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

[CapnZapp]

I'd just about wager you could have an intern go through all the existing monsters in 5e and have something pretty reasonable mapped out in a day or 2.

Looking back 40 years on multiple editions of D&D and hundreds of roleplaying games, and never once seeing something "pretty reasonable" I'd be inclined to take you up on that wager.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Looking back 40 years on multiple editions of D&D and hundreds of roleplaying games, and never once seeing something "pretty reasonable" I'd be inclined to take you up on that wager.

Is there something about giving monsters appropriate athletics or acrobatics proficiency that you feel is somehow impossible to achieve?

Like, I'm legitimately struggling to think of a reason for why this would take more than 30 seconds per monster.

 

[Stalker0]

I repeat the important part, you missed before:
It is buffed, because you can do it on reaction. So you can attack and just try to grapple if needed. This is especially nice when using versatile weapons and really makes leaving a hand free an actual option.

This is a buff its true. The question of how much better it is comes down to how often creatures are provoking opportunity attacks. In my experience its not very often, so this wouldn't get that much use out my table, but I could see it at someone else's.

Unlikely to help the monk though, they are likely saving that reaction for their new deflect attack.

 

[Stalker0]

I'll note that I don't necessarily mind the change to a saving throw for grapple. Again, I can respect that we want a certain amount of consistency and the monsters are designed with saves more in mind than skills.

To me the main issues are:

• Loss of use of athletics: This was a key way that this skill was useful, which has been taken away.
• Grapple odds are just flat out worse most of the time (see my notes above).

If they had gone with the save and put in this clause: Grapple DC = 8 + Str Mod + Prof Mod + 2 (if you are proficient in athletics).

That would likely have solved it to my satisfaction. Keeps grappling's niche as a "no damage but more consistent control option" and would have given Athletics a bone.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This is a buff its true. The question of how much better it is comes down to how often creatures are provoking opportunity attacks. In my experience its not very often, so this wouldn't get that much use out my table, but I could see it at someone else's.

Unlikely to help the monk though, they are likely saving that reaction for their new deflect attack.

Not if they actually want to protect someone behind them. Not deflecting one attack might be a good trade for that. I also can´t imagine deflect attack appearing unnerfed in the 2024 rules.

 

[Stalker0]

Not if they actually want to protect someone behind them.

Well if I truly wanted to do that, I wouldn't wait to see about an OA that might or might not come. I would....you know....just grapple them!

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well if I truly wanted to do that, I wouldn't wait to see about an OA that might or might not come. I would....you know....just grapple them!

And if, for some reason, you couldn't reach them or didn't have an attack to spare on your turn, having an option to grapple on a reaction is good and will sometimes be competitive with deflect.

Really just depends.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Well if I truly wanted to do that, I wouldn't wait to see about an OA that might or might not come. I would....you know....just grapple them!

Or not. Play as you wish. I for sure are happy about the new rules.

 

[Melfast]

You would perhaps have a point regarding grappling if it was the case that grappling builds completely dominated and steered the game in an unhealthy direction. But they aren't. I have never seen anyone in 5E actually grapple anything.

And the reverse would also hold in a hypothetical world where casters were underpowered and fighters dominated. Imagine a world where casters had no way to actually do damage and almost no spells whatsoever. Would you argue then that if you wanted to deal damage you would have to play a fighter? No. I don't think so.

You would perhaps have a point regarding grappling if it was the case that grappling builds completely dominated and steered the game in an unhealthy direction. But they aren't. I have never seen anyone in 5E actually grapple anything.

We were fighting giants, and they proceeded to grapple our fighter and paladin, and drop them down a deep well. This is obviously not a grapple build, but it does come up in games. I expect my Giant Barbarian to be using it once I have two attacks per round and maybe before that if I need to reposition an enemy (currently 4th level). Generally, grappling has not been as good for me than other actions. Very situational.

 

[Yaarel]

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?