# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  a slight change to shoves and grapples- 5e, not onednd

## kazaryu

so recently i've been thinking about a fairly extensive addition that i might add to my games to give martials some more interesting options. this thread is not that. however, as part of that thought experiment, once thing i considered was making changes to the basic combat athletic actions, possibly to make them more viable for martials to use. thus increasing their options without having to worry about stopping on peoples toes (referring to the common choice of essentailly giving the battlemaster subclass to everyone). just wondered what y'all thought. 

grapple: i was thinking something along the lines of 'if your check exceeds your opponents by X amount you can ....' so the idea would be that if you win a grapple then base 5e applies. however if you *Really* win a grapple, then you get even more things. like you can move your opponent without costing extra movement, you can choose your opponents location relative to you while moving (useful for spike growth combos, obviously only applicable depending how DMs rule grapples), maybe even some of the new benefits like advantage on attacks vs the target, etc. this one is the least fully fleshed out. 

shove:

if you shove prone: if you succeed on the check you may deal damage to target up to the amount by which you exceeded their check. 

5ft shove: you shove the creature back 5 ft+a number of feet equal to how much you exceeded their check by, rounded to the nearest 5.

----------


## JackPhoenix

I'd be careful with that... enemies rarely have Athletics (or Acrobatics) proficiency, and rely only on their ability modifiers, with their grapple or shove being a rider on their normal attack. It's pretty easy to stack up high Athletics bonus as a PC, as bonuses to ability checks aren't bound as tightly as attack bonuses.

----------


## kazaryu

> I'd be careful with that... enemies rarely have Athletics (or Acrobatics) proficiency, and rely only on their ability modifiers, with their grapple or shove being a rider on their normal attack. It's pretty easy to stack up high Athletics bonus as a PC, as bonuses to ability checks aren't bound as tightly as attack bonuses.


eh, im not too worried about it, at least on a conceptual level. numbers can be adjusted if they're too crazy but like...with expertise and a 20 in the stat (and max level) the average roll for an ability check is 27.5

even if we assume an average of only a +2 for the defending stat (a conservative estmate, given the defending stat is the higher of dex or str) the average difference is 15. 

for the shove action, 15 damage at level 20 isn't that crazy, and 20 feet of movement is nice...but its also half of what repelling blast can do at that level (albeit with more efficeint action econmoy). but really...

as far as grappling goes, any real 'abuse' with it would require either a heavy investment in the strategy, or teamwork. both of which im more than happy to reward. especially since its so easy to balacne it out by just...giving monsters athletics proficiency.

----------


## Zhorn

I think it's mostly the swingyness of this proposed rule that I dislike.
Wildly unpredictable ranges from low/inconsequential to powerful/superhuman, all achievable on a +0 modifier characters without investment.
Then like JackPhoenix says; the ability of PCs to buff and invest in these areas can lead to extremely high values, which can be a concern on the numbers range compared to attack capabilities at equivalent levels. This isn't just bound to lv20, with boosts to ability checks being reasonably available from low levels.

Back to the swingyness. It's the same aspect I dislike about the the dndone jump action, where the d20 just carried so much weight in the scenario that even characters who are still on the 'normal' end of the powerscale just randomly execute superhuman level feats, while invested characters could still fail to meet that just because of a bad roll.

If this was instead a feat or class feature that the boost was buried in, that may help.
Take the Beast Barbarian's jump ability; increasing jump distances by the value of an athletics check.
Sounds similar, BUT; requires 6 levels investment into a class that has mechanical encouragement to invest in the specific stats used and has the thematic backing of how the character is achieving a potentially superhuman level of augmented jump distance, and building off the existing baseline of jump distances the character doesn't feel like it failed on a low roll since it is only adding from a reliable baseline.

Looking at your proposal, kazaryu; the areas I would change (but keep the overall flavour of) are the 
- Investment required; feat, feature, or just proficiency, depending on intended power.
- Bonus is additive from a reasonable baseline
- Bonus is much smaller to account for how low it is accessible at

example: the distance/damage bonus being a proficiency dice modifier instead of the d20.
+2 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d4
+3 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d6
...
+6 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d12

----------


## kazaryu

> -snip-
> 
> Looking at your proposal, kazaryu; the areas I would change (but keep the overall flavour of) are the 
> - Investment required; feat, feature, or just proficiency, depending on intended power.
> - Bonus is additive from a reasonable baseline
> - Bonus is much smaller to account for how low it is accessible at


 well, to be fair, this is meant to be part of an overall overhaul this would be buried within character build resources, so it does have an opportunity cost. That said, it wouldn't be the most expensive feature since the whole point is to make actions that aren't 'attack' feel worthwhile (i mean like...attack rolls. i know that shove/grapple are also part of the attack action) im more looking for feedback on the feature itself. essentially, would adding damage/extra movement to the shove action make it more viable for people? i can definitely see a lack of reliability being a problem... 




> example: the distance/damage bonus being a proficiency dice modifier instead of the d20.
> +2 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d4
> +3 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d6
> ...
> +6 proficiency adding to the damage/distance a +1d12


this however, doesn't reduce winginess at all, it just constrains the possible values more tightly. basically its just a nerf. which is an ok proposal if you think the potential damage/shove values are too high, but your core complaint was swinginess. perhaps

shove: extra damage/distance = 1/2 your athletics bonus or even = to your athletics bonus. idk that 17 damage is that broken at level 20. and i don't think a 20 foot shove would be either. Either way, its removes swinginess altogether (ngl, im kinda a fan of the swinginess. like...yeah theres a chance i only do 2-3 extra damage. or i could do 35 extra damage...seems fun).

----------


## Zhorn

> well, to be fair, this is meant to be part of an overall overhaul this would be buried within character build resources, so it does have an opportunity cost.


Neat, details of design intent that would be helpful to include in the OP.
If you are working with extra information that the readers don't have, then advice/commentary provided by us is of far lesser value to you.
If there are other parts of your overhaul that are relevant to this change, include a reference so we're not critiquing blindly to things you have already considered and have addressed. I'd much rather the feedback here be something you can use rather than commenting on meaningless misconceptions you already had answers for.

But also if this isn't a subtle adjustment and has a larger system alteration it is built around, might be better suited to the homebrew forums.




> this however, doesn't reduce winginess at all, it just constrains the possible values more tightly. basically its just a nerf. which is an ok proposal if you think the potential damage/shove values are too high, but your core complaint was swinginess. perhaps


It is a reduction, just more accurately not a removal. As I said the suggestion was trying to maintain the overall flavour of your original design. The swingyness is being reduced from the differences of two d20 results with modifiers down to a  single die value to be added directly. Less overall chaos, more direct application, and the possible value ranges are kept within a bounds that the game system as it exists has already deemed appropriate




> idk that 17 damage is that broken at level 20. and i don't think a 20 foot shove would be either.


Repeating the point I said earlier; those ranges are no restricted to lv20.
In your initial proposal; a lv1 wizard with 10 STR (+0) could still get a difference in value between their athletics check and that of their target in those high 15-18 ranges if they roll high and their opponent rolls low.
And that could be put side-by-side with your lv20 Barbarian rolling low against a high rolling opponent with the same modifier that the wizard is versing, still win out thanks to Indomitable Might, but only achieve a piddly 1-2 difference.

simplifying it down to a proficiency dice isn't a perfect counter proposal; but it does address most of the concerns raised in with a simple mechanic, while still holding similar to your initial proposition of a dice value added as bonus distance/damage to shoves.

----------


## Chronos

> shove:
> 
> if you shove prone: if you succeed on the check you may deal damage to target up to the amount by which you exceeded their check.


Under this rule, my valor bard would never make an attack roll ever again.  Shoves would be a greater chance of damage, more damage on average, and also impose a useful condition.

You're not actually "adding options" if you're making one of the options across-the-board inferior.

----------


## kazaryu

> Neat, details of design intent that would be helpful to include in the OP.
> If you are working with extra information that the readers don't have, then advice/commentary provided by us is of far lesser value to you.


 i understand the confusion. im more looking for insight as to how this might affect your play. would having a bit of damage (ideally less than making a weapon attack) added to shove prone, and some extra range added to...push? be something that would make you, as a player, feel like you have more options than to just...attack. since thats one of the chief complains people have with martials. thats why i didn't include the whole shebang. im not neccesarily looking for balance feedback (although im open to it, its something that i'll need to address eventually anyway),





> But also if this isn't a subtle adjustment and has a larger system alteration it is built around, might be better suited to the homebrew forums.


 this is part of the reason i just did the small bit, im not trying to present the larger overhaul atm. just get a peak into some peoples mentalities regarding how this change *may* affect how they feel about playing a martial. 





> In your initial proposal; a lv1 wizard with 10 STR (+0) could still get a difference in value between their athletics check and that of their target in those high 15-18 ranges if they roll high and their opponent rolls low.
> And that could be put side-by-side with your lv20 Barbarian rolling low against a high rolling opponent with the same modifier that the wizard is versing, still win out thanks to Indomitable Might, but only achieve a piddly 1-2 difference.


 this is very nearly the type of feedback im looking for. mentality wise i don't really see a problem with that. but clearly you do, do you mind elaborating? 



> simplifying it down to a proficiency dice isn't a perfect counter proposal; but it does address most of the concerns raised in with a simple mechanic, while still holding similar to your initial proposition of a dice value added as bonus distance/damage to shoves.


i'll definitely keep the idea in mind. i do personally like the idea of having it be based on teh dice rolls (because then the players can affect them. like a diviner could force a particular dice roll, bardic inspirations can be used, things like that. it offers more opportunity for teamwork. but im not setting anything to page jsut yet, still gathering thoughts. 




> Under this rule, my valor bard would never make an attack roll ever again.  Shoves would be a greater chance of damage, more damage on average, and also impose a useful condition.
> 
> You're not actually "adding options" if you're making one of the options across-the-board inferior.


huh...i kinda assumed that most people wouldn't allow you to try to shove prone an already prone target...meaning that you're limited to 1 target per shove action. so you *could* use all attacks to shove, but you'd need to spread it out. but it seems that was a wrong assumption, so i'll explicitly state that im 'brewing under the assumption that you can't 'shove prone' a target that is already prone. 

that aside it seems more like you're objecting to the exact numbers, rather than the concept itself. do you have a suggestion for a balance point that might be more fair?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Shove:
> 
> if you shove prone: if you succeed on the check you may deal damage to target up to the amount by which you exceeded their check. 
> 
> 5ft shove: you shove the creature back 5 ft+a number of feet equal to how much you exceeded their check by, rounded to the nearest 5.


 Too fiddly, overall. 
Sometimes, the KISS principle is the better idea. This is one such case.

----------


## kazaryu

> Too fiddly, overall. 
> Sometimes, the KISS principle is the better idea. This is one such case.


Would a flat value based on your athletics bonus be better? Obviously rounded for the shove

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Would a flat value based on your athletics bonus be better? Obviously rounded for the shove


 If you were going to do it at all? Yes, easier to implement.

----------


## Dork_Forge

Not a fan personally, you seem to be focused on the maximum damage value of doing such a thing, but you need to consider that you're adding damage to something that already pushes a creature into a death spiral (attacks at advantage). Whilst you're looking at what you think is potentially max average result (this is actually incorrect, a Barbarian with Expertise, easily gained, would push even higher as would various other combinations), I don't think you need to go max level to see this fall apart.

A big part of this is not just how bad most monsters Athletics/Acrobatics is, but how easily consistent and stackable a PCs is. A Swashbuckler with 10 Str but Expertise in Athletics would be great at this, not just their ceiling, but their utter consistency (Advantage+minimum of 10 on the die).

When PCs can easily be consistent, that makes the extreme swinginess of monsters even worse. And, as an aside, killing a monster with a shove feels a little anticlimactic.

----------


## Crushgrip

> Would a flat value based on your athletics bonus be better? Obviously rounded for the shove


IMO, yes.  If you decide to do the modification, I would use caution.  While I agree that it does take some investment on part of the PC's to really abuse grappling, us player will do it ;).... a buddy of mine and I are currently doing just that!  I have a Human (variant) Fighter 1/Bard 2 Grappler and my buddy has a Fighter (Rune Knight) 3 Grappler.  We are essentially gladiator/Lucha Libre "performers".  Being able to lock down opponents is pretty amazeballs...you start adding damage  rider on a skill check that is min/maxxed and you may run into some serious damage at lower levels!

----------


## kazaryu

> IMO, yes.  If you decide to do the modification, I would use caution.  While I agree that it does take some investment on part of the PC's to really abuse grappling, us player will do it ;).... a buddy of mine and I are currently doing just that!  I have a Human (variant) Fighter 1/Bard 2 Grappler and my buddy has a Fighter (Rune Knight) 3 Grappler.  We are essentially gladiator/Lucha Libre "performers".  Being able to lock down opponents is pretty amazeballs...you start adding damage  rider on a skill check that is min/maxxed and you may run into some serious damage at lower levels!


eh, it replaces an attack roll anyway, and the whole point is to buff the moves in a way that makes them seen as viable alternatives to actually attacking. and if this would be enough to get players excited about not attacking, im all for it.




> Not a fan personally,


 thats fair, but what specificalyl makes it not a fan. i understand that the numbers may need to be masaged, is that the only problem for you? 




> you seem to be focused on the maximum damage value of doing such a thing, but you need to consider that you're adding damage to something that already pushes a creature into a death spiral (attacks at advantage). Whilst you're looking at what you think is potentially max average result (this is actually incorrect, a Barbarian with Expertise, easily gained, would push even higher as would various other combinations), I don't think you need to go max level to see this fall apart.


 im not sure what you mean by 'fall apart'. the actual damage number can be adjusted if its a bit overtuned. i've already mentioned the possiblitity of just making it a flat value based your athletics score. But also...i mean you're still giving up an attack to do this, so its not like its 'free' damage. depending on the character the opportunity cost is going to vary, and as i mentioned above, im assuming that you can't shove a creature prone if its already prone. I'd appreciate a bit of elaboration on your exact issue. if its just the damage potential itself, and the numbers were adjusted to be what you considered fair, how would that affect your assessment?



> A big part of this is not just how bad most monsters Athletics/Acrobatics is, but how easily consistent and stackable a PCs is. A Swashbuckler with 10 Str but Expertise in Athletics would be great at this, not just their ceiling, but their utter consistency (Advantage+minimum of 10 on the die).


 with a 10 str a rogue  PC, would get an average of ~6-10 damage from the shove prone maneuver and it would have remarkable consistency. but it would then need to use its BA to attack for its SA damage (average of 26ish damage). but in doing so, said rogue is  would be both in melee (or near melee, not enough movement to really kite) and not hidden. neither situation is terribly optimal for the rogues kit.  so essentially you have a rogue that is giving up the extreme defensive advantage of ranged attacks and being hidden during its off-turn in order to get a boost to damage output. which seems pretty fair to me. (the situation would be even worse for the swashbuckler that you described, since they used both their BA *and* their action to knock prone and deal...6-10 (average) damage, meaning they're entirely relying on the advantage it grants their allies to make up the loss of their SA. im not sure how either scenario that breaks anything. the former is an example of what (imo) seems like a pretty fair tradeoff, and the latter is just teamwork, which im fine with.



> And, as an aside, killing a monster with a shove feels a little anticlimactic.


 this isn't something i expected to come up, interesting. what about if said 'shove' was flavored as doing something like a choke slam, or suplex? just taking the dude and smashing them against a boulder...or building?

----------


## JNAProductions

> eh, it replaces an attack roll anyway, and the whole point is to buff the moves in a way that makes them seen as viable alternatives to actually attacking. and if this would be enough to get players excited about not attacking, im all for it.


Its already worth doing, though.

----------


## kazaryu

> Its already worth doing, though.


im not necessarily disagreeing with you, but i do know that there are people out there that feel like most of the time they're aren't viable alternatives to making a weapon attack, unless maybe you're a high level fighter thats already doing 3-4 attacks per round. those are the people im looking to address with this.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> thats fair, but what specificalyl makes it not a fan. i understand that the numbers may need to be masaged, is that the only problem for you?


Fundamentally two things:

1) Shove and Grapple are worthwhile things to do, that a PC can become ridiculously good and consistent at. They are their own reward and I don't think they need inherent improvement in their core rules. You could make an argument that support for that playstyle could use broadening, but that's very different. 

2) Perhaps a different formula would resolve this, but I just disagree with your assessment of how the rolls would go, it's very easy to a PC to be great at this stuff, but a monster can easily end up with a <10 roll even when it's a big brutish creature. When designing adjustments I tend to dislike only focusing on averages, because we don't really experience the game that way.

I'll add a side note here, I don't remember reading it, did you give any consideration to the fact that you can already deal damage with grapples and shoves? Because if a character gives any real thought to doing this on a regular basis, the party will likely work with it, it'll become more than just the bonus damage, and what it has potential to be is already worth doing.




> im not sure what you mean by 'fall apart'. the actual damage number can be adjusted if its a bit overtuned. i've already mentioned the possiblitity of just making it a flat value based your athletics score. But also...i mean you're still giving up an attack to do this, so its not like its 'free' damage. depending on the character the opportunity cost is going to vary, and as i mentioned above, im assuming that you can't shove a creature prone if its already prone. I'd appreciate a bit of elaboration on your exact issue. if its just the damage potential itself, and the numbers were adjusted to be what you considered fair, how would that affect your assessment?


It's free damage because you're getting it as a bonus to the point of the action: grappling or shoving someone. Maybe I'd have an easier time with this if Spike Growth didn't exist or at least wasn't so low level, but it really makes that cheese intense.




> with a 10 str a rogue  PC, would get an average of ~6-10 damage from the shove prone maneuver and it would have remarkable consistency. but it would then need to use its BA to attack for its SA damage (average of 26ish damage). but in doing so, said rogue is  would be both in melee (or near melee, not enough movement to really kite) and not hidden. neither situation is terribly optimal for the rogues kit.  so essentially you have a rogue that is giving up the extreme defensive advantage of ranged attacks and being hidden during its off-turn in order to get a boost to damage output. which seems pretty fair to me. (the situation would be even worse for the swashbuckler that you described, since they used both their BA *and* their action to knock prone and deal...6-10 (average) damage, meaning they're entirely relying on the advantage it grants their allies to make up the loss of their SA. im not sure how either scenario that breaks anything. the former is an example of what (imo) seems like a pretty fair tradeoff, and the latter is just teamwork, which im fine with.
>  this isn't something i expected to come up, interesting. what about if said 'shove' was flavored as doing something like a choke slam, or suplex? just taking the dude and smashing them against a boulder...or building?


I'm going to start off by saying I do not agree with the ranged and hiding thing. If a Rogue was going to engage in this, like some people build to, they were already a melee Rogue. The notion that the default for a Rogue is ranged and hiding between turns is not one that I've really seen outside of memes and discussions, in my experience it's more heavily a mix, with no clear default.

You're only looking at this from the perspective of the Rogue, not the party at large that can deliver a lot of hurt with it.

I used Swashbuckler as an example because it combines high initiative, with extreme reliability (Expertise, later on minimum 10 and advantage). Meaning you could feasibly  lock down a monster before they get the chance to really do anything, with a punishing opportunity attack and Uncanny Dodge to weather damage (Rogues are not squishy, and I don't understand where that myth came from). Heck, have the Swashbuckler lock down the monster and then have casters throw a bunch of Dex save AOEs at it, the Rogue will do just fine but the monster won't be able to effectively get out of the area and mix up with the rest of the party.

Or heck, the overall improvements here would make an Astral Self Monk pretty nuts, not like they're hurting for attacks and would be SAD.

As for the refluffing, I don't think that's a satisfying ongoing solution, but the satisfaction element is going to be extremely personal and was just my reaction to it.



Let me put a scenario to you, you have a martial with Extra Attack and the Unarmed Fighting style. They will get bonus damage grappling anyway. They greatly benefit from locking down a monster and getting advantage anyway.

Is that a situation you feel needs those additional boosts?

Just because some players don't think it's worthwhile doesn't mean that it isn't, sometimes that's just a preference thing or that they haven't actually tried it, and these fixes don't resolve either of those things.

----------


## kazaryu

> Fundamentally two things:
> 
> 1) Shove and Grapple are worthwhile things to do, that a PC can become ridiculously good and consistent at. They are their own reward and I don't think they need inherent improvement in their core rules. You could make an argument that support for that playstyle could use broadening, but that's very different.


 thats a fair opinion to have. overall im looking to add options for players that feel like 'all martials do is attack'. and this was a relatively simple way i saw to work with that. but at least i understand what you mean. 



> 2) Perhaps a different formula would resolve this, but I just disagree with your assessment of how the rolls would go, it's very easy to a PC to be great at this stuff, but a monster can easily end up with a <10 roll even when it's a big brutish creature. When designing adjustments I tend to dislike only focusing on averages, because we don't really experience the game that way.


 yes the damge would be swingy (if we went with the difference between the rolls dynamic) but thats largely true of...the game as a whole. i don't (personally) view that as a problem, but thank you for clarifying your point. im not dismissing the opinion, the point is to try to design a mechanic that would appeal to people, not just myself.
[quote]
I'll add a side note here, I don't remember reading it, did you give any consideration to the fact that you can already deal damage with grapples and shoves? Because if a character gives any real thought to doing this on a regular basis, the party will likely work with it, it'll become more than just the bonus damage, and what it has potential to be is already worth doing.[/qupote] oh absolutely, especially if you have a party that is working together, shoves can already do damage..but i don't really design for teamwork. if the party works together in an effective manner, i don't really worry about it, i like that. for me, if im gonna buff the PC"s, then its kinda assumed im also going to adjust monsters. balance really isn't the primary concern, im looking to make combat more dynamic for martial players. 







> I'm going to start off by saying I do not agree with the ranged and hiding thing. If a Rogue was going to engage in this, like some people build to, they were already a melee Rogue. The notion that the default for a Rogue is ranged and hiding between turns is not one that I've really seen outside of memes and discussions, in my experience it's more heavily a mix, with no clear default.


 i didn't imply ranged/hidden rogues were default, only that they were optimal. which they are. if you go into melee as a rogue you're already playing suboptimally, more specifically, you're giving up 2 of your classes primary means of defense, and generally there's no benefit for it. this would actually give that same rogue a damage buff in exchange for its defense loss. My point is, its not like im buffing a peak damage build, a melee, str focused rogue isn't going to be on a breakaway to the top of the dpr charts.




> I used Swashbuckler as an example because it combines high initiative, with extreme reliability (Expertise, later on minimum 10 and advantage). Meaning you could feasibly  lock down a monster before they get the chance to really do anything, with a punishing opportunity attack and Uncanny Dodge to weather damage (Rogues are not squishy, and I don't understand where that myth came from). Heck, have the Swashbuckler lock down the monster and then have casters throw a bunch of Dex save AOEs at it, the Rogue will do just fine but the monster won't be able to effectively get out of the area and mix up with the rest of the party.


 and...nothing i suggested affects that scenario at all except the rogue is maybe getting 6-10 extra damage per round against a high level boss. literally, everything you described is already doable without my homebrew. 





> As for the refluffing, I don't think that's a satisfying ongoing solution, but the satisfaction element is going to be extremely personal and was just my reaction to it.


 thats fair. 





> Let me put a scenario to you, you have a martial with Extra Attack and the Unarmed Fighting style. They will get bonus damage grappling anyway. They greatly benefit from locking down a monster and getting advantage anyway.
> 
> Is that a situation you feel needs those additional boosts?


 i mean...sure? its not about whether it needs the boost..its a question of if the boost is a bad thing. and i don't see how it is based on what you've said. 



> Just because some players don't think it's worthwhile doesn't mean that it isn't, sometimes that's just a preference thing or that they haven't actually tried it, and these fixes don't resolve either of those things.


 OR, the players don't really feel like they're getting the bang for their buck they want. which is what im trying to address, make those actions feel better to use. but i appreciate you elaborating as to why you don't believe it improves that.

----------


## JNAProductions

Melee rogues have two chances to land Sneak Attack, as compared to one at range.
Thats a nice DPR boost.

----------


## kazaryu

> Melee rogues have two chances to land Sneak Attack, as compared to one at range.
> Thats a nice DPR boost.


that is true, i had forgotten about that. although it doesn't apply to the specific situation presented, as that rogue is using their action economy knocking their opponent prone, rather than attacking. 

that said, its only a nice DPR boost if you can get it off consistently rather than being turned into monster chow because...well now you're in melee range.

----------


## JNAProductions

> that is true, i had forgotten about that. although it doesn't apply to the specific situation presented, as that rogue is using their action economy knocking their opponent prone, rather than attacking. 
> 
> that said, its only a nice DPR boost if you can get it off consistently rather than being turned into monster chow because...well now you're in melee range.


I mean...

*GWM Fighter*
AC 18 (Full Plate), potentially +1 with Defensive Fighting Style
A d10 hit die, for (6+Con Mod)*Level+4 HP
Second Wind, for an extra 1d10+Level HP, refreshes on a short rest

*Rogue*
AC 17 (Studded Leather and 20 Dex), potentially +1 if you've got a buddy who can spare a _Mage Armor_
A d8 hit die, for (5+Con Mod)*Level+3 HP
Uncanny Dodge, to halve damage once per round

If we check at level 8, they're likely to have the same Con mod-Fighter has had one more ASI, but they'd be grabbing GWM while the Rogue needs no feats.
If we check at level 10, they've got the same amount of ASIs, but the Rogue needs less feats, so they could have higher Con.

Is +1 AC and +15-30 HP really the difference between "Mean tanking machine" and "Monster chow"? Especially when chow has Uncanny Dodge and the Fighter doesn't.

----------


## kazaryu

> I mean...
> 
> *GWM Fighter*
> AC 18 (Full Plate), potentially +1 with Defensive Fighting Style
> A d10 hit die, for (6+Con Mod)*Level+4 HP
> Second Wind, for an extra 1d10+Level HP, refreshes on a short rest
> 
> *Rogue*
> AC 17 (Studded Leather and 20 Dex), potentially +1 if you've got a buddy who can spare a _Mage Armor_
> ...


i mean, obviously any class that is meant to be able to go into melee (as the rogue is) isn't likely to be at risk of being instagibbed. i was referring to the probability that your opponent would turn to fight the rogue rather than provoking an OA.

----------


## JNAProductions

> i mean, obviously any class that is meant to be able to go into melee (as the rogue is) isn't likely to be at risk of being instagibbed. i was referring to the probability that your opponent would turn to fight the rogue rather than provoking an OA.


Ah. Those odds are much higher with a Rogue than with a Fighter.

At level 6, a Fighter with a greatsword is doing 2d6+5 damage from an Attack of Opportunity.
At the same level, a Rogue with a shortsword is doing 4d6+4 damage from an Attack of Opportunity.

A Fighter just isn't that sticky, unless they have Sentinel or something of the sort. Their damage comes from weight of attacks, something that you can't do as a reaction.
Or unless they grapple! Grappling good.

----------


## stoutstien

Im all for giving non spell casters more options but adding damage is probably the last way I'd do it. Just allowing grapple/shove on AOs would be a better move IMO.

----------


## kazaryu

> Ah. Those odds are much higher with a Rogue than with a Fighter.
> 
> At level 6, a Fighter with a greatsword is doing 2d6+5 damage from an Attack of Opportunity.
> At the same level, a Rogue with a shortsword is doing 4d6+4 damage from an Attack of Opportunity.
> 
> A Fighter just isn't that sticky, unless they have Sentinel or something of the sort. Their damage comes from weight of attacks, something that you can't do as a reaction.
> Or unless they grapple! Grappling good.


All of which just circles back to the fact that OA Sa isnt a reliable damage source unless you have someome consistently casting command/dissonant whispers or a battlemaster with commanders strike.

----------


## BoutsofInsanity

> so recently i've been thinking about a fairly extensive addition that i might add to my games to give martials some more interesting options. this thread is not that. however, as part of that thought experiment, once thing i considered was making changes to the basic combat athletic actions, possibly to make them more viable for martials to use. thus increasing their options without having to worry about stopping on peoples toes (referring to the common choice of essentailly giving the battlemaster subclass to everyone). just wondered what y'all thought. 
> 
> grapple: i was thinking something along the lines of 'if your check exceeds your opponents by X amount you can ....' so the idea would be that if you win a grapple then base 5e applies. however if you *Really* win a grapple, then you get even more things. like you can move your opponent without costing extra movement, you can choose your opponents location relative to you while moving (useful for spike growth combos, obviously only applicable depending how DMs rule grapples), maybe even some of the new benefits like advantage on attacks vs the target, etc. this one is the least fully fleshed out. 
> 
> shove:
> 
> if you shove prone: if you succeed on the check you may deal damage to target up to the amount by which you exceeded their check. 
> 
> 5ft shove: you shove the creature back 5 ft+a number of feet equal to how much you exceeded their check by, rounded to the nearest 5.


I'm gonna drop some book knowledge. Because there are tons of things characters can do within the bounds of grapple and shove. Ill show my work to explain how I got to this conclusion.

*Spoiler: Showing my work. PHB Quotes*
Show



*PHB Page 192* "When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

*When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."*

*PHB Page 193 Improvising an action.*

"Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your characters ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

*And lastly PHB page 195 Contests in Combat*

"Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM can use these contests as models for improvising others."


That's three separate paragraphs within the PHB in the combat section alone discussing on how not every action is codified in the book and it is up to the DM and the player to work together to develop some sort of ruling for when these "Other Actions" are taken are resolved. Interpreting it favorably, it would also stand to reason that the DM should make sure the chosen mechanism to implement these actions is rewarding enough that it incentivizes using them again and again, instead of making it so painful the player would never be creative again. 

If it wasn't important, I don't think the PHB would have included it three times. I believe this to be a rough or light version of RAW or a heavy RAI. 

This is to say, I believe that using the grapple and shove rules as "Models for improvising other actions" is rules legal and the appropriate way to do things in combat that aren't just attacking. This becomes a buff to strength characters and a buff to those with more than one attack as, both shove and grab replace attacks to use opposed athletic checks to inflict conditions upon an enemy without doing damage.

To this end I firmly believe that the following actions are available to PC's and Monsters to use within combat based upon the above quotes.

Some version of every Battle Master maneuver with some exceptions. (Obviously these deal no damage and don't have extra dice)Blinding an opponentChoking an opponentThroat chopping an opponent to prevent vocalizationEye GougesLeg Chop / KicksLiver punch / hilt slam for poisoned conditionSacrificing an attack to harass the enemy caster preventing somatic components for spell castingEar slap like sherlock Holmes to disorient or deafen a targetDisarming someone of their weaponRipping component pouches and wand implements out of weak hands

Athletics and Acrobatics are already defenses against Grapple and Shoves and it stands to reason your ability to navigate complex high pressure physical situations would rely upon those skills and natural athletic ability. If Francis Ngannou gets within the reach of a Wizard with a 12 strength score, well, I think it's entirely possible that the Wizard is in for some serious pain and suffering. Just like if the Wizard casts dominate person on the stupid fighter and now the other people are in trouble. 

It adds a layer of strategy to the game, where disarming opponents, denying them their best weapons are sometimes better than just straight damaging them. It adds a layer of control to the martial characters. It adds a layer of danger to non-physical ones. Don't let the hulking scary big person in armor get on top of you, because they can just lock you down with grabs, shoves, and start divesting you of your tools to fight. It adds teamwork dynamics, where protecting those squishy characters becomes important. 

I think this is supported by the rules like I showed above, the implementation is up the GM. And just a reminder for balance purposes the following because it's not readily apparent.

*Spoiler: A description on an important balance feature and how it would look in game.* 
Show

"The fighter on his turn walks up to the enemy caster and uses Athletics replacing their attacks to instead prevent spell casting by disrupting hand movements and doing a throat chop (Two attacks)" He is successful on the disrupting hand movements but not on the throat chop.

The Wizard on his turn steps five feet away, eating the opportunity attack and leaving the fighters reach. The Wizard is now able to cast spells again because the fighter is no longer able to reach him to prevent spell casting. The Fighter should have grabbed first (Having a hand free) or had the Sentinel Feat.

Descriptively _"In the brief 6 seconds of the round the Fighter ran up to the wizard and attempted to silence him by slamming a forearm into his throat. The Wizard was successfully able to block the blow. But the Fighter cleverly began to attack the Wizards hands everytime he attempted to begin casting a spell. The Wizard briefly struggled, but managed to extract out of the brief entanglement and create distance between himself and the fighter, taking a parting blow on his way out. Once free he finished casting his spell throwing a bolt of lightning at the warrior."_

----------

