D&D (2024) The Great Nerf to High Level Martials: The New Grapple Rules

[James Gasik]

Can you give some examples of this? Because the class descriptions I'm familiar with all stress the Fighter as an armed combatant.

Well, there is the Unarmed Fighting fighting style and they tried to give us the Brawler in UA. I don't think it's a stretch to let the Fighter be good at fighting without weapons in the same way they're good at fighting with all weapons.

And really, the cestus needs to be a thing in 5e.

(As an aside, for the people who think this has never been a niche for the Fighter as the Monk exists, let me point you at 2e, where the Complete Fighter's Handbook gives the ability to continue specialization in Punching, Wrestling, and Martial Arts to the Fighter class. The Fighting Monk Kit would also gain this ability, but the Fighter had it first, and it applied to all Fighters, not just specialized Priests).

 

[Vikingkingq]

Well, there is the Unarmed Fighting fighting style and they tried to give us the Brawler in UA. I don't think it's a stretch to let the Fighter be good at fighting without weapons in the same way they're good at fighting with all weapons.

That is true, but A. the Unarmed Fighting Style is something that was added in Tasha's rather than something that was part of the original concept for the Fighter in 5e, and B. the Brawler was kind of a misfire that speaks to the problem of trying to execute on this concept without stepping on the toes of the Monk.

And really, the cestus needs to be a thing in 5e.

(As an aside, for the people who think this has never been a niche for the Fighter as the Monk exists, let me point you at 2e, where the Complete Fighter's Handbook gives the ability to continue specialization in Punching, Wrestling, and Martial Arts to the Fighter class. The Fighting Monk Kit would also gain this ability, but the Fighter had it first, and it applied to all Fighters, not just specialized Priests).

Well, the Monk predated 2e, so I don't know about "first." And I think there's a difference between an option and a niche.

 

[Maxperson]

Can you give some examples of this? Because the class descriptions I'm familiar with all stress the Fighter as an armed combatant.

Because in D&D that's what the fighter class is. Some subclasses/prestige classes have allowed fighters to wander into the unarmed field, but the fighter class itself is about armed and armored warriors.

"Fighters learn the basics of all combat styles. Every fighter can swing an axe, fence with a rapier, wield a longsword or a greatsword, use a bow, and even trap foes in a net with some degree of skill. Likewise, a fighter is adept with shields and every form of armor. Beyond that basic degree of familiarity, each fighter specializes in a certain style of combat. Some concentrate on archery, some on fighting with two weapons at once, and some on augmenting their martial skills with magic. This combination of broad general ability and extensive specialization makes fighters superior combatants on battlefields and in dungeons alike."

There's nothing there about unarmed combat and unarmed isn't a fighter fighting style outside of the Tasha's option. That Tasha's option by the way, makes the fighters unarmed damage 1d6 and if you have no weapons or shield in hand, it becomes 1d8. It seems what he wants is already in the game if the DM allows that optional rule.

 

[Yaarel]

Mixed martial artists, UFC fighters, boxers, etc. are in the Martial Arts Hall of Fame. Martial arts include those things. Being European isn't relevant.

That is my point.


The Monk class DEXTERITY is irrelevant.

The mixed martial arts primarily represents, Strength fighting styles for bodyweaponry. Strength wrestling is especially prominent.

 

[Maxperson]

That is my point.


The Monk class DEXTERITY is irrelevant.

Martial arts being from every part of the world doesn't match up to dex not being relevant. It would be relevant to all martial arts, including monks.

The mixed martial arts primarily represents, Strength fighting styles for bodyweaponry. Strength wrestling is especially prominent.

There's a great deal of dex involved with wrestling.

 

[Yaarel]

If you're talking about the playtest, Primal isn't a spell list any more. So is the word "primal" used in the UA? Yes. But not as a mechanical concept.

Yeah, the UA descriptions of the classes have moved away from the "Forgotten Realms" sidebar that distinguishes between "arcane" versus "divine".

In the most recent UA PH 8, the Druid and Barbarian explicitly refer "primal magic" and "primal power", that orients around features of "nature" (such as landscapes and sunshine) and "animals".


(I was less of a fan of the spell list approach for the power sources anyway.)

It really does not - if we're talking about what real-world things a given class is or is not supposed to be evoking, than which stat is associated with which ability is irrelevant.

Heh. I fundamentally mechanically emphasize, the claim that the fundamental mechanical concept of Strength is defining, actualizing, and meaningly (semiotically) associating.

By contrast, the Dex Monk is fundamentally irrelevant to a Strength wrestler concept.

 

[Yaarel]

Can you give some examples of this? Because the class descriptions I'm familiar with all stress the Fighter as an armed combatant.

The main point is the conceptual plausibility. It is impossible to separate a premodern warrior from unarmed combat training. Even modern soldiers train in unarmed combat − especially for close quarters and build up (city) environments.

Regarding the UA 7 Fighter class description:

"Fighters learn the basics of ALL fighting styles" − including unarmed fighting styles.

It is worth noting, historically the fighting style that uses a single "versatile" longsword (without a shield) is for the purpose of grappling with the offhand − thus alternating between heavier damage or the addition of grappling control.


The description of the "Fighting Style" feature at level 1, becomes a choice among "Fighting Style feats". I like this design approach alot. It is easy to add new fighting styles by adding new feats. This level 1 feat (equivalent to a 2014 half feat without the ability improvement), is easy to balance by comparing to every other kind of feat in the game. I consider it sufficient for the concept to make sure there is a "Bodyweapon" fighting style feat to improve Unarmed Strikes − damage, grapple, and shove, but especially the damage die to d8, or to d6 if a second strike is possible with the offhand.

 

[Yaarel]

There's a great deal of dex involved with wrestling.

There is a great deal of Strength agility involved with wrestling.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a great deal of Strength agility involved with wrestling.

There is no such thing. Strength is brutal force. Agility is not. It is DEX. There is both strength(brute force) and dex(agility) in wrestling. You need to stop conflating two very different things.

 

[Yaarel]

There is no such thing. Strength is brutal force. Agility is not. It is DEX. There is both strength(brute force) and dex(agility) in wrestling. You need to stop conflating two very different things.

In your view, is throwing a spear pure "brutal force"?