Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sehmerus Oct 04, 2014 18:05:15	Hmm. The feat Grappler says " Creatures that are one size larger than you do not automatically succeed on a check to escape your grapple""   However as I'm checking both  "grapple" in the Grapple rules (phb 195) or the "Grappled Condition (phb  290)" neither say anything about "a larger creature automatically succeeding to escape from a grapple".                                                                   So that leads me to believe one of 3 things.  1- either Grapple condition is supposed to include some text that basically says creatures one size larger than you automatically succeed on an escape check, or 2- the wording on the feat is supposed to remove the limitation of only being able to grapple creatures one size bigger than you. or possibly 3- the wording was supposed to be removed from the feat (which would stink)
#2 -ktkenshinx- Oct 04, 2014 22:38:13	It's a holdover from a previous edition of the rules. In one of the alphas or betas, grapple rules specified that monsters in larger size categories automatically succeeded at escape checks. But you could still grapple them to begin with. Grappler was obviously worded to refer to that older definition, which is why it appears to do nothing.   RAW, the feat isn't good. The first two modes are both worse than just shoving a target prone and then grappling them from there. If you can explain to your DM why the wording is an obvious error, then you can get an RAI revision to say that "you can grapple creatures more than one size category larger than you". At this point, it's probably best just to wait for errata and to get the size increase from other means (Enlarge, level 2 spell, comes to mind).
#3 FluffyBunbunKittens Oct 06, 2014 1:09:18	Exactly what he said. Even Tavern Brawler is better than this feat. This one's only benefit is basically 'you get advantage when grappling someone', and there's so many ways to get advantage (easiest being just knocking them prone) that it's not worth a specific feat.
#4 Undrhil Mar 11, 2015 1:06:24	I think you replied to the wrong thread.
(Reply to #4) Koningkrush	Undrhil wrote: