TL;DR: They're moving away from you; grapple takes longer than a swipe with your weapon.
I will allow it when it makes sense in-fiction. BUT, here's why I think the SA/RAW is what it is:
Attack of Opportunity happens when something moves out of your reach. As it's moving away from you, it's distracted/multitasking enough for you to take a swipe at it. But it's already moving away.
It's easy enough to -safely- take a swipe at something that's moving beyond the reach of your weapon/arms. Much much harder & less safe to lunge forward and wrap your arms around, or grab a handful of, something that is already at the edge of your weapon's or arm's reach.
So you could do a flick of your sword on reflex and hit 'em as they step away from you and take their eyes of you. But they could easy just step a hair quicker and evade you if you're physically lunging your whole self towards them to grab or shove 'em.
(That's the key diff, I think, and why attack is a Yes, grapple/shove is a No, and disarm is a Maybe in RAW/SA.)
(I will still allow it as often as I can, because Fun, and because Options For Non-Spellers.)
All the points regarding attack ACTIONS and so forth have been made. However another argument for why you can't grapple as an opportunity attack, is that it would render half of the sentinel feat moot.
The rule states that if your attack action allows you to take multiple attacks, the grapple replaces ONE of those attacks. So, technically it replaces an attack, not an action.
No you cannot grapple on an Opportunity Attack as grappling use the Attack action to make a special melee attack and Opportunity Attack use a reaction.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I get that you're arguing that the rules don't make sense, but you're also saying that it would make perfect sense that you can open your hand to grapple, but not open your hand to grapple if that hand is holding a weapon. Is the weapon glued to the hand? In my experience, opening a hand with something heavy in it makes that something leave my hand automatically due to gravity, thus leaving me with an empty hand.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I get that you're arguing that the rules don't make sense, but you're also saying that it would make perfect sense that you can open your hand to grapple, but not open your hand to grapple if that hand is holding a weapon. Is the weapon glued to the hand? In my experience, opening a hand with something heavy in it makes that something leave my hand automatically due to gravity, thus leaving me with an empty hand.
Yeah this makes sense and is allowed on your turn (you do have 6 seconds after all), in regular combat. I don't find your logic plausible for a reaction however. An AoO gives you a split second to react: no planning, no strategizing, just reacting.
Yours is a multi step process that first requires removing an object from your hand to even attempt a grapple. In that split second, as the first part of this multi step process, you have to let the weapon drop away from your hand, and it's not instantaneous or even automatic, as gravity needs to accelerate the object - nothing in the known universe reachs terminal velocity the instant it stops touching your hand.
And after that, you still need to reach and grab for the grapple. This multi step process absolutely makes for a slower reaction and so I stand by my argument. Empty handed is just reach and grab (no different than reach and punch, which is the currently allowed AoO for a monk) vs your multi step scenario.
I would however, allow and argue that a shove (you could flavor this as a trip if you wanted), as opposed to a grapple which requires a free hand, can be done with or without a free hand: be it with a spear, a maul, a halberd, a sword, a wand, a banana, or almost anything you might wield in combat, including your legs and feet. So, no need to drop your weapon in this case, but for grapples, no free hand, no grapple.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I get that you're arguing that the rules don't make sense, but you're also saying that it would make perfect sense that you can open your hand to grapple, but not open your hand to grapple if that hand is holding a weapon. Is the weapon glued to the hand? In my experience, opening a hand with something heavy in it makes that something leave my hand automatically due to gravity, thus leaving me with an empty hand.
Yeah this makes sense and is allowed on your turn (you do have 6 seconds after all), in regular combat. I don't find your logic plausible for a reaction however. An AoO gives you a split second to react: no planning, no strategizing, just reacting.
Yours is a multi step process that first requires removing an object from your hand to even attempt a grapple. In that split second, as the first part of this multi step process, you have to let the weapon drop away from your hand, and it's not instantaneous or even automatic, as gravity needs to accelerate the object - nothing in the known universe reachs terminal velocity the instant it stops touching your hand.
And after that, you still need to reach and grab for the grapple. This multi step process absolutely makes for a slower reaction and so I stand by my argument. Empty handed is just reach and grab (no different than reach and punch, which is the currently allowed AoO for a monk) vs your multi step scenario.
I would however, allow and argue that a shove (you could flavor this as a trip if you wanted), as opposed to a grapple which requires a free hand, can be done with or without a free hand: be it with a spear, a maul, a halberd, a sword, a wand, a banana, or almost anything you might wield in combat, including your legs and feet. So, no need to drop your weapon in this case, but for grapples, no free hand, no grapple.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well. Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps. Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I get that you're arguing that the rules don't make sense, but you're also saying that it would make perfect sense that you can open your hand to grapple, but not open your hand to grapple if that hand is holding a weapon. Is the weapon glued to the hand? In my experience, opening a hand with something heavy in it makes that something leave my hand automatically due to gravity, thus leaving me with an empty hand.
Yeah this makes sense and is allowed on your turn (you do have 6 seconds after all), in regular combat. I don't find your logic plausible for a reaction however. An AoO gives you a split second to react: no planning, no strategizing, just reacting.
Yours is a multi step process that first requires removing an object from your hand to even attempt a grapple. In that split second, as the first part of this multi step process, you have to let the weapon drop away from your hand, and it's not instantaneous or even automatic, as gravity needs to accelerate the object - nothing in the known universe reachs terminal velocity the instant it stops touching your hand.
And after that, you still need to reach and grab for the grapple. This multi step process absolutely makes for a slower reaction and so I stand by my argument. Empty handed is just reach and grab (no different than reach and punch, which is the currently allowed AoO for a monk) vs your multi step scenario.
I would however, allow and argue that a shove (you could flavor this as a trip if you wanted), as opposed to a grapple which requires a free hand, can be done with or without a free hand: be it with a spear, a maul, a halberd, a sword, a wand, a banana, or almost anything you might wield in combat, including your legs and feet. So, no need to drop your weapon in this case, but for grapples, no free hand, no grapple.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well. Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps. Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
I'm arguing against RAW, yes. And with it. A melee weapon attack and a special melee attack, like grapple, are virtually the same, as long as you are prepared to react. You cannot draw a weapon and attack as a reaction nor can you free your hand, by first dropping an item, and then grapple as a reaction. Logic and RAW all in one tidy package. Your scenario takes an extra step unless the item or weapon instantaneously drops from your hand, which works as an abstraction in regular combat, but not as a reaction. We are at an impasse and so we can agree to disagree since that is how I would run it at my table.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well. Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps. Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
You are missing something in there.
1) You open your hand.
2) The weapon that was in your hand falls, almost certainly between you and your opponent.
3) You are now trying to grapple them while avoiding your own weapon.
The argument is that that extra care not to injure yourself on your own weapon while grappling loses you the precious time you need to succeed in the maneuver. However if your hand was completely free, this would not be an issue.
No that was not the argument at all. But if you want to take it down that road then there would always be a multitude of items preventing you from grappling, including your opponent's weapon.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well. Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps. Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
You are missing something in there.
1) You open your hand.
2) The weapon that was in your hand falls, almost certainly between you and your opponent.
3) You are now trying to grapple them while avoiding your own weapon.
The argument is that that extra care not to injure yourself on your own weapon while grappling loses you the precious time you need to succeed in the maneuver. However if your hand was completely free, this would not be an issue.
No that was not the argument at all. But if you want to take it down that road then there would always be a multitude of items preventing you from grappling, including your opponent's weapon.
It is an AoO. The opponent is running away. Unless they are trying to run away literally through you, their weapon should not be in the way. I was making a logical argument why a dropped weapon, normally a free action, might slow you enough to prevent a grapple AoO.
Are there other things which also might? Sure. But unless they are specified, they are not in play.
In my D&D experience it is very unlikely that an opponent stows its weapon when running past you. If it is not stowed there would be a very high chance that the weapon would be interposed between you, unless you're fighting someone without any combat experience.
I got to say, it is very difficult having a discussion like this when people swap between RAW/RAI and homebrew/"logic" to fit their argument. Either we discuss in the context of RAW/RAI or we discuss in the context of homebrew, but mixing them up when trying to formulate an argument takes everything out of focus.
Are you trying to say that using "logic", you should be able to make a grapple as an OA when you have a free hand, but not be allowed to do so when you have a weapon in your hand (because you don't believe it makes sense that the weapon can be dropped?).
"Are you trying to say that using "logic", you should be able to make a grapple as an OA when you have a free hand, but not be allowed to do so when you have a weapon in your hand (because you don't believe it makes sense that the weapon can be dropped?)."
Yes. That split second for your brain to process "drop weapon", engage in that action (open hand and wait for weapon to drop away), and then execute the AoO, is in my estimation too much time for a reaction. So you need an empty hand at the time of your reaction to be able to grapple as an AoO. I've said my piece. Peace out.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well. Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps. Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
You are missing something in there.
1) You open your hand.
2) The weapon that was in your hand falls, almost certainly between you and your opponent.
3) You are now trying to grapple them while avoiding your own weapon.
The argument is that that extra care not to injure yourself on your own weapon while grappling loses you the precious time you need to succeed in the maneuver. However if your hand was completely free, this would not be an issue.
No that was not the argument at all. But if you want to take it down that road then there would always be a multitude of items preventing you from grappling, including your opponent's weapon.
It is an AoO. The opponent is running away. Unless they are trying to run away literally through you, their weapon should not be in the way. I was making a logical argument why a dropped weapon, normally a free action, might slow you enough to prevent a grapple AoO.
Are there other things which also might? Sure. But unless they are specified, they are not in play.
In my D&D experience it is very unlikely that an opponent stows its weapon when running past you. If it is not stowed there would be a very high chance that the weapon would be interposed between you, unless you're fighting someone without any combat experience.
I got to say, it is very difficult having a discussion like this when people swap between RAW/RAI and homebrew/"logic" to fit their argument. Either we discuss in the context of RAW/RAI or we discuss in the context of homebrew, but mixing them up when trying to formulate an argument takes everything out of focus.
Are you trying to say that using "logic", you should be able to make a grapple as an OA when you have a free hand, but not be allowed to do so when you have a weapon in your hand (because you don't believe it makes sense that the weapon can be dropped?).
Ok, think that AoO through. Which way, exactly is the other party pointed? They are running past you, you say. From behind? Their weapon is not pointed towards you. From the front? They are still running past you. Unless they are turning to keep their weapon between them and you, slowing down their flight, their weapon is still not between them and you.
And if they are keeping their weapon in play, that is arguably exactly why and how the disengage action prevents an AoO. That is the application of that 'fighting experience' to that situation.
If a creature running past another can't turn slightly or back away instead of turning, then the creature attacking shouldn't be able to turn to attack either. Assuming consistency is important to you of course.
It sounds like you're describing the optional facing rules. Following the general rules, mechanically speaking a creature faces all directions at once (narratively facing a direction that makes sense as described by the player/DM). If the creatures in your world turn their backs to their opponents whenever they move away from them that's fine. Only creatures with little combat experience do that in my world.
And sure, you can explain the Disengage action in the manner you mentioned, but it's not limited to that way. It is a very open-ended action that leaves plenty of room for creative explanations, e.g simply dodging or rolling away.
I know there is a poll, which I suppose are people's opinions, but there is demonstrably one correct answer.
And bizarrely, the one correct answer is currently in fourth place. Why would anyone think you can't disarm with an OA? Disarm replaces any weapon attack without any specific interaction with the action economy.
I know there is a poll, which I suppose are people's opinions, but there is demonstrably one correct answer.
And bizarrely, the one correct answer is currently in fourth place. Why would anyone think you can't disarm with an OA? Disarm replaces any weapon attack without any specific interaction with the action economy.
Correct Disarm doesnt use the Attack action like the other maneuvers. Its also optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
TL;DR: They're moving away from you; grapple takes longer than a swipe with your weapon.
I will allow it when it makes sense in-fiction. BUT, here's why I think the SA/RAW is what it is:
Attack of Opportunity happens when something moves out of your reach. As it's moving away from you, it's distracted/multitasking enough for you to take a swipe at it. But it's already moving away.
It's easy enough to -safely- take a swipe at something that's moving beyond the reach of your weapon/arms. Much much harder & less safe to lunge forward and wrap your arms around, or grab a handful of, something that is already at the edge of your weapon's or arm's reach.
So you could do a flick of your sword on reflex and hit 'em as they step away from you and take their eyes of you. But they could easy just step a hair quicker and evade you if you're physically lunging your whole self towards them to grab or shove 'em.
(That's the key diff, I think, and why attack is a Yes, grapple/shove is a No, and disarm is a Maybe in RAW/SA.)
(I will still allow it as often as I can, because Fun, and because Options For Non-Spellers.)
All the points regarding attack ACTIONS and so forth have been made. However another argument for why you can't grapple as an opportunity attack, is that it would render half of the sentinel feat moot.
Feats are optional rules! This is simply a case when RAW is pointlessly anti-fun and should be ignored.
The rule states that if your attack action allows you to take multiple attacks, the grapple replaces ONE of those attacks. So, technically it replaces an attack, not an action.
No you cannot grapple on an Opportunity Attack as grappling use the Attack action to make a special melee attack and Opportunity Attack use a reaction.
This is where a rigid adherence to non-sensical rules seems blindingly stupid. What's super silly about Crawford's tweet and the rules lawyering used to justify it can be explained in one simple example. If a monk can make an AoO with his fists (either one will do), no rule can then logically explain that they can't then open one of those fists and attempt a grapple instead. If you have a free hand when your reaction is triggered this should be an option for anyone. If you are holding a weapon in the hand that you are using to make that AoO then it makes sense that you don't have the time to drop the weapon and also grapple. This just feels like overwrought rules lawyering for no reason.
I'm not sure I understand your logic. I get that you're arguing that the rules don't make sense, but you're also saying that it would make perfect sense that you can open your hand to grapple, but not open your hand to grapple if that hand is holding a weapon. Is the weapon glued to the hand? In my experience, opening a hand with something heavy in it makes that something leave my hand automatically due to gravity, thus leaving me with an empty hand.
Commented with quote below.
Yeah this makes sense and is allowed on your turn (you do have 6 seconds after all), in regular combat. I don't find your logic plausible for a reaction however. An AoO gives you a split second to react: no planning, no strategizing, just reacting.
Yours is a multi step process that first requires removing an object from your hand to even attempt a grapple. In that split second, as the first part of this multi step process, you have to let the weapon drop away from your hand, and it's not instantaneous or even automatic, as gravity needs to accelerate the object - nothing in the known universe reachs terminal velocity the instant it stops touching your hand.
And after that, you still need to reach and grab for the grapple. This multi step process absolutely makes for a slower reaction and so I stand by my argument. Empty handed is just reach and grab (no different than reach and punch, which is the currently allowed AoO for a monk) vs your multi step scenario.
I would however, allow and argue that a shove (you could flavor this as a trip if you wanted), as opposed to a grapple which requires a free hand, can be done with or without a free hand: be it with a spear, a maul, a halberd, a sword, a wand, a banana, or almost anything you might wield in combat, including your legs and feet. So, no need to drop your weapon in this case, but for grapples, no free hand, no grapple.
You are arguing beyond RAW, drawing in real-life logic. So that is what I am doing as well.
Your process requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target.
My version likewise requires 2 steps: (1) Opening your hand and (2) grabbing the target. The same exact steps.
Unless you want to argue that opening a hand holding nothing is faster than opening a hand holding something, I don't really think your argument makes sense.
I'm arguing against RAW, yes. And with it. A melee weapon attack and a special melee attack, like grapple, are virtually the same, as long as you are prepared to react. You cannot draw a weapon and attack as a reaction nor can you free your hand, by first dropping an item, and then grapple as a reaction. Logic and RAW all in one tidy package. Your scenario takes an extra step unless the item or weapon instantaneously drops from your hand, which works as an abstraction in regular combat, but not as a reaction. We are at an impasse and so we can agree to disagree since that is how I would run it at my table.
That is quite a response.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Wack. Grapplers feat needs a rework. Badly.
No that was not the argument at all. But if you want to take it down that road then there would always be a multitude of items preventing you from grappling, including your opponent's weapon.
In my D&D experience it is very unlikely that an opponent stows its weapon when running past you. If it is not stowed there would be a very high chance that the weapon would be interposed between you, unless you're fighting someone without any combat experience.
I got to say, it is very difficult having a discussion like this when people swap between RAW/RAI and homebrew/"logic" to fit their argument. Either we discuss in the context of RAW/RAI or we discuss in the context of homebrew, but mixing them up when trying to formulate an argument takes everything out of focus.
Are you trying to say that using "logic", you should be able to make a grapple as an OA when you have a free hand, but not be allowed to do so when you have a weapon in your hand (because you don't believe it makes sense that the weapon can be dropped?).
BeyondMisty:
"Are you trying to say that using "logic", you should be able to make a grapple as an OA when you have a free hand, but not be allowed to do so when you have a weapon in your hand (because you don't believe it makes sense that the weapon can be dropped?)."
Yes. That split second for your brain to process "drop weapon", engage in that action (open hand and wait for weapon to drop away), and then execute the AoO, is in my estimation too much time for a reaction. So you need an empty hand at the time of your reaction to be able to grapple as an AoO. I've said my piece. Peace out.
I know there is a poll, which I suppose are people's opinions, but there is demonstrably one correct answer.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
If a creature running past another can't turn slightly or back away instead of turning, then the creature attacking shouldn't be able to turn to attack either. Assuming consistency is important to you of course.
It sounds like you're describing the optional facing rules. Following the general rules, mechanically speaking a creature faces all directions at once (narratively facing a direction that makes sense as described by the player/DM). If the creatures in your world turn their backs to their opponents whenever they move away from them that's fine. Only creatures with little combat experience do that in my world.
And sure, you can explain the Disengage action in the manner you mentioned, but it's not limited to that way. It is a very open-ended action that leaves plenty of room for creative explanations, e.g simply dodging or rolling away.
And bizarrely, the one correct answer is currently in fourth place. Why would anyone think you can't disarm with an OA? Disarm replaces any weapon attack without any specific interaction with the action economy.
Correct Disarm doesnt use the Attack action like the other maneuvers. Its also optional.