If you have a target grappled, you can drag them into a moonbeam or a create bonfire. Since you are grabbing them, do you take damage from the spells also or only if you pass through the spell space?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Those spells don’t ask whether affected persons are being held, touched, or otherwise connected to anyone else. If someone enters the spells area of effect, then they are affected. If you force-move anyone into the area but you yourself are not in the area, then you are not in the area and thus are not affected, regardless of what you may or may not be doing to anyone who is in the area of effect.
The grappled does not mean, strange as it seems, that you're in the same space as the opponent. This means that yes, it is possible to target a creature with an area spell and keep your ally out of the area of effect.
If I'm reading it correctly, you're not even using an action every turn after the initial check, so you could cast your own spells while in a grapple on your opponent.
It all depends on whether you're occupying the same space as the target when you grapple - if you do, then moved a creature into a space affected by create bonfire or moonbeam, then you'd be affected as well.
To my knowledge, there are no solid rules about whether you occupy the same space as the grappled target in the PHB though. Only that you are allowed to move through spaces occupied by someone else, but not willingly end your turn there.
As a DM, I'd rule that if you wanted to grapple someone, and move them into a space affected by a spell, you couldn't hold them in the space without being affected yourself. I'd suggest a shove.
Ah, this question again. We discussed it at length, but without real resolution. Short answer, the grappled and grappler are always in different spaces so are affected differently by area effects. The unsolved question was how to handle dragging or carrying people into an area of effect because the rules are not clear. I suggest you decide what is possible with what rolls at your own table.
It all depends on whether you're occupying the same space as the target when you grapple - if you do, then moved a creature into a space affected by create bonfire or moonbeam, then you'd be affected as well.
To my knowledge, there are no solid rules about whether you occupy the same space as the grappled target in the PHB though. Only that you are allowed to move through spaces occupied by someone else, but not willingly end your turn there.
As a DM, I'd rule that if you wanted to grapple someone, and move them into a space affected by a spell, you couldn't hold them in the space without being affected yourself. I'd suggest a shove.
The general rule is that you cannot move into an enemy's space and there is no specific rule in grappling to override that rule so the general rule is still in effect. I had thought for a long time (and I have had DMs with the same misconception) that grappler and grapplee occupy the same spot, but this is not the case.
I think I mentioned in the other thread (cited by RegentCorreon) that grappled is an unfortunate name for the grappled condition. Grappling really is just holding on to the enemy to prevent their movement. The most impactful thing I took out of that thread was the idea that I don't have to hold on to the enemy with my hand in their space, but could instead keep my hand in my space and pull some part of them (arm, cloak, hair, whatever) closer to me.
Would you, as a DM, rule differently if grappling had a different name that better described the effect?
Also a thing I point out. Player characters "control" a 5 foot cube. Even if most players describe their characters as 6 feet tall! you control that cube and threaten every cube around you.
That's why it's difficult terrain to move through another's space, even an ally.
The other thing is because you "control" the space you are assumed to be under the effect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle during the entirety of the 6 seconds of a Round. A character is known to be in the square but where exactly they are and what direction they are facing is unknown at any particular moment.
It's why characters have 360' situational awareness and they could be hit by 4 fireballs each 20' from them exploding from different directions. They character is always assumed to be in the blast.
All a grapple means is that the character can't move.
The general rule is that you cannot move into an enemy's space and there is no specific rule in grappling to override that rule so the general rule is still in effect. I had thought for a long time (and I have had DMs with the same misconception) that grappler and grapplee occupy the same spot, but this is not the case.
The general rule is that you cannot end your move in an enemy's space, so it is definitely possible to occupy the same space for a while. I would argue that it is perfectly okay to carry an enemy around (in your space), as long as you don't end your turn in the same space. At the end of your turn you would have to put the enemy down and either step away or shove him away (in this way you would technically be able to carry him to the fire and shove him into it). If you interpret the rules below to mean that the enemy is technically in your space (not its own), that would be a discussion of how you determine who controls the space, which I would say would be original occupant (you). But if you suddenly controlled the space in which the enemy is located, the enemy would technically lose its space and therefore not have any range (because range is determined from your own space) which would be very limiting for the carried creature. You could technically carry the enemy around for as long as you feel like it, and the enemy wouldn't be able to do anything, until the enemy escapes your grapple. While it kinda would make sense irl, I don't believe this is the intention of RAW.
Moving Around Other Creatures
Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can't willingly end your move in its space.
Regarding the dragging of a creature, I would personally rule that you drag the creature behind you, as that is how the word is most commonly used. But I have not been able to find anything specific in RAW.
The general rule is that you cannot move into an enemy's space and there is no specific rule in grappling to override that rule so the general rule is still in effect. I had thought for a long time (and I have had DMs with the same misconception) that grappler and grapplee occupy the same spot, but this is not the case.
I think I mentioned in the other thread (cited by RegentCorreon) that grappled is an unfortunate name for the grappled condition. Grappling really is just holding on to the enemy to prevent their movement. The most impactful thing I took out of that thread was the idea that I don't have to hold on to the enemy with my hand in their space, but could instead keep my hand in my space and pull some part of them (arm, cloak, hair, whatever) closer to me.
Would you, as a DM, rule differently if grappling had a different name that better described the effect?
You are correct on the general rule - although it's 'through' an enemy space, not 'into' - and I think that's an important distinction.
Apologies for any confusion; I was referring more to the rule about not being able to willingly end your turn in an occupied space (whether friend or foe), and suggesting that when you grapple, as you're not 'moving through' a space, but rather interacting with something in a space (whether you're in their space or not), whether it'd be possible to move them into a spell's effect without touching it yourself. There's nothing in the PHB that talks about what space you're in when you grapple.
Regarding the naming convention: I know that 'grapple' doesn't necessarily mean a bear hug. But I'd still take it on a case-by-case basis, perhaps with a skill check. Holding onto a struggling creature to prevent them moving, manhandling them over to another space, and then holding them in a spell effect, without getting touched yourself would be tricky, which is why I'd rule the way I described.
I think it has less to do with the space they're in, and more about what makes sense. For example, if a player wanted to force a goblin's head into a pool of water, I wouldn't rule that the player starts suffocating too. If they wanted to force that goblin into a roaring bonfire, without letting go, I'd ask for a dexterity check of some kind to avoid getting burned.
You are correct on the general rule - although it's 'through' an enemy space, not 'into' - and I think that's an important distinction.
Apologies for any confusion; I was referring more to the rule about not being able to willingly end your turn in an occupied space (whether friend or foe), and suggesting that when you grapple, as you're not 'moving through' a space, but rather interacting with something in a space (whether you're in their space or not), whether it'd be possible to move them into a spell's effect without touching it yourself. There's nothing in the PHB that talks about what space you're in when you grapple.
Regarding the naming convention: I know that 'grapple' doesn't necessarily mean a bear hug. But I'd still take it on a case-by-case basis, perhaps with a skill check. Holding onto a struggling creature to prevent them moving, manhandling them over to another space, and then holding them in a spell effect, without getting touched yourself would be tricky, which is why I'd rule the way I described.
I think it has less to do with the space they're in, and more about what makes sense. For example, if a player wanted to force a goblin's head into a pool of water, I wouldn't rule that the player starts suffocating too. If they wanted to force that goblin into a roaring bonfire, without letting go, I'd ask for a dexterity check of some kind to avoid getting burned.
You are correct that it's through and not into, but I don't see why the distinction is important. If you can explain that would be great, but I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where you move into an enemy's space and not through it.
You are also correct that there is nothing in the PHB about what space you are in when you grapple. That's precisely why I think each party to the grapple remains where they are unless the grappler moves both/either the grappler and/or the grapplee.
A slightly different scenario to consider: if a monk punches a creature which is in a moonbeam should the monk take damage? It seems like a huge nerf to the monk if you say yes, but this situation is analogous to the grappling. Also, there are things like the azer that explicitly say a if you touch or melee attack it, you take damage. I don't think the wording of these spells justifies additional barriers to combat.
Ultimately it seems to me that you have a less abstracted view of combat than I think the rules call for.
You are correct that it's through and not into, but I don't see why the distinction is important. If you can explain that would be great, but I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where you move into an enemy's space and not through it.
You are also correct that there is nothing in the PHB about what space you are in when you grapple. That's precisely why I think each party to the grapple remains where they are unless the grappler moves both/either the grappler and/or the grapplee.
A slightly different scenario to consider: if a monk punches a creature which is in a moonbeam should the monk take damage? It seems like a huge nerf to the monk if you say yes, but this situation is analogous to the grappling. Also, there are things like the azer that explicitly say a if you touch or melee attack it, you take damage.
I don't think the wording of these spells justifies additional barriers to combat. Ultimately it seems to me that you have a less abstracted view of combat than I think the rules call for.
I consider moving 'through' a space to be intending to leave the other side, e.g. trying to get through a 5ft wide doorway with a bugbear standing in it, for example. It's more about movement and positioning than actions.
Moving 'into' a space I consider to be moving into the 5x5ft area that a creature controls (depending on their size), to perform an action, an attack, etc. You're never 'in' another's space for long - usually until your action ends.
I like your example about the monk punching a creature in a moonbeam, that's a really good point. I did a bit of reading about this, and came across this sage article, that effectively suggests that spells like moonbeam are creating hazards on the battlefield. It talks about 'hurling creatures into the area with a spell like thunderwave', but not grappling.
On that, could you grapple a creature into a hazard like a pit trap, without falling in yourself, or would you have to shove them? Depending from which direction you're moving them, I'd probably at least have to consider a check of some kind - but perhaps that's where my interpretation differs. Perhaps, because I don't use a grid, it makes 'cut and dry' rules a little more situational. Jeremy Crawford touched on this in a tweet. And therefore, in my mind, if you have a hand on a creature in a moonbeam, part of you is also within that 5x5 area.
At what point is a character 'inside' an area of effect? I might be making it more obfuscated than it needs to be, but there's no clear RAW on it.
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Good discussion!
Another instance where using a hex map is better =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Good discussion!
Another instance where using a hex map is better =)
Or no grid at all! In that it allows me to run situations more narratively, than rigidly. The more I consider that, the more I think it might be the crux of this entire discussion for me.
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Good discussion!
Another instance where using a hex map is better =)
Or no grid at all! In that it allows me to run situations more narratively, than rigidly. The more I consider that, the more I think it might be the crux of this entire discussion for me.
You're not wrong. It really all boils down to: what skill checks (contested or not) does it, or should it, take in order to force someone into an area of damaging effect against their will, and without going in there yourself? I vote for requiring a shove if you want to do that. You can grapple before in order to get them near the danger, but then a shove or similar feels needed to get them in. The rules do not specify anything else one way or the other, and neither do any sage advice I have yet seen. That decision satisfies me, and is casually clear whether you have squares, hexes or no grid.
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Good discussion!
Another instance where using a hex map is better =)
Or no grid at all! In that it allows me to run situations more narratively, than rigidly. The more I consider that, the more I think it might be the crux of this entire discussion for me.
You're not wrong. It really all boils down to: what skill checks (contested or not) does it, or should it, take in order to force someone into an area of damaging effect against their will, and without going in there yourself? I vote for requiring a shove if you want to do that. You can grapple before in order to get them near the danger, but then a shove or similar feels needed to get them in. The rules do not specify anything else one way or the other, and neither do any sage advice I have yet seen. That decision satisfies me, and is casually clear whether you have squares, hexes or no grid.
Agreed. I'd present the following options:
On your turn, you can grapple and move a creature near to the area of effect, then on a second turn (or action if available) shove them into it.
On your turn, you can grapple and move a creature near to the area of effect, then roll a skill check to see if you can hold them in it without suffering damage yourself.
The first option seems most logical for me, but I'd allow the second depending on the circumstance.
Also a thing I point out. Player characters "control" a 5 foot cube. Even if most players describe their characters as 6 feet tall! you control that cube and threaten every cube around you.
The rules never describe a creature's space as a cube; the space controlled by different creature sizes is always described as a square area (e.g. 5 by 5 ft.)
Based on this tweet I suspect the intent is that the area you control is as tall as you are:
If you have a target grappled, you can drag them into a moonbeam or a create bonfire. Since you are grabbing them, do you take damage from the spells also or only if you pass through the spell space?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Those spells don’t ask whether affected persons are being held, touched, or otherwise connected to anyone else. If someone enters the spells area of effect, then they are affected. If you force-move anyone into the area but you yourself are not in the area, then you are not in the area and thus are not affected, regardless of what you may or may not be doing to anyone who is in the area of effect.
The grappled does not mean, strange as it seems, that you're in the same space as the opponent. This means that yes, it is possible to target a creature with an area spell and keep your ally out of the area of effect.
If I'm reading it correctly, you're not even using an action every turn after the initial check, so you could cast your own spells while in a grapple on your opponent.
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
It all depends on whether you're occupying the same space as the target when you grapple - if you do, then moved a creature into a space affected by create bonfire or moonbeam, then you'd be affected as well.
To my knowledge, there are no solid rules about whether you occupy the same space as the grappled target in the PHB though. Only that you are allowed to move through spaces occupied by someone else, but not willingly end your turn there.
As a DM, I'd rule that if you wanted to grapple someone, and move them into a space affected by a spell, you couldn't hold them in the space without being affected yourself. I'd suggest a shove.
Ah, this question again. We discussed it at length, but without real resolution. Short answer, the grappled and grappler are always in different spaces so are affected differently by area effects. The unsolved question was how to handle dragging or carrying people into an area of effect because the rules are not clear. I suggest you decide what is possible with what rolls at your own table.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/17210-grappling-and-flaming-sphere
The general rule is that you cannot move into an enemy's space and there is no specific rule in grappling to override that rule so the general rule is still in effect. I had thought for a long time (and I have had DMs with the same misconception) that grappler and grapplee occupy the same spot, but this is not the case.
I think I mentioned in the other thread (cited by RegentCorreon) that grappled is an unfortunate name for the grappled condition. Grappling really is just holding on to the enemy to prevent their movement. The most impactful thing I took out of that thread was the idea that I don't have to hold on to the enemy with my hand in their space, but could instead keep my hand in my space and pull some part of them (arm, cloak, hair, whatever) closer to me.
Would you, as a DM, rule differently if grappling had a different name that better described the effect?
Also a thing I point out. Player characters "control" a 5 foot cube. Even if most players describe their characters as 6 feet tall! you control that cube and threaten every cube around you.
That's why it's difficult terrain to move through another's space, even an ally.
The other thing is because you "control" the space you are assumed to be under the effect of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle during the entirety of the 6 seconds of a Round.
A character is known to be in the square but where exactly they are and what direction they are facing is unknown at any particular moment.
It's why characters have 360' situational awareness and they could be hit by 4 fireballs each 20' from them exploding from different directions. They character is always assumed to be in the blast.
All a grapple means is that the character can't move.
The general rule is that you cannot end your move in an enemy's space, so it is definitely possible to occupy the same space for a while. I would argue that it is perfectly okay to carry an enemy around (in your space), as long as you don't end your turn in the same space. At the end of your turn you would have to put the enemy down and either step away or shove him away (in this way you would technically be able to carry him to the fire and shove him into it). If you interpret the rules below to mean that the enemy is technically in your space (not its own), that would be a discussion of how you determine who controls the space, which I would say would be original occupant (you). But if you suddenly controlled the space in which the enemy is located, the enemy would technically lose its space and therefore not have any range (because range is determined from your own space) which would be very limiting for the carried creature. You could technically carry the enemy around for as long as you feel like it, and the enemy wouldn't be able to do anything, until the enemy escapes your grapple. While it kinda would make sense irl, I don't believe this is the intention of RAW.
Regarding the dragging of a creature, I would personally rule that you drag the creature behind you, as that is how the word is most commonly used. But I have not been able to find anything specific in RAW.
You are correct on the general rule - although it's 'through' an enemy space, not 'into' - and I think that's an important distinction.
Apologies for any confusion; I was referring more to the rule about not being able to willingly end your turn in an occupied space (whether friend or foe), and suggesting that when you grapple, as you're not 'moving through' a space, but rather interacting with something in a space (whether you're in their space or not), whether it'd be possible to move them into a spell's effect without touching it yourself. There's nothing in the PHB that talks about what space you're in when you grapple.
Regarding the naming convention: I know that 'grapple' doesn't necessarily mean a bear hug. But I'd still take it on a case-by-case basis, perhaps with a skill check. Holding onto a struggling creature to prevent them moving, manhandling them over to another space, and then holding them in a spell effect, without getting touched yourself would be tricky, which is why I'd rule the way I described.
I think it has less to do with the space they're in, and more about what makes sense. For example, if a player wanted to force a goblin's head into a pool of water, I wouldn't rule that the player starts suffocating too. If they wanted to force that goblin into a roaring bonfire, without letting go, I'd ask for a dexterity check of some kind to avoid getting burned.
You are correct that it's through and not into, but I don't see why the distinction is important. If you can explain that would be great, but I'm having trouble envisioning a scenario where you move into an enemy's space and not through it.
You are also correct that there is nothing in the PHB about what space you are in when you grapple. That's precisely why I think each party to the grapple remains where they are unless the grappler moves both/either the grappler and/or the grapplee.
A slightly different scenario to consider: if a monk punches a creature which is in a moonbeam should the monk take damage? It seems like a huge nerf to the monk if you say yes, but this situation is analogous to the grappling. Also, there are things like the azer that explicitly say a if you touch or melee attack it, you take damage. I don't think the wording of these spells justifies additional barriers to combat.
Ultimately it seems to me that you have a less abstracted view of combat than I think the rules call for.
I consider moving 'through' a space to be intending to leave the other side, e.g. trying to get through a 5ft wide doorway with a bugbear standing in it, for example. It's more about movement and positioning than actions.
Moving 'into' a space I consider to be moving into the 5x5ft area that a creature controls (depending on their size), to perform an action, an attack, etc. You're never 'in' another's space for long - usually until your action ends.
I like your example about the monk punching a creature in a moonbeam, that's a really good point. I did a bit of reading about this, and came across this sage article, that effectively suggests that spells like moonbeam are creating hazards on the battlefield. It talks about 'hurling creatures into the area with a spell like thunderwave', but not grappling.
On that, could you grapple a creature into a hazard like a pit trap, without falling in yourself, or would you have to shove them? Depending from which direction you're moving them, I'd probably at least have to consider a check of some kind - but perhaps that's where my interpretation differs. Perhaps, because I don't use a grid, it makes 'cut and dry' rules a little more situational. Jeremy Crawford touched on this in a tweet. And therefore, in my mind, if you have a hand on a creature in a moonbeam, part of you is also within that 5x5 area.
At what point is a character 'inside' an area of effect? I might be making it more obfuscated than it needs to be, but there's no clear RAW on it.
Edit: I've flicked through the DMG, and an interesting optional rule on area of effect spells (p.195) says: 'Choose an intersection of squares or hexes as the point of origin of an area of effect, then follow its rules as normal. If an area of effect is circular and covers at least half a square, it affects that square.' This could help in this situation if you're using a grid.
Good discussion!
Another instance where using a hex map is better =)
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Or no grid at all! In that it allows me to run situations more narratively, than rigidly. The more I consider that, the more I think it might be the crux of this entire discussion for me.
You're not wrong. It really all boils down to: what skill checks (contested or not) does it, or should it, take in order to force someone into an area of damaging effect against their will, and without going in there yourself? I vote for requiring a shove if you want to do that. You can grapple before in order to get them near the danger, but then a shove or similar feels needed to get them in. The rules do not specify anything else one way or the other, and neither do any sage advice I have yet seen. That decision satisfies me, and is casually clear whether you have squares, hexes or no grid.
Agreed. I'd present the following options:
The first option seems most logical for me, but I'd allow the second depending on the circumstance.
The rules never describe a creature's space as a cube; the space controlled by different creature sizes is always described as a square area (e.g. 5 by 5 ft.)
Based on this tweet I suspect the intent is that the area you control is as tall as you are:
"Can a creature moved through a prone enemy?" "Being prone doesn't turn you into a rug, but others can make a long jump over you pretty easily."