Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

[SirViss]

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around a maneuver that appears under the Brick Tricks Martial Art (both in TUB and UMA). The "Slam" Maneuver does STR +2d6 damage, and the Target Falls. What I don't understand is the "Grab Two Limbs" Element. How can the Target fall if you are still holding on to him?

 

What "real" world maneuver is this supposed to represent?

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Perhaps it means that if you were to break from the Grab on your next phase then you would be prone instead of standing? Hmm...

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Hmmm... I can see that, but that is more a rules interpretation.

 

The rules don't bother too much, in this case. I am just wondering as to the "geometry" of the maneuver.

 

Actually, the question that just occured to me, in a normal (non-martial) Grab, when you "throw" a victim into the next hex, can you still be holding on to him? I haven't read anything that says that you can't retain your grip.

 

Hey Steve, if you spot this thread, please give us your input. It might save me the trouble from posting to the Rules Question Board.

[Old Man]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Maybe it means that both of you fall but you are still holding on to them. See "Two to Tango" - the scene where the football player guy tackles Mathew Perry.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, if you are supposed to Fall, there is a "you Fall" Element, and it wasn't included in either book. Anyway, there is "Sacrifice Throw" that does about the same thing, with no plus to Strike damage, and a little better OCV and DCV. Somehow, I don't think so.

 

(As you guys are probably noticing, I've been thinking about this for a while, and have looked through the books.)

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

(As you guys are probably noticing' date=' I've been thinking about this for a while, and have looked through the books.) [/quote']

WHAT?!?!? You've actually READ THE BOOKS? LOL

 

Seriously, it's a good question that definitely warrants some clarification.

[Blue]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

I picture this in a kind of cartoony manuever in which you grab the guy by two limbs and swing him into something and let go at the end. The "grab two limbs" would be a way of saying that they would be unable to counter it with something involving their hands. And thye certainly should be prone at the end.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

I picture this in a kind of cartoony manuever in which you grab the guy by two limbs and swing him into something and let go at the end. The "grab two limbs" would be a way of saying that they would be unable to counter it with something involving their hands. And thye certainly should be prone at the end.

 

Well, if you think about it, adding the "Grab Two Limbs" actually GIVES the target a chance to defend themselves. Since it is a Grab now, the target has a chance to use a Casual Strength Roll to break out before you get "slammed".

 

The big problem I see is that there is both the a "Grab" element and a "Target Falls" element. If you wanted a way to throw the guy down without having an easy defense, well Martial Throw does that pretty well.

 

I just don't get this maneuver.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

...

Actually, the question that just occured to me, in a normal (non-martial) Grab, when you "throw" a victim into the next hex, can you still be holding on to him? I haven't read anything that says that you can't retain your grip.

...

 

Well, at least I managed to find an answer to this one. After rereading (again) the Grab maneuver description in FREd (p.256), I managed to find this about throwing a character after he is Grabbed:

"... subjecting him to the effects of a Throw [...], and releasing him."

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

Still have questions about Slam though.

[devlin1]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

You Grab him by his arms and Slam him into the ground. At the end of the maneuver, you're still holding onto his arms and he's flat on his back/face. If he wants to try to break free, he can, thus preventing more Slamming. Otherwise, you're still Grabbing his arms and may do with him what you see fit.

 

Sure, it's not as efficient as Martial Throw, but it's not about "efficiency"....

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, I finally decided to consult Steve on some of the particulars of my dilemna. I asked him:

 

"Hello Steve,

 

The "Slam" maneuver of the Brick Tricks Martial Art (both in TUB and UMA), has 3 elements: STR +2d6 Strike, Grab Two Limbs, and Target Falls.

 

Questions: Can a Target "Fall" and still retain a grip on him? Is the Character supposed to fall with the Target?

 

I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the "geometry" of this maneuver. What maneuver is this supposed to represent. Unfortunately, there is no description of this maneuver in either of the references."

 

He replied:

 

""Target Falls" indicates a Throw element, so no, the character doesn't retain his hold on the person. That would be one of the special effects of a Grab-and-Squeeze, as described on 5E 256.

 

No, the character doesn't fall. That's indicated by the descriptor "You Fall," which clearly isn't a part of that maneuver."

 

So, apparently the "Grabber" doesn't retain his hold on the subject. I'm going to follow-up the question to see if I can get some more clarifications.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, I guess I have my answer now. I asked Steve if there might be an error in the write-up. He answered:

 

There's no error. Some Throws involving Grabbing, some don't. Think of "Target Falls" as "target must be Thrown after being Grabbed," if you prefer.

 

So, I guess this is a Throw where you DO have a chance to break out before you go «SLPAT!»...

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, I guess I have my answer now. I asked Steve if there might be an error in the write-up. He answered:

 

There's no error. Some Throws involving Grabbing, some don't. Think of "Target Falls" as "target must be Thrown after being Grabbed," if you prefer.

 

So, I guess this is a Throw where you DO have a chance to break out before you go «SLPAT!»...

That would make sense IF defending characters were allowed an automatic breakout roll against Grabs. Even if the defender had a held action he wouldn't be able to "cut in" and breakout after the "Grab" but before the "Throw". Saying that some Throws involve Grabbing and some don't is fine, but what's the difference when it comes down to actually performing the maneuver? The only difference I see is in the cost of the maneuver since the Grab Oppt element costs +3 to the maneuver. So a normal Throw costs 3 points less then this Slam maneuver even though it has the same effect. Odd.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

That would make sense IF defending characters were allowed an automatic breakout roll against Grabs. Even if the defender had a held action he wouldn't be able to "cut in" and breakout after the "Grab" but before the "Throw". Saying that some Throws involve Grabbing and some don't is fine' date=' but what's the difference when it comes down to actually performing the maneuver? The only difference I see is in the cost of the maneuver since the Grab Oppt element costs +3 to the maneuver. So a normal Throw costs 3 points less then this Slam maneuver even though it has the same effect. Odd.[/quote']

 

Well, if the maneuver follows what happens in non-martial Grabs, the minute someone is Grabbed they can make one Casual STR Roll to escape. I'm not sure, but that would be before the Grabber can either Squeeze or Throw the victim. I don't see why the same would apply to this martial maneuver.

 

The only advantage this has over a normal Grab is that is does STR+2d6 damage instead of straight STR. Personally, I would buy this a +2d6 HTH (only for normal Throws; -½). This would make it the same cost as the Slam maneuver. If you make it a -1 limitation that would make it cheaper than the maneuver. Or leave it at -½ and say for all throws. That way, if the character gets a martial throw, he can add this to the damage...

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, if the maneuver follows what happens in non-martial Grabs, the minute someone is Grabbed they can make one Casual STR Roll to escape. I'm not sure, but that would be before the Grabber can either Squeeze or Throw the victim. I don't see why the same would apply to this martial maneuver.

 

The only advantage this has over a normal Grab is that is does STR+2d6 damage instead of straight STR. Personally, I would buy this a +2d6 HTH (only for normal Throws; -½). This would make it the same cost as the Slam maneuver. If you make it a -1 limitation that would make it cheaper than the maneuver. Or leave it at -½ and say for all throws. That way, if the character gets a martial throw, he can add this to the damage...

Can you give me a page ref for the Casual STR Roll to escape part. I believe you, I just wanna read up on it myself.

 

Thanks!

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Sure thing, Ben. FREd p.256, Under Grab, 3rd paragragh(just above the knees of the fighters ). It starts: "Of Course, Casual Strength...". The important comment is after the semi-colon.

[KA.]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Okay, I just found this thread and I think I have some insight.

 

Imagine someone is standing near you.

You want them on the ground.

You have several options.

 

1) You could shove them and cause them to lose their footing.

(A shove that did enough "knockback" to knock them prone.)

 

2) You could attempt to force them to lose their balance, or "trip" them.

(Martial Throw. Obviously "tripping" them would do more damage if they were running at you, which is why you get the damage bonus for moving targets.)

 

3) You could just pick them up like a sack of potatoes and lay them on the ground.

(This would probably be a straight Grab, with you choosing the option of laying them down.)

 

4) You could pick them up like a sack of potatoes and slam them on the ground. Hard!

 

To accomplish either 3) or 4) you would have to have some sort of grip on them before you let go. (Grab two limbs)

 

The difference is in how you let go.

 

You remember, when you were growing up, your parents said:

"Don't slam that door!"

"Don't slam your books down on the table!"

 

You do not retain your hold on what you are slamming, but you have to grab it and have control of it to "slam" it in the first place.

 

For a "trip" (Martial Throw), you only need marginal contact with the person you are "tripping" (one foot, one arm, sometimes just a hip bone), and they still can get damaged from their momentum.

 

But to "slam" someone to the ground hard enough to damage them with momentum that you impart to them, you have to have a good grip on them first, even if you let go as you slam them.

 

This is just the classic, Pro Wrestling "Body Slam".

Not the "Power Slam" where the guy runs at you and you smash him to the mat while retaining your hold.

The one where you just pick him up and throw him down on the ground.

 

Hope this helps,

 

KA.

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

I think the phrase that is troubling is:

Of course, Casual STR means very strong characters can effectively ignore Grabs performed by much weaker foes; it should be rolled immediately when the Grab succeeds.

However, this runs counter to pg 283 "Casual Strength" which clearly states that using Casual Strength is a zero phase action costing END. This means the character must have a phase in order to use his Casual STR; he cannot use it in an off phase. There are 5 types of actions, only one of which may occur at anytime regardless of your speed. Zero phase actions aren't them.

 

Grabbing someone should not be escapable because you are strong. Anyone can grab you, but until they try to move you your STR doesn't come into play. Additionally, since this is built on the "Target Falls" element, UMA does discuss the STR/Size limitation Optionally associated with that maneuver (I don't have UMA with me).

 

So, unless "Grabs Two Limbs" is some kind of limitation/restrictive element, "Target Falls" has no inherent escape clause (apparently like Grab), and this is just a SFX of the maneuver, especially since the Grab isn't maintained. Perhaps you could make such a Restrictive Element at -1 "Quick Grab", meaning that the target may resist with Casual STR but that's it, and if the target doesn't have 2 limbs to grab (remembering that the head counts as a limb), that the maneuver wouldn't work.

[Blackjack]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

The rules don't bother too much, in this case. I am just wondering as to the "geometry" of the maneuver.

 

Actually, the question that just occured to me, in a normal (non-martial) Grab, when you "throw" a victim into the next hex, can you still be holding on to him? I haven't read anything that says that you can't retain your grip.

 

Hey Steve, if you spot this thread, please give us your input. It might save me the trouble from posting to the Rules Question Board.

 

There are a couple of ways that you can "throw" an opponent and still maintain a hold on him:

1) Retaining your grip on limbs after throwing your opponent over your shoulder,

2) Dropping to one knee while driving your opponent into the ground,

3) Pinning your opponent underneath you while in a kneeling position. If your GM approves, you could even pin your opponent like they do in wrestling, with the understanding that while you may be physically prone, your are not subject the disadvantages of Being Prone (1/2 DCV, needing to "get up," etc.)

4) Knocking your opponent's feet out from under him while holding his arms...

 

Fight scenes in movies, pro wrestling, and even real-world martial artists can demonstrate many other such manuevers.

 

Also, on the subject, pg 146 of Ultimate Martial Artist, under Grab and Throw, says:

"The Grabber may choose whether or not to maintain the Grab after the Throw" unless the Grabber throws the opponent a long distance.

 

This topic is of particular interest to me: one of my Champions characters is a wrestler Martial Artist and am always eager to learn how Herodom handles Grab and its related mechanics.

[tesuji]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

I'm having some trouble wrapping my head around a maneuver that appears under the Brick Tricks Martial Art (both in TUB and UMA). The "Slam" Maneuver does STR +2d6 damage, and the Target Falls. What I don't understand is the "Grab Two Limbs" Element. How can the Target fall if you are still holding on to him?

 

What "real" world maneuver is this supposed to represent?

 

double leg take down

[Blackjack]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

Well, at least I managed to find an answer to this one. After rereading (again) the Grab maneuver description in FREd (p.256), I managed to find this about throwing a character after he is Grabbed:

"... subjecting him to the effects of a Throw [...], and releasing him."

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

Still have questions about Slam though.

 

I think that the line you quote above assumes that you throw the opponent far enough to be out of your reach - not just throwing him to the ground in your own or an adjacent hex. Of course, I could be mistaken (it wouldn't the first time - heck, it wouldn't be the first time this HOUR...)

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

...

Also, on the subject, pg 146 of Ultimate Martial Artist, under Grab and Throw, says:

"The Grabber may choose whether or not to maintain the Grab after the Throw" unless the Grabber throws the opponent a long distance.

...

 

Thank you! I must have been lazy, because I should have consulted the UMA on this subject. I guess Steve forgot about this mention also. You heard it here first people! Steve isn't perfect!

 

(Kidding! )

 

Also thank you for some of the examples you presented. I don't know why I was having such a hard time picturing the possibility of the combo.

 

I think that the line you quote above assumes that you throw the opponent far enough to be out of your reach - not just throwing him to the ground in your own or an adjacent hex. Of course' date=' I could be mistaken (it wouldn't the first time - heck, it wouldn't be the first time this HOUR...) [/quote']

 

Well, the quote from the UMA does seem to indicate that you are correct this time.

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

double leg take down

 

If this is the maneuver I think it is (character slides both legs around the target's legs and twists), isn't that more like a Sacrifice Throw, because both the character and the Target Fall?

[SirViss]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

...

However, this runs counter to pg 283 "Casual Strength" which clearly states that using Casual Strength is a zero phase action costing END. This means the character must have a phase in order to use his Casual STR; he cannot use it in an off phase. There are 5 types of actions, only one of which may occur at anytime regardless of your speed. Zero phase actions aren't them.

Though what you say is true, I believe that the Casual STR Roll in this circumstance is an exception to that rule, as it is specifically mentionned under Grab. I didn't find a direct quote in the FAQs to that effect but I did find one that indirectly refers to it:

Under Combat Maneuvers:

Q: Does the victim of a Choke Hold get an immediate Casual STR roll to try to break out, as with ordinary Grabs, and if he succeeds, does he still take the NND damage?

 

A: Yes, he gets an immediate Casual STR roll to break free. If he succeeds, he takes no NND damage from the attack.

 

There is also a clear statement as to when you can perform a Casual STR Roll as related to Grabs in TUB (p.94) titled "Breaking Free Of Grabs", if you have that book.

 

Grabbing someone should not be escapable because you are strong...

 

Well FREd p.256 specifically states:

...Of course, Casual STR means very strong characters can effectively ignore Grabs performed by much weaker foes;...

 

I don't want to seem like I am picking on you, i just want you to know where I am coming from.

 

...So, unless "Grabs Two Limbs" is some kind of limitation/restrictive element, "Target Falls" has no inherent escape clause (apparently like Grab), and this is just a SFX of the maneuver, especially since the Grab isn't maintained. Perhaps you could make such a Restrictive Element at -1 "Quick Grab", meaning that the target may resist with Casual STR but that's it, and if the target doesn't have 2 limbs to grab (remembering that the head counts as a limb), that the maneuver wouldn't work.

 

This is the part that DID throw me (pardon the pun). The Grab Two Limbs did seem to be more of a restrictive element, but as has been pointed out the UMA does make mention of the fact that Trowing someone doesn't mean that you have to let go.

 

Thanks for the observations. I often forget some rules and they get jumbled up in my head. You reply encouraged me to look up those rules so that I would know what I am talking about.

 

Sometimes I can be SOOOO lazy!

[Blackjack]

Re: Hey! I'm Still Holding On!

 

If this is the maneuver I think it is (character slides both legs around the target's legs and twists)' date=' isn't that more like a Sacrifice Throw, because both the character and the Target Fall? [/quote']

 

Not necessarily... by "stepping into" the manuever, applying force to the target's upper body , and twisting your hips, the target can be thrown to the ground while the attacker remains standing. I've seem practitioners of Judo and Tae Kwon Do use just such a manuever.

 

Of course, for a wrestler, if you want to do a "realistic" pin manuever, Sacrifice Throw could be appropriate. It's also good to simulate some football-style tackles...