D&D 5E Spell save mechanic for grappling attacks

[John Brebeuf]

I don't care for the wild outcome swings that are possible with opposed d20 rolls (and I can't wrap my head around the probabilities involved anyway), so I was wondering if using the mechanic for spell saving throws would also work for grappling.

Grappling attack: Target makes a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (whichever is better) against the attacker's grappling save DC. If the target fails, he is in the grappled condition. Target may attempt to break the grapple on his next turn by making only a Strength saving throw against the attacker's grappling save DC.

Grappling save DC: 8 + Strength modifier (+ proficiency bonus if the character has proficiency in Strength saving throws)

Doing it this way also gives fighters a little extra oomph by making Strength the prominent ability involved.

Thoughts?

 

[jaelis]

I think using a save mechanic that is fine, but I wouldn't change the Dex/Str balance without a specific reason. And I would keep the skill proficiency rather than using Str save prof, that doesn't make much sense to me.

However, you'd have to decide if you still want to count a grapple attempt as an attack, for things that base off attacks. (For instance, if grappling isn't an attack then you could do it without breaking invisibility.)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Seems reasonable enough. Are we also calling grappling an Attack action? That way, a PC could grapple and, if successful (i.e. the grapplee fails the grapple Save), attempt an attack with his/her off hand as a bonus action. Too much?

 

[John Brebeuf]

And I would keep the skill proficiency rather than using Str save prof, that doesn't make much sense to me.

The reasoning for that can be found here: Dungeon Grappling

To quote the relevant passage:

While there are places where skill and agility have great impact in grappling, by and large, it is always better to be stronger than the other guy. Skill may act as an enhancement to strength, but a skilled weakling is still in deep trouble if trapped under (or grappled by) someone heavy, especially if that opposing grappler has any skill whatsoever.

 

[John Brebeuf]

Seems reasonable enough. Are we also calling grappling an Attack action? That way, a PC could grapple and, if successful (i.e. the grapplee fails the grapple Save), attempt an attack with his/her off hand as a bonus action. Too much?

Sounds right to me. I don't think it could be considered anything else but an Attack action.

 

[Tormyr]

I don't care for the wild outcome swings that are possible with opposed d20 rolls (and I can't wrap my head around the probabilities involved anyway), so I was wondering if using the mechanic for spell saving throws would also work for grappling.

Grappling attack: Target makes a Strength or Dexterity saving throw (whichever is better) against the attacker's grappling save DC. If the target fails, he is in the grappled condition. Target may attempt to break the grapple on his next turn by making only a Strength saving throw against the attacker's grappling save DC.

Grappling save DC: 8 + Strength modifier (+ proficiency bonus if the character has proficiency in Strength saving throws)

Doing it this way also gives fighters a little extra oomph by making Strength the prominent ability involved.

Thoughts?

It works fine to set a DC, and I do that quite a bit, but use 10 + MOD + PROF to set the DC. That is what all the monsters do. Spellcasting is unique in its 8 + MOD + PROF DC. I assume it is to negate the fact that even weak spellcasters always have proficiency (+2). Everything else that I have found in the core books sets a DC that could have been an opposed roll uses 10 + MOD + PROF.

 

[jaelis]

The reasoning for that can be found here: Dungeon Grappling

To quote the relevant passage:

OK, so this is because you have some philosophical disagreement with the existing grappling rules, not just looking for cleaner mechanics. That's fine, just not quite how I interpreted your OP.

But as to the point, you still apply proficiency, representing training. You are just basing it on saving throws rather than Athletics skill. How does that square up with your concept? IE, why would a 16 Str fighter be a better grappler than a 20 Str paladin?

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I suspect the game rules use an opposed check is because checks can be optionally failed but saves cannot.

You can't choose to voluntarity fail a saving throw but you can choose, for example, to not contest a grapple check.

 

[John Brebeuf]

OK, so this is because you have some philosophical disagreement with the existing grappling rules, not just looking for cleaner mechanics. That's fine, just not quite how I interpreted your OP.

But as to the point, you still apply proficiency, representing training. You are just basing it on saving throws rather than Athletics skill. How does that square up with your concept? IE, why would a 16 Str fighter be a better grappler than a 20 Str paladin?

As I noted:

Doing it this way also gives fighters a little extra oomph by making Strength the prominent ability involved.

Paladins already have lots of nice things. I like the idea of raw physical combat being something fighters especially excel at.

 

[jaelis]

... right, but your argument for removing athletics was that grappling was not really a matter of skill. So what is it about fighter that makes them better?

Or is it fundamentally that you just think fighters need a boost and you are using this to achieve that? That of course is fine too.