D&D General Is Grappler feat mandatory/broken for monks?

[TorgoTheWhite]

I nerfed it as far as the max movement you can drag an opponent with it... but that is mostly mechanical feeling of having a lithe dex-based character suddenly forcefully drag big brutes around a battlefield. Honestly, it feels to me like there should be that differentiation on Str based grapplers versus ScarJo types

 

[Lazybones]

I have a house rule that if you drag someone through a hazard, like spike growth, you take the damage as well. That, combined with carrying capacity limits (the 2024 monks I've seen so far have been Dex builds rather than Strength), tends to limit the shenanigans you can get up to with grappling. I know some people ignore carrying capacity as a rule, but while I don't enforce it religiously I tend to keep an eye on it as a limiting factor (playing in a VTT makes this much easier). Otherwise I'm fine with letter a player push the limits on what the 2024 rules allow when it comes to grappling.

 

[Clint_L]

Stunning Strike is much more of a balance concern with a Monk.

I've always thought Stunning Strike was overrated, and even more so with the new kit (you get one attempt). Like most save or suck options, it's too unpredicatable to plan around, and a lot of opponents have high con saves relative to the monk's wisdom-based DC, even at low levels. I seldom attempt it - I can lock someone down much more predictably with hand of harm/grapple. Though I can always throw a Stunning Strike on top of the grapple if I feel it is needed.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

I have a house rule that if you drag someone through a hazard, like spike growth, you take the damage as well.

I thought about using that house rule but instead went with the ruling that when the grappler moves, the grappled target gets to decide which square(s) on the map they are dragged into (must be a legal position within 5ft of the grappler). This also fixes the silliness of "I make you fall off a cliff but somehow don't fall myself even though we're tangled up".