And then when things get really bad - boots of speed on a dashing barbarian with 50 ft. of base movement - a level 2 spell like spike growth can do 20d4 damage per round to two enemies.
No it can't. Spike growth causes damage when a character 'moves'. You may 'drag' or 'carry' a grappled creature, but it does not 'move' and in fact is unable to do so (as it has speed 0). Likewise, grabbing someone and dragging them away from an enemy does not cause them to trigger an opportunity attack, etc.
You may "drag & carry" a grappled creature ( YES )...... and use that grappled one as an improvised throwing weapon ( only if you have enough CON and STR ) hahahahahaha.
Doing 5d8 bludgeoning ( or more ) PLUS the chance to stun and/or prone, by throwing a grappled Golem over the rest of the enemies, is priceless.
The opportunity attack rule literally cites what happens when you move without using your movement. A clear indicator that you can, in fact, move without using movement.
No, it's not a clear indication of how any rule other than opportunity attacks is supposed to function. In the case of spike growth, however, the clear intent of the spell is that it's triggered by walking on the spiky growth, and the victim isn't doing that.
You may "drag & carry" a grappled creature ( YES )...... and use that grappled one as an improvised throwing weapon ( only if you have enough CON and STR ) hahahahahaha.
Doing 5d8 bludgeoning ( or more ) PLUS the chance to stun and/or prone, by throwing a grappled Golem over the rest of the enemies, is priceless.
Where are you deriving the damage for throwing a golem? As far as I can tell it would do 1d4+Strength, like all other improvised weapons.
Explain how Dwarven Plate works if you can only "move" by using your movement speed.
And if you want to get away from RAW and talk realism or RAI, being dragged across a sharp surface is as bad or worse than walking across it.
But that's neither here nor there. The fact that the first response I got was a DM saying forced movement isn't movement for the purposes of Spike Growth illustrates the frustrating life of a grappler.
You may "drag & carry" a grappled creature ( YES )...... and use that grappled one as an improvised throwing weapon ( only if you have enough CON and STR ) hahahahahaha.
Doing 5d8 bludgeoning ( or more ) PLUS the chance to stun and/or prone, by throwing a grappled Golem over the rest of the enemies, is priceless.
Where are you deriving the damage for throwing a golem? As far as I can tell it would do 1d4+Strength, like all other improvised weapons.
1d4 + Strenght ?? The Golem have taller & tougher dimensions than your char, isn't it ?? Also considering its Mass ( stone/fire/ice/etc ) it's a plus added to the whole damage. So if the RAW says it only does 1d4 plus the Strenght bonus, I think this formula must be re-arranged.
You may "drag & carry" a grappled creature ( YES )...... and use that grappled one as an improvised throwing weapon ( only if you have enough CON and STR ) hahahahahaha.
Doing 5d8 bludgeoning ( or more ) PLUS the chance to stun and/or prone, by throwing a grappled Golem over the rest of the enemies, is priceless.
Where are you deriving the damage for throwing a golem? As far as I can tell it would do 1d4+Strength, like all other improvised weapons.
1d4 + Strenght ?? The Golem have taller & tougher dimensions than your char, isn't it ?? Also considering its Mass ( stone/fire/ice/etc ) it's a plus added to the whole damage. So if the RAW says it only does 1d4 plus the Strenght bonus, I think this formula must be re-arranged.
You cannot use a creature as an improvised weapon, only objects.
Secondly, improvised weapons per RAW only do 1d4 + Strength damage, regardless of the type of object
I find that even typically great DMs struggle with Grapplers. Everything we do is seems to be an abuse/optimization of the rules. It has them constantly going, "that can't be right" or "that's going to ruin everything I spent all week planning."
And then when things get really bad - boots of speed on a dashing barbarian with 50 ft. of base movement - a level 2 spell like spike growth can do 20d4 damage per round to two enemies. It starts to feel like rules abuse and DMs don't like seeing it.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're describing, I think you and your DM are both wrong here. Dragging is definitely movement, but you can't drag something to the side of you. Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
Am I the only DM who thinks that RAW, this does not work?
I just can not see how "pushing" or "dragging" would allow a PC to move an enemy (up to movement speed) through an area of Spike Growth... assuming that this is the ever-loved combo in reference here.
I definitely don't think it's RAW. The only way I see this working is to either walk through the spike growth yourself or to hold the grappled creature to your side and walk parallel to the spike growth boundary. Only one of those is allowed by the rules if the common definition of "drag" is used. I've been unsuccessfully trying to think of a common use of "drag" that involves being to the side of the dragger. I have a no large torque rule at my table.
It did just occurred to me that you could drag a creature out of spike growth and then push them back in repeatedly. I haven't read spike growth in a while so this might not actually work.
If you are standing one square west of a grappled target, and drag them while moving one square north, where do YOU think the grappled target moves, if not to a square that maintains its current position in relation to you? What language do you point to to answer?
Youre proving Dickeys point over and over and over. None of these rulings are mandated by RAW, but the instinct is consistently to reflexively find a way to say “that wouldn’t work...”
If you are standing one square west of a grappled target, and drag them while moving one square north, where do YOU think the grappled target moves, if not to a square that maintains its current position in relation to you? What language do you point to to answer?
The dragged creature moves to the square you vacated. I point to the English language. In the common usage of the English language, you doesn't drag something to the side of yourself. Dragging refers to behind yourself.
The RAW says drag. No other language needed.
What language do you point to for your interpretation?
If you are standing one square west of a grappled target, and drag them while moving one square north, where do YOU think the grappled target moves, if not to a square that maintains its current position in relation to you? What language do you point to to answer?
The other option is that it always moves into the space you just vacated, which is a more plausible dragging behavior, but RAW doesn't say.
I read "with you" to mean what it says... if you move north, it moves north "with you". If you move east, it moves east "with you." No matter what orthagonal, diagonal, or vertical direction you move, it moves in that same direction "with you" to stay in the same relation to you if you are dragging it.
But then again, I'd also let a grappler spend movement to move the grappled enemy around them without the player needing to move from their square, because that's what grappling is all about, and because why not.
I read "with you" to mean what it says... if you move north, it moves north "with you". If you move east, it moves east "with you." No matter what orthagonal, diagonal, or vertical direction you move, it moves in that same direction "with you" to stay in the same relation to you if you are dragging it.
But then again, I'd also let a grappler spend movement to move the grappled enemy around them without the player needing to move from their square, because that's what grappling is all about, and because why not.
Mostly because, while moving people about is an entirely reasonable use of grappling, that doesn't mean it should be free. If you want to execute arbitrary movement, use Shove; any grappling build will also be quite good at shoving (and yes, I would allow moving along with the creature you shove so it doesn't go out of range).
It isn't free. It costs double movement, a free hand, a limitation of your own battlefield positioning, and an attack to have set it up which involves an opposed check, even before you start considering carry capacity.
It isn't free. It costs double movement, a free hand, a limitation of your own battlefield positioning, and an attack to have set it up which involves an opposed check, even before you start considering carry capacity.
Carrying capacity isn't used for grapple and drag, and since weights for most creatures are completely undefined, not practical to use.
Counterpoint: they are, because they’re the rules which provide what you can carry, lift, push, and drag, and that’s what you do when you move a grappled creature.
Theres few rules provided for the weight of random boulders, logs, or goblin corpses, but go ahead and try to claim that means your carry capacity isn’t used for carrying them.
Theres few rules provided for the weight of random boulders, logs, or goblin corpses, but go ahead and try to claim that means your carry capacity isn’t used for carrying them.
No one has claimed that. Are you claiming that the rules for carrying capacity were in any way referenced in the rules for grappling?
“This conversation is every game I play with a grappler.”
I assume this post was meant to be sarcasm. Neither of your examples were convincing to me. The woman in the first example was nowhere near 5 feet away from the kid. I'd also like to see her do that to a horse or any other large creature. The second example was clearly not dragging. In neither example would I say that the "grappled" person could attack without disadvantage.
As a former wrestler, you will probably agree that while you may be able to grab someone and drag then any direction you want, you probably didn't do it with one hand in arbitrary orientations to your body to a person ~5 feet away from you.
I have played a grappler in 5e also and I loved it. I had very few problems with DMs regarding it. I also never expected anything that at best was ambiguous in the rules, and therefore a DM call.
Theres few rules provided for the weight of random boulders, logs, or goblin corpses, but go ahead and try to claim that means your carry capacity isn’t used for carrying them.
No one has claimed that. Are you claiming that the rules for carrying capacity were in any way referenced in the rules for grappling?
Plz read posts directly above my own, don’t make me quote the whole thread every post >_<
Counterpoint: they are, because they’re the rules which provide what you can carry, lift, push, and drag, and that’s what you do when you move a grappled creature.
Are you sure you want Large creatures to be nearly immovable with grappling? The expected weight of a Large creature is about 8x a Medium creature, or somewhere between 500 and 800 lb, and there are plenty of Large creatures that weigh more (typical warhorse is over 1500 lb). Given that with Str 20 the max you can carry without reducing speed to 5' is 300 lb, and the max you can drag at all is 600 lb, about half of Large creatures will be totally immovable and even then ones you can move you won't move very fast.
The carrying rules are for objects. The grappling rules deal with creatures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You may "drag & carry" a grappled creature ( YES )...... and use that grappled one as an improvised throwing weapon ( only if you have enough CON and STR ) hahahahahaha.
Doing 5d8 bludgeoning ( or more ) PLUS the chance to stun and/or prone, by throwing a grappled Golem over the rest of the enemies, is priceless.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
It's a general problem with game rules and natural language processing, but in this case it's clear: they do not use the verb 'move'.
No, it's not a clear indication of how any rule other than opportunity attacks is supposed to function. In the case of spike growth, however, the clear intent of the spell is that it's triggered by walking on the spiky growth, and the victim isn't doing that.
Where are you deriving the damage for throwing a golem? As far as I can tell it would do 1d4+Strength, like all other improvised weapons.
Explain how Dwarven Plate works if you can only "move" by using your movement speed.
And if you want to get away from RAW and talk realism or RAI, being dragged across a sharp surface is as bad or worse than walking across it.
But that's neither here nor there. The fact that the first response I got was a DM saying forced movement isn't movement for the purposes of Spike Growth illustrates the frustrating life of a grappler.
Its literally called Moving a Grappled Creature. It’s like these “No!” DMs can’t help themselves 😂
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
1d4 + Strenght ?? The Golem have taller & tougher dimensions than your char, isn't it ?? Also considering its Mass ( stone/fire/ice/etc ) it's a plus added to the whole damage. So if the RAW says it only does 1d4 plus the Strenght bonus, I think this formula must be re-arranged.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
You cannot use a creature as an improvised weapon, only objects.
Secondly, improvised weapons per RAW only do 1d4 + Strength damage, regardless of the type of object
D&D Beyond moderator across forums, Discord, Twitch and YouTube. Always happy to help and willing to answer questions (or at least try). (he/him/his)
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
Site Rules & Guidelines - Homebrew Rules - Looking for Players and Groups Rules
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're describing, I think you and your DM are both wrong here. Dragging is definitely movement, but you can't drag something to the side of you. Quoting myself from earlier in the thread:
If you are standing one square west of a grappled target, and drag them while moving one square north, where do YOU think the grappled target moves, if not to a square that maintains its current position in relation to you? What language do you point to to answer?
Youre proving Dickeys point over and over and over. None of these rulings are mandated by RAW, but the instinct is consistently to reflexively find a way to say “that wouldn’t work...”
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The dragged creature moves to the square you vacated. I point to the English language. In the common usage of the English language, you doesn't drag something to the side of yourself. Dragging refers to behind yourself.
The RAW says drag. No other language needed.
What language do you point to for your interpretation?
The other option is that it always moves into the space you just vacated, which is a more plausible dragging behavior, but RAW doesn't say.
This is literally impossible. There is no physical way to drag an opponent to the side of you.
Unless, you know, your this one lady.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-showing-young-boy-dragged-arm-day-care-owner-sparks-n1127371
Also, as a former wrestler, the idea that I can’t grab someone and drag them any direction I want is just silly.
And while I’m not a fan of rasslin’, they do a good job of further illustrating the point.
https://youtu.be/0zL0x4lncT0
“This conversation is every game I play with a grappler.”
I read "with you" to mean what it says... if you move north, it moves north "with you". If you move east, it moves east "with you." No matter what orthagonal, diagonal, or vertical direction you move, it moves in that same direction "with you" to stay in the same relation to you if you are dragging it.
But then again, I'd also let a grappler spend movement to move the grappled enemy around them without the player needing to move from their square, because that's what grappling is all about, and because why not.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Mostly because, while moving people about is an entirely reasonable use of grappling, that doesn't mean it should be free. If you want to execute arbitrary movement, use Shove; any grappling build will also be quite good at shoving (and yes, I would allow moving along with the creature you shove so it doesn't go out of range).
It isn't free. It costs double movement, a free hand, a limitation of your own battlefield positioning, and an attack to have set it up which involves an opposed check, even before you start considering carry capacity.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Carrying capacity isn't used for grapple and drag, and since weights for most creatures are completely undefined, not practical to use.
Counterpoint: they are, because they’re the rules which provide what you can carry, lift, push, and drag, and that’s what you do when you move a grappled creature.
Theres few rules provided for the weight of random boulders, logs, or goblin corpses, but go ahead and try to claim that means your carry capacity isn’t used for carrying them.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No one has claimed that. Are you claiming that the rules for carrying capacity were in any way referenced in the rules for grappling?
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Epic Boons on DDB
I assume this post was meant to be sarcasm. Neither of your examples were convincing to me. The woman in the first example was nowhere near 5 feet away from the kid. I'd also like to see her do that to a horse or any other large creature. The second example was clearly not dragging. In neither example would I say that the "grappled" person could attack without disadvantage.
As a former wrestler, you will probably agree that while you may be able to grab someone and drag then any direction you want, you probably didn't do it with one hand in arbitrary orientations to your body to a person ~5 feet away from you.
I have played a grappler in 5e also and I loved it. I had very few problems with DMs regarding it. I also never expected anything that at best was ambiguous in the rules, and therefore a DM call.
Plz read posts directly above my own, don’t make me quote the whole thread every post >_<
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Are you sure you want Large creatures to be nearly immovable with grappling? The expected weight of a Large creature is about 8x a Medium creature, or somewhere between 500 and 800 lb, and there are plenty of Large creatures that weigh more (typical warhorse is over 1500 lb). Given that with Str 20 the max you can carry without reducing speed to 5' is 300 lb, and the max you can drag at all is 600 lb, about half of Large creatures will be totally immovable and even then ones you can move you won't move very fast.
The carrying rules are for objects. The grappling rules deal with creatures.