Movable. The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler.
From the wording of this rule, it looks to me like the designers are making a distinction between the movement of the grappler and that of the grappled creature. They describe the grappler as "moving", while the grappled creature is "dragged" or "carried". To me, it seems that the designers are trying to say that the grappler's actions constitute the kind of voluntary movement that triggers attacks of opportunity, while the grappled creature is experiencing the kind of forced movement that typically doesn't. If this is the case, then these new rules only describe the grappler moving the grappled creature on the grappler's turn. They do not specifically describe the grappler moving the grappled creature when the grappler is subjected to forced movement. These rules would therefore only pertain to voluntary movement that the grappler might take his turn. Likewise, the Slowed condition should only be applied to the grappler if the grappler used his speed to move. It would not be applied if the grappler were subjected to forced movement such as a Thunderwave spell.
Movable. The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler.
From the wording of this rule, it looks to me like the designers are making a distinction between the movement of the grappler and that of the grappled creature. They describe the grappler as "moving", while the grappled creature is "dragged" or "carried". To me, it seems that the designers are trying to say that the grappler's actions constitute the kind of voluntary movement that triggers attacks of opportunity, while the grappled creature is experiencing the kind of forced movement that typically doesn't. If this is the case, then these new rules only describe the grappler moving the grappled creature on the grappler's turn. They do not specifically describe the grappler moving the grappled creature when the grappler is subjected to forced movement. These rules would therefore only pertain to voluntary movement that the grappler might take his turn. Likewise, the Slowed condition should only be applied to the grappler if the grappler used his speed to move. It would not be applied if the grappler were subjected to forced movement such as a Thunderwave spell.
It just says "The grappler can drag or carry you, but suffers the slowed condition while moving." It does not single out any type of movement, source of the movement, or timing of the movement in any way. If they are trying to imply what you think they are, then they have failed.
Movable allows the grappler to move the grappled target yes, but this is not the grappler's turn, they can take no action thus they can not move the grappled target when they are shoved because it is out of their turn. Again, nothing allows a grappler to move their target when they are forcefully moved.
Nothing in the description of Movable states that is has to be on the grapplers turn or that they are unable to drag when they are forcefully moved. You are adding a restriction that is not there.
Should that restriction be there? Almost certainly it should. In fact, anything that results in the grappler becoming out of reach of its victim (such as the grappler casting Misty Step or Blink) should end the Grappled condition. But alas, that is not what the rule states. That is why the rule needs to be changed!
I'd say saying they can drag outside of their action is just as much adding an ability that is not there as adding a restriction that is there. It definitely needs clarification on what they were going for here.
That is because there is no action required to drag a grappled target, only movement. Once grappled, they gain the Grappled Condition and all the entails until the Condition is broken, regardless of who's turn it is. If the grappler gains movement outside of their normal turn, then THEY get to decide if the grappled target is dragged along with them. There are no stipulations in the rules that create exceptions for forced movement, at least not as they are written in the UA. Should there be, yes, but finding these issues is part of UA testing.
My hope is that there is a lot less traffic in the Rules & Game Mechanics Forum talking about poorly worded rules for the next "edition".
That is your reading of it, it is not THE reading of it. Drag or carry is an active language it is not reactive, they have always worked form a natural language perspective in 5e. You choosing to see no limitations from that working is your choice on how you read their rules. For me and others dragging is something you do actively on your turn not reactively when getting shoved, a sentence that says it also ends if something moves you out of the grapplers reach without using your speed would also apply to the grappler being moved. Until they clarify this would require a DM ruling. I wish this had been brought up before I filled out the survey as I had tested it with my interpretation and had not seen other ways of reading it yet. But there are two years of playtesting to go, so it can be brought up later.
Movable allows the grappler to move the grappled target yes, but this is not the grappler's turn, they can take no action thus they can not move the grappled target when they are shoved because it is out of their turn. Again, nothing allows a grappler to move their target when they are forcefully moved.
Nothing in the description of Movable states that is has to be on the grapplers turn or that they are unable to drag when they are forcefully moved. You are adding a restriction that is not there.
Should that restriction be there? Almost certainly it should. In fact, anything that results in the grappler becoming out of reach of its victim (such as the grappler casting Misty Step or Blink) should end the Grappled condition. But alas, that is not what the rule states. That is why the rule needs to be changed!
I'd say saying they can drag outside of their action is just as much adding an ability that is not there as adding a restriction that is there. It definitely needs clarification on what they were going for here.
That is because there is no action required to drag a grappled target, only movement. Once grappled, they gain the Grappled Condition and all the entails until the Condition is broken, regardless of who's turn it is. If the grappler gains movement outside of their normal turn, then THEY get to decide if the grappled target is dragged along with them. There are no stipulations in the rules that create exceptions for forced movement, at least not as they are written in the UA. Should there be, yes, but finding these issues is part of UA testing.
My hope is that there is a lot less traffic in the Rules & Game Mechanics Forum talking about poorly worded rules for the next "edition".
That is your reading of it, it is not THE reading of it. Drag or carry is an active language it is not reactive, they have always worked form a natural language perspective in 5e. You choosing to see no limitations from that working is your choice on how you read their rules. For me and others dragging is something you do actively on your turn not reactively when getting shoved, a sentence that says it also ends if something moves you out of the grapplers reach without using your speed would also apply to the grappler being moved. Until they clarify this would require a DM ruling. I wish this had been brought up before I filled out the survey as I had tested it with my interpretation and had not seen other ways of reading it yet. But there are two years of playtesting to go, so it can be brought up later.
But that is my point. If there is room to question how the rule works, then it is a poorly written rule. You can just take a glance at the Rule forum to see how badly a lot of rules are currently written. I know people will misinterpret/misunderstand rules regardless, but it shouldn't be this ambiguous.
There's never going to be an airtight rule. Somebody will always be able to look at an English sentence and somehow parse it into a meaning that makes you question every decision you've ever made in life, and yet to that guy their Bizarre-O-World reading is the most natural thing in the world. Language is inherently fuzzy. It's why rigorous scientific and engineering disciplines spend a great deal of time and effort training people in the use of more precise language, and that training is not easy, simple, or free. Nor does it always work; engineering language can only cover so much, and my whole-ass job is dealing with people who can't read a datasheet to save their immortal souls. Wizards doesn't get to train people. it gets to release books with the best efforts it can make, and then vigorously facepalm as people come up with interpretations of the rules that make you wonder if they're somehow reading the English text on the page in Polish or Mandarin or something.
But that is my point. If there is room to question how the rule works, then it is a poorly written rule. You can just take a glance at the Rule forum to see how badly a lot of rules are currently written. I know people will misinterpret/misunderstand rules regardless, but it shouldn't be this ambiguous.
+1 to this, just wanted to emphasize that this feels like the whole reason we have RAW vs RAI issues in previous editions of D&D to begin with, concise clearly written rules are required.
There's never going to be an airtight rule. Somebody will always be able to look at an English sentence and somehow parse it into a meaning that makes you question every decision you've ever made in life, and yet to that guy their Bizarre-O-World reading is the most natural thing in the world. Language is inherently fuzzy. It's why rigorous scientific and engineering disciplines spend a great deal of time and effort training people in the use of more precise language, and that training is not easy, simple, or free. Nor does it always work; engineering language can only cover so much, and my whole-ass job is dealing with people who can't read a datasheet to save their immortal souls. Wizards doesn't get to train people. it gets to release books with the best efforts it can make, and then vigorously facepalm as people come up with interpretations of the rules that make you wonder if they're somehow reading the English text on the page in Polish or Mandarin or something.
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud. At some point people have to accept that "the DM just gets to decide" is valid if they want a leaner ruleset that doesn't try to have specific caveats for which toe you stub if you happen to put a foot wrong somewhere. The price of that leaner, easier to digest ruleset is idiotic discussions in Rules and Game Mechanics about people's Bizarre-O-World interpretations of leaner, less intrusive rules.
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud. At some point people have to accept that "the DM just gets to decide" is valid if they want a leaner ruleset that doesn't try to have specific caveats for which toe you stub if you happen to put a foot wrong somewhere. The price of that leaner, easier to digest ruleset is idiotic discussions in Rules and Game Mechanics about people's Bizarre-O-World interpretations of leaner, less intrusive rules.
There is a middle ground there. Things don't have to be taken to extremes. This rule is just too fuzzy and could do with a trim so that we can clearly see the intent.
Movable. The grappler can drag or carry you, but the grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler.
From the wording of this rule, it looks to me like the designers are making a distinction between the movement of the grappler and that of the grappled creature. They describe the grappler as "moving", while the grappled creature is "dragged" or "carried". To me, it seems that the designers are trying to say that the grappler's actions constitute the kind of voluntary movement that triggers attacks of opportunity, while the grappled creature is experiencing the kind of forced movement that typically doesn't. If this is the case, then these new rules only describe the grappler moving the grappled creature on the grappler's turn. They do not specifically describe the grappler moving the grappled creature when the grappler is subjected to forced movement. These rules would therefore only pertain to voluntary movement that the grappler might take his turn. Likewise, the Slowed condition should only be applied to the grappler if the grappler used his speed to move. It would not be applied if the grappler were subjected to forced movement such as a Thunderwave spell.
It just says "The grappler can drag or carry you, but suffers the slowed condition while moving." It does not single out any type of movement, source of the movement, or timing of the movement in any way. If they are trying to imply what you think they are, then they have failed.
I'm not so sure. The grappled condition gives the grappled creature a speed of 0, so they can't move by themselves. The grappler can move because he still has a speed. He can either release the grapple and move at his normal speed, or maintain the grapple and spend one extra foot of movement for each foot moved. Either way, the grappler is using his speed to move.
I agree that the rule is not explicit that forcibly moving the grappler breaks the grapple. But neither does it say that the grapple can be maintained if the grappler is forcibly moved. It only says that moving the grappled creature breaks the grapple. Current rules for the grappled condition also only describe the effects of forced movement on the grappled creature and not the grappler. If the new grapple rules allow the grappler to maintain the grapple during a forced movement, then the current rules do as well.
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud.
My general rule on it is "can I come up with clearer wording without significantly increasing word count".
I would note that the text doesn't actually define 'drag' or 'carry' at all, though presumably they have the normal meaning when you move.
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud.
My general rule on it is "can I come up with clearer wording without significantly increasing word count".
I would note that the text doesn't actually define 'drag' or 'carry' at all, though presumably they have the normal meaning when you move.
I agree with Pantagruel here. You don't have to create a multi-page-long rule to make it more clear.
Here is how I would reword the Moveable and Escape sections on the new Grappled condition:
Movable. Whenever the grappler moves using its Speed, the grappler can drag or carry you with it. The grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler.
Escape. While Grappled, you can make a Dexterity or Strength saving throw against the grapple’s escape DC at the end of each of your turns, ending the Condition on yourself on a success. The Condition also ends if the grappler is Incapacitated. The Condition also ends if something results in you being outside the grapple’s range.
Okay. Backtracked a bit and from what I'm seeing, the current rules fuffle is that forcibly moving the grappler is technically not "Breaking the Grapple" because there's no written-in limitation on whether a grappler can drag/carry a target when it is forcibly moved, as opposed to the grapplee being forcibly moved?
If so: that's dumb. And speaks exactly to my point.
The idea of a grapplee shoving away a grappler to break the grapple is an entirely natural, intuitive, and logical thing to do. When someone grabs you aggressively in real life, you try and shove them off you. Think about it - if someone entirely new to D&D with no grounding in the rules said "Okay, he's grabbing me and I can't move. Can I try and shove him off of me so I can get away?", what is the correct answer? Spoilers: the answer is 'yes', because a DM that disallows someone to do something anyone in the same situation in real life would try to do in favor of strict adherence to a specific read of the rules is a bad DM. It's the same thing as DMs who don't allow someone to stop drop and roll to stop being on fire because there's no explicit rule for Stop Drop and Roll. Saying "No, you have to wait until the end of your turn, then you can make a saving throw to try and escape" would only confuse someone not deeply conversant with the rules.
You can argue "that's why the rules need to be rewritten, so they make that explicit!", and maybe there's a point there. But how many words do you need? Especially when the Grappled condition already states that Grappled ends when "something moves you outside the grapple's range without using your Speed." A Shove attack on your part moves you outside the grapple's range without using your speed. It doesn't matter that the grappler is what moved and not you - something moved, your Speed was not used, and you're outside the grappler's range. Conditions met: Grapple condition ended. Trying to argue otherwise is semantic screwery with no reasonable basis and everybody knows it.
Okay. Backtracked a bit and from what I'm seeing, the current rules fuffle is that forcibly moving the grappler is technically not "Breaking the Grapple" because there's no written-in limitation on whether a grappler can drag/carry a target when it is forcibly moved, as opposed to the grapplee being forcibly moved?
If so: that's dumb. And speaks exactly to my point.
The idea of a grapplee shoving away a grappler to break the grapple is an entirely natural, intuitive, and logical thing to do. When someone grabs you aggressively in real life, you try and shove them off you. Think about it - if someone entirely new to D&D with no grounding in the rules said "Okay, he's grabbing me and I can't move. Can I try and shove him off of me so I can get away?", what is the correct answer? Spoilers: the answer is 'yes', because a DM that disallows someone to do something anyone in the same situation in real life would try to do in favor of strict adherence to a specific read of the rules is a bad DM. It's the same thing as DMs who don't allow someone to stop drop and roll to stop being on fire because there's no explicit rule for Stop Drop and Roll. Saying "No, you have to wait until the end of your turn, then you can make a saving throw to try and escape" would only confuse someone not deeply conversant with the rules.
You can argue "that's why the rules need to be rewritten, so they make that explicit!", and maybe there's a point there. But how many words do you need? Especially when the Grappled condition already states that Grappled ends when "something moves you outside the grapple's range without using your Speed." A Shove attack on your part moves you outside the grapple's range without using your speed. It doesn't matter that the grappler is what moved and not you - something moved, your Speed was not used, and you're outside the grappler's range. Conditions met: Grapple condition ended. Trying to argue otherwise is semantic screwery with no reasonable basis and everybody knows it.
In a real fight, they usually end up wrestling on ground partly because if someone has a hold of you, you can't just easily push them away. So maybe your intuition is bad.
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud.
My general rule on it is "can I come up with clearer wording without significantly increasing word count".
I would note that the text doesn't actually define 'drag' or 'carry' at all, though presumably they have the normal meaning when you move.
I agree with Pantagruel here. You don't have to create a multi-page-long rule to make it more clear.
Here is how I would reword the Moveable and Escape sections on the new Grappled condition:
Movable. Whenever the grappler moves using its Speed, the grappler can drag or carry you with it. The grappler suffers the Slowed Condition while moving, unless you are Tiny or two or more Sizes smaller than the grappler.
Escape. While Grappled, you can make a Dexterity or Strength saving throw against the grapple’s escape DC at the end of each of your turns, ending the Condition on yourself on a success. The Condition also ends if the grappler is Incapacitated. The Condition also ends if something results in you being outside the grapple’s range.
The "using its speed" part works well. That still allows for moving a target outside of the grappler's normal turn if that comes up, but doesn't allow for the grappler to do so with forced movement.
If so: that's dumb. And speaks exactly to my point.
It is dumb, but an awful lot of rules arguments are dumb. It's not worth spending a large amount of word count, but if it can be tightened up without doing so, it should be.
It does seem like it might be useful to come up with a term of art to distinguish 'move with your speed' from other types of movement.
In a real fight, they usually end up wrestling on ground partly because if someone has a hold of you, you can't just easily push them away. So maybe your intuition is bad.
Maybe. Plenty of folks have managed to break away from a grappling attacker without getting grounded. Ask anybody who's ever managed to escape a mugging.
I just know a lot of D&D players have a weird fixation on "if the rules don't explicitly say you can do it, it's because you can't do it", which is one of the absolute dumbest statements anybody can make about the game. The entire reason the DM exists is to adjudicate times/actions where there is no clear rule; if that wasn't the case we'd just all be playing the video game and having done with it. Using the new Unarmed rules to try and shove a grappler away is an elegant fix to the fact that grappling, i.e. the real-world methodology behind grabbing/wrestling somebody, does not and never has worked properly in turn-based fights. No one has ever invented turn-based grappling that wasn't absolute garbage because grappling is 100% centered on things turn-based "I slap him then he slaps me" fight engines cannot account for.
Even Pete's version leaves the definition of "drag or carry" unstated, and I guarantee people will complain about the line "The Condition also ends if something results in you being outside the grapple’s range". Namely: "what counts as 'Something'? What counts as 'Something'?! 'Something' is so vague! What does SOMETHING mean?!" because they do it now, with rules that state an end condition rather than an end action.
In a real fight, they usually end up wrestling on ground partly because if someone has a hold of you, you can't just easily push them away. So maybe your intuition is bad.
Maybe. Plenty of folks have managed to break away from a grappling attacker without getting grounded. Ask anybody who's ever managed to escape a mugging.
I just know a lot of D&D players have a weird fixation on "if the rules don't explicitly say you can do it, it's because you can't do it", which is one of the absolute dumbest statements anybody can make about the game. The entire reason the DM exists is to adjudicate times/actions where there is no clear rule; if that wasn't the case we'd just all be playing the video game and having done with it. Using the new Unarmed rules to try and shove a grappler away is an elegant fix to the fact that grappling, i.e. the real-world methodology behind grabbing/wrestling somebody, does not and never has worked properly in turn-based fights. No one has ever invented turn-based grappling that wasn't absolute garbage because grappling is 100% centered on things turn-based "I slap him then he slaps me" fight engines cannot account for.
Even Pete's version leaves the definition of "drag or carry" unstated, and I guarantee people will complain about the line "The Condition also ends if something results in you being outside the grapple’s range". Namely: "what counts as 'Something'? What counts as 'Something'?! 'Something' is so vague! What does SOMETHING mean?!" because they do it now, with rules that state an end condition rather than an end action.
"They are going to fight about it any way so why bother?" isn't exactly a good excuse for not even attempting to make well written rules. Besides, aren't these the kind of things we are supposed to be looking for in a UA about new rules?
From the wording of this rule, it looks to me like the designers are making a distinction between the movement of the grappler and that of the grappled creature. They describe the grappler as "moving", while the grappled creature is "dragged" or "carried". To me, it seems that the designers are trying to say that the grappler's actions constitute the kind of voluntary movement that triggers attacks of opportunity, while the grappled creature is experiencing the kind of forced movement that typically doesn't. If this is the case, then these new rules only describe the grappler moving the grappled creature on the grappler's turn. They do not specifically describe the grappler moving the grappled creature when the grappler is subjected to forced movement. These rules would therefore only pertain to voluntary movement that the grappler might take his turn. Likewise, the Slowed condition should only be applied to the grappler if the grappler used his speed to move. It would not be applied if the grappler were subjected to forced movement such as a Thunderwave spell.
It just says "The grappler can drag or carry you, but suffers the slowed condition while moving." It does not single out any type of movement, source of the movement, or timing of the movement in any way. If they are trying to imply what you think they are, then they have failed.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
That is your reading of it, it is not THE reading of it. Drag or carry is an active language it is not reactive, they have always worked form a natural language perspective in 5e. You choosing to see no limitations from that working is your choice on how you read their rules. For me and others dragging is something you do actively on your turn not reactively when getting shoved, a sentence that says it also ends if something moves you out of the grapplers reach without using your speed would also apply to the grappler being moved. Until they clarify this would require a DM ruling. I wish this had been brought up before I filled out the survey as I had tested it with my interpretation and had not seen other ways of reading it yet. But there are two years of playtesting to go, so it can be brought up later.
But that is my point. If there is room to question how the rule works, then it is a poorly written rule. You can just take a glance at the Rule forum to see how badly a lot of rules are currently written. I know people will misinterpret/misunderstand rules regardless, but it shouldn't be this ambiguous.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There's never going to be an airtight rule. Somebody will always be able to look at an English sentence and somehow parse it into a meaning that makes you question every decision you've ever made in life, and yet to that guy their Bizarre-O-World reading is the most natural thing in the world. Language is inherently fuzzy. It's why rigorous scientific and engineering disciplines spend a great deal of time and effort training people in the use of more precise language, and that training is not easy, simple, or free. Nor does it always work; engineering language can only cover so much, and my whole-ass job is dealing with people who can't read a datasheet to save their immortal souls. Wizards doesn't get to train people. it gets to release books with the best efforts it can make, and then vigorously facepalm as people come up with interpretations of the rules that make you wonder if they're somehow reading the English text on the page in Polish or Mandarin or something.
Please do not contact or message me.
+1 to this, just wanted to emphasize that this feels like the whole reason we have RAW vs RAI issues in previous editions of D&D to begin with, concise clearly written rules are required.
True, but there are degrees of “fuzzyness.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I know that. But trying to eliminate as much fuzziness as possible is where you get rulesets like 3.5 that attempt to hedge every last thing with its own specific rule and drown the table/DM in that crud. At some point people have to accept that "the DM just gets to decide" is valid if they want a leaner ruleset that doesn't try to have specific caveats for which toe you stub if you happen to put a foot wrong somewhere. The price of that leaner, easier to digest ruleset is idiotic discussions in Rules and Game Mechanics about people's Bizarre-O-World interpretations of leaner, less intrusive rules.
Please do not contact or message me.
There is a middle ground there. Things don't have to be taken to extremes. This rule is just too fuzzy and could do with a trim so that we can clearly see the intent.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not so sure. The grappled condition gives the grappled creature a speed of 0, so they can't move by themselves. The grappler can move because he still has a speed. He can either release the grapple and move at his normal speed, or maintain the grapple and spend one extra foot of movement for each foot moved. Either way, the grappler is using his speed to move.
I agree that the rule is not explicit that forcibly moving the grappler breaks the grapple. But neither does it say that the grapple can be maintained if the grappler is forcibly moved. It only says that moving the grappled creature breaks the grapple. Current rules for the grappled condition also only describe the effects of forced movement on the grappled creature and not the grappler. If the new grapple rules allow the grappler to maintain the grapple during a forced movement, then the current rules do as well.
My general rule on it is "can I come up with clearer wording without significantly increasing word count".
I would note that the text doesn't actually define 'drag' or 'carry' at all, though presumably they have the normal meaning when you move.
I agree with Pantagruel here. You don't have to create a multi-page-long rule to make it more clear.
Here is how I would reword the Moveable and Escape sections on the new Grappled condition:
Okay. Backtracked a bit and from what I'm seeing, the current rules fuffle is that forcibly moving the grappler is technically not "Breaking the Grapple" because there's no written-in limitation on whether a grappler can drag/carry a target when it is forcibly moved, as opposed to the grapplee being forcibly moved?
If so: that's dumb. And speaks exactly to my point.
The idea of a grapplee shoving away a grappler to break the grapple is an entirely natural, intuitive, and logical thing to do. When someone grabs you aggressively in real life, you try and shove them off you. Think about it - if someone entirely new to D&D with no grounding in the rules said "Okay, he's grabbing me and I can't move. Can I try and shove him off of me so I can get away?", what is the correct answer? Spoilers: the answer is 'yes', because a DM that disallows someone to do something anyone in the same situation in real life would try to do in favor of strict adherence to a specific read of the rules is a bad DM. It's the same thing as DMs who don't allow someone to stop drop and roll to stop being on fire because there's no explicit rule for Stop Drop and Roll. Saying "No, you have to wait until the end of your turn, then you can make a saving throw to try and escape" would only confuse someone not deeply conversant with the rules.
You can argue "that's why the rules need to be rewritten, so they make that explicit!", and maybe there's a point there. But how many words do you need? Especially when the Grappled condition already states that Grappled ends when "something moves you outside the grapple's range without using your Speed." A Shove attack on your part moves you outside the grapple's range without using your speed. It doesn't matter that the grappler is what moved and not you - something moved, your Speed was not used, and you're outside the grappler's range. Conditions met: Grapple condition ended. Trying to argue otherwise is semantic screwery with no reasonable basis and everybody knows it.
Please do not contact or message me.
In a real fight, they usually end up wrestling on ground partly because if someone has a hold of you, you can't just easily push them away. So maybe your intuition is bad.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Maybe, but clarity is always useful and PeteinCary's changes are more clear. Small changes like that are useful and what playtests are about.
The "using its speed" part works well. That still allows for moving a target outside of the grappler's normal turn if that comes up, but doesn't allow for the grappler to do so with forced movement.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It is dumb, but an awful lot of rules arguments are dumb. It's not worth spending a large amount of word count, but if it can be tightened up without doing so, it should be.
It does seem like it might be useful to come up with a term of art to distinguish 'move with your speed' from other types of movement.
Maybe. Plenty of folks have managed to break away from a grappling attacker without getting grounded. Ask anybody who's ever managed to escape a mugging.
I just know a lot of D&D players have a weird fixation on "if the rules don't explicitly say you can do it, it's because you can't do it", which is one of the absolute dumbest statements anybody can make about the game. The entire reason the DM exists is to adjudicate times/actions where there is no clear rule; if that wasn't the case we'd just all be playing the video game and having done with it. Using the new Unarmed rules to try and shove a grappler away is an elegant fix to the fact that grappling, i.e. the real-world methodology behind grabbing/wrestling somebody, does not and never has worked properly in turn-based fights. No one has ever invented turn-based grappling that wasn't absolute garbage because grappling is 100% centered on things turn-based "I slap him then he slaps me" fight engines cannot account for.
Even Pete's version leaves the definition of "drag or carry" unstated, and I guarantee people will complain about the line "The Condition also ends if something results in you being outside the grapple’s range". Namely: "what counts as 'Something'? What counts as 'Something'?! 'Something' is so vague! What does SOMETHING mean?!" because they do it now, with rules that state an end condition rather than an end action.
Please do not contact or message me.
Just because something can’t ever be “perfect” doesn’t mean it can’t still be “better.” Ne?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"They are going to fight about it any way so why bother?" isn't exactly a good excuse for not even attempting to make well written rules. Besides, aren't these the kind of things we are supposed to be looking for in a UA about new rules?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master