Is it possible to move someone else as a standard action?

[Kafana]

Or at least a full round action?

Say if someone has cast delayed action fireball, and now you want to get someone who is not aware what is going on out of the way. Can he do that with his 1 round of actions? Perhaps as a full round action you can move someone who doesn't resist as far as your movement speed?

[Sayt]

[Fight Club Penguin Voice]Slide (http://dndtools.eu/spells/spell-compendium--86/slide-greater--4178/)[/FCPV]

[sleepyphoenixx]

You can always Bull Rush him. There's no rule to intentionally fail to resist one iirc, but i think it'd make for a nice houserule.

[Magma Armor0]

The marshal class has a class feature to grant move actions.
White raven tactics may also work.

[Diarmuid]

Assuming no resistance, there are rules for picking things up and there are rules for moving that are impacted by your encumbrance. I don't see why this wouldn't apply.

[Dread_Head]

The rather difficult to achieve Epic Sleight of Hand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/skills.htm#sleightOfHand) uses can do it.

Some spells such as Dimension Hop(PHBII) can do it.

[Psyren]

In both D&D and Pathfinder, you can voluntarily forego your Dex bonus to AC. In PF this would make you easier to bull rush as it would lower your CMD.

[bekeleven]

You could always do the shuffle. That's where your entire party enters a grapple with each other and autoafails all resist checks, then uses the standard action option "move in a grapple." The result is that your party moves at a speed equal to half the speed of everyone, combined.

[AMFV]

The Spell Slide works to this effect in 3.5. Moving one character a certain distance. Benign or Baleful Transposition could also work. Time Hop works in Psionics, removing him from the area of effect for a certain period of time. Time Hop is also my favorite Psionic power, the power with a million uses.

[herrhauptmann]

Benign Transposition swaps two people.
There's also a version where you swap an ally and an enemy. Both in Spell Compendium.

[Lightlawbliss]

The setting sun discipline has multiple maneuvers that move people, you just have to deal with the fact you are dealing damage and knocking them prone.

[Crake]

The setting sun discipline has multiple maneuvers that move people, you just have to deal with the fact you are dealing damage and knocking them prone.

Actually a fair few of the low level throw maneuvers don't actually deal any damage

[AMFV]

I forgot the most obvious answer... yell "Move" as talking is a free action, then hold your action till after their turn.

[XmonkTad]

Fling Ally? Races of stone.

[Curmudgeon]

You could always do the shuffle. That's where your entire party enters a grapple with each other and autoafails all resist checks, then ....
That's not RAW legal. You can fail saving throws, but there's no option to do so for grapple checks.

[Darrin]

That's not RAW legal. You can fail saving throws, but there's no option to do so for grapple checks.

If a player's PC gets grappled and the player states, "I'm not resisting," then I don't see how you can force him to roll a grapple check without violating player agency.

[Curmudgeon]

If a player's PC gets grappled and the player states, "I'm not resisting," then I don't see how you can force him to roll a grapple check without violating player agency.
Well, let's examine this myth of player agency.

Move

You can move half your speed (bringing all others engaged in the grapple with you) by winning an opposed grapple check. This requires a standard action, and you must beat all the other individual check results to move the grapple.
If there is no win of an opposed grapple check, there's no movement. So failing to roll the opposed check means the movement you're trying to facilitate isn't actually possible.

Yes, you have to force the roll whenever the rules require an opposed check. Failing to oppose is failing to play the game. So tell the player to play the game, roll for them, or kick them out.
Grapple Checks

Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent.
You've got to follow the rules. You can't avoid being disarmed by failing to make an opposed attack roll, either.

[Seppo87]

A reasonable DM would allow a player to fail any check on purpose.

Just because dumb DMs that make up bad house rules exist does not mean that sticking to RAW is always the best way to play the game. On the contrary. Golden Rule is there for a reason.

[Curmudgeon]

A reasonable DM would allow a player to fail any check on purpose.
I disagree. A short-sighted DM might do so, but that way lies abuse of the D&D game rules. In this particular case it would let one person take over all movement for the group, even if they couldn't normally move with that weight. On land if you can move much faster than everyone else and you can see while they can't, you move the whole group faster than they could move themselves. Grapple your team in the water when you're the only one with a Swim speed, and you move everybody. And because the Swim skill rules only require a check if you're trying to move, or underwater intentionally, nobody in that grappled mass risks drowning. So this is not reasonable at all; it ends up being purely abusive if you tweak the rules this way.

Golden Rule is there for a reason.
Abuse the rules as you would have them abused for you? :smallconfused:

[Seppo87]

In this particular case it would let one person take over all movement for the group, even if they couldn't normally move with that weight
Being reasonable includes applying weight limitation to this kind of movement.
Since the goal here is to circumvent a limitation, at my table you will be able to roll 1 on your grapple check and ignore BaB (your passive size bonus should remain probably), but you can only be moved around by a person who's strong enough.
I would rule it on the fly and probably write it down later. If a player protest that he's not allowed to circumvent RAI through clever use of rules I'll tell him to stop being a kid.


Grapple your team in the water when you're the only one with a Swim speed, and you move everybody. And because the Swim skill rules only require a check if you're trying to move, or underwater intentionally, nobody in that grappled mass risks drowning
Because I'm reasonable, I'm not going to use broken RAW drowning rules.
If a player at my table suggested that he shouldn't drown because he's not willingly underwater, I'd just assume he's joking and smile at his funny irony, thumb up for the rules mastery, nice try bro, now proceed with the appropriate rolls to hold breath please.

Now most people are going to assume I'm a jerky DM who ignores players' rights.
I can tell I'm not, as my players are very happy with the degree of freedom I give them, not only in plot choices but also when it comes to improvised, freeform actions.

Even in this case, I allow willing 1s on a die because I feel not allowing this would feel weird and unfair.
There is reciprocal trust so no they're not even going to try to break the game, we play together so we can have a good time

[Darrin]

If there is no win of an opposed grapple check, there's no movement. So failing to roll the opposed check means the movement you're trying to facilitate isn't actually possible.


Player 1: "I grapple you."
Player 2: "Ok, I let you win."

Removing the opposition does not negate the fact that they are still playing a game.

"I concede" or "I give up" or "You win" are still valid choices for any player in both competitive and cooperative games. A player making any of these choices is still playing the game. (It may be an irrational choice, but if game theory has taught us anything since 1944, it's that human players are not always rational.)



Yes, you have to force the roll whenever the rules require an opposed check. Failing to oppose is failing to play the game. So tell the player to play the game, roll for them, or kick them out.


No. "I choose not to roll" or "I choose not to oppose" are still valid choices. A player who decides to give up or stop resisting one particular antagonist is not automatically failing to play the game. They may choose to be captured for dramatic reasons, decide to resist/break free at a later time, or have some more important agenda that doesn't involve the current action. Choosing to ignore a particular subset of rules when there's no reason to follow them does not automatically mean a player is "failing to play the game". If a player can reliably answer the question, "Ok, so what do you do next?" then there's no reason to accuse him of violating the narrative structure of the game.



You've got to follow the rules. You can't avoid being disarmed by failing to make an opposed attack roll, either.

If any player says, "I do X to player 2" and Player 2 says "Go ahead, I don't resist", it is still possible to progress the narrative without insisting on the absolute adherence to the rules that govern how X happens. Abandoning the rules for "how X happens" in this particular instance is not violating the game so long as the narrative continues to move forward.

[Curmudgeon]

If any player says, "I do X to player 2" and Player 2 says "Go ahead, I don't resist", it is still possible to progress the narrative without insisting on the absolute adherence to the rules that govern how X happens. Abandoning the rules for "how X happens" in this particular instance is not violating the game so long as the narrative continues to move forward.
Then you're play-acting a scene; you've ceased playing D&D. D&D doesn't even let a 20th-level Fighter automatically hit a straw training dummy, so a living, moving opponent can no more decide to let themselves be hit, or grappled, or disarmed. If you've decided to play D&D, you've contracted to suspend some "normal" notions of behavior for the interactions provided for in the game rules.

[Lord Vukodlak]

D&D doesn't even let a 20th-level Fighter automatically hit a straw training dummy
Actually it does, if you take a full-round action you can get an automatic hit on inanimate objects.


so a living, moving opponent can no more decide to let themselves be hit, or grappled, or disarmed.
So clerics have to roll attack rolls to cast heal on party members at your table?

[Curmudgeon]

So clerics have to roll attack rolls to cast heal on party members at your table?
Sure, if it's being used as an attack rather than as a willing target spell. It's actually come up once, when a party member went off and came back as an (undeclared) Necropolitan.

The touch spell rules are a bit jumbled, since they cover both touch attack spells and willing target touch spells together. And then some spells, like Heal, fall into both categories.

[Darrin]

Then you're play-acting a scene; you've ceased playing D&D. D&D doesn't even let a 20th-level Fighter automatically hit a straw training dummy, so a living, moving opponent can no more decide to let themselves be hit, or grappled, or disarmed. If you've decided to play D&D, you've contracted to suspend some "normal" notions of behavior for the interactions provided for in the game rules.

No. Let me see if I can explain it within your strict formal structuralist mindset:

PHB page 4: "Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20)."

Die result + modifiers, compare to target number to determine the success/failure.

If Player A says "I want to grapple/disarm/rudisplork Player B", you only need to roll if there is a chance of failure. If Player A, Player B, and the DM all agree there is no chance of failure, there is no need to roll. The event happens, and play continues.

All groups switch between when you use the formal structuralist rules and the more informal cooperative decision-making narration according to what works best for the given situation. Abandoning a structural rule to come to a narrative agreement doesn't automatically disqualify you from playing D&D. It's all part of the larger game. The fact that we continue to have disagreements over the structure of the rules or disagree on the degree of narrative convenience is also part of that larger game. Play-acting is part of the game. The rules don't formally specify that one method should always trump the other. Determining what works best for your group is also part of the larger game.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Sure, if it's being used as an attack rather than as a willing target spell. It's actually come up once, when a party member went off and came back as an (undeclared) Necropolitan.

The touch spell rules are a bit jumbled, since they cover both touch attack spells and willing target touch spells together. And then some spells, like Heal, fall into both categories.

Well how come I can automatically hit a willing ally with heal? but I can't automatically grapple a willing party member and carry him away?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Well how come I can automatically hit a willing ally with heal? but I can't automatically grapple a willing party member and carry him away?

Because the rules say you can do the first (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#touchSpellsinCombat), but don't say anything about the second.
I don't think grappling is the right mechanic for this anyway. Normally picking something up is a move action. I'd apply the same to someone trying to pick up an unresisting party member.

If that's too much of an action cost for you you can always bullrush them. Most people resist automatically if you try to push them though, especially in combat, so deliberately failing the opposed check is not something i would allow.

[Curmudgeon]

PHB page 4: "Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20)."
...
If Player A says "I want to grapple/disarm/rudisplork Player B", you only need to roll if there is a chance of failure. If Player A, Player B, and the DM all agree there is no chance of failure, there is no need to roll.
If you're making up a new house rule on the spot, that's fine for your group. But normally you have to follow the rules where there is a chance of failure. You're hand-waving automatic success on moving a mass of grappling characters which can exceed your heavy load limit, rather than following the rule which requires that you roll those d20s.

You might as well just say that you're attempting to fly while carrying another character (when you have no fly speed), and have everybody agree that there is no chance of failure. :smallannoyed:

[Lord Vukodlak]

You're hand-waving automatic success on moving a mass of grappling characters which can exceed your heavy load limit, rather than following the rule which requires that you roll those d20s.
Aside from bekeleven, no one is saying that Curm, NO ONE.

[Darrin]

If you're making up a new house rule on the spot, that's fine for your group. But normally you have to follow the rules where there is a chance of failure. You're hand-waving automatic success on moving a mass of grappling characters which can exceed your heavy load limit, rather than following the rule which requires that you roll those d20s.

You might as well just say that you're attempting to fly while carrying another character (when you have no fly speed), and have everybody agree that there is no chance of failure. :smallannoyed:

That is not a reasonable restatement of my position. I never mentioned anything about mass grapples or spontaneous flight.

If I may repeat myself: there are actions in the game which all parties can collectively agree that there is no chance of failure, or that there is no meaningful benefit to resolve with structurally rigorous rules mechanics. All D&D groups tackle a variety of actions and circumstances which either require a formal mechanical resolution or a more informal narrative resolution. Using one method in one particular instance does not definitively invalidate whether or not anyone is playing D&D the "proper" way. The decision on whether to use the formal mechanical rules or an informal narrative convenience is outside of the structural mechanics of the rules but still within the framework of the game. The frequency of using one method over the other largely boils down to both individual and collective tastes.

Your insistence on an absolute structuralism approach is somewhat interesting from a theoretical standpoint, but I don't see it as all that persuasive from a practical standpoint. You certainly have every right to say "that's how *my* game works", but I can (and will) express skepticism that in actual play it can be adhered to the same degree that you're advocating here.

[Curmudgeon]

That is not a reasonable restatement of my position. I never mentioned anything about mass grapples or spontaneous flight.
I apologize if I've unduly twisted your argument. I do see great potential for abuse here, though.

If I may repeat myself: there are actions in the game which all parties can collectively agree that there is no chance of failure ...
The problem with that assumption is that it is likely to conflict with the actual D&D rules. I'll repeat the example of the 20th level Fighter attacking a straw training dummy: we would collectively agree that there is no chance of failure to hit with normal attacks and that it shouldn't take a full 6 seconds to guarantee a single successful strike. Yet the game rules say otherwise; the minimum miss chance is 5%.

Replacing the straw dummy with a character, even standing in place they can't choose to get hit; an attack must meet or exceed their AC. They can take the time to remove their armor, but that just makes it more likely that they'll get hit; even if they're naked and paralyzed they'll still be missed on at least 5% of all attacks.

On-the-fly agreements that there is no chance of failure might speed the game along, and they might also have results that actually playing things out by the rules wouldn't allow. Because D&D is a game designed to model heroic adventuring, it purposely doesn't model willful failure well (or in many cases, at all). If you're adding in support for failure where the game rules don't allow it, you're not really playing D&D any more.

[Darrin]

If you're adding in support for failure where the game rules don't allow it, you're not really playing D&D any more.
(emphasis added)

You have my wholehearted agreement up until this point (bolded). There are many, many, many ways to play this game. I tend to consider statements about the "proper" or "correct" way to do it as counter-productive. I don't think that's exactly what you're saying here, but I find your particular definition of what constitutes "playing D&D" is way too restrictive for my personal tastes. Fortunately, the universe is large enough to encompass a variety of opinions.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't think that's exactly what you're saying here, but I find your particular definition of what constitutes "playing D&D" is way too restrictive for my personal tastes. Fortunately, the universe is large enough to encompass a variety of opinions.
I'll admit I hew closer to the RAW than most. I find many facets of the game irksome (the minimum 5% miss chance being an obvious example), but I don't institute house rules until something actively breaks my enjoyment of the gaming experience (example: Monks suffering a -4 nonproficiency penalty with their unarmed attacks). And in those cases, I write up explicit house rule for those cases in which we're not playing D&D by the normal rules. So my characterizing your choices as "not playing D&D" isn't any different, in my mind, from the house rules I personally use.