Nope, because the RAW says you can move a grappled creature by "drag or carry"ing it, and there are clear RAW rules for what you can "drag or carry" found in Chapter 7! While it may take a judgment call from me as a DM to decide how much a particular enemy weighs, it requires no judgment call from me at all to rule that carrying/dragging weight is dictated by your character's strength :)
Those words in the rules for grappling are not linked to the rules for carrying capacity. If you believe they should be, make a thread in the Bugs Forum about it and I guarantee that if you are right, DDB will find out and fix it. And if I am right, DDB will confirm and tell you. Deal?
DDB doesn't exhaustively hyperlink everything... a Fighter has "1d10 + your Constitution modifier" hit points per level, but there's no hyperlink to Chapter 1 or Chapter 7 Ability Score Modifier, Chapter 7 Constitution, Chapter 1 Hit Dice... does that give you any confusion over what is meant by "Constitution" or "modifier" or "hit points"? Or, can we be trusted to remember that when game terms and systems are defined, and then used elsewhere, those definitions are being incorporated by reference?
DDB hyperlinks are not rules, they're there for convenience. WotC does not offer a version of the PHB that they have hyperlinked internally, and the presence or absence of hyperlinks is not a design decision that the authors had any input on/control over. I'm not really sure what DDB's process is for vetting hyperlinks, I'm sure they're careful and thoughtful about how they do so, but even if they have a pipe right to Crawford's ear, hyperlinks can't serve as a substitute for printed rule text or errata.
And there's no "actually can't" about it. You actually CAN move a large creature, notwithstanding their likely-great-weight, you just need to be strong enough to do it, such as by having a high strength score, Powerful Build, a class feature that enhances your carrying capacity, a spell or magical item enhancing your carrying capacity, etc etc! Erasing weight limit restrictions on moving a grappled creature is not empowering to PCs, but rather is dismissive to those grappler PCs who have invested in some or all of these abilities assuming that they will have a mechanical impact on play.
Okay, if we assume "drag or carry" is the same as in the meaning it has in using abilities, it's notable that Strength references "pull, push, or lift", and while it does not define any of those terms, the common meaning is that when you pull something it follows behind you, when you push something it travels before you, and the rules for grappling don't include push.
This means moving while grappling cannot just mean retain relative position, because retaining relative position will sometimes be pushing. Now, you could argue that something to your side is not being pushed, but that doesn't mean it's being pulled either, and, well, if you've ever tried to move a heavy object, you do it either from in front or behind, which strongly argues for the common language meaning of 'pull' being in fact the intended meaning.
Okay, if we assume "drag or carry" is the same as in the meaning it has in using abilities, it's notable that Strength references "pull, push, or lift", and while it does not define any of those terms, the common meaning is that when you pull something it follows behind you, when you push something it travels before you, and the rules for grappling don't include push.
This means moving while grappling cannot just mean retain relative position, because retaining relative position will sometimes be pushing. Now, you could argue that something to your side is not being pushed, but that doesn't mean it's being pulled either, and, well, if you've ever tried to move a heavy object, you do it either from in front or behind, which strongly argues for the common language meaning of 'pull' being in fact the intended meaning.
Carrying Capacity. Your carrying capacity is your Strength score multiplied by 15. This is the weight (in pounds) that you can carry, which is high enough that most characters don't usually have to worry about it.
Push, Drag, or Lift. You can push, drag, or lift a weight in pounds up to twice your carrying capacity (or 30 times your Strength score). While pushing or dragging weight in excess of your carrying capacity, your speed drops to 5 feet.
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.
But second of all... I just don't even really follow what conclusion you think would be suggested if the Chapter 7 carrying capacity rules had mentioned "pull" instead of "drag." Seems... opaque.
But second of all... I just don't even really follow what conclusion you think would be suggested if the Chapter 7 carrying capacity rules had mentioned "pull" instead of "drag." Seems... opaque.
My point is, 'drag' is distinct from 'push', and thus must not include any type of motion classed as pushing. This means it cannot be 'retain relative position', because at least some uses for retaining relative position are clearly pushing, and the obvious distinction is that dragging is pulling, which means the effect is 'the target follows you'.
You're aware that the carrying capacity rules for pushing and dragging are identical, correct? Seems like a distinction without a difference. But if you really want to compromise on "with you" allowing you to bring the enemy along in a way that "retains relative position, so long as you do not move in a direction directly towards the enemy that would require you to enter their square or push them ahead of you" then.... I mean, fine, I guess.
But if you really want to compromise on "with you" allowing you to bring the enemy along in a way that "retains relative position, so long as you do not move in a direction directly towards the enemy that would require you to enter their square or push them ahead of you" then.... I mean, fine, I guess.
Nah, I like "can only move them into the square you just vacated". It eliminates all sorts of exploits and also fits the common language meaning of drag. If you want to toss someone off a cliff, use Shove, that's what it's for.
But if you really want to compromise on "with you" allowing you to bring the enemy along in a way that "retains relative position, so long as you do not move in a direction directly towards the enemy that would require you to enter their square or push them ahead of you" then.... I mean, fine, I guess.
Nah, I like "can only move them into the square you just vacated". It eliminates all sorts of exploits and also fits the common language meaning of drag. If you want to toss someone off a cliff, use Shove, that's what it's for.
I would never be this restrictive with grappling because it rules out plenty of relatively simple and cinematic actions. For instance, suppose I'm trapped in a long 5ft wide hallway with a solid wall at one end to which I'm trapped. How could I do the relatively simple maneuver of grabbing and switching positions with an aggressor without using grappling? Suppose I am between an enemy and a local hazard. If they're fixed in relative position, how do I exploit that hazard? I think most martial artists would argue that grappling is a good way to force somebody into a favorable position.
I would never be this restrictive with grappling because it rules out plenty of relatively simple and cinematic actions. For instance, suppose I'm trapped in a long 5ft wide hallway with a solid wall at one end to which I'm trapped. How could I do the relatively simple maneuver of grabbing and switching positions with an aggressor without using grappling?
Well, you'll have to house rule it regardless, because RAW doesn't let you do that - grappling someone does not give you the ability to pass their space (though you could have the ability for other reasons). If you actually had the ability to pass through their space, "they move into the space you just vacated" works fine for that. I'm a bit more generous with what you can do if you choose to carry them (rather than dragging them), but in that case I would rule that you share your space with whatever you're carrying.
Grappling allows you to move an enemy by both dragging AND/OR carrying them. Snap supplexing an enemy from 5 feet north, to directly above your square, to 5 feet south of you is easy peasy RAW and squeezy, if you have the strength for it, no houseruling to share spaces required. Contingent on having a 10 foot+ ceiling though!
How many posts does it take before we come to the consensus that grappling is a contentious topic, which makes it hard for players to confidently bring a grappler to an unfamiliar table?
I'm on board with the first bullet point: It's quite strong, since it not only gives you a new way to set up Advantage on your attacks against your grappled target, but sets your entire team up to get that advantage... but it costs action economy and depends on a succesful check and requires having already succeeded another check/action use to grapple, so all in all balanced enough.
The second bullet seems like a strange and complicated way to accomplish something that can already be done: if you're grappled by a creature you're grappling, and want to move with them, then normally you would do a contested Athletics/Acrobatics vs. their Athletics to break the grapple, using your Action. Your feat narrows that to a contested Athletics vs. Athletics, doesn't break the Grapple but lets you temporarily ignore it while moving, and only costs a Bonus Action. I mean, that's better, it's a benefit the feat has provided. But it's such a complex and niche one.... hmmm.
The third bullet is once again quite strong, possibly overtuned to have both this and bullet 1. This is essentially an under-powered Sentinel (no damage like a Sentinel weapon attack has, no reach weapon shenanigans, enemy size restrictions due to grappling rules, requires a check), but Sentinel is a very strong and popular feat.
The fourth bullet is also very strong. One of the main things holding grapplers back is the action economy of wasting attacks setting up grapples; bullet four is a huge action economy boost. Class features that provide retaliation attacks are usually Tier 4 features.
I think you need to get rid of at least one of bullet 1, 3, and 4, if not peeling off two of them.
Yeah, the 1st and 3rd bullets are the real meat and potatoes of the feat. The 2nd bullet is more of a simplification of action economy. But the 4th bullet is so specifically situational that I kinda think it combines with the 2nd to make a full bullet’s worth of impact.
None of those things is automatic, they all require checks to accomplish and eat either a bonus action or reaction to use. And not one of them actually does any damage, just all control stuff. What they do is free up Attacks or whole Actions to allow for more effective ground-and-pound.
Yeah, the 1st and 3rd bullets are the real meat and potatoes of the feat. The 2nd bullet is more of a simplification of action economy. But the 4th bullet is so specifically situational that I kinda think it combines with the 2nd to make a full bullet’s worth of impact.
The 4th bullet point has a very low chance of actually even occurring, since most creatures that grapple do not make grapple attacks (they make regular attacks that apply grappled as a side effect), but I'd probably have it be only on a failure.
Yeah, the 1st and 3rd bullets are the real meat and potatoes of the feat. The 2nd bullet is more of a simplification of action economy. But the 4th bullet is so specifically situational that I kinda think it combines with the 2nd to make a full bullet’s worth of impact.
The 4th bullet point has a very low chance of actually even occurring, since most creatures that grapple do not make grapple attacks (they make regular attacks that apply grappled as a side effect), but I'd probably have it be only on a failure.
It’s supposed to represent the lockup in a wrestling match. The whole point is to be able to immediately return the grapple. It may be the 4th bullet, but it was the 1st one I wrote.
But more seriously, anyone wanted to shove prone the creature you are grappling then (with extra attack) kidney or liver or vital-organ punch them whilst they're prone?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Those words in the rules for grappling are not linked to the rules for carrying capacity. If you believe they should be, make a thread in the Bugs Forum about it and I guarantee that if you are right, DDB will find out and fix it. And if I am right, DDB will confirm and tell you. Deal?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
DDB doesn't exhaustively hyperlink everything... a Fighter has "1d10 + your Constitution modifier" hit points per level, but there's no hyperlink to Chapter 1 or Chapter 7 Ability Score Modifier, Chapter 7 Constitution, Chapter 1 Hit Dice... does that give you any confusion over what is meant by "Constitution" or "modifier" or "hit points"? Or, can we be trusted to remember that when game terms and systems are defined, and then used elsewhere, those definitions are being incorporated by reference?
DDB hyperlinks are not rules, they're there for convenience. WotC does not offer a version of the PHB that they have hyperlinked internally, and the presence or absence of hyperlinks is not a design decision that the authors had any input on/control over. I'm not really sure what DDB's process is for vetting hyperlinks, I'm sure they're careful and thoughtful about how they do so, but even if they have a pipe right to Crawford's ear, hyperlinks can't serve as a substitute for printed rule text or errata.
And there's no "actually can't" about it. You actually CAN move a large creature, notwithstanding their likely-great-weight, you just need to be strong enough to do it, such as by having a high strength score, Powerful Build, a class feature that enhances your carrying capacity, a spell or magical item enhancing your carrying capacity, etc etc! Erasing weight limit restrictions on moving a grappled creature is not empowering to PCs, but rather is dismissive to those grappler PCs who have invested in some or all of these abilities assuming that they will have a mechanical impact on play.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
And I guess Crawford’s Sage Advice expressly stating that Grappling does not use carrying capacity isn’t good enough either?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You guess correctly :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Okay, if we assume "drag or carry" is the same as in the meaning it has in using abilities, it's notable that Strength references "pull, push, or lift", and while it does not define any of those terms, the common meaning is that when you pull something it follows behind you, when you push something it travels before you, and the rules for grappling don't include push.
This means moving while grappling cannot just mean retain relative position, because retaining relative position will sometimes be pushing. Now, you could argue that something to your side is not being pushed, but that doesn't mean it's being pulled either, and, well, if you've ever tried to move a heavy object, you do it either from in front or behind, which strongly argues for the common language meaning of 'pull' being in fact the intended meaning.
First of all, no it doesn't? From Chapter 7, Using Ability Scores:
But second of all... I just don't even really follow what conclusion you think would be suggested if the Chapter 7 carrying capacity rules had mentioned "pull" instead of "drag." Seems... opaque.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
My point is, 'drag' is distinct from 'push', and thus must not include any type of motion classed as pushing. This means it cannot be 'retain relative position', because at least some uses for retaining relative position are clearly pushing, and the obvious distinction is that dragging is pulling, which means the effect is 'the target follows you'.
You're aware that the carrying capacity rules for pushing and dragging are identical, correct? Seems like a distinction without a difference. But if you really want to compromise on "with you" allowing you to bring the enemy along in a way that "retains relative position, so long as you do not move in a direction directly towards the enemy that would require you to enter their square or push them ahead of you" then.... I mean, fine, I guess.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yes, but the fact that it used more than one word implies that they are distinct concepts.
Nah, I like "can only move them into the square you just vacated". It eliminates all sorts of exploits and also fits the common language meaning of drag. If you want to toss someone off a cliff, use Shove, that's what it's for.
I would never be this restrictive with grappling because it rules out plenty of relatively simple and cinematic actions. For instance, suppose I'm trapped in a long 5ft wide hallway with a solid wall at one end to which I'm trapped. How could I do the relatively simple maneuver of grabbing and switching positions with an aggressor without using grappling? Suppose I am between an enemy and a local hazard. If they're fixed in relative position, how do I exploit that hazard? I think most martial artists would argue that grappling is a good way to force somebody into a favorable position.
Well, you'll have to house rule it regardless, because RAW doesn't let you do that - grappling someone does not give you the ability to pass their space (though you could have the ability for other reasons). If you actually had the ability to pass through their space, "they move into the space you just vacated" works fine for that. I'm a bit more generous with what you can do if you choose to carry them (rather than dragging them), but in that case I would rule that you share your space with whatever you're carrying.
Grappling allows you to move an enemy by both dragging AND/OR carrying them. Snap supplexing an enemy from 5 feet north, to directly above your square, to 5 feet south of you is easy peasy RAW and squeezy, if you have the strength for it, no houseruling to share spaces required. Contingent on having a 10 foot+ ceiling though!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
How many posts does it take before we come to the consensus that grappling is a contentious topic, which makes it hard for players to confidently bring a grappler to an unfamiliar table?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/feats/435021-hands-on-training
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Interesting feat.
I'm on board with the first bullet point: It's quite strong, since it not only gives you a new way to set up Advantage on your attacks against your grappled target, but sets your entire team up to get that advantage... but it costs action economy and depends on a succesful check and requires having already succeeded another check/action use to grapple, so all in all balanced enough.
The second bullet seems like a strange and complicated way to accomplish something that can already be done: if you're grappled by a creature you're grappling, and want to move with them, then normally you would do a contested Athletics/Acrobatics vs. their Athletics to break the grapple, using your Action. Your feat narrows that to a contested Athletics vs. Athletics, doesn't break the Grapple but lets you temporarily ignore it while moving, and only costs a Bonus Action. I mean, that's better, it's a benefit the feat has provided. But it's such a complex and niche one.... hmmm.
The third bullet is once again quite strong, possibly overtuned to have both this and bullet 1. This is essentially an under-powered Sentinel (no damage like a Sentinel weapon attack has, no reach weapon shenanigans, enemy size restrictions due to grappling rules, requires a check), but Sentinel is a very strong and popular feat.
The fourth bullet is also very strong. One of the main things holding grapplers back is the action economy of wasting attacks setting up grapples; bullet four is a huge action economy boost. Class features that provide retaliation attacks are usually Tier 4 features.
I think you need to get rid of at least one of bullet 1, 3, and 4, if not peeling off two of them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, the 1st and 3rd bullets are the real meat and potatoes of the feat. The 2nd bullet is more of a simplification of action economy. But the 4th bullet is so specifically situational that I kinda think it combines with the 2nd to make a full bullet’s worth of impact.
None of those things is automatic, they all require checks to accomplish and eat either a bonus action or reaction to use. And not one of them actually does any damage, just all control stuff. What they do is free up Attacks or whole Actions to allow for more effective ground-and-pound.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The 4th bullet point has a very low chance of actually even occurring, since most creatures that grapple do not make grapple attacks (they make regular attacks that apply grappled as a side effect), but I'd probably have it be only on a failure.
It’s supposed to represent the lockup in a wrestling match. The whole point is to be able to immediately return the grapple. It may be the 4th bullet, but it was the 1st one I wrote.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
anyone wanted to grapple two smallish creatures and conk their heads together?
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking
But more seriously, anyone wanted to shove prone the creature you are grappling then (with extra attack) kidney or liver or vital-organ punch them whilst they're prone?
Rogue Shadow, the DM (and occasional) PC with schemes of inventive thinking