DM Just Houseruled my Grappler Into the Ground

[NecessaryWeevil]

So I thought I had a neat character design. A fighter/rogue/barbarian who grapple-and-proned opponents to keep them away from the squishies and provided nice prone targets for melee allies to pound on.

But after our first session, trying to grapple two targets at the same time now imposes disadvantage on the athletics check. Also, grappling a prone target while standing now halves your movement a second time on top of the movement penalty for dragging grappled targets.

The only other way I can think of to tank is Sentinel plus Tunnel Fighter, similar to 3.5 lockdown builds, but I've already done that so it would feel boring.

I'm feeling frustrated because it's not like grappling is super powerful. Yeah, I immobilized half the opposing force in our first session, but I dealt no damage worth speaking of and it's not my fault they wasted their actions trying to break free instead of attacking.

Any suggestions? Any other ways to tank? I can't use spells or ki at all for complicated character background reasons.

[Segev]

Suggestion #1 is to just talk to your DM about it. Explain why this damages your fun, and how you think he could account for it on his own side of the board without having to change the rules. If he just doesn't want this kind of character, don't try to adapt this one. Make a new one that has mechanics he likes better.

[Armored Walrus]

Suggestion #1 is to just talk to your DM about it.

I agree. This sounds like a knee-jerk ruling by a DM who was panicking. I'd have a conversation outside of game time to review RAW and what the actual problem is for the DM with how this character fights.

[Quietus]

I agree. This sounds like a knee-jerk ruling by a DM who was panicking. I'd have a conversation outside of game time to review RAW and what the actual problem is for the DM with how this character fights.

I'll +1 this. We've all had moments where we went "Woah, you can do what?", and swung the pendulum too hard to the other side.

[GlenSmash!]

I think the DM is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is plenty of times where grappling will be totally useless.


I agree. This sounds like a knee-jerk ruling by a DM who was panicking. I'd have a conversation outside of game time to review RAW and what the actual problem is for the DM with how this character fights.

I've been so tempted to houserule in this edition, but every time I take a step back I've found what I thought was bad was really not that big of a problem.

[MrStabby]

I am sure that if you point out to the DM that there are plenty of big creatures and plenty of creatures immune to the grappled condition as well as strong creatures with athletics expertise then he will see that it is a long way from universal.

[Sigreid]

You could also point out that if you're grappling 2 targets at once one should be able to Help the other, giving the 1 advantage on grapple checks. That might fulfill his need without killing your build.

[MintyNinja]

+1 the Talk to the GM option.

As for this:

I'll +1 this. We've all had moments where we went "Woah, you can do what?", and swung the pendulum too hard to the other side.

When my group first got the Playtest Version of 5e, I rolled up an Assassin Archer. I One-Shot Killed an Ogre in one of our sessions and the GM was aghast. The next Session started with an Ancient Black Dragon coming to town to rule it forever. My character bent the knee right-quick but someone else mouthed off. So I got killed. Then the other two were given jobs to do by the Dragon, even though they were still mouthing off.

So I'm the GM now...

[Whyrocknodie]

You could make the tank with the sentinel feat but make the personality and culture of the character sufficiently different to the last one that it isn't boring...?

In my local gaming circles, the grappling tanking concept wouldn't get past the design stage before the derisive laughing began - your DM is clearly very nice!

[Thrudd]

How are you picturing your character wrestling and holding down two people at the same time? Is he a giant? It seems like a weird thing to expect to be allowed. The DM made the right call, it isn't/shouldn't be possible at all- so giving you disadvantage is actually being really nice.

[Angelmaker]

How are you picturing your character wrestling and holding down two people at the same time? Is he a giant? It seems like a weird thing to expect to be allowed. The DM made the right call, it isn't/shouldn't be possible at all- so giving you disadvantage is actually being really nice.

So if a sorceror twin sprlls a hold person this is totally fine?

You, my friend, are why martials cant have nice things. I completely disagree with your statement and i am lucky I have a much more rule of cool dm. When my goliath barbarian grapples things and drags them around and i describe how he smashes stuff with the grappled bodies of my enemies, then i deal about as much damage as i would with a regular attack instead of unarmed damage or some crap like "you can't do that its not in the rules" because he understands i might just as well be attacking and make the game more boring for him and myself.

I once grappled two rogues and ate sneaks attacks and was close to dying. But next turn i was able to jump out of the window, beat both assassins grapple check and pile drive the, into the asphalt from the second story of a tavern, reacuing my fav squishie in the process. Goddamit that felt awesomely good.

The strong barbarian grappling two goblins and bashing their heads in with each other is well established in fantasy tales. Why the hell not allow it. It's not overpowered, it's not additional utility outside of combat, it's resources invested and caster classes have a much easier time pulling it while doing twice the damage and having all the utility. Why can't martials be allowed to do at least one thing nice and fluffy?

<3 to all the dms out there with a bit of style and flexibility.

[GlenSmash!]

So if a sorceror twin sprlls a hold person this is totally fine?

You, my friend, are why martials cant have nice things. I completely disagree with your statement and i am lucky I have a much more rule of cool dm. When my goliath barbarian grapples things and drags them around and i describe how he smashes stuff with the grappled bodies of my enemies, then i deal about as much damage as i would with a regular attack instead of unarmed damage or some crap like "you can't do that its not in the rules" because he understands i might just as well be attacking and make the game more boring for him and myself.

The strong barbarian grappling two goblins and bashing their heads in with each other is well established in fantasy tales. Why the hell not allow it. It's not overpowered, it's not additional utility outside of combat, it's resources invested and caster classes have a much easier time pulling it while doing twice the damage and having all the utility. Why can't martials be allowed to do at least one thing nice and fluffy?

<3 to all the dms out there with a bit of style and flexibility.

Don't you know you're supposed to just think inside the box. That's the most fun for everyone!

[NecessaryWeevil]

How are you picturing your character wrestling and holding down two people at the same time?

Any number of ways. For example, grab one, twist their arm and force them to their knees. Then grab another by the neck, knock their feet out from under them, and stand or kneel on their back. Is this the guy-at-the-gym fallacy rearing its head? I'm sure a UFC fighter or an aikido master could pull this off, and I'm a 7th-level character in a heroic fantasy story who specializes in doing exactly this.



Is he a giant? He happens to be a Goliath, but that's not really relevant because....


The DM made the right call, it isn't/shouldn't be possible at all- so giving you disadvantage is actually being really nice. Grappling requires a free hand and an appropriately sized opponent within reach. I have two free hands, one for each adjacent opponent. Can't see anything in the RAW governing who I may grapple, let along forbidding it.

[War_lord]

How are you picturing your character wrestling and holding down two people at the same time? Is he a giant? It seems like a weird thing to expect to be allowed. The DM made the right call, it isn't/shouldn't be possible at all- so giving you disadvantage is actually being really nice.

Careful, there's a whole army of RAW soldaten who'll drag you over hot coals for daring to suggest that DMs have the right to veto ye olde MMA fighting twister champions.

OP, if you have a problem with the DM's rulings, find a new DM.


Any number of ways. For example, grab one, twist their arm and force them to their knees. Then grab another by the neck, knock their feet out from under them, and stand or kneel on their back. Is this the guy-at-the-gym fallacy rearing its head? I'm sure a UFC fighter or an aikido master could pull this off, and I'm a 7th-level character in a heroic fantasy story who specializes in doing exactly this.

How are you standing/kneeling on a guy's back while dragging both him and his standing friend?

[MaxWilson]

Grappling requires a free hand. I have two free hands, one for each opponent. Can't see anything in the RAW forbidding it.

I know this won't apply to your character because he doesn't use spells, but I just wanted to take a second here call out the theoretical Ultimate Sticky Character: a 10th+ level Enchanter with Warcaster who is grappling two enemies (one with each hand) while holding a third enemy paralyzed with his Hypnotic Gaze and maintaining Tasha's Hideous Laughter (or Dominate Person) on a fourth and a fifth NPC at the same time, and also using Instinctive Charm on his reaction every round to make a sixth enemy attack the enemies he's already got grappled.

[NecessaryWeevil]

How are you standing/kneeling on a guy's back while dragging both him and his standing friend?

Obviously if I need to drag him anywhere I'll restrain him another way. Exactly how I fluff it is irrelevant.

[krugaan]

Any number of ways. For example, grab one, twist their arm and force them to their knees. Then grab another by the neck, knock their feet out from under them, and stand or kneel on their back. Is this the guy-at-the-gym fallacy rearing its head? I'm sure a UFC fighter or an aikido master could pull this off, and I'm a 7th-level character in a heroic fantasy story who specializes in doing exactly this.

He happens to be a Goliath, but that's not really relevant because....

Grappling requires a free hand and an appropriately sized opponent within reach. I have two free hands, one for each adjacent opponent. Can't see anything in the RAW governing who I may grapple, let along forbidding it.

And if you're a monk, you can still stomp / knee / headbutt them while you're dragging them around!

[Angelmaker]

OP, if you have a problem with the DM's rulings, find a new DM.

I completely disagree with you as well. :)

Instead, @op, invite him to fries and burgers(self made preferrably) and talk with him about how awesome RPG a hobby is and that your character isn't overpowered at all. Comparable builds of the same level can do so much more with either investing less or being better in all scenarios (aforementioned twin spell hold person, etc.).

Have burgers, laugh, come to an understanding and be each better persons and RPG players by having learnt from this conversation in whichi you listened to each other and found common grounds.

Also, nothing beats grappling two rogues and piledriving them into the street some twenty feet below and hearing the satisfying crunch sounds. ;)

[Composer99]

Sounds like a fun and interesting build for a goliath barbarian. Hope your DM comes around after a chat.

[Angelmaker]

Don't you know you're supposed to just think inside the box. That's the most fun for everyone!
:smallbiggrin:

Here, have one of my internets. You deserve it. :)

[MrStabby]

It's fine for the DM to change the rules a bit if things are problematic. It isn't fine to do it AFTER the players have built their characters to worth with the rules as layed out in the PHB.

Requirement is a free hand. If you meet the requirements you should be able to do it. If they wanted to change these rules they should have done it at character creation.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Thanks Angelmaker, good advice.

[War_lord]

Obviously if I need to drag him anywhere I'll restrain him another way. Exactly how I fluff it is irrelevant.

No, it is actually important, this is a roleplaying game, things being at least describable matters. People mock 4th edition's powers for having this exact kind of video game logic. I bet you loved Bloody Path.


It's fine for the DM to change the rules a bit if things are problematic. It isn't fine to do it AFTER the players have built their characters to worth with the rules as layed out in the PHB.

Requirement is a free hand. If you meet the requirements you should be able to do it. If they wanted to change these rules they should have done it at character creation.

There's no restriction on when to houserule in the DMG, a DM can adjudicate at any point. You can either 1. deal with it 2. appeal to the DM not to enact a given ruling or 3. leave. I don't particularly blame the DM for not having the foresight to detect this particular meme build ahead of time. Luckily I spend enough time on the internet to be able to spot disruptive behavior and nip it at the bud.

[NecessaryWeevil]

No, it is actually important, this is a roleplaying game, things being at least describable matters. People mock 4th edition's powers for having this exact kind of video game logic. I bet you loved Bloody Path.

Yes, and I took a crack at describing it. I don't have to be real-life wizard in order to cast Burning Hands, why should I have to be a judoka in order to grapple someone?

[War_lord]

Yes, and I took a crack at describing it. I don't have to be real-life wizard in order to cast Burning Hands, why should I have to be a judoka in order to grapple someone?

You can describe how you would cast burning hands with your character's current number of limbs. Does your meme Goliath have four legs?

[Angelmaker]

Thanks Angelmaker, good advice.

You're welcome. :) let us know how it turns out for yur group. Game on, mate.

[NecessaryWeevil]

You can describe how you would cast burning hands with your character's current number of limbs. Does your meme Goliath have four legs?

Thank your sharing your opinions. I've gotten what I needed out of this thread. Peace.

[Isaire]

What exactly do you think grappling is, description wise? I'd hardly call it a lock, or you'd be imposing some sort of disadvantage / preventing use of a hand etc.

To me, it just means you've grabbed into a part of them really hard and can drag them around like this, but obviously they can still attack you. From this point of view, it's easy to see you can grab onto two people, just as suggested by the rules. Don't quite understand where people see the problem is - you've never tried to grab two people before IRL?

[War_lord]

What exactly do you think grappling is, description wise? I'd hardly call it a lock, or you'd be imposing some sort of disadvantage / preventing use of a hand etc.

To me, it just means you've grabbed into a part of them really hard and can drag them around like this, but obviously they can still attack you. From this point of view, it's easy to see you can grab onto two people, just as suggested by the rules. Don't quite understand where people see the problem is - you've never tried to grab two people before IRL?

There's two problems, the physical roleplaying one is that this interact starts to fall apart when you shove them both prone and still insist on having only half movement and maintaining advantage. Obviously being either hunched over or having your opponents in some bizarre leglock should be either impossible or at the least confer some disadvantage. Obviously the designers didn't account for this, but it's the DM's role to make rulings when needed.

The second (meta) reason, is that the designers appear to have forgotten about grappling when designing the monsters. So a number of high level foes you'd expect to be resistant to this tactic... aren't. That is, they don't have any skill bonus to Athletics or Acrobatics. So it's as easy to grapple the Death Knight Sorkeld Blackbones as it is to wrestle Bob, the bloke who runs the fruit stand outside the inn. Then you combine that with Rogue expertise and bonus action dash, and you have basically uncontested grappling at normal speed. And then you can stack Goliath on top to shut down DM arguments about the weight of the creature you're grappling.

It's just a nasty thing to spring on a DM who isn't expecting those shenanigans, since allowing it is going to involve the DM designing all future encounters with it in mind. If a player wants to play something like that, they should go to their DM in session zero, fill them in on the implications, and then ask if it's okay to bring to the table.

[MaxWilson]

Instead, @op, invite him to fries and burgers(self made preferrably) and talk with him about how awesome RPG a hobby is and that your character isn't overpowered at all. Comparable builds of the same level can do so much more with either investing less or being better in all scenarios (aforementioned twin spell hold person, etc.).

Do consider however that for many DMs, "overpowered" is less of a problem than "breaks my suspension of disbelief" i.e. "destroys my fun."

Consider hypothetically a player who wants to be mechanically a wizard, but "fluff" his PC as a farmer scattering appleseeds. "Fireball is me throwing appleseeds really, really hard." A DM could not plausibly object to that on the grounds of being overpowered (especially if it's still affected normally by antimagic zones) but it's easy to imagine it completely ruining the tone of the campaign and other players' willingness to play in it.

Don't assume your DM's objections have anything at all to do with "overpowered". Ask why first.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

Would you by any chance have access to a rope of entanglement? They come in handy all the time plus they grapple enemy targets. So I believe you could possibly use it to grapple 30ft out at a target and then if you get something to knock out a target or subdue them it might be effective.

[MrStabby]

There's no restriction on when to houserule in the DMG, a DM can adjudicate at any point. You can either 1. deal with it 2. appeal to the DM not to enact a given ruling or 3. leave.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying they can't do it. I am saying they shouldn't do it.

I am not saying they are not the DM, I am just saying they are not a good one.




DMs that diminish the fun at their table are bad DMs in my eyes. Certainly the preferred option is to talk to the DM and help them to understand the implications of their decisions, leaving is probably a last resort however I would guess other players at that table would also be keen to find someone else to run their games if the DM is springing stuff like this unannounced.

[War_lord]

DMs that diminish the fun at their table are bad DMs in my eyes.

The player is diminishing the fun at the table by trying to sneak in a meme build. Even if the other players are fine with the game being memed, the DM has just as much right to have fun as anyone else at the table. They are after all spending more time bringing the game to fruition then anyone else at the table. The DM is also a player, the only indispensable player.

[OvisCaedo]

...People are arguing about whether or not this would be realistically feasible, but would it even take much more to have someone grappled and prone than to have a hold of one of their legs and drag them around by it? Grappling doesn't really constitute or mechanically confer any significant level of restraint in 5e. I guess one area that's poorly defined is whether or not this kind of movement should abide by what carrying capacity says you can drag around, though.

As for whether or not grappling is poorly thought out as a system in general: Absolutely! So's a lot of the game. At least this is nowhere near as poorly conceived as obscurement/detection systems are. One guy sacrificing most or all of his offense and putting himself right on top of enemies to try to lock them down, when applicable, hardly seems to compare to how dumb things like devil's sight/darkness are.

[MrStabby]

The player is diminishing the fun at the table by trying to sneak in a meme build. Even if the other players are fine with the game being memed, the DM has just as much right to have fun as anyone else at the table. They are after all spending more time bringing the game to fruition then anyone else at the table. The DM is also a player, the only indispensable player.

I actually agree with this. One of the reasons why I feel the group would be better off with a different DM. See if they can find someone who wants to play the same kind of game as their players.

Also what is a "meme build". I just assumed you were making some kind of spelling error yet you have repeated is too often for it to be a typo.

[Personification]

The player is diminishing the fun at the table by trying to sneak in a meme build. Even if the other players are fine with the game being memed, the DM has just as much right to have fun as anyone else at the table. They are after all spending more time bringing the game to fruition then anyone else at the table.

I don't think anyone is trying to sneak in anything. What it looks like to me is that this so-called "meme build" is not actually a case of someone trying to make an overly-optimized gamebreaker, but actually a story driven character designed to fill out a specific concept. While, as a DM myself, I agree that DMs should have fun, a houserule that cripples a players entire build concept is not the right answer. The DM should have known what the character concepts were before going in, and a failure to do that should not result in punishing the player.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "memed". I am pretty sure that when you used meme as an adjective you meant it as "a build that is so broken that it has become a meme among optimizers" (which this isn't), but I have literally no idea how the word meme could be a verb with a meaning other than "reference a meme" or "mimetically mutate", neither of which make sense in the context of the post.

[War_lord]

I don't think anyone is trying to sneak in anything. What it looks like to me is that this so-called "meme build" is not actually a case of someone trying to make an overly-optimized gamebreaker, but actually a story driven character designed to fill out a specific concept.

I can point you to the exact ENworld guide the OP likely ripped this entire build from. A guide that actually points out exactly why this build is mechanically a problem. I guarantee you the only story that went into it was "how to I make the whole game a joke at the DM's expense".


While, as a DM myself, I agree that DMs should have fun, a houserule that cripples a players entire build concept is not the right answer. The DM should have known what the character concepts were before going in, and a failure to do that should not result in punishing the player.

The player in question punished themselves when they made a build based entirely around poking at the holes in the grapple system. The DM didn't force the player to bring a one trick pony now did they?


Also, what exactly do you mean by "memed". I am pretty sure that when you used meme as an adjective you meant it as "a build that is so broken that it has become a meme among optimizers" (which this isn't), but I have literally no idea how the word meme could be a verb with a meaning other than "reference a meme" or "mimetically mutate", neither of which make sense in the context of the post.

A meme build in gaming, is a build that's based entirely around one joke. The build in question could be underpowered, overpowered or just strange but unorthodox. The joke in this case being "hey guys, grapple doesn't scale very well".

EDIT: It should be noted that the word "Meme" actually means "an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means". The use of the word to mean "a funny image macro" is relatively new.

[ImproperJustice]

Just adding to the harping:
I have no trouble with someone dual grappling people.

I mean, my 11 year old does Brazillian Jujitsu and he can take someone down with his feat and knees while choking another person out by just grabbing their shirt collar at an odd angle.
Not bragging, but just saying that there is some real life possibility for this stuff. Wrist and finger locks require minimal investment by the grappler and can shut someone down.

In regards to the topic at hand: most people have covered it. Talk to the GM like an adult, share the pros and cons of the build concept and see if he is willing to flex. If he feels it unblances his game, ask if you can build a character more in line with hos expectations.

[Personification]

I can point you to the exact ENworld guide the OP likely ripped this entire build from. A guide that actually points out exactly why this build is mechanically a problem. I guarantee you the only story that went into it was "how to I make the whole game a joke at the DM's expense".

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when it makes more sense than assuming the worst. Also, your guarantee seems to fail to take into account the fact that the OP specifically said that they had backstory reasons for not taking spells or using ki, which indicates a better story than "Step 1: use a website build to take advantage of the game. Step 2: annoy the DM and all other players. Step 3: take over the world. Step 4: maniacal laugh."


The player in question punished themselves when they made a build based entirely around poking at the holes in the grapple system. The DM didn't force the player to bring a one trick pony now did they?

As you say, the player was not forced to build a one-trick pony, but did so with the knowledge that while useful in some situations, certain monsters would be immune to the trick. The player seems to acknowledge that. The main problem is that the DM, upon seeing a one trick pony, outlawed its one trick. Also, in what way is the OP creating a build to poke holes in a system? All I see is someone who specializes in grabbing people and forcing them to fall down, allowing their teammates to better attack them. This seems to be both in the spirit of the rules and a great way to use teamwork in a game.


A meme build in gaming, is a build that's based entirely around one joke. The build in question could be underpowered, overpowered or just strange but unorthodox. The joke in this case being "hey guys, grapple doesn't scale very well".

As you yourself say later on, this has nothing to do with any definition of the word meme, so I don't understand why you are using it. Also, I don't see how what you are describing is a problem. A build based entirely around a single concept makes perfect sense, and is probably story driven. Unless the concept overtly messes with the tone of the campaign, and I don't see how that could ever be done by "likes to grapple", this is a perfectly acceptable way to build a character. Also, what do you mean by "grapple doesn't scale well" in this context?


EDIT: It should be noted that the word "Meme" actually means "an element of a culture or system of behaviour passed from one individual to another by imitation or other non-genetic means". The use of the word to mean "a funny image macro" is relatively new.

I know this, which is why I don't understand your uses of the word meme as an adjective and a verb, neither of which are more than tangentially elated to either of the definitions for the actual word (a noun) that you were kind enough to list above.

[Phoenix042]

How are you picturing your character wrestling and holding down two people at the same time? Is he a giant? It seems like a weird thing to expect to be allowed. The DM made the right call, it isn't/shouldn't be possible at all- so giving you disadvantage is actually being really nice.

Yeah, I was waiting for this reply. It's the old "you're martial, not magic, so you basically can't do anything cool" argument again.

He's not pinning them down and wrapping them up in a choke hold. What he's doing is fantastic, yes, but this is a fantasy game. It only doesn't make sense if you refuse to let it.

It's a bad idea to rule that certain mechanics don't work because you personally don't see how they could work in real life. You should calibrate your expectations to accommodate game balance, not the other way around.

Is it broken? Do the rules allow it? Then figure out your own explanation for how it works. Do a little creative work.

[War_lord]

Personification, the Monsters are not designed with scaling Athletics or Acrobatics, the grappler build relies entirely on exploiting that hole in the game. It's really not that difficult to understand why this is a problem when it comes to boss level humanoids like Death Knights. It's an exploit based build.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468737-The-Grappler-s-Manual-(2-0)-Grappling-in-5th-Edition

Why grapple? Easy; Grappling is mechanically unfair. To start, most enemies in D&D derive their strengths from unrestricted movement, free reign to cast spells, ability to target certain PCs in the party, high ACs, etc. All this is totally shut down by a good grappler. Although it looks like an innocuous condition, being "Grappled" (and/or Prone/Restrained on top of that) is a serious hindrance for most enemies. If you can impose these conditions at will, you will dominate the battlefield.

When thinking about mechanics, I like to think about their axis of interaction. Attack rolls are opposed by AC. Spells are opposed by saving throws. High damage is opposed by high HP. Looking over the Monster Manual, most enemies are generally well prepared to fight attack rolls/spells/damage, by virtue of high AC, high saves, and/or high HP. Not every monster has those traits (bless your soul, little goblin), but over the course of your travels, you will often encounter monsters that directly counter these angles of interaction.

Then there's grappling. Grappling is a skill contest (not an attack roll!) based on the Athletics skill. Most monsters, even those with high strength scores, have the Athletics/Acrobatics checks of a 1st level commoner. Sure, you will fight monsters that can't get grappled (Ghosts...why did it have to be ghosts...), but the vast majority of monsters will be crying uncle against a good grappler. That lets you dictate how the enemy moves, who they attack, how they take hits, etc. That is a degree of battlefield control most classes can't boast.

[Ganymede]

The real issue here, an issue I think is being glossed over, is that this is not an MMO: your party does not need a tank.

[JNAProductions]

I'm gonna... Fifteenth? Whatever number it is.

Talk to your DM. Explain that your build is not overpowered (although as was pointed out, perhaps find out exactly WHY he's ruling so) and present some scenarios the DM can use to make your character's grappling less relevant-though do stress that such scenarios should not ALWAYS be the case. An occasional fight with a dragon too large to grapple is fine, every single enemy being that large constitutes time to rebuild a character.

Edit: Also, I will say, your DM adding Acrobatics or Athletics to monsters would also work well. It makes your grappling less reliable, without totally negating it.

[Mellack]

I don't see a problem with the build. It is not OP but does one thing well. The same could be said for an assassin build. They are legal builds and fun, but not all the time. I can also imaging a grappler fairly easily controlling a person with one hand. Grab them by their hair and turn them looking straight up. Keep pulling so they can't get their balance. Saw a bouncer at the bar I worked at do this to people.

[Trickshaw]

It’s ironic that a DM’s sole function is to create a landscape of imaginary fantastical realms, creatures & events but soooooooo many of them get tripped up over little things like grappling.

I can point anyone in this thread to a myriad of Kung Fu films where one man grapples multiple individuals every other scene if you have problems visualizing it.

“But it’s not realistic!”

Fireballs, planar travel & floating bags of death meat with 8 eyes you have no problem with but a guy grappling a couple other guys... THAT’S where your brain alt-f4’s?

Really?

REALLY?

[JoeJ]

I wonder if the OPs DM has an idea of what "grappling" means that is at variance with the PHB. As the term is used in the game it's just grabbing somebody and holding on; that's all grappling does. The target's movement drops to 0, but they can still do everything else that they could before, including try to grapple you back so that you're both immobilized. And grappling two people at once, with or without tripping them, is something that the guy at the gym almost certainly can do.

(In fact, I've quite frequently seen characters in movies grab two people and bang their heads together, which is just two grapples followed by an attack with an improvised weapon. Try suggesting that to your DM.)

[MaxWilson]

Personification, the Monsters are not designed with scaling Athletics or Acrobatics, the grappler build relies entirely on exploiting that hole in the game. It's really not that difficult to understand why this is a problem when it comes to boss level humanoids like Death Knights. It's an exploit based build.

Some monsters are really quite good at Athletics. Fire Giant has +10 to Athletics IIRC, and Stone Giant has +11. Ideal for punting PCs off cliffs!

It's reasonable to conclude that the omission for other monsters is deliberate. Questionable, maybe, but deliberate. Obviously a DM should feel completely free to use different monsters and/or award Athletics proficiency to his monsters as appropriate. I'd definitely give Lord Soth (exemplary Death Knight) Athletics proficiency for example.

[Phoenix042]

@War_lord,

So I disagree with you, having seen some pretty good grapplers in play and having handled them at my table. But before I get into a counter argument, I just want to say that your arguments are pretty convincing, well put together and well reasoned. You didn't convince me to change my mind, but I see the truth behind a few of your points, and they echo my experience.


Why grapple? Easy; Grappling is mechanically unfair... being "Grappled" (and/or Prone/Restrained on top of that) is a serious hindrance for most enemies. If you can impose these conditions at will, you will dominate the battlefield.

Well yes, grapplers can dominate the battlefield when their trick applies. The thing is, though, that while the grappler accomplishes his battlefield dominance in a way that's very different to how the strikers and brlusers do it, he doesn't really end up doing it in a consistently better way. When the assassin has surprise and one-shots a powerful enemy, he's not abusing holes in the rules because the monsters don't tend to have great perception checks and have no direct defenses against being auto-crit.

In the case of grapples though, creatures often have options. Many can teleport away, fly out of reach, or simply ignore the condition and pound away at you with their powerful attacks or special abilities. Disadvantage is a great condition to impose, and grapplers can, in some cases, apply it very reliably compared to spells and the like, but it isn't the same thing as victory, and often is less meaningful than a 25Ib. bucket of d6's chucked at the DM's head.

Like many characters who specialize in situational but powerful tricks, (assassins, et. al.), he's really good when his thing works well. But even against its intended targets, it is by no means close to the simple "I win" button that you're making it out to be. Instead, I think it's an interesting and richly rewarding approach to solving a simple problem (how do I make the bad people stop doing bad things) in a slightly more creative way than normal (I grab them and make them fall in lava, so they die (no save) (http://www.scratchfactory.com/Resources/LavaBanners/LavaRules.pdf).


When thinking about mechanics, I like to think about their axis of interaction. Attack rolls... Spells... High damage... most enemies are generally well prepared to fight... high AC, high saves, and/or high HP... Then there's grappling...

Here I think you touch on your strongest point; enemies who aren't patently impossible to grapple or keep in a grapple (teleporters, really big things, ghosts) will succumb to your efforts more often than most players or DM's would expect until they see it happen or check enough numbers to do the math. This is what makes the tactic satisfying to play with; it tends to work.

Where I take issue is:


Most monsters, even those with high strength scores, have the Athletics/Acrobatics checks of a 1st level commoner.

That's a patent mis-characterization. Many monsters that you'd reasonably want to grapple have lower than even but still significant chance of resisting your initial attempts or escaping on a subsequent round.

Further and perhaps most importantly: grappled is a frequently underestimated condition, yes, but it isn't as good a condition to oppose as being dead. Yet very few monsters have a very high "don't get dead-ed" skill modifier, and typically after a few rounds of effort, the party manages to impose the condition.

Yes, grappled works well against large or smaller things that can't teleport, ignore disadvantage via other attack modes, attack through the disadvantage via sufficiently powerful attacks, largely ignore your limited ability to impose the condition via outnumbering your limbs by a large margin, or break the effect with another special ability or attack.

Given its limitations and the the significant cost to the player using it, I'd say it's about as strong and reliable as it should be.


Sure, you will fight monsters that can't get grappled (Ghosts...why did it have to be ghosts...)... [grappled] lets you dictate how the enemy moves, who they attack, how they take hits, etc. That is a degree of battlefield control most classes can't boast.

That's all true, and sounds pretty powerful, but there's a lot of powerful stuff PC's can do and I'm not seeing the glaring inconsistency that would cause the sounding of alarm bells in my head. Grappled is a debuff that's hard to resist, but can be easy for some creatures to ignore or trivialize, and meanwhile, it's hardly the same thing as winning a fight; if gives you exactly what it should give you, which is a reasonable, powerful return on your significant investment (via hands, actions, build resources, opportunity costs (damage), and personal risk).

So far, in my games, it's been often powerful and occasionally it has won encounters swiftly. But so has a lot of stuff. That's the game.

[Pelle]

I'm feeling frustrated because it's not like grappling is super powerful. Yeah, I immobilized half the opposing force in our first session, but I dealt no damage worth speaking of and it's not my fault they wasted their actions trying to break free instead of attacking.


Did the DM realize the targets could attack?

[ShadowImmor]

Here's my 2CP

You should be able to grapple two opponents. I would argue dragging to people around may require an additional check (maybe a flat Athlectics check based on how heavy your DM see's the opponents)

My reasoning you can grab 2 opponents is thusly, as far as I've seen RAW, if you are grappling someone, you can still make an attack with a weapon you are holding, unless the people here think that those people who grapple then stab with a dagger are somehow making the blade levitate next to them, this rule implies that the other hand is free, thereby, is free to grab someone else.

Grappling is really just grabbing someone by the coat or jacket or arm and then not letting go when they try to move away, it's another check (I believe an attack) to knock them to the ground, meaning that Grapplers still have to be pretty good at what they do.

If your DM is upset with it, OP, point out he's free to give proficiency to creatures that he feels SHOULD have it. So the Goliath Fighter you've come up against, sure, he might have it. The wizard or the zombie? Probably not.

I do agree that if you're trying to drag two struggling enemies that there would be another check needed, maybe just to get one of them under control (you pick one and have to do another grapple check to keep hold), as you can focus on one to drag fine, and the other one can use the opportunity to escape. But even that is supported by RAW, and would purely be a House Rule I might run if that was the issue (though I'm not convinced even that is needed) at the end of the day, you're not doing damage to these guys, you're making it easier for your allies to do damage, which is good.

I feel the DM's response is a knee jerk reaction to a problem they didn't foresee, and I get that, I've been there and I've done it. But all that needs to happen is he needs to re-assess the ruling and decide if it's the right thing, which he can do if you talk to him.

[Lunali]

For those that are talking about moving/dragging multiple enemies, that was never brought up by the OP. The OP complained about the DM quartering movement speed for dragging someone that's prone instead of halving it as normal.

IMO, it would usually actually be easier to do this than pulling someone with you who is still on their feet and resisting the movement.

[Armored Walrus]

IMO, it would usually actually be easier to do this than pulling someone with you who is still on their feet and resisting the movement.

Not in my experience. If you've got enough control of a person on their feet to dictate where they move, they are much easier to move than a person on the ground. That's why sit-ins were a thing. It takes a lot of effort to move a person that isn't using any of their own strength to lift themselves up.

Also, as someone with some training in martial arts, grappling two people at once is certainly possible. Difficult, for sure, but possible, especially if you are more skilled in the art than they are. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with giving disadvantage on the check to grapple a second person - the DM is called upon to assess a situation and hand out advantage and disadvantage based on the fiction (PHB pg 173) - since it makes sense that grappling one person with two free hands would be the default, and grappling a second, while still controlling the first, would be more difficult.

I'll modify my original advice on this thread. I do still think the DM's ruling was a knee-jerk reaction ("Crap, this build is going to ruin every encounter I can put together! I better shut this down now!") but I also feel like OP's reaction is a bit of a knee jerk as well ("Crap, this build is not going to be as powerful as I thought it was! It's useless now!")

I suspect that by talking it out you can find a compromise with your DM.

[KeilFX]

Also, grappling a prone target while standing now halves your movement a second time on top of the movement penalty for dragging grappled targets.

So on Roll20, their page titled "combat" shows all you can do during combat (including Grappling, and everything that entails).

"Moving a Grappled Creature: When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you". So I would argue that with RAI, this means that your speed is halved *for each creature you grapple*.

RAW, this doesn't disclude grappling two valid enemies at once, and doesn't talk about disadvantage, so you can maje your case there. As a Rogue, you can make up for the 1/4 speed by Dashing as your bonus action.

Grappling is great for controlling the quicker enemies, setting up a pin or two so the Paladin can knock em down, but I'd argue that it isn't so strong as to require disadvantage; you're not knocking them prone. You're just stopping their movement. They still have all other actions.

Perhaps if your attacks on the grappled creature were done at advantage, then I could see that making more sense. Ultimately though, it's your DM's discretion

[GlenSmash!]

The real issue here, an issue I think is being glossed over, is that this is not an MMO: your party does not need a tank.

Very true.

I enjoy a good grappler, but I'm not worried about "Tanking." I just like throwing guys to the ground and messing up their faces with an axe.

The role of strong guy/tough guy,/brawler is awesome. The role of "Tank" is bland and as you said unnecessary.

[Segev]

Careful, there's a whole army of RAW soldaten who'll drag you over hot coals for daring to suggest that DMs have the right to veto ye olde MMA fighting twister champions.Sure, the DM CAN veto anything. However, it's still a jerk move that, just because you fail to imagine a way to do it, you disallow it being done despite the rules permitting it. Or should players also have a right to veto rules-allowed things the DM has his monsters do if the players don't think it makes sense? Of course not.

If you DO have a serious problem with the rules, then discussing it after the game and figuring out how to house rule them and how to adjust any characters impacted by the rules change so they aren't made less fun to play is how you handle it. Knee-jerk "I can't imagine that working, so even though the rules say it does, I won't allow it," is understandably going to anger the player who was relying on it as part of his character's schtick in order to be effective and contribute to the party's success.

Nobody likes being told, "Sorry, I don't like what you built, but didn't say anything before hand. So now, I'm not letting you play. I'll just pretend I am by telling you to sit in the corner and weave baskets while pretending that actually has an impact on what the party cares about, even though you know full well it doesn't."


How are you standing/kneeling on a guy's back while dragging both him and his standing friend?Clearly, you're not. You're a little old woman who's grabbed them by the ear and they're inexplicably unable to break free nor defy your iron-haired will.

[Personification]

You're a little old woman who's grabbed them by the ear and they're inexplicably unable to break free nor defy your iron-haired will.

I now want to make this character (probably mostly frenzy barbarian, designed for max grapple) so much.

[Thrudd]

Here's how I see the game working-
The player tells the DM what their character tries to do, and the DM tells them what happens or if they should roll some dice/use some game mechanic to see what happens.

If the rules describe a situation that makes no sense without ascribing some kind of magic to it, but it is explicitly not called magic, then there's an issue. Either DM can decide this really is a magic power after all and let the rules stand as they are, or they must fix the rule that is lacking consistency with the described setting. "There are wizards and dragons in the setting, therefore all bipeds can do physically impossible things and/or have innate magic powers" is not an argument that follows. That's a setting decision that us up to the DM. As written, the rules imply that grappling is a thing a person is physically doing using their strength. So if the DM has trouble picturing how what you want to do is physically possible, at the very least you'd need to describe it to them so that they can make a decision how to adjudicate.

[MrStabby]

If the rules describe a situation that makes no sense without ascribing some kind of magic to it, but it is explicitly not called magic, then there's an issue.

The main issue is the "makes no sense". Makes no sense to whom? As this thread has shown some people believe that if you are sufficiently strong you can grab an appendage of each of two people and hold them in place, setting their speed to zero. Holing an arm, coat or whatever of two different people does not strain credibility for many. Others cannot see how the effects of the grappled condition could simultaneously be applied to two people without magic.

Just because something "makes no sense" to one person at the table doesn't mean that anyone else there doesn't see the sense in it.

[Jamesps]

How to grapple two people at the same time while standing:

Step 1: Push one to the ground
Step 2: Grab the other and push them on top of the first one.
Step 3: Apply pressure to the top victim.
Step 4: Take advantage of the fact that the top victim doesn't want to injure the bottom victim. His or her caution in this matter will make their position very difficult to maneuver in.

The above technique has been empirically tested in the real world and verified effective against less skilled opponents of similar size. Note that if you were significantly larger than your opponents, for instance if you were an 8 foot tall giant-kin, grappling three, four, or even five people at once would not be out of the question using this technique.

[AttilatheYeon]

Dragonborn conquest palladin. 2 AoE fear effects by level 4. At level 7 anyone feared wiyhin 10 feet of you can't move.

[MrStabby]

How to grapple two people at the same time while standing:

Step 1: Push one to the ground
Step 2: Grab the other and push them on top of the first one.
Step 3: Apply pressure to the top victim.
Step 4: Take advantage of the fact that the top victim doesn't want to injure the bottom victim. His or her caution in this matter will make their position very difficult to maneuver in.

The above technique has been empirically tested in the real world and verified effective against less skilled opponents of similar size. Note that if you were significantly larger than your opponents, for instance if you were an 8 foot tall giant-kin, grappling three, four, or even five people at once would not be out of the question using this technique.

By itself interesting, however this also would presumably apply the prone condition as well so not directly comparable. Or not to me anyway.

[JoeJ]

By itself interesting, however this also would presumably apply the prone condition as well so not directly comparable. Or not to me anyway.

If you can attack twice with your action, you could shove somebody prone and then grapple them to make sure they stay that way. The next round you can do it again, if there's another enemy within reach. Of course, that would leave you unable to do very much except slowly drag your captives around, unless you've got extra hands hidden somewhere. (And I wouldn't think it at all unreasonable for the DM to apply the encumbrance rules to your movement, but that's just me.)

[JNAProductions]

If you can attack twice with your action, you could shove somebody prone and then grapple them to make sure they stay that way. The next round you can do it again, if there's another enemy within reach. Of course, that would leave you unable to do very much except slowly drag your captives around, unless you've got extra hands hidden somewhere. (And I wouldn't think it at all unreasonable for the DM to apply the encumbrance rules to your movement, but that's just me.)

Unarmed strikes don't have to be made with your hands. You can just kick them.

Admittedly, that's not a ton of damage (unless you're a Monk) but hey. It's there.

[Jamesps]

Unarmed strikes don't have to be made with your hands. You can just kick them.

Admittedly, that's not a ton of damage (unless you're a Monk) but hey. It's there.

My favorite tactic in DnD for damage with this manuever is to run off cliffs while raging. You don't even have to shove them prone first since they'll end up prone at the bottom of the cliff (as will you, but hopefully you've saved enough movement).

[JoeJ]

My favorite tactic in DnD for damage with this manuever is to run off cliffs while raging. You don't even have to shove them prone first since they'll end up prone at the bottom of the cliff (as will you, but hopefully you've saved enough movement).

Yeah, but unless you know a way to carry a cliff with you, that's pretty situational.

[Jamesps]

Yeah, but unless you know a way to carry a cliff with you, that's pretty situational.

Yell at the mage until he does it for you.

What else is intimidate even for?

[Segev]

How to grapple two people at the same time while standing:

Step 1: Push one to the ground
Step 2: Grab the other and push them on top of the first one.
Step 3: Apply pressure to the top victim.
Step 4: Take advantage of the fact that the top victim doesn't want to injure the bottom victim. His or her caution in this matter will make their position very difficult to maneuver in.

The above technique has been empirically tested in the real world and verified effective against less skilled opponents of similar size. Note that if you were significantly larger than your opponents, for instance if you were an 8 foot tall giant-kin, grappling three, four, or even five people at once would not be out of the question using this technique.

What if the top victim doesn't care about hurting the bottom victim?

[Jamesps]

What if the top victim doesn't care about hurting the bottom victim?

I have no experience with that scenario, but best as I could judge that will go a lot worse for the bottom victim than it will for you.

[Segev]

I have no experience with that scenario, but best as I could judge that will go a lot worse for the bottom victim than it will for you.

The question is, without that to take advantage of, how much harder is it to control both victims?

[Armored Walrus]

The question is, without that to take advantage of, how much harder is it to control both victims?

About as difficult as an opposed Athletics check (potentiallly with disadvantage per page 173 of the PHB).

Give me two random opponents and in some situations I'll be able to easily prone and control two of them at a time, but if either of them are more squirrely or burly, I'm going to have a hard time. If both are, then I've just stepped into a bad situation for me.

The more I come back to this thread the more I support the DM's ruling on it. He didn't say "No, you can't do that." He said, "That's harder than the default case of grappling one opponent. I'm imposing disadvantage." He certainly didn't make the build useless, any more than an enemy going prone 300' away makes a longbow useless. It's just less effective than it would be without the disadvantage.

[Segev]

The more I come back to this thread the more I support the DM's ruling on it. He didn't say "No, you can't do that." He said, "That's harder than the default case of grappling one opponent. I'm imposing disadvantage." He certainly didn't make the build useless, any more than an enemy going prone 300' away makes a longbow useless. It's just less effective than it would be without the disadvantage.

I'm inclined to disagree on the simple basis that it "sounds harder" makes it seem like disadvantage is going to be hurled around willy-nilly whenever the DM has a failure of imagination. Especially if it also makes a PC more effective than he initially expected.

If the DM thinks attacking twice in a round - which Extra Attack lets you do - sounds harder than attacking once per round, is he justified in assigning disadvantage to both rolls if you decide to utilize Extra Attack?

What if he thinks Rogues' bonus action abilities sound too distracting, and thus imposes Disadvantage on anything they do in the same round they take a bonus action to dash, hide, or similar?

"No," you say, "those are class features! The rules--" "Ah," I interrupt, "the rules also say you can do the two-person grappling. So who are you to say that a DM won't find these other things equally unrealistic?"

[Jamesps]

The question is, without that to take advantage of, how much harder is it to control both victims?

I honestly can't say for sure, I've never wrestled a sociopath (or an undead I guess). I will say that I think the talent and physical abilities of the opponent are bigger factors.

[Segev]

I honestly can't say for sure, I've never wrestled a sociopath (or an undead I guess). I will say that I think the talent and physical abilities of the opponent are bigger factors.

Doesn't have to be an unfeeling monster. Consider if you interrupted an elf and an orc fighting, and are using the elf to pin the orc. He actually WANTS to hurt the orc just as badly as he did before you interrupted.

Otherwise, your assessment seems accurate to me.

[Jakinbandw]

You can describe how you would cast burning hands with your character's current number of limbs. Does your meme Goliath have four legs?

Okay, tell me how you can, just using your hands and voice, make a wave of fire. Where does the fire come from? How are you controlling it? I won't accept an answer of magic, because magic doesn't exist.

Also, why can't you just grab a person by the leg and lift them off the ground with one hand? you could hold one person in each hand and then swing them at other people to do bashing damage. Does anything stop this from working? Or what about gesturing so that you are holding them up with the power of your mind? It says that you need a free hand, why not use your free hand to do a Force Choke and carry them around like that?

Edit: grappling two people at the same time:
https://youtu.be/GvnFit7TLes?t=50

[brainface]

One hand guys, it only takes one hand.
https://78.media.tumblr.com/4e003672674d65cc82540ff07bfbd6a5/tumblr_p4xqmr9zH51wioqnyo3_540.gif

[MeeposFire]

I think the DM is making a mountain out of a mole hill. There is plenty of times where grappling will be totally useless.



I've been so tempted to houserule in this edition, but every time I take a step back I've found what I thought was bad was really not that big of a problem.

I see this a LOT but it has been true for a while. You should have seen how the WotC boards reacted to the 3e favored soul. They thought it was the most overpowered thing ever but now it is considered weaker than the cleric that they were worried was going to be replaced. Of course the favored soul is still considered very strong (it is a 9th level spell caster that gets to choose spells from a good list) but it is now understood to be weaker than the cleric and in the same realm as the sorcerer.

Given enough time these things tend to get figured out.

[StoicLeaf]

I dunno guys, some granny grappling an elephant/rhino in each hand is a bit much for me..

[Beelzebubba]

It's 'Linear Fighter Quadratic Wizard' in another form.

'C'mon, Be Realistic' Fighter, 'Magic Has No Rules, It's Magic' Spellcasters

[MrStabby]

I dunno guys, some granny grappling an elephant/rhino in each hand is a bit much for me..

Sure, but the rules prohibit that. Anything much bigger than yourself you cannot grapple.

[StoicLeaf]

Sure, but the rules prohibit that. Anything much bigger than yourself you cannot grapple.

It is my understanding that you can grapple up to one size larger than you.
While this does exclude the elephant, it still allows you to grapple two rhinos to a standstill.
Or two polar bears.

It's spectacularly dumb :P

[WereRabbitz]

It does sound like a rash decision. I would talk to him about reducing the penalties or letting you respect you character.

[MrStabby]

It is my understanding that you can grapple up to one size larger than you.
While this does exclude the elephant, it still allows you to grapple two rhinos to a standstill.
Or two polar bears.

It's spectacularly dumb :P

I would say that grappling a Rhino is probably not realistic - but hey, fantasy game. I do think that the lack of realism isn't in the grapple rules but in the size classification of the Rhino.

[KRSW]

There's no restriction on when to houserule in the DMG, a DM can adjudicate at any point. You can either 1. deal with it 2. appeal to the DM not to enact a given ruling or 3. leave. I don't particularly blame the DM for not having the foresight to detect this particular meme build ahead of time. Luckily I spend enough time on the internet to be able to spot disruptive behavior and nip it at the bud.

In XGtE, there is a section on DM rule adjudication, you are right on there not being a restriction but I think it is relevant to note. "The DM is key. Many unexpected events can occur in a DnD campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become a slog. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be contrary to the open—endedness of DnD."

I think the DMs decision to houserule and specifically target his character and make him strictly worse mid campaign would fall under the contrary to the open endedness of DnD part. It isn't even like his character is that powerful and like many others have said this is a great example of the "fighter strength doesnt make sense vs wizard magic is magic so reasons" argument.

From reading other people's posts I see most think that this is a bad thing to do as a DM in general and I honestly cannot see a reason for a DM to do this to a player other than they just actually dislike the character concept, which is wrong because it is basically the DM telling the player that his fun is wrong. I really do not think it is fair or logical whatsoever for a DM to do this the way he did, in addition to it being caused by just being unimaginative.

[GlenSmash!]

It is my understanding that you can grapple up to one size larger than you.
While this does exclude the elephant, it still allows you to grapple two rhinos to a standstill.
Or two polar bears.

It's spectacularly dumb :P

Large size creatures would get advantage on the Athletics check. So it's still doable, but much harder. It would get easier with Expertise in athletics and a source of advantage for yourself like Rage.

So it's less granny and more Tarzan.

[Amdy_vill]

Suggestion #1 is to just talk to your DM about it. Explain why this damages your fun, and how you think he could account for it on his own side of the board without having to change the rules. If he just doesn't want this kind of character, don't try to adapt this one. Make a new one that has mechanics he likes better.

i agree here talk to your dm always. they are your best beat for changing rules.

[War_lord]

In XGtE, there is a section on DM rule adjudication, you are right on there not being a restriction but I think it is relevant to note. "The DM is key. Many unexpected events can occur in a DnD campaign, and no set of rules could reasonably account for every contingency. If the rules tried to do so, the game would become a slog. An alternative would be for the rules to severely limit what characters can do, which would be contrary to the open—endedness of DnD."

I think the DMs decision to houserule and specifically target his character and make him strictly worse mid campaign would fall under the contrary to the open endedness of DnD part. It isn't even like his character is that powerful and like many others have said this is a great example of the "fighter strength doesnt make sense vs wizard magic is magic so reasons" argument.

Aside from the fact that you're taking the paragraph out of context, as it's explaining why they don't have specific rules for say, fighting while swinging from a chandelier. The character is not being made worse mid campaign, the form of cheese outlined is just as effective at level one as at level 20, because grappling is a skill check. The only things that have been nerfed is grappling two characters at once, which is at disadvantage, and dragging a prone target has an additionally movement penalty. The only thing that's an actual nerf to pinning characters down is the disadvantage for two at once, and as others have pointed out, you can cancel that out with any source of advantage. It's hardly destroying the character like the OP claims. It's still perfectly playable if the goal isn't to establish dominance and break up the table (the goal of 3.5 "optimiser" play").

And no, this isn't a Wizards vs Fighters argument. This is a "should abilities have some connection to the world fiction, or should they be MMO style powers" argument. I.E. "was bloody path a good idea".

Finally, if the DM wanted to "target" this player, there's a hundred+ ways to do that (since the DM is literally the god of the game) beyond just making a simple house rule that probably should have been in the game from the start. The DM could have had the party fight huge sized monsters, they could have pitted them against nothing but incorporeal undead for the whole game, they could have specifically targeted the PC in question with attacks to make sure they went down in every combat. If a DM genuinely wants to be a jerk or run a player off, they've got almost limitless space to "accidentally" screw you over. Making a simple houserule (and choosing to confer disadvantage on a given skill check isn't even a houserule) is not destroying a character.


From reading other people's posts I see most think that this is a bad thing to do as a DM in general and I honestly cannot see a reason for a DM to do this to a player other than they just actually dislike the character concept, which is wrong because it is basically the DM telling the player that his fun is wrong. I really do not think it is fair or logical whatsoever for a DM to do this the way he did, in addition to it being caused by just being unimaginative.

I think that's the problem here, statistically speaking most people in a given sample of D&D players have only ever been on the selfish (player) side of the table. So they don't have any understanding of why, when a DM tells them no to either a concept, or a build, or a character there's usually far more factors coming into play then this supposed idea of the DM as a big meany who just wants to ruin your fun because they're a big jerkface. Which explains why forums tend to be so hostile to DM action.

[Armored Walrus]

The character is not being made worse mid campaign..

Indeed, this happened Session One according to OP.

[JNAProductions]

Indeed, this happened Session One according to OP.

That's still mid-campaign. Not middle-middle, but it's AFTER character creation is done.

If this was brought up session zero, that'd be more okay. I still wouldn't like it, but it'd be acceptable, to me. The DM is changing the rules, and letting us know before we make our characters. After the character is made, though, rules changes of that degree are not welcome, at least without talking it over first. (And, if they still implement the rules, allowing a respec if need be.)

[Armored Walrus]

Eh, I think it's a lot to ask to have a DM try to anticipate every ruling they're going to make over the course of a campaign up front. If they've been running this system for years, and have a collection of rulings and house rules to share? Sure. But how do you anticipate something like this? I've never run into it before. And it's not a rules change (well, the movement thing is, but the disadvantage isn't) it's a simple application of advantage/disadvantage rules (again, page 173, PHB). OP wouldn't be here complaining if the ruling had been "advantage if you make a ranged attack from high ground."

It's not like OP played this character for ten sessions and then his DM finally got sick of the double-grapple and nerfed it. This was an immediate reaction to seeing it in play.

I'm still in favor of OP talking to the DM (though I suspect OP has moved on already and we're only entertaining ourselves at this point), but not sure we should be crucifying the DM for making a judgement call. That's, after all, the role of a DM.

[MrStabby]

Aside from the fact that you're taking the paragraph out of context, as it's explaining why they don't have specific rules for say, fighting while swinging from a chandelier. The character is not being made worse mid campaign, the form of cheese outlined is just as effective at level one as at level 20, because grappling is a skill check. The only things that have been nerfed is grappling two characters at once, which is at disadvantage, and dragging a prone target has an additionally movement penalty. The only thing that's an actual nerf to pinning characters down is the disadvantage for two at once, and as others have pointed out, you can cancel that out with any source of advantage. It's hardly destroying the character like the OP claims. It's still perfectly playable if the goal isn't to establish dominance and break up the table (the goal of 3.5 "optimiser" play").

And no, this isn't a Wizards vs Fighters argument. This is a "should abilities have some connection to the world fiction, or should they be MMO style powers" argument. I.E. "was bloody path a good idea".

Finally, if the DM wanted to "target" this player, there's a hundred+ ways to do that (since the DM is literally the god of the game) beyond just making a simple house rule that probably should have been in the game from the start. The DM could have had the party fight huge sized monsters, they could have pitted them against nothing but incorporeal undead for the whole game, they could have specifically targeted the PC in question with attacks to make sure they went down in every combat. If a DM genuinely wants to be a jerk or run a player off, they've got almost limitless space to "accidentally" screw you over. Making a simple houserule (and choosing to confer disadvantage on a given skill check isn't even a houserule) is not destroying a character.



I think that's the problem here, statistically speaking most people in a given sample of D&D players have only ever been on the selfish (player) side of the table. So they don't have any understanding of why, when a DM tells them no to either a concept, or a build, or a character there's usually far more factors coming into play then this supposed idea of the DM as a big meany who just wants to ruin your fun because they're a big jerkface. Which explains why forums tend to be so hostile to DM action.

Ok, so I will speak explicitly as someone who spends 90% of their time on the dm side of the screen as that seems to be all you respect.

In this case the DM's actions were crass and foolish.

If you don't like something say so at the start. Don't wait for someone to build a character, become invested in it, start playing it then yank it away.

Sometimes being a DM does mean saying no. This is when a player is ruining the fun of other people at the table. If other players had complained then this would be different. A good DM doesn't revel in their power and should do what they can to help players realise their character concepts not to stop them.

If a DM must say no or have an impact on a character in a major way a good DM will do so with consultation and understanding. If it is a spot ruling on an edge case and there is a need to keep the game moving then sure, make a snap ruling but no need to set any thing big like this in stone.

A good DM can address some imbalance in game through changing the balance of enemies the Pcs fight. They can use subtle ways to keep the game in line rather that bludgeoning players into submission with heavy handed rules edicts.

Taking away a players characater concept should be a desperate step of last resort not an instinctive first response after one session.

[War_lord]

The DM changed it after one session folks, if they changed it after ten sessions they'd be a jerk. If they changed it after one session and refused to let the OP respec if they wished to, they'd be a jerk. Making a single bloody ruling a player doesn't like doesn't suddenly make the DM the antichrist of D&D. Nor is it fair to expect an inexperienced DM to know every ruling they want to make long before the subject comes up. If anything blame the player for not bringing up the nature of their character in session zero when it might be important to let your DM know you're building a character that requires a specific reading of an ability and is highly specialized around changing the combat in a way the DM will have to build around.

[MrStabby]

The DM changed it after one session folks, if they changed it after ten sessions they'd be a jerk. If they changed it after one session and refused to let the OP respec if they wished to, they'd be a jerk. Making a single bloody ruling a player doesn't like doesn't suddenly make the DM the antichrist of D&D. Nor is it fair to expect an inexperienced DM to know every ruling they want to make long before the subject comes up. If anything blame the player for not bringing up the nature of their character in session zero when it might be important to let your DM know you're building a character that requires a specific reading of an ability and is highly specialized around changing the combat in a way the DM will have to build around.

OMG the player wanted to play his character as the PHB said they could! how outrageous and unfair on that poor innocent DM.

I am not saying the DM is a Jerk for making a single bad call. The issue is how and when they did it. They had all of one sessions evidence and didn't involve the player in making such a sweeping change. My issue isn't that DMs are not allowed to make mistakes but that this one cuts to the heart of bad DMing - instead of the DM helping the players play the character they want and finding ways to make their concept work they are working against them to shut down their preferred play style. A single bad call after a session of play is fine, it is the fact that it points towards a poor attitude that stinks.

[Citan]

So I thought I had a neat character design. A fighter/rogue/barbarian who grapple-and-proned opponents to keep them away from the squishies and provided nice prone targets for melee allies to pound on.

But after our first session, trying to grapple two targets at the same time now imposes disadvantage on the athletics check. Also, grappling a prone target while standing now halves your movement a second time on top of the movement penalty for dragging grappled targets.

The only other way I can think of to tank is Sentinel plus Tunnel Fighter, similar to 3.5 lockdown builds, but I've already done that so it would feel boring.

I'm feeling frustrated because it's not like grappling is super powerful. Yeah, I immobilized half the opposing force in our first session, but I dealt no damage worth speaking of and it's not my fault they wasted their actions trying to break free instead of attacking.

Any suggestions? Any other ways to tank? I can't use spells or ki at all for complicated character background reasons.


Suggestion #1 is to just talk to your DM about it. Explain why this damages your fun, and how you think he could account for it on his own side of the board without having to change the rules. If he just doesn't want this kind of character, don't try to adapt this one. Make a new one that has mechanics he likes better.
This. 1000 times this.
Any thing we could suggest to you as other ways to tank would probably just result in a latent escalation of the divergence of views.
Debunk this immediately out of game, and out of game only.

[Tiwanoz]

And if you want to be petty about it, just come back with a GWM Barbarian and wreck most encounters anyways.

[Deathtongue]

This thread is a pretty good argument why D&D should ban the idea of being able to play a 'mundane' past level 4. That is, either stop advancing the mundanes past level 4 or force them to become non-mundane in some way (your fighter picks up a second subclass at level 5, and you can choose from the highly magical classes of Death Knight, Witcher, or Angel Lord).

If I was playing a Master of the Unseen Hand who had identical mechanics to a mundane grappler, only THEIR martial arts were being described as telekinetic force, we wouldn't even be having this argument whether it's 'stupid' to grapple two people at once or a rhino. People like War_lord might claim the build is still overpowered (though I think they're greatly exaggerating) but that's a more tenable argument than 'but, my Willing Suspension of Disbelief!'

[Beelzebubba]

This thread is a pretty good argument why D&D should ban the idea of being able to play a 'mundane' past level 4.

Nah, it's a good argument for folks like you to read an epic poem that predates all other fantasy and realize Fighters like Beowulf were AMAZING and only your retrograde 'fantasy vietnam' attitude is the problem.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sounds like a fun and interesting build for a goliath barbarian. Hope your DM comes around after a chat. The DM needs to read my post here. Please show it to your DM.

0. This build is not overpowered, and here's why. All that the grappled condition does is set the opponent's speed to zero. It takes an additional attempt to restrain a creature, and when you do that you, the grappler, are restrained if you are using the feat.

GRAPPLER You gain the following benefits:
1. You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling.
2. You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained until the grapple ends.

So let's look at restrained. Restrained


• A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.
• The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.
The Goliath has a speed of zero, and all attacks against the goliath have advantage.


1. This grappler isn't doing any damage. The character is paying a price for grappling, and it's called an opportunity cost. Character is foregoing a shot at doing damage to the enemy for the chance to hold them still. The character also paid an oportunity cost for the feat: one ASI not used to bump up stats.
2. This is a great build for someone who is being a team player. DM's should reward team play, as this game's fundamental conceit is that it is a team of characters with different abilities all contributing to the success of the party.
3. There are plenty of huge and larger creatures, and plenty of creatures immune to the grappled condition who can't be grappled. There are also very strong creatures (and some with athletics expertise) who will be very difficult to grapple.
4. This is absolutely not an "I Win button" ability.
5. If you are grappling two targets at once, and they want to escape the grapple, one should be able to Help the other one, giving that opponent advantage on the "escape grapple" check. Or, one can help the other one to attack the grappler: that means he attacks the goliath with advantage.
(That's a bit more than twice the chance for a critical hit: chance to crit goes up from something like 5% to ~ 10% ... see this an anydice program (https://anydice.com/program/29fa) to see what I mean. )
The above consideration makes trying to grapple two opponents a riskier proposition than grappling one. That's OK. You takes your risk and you see what happens. The dice do funny things.

There is no need to kill this build. None. Zero. It will be more effective against some enemies, like goblins, humans, bugbears, than against giants, ropers, oozes, spiders, etc.

6. This grapple attempt requires an athletics check: this is a check that can fail. The dice do funny things.

7. It is well within the DM's remit to rule that the second grapple, with one creature already grappled, is done at disadvantage. See Players Handbook Page 173, or Basic Rules page 57, on ruling circumstantial advantage/disadvantage. Such a DM ruling makes perfect sense: it is intuitively harder to try and grapple two than one.
-----------------------------------------

There's your answer for your talk to your GM.

Good luck with your build.

-----------------------

@War_Lord
You make some good points.

Making a single bloody ruling a player doesn't like doesn't suddenly make the DM the antichrist of D&D.
True.

Nor is it fair to expect an inexperienced DM to know every ruling they want to make long before the subject comes up.
True.

If anything blame the player for not bringing up the nature of their character in session zero when it might be important to let your DM know you're building a character that requires a specific reading of an ability and is highly specialized around changing the combat in a way the DM will have to build around
Actually, the build fits the rules just fine, but I think that it's a bit quirky ... and it would be best for the DM and the player to discuss how this works out and come to an agreement on this character concept.

[MrStabby]

I would say that goblins often won't be a prime target for this. Grappling doesn't kill enemies and goblins are pretty low level so for most of the game if you encounter them it will be in large numbers. Reducing the movement speed of 20% of an encounter is pretty unimpressive when each attack could instead have killed one.

So a grapple is good vs smaller creatures who rely on being in melee, that have low strength and are not immune to being grappled.

Also worth distinguishing between the grappled and restrained conditions.

[Deathtongue]

Nah, it's a good argument for folks like you to read an epic poem that predates all other fantasy and realize Fighters like Beowulf were AMAZING and only your retrograde 'fantasy vietnam' attitude is the problem.Hey, I'm okay with allowing martials to do things like dual wield lances on foot and grapple two ogres at once and no-damage evade dragon's breath while restrained in a tight corridor for no other reason than 'just because'.

But a nonzero number of DMs won't allow you to. Nothing to do with game balance, they just hold martials to a double-standard for realism. I'm tired of bringing up historical and mythological examples, appealing to their sense of fair play, and mocking their narrow Conan the Barbarian or GTFO vision of fantasy. If I have to endure one more goddamned rant about halfing fighters disarming storm giants and how the DM's PWECIOUS SETTING UWU requires banning weeaboo tricks like that, I'm going to puke. At this point, I'm just ready to ban the damn 5th+ level martials altogether.

[KRSW]

Aside from the fact that you're taking the paragraph out of context, ...

And no, this isn't a Wizards vs Fighters argument. This is a "should abilities have some connection to the world fiction, or should they be MMO style powers" argument. I.E. "was bloody path a good idea".

Finally, if the DM wanted to "target" this player, there's a hundred+ ways to do that (since the DM is literally the god of the game) beyond just making a simple house rule that probably should have been in the game from the start. The DM could have had the party fight huge sized monsters, they could have pitted them against nothing but incorporeal undead for the whole game, they could have specifically targeted the PC in question with attacks to make sure they went down in every combat. If a DM genuinely wants to be a jerk or run a player off, they've got almost limitless space to "accidentally" screw you over. Making a simple houserule (and choosing to confer disadvantage on a given skill check isn't even a houserule) is not destroying a character.

I think that's the problem here, statistically speaking most people in a given sample of D&D players have only ever been on the selfish (player) side of the table. So they don't have any understanding of why, when a DM tells them no to either a concept, or a build, or a character there's usually far more factors coming into play then this supposed idea of the DM as a big meany who just wants to ruin your fun because they're a big jerkface. Which explains why forums tend to be so hostile to DM action.

1. Making a Houserule for a core game mechanic where the mechanic is objectively worse would be DM rules adjudication. The paragraph talks about DM rules adjudication and how there is no rules pertaining to it. The part I snipped talks about how if they made rules for every situation it would primarily limit the characters and how that is against the spirit of the game. I really do not think that is being taken out of context at all since the point I was trying to make is that rules that are inhibitory to the players aren't fun, nothing more. As a DM is free to create houserules for core mechanics of the game, myself and everyone else in the world are free to think that his houserule sucks.

2. Okay, those are basically the same thing. Magic has no basis to be compared to in the real world. I would assume the only the reason you are defending this houserule is because it makes sense to you from your general experience in real life. I agree it does make sense compared to real life. It does not make sense mechanically, nor does magic make sense compared to real life. So for you, the houserule makes sense compared to real life and thus grappling should be worse and based on real life comparisons, but magic makes no sense compared to real life and is totally fine and balanced mechanically. That makes it a fighter vs wizard argument.

3. Yes and as I said before if he does that I am free to think he is a bad DM. He did not do that and took the lighter approach but still is a bad call.

4. I think the reason people are hostile to DM action is because DM action when its talked about here or probably any other forum is something like this. Players come to forums to complain about how a DM didn't like their character and arbitrarily made the character worse. Nobody comes on a forum like this and is like "wow! my DM is so great he gave me a +3 weapon early because he saw that my very simple martial character was getting overshadowed by the casters of the party, he said he might change some of my classes mechanics so that he can compete with other characters damage in a story driven one super deadly encounter per day novafest." I rarely see anything like that. It is not any different for DMs talking about their players. No DM comes here and makes a thread talking about their favorite players and how great they are at roleplaying. It is pretty much just problem player threads, how to challenge the party, general tips, etc.

[Sol]

@war_lord: why are you bringing 4e edition wars into this thread? What on earth does that have to do with anything?

I'm not going to get into a fight over it. 5e is (also) an improvement on 3.5, but 4e had some great ideas mechanically. I think one of the worse decisions wotc has ever made was to hire separate copywriters for their power fluff, rather than have the game designers write it. Or omitting it entirely, on the grounds that we're all adults (or children! with active imaginations!) who can describe things ourselves. A lot of the issues (people like) you had with 4e appear from the outside to be with this discount (read: unrelated) fluff copy.

The specific power you've brought up multiple times now (Bloody Path), I'd literally never heard of or encountered in a decade of largely playing paragon-tier 4e....and 2/3 of the parties had rogues in them, since 2/3 of our rotating DMs exclusively play rogues. I had to google it to identify what you were talking about. Perhaps ironically, it appears to itself be a meme in the edition war community.

More on topic, 5e grappling comes at a massive opportunity cost -- namely, all of your damage. Just because it's possible to grapple a death knight does not mean it's necessarily meaningful to. There's an argument to be made that, since it's (often) a mathematically worse decision than attacking (in terms of length of combat, and total party damage taken), the success rate should be higher. Not that I think it was an intentional design decision, mind you -- I just think Mike Mearls is bad at math -- but I do think it's a somewhat fortuitous accident.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that you come across as a very angry person in this thread, which I think is about half of why so many people have been so combative with you, this being the internet and all.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Those who gave me advice asked me to report back, so I'm happy to report that the DM is tentatively exempting me and only me from the grappling-two-opponents-gives-disadvantage rule since it's a central part of my character. Thanks for the suggestions on how to talk to him.

Not going to engage with those who presume to read my mind and accuse me of bad-faith attempts to break the game, because life's too short for that.

[Beelzebubba]

Hey, I'm okay with allowing martials to do things like dual wield lances on foot and grapple two ogres at once and no-damage evade dragon's breath while restrained in a tight corridor for no other reason than 'just because'.

But a nonzero number of DMs won't allow you to. Nothing to do with game balance, they just hold martials to a double-standard for realism. I'm tired of bringing up historical and mythological examples, appealing to their sense of fair play, and mocking their narrow Conan the Barbarian or GTFO vision of fantasy. If I have to endure one more goddamned rant about halfing fighters disarming storm giants and how the DM's PWECIOUS SETTING UWU requires banning weeaboo tricks like that, I'm going to puke. At this point, I'm just ready to ban the damn 5th+ level martials altogether.

Oh, I see. You aren't the problem, you're in full PTSD from fighting the ******* Grognard Brigade.

Sorry, man. I figured you wrong. :smalleek:

[Personification]

Not going to engage with those who presume to read my mind and accuse me of bad-faith attempts to break the game, because life's too short for that.

*gasp* Refusing to rise to ridiculous and clearly flawed ad hominem nonsense arguments/insults on the internet. SACRILAGE!!!!!

Based on your signature, I assume you will appreciate the number of exclamation points.