Using a grappled (or dead) creature as either weapon or shield

[Arkhios]

A player in my group brought up a question I have pondered from time to time as well, but now that I'm the DM and the player wishes to make a character that utilises the tactic, I have to make a ruling for it. I don't want it to be overpowered nor unbalanced in any other way either. But I am that kind of DM that tends to reward creativeness, so please let's not discuss whether I should allow it or not. I can and I will, but not without careful thinking.

So, the question is about using a grappled (or dead) creature as a weapon and a makeshift shield.

I'm of the opinion that it can be done, but there ought to be restrictions to it.

My take, for now, is that you can use a creature that is up to one size category smaller than you as a two-handed weapon, and a creature that is up to two size categories smaller as a one-handed weapon.

As of using a creature as a makeshift shield I'm thinking that you must use both hands to hold the creature regardless of its size, but the creature must be of a size that you could use as a weapon.

Another question arises whether or not the grappled (or held) creature should take damage from either. I think yes, but I'm not sure if it should be equal or half the damage dealt (as a weapon). Likewise I'm not sure if the creature used as a shield should take full damage or something else.

Also, I think there should be a grapple check involved when using a living creature as either weapon or shield, and when using it as a shield, also require your reaction spent for the check.

It's possible I forgot something important, so please let me know.

Most importantly, I'm asking your opinions on this house rule.

[Slipperychicken]

A body, living or otherwise, counts as half cover (+2 AC and dex saves). If about three-quarters of the target is covered by the body, then it should be three-quarters cover (+5 AC and dex saves).

For the shield-creature taking damage: If the attack roll was higher than 10, it would be enough to hit a stationary human-sized target. So basically, if the attack roll was 10 or greater, but lower than the target's AC, then it should hit the shield-creature. To take armor into account, it might make sense to use the creature's AC without dexterity instead of 10.

If you're going for amusing whimsical fun, I'd go with your ruling on using creatures as weapons. If we were going for boring grumpy realism, then two handed weapons typically weigh bettween 6 and 10 pounds, so I'd say the weapon-creature would have to be two size categories smaller. Given the choice between the two, I'd prefer the whimsical fun ruling.

[Arkhios]

A body, living or otherwise, counts as half cover (+2 AC and dex saves). If about three-quarters of the target is covered by the body, then it should be three-quarters cover (+5 AC and dex saves).

For the shield-creature taking damage: If the attack roll was higher than 10, it would be enough to hit a stationary human-sized target. So basically, if the attack roll was 10 or greater, but lower than the target's AC, then it should hit the shield-creature. To take armor into account, it might make sense to use the creature's AC without dexterity instead of 10.

If you're going for amusing whimsical fun, I'd go with your ruling on using creatures as weapons. If we were going for boring grumpy realism, then two handed weapons typically weigh bettween 6 and 10 pounds, so I'd say the weapon-creature would have to be two size categories smaller. Given the choice between the two, I'd prefer the whimsical fun ruling.

Hmm. I'm still somewhat new to DMing, and forgot the rule for cover. However, I think it's reasonable to demand a grapple check to force an enemy to become cover against an attack from its allies or otherwise.

Also, I'm not too interested in pestering players to keep track on their carrying capacity as long as they keep the amount of their gear at reasonable levels. In this vein, I'm more inclined for the whimsical fun ruling :)

[No brains]

Also don't forget that a space with another creature in it is always difficult terrain. The extra movement could be a good way to illustrate the weight and floppiness of a meat-shield.

[Diebo]

The PHB has guidance for improved weapons on page 147. It specifically gives the example of a dead goblin as a weapon. Below that it says if the item is close to a weapon and the character is proficient, just treat it like that and give it your proficiency bonus.

I'd say a 40+ lb creature isn't close to any normal weapon, so if you used it, you wouldn't gain your proficiency bonus to hit. But the Tavern Brawler feat allows characters to use an improvised weapon and add you proficiency. Any player that wants to do this often should pick it up.

In terms of damage, it would probably be similar to a great club (1d8; two handed for a medium creature) or a simple club (1d4; one handed for a small creature). Maybe 1d6 for a wielding a small creature two-handed? I'd think you would want to avoid giving it more damage than a real martial weapon.

Question: If you pick up a monk and use it as a weapon, would its ki-powered strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage?

[Zanthy1]

My take on using a corpse: Apply the cover rules for a shield, the body being hit on any miss about 10 (or whatever armor the corpse may have on). In terms of a weapon, I would say that it would have to be a creature smaller than you for anything, and personally I would always make it need both hands (although I guess a tiny creature could be 1 handed).

For a living creature, any damage dealt to the target via the bludgeoning I would apply to the new weapon. However, if the weapon/person has something like, spiked armor, then obviously the spikes don't deal damage to it, only the target. I would always allow a grapple check to avoid being used as a weapon, though the players might be a little off put by that, it is for the simple reason that they would want to make a check if the enemy was going to use Them as a weapon, which you should totally do.

[Arkhios]

The PHB has guidance for improved weapons on page 147. It specifically gives the example of a dead goblin as a weapon. Below that it says if the item is close to a weapon and the character is proficient, just treat it like that and give it your proficiency bonus.

I'd say a 40+ lb creature isn't close to any normal weapon, so if you used it, you wouldn't gain your proficiency bonus to hit. But the Tavern Brawler feat allows characters to use an improvised weapon and add you proficiency. Any player that wants to do this often should pick it up.
Yes, I'm aware of both. I may be relatively new as a DM, but not as a player.


In terms of damage, it would probably be similar to a great club (1d8; two handed for a medium creature) or a simple club (1d4; one handed for a small creature). Maybe 1d6 for a wielding a small creature two-handed? I'd think you would want to avoid giving it more damage than a real martial weapon.
Something like that, maybe. Although, living creatures are somewhat brittle so I might just use the 1d4 in all cases for the sake of simplicity.


Question: If you pick up a monk and use it as a weapon, would its ki-powered strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage?
I hope you're joking. Monk's ki-powered strikes isn't some kind of force field surrounding the monk at all times. Ki, Qi, Chi, or however you spell it - the life force itself, if you will - is a power that comes from within. Someone else using a monk as a weapon definitely would not benefit from the monk's ki.

[PeteNutButter]

If you have a specific player that is set on doing this regularly perhaps design a feat or even subclass that supports it.

I’d argue that a living creature would make a poor weapon as it is actively trying to minimized its own impact against anything, including other foes. If you swung my half long by the feet at someone, he’d do his best to curl up and miss the foe or try and push rather than crush. In game terms swinging a living creature should probably be with disadvantage.

In practice swinging something like a sack of potatoes is a really poor weapon, with its most practical use to shove. If you care about the physics of it a large blunt object lacks pressure, so spreads the damage around making things less likely to be crushed and more likely to be pushed.

If you did home brew a feat or class, perhaps have it negate the inherit disadvantage of swinging a live foe and apply a (str save) pushing effect in addition to your 1d4 damage. Physics again—if you care—demands full damage to both targets.

[prototype00]

Considering that the grappled creature always occupies its own square (which you can obviously change when moving them around) there is a certain question of Orientation before you can successfully get cover.

I mean if you schlep the Wizard between the bowmen and yourself, then you are set, but it isn’t going to do much against his flesh golem who can just step around to the side to slug you in the face.

Better against ranged than Melee, much like real life, I suppose.

[Slipperychicken]

Hmm. I'm still somewhat new to DMing, and forgot the rule for cover. However, I think it's reasonable to demand a grapple check to force an enemy to become cover against an attack from its allies or otherwise.

Interestingly enough, both enemies and allies' squares count as half cover whether they want to or not. The idea is to make it hard to shoot "through" people to nail others. That applies to melee too, though it rarely comes up.

I have less of a clear idea regarding grappling however. The "Moving a Grappled Creature" indicates that one can reposition a grappled creature by moving. My first take is that one can just drag the creature to any square within reach while the grapple is maintained (providing half cover from attacks that might pass through the square). I'd also houserule that a grappler could drag the creature into his own square and use it for three-quarter's cover; the typical image of a hostage (i.e. weapon to hostage's throat, one arm holding them in contact the hostage-taker's body) would strongly suggest three-quarter's cover for attacks coming from the front.

[prototype00]

Interestingly enough, both enemies and allies' squares count as half cover whether they want to or not. The idea is to make it hard to shoot "through" people to nail others. That applies to melee too, though it rarely comes up.

I have less of a clear idea regarding grappling however. The "Moving a Grappled Creature" indicates that one can reposition a grappled creature by moving. My first take is that one can just drag the creature to any square within reach while the grapple is maintained (providing half cover from attacks that might pass through the square). I'd also houserule that a grappler could drag the creature into his own square and use it for three-quarter's cover; the typical image of a hostage (i.e. weapon to hostage's throat, one arm holding them in contact the hostage-taker's body) would strongly suggest three-quarter's cover for attacks coming from the front.

What’s the downside to doing the latter? It seems like a purely beneficial situation compared to the RAW rules?

Speaking of RAW, what action is it to reposition a foe? I’m assuming it happens at the same time as you are moving them around with your Move action, so you need to take a move action to reposition (if you just reposition on the spot do you take an attack of opportunity?), but is this correct?

[Slipperychicken]

What’s the downside to doing the latter? It seems like a purely beneficial situation compared to the RAW rules?

Speaking of RAW, what action is it to reposition a foe? I’m assuming it happens at the same time as you are moving them around with your Move action, so you need to take a move action to reposition (if you just reposition on the spot do you take an attack of opportunity?), but is this correct?

It's kind of a half-baked idea right now. My first thought is to have it count as an attack, and/or cut movement speed even further, perhaps down to 1/3rd or 1/4th.

There is no move action in 5e, just movement, and the grapple rules are unclear as to exactly how the grappled creature moves with the grappler. If you limit yourself to RAW, the closest thing to repositioning would be "shove aside", but I think it's superfluous and unfair to make someone do two different strength(athletics) checks for one action.