Monks, Grapples, and Shoves

[clearstream]

I dunno. But if the particular player wants to be able to grapple as an Open Hand monk, why wouldn't I try and make that possible for them? Where's the harm? I mean it's not like grappling in of itself is some great groundbreaking ability that can level a campaign... after all, other characters can already do it. So if other characters can grapple, then obviously the ability isn't going to destroy anything.

Actually, I think the grapple rules are kind of fragile. There are resilient parts of 5e - attack vs AC, saving throws, skill checks, HP, spell slots and others - that interact well and have pros and cons. Grapple is kind of one-dimensional. It's easily broken by characters with Expertise. Few or no creatures in the MM have Athletics or Acrobatics by RAW. There's no general defense action against it like Dodge versus being attacked. It's not a robust game system. And the Monk isn't just grappling. They're making I think two special melee attacks in the same round - attack, grapple, shove. The Tavern Brawler feat allows something like that on very narrow terms - probably correctly notwithstanding my interest in broadening it! It becomes similar to pre-nerf Shieldmaster - advantage on tap.

 

[clearstream]

Let’s take this apart and see.

Grapple : using the Attack Action you may make a grapple check. If you have Extra Attack you may use this instead of one attack.

Martial Arts: if you make an attack with a monk weapon or an Unarmed Strike you may make an additional Unarmed Strike as a bonus action. (I don’t think he can do what you have described RAW)

But....

Flurry of Blows: after using the attack action (which could be a grapple) you may spend one Ki point and make two Unarmed Strikes as a bonus action.

And....

When a Path of the Open Hand monk hits an opponent with an Unarmed Strike as part of a Flurry of Blows the monk can make the target roll a Dexterity save or be knocked prone. Alternatively the monk can cause the target make a Strength save or be shoved up to 15 feet away. A third alternative the monk can choose to deny the target the use of it’s Reactions for one turn. (No save IIRC)

The way I read it the monk could grapple the target (Attack action and possibly reposition) then spend a Ki point to Flurry. Hit the grappled target ( or another in reach) potentially knocking them down. (Dex save) Then Attack the downed target with advantage. At this time the target makes a Strength save or be shoved 15 feet while prone.

The picture I get from the OPs description is that he isn't spending Ki. He's avoiding the expected cost. He should be able to do something like this (from 5th level) -

Attack
Extra attack > Grapple
Spend ki for a Flurry with a bonus action
Trigger Open Hand for a saving throw to prone

The grapple is superfluous there as he can also, by RAW -

Attack
Extra Attack
Spend Ki to Flurry
Trigger Open Hand for a saving throw to prone, possibly twice depending on how you read "Whenever..."

What he can't do by RAW is -

Attack
Extra attack > grapple
Bonus action unarmed attack somehow triggers Open Hand

That's specifically excluded. Maybe in part because, given the grapple makes the target's speed 0, it can't get up, and maybe in part because it also then becomes inexplicable why he can't -

Attack with unarmed
Trigger Open Hand (how?)
Extra attack with unarmed
Trigger Open Hand (!)
Patient Defense, Step of the Wind or Flurry vs now prone.

The point is, a Monk can already do something pretty powerful with Open Hand (Attack, Extra attack > Grapple, 1 Ki to Flurry, trigger Open Hand up to twice to prone: target is now down with speed = 0)! It feels like they could just play RAW and have a big slice of the fun they want to have.

 

[Stalker0]

Good rule changes are able to apply to every case that they could apply to, evenly.

I agree with this point when it comes to the formal rules in the book. But the advantage of a DM is you don't have to cater to the "great market". You are there to run a fun game, and for players to feel cool and special.

To that end, you don't have to worry how the change will balance for combinations your players aren't playing, or scenarios you will never have in your game. You get to be more flexible than a game designer gets to be, because ultimately you don't have to be perfect, just good enough for your players to have fun.

 

[abirdcall]

This is a fine mentality, and one that was at the core of 3e. Its just not how 5e is designed. The concept of "rulings not rules" is baked into 5e's design. The assumption in 3e is that rules would be developed to be as comprehensive as possible. In 5e, the assumption is the dm will fill in any gaps in design.

The key issue you are missing in your points is the simple act of communication. When I DM I talk to my players. I figure out what they want to do, and we adjust things to make it cool. And do I bend the rules to let less powerful characters get a little more spotlight against the more powerful ones...sure I'll do that on occasion. Do my most powerful characters mind? no....because they are still getting their share of the spotlight.

The campaign is organic, and the DM adapts as needed. If a player is unhappy, we talk...and if reasonable adjustments can be made, we make them.

I think the tension in the thread is that people are calling it a "ruling" and are making the implication that not changing the rules is actively trying to make the player have a bad time.

Call a houserule a houserule. If you want Grappling and Shoving in your game to be keyed off of Dexterity then you can do that, I don't think that's fun, but whatever. What it isn't, is a ruling.

 

[Wiseblood]

I tried to give XP to clearstream but I’m not sure it took.

FWIW I usually assume my fellow players misunderstood a rule heaven knows how often I do it.

Some players definitely overreach though. I do try to understand the rules as they are written as a courtesy and to ease communication. Rulings can come and go. When I DM I’m more likely to make a ruling when players are not sure how something works that’s when it works too well once or twice.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

This is a fine mentality, and one that was at the core of 3e. Its just not how 5e is designed. The concept of "rulings not rules" is baked into 5e's design. The assumption in 3e is that rules would be developed to be as comprehensive as possible. In 5e, the assumption is the dm will fill in any gaps in design.

This mentality is, in fact, how 5e is designed. There wouldn't be things called 'rulebooks' if there were no rules and everything was just handled on a 'whatever, I'll make a ruling' basis like you're saying. Yes, 5e has a philosophy of 'there will be a decent set of rules, then the DM fills in gaps' - but there isn't a "gap" in the design for grappling that's being filled , there is an explicit rule that it uses strength, and in this case you're just creating a house rule.

The key issue you are missing in your points is the simple act of communication. When I DM I talk to my players. I figure out what they want to do, and we adjust things to make it cool.

I don't think that "I want to be good at stuff that requires strength without having a decent strength score and also this rule doesn't apply to other people who want to do this arbitrarily sometimes" is actually 'cool'. In general, straight powergaming in the form of "I want to be good at this additional thing that normally uses strength without having to put any points into strength, and I want it to scale off of the stat I will be using ASIs on anyway insteaad of one I won't" and "I want to use my bonus action for stuff that usually takes a feat to do without spending feats" don't come off as cool to me, they come off as "I just want more stuff" like the wizard who wants to wear plate without spending the cost for it.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Why wouldn't these special rules apply to everyone at the table? Of course they would. The only difference is that the other players aren't playing characters for which the special rule would matter to them. And there's also no reason to think this would be some secret thing that you wouldn't know about prior to showing up.

Did you read the OP? That's exactly how it went in this example. The OP turned up and these special rules for the monk were just in effect. And it's contrary to your statement "Who the character *is* is what is important, not the decision on which funny dice you roll and which random numbers you add together to change or impact what the character does. And if a player would like to play a concept of a jujitsu type of grappling monk " which I read as saying that only players who choose to play grappling monks get the rule change, not everyone.

A player says "Can I play a monk who can use DEX for grappling?", the DM realizes that grappling is such a minor part of the game that it unbalances nothing to allow more grappling to happen that they say "Sure!",

Again, that's not what happened in the example. And I think the DM would realize "Can I play a monk who's significantly more mechanically efficient by getting some abilities that usually require feats and that can focus his stats more so that he can target ability scores and ASIs more effectively to get higher bonuses" is more 'straight up powergaming' than 'cool concept'.

and this information is passed on to the other players that "Hey, I'm allowing DEX (Acrobatics) to be used for grappling in addition to STR (Athletics)." The other players then say "Okay, thanks." And then you play the game.

This isn't what happened in the example given by the OP, and is directly contrary to how Stalker0 said he would handle it, as he would by default deny a rogue the chance to do the same thing. It's also contrary to your repeated mentions of 'a jujistu monk' and 'a monk who...', which are about making this purely a monk special rule.

I of course do not know what is in your head. But if you use any of the new rules that WotC has introduced in later books, then you aren't playing "by the rules" that you yourself have claimed.

Again, I never made this claim that you keep trying to pretend that I am. Stop trying to attribute your strawman to me, I am not going to engage with your false claims beyond pointing out that they are false.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I think the tension in the thread is that people are calling it a "ruling" and are making the implication that not changing the rules is actively trying to make the player have a bad time.

Call a houserule a houserule. If you want Grappling and Shoving in your game to be keyed off of Dexterity then you can do that, I don't think that's fun, but whatever. What it isn't, is a ruling.

Yes, it's clearly a straight up change to the rules, not a 'fill in the gap' decision. When you're changing around rules to let a player powergame so he can focus his ASIs instead of having to spread them around different capabilities, there's nothing wrong with it, but I think there is something wrong with not acknowleding that's what you're doing. When you're making major class changes like "And if next time someone else has the concept of a warrior who uses magic to bind and hold foes... do what you need to do to make the funny dice and numbers work out for that player too" you're not just filling in gaps, you're significantly altering the game. There's nothing wrong with house ruling to a crazy extent, but I think there is something wrong with issuing house rules on the fly, denying that they're house rules, and insisting that people who prefer to have rules set at the beginning without surprise rules are bad players.