Grappling and Shove are speacial uses of the Attack Action. So no you can not replace a melee attack granted by a Reactio with it.
There may be a feat or a Battlemaster maneuver that allows a grapple or a simmilar effect.
I would disagree but, I can see it working both ways for and against doing it.
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
Getting an OA allows you to make the single melee attack that is required to make a grapple or shove, that's argument for it. The argument against it, you obviously can't use the Attack action on your reaction, just the one melee attack.
I don't see how you can disagree here. Opportunity attacks don't use the attack action. Grappling/shoving requires the attack action. You quoted all the relevant sections.
Agree, the rules are quite clear that Grapple requires you to "use the Attack action." There's no wiggle room there, absent a specific feature that changes that requirement, you can't grapple with any old attack that you make as a Reaction or even Bonus Action.
Tavern Brawler notably lets you make a Grapple check as a Bonus Action after making an unarmed attack with your Attack Action, some monsters may have an attack entry that allows a grapple whenever its made (even if that attack is made as a reaction OA)... but I'm not aware of anything that would let a player character grapple with their OA as a reaction. If there were a spell that caused you to make a melee spell attack resulting in a grapple, presumably you could use that with War Caster, but I don't think there's anything published right now that would fit the bill.
I allow it at my table, makes for some fun, "hey, where the hell are you going" moments.
Following the letter of the book it's not allowed - but then again, following the letter of the law sometimes just makes no sense (I'm looking at you Sentinel gnome with a quarterstaff somehow poking a dragon and making it stop dead in its tracks!)
You should ask your DM, it really doesn't break anything... nor does it come up often enough that it would if it could.
It breaks quite a lot, since it allows a character to replicate a feat without taking that feat. Being able to guarantee that a monster can't walk past you to hit your backline is a very powerful ability for a Fighter or Barbarian to have.
It breaks quite a lot, since it allows a character to replicate a feat without taking that feat. Being able to guarantee that a monster can't walk past you to hit your backline is a very powerful ability for a Fighter or Barbarian to have.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what "breaking" is when referring to the game. I gave one of my player's Wizards proficiency with Light Armor instead of forcing him to take the Lightly Armored Feat once because it fit his character concept. In no way was that "breaking". Hell, I've even flat out given feats for free at first level on some campaigns.
Perhaps we play two different types of game. That's cool. My games are much more narrative than tactical. My group isn't a bunch of wargamers... we're just a bunch of old drunken bastards trying to pass the time and have a few laugh along the way.
It breaks quite a lot, since it allows a character to replicate a feat without taking that feat. Being able to guarantee that a monster can't walk past you to hit your backline is a very powerful ability for a Fighter or Barbarian to have.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what "breaking" is when referring to the game. I gave one of my player's Wizards proficiency with Light Armor instead of forcing him to take the Lightly Armored Feat once because it fit his character concept. In no way was that "breaking". Hell, I've even flat out given feats for free at first level on some campaigns.
Perhaps we play two different types of game. That's cool. My games are much more narrative than tactical. My group isn't a bunch of wargamers... we're just a bunch of old drunken bastards trying to pass the time and have a few laugh along the way.
I'm glad it works for your group. But in this forum for giving advice, it is important to provide the consequences along with said advice.
Applied at another table, your approach could cause some pretty hefty imbalances between characters, which leaves the weaker players feeling unhappy and frustrated. Essentially, you're doing a "sqeaky wheel gets the grease" approach where players can get significant bonuses as long as they ask for them. Some players might not feel comfortable asking for free stuff like that - especially when you can fit pretty much any character concept while sticking to the rules through multiclassing.
Someone might come to another table announcing their character concept is that they are a 300 year old elf that has studied every language and has four extra skill proficiencies. Once the door is open, there are players out there who will try it.
Back to OP's question, as CC pointed out the ability to prevent an enemy from leaving your range is extremely powerful. That's why the rules don't allow grapple OA's. Sentinel is one of the top feats you can take as a defender - maybe the best one - largely because of its ability to lock down the battlefield.
I doubt the players would complain if their fighter were given the opportunity to grapple as a reaction... but as soon as the orcs start doing it to the party's wizard, there might be a little bit more "hey, that's not how that works!" flying around. But as you say, Urandom, DMs can and usually do play by their own table rules that change things here and there, and finding ways to say "sure, why not" to your players is a good attitude to have, all things being equal. A DM should have a solid grasp of what the RAW rules are, but always be free to temper that with houserules that help them and their players have fun.
But as you say, Urandom, DMs can and usually do play by their own table rules that change things here and there, and finding ways to say "sure, why not" to your players is a good attitude to have, all things being equal.
Yeah man... when you've been playing with the same group since 2e, you guys have a pretty good relationship.
When I read some of the stuff posted on here, makes me realize how good I've got it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
...cryptographic randomness!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
With the opportunity attack, can you use it to try and grab the creature that provoked it?
Grappling and Shove are speacial uses of the Attack Action. So no you can not replace a melee attack granted by a Reactio with it.
There may be a feat or a Battlemaster maneuver that allows a grapple or a simmilar effect.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I would disagree but, I can see it working both ways for and against doing it.
"You can make an opportunity attack when a hostile creature that you can see moves out of your reach. To make the opportunity attack, you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature. The attack occurs right before the creature leaves your reach."
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
"Using the Attack action, you can make a special melee attack to shove a creature, either to knock it prone or push it away from you. If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."
Getting an OA allows you to make the single melee attack that is required to make a grapple or shove, that's argument for it. The argument against it, you obviously can't use the Attack action on your reaction, just the one melee attack.
I don't see how you can disagree here. Opportunity attacks don't use the attack action. Grappling/shoving requires the attack action. You quoted all the relevant sections.
Agree, the rules are quite clear that Grapple requires you to "use the Attack action." There's no wiggle room there, absent a specific feature that changes that requirement, you can't grapple with any old attack that you make as a Reaction or even Bonus Action.
Tavern Brawler notably lets you make a Grapple check as a Bonus Action after making an unarmed attack with your Attack Action, some monsters may have an attack entry that allows a grapple whenever its made (even if that attack is made as a reaction OA)... but I'm not aware of anything that would let a player character grapple with their OA as a reaction. If there were a spell that caused you to make a melee spell attack resulting in a grapple, presumably you could use that with War Caster, but I don't think there's anything published right now that would fit the bill.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sentinel Feat will allow you an AoO that reduces the mvs to 0 if it hits, that is the closest you get to a grapple at the moment without homebrew.
Attack: [roll]3d20dl2+6[/roll] Damage: [roll](if([roll:-1:critical], =0, 1d8, 2{1d8}.expand()))+4[/roll] Sneakattack: [roll](if([roll:-2:critical], =0, 2d6, 2{2d6}.expand()))[/roll]I allow it at my table, makes for some fun, "hey, where the hell are you going" moments.
Following the letter of the book it's not allowed - but then again, following the letter of the law sometimes just makes no sense (I'm looking at you Sentinel gnome with a quarterstaff somehow poking a dragon and making it stop dead in its tracks!)
You should ask your DM, it really doesn't break anything... nor does it come up often enough that it would if it could.
...cryptographic randomness!
It breaks quite a lot, since it allows a character to replicate a feat without taking that feat. Being able to guarantee that a monster can't walk past you to hit your backline is a very powerful ability for a Fighter or Barbarian to have.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
As an aside, you can grapple or shove as a Reaction by using Ready on your turn.
Perhaps we have different ideas of what "breaking" is when referring to the game.
I gave one of my player's Wizards proficiency with Light Armor instead of forcing him to take the Lightly Armored Feat once because it fit his character concept. In no way was that "breaking". Hell, I've even flat out given feats for free at first level on some campaigns.
Perhaps we play two different types of game. That's cool.
My games are much more narrative than tactical. My group isn't a bunch of wargamers... we're just a bunch of old drunken bastards trying to pass the time and have a few laugh along the way.
...cryptographic randomness!
I'm glad it works for your group. But in this forum for giving advice, it is important to provide the consequences along with said advice.
Applied at another table, your approach could cause some pretty hefty imbalances between characters, which leaves the weaker players feeling unhappy and frustrated. Essentially, you're doing a "sqeaky wheel gets the grease" approach where players can get significant bonuses as long as they ask for them. Some players might not feel comfortable asking for free stuff like that - especially when you can fit pretty much any character concept while sticking to the rules through multiclassing.
Someone might come to another table announcing their character concept is that they are a 300 year old elf that has studied every language and has four extra skill proficiencies. Once the door is open, there are players out there who will try it.
Back to OP's question, as CC pointed out the ability to prevent an enemy from leaving your range is extremely powerful. That's why the rules don't allow grapple OA's. Sentinel is one of the top feats you can take as a defender - maybe the best one - largely because of its ability to lock down the battlefield.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I doubt the players would complain if their fighter were given the opportunity to grapple as a reaction... but as soon as the orcs start doing it to the party's wizard, there might be a little bit more "hey, that's not how that works!" flying around. But as you say, Urandom, DMs can and usually do play by their own table rules that change things here and there, and finding ways to say "sure, why not" to your players is a good attitude to have, all things being equal. A DM should have a solid grasp of what the RAW rules are, but always be free to temper that with houserules that help them and their players have fun.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah man... when you've been playing with the same group since 2e, you guys have a pretty good relationship.
When I read some of the stuff posted on here, makes me realize how good I've got it.
...cryptographic randomness!