Monks, Grapples, and Shoves

[clearstream]

A nice modification. On a related note, I've seen a pretty good take on a Monk improvised-weapons-master subclass. Unfortunately I can't re-print it here, as it's someone else's playtest material, but it essentially revolved around treating improvised weapons as Monk weapons, and incentivising the player to change out their weapon regularly for increased bonuses. It felt very much like a Jackie Chan fighting style, being able to pick up whatever's handy and turn it into an effective weapon.

The other tweak I'm thinking of is broadening it to "a melee attack" so that for instance Druids can get the bonus grapple with their wild shape's claws. What do you think?

Edit: "attack" not "weapon", with the appropriate hedging "if it is within your unarmed reach."

 

[MarkB]

The other tweak I'm thinking of is broadening it to "a melee attack" so that for instance Druids can get the bonus grapple with their wild shape's claws. What do you think?

Edit: "attack" not "weapon".

It sounds reasonable. It's still balanced by requiring a free hand to grapple, so it's not too empowering to sword'n'board or Great Weapon fighters. And monks already have enough that they can do with their bonus action that this won't be an automatic go-to for them either.

 

[MarkB]

Not have to give anything up? Have you tried to play a grappling monk? We have a ruleset entirely set up to use an ability score that monks almost never use because its entirely opposite from the ability score for which the game has assigned to the monk as its primary ability. If you "follow the rules" as they are currently written, you can get the style of character you wish to play, but that character will be noticeably WORSE than if you just played a bog-standard monk.

Sure, if you very specifically want to grapple characters. But if you just want to impede their movement, shove them around, or knock them over, an Open Hand monk gets to do all that - and any monk can gain access to Stunning Strike. Monks have their own toolkit for harrassing opponents - why do they also need to be experts at the default toolset?

 

[Wiseblood]

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.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Ultimately the DM has to roll with the punches, and in most groups, as long as they are reasonable, it usually works out. For example, if the rogue came to me later and said "hey I want to get dex for grapple too!"....that's probably a no.

This has an action economy limitation, to do a grapple, the character is giving up something else (aka damage). So if a player is playing a grappling concept, than they are effectively trading 1 aspect (damage) for another (control). If the dm finds that reasonable, allowing the character to be good at it doesn't create a lot of power creep. From my experience with 5e grappling so far, if a player wanted to grapple all of the time as opposed to doing damage, I don't think that would be the least bit overpowering. And if they only used it very sparingly, well then the houserule didn't make much of a difference anyway.

See, the conflict between your two posts is one of the thing that bothers me about making a significant rule change for a particular player's character. On one hand, you argue that this is reasonable and that it's not the least bit overpowering - but on the other hand, if another player wanted to use DEX instead of STR for grapple, you'd probably say no. Well unless he does it at character creation time and says that his concept is 'a wrestler using the rogue class'. What if he takes a level of monk to make his concept work? Well then he'll probably be accused of being an Evil Powergamer for "absuing" the rule you added, since that so often what happens in this kind of discussion.

The problem I have is not with the raw power level destabilizing the campaign; dropping an extra feat or some attribute points on a character isn't going to completely break power levels and ruin encounters forever. The problem I have is that the players are creating their characters with a different set of rules, and that the rules are changing after the fact, and in a way that doesn't appear to be based on game balance or world logic. Also, while in the specific, single case, there's a good chance that no one was bothered, when you use ad hoc changes frequently the odds of someone feeling screwed by them goes up tremendously - and according to the OP this was not a consciously decided house rule, this is a 'just started doing it, and now that's how we roll' type of rule.

If a player came to me and said "I've got this idea for a rogue wrestler guy"...and his plan was to use it a lot, than I might be on board. And of course if that was the concept, but the second combat starts he does nothing but pull out the bow and sneak attack....well we may need to discuss.

This highlights why I'd prefer rules instead of ad hoc 'character concept' oriented exceptions. The idea of an agile character who sneaks around sniping with a bow but his face responds with BOOM TAKEDOWN when an enemy gets in his face instead of running away sounds like a lot of fun to me. I would like to build my wrestling guy then have him interact with the game world in a way that makes sense to ME based off of his personality and events that happen, as that's role-playing, and having a "we may need to discuss" moment because I'm using a common class feature in a sensible way means I'm not actually getting to control my own character's actions without an argument with the DM! I would much rather have rules for what a character can do and then do it, then have to ask for an exception to core rules and worry about 'we may need to discuss' if I'm not playing the character exactly as the DM has decided my character should act. (If the DM is going to take that degree of control, he can play the character and I'll get into another game).

People present these kind of ad hoc rules as player empowering, but from what I've seen in practice they tend to have a bunch of hidden strings like 'oh, since you have this, you have to use this at a certain exact frequency that I won't tell you. too much and I'll decide it's unbalancing, too little and I'll decide you're not fitting your concept' or 'Jimmy can use this, but you're bad if you ask to use it on your character and I'll say no and hold it against you even though it's more effective for him than it would be for you'.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

See... I believe this is a false argument. Here's why:

When the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide or Xanathar's Guide came out, did you or anyone else in your game make a character that used any part of those rules? If so... then you are doing exactly what I am, only you believe you are not.

No, you're the one making a false argument. Having a rule change that applies equally to everyone at the same time is simply not the same thing as arbitrarily giving one player special rules for his character that the other players only find out about when play has started, and which they can't use themselves. If the DM said 'PHB only' and I turned up and Jimmy was getting to use Xanathar's stuff, that would be fairly similar to the situation I object to.

Since they were the designers of the original rules, they could break them all they wanted, but you could tell yourself that they weren't. They weren't breaking the rules, they were "expanding" them.

That is nothing at all like anything I have said in here or believe. You're constructing arguments in your own head, then pretending like I said them, then claiming victory when you knock over the straw man that you erected in the first place.

 

[Stalker0]

I would much rather have rules for what a character can do and then do it, then have to ask for an exception to core rules and worry about 'we may need to discuss' if I'm not playing the character exactly as the DM has decided my character should act. (If the DM is going to take that degree of control, he can play the character and I'll get into another game).

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.

 

[DEFCON 1]

No, you're the one making a false argument. Having a rule change that applies equally to everyone at the same time is simply not the same thing as arbitrarily giving one player special rules for his character that the other players only find out about when play has started, and which they can't use themselves. If the DM said 'PHB only' and I turned up and Jimmy was getting to use Xanathar's stuff, that would be fairly similar to the situation I object to.

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. 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!", 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.

That is nothing at all like anything I have said in here or believe. You're constructing arguments in your own head, then pretending like I said them, then claiming victory when you knock over the straw man that you erected in the first place.

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. The rules of the game would be whatever you started with. Anything after that is "breaking the rules" of parts of the game you were playing. Using a Bladesinger breaks the rules of the Wizard class that were established in the Player's Handbook. Yes, it's the designers of the game who are doing the breaking... but they are still "breaking the rules" that they originally established in the first book.

So if you are using those new additions to the game, my guess is you are somehow justifying it as being acceptable or not even breaking the rules at all. But for my money... just because WotC introduces new rules to the game doesn't mean those aren't just as rulebreaking to the game as something any DM would come up with. And to claim that a person "only plays by the rules of the game" when they are willing to accept any additional rules as part and parcel so long as only a specific person or group makes them... tells me their argument isn't very good.

But hey... you aren't playing at my table and I ain't playing at yours. So it's all good.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure, if you very specifically want to grapple characters. But if you just want to impede their movement, shove them around, or knock them over, an Open Hand monk gets to do all that - and any monk can gain access to Stunning Strike. Monks have their own toolkit for harrassing opponents - why do they also need to be experts at the default toolset?

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.

The only thing it does is "give something away for free" as has been said. But if that something isn't really all that worthwhile to begin with and is merely just a little extra perk to help flesh out a character idea... is it really that big of a deal? I mean come on, it's grappling for pete's sake!

And if by some chance one of your players does get all uppity because someone else is "getting something for free" (even if that something is merely turning a worthless character into something reasonably mediocre)... then why not give that player something for free too if it helps mechanically illustrate the concept they have? If you are a DM who can reasonably conceptualize how the rules interact with each other, you'll know just what is a reasonable "gift" you can give players without making their PCs so completely out of sink with the rest of the group.

But to deny those just completely out of hand because they aren't in the book that WotC published (that produces only a small subset of the possible character archetypes and the rest can just be "kind of created" and pretty poorly at that) I find to be rather unnecessary.

 

[clearstream]

Why NOT play D&D if I'm going to change the rules? If changing the rules is good enough for WotC every time they release a new sourcebook, it's good enough for me!

This seems to be denying game design as an art and skill, and disregarding the value of development and playtesting resources.

It's really a balance I think. Good rule changes are able to apply to every case that they could apply to, evenly. They avoid overshadowing or narrowed strategies (such as if the monk comes to spam grapple). If the rules are too casually broken, then they lose virtue in terms of validating player leverage over the narrative. So it isn't the case that a DM should never change the rules. More that it should be done judiciously, and if a player on these forums raises a question - is this what RAW entails? - then that speaks to a possible dissonance. Which is what often happens when rules are injudiciously changed. In any case, I don't think it answers their question well to say a DM should do what they want!

In this case, it really is a mechanically bad idea to funnel grapple through Dex. If the OP had asked - how can I make Monks grapple better - then that would not be a good answer. Too much goes through Dex already. Possibly all the Monk is really trying to do here is have their own private version of Shieldmaster. There's a sense here - for me at least - that some freeform munchkining is happening. But before designing anything, the goals should be made a lot clearer.