5.0 can you substitute a attack of opportunity to grapple?

[Bellberith]

as title. please quote phb arguement in group

[Shadow]

PHB, page 195

Opportunity attacks use your reaction.
Grapple attacks use your action.
You can't use your action during your reaction, all you can do for an OA is take a melee attack (unless you have somehting which allows you to take a different OA reaction. So you can't grapple as an OA.

[fishyfishyfishy]

PHB, page 195

Opportunity attacks use your reaction.
Grapple attacks use your action.
You can't take an action during your reaction. So you can't grapple as an OA.

This.

Also keep in mind that there is a stickied thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?366424-Simple-Q-amp-A-D-amp-D-5-%28by-RAW%29-I) for this type of thing.

[rlc]

i don't have the phb right now, but the basic rules say that "you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple...[or] this attack replaces one of [your multiple attacks]," so unless you use your attack action to make an opportunity attack, then I would say no.
but like i said that's off of the basic rules alone.

[Totema]

Oof... I'd like to be able to answer without doubt but I'm not entirely sure myself. My interpretation is, by RAW, no you can't, because you can only grapple as a substitute for an attack action, while opportunity attacks use your reaction instead.

[Vowtz]

Grapple says it requires an attack action(page 105), AoO is not an attack action, attack actions can be done on your turn.(page 192)


That said most rules in this edition are not really clear, and much is on DMs hands, so, even if by raw it would be impossible, knowing the fact that raw sucks I, as a DM, would allow it.

[Totema]

Grapple says it requires an attack action(page 105), AoO is not an attack action, attack actions can be done on your turn.(page 192)


That said most rules in this edition are not really clear, and much is on DMs hands, so, even if by raw it would be impossible, knowing the fact that raw sucks I, as a DM, would allow it.

Wow, are you for real or are you just screwing with us? Because your logic looks a lot like "Even though it's pretty plainly written in the PHB that they are different things, there's a couple other unrelated inconsistencies in different parts of the PHB, so I'm fine with whatever you want." Yeah I know I went on a big tract about the importance of DM interpretation earlier, but the rules aren't even close to that ill-defined in this case. An action is definitely not a reaction.

I'm not trying to say that houseruling that you can grapple as a reaction, or even in general, is not a valid option. If you want that in your game, by all means do so. But a few open-ended mechanics don't somehow totally invalidate places where the RAW actually is specific!

[Cambrian]

Wow, are you for real or are you just screwing with us? Because your logic looks a lot like "Even though it's pretty plainly written in the PHB that they are different things, there's a couple other unrelated inconsistencies in different parts of the PHB, so I'm fine with whatever you want." Yeah I know I went on a big tract about the importance of DM interpretation earlier, but the rules aren't even close to that ill-defined in this case. An action is definitely not a reaction.It's almost as though he cares more about fun, enjoying a flowing game, and jointly telling a story among friends than following the rules to the letter.

Honestly, assuming the character had both hands free, I'd also allow a character to grapple with an AoO. Who cares exactly what the rules say-- it makes sense and I want my players to do creative and fun things.

[Shadow]

The only problem with allowing it against the RAW is that any character can grapple, and that grappled enemies' movement becomes zero. So allowing it basically gives absolutely any character (or enemy) the ability to interrupt and stop an enemy's movement.

If you were to houserule that it were possible, you should probably add it as a beneift of the Grappler feat instead of blanket allowances.

[Vowtz]

Wow, are you for real or are you just screwing with us? Because your logic looks a lot like "Even though it's pretty plainly written in the PHB that they are different things, there's a couple other unrelated inconsistencies in different parts of the PHB, so I'm fine with whatever you want." Yeah I know I went on a big tract about the importance of DM interpretation earlier, but the rules aren't even close to that ill-defined in this case. An action is definitely not a reaction.

I'm not trying to say that houseruling that you can grapple as a reaction, or even in general, is not a valid option. If you want that in your game, by all means do so. But a few open-ended mechanics don't somehow totally invalidate places where the RAW actually is specific! Calm down man, I'm just going with the flow.

We already know the rules in 5e were not written with great atention to details, maybe they did not want to refer to attack action per se, who knows? I am aware that by raw you are absolutely right.

[rlc]

if they weren't referring to the attack action per se, then they would have just said an attack.

[Mandrake]

I would rule no:

[1] Because of already mentioned RAW.
[2] Because of Sentinel feat, which gives you pretty much that ability.
[3] Because, if we talk fluff, I can imagine that it is really hard to get hold of someone as a reaction - it's ok to wildly slam into his direction, as in attack. I would rule that you can use your ready action to a trigger such as enemy moving, and then grab him. (Like when you watch rugby and the guy is standing with his arms wide, ready to grab the opposing team member once he approaches near). I don't know if I explained this clearly, but: grabbing is a reaction arguably requires mega Jackie Chan skills *really hard so no*, but you can ready your action and get him if he moves.