Grappling Seems too Easy for PCs

[TrinculoLives]

Because most monsters don't have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics, and most PCs have proficiency in at least one, the grappling rules seem to favour PCs greatly. Only an especially strong or large creature is going to have an advantage over your average PC, so that most of the time the monster will be initiating or avoiding a grapple with a measly +3 or so. Meanwhile t is not uncommon for, say, a level 8 PC to have a +7 in either Acrobatics or Athletics, with Rogues and Bards often having +10 already at that level.

The disparity is such that most of the time it seems from the DM side of the screen that I'm wasting my monster's actions attempting to grapple PCs. This frustrates me because it feels like by trying to challenge my players in interesting ways in combat I'm merely gimping monsters in encounters.

Is this a concern for anyone else? Is anyone else tempted to, now and then, grant another +3 on top of that ogre's +4 Str for a more impressive +7 Athletics score?

[MrFahrenheit]

Because most monsters don't have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics, and most PCs have proficiency in at least one, the grappling rules seem to favour PCs greatly. Only an especially strong or large creature is going to have an advantage over your average PC, so that most of the time the monster will be initiating or avoiding a grapple with a measly +3 or so. Meanwhile t is not uncommon for, say, a level 8 PC to have a +7 in either Acrobatics or Athletics, with Rogues and Bards often having +10 already at that level.

The disparity is such that most of the time it seems from the DM side of the screen that I'm wasting my monster's actions attempting to grapple PCs. This frustrates me because it feels like by trying to challenge my players in interesting ways in combat I'm merely gimping monsters in encounters.

Is this a concern for anyone else? Is anyone else tempted to, now and then, grant another +3 on top of that ogre's +4 Str for a more impressive +7 Athletics score?

This largely applies to escaping grapples. Only strength-pumped bard and rogue MC builds will have this huge advantage on initiating/sustaining.

But to answer your question, it's not a concern. In initiating a grapple, the PC has chosen to not deal damage with his/her attack (or one of them assuming the character has extra attack). The character is also now more vulnerable, tactically, to mobs. So it's all give-and-take.

[JNAProductions]

Because most monsters don't have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics, and most PCs have proficiency in at least one, the grappling rules seem to favour PCs greatly. Only an especially strong or large creature is going to have an advantage over your average PC, so that most of the time the monster will be initiating or avoiding a grapple with a measly +3 or so. Meanwhile t is not uncommon for, say, a level 8 PC to have a +7 in either Acrobatics or Athletics, with Rogues and Bards often having +10 already at that level.

The disparity is such that most of the time it seems from the DM side of the screen that I'm wasting my monster's actions attempting to grapple PCs. This frustrates me because it feels like by trying to challenge my players in interesting ways in combat I'm merely gimping monsters in encounters.

Is this a concern for anyone else? Is anyone else tempted to, now and then, grant another +3 on top of that ogre's +4 Str for a more impressive +7 Athletics score?

Think about if it makes sense. Ogres, for instance, are dumb. They're not likely to have refined fighting styles that proficiency in Athletics indicates.

But, if this is a Chieftain Ogre, or an elite warrior Ogre, then yes, I'd give it to them, since they do have the training.

Above all, though, make sure your PCs are having fun.

[Gastronomie]

First off: I always declare to my players before the campaign even starts that I will change stuff a lot from the MM, to make combat more interesting.

Read the below with that in mind.

Most MM monsters are boring. You should spice them up. It's better that way.

Feel free to give Athletics to the Ogre. It doesn't make any sense that he's worse at pushing a rock than a human fighter. Just do it only now and then, and don't give Athletics/Acrobatics to basically every single monster you hurl at the PCs, especially if there's a Barbarian who likes grappling in the party. Severely weakening a character's ability just because you don't like it can be often frustrating for the player.

This might be getting a bit off-topic from "Grappling", but since it's related to "interesting challenges" - I also like to give my monsters extra abilities and methods of attacks that aren't "just damage".

For instance, the Ogre might swing his club and smack Character A, sending him flying back into Character B, who was standing behind him. They both make a DC something save, and if they fail, they're knocked prone by the shock of hitting into each other. Or the Ogre might grab a character wih a hand, and proceed to lift him off the ground. The character has disadvantage on attack rolls, since he can't stand firm on the ground, and he's being constantly swung around by the Ogre (or he might be lifted by the hand in which he's holding a weapon, or he might even have his entire body be squeezed in the Ogre's giant hand). The next turn, the Ogre slams him down hard upon the ground, and proceeds to stomp on top of him - or perhaps he might just fling him far away and make him smack into a tree. ...This sort of stuff. It's not just by "Grappling" that you can "try to challenge your players in interesting ways in combat". Be creative. Make the combat lively and interesting, with lots and lots of variety, instead of just "Attack, hit, Attack, miss, Attack, hit, kay, this guy's now dead, you guys won, take this share of XP".

Back to "Grappling". I think that you should feel free to give many monsters the same ability as that of the Giant Constrictor Snake or Glabrezu - "the attack also includes a grapple effect". The bite of a dragon might also include the Grapple effect. The Ogre's grappling should also be painful, since he's got quite a strong grip - inflicting some good bludgeoning damage.

This sort of stuff. It's fun to think, and even more fun to put to actual use. And the players will no doubt love it too.

Good luck with spicing up your encounters.

[Easy_Lee]

A PC can only effectively grapple one or two mobs at once. Even if he uses that to throw them off cliffs or something, he's probably only getting one mob per round. A wizard could accomplish the same vs a group with Gust of Wind or an AoE control spell.

And, of course, some mobs couldn't really be effectively grappled. Like a gelatinous cube.

[TrinculoLives]

This might be getting a bit off-topic from "Grappling", but since it's related to "interesting challenges" - I also like to give my monsters extra abilities and methods of attacks that aren't "just damage".
...Or the Ogre might grab a character wih a hand, and proceed to lift him off the ground. The character has disadvantage on attack rolls, since he can't stand firm on the ground, and he's being constantly swung around by the Ogre (or he might be lifted by the hand in which he's holding a weapon, or he might even have his entire body be squeezed in the Ogre's giant hand). It's not just by "Grappling" that you can "try to challenge your players in interesting ways in combat". Be creative. Make the combat lively and interesting, with lots and lots of variety, instead of just "Attack, hit, Attack, miss, Attack, hit, kay, this guy's now dead, you guys won, take this share of XP".

Well, sure, but wouldn't the Ogre grabbing a character off the ground by part of that character's body involve a grapple contest? I mean that's what it's for specifically.



Back to "Grappling". I think that you should feel free to give many monsters the same ability as that of the Giant Constrictor Snake or Glabrezu - "the attack also includes a grapple effect". The bite of a dragon might also include the Grapple effect. The Ogre's grappling should also be painful, since he's got quite a strong grip - inflicting some good bludgeoning damage...

Ah, so grappling as a rider effect. That's really just bypassing the Grappling rules altogether!


...Good luck with spicing up your encounters.

Thanks!

[Gastronomie]

Well, sure, but wouldn't the Ogre grabbing a character off the ground by part of that character's body involve a grapple contest? I mean that's what it's for specifically.Yes it would, but you can just add Athletics to the Ogre to make it more likely to suceed, and it also adds more than just "you can't move".

Ah, so grappling as a rider effect. That's really just bypassing the Grappling rules altogether!The rules are meant to be broken, especially if breaking them makes the game more fun. Eh, actually, in this case it's not even breaking the rules because some monsters in the MM already have this ability. It actually honestly makes no sense that an Ogre can attempt to grapple a medium-sized humanoid without damaging it.

Thanks!You're welcome~. Pretty sure there's many other methods of solving this problem, so you might wanna brainstorm to make your encounters even more interesting.

[IShouldntBehere]

The grappling rules aren't overly powerful, but they are kind of broken.

They use opposed checks, when every kind of combat ability uses hit rolls or saves.
They have a high opportunity cost (give up attacks) for a relatively low impact effect.

The end result is this:
-Grappling is not super useful in a wide variety of situations.
-When they pay off for grappling is not huge, you're unlikely to use it.
-Grappling is a near guaranteed effect when you use it.
-In the rare occasions where grappling is powerful it is very powerful


This means you have an ability that is more mostly pretty mediocre, but is an absolute auto-win in the few situations where it applies well. In the end it probably all evens out into something that's not super unhealthy for the game but it's always going to just feel off. It's just far too "Swingy".


Good grapple rules would be tied to saves, and see PCs have a fair chance of loosing any grapple. While at the same time reducing the opportunity cost of trying to use a grapple, or increasing the constiency with the level of useless a grapple provides when initiated.

I don't know what those rules would really look, but I think they'd be far from what we have now.

[JellyPooga]

Grappling only favours those PCs that build for it.

All those Wizards, Rogues, Bards etc. that dumped Strength and didn't grab Athletics simply won't do it and if faced with an Ogre or Giant will stand very little chance of avoiding being grabbed and stuffed in a sack.

The only reason it appears that PC's have an easier time of it is because you can build to be good at grappling, those PC's built for grappling are extremely good at it and only those PC's ever actually engage in grapples. Everyone else avoids the whole debacle.

On the subject of big-brutes that aren't that good at grappling, let's look at the Ogre. Str 18 means he has +4 to Athletics checks. Against your average, untrained commoner with Str 10, he's got a significant advantage. Against a Fighter, someone trained for war with equal Strength (again no Athletics prof), it's 50/50. Remember that Ogres are "legendarily stupid"; it's in their description, so ducking and diving, distraction and feints are easy against them, so whatever advantage they have from size is somewhat negated.

Now put someone who has devoted a significant portion of their life into being good at grapples; a level 1 Rogue, Str 16, Athletics Expertise. Add it all up and he's got a +7 modifier. He knows all the tricks, he knows how to use the Ogres Strength and size against him. When he grapples the Ogre, he hasn't got him in a head lock or pinned, per se, he's got him by the leg, dragging him around hopping, or he's managed to put the Ogre in a pressure-lock of and has it at his mercy. In the face of genuine skill, size and strength help but are ultimately useless. On the flipside, just grappling an Ogre isn't much good when he's still capable of bashing your skull in with his club or fists.

Now pit that grapple-focused Rogue against a Giant. Any one you like. Without magical assistance, the Rogue can't do squat. In the face of sufficient size and strength, all the skill in the world won't help. He might be able to evade a grapple, but isn't that as it should be? If the Giant is determined to grapple our Rogue, it's only a matter of time before the Rogue fluffs a roll, but if the Rogue is determined to grapple the Giant...no chance at all.

The grapple rules work for me. They're not perfect, but they play well enough, making grapple-builds fun and somewhat viable in play without dominating large swathes of time or head-work to resolve it all.

[MaxWilson]

Is this a concern for anyone else? Is anyone else tempted to, now and then, grant another +3 on top of that ogre's +4 Str for a more impressive +7 Athletics score?

Nope, not a concern for me in the general case. I'm fine with it if players are good at things. Monsters' poor Athletic skills is one of the major asymmetric advantages PCs have over monsters, just as monsters typically have way more HP.

If I want to use something that is trained in athletics, I will use a Stone Giant or a Fire Giant, or an unusual orc, or else just use more orcs and "quantity has a quality of its own".

[JellyPooga]

The OP is analogous to saying "Spellcasting seems too easy for PCs". Yeah...but only for full spellcasters. EK's, AT's and even Paladins and Rangers can't compete with the likes of a Lich.

It's also worth bearing in mind that monsters and NPC's are designed to be a challenge at a certain level of play and often for a specific type of encounter. You're not typically going to use an Ogre in a social challenge and certainly not as a magical challenge. It's a physical challenge, so those who are physically minded (such as a grapple build) should expect to be able to cope with what's being thrown their way.

It's also Challenge: 2, which means that a 2nd level party should find that encounter moderately easy (after all, that party is expected to face six such encounters a day). If a level 2 character cannot expect to surpass the abilities of that encounter, then perhaps it should have a higher CR.

[IShouldntBehere]

The OP is analogous to saying "Spellcasting seems too easy for PCs". Yeah...but only for full spellcasters. EK's, AT's and even Paladins and Rangers can't compete with the likes of a Lich.

It's also worth bearing in mind that monsters and NPC's are designed to be a challenge at a certain level of play and often for a specific type of encounter. You're not typically going to use an Ogre in a social challenge and certainly not as a magical challenge. It's a physical challenge, so those who are physically minded (such as a grapple build) should expect to be able to cope with what's being thrown their way.

It's also Challenge: 2, which means that a 2nd level party should find that encounter moderately easy (after all, that party is expected to face six such encounters a day). If a level 2 character cannot expect to surpass the abilities of that encounter, then perhaps it should have a higher CR.

Lots of monsters have saving throw values though and spells also have a wide variety of effects that are more than just narrowly useful. The entire stable of default monsters has obviously been written with spell interactions in mind and as a result they have proper ways to interact with the spell system.

The combat contests seem to have been after thought. Almost none of the monsters have athletics scores even those that should be seemingly good at grappling or at least avoiding being grappled. Grappling is also a really narrow ability. It's like someone said "Hey let's make grappling a contested check" and nobody ever asked "OK. SO which monsters should be good at these contested checks". When they clearly did say "Hey. Let's give fireball a dexterity save" and then asked "OK. So which monsters should be good at dexterity saves?"

The whole thing comes off like a half-baked after thought or a vestigial remnant of an earlier combat system design.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The monster manual was generally not thought through. I'd say generally each creature should have at least two skill proficiencies, aka "what living your life teaches you." Whatever's fitting- Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Perception, Intimidation... whatever fits. It's doofy that only players get to actually learn how to do things.

[Easy_Lee]

The monster manual was generally not thought through. I'd say generally each creature should have at least two skill proficiencies, aka "what living your life teaches you." Whatever's fitting- Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Perception, Intimidation... whatever fits. It's doofy that only players get to actually learn how to do things.

Seems like survival + perception (prey) or survival + athletics / stealth (predator) ought to be pretty common.

[pwykersotz]

For the sake of simplicity, I'm trying a houserule where the target must make a Strength save vs the grapple at an Athletics based DC. I just have too many grapple rules rattling around in my head to be able to quickly remember which ones 5e uses sometimes. One of the changes this causes is that monsters become better at escaping grapples, as they rely on their Strength saves as opposed to an Athletics check. You might want to use that method if you see a problem with the default rules. :smallsmile:

[TrinculoLives]

Grappling only favours those PCs that build for it.

All those Wizards, Rogues, Bards etc. that dumped Strength and didn't grab Athletics simply won't do it and if faced with an Ogre or Giant will stand very little chance of avoiding being grabbed and stuffed in a sack.

Ah, but remember that Athletics or Acrobatics may be used to defend against a grapple, while only Athletics may be used to initiate a grapple.

In my experience, while not many classes value Strength or Athletics, most PCs have proficiency in at least Athletics or Acrobatics. Furthermore, in my experience, only infrequently is a monster able to grapple a PC successfully, as almost no monsters have proficiency in Athletics while nearly all PCs have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics.

[JellyPooga]

Ah, but remember that Athletics or Acrobatics may be used to defend against a grapple, while only Athletics may be used to initiate a grapple.

In my experience, while not many classes value Strength or Athletics, most PCs have proficiency in at least Athletics or Acrobatics. Furthermore, in my experience, only infrequently is a monster able to grapple a PC successfully, as almost no monsters have proficiency in Athletics while nearly all PCs have proficiency in either Athletics or Acrobatics.

I have a very different experience. Whilst I almost exclusively play characters that are proficient in one or both (because I favour Rogues and Roguish types), most of the guys I play with almost seem to avoid them. I've rarely seen a Wizard, Sorcerer or Cleric with either Athletics or Acrobatics, except when I've played one myself.

[Mandragola]

My lvl 11 paladin is proficient in athletics and has a strength of 20. In all honesty this has only seriously affected one fight that he's been involved in. This featured a salamander that I repeatedly pushed off a cliff into a pool of lava. I basically readied an action to hit it with my first attack, then push it back with my second, every time it climbed up the cliff. Meanwhile everyone else threw spells at it so that it had no option but to keep trying to get up. It died and the only damage I took was the reflected damage you get from hitting a salamander.

But that's one fight out of maybe 50-80, I'm not sure exactly. I don't think this is a massive issue. Yes, the guy who's got capped strength and athletics proficiency is good at grappling. But he's a hero, doing the thing he's good at, and he used one of his 4-5 skill proficiencies to get good at it. On the other hand the wizard isn't much good at grappling at all. If a T-rex bites the wizard, he has a problem. So I think it works as it is.

[ClintACK]

The monster manual was generally not thought through. I'd say generally each creature should have at least two skill proficiencies, aka "what living your life teaches you." Whatever's fitting- Athletics, Acrobatics, Survival, Perception, Intimidation... whatever fits. It's doofy that only players get to actually learn how to do things.

Lots and lots of creatures *do* have skill proficiencies.

Examples:
Animal, Wolf: Stealth and Perception.
Goblin: Expertise in Stealth.
Orc: Intimidation
But Hobgoblin and Ogre have none... *sigh*.
Bugbear: Survival plus Expertise in Stealth.
Imp: Deception, Persuasion, Insight and Stealth.
Blink Dog: Perception and Stealth.
Grimlock: Athletics and Stealth, plus Expertise in Perception. (And Advantage on most Perception checks to boot, as well as to Stealth in its normal terrain.)
Succubus gets a bunch -- Deception, Insight, Persuasion, Stealth and Perception, with +4 Proficiency.


But I generally agree that MM critters don't get enough. Like all of the canine types ought to be getting Survival checks -- or some other feature that provides them with tracking bonuses.

(I know, I was on here just a couple of weeks ago throwing my hands up in the air that not a single Devil had proficiency in Persuasion...)

[TrinculoLives]

Not a single devil has Persuasion??

To be fair, I think most canine types have the Keen Senses trait. Which grants advantage on smell-related checks or something.

[ClintACK]

Not a single devil has Persuasion??
Well, I exaggerate. The Imp does. And Barbed Devils get Deception.

But Persuading someone to trade away their immortal soul is such a big part of the *idea* of Devils that it seems nuts for them to depend on Imps and unaligned Succubi to get the job done.


To be fair, I think most canine types have the Keen Senses trait. Which grants advantage on smell-related checks or something.

True. But it's explicitly for Wisdom(perception) checks -- which you could let them use to pick up tracks and follow them. Which I think I'd do. But it's not actually RAW.

[MaxWilson]

Not a single devil has Persuasion??

To be fair, I think most canine types have the Keen Senses trait. Which grants advantage on smell-related checks or something.

And therefore, a 5E human assisted by another human (Help: Perception) is as good of a tracker as a bloodhound or a bear, since they all have the exact same keen senses! Either D&D humans are practically bloodhounds or D&D bloodhounds are as pathetic as humans, take your pick.

How hard would it have been, really, to just write something a bit more specific? "Wolves can locate other creatures by smell at up to a hundred paces, and can track creatures by smell up to 2d4 hours after the creatures have passed." That would be 1000% more useful than "Wolves have advantage on smell checks."

[Vogonjeltz]

Either D&D humans are practically bloodhounds or D&D bloodhounds are as pathetic as humans, take your pick.

Or one can not plausibly help anyone smell something.

[MeeposFire]

I personally think they would have been better off just saying in the rules that all monsters have whatever skills you want them to have and just list the proficiency bonus to add to their prof skills in the stat bar. Then no issues if you think an ogre should have athletics or if that one should not.

It isn't like this is 3e where you have to worry about the number of skill points used up or the like. 5e has a simple system and I think sometimes the designers forgot that and how it could be used to their advantage.

[MaxWilson]

Or one can not plausibly help anyone smell something.

*snort* As if that makes a difference. Mathematically, two PCs with the same bonus rolling is the same as one PC rolling with advantage. And you've missed the point: bloodhounds and PCs are (by RAW) making Wisdom (Perception) smell checks under the same circumstances at the same DC. Can you track a fugitive by smell like a bloodhound could? Could you do it even if there were two of you for every bloodhound?

RAW is silly. It was lazy to just define bears and dogs as having advantage on smell-based Perception checks. Defining their actual capabilities would be 1000% more useful.

[RickAllison]

I personally think they would have been better off just saying in the rules that all monsters have whatever skills you want them to have and just list the proficiency bonus to add to their prof skills in the stat bar. Then no issues if you think an ogre should have athletics or if that one should not.

It isn't like this is 3e where you have to worry about the number of skill points used up or the like. 5e has a simple system and I think sometimes the designers forgot that and how it could be used to their advantage.

The way I see it is the given skills are things that every member of the species has. Every Pegasus has Perception, but specific individuals may have Stealth, or Athletics, or Insight. Higher devils don't all have Persuasion because some of them don't feel the need to use those skills. Every imp may need Persuasion because they have little actual power to manipulate their targets, but higher devils can offer deals, Intimidate, and otherwise flaunt their power instead of using delicate words to manipulate.

[Tanarii]

*snort* As if that makes a difference. Mathematically, two PCs with the same bonus rolling is the same as one PC rolling with advantage. And you've missed the point: bloodhounds and PCs are (by RAW) making Wisdom (Perception) smell checks under the same circumstances at the same DC. Can you track a fugitive by smell like a bloodhound could? Could you do it even if there were two of you for every bloodhound?

RAW is silly. It was lazy to just define bears and dogs as having advantage on smell-based Perception checks. Defining their actual capabilities would be 1000% more useful.
Why do you assume the DC to smell something is the same for a human as it is for an animal? For that matter, why do you assume PCs are even allowed to make a check to smell something?

Setting that aside for a second, two humans making perception checks to find (say) a hidden creature may be as good as one bloodhound trying to find it mechanically, since they get two rolls to succeed. Note I'm making no claim the humans are using smell to do it. Just that their chance of locating the creature is mechanically identical, regardless of method. But one bloodhound and one human are better than two humans. Basically, every one bloodhound is worth two other creatures. That seems mechanically balanced to me.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Why do you assume the DC to smell something is the same for a human as it is for an animal?
Because the standard assumption in any system that uses character-based bonuses is that there is a single, static DC for a given task, and that your varying competence is due to the numbers on your sheet, not the DM deciding it should be easier/harder for you specifically?

[Tanarii]

Because the standard assumption in any system that uses character-based bonuses is that there is a single, static DC for a given task, and that your varying competence is due to the numbers on your sheet, not the DM deciding it should be easier/harder for you specifically?Since when? I mean, I know 3e implied that was universally the case. But in 4e it was strongly implied it wasn't the case. And 5e makes no claims one way or the other.

Edit: to be clear, I prefer to do it that way myself as a DM. But it's not required by the system.

[pwykersotz]

Since when? I mean, I know 3e implied that was universally the case. But in 4e it was strongly implied it wasn't the case. And 5e makes no claims one way or the other.

Edit: to be clear, I prefer to do it that way myself as a DM. But it's not required by the system.

It's only implied in the books, but Crawford ruled that the DC isn't supposed to change based on who's attempting it. So it's implied and RAI, but not explicitly stated.

[Tanarii]

It's only implied in the books, but Crawford ruled that the DC isn't supposed to change based on who's attempting it. So it's implied and RAI, but not explicitly stated.Ah okay. Well then, I stand corrected on RAI. (Don't suppose you have a link to his ruling?)

[pwykersotz]

Ah okay. Well then, I stand corrected on RAI. (Don't suppose you have a link to his ruling?)

I don't, and sadly I'm not in a position to trawl for it right now. I just remember it from a thread within the last month or so.

[Easy_Lee]

It's only implied in the books, but Crawford ruled that the DC isn't supposed to change based on who's attempting it. So it's implied and RAI, but not explicitly stated.

On this point, I actually agree with Crawford. Characters are supposed to get better at skills when they improve those skills. That can't happen if task difficulty scales with the players.

Players should attempt higher DC tasks at higher levels because those tasks are actually harder, not because the players are higher level. The things they did at low levels, and have continuously been getting better at doing, should be easy by high levels.

[pwykersotz]

On this point, I actually agree with Crawford. Characters are supposed to get better at skills when they improve those skills. That can't happen if task difficulty scales with the players.

Players should attempt higher DC tasks at higher levels because those tasks are actually harder, not because the players are higher level. The things they did at low levels, and have continuously been getting better at doing, should be easy by high levels.

Yeah, I was on the fence about it at first, but I'm sold on this interpretation.

[Mandragola]

Agreed. This is basically the point of levelling up. People who are better at stuff find that stuff easier to accomplish. Just as a hobgoblin is less of a threat to a lvl 10 character than a 1st level one, so is a simple trap.

One of the hardest things as a DM is letting characters be good at stuff, but not letting the adventure be a walkover as a result. The easiest thing is sometimes just to not ever let the assassin get surprise on anything, for example, if you're worried that he keeps one-shotting the main baddies, but that's not fun for the assassin player. Nor should you let him always get surprise, so that nobody else gets to see a monster!

So if there's some awesome grappler in the group you should sometimes put in fights where grappling will help the party win, but not always. It may simply be a question of putting in more monsters if the party is easily handling what's thrown at them.

[Dalebert]

If you think about it, PCs are generally better at everything than monsters. This is what turns the tide and allows them to take on larger groups of enemies and then go on and succeed in several encounters between rests. I think it's intended.

I just find it funny when characters go to a lot of effort to make a grappling build, sometimes rather impressively. Then my druid hits level 6 and turns into a giant constrictor. If I hit, I automatically grapple AND restrain. There are other creatures with similar abilities. A giant scorpion (lvl 9 druid) can auto-grapple two creatures in one round and then drag them over to cliffs and such. My druid grappled two vampire spawns in a floating city, dragged them into daylight which imposed disadvantage, and then dropped them off the edge of the city. It looked quite spectacular in my mind's eye--two flailing undead creatures, leaving a trail of flame behind them and likely turning to ask before they hit the ground.

[Slipperychicken]

Grappling is also too easy for monsters. Half of them get free auto-grapples on any hit.

[Easy_Lee]

Grappling is also too easy for monsters. Half of them get free auto-grapples on any hit.

Akin to the Tavern Brawler feat. However, Tavern Brawler weapon die doesn't scale with level. I feel like it ought to follow the monk unarmed strike progression, but that's an aside.

[Vogonjeltz]

*snort* As if that makes a difference. Mathematically, two PCs with the same bonus rolling is the same as one PC rolling with advantage. And you've missed the point: bloodhounds and PCs are (by RAW) making Wisdom (Perception) smell checks under the same circumstances at the same DC. Can you track a fugitive by smell like a bloodhound could? Could you do it even if there were two of you for every bloodhound?

RAW is silly. It was lazy to just define bears and dogs as having advantage on smell-based Perception checks. Defining their actual capabilities would be 1000% more useful.

No, but I also wasn't proposing that I could either.

I was just saying that nobody can help someone else smell. In terms of tracking, a given character probably can't track by sense of smell unless the scent was quite strong to begin with. (Like following something that was covered in offal)