PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Pinless Grappler Feat? (PEACH)



sandmote
2021-05-02, 07:56 PM
I think most people can agree the published grappler feat is a useless mess, even after accounting for the fact one of the original effects had to be removed later because it didn't actually make any sense with the published rules.

However, the attempts to fix the feat all seem to get bogged down on making that pin effect the feat grants into something mechanically useful to set up. I've been toying with this attempt for a feat that makes grapples stronger instead of adding some new effect on top. I've tried to smooth out the action economy of the grapple + pin combo, given a consolation prize if you fail to set the combo up (or ignore it), and added some flat damage to help the grappler keep up in that regard whether or not you're using the combo.

I have stripped out the advantage on attack rolls, partially because pinning gives you that anyway and partially because this version makes it possible for most martials to grapple, pin, and attack on the same turn starting at 5th level. I'm worried it would be overkill if you personally get the effects of pinning and grappling an enemy with just a grapple, and figure the defensive bonus for a grapple is more thematic.

Damage is equal to that of an unarmed strike so that monks don't lose damage from using the feat to grab enemies. I'm not sure how it would work with the UA krynn minotaurs, but this also makes it a place when racial unarmed attacks actually come up in combat. Although I was on the fence about wither to use this or a flat 1d6 damage at the start of a grappled creature's turn. Please note that since the grapple must succeed and can be broken before the other creature's turn, this damage is meant to be dealt automatically.


Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13 or higher

You've developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You gain the following benefits:

Creatures you are grappling have disadvantage take a penalty equal to your proficiency bonus on attack rolls against you.
When you grapple a creature, you can make a shove attempt against that creature as a bonus action.
Creatures you are grappling take damage equal to your unarmed strikes as the start end of their turn.


I'm assuming there are multiple similar versions I just haven't found (or don't recall), but I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-03, 07:39 AM
This seems needlessly complicated and restricted.

Why not "Creatures grappled by you are restrained as well"?

nickl_2000
2021-05-03, 09:19 AM
This seems needlessly complicated and restricted.

Why not "Creatures grappled by you are restrained as well"?

I think restrained is to powerful of a condition. This feat give disadvantage attacking you.

Restrained gives Disadvantage attacking everyone, Advantage when someone else attacks the restrained creature, and disadvantage on Dex saving throws. There is a substantial power difference there.


A few things I would consider changing.

1) Make the damage the creature takes at the start of your turn (or the end of their turn), not theirs. That way, they have a chance to break out of the grapple before that automatically start taking damage.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-04, 12:23 AM
I think restrained is to powerful of a condition. This feat give disadvantage attacking you.This feat allows you to shove a grappled creature as a bonus action.

Being grappled (speed reduced to 0) and prone (disadvantage on all attacks, advantage on most attacks directed towards you) is virtually the same as being restrained. So why not skip the bonus action middle man and just restrain the creatures that you grapple?

The player is already sacrificing an ability score increase and either a shield (+2 AC) or a two-handed weapon (+2 damage relative to a one-handed weapon) just to be more efficient at nerfing one target at a time. If they're going to be more vulnerable to everyone's attacks and less threatening to everyone that they face, they should at least be efficient at nerfing the one guy that get to nerf.

sandmote
2021-05-05, 12:33 PM
1) Make the damage the creature takes at the start of your turn (or the end of their turn), not theirs. That way, they have a chance to break out of the grapple before that automatically start taking damage. I specifically wanted it to be difficult to avoid this damage, as normally taking the time to grapple reduces your damage output by one attack. I'll make the change though.


This feat allows you to shove a grappled creature as a bonus action.

Being grappled (speed reduced to 0) and prone (disadvantage on all attacks, advantage on most attacks directed towards you) is virtually the same as being restrained. So why not skip the bonus action middle man and just restrain the creatures that you grapple? This is partially because the attempts by other people to fix the grappler feat all focused on the "pin" action granted by the published version, and trying to make it strong enough to be worth using. I also don't think it would feel much like you're getting better at grappling, because the player would be doing less when then PC tries to grapple, even if the PC is inflicting a bigger nerf on paper.

That said, I also wanted to give a damage bonus to grapplers, and I'm pretty sure that + restraining automatically would be overkill.


The player is already sacrificing an ability score increase and either a shield (+2 AC) or a two-handed weapon (+2 damage relative to a one-handed weapon) just to be more efficient at nerfing one target at a time. If they're going to be more vulnerable to everyone's attacks and less threatening to everyone that they face, they should at least be efficient at nerfing the one guy that get to nerf. First, that's an either/or scenario. They're going to be more vulnerable to everyone's attacks or less threatening to everyone that they face. If they use the shield they're also dealing less damage than if they had a two handed weapon and if they use a two handed weapon they're also more vulnerable than if they used a shield.

What if instead of inflicting disadvantage on attack rolls when you grapple, the feat inflicted a penalty on their attack rolls equal to your proficiency bonus? To start, that would be a bonus that stacks with knocking the target prone or having some effect restrain them.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-05, 01:37 PM
This is partially because the attempts by other people to fix the grappler feat all focused on the "pin" action granted by the published version, and trying to make it strong enough to be worth using. I also don't think it would feel much like you're getting better at grappling, because the player would be doing less when the PC tries to grapple, even if the PC is inflicting a bigger nerf on paper.Doing less and getting more is what getting better feels like. That's the whole idea behind Sneak Attack, Battle-Master Maneuvers, Rage, Smite, and countless spells.

"You have to spend multiple actions doing multiple things to accomplish what I do in a single roll".


That said, I also wanted to give a damage bonus to grapplers, and I'm pretty sure that + restraining automatically would be overkill. Probably. But there are other ways to give grapplers a damage bonus besides automatic damage every round. You could just given them a unique "crush" attack that doesn't require an attack roll or that has a big damage die.


First, that's an either/or scenario. They're going to be more vulnerable to everyone's attacks or less threatening to everyone that they face. If they use the shield they're also dealing less damage than if they had a two handed weapon and if they use a two handed weapon they're also more vulnerable than if they used a shield.I know that it's an either/or scenario. That's why I said "or".

My point remains that by keeping one hand empty, you're lagging behind in both offense and defense. Your reward should be substantial and reliable, or else you're going to continue to lag behind even after you've grappled your target.

Compare your grappler to a shielded fighter. "He has disadvantage on attacks against me." But your AC is 16, and the fighter's AC is 18. That disadvantage is only marginally better, at best, than the +2 you're missing.

Compare your grappler to a great-weapon fighter. "I deal 4 damage at the start of my turn" But the fighter deals +2 damage with every attack, and you both attack two, three, maybe four times per turn. Your damage is only marginally higher than his, when he misses, and still lags behind when he hits.

Your grappler has a bonus action that will maybe knock the target prone, meaning that you will sometimes reap a real benefit from your build. All I'm suggesting is that you always knock the target prone or restrain them, so that you always benefit from your build.


What if instead of inflicting disadvantage on attack rolls when you grapple, the feat inflicted a penalty on their attack rolls equal to your proficiency bonus? To start, that would be a bonus that stacks with knocking the target prone or having some effect restrain them.At low levels, this isnt great. You lose the constant +2 AC of a shield to inflict a circumstantial -2 or -3 to enemy attack rolls.

This is redeemed a bit by the automatic damage your feat deals. Kinda like having a shield and a two-handed weapon at the same time (with respect to the enemy you're grappling). But I'm not sure that's worth having neither a shield nor a two-handed weapon with respect to every other enemy.

And as you gain levels and the proficiency-based defense increases, the unarmed Strike based offense becomes more and more negligible. So the feat doesn't really become more valuable.

sandmote
2021-05-09, 05:24 PM
To summarize my view of the subject:
Grapples in 5e are considered already very weak.
The published grappler feat is a terrible option, even for improving a PC that will be a grappler anyway.
Due to view #1, the feat can afford to be better than average.
This feat should not be an option that PCs automatically want to take instead of taking an ASI or taking a different feat.
Comparing a grappler with this feat to either a shielded fighter or a greatsword/maul fighter is comparing apples to oranges, because I'm looking at the effects of the feat, and this comparison includes the effects of both the feat and being a grappler in the first place.
The pin effect in the published version of the feat is a bit weird, and I don't want to add any more to the chain of actions grappling involves.


Therefore, I would consider the feat to be doing its job if it succeeds if it succeeds on the first goal here and at least one of the other two (even if all three goals would be preferable:

The feat makes playing a grappler feel an =< amount of fun.
The methods and actions of a grappler build are always stronger (measured in raw damage, success rate, and/or action efficiency) with the feat over taking an ASI or most other feats.
The grappler feat opens up new grappler builds that are distinctly more powerful than the optimized options of a grappler without the feat.



I know that it's an either/or scenario. That's why I said "or". You said "or," in the first sentence and "and" in the second. A mistake you proceeded to repeat immediately after this, by the way (emphasis mine):

My point remains that by keeping one hand empty, you're lagging behind in both offense and defense. Although I should note I really only care that you're being sloppy with your language, because it means I could be wasting my time elsewhere responding to things you don't mean and holding up the conversation by failing to respond to things that you do mean.


Your reward should be substantial and reliable, or else you're going to continue to lag behind even after you've grappled your target. According to both my own experience and the analysis by others I've read, a grappler will lag behind in general. From view #3, I'm hoping the following:

a grappler PC will lag behind less after taking this feat relative to a grappler taking an ASI or taking most feats.
a grappler PC will gain a bigger benefit than a shielded fighter gains from most feats
a grappler PC will gain a bigger benefit than a greatsword fighter gains from most feats


Doing less and getting more is what getting better feels like. That's the whole idea behind Sneak Attack, Battle-Master Maneuvers, Rage, Smite, and countless spells.

"You have to spend multiple actions doing multiple things to accomplish what I do in a single roll". Sneak attack grants additional dice as you level, so I accept that it feels like you're getting stronger. Battle master maneuvers scale notoriously badly, so I don't see why you're bringing them up. Rage scales in multiple ways, like letting you do it more often per long rest and granting more benefits as you level. Smite you can use with move dice and more often as you level. Spellcasting unlocks more spells per rest and stronger spells as your level. Except for battlemaster maneuvers, all of these have a clear experiential difference as you gain more and stronger version of them.

It is this experiential difference that I think is missing from simply gaining the effects of restraining when you grapple someone. I accept that you gain more benefits on paper, but a grappler PC switching from the grapple+shove combo was doing two things each round and is now doing 1 each round, with no changes to what else they do. I'm worried that this would fail at design goal #1 listed above.


Probably. But there are other ways to give grapplers a damage bonus besides automatic damage every round. You could just given them a unique "crush" attack that doesn't require an attack roll or that has a big damage die. I figured this would have similar problems to the pin effect I dislike in the published feat, but thanks for making sure it is considered.


Compare your grappler to a shielded fighter. "He has disadvantage on attacks against me." But your AC is 16, and the fighter's AC is 18. That disadvantage is only marginally better, at best, than the +2 you're missing. And you also get the advantage of holding your opponent in place which the shielded fighter doesn't get. Unless you use the grapple+shove combo I've seen suggested in the analysis I've read, in which case the feat grants you the ability to set up the combo in one turn before you get extra attack. And once you do get extra attack, the feat allows you to attack and use the combo without being forced to take any of the "attack as a bonus action" subclasses. It think this would qualify for design goal #3.


Compare your grappler to a great-weapon fighter. "I deal 4 damage at the start of my turn" But the fighter deals +2 damage with every attack, and you both attack two, three, maybe four times per turn. Your damage is only marginally higher than his, when he misses, and still lags behind when he hits. Before gaining the feat, the grappler was giving up 2d6+Str mod damage* in place of the first attack and 2 damage on each subsequent attack to gain the effect of the grapple. Now they're giving up 2d6 damage on the first attack** and 2 damage on each subsequent attack, and gaining other benefits besides.

Unless the PC is a monk, in which case they can grapple, ignore the shove effect, and still get in their full damage on a regular basis. I think that hits all three design goals, where restraining on a grapple might not. Although given monks usually want to take the mobile feat and end their turn out of the enemy's' reach, I don't think view #4 is violated here either.


Your grappler has a bonus action that will maybe knock the target prone, meaning that you will sometimes reap a real benefit from your build. All I'm suggesting is that you always knock the target prone or restrain them, so that you always benefit from your build. The grapple build analysis I've read list the grapple+shove combo as a goal, and then argue the PC should go for attacks they can make as a bonus action. the goal was to take what the PC was therefore already doing and making sure it always has a better action economy.


At low levels, this isnt great. You lose the constant +2 AC of a shield to inflict a circumstantial -2 or -3 to enemy attack rolls. Unless you were already playing a grappler instead of a shielded fighter. In which case you're giving up (a) +2 AC, (b) an ASI/other feat, and (c) 1d8 damage** to gain (a)-prof to an enemy's attack rolls, (b)grappling that enemy, and (c) being able to fit in a shove attempt that turn, even if you don't have extra attack or want to use your extra attack to deal damage.

*Damage loss if greater if the PC has bonuses that apply to weapon attacks but not grapples.
**Damage loss is less if the grappler's race increases the damage of a natural strike, they take a monk dip, or they take the tavern brawler feat. Damage loss is greater if the grappler has features that increase the damage of the weapon attack but not unarmed strikes.

If anyone has issues with my thoughts or design goals, I'd be happy to hear about those, even if you don't have explicit commentary about the homebrew feat.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-10, 07:40 PM
You said "or," in the first sentence and "and" in the second. A mistake you proceeded to repeat immediately after this, by the way [...] I really only care that you're being sloppy with your language, because it means I could be wasting my time elsewhere responding to things you don't mean and holding up the conversation by failing to respond to things that you do mean.The first sentence was about what grapplers sacrifice. Grapplers sacrifice either offense or defense.

The second sentence is about what roles grapplers fail to play. Grapplers fail to play offense AND defense.

I said exactly what I meant.


It is this experiential difference that I think is missing from simply gaining the effects of restraining when you grapple someone. I accept that you gain more benefits on paper, but a grappler PC switching from the grapple+shove combo was doing two things each round and is now doing 1 each round, with no changes to what else they do. I'm worried that this would fail at design goal #1 listed above. I know that you're talking about the experiential difference. I'm trying to improve the experience difference when I suggest automatic restraint over bonus action shoving.

The grapple+shove combo lets players "do more" in the sense that it lets them take a larger number of actions. But the fun isn't taking more actions. The fun is having more influence over the situation. The fun is either having stronger abilities or having a broader arsenal of abilities.

This is why Sneak Attack, Smite and Rage just heap damage onto your attacks, instead of letting you attack your target multiple times.

This is why Battle Master Manoeuvres attach bonus effects to your attacks, instead of giving your additional attacks that inflict those effects.

Breaking an effect into multiple actions/bonus actions/attacks doesn't make it more fun. At all.


The grapple build analysis I've read list the grapple+shove combo as a goal, and then argue the PC should go for attacks they can make as a bonus action. the goal was to take what the PC was therefore already doing and making sure it always has a better action economy. The grapple+shove combos is the goal because it's the best option available in the official rules. Because we are inventing new rules, we have no reason to confine ourselves to that.

Sure, shoving as a bonus action improves the grapple+shove's action economy.

But restraining automatically improves it even more.


Before gaining the feat, the grappler was giving up 2d6+Str mod damage* in place of the first attack and 2 damage on each subsequent attack to gain the effect of the grapple. Now they're giving up 2d6 damage on the first attack** and 2 damage on each subsequent attack, and gaining other benefits besides. Before gaining the feat, a 3rd level grappler is dealing 0 damage on their first turn attacking a given target, and 7.5 (1d8+3) damage on every turn thereafter. A 3rd level greatswordsman is dealing 10 (2d6+3) damage on their first turn and every turn thereafter.

After gaining the feat, a 4th level grappler is dealing 0 damage on their first turn attacking a given target, and 11.5 (1d8+3+4) damage on every turn thereafter. A 4th level greatswordsman with an ASI in Strength is dealing 11 (2d6+4) damage on the first turn and every turn thereafter.

You suggest that the grappled creature takes a penalty to its attack rolls equal to the grappler's proficiency bonus (-2). Is that worth the damage you didn't deal on the first turn? Or all the situations you couldn't grapple your target (huge creatures, amorphous creatures)? Or all the situations grappling wasn't worth the actions it cost (creatures with 10-20 hit points?)

I think it's worthwhile if the enemy goes prone or is restrained. You make a possibility (an attempt tied to bonus action), meaning grappling is sometimes worthwhile. I suggest you make it a certainty (an automatic effect of grappling), so that grappling is definitively worthwhile.

Hence automatic restraint. It guarantees a serious reward when you do what you were built to do.


Unless you were already playing a grappler instead of a shielded fighter. In which case you're giving up (a) +2 AC, (b) an ASI/other feat, and (c) 1d8 damage** to gain (a)-prof to an enemy's attack rolls, (b)grappling that enemy, and (c) being able to fit in a shove attempt that turn, even if you don't have extra attack or want to use your extra attack to deal damage.
Similar math as before.

Before gaining the feat, a 3rd level grappler is dealing 0 damage on their first turn attacking a given target, and 7.5 (1d8+3) damage on every turn thereafter. A 3rd level shield guy is dealing 7.5 (1d8+3) damage on their first turn and every turn thereafter. Besides the head start in damage, the shield guy has +2 AC.

After gaining the feat, a 4th level grappler is dealing 0 damage on their first turn attacking a given target, and 11.5 (1d8+3+4) damage on every turn thereafter. A 4th level shield guy with an ASI in Strength is dealing 8.5 (1d8+4) damage on the first turn and every turn thereafter. The shield guy once again has a head start in damage, but he'll lose it after about four rounds (when the grappler has dealt 34.5 and the shield guy has dealt 34). This makes the shield guy better at dealing with a low-hp enemy (or a group of them), while the grappler is better at dealing with a single high-hp enemy.

Once again, you suggest that the grappled creature takes a penalty to its attack rolls equal to the grappler's proficiency bonus (-2). I think this is roughly even to the +2 AC that the shield guy gains. But is evening out your defenses really worth an offensive lead that you won't see until rounds later? Is it worth the battles where you couldn't grapple, or where grappling wasn't worthwhile?

Again, grappling should be definitely powerful. The grappler should leave others in the dust when he's doing his thing, because he can only do it to certain enemies, he can only do it to one enemy at a time, and he has to give up an attack just to do it.

sandmote
2021-05-11, 12:04 AM
This is why Sneak Attack, Smite and Rage just heap damage onto your attacks, instead of letting you attack your target multiple times. I don't think rage is reasonable to include here, because it doesn't "just heap damage onto your attacks." There's also the damage reduction, Feral Instinct, Relentless Rage, and most subclasses grant other benefits.

Sneak attack, smite, maneuvers, and piling on more attacks, however, all allow you to roll more dice. That's something where I think clearly feels like you're doing more. Both the PC and the Player are doing more stuff. Whereas slapping a restraining effect on the grappled creature has the PC doing more and the player doing less.



But the fun isn't taking more actions I'd just like to confirm that I'm talking about actions taken by the player (ex: number of dice rolled) and not the in-game term.


The fun is either having stronger abilities or having a broader arsenal of abilities. In theory I agree with this statement. In practice I think that accomplishing this on paper is insufficient if the player isn't doing more or isn't using the broader arsenal.


Breaking an effect into multiple actions/bonus actions/attacks doesn't make it more fun. At all.

The grapple+shove combos is the goal because it's the best option available in the official rules. Because we are inventing new rules, we have no reason to confine ourselves to that. If this wasn't clear, I'm modifying an existing set of rules. This is a homebrew feat that is intended to replace existing material for an already existing system. By the way, this is a system where the existing strongest effect grapplers aim for is broken into multiple actions/bonus actions/attacks to start with.


Again, grappling should be definitely powerful. This is material for 5e D&D. It is too late for this.

Although given the number of times you have to ask "is it worth" giving up something else to grapple when using this feat, I guess the feat would work fine with the flat penalty to attacks. I realize its intended as a rhetorical device, but if you didn't need to ask the feat would either be worthless (if the alternative was clearly better) or broken (if the feat made grappling outright the best choice). Plus even when the attack penalty the feat inflicts equals a shield's AC bonus, you'd be gaining tactical bonuses from grappling that dealing flat damage doesn't give you. So the damage shouldn't be equal to or strictly better than using a shield with that arm.

I'll make the change to the flat bonus instead of having a grapple inflict disadvantage. Thanks.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-11, 12:54 AM
Sneak attack, smite, maneuvers, and piling on more attacks, however, all allow you to roll more dice. That's something where I think clearly feels like you're doing more. Both the PC and the Player are doing more stuff. Whereas slapping a restraining effect on the grappled creature has the PC doing more and the player doing less. [...] In theory I agree with this statement. In practice I think that accomplishing this on paper is insufficient if the player isn't doing more or isn't using the broader arsenal. I can't relate at all. This is why a brought up spells earlier. A spellcaster uses one action to roll one die and cast Dominate Person or Hold Monster or Banishment. It's the bare minimum number of actions (in terms of dice rolled and action economy), but these are shining moments for the player. I think that letting martial characters inflict status conditions (like restrained) in just one action has the same appeal.

Maybe we have fundamentally different perceptions of what is fun.


If this wasn't clear, I'm modifying an existing set of rules. This is a homebrew feat that is intended to replace existing material for an already existing system. By the way, this is a system where the existing strongest effect grapplers aim for is broken into multiple actions/bonus actions/attacks to start with. I'm aware that you're modifying the existing 5e rules. That's my point.

This is a system where the existing strongest effect grapplers aim for is broken into multiple actions, but you're modifying this system, so you can change that. You can create a stronger effect for grapplers to aim for, and you can make it a single action.


This is material for 5e D&D. It is too late [to make grappling powerful]. How is it too late? You're writing homebrew. You're currently in the act of buffing the grappling feat. I'm only suggesting that you buff it more, because as it stands a grappler bemefiring from your feat is approximately equal to a non-grappler while they grappling, and significantly worse than a non grappler when they aren't.

jjordan
2021-05-11, 11:13 AM
How about:


Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13+ or Dexterity 15+

You've developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You may grapple humanoid creatures one size larger or smaller than you. You gain the following benefits:

Creatures you have grappled are considered restrained.
When you grapple a creature, you can make a shove attempt against that creature as a bonus action.
You may attack grappled creatures with unarmed attacks or melee weapons.


This formulation imposes restrained on the target which makes it a superior grapple. It allows the grappler to perform unarmed and armed attacks on the grappled creature, which is pretty much a feature of all combat grappling systems/practices. It allows dexterous grapplers but requires a higher standard for them, reflecting the educated use of leverage rather than brute strength.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-11, 12:55 PM
You may grapple humanoid creatures one size larger or smaller than you.5e already allows you to grapple ANY creature up to one size larger than you. This statement has no effect at all.


Creatures you have grappled are considered restrained. [...] This formulation imposes restrained on the target which makes it a superior grapple.A great start!


When you grapple a creature, you can make a shove attempt against that creature as a bonus action.Shoving a creature that is already restrained is a bad idea. It protects the restrained creature from ranged attacks, and doesn't inflict any new nerfs. I would remove or replace this bullet point.


You may attack grappled creatures with unarmed attacks or melee weapons. [...] It allows the grappler to perform unarmed and armed attacks on the grappled creature, which is pretty much a feature of all combat grappling systems/practices. 5e already allows the grappler to perform unarmed and armed attacks. This bullet point has no effect at all.


It allows dexterous grapplers but requires a higher standard for them, reflecting the educated use of leverage rather than brute strength.Honestly, I would remove the prerequisites from this feat completely. High-Strength grapplers will always meet the Strength prerequisite. Low-Strength grapplers will have a hard time grappling in the first place, and so benefit less from the feat.

I'd write the feat as so:


Grappler

You've developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You gain the following benefits:

You can attempt to Grapple a creature as a bonus action.
Creatures you have Grappled are also Restrained.
When you release a Grappled creature, you can push it 5 feet in any direction or knock it prone.

jjordan
2021-05-11, 01:41 PM
Good points. Let's change this out a little bit.


Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13+ or Dexterity 15+

You've developed the skills necessary to hold your own in close-quarters grappling. You may grapple humanoid creatures one size larger or smaller than you. You gain the following benefits:

You may choose to use Athletics or Acrobatics to initiate the grapple and for all contested grapple checks and do not require a free hand to do so.
Creatures you have grappled are considered restrained.
When you grapple a creature, you can make a shove attempt against that creature as a bonus action.
You may attack grappled creatures with unarmed attacks or melee weapons.
If you are grappled you roll with advantage when trying to escape a grapple imposed by a humanoid creature. If you beat the contested grapple by 6 or more points you may elect to grapple the creature you just escaped from.


This formulation imposes restrained on the target which makes it a superior grapple.
It allows for dexterity based grappling attacks.
It makes the shove a bonus action rather than an action.
It explicitly allows weapon attacks in case some DM says it's obvious that grappling is unarmed combat.
It allows the grappler to reverse the situation (which could potentially go back and forth with two grapplers).

Probably too powerful as formulated but I'll put all the options on the table so the OP can pick and choose.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-11, 02:07 PM
You may choose to use Athletics or Acrobatics to initiate the grapple and for all contested grapple checks and do not require a free hand to do so. [...] It allows for dexterity based grappling attacks. Reasonable! This justifies the prerequisites to a degree.


When you grapple a creature, you can make a shove attempt against that creature as a bonus action. [...] It makes the shove a bonus action rather than an action. Again, this isn't useful. Shoving a restrained creature prone makes it less vulnerable. All attacks against restrained creatures have advantage. But ranged attacks against prone creatures have disadvantage.


You may attack grappled creatures with unarmed attacks or melee weapons. [...] It explicitly allows weapon attacks in case some DM says it's obvious that grappling is unarmed combat.5e already explicitly allows weapon attacks while grappling. The rules say "using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check", meaning that you can grapple while keeping one of your hands free to punch, stab, cast spells, climb or whatever you choose.


If you are grappled you roll with advantage when trying to escape a grapple imposed by a humanoid creature. Why just humanoids? Why not beasts, undead, giants, etc?

jjordan
2021-05-11, 02:16 PM
Again, this isn't useful. Shoving a restrained creature prone makes it less vulnerable. All attacks against restrained creatures have advantage. But ranged attacks against prone creatures have disadvantage.It allows you to take a creature to the ground AND attack it (again, at advantage if it's a melee attack). It is a little redundant given that my formulation allows the grappler to make attacks but it does give the grappler more options.


5e already explicitly allows weapon attacks while grappling. The rules say "using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check", meaning that you can grapple while keeping one of your hands free to punch, stab, cast spells, climb or whatever you choose.Yes, but this formulation doesn't require a free hand so the grappler could use a two-handed weapon while grappling and still make attacks.


Why just humanoids? Why not beasts, undead, giants, etc?Personal preference based on the idea that the grappler uses their knowledge of how bodies work as part of their skill and the principles wouldn't fully apply in many cases with creatures that aren't humanoid in design. I would be fine with undead and giants being considered humanoid.

GalacticAxekick
2021-05-11, 02:26 PM
It allows you to take a creature to the ground AND attack it (again, at advantage if it's a melee attack). It is a little redundant given that my formulation allows the grappler to make attacks but it does give the grappler more options.You can already attack the grappled creature, and you already have advantage on melee attacks against restrained creatures. You and your allies dont benefit from knocking your grappled, restrained target prone.

It does benefit your target, however, because being prone imposes disadvantage on ranged attacks against him.


Yes, but this formulation doesn't require a free hand so the grappler could use a two-handed weapon while grappling and still make attacks.THAT is what you should write. Not "You can attack with unarmed strikes and melee weapons" but instead "you can wield weapons and attack using both hands".