D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[gorice]

(although I think the grappler should attack a different defense than AC)

There's actually no reference to AC in the playtest, that I can find. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they actually cut it, but it's possible. The Lancer guys were working for WotC, last I checked.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There's actually no reference to AC in the playtest, that I can find. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they actually cut it, but it's possible. The Lancer guys were working for WotC, last I checked.

There will be AC for sure. But I could see new defenses being added.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am nit sure what you want to say with your last paragraph, but breaking the grapple with a shove is our goto "break out of grapple" already, as it dows not cost you awhole action, just an attack (which is easily done if you are strength based fighter or barbarian). Actually that was what our casual player found out first because she just wanted to throw the enemy who grappes her away.

I doesn't currently just come off a to-hit roll, it requires and opposed roll.

"Instead of making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

So right now if you're good at Grappling you're good at resisting a Shove, which means it usually fails.

With the new rules, it'll be much easier to Shove people away in virtually all cases.

There's actually no reference to AC in the playtest, that I can find. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they actually cut it, but it's possible. The Lancer guys were working for WotC, last I checked.

HOLY... wow that would be BIG. I'd love it.

I double-checked. It really isn't mentioned at all. Might just be an accident of course.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I doesn't currently just come off a to-hit roll, it requires and opposed roll.

"Instead of making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

So right now if you're good at Grappling you're good at resisting a Shove, which means it usually fails.

With the new rules, it'll be much easier to Shove people away in virtually all cases.

Shoving and escaping the grapple are usually equally difficult. At least with shoving as a fighter level 5+ you have at least 2 attempts to escape. And if you escape, you can usually move away without provoking AoO already.

I am really not sure what you want to tell me. Right now, shoving for strength based characters is usually better than trying to escape as an action.

In the new rules, you can shove with a strength based attack, which I would like to be against a different defense than AC, why not the same grapple escape DC.

I will totally vote to add a grapple DC as a standard defense to the character sheet.

Edit: I find it funny how much effort you put in your post to make hyperlink to obvious things...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Shoving and escaping the grapple are usually equally difficult. At least with shoving as a fighter level 5+ you have at least 2 attempts to escape. And if you escape, you can usually move away without provoking AoO already.

Agree.

I am really not sure what you want to tell me. Right now, shoving for strength based characters is usually better than trying to escape as an action.

What I'm trying to tell you is that instead of it being "equal", it's vastly easier in most cases to the point where it means it will be nearly impossible to maintain grapples, especially on monsters with multi-attacks. PCs often (usually?) have lower ACs than the sort of monsters PCs like to grapple (which tend to be the more dangerous M or L-sized ones, not random henchmen), and because you can't have a shield and grapple (in most cases), that further lowers PC ACs.

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.

 

[kapars]

Do we currently know for certain that monsters can make Unarmed Attacks? Also, wouldn’t it be really bad for a monster with multi-attack to instead have to take the standard attack action for a single attempt at an unarmed strike to push a character away? Multi-attack explicitly says what can be done with it, brown bear has bite and claw no shove and shove substitution is possible.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do we currently know for certain that monsters can make Unarmed Attacks?

No we do not, and if they cannot, that'll be extremely interesting and change the calculations here quite a bit. I mean I think they will be able to, but we shall see!

Also, wouldn’t it be really bad for a monster with multi-attack to instead have to take the standard attack action for a single attempt at an unarmed strike to push a character away? Multi-attack explicitly says what can be done with it, brown bear has bite and claw no shove and shove substitution is possible.

It's been repeatedly proposed by people in this thread (who disagree with me) that in fact, they can substitute.

But looking through MotM, which is more tightly written than previous monster books, it looks like you're right - I can't find any multi-attacks where they could just substitute an unarmed attack, RAW. Like the Shadow Dancer has "Multiattack. The shadow dancer makes three spiked chain attacks.". That's pretty specific.

So actually I agree that's going to mean that most monsters which want to Shove will have to use their entire Action. I should have spotted this earlier because I was pointing out that an "Attack" was not a legitimate bit of D&D action-currency, thanks for getting me back on track!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.

Which is why I told you for the umtieth time that I want a different defense than AC.
Also, a monster using an attack to shove you away is a lot of damage mitigation right there.

And I am totally understanding that monsters are now better. For me this is a feature, not a bug.

Edit: my character never uses grapple + shove prone, because I don't want the DM to be annoyed with me.

Edit2: also something that was inconsistent in the old rules: dodge did nit help vs grapples. At least acronatics check shiuld have gained advantage.

Another thing: Grapple alone was not what I meant with rules exploit. I Mean grapple + shove prone, a combo that was most surely not planned by the designers. An oversight most probably.

Actually this combo still works and now seems a lot fairer and helps you not to get shoved by the grappled creature.

 

[TheSword]

Agree.

What I'm trying to tell you is that instead of it being "equal", it's vastly easier in most cases to the point where it means it will be nearly impossible to maintain grapples, especially on monsters with multi-attacks. PCs often (usually?) have lower ACs than the sort of monsters PCs like to grapple (which tend to be the more dangerous M or L-sized ones, not random henchmen), and because you can't have a shield and grapple (in most cases), that further lowers PC ACs.

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.

Why is monsters (and PCs) being able to break out of grapples a bad thing? I find PCs don’t like being grappled for extended periods any more than the DM wants their

It’s costing the grappled one an attack to get out (at least one). They are getting a debuff until they succeed, and it only costs the grappler one attack. Or they wait until the end of the round, suck up the debuff and get a single free try.

I dispute quite heavily your assertion that foes tend to have higher ACs than PCs. I rarely see a combat oriented PC with AC less than 18 and usually considerably higher. I rarely see monsters with AC more than 18.

You seem to be only viewing this from the point of view of PCs grappling but they will be on the receiving end too.

Grapple does scale, the same way that hit rolls scale - which is through a multitude of methods. It’s also scales in continuing, because the save DC keys of proficiency. I really don’t understand what you mean when you say it doesn’t scale.

Shove is about as easy to land and dealing damage is. Any decision to shove has to be balanced against the fact that you might just kill the person and not worry about the grapple at all.

I have some sympathy for the argument that armour shouldn’t make you harder to shove or grapple but at the same time AC really covers so many things it could easily just be renamed Defense. I have no desire to return to the days of calculating a whole different CMD that only gets used once every five fights and ten characters.

 

[TheSword]

No we do not, and if they cannot, that'll be extremely interesting and change the calculations here quite a bit. I mean I think they will be able to, but we shall see!

It's been repeatedly proposed by people in this thread (who disagree with me) that in fact, they can substitute.

But looking through MotM, which is more tightly written than previous monster books, it looks like you're right - I can't find any multi-attacks where they could just substitute an unarmed attack, RAW. Like the Shadow Dancer has "Multiattack. The shadow dancer makes three spiked chain attacks.". That's pretty specific.

So actually I agree that's going to mean that most monsters which want to Shove will have to use their entire Action. I should have spotted this earlier because I was pointing out that an "Attack" was not a legitimate bit of D&D action-currency, thanks for getting me back on track!

Oh dear dear, no. This is such a mangling of the common sense rules. I don’t believe a sensible DM can look at a veteran with two attacks and say that the equivalent PC can shove instead of an attack but that veteran has to give up all their attacks.

A shove doesn’t do damage so replace the attack with the consequences of shove. This can be easily applied to every monster reasonably capable of shoving someone.