Grappling Druid

[MadBear]

I'm curious what people have noticed about the effectiveness of a moon druid who combines grappling with concentration spells.

For instance, at level 3, how effective would it be to cast flaming sphere, and wildshape into a bear turn 1. Then during turn 2, I could move up and use one attack to grapple, another attack, my bonus action to hit him with the sphere, and then use my last 10ft to move one square back with my target.

Also, I'm assuming that Warcaster/Resilience are mandatory to make this efficient.

Thoughts? Potential pitfalls?

[busterswd]

Honestly, I feel a Moon Druid isn't using his full potential without concentrating on a non-Barkskin spell while shifted. Get Warcaster at your level.

If you go this route, I'd shove+grapple instead of attack+grapple on that second round. Prone means disadvantage to hit you, grappled means they can't stand up from prone. Future melee attacks against the target get advantage.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm curious what people have noticed about the effectiveness of a moon druid who combines grappling with concentration spells.

For instance, at level 3, how effective would it be to cast flaming sphere, and wildshape into a bear turn 1. Then during turn 2, I could move up and use one attack to grapple, another attack, my bonus action to hit him with the sphere, and then use my last 10ft to move one square back with my target.

Also, I'm assuming that Warcaster/Resilience are mandatory to make this efficient.

Thoughts? Potential pitfalls?

Druids have low AC when they wildshape, for the most part, so you would be hit by what you are grappling quite easily and lose concentration on the flaming sphere.

Earth Elemental would be your best bet.


Druid (Moon) 10 (or whatever you need for elementals but at least 10)/Rogue 2 (expertise in athletics).

Resilience/Warcaster for feats (i prefer resilience).

You have a great str and con with a great AC (for a druid).

Grapple + Flaming Sphere or whatever should work well enough

[Rhaegar]

My first thought would be, are you even able to grapple in bear form, does a bears body and paws allow it, that might not be something your DM might allow. Also with what exactly are you using to get the grapple plus attack. The bears multi-attack ability specifies the attacks that it has to use which I believe are claw and bite. Unless you are multi-classing into a class deep enough to get extra-attack you wouldn't be able to even attempt this.

[MadBear]

My first thought would be, are you even able to grapple in bear form, does a bears body and paws allow it, that might not be something your DM might allow. Also with what exactly are you using to get the grapple plus attack. The bears multi-attack ability specifies the attacks that it has to use which I believe are claw and bite. Unless you are multi-classing into a class deep enough to get extra-attack you wouldn't be able to even attempt this.

It should work no problem.

First:

Multiattack: The bear makes two attacks, one with its bite and
one with its claws.

So it's clear here that I'm making two attacks. One with a bite and another with a claw.

Now under grapple it states:

If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

So in this case I'm making 2 attacks (one bite, one claw). I'm then replacing one of them with a grapple.

I don't see the problem.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My first thought would be, are you even able to grapple in bear form, does a bears body and paws allow it, that might not be something your DM might allow. Also with what exactly are you using to get the grapple plus attack. The bears multi-attack ability specifies the attacks that it has to use which I believe are claw and bite. Unless you are multi-classing into a class deep enough to get extra-attack you wouldn't be able to even attempt this.

What?

YouTube bear versus prey and watch a bear take down a moose or something and tell me they can't grapple.

The term "bear hug" is also very relevant here.

Even if the bear can't multiattack after grappling, the druid will be doing bite damage plus flaming sphere damage at the very least.

Any DM who doesn't let a bear grapple seriously needs to reconsider their position on bears.

Seriously, YouTube is your friend.

[Rhaegar]

What?

YouTube bear versus prey and watch a bear take down a moose or something and tell me they can't grapple.

The term "bear hug" is also very relevant here.

Even if the bear can't multiattack after grappling, the druid will be doing bite damage plus flaming sphere damage at the very least.

Any DM who doesn't let a bear grapple seriously needs to reconsider their position on bears.

Seriously, YouTube is your friend.

Regardless if the bear can grapple, it couldn't attack on the same turn after it grapples, as the grapple would take up its full action, it would not be able to bite.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Regardless if the bear can grapple, it couldn't attack on the same turn after it grapples, as the grapple would take up its full action, it would not be able to bite.

No.

Grapple takes up an attack, replaces it, the bear could multiattack and just grapple with its bite attack. Unless JC has said differently, there is no reason why the bear can't replace an attack with a grapple.

And there is no "regardless if the bear can grapple". The bear CAN grapple, end of story on that front.

[Rhaegar]

No.

Grapple takes up an attack, replaces it, the bear could multiattack and just grapple with its bite attack. Unless JC has said differently, there is no reason why the bear can't replace an attack with a grapple.

And there is no "regardless if the bear can grapple". The bear CAN grapple, end of story on that front.

Except that the bear has multi-attack, not extra attack. The Multi-attack specifies what you can do with it's multi-attack. With a bears multi-attack you can make one bite and one claw attack. You most definitely can NOT grapple as part of the bears multi-attack. The rules are quite clear on this.

[PoeticDwarf]

Except that the bear has multi-attack, not extra attack. The Multi-attack specifies what you can do with it's multi-attack. With a bears multi-attack you can make one bite and one claw attack. You most definitely can NOT grapple as part of the bears multi-attack. The rules are quite clear on this.

This is RAW right indeed. And for most DMs RAI

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Except that the bear has multi-attack, not extra attack. The Multi-attack specifies what you can do with it's multi-attack. With a bears multi-attack you can make one bite and one claw attack. You most definitely can NOT grapple as part of the bears multi-attack. The rules are quite clear on this.

If you say so.

But that isn't the part I had a huge problem with. You saying that a bear can't grapple at all cause of its paws was my main concern. As this makes absolutely no sense.

[Laserlight]

Except that the bear has multi-attack, not extra attack. The Multi-attack specifies what you can do with its multi-attack. With a bear's multi-attack you can make one bite and one claw attack. You most definitely can NOT grapple as part of the bears multi-attack. The rules are quite clear on this.

PHB195: "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."

I don't see why "this attack replaces one of them" wouldn't apply to a multi-attack.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

PHB195: "When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."

I don't see why "this attack replaces one of them" wouldn't apply to a multi-attack.

Me either, but that isn't even the worse of his argument.

The whole bears can't grapple is the worst part.

[Rhaegar]

Me either, but that isn't even the worse of his argument.

The whole bears can't grapple is the worst part.

I ceded that point in my second post, I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

If your character has the extra attack feature outside of being a bear than you could, several classes get an extra attack feature, if for instance you had 5 levels in warrior you could. When you shapeshift into a bear you take on the better of what you have or the bear for abilities, if you naturally have an extra attack than you can use it in any generic way as described. The reason a bear can't naturally is that it's multi-attack feature says explicitly what it can do with it's multi-attack, and specific always out rules general, and the bears stat block says that with its multi-attack it can make one bite and one claw attack, it can't use it's multi-attack to do 2 bites, it can't do 2 claws, but specifically one bite and one claw. Grapple is not something it can do as part of it's multi-attack.

[MadBear]

I ceded that point in my second post, I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

If your character has the extra attack feature outside of being a bear than you could, several classes get an extra attack feature, if for instance you had 5 levels in warrior you could. When you shapeshift into a bear you take on the better of what you have or the bear for abilities, if you naturally have an extra attack than you can use it in any generic way as described. The reason a bear can't naturally is that it's multi-attack feature says explicitly what it can do with it's multi-attack, and specific always out rules general, and the bears stat block says that with its multi-attack it can make one bite and one claw attack, it can't use it's multi-attack to do 2 bites, it can't do 2 claws, but specifically one bite and one claw. Grapple is not something it can do as part of it's multi-attack.

Grapple is a replacement for an attack. In this case I'm clearly replacing the bite attack with a grapple. the rules completely support this. the only thing I need to be true to replace the bite attack with a grapple is that the bite must in fact be a separate "attack". And in that regard here is what the rules have to say.

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll,you're making an attack."

Well, my bite is making an attack roll, and therefore I'm making an attack. Grapple states:

"If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them."

Since I'm definitely making multiple attacks with my attack action, I get to replace one of them with a grapple.

Now if you want to argue that multi-attack is the more specific, then it opens up it's own can of worms. In that case, the bite and claw attacks also don't count since they aren't labeled as "attacks" but they are labeled under actions you can take, and they don't specify that you can replace them either. but since you already conceded that point, I only see a few options left.

1. You agree that a bear can multi-attack and replace one attack with grapple

2. You believe that a bear can't multi-attack grapple, but it also can't replace any of it's attacks with a grapple since the "bite" and "claw" attacks are just as specific as multi-attack

3. You show how multi-attack is different from those others in a meaningful way.

[JNAProductions]

By that logic, I can cast GFB and grapple instead of attacking.

RAW, it is very clear you cannot grapple instead of one attack in a Multiattack. RAI... Ask your DM. Some will allow it, some won't. It's very much a table by table thing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

By that logic, I can cast GFB and grapple instead of attacking.

RAW, it is very clear you cannot grapple instead of one attack in a Multiattack. RAI... Ask your DM. Some will allow it, some won't. It's very much a table by table thing.

GFB uses the "Cast a spell action" not the attack action.

[JNAProductions]

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll,you're making an attack."

Relevant quote.

[theMycon]

Multiattack is an action that is in certain monster's stat blocks. Attack is an action that is available to all creatures (unless their statblock specifically says they cannot). Multiattack uses the multiattack action, not the attack action, and you can only grapple using the attack action.


Therefore, RAW, you cannot grapple with multiattack. Just like, RAW, an assassin can multiattack with its shortsword, but if he has a dagger instead, he is stuck with one attack. It's silly, but the discussion is about Rules As Written, not Rules As Makes Sense.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Relevant quote.

A grapple doesn't replace an attack.

You use the "attack action" to make a grapple. The grapple is replacing an action. Even with extra attack you are replacing either the initial attack action or the extra attack action.

GFB doesn't let you use the attack action and you don't use the attack action to use GFB.

You are wrong. RAW not RAI allows you to replace that attack with a grapple.

[JNAProductions]

You do realize that I do not think GFB should let you grapple, correct? I'm pointing out that by MadBear's logic, you can.

In other words, MadBear, the logic and rule you're using their is flawed.

My personal ruling would be that yes, you can grapple with one part of a Multiattack and attack with the other. But that is not RAW.

[MadBear]

You realize what I quoted comes straight out of the book right?

I actually don't disagree, that as written you could apparently GFB and grapple since as written, it's an attack, and that's literally what the rules tell you to do.

I'm not saying I think it makes sense. But from a RAW perspective you can GFB & multi-attack grapple.

[JNAProductions]

Well, clearly WotC screwed up. If anyone is surprised, please raise your hand. No one? No one. Okay. :P

All jokes aside, this is a DM-dependent ruling. RAW, you can't. RAI is debatable, and therefore will vary. I'll allow it, you'd probably allow it, but not everyone will.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Taking the logic of the book and applying to work to something it doesn't apply to is just silly.

Its like saying that because fireball gives a dex save them all Dex saves are against fire damage, even if the save is against a shutting gate.

GFB can't give you a grapple because grapple needs the "attack Action. GFB does not give you the attack action.

Extra attack needs the attack action to work, GFB still doesn't let you take the attack action so you can't extra attack.

GFB is the "Cast a spell" action.

By RAW you aren't using the attack action and this anything that applies to the attack action doesn't apply here. Things that apply to a melee attack/hit can (smite/sneak attack) but grappling needs attack actions and not just a melee hit/attack.

[MadBear]

Well, clearly WotC screwed up. If anyone is surprised, please raise your hand. No one? No one. Okay. :P

All jokes aside, this is a DM-dependent ruling. RAW, you can't. RAI is debatable, and therefore will vary. I'll allow it, you'd probably allow it, but not everyone will.

It seems pretty clear that RAW you can, it's just that RAI is debatable so it's up in the air.

[Moctzal]

You realize what I quoted comes straight out of the book right?

I actually don't disagree, that as written you could apparently GFB and grapple since as written, it's an attack, and that's literally what the rules tell you to do.

I'm not saying I think it makes sense. But from a RAW perspective you can GFB & multi-attack grapple.

I don't agree. RAW you can't use GFB and replace the attack with a Grapple. The wording on pg 195 under the "Grappling" heading states as much. You can only replace an attack with a grapple if you use the Attack action to make multiple attacks. Otherwise you need to use an Attack action to grapple.

Since casting Green Flame Blade as an action precludes the possibility of using the Attack action, there's no replacing the attack granted by casting GFB with a grapple.

[MadBear]

I don't agree. RAW you can't use GFB and replace the attack with a Grapple. The wording on pg 195 under the "Grappling" heading states as much. You can only replace an attack with a grapple if you use the Attack action to make multiple attacks. Otherwise you need to use an Attack action to grapple.

Since casting Green Flame Blade as an action precludes the possibility of using the Attack action, there's no replacing the attack granted by casting GFB with a grapple.

I guess my next question would be in multi-attack falls under the umbrella of the attack action then.

(mainly since I care very little for the GFB discussion, and if it's not relevant then all the better).

[SharkForce]

I guess my next question would be in multi-attack falls under the umbrella of the attack action then.

(mainly since I care very little for the GFB discussion, and if it's not relevant then all the better).

nope. that's been clarified already.

you can thank beastmaster rangers for that one.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

nope. that's been clarified already.

you can thank beastmaster rangers for that one.

I totally checked my PHB, no mention of this "Beastmaster Ranger" anywhere... Are you sure they exist? I recall once have a fever dream where they took the same problem in 4e and put it into 5e... But obviously that was just a halucination.

[MadBear]

Ok, decided to go through the book and quote all relevant sections so that we have all the information we need to make an informed decision on this.


The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged
attack. See the "Making an Attack" section for the rules
that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature
of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack
with this action.

relevant info:

the attack action includes melee attacks
extra attack is not the only way to make more then one attack using the attack action
The extra attack feature is part of a single attack action



Next up melee attacks:


Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.



relevant info:

monster attacks count as melee attacks


and finally grappling:

When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you're able to make multiple attacks
with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

relevant info:

When using the attack action you get to grapple
If you can make more then one attack you can replace one of those attacks


So with that said here's the case:

1. Is multi-attack an attack action
- yes, it clear fits under the attack action

2. Can multi-attack grant more then one attack like the extra attack feature?
- yes, the extra attack feature is call out as an example of when you'd get multiple attacks. Multi-attack functions the same.

3. Am I able to make multiple attacks with the attack action?
- yes, multi-attack is an attack action where I make 2 attacks

4. It should follow from 1-3 that I can take the grapple action and replace 1 of the 2 attacks with a grapple.

From this I fail to see how you couldn't do both.

[MadBear]

nope. that's been clarified already.

you can thank beastmaster rangers for that one.

I'm aware of that ruling and it has no bearing on the discussion.

errata

Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

In fact this supports what I've said since it points out that multi-attack fall under the "attack action". Clearly then multi-attack is a type of attack action that can be taken, and it's one that gives 2 attacks.

This ruling clarify's that when you take the attack action (of which multi-attack is a part) you can either use the ranger feature to attack twice, or multi-attack. In other words this isn't letting you combine both abilities. Much in the same way they have to clarify that if you get the "extra attack feature" from multiple classes it doesn't stack.

[Moctzal]

I guess my next question would be in multi-attack falls under the umbrella of the attack action then.

(mainly since I care very little for the GFB discussion, and if it's not relevant then all the better).

I don't see that Multi-Attack = Attack Action anywhere in the Monster Manual. It may seem counter-intuitive, but RAW I don't think Multi-Attack allows for one of its attacks to be replaced by a grapple. I would probably rule no multi-attack grapples while DMing, and feel supported by the book's text and intent.

Further up the discussion, I can see some DMs ruling, by RAW, that you need to physically have a hand to Grapple, since Grapple specifies that you need a free hand in order make a grapple attempt. A bit of lame ruling to be sure (I usually try to find ways to say yes to players, rather say no, unless it breaks the game). Also, the argument as to whether something works a certain way in "real life" has always been fairly irrelevant, since I see D&D as a game system, not a simulator. That said, I'd rule that just about any creature with arms or tentacle could take a grapple as an Attack action, and I'd probably use grappling more frequently against players who grapple monsters more frequently (depending of course on the effectiveness of grappling on both sides through the progression of the campaign).

I personally wouldn't build a character around doing things like this without consulting my DM about how s/he sees the game and its rules either. I especially wouldn't play a build like this in a public/AL setting (which is where my play time happens to be, since I DM my home game) since I'd anticipate a bit of table/DM variance on both the multi-attack and the grapple in wild shape questions.

[JNAProductions]

I think consensus is this: Ask you DM. Just ask them. If this is a theoretical build, assume whichever ruling you like, but make it clear what the ruling is.

[gfishfunk]

Either RAW or RAI does not matter to me. Its cool, cinematic, and not over-powered. I'd allow it.

[JoeJ]

Creatures that have a grapple attack say so in their MM description. Compare the bear description with something like the constrictor snake. So RAW, bears can't grapple.

Of course, that leads to the conclusion that bandits also can't grapple, which seems even more absurd than ruling that bears can't. On the other hand, interpreting the rule to allow any creature's melee attack to be replaced by a grapple would mean that a deer can grapple, which doesn't seem right either. But on the gripping hand, adding another attack form for every creature in the MM that looks like it ought to be able to grapple would add extra pages and cost simply to say something that most people with common sense can figure out for themselves.

It appears that the only way to get anything remotely sensible is to fall back on the DM's judgment to determine whether or not a creature can grapple.

[Rhaegar]

The short of it is by the rules warriors, barbarions and the like get extra attacks. You can replace at attack with the grapple if you're a class that gets extra attacks.

The bear has the option of 3 actions it can take, it can take a multiattack action, a bite action, or a claw action, where the multiattack action makes one bite and one claw attack. The bear does not get 2 attacks it gets one special action called multiattack. If it had 2 attacks then yes it could use one to grapple but it does not.

To further examine what multiattack is, it can be usefull to look at other stat blocks. The stat block of the knight says that for it's multiattack it can make two melee attacks. With this grapple I would think would be a melee type attack and could be used as one of them, it is not as specific with what it can use for it's attacks. While an Orog specifically says 2 greataxe attacks. The knights only melee weapon is a greatsword, but it multiattack doesn't limit it to 2 greatsword attacks like the Orog, meaning it could do any melee type attack it wanted.

Also from the monster manual page 10 under actions: "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as Dash or Hide action, as described in the players Handbook." So if it's not a stated ability in its stat block than you revert to one of the generic actions. If grapple isn't listed in it's stat block, or something as generic as 'melee attack' than you by Rules as Written, revert to the generic actions list.

[Moctzal]

Creatures that have a grapple attack say so in their MM description. Compare the bear description with something like the constrictor snake. So RAW, bears can't grapple.

Of course, that leads to the conclusion that bandits also can't grapple, which seems even more absurd than ruling that bears can't. On the other hand, interpreting the rule to allow any creature's melee attack to be replaced by a grapple would mean that a deer can grapple, which doesn't seem right either. But on the gripping hand, adding another attack form for every creature in the MM that looks like it ought to be able to grapple would add extra pages and cost simply to say something that most people with common sense can figure out for themselves.

It appears that the only way to get anything remotely sensible is to fall back on the DM's judgment to determine whether or not a creature can grapple.

Pg 10 of the MM says under the "Actions" heading that monsters can choose any of the actions available to all creatures listed in the Player's handbook (starting pg 192). Grappling is listed there.

[spartan_ah]

Why flaming sphere?
Grab the guy and drag him all over spike growth...

[Moctzal]

Why flaming sphere?
Grab the guy and drag him all over spike growth...

Yep. Dragging someone over Flame Sphere wouldn't do anything, since its damage triggers on cast, on the sphere being rammed into the creature (not the other way around), or at the end of a creature's turn.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Why flaming sphere?
Grab the guy and drag him all over spike growth...


Yep. Dragging someone over Flame Sphere wouldn't do anything, since its damage triggers on cast, on the sphere being rammed into the creature (not the other way around), or at the end of a creature's turn.

You would take the damage from spike growth.

You don't drag the enemy over the falling sphere, you keep the enemy in one spot while the flaming sphere rams/stays next to the enemy.

It takes an action to get out of a grapple so even if they spend their turn getting away from your grapple they typically can't dash, will take an OA from you, and then be set up to be slamed by the so here and or grappled by you again.

[JNAProductions]

Stand still and drag them back and forth. Not in the rules, but 5E encourages improvisation.

[JoeJ]

Pg 10 of the MM says under the "Actions" heading that monsters can choose any of the actions available to all creatures listed in the Player's handbook (starting pg 192). Grappling is listed there.

I still probably wouldn't allow a deer to grapple. A bear, yes.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I still probably wouldn't allow a deer to grapple. A bear, yes.

If is has horns/antlers I don't see why not, those things are fricken brutal.

They could keep you locked up and with moose that is how they wrestle bears (grappling is wrestling).

Or the deer could just bite you and grapple you that way.

[Moctzal]

I still probably wouldn't allow a deer to grapple. A bear, yes.

Right. As I said in a previous post, Grapple specifies that it requires a free hand. I'm sure there are DMs who wouldn't allow a bear to grapple as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Right. As I said in a previous post, Grapple specifies that it requires a free hand. I'm sure there are DMs who wouldn't allow a bear to grapple as well.

I guess snakes can't grapple either... Poor constructor snakes are going to starve!

It isn't just them I feel bad for, Nagas can't hug each other :(, what a poor existence.


Edit

I thought I remembered a rules things... From September 2015...

"Is the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook usable by a handless creature? The grappling rule (PH, 195) was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.

Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack."

Bears, deers, nagas, and snakes are all free to hug and wrestle!

It even talks about multiattack.

[RickAllison]

Right. As I said in a previous post, Grapple specifies that it requires a free hand. I'm sure there are DMs who wouldn't allow a bear to grapple as well.

I'm a pretty cinematic DM, so take this with a grain of salt. I think either a bear or deer with antlers could handle a single grapple standing. The bear could probably do two grapples if they were both knocked prone (because at that point he has the leverage of the ground to make up for his lack of opposable thumbs.

As for the Multiattack debate (maybe it was already resolved...), I don't think Multiattack gets it since it has a specified combo probably build from ingrained knowledge or experience in the creature. He could always take the Attack action (which I would rule is separate from using Bite or Claw attacks, since those are specified as special attacks). Take your 1d4+Str damage and love it!

Of course, I love the image of using the giant octopus with Expertise (Athletics) to get a 15 ft reach with one-by-one grappling enemies till I'm carrying eight, so I'm odd.

[Moctzal]

I'm a pretty cinematic DM, so take this with a grain of salt. I think either a bear or deer with antlers could handle a single grapple standing. The bear could probably do two grapples if they were both knocked prone (because at that point he has the leverage of the ground to make up for his lack of opposable thumbs.

Right. As I said previously, I normally allow just about anything with arms or tentacles grapple.

As for the Multiattack debate (maybe it was already resolved...), I don't think Multiattack gets it since it has a specified combo probably build from ingrained knowledge or experience in the creature. He could always take the Attack action (which I would rule is separate from using Bite or Claw attacks, since those are specified as special attacks). Take your 1d4+Str damage and love it!

Of course, I love the image of using the giant octopus with Expertise (Athletics) to get a 15 ft reach with one-by-one grappling enemies till I'm carrying eight, so I'm odd.

It seems to me like monsters that are intended to grapple have grapple effects built into attacks (giant constrictor snake, octopus, water elemental, etc). I don't run across too many situations where it looks like a good decision for a monster to grapple a PC with its action. So YMMV I guess.

[Rhaegar]

Of course in the end what really matters is what the DM at each persons individual table rules.

[spartan_ah]

You would take the damage from spike growth.

You don't drag the enemy over the falling sphere, you keep the enemy in one spot while the flaming sphere rams/stays next to the enemy.

It takes an action to get out of a grapple so even if they spend their turn getting away from your grapple they typically can't dash, will take an OA from you, and then be set up to be slamed by the so here and or grappled by you again.

If you can save yourself from flaming sphere so you can protect yourself from spike growth

[MadBear]

Why flaming sphere?
Grab the guy and drag him all over spike growth...

I figure I use the bonus action to slam them with flaming sphere (2d6), I drag them 5ft away (so I'm out of range). Then they take the damage again at the end of their turn (another 2d6). Rinse and repeat (assuming I make the concentration save).

[SharkForce]

if you think the rules are stupid, change them. but that doesn't mean they aren't the rules.

that quote you cited makes a clear distinction between attack and multiattack. it doesn't say you can make an attack action *such as* a multiattack, it says your pet can use the multiattack action OR the attack action, meaning they are not the same thing.

don't like it? don't use it (i would allow it, personally). but insisting that it's an official rule just because you want it to be one is silly. it isn't an official rule. so what? if it makes the game more fun, play that way anyways.

[Rhaegar]

So far much of the discussion has been whether it's allowed, A better question might be is it worth it.

TLDR: You're actually better off taking the guaranteed damage vs risking them breaking grapple and/or you failing concentration checks and/or them breaking your grapple early.

If your DM lets you replace one of the bears attack with a grapple, are you gaining more than you're losing? If you maintain the grapple through their turn they take an additional 2d6 damage, average 7, if they don't save, or an average of 3.5 if they do save by you being able to keep the fiery sphere on them at the end of their turn. Then if they succeed on their athletics or acrobatics check which they'd then move out of it and take no additional damage. What you'd be sacrificing would be the bite attack which is the weaker attack which for a black bear is 1d6+2 average 5.5, or for a brown bear 1d8+4 average 8.5. So as a Brown bear it'd never be worth it because you'd be trading 8.5 average damage for either 7, 3.5, or 0 damage. Even as a brown bear you'd be trading an average 5.5 damage hit for 7 if the fail both trying to escape and fail the saving throw, which it's unlikely they'd fail both. Zero damage if they escape, and 3.5 average if they stay grappled but save the fiery sphere. And all of these numbers are assuming you maintain concentration. It's not unlikely that you'll be attacked at least once needing to make a concentration check, and failing that will ruin your plan as well.

Now if you're casting the fiery sphere at a higher level, the numbers obviously change. But on an average damage per round, it seems like most of the time you'd be better of anyways taking the guaranteed hit with the bear vs chancing them escaping the grapple or failing their saving throw. But even casting it in a lv 3 slot vs a black bear seems borderline, and a lv3 slot vs a Brown bears bite would definitely not be worth it on an average damage per round.

[RickAllison]

So far much of the discussion has been whether it's allowed, A better question might be is it worth it.

TLDR: You're actually better off taking the guaranteed damage vs risking them breaking grapple and/or you failing concentration checks and/or them breaking your grapple early.

If your DM lets you replace one of the bears attack with a grapple, are you gaining more than you're losing? If you maintain the grapple through their turn they take an additional 2d6 damage, average 7, if they don't save, or an average of 3.5 if they do save by you being able to keep the fiery sphere on them at the end of their turn. Then if they succeed on their athletics or acrobatics check which they'd then move out of it and take no additional damage. What you'd be sacrificing would be the bite attack which is the weaker attack which for a black bear is 1d6+2 average 5.5, or for a brown bear 1d8+4 average 8.5. So as a Brown bear it'd never be worth it because you'd be trading 8.5 average damage for either 7, 3.5, or 0 damage. Even as a brown bear you'd be trading an average 5.5 damage hit for 7 if the fail both trying to escape and fail the saving throw, which it's unlikely they'd fail both. Zero damage if they escape, and 3.5 average if they stay grappled but save the fiery sphere. And all of these numbers are assuming you maintain concentration. It's not unlikely that you'll be attacked at least once needing to make a concentration check, and failing that will ruin your plan as well.

Now if you're casting the fiery sphere at a higher level, the numbers obviously change. But on an average damage per round, it seems like most of the time you'd be better of anyways taking the guaranteed hit with the bear vs chancing them escaping the grapple or failing their saving throw. But even casting it in a lv 3 slot vs a black bear seems borderline, and a lv3 slot vs a Brown bears bite would definitely not be worth it on an average damage per round.

Whether it is worth it is entirely dependent on the particular character. The issue I have with Multiattack with it is it sets a dangerous precedent for someone who specializes in grappling. With that ruling, someone with Shapechange and Expertise (Athletics) could go Marilith and (especially if Enlarged) reliably lock down 4 enemies on one turn (3 Shoves at +16 with advantage, 3 grapples at the same, and then the wonderful tail grab. Actually, allow it, that sounds awesome!

[Desamir]

I thought I remembered a rules things... From September 2015...

"Is the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook usable by a handless creature? The grappling rule (PH, 195) was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.

Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack."

Bears, deers, nagas, and snakes are all free to hug and wrestle!

It even talks about multiattack.

That answers it explicitly, good find. Here's the link (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-september-2015) to the relevant Sage Advice.

Reiterating the important part:

Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack.

TL;DR: You can't grapple with the Multiattack action

[JoeJ]

If is has horns/antlers I don't see why not, those things are fricken brutal.

They could keep you locked up and with moose that is how they wrestle bears (grappling is wrestling).

Or the deer could just bite you and grapple you that way.

1) Antlers impale, they don't grab on to you. If you have antlers of your own they might be able to interlock and drag you around, but in general they don't.

2) Deer don't necessarily have antlers. In most species of deer only the males have them, and the non-tropical ones usually shed them every year.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

1) Antlers impale, they don't grab on to you. If you have antlers of your own they might be able to interlock and drag you around, but in general they don't.

2) Deer don't necessarily have antlers. In most species of deer only the males have them, and the non-tropical ones usually shed them every year.

Have you not seen seers (male) wrestle with their antlers? Also, why would you change into a female deer when you have the deer with antlers.

Also, note my last edit...


Edit

I thought I remembered a rules things... From September 2015...

"Is the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook usable by a handless creature? The grappling rule (PH, 195) was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.

Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack."

Deer could easily bite and grapple or use their antlers.

Try using a bit of imagination when you deal with a fantasy game when play a caster who can magically turn into orher creatures.

[Mellack]

Flaming Sphere is really a sub-par option. As another stated, Spike growth is the better choice. Only 2d6 (save for half) and again if using your bonus action for the sphere compared to 8d4 with the bear's 40 foot speed (no save) for the spikes. That is 14 average if they fail both saves (unlikely) vs 20 damage. The only concern would be area, as for spike growth you would probably need more room to keep your friends out of it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Flaming Sphere is really a sub-par option. As another stated, Spike growth is the better choice. Only 2d6 (save for half) and again if using your bonus action for the sphere compared to 8d4 with the bear's 40 foot speed (no save) for the spikes. That is 14 average if they fail both saves (unlikely) vs 20 damage. The only concern would be area, as for spike growth you would probably need more room to keep your friends out of it.

The grappled target could win against you in a grapple and then do the same technique against you.

Also your allies can't get close to you to help you out.

Spike growth is awesome but there are too many ways for it to go wrong.

Moonbeam could work nicely.

[JoeJ]

Have you not seen seers (male) wrestle with their antlers? Also, why would you change into a female deer when you have the deer with antlers.

I have not seen deer wrestle with anything that doesn't also have antlers also, no.


Also, note my last edit...


Edit

I thought I remembered a rules things... From September 2015...

"Is the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook usable by a handless creature? The grappling rule (PH, 195) was written for a grappler with at least one hand, but a DM can easily adapt the rule for a handless creature that has a bite or an appendage, such as a tentacle, that could reasonably seize someone. A wolf, for example, could plausibly try to seize a person with its bite, and the animal wouldn’t be able to use its bite attack as long as it held onto the person.

Keep in mind that the grappling rule in the Player’s Handbook requires the Attack action, so a creature must take that action—rather than Multiattack or another action in the creature’s stat block—when it uses that rule. A monster, such as a roper, that has a special grappling attack doesn’t follow that rule when using its special attack."

Deer could easily bite and grapple or use their antlers.

It says "could reasonably seize someone." A deer grabbing somebody with its antlers doesn't seem very reasonable to me. YMMV.


Try using a bit of imagination when you deal with a fantasy game when play a caster who can magically turn into orher creatures.

I can imagine a deer flying and shooting fire out of its mough. That doesn't mean I'll consider it reasonable. Why is it so important for a druid, who has an enormous range of choices to wild shape into, be able to grapple in the form of a deer?

[Hairfish]

The grappled target could win against you in a grapple and then do the same technique against you.

Also your allies can't get close to you to help you out.

Spike growth is awesome but there are too many ways for it to go wrong.

Moonbeam could work nicely.

If you take Athletics and cast Enhance STR on yourself beforehand (or have expertise or another source of advantage) it's a really safe bet. Also, if you have each other grappled, neither of you can move.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If you take Athletics and cast Enhance STR on yourself beforehand (or have expertise or another source of advantage) it's a really safe bet. Also, if you have each other grappled, neither of you can move.

Enhance Ability is concentration, no go with other concentration spells.

Expertise comes from MC, that isn't always a go.

Also, no, your movement is only cut in half of you are grappling a creature.

The target (on a failed contest) is subjected to the grappled condition and you can move them with your movement cut in half. However, funny enough, you don't have the grappled condition so the target can't move you in the same way as their speed and not yours is 0.

The grappled doesn't have a grapple condition placed on them.

[Mellack]

The grappled target could win against you in a grapple and then do the same technique against you.

Also your allies can't get close to you to help you out.

Spike growth is awesome but there are too many ways for it to go wrong.

Moonbeam could work nicely.

1. If they are grappled, they have a move of 0, so they cannot.

2. Why can't they get to you? You should be at the edge of the spike area, not in the middle. You just run your grappled opponent in the spikes.

3. Moonbeam is unlikely to do more than Flaming Sphere, depending on saves. One hit for average 11, half on save. The sphere give two chances for 7 average each, half on save.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

1. If the are grappled, they have a move of 0, so they cannot.

2. Why can't the get to you? You should be at the edge of the spike area, not in the middle. You just run your grappled opponent in the spikes.

3. Moonbeam is unlikly to do more than Flaming Sphere, depending on saves. One hit for average 11, half on save. The sphere give two chances for 7 average each, half on save.

The target could win a grapple check against you and then run your through the spikes. You can't have two concentration spells up at once so enhance strength isn't happening. Also, the OP didn't say anything about MC so no expertise... It will be athletics versus athletics or acrobatics.

If you are on the edge of the spike growth they can get away quite easily if they break your grapple.

Moon beam has a cool wording. First time on a turn it takes damage and if it starts there. 2d10 when you move the creature out and back in and then 2d10 when it starts its turn there.

If the target gets away you can move your moon beam by 60' that will typically keep up with most things.

[Mellack]

The target could win a grapple check against you and then run your through the spikes. You can't have two concentration spells up at once so enhance strength isn't happening. Also, the OP didn't say anything about MC so no expertise... It will be athletics versus athletics or acrobatics.

If you are on the edge of the spike growth they can get away quite easily if they break your grapple.

Moon beam has a cool wording. First time in a turn it takes damage and if it starts there. 2d10 when you move the creature out and back in and then 2d10 when it starts its turn there.

If the target gets away you can move your moon beam by 60' that will typically keep up with most things.

They would have to first spend an action breaking your grapple. Then spend another action to grapple you. I consider that unlikely if you are building someone to be good at this trick. If you were really afraid of it you could drop concentration after they escape if you fail to regrapple.

If they break free, they can't get very far unless they are also willing to take an OA as well. Most likely they would want to stay in melee which only takes a 5' move off from your next time of grapple/drag.

You are right about Moonbeam, I missed that. It would be a step up from Flaming Sphere.

[RickAllison]

They would have to first spend an action breaking your grapple. Then spend another action to grapple you. I consider that unlikely if you are building someone to be good at this trick. If you were really afraid of it you could drop concentration after they escape if you fail to regrapple.

If they break free, they can't get very far unless they are also willing to take an OA as well. Most likely they would want to stay in melee which only takes a 5' move off from your next time of grapple/drag.

You are right about Moonbeam, I missed that. It would be a step up from Flaming Sphere.

If they have Extra Attack, they can get around that. Use the first attack to Shove away (forced movement breaks the grapple), then grapple back with the next attack. Of course, succeeding on two different Athletics checks against someone who has likely focused on it? Not particularly likely.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If they have Extra Attack, they can get around that. Use the first attack to Shove away (forced movement breaks the grapple), then grapple back with the next attack. Of course, succeeding on two different Athletics checks against someone who has likely focused on it? Not particularly likely.

Actually unless you have expertise the difference between trained and not trained is surprisingly not that different.

Low level, assuming similar str (wildshape doesn't get great till later), +5 druid versus +2 or +3? Yeah the druid has the advantage but not by much.

Bounded accuracy and all that.

Actually the grappled target doesn't need to break the grapple. They can just grapple the grappler (attack or extra attack). Then they no longer have movement 0. Nothing stops a grappled creature from returning the favor...

[RickAllison]

Actually unless you have expertise the difference between trained and not trained is surprisingly not that different.

Low level, assuming similar str (wildshape doesn't get great till later), +5 druid versus +2 or +3? Yeah the druid has the advantage but not by much.

Bounded accuracy and all that.

Actually the grappled target doesn't need to break the grapple. They can just grapple the grappler (attack or extra attack). Then they no longer have movement 0. Nothing stops a grappled creature from returning the favor...

They would still have movement 0. Neither party could move at that point, as both are suffering from the grappled condition. Grappling the grappler doesn't solve the grapplee's situation.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

They would still have movement 0. Neither party could move at that point, as both are suffering from the grappled condition. Grappling the grappler doesn't solve the grapplee's situation.

Not really.

Because you grappled the target you won a grapple contest. To break out of the grapple condition you must win a grapple contest.

So not only do you get away from the grappled condition you also give the grappler the grappled condition.

I think the book assumes that the grappled wouldn't want to turn the tables on the grappler, that the original target would want to run away or something. But as long as you use Athletics you satisfy the qualifications for removing the grappled condition and you grapple the target.

Which, within the confides of wrestling (which is what grappling is), this makes the most sense. I know people don't typically watch Olympic wrestling but a lot of times they don't just break apart, one will remove a grapple and then simutaneously grapple the other.

[Mellack]

I don't think that would work. The rules say you must use your action to escape. To grapple you must use your action to take the attack action, and then use one of your attacks to grapple. You may choose to allow the Attack action to be used as the escape, but I don't think that is what it says. I think escape is a different action type than the Attack action, but it is not clearly specified.

Edit: Note, there is no claim that you can make multiple escape attempts if you have extra attacks, but you can make multiple grapple tries with them. That suggests they are not interchangeable.

[RickAllison]

Not really.

Because you grappled the target you won a grapple contest. To break out of the grapple condition you must win a grapple contest.

So not only do you get away from the grappled condition you also give the grappler the grappled condition.

I think the book assumes that the grappled wouldn't want to turn the tables on the grappler, that the original target would want to run away or something. But as long as you use Athletics you satisfy the qualifications for removing the grappled condition and you grapple the target.

Which, within the confides of wrestling (which is what grappling is), this makes the most sense. I know people don't typically watch Olympic wrestling but a lot of times they don't just break apart, one will remove a grapple and then simutaneously grapple the other.

Okay, so I'll pull out a few things and try and piece this together.
Grappled condition:
A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can't
benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• The condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated
(see the condition).
• The condition also ends if an effect removes the
grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or
grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled
away by the thunderwave spell.

Okay, that's straightforward. So the grappled condition forces speed to become 0 regardless of benefits and there are specific rules here for ending the grapple through proxy. Great. Note that yes, successfully using the Shove action would break the grapple due to the third bullet.

Now for the grappling combat information:

Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target
by making a grapple check, a Strength (Athletics)
check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or
Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the
ability to use). If you succeed, you subject the target to
the grappled condition (see appendix A). The condition
specifies the things that end it, and you can release the
target whenever you like (no action required).

The only effect that grappling a target has is inflicting the grappled condition, described above. It mentions nothing about escaping a grapple, until the next paragraph:

Escaping a Grapple. A grappled creature can use its
action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength
(Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by
your Strength (Athletics) check.

So it is an entirely separate action to break the grapple. Not a subset of the Attack action, but a full-fledged action of its own. With those passages, there is little room for debate. A grapples B, so B is grappled. B spends his action to grapple A, A is grappled. A can escape from the grapple, using his action but keeping B still grappled, or he could force movement of B (Repelling Blast, Shove, etc.) and both combatants would be free of the grappled condition. Let me assemble what each of these might look like in real life.

http://theclinch.net/wp-content/themes/gazette/thumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/aloeverachoke.jpg&w=595&h=292&zc=1&q=90This is A grappling B
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/NBCSports/Sections/UFC/PhotoArchive/UFC/Events/UFC94/090201_Jones_Knee.ss_full.jpgThis is both A and B grappling each other. A very different position then the one-sided grapple, where both are restricting the movement of the other.

[Desamir]

Not really.

Because you grappled the target you won a grapple contest. To break out of the grapple condition you must win a grapple contest.

So not only do you get away from the grappled condition you also give the grappler the grappled condition.

I think the book assumes that the grappled wouldn't want to turn the tables on the grappler, that the original target would want to run away or something. But as long as you use Athletics you satisfy the qualifications for removing the grappled condition and you grapple the target.

Which, within the confides of wrestling (which is what grappling is), this makes the most sense. I know people don't typically watch Olympic wrestling but a lot of times they don't just break apart, one will remove a grapple and then simutaneously grapple the other.

Grappling requires the Attack action, while escaping a grapple is a different action entirely. You can't do both at the same time.

[MadBear]

if you think the rules are stupid, change them. but that doesn't mean they aren't the rules.

that quote you cited makes a clear distinction between attack and multiattack. it doesn't say you can make an attack action *such as* a multiattack, it says your pet can use the multiattack action OR the attack action, meaning they are not the same thing.

don't like it? don't use it (i would allow it, personally). but insisting that it's an official rule just because you want it to be one is silly. it isn't an official rule. so what? if it makes the game more fun, play that way anyways.

actually upon looking at it again, I think we're parsing the same sentence differently hence the different conclusions.


Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

In your reading (which isn't the way I saw the sentence structured at all until it dawned on me that we were seeing this vastly differently), the attack action that's mentioned is only referencing the 2 attacks, in which case multi-attack is counted as being separate.

If you'd humor me, this is how I was seeing that same sentence:


Bestial Fury (p. 93). When you command
the beast to take the Attack action,
the beast can attack twice or take the Multiattack
action if it has that action.

The way I read this sentence was that both the 2 attacks and the multi-attack fell under the umbrella of the attack action. It's just that one of those was gaining two attacks via the bestial fury ability, and the other was gaining 2 attacks via multi-attack. In other words it's just clarifying that when you take the attack action, you can get either one of the abilities, but not both simultaneously.

that's just how I parsed the sentence.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I don't think that would work. The rules say you must use your action to escape. To grapple you must use your action to take the attack action, and then use one of your attacks to grapple. You may choose to allow the Attack action to be used as the escape, but I don't think that is what it says. I think escape is a different action type than the Attack action, but it is not clearly specified.

Edit: Note, there is no claim that you can make multiple escape attempts if you have extra attacks, but you can make multiple grapple tries with them. That suggests they are not interchangeable.

Using the attack action IS using your action.

The attack action is an action. A specialized version of an action but still an action in which you are making a grapple check.

By making a grapple check you are fufilling all requirements to remove the grapple condition.

Using an action? Check.
Making a grapple contest? Check.
Winning said grapple contest? Check.

You just so happen to be fulfilling two different requirements at the same time (removing yourself from a grapple and then grappling the enemy).

Additional questions.

Is it immersive? Check.
Is it balanced? Check.
Is it cool when players turn the tables on a monster? Check.

Other features in the game rely on one thing triggering multiple outcomes. A Paladin with the Mobile feat can do damage, Smite, and not provoke OA from the target. No where does the games at you can only trigger one thing at a time.

[RickAllison]

SpawnOfMorbo, I'll try and handle all your points.


Using the attack action IS using your action.

The attack action is an action. A specialized version of an action but still an action in which you are making a grapple check.

By making a grapple check you are fufilling all requirements to remove the grapple condition.

Using an action? Check.
Making a grapple contest? Check.
Winning said grapple contest? Check.

You just so happen to be fulfilling two different requirements at the same time (removing yourself from a grapple and then grappling the enemy).

This is where you seem to be getting tripped up. Winning a grapple contest is NOT a permissible way to end the grappled condition. A grapple sub-action (within Action) inflicts the grappled condition, but does nothing else. It does not remove the grappled condition of the winner. To remove the grappled condition, you need to either incapacitate the one inflicting the condition, force movement using Shove or some other method outside of reach, or use the Escaping a Grapple action on page 195 of the PHB. Inflicting the grappled condition upon the first grappler does none of these things.


Additional questions.

Is it immersive? Check.
Is it balanced? Check.
Is it cool when players turn the tables on a monster? Check.

Other features in the game rely on one thing triggering multiple outcomes. A Paladin with the Mobile feat can do damage, Smite, and not provoke OA from the target. No where does the games at you can only trigger one thing at a time.

Okay, let's start with immersive. The grappling system actually works well in this regard. Watch some grappling in MMA and you can see how this works. One person can initiate the grapple, but the other person can choose not to reciprocate and so continue his attack. The only effect that grappling will have on him is restricting his movement. He can just continue striking, or he can reciprocate the grapple. If he reciprocates, both are now grappled and neither can freely move, but both can still strike with knees and such. However, despite the second fighter now grappling the first, he himself is still grappled.

Balance is fine, and players already can turn the tables on a monster. A hobgoblin grapples a barbarian; the barbarian then laughs and uses his extra attack to first shove the hobgoblin prone and then grapple. At that point, the barbarian has not just turned the tables, but flipped them completely. The hobgoblin who inflicted (and is still inflicting) the grappled condition is just reducing the barbarian's speed to zero, but the barbarian has done that back and is also preventing him from even standing up. The barbarian now gets advantage on all of his attacks and the monster has disadvantage. Yay! No need to make up a rule for it when every person has at one option to escape grapples using either an action (Escaping a Grapple action from above) that lets them choose between Acrobatics or Athletics or just using Shove as a way to break it and get distance.

Your comparison to the Paladin has some issues. The grappling rules you are suggesting are usable by everyone without any more input than whatever goes into Athletics. The Paladin? He is using a class feature (which has an opportunity cost in not being able to choose another class for that level) and a feat (which is a very limited resorce, with about 5 per level 20 character, rarely more and often less. Activating multiple things with actions is powerful, and that's why they have such a high opportunity cost to them. Of course that should give a little more potent of an effect than something that a commoner can do.

[Desamir]

Using the attack action IS using your action.

The attack action is an action. A specialized version of an action but still an action in which you are making a grapple check.

By making a grapple check you are fufilling all requirements to remove the grapple condition.

Using an action? Check.
Making a grapple contest? Check.
Winning said grapple contest? Check.

You just so happen to be fulfilling two different requirements at the same time (removing yourself from a grapple and then grappling the enemy).

By this logic, you can Grapple and Shove with the same action even if you only have one attack to make.

Using an Attack action? Check.
Making an Athletics/Acrobatics contest? Check.
Winning said contest? Check.

[Hairfish]

Enhance Ability is concentration, no go with other concentration spells.

Expertise comes from MC, that isn't always a go.

Also, no, your movement is only cut in half of you are grappling a creature.

The target (on a failed contest) is subjected to the grappled condition and you can move them with your movement cut in half. However, funny enough, you don't have the grappled condition so the target can't move you in the same way as their speed and not yours is 0.

The grappled doesn't have a grapple condition placed on them.

I'm no longer sure what you're arguing for, besides the sake of arguing. If you have an enemy grappled, but it isn't grappling you, then it has to both break your grapple and grapple you (generally requiring two attacks in total) in order to use your own tactic against you. If it just grapples, then you're grappling each other (as I specified in the post you responded to) and neither of you can move. If the tactic is a pre-shapechange damaging spell that you're concentrating on in lieu of Enhance STR, just stop concentrating on it.

[RickAllison]

I'm no longer sure what you're arguing for, besides the sake of arguing. If you have an enemy grappled, but it isn't grappling you, then it has to both break your grapple and grapple you (generally requiring two attacks in total) in order to use your own tactic against you. If it just grapples, then you're grappling each other (as I specified in the post you responded to) and neither of you can move. If the tactic is a pre-shapechange damaging spell that you're concentrating on in lieu of Enhance STR, just stop concentrating on it.

Being picky, it does not require two attacks, it requires two actions. Unless you were meaning using Shove + movement + Grapple; that would be two attacks, that could be used as one action (if you have Extra Attack).

[Arkhios]

This might be a bit off-topic, but the OP reminded me of this funny idea we had with a player in my group: He's got a Death domain cleric, spamming 1st-level Inflict Wounds pretty much in every occasion. Imagine him taking Tavern Brawler and then Grappler. In combination he'd go up close, grab the foe and do noogies with Inflict Wounds at advantage! The PAIN!!! :D

[Hairfish]

Being picky

How about we not do that, instead? It was a brief line commenting on Morbo's (you know, the person I was replying to?) mistaken belief that breaking a grapple and counter-grappling could be done with the same attack.

[RickAllison]

How about we not do that, instead? It was a brief line commenting on Morbo's (you know, the person I was replying to?) mistaken belief that breaking a grapple and counter-grappling could be done with the same attack.

By the rules, it does make a significant difference, hence why I addressed it. An action is different than an attack and it is prudent to keep those distinctions in mind in a discussion like this. My only mistake in that regard was the comment about being picky. It was not, it was actually clarifying a rules distinction and so far from simply picky.

[Hairfish]

No, you're genuinely just being picky that I didn't specify "Attack Action" in a reply where context was sufficient to indicate it wasn't necessary. I'm aware of what the rules are, likely moreso than you. Nitpick elsewhere, thank you.

[RickAllison]

No, you're genuinely just being picky that I didn't specify "Attack Action" in a reply where context was sufficient to indicate it wasn't necessary. I'm aware of what the rules are, likely moreso than you. Nitpick elsewhere, thank you.

Its not nitpicking. Attack Action is different than an attack. One Attack Action can be equivalent to one to four attacks. It is better to use accurate terminology, especially when a large part of the context in the debate has to do with the differences between actions, checks, and attacks. Finally, cut the ad hominem, that's just rude. Many people come on here because they like to pleasantly discuss the games they love, not to have their comments lambasted.

[MadBear]

So if I may:

1. Can we take the discussions about attack action/grapple/etc. elsewhere. I'm strongly in the camp of doing this is RAW, and I know others disagree. If it bothers you, maybe you can make a Rules thread to discuss it there, where I'd be happy to debate it.

2. If you have any advice on making this grappling druid work, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

[RickAllison]

So if I may:

1. Can we take the discussions about attack action/grapple/etc. elsewhere. I'm strongly in the camp of doing this is RAW, and I know others disagree. If it bothers you, maybe you can make a Rules thread to discuss it there, where I'd be happy to debate it.

2. If you have any advice on making this grappling druid work, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

For a grappling druid, the giant octopus is fantastic. Even if the DM only lets you grapple two enemies (at four tentacles each...), you still get a 15 ft reach to do so. That means you can immobilize smaller enemies in such a way that they cannot attack/Shove you and so have to escape through the Athletics/Acrobatics check, in addition to the attack that restrains on top of it. With Expertise in Athletics (Rogue 1), it is rather easy to get the DC up to the point where very few creatures are capable of breaking out. Best of all, it is available at only Moon Druid 3 (or maybe 2, I'm AFB).

A giant eagle with Haste and Enlarge (and especially with Rogue 2) has the ability to prevent Ancient Dragons from taking flight. Between Haste and Cunning Action, it becomes simple to shove ancient dragons to the ground, keeping them prone and inflicting decent damage while being able to flee out of his range afterwards. Any Barbarians or melee Fighters will be greatly appreciative of the dragon being effectively grounded. Even better if you have an Eldritch Blast Warlock riding on top, at which point the dragon can't fly and is still in danger if he remains on the ground.