All Aboard the Figher Express

[ZenBear]

One of my players decided to pull a questionable move. He's playing a high STR Fighter, so he figured it would be perfectly reasonable to be able to pick up his medium sized ally as an object interaction and carry him 30 ft. before making his attack. I allowed it at the time because I wasn't sure if it was against the rules and he's an experienced DM, but it seemed pretty fishy and open to abuse. How would you rule this? Is he pulling some shenanigans, or is this kosher?

[Kane0]

Typically you'd see this done with a grapple, taking one attack and halving your movespeed but funnily enough generally not STR limited.

Your interaction typically isn't used on creatures, which is where I'd say this strategy trips up in the rules.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've usually allowed characters to lug each other around when need be. Movement is hardly a precious resource, and I'd much rather encourage that sort of teamwork.

[Rerem115]

RAW, it seems fine, depending on the Encumbrance rules you're using. Assuming he's got 18-20 Strength, according to standard Encumbrance rules he can carry 270-300 pounds at no penalty, or up to twice that at the cost of 5 movement speed.

Variant Encumbrance rules are a bit more strict; 90-100 at no penalty, up to 180-200 at the cost of 10 movement speed, and up to 270-300 at the cost of 20 movement speed and disadvantage on all physical checks, attacks, and saves.

Note that if you're tracking this, you should include the weight of the gear he's wearing, and probably would need at least one free hand to carry his ally.

[Zetakya]

If you're using Variant Encumbrance anything above 200lbs reduces move by 10, above 400lbs by 20 ( for a Strength 20 character ).

[JNAProductions]

I'd follow grappling rules. Grabbing a friend as an interaction or bonus action seems okay, but half speed seems warranted.

[ZenBear]

I'm thinking it ought to be a grapple attack, meaning with Extra Attack it won't use up his whole Action. My main concern is that they start doing this all the time, using it to get away from Opportunity Attacks or for some other mechanical benefit, and totally killing the immersion. It would be ridiculous for a team of warriors to be constantly picking up and carrying each other around every few seconds in a fight.

I should also note that he said he did it one-handed and still attacked with a greatsword immediately after.

[Keravath]

I'm thinking it ought to be a grapple attack, meaning with Extra Attack it won't use up his whole Action. My main concern is that they start doing this all the time, using it to get away from Opportunity Attacks or for some other mechanical benefit, and totally killing the immersion. It would be ridiculous for a team of warriors to be constantly picking up and carrying each other around every few seconds in a fight.

I should also note that he said he did it one-handed and still attacked with a greatsword immediately after.

RAW

1) Grappling can be done with one hand. It is possible to grapple two creatures simultaneously.
2) You only need two hands to wield a great sword when actually attacking.
3) It would be possible to grapple a target. Move 1/2 your movement, let them go and make a 2 handed weapon attack.

The main question with this tactic is the use if object interaction to pick up their team mate rather than using grapple. Presumably, when grappling an opponent, they are resisting which is why your movement would be reduced.

If a character wanted to pick up a 150 lb dead animal, move it 30 feet, drop it and then attack ... would that be allowed? If so then there isn't that much difference between moving a dead animal and a cooperative creature if they weigh the same.

In terms of interacting with objects the PHB doesn't give much guidance ... however it does say:

"The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge."

As a DM I would probably rule that picking up something heavy is likely to require your action rather than be a free object interaction. This might be especially true if it is a creature that you are picking up and don't want to hurt. As a result, although the player could pick up his team mate and move him, he couldn't attack on the same turn. All the examples of free object interactions are generally something easy to move or lightweight.

[Lunali]

RAW, it seems fine, depending on the Encumbrance rules you're using. Assuming he's got 18-20 Strength, according to standard Encumbrance rules he can carry 270-300 pounds at no penalty, or up to twice that at the cost of 5 movement speed.

Variant Encumbrance rules are a bit more strict; 90-100 at no penalty, up to 180-200 at the cost of 10 movement speed, and up to 270-300 at the cost of 20 movement speed and disadvantage on all physical checks, attacks, and saves.

Note that if you're tracking this, you should include the weight of the gear he's wearing, and probably would need at least one free hand to carry his ally.

Make sure you also include the weight of the gear the ally is wearing.

The normal grappling rules generally assume the target is unwilling and is either actively resisting or being dragged so they probably shouldn't be used for this purpose.

[darknite]

I've seen folks who put buddy pegs on their armor to allow small friends (gnomes) grab on for a ride. I'd personally say that carrying another (ever done that, in full armor, with another person, also in full armor?) would take an action and be at half speed unless there's a substantial size difference. Some races/classes get carry bonuses as though they're larger size so that might factor in, too.

[patchyman]

The main question with this tactic is the use if object interaction to pick up their team mate rather than using grapple. Presumably, when grappling an opponent, they are resisting which is why your movement would be reduced.

If a character wanted to pick up a 150 lb dead animal, move it 30 feet, drop it and then attack ... would that be allowed? If so then there isn't that much difference between moving a dead animal and a cooperative creature if they weigh the same.

I know you are describing the reasoning, not endorsing it, so this comment is not directed at you.

If there is one thing that I hate, it is players that pull the RAW card when something doesn’t make sense, than immediately switch to a common sense argument without pausing for breath.

The RAW argument doesn’t work because an ally is not an object. The common sense argument doesn’t work because you can't pick up a 150 lb carcass in the middle of a fight, move 30’, and still effectively attack with a great sword effectively.

Combining two bad arguments doesn’t magically make a good argument. TBH, the more common sense ruling is that picking up a 150 lb carcass of the ground is not a free object interaction, and requires your action to do so - not all object interactions are free, it should be something comparable to drawing your sword or opening a door.

/Rant over.

[Man_Over_Game]

Some info on this:


Q: what are the rules for creatures carrying friendly PCs? e.g mage polymorphed into giant eagle carrying allies? (5e)

A: See "Lifting and Carrying" in the Player's Handbook (p. 176) for rules on carrying capacity. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/729784756255100928)

And:
Q: is pushing/dragging a grappled creature subject to the carrying capacity rules?

A: The rule on moving a grappled creature (PH, 195) works regardless of a creature's weight. It cares about creature size. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/907788900998946816)

Question, though, how does this look, narratively? Rounds in 5e are designed to be a simultaneous 6 seconds of combat that's only separated into turns to create a tactical combat experience, so...what's that maneuver supposed to actually be?

Personally, though, I think a fair response from a DM would be "It's a grapple, but the halved movement and contested check are only applied if the target is unwilling".

[Kyutaru]

This is a good time to mention my 3rd edition experience DMing for a half-orc barbarian who carried the rest of the gnomish party on his back in a basket so they could cast spells and fire arrows from cover while utilizing his extra movement speed.

[E’Tallitnics]

Simply introduce a new rule at your table called:

Dropping Your Guard
In combat you're always on guard and always looking around to assess the situation. If, for any reason, it is determined that you drop your guard whilst in combat any enemy can immediately use their reaction to make an opportunity attack against you, even at range.

Ta Da! Both players will have to drop their guard to pull of this maneuver in the future. All other normal rules apply.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've usually allowed characters to lug each other around when need be. Movement is hardly a precious resource, and I'd much rather encourage that sort of teamwork. This, to the third power. :smallsmile:

[YoFizz]

I played a str fighter and our DM let our Kobold Rogue ride my shoulder

[ZenBear]

Question, though, how does this look, narratively? Rounds in 5e are designed to be a simultaneous 6 seconds of combat that's only separated into turns to create a tactical combat experience, so...what's that maneuver supposed to actually be?

Personally, though, I think a fair response from a DM would be "It's a grapple, but the halved movement and contested check are only applied if the target is unwilling".
I had the exact same question, and my primary concern here is how this ruling will negatively affect the cinematic action for the sake of tactical advantage. In this specific case, the Fighter picked up her ally one-handed and plopped him down beside her, then took a swing with her greatsword. Not entirely absurd, but I feel it should cost a bit more than an object interaction. I’m going with your suggestion that a willing ally can be pulled along at the cost of a grapple without a check or movement reduction.

This is a good time to mention my 3rd edition experience DMing for a half-orc barbarian who carried the rest of the gnomish party on his back in a basket so they could cast spells and fire arrows from cover while utilizing his extra movement speed.

I played a str fighter and our DM let our Kobold Rogue ride my shoulder
I don’t have a problem with a person being carried around in a baby bjorn, that’s hilarious and within reason. It’s the object interaction/action economy I’m concerned with.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've been trying to wrack my brain to come up with a fix, but nothing seems to come to mind. At least, nothing that works fluidly with how grappling an enemy monster works vs. grappling allies.

Not unless you somehow tie Grappling in with the Prone condition. That is, you knock a creature prone if you succeed on your Athletics check, but you can grapple them if you succeed on your Athletics check by +5. Or something like that (so grappling your ally means he's also prone).

Or movement spent by the grappler decreases available movement by the grappled. So being grappled and dragged actually does reduce your speed the following turn to 0.

But both solutions end up making more of their own problems.

I can really only see two good options:


Say they can't do it.
Say they can.

[mrumsey]

Why not just attach a cost to the interaction to prevent abuse?

Carrier can use a Bonus Action to grab a cooperative individual.
Carried can use a Reaction to be cooperatively grabbed.

Bonus Actions/Reactions may or may not have heavy implications depending on class builds. If they don't, it could encourage group-play. If they do, it is a 'tactical decision.'

Additionally/Alternatively, you could...
Apply encumbrance.
Apply static move speed penalty.
Potentially add Disadvantage for attacks after the move (off-balance from lugging around a chump).

[Man_Over_Game]

Why not just attach a cost to the interaction to prevent abuse?

Carrier can use a Bonus Action to grab a cooperative individual.
Carried can use a Reaction to be cooperatively grabbed.

Bonus Actions/Reactions may or may not have heavy implications depending on class builds. If they don't, it could encourage group-play. If they do, it is a 'tactical decision.'

Additionally/Alternatively, you could...
Apply encumbrance.
Apply static move speed penalty.
Potentially add Disadvantage for attacks after the move (off-balance from lugging around a chump).

The concern here is, how do you determine what's applied to an enemy vs. an ally, and how do you justify that difference?

Additionally, why would an ally suffer more penalties after being grappled than an enemy would?

I guess there's a third option, of making Grappling suck for everyone. Just make it overpowered. I don't think it'll break too much, to be honest. Generally speaking, the enemies you're going to grapple are the ones who already want to be next to you. The trick would be to make Grappling still circumstantial, rather than something that makes getting Tavern Brawler or spending an attack to Grapple too efficient to pass up.

[ZenBear]

Why not just attach a cost to the interaction to prevent abuse?

That’s the idea with making it cost an Attack to grapple. If it’s just a bonus action and reaction then we’ll get some ridiculous abuses. I wrote this on my last post but deleted it when I realized it didn’t apply to the grapple cost, but it would in your case:

Imagine two PCs are being chased by a guard. On the guard’s turn, he Dashes 60 feet to close the distance. On Player 1’s turn he grabs Player 2 with a bonus action and Dashes, placing his ally down 60 feet away. Player 2 goes and does the same thing with Player 1, now they’ve moved 120 feet in 6 seconds by piggybacking each other. If this was still just an object interaction then two Rogues could move 180 feet in the same time. How the hell does that work cinematically?

[djreynolds]

I'm thinking it ought to be a grapple attack, meaning with Extra Attack it won't use up his whole Action. My main concern is that they start doing this all the time, using it to get away from Opportunity Attacks or for some other mechanical benefit, and totally killing the immersion. It would be ridiculous for a team of warriors to be constantly picking up and carrying each other around every few seconds in a fight.

I should also note that he said he did it one-handed and still attacked with a greatsword immediately after.

That's your answer, its at least an athletics check and he can use one of his attacks to do so

But since it is "willing" movement, AoO still count

I would compare this to frenzy, where for basically 9 bonus action attacks you get a level of exhaustion.

I'm using the above example for "worth". How many of these carries can this guy do, before he suffers a level of exhaustion?

And take into account race such as goliath and stuff like 6th level bear totem.

I would say for example, you can do this carry on a willing, medium sized or smaller creature, 1/2 your constitution modifier every short or long rest before suffering 1 level of exhaustion

Its going to be a house rule

Also its not crazy that this could be done, I'm sure a firefighter has had to grab someone and run for 30ft and then knock down a door... and they did it IRL

It just has to feel fair, and not over complicated. Set a DC based on the willing creature's weight and size, and increase the DC every round if you feel like it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

My solution is to make it cost half movement.
You are moving slower because you are trying to get your friend out of danger as he do stuff(a round happening is the same 6 sec, some creatures act faster then others).


I didn't carry someone in full plate but I did use a full plate for 3 days(sunrise to sunset, didn't sleep in it) and I have to say it is easier to move in full plate then in a soldier equipment(I served in an army 0.5 years ago).
I could pickup my teammates and run in a dangerous area, put him down and react, it is hard but possible with training.

I believe the fighter in full plate is trained to move in armor and fight in a group.
From my experience moving, running and climbing in full plate is possible and not so hard.

The only problem I see is that you lose some time and speed when you carry someone so I will just make it cost half movement.

That is my rulling.

[SpanielBear]

All of this... you know how we get “Fighter’s suck” threads on a near constant basis, with people complaining that they have to justify anything even slightly cool because “realism” while wizards can do anything they like (I’m paraphrasing)? This feels like an example. By the way it has been phrased, this sounds like a cool bodyguard move- put the squishy out of danger and step in yourself. That sounds really cool. And if it was “Mordenkainen’s Mantra of Mobility” no-one would blink an eye. Why does the fighter need to have debuff after debuff applied? Surely using up a bonus action or reaction is sufficient to keep it in line with any other ability.

[Aprender]

@Spanielbear I agree. It seems unfair that melee chars have to stay "realistic" while casters only have to stay true to magic.

Therefore: Rule of Cool, I'd allow this the first time my players tried it.

However, imposing some sort of cost is fair. Since there is no rule about it specifically, feel free to use any or none of the above suggestions. I suspect if you get 10 experienced and respected DMs in a room to answer this question, you'd quickly get 15 opinions.

I will caution that no ruling should allow increased movement by the two players (I pick you up and run and then you pick me up and run) since both chars are using the same 6 seconds at the same time. Your movement speed is how far you can go during your 6 sec of a round. If you are being moved, that 6 sec isn't being spent running, but being carried.

Also, another warning: If you use item interaction as the basis of how you rule, there is specific RAW for that. Interacting with an object uses a char's action unless that char is a Thief Rogue sub-class in which case it only uses a bonus action. It's a really strong ability that is massively diluted at many tables due to DMs allowing non-thiefs to interact with objects as a bonus action or even for free.

[Kwinza]

A Goliath Barbarian can pick up a 300 lbs boulder as a bonus action.

I see no reason why s/he shouldn't be able to do the same to a willing creature.


The grapple rules are only used when the creature is unwilling, aka trying to stop you.

[ZenBear]

All of this... you know how we get “Fighter’s suck” threads on a near constant basis, with people complaining that they have to justify anything even slightly cool because “realism” while wizards can do anything they like (I’m paraphrasing)? This feels like an example. By the way it has been phrased, this sounds like a cool bodyguard move- put the squishy out of danger and step in yourself. That sounds really cool. And if it was “Mordenkainen’s Mantra of Mobility” no-one would blink an eye. Why does the fighter need to have debuff after debuff applied? Surely using up a bonus action or reaction is sufficient to keep it in line with any other ability.

In the case of Mordenkainen’s Mantle of Mobility, that would expend a spell slot. The Wizard wouldn’t be able to do this every round as a free action.

I understand your frustration with Fighters being underpowered, I share that frustration, but this isn’t even a targeted Fighter issue. Any character with modest STR can haul their ally around like this, spellcasters included. The point is that this exploit is too easy to abuse, as I outlined above. Or are you okay with players effectively doubling their movement every round as long as they have a piggyback partner?

[Man_Over_Game]

In the case of Mordenkainen’s Mantle of Mobility, that would expend a spell slot. The Wizard wouldn’t be able to do this every round as a free action.

I understand your frustration with Fighters being underpowered, I share that frustration, but this isn’t even a targeted Fighter issue. Any character with modest STR can haul their ally around like this, spellcasters included. The point is that this exploit is too easy to abuse, as I outlined above. Or are you okay with players effectively doubling their movement every round as long as they have a piggyback partner?

Not even Strength is required. As explained by the lead designer, "Weight doesn't matter when grappling, size does".

So technically Rogues and Monks are the best grapple-movers.

I agree that Fighters need more love, but making bonkers, gamist mechanics isn't going to make them any more valuable or respected. It's going to make them a joke.

[Aprender]

There should be a cost to doing this. Again, I think it's up to the DM and players to agree on what it is.

Just using the fighter's bonus action and the target's reaction to move the whole of the fighter's speed in 1 round is straight up better than the battlemaster ability to command a friend to move 1/2 of their movement (and that uses a battlemaster's superiority die as well).

Just like with the thief ability being stomped upon, I recommend making a house rule, but be wary of making it better than a feature of a class or sub-class. It's really tempting and easy to do that.

[Sigreid]

I think it would take an action as your buddy is not an object.

[Nagog]

Typically you'd see this done with a grapple, taking one attack and halving your movespeed but funnily enough generally not STR limited.

Your interaction typically isn't used on creatures, which is where I'd say this strategy trips up in the rules.


I'd follow grappling rules. Grabbing a friend as an interaction or bonus action seems okay, but half speed seems warranted.

I feel the difference here would be that the ally is (presumably) not resisting the grapple.


I'm thinking it ought to be a grapple attack, meaning with Extra Attack it won't use up his whole Action. My main concern is that they start doing this all the time, using it to get away from Opportunity Attacks or for some other mechanical benefit, and totally killing the immersion. It would be ridiculous for a team of warriors to be constantly picking up and carrying each other around every few seconds in a fight.

I should also note that he said he did it one-handed and still attacked with a greatsword immediately after.

This, however, seems like abuse, unless they have disadvantage on the attack.