My biggest question with monks is why are the grappling rules the same for a class that is almost designed from the ground up to have the ability to act while grappled? Monks (especially the Way of the Open Fist) are supposed to be masters of close in combat, and yet, whenever they’re grappled, all they can do is wriggle around and hope to be able to get out of it. No elbows to the gut. No kick to the instep. No back of the head to the nose. Nothing. At all. Ever. At all. Honestly, what is the point?
Being grappled does not prevent you from attacking or even hinder your attacks. If you want to break the grapple, you have to use your action but you don’t have to. You can also break the grapple by using shove to push the grappler away from you. This would cost you an attack but not necessarily your entire action.
Being grappled does not prevent you from attacking or even hinder your attacks. If you want to break the grapple, you have to use your action but you don’t have to. You can also break the grapple by using the shove to push the grappler away from you. This would cost you an attack but not necessarily your entire action.
Where is that listed because I can’t find it anywhere.
Being grappled does not prevent you from attacking or even hinder your attacks. If you want to break the grapple, you have to use your action but you don’t have to. You can also break the grapple by using the shove to push the grappler away from you. This would cost you an attack but not necessarily your entire action.
Where is that listed because I can’t find it anywhere.
The grappled condition just puts your speed to 0. You can still attack.
Grappled: "A grappled creature's speed becomes 0, and it can't benefit from any bonus to its speed. The condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated (see the condition). The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the thunderwave spell." https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/appendix-a-conditions#Grappled
I have experienced this just recently when a party attempted to convince a DM that a grappled target could not even attack. I advise everyone read or have a cheat sheet of conditions on hand at a table to be aware of what and how you are affected if you succumb to a condition. Many feel the conditions are not 'restrictive' enough but they are like this to protect players from creatures and prevent lopsided combats.
Grappled isn't very restrictive, your speed is 0. I see people upset about that, but I can't quite understand why.
Restrained is the restrictive version, and it's basically only for special monsters, a limited number of spells, and that one incredibly stupid feat Grappler.
Technically if a Giant Toad, eats the fighter holding a Great Sword, that fighter can still attack the Great Sword at the Giant Toad from inside it. The fighter just has disadvantage (for blinded and restrained) to attack the Giant Toad's AC: 11. Now it's a much bigger problem if a Behir swallows you, because it's AC:17 is almost impossible to hit with disadvantage.
Grappled isn't a problem on its own but its a gateway condition. You do need a free hand or flexible weapon capable of grappling to begin it but say some tries to run, and your opportunity attack is used as a grapple well now we have a survival issue - especially if its a rogue who is behind enemy lines or Sheela Peryroyl forbid, a halfling mage.
The second issue is when its used in conjunction with allies. Knocking someone prone is one thing, grappling them so they have 0 move so cant stand? thats advantage to every attack in melee against them. So what? they can break the grapple? What if they only have one attack and a (necromancer) has multiple (zombies) grapple? They cant get free until one grappler is broken off and fails to regrapple and they then beat the second one.
Now what about forced movement - if you grapple something you can move at half speed with the grappled target and this is the real threat. Anytime terrain features long drops or environmental hazards grappling can become capable of incredible damage.
Thats not a bad thing though, it means your thinking about combining terrain with your abilities, or what your opponents could do with theirs.
Grappled isn't a problem on its own but its a gateway condition. You do need a free hand or flexible weapon capable of grappling to begin it but say some tries to run, and your opportunity attack is used as a grapple well now we have a survival issue - especially if its a rogue who is behind enemy lines or Sheela Peryroyl forbid, a halfling mage.
You can't grapple with an opportunity attack. It requires the Attack action. Strictly speaking you can't use a weapon either but I imagine some DMs are generous and might allow it with whips and chains.
There have been several comments about that but the point is that a grapple is an attack, it comes under 'melee attacks' and requires an attack action you are correct but it goes on to state if you have multiple attacks the grapple replaces one of them and finally an opportunity attack allows you to make one melee attack.
You can use your interpretation but its locking down theater of the mind and its not the only interpretation. i would suggest it could be interpreted as it is to make people aware thats its not a free of bonus action and requires a melee attack and it could be possible for someone to make multiple grapple attacks. So as always enjoy the game as you wish.
Grapple explicitly says: "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
The bit in bold is the most important part. Opportunity attacks are not the Attack action.
Emphasis aside I would suggest that reading it all is important. I guess you already made your decision on how you want to run it as a DM, others might differ and nothing I or anyone suggests should prove contrary to those decisions. Its those who havent decided which way they choose to run a game who I hope to provide references for.
But let me give you this to 'grab you' ba-dom tss. A ready action to grapple a target initiating movement near you leads to the same situation in a game you would run. I'm not sure if you have an objection to that but at the cost of a reaction for a little delayed gratification. Honestly it doesnt have to be a movement trigger, thats just an example.
Sometimes alternative actions to attack / cast a spell are better options, at least I would hope so or combat, barring luck becomes more of a straight numbers game.
Can an opportunity attack be used to make a grapple or a shove?
Grappling and shoving are special melee attacks that require the Attack action (PH, 195). An opportunity attack is a special reaction. Take the Ready action if you want to attempt a grapple or a shove as a reaction.
Precisely. You could accomplish a grapple with a reaction - but you first have to ready your Attack action to do so. If you've used your action then you only have a reaction which is not the Attack action. Rules as written it's very clear that's the intention. I can't even see a way for it to be understood differently.
Emmote, it can as I have stated work that way. You dont have to run it that way, but you do have to accept it that way if your DM decides on it. The SAC will determine AL and your personal preferences. (the latter only if you allow them) I have a question for you - can sleight of hand disarm people, blind people with powder / a cloak? if no, never then it may as well be folded up into thieves tools or acrobatics. Can you climb another person / creature with athletics and use acrobatics to balance on their head? To me the answer is you could, but yeah I hope you roll well :) Melee attacks can be traded for grapples, multiple melee attacks can be traded for multiple grapples so grappling as a reaction? sure. (for me) If you want to oppose a grapple reaction because you think its too powerful then you should most definitely do that. If your point blank refusal is based elsewhere? Think on why but enjoy your game regardless :)
Emmote, it can as I have stated work that way. You dont have to run it that way, but you do have to accept it that way if your DM decides on it. The SAC will determine AL and your personal preferences. (the latter only if you allow them) I have a question for you - can sleight of hand disarm people, blind people with powder / a cloak? if no, never then it may as well be folded up into thieves tools or acrobatics. Can you climb another person / creature with athletics and use acrobatics to balance on their head? To me the answer is you could, but yeah I hope you roll well :) Melee attacks can be traded for grapples, multiple melee attacks can be traded for multiple grapples so grappling as a reaction? sure. (for me) If you want to oppose a grapple reaction because you think its too powerful then you should most definitely do that. If your point blank refusal is based elsewhere? Think on why but enjoy your game regardless :)
Because grappling takes more effort than swinging a weapon. You can assume your reaction takes place quicker than a normal action. Therefore would you have the time to try and grab a creature that is already moving away from you?
Also when you do an opportunity attack you only hit once regardless of your extra attacks, cause that only effects regular actions. Grapple = SPECIAL melee attack.
Also sleight of hand no to both. Sleight of hand is not for taking a weapon out of someone's hands. And to blind with powder that would be the action Use an object.
Also the 'point blank refusal' is based on rules as written.
Gav, grapple is a special melee attack that you can exchange for any of your melee attacks or all of them so yes its exactly one for one (outside of your AoO preferences)
Blinding with powder should require more skill to have a chance to succeed, a dirty fighter should be able to succeed, not too sure about a 'I have blinding powder make a save' scenario
As for not taking a weapon out of hand - my issue is that a class has the ability to do it as a class ability which is why I wouldnt just assume it was automatically possible. Remember past a certain point the creatures you face are bigger and a lot are weaponless. Those who have weapons? why shouldnt someone with a skill that can remove objects from a person be able to remove it - would it be difficult? well it shouldnt be automatic but if you give absolutely no reason for sleight of hand to exist please fold it into acrobatics. As for SoH not being for / able to do 'x' thats not true, not true at all, the skills section of the phb is the most underdeveloped part of the book. (ok excepting the lack of age modifiers) Theres next to nothing written on whats possible to achieve there and thats the point - when you are given license to think then you are given freedom. If you read what little is written there and never let anything else be possible? well that will be interesting as well. Not good, but interesting.
Finally this thread is about monks grappling, and if a monk with sleight of hand wanted to when grappling a target make a sleight of hand check to disarm the victim they have in a head / leg locks weapon? that makes thematic sense and should be cool as all hell, why wouldnt you consider it? Its bonkers not to at least think about what you would require done as contested actions. Better yet if the party are happy with it then whats good for the pc goose becomes great for the npc gander. When the party are grappled, disarmed and tied up by sleight of hand monks? Thats the start of a great adventure or cliffhanger.
I know I'm repeating myself, but the rules as written specifically state you can Grapple only during your Attack Action. An Attack of Opportunity is your Reaction and therefore doesn't count. Those are the rules, plain, simple and explicit. Any deviation from that is homebrew and basically besides the point. You can't really offer a suggestion that is against the rules because many DM's wouldn't allow it on that basis.
Emmote, many times there will be questions raised about the nature of the rules and why they are there. Most of the time sadly we will never know the answer, only be able to guess. Yes you are repeating yourself and I appreciate your fierce belief that it is the right thing to do but that doesnt mean your unable to offer a suggestion despite it. Ever.
For example healing spirit as written - people dont agree it is good and right. Conjure spells had people annoyed when the pixie-gate thing was noticed and at that point as a DM suggested to advice asked that anyone who wished to say that conjured pixie simply dont have polymorph, instead we had an errata of placation that it was not intended but conjured minions were always intended to be chosen by the DM. That was evasive, or at least not apparent to everyone who put together spell descriptions as the PHB attests.
First - this choice rule wasnt written, so we should assume it was implied by a social media post, ok but hear me out. IF conjured creatures were supposed to be DM fiat (and therefor slow the game down to a crawl as they have to now look for a creature they may not have expected, dont have ready stats, make a copy give it to the player etc etc - which is bad for gameplay speed) then the fact that conjured elementals required specific ingredients to summon individual elements wouldnt have been there. Ever. But it was and it is and if elementals were supposed to be chosen it seems more likely (again due to game design) that every other conjure was as well (for game play speed) than that the ability of one creature out of 30+ conjurable was overlooked and could cause a problem.
So to rehash - A grapple as the rules state under the section in the players handbook underlined as Melee Attacks where the situations lay out a one for one exchange ratio of attacks (if you have more than one of them) for grapples, So your AoO could be exchanged for a grapple, push or other equivalent action. Could be, Not must be, Could be. The assessment should first be made about whether this would allow something to harm your game, whether by including or excluding it. Now that decision on any given day is up to the DM and this is food for their and their players thoughts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My biggest question with monks is why are the grappling rules the same for a class that is almost designed from the ground up to have the ability to act while grappled? Monks (especially the Way of the Open Fist) are supposed to be masters of close in combat, and yet, whenever they’re grappled, all they can do is wriggle around and hope to be able to get out of it. No elbows to the gut. No kick to the instep. No back of the head to the nose. Nothing. At all. Ever. At all. Honestly, what is the point?
Being grappled does not prevent you from attacking or even hinder your attacks. If you want to break the grapple, you have to use your action but you don’t have to. You can also break the grapple by using shove to push the grappler away from you. This would cost you an attack but not necessarily your entire action.
It's called Stunning Strike. A stunned creature is incapacitated and the grappled condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated.
Where is that listed because I can’t find it anywhere.
The grappled condition.
The grappled condition just puts your speed to 0. You can still attack.
Grappled:
"A grappled creature's speed becomes 0, and it can't benefit from any bonus to its speed.
The condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the thunderwave spell."
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/appendix-a-conditions#Grappled
Shove:
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
https://www.dndbeyond.com/compendium/rules/basic-rules/combat#ShovingaCreature
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I have experienced this just recently when a party attempted to convince a DM that a grappled target could not even attack. I advise everyone read or have a cheat sheet of conditions on hand at a table to be aware of what and how you are affected if you succumb to a condition. Many feel the conditions are not 'restrictive' enough but they are like this to protect players from creatures and prevent lopsided combats.
I see it pretty simply.
Grappled isn't very restrictive, your speed is 0. I see people upset about that, but I can't quite understand why.
Restrained is the restrictive version, and it's basically only for special monsters, a limited number of spells, and that one incredibly stupid feat Grappler.
Technically if a Giant Toad, eats the fighter holding a Great Sword, that fighter can still attack the Great Sword at the Giant Toad from inside it. The fighter just has disadvantage (for blinded and restrained) to attack the Giant Toad's AC: 11.
Now it's a much bigger problem if a Behir swallows you, because it's AC:17 is almost impossible to hit with disadvantage.
Grappled isn't a problem on its own but its a gateway condition. You do need a free hand or flexible weapon capable of grappling to begin it but say some tries to run, and your opportunity attack is used as a grapple well now we have a survival issue - especially if its a rogue who is behind enemy lines or Sheela Peryroyl forbid, a halfling mage.
The second issue is when its used in conjunction with allies. Knocking someone prone is one thing, grappling them so they have 0 move so cant stand? thats advantage to every attack in melee against them. So what? they can break the grapple? What if they only have one attack and a (necromancer) has multiple (zombies) grapple? They cant get free until one grappler is broken off and fails to regrapple and they then beat the second one.
Now what about forced movement - if you grapple something you can move at half speed with the grappled target and this is the real threat. Anytime terrain features long drops or environmental hazards grappling can become capable of incredible damage.
Thats not a bad thing though, it means your thinking about combining terrain with your abilities, or what your opponents could do with theirs.
You can't grapple with an opportunity attack. It requires the Attack action. Strictly speaking you can't use a weapon either but I imagine some DMs are generous and might allow it with whips and chains.
There have been several comments about that but the point is that a grapple is an attack, it comes under 'melee attacks' and requires an attack action you are correct but it goes on to state if you have multiple attacks the grapple replaces one of them and finally an opportunity attack allows you to make one melee attack.
You can use your interpretation but its locking down theater of the mind and its not the only interpretation. i would suggest it could be interpreted as it is to make people aware thats its not a free of bonus action and requires a melee attack and it could be possible for someone to make multiple grapple attacks. So as always enjoy the game as you wish.
Grapple explicitly says:
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
The bit in bold is the most important part. Opportunity attacks are not the Attack action.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Emphasis aside I would suggest that reading it all is important. I guess you already made your decision on how you want to run it as a DM, others might differ and nothing I or anyone suggests should prove contrary to those decisions. Its those who havent decided which way they choose to run a game who I hope to provide references for.
But let me give you this to 'grab you' ba-dom tss. A ready action to grapple a target initiating movement near you leads to the same situation in a game you would run. I'm not sure if you have an objection to that but at the cost of a reaction for a little delayed gratification. Honestly it doesnt have to be a movement trigger, thats just an example.
Sometimes alternative actions to attack / cast a spell are better options, at least I would hope so or combat, barring luck becomes more of a straight numbers game.
From Sage Advice Compendium:
Precisely. You could accomplish a grapple with a reaction - but you first have to ready your Attack action to do so. If you've used your action then you only have a reaction which is not the Attack action. Rules as written it's very clear that's the intention. I can't even see a way for it to be understood differently.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Emmote, it can as I have stated work that way. You dont have to run it that way, but you do have to accept it that way if your DM decides on it. The SAC will determine AL and your personal preferences. (the latter only if you allow them) I have a question for you - can sleight of hand disarm people, blind people with powder / a cloak? if no, never then it may as well be folded up into thieves tools or acrobatics. Can you climb another person / creature with athletics and use acrobatics to balance on their head? To me the answer is you could, but yeah I hope you roll well :) Melee attacks can be traded for grapples, multiple melee attacks can be traded for multiple grapples so grappling as a reaction? sure. (for me) If you want to oppose a grapple reaction because you think its too powerful then you should most definitely do that. If your point blank refusal is based elsewhere? Think on why but enjoy your game regardless :)
Because grappling takes more effort than swinging a weapon. You can assume your reaction takes place quicker than a normal action. Therefore would you have the time to try and grab a creature that is already moving away from you?
Also when you do an opportunity attack you only hit once regardless of your extra attacks, cause that only effects regular actions. Grapple = SPECIAL melee attack.
Also sleight of hand no to both. Sleight of hand is not for taking a weapon out of someone's hands. And to blind with powder that would be the action Use an object.
Also the 'point blank refusal' is based on rules as written.
Gav, grapple is a special melee attack that you can exchange for any of your melee attacks or all of them so yes its exactly one for one (outside of your AoO preferences)
Blinding with powder should require more skill to have a chance to succeed, a dirty fighter should be able to succeed, not too sure about a 'I have blinding powder make a save' scenario
As for not taking a weapon out of hand - my issue is that a class has the ability to do it as a class ability which is why I wouldnt just assume it was automatically possible. Remember past a certain point the creatures you face are bigger and a lot are weaponless. Those who have weapons? why shouldnt someone with a skill that can remove objects from a person be able to remove it - would it be difficult? well it shouldnt be automatic but if you give absolutely no reason for sleight of hand to exist please fold it into acrobatics. As for SoH not being for / able to do 'x' thats not true, not true at all, the skills section of the phb is the most underdeveloped part of the book. (ok excepting the lack of age modifiers) Theres next to nothing written on whats possible to achieve there and thats the point - when you are given license to think then you are given freedom. If you read what little is written there and never let anything else be possible? well that will be interesting as well. Not good, but interesting.
Finally this thread is about monks grappling, and if a monk with sleight of hand wanted to when grappling a target make a sleight of hand check to disarm the victim they have in a head / leg locks weapon? that makes thematic sense and should be cool as all hell, why wouldnt you consider it? Its bonkers not to at least think about what you would require done as contested actions. Better yet if the party are happy with it then whats good for the pc goose becomes great for the npc gander. When the party are grappled, disarmed and tied up by sleight of hand monks? Thats the start of a great adventure or cliffhanger.
I know I'm repeating myself, but the rules as written specifically state you can Grapple only during your Attack Action. An Attack of Opportunity is your Reaction and therefore doesn't count. Those are the rules, plain, simple and explicit. Any deviation from that is homebrew and basically besides the point. You can't really offer a suggestion that is against the rules because many DM's wouldn't allow it on that basis.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Emmote, many times there will be questions raised about the nature of the rules and why they are there. Most of the time sadly we will never know the answer, only be able to guess. Yes you are repeating yourself and I appreciate your fierce belief that it is the right thing to do but that doesnt mean your unable to offer a suggestion despite it. Ever.
For example healing spirit as written - people dont agree it is good and right. Conjure spells had people annoyed when the pixie-gate thing was noticed and at that point as a DM suggested to advice asked that anyone who wished to say that conjured pixie simply dont have polymorph, instead we had an errata of placation that it was not intended but conjured minions were always intended to be chosen by the DM. That was evasive, or at least not apparent to everyone who put together spell descriptions as the PHB attests.
First - this choice rule wasnt written, so we should assume it was implied by a social media post, ok but hear me out. IF conjured creatures were supposed to be DM fiat (and therefor slow the game down to a crawl as they have to now look for a creature they may not have expected, dont have ready stats, make a copy give it to the player etc etc - which is bad for gameplay speed) then the fact that conjured elementals required specific ingredients to summon individual elements wouldnt have been there. Ever. But it was and it is and if elementals were supposed to be chosen it seems more likely (again due to game design) that every other conjure was as well (for game play speed) than that the ability of one creature out of 30+ conjurable was overlooked and could cause a problem.
So to rehash - A grapple as the rules state under the section in the players handbook underlined as Melee Attacks where the situations lay out a one for one exchange ratio of attacks (if you have more than one of them) for grapples, So your AoO could be exchanged for a grapple, push or other equivalent action. Could be, Not must be, Could be. The assessment should first be made about whether this would allow something to harm your game, whether by including or excluding it. Now that decision on any given day is up to the DM and this is food for their and their players thoughts.