My question is this: can you use an Opportunity Attack to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm a target? (Disarm is an Action Option listed in Chapter 9 of the DMG)
Here are the relevant rules sections:
Opportunity Attack: "... you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature." (Basic Rules)
Grapple: "... 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." (Basic Rules)
Shove: "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature... If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them." (Basic Rules)
Disarm: "A creature can use a weapon attack to knock a weapon or another item from a target’s grasp. The attacker makes an attack roll..." (DMG)
Just reading the rules, at first glance it seems fine to allow a Grapple or Shove as an Opportunity Attack. However, the Sage Advice Compendium specifies that you cannot, specifically, "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."
Okay, so you can't use an Opportunity Attack to Grapple or Shove, but what about Disarm? Disarm doesn't specify that it requires the Attack action, only that it has to be a weapon attack. Interestingly, the wording on Disarm allows for ranged weapon attacks in addition to melee weapon attacks. Now, Opportunity Attack does specify that it must be a melee attack. Reading these rules, I'd allow someone to use an Opportunity Attack to Disarm someone, so long as the Disarm was attempted as a melee weapon attack. (Note: unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, as clarified in that same Sage Advice Compendium. Neat.)
However, this doesn't totally sit right with me. I like allowing Grapple and Shove as an Opportunity Attack. It lines up with the fact that, if you get multiple attacks with one Attack action, you can replace one of your attacks with a Grapple or Shove. I don't understand the intention behind not allowing Grapple or Shove as an Opportunity Attack. It gives a really nice crowd control option for melee characters that doesn't require the Sentinel feat. (I guess there's a concern that you might be stepping on the toes of the Sentinel feat, but in my opinion, it stands on its own as still different and kind of better than grappling in this case.)
That's why I'm posting here. I want to know what y'all think. So, respond with your thoughts and answer this poll: as a DM, would you allow someone to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm as an Opportunity Attack?
I agree with Stormknight for exactly the same reasons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
I think the Sage Advice is once again a bit silly. These seem to be intended to replace an individual melee attack albeit with special rules and resolution. I totally think it is within interpretation to say they can replace melee attacks in other situations outside of being used in an attack action. My logic is this, in Attack Action it says you make a melee or ranged attack as part of it and no one is arguing that precludes you from using a melee attack outside of an attack action where a specific rule says you can. Clearly, you can even make an individual melee attack during the Cast a Spell action because that rule says you can make a melee attack with a weapon. This is a specific rule for the use and resolution of a special melee attack. Note that it is still a melee attack. Just like a melee weapon attack or melee spell attack doesn't cease to be a melee attack. Neither says only or must be used exclusively. Exactly as the base Attack Action doesn't. We agree that the Attack Action doesn't preclude use of melee or ranged attacks where otherwise specified, correct?
AoO allows you to make a melee attack as a reaction. These are still melee attacks (albeit "special" ones) and clearly can be used to replace individual single attacks which is how an AoO is described.
...but what about Disarm? Disarm doesn't specify that it requires the Attack action, only that it has to be a weapon attack.
Disarm is under the "Action Options" heading. It is a new option for your Action, not a replacement for an attack. Or to put it another way, to disarm you must take the Disarm Action, not the Attack Action. An attack of opportunity is not any sort of Action - just one attack.
In my games I'm happy for Shove, Shove Aside, and Knock Prone to be uses in an Opportunity Attack.
As for Disarm, I have to ask "why?". If you disarm a creature as it runs past you it will just use its object interaction to pick up the weapon and continue moving.
I think the Sage Advice is once again a bit silly.
My logic is this, in Attack Action it says you make a melee or ranged attack as part of it and no one [citation needed] is arguing that precludes you from using a melee attack outside of an attack action where a specific rule says you can. Clearly, you can even make an individual melee attack during the Cast a Spell action because that rule says you can make a melee attack with a weapon.
[REDACTED] I will just correct one of your logical errors:
Yes, some spells allow you to "make an individual melee attack during the Cast a Spell action." They don't allow you to take an attack action - if they did, a high level fighter could cast such a spell and then attack multiple times. ("Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.")
Now showing one error doesn't mean the rest of what you said is wrong, but that is what you are implying with your opening statement.
Notes: Please don't cite or imply future moderator action; It goes best unsaid.
RAW you need to take the ATTACK action in order to make a special melee attack like grapple or shove and an Attack of Opportunity does not grant that.
I wouldn’t allow it at my table. That being said, you’re the DM. If that’s your ruling then go for it. I’d just make sure your players are aware that monster would get to play by the same rules.
I think the Sage Advice is once again a bit silly.
Sage Advice clarifies the rules as written. It's not an opinion piece for fun house rules. The rules for grappling and shoving are clear about requiring the Attack action, and Sage Advice correctly reflects that.
By the rules only disarm works, unless you’re a battle master fighter that gains special benefits on melee attack.
That said, I would allow the others special attacks. As others have stated, they still simply are made as attacks in the attack action. Want more reason? Many characters only get one attack on their attack action, so really there is no difference for those characters except when they make the special attack.
Grappling is an action. That others can be reactions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
I've come to look at this in a different way and I feel a better explanation of my first, more intuitive, reading.
A opportunity attack is a specific rule within Melee Attacks section that allows you to make a single melee attack as a reaction. This breaks the rule that a melee attack requires an attack action. It also uses the permissive phrasing of "can" which clearly means and intends it to be an option and not a requirement. Or do you force your players to take the first AoO that happens even if they dont want to? Hopefully not because "can" does not mean "must".
Both shove and grapple also use the same plain reading construct of phrasing that is permissive and not exclusive. They say you "can use the Attack action". Permissive, not restrictive. Therefore where another specific rule allows for it, they should be able to be used as they exist as a subset of melee attacks.
Opportunity attacks only require that it be a single melee attack which by intent and specific rule are what both shove and grapple are with both having additional phrasing to clarify that fact. Applying the specific rule requirements of Opprortunity Attack: are they in the Melee Attack section? Check. Are they a single melee attack? Check. They meet both the requirements for this specific rule and their own specific rules categorically do not use language that makes them unable to be used in any other manner.
As a matter of fact, Charger feat is an example of a specific rule that allows a shove as a bonus action. Wait, doesn't Shield Master also allow a shove as a bonus action? So much for the theory a specific rule cannot allow it to be used outside the Attack Action.
So it comes down in my mind to why you think the requirements of an Opportunity Attack being met as a specific rule doesnt also allow usage outside an Attack Action? Why is "can" somehow suddenly "must" in this context? Why is a special melee attack suddenly not a subset of Melee Attack?
This is why I said Sage Advice is sometimes silly. They often give a stupidly narrow non-answer that is deliberately obtuse.
A opportunity attack is a specific rule within Melee Attacks section that allows you to make a single melee attack as a reaction. This breaks the rule that a melee attack requires an attack action.
There is no rule stating that melee attacks can only be used as part of the Attack action. Melee attacks can be used as a part of the Attack action (e.g. normal attack), Cast a Spell action (e.g Booming Blade), Bonus action (e.g. two-weapon fighting), or reaction (e.g. readied action and opportunity attack).
Both shove and grapple also use the same plain reading construct of phrasing that is permissive and not exclusive. They say you "can use the Attack action". Permissive, not restrictive. Therefore where another specific rule allows for it, they should be able to be used as they exist as a subset of melee attacks.
Shove and Grapple do not use the same wording, despite the intention behind them being the same. While the wording in the grapple section does say "you can use the Attack action", the wording in the Shove section is: "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature". Despite the two wordings being slightly different, the intention is clear as can be: taking the Attack action is a condition for both the grapple and the shove. If not, it would also be possible to use the grapple/shove as a bonus action, and on the Cast a Spell action in certain situations. It would likewise be possible to break grapples as a reaction, not provoke opportunity attacks at will (as the Disengage action becomes optional when you want to avoid OAs).
If you believe that "can" simply means "you can do it this way but also any other way you see fit" then that is clearly Homebrew, which is fine. But it is definitely not RAW nor RAI. If the designers had to list all the things you can't do, instead of the things you can do, the rules would become a long and complicated mess. Instead they rely on general rules, specific rules, and logical understanding of the readers.
And no, the definition of "specific rules" is that they are specific to individual cases and will be specified when these cases occur. If they are not specified, the general rules apply.
Opportunity attacks only require that it be a single melee attack which by intent and specific rule are what both shove and grapple are with both having additional phrasing to clarify that fact. Applying the specific rule requirements of Opprortunity Attack: are they in the Melee Attack section? Check. Are they a single melee attack? Check. They meet both the requirements for this specific rule and their own specific rules categorically do not use language that makes them unable to be used in any other manner.
While they do check the boxes you have mentioned, there is one very important box that you have tried to argue away from in your prior statements: Do they meet their own specific rules (are they taken as a part of the Attack action?). Answer: No.
Honestly, the whole argument comes down to a seemingly wilful misunderstanding of the rules which are even emphasized and highlighted in the online version of PHB. It is mentioned multiple times in both the Grapple and Shove section that the special attacks require the Attack action.
As a matter of fact, Charger feat is an example of a specific rule that allows a shove as a bonus action. Wait, doesn't Shield Master also allow a shove as a bonus action? So much for the theory a specific rule cannot allow it to be used outside the Attack Action.
As I explained somewhere above, it is called a specific rule because it applies only to the effect in whose context it is mentioned. In the case of the Charger and Shield Master feats they are two individual specific rules that have nothing to do with one another. You therefore cannot simply extend the logic to other parts of the game as you see fit.
In any event, I am not sure I see how you reason that the specific rules of two independent feats should somehow dictate a general rule for a base mechanic in the game.
You have agreed that they are all single melee attacks
You have agreed that each allows exceptions outside their specific rule that explain they are used in attack actions.
AoO specifically allows single melee attacks to be used as reaction with no exceptions or caveats. If they are in the subset of single melee attacks, they are specifically allowed by the wording.
Anything else is massively adding to what is written. Either adding something to the effect of "except special melee attacks." to AoO OR Adding some unique exclusion onto their individual descriptions that somehow allows one rule to let them be bonus action, but another rule not let them be reactions.
They can say RAI, and I wouldnt argue. But RAW is perfectly clear to me.
... You have agreed that each allows exceptions outside their specific rule that explain they are used in attack actions...
No, people haven't agreed that. The *general rules* for Grapples and Shoves are as per the PHB Making an Attack section. Those general rules indicate that they can be used as part of an Attack action. Some examples of "specific rules" which might bypass those general rules include the Shield Master and Charger feats allowing a Shove as a bonus action under certain other very specific conditions.
I do understand your reasoning (that the Attack action section of those sentences is just introducing a way to get attacks, and that those attacks can be a Grapple or Shove or otherwise special), but that interpretation is resting on a false assumption of how these rules are written; these rules only list what things can be done and the circumstances under which they can be done - the rules do not list the things which cannot be done nor the full list of conditions under which something cannot be done. So if the rules say "You can use X to do Y" then they mean that the only way to "do Y" is to "use X", unless some other more specific rule appears elsewhere detailing some other way to do Y. The example above does not translate to "You can do Y. One way to do Y is to use X".
The problem here is you are all looking at the attack of opportunity as an attack action. Think of your turn stages as catagories. Action, Bonus Action, Movement, and Reaction. Attacks are only found in the action catagory and cannot be found elsewhere unless special abilities or stipulations are met (ie: dual wielding, frenzy rage, etc). Likewise, shove and grapple are listed as attack actions, which is only an action unless those special circumstances arise yet again. Now your reaction catagory is filled with quick response activity like someone holding an attack action or grapple for a precise moment, or lashing out at someone that is trying to flee your personal space. These are spur of the moment and typically i picture it as you just barely able to react because a weapon usually extends your reach to 5'. Obviously there are unique builds that can react faster, but those are dexterous builds typically or builds used to those close quarter situations. Only way i allow the grapple as a DM is if you're a tavern brawler type or you intentionally hold your action.
Based solely on the wording, I'd say Grappling & Shoving aren't allowed when making an AoO, but Disarming would be(because the wording doesn't say "when you take the Attack action", and because you're still making an attack roll not an Athletics check). But if I were running a game, I'd probably allow all three just because it would be fun and doesn't feel game-breaking. However, I would rule that if you wanted to grapple as an AoO, that you wouldn't have time to stow a weapon. You'd need a hand already free, or you'd have to drop what you're holding in one hand. Not sure how I'd rule on two-handed weapons. I'd probably say you could grapple with one hand while you "hold" the weapon in your other, but you would have to release the grapple to "wield" the weapon again. Not sure how I'd adjudicate a player with Sentinel using an AoO to Shove someone prone, if it would trigger the Sentinel abiity to reduce that creature's movement to 0. I want to say yes, though :)
Grappling as an AoO is not allowed RAW probably because it's easy to boost your ability to do these above most monsters as few of them have proficiencies in athletics or acrobatics: so it's often you going 1d20 + Str + Prof against their 1d20 + Str/Dex. You have more on it on your side, so you are often more likely to succeed than fail. Now when doing this as an attack as part of your main action this is balanced by sacrificing your attack on your action for your turn. However, when done as part of AoO this means you have a high chance to stop the enemy moving, negating their getaway - granting this basically steps on the toes of feats like Sentinel. Shoving allows you to render them prone, which they can just get up again but their movement is halved and you getting to do this without sacrificing anything on your turn. If somebody had the Grappler feat, for instance, then this means not only do get to use AoO to stop enemy getting away but you also grant advantage to all of your attacks next turn. This also means even if they break the grapple and try to move away, you get the AoO grapple again - and so on, you will succeed far more than you fail and using the action to break grapply prevents disengage and dash, so basically even if you fail one grapple, you can still chase them and repeat it all. It's more often than not giving you advantage to all attacks and never once sacrificing a turn-attack. All for one official feat and this small homebrew rule.
Personally, I would not allow it, just because it is exploity as all hell and grappling done right is already tactfully advantageous as is: adding more options for it is overkill. I don't think you realise how powerful grappling can be in the right build in the right party.
My question is this: can you use an Opportunity Attack to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm a target? (Disarm is an Action Option listed in Chapter 9 of the DMG)
Here are the relevant rules sections:
Just reading the rules, at first glance it seems fine to allow a Grapple or Shove as an Opportunity Attack. However, the Sage Advice Compendium specifies that you cannot, specifically, "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."
Okay, so you can't use an Opportunity Attack to Grapple or Shove, but what about Disarm? Disarm doesn't specify that it requires the Attack action, only that it has to be a weapon attack. Interestingly, the wording on Disarm allows for ranged weapon attacks in addition to melee weapon attacks. Now, Opportunity Attack does specify that it must be a melee attack. Reading these rules, I'd allow someone to use an Opportunity Attack to Disarm someone, so long as the Disarm was attempted as a melee weapon attack. (Note: unarmed strikes are melee weapon attacks, as clarified in that same Sage Advice Compendium. Neat.)
However, this doesn't totally sit right with me. I like allowing Grapple and Shove as an Opportunity Attack. It lines up with the fact that, if you get multiple attacks with one Attack action, you can replace one of your attacks with a Grapple or Shove. I don't understand the intention behind not allowing Grapple or Shove as an Opportunity Attack. It gives a really nice crowd control option for melee characters that doesn't require the Sentinel feat. (I guess there's a concern that you might be stepping on the toes of the Sentinel feat, but in my opinion, it stands on its own as still different and kind of better than grappling in this case.)
That's why I'm posting here. I want to know what y'all think. So, respond with your thoughts and answer this poll: as a DM, would you allow someone to Grapple, Shove, or Disarm as an Opportunity Attack?
Jazz Jungle Japes is Best Jungle Japes
Making a grapple requires you to take the attack ACTION.
You only get the option to take an attack action on your own turn.
Making a melee weapon attack, as an attack of opportunity is not an attack action.
You can't grapple or shove with an attack of opportunity.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I agree with Stormknight for exactly the same reasons.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
Disarm would be ok as a n attack of opportunity, technically, as it replaces a weapon attack.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
As a DM I would allow it - anything to give players more options in combat besides weapon attacks.
I think the Sage Advice is once again a bit silly. These seem to be intended to replace an individual melee attack albeit with special rules and resolution. I totally think it is within interpretation to say they can replace melee attacks in other situations outside of being used in an attack action.
My logic is this, in Attack Action it says you make a melee or ranged attack as part of it and no one is arguing that precludes you from using a melee attack outside of an attack action where a specific rule says you can. Clearly, you can even make an individual melee attack during the Cast a Spell action because that rule says you can make a melee attack with a weapon.
This is a specific rule for the use and resolution of a special melee attack. Note that it is still a melee attack. Just like a melee weapon attack or melee spell attack doesn't cease to be a melee attack.
Neither says only or must be used exclusively. Exactly as the base Attack Action doesn't. We agree that the Attack Action doesn't preclude use of melee or ranged attacks where otherwise specified, correct?
AoO allows you to make a melee attack as a reaction. These are still melee attacks (albeit "special" ones) and clearly can be used to replace individual single attacks which is how an AoO is described.
RAW they can't be used as OAs. That said, I think they should be and would allow it in my game
Disarm is under the "Action Options" heading. It is a new option for your Action, not a replacement for an attack. Or to put it another way, to disarm you must take the Disarm Action, not the Attack Action. An attack of opportunity is not any sort of Action - just one attack.
In my games I'm happy for Shove, Shove Aside, and Knock Prone to be uses in an Opportunity Attack.
As for Disarm, I have to ask "why?". If you disarm a creature as it runs past you it will just use its object interaction to pick up the weapon and continue moving.
[REDACTED] I will just correct one of your logical errors:
Yes, some spells allow you to "make an individual melee attack during the Cast a Spell action." They don't allow you to take an attack action - if they did, a high level fighter could cast such a spell and then attack multiple times. ("Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.")
Now showing one error doesn't mean the rest of what you said is wrong, but that is what you are implying with your opening statement.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
RAW you need to take the ATTACK action in order to make a special melee attack like grapple or shove and an Attack of Opportunity does not grant that.
I wouldn’t allow it at my table. That being said, you’re the DM. If that’s your ruling then go for it. I’d just make sure your players are aware that monster would get to play by the same rules.
Sage Advice clarifies the rules as written. It's not an opinion piece for fun house rules. The rules for grappling and shoving are clear about requiring the Attack action, and Sage Advice correctly reflects that.
By the rules only disarm works, unless you’re a battle master fighter that gains special benefits on melee attack.
That said, I would allow the others special attacks. As others have stated, they still simply are made as attacks in the attack action. Want more reason? Many characters only get one attack on their attack action, so really there is no difference for those characters except when they make the special attack.
Grappling is an action. That others can be reactions.
DM: Are you sure?
Wizard: Yes. I cast the Wish spell and I wish that everybody loves me!
DM: You transform into an irresistible, magnificent feast. It was so great, all who participated in devouring you tell of the joy they felt with tears in their eyes and all who hear the tale only feel sorrow that they weren't there to eat.
I've come to look at this in a different way and I feel a better explanation of my first, more intuitive, reading.
A opportunity attack is a specific rule within Melee Attacks section that allows you to make a single melee attack as a reaction. This breaks the rule that a melee attack requires an attack action. It also uses the permissive phrasing of "can" which clearly means and intends it to be an option and not a requirement. Or do you force your players to take the first AoO that happens even if they dont want to? Hopefully not because "can" does not mean "must".
Both shove and grapple also use the same plain reading construct of phrasing that is permissive and not exclusive. They say you "can use the Attack action". Permissive, not restrictive. Therefore where another specific rule allows for it, they should be able to be used as they exist as a subset of melee attacks.
Opportunity attacks only require that it be a single melee attack which by intent and specific rule are what both shove and grapple are with both having additional phrasing to clarify that fact. Applying the specific rule requirements of Opprortunity Attack: are they in the Melee Attack section? Check. Are they a single melee attack? Check. They meet both the requirements for this specific rule and their own specific rules categorically do not use language that makes them unable to be used in any other manner.
As a matter of fact, Charger feat is an example of a specific rule that allows a shove as a bonus action. Wait, doesn't Shield Master also allow a shove as a bonus action? So much for the theory a specific rule cannot allow it to be used outside the Attack Action.
So it comes down in my mind to why you think the requirements of an Opportunity Attack being met as a specific rule doesnt also allow usage outside an Attack Action? Why is "can" somehow suddenly "must" in this context? Why is a special melee attack suddenly not a subset of Melee Attack?
This is why I said Sage Advice is sometimes silly. They often give a stupidly narrow non-answer that is deliberately obtuse.
There is no rule stating that melee attacks can only be used as part of the Attack action. Melee attacks can be used as a part of the Attack action (e.g. normal attack), Cast a Spell action (e.g Booming Blade), Bonus action (e.g. two-weapon fighting), or reaction (e.g. readied action and opportunity attack).
Shove and Grapple do not use the same wording, despite the intention behind them being the same. While the wording in the grapple section does say "you can use the Attack action", the wording in the Shove section is: "Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature". Despite the two wordings being slightly different, the intention is clear as can be: taking the Attack action is a condition for both the grapple and the shove. If not, it would also be possible to use the grapple/shove as a bonus action, and on the Cast a Spell action in certain situations. It would likewise be possible to break grapples as a reaction, not provoke opportunity attacks at will (as the Disengage action becomes optional when you want to avoid OAs).
If you believe that "can" simply means "you can do it this way but also any other way you see fit" then that is clearly Homebrew, which is fine. But it is definitely not RAW nor RAI. If the designers had to list all the things you can't do, instead of the things you can do, the rules would become a long and complicated mess. Instead they rely on general rules, specific rules, and logical understanding of the readers.
And no, the definition of "specific rules" is that they are specific to individual cases and will be specified when these cases occur. If they are not specified, the general rules apply.
While they do check the boxes you have mentioned, there is one very important box that you have tried to argue away from in your prior statements: Do they meet their own specific rules (are they taken as a part of the Attack action?). Answer: No.
Honestly, the whole argument comes down to a seemingly wilful misunderstanding of the rules which are even emphasized and highlighted in the online version of PHB. It is mentioned multiple times in both the Grapple and Shove section that the special attacks require the Attack action.
As I explained somewhere above, it is called a specific rule because it applies only to the effect in whose context it is mentioned. In the case of the Charger and Shield Master feats they are two individual specific rules that have nothing to do with one another. You therefore cannot simply extend the logic to other parts of the game as you see fit.
In any event, I am not sure I see how you reason that the specific rules of two independent feats should somehow dictate a general rule for a base mechanic in the game.
You have agreed that they are all single melee attacks
You have agreed that each allows exceptions outside their specific rule that explain they are used in attack actions.
AoO specifically allows single melee attacks to be used as reaction with no exceptions or caveats. If they are in the subset of single melee attacks, they are specifically allowed by the wording.
Anything else is massively adding to what is written. Either adding something to the effect of "except special melee attacks." to AoO OR Adding some unique exclusion onto their individual descriptions that somehow allows one rule to let them be bonus action, but another rule not let them be reactions.
They can say RAI, and I wouldnt argue. But RAW is perfectly clear to me.
No, people haven't agreed that. The *general rules* for Grapples and Shoves are as per the PHB Making an Attack section. Those general rules indicate that they can be used as part of an Attack action. Some examples of "specific rules" which might bypass those general rules include the Shield Master and Charger feats allowing a Shove as a bonus action under certain other very specific conditions.
I do understand your reasoning (that the Attack action section of those sentences is just introducing a way to get attacks, and that those attacks can be a Grapple or Shove or otherwise special), but that interpretation is resting on a false assumption of how these rules are written; these rules only list what things can be done and the circumstances under which they can be done - the rules do not list the things which cannot be done nor the full list of conditions under which something cannot be done. So if the rules say "You can use X to do Y" then they mean that the only way to "do Y" is to "use X", unless some other more specific rule appears elsewhere detailing some other way to do Y. The example above does not translate to "You can do Y. One way to do Y is to use X".
The problem here is you are all looking at the attack of opportunity as an attack action. Think of your turn stages as catagories. Action, Bonus Action, Movement, and Reaction. Attacks are only found in the action catagory and cannot be found elsewhere unless special abilities or stipulations are met (ie: dual wielding, frenzy rage, etc). Likewise, shove and grapple are listed as attack actions, which is only an action unless those special circumstances arise yet again. Now your reaction catagory is filled with quick response activity like someone holding an attack action or grapple for a precise moment, or lashing out at someone that is trying to flee your personal space. These are spur of the moment and typically i picture it as you just barely able to react because a weapon usually extends your reach to 5'. Obviously there are unique builds that can react faster, but those are dexterous builds typically or builds used to those close quarter situations. Only way i allow the grapple as a DM is if you're a tavern brawler type or you intentionally hold your action.
Based solely on the wording, I'd say Grappling & Shoving aren't allowed when making an AoO, but Disarming would be(because the wording doesn't say "when you take the Attack action", and because you're still making an attack roll not an Athletics check). But if I were running a game, I'd probably allow all three just because it would be fun and doesn't feel game-breaking. However, I would rule that if you wanted to grapple as an AoO, that you wouldn't have time to stow a weapon. You'd need a hand already free, or you'd have to drop what you're holding in one hand. Not sure how I'd rule on two-handed weapons. I'd probably say you could grapple with one hand while you "hold" the weapon in your other, but you would have to release the grapple to "wield" the weapon again. Not sure how I'd adjudicate a player with Sentinel using an AoO to Shove someone prone, if it would trigger the Sentinel abiity to reduce that creature's movement to 0. I want to say yes, though :)
Grappling as an AoO is not allowed RAW probably because it's easy to boost your ability to do these above most monsters as few of them have proficiencies in athletics or acrobatics: so it's often you going 1d20 + Str + Prof against their 1d20 + Str/Dex. You have more on it on your side, so you are often more likely to succeed than fail. Now when doing this as an attack as part of your main action this is balanced by sacrificing your attack on your action for your turn. However, when done as part of AoO this means you have a high chance to stop the enemy moving, negating their getaway - granting this basically steps on the toes of feats like Sentinel. Shoving allows you to render them prone, which they can just get up again but their movement is halved and you getting to do this without sacrificing anything on your turn. If somebody had the Grappler feat, for instance, then this means not only do get to use AoO to stop enemy getting away but you also grant advantage to all of your attacks next turn. This also means even if they break the grapple and try to move away, you get the AoO grapple again - and so on, you will succeed far more than you fail and using the action to break grapply prevents disengage and dash, so basically even if you fail one grapple, you can still chase them and repeat it all. It's more often than not giving you advantage to all attacks and never once sacrificing a turn-attack. All for one official feat and this small homebrew rule.
Personally, I would not allow it, just because it is exploity as all hell and grappling done right is already tactfully advantageous as is: adding more options for it is overkill. I don't think you realise how powerful grappling can be in the right build in the right party.
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond