While grappling you still occupy two separate spaces, so can be hit or not by AoE things separately. However I've had an interest in the grappling rules lately, and in all my reading I can't see that you actually have free reign to move the grappled creature into whatever space you want (i.e. push it into flaming spheres, dropping it off cliffs, etc.) The rules state you can drag or carry it with you, but to me that implies moving it into a space you just left rather than into any space next to your own (I would also allow swapping places with the grappled creature at the same movement cost). I feel any movement of the grappled creature beyond that would require a separate shove attack after you have maneuvered into the correct position. Performing the shove would involve releasing the grapple (which seems a decent trade to fling someone off a cliff, and a necessary precaution when pushing them into a sphere of flames).
While grappling you still occupy two separate spaces, so can be hit or not by AoE things separately. However I've had an interest in the grappling rules lately, and in all my reading I can't see that you actually have free reign to move the grappled creature into whatever space you want (i.e. push it into flaming spheres, dropping it off cliffs, etc.) The rules state you can drag or carry it with you, but to me that implies moving it into a space you just left rather than into any space next to your own (I would also allow swapping places with the grappled creature at the same movement cost). I feel any movement of the grappled creature beyond that would require a separate shove attack after you have maneuvered into the correct position. Performing the shove would involve releasing the grapple (which seems a decent trade to fling someone off a cliff, and a necessary precaution when pushing them into a sphere of flames).
It says Drag Or Carry. Not just drag. In what universe would you grapple a creature in front of you, move diagonally forward (to a square adjacent to where the creature was), carry the grappled creature with you, and end up with it behind you? The default assumption is that as you move, your relative positioning remains unchanged. You both move in the manner that you do, but with your movement halved. You carry it forward, or drag it back, but either way, it moves as you move.
I will also point out that grappling is already terrible, considering it's tactically interesting and requires thought and coordination. It deals no damage, requires a free hand, can be resisted by two separate skills, and is only situationally useful, even to those who specify in it enough to make it reliable, as it can't be used against enemies more than 1 size larger, and by default does absolutely nothing to a creature other than reduce their speed to zero, which if they didn't want to leave anyway is a non-issue. Making it even More terrible than it already is seems ill advised and like a recipe to have someone never use it.
Using a shove is like using a grapple, except it 1) Doesn't require a free hand, since you're not Maintaining control over their movement, but instead simply exerting it once; 2) Doesn't halve your movement, as you are not moving them with you, and 3) Provides the option of knocking them prone. The devs are Not expecting you to need to grapple, and then check again and use another attack for each 5 feet of movement control you exert over a grappled target. That's why your speed is halved and it specifically says you can drag or carry them with you. Ask yourself this- if someone is using say a pushing Eldritch Blast to push someone 5' away from a cliff edge off of a cliff, how many checks must they succeed on in order to do so? In turn, if they were right on the edge, someone could shove them off, but if they're not, and instead they're being grappled, what exactly are you requiring? It sounds like it'd be a grapple check, 15' of movement (walking right to the edge yourself), a full turn of not being shoved off yourself nor them escaping the grapple, another 15' of movement to position them, and then a shove attack, right? Does that sound reasonable or fun to you?
...I can't see that you actually have free reign to move the grappled creature into whatever space you want (i.e. push it into flaming spheres, dropping it off cliffs, etc.) The rules state you can drag or carry it with you, but to me that implies moving it into a space you just left rather than into any space next to your own (I would also allow swapping places with the grappled creature at the same movement cost). I feel any movement of the grappled creature beyond that would require a separate shove attack after you have maneuvered into the correct position. Performing the shove would involve releasing the grapple (which seems a decent trade to fling someone off a cliff, and a necessary precaution when pushing them into a sphere of flames).
It says Drag Or Carry. Not just drag. In what universe would you grapple a creature in front of you, move diagonally forward (to a square adjacent to where the creature was), carry the grappled creature with you, and end up with it behind you? The default assumption is that as you move, your relative positioning remains unchanged. You both move in the manner that you do, but with your movement halved. You carry it forward, or drag it back, but either way, it moves as you move...
It sounds like it'd be a grapple check, 15' of movement (walking right to the edge yourself), a full turn of not being shoved off yourself nor them escaping the grapple, another 15' of movement to position them, and then a shove attack, right? Does that sound reasonable or fun to you?
I don't think that is the default assumption. It is an assumption, and a reasonably sensible one, but that doesn't make it the default. "Carry with" could mean what you want it to mean, or it could not mean that. If you grapple then move diagonally there is no need to move the grappled target at all (and it wouldn't cost double movement).
As to the cost and risk involved in throwing someone off a cliff when they are not standing right next to it, yes what you listed sounds reasonable and fun to me (and you would end up 5ft from the edge not at the edge, after a swapping places with the target). People standing on the edge of a cliff are at great risk of falling off (a single shove, or pushing spell). I believe people standing 20 feet from the edge should require more than the exact same effort (a single grapple) for them to be thrown off. Also, grapples and shoves are attacks (not actions) so anyone with multiple attacks still could grapple, drag and shove in a single turn. These rules apply to creatures attacking PCs as well. I feel that having your character tossed off a cliff by a grappling orc based on one bad roll would be not fun. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Let's keep it very simple. You grapple a creature. You move diagonally forward. Though you certainly don't *have to*, you take advantage of the granted power of carrying the creature you have grappled with you, while moving at half speed. Do you:
a) Disallow the specific, stated ability to carry that creature with you? If so, what's the justification?
b) Have a creature which was carried with a creature moving forward instead move backwards? If so, what's the justification?
c) Have the creature carried along with a creature which moved forward, also move forward?
Note that C requires no justification. That's why I stated it's the default assumption. It does not require any interpretation or modification of the rules, it executes without justification in perfect compliance of the game rules and text. Sure, it's still an assumption, but one which is not incompliant with the rules as written. Note that indeed there is the key word there "may", as in, are not required to, and I certainly agree that if you are not moving with the grappled creature, but instead are moving around them, changing your relative position, there is an implied option to do so without the reduction in speed penalty which would otherwise apply. I've been talking purely about the times when you do Not do so, and instead take advantage of your written, listed ability to drag or carry the creature along with you.
As to people standing 20' from the edge requiring more than the same effort, they do. A creature with a speed of 30 could not move a creature 20' with a move action. Note however that a creature requires only 1 failed save to be paralyzed, or killed, or dominated, or blinded, or have any other adverse condition applied to them. Why should forced movement be any different? Or is it only ok if one failed save or check results in massive negative consequence if a magic caster is the one inflicting the negative condition? Besides, how often to precipices leading to drops significant enough to be an actual concern show up in your game? And why, the times that they do, would you want them to not actually be utilized from a tactical sense?
A) I don't disallow anything, I just argue that moving forward (while a grappled creature is in the square in front of you) does not necessarily mean that creature is pushed backwards to leave the space empty for you. I would argue that a sentence which would allow/encourage such movement would read "you can drag, carry or push the creature as you move".
I agree, many spells and class abilities cause terrible effects with one, or even no saving rolls. But all those things are spells and class abilities, gained through training and reaching high levels. They cannot be compared with grappling, an ability shared by every creature with hands.
I don't know how often precipices occur, but dangerous areas to stand in most definitely do occur often. I do want them to be used tactically, and enjoy seeing it happen, but part of those tactics involve risk increasing/decreasing with distance from the danger. The way I interpret 'dragging/carrying with' means that there is a significant difference between standing right next to danger and standing 6-19ft away from it.
I don't need you to agree with my interpretation, but if you were playing in my game and attempted to argue that the rules say you can push a grappled target in front of you as you move, I am pointing out that that is not actually what they say - it is just one of several valid interpretations of a single sentence.
This argument seems to be straying from suspension of disbelief into something ugly, and it seems to be straying from the OP's question.
To the OP: as long as you are outside the range of a spells effect it won't do anything to you. We'll just assume you have very hot fingers, and if they're wearing metal you probably have 2-3rd degree burns on your palms.
Let's keep it very simple. You grapple a creature. You move diagonally forward. Though you certainly don't *have to*, you take advantage of the granted power of carrying the creature you have grappled with you, while moving at half speed. Do you:
a) Disallow the specific, stated ability to carry that creature with you? If so, what's the justification?
b) Have a creature which was carried with a creature moving forward instead move backwards? If so, what's the justification?
c) Have the creature carried along with a creature which moved forward, also move forward?
A) There is no way to physically manipulate the creature into a space adjacent to you, ie: wall, door, tree, physical object already occupying the space. Outside of that a person should be able to, simply by pivoting, move a creature to any space within the 5' circle around them.
B) Some form of barrier prevents the movement and causes the momentum to instead reverse direction: iron cell doors, window sill, door jam. Otherwise the lows of physics dictate an object in motion remains in motion, blah, blah...
C) German suplex a vampire into a cemetery while it has you grappled in it's bite. Don't even have to move, lift - pivot - slam, you just forced a creature to move 10 feet with one action.
**Just playing with your comment not a true argument to your post
A) I don't disallow anything, I just argue that moving forward (while a grappled creature is in the square in front of you) does not necessarily mean that creature is pushed backwards to leave the space empty for you. I would argue that a sentence which would allow/encourage such movement would read "you can drag, carry or push the creature as you move".
I agree, many spells and class abilities cause terrible effects with one, or even no saving rolls. But all those things are spells and class abilities, gained through training and reaching high levels. They cannot be compared with grappling, an ability shared by every creature with hands.
I don't know how often precipices occur, but dangerous areas to stand in most definitely do occur often. I do want them to be used tactically, and enjoy seeing it happen, but part of those tactics involve risk increasing/decreasing with distance from the danger. The way I interpret 'dragging/carrying with' means that there is a significant difference between standing right next to danger and standing 6-19ft away from it.
I don't need you to agree with my interpretation, but if you were playing in my game and attempted to argue that the rules say you can push a grappled target in front of you as you move, I am pointing out that that is not actually what they say - it is just one of several valid interpretations of a single sentence.
I stated DIAGONALLY forward, as in to the empty space which is adjacent to them to the right or left, again from the perspective of behind the person doing the grappling, the perspective I've used in all situations so far. It's empty. Nothing precludes you moving into that space. You previously acknowledged that when you indicated that doing so does not require you to move them at all, a fact I readily acknowledged and conceded, as it's accurate. Being able to push them out of their space, is not what I indicated at all. If we can't have intellectual honesty in a discussion on how the rules operate I see no purpose to continuing it.
This argument seems to be straying from suspension of disbelief into something ugly, and it seems to be straying from the OP's question.
To the OP: as long as you are outside the range of a spells effect it won't do anything to you. We'll just assume you have very hot fingers, and if they're wearing metal you probably have 2-3rd degree burns on your palms.
Let's keep it very simple. You grapple a creature. You move diagonally forward. Though you certainly don't *have to*, you take advantage of the granted power of carrying the creature you have grappled with you, while moving at half speed. Do you:
a) Disallow the specific, stated ability to carry that creature with you? If so, what's the justification?
b) Have a creature which was carried with a creature moving forward instead move backwards? If so, what's the justification?
c) Have the creature carried along with a creature which moved forward, also move forward?
A) There is no way to physically manipulate the creature into a space adjacent to you, ie: wall, door, tree, physical object already occupying the space. Outside of that a person should be able to, simply by pivoting, move a creature to any space within the 5' circle around them.
B) Some form of barrier prevents the movement and causes the momentum to instead reverse direction: iron cell doors, window sill, door jam. Otherwise the lows of physics dictate an object in motion remains in motion, blah, blah...
C) German suplex a vampire into a cemetery while it has you grappled in it's bite. Don't even have to move, lift - pivot - slam, you just forced a creature to move 10 feet with one action.
**Just playing with your comment not a true argument to your post
A) The rules don't allow you to move a creature like that. Note that the rules indicate that *when you move*, you can drag or carry the creature *with* you. You do not control its movement, other than by moving yourself, and it going along for the ride. Pivoting does not exist in D&D5E, which lacks facing rules of any meaningful sort.
B) Indeed that could be the case, but if the creature is unable to be dragged or carried *with* you, due to a barrier or obstruction, then that seems like an argument for A, not for B. Certainly them being moved onto something like a grease covered slope could result in them *eventually* being behind you, but I would assume that would only occur if you released the grapple :-)
C) Again, moving them without moving yourself is not part of the abilities granted by grappling something per RAW. Also, you can't knock them prone (as I assume they would be at the end of a suplex) without making a shove attack. Grappling is more "grab them by one hand and carry them around Wulfgar style" than it is wrestling in 5E, in fact there's not even a class or kit which would allow that maneuver to be executed, sadly. Of course I as a DM would allow it, I'm just saying, per RAW grappling doesn't do that.
A) I don't disallow anything, I just argue that moving forward (while a grappled creature is in the square in front of you) does not necessarily mean that creature is pushed backwards to leave the space empty for you. I would argue that a sentence which would allow/encourage such movement would read "you can drag, carry or push the creature as you move".
I agree, many spells and class abilities cause terrible effects with one, or even no saving rolls. But all those things are spells and class abilities, gained through training and reaching high levels. They cannot be compared with grappling, an ability shared by every creature with hands.
I don't know how often precipices occur, but dangerous areas to stand in most definitely do occur often. I do want them to be used tactically, and enjoy seeing it happen, but part of those tactics involve risk increasing/decreasing with distance from the danger. The way I interpret 'dragging/carrying with' means that there is a significant difference between standing right next to danger and standing 6-19ft away from it.
I don't need you to agree with my interpretation, but if you were playing in my game and attempted to argue that the rules say you can push a grappled target in front of you as you move, I am pointing out that that is not actually what they say - it is just one of several valid interpretations of a single sentence.
I have to assume you're being deliberately obtuse here. I stated DIAGONALLY forward, as in to the empty space which is adjacent to them to the right or left, again from the perspective of behind the person doing the grappling, the perspective I've used in all situations so far. It's empty. Nothing precludes you moving into that space. You previously acknowledged that when you indicated that doing so does not require you to move them at all, a fact I readily acknowledged and conceded, as it's accurate. You're now deliberately attempting to misrepresent the argument in order to strawman against being able to push them out of their space, which is not what I indicated at all. If we can't have intellectual honesty in a discussion on how the rules operate I see no purpose to continuing it.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse (I admit I forgot the diagonal part of your hypothetical halfway through writing the response), I also don't see much of a difference between pushing a creature straight backwards one square and pushing it diagonally backwards one square while you follow it on a parallel - but I consider both of them to not be dragging, nor my interpretation of "carrying with you". I use essentially the same justification for that which you use to disallow pivoting. My interpretation is you can move in any direction and choose to drag the creature behind you. Your interpretation is that you can move in any direction and you can choose to move the creature as long as your relative square positioning does not change. Other interpretations allow pivoting and repositioning as long as you move (moving one foot is still moving) with the movement of either yourself or the creature costing movement points. The rules, RAW, do not actually clarify this point at all because neither the word drag nor carry are defined in specific rule terms. If I were playing in a game where the second or third interpretations were in use I would not have any arguments to put forth that argue against them, and I would live and operate perfectly comfortably within a rule-set which follows those interpretations. When I run my games, I choose my interpretation because I prefer it and because it is an equally valid interpretation.
I'm not being deliberately obtuse (I admit I forgot the diagonal part of your hypothetical halfway through writing the response), I also don't see much of a difference between pushing a creature straight backwards one square and pushing it diagonally backwards one square while you follow it on a parallel - but I consider both of them to not be dragging, nor my interpretation of "carrying with you". I use essentially the same justification for that which you use to disallow pivoting. My interpretation is you can move in any direction and choose to drag the creature behind you. Your interpretation is that you can move in any direction and you can choose to move the creature as long as your relative square positioning does not change. Other interpretations allow pivoting and repositioning as long as you move (moving one foot is still moving) with the movement of either yourself or the creature costing movement points. The rules, RAW, do not actually clarify this point at all because neither the word drag nor carry are defined in specific rule terms. If I were playing in a game where the second or third interpretations were in use I would not have any arguments to put forth that argue against them, and I would live and operate perfectly comfortably within a rule-set which follows those interpretations. When I run my games, I choose my interpretation because I prefer it and because it is an equally valid interpretation.
Indeed, the original phrasing was excessively harsh and for that you have my apologies, I realized that after posting and edited accordingly.
There is a difference between choosing not to do something and being unable to do so. If a character has moved 5' forward in a diagonal (which is not disallowed by any part of the rules), and the creature in question which is grappled, does not move, then you are disallowing the stated ability to move a grappled creature with you when you move. It's as simple as that. If you move the creature in a direction which is not concurrent with the movement made by the original creature, you are disallowing their ability to carry them along with them. Those are both houserules, which are fine, but they are houserules nonetheless. Carry does not need a game definition, it has an english definition. It means to 'move while supporting', as in, to pick up, and support the movement of something. Similarly, 'with' has an english definition. It can mean a participant in an action, to be in the possession of something, or it can mean 'in the direction of'. All of the definitions have the same result: You pick them up and support their weight with one hand, and when you move, they move. That's RAW.
(note too that 'push', 'carry', and 'lift' are used in game rules under the encumbrance section but are not defined there, because, again, they need no definition. They are already defined english words with their own meaning. Note as well that a much larger threshold is set for the amount you can push than is set for the amount you can lift, since after all pushing does not require supporting the weight of something, while carrying does.)
That's why it's important that it's carry, not just drag. That's also why it's important that your supposition of "pushing" is irrelevant. If you are carrying something, you do not need to push it. It is no longer on the ground. Seriously, that is what it means to carry something, it no longer serves as an impediment to your path.
Again, moving one foot is indeed still moving (and on a non-grid system, is a totally valid way to move), but the creature still has to move *with* you. Words have meanings, and those meanings matter. Inherently, directional repositioning is not moving something with you, it's just moving something. The rules do not need clarification because it is already clear. There is no interpretation necessary. Your interpretation is a perfectly valid basis upon which to run your games- you're the DM after all, rule zero and all that. You can have the rules work any way they want. It is not, however, an equally valid interpretation because it ignores the basic english meanings of the words used in the rules, in order to generate a new meaning which flies in the face of the granted abilities of the rules. You've basically crossed out the "or carry" part, and ignore it entirely in order to make your interpretation work.
I don't think I am just striking out word carry necessarily, but I can understand your point of view. As a counter point I posit that every single other thing (object or whatever) that you "carry with you" in this game is in fact carried within your own square not in an adjacent square. It is that form of "carry with you" that I am applying here. You can carry them, then deposit them in your square as you vacate it. You can interpret the mechanics of carrying a creature differently if you choose, but I won't ever agree that yours is the only possible valid mechanical grid-based interpretation of that word.
The key here is, I personally don't believe the rules of grappling as written allow someone to move a creature from its current location into any location of their choosing. We actually agree on that point. You appear to disallow picking up a creature and carrying it in front of you, then rotating yourself 135 degrees and putting the creature down diagonally behind you. I additionally disallow moving the creature horizontally/diagonally while moving yourself parallel to it.
The key difference in function is that my interpretation never allows a grappled target to be moved off an edge or into lava or whatever (unless the grappler moves through the lava first like some sort of lava monster might). That is what I believe the shove attack is for. Grapple is restraining and dragging - shove is tripping and pushing someone where they don't want to go.
I don't think I am just striking out word carry necessarily, but I can understand your point of view. As a counter point I posit that every single other thing (object or whatever) that you "carry with you" in this game is in fact carried within your own square not in an adjacent square. It is that form of "carry with you" that I am applying here. You can carry them, then deposit them in your square as you vacate it. You can interpret the mechanics of carrying a creature differently if you choose, but I won't ever agree that yours is the only possible valid mechanical grid-based interpretation of that word.
The key here is, I personally don't believe the rules of grappling as written allow someone to move a creature from its current location into any location of their choosing. We actually agree on that point. You appear to disallow picking up a creature and carrying it in front of you, then rotating yourself 135 degrees and putting the creature down diagonally behind you. I additionally disallow moving the creature horizontally/diagonally while moving yourself parallel to it.
The key difference in function is that my interpretation never allows a grappled target to be moved off an edge or into lava or whatever (unless the grappler moves through the lava first like some sort of lava monster might). That is what I believe the shove attack is for. Grapple is restraining and dragging - shove is tripping and pushing someone where they don't want to go.
Regarding repositioning a grappled creature during movement: I asked Jeremy "Can a grappled creature be moved sideways (e.g. me and the target each move 5 feet to the left)? Or only towards/away from me?" and he responded with "The rule is only concerned that you halve your speed and keep the grappled creature within reach." RAI or not, RAW doesn't seem to place any restrictions on where you position the creature after movement and Crawford seems to interpret the rule the same way.
Note that your speed is only halved if you actually move the grappled creature. Even if you restrict how a grappler can move their target, they can reposition themselves around their target easily.
Regarding repositioning a grappled creature during movement: I asked Jeremy "Can a grappled creature be moved sideways (e.g. me and the target each move 5 feet to the left)? Or only towards/away from me?" and he responded with "The rule is only concerned that you halve your speed and keep the grappled creature within reach." RAI or not, RAW doesn't seem to place any restrictions on where you position the creature after movement and Crawford seems to interpret the rule the same way.
Note that your speed is only halved if you actually move the grappled creature. Even if you restrict how a grappler can move their target, they can reposition themselves around their target easily.
I just want to point out that though certainly Jeremy Crawford is the final arbiter of truth, repositioning a creature is not an ability granted by the actual text of the PHB. Remember, you halve your speed, but if you don't move, half of zero is still zero. So if you confer the ability of a creature to reposition another creature without itself moving concurrent to the intended movement of the creature, RAW would not support such an action incurring any movement cost. Thus a creature could grapple someone, move 5', and while doing so flip the creature to the other side of itself (moving the creature 15' or 20' depending on how you handle diagonal movement), at the cost of only 10' of movement to itself. That is not, as far as I can discern, an accurate plain english interpretation of the phrase of moving a creature with you. To allow someone to flagrantly whip another creature around itself as it moves defeats the entire purpose, as far as I can discern, of the phrase "when you move", as from a mathematical and logical perspective, you can not move a creature more than you yourself are moving, if you are only moving it when you yourself move (in accordance to the movement rules of the PHB, which again ignore facing).
But, Crawford is law, so I accept your conclusion. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
Am i missing something. I know this an old thread but crawfords response doesnt say you can move a creature without you moving yourself ie spin them around you. It says you can:
move around the creature without incurring movement penalty if they dont move
and
move the creature in any direction when you are moving you want in the same plane
it doesnt imply that you can spin them whichever side of you that you want without you moving.
the grapple rules are pretty terrible. I hope its one of the first revised things with upcoming edition changes. It would be so much clearer if it just said something like you must remain in contact with the creature for the duration or the grapple is lost. You may move the creature in any direction you wish but the movement of the creature and your movement added together may not exceed your speed. That would be pretty fair i think. You and the creature move sideway 5ft well thats 10ft of movement. You spin 180 degrees moving the creature front to back they just moved 10ft you didnt technically move thats 10ft of movement. Creature stays in the same place you move diagonally around it theres 10ft of movement.
If the creature is grappled, its speed is 0. Even if you drag it 10 feet, the creature's speed is still 0, it does not use any of its own movement. But your own speed is halved when you drag it, as would be the same situation as if you were dragging a unconscious body or an object.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Ya we all understand that reread this thread i dont think you understand whats being discussed and what i wrote. Its questions of how your movement is effected when you are grappling someone or how you can move a person you are grappling that are not really covered explicitly in the rules. Such as can you rotate a person around you if you have them grappled and then in doing so you have no actually moved but technically have just moved them 10ft or so, so you just did something at no cost if you dm allows it since you did not move and therefore there is nothing to halve. This would actually allow you to move a creature up to 25ft when you yourself could only move 15ft. If you move around the creature you have grappled it is stationary so you are not moving it so is your movement halved? Crawford says no. Can you only pull a creature with you as you move behind you or can you push, can you translate them sideways. These are all things not specified and open to interpretation. what i have stated above removes any speculation. It accounts for any direction of movement of the grappler or grapplie and makes it pretty fair and realistic i think.
Rotate them around you? If they're light enough for you to pick up & carry, sure, no problem. Otherwise, rotate yourself around them (which isn't at half speed since you aren't dragging/carrying them), then drag them, keeping your relative positions (which would be at half-speed.) You can't "push" them, only lift them and carry them; otherwise you'd need to make a Shove attack. I could see a DM allowing you to do a separate contested Strength check in order to drag them sideways, since that's not a straight-on drag, or to rotate them partway around you, since that's more akin to a Shove attack (even if you maintain a grapple.)
A lot of the point of the Moving a Grappled Creature rule is just to specify how you can move while maintaining a grapple, namely keeping the target within your reach.
We'll see if the folks who were discussing this 3 years back feel like weighing in on the topic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I grapple an enemy near a flaming sphere, so that the enemy is within 5' but I am not, do I take damage because my hand/arm is within 5'?
While grappling you still occupy two separate spaces, so can be hit or not by AoE things separately. However I've had an interest in the grappling rules lately, and in all my reading I can't see that you actually have free reign to move the grappled creature into whatever space you want (i.e. push it into flaming spheres, dropping it off cliffs, etc.) The rules state you can drag or carry it with you, but to me that implies moving it into a space you just left rather than into any space next to your own (I would also allow swapping places with the grappled creature at the same movement cost). I feel any movement of the grappled creature beyond that would require a separate shove attack after you have maneuvered into the correct position. Performing the shove would involve releasing the grapple (which seems a decent trade to fling someone off a cliff, and a necessary precaution when pushing them into a sphere of flames).
Let's keep it very simple. You grapple a creature. You move diagonally forward. Though you certainly don't *have to*, you take advantage of the granted power of carrying the creature you have grappled with you, while moving at half speed. Do you:
a) Disallow the specific, stated ability to carry that creature with you? If so, what's the justification?
b) Have a creature which was carried with a creature moving forward instead move backwards? If so, what's the justification?
c) Have the creature carried along with a creature which moved forward, also move forward?
Note that C requires no justification. That's why I stated it's the default assumption. It does not require any interpretation or modification of the rules, it executes without justification in perfect compliance of the game rules and text. Sure, it's still an assumption, but one which is not incompliant with the rules as written. Note that indeed there is the key word there "may", as in, are not required to, and I certainly agree that if you are not moving with the grappled creature, but instead are moving around them, changing your relative position, there is an implied option to do so without the reduction in speed penalty which would otherwise apply. I've been talking purely about the times when you do Not do so, and instead take advantage of your written, listed ability to drag or carry the creature along with you.
As to people standing 20' from the edge requiring more than the same effort, they do. A creature with a speed of 30 could not move a creature 20' with a move action. Note however that a creature requires only 1 failed save to be paralyzed, or killed, or dominated, or blinded, or have any other adverse condition applied to them. Why should forced movement be any different? Or is it only ok if one failed save or check results in massive negative consequence if a magic caster is the one inflicting the negative condition? Besides, how often to precipices leading to drops significant enough to be an actual concern show up in your game? And why, the times that they do, would you want them to not actually be utilized from a tactical sense?
A) I don't disallow anything, I just argue that moving forward (while a grappled creature is in the square in front of you) does not necessarily mean that creature is pushed backwards to leave the space empty for you. I would argue that a sentence which would allow/encourage such movement would read "you can drag, carry or push the creature as you move".
I agree, many spells and class abilities cause terrible effects with one, or even no saving rolls. But all those things are spells and class abilities, gained through training and reaching high levels. They cannot be compared with grappling, an ability shared by every creature with hands.
I don't know how often precipices occur, but dangerous areas to stand in most definitely do occur often. I do want them to be used tactically, and enjoy seeing it happen, but part of those tactics involve risk increasing/decreasing with distance from the danger. The way I interpret 'dragging/carrying with' means that there is a significant difference between standing right next to danger and standing 6-19ft away from it.
I don't need you to agree with my interpretation, but if you were playing in my game and attempted to argue that the rules say you can push a grappled target in front of you as you move, I am pointing out that that is not actually what they say - it is just one of several valid interpretations of a single sentence.
This argument seems to be straying from suspension of disbelief into something ugly, and it seems to be straying from the OP's question.
To the OP: as long as you are outside the range of a spells effect it won't do anything to you. We'll just assume you have very hot fingers, and if they're wearing metal you probably have 2-3rd degree burns on your palms.
I don't think I am just striking out word carry necessarily, but I can understand your point of view. As a counter point I posit that every single other thing (object or whatever) that you "carry with you" in this game is in fact carried within your own square not in an adjacent square. It is that form of "carry with you" that I am applying here. You can carry them, then deposit them in your square as you vacate it. You can interpret the mechanics of carrying a creature differently if you choose, but I won't ever agree that yours is the only possible valid mechanical grid-based interpretation of that word.
The key here is, I personally don't believe the rules of grappling as written allow someone to move a creature from its current location into any location of their choosing. We actually agree on that point. You appear to disallow picking up a creature and carrying it in front of you, then rotating yourself 135 degrees and putting the creature down diagonally behind you. I additionally disallow moving the creature horizontally/diagonally while moving yourself parallel to it.
The key difference in function is that my interpretation never allows a grappled target to be moved off an edge or into lava or whatever (unless the grappler moves through the lava first like some sort of lava monster might). That is what I believe the shove attack is for. Grapple is restraining and dragging - shove is tripping and pushing someone where they don't want to go.
I don't think I am just striking out word carry necessarily, but I can understand your point of view. As a counter point I posit that every single other thing (object or whatever) that you "carry with you" in this game is in fact carried within your own square not in an adjacent square. It is that form of "carry with you" that I am applying here. You can carry them, then deposit them in your square as you vacate it. You can interpret the mechanics of carrying a creature differently if you choose, but I won't ever agree that yours is the only possible valid mechanical grid-based interpretation of that word.
The key here is, I personally don't believe the rules of grappling as written allow someone to move a creature from its current location into any location of their choosing. We actually agree on that point. You appear to disallow picking up a creature and carrying it in front of you, then rotating yourself 135 degrees and putting the creature down diagonally behind you. I additionally disallow moving the creature horizontally/diagonally while moving yourself parallel to it.
The key difference in function is that my interpretation never allows a grappled target to be moved off an edge or into lava or whatever (unless the grappler moves through the lava first like some sort of lava monster might). That is what I believe the shove attack is for. Grapple is restraining and dragging - shove is tripping and pushing someone where they don't want to go.
Regarding repositioning a grappled creature during movement: I asked Jeremy "Can a grappled creature be moved sideways (e.g. me and the target each move 5 feet to the left)? Or only towards/away from me?" and he responded with "The rule is only concerned that you halve your speed and keep the grappled creature within reach." RAI or not, RAW doesn't seem to place any restrictions on where you position the creature after movement and Crawford seems to interpret the rule the same way.
Note that your speed is only halved if you actually move the grappled creature. Even if you restrict how a grappler can move their target, they can reposition themselves around their target easily.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Am i missing something. I know this an old thread but crawfords response doesnt say you can move a creature without you moving yourself ie spin them around you. It says you can:
move around the creature without incurring movement penalty if they dont move
and
move the creature in any direction when you are moving you want in the same plane
it doesnt imply that you can spin them whichever side of you that you want without you moving.
the grapple rules are pretty terrible. I hope its one of the first revised things with upcoming edition changes. It would be so much clearer if it just said something like you must remain in contact with the creature for the duration or the grapple is lost. You may move the creature in any direction you wish but the movement of the creature and your movement added together may not exceed your speed. That would be pretty fair i think. You and the creature move sideway 5ft well thats 10ft of movement. You spin 180 degrees moving the creature front to back they just moved 10ft you didnt technically move thats 10ft of movement. Creature stays in the same place you move diagonally around it theres 10ft of movement.
If the creature is grappled, its speed is 0. Even if you drag it 10 feet, the creature's speed is still 0, it does not use any of its own movement. But your own speed is halved when you drag it, as would be the same situation as if you were dragging a unconscious body or an object.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Ya we all understand that reread this thread i dont think you understand whats being discussed and what i wrote. Its questions of how your movement is effected when you are grappling someone or how you can move a person you are grappling that are not really covered explicitly in the rules. Such as can you rotate a person around you if you have them grappled and then in doing so you have no actually moved but technically have just moved them 10ft or so, so you just did something at no cost if you dm allows it since you did not move and therefore there is nothing to halve. This would actually allow you to move a creature up to 25ft when you yourself could only move 15ft. If you move around the creature you have grappled it is stationary so you are not moving it so is your movement halved? Crawford says no. Can you only pull a creature with you as you move behind you or can you push, can you translate them sideways. These are all things not specified and open to interpretation. what i have stated above removes any speculation. It accounts for any direction of movement of the grappler or grapplie and makes it pretty fair and realistic i think.
Rotate them around you? If they're light enough for you to pick up & carry, sure, no problem. Otherwise, rotate yourself around them (which isn't at half speed since you aren't dragging/carrying them), then drag them, keeping your relative positions (which would be at half-speed.) You can't "push" them, only lift them and carry them; otherwise you'd need to make a Shove attack. I could see a DM allowing you to do a separate contested Strength check in order to drag them sideways, since that's not a straight-on drag, or to rotate them partway around you, since that's more akin to a Shove attack (even if you maintain a grapple.)
A lot of the point of the Moving a Grappled Creature rule is just to specify how you can move while maintaining a grapple, namely keeping the target within your reach.
We'll see if the folks who were discussing this 3 years back feel like weighing in on the topic.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)