D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[kapars]

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.

Monsters and players do not follow the same rules though. There’s nothing that says the monster gains Extra Attack and MotM has monsters that can cast spells as part of the multi-attack, something that players cannot do. Some monsters add damage dice to their weapons as a means of scaling attacks, not something PCs can do either. We even have precedent for PC specific abilities now with Critical hits, though those may change.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I do however think, that for grapple, the restriction that you can't grapple large creatures should fall. Instead it should be a grab and attach yourself to the creature.

Just checking what you meant here. Currently with the OD&D rules, a large creature can be grappled by a medium creature, with no penalties or bonuses on either side.

I do think small characters are heavily harmed though, since they can't grapple large, but everyone can grapple them. You can't really fix that though, unless you give them a massive boost against unarmed strikes. Advantage on the save to escape could make sense, but then do you give the same to large? I don't think so.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can't you just use an help action to give an enemy disadvantage at no risk of failure?

No? You can use the Help Action to give an ally advantage, but as far as I know you can't inflict disadvantage on enemy attacks with the help action.

@ OP

In any case, I dislike that you have to hit AC. When a creature is hard or impossible to hit, you could target another ability and, at least, prevent them from moving towards the more squishy members of the party or move them away from wounded allies. Now your only option in combat is to target AC. It's boring. Less options in combat is a bad change.

There are issues with targeting a high AC creature. Won't deny that. But the only other solution is to keep it with skills, and that system had clear and obvious problems since it prioritized the wrong classes.

And there are ways to make targetting a high AC easier, and in fact the unarmed strike changes DO give you ways to counter high AC. One ally can use the help action, and you can do an unarmed strike to knock prone, giving everyone advantage. This is a very solid way to deal with high AC enemies, which were always hittable anyways.

Making it an auto-save at the end of the creature's round is a bad change. It should require the monster's action to trigger the save at least or require at least one of their attacks or something.

I could see making it an attack to break free, but I honestly like the auto-save. It fits with the design of every other condition which gives saves at the end of turns, and it gives the player a choice. Do they try for two attempts to break free, or rely on that save?

More options is good.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Because it's going to get broken immediately repeatedly? The save DC is much easier for monsters to hit than a STR PC with Athletics was to beat in an opposed roll, esp. given virtually every monster you might want to grapple has either a good STR or a good DEX (and they get to choose! Very nice! Do I get to choose to roll WIS or INT to break Domination?). And Shove is much, much easier to land than that opposed roll too. And in your game, a three-attack multi-attacker can Shove three times!

Can you actually explain why breaking the grapple after one turn ruins grappling? Let's take the expected route. Monster saves at end of turn, breaks free. Why is this bad?

Because the PC will have to re-grapple them? You were one of the people who told me that you need to grapple "with a tactical purpose". That generally means dragging them to something dangerous to stand in. Well, by the end of their turn... they are still standing in it. If getting them in it was worth your attack once, isn't it worth it again?

And don't deflect to shoving, we can discuss shoving next. I want to know why this save to end is so horrible.

 

[Zaukrie]

If a medium creature grapples a large, really strong creature, the large creature can't drag them, correct? I have no idea what I want grapple to be, but I'm pretty sure we aren't there yet. I wonder what a really good set of grappling rules looks like.

 

[TheSword]

There should be a way to gain control of the grapple. Reversing the grappler/grapplee relationship.

 

[jgsugden]

I think the escape action will exist.

As written, it currently does not. There are a lot of unwritten things at this point, but it currently does not exist.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As written, it currently does not. There are a lot of unwritten things at this point, but it currently does not exist.

Unclear, actually, as everything not covered in the playtest document works as in 2014 5e.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

There should be a way to gain control of the grapple. Reversing the grappler/grapplee relationship.

That worked already in 2014 5e and does now too. You can just start a grapple against the grappler, so at lwast you both are grappled.
Now, if you end the condition at the end of your turn you have it reversed.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If a medium creature grapples a large, really strong creature, the large creature can't drag them, correct?

Yes. The grapple condition applies to the target and sets their speed to 0, so while they could grapple back, they still couldn't move anywhere.

While a Large critter dragging someone grappling them along with them seems realistic, it would also affect mostly just martials, who really don't need that.