So, there's a bit of ambiguity with these conditions that I think I've pieced out so far:
Grappled: Affected is held by an equally moveable force in a way that inhibits or restricts movements. Per the PHB, movement away from the grappling source will break the effect (implying that one can break free or is able to be pulled away).
Restrained: Affected is held completely immobile by a greater force or is held in a way in which movement is totally restricted (as with Web). Affected is also held in such a way that it hinders their ability to attack or defend (advantage against Affected, disadvantage for Affected's attacks, disadvantage to Affected Dex saves).
The PHB has nice little pictures to show conditions. Restrained shows a man trapped in a Web, Grappled shows a man held by several tentacles. Here's where my confusion comes in (also related to the PHB image): Where does Grappled become Restrained?
In magical terms, Restrained is very clear for some spells (ex. Hold Person, Web, etc.). What about physical means, though? I have a scenario I'm planning where I play a necromancer toting a posse of 3-6 zombies via Animate Dead. I'm seeing writing on the wall where an NPC betrays the party and I want to plan accordingly. By the PHB, I can use a zombie to grapple them, but I want to completely turn the tides. If I command several zombies to grab their arms, legs, body, etc., then I have effectively made them Restrained, correct? Pull their arm, and you bring zombies with them. Hit them with forced movement, and you bring zombies with them. The only feasible escape is repeated Strength saves to pull zombies off or kill them.
What does everyone think? The PHB shows a man held by several tentacles as Grappled, but short of extreme forced movement, attacking the appendages, or STR checking them off individually (which would let them re-attack next turn), they are effectively Restrained, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Where the rules say it does, and literally nowhere else. The conditions are related (some things which cause you to be restrained do so by grappling you), and they are similar (both are limitations to movements of the body), but they are not ambiguous in their application because the rules always clearly state which one of them, or both, are applied.
For example, the grappling rules very clearly only apply the grappled condition. Anything that uses those rules to apply the restrained states that fact explicitly, as there is no other way to turn grappled into restrained.
To show an example of when that happens, look at the constrict attack of a behir. It explicitly states the target is restrained while grappled as a result of this attack. The same is true of all other cases when a grapple is also a way to restrain a creature.
I'm more looking at it from a realistic mechanical aspect: If you are grapple 1v1, then rules are as the say. However, when you are successively pinned why multiple assailants, what then?
In the case of a Behir, the monster has size and physiology to restrict (via constriction) when it grabs/grapples. However, a humanoid held by several assailants of the same size would suffer the same effect (though the condition may say "grappled") because they are bound and suffer severe penalties to offense and defense.
Rules regarding conditions state that multiple soirces of a condition result in general neutralizing, but at what point do we look at it mechanically and say "this is too much for a simple grapple"? If someone isn't outright knocked prone by sheer weight and momentum, then shouldn't they be comsidered restrained for the sake of bonuses and penalities?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Sorry if the wording in the beginning was vague everyone. I never meant a literal "Grappled becomes Restrained", but more just that the effects (bonuses and penalties) change accordingly. So if someone were attacked by an angry mob, they may be grappled by the throng, but they are effectively under the same effect of being restrained (disadvantage to attacks made and DEX saves, advantage to incoming attacks, movement speed reduced to 0).
EDIT: The conditions of freeing oneself from this excessive grappling may be similar to standard Grappled condition in that you could break free by force (personal or external).
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
I'm more looking at it from a realistic mechanical aspect: If you are grapple 1v1, then rules are as the say. However, when you are successively pinned why multiple assailants, what then?[/quote]
Trying to bring "realistic mechanical aspect" into D&D almost always results in more trouble and disappointment than anything else. To answer your question directly, however, I must say: If you are successively pinned by multiple assailants, you are grappled. That's it. At most, the only added complication would be needing to beat the contested rolls of your numerous grapplers in order to remove the grappled from yourself.
However, a humanoid held by several assailants of the same size would suffer the same effect (though the condition may say "grappled") because they are bound and suffer severe penalties to offense and defense.
No, that's not the case. It can be made the case by creating a monster that is a mob of assailants and has an attack which results in the target being restrained, and by no other means - the penalties/conditions of being grappled do not change just because of some threshold of hands being used. That's just not how D&D rules are built.
Sorry if the wording in the beginning was vague everyone. I never meant a literal "Grappled becomes Restrained", but more just that the effects (bonuses and penalties) change accordingly. So if someone were attacked by an angry mob, they may be grappled by the throng, but they are effectively under the same effect of being restrained (disadvantage to attacks made and DEX saves, advantage to incoming attacks, movement speed reduced to 0).
EDIT: The conditions of freeing oneself from this excessive grappling may be similar to standard Grappled condition in that you could break free by force (personal or external).
An to finish, and slightly reiterate what I've already stated, I'll say this: Build any encounter that you want to have the description "an angry mob grab onto you, making it very difficult to move" as being an encounter with a singular monster that is a swarm (like swarm of bats, for example) of the individuals you envision, and give it an attack which results in the target being restrained, rather than having it be a collection of individual monsters that have no special power to restrain their target.
I'm more looking at it from a realistic mechanical aspect: If you are grapple 1v1, then rules are as the say. However, when you are successively pinned why multiple assailants, what then?[/quote]
Trying to bring "realistic mechanical aspect" into D&D almost always results in more trouble and disappointment than anything else. To answer your question directly, however, I must say: If you are successively pinned by multiple assailants, you are grappled. That's it. At most, the only added complication would be needing to beat the contested rolls of your numerous grapplers in order to remove the grappled from yourself.
However, a humanoid held by several assailants of the same size would suffer the same effect (though the condition may say "grappled") because they are bound and suffer severe penalties to offense and defense.
No, that's not the case. It can be made the case by creating a monster that is a mob of assailants and has an attack which results in the target being restrained, and by no other means - the penalties/conditions of being grappled do not change just because of some threshold of hands being used. That's just not how D&D rules are built.
Sorry if the wording in the beginning was vague everyone. I never meant a literal "Grappled becomes Restrained", but more just that the effects (bonuses and penalties) change accordingly. So if someone were attacked by an angry mob, they may be grappled by the throng, but they are effectively under the same effect of being restrained (disadvantage to attacks made and DEX saves, advantage to incoming attacks, movement speed reduced to 0).
EDIT: The conditions of freeing oneself from this excessive grappling may be similar to standard Grappled condition in that you could break free by force (personal or external).
An to finish, and slightly reiterate what I've already stated, I'll say this: Build any encounter that you want to have the description "an angry mob grab onto you, making it very difficult to move" as being an encounter with a singular monster that is a swarm (like swarm of bats, for example) of the individuals you envision, and give it an attack which results in the target being restrained, rather than having it be a collection of individual monsters that have no special power to restrain their target.
So, if I'm on the floor, someone's holding my right arm, someone else is holding my left arm, someone else is holding my right leg, someone else is holding my left leg, and someone else is sitting on me, I can attack unhindered and make Dexterity saving throws unhindered?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
So, if I'm on the floor, someone's holding my right arm, someone else is holding my left arm, someone else is holding my right leg, someone else is holding my left leg, and someone else is sitting on me, I can attack unhindered and make Dexterity saving throws unhindered?
Actually, is more that the situation that you describe does not happen according to the D&D rules - you are "grappled", not "held by the right arm" or the like.
Like I said before, and will likely say thousands of times before my last conversation about table-top game rules, trying to bring a realistic situation into the rules is going to result in more disappointment than anything else - like how the D&D rules for grappling don't even remotely lend themselves to simulating how physically holding onto someone works in the real world.
Arguably, you are probably incapacitated at that point - I can't see you attacking anyone, even at a disadvantage. Same thing if you exchange the ones holding you down with manacles.
Personally, I'd advise against trying to figure out what condition dictates what, and instead go with what situation dictates what condition.
You're struggling against a thousand tendrils, but you're able to chop at them with your sword until you're blue in the face? Grappled.
You're stuck so deep in mud that it's up to your waist and your movements are tricky? Restrained.
Creatures/effects that inflict conditions are there for the convenience of the DM, represent the "usual" situations, and can be overruled if the situations demand it.
On an interesting note, check the tentacles of the Giant Octopus. :p
To the above, because miles of quoted text is annoying for all, adding "realism" to a tabletop design doesn't create additional issues so long as simple alternatives are available. In my original scenario, I have a necromancer in a campaign with a team of zombies (the reason for asking to begin with). According to the rules, 1 zombie can grapple a target, not restrain, but additional zombies do nothing extra. If I'm looking for something extra rather than "you are grappled by 3 zombies", I need to MAKE a nee zombie creature which would not align with the source of my minions (Animate Dead). "By the rules", I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Tabletop formats are attractive because they give liberty for creativity and dialogue. If I want to pin and enemy so I can nab their stuff or give a nice setup for the party, this is the perfect environment to do it. I honestly believe the new rulesets of D&D are making more parameters that kill creativity. What ever happened to "that's a good idea, +1 to that roll" or "for not listening to the five warnings of the old man in the woods, you are surprised when he turns into Bahamut and you suffer -4 AC because of it"?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Creativity is still encouraged in 5th. Page 193 of the Player's Handbook, the top box, mentions about improvising actions, and how the DM adjudicates whether it's possible, and the conditions for success or failure.
Combat actions and conditions are there for convenience, simplicity, and speed. They can be modified for circumstances, slightly or impressively.
Admittedly, however, if the DM rules in favor of being able to incapacitate an enemy with four zombies, it may prove problematic in the long term, especially if it's something that's easily repeatable and doesn't have the rule-interaction foresight that official, tested rules still surprise me with. After all, if four zombies can grapple an arm or leg each of a humanoid, why can't thirty zombies do the same to a giant?
Having minions is fun, but having them grapple four targets (one each), or add layers of grappling that your target needs to escape, is still useful, and doesn't complicate things too much. And if you find the odd situation that you have four zombies against a hapless humanoid, you don't lose anything by attempting to fully pin them - it's quite possible the DM will decide a rather viable roll will decide the outcome.
Don't forget, however, even as simple a teleportation as Misty Step evades grapples and most restraints (since they're usually location-based).
Tabletop formats are attractive because they give liberty for creativity and dialogue. If I want to pin and enemy so I can nab their stuff or give a nice setup for the party, this is the perfect environment to do it. I honestly believe the new rulesets of D&D are making more parameters that kill creativity.
Nah, it's not that the new rules don't encourage creativity just as much as the old rules did.
If you'd have asked the same question - word for word post even - in the Homebrew & House Rules section, instead of here in the Rules & Mechanics section, I'd have given you entirely different answers.
I had considered Homebrew forums, but since this pertains to pure mechanics, I thought it would go here. For the sake of conversation and curiosity, where does DM freedom cross over into Homebrew territory? The whole reason I love D&D over literally any game is because of the freedom allowed to players and DMs alike. It's a sandbox game in the purest sense because everything is staged within a general framework and refined by those involved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
For the sake of conversation and curiosity, where does DM freedom cross over into Homebrew territory?
DM freedom crosses into homebrew territory any/every time you do anything the rules don't specifically cover, or when you do something the rules do cover differently than they suggest to do it. Which is to say that DM freedom very frequently crosses into homebrew territory, and does so by design because the game authors knew they couldn't possibly cover every possibility, and couldn't possibly have everyone agree on the preferred method of handling even those possibilities which they did cover.
As for how to put a thread in the right forum to get the preferred sort of reply, that's a lot more clear cut: If you are asking what the rules are or what the rules say to do, that goes here. If you are asking for help doing something outside those rules, or are expanding how the rules operate for your group, that goes in the homebrew forum.
For the sake of conversation and curiosity, where does DM freedom cross over into Homebrew territory?
DM freedom crosses into homebrew territory any/every time you do anything the rules don't specifically cover, or when you do something the rules do cover differently than they suggest to do it. Which is to say that DM freedom very frequently crosses into homebrew territory, and does so by design because the game authors knew they couldn't possibly cover every possibility, and couldn't possibly have everyone agree on the preferred method of handling even those possibilities which they did cover.
As for how to put a thread in the right forum to get the preferred sort of reply, that's a lot more clear cut: If you are asking what the rules are or what the rules say to do, that goes here. If you are asking for help doing something outside those rules, or are expanding how the rules operate for your group, that goes in the homebrew forum.
That should be pinned somewhere, if only to prevent a repeat of this incident.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
I never meant a literal "Grappled becomes Restrained", but more just that the effects (bonuses and penalties) change accordingly
I think I found an easier way to do what you want by the rules without resorting to the generic (dis)advantage DM fiat:
Combine the Grappling special melee attack with the Shove a Creature special melee attack to make them go prone.
Grappled + Prone is very similar (penalty-wise) to Restrained, anyone (even zombies) can do it, and the victim can't stand without breaking the Grapple(s).
All the [...] prisoners [...] wear iron slave collars along with manacles connected to iron belts by a short length of chain. This leaves the prisoners restrained, but doesn’t affect their movement or speed.
This is from an adventure module. So probably not rules per se but ruled nevertheless that the manacles described have a modified restrained effect. In my opinion this is part of the DM's Job: to rule which cause has which effect. He should use common sense and be consistent. I find it completely valid for a DM to rule that enough grapples result in restriction.
Hello, I’m Yocto, thought I drop an random thought...
If I were an 8 ft tall Goliath, grappling a 3ft gnome, successfully lifting him up into the air. Would he be grappled and be in a rather disadvantageous situation where I could have advantage to attack him, a condition normally applied to a creature who is completely restrained ? Allow me to elaborate.
While in the grappled state, it only implies having your speed reduced to 0, while the state of being restrained imposes more severe consequences. The gnome in this case is “ grappled”, yet would he not have disadvantage on DEX saves and disadvantage on attack rolls against the Goliath, while the Goliath would have advantage on his attack rolls, so long as the Gnome is suspendedand Held by the Goliath Would being suspended warrant the restrained state, instead of a mere grappled state ?
A grapple only requires a STR Check to break free from the state.
Being “Restrained” wether imposed by iron shackles or a spell, I dare say those states will not be broken out of from just brute strength alone.
As I see it, the problem lies in that, in some cases, being Grappled would impose harsher penalties to the creature being grappled, if the assailant’s abilities see fit. Being grappled would certainly impose advantage on my part to attack the grappled creature, I couldn’t hit it easier where it not grappled, so a grappled creature has disadvantage against my onslaught. being Restrained in my opinion, is a more difficult state to break free from, than just being grappled, because restrained implies an immobility outside of a person or thing merely holding you down with strength or in a hold.
In summary: Grapple should implode the conditions of restrained p, when it is a truly firm grapple, flexibility is key with this rule. Restrained is but a advanced form of being “grappled” in a way.
I hope you all understand where I am coming from with this issue.
the one thing that is hard to do in 5e that previous editions seemed to cover is preventing attacking/casting spells. You can stop them from moving, but you can't have the guards dogpile on you and handcuff you. You can still swing your greatsword at them and cast spells, they just can't move .. Only way I can see is something that paralyzes, stuns or KO's em. There is nothing in grappling or other conditions saying "I pin their arms" or "cover their mouth".
A DM could create a Monster: Guards that have a special attack action that allows them to do this.
the one thing that is hard to do in 5e that previous editions seemed to cover is preventing attacking/casting spells. You can stop them from moving, but you can't have the guards dogpile on you and handcuff you. You can still swing your greatsword at them and cast spells, they just can't move .. Only way I can see is something that paralyzes, stuns or KO's em. There is nothing in grappling or other conditions saying "I pin their arms" or "cover their mouth".
A DM could create a Monster: Guards that have a special attack action that allows them to do this.
Players don't have this option
unless I am mistaken.
That would be for the DM to adjudicate.
Player: Can I try to cover his mouth? DM: Sure, roll [x].
I can imagine that maybe it could be a grapple, but the creature would have advantage on escaping, since they just have to move your hand from their mouth, and not escape a full grapple.
Or having logic dictate that if the player characters decide to all dogpile on a creature, that such a thing would more greatly limit the creature's abilities.
The only limitation in the cases you describe is the DM's adjudication.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, there's a bit of ambiguity with these conditions that I think I've pieced out so far:
Grappled: Affected is held by an equally moveable force in a way that inhibits or restricts movements. Per the PHB, movement away from the grappling source will break the effect (implying that one can break free or is able to be pulled away).
Restrained: Affected is held completely immobile by a greater force or is held in a way in which movement is totally restricted (as with Web). Affected is also held in such a way that it hinders their ability to attack or defend (advantage against Affected, disadvantage for Affected's attacks, disadvantage to Affected Dex saves).
The PHB has nice little pictures to show conditions. Restrained shows a man trapped in a Web, Grappled shows a man held by several tentacles. Here's where my confusion comes in (also related to the PHB image): Where does Grappled become Restrained?
In magical terms, Restrained is very clear for some spells (ex. Hold Person, Web, etc.). What about physical means, though? I have a scenario I'm planning where I play a necromancer toting a posse of 3-6 zombies via Animate Dead. I'm seeing writing on the wall where an NPC betrays the party and I want to plan accordingly. By the PHB, I can use a zombie to grapple them, but I want to completely turn the tides. If I command several zombies to grab their arms, legs, body, etc., then I have effectively made them Restrained, correct? Pull their arm, and you bring zombies with them. Hit them with forced movement, and you bring zombies with them. The only feasible escape is repeated Strength saves to pull zombies off or kill them.
What does everyone think? The PHB shows a man held by several tentacles as Grappled, but short of extreme forced movement, attacking the appendages, or STR checking them off individually (which would let them re-attack next turn), they are effectively Restrained, right?
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Where the rules say it does, and literally nowhere else. The conditions are related (some things which cause you to be restrained do so by grappling you), and they are similar (both are limitations to movements of the body), but they are not ambiguous in their application because the rules always clearly state which one of them, or both, are applied.
For example, the grappling rules very clearly only apply the grappled condition. Anything that uses those rules to apply the restrained states that fact explicitly, as there is no other way to turn grappled into restrained.
To show an example of when that happens, look at the constrict attack of a behir. It explicitly states the target is restrained while grappled as a result of this attack. The same is true of all other cases when a grapple is also a way to restrain a creature.
I'm more looking at it from a realistic mechanical aspect: If you are grapple 1v1, then rules are as the say. However, when you are successively pinned why multiple assailants, what then?
In the case of a Behir, the monster has size and physiology to restrict (via constriction) when it grabs/grapples. However, a humanoid held by several assailants of the same size would suffer the same effect (though the condition may say "grappled") because they are bound and suffer severe penalties to offense and defense.
Rules regarding conditions state that multiple soirces of a condition result in general neutralizing, but at what point do we look at it mechanically and say "this is too much for a simple grapple"? If someone isn't outright knocked prone by sheer weight and momentum, then shouldn't they be comsidered restrained for the sake of bonuses and penalities?
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Sorry if the wording in the beginning was vague everyone. I never meant a literal "Grappled becomes Restrained", but more just that the effects (bonuses and penalties) change accordingly. So if someone were attacked by an angry mob, they may be grappled by the throng, but they are effectively under the same effect of being restrained (disadvantage to attacks made and DEX saves, advantage to incoming attacks, movement speed reduced to 0).
EDIT: The conditions of freeing oneself from this excessive grappling may be similar to standard Grappled condition in that you could break free by force (personal or external).
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Arguably, you are probably incapacitated at that point - I can't see you attacking anyone, even at a disadvantage. Same thing if you exchange the ones holding you down with manacles.
Personally, I'd advise against trying to figure out what condition dictates what, and instead go with what situation dictates what condition.
You're struggling against a thousand tendrils, but you're able to chop at them with your sword until you're blue in the face? Grappled.
You're stuck so deep in mud that it's up to your waist and your movements are tricky? Restrained.
Creatures/effects that inflict conditions are there for the convenience of the DM, represent the "usual" situations, and can be overruled if the situations demand it.
On an interesting note, check the tentacles of the Giant Octopus. :p
To the above, because miles of quoted text is annoying for all, adding "realism" to a tabletop design doesn't create additional issues so long as simple alternatives are available. In my original scenario, I have a necromancer in a campaign with a team of zombies (the reason for asking to begin with). According to the rules, 1 zombie can grapple a target, not restrain, but additional zombies do nothing extra. If I'm looking for something extra rather than "you are grappled by 3 zombies", I need to MAKE a nee zombie creature which would not align with the source of my minions (Animate Dead). "By the rules", I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Tabletop formats are attractive because they give liberty for creativity and dialogue. If I want to pin and enemy so I can nab their stuff or give a nice setup for the party, this is the perfect environment to do it. I honestly believe the new rulesets of D&D are making more parameters that kill creativity. What ever happened to "that's a good idea, +1 to that roll" or "for not listening to the five warnings of the old man in the woods, you are surprised when he turns into Bahamut and you suffer -4 AC because of it"?
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
Creativity is still encouraged in 5th. Page 193 of the Player's Handbook, the top box, mentions about improvising actions, and how the DM adjudicates whether it's possible, and the conditions for success or failure.
Combat actions and conditions are there for convenience, simplicity, and speed. They can be modified for circumstances, slightly or impressively.
Admittedly, however, if the DM rules in favor of being able to incapacitate an enemy with four zombies, it may prove problematic in the long term, especially if it's something that's easily repeatable and doesn't have the rule-interaction foresight that official, tested rules still surprise me with. After all, if four zombies can grapple an arm or leg each of a humanoid, why can't thirty zombies do the same to a giant?
Having minions is fun, but having them grapple four targets (one each), or add layers of grappling that your target needs to escape, is still useful, and doesn't complicate things too much. And if you find the odd situation that you have four zombies against a hapless humanoid, you don't lose anything by attempting to fully pin them - it's quite possible the DM will decide a rather viable roll will decide the outcome.
Don't forget, however, even as simple a teleportation as Misty Step evades grapples and most restraints (since they're usually location-based).
Nah, it's not that the new rules don't encourage creativity just as much as the old rules did.
If you'd have asked the same question - word for word post even - in the Homebrew & House Rules section, instead of here in the Rules & Mechanics section, I'd have given you entirely different answers.
I had considered Homebrew forums, but since this pertains to pure mechanics, I thought it would go here. For the sake of conversation and curiosity, where does DM freedom cross over into Homebrew territory? The whole reason I love D&D over literally any game is because of the freedom allowed to players and DMs alike. It's a sandbox game in the purest sense because everything is staged within a general framework and refined by those involved.
Characters:
Grishkar Darkmoor, Necromancer of Nerull the Despiser
Kelvin Rabbitfoot, Diviner, con artist, always hunting for a good sale
Bründir Halfshield, Valor Bard, three-time Sheercleft Drinking Competition Champion, Hometown hero
DM freedom crosses into homebrew territory any/every time you do anything the rules don't specifically cover, or when you do something the rules do cover differently than they suggest to do it. Which is to say that DM freedom very frequently crosses into homebrew territory, and does so by design because the game authors knew they couldn't possibly cover every possibility, and couldn't possibly have everyone agree on the preferred method of handling even those possibilities which they did cover.
As for how to put a thread in the right forum to get the preferred sort of reply, that's a lot more clear cut: If you are asking what the rules are or what the rules say to do, that goes here. If you are asking for help doing something outside those rules, or are expanding how the rules operate for your group, that goes in the homebrew forum.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both" -- allegedly Benjamin Franklin
Tooltips (Help/aid)
Restraints
All the [...] prisoners [...] wear iron slave collars along with manacles connected to iron belts by a short length of chain. This leaves the prisoners restrained, but doesn’t affect their movement or speed.
This is from an adventure module. So probably not rules per se but ruled nevertheless that the manacles described have a modified restrained effect. In my opinion this is part of the DM's Job: to rule which cause has which effect. He should use common sense and be consistent. I find it completely valid for a DM to rule that enough grapples result in restriction.
Hello, I’m Yocto, thought I drop an random thought...
If I were an 8 ft tall Goliath, grappling a 3ft gnome, successfully lifting him up into the air. Would he be grappled and be in a rather disadvantageous situation where I could have advantage to attack him, a condition normally applied to a creature who is completely restrained ? Allow me to elaborate.
While in the grappled state, it only implies having your speed reduced to 0, while the state of being restrained imposes more severe consequences. The gnome in this case is “ grappled”, yet would he not have disadvantage on DEX saves and disadvantage on attack rolls against the Goliath, while the Goliath would have advantage on his attack rolls, so long as the Gnome is suspendedand Held by the Goliath Would being suspended warrant the restrained state, instead of a mere grappled state ?
A grapple only requires a STR Check to break free from the state.
Being “Restrained” wether imposed by iron shackles or a spell, I dare say those states will not be broken out of from just brute strength alone.
As I see it, the problem lies in that, in some cases, being Grappled would impose harsher penalties to the creature being grappled, if the assailant’s abilities see fit. Being grappled would certainly impose advantage on my part to attack the grappled creature, I couldn’t hit it easier where it not grappled, so a grappled creature has disadvantage against my onslaught. being Restrained in my opinion, is a more difficult state to break free from, than just being grappled, because restrained implies an immobility outside of a person or thing merely holding you down with strength or in a hold.
In summary: Grapple should implode the conditions of restrained p, when it is a truly firm grapple, flexibility is key with this rule. Restrained is but a advanced form of being “grappled” in a way.
I hope you all understand where I am coming from with this issue.
the one thing that is hard to do in 5e that previous editions seemed to cover is preventing attacking/casting spells. You can stop them from moving, but you can't have the guards dogpile on you and handcuff you. You can still swing your greatsword at them and cast spells, they just can't move .. Only way I can see is something that paralyzes, stuns or KO's em. There is nothing in grappling or other conditions saying "I pin their arms" or "cover their mouth".
A DM could create a Monster: Guards that have a special attack action that allows them to do this.
Players don't have this option
unless I am mistaken.
DM: Sure, roll [x].