D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[dave2008]

For reference:

View attachment 258578
View attachment 258579

1. Its a feat. Although most games use feats, not all do. I agree being able to restrain should require some training, but a feat? shrug You are already using a second attack to progress from grappled to restrained, that should be sufficient. Now, if you grapple and attempt to restrain, but fail, then perhaps the creature escapes automatically or at the very least allow advantage on the next escape attempt.

2. If you restrain a creature, you are also restrained. Which means your speed is also 0, so you can't move the creature. Your speed should not be reduced as it is already half when attempting to move grappled creatures.

3. The Restrained Condition is weak. A restrained creature should not be able to take any actions other than trying to escape being restrained. What is Restrained should be more of a Grappled Condition (at least the new playtest material is heading in the correct direction in that respect...), but with half speed instead of 0 speed.

4. It deals no damage. If you want to deal damage, you also need to take the Fighting Style... The feat should make your grapple deal 1d4+STR mod damage IMO.

OK, so your issue is the feat is poorly designed (and a bit redundant - why do I need to restrain when the feat already gives advantage). That is a different issue. I think a feat seems appropriate, but I could also see it as part of a fighting style. My only point being I think the idea that it is not free makes sense.

However, didn't you already break everything down to half feats?

 

[dave2008]

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 gotta disagree here. I think a general grappling rule is fine, but then class features (like a fighting style) or feats to make it better make perfect sense to me. Anyone can try to grab and grapple someone, but only someone trained (feat, fighting style, etc.) can effectively do additional things. What seems wrong to you about that approach?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thinking Fighter on Fighter is extremely silly nonsense.

Don't be rude, please and thank you. Such a response encourages me to not bother continuing the discussion.

D&D 5E isn't designed a game that's about "Fair PvP", which is your starting point and why your ideas aren't helping you understand the issue here.

Think PC on monster, or monster on PC, because that is 99.9999% of cases. Monsters often don't have "attacks" in that sense to even expend. It's not a "standard unit" of action currency.

Fine, PC vs. "monster" if it makes you happy. Plenty of monsters get multiattack, where an attack could be used to break free. Even a bite attack or something could be used to break free of a grapple.

And no, the second one doesn't have to do that. They could equally easily just Shove the PC with their first attack, which will break the Grapple. And they don't need to break the enemy Grapple to Grapple the enemy themselves, not sure why you're suggesting that, doesn't make any sense.

Or you could just as easily have them be allowed to escape the grapple with an attack instead of shoving. Shoving is a STR (Athletics) check, so those DEX-monsters would not be able to escape easily, even though wiggling free is a very viable alternative.

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

Provided a base level of training, sure.

But lots of people are very ineffective at grappling (which reduces the target's speed to 0). It is one reason why Unarmed Strike should still be a simple weapon proficiency, not just allow everyone to have it. Do you understand how many people really don't know how to throw a punch properly??? Wizards and Sorcerers are the only two classes without Simple weapons, so they should not be proficient in Unarmed Strikes, either.

However, didn't you already break everything down to half feats?

We've done both, making all feats half feats but also making all feats ASI +1 feats.

As for the current feat, making it so you can restrain the target but you are NOT also restrained would go a good way towards making it better. Add in 1d4 base damage, and you have a decently solid feat IMO.

Making things part of the Fighting Style would be better than having it as a feat IMO.

 

[Simpletense]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly but can the grappled creature not just attack the grappler with an unarmed strike (no disadvantage), and on a success choose to shove rather than deal damage, thereby moving the grappler 5ft and (assuming standard reach etc) breaking the grapple by moving themselves out of grapple range without using speed?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I gotta disagree here. I think a general grappling rule is fine, but then class features (like a fighting style) or feats to make it better make perfect sense to me. Anyone can try to grab and grapple someone, but only someone trained (feat, fighting style, etc.) can effectively do additional things. What seems wrong to you about that approach?

Because if a tactical option doesn't work well without investing specifically in it, it's not a real tactical option, it's just a trap for players who don't understand the mechanics properly. It thus shouldn't be presented as a tactical option.

3.XE/PF1 are absolutely full of this, as were some other games of that design era. Tons of things you can do, but you'll be absolutely awful at them unless you go buy the Feats designed specifically to support them.

5E's design so far is directly opposed to this. 5E does not present tactical options that don't work well without specific investment. You don't need a Grapple feat to make Grappling work well. Proficiency in Athletics + a good STR makes it work basically better than this, and anything which gives you Advantage on STR checks, or gives the enemy Disadvantage on STR (or DEX, depending) checks is a big bonus. You don't need weird bollocks like Expertise in Athletics or anything, that's for freaks.

Anyway, point is, top-to-bottom, 5E's design opposes 3E's design here. Changing this so it sucked unless you bought a SPECIFIC Feat, or a SPECIFIC Fighting Style, would be very bad. Class features and spells that you get as default? That's less of a problem. But we don't this game to turn into 3E, where you have to pay the Feat tax constantly. That would be bad.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fine, PC vs. "monster" if it makes you happy. Plenty of monsters get multiattack, where an attack could be used to break free. Even a bite attack or something could be used to break free of a grapple.

An attack is still a non-standard unit of currency. You're trying to pay for something in Bitcoins at the corner shop. KISS frankly. Don't make people try and work out attack costs.

Plus, monsters, as you accidentally point out, fairly often have tons more attacks than PCs, so would be able to trivially break Grapples on their turn, which does not, to me, seem right, when almost no PCs have more than 2 Attacks/round with their Action (mainly Fighters above level 11, and hardly anyone is even playing above level 11, let alone playing a Fighter specifically).

Your whole idea here seems to be "I want Grappling to be totally ineffective and useless, and instantly broken by monsters". I mean, really? Is that not what you're thinking. Every single thing you've said has been laser-focused on demanding Grapples be allowed to be broken as trivially as possible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly but can the grappled creature not just attack the grappler with an unarmed strike (no disadvantage), and on a success choose to shove rather than deal damage, thereby moving the grappler 5ft and (assuming standard reach etc) breaking the grapple by moving themselves out of grapple range without using speed?

Yes, then can.

But that is only really a good option if you have a good Strength (Athletics) bonus. A lot of creatures don't, so allowing them to make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check instead to wiggle free instead of an attack makes sense. You used an attack to grapple, you should be able to use an attack to escape without having to Shove. Non-strong creatures shouldn't be forced to use their entire action to escape IMO.

KISS frankly. Don't make people try and work out attack costs.

It is very simple. Attack to grapple, attack to escape. Easy. Not difficult at all.

Plus, monsters, as you accidentally point out, fairly often have tons more attacks than PCs, so would be able to trivially break Grapples on their turn, which does not, to me, seem right, when almost no PCs have more than 2 Attacks/round with their Action (mainly Fighters above level 11, and hardly anyone is even playing above level 11, let alone playing a Fighter specifically).

Not really. Most monsters get 1 or 2 attacks, just like most PCs who might try to grapple.

Breaking a grapple wouldn't be trivially easy, either. It would be the same chance as if you used the entire action, but allow such opponents (monster and PC alike!) to be able to still make an attack (or two at most in the vast majority of cases!) after escaping.

Your whole idea here seems to be "I want Grappling to be totally ineffective and useless, and instantly broken by monsters". I mean, really? Is that not what you're thinking. Every single thing you've said has been laser-focused on demanding Grapples be allowed to be broken as trivially as possible.

It is easy to grapple, it should be easy to escape. Make grappling an Action, not just in place of an attack, and then you can keep escaping in the same action economy level.

 

[dave2008]

Because if a tactical option doesn't work well without investing specifically in it, it's not a real tactical option, it's just a trap for players who don't understand the mechanics properly. It thus shouldn't be presented as a tactical option.

I don't need it to be a tactical option as the base. Just an option. People can grapple, so it should be an option. It is rarely a good option if you are not good (ie trained) at it.

Conversely, to meet your criteria, the could make the base grapple better and then still have feats to make it even better. Is that what you are thinking?

Personally, I don't want a grapple to generally be an equivalent option to hitting with a sword.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It is easy to grapple, it should be easy to escape. Make grappling an Action, not just in place of an attack, and then you can keep escaping in the same action economy level.

This fails to holistically understand how grappling works, and that it exposes the grappler to risk as well as the person being grappled. You're just suggesting symmetry for the sake of symmetry, there's no actual logical rules-argument there. It taking a hand alone is a huge thing (no shields, no 2H weapons, no dual-wield, no casting, etc. etc. etc. - you don't seem to realize this, you seem to think it's cost-free beyond the attack to start it), as is being in melee, as is inflicting the Slowed condition on the grappler whilst they're moving.

It shouldn't be utterly trivial for some size S or M monster who doesn't have any special abilities at all related to escaping grapples (or the like) to escape grapples, but you're proposing a scenario where it is.

Part of why I care, to be clear, is that I've seen grapples used very intelligently and tactically in 5E, on both sides of the table. This makes grapples so easy to break and so impossible to improve that they're pretty silly and the Slowed condition means tons of new risk for the grappler. We don't need both that and trivializing breaking grapples - which are already much easier because of the save.

I mean, you complain about action-economy, and totally ignore that you get to break out for FREE now? Come on.

Conversely, to meet your criteria, the could make the base grapple better and then still have feats to make it even better. Is that what you are thinking?

Yes. Otherwise do not include it as a base option. It's just a trap for less-savvy players who do not realize how bad it is. Again, this was a core problem with 3E, that 5E intentionally got rid of.

Personally, I don't want a grapple to generally be an equivalent option to hitting with a sword.

It'll never be that - see my explanation to DND_Reborn above. You put tons of disadvantages on yourself by grappling, and limit your own options. That's not "equivalent to hitting with a sword". Also you give up your damage for that attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Conversely, to meet your criteria, the could make the base grapple better and then still have feats to make it even better. Is that what you are thinking?

Grappling should be a viable tactical option since IRL people grapple a lot, even if they have weapons available.

Another thing we do is make Unarmed Strikes/Grapple/Shove a "light" weapon so you can use it with TWF. This is very cinematic as well and we see it all the time when someone blocks with a weapon and then punches, headbutts, or trips their opponent.

ersonally, I don't want a grapple to generally be an equivalent option to hitting with a sword.

On a purely damage level not unless there was a heavy investment (Fighting Style, feats, etc.).

Grappling should be used for locking down, moving, restricting, etc. and possibly do some damage, but not generally on level with weapon damage.

This fails to holistically understand how grappling works, and that it exposes the grappler to risk as well as the person being grappled. You're just suggesting symmetry for the sake of symmetry, there's no actual logical rules-argument there. It taking a hand alone is a huge thing (no shields, no 2H weapons, no dual-wield, no casting, etc. etc. etc. - you don't seem to realize this, you seem to think it's cost-free beyond the attack to start it), as is being in melee, as is inflicting the Slowed condition on the grappler whilst they're moving.

It doesn't expose the grappler to any risk. For one thing, anyone making an unarmed strike/grapple/shove against a weapon-holding opponent should face an OA before being able to get close enough to grapple, etc. unless they have special training to remove that restriction, but they don't face an OA.

It shouldn't be utterly trivial for some size S or M monster who doesn't have any special abilities at all related to escaping grapples (or the like) to escape grapples, but you're proposing a scenario where it is.

Again, that word "trivial"...

What makes you think it would be trivial? Just because you can use an attack to escape a grapple doesn't mean it will be easy.... You seem to keep thinking that and I have no clue as to why...

Anyway, I feel like we are either talking past each other or never going to agree, so I see little point in continuing, do you?