Grappler Suplex idea

[Windwaert]

Hi guys,

It's me again, this time with a grapple+slam (suplex) combo exploiting jumping rules. The rules are not entirely clear, but consider the following:


You grapple a creature.
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.

Also, don't worry about carrying capacity or the weight of the grappled creature, you will be using the specific "Moving a Grappled Creature" rule. Word of God: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/907788091267543040


You do a standing high jump which costs (3+STR(3))/2 = 3 movement and you extend your arms to reach up to 3+height*1.5, so 12ft for races 6ft tall. This suggest you can hold the grappled creature 12ft from the ground during the jump.
At the apex of your jump, you fall deliberately by dropping prone (costs no movement). Yes, I assume the grappled creature falls with you: You fall 3 ft, no damage, whereas the grappled creature falls 12ft, takes 1d6 bludgeon damage + prone. You never let go of the grapple.
Stand up, costs half your speed, so (30/2)/2 = 7 movement for 30 base speed races while slowed by grappling a creature comparable in size.

That's pretty good value for your movement. You can probably do the combo twice per turn with sufficient base speed and the Athlete feat.

Bonus Synergy: A Manta Gliding Simic Hybrid prevents most fall damage (up to 109 ft), can add horizontal movement into the grapple combo above (not halved by grappling)! Too bad it seems the glide movement cannot be used to stand up from prone. Well, the grappling appendages are a nice synergy I guess...

Let me know what you think. Does this make sense?

[sophontteks]

You are carrying them, but in order to do the suplex you have to drop them, releasing the grapple. Otherwise all you are doing is jumping up and down with someone over your shoulder.

[Unoriginal]

I could allow it, but it'd definitively cost you an Action and require a STR(Athletism) check, on top of the movement.

It's basicaly a "knock prone" move with a bit of damage, and you end up prone too.

[Windwaert]

You are carrying them, but in order to do the suplex you have to drop them, releasing the grapple. Otherwise all you are doing is jumping up and down with someone over your shoulder.

But I argue that the grappler is not jumping anymore, he is falling (by dropping prone mid-air). I don't see how the grappled would not also be falling. <-- otherwise you could avoid all fall damage by being grappled and carried by a mook (say, your familiar).

[Windwaert]

I could allow it, but it'd definitively cost you an Action and require a STR(Athletism) check, on top of the movement.

It's basicaly a "knock prone" move with a bit of damage, and you end up prone too.

I just like the idea that the rules seem to support such a cheesy combat option for grappler builds, but I see why you would add a cost. Your "fix" seem fair, bringing it in line with other combat options.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah...be careful with that. If you read the rules just the right way, a 10 foot drop could be repeated for every 6-7 feet of movement you have (meaning about 5d6 damage).

[Windwaert]

Yeah...be careful with that. If you read the rules just the right way, a 10 foot drop could be repeated for every 6-7 feet of movement you have (meaning about 5d6 damage).

You can't, since you drop prone. Prone means you can only crawl, not jump. I checked :smallwink:

Edit: Athlete would bring the cost down to only 6-7 feet of movement.

[Damon_Tor]

There's a Mystic discipline that gives you a 140 foot jump. How's that for a suplex?

[Windwaert]

There's a Mystic discipline that gives you a 140 foot jump. How's that for a suplex?

Haha, that's great, 13d6+ (45+) fall damage. Will the Mystic class ever leave UA? Probably not.

I'm waiting for the Eberron Mark of Passage dragonmark to become official. Those features look tasty, and I'm sure the intuition die (1d4) added to Strength (Athletics) would find some good use in grappler builds.

[sophontteks]

But I argue that the grappler is not jumping anymore, he is falling (by dropping prone mid-air). I don't see how the grappled would not also be falling. <-- otherwise you could avoid all fall damage by being grappled and carried by a mook (say, your familiar).
Then it would be falling on you.

[Windwaert]

Then it would be falling on you.

You could extend your arms towards the edge of a square or cube, if you're playing on a grid. I.e., you hold the grappled creature diagonally.

If that is unacceptable, just play Simic Hybrid with Manta Glide to glide out of the way (dragging the grappled creature with you).

[Ganymede]

Giving people the ability to both inflict damage and knock someone prone without a die roll or even an action? That's a big no from me, Boss.

[Windwaert]

Giving people the ability to both inflict damage and knock someone prone without a die roll or even an action? That's a big no from me, Boss.

Well, you do need to first initiate a grapple and spend most of your movement. I imagine that some monsters could use the combo to even greater effect (double edged-sword). But I see why a DM would veto this based on balance or RAI.

---

I know DMs don't need reasons for banning what is deemed unbalanced, but are there additional rules or obvious flaws in my interpretations that I am missing?

[Misterwhisper]

I played a rogue monk that was pretty similar.

Think luchadore, cunning action to dash for higher movement, I had boots of striding and springing or whatever they are called now, dash, grab as first attack, huge jump, 30 feet, because of monk with reaction I took no damage from the fall, so I did not fall prone when they did, also had just enough movement to do it again, but this time at the height of my jump I threw them further up as an improvised weapon. The second time I did take damage, like 2d6, but not nearly as much. Then when they land just boot them in the head with advantage due to them being prone.

[Windwaert]

... at the height of my jump I threw them further up as an improvised weapon. ...

That's pretty creative. I'm not sure my DM would allow that, though. An improvised weapon includes any object, but a living creature probably does not count as object. And since you are throwing instead of just dragging or carrying a grappled creature, the weight and carrying capacity rules would apply. Also, throwing a creature 60 ft in the air for a guaranteed 6d6, or 5d6 when on the ground, is definitely broken.

[Misterwhisper]

That's pretty creative. I'm not sure my DM would allow that, though. An improvised weapon includes any object, but a living creature probably does not count as object. And since you are throwing instead of just dragging or carrying a grappled creature, the weight and carrying capacity rules would apply. Also, throwing a creature 60 ft in the air for a guaranteed 6d6, or 5d6 when on the ground, is definitely broken.

He did not let me throw it the whole distance, 29 fr for medium, 10 for large.

[sophontteks]

You could extend your arms towards the edge of a square or cube, if you're playing on a grid. I.e., you hold the grappled creature diagonally.

Forcing the creature into another tile will be the push action. Taking no action at all, the best you can do is jump up with the creature and possibly allow the creature to fall on you, which would do a lot more damage then the 1d6 it may take from the fall.

[Windwaert]

Forcing the creature into another tile will be the push action.
...


Ehr, you don't need the push action (Did you mean Shove action (Shoving a Creature)?) to carry or drag the creature with you. Maybe we disagree about the interpretation of "carrying" and the topology of the grappler/grappled?

The creature was in an adjacent tile when the grapple was initiated, and during the high jump you lift the creature up vertically. The creature probably does not need to move horizontally for that maneuver. But if one argues that the grappler needs to hold the grappled overhead (horizontally aligned), then the grappled is moved from adjacent to above the grappler. In that case: What would prevent the grappler from moving the grappled creature back to an adjacent tile (the original tile if any) on the way down?


...
Taking no action at all, the best you can do is jump up with the creature and possibly allow the creature to fall on you, which would do a lot more damage then the 1d6 it may take from the fall.

There are no rules for that IIRC. A common house rule is that the creature on which something falls, now also takes the fall damage that the falling thing would receive (Comparable to the Catapult spell).

[TripleD]

I love jumping-grappler (Monk/Barbarian is my favourite) but yours seems to have a large flaw: the deliberately falling prone.

It doesn’t matter how fast you are, for most classes it is mathematically impossible to do this more than once-per-turn without ending up prone. Jumping costs movement, standing up costs half your speed, thus when you fall a second time there is no way to stand up since more than half your speed is now gone. You are now prone in the middle of a battlefield.

If you take the Dash action you can get some extra movement and stand up. That costs you your action though, meaning no attack. 2d6 with no modifier is barely better than what you’d get from Witch Bolt. You could use the extra movement to get in another jump but, once again, math says you end up prone.

There are classes that allow Dash as a bonus action. Rogue’s Cunning Action would be nice for this, especially if you stood up while your enemy remained prone for a Sneak Attack. Eagle Barbarians play nice too, especially singe rage gives you advantage on grapple. Monks give you Step of the Wind, but it costs a Ki point that could have been spent on Flurry of Blows or Stunning Strike. What’s more the doubled jump distance granted by Step of the Wind is of no use since you don’t want to jump very high. Monks do allow you to grapple two opponents and still attack though.

Of the three I’d recommend Eagle Totem Barbarian. Barbarians don’t get a lot to do with their bonus action, and they are built for close quarters combat more than the Rogue or Monk.

[Windwaert]

It doesn’t matter how fast you are, for most classes it is mathematically impossible to do this more than once-per-turn without ending up prone. Jumping costs movement, standing up costs half your speed, thus when you fall a second time there is no way to stand up since more than half your speed is now gone. You are now prone in the middle of a battlefield.

True. You'll need something like the Athlete feat or Dash action to overcome that limit.



If you take the Dash action you can get some extra movement and stand up. That costs you your action though, meaning no attack. 2d6 with no modifier is barely better than what you’d get from Witch Bolt. You could use the extra movement to get in another jump but, once again, math says you end up prone.

Let's try Dashing out:


30 base speed, but slowed by the size of grappled creature: Speed is now 30/2 = 15. Dash gives another 15 (The increase equals your speed, after applying any modifiers.), so our movement budget is back to 30.

High Jump for STR mod of 3 or 4 costs 3, and standing up costs half your speed, 15/2 = 7 rounded down. The maneuver costs 3+7 = 10 movement in total, so 30/10=3 ... guaranteed 3d6 for all your movement and a Dash action (action or bonus action).


30 base speed, but not slowed by the size of grappled creature: Speed + Dash = 30+30 = 60 movement.

High Jump for STR mod of 3 or 4 costs 3, and standing up costs 30/2= 15. The maneuver costs 3+15 = 18 movement in total, so 60/18 = 3+ ... guaranteed 3d6 for nearly all your movement and a Dash action.


40 base speed + Athlete + not slowed by the size of grappled creature (L4 Centaur maybe?): Speed + Dash = 40+40 = 80 movement.

High Jump for STR mod of 4 costs 3, and standing up costs 5 (Athlete). The maneuver costs 3+5 = 8 movement in total, so 80/8 = 10 ... guaranteed 10d6 for all your movement and a Dash action.


...
Of the three I’d recommend Eagle Totem Barbarian. Barbarians don’t get a lot to do with their bonus action, and they are built for close quarters combat more than the Rogue or Monk.
That's a very nice summary of the classes. I came to the same conclusion.

[sophontteks]

Ehr, you don't need the push action (Did you mean Shove action (Shoving a Creature)?) to carry or drag the creature with you. Maybe we disagree about the interpretation of "carrying" and the topology of the grappler/grappled?

The creature was in an adjacent tile when the grapple was initiated, and during the high jump you lift the creature up vertically. The creature probably does not need to move horizontally for that maneuver. But if one argues that the grappler needs to hold the grappled overhead (horizontally aligned), then the grappled is moved from adjacent to above the grappler. In that case: What would prevent the grappler from moving the grappled creature back to an adjacent tile (the original tile if any) on the way down?



There are no rules for that IIRC. A common house rule is that the creature on which something falls, now also takes the fall damage that the falling thing would receive (Comparable to the Catapult spell).
See the rules on falling objects.

Grappling rules allow you to drag or carry someone with you. They do not allow you to move the target independent of your movement. Any attempt to move the target to another tile independent of your own movement involves an attack action covered in special attacks.

You want to jump up while carrying a creature and suplex it, but there is no explanation how you are actually doing this suplex without taking an action. The only thing you are doing with movement is hopping up and down with a creature on your back, which would cause no damage to either of you.

The creature is not hitting the ground at all, and you've even stated its not breaking the grapple, so you must be carrying the creature the whole time. Neither of you are moving vertically more the 10 feet.

[Windwaert]

See the rules on falling objects.
Where? Give me a book and page number(s), or quote if its in the SRD. I've never heard of the "falling objects" rule(s). There simply are no general rules for damage by objects or creatures falling on top of you. Maybe the "Improvising Damage" table on DMG 249 mentioning a falling bookcase?


Grappling rules allow you to drag or carry someone with you. They do not allow you to move the target independent of your movement.
It's not independent, you are carrying the creature during the high jump, which is a movement option in the movement section of the PHB:


High Jump.
When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement. In some circumstances, your GM might allow you to make a Strength (Athletics) check to jump higher than you normally can.

You can extend your arms half your height above yourself during the jump. Thus, you can reach above you a distance equal to the height of the jump plus 1½ times your height.

Note the last bulletin. Since the grappled creature is in your hand, and you extend your arms, logically, the creature is moved by that motion, no?



Any attempt to move the target to another tile independent of your own movement involves an attack action covered in special attacks.
The attempt to move is not independent, but part of the jump movement, see above. I guess you mean the "Shoving a Creature" action and the shove aside (DMG pg. 272 optional rule) are typically used to move an enemy creature.



You want to jump up while carrying a creature and suplex it, but there is no explanation how you are actually doing this suplex without taking an action.
I called it a "supplex", but that was just a fancy name for this specific combination of existing rules (and to add some fluff to dry theory-crafting). In my first post I explain the actions and movement options used.



The only thing you are doing with movement is hopping up and down with a creature on your back, which would cause no damage to either of you.


Nope, I am going to explain ALL the details for you (see first post for the math and damage):


The grappler grappled a creature in an adjacent square. Note that grappling does not limit or alter your movement options, but can instead half your speed depending on the grappled creature's size.
The grappler take the High Jump movement option. Because you have no running start of 10ft, the Jump is low, but RAW you can extend your arms above you. Yes, I assume that the grappled creature moves along with the grappler's arms, since it is grappled by its hand. Where else would the creature go?

Notice that the grappler has not yet landed. The Jumping rules never mention landing, only that you leap up and reach up. This lead some people to believe that every Jump up results in falling and potentially falling damage. I want to make absolutely sure the grappler falls, hence:

Directly after the jump, at the apex, the grappler deliberately falls prone (costs no movement). I assume that makes the grappler fall. I assume that makes the grappled creature also fall. <-- Otherwise you could avoid fall damage by being grappled.

I assume that the grappled creature is moved back to the adjacent tile, since you can't share a tile and the grappler is effectively reversing the movement on the way down.



Crawford also seems to support quite a liberal interpretation that would not exclude moving around the grappled target.
"The rule is only concerned that you halve your speed and keep the grappled creature within reach."
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/852314898218369024



The creature is not hitting the ground at all, and you've even stated its not breaking the grapple, so you must be carrying the creature the whole time. Neither of you are moving vertically more the 10 feet.

See, that's why I compared the whole maneuver to a suplex. In that real life equivalent, 1) the grappler also does not need to let go to inflict the damage and 2) the grappler does not need not to move as much as the grappled.

[Citan]

Hi guys,

It's me again, this time with a grapple+slam (suplex) combo exploiting jumping rules. The rules are not entirely clear, but consider the following:


You grapple a creature.
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.

Also, don't worry about carrying capacity or the weight of the grappled creature, you will be using the specific "Moving a Grappled Creature" rule. Word of God: https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/907788091267543040


You do a standing high jump which costs (3+STR(3))/2 = 3 movement and you extend your arms to reach up to 3+height*1.5, so 12ft for races 6ft tall. This suggest you can hold the grappled creature 12ft from the ground during the jump.
At the apex of your jump, you fall deliberately by dropping prone (costs no movement). Yes, I assume the grappled creature falls with you: You fall 3 ft, no damage, whereas the grappled creature falls 12ft, takes 1d6 bludgeon damage + prone. You never let go of the grapple.
Stand up, costs half your speed, so (30/2)/2 = 7 movement for 30 base speed races while slowed by grappling a creature comparable in size.

That's pretty good value for your movement. You can probably do the combo twice per turn with sufficient base speed and the Athlete feat.

Bonus Synergy: A Manta Gliding Simic Hybrid prevents most fall damage (up to 109 ft), can add horizontal movement into the grapple combo above (not halved by grappling)! Too bad it seems the glide movement cannot be used to stand up from prone. Well, the grappling appendages are a nice synergy I guess...

Let me know what you think. Does this make sense?
For what is worth, I think this is perfectly within RAW. I would probably just, depending on the kind of creature you try to grapple like this, either inflict a penalty or plain forbid it (it's easier to constrict a humanoid of similar shape and size than, say, a Direwolf).

But otherwise, you simply want to play a 4E Monk with Expertise through Rogue dip or feat, so you can Fly away.
Or play any multiclass build that can provide free fly, Expertise on Athletics, flat speed improvements, good concentration saves and self-Haste.
Note that free fly is either Aarakocra which is rarely authorized or high-level character since most free fly, well, fly from level 14 or above.
It's less sketchy and works better to just grapple someone, get high in air and simply release grapple for it to crash on ground by itself.

You could also, IF the DM allows it (clear houserule imo considering whenever someone has a "teleport with someone" effect it's explicitely told so), be a Shadow Monk with a flying familiar keeping a Darkness in paw/claw 50 feet above you so you can Shadow Step with someone you're grappling, using Monk reaction to reduce falling damage to reasonable amount.

[sophontteks]

So you are now dragging the creature instead of carrying them.

No, you can not extend your hand forward while dragging a creature behind you. You can't meet the requirements of a long jump because you can only extend one hand forward. The other hand is grappling a creature.


If you are dragging the creature and jump in the air the creature would follow along behind you. It wouldn't even meet the apex of your jump. If you want to push the creature in front of you while jumping you'd need to make an action. You are handwaving this motion where the creature you are dragging behind you is suddenly above you.

You are calling it a suplex correctly. You are taking a grappled creature and flipping it over your back. That's the attack you are making which is forcing the creature you are dragging behind you over your head.

IF you extend your arms forward in a jump, you can jump further, but nothing in the rules is allowing you to do this. You can't freely move the grappled creature independent of your movement so you can't extend your arms forward.

[Windwaert]

For what is worth, I think this is perfectly within RAW. I would probably just, depending on the kind of creature you try to grapple like this, either inflict a penalty or plain forbid it (it's easier to constrict a humanoid of similar shape and size than, say, a Direwolf).
Yep, that makes sense. Another way to increase the cost, is adding a check to maintain the grapple or give a free Escaping a Grapple save to the grappled creature.


Note that free fly is either Aarakocra which is rarely authorized or high-level character since most free fly, well, fly from level 14 or above.
Also, Winged Tiefling variant. Combining grapple+flight is (too?) strong at L1.


It's less sketchy and works better to just grapple someone, get high in air and simply release grapple for it to crash on ground by itself.

Yeah, that can do some good damage. Really puts this combo in perspective. One key difference is that the free helicopter ride build gives up the grapple, whereas the suplex does not.


You could also, IF the DM allows it (clear houserule imo considering whenever someone has a "teleport with someone" effect it's explicitely told so), be a Shadow Monk with a flying familiar keeping a Darkness in paw/claw 50 feet above you so you can Shadow Step with someone you're grappling, using Monk reaction to reduce falling damage to reasonable amount.
That is pretty cool. I don't think it would be broken, when compared to Aarakocra grapplers, since many more variables are involved (like keeping your familiar in the right space with its off-turn movement).

---

Does anyone know how the Moving a Grappled Creature rule works with multiple creatures grappled? The rule describes a singular grappled creature, so I think that is a limitation.

[Windwaert]

So you are now dragging the creature instead of carrying them.
What makes you think that? The rules let you carry OR drag.



No, you can not extend your hand forward while dragging a creature behind you.

That's not what I am trying to do.


You can't meet the requirements of a long jump because you can only extend one hand forward.

There are no requirements for Jumping (other than movement cost), also, we are talking about High Jumping, not Long Jumping. Also, the "Moving a Grappled Creature" does not limit or alter your movement options.


The other hand is grappling a creature.
Doesn't matter which hand, the High Jump lets you extend both arms.


If you are dragging the creature and jump in the air the creature would follow along behind you. It wouldn't even meet the apex of your jump.
In that case, you weren't extending your arms up, which is explicitly something you can do during a High Jump.



If you want to push the creature in front of you while jumping you'd need to make an action. You are handwaving this motion where the creature you are dragging behind you is suddenly above you.
You don't need to drag it behind you.



You are calling it a suplex correctly. You are taking a grappled creature and flipping it over your back. That's the attack you are making which is forcing the creature you are dragging behind you over your head.
Note that I assume that the creature follows the motions explicitly described in the movement options. Hence, it does not require actions.



IF you extend your arms forward in a jump, you can jump further, but nothing in the rules is allowing you to do this.
There are no rules about moving your arms forward, but you can explicitly extend your arms up: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/movement#h-Jumping



You can't freely move the grappled creature independent of your movement so you can't extend your arms forward.
You're not moving the creature independently, the arm movement is explicitly in the movement description as part of the movement option.

[sophontteks]

More importantly, there are no rules allowing you to move a creature freely when you grapple them. Yes, if you could do that that then grappling would be ripe for abuse, but it doesn't let you do that.

You can move a creature with you. That's it. Drag it along with your movement. Nothing else.

Because you are grappling a creature you can't move both your arms up when you jump.

[Windwaert]

More importantly, there are no rules allowing you to move a creature freely when you grapple them. Yes, if you could do that that then grappling would be ripe for abuse, but it doesn't let you do that.
RAW, a character can take the actions described in the book. The grappler takes a movement option that literally, explicitly lets him extend his arms and it is only reasonable to assume that the grappled creature is moved by that. It's not freely moving the creature, it is moving as described in the Jumping movement option (False equivalence).


You can move a creature with you.
Yes, that's how I am interpreting the rules. It moves with the literally, explicitly, RAW described arm (hand) movement in the Jumping rules.


Because you are grappling a creature you can't move both your arms up when you jump.
Where is THAT rule? Point me to the rules! At this point you are making rules up. This limitation of yours comes out of nowhere...

Again, nowhere does it say that you cannot move both arms because of the moving while grappling:
https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#h-Grappling