Grapple + Prone + Bite = Argument

[RipTide]

So I need your guys opinion/help in an argument I'm having with a friend (he is going to be the DM for the next game I play but i'm not using this for that game so this is just theory). The argument spawned from a character concept I had, that is not exactly optimal, but I thought would be fun to play as. The basic concept is Lizardfolk Barbarian Battlerager Grappler (assuming the dwarf only restriction is removed form battlerager).

The argument arose first when I mentioned knocking a grappled opponent prone after grappling them. He said I would have to go prone as well to continue grappling, I convinced him otherwise but he still seems skeptical.

After that I mentioned wanting to go without a weapon and focus on the lizardfolk bite and spiked punches from the battlerager armor as my main source of damage, to which he replied that I would defiantly have to go prone with the target to make these attacks. Mostly because he can't think of a good way for me to make these attacks without me being on the ground as well.

I'm kind of stumped here because there is no mechanical reason that I have to go prone to make these attacks, but he is being a stickler for how I would physically make these attacks without going prone myself. He even said he would be fine with me using a weapon to make the attacks but using an actual weapon doesn't really fit the character i want to make.

So can anyone help me create a convincing argument for how my Lizzardfolk battlerager bites and punches a prone and grappled opponent without being considered prone himself? Or should I give up on this as an option, at least so long as he is DM'ing?

[Jarlhen]

The problem when you start thinking logically or realistically is that half the rules fall apart. I don't think your DM is wrong. But I also don't think you're wrong. If I was the DM I'd probably have the same thoughts as yours. The one thing is that to grapple someone you have to have an arm free. This means you're not keeping them down with your feet, you're using your arm. And how do you reach someone on the ground if you don't go down with them? We know that there are rules which rely on your height (jumping) so it's not unreasonable to say that this character is out of range for you unless you go down with them. My argument there being that height matters. And mechanically that would make you prone.

However, there's also an argument that you could squat down and hold them. I would personally see anyone trying to hold someone on the ground as either sitting on top of them or having to let them go. If they said they squatted down to do it I'd say sure, but the enemy has advantage on their athlethics check due to your imbalance. Mechanically though, this isn't covered in the rules which means that the DM has final say. So I don't think either one of you are wrong, it's a tricky situations.

That said, a condition generally lasts until the person gets to act again. An attack doesn't, as proven by the fact that you can run around and do other things even after your attack. So if the DM says you can hold someone prone without going down yourself there's no reason for why you couldn't just dip down, bite, get up again, without letting go.

[Ashuan21]

It's not tricky at all, you don't need to be prone... It's not written anywhere so why should this be an issue?
Furthermore it's perfectly logical to block a prone enemy while standing, simply by holding its leg (or whatever), it's at the base of several martial arts.

For what concerns the attach with the spikes... harder to explain but I guess you could refluff it to kicking the poor guy with your spiked boot.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/09/14/does-grappling-a-prone-target-make-you-prone/ Here's your Sage Advice
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/07/15/grappling-a-prone-creature/ and here's another one (not strictly related)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468737-The-Grappler-s-Manual-(2-0)-Grappling-in-5th-Edition And here is a wonderful guide about grappling!!! Don't let your DM put you down! ;)

(I'm playing a Grappler right now, even if a different one (Bard/Fighter), and it's great)

[JellyPooga]

Being Prone isn't just the condition of "being on the floor" or "being low down", it's "being on the floor such that you're at a disadvantage against melee attackers and advantage at range because of your smaller profile". It's merely a game mechanic to reflect a certain state. Similarly for Grapple; it doesn't mean "rolling around on the floor in a bear hug" it means (largely) "I've got you in a position where I can control your movement".

Someone in a low crouch is not considered Prone; I can easily imagine a Lizardfolk grabbing someone, throwing them to the floor and holding them down, punching, gouging and biting but not presenting a significantly smaller target, nor putting themselves at a disadvantage to other potential assailants; he has the upper hand in the grapple and free use of his "natural" weapons (against his victim or others as need be), he can even easily disengage himself should he need to because he's the one on top.

Don't let your GM con you into this one. Go show him some nature programs or UFC if you want some examples of how someone can beat the living tar out of someone they've got complete dominance over without compromising their own position.

[SilverStud]

I agree with Jarlhen that the rules are somewhat unclear here. I think this is an area where the whole "rulings > rules" philosophy of the game design comes in. So I will tell you how I rule these things.

The most important thing, IMO, is that I never let someone "just grapple" an opponent. My players are required to specify how they are grappling. Are they going for a chokehold? Are they trying to grab an ankle? Get a grip on the armor?

Then we roll as stated in the PHB, and they either succeed or don't. If the player wants to do anything else with the enemy, they can do further checks to prone them, pin them, bite them, whatever.
Once the enemy is prone, it has disadvantage to escape the grapple. (I also like the idea of 'if you're just squatting there, they can escape easier' thing, because TBH, wrestling is hard when not prone).
I would definitely require the grappler to be prone if they wanted to totally immobilize (pin) their target. There is wiggle room before that though.

Question: why are you so averse to going prone yourself? Wrestling is very much an on-the-ground thing. If you're trying to avoid letting enemies get advantage on you.... well, sorry to say this, but there really isn't any way I can see going to the ground as good in anything but a one-on-one fight anyway.

EDIT: Some of the others bring up very good points, and now I am slightly reconsidering my position. I'm leaving what I've already written unchanged though, since it represents a different point of view, and that can be valuable.

[JNAProductions]

You bend down and bite while holding his leg. Not that hard, at least for a properly limber adventurer. I probably couldn't do it, but I'm no adventurer!

More than that, explain how it's a big nerf to your character, who I would assume is not overpowered.

[Foxhound438]

ah, man, there needs to be a paint function on this site

so you grab the person by the ankle (grapple) from a squatting position. you then stand up, still holding their ankle at shoulder height, causing them to fall whilst having their leg and maybe a bit of their waist up off of the ground (shove prone). For your bite, you literally just bite their calf that's still at breast height for you, meaning you just have to hunch down a bit. for the spiked armor, nothing about the battlerager feature forces you to make the attack with an arm, so you can have spiked greaves and just kick them. All logically accomplishable whilst following the general flavor of what the mechanics are supposed to represent. If your DM cries about how biting someone's calf won't kill them or knock them unconscious, invite them to put their leg into an alligator's mouth and see how long they can stay conscious without medical attention afterwards.

It's kind of the same as if your DM rules that grapple->create bonfire shenanigans requires you to take the damage too "because your hand is in the fire". Fine, I hold them so only half of them is in the fire, they take damage and I don't.

[Lombra]

You can grapple a prone enemy and you can prone a grappled enemy, you gust keep one of his limbs so that one articulation is subject to a mechanical lock, represented by your success on the athletics check.

[GlenSmash!]

"Ground and Pound" is a common tech in Mixed Martial Arts, where one combatant sits on top of a prone combatant. The advantage this gives is quite obvious. If I can Grapple and Prone someone in Real life Why should my Character in a Fantasy game that is way cooler than me not be able to do it?

[Gignere]

Haven't your DM seen the reversed arm grapple that brings your target on their knees (prone) while you are still perfectly standing? You can bite the arm and attack with spike elbow to their locked arm (which would break it in real life but this is D&D so you only do hp damage so this is a nerf to real life and since your DM is such a stickler for real life impact maybe auto critical)

[RipTide]

Thank you everyone for the replies. Like i said I'm not gonna use this character quite yet, but its nice to know if what I am going dies, I have a back up.

[Vogonjeltz]

So I need your guys opinion/help in an argument I'm having with a friend (he is going to be the DM for the next game I play but i'm not using this for that game so this is just theory). The argument spawned from a character concept I had, that is not exactly optimal, but I thought would be fun to play as. The basic concept is Lizardfolk Barbarian Battlerager Grappler (assuming the dwarf only restriction is removed form battlerager).

The argument arose first when I mentioned knocking a grappled opponent prone after grappling them. He said I would have to go prone as well to continue grappling, I convinced him otherwise but he still seems skeptical.

After that I mentioned wanting to go without a weapon and focus on the lizardfolk bite and spiked punches from the battlerager armor as my main source of damage, to which he replied that I would defiantly have to go prone with the target to make these attacks. Mostly because he can't think of a good way for me to make these attacks without me being on the ground as well.

I'm kind of stumped here because there is no mechanical reason that I have to go prone to make these attacks, but he is being a stickler for how I would physically make these attacks without going prone myself. He even said he would be fine with me using a weapon to make the attacks but using an actual weapon doesn't really fit the character i want to make.

So can anyone help me create a convincing argument for how my Lizzardfolk battlerager bites and punches a prone and grappled opponent without being considered prone himself? Or should I give up on this as an option, at least so long as he is DM'ing?

The Lizard bends over to bite him without falling over.

This kind of attack is done all the time in any kind of martial arts ground fighting. i.e. Any wristlock ever.

[KnotKnormal]

I am guessing the conversation was a bit more in depth then your quick summary, but I understand both points of view here.

Yes there are hold and grapples and such that would bring your foe to a prone possition whilst keeping yourself in a perfectly upright stance, and those holds, are completely viable as per the mechanical rules layed out. So you might want to do some research into those holds so you can properly describe them at the table.

On the other hand, when I think prone, my first image that pops into my head is some one laying on the ground. And from here, your DM has a point, assuming this was the only version of prone disguised. I would rule with your DM that biting something g laying on the ground would cause you to go prone as well.

I see some posts here talking about mma/ufc, specifically the ground and pound, which only helps your DMs argument in that in most fights both parties are most definitely prone, and they are just reaching with thier fists, not coming in close to take a bite out of each other. Also I see certain posts referring to wrist locks, or arm locks. Many of these do not print an enemy prone. At most it would bring some one to thier knees, but I would not consider that prone, in any sense.

[Potato_Priest]

You can go prone and stand up again on your turn, so as long as you don't plan on doing a lot of moving around, you can avoid the argument entirely.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

I once saw a guy yank someone's leg out from under them so they ended up on the ground and then drag them between him and another guy to slow the second opponent's advance, while standing relatively straight.

So, yes, you can grapple and prone someone without going prone. It doesn't seem particularly practical for grinding your armor spikes into them though.

[hymer]

The Lizard bends over to bite him without falling over.

This kind of attack is done all the time in any kind of martial arts ground fighting. i.e. Any wristlock ever.

There's a martial art where biting and being a lizard is ok? Cool! I wanna see that! :smallwink:

[RipTide]

On the other hand, when I think prone, my first image that pops into my head is some one laying on the ground.

This is where the argument you make breaks down, and i think JellyPooga put it best.


Being Prone isn't just the condition of "being on the floor" or "being low down", it's "being on the floor such that you're at a disadvantage against melee attackers and advantage at range because of your smaller profile". It's merely a game mechanic to reflect a certain state.

Even if prone was simply lying down on the floor others made the point that I could simply bend down make my attacks and then stand up while holding a leg to maintain the grapple.

[KnotKnormal]

This is where the argument you make breaks down, and i think JellyPooga put it best.



Even if prone was simply lying down on the floor others made the point that I could simply bend down make my attacks and then stand up while holding a leg to maintain the grapple.

This is why previously I had mentioned that the player would need to do a good job of describing the situation. Otherwise everyone instantly has thier own image of what prone is, in thier head, and rulings debates like this arise. D&D is a game of telling stories, so add a little detail to your grapple attack rather then, "I grapple the thingy."

[Naanomi]

Would I allow most PCs to bite an grappled/prone opponent? Maybe not (though maybe, no real reason to deny it in most cases)... but a lizardman is literally built to bite, I can easily imagine a quick darting lunge in to bite someone while they are down with your big muzzled face even while holding someone to the ground with one arm.

[bid]

Kneeling is not lying. 100m dash starting position is not prone.

[Vogonjeltz]

There's a martial art where biting and being a lizard is ok? Cool! I wanna see that!

Oh good grief I did set myself up for that. :p

For clarity: Attacking someone on the ground while standing is done all the time in martial arts/ground fighting, etc.

[RickAllison]

I like to include some visuals to explain exactly why this works:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/23/05/1zGVt7KEUB1f78e1a678e4d01370-3505513-Rene_Dreifuss_left_a_mixed_martial_arts_coach_trai ns_Richard_Cal-a-73_1458710547690.jpg

Now this isn't the only option. But what we see here is that one combatant is keeping the other prone by using his hand to enforce the prone condition by keeping control of the opponent's legs. From a kneeling position (still not prone), you could obtain an even stronger hold. For a bite attack, just lift the leg you are holding and take a big bite out of it!

[Zene]

.........,,,





Crouch.





............

[Naanomi]

I like to include some visuals to explain exactly why this works:
Do remember that grapple is something you can do with one hand as well, it could be as little as grabbing one leg and firmly planting a leg in someone's back

[RickAllison]

Do remember that grapple is something you can do with one hand as well, it could be as little as grabbing one leg and firmly planting a leg in someone's back

As kind of shown in the picture I supplied! He is using two hands in the picture because he doesn't need to use them for anything else, but his positioning is such that he doesn't need two hands to maintain the grapple. One hand to keep one leg from establishing leverage on the ground.

[Malifice]

So I need your guys opinion/help in an argument I'm having with a friend (he is going to be the DM for the next game I play but i'm not using this for that game so this is just theory). The argument spawned from a character concept I had, that is not exactly optimal, but I thought would be fun to play as. The basic concept is Lizardfolk Barbarian Battlerager Grappler (assuming the dwarf only restriction is removed form battlerager).

The argument arose first when I mentioned knocking a grappled opponent prone after grappling them. He said I would have to go prone as well to continue grappling, I convinced him otherwise but he still seems skeptical.

After that I mentioned wanting to go without a weapon and focus on the lizardfolk bite and spiked punches from the battlerager armor as my main source of damage, to which he replied that I would defiantly have to go prone with the target to make these attacks. Mostly because he can't think of a good way for me to make these attacks without me being on the ground as well.

I'm kind of stumped here because there is no mechanical reason that I have to go prone to make these attacks, but he is being a stickler for how I would physically make these attacks without going prone myself. He even said he would be fine with me using a weapon to make the attacks but using an actual weapon doesn't really fit the character i want to make.

So can anyone help me create a convincing argument for how my Lizzardfolk battlerager bites and punches a prone and grappled opponent without being considered prone himself? Or should I give up on this as an option, at least so long as he is DM'ing?

Are you serious?

How are you grappling and biting someone on the ground without being on the ground yourself?

Lets wrestle IRL and you can show me how you'll do it.

[RickAllison]

Are you serious?

How are you grappling and biting someone on the ground without being on the ground yourself?

Lets wrestle IRL and you can show me how you'll do it.

In terms of D&D and IRL equivalents, and of course assuming that I am someone who actually has a good Athletics check (not like for me in reality...):

1. "Going for the legs"; charge low to the opponent and use one hand to get a strong hold on one leg. This is the Grapple. It uses one hand, prevents the opponent from moving, and gives ample control over the opponent's movement.

2. In one fluid motion (Extra Attack) or after getting better leverage, either quickly maneuver to throw out the opponents remaining supporting leg or kick/strike it out of the way. This is the Prone maneuver. With your one leg kept locked in my control, you don't have leverage to get back up, effectively move, and have your striking hampered. All just like the effects of being Prone while Grappled.

3. I bite your leg. What, you expected something fancy? This is about as involved for a lizardfolk as raising a shield to block an attack would be for a warrior.

Alternatively, from you being prone I assume a mount or knee-on-stomach ground position. Both have you in a clearly prone position while the grappler is in a dominant crouch, which is clearly not prone. The intermediate steps when the grappler moves or commits other moves are just assuming different stances while maintaining one of these holds that, while not always permitting biting, can transition into a biting stance.

Keeping in mind that this isn't based of what the average human can do. Those have middling Strength and maybe a +2 from Athletics. This is more from professional fighters who would be more in line with the proposed PC as being well above ordinary combatants.

EDIT: For a sense of perspective, these kind of holds are regularly practiced against those who would have above-average Strength (not superhuman, obviously) and decent Athletics. If it can work on other skilled professional combatants, I have no doubts that a skilled superhuman combatant should be able to use it against untrained combatants.

[Naanomi]

Plus for a muzzled toothy creature like a Lizardman, a bite doesn't have to be that challenging. Even if you can't bring the target to you, the lizard could 'dive down' for a big tearing chomp and return to a ready position in one action without any problem

[Finieous]

Go ahead and bite, execute an unarmed strike, or deal spike damage. You're good.

http://3yryua3n3eu3i4gih2iopzph.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/kansetsu/jujigatame-1.jpg

[Douche]

The argument arose first when I mentioned knocking a grappled opponent prone after grappling them. He said I would have to go prone as well to continue grappling, I convinced him otherwise but he still seems skeptical.

So can anyone help me create a convincing argument for how my Lizzardfolk battlerager bites and punches a prone and grappled opponent without being considered prone himself? Or should I give up on this as an option, at least so long as he is DM'ing?

I would argue that you are mounting (don't go there) your opponent. In that case, you're in a dominant position over your opponent, meaning you would have advantage on your attacks (which you already get from the Grappler feat), and you wouldn't get disadvantage from being prone since you're on top of them. They would get the disadvantage since they're fully prone.

But, since you're entangled with your opponent, I would have to say that you do have the prone condition if someone else is trying to attack you. You're unable to evade & you're less inclined to even know you're being attacked if you're busy wrestling the guy you've grappled. Thus, a third party coming in to melee you would have advantage... but it's not all bad - if you're prone, that means that ranged attacks have disadvantage on you. The only other thing you have to worry about is having to use half your movement to stand up each time you finish an opponent.

In essence, I would say that you still get advantage on your attack rolls toward the enemy you're grappling, but for all other parties involved you suffer the prone condition. I think that's a fair compromise.


Edit: I read the rest of the comments. I think you guys are devaluing the Grappler feat by making a "standing grapple" more overpowered than it's meant to be. If the wishlist here were all accepted, then there's no reason for OP to even take the Grappler feat, since knocking the enemy prone & keeping them there would give you advantage anyway. (as well as your teammates, making this method even more powerful without any investment)

[Finieous]

Edit: I read the rest of the comments. I think you guys are devaluing the Grappler feat by making a "standing grapple" more overpowered than it's meant to be. If the wishlist here were all accepted, then there's no reason for OP to even take the Grappler feat, since knocking the enemy prone & keeping them there would give you advantage anyway. (as well as your teammates, making this method even more powerful without any investment)

I don't think it's a "wish list" -- it's just the rules. Most of the discussion has been about the extent to which the rules are "realistic" or not. In any case, restrained is still better than prone and grappled. The former gives your ranged companions advantage as well, whereas the latter gives them disadvantage.

[Douche]

I don't think it's a "wish list" -- it's just the rules. Most of the discussion has been about the extent to which the rules are "realistic" or not. In any case, restrained is still better than prone and grappled. The former gives your ranged companions advantage as well, whereas the latter gives them disadvantage.

But pinning someone with the Grappler feat would take away your advantage (?), and causes you to be restrained as well.

Regardless, being able to keep someone prone without being prone yourself (or at least "mounting" them... Remember, you're not just fighting puny humans. I'd like to see you keep a giant octopus prone while clutching a single one of his tentacles) just gives you advantage which seems, to me at least, to trivialize the Grappler feat.

Besides that, I think the need for a grappler feat to explain such a mechanic as pinning someone says a lot. If you need a feat just to keep someone pinned (which in my mind, would imply they are prone & you're in a dominant position as we've been discussing throughout the topic - standing or otherwise) then it sounds like you really shouldn't be able to grapple someone and then knock them prone at all. Admittedly, that's an extreme but if you can grapple someone while they're prone, then I don't see the need to make yourself restrained.

The main issue in my mind is when others besides the Lizardman & his prey are involved. I don't dispute that the Lizardman should have advantage on his attacks toward his prey... But when the prey has friends, I don't think that the Lizardman should be free of consequence when they try to stab him in the back as he's tied up with his prey.

[Finieous]

The main issue in my mind is when others besides the Lizardman & his prey are involved. I don't dispute that the Lizardman should have advantage on his attacks toward his prey... But when the prey has friends, I don't think that the Lizardman should be free of consequence when they try to stab him in the back as he's tied up with his prey.

I don't disagree with this, on realism grounds. Realistically, if you're grappled or grappling, melee attacks against you from third parties should have advantage. The guy I posted up there isn't going to be able to defend himself particularly well if someone tries to stab him with a sword. It's really just a question of whether you think it's worth house-ruling.

[tkuremento]

When I think of standing whilst grappling a prone target, I think of dragging them by their heels as they though you two are competing in a wheelbarrow race but are doing so really badly. I had a similar concept except I would go Monk and primarily use my bite or other unarmed strikes for flavor if it seemed right.

[RickAllison]

Douche, I don't think anyone would deny it devalues the Grappler feat. I think an accurate argument is that it is an awful feat and should not be taken by anyone. Based on the fact that one of its strongest points was based on a rule that has since been severely changed, as well as that the rest of the rules have made it redundant, the best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a poorly designed fear and should probably be taken out in future printings, then have the "pin" where both are restrained be incorporated into a new section in the grappling rules.

[Gignere]

Douche, I don't think anyone would deny it devalues the Grappler feat. I think an accurate argument is that it is an awful feat and should not be taken by anyone. Based on the fact that one of its strongest points was based on a rule that has since been severely changed, as well as that the rest of the rules have made it redundant, the best thing to do is acknowledge that it was a poorly designed fear and should probably be taken out in future printings, then have the "pin" where both are restrained be incorporated into a new section in the grappling rules.

Or buff the grappler feat to allow the attempt to pin (restrained condition) as a bonus action after grappling. And add in words that say while pinning someone anyone but the pinned target has advantage on attacks against you.

Add +1 strength and add another dot as a reaction you can attempt to break out of grapples.

[Hrugner]

In 5ed grappling just prevents someone from moving, you could hold their hand or grab their belt, it doesn't much matter. In 5ed knocking someone prone involves knocking them off their feet forcing them to spend 3 seconds getting up. Grabbing someone's leg, pushing them off their remaining leg, and biting the foot you're holding on to seems like a reasonable series of actions.

[HidesHisEyes]

Sort of playing devil's advocate, but you have said you have already thrown away the race restriction of your class, so you're already not playing by the rules as written. If you and the DM have made that decision on the basis that there's no in-world reason why non-dwarves can't be battleragers then your DM is arguably entitled to mess with the grappling rules based on the idea that there's no in-world way to grapple with someone who's prone, and still claw and bite them, without going prone yourself.

It's just a thought. As I said I'm playing devil's advocate, and I actually agree (speaking as someone who's done ju jitsu lessons twice a week for six years) with this thread's consensus that it's perfectly possible to grapple someone else to the floor while you remain standing and still within striking/biting range.

But I guess my broader point is that what you're really grappling with here is simulationism. The rules are designed in a very gamist way and the moment someone in a group decides to try and "fix" them so they reflect reality better, it is very likely to cause problems.

[Drackolus]

But I guess my broader point is that what you're really grappling with here is simulationism. The rules are designed in a very gamist way and the moment someone in a group decides to try and "fix" them so they reflect reality better, it is very likely to cause problems.

This is what I wanted to bring up - bringing up simulationalism basically axes the entire game. It's just not feasible to make a habit of forcing a system without so much of a pretense of simulationalism to have it. Virtually no winged fantasy creature could attain flight, and no humanoid can hope to defeat a Bulette with a piece of sharp metal.

[Vogonjeltz]

I don't think it's a "wish list" -- it's just the rules. Most of the discussion has been about the extent to which the rules are "realistic" or not. In any case, restrained is still better than prone and grappled. The former gives your ranged companions advantage as well, whereas the latter gives them disadvantage.

Is there a way to get out of the restrained condition from the grappler pin? (AFB)

[Mellack]

Is there a way to get out of the restrained condition from the grappler pin? (AFB)

It ends when the grapple ends, so all the regular ways to escape, ie Atletics or Acrobatics check, getting moved, etc.