first I was say if grapple talent cost an in turn incidental I could see it being a 25 xp talent.

2nd look at the grapple talent now particularly about how an encounter would play out... character with grapple moves to engage, attacks, can't use grapple without spending 2 strain or 2 advantage, assuming they due spend it, the other character uses 2 strain or advantage to back off and fire at a lower difficulty at higher damage, first character moves in, attacks, spends 2 strain or 2 advantage to activate grapple, rinse repeate... the ranged character is dealing more damage from a better weapon against a lower difficulty meaning they're also generating more advantage which means their spending less strain for extra maneuvers which means the character with the 25 xp grapple talent is taking wounds and strain faster than the ranged character. That seems to be a waste of a 25 xp talent, if they didn't use it, the same situation would take place but with neither side taking strain so the melee guy would only be losing in terms of wounds rather than wounds and strain.

now if the grapple talent only took an in turn incidental to activate, melee guy uses a maneuver to engage, attacks, activates grapple as an incidental, ranged guy would then only back off when he has 2 advantage to gain a maneuver, so he stays next to the grapple which means the difficulty of their attacks are equal (average for both, assuming the ranged guy is attacking with a ranged light weapon) and the brawl/melee character gets a boost die on his next attack, the ranged combatant still has a better/more damaging weapon but the boost die helps make things a little more equal, except when the ranged guy gets the 2 advantage and can back off before taking his next shot. all else being equal the odds are still in favor of the ranged guy but the deck isn't as stacked against the brawl/melee guy as it would be without the grapple as an in turn incidental talent. i.e. in that scenario the grapple talent is beneficial rather than harmful to someone who uses it.

I think being able to grapple using two advantage by a talent would be pretty cool. Makes it a little more reliable then a triumph.

As for all the real life examples, sure, but I don't really remember a time in the movies where grappling was particularly integral to the fights. Boba or grevious and obi wan being prime examples where knockdown, combined with triumph and despair was used to create compelling fisticuffs. I imagine things would be less climatic if obi clung to grevious's leg to stop him getting to the bike.

One thing to remember is that generally Minons and rivals only have a singular move action. Thus they can never reasonably escapes a PC, personally I am in the camp of "if you want to stop them getting away, invest in skill ranks and use trumphs to trigger knockdown on a check", I find that quite nicely simulates gaining a grapple type advantage.

My house rule is that you cannot disengage and then attack the character you disengaged from on the same turn. You can attack them then disengage, or disengage then take any other action, including attacking someone else. Given they way Initiative works in this system it is still possible to get an attack in before the other character can move back to engaged range if you plan the initiative slots right.

I find this helps to stop the silly situation of having the Melee guy having to keep chasing down the gun guy who runs away and shots him every turn.

My house rule is that you cannot disengage and then attack the character you disengaged from on the same turn. You can attack them then disengage, or disengage then take any other action, including attacking someone else. Given they way Initiative works in this system it is still possible to get an attack in before the other character can move back to engaged range if you plan the initiative slots right.

I find this helps to stop the silly situation of having the Melee guy having to keep chasing down the gun guy who runs away and shots him every turn.

I’m thinking that you could have a rule where doing a double move away from someone and then shooting back at them would suffer at least one difficulty upgrade and a double setback, because basically you’re running flat out away from someone and then trying to shoot back at them while you’re running away.

If you wanted to do a single move away from someone and then spend another maneuver to turn around so that you can shoot at them, I’d allow that. But then the melee character could do a single move maneuver to catch up to them and then be at Engaged range so that they could take a whack at them.

Or, the ranged character could do a double move backwards and then shoot, but that would also result in at least one upgrade and one or two setback, due to moving backwards during combat and the dangers thereof.

IMO, those options solve the same problem, while I think being more cinematic. They still give the player the option of choosing to do that thing, but they also make it more difficult.

I think being able to grapple using two advantage by a talent would be pretty cool. Makes it a little more reliable then a triumph.

As for all the real life examples, sure, but I don't really remember a time in the movies where grappling was particularly integral to the fights. Boba or grevious and obi wan being prime examples where knockdown, combined with triumph and despair was used to create compelling fisticuffs. I imagine things would be less climatic if obi clung to grevious's leg to stop him getting to the bike.

One thing to remember is that generally Minons and rivals only have a singular move action. Thus they can never reasonably escapes a PC, personally I am in the camp of "if you want to stop them getting away, invest in skill ranks and use trumphs to trigger knockdown on a check", I find that quite nicely simulates gaining a grapple type advantage.

Can't remember where I saw it, but they deliberately left out things like grappling in the core books because it is assumed that this is covered by the characters brawl skill. It's down to the players and the GM to describe how that plays out narratively.

My house rule is that you cannot disengage and then attack the character you disengaged from on the same turn. You can attack them then disengage, or disengage then take any other action, including attacking someone else. Given they way Initiative works in this system it is still possible to get an attack in before the other character can move back to engaged range if you plan the initiative slots right.

I find this helps to stop the silly situation of having the Melee guy having to keep chasing down the gun guy who runs away and shots him every turn.

That's a better houserule than the one I proposed.

My house rule is that you cannot disengage and then attack the character you disengaged from on the same turn. You can attack them then disengage, or disengage then take any other action, including attacking someone else. Given they way Initiative works in this system it is still possible to get an attack in before the other character can move back to engaged range if you plan the initiative slots right.I find this helps to stop the silly situation of having the Melee guy having to keep chasing down the gun guy who runs away and shots him every turn.

I’m thinking that you could have a rule where doing a double move away from someone and then shooting back at them would suffer at least one difficulty upgrade and a double setback, because basically you’re running flat out away from someone and then trying to shoot back at them while you’re running away.If you wanted to do a single move away from someone and then spend another maneuver to turn around so that you can shoot at them, I’d allow that. But then the melee character could do a single move maneuver to catch up to them and then be at Engaged range so that they could take a whack at them.Or, the ranged character could do a double move backwards and then shoot, but that would also result in at least one upgrade and one or two setback, due to moving backwards during combat and the dangers thereof.IMO, those options solve the same problem, while I think being more cinematic. They still give the player the option of choosing to do that thing, but they also make it more difficult.

They all sound good, I still prefer my own house rules though as I just find it simpler.

My house rule is that you cannot disengage and then attack the character you disengaged from on the same turn. You can attack them then disengage, or disengage then take any other action, including attacking someone else. Given they way Initiative works in this system it is still possible to get an attack in before the other character can move back to engaged range if you plan the initiative slots right.

I find this helps to stop the silly situation of having the Melee guy having to keep chasing down the gun guy who runs away and shots him every turn.

That's a better houserule than the one I proposed.

Too much capability handed to a Brawl/Melee attack for zero xp imo.

Too much capability handed to a Brawl/Melee attack for zero xp imo.

According to the house rule as I understand it, you couldn't disengage from a ranged combatant and then shoot them in the same round either. It works for everyone not just brawl/melee guys. Or is your objection because it disalows a favorite tactic of yours? That right there would indicate that the tactic is too a usable and needs to be nerfed

Actually it doesn't pass a common sense test for me either. I can shoot you if I stand there where you can swing at me, but if I step away I can't shoot you? Nope, sorry, not for me.

The reason you previously gave was

Too much capability handed to a Brawl/Melee attack for zero xp imo.

Which doesn't track with your last justification. In any event I would say it'seems just another order of operations foible of a turn based initiative system that also doesn't allow him to walk at the same time as you do and thus stay at engaged ranged with you, also it doesn't prevent you from turning around and shooting him, it prevents you from turning around and shooting him THIS TURN... you can still shoot him next turn. And if you want to narratively describe your character as blindly shooting behind him while he's running away, that's fine with me but it's not going to hit

You know, why ema's house rule to fix the loophole was better than my first pass, I got to thinking that if the purpose was to close the loophole, then the optimal house rule would close the loophole but have no other effects... so in that vein I propose the following house rule

If you start your turn engaged to an opponent, then any ranged attacks you make until the end of your turn are treated as if you were still engaged to that opponent regardless of your current relative positions. This satisfies 2P51's stated "common sense test" regarding the order of operations while accounting for the narrative "truth" that all characters turns are occurring at the "same time" and a brawl/melee character wouldn't let you step out of engaged range without them following you.

You know, why ema's house rule to fix the loophole was better than my first pass, I got to thinking that if the purpose was to close the loophole, then the optimal house rule would close the loophole but have no other effects... so in that vein I propose the following house rule

If you start your turn engaged to an opponent, then any ranged attacks you make until the end of your turn are treated as if you were still engaged to that opponent regardless of your current relative positions. This satisfies 2P51's stated "common sense test" regarding the order of operations while accounting for the narrative "truth" that all characters turns are occurring at the "same time" and a brawl/melee character wouldn't let you step out of engaged range without them following you.

Actually, thinking about it, my version was slightly different. My idea was that if you disengage you still count as engaged until the start of your next turn. Where I think the above would be more relevant. It's too early on the morning and my brain is not quite awake yet.

I don't think that attacking a character that you are not engaged to while you are engaged is treated any differentlyrics that attacking the character that you are engaged to.

None of my players focus on melee.