Looking for opinions on this since I searched and cant find anyone mentioning it.
Last night I had a player grappled by a monster. Another player cast Command: Drop on the enemy with the goal of having them "Drop" their grappled companion. It was a compelling argument, and after a brief review of the spell and quick google to see if there are any opinions (there arent as best I can tell) I decided to allow it to keep things moving and I thought it was inventive. I always tell my players I will review further offline and see if that ruling sticks. I went and did some further research this morning and have kinda decided I wont allow that going forward. But I am really on the fence. So, I am here to see if anyone out here can make a compelling argument in one direction or another to tip the scales.
Side Note: I think Command: Flee can be used to free yourself from grapple, as the enemy must move away from you, which means they must release you to do so. But the real question is the one above.
It seems like Drop would work. Why not, they are holding the PC when the grapple them. You need a free hand to initiate a grapple, so they are certainly holding the grappled creature.
It’s important to remember that command takes effect on the target’s turn, however. So they would maintain the grapple until it was their turn. Then release the grapple, and anything else they might be holding. Then end their turn.
Can I ask why you are thinking it wouldn’t work? I could be missing something.
Personally, it would depend on the table. If I had a table of players who were very focused on the specific words used, release would be the word they're looking for. I've had an enemy use command against a player previously and said player made a great argument - a grapple is them grabbing someone, not carrying them. In their other hand they had a spellcasting focus so said they'd clearly drop their focus. It was too a convincing argument.
I would actually rule somewhat different in the case of flee. The enemy might flee, but try to drag their grappled target along with them.
This is the point though - there's no right or wrong. Sage Advice is irrelevant. Other DM opinion is somewhat irrelevant. The 'correct' ruling is the one that best serves your table. The one that allows most of you to enjoy yourselves.
Flee specifically says the enemy attempts to move away from you. It can't do that if it's dragging you with it. That's not away, that's staying same distance from you
Personally, it would depend on the table. If I had a table of players who were very focused on the specific words used, release would be the word they're looking for.
In the '24 version, release doesn't exist. There's a set list of Command options. It's not free form like it was in '14.
I am leaning against it because grappling is a different thing from holding something. In much the same way you cannot cause someone to drop a shield with a Disarming Attack because it isnt simply "held" in your hand. The latest Sage Advice addressed that specifically. So extending the logic used there, I see grappling as not simply holding something in your hand.
I am leaning against it because grappling is a different thing from holding something. In much the same way you cannot cause someone to drop a shield with a Disarming Attack because it isnt simply "held" in your hand. The latest Sage Advice addressed that specifically. So extending the logic used there, I see grappling as not simply holding something in your hand.
I see that, but the shield isn’t quite a great analogy, imo. If you are holding a weapon, you can choose to drop it voluntarily, same with really most anything you might hold. But with a shield, you can not choose to just drop it. You must doff it which takes action. A shield is the outlier, the exception. If you are grappling someone, you can choose to let go of them without using any action economy. You just let go. So to my mind, it much more closely resembles holding an object than wielding a shield.
I appreciate the feedback and compelling arguments. I think I have flipped back to allowing Command: Drop to cause a creature to release a grapple.
Now, I didn't want to distract from that core question, so there was one detail I purposely omitted about the encounter. I wanted the answer about grapple specifically which is why I left out one other detail: The creature didn't just grapple the player. It engulfed him. So, the player was actually completely inside of the creature. It wasn't a Shambling Mound, but it was the same ability from the Shambling Mound.
So, I feel I have my answer for grapple in general. Personally. But would anyone argue that Command: Drop would also cause the creature to un-engulf him? RAW the player is still only "grappled". Does Command: Drop free a player from the effects of Engulf?
With that one, my gut is to say no it doesn’t work. There’s no details about how the mound expels a creature it has engulfed, so the action economy analogy doesn’t work here. But I’d say no, they are not just grappled. They are engulfed, which imposes the grappled condition, so it’s kind of different. For example, in a standard grapple, forced movement can break the grapple, but that won’t happen here.
Also, there’s quite a few monsters that can engulf creatures, and I’d be hesitant to set a precedent that command can bust people out like that.
One of my players casted command and used the word drop... It was to free a companion engulfed in a gelatinous cube. I let it pass, but I'm not so sure if I made the right decision.
Now, I didn't want to distract from that core question, so there was one detail I purposely omitted about the encounter. I wanted the answer about grapple specifically which is why I left out one other detail: The creature didn't just grapple the player. It engulfed him. So, the player was actually completely inside of the creature. It wasn't a Shambling Mound, but it was the same ability from the Shambling Mound.
In 2014 it doesn't work on the shambling mound because the shambling mound doesn't speak any languages; 2024 seems to have done away with the requirement that the creature understand the command. I would say it doesn't work because the engulfing creature isn't actually holding the victim.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Looking for opinions on this since I searched and cant find anyone mentioning it.
Last night I had a player grappled by a monster. Another player cast Command: Drop on the enemy with the goal of having them "Drop" their grappled companion. It was a compelling argument, and after a brief review of the spell and quick google to see if there are any opinions (there arent as best I can tell) I decided to allow it to keep things moving and I thought it was inventive. I always tell my players I will review further offline and see if that ruling sticks. I went and did some further research this morning and have kinda decided I wont allow that going forward. But I am really on the fence. So, I am here to see if anyone out here can make a compelling argument in one direction or another to tip the scales.
Side Note: I think Command: Flee can be used to free yourself from grapple, as the enemy must move away from you, which means they must release you to do so. But the real question is the one above.
It seems like Drop would work. Why not, they are holding the PC when the grapple them. You need a free hand to initiate a grapple, so they are certainly holding the grappled creature.
It’s important to remember that command takes effect on the target’s turn, however. So they would maintain the grapple until it was their turn. Then release the grapple, and anything else they might be holding. Then end their turn.
Can I ask why you are thinking it wouldn’t work? I could be missing something.
Personally, it would depend on the table. If I had a table of players who were very focused on the specific words used, release would be the word they're looking for. I've had an enemy use command against a player previously and said player made a great argument - a grapple is them grabbing someone, not carrying them. In their other hand they had a spellcasting focus so said they'd clearly drop their focus. It was too a convincing argument.
I would actually rule somewhat different in the case of flee. The enemy might flee, but try to drag their grappled target along with them.
This is the point though - there's no right or wrong. Sage Advice is irrelevant. Other DM opinion is somewhat irrelevant. The 'correct' ruling is the one that best serves your table. The one that allows most of you to enjoy yourselves.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Flee specifically says the enemy attempts to move away from you. It can't do that if it's dragging you with it. That's not away, that's staying same distance from you
In the '24 version, release doesn't exist. There's a set list of Command options. It's not free form like it was in '14.
I am leaning against it because grappling is a different thing from holding something. In much the same way you cannot cause someone to drop a shield with a Disarming Attack because it isnt simply "held" in your hand. The latest Sage Advice addressed that specifically. So extending the logic used there, I see grappling as not simply holding something in your hand.
I see that, but the shield isn’t quite a great analogy, imo. If you are holding a weapon, you can choose to drop it voluntarily, same with really most anything you might hold. But with a shield, you can not choose to just drop it. You must doff it which takes action. A shield is the outlier, the exception.
If you are grappling someone, you can choose to let go of them without using any action economy. You just let go. So to my mind, it much more closely resembles holding an object than wielding a shield.
That is a compelling point
I appreciate the feedback and compelling arguments. I think I have flipped back to allowing Command: Drop to cause a creature to release a grapple.
Now, I didn't want to distract from that core question, so there was one detail I purposely omitted about the encounter. I wanted the answer about grapple specifically which is why I left out one other detail: The creature didn't just grapple the player. It engulfed him. So, the player was actually completely inside of the creature. It wasn't a Shambling Mound, but it was the same ability from the Shambling Mound.
So, I feel I have my answer for grapple in general. Personally. But would anyone argue that Command: Drop would also cause the creature to un-engulf him? RAW the player is still only "grappled". Does Command: Drop free a player from the effects of Engulf?
With that one, my gut is to say no it doesn’t work. There’s no details about how the mound expels a creature it has engulfed, so the action economy analogy doesn’t work here.
But I’d say no, they are not just grappled. They are engulfed, which imposes the grappled condition, so it’s kind of different. For example, in a standard grapple, forced movement can break the grapple, but that won’t happen here.
Also, there’s quite a few monsters that can engulf creatures, and I’d be hesitant to set a precedent that command can bust people out like that.
One of my players casted command and used the word drop... It was to free a companion engulfed in a gelatinous cube. I let it pass, but I'm not so sure if I made the right decision.
In 2014 it doesn't work on the shambling mound because the shambling mound doesn't speak any languages; 2024 seems to have done away with the requirement that the creature understand the command. I would say it doesn't work because the engulfing creature isn't actually holding the victim.