Combat, Unchained (PEACH)

[GalacticAxekick]

As part of my ongoing homebrew project to make martial characters more versatile and powerful, I've rewritten 5e's rules for unarmed combat (unarmed strikes, grapples, shoves, etc) and 5e's catalogue of weapons. In summary, here are my goals:
Make grappling and shoving useful to every martial character, rather than niche options for suboptimal builds
Make sure every weapon is useful, so that players are free to choose whichever weapon suits their character concept best
Make sure every weapon is unique, so that changing between weapons has an impact in combat
Introduce various weapons that 5e failed to introduce, without overcomplicating or unbalancing the game.


Let me know what you think!


Check it out here (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/h2ItStF8rtIU)

[strangebloke]

This seems fine, although pretty mild. There's a simple grammatical error in the first part of the strangle section. I'd also specify clearly in this section that a strangled foe cannot speak verbal components for a spell or otherwise make noise with its voice. If you want to be really careful you may want to specify that this ability only works on creatures who need to breathe, but that's probably unecessary. Really like it as an option however.

Two other small issues.

grappling is by default referred to as a "special melee attack" which is important for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that it governs how grappling interacts with reach. You probably don't want to remove that.
I would like it if a creature can contest a grapple by expending one of its attacks made as part of the attack action. This makes it easier for martials to get out of grapples which are otherwise pretty debilitating for them.


Beyond this, I just have suggestions for more options. Things like bodyslamming a grappled foe should be an option, its very common in the fiction. You could make this an attack, or (my preference) a simple movement-to-damage conversion. Something like:

Bodyslam
On your turn, if you are grappling a creature and next to a hard surface such as a wall or stone floor, you can spend movement to slam the grappled creature into the hard surface, dealing 1d6 damage for every 10 feet of movement spent in this way.

This gives grapplers a payoff that's not ridiculous (3d6 when you've given up an attack for control isn't insane at all) while also allowing for some very fun/flavorful combos, like a tabaxi grappler monk who flies across the room and CRUSHES an opponent, either by slamming them into the wall, or by jumping into the air and powerbombing them.

Another fun potential thing is to add item interactions to the list of things you can sub for attacks. A fighter swigging a potion or tossing a bomb in between attacks feels right, at least to me. Makes thiefs a bit sad, but makes everyone else happier.

[GalacticAxekick]

This seems fine, although pretty mild.Yeah! If it ain't broke don't fix it.

I mostly want to permit everything that should intuitively be possible, but that 5e disallows in combat:
Grapple or shove as an opportunity attack
Grapple or shove as a bonus action when you are using a light weapon
Two-weapon fighting applies to ranged weapons
Climb giant creatures
Treat your longsword/katana as a finesse weapon
Use a rapier optimally with one hand empty
Use a spear as a reach weapon!
Use a lance to knock your target prone (jousting!)

...and include options that 5e conspicuously missed
Strangling
Garrotes
Lassoes
Bolas
Boomerangs



There's a simple grammatical error in the first part of the strangle section. I'd also specify clearly in this section that a strangled foe cannot speak verbal components for a spell or otherwise make noise with its voice. If you want to be really careful you may want to specify that this ability only works on creatures who need to breathe, but that's probably unecessary. Really like it as an option however.Excellent notes. Fixed!


Grappling is by default referred to as a "special melee attack" which is important for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that it governs how grappling interacts with reach. You probably don't want to remove that.I don't see the importance of referring to it as a "special melee attack". For example, how does this effect the way grappling interacts with reach?


I would like it if a creature can contest a grapple by expending one of its attacks made as part of the attack action. This makes it easier for martials to get out of grapples which are otherwise pretty debilitating for them.Grapples end when you shove the grappler. Martials can spend one of their attacks made as part of the Attack action to escape grapples in this way. They can also do this to free other creatures from grapples!


Bodyslamming a grappled foe should be an option, its very common in the fiction. You could make this an attack, or (my preference) a simple movement-to-damage conversion. Something like:
Bodyslam
On your turn, if you are grappling a creature and next to a hard surface such as a wall or stone floor, you can spend movement to slam the grappled creature into the hard surface, dealing 1d6 damage for every 10 feet of movement spent in this way.My updated Light weapon property lets you grapple as a bonus action when you attack with a light weapon. So grapplers don't necessarily give much up.

A 1st level two-weapon Fighter is dealing 2d6+6 (13) damage per round. Over three rounds of combat that's a total 13, 26, 39.

A 1st level grappler is dealing 4d6+3 (17) damage per round (light weapon attack as an Action, grapple as a bonus action, body slam). Over three rounds that's a total 17, 34, 41.

Even if we ignore my updated Light property, features like Cunning Action make movement (and body slam damage) cheap. A 2nd level Rogue can use its Action to grapple and it's movement/bonus action body slam for 6d6 (21) damage in the very first round of combat. Every round after that, they can make a one-handed weapon attack for 1d8+3 (7.5) damage and body slam for another 21 (28.5 total). Over three rounds, that's a total 21, 49.5, 78.

If I can come up with a more balanced way to represent body slamming, though, I would like to include it!


Another fun potential thing is to add item interactions to the list of things you can sub for attacks. A fighter swigging a potion or tossing a bomb in between attacks feels right, at least to me. Makes thiefs a bit sad, but makes everyone else happier.Tossing a bomb should certainly count as an attack. The same quality that lets a high level Fighter or Barbarian throw javellins, darts or axes like mad should definitely let them throw bombs with ease. I think I'll edit the descriptions of many throwable items so that they are used "as part of the Attack action" instead of "as an action"!

Drinking potions quickly, though, doesn't make sense to me.

[strangebloke]

I don't see the importance of referring to it as a "special melee attack". For example, how does this effect the way grappling interacts with reach?
Well, some things like the bugbear refer to increasing the reach of your attacks. That applies to grapples currently, but wouldn't under this rule.

For an example of how this is already kind of broken, look at the poor astral monk, whose arms only increase reach for unarmed strikes (which grapples are not) and thus can't grapple from reach, even though the arms also are designed to allow you to grapple with.

It's annoying.



Grapples end when you shove the grappler. Martials can spend one of their attacks made as part of the Attack action to escape grapples in this way. They can also do this to free other creatures from grapples!
Ah, okay, that makes sense although the wording is unintuitive. It taking an action to contest a grapple seems to imply that this is always what it takes, even if that's not the RAW of what you wr


My updated Light weapon property lets you grapple as a bonus action when you attack with a light weapon. So grapplers don't necessarily give much up.

A 1st level two-weapon Fighter is dealing 2d6+6 (13) damage per round. Over three rounds of combat that's a total 13, 26, 39.

A 1st level grappler is dealing 4d6+3 (17) damage per round (light weapon attack as an Action, grapple as a bonus action, body slam). Over three rounds that's a total 17, 34, 41.

Even if we ignore my updated Light property, features like Cunning Action make movement (and body slam damage) cheap. A 2nd level Rogue can use its Action to grapple and it's movement/bonus action body slam for 6d6 (21) damage in the very first round of combat. Every round after that, they can make a one-handed weapon attack for 1d8+3 (7.5) damage and body slam for another 21 (28.5 total). Over three rounds, that's a total 21, 49.5, 78.

If I can come up with a more balanced way to represent body slamming, though, I would like to include it!

Well, I'd argue your example is a little unrealistic. If the rogue is starting in melee turn 1 this means they lost initiative and got charged - not a great start. And then to get massive deeps on subsequent rounds they need to stay in melee with 15 AC, thrashing the same target over and over. Its very likely either the target will escape or die or the rogue will. The 1st level grappler fighter you mention is dealing 4 more damage a round, but I'd argue that being unable to move is a serious drawback overall.

But fair enough, I hadn't really thought of this in detail, and upon considering it, the damage being unavoidable makes it much better. If you factor accuracy in, the grappler probably comes out WAY ahead. I also missed the bit about offhand grappling (Which is a great change) so wooops.

You could probably reword my thing to "if you succeeded on grappling a foe this turn..." to cut down on the round-after-round damage or at least add some failure chance on repeat rounds. You can release and regrapple and slam, but you might mess up. And even then you can probably still tune the slam damage down to 1d4/10 foot. That makes the grappler fighter deal 3d4+1d6+3=14 if they don't move at all, which I think is unreasonable. But they get the normal upside of grappling ofc.

Or you can just make it a special attack that deals 2d6 whenever you have a grappled foe, that's probably easier to balance.

[GalacticAxekick]

Well, some things like the bugbear refer to increasing the reach of your attacks. That applies to grapples currently, but wouldn't under this rule.The bugbear's reach absolutely applies to grapples under my rule. My rule says "When you take the Attack action or make an opportunity attack and you have at least one free hand, you can replace one or more of your attacks with an attempt to grapple a creature within your reach."


For an example of how this is already kind of broken, look at the poor astral monk, whose arms only increase reach for unarmed strikes (which grapples are not) and thus can't grapple from reach, even though the arms also are designed to allow you to grapple with.

It's annoying.I don't think the arms are designed to allow you to grapple. The only thing the arms can do, RAW, is make unarmed strikes.

Whether grappling is a "special melee attack" or not does not change this. And so I think this is an issue with the Astral Monk and not with my rules.


Ah, okay, that makes sense although the wording is unintuitive. It taking an action to contest a grapple seems to imply that this is always what it takes, even if that's not the RAW of what you wrote.In the PHB, grapples can be escaped as an action, and the grappled condition ends if the two creations are forced apart (for example, by a shove). People have been shoving to escape grapples since the release of 5e.

I understand that the PHB rules are unintuitive. So to clarify, I added the bolded clause:


"A grappled creature can use its action make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check. On a success, it escapes.

A grappled creature also escapes you chooses to free it, if you are incapacitated, or if an effect (such as a shove) forces you and the grappled creature apart."


Ah, okay, that makes sense although the wording is unintuitive. It taking an action to contest a grapple seems to imply that this is always what it takes, even if that's not the RAW of what you wroteThat wording is copied-and-pasted from the PHB. The PHB says that you can use your action to contest a grapple and also that a grapple ends if the grappler and the grappled creature are forcibly moved apart. So players have been shoving to escape grapples since 5e was released.


fair enough, I hadn't really thought of this in detail, and upon considering it, the damage being unavoidable makes it much better. If you factor accuracy in, the grappler probably comes out WAY ahead. I also missed the bit about offhand grappling (Which is a great change) so wooops.Glad you like that change!


You could probably reword my thing to "if you succeeded on grappling a foe this turn..." to cut down on the round-after-round damage or at least add some failure chance on repeat rounds. You can release and regrapple and slam, but you might mess up. And even then you can probably still tune the slam damage down to 1d4/10 foot. That makes the grappler fighter deal 3d4+1d6+3=14 if they don't move at all, which I think is unreasonable. But they get the normal upside of grappling ofc.So when I successfully grapple someone, I can run them into a wall and deal 1d4 damage for every 10 feet I spend. If I want to do this again I have to release and re-grapple them.

Unfortunately, I am forced to invoke Grod's Law: "you cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use."

I think a simple solution would be "If you shove a creature into a hard surface, it takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d4+your Strength." It's not a particularly appealing option (it's barely stronger than an unarmed strike), but it circumvents AC, so it could have niche use.


Or you can just make it a special attack that deals 2d6 whenever you have a grappled foe, that's probably easier to balance.Certainly easier to balance, but I don't think there's much point to including this rule if it's an ordinary attack that doesn't change the flow of combat at all. You could treat it as an unarmed strike and get the same result.

[strangebloke]

The bugbear's reach absolutely applies to grapples under my rule. My rule says "When you take the Attack action or make an opportunity attack and you have at least one free hand, you can replace one or more of your attacks with an attempt to grapple a creature within your reach."


Yes, but bugbear says "when you make a melee attack... your reach increases" Since a grapple here replaces a melee attack, but is not a melee attack, reach does not increase. Admittedly this isn't super important, but its something I have stuck in my craw.


In the PHB, grapples can be escaped as an action, and the grappled condition ends if the two creations are forced apart (for example, by a shove). People have been shoving to escape grapples since the release of 5e.

I understand that the PHB rules are unintuitive. So to clarify, I added the bolded clause:


"A grappled creature can use its action make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check. On a success, it escapes.

A grappled creature also escapes you chooses to free it, if you are incapacitated, or if an effect (such as a shove) forces you and the grappled creature apart."

That wording is copied-and-pasted from the PHB. The PHB says that you can use your action to contest a grapple and also that a grapple ends if the grappler and the grappled creature are forcibly moved apart. So players have been shoving to escape grapples since 5e was released.

Ah, alright, fair enough. The clarification is helpful.


Unfortunately, I am forced to invoke Grod's Law: "you cannot and should not balance mechanics by making them annoying to use."

I think a simple solution would be "If you shove a creature into a hard surface, it takes bludgeoning damage equal to 1d4+your Strength." It's not a particularly appealing option (it's barely stronger than an unarmed strike), but it circumvents AC, so it could have niche use.

I mean its still essentially free damage on top of a grapple that you can now make with a bonus action or reaction, so its a straight buff, and a pretty considerable one. Personally I'd be fine pushing it more (my stance is that current melee options are very bad) but I can see why you would want to avoid overdoing things.

Just my 2cp.

[GalacticAxekick]

Yes, but bugbear says "when you make a melee attack... your reach increases" Since a grapple here replaces a melee attack, but is not a melee attack, reach does not increase. Admittedly this isn't super important, but its something I have stuck in my craw.Oh! I hadn't realized the bugbear is phrased that way. That's silly. Why can it reach 5 feet to attack but for no other purposes?

Rather than rewriting the grappling rules, I think the bugbear needs to be edited.


I mean its still essentially free damage on top of a grapple that you can now make with a bonus action or reaction, so its a straight buff, and a pretty considerable one. Personally I'd be fine pushing it more (my stance is that current melee options are very bad) but I can see why you would want to avoid overdoing things.

Just my 2cp.I think martial characters have very few meaningful decisions to make in combat, but I dont think they're underpowered. My goal is to provide more tools: not stronger tools.

So slamming creatures to deal damage while bypassing AC is cool! But slamming creatures to deal more damage than ordinary attacks allow is gratuitous.