D&D 5E Grappling Rune Knight

[Cap'n Kobold]

It is similar to the discussion about a player wanting their character to put their knife to an opponent's throat: - To be in a position where they could automatically kill them.

It does bother me there is really no way to subdue someone other than "attacking for non-lethal damage".

Does it bother you that there is really no way to kill someone other than "attacking for lethal damage"?

Remember that if you subdue someone, you can pretty automatically kill them. So it must always be at least as hard to subdue someone as it is to kill them.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, sure, if you are subdued, you are in a world of trouble. I don't mind that but I know for a lot of people who don't want a grittier, more realistic game, that would be an issue.

As for restrained:

This is hardly a death sentence and the grappled/restrained creature can still act to break it. That is why I think the grappler feat should allow the character to restrain the target as a bonus action, or even at the cost of an attack, but not the entire attack action.

Flavor-wise, I like the idea of a thug rogue grappling a victim with the grappler feat, using their bonus action to maintain the grapple and restrain the target, and getting advantage to sneak attack them. This is very much the idea of getting knifed by a thug.

 

[Salthorae]

One of the things I don't like about it is that while you are doing so, you are also considered restrained

You could always take Martial Adept or the Superior Fighting Technique and pick up this maneuver from the new UA as well instead of tavern brawler:

Restraining Strike
Immediately after you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack on your turn, you can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action to grapple the target (see chapter 9 in the Player’s Handbook for rules on grappling). Add the superiority die to your Strength (Athletics) check. The target is also restrained while grappled in this way

 

[Fenris-77]

That would be covered by simply making attacks while you have someone grappled. You can choose to not kill your opponent when you drop them to zero HP. Or the pin ability in the grappler feat.

Any ability to bypass HP is going to be problematic, so I doubt there is likely to be a "grapple for two rounds and then win" capability, any more than attacking an unarmed and unarmoured opponent gets to beat them without having to whittle down their HP.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think D&D necessarily needs chokes, but that doesn't stop it from bugging me that they aren't covered. Personally, I think carotid chokes are maybe a little too cinema verite for a lot of campaigns. That said, when you have things like Hold Person, or various kinds of paralysis, that incapacitate characters for multiple rounds the outcome isn't that different. The main difference is probably that spells, for example, are a finite resource, while grapple attempts aren't. Anythewho, not super important, just a minor pet peeve pf mine.

Also, with the current rules as-is, high level fighter types do stand a reasonable chance of acing a minion level bad guy in about the right amount of time, they just can't do it to characters of equivalent level. That's something anyway. For people who want a grittier feel, I think something akin to the Monk's Stunning Blow would work mechanically, or a save of some sort on grapple result X. The trick is to put the right kind of restraints on it. Gritty isn't the same as choking out an ancient red dragon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You could always take Martial Adept or the Superior Fighting Technique and pick up this maneuver from the new UA as well instead of tavern brawler:

LOL I avoid Battle Masters like the plague... they are the Bards of Fighter so to say.

Also, since you have to use a superiority dice (horrible concept, BTW), it is limited in uses per rest. I've spoken before about mechanics that are limited uses per rest and such and they are a poor design decision IMO.

I could just as easily make it part of Grappler or Tavern Brawler that a bonus action grapple restrains the target.

It is a fine suggestion, certainly, just not a solution for our table.

 

[Salthorae]

LOL I avoid Battle Masters like the plague... they are the Bards of Fighter so to say.

Also, since you have to use a superiority dice (horrible concept, BTW), it is limited in uses per rest. I've spoken before about mechanics that are limited uses per rest and such and they are a poor design decision IMO.

I could just as easily make it part of Grappler or Tavern Brawler that a bonus action grapple restrains the target.

It is a fine suggestion, certainly, just not a solution for our table.

Honestly, with all your house rules thread and comments on other threads, it seems like very little of published 5e UA or official is a solution for your table!

 

[DND_Reborn]

Honestly, with all your house rules thread and comments on other threads, it seems like very little of published 5e UA or official is a solution for your table!

Using UA is no different than employing a house-rule.

Well, honestly, I'd rather play 1E or 2E, but the group started with 5E so that is what we play. I tailor it to more meet what is appealing to me and sometimes I can convince the others, sometimes I don't.

There is a lot of 5E I don't like, etc and so I avoid it. Bards and Battle Masters are two of the top ones. We played 5E completely RAW for the first five levels, so we could get a feel for it before we started making changes. Some changes have stuck, others we reverse back once we realize they don't work well with the rest of the 5E design. Think of it this way: we consider ourselves our own playtest group.

And FYI, I get a fair number of private messages about how someone likes the rules and changes I suggest. I've had a number of people tell me they will steal an idea I've posted for their own group--and I am happy they like them.

So, while I can appreciate the good nature of your comment, this is also the second time you've commented as such about my house-rules and comments. I even stated in my response that your suggestion "is a fine suggestion, certainly". The tone of your reply is starting to sound... unfriendly? Maybe I am just being a bit sensitive (it has been a LONG day for me...) so I hope I am mistaken.