OneDnD One D&D Grappling


log in or register to remove this ad

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
One thing that popped into my head when I read the the new Grappling rules that removed the use of the Ability Check and instead went to the Attack roll... was whether they are going to apply the same design motifs towards illusion spells? Will they remove the Ability Check (INT Investigation) to disbelieve and instead put it back onto a Saving Throw (INT) like it probably should have been all along (thereby making Intelligence Saves something that can actually happen?)

It always seemed a bit odd that a combat activity like Grappling used an Ability Check rather than an Attack roll... just like recovering from a spell used an Ability Check rather than a Saving Throw. These were like the two oddities in a sea of standardized d20 Tests.
 

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
That seems like symmetry for the sake of symmetry rather than for a genuine balance or game design reason.
Not so much symmetry, but "fairness".

Two fighters with Extra Attack are fighting. The first grapples, then attacks. The second has to use their entire Action (effectively losing an attack) to try to break out.

Now, if it was an attack to escape, if the first attempt failed the grappled fighter could try again. If it succeeds, they could grapple themselves or make an attack.
 

I mean logically perverse, not as a value judgement. I.e. the opposite of good design.

And you honestly need to explain the claim re opening up options. If anything this odes the opposite. It also means tons of stuff which currently supports grappling is now next to useless.

It is a design choice.
I like grappling more integrated and not something, a specialist uses to exploit a system weakness.
I don't oppose system support for a grappler build at all. But it should not rely on expertise and cutting words.

Instead: give us a good grappler feat that works with the newer rules.
 

Weiley31

Legend
I maybe insane, but I like the idea of Grapple being auto like it is with the new rules, but then the rolls to escape it follow the contested rules format of the current 5E rules.
 


Yaarel

Mind Mage
For reference:

View attachment 258578
View attachment 258579

1. Its a feat. Although most games use feats, not all do. I agree being able to restrain should require some training, but a feat? shrug You are already using a second attack to progress from grappled to restrained, that should be sufficient. Now, if you grapple and attempt to restrain, but fail, then perhaps the creature escapes automatically or at the very least allow advantage on the next escape attempt.

2. If you restrain a creature, you are also restrained. Which means your speed is also 0, so you can't move the creature. Your speed should not be reduced as it is already half when attempting to move grappled creatures.

3. The Restrained Condition is weak. A restrained creature should not be able to take any actions other than trying to escape being restrained. What is Restrained should be more of a Grappled Condition (at least the new playtest material is heading in the correct direction in that respect...), but with half speed instead of 0 speed.

4. It deals no damage. If you want to deal damage, you also need to take the Fighting Style... The feat should make your grapple deal 1d4+STR mod damage IMO.
Technically, in my mind, "close-quarters" combat means "within 30 feet" and synonymous with "close", "near", and within a move or a throw.

For grappling, I would use range terms like "adjacent", "melee", arms reach, and hand-to-hand.
 

I don't oppose system support for a grappler build at all. But it should not rely on expertise and cutting words.
It doesn't. I already showed two ways to do grappling well that are simply using base class abilities. People are pretending the most extreme case is the only build that grapples well and it's extremely silly. Might as well claim Battlemasters are the only Fighter capable of competitive DPS or something.
Instead: give us a good grappler feat that works with the newer rules.
No.

We shouldn't have to rely on Feats for stuff currently built into various classes.

Also, making the a tactical option crap-by-default, then forcing you to spec into a Feat to make it work even "okay" is absolutely terrible game design, and it was one of the most major flaws of 3.XE. 5E almost completely corrected it, so going back to 3.XE design here would be truly awful.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
For reference:

View attachment 258578
View attachment 258579

1. Its a feat. Although most games use feats, not all do. I agree being able to restrain should require some training, but a feat? shrug You are already using a second attack to progress from grappled to restrained, that should be sufficient. Now, if you grapple and attempt to restrain, but fail, then perhaps the creature escapes automatically or at the very least allow advantage on the next escape attempt.

2. If you restrain a creature, you are also restrained. Which means your speed is also 0, so you can't move the creature. Your speed should not be reduced as it is already half when attempting to move grappled creatures.

3. The Restrained Condition is weak. A restrained creature should not be able to take any actions other than trying to escape being restrained. What is Restrained should be more of a Grappled Condition (at least the new playtest material is heading in the correct direction in that respect...), but with half speed instead of 0 speed.

4. It deals no damage. If you want to deal damage, you also need to take the Fighting Style... The feat should make your grapple deal 1d4+STR mod damage IMO.
I like the Restrained condition here.

It is hard for me to evaluate whether Grappler merits a feat, but I think so. Grappling is potentially effective to deactivate a target, while mates focus fire.
 

Not so much symmetry, but "fairness".

Two fighters with Extra Attack are fighting. The first grapples, then attacks. The second has to use their entire Action (effectively losing an attack) to try to break out.

Now, if it was an attack to escape, if the first attempt failed the grappled fighter could try again. If it succeeds, they could grapple themselves or make an attack.
Thinking Fighter on Fighter is extremely silly nonsense.

D&D 5E isn't designed a game that's about "Fair PvP", which is your starting point and why your ideas aren't helping you understand the issue here.

Think PC on monster, or monster on PC, because that is 99.9999% of cases. Monsters often don't have "attacks" in that sense to even expend. It's not a "standard unit" of action currency. The suggestion one person had of Bonus Action was better, but far too cheap.

And no, the second one doesn't have to do that. They could equally easily just Shove the PC with their first attack, which will break the Grapple. And they don't need to break the enemy Grapple to Grapple the enemy themselves, not sure why you're suggesting that, doesn't make any sense.
 

I like the Restrained condition here.

It is hard for me to evaluate whether Grappler merits a feat, but I think so. Grappling is potentially effective to deactivate a target, while mates focus fire.
It's incredibly bad, and it's extremely easy to evaluate that it's bad. It makes the PC as vulnerable to focus fire as the target, and makes the PC completely useless, turning their DPR to 0. Casters can get the same effect from level 2/3 spells whilst having full DPR outside the round they cast the spell, rather than 0 DPR for as long as they hold it.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
We shouldn't have to rely on Feats for stuff currently built into various classes.

Also, making the a tactical option crap-by-default, then forcing you to spec into a Feat to make it work even "okay" is absolutely terrible game design.
Strongly agree. Unarmed is perhaps the most instinctive form of human combat. Despite it also benefiting from training and experience.

A typical human should be able to grapple effectively, ... to some degree.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
It's incredibly bad, and it's extremely easy to evaluate that it's bad. It makes the PC as vulnerable to focus fire as the target, and makes the PC completely useless, turning their DPR to 0. Casters can get the same effect from level 2/3 spells whilst having full DPR outside the round they cast the spell, rather than 0 DPR for as long as they hold it.
As I read it, the feat grants advantage to grappling attacks thus neutralizing the disadvantage. Meanwhile, increasing vulnerability to attacks from hostiles, might be fair considering being tied up at the moment.

Perhaps the grappler benefits from cover if using the target as a human shield?
 

Strongly agree. Unarmed is perhaps the most instinctive form of human combat. Despite it also benefiting from training and experience.

A typical human should be able to grapple effectively, ... to some degree.
And a PC, particularly a Fighter/Paladin/Monk/Ranger/Rogue/etc. is not a "typical human", they're considerably more trained, experienced, and competent. So they should be actually good at it, at least potentially.

Here there is absolutely nothing to ever make you better at it. Ever. If you're very lucky you'll keep pace with monster saving throws for a while, then you'll lose ground as monster saves go up but your STR is stuck at 20.

If they redesign class features they could fix this issue, but they will need to actually do that. Like Barbarians currently get Advantage on STR checks whilst Raging - with this redesign to grappling they should also probably cause people to save with Disadvantage against their grapples whilst Raging (there are other ways to do this, mechanically, just one suggestion - but I think it is the most simple).
 

As I read it, the feat grants advantage to grappling attacks thus neutralizing the disadvantage. Meanwhile, increasing vulnerability to attacks from hostiles, might be fair considering being tied up at the moment.

Perhaps the grappler benefits from cover if using the target as a human shield?
It's still completely terrible.

You're spending a Feat, in order to act like a level 2 spell (assuming the new Grapple rules), but also be completely vulnerable and doing 0 DPR.

There's no minor modification of the Feat that is going to make it anything but a total disaster that shows a massive disparity between non-casters and casters. You become a much worse human version of "Hold Person". Whereas the Level 3 Cleric can simply cast Hold Person, or whatever.
 

It doesn't. I already showed two ways to do grappling well that are simply using base class abilities. People are pretending the most extreme case is the only build that grapples well and it's extremely silly. Might as well claim Battlemasters are the only Fighter capable of competitive DPS or something.

No.

We shouldn't have to rely on Feats for stuff currently built into various classes.

Also, making the a tactical option crap-by-default, then forcing you to spec into a Feat to make it work even "okay" is absolutely terrible game design, and it was one of the most major flaws of 3.XE. 5E almost completely corrected it, so going back to 3.XE design here would be truly awful.

I respectfully disagree.
 

I respectfully disagree.
With what? The last bit?

So you think it's good design to design baseline tactical options that are terrible/ineffective and then force people to take Feats if they want to make them work at an acceptable level? Then perhaps other Feats to make them work "well"? And this is a special thing only Martial characters have to deal with - you also think that's fine?
 

With what? The last bit?

So you think it's good design to design baseline tactical options that are terrible/ineffective and then force people to take Feats if they want to make them work at an acceptable level? Then perhaps other Feats to make them work "well"? And this is a special thing only Martial characters have to deal with - you also think that's fine?
Everything you wrote.*

*I think you Idea of good and varied game design is not compatible with mine.
 
Last edited:

Everything you wrote.*

*I think you Idea of good and varied gane design is not compatible with mine.
Sure, so you do think that about Feats, it seems. Wild. We spent two editions getting away from that terrible bit of design, and games since have learned form 3.XE/PF1 not to do that (including PF2), but there we go.
 

Sure, so you do think that about Feats, it seems. Wild. We spent two editions getting away from that terrible bit of design, and games since have learned form 3.XE/PF1 not to do that (including PF2), but there we go.

Only because it was terrible before does not mean the current solution is perfect.

5e already has 2 feats that should help grapplers. Sadly they are bad.

The current design with opposed skill checks is also terrible, and clunky and completely imbalanced, considering that giants have athletic bonuses of +6 or so, while a player can have +17, advantage and some extra dXs while the enemy vould have - dX.
This is actually something I wanted to get rid of way more in the last 2 editions than feats:
Stupid builds, that you created because you saw a hole in the rules. Same goes for multiclassing warlock hexblades, which somehow always fits into one's character story...

I don't saythe attack vs AC is perfect. I'd prefer an initial saving throw vs something derived from strength (at least for now), but everything is better than using a system for resolving combats that is not made for it.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top