Two hands needed for grapple?

[Voadam]

In the grapple section it does not specify. In the rules of the game article they said it was implied. Do you need two hands free to initiate a grapple? so no grappling if you have a shield or a weapon out?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nope. In fact, the rules don't even specify that you need a single hand free to grapple.

Rather, you make an unarmed "melee touch attack to grab the target."

Now, from this, you might decide that someone needs at least one hand free (but certainly not both!), however:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

So, there's certainly support for allowing someone to grapple with something in both hands.

Moreover, forcing someone to have both hands free in order to grapple means that anyone wielding a greatsword (or a wizard's staff!) can't escape from a grapple without dropping his or her weapon first.

EDIT:

So, how do I rule it? You need one hand free to grapple - and this includes "taking one hand off of your two-handed weapon or off the handle of your shield as a free action."

Why? Because if having something in one of your hands made it impossible to grapple, there'd be rules to that effect in the Grapple description. Since it doesn't mention this and, instead, it talks about how you can attack a fellow grappler while wielding a light weapon, there's no penalties associated with having things in-hand when you start grappling, either.

 

[Fangor the Fierce]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a

Grappling Requirements
​

The rules don't go into much detail about when you're capable of making grapple attacks. Common sense, however, suggests a few minimal requirements.
​

Because grappling involves grabbing and holding a foe, you need both hands to do it.
​

Since most shields in the D&D game are strapped to your forearm, you can let go of the shield and use your shield hand for grappling. You can grab or hold a foe with a buckler strapped to your arm at no penalty. A light shield imposes a -1 penalty on grapple checks you make offensively. A heavy shield imposes a -2 penalty. You can't initiate a grapple while using a tower shield. Your shield doesn't affect any grapple checks you make defensively (such as check to escape a foe's hold).​

​

Says in the Grappling Requirements, you do need both hands...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Says in the Grappling Requirements, you do need both hands...

Sorry, but:

Because grappling involves grabbing and holding a foe, you need both hands to do it.

Since most shields in the D&D game are strapped to your forearm, you can let go of the shield and use your shield hand for grappling. You can grab or hold a foe with a buckler strapped to your arm at no penalty. A light shield imposes a -1 penalty on grapple checks you make offensively. A heavy shield imposes a -2 penalty. You can't initiate a grapple while using a tower shield. Your shield doesn't affect any grapple checks you make defensively (such as check to escape a foe's hold).

Creatures that lack manipulative appendages can make grapple attacks if they have body parts they can wrap around foes or some means of clamping down on a target. For example, a snake can grapple by biting and wrapping its body around a foe.

the "Rules of the Game" are no place for stupid, ill-thought-out house rules.

Once again, another WotC source that needs to be completely ignored in any serious rules discussion.

 

[Deset Gled]

There is nothing in the Core Rules that states you need any hands free to start a grapple. It's worth noting, thought, that only light weapons (or natural weapons or an unarmed strike) can be used in a grapple. And no matter what you have in your hands, you still lose your Dex bonus to AC and can't threaten. Conceptually, this makes sense to me, as you could be doing holds with your legs or pinning someones arms with a staff (you just can't use the staff to cause damage).

To do a grapple with just one hand (and no other part of the body) is another story. You take a -20 to your grapple checks to do so, but if you succeed you can still threaten an area and don't lose Dex bonus to AC.

EDIT: Darn I'm slow. I suppose that's what I get for checking the SRDs while typing.

 

[atom crash]

Once again, another WotC source that needs to be completely ignored in any serious rules discussion.

I've been wondering for some time if the Rules of the Game series is proofed by game designers for rules discrepancies. Or are the installments just proofed for spelling, then turned over to the Web staff to be posted? Hmmm.

There's been a number of wierd, bad, awkward rulings creeping into "official" sources via RotG and the FAQ, and it troubles me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is a fun place to note that when a paladin first gets his warhorse, it has a grapple check of about +12 - probably a lot better than the paladin's! - and a speed of 50.

So against those annoying spellcasters, one of the best uses for the warhorse is "Go grapple that wizard - I'll be there in a couple of rounds!"

-Hyp.

 

[kjenks]

Snakes can grapple. Some of them are pretty good at it. I don't think they need to have a free hand.

Just skip Skip.

 

[Deset Gled]

I've been wondering for some time if the Rules of the Game series is proofed by game designers for rules discrepancies. Or are the installments just proofed for spelling, then turned over to the Web staff to be posted? Hmmm.

There's been a number of wierd, bad, awkward rulings creeping into "official" sources via RotG and the FAQ, and it troubles me.

The RotG articles are (IIRC) actually written by a game designer: Skip Williams. There are still a number of problems with this. First, there are multiple designers, and this is only of them. Second, Skip is (IMO) pretty arrogant. From the way he writes, I get the feeling that he assumes he is correct about rules just from memory, and doesn't bother to double check the books. He also feels that it's okay to state something is true just because he feels the text "implies" it, even if he can't back it up at all.

Luckily, the designers were kind enough to give us the Primary Source Rule in the DMG 3.5 errata, which tells us that if something in the FAQ or RotG articles contridict the books, the books should be considered right and the articles wrong. 3.0 didn't have this, and it led to a good number of debates in these boards.

 

[atom crash]

The one time we've actually used grapple in my game in any meaningful capacity, a single bronze serpent nearly destroyed the party with its grapple. I decided to have it grapple with the -20 in order to attack other party members, just to get them a fighting chance to escape its coils.

Grappling horses? What a nag.

Edited to add:

The RotG articles are (IIRC) actually written by a game designer: Skip Williams.

Yup, I was aware of that. But does another game designer read over what he writes before it's posted, or does Skip just get the benefit of the doubt that he's right from a mechanics standpoint? Even the best game designer gets things wrong from time to time. It's always a good idea to have another competent set of eyes go over something that is going to be taken as an official source. (And I'm not even going to broach the subject of slipping in deliberate changes to these "clarifications.")