Battlemaster/Scout

[nickl_2000]

Silly question, if you are building a grappler build with Fighter(Battlemaster) X/ Rogue (Scout) 3 would you be able to use the Skirmisher ability at level 3 to use your reaction to pull the grappled person 5 feet (half of half your normal movement would round down to 5 feet)?

[Rogerdodger557]

Silly question, if you are building a grappler build with Fighter(Battlemaster) X/ Rogue (Scout) 3 would you be able to use the Skirmisher ability at level 3 to use your reaction to pull the grappled person 5 feet (half of half your normal movement would round down to 5 feet)?

Upon reviewing the rules for grappling, I would say yes, as long as you maintain the grapple.

[DivisibleByZero]

Silly question, if you are building a grappler build with Fighter(Battlemaster) X/ Rogue (Scout) 3 would you be able to use the Skirmisher ability at level 3 to use your reaction to pull the grappled person 5 feet (half of half your normal movement would round down to 5 feet)?

Skirmisher allows you to use your reaction to move away without provoking an OA when an enemy ends his turn next to you.
The idea is that you are moving away, and not taking them with you.

Anyway, what would be the point? You can't initiate the grapple off turn. You still need to do that on your turn, unless you do so with a reaction attack, in which case you can't use your reaction to move.
And you can already move a grappled creature with your normal movement, so why waste your reaction on doing it again?

I don't see anything in the RAW to disallow it. But I'd say the RAI is for this to create space between you, not to take them with you.
So technically, RAW, probably.
RAI, most certainly not.
Either way, I fail to see the point.

[DeTess]

Skirmisher allows you to use your reaction to move away without provoking an OA when an enemy ends his turn next to you.
The idea is that you are moving away, and not taking them with you.

Anyway, what would be the point? You can't initiate the grapple off turn. You still need to do that on your turn, unless you do so with a reaction attack, in which case you can't use your reaction to move.
And you can already move a grappled creature with your normal movement, so why waste your reaction on doing it again?

I don't see anything in the RAW to disallow it. But I'd say the RAI is for this to create space between you, not to take them with you.
So technically, RAW, probably.
RAI, most certainly not.
Either way, I fail to see the point.

I think he means a circumstance in which a 2nd enemy approaches him while he already has someone grappled. I'd say it's probably a reasonable thing to allow.

[nickl_2000]

Skirmisher allows you to use your reaction to move away without provoking an OA when an enemy ends his turn next to you.
The idea is that you are moving away, and not taking them with you.

Anyway, what would be the point? You can't initiate the grapple off turn. You still need to do that on your turn, unless you do so with a reaction attack, in which case you can't use your reaction to move.
And you can already move a grappled creature with your normal movement, so why waste your reaction on doing it again?

I don't see anything in the RAW to disallow it. But I'd say the RAI is for this to create space between you, not to take them with you.
So technically, RAW, probably.
RAI, most certainly not.
Either way, I fail to see the point.

The point is that it would provide you extra dragging movement of the grappled creature. You grapple during your turn and drag them 15ft for normal movement, then 15 feet bonus movement with a dash action. When the enemy that you have grappled ends their turn, you can use your reaction to drag them another 5 ft. There are times when that extra 5ft would make a difference.

Plus there is also pulling away from a second enemy

[nickl_2000]

REMOVED AS IT WAS DELETED

I think that there may be a misunderstanding on my side then. My assumption is that the Skirmisher gave you extra movement (30ft normal + 15ft from Skirmisher), it sounds to me like you are telling me that, even with the Skirmisher ability you still only get 30ft movement.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think that there may be a misunderstanding on my side then. My assumption is that the Skirmisher gave you extra movement (30ft normal + 15ft from Skirmisher), it sounds to me like you are telling me that, even with the Skirmisher ability you still only get 30ft movement.

I deleted that post, because I realized my math was way off and you had already accounted for the half movement.
But I still fail to see the point of doing this, especially when the RAI is obviously to move away, not to bring someone with you.
Even more so because it would take 2 rounds to do this, as you'd already need to have the grapple initiated.

[nickl_2000]

I deleted that post, because I realized my math was way off and you had already accounted for the half movement.
But I still fail to see the point of doing this, especially when the RAI is obviously to move away, not to bring someone with you.

It's a simple case where you get a choice of something with your reaction every round. Plus that extra 5 feet of dragging could be extra damage on an enemy with Spike Growth or get closer to your allies (or a cliff). It's small and probably not useful most of the time, but something to keep in your back pocket when necessary. If you take the mobile feat, you get an extra 10 feet of dragging movement (which could end up being very useful)

[DivisibleByZero]

It's a simple case where you get a choice of something with your reaction every round. Plus that extra 5 feet of dragging could be extra damage on an enemy with Spike Growth or get closer to your allies (or a cliff). It's small and probably not useful most of the time, but something to keep in your back pocket when necessary.

One round to grapple and move 15, reaction to move again, then another round to move and dash 30 more.
That's 2 rounds spent doing nothing but moving.
There are *MUCH* better ways to control the battlefield. Like things you already have, such as Maneuvers.
A normal attack is just as good as Spike Growth damage, and you are taking that damage as well.

I still fail to see the point.

[nickl_2000]

One round to grapple and move 15, reaction to move again, then another round to move and dash 30 more.
That's 2 rounds spent doing nothing but moving.
There are *MUCH* better ways to control the battlefield. Like things you already have, such as Maneuvers.
A normal attack is just as good as Spike Growth damage, and you are taking that damage as well.

I still fail to see the point.

You are a level 3 Rogue at this point (if you are a Scout). So, your Dash action on round 1 and 2 are bonus actions not attack actions. During round 2 you can use your action to attack and use a Maneuver.

[Specter]

Yes, and I'd take Mobile to move even further. With a grappled enemy, you can attack whoever else is next and move away unharmed.

[DivisibleByZero]

You are a level 3 Rogue at this point (if you are a Scout). So, your Dash action on round 1 and 2 are bonus actions not attack actions. During round 2 you can use your action to attack and use a Maneuver.

As a Rogue, you're better of knocking them prone instead of grappling them, and getting advantage to add those sneak attack dice.

[solidork]

I play a Barbarian/Rogue and we ruled at our table that you can pull the person you're grappling as a reaction. I've only had a reason to do it once though.

[nickl_2000]

As a Rogue, you're better of knocking them prone instead of grappling them, and getting advantage to add those sneak attack dice.

Fair enough, you disagree with my style. I see how I would use it at times and possibly enjoy it so wanted to see if it was possible and made sense.

The other option I was considering was be Battlemaster/Mastermind Rogue who could grapple and use their bonus action to help allies. Between disarming attacks, helping allies, and grappling/proning opponents it's a pretty useful control assisting build that probably is a better way to go.

[DivisibleByZero]

Fair enough, you disagree with my style. I see how I would use it at times and possibly enjoy it so wanted to see if it was possible and made sense.

Possible? As I said, according to the RAW, probably.
Make sense? As I said, according to the obvious intent, not at all. The obvious intent is that this ability was designed for you to stay out of melee range. If an enemy closes, you can move away. I cannot see how you would be "hard to pin down" (the description of Skirmisher) while you're dragging someone around with you.
RAW? Maybe.
RAI and/or "make sense"? Absolutely not, clearly.

[Quoz]

Don't forget one very important factor for grapplers: cover. By RAW, and certainly at my table, creatures including enemies can provide cover, which at +2 to AC and Dex saves can be a huge boost. 5 feet of move is enough to reposition your grappled opponent between you and an attacker in many situations. If you are playing at a table that uses some of the optional rules, this could also turn a near miss into an attack against the grappled creature.

[alchahest]

moving out of the way with your hostage/target/grapple victim is not counter to the idea of staying out of reach of other people.

[DivisibleByZero]

moving out of the way with your hostage/target/grapple victim is not counter to the idea of staying out of reach of other people.

But it is indeed counter to the idea of why you even have the ability to do so in the first place.

SKIRMISHER
Starting at 3rd level, you are difficult to pin down during a fight.

Dragging someone else around the battlefield with you, someone who is obviously not going to want to come, is going to make you easy to pin down. The idea is that you are fast and nimble and it's tough to get you anchored. But you are effectively intentionally anchoring yourself to something. Something that will be fighting you every step of the way. That's why your movement is halved.

So while the RAW may make it possible, the RAI absolutely screams that this is not what they intended the ability to be.

[alchahest]

okay. I disagree, but okay.

[Phoenix042]

Possible? As I said, according to the RAW, probably.
Make sense? As I said, according to the obvious intent, not at all. The obvious intent is that this ability was designed for you to stay out of melee range. If an enemy closes, you can move away. I cannot see how you would be "hard to pin down" (the description of Skirmisher) while you're dragging someone around with you.
RAW? Maybe.
RAI and/or "make sense"? Absolutely not, clearly.

Your arguments are silly.

You're basically saying that grappling never makes sense, that moving someone you're grappling 5 extra feet in response to changing circumstances will never be useful, and that he should play his character in the most samey way possible to other rogues; I.E. ignore his team and the area and worry only about how to get sneak attack off every round.

And that your assumptions about the designers intended use of a feature makes it impossible to use it differently. Like saying a player can't use thorn whip on an ally to pull them out of the path of great danger.

Silly arguments that hold no water.

[DivisibleByZero]

okay. I disagree, but okay.

That's fine. You're not wrong.
All I'm saying is that any particular DM might agree. And he wouldn't be wrong either, because that reasoning is valid.

[Phoenix042]

But it is indeed counter to the idea of why you even have the ability to do so in the first place.

SKIRMISHER
Starting at 3rd level, you are difficult to pin down during a fight.

Dragging someone else around the battlefield with you, someone who is obviously not going to want to come, is going to make you easy to pin down. The idea is that you are fast and nimble and it's tough to get you anchored. But you are effectively intentionally anchoring yourself to something. Something that will be fighting you every step of the way. That's why your movement is halved.

So while the RAW may make it possible, the RAI absolutely screams that this is not what they intended the ability to be.

This is even more silly; this is basically saying that because he's a scout, grappling in any form is against the RAI, because they never intended a scout to grapple since that makes them slower and scouts aren't slow.

The skrimisher feature makes him harder to pin down than another person grappling would be, so it's working as intended.

This use of the scout features is definitely RAI when someone else triggers the movement. When you use the grappled creature to trigger the movement, that's also RAI, but when you take them with you, that may be a thought that didn't occur to the designers, or it may be RAI as well.

In any case, it's a clever use of rules interactions and I see no good arguments for disallowing it.

[DivisibleByZero]

And that your assumptions about the designers intended use of a feature makes it impossible to use it differently. Like saying a player can't use thorn whip on an ally to pull them out of the path of great danger.

Silly arguments that hold no water.

Your straw man is what's silly.
I said no such thing.

[Phoenix042]

I'm so sorry; let me disassemble my straw-man and rephrase:

That your assumptions about the designers intended use of a feature makes that feature scream that this is not what was intended when you try to use it differently.

In any case, you're clearly arguing in favor of disallowing this usage at any given table; or at least that doing so is perfectly reasonable on the part of the DM.

My argument is that disallowing this is in fact very unreasonable.

I fail to see your valid reasoning, or maybe I just think one or more of your premises are false. i do not see the connection between the way the scout's abilities are described and any decision to prevent them from working while grappling.


I guess what really frustrates me, though, and motivated me to post, is this: There is this pervasive idea that 5E doesn't allow you to create a particularly wide variety of characters compared to previous editions, simply because the class and feat lists aren't as long. That every scout is the same scout.

This is patently absurd when you look at all of the ways to customize and specialize your character, but people who played previous editions a lot tend to carry over this idea that your class is your character, plus or minus a few personality tweaks and a racial choice.
The solution is to view each class' feature set as a selection of tools you can use to assemble your character, to then be played however you want. Like using the battlemaster fighter's features to create a cultist imbued with eldritch power, or using the fey-warlock features to create a dryad.

I have a player using a rogue-ranger multiclass to build a wild-west themed terminator-style steampunk android gunslinger.

All I'm saying is, I think more people should try playing this way, not fewer.

[DivisibleByZero]

In any case, you're clearly arguing in favor of disallowing this usage at any given table; or at least that doing so is perfectly reasonable on the part of the DM.

My argument is that disallowing this is in fact very unreasonable.

Yes, obviously anyone who could possibly see it from a different point of view is being very unreasonable.