Great White Games/Pinnacle Entertainment Group

[GranFalloon]

Running The Flood the other night, the posse ventured into the Wailing Hole. There they made short work of the guardian, so I knew that Ox wasn't going to pose much trouble in a standard, D&D style fight. He tried to just barrel past the PCs, but Father Fergus stood his ground, and they began laying into him, quickly eating through my bennies as he soaked several wounds.

Then he drew a Joker. I decided that he would attempt to grab Father Fergus into a headlock and hold the preacher as a human shield, threatening to break his neck if they didn't drop their weapons. He made his Fighting roll with a raise, so Father Fergus was in some trouble.

My trouble was in refereeing just how effective this sort of maneuver is. Part of me says I should just have him wait until his next initiative card to make an attack, as the hostage provides some pretty nice cover. But that feels like an almost-wasted attack. Another part of me says he's sort of going on Hold. He makes his attack roll, but holds off on his damage roll. If someone wants to pop a cap in his noggin, they have the usual opposed Agility roll, and if Ox wins, he rolls some pretty vicious damage against our holy man.

In this case, it worked out. Ox was blown away, but the preacher's player was pretty nervous, so it did what it needed. It's a situation I hope to use in the future though, either with another big Oxlike character, or a gunslinger putting his pistol to an hombre's forehead and cocking the hammer, or any number of variations. I'm just trying to figure the best way to tackle this sort of situation. How would you handle it?

[Savage_Mask]

Basically, the pc stuck in this position is susceptible to a Finishing Move. The bad guy goes on hold and whoever wants to intervene better beat him on an opposed Agility roll or attempt to calm him down until he is dealt a joker.

Typically someone attempting such a maneuver would need to have the drop and aim for the head with his grapple. If you dont have the advantage of the Drop, scoring a Raise like he did is totally acceptable. At least that's how I would handle that situation.

[TheLoremaster]

[ValhallaGH]

I'd have used The Drop rules. Basically, he spent an action to get some cover, and winning with a raise he gave himself The Drop on Father Fergus. This leaves him with a viable threat and some advantages for a risky gambit (-4 called shot to head/neck, +4 for the Drop = -0 attack for +8 damage => one broken preacher).

Just keep in mind, whatever you try to do with maneuvers is something your players can also try to do with maneuvers. Don't open up anything you'll regret later.
_________________
"Got a problem? I've got the solution: Rocket Launcher."
"Not against a Servitor."
"... We're all gonna die."

[Zadmar]

[Dracones]

To me this just seems like a standard grapple.

Round 1:

Ox draws a joker and rolls fighting vs Fergus and gets him in a grapple.
Fergus draws a whatever and gets to roll agil/str vs Ox's agil/str to break free. Ox still has his +2 from the joker on this test.

Round 2:

Ox and Fergus draw cards as normal. On Ox's initiative he threaten's to snap Fergus' neck and now goes on hold waiting to see what the PCs do.

If a PC attacks, agil rolls vs Ox or Ox does his damage attempt on the grapple with a -4 on the attack roll for the vitals hit. If Fergus can't win that he'll be taking +4 damage on the damage roll.

[islan]

On the one hand, I like how this played out, yet on the other hand, it introduces a rule that states "you can get the Drop after a successful Grapple roll" which players could then take advantage of.

[Savage_Mask]

Not really. You get the the drop in a typical hostage situation. A grapple to the head is not something you can pull off easily. And then again you need the right circumstances. There are plenty of ways to get the drop in the middle of combat but to a SW neophite its hard to get away from the typical "lets trade blows 'til someone goes down" mentality. But this an entirely different conversation. [/quote]

[GranFalloon]

I'm not so sure that they need to get The Drop. A successful called shot to the head is pretty unpleasant, and may be enough to stop things for a moment. Really what I'm after is being able to cause that moment of tension, not have a sure thing.

Perhaps something like this as a manuver:

Hold Damage: You take a -2 penalty to your attack roll, and if successful, you may go on Hold before actually inflicting the damage roll. This may normally only be done while in melee range, as it requires actually getting in close and placing your weapon in a "Yes, I can kill you" position. You may then attempt to interrupt the actions of others (with an opposed Agility roll, as is usual for being on Hold) to automatically inflict damage. If you are Shaken before acting, you do not get to automatically inflict the damage.


There's probably a more clear way to write that out, but what do you think? I imposed the -2 penalty because you have to completely defeat your opponent's defenses and hold your weapon ready to strike. I didn't want to make it too difficult, because for such a maneuver to really be effective, you're also going to want to make a called shot to the head or vitals. I suppose the other option is to simply require an initial Grapple, as some have suggested. When grappling, you can put your damage roll on hold pretty much as I've described above, but without the penalty.

[Energy]

He doesn't have the drop. He can't do a finishing move. He's used his action for the round to establish a grapple (which with his raise makes the priest entangled and shaken), and next round after he gets a new card, he'll go on hold and make his threat (which he can follow up on by making an opposed fighting (?) roll to do Strength damage + a d6 with a raise).

The Drop is a ridiculous advantage in combat, and there's no way you should be awarding that just for winning a grapple with a raise. You may be winning the grapple at the moment, but your opponent is still fighting back and struggling.

Oh as a caveat, if the priest is an NPC noncombatant and an idiot, you could decide that he gives up when he's grappled, which I guess could give you the drop. Fiction is rife with people who give up way too damn easily when grasped firmly on the upper arm.

[Thasmodious]

[Energy]

[ogbendog]

I'd rule it as a modified trick.

Usually a trick is -2 to parry, on a raise the target is shaken.

For this, you try to hold a knife to their threat/gun to their head. You roll fighting or shooting (vs parry, or contested, not sure which is better).

On a success, you are on hold, you can do a normal attack against them at any time if you win the contest of agility; you have a knife or gun pressed to their side or whatever
On a raise, you get +4 damage; you have your weapon at their throat/head/heart etc.

So, it's not as good as an attack (you might lose the agility test) but you can use it to bluff your way out. Instead of +4 to damage is slightly less than a d6 gives you.

[Thasmodious]

[Lord Inar]

[GranFalloon]

I gotta say, I think The Drop is overboard. I reserve the Drop for things like ambushing someone with a Raise on your Stealth roll, or the aforementioned NPC Priest who stops struggling once grabbed (though in our case, the Blessed character is the most melee-oriented).

This is more like a head or joint lock in grappling. Yes, you can keep struggling, but I just grappled you with a raise, do you really want me to make my damage roll? Whether you're trying to get a guy to tap out before you break his arm, or his friends to drop their guns before you break his neck, you're stopping in the middle of an attack to allow a surrender. In our case, it's a half-ogre trying to use his great strength to avoid getting shot full of lead.

[Theorel]

Hmm...let's suppose we were going to give someone the Drop, how big a deal is it actually?

Well, we're requiring them to first succeed at a melee combat roll with a raise...normally they could do their damage +d6 (average pretty close to 4 with the exploding dice thing). So, the +4 damage isn't really a big deal...we're just delaying the effects of the raise. (obviously this does matter, stacking damage like this could quickly get out of hand...just trying to put it in perspective). Note also that if you act before the opponent, (and get 1 wound or less) then this is weaker than simply shaking them.

They also get a +4 to hit, which is really a pretty big deal. Now the rules don't really say anything about attacking in a grapple (other than base strength, done on an opposed roll), so we're getting outside the rules a bit here. For the defender, he suffers a -4 penalty on anything he tries to do (other than breaking the grapple). You could slap the same penalty on the attacker, giving him a +0.

Maybe a better solution would be as follows:
Going for the Hostage Pose is a "called" grapple. You make a grapple attempt at -4, to try and force your opponent into a helpless position. On a success they are automatically entangled into a hostage pose (the attacker has the Drop, is not limited to the normal opposed strength/agility attack, and can move at 1/2 pace* with the grappled opponent). On a raise, they are also shaken.

*=use the lesser of the attackers or defenders pace.

This makes it rather like a called shot: it's not something you can just luck into when trying to grapple an opponent, and trying to do it increases the chance the opponent escapes up-front. The bonus is stronger, but delayed...giving the opponent an opportunity to escape.

Of course, I would give the drop on a successful stealth roll on an ambush...so, eh.

I do like, that it allows a player with the drop to engage a grapple that maintains that bonus if they can make a normal attack roll...

[The GIT!]

I have a couple of problems with the grappling rules as written.

1) The successful grapple roll (in this case with a raise) doesn't carry over as a target number for the opponent. The rules state that, on future attempts to damage or escape, opposed rolls are made.

2) Each person involved in the grapple gets to act on their own initiative card. It just feels strange to me that, considering they're grappling each other, they don't both roll their actions on the same initiative.

In the example given it does seem a bit much to allow The Drop but I would definitely consider allowing the attacker to keep his successful attack roll for the opposed roll to damage (and possibly allow called shot to the head) and as the target number for the preacher to escape. Also, with such a great roll and the Joker I don't see any problem with allowing Ox to go on Hold; that at least would make anybody considering shooting him pause knowing that he's got a very good chance of breaking the preacher's neck before he gets shot.
_________________
Ejector seat? You're joking!

[Zadmar]

I'm starting to wonder if grappling is really the best fit. It's not as if the hostage is likely to seriously struggle when you've got a gun pressed to their head, so perhaps Intimidation would be more appropriate?

Tests of Will state that "Waving a gun in someone’s face isn’t polite, but it’s definitely worth a +2 bonus to Intimidation", and success would give you +2 to your next action against them, so that would negate the MAP. Then all you'd need to change is to allow them to go On Hold with the shooting roll.

But perhaps it could be made even simpler: To take someone hostage, make an attack roll at -4. If you succeed, you can go On Hold for the damage roll, and it will inflict +4 damage. Mechanically speaking that's no more powerful than a headshot, but it has the scare factor of knowing that you're not going to miss. Someone could still beat you with an opposed Agility roll and make you Shaken to prevent you killing the hostage, but the hostage would provide you with cover as well.

[islan]