Remove Athletics for Grappling?

[Schopy]

Hi!

If a group wants to nerf Grappling a little, would it be a good idea to not use the Athletics-Proficiency for Grappling attacks thus making it a (simple) contested Strength-Check?

Things that would change:
* Strong Monsters without Athletics-Proficiency are harder to grapple
* Its no longer possible to get Expertise for grappling attacks
* Remarkable Athlete from Champion Fighters gets a little boost

It would then be possible to boost the Grappler Feat with something like "... you may add your prof. bonus to grappling attacks [and may choose to use DEX instead of STR for those attacks]..."

Are there more things that would change with such a ruling?

Thanks for your input!

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hi!

If a group wants to nerf Grappling a little, would it be a good idea to not use the Athletics-Proficiency for Grappling attacks thus making it a (simple) contested Strength-Check?

Things that would change:
* Strong Monsters without Athletics-Proficiency are harder to grapple
* Its no longer possible to get Expertise for grappling attacks
* Remarkable Athlete from Champion Fighters gets a little boost

It would then be possible to boost the Grappler Feat with something like "... you may add your prof. bonus to grappling attacks [and may choose to use DEX instead of STR for those attacks]..."

Are there more things that would change with such a ruling?

Thanks for your input!

My question is why? Grappling isn't particularly strong anyway, and has severe limits. What's the problem with grappling as it is that prompts the house rule?

[Schopy]

My question is why? Grappling isn't particularly strong anyway, and has severe limits. What's the problem with grappling as it is that prompts the house rule?

Things that are not too strong for one group may seem too strong for another. And with grappling it often seems that no roll of the dice is necessary anymore which reduces "excitement" and fun. Maybe it would be possible to strenghten the effect and reduce ease of a succesful grappling attack?

[sophontteks]

Give athletics to monsters that should have althletics.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Give athletics to monsters that should have althletics.

This. Or acrobatics, because they can use that too.

[MaxWilson]

Hi!

If a group wants to nerf Grappling a little, would it be a good idea to not use the Athletics-Proficiency for Grappling attacks thus making it a (simple) contested Strength-Check?

...

It would then be possible to boost the Grappler Feat with something like "... you may add your prof. bonus to grappling attacks [and may choose to use DEX instead of STR for those attacks]..."

Are there more things that would change with such a ruling?

Thanks for your input!

This is a good point. Athletics is kind of a weird fit for grappling/shoving anyway, since all the other Athletics applications are about controlling your own body, and all the other applications for controlling external objects are just raw Strength checks. And you're right about how this would impact both Champion and the Grappler feat.

I probably won't see a need to nerf grappling myself, since it's how Strength fighters stay relevant. But if you were going to nerf it, this is a good and logical way to do it, with lots of positive side effects.

[Waazraath]

This is a good point. Athletics is kind of a weird fit for grappling/shoving anyway, since all the other Athletics applications are about controlling your own body, and all the other applications for controlling external objects are just raw Strength checks.

I presume the designers deceided to throw things like climbing, jumping, swimming and wrestling all in the same category? I think it was a design goal to have broad skill categories, and from there, adding in wrestling isn't that weird (after all, in the real world climbing and swimming aren't any more related then wrestling and one of them).

[Schopy]

Give athletics to monsters that should have althletics.


This. Or acrobatics, because they can use that too.

This more or less fixes things from a mechanical viewpoint, but is awful RPwise. "When did that Giant Ape train running etc.?"

[PhoenixPhyre]

This more or less fixes things from a mechanical viewpoint, but is awful RPwise. "When did that Giant Ape train running etc.?"

Proficiency is not necessarily training. It can be natural talent as well. And since they're under the DMs control, he can just not apply proficiency to those sub cases. It's a tool, to be used where appropriate.

[Schopy]

Proficiency is not necessarily training. It can be natural talent as well. And since they're under the DMs control, he can just not apply proficiency to those sub cases. It's a tool, to be used where appropriate.

Fair point, i'll see how things work out in the next few rounds and come back to the topic then.

[Kaliayev]

If you really want to nerf PC grappling, do what JC is pushing for and make it a saving throw.

[sophontteks]

Yeah, I would expect an ape to be quite good at athletics. :smallbiggrin:

[nickl_2000]

This more or less fixes things from a mechanical viewpoint, but is awful RPwise. "When did that Giant Ape train running etc.?"

If you are concerned, work within the existing design. If it's a critter that should be good at it (like a crocodile) just give them advantage on the checks.

[Jerrykhor]

My suggestion is that you shouldn't nerf grappling. There's no such thing as grappling being too strong for your group. Its not overpowered, you just don't know how to deal with it.

With the amount of big and strong monsters in the MM, monsters that are immune to grapple, monsters that deal damage when grappled, monsters that fly, grapple really isnt a problem.

[Schopy]

My suggestion is that you shouldn't nerf grappling. There's no such thing as grappling being too strong for your group. Its not overpowered, you just don't know how to deal with it.

Well, that part sounds a little bit too condescending to me.



With the amount of big and strong monsters in the MM, monsters that are immune to grapple, monsters that deal damage when grappled, monsters that fly, grapple really isnt a problem.

Of course it's not a problem to completely shut down the grappling player (which would be me in that special case, i'm not the DM), but that doesnt really sound like a fun option, does it? That would be akin to have to fight in an undispellable zone of silence every now and then to "challenge" the players who use magic (maybe a bit exaggerated 😉).

And if the campaign is centered around humanoids then i think it would disrupt the natural flow, if the group is suddenly confronted with big monsters every second encounter.

Maybe i should clarify my original post: Grappling as it is, feels like it is either impossible or an auto-success and neither of those are fun for long. There have been lots of helpful tips to counteract that (advantage for opponents, "natural" proficieny, etc.) and i will see how that works out.

[Jerrykhor]

Well, that part sounds a little bit too condescending to me.



Of course it's not a problem to completely shut down the grappling player (which would be me in that special case, i'm not the DM), but that doesnt really sound like a fun option, does it? That would be akin to have to fight in an undispellable zone of silence every now and then to "challenge" the players who use magic (maybe a bit exaggerated 😉).

And if the campaign is centered around humanoids then i think it would disrupt the natural flow, if the group is suddenly confronted with big monsters every second encounter.

Maybe i should clarify my original post: Grappling as it is, feels like it is either impossible or an auto-success and neither of those are fun for long. There have been lots of helpful tips to counteract that (advantage for opponents, "natural" proficieny, etc.) and i will see how that works out.

I like being condescending. JK, I don't, i just don't sugarcoat my words. If you had to come here asking for help, it means you don't know how to deal with it. And there's nothing wrong with that. From your OP though, it did sound like a DM asking for help to deal with a player who is optimised for grappling. Who would have guessed that you are the grappler?

My problem with grappling is only with the feat. Other than that, I don't what creatures you've been grappling against, so YMMV. Plus, the dice works in funny ways, even more so on contested rolls.

[Trask]

Heres my advice to make grappling more balanced on the part of the Monsters (who usually suck at it)

I would give almost every monster proficiency in athletics unless it was very obvious that they would be a weakling. The whole point of monsters is that they are big, brutal and scary (usually). Most monsters fit into the "tough, warlike bad dude" archetype that athletics is appropriate. Even spindly guys would mostly likely be very fast at catching and holding their prey. Athletics is just appropriate for most every monster, imo but just use your judgement. Sometimes its obvious that it shouldnt be proficient in it.

Second, impose disadvantage on grappling enemies for every size category larger, not every 2 size categories. Ogres can use large weapons, carry a large load, but get trapped in a headlock by a human fighter on a pretty even chance? I dont buy it, i think its an oversight or a mistake. Enemies that are almost twice the size of a man should be harder to contain and stop from moving. Give them advantage on their checks.

These are two house rules that I think makes grappling a lot more fun. If you and your players are finding that grappling is kind of flavorless/easy/boring etc, consider the following

When you are grappling an enemy with both hands free you can use a bonus action with your other hand to
1. deny the enemy the use of one of its hands
2. prevent it from performing somatic components
3. prevent it from speaking
4. prevent it from seeing

The other is "when you successfully grapple a creature, you can use your action on subsequent turns to try and restrain them. If you perform 3 consecutive and successful athletic checks to grapple your opponent without your opponent escaping the grapple once by any means, then that creature is restrained. The number of checks required to restrain the creature is reduced for each creature that successfully makes a grapple check against the grappled creature."

EDIT: Oh I did not realize you are not the DM, whoops. Sorry.

[Ganymede]

I do not like how we have an entirely different combat resolution mechanic when we already have a perfectly fine "Roll to hit AC" method. I'd change all grapple checks into rolls against AC and be done with it.

[Trask]

I do not like how we have an entirely different combat resolution mechanic when we already have a perfectly fine "Roll to hit AC" method. I'd change all grapple checks into rolls against AC and be done with it.

I think the problem with that would be that low AC enemies are not uniformly ones that would be easy to grapple. Ogres come to mind.

[GlenSmash!]

If you really want to nerf PC grappling, do what JC is pushing for and make it a saving throw.

While I don't feel grappling needs a change, I think this makes the most sense.

Grappling would be a save against the PC's DC of 8+Strength+Proficiency. Expertise or Prodigy is now out of the picture.

It puts it more in line with other abilities in the game.

[KorvinStarmast]

OP. Please stop being rude to martial characters. Seriously. What you are suggesting is a nerf to one of the few ways that a standard martial character can do cool and interesting things other than "I hit it with a stick" ...

Grappling is not OP, it involves an opportunity cost.
The Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/ etc gives up an action to grapple. Actions are currency in the action economy of this game.

Your suggestion is a bad one.

@sophontteks
As to the "give monsters athletics" please review the MM. Some monsters already do.
Example:
Frost Giant: Skills Athletics +9, Perception +3
Stone Giant: Athletics +12, Perception +4
Storm Giant: Arcana +8, Athletics +14, History +8, Perception +9

Some monsters have a far more powerful grappling skill; it restrains PC's, not just slow them down.
See Roper.

Tendril. Melee Weapon Attack: +7 to hit, reach 50 ft., one creature. Hit: The target is grappled (escape DC 1 ). Until the grapple ends, the target is restrained and has disadvantage on Strength checks and Strength saving throws, and the roper can’t use the same tendril on another target.
Reel. The roper pulls each creature grappled by it up to 25 feet straight toward it.

I disagree with saving throw. The grapple, and the shove, are both good examples of a game feature that is already in place; The Opposed Ability Check aka Contest.

Contests

Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal— for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.

[Willie the Duck]

If a group wants to nerf Grappling a little, would it be a good idea to not use the Athletics-Proficiency for Grappling attacks thus making it a (simple) contested Strength-Check?

Things that would change:
* Strong Monsters without Athletics-Proficiency are harder to grapple
* Its no longer possible to get Expertise for grappling attacks
* Remarkable Athlete from Champion Fighters gets a little boost

It would then be possible to boost the Grappler Feat with something like "... you may add your prof. bonus to grappling attacks [and may choose to use DEX instead of STR for those attacks]..."

Are there more things that would change with such a ruling?

Well, the thing is, it doesn't really 'nerf' grappling so much a smooth it out. Grappling still does the exact same thing if successful, this just modifies who is likely to be successful. With this change, champion fighters do indeed get a 1/2 prof. bonus to their strength check that few others get. Raging barbarians still get advantage on strength checks, so their main benefit doesn't change. Rogues and Bards (and humans/part-humans post XGtE with ASIs to spare) lose the ability to get double expertise. However, this lowering of the bar keeps high-strength bards as being rather good at grappling, given jack of all trades (plus, with enhance ability, they can have Str + 1/2 prof, with advantage). So amongst the classes, what this does is boost champions, nerf rogues, and leave most of the others relatively the same.

Who it does benefit is the monsters, who otherwise usually don't have a bonus to their athletics (or acrobatics) checks beyond what their attributes give them. I guess, since we usually talk about effects on PCs (or their relatively value compared to monsters) you could think of this change as a nerf to grappling.

I think, if I were to rebuild the grappling system, I would probably make people 'proficient in' grappling itself, rather than these two skills. Your suggestion sounds a lot easier.

[Ganymede]

I think the problem with that would be that low AC enemies are not uniformly ones that would be easy to grapple. Ogres come to mind.

Yeah, that's true. They're still good at breaking grapples, though.

[MaxWilson]

Who it does benefit is the monsters, who otherwise usually don't have a bonus to their athletics (or acrobatics) checks beyond what their attributes give them. I guess, since we usually talk about effects on PCs (or their relatively value compared to monsters) you could think of this change as a nerf to grappling.

Well, some monsters anyway. The monsters who are currently really good at grappling/shoving, like Fire Giants and Stone Giants, would suffer.

[Trask]

OP. Please stop being rude to martial characters. Seriously. What you are suggesting is a nerf to one of the few ways that a standard martial character can do cool and interesting things other than "I hit it with a stick" ...

Grappling is not OP, it involves an opportunity cost.
The Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/ etc gives up an action to grapple. Actions are currency in the action economy of this game.

Your suggestion is a bad one.

@sophontteks
As to the "give monsters athletics" please review the MM. Some monsters already do.
Example:
Frost Giant: Skills Athletics +9, Perception +3
Stone Giant: Athletics +12, Perception +4
Storm Giant: Arcana +8, Athletics +14, History +8, Perception +9

Some monsters have a far more powerful grappling skill; it restrains PC's, not just slow them down.
See Roper.


I disagree with saving throw. The grapple, and the shove, are both good examples of a game feature that is already in place; The Opposed Ability Check aka Contest.

Contests

Some monsters do, but not very many, youre just cherry picking the giants. His change doesnt actually change that much except make it harder to stack expertise and become near auto succeed grapple territory. I think you are over reacting a bit.

[Jamesps]

I think this is a good idea.

Athletics governs way too many things already and represented the singular skill that can be used at will in combat (stealth requires certain conditions). Removing grappling from its purview just puts it in line with other skills.

I'm also partial to the fact that this would give Champions more utility, which they desperately needed.

[Willie the Duck]

Well, some monsters anyway. The monsters who are currently really good at grappling/shoving, like Fire Giants and Stone Giants, would suffer.

Only in the edge cases where they were up against opposition that didn't have athletics/acrobatics (or were of such a disparity in 'level' that their proficiency bonus was different). In the (I am going to posit as 'normal') situation of the party non-champion fighters (or paladins, or non-raging barbarians, etc.) wrestling with a level-appropriate giant, they (by RAW) were each rolling stat+proficiency (likely the same proficiency), and are now (by proposed house rule) each rolling just stat. For them, nothing has changed. Only the odd Champions, Rogues, Prodigy Feat bearers, and monsters/PCs who are not proficient see any real change.

[Trask]

I think this is a good idea.

Athletics governs way too many things already and represented the singular skill that can be used at will in combat (stealth requires certain conditions). Removing grappling from its purview just puts it in line with other skills.

I'm also partial to the fact that this would give Champions more utility, which they desperately needed.

Athletics does have that kind of effect that I feel many DMs just use it for every single kind of strength check. The issue is that "athletics" is an INCREDIBLY broad term. I cant really think of any instance where a test of ones strength is not also a test of ones a athleticism.

[MaxWilson]

I think this is a good idea.

Athletics governs way too many things already and represented the singular skill that can be used at will in combat (stealth requires certain conditions). Removing grappling from its purview just puts it in line with other skills.

I'm also partial to the fact that this would give Champions more utility, which they desperately needed.

Note that you can also give Champions more utility the other way around as well: let Remarkable Athlete stack with proficiency, like a kind of half-Expertise.

It sure doesn't make them overpowered.


Only in the edge cases where they were up against opposition that didn't have athletics/acrobatics (or were of such a disparity in 'level' that their proficiency bonus was different). In the (I am going to posit as 'normal') situation of the party non-champion fighters (or paladins, or non-raging barbarians, etc.) wrestling with a level-appropriate giant, they (by RAW) were each rolling stat+proficiency (likely the same proficiency), and are now (by proposed house rule) each rolling just stat. For them, nothing has changed. Only the odd Champions, Rogues, Prodigy Feat bearers, and monsters/PCs who are not proficient see any real change.

I think you mean Stat + Proficiency x2. Stone Giants have Expertise in Athletics. So if you remove proficiency, they lose their edge. The only circumstance in which they are unaffected is if they were shoving around Rogues or other characters with Athletics Expertise as well.

[Lombra]

Encounters with more creatures make grappling unappealing, so maybe that's a way of fixing it. Throwing few monsters at a larger party generally makes single-target options extremely good. Plus... what is exactly the problem? In which way is grappling making the game less fun?

[Willie the Duck]

I think you mean Stat + Proficiency x2. Stone Giants have Expertise in Athletics. So if you remove proficiency, they lose their edge. The only circumstance in which they are unaffected is if they were shoving around Rogues or other characters with Athletics Expertise as well.

I did miss that they had expertise. Thanks. In that case you are of course correct for stone giants. I thought they were just good because, unlike other big strong creatures like treants, they actually had proficiency.

[Armored Walrus]

I'm another of those that thought the OP was a DM. Finding out your a player raises this question; Why does it need to be nerfed? Why not just not use it as often?

Seriously, if grappling is too easy, and is ruining the game because in your game it seems like playing with a cheat code - just... don't do it any more?

Whip it out once in awhile when you want to show off with it and otherwise keep it in your back pocket.

[KorvinStarmast]

Some monsters do, but not very many, youre just cherry picking the giants. His change doesnt actually change that much except make it harder to stack expertise and become near auto succeed grapple territory. I think you are over reacting a bit. FWIW, as I see it you cherry picked my post by ignoring my point about choices and the action economy. :smallcool:

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. Grapple isn't broken.

[Trask]

FWIW, as I see it you cherry picked my post by ignoring my point about choices and the action economy. :smallcool:

Don't try to fix what isn't broken. Grapple isn't broken.

The other points are irrelevant and dont matter in context of making grapples harder do auto succeed at. "They cost an action" Yes? Almost everything does. Grappling is rarely better than smacking unless theres a contextual reason youd want to keep something from moving even how it already is.

Changing it to a saving throw, or to a strength check changes nothing about the action economy so I "cherry picked" nothing instead I responded to your relevant point and pointed out why its not quite a fair or accurate point as only a very small minority of enemies have athletics.

[KorvinStarmast]

The other points are irrelevant {snip}
Not doing damage makes fights last longer in a lot of cases, particularly at low level, depending on how well a team works as a team.
That isn't irrelevant.
The choice to grapple has opportunity cost.
The game has a mechanic: contest. Nothing wrong with it as written.
No need to fix what is not broken.

[Trask]

Not doing damage makes fights last longer in a lot of cases, particularly at low level, depending on how well a team works as a team.
That isn't irrelevant.
The choice to grapple has opportunity cost.
The game has a mechanic: contest. Nothing wrong with it as written.
No need to fix what is not broken.

What is broken is that most monsters suck at breaking grapples or grappling. And that is a valid point. There are several ways of possibly fixing such a thing, none of which are game breaking or bad choices.

Who would win in a wrestling match
A CR 17 Death Knight, emodiment of evil tyranny itself
or
One level 6 rogue with ok strength and athletics expertise

[Lunali]

What is broken is that most monsters suck at breaking grapples or grappling. And that is a valid point. There are several ways of possibly fixing such a thing, none of which are game breaking or bad choices.

Who would win in a wrestling match
A CR 17 Death Knight, emodiment of evil tyranny itself
or
One level 6 rogue with ok strength and athletics expertise

It isn't broken that they suck at grappling if grappling them doesn't provide a meaningful advantage over hitting them. In your example, the CR 17 death knight would almost certainly win against the lvl 6 rogue's corpse.

[Trask]

It isn't broken that they suck at grappling if grappling them doesn't provide a meaningful advantage over hitting them. In your example, the CR 17 death knight would almost certainly win against the lvl 6 rogue's corpse.

Sure, it can be argued that grappling isnt really a great option compared to attacking (and im not convinced that it should be) but it has its purposed in many niche situations. The point is that in those niche situations, monsters almost always lose. And its not even just a matter of game balance, its just weird. It doesnt feel right to imagine that ogres, orc chiefs, and hobgoblin generals should get easily headlocked by a fighter, or that a death knight could easily get put into a full nelson by a rogue. That is what the OP was trying to communicate and I dont think it was that hard of a point to understand and respond to.

[Lunali]

Sure, it can be argued that grappling isnt really a great option compared to attacking (and im not convinced that it should be) but it has its purposed in many niche situations. The point is that in those niche situations, monsters almost always lose. And its not even just a matter of game balance, its just weird. It doesnt feel right to imagine that ogres, orc chiefs, and hobgoblin generals should get easily headlocked by a fighter, or that a death knight could easily get put into a full nelson by a rogue. That is what the OP was trying to communicate and I dont think it was that hard of a point to understand and respond to.

Both a headlock and a full nelson would be the restrained condition, not grappled.

[Trask]

Both a headlock and a full nelson would be the restrained condition, not grappled.

So youre saying its physically impossible to get someone in a headlock or full nelson by RAW unless you take a feat?

[Lunali]

So youre saying its physically impossible to get someone in a headlock or full nelson by RAW unless you take a feat?

By RAW, that is correct. Effectively restricting movement of limbs requires both training and restricting the movement of your own limbs.

[Trask]

By RAW, that is correct. Effectively restricting movement of limbs requires both training and restricting the movement of your own limbs.

A good lesson in why strict adherence to RAW is silly.

[Kane0]

I split Athletics into two skills (Athletics and Brawn), but not everybody agrees with that idea.

Edit: Also many creatures should be better than they actually are when it comes to grappling.

[MrStabby]

OK, A pro and a con here.

On the plus side: Grappling isn't broken in most campaigns, and almost never at higher levels. There are enough encounters where it is a poor choice to ensure it is balanced out. However, this does not mean it isn't powerful in your specific campaign. If the plot dictates that you will be fighting relatively small numbers of humanoids (fewer than the number of people in the party) at any one time and not much else then it CAN be powerful. Don't make a shift for a normal campaign, make the shift that is right for your campaign.

On the Con side: You need to compare with other options for the same effect. You want to stop someone from hitting your party's back line? Casters have web, hold person, banishment and at higher levels things like wall of force. Now if a party plays smart they can usually work out what an enemy's weak saves are. For a grapple the enemy needs to roll d20+Str(PC)+proficiency(PC)-str(NPC), if they are not proficient. For a spell (assuming it isn't wall of force or similar they need to roll 8+casting stat(PC)+proficiency(PC)-min[str(PC),wis(PC),cha(PC)]. The caster adds 8 rather than d20 to the difficulty but can target the weakest of multiple different saves and there is a good chance that at least one is lower than their strength is. The odd thing is that if you are worried abut reliability, spellcasting is worse than grappling - the fact that two d20s are rolled increases the variance of the outcome.

Sure the comparisons are not perfect - spellcasting and spells prepared are limited resources, but spellcasting something like hold person can also simultaneously hit multiple people at range and leave the caster free to do other things on subsequent turns. If your concern is that there are tools that can reliably control some enemies with a high chance of success then hit the grapples, but also make sure you hit spell saves as well.

[ImproperJustice]

There may be something off when it is a viable choice for my human war wizard to take prodigy to grab expertise in athletics just so I can break out of all the ridiculous grapples happening everywhere.

I like the idea of the Champion and Barbarian getting a bump by leveling the playing field some.

[Randomthom]

I once had a player proudly announcing that he was building a grapple-focused tavern brawler fighter. "I'm gonna grapple everything".

First monster I had planned for that session was a gelatinous cube... he decided grappling was overrated!

[Kane0]

Tsk tsk, he wasn’t very committed. All he needed was a bit of acid resistance.