Is grappling overpowered?

[MustacheFart]

So, I just got done with a session of my HOTDQ group this past weekend. Prior to that we leveled. I am playing a Half Orc bear totem barbarian 5 / rogue 1 so this was my first time as a part rogue. I put expertise into athletics and stealth.

Well we're in the castle in the swamp part. We've actually been in the castle for a few sessions. In a previous session we cleared out 85% of the muddy dungeon underneath only to leave to go back up top due to a lawful stupid paladin convincing the majority of the party to do so... Right before we found Farblex Splattergoo or the teleporter.

Anyway, last session we chased ressmir and a thay wizard back down into the muddy room. We ran into Farblex instead.

My barbarian raged and went to grapple Farblex. I then flipped him over and kept him that way the entire fight while the party fought the bullywugs he brought along.

Now the DM openly chose not to try and get out of the grapples because he stated "there's no point as your bonus is too high to make it possible!" I feel like this was unfair without him trying.

Later that session at the hunting lodge, the party was trying to work a deal presented by the evil talis but the cleric and I didn't want a part of that. The cleric castes silence on talis and I grappled her.

This time the DM did try and break out. Despite advantage through raging she broke out the next round. Then she jumped out the window, I followed and grappled her again. She never got out again.

After the session was over the DM stated that he was pissed off about my grappling. I tried to explain that yes I'm good at but it was largely the advantage from raging not just the bonus. He then responded with "well you're always raging." which is a lie as we had no long rests so I conserved my two rages for important fights.

When I gained bear totem resistances the DM started ignoring my "tank" character to attack others. Now I resort to grappling to get some control on being the tank and that's a problem.

Is grappling really that overpowered?


Sorry for long post.

[Giant2005]

Grappling isn't really OP. All it does is set someone's movement to 0 but it is great for tanking purposes - as long as you are the only one in range, you are the only one getting hit.

[Ralanr]

I don't believe so. It locks you down to at most two people (but then you couldn't attack, and you might lose your rage) of medium size or smaller. It's a pretty good way to control the battlefield.

I'm not really sure on grappling creatures large or higher, but if you can't grapple those then it's not really broken. At most it'd be situationally overpowered.

Side: are they any specifics about throwing enemies or is that more of an improvised thing?

[MustacheFart]

I don't believe so. It locks you down to at most two people (but then you couldn't attack, and you might lose your rage) of medium size or smaller. It's a pretty good way to control the battlefield.

I'm not really sure on grappling creatures large or higher, but if you can't grapple those then it's not really broken. At most it'd be situationally overpowered.

Side: are they any specifics about throwing enemies or is that more of an improvised thing?

1) you can grapple a creature no bigger than 1 size larger. So a large creature can be grappled by a medium character.

2) you can move someone grappled as part of your move at half speed. So you could do that to throw someone off a cliff.

[Ralanr]

1) you can grapple a creature no bigger than 1 size larger. So a large creature can be grappled by a medium character.

2) you can move someone grappled as part of your move at half speed. So you could do that to throw someone off a cliff.

So you could only throw them about 5 feet? Huh. I was just wondering since aspect of the bear doubles carry weight and max lift. Assuming I did my math right (I've seen a higher weight calculation than what I got. I'm still not sure if it's lb or kg.) you can have a max lift of 1200 lb with 20 strength. I was wondering if this meant I could throw ogres at people or smash them against a wall repeatedly by grabbing their leg.

[HoarsHalberd]

1) you can grapple a creature no bigger than 1 size larger. So a large creature can be grappled by a medium character.

2) you can move someone grappled as part of your move at half speed. So you could do that to throw someone off a cliff.

Once they're grappled, many DM's may let you treat them as an object and thus take an action to lift and throw them with an athletics check.

[Ralanr]

Once they're grappled, many DM's may let you treat them as an object and thus take an action to lift and throw them with an athletics check.

Yeah I think my DM did do that.

Hmm...now I just need to find a way to increase my character's size temporarily. Then I'll be one step closer to my dream of grabbing dragons by the tail and swinging them like rag dolls.

But yeah, grappling is no more overpowered than most other things. It's a very useful tactic, but that's only if you're in a party that can make use of the opening you've given, or if there is a cliff nearby and your target can't fly.

[Slipperychicken]

Did you remember to Shove your targets prone after grappling them? That means he gets disadvantage on attacks, you and your melee allies would get advantage to hit the target, and he would have an extremely hard time getting away (has to spend an action to break out of the grapple, then spend half his movement standing up, so he can only run half his speed even if he breaks out).

Personally, I see it as strong, but I don't know about broken. You dedicate a large part of your build, and sacrifice at least two attacks for tanking, CC, and debuff against single targets who are your size or smaller. It seems good when you're fighting opponents who fit those constraints and aren't immune. Not so good for mobs, big enemies, or foes which are otherwise immune.

[Gwendol]

Grappling is great at locking down enemies. If you have a rogue (or are a rogue) it's even better since you can shove the target prone. Since movement is zero they can't get up, thus granting everyone advantage (and the rogue SA).

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Grappling mechanics per se arn't the problem. Monster strength scores just arn't competitive with the athletics bonus that a barbarian or rogue can bring to the table. A werewolf has +2, a yeti has +4, and even the strongest of colossal creatures might have a +8 or +9. The only thing that keeps grapple builds under control is the size limitation.

I can think of a number of approaches to try to balance this out, but treating the numbers in grapple checks as DM Fiat per-situation is probably the easiest. Though, I'll also note that DMs might want to draw a distinction between wrestling/grappling/other contests of skill, and contests of pure strength. A halfling peasant can out-armwrestle anything in the game if the peasant rolls a 20 and the creature rolls a 1. I'd say that sort of a thing is a case of the dice harming verisimilitude too much.

[Slipperychicken]

Grappling is great at locking down enemies. If you have a rogue (or are a rogue) it's even better since you can shove the target prone. Since movement is zero they can't get up, thus granting everyone advantage (and the rogue SA).

The Rogue already gets SA from an ally (in this case the Barbarian/Rogue) being adjacent to the target.

[MustacheFart]

I guess because I potentially shut down two boss level npcs the DM felt it was overpowered.

Sometimes I hate being a "skilled" player.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

if you keep doing that you're essentially stopping the DM from using medium and large size bosses so yeah its a problem.

i mean there's always force spells though.

[MustacheFart]

Then again it's not my fault so maybe I'll wait til we fight a huge dragon. Then I'll have our cleric increase my size so I can grapple and flip it prone too.

[MustacheFart]

if you keep doing that you're essentially stopping the DM from using medium and large size bosses so yeah its a problem.

i mean there's always force spells though.

How am I stopping the DM from using medium or large sized bosses? All I am doing is stopping their movement and debuffing them. They can still cast spells or even attack anyone in range. This isn't the spell Hold Person or anything of the sort.

So my barbarian should actually think "better not grapple him. He's controlled by the powers that be. They wouldn't like that."? In this case I think what would my character do applies.

[Slipperychicken]

Then again it's not my fault so maybe I'll wait til we fight a huge dragon. Then I'll have our cleric increase my size so I can grapple and flip it prone too.

To be honest, getting huge and holding the dragon down makes much more tactical sense than stabbing its toes with a magic toothpick. See if you can get flight too, so you can catch it in the air if it decides to fly off.

[MustacheFart]

To be honest, getting huge and holding the dragon down makes much more tactical sense than stabbing its toes with a magic toothpick. See if you can get flight too, so you can catch it in the air if it decides to fly off.

It's funny because when I grappled Farblex the DM threatened to have Farblex simply eat me (DM made a couple changes to Farblex to power him up due to our larger party size). I told him go for it! I really wish he had.

Step 1) resist that acid damage in stomache.

Step 2) continually sneak attack each round until Farblex is dead.

Step 3) grab sides of Farblex and push feat down. Then punch arms through sides.

Step 4) open mouth hole to smile at party in your new kermet the frog suit.

[Person_Man]

No, Grappling is not overpowered. You're just dealing with a classic metagame issue.

The problem is that "low-Tier" builds (which really isn't a thing in 5E, but you know what I mean) can only be optimized for a very limited number of things for combat. So if the DM is running a combat heavy campaign, and the player does the things he's optimized for over and over again, it can be boring and/or appear "broken" to the DM.

I would just buy your DM a six pack of beer and talk about it. In combat, your character is only effective at dealing damage, taking damage, and succeeding on a small number of Skills. What else does he expect you to do? Would the game be more fun for both of you if you played a caster or Monk or whatever, which have a wider variety of resources?

[Mr.Moron]

It's not overpowered, as it really doesn't do that much. It is poorly designed in that it's one of the (only?) type of combat abilities that you can double your proficiency bonus on and trivially get advantage. This means it's pretty binary. If a grappler is around either something is immune to grappling for one reason or another, or it is grappled.

[MustacheFart]

No, Grappling is not overpowered. You're just dealing with a classic metagame issue.

The problem is that "low-Tier" builds (which really isn't a thing in 5E, but you know what I mean) can only be optimized for a very limited number of things for combat. So if the DM is running a combat heavy campaign, and the player does the things he's optimized for over and over again, it can be boring and/or appear "broken" to the DM.

I would just buy your DM a six pack of beer and talk about it. In combat, your character is only effective at dealing damage, taking damage, and succeeding on a small number of Skills. What else does he expect you to do? Would the game be more fun for both of you if you played a caster or Monk or whatever, which have a wider variety of resources?

Well I don't believe two npcs constitutes over and over again. It may have felt like that on a per round basis but 1 of the fights he never tried to get out of the grapple. Also the party wizard casted a mass debuff during that fight on the enemies and the DM had no issue. That's magic racism. That's magicism for lack of a better word lol.

I'm having fun doing it so not sure why I should give up a character I've put a lot of effort into regarding roleplaying and backstory. Also I was planning to originally be a monk but a DM snaffu prevented that. Now someone else is playing a monk. :(

I did email the DM to see what he'd like me to do in combats. If his response is run in and hit stuff, my barbarian is walking off into the sunset.

[Gritmonger]

Well I don't believe two npcs constitutes over and over again. It may have felt like that on a per round basis but 1 of the fights he never tried to get out of the grapple. Also the party wizard casted a mass debuff during that fight on the enemies and the DM had no issue. That's magic racism. That's magicism for lack of a better word lol.

I'm having fun doing it so not sure why I should give up a character I've put a lot of effort into regarding roleplaying and backstory. Also I was planning to originally be a monk but a DM snaffu prevented that. Now someone else is playing a monk. :(

I did email the DM to see what he'd like me to do in combats. If his response is run in and hit stuff, my barbarian is walking off into the sunset.

Well, remind the DM that movement zero does not stop attacks or actions, far as my reading of it goes... let me know if I'm wrong on that, but grappled != immobilized and grappled != incapacitated....

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It may have felt like that on a per round basis but 1 of the fights he never tried to get out of the grapple.
the odds of escaping a grapple against - say - a +9 bonus with advantage are pretty damn slim. off the cuff... 1 in 8? Maybe less.

and you'll just grapple the critter again next round.

so yes, it would have been a waste of an action. The DM presumably recognized that - that's probably why the DM is pissy.


No, Grappling is not overpowered. You're just dealing with a classic metagame issue.

The problem is that "low-Tier" builds (which really isn't a thing in 5E, but you know what I mean) can only be optimized for a very limited number of things for combat. So if the DM is running a combat heavy campaign, and the player does the things he's optimized for over and over again, it can be boring and/or appear "broken" to the DM.

The investment for a 'grappler build' is trivial. You don't need to be an optimized roguebarb to outgrapple everything in the game. You pretty much just need to be a str barbarian. PC metagame has little to do with it - the incompetence of monsters at grappling is far more relevant.

[Cazero]

If your DM throw caster solo bosses at you, he can only blame himself for your appropriate strategy. Grappling as part of squashing a caster in red goo is perfectly sound and legitimate.
All he needs to do is to throw a few minions in the fight and suddenly you can't grapple the main villain without your own casters getting swarmed to death. You first have to muscle trough the fight, at wich point you have bragging rights on your grappling win ticket.

[MrStabby]

I have to say that grappling is good but it is only good in a few combats.

Firstly you need to get up close. If your DM doesn't used ranged combatants behind obstacles or otherwise attack from distance then he is running a pretty narrow set of encounters.

Likewise if everything you are up against is large or smaller then it is not to use the full range of encounters.

In addition the DM has no need to just throw small numbers of tough enemies against you. He can also throw hordes of small numbers of enemies against you.

All in all it is possible that grappling can be very, very useful and in those cases you will shine but in the full range of available combats that can be thrown at you it is more reasonable.

[Solusek]

So why didn't Pharblex just cast spells or make attacks against you with his actions? It seems to me that grappling him in place wouldn't be that big of a deal to the DM.

I guess if Pharblex plan was to run away from combat or to move up and hit your spell casters or something, then you are denying him those choice of actions, but he still gets to act every turn. Looking at the module it appears that Pharblex is a spell caster, which means he has tons of stuff he can still do to affect the battle while grappled - even if he didn't want to spend actions attacking your barbarian.

I guess I don't see the problem here, either.

[Vogonjeltz]

Is grappling really that overpowered?

Nah, it's pretty reasonable, carries some drawbacks, and it uses up at least one of your attacks, so you're giving up something to get an initially minor advantage.

Importantly, it also doesn't stop your enemy from hitting you, just moving.

[MustacheFart]

So why didn't Pharblex just cast spells or make attacks against you with his actions? It seems to me that grappling him in place wouldn't be that big of a deal to the DM.

I guess if Pharblex plan was to run away from combat or to move up and hit your spell casters or something, then you are denying him those choice of actions, but he still gets to act every turn. Looking at the module it appears that Pharblex is a spell caster, which means he has tons of stuff he can still do to affect the battle while grappled - even if he didn't want to spend actions attacking your barbarian.

I guess I don't see the problem here, either.

He did have pharblex use a little magic and otherwise he attacked just me. The problem was he had disadvantage from being prone and my AC is 18. So he only hit me a couple times.

On talis the caster he said after the fact that she had freedom of movement and probably should've casted that before her dinner we attended. I can't help but think there's little reason outside some future divination she'd have the foresight to do it. Also I kinda felt like "sorry. Should've looked over her spells ahead of time."

I guess if talking to my DM doesnt pan out very much and I see freedom of movement casted a lot I'll have to pick up Mage Slayer. That's a concentration spell right?

[Galen]

When I gained bear totem resistances the DM started ignoring my "tank" character to attack others.

That's a problem.


Now I resort to grappling to get some control on being the tank and that's a problem.That's not a problem. That's an attempt at solution.

[Mr.Moron]

I guess if talking to my DM doesnt pan out very much and I see freedom of movement casted a lot I'll have to pick up Mage Slayer. That's a concentration spell right?

Do not try and get in an arms race with the GM. You will


A) Lose
B) Disrupt the game while you lose.

[MustacheFart]

Do not try and get in an arms race with the GM. You will


A) Lose
B) Disrupt the game while you lose.


While I totally agree with you, it's kind of par for the course with this DM. But I didn't want to make this thread about that. I wanted to see if there was legitimately anything wrong with grapple this edition. Something that maybe I wasn't seeing.

[Chronos]

He did have pharblex use a little magic and otherwise he attacked just me. The problem was he had disadvantage from being prone and my AC is 18. So he only hit me a couple times.
Neither one of those would do a thing against Thunderwave, which would also incidentally get him out of the grapple. Though admittedly your Con saves were also probably pretty good... in which case he could instead use any other spell that uses a save instead of an attack roll.

[Gwendol]

Neither one of those would do a thing against Thunderwave, which would also incidentally get him out of the grapple. Though admittedly your Con saves were also probably pretty good... in which case he could instead use any other spell that uses a save instead of an attack roll.

Yup, which is why grappling is not OP but a reasonable tactic for those with aptitude for it.


The Rogue already gets SA from an ally (in this case the Barbarian/Rogue) being adjacent to the target. Yes, unless it's the rogue doing the grappling. Also, which I forgot to explicitly mention, the prone enemy has disadvantage in melee, which benefits the rogue as well seeing it is likely a softer target than the barbarian.

[Malifice]

Non-usability on huge and larger things is a big bummer.

Also, as written, Grapple doesnt really stop them from doing anything aside from moving. Even if you knock them prone as well, it only grants advantage on attacks which is of itself not that game breaking.

Pinning (for those with the Grappler feat) is much worse, but even then it shuts both the PC and the NPC down at the same time.

I find with 5e, the whole 'one solo encounter' thing is a thing of the past. Most encounters will feature multiple smaller creatures (minions if you will) plus a few heavy hitters (brutes) and a single nasty monster. Encouter design in 5th is a lot closer to how it works in 4th edition than any other edition. Legendary creatures are the main exception here, and they are generally Huge+ or have other methods of avoiding grapples (flight helps).

I see nothing wrong with allowing a strong grapple build a bit of lockdown fun from time to time. It takes the grappler (usually the Fighter/ Rogue or Barbarian) more or less out of the fight in exchange for a single Large or smaller creature getting taken down as well. In a battle featuring a good mix of mooks and one or more brute types, its a most often not the best exchange for the party to make.

For what its worth, I made a few changes in my house rules.


Legendary creatures can expend a use of legendary resistance to automatically succeed in an opposed athletics check to defeat a combat manouver such as grapple or shove, in addition to expending one to pass a save.
If you are larger size than your opponent, you have advantage on the grapple checks.
Grappled was made a tougher condition (requiring opposed athletics checks to cast a spell or move at half speed, and limiting attacks while grappled to light weapons, natural attacks and special abilities).
If one creature is forced prone in a grapple, everyone grappling either goes prone too (the domino effect) or releases the grapple.
Everyone in a grapple, has the grappled condition.
Pinned (incapacitated) creatures cant take any action (aside from escape the grapple) and cant cast spells unless those spells have verbal only components or no components at all. It is the pin initiators choice to cover the mouth or not. Other special abilities may be used by those grappling (DM's call) depending on the ability.
Slight changes to the Grappler and tavern brawler feats to conform to the above.

[Psikerlord]

This kind of grappling build is another good example of why allowing MCing is a bad idea. It breaks things unnecessarily.

[mephnick]

I find with 5e, the whole 'one solo encounter' thing is a thing of the past.

To be fair it's never really been a thing.

[Ralanr]

To be fair it's never really been a thing.

I have the urge to put that in my signature. Sadly I'm not a veteran enough player to really back that up.

[Xetheral]

This kind of grappling build is another good example of why allowing MCing is a bad idea. It breaks things unnecessarily.

True, multiclassing dramatically increases the number of possible rules interactions, thus increasing the possibility that someone will end up with a problematic combination of class features. However, it's still only a risk, not a certainty, and problematic combinations can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis at the table.

At the same time, by dramatically expanding the number of options for character building, permitting multiclassing enables players who love mechanical flexibility (whether for its own sake or to better match a character concept) to play at the same table as players who prefer a simpler system with fewer choices.

Rather than breaking things unnecessarily, I believe multiclassing makes the system appeal to a wider audience of players at the small cost of making the DM's life only slightly more complicated.

(Furthermore, multiclassing can be a useful tool to *achieve* balance at tables where certain classes are perceived as more powerful than others. In 3.5, for example, strongly encouraging multiclassing is a useful tool for addressing some of the imbalances.)

[Person_Man]

This kind of grappling build is another good example of why allowing MCing is a bad idea. It breaks things unnecessarily.

Bard is actually the most uber of Grapplers. Expertise, Enhance Ability, Extra Attack, Cutting Words, Enlarge/Reduce, etc.

But your general point is largely true, its a bad idea to multiclass unless you know what you're doing and your DM is 100% on board with it.

[Easy_Lee]

Bard is actually the most uber of Grapplers. Expertise, Enhance Ability, Extra Attack, Cutting Words, Enlarge/Reduce, etc.

But your general point is largely true, its a bad idea to multiclass unless you know what you're doing and your DM is 100% on board with it.

In addition to this, there are plenty enough ways to deal with a grappler that I'm surprised your DM didn't think of using any. Short range teleportation, staying out of range, push spells such as repelling Eldritch blast, creatures immune to being grappled at all (such as oozes), and freedom of movement in extreme cases are just a few of the things I might consider.

[MustacheFart]

This kind of grappling build is another good example of why allowing MCing is a bad idea. It breaks things unnecessarily.

What does this kind of grappling build break? That's what I don't get. How is it any different than a spellcasters maxing their primary stat in order to be as good of a caster as possible? It's just a build that's good at grappling. There's plenty of ways to get around a grapple:

1) be huge or bigger. Sorry no grapple. (Gargantuan or larger vs enlarged grappler)

2) cast freedom of movement

3) cast any spell that removes the grappler from the equation

4) have whatever is being grappled use poison. Poison the grappler to increase chances of escape.

So what does it break again other than lazy DMing?

[Gritmonger]

Ooh! Oil of Slipperiness! DM could just have every big bad carry one vial of this, if he's really worried... It's uncommon, even...

[Mr.Moron]

What does this kind of grappling build break? That's what I don't get. How is it any different than a spellcasters maxing their primary stat in order to be as good of a caster as possible? It's just a build that's good at grappling. There's plenty of ways to get around a grapple:

1) be huge or bigger. Sorry no grapple. (Gargantuan or larger vs enlarged grappler)

2) cast freedom of movement

3) cast any spell that removes the grappler from the equation

4) have whatever is being grappled use poison. Poison the grappler to increase chances of escape.

So what does it break again other than lazy DMing?

The fact that solutions 1-3 are effectively "Be immune to grapple" is exactly why the mechanic is degenerate. Against a grappling build, things are either immune grappled or grappled. It's just not very interesting space to be designing encounters for because it's so damn binary.

Especially considering that depending on the thrust of the adventure often either everything commonly dealt will be immune to grappled or nothing commonly dealt with will be.

It's not overpowered but it's still terribly designed. It's the same reason I ban all no-save spells and used to ban/modify 1-save encounter stoppers back in the 3.P era.

[Shining Wrath]

So this poses the following problem for the DM:

If he (or she) has an encounter featuring
1) A suitable candidate (size, not ethereal etc) for grappling
2) Candidate from (1) cannot function effectively while grappled
3) Rest of encounter is easy for rest of party
4) Candidate from (1) has few or no defenses against being grappled - flight, mobility, mooks in the way, salamander heat, ...

Then yes, high grappling skill allows the grappler to make that encounter trivial.
However, how many encounters satisfy all of those conditions? For example, why didn't the bullywugs get in between the barbarian and the spell caster? What this DM needs are higher caliber mooks.

[Ralanr]

The fact that solutions 1-3 are effectively "Be immune to grapple" is exactly why the mechanic is degenerate. Against a grappling build, things are either immune grappled or grappled. It's just not very interesting space to be designing encounters for because it's so damn binary.

Especially considering that depending on the thrust of the adventure often either everything commonly dealt will be immune to grappled or nothing commonly dealt with will be.

It's not overpowered but it's still terribly designed. It's the same reason I ban all no-save spells and used to ban/modify 1-save encounter stoppers back in the 3.P era.

At least it doesn't require two flow charts. Plus with the improvised actions concept you can somewhat get around the faults of grappling (Not to reach the same effect mind you). Maybe jump up and grapple around the neck of your opponent to choke them? Or (if you you have significant max lift) grab a big enemy by their leg and throw them like a rag doll.

[Shining Wrath]

The fact that solutions 1-3 are effectively "Be immune to grapple" is exactly why the mechanic is degenerate. Against a grappling build, things are either immune grappled or grappled. It's just not very interesting space to be designing encounters for because it's so damn binary.

Especially considering that depending on the thrust of the adventure often either everything commonly dealt will be immune to grappled or nothing commonly dealt with will be.

It's not overpowered but it's still terribly designed. It's the same reason I ban all no-save spells and used to ban/modify 1-save encounter stoppers back in the 3.P era.

There's also "hard to reach because mobile", "hard to reach because mooks are in the way", "there are several foes, all equally dangerous, so grappling one is not a game changer", "mooks will swarm the grappler if he grapples the wizard", and so on.

[Forum Explorer]

No you didn't do anything wrong. Your DM just isn't as good as you are at thinking creatively.



In addition to this, there are plenty enough ways to deal with a grappler that I'm surprised your DM didn't think of using any. Short range teleportation, staying out of range, push spells such as repelling Eldritch blast, creatures immune to being grappled at all (such as oozes), and freedom of movement in extreme cases are just a few of the things I might consider.

I think they are playing a premade adventure, and the DM doesn't seem flexible enough to throw in these sort of targets.

[Ralanr]

There's also "hard to reach because mobile", "hard to reach because mooks are in the way", "there are several foes, all equally dangerous, so grappling one is not a game changer", "mooks will swarm the grappler if he grapples the wizard", and so on.

Why not jump over the mooks? Has no one tried that? The swarming is going to happen regardless, but hey it keeps them focused on you. :smallbiggrin:

[MustacheFart]

The fact that solutions 1-3 are effectively "Be immune to grapple" is exactly why the mechanic is degenerate. Against a grappling build, things are either immune grappled or grappled. It's just not very interesting space to be designing encounters for because it's so damn binary.

Especially considering that depending on the thrust of the adventure often either everything commonly dealt will be immune to grappled or nothing commonly dealt with will be.

It's not overpowered but it's still terribly designed. It's the same reason I ban all no-save spells and used to ban/modify 1-save encounter stoppers back in the 3.P era.

Those were but a couple ways of dealing with grapple. Plenty of other solutions have been provided in this thread that don't involve being immune.


My point is that I still don't see how it breaks anything. All it does is make the target unable to move. The target can still attack or cast spells. Are spells that do the same to a target game-breaking?

Sure it could trivialize an encounter but then so could the spellcaster with any one of his powerful spells. So I'm failing to see how a single target ability breaks anything.

[Mr.Moron]

Those were but a couple ways of dealing with grapple. Plenty of other solutions have been provided in this thread that don't involve being immune.


My point is that I still don't see how it breaks anything. All it does is make the target unable to move. The target can still attack or cast spells. Are spells that do the same to a target game-breaking?

Sure it could trivialize an encounter but then so could the spellcaster with any one of his powerful spells. So I'm failing to see how a single target ability breaks anything.

I'm apparently going to have to break this down real simple:

For the GM, grapple...


It doesn't: Break Anything
It isn't: Overpowered
It is: Super Predictable
It is: Difficult to interact with meaningfully.
It is: Largely Binary
This makes it: Frustrating
This makes it: Boring
People don't like: Things that are boring and frustrating.
Grapple-Optimization is: Boring & Frustrating
Your GM is: A person

Your GM doesn't like grapple. I wouldn't like dealing with a grapple build. This frustration will often get conflated with "Overpowered" because that's usually what makes things frustrating (but isn't in this case).

[Ralanr]

At most it would be situationally broken as it could wreck an encounter. But even then it is something you need to do constantly and the damage mainly comes your allies.

It's not broken at all. It seems pointless to compare it to spells because they are separate categories. Spells are within the same categories but have varying levels.

It's not broken.

@Mr. Moron

Yeah. That's probably the problem.

[Merellis]

I'm apparently going to have to break this down real simple:

For the GM, grapple...


It doesn't: Break Anything
It isn't: Overpowered
It is: Super Predictable
It is: Difficult to interact with meaningfully.
It is: Largely Binary
This makes it: Frustrating
This makes it: Boring
People don't like: Things that are boring and frustrating.
Grapple-Optimization is: Boring & Frustrating
Your GM is: A person

Your GM doesn't like grapple. I wouldn't like dealing with a grapple build. This frustration will often get conflated with "Overpowered" because that's usually what makes things frustrating (but isn't in this case).

I don't really see how it can be largely binary.

Multiple enemies, odd terrain where the grappler has to spend time getting to who they want to deal with, mobile enemies causing the grappler to have to either switch to ranged attacks or work towards trapping one of them and finally getting a grapple, encounters revolving around things that involve some athletics but not much for grappling can be interesting. Even having a group of enemies with a single huge one to be a meatgrinder can work out in interesting ways.

Most of the issues with grapple seem to be from the idea that a single strong enemy with a bunch of useless mooks is the way to go.

At most they can grapple two people, and if they're a barbarian it'd be advisable to grab one creature, the second they can't attack anymore is when the advantage they have disappears and all that remains is the Expertise bonus.

[MustacheFart]

I'm apparently going to have to break this down real simple:

You can check that attitude at the door! I have neither the time nor interest in it.

The point of this thread was to dig a bit deeper into grappling. If explaining your posits is too much trouble for you then don't post.

[hawklost]

I don't really see how it can be largely binary.

Multiple enemies, odd terrain where the grappler has to spend time getting to who they want to deal with, mobile enemies causing the grappler to have to either switch to ranged attacks or work towards trapping one of them and finally getting a grapple, encounters revolving around things that involve some athletics but not much for grappling can be interesting. Even having a group of enemies with a single huge one to be a meatgrinder can work out in interesting ways.

Most of the issues with grapple seem to be from the idea that a single strong enemy with a bunch of useless mooks is the way to go.

At most they can grapple two people, and if they're a barbarian it'd be advisable to grab one creature, the second they can't attack anymore is when the advantage they have disappears and all that remains is the Expertise bonus.

Don't forget that the enemy being held is not actually stopped from attacking.

-If they are a caster there is nothing with being grappled stopping them from casting their spells.
-If they are melee, there is nothing stopping them from stabbing the grappler
-Only ranged has a problem and there is a feat that relieves it completely.

Enemies don't even lose the use of their hands unless the DM decides it aesthetically (no rules saying they do)
Worst case is the Enemy being stopped from moving and being dragged around slowly through the battlefield (that and having a melee guy directly on them)

With the grappler feat it becomes slightly more of a problem but only because a grappler can lock both of them down at once by pinning.

[Ralanr]

Don't forget that the enemy being held is not actually stopped from attacking.

-If they are a caster there is nothing with being grappled stopping them from casting their spells.
-If they are melee, there is nothing stopping them from stabbing the grappler
-Only ranged has a problem and there is a feat that relieves it completely.



Unless you describe it as holding both their arms or covering their mouth, then yeah they can still cast spells. Though I'd imagine no spells that requires both hands (Though to be honest I don't think anyone goes into big detail of what they need to do to cast their spell)

On the melee, if they were using a two handed weapon they are probably not going to be able to hit you with it during grapple. So at least you'd take a 1+str damage from melee and at most 1d8+str (I didn't add the other additions cause I'm going to assume npcs don't have fighting styles and I don't want to start pvp talk)

[hawklost]

Unless you describe it as holding both their arms or covering their mouth, then yeah they can still cast spells. Though I'd imagine no spells that requires both hands (Though to be honest I don't think anyone goes into big detail of what they need to do to cast their spell)

On the melee, if they were using a two handed weapon they are probably not going to be able to hit you with it during grapple. So at least you'd take a 1+str damage from melee and at most 1d8+str (I didn't add the other additions cause I'm going to assume npcs don't have fighting styles and I don't want to start pvp talk)

I am going by RAW in this debate only.

Although I personally agree with you in the sense that having grappling effect casting some or not being able to use a 2 handed weapon against the grappler, there is nothing in RAW about that. Although it seems that the grappler must at least have one hand occupied by grappling (at least to start)

[Ralanr]

I am going by RAW in this debate only.

Although I personally agree with you in the sense that having grappling effect casting some or not being able to use a 2 handed weapon against the grappler, there is nothing in RAW about that. Although it seems that the grappler must at least have one hand occupied by grappling (at least to start)

Fair enough and I apologize for using RAI at that moment.

You know what I find weird though? You can grapple two enemies, but doing so means you can't attack them. Could you not...just bash them together? I know from a RAW is doesn't specify, but I think someone should ask Mike on this.

[hawklost]

Fair enough and I apologize for using RAI at that moment.

You know what I find weird though? You can grapple two enemies, but doing so means you can't attack them. Could you not...just bash them together? I know from a RAW is doesn't specify, but I think someone should ask Mike on this.

If you have Tavern Brawler, I might see them as an Improvised Weapon :smallbiggrin:

Also, Tavern Brawler says your unarmed attack, it doesn't specify your hands, so again, it seems possible even by RAW to still attack with holding 2 enemies (You cannot pin 2 enemies though sadly :smallfrown:)

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The problem isn't necessarily the grapple mechanics. It's that statistically monsters/NPCs have no effective defense against grapplers other than immunity. That's why it's binary.


Don't forget that the enemy being held is not actually stopped from attacking.
-If they are a caster there is nothing with being grappled stopping them from casting their spells.
-If they are melee, there is nothing stopping them from stabbing the grappler
-Only ranged has a problem and there is a feat that relieves it completely.

any competent grappler will knock the grappl-ee prone.

What's the point of even listing somatic components for spells if being grabbed and punched doesn't interfere?

[Easy_Lee]

While grappling is certainly binary, significantly hindering a foe or having no effect at all, the same is true of saves. When afflicted with hold person, one is either capable of making the save easily or unlikely to make the save. Same is true of stunning fist.

The only difference with grapple is that both targets have to roll, and the dedicated grappler is much more likely to roll high. A reliable talent rogue grappler might reach the point where their minimum roll is 24-27, meaning an NPC can almost never break free. Immunity and extremely large size can prevent this, as legendary resistance can largely protect against saves. Unlike most saves, the grappled condition doesn't usually result in automatically losing if one is unable to break the save (suggestion, polymorph, hold person, and so on).

I would prefer that grappling was just a strength save, use the grappler's strength + proficiency + 8 as the number, so that skills didn't need to come into the picture. But I didn't design 5e, and have much bigger problems that I would tackle first if I did.

[TrexPushups]

The problem isn't necessarily the grapple mechanics. It's that statistically monsters/NPCs have no effective defense against grapplers other than immunity. That's why it's binary.


any competent grappler will knock the grappl-ee prone.

What's the point of even listing somatic components for spells if being grabbed and punched doesn't interfere?

1) Keeping you from holding something in each hand
2) stopping you from casting if your hands are tied
3) means casters get to be called finger wigglers.
4) more reasons ?

[Gnaeus]

1) Keeping you from holding something in each hand
2) stopping you from casting if your hands are tied
3) means casters get to be called finger wigglers.
4) more reasons ?

5 Provides another way for people to identify who is casting/what is being cast
6 is a disadvantage for casters without hands like non- humanoids or things that change shape, or maybe an Npc wizard who had had his hands cut off, so he now sends out adventurers to do stuff for him

[Vogonjeltz]

Fair enough and I apologize for using RAI at that moment.

You know what I find weird though? You can grapple two enemies, but doing so means you can't attack them. Could you not...just bash them together? I know from a RAW is doesn't specify, but I think someone should ask Mike on this.

There's a nice picture representative of the status effect of grappling on page 291 of the PHB (tentacles holding a dwarf off the ground so they can't move away).

Think of it like you're grabbing them such that they can't move away, but they aren't hindered in attacking you (i.e. restrained, pictured on page 292).

[Ralanr]

There's a nice picture representative of the status effect of grappling on page 291 of the PHB (tentacles holding a dwarf off the ground so they can't move away).

Think of it like you're grabbing them such that they can't move away, but they aren't hindered in attacking you (i.e. restrained, pictured on page 292).

The dwarf can attack the tentacles I think. Still counts as hit point damage. I need to see the picture to be sure.

[SharkForce]

The dwarf can attack the tentacles I think. Still counts as hit point damage. I need to see the picture to be sure.

yes, that's his point. you're holding them in place, but not restraining them from attack you.

[Ralanr]

yes, that's his point. you're holding them in place, but not restraining them from attack you.

Note to self: Never grapple a monk. Their punches hurt more than others.

[MustacheFart]

You know I get how annoying grappling can be to a DM. But I find myself in countless boring fights with terrain/environment that I can't interact with. What else would a barbarian doing other than swing his weapon?

There's my issue. I'm going to attempt to get my DM to be more receptive to outside the box things. Maybe instead of grappling for the entire fight I throw the bad guy out a window, over a table, etc etc.

[Ralanr]

You know I get how annoying grappling can be to a DM. But I find myself in countless boring fights with terrain/environment that I can't interact with. What else would a barbarian doing other than swing his weapon?

There's my issue. I'm going to attempt to get my DM to be more receptive to outside the box things. Maybe instead of grappling for the entire fight I throw the bad guy out a window, over a table, etc etc.

Or into another bad guy, or smash a table at them, or smack an enemy with an enemy!

[Shining Wrath]

You know I get how annoying grappling can be to a DM. But I find myself in countless boring fights with terrain/environment that I can't interact with. What else would a barbarian doing other than swing his weapon?

There's my issue. I'm going to attempt to get my DM to be more receptive to outside the box things. Maybe instead of grappling for the entire fight I throw the bad guy out a window, over a table, etc etc.

Since you can move up to half your speed, ask your DM what happens if you move toward a wall and smash the guy against it? It's an iconic cinematic movie. "I grab him by the scruff of the neck and smash his face against the stones".

You could also offer to trade a hand for more options - agree that if you say you are grappling with both hands (so no attacks, spellcasting, grappling a second foe), you can do things you can't do with a one-handed grip (e.g., hoist the guy over your head and smash him against the floor).

[Vogonjeltz]

Since you can move up to half your speed, ask your DM what happens if you move toward a wall and smash the guy against it? It's an iconic cinematic movie. "I grab him by the scruff of the neck and smash his face against the stones".

You could also offer to trade a hand for more options - agree that if you say you are grappling with both hands (so no attacks, spellcasting, grappling a second foe), you can do things you can't do with a one-handed grip (e.g., hoist the guy over your head and smash him against the floor).

You could always ask to make a couple attack rolls/contests to crush the guys skull ala game of thrones.

[Ralanr]

You could always ask to make a couple attack rolls/contests to crush the guys skull ala game of thrones.


Almost did that to an orc once. Turns out I didn't have the heart or the stomach for it the way my DM described it. In the end I just killed him with my maul, let him die with a weapon in hand.

[Easy_Lee]

You could always ask to make a couple attack rolls/contests to crush the guys skull ala game of thrones.

Which is exactly why I don't watch that show. Kill off a fan-favorite just because George had writer's block, yay...and why did the show try to make it more brutal than what actually happened in the book?

A simple way to represent someone being charged into a wall is a really botched opposed athletics (grapple) check followed by falling damage based on the attacker's speed. Depending on just how bad the roll was botched, and the levels involved, it may not be prudent to use the full amount.

Or, if just repeatedly smashing someone against a wall, probably a failed opposed athletics (grapple) check resulting in an improvised weapon attack (wall) on failure.

[Vogonjeltz]

Which is exactly why I don't watch that show. Kill off a fan-favorite just because George had writer's block, yay...and why did the show try to make it more brutal than what actually happened in the book?

A simple way to represent someone being smashed into a wall is a really botched opposed athletics (grapple) check followed by falling damage based on the attacker's speed. Depending on just how bad the roll was botched, and the levels involved, it may not be prudent to use the full amount.

He died plot wise in order to lead to the confrontation later and have Tyrion leave and Tywin dead. It's also a contravention of classic fantasy tropes, something Martin has been explicitly engaging in.

Also it sets the Mountain up to become a zombie :)

Edit: for damage you could also base it off the lethality table in the DMG (setback, something something, deadly; iirc)

[HoarsHalberd]

Which is exactly why I don't watch that show. Kill off a fan-favorite just because George had writer's block, yay...and why did the show try to make it more brutal than what actually happened in the book?

Firstly, it wasn't more brutal than what happened in the books. Pushing thumbs through someone's eyes is less brutal than punching someone's face until the brain oozes out, the teeth are gone and the eyes are knocked out. Secondly it was a planned part of the plot to make Tyrion go to the other continent.


Or, if just repeatedly smashing someone against a wall, probably a failed opposed athletics (grapple) check resulting in an improvised weapon attack (wall) on failure.
Improvised weapon attack (wall) makes me want to make a goliath and have someone cast enlarge on me...

[Ralanr]

Guys...

SPOILERS

Some of us haven't watched the actual show yet. Only youtube clips.

Edit: Don't Goliaths already count as large for the purpose of lifting things?

[Vogonjeltz]

Guys...

SPOILERS

Some of us haven't watched the actual show yet. Only youtube clips.

Edit: Don't Goliaths already count as large for the purpose of lifting things?

First, I didn't name names of anyone who died.

Second, It's at least a year old and there were countless internet reviews gushing about it (pun intended), and that's just the tv version. At this point if you were ever interested you'd already know, the grace period is long past for that particular event.

[HoarsHalberd]

Guys...

SPOILERS

Some of us haven't watched the actual show yet. Only youtube clips.

Edit: Don't Goliaths already count as large for the purpose of lifting things?

I'm pretty sure that if I were an enlarged barbarian goliath my DM will let me have the goliath carrying capacity count as one size larger. So 60lbs per str*2 from bearbarian would be really fun. At level twenty 2880 lbs. It'd be fun if we could agree how much damage that would do. (The arc length has got to be at least 20 feet, so 56d6 dex save if it's just the force of me dropping that much weight. But if it was, I might as well lift 5760 and drop it for 104d6 dex save for half.)

[Ralanr]

He died plot wise in order to lead to the confrontation later and have Tyrion leave and Tywin dead. It's also a contravention of classic fantasy tropes, something Martin has been explicitly engaging in.

Also it sets the Mountain up to become a zombie :)

Edit: for damage you could also base it off the lethality table in the DMG (setback, something something, deadly; iirc)

Did I misread that? Sorry I haven't really watched the show so I don't really know who those are.

[Psikerlord]

What does this kind of grappling build break? That's what I don't get. How is it any different than a spellcasters maxing their primary stat in order to be as good of a caster as possible? It's just a build that's good at grappling. There's plenty of ways to get around a grapple:

1) be huge or bigger. Sorry no grapple. (Gargantuan or larger vs enlarged grappler)

2) cast freedom of movement

3) cast any spell that removes the grappler from the equation

4) have whatever is being grappled use poison. Poison the grappler to increase chances of escape.

So what does it break again other than lazy DMing?

It's broken in practice for the very reasons you described. It's always available and when combined with level 2 silence spell it's an auto death sentence for enemy casters. That's a big bunch of enemies neutered. The DM only a couple choices to fix this. He can use multiple casters, use no casters, or he can artificially give every caster freedom of movement or fly or whatever. It's the taking away of the randomness of the outcome that breaks it. Your PC is "too good" at it. And this is largely a result of allowing MCing: the combining of the adv and the expertise from rogue.

Whether you see this as broken or not doesn't really matter. The DM thinks it matters, and he's the one running the game. Best of luck resolving it.

[Easy_Lee]

It's broken in practice for the very reasons you described. It's always available and when combined with level 2 silence spell it's an auto death sentence for enemy casters. That's a big bunch of enemies neutered. The DM only a couple choices to fix this. He can use multiple casters, use no casters, or he can artificially give every caster freedom of movement or fly or whatever. It's the taking away of the randomness of the outcome that breaks it. Your PC is "too good" at it. And this is largely a result of allowing MCing: the combining of the adv and the expertise from rogue.

Whether you see this as broken or not doesn't really matter. The DM thinks it matters, and he's the one running the game. Best of luck resolving it.

Casters have some of the best options for getting away, honestly. Spell-push the grappler, give him disadvantage one athletics via Hex, misty step away, and so on. Most levels have at least one spell for a caster to use to bust out the grapple, and escape spells are some if the most universally useful.

Or the caster can just pull a badass stoic move and ignore the person grappling him. It's not like the caster was running very fast anyway.

[SharkForce]

It's broken in practice for the very reasons you described. It's always available and when combined with level 2 silence spell it's an auto death sentence for enemy casters. That's a big bunch of enemies neutered. The DM only a couple choices to fix this. He can use multiple casters, use no casters, or he can artificially give every caster freedom of movement or fly or whatever. It's the taking away of the randomness of the outcome that breaks it. Your PC is "too good" at it. And this is largely a result of allowing MCing: the combining of the adv and the expertise from rogue.

Whether you see this as broken or not doesn't really matter. The DM thinks it matters, and he's the one running the game. Best of luck resolving it.

it really isn't the combination. the rogue level might have sped things up slightly, but there's like 2 monsters i can name off the top of my head that have athletics, and perhaps a similar number with acrobatics. that's the problem. the only thing keeping most massive and strong creatures from being outgrappled by a trained human warrior is that they are too large for that to be an option.

heck, if they were merely proficient in resisting grapple checks, that would go a long ways towards improving the situation.

(also, while it is powerful against spellcasters when combined with silence, NPC spellcasters are kinda ridiculous anyways. they don't need to conserve spell slots because they're only in one fight, and their CR is absurdly low; at CR 12 you have an archmage which can perform most of the shenanigans available to a level 18 wizard, minus path abilities).

[MustacheFart]

It's broken in practice for the very reasons you described. It's always available and when combined with level 2 silence spell it's an auto death sentence for enemy casters. That's a big bunch of enemies neutered. The DM only a couple choices to fix this. He can use multiple casters, use no casters, or he can artificially give every caster freedom of movement or fly or whatever. It's the taking away of the randomness of the outcome that breaks it. Your PC is "too good" at it. And this is largely a result of allowing MCing: the combining of the adv and the expertise from rogue.

Whether you see this as broken or not doesn't really matter. The DM thinks it matters, and he's the one running the game. Best of luck resolving it.

I hate to tell you this but you're wrong on the grounds that almost the entire last session I played I forgot that that I had expertise from rogue to my athletics. So I was using a +7 to athletics instead of a +10. The expertise from rogue only meant +3. However, even without that I was holding the enemies easily thanks purely to advantage while rage. That is entirely from barbarian and not multi-classing.

As pointed out, the real issue is the lack of athletics/acrobatics on monsters/npcs in the game.

Sorry to put a hole in your stupid anti-multiclassing argument.

[Malifice]

it really isn't the combination. the rogue level might have sped things up slightly, but there's like 2 monsters i can name off the top of my head that have athletics, and perhaps a similar number with acrobatics. that's the problem. the only thing keeping most massive and strong creatures from being outgrappled by a trained human warrior is that they are too large for that to be an option.

heck, if they were merely proficient in resisting grapple checks, that would go a long ways towards improving the situation.

(also, while it is powerful against spellcasters when combined with silence, NPC spellcasters are kinda ridiculous anyways. they don't need to conserve spell slots because they're only in one fight, and their CR is absurdly low; at CR 12 you have an archmage which can perform most of the shenanigans available to a level 18 wizard, minus path abilities).


Is it a stretch to allow advantage on grapple checks if you are larger than your opponent (but still able to be grappled)?

I do (and grant a similar bonus against shove attempts for size and extra legs/ stability), and it works a charm (as well as makes sense).

[SharkForce]

Is it a stretch to allow advantage on grapple checks if you are larger than your opponent (but still able to be grappled)?

I do (and grant a similar bonus against shove attempts for size and extra legs/ stability), and it works a charm (as well as makes sense).

it helps. somewhat. it's still a problem, especially if an enemy is not actually larger than the one doing the grappling.

[MustacheFart]

I am torn. I see the mechanical issues with grapple but at the same time I can also see the thematics behind it. Think about it. Your group is in a heated fight with enemies and some gaunt guy in a robe starts waving his hands. Next thing you know some of your allies are blasted with fire. Now he's waving his hands again. Wouldn't you grapple him to stop that? It's the logical step. I know it doesn't prevent spellcasting in 5th ed, which does imo remove a bit of the logical reason for grappling sadly.

Perhaps a more appropriately example would be a nimble individual weaving through your numbers cutting down your allies. This person relies on their movement and you believe if you could get your hands on them you could stop that. Why wouldn't you? Once you have him would you let him go? "Oh, okay we've killed enough of your guys so I can let you go to move around and attack us now because the numbers are more even!"

Besides, from the opposite standpoint should the enemies not realize "There's a strongarm barbarian in this group! I better keep my distance!" Perhaps hitting the barbarian with a slow spell or something early on to prevent such entanglements.

I think tactically enough that I am confident I would not have any issue if a player under me wanted to grapple the enemies I presented them. I would merely need to prepare for it which as the DM I have the most ability to do so.

[Ralanr]

I am torn. I see the mechanical issues with grapple but at the same time I can also see the thematics behind it. Think about it. Your group is in a heated fight with enemies and some gaunt guy in a robe starts waving his hands. Next thing you know some of your allies are blasted with fire. Now he's waving his hands again. Wouldn't you grapple him to stop that? It's the logical step. I know it doesn't prevent spellcasting in 5th ed, which does imo remove a bit of the logical reason for grappling sadly.

Perhaps a more appropriately example would be a nimble individual weaving through your numbers cutting down your allies. This person relies on their movement and you believe if you could get your hands on them you could stop that. Why wouldn't you? Once you have him would you let him go? "Oh, okay we've killed enough of your guys so I can let you go to move around and attack us now because the numbers are more even!"

Besides, from the opposite standpoint should the enemies not realize "There's a strongarm barbarian in this group! I better keep my distance!" Perhaps hitting the barbarian with a slow spell or something early on to prevent such entanglements.

I think tactically enough that I am confident I would not have any issue if a player under me wanted to grapple the enemies I presented them. I would merely need to prepare for it which as the DM I have the most ability to do so.

Sounds like a lot of people forget that in the world of dungeons and dragons just grabbing someone is very effective.

[Forum Explorer]

I am torn. I see the mechanical issues with grapple but at the same time I can also see the thematics behind it. Think about it. Your group is in a heated fight with enemies and some gaunt guy in a robe starts waving his hands. Next thing you know some of your allies are blasted with fire. Now he's waving his hands again. Wouldn't you grapple him to stop that? It's the logical step. I know it doesn't prevent spellcasting in 5th ed, which does imo remove a bit of the logical reason for grappling sadly.

Perhaps a more appropriately example would be a nimble individual weaving through your numbers cutting down your allies. This person relies on their movement and you believe if you could get your hands on them you could stop that. Why wouldn't you? Once you have him would you let him go? "Oh, okay we've killed enough of your guys so I can let you go to move around and attack us now because the numbers are more even!"

Besides, from the opposite standpoint should the enemies not realize "There's a strongarm barbarian in this group! I better keep my distance!" Perhaps hitting the barbarian with a slow spell or something early on to prevent such entanglements.

I think tactically enough that I am confident I would not have any issue if a player under me wanted to grapple the enemies I presented them. I would merely need to prepare for it which as the DM I have the most ability to do so.

It's really not a hard tactic to deal with. It's a good tactic, and you can do some cool things with it. But it's also pretty situational. For example, if you were fighting a dozen orcs, it'd be useless because grappling isn't really worth the action it takes to hold an orc.

Or if you are fighting a giant, then it doesn't work because they are too big.

Or you are fighting something like a mindflayer, that has abilities that aren't really weakened by being in a grapple.

The only thing that I would rule is that you have to go prone in order to make the enemy prone, and keep them prone. So while everyone else would get advantage, you wouldn't. This is mostly cause I can't think of how you would effectively keep them in a grapple while they are prone and you are standing. (The good news is that this wouldn't take an action to do. Just part of your normal movement while grappeling)

[Psikerlord]

I hate to tell you this but you're wrong on the grounds that almost the entire last session I played I forgot that that I had expertise from rogue to my athletics. So I was using a +7 to athletics instead of a +10. The expertise from rogue only meant +3. However, even without that I was holding the enemies easily thanks purely to advantage while rage. That is entirely from barbarian and not multi-classing.

As pointed out, the real issue is the lack of athletics/acrobatics on monsters/npcs in the game.

Sorry to put a hole in your stupid anti-multiclassing argument.

The argument is valid whether you like it or not. Adv at +7 is very good odds vs +0, but +10 is clearly worse. And it will get increasingly worse as you level up. MCing into rogue is still a bad idea, from a balance perspective, particularly in a game with "bounded accuracy".

The fact few monsters in MM get athletics is also a problem. But that's easily fixed by the DM adding it to most "martial" opponents. What isn't easily fixed is the Adv & expertise problem.

I wish you & your DM the best of luck finding a fix.

[SharkForce]

the problem is that the enemies that you'd expect to be strong in a wrestling match (those with the strength or dexterity to threaten their opponents) are also going to get wrecked by a trained grappler.

for example, let us suppose there was a brown bear that you were fighting. you might think "there's no way a fairly standard level 1 human should be able to wrestle a bear, that's the sort of thing that should be reserved for some pretty legendary people", and i would tend to agree with that (in reality, a bear would make even the heaviest of wrestlers look pretty light).

but that's not how the stats play out. the human fighter will win slightly more often than not, and is evenly matched with a polar bear (and would slightly outperform several huge-sized creatures if not for the size restriction). he is better than a 10 HD bandit captain (not exactly the scrawny toothpick wizard you were envisioning. on a side note, i now know a third creature trained in athletics... though oddly, he's only got +2 proficiency), the 9 HD berserker, the 8 HD knight, and the 5 HD thug, but is matched by the 9 HD veteran (he's bested by the 15 HD gladiator at least).

at level 1, mind you. this isn't some crazy all-in optimized build. this is 16 strength with proficiency, and you are evenly matched with a polar bear.

[Psikerlord]

the problem is that the enemies that you'd expect to be strong in a wrestling match (those with the strength or dexterity to threaten their opponents) are also going to get wrecked by a trained grappler.

for example, let us suppose there was a brown bear that you were fighting. you might think "there's no way a fairly standard level 1 human should be able to wrestle a bear, that's the sort of thing that should be reserved for some pretty legendary people", and i would tend to agree with that (in reality, a bear would make even the heaviest of wrestlers look pretty light).

but that's not how the stats play out. the human fighter will win slightly more often than not, and is evenly matched with a polar bear (and would slightly outperform several huge-sized creatures if not for the size restriction). he is better than a 10 HD bandit captain (not exactly the scrawny toothpick wizard you were envisioning. on a side note, i now know a third creature trained in athletics... though oddly, he's only got +2 proficiency), the 9 HD berserker, the 8 HD knight, and the 5 HD thug, but is matched by the 9 HD veteran (he's bested by the 15 HD gladiator at least).

at level 1, mind you. this isn't some crazy all-in optimized build. this is 16 strength with proficiency, and you are evenly matched with a polar bear.Geez yeah... I would as DM be giving any bear like creature adv on wrestling, coz, they're a frickin' bear! Wrestling with four claws and a bite and outweighing your opponent by heaps should matter! A lot!

[Forum Explorer]

the problem is that the enemies that you'd expect to be strong in a wrestling match (those with the strength or dexterity to threaten their opponents) are also going to get wrecked by a trained grappler.

for example, let us suppose there was a brown bear that you were fighting. you might think "there's no way a fairly standard level 1 human should be able to wrestle a bear, that's the sort of thing that should be reserved for some pretty legendary people", and i would tend to agree with that (in reality, a bear would make even the heaviest of wrestlers look pretty light).

but that's not how the stats play out. the human fighter will win slightly more often than not, and is evenly matched with a polar bear (and would slightly outperform several huge-sized creatures if not for the size restriction). he is better than a 10 HD bandit captain (not exactly the scrawny toothpick wizard you were envisioning. on a side note, i now know a third creature trained in athletics... though oddly, he's only got +2 proficiency), the 9 HD berserker, the 8 HD knight, and the 5 HD thug, but is matched by the 9 HD veteran (he's bested by the 15 HD gladiator at least).

at level 1, mind you. this isn't some crazy all-in optimized build. this is 16 strength with proficiency, and you are evenly matched with a polar bear.

This is a simplification problem. These grapple rules are the simplest I've seen, and are very clear cut on what they are, and how they work. But as a result, they don't take into account the weight, shape, and general experience of the target.

[Forrestfire]

Which is great, since it lets people be real tanks if they want to. Isn't this a good thing? Even if it is overpowered, I'm not seeing how "a viable aggro-drawing mechanic for noncasters" in D&D is something to have an issue with :smallconfused:

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Aggro management isn't a thing in 5e. Most aggro-like mechanics (like the Paladin and Battlemaster have) create incentives and disincentives rather than actually forcing a creature or PC's actions. Most of those come with a significant resource cost though, unlike grapple.


The fact few monsters in MM get athletics is also a problem. But that's easily fixed by the DM adding it to most "martial" opponents
It's not just martial opponents. It's pretty much every Large critter in the game, and any Medium critter with supposed supernatural strength that isn't reflected in its grapple score. The problem is so systemic that the DM may as well make up grapple DCs on each occasion.

[Gwendol]

Or give enemies class levels on occasion. There are rules and examples for it after all.

[Psikerlord]

Aggro management isn't a thing in 5e. Most aggro-like mechanics (like the Paladin and Battlemaster have) create incentives and disincentives rather than actually forcing a creature or PC's actions. Most of those come with a significant resource cost though, unlike grapple.


It's not just martial opponents. It's pretty much every Large critter in the game, and any Medium critter with supposed supernatural strength that isn't reflected in its grapple score. The problem is so systemic that the DM may as well make up grapple DCs on each occasion.

Any big, strong beastie I would just give adv on wrestling type checks. They have a big weight advantage if nothing else. Or disad on the opponent's check.

[Solusek]

This is a simplification problem.

You may have just summed up the entirety of 5e right there.

[ad_hoc]

The only thing that I would rule is that you have to go prone in order to make the enemy prone, and keep them prone. So while everyone else would get advantage, you wouldn't. This is mostly cause I can't think of how you would effectively keep them in a grapple while they are prone and you are standing. (The good news is that this wouldn't take an action to do. Just part of your normal movement while grappeling)

Stand on them.

The best position to hurt someone is to have them lying flat on the ground with you over top of them.

Kneeling is not prone.

http://prommanow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eddie-alvarez-at-bellator-5-ground-n-pound.jpg

[Shining Wrath]

I think I may houserule that all Beasts are proficient in either Athletics or Acrobatics, depending on whether they have higher STR or DEX. A Beast, after all, is either proficient in using its body, or it is dead. Especially in a D&D world where the predators are numerous and lethal. That ought to help with level 1 Fighters wrestling polar bears.

OTOH even Wizards can beat a T-Rex at arm wrestling :smallbiggrin:

[Ralanr]

I think I may houserule that all Beasts are proficient in either Athletics or Acrobatics, depending on whether they have higher STR or DEX. A Beast, after all, is either proficient in using its body, or it is dead. Especially in a D&D world where the predators are numerous and lethal. That ought to help with level 1 Fighters wrestling polar bears.

OTOH even Wizards can beat a T-Rex at arm wrestling :smallbiggrin:

Well have you seen those arms? They be tiny!

[SharkForce]

Which is great, since it lets people be real tanks if they want to. Isn't this a good thing? Even if it is overpowered, I'm not seeing how "a viable aggro-drawing mechanic for noncasters" in D&D is something to have an issue with :smallconfused:

well, it lets them tank *one* target, i suppose. i'm not sure i would described that as being particularly effective in any fight where there is more than one threat. it's much the same reason that sentinel, even when combined with polearm mastery, doesn't make you a good tank.

the most defining tank ability in 5e imo is the paladins save-boosting aura, especially when combined with the paladin's lay on hands and ability to remove negative effects from allies. you wanna make something decide it wants to kill you? make all of it's most awesome abilities hardly ever work, remove them when they do work, and heal the target that was just about to die from your next attack. before long, every monster on the field is going to start feeling a special kind of hatred for you :P

[MustacheFart]

Most of those come with a significant resource cost though, unlike grapple.

I wouldn't say that. You have to give up an attack to grapple. Most characters don't have more than 2 attacks so that's a fairly size able resource. Now if were talking tavern brawler that's a different story but then again that's a feat.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I wouldn't say that. You have to give up an attack to grapple. Most characters don't have more than 2 attacks so that's a fairly size able resource. Now if were talking tavern brawler that's a different story but then again that's a feat.

True. To clarify, I meant in terms of being able to grapple all day vs rest resources.

[Slipperychicken]

True. To clarify, I meant in terms of being able to grapple all day vs rest resources.

So how are your rages and hit points looking after grappling all day?

[Forum Explorer]

Stand on them.

The best position to hurt someone is to have them lying flat on the ground with you over top of them.

Kneeling is not prone.

http://prommanow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/eddie-alvarez-at-bellator-5-ground-n-pound.jpg

Sure, but, you got to remain relatively immobile, making it still pretty easy for them to attack you. (Difference in that picture is a lack of an actual weapon besides fists. Pinning someone like that doesn't really work if the opponent has a blade)

[Shining Wrath]

Sure, but, you got to remain relatively immobile, making it still pretty easy for them to attack you. (Difference in that picture is a lack of an actual weapon besides fists. Pinning someone like that doesn't really work if the opponent has a blade)

If you are wearing medium or heavy armor, the blade may be ineffective.

[ad_hoc]

Sure, but, you got to remain relatively immobile, making it still pretty easy for them to attack you. (Difference in that picture is a lack of an actual weapon besides fists. Pinning someone like that doesn't really work if the opponent has a blade)

Why would ranged attacks have disadvantage against you if you are an immobile target?

It sounds like you want to disallow grappling.

[Forum Explorer]

If you are wearing medium or heavy armor, the blade may be ineffective.

That's determined by your AC and their ability (or inability) to beat it.


Why would ranged attacks have disadvantage against you if you are an immobile target?

It sounds like you want to disallow grappling.

What? No seriously I don't understand what you are saying. :smallconfused:

I'm saying that a target of grappling that is knocked prone should generally not have disadvantage in attacking the person who is holding it in a grapple. To attack anyone else they would have disadvantage, and anyone else would have advantage to attack them as normal.

[ad_hoc]

The only thing that I would rule is that you have to go prone in order to make the enemy prone, and keep them prone. So while everyone else would get advantage, you wouldn't. This is mostly cause I can't think of how you would effectively keep them in a grapple while they are prone and you are standing. (The good news is that this wouldn't take an action to do. Just part of your normal movement while grappeling)

This was your original post.

Do you know that prone gives everyone who is attacking you from farther than 5 ft. away disadvantage? Your new rules are even worse for our grappling hero.

Though I also missed the part where you get a free automatic shove on the opponent. While powerful, it is anticlimactic.

Your rules just seem less fun all around.

*edit*

The one houserule I might use for grappling is to allow an escape attempt to use up 1 attack in an attack or multiattack action.

[Forum Explorer]

This was your original post.

Do you know that prone gives everyone who is attacking you from farther than 5 ft. away disadvantage? Your new rules are even worse for our grappling hero.

Though I also missed the part where you get a free automatic shove on the opponent. While powerful, it is anticlimactic.

Your rules just seem less fun all around.

*edit*

The one houserule I might use for grappling is to allow an escape attempt to use up 1 attack in an attack or multiattack action.

That has nothing to do with my rules. That's just the rules period. And no I wasn't aware of that rule, though it makes sense.

Note: The only change I'm thinking about is that the target who is being grappled does not suffer disadvantage when prone, against the person who is grappling them. Since the grappling target appears to be some sort of tank most of the time (like a raging barbarian), the target attacking them isn't really all that bad of a thing. In fact you want it to happen in comparison to them going after your rogue buddy who is lightly armored. (If you've got disadvantage on both you might as well go for the rogue, cause he's likely got less AC, and certainly less HP)

[Shining Wrath]

That's determined by your AC and their ability (or inability) to beat it.



What? No seriously I don't understand what you are saying. :smallconfused:

I'm saying that a target of grappling that is knocked prone should generally not have disadvantage in attacking the person who is holding it in a grapple. To attack anyone else they would have disadvantage, and anyone else would have advantage to attack them as normal.

Since they have disadvantage while prone, your effective AC is pretty high.

[ad_hoc]

That has nothing to do with my rules. That's just the rules period. And no I wasn't aware of that rule, though it makes sense.

Note: The only change I'm thinking about is that the target who is being grappled does not suffer disadvantage when prone, against the person who is grappling them. Since the grappling target appears to be some sort of tank most of the time (like a raging barbarian), the target attacking them isn't really all that bad of a thing. In fact you want it to happen in comparison to them going after your rogue buddy who is lightly armored. (If you've got disadvantage on both you might as well go for the rogue, cause he's likely got less AC, and certainly less HP)

I see, that is not nearly as bad as this then:


I would rule is that you have to go prone in order to make the enemy prone

Though I don't really see why it's needed, just seems like an unnecessary complication.

[Vogonjeltz]

Did I misread that? Sorry I haven't really watched the show so I don't really know who those are.

Let me append that to: anyone who died in the fight being referenced.

Also, zombie might have been a poor word choice as it could lead one to mistakenly infer that the subject has died, which is not necessarily so.


Is it a stretch to allow advantage on grapple checks if you are larger than your opponent (but still able to be grappled)?

I do (and grant a similar bonus against shove attempts for size and extra legs/ stability), and it works a charm (as well as makes sense).

Yes, advantage and disadvantage are properly used either:
A) When explicitly referred to by a special ability or spell.
or
B) When the DM determines that circumstances influence the roll in one direction or another.

Body size isn't a circumstance, it's a physical attribute (for which no adv/dis is listed). It's like giving advantage to someone with +4 str when they're in a contest with someone who has +3 str (and giving disadvantage to the +3)...the benefits are naturally built into having better stats, it would be gratuitous and unfair to exacerbate that difference.

[Forum Explorer]

Since they have disadvantage while prone, your effective AC is pretty high.

Sure, but so is the barbarians. And it has resistance to damage when raging. So the last person you want to attack is the person holding you, which I think is silly.


I see, that is not nearly as bad as this then:



Though I don't really see why it's needed, just seems like an unnecessary complication.

I thought better of it when the others (like yourself) brought up ways to hold someone in place and still be sorta standing. But I'd likely keep the whole, 'go prone to make the grappled guy prone as well without burning an action'.


It's what I feel is a realism bonus, and a quasi answer to the OPs concerns about grappling being overpowered.

[MustacheFart]

It's what I feel is a realism bonus, and a quasi answer to the OPs concerns about grappling being overpowered.


Well my ultimate conclusion from this thread is that grappling in and of itself isn't overpowered. Even with Rogue expertise and advantage it's not overpowered. Grappling is merely a tactic that the DM needs to take into consideration when building an encounter.

It's no different than really any other tactic that exists.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I guess if you want the DM to just make everything immune to grappling you can take that approach.

[Slipperychicken]

Sure, but, you got to remain relatively immobile, making it still pretty easy for them to attack you. (Difference in that picture is a lack of an actual weapon besides fists. Pinning someone like that doesn't really work if the opponent has a blade)

I'd still bet that mounting is advantageous even if both parties were armed. I never learned wrestling with weapons, but while a knife might be easier to use, I can't imagine that a longer weapon would work as well. You just don't have the room or freedom for it, while the one doing the mounting can pretty much rain down blows with impunity.

There are also other ways to do it besides mounting. One reasonably common example is controlling an arm such that the opponent is forced into an awkward position to the floor (ideally on his stomach). From there, one can gain further control by adding body-weight to it, leaning in bodily or resting a knee on the opponent's torso or back. I believe the police do something like that pretty often IRL.

[MustacheFart]

I guess if you want the DM to just make everything immune to grappling you can take that approach.

OR.... He could take one of the other countless avenues mentioned in this thread that doesn't involve completely nerfing a valid ability. Such as, giving enemies athletics/acrobatics, utilizing spells that can escape grapples, utilizing terrain and enemy numbers to make grapple less of an ideal strategy, etc etc.

So I WILL take that approach and it won't be dependent on some kneejerk close-minded reaction of making everything immune to grapple.

[Forum Explorer]

I'd still bet that mounting is advantageous even if both parties were armed. I never learned wrestling with weapons, but while a knife might be easier to use, I can't imagine that a longer weapon would work as well. You just don't have the room or freedom for it, while the one doing the mounting can pretty much rain down blows with impunity.

There are also other ways to do it besides mounting. One reasonably common example is controlling an arm such that the opponent is forced into an awkward position to the floor (ideally on his stomach). From there, one can gain further control by adding body-weight to it, leaning in bodily or resting a knee on the opponent's torso or back. I believe the police do something like that pretty often IRL.

I can think of ways to negate some of the negatives of longer weapons, though how effective they would actually be is beyond my knowledge. Also those negatives would apply to any longer weapon the grappler would be fighting with as well. The point is, a wrestling technique when both fighters are unarmed isn't necessarily going to reflect armed combat all that well.


Now that is pretty much a description of pinning someone which, IIRC, is part of a feat. Grappling is everything from the classic villain arm grab, to a full bear hug. It doesn't necessarily mean hindering their actual combat ability at all, beyond controlling their movement.

[unwise]

RAW I found grappling to be problematic, not so much from a power perspective but from a predictability one. It was so easy to lock one person down that fights tended to become rather samey. The issue, as others have mentioned, is that monsters don't scale up their Str and are not trained in skills as a general rule.

As a DM, I simply make all monsters that should be proficient in something proficient. Most animals and a good portion of soldier types should really be proficient in athletics. Monsters are not PCs, they should not have to have everything spelled out and be full of fine detail. Some generic guards will be proficient in singing, some at gambling, others at history. I don't need the Monster Manual to tell me that.

[Vogonjeltz]

I think I may houserule that all Beasts are proficient in either Athletics or Acrobatics, depending on whether they have higher STR or DEX. A Beast, after all, is either proficient in using its body, or it is dead. Especially in a D&D world where the predators are numerous and lethal. That ought to help with level 1 Fighters wrestling polar bears.

OTOH even Wizards can beat a T-Rex at arm wrestling

I think that would carry horrifyingly bad consequences for gameplay. By that argument all humans (and heck, all races) should be proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics because after all, proficient or dead.

Employing this line of thought quickly devolves into the absurd where everyone is proficient at everything because hey, if they weren't, they'd be dead.


I'm saying that a target of grappling that is knocked prone should generally not have disadvantage in attacking the person who is holding it in a grapple. To attack anyone else they would have disadvantage, and anyone else would have advantage to attack them as normal.

The status effect is prone (lying on your front), not supine (lying on your back). Get a friend, find a grassy or padded area, and take turns having one of your lie on your stomach and see how difficult it is to do anything meaningful to the other. Ground fighting is definitely easier from a supine (on your back) position, but even then you're not better off against someone armed with a weapon.

This is something 5th edition (and most other editions of D&D) actually gets completely right.

[Shining Wrath]

I think that would carry horrifyingly bad consequences for gameplay. By that argument all humans (and heck, all races) should be proficient in Athletics or Acrobatics because after all, proficient or dead.

Employing this line of thought quickly devolves into the absurd where everyone is proficient at everything because hey, if they weren't, they'd be dead.



The status effect is prone (lying on your front), not supine (lying on your back). Get a friend, find a grassy or padded area, and take turns having one of your lie on your stomach and see how difficult it is to do anything meaningful to the other. Ground fighting is definitely easier from a supine (on your back) position, but even then you're not better off against someone armed with a weapon.

This is something 5th edition (and most other editions of D&D) actually gets completely right.

A humanoid has the choice of being proficient with weapons, or with magic. Animals don't have that choice. Humanoids don't dominate animals by virtue of their bodies; they dominate using their minds.

Throw a man in a pit with a grizzly bear, advantage grizzly bear. Give that man 24 hours to prepare and access to Home Depot, advantage human, probably by a larger margin than the grizzly had in unarmed combat. Grant access to Cabela's and the grizzly is going to be a trophy.

I see no problem with one class of creatures, those which specifically never have any intelligence, being proficient in the use of the only thing they do have, which is their bodies.

[Psikerlord]

Well my ultimate conclusion from this thread is that grappling in and of itself isn't overpowered. Even with Rogue expertise and advantage it's not overpowered. Grappling is merely a tactic that the DM needs to take into consideration when building an encounter.

It's no different than really any other tactic that exists.

You already held that view when you started this topic. What you really were hoping for was validation of your view. As can be seen however, there are a number of posters who agree with your DM and believe it is OP.

[Forum Explorer]

The status effect is prone (lying on your front), not supine (lying on your back). Get a friend, find a grassy or padded area, and take turns having one of your lie on your stomach and see how difficult it is to do anything meaningful to the other. Ground fighting is definitely easier from a supine (on your back) position, but even then you're not better off against someone armed with a weapon.

This is something 5th edition (and most other editions of D&D) actually gets completely right.

I wasn't aware that prone actually differentiated between the two in this edition.

[Psikerlord]

I wasn't aware that prone actually differentiated between the two in this edition.

It doesnt as far as I can tell

[Xetheral]

The status effect is prone (lying on your front), not supine (lying on your back).

Google defines the relevant definition of prone as: "lying flat, especially face downward".

So prone can indeed apply to lying flat in any orientation.

[MustacheFart]

You already held that view when you started this topic. What you really were hoping for was validation of your view. As can be seen however, there are a number of posters who agree with your DM and believe it is OP.

There are also just as many saying it's not OP. So, what's your point?

Thanks for telling me what I was hoping for though! Glad people like you are here to read my mind and tell me what I think.

For the record, I didn't hold any real viewpoint when I created this thread. That's why I created this thread. Perhaps I didn't understand my DM's initial reaction and sought a better understanding of the mechanic? Some people don't always need validation from people over the Internet. Some people like to learn. That's equally obvious to anyone with an average intelligence. I simply suspected that maybe my DM was having a kneejerk reaction to a new yet strong tactic I presented him with.

Guess what? I was right. I have since spoken with the DM. His conclusion was the same as mine and many here. That grappling in and of itself isn't overpowered. It's simply not taken into consideration with monster/npc stat blocks. Now it will be with my DM and he doesn't foresee any more issues.

In fact I offered to stop doing it and his response was "nah no reason not to. I just need to adjust for it now. No big deal."

But Psikerlord please keep degrading what I say into some stupid inane dribble.

[Vogonjeltz]

Google defines the relevant definition of prone as: "lying flat, especially face downward".

So prone can indeed apply to lying flat in any orientation.

As much as I love Google, a dictionary it is not. American Heritage and Meriam-Webster say:

American Heritage: "adj. 1. Lying with the front or face downward."
Merriam Webster: "having the front or ventral surface downward; especially : lying facedown"

I can see how the Google rip of the Merriam explanation could be confused as not requiring facedown, but it absolutely does, that's the exact precise meaning of the term. Body oriented facedown.


I wasn't aware that prone actually differentiated between the two in this edition.

Other than the fact that the status effect uses the specific word which has the specific meaning, nothing. My point was mostly to illustrate that it's incredibly hard to hit anyone or use a weapon properly when you're not on your feet, and it's relatively easy to hit someone with a weapon when they aren't. Hence: Disadvantage for the prone party, advantage for the non-prone one.


A humanoid has the choice of being proficient with weapons, or with magic. Animals don't have that choice.

Yes, proficiency suggests training, which animals don't have access to. They don't get trained hence they don't get proficiency. It doesn't make any sense for an animal to have proficiency.

[hawklost]

As much as I love Google, a dictionary it is not. American Heritage and Meriam-Webster say:

American Heritage: "adj. 1. Lying with the front or face downward."
Merriam Webster: "having the front or ventral surface downward; especially : lying facedown"

I can see how the Google rip of the Merriam explanation could be confused as not requiring facedown, but it absolutely does, that's the exact precise meaning of the term. Body oriented facedown.

-snip-

You might want to read http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prone and look at 2b. It says just "lying flat or prostrate" without a single thing about orientation.

Considering words have multiple meanings you have to make sure to look at all of them to see what might be used in a sentence. Just because your definition comes first in the dictionary does not mean it was the one that was used in the writing of a sentence.

EDIT:
And yes, I know different dictionaries have slightly different definitions that fit your argument. But if you are going to pull from a dictionary like Merriam-Webster please try to make sure you don't have a definition that defeats your argument in there.

[Mr.Moron]

Yes, proficiency suggests training, which animals don't have access to. They don't get trained hence they don't get proficiency. It doesn't make any sense for an animal to have proficiency.

The point is, the system as written produces absurd results. Not just absurd as in the sense of "This is an OTT game, where OTT things happen". Absurd in the sense that it's goofy, unbelievable and usually off-tone even in the context of the genre.

I'm hardly an advocate for the game engine being able to model every little thing. I'm pretty happy to just sweep small inconsistencies created by having a clean abstraction under the carpet.

For example "Low level mundane human wrestles bear without aid of technology or magic and wins" is probably in the realm of things I'm happy to deal with.

"Bear stands almost no chance of overpowering low level human that has no aid of technology or magic" is probably one of the things that indicates an area of the rules that could use adjustment.

[Psikerlord]

There are also just as many saying it's not OP. So, what's your point?

Thanks for telling me what I was hoping for though! Glad people like you are here to read my mind and tell me what I think.

For the record, I didn't hold any real viewpoint when I created this thread. That's why I created this thread. Perhaps I didn't understand my DM's initial reaction and sought a better understanding of the mechanic? Some people don't always need validation from people over the Internet. Some people like to learn. That's equally obvious to anyone with an average intelligence. I simply suspected that maybe my DM was having a kneejerk reaction to a new yet strong tactic I presented him with.

Guess what? I was right. I have since spoken with the DM. His conclusion was the same as mine and many here. That grappling in and of itself isn't overpowered. It's simply not taken into consideration with monster/npc stat blocks. Now it will be with my DM and he doesn't foresee any more issues.

In fact I offered to stop doing it and his response was "nah no reason not to. I just need to adjust for it now. No big deal."

But Psikerlord please keep degrading what I say into some stupid inane dribble.

Perhaps you could refrain from the insults, it grows wearisome. The OPness relates to the combo of grappling and silence, as already indicated.

Best of luck to you and your DM.

[MustacheFart]

Perhaps you could refrain from the insults, it grows wearisome. The OPness relates to the combo of grappling and silence, as already indicated.

Nice try but that was not already indicated. At least not by the majority of people claiming grappling is OP, that you'd referenced in a previous post. The argument of grappling being overpowered was in regards to the barbarians advantage + the rogue's expertise. People voiced their opinion of it being OP without any concern for silence. Just another example of you twisting the facts.

I also like how you skated the real issues I have with your posts, nice. Stop putting words into my mouth. Stop making assumptions about what are my intentions. Stop twisting the facts. Knock that off and we're square as such continual replies of such are growing "wearisome."

Good luck to you and even more to whoever DMs for you.

[JFahy]

Get a friend, find a grassy or padded area, and take turns having one of your lie on your stomach and see how difficult it is to do anything meaningful to the other.

My court date is in three weeks. Thanks a lot. :smallannoyed:

[hawklost]

Perhaps you could refrain from the insults, it grows wearisome. The OPness relates to the combo of grappling and silence, as already indicated.

Best of luck to you and your DM.

You know what else is OP then?

Silence + Inside a Room with only 1 exit + None Casters
Or
Silence + Force Cage + None Caster
Or
Caster without a Spell Pouch/Focus (knocked away, taken whatever) being targeted by anyone

See, when you start trying to combine 2 random effects they can be OP. I don't even need to use Grapple to be way too OP against a person, all I need to do is throw that person into a situation that is very bad for them.

Grapple + silence is no stronger than a Hold Person spell except it takes more people to do (2 usually, 1 caster and a grappler) and is limited effect to only casters really (Melee doesn't care that you are hugging them, their sword works just fine). Also it can last 10 minutes instead of 1 and requires a Str/Dex save vs variable DC compared to a Wis save with a set DC.

[Gritmonger]

My court date is in three weeks. Thanks a lot. :smallannoyed:

*golf clap*

[goto124]

I figured that if a player tried grappling, the DM will just say 'no' and throw the book at her because the rules are too complex.

[Easy_Lee]

I figured that if a player tried grappling, the DM will just say 'no' and throw the book at her because the rules are too complex.

Nah, that was 3.5e.

[Safety Sword]

I figured that if a player tried grappling, the DM will just say 'no' and throw the book at her because the rules are too complex.

5E is not 3.5E

[Gwendol]

The complication of grappling in 3.5 is vastly overestimated. It took a lot of rolls, but wasn't that bad.

[Ralanr]

The complication of grappling in 3.5 is vastly overestimated. It took a lot of rolls, but wasn't that bad.

So it doesn't have a flowchart like in pathfinder?

[SharkForce]

So it doesn't have a flowchart like in pathfinder?

no, it's pretty straightforward. absurdly easy to pull off if you're trained for it because the vast majority of your opponents won't be trained for it at all, but very straightforward; you roll a str(athletics) check, they oppose with a str(athletics) or dex(acrobatics) check (their choice), and if you win they're grappled and can't move around any more.

[Ralanr]

no, it's pretty straightforward. absurdly easy to pull off if you're trained for it because the vast majority of your opponents won't be trained for it at all, but very straightforward; you roll a str(athletics) check, they oppose with a str(athletics) or dex(acrobatics) check (their choice), and if you win they're grappled and can't move around any more.

If you're explaining 5e, I meant grappling with 3.5. Unless that is 3.5, and grappling has never been difficult. I never played 3.5. Closest was pathfinder.

[SharkForce]

ah ok. yeah, 3.5 grappling is not quite so simple :P

[TheDeadlyShoe]

The rules weren't terrible, but combat would always stop while everyone looked through the rules again.

[Easy_Lee]

ah ok. yeah, 3.5 grappling is not quite so simple :P

Definitely, though it wasn't too bad once you went through it a time or two. The difficulty of 3.5 grappling reached a sort of meme status; even gamers unfamiliar with D&D sometimes heard and retold the stories, reinforcing the idea whether it was exaggerated or not.

[Vogonjeltz]

You might want to read http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prone and look at 2b. It says just "lying flat or prostrate" without a single thing about orientation.

Considering words have multiple meanings you have to make sure to look at all of them to see what might be used in a sentence. Just because your definition comes first in the dictionary does not mean it was the one that was used in the writing of a sentence.

EDIT:
And yes, I know different dictionaries have slightly different definitions that fit your argument. But if you are going to pull from a dictionary like Merriam-Webster please try to make sure you don't have a definition that defeats your argument in there.

Your post is confusing. Are you being intentionally ironic with that edit? 2b is complementary to 2a, it enhances and adds to the definition of facing by including location. There's no contradiction at all.


"Bear stands almost no chance of overpowering low level human that has no aid of technology or magic" is probably one of the things that indicates an area of the rules that could use adjustment.

It's rather improbable a non-proficient low level human with an average ability score (10) for strength could win a grapple check against a Bear. On the other hand, look up Hugh Glass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass
and C. Dale Petersen: https://huckberry.com/journal/posts/man-kills-grizzly-with-hands-and-teeth

Both examples of actual people killing actual Grizzly Bears with just a knife and in the latter case, their bare hands and teeth (!). I'm fully prepared to give the hero of a fantasy game the benefit of the doubt on this one.


My court date is in three weeks. Thanks a lot.

Well played sir.

[Xetheral]

Your post is confusing. Are you being intentionally ironic with that edit? 2b is complementary to 2a, it enhances and adds to the definition of facing by including location. There's no contradiction at all.

In a dictionary, separate entries such as 2a and 2b are separate senses of the word. 2b in no way "enhances or adds to" 2a.

Because definition 2b does not stipulate one must be facedown, one can indeed be "prone" without being facedown.

[SharkForce]

It's rather improbable a non-proficient low level human with an average ability score (10) for strength could win a grapple check against a Bear. On the other hand, look up Hugh Glass: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Glass
and C. Dale Petersen: https://huckberry.com/journal/posts/man-kills-grizzly-with-hands-and-teeth

Both examples of actual people killing actual Grizzly Bears with just a knife and in the latter case, their bare hands and teeth (!). I'm fully prepared to give the hero of a fantasy game the benefit of the doubt on this one.


the first is 3 people, one of whom was grappled repeatedly (nothing notes that he threw the bear or held it in place, for example, while the reverse is generally true), and involved stabbing the bear to death, not grappling.

the second i could see arguing that he grappled the bear, although some of the details seem a bit sketchy (unless "modern" technology includes bows, or trained dogs, or traps that would have been used thousands of years ago, this is definitely not only the second bear to have been killed without modern weaponry).

but we're not talking about experience hunters or soldiers that got lucky and beat the odds. we're talking about a level 1 human being superior in a wrestling match. i don't really have a problem with a level 20 fighter wrestling a bear and beating it. heck, even a level 10 warrior isn't so bad. the farmer's big strong son who likes to wrestle so much that he's trained in it but is otherwise a regular person? err... no thanks.

[Xetheral]

the first is 3 people, one of whom was grappled repeatedly (nothing notes that he threw the bear or held it in place, for example, while the reverse is generally true), and involved stabbing the bear to death, not grappling.

the second i could see arguing that he grappled the bear, although some of the details seem a bit sketchy (unless "modern" technology includes bows, or trained dogs, or traps that would have been used thousands of years ago, this is definitely not only the second bear to have been killed without modern weaponry).

but we're not talking about experience hunters or soldiers that got lucky and beat the odds. we're talking about a level 1 human being superior in a wrestling match. i don't really have a problem with a level 20 fighter wrestling a bear and beating it. heck, even a level 10 warrior isn't so bad. the farmer's big strong son who likes to wrestle so much that he's trained in it but is otherwise a regular person? err... no thanks.

Keep in mind that the farmer's son will still lose to the bear, even if he can win on most athletics checks. He's simply strong enough that the bear has to maul him first before moving on to other targets. Admittedly, once the Grappler feat comes into play and the farmer's son can pin the bear, then suspension of disbelief becomes very tricky. But normal grappling just prevents the target from moving, and it's not implausible that with a trained grip even an immensely strong beast would need to attack to get free.

[SharkForce]

the farmer's son will lose the fight. he will, however, also hold the bear in place. the former sounds right. the latter sounds ridiculous. i don't care how strong your grip is, you're not going to keep a bear from walking around with one person's weight to throw into it. you could maybe force the bear to drag you around, but grappling doesn't just attach you to the target, it holds the target in its current location.

[Easy_Lee]

People in D&D do things that we can't. Saying something in D&D needs to be limited by real life, such as fighters grappling bears, is an example of the Guy at the Gym fallacy. This only serves to hold back martials and create martial-caster imbalance.

[hawklost]

the first is 3 people, one of whom was grappled repeatedly (nothing notes that he threw the bear or held it in place, for example, while the reverse is generally true), and involved stabbing the bear to death, not grappling.

the second i could see arguing that he grappled the bear, although some of the details seem a bit sketchy (unless "modern" technology includes bows, or trained dogs, or traps that would have been used thousands of years ago, this is definitely not only the second bear to have been killed without modern weaponry).

but we're not talking about experience hunters or soldiers that got lucky and beat the odds. we're talking about a level 1 human being superior in a wrestling match. i don't really have a problem with a level 20 fighter wrestling a bear and beating it. heck, even a level 10 warrior isn't so bad. the farmer's big strong son who likes to wrestle so much that he's trained in it but is otherwise a regular person? err... no thanks.

a 1st level character who stats of 16-18 is not in any way a commoner or a farmers big strong son who likes to wrestle. They are a Trained Fighter who has strengthened themselves and know how to take someone down while wrestling. Or a supernaturally strong barbarian (how else do you explain AC based on Con) who can wrestle a bear.

A commoner with 18 str would still be no match for a fighter with the same str, so why would you think that comparing a Commoner to a bear would work?

Fighter attempts to Grapple bear with his +5 vs +2. He has effectively a 15% chance of success since the bear must beat him on a roll by 3 to not be grappled (14+5=19 vs 17+2=19). All this does is stop the bear from moving. Now the Bear can attack with his multi-attack or try to break free. If he strikes, his 2 attacks would finish the Fighter off (3.5+2 and 5+2 = 12.5 damage. Assuming 14 con so 12 hp). Even if the Bear did not kill the Fighter due to a miss or luck then the Fighter still only has an effective 15% chance to pin the bear If he Specialized in Grappling.

It seems pretty reasonable in this scenario that an extremely strong person (more strength than most RL humans), who is trained to fight AND who specialized in Wrestling things could pin a black bear (who is not huge and average only 250, so less than a human in full plate and gear).

[Ralanr]

What is the equivalent to a level one character in real life anyway? Cause I'm sure it's not a normal person.

[SharkForce]

People in D&D do things that we can't. Saying something in D&D needs to be limited by real life, such as fighters grappling bears, is an example of the Guy at the Gym fallacy. This only serves to hold back martials and create martial-caster imbalance.

at low levels, martial-caster imbalance is not a problem (or if it is, it's probably actually in the martial's favour).

i have no problem with a high-level martial character doing amazing things. in fact, i personally would redo the various martial classes at high levels (especially fighter and barbarian) to have more things they can do. things like letting them count as larger or smaller than they are (which creates a few weird scenarios, like a human fighter being able to ride a dog or wear halfling-sized armour, but otherwise does exactly the sort of thing i'd like to see; lets them grapple larger creatures or fight unhindered in tight spaces or carry exceptionally heavy weights, for example) or letting them accomplish as much work in various tasks as if they were more than one person (so that a high level martial could do as much work as an entire construction crew, for example).

but we're not talking about a high-level character. we're talking about a time where casters are able to throw a single level 1 spell. heck, it's a time where everyone has fewer hit dice than a regular soldier doing guard duty at the castle gate. at level 1, the fighter should be able to do strength-based things like a guy at the gym, because at level 1, he's basically a guy at the gym, but with combat training.

@ hawklost: wrestling weight categories are sometimes less than 10 lbs apart. i'm pretty sure a 250 lb wrestler would absolutely destroy a 160 lb wrestler unless the 160 lb wrestler is not good at wrestling in the slightest, and the 250 lb wrestler is very good.

and actually... i would say a strong farmer could be expected to have a strength of 16. we're talking about people who uproot trees, move rocks, build fences, move bales of hay, etc as part of their job description. a strength of 16 is certainly on the high end, but is unlikely to be truly rare. doing heavy physical labour is very much a part of farming when you don't have machines to do the work (and heck, some parts of farming are still typically done with just your own strength).

[Malifice]

and actually... i would say a strong farmer could be expected to have a strength of 16. we're talking about people who uproot trees, move rocks, build fences, move bales of hay, etc as part of their job description. a strength of 16 is certainly on the high end, but is unlikely to be truly rare. doing heavy physical labour is very much a part of farming when you don't have machines to do the work (and heck, some parts of farming are still typically done with just your own strength).

Look at the Monster manual for the stats on Commoners (of which a Farmer is one). Even a combat trained Guard, or a Thug.

PC's are exceptional, and can do exceptional things. Wrestling a bear is no different to going to toe to toe armed with a sword against a Balor (Boromoir vs the Balrog) at high levels.

[Mr.Moron]

Look at the Monster manual for the stats on Commoners (of which a Farmer is one). Even a combat trained Guard, or a Thug.

PC's are exceptional, and can do exceptional things. Wrestling a bear is no different to going to toe to toe armed with a sword against a Balor (Boromoir vs the Balrog) at high levels.

The problem is that barring the size-based immunity even the Tarrasque would struggle to break even in a wrestling match with a 2nd level grapple build. (Would have roughly a 41% chance of winning)

Pretty much every target capable of being grappled has trivial or marginal chances of winning in a grapple against a 2nd level character. A 5th-level grappler has a 90% or higher chance against pretty much any target they could attempt to grapple. Any arguments of power level, utility or even the relative fluff of "Exceptional" that's just not a functional mechanic.

[SharkForce]

i would point out that boromir did not fight the balrog - he was specifically told "this foe is beyond all of you". as in, all of them put together. in fact, the only one who fought the balrog was gandalf, and he's basically a demigod who owns a powerful artifact.

and yes, an average commoner does not have strength 16. that's why i didn't say a regular commoner, but instead mentioned a *strong* farmer. for reference, a regular thug does have strength 15.

but even then, boromir is not exactly some random dude. he's a prince of gondor, a captain of the army of gondor, and an experienced veteran of constant combat with the armies of mordor. he's not a level 1 fighter.

[Cazero]

and actually... i would say a strong farmer could be expected to have a strength of 16. we're talking about people who uproot trees, move rocks, build fences, move bales of hay, etc as part of their job description. a strength of 16 is certainly on the high end, but is unlikely to be truly rare. doing heavy physical labour is very much a part of farming when you don't have machines to do the work (and heck, some parts of farming are still typically done with just your own strength).

Irrelevant. Farmers are not heroes. The standard array in the PHB is meant for heroes.
A standard array for unimportant civilian NPCs would be more like 11, 10, 9, 8, 8, 8, with racial plusses added. So a human farmer might have a strength of 12, wich is more than enough to do all that 'hard' job. It's more tiresome than heavy lifting and an optimized farmer would max his CON first.

[Ralanr]

i would point out that boromir did not fight the balrog - he was specifically told "this foe is beyond all of you". as in, all of them put together. in fact, the only one who fought the balrog was gandalf, and he's basically a demigod who owns a powerful artifact.

and yes, an average commoner does not have strength 16. that's why i didn't say a regular commoner, but instead mentioned a *strong* farmer. for reference, a regular thug does have strength 15.

but even then, boromir is not exactly some random dude. he's a prince of gondor, a captain of the army of gondor, and an experienced veteran of constant combat with the armies of mordor. he's not a level 1 fighter.

So he's a level 5 fighter?

Wouldn't Gandalf be a level 15 wizard? Or just an NPC.

[Malifice]

The problem is that barring the size-based immunity even the Tarrasque would struggle to break even in a wrestling match with a 2nd level grapple build. (Would have roughly a 41% chance of winning)

Its a good thing the size immunity exists then. So you raise a moot point.


Pretty much every target capable of being grappled has trivial or marginal chances of winning in a grapple against a 2nd level character. A 5th-level grappler has a 90% or higher chance against pretty much any target they could attempt to grapple. Any arguments of power level, utility or even the relative fluff of "Exceptional" that's just not a functional mechanic.

A second level grapple build is a strength based (V human w Grappler) Barbarian 1/ Rogue 1 with strength 16 (not optimal for the Rogue level). Grapple bonus +7 and advantage on the check thanks to expending rage (a resource). Should win 75 percent of grapple checks against creatures that arent immune (by virtue of being huge+).

He needs to spend an action to Grapple, and then another action to Pin. Even assuming he wins initiative, the creature being grappled gets at least 1 round of attacks, possibly two if the creature wins initiative. Seeing as most combats in 5th edition are over in 3-4 rounds, all he does is limit the actions that creature can take for a round or two at most.

Even assuming a lockdown of that creature by round 2 A GWF raging Barbarian would have dealt 20-30 damage over the same two rounds, likely killing the creature anyways. If the grappler wants to maintain the pin from round to round, he is effectively out of the combat for the entire encounter (removing his otherwise high DPR from the fight).

At higher levels, huge+ creatures become more common, limiting the creatures that can be targetted.

How is it any different from a Flying caster bombarding a creature with ranged cantrips with impunity? It's up the the DM to implement a sizeable number of encounters with ranged attacks and flying creatures, just like the DM should design a large amount of encounters with multiple opponents to challenge the grappler.

Just like the flying PC will occasionally get to show off and blast ground based foe with impunity, the grappler will occasionally get a single creature encouter to lock down with his grapple tactic (rewarding both players for resource investment, and presenting appropriate challenges).

In practice its not an issue, barring solo encounters with legendary Large and smaller creatures. In this case I suggest using my house-rule of allowing legendary creatures to burn a use of Legendary Resistance to auto-succeed a failed ability check in addition to a failed save.


i would point out that boromir did not fight the balrog - he was specifically told "this foe is beyond all of you". as in, all of them put together. in fact, the only one who fought the balrog was gandalf, and he's basically a demigod who owns a powerful artifact.

Boromir wasnt high enough level. Probably around 11th. And down on hit points from the prior encounters. Gandalf told him to run before breaking his staff of Power (the inspiration for retributive strikes was ripped off from this encounter)

The Balor was also a Balrog rip off. Originally called a Balrog prior to copyright issues from memory.

The very fact that a mortal warrior could stand toe to toe with that thing you see in the movie and have a good chance of slaying it with a sword alone is pretty epic.

[SharkForce]

ah, you seem to misunderstand.

i agree that it is not a balance problem.

i consider it a fluff problem. more-or-less ordinary people (and at level 1-2, you're not *that* exceptional yet) should not be winning wrestling matches against bears. not because it's broken or imbalanced, just because it should require a more extraordinary person than someone who has as many hit dice as the average town guard (or even less) to pull off.

which is why i have no problem with a higher level fighter completely wrecking large creatures in grappling contests... heck, if you looked above, one of the abilities i wanted to add to fighters and barbarians would let them grapple huge creatures... it's good if a legend can do it, not good if i can envision a level 1 nobody doing it (without getting extremely lucky), and somewhere in the middle at some vaguely-defined point along their progression it becomes totally okay (i'd place it somewhere around level 7-9 personally). not from a balance perspective, mind, but from a fluff perspective.

the creature's ability to deal damage is not the point. the creature's inability to resist grappling when they really should be able to is what bothers me.

[Naanomi]

Grappling is tough to align with real life expectations, especially in a fantasy setting. I've watched farm-bred cousins... Probably STR 12-14 individuals based on lifting capacity, and maybe proficient in athletics...try and fail repeatedly to grapple chickens, llama, sheep even when 'help action' together

[Ralanr]

Grappling is tough to align with real life expectations, especially in a fantasy setting. I've watched farm-bred cousins... Probably STR 12-14 individuals based on lifting capacity, and maybe proficient in athletics...try and fail repeatedly to grapple chickens, llama, sheep even when 'help action' together

Those chickens probably had expertise in acrobatics.

[Solusek]

So he's a level 5 fighter?

Wouldn't Gandalf be a level 15 wizard? Or just an NPC.

Apparently Gandalf is an angel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxgsxaFWWHQ

[SangoProduction]

Nothing is ever overpowered, because the DM has the final say on what the numbers are. You did 69k damage, well they had 70k health

[Vogonjeltz]

In a dictionary, separate entries such as 2a and 2b are separate senses of the word. 2b in no way "enhances or adds to" 2a.

Because definition 2b does not stipulate one must be facedown, one can indeed be "prone" without being facedown.

No, this is incorrect. Here is the guide for reading the Merriam-Webster online dictionary entries: http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictionary-explanatory-notes/def.htm

Numerals in this system denote different sense of the word. A number followed by lowercase letters, as in 2a and 2b, denote subsenses of the word, they are in point of fact related. That's how this dictionary works, not every dictionary uses the same format.


the first is 3 people, one of whom was grappled repeatedly (nothing notes that he threw the bear or held it in place, for example, while the reverse is generally true), and involved stabbing the bear to death, not grappling.

All that indicates is that the Bear beat him on subsequent grapple checks, not that he was unable to grab the bear in the first place. And throwing has nothing at all to do with the idea of grappling in 5th edition.


the second i could see arguing that he grappled the bear, although some of the details seem a bit sketchy (unless "modern" technology includes bows, or trained dogs, or traps that would have been used thousands of years ago, this is definitely not only the second bear to have been killed without modern weaponry).

The operative part of the second entry is: "Mr. Petersen killed this bear with his hands, and oddly enough, his teeth."

So...yeah, we can safely assume a regular person in D&D can grapple a bear because a regular person in real life can grapple a bear.


but we're not talking about experience hunters or soldiers that got lucky and beat the odds. we're talking about a level 1 human being superior in a wrestling match. i don't really have a problem with a level 20 fighter wrestling a bear and beating it. heck, even a level 10 warrior isn't so bad. the farmer's big strong son who likes to wrestle so much that he's trained in it but is otherwise a regular person? err... no thanks.

No, we're talking about an adventurer. NPCs that aren't adventurers don't have levels. A Fighter is substantially more heroic than a Commoner or anyone in the examples given. That's the point, normal non-amazing humans can do it, so there's no reason to blanche at a hero doing the same thing.

[SharkForce]

you're not a hero yet. you're a level 1 character. a 1v1 fight with a goblin carries a significant chance of you getting killed without even dealing damage. a lucky crit from an arrow can probably take you down in a single hit. you against a regular soldier is only slightly in your favour, unless you're a spellcaster and use up your only spell slot.

[MustacheFart]

you're not a hero yet. you're a level 1 character. a 1v1 fight with a goblin carries a significant chance of you getting killed without even dealing damage. a lucky crit from an arrow can probably take you down in a single hit. you against a regular soldier is only slightly in your favour, unless you're a spellcaster and use up your only spell slot.

Sure and that bear could multiattack swat your butt down before you act. However if you beat them to initiative you could grapple them first. The scale of their damage to your hit points should have zero collation to being able to grapple. They're entirely different mechanics. An example of this would be an MMA fighter stronger in ground combat aka grappling vs an MMA fighter better in striking. This happens all the time.

I would also like to point out that every level 1 player is not necessarily an 18 year old. Some are 30, 45, 112, etc. This means they most likely spent years as effectively an npc (backstory) before becoming an adventurer. So a level 1 fighter is in no way the same as a normal person. Trying to equate such is silly.