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?
The "boot on neck" scenario sounds to me like pinning, which is only achievable with the Grappler feat.
Not really. Pinning makes both you and the grapplee restrained. Nothing is restraining you in this scenario. It doesn't seem very similar at all to me.
No, but I wouldn't expect the rest of the effects of being restrained to apply. You are not restrained, you still have free movement (although that movement may end up freeing the grapplee).
Not really. Pinning makes both you and the grapplee restrained. Nothing is restraining you in this scenario. It doesn't seem very similar at all to me.
Well you cannot really move much without releasing your pinned victim if you are pinning them with your foot. Or are you imagining somehow hand-walking while pinning them between both feet?
The problem is being restrained gives you disadvantage on attack rolls, which defeats the objective of doing this in the first place.
But I also see how allowing this would make the Grappler feat less desirable. Tricky.
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?
I think this is a fairly reasonable approach. I don't think I would make someone give up yet another attack to do this, though. You've already given up 2 to grapple and shove prone, and as stated above that's a LOT of damage you've lost. And adding the risk of losing the grapple you've just given up 2 attacks to accomplish also wouldn't be worth it IMHO unless you were almost certain of success.
This is mainly down to the cost of grappling and shoving in the first place. When you've given up 2 full attacks to do so, you are already likely a whole round down assuming you have 2 attacks available. With most combats being only 3-4 rounds, this is 25-33% of the entire combat "given up" just to accomplish this. If you ask for another attack for "transferring" the grapple to your foot, the fight could well be half way through before you make your first attack, and if there is a reasonable possibility of losing the grapple, you are risking having wasted a third of the combat entirely.
But I also see how allowing this would make the Grappler feat less desirable.
TBH I think the Grappler feat is pretty undesirable as is. I can't see many situations where a character who is good at grappling would be better to use the Grappler Pin than a straight up Grapple & Shove Prone.
The "boot on neck" scenario sounds to me like pinning, which is only achievable with the Grappler feat.
Not really. Pinning makes both you and the grapplee restrained. Nothing is restraining you in this scenario. It doesn't seem very similar at all to me.
No, but I wouldn't expect the rest of the effects of being restrained to apply. You are not restrained, you still have free movement (although that movement may end up freeing the grapplee).
The problem is being restrained gives you disadvantage on attack rolls, which defeats the objective of doing this in the first place.
But I also see how allowing this would make the Grappler feat less desirable. Tricky.
I think this is a fairly reasonable approach. I don't think I would make someone give up yet another attack to do this, though. You've already given up 2 to grapple and shove prone, and as stated above that's a LOT of damage you've lost. And adding the risk of losing the grapple you've just given up 2 attacks to accomplish also wouldn't be worth it IMHO unless you were almost certain of success.
This is mainly down to the cost of grappling and shoving in the first place. When you've given up 2 full attacks to do so, you are already likely a whole round down assuming you have 2 attacks available. With most combats being only 3-4 rounds, this is 25-33% of the entire combat "given up" just to accomplish this. If you ask for another attack for "transferring" the grapple to your foot, the fight could well be half way through before you make your first attack, and if there is a reasonable possibility of losing the grapple, you are risking having wasted a third of the combat entirely.
TBH I think the Grappler feat is pretty undesirable as is. I can't see many situations where a character who is good at grappling would be better to use the Grappler Pin than a straight up Grapple & Shove Prone.
Grappler is never worth it. It's just better in every scenario to just prone and grapple