Misty Step Shenanigans

[ScoutTrooper]

Basic Scenerio: An EK moves and casts Misty Step. Choosing the space above an Airborne Dragon's back.
Would you allow this?

I argued it was an occupied space, to which the EK player then choose the air just above to drop down on it. With the dragon over the tower roof 30 ft up, the battle had just begun. I figured even if he fell, surviable. So I rule of cool'd it. EK player then Action Surged to attack. First one missed, second one hit. Instead of rolling damage, EK wanted to embed their axe into said Dragon and hold on. I gave them a DC 10 Dex Save to do so.

EK rolled a one, it came out to a 3. So I said he slipped, fell the 30 ft. I was getting ready to roll 3d10, to which the EK then said I couldn't disarm him because they were Weapon Bonded.

At this point I felt I had already allowed too much and regretted being in this position. I also felt this was a mercy, vs. falling 135 feet had the dragon been over the edge already. Or slamming the EK against the tower, and dive bomb into the ground for burrowing next round.

[Pandamonium]

Basic Scenerio: An EK moves and casts Misty Step. Choosing the space above an Airborne Dragon's back.
Would you allow this?

I argued it was an occupied space, to which the EK player then choose the air just above to drop down on it. With the dragon over the tower roof 30 ft up, the battle had just begun. I figured even if he fell, surviable. So I rule of cool'd it. EK player then Action Surged to attack. First one missed, second one hit. Instead of rolling damage, EK wanted to embed their axe into said Dragon and hold on. I gave them a DC 10 Dex Save to do so.

EK rolled a one, it came out to a 3. So I said he slipped, fell the 30 ft. I was getting ready to roll 3d10, to which the EK then said I couldn't disarm him because they were Weapon Bonded.

At this point I felt I had already allowed too much and regretted being in this position. I also felt this was a mercy, vs. falling 135 feet had the dragon been over the edge already. Or slamming the EK against the tower, and dive bomb into the ground for burrowing next round.

I would yes.
The issue seems to be that you said the axe still stuck inte to dragon with the hit and the dex check was to hold on? Otherwise I don't see why the weapon bond was brought up.
The fail should mean that the axe is jerked loose and they fall off :)

[Segev]

Basic Scenerio: An EK moves and casts Misty Step. Choosing the space above an Airborne Dragon's back.
Would you allow this?

I argued it was an occupied space, to which the EK player then choose the air just above to drop down on it. With the dragon over the tower roof 30 ft up, the battle had just begun. I figured even if he fell, surviable. So I rule of cool'd it. EK player then Action Surged to attack. First one missed, second one hit. Instead of rolling damage, EK wanted to embed their axe into said Dragon and hold on. I gave them a DC 10 Dex Save to do so.

EK rolled a one, it came out to a 3. So I said he slipped, fell the 30 ft. I was getting ready to roll 3d10, to which the EK then said I couldn't disarm him because they were Weapon Bonded.

At this point I felt I had already allowed too much and regretted being in this position. I also felt this was a mercy, vs. falling 135 feet had the dragon been over the edge already. Or slamming the EK against the tower, and dive bomb into the ground for burrowing next round.

Would you feel the same way if he'd managed to jump that high? I don't see why being unable to be disarmed after falling 30 feet is a problem. Teleporting above a dragon and trying to land on it does sound cool and like the kind of thing a magical warrior might well do in a fight with a big flying monster. Remember: he spent a second level spell slot on this; it didn't cost him "nothing." Do you really want him to feel like he should have just cast Melf's acid arrow or stood still and shot at it with a bow?

[ScoutTrooper]

I would yes.
The issue seems to be that you said the axe still stuck inte to dragon with the hit and the dex check was to hold on? Otherwise I don't see why the weapon bond was brought up.
The fail should mean that the axe is jerked loose and they fall off :)

I did say He let go and fell off. To which weapon bond was brought up that I couldn't disarm, so I followed it with the axe dislodged in their fall too.

[ScoutTrooper]

Would you feel the same way if he'd managed to jump that high? I don't see why being unable to be disarmed after falling 30 feet is a problem. Teleporting above a dragon and trying to land on it does sound cool and like the kind of thing a magical warrior might well do in a fight with a big flying monster. Remember: he spent a second level spell slot on this; it didn't cost him "nothing." Do you really want him to feel like he should have just cast Melf's acid arrow or stood still and shot at it with a bow?

It was very cool, And looking at Misty Step saying unoccupied space, and him rephrasing to the air just above. In a 3d space, that works for me.

[da newt]

I agree w/ Segev.

Misty Step into air above - sure as long as he can see it and it's in range.

Disarm - irrelevant, the DC 10 check was to see if a battle axe dug into the dragon's hide and lodged there so strongly that the PC could use it as a sturdy hand hold while the Dragon moved to toss the PC. Roll fail = PC and his axe fall.

Rule of Cool all day. Rule of High Risk / High Reward, but the dice say you failed.

If he'd been wielding a war pick I might have made the DC lower, but for an axe you were more than generous.

[Darth Credence]

I see a minor rules problem, and a point where the description just needs to change. The first is that Misty Step only moves you 30 feet, so if the dragon is 30 feet up, you couldn't come out above it. It would basically have to be 25' or less in a straight line for this to work. But I'd follow the rule of cool, and say that in the course of the turn, they were in such a position and the caster gets up there.
The second was covered by Pandamonium - he wasn't disarmed, the axe just didn't stick and he fell. The way you described it was the check was to see if he could make the axe stick to hold on. He failed, so he could not.

[Segev]

I see a minor rules problem, and a point where the description just needs to change. The first is that Misty Step only moves you 30 feet, so if the dragon is 30 feet up, you couldn't come out above it. It would basically have to be 25' or less in a straight line for this to work. But I'd follow the rule of cool, and say that in the course of the turn, they were in such a position and the caster gets up there.
The second was covered by Pandamonium - he wasn't disarmed, the axe just didn't stick and he fell. The way you described it was the check was to see if he could make the axe stick to hold on. He failed, so he could not.

Ah, right, good catch on misty step's range. I keep thinking it's 60 feet, for some reason, not 30.

So, no, if "above the dragon" is more than 30 feet away, can't do it. Though with the dragon exactly 30 feet up, I'd probably see if he can't manage a jump to get an extra 10 feet up. Maybe leaping off a crenelation for an extra five foot boost before counting vertical jumping. If he gets high enough that the space he wants over the dragon is less than 30 feet away, go for it.

[ScoutTrooper]

I agree w/ Segev.

Misty Step into air above - sure as long as he can see it and it's in range.

Disarm - irrelevant, the DC 10 check was to see if a battle axe dug into the dragon's hide and lodged there so strongly that the PC could use it as a sturdy hand hold while the Dragon moved to toss the PC. Roll fail = PC and his axe fall.

Rule of Cool all day. Rule of High Risk / High Reward, but the dice say you failed.

If he'd been wielding a war pick I might have made the DC lower, but for an axe you were more than generous.

Yes, I was thinking DC 10 to just quasi mount it with axe in, had they rolled a 15 and above to remain standing and holding on via the embedded Axe. I still wanted him to roll some damage from making the hit at the very least. It was only round 2.


I see a minor rules problem, and a point where the description just needs to change. The first is that Misty Step only moves you 30 feet, so if the dragon is 30 feet up, you couldn't come out above it. It would basically have to be 25' or less in a straight line for this to work. But I'd follow the rule of cool, and say that in the course of the turn, they were in such a position and the caster gets up there.
The second was covered by Pandamonium - he wasn't disarmed, the axe just didn't stick and he fell. The way you described it was the check was to see if he could make the axe stick to hold on. He failed, so he could not.

I agree about the distances, I choose not to get bogged down with the math on that, and figured he did move towards it and hadn't expended his full 30 ft before casting, so yeah upon saying "Space just above" some jump at the end into the cast could have sufficed.

[Zhorn]

Basic Scenerio: An EK moves and casts Misty Step. Choosing the space above an Airborne Dragon's back.
Would you allow this?
This? yes. The rest? Sorta, not as you ruled it, but in essence yes.

DMG p271 has a section on "Climb onto a Bigger Creature"
Once the PC gets into position with some form of skill check (in this case the Misty Step would suffice to my reasoning), they then make a Athletics or Acrobatics contested by the creature's Acrobatics in an attempt to evade or shake them off. As this is an optional rule given as an alternative to grappling when the opposing creature is too big, I follow the base grapple rule and have this check as though it is using a single attack from the Attack Action.
If the PC is successful, they can then move about on the creature treating it like difficult terrain, and move along with the bigger creature as it moves.
The creature ability to attack the PC is dependant on the PC's position on the creature (DM's fiat)
The PC has advantage to attack the creature it is clinging on to, but I would add the ruling that they must maintain some form of securing as to not fall off, so if that is a grappling arm or gripping an imbedded weapon that eliminates two-handed attacking.
Finally the bigger creature can use an action to attempt an escape (same as with a grapple), only the bigger creature is locked into Athletics to attempt to shake off their unwanted rider, and the PC has the option of Athletics or Acrobatics to contest the roll.

A mostly RAW way to run the same scenario.

[ScoutTrooper]

This? yes. The rest? Sorta, not as you ruled it, but in essence yes.

DMG p271 has a section on "Climb onto a Bigger Creature"
Once the PC gets into position with some form of skill check (in this case the Misty Step would suffice to my reasoning), they then make a Athletics or Acrobatics contested by the creature's Acrobatics in an attempt to evade or shake them off. As this is an optional rule given as an alternative to grappling when the opposing creature is too big, I follow the base grapple rule and have this check as though it is using a single attack from the Attack Action.
If the PC is successful, they can then move about on the creature treating it like difficult terrain, and move along with the bigger creature as it moves.
The creature ability to attack the PC is dependant on the PC's position on the creature (DM's fiat)
The PC has advantage to attack the creature it is clinging on to, but I would add the ruling that they must maintain some form of securing as to not fall off, so if that is a grappling arm or gripping an imbedded weapon that eliminates two-handed attacking.
Finally the bigger creature can use an action to attempt an escape (same as with a grapple), only the bigger creature is locked into Athletics to attempt to shake off their unwanted rider, and the PC has the option of Athletics or Acrobatics to contest the roll.

A mostly RAW way to run the same scenario.

See I totally spaced about that ruling. I was also not expecting the attack to turn right into this either. Thank you for pointing this out.

[PhantomSoul]

As long as they were within 30 ft. of the above-dragon point, teleporting there is definitely a fun move (and I think a core gish tactic for the spell).


The second was covered by Pandamonium - he wasn't disarmed, the axe just didn't stick and he fell. The way you described it was the check was to see if he could make the axe stick to hold on. He failed, so he could not.

And even if the axe did stick (easier to say it simple didn't), it's not being disarmed if you failed to hold on (i.e. the dragon wasn't disarming you by a martial manoeuvre). Having this count as disarming feels a lot like saying your bonded weapon is permanently affixed to your hand regardless of whether you would want to put it down to eat (which makes teleporting it to yourself pretty tricky!). Either it never stuck or you simply failed to hold on.

[Unoriginal]

Misty Stepping above an enemy, provided there is room for it and it is within range, is perfectly legit.

I agree that being weapon bound doesn't matter, if the axe is out of the dragon it's out of the dragon.


That being said I would have used the "climb on a creature" rules, or just asked the player if they wouldn't prefer to try a a grapple check to make the dragon fall instead.

[ScoutTrooper]

Thank you everyone who replied. A lot of good insight here. It all kind of bothered me and I was driving myself up the wall. I appericate all the insight. I'm going to take this to the player and talk. He's more of a Veteran DM than I am, alibet in later systems rather than 5e.

[Segev]

This? yes. The rest? Sorta, not as you ruled it, but in essence yes.

DMG p271 has a section on "Climb onto a Bigger Creature"
Once the PC gets into position with some form of skill check (in this case the Misty Step would suffice to my reasoning), they then make a Athletics or Acrobatics contested by the creature's Acrobatics in an attempt to evade or shake them off. As this is an optional rule given as an alternative to grappling when the opposing creature is too big, I follow the base grapple rule and have this check as though it is using a single attack from the Attack Action.
If the PC is successful, they can then move about on the creature treating it like difficult terrain, and move along with the bigger creature as it moves.
The creature ability to attack the PC is dependant on the PC's position on the creature (DM's fiat)
The PC has advantage to attack the creature it is clinging on to, but I would add the ruling that they must maintain some form of securing as to not fall off, so if that is a grappling arm or gripping an imbedded weapon that eliminates two-handed attacking.
Finally the bigger creature can use an action to attempt an escape (same as with a grapple), only the bigger creature is locked into Athletics to attempt to shake off their unwanted rider, and the PC has the option of Athletics or Acrobatics to contest the roll.

A mostly RAW way to run the same scenario.


See I totally spaced about that ruling. I was also not expecting the attack to turn right into this either. Thank you for pointing this out.To be fair, this is 5e, and rulings-not-rules etc. Your on-the-spot handling wasn't any worse than this, especially if it's a mostly one-off. If you like these more detailed rules, you can incorporate them into future events (which, if you and the player are okay with the kind of cool stuff that he was trying to do, you hopefully WILL have occasion to use said rules). But don't feel bad for not having them to hand in this instance; you handled it pretty well. My only criticism is the fact you ARE letting it bother you and feeling like you were too generous. I don't see any particularly exploitative or bad player or DM behavior here, nor any unbalanced mechanics leading to unrealistic or too easy solutions.


Thank you everyone who replied. A lot of good insight here. It all kind of bothered me and I was driving myself up the wall. I appericate all the insight. I'm going to take this to the player and talk. He's more of a Veteran DM than I am, alibet in later systems rather than 5e.
Perhaps you already know this, but it is inobvious to me what it is you feel you need to talk to him about. What is the problem you're perceiving? I'm not trying to tell you there isn't one, but I don't quite "get" what the sticky issue you feel needs resolution is. If you can articulate what it is you need to work out with the player to us, then you know what it is that needs addressing. But my concern is that all you have is a vague sense that things happened "outside the rules" in some fashion and your gut is telling you (possibly incorrectly) that this means exploits and cheesing happened and that the player "got away" with something you can't put your finger on. I don't think having a conversation with the player where you start with an emotional sense that he "got away" with something but can't explain precisely what the problem is will be constructive, and recommend you make sure you can articulate clearly what the problem is and why you think it's a problem, so that you can go into the conversation with concrete things he can address and discuss with you.

[thoroughlyS]

I second Zhorn's recommendation, although Segev is right to say this wasn't handled poorly.

I have three notes:
Fall damage is in d6s, not d10s
I would have required them to attempt to grab hold before anything else, and if that failed they immediately fell. I find it odd to get off multiple actions in midair.
Based on how you worded your summary, I assume the fighter is 4th level or lower, because it seems like they had to action surge to make two attacks? Did you allow them to attempt to lodge their axe for free, or was is part of one of the attacks?

[Vogie]

Misty Stepping above an enemy, provided there is room for it and it is within range, is perfectly legit.

I agree that being weapon bound doesn't matter, if the axe is out of the dragon it's out of the dragon.


That being said I would have used the "climb on a creature" rules, or just asked the player if they wouldn't prefer to try a a grapple check to make the dragon fall instead.

You can only reduce a grappled creature's speed to zero when "The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you" - A medium EK grappling a Huge Dragon will just be holding on.

[Segev]

You can only reduce a grappled creature's speed to zero when "The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you" - A medium EK grappling a Huge Dragon will just be holding on.

Away from book, so I'll ask: CAN you grapple something two or more size categories larger than you at all?

[ScoutTrooper]

Perhaps you already know this, but it is inobvious to me what it is you feel you need to talk to him about. What is the problem you're perceiving? I'm not trying to tell you there isn't one, but I don't quite "get" what the sticky issue you feel needs resolution is. If you can articulate what it is you need to work out with the player to us, then you know what it is that needs addressing. But my concern is that all you have is a vague sense that things happened "outside the rules" in some fashion and your gut is telling you (possibly incorrectly) that this means exploits and cheesing happened and that the player "got away" with something you can't put your finger on. I don't think having a conversation with the player where you start with an emotional sense that he "got away" with something but can't explain precisely what the problem is will be constructive, and recommend you make sure you can articulate clearly what the problem is and why you think it's a problem, so that you can go into the conversation with concrete things he can address and discuss with you.

I wanted to keep the player's reaction out of this, it was their actions that made me second guess, and be like this. Upon the failed Dex save, and falling off. They attempted to claim weapon bond, but I stayed with the ruling of falling off. I rolled the fall damage, and it came out to 17, leaving more than 3/4 HP, and only being prone. The player zero'd out their health, applied every Roll20 condition icon to their token and muted in discord. They were controlling another NPC and still had their Psedodragon on the field.

This indivdual I've gamed with for awhile, this was by far their biggest reaction, not to mention being an old school veteran player of the later verisions. So their reaction was huge to me, and got me wondering If I messed up, and I wanted to come here for feedback.

[ScoutTrooper]

I second Zhorn's recommendation, although Segev is right to say this wasn't handled poorly.

I have three notes:
Fall damage is in d6s, not d10s
I would have required them to attempt to grab hold before anything else, and if that failed they immediately fell. I find it odd to get off multiple actions in midair.
Based on how you worded your summary, I assume the fighter is 4th level or lower, because it seems like they had to action surge to make two attacks? Did you allow them to attempt to lodge their axe for free, or was is part of one of the attacks?

So when the player went for the Misty Step, they didn't fully reveal their plan, and was breaking their turn down step by step. It was a 10th level EK, They moved closer, casted Misty Step, and decalred Action Surge to attack. Which I believe they overlooked the bonus action to cast Misty Step, Or was trying for 4 attacks. But on the Attack resolution, when the 2nd one hit, Then they delcared or rathered asked to have the axe 'lodge' into the dragon, rather than apply damage.

[Zhorn]

Seems like an over reaction on their part if everything played out as stated.
The only think I would fault you on would be the dex save on top of the attack roll to stay on.
I don't think you did bad by this, rulings not rules as stated above, and making a call and keeping the game moving instead of pausing to look up rules you're unsure of is a reasonable way to go.
What I mean is it could be perceived as;

DM: Roll to do *thing*
Player: Succeeds
DM: Roll again for the same intended *thing*
Player: Fails
DM: You fall
Player: "I have *feature*"
DM: No, fall

Stripping away the context it does make it sound very antagonistic, and maybe that was the perception of the player? Don't know, we can't speak for them.
For clarity, I don't think their weapon bond would matter given the scenario.
And again, I don't think you did a bad job DMing this on the fly.

[Darth Credence]

I disagree that the dexterity check was the same thing as the attack roll. The attack roll was an attack - it should resolve as HP damage. Instead, the player asked for the hit to not be a hit, but to rather be part of lodging the axe in them and thereby staying attached to them. This is different, and the GM allowing for a check to make that happen seems appropriate as it is extra beyond an attack. If you say they are the same thing, then they could say that any hit on any creature could be converted to the axe lodging in the creatures body as a default grapple. If you have a good possibility of hitting, but a bad possibility of winning a contested strength check, then this is a method to get to grapple more favorably. Think of a battle with an ogre - they have an AC of 11 but a strength of 19. Almost anyone is going to have a better shot at grappling them with an attack than with a grapple check.

And the feature that would prevent a fall that the player claimed is just another attempt to get that grapple without actually succeeding at it. They wanted to convert a hit to a grapple - DM said OK, but make a fairly easy check to see if it works. When they failed the check, they then basically said it doesn't matter what I rolled, because I can't lose my weapon. The correct response is, "you did not lose your weapon - it fell along with you because you failed to make the easy check that represented turning your hit into a way to lodge the axe inside the dragon's scales".

I like the way the OP ran this. They went with a rule of cool to allow for the admittedly awesome visual of teleporting on top of the dragon, and then agreed to bend some rules to allow for an easier time of trying to stay on top. But at some point, if you roll poorly you have to take the consequence. There is nothing antagonistic here on the part of the GM.

[MrCharlie]

I disagree that the dexterity check was the same thing as the attack roll. The attack roll was an attack - it should resolve as HP damage. Instead, the player asked for the hit to not be a hit, but to rather be part of lodging the axe in them and thereby staying attached to them. This is different, and the GM allowing for a check to make that happen seems appropriate as it is extra beyond an attack. If you say they are the same thing, then they could say that any hit on any creature could be converted to the axe lodging in the creatures body as a default grapple. If you have a good possibility of hitting, but a bad possibility of winning a contested strength check, then this is a method to get to grapple more favorably. Think of a battle with an ogre - they have an AC of 11 but a strength of 19. Almost anyone is going to have a better shot at grappling them with an attack than with a grapple check.

And the feature that would prevent a fall that the player claimed is just another attempt to get that grapple without actually succeeding at it. They wanted to convert a hit to a grapple - DM said OK, but make a fairly easy check to see if it works. When they failed the check, they then basically said it doesn't matter what I rolled, because I can't lose my weapon. The correct response is, "you did not lose your weapon - it fell along with you because you failed to make the easy check that represented turning your hit into a way to lodge the axe inside the dragon's scales".

I like the way the OP ran this. They went with a rule of cool to allow for the admittedly awesome visual of teleporting on top of the dragon, and then agreed to bend some rules to allow for an easier time of trying to stay on top. But at some point, if you roll poorly you have to take the consequence. There is nothing antagonistic here on the part of the GM.
Here's the problem; two checks gives them disadvantage.

Each check had a 50% chance of failure more or less, assuming a typical dragon and a typical fighter with an axe (high AC, low dex on the fighter). Hence, requiring two checks is the same as requiring them to succeed an attack at disadvantage with even odds, or around 20% odds of success.

Even if the checks are easier the stacking of checks imposes increasing failure odds. At absurd degrees it doesn't matter if only a 1 fails-they're still screwed if they are making ten rolls.

It's much better as a DM to set one high DC instead of multiple low ones, because the multiple low ones create the illusion of high odds, when in fact you've got a 20% chance, same if the DC was a 15 or 16. The alternative is to create degrees of success of failure-you do damage on the attack, or the attack grants advantage on the next roll, etc.

This is why the rule for grappling is a straight comparison roll-it's not some nested roll.

Within the context of the question-OP should have simply let the attack roll stand as the grapple attempt and rolled an opposing athletics (75% of the time it's the same for a melee character using an axe anyway) or let the attack roll be converted into advantage on a grapple check. The key is to minimize repeated rolls and set DCs based on the intended difficulty directly, or use incremental successes.

While there is nothing antagonistic on the part of the DM here, in general requiring a ton of checks is the DMs ultimate F-You. They aren't even going to go through the trouble of setting an absurd DC they know you can't make, they're just going to having you make thirty checks until you fail. It lets them waste your time too. It's important to know what you are doing mathematically as a DM to avoid doing this kind of stuff accidentally.

[Darth Credence]

Here's the problem; two checks gives them disadvantage.

Each check had a 50% chance of failure more or less, assuming a typical dragon and a typical fighter with an axe (high AC, low dex on the fighter). Hence, requiring two checks is the same as requiring them to succeed an attack at disadvantage with even odds, or around 20% odds of success.

Even if the checks are easier the stacking of checks imposes increasing failure odds. At absurd degrees it doesn't matter if only a 1 fails-they're still screwed if they are making ten rolls.

It's much better as a DM to set one high DC instead of multiple low ones, because the multiple low ones create the illusion of high odds, when in fact you've got a 20% chance, same if the DC was a 15 or 16. The alternative is to create degrees of success of failure-you do damage on the attack, or the attack grants advantage on the next roll, etc.

This is why the rule for grappling is a straight comparison roll-it's not some nested roll.

Within the context of the question-OP should have simply let the attack roll stand as the grapple attempt and rolled an opposing athletics (75% of the time it's the same for a melee character using an axe anyway) or let the attack roll be converted into advantage on a grapple check. The key is to minimize repeated rolls and set DCs based on the intended difficulty directly, or use incremental successes.

While there is nothing antagonistic on the part of the DM here, in general requiring a ton of checks is the DMs ultimate F-You. They aren't even going to go through the trouble of setting an absurd DC they know you can't make, they're just going to having you make thirty checks until you fail. It lets them waste your time too. It's important to know what you are doing mathematically as a DM to avoid doing this kind of stuff accidentally.

Here's the problem with this - the player made an attack, and then asked for the attack to be something it wasn't. If the player had said that they wanted to attempt to lodge the axe in to stay on the dragon, rather than saying they wanted to attack, then the DM could have set a high DC check that would have made sense. Instead, the player made an attack and hit, then wanted the attack to be something else that would be much more difficult to pull off than just an attack. At that point, the DM could either say something like, "OK, but that isn't an attack, so we'll ignore the attack roll and instead have you do this high DC check", or he could do what he did and add a low DC check to convert the attack to the grapple. It's not ideal, clearly, but it wasn't the DM that brought about the situation - the DM was being overly nice to allow him to attempt to change what he was doing after already doing it.

If the DM allows the roll to just be converted to a grapple attempt instead, then the player can game their rolls. If they roll high enough for a hit but not great for a grapple check, then they may just keep quiet and take the hit, but if they rolled great and really wanted to grapple, they could attempt this and get the roll they already know will be good to do something more difficult. The player brought the multiple rolls on themselves by changing what they wanted to do after they had already established the roll they were going to get.

[Tanarii]

The whole sequence of attempted actions reeks to me of a player trying to abuse the need for DM rulings for unconventional actions.

The players reaction confirms it.

[Segev]

Here's the problem with this - the player made an attack, and then asked for the attack to be something it wasn't. If the player had said that they wanted to attempt to lodge the axe in to stay on the dragon, rather than saying they wanted to attack, then the DM could have set a high DC check that would have made sense. Instead, the player made an attack and hit, then wanted the attack to be something else that would be much more difficult to pull off than just an attack. At that point, the DM could either say something like, "OK, but that isn't an attack, so we'll ignore the attack roll and instead have you do this high DC check", or he could do what he did and add a low DC check to convert the attack to the grapple. It's not ideal, clearly, but it wasn't the DM that brought about the situation - the DM was being overly nice to allow him to attempt to change what he was doing after already doing it.

If the DM allows the roll to just be converted to a grapple attempt instead, then the player can game their rolls. If they roll high enough for a hit but not great for a grapple check, then they may just keep quiet and take the hit, but if they rolled great and really wanted to grapple, they could attempt this and get the roll they already know will be good to do something more difficult. The player brought the multiple rolls on themselves by changing what they wanted to do after they had already established the roll they were going to get.

Yeah, I'd say that allowing a secondary effect for no additional action is generous, not unreasonable. He didn't negate the damage, right? So he got the attack, and now wanted to stunt it in a way that let him stay on the thing's back. Arguably, that's a "free" grapple, but I'd probably allow it in this case due to the nature of the stunt. But requiring a roll is still fair.

[MrCharlie]

Here's the problem with this - the player made an attack, and then asked for the attack to be something it wasn't. If the player had said that they wanted to attempt to lodge the axe in to stay on the dragon, rather than saying they wanted to attack, then the DM could have set a high DC check that would have made sense. Instead, the player made an attack and hit, then wanted the attack to be something else that would be much more difficult to pull off than just an attack. At that point, the DM could either say something like, "OK, but that isn't an attack, so we'll ignore the attack roll and instead have you do this high DC check", or he could do what he did and add a low DC check to convert the attack to the grapple. It's not ideal, clearly, but it wasn't the DM that brought about the situation - the DM was being overly nice to allow him to attempt to change what he was doing after already doing it.

If the DM allows the roll to just be converted to a grapple attempt instead, then the player can game their rolls. If they roll high enough for a hit but not great for a grapple check, then they may just keep quiet and take the hit, but if they rolled great and really wanted to grapple, they could attempt this and get the roll they already know will be good to do something more difficult. The player brought the multiple rolls on themselves by changing what they wanted to do after they had already established the roll they were going to get.
You're assuming the player knew the correct rule, which they likely didn't. The key is that A. You don't play with people gaming the system and B. You just require them to do another roll if they are trying to change their action because they didn't know how to do a section of the rules. What you're really arguing here isn't that the DM should have kept with his actual sequence of events-he should have just had that sucker hit and do damage then fall, 'cause that's what he said he did. And you're right. But requiring another check is the worst of both worlds.

If the game is antagonistic it's never going to work. The key is to use probability in a way that, as a DM, gives players a fair chance of failure or success for the task. More rolls is bad at that, because people don't intuitively understand how these mechanics work and the probabilities are thus "hidden", or significantly tougher than the player anticipated.

[MrCharlie]

Yeah, I'd say that allowing a secondary effect for no additional action is generous, not unreasonable. He didn't negate the damage, right? So he got the attack, and now wanted to stunt it in a way that let him stay on the thing's back. Arguably, that's a "free" grapple, but I'd probably allow it in this case due to the nature of the stunt. But requiring a roll is still fair.
Ah, I missed that he did actually still have him do damage. In that context, it's a reasonable "freebie". I thought from the first post that he had used his attack for this effect and wasn't doing damage at all.

In that context, all freebies are by definition "reasonable", and the player needs to accept what comes out of them. It's a bit ambiguous because neither of them seemed to know the rules for actually grappling a large creature, so the effect he wanted was reasonable but they were both using the wrong mechanism to do it.

[Pex]

Failing to embed the axe just means he failed. The axe falls with him in his hand. No reason to think otherwise.

Eldritch Knights can be disarmed by an opponent. What the player was likely thinking is he can't permanently lose his bonded weapon. When he doesn't have it he can spend a bonus action to get it back. Even in the harsh case the axe was in the creature as he fell below next turn he spends a bonus action and has it. In the excitement of the moment all the technicalities jumbled together his mind focused on he couldn't lose his weapon which equates to in game terms can't be disarmed.

As for Misty Step no problem the player could do it. It's three dimensions. Was the bottom of the creature 30 ft away? The middle? The top? 30 ft away is still a 5 ft cube of space. However, that's being bad kind rules lawyering. He does it.

The player is not trying to get away with something.

[Segev]

Eldritch Knights can be disarmed by an opponent. What the player was likely thinking is he can't permanently lose his bonded weapon. When he doesn't have it he can spend a bonus action to get it back. Even in the harsh case the axe was in the creature as he fell below next turn he spends a bonus action and has it. In the excitement of the moment all the technicalities jumbled together his mind focused on he couldn't lose his weapon which equates to in game terms can't be disarmed.

You're correct about being able to retrieve it if he leaves it somewhere or it's taken from him (perhaps while he's incapacitated), but you're wrong about him being able to be disarmed: "Once you have bonded a weapon to yourself, you can't be disarmed of that weapon unless you are incapacitated. If it is on the same plane of existence, you can summon that weapon as a bonus action on your turn, causing it to teleport instantly to your hand." (emphasis added)

That's from the text of Weapon Bond.

[Pex]

You're correct about being able to retrieve it if he leaves it somewhere or it's taken from him (perhaps while he's incapacitated), but you're wrong about him being able to be disarmed: "Once you have bonded a weapon to yourself, you can't be disarmed of that weapon unless you are incapacitated. If it is on the same plane of existence, you can summon that weapon as a bonus action on your turn, causing it to teleport instantly to your hand." (emphasis added)

That's from the text of Weapon Bond.

Ah, my mistake. The game is telling the DM the PC keeps his weapon. No shenanigans. It's a feature of the game for the PC to use a class ability that outwits an encounter set-up, even if it's something the DM made up on the spot. It's the whole point of the class ability existing to counter the specific thing it does.

[Vogie]

Away from book, so I'll ask: CAN you grapple something two or more size categories larger than you at all?

Kind of. It's not explicitly called grappling, but the "Climb onto a Bigger Creature" rules in the DMG uses the same mechanics as grappling, for both the Climber and the Climbee. If the Climbee (in our case, a huge dragon), wants to get rid of the Climber (the EK) on its back, it uses the Grapple Contest rules to attempt to "knocking it off, scraping it against a wall, or grabbing and throwing it" (DMG 271).

So it's grapple (the mental connection to the athletics contest mechanic), but not grapple (the action) or grapple (the condition).

[Xervous]

The whole sequence of attempted actions reeks to me of a player trying to abuse the need for DM rulings for unconventional actions.

The players reaction confirms it.

Agreed. One failed Finesse(GM) attempt later...

Keep the dice rolling, keep the talking going (as it’s fast talking of course).

[Segev]

Kind of. It's not explicitly called grappling, but the "Climb onto a Bigger Creature" rules in the DMG uses the same mechanics as grappling, for both the Climber and the Climbee. If the Climbee (in our case, a huge dragon), wants to get rid of the Climber (the EK) on its back, it uses the Grapple Contest rules to attempt to "knocking it off, scraping it against a wall, or grabbing and throwing it" (DMG 271).

So it's grapple (the mental connection to the athletics contest mechanic), but not grapple (the action) or grapple (the condition).

Hm. Another distinction: it takes an action to do, not an attack. This is significant for, say, a fighter who wants to climb onto a creature and attack it. Grappling, he can grab, then attack (or attack then grab) if he has Extra Attack. It takes his whole action to "climb on" to a larger creature.

I can also see why it requiring an action to do so when you've literally fallen onto the creature seems...off. You're on its back. That said, the OP here had a good reason: the flying dragon is not exactly stable terrain and slipping right off if you can't grab on is perfectly reasonable. It seems, given the rules for climbing onto a larger creature, that the DM was actually generous to allow an attack AND this attempt.

[Keravath]

I think the DM did a fine job of ruling on the spur of the moment for the actions by the player.

Misty step to get onto a dragon within 30' - no problem there.
Using your action to make an attack (or two in this case since the character is level 10) - no problem there.

"EK player then Action Surged to attack."

This makes no sense to me. Misty Step is a bonus action so the EK still has their action available to do something unless they already used it for something the DM didn't mention. The characters are level 10 and presumably experienced so I am not sure what the issue is.

However, the EK then changes what they are doing mid-attack. This is where the problems start.

"First one missed, second one hit. Instead of rolling damage, EK wanted to embed their axe into said Dragon and hold on. I gave them a DC 10 Dex Save to do so."

The player wants the axe to stick into the target after it hits rather than pulling it out to hit again.

The player is suggesting to the DM the homebrewed action they are going to take AS well as the homebrewed solution to it that they would like to see used as a DM. Wedging an axe into a target so that it stays is NOT a standard attack action. Suggesting that if it does stick it will do no damage is a DM call. Suggesting that it is even possible is also a DM call. Saying that the action can be taken in place of one attack is also a DM call. Deciding that just a successful hit is all that is required to embed the axe is also a DM call.

The issue is that the player took a certain action and then tried to tell the DM how it should be resolved.

So the DM very considerately goes along.
"I gave them a DC 10 Dex Save to do so."

However, communication broke down here. The player is assuming that the axe was successfully embedded in the target while the DM created a generous roll to see if the plan works at all.

The player fails the dex save then says
"I was getting ready to roll 3d10, to which the EK then said I couldn't disarm him because they were Weapon Bonded."

Paraphrased this is "Ha Ha you can't do that since I can't be forced to let go of the axe". The player didn't realize that the DM was checking to see if the maneuver of embedding the axe securely was successful or not. The player thought that was a done deal and that the only thing they had to worry about was letting go. (They may have thought this was a better option to hold onto the dragon since they may have had a shield equipped and so didn't have a hand free to actually hold on).

Suddenly they rolled a 1 - failed the roll - play their disarming trump card and discover that it doesn't work because the player and DM were on different pages. The player thought they were rolling to hold onto the axe while the DM thought the roll was to see if the maneuver worked at all.

However, this is not clear from the OPs story "So I said he slipped, fell the 30 ft.".

If the DM said the character can't hold onto the axe and falls - the EK can certainly mention that they can't be forced to let go the axe and should succeed in holding on.

If the DM says that the axe was not securely embedded and both the EK and axe fall - then holding onto the axe doesn't matter.

However, if the DM says you can't hold onto the axe and fall, the EK mentions they can't let go, the DM says "well then the axe comes loose too" then the player hears the DM changing the outcome on the fly to force a failure when the player mentions why it should work.

In the last case, where the DM described the dice roll as determining one thing (whether the EK can hold onto the axe), then finds that the EK can't be forced to let go, then CHANGES the ruling and description of the situation to be that the axe is not properly embedded then the DM is being inconsistent in their description and rulings since they said one thing then changed it to force the character to fail the task. This last situation could easily make some folks angry because the DM wasn't consistent and forced the character to fail even after the player mentioned an ability that makes a certain type of failure impossible.

The end result here was that the player is upset either because the DM didn't rule the situation in exactly the way they suggested (the hit did no damage but was instead properly embedded - which the player needed to actually discuss BEFORE the die roll was made so the DM could rule on how that would work) or because the DM was inconsistent (or the player thought they were inconsistent) in their ruling due to miscommunication.

The player may have thought the dex save was to hold onto the axe while the DM thought it was to see if the axe was firmly embedded for example. (Though I have to admit, I would probably have used a dex save to hang on and a strength save to properly embed the axe if I was going to allow it at all).

By the way, falling damage is only a d6/10' and not a d10 unless you specifically changed that - so it should only have been 3d6 damage to fall to the top of the tower.

-----

Anyway, it sounds like a case of miscommunication in terms of understanding exactly what was going on in the scene and what each die roll meant.

[BullyWog]

What if you manage to land on the dragon and hold on and your wizard polymorphs you into a great ape?

[cookieface]

What if you manage to land on the dragon and hold on and your wizard polymorphs you into a great ape?

I imagine there would be a great ape on a dragon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I imagine there would be a great ape on a dragon.

I dunno. Seems like monkey business to me...

[PhantomSoul]

I dunno. Seems like monkey business to me...

Sounds like a shift from combat to gorilla warfare!

[Segev]

I imagine there would be a great ape on a dragon.


I dunno. Seems like monkey business to me...


Sounds like a shift from combat to gorilla warfare!

If the ape can collect seven golden balls with stars in them, it might be able to control the dragon.

[Samayu]

The player should have presented his intentions, and worked with you to figure out the best way to achieve it. They way you write it, it sounds like he was trying to keep you off your guard. The potential results of their physical actions should generally be clear to the players.

I would have given him an athletics check as an action to grab on. And then no-action athletics checks to maintain grip, when he does things. If he falls, the axe dislodges.