Grapple only sets your speed to 0. It doesn't impose any disadvantage on your ability to perform athletics or acrobatics checks to avoid being grappled. Someone who is already grappled is no more or less difficult to grapple again than someone who isn't grappled (assuming their physical stats are the same).
So whether you grapple with the free hand before or after you release them with the other makes no difference mechanically.
And the Grappling rules only say that you need a free hand to make the special grapple melee attack. It doesn't impose any restrictions on what you do afterwards.
There is nothing in the rules saying anything about being able to achieve such a specific form of grapple
Nor is there anything in the rules which say you cannot achieve this form of grapple. In fact, it says nothing at all about any types of grapple, just that you can grapple and you need a free hand to make the special melee attack.
Since the grapple rules say you can grapple with a free hand - and give no alternative - then that's the only way to do it
The rules, very specifically, say you must have a free hand to make the special melee attack. If the attack succeeds, the creature is grappled until it escapes, is moved away or you release it. It does not say that you must continue to use that hand, or any hand. The only way to make that, is to take a very strict definition of the word "release" to mean "let go of with your hand", and ignore any other possible way of keeping the target from moving. No head locks, for instance. They are one of the most common types of grapple and they don't use a hand, just an arm, but you would have to let go of them with your hand to do so, which would mean you've released them. All you can do is hold their hand like a toddler, or grab the front of their shirt like a playground bully. It makes no sense to read the rules that way.
letting your opponent have back the complete freedom movement of their arms
Nothing in the rules says that your opponent doesn't have complete freedom of movement of their arms. If you grapple someone who is wielding 2 light weapons, they can still use both to attack you. Therefore, you cannot have them grappled by a half nelson, or by any technique which manipulates their arms.
No, I was not taught wrestling at school. As far as I am aware, it is not common to do so in school in the UK. I have been taught some basic grappling techniques while training in martial arts, but it has never been an area of interest for me.
If the rules were specific and clear that you must use a hand continually throughout the grapple, then it would be acceptable to say "you can't because rules" whether it makes sense or not. The two weapon fighting rules make little sense: People fought with sword and dagger, even longsword and dagger, and from what I have read this was considered a great way for unskilled beginners to fight, but you have to limit yourself to two light weapons in D&D. That's fine, because they are clearly-worded and specific rules which say you can only use light weapons, so "you can't because rules".
The grappling rules, however, are open to interpretation. The do not specifically say that you must keep using your hand to maintain the grapple, just that you must have a free hand to make the special grapple attack. It is not much of a stretch of interpretation to say that a wizard can use a headlock and have that hand free for somatic elements of spells, weapon in the other, and it is not much more of a stretch to allow a character to hold a grappled and prone opponent down with his foot. They fit within a reasonable (IMHO) interpretation of the letter of the rules, and they are things which are actually done in the real world (except for the spell casting of course).
Either way, gonna leave it here. I don't think I'm convincing anyone, and noone has come up with an argument which will convince me. If a DM tells me I cannot do it at their table, that's fair enough, DM's ruling is law and the written rules are more like guidelines. However, if was DMing, it would be allowed, and I would not consider it a house rule.
I will leave it with a final note: Casters are generally encouraged to make creative use of their spells, especially by a creative interpretation of the written rule.
You’ve developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.
In term of game mechanics, allowing a grappler to transition a grapple from a hand to say a foot/leg to be able to attack two-handed while maintaining grapple would effectively surpass the utility of a FEAT specifically targeted at people that want to grapple.
As a DM, I would rule NO. You must have and maintain a free hand to maintain a grapple, because otherwise the FEAT would be WORSE than a Prone+Grappled combo.
You’ve developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You gain the following benefits:
You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.
In term of game mechanics, allowing a grappler to transition a grapple from a hand to say a foot/leg to be able to attack two-handed while maintaining grapple would effectively surpass the utility of a FEAT specifically targeted at people that want to grapple.
As a DM, I would rule NO. You must have and maintain a free hand to maintain a grapple, because otherwise the FEAT would be WORSE than a Prone+Grappled combo.
The feat is worse than that combo but not because of the free hand rule....
Restraining yourself to restrain something is just terrible no matter what lol.
But I do agree....you need at least one free hand to grapple/maintain a grapple.
I know I said I'd leave it, but I disagree that grapple + prone would be MADE better than the feat. For one, if you need a free hand to maintain the grapple, you need a free hand to keep your opponent restrained. Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
This is a terrible feat anyway, and I would argue that using this feat's pin will nearly always be worse than just grapple+shove. The only benefit is advantage on attacks, which you get anyway when you shove them prone. You get that advantage without shoving prone with this feat, but is that really worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
I know I said I'd leave it, but I disagree that grapple + prone would be MADE better than the feat. For one, if you need a free hand to maintain the grapple, you need a free hand to keep your opponent restrained. Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
This is a terrible feat anyway, and I would argue that using this feat's pin will nearly always be worse than just grapple+shove. The only benefit is advantage on attacks, which you get anyway when you shove them prone. You get that advantage without shoving prone with this feat, but is that really worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Full agree.
The feat is a common example of poor design choice and a potential "trap" option for the misinformed.
The feat is garbage, I agree. But it is defining a PIN, which is supposed to be better than a Grapple. If it takes a feat and only a feat to achieve a PIN, then allowing both hands free but still grappled (+prone) is just way too much.
The feat is garbage, I agree. But it is defining a PIN, which is supposed to be better than a Grapple. If it takes a feat and only a feat to achieve a PIN, then allowing both hands free but still grappled (+prone) is just way too much.
That seems fair to me...you need to have at least one hand occupied to keep the grapple going unless you have a feature that allows it otherwise.
Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
And there in lies my problem with the way you see things. The game doesn't say it - so you can't - because you can only do what the rules say you can. This is a game after all - not a simulation of reality. It's gamified. If you want it to make sense realistically then by all means homebrew it - but don't read into rules things that don't exist.
I know I said I'd leave it, but I disagree that grapple + prone would be MADE better than the feat. For one, if you need a free hand to maintain the grapple, you need a free hand to keep your opponent restrained. Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
This is a terrible feat anyway, and I would argue that using this feat's pin will nearly always be worse than just grapple+shove. The only benefit is advantage on attacks, which you get anyway when you shove them prone. You get that advantage without shoving prone with this feat, but is that really worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Restrained is a better condition to impose than a combination of being grappled and prone. It doesn't matter if the initiator is also restrained. They can still make straight attack rolls since the advantage and disadvantage cancel out. The point of the feat is to be a team player. I've seen it used to great effect. Everyone else benefits.
And this is where I agree with the general principle you talk of, but disagree with your interpretation. In my opinion, from my interpretation of the rules, you are imposing an additional requirement on grappling which is not written in the rules. You are free to interpret them how you wish, of course.
I know I said I'd leave it, but I disagree that grapple + prone would be MADE better than the feat. For one, if you need a free hand to maintain the grapple, you need a free hand to keep your opponent restrained. Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
This is a terrible feat anyway, and I would argue that using this feat's pin will nearly always be worse than just grapple+shove. The only benefit is advantage on attacks, which you get anyway when you shove them prone. You get that advantage without shoving prone with this feat, but is that really worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Restrained is a better condition to impose than a combination of being grappled and prone. It doesn't matter if the initiator is also restrained. They can still make straight attack rolls since the advantage and disadvantage cancel out. The point of the feat is to be a team player. I've seen it used to great effect. Everyone else benefits.
100% disagree.....if you are restraining yourself you are opening up yourself to attacks from anyone at ADV, you lose all movement (with grapple/prone you can drag the grappled prone target), and you have disadvantage on DEX saves.
Overall Grappler has 0 benefits over just grapple/prone and should never be taken as a feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Grapple only sets your speed to 0. It doesn't impose any disadvantage on your ability to perform athletics or acrobatics checks to avoid being grappled. Someone who is already grappled is no more or less difficult to grapple again than someone who isn't grappled (assuming their physical stats are the same).
So whether you grapple with the free hand before or after you release them with the other makes no difference mechanically.
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).
And the Grappling rules only say that you need a free hand to make the special grapple melee attack. It doesn't impose any restrictions on what you do afterwards.
Nor is there anything in the rules which say you cannot achieve this form of grapple. In fact, it says nothing at all about any types of grapple, just that you can grapple and you need a free hand to make the special melee attack.
That's an erroneous argument. The rules in 5e only say what you can do - not what you can't. If they don't say you can do it - then you can't.
Since the grapple rules say you can grapple with a free hand - and give no alternative - then that's the only way to do it.
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).
The rules, very specifically, say you must have a free hand to make the special melee attack. If the attack succeeds, the creature is grappled until it escapes, is moved away or you release it. It does not say that you must continue to use that hand, or any hand. The only way to make that, is to take a very strict definition of the word "release" to mean "let go of with your hand", and ignore any other possible way of keeping the target from moving. No head locks, for instance. They are one of the most common types of grapple and they don't use a hand, just an arm, but you would have to let go of them with your hand to do so, which would mean you've released them. All you can do is hold their hand like a toddler, or grab the front of their shirt like a playground bully. It makes no sense to read the rules that way.
Nothing in the rules says that your opponent doesn't have complete freedom of movement of their arms. If you grapple someone who is wielding 2 light weapons, they can still use both to attack you. Therefore, you cannot have them grappled by a half nelson, or by any technique which manipulates their arms.
No, I was not taught wrestling at school. As far as I am aware, it is not common to do so in school in the UK. I have been taught some basic grappling techniques while training in martial arts, but it has never been an area of interest for me.
If the rules were specific and clear that you must use a hand continually throughout the grapple, then it would be acceptable to say "you can't because rules" whether it makes sense or not. The two weapon fighting rules make little sense: People fought with sword and dagger, even longsword and dagger, and from what I have read this was considered a great way for unskilled beginners to fight, but you have to limit yourself to two light weapons in D&D. That's fine, because they are clearly-worded and specific rules which say you can only use light weapons, so "you can't because rules".
The grappling rules, however, are open to interpretation. The do not specifically say that you must keep using your hand to maintain the grapple, just that you must have a free hand to make the special grapple attack. It is not much of a stretch of interpretation to say that a wizard can use a headlock and have that hand free for somatic elements of spells, weapon in the other, and it is not much more of a stretch to allow a character to hold a grappled and prone opponent down with his foot. They fit within a reasonable (IMHO) interpretation of the letter of the rules, and they are things which are actually done in the real world (except for the spell casting of course).
Either way, gonna leave it here. I don't think I'm convincing anyone, and noone has come up with an argument which will convince me. If a DM tells me I cannot do it at their table, that's fair enough, DM's ruling is law and the written rules are more like guidelines. However, if was DMing, it would be allowed, and I would not consider it a house rule.
I will leave it with a final note: Casters are generally encouraged to make creative use of their spells, especially by a creative interpretation of the written rule.
I support your case Urth as a DM and would want to convince my DM to rule as such.
I imagine a lot of people would want to convince their DM to give them a mechanical advantage.
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'm sure most people would want to convince their DM not to nerf one of their character's abilities.
There is a feat called Grappler. It says,
You’ve developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You gain the following benefits:
In term of game mechanics, allowing a grappler to transition a grapple from a hand to say a foot/leg to be able to attack two-handed while maintaining grapple would effectively surpass the utility of a FEAT specifically targeted at people that want to grapple.
As a DM, I would rule NO. You must have and maintain a free hand to maintain a grapple, because otherwise the FEAT would be WORSE than a Prone+Grappled combo.
The feat is worse than that combo but not because of the free hand rule....
Restraining yourself to restrain something is just terrible no matter what lol.
But I do agree....you need at least one free hand to grapple/maintain a grapple.
I know I said I'd leave it, but I disagree that grapple + prone would be MADE better than the feat. For one, if you need a free hand to maintain the grapple, you need a free hand to keep your opponent restrained. Neither say you do, but it would make sense for either both or neither.
This is a terrible feat anyway, and I would argue that using this feat's pin will nearly always be worse than just grapple+shove. The only benefit is advantage on attacks, which you get anyway when you shove them prone. You get that advantage without shoving prone with this feat, but is that really worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Full agree.
The feat is a common example of poor design choice and a potential "trap" option for the misinformed.
The feat is garbage, I agree. But it is defining a PIN, which is supposed to be better than a Grapple. If it takes a feat and only a feat to achieve a PIN, then allowing both hands free but still grappled (+prone) is just way too much.
That seems fair to me...you need to have at least one hand occupied to keep the grapple going unless you have a feature that allows it otherwise.
Examples: Loxodon trunk, Simic Hybrid claws/tentacles, etc...
And there in lies my problem with the way you see things. The game doesn't say it - so you can't - because you can only do what the rules say you can. This is a game after all - not a simulation of reality. It's gamified. If you want it to make sense realistically then by all means homebrew it - but don't read into rules things that don't exist.
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).
Restrained is a better condition to impose than a combination of being grappled and prone. It doesn't matter if the initiator is also restrained. They can still make straight attack rolls since the advantage and disadvantage cancel out. The point of the feat is to be a team player. I've seen it used to great effect. Everyone else benefits.
"you can only do what the rules say you can"
And this is where I agree with the general principle you talk of, but disagree with your interpretation. In my opinion, from my interpretation of the rules, you are imposing an additional requirement on grappling which is not written in the rules. You are free to interpret them how you wish, of course.
100% disagree.....if you are restraining yourself you are opening up yourself to attacks from anyone at ADV, you lose all movement (with grapple/prone you can drag the grappled prone target), and you have disadvantage on DEX saves.
Overall Grappler has 0 benefits over just grapple/prone and should never be taken as a feat.