Let's say you successfully grapple and then shove. You now have them both grappled and prone. You place a foot on their neck, let go of them with your hand. They have not been released: they are still held in place, but no longer by your hand. Your hands is now free to be used for something else.
Edit to clarify on release: say you captured someone and placed manacles on them. You place them in a cage, then remove the manacles. This have not released them, you have merely changed the manner in which they are being held.
That’s exactly what I would want to do. i sacrifice two of my attacks (fighter level 5) to do two competed checks to get the opponent prone and grappled. Then he has his round to do a third contested check and if all three fail, I have advantage on the next round(s).
I find the trade-off not off. Instead of four regular attacks, I get two with advantage but only if I win three contested checks before that - but it would be more scenic.
That’s exactly what I would want to do. i sacrifice two of my attacks (fighter level 5) to do two competed checks to get the opponent prone and grappled. Then he has his round to do a third contested check and if all three fail, I have advantage on the next round(s).
I find the trade-off not off. Instead of four regular attacks, I get two with advantage but only if I win three contested checks before that - but it would be more scenic.
You can absolutely do that - but you would need to use a single one-handed weapon (or versatile used one-handed) and the other hand would have to be empty (so you can actually grapple).
This means no two-handed weapons and definitely no shields.
I would disagree. You would not be able to be holding that greatsword with both hands while initiating the grapple, but you could either be holding it in one hand or have it sheathed. Then, once you have them pinned to the floor with a foot, on your next turn you can draw the greatsword (free object interaction) or take hold of it with your other hand (which is no longer being used for the grapple) and attack with it.
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Let's say you successfully grapple and then shove. You now have them both grappled and prone. You place a foot on their neck, let go of them with your hand. They have not been released: they are still held in place, but no longer by your hand. Your hands is now free to be used for something else.
Edit to clarify on release: say you captured someone and placed manacles on them. You place them in a cage, then remove the manacles. This have not released them, you have merely changed the manner in which they are being held.
Your feet don't have the option of grappling though, so when you release your hand, they are not being grappled by anything.
As for your cuffs-to-cage analogy, the cuffs would apply restrained condition, while the cage does not, however it does physically block them. This analogy is equivalent to you grappling someone, then surrounding them so they don't have anywhere to go and releasing the grapple. They have their movement so they can stand up, but have no where to go. It isn't the same as what you are trying to do, so isn't a good analogy.
You capture an enemy and put him in manacles. He is now, according to your earlier description, restrained. You then lead him to a cell, where you attach him to a rack and remove the manacles. He is still restrained, but not by manacles. He definitely has not been released.
Back to the rules. You definitely need a free hand to make the grapple "special melee attack". It is written specifically in the rules: "Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll".
However, there is no further mention of having a free hand or having to use a hand at all. "If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition. The condition specifies the things that end it". Nothing in the condition specified having to use a hand. The only thing which could imply continued use of the hand is "you can release the target whenever you like". However, as stated above, this is not necessarily "let go of with your hand", it reads as "stop restricting their movement" to me.
Back to my description of a situation which would count: foot on someone's throat when you have shoved them prone from a grapple. They are still grappled. They cannot just move with a foot on their throat. They cannot just get up. They would need to remove your foot first, i e. Escape the grapple. It makes no sense to say "he can just ignore your foot coz it isn't a hand", especially when neither the grappled condition nor the grapple attack rules specifically say that you need to use a hand to maintain a grapple beyond the special melee attack. The same would apply to using a tail to hold them in place, or a bite, assuming those make sense in the situation. Even human Vs human, if someone is biting down hard on your ear, you do not have free movement without escaping that "grapple".
The rules do not say you can Grapple with a foot or a mouth, nor that you can maintain a Grapple with a foot or a mouth. If you are correct that no hand is required to maintain a Grapple then you must be arguing that nothing at all is required to maintain a Grapple - because a hand is the only thing mentioned in the grappling rules. You must be arguing that a two handed creature can actually have infinite enemies grappled all at the same time, merely by grappling with the same hand over and over and maintaining those grapples through pure narrative power. Either releasing the grip of the hand used to Grapple is the "you can release the target" referred to in the rules, or else there is nothing that defines that release.
If the rules do not say what defines that release, then it is up to the DM to decide that - not any player. You can say "I would like to try to hold them down with my foot to free up my hand to swing my greataxe", but it would be the DM who chooses what the effect of that activity is - since the rules don't define Grapple by foot. They might decide the creature has been released and the Grapple broken. They might decide it is still grappled but you have disadvantage on attacks with this creature squirming underfoot. Since there are no rules to support grappling with a foot you are not able to dispute a DM's ruling on that matter.
Personally I think you are just wrong, and that the correct interpretation of the rules as written in plain language is that the hand used to Grapple remains in use until the Grapple is ended.
Personally I think you are just wrong, and that the correct interpretation of the rules as written in plain language is that the hand used to Grapple remains in use until the Grapple is ended.
I disagree, and would strongly present my case to a DM. I don't feel that the "plain language" is specific enough to override a perfectly valid real world technique. I'd ask the DM to explain how an enemy was able to stand up with my foot on their throat. If the DM ruled against me after I had presented my case, I'd accept that. It is neither specifically allowed nor specifically forbidden, so it is up to the DM to decide.
However, given the amount of leeway spellcasters normally get with creative uses of their spells, I may feel a little aggrieved that I was unable to use a technique which is widely used in the real world, especially if it was presented without a reasonable explanation as to how that enemy was able to just ignore the presence of the body part I wished to use to maintain the grapple. It breaks no written rule, unless you take a very narrow interpretation of one specific word. If the DM is going to take such a narrow definition of that, they should be doing so with spells, traits and other rules, too.
If you are correct that no hand is required to maintain a Grapple then you must be arguing that nothing at all is required to maintain a Grapple - because a hand is the only thing mentioned in the grappling rules. You must be arguing that a two handed creature can actually have infinite enemies grappled all at the same time, merely by grappling with the same hand over and over and maintaining those grapples through pure narrative power. Either releasing the grip of the hand used to Grapple is the "you can release the target" referred to in the rules, or else there is nothing that defines that release.
This is plainly absurd, and is clearly not what I am arguing. This is like arguing that you must hate your country if you dislike the current government or leader of it.
You must obviously use some method to keep the creature grappled. The normal method would be to keep them gripped in your hand, but it is not specifically written that there is no other method. If you wish to use a different method, I would require a reasonable explanation. This explanation would have to make sense and fit within the rules (i.e. not be forbidden).
If you don't think placing a foot/knee on the throat would be at least as effective as holding someone with your hand in stopping them from moving, I suggest you speak to some police officers.
You place a foot on their neck, let go of them with your hand. They have not been released: they are still held in place, but no longer by your hand. Your hands is now free to be used for something else.
In the real world, perhaps the person whose neck you have your foot on isn't holding a warhammer or sword. Either of those weapons will probably be quite easy to use to encourage the foot to be moved off the neck, especially if the foot owner is also looking around to keep an eye on other things happening in a battle.
If you are correct that no hand is required to maintain a Grapple then you must be arguing that nothing at all is required to maintain a Grapple - because a hand is the only thing mentioned in the grappling rules. You must be arguing that a two handed creature can actually have infinite enemies grappled all at the same time, merely by grappling with the same hand over and over and maintaining those grapples through pure narrative power. Either releasing the grip of the hand used to Grapple is the "you can release the target" referred to in the rules, or else there is nothing that defines that release.
This is plainly absurd, and is clearly not what I am arguing. This is like arguing that you must hate your country if you dislike the current government or leader of it.
You must obviously use some method to keep the creature grappled. The normal method would be to keep them gripped in your hand, but it is not specifically written that there is no other method. If you wish to use a different method, I would require a reasonable explanation. This explanation would have to make sense and fit within the rules (i.e. not be forbidden).
If you don't think placing a foot/knee on the throat would be at least as effective as holding someone with your hand in stopping them from moving, I suggest you speak to some police officers.
I think the counter-arguments would be (1) That is a modern technique not necessarily known to D&D characters, (2) It is NOT anywhere near as effective as using your arms and (3) it is not a technique you can really easily initiate solo, at least not without mostly incapacitating the target first and (4) and this is an important one... there aren't really any hit location charts in D&D. You cannot simply 'target the neck.' If you could, vorpal blades would be a lot less meaningful. Even a critical hit is only very rarely the equivalent of hitting the neck. It would need a hit sufficiently massive to cause death directly and the DM arbitrarily deciding that is what happened.
The only real case I can see for using legs or feet to grapple would be monks or other unarmed specialists (since unarmed is now a fighting style).
1) I find it hard to believe that a fighter would never consider standing on someone's neck (or just standing on them) to keep them from moving. I would expect such a technique has been used for centuries on the battlefield.
2) I'll accept your word on this for now. I've never really grappled myself.
3) I'd consider a grappled and prone person to be "mostly incapacitated" already.
4) This makes some difference to it all, but it would also apply to grappling with your hands. If you are only holding them with a hand, say gripping the front of their shirt, I expect that would be much less effective a grapple than a head or arm lock, for instance. I consider that this is part of the contested roll, whether in the initial grapple attack or subsequent escape or shove attempts. It doesn't, IMHO, affect the validity of holding someone in place with a foot, or tail or mouth.
My view on the requirement for having a free hand is that it has more to do with being able to manoeuvre a target into a position. Once you've got them in an arm or head lock, you would be able to maintain that using just your arm without your hand (I have seen this done), which would leave a free hand for the somatic component of a spell or to hold an object or a weapon (although attacking with that weapon would not be possible as the arm couldn't move for it, and you'd need the object to be passed to that hand). Most grappling I have seen, once the grapple is joined, relies more on the arm than the hand.
In the real world, perhaps the person whose neck you have your foot on isn't holding a warhammer or sword. Either of those weapons will probably be quite easy to use to encourage the foot to be moved off the neck, especially if the foot owner is also looking around to keep an eye on other things happening in a battle.
This applies equally to an arm or hand. If someone took a warhammer to your arm while you were gripping the front of their shirt, you'd be just as likely to release them. In fact, if they hit you on the head, in the belly, or on any unarmoured part of you with a warhammer in the real world, you would most likely let go of them.
As Kotath pointed out, though, you cannot target specific body parts with an attack
if the person is face down, they can push of the ground with their arms, and meanwhile you are standing on one foot and with the other on a moving platform. If they are face up they can grab your leg and move it off their neck and could knock you prone
So, if they are grappled, there are things they can do to escape the grapple. IMHO that's what the check to escape the grapple is for. I wouldn't have thought it would be any easier than escaping from someone who has hold of the front of your shirt, or has hold of your arm without it being in some kind of lock.
A foot pinning the opponent is not any standard wrestling move
Nor is hitting your opponent in the face with an axe. This is not a sporting competition, it's a battle to the death. A wrestler standing on an opponents neck would not risk killing their opponent to win, whereas 2 enemies on the battlefield would (and are).
And if it is that simple why would anyone worry about a two handed weapon anyway? Even a small pocket knife could slit the restrained person's throat if they are successfully pinned in such a fashion
A small pocket knife to the throat would kill pretty much anyone in the real world, but it's impossible to kill any reasonable level character or monster at full health with a dagger in D&D, and that's because the rules say so. If you hit any human or creature in the real world with a greataxe, they would almost certainly die (at least without immediate medical attention), whereas in D&D most do not, because the rules say so.
In addition, a prone & grappled creature can still defend themselves, still attack, and still try to escape the grapple. Just because you are kneeling on their throat, doesn't mean they cannot try to bat your arms away if you come in with a pocket knife, or use their weapons or shield to try to deflect your axe.
Please note, I am not trying to be belligerent or awkward here. I'm finding this an interesting debate. I am yet to be convinced that either it is an unworkable situation in real life (although I can accept that it may be more difficult than using hands and arms) or that the rules forbid it (without a very narrow reading, narrower than most people read most rules). Were I DMing, I would allow it in the right circumstances, and would not consider it a house rule, just the same lenient interpretation that people often allow for spells and other features.
If a character had someone grappled in one hand and their other hand was free, would you allow them to transfer the target from one hand to another? Let's assume there was some mechanical benefit to doing so, some magic item or weapon they could only use with the hand they are currently grappling with, or which was attached to that arm.
Why is that the common sense interpretation, when common sense says that a creature cannot stand up while another is standing on their neck?
Common sense says that you must do something to maintain a grapple. If you use no part of your body to hold them in place, they are no longer grappled. However, many common techniques do not require a hand to be effective. A head lock can be maintained while the grappler wiggles his fingers on both hands or holds a carrot in each hand. Without using your hands to get hold of someone, grappling them is going to be very difficult, but once you have hold of them, it is less important. Hell, being a small person, I've been held in place as easily by someone sitting on me as by someone grabbing my arm!
If a character had someone grappled in one hand and their other hand was free, would you allow them to transfer the target from one hand to another? Let's assume there was some mechanical benefit to doing so, some magic item or weapon they could only use with the hand they are currently grappling with, or which was attached to that arm.
There is no rule about handedness in 5e. Everyone is ambidextrous. But if they were to try to swap grapple hands (I don't know why they would) - I would ask them to roll a new grapple. They would be releasing with one hand and making a new grapple with the other hand. Again though - there would be no reason to do it - so I would make sure the player knows that.
"They would be releasing with one hand and making a new grapple with the other hand."
So they have to release first and then grappled again? That doesn't sound right. Surely they would be grabbing with their other hand before releasing, and surely it would be much easier to grab someone whose movement is restricted by the grapple than one free to move about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Let's say you successfully grapple and then shove. You now have them both grappled and prone. You place a foot on their neck, let go of them with your hand. They have not been released: they are still held in place, but no longer by your hand. Your hands is now free to be used for something else.
Edit to clarify on release: say you captured someone and placed manacles on them. You place them in a cage, then remove the manacles. This have not released them, you have merely changed the manner in which they are being held.
That’s exactly what I would want to do.
i sacrifice two of my attacks (fighter level 5) to do two competed checks to get the opponent prone and grappled. Then he has his round to do a third contested check and if all three fail, I have advantage on the next round(s).
I find the trade-off not off. Instead of four regular attacks, I get two with advantage but only if I win three contested checks before that - but it would be more scenic.
Edit: Note: with a greatsword.
You can absolutely do that - but you would need to use a single one-handed weapon (or versatile used one-handed) and the other hand would have to be empty (so you can actually grapple).
This means no two-handed weapons and definitely no shields.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
A two handed weapon can be held with one hand if you don’t attack with it. So it’s no issue with a free hand.
Yea - until the moment you attack with it (using both hands) and release them in the process.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I would disagree. You would not be able to be holding that greatsword with both hands while initiating the grapple, but you could either be holding it in one hand or have it sheathed. Then, once you have them pinned to the floor with a foot, on your next turn you can draw the greatsword (free object interaction) or take hold of it with your other hand (which is no longer being used for the grapple) and attack with it.
From PHB:
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
Your feet don't have the option of grappling though, so when you release your hand, they are not being grappled by anything.
As for your cuffs-to-cage analogy, the cuffs would apply restrained condition, while the cage does not, however it does physically block them. This analogy is equivalent to you grappling someone, then surrounding them so they don't have anywhere to go and releasing the grapple. They have their movement so they can stand up, but have no where to go. It isn't the same as what you are trying to do, so isn't a good analogy.
Ok, that's not a good analogy. Let's modify it.
You capture an enemy and put him in manacles. He is now, according to your earlier description, restrained. You then lead him to a cell, where you attach him to a rack and remove the manacles. He is still restrained, but not by manacles. He definitely has not been released.
Back to the rules. You definitely need a free hand to make the grapple "special melee attack". It is written specifically in the rules: "Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll".
However, there is no further mention of having a free hand or having to use a hand at all. "If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition. The condition specifies the things that end it". Nothing in the condition specified having to use a hand. The only thing which could imply continued use of the hand is "you can release the target whenever you like". However, as stated above, this is not necessarily "let go of with your hand", it reads as "stop restricting their movement" to me.
Back to my description of a situation which would count: foot on someone's throat when you have shoved them prone from a grapple. They are still grappled. They cannot just move with a foot on their throat. They cannot just get up. They would need to remove your foot first, i e. Escape the grapple. It makes no sense to say "he can just ignore your foot coz it isn't a hand", especially when neither the grappled condition nor the grapple attack rules specifically say that you need to use a hand to maintain a grapple beyond the special melee attack. The same would apply to using a tail to hold them in place, or a bite, assuming those make sense in the situation. Even human Vs human, if someone is biting down hard on your ear, you do not have free movement without escaping that "grapple".
The rules do not say you can Grapple with a foot or a mouth, nor that you can maintain a Grapple with a foot or a mouth. If you are correct that no hand is required to maintain a Grapple then you must be arguing that nothing at all is required to maintain a Grapple - because a hand is the only thing mentioned in the grappling rules. You must be arguing that a two handed creature can actually have infinite enemies grappled all at the same time, merely by grappling with the same hand over and over and maintaining those grapples through pure narrative power. Either releasing the grip of the hand used to Grapple is the "you can release the target" referred to in the rules, or else there is nothing that defines that release.
If the rules do not say what defines that release, then it is up to the DM to decide that - not any player. You can say "I would like to try to hold them down with my foot to free up my hand to swing my greataxe", but it would be the DM who chooses what the effect of that activity is - since the rules don't define Grapple by foot. They might decide the creature has been released and the Grapple broken. They might decide it is still grappled but you have disadvantage on attacks with this creature squirming underfoot. Since there are no rules to support grappling with a foot you are not able to dispute a DM's ruling on that matter.
Personally I think you are just wrong, and that the correct interpretation of the rules as written in plain language is that the hand used to Grapple remains in use until the Grapple is ended.
I disagree, and would strongly present my case to a DM. I don't feel that the "plain language" is specific enough to override a perfectly valid real world technique. I'd ask the DM to explain how an enemy was able to stand up with my foot on their throat. If the DM ruled against me after I had presented my case, I'd accept that. It is neither specifically allowed nor specifically forbidden, so it is up to the DM to decide.
However, given the amount of leeway spellcasters normally get with creative uses of their spells, I may feel a little aggrieved that I was unable to use a technique which is widely used in the real world, especially if it was presented without a reasonable explanation as to how that enemy was able to just ignore the presence of the body part I wished to use to maintain the grapple. It breaks no written rule, unless you take a very narrow interpretation of one specific word. If the DM is going to take such a narrow definition of that, they should be doing so with spells, traits and other rules, too.
This is plainly absurd, and is clearly not what I am arguing. This is like arguing that you must hate your country if you dislike the current government or leader of it.
You must obviously use some method to keep the creature grappled. The normal method would be to keep them gripped in your hand, but it is not specifically written that there is no other method. If you wish to use a different method, I would require a reasonable explanation. This explanation would have to make sense and fit within the rules (i.e. not be forbidden).
If you don't think placing a foot/knee on the throat would be at least as effective as holding someone with your hand in stopping them from moving, I suggest you speak to some police officers.
In the real world, perhaps the person whose neck you have your foot on isn't holding a warhammer or sword. Either of those weapons will probably be quite easy to use to encourage the foot to be moved off the neck, especially if the foot owner is also looking around to keep an eye on other things happening in a battle.
1) I find it hard to believe that a fighter would never consider standing on someone's neck (or just standing on them) to keep them from moving. I would expect such a technique has been used for centuries on the battlefield.
2) I'll accept your word on this for now. I've never really grappled myself.
3) I'd consider a grappled and prone person to be "mostly incapacitated" already.
4) This makes some difference to it all, but it would also apply to grappling with your hands. If you are only holding them with a hand, say gripping the front of their shirt, I expect that would be much less effective a grapple than a head or arm lock, for instance. I consider that this is part of the contested roll, whether in the initial grapple attack or subsequent escape or shove attempts. It doesn't, IMHO, affect the validity of holding someone in place with a foot, or tail or mouth.
My view on the requirement for having a free hand is that it has more to do with being able to manoeuvre a target into a position. Once you've got them in an arm or head lock, you would be able to maintain that using just your arm without your hand (I have seen this done), which would leave a free hand for the somatic component of a spell or to hold an object or a weapon (although attacking with that weapon would not be possible as the arm couldn't move for it, and you'd need the object to be passed to that hand). Most grappling I have seen, once the grapple is joined, relies more on the arm than the hand.
This applies equally to an arm or hand. If someone took a warhammer to your arm while you were gripping the front of their shirt, you'd be just as likely to release them. In fact, if they hit you on the head, in the belly, or on any unarmoured part of you with a warhammer in the real world, you would most likely let go of them.
As Kotath pointed out, though, you cannot target specific body parts with an attack
So, if they are grappled, there are things they can do to escape the grapple. IMHO that's what the check to escape the grapple is for. I wouldn't have thought it would be any easier than escaping from someone who has hold of the front of your shirt, or has hold of your arm without it being in some kind of lock.
Nor is hitting your opponent in the face with an axe. This is not a sporting competition, it's a battle to the death. A wrestler standing on an opponents neck would not risk killing their opponent to win, whereas 2 enemies on the battlefield would (and are).
A small pocket knife to the throat would kill pretty much anyone in the real world, but it's impossible to kill any reasonable level character or monster at full health with a dagger in D&D, and that's because the rules say so. If you hit any human or creature in the real world with a greataxe, they would almost certainly die (at least without immediate medical attention), whereas in D&D most do not, because the rules say so.
In addition, a prone & grappled creature can still defend themselves, still attack, and still try to escape the grapple. Just because you are kneeling on their throat, doesn't mean they cannot try to bat your arms away if you come in with a pocket knife, or use their weapons or shield to try to deflect your axe.
Please note, I am not trying to be belligerent or awkward here. I'm finding this an interesting debate. I am yet to be convinced that either it is an unworkable situation in real life (although I can accept that it may be more difficult than using hands and arms) or that the rules forbid it (without a very narrow reading, narrower than most people read most rules). Were I DMing, I would allow it in the right circumstances, and would not consider it a house rule, just the same lenient interpretation that people often allow for spells and other features.
Just on a slight tangent:
If a character had someone grappled in one hand and their other hand was free, would you allow them to transfer the target from one hand to another? Let's assume there was some mechanical benefit to doing so, some magic item or weapon they could only use with the hand they are currently grappling with, or which was attached to that arm.
Why is that the common sense interpretation, when common sense says that a creature cannot stand up while another is standing on their neck?
Common sense says that you must do something to maintain a grapple. If you use no part of your body to hold them in place, they are no longer grappled. However, many common techniques do not require a hand to be effective. A head lock can be maintained while the grappler wiggles his fingers on both hands or holds a carrot in each hand. Without using your hands to get hold of someone, grappling them is going to be very difficult, but once you have hold of them, it is less important. Hell, being a small person, I've been held in place as easily by someone sitting on me as by someone grabbing my arm!
There is no rule about handedness in 5e. Everyone is ambidextrous. But if they were to try to swap grapple hands (I don't know why they would) - I would ask them to roll a new grapple. They would be releasing with one hand and making a new grapple with the other hand.
Again though - there would be no reason to do it - so I would make sure the player knows that.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
"They would be releasing with one hand and making a new grapple with the other hand."
So they have to release first and then grappled again? That doesn't sound right. Surely they would be grabbing with their other hand before releasing, and surely it would be much easier to grab someone whose movement is restricted by the grapple than one free to move about.