D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[Ruin Explorer]

I like the Restrained condition here.

It is hard for me to evaluate whether Grappler merits a feat, but I think so. Grappling is potentially effective to deactivate a target, while mates focus fire.

It's incredibly bad, and it's extremely easy to evaluate that it's bad. It makes the PC as vulnerable to focus fire as the target, and makes the PC completely useless, turning their DPR to 0. Casters can get the same effect from level 2/3 spells whilst having full DPR outside the round they cast the spell, rather than 0 DPR for as long as they hold it.

 

[Yaarel]

We shouldn't have to rely on Feats for stuff currently built into various classes.

Also, making the a tactical option crap-by-default, then forcing you to spec into a Feat to make it work even "okay" is absolutely terrible game design.

Strongly agree. Unarmed is perhaps the most instinctive form of human combat. Despite it also benefiting from training and experience.

A typical human should be able to grapple effectively, ... to some degree.

 

[Yaarel]

It's incredibly bad, and it's extremely easy to evaluate that it's bad. It makes the PC as vulnerable to focus fire as the target, and makes the PC completely useless, turning their DPR to 0. Casters can get the same effect from level 2/3 spells whilst having full DPR outside the round they cast the spell, rather than 0 DPR for as long as they hold it.

As I read it, the feat grants advantage to grappling attacks thus neutralizing the disadvantage. Meanwhile, increasing vulnerability to attacks from hostiles, might be fair considering being tied up at the moment.

Perhaps the grappler benefits from cover if using the target as a human shield?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Strongly agree. Unarmed is perhaps the most instinctive form of human combat. Despite it also benefiting from training and experience.

A typical human should be able to grapple effectively, ... to some degree.

And a PC, particularly a Fighter/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Rogue/etc. is not a "typical human", they're considerably more trained, experienced, and competent. So they should be actually good at it, at least potentially.

Here there is absolutely nothing to ever make you better at it. Ever. If you're very lucky you'll keep pace with monster saving throws for a while, then you'll lose ground as monster saves go up but your STR is stuck at 20.

If they redesign class features they could fix this issue, but they will need to actually do that. Like Barbarians currently get Advantage on STR checks whilst Raging - with this redesign to grappling they should also probably cause people to save with Disadvantage against their grapples whilst Raging (there are other ways to do this, mechanically, just one suggestion - but I think it is the most simple).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As I read it, the feat grants advantage to grappling attacks thus neutralizing the disadvantage. Meanwhile, increasing vulnerability to attacks from hostiles, might be fair considering being tied up at the moment.

Perhaps the grappler benefits from cover if using the target as a human shield?

It's still completely terrible.

You're spending a Feat, in order to act like a level 2 spell (assuming the new Grapple rules), but also be completely vulnerable and doing 0 DPR.

There's no minor modification of the Feat that is going to make it anything but a total disaster that shows a massive disparity between non-casters and casters. You become a much worse human version of "Hold Person". Whereas the Level 3 Cleric can simply cast Hold Person, or whatever.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It doesn't. I already showed two ways to do grappling well that are simply using base class abilities. People are pretending the most extreme case is the only build that grapples well and it's extremely silly. Might as well claim Battlemasters are the only Fighter capable of competitive DPS or something.

No.

We shouldn't have to rely on Feats for stuff currently built into various classes.

Also, making the a tactical option crap-by-default, then forcing you to spec into a Feat to make it work even "okay" is absolutely terrible game design, and it was one of the most major flaws of 3.XE. 5E almost completely corrected it, so going back to 3.XE design here would be truly awful.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I respectfully disagree.

With what? The last bit?

So you think it's good design to design baseline tactical options that are terrible/ineffective and then force people to take Feats if they want to make them work at an acceptable level? Then perhaps other Feats to make them work "well"? And this is a special thing only Martial characters have to deal with - you also think that's fine?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

With what? The last bit?

So you think it's good design to design baseline tactical options that are terrible/ineffective and then force people to take Feats if they want to make them work at an acceptable level? Then perhaps other Feats to make them work "well"? And this is a special thing only Martial characters have to deal with - you also think that's fine?

Everything you wrote.*

*I think you Idea of good and varied game design is not compatible with mine.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Everything you wrote.*

*I think you Idea of good and varied gane design is not compatible with mine.

Sure, so you do think that about Feats, it seems. Wild. We spent two editions getting away from that terrible bit of design, and games since have learned form 3.XE/PF1 not to do that (including PF2), but there we go.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sure, so you do think that about Feats, it seems. Wild. We spent two editions getting away from that terrible bit of design, and games since have learned form 3.XE/PF1 not to do that (including PF2), but there we go.

Only because it was terrible before does not mean the current solution is perfect.

5e already has 2 feats that should help grapplers. Sadly they are bad.

The current design with opposed skill checks is also terrible, and clunky and completely imbalanced, considering that giants have athletic bonuses of +6 or so, while a player can have +17, advantage and some extra dXs while the enemy vould have - dX.
This is actually something I wanted to get rid of way more in the last 2 editions than feats:
Stupid builds, that you created because you saw a hole in the rules. Same goes for multiclassing warlock hexblades, which somehow always fits into one's character story...

I don't saythe attack vs AC is perfect. I'd prefer an initial saving throw vs something derived from strength (at least for now), but everything is better than using a system for resolving combats that is not made for it.