One D&D Grappling

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Baumi

Adventurer
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.
 

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.
 

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

Legend
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?
 

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

Adventurer
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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 



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.
I doesn't currently just come off a to-hit roll, it requires and opposed roll.

"Instead of making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

So right now if you're good at Grappling you're good at resisting a Shove, which means it usually fails.

With the new rules, it'll be much easier to Shove people away in virtually all cases.
There's actually no reference to AC in the playtest, that I can find. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they actually cut it, but it's possible. The Lancer guys were working for WotC, last I checked.
HOLY... wow that would be BIG. I'd love it.

I double-checked. It really isn't mentioned at all. Might just be an accident of course.
 

I doesn't currently just come off a to-hit roll, it requires and opposed roll.

"Instead of making an Attack roll, you make a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you win the contest, you either knock the target prone or push it 5 feet away from you."

So right now if you're good at Grappling you're good at resisting a Shove, which means it usually fails.

With the new rules, it'll be much easier to Shove people away in virtually all cases.

Shoving and escaping the grapple are usually equally difficult. At least with shoving as a fighter level 5+ you have at least 2 attempts to escape. And if you escape, you can usually move away without provoking AoO already.

I am really not sure what you want to tell me. Right now, shoving for strength based characters is usually better than trying to escape as an action.

In the new rules, you can shove with a strength based attack, which I would like to be against a different defense than AC, why not the same grapple escape DC.

I will totally vote to add a grapple DC as a standard defense to the character sheet.

Edit: I find it funny how much effort you put in your post to make hyperlink to obvious things...
 

Shoving and escaping the grapple are usually equally difficult. At least with shoving as a fighter level 5+ you have at least 2 attempts to escape. And if you escape, you can usually move away without provoking AoO already.
Agree.
I am really not sure what you want to tell me. Right now, shoving for strength based characters is usually better than trying to escape as an action.
What I'm trying to tell you is that instead of it being "equal", it's vastly easier in most cases to the point where it means it will be nearly impossible to maintain grapples, especially on monsters with multi-attacks. PCs often (usually?) have lower ACs than the sort of monsters PCs like to grapple (which tend to be the more dangerous M or L-sized ones, not random henchmen), and because you can't have a shield and grapple (in most cases), that further lowers PC ACs.

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.
 

kapars

Explorer
Do we currently know for certain that monsters can make Unarmed Attacks? Also, wouldn’t it be really bad for a monster with multi-attack to instead have to take the standard attack action for a single attempt at an unarmed strike to push a character away? Multi-attack explicitly says what can be done with it, brown bear has bite and claw no shove and shove substitution is possible.
 

Do we currently know for certain that monsters can make Unarmed Attacks?
No we do not, and if they cannot, that'll be extremely interesting and change the calculations here quite a bit. I mean I think they will be able to, but we shall see!
Also, wouldn’t it be really bad for a monster with multi-attack to instead have to take the standard attack action for a single attempt at an unarmed strike to push a character away? Multi-attack explicitly says what can be done with it, brown bear has bite and claw no shove and shove substitution is possible.
It's been repeatedly proposed by people in this thread (who disagree with me) that in fact, they can substitute.

But looking through MotM, which is more tightly written than previous monster books, it looks like you're right - I can't find any multi-attacks where they could just substitute an unarmed attack, RAW. Like the Shadow Dancer has "Multiattack. The shadow dancer makes three spiked chain attacks.". That's pretty specific.

So actually I agree that's going to mean that most monsters which want to Shove will have to use their entire Action. I should have spotted this earlier because I was pointing out that an "Attack" was not a legitimate bit of D&D action-currency, thanks for getting me back on track!
 

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.

Which is why I told you for the umtieth time that I want a different defense than AC.
Also, a monster using an attack to shove you away is a lot of damage mitigation right there.

And I am totally understanding that monsters are now better. For me this is a feature, not a bug.

Edit: my character never uses grapple + shove prone, because I don't want the DM to be annoyed with me.

Edit2: also something that was inconsistent in the old rules: dodge did nit help vs grapples. At least acronatics check shiuld have gained advantage.

Another thing: Grapple alone was not what I meant with rules exploit. I Mean grapple + shove prone, a combo that was most surely not planned by the designers. An oversight most probably.

Actually this combo still works and now seems a lot fairer and helps you not to get shoved by the grappled creature.
 
Last edited:

TheSword

Legend
Agree.

What I'm trying to tell you is that instead of it being "equal", it's vastly easier in most cases to the point where it means it will be nearly impossible to maintain grapples, especially on monsters with multi-attacks. PCs often (usually?) have lower ACs than the sort of monsters PCs like to grapple (which tend to be the more dangerous M or L-sized ones, not random henchmen), and because you can't have a shield and grapple (in most cases), that further lowers PC ACs.

Before a monster likely had to beat an opposed test of STR + Athletics vs DEX + Acrobatics or STR + Athletics.

Now they just have to hit the PC's AC. That's much easier in most cases. Do you understand? But for PCs, the reverse is true. A lot of monsters which grappled didn't have that great of STR + Athletics (they often grappled automatically, rather than having to roll, though), so it was quite possible to Shove them away if they were small enough. But now, a lot of those monsters have pretty high ACs - so it will be a lot harder to Shove them.

That's a big change swinging grappling to being a thing monsters do to PCs, but that PCs can't do to monsters.
Why is monsters (and PCs) being able to break out of grapples a bad thing? I find PCs don’t like being grappled for extended periods any more than the DM wants their

It’s costing the grappled one an attack to get out (at least one). They are getting a debuff until they succeed, and it only costs the grappler one attack. Or they wait until the end of the round, suck up the debuff and get a single free try.

I dispute quite heavily your assertion that foes tend to have higher ACs than PCs. I rarely see a combat oriented PC with AC less than 18 and usually considerably higher. I rarely see monsters with AC more than 18.

You seem to be only viewing this from the point of view of PCs grappling but they will be on the receiving end too.

Grapple does scale, the same way that hit rolls scale - which is through a multitude of methods. It’s also scales in continuing, because the save DC keys of proficiency. I really don’t understand what you mean when you say it doesn’t scale.

Shove is about as easy to land and dealing damage is. Any decision to shove has to be balanced against the fact that you might just kill the person and not worry about the grapple at all.

I have some sympathy for the argument that armour shouldn’t make you harder to shove or grapple but at the same time AC really covers so many things it could easily just be renamed Defense. I have no desire to return to the days of calculating a whole different CMD that only gets used once every five fights and ten characters.
 

TheSword

Legend
No we do not, and if they cannot, that'll be extremely interesting and change the calculations here quite a bit. I mean I think they will be able to, but we shall see!

It's been repeatedly proposed by people in this thread (who disagree with me) that in fact, they can substitute.

But looking through MotM, which is more tightly written than previous monster books, it looks like you're right - I can't find any multi-attacks where they could just substitute an unarmed attack, RAW. Like the Shadow Dancer has "Multiattack. The shadow dancer makes three spiked chain attacks.". That's pretty specific.

So actually I agree that's going to mean that most monsters which want to Shove will have to use their entire Action. I should have spotted this earlier because I was pointing out that an "Attack" was not a legitimate bit of D&D action-currency, thanks for getting me back on track!
Oh dear dear, no. This is such a mangling of the common sense rules. I don’t believe a sensible DM can look at a veteran with two attacks and say that the equivalent PC can shove instead of an attack but that veteran has to give up all their attacks.

A shove doesn’t do damage so replace the attack with the consequences of shove. This can be easily applied to every monster reasonably capable of shoving someone.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top