"Cheating" to fly at Level 3?

[badintel]

The player in question has a gnome warlock that took pact of chain with an imp familiar. During an encounter where the warlock was getting cornered in a canyon by some golems without a range attack, he came to a creative and unique solution.

He made his familiar carry him up to a height of 80' and spammed eldritch blast on the enemies. He worked out that the imp has a STR of 6, but that was enough to carry his gnome's 50lbs of weight. Is there something our group is missing here or is this a legit use of the familiar? Any problems you can foresee through the use of this tactic?

[Beacon of Chaos]

The gnome weighs 50lbs, but what about all his gear?

I don't know the game well enough to comment on whether this will be a problem or not.

[Gurka]

As much as it rankles a bit, it seems legit.

I mean, the amount of weight that can be carried while in flight are preposterous for mechanical flight, but all bets are off for magical flight... I think your friend just found a solid RAW exploit.

Keep in mind that any kind of disturbance may require that imp to make a strength check to keep ahold of the gnome, and should the imp get shoot down or drop him, 8D6 damage is nothing to scoff at at level 3. So the strategy is not without it's dangers.

[Likantropos]

I'd say the rule about a mount to be one size bigger than the rider applies here. I'd rule that the imp could carry the gnome, yes, but not constantly, much like the flight an eagle barbarian.

[badintel]

the strategy is not without it's dangers.

According to the player he only used the tactic because the fight was taking place against enemies that had no apparent ranged capabilities. But you are right on that they should have targeted the imp...though the imp was invisible the whole time, so perhaps that may have been difficult.

[Person_Man]

RAW, no. Spells say what they do, and what they say is all that they can do. Real world physics do not apply, and players cannot improvise their effects. For example, you can't target a body of water with Lightning Bolt to electrocute all the enemies who happen to be standing in a lake or whatever.

Having said that, Rule of Cool says let it work. But if the player tries to spam the tactic so that he can be a flying mobile weapons platform, just put him on notice that flying using this improvised tactic is very unwieldy, that you might call for Dex checks to see if he falls, enemies using ranged attacks might get Advantage against him, etc.

[hymer]

Tiny creatures have half carrying capacity of small or medium creatures (PHB p. 176). A tiny str 6 imp has a carrying capacity of 45 lbs. Gnomes weigh 37-43 lbs by RAW (PHB p. 121), and just a set of common clothes weigh 3 lbs. I don't think an imp can carry a gnome unless the gnome leaves virtually all equipment behind. A heavy gnome may have to lose his breeches as well. And so close to his limit, I'd expect the imp to be making the occasional strength check - he's lifting all this weight in his arms presumably, when it's meant to be a matter of how much an adventurer can carry around with a rucksack and harness. And the gnome will be wriggling around to cast spells.

I wouldn't let it fly, so to speak. But I am prejudiced against gnomes, admittedly.

[MaxWilson]

The player in question has a gnome warlock that took pact of chain with an imp familiar. During an encounter where the warlock was getting cornered in a canyon by some golems without a range attack, he came to a creative and unique solution.

He made his familiar carry him up to a height of 80' and spammed eldritch blast on the enemies. He worked out that the imp has a STR of 6, but that was enough to carry his gnome's 50lbs of weight. Is there something our group is missing here or is this a legit use of the familiar? Any problems you can foresee through the use of this tactic?

Seems legit to me. At least he's getting some use out of his tiny size--5E small size is usually just a pure disadvantage mechanically, even though logically a 3' tall guy should be as difficult to hit with an arrow as a 6' tall guy behind half-cover.

It's risky though, because imps don't have many HP, and if the imp dies he falls 80' and takes 8d6 damage.

This isn't a matter of an exploitive tactic, it's just that Golems are generally pretty one-dimensional opponents. If you get up in their face with melee, they crush you. If you hang back with Expeditious Retreat or Levitate or a flying familiar or something, they just flail around uselessly and die. They're not a real threat unless paired with something else, either a locked vault door blocking retreat or flying/entangling enemy creatures.


I'd say the rule about a mount to be one size bigger than the rider applies here. I'd rule that the imp could carry the gnome, yes, but not constantly, much like the flight an eagle barbarian.

It's not a mount, presumably it's just using the Grappling rules.

[cobaltstarfire]

I saw an issue similar to this on the AL facebook, a gnome with an owl friend.

I think str checks as has been suggested would be good. Or put a limit on how long the imp can even carry the gnome before he's too tired to do it, and must go a little while without carrying the gnome before he can do it again.


I'd work it out with the player though if I were you, but that's just me, I think it's pretty creative and I don't like punishing people for coming up with weird things. Either way give him warning ahead of time about your thoughts, don't just spring it on him next time he tries if you determine that he can't do it at all anymore.

[Shining Wrath]

As pointed out, he should have had to drop nearly everything he's carrying to meet the weight limitations of an imp. Aside from that, having a flying familiar should have advantages over having a non-flying familiar, because presumably the non-flying familiar has some other advantage instead.

I say good for your player, but any creature with Int of 3 or more can think to throw a rock at a flying target, so there could be disadvantages.

I now ponder the question as to whether either the gnome or the imp should get their Dex bonus to AC if fired upon in these circumstances, and I'm inclined to say no, the gnome depends upon the imp to dodge, and the imp is essentially burdened like a man in heavy armor. If the gnome tries to twist out of the way, a grappling check is required of the imp to maintain his grip, as though the gnome were trying to break free of the imp's hold.

[MaxWilson]

As pointed out, he should have had to drop nearly everything he's carrying to meet the weight limitations of an imp. Aside from that, having a flying familiar should have advantages over having a non-flying familiar, because presumably the non-flying familiar has some other advantage instead.

I say good for your player, but any creature with Int of 3 or more can think to throw a rock at a flying target, so there could be disadvantages.

I now ponder the question as to whether either the gnome or the imp should get their Dex bonus to AC if fired upon in these circumstances, and I'm inclined to say no, the gnome depends upon the imp to dodge, and the imp is essentially burdened like a man in heavy armor. If the gnome tries to twist out of the way, a grappling check is required of the imp to maintain his grip, as though the gnome were trying to break free of the imp's hold.

In 5E characters always get their DEX bonus, even if they are grappled or straight-up paralyzed. Makes no sense but there it is.

The gnome is effectively grappled, not pinned/restrained, so he shouldn't even give advantage to attackers. I'm okay with forcing a grappling check as long as you then allow other grappled characters to get free "break free" attempts when grappled by hostile creatures.

[Shining Wrath]

In 5E characters always get their DEX bonus, even if they are grappled or straight-up paralyzed. Makes no sense but there it is.

The gnome is effectively grappled, not pinned/restrained, so he shouldn't even give advantage to attackers. I'm okay with forcing a grappling check as long as you then allow other grappled characters to get free "break free" attempts when grappled by hostile creatures.

The gnome isn't trying to break free; he's maneuvering to avoid an incoming arrow or rock, and forcing the imp to struggle to keep a grip. He's grappled by a friendly creature, but making unpredictable movements. The grapple check is against "oops".

And I'm afraid I would Rule 0 the imp's Dex bonus. The imp is flying with a load where literally he can't lift another pound, he is not going to maneuver like he would unladen. YMMV, of course, but I don't think imp familiars are RAI supposed to carry gnomes into airborne combat so they can rain death from above. Flight is supposed to be difficult in 5e, that's why the Fly spell is concentration-only.

[Rezby]

What if the imp was Enlarged? Hypothetically speaking.

[Galen]

So I see other posters already mentioned the fact the Imp is, at least by RAW, strong enough to carry the gnome but not his gear. That's actually a great opportunity to put the player between the rock and a hard place.

"The Imp beats its wings and desperately tries to take off, but he can't..."
"Why?!"
"I guess all that gold you have in your purse is weighing it down. Meanwhile, the enemies are getting closer. What do you do?"

[MadGrady]

So I see other posters already mentioned the fact the Imp is, at least by RAW, strong enough to carry the gnome but not his gear. That's actually a great opportunity to put the player between the rock and a hard place.

"The Imp beats its wings and desperately tries to take off, but he can't..."
"Why?!"
"I guess all that gold you have in your purse is weighing it down. Meanwhile, the enemies are getting closer. What do you do?"

My one fear/concern/hesitation with this, is that the player might decide to forego all clothing. Then we have a flying naked gnome buzzing around, and no one wants that

[Galen]

My one fear/concern/hesitation with this, is that the player might decide to forego all clothing. Then we have a flying naked gnome buzzing around, and no one wants thatIncluding the Imp. The imp will go "blech, I'm not picking that up"

[MadGrady]

Including the Imp. The imp will go "blech, I'm not picking that up"

It's never good when you make a fiend cringe

[Daishain]

What if the imp was Enlarged? Hypothetically speaking.

Effectively increased weight cap, should have an easier time actually getting a good grip, etc.

Still not going to be dodging hundreds of mid air arrows, but the imp probably wouldn't be needing strength checks just to keep holding on anymore.

[hymer]

My one fear/concern/hesitation with this, is that the player might decide to forego all clothing. Then we have a flying naked gnome buzzing around, and no one wants that

Count your blessings. In Warhammer there's Naked Dwarf Syndrome.

[MadGrady]

Personally, as a DM, I like that the player went with something a bit out of the box. It sounds like a lot of fun, and if it improved/advanced the story then that's really the point right? If it becomes a habit, then it should be easy for you as the DM to place some consequences and discourage abuse.

[Knaight]

I'd be inclined to give disadvantage to all attack rolls due to the instability of the platform, but this seems fine. It's also a really risky strategy that can go wrong in a number of ways. For instance:

The imp could be attacked, and the character could plummet to the ground.
Sudden wind change could reasonably force a strength check from the imp to keep holding the gnome, as the attachment point is all of one hand.
If anyone with ranged weapons is around (e.g. waiting in ambush somewhat nearby), a giant target just appeared for them. Also, any stealth is basically blown.
Some birds might think of the imp as prey.

With all that said, a house rule involving carrying capacity while flying being reduced would also be fine, and it's not an unreasonable ruling to make on the spot.

[MaxWilson]

So I see other posters already mentioned the fact the Imp is, at least by RAW, strong enough to carry the gnome but not his gear. That's actually a great opportunity to put the player between the rock and a hard place.

Is there a reference on this? I'm AFB but I thought you could carry 10 (or 15?) pounds of gear without being encumbered. I don't remember rules on how much you can carry total, and I certainly don't remember rules on how much you can grapple. A human being by RAW can Grapple and move a 1400 lb. horse at 30' per round (using his Dash). I think it would be quite silly for a human to haul a horse up a cliff, but it's not RAW that prevents you from doing it, it's the DM (and the DM's knowledge of real-world physics, to reference another thread).


With all that said, a house rule involving carrying capacity while flying being reduced would also be fine, and it's not an unreasonable ruling to make on the spot.

This. Great idea, I would totally go with this one.

[hymer]

Is there a reference on this? I'm AFB but I thought you could carry 10 (or 15?) pounds of gear without being encumbered.

I've seen nothing of the sort. What I have seen is that Str multiplied by 15 lbs for medium and small creatures is max carrying capacity. Tinies get half that per strength. All of this is on p. 176 in the PHB.

[Easy_Lee]

I really don't like that nearly every proposed house rule in this thread tries to find ways to prevent the player from doing this. Seems to me it's better to just find ways to counter it, such as keeping a mob with ranger levels in the back. Flat-out telling the player "no" usually denotes a lack of creativity.

Incidentally, a halfling beastmaster with a pteranodon companion/mount allows flight at 3 on a medium creature with 12 strength. This is so RAW that the only ways to prevent players from doing it are 1) keep pteranodons out of the game world entirely, or 2) come up with a fiaty and uncreative house rule like many of those above.

[MaxWilson]

I've seen nothing of the sort. What I have seen is that Str multiplied by 15 lbs for medium and small creatures is max carrying capacity. Tinies get half that per strength. All of this is on p. 176 in the PHB.

Ah, that's what I was forgetting about--the Tiny creatures exception. Thanks.


I really don't like that nearly every proposed house rule in this thread tries to find ways to prevent the player from doing this. Seems to me it's better to just find ways to counter it, such as keeping a mob with ranger levels in the back. Flat-out telling the player "no" usually denotes a lack of creativity.

That's because those of us who are fine with it don't propose a house rule, because there's no need. Aesthetically I do like the (notional) house rule for changing how much you can carry based on whether you're flying, but I don't care whether or not that rule affects the gnome in particular.

[rlc]

Taking things directly from the OP:
Imp has 6 str, gnome weighs 50 lbs. I'm assuming that includes gear. 6*15/2=45. 50 > 45. So, it's not a house rule at all that the gnome weighs too much as is and might have to drop some stuff.
That being said, I'd probably allow it in this emergency, especially since it's a difference of 5 lbs.

[Shining Wrath]

It's never good when you make a fiend cringe

Requesting permission to add this to sig block.

[Shining Wrath]

I really don't like that nearly every proposed house rule in this thread tries to find ways to prevent the player from doing this. Seems to me it's better to just find ways to counter it, such as keeping a mob with ranger levels in the back. Flat-out telling the player "no" usually denotes a lack of creativity.

Incidentally, a halfling beastmaster with a pteranodon companion/mount allows flight at 3 on a medium creature with 12 strength. This is so RAW that the only ways to prevent players from doing it are 1) keep pteranodons out of the game world entirely, or 2) come up with a fiaty and uncreative house rule like many of those above.

I permit it, I just think you're an easy target. The gnome can't dodge without wrenching himself about in the imp's grasp; the imp I count as heavily laden similar to a person in full armor, and thus both lose their Dex bonus to AC.

It's not saying "No", it's saying "There may be consequences".

[MaxWilson]

I permit it, I just think you're an easy target. The gnome can't dodge without wrenching himself about in the imp's grasp; the imp I count as heavily laden similar to a person in full armor, and thus both lose their Dex bonus to AC.

It's not saying "No", it's saying "There may be consequences".

It isn't cricket though not to apply those same consequences to analogous situations. See Grappled vs. Pinned for example (which takes a feat). A gameworld should be consistent with itself.

Or at least, that's how a simulationist (me) views it. YMMV.

[Yagyujubei]

I would permit it pending strength checks that would determine if there would be droppage.

HOWEVER an easy workaround an exploit to this would be to grab the at will levitate warlock has access to, and float up and just use the imp as your directional control. if you're already levitating then as far as he's concerned you're weightless, he just needs to fly around while holding onto you somewhere.

this would work with any type of character, so you wouldn't have to be a lolgnome to do it either.

if you REALLY wanna get silly, cast darkness on yourself with devils sight and fly around as a black orb of eldritch blasty doom.

[Easy_Lee]

an easy workaround an exploit to this would be to grab the at will levitate warlock has access to

AFB, but doesn't that invocation require level 9?

[Shining Wrath]

It isn't cricket though not to apply those same consequences to analogous situations. See Grappled vs. Pinned for example (which takes a feat). A gameworld should be consistent with itself.

Or at least, that's how a simulationist (me) views it. YMMV.

A grappled person can attempt to escape using their action.

Since the familiar is the ally of the gnome, this grapple is not like that grapple, and "escape" occurs not as a result of trying to escape, but as a result of trying to do something else.

You shouldn't make "use my action to escape a hostile grapple" and "inadvertently rip myself free from a friend's grasp" identical situations for your simulation, even if grapple is used to determine if the imp can get a good grip in the first place. One occurs on your turn, the other as a implied reaction to someone else's action.

[MaxWilson]

A grappled person can attempt to escape using their action.

Since the familiar is the ally of the gnome, this grapple is not like that grapple, and "escape" occurs not as a result of trying to escape, but as a result of trying to do something else.

You shouldn't make "use my action to escape a hostile grapple" and "inadvertently rip myself free from a friend's grasp" identical situations for your simulation, even if grapple is used to determine if the imp can get a good grip in the first place. One occurs on your turn, the other as a implied reaction to someone else's action.

You don't see a problem if "accidentally escaping while doing something else" is easier to achieve than "spending an action to escape on purpose"? I do.

[Shining Wrath]

You don't see a problem if "accidentally escaping while doing something else" is easier to achieve than "spending an action to escape on purpose"? I do.

You ignore the premise, which is that the imp is at the extreme limits of its strength and can barely do this at all. That means, again, this grapple is not like those grapples, and your simulation is faulty if you model them in the same way.

[Easy_Lee]

You ignore the premise, which is that the imp is at the extreme limits of its strength and can barely do this at all. That means, again, this grapple is not like those grapples, and your simulation is faulty if you model them in the same way.

RAW, you can choose to fail a grapple saving throw, can move at half speed while carrying someone in a grapple, and don't lose your dex save in a grapple. The same can be said of mounts, only without the movespeed limitation.

Taking away dex saves, or disallowing an imp from flying with something it can physically lift, is nothing short of a house rule against the player.

[Shadow]

Incidentally, a halfling beastmaster with a pteranodon companion/mount allows flight at 3 on a medium creature with 12 strength. This is so RAW that the only ways to prevent players from doing it are 1) keep pteranodons out of the game world entirely, or 2) come up with a fiaty and uncreative house rule like many of those above.

You forgot option 3:
Don't send the players to an area that has friggin dinosaurs so he doesn't get a flying mount at level 3.

[Yagyujubei]

AFB, but doesn't that invocation require level 9?

yeah i'm AFB too so i'm not sure if its 7 or 9, but it is indeed above level 3. even so, it's at will unlimited flight so not too shabby.

[Easy_Lee]

You forgot option 3:
Don't send the players to an area that has friggin dinosaurs so he doesn't get a flying mount at level 3.

I believe that falls under the heading of keeping them out of the game world (temporarily, at least).

[MaxWilson]

You ignore the premise, which is that the imp is at the extreme limits of its strength and can barely do this at all. That means, again, this grapple is not like those grapples, and your simulation is faulty if you model them in the same way.

I'm not ignoring the premise, in fact that premise is common in situations involving grappling. A human who grapples an ogre or a 1400-lb. horse is not only at the limits of his strength, but completely beyond them. And yet the ogre doesn't get a free Strength check to break free just because he's clubbing the grappler over the head--or rather, I am arguing that if you house-rule against the gnome in this case, you absolutely should house-rule against the grappler in exactly the same way, or more harshly. You've essentially saying that grapples are very hard to maintain, in your games.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

DM rulings aren't the same as houserules. DMs can allow creative solutions, yet apply penalties to those selfsame solutions. There's an obvious gameplay value to this: if the imp can just carry the warlock all the time, with no problems, why would the player not do this all the time despite how ridiculous it is?

It is not anti-player to restrict this sort of thing, it is pro-story and pro-sanity and pro-good gameplay experience. Anti-player would be scoffing at and shooting down any solution a player comes up with just so you can kill them.


RAW, you can choose to fail a grapple saving throw, can move at half speed while carrying someone in a grapple, and don't lose your dex save in a grapple. The same can be said of mounts, only without the movespeed limitation.

by definition a mount is used to carrying you, nor is it exerting peak effort just to do so (like a grappler is). In any case, the way grapple rules are pretty clearly intended to prevent too much faffing about with complicated rules and conditional penalties. They shouldn't be taken as gospel, and extending them to other parts of the game will cause silliness.

[MaxWilson]

DM rulings aren't the same as houserules. DMs can allow creative solutions, yet apply penalties to those selfsame solutions. There's an obvious gameplay value to this: if the imp can just carry the warlock all the time, with no problems, why would the player not do this all the time despite how ridiculous it is?

Because he's a treacherous lazy lying devil and he claims he's too tired? Besides, why borrow trouble? The gnome hasn't attempted to use this "all the time." Perhaps he won't. Perhaps he doesn't even like being dependent on his familiar this way--because an 80' fall is very painful.

[rlc]

RAW, you can choose to fail a grapple saving throw, can move at half speed while carrying someone in a grapple, and don't lose your dex save in a grapple. The same can be said of mounts, only without the movespeed limitation.

Taking away dex saves, or disallowing an imp from flying with something it can physically lift, is nothing short of a house rule against the player.

except, using the numbers given to us, the gnome currently weighs more than what the imp can lift.

[Easy_Lee]

except, using the numbers given to us, the gnome currently weighs more than what the imp can lift.

Hence why I specified "that it can physically lift". If your character is outside its weight threshold, then it pretty clearly can't lift you.

[JoeJ]

Looking at it from a different perspective, if you as DM want to encourage players to try outside-the-box thinking when it's dramatically appropriate, you could allow a PC with inspiration to spend it on a power stunt (adopting a term from superhero RPGs). That is, they get a one time "Rule of Cool" exemption from the normal rules. Of course, it would be up to you to decide whether or not any particular power stunt the player wants to attempt is feasible, but you can afford to be a bit generous because the requirement to get inspiration will help to limit abuse.

[Logosloki]

Since an Imp is a tiny creature, it wouldn't be able to carry the gnome and their gear (unless they are a very skinny gnome and have no gear). Just keep it as this special one moment and the imp politely declines to do it again...unless the situation is such you deem it awesome enough to pass again.

[Longcat]

Warlocks can get at-will Levitate at Level 9 and regular Fly at Level 5, replicating said tactic without using a familiar.

[Ellington]

I would allow a caster to do this under the effects of Reduce Person.

[charcoalninja]

Creatures can carry STR X 15 without any problem. They can LIFT or DRAG STR X 30, so yes the Imp can indeed lift the gnome. PHB about carrying capacity is where that little tidbit is. It's up to the DM how that impacts the imp's movement, but to say that the gnome is beyond his lifting ability is false.

The numbers in this edition for lifting are pretty insane when you consider that your average peasant with 10 STR can deadlift 300lbs.

[charcoalninja]

I would allow a caster to do this under the effects of Reduce Person.

See this bothers me. I would allow...
I hate seeing players not having agency over their characters. Book says X can lift Y. Player should expect X to be able to lift Y and not be blindsided all the damn time because the DM "feels" it's inappropriate...

/end rant.

[Longcat]

Creatures can carry STR X 15 without any problem. They can LIFT or DRAG STR X 30, so yes the Imp can indeed lift the gnome. PHB about carrying capacity is where that little tidbit is. It's up to the DM how that impacts the imp's movement, but to say that the gnome is beyond his lifting ability is false.

The numbers in this edition for lifting are pretty insane when you consider that your average peasant with 10 STR can deadlift 300lbs.

Making this argument in front of the DM is a surefire way to get Encumbrance rules introduced.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

lifting and dragging are sorta immaterial to what you can do while flying. the only muscles that matter are your flying muscles, or magical flight effect, or w/e; you can't use leverage or drag things or anything.

[Easy_Lee]

lifting and dragging are sorta immaterial to what you can do while flying. the only muscles that matter are your flying muscles, or magical flight effect, or w/e;[b] you can't use leverage or drag things or anything.[b]

Where's the rule? You can't make a statement like that without a page number from the PHB, MM, or similar. That's a house rule.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

It's not a house rule; it's something the rules don't explicitly cover. Therefore it's a DM judgement call based on what makes sense to them.

[Knaight]

I really don't like that nearly every proposed house rule in this thread tries to find ways to prevent the player from doing this. Seems to me it's better to just find ways to counter it, such as keeping a mob with ranger levels in the back. Flat-out telling the player "no" usually denotes a lack of creativity.

It's not about preventing the player from doing this, it's about the weirdness of anything being able to carry a creature much larger than itself while flying. Picture an osprey diving down towards water to catch a fish, and coming up with a tuna - it's ludicrous. Basically, the player's idea highlights an issue with the rules that might not otherwise be there, and a house rule to patch the encumbrance system somewhat (Strength squared seems nice, with less for flying) is hardly an issue.

Even as a player, this sort of thing would really irritate me - some level of exaggeration is germane to the genre (e.g. extremely large creatures flying when they probably shouldn't at all), but the imp carrying the gnome feels about as out of place as an oversized final fantasy sword.

[Sartharina]

Creatures can carry STR X 15 without any problem. They can LIFT or DRAG STR X 30, so yes the Imp can indeed lift the gnome. PHB about carrying capacity is where that little tidbit is. It's up to the DM how that impacts the imp's movement, but to say that the gnome is beyond his lifting ability is false.These numbers are halved for Tiny creatures (such as an Imp), and the Imp only has 6 STR.

The imp can carry 45 lbs. The gnome is beyond the imp's carry capacity.

[JoeJ]

Creatures can carry STR X 15 without any problem. They can LIFT or DRAG STR X 30, so yes the Imp can indeed lift the gnome. PHB about carrying capacity is where that little tidbit is. It's up to the DM how that impacts the imp's movement, but to say that the gnome is beyond his lifting ability is false.

edit: ninjad

You divide that by two for tiny creatures though, so a STR 6 imp can only carry 45 lbs. Under the variant rules, the imp would be encumbered (speed -10) by more than 15 lbs. and heavily encumbered (speed -20 + disadvantage on a lot of stuff) by more than 30 lbs.

Between 45 and 90 lbs. the imp can only push or drag the weight at a speed of 5, so no flying. Over 90 lbs. he can't move it at all.

[Easy_Lee]

It's not a house rule; it's something the rules don't explicitly cover. Therefore it's a DM judgement call based on what makes sense to them.

You mean to say that the rules don't say you can carry less while flying, and you assume they should.

Maybe it was left out intentionally.

Maybe the devs didn't want flyers to have to play the weight game all the time.

Maybe they aren't trying to make a physics simulator.

A DM judgement call/ruling is when the DM rule on something vague or unclear in the rules. There is no rule, nor even a vague hint, that flying reduces carrying capacity or prevents lifting/dragging. You made it up.

If you DM a game, you're free to do whatever you want. This thread has no DM; the only concern is RAW.

[Shining Wrath]

I'm not ignoring the premise, in fact that premise is common in situations involving grappling. A human who grapples an ogre or a 1400-lb. horse is not only at the limits of his strength, but completely beyond them. And yet the ogre doesn't get a free Strength check to break free just because he's clubbing the grappler over the head--or rather, I am arguing that if you house-rule against the gnome in this case, you absolutely should house-rule against the grappler in exactly the same way, or more harshly. You've essentially saying that grapples are very hard to maintain, in your games.

So your solution is that there's no risk of the imp dropping the gnome no matter what the gnome does, because it's a simple grapple just like any other?

But I submit it's not a simple grapple just like any other. For starters, they are flying, which means the grappler has to keep 100% of the grapplee's weight in the air 100% of the time. The proper analogy would be a human who grapples an ogre and lifts it completely off the ground and keeps it there for round after round. So tell me, if you are DM, and you throw Antaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaeus) at the party, are you going to allow a simple grapple check to lift him off the ground and keep him there, or will it be a little more difficult?

[Mr.Moron]

If you DM a game, you're free to do whatever you want. This thread has no DM; the only concern is RAW.

Where exactly does the op say

"RAW ONLY!!!!! Tell me only exactly what the books say on the matter, and don't you dare go into any possible consequences of this situation or alternative ways to handle it. OBEY THE RAW! LIVE THE RAW. THE RAW IS THE LAW.

RAW!
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!
RAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!"

I mean seriously. Having an open discussion on possible ways to handle something that either isn't called out, or is implemented poorly is far more productive than just reaffirming what is written.

[MaxWilson]

So your solution is that there's no risk of the imp dropping the gnome no matter what the gnome does, because it's a simple grapple just like any other?

But I submit it's not a simple grapple just like any other. For starters, they are flying, which means the grappler has to keep 100% of the grapplee's weight in the air 100% of the time. The proper analogy would be a human who grapples an ogre and lifts it completely off the ground and keeps it there for round after round. So tell me, if you are DM, and you throw Antaeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaeus) at the party, are you going to allow a simple grapple check to lift him off the ground and keep him there, or will it be a little more difficult?

It will be more difficult, because you're misunderstanding the grapple rules. Grapple doesn't include a "lift" per se, it just allows you to move the other guy with you. Grapple would be appropriate to drag Antaeus behind you as you move, and yes I'd allow grapple to work normally with Antaeus unless I'd redesigned the grapple system[1], but in order to lift Antaeus off the ground you're going to have climb a tree or something, which will probably be at disadvantage because you only have one free hand (impossible without at least one free hand, so no shield allowed). However, I would not give Antaeus free chances to break the grapple, which is what matters RE: the gnome and the imp.

Incidentally, an ogre is far heavier relative to a human's lift capability than the gnome is relative to the imp. Small things in D&D are really, really strong for their size.

[1] The most logical way to redesign the grapple system would be to apply encumbrance rules on top of the grapple system, so that if you grapple a 1400-lb. horse, you can prevent it from moving but can't drag it around.

[badintel]

I'm digging the debate!

It seems that by RAW the 50lbs Gnome might be pushing it to use this technique...but assume that the character was on the low end of acceptable character weights for gnomes or halflings...lets say 30 lbs. At this point how would you feel about the familiar flight routine?

[MaxWilson]

I'm digging the debate!

It seems that by RAW the 50lbs Gnome might be pushing it to use this technique...but assume that the character was on the low end of acceptable character weights for gnomes or halflings...lets say 30 lbs. At this point how would you feel about the familiar flight routine?

I would feel just fine about it, but I would expect the gnome and the imp to both be kind of leery about a repeat. It's risky and it's strenuous. Expeditious Retreat is far easier.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm digging the debate!

It seems that by RAW the 50lbs Gnome might be pushing it to use this technique...but assume that the character was on the low end of acceptable character weights for gnomes or halflings...lets say 30 lbs. At this point how would you feel about the familiar flight routine?

I'm not sure the exact lbage matters much in a vacuum. I think what matters more is the general approach you want to be taking:

A) Do I care about working out and trying to represent just how tough it would be for an imp to pick and up keep the gnome stable.

B) Do I care about how being picked up flown around by a little creature should feel and behave in comparison to more orthodox methods of flying, in a more abstract/thematic sense.

C) Do I care about the specifics of encounter design and game balance.

D) Do I care about how being faithful to the rules in the book.

These aren't mutually exclusive by any means and there are other factors. However how important you see each of these as, as well as the general tone you want the game to have will probably affect which of the many approaches that could be taken are more or less appropriate for your situation. Obviously for some of these the lbage is a big factor others not so much, that is why it's hard to give a statement in a vacuum.

How important are these, which are you looking to do the most? Which are you looking to the least. Are there any you don't care about at all?

[Easy_Lee]

Where exactly does the op say

"RAW ONLY!!!!! Tell me only exactly what the books say on the matter, and don't you dare go into any possible consequences of this situation or alternative ways to handle it. OBEY THE RAW! LIVE THE RAW. THE RAW IS THE LAW.

RAW!
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!
RAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!"

I mean seriously. Having an open discussion on possible ways to handle something that either isn't called out, or is implemented poorly is far more productive than just reaffirming what is written.

Chill, bro. The trouble with house rules in threads is that they're limitless. There is no end to a discussion on different people's house rules. This is particularly true when people think their house rules are obvious or, worse, RAW-supported.

That's why I think we need to keep things RAW only. RAW, an imp can lift a gnome and carry him at a reduced movement speed at least. No where does it say that flying doesn't allow lifting. Plenty of DMs will take issue and either prevent or limit it. I don't think more needs to be said.

[Mr.Moron]

Chill, bro. The trouble with house rules in threads is that they're limitless. There is no end to a discussion on different people's house rules.

This is what we call a "Good Thing" or an "Interesting Thing".



That's why I think we need to keep things RAW only.

Well.. you're wrong.

[Shining Wrath]

It will be more difficult, because you're misunderstanding the grapple rules. Grapple doesn't include a "lift" per se, it just allows you to move the other guy with you. Grapple would be appropriate to drag Antaeus behind you as you move, and yes I'd allow grapple to work normally with Antaeus unless I'd redesigned the grapple system[1], but in order to lift Antaeus off the ground you're going to have climb a tree or something, which will probably be at disadvantage because you only have one free hand (impossible without at least one free hand, so no shield allowed). However, I would not give Antaeus free chances to break the grapple, which is what matters RE: the gnome and the imp.

Incidentally, an ogre is far heavier relative to a human's lift capability than the gnome is relative to the imp. Small things in D&D are really, really strong for their size.

[1] The most logical way to redesign the grapple system would be to apply encumbrance rules on top of the grapple system, so that if you grapple a 1400-lb. horse, you can prevent it from moving but can't drag it around.

But the gnome will never TRY to break the grapple. He wants to be grappled. So any drop chance has to occur as a result of the gnome doing something else and the broken grapple is a side effect. A "free chance", if you will.

Allow "free chances" where the grapple is broken as a side effect of the gnome doing something else other than using his action to break the grapple, or rule that carrying a grappled target into the air is easier than maintaining a grapple on the ground.

[Kornaki]

Chill, bro. The trouble with house rules in threads is that they're limitless. There is no end to a discussion on different people's house rules. This is particularly true when people think their house rules are obvious or, worse, RAW-supported.

That's why I think we need to keep things RAW only. RAW, an imp can lift a gnome and carry him at a reduced movement speed at least. No where does it say that flying doesn't allow lifting. Plenty of DMs will take issue and either prevent or limit it. I don't think more needs to be said.

There's a thread explicitly for simple RAW answers. If someone just wanted simple RAW they would go there, in fact some might opine that no other thread should be strictly RAW because that would be redundant.

[badintel]

A) Do I care about working out and trying to represent just how tough it would be for an imp to pick and up keep the gnome stable.

I feel this question and Question B fall along the same lines...see answer to D.


B) Do I care about how being picked up flown around by a little creature should feel and behave in comparison to more orthodox methods of flying, in a more abstract/thematic sense.

This is important regardless if it is allowed as a house rule or accepted as RAW. See answer to D for more details.


C) Do I care about the specifics of encounter design and game balance.

Balance wise, anything can be adjusted to. If the character does it so can the enemy. I'm not so worried about the balance aspect.


D) Do I care about how being faithful to the rules in the book.

I think looking at RAW is important. If something blatantly breaks RAW, then it should be a discussion between the DM and the player on whether or not to allow a house rule at a more limited effectiveness. If it falls within RAW, then go right ahead, but still discuss any thematic elements that may apply (imp doesn't like it, have you pissed off your pact entity and thus the familiar drops you to teach you a lesson, flying in such a manner is awkward and limits speed/maneuverability)

As a DM how would you rule? As a player, are there other unique uses we are overlooking?

[MaxWilson]

But the gnome will never TRY to break the grapple. He wants to be grappled. So any drop chance has to occur as a result of the gnome doing something else and the broken grapple is a side effect. A "free chance", if you will.

Allow "free chances" where the grapple is broken as a side effect of the gnome doing something else other than using his action to break the grapple, or rule that carrying a grappled target into the air is easier than maintaining a grapple on the ground.

Emphasis added. This is logically wrong, a non sequitur. You're claiming that you need to impose free grapple-breaking in order for grappling friendlies not to be harder than grappling enemies, but adding the "free chance" for friendlies and disallowing it for enemies makes it harder to grapple friendlies. Not adding the free chance makes it equally difficult, not harder.

I've already said "YMMV", so feel free to run it however you want in your own game, but it doesn't make sense to make grappling cooperative allies harder than grappling hostile enemies. This is so obvious that I don't know why you're still arguing the point.


flying in such a manner is awkward and limits speed/maneuverability

Probably this. I think it makes sense to have flying encumbrance work differently than ground-based encumbrance. 5E doesn't have flying maneuverability classes, but it feels weird to have 5E birds carrying ten times more weight in D&D than they can in real life, just because they have 10+ STR.

[Knaight]

Chill, bro. The trouble with house rules in threads is that they're limitless. There is no end to a discussion on different people's house rules. This is particularly true when people think their house rules are obvious or, worse, RAW-supported.

That's why I think we need to keep things RAW only. RAW, an imp can lift a gnome and carry him at a reduced movement speed at least. No where does it say that flying doesn't allow lifting. Plenty of DMs will take issue and either prevent or limit it. I don't think more needs to be said.

If the question were actually about what the rules said, then sure, RAW is what matters. The text of the opening post explicitly included "Any problems you can foresee through the use of this tactic?", and the physical implausibility of the detailed action is one of the things that fits into that category.

This is even more true in a system where the design philosophy explicitly calls for GM judgement, where the rules are simulation tools of the more important shared setting and not the laws of it, etc. That's where the meat of the discussion is, and keeping things RAW only cuts that off at the knees.

[Mr.Moron]

As a DM how would you rule? As a player, are there other unique uses we are overlooking?

Well I probably wouldn't make the exact same ruling in every game, different games have different demands. Also what aspects I feel like engaging with in games goes back and forth over time. Sometimes I'll be in a really kind of RAW-y mechanics sort of mood for a few months, and other times I'll be in a wacky ad-hoc kind of mindset.

That said right now I'm kind of the mind to lean more heavily what I outlined in Point B of the post you're quoting.

As DM I'd care mostly how it feels in comparison to other sorts of flight available. Specifically, the flight abilities available make flying a straight extra form of movement. You're up in the air and can move around at some set speed and there isn't too much else too it. The spells and mounts are assumed to be situations where the characters can operate at normal/full efficiency.

This means that to provide a contrast an odd, slapdash way of flying like this (an tiny little imp picking you up) can't "just work" - it needs to be stickier, less reliable.

Regardless of the weights involved the fact that it's quirky and abnormal demands some extra baggage around it so that it's meaningfully different for the player to use an interact with than Normal Flying.

To this end, I'd probably impose disadvantage on attacks they're making and require the imp make strength checks to stay up. Probably in escalting difficulty based on the number of rounds:

Round 1: 10
Round 2: 11
Round 3: 13
Round 4: 16
Round 5+: 20 (not possible for the imp to pass without some kind of assitance on the matter).

Numbers, super-duper "Not final". There really isn't any basis for this in the RAW directly, it's just so that being grasped about the shoulders by something super small flapping up and down to hold a big heavy load feels unwieldy and risky when compared to the smooth-sailing total control of something like a fly spell.

The total load of the gnome might maybe play some role in how I'd tweak the above numbers one way or another, but it's really not a huge factor in my thinking.


That said it's just one approach and not the "Right" one. It's rooted in desire to have the mechanics feel different to the player as a means of interacting with different circumstances, with only secondary considerations to game balance or if i'm correctly accounting for exactly *how* tough it is for the imp/gnome and almost no consideration paid to the RAW of the matter.

In contrast someone concerned with the running things with an OTT feel and a concentration on cool stunts might omit such limitations or even grant a bonus because my approach here stifles more unorthodox uses of resources.


....From a players perspective flight is an insanely versatile and powerful ability. What uses access to flight could give is like a whole thread in it's own right. Particularly, if that flight is easily accessible for long periods and it's not widely available to the general inhabitants of a setting.

[Easy_Lee]

This is even more true in a system where the design philosophy explicitly calls for GM judgement, where the rules are simulation tools of the more important shared setting and not the laws of it, etc. That's where the meat of the discussion is, and keeping things RAW only cuts that off at the knees.

Trouble is that no one in this thread is the DM if the game in question. If OP was looking for RAW reasons why the tactic doesn't work, the imp's carrying capacity is the only one. If he was looking for people to argue over whether they, personally, would allow it, he's apparently come to the right place.

Anything non-RAW is basically worthless in a rulings discussion. The DM is going to make up his own mind regardless of what anyone says, he just does so with or without RAW support. But you guys feel free to have your fun; I've said my piece.

[badintel]

From a players perspective flight is an insanely versatile and powerful ability.

This was a discussion that was had after the session. Imagine a gnome wizard that uses their familiar in this manner. Permanent fly without concentration throwing evocation all over the place?

I'm AFB, but if someone takes the magical adept (magical initiate?) feat and picks up find familiar (again, AFB, not sure if this spell is available through this route), then any ranged character of sufficiently small size could use this to remain above the fray.

[Knaight]

Anything non-RAW is basically worthless in a rulings discussion. The DM is going to make up his own mind regardless of what anyone says, he just does so with or without RAW support. But you guys feel free to have your fun; I've said my piece.

Nonsense. Putting aside the number of threads we've had which are about making rulings where the rules don't even apply, such as how people react to things, the qualitative input is likely to be considered. Also, the OP is the DM, is in the thread, and as such can gather broader input as to the decision beyond just what the rules say.

[Mr.Moron]

This was a discussion that was had after the session. Imagine a gnome wizard that uses their familiar in this manner. Permanent fly without concentration throwing evocation all over the place?

I'm AFB, but if someone takes the magical adept (magical initiate?) feat and picks up find familiar (again, AFB, not sure if this spell is available through this route), then any ranged character of sufficiently small size could use this to remain above the fray.

It's got way more then combat implications.

Flight means the difference between walls being barriers and decorations.
Flight means the difference between between an army being impassable and irrelevant.
Flight means the difference between an altar on top of a tower being an adventure away or an action away.
Flight means the difference between fighting the terrible lake monster and never seeing it.
Flight means the difference between it taking weeks to deliver a message or days.
Flight means the difference between getting caught in a fire, or just looking at it.
Flight means the difference between creaky bridge being a hazard or flavor text.

The list goes on and on and on. When, how and with what limitations flight is enabled can do a great deal to change the scope and tone of a campaign. The imp approach is a pretty low barrier to entry. Not that a low entry barrier to flight is a bad thing, it's just a thing.

[MaxWilson]

This was a discussion that was had after the session. Imagine a gnome wizard that uses their familiar in this manner. Permanent fly without concentration throwing evocation all over the place?

On a 10-HP, low-AC chassis? Very risky. Imps are fragile, and if you shoot it down or paralyze it, the gnome drops for 8d6 (less, obviously, if you hover lower). Even if I had an imp familiar I would avoid using it in this way most of the time. There are better ways to kite.


It's got way more then combat implications.

Flight means the difference between walls being barriers and decorations.
Flight means the difference between between an army being impassable and irrelevant.
Flight means the difference between an altar on top of a tower being an adventure away or an action away.
Flight means the difference between fighting the terrible lake monster and never seeing it.
Flight means the difference between it taking weeks to deliver a message or days.
Flight means the difference between getting caught in a fire, or just looking at it.
Flight means the difference between creaky bridge being a hazard or flavor text.

The list goes on and on and on. When, how and with what limitations flight is enabled can do a great deal to change the scope and tone of a campaign. The imp approach is a pretty low barrier to entry. Not that a low entry barrier to flight is a bad thing, it's just a thing.

Not that these things aren't great, but for the most part this is more true for a solo character than a party. One character who can fly can get over the lake monster (if the imp can carry him long enough). One character who can fly, in a party of people who can't, might as well take the boat with everyone else.

One quibble (bolded): flight doesn't make you deliver messages any faster per se. Even Animal Messenger merely doubles the movement rate of flying creatures, which is probably mostly because of a higher base move. For the most part, Phantom Steed is going to be faster than the imp trick (which probably doesn't work for long distances anyway), unless your message needs to get through extremely rugged terrain.

[Knaight]

Flight means the difference between an altar on top of a tower being an adventure away or an action away.

Flight is a pretty huge deal, but this one can be handled easily enough just by climbing.

[badintel]

On a 10-HP, low-AC chassis? Very risky. Imps are fragile, and if you shoot it down or paralyze it, the gnome drops for 8d6.

You are correct, however, look at it from the enemies perspective.

You are facing a party of four adventurers. The fighter is closing in for the kill, blade swinging, the rogue pops out from hiding knifing your buddy in the spleen, the Druid is in the back mumbling and chanting, and then the warlock rises into the air (because the imp holding him is invisible) throwing spells left and right. The imp in this circumstance is never targeted because none of the enemies knows it exists (unless and AOE occurs).

[charcoalninja]

These numbers are halved for Tiny creatures (such as an Imp), and the Imp only has 6 STR.

The imp can carry 45 lbs. The gnome is beyond the imp's carry capacity.

But the imp can lift 6x30 = 180 lbs halved for 90 pounds meaning it can clearly lift the gnome. What that means for its ability to move around is up to the DM, but since the imp can also DRAG 90 lbs, it would stand to reason that maybe it would be able to drag the gnome in the air like a helicopter does cargo.

All I'm saying is that there are rules here that show that this certainly can be done and that the imp has the ability to lift the gnome, so it shouldn't be something the DM actively blocks.

[Mr.Moron]

Flight is a pretty huge deal, but this one can be handled easily enough just by climbing.

Only if the outside surface is readily climbable, and nothing is trying to stop you. Flight is an order of magnitude faster, harder to interrupt and doesn't require any specialized equipment.

The number of things that can get in the way of climbing that don't feel horribly contrived and heavy-handed is a much longer than the ones that might make flying a sub-optimal solution.

[MaxWilson]

You are correct, however, look at it from the enemies perspective.

You are facing a party of four adventurers. The fighter is closing in for the kill, blade swinging, the rogue pops out from hiding knifing your buddy in the spleen, the Druid is in the back mumbling and chanting, and then the warlock rises into the air (because the imp holding him is invisible) throwing spells left and right. The imp in this circumstance is never targeted because none of the enemies knows it exists (unless and AOE occurs).

"Dangling" looks different than "flying". Against an golem (your original scenario), you're right, no golem will ever know or care why I'm flying, they're just built to SMASH. Against a goblin with a shortbow, well, how much do I (as the gnome) want to bet on no goblin ever realizing what's going on and taking a shot at the imp? Doesn't seem that improbable to me. All they have to do is guess that there's something holding me up, guess where it is (obviously, right above me, because they can see me dangling), and then take a shot at disadvantage against AC 12 IIRC. They'll have around 50% chance to hit, and two hits are likely to drop my familiar out of the sky, and me along with it. If this were my only option, maybe I'd do it. But it just plain isn't. Again and again, there are better ways to kite, and this one wouldn't be my pick. The simplest way of all is to simply stand in the back of the party and let the golems/whatever attack the fighters instead of me--against anything dumb enough to fall for the flying trick, flying isn't even really buying me anything under normal circumstances.


Only if the outside surface is readily climbable, and nothing is trying to stop you. Flight is an order of magnitude faster, harder to interrupt and doesn't require any specialized equipment.

The number of things that can get in the way of climbing that don't feel horribly contrived and heavy-handed is a much longer than the ones that might make flying a sub-optimal solution.

Flight isn't an order of magnitude faster in D&D, it's about twice as fast as climbing, or four times if you have a high flight speed (which I don't think imps do). Climbing slows your speed to half, that's it.

[Mr.Moron]

Flight isn't an order of magnitude faster in D&D, it's about twice as fast as climbing, or four times if you have a high flight speed (which I don't think imps do). Climbing slows your speed to half, that's it.

If you have a direct line up, with no need to move laterally are no climb checks (or at least fail-able ones) it's going to be a relatively quick trip.

However this scenario, I'm more imagining a fancy bit of architecture with outcroppings, and gaps, and places where you have to shift or drop down a bit more than a like.. a 200ft tall ladder.

EDIT: But yeah, if you're running a game where everything climbs like a skyrim horse (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7CInjswYg) I can certainly see the relative utility of flight being diminished a bit.

[JoeJ]

But the imp can lift 6x30 = 180 lbs halved for 90 pounds meaning it can clearly lift the gnome. What that means for its ability to move around is up to the DM, but since the imp can also DRAG 90 lbs, it would stand to reason that maybe it would be able to drag the gnome in the air like a helicopter does cargo.

All I'm saying is that there are rules here that show that this certainly can be done and that the imp has the ability to lift the gnome, so it shouldn't be something the DM actively blocks.

It's not actively blocking if the DM chooses to play by the rules instead of changing them.

Everything is up to the DM, obviously, but nothing in the text of the rules says, suggests, or implies that the imp can move at all while lifting 90 lbs. off the ground. If by "drag in the air" you mean drag the gnome along the ground while flying, sure. That can be done at a speed of 5 feet. Actually taking the gnome up into the air, however, is carrying, so the weight limit is 45 lbs.

Now as a house rule, I think it would be a fantastic idea to let the gnome spend inspiration to do this for one scene.

[MadGrady]

Requesting permission to add this to sig block.

You may :)

[Knaight]

All I'm saying is that there are rules here that show that this certainly can be done and that the imp has the ability to lift the gnome, so it shouldn't be something the DM actively blocks.

The rules are being applied outside of their standard area, the results are clearly incongruous with the imagined game world if there's even a modicum of attention paid to flight dynamics, and in general it causes problems. It's not a matter of players being too powerful or anything like that - from that perspective, it's actually a really dangerous tactic, as one area of affect gets really nasty - it's a matter of playing in a believable world.

[rlc]

But the imp can lift 6x30 = 180 lbs halved for 90 pounds meaning it can clearly lift the gnome. What that means for its ability to move around is up to the DM, but since the imp can also DRAG 90 lbs, it would stand to reason that maybe it would be able to drag the gnome in the air like a helicopter does cargo.

All I'm saying is that there are rules here that show that this certainly can be done and that the imp has the ability to lift the gnome, so it shouldn't be something the DM actively blocks.

that...what? no, you stop it. that makes no sense and you know it.
i said before that i'd allow the imp to be 5 lbs over its carrying capacity, but if somebody used this argument, i'd shoot it down regardless of what i thought before they made it. if you lift something and begin moving, then you are carrying it. the dragging rule is talking about dragging something on the ground, and even then, i'd still say that a helicopter that's dragging something is still carrying it.

[Shining Wrath]

Emphasis added. This is logically wrong, a non sequitur. You're claiming that you need to impose free grapple-breaking in order for grappling friendlies not to be harder than grappling enemies, but adding the "free chance" for friendlies and disallowing it for enemies makes it harder to grapple friendlies. Not adding the free chance makes it equally difficult, not harder.

I've already said "YMMV", so feel free to run it however you want in your own game, but it doesn't make sense to make grappling cooperative allies harder than grappling hostile enemies. This is so obvious that I don't know why you're still arguing the point.



Probably this. I think it makes sense to have flying encumbrance work differently than ground-based encumbrance. 5E doesn't have flying maneuverability classes, but it feels weird to have 5E birds carrying ten times more weight in D&D than they can in real life, just because they have 10+ STR.

I'm not arguing that a friendly grapple is harder than an opposed one. I'm arguing that there are risks when a creature lifts a creature of a larger size category and of a weight barely supportable high into the air, and that since the creature being lifted will obviously not try to cause itself to fall to its doom, those risks can only occur as a side effect of something else. If the gnome were being lifted by a friendly giant eagle I'd say there was exactly zero chance of the gnome being dropped.

My hypothetical DM ruling was that this is an very unusual case and that both the imp and the gnome lose their Dex bonus to AC because of how tenuous the imp's grip must be, given the extreme difficulty posed by this precise case and this case only - not a hypothetical case of all friendly grapples, or of all friendly grapples involving carrying someone into the air, but of this very specific case where the imp is straining every muscle to lift the weight and cannot possibly wrap its tiny arms around the (to it) enormous girth of the gnome. It is literally all the imp can do to carry this much weight. The weight is not a convenient size and shape, but a gnome, which by RAW do not come with installed handles. The best the imp is going to do is grab the gnome under the armpits, and thereby press his head either against the gnome's back, or the gnome's chest (with possible beard troubles).

So now that I think about it, the imp can't see very well, either. That is yet another reason to take away the imp's Dex bonus to AC, as it can see only to one side, not down where enemy fire might be coming from.

If you were being carried into the air by a friend and you knew that friend was at their absolute physical limit lifting you, would you writhe about with unexpected gyrations, or hold still?

There are no implications from this ruling for any other grapples that do not involve all of the following:

Flight
Willing passenger
Passenger a size larger than the flier
Weight of passenger is barely liftable, under optimum conditions, by flier


Telling me I'm a big meanie for not extrapolating from this case to all the other grapples ever ignores that all of 1-->4 up above matter.

[MaxWilson]

I'm not arguing that a friendly grapple is harder than an opposed one. *snip*
There are no implications from this ruling for any other grapples that do not involve all of the following:

Flight
Willing passenger
Passenger a size larger than the flier
Weight of passenger is barely liftable, under optimum conditions, by flier


Telling me I'm a big meanie for not extrapolating from this case to all the other grapples ever ignores that all of 1-->4 up above matter.

Emphasis added. Yes you are.

If you deleted "willing passenger" I wouldn't have a problem with it, but you're setting up a ruling wherein a human who is grappled off the ground by a Mephit can still ignore the Mephit and act to his heart's content, shooting arrows at other Mephits, casting Fireballs, etc., and the Mephit will never lose his grip unless the Mephit is friendly. QED. I have no problem with hypothetical house rules altering encumbrance limits for flying creatures, or grappling rules for creatures beyond your encumbrance limits, but I would apply those rules fairly to everyone, not just to friendlies.

YMMV. That means "Your Mileage May Vary". Colloquially, that means, "I don't really care if you want to do it differently." You don't need my approval to play your elf-game however you want to. Understood?

[Shining Wrath]

Emphasis added. Yes you are.

If you deleted "willing passenger" I wouldn't have a problem with it, but you're setting up a ruling wherein a human who is grappled off the ground by a Mephit can still ignore the Mephit and act to his heart's content, shooting arrows at other Mephits, casting Fireballs, etc., and the Mephit will never lose his grip unless the Mephit is friendly. QED. I have no problem with hypothetical house rules altering encumbrance limits for flying creatures, or grappling rules for creatures beyond your encumbrance limits, but I would apply those rules fairly to everyone, not just to friendlies.

YMMV. That means "Your Mileage May Vary". Colloquially, that means, "I don't really care if you want to do it differently." You don't need my approval to play your elf-game however you want to. Understood?

We never discussed an imp trying to pick up an unwilling gnome - if a warlock tried to send his familiar to carry off an enemy gnome, my DM ruling would probably be "You must be kidding". This only works at all because the target is willing.

But yeah, let's part friends. Go in peace; may your D20 never roll a '1'.

[MaxWilson]

We never discussed an imp trying to pick up an unwilling gnome - if a warlock tried to send his familiar to carry off an enemy gnome, my DM ruling would probably be "You must be kidding". This only works at all because the target is willing.

But yeah, let's part friends. Go in peace; may your D20 never roll a '1'.

Sounds good, thanks. I've appreciated and enjoyed your comments, both in this thread and in other threads.

[charcoalninja]

that...what? no, you stop it. that makes no sense and you know it.
i said before that i'd allow the imp to be 5 lbs over its carrying capacity, but if somebody used this argument, i'd shoot it down regardless of what i thought before they made it. if you lift something and begin moving, then you are carrying it. the dragging rule is talking about dragging something on the ground, and even then, i'd still say that a helicopter that's dragging something is still carrying it.

Point of contention since everyone loves physics here aparantly, but dragging something along the ground is an order of magnitude harder than dragging something through the air, what with there being no friction and resistance at all. So if the imp can somehow muscle a cart to drag 90 pounds along the ground, why then could it not use that same force to drag said weight in the easier way off the ground?

Ruling of course that the imp can only use its carrying capacity for flight related feats is of course perfectly reasonable, just saying that as far as I know, there isn't any defined limits on what movement you can use to drag something. Horses walk for example and can drag a carriage, why can't a gryphon drag a chariot? (Certainly not saying that they should move the with the same agility as they would if they were carrying something)

[Kornaki]

What is "dragging something through the air" that makes it different than carrying it? I don't even understand what the term is supposed to mean.

[MaxWilson]

Point of contention since everyone loves physics here aparantly, but dragging something along the ground is an order of magnitude harder than dragging something through the air, what with there being no friction and resistance at all. So if the imp can somehow muscle a cart to drag 90 pounds along the ground, why then could it not use that same force to drag said weight in the easier way off the ground?

The only thing I can think of, from experience moving couches and such, is that "bursty" movement can shift things even if you don't have the sustained power to move them. If the imp is dragging something that he can't carry, I imagine that means that sometimes he flaps his wings and gives a heave, and it moves a tiny bit. If you try to fly with that object, the burstiness will ground you instead. Flying requires sustained capacity.

I see your point on friction, but I think friction is treated as negligible by the drag rules. Otherwise you'd drag things more quickly on carts or sleds or ice or at least level ground.

[Sartharina]

Point of contention since everyone loves physics here aparantly, but dragging something along the ground is an order of magnitude harder than dragging something through the air, what with there being no friction and resistance at all. So if the imp can somehow muscle a cart to drag 90 pounds along the ground, why then could it not use that same force to drag said weight in the easier way off the ground?
Because he's dedicating 99.9% of the force that he'd use to push/pull the object along the ground to overcome the force of gravity on the object, and has no remaining energy to move it laterally. He's putting too much effort into "Up" to apply any force to the "Over" needed to move it.

Dragging something along the ground only requires you to apply force in the direction you want to move it in. Dragging something through the air requires you to also apply the force to overcome gravity (Which is normally supplied by the ground). A person has a limit to the amount of force they can apply.

Gravity almost always has greater force than friction. Thanks to Newton's first and second laws of motion, all it takes to push/drag something is the ability to overcome the force of friction. In order to lift something, you have to overcome gravitational force (much harder)

[Galen]

Point of contention since everyone loves physics here aparantly, but dragging something along the ground is an order of magnitude harder than dragging something through the air, what with there being no friction and resistance at all. So if the imp can somehow muscle a cart to drag 90 pounds along the ground, why then could it not use that same force to drag said weight in the easier way off the ground?That is completely false.
In order to drag something along the ground, you need to apply force equal to [Weight x Friction Coefficient], with the friction coefficient being less than one (about 0.5 for typical ground-like surfaces).
In order to move something in the air, you need to apply force equal to its weight just to keep it aloft and prevent it from falling. Then you need to apply additional force to move it laterally.

Dragging on the ground: Force < Weight
"Dragging" in the air: Force > Weight

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think anyone wants the imp to drag a player through the air. Can the imp lift a gnome? The rules say yes, depending on the gnome's weight. Do we have rules for encumbered movement, or movement while carrying a heavy load? Once again, yes we do.

I really can't understand why this thread is still going on, nor why people are trying to bring in physics that don't even apply to D&D (because we have explicit rules). If you don't think the strategy should work, good for you. If you ever run a game, you can disallow it by DM fiat. But saying it "doesn't work" because of "insert rule not in the book here" is a lie.

[rlc]

Why shouldn't the thread keep going? The conversation has evolved into more than just as yes or no question.

[Easy_Lee]

Why shouldn't the thread keep going? The conversation has evolved into more than just as yes or no question.

Because the question's already been answered in the context of 5e. The continued debate has nothing to do with 5e; it's homebrew at best (which has its own forum).

[Sartharina]

... I thought it was Science/Physics.

And Homebrew is not Houserules. Houserules do not go in the Homebrew forum.

[Easy_Lee]

... I thought it was Science/Physics.

And Homebrew is not Houserules. Houserules do not go in the Homebrew forum.

That's a pretty fine difference between homebrew and house rules. And science/physics has little place in a D&D discussion when it flatly disagrees with the rules; it only serves to confuse. Bad science is doubly confusing, and there's a lot of that in this thread, too.

[Sartharina]

That's a pretty fine difference between homebrew and house rules. And science/physics has little place in a D&D discussion when it flatly disagrees with the rules; it only serves to confuse. Bad science is doubly confusing, and there's a lot of that in this thread, too.
A lot of the rules are attempts at imitating the real world and real physics, and are general guidelines meant to handle a variety of broad situations. If something works in the real world, it should work in the game as well along similar expectations. Just because a dragon can breath fire doesn't mean the Guy At The Gym can't do what you'd expect from The Guy at the Gym to be able to do.

Homebrew is designed to be compatible with the game it's built for and use the game's rules, and do not change the underlying system. Houserules are changes to the system the game is played on.

[Easy_Lee]

Homebrew is designed to be compatible with the game it's built for and use the game's rules, and do not change the underlying system. Houserules are changes to the system the game is played on.

Said another way, house rules alter or add to the system while homebrew alters or adds to the content. Like I said, it's a fine distinction. Either way, this is a forum about 5e. House rules which directly contradict source really don't have much place in this forum, IMO.

[Sartharina]

Said another way, house rules alter or add to the system while homebrew alters or adds to the content. Like I said, it's a fine distinction. Either way, this is a forum about 5e. House rules which directly contradict source really don't have much place in this forum, IMO.Yes they do, when it comes to adjudicating situations and offering suggestions when a DM comes for help. If you want Strict RAW, you use the Strict RAW thread.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes they do, when it comes to adjudicating situations and offering suggestions when a DM comes for help. If you want Strict RAW, you use the Strict RAW thread.

Said another way, the RAW thread is the only useful one in the forum according to you, since house rules which explicitly contradict source are inherently useless for any table that doesn't use them. Nay, I suspect most of this forum's users prefer to stick to RAW when there isn't a compelling reason not to.

And for the record, the vast majority of threads in this forum are RAW only. Guide threads, concept threads, question threads, etc, they're all RAW by default except when otherwise stated. Bringing up house rules or physics usually derails the thread, as it has here.

So again, in the context of OP asking if there's anything wrong with what his player did, I have to ask one question. Since we've already answered, why are we still discussing physics rather than actually discussing 5e?

[Shadow]

I love that the person who posted a thread specifically detailing how to homebrew weapons in the general 5e forum is complaining about the fact that the discussion has turned away from RAW and that homebrew discussions belong elsewhere.

[Easy_Lee]

I love that the person who posted a thread specifically detailing how to homebrew weapons in the general 5e forum is complaining about the fact that the discussion has turned away from RAW and that homebrew discussions belong elsewhere.

My thread was labeled, and did not contradict RAW. It was more an attempt at describing RAW with an incidental effect I noticed while writing that it could be used for homebrew quite well. Your point is both invalid and insulting.

[rlc]

Said another way, the RAW thread is the only useful one in the forum according to you, since house rules which explicitly contradict source are inherently useless for any table that doesn't use them. Nay, I suspect most of this forum's users prefer to stick to RAW when there isn't a compelling reason not to.


wow, there's a lot of word twisting going on there. that is not even close to what she said.
and there are plenty of examples of raw vs rai in this forum.
and, oddly enough, by complaining about the conversation about the thread's topic continuing, you have successfully derailed said thread. congratulations.

[Mr.Moron]

Said another way, house rules alter or add to the system while homebrew alters or adds to the content. Like I said, it's a fine distinction. Either way, this is a forum about 5e. House rules which directly contradict source really don't have much place in this forum, IMO.

Your opinion is incorrect.

[Easy_Lee]

Your opinion is incorrect.

Opinions cannot be wrong. This is common knowledge.


wow, there's a lot of word twisting going on there. that is not even close to what she said.
and there are plenty of examples of raw vs rai in this forum.
and, oddly enough, by complaining about the conversation about the thread's topic continuing, you have successfully derailed said thread. congratulations.

The thread's been derailed since physics was brought up. People have been proposing house rules against the player since the first page. That ship sailed a long time ago. And as you can see, trying to get people back on topic can lead to further derailment when they argue with you about what the topic actually is. Nicely done.

With that said, I'm done replying to this thread because the question's been answered. Any further debate will be totally ignored by yours truly.

[rlc]

so yeah. i'd just say that the imp got an adrenaline boost and hand wave the 5 lbs in this case.

[badintel]

the question's been answered

Thanks y'all, I'm satisfied!

[Knaight]

Point of contention since everyone loves physics here aparantly, but dragging something along the ground is an order of magnitude harder than dragging something through the air, what with there being no friction and resistance at all. So if the imp can somehow muscle a cart to drag 90 pounds along the ground, why then could it not use that same force to drag said weight in the easier way off the ground?

This is completely ridiculous. Dragging something along the ground requires you to provide a force vector that counteracts the friction force in the direction perpendicular to gravity, which is reduced by pulling upwards anyways, the exact difficulty depends on angle. Friction forces are generally well below 1 times the weight. Meanwhile, the normal force from the ground, not provided by you, actually holds the weight.

In the air, there is next to no friction or resistance (at least in normal atmospheres), but you no longer have the normal force to help. You have to provide a force sufficient to pull them up, and to go sideways at all you need more of a force, as the upward component alone needs to be sufficient to pull them up and is the total force applied times some number dependent on angle that is always below one.

You can easily test this. Get a wheelbarrow, fill it full of weight, and push it around. Heck, use a sledge of some sort where the friction is worse. By the time it starts getting really difficult, lifting it off the ground probably isn't even an option.

[Shining Wrath]

This is completely ridiculous. Dragging something along the ground requires you to provide a force vector that counteracts the friction force in the direction perpendicular to gravity, which is reduced by pulling upwards anyways, the exact difficulty depends on angle. Friction forces are generally well below 1 times the weight. Meanwhile, the normal force from the ground, not provided by you, actually holds the weight.

In the air, there is next to no friction or resistance (at least in normal atmospheres), but you no longer have the normal force to help. You have to provide a force sufficient to pull them up, and to go sideways at all you need more of a force, as the upward component alone needs to be sufficient to pull them up and is the total force applied times some number dependent on angle that is always below one.

You can easily test this. Get a wheelbarrow, fill it full of weight, and push it around. Heck, use a sledge of some sort where the friction is worse. By the time it starts getting really difficult, lifting it off the ground probably isn't even an option.

In fact, that's the only reason for the sledge to exist - it is easier to move stuff by dragging it than by carrying it.

[Knaight]

In fact, that's the only reason for the sledge to exist - it is easier to move stuff by dragging it than by carrying it.

That would be the impetus behind the technology, yes. For that matter, it's easier to move stuff by dragging it, plus a sledge than by carrying it, though some part of that is on the stuff-containment side and not the reduction-of-applied-forces side.

[Maxilian]

RAW, no. Spells say what they do, and what they say is all that they can do. Real world physics do not apply, and players cannot improvise their effects. For example, you can't target a body of water with Lightning Bolt to electrocute all the enemies who happen to be standing in a lake or whatever.

Having said that, Rule of Cool says let it work. But if the player tries to spam the tactic so that he can be a flying mobile weapons platform, just put him on notice that flying using this improvised tactic is very unwieldy, that you might call for Dex checks to see if he falls, enemies using ranged attacks might get Advantage against him, etc.

I would be ok with those ideas, but also... the DM should adjust the fights to deal with these things, because as someone else said, these's not a risk free plan (even more at low lvls)

[Maxilian]

I really don't like that nearly every proposed house rule in this thread tries to find ways to prevent the player from doing this. Seems to me it's better to just find ways to counter it, such as keeping a mob with ranger levels in the back. Flat-out telling the player "no" usually denotes a lack of creativity.

Incidentally, a halfling beastmaster with a pteranodon companion/mount allows flight at 3 on a medium creature with 12 strength. This is so RAW that the only ways to prevent players from doing it are 1) keep pteranodons out of the game world entirely, or 2) come up with a fiaty and uncreative house rule like many of those above.

I agree, i personally love when people come with these ideas, why? because they are fun, and they are not OP in any way, at low lvl... it will be a problem (i mean, if they fall it will hurt... a lot), and at higther lvls, you will find way too many enemies with range attacks or at least, enemies capables of just throwing a stone at you

[MaxWilson]

I would be ok with those ideas, but also... the DM should adjust the fights to deal with these things, because as someone else said, these's not a risk free plan (even more at low lvls)

1.) You should never build encounters specifically to counter PCs. Build them against a platonic ideal of a party instead.
2.) The platonic ideal includes ranged characters as well as melee, so threats against the platonic party will often threaten the low-level flier as well. Often enough to make it interesting. Other times, he won't be personally at risk but the mission will ("protect the principal from gnolls") which is interesting in a different way.

[Shining Wrath]

1.) You should never build encounters specifically to counter PCs. Build them against a platonic ideal of a party instead.
2.) The platonic ideal includes ranged characters as well as melee, so threats against the platonic party will often threaten the low-level flier as well. Often enough to make it interesting. Other times, he won't be personally at risk but the mission will ("protect the principal from gnolls") which is interesting in a different way.

First, I doubt this is possible - the back of your mind will always know the party's capabilities.
Second, unless the party is carefully designed, there will be an exploitable gap, and unless you are careful to avoid said gap(s), TPK may occur, especially if the dice are unkind in that encounter.

It depends on the table, but sometimes people just want to play a motley crew and there's no arcane caster (two campaigns back) or no divine caster (this campaign, except for a ranger). If our DM wanted to do so he could throw perfectly "normal" encounters at us that would be fatal.

[Knaight]

First, I doubt this is possible - the back of your mind will always know the party's capabilities.
Second, unless the party is carefully designed, there will be an exploitable gap, and unless you are careful to avoid said gap(s), TPK may occur, especially if the dice are unkind in that encounter.


If the exploitable gap comes up, the onus is on the party to run for it.

[Shining Wrath]

If the exploitable gap comes up, the onus is on the party to run for it.

That's pretty cold, especially if one of the party is Small and therefore slow.

[MaxWilson]

First, I doubt this is possible - the back of your mind will always know the party's capabilities.
Second, unless the party is carefully designed, there will be an exploitable gap, and unless you are careful to avoid said gap(s), TPK may occur, especially if the dice are unkind in that encounter.

It depends on the table, but sometimes people just want to play a motley crew and there's no arcane caster (two campaigns back) or no divine caster (this campaign, except for a ranger). If our DM wanted to do so he could throw perfectly "normal" encounters at us that would be fatal.

In all probability, the result of "not tailoring the encounter to the party" is not "the party will die" but rather "the party will overperform." 5E CR level standards are heavily biased in favor of the PCs already, that's all the advantage they need.

Also:


That's pretty cold, especially if one of the party is Small and therefore slow.

The onus is on the Slow guys to have access to Longstrider, Expeditious Retreat, or some way to Hide or otherwise survive. (Edit: this could be as simple as planting some 1 gp caltrops.) Being slow is supposed to be a disadvantage.

Besides, I don't see how having a Small character die just because everyone else ran away constitutes TPK.

[rlc]

i could see some encounters being specifically tailored to the individual pcs, if there's a reason behind it (like the pcs have made some enemies).

[Sartharina]

Small-sized characters are only 5' slower than medium characters. And, since picking things up isn't even an action. you can have a medium-sized guy move to the small creature, pick him up, keep moving, and dash as an action.

Or does that only work if the small character in question is a woman?

[MaxWilson]

i could see some encounters being specifically tailored to the individual pcs, if there's a reason behind it (like the pcs have made some enemies).

Yes, absolutely. I was speaking of regular wilderness/dungeon encounters. If the enemy actually knows the PCs specifically it's totally fair for them to act intelligently.

[Shining Wrath]

Small-sized characters are only 5' slower than medium characters. And, since picking things up isn't even an action. you can have a medium-sized guy move to the small creature, pick him up, keep moving, and dash as an action.

Or does that only work if the small character in question is a woman?

By ancient tradition, one drags women by their long hair

I believe that Roy has carried Belkar about like luggage on several occasions.