Opposed Rolls. how to do it? 5e

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Lets say a Troll wants to make an opposed roll against the rogue.

The troll will make a Strenght (Athletics) check against the rogue Dexterity(acrobatics) OR his Strength (athletics) check (his choice)..

How to do this at FG?

Do the two makes an check into the chat and then the DM adds Grappled status if the rogue lost?
Is there another way to do it?

My players and monsters tend to do that a lot.

[LordEntrails]

Yea, the DM just looks at the rolls and indicates the results. At least that's the way I do it. Don't forget the Effect window from the small icon. Also, you can add custom effects to it as well.

[Trenloe]

I've moved this thread to the 5E forum. For 5E specific questions, please post in the 5E forum. The Tavern forum is for general FG discussions. Believe it, or not, some people aren't interested in 5E stuff! ;)

Thanks.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Yea, the DM just looks at the rolls and indicates the results. At least that's the way I do it. Don't forget the Effect window from the small icon. Also, you can add custom effects to it as well.

thanks.
Then if the rogue lost, i can just drag the grappled effect to him, right?
That is what i did. Thanks

[LordEntrails]

Yea, that's right, just drag the effect onto the rogue.

[Zacchaeus]

If the NPC has been set up properly then the grappled effect will show on the CT. So, assuming also that the targeting is correct, double clicking on the grapple effect on the CT will apply it to the Rogue.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

If the NPC has been set up properly then the grappled effect will show on the CT. So, assuming also that the targeting is correct, double clicking on the grapple effect on the CT will apply it to the Rogue.

only if it is an attack or if it is a part of it, right?

But the monster can change its attack into a grapple action.

Trolls does not have a grappling action, so he would need to forgo his multiattack to do it.

[Zacchaeus]

Yes, I'm talking about NPCs that specifically have some kind of Grapple built into their actions.

If a creature can multiattack then it only needs to give up one of the attacks to attempt a Grapple.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Yes, I'm talking about NPCs that specifically have some kind of Grapple built into their actions.

If a creature can multiattack then it only needs to give up one of the attacks to attempt a Grapple.

Actually no, according to Mike Mearls on sage advice they must forgo all attacks, since grapple is not one of them.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/19/multiattack-and-grapple/

[Zacchaeus]

Interesting. That seems to penalise NPCs. Having said that unless the creature actually has a grapple attack I've never used it with a creature that hasn't.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

Interesting. That seems to penalise NPCs. Having said that unless the creature actually has a grapple attack I've never used it with a creature that hasn't.

Yep, i also agree it penalizes NPCs a lot, since players with Extra attack can do it just fine. That is why I tend to house rule it when it makes sense. And it makes no sense to me that a creature with 4 arms cannot grab and hit at the same turn.

but anyway, thanks for all the answers.

[epithet]

... I tend to house rule it when it makes sense. ...

That's not really a house rule. That's just an interpretation of the published rule that is different than Mike's. Personally, I interpret the rule to mean that an NPC can grapple in place of its attacks just like a PC can, and I don't agree with Mike's interpretation.

I have nothing against house rules, mind you--I don't hesitate to create them myself. I just think it's important to avoid placing too much importance on the interpretations and personal rulings of other people, even if they did participate in the design of this edition of the rules. There's a difference between the rules of D&D and Mike's opinion of how they work.

[Henrique Oliveira Machado]

That's not really a house rule. That's just an interpretation of the published rule that is different than Mike's. Personally, I interpret the rule to mean that an NPC can grapple in place of its attacks just like a PC can, and I don't agree with Mike's interpretation.

I have nothing against house rules, mind you--I don't hesitate to create them myself. I just think it's important to avoid placing too much importance on the interpretations and personal rulings of other people, even if they did participate in the design of this edition of the rules. There's a difference between the rules of D&D and Mike's opinion of how they work.

actually it is a house rule, since multiattack descriptions says the creature can make those attacks that are described there using its action.
Unless grapple is one of them, they must forgo its action to do it. which means the creature must either grapple or attack.

But there is nothing wrong on house rule anything you do not think it makes sense.

This restriction was probably meant to avoid unbalancing, since a creature with 4 attacks could knock a player down and proceed to smash it 3 times with advantages, using this troll as example.

[El Condoro]

PHB 195 specifically says about 'Grappling', 'If you're able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.'

A 'Multiattack' (MM p 11) says the creature can make multiple attacks using its Action.

The troll could grapple and then attack twice - succeed or fail - (there is no advantage on the attack roll against a creature with the grappled condition).

Ergo, I think Mike Mearls is house ruling. :) He's allowed to.