I get that. I just don’t see the reason then of having it part of unarmed strikes. Maybe it saves space instead of having it its own thing?
Well it is an unarmed attack so it is a fitting place for it. And yes it saves space, usually things that allow you to attack says if they allow weapon attacks or unarmed strikes or both. If you make grappling/shoving be its own thing then you would need to add that in a third option at every point the first two are mentioned.
Even in the UA I read it as having to make a successful unarmed strike and then you choose from the three options. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
The Unarmed Strike text in the UA (at least from #5 and onwards) is pretty much exactly the same as it is in the PHB. You choose to do an unarmed attack and then pick what kind, and only the one that tries to do damage needs an attack roll.
I get that. I just don’t see the reason then of having it part of unarmed strikes. Maybe it saves space instead of having it its own thing?
Well it is an unarmed attack so it is a fitting place for it. And yes it saves space, usually things that allow you to attack says if they allow weapon attacks or unarmed strikes or both. If you make grappling/shoving be its own thing then you would need to add that in a third option at every point the first two are mentioned.
Even in the UA I read it as having to make a successful unarmed strike and then you choose from the three options. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
The Unarmed Strike text in the UA (at least from #5 and onwards) is pretty much exactly the same as it is in the PHB. You choose to do an unarmed attack and then pick what kind, and only the one that tries to do damage needs an attack roll.
To the first part, 2014 it was a separate action you could take in combat so if they kept it the same I don’t think they would have had to add it as a third option. It would just be a saving throw instead of contested roll. But I get your point and I’m sure they were saving word count where they could.
And I did look back at the UA and read it wrong then and since.
I get that. I just don’t see the reason then of having it part of unarmed strikes. Maybe it saves space instead of having it its own thing?
For me it is completely logical that Grapple and Shove are part of Unarmed Strikes. It also makes it streamlined to be able to work with opportunity attacks as well. It just works better and is great. Does there need to be a better reason than it works better?
Even in the UA I read it as having to make a successful unarmed strike and then you choose from the three options. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
I think that was one version in the UA, but they scrapped that. I gave feedback on that that it shouldn't be both an attack roll and a saving throw because that is unnecessary in so many ways. They are unnecessary rolls and it makes it unnecessarily difficult for a grappler to be good at it.
I get that. I just don’t see the reason then of having it part of unarmed strikes. Maybe it saves space instead of having it its own thing?
For me it is completely logical that Grapple and Shove are part of Unarmed Strikes. It also makes it streamlined to be able to work with opportunity attacks as well. It just works better and is great. Does there need to be a better reason than it works better?
Even in the UA I read it as having to make a successful unarmed strike and then you choose from the three options. And I’m sure I’m not the only one.
I think that was one version in the UA, but they scrapped that. I gave feedback on that that it shouldn't be both an attack roll and a saving throw because that is unnecessary in so many ways. They are unnecessary rolls and it makes it unnecessarily difficult for a grappler to be good at it.
That’s a good point about working with opportunity attacks. Knowing now that I have been reading it incorrectly, and reading yours and Thezzaruz’s responses it is making more sense the changes they made. Thanks.
I think that was one version in the UA, but they scrapped that.
It was "on a hit, you grappled the target" with no save involved except to escape the grapple, so high strength was entirely useless for avoiding being grappled.
I think that was one version in the UA, but they scrapped that.
It was "on a hit, you grappled the target" with no save involved except to escape the grapple, so high strength was entirely useless for avoiding being grappled.
Ahh yes, and that wasn't quite good, either. I rather like what they ended up with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
i liked the 2014 rules. It was a easy rule & quick rule and it was easy to grapple if the character hade resonable stats and prof. But the monster had no chance at all. So I can say this is probable better rule for monsters.
I like the rule currently, but I have to point out a problem with the wording on the app. I personally, made the mistake of ruling this as having to make an attack roll for the unarmed strike, then doing the grapple save (and yes, it was tedious and difficult for the player to pull off).
The reason I made this mistake is the wording on the character sheet in the app:
"You make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects..."
It saying "make a melee attack" here threw me off majorly, and I realized it was a misruling when I later clicked on the Unarmed Strike option on the character sheet and read the sidebar text, which instead reads:
"Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect..."
IMO, these read differently and should be listed as the latter both in the description in the Actions section and the description of the Unarmed Strike itself to avoid confusion.
Unarmed Strike says it all in the sheet both in the Action section and more elaborated in the expanded window so i'm not sure what you say should be done to read differently
Unarmed Strike
You make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects:
Damage. You make an attack roll against the creature, and on a hit, you deal 1 + STR Bludgeoning damage.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Str./Dex. (it chooses which) saving throw (DC = 8 + Prof. Bonus + Str.) or it has the Grappled condition.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Str./Dex. (it chooses which) saving throw (DC = 8 + Prof. Bonus + Str.) or you can either push it 5 ft. away or cause it to have the Prone condition.
To me, the wording "make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects" appears to say:
Step 1: Make a melee attack (sounds like an attack roll)
Step 2: Deal an effect (presumably if the attack roll hits)
The wording in the expanded section does not use the term "melee attack" in the initial description, so to me it's clearer.
Sure, when taking the time to read through every option, you can deduce that the attack roll is for only the damage effect because that's where it's specifically mentioned. But when a player says they want to grapple in the middle of you running combat and you're seeing the new Unarmed Strike rule for the first time, "melee attack" is a bit of a distracting term.
IMO, it would read better if they avoided saying "melee attack" and just placed the text from the sidebar under Unarmed Strike in the Actions section:
Unarmed Strike
Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect:
Damage. You make an attack roll against the creature, and on a hit, you deal 1 + STR Bludgeoning damage.
Grapple. The target must succeed on a Str./Dex. (it chooses which) saving throw (DC = 8 + Prof. Bonus + Str.) or it has the Grappled condition.
Shove. The target must succeed on a Str./Dex. (it chooses which) saving throw (DC = 8 + Prof. Bonus + Str.) or you can either push it 5 ft. away or cause it to have the Prone condition.
To me, the wording "make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects" appears to say:
Step 1: Make a melee attack (sounds like an attack roll)
Step 2: Deal an effect (presumably if the attack roll hits)
The wording in the expanded section does not use the term "melee attack" in the initial description, so to me it's clearer.
However used, Grapple is a melee attack and say it twice in the expanded section before suggesting options
Instead of using a weapon to make a melee attack, you can use a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow. In game terms, this is an Unarmed Strike—a melee attack that involves you using your body to damage, grapple, or shove a target within 5 feet of you.
One thing the new rule does do is to move the results of the grapple onto the victim to determine. If the PC wants to grapple an escaping NPC, that NPC makes a save (often behind the DM screen). There's no real context for how "lucky" that character gets if she slips away. If an NPC goes in for the grapple, it fully moves to the result to the player die roll. The player won't hear a random number created by the NPC and think "how do I beat that"? Now it's a clean Save based on the stats of the baddie.
I still think grapples are annoying and tricky to deal with in a narrative game where someone goes "but I'm grappling him, can't I do this now?" and sometimes you want to allow creative combat and sometimes you're like "this is breaking the encounter!"
I can't say I fully like the 5e2024 version, to be honest the 2014 version was closer to being what I think it should. All that the 2014 version really needed was to say that if the two creatures in the grapple were of differing sizes (1 size category), the smaller one gets disadvantage on the rolls. If the size difference was more than 1 size category, then the larger gets advantage while the smaller gets disadvantage. That would have been better than simply making it a single roll by the target, especially a save.
Nevertheless, i do not hate the new way enough to not use it. I will say that it allowed my 10 STR Sorcerer to successfully grapple a couple of monsters that (quite frankly) i never should have been able to succeed at, yet the 5e2024 rules allowed it to happen. In 2014 I would have had to beat them on a contested roll (meaning I would have had to roll high AND they would have had to roll low). But in 5e2024 it only requires the target to roll low - basically it doubled my Sorcerer's chances of success, and since those monsters were neither proficient in Dex nor Str saves, made it even easier.
Nevertheless, i do not hate the new way enough to not use it. I will say that it allowed my 10 STR Sorcerer to successfully grapple a couple of monsters that (quite frankly) i never should have been able to succeed at, yet the 5e2024 rules allowed it to happen. In 2014 I would have had to beat them on a contested roll (meaning I would have had to roll high AND they would have had to roll low). But in 5e2024 it only requires the target to roll low - basically it doubled my Sorcerer's chances of success, and since those monsters were neither proficient in Dex nor Str saves, made it even easier.
Yeah... but at what cost?
First your sorcerer gave up an attack for damage/ defeat. In the action economy that can actually be really costly depending on what else was happening in the scene.
Second, you gave up that attack to only impose the Grappled Condition. Which yes, does stop the movement of a creature, and impose disadvantage on attacks on other creatures. Said creature could still attack your sorcerer without penalty on it's turn. For a squishy robe-wearer, this is not always ideal.
Lastly to the Narrative side of it, I can totally see a small statured figure tangling up someone else and keeping them from moving. I don't see it as "they put the NPC into a head lock" I see it as diving at their ankles, pulling them down, and clawing at them to keep them from moving. :)
The change to Grapple and Shove is probably one of my favorite changes in the rules. I think it makes more sense for Str focused characters (and Monks) to be good at imposing a Grapple but have the Experts instead be good at escaping grapples. I also love the fact that one can Grapple as an Opportunity Attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Nevertheless, i do not hate the new way enough to not use it. I will say that it allowed my 10 STR Sorcerer to successfully grapple a couple of monsters that (quite frankly) i never should have been able to succeed at, yet the 5e2024 rules allowed it to happen. In 2014 I would have had to beat them on a contested roll (meaning I would have had to roll high AND they would have had to roll low). But in 5e2024 it only requires the target to roll low - basically it doubled my Sorcerer's chances of success, and since those monsters were neither proficient in Dex nor Str saves, made it even easier.
Yeah... but at what cost?
First your sorcerer gave up an attack for damage/ defeat. In the action economy that can actually be really costly depending on what else was happening in the scene.
Second, you gave up that attack to only impose the Grappled Condition. Which yes, does stop the movement of a creature, and impose disadvantage on attacks on other creatures. Said creature could still attack your sorcerer without penalty on it's turn. For a squishy robe-wearer, this is not always ideal.
Lastly to the Narrative side of it, I can totally see a small statured figure tangling up someone else and keeping them from moving. I don't see it as "they put the NPC into a head lock" I see it as diving at their ankles, pulling them down, and clawing at them to keep them from moving. :)
You are assuming I was attempting to kill the creatures, I was attempting to keep them from escaping. I could not bring them down in a single round by damage alone, and if they got a turn of movement, they would have escaped (the map greatly favored their escape). So I grappled on my turn, which then allowed the rest of the group to reach them and finish them off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The interaction that results from Grapples being a saving throw, Saving Throws being voluntarily failable, and movement out of reach being an auto-break on Grapples does make it incredibly easy to get out of a Grapple if you have help, though.
DM: "Since Giant Toad #3 successfully bit you, Clumsy Weaksauce, you're Grappled. It'll probably attempt to Swallow you next turn. Grappler Speedforce, it's your Turn."
Admittedly, this is contingent on actual positioning, and turn order. But it's a great way to extract from high-DC Grapples, especially since breaking out of a Grapple (successful or not) with Athletics or Acrobatics eats your Action, whereas having an Ally behind you Grapple and drag you out of reach succeeds automatically and usually only eats one of the Ally's Attacks.
That's pretty creative imo! Unless I'm mistaken, can't you choose to fail any check? If so you could do this with the 2014 grapple no? Either way, I had never thought of it.
I take it the previously grappled character would not trigger an opportunity attack for the same reason they auto-escape the initial grapple. Would this, by extension, work for pulling another character out of an engagement, acting like a free, off-turn disengage?
Realistically, I could imagine this. The engaged character could keep their guard up while being pulled directly out of the engagement.
That's pretty creative imo! Unless I'm mistaken, can't you choose to fail any check? If so you could do this with the 2014 grapple no? Either way, I had never thought of it.
Honestly? I don't know. I don't think you can willingly fail an ability check in 2014.
I'd definitely seen Sage Advice claims that you can't willingly fail a Saving Throw in 2014 Rules. Either way, 2014's Ability Checks would probably result in an easy lean into Contested Check rules, or swapping to the Help Action, which is probably why I haven't seen the Counter-Grapple much in 2014 discourse.
I take it the previously grappled character would not trigger an opportunity attack for the same reason they auto-escape the initial grapple. Would this, by extension, work for pulling another character out of an engagement, acting like a free, off-turn disengage?
Yep, no Opportunity Attacks on Forced Movement. 2024 Monks with the Grappler feat (Fast Grappler ability) are great for extraction/evac/repositioning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
My usual rule is that to grapple and move someone who is already grappled, you have to beat the other grappler, but that's definitely a house rule, not supported by RAW.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well it is an unarmed attack so it is a fitting place for it. And yes it saves space, usually things that allow you to attack says if they allow weapon attacks or unarmed strikes or both. If you make grappling/shoving be its own thing then you would need to add that in a third option at every point the first two are mentioned.
The Unarmed Strike text in the UA (at least from #5 and onwards) is pretty much exactly the same as it is in the PHB. You choose to do an unarmed attack and then pick what kind, and only the one that tries to do damage needs an attack roll.
To the first part, 2014 it was a separate action you could take in combat so if they kept it the same I don’t think they would have had to add it as a third option. It would just be a saving throw instead of contested roll. But I get your point and I’m sure they were saving word count where they could.
And I did look back at the UA and read it wrong then and since.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
For me it is completely logical that Grapple and Shove are part of Unarmed Strikes. It also makes it streamlined to be able to work with opportunity attacks as well. It just works better and is great. Does there need to be a better reason than it works better?
I think that was one version in the UA, but they scrapped that. I gave feedback on that that it shouldn't be both an attack roll and a saving throw because that is unnecessary in so many ways. They are unnecessary rolls and it makes it unnecessarily difficult for a grappler to be good at it.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
That’s a good point about working with opportunity attacks. Knowing now that I have been reading it incorrectly, and reading yours and Thezzaruz’s responses it is making more sense the changes they made. Thanks.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It was "on a hit, you grappled the target" with no save involved except to escape the grapple, so high strength was entirely useless for avoiding being grappled.
Ahh yes, and that wasn't quite good, either. I rather like what they ended up with.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
i liked the 2014 rules. It was a easy rule & quick rule and it was easy to grapple if the character hade resonable stats and prof. But the monster had no chance at all. So I can say this is probable better rule for monsters.
I like the rule currently, but I have to point out a problem with the wording on the app. I personally, made the mistake of ruling this as having to make an attack roll for the unarmed strike, then doing the grapple save (and yes, it was tedious and difficult for the player to pull off).
The reason I made this mistake is the wording on the character sheet in the app:
"You make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects..."
It saying "make a melee attack" here threw me off majorly, and I realized it was a misruling when I later clicked on the Unarmed Strike option on the character sheet and read the sidebar text, which instead reads:
"Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect..."
IMO, these read differently and should be listed as the latter both in the description in the Actions section and the description of the Unarmed Strike itself to avoid confusion.
Unarmed Strike says it all in the sheet both in the Action section and more elaborated in the expanded window so i'm not sure what you say should be done to read differently
To me, the wording "make a melee attack that involves using your body to deal one of the following effects" appears to say:
Step 1: Make a melee attack (sounds like an attack roll)
Step 2: Deal an effect (presumably if the attack roll hits)
The wording in the expanded section does not use the term "melee attack" in the initial description, so to me it's clearer.
Sure, when taking the time to read through every option, you can deduce that the attack roll is for only the damage effect because that's where it's specifically mentioned. But when a player says they want to grapple in the middle of you running combat and you're seeing the new Unarmed Strike rule for the first time, "melee attack" is a bit of a distracting term.
IMO, it would read better if they avoided saying "melee attack" and just placed the text from the sidebar under Unarmed Strike in the Actions section:
Otherwise, I'm a fan of the new rule.
However used, Grapple is a melee attack and say it twice in the expanded section before suggesting options
One thing the new rule does do is to move the results of the grapple onto the victim to determine. If the PC wants to grapple an escaping NPC, that NPC makes a save (often behind the DM screen). There's no real context for how "lucky" that character gets if she slips away. If an NPC goes in for the grapple, it fully moves to the result to the player die roll. The player won't hear a random number created by the NPC and think "how do I beat that"? Now it's a clean Save based on the stats of the baddie.
I still think grapples are annoying and tricky to deal with in a narrative game where someone goes "but I'm grappling him, can't I do this now?" and sometimes you want to allow creative combat and sometimes you're like "this is breaking the encounter!"
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
I can't say I fully like the 5e2024 version, to be honest the 2014 version was closer to being what I think it should. All that the 2014 version really needed was to say that if the two creatures in the grapple were of differing sizes (1 size category), the smaller one gets disadvantage on the rolls. If the size difference was more than 1 size category, then the larger gets advantage while the smaller gets disadvantage. That would have been better than simply making it a single roll by the target, especially a save.
Nevertheless, i do not hate the new way enough to not use it. I will say that it allowed my 10 STR Sorcerer to successfully grapple a couple of monsters that (quite frankly) i never should have been able to succeed at, yet the 5e2024 rules allowed it to happen. In 2014 I would have had to beat them on a contested roll (meaning I would have had to roll high AND they would have had to roll low). But in 5e2024 it only requires the target to roll low - basically it doubled my Sorcerer's chances of success, and since those monsters were neither proficient in Dex nor Str saves, made it even easier.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Yeah... but at what cost?
First your sorcerer gave up an attack for damage/ defeat. In the action economy that can actually be really costly depending on what else was happening in the scene.
Second, you gave up that attack to only impose the Grappled Condition. Which yes, does stop the movement of a creature, and impose disadvantage on attacks on other creatures. Said creature could still attack your sorcerer without penalty on it's turn. For a squishy robe-wearer, this is not always ideal.
Lastly to the Narrative side of it, I can totally see a small statured figure tangling up someone else and keeping them from moving. I don't see it as "they put the NPC into a head lock" I see it as diving at their ankles, pulling them down, and clawing at them to keep them from moving. :)
"Teller of tales, dreamer of dreams"
Tips, Tricks, Maps: Lantern Noir Presents
**Streams hosted at at twitch.tv/LaternNoir
The change to Grapple and Shove is probably one of my favorite changes in the rules. I think it makes more sense for Str focused characters (and Monks) to be good at imposing a Grapple but have the Experts instead be good at escaping grapples. I also love the fact that one can Grapple as an Opportunity Attack.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
You are assuming I was attempting to kill the creatures, I was attempting to keep them from escaping. I could not bring them down in a single round by damage alone, and if they got a turn of movement, they would have escaped (the map greatly favored their escape). So I grappled on my turn, which then allowed the rest of the group to reach them and finish them off.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
The interaction that results from Grapples being a saving throw, Saving Throws being voluntarily failable, and movement out of reach being an auto-break on Grapples does make it incredibly easy to get out of a Grapple if you have help, though.
Admittedly, this is contingent on actual positioning, and turn order. But it's a great way to extract from high-DC Grapples, especially since breaking out of a Grapple (successful or not) with Athletics or Acrobatics eats your Action, whereas having an Ally behind you Grapple and drag you out of reach succeeds automatically and usually only eats one of the Ally's Attacks.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
That's pretty creative imo! Unless I'm mistaken, can't you choose to fail any check? If so you could do this with the 2014 grapple no? Either way, I had never thought of it.
I take it the previously grappled character would not trigger an opportunity attack for the same reason they auto-escape the initial grapple. Would this, by extension, work for pulling another character out of an engagement, acting like a free, off-turn disengage?
Realistically, I could imagine this. The engaged character could keep their guard up while being pulled directly out of the engagement.
Honestly? I don't know. I don't think you can willingly fail an ability check in 2014.
I'd definitely seen Sage Advice claims that you can't willingly fail a Saving Throw in 2014 Rules. Either way, 2014's Ability Checks would probably result in an easy lean into Contested Check rules, or swapping to the Help Action, which is probably why I haven't seen the Counter-Grapple much in 2014 discourse.
Yep, no Opportunity Attacks on Forced Movement. 2024 Monks with the Grappler feat (Fast Grappler ability) are great for extraction/evac/repositioning.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
My usual rule is that to grapple and move someone who is already grappled, you have to beat the other grappler, but that's definitely a house rule, not supported by RAW.