Climbing onto Enemy Monsters!

[Hytheter]

So I once noticed that 3.5 had a conspicuous lack of rules for grabbing onto monsters larger than yourself. And now that I'm looking at 5e, the same problem arises. Frankly, it astounds me that after 5 editions the developers have never asked themselves "what happens when players want to climb onto the dragon's back?"

So I'm trying to think up some rules to fill this obvious gap in the game's rules.

What do you think would be a reasonable way to go about this? What I've got so far is a special version of grappling that is used on opponents one or more sizes larger than you, and on a success allows you to treat the target as a mount. Except the target would probably want to attack you or at least throw you off - I'm thinking disadvantage on attack rolls, and they can use an action to "escape" the "grapple". Although it'd be really hard to stay latched onto really big mosnters if they can throw you off with a STR check...

What are your thoughts?

[Ferrin33]

So I once noticed that 3.5 had a conspicuous lack of rules for grabbing onto monsters larger than yourself. And now that I'm looking at 5e, the same problem arises. Frankly, it astounds me that after 5 editions the developers have never asked themselves "what happens when players want to climb onto the dragon's back?"

So I'm trying to think up some rules to fill this obvious gap in the game's rules.

What do you think would be a reasonable way to go about this? What I've got so far is a special version of grappling that is used on opponents one or more sizes larger than you, and on a success allows you to treat the target as a mount. Except the target would probably want to attack you or at least throw you off - I'm thinking disadvantage on attack rolls, and they can use an action to "escape" the "grapple". Although it'd be really hard to stay latched onto really big mosnters if they can throw you off with a STR check...

What are your thoughts?

I'd probably have them make an opposed Athletics or Acrobatics check where the opponent can use either as well. Opponent can throw them off only with an opposed athletics or acrobatics check vs your athletics or acrobatics every round thereafter as an action. Also disadvantage on attack rolls and not able to use two handed weapons. Enemy you're on top of can attack you only with disadvantage.

[Hytheter]

Also disadvantage on attack rolls and not able to use two handed weapons.

Wait, you'd give disadvantage to the guy who is literally on their target? I'm not sure I follow that logic...

Disallowing two handed attacks makes sense though.

On that note... looking through the rules, it seems grappling only requires a free hand to initiate the grapple. There's nothing saying that you can't draw another weapon or switch to a two-hander after you start grappling...
Of course, I wouldn't allow players to do so, but still...

[Malifice]

So I once noticed that 3.5 had a conspicuous lack of rules for grabbing onto monsters larger than yourself.

Might want to re-read the 3.5 grapple rules brother.

Its totally possible to grab onto them. Just really hard.

And this is the 5th edition forum.

[Ferrin33]

Wait, you'd give disadvantage to the guy who is literally on their target? I'm not sure I follow that logic...

Disallowing two handed attacks makes sense though.

On that note... looking through the rules, it seems grappling only requires a free hand to initiate the grapple. There's nothing saying that you can't draw another weapon or switch to a two-hander after you start grappling...
Of course, I wouldn't allow players to do so, but still...

Yeah, but you'd be holding on to the target, so perhaps only disadvantage if he's actively trying to throw you off(in creature's action)?

[Hytheter]

Might want to re-read the 3.5 grapple rules brother.

Its totally possible to grab onto them. Just really hard.

It's possible to grapple them, but it's not possible to climb onto them.



And this is the 5th edition forum.

It'd be nice if you read past the first sentence of my post.

[EvilAnagram]

Acrobatics and Athletics checks are all you need. Advantage to hit with one-handed weapons.

[pwykersotz]

I'd probably do an Acrobatics or Athletics versus their AC. Once you're on, it would be an opposed check for them to throw you off.

[Soras Teva Gee]

They do so have rules for just this sort of thing:



Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise. When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

Easiest would probably just be use a grapple attack where the result is a one-sided grapple that applies the condition only to the PC. Benefit of you know it can't out run you and has to waste an action shaking you off if it wants... more then that could very easily become too powerful methinks.

(How can you have advantage when your presumably spending some effort just staying attached? But hey this is Plan C territory so whatever fun the DM wants to have)

[Cambrian]

Frankly, it astounds me that after 5 editions the developers have never asked themselves "what happens when players want to climb onto the dragon's back?"
I think it's more the 5th ed developers took the stance that they'd never be able to make a rule for every occasion and so instead chose to stress freedom, making rules and modifiers (advantage/disadvantage) relatively quick and easy.

I would probably just require an Athletics or Acrobatics check (players choice), set a DC based off of the creature's physical properties (a slime covered serpent might be DC 25; a Ladder Golem DC10), and then apply disadvantage should the creature actively be trying to impede the character's effort.

[Theodoxus]

I think the point is with this: "...the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

If you're the DM, and there's no direction as to what sort of reasonable response to the action is - you stymie as you wrack your brain on the proper action.

The biggest thing I hate about this 'rules light, rulings heavy' approach, is not everyone is a Black Belt DM with 3 decades of play/rules arbitration under their feet. Now, maybe this is just a 'wait until the DMG comes out' situation - but that's not particularly satisfying if you're trying to run a group now. That's basically saying 'Go develop some really bad habits, because we don't give a flying F in helping you play in a sensible manner - but don't worry, in 3 months time, we'll work really hard on reversing those bad habits with some nice rules we couldn't bother giving you up front because reasons.'

And trust me, the ones who need the help most in how to run a game, are the ones not looking to websites and forums for advise. They're wanting it clearly spelled out in the rules, and will probably give up in frustration because the rules are half-written (if that) and arbitrary ad-hoc rulings are not their forte.

But, heh, I'm only speaking from personal experience, so I'm sure I'm just retarded mentally deficient.

[Steel Mirror]

If you're the DM, and there's no direction as to what sort of reasonable response to the action is - you stymie as you wrack your brain on the proper action.

The biggest thing I hate about this 'rules light, rulings heavy' approach, is not everyone is a Black Belt DM with 3 decades of play/rules arbitration under their feet. Now, maybe this is just a 'wait until the DMG comes out' situation - but that's not particularly satisfying if you're trying to run a group now. That's basically saying 'Go develop some really bad habits, because we don't give a flying F in helping you play in a sensible manner - but don't worry, in 3 months time, we'll work really hard on reversing those bad habits with some nice rules we couldn't bother giving you up front because reasons.'

And trust me, the ones who need the help most in how to run a game, are the ones not looking to websites and forums for advise. They're wanting it clearly spelled out in the rules, and will probably give up in frustration because the rules are half-written (if that) and arbitrary ad-hoc rulings are not their forte.

But, heh, I'm only speaking from personal experience, so I'm sure I'm just retarded mentally deficient.The flip-side of this argument is those who dislike a rulebook so fat with rules for special circumstances and modifiers for every situation that it becomes a slog of page-flipping and rules arguments to accomplish anything in the game. It reaches a certain point where a new GM simply can't read and remember every rule, and the game becomes paralyzed with indecision whenever an unusual circumstance comes up at the table, or a player challenges the GM on what they consider a suspect ruling.

A GM might be tempted to say "forget everything the PHB says about grappling rules, whenever it happens I'm just going to call for opposed rolls and adjudicate effects based on what seems reasonable and entertaining to the table at the time."

I, too, am speaking from experience, and I don't mean to say that your objection is "wrong" or lacks validity. It's just that I am personally glad that they went with this rules-lite approach, and I think it gives maximum fun for minimum pain.

[Cambrian]

I think the point is with this: "...the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

If you're the DM, and there's no direction as to what sort of reasonable response to the action is - you stymie as you wrack your brain on the proper action.

The biggest thing I hate about this 'rules light, rulings heavy' approach, is not everyone is a Black Belt DM with 3 decades of play/rules arbitration under their feet. Now, maybe this is just a 'wait until the DMG comes out' situation - but that's not particularly satisfying if you're trying to run a group now.As a counter argument: those same DMs learning under a system with a rule for every situation never learn to improvise and we get the slow combat and book/chart searching of the last couple editions.

It might be overwhelming for a DM, but the net result is they exercise those skills and improve rather then letting those talents atrophy. Also being overwhelmed might motivate those same DMs to look elsewhere for advice when otherwise they might not.

Not meaning to imply that one style of game is better than the other, but for my tastes 5th Ed is superior.

[Mr.Moron]

Since it isn't explicitly defined I think I'd probably run things very differently depending on the nature of the monster, the approach they're trying to take to climbing, and the circumstances around the event.

A character jumping on the back of the minotaur in the middle of a fight is one kind of situation that demands one kind of resolution.

A character trying to grab on to a giant wurm as it bursts out of the ground is a totally different situation, that probably calls for different checks with different factors in the DC.

A character leaping from an airship on to the back of any enemy's flying mount to try and throw them off is yet another.

I'm not sure any universal rule would apply. I think generally it'd involve athletics or acrobatics checks, looking at the monster's STR/DEX scores, the relative sizes of the creatures involved, and if they have any fur or horns that make for easier handholds than something with slippery skin.

[Joe the Rat]

General consensus is something in line with the grapple rules - and really only comes into play with creatures two sizes larger. One size larger, you're still in grapple rules - heck, the "drag half your move" thing could be just as easily about you sitting on their shoulders and steering them into walls.

At two larger, you can already share the space. From there it's a small step (and a handhold) to colossus climbing. Downside to all this is that they can still try to grapple you.


Ladder GolemNow I know what monster to put in the mad wizard's library.

[Sartharina]

If you're the DM, and there's no direction as to what sort of reasonable response to the action is - you stymie as you wrack your brain on the proper action.Fortunately, there ARE guidelines for what's a reasonable response to the action - if it's not something you feel is guaranteed, call for an Ability Check, and grab a DC you like to assign to it. And then sprinkle advantage/disadvantage to flavor.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I think the point is with this: "...the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

If you're the DM, and there's no direction as to what sort of reasonable response to the action is - you stymie as you wrack your brain on the proper action.

The biggest thing I hate about this 'rules light, rulings heavy' approach, is not everyone is a Black Belt DM with 3 decades of play/rules arbitration under their feet. Now, maybe this is just a 'wait until the DMG comes out' situation - but that's not particularly satisfying if you're trying to run a group now. That's basically saying 'Go develop some really bad habits, because we don't give a flying F in helping you play in a sensible manner - but don't worry, in 3 months time, we'll work really hard on reversing those bad habits with some nice rules we couldn't bother giving you up front because reasons.'

And trust me, the ones who need the help most in how to run a game, are the ones not looking to websites and forums for advise. They're wanting it clearly spelled out in the rules, and will probably give up in frustration because the rules are half-written (if that) and arbitrary ad-hoc rulings are not their forte.

But, heh, I'm only speaking from personal experience, so I'm sure I'm just retarded mentally deficient.

I find this a load of hogwash. Call me cynical and paranoid but as far as I'm concerned for every GM looking for how to handle a situation in an RPG there are 10 players looking to instead exploit it for their own benefit.

The net effect of lots of rules in my book, not comprehensive coverage of action much less fair and reasonable coverage but things like Peasant Railguns, Diplomancers, and cutting ladders in half to sell 10' poles at a profit.

Its easy to say you want a system that averts all that of course but when you start talking about say doing literally everything a person can do you're going to need a table for literally everything. Any gaps... well its like back in the day when if your class couldn't climb a wall you can't climb a wall, period. Heaven help you if you want to both have mechanics be reasonable and reasonably codified and similar too. At the least you are going to need pages and pages of tables just for basic actions. I hear Rolemaster was kinda like that and that it requires a GM of more experience not less. Since of course it would require you memorize and cross reference a whole lot more page weight.

And of course the more complex your machine the more points of potential failure it has.
There are good reasons why many games try to be rules light.

Now what does newbie GM do when faced with an improvisation they don't know how to handle? Well they can either do their best and learn from it... or simply say "no it doesn't work" to the player and ask them to stop trying to cave in the roof, climb the colossus, or whatever cockamamie scheme they're trying to cook up on the spot.

Hell just up straight up not knowing how to to it right so not allowing it is perfectly valid and preferable if the GM doesn't feel spontaneous like that, its not like the player has any choice unless they want to GM themselves next game and want to put up with all the legwork involved.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not asking for everything ever be codified. I'm stating that examples would go a long way - and better than the synonyms offered in the ability check section.

How does one do a SpellCraft check? I suppose it doesn't matter, if you're going to CounterSpell, you'll use the Counterspell Spell... but sometimes you don't have that, and it'd be nice to know if your readied action should be used or not... Are you potentially interrupting a fireball or a bane?

There's a nice houserule floating about using Arcane for Arcane spells, Nature for Druid/Ranger spells and Religion for Cleric/Paladin spells. But wouldn't it have been nicer if it was specified as an example in the book? It's not like SpellCraft is a foreign concept - it's been in previous editions!

Similarly, condensing skills is nice and all, but the fewer you have, the more each has to do double or triple duty to previous skills people are used to having. What is the Tool for the old 'Profession Sailor'? What is the skill to Sing?

It's like, there are a ton of things that apparently never came up in the playtest - or were completely ignored. I'm ok shoehorning them back in - my game is a Frankenstein's monster of rules from all over the place - but I fear for the poor new DM who has an older player or two asking how to do something from a previous edition that just isn't covered.

Heck, I'm in a game now where the DM is a 3.5 purist, running 5th on a lark, and even after 3 sessions doesn't grok the differences between the two rules sets (all hail my +1 Plate armor at 3rd level, and the +2 short bow our rogue is sporting).

More guidance alleviates misunderstandings. Maybe the 'Essentials' of this edition will be called Advanced D&D. Wouldn't that be amazing.

[archaeo]

It's like, there are a ton of things that apparently never came up in the playtest - or were completely ignored. I'm ok shoehorning them back in - my game is a Frankenstein's monster of rules from all over the place - but I fear for the poor new DM who has an older player or two asking how to do something from a previous edition that just isn't covered.

Well, some of this will come in the mythical, ever-expanding-in-wished-for-size DMG. But mostly, I think that "new DM" is just being expected to roll with the punches. If a player does something outside or beyond what's listed in RAW, the stance of 5e generally seems to be "pick an ability, pick a DC, and roll for it." That doesn't seem too onerous.


More guidance alleviates misunderstandings.

But more rules means more to memorize. There's a trade-off here, and Mearls & Co. went with a paradigm of rules that are flexible enough to cover many cases but simple enough to hold in your head.


Maybe the 'Essentials' of this edition will be called Advanced D&D. Wouldn't that be amazing.

I think I prefer the "Advanced D&D" label to be applied to the module that transforms 5e into a tactical 4e-like, myself. :smallbiggrin:

[Steel Mirror]

Maybe the 'Essentials' of this edition will be called Advanced D&D. Wouldn't that be amazing.That I could certainly get behind. Not because I feel that the base rules are limiting, though. I find that part of it rather liberating. But an 'advanced' ruleset that gave us exotic weapons, more involved weapon rules, spell duels options, an expanded skill syste,or whatever else would be cool. A basic rule set for those who like it, options on top for gamers with more stomach for it.

[Sidmen]

Similarly, condensing skills is nice and all, but the fewer you have, the more each has to do double or triple duty to previous skills people are used to having. What is the Tool for the old 'Profession Sailor'? What is the skill to Sing?The tool for "profession Sailor" is Vehicles (water), while singing is a Charisma roll. You might also pick up training in the tool Musical Instrument (Voice) if you really wanted to focus on it.

A lot of the skills you are missing are probably rolled into "tools" now. For example, disable device is now the province of the Tool "Thieves Tools"

[Steel Mirror]

A lot of the skills you are missing are probably rolled into "tools" now. For example, disable device is now the province of the Tool "Thieves Tools"Which is actually one of my favorite things about 5E. It's so endlessly expandable, while still being flexible in order to reward player creativity. If my character has proficiency in gem-cutting tools, I could use that to cut gems, repair jewelry, appraise precious stones to determine their value, remove a gem from a tomb wall, fake a piece of glass into looking like the queen's diamond for a big heist...

So much potential! I love the tools proficiencies.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I'm not asking for everything ever be codified. I'm stating that examples would go a long way - and better than the synonyms offered in the ability check section.

You didn't name any examples only the general idea without acknowledging the implications.

And to not simply open the door to exactly codifying everything you need to make a strong case for a particular benefits and how its not dealt with either in the rules or under the improvisation system of ability checks or otherwise needs special and particular mechanics.

You start of wrong and need to prove a special exception. You preferably need a broad argument not niche things.


How does one do a SpellCraft check? I suppose it doesn't matter, if you're going to CounterSpell, you'll use the Counterspell Spell... but sometimes you don't have that, and it'd be nice to know if your readied action should be used or not... Are you potentially interrupting a fireball or a bane?

There's a nice houserule floating about using Arcane for Arcane spells, Nature for Druid/Ranger spells and Religion for Cleric/Paladin spells. But wouldn't it have been nicer if it was specified as an example in the book? It's not like SpellCraft is a foreign concept - it's been in previous editions!

Actually that readied action does nothing to the spell, unless the time is longer then 1 action where it hardly matters. And since eveyone's only going to be getting one spell and reaction there is little to no point in picking and choosing anyways, if you're outnumbered by casters far better to go on the offense and kill them quickly then to try and pick and choose spells to counter attack on.

So the only real point to knowing the spell depends on how spicy the DM wants to keep their Counterspell duels, fighting blind is much more interesting btw and rather less likely to give Sorcs an auto-win because they have more spell slots. Its all a bit narrow interest, so let the DM handle it.

If you really want pure magic catch-all then really Arcana handles ALL of it best, certainly Spellcraft makes no more sense if you want to divide by magic types because how can you know magic if all three types are radically different as to justify three types?

Spellcraft was always pretty redundant


Similarly, condensing skills is nice and all, but the fewer you have, the more each has to do double or triple duty to previous skills people are used to having. What is the Tool for the old 'Profession Sailor'? What is the skill to Sing?

That would be Vehicle proficiency (water) and Navigator's Tools, both come with the sailor background, btw.

Singing is most logically Performance of course but is actually at no point nessecary I can find necessary to designate specific ability in. Bard musical abilities don't make checks for example, they just work as are.


Heck, I'm in a game now where the DM is a 3.5 purist, running 5th on a lark, and even after 3 sessions doesn't grok the differences between the two rules sets (all hail my +1 Plate armor at 3rd level, and the +2 short bow our rogue is sporting).

Reminds me of the LARP group I did VtM with and they had mangled editions, tabletop, and LARP rules together. All complained about the broken results, but I cited chapter and verse at them to know effect, they'd been doing it one way so long nothing would penetrate.

Either you get the picture in such a case, or don't. Since it was VtM I just went and built a similarly abusive collection of traits until I'd boil the blood of anyone that tried to smack my Tremere automatically and fatally. Fun times.

[Slipperychicken]

So I once noticed that 3.5 had a conspicuous lack of rules for grabbing onto monsters larger than yourself. And now that I'm looking at 5e, the same problem arises. Frankly, it astounds me that after 5 editions the developers have never asked themselves "what happens when players want to climb onto the dragon's back?"


It doesn't astound me. For all the lip-service to "simulationism" and "representing every fighting style", they almost never put in any kind of serious core rules for humanoids' choking, biting, ground-fighting, eye-gouging, or limb-breaking. Nevermind that such maneuvers are central to unarmed melee combat, and even children can do them without training.

So yeah, if the devs neglect real-life combat styles, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would neglect some imaginary ones too.