D&D (2024) The Great Nerf to High Level Martials: The New Grapple Rules

[Maxperson]

Somewhat in the context of Unarmed Strike, 5e seems to be allergic to effective Unarmed damage. I never saw a game balance reason for minimizing Unarmed damage. Is it strictly "plot protection", to narratively insist that implemental weapons do more damage than the use of the body as a weapon?

A few reasons I think. First, it would step on the monk's toes if anyone could do a lot of damage with a fist or kick. Second, fists and kicks just plain don't do much damage unless you are trained in a martial art. I suppose they could make a feat or fighting style that would represent a martial art and raise base unarmed damage, but simply being a fighter or barbarian shouldn't do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Per the UA playtest, one cant Grapple a creature that is two or more Sizes larger. If successful, one can Move the Grappled target, dragging it around.

However, if the target is one or more Sizes larger, the Grappler should have the option to Grapple and then be Moved by the target. In other words, the Grappler is holding on tight and riding the unwilling Huge Dinosaur, Dragon, or Bull.

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to try and ride the unwilling dinosaur or dragon even if it is two or more sizes larger. Holding on for dear life isn't the same a a grapple where you are holding up the enemy and/or moving them.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, yeah, but this is D&D. That breaks down the minute you open the Monster Manual and see lots of things that outdamage swords, including fists:
View attachment 341728
So the idea of a punch that somehow does as much if not more damage than a sword isn't crazy in a fantasy world on it's face.

A lot of that is size. Looking at a medium creature that uses fist, the lemure only does 1d4 damage, which is still better than a PC, but not by much. But then we get to the mud mephit which is small and does 1d6+1, despite having a strength penalty. I wonder if that's a typo and it should be 1d6-1.

Also, monsters have always played by different rules when it coms to unarmed damage. Otherwise a lot of what should be tough encounters would become trivially easy just because the monster doesn't use weapons.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, higher than any non-Barbarian mortal man, at least. But what would you consider a good argument? If I mention the Martial Arts Adept NPC from Monsters of the Multiverse, would you say "well, obviously, that's a Monk"?

A regular Ape only has Str 16 and does a d6 damage with a punch- as much as a short sword. Is that also a bad argument?

All I'm saying is, swords being better than punches is only true for non-Monk PC's. Monsters can do anything they like. The Gladiator can somehow do an extra d8 damage with a sword because reasons, somehow doing more damage than a sword with a sword, lol.

So can PCs, though. It's basically a superiority die that doesn't do anything else.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

And there are also some martial abilities that push and prone or do something on a hit, without a save.

I bolded the relevant bit. It's like it's not automatic at all.

 

[James Gasik]

So can PCs, though. It's basically a superiority die that doesn't do anything else.

If you could add that superiority die to all attacks you make without being expended. Oh and the 16 Str Ape that does 1d6 damage with it's punch is also medium-size.

I mean, yeah, monsters get to do what they do because their design is more "we think a critter of this CR should be able to do X" and less "we think they should use the same rules as PC's". But they do attempt to say "this guy uses a longsword, he does 1d8 damage". Then if giving the longsword user more attacks isn't enough, they'll give him some random ability like the Gladiator's to compensate.

But the point is that a verisimilitude argument doesn't really work in the face of monster design. You can't say "well, a punch can't do as much damage as a sword because that's realistic" if some random monster is able to punch you for sword damage.

 

[Yaarel]

A few reasons I think. First, it would step on the monk's toes if anyone could do a lot of damage with a fist or kick. Second, fists and kicks just plain don't do much damage unless you are trained in a martial art. I suppose they could make a feat or fighting style that would represent a martial art and raise base unarmed damage, but simply being a fighter or barbarian shouldn't do it.

I agree, unarmed combat requires extensive training, including medical knowledge about the anatomy applied practically. Without knowledge, the human natural weapons are typically nonlethal.

I disagree about the Fighter class stepping on the "niche" of the Monk class.

Unarmed combat is probably even a biological instinct among humans. If there is anything that every class should have access to is learning how to fight effectively without implemental weapons. How would every class know how to use shortswords and shortbows yet somehow not be allowed to fight unarmed effectively?

Moreover, the Fighter class can specialize in ANY weapon. Conceptually this includes the use of ones body as weapon. If anything, it is the Monk that steps on the niche of the Fighter.

Moreover, when the Fighter class engages body-weaponry, it does so from a strictly nonmagical perspective − in the sense of a purely martial power source. By contrast the concept of the Monk class is magical. Whether the class is by definition using the psionic power source, it is in any case using the more mystical aspects of one own "soul" − as psionic does as well.

It is the mystical aspects of the Monk concept that allow it to substitute Wisdom and Dexterity instead of the benefits of Strength and Athletics. A Fighter approach to bodyweapons would orient similarly on highly-trained high damage unarmed stikes, but do so from the perspective of Athletics and grappling. Again with high damage. Typically, a Fighter should be doing d8 damage per strike. If there is plot protection, the base damage might be 1d6, but with bonus damage coming in from other resources.

The Fighter concept deserves to fight effectively unarmed − as one of the many choices of weaponry in the arsenal of the class.

 

[Yaarel]

A few reasons I think. First, it would step on the monk's toes if anyone could do a lot of damage with a fist or kick. Second, fists and kicks just plain don't do much damage unless you are trained in a martial art. I suppose they could make a feat or fighting style that would represent a martial art and raise base unarmed damage, but simply being a fighter or barbarian shouldn't do it.

The Barbarian class − at least its Berserkr concept − should be able to fight like a ferocious animal − thus be especially effective at unarmed strikes including mystical enhancement.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree, unarmed combat requires extensive training, including medical knowledge about the anatomy applied practically. Without knowledge, the human natural weapons are typically nonlethal.

I disagree about the Fighter class stepping on the "niche" of the Monk class.

Unarmed combat is probably even a biological instinct among humans. If there is anything that every class should have access to is learning how to fight effectively without implemental weapons. How would every class know how to use shortswords and shortbows yet somehow not be allowed to fight unarmed effectively?

Because typically even well trained martial artists do go up and kick a bear. Going unarmed against animals and monsters is generally, well, stupid. Unless you are a monk anyway. Classes wouldn't be trained to go out and suicide. They'd be trained in weapons and magic to overcome the animals and monsters.

Moreover, the Fighter class can specialize in ANY weapon. Conceptually this includes the use of ones body as weapon. If anything, it is the Monk that steps on the niche of the Fighter.

I covered this by saying feat or fighting style.

If you want to be at a d4 unarmed as a fighter, take the fighting style.

Moreover, when the Fighter class engages body-weaponry, it does so from a strictly nonmagical perspective − in the sense of a purely martial power source. By contrast the concept of the Monk class is magical. Whether the class is by definition using the psionic power source, it is in any case using the more mystical aspects of one own "soul" − as psionic does as well.

The concept of monk is not magical or mundane. It's a combination of the two. They train extensively in their mundane martial arts as shown by the martial arts damage die and movement bonus, and then they supplement that with their ki(magic) abilities.

 

[Yaarel]

There's no reason you shouldn't be able to try and ride the unwilling dinosaur or dragon even if it is two or more sizes larger. Holding on for dear life isn't the same a a grapple where you are holding up the enemy and/or moving them.

Mechanically, holding on to a smaller creature and holding on (for dear life) to a larger creature, looks similar.

The only difference is, whoever is larger whether the grappler or the grappled is the one who decides where to Move during the grappling.