I take anything anyone says after bashing SAC as "not rules" with a grain of salt. If they've made it into the compendium, they're written from a RAW perspective, so almost by definition if you are arguing against a SAC ruling, you're arguing against the wording of the rules.
I don't want to get into it again, but SAC literally tells you that's not true, and it's one of the first things it says. "When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives....RAW...RAI...RAF..." Reading them also leads to the same conclusion, such as the Circle of the Moon answer on page 3 which calls itself out as a RAI ruling. Other rulings also clearly have nothing to do with RAW, like the GWF+Divine Smite ruling further below. It's okay to be a SAC fan, but they aren't written from a RAW perspective (or at least, not exclusively).
See the sage advice on this particular question (or at least part of it)
Say I grapple you, then I drop prone. Are we now prone together?
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t knocked prone if you become prone. You’re now holding onto the creature from a prone position
PC wants to put an orc in a headlock. PC rolls an Athletics check to grapple. PC is successful, so the orc is now grappled in a headlock. PC uses their movement (Zero feet of movement) to drop prone. The PC is now prone on the ground and the orc is somehow *still grappled* and in a headlock, but NOT prone? It doesn't work.
It makes much more sense for the PC grappling the target to be able to use their movement at half speed (half of zero is still zero) to "drag the grappled creature with them" to the ground. It absolutely works by RAW, and the line that "you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you" explicitly means that yes, you can do this.
You are severely overvaluing what the Grappled condition actually is. When you grapple a target, you are not putting them in a headlock; that is the Restrained condition. All that grappling a target means is that you are physically holding onto them, in such a way that simply prevents them from movingaway from you, without restricting their available actions. You're basically just holding onto their clothing, fur, etc.
You decide to go Prone while grappling? Cool, now you're on the ground holding their pant leg. That's all there is to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
See the sage advice on this particular question (or at least part of it)
Say I grapple you, then I drop prone. Are we now prone together?
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t knocked prone if you become prone. You’re now holding onto the creature from a prone position
PC wants to put an orc in a headlock. PC rolls an Athletics check to grapple. PC is successful, so the orc is now grappled in a headlock. PC uses their movement (Zero feet of movement) to drop prone. The PC is now prone on the ground and the orc is somehow *still grappled* and in a headlock, but NOT prone? It doesn't work.
It makes much more sense for the PC grappling the target to be able to use their movement at half speed (half of zero is still zero) to "drag the grappled creature with them" to the ground. It absolutely works by RAW, and the line that "you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you" explicitly means that yes, you can do this.
You are severely overvaluing what the Grappled condition actually is. When you grapple a target, you are not putting them in a headlock; that is the Restrained condition. All that grappling a target means is that you are physically holding onto them, in such a way that simply prevents them from movingaway from you, without restricting their available actions. You're basically just holding onto their clothing, fur, etc.
You decide to go Prone while grappling? Cool, now you're on the ground holding their pant leg. That's all there is to it.
I would interpret Restrained to be something that actually interferes with their ability to fight back (invoking the disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves), which would involve restricting the movement of arms and legs *in addition to the grappled condition*. In a headlock, their arms are free - they'd absolutely be able to attack the grappler without disadvantage. But the grappler would still be able to throw them to the ground.
Grappled also says you can "drag or carry the creature with you" - you can't carry a creature with just a hand on their pant leg.
"Headlocked" is not a condition that is provided for in the rules, it's something that your DM is going to have to arbitrate. Grappled is, as Sigred pointed out, being held onto in a way that prevents you from moving. Restrained is being held onto in a way that prevents you from moving, and also interferes with your ability to attack and defend yourself. Your DM might consider a headlock to be a grapple, or restrained, or something else entirely. An ability that allows you to grapple a target does not necessarily allow you to headlock them. An ability that allows you to restrain a target does not necessarily allow you to headlock them. Only your DM can answer that question about how it is one would go about headlocking a target, and what that will do.
See the sage advice on this particular question (or at least part of it)
Say I grapple you, then I drop prone. Are we now prone together?
No. A creature you’re grappling isn’t knocked prone if you become prone. You’re now holding onto the creature from a prone position
PC wants to put an orc in a headlock. PC rolls an Athletics check to grapple. PC is successful, so the orc is now grappled in a headlock. PC uses their movement (Zero feet of movement) to drop prone. The PC is now prone on the ground and the orc is somehow *still grappled* and in a headlock, but NOT prone? It doesn't work.
It makes much more sense for the PC grappling the target to be able to use their movement at half speed (half of zero is still zero) to "drag the grappled creature with them" to the ground. It absolutely works by RAW, and the line that "you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you" explicitly means that yes, you can do this.
You are severely overvaluing what the Grappled condition actually is. When you grapple a target, you are not putting them in a headlock; that is the Restrained condition. All that grappling a target means is that you are physically holding onto them, in such a way that simply prevents them from movingaway from you, without restricting their available actions. You're basically just holding onto their clothing, fur, etc.
You decide to go Prone while grappling? Cool, now you're on the ground holding their pant leg. That's all there is to it.
I would interpret Restrained to be something that actually interferes with their ability to fight back (invoking the disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves), which would involve restricting the movement of arms and legs (1) *in addition to the grappled condition*. In a headlock, their arms are free - they'd absolutely be able to attack the grappler without disadvantage. (2) But the grappler would still be able to throw them to the ground.
Grappled also says you can "drag or carry the creature with you" - you can't carry a creature with just a hand on their pant leg. (3)
You're constricting their airway, and restricting their ability to move--their body, in place, not moving across a distance--freely. A person in a headlock cannot just twist around and stab you. That's a clear disadvantage. Restrained.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I used "headlock" just as a potential action a player might want to take, and to encourage thinking through the actual physical application of the game conditions. Either way, my response to the OP is that in my interpretation as a DM, I think it's absolutely reasonable for a PC to be able to grapple a target and then use the grapple to pull the grappled creature prone with their movement. There's nothing in the rules forbidding it, and *to me*, grappled implies a fairly secure hold not easily broken out of (considering the target had to *lose a contested roll* already to become grappled).
I take anything anyone says after bashing SAC as "not rules" with a grain of salt. If they've made it into the compendium, they're written from a RAW perspective, so almost by definition if you are arguing against a SAC ruling, you're arguing against the wording of the rules.
I don't want to get into it again, but SAC literally tells you that's not true, and it's one of the first things it says. "When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives....RAW...RAI...RAF..." Reading them also leads to the same conclusion, such as the Circle of the Moon answer on page 3 which calls itself out as a RAI ruling. Other rulings also clearly have nothing to do with RAW, like the GWF+Divine Smite ruling further below. It's okay to be a SAC fan, but they aren't written from a RAW perspective (or at least, not exclusively).
Fine, I'll take that (though many times they indicate which parts are written from a RAW vs RAI perspective, as in the moon druid example you mentioned, and he also says "Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this [RAW] perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."). And as always, you're free to do whatever you like in your game. But if we're talking about rules, then certainly the DnD ones generally tell you what you can do, not what you can't. If you are looking for mechanics, then you have to use the rules that are there, not what isn't there.
Fine, I'll take that (though many times they indicate which parts are written from a RAW vs RAI perspective, as in the moon druid example you mentioned, and he also says "Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."). And as always, you're free to do whatever you like in your game. But if we're talking about rules, then certainly the DnD ones generally tell you what you can do, not what you can't. If you are looking for mechanics, then you have to use the rules that are there, not what isn't there.
Except that "Improvised Actions" are encouraged in Chapter 9, both in the introduction to Actions in Combat, and again in a sidebar further down. I'm not trying to be difficult, but "I want to do X even though there isn't a rule for it, what do I roll?" is something that the rules provide for (1: ask if possible, 2: if so, DM will identify an appropriate attribute check), not something that should be perceived as going beyond the mechanics provided by the rule system.
"I want to put him in a headlock" or "I want to take him to ground" probably shouldn't be answered by "you can't, there's no rule for that." Chapter 9 provides that the rule for that is for the DM to identify an analogous attribute check and set a DC.
You can Grapple someone then drop prone. Nothing in the rules, however, forces the enemy to go prone with you.
Agreed. Your prone condition has nothing to do with theirs. You can be standing and grappling someone who is prone and you can be prone and grappling someone who is standing.
Knocking someone prone requires an Attack Action on your part (unless you have a feature that allows a Bonus Action, for example Shield Master feat). Knocking someone prone using only your movement is too powerful.
Thanks for the link to the Sage Advice ruling. I do accept the status of Sage Advice rulings, but this one doesn't quite help answer the question. The common answer for grapple + drop prone is No. What is the rules justification for this answer?
Maybe it would be better to focus on the standing question: can you use a grapple to force an opponent to stand?
This is not a case where something is allowed only because the rules don't disallow it. The rules explicitly define standing as movement. The movement rules do not draw a distinction between standing and other forms of movement. There is no criteria in the rules that can be used to make the distinction. The only criteria in the rules for movement is movement cost. (We could introduce an ad hoc rule about needing to move somewhere, but why would we? It isn't in the book.)
Apart from grapple + stand, is there any other way to physically force an opponent to stand?
Here is the move rule in full:
"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand. On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here. Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving. The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming."
Note that jumping, climbing, swimming, and walking is not a complete list of modes of movement. Nothing in this rule excludes standing as a form of movement. Standing has a movement cost just like every other form of movement. This rule does not say that you have to change location in order to move. For example, a halfling could do a standing jump straight up 2 ft without entering a different 5ft cube, but this clearly counts as movement. What in this rule could be used to distinguish standing from the halfling hop?
Yeah, standing is movement. If you're grappled and knocked prone, for example, you can't stand under your own power.
However, when you grapple a target, you aren't granted control to move them as you please. Specfically, "Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you."
That clearly includes moving squares, and causing your target to come with you.
That clearly includes carrying your target (lifting them off the ground).
Does it clearly include causing them to stand while you and them both stay in your same squares? No. Placing someone on their feet is not "dragging," nor is it "carrying", nor does it fit into the idea of "[bringing] a creature with you." So no, there's no clear rule providing that you have that power.
Does that mean you can't do it? No, but if you attempt it, you're attempting it as an Improvised Action, and your DM gets to decide how it works, with no ability for you to disagree and point to a different printed rule.
@Chicken_Champ: If movement is defined as moving squares, then I agree with you. The grapple move rule does not mention that requirement. The general move rule does not require moving squares. Where does that requirement come from?
If a halfling is in a grapple and jumps straight up 2 ft, the opponent is lifted too, right? No squares or cubes were moved. (Maybe we can imagine a situation with a rolling trap that has to be hopped over.)
As an aside, I think that the strength of a tackle is being overestimated. The difference between a tackle (grapple + prone) and a trip (grapple + shove) is that the character initiating the move ends up prone vs standing. A trip gives you advantage over your opponent, a tackle does not. It depends on situation and party composition to determine if tackle is a strong move. My party has 2 ranged and 2 melee. As a strength melee character, if I tackle an enemy the net result against that enemy is negative for my party: the ranged characters are at disadvantage, the single standing melee character is at advantage, and I am at a straight roll. In addition, every other enemy has advantage against me, and I have disadvantage against them. Putting yourself prone in combat is almost always a bad idea. I don't see tackle as a competitor for trip, it seems more like a risky version of Compelled Duel.
Nothing I quoted is dependant on movement being defined as moving squares. Grapple does not give you the power to control or force movement. It allows you to 1) "drag... a creature with you" or 2) "carry... a creature with you". Neither dragging a creature with you nor carrying a creature with you includes the concept of standing a creature in place from prone. The temptation to allow forced standing as forced movement is evolving from your paraphrasing the grapple rules in the first place.
Neither dragging a creature with you nor carrying a creature with you includes the concept of standing a creature in place from prone. The temptation to allow forced standing as forced movement is evolving from your paraphrasing the grapple rules in the first place.
Or dropping a standing creature to prone, for that matter. Going prone yourself is movement. Applying the prone condition to another creature is an attack whether they are grappled or not.
"I fall prone. I drag him with me." is a sentence whose meaning is clear, would be the counter argument. "I stand up. I drag(carry?) him with me." makes a little less sense, but is still coherent. But I'm still in the 'this isn't covered by grapple' camp.
Yes, in plain language we can say that we "drag someone down with us." You can also "drag someone to their feet," and you could "drag someone to their feet with you."
I would guess that of all of the phrases of the form "drag... with you" that "drag down with you" is one of the most common. For example, "I won't let you drag me down with you." We also have phrases like "drag out of bed" which implies getting someone from prone in bed to a standing position.
The plain language of the grapple move rule does not imply that the movement cannot be standing (or dropping prone). The rules need to do the work in this case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't want to get into it again, but SAC literally tells you that's not true, and it's one of the first things it says. "When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives....RAW...RAI...RAF..." Reading them also leads to the same conclusion, such as the Circle of the Moon answer on page 3 which calls itself out as a RAI ruling. Other rulings also clearly have nothing to do with RAW, like the GWF+Divine Smite ruling further below. It's okay to be a SAC fan, but they aren't written from a RAW perspective (or at least, not exclusively).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You are severely overvaluing what the Grappled condition actually is. When you grapple a target, you are not putting them in a headlock; that is the Restrained condition. All that grappling a target means is that you are physically holding onto them, in such a way that simply prevents them from moving away from you, without restricting their available actions. You're basically just holding onto their clothing, fur, etc.
You decide to go Prone while grappling? Cool, now you're on the ground holding their pant leg. That's all there is to it.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I would interpret Restrained to be something that actually interferes with their ability to fight back (invoking the disadvantage on attacks and Dex saves), which would involve restricting the movement of arms and legs *in addition to the grappled condition*. In a headlock, their arms are free - they'd absolutely be able to attack the grappler without disadvantage. But the grappler would still be able to throw them to the ground.
Grappled also says you can "drag or carry the creature with you" - you can't carry a creature with just a hand on their pant leg.
"Headlocked" is not a condition that is provided for in the rules, it's something that your DM is going to have to arbitrate. Grappled is, as Sigred pointed out, being held onto in a way that prevents you from moving. Restrained is being held onto in a way that prevents you from moving, and also interferes with your ability to attack and defend yourself. Your DM might consider a headlock to be a grapple, or restrained, or something else entirely. An ability that allows you to grapple a target does not necessarily allow you to headlock them. An ability that allows you to restrain a target does not necessarily allow you to headlock them. Only your DM can answer that question about how it is one would go about headlocking a target, and what that will do.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I used "headlock" just as a potential action a player might want to take, and to encourage thinking through the actual physical application of the game conditions. Either way, my response to the OP is that in my interpretation as a DM, I think it's absolutely reasonable for a PC to be able to grapple a target and then use the grapple to pull the grappled creature prone with their movement. There's nothing in the rules forbidding it, and *to me*, grappled implies a fairly secure hold not easily broken out of (considering the target had to *lose a contested roll* already to become grappled).
Fine, I'll take that (though many times they indicate which parts are written from a RAW vs RAI perspective, as in the moon druid example you mentioned, and he also says "Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this [RAW] perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."). And as always, you're free to do whatever you like in your game. But if we're talking about rules, then certainly the DnD ones generally tell you what you can do, not what you can't. If you are looking for mechanics, then you have to use the rules that are there, not what isn't there.
Except that "Improvised Actions" are encouraged in Chapter 9, both in the introduction to Actions in Combat, and again in a sidebar further down. I'm not trying to be difficult, but "I want to do X even though there isn't a rule for it, what do I roll?" is something that the rules provide for (1: ask if possible, 2: if so, DM will identify an appropriate attribute check), not something that should be perceived as going beyond the mechanics provided by the rule system.
"I want to put him in a headlock" or "I want to take him to ground" probably shouldn't be answered by "you can't, there's no rule for that." Chapter 9 provides that the rule for that is for the DM to identify an analogous attribute check and set a DC.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
But if there are rules for an action, you don’t have to improvise them. “I want to knock a creature prone.” “Ok, use the shove rules.”
As soon as headlock was mentioned, it was clear we are not arguing about the rules anymore. I'm out.
Yes yes, in agreement kind of :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Agreed. Your prone condition has nothing to do with theirs. You can be standing and grappling someone who is prone and you can be prone and grappling someone who is standing.
Knocking someone prone requires an Attack Action on your part (unless you have a feature that allows a Bonus Action, for example Shield Master feat). Knocking someone prone using only your movement is too powerful.
Thanks for the link to the Sage Advice ruling. I do accept the status of Sage Advice rulings, but this one doesn't quite help answer the question. The common answer for grapple + drop prone is No. What is the rules justification for this answer?
Maybe it would be better to focus on the standing question: can you use a grapple to force an opponent to stand?
This is not a case where something is allowed only because the rules don't disallow it. The rules explicitly define standing as movement. The movement rules do not draw a distinction between standing and other forms of movement. There is no criteria in the rules that can be used to make the distinction. The only criteria in the rules for movement is movement cost. (We could introduce an ad hoc rule about needing to move somewhere, but why would we? It isn't in the book.)
Apart from grapple + stand, is there any other way to physically force an opponent to stand?
Here is the move rule in full:
"In combat, characters and monsters are in constant motion, often using movement and position to gain the upper hand. On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed. You can use as much or as little of your speed as you like on your turn, following the rules here. Your movement can include jumping, climbing, and swimming. These different modes of movement can be combined with walking, or they can constitute your entire move. However you're moving, you deduct the distance of each part of your move from your speed until it is used up or until you are done moving. The “Special Types of Movement” section in chapter 8 gives the particulars for jumping, climbing, and swimming."
Note that jumping, climbing, swimming, and walking is not a complete list of modes of movement. Nothing in this rule excludes standing as a form of movement. Standing has a movement cost just like every other form of movement. This rule does not say that you have to change location in order to move. For example, a halfling could do a standing jump straight up 2 ft without entering a different 5ft cube, but this clearly counts as movement. What in this rule could be used to distinguish standing from the halfling hop?
Edit: spelling
Yeah, standing is movement. If you're grappled and knocked prone, for example, you can't stand under your own power.
However, when you grapple a target, you aren't granted control to move them as you please. Specfically, "Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you."
That clearly includes moving squares, and causing your target to come with you.
That clearly includes carrying your target (lifting them off the ground).
Does it clearly include causing them to stand while you and them both stay in your same squares? No. Placing someone on their feet is not "dragging," nor is it "carrying", nor does it fit into the idea of "[bringing] a creature with you." So no, there's no clear rule providing that you have that power.
Does that mean you can't do it? No, but if you attempt it, you're attempting it as an Improvised Action, and your DM gets to decide how it works, with no ability for you to disagree and point to a different printed rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
@Chicken_Champ: If movement is defined as moving squares, then I agree with you. The grapple move rule does not mention that requirement. The general move rule does not require moving squares. Where does that requirement come from?
If a halfling is in a grapple and jumps straight up 2 ft, the opponent is lifted too, right? No squares or cubes were moved. (Maybe we can imagine a situation with a rolling trap that has to be hopped over.)
As an aside, I think that the strength of a tackle is being overestimated. The difference between a tackle (grapple + prone) and a trip (grapple + shove) is that the character initiating the move ends up prone vs standing. A trip gives you advantage over your opponent, a tackle does not. It depends on situation and party composition to determine if tackle is a strong move. My party has 2 ranged and 2 melee. As a strength melee character, if I tackle an enemy the net result against that enemy is negative for my party: the ranged characters are at disadvantage, the single standing melee character is at advantage, and I am at a straight roll. In addition, every other enemy has advantage against me, and I have disadvantage against them. Putting yourself prone in combat is almost always a bad idea. I don't see tackle as a competitor for trip, it seems more like a risky version of Compelled Duel.
Nothing I quoted is dependant on movement being defined as moving squares. Grapple does not give you the power to control or force movement. It allows you to 1) "drag... a creature with you" or 2) "carry... a creature with you". Neither dragging a creature with you nor carrying a creature with you includes the concept of standing a creature in place from prone. The temptation to allow forced standing as forced movement is evolving from your paraphrasing the grapple rules in the first place.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Or dropping a standing creature to prone, for that matter. Going prone yourself is movement. Applying the prone condition to another creature is an attack whether they are grappled or not.
"I fall prone. I drag him with me." is a sentence whose meaning is clear, would be the counter argument. "I stand up. I drag(carry?) him with me." makes a little less sense, but is still coherent. But I'm still in the 'this isn't covered by grapple' camp.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, in plain language we can say that we "drag someone down with us." You can also "drag someone to their feet," and you could "drag someone to their feet with you."
I would guess that of all of the phrases of the form "drag... with you" that "drag down with you" is one of the most common. For example, "I won't let you drag me down with you." We also have phrases like "drag out of bed" which implies getting someone from prone in bed to a standing position.
The plain language of the grapple move rule does not imply that the movement cannot be standing (or dropping prone). The rules need to do the work in this case.