The only positive I can see is that it looks like it would give advantage to ranged attacks instead of disadvantage, but I feel that removing your own advantage and ability to move, and giving enemies advantage against you, is going to be worse the majority of the time. The only time I can see an overall benefit is if you are facing a single enemy and the vast majority of your party is using ranged attacks. This is going to be very party dependant and very situational. Again, is it worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
The only positive I can see is that it looks like it would give advantage to ranged attacks instead of disadvantage, but I feel that removing your own advantage and ability to move, and giving enemies advantage against you, is going to be worse the majority of the time. The only time I can see an overall benefit is if you are facing a single enemy and the vast majority of your party is using ranged attacks. This is going to be very party dependant and very situational. Again, is it worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Full agree. Its so situational as to be ignored unless you are the barbarian in a party of ranged fighters. Then it could be OK but I would still rather take STR to 20, Great Weapon Master, Tough, Crusher, or several other feats ahead of it. If the DM said I had to take a feat that was not any of those I would maybe consider it but only if I couldn't convince them to change their mind.
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.
That's why you have a party to back you up. You might not use it all the time, but the times that it does prove useful it's amazing.
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.
That's why you have a party to back you up. You might not use it all the time, but the times that it does prove useful it's amazing.
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.
Under your version of the Grapple rules, you would be able to Grapple one prone creature and put it under your foot, then Grapple two more creatures with your two hands, yes? Because your hands are now free.
Then can you explain how you would be able to "carry or drag" all these creatures with you? The rules say you can carry or drag grappled creatures at half speed. Can you carry with your foot, or are you inventing a special type of grappling that does not align with the rules in the books?
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.
Under your version of the Grapple rules, you would be able to Grapple one prone creature and put it under your foot, then Grapple two more creatures with your two hands, yes? Because your hands are now free.
Then can you explain how you would be able to "carry or drag" all these creatures with you? The rules say you can carry or drag grappled creatures at half speed. Can you carry with your foot, or are you inventing a special type of grappling that does not align with the rules in the books?
Agreed. As I see it, pushing a grappled person prone (or vice versa) is equivalent to kneeling on top of them, pinning them with your body weight and a firm hand.
The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). You succeed automatically if the target is incapacitated. If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition. The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).
All in a single paragraph. Seize a target using your free hand. Release the target whenever you like - release in this case implies the previously-free hand which is now grappling.
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.
That's why you have a party to back you up. You might not use it all the time, but the times that it does prove useful it's amazing.
Hard disagree
There are times when there is only one enemy target. There are times when one enemy target is massively better than the rest. Sure you might be out, but if you are trading out you to keep their best out of play, is it really that bad?
Compared to the opportunity loss of taking it over another feat or ASI yes.
It's literally only worth it if you get it for free.
"Then can you explain how you would be able to "carry or drag" all these creatures with you? The rules say you can carry or drag grappled creatures at half speed. Can you carry with your foot"
Firstly, have you never seen a parent playing with their kids, with several hanging from their arms and legs, dragging them around the living room?
Secondly, consider the world we are playing in. This is a world where wizards can shoot fire from their fingers, teleport hundreds of miles in an instant, and even jump between different planes of existence. Where dragons and demons walk the earth. Where unarmoured adventurers are routinely able to withstand half a dozen or more hits with a great axe without serious injury. Are you really saying that the bit you find unbelievable is that a warrior (who pretty much has super powers) could drag an enemy along the ground with his foot?
And finally, as you just said, the system is gamified. By your own admission, it doesn't have to make sense in the real world if that's what the rules say.
"All in a single paragraph. Seize a target using your free hand. Release the target whenever you like - release in this case implies the previously-free hand which is now grappling."
I agree that is one possible reading of the rule. However, I believe my own reading (that a free hand is required only when making the initial "attack") is equally valid.
As I said, Spellcasters are routinely encouraged to find creative (and often ridiculous) interpretations of their spells' wording. This paragraph has a reasonable interpretation which would allow a creature to maintain a grapple using something other than a hand. Why is it fine to do this for spells, but not for combat rules?
It isn't even as though this is ridiculously overpowered: unless you are a high level fighter, you've already given up at least one turn of damage just to grapple and knock someone prone. With a great axe or sword, you have potentially given up 30+ damage to do this, as well as having to succeed on at least 2, probably 3, contested checks to do so... For a single enemy. Allowing use of a two handed weapon instead of single would give (on average, assuming 2 attacks and both hit) 4-5 extra points (or a maximum of 8) of damage per round.
"that is an argument for grapple being completely ineffective"
It's an example of dragging something with your feet while also carrying with your arms. It shows it is possible, which the person I was replying to was arguing was impossible.
" all that fire shooting and demon or dragon being has tight rules around it. You cannot decide"
True, although (again) creative interpretations are generally encouraged. However, I'm not "simply deciding", I am reading the rules and seeing a very slightly different interpretation of a rule which opens up new and interesting possibilities.
"Gamified does not mean you get to make up new rules"
True, but again, I'm not making up a new rule. I'm simply offering a different interpretation of the written rule.
"definitely do not get to say 'That is balanced' simply because you want it to work."
I'm not saying that, and I don't need to. Many of the rules do not appear completely balanced, but if they are the rules, they are the rules.
"If you are arguing neither balance nor realism, why the debate?"
I am arguing realism. I've given various examples of where grappling would not require a free hand. I'm also arguing balance, I've shown how it gives only a minor improvement at best.
I've also argued that, as this is a gamified system, it is not necessary to argue either if that is what the rules say. There is an interpretation of the rules, which is perfectly reasonable and valid in my opinion, which would not require continued use of a hand to maintain a grapple.
You want the best parts of each while conveniently ignoring counter-arguments. Given that, who are you trying to convince?
I have not ignored counter arguments, I have presented my own responses to each of these. I have even tried to withdraw from the conversation, allowing that we can agree to disagree, only to be dragged back by various spurious objections.
Note that the only reason I even raised "it is just a game and many such realistic aspects are hand-waved" is because that was used as a counter argument by others. I have presented information to show that it wouldn't be game breaking to do this.
After all this, if you still disagree that the written rules can be interpreted this way, I am not forcing anyone to accept my interpretation. I find it difficult to believe that people are prepared to argue so strongly against such a minor difference when they are prepared to accept ridiculous applications of spells which only just fit in the loosest possible interpretation of the wording of a spell, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I am going to try once more here:
You are free to interpret it differently. I am not forcing anyone to accept my argument. I have presented a case and, if you are not convinced, that's your own business. Your counter arguments have not convinced me that my own position is invalid, and that is my business. If I am at a table and the DM rules that this is not possible, I will accept that. If I am DMing, I would rule that it is possible, not as homebrew or as a house rule, but as a DM's adjudication on the interpretation of the written rule.
I am obviously not convincing those arguing against me, and they are not convincing me. You don't accept my arguments, I don't accept yours. We are going in circles and it's helping no one. I will accept that your interpretation is a valid one. I believe mine is also, but that in no way makes your interpretation any less valid.
So, can we just agree to disagree and leave it here?
It isn't even as though this is ridiculously overpowered: unless you are a high level fighter, you've already given up at least one turn of damage just to grapple and knock someone prone. With a great axe or sword, you have potentially given up 30+ damage to do this, as well as having to succeed on at least 2, probably 3, contested checks to do so... For a single enemy. Allowing use of a two handed weapon instead of single would give (on average, assuming 2 attacks and both hit) 4-5 extra points (or a maximum of 8) of damage per round.
I've never seen a character do 30+ damage with a single melee attack, especially not under level 5.
A grapple is always a particularly niche option to use in combat, since the only benefit is to stop them moving, or to drag them over the edge of a cliff.
It isn't even as though this is ridiculously overpowered: unless you are a high level fighter, you've already given up at least one turn of damage just to grapple and knock someone prone. With a great axe or sword, you have potentially given up 30+ damage to do this, as well as having to succeed on at least 2, probably 3, contested checks to do so... For a single enemy. Allowing use of a two handed weapon instead of single would give (on average, assuming 2 attacks and both hit) 4-5 extra points (or a maximum of 8) of damage per round.
I've never seen a character do 30+ damage with a single melee attack, especially not under level 5.
A grapple is always a particularly niche option to use in combat, since the only benefit is to stop them moving, or to drag them over the edge of a cliff.
You're free to DM the rules how you like.
To be fair a paladin with 2nd level smite (available at 5th level) could do 4d8+STR damage.
The average damage of this would be 22 without a crit do it's conceiveable that they could hit 30 with good rolls and obviously would break the 30 barrier with a crit.
Despite that I do agree grapple/prone is strong with the right build but not any crazier then the current options.
I've never seen a character do 30+ damage with a single melee attack, especially not under level 5
This was 2 melee attacks (as you need that to do grapple + shove prone) and was based on max damage with a 2H weapon and +3 str. DPR was also assuming 2 attacks (L5 with extra attack). If only one attack, you are still giving up 2 melee attacks to grapple + shove, so still same damage lost, but you are obviously only gaining half as much DPR using 2H weapon over 1H.
I've never seen a character do 30+ damage with a single melee attack, especially not under level 5
This was 2 melee attacks (as you need that to do grapple + shove prone) and was based on max damage with a 2H weapon and +3 str. DPR was also assuming 2 attacks (L5 with extra attack). If only one attack, you are still giving up 2 melee attacks to grapple + shove, so still same damage lost, but you are obviously only gaining half as much DPR using 2H weapon over 1H.
Apologies for not making this clear.
Based on that theory, though, anyone in the party with a less than optimal DPS build is somehow slighting the party, despite the fact keeping a sufficiently dangerous opponent prone gives the DPS specialists an easier time while also being useful defensively
I am not sure if thats the point or if it just shows the power of the grapple/prone and thus is arguing for the clause of a free hand to maintain the grapple as a balancing point?
Based on that theory, though, anyone in the party with a less than optimal DPS build is somehow slighting the party
That isn't what I said at all, don't put words in my mouth.
I was pointing out that there is only a very slight mechanical benefit from being allowing use of a 2H weapon while grappling rather than a 1H weapon, and that you are already giving up a lot in order to get them to that state. I thought it quite clear that this is looking at balance, comparing allowing a free hand and using a 2H weapon to not allowing and using a 1H weapon. The dangerous opponent is still grappled and prone, either way, you just get a few points of extra damage per round on average. This is not going to massively affect the game.
Based on that theory, though, anyone in the party with a less than optimal DPS build is somehow slighting the party
That isn't what I said at all, don't put words in my mouth.
I was pointing out that there is only a very slight mechanical benefit from being allowing use of a 2H weapon while grappling rather than a 1H weapon, and that you are already giving up a lot in order to get them to that state. I thought it quite clear that this is looking at balance, comparing allowing a free hand and using a 2H weapon to not allowing and using a 1H weapon. The dangerous opponent is still grappled and prone, either way, you just get a few points of extra damage per round on average. This is not going to massively affect the game.
Basically you benefit one handed weapon users too as they can then still use a shield and get the AC benefit while using a one handed weapon (D8 warhammer!)
You are adding about 3 damage (4.5 damage for warhammer average vs. 7 average for maul/greatsword) per attack which could add up. Is it worth having 2 less AC? Not sure.
This came up in my game and I'd be interested to hear what people think of my solution...
I ruled that in order to switch the grapple to a 'boot on neck' scenario, the character had to make another grapple attack. If they lose, they retain the original grapple/prone but have wasted an attack.
I'm considering changing it slightly to give the player the choice of 'allowing a contested check' at the start of their turn. Losing would free the target instead - that way it's still risk/reward but if they succeed, they get all their attacks. This feels more dramatic and impactful.
Thoughts?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The only positive I can see is that it looks like it would give advantage to ranged attacks instead of disadvantage, but I feel that removing your own advantage and ability to move, and giving enemies advantage against you, is going to be worse the majority of the time. The only time I can see an overall benefit is if you are facing a single enemy and the vast majority of your party is using ranged attacks. This is going to be very party dependant and very situational. Again, is it worth giving up an ASI or another feat for?
Full agree. Its so situational as to be ignored unless you are the barbarian in a party of ranged fighters. Then it could be OK but I would still rather take STR to 20, Great Weapon Master, Tough, Crusher, or several other feats ahead of it. If the DM said I had to take a feat that was not any of those I would maybe consider it but only if I couldn't convince them to change their mind.
That's why you have a party to back you up. You might not use it all the time, but the times that it does prove useful it's amazing.
Hard disagree
Under your version of the Grapple rules, you would be able to Grapple one prone creature and put it under your foot, then Grapple two more creatures with your two hands, yes? Because your hands are now free.
Then can you explain how you would be able to "carry or drag" all these creatures with you? The rules say you can carry or drag grappled creatures at half speed. Can you carry with your foot, or are you inventing a special type of grappling that does not align with the rules in the books?
Agreed. As I see it, pushing a grappled person prone (or vice versa) is equivalent to kneeling on top of them, pinning them with your body weight and a firm hand.
All in a single paragraph. Seize a target using your free hand. Release the target whenever you like - release in this case implies the previously-free hand which is now grappling.
If you want to pin take the Grappler feat.
Compared to the opportunity loss of taking it over another feat or ASI yes.
It's literally only worth it if you get it for free.
"Then can you explain how you would be able to "carry or drag" all these creatures with you? The rules say you can carry or drag grappled creatures at half speed. Can you carry with your foot"
Firstly, have you never seen a parent playing with their kids, with several hanging from their arms and legs, dragging them around the living room?
Secondly, consider the world we are playing in. This is a world where wizards can shoot fire from their fingers, teleport hundreds of miles in an instant, and even jump between different planes of existence. Where dragons and demons walk the earth. Where unarmoured adventurers are routinely able to withstand half a dozen or more hits with a great axe without serious injury. Are you really saying that the bit you find unbelievable is that a warrior (who pretty much has super powers) could drag an enemy along the ground with his foot?
And finally, as you just said, the system is gamified. By your own admission, it doesn't have to make sense in the real world if that's what the rules say.
"All in a single paragraph. Seize a target using your free hand. Release the target whenever you like - release in this case implies the previously-free hand which is now grappling."
I agree that is one possible reading of the rule. However, I believe my own reading (that a free hand is required only when making the initial "attack") is equally valid.
As I said, Spellcasters are routinely encouraged to find creative (and often ridiculous) interpretations of their spells' wording. This paragraph has a reasonable interpretation which would allow a creature to maintain a grapple using something other than a hand. Why is it fine to do this for spells, but not for combat rules?
It isn't even as though this is ridiculously overpowered: unless you are a high level fighter, you've already given up at least one turn of damage just to grapple and knock someone prone. With a great axe or sword, you have potentially given up 30+ damage to do this, as well as having to succeed on at least 2, probably 3, contested checks to do so... For a single enemy. Allowing use of a two handed weapon instead of single would give (on average, assuming 2 attacks and both hit) 4-5 extra points (or a maximum of 8) of damage per round.
"that is an argument for grapple being completely ineffective"
It's an example of dragging something with your feet while also carrying with your arms. It shows it is possible, which the person I was replying to was arguing was impossible.
" all that fire shooting and demon or dragon being has tight rules around it. You cannot decide"
True, although (again) creative interpretations are generally encouraged. However, I'm not "simply deciding", I am reading the rules and seeing a very slightly different interpretation of a rule which opens up new and interesting possibilities.
"Gamified does not mean you get to make up new rules"
True, but again, I'm not making up a new rule. I'm simply offering a different interpretation of the written rule.
"definitely do not get to say 'That is balanced' simply because you want it to work."
I'm not saying that, and I don't need to. Many of the rules do not appear completely balanced, but if they are the rules, they are the rules.
"If you are arguing neither balance nor realism, why the debate?"
I am arguing realism. I've given various examples of where grappling would not require a free hand. I'm also arguing balance, I've shown how it gives only a minor improvement at best.
I've also argued that, as this is a gamified system, it is not necessary to argue either if that is what the rules say. There is an interpretation of the rules, which is perfectly reasonable and valid in my opinion, which would not require continued use of a hand to maintain a grapple.
I have not ignored counter arguments, I have presented my own responses to each of these. I have even tried to withdraw from the conversation, allowing that we can agree to disagree, only to be dragged back by various spurious objections.
Note that the only reason I even raised "it is just a game and many such realistic aspects are hand-waved" is because that was used as a counter argument by others. I have presented information to show that it wouldn't be game breaking to do this.
After all this, if you still disagree that the written rules can be interpreted this way, I am not forcing anyone to accept my interpretation. I find it difficult to believe that people are prepared to argue so strongly against such a minor difference when they are prepared to accept ridiculous applications of spells which only just fit in the loosest possible interpretation of the wording of a spell, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I am going to try once more here:
You are free to interpret it differently. I am not forcing anyone to accept my argument. I have presented a case and, if you are not convinced, that's your own business. Your counter arguments have not convinced me that my own position is invalid, and that is my business. If I am at a table and the DM rules that this is not possible, I will accept that. If I am DMing, I would rule that it is possible, not as homebrew or as a house rule, but as a DM's adjudication on the interpretation of the written rule.
I am obviously not convincing those arguing against me, and they are not convincing me. You don't accept my arguments, I don't accept yours. We are going in circles and it's helping no one. I will accept that your interpretation is a valid one. I believe mine is also, but that in no way makes your interpretation any less valid.
So, can we just agree to disagree and leave it here?
I've never seen a character do 30+ damage with a single melee attack, especially not under level 5.
A grapple is always a particularly niche option to use in combat, since the only benefit is to stop them moving, or to drag them over the edge of a cliff.
You're free to DM the rules how you like.
To be fair a paladin with 2nd level smite (available at 5th level) could do 4d8+STR damage.
The average damage of this would be 22 without a crit do it's conceiveable that they could hit 30 with good rolls and obviously would break the 30 barrier with a crit.
Despite that I do agree grapple/prone is strong with the right build but not any crazier then the current options.
This was 2 melee attacks (as you need that to do grapple + shove prone) and was based on max damage with a 2H weapon and +3 str. DPR was also assuming 2 attacks (L5 with extra attack). If only one attack, you are still giving up 2 melee attacks to grapple + shove, so still same damage lost, but you are obviously only gaining half as much DPR using 2H weapon over 1H.
Apologies for not making this clear.
I am not sure if thats the point or if it just shows the power of the grapple/prone and thus is arguing for the clause of a free hand to maintain the grapple as a balancing point?
That isn't what I said at all, don't put words in my mouth.
I was pointing out that there is only a very slight mechanical benefit from being allowing use of a 2H weapon while grappling rather than a 1H weapon, and that you are already giving up a lot in order to get them to that state. I thought it quite clear that this is looking at balance, comparing allowing a free hand and using a 2H weapon to not allowing and using a 1H weapon. The dangerous opponent is still grappled and prone, either way, you just get a few points of extra damage per round on average. This is not going to massively affect the game.
Basically you benefit one handed weapon users too as they can then still use a shield and get the AC benefit while using a one handed weapon (D8 warhammer!)
You are adding about 3 damage (4.5 damage for warhammer average vs. 7 average for maul/greatsword) per attack which could add up. Is it worth having 2 less AC? Not sure.
This came up in my game and I'd be interested to hear what people think of my solution...
I ruled that in order to switch the grapple to a 'boot on neck' scenario, the character had to make another grapple attack. If they lose, they retain the original grapple/prone but have wasted an attack.
I'm considering changing it slightly to give the player the choice of 'allowing a contested check' at the start of their turn. Losing would free the target instead - that way it's still risk/reward but if they succeed, they get all their attacks. This feels more dramatic and impactful.
Thoughts?