Does this combo work like I think it does.

[Throne12]

Your a 5th lv ek fighter.

Round 1: attack action first attack knock enemy prone. Then second attack grapple.
Action surge: cast create bonfire under prone enemy.

Now the enemy can only attack with disadvantage, Break the grapple, cast a spell. Does he have disadvantage on the dex save for bonfire?

[th3g0dc0mp13x]

Your a 5th lv ek fighter.

Round 1: attack action first attack knock enemy prone. Then second attack grapple.
Action surge: cast create bonfire under prone enemy.

Now the enemy can only attack with disadvantage, Break the grapple, cast a spell. Does he have disadvantage on the dex save for bonfire?


He does not have disadvantage on the saving throw, for that you would need to impose the restrained condition rather then just grappled and prone.

[Throne12]

He does not have disadvantage on the saving throw, for that you would need to impose the restrained condition rather then just grappled and prone.

But the only other way is to have the grappler feat and it also restrains you as well. You could use a net or a spell but not many things work for the EK and it turns into a long set up.

[Rukelnikov]

In 2 lvl casting create bonfire allows you a BA attack, you can throw the net with that!

[Kadesh]

But the only other way is to have the grappler feat and it also restrains you as well. You could use a net or a spell but not many things work for the EK and it turns into a long set up.

Attack 1; Knock Prone (Has to Crawl, has Disadvantage on Attack rolls, attacks against it have advantage while within 5ft, but disadvantage otherwise)
Attack 2; Grapple (Creature's Speed becomes 0)
Action Surge; Cast Bonfire (V, S; thus requires you to drop weapon to cast); fills 5ft cube, creature in that cube must save when cast, and at the end of each of it's turns thereafter.

This also means that because you (your arm) is within the filled 5ft cube to maintain the grapple, the DM might rule that you are subject to its effect.

[Throne12]

You can draw a weapon as a free action so you start the first round with nothing in your hands. I push him on his ass. Then I grab this foot for the grapple. Action surge one hand holding a foot other hand is casting bonfire. Round 2 I draw weapon and attack with free hand. On his turns he has to make dex saves.


It so stupid you dont have disadvantage on dex save if your prone.

[Kadesh]

Not really. Stop, drop roll is quite literally what you are taught to put yourself out on fire. And restrain does give disadvantage on Dex Saves, so...

What is your issue?

[Throne12]

Not really. Stop, drop roll is quite literally what you are taught to put yourself out on fire. And restrain does give disadvantage on Dex Saves, so...

What is your issue?

You can't restrain anyone with out a feat, spell or magic item. And if you take the feat you are also restrain yourself.

[Xihirli]

Or a net.
You can use a net.

[OverLordOcelot]

You can't restrain anyone with out a feat, spell or magic item. And if you take the feat you are also restrain yourself.

For completeness, wild shaped druids can assume forms that have a restrain ability, like giant octopus or giant constrictor snake.

[Kadesh]

You can't restrain anyone with out a feat, spell or magic item. And if you take the feat you are also restrain yourself.

So why do you think you can get to do it for free?

[Citan]

Your a 5th lv ek fighter.

Round 1: attack action first attack knock enemy prone. Then second attack grapple.
Action surge: cast create bonfire under prone enemy.

Now the enemy can only attack with disadvantage, Break the grapple, cast a spell. Does he have disadvantage on the dex save for bonfire?


You can't restrain anyone with out a feat, spell or magic item. And if you take the feat you are also restrain yourself.
I don't see your issue either.
As others said, use a net.
But you don't need restrain really. You are already setting the enemy in a catch-22 situation unless you happen to target a creature with high DEX save (not the most common).

And it's not necessarily a bad thing if you don't manage to set him prone immediately (you should always begin with Grapple imo ^^). After all, one of your job is taking attacks, you have great AC to boot (supposing at least medium armor + Defense) and you can use a Shield if you try this while being in bad shape already.
Also, you won't need any particular thing after level 10. If you really want to make that initial Create Bonfire stick, use War Magic (level 7, not too far) before to impose disadvantage. If afterwards you think Create Bonfire would deal better damage than 2-3 attacks (usually false but hypothetically speaking) just spend turns recasting it after weapon attack. Otherwise, just consider it the insult to add to the injury of keeping enemy prisoner.

[Dalebert]

Considering how much damage you could have done by just attacking twice, I'm not sure I'd say it "works". That's a lot of setup for the potential payoff.

[Asmotherion]

Your a 5th lv ek fighter.

Round 1: attack action first attack knock enemy prone. Then second attack grapple.
Action surge: cast create bonfire under prone enemy.

Now the enemy can only attack with disadvantage, Break the grapple, cast a spell. Does he have disadvantage on the dex save for bonfire?

You're aware you're putting yourself in the bonfire? Just double checking.

if the creature has the Restrained Condition it has disadvantage on Dex saves. As suggested a Net might be a more viable solution for your strategy.

As to how many nets you can carry that's up to your budget and your DM's Realism of the world.

[OverLordOcelot]

You're aware you're putting yourself in the bonfire? Just double checking.

You're not actually - you're in one square, victim and target are in an adjacent square. Rule-wise, grappling doesn't move you out of your own square or make you take effects from it. Description-wise, you're getting the other person in some kind of arm bar or leg lock, then shoving their body into the fire while keeping yourself out.

[Asmotherion]

You're not actually - you're in one square, victim and target are in an adjacent square. Rule-wise, grappling doesn't move you out of your own square or make you take effects from it. Description-wise, you're getting the other person in some kind of arm bar or leg lock, then shoving their body into the fire while keeping yourself out.

Well that's the grappled condition wich does not give any disadvantage to Dex saves.

A Restrained Condition (witch i was admitingly improvising) would have to need some more effort than that. But that's technically what the OP wants.

[OverLordOcelot]

Well that's the grappled condition wich does not give any disadvantage to Dex saves.

A Restrained Condition (witch i was admitingly improvising) would have to need some more effort than that. But that's technically what the OP wants.

The restrained condition works the same way. Rule-wise the fact that you've imposed the restrained condition on someone does not have you enter their square or be affected by things that affect their square. Story wise you're doing something like holding them in a claw and shoving their legs into the fire, or constricting around their body and forcing their face into the fire. You can make a house rule to arbitrarily restrict any ability, but RAW and reasonable description don't have you putting your body into a restrained/grappled creatures square, or taking effects from the square that the other creature is in.

If you ever wonder why players don't try interesting ability combos, remember that a lot of DMs will arbitrarily nerf things like 'grapple him and force him into the bad effect' even though it's easy to picture such a thing working and RAW explicitly supports it. It's a lot safer to just be yet another person who takes booming blade, since DMs seem less likely to arbitrarily make that one not work.

[Misterwhisper]

While this could be done, it would be very costly and ineffective.

Why bother, you would do more damage if you just shove and then stab the target multiple times.

Even more effective as a battlemaster if you just trip them with your attack and keep the ability to do damage.

[Kadesh]

You're not actually - you're in one square, victim and target are in an adjacent square. Rule-wise, grappling doesn't move you out of your own square or make you take effects from it. Description-wise, you're getting the other person in some kind of arm bar or leg lock, then shoving their body into the fire while keeping yourself out.
Your arm is also in the fire to maintain the grapple (rule requisite). Unless you have some form of ranged grapple.

[DeTess]

Your arm is also in the fire to maintain the grapple (rule requisite). Unless you have some form of ranged grapple.

I'd be very careful about ruling that a character can occupy more than one space by just extending an appendage into another space. It might nerf this particular trick, but the players will find ways to abuse this in far greater terms, such as increasing threatened range for attacks of opportunity, to name but a thing.

[OverLordOcelot]

Your arm is also in the fire to maintain the grapple (rule requisite). Unless you have some form of ranged grapple.

"Your arm" does not exist rule-wise, and nothing in the actual RAW for grappling states that you have to occupy any of the grappled person's space. You're making an illogical house rule that diverges significantly from the RAW and penalizes a player for doing something that is more interesting than what they'd do by default. If it's really a "rule requisite", quote the actual rule that states this - you can't, because there isn't one.

Here are some interesting ramifications of your house rule: If a character is in two spaces, their threatened area increases significantly. Can a character opt to put his arm into another space just to threaten more area? This also applies to things like pack tactics and sneak attack, getting an extra space of adjacent area can be really helpful. If a character's arm is in the space, since he's occupying the space an enemy can't move through the space, while they could (as difficult terrain) without the house rule.

[MoiMagnus]

You're making an illogical house rule that diverges significantly from the RAW and penalizes a player for doing something that is more interesting than what they'd do by default.

Illogical: no. "You are grappling? How? With your hand? He is on fire due to your spell, so you also take damages. No, you're not considered in this case for reach or anything similar". This seems reasonable and logical.

Diverges from RAW: most likely yes. And probably diverges from RAI too, since 5e doesn't like corner-cases effects, and this is definitely a rule which isn't "simple and efficient".

Penalize a player for doing something interesting: I agree. And this is the reason why I would not implement this houserule as a DM.

[MThurston]

If you are grappling, how do you cast S spells?

[Misterwhisper]

If you are grappling, how do you cast S spells?

It only takes one hand to grapple.

[PeteNutButter]

The OP is inching towards a competent grappler build. Sadly create bonfire lacks the punch to be worth it in many situations. The foe will probably die faster if you spend that action attacking.

The real money spell for this effect is Cloud of Daggers. The damage is automatic, so you can dump your casting stat. Unlike the fire damage nothing will resist it (provided your DM rules that spells do magic damage). The spell scales excellently with higher level slots as well.

Furthermore you can trigger it twice a round, by lifting/dragging the foe out of the hazard and then back into it, triggering it once on the PC's turn and at the start of the enemy's turn. This is why so many grapplers favor powerful build, to move larger enemies.

Spike growth is another powerful option, but it gets pretty gamey, dragging foes around a big circle, and requires a big amount of speed. Mounting is especially cheesy, as your mount isn't grappling so doesn't move at half speed.

*As an aside for those thinking you shouldn't be able to hold a foe in a hazard without taking the hazard yourself... Have you never seen an action movie? This tactic is the D&D equivalent of holding your foe to a meat grinder/factory equipment/high speed moving platform etc. While many of us use a 5 ft square grid to play on, letting that alter the physics of the universe as everything snaps to grid, is going a bit far IMO. Though I personally ignore sage advice tweets, its worth noting there was a tweet regarding cloud of daggers specifically not having to snap to grid.

[MThurston]

It only takes one hand to grapple.

You have never grapples then.

[Misterwhisper]

You have never grapples then.

1. The rules in the book say it takes one hand.

2. Never assume someone has no training.

[Contrast]

Furthermore you can trigger it twice a round, by lifting/dragging the foe out of the hazard and then back into it, triggering it once on the PC's turn and at the start of the enemy's turn.

I'm not convinced that works.


A creature takes 4d4 slashing damage when it enters the spell's area for the first time on a turn or starts its turn there.

I'd always assumed the use of the word 'or' rather than 'and' was deliberate. It either takes damage the first time it enters it on a turn or, if it starts its turn inside, at the start of its turn. If it had already taken damage from it that turn and then started its turn there it wouldn't take any further damage. My understanding was that no-one could take damage from Cloud of Daggers (or other similarly worded spells) more than once a turn.

Edit - hmm wait no I'm wrong I've been mentally reading turn as round. Welp there you go.

[OverLordOcelot]

Illogical: no. "You are grappling? How? With your hand? He is on fire due to your spell, so you also take damages. No, you're not considered in this case for reach or anything similar". This seems reasonable and logical.

Illogical: yes. For your scenario to work, the grappler has to somehow surround the victim's body with his one hand, which is just absurd. Holding someone does not require filling the 5' space around them, if you watch some MMA fights on youtube you will see plenty of situations with people who are grappled but held in a way where one would be in a campfire but the other wouldn't.

Rule-illogical: Yes. Creating a special case where someone is in another person's space for one circumstance, but not actually in the person's space for other rules makes no sense, and makes the game more complicated for no benefit other than nerfing one particular ability that makes complete real life sense. IF a character is capable of flowing into other spaces, they should be able to do that in general, not just this weird 'sometimes they sort of go into another person's space, but not really, and only to make this one combo not work, not ever anything else.


Penalize a player for doing something interesting: I agree. And this is the reason why I would not implement this houserule as a DM.

The fact that you're arguing for a dumb house rule that you wouldn't even implement in the first place is strange.

[DeTess]

I'd always assumed the use of the word 'or' rather than 'and' was deliberate. It either takes damage the first time it enters it on a turn or, if it starts its turn inside, at the start of its turn. If it had already taken damage from it that turn and then started its turn there it wouldn't take any further damage. My understanding was that no-one could take damage from Cloud of Daggers (or other similarly worded spells) more than once a turn.

I think you're confusing turns and rounds. A grapler moves someone in and out of a hazard on their turn, accusing the victim to take damage once (and no more than once). Then, on the victims turn, they're inside the hazard, so they take damage again. It's the same way with Rogues, which can do sneak attack damage once per turn, meaning that they can also trigger sneak attack damage on an opportunity attack, as that happens outside of their own turn.

[PeteNutButter]

Illogical: yes. For your scenario to work, the grappler has to somehow surround the victim's body with his one hand, which is just absurd. Holding someone does not require filling the 5' space around them, if you watch some MMA fights on youtube you will see plenty of situations with people who are grappled but held in a way where one would be in a campfire but the other wouldn't.


Grappling in 5e works better mentally if you think of it more like holding in football (american). That is you grab hold of a single piece of an enemy using one hand, such as their shirt if they are wearing clothing. This only requires one hand, prevents them from moving away, (reduces their speed to 0), but doesn't inhibit their ability to attack (no disadvantage) or do anything with their arms.

If you picture grappling like that it makes a whole lot more sense both mechanically and narratively. You aren't holding them down or wrapping them up (as that would be restrained), you're just holding them in place.

The grappling like wrestling is more in line with what the grappler feat allows, restraining both targets.

[MThurston]

1. The rules in the book say it takes one hand.

2. Never assume someone has no training.

I don't care how much training you have, you can't grapple a normal person with one hand.

[Misterwhisper]

I don't care how much training you have, you can't grapple a normal person with one hand.

In 5e all grapple does is keep someone from moving, it could be as simple as grabbing them by the hair or the collar of their armor, not leg locks and choke holds.

It does not even give them any penalty to attacking you, the being prone does that, which is a whole different thing, grapple is only really good when combined with the very subpar grappler feat or making them prone as well.

Picture it like this:

Two combatants close on each other one with a longsword and one with a great sword, both in leather armor.

To make sure that the great sword wielder does not get away the longsword user reaches over and grabs the great sword user by the neck of collar of their leather armor.
It does not hurt them in any way, does not stop them from swinging any more than just normally getting in their way does, it just holds them there.
However, if he then trips them or shoves them down, now they have a problem because they can't really get up until they break the hold, and fighting on your back with a weapon is not easy.

[Vogie]

Ironically, if you want to use a Net in lieu of a grapple... EK is still the best class to do so, as you can use War Magic to give use True Strike to deactivate the disadvantage inherent in nets, without obstructing your action economy.

Turn 1 True Strike (for next turn), bonus action attack
Turn 2 Net, Action surge, Create Bonfire
If you really want to hold them there, you could then grapple/pin the person in the net, just letting them burn.

[OverLordOcelot]

I don't care how much training you have, you can't grapple a normal person with one hand.

Here's someone teaching some one-handed holds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOFH1f2S-Qw

Here's a somewhat aggressive teacher showing a mix of one-handed and two-handed grapples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sec5dXbQzWI

Here's an MMA figher Nick Newell winning a match to get a 6 win, 0 loss record. All of his maneuvers involve grappling a trained fighter (not just a normal person) with one hand, as he is missing one hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENf2xKBj0Z4

I will also note that the none of these grapples do not involve the grappler somehow surrounding the other person's body with his hands, and if you picture a campfire on the ground, the majority of them would easily hold the held person in a campfire while not putting the grappler into a campfire.

[Trampaige]

Besides, who says it's a giant inferno that takes up a full 5 cft?

If you want to start imposing house rules and penalizing people based on so-called logic, the fire could just be a foot or two high and you're holding them at shoulder level.

[Kadesh]

"Your arm" does not exist rule-wise, and nothing in the actual RAW for grappling states that you have to occupy any of the grappled person's space. You're making an illogical house rule that diverges significantly from the RAW and penalizes a player for doing something that is more interesting than what they'd do by default. If it's really a "rule requisite", quote the actual rule that states this - you can't, because there isn't one.

Here are some interesting ramifications of your house rule: If a character is in two spaces, their threatened area increases significantly. Can a character opt to put his arm into another space just to threaten more area? This also applies to things like pack tactics and sneak attack, getting an extra space of adjacent area can be really helpful. If a character's arm is in the space, since he's occupying the space an enemy can't move through the space, while they could (as difficult terrain) without the house rule.

RAW requires your free hand to grapple. You fill the 5ft cube with Create Bonfire. The opponent is in the 5ft cube. Tell me how your arm is not in the fire.

You also really need to learn the rules for opportunity attack.
Besides, who says it's a giant inferno that takes up a full 5 cft?

The rules.

[OverLordOcelot]

RAW requires your free hand to grapple. You fill the 5ft cube with Create Bonfire. The opponent is in the 5ft cube. Tell me how your arm is not in the fire.

RAW, "your arm" is not something that even exists; presuming a normal-sized PC, you exist as a creature in one 5' space who does things to adjacent spaces with natural and melee attacks, or further away with ranged attacks or reach weapons. You are only in one 5' space at a time, not two. In other words, you're attacking the same way any creature making a slam or natural weapon attack manages to not be affected by something in the 5' square where the creature is, and the way any creature using weapons doesn't risk weapon damage from attacking someone in the fire. Under your interpretation, create bonfire is a great defensive spell against zombies, skeletons, wolves, and anything else that comes in packs. Cast it in your own square and while you take 1d6/round, you do 1d6/round to everything that attacks you. I don't think that's your intent, but by adding a rule that 'arms' acting on a creature subject you to the effects of the square where the creature is, you've now added that option.

This is an even weirder position to take if you're arguing descriptively instead of rule-wise, as it requires the enemy to be is exactly 5' high, and their limbs cannot ever leave their space. If the enemy is more than 5' high, then you are simply holding their hair, collar, or neck while shoving their body in the fire. If the enemy can actually be partially in your square the way you're requiring the player to be in the enemy square, then you can lock an arm or leg in your space while holding their body in the fire, or have them in a headlock with their legs sitting in the actual fire. If you look at the grapples that I posted, it's obvious that there are many ways to grapple someone and put part of them in a fire without putting yourself in. And those are more intense than a 'grapple' by the rules, as just something like grabbing an enemy's shield or collar is enough for the 'prevent movement' effect.


You also really need to learn the rules for opportunity attack.

I know them already, thanks. I'm not the one inventing weird rules that aren't in the rulebook and insisting that it's RAW.

[Kadesh]

'Raw your arm doesn't exist'
o.O

Get explaining boyo.

[Trampaige]

RAW requires your free hand to grapple. You fill the 5ft cube with Create Bonfire. The opponent is in the 5ft cube. Tell me how your arm is not in the fire.

You also really need to learn the rules for opportunity attack.

The rules.

Okay, you got me trying to be cute. In this case, it literally does say it does that and I was away from book.

Since we're allowing a character to occupy two squares at once, just grapple his arm in your square while he burns in the fire in his square. No problem.

It still doesn't matter because nowhere in the rules does it say you're affected by effects in the target's square when you're grappling them. You can house rule anything you want, but it's still a house rule that should be told to the players ahead of time.

[Kadesh]

'As you reach into the burning flames, you suddenly realise you are about to put your hands into burning flames' requires a houserule?

[Vogie]

'As you reach into the burning flames, you suddenly realise you are about to put your hands into burning flames' requires a houserule?

Your hands are completely unaffected as you've already learned Burning Hands, so your hands are pretty used to the whole "magical fire" schtick by now

[Misterwhisper]

I think the main hang up is that people get the wrong idea of what grapple is in 5e.

It is NOT grappling in the MMA sense, which is both people clenched up and wrestling with each other to gain position or to damage the other using holds and chokes.

In 5e grappling is simply grabbing someone.

Ex.

Reaching over and grabbing the enemy by the hair or collar.

It poses no disadvantages to your enemy in either their attack or defense, only their speed.

Prone is the big hamper on the enemies combat ability, it just so happens that grappling them holds them there so they can't get out of being prone until they deal with the grapple first.

Personally I find it a lot more problematic that a person can be grappled and still swing a great sword with no issue.

Also, in 5e unlike some other older editions, grappling itself does not do damage and does not count as an unarmed strike.

[Kadesh]

I think the main hang up is that people get the wrong idea of what grapple is in 5e.

It is NOT grappling in the MMA sense, which is both people clenched up and wrestling with each other to gain position or to damage the other using holds and chokes.

In 5e grappling is simply grabbing someone.

Ex.

Reaching over and grabbing the enemy by the hair or collar.

It poses no disadvantages to your enemy in either their attack or defense, only their speed.

Prone is the big hamper on the enemies combat ability, it just so happens that grappling them holds them there so they can't get out of being prone until they deal with the grapple first.

Personally I find it a lot more problematic that a person can be grappled and still swing a great sword with no issue.

Also, in 5e unlike some other older editions, grappling itself does not do damage and does not count as an unarmed strike.

Grabbing someone. In their space. Which is a 5ft cube of fire.

The ****ing gymnastics some of you are trying to go through is... Sad, I think is the word.

[Kadesh]

Your hands are completely unaffected as you've already learned Burning Hands, so your hands are pretty used to the whole "magical fire" schtick by now

Burning hands grants Immunity to fire damage, sweet. TIL

[Boci]

Grabbing someone. In their space. Which is a 5ft cube of fire.

The ****ing gymnastics some of you are trying to go through is... Sad, I think is the word.

Its not gymnastics, others DMs, like me, don't fluff bonefire as a 5ft cube of flame, but a smaller one that is enough to burn any creature standing in the square. So yes, when you change one of the assumptions behind out interpretation, its doesn't work as well.

[GlenSmash!]

Combo doesn't work.

5 Monk/3 EK could do somethign even better with stunning strike and create bonfire, but I wouldn't build a character around it.

[PeteNutButter]

Grabbing someone. In their space. Which is a 5ft cube of fire.

The ****ing gymnastics some of you are trying to go through is... Sad, I think is the word.

Imagine if you would a cube of fire. It can even take up the whole space, but then your character holds the enemy, just on the edge of the cube, so that most of the enemy is in said cube, but your hand is not.

At some point there is an edge to the fire, you hold the enemy outside that edge. It's really not that complex. D&D does not have a "snap to grid" feature. You don't take up the whole 5 ft cube your character exists in. It's just a game abstraction to keep track of things. The fact that these spells need not be created in a specific square only makes my case easier. Just create the bonfire so that it is one foot sticking out the back of the 5 foot square. That way you have a full foot to play around in with your hand for the grabbing.

This whole thing is kind of ridiculous. Do you take damage when melee attacking a target in a hazard area? Certainly not RAW. There is no reason grappling should be any different.

[Kadesh]

Imagine if you would a cube of fire. It can even take up the whole space, but then your character holds the enemy, just on the edge of the cube, so that most of the enemy is in said cube, but your hand is not.

At some point there is an edge to the fire, you hold the enemy outside that edge. It's really not that complex. D&D does not have a "snap to grid" feature. You don't take up the whole 5 ft cube your character exists in. It's just a game abstraction to keep track of things. The fact that these spells need not be created in a specific square only makes my case easier. Just create the bonfire so that it is one foot sticking out the back of the 5 foot square. That way you have a full foot to play around in with your hand for the grabbing.

This whole thing is kind of ridiculous. Do you take damage when melee attacking a target in a hazard area? Certainly not RAW. There is no reason grappling should be any different.
No, you don't take damage for melee attacking, you take damage for putting your hand inside an area specified to deal damage when you are in it.

And yes, it does have a snap to grid effect, as otherwise you could turn it into an AoE effect dealing damage to 4 medium sized targets.


Its not gymnastics, others DMs, like me, don't fluff bonefire as a 5ft cube of flame, but a smaller one that is enough to burn any creature standing in the square. So yes, when you change one of the assumptions behind out interpretation, its doesn't work as well.
Which changes what, exactly?

[PeteNutButter]

No, you don't take damage for melee attacking, you take damage for putting your hand inside an area specified to deal damage when you are in it.

And yes, it does have a snap to grid effect, as otherwise you could turn it into an AoE effect dealing damage to 4 medium sized targets.



That appears to be the intent for what its worth...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/04/cloud-of-daggers-area-of-effect/

[DeTess]

No, you don't take damage for melee attacking, you take damage for putting your hand inside an area specified to deal damage when you are in it.

And yes, it does have a snap to grid effect, as otherwise you could turn it into an AoE effect dealing damage to 4 medium sized targets.


So you're accepting the abstraction of the grid, but not of 'characters only occupy their own space'?

[Kadesh]

So you're accepting the abstraction of the grid, but not of 'characters only occupy their own space'?
Where have I said that they don't?


That appears to be the intent for what its worth...
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/01/04/cloud-of-daggers-area-of-effect rea-of-effect/

Good to know.

[DeTess]

Where have I said that they don't?


The moment you wanted a spell that only affects creatures within its square to affect a creature not in its square?

[Kadesh]

The moment you wanted a spell that only affects creatures within its square to affect a creature not in its square?

But is your hand in another creature's space if you are grappling?

'When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a Special melee Attack, a grapple. If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this Attack replaces one of them.

The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an Attack roll.'

Pretty explicitly, you are grabbing hold of another creature that is within its own space (and according to you cannot ever be in another).

Given the above, unless your DM is not running a snap to grid system (given that most who use battlemaps in my years of playing 5e and 3.5, and battlemaps produced by WotC have grids, this is the likeliest assumption that they are), your arm is going to be within the same 5ft cube that the Bonfire is going to be in.

[Chronos]

If you're using a snap to grid, then the only square your arm can be in is your own.

If you're not using a snap to grid, then "your square" doesn't even exist. In the theater of the mind, at least some part of your body must be occupying the same space as some part of your enemy's body, but not all of your enemy's body, so you can put the bonfire somewhere that your arm isn't.

[Kadesh]

If you're using a snap to grid, then the only square your arm can be in is your own.

If you're not using a snap to grid, then "your square" doesn't even exist. In the theater of the mind, at least some part of your body must be occupying the same space as some part of your enemy's body, but not all of your enemy's body, so you can put the bonfire somewhere that your arm isn't.

Then you cannot grapple if using snap to grid, because if your arm cannot be in another square, then neither can an opponents, and thus you cannot sieze, grab, grip.

Also, source them rules for me Chronos.

[Blood of Gaea]

Your a 5th lv ek fighter.

Round 1: attack action first attack knock enemy prone. Then second attack grapple.
Action surge: cast create bonfire under prone enemy.

Now the enemy can only attack with disadvantage, Break the grapple, cast a spell. Does he have disadvantage on the dex save for bonfire?
How about you cast booming blade, then action surge to cast bonfire? They're forced to take damage either way. It's not the most effective use of an action surge, but I think it would be a bit more effective for you here.

You could also just grapple them and then make a weapon attack instead of trying to knock them prone.

[Boci]

Then you cannot grapple if using snap to grid, because if your arm cannot be in another square, then neither can an opponents, and thus you cannot sieze, grab, grip.

Doesn't say that. The only requirements to grab a creature is that they are no more than 1 size catogory larger than you, within your reach, and you have at least one free arm. It in the grab section of the PHB.

[Kadesh]

Doesn't say that. The only requirements to grab a creature is that they are no more than 1 size catogory larger than you, within your reach, and you have at least one free arm. It in the grab section of the PHB.
How can creature be within your reach if you cannot share space?

[OverLordOcelot]

How can creature be within your reach if you cannot share space?

It's ironic that you earlier said I needed to learn the opportunity attack rules, which rely on the reach rules, and yet you don't know the rules for reach in 5e. None of this stuff about putting your arm into someone else's space or sharing spaces is in the rules, as I said earlier and you dismissed 'your arm' is not something that is referenced in the 5e rules, all of this stuff about putting your arm into other people's spaces and having to share a space to make certain types of attacks are things you invented, not part of the rules. No one can 'source' that rule for you because it just isn't there in the first place.

[Kadesh]

It's ironic that you earlier said I needed to learn the opportunity attack rules, which rely on the reach rules, and yet you don't know the rules for reach in 5e. None of this stuff about putting your arm into someone else's space or sharing spaces is in the rules, as I said earlier and you dismissed 'your arm' is not something that is referenced in the 5e rules, all of this stuff about putting your arm into other people's spaces and having to share a space to make certain types of attacks are things you invented, not part of the rules. No one can 'source' that rule for you because it just isn't there in the first place.

No, mate, I'm using the fallacies of everyone's argument.

Creatures are only within their own square (according to you lot)
They cannot be in multiple squares (according to you lot)
According to the rules, grapples require you to grab
Ergo, grapples which require you to grab someone thus requires you to be in the same another and thus something that cannot happen (grab hold and not be in the same space).

So, it's only by ignoring the wording of rules and it's only by making others up at which your posits can exist, making them as false as you saying 'arms don' t exist by RAW'.

[Boci]

No, mate, I'm using the fallacies of everyone's argument.

Creatures are only within their own square (according to you lot)
They cannot be in multiple squares (according to you lot)

Us lot, and the rules which says medium and small creatures, which PCs typically are, occupy one square. Bigger creatures can be in multiple squares.

Another piece of RAW you are conviniently overlooking is that bonefire damages you when you start your turn or move into the square its in. Grabbing a creature is neither of those.

[GlenSmash!]

What if your hand is at the edge of your space, and the aprt your are grabbing is at the edge of theirs?

What if you pull just the barest fraction into your space, before hitting them with the bonfire?

(I really don't care as I accept that some things are gamist is a game).

[Kadesh]

Us lot, and the rules which says medium and small creatures, which PCs typically are, occupy one square. Bigger creatures can be in multiple squares.

Another piece of RAW you are conviniently overlooking is that bonefire damages you when you start your turn or move into the square its in. Grabbing a creature is neither of those.

'Space
A creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn’t 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium Hobgoblin stands in a 5-- foot--wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the Hobgoblin lets them.'

Oops.gif

You mean that rule? Or was that a bit of RAW you' re asking me forget?
What if your hand is at the edge of your space, and the aprt your are grabbing is at the edge of theirs?

What if you pull just the barest fraction into your space, before hitting them with the bonfire?

(I really don't care as I accept that some things are gamist is a game).
It's weird, it's almost like they're making things up and using their 'rules' to disprove their 'rules' comes up logical things where the finite edge of both cannot overlap.

[Boci]

'Space
A creature’s space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. A typical Medium creature isn’t 5 feet wide, for example, but it does control a space that wide. If a Medium Hobgoblin stands in a 5-- foot--wide doorway, other creatures can’t get through unless the Hobgoblin lets them.'

Oops.gif

You mean that rule? Or was that a bit of RAW you' re asking me forget?

Yes, that one. The one that explains that a typicaly medium creature isn't 5ft wide, but its space is for combat purposes, like grabbing and bonfire. Why are you acting like the rules you quoted vindicate you?

[Kadesh]

Yes, that one. The one that explains that a typicaly medium creature isn't 5ft wide, but its space is for combat purposes, like grabbing and bonfire. Why are you acting like the rules you quoted vindicate you?

'but arms don't exist'
'but grabbing hold doesn't mean actually grabbing hold'
'occupying means that there can be no overlap between spaces'

Come on, you've got to have a better argument than this, serious.

[Boci]

'but arms don't exist'
'occupying means that there can be no overlap between spaces'

Come on, you've got to have a better argument than this, serious.

No, we don't. Yes, D&D combat sounds really stupid if you imagine it as chess. The solution is not to imagine it as chess, but as a real (fantasy) fight, with the grid and its squares serving as an abstraction so it can be tracked by the players and DM.

The RAW is:

Bonefire damages those who are in the square when the spell is cast, move into it, or start their turn in it.
Grabbing a screature in the bonfire's square will satisfy none of the above.

You can houserule otherwise, but the RAW is clear. "Arms don't exist" is just people trying to help you understand how the above mention abstraction works, and yes, theres no overlapping of squares, that would introduce a complexity to D&D that the designers did not want. Compare for example to 3.5 where, yes, grappling DID involve entering their square.

[Kadesh]

Grabbing the guy in the 5ft cube completely filled with fire will not satisfy the rule where being in the area will deal fire damage.

Sure.

[Boci]

Grabbing the guy in the 5ft cube completely filled with fire will not satisfy the rule where being in the area will deal fire damage.

Sure.

You realize this "5ft cube completely filled with fire" (as you are choosing to fluff it) is a cantrip, and so deals no damage on a successful save? So with decent reflexes, you can stand in it and it will deal no fire damage, so none on a grab seems pretty reasonable by comparison.

And yes. Grabbing does not satisfy "being in the area". Also it was "moving" into the area, not being. You are not in the area you grab. As mentioned, feel free to house rule otherwise.

[OverLordOcelot]

'but arms don't exist'
'but grabbing hold doesn't mean actually grabbing hold'
'occupying means that there can be no overlap between spaces'

Come on, you've got to have a better argument than this, serious.

So you're rejecting the rules entirely. Not really sure what point there would be in debating you when you come up with your own rules constructs that are not in the game, then switch around between rules-focused and description-focused way of interpreting actions, often doing both in the same train of thought to support the result you want. Your invented house rules about putting arms into other people's squares are just house rules you invented.

[Kadesh]

So you're rejecting the rules entirely. Not really sure what point there would be in debating you when you come up with your own rules constructs that are not in the game, then switch around between rules-focused and description-focused way of interpreting actions, often doing both in the same train of thought to support the result you want. Your invented house rules about putting arms into other people's squares are just house rules you invented.
You have a funny way of saying rules when the rules quite literally say for grappling you grab hold of the opponent.
You realize this "5ft cube completely filled with fire" (as you are choosing to fluff it) is a cantrip, and so deals no damage on a successful save? So with decent reflexes, you can stand in it and it will deal no fire damage, so none on a grab seems pretty reasonable by comparison.

And yes. Grabbing does not satisfy "being in the area". Also it was "moving" into the area, not being. You are not in the area you grab. As mentioned, feel free to house rule otherwise.

Do you move your hand when you go to grab your hand? Oh, my, gosh, yes, it does.

[Boci]

Do you move your hand when you go to grab your hand? Oh, my, gosh, yes, it does.

Yes, you move your hand, but that's generally not what "move" means in D&D rules. It almost always refers to moving from one square to another using your speed. This is pretty basic stuff.

For example, the frightened conditions includes:

"The creature can’t willingly move closer to the source of its fear."

Does that move you would rules the creature cannot attack or grab the thing that gave it that condition even if they were adjacent?

[JoeJ]

The point of origin for the spell can be anywhere you can see within range. There's nothing in the rules that says the spell's AoE has to exactly line up with any character's space. Put it just past where your hand is.

The combo works, but in many cases it won't be the most effective thing your character could do.

[Chronos]

If your arm can be outside of your space, then your opponent's arm can be outside of his space, too. Grab him by a part that's outside of the fire.