Do you need a free hand to maintain a grapple?

[prototype00]

So the rules are quite clear that you need a free hand to Initiate a grapple, but once you have given a foe the "grappled" condition are you free to draw a weapon and stab away (assume there's a shield occupying g the other hand or something)?

Or does that immediately set the foe free?

[Regitnui]

If you're grappling someone, ask what you're holding them down with; a hand, your knees, your previous very high Charisma (Persuasion) check for seduction? If you aren't holding them down, the grappled condition ends, or they have an immediate saving throw against being grappled.

My opinion, not RAW.

[prototype00]

If you're grappling someone, ask what you're holding them down with; a hand, your knees, your previous very high Charisma (Persuasion) check for seduction? If you aren't holding them down, the grappled condition ends, or they have an immediate saving throw against being grappled.

My opinion, not RAW.

Knees work, I suppose since most optimal grapple strats also end with the foe prone.

[Safety Sword]

Definition:
grapple
verb
engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

Answer the question?

[prototype00]

Definition:
grapple
verb
engage in a close fight or struggle without weapons; wrestle.

Answer the question?

No, not really? I mean you quoted the dictionary, but even that source did not refer to free hands and whatnot, which is not even to point out that it has no bearing on RAW at all.

*sigh* how times have changed. Fine. I am looking for the RAW answer, do you need a free hand to maintain a grapple.

[Safety Sword]

No, not really? I mean you quoted the dictionary, but even that source did not refer to free hands and whatnot, which is not even to point out that it has no bearing on RAW at all.

*sigh* how times have changed. Fine. I am looking for the RAW answer, do you need a free hand to maintain a grapple.

I don't understand your confusion.

A grapple is literally a struggle without weapons, a wrestle.

So if you let go to draw a weapon, you aren't grappling.

[prototype00]

I don't understand your confusion.

A grapple is literally a struggle without weapons, a wrestle.

So if you let go to draw a weapon, you aren't grappling.

Pg. number and rule book or applicable Sage Advice tweet, please.

Also, who said anything about letting go? You have seen grapples with weapons, have you not?

[imanidiot]

If you're giving someone the Grappled condition, then yes you always need at least one free hand to do so.

If you're pinning someone down and giving them the Restrained condition, then yes you still need at least one free hand. Preferably both. Watch videos of police restraining people that are being arrested/detained. You will never see one put his knee on someone and do something else with his hands. Because it's not possible to keep someone pinned down without using your hands.

Yes, you always need at least one free hand to grapple. And if you kno longer have a free hand, the person that you had Grappled is no longer Grappled

[prototype00]

Yes. I agree about the first two points, that's in the rules in the PHB.

I'm just asking if once you've given them the condition, there is anything, IN THE RULES, that requires you to have a hand free to maintain it. (Hence the rules legalness of point 3 is the question here. We've walked the same path to that point then people start spinnin' yarns. "Why in my day sonny, you never saw someone strike with both ends of a Quarterstaff while heftin' a shield in the other mitt, nosiree Bob! Youngsters these days...")

If so, please point it out to me.

[imanidiot]

Yes. I agree about the first two points, that's in the rules in the PHB.

I'm just asking if once you've given them the condition, there is anything, IN THE RULES, that requires you to have a hand free to maintain it. (Hence the rules legalness of point 3 is the question here. We've walked the same path to that point then people start spinnin' yarns. "Why in my day sonny, you never saw someone strike with both ends of a Quarterstaff while heftin' a shield in the other mitt, nosiree Bob! Youngsters these days...")

If so, please point it out to me.

So what's your point? Is it that if the rules don't specifically say that you need a hand to maintain the grapple that you don't need it? Because that's ridiculous.

There are lots of things that aren't IN THE RULES because they don't need to be. The "rule" is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated. I don't know if the 5e rules specifically say that you need a free hand to maintain a grapple. And I have no intention of checking.

There's no rule that says losing a foot reduces my movement. So if a dragon bites my foot off I should still get my full movement. In fact there's nothing IN THE RULES that says a dragon can bite my foot off in any case. So it shouldn't be able to do so.

[prototype00]

So what's your point? Is it that if the rules don't specifically say that you need a hand to maintain the grapple that you don't need it? Because that's ridiculous.

There are lots of things that aren't IN THE RULES because they don't need to be. The "rule" is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated. I don't know if the 5e rules specifically say that you need a free hand to maintain a grapple. And I have no intention of checking.

Fair enough, thank you for making your position clear at any rate.

I play in AL, so the rules as written are important, by way of explanation, if it was a home game I'd care a lot more about the homebrew the DM was running.

[Saiga]

That's not a homebrew (ruling two hands for restraint might be, though). In AL, the DM is still the final artbiter of the rules, so they can rule that grappling requires a free hand to maintain.

[prototype00]

That's not a homebrew (ruling two hands for restraint might be, though). In AL, the DM is still the final artbiter of the rules, so they can rule that grappling requires a free hand to maintain.

How are both of those not homebrews / houserules if they both enjoy no rules support (that I am aware of, hence this thread)? I am bamboozled here.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

Yes. I agree about the first two points, that's in the rules in the PHB.

I'm just asking if once you've given them the condition, there is anything, IN THE RULES, that requires you to have a hand free to maintain it. (Hence the rules legalness of point 3 is the question here. We've walked the same path to that point then people start spinnin' yarns. "Why in my day sonny, you never saw someone strike with both ends of a Quarterstaff while heftin' a shield in the other mitt, nosiree Bob! Youngsters these days...")

If so, please point it out to me.

Cops are hardly professional fighters. Even basic army combative teaches you to get someone on the ground, try and get a positive upper mount, with your knees into their armpits. This makes they're arms useless, and than you have both hands free to do whatever with them.


So what's your point? Is it that if the rules don't specifically say that you need a hand to maintain the grapple that you don't need it? Because that's ridiculous.

There are lots of things that aren't IN THE RULES because they don't need to be. The "rule" is so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated. I don't know if the 5e rules specifically say that you need a free hand to maintain a grapple. And I have no intention of checking.

There's no rule that says losing a foot reduces my movement. So if a dragon bites my foot off I should still get my full movement. In fact there's nothing IN THE RULES that says a dragon can bite my foot off in any case. So it shouldn't be able to do so.



Wrong. Page 272 DMG. Table of LINGERING INJURIES

[Saiga]

I'm AFB, but if the wording is anything like "you need a free hand to grapple a creature" then it definitely can be ruled from that alone that this also refers to maintaining the grapple. Even if it's something like "you need a free hand to attempt to grapple" or whatever than they can rule the attempt is an ongoing thing and if you don't have a free hand you can't maintain the attempt - therefore grapple ends.

And, again, DM is final arbiter in AL. That in itself is an official rule, making their ruling not homebrew.


Cops are hardly professional fighters.

They literally are, by the definition of the word professional.

[Regitnui]

Cops are hardly professional fighters. Even basic army combative teaches you to get someone on the ground, try and get a positive upper mount, with your knees into their armpits. This makes they're arms useless, and than you have both hands free to do whatever with them.

D&D adventurers are hardly even always getting into grapples with humanoid foes, so that technique isn't always applicable. Tieflings, for the most mundane, can have a tail and lash out with that. And I'd call having someone completely unable to move falling under the "restrained" condition, similar to tying up with ropes.

The police aren't professional combatants. Their job is to subdue and contain, not fight. Admittedly, the former looks a lot like the latter...

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I'm AFB, but if the wording is anything like "you need a free hand to grapple a creature" then it definitely can be ruled from that alone that this also refers to maintaining the grapple. Even if it's something like "you need a free hand to attempt to grapple" or whatever than they can rule the attempt is an ongoing thing and if you don't have a free hand you can't maintain the attempt - therefore grapple ends.

And, again, DM is final arbiter in AL. That in itself is an official rule, making their ruling not homebrew.



They literally are, by the definition of the word professional.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN79L3IP954


D&D adventurers are hardly even always getting into grapples with humanoid foes, so that technique isn't always applicable. Tieflings, for the most mundane, can have a tail and lash out with that. And I'd call having someone completely unable to move falling under the "restrained" condition, similar to tying up with ropes.

The police aren't professional combatants. Their job is to subdue and contain, not fight. Admittedly, the former looks a lot like the latter...

Agreed,.




Anyone who is trying to win a grapple fight is going to grapple, knock prone. This effectively makes them restrained, although they do not suffer disadvantage on dex. Their movement is zero. They can not stand. Their attacks have disadvantage, and attacks on them within 5 feet have advantage.


OP. No, Nothing in the rules say the hands have to remain involved.

G r appl e d
• A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can't
benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• The condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated
(see the condition).
• The condition also ends if an effect rem oves the
grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or
grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled
away by the thunderwave spell.


Obviously if they break free, you need a free hand to grapple them again.

[imanidiot]

Cops are hardly professional fighters. Even basic army combative teaches you to get someone on the ground, try and get a positive upper mount, with your knees into their armpits. This makes they're arms useless, and than you have both hands free to do whatever with them.


And you think that's something you can do with a Strength check? That would give you and the person you pinned the Restrained condition and requires the Grappler feat. MMA isn't real fighting it's a sport that aproximates combat under controlled conditions to avoid injury and increase parity. Can we perhaps not use it as a basis for a tactical rpg?

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

And you think that's something you can do with a Strength check? That would give you and the person you pinned the Restrained condition and requires the Grappler feat. MMA isn't real fighting it's a sport that aproximates combat under controlled conditions to avoid injury and increase parity. Can we perhaps not use it as a basis for a tactical rpg?

You need to go back and watch the first several seasons of MMA. Because it very obviously was real fighting. It is also the basis for US Army combatives. Where the goal is to break and kill people. Which is, for the record, the goal of nearly every martial art.

But back to the D&D.

No, it is something I can do with an athletics check, as part of an attack action using a a special melee
attack. The rules clearly state the condition says what ends it.

THE ONLY THINGS THAT END A GRAPPLE:
The Grappler becoming incapacitated.
Or the an effect moves the target away from the grappler.
The target makes a successful athletics or acrobatics check
The grappler lets go.

The grappler is free to move the target wherever he wants, at half his normal speed.

Page 195. Page 290

The grappler feat is very bad, and no one should ever take it. Ever.

Grapple.
Shove (prone).

Shoving (prone) does not break a grapple. Person nos has disadvantage to attacks, and attacks from 5 feet away or closer have advantage.

The difference between a prone & grappled person and a restrained: A retrained person has disadvantage to dex saving throws & attacks from more than 10+ feet away have advantage.

[imanidiot]

You need to go back and watch the first several seasons of MMA. Because it very obviously was real fighting. It is also the basis for US Army combatives. Where the goal is to break and kill people. Which is, for the record, the goal of nearly every martial art.

But back to the D&D.

No, it is something I can do with an athletics check, as part of an attack action using a a special melee
attack. The rules clearly state the condition says what ends it.

Which are the grappler becoming incapacitated. Or the an effect moves the target away from the grappler. The only other ways it ends is a successful athletics or acrobatics check by the target, or the grappler lets go.

The grappler is free to move the target wherever he wants, at half his normal speed.

Page 195. Page 290

The grappler feat is very bad, and no one should ever take it. Ever.

Grapple.
Shove (prone).

Shoving (prone) does not break a grapple. Person nos has disadvantage to attacks, and attacks from 5 feet away or closer have advantage.

The difference between a prone & grappled person and a restrained: A retrained person has disadvantage to dex saving throws & attacks from more than 10+ feet away have advantage.

So I can use one of my attacks to reach out and grab my opponent, then let go and switch back to my greatsword and get advantage on the rest of my attacks.

"The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required)."

"The condition ends if the Grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the Grappler or Grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell."

The exact wording never says that letting them go removes the Grappled condition. In fact they are still within my reach (I have 5' reach).

It also doesn't say that releasing them ends the condition.

Edit: I'd like to reiterate that I am making strawman arguments here. I don't actually think any of this nonsense is RAI or would be allowed at any table.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

So I can use one of my attacks to reach out and grab my opponent, then let go and switch back to my greatsword and get advantage on the rest of my attacks.

"The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required)."

"The condition ends if the Grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the Grappler or Grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the Thunderwave spell."

The exact wording never says that letting them go removes the Grappled condition. In fact they are still within my reach (I have 5' reach).

It also doesn't say that releasing them ends the condition.

Personally I would say common sense requires you to have a limb to hold them in place.

For example, if I am DM you would have to be grappling them with your legs, thus giving up your chance to move them about.

[prototype00]

You need to go back and watch the first several seasons of MMA. Because it very obviously was real fighting. It is also the basis for US Army combatives. Where the goal is to break and kill people. Which is, for the record, the goal of nearly every martial art.

But back to the D&D.

No, it is something I can do with an athletics check, as part of an attack action using a a special melee
attack. The rules clearly state the condition says what ends it.

THE ONLY THINGS THAT END A GRAPPLE:
The Grappler becoming incapacitated.
Or the an effect moves the target away from the grappler.
The target makes a successful athletics or acrobatics check
The grappler lets go.

The grappler is free to move the target wherever he wants, at half his normal speed.

Page 195. Page 290

Ah, there we go, rules. (Finally got back to books) drawn direct from the description of the condition and the rules of imposing the condition.

Thank you for the clarification.

Edit: if the rules make you feel icky, then just imagine it as having their head wedged in your Shield hand's elbow or something.

[Citan]

The grappler feat is very bad, and no one should ever take it. Ever.
The grappler feat is largely good enough, and any martial that can spare an ASI for a "non-essential feat" in general (read: mostly everyone except traditional Monks) and wants to enforce grappling as a basic tactic of him would be advised to take it.

Or, please explain how having advantage on attacks against the grappled creatures is a bad thing? Because in my books, a self-sufficient way to get significant boost to sustained damage is a *good* one.

[SharkForce]

The grappler feat is largely good enough, and any martial that can spare an ASI for a "non-essential feat" in general (read: mostly everyone except traditional Monks) and wants to enforce grappling as a basic tactic of him would be advised to take it.

Or, please explain how having advantage on attacks against the grappled creatures is a bad thing? Because in my books, a self-sufficient way to get significant boost to sustained damage is a *good* one.

you can get advantage by shoving prone, with no need to inflict any negative conditions on yourself, using just one of your attacks from an attack action (presuming you have multiple), and since they have no movement, they can't spend half of their movement to stand up. and you can do that with no feat requirement.

now, restrained *is* slightly more powerful than prone, but since it comes with restrained on yourself, i would say it's only worth anything if you are fighting a single enemy.

anyways, i would argue that "Using at least one free hand" in the description of grappling in the combat section of the PHB that most PCs will be using gives room enough to require that you must continue to use your hand to grapple with those rules, because you are grappling using at least one free hand; if you aren't using at least one free hand, you are no longer trying to seize your target, which is to say, you're basically letting them go.

however, as a general principle, it does not require a hand to maintain a grapple, though it does typically require something. many animals, for example, grapple as part of their regular attacks... a constrictor snake has no hands, but can maintain a grapple, after all (of course, the snake also is restricted from using its constrict ability on anything else as long as it maintains the grapple as well).

so, i would rule that if you want to attack someone you've grappled with the hand that you initiated the grapple with, it will need to be unarmed, or some form of weapon that leaves your hand free (for example, a ring with a poison needle).

note: AL DMs are expected to use RAW where it exists. anywhere that it does not exist, they cannot be expected to follow RAW. so, if there was a rule that explicitly stated you don't need a hand to maintain a grapple, yeah i'm pretty sure AL DMs are supposed to use it... but if there is no text stating one way or the other, they're completely free to make a ruling however they like.

[Mellack]

Grappling ends if you release them. If you let go with your free hand, I would say that is releasing them.

[Mellack]

It should also be noted the things the grappled condition does not do. It does not stop someone attacking, even with a polearm. It doesn't stop casting. It doesn't stop picking up items or retrieving them out of your pack. It doesn't remove dexterity to armor class. It only means you cannot leave that space. Do not try to add other effects to it without an additional cost.

[Butler2102]

I'm assuming you're the same one who posted about this over on Reddit. Please excuse my bluntness, but it very much seems to me that you're wanting to do something you know isn't intended to be possible/fair within the rules, but are hanging on a minor word choice and desperately looking for someone on the internet to agree with you to validate your ambition. The simple fact is that's not how grappling is meant to work. Grappling already heavily favors PCs in most situations and can be very effective, even without trying to cheese it and maintain a shield in one hand, a weapon in the other, and an enemy that is somehow still unable to move after you've let go of them.

You keep calling for a page number or link to a Sage Advice ruling. Please, I encourage you to tweet Jeremy Crawford and ask if a creature remains grappled after you let go to use both hands for something else. If he responds, it'll be short and blunt. The answer is no.

Ultimately, if you're not playing AL, the DM can decide to run the game however he or she chooses. If you have a DM that is going to let you grapple with your big toe while keeping your hands full with your weapon and shield, that's his/her prerogative. But if it was at my table and you insisted on trying something like that, you'd be rolling your Athletics check with disadvantage and without proficiency or expertise. Remember, the mechanics just help a DM determine if a PC's attempts are successful. You can try to Persuade a Dragon to stop attacking, give you his treasure, and serve as your loyal mount for the rest of his days, but if I don't think it's possible after hearing what you've had to say, I'm not going to have your roll; I'd tell you it didn't work and to roll a Dex Save because there's a fire breath attack coming your way. The same goes for trying to hold someone in place without using the thing that is most appropriate for a humanoid - your hands.

I'm not saying D&D is meant to be a simulation of real life or that everything has to be perfectly logical, but this is not a stretch. If you let go, they're no longer grappled. So let it go, man.

[Aett_Thorn]

Player - "I use one of my attacks to reach out and grapple the enemy with my hand."

DM - "Okay"

Player - (Succeeds) "Okay, now I take my hand off to hit them with my two-handed sword. They're still grappled, right?"

DM - "I'm sorry, what?"


Basically, as a DM, unless you said that you were doing something else to grapple them other than your hand, I wouldn't allow this. It just makes no sense. You want to hit them with a one-handed sword? Fine, since your other hand is grappling, and isn't needed. But a two-handed sword? No.

[Varlon]

I'm really having fun trying to picture how you would grapple a standing foe with your knee.

[Slipperychicken]

I'm really having fun trying to picture how you would grapple a standing foe with your knee.

I did MMA for a few years myself, and I don't know what people expect no-hands grappling to look like.


Unless you happen to be a snake, have tentacles, or are wrestling a ragdoll, you're going to need your hands.

[Citan]

you can get advantage by shoving prone, with no need to inflict any negative conditions on yourself, using just one of your attacks from an attack action (presuming you have multiple), and since they have no movement, they can't spend half of their movement to stand up. and you can do that with no feat requirement.

I'm real sorry but that is totally irrelevant to my question.
If someone decides to grapple a creature instead of shoving them, it's because they see it as the best tactical decision in the first place (like if you have archer friends that want to aim at the same creature, putting them at disadvantage is not really teamwork now is it?).

Besides, shoving one down does not deprive of movement, it will just force them to get back up, using half of their movement. But that's beyond the point. Or you meant Shoving after Grappling, which means you used 2 attacks just to stop and prone the creature. Unless you are a high level Fighter or someone dedicated to be just an enabler, I don't see how that could be the best use of your turn.

So then on to the feat: Grappler feat says: "you have advantage on attack rolls against the creature you are grappling". Period.
As long as you grapple a creature, you have advantage against it. Again, how is that a bad thing?
There is absolutely no "negative condition" inflicted on yourself.
Reminder since it seems not clear to people here: when grappling, you just have halved speed, nothing else. And for someone who really likes to be smart with grapples, the speed problem can be easily alleviated, either temporarily with self/ally buff (Longstrider, Haste, Expeditious Retreat) or permanently (making a Monk or caster with many spell slots and Constitution proficiency, getting Mobile, getting Cunning Action)...

Which puts us back to square one: when someone grapples, it's because he judged it was the best tactical option. Grappler feat rewards this choice with a great bonus, no strings attached, with the first point. The second point is obviously very niche, but I could see it work well in a martial+caster combo.

That some people don't see (or never had a chance to see) how Grapple can be useful compared to a plain Shove is another problem entirely. I could say it's your own problem but, since I like to be a nice guy, some examples...

a) Pulling someone away from annoying bodyguards (Monks excel at that, Rogues too, Battlemaster can be nice, Barbarians will suffer). Obviously Shoving away wouldn't help (push him further towards safety), nor Shoving (you want to isolate him so other martials can safely smack him without risking OA from bodyguards).

b) Keep a flying creature on ground: there are great spells for that, but unfortunately not that often prepared/learned. For obvious reasons putting prone won't help either, since flying creatures generally have at least 60 feet speed. And as strange as it seems, just grappling is enough to keep it immobile per the grappled condition (while I'm sure we could imagine situations in which the respective weight/strength/envergure of grappler and flyer would make us expect the flyer to be able to take off while carrying the grappler. I guess we just suppose when you grapple you always make it so that wings cannot be used. What about someone under the Fly spell though?)

c) Use the creature as a cover against ranged enemies (specially good if the creature is larger than you, but it obviously depends on how far the archers are).

d) Force the creature to attack you, still you, only you: that is basically the soundest tactic available to a tank.

e) Or, most simply, use to move it either in a direction which would be complex with a plain Shove (which requires you to create a line between you, creature and target point, not always simple/possible with enemies around) or move it more than 5 feet away (which is the -very limited- effect of a Shove), to lure it towards a trap, pitfall, or in an expected/existing AOE.

[Chugger]

The phb rules say you need a free hand to grapple and you can any time release them (if you successfully grapple in the first place). That tends to imply that to maintain the grapple you have to continuously use that free hand to hold them to maintain the grapple. It looks pretty simple to me.

And yeah, this is an interesting tactic - a barbarian or fighter with a 1 hander and nothing in the other hand - grapples and then has advantaged attacks. Another option is to shove (the thing prone) and then attack w/ advantage. Slight differences but you can use a two-hander or a sword and shield.

[Saiga]

They are definitely talking about shoving + grappling, which is a great use of your action because it's so synergistic. Grappling reduces movement speed to 0, so they can't stand from being prone. Much harder to break, you get advantage on your subsequent attacks, inflict disadvantage on them, give advantage to your other melee allies and you haven't even spent a feat yet.

[Citan]

They are definitely talking about shoving + grappling, which is a great use of your action because it's so synergistic. Grappling reduces movement speed to 0, so they can't stand from being prone. Much harder to break, you get advantage on your subsequent attacks, inflict disadvantage on them, give advantage to your other melee allies and you haven't even spent a feat yet.
Please read again my post above (which I updated after your post).

It's irrelevant (I'm trying my hardest not to use another word) to compare Grappling and Shoving because they don't cater to the same situations.

[Saiga]

It really wasn't about comparing shove vs grapple, but comparing the feat to other options. Shoving is a very relevant one, and the ease of the shove + grapple combo makes Grappler look less attractive.

[JBPuffin]

Yes. I agree about the first two points, that's in the rules in the PHB.

I'm just asking if once you've given them the condition, there is anything, IN THE RULES, that requires you to have a hand free to maintain it. (Hence the rules legalness of point 3 is the question here. We've walked the same path to that point then people start spinnin' yarns. "Why in my day sonny, you never saw someone strike with both ends of a Quarterstaff while heftin' a shield in the other mitt, nosiree Bob! Youngsters these days...")

If so, please point it out to me.

That's actually an interesting point - there are multiple ways to grapple, after all. "The condition specifies what ends it" (PHB 195) leads to "if the grappler is incapacitated" and "if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect" (290). Neither of which say you need to have a free hand explicitly, so I'm inclined to think you don't need one by RAW. I'd be okay with it as a DM so long as you made mention of using your legs, or holding a dagger to their throat, or something like that.

[Chugger]

That's actually an interesting point - there are multiple ways to grapple, after all. "The condition specifies what ends it" (PHB 195) leads to "if the grappler is incapacitated" and "if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect" (290). Neither of which say you need to have a free hand explicitly, so I'm inclined to think you don't need one by RAW. I'd be okay with it as a DM so long as you made mention of using your legs, or holding a dagger to their throat, or something like that.

Yeah, like a lot of things in PHB it is not explicitly in the rules. I would guess it's because they thought it was pretty clear that once you use a free hand you have to continue using it to maintain the grapple - I think most people would see it that way. "But I use my knees to maintain the grapple or ..." um, no, for me - if others want to rule that way you of course can. It just seems to follow most logically, to me, that if you must have a free hand to grapple then it is the act of grabbing someone with that hand that makes them grappled - and maintaining that grasp is the only thing that maintains the grapple, to me.

As to other people asking us or seeming to ask us not to talk about or compare shoving ... er we're not trying to hijack, and yes, it is important to mention shoving in a grappling topic - because people need to know they're close to each other - and in some cases you may really wanna shove over a grapple. In other cases, no. The only prob with shoving- prone is if you're the only meleer in the group and the archers and casters will have a disad on the target you shove prone. Otherwise shoving prone gives an advantage (initiative order permitting) for all other meleers in the party who can reach the target to have advantage. And it must spend half it's movement to stand.

Grappling is good if you're the only meleer. You'd grapple w/ your free hand and hit it w/ a weapon in your other hand, while others are free to shoot it or spell zap it - esp. if you're not in the way, and that's usually easy to fix. Grappling's also great if there is a cliff nearby, because you can drag it at half speed (unless you're 2 sizes bigger iirc) - and drop it over the cliff.

Well, by this point maybe everyone knows this stuff (I don't, not really - I'm still very much figuring out new rule nuances).

[prototype00]

All right, sage advice request sent, lets see what Jeremy has to say.

prototype00

[Regitnui]

Could I get the Playground's opinion on a player of Mike's recent attempt to escape a choker's grapple by burning it? The character in question was a fire genasi and I had her roll Constitution checks against the choker's grapple DC. What does everyone else think about that solution?

[Citan]

It really wasn't about comparing shove vs grapple, but comparing the feat to other options. Shoving is a very relevant one, and the ease of the shove + grapple combo makes Grappler look less attractive.


As to other people asking us or seeming to ask us not to talk about or compare shoving ... er we're not trying to hijack, and yes, it is important to mention shoving in a grappling topic - because people need to know they're close to each other
Grappling is good if you're the only meleer. You'd grapple w/ your free hand and hit it w/ a weapon in your other hand, while others are free to shoot it or spell zap it - esp. if you're not in the way, and that's usually easy to fix. Grappling's also great if there is a cliff nearby, because you can drag it at half speed (unless you're 2 sizes bigger iirc) - and drop it over the cliff.

Well, by this point maybe everyone knows this stuff (I don't, not really - I'm still very much figuring out new rule nuances).
But that is exactly the thing: they are not "close to each other", and shove+grapple does not make Grappler less attractive at all.
As I tried to explain, they provide different tactical benefit and as such answer to very different cases.

Check all the situations I described: in all of these, Shove (with or without Grapple) is just not right, Grapple is (except the flyer case, if nobody else in your party is ranged). Because the current location of the creature is not fitting with you, and Shove helps little in that regard.

Getting the Grappler feat means you not only exert a strong tactical option, you also enhance your own attacks. On a Fighter or Monk with 3+ attacks, or on a Paladin that want to smite, or on a Rogue, that makes a big difference in damage output.
Doing the Shove+Grapple would mean your Fighter has no attack left until level 11 (unless TWF shenanigans), same with Paladin (unless Shield Master + Tavern Brawler), same with Rogue. Only the Monk can bear it thanks to bonus action Unarmed Strikes/FoB. I could understand a case being made for a grappler Fighter because until level 11, he just has a plain Extra Attack with a one-handed weapon. But a Paladin who usually has a smite or smite spell to apply? A Rogue who deals high, consistent damage on a single attack? Or a Monk that wants to try Stunning Strike (meaning it has to hit first)? In all these cases, you lose a significant chunk of damage and "time to kill" ratio.

That's why Grapple is not "good only if you are the only meleer", it's a strong option as soon as one of the aforementioned cases arise. And in a 4+ party (or a 2-3man party optimized around this kind of teamwork), this should happen quite often.


Could I get the Playground's opinion on a player of Mike's recent attempt to escape a choker's grapple by burning it? The character in question was a fire genasi and I had her roll Constitution checks against the choker's grapple DC. What does everyone else think about that solution?
Seems legit to me, or at the very least, smart and coherent. While it's not "magical" per se, burning is indeed an "effect". I don't understand why you had the choked creature roll a Constitution check?
I would have said rather make the grappler roll a Constitution saving throw. Or was it because you didn't know how to set the DC in that case?

[BillyBobShorton]

Don't see many 1-armed bouncers do you?

[KorvinStarmast]

And yeah, this is an interesting tactic - a barbarian or fighter with a 1 hander and nothing in the other hand - grapples and then has advantaged attacks. . No, he doesn't get advantaged attacks. If the barb is using the grappling feat to restrain the one grappled, the barb is also restrained. If the barb is simply grappling, the attacks are not by default at advantage. (Mind you if the barb is now using reckless attack, sure, but then attacks on the barb are also at advantage. ) Read up on the grappled condition.
To make your situation work, the barb needs to shove/prone the target, grapple, and attack. I can see a sword and board barb doing this if he has shield master.
Bonus action: shove prone (let's say barb wins the athletics check to shove prone)
Action: grapple. (enemy Speed = 0) (Had to drop shield in order to do so after the bonus action shove, which barb could do, free interaction if nothing else)
Next turn: (Providing the target stays grappled, the speed = zero means that the target can't get up yet, and is still prone)
Attack with advantage, with a one hander, and do one's best to keep the target grappled/prone.

A champion fighter with shield master and action surge can do the above all on one turn, contingent upon succeeding on the shove and grapple checks, both of which are strength athletic checks. I think a BM can do this with trip and grapple, but I've not played a BM so I'll not comment further.

[Regitnui]

Seems legit to me, or at the very least, smart and coherent. While it's not "magical" per se, burning is indeed an "effect". I don't understand why you had the choked creature roll a Constitution check?
I would have said rather make the grappler roll a Constitution saving throw. Or was it because you didn't know how to set the DC in that case?

The player wanted to "increase her body heat" to burn the choker. I figured that Constitution was the more relevant skill check. Like concentration or holding your breath.

[Tanarii]

Grappling ends if you release them. If you let go with your free hand, I would say that is releasing them.
Yep. RAW is clear. If you release them, they are no longer grappled. Done and done. No need for special clarification here, the PHB is explicit as to what happens.

[Citan]

No, he doesn't get advantaged attacks.
Yes he does: per the first point of Grappler feat: "you have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling".
Otherwise said, there is absolutely no need to restrain to get that benefit.
It's really impressive how many people here seem incapable to distinguish different features of a feat, in spite of them being separated properly through bullet pointing. XD
Nor being able to understand that if you want to Grapple, it's because in most cases...
- Either you want to move the creature with you in the first place.
- Or you want to prevent it to move but cannot put it prone because it would be either detrimental to allies or insufficient (or you don't want to Shove+Grapple because it would put YOU in too much danger for whatever reason, since it means you stay in place usually).

Grappler feat provides you a pretty good, no-strings-attached benefit for the first case. And gives you a niche ability for the second case (obviously being restrained also is bad for a martial, especially with the rule preventing disadvantage / advantage stacking, but the disadvantage on DEX saves makes it worthy for people using DEX cantrips for single-targets, or people working together with an Evoker, or people that have a high resilience against this kind of damage like Bear Barbarians for example).

[Bohandas]

If you're grappling someone, ask what you're holding them down with; a hand, your knees, your previous very high Charisma (Persuasion) check for seduction? If you aren't holding them down, the grappled condition ends, or they have an immediate saving throw against being grappled.

My opinion, not RAW.

Could have them pinned to the floor with a sword or something I guess

[Naanomi]

I could imagine some situations where I would be flexible... a lizardman grappling with their mouth... a heavy character sitting on someone already prone... but in general that hand needs to remain free

[Citan]

I could imagine some situations where I would be flexible... a lizardman grappling with their mouth... a heavy character sitting on someone already prone... but in general that hand needs to remain free
Yeah that sums it up well: by RAW the hand needs to stay free, but any reasonable DM could accept that a character can grapple without any hand free if it has anything that can properly fill the role (powerful and lengthy tail, strong teeths... Well, I don't think of anything else).

[Naanomi]

Yeah that sums it up well: by RAW the hand needs to stay free, but any reasonable DM could accept that a character can grapple without any hand free if it has anything that can properly fill the role (powerful and lengthy tail, strong teeths... Well, I don't think of anything else).
Bottom of your foot if you are significantly larger than your opponent? An elephant's trunk?

[Tanarii]

- Or you want to prevent it to move but cannot put it prone because it would be either detrimental to allies or insufficient (or you don't want to Shove+Grapple because it would put YOU in too much danger for whatever reason, since it means you stay in place usually).Why would prone & grapple mean you stay in place usually? You can move them around prone or not prone if you're grappling them, can't you?

[Citan]

Bottom of your foot if you are significantly larger than your opponent? An elephant's trunk?
Hmm. I suppose I'd allow? Honestly hard to say. In all these kind of grey area my personal policy is "seems legit".
So if you polymorph as an octopus, sure, you can Grapple with any tentacle you want (I may push it as far as "you can have one grappled creature for each tentacle" per ROF).
If you are a Giant (or Enlarged I-don't-remember-which-race-being-large-by-default) trampling on a Halfling, sure, I'd go with it as well. ^^

All of this is totally DM territory anyways (unless I missed something in rules), so I'd advise any player to double check some ideas in session 0.

Why would prone & grapple mean you stay in place usually? You can move them around prone or not prone if you're grappling them, can't you?
Yeah, I totally agree on that. But seems that examples given by others were rather based on the idea of totally pinning someone on the ground without the help of a feat.
So you could indeed very well Grapple, then Shove, then move away while dragging the proned creature, which is arguably more satisfying for the player and humiliating for the creature. XD

By RAW, it makes no difference compared with just Grappling and moving, although I find it a bit counter-intuitive: one could expect that moving while Grappling a proned creature requires a more difficult stance that would impede movement, compared to moving while standing normally... Or not? I'm just trying to imagine the scene, and just with two humanoids, I don't see how the grappler could have the same agility while being half-crouched above the grappled. I don't have any real-life experience in that kind of things though, so it is probably just me. ^^

As for the order, it must be just me that thinks if I want to end my turn with a proned creature, I'd rather Grapple and move it first (so I'm sure I put it where I want it to be) before shoving it prone. If only because with that order I still have the option of smacking it instead if I feel it's better in the end (like if I'm a Monk that wants to try its luck on Stunning Strike). Matter of taste I guess. ;)

[SharkForce]

Yes he does: per the first point of Grappler feat: "you have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling".
Otherwise said, there is absolutely no need to restrain to get that benefit.
It's really impressive how many people here seem incapable to distinguish different features of a feat, in spite of them being separated properly through bullet pointing. XD
Nor being able to understand that if you want to Grapple, it's because in most cases...
- Either you want to move the creature with you in the first place.
- Or you want to prevent it to move but cannot put it prone because it would be either detrimental to allies or insufficient (or you don't want to Shove+Grapple because it would put YOU in too much danger for whatever reason, since it means you stay in place usually).

Grappler feat provides you a pretty good, no-strings-attached benefit for the first case. And gives you a niche ability for the second case (obviously being restrained also is bad for a martial, especially with the rule preventing disadvantage / advantage stacking, but the disadvantage on DEX saves makes it worthy for people using DEX cantrips for single-targets, or people working together with an Evoker, or people that have a high resilience against this kind of damage like Bear Barbarians for example).

not remotely convinced that grappler offers that much. advantage on your own attacks is certainly something, but the power of grappling is that you grapple, then shove them prone, and now you and all melee allies (so potentially a bunch more people) have advantage to attack, *and* your opponent has disadvantage to attack (something the grappler feat doesn't offer). and your opponent can't really end it until they win a contest against you, which it is pretty easy for a grappler build to make nearly impossible (also, that costs their entire action).

making one enemy unable to move around is only a small part of the value of grappling.

[Mellack]

The grapple feat is just not a good deal. All it gives you is advantage on grappled creatures which you can get for just the cost of a single attack by making prone. Only a few of your situations are not just as effective without using the feat, those being ones that involve a lot of ranged. Pull away from people? Grab, move and prone for advantage. It just is usually not worth the cost. You would be better off using that feat to get Brawny for the expertise if you want to grapple a lot.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

The grappler feat is largely good enough, and any martial that can spare an ASI for a "non-essential feat" in general (read: mostly everyone except traditional Monks) and wants to enforce grappling as a basic tactic of him would be advised to take it.

Or, please explain how having advantage on attacks against the grappled creatures is a bad thing? Because in my books, a self-sufficient way to get significant boost to sustained damage is a *good* one.

In case someone doesn't mention it.

You don't have advantaged. Because you ALSO get disadvantage.

Now, I think any sane DM would take that out, or rewrite the whole feat, since it only has 2 parts and one of them is bad.


Yes he does: per the first point of Grappler feat: "you have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling".
Otherwise said, there is absolutely no need to restrain to get that benefit.
It's really impressive how many people here seem incapable to distinguish different features of a feat, in spite of them being separated properly through bullet pointing. XD
Nor being able to understand that if you want to Grapple, it's because in most cases...
- Either you want to move the creature with you in the first place.
- Or you want to prevent it to move but cannot put it prone because it would be either detrimental to allies or insufficient (or you don't want to Shove+Grapple because it would put YOU in too much danger for whatever reason, since it means you stay in place usually).

Grappler feat provides you a pretty good, no-strings-attached benefit for the first case. And gives you a niche ability for the second case (obviously being restrained also is bad for a martial, especially with the rule preventing disadvantage / advantage stacking, but the disadvantage on DEX saves makes it worthy for people using DEX cantrips for single-targets, or people working together with an Evoker, or people that have a high resilience against this kind of damage like Bear Barbarians for example).

You literally have to ignore all the rules of the grappled condition for what you are saying to be true. You are wrong. Because you are also grappled, the feat gives you disadvantag.

Advantage + disadvantage = nothing.


Don't see many 1-armed bouncers do you?

No, but I've seen one armed wrestlers, and that wrestler was penalized for an illegal double hold by a PIAA official at my school.

The PIAA offical looked pretty stupid.

[Safety Sword]

I think you have to look at this from the perspective of the PHB. All of the races are bipedal and the number of arms that come standard is exactly two.

I will agree that multiple arms or other relevant appendages aren't well thought of. However, if it's in the MM it's generally spelled out if the creature can hold you and do other things.

[SharkForce]

In case someone doesn't mention it.

You don't have advantaged. Because you ALSO get disadvantage.

Now, I think any sane DM would take that out, or rewrite the whole feat, since it only has 2 parts and one of them is bad.



You literally have to ignore all the rules of the grappled condition for what you are saying to be true. You are wrong. Because you are also grappled, the feat gives you disadvantag.

Advantage + disadvantage = nothing.

he's not talking about the option to restrain. he's talking about the other bullet point; if you grapple and only grapple, you get advantage to hit them. of course, you lose out on a huge amount by not shoving them prone, and you gain absolutely nothing if you do shove them prone, and you spent a feat for that, so it's still a horrible deal, but it actually does work. just not as well as spending your ASI on something else and shoving your target prone.

[Jerrykhor]

I'm not sure why by RAW it even requires hands at all to maintain grapple. Ever heard of the Figure Four Leg Lock?

[SharkForce]

I'm not sure why by RAW it even requires hands at all to maintain grapple. Ever heard of the Figure Four Leg Lock?

i bet it looks a lot more like the grappler pinning ability mechanically than a grapple.

[Mellack]

i bet it looks a lot more like the grappler pinning ability mechanically than a grapple.

It would also require both being prone, which grapple does not.

[Citan]

In case someone doesn't mention it.

You don't have advantaged. Because you ALSO get disadvantage.

Now, I think any sane DM would take that out, or rewrite the whole feat, since it only has 2 parts and one of them is bad.



You literally have to ignore all the rules of the grappled condition for what you are saying to be true. You are wrong. Because you are also grappled, the feat gives you disadvantag.

You litteraly have to ignore your eyes to be that incapable to read correctly, either what I said or the PHB.


he's not talking about the option to restrain. he's talking about the other bullet point; if you grapple and only grapple, you get advantage to hit them. of course, you lose out on a huge amount by not shoving them prone, and you gain absolutely nothing if you do shove them prone, and you spent a feat for that, so it's still a horrible deal, but it actually does work. just not as well as spending your ASI on something else and shoving your target prone.
That you refuse to accept that using another weapon attack on Shoving is not always the right decision is your own problem. It's sad for you, but fortunately won't affect players who actually care about using all the tactical potential of a grapple with Grappler feat: including the fact that you don't waste another weapon attack on a check that can fail while getting instead self-sufficient way of advantage, which can be very important for a Rogue (Sneak Attack), Paladin (smite spell, Divine Smite) or Monk (Stunning Strike)... Or even a niche build of Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter with Swift Quiver depending on how DM understands the spell description. ^^
Plus all what I said already about just Grappling. :)

It's really so sad to see so many people blinding themselves to the potential of some tactics because always keeping the same ideal situations in their heads ("checks will always succeed", "I have no ranged people who may want a strike too", "my melee friends have their turn coming right next to mine", "I have no ranged enemies around", "I couldn't finish him off in my turn anyways") while in reality so many different situations can happen...

[KorvinStarmast]

Hmm, if I understand your correctly, you are looking to grapple in turn 1, and in subsequent turns (1) keep the grapple and (2) attack with advantage. Not try this all on the first turn. Right?

[Contrast]

It's really so sad to see so many people blinding themselves to the potential of some tactics because always keeping the same ideal situations in their heads ("checks will always succeed", "I have no ranged people who may want a strike too", "my melee friends have their turn coming right next to mine", "I have no ranged enemies around", "I couldn't finish him off in my turn anyways") while in reality so many different situations can happen...

SharkForce has it right though. It's not that the benefits (well...mostly just the one) of the feat are bad. It's that there is an opportunity cost to choosing one feat over another or an ASI and in that situation, there is often a better option.

[Aett_Thorn]

Hmm, if I understand your correctly, you are looking to grapple in turn 1, and in subsequent turns (1) keep the grapple and (2) attack with advantage. Not try this all on the first turn. Right?

If you have multiple attacks, it can be done in a single round.

Attack 1: Grapple

if success, Attack 2: Attack with advantage (assuming Grappler Feat)

[Citan]

Hmm, if I understand your correctly, you are looking to grapple in turn 1, and in subsequent turns (1) keep the grapple and (2) attack with advantage. Not try this all on the first turn. Right?
Nope. ;) Because it means you really didn't contribute anything damage-wise for this turn (because it means you spent your Action on Attack for a simple Grapple). And I cannot see right now any situation where this would be the best choice: a single attack per Attack means either Rogue or a caster.
A Rogue would probably better use Sneak Attack, because high damage means an enemy much closer to death. Or, if he wanted to reduce his movement, Shove him prone because this way, if the enemy stands up and still has enough speed to get away, Rogue can get an OA on which dealing Sneak Attack.
As for casters, between cantrips and spells, you probably have a better way to either prevent the creature from moving or dealing significant damage to help party killing it faster (plus most casters don't want to stay in close contact in the first place ^^).
For those characters, I can only see Grappler as a last resort when you just want to totally restrain the movement of a target that you know is very hard to kill and mobile, or you really want it to attack you, and I don't see many situations in which either would be true (except a tanky Cleric). ^^


If you have multiple attacks, it can be done in a single round.

Attack 1: Grapple

if success, Attack 2: Attack with advantage (assuming Grappler Feat)
Yes, that's it. And while I don't see how a Rogue could achieve this without multiclass or DM fiat on TWF, unless he's specifically a high level Arcane Tricskter with Haste...

It's a good tactic for a Paladin tank for example. Cast a smite spell, grapple, attack. ;) You could take Shield Master instead and Shove, but as said the situations are not the same and you may not like the feeling of shield anyways (although obviously Shield Master is a better feat overall since it also brings defense). You could also just make two attacks against the target (as far as your attack goes it's better, because you make two rolls that may each result into damage) but then the target can still move away. With Grapple you can bring it exactly where you want and still deal (heavy) damage yourself.

On a Monk, it's easy to understand since a Monk has no shield possible, Stunning Strike to try and several attacks.
On an Eldricht Knight, it's great paired with Booming Blade thanks to War Magic.
On a Cleric with Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon active, it may or not be a better choice than a plain Shove depending on the creature's speed and abilities (you can't shut off a caster's mouth with a Shove, you could with Grapple, with most DM anyways).

---

With all these characters, when Shoving is better because all the parameters make it a better choice, these synergies presented for Grappling work as well for Shoving. When Grappling is better, then you really like having advantage from Grappler feat.

Of course, there are many other ways to get advantage though, so it depends on how your character and your party fight. :)

For a "lone" character of sorts or a duo, it can be great. Of course if you have a Wolf Barbarian or caster using Faerie Fire or the like, then having a consistent source of advantage is worthless. ^^

The reverse is also true: when you have a Barbarian pal using Reckless Attack consistently, or a Devotion Paladin with Sacred Weapon active, or a lone multiclass archer with Devil's Sight firing arrows from the comfort of his Darkness, or a blaster Warlock firing Agonizing Blasts, you really don't have to worry about providing advantage to others by shoving creatures. Quite on the contrary, you would just hinders them much (fun fact: Sharpshooter allows you to ignore long range and most cover, but as strange as may be, don't do anything against prone targets, even if those would be 15 feet away in open ground XD).

>>> Grappler feat won't transform Grappling tactic from something which is"situational" for most characters, to "use it always". Because generally, directly dealing damage remains the best tactic.
But for those who know how and when to Grapple, it's a worthy feat that can broaden quite a bit the range of situations in which Grapple is a good choice. So for those who want to build a specialized grappler (meaning they intend to use grappling very regularly), it should be in their top 3 feats unless very specific builds or ASI scarcity.

[Naanomi]

I feel like Tavern Brawler does a better job allowing one to attack + grapple than Grappler does. A battle master with Trip Attack and Tavern Brawler can grapple, 'shove', and attack all in one!

[SharkForce]

we're looking at a hyperspecific niche for this feat that you're pushing. it's possible that it will come up sometimes. i find it improbable that it will come up anything remotely like consistently.

a feat that is so rarely useful is not a good feat. it's like the feat... charger? whatever, the one that lets you dash and then attack once as a bonus action with +5 damage. it isn't that the feat can literally never be useful, it's that the feat is so unlikely to be useful on a regular basis that you should pretty much never take it outside of extremely rare hyperspecific builds.

as to not dealing damage for a turn... well, first off, the moment you went for grappling, you pretty much made damage dealing not your top priority. the simple fact that you're not using both hands to deal damage shows that clearly; you're not a TWF or crossbow expert rogue (need a free hand to reload, remember?), you're not a sharpshooter crossbow expert ranged character, you're not a GWM/PM melee warrior, you're not even a regular two-handed weapon melee warrior with no feats... you've already decided to give up damage to exert control, so if you're not comfortable with trading damage for control, well... why are you grappling at all? why did you take *any* feat to support grappling when what you really should have done is picked up a feat that supports your damage?