D&D 5E Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter vs. Defensive Duelist in a cage match

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is less about defense and more about prone creatures being unable to stand while grappled though. The fighter in question only has an 18 or 19 AC. Yes he is using his reaction for defensive duelist (and yes if he was a caster he would also have the shield spell), but the biggest contributor to his defense is that the target he has knocked prone makes all of its attacks with disadvantage.

If a grappled creature was allowed to stand from prone, this whole scenario would play out very differently. IMHO it is one of the many big oversights of the 5e rules that a grappled creature is not allowed to stand from prone.

Also, while this strategy might be the best one around when used against solo enemies of large size or smaller, it is exponentially worse when used against groups of enemies or when enemies are huge+ sized.

That's why I like D'Artagnan: because even in his worst scenario (cage match), he's still pretty good. Against a Huge enemy or a group of enemies, it would presumably not be a cage match because Huge enemies need more room and so do groups. He'll use a different strategy like kiting them with his extreme mobility, or picking them off from the shadows.

On the other hand, I guess you could have a cage match against a (Gargantuan) Rancor in Jabba's palace or something, though. That's not going to end well for any of the fighters if they can't find the door button. I suppose Brutus and D'Artagnan could always don a shield and go down fighting but it will be messy. Try to avoid those types of corner-case situations, and look for that door button!

P.S. I don't think it's an oversight that grappling prevents Dodging and also prevents you from standing up. I think it's actually one of the more clever and interesting bits of 5E design.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If a grappled creature was allowed to stand from prone, this whole scenario would play out very differently. IMHO it is one of the many big oversights of the 5e rules that a grappled creature is not allowed to stand from prone.

Yeah, it's hard to say that the melee dude is better than the archery dude, when the whole thing hinges on exploiting broken grapple rules.

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, it's hard to say that the melee dude is better than the archery dude, when the whole thing hinges on exploiting broken grapple rules.

I mentioned UFC earlier. Once the fight goes to grappling, it essentially stays on the ground until the hold is broken. And grappling tends to be the safer, stronger path to victory than trading strikes. Hemlock seems to be showing that the grapple rules reflect reality.

 

[Ashkelon]

I mentioned UFC earlier. Once the fight goes to grappling, it essentially stays on the ground until the hold is broken. And grappling tends to be the safer, stronger path to victory than trading strikes. Hemlock seems to be showing that the grapple rules reflect reality.

Umm...in UFC you cant keep someone pinned to the ground with only one hand while you use your other hand to pummel your opponent. The 5e rules for grappling are further from reality than they have been in any edition (and they have never been very close to reality).

There is a reason soldiers of war didnt all just grapple eachother then repeatedly stab them until they died. If you are armed with a weapon, reality says the most effective tactic is to hit your foe with a weapon. Not to use one hand to both knock your opponent prone and pin them to the ground.

Of course arguing that D&D combat is in any way realistic would be a fools errand. So it is much better to just accept that 5e is highly gamist in nature and that the rules of the game world make shove/grappling the optimal strategy against solo enemies.

 

[flametitan]

It seems silly powerful, but it is realistic. Getting someone on the ground and holding them there is an extremely effective (if not the main tactic) tactic in warfare if you're dealing with armour. (EDIT: With a sword. A pole weapon was also a pretty good means of beating up the armoured opponent.)

The only "dumb" thing about this is that without any feats it is better at doing this than the grappler feat, as you've effective restrained them without restraining yourself.

 

[Satyrn]

Umm...in UFC you cant keep someone pinned to the ground with only one hand while you use your other hand to pummel your opponent.

I'm picturing Brutus straddling the elemental, using his weight more than that one free hand to keep it down, and pummeling away. The rules don't say you're grappling only with that one free hand, after all.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It seems silly powerful, but it is realistic. Getting someone on the ground and holding them there is an extremely effective (if not the main tactic) tactic in warfare if you're dealing with armour.

It may be realistic to grapple someone who is not much larger than yourself and force them to the ground so you can attack their weak spots with your dagger. If you want to make that argument, then I'm not going to argue with it.

It is not at all believable for a mere mortal with human strength to shove a thousand-pound giant to the ground, using only a single hand to do so, and hold them there - again with one hand - while repeatedly stabbing them with a sword that is renowned for its length. For this to be the optimal solution is absurd.

 

[Ashkelon]

I'm picturing Brutus straddling the elemental, using his weight more than that one free hand to keep it down, and pummeling away. The rules don't say you're grappling only with that one free hand, after all.

That mental picture doesn't follow the rules though.

You can have this large sized multi 1000lb earth elemental grappled and pinned to the ground with a single hand. You are also able to move 15 feet per round while pinning this earth elemental to the ground, dragging it with you as you move. You are also able to stab this earth elemental with a rapier which has a blade that is a few feet long. Instead of suffering any penalties for attacking with such a long weapon while grappling with the elemental, you are actually making your attacks at advantage.

From a realistic standpoint, none of this actually makes any sense . It might be argued that you could pin a creature of your own size to the ground and have a hand free to punch it (if you used your legs to pin it). It is ridiculous to believe that you can pin something to the ground that takes up 4 times as much space as you while also still having one hand free, and also not utilizing your legs because you can drag it about as you please.

 

[flametitan]

It may be realistic to grapple someone who is not much larger than yourself and force them to the ground so you can attack their weak spots with your dagger. If you want to make that argument, then I'm not going to argue with it.

It is not at all believable for a mere mortal with human strength to shove a thousand-pound giant to the ground, using only a single hand to do so, and hold them there - again with one hand - while repeatedly stabbing them with a sword that is renowned for its length. For this to be the optimal solution is absurd.

I'm not arguing the elemental point either. (though it raises the question: how much does an Earth Elemental weigh? It might actually be rather loosely held together, hollow, etc., and therefore not actually all that heavy)

I'm arguing that grappling and stabbing isn't inherently a bad idea and utterly unrealistic. The movement part stretches disbelief perhaps, but ignoring that and the size differences, it works out fairly well. Not only that, but you begin having to "define" rapier. Our modern definition is far more strict than it was in the renaissance, with what we'd consider side swords today would just as likely have been called a Rapier then as well.

 

[Satyrn]

That mental picture doesn't follow the rules though. . .

You're going far too deep into trying to figure out what to me is a giant abstraction, especially since I started out with a giant generalization about grappling being the superior tactic in a UFC fight.