No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
I don't see any reason to make this ruling. But I also don't see anything about Grappling that would force your enemy to become prone. Being able to "knock it prone" would have to be done in some other way that explicitly results in the enemy becoming prone. So now, multiple things need to successfully happen in order to reach a state where you are grappling a prone creature such that they cannot stand back up and I feel like that's pretty reasonable.
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
I don't see any reason to make this ruling. But I also don't see anything about Grappling that would force your enemy to become prone. Being able to "knock it prone" would have to be done in some other way that explicitly results in the enemy becoming prone. So now, multiple things need to successfully happen in order to reach a state where you are grappling a prone creature such that they cannot stand back up and I feel like that's pretty reasonable.
To be fair I think a Dm is probably going to just rule you can’t double grapple to begin with before we make it to this point.
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
I don't see any reason to make this ruling. But I also don't see anything about Grappling that would force your enemy to become prone. Being able to "knock it prone" would have to be done in some other way that explicitly results in the enemy becoming prone. So now, multiple things need to successfully happen in order to reach a state where you are grappling a prone creature such that they cannot stand back up and I feel like that's pretty reasonable.
Correct, there isn't anything about grappling that makes somebody go prone. But in 2024 there are now SO MANY ways to impose the prone condition, including an unarmed strike/shove, and it complements grappled SO well, that inflcting both conditions concurrently is quite achievable and effective.
I wouldn’t say it’s lame because the rules require you to use your hands to grapple. There isn’t any real way to grapple a creature on the ground with your hands without also being on the ground.
Of course you can. You can simply crouch over and reach down with your arm and hold them. It's actually not super hard to keep someone off balance so they have a hard time using their full strength to get up from the ground. Just like if you were to punch someone who's lying down. It's like they're doing a Turkish Get-Up, but the weight they're lifting is the grappler instead of a little kettle bell.
See, you said that you wouldn't allow it because it's too disadvantageous to the grappler.. essentially it takes them out of the fight and doesn't accomplish anything?
I spent quite a bit of time and words making arguments why there are builds and situations that would be very tactically beneficial.
If you have other reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, what are they?
It’s important to clarify that I’m not arguing against grappling. I’m saying that double grappling is almost always useless. Especially since the opponent gets to make a Dex or str saving throw to avoid being grappled while your DC is 8 + prof + str.
it might not even be beneficial to a monk if they have a low Str. And they are probably the class that it is most viable for.
Double grappling allows you to KEEP them grappled because they can only break one of your grapples per action. If you can keep the total at 2, they'll never be able to escape (without an action surge, or obviously teleportation).
I mean, is the Topple weapon mastery useless because they get a saving throw? obviously not. Fun fact, landing a stunning strike gives them the stunned condition, which makes them auto-fail str and dex saves..
Monk's use Dex for their grapple DCs, it's in the 2024 rule changes.
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
DM can require anything, but from a RAW perspective, you don't need to be prone to grapple a creature prone.
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
DM can require anything, but from a RAW perspective, you don't need to be prone to grapple a creature prone.
Yes which is why I phrased my last sentence as a question.
It’s important to clarify that I’m not arguing against grappling. I’m saying that double grappling is almost always useless. Especially since the opponent gets to make a Dex or str saving throw to avoid being grappled while your DC is 8 + prof + str.
it might not even be beneficial to a monk if they have a low Str. And they are probably the class that it is most viable for.
Double grappling allows you to KEEP them grappled because they can only break one of your grapples per action. If you can keep the total at 2, they'll never be able to escape (without an action surge, or obviously teleportation).
I mean, is the Topple weapon mastery useless because they get a saving throw? obviously not. Fun fact, landing a stunning strike gives them the stunned condition, which makes them auto-fail str and dex saves..
Monk's use Dex for their grapple DCs, it's in the 2024 rule changes.
so what you are telling me is that a monk with stunning strike has 0 reason to double grapple someone ?
It’s important to clarify that I’m not arguing against grappling. I’m saying that double grappling is almost always useless. Especially since the opponent gets to make a Dex or str saving throw to avoid being grappled while your DC is 8 + prof + str.
it might not even be beneficial to a monk if they have a low Str. And they are probably the class that it is most viable for.
Double grappling allows you to KEEP them grappled because they can only break one of your grapples per action. If you can keep the total at 2, they'll never be able to escape (without an action surge, or obviously teleportation).
I mean, is the Topple weapon mastery useless because they get a saving throw? obviously not. Fun fact, landing a stunning strike gives them the stunned condition, which makes them auto-fail str and dex saves..
Monk's use Dex for their grapple DCs, it's in the 2024 rule changes.
so what you are telling me is that a monk with stunning strike has 0 reason to double grapple someone ?
Is that what you got out of that?
Assuming they fail the Con save, stunned isn't a permanent condition. It costs 1 Focus Point and lasts 1 round.
What it does is allow you to auto-succeed any grapple checks to keep them controlled after the stun wears off, since grappling doesn't cost any resources.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You don't need to be prone to grapple a prone creature, nor is it making you so to knock a grappled target prone.
Say I grapple you, then I have the Prone condition. Are we now Prone together?
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t Prone if you have the Prone condition. You’re now holding on to the creature while you are Prone.
To be fair that isn’t exactly the same. A prone target can easily grapple someone who isn’t prone. The question is the reverse. How many DMs would require a pc to be prone to grapple someone who is prone.
I don't see any reason to make this ruling. But I also don't see anything about Grappling that would force your enemy to become prone. Being able to "knock it prone" would have to be done in some other way that explicitly results in the enemy becoming prone. So now, multiple things need to successfully happen in order to reach a state where you are grappling a prone creature such that they cannot stand back up and I feel like that's pretty reasonable.
To be fair I think a Dm is probably going to just rule you can’t double grapple to begin with before we make it to this point.
Correct, there isn't anything about grappling that makes somebody go prone. But in 2024 there are now SO MANY ways to impose the prone condition, including an unarmed strike/shove, and it complements grappled SO well, that inflcting both conditions concurrently is quite achievable and effective.
Of course you can. You can simply crouch over and reach down with your arm and hold them. It's actually not super hard to keep someone off balance so they have a hard time using their full strength to get up from the ground. Just like if you were to punch someone who's lying down. It's like they're doing a Turkish Get-Up, but the weight they're lifting is the grappler instead of a little kettle bell.
See, you said that you wouldn't allow it because it's too disadvantageous to the grappler.. essentially it takes them out of the fight and doesn't accomplish anything?
I spent quite a bit of time and words making arguments why there are builds and situations that would be very tactically beneficial.
If you have other reasons why it shouldn't be allowed, what are they?
Double grappling allows you to KEEP them grappled because they can only break one of your grapples per action. If you can keep the total at 2, they'll never be able to escape (without an action surge, or obviously teleportation).
I mean, is the Topple weapon mastery useless because they get a saving throw? obviously not. Fun fact, landing a stunning strike gives them the stunned condition, which makes them auto-fail str and dex saves..
Monk's use Dex for their grapple DCs, it's in the 2024 rule changes.
DM can require anything, but from a RAW perspective, you don't need to be prone to grapple a creature prone.
Yes which is why I phrased my last sentence as a question.
so what you are telling me is that a monk with stunning strike has 0 reason to double grapple someone ?
Is that what you got out of that?
Assuming they fail the Con save, stunned isn't a permanent condition. It costs 1 Focus Point and lasts 1 round.
What it does is allow you to auto-succeed any grapple checks to keep them controlled after the stun wears off, since grappling doesn't cost any resources.