So now that I have had a night to think, and we aren't activly playing, I would like to re-address our rules discussion and decision of grappling creatures larger than you.

I do not begrudge Keyes for his on the call decision. While I fought harder than I should of at the time, it is his job as a DM to make the call on the spot for a rule that is believed to be in the grey area. Now that the session is over, though, I would like us to discuss his decision to see if it should stand.

My argument against the rule standing is thus: Nowhere in the rules, to my knowledge, is it stated that someone smaller than their opponent are unable to grapple a target. There are, however, penalties and bonuses to CMB and CMD based upon size. To me, this is the makers of the game already seeking to find a balance in the regards of trying to grapple, trip, disarm, etc, when someone is larger than you are. Besides the written straight bonuses to CMB and CMD for large size, large and larger creatures normally have an increased strength due to size, buffing their CMB/CMD as well. With this written buffs to large creature's defenses against grappling, I do not believe that we should be further restricting a characters ability to use a combat maneuver against a larger opponent.

The straight bonuses, btw, are as follows (for big guys): Large, +1; Huge +2; Garg +4; Colossal +8. Does it make it impossible, no. Does it make it difficult, yes.

Also, If we are doing this 'because it doesnt make sense that he can do this', then there are many other combat maneuvers that dont make sense either. Are we going to start errata'ing all them as well? We will be going down a slippery slope. How can Shiv (to use an example) Bull Rush a large size creature, pushing him back 10, 15 feet? How about reposition, literally moving him as he sees fit?

TL;DR: Sorry for arguing last night Keyes. I believed it was a unnessisary changing of the rules where I believed the rules were already quite clear, so I fought back harder than I should have. But now that we are out of the session, I do not want to see the rule change that you implimented in further sessions, as I still believe it was an unnessisary change and they have already implimented ways to make it more difficult.

I like the idea of applying all combat maneuver rules as written. 

If DMs feel that it's necessary, they can buff monsters by adding grapple-resistant features.  Examples:

* Large or huge sized. (already discussed).

* Higher than normal strength or dex.

* Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple as bonus feats.

* Grab (Ex) and/or Constrict (Ex) monster ability.

However, I would be annoyed if, say, a gargantuan great wyrm dragon got grappled by a goblin and then couldn't move, but the great wyrms in the Beastiary have a CMD of about 50--and that's without Imp Grapple or Greater Grapple.  At level 20, Shiv will have about a grapple mod of about +30, so he grappling a dragon would be virtually impossible, which is appropriate imo.  Grapple difficulties are built into the game, as is Mike's point.

I find this entire thread very disturbing. This is power-gaming pure and simple. The DM is the final arbiter of the rules, and can discard, throw out, or modify rules to fit the circumstances when telling the story.

Imagine this exchange:

Player 1: I perform this attack/maneuver/spell

DM: Ok, here the result.

Player 1: No, you are wrong, Mr. DM. See, I know the rules better than you, and the rules as written say my result is this, instead.

DM: That’s fine, but I’m making a ruling on this.

Player 1: No. I reject your ruling, and I will now spend the next 20 minutes tell you why my knowledge of the rules is superior.

Basically, we are telling DMs that they are not allowed to improvise. Taking your argument and logic, I’d have had to gen combat stats for everyone in the bar, set up a grid, and we would still be in bura bhals manor b/c that minor and fun fight would take 3 sessions to finish.

On the topic, I’ve noticed that the RAW argument only comes into effect when the players have an advantage. I’ve never seen anyone argue that say, a magical item is illegal in the system, or that a trap is illegal in the system b/c they want to make their slotless bear trap of doom STR +5 AC +18.

Personally, I think Keyes was in the right on this one. He’s the Dm for this session. He decides the outcomes of rolls.

I can see where this is causing issues. I am not telling a DM that he is not allowed to improvise. I am worried that decisions, made on the spot, may not be as apt of a decision that can be come up with after the fact. Also, what I am worried about, is a player designing their characters under a certain set of rules and then being told later that the rules you designed your character under are wrong and we are changing them, and then the character not being as effective.

In your above exchange, that is exactly what I did last night (more or less) and what I did was wrong. While it wasnt 20 min, I did spend too much time telling Keyes that his ruling was unnessisary and wrong. That was a mistake. I will endevor to not argue with DM's on the spot when they make a call like that. I have that problem in Ontrix's campaign, and I have that problem here as well. I will try to stop.

The differnce between this campaign and Ontrix's, however, is that I too am a DM of this campaign. While Keyes is the active DM (and I will not contradict him on the spot), I do disagree with his decision and do not think it should be a cannon rule change for our world, which is why I bring it up here. If I were to make a rule change while I was DM, and someone disagreed with the call, I would love for them to take it up with the group after the fact. I would rather this be OUR world, then people be upset because of a rule decision made by a single DM.

The point of this thread was not to say "No, Keyes, your decision is bad and I wont follow it" but instead more of a "Hey, he made this call, I'm not cool with it, do people believe it should stand or am I just out of line thinking it was wrong?" This thread is designed to make sure that this rules choice is something we want implimented in our world.

Also, I want to make this clear: I am in no means (and apologize if it was interpreted as thus) as an attack on Keyes or his abilities as a DM. He is fairly new, and his style, while different, is good. Everyone makes (imo) a bad call, and just cause one bad thing happens doesnt mean that hes not a good DM. 

Also, I am unsure of what you mean by the last part of your post, about the advantage. If I disagree with a call that benefits the party, or I notice a rule that a DM missed that adversly effects the party, I will let the DM know. I do not and will not only argue for the party: I am an equal parts rules lawyer

This is a non-sequitur:

Basically, we are telling DMs that they are not allowed to improvise. Taking your argument and logic, I’d have had to gen combat stats for everyone in the bar, set up a grid, and we would still be in bura bhals manor b/c that minor and fun fight would take 3 sessions to finish.

Generating content that is incomplete (e.g.: NPCs in a bar fight not having stat blocks) and then making it up as you go along is different than voiding and countermanding the explicit rules of the game. 

The Gamemastery Guide does say that DM's have the authority to void RAW for story reasons, and that DMs don't have to reveal campaign secrets "just because the rules lawyer demands an answer".  I love that phrasing, but I think that breaking RAW is best done sparingly--for explicit story reasons--and when the content can't be developed in any other way.  DMs have tools to counteract grapplers; I would like to use those more before invoking DM/story privilege where it might not be needed.  When I'm DM I will do so, but DM's may do what they want.

EDIT:

There was nothing wrong with Brian's DMing or Brian's ruling.  If he wants his cool monster to be grapple resistant then that's fine.   I only take issue with the charge that I'm enslaving DMs to following strict RAW with no deviations ever. 

Short version:

1) DMs can do what they want.

2) I would prefer that DMs follow RAW as a general principle, and countermand the rules sparingly. (I am not alleging that Brian did not do this--double negative.)

Modest Proposal:

Grappled: A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect.

If the controlling grappler is smaller than the grappled creature by 2 size categories or more (for example, a Small Creature grappling a Large or bigger creature),the grappled creature moves at half-speed. If the controlling grappler is smaller by 1 size category (a small creature grappling a medium creature), the grappled creature cannot move.  The controlling grappler may only move if he or she releases the grapple, or uses the “move” action as part of the grapple.  The grappled creature’s movement forces the controlling grappler to move with it (remaining in anyadjacent square).  This movement by the controlling grappler does not provoke attacks of opportunity.  The controlling grappler may cease moving with the grappled creature as an immediate action

Grappled creatures takea –4 penalty to Dexterity.A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuverchecks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappledcreatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappledcharacter who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentrationcheck (DC 5+ grappler's CMB+ spell level), or lose the spell (Unless the spell is cast as a stilled spell).Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealthto hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hidein plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creaturebecomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstancebonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

I tend to be a RAW kind of person but in this case buffing the monsters to compensate for the grapple would prove more hazardous than it's worth. Normally I would say just let him grapple but I'd like to point this out as yet another reason why pathfinder is inferior to 3.5. 3.5 tends to have rules for everything which makes it easier to make calls. Sure there is no rule against grappling foes that there is no way that you physically could, but it also isn't very well addressed.

I suggest we take the 3.5 approach and say that monsters that are 2 or more size categories larger can be grabbed but not held in a grapple. If I had been DMing I would have allowed the grapple but I would add that to the list of things that the party is capable of which causes need for necessary creativity with encounters, if only because other party members need a chance in the spotlight too.

I tend to neutralize grapplers by throwing out a lot more creatures since grapplers can only really deal with one at a time. That is a better approach from my standpoint, but if there must be a ruling on grappling I'd say limit it to within one size category since that worked pretty well.

This is the modifier for size catagories for all CMB/CMD modifiers. 

Fine –8, Diminutive –4, Tiny –2, Small –1, Medium +0, Large +1, Huge +2, Gargantuan +4, Colossal +8.

There are NO more modfieres for size. The size of the the monsters do not naturally affect their stats. The only size modifiers for strength and otherwise apply only when Enlarging a character to a size catagory via "Enlarge Person." 

to give you another idea of what this looks like.

"A grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.

A grappled creature cannot use Stealth to hide from the creature grappling it, even if a special ability, such as hide in plain sight, would normally allow it to do so. If a grappled creature becomes invisible, through a spell or other ability, it gains a +2 circumstance bonus on its CMD to avoid being grappled, but receives no other benefit.

Casting Spells while Grappled/Grappling: The only spells which can be cast while grappling or pinned are those without somatic components and whose material components (if any) you have in hand. Even so, you must make a concentration check (DC 10 + the grappler's CMB + the level of the spell you're casting) or lose the spell."

Additionally...according to the editors note on "http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Grapple"

There are some contradictions between the various rules on grappling. What is correct?

To sum up the correct rules:

Grappling does not deny you your Dex bonus to AC, whether you are the grappler or the target.

A grappled creature can still make a full attack.

Being pinned does not make you flat-footed, but you are denied your Dex bonus.

A creature grappling an opponent typically needs to make two combat maneuver checks to pin someone (one to grapple, the next to pin). If you're pinned, do you also need to succeed at two checks to escape, one for the grab and the other for the pin?

No.

When a creature is pinned, it gains this more severe version of the grappled condition, and the two conditions do not stack (as described in the pinned condition). While this means that you do not take both the penalties for both the grapple and the pin, this also means that pinned supersedes the grapple condition; it does not compound it. For this reason you only need to succeed one combat maneuver or Escape Artist check to escape either a grapple or a pin"

I tend to agree with pixality here. I understand that this a game and note a simulation, however, i do not think it is believeable for a creature of two size catagories smaller has a remote chance of "pinning" or "grappling" a creature 2 sizes larger.

for the example of last night, the net penalty against shive was a total of "2" against a creature 2 size categories larger and based on the beastiay 9ft tall and 900lbs. to me its absolutely absurd. 

I understand the RAW here, but i dont agree with them at all. The alternative to changing this, is to do like pixality said. start throwing more monsters, or drastically alterating monsters to anticipate encouter ending tatics. I agree with Paladin here as well. The arguement that was put forward is powerbuilding and is exactly the reason that DM's like myself get upset at the tatics used here. I want to build encounters to make things difficult for the party, but when i have to account for things like grapple, i am limited to make the encounter difficult to prevent it from being "easy". 

If shivcontinues the grapple with the buggane, he intially won the grapple at a 29. if he controls it, he gains a plus 5. that puts him at a 34. the buggane, a large size creature, has a CMB of +13. That means that if shivwere to pin him, he would still have to roll something to absurd to beat shiv's high CMD. I can understand shiv being a good grapple against a creature of his size or even a human, but something 3 times bigger than him in height, and nearly 300 times bigger in him in weight is just ridiculous.

First, I would like to address the "powerbuilding" statement:

Shiv is not powerbuilt. He is good at grappling, yes, and he has sunk most if not all feats into grappling, but he is not powerbuilt. Also, I do not make this argument because of powerbuilding. I make this argument because I dont want to see the rules that someone makes their character around change from under their feet mid session drasticaly reducing the effectiveness of their character.

If we had started Rianardu saying "oh, and btw, I dont like grapple as written, I think we should change it" then sure. But mid session changing something that is a very explicit rule already is what I have a problem with. Changing it post session? OK, but we should give Shiv the option of retraining without cost if we are changing one of his core mechanics. 

I have no problems changing the grapple rules. If we want to change it to the two size catagories, I would rather it be 3 or more is only able to be 'partially' grappled, but that is my opinion.

Also, my point about the size catagory and strength, is that, while it is not expressly written, big creatures almost always have a high strength, and that in monsters, generally the bigger the creature the bigger the strength. I was not mentioning any written rule for that, no.

"Also, my point about the size catagory and strength, is that, while it is not expressly written, big creatures almost always have a high strength, and that in monsters, generally the bigger the creature the bigger the strength. I was not mentioning any written rule for that, no."

thats the thing.. we are discussing rules as written. and that is not expressly written, therefore, it would seem invalid to include it in the arguement as it is not a stated rule.

And as i said before, i understand that shiv may be good at grappling someone within 1 size category of himself. that is believable to me. i can understand it from a roleplay and build perspective. That being said, from all the sessions ive been apart of, the vast majority of baddies fought have been humanoids of medium size. I dont think his build would be drastically affected by changing the rules. The dms that ive played with do not have a habit of throwing monsters of greater than medium size.

I hear you and agree with the point of the strength. However, we should also not be arguing that "most dm's only throw medium creatures", as this is circumstancial and we are arguing the mechanics change of larger creatures.

As for his build not being drastically changed by changing the rules, I disagree. We are changing his mechanic from what was written. Some people (I'm not saying Shiv is) might be upset with the change and no longer want to grapple. If this is the case, we should allow them the ability to no longer use the mecahnic we are chaning and get to retrain without penalty. Its only fair.

I have a question though, rules wise. Let us assume that we change grapple. I will continue to use the fight that we had as an example. There are rules for tying up an opponent, either with manacles or rope. This is normally done from pinning, but can be done from grapple at a -10 penalty. Are we taking this ability away from creatures who are two or more size catagories smaller? I understand if you have small size manacles it doesnt make sense, but if you have 50' of rope, can you bind your opponent?

Edit: First paragraph

I'm in agreement with Keyes that Shiv's chracter design is powerbuilt.  IF that word causes too much stress, we cna substitute "hyper-focused".  The reality of it is that Shiv is exactly what the rules allow...a character that can break down the game.  To be fair, it's really the grapple mechanic that is broken.  THe mechanic relies on "tilt".  Once you start the grapple, it's very very hard to turn the tide or escape (takes some amazing roles).

I also have an issue with how the combat maneuver size penalties are applied.  For example, from Fine to Tiny (2 size categories), the cumulative effect is a 6 point (30%) mis-match. Fine gets a -8 to AB & Def, Tiny gets a -2, all things being equal.  The same thing happens between C and H creatures. (+8/+2).  However, in teh real of creatures we usually use, (Size S through L), this moves to a 2 point swing.

To Pix's notion of using more creatures...one thing that I have found is that more creatures can seriouly slow down combat.  I don't want to have to make encounters 4 hours to aovid them being 4 rounds. :).

So at issue we have this:  We have a single character whose chosen mechanic/primary attack for can be extremely game breaking to the point of trivializing enemies.  It's not fair to make him change, but it's also not fair to force good natured DMs who just want to make good and fun content to do many gymnastics to make it work.

When I DM, I'm ok with Shiv grappling some of the time.  I'm just not ok with him autokilling the tough monster.  I think my issue is the 4 round kill.

Round 1) Grapple
Round 2) Pin
Round 3) Tie up
Round 4) Coup de gras (DC ends up being 10 + 1d4 + 3 + 2d8, average DC: 25)

During this time, the ghankee can do progressively less.

Round 1) Denied movement.  CMB decreases by 2, CMD Decreases 4, casting is almost impossible.
Round 2) Denied movement.  Denied Dex Bonus.  -4 penalty to AC (stacks with loss of dex).  Pinner gets a +5 to CMB, Pinned gets a -5 (assumed from lost dex) to CMD.
Round 3) Helpless
Round 4) Dead

Round 1) Shiv's advantage increases by 20%.  Pinned has a 10% harder roll to get out.
Round 2) Shiv's advantage increases by 50%.
Round 3) Shiv has incapacitated the target.  Any adjacent ally can spend a full round action to kill the enemy.
Round 4) Shiv can kill, or move on to the next guy.

Here are the suggestions for dealing with this break, withing RAW:
More foes (slows down combat)
Foes now have DM increased bonuses to grapple (seems like a bam-hammer on Shiv)
Important foes have freedom of movment (possibility, but not a fantastic option).
Shiv uses grapple less (not fair to Dylan)

Now imagine this...Shiv got this good at grappling by level 3.  Everyone else COULD follow his lead.  Retrain 2 feats, and purchase some magic items and boom.

Now combat becomes trivial.

So the question becomes, "Is Grapple too broken?"

I feel like I need to weigh in here.

1. Shiv is not nor will be game breaking or encounter dominating

Shiv can lock down a single target with a moderate CMD. Shiv will have trouble with multiple enemies, enemies with high CMDs, casters, ranged attackers, or enemies who can deal a lot of damage with a light or one-handed weapon, unarmed strike, or natural attack. The DC to escape shiv's grapple is 22. Very difficult to beat for low level NPCs such as the bandits or prison gards (although you will remember one of the gards escaped me). The buggane has to roll a 9 to escape or become the controlling grappler.

2. Shiv is about as relatively strong as he is going to get.

What I mean by that is from this point on Shiv's CMB will increase only by ability score increases and BAB (which is 3/4 for a rogue) and the 2 point bump from geater grapple at level 9. people with full BAB as well as monsters will close the gap with me as we level up.

3. Shiv is not power-built, but he is hyper focused

He is indeed very hyper-focused, ill give you that. I personally like that, having something which I am better than everyone else at, having a few things which I am very good at, and having a variety of things which I suck at. I like playing that way. Shiv, however, is not power-built (by my understanding of the concept). Chosing to play a rogue means Shiv is already not very good at combat maneuvers(low BAB, less feats, no fancy monk class abilitys). Chosing to play a goblin means I have to deal with a variety of unnessesary penalties. If I was power building a grappler, I would play an orc fighter or monk. I chose a goblin because I thought it would be hilarious and challenging.

4. Shiv was never intended to jump on someone and progress the grapple till they were tied up.

That has been happening because I have not yet gotten the feat that lets me do the thing that I want, which is to jump on someone and stab them. Next level, 4, I will get the strangler feat which will allow me to deal sneak attack damage when I deal damage in a grapple. This means that I will most offen be attempting to maintain a grapple on a single target for multiple rounds while stabbing them. Keep in mind that I will have to make a CMB check vs their CMD every round, and they will get to make a CMB or Escape Artist check vs my CMD every round. Thats lots of chances to escape. I could do this now but I would deal 1d3 + 2 damage, which is lame, and I want to do cool stuff, sue me.

You may have noticed that I have completely skipped the main point of this thread, thats because I'm pretty torn on the subject. yeah, I never expected to be able to physically dominate dragons and shit. large sized creatures, it would be cool if we could suspend disbelief and let it happen on the basis that most grappleing involves pressure points and stuff like that, but I wont be butt-hurt if it dosent go my way.

The only thing that really bothered me in this thread, and the reason I posted this god damn novel, is the idea that I am dominating encounters by myself and nothing can stand against me. I feel like I have been completely in line with the party in power and combat spotlight. there have been a few combats that I baiscally had no part in even though I was there. I don't think I am "breaking down the game" nor do I think I am "trivializing" enemys, and if I am making DMs do gymnastics to have challenging encounters then I havn't noticed it and I'm sorry. I personally don't think it takes a lot to have a challenging encounter with me in it, the last encounter nearly killed me and I wasnt even any kind of focal point.

tl;dr  I don't mind if the new rule is that full grappling can be done with an enemy only 1 size catagory bigger and only partial grappleing for 2 size catagories, my character will still fucntion. I do mind the acusation that I am ruining the game with my egregious power building.

Dyaln:
The reason this comes up is that, as a DM, I've had to specifically account for Shiv mechanically.  You have not been game breaking due to your choice in how to pursue matters (For example, avoiding a petitioner guard in Bhal's manor in liue of the 4 step lock down, running to mayor's house in lieu of the main battle, etc.).  That is a tribute to you (crazy mad props for that).  I'd honestly rather see a "climb on" combat manuever to help with the conept that you want to do (jump on a stabbify the baddies).

As for the PB vs. HF debate...myself, I consider those 1 in the same.  This is 3 years old debate between Sev and myself, and it's no closer to being resolved. Most people get upset when the PB work is used b/c it has a negative connotation.  One of the assumptions is that PBuilders are the opposite of role players.  I've seen that not be ture (take yourself, case in point).  I'll leave it at that.

As for point 4, it may not have been intended, but that is where it seems to lead that way.  I don't blame you for wanting to do cool stuff.  I'm quite happy with it.:D

I used you as the example only b/c you were the grappler in question.  I wasn't denegrating your role playing (at least, was not my intention, and I apologize if I did).  I don't think you are "ruining the game".  I think you have a mechanical build that "causes the DM fits".  As a player, I'm content.  As a DM, I look at every monster and ask, "how many rounds till shiv ties this up".  I've even wondered about incorporeal creatures.... 

I'm going to check out of this one....I think grapple was boinked in 3/3.5, and I don't think PF fixed it really.  I also think that we could come up with a compromise to make everyone happy.

Side note....:D looks like a hockey player w/ missing teef.