeum members are taking an eternally forgiving/forgetting/optimistic stance with regards to WotC and their products, ultimately they will have to make the decision for themselves.  

However, what I see here is history clearly repeating itself.  I'm saddened when I hear that so many of you are going to be dumping $65+ into yet another WotC edition, when it seems to me you're very likely to be disappointed in it.  As a reminder, most of us have been down this road before, and nearly everything that's being said about 4E now was said about 3E then.  I'd be a pretty sorry friend if I didn't at least try to give you folks pause.  I'm not even trying to stop the entire 4E freight train, that's clearly impossible.

With regards to simply ignoring the thread, "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave."  Talking about 4E in passing is one thing, but as long as members insist on promoting 4E here, I feel justified in providing a counter-balance of sorts.  It's no secret I'm not a fan of WotC.  They are essentially the Rob Schneider of gaming companies.  I'd rather see that money going to the *BLOCK_WIPE* himself.  (See...never.)

I don't have a problem with ONE 4E thread...as long as it doesn't turn into a promotional tool for such. Personally, I do enjoy reading about what 4E is and will look like, as I have about a 95% chance of never playing it.    And this forum is about collectibles, and it's too soon to say anything definitive, but Talon Pass is taking on a collectible sheen (interesting however to see if it does last past Gencon).  Anyway I also am not a fan of WOTC, but as long as the 4E talk is contained and restricted to talking about the mechanics itself, and not "3E is the roxxor so dam kewl!" crap I don't have a problem.  As always, I wish Acaeum members could be civil to each other at the least and not give in to silly bickering...let's please not turn this into Dragonsfoot.....   Sauro, why the name calling?  Deimos, why care if someone wants to flush $65 down the toilet?  Can we shake hands, exchange copies of B2, and make up please???

Mike B.