Question about grapple, again

[Max Caysey]

I was wondering if someone carrying or wearing a shield retains the shield AC to AC when grappling someone?

Assuming you have the shield on your forearm, it seem illogical that you would get full bonus, if you dont get full bonus to attack...

This picture (https://www.google.dk/search?q=Wrestling&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi115aRlKLLAhXrAJoKHbfBDy4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=957#imgrc=zsKlRLgWZFu2yM%3A) and this (https://www.google.dk/search?q=Wrestling&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi115aRlKLLAhXrAJoKHbfBDy4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=957#imgrc=L5CsQbcgLMEZMM%3A) kind of highlights my point.. that the shield would block not against the grappler, but the outside. Now I know grappling is not static, but it just seems wierd to get full use og shield if you dont get full use of attack...

How do you guys handle this at your table... ? Or have I missed some rule somewhere that clears this right uP?

[Von Zinzer]

(I've not been able to find a rule stating whether you get your shield AC when you have the "grappled" condition.)

I see what you're saying about a shield protecting from outside projectiles or attacks... but I think that gets messy to adjudicate your AC if someone's firing into your grapple, and there are already rules for ranged attacks against engaged combatants.

My sense is that your shield takes up a hand (bucklers notwithstanding) and you're paying for that by increased difficulty of grapple checks; therefore you should still get your shield bonus when grappling. After all, even if you're not actively wielding it in a defensive fashion, it's still a thing your opponent has to get around to hit you.

[Necroticplague]

I was wondering if someone carrying or wearing a shield retains the shield AC to AC when grappling someone?

Assuming you have the shield on your forearm, it seem illogical that you would get full bonus, if you dont get full bonus to attack...

This picture (https://www.google.dk/search?q=Wrestling&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi115aRlKLLAhXrAJoKHbfBDy4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=957#imgrc=zsKlRLgWZFu2yM%3A) and this (https://www.google.dk/search?q=Wrestling&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi115aRlKLLAhXrAJoKHbfBDy4Q_AUIBygB&biw=1920&bih=957#imgrc=L5CsQbcgLMEZMM%3A) kind of highlights my point.. that the shield would block not against the grappler, but the outside. Now I know grappling is not static, but it just seems wierd to get full use og shield if you dont get full use of attack...

How do you guys handle this at your table... ? Or have I missed some rule somewhere that clears this right uP?

Nothing about Grapple says that you lose your shield bonus to AC when grappling. you lose DEX bonuses, and all things that you lose when you lose those, but not your armor or shield. How hard it is to defend against others while wrestling is already represented by your flat-footedness. Even if you aren't actively swiveling around to face the attacker, the sheild still increases the amount of your body that is covered by things that aren't your body, and thus are tougher to hit. And it's kinda reasonable that even if you're wrestling someone, you can still rotate around him to make use of your shield. Not quite as well as before, but DnD's combat system is abstract enough that minor details like that are too fine-grain for it to normally bother.

[Max Caysey]

Nothing about Grapple says that you lose your shield bonus to AC when grappling. you lose DEX bonuses, and all things that you lose when you lose those, but not your armor or shield. How hard it is to defend against others while wrestling is already represented by your flat-footedness. Even if you aren't actively swiveling around to face the attacker, the sheild still increases the amount of your body that is covered by things that aren't your body, and thus are tougher to hit. And it's kinda reasonable that even if you're wrestling someone, you can still rotate around him to make use of your shield. Not quite as well as before, but DnD's combat system is abstract enough that minor details like that are too fine-grain for it to normally bother.

Two follow up questions...

Do you loose your dex against the one your are grappling again/with? AFAIK you retain dex against your grappler?

I was talking about shield ac against the one you are grappling? Were you?

My point was just, that if you grapple one could think that you would get behind the shield, each other rapping your arms around each other... thust the shield would not be between your, but on the side...

[Necroticplague]

Do you loose your dex against the one your are grappling again/with? AFAIK you retain dex against your grappler?

I was talking about shield ac against the one you are grappling? Were you?

My point was just, that if you grapple one could think that you would get behind the shield, each other rapping your arms around each other... thust the shield would not be between your, but on the side...

1. No. You keep your DEX against the person you're grappling, you only lose your DEX bonus against other people.

2. I was mostly thinking of against other people, since people you are grappling can ignore your AC entirely by just making a grapple check to do damage.

The problem is one of assumptions. You're assuming all grappling is done the same way, one which makes getting a shield bonus to AC not make sense. Since the rules don't say you lose the bonus, maybe it's time to change your image of what grappling is? Stripped away from the name, all the mechanics of grappling state is that it's two people much more in each others face than a standard combatant is. It's entirely possible for your shield-arm to be inside the arm of the other dude, providing excellent protection from his attacks. There are plenty of ways to justify grappling so it matches the mechanics. Wrestling like the type you show is specifically done because that format doesn't allow for striking (I should know, got kicked of a wrestling team for elbowing people who got behind me), and would be quite different from the type of grabbing you'd do if you expect him to attempt to strike you.

Also, attacks don't always come from straight on. Even if the shield is at your side, it's still providing protection, because it means they can't try to attack you on that side.

[Max Caysey]

1. No. You keep your DEX against the person you're grappling, you only lose your DEX bonus against other people.

2. I was mostly thinking of against other people, since people you are grappling can ignore your AC entirely by just making a grapple check to do damage.

The problem is one of assumptions. You're assuming all grappling is done the same way, one which makes getting a shield bonus to AC not make sense. Since the rules don't say you lose the bonus, maybe it's time to change your image of what grappling is? Stripped away from the name, all the mechanics of grappling state is that it's two people much more in each others face than a standard combatant is. It's entirely possible for your shield-arm to be inside the arm of the other dude, providing excellent protection from his attacks. There are plenty of ways to justify grappling so it matches the mechanics. Wrestling like the type you show is specifically done because that format doesn't allow for striking (I should know, got kicked of a wrestling team for elbowing people who got behind me), and would be quite different from the type of grabbing you'd do if you expect him to attempt to strike you.

Also, attacks don't always come from straight on. Even if the shield is at your side, it's still providing protection, because it means they can't try to attack you on that side.

I agree totally, that I should not assume all grappling to be the same, but I not sure, a shield would make it that much harder for Brock Lesnar to hit somone when lying on top of them. I actually think it would be more difficult to act/move and thus could not give you the bonus...

Did the armor check penalty apply to grapplec hecks btw?

[Necroticplague]

I agree totally, that I should not assume all grappling to be the same, but I not sure, a shield would make it that much harder for Brock Lesnar to hit somone when lying on top of them. I actually think it would be more difficult to act/move and thus could not give you the bonus...
Hard, yes. Impossible, no. Important enough to bother putting into a heavily-abstracted combat system, probably not. If I'm on my back, bringing a shield up to cover my face is entirely possible, and a rather good way to defend myself.

Did the armor check penalty apply to grapplec hecks btw?

Only if you aren't profecient with whatever shield you're using. ACP applies to skills on a decent sized list, and attack rolls, STR and DEX based checks if you aren't profecient. A grapple check is a STR-based check (though not a STR check), so it applies if you aren't profecient with your shield (or armor, for that matter).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I've always assumed that the designers were using the broades interpretation of "grapple," as in any instance of the combatants grabbing one another. Any kind of grabbing from latching onto a foe's wrist or even some loose clothing, like a belt or the collar of a tunic, to the extremes of greco-roman wrestling and muay thai clinch fighting. Note that the rules never mention the combatants being rendered prone as a consequence of engaging the grapple, so ground-fighting seems an innappropriate image to picture unless one or the other trips his opponent within the grapple.

Given this, using a shield within the grapple makes perfect sense. A guy grabbing your collar with his left hand isn't going to stop the shield on your left hand from getting in his way. Same goes for him grabbing pretty much anything on the side of you opposite your shield. Even if he grabs the shield itself, it's still in the way. Tai clinch; shield under the enemies arms protecting most of you. You'd have to get double-underhooks or over-under with the under on the same side as the shield to push the shield out of the equaution and you just can't do that if the guy you're grabbing at has something sharp to jam in your ribs on the other side. You -need- to have an arm free to deflect the enemy's weapon or to have wrist control on that side or you're going to be stabbed. Repeatedly. That only leaves a pin. You can't make a regular attack while pinning an opponent or being pinned by an opponent. Enemies outside the grapple will still have to deal with the shield pinned to one side of you so it makes sense that you still get the bonus against them.

You keep the shield bonus to AC in a grapple and I can't really see a good reason that shouldn't be so.

[Max Caysey]

I've always assumed that the designers were using the broades interpretation of "grapple," as in any instance of the combatants grabbing one another. Any kind of grabbing from latching onto a foe's wrist or even some loose clothing, like a belt or the collar of a tunic, to the extremes of greco-roman wrestling and muay thai clinch fighting. Note that the rules never mention the combatants being rendered prone as a consequence of engaging the grapple, so ground-fighting seems an innappropriate image to picture unless one or the other trips his opponent within the grapple.

Given this, using a shield within the grapple makes perfect sense. A guy grabbing your collar with his left hand isn't going to stop the shield on your left hand from getting in his way. Same goes for him grabbing pretty much anything on the side of you opposite your shield. Even if he grabs the shield itself, it's still in the way. Tai clinch; shield under the enemies arms protecting most of you. You'd have to get double-underhooks or over-under with the under on the same side as the shield to push the shield out of the equaution and you just can't do that if the guy you're grabbing at has something sharp to jam in your ribs on the other side. You -need- to have an arm free to deflect the enemy's weapon or to have wrist control on that side or you're going to be stabbed. Repeatedly. That only leaves a pin. You can't make a regular attack while pinning an opponent or being pinned by an opponent. Enemies outside the grapple will still have to deal with the shield pinned to one side of you so it makes sense that you still get the bonus against them.

You keep the shield bonus to AC in a grapple and I can't really see a good reason that shouldn't be so.

My "problem" stems from the fact that you use both hands to hold on... So you do not have a free hand to move your sheild to block... I would say. It makes perfect sense, as you say, if you had a free hand, but you dont.

[zergling.exe]

My "problem" stems from the fact that you use both hands to hold on... So you do not have a free hand to move your sheild to block... I would say. It makes perfect sense, as you say, if you had a free hand, but you dont.

It is possible to use two-handed weapons in a grapple with a feat (PHB II, Weapon Supremecy p85). You don't need any hands to make grapple checks.

[Max Caysey]

It is possible to use two-handed weapons in a grapple with a feat (PHB II, Weapon Supremecy p85). You don't need any hands to make grapple checks.

How is that even physically possible?

[Kelb_Panthera]

My "problem" stems from the fact that you use both hands to hold on... So you do not have a free hand to move your sheild to block... I would say. It makes perfect sense, as you say, if you had a free hand, but you dont.

You have to have a hand free to start a grapple, you don't have to have a hand free to be engaged in one. If the other guy has a hold of you, you're still in a grapple. You don't need both hands free in any case, no matter who started the grapple. It is, however, quite likely that a dedicated grappler will have both hands free.


How is that even physically possible?

Same as I just mentioned; the other guy has a hold of you. You didn't start the grapple and specialized training allows you to use your two-hander on the guy trying to bend, squeeze, choke, or otherwise harm you through grapping.

You really want a be thrown for a loop; the swallow whole ability of some creatures uses the grapple rules.

[zergling.exe]

How is that even physically possible?

Things you can do in a grapple:
Attack Your Opponent: You make a weapon attack, okay.
Damage Your Opponent: An unarmed strike that's an opposed grapple check instead of an attack roll.
Escape From a Grapple: A two-handed weapon could be used to force an opponent to get away from you or let you go.
Move: You force the opponent to move with you.
Pin Your Opponent: You have them in a position with the weapon that they cannot do anything about, e.g. sword at their throat.
Break Another's Pin: Forcing them to let go is not hindered by having a huge weapon in your hands.
Use Opponent's Weapon: You force them to hurt themselves on their own weapon.

None of these actions are impossible to do while wielding a weapon. A grapple is most accurately just two creatures in each other's faces. Part of the reason you can't grapple something 2 sizes bigger than you is that you can just enter their space, nothing (except AoOs) is stopping you.

TLDR: Just because it is called "grapple", and functions similarly to two people wrestling does not mean that two people are wrestling.

[Necroticplague]

My "problem" stems from the fact that you use both hands to hold on... So you do not have a free hand to move your sheild to block... I would say. It makes perfect sense, as you say, if you had a free hand, but you dont.
*Citation needed*
Where does it say you need both hands to grapple? The only mention of hands in the grapple rules is when it talks about using material components in a grapple. Unless, of course, you think constrictor snakes aren't capable of grappling. Remember when I said you were making unsupported assumptions of what grappling is like?

If grappling really used up both of your hands, you wouldn't be able to use any of your weapons in a grapple. but even without the feat mentioned, you're still free to stab someone with a one-handed or light weapon in a grapple.


Things you can do in a grapple:
Attack Your Opponent: You make a weapon attack, okay.
Damage Your Opponent: An unarmed strike that's an opposed grapple check instead of an attack roll.
Escape From a Grapple: A two-handed weapon could be used to force an opponent to get away from you or let you go.
Move: You force the opponent to move with you.
Pin Your Opponent: You have them in a position with the weapon that they cannot do anything about, e.g. sword at their throat.
Break Another's Pin: Forcing them to let go is not hindered by having a huge weapon in your hands.
Use Opponent's Weapon: You force them to hurt themselves on their own weapon.

None of these actions are impossible to do while wielding a weapon. A grapple is most accurately just two creatures in each other's faces. Part of the reason you can't grapple something 2 sizes bigger than you is that you can just enter their space, nothing (except AoOs) is stopping you.

TLDR: Just because it is called "grapple", and functions similarly to two people wrestling does not mean that two people are wrestling.

This. Stripped down to it's most basic, the essence of a grapple is that your not giving the opponent the standard amount of room to fight in, and it's inconveniencing both of you. Normally, the space system indicates everyone has a fair amount of room to maneuver in. When you grapple, you are just much more up in their face. Like pretty much everything else about DnDs combat system, this is very heavily abstracted so as to not sweat the details.

[Max Caysey]

*Citation needed*
Where does it say you need both hands to grapple? The only mention of hands in the grapple rules is when it talks about using material components in a grapple. Unless, of course, you think constrictor snakes aren't capable of grappling. Remember when I said you were making unsupported assumptions of what grappling is like?

If grappling really used up both of your hands, you wouldn't be able to use any of your weapons in a grapple. but even without the feat mentioned, you're still free to stab someone with a one-handed or light weapon in a grapple.



This. Stripped down to it's most basic, the essence of a grapple is that your not giving the opponent the standard amount of room to fight in, and it's inconveniencing both of you. Normally, the space system indicates everyone has a fair amount of room to maneuver in. When you grapple, you are just much more up in their face. Like pretty much everything else about DnDs combat system, this is very heavily abstracted so as to not sweat the details.

I think I got the "two hands needed" thing from Scorpion's Grasp, which says, that if you just want to hold the enemy in one hand you take -20 panalty to grap check. So I guess I took that and reversed that logic. The mention of wrestling in the first line of the PHB might also say that grappling mean holding on to someone.



I see that nothing states that my assumptions about two hands needed... Or that somehow they even touch. However, I do assume pinning still requires som form of touching the enemy? How else would Choke Hold function.

When all is said and done RUles of the Game, how ever much RAI that might be does indicate that you need to hold on to the enemy: "You're grappling whenever you have a foe in your grasp or vice versa"

This might not mean anything in this RAW forum, which I respect, but it does seem that holding on is part of grapple. SRD says: "To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target" So the "you're just in the enemy's grill, not really wrestling seem to be not so acurate either...