So, a player of mine and I have a bit of a disagreement on how exactly grappling and the path of the beast interact. He's agreed to go with my ruling, but I want to make sure I'm not taking something cool from him. I know based on sage advice that the extra attack has to be the claw 1d6 damage. My player however argues that he should be able to have the first attack as a grapple since the extra claw attack triggers "when you attack with a claw" not "when you make a claw attack" and the wording of Claws states that your hand transforms into a claw, so a grapple is a special attack with the claw. Personally I feel like a grapple being a special attack means it no longer qualifies. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject. Thanks!
Relevant rules:
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Grappling
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.
I would say no - because a grapple isn't attacking with the claw. However - when they get Extra Attack they would be able to. They could grapple with the first attack and then Claw with the second and then get the free third Claw attack (because even though one hand would be full with the grappled target - they can attack with the same claw twice as per the Claws rule).
3. Resolve the attack.You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. <-------
Attack Rolls
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
The bolded part answers the question.
You're not rolling to hit. You are not targeting AC.
You're rolling to Contest. You are not dealing damage with this attack.
Does it honestly break anything? Not really. It limits his movement while grappling.
You made the correct ruling.
Further clarification with bolded sentence below as well. It's up to you man.
Grappling
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 target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use).
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.
[...] Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll:
As correctly pasted here, grapples are by definition attacks (in fact, melee attacks). The questions are whether or not that melee attack qualifies, in this case, as an attack with a claw, but before that, we have the question of whether a Beast Barbarian with Claws out can grapple, and the answer, as also posted here, is no - grappling requires a free hand, and Beast Claws explicitly transforms your claw into a hand. This answer is so unfathomably stupid that the Sage Advice Compendium functionally tells all GMs to just houserule the issue:
Is the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook usable by a handless creature?
The grappling rule was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.
Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack.
So RAW, the Barbarian can't grapple at all with claws out, as the grapple rules require a free hand and a Beast Barbarian with Claws out has no free hands, only free claws. If you house rule as Sage Advice encourages you to, allowing claw grapples, then by definition a claw grapple is an attack with a claw (just as a stock grapple is an attack with a hand), and grapple can be combined (in the attack action) with the extra claw attack freely - a grapple becomes a kind of claw attack.
I would say no - because a grapple isn't attacking with the claw. However - when they get Extra Attack they would be able to. They could grapple with the first attack and then Claw with the second and then get the free third Claw attack (because even though one hand would be full with the grappled target - they can attack with the same claw twice as per the Claws rule).
3. Resolve the attack.You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. <-------
Attack Rolls
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
The bolded part answers the question.
You're not rolling to hit. You are not targeting AC.
You're rolling to Contest. You are not dealing damage with this attack.
Does it honestly break anything? Not really. It limits his movement while grappling.
You made the correct ruling.
Further clarification with bolded sentence below as well. It's up to you man.
Grappling
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 target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use).
Counterpoint: the rules literally say it's an attack that has rules that specify something other than an attack roll. See the blue bolded bits.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
Grappling is an attack. A beast barb with claws can make multiple attacks with the attack action. Thus, a grapple replaces one of them.
Does it honestly break anything?
Nope. Grappling is very rarely the best tactical choice and could use a buff.
I will agree with quindraco that technically since claws aren't hands you can't grapple at all. But there's no world where enforcing that rule makes you look like you're a fun person trying to have fun.
Yea that's fair. What I think the players should also realize is that now any enemy creature with multi-attack or a special attack - that isn't something like Trample- will now also qualify for Grapples; size and free hand (or approximation to an appendage) permitting.
The technicality that stops this from working is not the claws are not hands, it is that a grapple is not an attack with hands. It’s just a special attack not with anything.
attack with X is a pretty common term that’s all over the place in the rules. it’s an attack with X weapon. non-weapon attacks like grapple obviously don’t fit, even though they are attacks.
The rules get weird when grabs and shoves are counted as attacks. I don't think they are meant to be. I think the "special attack" mention is to say it replaces an attack from the attack action and not to say it is an attack as defined by the rules.
As the rules say, "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." And grapples and shoves do not make an attack roll.
The rules get weird when grabs and shoves are counted as attacks. I don't think they are meant to be. I think the "special attack" mention is to say it replaces an attack from the attack action and not to say it is an attack as defined by the rules.
As the rules say, "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." And grapples and shoves do not make an attack roll.
Nah, they are indeed attacks, otherwise see the Magic Stone thread the other day for why it can become an issue for Familiars suddenly being able to take the Attack action to shove and grapple, or things like being able to shove and grapple while protected by Sanctuary.
Grappling requires a free hand, but that doesn't mean its an attack with a hand. A hand isn't a weapon at all, and "attack with x" is a phrase that always refers to "attack with [weapon]." Special attacks without weapons are not attacks with hands, or attacks with claws once those hands becomes claws.
The rules get weird when grabs and shoves are counted as attacks. I don't think they are meant to be. I think the "special attack" mention is to say it replaces an attack from the attack action and not to say it is an attack as defined by the rules.
As the rules say, "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." And grapples and shoves do not make an attack roll.
Nah, they are indeed attacks, otherwise see the Magic Stone thread the other day for why it can become an issue for Familiars suddenly being able to take the Attack action to shove and grapple, or things like being able to shove and grapple while protected by Sanctuary.
Grappling requires a free hand, but that doesn't mean its an attack with a hand. A hand isn't a weapon at all, and "attack with x" is a phrase that always refers to "attack with [weapon]." Special attacks without weapons are not attacks with hands, or attacks with claws once those hands becomes claws.
Maybe "special attacks" can only be used to replace an attack when that attack could be made in the first place, but are still not attacks.
I am 100% unwilling to read "special attack" as not being a type of "attack," for the same reason that I am opposed to reading "improvised weapon" as not being a type of "weapon." Really no reason to go down that road of counterintuitive language, merely to make the throwaway "how do you tell if something is an attack?" sentence be all inclusive. "All attack rolls are attacks" need not imply that "all attacks involve an attack roll," and doing violence to the plain language of "special attack" to make that true would be a bad idea.
So, a player of mine and I have a bit of a disagreement on how exactly grappling and the path of the beast interact. He's agreed to go with my ruling, but I want to make sure I'm not taking something cool from him. I know based on sage advice that the extra attack has to be the claw 1d6 damage. My player however argues that he should be able to have the first attack as a grapple since the extra claw attack triggers "when you attack with a claw" not "when you make a claw attack" and the wording of Claws states that your hand transforms into a claw, so a grapple is a special attack with the claw. Personally I feel like a grapple being a special attack means it no longer qualifies. Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on the subject. Thanks!
Relevant rules:
Claws. Each of your hands transforms into a claw, which you can use as a weapon if it’s empty. It deals 1d6 slashing damage on a hit. Once on each of your turns when you attack with a claw using the Attack action, you can make one additional claw attack as part of the same action.
Grappling
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.
I would say no - because a grapple isn't attacking with the claw. However - when they get Extra Attack they would be able to. They could grapple with the first attack and then Claw with the second and then get the free third Claw attack (because even though one hand would be full with the grappled target - they can attack with the same claw twice as per the Claws rule).
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).
RAW:
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. <-------
Attack Rolls
When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target's Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block.
The bolded part answers the question.
You're not rolling to hit. You are not targeting AC.
You're rolling to Contest. You are not dealing damage with this attack.
Does it honestly break anything?
Not really. It limits his movement while grappling.
You made the correct ruling.
Further clarification with bolded sentence below as well. It's up to you man.
Grappling
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 target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use).
As correctly pasted here, grapples are by definition attacks (in fact, melee attacks). The questions are whether or not that melee attack qualifies, in this case, as an attack with a claw, but before that, we have the question of whether a Beast Barbarian with Claws out can grapple, and the answer, as also posted here, is no - grappling requires a free hand, and Beast Claws explicitly transforms your claw into a hand. This answer is so unfathomably stupid that the Sage Advice Compendium functionally tells all GMs to just houserule the issue:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/sac/sage-advice-compendium#Combat
So RAW, the Barbarian can't grapple at all with claws out, as the grapple rules require a free hand and a Beast Barbarian with Claws out has no free hands, only free claws. If you house rule as Sage Advice encourages you to, allowing claw grapples, then by definition a claw grapple is an attack with a claw (just as a stock grapple is an attack with a hand), and grapple can be combined (in the attack action) with the extra claw attack freely - a grapple becomes a kind of claw attack.
Agree with this.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Counterpoint: the rules literally say it's an attack that has rules that specify something other than an attack roll. See the blue bolded bits.
"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
Grappling is an attack. A beast barb with claws can make multiple attacks with the attack action. Thus, a grapple replaces one of them.
Does it honestly break anything?
Nope. Grappling is very rarely the best tactical choice and could use a buff.
I will agree with quindraco that technically since claws aren't hands you can't grapple at all. But there's no world where enforcing that rule makes you look like you're a fun person trying to have fun.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yea that's fair.
What I think the players should also realize is that now any enemy creature with multi-attack or a special attack - that isn't something like Trample- will now also qualify for Grapples; size and free hand (or approximation to an appendage) permitting.
No worries- have fun.
The technicality that stops this from working is not the claws are not hands, it is that a grapple is not an attack with hands. It’s just a special attack not with anything.
attack with X is a pretty common term that’s all over the place in the rules. it’s an attack with X weapon. non-weapon attacks like grapple obviously don’t fit, even though they are attacks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The rules get weird when grabs and shoves are counted as attacks. I don't think they are meant to be. I think the "special attack" mention is to say it replaces an attack from the attack action and not to say it is an attack as defined by the rules.
As the rules say, "If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack." And grapples and shoves do not make an attack roll.
Nah, they are indeed attacks, otherwise see the Magic Stone thread the other day for why it can become an issue for Familiars suddenly being able to take the Attack action to shove and grapple, or things like being able to shove and grapple while protected by Sanctuary.
Grappling requires a free hand, but that doesn't mean its an attack with a hand. A hand isn't a weapon at all, and "attack with x" is a phrase that always refers to "attack with [weapon]." Special attacks without weapons are not attacks with hands, or attacks with claws once those hands becomes claws.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Maybe "special attacks" can only be used to replace an attack when that attack could be made in the first place, but are still not attacks.
I am 100% unwilling to read "special attack" as not being a type of "attack," for the same reason that I am opposed to reading "improvised weapon" as not being a type of "weapon." Really no reason to go down that road of counterintuitive language, merely to make the throwaway "how do you tell if something is an attack?" sentence be all inclusive. "All attack rolls are attacks" need not imply that "all attacks involve an attack roll," and doing violence to the plain language of "special attack" to make that true would be a bad idea.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.