D&D (2024) One D&D Grappling

[Ruin Explorer]

This is a good point. If you can use an attack to grapple, you should be able to use a single attack to escape instead of your entire Action.

That seems like symmetry for the sake of symmetry rather than for a genuine balance or game design reason.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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]

I feel grappling is an "attack", not a skill check. I like this aspect of making it an unarmed strike.

The combination of effect choices also helps me make sense of why unarmed might not be a kind of "weapon".

 

[Yaarel]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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]

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.