Party is fighting stone giants on a wide ledge – cliff one side, long drop the other. Cleric has Sprit Guardians up.
Round A: Cleric advances to put closest giant inside SG. Giant grapples and grabs Cleric. Rogue advances and stabs giant.
Round B: Cleric attempts to banish giant – for in-game reasons this fails. Giant flings cleric off the cliff. Rogue disengages and legs it.
Questions arising:
With SG having a 15 ft radius and the giant a 15 ft reach can the giant reach into the SG and grapple without being affected by the SG?
With a 15 ft reach is the grappled cleric a valid candidate to trigger sneak attack for the rogue?
Both questions beg the question of whether the 15 ft reach is a function of the giant or the greatclub? Greatclubs don’t have reach (although I assume a giant’s is bigger than normal, maybe – it does 3d8 not 1d8 damage for instance …) Anyway I ruled the reach was inherent to the giant but welcome opinions on that.
As it happened, I didn’t need to rule on 1) as the cleric had advanced to place the giant within SG (10 ft away from him). The rogue was a bit put out at being denied sneak attack though (not that it would have made any significant difference to the outcome.) Mechanically, as the cleric was absolutely 10 ft away when he stopped moving and the giant did not advance, I saw no reason why the cleric would now be within 5 ft of the giant. Narratively I didn’t feel that holding an elf in one fist while another tried to stab it in the shin was sufficient distraction to allow sneak to apply. I’d be more inclined to consider the SG fluttering around as more distracting but allowing that to trigger sneak would be a whole different bag o’ worms!
The rogue does not get sneak attack if an ally is not within 5 feet of the target's space. The cleric would not have been if it was 10 feet away.
The spirit guardians question is a bit more involved. Enemies within 15 feet of the cleric would take damage, stone giants have a 15 foot melee reach, they can not hit the cleric from outside the spell's range, but if they could they would not take spell damage.
To answer your grapple question, they would definitely be able to grab 10 feet away easily. 15 feet is harder to be sure, but greatclubs don't have reach so we can reasonably assume so.
The giant has 15 feet reach with the greatclub but otherwise has 5 foot reach as most creature unless noted otherwise. Since grapple use a free hand it means the giant can either attack from 15 feet away, or move adjacent to grapple the cleric.
The giant will be affected by Spirit Guardian whenever it enters a space 15 feet from the cleric for the first time on a turn or when starts its turn there, wether it attack or not.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll in order to use Sneak Attack if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it.
Reach: Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
The answer to both of your questions (do Large-or-larger creatures grapple beyond 5 feet; does a grapple imply presence in a square outside your creature's normal size) is no.
Do larger creatures have a Reach other than 5 feet for non-statblock actions, like Grapple? NO
Referencing the Monster Manual Introduction, the Size section gives no mention of interacting with creature reach. However, it does refer the reader to the PHB section on Size for more information... which also doesn't talk about Reach. Instead, Reach is discussed further down in PHB Chapter 9 when discussing Melee Attacks.
Used in hand-to-hand combat, a melee attack allows you to attack a foe within your reach. A melee attack typically uses a handheld weapon such as a sword, a warhammer, or an axe. A typical monster makes a melee attack when it strikes with its claws, horns, teeth, tentacles, or other body part. A few spells also involve making a melee attack.
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
It's arguably ambiguous as to whether a creature that is described as having one melee attack with a greater reach than 5 feet can be assumed to also have a greater reach than 5 feet with all of its melee attacks... but really there clearly can't be such a rule, because (1) player characters with reach weapons routinely have different reaches with different attacks, and (2) there's no shortage of monsters with multiple reaches, like the Roper, which is a Large creature with both 5 foot and 50 foot reach attacks. Creature statblocks don't describe why any particular attack has the reach it does, whether that's a function of the creature's overall size, the specific limb or weapon that they're making that attack with, some special training or ability enhancing the attack, etc. All we know is, individual attacks list specific reaches for that attack, which most often are 5 feet, but may also be longer.
Any attempt to generalize a creature's base reach based on its Size is entirely unsupported by the rules of the PHB and MM sections on Size, and to generalize a creature's base reach based on the reach of its other attacks is also not clearly supported by the rules and in fact directly contradicts certain monster statblocks like the Roper. A Greatclub may not ordinarily be a Reach weapon, so you might be tempted to think that a Stone Giant must have an innate 15 foot reach that would apply with or without wielding that weapon... but that just isn't the way that the Monster Manual or PHB tells us that Reach works. Instead, we're told that melee reach is default 5 feet, unless we're specifically told otherwise for specific attacks.
Really, the only thing arguing for size to imply reach is a holdover from prior editions, where there was a direct mechanical relationship between creature size and reach. That is not a part of 5E though.
For creatures that do Grapple (or take statblock specific actions that result in Grappled) with 10+ foot reach, are they considered to be adjacent while maintaining the Grapple because a part of their body is touching? NO
Nothing about the PHB Chapter 9 section on the Grapple action suggests that a grappler is considered to be adjacent to its target, or a grappled creature gets any ability to treat their grappler as being adjacent when they're otherwise standing further away. You'd be entirely in houserule territory to start assigning a grappler some sort of quantum battlemap location to consider them being in a square they aren't standing in, merely because they're grappling someone 10+ feet away.
To hop back to the sections on Size, the PHB is rather explicit that a creature's space on the battlegrid does not correspond exactly with all the squares where a part of that creature's body may or may not be found:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.
Space on the grid is an abstraction, and just as you may be eligible to attack a Huge creature in one of its nine squares that it doesn't actually have a body part in, you aren't necessarily eligible to attack that creature in any other square outside of its space even if it may have an arm or a hand reaching out that far. The combat grid isn't a simulation, its an abstraction, and creatures occupy the squares they occupy and no others as a necessary compromise for the sake of the rule system.
So if a creature like a Roper is grappling a character from 50 feet away, the Roper is indeed 50 feet away, not adjacent. The Roper can't be attacked from 50 feet away merely because its grappling someone (though, its tentacles may have a special rule allowing them to be attacked, a little unclear how that functions), damaging auras in the intervening 50 feet don't effect the Roper merely because its reaching through them (again, the tentacle might be effected? Its weird), etc.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis being placed on this quote:
Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
To my reading that statement does not say 'all' and specifically calls out creatures larger than Medium as possibly having Reach of greater than 5 ft.
A Greatclub may not ordinarily be a Reach weapon, so you might be tempted to think that a Stone Giant must have an innate 15 foot reach that would apply with or without wielding that weapon... but that just isn't the way that the Monster Manual or PHB tells us that Reach works. Instead, we're told that melee reach is default 5 feet, unless we're specifically told otherwise for specific attacks.
As here - note that closing statement 'specifically told otherwise' - the first statement is nowhere near that definitive. Statblock entries are limited to common attacks - in this case Stone Giant club and rock – not all possible attacks. To infer that any specified reach applies only to listed entries is I feel too mechanical-a-reading for plain language rules.
Greatclubs don't have reach yet a giant using one does - what if it uses a different non-reach weapon? This argument would have us believe that it didn't get reach just because it's not specifically specified in the statlock. If that were true it places the reach effect solely on the weapon ascribed not the creature (yet greatclub has no reach value).
Whereas the initial quote from the MM clearly says that creatures greater than Medium can have reach greater than 5 ft. as noted. The emphasis there being on the creature not the weapon used. I infer from that statement that the reason a stone giant gets reach with a greatclub is because it's a stone giant not because of some unspecified attribute of the greatclub.
The argument presented is essentially ‘absence of evidence being evidence of absence’. I agree that it is not explicitly stated anywhere one way or the other. I do not therefore conclude that it is restricted to statblock entries only, if for no other reason than the rules also do not explicitly say that either.
It’s unclear why we’re suddenly talking about ropers but they have their reach defined by body part – mouth/orifice and tendril. How in the world can allowing a giant reach for a grapple contradict that statblock?
Creature statblocks don't describe why any particular attack has the reach it does, whether that's a function of the creature's overall size, the specific limb or weapon that they're making that attack with, some special training or ability enhancing the attack, etc. All we know is, individual attacks list specific reaches for that attack, which most often are 5 feet, but may also be longer.
I disagree with the conclusion here – it’s pretty obvious that a roper’s 50 ft reach comes from its tendril. I mean the statblock even calls it that! And a bite, kind of has to be a mouth or orifice of some sort – there’s just no other way to read it. So, in the case of the roper, we actually know its “natural” reach is 50 ft – there’s no weapon involved. We don’t know if it can use a weapon or not but if it could, presumably that weapon’s reach would extend that 50 ft natural reach further – that’s how it works for every other creature.
We know that a stone giant using a non-reach weapon (greatclub) has a reach of 15 ft. We also know that a greatclub does not provide additional reach to the creature's base reach. We know that most creatures have a 5 ft reach but that some (typically larger) creatures can have more. That's pretty much all we know.
Where are we supposed to conclude that extra reach comes from if not from anatomically appropriate long limbs? I for one am not willing to define it as part of the black box of statblock magic. Any natural reading would conclude that the giant gets the extra reach for being, you know, a giant!
A stone giant greatclub has greater reach than a human sized one because it's oversized compared to it.
DMG: Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if the creature is Huge, quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence “ may be a good way to approach life, but it’s pretty backwards when discussing rules. There are NO rules, zero, that you can quote which say anything approaching “huge creatures have 15 foot reach”, or “the reach of a creature’s special actions define its default reach for other actions.” It may make sense to you to let a giant grapple 15 feet away because it can bonk 15 feet away, but that’s not a conclusion supported RAW. Feel free to houserule, but don’t pretend the rules invited that ruling.
To back up Chicken_Champ, Storm King's Thunder optionally adds this to Stone Giants:
The giant tries to throw a Small or Medium creature within 10 feet of it.
Obviously this is poorly written (why the hell should Tiny creatures be immune to it???), but it suggests Stone Giants may be intended to have 10-foot reach with their hands. Volo's also claims this, with the Stone Giant Dreamwalker:
The giant touches one Medium or smaller creature within 10 feet of it that is charmed by it.
It's therefore a reasonable conclusion that Stone Giant greatclubs have the reach property and we're simply not told they do, and their "natural" reach is 10 feet. Meaning, to once again back up Chicken_Champ, we can't necessarily assume "natural" reach from the creature's size or even from how its listed attacks behave. In fact, neither of the abilities I just listed are strictly speaking precedent for the reach on the giant's grapple - they're just evidence of WOTC's possible intent.
No, it is not a reasonable conclusion. If they have an optional 10 foot reach throw ability, fine, but it's plain to see that that 10 feet has nothing mechanically to do with the 15 feet reach of their greatclub. The premise "this creature has a 15 foot reach attack in its stat block, so I can conclude that it has natural 15 foot reach with other non-statblock attacks like Grapple" has already been shown as being entirely unsupported by any quotable rule text, and now you've offered up a great example of why it isn't even a safe assumption to work off of as RAI, because here we see a different Reach being provided
Shove, Grapple.... any creature can take those actions. If a monster doesn't have a feature describing that that can be done at a range other than 5 feet, then it can be done at 5 feet as normal, no matter the creature's size. There's all sorts of ways that makes narrative sense, don't worry about it too much and try to find unwritten implications. Of course, a DM remains free to create a "Stone Giant Wrassler" creature for their own use, who can grapple at whatever Reach they find appropriate, or to ad lib actions however they want. But RAW, a Stone Giant has the reaches that are listed for its special stat block actions, and 5 feet for everything else.
No, it is not a reasonable conclusion. If they have an optional 10 foot reach throw ability, fine, but it's plain to see that that 10 feet has nothing mechanically to do with the 15 feet reach of their greatclub. The premise "this creature has a 15 foot reach attack in its stat block, so I can conclude that it has natural 15 foot reach with other non-statblock attacks like Grapple" has already been shown as being entirely unsupported by any quotable rule text, and now you've offered up a great example of why it isn't even a safe assumption to work off of as RAI, because here we see a different Reach being provided
Shove, Grapple.... any creature can take those actions. If a monster doesn't have a feature describing that that can be done at a range other than 5 feet, then it can be done at 5 feet as normal, no matter the creature's size. There's all sorts of ways that makes narrative sense, don't worry about it too much and try to find unwritten implications. Of course, a DM remains free to create a "Stone Giant Wrassler" creature for their own use, who can grapple at whatever Reach they find appropriate, or to ad lib actions however they want. But RAW, a Stone Giant has the reaches that are listed for its special stat block actions, and 5 feet for everything else.
I think you misunderstood me, because I was agreeing with you. I still do. RAW, the stone giant has no defined base reach. I gave two examples of why the DM might interpret the RAI is that their base reach is 10 feet and house rule accordingly - I didn't claim they had 10 foot base reach by RAW.
I got that you were agreeing with me that their reach isn't 15 feet, but it sounded like you were arguing they had a "natural" 10 foot reach inferred from a statblock entry that allows them to grab and throw enemies with a 10 foot reach, which can be extended to other attacks like Grapple or Shove, and should be understood to be wielding a special Greatclub with Reach to bring that up to 15 for their club attack. I don't agree with either statement as being RAW, though I'm trying to concede that they're certainly reasonable jumping off points for a DM that wants to houserule a new monster with new actions, or a new action on the fly for a Stone Giant mid-fight. It seems hair-splitty, but I'm just trying to remain firm that RAW, a monster has only those reaches described in its stat block, and 5 feet for everything else.
The pratical consequence of this? Moving around "within" a Stone Giant's 15-foot reach isn't as safe as careless players may assume, because leaving its 5-foot unarmed strike reach can still prompt 1+Strength stomps.
Situation from last night’s game:
Party is fighting stone giants on a wide ledge – cliff one side, long drop the other. Cleric has Sprit Guardians up.
Round A: Cleric advances to put closest giant inside SG. Giant grapples and grabs Cleric. Rogue advances and stabs giant.
Round B: Cleric attempts to banish giant – for in-game reasons this fails. Giant flings cleric off the cliff. Rogue disengages and legs it.
Questions arising:
Both questions beg the question of whether the 15 ft reach is a function of the giant or the greatclub? Greatclubs don’t have reach (although I assume a giant’s is bigger than normal, maybe – it does 3d8 not 1d8 damage for instance …) Anyway I ruled the reach was inherent to the giant but welcome opinions on that.
As it happened, I didn’t need to rule on 1) as the cleric had advanced to place the giant within SG (10 ft away from him). The rogue was a bit put out at being denied sneak attack though (not that it would have made any significant difference to the outcome.) Mechanically, as the cleric was absolutely 10 ft away when he stopped moving and the giant did not advance, I saw no reason why the cleric would now be within 5 ft of the giant. Narratively I didn’t feel that holding an elf in one fist while another tried to stab it in the shin was sufficient distraction to allow sneak to apply. I’d be more inclined to consider the SG fluttering around as more distracting but allowing that to trigger sneak would be a whole different bag o’ worms!
The rogue does not get sneak attack if an ally is not within 5 feet of the target's space. The cleric would not have been if it was 10 feet away.
The spirit guardians question is a bit more involved. Enemies within 15 feet of the cleric would take damage, stone giants have a 15 foot melee reach, they can not hit the cleric from outside the spell's range, but if they could they would not take spell damage.
To answer your grapple question, they would definitely be able to grab 10 feet away easily. 15 feet is harder to be sure, but greatclubs don't have reach so we can reasonably assume so.
The giant has 15 feet reach with the greatclub but otherwise has 5 foot reach as most creature unless noted otherwise. Since grapple use a free hand it means the giant can either attack from 15 feet away, or move adjacent to grapple the cleric.
The giant will be affected by Spirit Guardian whenever it enters a space 15 feet from the cleric for the first time on a turn or when starts its turn there, wether it attack or not.
You don’t need advantage on the attack roll in order to use Sneak Attack if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it.
Reach: Most creatures have a 5-foot reach and can thus attack targets within 5 feet of them when making a melee attack. Certain creatures (typically those larger than Medium) have melee attacks with a greater reach than 5 feet, as noted in their descriptions.
The answer to both of your questions (do Large-or-larger creatures grapple beyond 5 feet; does a grapple imply presence in a square outside your creature's normal size) is no.
Do larger creatures have a Reach other than 5 feet for non-statblock actions, like Grapple? NO
Referencing the Monster Manual Introduction, the Size section gives no mention of interacting with creature reach. However, it does refer the reader to the PHB section on Size for more information... which also doesn't talk about Reach. Instead, Reach is discussed further down in PHB Chapter 9 when discussing Melee Attacks.
It's arguably ambiguous as to whether a creature that is described as having one melee attack with a greater reach than 5 feet can be assumed to also have a greater reach than 5 feet with all of its melee attacks... but really there clearly can't be such a rule, because (1) player characters with reach weapons routinely have different reaches with different attacks, and (2) there's no shortage of monsters with multiple reaches, like the Roper, which is a Large creature with both 5 foot and 50 foot reach attacks. Creature statblocks don't describe why any particular attack has the reach it does, whether that's a function of the creature's overall size, the specific limb or weapon that they're making that attack with, some special training or ability enhancing the attack, etc. All we know is, individual attacks list specific reaches for that attack, which most often are 5 feet, but may also be longer.
Any attempt to generalize a creature's base reach based on its Size is entirely unsupported by the rules of the PHB and MM sections on Size, and to generalize a creature's base reach based on the reach of its other attacks is also not clearly supported by the rules and in fact directly contradicts certain monster statblocks like the Roper. A Greatclub may not ordinarily be a Reach weapon, so you might be tempted to think that a Stone Giant must have an innate 15 foot reach that would apply with or without wielding that weapon... but that just isn't the way that the Monster Manual or PHB tells us that Reach works. Instead, we're told that melee reach is default 5 feet, unless we're specifically told otherwise for specific attacks.
Really, the only thing arguing for size to imply reach is a holdover from prior editions, where there was a direct mechanical relationship between creature size and reach. That is not a part of 5E though.
For creatures that do Grapple (or take statblock specific actions that result in Grappled) with 10+ foot reach, are they considered to be adjacent while maintaining the Grapple because a part of their body is touching? NO
Nothing about the PHB Chapter 9 section on the Grapple action suggests that a grappler is considered to be adjacent to its target, or a grappled creature gets any ability to treat their grappler as being adjacent when they're otherwise standing further away. You'd be entirely in houserule territory to start assigning a grappler some sort of quantum battlemap location to consider them being in a square they aren't standing in, merely because they're grappling someone 10+ feet away.
To hop back to the sections on Size, the PHB is rather explicit that a creature's space on the battlegrid does not correspond exactly with all the squares where a part of that creature's body may or may not be found:
Space on the grid is an abstraction, and just as you may be eligible to attack a Huge creature in one of its nine squares that it doesn't actually have a body part in, you aren't necessarily eligible to attack that creature in any other square outside of its space even if it may have an arm or a hand reaching out that far. The combat grid isn't a simulation, its an abstraction, and creatures occupy the squares they occupy and no others as a necessary compromise for the sake of the rule system.
So if a creature like a Roper is grappling a character from 50 feet away, the Roper is indeed 50 feet away, not adjacent. The Roper can't be attacked from 50 feet away merely because its grappling someone (though, its tentacles may have a special rule allowing them to be attacked, a little unclear how that functions), damaging auras in the intervening 50 feet don't effect the Roper merely because its reaching through them (again, the tentacle might be effected? Its weird), etc.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis being placed on this quote:
To my reading that statement does not say 'all' and specifically calls out creatures larger than Medium as possibly having Reach of greater than 5 ft.
As here - note that closing statement 'specifically told otherwise' - the first statement is nowhere near that definitive. Statblock entries are limited to common attacks - in this case Stone Giant club and rock – not all possible attacks. To infer that any specified reach applies only to listed entries is I feel too mechanical-a-reading for plain language rules.
Greatclubs don't have reach yet a giant using one does - what if it uses a different non-reach weapon? This argument would have us believe that it didn't get reach just because it's not specifically specified in the statlock. If that were true it places the reach effect solely on the weapon ascribed not the creature (yet greatclub has no reach value).
Whereas the initial quote from the MM clearly says that creatures greater than Medium can have reach greater than 5 ft. as noted. The emphasis there being on the creature not the weapon used. I infer from that statement that the reason a stone giant gets reach with a greatclub is because it's a stone giant not because of some unspecified attribute of the greatclub.
The argument presented is essentially ‘absence of evidence being evidence of absence’. I agree that it is not explicitly stated anywhere one way or the other. I do not therefore conclude that it is restricted to statblock entries only, if for no other reason than the rules also do not explicitly say that either.
It’s unclear why we’re suddenly talking about ropers but they have their reach defined by body part – mouth/orifice and tendril. How in the world can allowing a giant reach for a grapple contradict that statblock?
I disagree with the conclusion here – it’s pretty obvious that a roper’s 50 ft reach comes from its tendril. I mean the statblock even calls it that! And a bite, kind of has to be a mouth or orifice of some sort – there’s just no other way to read it. So, in the case of the roper, we actually know its “natural” reach is 50 ft – there’s no weapon involved. We don’t know if it can use a weapon or not but if it could, presumably that weapon’s reach would extend that 50 ft natural reach further – that’s how it works for every other creature.
We know that a stone giant using a non-reach weapon (greatclub) has a reach of 15 ft. We also know that a greatclub does not provide additional reach to the creature's base reach. We know that most creatures have a 5 ft reach but that some (typically larger) creatures can have more. That's pretty much all we know.
Where are we supposed to conclude that extra reach comes from if not from anatomically appropriate long limbs? I for one am not willing to define it as part of the black box of statblock magic. Any natural reading would conclude that the giant gets the extra reach for being, you know, a giant!
A stone giant greatclub has greater reach than a human sized one because it's oversized compared to it.
DMG: Big monsters typically wield oversized weapons that deal extra dice of damage on a hit. Double the weapon dice if the creature is Large, triple the weapon dice if the creature is Huge, quadruple the weapon dice if it's Gargantuan. A creature has disadvantage on attack rolls with a weapon that is sized for a larger attacker. You can rule that a weapon sized for an attacker two or more sizes larger is too big for the creature to use at all.
“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence “ may be a good way to approach life, but it’s pretty backwards when discussing rules. There are NO rules, zero, that you can quote which say anything approaching “huge creatures have 15 foot reach”, or “the reach of a creature’s special actions define its default reach for other actions.” It may make sense to you to let a giant grapple 15 feet away because it can bonk 15 feet away, but that’s not a conclusion supported RAW. Feel free to houserule, but don’t pretend the rules invited that ruling.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
To back up Chicken_Champ, Storm King's Thunder optionally adds this to Stone Giants:
The giant tries to throw a Small or Medium creature within 10 feet of it.
Obviously this is poorly written (why the hell should Tiny creatures be immune to it???), but it suggests Stone Giants may be intended to have 10-foot reach with their hands. Volo's also claims this, with the Stone Giant Dreamwalker:
The giant touches one Medium or smaller creature within 10 feet of it that is charmed by it.
It's therefore a reasonable conclusion that Stone Giant greatclubs have the reach property and we're simply not told they do, and their "natural" reach is 10 feet. Meaning, to once again back up Chicken_Champ, we can't necessarily assume "natural" reach from the creature's size or even from how its listed attacks behave. In fact, neither of the abilities I just listed are strictly speaking precedent for the reach on the giant's grapple - they're just evidence of WOTC's possible intent.
No, it is not a reasonable conclusion. If they have an optional 10 foot reach throw ability, fine, but it's plain to see that that 10 feet has nothing mechanically to do with the 15 feet reach of their greatclub. The premise "this creature has a 15 foot reach attack in its stat block, so I can conclude that it has natural 15 foot reach with other non-statblock attacks like Grapple" has already been shown as being entirely unsupported by any quotable rule text, and now you've offered up a great example of why it isn't even a safe assumption to work off of as RAI, because here we see a different Reach being provided
Shove, Grapple.... any creature can take those actions. If a monster doesn't have a feature describing that that can be done at a range other than 5 feet, then it can be done at 5 feet as normal, no matter the creature's size. There's all sorts of ways that makes narrative sense, don't worry about it too much and try to find unwritten implications. Of course, a DM remains free to create a "Stone Giant Wrassler" creature for their own use, who can grapple at whatever Reach they find appropriate, or to ad lib actions however they want. But RAW, a Stone Giant has the reaches that are listed for its special stat block actions, and 5 feet for everything else.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think you misunderstood me, because I was agreeing with you. I still do. RAW, the stone giant has no defined base reach. I gave two examples of why the DM might interpret the RAI is that their base reach is 10 feet and house rule accordingly - I didn't claim they had 10 foot base reach by RAW.
I got that you were agreeing with me that their reach isn't 15 feet, but it sounded like you were arguing they had a "natural" 10 foot reach inferred from a statblock entry that allows them to grab and throw enemies with a 10 foot reach, which can be extended to other attacks like Grapple or Shove, and should be understood to be wielding a special Greatclub with Reach to bring that up to 15 for their club attack. I don't agree with either statement as being RAW, though I'm trying to concede that they're certainly reasonable jumping off points for a DM that wants to houserule a new monster with new actions, or a new action on the fly for a Stone Giant mid-fight. It seems hair-splitty, but I'm just trying to remain firm that RAW, a monster has only those reaches described in its stat block, and 5 feet for everything else.
The pratical consequence of this? Moving around "within" a Stone Giant's 15-foot reach isn't as safe as careless players may assume, because leaving its 5-foot unarmed strike reach can still prompt 1+Strength stomps.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.