D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[UngeheuerLich]

I mean, that's definitely a component, but casting it as "emotional" is misleading, because it's a real strategy being lost with absolutely no recompense and no clear prospect of recompense. Emotional would only make sense if it wasn't a real strategy. It's reasonable to annoyed that a real strategy is being removed.

Rules exploit is no strategy.
Sorry. It was a poorly implemented rule that did not play well with existing monsters and how they get skills.

 

[Baumi]

Why is it puzzeling? It is an unarmed attack, so it goes against AC.

Edit: AC also includes Dex, so its already harder to grapple someone how is nimble.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Rules exploit is no strategy.
Sorry. It was a poorly implemented rule that did not play well with existing monsters and how they get skills.

That's just ludicrous bollocks.

There's no "rules exploit". You're just relying on a fantasy-argument about a character no-one ever actually played. It's like being mad about 3E multiclassing and using Pun-pun as you reason to be mad.

The suggested rule is certainly poorly-implemented by the same logic, and not you've made no actual arguments to suggest otherwise.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That's just ludicrous bollocks.

There's no "rules exploit". You're just relying on a fantasy-argument about a character no-one ever actually played.

The suggested rule is certainly poorly-implemented by the same logic, and not you've made no actual arguments to suggest otherwise.

I think the old grapple rules are bollocks. Poorly working and exploitable.
I think the new rules are better.

Who is right? Probably not you. But your mileage might vary.

Edit: and I have made some arguments. You just need to scroll back and read them.

 

[TheSword]

That's just ludicrous bollocks.

There's no "rules exploit". You're just relying on a fantasy-argument about a character no-one ever actually played. It's like being mad about 3E multiclassing and using Pun-pun as you reason to be mad.

The suggested rule is certainly poorly-implemented by the same logic, and not you've made no actual arguments to suggest otherwise.

I’m not sure how a rule that matches both spell debuffs and to-hit rolls (which are both cornerstones of the game) can be poorly implemented. If you are against those mechanics are you against them across the board, or just with grapples?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I think the old grapple rules are bollocks. Poorly working and exploitable.
I think the new rules are better.

Who is right? Probably not you. But your mileage might vary.

Edit: and I have made some arguments. You just need to scroll back and read them.

I have read them. None of them are cogent arguments imo. And you're definitely wrong if you think the old rules were "bollocks", especially given that the reasoning you state over and over, is about an entirely fantastical and nonsensical corner-case setup that could, potentially, happen, and how awful that is (or rather "might be in theory", if it ever actually happened beyond gimmick games and the like).

You never even acknowledged the legitimate class-feature and other people's spells approaches to this, nor that even without any of that, this gave Martial PCs a real option, that made them mildly competitive with casters in one particular way.

It's just extremely funny that we get people like you saying it was a "rule exploit" (which is demonstrably false, there's no exploit, no misunderstanding of the rules involved), which is demonstrably false, whilst claiming I'm wrong.

I’m not sure how a rule that matches both spell debuffs and to-hit rolls (which are cornerstones of the game) can be poorly implemented. If you are against those mechanics are you against them across the board, or just with grapples?

What do you mean "spell debuffs"? Are you talking about CC spells? Which are fire and forget, ranged, don't require a to-hit-roll, just a save and expose the caster to zero risk in most cases?

Because, yeah I definitely think it's wrong to make a risky option that requires continuous input from martials to be only equally or less effective than a fire-and-forget spell from casters. 100%. That's obviously ridiculous and unbalanced. Even if you can use it repeatedly (but it costs you repeated in terms of needing a free hand and an attack).

And it's "poorly implemented" particularly because there's no reasonable way to scale it, whereas before there were loads (most of which made complete sense, like an ally using the Help action to give you Advantage on the STR check). In particular there's no way for martials to scale it. I also think the auto-escape feature is excessive - with a higher DC that might be less of an issue.

Re: "to-hit rolls", dude you're being super vague which is unhelpful, but are you referring to Shove? Because yeah I think making Shove vastly easier to land for basically everyone is bad for the game (and vastly more AC-dependent), and particularly bad for grappling from both directions. Shove was already not a great rules design in 5E. The 1D&D version is worse.

If you think just because the numbers match a standard, even though the rules are completely different, it's automatically fine, I have no idea what to say to you beyond "That's not a logical way to approach this".

 

[gorice]

Why is it puzzeling? It is an unarmed attack, so it goes against AC.

Edit: AC also includes Dex, so its already harder to grapple someone how is nimble.

It's puzzling because it makes no sense that armour designed to stop weapons also stops someone from grappling you. Unless it's covered in spikes or something.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I have read them. None of them are cogent arguments. And you're definitely wrong if you think the old rules were bollocks, especially the reasoning you stat over and over, is about an entirely fantastical and nonsensical corner-case setup that could, potentially, happen, and how awful that is.

You never even acknowledged the legitimate class-feature and other people's spells approaches to this, nor that even without any of that, this gave Martial PCs a real option, made them mildly competitive with caster.

It's just extremely funny that we get people like you saying it was a "rule exploit" (which is demonstrably false, there's no exploit, no misunderstanding of the rules involved)

I don't have to. If you don't like my arguments, so be it. I stand with them. As long as giants have +6 to grapple and PCs can have +17 woth advantage and so on, something is wrong. It makes the game unfun, not fun.
If you use the rules with normally built characters, they are ok. The new rules (although I think the grappler should attack a different defense than AC) brings them in line. No expertise (which attacks purposefully don't allow) is important. I am also very happy, that you use saving throws to get out, not a skill which feels like a tax.
Same for passive perception which makes perception feel like a tax.

Feats are the gamevs way to specialize in class agnostic things. A monk now automatically seems better at it than everyone else, which feels right.

So you are entitled to you opinion. But don't deny me my opinion. If you can't have a discussion with people who have a different opiniin than you and come to different conclusions, don't have discussions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No expertise (which attacks purposefully don't allow) is important.

Have you, personally, ever honestly played multiple sessions of a game with a Rogue/Bard character who had Expertise in Athletics and used it to constantly grapple enemies? Yes/no will suffice.

If you use the rules with normally built characters, they are ok.

Thank you! That's what I was saying. They're thus not "bollocks". There's a corner-case way to push them pretty far. There are corner-case ways to do that to a lot of things, though.

Feats are the gamevs way to specialize in class agnostic things.

This is not a class-agnostic thing. Barbarians for example, were good at it, and should be good at it. It's right in their vibe, grabbing and dragging and wrestling - even more than Monks, I'd say. So if they change the rules for them to still be as good at it, great. But if they don't, that's rubbish. And I'm skeptical they will.

although I think the grappler should attack a different defense than AC

I agree and I think this is a major flaw with both Grapple and Shove as presented so far. The other major flaw with Shove is it is now "Get out of Grapple free", effectively, which doesn't really make sense. Like, if you can't break the grapple with a save, should you really just be able to insta-break it with a Shove? I think Shove shouldn't work on people grappling you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Have you, personally, ever honestly played multiple sessions of a game with a Rogue/Bard character who had Expertise in Athletics and used it to constantly grapple enemies? Yes/no will suffice.

Thank you! That's what I was saying. They're thus not "bollocks". There's a corner-case way to push them pretty far. There are corner-case ways to do that to a lot of things, though.

This is not a class-agnostic thing. Barbarians for example, were good at it, and should be good at it. It's right in their vibe, grabbing and dragging and wrestling - even more than Monks, I'd say. So if they change the rules for them to still be as good at it, great. But if they don't, that's rubbish. And I'm skeptical they will.

I agree and I think this is a major flaw with both Grapple and Shove as presented so far. The other major flaw with Shove is it is now "Get out of Grapple free", effectively, which doesn't really make sense. Like, if you can't break the grapple with a save, should you really just be able to insta-break it with a Shove? I think Shove shouldn't work on people grappling you.

No. I have not played multiple sessions with someone who does, but my bard/rogue could if he (or better said: I) wanted. He has an athletics of +12 at level 11 with gauntlets of ogre strength and can cast bulls strength for advantage.

I am nit sure what you want to say with your last paragraph, but breaking the grapple with a shove is our goto "break out of grapple" already, as it dows not cost you awhole action, just an attack (which is easily done if you are strength based fighter or barbarian). Actually that was what our casual player found out first because she just wanted to throw the enemy who grappes her away.
In the new rules it is still the priviledge of strength based fighters and now also the monk who can attack unarmed with dex. So it is only positiv for our games.

Still: add a CMD and a PP defense and I vote for it.