Fighting Style, Feat, or Class feature? Batman-vanishing baddies.

[Segev]

What kind of build resource/mechanic is an appropriate one to spend to acquire an ability like this?

Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
May come with additional requirements - e.g. if it's a monk ability, maybe only when using unarmored movement, or a use of Cunning Action, or something.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not.

The idea here being that you can move easily while dragging grapple victims off, and can make them disappear without their buddies noticing.

[ff7hero]

My gut response is Str/Dex Half-Feat.

Incidentally my Winged Tiefling Lore Bard would love this.

[Mastikator]

I'd say the Grappler feat should just get those benefits. It's an underpowered feat (IMO) and those are cool things to add to it.

[Angelalex242]

I'd agree. Grappler is known to be terrible. This seems like a good addition. In addition, if your hide check is successful, the creature is unable to scream or otherwise give its location away.

[Deathtongue]

What kind of build resource/mechanic is an appropriate one to spend to acquire an ability like this?

Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
May come with additional requirements - e.g. if it's a monk ability, maybe only when using unarmored movement, or a use of Cunning Action, or something.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not.

The idea here being that you can move easily while dragging grapple victims off, and can make them disappear without their buddies noticing.

I'd just fold that into the Grappler feat for free. I'd probably also make it so that any creature you're grappling while you're hidden is also hidden with you. If after grappling the creature, as your Interact With Object action you can make a second Athletics check or a Stealth check with disadvantage versus the target's Athletics or Acrobatics check -- if they fail, the other creature can't make a sound or subvert the result of your Stealth check so long as you maintain the grapple.

[Segev]

For clarity, the "whether they want it to or not" clause is intended to achieve the prevention of the grappled targets from breaking the stealth voluntarily. Might need to make it a bonus action to re-roll Stealth each turn, though.

[ChaosStar]

Putting these on Grappler would make it almost an always take option for stealth scouts, so I approve. I definitely would like to do this kind of thing with my stealthy characters.

[Segev]

So maybe rewrite Grappler to be something like this?

Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13
You’ve developed the Skills necessary to hold your own in close--quarters Grappling. You gain the following benefits:

You have advantage on Attack Rolls against a creature you are Grappling.
Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not, preventing them from alerting those who cannot beat your Dexterity(Stealth) check to their predicament. You may continue to forcibly hide those you have grappled by making a new Hide check each round as a bonus action.

[Deathtongue]

When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not, preventing them from alerting those who cannot beat your Dexterity(Stealth) check to their predicament. You may continue to forcibly hide those you have grappled by making a new Hide check each round as a bonus action.[/list]I don't think this goes far enough. There are a lot of ways to automatically break stealth in 5E D&D no matter what you roll, such as by throwing something noisy, casting certain spells, using a light, etc.. You either need to find a way to go 'lol no' to attempts to subvert the system or take away their ability to take actions while grappled.

Yes, it's going to sound really clunky, but the Stealth rules themselves are really clunky. Such is life.

[Segev]

"Creatures cannot successfully perform actions that would break your stealth while grappled, or any actions they do perform fail to break the stealth, at the DM's discretion," perhaps?

[Reach Weapon]

"Creatures cannot successfully perform actions that would break your stealth while grappled, or any actions they do perform fail to break the stealth, at the DM's discretion," perhaps?
Help DMs by specifying contested checks?

[Kane0]

Yeah adding into Grappler spunds good to me

[kazaryu]

Help DMs by specifying contested checks?

i'd agree with it being a contested check. although grappling already is a contested check so...maybe unnecesary. if they can beat your grapple then obviously they can auto break the stealth.



OP might wanna specifiy that this does require both your free hands to pull off though. since you're trying to control a mouth, 2 arms and 2 legs.

[Bobthewizard]

So maybe rewrite Grappler to be something like this?

Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13
You’ve developed the Skills necessary to hold your own in close--quarters Grappling. You gain the following benefits:

You have advantage on Attack Rolls against a creature you are Grappling.
Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not, preventing them from alerting those who cannot beat your Dexterity(Stealth) check to their predicament. You may continue to forcibly hide those you have grappled by making a new Hide check each round as a bonus action.

I like this although I'd make the contested check the Athletics check to get out of the grapple instead of stealth. You are forcing them to be quiet.


I don't think this goes far enough. There are a lot of ways to automatically break stealth in 5E D&D no matter what you roll, such as by throwing something noisy, casting certain spells, using a light, etc.. You either need to find a way to go 'lol no' to attempts to subvert the system or take away their ability to take actions while grappled.

Yes, it's going to sound really clunky, but the Stealth rules themselves are really clunky. Such is life.


"Creatures cannot successfully perform actions that would break your stealth while grappled, or any actions they do perform fail to break the stealth, at the DM's discretion," perhaps?

I think both of these make it too powerful. The target should be able to do something creative to alert their allies. Maybe just say they can't speak so that takes out any verbal spells. So I'd end up with this.

Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13
You’ve developed the Skills necessary to hold your own in close--quarters Grappling. You gain the following benefits:

You have advantage on Attack Rolls against a creature you are Grappling.
Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use two hands to prevent the target from speaking, and use a bonus action to Hide both yourself and the target.

[Segev]

Being able to "do something creative to alert allies" essentially negates the stealth option entirely. Anything you could do would be something the rappler is trying to prevent as part of this modified grapple. The point of the Stealth check isn't to oppose the grappled creature, but to set the DC to notice both grappler and victim with Perception. It has to be repeated each round as a bonus action to represent the difficulty and inconsistency of keeping a struggling victim from drawing attention.

The grapple itself is the victim's chance to break the stealth, since if he breaks the grapple, he is no longer forced to use the Stealth check the grappler rolled for him.

[Sorinth]

Just as a note anyone should be able to attempt the grapple/disappear combat trick. A feature should just make you better at it. So first figure out the normal sequence of actions/checks for someone without the feature, and then see how the feature can improve the success chance or action economy or both.

If for example you play with the common house rule that moving while stealthed is half speed then this combat trick would normally bring you to quarter/third speed. So the bonus could simply be you move at normal speed while stealthed bringing you back up to half speed and giving bonuses even when not doing this particular combat trick.

If the stealth check should normally cost a BA and be at disadvantage, then the feat could either make it a free action and not cost your BA, and/or remove the disadvantage. Keep in mind having two stealth checks is very similar to just having one attempt at disadvantage.

[stoutstien]

Had a player do a similar combo with grappling and the skulker feat with a rogue/monk PC. It had a strong Boogeyman feeling.

[Sorinth]

Being able to "do something creative to alert allies" essentially negates the stealth option entirely. Anything you could do would be something the rappler is trying to prevent as part of this modified grapple. The point of the Stealth check isn't to oppose the grappled creature, but to set the DC to notice both grappler and victim with Perception. It has to be repeated each round as a bonus action to represent the difficulty and inconsistency of keeping a struggling victim from drawing attention.

The grapple itself is the victim's chance to break the stealth, since if he breaks the grapple, he is no longer forced to use the Stealth check the grappler rolled for him.

I would treat the "something creative" towards making the check at advantage but not breaking the grapple. So for example if instead of trying to break the grapple the person tries to kick over chair he's being dragged past then there would still be an opposed check since the grapple will try to prevent it, but since it's a lot easier to kick over a chair then it is to break the grapple the victim gets advantage on their check, if they succeed they may have alerted their allies but haven't broken the grapple.

[Segev]

Just as a note anyone should be able to attempt the grapple/disappear combat trick. A feature should just make you better at it. So first figure out the normal sequence of actions/checks for someone without the feature, and then see how the feature can improve the success chance or action economy or both.

If for example you play with the common house rule that moving while stealthed is half speed then this combat trick would normally bring you to quarter/third speed. So the bonus could simply be you move at normal speed while stealthed bringing you back up to half speed and giving bonuses even when not doing this particular combat trick.

If the stealth check should normally cost a BA and be at disadvantage, then the feat could either make it a free action and not cost your BA, and/or remove the disadvantage. Keep in mind having two stealth checks is very similar to just having one attempt at disadvantage.
The normal rules are that attempting a grapple against a creature "breaks stealth." Not in those words, but you are no longer Hidden and you can't do so without alerting others.

There is a little wiggle room in that a DM might choose to allow you to make a Dexterity(Stealth) check to grab somebody unseen, but that would be the DM ruling at his table. It may or may not rise to the level of a "house rule" - it's unclear if it is actively ALTERING existing rules to let that happen. But it is dubious that a DM would permit that except in extremely limited circumstances, and there are many DMs who wouldn't at all because the RAW do not permit it explicitly.

I agree with your overall approach to rule design, Sorinth, but I already followed it when designing this ability/feature: the RAW currently make no provision for permitting "grab somebody and abscond without anybody noticing."


I would treat the "something creative" towards making the check at advantage but not breaking the grapple. So for example if instead of trying to break the grapple the person tries to kick over chair he's being dragged past then there would still be an opposed check since the grapple will try to prevent it, but since it's a lot easier to kick over a chair then it is to break the grapple the victim gets advantage on their check, if they succeed they may have alerted their allies but haven't broken the grapple.
You're still assuming there's a separate opposed check other than the grapple. There isn't, nor do I think there should be. Breaking free of the grapple letting you call for help is perfectly fine. The Dexterity(Stealth) check and required bonus action to keep making it every round lest the grappled target get to "stop hiding" and call for help or whatnot is plenty of burden on the character who invested in a feat to gain this ability. If he rolls poorly, people with higher passive perception scores will notice anyway, and that already can represent the victim managing to make noise or kick over a table or something. The fact that the grappler has to make a new check every turn as a bonus action creates such opportunities.

The target's ability to resist is represented in his ability to make opposed Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics) checks to break the grapple, because the moment he succeeds at one of those, the forced-hiding ends, too.

[Sorinth]

The normal rules are that attempting a grapple against a creature "breaks stealth." Not in those words, but you are no longer Hidden and you can't do so without alerting others.

There is a little wiggle room in that a DM might choose to allow you to make a Dexterity(Stealth) check to grab somebody unseen, but that would be the DM ruling at his table. It may or may not rise to the level of a "house rule" - it's unclear if it is actively ALTERING existing rules to let that happen. But it is dubious that a DM would permit that except in extremely limited circumstances, and there are many DMs who wouldn't at all because the RAW do not permit it explicitly.

I agree with your overall approach to rule design, Sorinth, but I already followed it when designing this ability/feature: the RAW currently make no provision for permitting "grab somebody and abscond without anybody noticing."


You're still assuming there's a separate opposed check other than the grapple. There isn't, nor do I think there should be. Breaking free of the grapple letting you call for help is perfectly fine. The Dexterity(Stealth) check and required bonus action to keep making it every round lest the grappled target get to "stop hiding" and call for help or whatnot is plenty of burden on the character who invested in a feat to gain this ability. If he rolls poorly, people with higher passive perception scores will notice anyway, and that already can represent the victim managing to make noise or kick over a table or something. The fact that the grappler has to make a new check every turn as a bonus action creates such opportunities.

The target's ability to resist is represented in his ability to make opposed Strength(Athletics) or Dexterity(Acrobatics) checks to break the grapple, because the moment he succeeds at one of those, the forced-hiding ends, too.

It seems weird to say something isn't RAW when proposing homebrew stuff to begin with. It's also not even correct to say it's not RAW since Improvising an Action is RAW and this would simply fall under that. So yeah some DMs will certainly say no way, but then again I doubt those DMs allow homebrew feats.

[Unoriginal]

If you want to hide someone against their will, they need to be prevented from alerting others in one way or another.

Do you prevent the grappled person from making any noise?

Doing that on most casters is just one-hit-KOing them.

[Segev]

It seems weird to say something isn't RAW when proposing homebrew stuff to begin with. It's also not even correct to say it's not RAW since Improvising an Action is RAW and this would simply fall under that. So yeah some DMs will certainly say no way, but then again I doubt those DMs allow homebrew feats.

The point is more at there is no eablished rule for staying hidden while initiating a grapple, let alone doing so while maintaining one and preventing the target from alerting others. So the features as written here already enhance what is there; they don't overwrite or ignore existing rules.


If you want to hide someone against their will, they need to be prevented from alerting others in one way or another.

Do you prevent the grappled person from making any noise?

Doing that on most casters is just one-hit-KOing them.

That is a good point. Anything that lets them cast while not being able to draw attention woild also be exploitable to allow allied casters to cast unnoticed.

Maybe make it take your action to make the subsequent stealth checks? You're not able to do anything other than keep them quiet, which pays for denying them potentially central-to-their combat techniques capabilities.

[Sorinth]

If you want to hide someone against their will, they need to be prevented from alerting others in one way or another.

Do you prevent the grappled person from making any noise?

Doing that on most casters is just one-hit-KOing them.

Off topic but so what? No one has a problem with something like Hold Person completely neutralizing a person. Why would it be unfair for a martial to do something similar but weaker.

Preventing someone from making any noise is obviously more difficult then just grappling them and should be reflected as such. As an example it should take two free hands instead of one, and it probably should impose disadvantage on the grapple check. But the idea that it's impossible to clamp your hand over someone's mouth to prevent them from making a sound is absurd

[Sorinth]

The point is more at there is no eablished rule for staying hidden while initiating a grapple, let alone doing so while maintaining one and preventing the target from alerting others. So the features as written here already enhance what is there; they don't overwrite or ignore existing rules.

Which is why it's important to establish what the actual rulings would be first. You haven't enhanced anything because you have no idea what the baseline is. If the DM rules that you don't have to use your BA and instead it simply a grapple check at disadvantage then your new feature hasn't enhanced anything, it's a crap that is worse then the default (Much like the pin a creature portion of the Grappler feat is just a crappier Shove action).

[Segev]

Which is why it's important to establish what the actual rulings would be first. You haven't enhanced anything because you have no idea what the baseline is. If the DM rules that you don't have to use your BA and instead it simply a grapple check at disadvantage then your new feature hasn't enhanced anything, it's a crap that is worse then the default (Much like the pin a creature portion of the Grappler feat is just a crappier Shove action).

The trouble is that you're telling me to establish from the RAW something the RAW doesn't have. :smallannoyed: "You can't make a houserule/homebrew that does this because you haven't established what the RAW for it already are." The baseline assumption here is that, since the RAW are silent, there is no way to do this without DM (house-)ruling. This is designed to be codified such that it answers that gap.

Am I just not understanding your point? It seems to me like you're telling me that I can't make a homebrew to do something the rules don't already allow you to do.

[Sorinth]

The trouble is that you're telling me to establish from the RAW something the RAW doesn't have. :smallannoyed: "You can't make a houserule/homebrew that does this because you haven't established what the RAW for it already are." The baseline assumption here is that, since the RAW are silent, there is no way to do this without DM (house-)ruling. This is designed to be codified such that it answers that gap.

Am I just not understanding your point? It seems to me like you're telling me that I can't make a homebrew to do something the rules don't already allow you to do.

You can absolutely homebrew something the rules don't allow, but that's not what you're doing, the rules already 100% allow you to do this. It's text book Improvising an Action case, as it's obviously physically possible to do so there's literally no reason to not allow an attempt. They just left it up to the DM to determine how easy/hard it is, just like many other things were left vague and up to DM interpretation.

So if you are going to homebrew a feat you should also present what you consider the normal rulings to be, and/or ask how others play it because how strong/weak the feat is depends what that normal ruling is. If the only way to stop verbal components of spellcasting is a Silence spell then the feat is a lot more attractive then if the feat only removes a Disadvantage that the DM is imposing.

[Segev]

Honestly, the main impus was the full speed movement while grappling.

Why do you say that it is possible to improvise remaining stealthy while initiating a grapple? The rules indicate that attacking breaks stealth.

I am trying not to be hostile, here, so I apologize if I am. I just don't see the 'textbook improvise an action' here unless everything qualifies, because it seems to me the that this is improvising an action that breaks the rules. So what can't you do?

[Mastikator]

Grappling is absolutely a stealth-breaking action, but breaking to whom? To the grapplee? Yes. To someone directly looking at the grapplee? Also yes. To someone in the vicinity who would have to rely on hearing? Not necessarily. For that I'd make the player make a new stealth check with disadvantage.
If you want to prevent the target from making noise then you can cover their mouths to muffle their speech. But they can still stomp and make sounds with their limbs. If you want to completely silence them, cast Silence on them.

Moving at full speed, getting advantage on rolls involving grappling, I think these should just be added to the Grappler feat.

[Sorinth]

Honestly, the main impus was the full speed movement while grappling.

Why do you say that it is possible to improvise remaining stealthy while initiating a grapple? The rules indicate that attacking breaks stealth.

I am trying not to be hostile, here, so I apologize if I am. I just don't see the 'textbook improvise an action' here unless everything qualifies, because it seems to me the that this is improvising an action that breaks the rules. So what can't you do?

It's a textbook example because it's not covered by the rules yet clearly something that is possible to do.

If at night someone 600ft away from you shoots a longbow at you or better yet someone standing 30ft away from you, do you immediately know the exact location of the archer because they broke stealth with the attack? I would assume most people/DMs would say no you don't know exactly where they are and that at best have a general direction but nothing more.

[Sorinth]

Grappling is absolutely a stealth-breaking action, but breaking to whom? To the grapplee? Yes. To someone directly looking at the grapplee? Also yes. To someone in the vicinity who would have to rely on hearing? Not necessarily. For that I'd make the player make a new stealth check with disadvantage.
If you want to prevent the target from making noise then you can cover their mouths to muffle their speech. But they can still stomp and make sounds with their limbs. If you want to completely silence them, cast Silence on them.

Moving at full speed, getting advantage on rolls involving grappling, I think these should just be added to the Grappler feat.

Exactly, how possible/likely it is depends on the situation which is probably one reason they left it up to the DM to decide.

The target can attempt to make noise on their turn but how successful they are depends on how good the grappler has them locked up and how far away they can drag the target before the target has a turn. A Rogue with 30ft movement who can sneak right up behind someone and wins initiative and gets a surprise round can grapple as an action, drag them 15ft with their move, BA Dash another 15ft, and next turn move another 15ft, dash as an action 15ft and somewhere along the way BA hide. So they can pull the target 60ft away before the target can even try to make noise.

Personally I'd hand out Disadvantage on both the grapple and stealth checks when you are also trying to silence them and have it require two free hands.

[Segev]

That is an entire set of mechanucs that aren't printed.

I do see why you said you want a baseline established.

The baseline I was working from is simpler: the rules say you can't maintain stealth and grapple. Thus, the mechanics here. I do appreciate the thought you put into your own ruling on what can be done sans feat.

I think, still, this feat would give an obvious addendum: if you do the things it says, stealth is maintained, and you do not suffer movement penalties. This is, I believe, already enhancing what you wrote, isn't it?

[JackPhoenix]

The baseline I was working from is simpler: the rules say you can't maintain stealth and grapple. Thus, the mechanics here. I do appreciate the thought you put into your own ruling on what can be done sans feat.

The rules don't say any such thing. RAW, you break stealth when you're discovered, attack or make a noise, but nothing stops you from hiding again, if you fulfill the requirement of not being seen clearly. A rogue under Greater Invisibility or lightfoot halfling grappling a medium creature can immediately Hide as BA and stay hidden from anyone except the grappled creature afterwards. Doesn't help to hide the graplee, but you're halfway there already.

[Segev]

The rules don't say any such thing. RAW, you break stealth when you're discovered, attack or make a noise, but nothing stops you from hiding again, if you fulfill the requirement of not being seen clearly. A rogue under Greater Invisibility or lightfoot halfling grappling a medium creature can immediately Hide as BA and stay hidden from anyone except the grappled creature afterwards. Doesn't help to hide the graplee, but you're halfway there already.

Leaving aside that you had to make an attack to grapple (it's an attack action) and thus revealed yourself, so everybody saw you appear and grab the guy, doesn't the ability as written enhance that baseline, too? It enables you to use a bonus action to hide after grappling somebody to cause them to also be hidden. (There's a bit more to it, but that's the relevant part here, I think.)

[Sorinth]

Leaving aside that you had to make an attack to grapple (it's an attack action) and thus revealed yourself, so everybody saw you appear and grab the guy, doesn't the ability as written enhance that baseline, too? It enables you to use a bonus action to hide after grappling somebody to cause them to also be hidden. (There's a bit more to it, but that's the relevant part here, I think.)

If they can see you then you are no longer hidden. My assumption for your situation was that nobody ever actually sees you and it's more about not making a noise as you grapple/attack. As an example 5 people walking in single file looking forward and you grab the last one in the line. If you don't make a noise then they don't realize the last guy has been taken until someone eventually looks back, if you fail and a noise is made the other guys in the line turn around and see you. If you are wanting the feat to allow you to stay hidden so that even when someone is looking directly at the target they never even see you grab the target then I don't really like it. You need something to actually break line of sight to hide/stay hidden, it's not invisibility.

[Segev]

If they can see you then you are no longer hidden. My assumption for your situation was that nobody ever actually sees you and it's more about not making a noise as you grapple/attack. As an example 5 people walking in single file looking forward and you grab the last one in the line. If you don't make a noise then they don't realize the last guy has been taken until someone eventually looks back, if you fail and a noise is made the other guys in the line turn around and see you. If you are wanting the feat to allow you to stay hidden so that even when someone is looking directly at the target they never even see you grab the target then I don't really like it. You need something to actually break line of sight to hide/stay hidden, it's not invisibility.

The assumption, as written, is that you are already hiding before you make the attack action that grapples the target. "The last guy in a single-file line" is a good example to use, so I will gleefully run with it. :smallbiggrin: As I understand the RAW - not counting any homebrew - there is no directionality to awareness, and sight isn't the only thing used to detect things. If Bob isn't Hiding when he walks out into the hallway behind the line of guys, everyone in that line is aware Bob is there. There's no need to justify them turning their heads to glance back; Bob wasn't hidden, so they knew he was there, and if there's any reason the player controlling the single file line wanted them to glance back to look at Bob so they definitely saw him, their awareness of his presence is assumed to be sufficient to prompt them to make that glance.

Now, the rules for Stealth and Hiding directly state that the DM determines what allows for sufficient obscurement and opportunity to Hide. If Bob rolls Stealth to Hide before stepping out, the DM is perfectly in his rights to say that anybody whose passive Perception was not sufficient to meet or beat Bob's Dexterity(Stealth) check didn't turn around to look. If any of them have sufficiently high passive Perception, the DM could rule they heard Bob's feet, smelled his body odor on the wind in the tunnel, or even just happened to turn around at the wrong moment and saw him quietly sneaking up on them.

The RAW (as I understand it) on Grabbing the Last Guy In Line
Let's assume, now, that Bob's Stealth is good enough that nobody in the line noticed him approaching. Bob is now right behind Steve, the last guy in the line. With no other rules in place, the RAW state that attacking breaks stealth. Bob attempts the grab, and everybody immediately rolls Initiative. The DM, in good faith, rules that the single file line of guys, including Steve, are Surprised, so even if Bob rolls atrociously or one of the line of guys rolls well, nobody but Bob is acting on this initial round. As soon as Bob makes the attack action to initiate the grapple, he is no longer Hiding, per the RAW. Everyone in that single-file line is aware he's there, and needs no further excuse to turn around and see Bob grabbing Steve.

Even if Bob wins the grapple and immediately tries to Hide again, the DM is being extremely generous if he rules that there is a place for Bob to hide, and, as you noted, Steve won't be hidden. So now the line of guys sees Steve being dragged off, potentially not able to pick out who or whatever it is that'd dragging him.

There is no mechanical way without house-ruling AWAY the fact that attacking ends hiding for Bob to stealthily snatch Steve away from the line and drag him off without anybody in the line noticing.

What the Proposed Homebrew Enables
The proposed homebrew allows Bob to make his attack action and spend a bonus action to roll a new Dexterity(Stealth) check. As long as that check exceeds the passive Perception of everybody (except Steve) in the line of guys, Bob never ceases to be Hidden and nobody notices Steve being grabbed, and they won't look back to see Bob and Steve disappearing down the nearest side-passage.

Thus, to my knowledge, the homebrew I presented does what you said it should: starts with the baseline of the rules as written and enhances or enables. Enables, in this case, because the RAW provide specific provisions that otherwise prevent this from working.

[Sorinth]

The assumption, as written, is that you are already hiding before you make the attack action that grapples the target. "The last guy in a single-file line" is a good example to use, so I will gleefully run with it. :smallbiggrin: As I understand the RAW - not counting any homebrew - there is no directionality to awareness, and sight isn't the only thing used to detect things. If Bob isn't Hiding when he walks out into the hallway behind the line of guys, everyone in that line is aware Bob is there. There's no need to justify them turning their heads to glance back; Bob wasn't hidden, so they knew he was there, and if there's any reason the player controlling the single file line wanted them to glance back to look at Bob so they definitely saw him, their awareness of his presence is assumed to be sufficient to prompt them to make that glance.

Now, the rules for Stealth and Hiding directly state that the DM determines what allows for sufficient obscurement and opportunity to Hide. If Bob rolls Stealth to Hide before stepping out, the DM is perfectly in his rights to say that anybody whose passive Perception was not sufficient to meet or beat Bob's Dexterity(Stealth) check didn't turn around to look. If any of them have sufficiently high passive Perception, the DM could rule they heard Bob's feet, smelled his body odor on the wind in the tunnel, or even just happened to turn around at the wrong moment and saw him quietly sneaking up on them.

The RAW (as I understand it) on Grabbing the Last Guy In Line
Let's assume, now, that Bob's Stealth is good enough that nobody in the line noticed him approaching. Bob is now right behind Steve, the last guy in the line. With no other rules in place, the RAW state that attacking breaks stealth. Bob attempts the grab, and everybody immediately rolls Initiative. The DM, in good faith, rules that the single file line of guys, including Steve, are Surprised, so even if Bob rolls atrociously or one of the line of guys rolls well, nobody but Bob is acting on this initial round. As soon as Bob makes the attack action to initiate the grapple, he is no longer Hiding, per the RAW. Everyone in that single-file line is aware he's there, and needs no further excuse to turn around and see Bob grabbing Steve.

Even if Bob wins the grapple and immediately tries to Hide again, the DM is being extremely generous if he rules that there is a place for Bob to hide, and, as you noted, Steve won't be hidden. So now the line of guys sees Steve being dragged off, potentially not able to pick out who or whatever it is that'd dragging him.

There is no mechanical way without house-ruling AWAY the fact that attacking ends hiding for Bob to stealthily snatch Steve away from the line and drag him off without anybody in the line noticing.

What the Proposed Homebrew Enables
The proposed homebrew allows Bob to make his attack action and spend a bonus action to roll a new Dexterity(Stealth) check. As long as that check exceeds the passive Perception of everybody (except Steve) in the line of guys, Bob never ceases to be Hidden and nobody notices Steve being grabbed, and they won't look back to see Bob and Steve disappearing down the nearest side-passage.

Thus, to my knowledge, the homebrew I presented does what you said it should: starts with the baseline of the rules as written and enhances or enables. Enables, in this case, because the RAW provide specific provisions that otherwise prevent this from working.

A strict ruling of the RAW and Bob can't even sneak up behind Steve at all because he is visible once he steps out of his hidding place. The hiding section in the PHB even states "If you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." So whether you can sneak up on Steve is already under the DM making a ruling. I think most DMs would allow you to sneak right up behind Steve, but it's important to note it because if the DM is using the stricter ruling then the feat is almost entirely useless.

In terms of the attack revealing your position. A normal attack without taking any precautions gives away your position just like normal movement gives away your position. But who you give it away to is up to the DM and is based on who is reasonably expected to hear/see the attack. If you climb a castle wall and kill a guard standing watch you won't have given your position away to every single being in the castle, only those who have a reasonable chance of seeing/hearing the attack would potentially be alerted. For the line of 5 people it's going to depend on how spaced out they are, if they are all standing next to each other then they will probably all be alerted, if they are standing far apart then maybe only some of them would be.

Now part of this comes down to can you make an attack more quiet then a normal attack? I can't see why that wouldn't fall under Improvising An Action rule since it's obviously possible to try and make your attack quieter then normal, so the DM just has to determine what rolls are required, how difficult they are, and if any are at advantage/disadvantage. I'd personally ask for a Stealth check as part of the attack and have a DC of 25 for anyone within 30ft and then drop the DC by 5 for every additional 30ft. I'd potentially also hand out disadvantage to either the attack/grapple roll, the stealth check or even both depending on what exactly they are doing. One hand over the targets mouth while the other hand stabs him with a dagger, and then lowering the body to the floor to not make a sound probably doesn't incur disadvantage, trying to kill the guard with a two-handed axe swing to the head is going to have disadvantage on the stealth check, whereas grappling the dragging them away would have disadvantage for both grapple and stealth checks.

I can understand the desire to have a clear rule on the matter, but just adding a feat without presenting the context of what the rules for non-feat attempts is only half the job.

[Segev]

A strict ruling of the RAW and Bob can't even sneak up behind Steve at all because he is visible once he steps out of his hidding place. The hiding section in the PHB even states "If you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you." So whether you can sneak up on Steve is already under the DM making a ruling. I think most DMs would allow you to sneak right up behind Steve, but it's important to note it because if the DM is using the stricter ruling then the feat is almost entirely useless.

In terms of the attack revealing your position. A normal attack without taking any precautions gives away your position just like normal movement gives away your position. But who you give it away to is up to the DM and is based on who is reasonably expected to hear/see the attack. If you climb a castle wall and kill a guard standing watch you won't have given your position away to every single being in the castle, only those who have a reasonable chance of seeing/hearing the attack would potentially be alerted. For the line of 5 people it's going to depend on how spaced out they are, if they are all standing next to each other then they will probably all be alerted, if they are standing far apart then maybe only some of them would be.

Now part of this comes down to can you make an attack more quiet then a normal attack? I can't see why that wouldn't fall under Improvising An Action rule since it's obviously possible to try and make your attack quieter then normal, so the DM just has to determine what rolls are required, how difficult they are, and if any are at advantage/disadvantage. I'd personally ask for a Stealth check as part of the attack and have a DC of 25 for anyone within 30ft and then drop the DC by 5 for every additional 30ft. I'd potentially also hand out disadvantage to either the attack/grapple roll, the stealth check or even both depending on what exactly they are doing. One hand over the targets mouth while the other hand stabs him with a dagger, and then lowering the body to the floor to not make a sound probably doesn't incur disadvantage, trying to kill the guard with a two-handed axe swing to the head is going to have disadvantage on the stealth check, whereas grappling the dragging them away would have disadvantage for both grapple and stealth checks.

I can understand the desire to have a clear rule on the matter, but just adding a feat without presenting the context of what the rules for non-feat attempts is only half the job.
I'm not disputing your claim that you could improvise an action to "make a quieter attack," but you could also improvise an action to "cast a quieter spell" or to "fire my bow a little further."

Whether a creature has sufficient obscurement to hide is always explicitly DM-dependent, precisely because 5e determined that trying to outline anything beyond defining "obscurement" would lead to too many corner cases (and they kind-of flubbed even that, as anybody who's read 'magical darkness' discussions on this forum can tell you).

I think, though, that even with your improvised "make a quieter attack" action in place, the ability as I have written it up adds to what your idea of an improvised action could potentially allow*, unless you're getting to the point where the Skulker feat is worthless because you should be able to improvise actions to do everything it permits. As is Keen Mind, Linguist, Actor, Athlete, and even Polearm Master. Why couldn't you improvise an action to swing the butt end of a polearm as a bonus action?

* Specifically, the ability as I added it permits Bob to never break Stealth by taking that bonus action, to (forcibly) hide Steve, and to move away while dragging Steve at full speed.

[Sorinth]

I'm not disputing your claim that you could improvise an action to "make a quieter attack," but you could also improvise an action to "cast a quieter spell" or to "fire my bow a little further."

Whether a creature has sufficient obscurement to hide is always explicitly DM-dependent, precisely because 5e determined that trying to outline anything beyond defining "obscurement" would lead to too many corner cases (and they kind-of flubbed even that, as anybody who's read 'magical darkness' discussions on this forum can tell you).

I think, though, that even with your improvised "make a quieter attack" action in place, the ability as I have written it up adds to what your idea of an improvised action could potentially allow*, unless you're getting to the point where the Skulker feat is worthless because you should be able to improvise actions to do everything it permits. As is Keen Mind, Linguist, Actor, Athlete, and even Polearm Master. Why couldn't you improvise an action to swing the butt end of a polearm as a bonus action?

* Specifically, the ability as I added it permits Bob to never break Stealth by taking that bonus action, to (forcibly) hide Steve, and to move away while dragging Steve at full speed.

Apart from cast quieter those things are already covered by the rules which is why they don't fall under Improvising an Action. And whether casting quietly is possible is based on how magic works. If you need to hit specific volumes/frequencies as part of the V component then you can't cast quietly period. But that's obviously not something you or I can say is feasible since magic isn't real, whereas putting your hand over someones mouth to keep them quiet as you stab them is something we can reasonably say whether it's possible.

The rules for attacking with the butt end of your polearm are covered by the Improvised Weapon rules. It's not the player that decides they are doing something as an action or bonus action, they describe what they do "I attack with the butt end of my polearm", the rules say that's an Improvised Weapon attack so no they don't get to decide they are doing it as a BA. Or they say "I shoot an arrow at them" the rules say if they are out of range it's an auto-miss. There's no improvising an action because the actions are already in the rules. If you can't honestly see the difference between that and attacking in a way that tries to minimize noise then there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

[Segev]

Apart from cast quieter those things are already covered by the rules which is why they don't fall under Improvising an Action. And whether casting quietly is possible is based on how magic works. If you need to hit specific volumes/frequencies as part of the V component then you can't cast quietly period. But that's obviously not something you or I can say is feasible since magic isn't real, whereas putting your hand over someones mouth to keep them quiet as you stab them is something we can reasonably say whether it's possible.

The rules for attacking with the butt end of your polearm are covered by the Improvised Weapon rules. It's not the player that decides they are doing something as an action or bonus action, they describe what they do "I attack with the butt end of my polearm", the rules say that's an Improvised Weapon attack so no they don't get to decide they are doing it as a BA. Or they say "I shoot an arrow at them" the rules say if they are out of range it's an auto-miss. There's no improvising an action because the actions are already in the rules. If you can't honestly see the difference between that and attacking in a way that tries to minimize noise then there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

The rules say that you are no longer hiding when you take the attack action. The rules say you can't cast quietly. I don't see how "I choose to attack in such a way that I don't stop hiding from anybody but the guy I'm attacking" is any more or less valid an improvised action than "I choose to cast the spell with the verbal component done quietly enough that people on the far side of the room can't hear me do it."

But the biggest part of the conversation I think worth continuing is this: How does the proposed ability NOT add to things even if the RAW were explicitly written to include the (well-thought-out) rules you improvised for sneaking up and snagging somebody? They provide a way to keep Steve hidden, which I don't think even your improvised action rules cover.

[Rukelnikov]

So maybe rewrite Grappler to be something like this?

Grappler
Prerequisite: Strength 13
You’ve developed the Skills necessary to hold your own in close--quarters Grappling. You gain the following benefits:

You have advantage on Attack Rolls against a creature you are Grappling.
Moving with grappled creatures does not cost extra movement.
When you grapple a creature on your turn while Hiding, you may use a bonus action to Hide again; your check applies to the creature(s) you grappled, whether they want it to or not, preventing them from alerting those who cannot beat your Dexterity(Stealth) check to their predicament. You may continue to forcibly hide those you have grappled by making a new Hide check each round as a bonus action.

I like the idea, and the proposed feat in general, but I think this part is too "generic", if a creature has telepathy is it somehow prevented from using it?

I think you could say that for creatures with a humanoid anatomy, they can't speak. This would indeed prevent spellcasters from using Verval components, and I think that's fine, but it doesn't need to be in the same bullet point as the other part.

My example would be:


If you succesfully grapple a creature from a Hidden position, you can remain hidden.
As a bonus action you can have your stealth check apply to a creature grappled by you, or a willing creature within your unarmed reach, until the end of your next turn.
When you are grappling a creature with a humanoid anatomy it can't speak or cast spells that have verbal components. This requires an extra free hand.


The thing is, it would be weird having to grapple your allies in order to make them stealthy, which is what the feat would encourage with your writting, so I think having it as a separate bullet point makes it cleaner, and also gives reason to take it beside the intended "Batman" usage. For that same reason, maybe it should be a half feat, grappling spellcasters to prevent them from casting certain spells would maybe be too costly as a full feat, but its considerable as a half feat.

I don't completely like the wordings I used, but it think the idea is clear.

[Segev]

It is actually not intended at all to help allies be stealthy. I just can't figure out how to prevent that without making it fail at its intended goal.

[Rukelnikov]

It is actually not intended at all to help allies be stealthy. I just can't figure out how to prevent that without making it fail at its intended goal.

I know it wasn't the original idea, but if we wanna infiltrate in a castle, you can just grapple the ally you wanna bring with you and have your stealth apply. Since that its gonna happen, its better to put it into the rules IMO.

I'll see if I can find a way to make it so we can have the intended use while discouraging it being used in allies.

[Segev]

It might be useful if we can figure out why Batman doesn't just grab people to sneak them into or out of places. Narratively, it's just not something he does. (Or does he?)

Could he? What about his technique would prevent it from sneaking Chief Commissioner Gordon through a villain's lair by grabbing the Commissioner and running through the lair with him?

[Rukelnikov]

It might be useful if we can figure out why Batman doesn't just grab people to sneak them into or out of places. Narratively, it's just not something he does. (Or does he?)

Could he? What about his technique would prevent it from sneaking Chief Commissioner Gordon through a villain's lair by grabbing the Commissioner and running through the lair with him?

Because he doesn't do it for prolonged periods of time, its generally a few seconds and then knocks them out or something, he doesn't go around carrying people stealthily long distances. The Arkham games are also like that.

But the thing is, in dnd, that's just not feasible, you cant expect to KO a creature you grapple on your very next turn. You could remove the repeatable part from it, but the same people that juggle weapons to make up for not having warcaster could do stuff like "grapple ally from hiding, take bonus action to hide them, move", next turn "release as free action and repeat". Here the DM could say that when the ally was released, people now see him, but... it just feels so inconsistent in world. Maybe you can only do this if you start your turn without grappling anyone?

[ff7hero]

It's super gamey, but you could add a clause like "once you've attempted this maneuver on a creature, you can't attempt it on that creature again until you finish a short rest."

Or just straight up say it only works on hostile creatures and leave the ball in the DM's court re: PCs trying to bend that word. There's precedent for this in Opportunity Attacks and War Caster.

[Thane of Fife]

I think in D&D terms, Batman is starting his turn hiding, jumping out and sneak attacking someone, knocking them out, then dragging their body back into hiding. The action might be described as Batman grabbing them first, but I don't think that's really grappling as D&D imagines it - practically speaking, once Batman lays his hands on them, they're at zero hit points. They're not alerting their friends because they're already "unconscious".

[Reach Weapon]

It might be useful if we can figure out why Batman doesn't just grab people to sneak them into or out of places. Narratively, it's just not something he does. (Or does he?)
I had been wanting to kind of work from the example a bit more.

As far as it goes, it seems pretty well in keeping with the Batman mythos that he'd grab less than cooperative "allies" and put them where he needs them, so that doesn't seem off. I think the other two uses are more common, being snatching a lone target out off the streets (unnoticed by unallied bystanders) for questioning and whittling down packs of low-level baddies.

It's this last type that is most similar to what you've been describing, but differs to some degree in the fact that Batman is less trying to be unnoticed than he is trying to create an atmosphere of fear (that his non-lethal methods might otherwise lack) and deny a target for massed fire. While some may simply disappear, I believe it's usually that successive rounds clarify what's happening, the depiction is the crowd simply can not react fast enough as individuals are dragged off into the dark.

Building from there, I can see how one could initiate surprise combat with a grapple, drag a victim off, using a bonus to hide both of you, have surprise negate the victim's turn and then attempt to dispatch them quietly on the next turn. Unfortunately, I see a bunch of ways that could go off script, and there should be support for that.

I can see a bunch of ways the victim could still be grappled, but otherwise eligible for their full compliment of actions, reactions, and the like. It seems to me that these all need to be covered by defined contests, as it's wildly over-powered to simply blanket nope someone otherwise.

Additionally, the dispatch step probably needs more support, as it seems like the choices are currently dragging the victim to allies or far enough that it doesn't matter, dispatching the victim in one turn, or using some sort of while-grappling damage against the victim (such as in the Unarmed Fighting style).