Touch attacks while grappled

[Garshu]

Our party of lvl 8 PC's is currently in the middle of a fight with a lich. I was wondering if my Fighter could possibly grapple her to hold her in place and hold her down to stop her casting. The issue is that she has a paralyzing touch. Would that automatically hit me if I were grappling with her or would I be able to make an argument that I could use my other free hand to raise a shield and not be auto subjected to her touch? Also, for some unknown reason to us, she has her phylactery around her neck, is there a way for me to remove a piece of someones gear against their will? My DM likes everything to be book cited, but the only thing I can find about removing someones gear is disarming them with one of my maneuvers.

[R.Shackleford]

Our party of lvl 8 PC's is currently in the middle of a fight with a lich. I was wondering if my Fighter could possibly grapple her to hold her in place and hold her down to stop her casting. The issue is that she has a paralyzing touch. Would that automatically hit me if I were grappling with her or would I be able to make an argument that I could use my other free hand to raise a shield and not be auto subjected to her touch? Also, for some unknown reason to us, she has her phylactery around her neck, is there a way for me to remove a piece of someones gear against their will? My DM likes everything to be book cited, but the only thing I can find about removing someones gear is disarming them with one of my maneuvers.

This isn't me being lazy but...

Ask your DM.

[Mellack]

Being grappled does not give auto-hit for tough attacks, either for or against you. All it does is keep them from leaving that space. So the lich should still need to make an attack roll. Note that it also does nothing to stop spell casting. Just because you have a hold of their cloak, or even an arm, doesn't mean they still can't use the other hand to do somatic components.

[Grod_The_Giant]

There's a disarm rule in the DMG, I believe. As for the touch attack, there are no longer such things in 5e- it's just a melee spell attack, with no special advantages in a grapple.

[gfishfunk]

Touch attacks would still require an attack roll, so it would not be automatic. Image it like the lich has a hand that is used to cast the spell, and the hand is the thing that needs to touch you. You are grappling it, holding its arm in a weird direction, and it is trying to touch you with that hand specifically.

BY THE BOOK: if your other hand (non-grappling) has a shield, you should still get that defense bonus. Chances are that you will want a weapon in that hand instead.

There is nothing in the book specifically about grabbing an item off another person from around the neck. I'm not terribly sure if disarm works with a worn item.

[Rysto]

RAW, grappling does not prevent casting in 5e. Your DM could rule that you're able to interfere with their somatic components, I suppose. They could definitely still cast spells with only verbal or material components.

In any case, Paralyzing Touch is a melee spell attack, so they need to roll to hit you. Again, you DM could rule that the lich has advantage on the roll.

As to stealing the phylactery, that's up to your DM. I can't think of any specific rule that would cover this. If your DM is insisting that you can only take actions listed in the PHB I believe that your DM is missing the point of 5e. 5e was designed to provide a framework in which they can make rulings on specific actions like this. It's specifically not designed to provide an exhaustive list of everything you could possibly do; the DM is expected to adjudicate such things themselves.

[Aembrosia]

At work, no book, citation pending, i beleive the rule you're looking for is improvised action in the phb. Its basically everything you can think to try that isnt otherwise explicitly written.

[Garshu]

That makes me feel better about the grappling I am about to engage in. As for asking him about removing an item from someones neck, his stance is that held items are one thing, but "you don't want to introduce that into the game" is all I am met with for similar ideas. I wanted to remove a sword fro ma scabbard of a vampire who was grappling on the ground and that was rejected with the idea that if he isn't holding the sword, I cannot get it from him. Usually if it isn't in the book it isn't allowed, which has on several occasions led to a quashing of creative ideas. is there a way to stop verbal components besides the silence spell? Can I as a fighter do anything other than reduce it's movement to 0 and hit it once in a while?

[Mellack]

Most of this is DM ruling territory. Just as a suggestion our group allows taking something off a person as a sight of hand/pickpocket check.

[Garshu]

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.

Chapter 9 pg 193. This should hopefully give me leverage to try and jam a hand in her mouth to stop her from teleporting or casting most of her spells. hopefully.

[Tanarii]

Usually if it isn't in the book it isn't allowed, which has on several occasions led to a quashing of creative ideas.While I'm all about not giving players a huge & unbalanced mechanical advantage outside the rules via improvised actions, since if you do it will be abused again and again, approaching DMing as "if it isn't in the book it isn't allowed" is very much against the 5e design intent.

[R.Shackleford]

While I'm all about not giving players a huge & unbalanced mechanical advantage outside the rules via improvised actions, since if you do it will be abused again and again, approaching DMing as "if it isn't in the book it isn't allowed" is very much against the 5e design intent.

Yes and no.

Ithe ideology of 5e seems to be anything outside the rules and inside the rules is a maybe for PCs until the DM says otherwise.

[Tanarii]

Yes and no.

Ithe ideology of 5e seems to be anything outside the rules and inside the rules is a maybe for PCs until the DM says otherwise.I agree in terms of optional & variant rules. But the entire basis of the Ability Checks system is to allow things that aren't "in the book". It exists for precisely that purpose. I don't mean in terms of the PCs to force DMs to accept checks to allow a mechanical advantage, but rather to give the DM a tool to do mechanical resolution of situations that come up that aren't in the book.

[RSP]

RAW, the Disarm action only works against an item held in hand. And as stated by others, the lich would still need to roll a spell attack to hit you and there are no "touch attacks" per RAW.

I believe your DMs comment of "you don't want to go there" regarding removing the phylactery, is based around the "if PC's can do it, monsters can do it" rule of thumb. By introducing a skill check to remove an item on a person's body, you'd be opening the door to common goblins or any intelligent creature basically shutting down your party's casters by beating them on a skill check to snatch their casting focus, which would be big disadvantage to the PCs.

Just a thought on where the DM may be coming from.

[R.Shackleford]

I agree in terms of optional & variant rules. But the entire basis of the Ability Checks system is to allow things that aren't "in the book". It exists for precisely that purpose. I don't mean in terms of the PCs to force DMs to accept checks to allow a mechanical advantage, but rather to give the DM a tool to do mechanical resolution of situations that come up that aren't in the book.

However those things aren't for the player to decide.

The DM decides whenever you are to roll an ability check or use a skill.

The DM may say that you don't have to roll insight or a Wisdom check, you can tell the creature is lying.

The player doesn't get all that much control over the rules in the game or the rules not in the game. The DM does.

[Garshu]

The player doesn't get all that much control over the rules in the game or the rules not in the game. The DM does.

This is the takeaway I am getting from this. It would just be nice to not have the answer be that we all get shut down constantly. The story telling is great at times, but combat means every enemy is at least as strong as the party, and any attempt at deviating from sword swinging or spell slinging is frowned at. I will ask him once about the possibility of sticking a hand in her mouth.

[Tanarii]

However those things aren't for the player to decide.

The DM decides whenever you are to roll an ability check or use a skill.

The DM may say that you don't have to roll insight or a Wisdom check, you can tell the creature is lying.

The player doesn't get all that much control over the rules in the game or the rules not in the game. The DM does.Yes? So what if it's not player controlled. That doesn't change that the design intent is for the players to attempt to do things (Edit: including things not included in the book), and for the DM to have a way to resolve them when attempted, including DM adjudication without a roll. Not for the DM to say "it's not in the book you can't do that." Obviously design intent includes the DM saying "you'll automatically fail if you try such a silly thing".

[CursedRhubarb]

A slight of hand check may be the optimal choice. On page 177 of the PHB there is:

"Sleight of Hand. Whenever you attempt an act of legerdemain or manual trickery, such as planting something on someone else or concealing an object on your person, make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check to determine whether you can lift a coin purse off another person or slip something out of another person’s pocket."

Or ask if a strength check could be done to not worry about being sneaky and just rip it off so you can toss it to the party and away from the lich.

If allowed the DC may be high but well worth asking. Worst case they say no, or you can try it and might get inspiration for it even if it doesn't work.

[Easy_Lee]

If touch attacks auto-hit in a grapple, we'd see a lot of Vhuman bard 2 / sorcerer X with 14 strength and 20 CHA running around.

[R.Shackleford]

If touch attacks auto-hit in a grapple, we'd see a lot of Vhuman bard 2 / sorcerer X with 14 strength and 20 CHA running around.

I would go Rogue, Cunning Action is fantastically delicious on a sorcerer.

Expertise Athletics is just evil.

[GlenSmash!]

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.

Chapter 9 pg 193. This should hopefully give me leverage to try and jam a hand in her mouth to stop her from teleporting or casting most of her spells. hopefully.

This right here.

If on your turn you say something like "I stick my hand in here mouth to stop her from using spells with verbal components" then all the DM has to do is decide if that approach is successful, fails, or the outcome is uncertain. If the outcome is uncertain your DM may use the Rules to decide if you are successful. A dexterity check to get your hand in the right place? A Con check for when she bites into your hand? Both? Something else?

If I were the DM it would definitely be possible. But difficult to accomplish. I would probably make you make a grapple attempt at disadvantage, but if you succeed you will have the added bonus of "silencing" your opponent. If you had already grappled the opponent I would get rid of the disadvantage. I would also be delighted that one of my players would be thinking outside the box.

*Insert obligatory rulings not rules comment here*

[Malifice]

That makes me feel better about the grappling I am about to engage in. As for asking him about removing an item from someones neck, his stance is that held items are one thing, but "you don't want to introduce that into the game" is all I am met with for similar ideas. I wanted to remove a sword fro ma scabbard of a vampire who was grappling on the ground and that was rejected with the idea that if he isn't holding the sword, I cannot get it from him. Usually if it isn't in the book it isn't allowed, which has on several occasions led to a quashing of creative ideas. is there a way to stop verbal components besides the silence spell? Can I as a fighter do anything other than reduce it's movement to 0 and hit it once in a while?

Your DM rules that you cant snatch someones necklace off them in a grapple?

Put one on him. In real life. Give him 5 seconds to see if he can stop you snatching it off his neck in a wrestle. Remind him that your PC is an 8th level Fighter.

I mean, come on. Its an opposed Str [athletics] check in place of an attack.

[RSP]

By all means, if "real life" is what your looking for at your table, roll with it.

Just keep in mind it starts becoming real easy to defeat casters with an opposed Athletics roll stating "I grapple him by covering his mouth" or "I grab his holy symbol." You could do these things in 6 seconds in real life, however, the balance of the game isn't intended to allow this. But it could be a fun way to play.

[Malifice]

By all means, if "real life" is what your looking for at your table, roll with it.

Just keep in mind it starts becoming real easy to defeat casters with an opposed Athletics roll stating "I grapple him by covering his mouth" or "I grab his holy symbol."

You could do these things in 6 seconds in real life, however, the balance of the game isn't intended to allow this. But it could be a fun way to play.

The balance of the game suits it just fine. Carry a back up focus. An arcane focus and a spell component pouch. Cast spells without components. Dont dump Str. Grab it back. Still spell. And so forth.

One athletics check to grapple, another one to disarm/ strip of a bit of gear and so forth.

There is an easy counter for a nerdy mage - keep your distance from a hulking athlete in a wrestle.

[RSP]

Those would fall under "house rule." Per RAW, grappling, nor athletics checks work that way.

Most people who RP probably do not carry five holy symbols around their neck at any given time, though certainly there are some who would, likewise with an arcane focus.

Again, not criticizing the style of your play, but just pointing out, if PCs can do it, so can monsters/npc's.

Also, keep in mind this also starts stepping on the Battlemasters toes, as they are, RAW, the only ones who can disarm.

[RickAllison]

Those would fall under "house rule." Per RAW, grappling, nor athletics checks work that way.

Most people who RP probably do not carry five holy symbols around their neck at any given time, though certainly there are some who would, likewise with an arcane focus.

Again, not criticizing the style of your play, but just pointing out, if PCs can do it, so can monsters/npc's.

Also, keep in mind this also starts stepping on the Battlemasters toes, as they are, RAW, the only ones who can disarm.

Well, there is a RAW option which still leaves Battlemasters distinguished because they don't have to give up damage to do so (and actually deal more damage). It is in the DMG, but it is no stranger than feats to consider.

[Malifice]

Those would fall under "house rule." Per RAW, grappling, nor athletics checks work that way.

No, it comes under RAW. Opposed checks. Contests.

RAW:


Sometimes one character’s or monster’s efforts are
directly opposed to another’s. This can occur when both
of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can
succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring
that has fallen on the floor. This situation also applies
when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from
accomplishing a goal—for example, when a monster tries
to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed.
In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a
special form of ability check, called a contest.
Both participants in a contest make ability checks
appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate
bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total
to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The
participant with the higher check total wins the contest.
That character or monster either succeeds at the action
or prevents the other one from succeeding

And from the combat section:


Contests in Combat
Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your
foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section
includes the most common contests that require an action in
combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM can use
these contests as models for improvising others.

Two creatures. Check. Contesting ownership of an item (spell focus). Check. We have a rule for that in the RAW.

It goes like this:

DM: Right. Its your turn fighter.
Player: Hmmm... I want to wrestle the enemy Wizards spell focus away.
DM: Cool - Thats an opposed Strength (athletics) check, in place of an attack. Roll.

There is zero reason to say it cant be done. Its clearly a contest by RAW. In a wrestling match with two particpants trying to snatch something away from each other the Biggest Strongest Guy has a marked advantage over the Bookish Nerd Who Dumped Strength. If he also happens to such a bad ass he gets multiple attacks with the Attack action (like a high level Fighter) he can try a couple of times on his turn if he wants.

Note to Wizards: Dont let Conan get close to you.

[RickAllison]

No, it comes under RAW. Opposed checks. Contests.

RAW:



And from the combat section:



Two creatures. Check. Contesting ownership of an item (spell focus). Check. We have a rule for that in the RAW.

It goes like this:

DM: Right. Its your turn fighter.
Player: Hmmm... I want to wrestle the enemy Wizards spell focus away.
DM: Cool - Thats an opposed Strength (athletics) check, in place of an attack. Roll.

There is zero reason to say it cant be done. Its clearly a contest by RAW. In a wrestling match with two particpants trying to snatch something away from each other the Biggest Strongest Guy has a marked advantage over the Bookish Nerd Who Dumped Strength. If he also happens to such a bad ass he gets multiple attacks with the Attack action (like a high level Fighter) he can try a couple of times on his turn if he wants.

Note to Wizards: Dont let Conan get close to you.

My wizard doesn't care, he could likely out-wrestle Conan!

[R.Shackleford]

No, it comes under RAW. Opposed checks. Contests.

RAW:



And from the combat section:



Two creatures. Check. Contesting ownership of an item (spell focus). Check. We have a rule for that in the RAW.

It goes like this:

DM: Right. Its your turn fighter.
Player: Hmmm... I want to wrestle the enemy Wizards spell focus away.
DM: Cool - Thats an opposed Strength (athletics) check, in place of an attack. Roll.

There is zero reason to say it cant be done. Its clearly a contest by RAW. In a wrestling match with two particpants trying to snatch something away from each other the Biggest Strongest Guy has a marked advantage over the Bookish Nerd Who Dumped Strength. If he also happens to such a bad ass he gets multiple attacks with the Attack action (like a high level Fighter) he can try a couple of times on his turn if he wants.

Note to Wizards: Dont let Conan get close to you.

Seems like every roll should just be a skill contest.

Shocking Grasp: Int/Cha (Sleight of Hand) versus Athletics or Acrobatics.

[Joe the Rat]

Dex (Slight of Hand) - possibly opposed with Slight of Hand would be my ruling. For Screw Subtlety, Strength (Slight of Hand) is where I would go. Preventing spellcasting on a grappled opponent I'd do as additional Str(Athletics) checks - Though I may require that as a prepared action - using your action and reaction to prevent its action.

As for "You don't want to add that to the game" ... yes, you do want to add that to the game, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Anything you can do becomes fair game to NPCs to do. Sounds more like your DM doesn't want to add it.

[BiPolar]

Dex (Slight of Hand) - possibly opposed with Slight of Hand would be my ruling. For Screw Subtlety, Strength (Slight of Hand) is where I would go. Preventing spellcasting on a grappled opponent I'd do as additional Str(Athletics) checks - Though I may require that as a prepared action - using your action and reaction to prevent its action.

As for "You don't want to add that to the game" ... yes, you do want to add that to the game, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Anything you can do becomes fair game to NPCs to do. Sounds more like your DM doesn't want to add it.

I like the idea of this as well. But as Joe the Rat said, if you do this to an NPC, expect it to be done to you as well.

Open that door and the portal goes both ways.

But from a RP standpoint, the idea of trying to silence a NPC caster physically while grappling it is pretty sweet. Just have to remember that one arm is grappling and the other arm is doing the other action. That may limit other activities you want to do. However, the trade-off could be big.

[RickAllison]

I like the idea of this as well. But as Joe the Rat said, if you do this to an NPC, expect it to be done to you as well.

Open that door and the portal goes both ways.

But from a RP standpoint, the idea of trying to silence a NPC caster physically while grappling it is pretty sweet. Just have to remember that one arm is grappling and the other arm is doing the other action. That may limit other activities you want to do. However, the trade-off could be big.

But on the other hand, implementing that makes for far more dynamic and fun combat than "I swing my sword, again".

I would say the defender be allowed to defend with Athletics or Acrobatics. He doesn't need to be stronger if he can stay out of reach...

[BiPolar]

But on the other hand, implementing that makes for far more dynamic and fun combat than "I swing my sword, again".

I would say the defender be allowed to defend with Athletics or Acrobatics. He doesn't need to be stronger if he can stay out of reach...

Absolutely! Love it, but the PCs might not enjoy it if an NPC takes their focus away :) But this is a nifty mechanic to add to combat.

[Joe the Rat]

It makes looking at their spells a little more interesting. And should teach them not to get so close to the front lines :smallbiggrin:.

Started a Warlock in OotA. He had more limited options without his big tiger eye, but I did determine that I could AoA up in the kitchen.

[Garshu]

I am very well aware that the door would go both ways. I have decided to put forward an idea that "While grappling a target, you can use the "improvised action" action stated on pg. 193 of the players handbook to make another grapple check to insert part of itself into an opposing creatures orifice. This check can either be a dexterity or strength check (DM's discretion)." and yes, it HAS to say "insert part of itself into an opposing creatures orifice."

Any thoughts on wording that better?

[Easy_Lee]

Seems like every roll should just be a skill contest.

Could make for a cool system, honestly. Take out level, stats, and scaling hit points, and replace with lots of skills. Not every PC needs to be skilled in combat. Could be fun.

[BiPolar]

I am very well aware that the door would go both ways. I have decided to put forward an idea that "While grappling a target, you can use the "improvised action" action stated on pg. 193 of the players handbook to make another grapple check to insert part of itself into an opposing creatures orifice. This check can either be a dexterity or strength check (DM's discretion)." and yes, it HAS to say "insert part of itself into an opposing creatures orifice."

Any thoughts on wording that better?

I'd probably continue with the grapple language. This is an continuation of a grapple, but instead of holding movement, you are holding his mouth shut (or snatching an item.) Strength to initiate, Dex or Strength to fight it. I'd shy away from changing the mechanics of grapple. It should make for an easier "sell" to your DM and falls within an existing rule he/she understands but asking for a different result.

But I would add that by "grappling" twice, you no longer have arms available for anything else. So no spellcasting that requires somatic components, no attacks (unless you're a monk or want to do an improvised headbutt for 1+STR modifier), etc.

[RickAllison]

I'd probably continue with the grapple language. This is an continuation of a grapple, but instead of holding movement, you are holding his mouth shut (or snatching an item.) Strength to initiate, Dex or Strength to fight it. I'd shy away from changing the mechanics of grapple. It should make for an easier "sell" to your DM and falls within an existing rule he/she understands but asking for a different result.

But I would add that by "grappling" twice, you no longer have arms available for anything else. So no spellcasting that requires somatic components, no attacks (unless you're a monk or want to do an improvised headbutt for 1+STR modifier), etc.

Makes perfect sense, you are using one hand to control movement and the other to exert a hold that has little leverage but affects the enemy.

[BiPolar]

Makes perfect sense, you are using one hand to control movement and the other to exert a hold that has little leverage but affects the enemy.

Yes, just like with grappling, you are trading delivering a condition for an action. I may try this in an upcoming session :)

[RickAllison]

Yes, just like with grappling, you are trading delivering a condition for an action. I may try this in an upcoming session :)

Kinda reminds me of a comic, RollMonkeys I think?

"I put Quall's Tree Token in my hand."
"I make a grapple check insert my hand into his rear orifice."
"Nope, you are not going there. You are banished to the corner of shame."

[BiPolar]

Kinda reminds me of a comic, RollMonkeys I think?

"I put Quall's Tree Token in my hand."
"I make a grapple check insert my hand into his rear orifice."
"Nope, you are not going there. You are banished to the corner of shame."

Let's just (not) say this has also been done with an immovable rod...

[Grod_The_Giant]

Could make for a cool system, honestly. Take out level, stats, and scaling hit points, and replace with lots of skills. Not every PC needs to be skilled in combat. Could be fun.
Basically Fudge d20?

[RSP]

Only restating this because the OP wanted by the book answers:

Using Athletics to take another character's items is not supported by RAW. A previous post cited contested actions as the grounds for this being RAW, which is incorrect.

The example given for contested actions, which was fully cited in the post, is as follows:

"such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring
that has fallen on the floor."

Note the example of two characters using opposed Athletics checks to fight over an object is for when neither currently controls said object (it specifically states the ring is on the floor).

The only ways I'm aware of to get someone to release an object under their control, is using either the BM Disarm manuever or the Fear spell, however, either one still can only effect items currently held in a hand. You could also try for Sleight of Hand, though the PHB specifically states this is used for actions of "legerdemain or manual trickery." Using force to obviously tear something out of someone's grasp or off their person wouldn't qualify as legerdemain or trickery but your DM could certainly rule otherwise.

Also note how the PHB differentiates between controlled items and uncontrolled items at various points, particularly with spell effects, and especially with fire effects, such as Fire Storm:

"The fire damages objects in the area and ignites flammable objects that aren’t being worn or carried."

Even 7th level spells only effect items that aren't worn or carried.

Also, citing DMG alternate rules isn't RAW, either, though it is certainly a good idea to bring these up to a DM if you're interested in using any of them.

Again, not saying don't use these actions/rules if they work for your table, I just wanted to clarify that they are not RAW for the OP.

[Tanarii]

Only restating this because the OP wanted by the book answers:

Using Athletics to take another character's items is not supported by RAW. A previous post cited contested actions as the grounds for this being RAW, which is incorrect.Its not incorrect. The content rules are there for the DM to apply to anything she deems to be a contested action that needs mechanical resolution.


The example given for contested actions, which was fully cited in the post, is as follows:

"such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring
that has fallen on the floor."

Note the example of two characters using opposed Athletics checks to fight over an object is for when neither currently controls said object (it specifically states the ring is on the floor).Agreed that the ring example isn't one of taking something off of someone else's possession.

But that doesn't mean that a DM can't use the resolution mechanic for that, if she so desires. That's exactly the kind of thing it's there for. It's clearly a method of resolution that can be applied, straight from RAW.

[BiPolar]

Its not incorrect. The content rules are there for the DM to apply to anything she deems to be a contested action that needs mechanical resolution.

Agreed that the ring example isn't one of taking something off of someone else's possession.

But that doesn't mean that a DM can't use the resolution mechanic for that, if she so desires. That's exactly the kind of thing it's there for. It's clearly a method of resolution that can be applied, straight from RAW.

Agreed, although RSP29a's point is that removing/affecting worn items can not be done without the battlemaster maneuver or a 8+ level spell. To me, that suggests that the intent of the developers was not to make interacting with worn items as simple/easy as other actions. They have gone out of their way to do this.

That doesnt mean you CAN'T. What it means is that if the DM were to allow it, then they should make adjustments to the rolls. Maybe give the lich advantage on the roll? Or an additional bonus? Something that reflects the intended difficulty of removing worn items that seems to be inherent in the system.

Good catch!

[Tanarii]

Agreed, although RSP29a's point is that removing/affecting worn items can not be done without the battlemaster maneuver or a 8+ level spell.His claim was that it wasn't RAW.


To me, that suggests that the intent of the developers was not to make interacting with worn items as simple/easy as other actions. They have gone out of their way to do this.

That doesnt mean you CAN'T. What it means is that if the DM were to allow it, then they should make adjustments to the rolls. Maybe give the lich advantage on the roll? Or an additional bonus? Something that reflects the intended difficulty of removing worn items that seems to be inherent in the system.Sure, but that's a DM judgement call, based on his view on balancing the ability. But saying "it's not RAW" when it clearly is a RAW mechanic for exactly such situations, if the DM decides it applies to the situation, isn't correct.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the Player should be able to point to Opposed Contests and claim the DM must allow it. I'm saying there is a RAW mechanic that is there for use in resolving the situation, should the DM decide to apply it.

[BiPolar]

His claim was that it wasn't RAW.

Sure, but that's a DM judgement call, based on his view on balancing the ability. But saying "it's not RAW" when it clearly is a RAW mechanic for exactly such situations, if the DM decides it applies to the situation, isn't correct.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming the Player should be able to point to Opposed Contests and claim the DM must allow it. I'm saying there is a RAW mechanic that is there for use in resolving the situation, should the DM decide to apply it.

There is a raw mechanic for contests, but asking for that simple mechanic to be used in a way that not even mid level (or high level) spells can do may be a bit much.

There's a mechanic for critting, doesn't mean we can abuse that mechanic to allow crits on modified rolls.

[Tanarii]

There is a raw mechanic for contests, but asking for that simple mechanic to be used in a way that not even mid level (or high level) spells can do may be a bit much.

There's a mechanic for critting, doesn't mean we can abuse that mechanic to allow crits on modified rolls.The mechanics for crit are specific in how they work. The DM would have to house-rule them to allow it to work on modified rolls.

The mechanics for Opposed Contents are (IMO Intentionally) non-specific as to when they apply. The DM must decide in her judgement how to apply them. Allowing it to apply is perfectly RAW, if in her judgement it's balanced. Disallowing it is also RAW, if it's judged not to be.

Or something in between. Maybe allow it, but with automatic disadvantage to the 'attacker', and advantage for the 'defender'? etc etc

[BiPolar]

The mechanics for crit are specific in how they work. The DM would have to house-rule them to allow it to work on modified rolls.

The mechanics for Opposed Contents are (IMO Intentionally) non-specific as to when they apply. The DM must decide in her judgement how to apply them. Allowing it to apply is perfectly RAW, if in her judgement it's balanced. Disallowing it is also RAW, if it's judged not to be.

Or something in between. Maybe allow it, but with automatic disadvantage to the 'attacker', and advantage for the 'defender'? etc etc

Yeah, I was thinking my example was a bit heavy handed when I used it :) But I think we're in agreement that the mechanic to do it does need to reflect that this should be VERY difficult.

[RickAllison]

The mechanics for crit are specific in how they work. The DM would have to house-rule them to allow it to work on modified rolls.

The mechanics for Opposed Contents are (IMO Intentionally) non-specific as to when they apply. The DM must decide in her judgement how to apply them. Allowing it to apply is perfectly RAW, if in her judgement it's balanced. Disallowing it is also RAW, if it's judged not to be.

Or something in between. Maybe allow it, but with automatic disadvantage to the 'attacker', and advantage for the 'defender'? etc etc

See I would do it as attacker has automatic disadvantage, but the target's roll is decided by the size of the attacker in relation just like Disarm. So a Lich stands a good chance of being manipulated, a halfling would get bullied around, while a golem would be ridiculously hard to disarm.

[Vogonjeltz]

However those things aren't for the player to decide.

The DM decides whenever you are to roll an ability check or use a skill.

The DM may say that you don't have to roll insight or a Wisdom check, you can tell the creature is lying.

The player doesn't get all that much control over the rules in the game or the rules not in the game. The DM does.

The DM decides how something being tried works, but it is the player who determines what actions the characters attempt.

So if the player wants to snatch a locket off someone's neck, it's up to the DM to adjudicate how they go about it. Maybe that means they have to grapple the enemy first, then make some opposed Athletics checks (possibly plural) to wrest it off them. Maybe it takes several because it's well secured and they have to get it up past the liches head first or whatever.

The cost to the player is the time invested and opportunity cost in that they could have been making attacks, plus failure resulting in no benefit gained.

If the player is still willing to take that risk, by all means, let them roll the dice on it.


If I were the DM it would definitely be possible. But difficult to accomplish. I would probably make you make a grapple attempt at disadvantage, but if you succeed you will have the added bonus of "silencing" your opponent. If you had already grappled the opponent I would get rid of the disadvantage. I would also be delighted that one of my players would be thinking outside the box.

Plus possible biting! Ow!


My wizard doesn't care, he could likely out-wrestle Conan!

:) Historically this would be ill-advised.


I like the idea of this as well. But as Joe the Rat said, if you do this to an NPC, expect it to be done to you as well.

Open that door and the portal goes both ways.

But from a RP standpoint, the idea of trying to silence a NPC caster physically while grappling it is pretty sweet. Just have to remember that one arm is grappling and the other arm is doing the other action. That may limit other activities you want to do. However, the trade-off could be big.

There's no door, it's a big super highway that the PHB itself constructed and left a bow on with giant billboards saying: "USE ME ALREADY!!!"

As far as risk goes, this is why spells like Thunderwave exist, so a caster can knock enemies who are better than them at grappling away. A wise caster does their best to keep distance.

[Malifice]

Seems like every roll should just be a skill contest.

Shocking Grasp: Int/Cha (Sleight of Hand) versus Athletics or Acrobatics.

It kind of is. Your AC is basically a passive profficiency DC of 10+Dex (or maybe a different calculation depending on armor and so on).


Dex (Slight of Hand) - possibly opposed with Slight of Hand would be my ruling. For Screw Subtlety, Strength (Slight of Hand) is where I would go.

Id use Dex (sleight of hand) in a situation where youre trying the old trick of snatching something off the table before the other side can react.

In a contest involving wrenching something away from someone else in a grapple, for mine its Str (Athletics). I'd certainly have my money on the bigger guy in that fight over the quicker and more nimble.


Only restating this because the OP wanted by the book answers:

Using Athletics to take another character's items is not supported by RAW. A previous post cited contested actions as the grounds for this being RAW, which is incorrect.

The example given for contested actions, which was fully cited in the post, is as follows:

"such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring
that has fallen on the floor."

Note the example of two characters using opposed Athletics checks to fight over an object is for when neither currently controls said object (it specifically states the ring is on the floor).

And the next example was one hero holds a door shut, while another attempts to force it open.

Its a contest like any other.

The rules support it via RAW. If you as a DM dont want to allow it, thats your call but dont argue that they dont, becuase they clearly do.


The only ways I'm aware of to get someone to release an object under their control, is using either the BM Disarm manuever or the Fear spell, however, either one still can only effect items currently held in a hand.

Cool. Thats your ruling. I'd promplty leave your game after such a ruling, but again it's your call.


Again, not saying don't use these actions/rules if they work for your table, I just wanted to clarify that they are not RAW for the OP.

They are RAW. Its a contest. Like an arm wrestle, or a shoving match, or a tug of war or any other constest. You saying they're not covered by the rules despite me showing you the rules for contests is silly.

[Malifice]

The DM decides how something being tried works, but it is the player who determines what actions the characters attempt.

So if the player wants to snatch a locket off someone's neck, it's up to the DM to adjudicate how they go about it.

Exactly.

Player: Hey DM, I want to try to do (X).
(DM pauses to think about it. Is the task possible? How difficult is it? Is it a contest? Are there any circumstances that might impose advantage or disadvantage?)
DM: Ok mate, it'll be a (Y) check against a difficulty or opposed check of (Z).

In this case it's clearly a contest. Player A wants X. Creature B doesnt want to relinquish X.

It could be opposed Dex (sleight of hands) vs Wis (perception) check if trying to lift the item stealthily without the other creature knowing (with disadvantage if the item is securely fastened such as a worn ring or inside a done up container). I'd possibly grant advantage if the thief was invisible. It could be opposed Str (Athletics) checks for a forceful wrenching out of that creatures hands (the defender may get advantage if the item is held with two hands, or the item is securely held).

And DM that made a ridiculous call that it's impossible to grab something off someone despite the rules clearly providing a mechanism for it, and despite it making total sense, isnt a DM I want to play with.