5.0 Grappling...... something missing?

[Bellberith]

okay i read and re-read the grapple rules a few times.

and unless im missing something or its written somewhere else. i do not see ANYTHING about weapons in grapples, pins in grapple, who is winning/losing a grapple, attacks during a grapple (this goes with the weapons in grapples...), advantage/disadvantage on one another in grapple and outside of it.

pretty much everything about grapples seems incomplete.

if anyone has any insight about this please tell me.

[Grynning]

I believe your answer is on page 290, in the Appendix of conditions. The Grappled condition is described there - all it basically does is make the grappled creature's speed 0, and you can move it with you as described on page 195. It has no other game effect, so creatures grappling or grappled can still make attacks, cast spells, etc as normal. The Grappler feat on page 167 gives you some additional options while grappling, but yeah, that's really all there is too it. It's not super realistic, but it's meant to be fast and easy.

[Bellberith]

I believe your answer is on page 290, in the Appendix of conditions. The Grappled condition is described there - all it basically does is make the grappled creature's speed 0, and you can move it with you as described on page 195. It has no other game effect, so creatures grappling or grappled can still make attacks, cast spells, etc as normal. The Grappler feat on page 167 gives you some additional options while grappling, but yeah, that's really all there is too it. It's not super realistic, but it's meant to be fast and easy.

it almost seems better to revert to 3.5 rules for grappling tbh....

[Grynning]

that's like putting a tourniquet on your neck because your head is bleeding...
I imagine they will add in optional "advanced" grappling rules at some point. They are pretty bare bones right now, but like I said, that's intentional. If you wanted to make it more meaningful of an option, you could make it so a grappled creature is not considered to have their hands free (so they can't cast spells with somatic components) and can only attack the creature they are grappling with a light weapon or unarmed strike.

[Bellberith]

that's like putting a tourniquet on your neck because your head is bleeding...
I imagine they will add in optional "advanced" grappling rules at some point. They are pretty bare bones right now, but like I said, that's intentional. If you wanted to make it more meaningful of an option, you could make it so a grappled creature is not considered to have their hands free (so they can't cast spells with somatic components) and can only attack the creature they are grappling with a light weapon or unarmed strike.

yea that would work.

[eastmabl]

it almost seems better to revert to 3.5 rules for grappling tbh....

And I bet that THAC0 and save vs. staves should come back while we're at it.

It's not perfect, but it's certainly not the mess that grappling in 3.5 was.

[Human Paragon 3]

What's wrong with the grappling rules? If you want to stop someone from moving or drag them away somewhere, it's an easy, intuitive way to do that. You can continue to attack one another, and if you are a good unarmed combatant, you can knock them prone and go to town on them using the normal combat rules.

As a fun aside, a prone person can't stand up while they're grappled because doing so costs movement. That's how you know who's winning the grapple - the loser is getting his ass kicked.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yeah its missing the flowcharts to try and explain how it works. Because they're not needed.

Probably in a future splat they will come out with more options, for now maybe just play a Monk and spam that Stunning Fist instead if you want to disable enemies with melee types. I seem to recall that doesn't have size restrictions either.

That will probably be the recipient of those future options anyways.

[Human Paragon 3]

I seem to recall that doesn't have size restrictions either.



It does have size requirements. Grapple targets must be your size or smaller. The Grappler feat enables you to grapple targets up to one size larger than you.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I was talking about Stunning Fist not having them.

[Human Paragon 3]

I was talking about Stunning Fist not having them.

Oh, yeah. Stunning fist is awesome.

[JRutterbush]

okay i read and re-read the grapple rules a few times.

and unless im missing something or its written somewhere else. i do not see ANYTHING about weapons in grapples, pins in grapple, who is winning/losing a grapple, attacks during a grapple (this goes with the weapons in grapples...), advantage/disadvantage on one another in grapple and outside of it.

pretty much everything about grapples seems incomplete.

if anyone has any insight about this please tell me.I think the problem here is that you're used to more complicated rules, and the simplicity here is throwing you off. The rules really are as simple as they look: you're not missing anything at all.

Weapons in a grapple: If you're using one hand to grapple, you can only attack with a one-handed weapon. They didn't need to make a special rule for this, because it's clear from how wielding weapons and using hands works.

Pins in a grapple: This comes from the Grappler feat. Normal people without the feat can't pin in grapples. Think of it this way: the average person can grab somebody, but if you're not trained in take-downs and pins (by taking the feat), you can't pin people.

Winning and losing a grapple: There is no such thing anymore. You're either grappled or you're not. You can grapple somebody that's grappling you using your action, but then you're just both grappled, nobody's "winning" or "losing".

Attacks during a grapple: Again, no need for a rule, since the rules work just fine the way they are. Attacking while grappled or while grappling someone else works just like it always does: you take the attack action, and make your attacks.

Advantage/disadvantage on a grapple: This comes with the Grappler feat as well, again representing that you need training to be truly effective in a grapple. Otherwise, there is no advantage or disadvantage just for grappling or being grappled.

[akaddk]

The problem with grapple isn't the grappling rules but rather people's interpretations of the word "grapple". Much like how hit points aren't always "hits" that do "damage", grappling is not rolling around in the dirt, greco-roman wrestling. It's merely having your hand on someone and preventing them from moving. That's it. No more, no less.

[1of3]

It is also very similiar to 4e, although that edition didn't use a contest but an attack roll vs. NAD.

[pikeamus]

Can a monk use flurry of blows after succeeding in grappling an opponent? I'm assuming not but I don't have the rules to hand to check. If so, that would be pretty cool as they might be able to grapple someone and prone them in the same turn (if you are an Open Hand monk - you could then fluff the damage as impact from a nice o soto gari).

It looks a bit rough for a monk that wants to grapple at the moment, with the checks all being strength (athletics) based and strength normally being only a tertiary stat at best for monks.

[Yuki Akuma]

Only after fifth level when he gets Extra Attack - then he can grapple, punch, then flurry.

Grappling is not a monk weapon, alas.

[charcoalninja]

Note that once someone is grappled you don't have to do anything to maintain it so you can grapple and use your bonus flurry action to prone the guy, then next round ground and pound him with your full compliment of attacks until the guy manages to escape your grapple.

[Human Paragon 3]

It looks a bit rough for a monk that wants to grapple at the moment, with the checks all being strength (athletics) based and strength normally being only a tertiary stat at best for monks.



If you were going for a grappling monk, you could dump dex and rely on disadvantage to be your shield. It'd be risky, but it'd allow you to max out Str and Wis.

The best class for crawling on top of someone and then punching him in the face until he dies might be rogue though. Get expertise in athletics and max out strength and dex. Grapple him then take him down, then just punch or stab the prone guy (with sneak attack) every round. He will have a lot of trouble escaping from your grapple when you have a +10 to the check and he has somewhere between 0 and 5 (unless he's also optimized athletics). A flesh golem (CR 5), for example, has a +4 to the check. You'd have to survive his two attacks per round (+7 to hit, with disadvantage) while your damage output would be around 19 damage per round (1d6+5, 2d6 sneak, 1d6 twf bonus attack). Should take you 5 rounds to take down the golem this way, by yourself. Stats assume a level 4 rogue with 20 strength.

[akaddk]

It's getting someone prone that is the problem. Unless you have an ability for it, there's no inherent way within the rules to do it. The rogue in the above example, for instance, couldn't unless he had the Grappler feat.

[Tessman the 2nd]

The shove action allows you to prone them

[Slipperychicken]

that's like putting a tourniquet on your neck because your head is bleeding...
I imagine they will add in optional "advanced" grappling rules at some point. They are pretty bare bones right now, but like I said, that's intentional. If you wanted to make it more meaningful of an option, you could make it so a grappled creature is not considered to have their hands free (so they can't cast spells with somatic components) and can only attack the creature they are grappling with a light weapon or unarmed strike.

Maybe they can give us a helpful flowchart to understand them, too.

[akaddk]

The shove action allows you to prone them

Sorry, tired, not thinking straight. I meant in the context of a grapple.

[emeraldstreak]

You're missing the feat.

[JRutterbush]

Only after fifth level when he gets Extra Attack - then he can grapple, punch, then flurry.

Grappling is not a monk weapon, alas.

Personally, I would consider a grapple or shove attempt to count as an unarmed strike. It doesn't deal any damage, but it's still something that's done unarmed. It technically wouldn't count, as the Monk's Martial Arts and Flurry of Blows abilities do specify unarmed strikes, but it's one of those things where there's a lot of sense in allowing it anyway.

[rlc]

i, for one, am glad that the rules aren't convoluted anymore.

[Human Paragon 3]

Why wouldn't you be able to take the shove action while in a grapple? All grappled does is make your movement 0. It doesn't restrict your combat options.

[pikeamus]

If you were going for a grappling monk, you could dump dex and rely on disadvantage to be your shield. It'd be risky, but it'd allow you to max out Str and Wis.

snip

That sounds like a lot to give up to get where I want. Doesn't particularly match my roleplay concept anyway, as I'd like to make a version of this guy (http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/marcelo-garcia-fighter-profile) (a real life hero of mine), and he doesn't do any strength training (though is of course still pretty strong) and relies on his speed, insane balance, and ridiulous sensitivity/positional awareness.

Grapple-stab rogue sounds pretty dangerous. And fun in it's own way. I wonder if it could be useful to multiclass to barbarian and get rage as well. I like the image of a savage fighter who'll drag you down to the ground and stab you repeatedly in the neck while screaming like a loon. Though probably that wouldn't suit me well - I have a hard time roleplaying anyone that isn't generally nice and smiley :)

[Yuki Akuma]

Sorry, tired, not thinking straight. I meant in the context of a grapple.

You can shove while grappling.

If you have two attacks, you could even grapple, then shove. You'd even still be grappling them despite not being prone! Somehow.

Maybe you're holding onto their legs or something I dunno

[Slipperychicken]

You can shove while grappling.

If you have two attacks, you could even grapple, then shove. You'd even still be grappling them despite not being prone! Somehow.

Maybe you're holding onto their legs or something I dunno

Maybe mounting the target and beating his brains out isn't considered prone in 5e? Or you're just kind of curbstomping the guy to prevent him from doing anything? Because I would totally give advantage for that.


That reminds me. I know what's missing in grappling: Limb-breaking and choking. They're so basic to fighting (ground-fighting in particular) that it just doesn't feel like a complete grapple system without them. It's weird to cover every sword and stick-based martial art under the sun in excruciating detail (with whole classes and sub-classes being made to represent specialists in each one!), then completely ignore the unarmed ground-fighting and techniques which even a child can perform, and which people have been doing for millennia.

[Dienekes]

You can shove while grappling.

If you have two attacks, you could even grapple, then shove. You'd even still be grappling them despite not being prone! Somehow.

Maybe you're holding onto their legs or something I dunno

Generally involves you leaning down on them, pinning them with your body and weight while you are still technically on your feet.

Then you start punching them, a lot. It's fun.

[Human Paragon 3]

That sounds like a lot to give up to get where I want. Doesn't particularly match my roleplay concept anyway, as I'd like to make a version of this guy (http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/marcelo-garcia-fighter-profile) (a real life hero of mine), and he doesn't do any strength training (though is of course still pretty strong) and relies on his speed, insane balance, and ridiulous sensitivity/positional awareness.

OK. This idea you'd have to pass by your GM, but there is a specific rule in the PHB that says if you can justify using a different ability score with a skill, you can do it. The example listed is tying intimidate to strength if you are using your strength and size to intimidate your opponent.

You could ask your DM to let you grapple with Dexterity (Athletics) instead of Strength (Athletics) and site Garcia as an example to prove how you're doing it. If he's a nice guy, he'll let you.

[pikeamus]

OK. This idea you'd have to pass by your GM, but there is a specific rule in the PHB that says if you can justify using a different ability score with a skill, you can do it. The example listed is tying intimidate to strength if you are using your strength and size to intimidate your opponent.

You could ask your DM to let you grapple with Dexterity (Athletics) instead of Strength (Athletics) and site Garcia as an example to prove how you're doing it. If he's a nice guy, he'll let you.

It actually mentions that in the PHB? That's pretty cool.

I rather like how this system expects the DM to actually make rules decisions, and puts the ball in their court in many situations.

For the 'grappling a prone opponent while standing' conversation: this sounds like knee on belly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knee-on-stomach) to me.

[akaddk]

Generally involves you leaning down on them, pinning them with your body and weight while you are still technically on your feet.
You couldn't pin them as that requires the Grappler feat.


It actually mentions that in the PHB? That's pretty cool.
This was in 4e as well. Unless you believe the people who say 4e had no influence on 5e, in which case carry on, nothing to see here.

[MadBear]

You couldn't pin them as that requires the Grappler feat.

I don't think he meant pin, as in the grappler ability. Someone made a comment about it not making sense to have 2 grappler's one of who was prone and the other was still standing. The pinning them with your knee is just visuallizing the grappled conditioned coupled with having them prone.

[HorridElemental]

The biggest problem my friends had wrapping their heads around grapple is that they think it is Greco roman wrestling ... When really it is a grab.

But WotC is afraidbof 4e right now so they couldn't call it grab :p

[akaddk]

The biggest problem my friends had wrapping their heads around grapple is that they think it is Greco roman wrestling ... When really it is a grab.

But WotC is afraidbof 4e right now so they couldn't call it grab :p

It's a grabble!

[Bellberith]

A big problem i see with the pin feature in the "grappler" feat is when you have them pinned. you are both considered "restrained". meaning you cant effectively attack the guy you are actually pining since the disadvantage cancels your advantage. so the guy who is pining you cant even do an effective "ground and pound" type thing due to mounting you and beating your face in. since he cant even get an advantage for doing so. seems like you are better off standing.

also if you are grappling someone and someone grapples you back then neither one of you can move anywhere and it doesnt list a check to try. or do they require you to "escape" your opponents grapple while holding onto to your own grapple in order to move the target?

you guys may say it is "simple". but in my opinion "simple" does not always mean "better". i prefer the 3.5 system for grapples just because atleast everything was clear. this one is not clear at all and has a ton of ambiguity.

Edit: to point out something else i noticed..... it says in the grapple rules that "the target of your grapple must be no more than 1 size category larger than you...." but in the grappler feat it says "creatures that are one size category larger than you dont automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple"

well that is an awkward way to write the exception to a rule that is not written.... because nowhere have i seen "creatures one size category larger than you automatically succeed on check to escape your grapple". yet here they say it like you should have known all along. but thats not the problem, the problem is why would they have it is nearly useless to even attempt to get a large creature into a grapple (assuming your medium) when he can just shrug you off no matter how strong you are. he can be a 10str large weakling something being grappled by a 24str barbarian and just say "sorry bro, im a bit taller so this is a no-go, cya!" and just walk away.

i am not trying to rant about 5.0, so far i really like almost everything about it. especially the changes to monk/rogue/fighter/warlock, most the classes are really cool now. but the grapple "system" is by far my biggest gripe.

[rlc]

Edit: to point out something else i noticed..... it says in the grapple rules that "the target of your grapple must be no more than 1 size category larger than you...." but in the grappler feat it says "creatures that are one size category larger than you dont automatically succeed on checks to escape your grapple"

well that is an awkward way to write the exception to a rule that is not written.... because nowhere have i seen "creatures one size category larger than you automatically succeed on check to escape your grapple". yet here they say it like you should have known all along. but thats not the problem, the problem is why would they have it is nearly useless to even attempt to get a large creature into a grapple (assuming your medium) when he can just shrug you off no matter how strong you are. he can be a 10str large weakling something being grappled by a 24str barbarian and just say "sorry bro, im a bit taller so this is a no-go, cya!" and just walk away.


here's my take on that:
one of the design philosophies was that if something can realistically be done without a check, then it should just automatically succeed and not require one. so, a 24 strength barbarian probably shouldn't need to check their strength against a 10 strength monster in order to grapple it. likewise, a 24 strength large monster probably shouldn't have to check its strength against a 10 strength wizard trying to grapple it. the much higher strength would automatically succeed, but it's not spelled out because it's not a hard and fast rule. with this feat, it doesn't.
this is just my interpretation, though. it might have been clearer if they said that the auto-success rule for much higher ability scores doesn't apply to this feat.

[Bellberith]

here's my take on that:
one of the design philosophies was that if something can realistically be done without a check, then it should just automatically succeed and not require one. so, a 24 strength barbarian probably shouldn't need to check their strength against a 10 strength monster in order to grapple it. likewise, a 24 strength large monster probably shouldn't have to check its strength against a 10 strength wizard trying to grapple it. the much higher strength would automatically succeed, but it's not spelled out because it's not a hard and fast rule. with this feat, it doesn't.
this is just my interpretation, though. it might have been clearer if they said that the auto-success rule for much higher ability scores doesn't apply to this feat.

The feat isnt what gives an auto-success. apparently being 1 size category larger does.

[rlc]

The feat isnt what gives an auto-success. apparently being 1 size category larger does.
the feat does the opposite of grant auto-success; it denies it.
but, i don't think that being 1 size category larger grants auto-success to escaping a grapple, otherwise it would say so. it's definitely awkward wording, but i wouldn't read more into it than just that they worded it awkwardly. i'm thinking that if being 1 size larger is normally an auto-success to breaking the grapple, then they wouldn't have said in the original text that you can grapple up to 1 size larger and that text would be in the feat instead.

[Bellberith]

the feat does the opposite of grant auto-success; it denies it.
but, i don't think that being 1 size category larger grants auto-success to escaping a grapple, otherwise it would say so. it's definitely awkward wording, but i wouldn't read more into it than just that they worded it awkwardly. i'm thinking that if being 1 size larger is normally an auto-success to breaking the grapple, then they wouldn't have said in the original text that you can grapple up to 1 size larger and that text would be in the feat instead.

How is it awkward wording when it says this exactly....

"Creatures that are one size larger than you don't automatically success on checks to escape your grapple."

and it is not like some random sentence in the middle of a paragraph, it is one of the points of the feat and the only sentence on that point.

The wording is pretty clear here. The problem with that is the original rule is nowhere to be found.

[rlc]

because if the original rule is nowhere to be found, then you shouldn't just assume that it's a rule.

[Bellberith]

because if the original rule is nowhere to be found, then you shouldn't just assume that it's a rule.

Why would they put an exception to a rule that doesn't exist?

And besides that whole thing. what about the other stuff lol. I sincerely hope they come out with a supplement for grapples.

[rlc]

that's why i said that it's worded awkwardly.
if it were a hard and fast rule that monsters one size larger than you would always break out of your grapples, then it would make no sense to say that you could grapple them in the first place.
but, since you can grapple them and this feat says that once you have it, they can't just break out, my interpretation is defaulting to the "no checks for obvious results" rules philosophy. to me, that makes the most sense of the rule and the feat, but if that was what they intended, then it could have been worded a lot better. but, again, this is just my interpretation.

as for the other stuff, i don't have the book, so i can't really answer it.

[Dienekes]

Why would they put an exception to a rule that doesn't exist?

And besides that whole thing. what about the other stuff lol. I sincerely hope they come out with a supplement for grapples.

WotC do have a history of making rules changes and forgetting to edit everything else those changes affected.