Spike growth and grapples

[ChosenRonin]

So in our last session myself (ranger) and our druid came up with a plan. I had just leveled up, meaning I finally unlocked those sweet second level spells. We hashed it out and i decided to take spike growth. Decent spell in itself, but it gets better. I had pulled the "keep" card from the deck of many things, so we were clearing said keep to make it our HQ. I climbed to the top of the keep using spider climb, since the druid cast it on me. Here I began scouting the land. A group of orcs was approaching us from the nearby woods, they were living in this keep. I took cover, staying out of sight until my party made up their kind on what to do. We were going to fight. Since I had the highest single damage output I was first to attack. Took one down pretty quick. They stayed relatively bunched up, so I threw a spike growth in the mix, here's where it got fun. Our druid turned into an Ape, I'm guessing you've figured it out by now. He grappled the chief, pushed his face into the spikes and drug him along the edge. For those of you who dont know, spike growth does 2d4 damage for every 5 feet you move in it. So this poor orc was drug about 30 feet in 2 turns. He died.

Here's the question: my DM tried to rule that the creature being grappled got a save every 5 feet of movement. My druid buddy got into a debate with him for about 20 mins, killing the mood. I dont agree that he should have argued, however I also dont feel that the enemy should get a save on every 5 feet, since the PHB says something along the lines of "they can use an action on THEIR turn to attempt to break the grapple"
So what would you do as a DM here?

[Kadesh]

There is nothing within the rules as they are written that allows a non-specific creature to continue to make a save after every 5ft of movement.

Your DM is free to rule as such however, and the other player is, as you say, incorrect to argue with the DM at the table.

[Lord Vukodlak]

I think the DM took issue with taking spiked growth a little beyond the power it was intended. Usually when a creature is forced to move it doesn't suffer the negative effects of moving AoO and often spell effects that trigger on movement.

Here's how I'd handle it.
The spikes from spiked growth are pretty wicked, its enough to cause difficult terrain plenty of opportunity to be snagged on something. Imagine trying to hold onto someone while you drag them through a thorn bush. I don't think its unreasonable it'd be more difficult to hold onto them. So the Druid's speed would halved first for moving a grappled creature.

Moving a Grappled Creature: When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you..*In reference for any other posters*

And again for moving a creature through difficult terrain, so the Druid would have only dragged him 15ft in two turns and both would have taken damage. He'd take full the druid would take half. If he's holding him secure enough to drag him through the spiked growth he's going to get close enough to cut himself on the same spikes.

What I would do is let him simply slam him into the spiked growth repeatedly adding the 2d4 to his fist attacks once each round.

[sophontteks]

You move a creature with you using your movement, but "pushing" is a part of the attack action.

[hymer]

So what would you do as a DM here?
There is some developer indication that when a spell text says that someone has to 'move into' a spell effect, it's meant to mean 'move under their own power'. So it seems RAI is that you can't deal damage by dragging people through Spike Growth. But you can put them into the AoE, and if they try to move out, then they will be taking the damage.

Personally, I rule the grapple-pull to mean that whoever you are pulling moves into the space you are vacating. You are, in essence, pulling them after you, rather than alongside you.

In the specific case, I would have let the players have their fun with these inconsequential orcs. Then after the fight or the session, I would have told them that this is a one-time event, and to plan accordingly. If that means the ranger wants a different spell, that's okay with me.

Edit: Partially shadowmonk'ed.

[Arnie82]

There is nothing within the rules as they are written that allows a non-specific creature to continue to make a save after every 5ft of movement.

Your DM is free to rule as such however, and the other player is, as you say, incorrect to argue with the DM at the table.

If the rules are clear, and they are in this case, then it's not a ruling. It now becomes a home brew rule that should not be changed mid session. There is a fine line to walk with rulings and out right homebrew. This is a poor DM choice, and if I did this I would expect my players to question it as well.

To be honest, my first impression is that the DM is not very experienced. Between reading this forum as well as other places, this is a very common plan for the spell.

[sophontteks]

Its an inexperienced DM, but that player can't drag the chief around the spiked growth without getting hurt by the spikes himself. Pushing the chiefs face along the spikes is an attack action.

[Lunali]

I wouldn't have him save each time, I would make it automatic after the first turn of taking damage from it. The save is to realize that the area is bad before you get into it, not to avoid the damage.

[ChosenRonin]

There is some developer indication that when a spell text says that someone has to 'move into' a spell effect, it's meant to mean 'move under their own power'. So it seems RAI is that you can't deal damage by dragging people through Spike Growth. But you can put them into the AoE, and if they try to move out, then they will be taking the damage.

Personally, I rule the grapple-pull to mean that whoever you are pulling moves into the space you are vacating. You are, in essence, pulling them after you, rather than alongside you.

In the specific case, I would have let the players have their fun with these inconsequential orcs. Then after the fight or the session, I would have told them that this is a one-time event, and to plan accordingly. If that means the ranger wants a different spell, that's okay with me.

Edit: Partially shadowmonk'ed.

Except in the case of spike growth, the entire idea of this seems to revolve around "make them move in it" and logically speaking if you're going through a bunch of spikes forced movement is going to make you get messed up. It's a confusing topic only because the DM is somewhat new to DMing, and I think he believes we are overstepping here, but I think it's just some decent creativity.

[ChosenRonin]

I wouldn't have him save each time, I would make it automatic after the first turn of taking damage from it. The save is to realize that the area is bad before you get into it, not to avoid the damage.

The save is not to avoid the damage here. The grappled enemy is supposed to (according to DM) make a save to get put of the grapple, in order to stop being pulled.

[sophontteks]

Except in the case of spike growth, the entire idea of this seems to revolve around "make them move in it" and logically speaking if you're going through a bunch of spikes forced movement is going to make you get messed up. It's a confusing topic only because the DM is somewhat new to DMing, and I think he believes we are overstepping here, but I think it's just some decent creativity.
Again, pulling the creature with you as part of your movement in a grapple would involve the ranger moving into those spikes as well.

[Arnie82]

There is some developer indication that when a spell text says that someone has to 'move into' a spell effect, it's meant to mean 'move under their own power'. So it seems RAI is that you can't deal damage by dragging people through Spike Growth. But you can put them into the AoE, and if they try to move out, then they will be taking the damage.

Personally, I rule the grapple-pull to mean that whoever you are pulling moves into the space you are vacating. You are, in essence, pulling them after you, rather than alongside you.

In the specific case, I would have let the players have their fun with these inconsequential orcs. Then after the fight or the session, I would have told them that this is a one-time event, and to plan accordingly. If that means the ranger wants a different spell, that's okay with me.

Edit: Partially shadowmonk'ed.

When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.

It moves within the area. Another common tactic is eldritch blast to push them for extra damage.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Again, pulling the creature with you as part of your movement in a grapple would involve the ranger moving into those spikes as well.

It was the Druid in ape form but the point remains valid.

[hymer]

Except in the case of spike growth, the entire idea of this seems to revolve around "make them move in it"
Area denial is a thing, too.
Anyway, you can make them move in it by using control to move them in there. If they want to use melee attacks, they will have to come out, thus moving under their own power and taking the damage.


and logically speaking if you're going through a bunch of spikes forced movement is going to make you get messed up.
Logically speaking, you can't make an area of spiky growth appear out of nowhere. You can't survive a fall from orbit onto a rock. You can't stop people from bleeding out in less than six seconds. But those are the rules, so logic needs to take a back seat sometime, for reasons of magic, simplicity, fun, and balance.

[Arnie82]

Again, pulling the creature with you as part of your movement in a grapple would involve the ranger moving into those spikes as well.

Please expand this. I am curious as to why you can only pull behind you, and not partly to the side.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Please expand this. I am curious as to why you can only pull behind you, and not partly to the side.

If you stick your arm into a fire you take damage. Likewise if you stick him inside a spike growth your arm is now inside the spiked growth too.

And of the orcs only scraping the outside then he’s not actually moving through the area.

Not to mention “moving with you” can be taken to mean in your space.

[Arnie82]

If you stick your arm into a fire you take damage. Likewise if you stick him inside a spike growth your arm is now inside the spiked growth too.

Not to mention “moving with you” can be taken to mean in your space.

So, by you ruling, monks take damage for punching a monster in create bonfire. Good to know.

If someone is beside me, and moves along side of me, are they moving with me?

Think of a bouncer in a bar, they grapple the person, and walk beside them.

[ChosenRonin]

If you stick your arm into a fire you take damage. Likewise if you stick him inside a spike growth your arm is now inside the spiked growth too.

And of the orcs only scraping the outside then he’s not actually moving through the area.

Not to mention “moving with you” can be taken to mean in your space.

Your arm may be over the spike growth, but I take it as enough that you aren't touching it. You are simply ensuring that somebody else is. So by your analogy it is more like using a fork to roast a marshmallow over a fire.

[Lord Vukodlak]

So, by you ruling, monks take damage for punching a monster in create bonfire. Good to know.
There’s a difference between punching someone standing in a fire. And sticking your arm into fire and holding it there for six seconds. Or dragging it along the same fire.
If the fire completely evelopes the creature the sure you’ll take damage from punching it. Not as much as from standing in it. But some is warranted. But I don’t the bonfire enveloping even a halflng though.



If someone is beside me, and moves along side of me, are they moving with me?
Combat spacing and reach is rather abstract. Grappling and dragging or moving a creature but having you reach retain your own space can get a little wonky. Some groups have the grappler pull the target into their space.


Your arm may be over the spike growth, but I take it as enough that you aren't touching it. You are simply ensuring that somebody else is. So by your analogy it is more like using a fork to roast a marshmallow over a fire.

Except you don’t have them by a fork it’s your arm. And your trying to drag a guy through it without cutting yourself? Don’t see it happening. You’d have to get right against the spikes to pull this off and you have to shove him inside then drag him along.
Again it wouldn’t be as much which is why i said the grappler would take half.

[ChosenRonin]

There’s a difference between punching someone standing in a fire. And sticking your arm into fire and holding it there for six seconds. Or dragging it along the same fire.
If the fire completely evelopes the creature the sure you’ll take damage from punching it. Not as much as from standing in it. But some is warranted. But I don’t the bonfire enveloping even a halflng though.


Combat spacing and reach is rather abstract. Grappling and dragging or moving a creature but having you reach retain your own space can get a little wonky. Some groups have the grappler pull the target into their space.



Except you don’t have them by a fork it’s your arm. And your trying to drag a guy through it without cutting yourself? Don’t see it happening. You’d have to get right against the spikes to pull this off and you have to shove him inside then drag him along.
Again it wouldn’t be as much which is why i said the grappler would take half.

You dont have him by an object, picture this though, you push them onto the ground, against the spikes, you then use a combination of your weight and your strength to make sure they are forced against the spikes, while pulling them along, using their body as a shield against hitting the spikes. For instance: I want to move along these thorns, but they are thorns and hurt, so I lay a plank of wood on them, I can now walk on the wood, so you push the NPC against the thorns and use that to block the spikes.

[Lord Vukodlak]

You dont have him by an object, picture this though, you push them onto the ground, against the spikes, you then use a combination of your weight and your strength to make sure they are forced against the spikes, while pulling them along, using their body as a shield against hitting the spikes. For instance: I want to move along these thorns, but they are thorns and hurt, so I lay a plank of wood on them, I can now walk on the wood, so you push the NPC against the thorns and use that to block the spikes.
He’s not actually inside the area then but skimming the edge so he takes half damage.

[ChosenRonin]

He’s not actually inside the area then but skimming the edge so he takes half damage.

You judt said yourself that he is not in the AoE, therefore why does he take any damage really?

[NaughtyTiger]

2[ things:

1) The orcs should not have taken Spike Growth damage from forced movement. So the DM glitched that part.

2) The rules are not 100% clear, but you drag players behind you. The DMG offers optional attacks for moving the players to the side.

edit: i made stuff up about forced movement.

[ChosenRonin]

2 things:

1) The orcs should not have taken Spike Growth damage from forced movement. So the DM glitched that part.

2) The rules are not 100% clear, but you drag players behind you. The DMG offers optional attacks for moving the players to the side.

Why should they not take damage from forced movement? The spell does not specify the movement must be willing.

[Mr.Spastic]

Spike Growth says nothing about forced movement but I would also say that you would also take the damage. In a grapple you can't attack which implies that your arms are around them. I mean, if you are a giant ape what's the big deal anyways.

I personally believe that spike growth applies to all movement types. It is a terrain hazzard, it doesn't get attacks of opportunity, it just happens. If DMs are so concerned, use a few flying creatures, or increase their long jump distance. Spike growth is intended for you to drag people across it like a cheese grader.

It is the only spell that can make grasping vine useful. It also has so many other combos.
Lightning lure
Tempest Clerics
Elemental monks water whip
Thunder wave

The whole point is that it combos so well with other abilities.

[Nokrud]

You judt said yourself that he is not in the AoE, therefore why does he take any damage really?


I'm just going to jump in here and say grapple allows to carry or drag based on the grapple check implies you either pull them into your space carry or you pull them into the space you left drag as that is heavily implied to be behind you.

On a less contentious note the spell is already amazingly powerful second level slot and very obviously combos strongly with push, eldritch blast repelling blast, gust of wind, dissonant whispers and other forms of forced movement. Pretty sure it doesn't need the power boost of "creative"(not really more like abusive).

Also I agree the player should not have argued with the dm I mean a save every 5 ft is hardly saying "no" I would say that was pretty generous so he must have thought the idea was halfway clever if a little implausible.

And on another note about the idea of carrying(the option other than dragging that isnt so clearly behind you) gives no exceptions to the encumbrance rules and I would find the idea of a str 16(80 light carry capacity) ape moving a 300lb~(with equip lb orc around freely kinda crazy though I could be sold that you could turn a halfling upside down and run his face along some spikes I suppose... Or maybe a giant ape could could throw around an orc...

[tieren]

I think the term "grappled" gives us a mental image of them wrestling, like in a choke hold. But all it really means in game turns is that you hold them well enough to control their movement. The grappled character isn't restrained and has enough use of their body to make attacks or even cast spells with somatic components, etc...

So it could be a headlock, it could be just taking them under the arm, bouncer style, it could be just grabbing them by the collar so you control where they go. Heck in the case of a gnome I might call it twisting the ankle and throwing the grappled creature off balance enough to lose control of its movement.

Dragging people through environmental hazards is fine. There is nothing saying you can only drag behind or that you suddenly share a space with the target. The grapple text says a target within 5 feet of you and never says anything about anyone changing spaces as a result of success unless movement is used, so anything else is homebrew.

[NaughtyTiger]

Spike Growth says nothing about forced movement

Why should they not take damage from forced movement? The spell does not specify the movement must be willing.

Thanks. You are correct. Not sure why I thought that.

[Wildarm]

RAW the Chief should be taking the damage for each 5' he is moved in the spikes.

It's upping the damage of a 2nd level spell significantly but really how significantly? Takes the co-ordinated actions of 2 PC to accomplish this and dragging a grappled foe halves your movement.

Druid - Uses his bonus action, action and move to wildshape, grapple and move target
Ranger - Uses a 2nd Level spell

2 5th level players working to deal 6d4 damage(15 avg) is not particularly fantastic even if you could repeat it each round with a move action. I don't see how this is overpowered enough to even warrant a house rule of grapple movement. Pretty much anyone could do that damage at 5th level with their regular attacks.

I'd say let the players have their fun. Chiefs best option if he survives is to counter grapple reducing the Druids movement to zero as well. He doesn't take any additional damage if neither he nor the Druid move. Then it just becomes a contest of escapes and counter grapples. This seems like a great contest of strength type challenge. I'd personally use it as a very dramatic struggle like you see in the movies with one side or the other gaining the upper hand. Bonus points if the chief managed to counter grapple, escape the Druids grapple next round and drag HIM through the thorns. If it became a real problem, you can always tone it down. Make the grappler make a dex save or take a token 1d4 damage would be the simplest method.

That being said, it's the DMs table, so he can choose to run it how he wants. Definitely not worth arguing for 20 minutes over something that isn't key to your character.

[Mr.Spastic]

I don't think that it is wrong to argue. But save it for after the game. The DM has the final say but I also believe that DMs should own up to their mistakes and not house rule on the fly. Just run it as RAW as possible than debate after the game. That is my personal DM style, and it works wonders. Sure, they may wreck that combat. But then we could talk it out and come to consensus.
DM
"Hey guys, that combination was a little bit too powerful. Do you think it would be alright if I changed the way it worked so that combat isn't completely one sided?"
Players
"If you think it really breaks the game we can talk about it."
DM
"Thanks."

And then you work out an agreement.

[Man_Over_Game]

I don't think that it is wrong to argue. But save it for after the game. The DM has the final say but I also believe that DMs should own up to their mistakes and not house rule on the fly. Just run it as RAW as possible than debate after the game. That is my personal DM style, and it works wonders. Sure, they may wreck that combat. But then we could talk it out and come to consensus.
DM
"Hey guys, that combination was a little bit too powerful. Do you think it would be alright if I changed the way it worked so that combat isn't completely one sided?"
Players
"If you think it really breaks the game we can talk about it."
DM
"Thanks."

And then you work out an agreement.

Regardless of the ruling is for grapple + Spike Growth, this is the proper response. You're supposed to have trust in your DM's judgment. If you want to do something cool, crazy, or undefined, why the hell didn't you ask your DM about it first?

There's nothing stopping you from saying "Can I cast Spike Growth and grapple him through it for tons of damage?" before having to risk losing your stealth or casting any spells.

If a player just assumed that Minor Illusion could make a patch of wall and give you enough obsuration to Stealth, and I was the DM, I'd have a few strong words for making that kind of assumption.

I would probably be cool with it, with some added stipulations, but just friggin' ask, people.

[Glorthindel]

As an aside, my standard reaction to people trying to get bonus damage out of spells with "creative" solutions is to ask the question 'would you, as the player, be happy if an NPC used this exact same combo on you'. If the answer is no (because of the laughable ease it could be used to one-shot a character), then it is clear that there is something wrong with trying to use it yourself.

[Wildarm]

Regardless of the ruling is for grapple + Spike Growth, this is the proper response. You're supposed to have trust in your DM's judgment. If you want to do something cool, crazy, or undefined, why the hell didn't you ask your DM about it first?

There's nothing stopping you from saying "Can I cast Spike Growth and grapple him through it for tons of damage?" before having to risk losing your stealth or casting any spells.

If a player just assumed that Minor Illusion could make a patch of wall and give you enough obsuration to Stealth, and I was the DM, I'd have a few strong words for making that kind of assumption.

I would probably be cool with it, with some added stipulations, but just friggin' ask, people.

+1 to this. The whole point of the game is to make things fun. The DM is not your adversary in D&D. There's little value in pulling off an OP combo on them. Some players find it fun to create combos like this. If a player approached me saying I want to do something like X but I'm not sure the rules work that way I'm happy to work with them to find a solution that is fun but fair. Basically as long as it doesn't overshadow/annoy other players and doesn't outright break a rule. You can always throw a few more/tougher monsters at them if a certain tactic makes a battle too easy.

[Man_Over_Game]

+1 to this. The whole point of the game is to make things fun. The DM is not your adversary in D&D. There's little value in pulling off an OP combo on them. Some players find it fun to create combos like this. If a player approached me saying I want to do something like X but I'm not sure the rules work that way I'm happy to work with them to find a solution that is fun but fair. Basically as long as it doesn't overshadow/annoy other players and doesn't outright break a rule. You can always throw a few more/tougher monsters at them if a certain tactic makes a battle too easy.

That's inevitably the difficult part of it. You find an overpowered combination, the DM allows you to do that combination, now all the fights are too easy and the unassociated players feel that they are less valuable.

So you bump up the difficulty. Now the game is harder to be more exciting, but the combo no longer works in a particular fight (like with Fly). The difficulty is set too high since it was scaled to account for your OP combination, and the group ends up being frustrated because their "One Trick Pony" can't do it's trick.

You're now caught in a position where the game is too easy, because the combo is allowed, or it's too hard, because the combo's not applicable, and you'll rarely hit that sweet spot where the balance is quite right.

Or you could just make a stipulation that causes the combo to be unreliable, or have some kind of inherent flaw, which prevents this whole mess. Which is what the DM tried to do.

[History_buff]

If you stick your arm into a fire you take damage. Likewise if you stick him inside a spike growth your arm is now inside the spiked growth too.

And of the orcs only scraping the outside then he’s not actually moving through the area.

Not to mention “moving with you” can be taken to mean in your space.

If you slam someone on top of a bar filled with glasses and slide them across the broken glasses are you touching the glass yourself?

No.

Can you hold someone by the feet and drag them alongside you through thorns? I’d say yes.

[ChosenRonin]

As an aside, my standard reaction to people trying to get bonus damage out of spells with "creative" solutions is to ask the question 'would you, as the player, be happy if an NPC used this exact same combo on you'. If the answer is no (because of the laughable ease it could be used to one-shot a character), then it is clear that there is something wrong with trying to use it yourself.

I would like to go on the record staying he had a legendary reaction that could be used against a couple level 5 characters. So I feel justified in going for extra damage once we finally got that out of that way. And also, our DM is aware that if we come up with a neat concept, we are perfectly okay with that concept being used against us, if it is feasible that the enemies saw it, or thought of it themselves.

[History_buff]

In a grapple you can't attack which implies that your arms are around them.

Where are you getting that you can’t attack in a grapple? As long as you have a free hand that is. Only takes one to grapple.

[Mr.Spastic]

Where are you getting that you can’t attack in a grapple? As long as you have a free hand that is. Only takes one to grapple.

Thanks. I hadn't fully read up on the rules recently and forgot that you could attack while grappling.

[Mellack]

Where are you getting that you can’t attack in a grapple? As long as you have a free hand that is. Only takes one to grapple.

Agreed, both the person grappling and the one being grappled can attack without a penalty. The only limit is that you need one hand to hold the grapple, so you would be limited to one-hand weapons.

[Arnie82]

He’s not actually inside the area then but skimming the edge so he takes half damage.

They are either in or out, there is no half damage per the spell.


2[ things:

1) The orcs should not have taken Spike Growth damage from forced movement. So the DM glitched that part.

2) The rules are not 100% clear, but you drag players behind you. The DMG offers optional attacks for moving the players to the side.

edit: i made stuff up about forced movement.

I would like someone to send me a page number that says you have to pull someone into the space you left. I have seen people say this more then once but no one has provided a page number.

[DMThac0]

A player is able to attempt anything they wish, if the DM makes a ruling, they can dislike it all they want but it's the DM ruling. Resolving the issue after the game, or during a break, is the best course of action. The DM could have simply stymied the whole thing by saying "We'll look into this after the game, moving on." The player is rightfully frustrated in the confusion, but it's not worth disrupting a game.


When a creature moves into or within the area, it takes 2d4 piercing damage for every 5 feet it travels.

This is part of the confusion.


...when it enters the area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there...

This is from Spirit Guardians and Moonbeam and it may help with the confusion.

There are a couple key phrases that are highlighted that make the difference here. Spirit Guardians will not affect a creature forced into it's AoE due to the way the wording is made, it is explicit in the highlighted terms. Spike Growth, however, only uses the movement and location as it's indicators. By this I am of the understanding a creature can be forced into the Spike Growth area, moved against it's own volition, and will subsequently take the damage as indicated.

----


When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you.

This indicates that a player can, as an action, grapple the enemy. Then, as per their movement, drag/carry the creature up to half their movement speed in any direction.

Drag would imply behind you, however, how many people have held an object to their side and drug it on the ground? As well, no creatures over the tiny size category, without special rules, can occupy the same space as another creature. So, that would indicate that a player could, within the bounds of the game, drag a creature up to half their speed on the side of them.

---

The player and DM made a mistake in arguing at the table, during the game, about a ruling. Something like rule disputes are not table talk and should be handled outside the game. As well, the players' actions are acceptable, in my understanding, of using the tactic that they did as per the bounds of the game.

[Arnie82]

Regardless of the ruling is for grapple + Spike Growth, this is the proper response. You're supposed to have trust in your DM's judgment. If you want to do something cool, crazy, or undefined, why the hell didn't you ask your DM about it first?

There's nothing stopping you from saying "Can I cast Spike Growth and grapple him through it for tons of damage?" before having to risk losing your stealth or casting any spells.

If a player just assumed that Minor Illusion could make a patch of wall and give you enough obsuration to Stealth, and I was the DM, I'd have a few strong words for making that kind of assumption.

I would probably be cool with it, with some added stipulations, but just friggin' ask, people.

I have no problem with a DM using his judgement, my problem is the DM changing the rules of the game on the fly to suit himself.

When a character or monster can break a grapple is clearly defined in the rules. My players out smart me tactically from time to time, as I do them, that's part of the game, I don't change the rules of the game to get around it. The solution is simple, have the other orcs shove the player into the growth.

[Man_Over_Game]

I have no problem with a DM using his judgement, my problem is the DM changing the rules of the game on the fly to suit himself.

When a character or monster can break a grapple is clearly defined in the rules. My players out smart me tactically from time to time, as I do them, that's part of the game, I don't change the rules of the game to get around it. The solution is simple, have the other orcs shove the player into the growth.

It's not just "to suit himself". Being a DM is a community service. Maybe not everyone agrees on his decision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

A "Grapple" in 5E isn't much more than someone grabbing you by the cuff with one hand, nothing more than something to keep you from running away. Spike Growth does about 3 damage per step, about the same amount of damage as stabbing someone with a knife. Every 5 feet.

Sometimes, a DM needs to make a ruling, and sometimes that contradicts edge cases that the RAW say are possible.

It's not like this is applicable in almost any other situation. It's likely never to have come up previously in the campaign and he suddenly mentioned it.

I can bet you this was the very first instance that he ever heard of it or saw it or it was ever mentioned in the campaign, and the first time it came, up, he made a decision. It wasn't unreasonable.

[Arnie82]

It's not just "to suit himself". Being a DM is a community service. Maybe not everyone agrees on his decision, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do.

A "Grapple" in 5E isn't much more than someone grabbing you by the cuff with one hand, nothing more than something to keep you from running away. Spike Growth does about 3 damage per step, about the same amount of damage as stabbing someone with a knife. Every 5 feet.

Sometimes, a DM needs to make a ruling, and sometimes that contradicts edge cases that the RAW say are possible.

It's not like this is applicable in almost any other situation. It's likely never to have come up previously in the campaign and he suddenly mentioned it.

I can bet you this was the very first instance that he ever heard of it or saw it or it was ever mentioned in the campaign, and the first time it came, up, he made a decision. It wasn't unreasonable.

How is a DM making a clear wrong decision of an easy to find rule no wrong?

His choice had to do with when a save happens with grapple. That's the whole issue. This is a very basic rule, it's one of the basic actions in combat. My issue is awarding a save to get out of grapple every 5 feet. There is nothing that is grey about that in the rules, and has nothing to do with how it interacts with spike growth. That is not about him making a ruling, this about a house rule added to the middle of a session.

[DMThac0]

How is a DM making a clear wrong decision of an easy to find rule no wrong?

His choice had to do with when a save happens with grapple. That's the whole issue. This is a very basic rule, it's one of the basic actions in combat. My issue is awarding a save to get out of grapple every 5 feet. There is nothing that is grey about that in the rules, and has nothing to do with how it interacts with spike growth. That is not about him making a ruling, this about a house rule added to the middle of a session.

Alright, so now I have a problem with this whole post:

DMG Page 4, paragraph 7, lines 1 and 2

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.
Emphasis is the authors.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the DMG that says the DM made a mistake.

[Arnie82]

Alright, so now I have a problem with this whole post:

DMG Page 4, paragraph 4, lines 1 and 2

Emphasis is the authors.

Sorry, but there is nothing in the DMG that says the DM made a mistake.

DM failed right here, thank you.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time,.

If said player had a good time he wouldn't be here questioning it. It fact, by his post he wasn't the only one who had a problem with it. As a DM I can tell all my players that they need to role a d20, then tell them they are all dead. It's with in the DM power. But it doesn't mean I made the correct decision.

Edited for typo.

[DMThac0]

DM failed right here, that you.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time,.

If said player had a good time he wouldn't be here questioning it. It fact, by his post he wasn't the only one who had a problem with it. As a DM I can tell all my players that they need to role a d20, then tell them they are all dead. It's with in the DM power. But it doesn't mean I made the correct decision.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time.

Key word, help, meaning it is not a guarantee that the rules, the DM, or any combination there of are going to provide a good time. You're human, the other DM is human, the players are human, as such our views on "a good time" are subjective.

[Arnie82]

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time.

Key word, help, meaning it is not a guarantee that the rules, the DM, or any combination there of are going to provide a good time. You're human, the other DM is human, the players are human, as such our views on "a good time" are subjective.

So using the rules to keep someone from having a good time is ok. Thank you, got it.

If people change the rules in the middle of the game, it leads to threads like this. Period. Very few will have fun.

That line is not a fail safe for not knowing the basic rules to the game. It's ment to have fun, not screw over players. Again, that rule gives me the option to just kI'll people for no reason. Sounds great.

[sophontteks]

If you slam someone on top of a bar filled with glasses and slide them across the broken glasses are you touching the glass yourself?

No.

Can you hold someone by the feet and drag them alongside you through thorns? I’d say yes.
You could but you would need to push them into the thorns first. Pushing is an action. Dragging is part of your movement.

Just like with the bar example. Slamming someone into the bar is an attack. Sure, you can drag them afterwards.

In the special attacks it notes pushing and tripping as the common special attacks, but there are many others that can be improvised. So you can push someone into thorns and slam people into bars using the attack function.

[Vorpalchicken]

Forcing an enemy though 3 to 6 squares or more of non-saveable damage just by using your movement is not the intent of Spike Growth. The grappler taking damage, while possibly not RAW, is exactly how I would rule it. The grappler is leading his enemy through the hazard with his arm. Perhaps they should each take 50 per cent of the damage. (I probably wouldn't go that far.)

I think a save for each square is also reasonable (but not the way I would rule it) just as I might give a PC a save if he is being forced off a cliff.

Now if the enemy was forced into the spikes with a push or a force blast, I believe that is a reasonable application of Spike Growth.

[DMThac0]

So using the rules to keep someone from having a good time is ok. Thank you, got it.

If people change the rules in the middle of the game, it leads to threads like this. Period. Very few will have fun.

That line is not a fail safe for not knowing the basic rules to the game. It's ment to have fun, not screw over players. Again, that rule gives me the option to just kI'll people for no reason. Sounds great.

I've been playing for 30 years, in that time I have read the rules of D&D, meaning the entirety of the DMG and PHB, exactly 0 times. I don't know the basic rules of the game, I make rules based on my players' actions. If there's a point of contention, I then look the rule up after the game. I have played games where I looked at players and had them die with no explanation.

I've played in the Gygaxian death machine modules where there were traps and monster set up in such a way that there was no chance to avoid death, but wait, 3 chapters later there's a paragraph about the item you could use to stop that party wipe that happened 2 levels ago.

Did the DM make a mistake, sure, was the DM wrong, no. That is where I disagree with you.

[Mellack]

I think the main problem here was one of expectations. While the DM might not know the relevant rules, it seems the players did. They had an expectation that the rules from the book were what would be in effect. The DM decided otherwise without informing them beforehand. That is what I think is the contention.

[History_buff]

You could but you would need to push them into the thorns first. Pushing is an action. Dragging is part of your movement.

Just like with the bar example. Slamming someone into the bar is an attack. Sure, you can drag them afterwards.

In the special attacks it notes pushing and tripping as the common special attacks, but there are many others that can be improvised. So you can push someone into thorns and slam people into bars using the attack function.

All you need to do according to the rules is initiate a grapple and succeed. Then you can drag them as far as your movement allows. Halved unless you’re two sizes larger.

[Arnie82]

I've been playing for 30 years, in that time I have read the rules of D&D, meaning the entirety of the DMG and PHB, exactly 0 times. I don't know the basic rules of the game, I make rules based on my players' actions. If there's a point of contention, I then look the rule up after the game. I have played games where I looked at players and had them die with no explanation.

I've played in the Gygaxian death machine modules where there were traps and monster set up in such a way that there was no chance to avoid death, but wait, 3 chapters later there's a paragraph about the item you could use to stop that party wipe that happened 2 levels ago.

Did the DM make a mistake, sure, was the DM wrong, no. That is where I disagree with you.

I think your statement says all I need to see. Thank you for for clarifying that you play Home Brew game that doesn't have a completely direct link to DND. I'm glad you enjoy playing the game that way and that is awesome that you can do it but you state that you're actually playing D&D is very different.

If you wish to continue this dialog when I say we take it to direct message because there's no point in continuing in this form.

[Arnie82]

I think the main problem here was one of expectations. While the DM might not know the relevant rules, it seems the players did. They had an expectation that the rules from the book were what would be in effect. The DM decided otherwise without informing them beforehand. That is what I think is the contention.


That's my whole beef. If you tell someone you are playing something, that is what is expected.

Don't tell someone your playing baseball and show up and start playing football.

[sophontteks]

All you need to do according to the rules is initiate a grapple and succeed. Then you can drag them as far as your movement allows. Halved unless you’re two sizes larger.
The player pushed the chieftons face into spikes. That is not dragging. Dragging would involve them entering the spikes and the cheftain following behind.

[clash]

A couple points:

1) The rules, can be applied fairly well to handle the situation already. First the player needed to make a grapple check then they would have needed to use a separate attack or action to make a shove and knock the chief prone. Then they would have been dragging a prone enemy through difficult terrain. Which means 5ft of movement costs 15ft-20ft (5ft normal movement + 5ft dragging (+ possibly 5ft prone) + 5ft difficult terrain. Which means the most you could drag the enemy is 2 squares per turn for 4d4 ~ 10 damage or ~ 20 damage when you dash. That doesnt seem particularly broken compared to the apes 1d6 + 3 *2 ~ 13 damage at advantage (enemy is prone) that they already get with no spell support.

2) The DM can rule whatever he wants, and particularly if he didnt understand grappling rules in full he made the right call just making a ruling rather than wasting time looking them up. Further his ruling is entirely reasonable. If you are trying to drag someone through a thornbush as fast as you can it is going to be challenging to keep your grip on them. The DM was performing his role as he should have been.

3) The player who argued was in the wrong regardless. If you have a problem with a DM ruling then don't disrupt the entire game over it. Wait until after the game as the OP noted.

[Foxhound438]

As an aside, my standard reaction to people trying to get bonus damage out of spells with "creative" solutions is to ask the question 'would you, as the player, be happy if an NPC used this exact same combo on you'. If the answer is no (because of the laughable ease it could be used to one-shot a character), then it is clear that there is something wrong with trying to use it yourself.

I think this is pretty fair as a method in general, if they still want to use it then the guys who invented the tactic show up and haste a barbarian to do the same thing but way more. Maybe, just maybe, if what a group wants to do isn't some EZ cheese that I've seen 5 times on a forum here or elsewhere I'd let them do a thing once before making a house rule to un-break something, but this spike growth cheese is older than coffeelocks as far as I remember, and stuff like this is basically the 5e arms race that ability damage or negative levels in pathfinder were.

As far as what the DM did being "right" or "wrong"... It's not what I would do, as I would probably just tell them not to try stupid stuff like that in my games in the first place, since it messes with the experience for everyone else. If they built their whole character around abusing something and claim to be "totally gimped" afterwards, I'd let them re-build if they wanted, but I wouldn't ever DM a game where it feels like the players are trying to antagonize me.

[History_buff]

The player pushed the chieftons face into spikes. That is not dragging. Dragging would involve them entering the spikes and the cheftain following behind.

Moving a Grappled Creature: When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you

Or carry. I see no reason why a grappler could not hold someone by their legs and drag them beside them. They still occupy their square.

[Jerrykhor]

If I were DM, I'd allow it. If DMs don't allow these kind of simple tactics in combat, he/she is just trying to stifle players creativity. Don't be surprised if soon they all just go for the straight forward 'beat it till 0hp' strategy just so they dont have to argue with the DM.

As it reads, the spell would be pretty useless alone because:

A) If the creature passes the check, it wont enter the area

B) If it fails the check and enters the area, the first 5ft triggers the damage, and it will notice something is wrong with this area, and back out of it, taking at most 4d4 damage.

C) No sane creature will walk around inside the area like its a Sunday morning

I've had a similar argument with my players on the Incendiary Cloud spell. Its wording is even more dumb than Spike Growth. Basically, the creatures only have to make a save: A) when the cloud appears, B) When it enters the area or C) When it ends its turn there.

They argued that being shoved/dragged into the area does not count as entering the area. Nor does being teleported into the area by magic (like the Scatter spell). I said, then the spell would be useless because nobody would willingly enter the area. You shove them in, they simply walk out and end its turn outside the area. 0 damage.

If players put in effort to make a spell work, then just let them.

[Kadesh]

If DMs don't allow these kind of simple tactics in combat, he/she is just trying to stifle players creativity.

This is bull****. Your creativity is not dependent on you not taking damage or having you use the shove rules to do what the OP outlined.

[Tanarii]

The important thing here is: wth were you doing with a Deck of Many Things?

And given you had access to a Deck of Many Things, why is your DM trying to weaken Spike Growth. That's, like, the least of his worries for abusively overpowered things messing up his campaign.

[Galithar]

I didn't read the whole thread but I'd like to point out how OP this can be.
People have commented on it cutting speed in half and had limited damage potential. To them I present this.

I'm a level 5 wood-elf Monk, we have a level 5 druid and a level 5 arcane caster.

A level 5 wood elf monk can move at least 45 feet per turn (possibly 50 I can't remember what level unarmored movement increases)

Monk: Grapples baddie
Druid: Spike Growth
Caster: Hastes Monk
Monk: With base movement of 90 feet cut in half back to 45 dashes with action and spends a Ki point to bonus action dash. I drag the enemy 135 feet through the spikes for (135) 54d4 damage at level 5.

[Jerrykhor]

I didn't read the whole thread but I'd like to point out how OP this can be.
People have commented on it cutting speed in half and had limited damage potential. To them I present this.

I'm a level 5 wood-elf Monk, we have a level 5 druid and a level 5 arcane caster.

A level 5 wood elf monk can move at least 45 feet per turn (possibly 50 I can't remember what level unarmored movement increases)

Monk: Grapples baddie
Druid: Spike Growth
Caster: Hastes Monk
Monk: With base movement of 90 feet cut in half back to 45 dashes with action and spends a Ki point to bonus action dash. I drag the enemy 135 feet through the spikes for (135) 54d4 damage at level 5.

[Monk: Grapples baddie] I hope you didn't dump Strength, cos you gonna have to make an Athletics check for grapple.

[Galithar]

[Monk: Grapples baddie] I hope you didn't dump Strength, cos you gonna have to make an Athletics check for grapple.

Obviously this party was designed to abuse this so wouldn't dump str and would have proficiency in athletics.

[Wildarm]

I didn't read the whole thread but I'd like to point out how OP this can be.
People have commented on it cutting speed in half and had limited damage potential. To them I present this.

I'm a level 5 wood-elf Monk, we have a level 5 druid and a level 5 arcane caster.

A level 5 wood elf monk can move at least 45 feet per turn (possibly 50 I can't remember what level unarmored movement increases)

Monk: Grapples baddie
Druid: Spike Growth
Caster: Hastes Monk
Monk: With base movement of 90 feet cut in half back to 45 dashes with action and spends a Ki point to bonus action dash. I drag the enemy 135 feet through the spikes for (135) 54d4 damage at level 5.

So, 5 player actions(grapple, action to dash, spell x2, move), 2nd and 3rd level slots from the druid and caster and a ki point to kill one creature at 5th level? I'd be fine with that as a DM. A crit fishing pally or hexblade can easily one shot enemies with smite slots. If they tried it on more enemies I'd probably say the spikes were destroyed by the monk using the orc as a weed whacker.

If the players had just spent the 5 actions attacking the orc(and hit) they could do pretty much the same amount of damage with their regular attacks. Much more if they decided to spend the equivalent resources on spells to get extra haste attacks, flurry, smite, hex, quicken spells, etc).

[MaxWilson]

I didn't read the whole thread but I'd like to point out how OP this can be.
People have commented on it cutting speed in half and had limited damage potential. To them I present this.

I'm a level 5 wood-elf Monk, we have a level 5 druid and a level 5 arcane caster.

A level 5 wood elf monk can move at least 45 feet per turn (possibly 50 I can't remember what level unarmored movement increases)

Monk: Grapples baddie
Druid: Spike Growth
Caster: Hastes Monk
Monk: With base movement of 90 feet cut in half back to 45 dashes with action and spends a Ki point to bonus action dash. I drag the enemy 135 feet through the spikes for (135) 54d4 damage at level 5.

...that's an expensive way of committing suicide. The monk is going to be taking 54d4 (135) damage too. You can't drag someone through terrain you're not moving through yourself. (Physics doesn't permit it.)

[Galithar]

So, 5 player actions(grapple, action to dash, spell x2, move), 2nd and 3rd level slots from the druid and caster and a ki point to kill one creature at 5th level? I'd be fine with that as a DM. A crit fishing pally or hexblade can easily one shot enemies with smite slots. If they tried it on more enemies I'd probably say the spikes were destroyed by the monk using the orc as a weed whacker.

If the players had just spent the 5 actions attacking the orc(and hit) they could do pretty much the same amount of damage with their regular attacks. Much more if they decided to spend the equivalent resources on spells to get extra haste attacks, flurry, smite, hex, quicken spells, etc).

They could MAYBE deal that much damage, but 3 level 5 characters exceeding 135 average damage in 4 turns is a bit far fetched.

Let's look at another example. Same number of players. A wizard and two paladins.

Wizard: Hold Person
Paladin's: Dual wielding and burning a smite per hit. (Assuming 16 strength)

That's 6* (4.5) 1d8 + 4* 13.5 (3d8) + 2* 9 (2d8) + 6* 3

Or longsword attack*6 plus 4 level 2 smites, 2 level 1 smites and their strength mod.

That's an average of 216 (auto crit doubling all dice)

Now that's burning 7 spell slots so obviously the damage is higher because they can only do this ONCE per long rest.
Also I took the extreme of giving Paladins Dual wielder and double longsword to maximize the number of smites while keeping slots burned to a minimum.

The spike growth is repeatable and takes only 2 spell slots. And a ruling of, you can only do it once per casting of the spell is worse then not allowing it. That's saying that yes it's allowed but it suddenly makes the spell consumable even though if enemies ran through it over and over it would be unaffected.


Also to respond to people saying you can or can't read a creature beside you, it's not stated the rules either way and is therefore up to DM interpretation. If your group doesn't abuse things like this then sure let them choose where to move them. If they abuse it occasionally tell them choosing where to move them allows them to contest (athletics only) the movement without breaking the grapple. I movement is consumed but no movement occurs. Or if they go to extremes like I presented then tell them they can only drag into the square they are leaving

[NaughtyTiger]

The important thing here is: wth were you doing with a Deck of Many Things?

And given you had access to a Deck of Many Things, why is your DM trying to weaken Spike Growth. That's, like, the least of his worries for abusively overpowered things messing up his campaign.

keen eye, again.

[Tanarii]

Don't forget that to drag another creature at 1/2 speed as opposed to 5ft, your total encumberance including its weight must be no more than your Str x 15 lbs.

So if you're rocking a Str 8 can carrying 55 lbs of explorers pack plus leather armor plus a few weapons, you're not dragging a creature that weighs more than 65lbs.

[Mellack]

...that's an expensive way of committing suicide. The monk is going to be taking 54d4 (135) damage too. You can't drag someone through terrain you're not moving through yourself. (Physics doesn't permit it.)

Why can't you drag someone next to you?
http://laoblogger.com/images/clipart-kicking-and-screaming-2.jpg

[NaughtyTiger]

Why can't you drag someone next to you?

This graphic shows someone being dragged behind them (not to the side). Was that your intent?

[Xetheral]

Don't forget that to drag another creature at 1/2 speed as opposed to 5ft, your total encumberance including its weight must be no more than your Str x 15 lbs.

So if you're rocking a Str 8 can carrying 55 lbs of explorers pack plus leather armor plus a few weapons, you're not dragging a creature that weighs more than 65lbs.

I think the rule specifying speed for moving Grappled creatures counts as a specific rule overriding the general rules for how fast you move when dragging objects. It also makes some intuitive sense, as a Grappled creature is likely still supporting some of its own weight and isn't all deadweight like an object would be.

[Mellack]

This graphic shows someone being dragged behind them (not to the side). Was that your intent?

I see that as to the side. Look at how he is being held. He is being dragged next to the puller. Perhaps you prefer this one.
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/aceattorney/images/c/cf/Mia_dragging_Phoenix.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140524171112

[MaxWilson]

Why can't you drag someone next to you?
http://laoblogger.com/images/clipart-kicking-and-screaming-2.jpg

Because the force you're applying is parallel to your own movement.

[Mellack]

Because the force you're applying is parallel to your own movement.

Parallel does not require them to also be overlapping. Mules were used (and still are sometimes) to pull barges down canals by walking along the shore.

[MaxWilson]

Parallel does not require them to also be overlapping.

*sigh*

Do what you want at your table. I don't care. It's not my job to convince you of the obvious, but if you want to, try executing that maneuver in your drawing. You'll find that you need to walk where you want the other guy to wind up. You can't walk along the sidewalk while dragging him along the road five feet to your left. At most you'll be able to displace him by a few inches, so he lines up with your hip.

The exception is if you're turning. He will tend to take a shorter path than you will. If you're walking in a circle you might be able to drag him in a slightly smaller circle. It depends.

[Tanarii]

I think the rule specifying speed for moving Grappled creatures counts as a specific rule overriding the general rules for how fast you move when dragging objects. It also makes some intuitive sense, as a Grappled creature is likely still supporting some of its own weight and isn't all deadweight like an object would be.
There's no particular reason to think it doesn't work in conjunction with the standard rule for dragging. Suddenly being able to drag more than your normal carry weight at speed makes little intuitive sense, especially given they're likely resisting you. At best you'd expect it to be treated like dead weight.

[Mellack]

*sigh*

Do what you want at your table. I don't care. It's not my job to convince you of the obvious, but if you want to, try executing that maneuver in your drawing. You'll find that you need to walk where you want the other guy to wind up. You can't walk along the sidewalk while dragging him along the road five feet to your left. At most you'll be able to displace him by a few inches, so he lines up with your hip.

The exception is if you're turning. He will tend to take a shorter path than you will. If you're walking in a circle you might be able to drag him in a slightly smaller circle. It depends.


A person can very much be dragged next to you, I have seen it done. Ask a bouncer how he can "accidentally" ram someone into the door frame that the bouncer himself was walking through. You can rule as you want at your own table, but I know it works in the real world.

[Galithar]

Ask that bouncer if he was 5 feet from the doorframe that he used to assault a patron. (Yes I'm being snarky because I don't care what they did to deserve being thrown out assaulting them on the way is uncalled for, they're drunk, drunk people do dumb things.)

[NaughtyTiger]

A person can very much be dragged next to you, I have seen it done. Ask a bouncer how he can "accidentally" ram someone into the door frame that the bouncer himself was walking through. You can rule as you want at your own table, but I know it works in the real world.

I have seen it done too. The drunk was not putting up a fight and prolly counted as unconscious for the purposes of D&D.

If the patron was sober and aggressive, the bouncer wouldn't make it 15 ft.
If the patron were completely unconscious and deadweight, he would drag behind him.
But that is the real world,

we have agreed that in D&D, it is a table ruling.

[Xetheral]

There's no particular reason to think it doesn't work in conjunction with the standard rule for dragging. Suddenly being able to drag more than your normal carry weight at speed makes little intuitive sense, especially given they're likely resisting you. At best you'd expect it to be treated like dead weight.

If they were prone, maybe. But if they're standing up while you move them they're supporting most of their own weight. That's much easier than dragging an object of the same mass.

[Mellack]

Ask that bouncer if he was 5 feet from the doorframe that he used to assault a patron. (Yes I'm being snarky because I don't care what they did to deserve being thrown out assaulting them on the way is uncalled for, they're drunk, drunk people do dumb things.)

They do not need to be 5 feet from them, just in the next square. Characters are not 5' cube, that is the area they control. In the game you can punch someone in the next square, but people do not punch 5 feet away. You are assumed to be moving around within your area of control. The game also denies two medium creatures to be in the same square, so even when grappling, they are considered in two different squares even though they would not be more than an arm's length and probably much closer.

[Tanarii]

If they were prone, maybe. But if they're standing up while you move them they're supporting most of their own weight. That's much easier than dragging an object of the same mass.Thats totally counter-intuitive and clearly illogical. (Blue for the internet usage of those terms, "doesn't match with how I think." ;)

Another point: the encumberance rules refer to carrying and dragging, exactly the same as the grapple rules. Like I said, there's no special reason to think the normal rules don't apply. The wording of the grapple rules strongly implies they do, because they even use the same terms.

Edit: for what it's worth, Crawford agrees with you, and provides his logic for why to boot:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/11/18/is-pushingdragging-a-grappled-creature-subject-to-the-carrying-capacity-rules/

[Damon_Tor]

So what would you do as a DM here?

I'd make you use the grapple rules properly, that's what.


Our druid turned into an Ape, I'm guessing you've figured it out by now. He grappled the chief, pushed his face into the spikes and drug him along the edge. For those of you who dont know, spike growth does 2d4 damage for every 5 feet you move in it. So this poor orc was drug about 30 feet in 2 turns. He died.

An ape has a strength score of 16, so his carrying capacity is 240 pounds. An Orc weighs between 230 and 280 pounds, and presumably he was wearing some armor (The Orc Chief in the Monster's Manual is wearing chainmail, which weighs 55 pounds). This means the Ape could not carry the orc, he would have to DRAG him, which means his speed is reduced to 5. And because the ape is the same size as the orc, his speed is halved while moving him while grappled. You always round down and so his speed is ZERO. He cannot move the orc.

[Xetheral]

Thats totally counter-intuitive and clearly illogical. (Blue for the internet usage of those terms, "doesn't match with how I think." ;)

Another point: the encumberance rules refer to carrying and dragging, exactly the same as the grapple rules. Like I said, there's no special reason to think the normal rules don't apply. The wording of the grapple rules strongly implies they do, because they even use the same terms.

Edit: for what it's worth, Crawford agrees with you, and provides his logic for why to boot:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/11/18/is-pushingdragging-a-grappled-creature-subject-to-the-carrying-capacity-rules/

Crawford might agree with me, but he's using a (straightforward and rather logical) inference from the fact that the game rules don't specify creature weight. And I'm messing around trying to apply real world physics. So the fact that he and I agree on the end result seems utterly incidental, rather than a validation of my approach. :)

[Tanarii]

Crawford might agree with me, but he's using a (straightforward and rather logical) inference from the fact that the game rules don't specify creature weight. And I'm messing around trying to apply real world physics. So the fact that he and I agree on the end result seems utterly incidental, rather than a validation of my approach. :)
Ya. But it's kinda hard to argue with the fact that we don't know the weights of many creatures the PCs will want to grapple.

[Damon_Tor]

Ya. But it's kinda hard to argue with the fact that we don't know the weights of many creatures the PCs will want to grapple.

The question then becomes why don't we have those weights? Why doesn't every entry in the MM have a weight listed? Would that have really been so hard?

[tieren]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lDqcKG6WxJY/hqdefault.jpg

The grapple rules allow you to hold onto someone in the next 5 foot space without entering yourself, and they allow you to move that target around at half speed. You can move them into an environmental hazard, you can do it without entering the hazard yourself. You can then move them to the next space in the hazard while moving parallel to them and not being in the hazard.

You don't have to be intimately entwined with them, you could be holding them by the collar, twisting their wrist or ear, etc...

[NaughtyTiger]

The grapple rules allow you to hold onto someone in the next 5 foot space without entering yourself, and they allow you to move that target around at half speed. You can move them into an environmental hazard, you can do it without entering the hazard yourself. You can then move them to the next space in the hazard while moving parallel to them and not being in the hazard.


You included a static pic of a guy standing next to another guy. okay? I presume that they are supposed to walk together?

The grapple rules do not explicitly allow you stand to the side and move someone. They do not explicitly forbid it. That is the whole point of the argument.

Consider the optional rule, DMG 272: Shove Aside. The attacker is at disadvantage to shove the target to the side rather than back.
The DMG rule makes pushing to the side more difficult than straight back.

It is reasonable to infer that it is also more difficult to drag someone to the side rather than behind. That is consistent with the standard definition of drag and the physics of dragging.

[Kadesh]

The question then becomes why don't we have those weights? Why doesn't every entry in the MM have a weight listed? Would that have really been so hard?

Why don't Dragons have dedicated Innate Spellcasting lists based on species. You're the DM, DM.

[Citan]

So in our last session myself (ranger) and our druid came up with a plan. I had just leveled up, meaning I finally unlocked those sweet second level spells. We hashed it out and i decided to take spike growth. Decent spell in itself, but it gets better. I had pulled the "keep" card from the deck of many things, so we were clearing said keep to make it our HQ. I climbed to the top of the keep using spider climb, since the druid cast it on me. Here I began scouting the land. A group of orcs was approaching us from the nearby woods, they were living in this keep. I took cover, staying out of sight until my party made up their kind on what to do. We were going to fight. Since I had the highest single damage output I was first to attack. Took one down pretty quick. They stayed relatively bunched up, so I threw a spike growth in the mix, here's where it got fun. Our druid turned into an Ape, I'm guessing you've figured it out by now. He grappled the chief, pushed his face into the spikes and drug him along the edge. For those of you who dont know, spike growth does 2d4 damage for every 5 feet you move in it. So this poor orc was drug about 30 feet in 2 turns. He died.

Here's the question: my DM tried to rule that the creature being grappled got a save every 5 feet of movement. My druid buddy got into a debate with him for about 20 mins, killing the mood. I dont agree that he should have argued, however I also dont feel that the enemy should get a save on every 5 feet, since the PHB says something along the lines of "they can use an action on THEIR turn to attempt to break the grapple"
So what would you do as a DM here?
Hi ;)

So, basically, what happened here is...
- You as a party completely used all abilities to their max by cooperating.
- The DM, who didn't expect your party to display such level of wits and saw a possibly carefully planned and normally epic encounter be downsized to a one-sided fight, and panicked.

Because there is absolutely NO reason to throw a save. EVER.
Spike Growth is a spell that is "just good" by itself, since it's only 2d4 and non scalable. It was great here because you guys used your brain to build upon this.
Plus you're a level 5 Ranger, it's one of your few important resources for the day. So it's not like "my big encounter was ruined for nothing", you did put your max into it.

Trying to put a save every 5 feet is a clear houserule, and a very bad one to boot.

My reading of the situation is simply that your DM just had a panic reaction because he didn't expect the encounter to end so easy. It's not a good thing for him to do but, hey, we are all humans, it happens. :)
He should just accept that you now have a powerful tool at your disposal, that your party outsmarted him (which is imo a rather good thing in fact, even if it's frustrating) and deal with it.

With that said, on that particular use-case...

Again, pulling the creature with you as part of your movement in a grapple would involve the ranger moving into those spikes as well.

...that's an expensive way of committing suicide. The monk is going to be taking 54d4 (135) damage too. You can't drag someone through terrain you're not moving through yourself. (Physics doesn't permit it.)
Both of you are, sadly, 100% wrong to affirm it like so.

First of all...

I think the term "grappled" gives us a mental image of them wrestling, like in a choke hold. But all it really means in game turns is that you hold them well enough to control their movement. The grappled character isn't restrained and has enough use of their body to make attacks or even cast spells with somatic components, etc...

So it could be a headlock, it could be just taking them under the arm, bouncer style, it could be just grabbing them by the collar so you control where they go. Heck in the case of a gnome I might call it twisting the ankle and throwing the grappled creature off balance enough to lose control of its movement.

Dragging people through environmental hazards is fine. There is nothing saying you can only drag behind or that you suddenly share a space with the target. The grapple text says a target within 5 feet of you and never says anything about anyone changing spaces as a result of success unless movement is used, so anything else is homebrew.

They do not need to be 5 feet from them, just in the next square. Characters are not 5' cube, that is the area they control. In the game you can punch someone in the next square, but people do not punch 5 feet away. You are assumed to be moving around within your area of control. The game also denies two medium creatures to be in the same square, so even when grappling, they are considered in two different squares even though they would not be more than an arm's length and probably much closer.
This.

Also, Spike Growth just says: "ground in a 20-foot radius centered on a point within range twists and sprouts hard spikes and thorns. area becomes difficult terrain for the duration". And you take damage only on movement.

From all of this, if you ask anyone around how (s)he would *represent* the actual spikes, I'm pretty sure he would not make them more than a few feet high.

Because if those were really high, why/how wouldn't creatures inside it also get hurt when simply moving arms around (making an attack, casting spell)?

So, first of all, although it's something only each DM can decide on his own, seems apparent enough that the spikes are not extremely high (you have higher level spells for that, namely Wall of Thorns).

Second, OP clearly stated that Druid "runned on the edge". Confer quoted posts, there is no reason why anything more than the grappling arm should be "inside" (as in above) the area, but still far enough above the actual height of spikes.

Third, as many people explained already, for it to become really interesting trick, you'd need to build upon it party-wise (or at least character-wise). Because moving grappled creature halves movement. As people pointed out, in that case, the improvement over plan attacks was that the damage was guaranteed, but nothing more.

The ruling that DM could have made though, which could have been justifiable, would be "since you are dragging a creature which is inside difficult terrain, even though you are not yourself, you'll suffer the added movement cost because you logically have to use more effort than if you were dragging on normal ground".
This is something most players could accept imo, but then it really makes the combo actually bad *unless* you built around it.

Also...

I'd make you use the grapple rules properly, that's what.

An ape has a strength score of 16, so his carrying capacity is 240 pounds. An Orc weighs between 230 and 280 pounds, and presumably he was wearing some armor (The Orc Chief in the Monster's Manual is wearing chainmail, which weighs 55 pounds). This means the Ape could not carry the orc, he would have to DRAG him, which means his speed is reduced to 5. And because the ape is the same size as the orc, his speed is halved while moving him while grappled. You always round down and so his speed is ZERO. He cannot move the orc.
This seems to me a far better argument against how things were played, than everything read before in this thread. Although I couldn't have an opinion on his validity because I never really care about encumberance rule with my players. :)

[Schopy]

Trying to put a save every 5 feet is a clear houserule, and a very bad one to boot.


Maybe he comes from 4e where such a thing (or at least very similar) actually existed, if i remember correctly. If you were forced into hazardous terrain (like fire or a drop from a cliff) you got a save. If successful you resisted the forced movement.

So that houserule is far from perfect, but i wouldn't call it "very bad" per se. He could just as easily have said, forced movement does no damage at all or as some here argue, that either both get damaged or neither.

[Citan]

Maybe he comes from 4e where such a thing (or at least very similar) actually existed, if i remember correctly. If you were forced into hazardous terrain (like fire or a drop from a cliff) you got a save. If successful you resisted the forced movement.

So that houserule is far from perfect, but i wouldn't call it "very bad" per se. He could just as easily have said, forced movement does no damage at all or as some here argue, that either both get damaged or neither.
I qualify it as very bad because it completely voids of substance a spell that would become obsolete naturally just a few levels later, unless everyone builds upon it (which is not necessarily the best idea either).

Only a 4E Monk, or any Monk / Rogue with three allies (for Spike Growth, Fly and Haste respectively -make it four if you want Enlarge too) could really make this stupidly powerful. And even then, it means you need four people to fully cooperate for this to work (instead of using spells like Erupting Earth / Conjure Animals, Slow, Hypnotic Pattern etc). And it would be useless against creatures too big to be grappled. I don't see how that could end as game-breaking.

The only one *maybe* game-breaking could be a bunch of Tome Sorlocks, all with Thorns Whip and Ray of Frost and Repelling + Agonizing + Grasp + Lethargy Eldricht Blast. ^^

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

so basically what happened it you created rules out of thin air. (that you can drag to the side)

this is neither allowed nor forbade by the PHB. It is reasonable for the reasons the other half of the argument stated that you can only drag behind. (I stand by DMG 272 suggests it should be tougher)

If you can create a rule, so can the DM, specifically that dragging to the side requires a save.
Note, per the OP, the DM applied the save to the grapple not spike growth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I do agree that the DM prolly panicked.
That brings the last point: dude, player argued with the DM for 20 minutes in the middle of the game, killing the mood.

[Kadesh]

I qualify it as very bad because it completely voids of substance a spell that would become obsolete naturally just a few levels later, unless everyone builds upon it (which is not necessarily the best idea either).

Only a 4E Monk, or any Monk / Rogue with three allies (for Spike Growth, Fly and Haste respectively -make it four if you want Enlarge too) could really make this stupidly powerful. And even then, it means you need four people to fully cooperate for this to work (instead of using spells like Erupting Earth / Conjure Animals, Slow, Hypnotic Pattern etc). And it would be useless against creatures too big to be grappled. I don't see how that could end as game-breaking.

The only one *maybe* game-breaking could be a bunch of Tome Sorlocks, all with Thorns Whip and Ray of Frost and Repelling + Agonizing + Grasp + Lethargy Eldricht Blast. ^^
If he was making a check to escape the original DC, as if resisting a shove, would that make it better or worse?

[Citan]

so basically what happened it you created rules out of thin air. (that you can drag to the side)

this is neither allowed nor forbade by the PHB. It is reasonable for the reasons the other half of the argument stated that you can only drag behind. (I stand by DMG 272 suggests it should be tougher)

If you can create a rule, so can the DM, specifically that dragging to the side requires a save.
Note, per the OP, the DM applied the save to the grapple not spike growth.

It's funny how you could say such an unfounded thing.

Reminder, text from PHB: "When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you."

There is no limitation by RAW on how to move around a grappled creature, besides "halved movement".

As have always been in RPG in general, and 5e in particular: "if it's not expressly forbidden or restricted it's allowed (by RAW)".
If there had been nothing at all in the PHB about moving a grappled creature, I would have said any way is fine. But it's not the case: it clearly states the possibility, AND the one restriction that applies case arising.

So there is no more limitation than what described, including a limitation on the "direction". Period. You can grapple and either drag or carry from front, from behind, from side, from upwards or below (flying).

Saying otherwise it's fine at your table, but it's clearly a houserule.
Whether or not you find it "realistic" is completely irrelevant, because it's irrelevant in the game design (otherwise you wouldn't have magic in the first place).


If he was making a check to escape the original DC, as if resisting a shove, would that make it better or worse?
Well, it is already the case isn't it? Since Grappling is an Athletics contest?
So, "in general" I would view it as unnecessary nerf.
Now, if there was any particular circumstance in a specific case justifying that the grappled creature gets another chance, yeah sure I'd make it roll another check... But I cannot find any decent example right now. ^^

And again, this is something that should be overall situational.
What would happen if someone used this *every fight* at my table would simply be that, after a few sessions, and provided the party is at least moderately famous, one way or another, factions all around would get word of that combo and start working around it if they have the resources for it (hiring a caster, or just someone extra perceptive, etc).

[NaughtyTiger]

As have always been in RPG in general, and 5e in particular: "if it's not expressly forbidden or restricted it's allowed (by RAW)".


funny you should say that, there was an entire thread about 2 weeks back called "What is RAW" that specifically asked that question... there was STARK disagreement on that topic. about half the folks said "Rules as written" only includes the rules written. You almost quoted my opinion on RAW in that thread.

I do ascribe to the "if it's not forbidden it's allowed." that said, every decision that can't be explicitly answered by pointing the the text is a houserule.
Point in fact, it isn't explicitly forbidden for the DM to impose additional rules for dragging to the side.

The designers have made it [I]very[I] clear that shoves to the side are more difficult than pushing back. (DMG 272 shove aside)
grapples and shoves are closely related (governed by similar rules)
It is reasonable that dragging to the side is more difficult than pulling behind.


lastly, i do like that I say, the PHB doesn't explicitly allow or forbade it, and you say that is completely unfounded... then go on to say the PHB doesn't explicitly allow or restrict it.

[Kadesh]

It's funny how you could say such an unfounded thing.

Reminder, text from PHB: "When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you."

There is no limitation by RAW on how to move around a grappled creature, besides "halved movement".

As have always been in RPG in general, and 5e in particular: "if it's not expressly forbidden or restricted it's allowed (by RAW)".
If there had been nothing at all in the PHB about moving a grappled creature, I would have said any way is fine. But it's not the case: it clearly states the possibility, AND the one restriction that applies case arising.

So there is no more limitation than what described, including a limitation on the "direction". Period. You can grapple and either drag or carry from front, from behind, from side, from upwards or below (flying).

Saying otherwise it's fine at your table, but it's clearly a houserule.
Whether or not you find it "realistic" is completely irrelevant, because it's irrelevant in the game design (otherwise you wouldn't have magic in the first place).


Well, it is already the case isn't it? Since Grappling is an Athletics contest?
So, "in general" I would view it as unnecessary nerf.
Now, if there was any particular circumstance in a specific case justifying that the grappled creature gets another chance, yeah sure I'd make it roll another check... But I cannot find any decent example right now. ^^

And again, this is something that should be overall situational.
What would happen if someone used this *every fight* at my table would simply be that, after a few sessions, and provided the party is at least moderately famous, one way or another, factions all around would get word of that combo and start working around it if they have the resources for it (hiring a caster, or just someone extra perceptive, etc).

I don't see it as a nerf. I see it as a DM applying the rules for a shove while allowing OP to keep their already sufficient athletics check rather than having them roll for each 5ft moved, and allowing them do it more than 1/turn, and in a direction not usually allowed by shove.

I see that as a direct upgrade in the benefit of the player.

[Xetheral]

.So there is no more limitation than what described, including a limitation on the "direction". Period. You can grapple and either drag or carry from front, from behind, from side, from upwards or below (flying).

According to Oxford, the (relevant) definition of "drag" is: Pull (someone or something) along forcefully, roughly, or with difficulty.

The (relevant) definition of "pull" is: Exert force on (someone or something) so as to cause movement towards oneself.

So the word "drag" requires the dragged person or object to move towards you. Ergo, by definition, you can't drag something in front of you (in your direction of motion), because it would then be moving away from you, rather than towards you.

Whether or not one can drag something to the side is more debatable. If you treat creatures as being centered in their square, then you can't drag them alongside because their direction of motion wouldn't be towards you (it would be exactly parallel). If you treat creatures as not necessarily being centered, then there is room to argue that creatures to the side can be slightly behind you (in your direction of motion) and thus eligible (at least as far as the definition is concerned) to be dragged.

[Damon_Tor]

Why don't Dragons have dedicated Innate Spellcasting lists based on species. You're the DM, DM.

My point was: there's a dev arguing that the reason we're supposed to assume the words "carry or drag" in the grapple rules have no correlation to the terms "carry" and "drag" defined in the encumbrance chapter because there wouldn't be enough information to figure out encumbrance as relates to grappled creatures because their weights aren't usually listed. I take issue with this because it was his damn team that wrote those monster stats to begin with. Excusing a lazy oversight by pointing out another lazy oversight isn't a very good argument. Why even say "carry or drag" and not simply use the genetic term "move"?

[Kadesh]

My point was: there's a dev arguing that the reason we're supposed to assume the words "carry or drag" in the grapple rules have no correlation to the terms "carry" and "drag" defined in the encumbrance chapter because there wouldn't be enough information to figure out encumbrance as relates to grappled creatures because their weights aren't usually listed. I take issue with this because it was his damn team that wrote those monster stats to begin with. Excusing a lazy oversight by pointing out another lazy oversight isn't a very good argument. Why even say "carry or drag" and not simply use the genetic term "move"?

You've lost me in your general outrage of having to make stuff up in a game where you have to make stuff up.

[Damon_Tor]

You've lost me in your general outrage of having to make stuff up in a game where you have to make stuff up.

Not annoyed with the lack of monster weights, annoyed they're pointing at that as a justification for decoupling grappling from encumbrance. Or rather, I'm annoyed with their assertion that because the weights were missing, we should have been able to intuit that encumbrance had nothing to do with grappling, despite their decision to use the same language in both sections.

[sophontteks]

As have always been in RPG in general, and 5e in particular: "if it's not expressly forbidden or restricted it's allowed (by RAW)".
If there had been nothing at all in the PHB about moving a grappled creature, I would have said any way is fine. But it's not the case: it clearly states the possibility, AND the one restriction that applies case arising.

So anything not expressly stated in the book is RAW legal? Wonder where that rule is located...

[NaughtyTiger]

So anything not expressly stated in the book is RAW legal? Wonder where that rule is located...

Intentionally ironic?

[sophontteks]

Intentionally ironic?
Yes, yes it was.

[Malifice]

RAW the Chief should be taking the damage for each 5' he is moved in the spikes.

It's upping the damage of a 2nd level spell significantly but really how significantly? Takes the co-ordinated actions of 2 PC to accomplish this and dragging a grappled foe halves your movement.

Druid - Uses his bonus action, action and move to wildshape, grapple and move target
Ranger - Uses a 2nd Level spell

2 5th level players working to deal 6d4 damage(15 avg) is not particularly fantastic even if you could repeat it each round with a move action. I don't see how this is overpowered enough to even warrant a house rule of grapple movement. Pretty much anyone could do that damage at 5th level with their regular attacks.

Yeah, this.

A wildshape, action and bonus action (plus succesful grapple check) from the Druid, and Concentration, an action and a 2nd level spell slot from the OP, all to deal 6d4 piercing damage to a single target.

Its woefully suboptimal for the resource expenditure really. A Fighter swinging a Greatsword and using zero resources other than the Attack action deals more damage on his own!

[Schopy]

Yeah, this.

A wildshape, action and bonus action (plus succesful grapple check) from the Druid, and Concentration, an action and a 2nd level spell slot from the OP, all to deal 6d4 piercing damage to a single target.

Its woefully suboptimal for the resource expenditure really. A Fighter swinging a Greatsword and using zero resources other than the Attack action deals more damage on his own!

Well, that's true, but only for the OPs situation. Two player trying to optimize for using that spell in that way could potentially double the damage output opposed to a standard hack and slay tactic.

Let's see
Wood Elf Natur Cleric Lvl 3
Goliath Totem Barbarian (Eagle) Lvl 3

"Standard Tactic" vs. two medium sized enemies with lots of hp, every attack hits them (if you consider miss chances, Spike growth tactic would be able to deal the damge even more reliable than just attacking)
1. Round:
Cleric
Bonus Action: Spiritual Weapon (Lvl 2) 1d8+3
Action Sacred Flame (Cantrip) 1d8
Barbarian
Bonus Action: Rage
Action: Attack 1d6+5
Average Dmg 20,5
2. Round - x. Round
Cleric
BA: Use Spiritual Weapon 1d8+3
A: Sacred Flame 1d8
Barbarian (Dual wielding)
A: Attack 1d6+5
BA: Attack 1d6+5
Average Damge 29

"Spike Growth Tactic" (ignoring optimal use at a choke point)
1. Round:
Cleric
Action: Spike Growth (Lvl 2)
Barbarian
Bonus Action: Rage
Action: Grab Target1 (likely succeed with high strength, Athletics proficiency and adv. to Strength checks)
Lets assume he uses his movement to get into range to Target2 and not deal any spikey dmg yet.
Average Dmg 0
2. Round - x. Round
Cleric
A: Sacred Flame 1d8
BA: Nothing
Barbarian
A: Grab Target2
Move 15 feet into Spike Growth 2x3x2d4
BA: Dash (Eagle Totem) 2x3x2d4
Free: Laugh maniacally
Average Damge 64,5

Mantain Rage trough taking an average of 13,25 damage per round (not counting attacks from enemies).

I hope i calculated that more or less correct. Did i miss something?

[Malifice]

Well, that's true, but only for the OPs situation. Two player trying to optimize for using that spell in that way could potentially double the damage output opposed to a standard hack and slay tactic.

Let's see
Wood Elf Natur Cleric Lvl 3
Goliath Totem Barbarian (Eagle) Lvl 3

"Standard Tactic" vs. two medium sized enemies with lots of hp, every attack hits them (if you consider miss chances, Spike growth tactic would be able to deal the damge even more reliable than just attacking)
1. Round:
Cleric
Bonus Action: Spiritual Weapon (Lvl 2) 1d8+3
Action Sacred Flame (Cantrip) 1d8
Barbarian
Bonus Action: Rage
Action: Attack 1d6+5
Average Dmg 20,5
2. Round - x. Round
Cleric
BA: Use Spiritual Weapon 1d8+3
A: Sacred Flame 1d8
Barbarian (Dual wielding)
A: Attack 1d6+5
BA: Attack 1d6+5
Average Damge 29

"Spike Growth Tactic" (ignoring optimal use at a choke point)
1. Round:
Cleric
Action: Spike Growth (Lvl 2)
Barbarian
Bonus Action: Rage
Action: Grab Target1 (likely succeed with high strength, Athletics proficiency and adv. to Strength checks)
Lets assume he uses his movement to get into range to Target2 and not deal any spikey dmg yet.
Average Dmg 0
2. Round - x. Round
Cleric
A: Sacred Flame 1d8
BA: Nothing
Barbarian
A: Grab Target2
Move 15 feet into Spike Growth 2x3x2d4
BA: Dash (Eagle Totem) 2x3x2d4
Free: Laugh maniacally
Average Damge 64,5

Mantain Rage trough taking an average of 13,25 damage per round (not counting attacks from enemies).

I hope i calculated that more or less correct. Did i miss something?

The Barbarians rage ends at the end of turn 1 (he hasnt dealt or suffered any damage this round). Also the Barbarian requires 2 free hands (one for each creature grappled).

Also you forgot to halve the total distance moved (in addition to having his speed halved due to the grapple, the Spike Growth is also difficult terrain so total movement is only 1/4).

Presuming a move + dash speed of 80' per round, thats only a total movement of 20' (after being 1/4) so its 8d4 (20 points on averge) damage per target (including the Barbarian, although he does have resistance so he only takes 10 points).

I mean just how incredibly situational and specific is such a scenario though, and is it really that optimal? He grabs two Thugs and drags them through the Spike Growth, while they wail on him for 2 rounds and he takes 20 points of damage himself from the Spikes (after resistance).

Like it involves some pretty specific pre-requisites and set up (specific builds built for the tactic, concentration being maintained, 2 rounds of prep, two medium sized enemies within grapple/ move range of each other over at least 2 rounds, a sufficient chokepoint to keep them contained, and provide the space for the barbarian to run around in the spikes, 2 sucessful grapple checks, neither grappled creature breaking the grapple before being dragged through the spikes, two free hands from the barbarian, the use of a 2nd level spell and a rage and even then it comes with significant HP loss from the Barbarian of 13 points for a 3rd level PC each round also).

Our 3rd level Druid could just bonus action turn into a Bear and rip and tear, while the Barbarian does his thing with Reckless attack and GWM. Which is a tactic that is 99 percent more useful in 99 percent of situations with 99 percent less finicky set up.

The whole spike growth thing is mostly a theory craft exersize that doesnt play well outside of white room combats, and even then you're almost always better doing something different.

It might work OK once or twice but it isnt the kind of spell I see abused at my table, and I have some very canny players.

[Schopy]

The Barbarians rage ends at the end of turn 1 (he hasnt dealt or suffered any damage this round). Also the Barbarian requires 2 free hands (one for each creature grappled).
The rage only ends if he hasn't attacked or taken damage. Grabbing a creature is a special variant of the attack action. And yes, he has 2 free hands.


Also you forgot to halve the total distance moved (in addition to having his speed halved due to the grapple, the Spike Growth is also difficult terrain so total movement is only 1/4).
True, on the other hand i also forgot that he can double dash, with action and bonus action [edit: starting in the 3. round]. So instead of 30 feet (60/2) we would have to calculate with 20 feet (90/4). So if our hypothetical barbarian wants to stick with that "strategy" he should invest in the mobile feat next level (3*40/2=60 feet of spikey death). ☺


Presuming a move + dash speed of 80' per round, thats only a total movement of 20' (after being 1/4) so its 8d4 (20 points on averge) damage per target (including the Barbarian, although he does have resistance so he only takes 10 points).

I mean just how incredibly situational and specific is such a scenario though, and is it really that optimal? He grabs two Thugs and drags them through the Spike Growth, while they wail on him for 2 rounds and he takes 20 points of damage himself from the Spikes (after resistance).

Like it involves some pretty specific pre-requisites and set up (specific builds built for the tactic, concentration being maintained, 2 rounds of prep, two medium sized enemies within grapple/ move range of each other over at least 2 rounds, a sufficient chokepoint to keep them contained, and provide the space for the barbarian to run around in the spikes, 2 sucessful grapple checks, neither grappled creature breaking the grapple before being dragged through the spikes, two free hands from the barbarian, the use of a 2nd level spell and a rage and even then it comes with significant HP loss from the Barbarian of 13 points for a 3rd level PC each round also).

Our 3rd level Druid could just bonus action turn into a Bear and rip and tear, while the Barbarian does his thing with Reckless attack and GWM. Which is a tactic that is 99 percent more useful in 99 percent of situations with 99 percent less finicky set up.

The whole spike growth thing is mostly a theory craft exersize that doesnt play well outside of white room combats, and even then you're almost always better doing something different.

It might work OK once or twice but it isnt the kind of spell I see abused at my table, and I have some very canny players.

Yes, you are absolutly right, it's just trying to come up with something more or less ridiculous and i'm pretty sure such a tactic wouldn't fly in a "serious" game. It still could be fun for a silly one-shot though. ☺

[NaughtyTiger]

Also you forgot to halve the total distance moved (in addition to having his speed halved due to the grapple, the Spike Growth is also difficult terrain so total movement is only 1/4)..

The point of contention in this thread is whether the difficult terrain applies (and avoid damage),
can the grappler (barbarian or ape) drag to the side without entering the spike growth?


Schopy is saying that this is really strong if you can drag to the side. (he shouldn't have conceded that point to you)

[Schopy]

Schopy is saying that this is really strong if you can drag to the side. (he shouldn't have conceded that point to you)

Yeah, but that barbarian had two targets grabbed and i think dragging them both along to the same side would be a little bit far fechted. On the other hand, it's often mentioned that martials should be able to do seemingly supernatural things too. Well, as always it will depend on the chosen setting and what the DM is ok with.

[Malifice]

The point of contention in this thread is whether the difficult terrain applies (and avoid damage),
can the grappler (barbarian or ape) drag to the side without entering the spike growth?


Schopy is saying that this is really strong if you can drag to the side. (he shouldn't have conceded that point to you)

AFAIK there is no longer any rule about entering a creatures space during a grapple (like there was in previous editions) and there is no rule that forced movement (such as bringing a creature with you during your movement) having to conform to inertia or anything else.

So yes you can 'drag' a creature you have grappled through adjacent spaces as you move (meaning you could run around a spike growth area or even back and forth the area without entering it yourself.

That said the speed reduction for moving while holding a grappled creature isnt a feature of the condition itself, so there is an argument that your speed could be reduced by 1/4 when grappling 2 creatures (or 1/6 if doing so and moving through difficult terrain).

And re the post above, yes the Eagle totem barbarian could double dash, but not until round 3 at the earliest (round one he rages as a bonus action and then grapples as an action, and round two he moves to target 2 and grapples it as an action, and can still dash afterwards; only on round 3 can he double dash for triple movement).

Im not seeing it as a viable strategy in anything other than corner cases, most of which would almost never happen in anything other than a white room situation.

[NaughtyTiger]

AFAIK there is no longer any rule about entering a creatures space during a grapple (like there was in previous editions) and there is no rule that forced movement (such as bringing a creature with you during your movement) having to conform to inertia or anything else.

So yes you can 'drag' a creature you have grappled through adjacent spaces as you move (meaning you could run around a spike growth area or even back and forth the area without entering it yourself.


I agree there is no rule specifying that you can drag someone to the side and there is not rule specifying that you must drag behind.

Given that most of this thread is an argument about whether you can drag to the side or not, stating a position without pointing to a rule to back it up doesn't advance the conversation in any direction.

There are rules about "inertia" and forced movement:

grapplers move at 1/2 speed when dragging someone
dragging stuff costs double movement
shove aside is more difficult than normal shoving (DMG 272)
...

but those don't address the explicit question. Thus, both interpretations are correct.

[Malifice]

I agree there is no rule specifying that you can drag someone to the side and there is not rule specifying that you must drag behind.

Given that most of this thread is an argument about whether you can drag to the side or not, stating a position without pointing to a rule to back it up doesn't advance the conversation in any direction.

There are rules about "inertia" and forced movement:

grapplers move at 1/2 speed when dragging someone
dragging stuff costs double movement
shove aside is more difficult than normal shoving (DMG 272)
...

but those don't address the explicit question. Thus, both interpretations are correct.

I grapple them. At no time are they in my space or vice versa (the rules prohibit us ending a turn in each other space in fact).

I move, dragging them in an adjacent space of my choice, as I do so.

It seems pretty clear to me.

I can (for example) grapple a creature, move at half speed to a cliff, then choose to dangle them off the cliff (placing them in the space over the drop) and then release them.

A DM could grant the creature dropped a Dex save to grab the edge before falling, but that's DM dependent.

[Galithar]

I grapple them. At no time are they in my space or vice versa (the rules prohibit us ending a turn in each other space in fact).

I move, dragging them in an adjacent space of my choice, as I do so.

It seems pretty clear to me.

I can (for example) grapple a creature, move at half speed to a cliff, then choose to dangle them off the cliff (placing them in the space over the drop) and then release them.

A DM could grant the creature dropped a Dex save to grab the edge before falling, but that's DM dependent.

Or, the DM still following RAW rules that you can drag them with you to the edge of the cliff, but then must make a shove attack to push them over the edge allowing them another chance to win the contest of Str (Dex) against you.

The point he made was that the book does NOT say one way or the other. So either way requires a ruling by the DM.

[MaxWilson]

I grapple them. At no time are they in my space or vice versa (the rules prohibit us ending a turn in each other space in fact).

I move, dragging them in an adjacent space of my choice, as I do so.

This is the controversial bit. Physics would say they enter the space you just exited, because the pulling force is always exerted towards your current location, not laterally.

[Malifice]

Or, the DM still following RAW rules that you can drag them with you to the edge of the cliff, but then must make a shove attack to push them over the edge allowing them another chance to win the contest of Str (Dex) against you.

The point he made was that the book does NOT say one way or the other. So either way requires a ruling by the DM.

Thats not RAW.

At no stage during a grapple do you enter the creatures space or vice versa. You and the creature remain in your own spaces.

If I grapple you I can then walk (at half speed) from my current position (taking you with me) to the edge of a cliff or bottomless shaft, place you in an adjacent space to my space (over the shaft) and release you (no action required).

Like what Vader did to Palpatine.

If I'm feeling generous I might allow a Dex save from the dropped creature to catch the ledge on the way down, but by RAW it's only the single grapple check and that's it.

Also I see nothing in the rules that require you to drag the grappled creature behind you as you move (as in in the square directly opposite the direction of your movement).

Seeing as movement is abstract, I have no problem with a creature grappling someone and then walking 'sideways' or back and forth or whatever, with the creature in whatever square/ space they want as they move.

Trying to bring inertia or momentum into DnD movement rules is kind of silly IMO.

[Kadesh]

Also I see nothing in the rules that require you to drag the grappled creature behind you as you move (as in in the square directly opposite the direction of your movement).

I see nothing that allows you to pull it to the side, either.

[DMThac0]

I see nothing that allows you to pull it to the side, either.

That type of reasoning is unhelpful. I don't see a rule that allows me to swing on a candelabra, I see no rule that allows me to crawl, I see no rule that allows me to fashion a reed into a breathing tube to hide under water. Does this mean I can't do any of them, or does this mean that some loose interpretations are allowed by the vague nature of the rules.

[NaughtyTiger]

That type of reasoning is unhelpful. I don't see a rule that allows me to swing on a candelabra, I see no rule that allows me to crawl, I see no rule that allows me to fashion a reed into a breathing tube to hide under water. Does this mean I can't do any of them, or does this mean that some loose interpretations are allowed by the vague nature of the rules.

Malfice is saying the the lack of an explicit rule means [drag in any square] MUST be allowed.

Kadesh is pointing out that the inverse is also true, ie the lack of an explicit rule means [drag behind only] MUST is also a valid interpretation.

His comment in the context of the entire conversation is helpful and consistent with your post.
His comment taken out of context makes it seem as though you disagree with him.

Kadesh and others have already stated ad naseum (and i will quote myself)
"I agree there is no rule specifying that you can drag someone to the side and there is not rule specifying that you must drag behind."


side note: there is explicitly a rule that says you can crawl. (specifically moving while prone)

[DMThac0]

side note: there is explicitly a rule that says you can crawl. (specifically moving while prone)

Thanks for the correction :)


As to the rest, I get that there is the argument of inverse. The way the response was presented gave little value to the discussion since, as you said, it has been said ad naseum.

I, as my method of DMing, believe that if a rule does not give an explicit description it is possible to allow the reader to interpret it as they see fit, and use it, as long as it fits within the boundaries of the text. The rule does not say you cannot drag a person in a square adjacent, nor does it say you must drag a person behind you, therefore it is up to the person grappling to decide how they wish to apply the action.

[NaughtyTiger]

I, as my method of DMing, believe that if a rule does not give an explicit description it is possible to allow the reader to interpret it as they see fit, and use it, as long as it fits within the boundaries of the text. The rule does not say you cannot drag a person in a square adjacent, nor does it say you must drag a person behind you, therefore it is up to the person grappling to decide how they wish to apply the action.

so to summarize:
When you grapple Bob:
You agree with that you can drag Bob to the side.
You disagree that drag implies that Bob moves into the square that the you previously occupied (drag behind only)
You disagree that both interpretations are valid (drag means behind only vs drag includes side, front...)

[DMThac0]

so to summarize:
When you grapple Bob:
You agree with that you can drag Bob to the side.
You disagree that drag implies that Bob moves into the square that the you previously occupied (drag behind only)
You disagree that both interpretations are valid (drag means behind only vs drag includes side, front...)

I apologize if I was too vague.

I agree that you can drag Bob off to the side,
I agree that Bob may move into the space you previously occupied, but only if you choose to drag him behind you,
Therefore both interpretations are valid since they both fall within the possible interpretation of the text.

[sophontteks]

I apologize if I was too vague.

I agree that you can drag Bob off to the side,
I agree that Bob may move into the space you previously occupied, but only if you choose to drag him behind you,
Therefore both interpretations are valid since they both fall within the possible interpretation of the text.
This interpetation implies that you can drag the target faster then you can move and it implies that you can drag a target even if you aren't moving. But the description only allows the target to move with your movement.

Could I, for example, swing the target around in circles around my square as I move? Could I just sit there and continuously move him from my side and back behind me without moving myself?

This is the problem with unlinking dragging from the players movement. They shouldn't get to move them where they want without using an action like push along with it.

[NaughtyTiger]

I apologize if I was too vague

Clearly I was too vague too. When you grapple Bob:

You agree with that you can drag Bob to the side.
You disagree that drag implies that Bob must move into the square that the you previously occupied (can only drag behind)
You disagree that both interpretations are valid (drag means behind vs drag includes any direction)

1 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive (mandatory drag behind is not compatible with also able to drag to the side.)

How would you do the following?

Currently, you have Bob grappled in the square to the left of you.
You want to move him to the square on the right.
If you can drag uncontested to the side, can you drag uncontested around a circle? How many ft movement if you aren't moving?
How does that square with DMG 272 Shove aside?

I cannot envision how 1 is possible and not completely bypassing Shove aside rules.

[DMThac0]

If you can drag uncontested to the side, can you drag uncontested around a circle? How many ft movement if you aren't moving?
How does that square with DMG 272 Shove aside?



This interpetation implies that you can drag the target faster then you can move and it implies that you can drag a target even if you aren't moving. But the description only allows the target to move with your movement.

Could I, for example, swing the target around in circles around my square as I move? Could I just sit there and continuously move him from my side and back behind me without moving myself?


Both of you present similar questions, and something I hadn't considered, thank you! My immediate thought to this is: provide a limitation that can compromise both the freedom to drag off to the side and not overshadow the Shove aside possibility.

As a quick thought, seeing as I'm not at the book to look deeper, is to say that the limitation would be the 3 squares "behind" you, thus allowing you to drag directly behind you, or one square left or right of that spot. To further example that it's a task to try to drag a person off to the side rather than directly behind I'd impose another 5ft reduction to movement as it is an awkward thing to do.

[sophontteks]

Both of you present similar questions, and something I hadn't considered, thank you! My immediate thought to this is: provide a limitation that can compromise both the freedom to drag off to the side and not overshadow the Shove aside possibility.

As a quick thought, seeing as I'm not at the book to look deeper, is to say that the limitation would be the 3 squares "behind" you, thus allowing you to drag directly behind you, or one square left or right of that spot. To further example that it's a task to try to drag a person off to the side rather than directly behind I'd impose another 5ft reduction to movement as it is an awkward thing to do.
The alternative seen in many grappling guides is using the push action for this extra movement. The push action can be used for any kind of unorthodox attack, not necessarily just the two listed. It gives the grappled target a vital chance to avoid instant death, because that attack has a chance to miss.

This idea of moving the target to the side for free sounds great until the enemy grapples you and instantly kills your character by moving them to the side, and into a pit of lava. Players would freak the heck out over this, guaranteed, and insist that this should be a push, even if they were cool with their character going this all game.

If the enemy's movement is not directly behind the character (the square the player previously occupied) the potential for cheese is just too high.

[NaughtyTiger]

Both of you present similar questions, and something I hadn't considered, thank you! My immediate thought to this is: provide a limitation that can compromise both the freedom to drag off to the side and not overshadow the Shove aside possibility.

As a quick thought, seeing as I'm not at the book to look deeper, is to say that the limitation would be the 3 squares "behind" you, thus allowing you to drag directly behind you, or one square left or right of that spot. To further example that it's a task to try to drag a person off to the side rather than directly behind I'd impose another 5ft reduction to movement as it is an awkward thing to do.

Shove Aside DMG 272

With this option, a creature uses the specidal shove attack from the PHB to force a target to the side, rather than away. The attacker has disadvantage on its Strength (Athletics) check when it does so. If that check is succsessful, the attackcer moves the target 5 feet to a different space within its reach.

Shove Aside is costly: disadvantage, not grappled.
Citan and Malifice interpretation of Grappling allows the same thing without Disadvantage, and grappled.
Your (admittedly on the fly, so I am not attacking it) idea allows the same thing without Disadvantage, and grappled, for +5ft movement.

If you want to drag to the side, it has to cost a lot!
The fact that the designers included a rule that makes any side movement so difficult, implies that "drag to the side" is not part of the grapple ruleset.
The DM in the original post imposed save every 5ft. That is more reasonable.


edit: Soph, I didn't see your responses between my edits. I think you are capturing my concerns with Drag to the side well, without just saying "Drag means behind". so thanks for the word smithy stuff.

[DMThac0]

@sophontteks: It's a thing at my table that anything the players do can, and will, be used against them. It tends to tame some of the more outlandish activities.

@NaughtyTiger: Thank you for the quote, that helps me see where you two are coming from.

I see where this type of situation can be difficult and opens the door to abuse. I know I chimed in way earlier about my opinion to the OP so I won't reiterate, I'll just walk away knowing a bit more ;)

[NaughtyTiger]

@sophontteks: It's a thing at my table that anything the players do can, and will, be used against them. It tends to tame some of the more outlandish activities.

@NaughtyTiger: Thank you for the quote, that helps me see where you two are coming from.

I see where this type of situation can be difficult and opens the door to abuse. I know I chimed in way earlier about my opinion to the OP so I won't reiterate, I'll just walk away knowing a bit more ;)

Actually, before you walk away. Thanks for not screaming "Blah blah blah, RAW, blah blah Homebrew! blah blah Play how you want!". There is too little of that lately.

[sophontteks]

Actually, before you walk away. Thanks for not screaming "Blah blah blah, RAW, blah blah Homebrew! blah blah Play how you want!". There is too little of that lately.
I don't really know how to react to this. Do we all just like shake hands and walk away? It doesn't feel right. Have I been pranked? Is it April 1st already?

Yeah, but for real thanks.

[Kadesh]

Thanks for the correction :)


As to the rest, I get that there is the argument of inverse. The way the response was presented gave little value to the discussion since, as you said, it has been said ad naseum.

I, as my method of DMing, believe that if a rule does not give an explicit description it is possible to allow the reader to interpret it as they see fit, and use it, as long as it fits within the boundaries of the text. The rule does not say you cannot drag a person in a square adjacent, nor does it say you must drag a person behind you, therefore it is up to the person grappling to decide how they wish to apply the action.

I apologise profusely for your inability to follow a thread of conversation.

Enjoy your evening.

[NaughtyTiger]

snip

unnecessary and churlish