Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8741513" data-attributes="member: 18">This fails to holistically understand how grappling works, and that it exposes the grappler to risk as well as the person being grappled. You're just suggesting symmetry for the sake of symmetry, there's no actual logical rules-argument there. It taking a hand alone is a huge thing (no shields, no 2H weapons, no dual-wield, no casting, etc. etc. etc. - you don't seem to realize this, you seem to think it's cost-free beyond the attack to start it), as is being in melee, as is inflicting the Slowed condition on the grappler whilst they're moving.It shouldn't be utterly trivial for some size S or M monster who doesn't have any special abilities at all related to escaping grapples (or the like) to escape grapples, but you're proposing a scenario where it is.Part of why I care, to be clear, is that I've seen grapples used very intelligently and tactically in 5E, on both sides of the table. This makes grapples so easy to break and so impossible to improve that they're pretty silly and the Slowed condition means tons of new risk for the grappler. We don't need both that and trivializing breaking grapples - which are already much easier because of the save.I mean, you complain about action-economy, and totally ignore that you get to break out for FREE now? Come on.Yes. Otherwise do not include it as a base option. It's just a trap for less-savvy players who do not realize how bad it is. Again, this was a core problem with 3E, that 5E intentionally got rid of.It'll never be that - see my explanation to DND_Reborn above. You put tons of disadvantages on yourself by grappling, and limit your own options. That's not "equivalent to hitting with a sword". Also you give up your damage for that attack.</blockquote>

Verification