Multiple grapplers loophole?

[Rukelnikov]

So I was working on a build using 5e UA stuff, which revolves around grappling (it has a lot of changes with respect to 5e's grappling), and noticed there's no symmetry in the grappled condition in that if the graplee is moved the grappler doesn't move with them (neither in 5e nor in the revised version).

So, lets say an ogre grapples the Wizard, the Barbarian can just go next to the Wizard grapple the Wizard and drag them away, which could move the Wizard out of the ogre's reach thus ending the grapple. Is there something covering this that I don't know of or am just not remembering right now? Has grapple always been this weak where a character can always spend an attack to free an ally from any grapple?

[Guy Lombard-O]

I believe in 5e it's always been that way.

I recall using a Shove attack to break party members out of creature's Restrained grasp years ago, and I'm pretty sure that was accomplished by RAW. I recall it being a contested Str vs. Athletics match.

Which, IMHO, just makes it that much more worthwhile to ratchet your Athletics modifier up into the stratosphere on a PC: high Str score + expertise/Athletics + Advantage (if you can get it) makes spending an attack on shoving/grappling much more palatable, if you're fairly certain it's going to bear fruit and not fail.

[Damon_Tor]

The rules don't cover every complex interaction, deliberately. This is an easy ruling, contested athletics checks between both grapplers to see whose grapple wins out. If you wanted to get creative, have the grappled party roll a con save vs the winning result as well: he takes bludgeoning damage equal to the difference.

[Amnestic]

RAW, the barbarian would still have to make a grapple check against the wizard, who cannot choose to fail. While it's likely they'll succeed due to the natural differences in abilities (-1 vs. +whatever with advantage) it's not guaranteed. D20s be swingy.

I'd run it as a grapple check of the barbarian vs the ogre if they were to try this in my game - they're doing the grapple to break the ogre's grapple, after all, so even if their technical target is the wizard the grip they're fighting is the ogre's.

[Mastikator]

The barbarian is giving up one of their attacks to basically pull the wizard out of a grapple, wouldn't call it a loophole, just a fren saving a fren.

One thing I do wonder is how would players feel if a DM used this "exploit"? A player grapples an enemy creature, another creature grapples the grappled creature and moves it out, freeing it. Would players object? Would players object after having pulled this shenanigan themselves?

[Rukelnikov]

The barbarian is giving up one of their attacks to basically pull the wizard out of a grapple, wouldn't call it a loophole, just a fren saving a fren.

One thing I do wonder is how would players feel if a DM used this "exploit"? A player grapples an enemy creature, another creature grapples the grappled creature and moves it out, freeing it. Would players object? Would players object after having pulled this shenanigan themselves?

The tactic is far more powerful in the hands of the enemies, thus my qualms with making a grapple centric character*, a mere goblin can spend their action and nullify the PC's whole schtick.

*This is from a theorycrafting perspective, its not a character I'd be playing at an actual game.

[Unoriginal]

The tactic is far more powerful in the hands of the enemies, thus my qualms with making a grapple centric character*, a mere goblin can spend their action and nullify the PC's whole schtick.

*This is from a theorycrafting perspective, its not a character I'd be playing at an actual game.

NPCs needs to spend their whole action to grapple, as you can't substitute Multiattack with grappling (outside of NPCs who have attacks with grapple rifer effect).

And the goblin still would have to succeed their STR (Athletics) check against the target.

Also one of the cornerstones of a grappler build is knowing when to grapple and when not to grapple. Grappling in a situation with lots of mooks is always less efficient than against one or a couple NPCs.

[Mastikator]

NPCs needs to spend their whole action to grapple, as you can't substitute Multiattack with grappling (outside of NPCs who have attacks with grapple rifer effect).

And the goblin still would have to succeed their STR (Athletics) check against the target.

Also one of the cornerstones of a grappler build is knowing when to grapple and when not to grapple.

If a grappled player character can choose to fail the contest, why can't the grappled enemy creature choose to fail the contest?

[Unoriginal]

If a grappled player character can choose to fail the contest, why can't the grappled enemy creature choose to fail the contest?

A PC cannot choose to fail the contest. You can only choose if you want a DEX (Acro) check or a STR (Athl) check to resist.

[Mastikator]

A PC cannot choose to fail the contest. You can only choose if you want a DEX (Acro) check or a STR (Athl) check to resist.

Then OP's premise is wrong. The barbarian has to give up an action AND succeed on their contested check against the wizard. IMO that doesn't cheapen the grapple mechanic.

[Rukelnikov]

Then OP's premise is wrong. The barbarian has to give up an action AND succeed on their contested check against the wizard. IMO that doesn't cheapen the grapple mechanic.

In revised its a saving throw which characters can explicitly choose to fail.

In 2014 they have to beat the grapple check yes, but its far easier to beat the check of a "same type of mob" which worst case scenario is 50%, and will often be more since the ally can choose to use their worst between Str and Dex, than beat the athletics check of the grapple focused build. And in the end, enemy mobs still had to spend one action to attempt to free themselves from the grapple, but can make so that 50% is their success rate floor, no matter how optimized the PC grappler is.

[Skrum]

The table I play at long ago reasoned ourselves into 1) characters can fail saves intentionally, and 2) getting someone out of a grapple requires a grapple check to beat the grappler

Could the core rules included these entirely intuitive rulings? Sure. But at the same time, leaving some rules vague/undefined so the DM is free to make a ruling that is particular to the situation (as opposed to rifling through rulebooks for the perfect rule for the situation) is part of the design philosophy of 5e. When I'm feeling charitable to the edition, I think it's a little unfair to point that level of scrutiny at the game - it was literally designed to *not* be an exhaustive set of rules.

[Unoriginal]

In revised its a saving throw which characters can explicitly choose to fail.

In 2014 they have to beat the grapple check yes, but its far easier to beat the check of a "same type of mob" which worst case scenario is 50%, and will often be more since the ally can choose to use their worst between Str and Dex, than beat the athletics check of the grapple focused build. And in the end, enemy mobs still had to spend one action to attempt to free themselves from the grapple, but can make so that 50% is their success rate floor, no matter how optimized the PC grappler is.

It's because mobs counter all the perks of grappling itself.

Grappling diminishes movement for both the grappler and the grappled, and mobs work best against a stationary enemy. Grappling works on two enemies at once at most, so only a small % of the mobs can be affected. Grappling costs some of the grappler's attacks, when having lots of attacks is the best way to diminish a mob of mooks outside of an AoE of a type/sacing throw weak against. Etc.

It's like saying that a character relying on DEX-save-based powers is innefficient against a Monk no matter how optimized they are.

[Rukelnikov]

The table I play at long ago reasoned ourselves into 1) characters can fail saves intentionally, and 2) getting someone out of a grapple requires a grapple check to beat the grappler

Could the core rules included these entirely intuitive rulings? Sure. But at the same time, leaving some rules vague/undefined so the DM is free to make a ruling that is particular to the situation (as opposed to rifling through rulebooks for the perfect rule for the situation) is part of the design philosophy of 5e. When I'm feeling charitable to the edition, I think it's a little unfair to point that level of scrutiny at the game - it was literally designed to *not* be an exhaustive set of rules.

Maybe you are right and I'm expecting more precision from the system than it intends to have.


It's because mobs counter all the perks of grappling itself.

Grappling diminishes movement for both the grappler and the grappled, and mobs work best against a stationary enemy. Grappling works on two enemies at once at most, so only a small % of the mobs can be affected. Grappling costs some of the grappler's attacks, when having lots of attacks is the best way to diminish a mob of mooks outside of an AoE of a type/sacing throw weak against. Etc.

It's like saying that a character relying on DEX-save-based powers is innefficient against a Monk no matter how optimized they are.

Yeah... but mobs are more abundant than monks usually, combat generally doesn't work well against a single powerful enemy unless they get legendary actions and if possible lair actions too.

[Sigreid]

Clearly in that scenario, the ogre and the barbarian should each make a wish.

[Unoriginal]

Yeah... but mobs are more abundant than monks usually, combat generally doesn't work well against a single powerful enemy unless they get legendary actions and if possible lair actions too.

There are plentlyof configurations between "hordes of mooks" and "singular boss".

Grappling is plenty useful when you have 3-4 tough-but-not-boss-level opponents, for example. Or one boss without Legendary or Lair actions but a few tough underlings.

It can also be devastating against a boss with Legendary and Lair actions, forcing them to spend those to move.

[Sigreid]

There are plentlyof configurations between "hordes of mooks" and "singular boss".

Grappling is plenty useful when you have 3-4 tough-but-not-boss-level opponents, for example. Or one boss without Legendary or Lair actions but a few tough underlings.

It can also be devastating against a boss with Legendary and Lair actions, forcing them to spend those to move.
Even if there are hoards of mooks I've found it useful to lock down the main threat to give the rest of the party to deal with the yard trash.