Did we grapple wrong?

[SociopathFriend]

Simply put- we played tonight and disagreed about how grappling worked. Rather than argue about it and waste precious time I simply rolled with it.

The scenario:
A flying boat with several cultists on it. They're pretty weak- only a +1 to their Acrobatics according to the DM which was presumably their best chance to avoid grapples.
The cultists were within 5 feet of the side of the boat.
I- on a griffon- flew up to the side of the boat and said I intended to pull them off it and let them drop. I had 18 Strength, a Bless, and +3 Proficiency in Athletics so their chance at winning was pretty minimal.

I had initially assumed I would only need one grapple check apiece to do this.
The DM insisted I needed two per Cultist- one to grapple them and the other to pull. This was not based on any sort of, "There's railing in the way" excuse either.

Like I said- they were weak and it was a slaughter regardless so I didn't push the issue but I'd have cared a lot more if they were a CR-appropriate challenge and the DM doubled the amount of work I thought I had to do.

What should the rules be for accomplishing my goal of pulling an enemy 5 feet closer over the edge of a boat? I'm the resident frontliner of the group complete with a Sentinel feat so making sure I know how to move enemies around is fairly important to me.

[kazaryu]

Simply put- we played tonight and disagreed about how grappling worked. Rather than argue about it and waste precious time I simply rolled with it.

The scenario:
A flying boat with several cultists on it. They're pretty weak- only a +1 to their Acrobatics according to the DM which was presumably their best chance to avoid grapples.
The cultists were within 5 feet of the side of the boat.
I- on a griffon- flew up to the side of the boat and said I intended to pull them off it and let them drop. I had 18 Strength, a Bless, and +3 Proficiency in Athletics so their chance at winning was pretty minimal.

I had initially assumed I would only need one grapple check apiece to do this.
The DM insisted I needed two per Cultist- one to grapple them and the other to pull. This was not based on any sort of, "There's railing in the way" excuse either.

Like I said- they were weak and it was a slaughter regardless so I didn't push the issue but I'd have cared a lot more if they were a CR-appropriate challenge and the DM doubled the amount of work I thought I had to do.

What should the rules be for accomplishing my goal of pulling an enemy 5 feet closer over the edge of a boat? I'm the resident frontliner of the group complete with a Sentinel feat so making sure I know how to move enemies around is fairly important to me.

well..for one, bless doesn't matter, so you had a +7 vs a +1. you needed to roll a 14+ in order for him to have no chance of succeeding. just mathing it out.

as for the actual rules, you're dealing with 2 separate sets of rules. the 'grapple' rules and the 'shove' rules. if you successfully grapple a person your speed is halved and you can move them semi freely (i.e. you can move them without them getting a roll). However, you can also 'shove' a person which requires exactly the same roll as a grapple roll. The last bit of information here is that you can end a grapple with no action required any time you want.

with all that said: thats also assuming that 1. the enemy is supporting their own weight. (i.e. not hanging off of you) and 2. that they don't want to be grappled, so they wouldn't oppose you releasing the grapple. The rules themselves don't specify one way or another, but its all that ridiculous for the DM to say that you 'releasing the grapple' in order to drop someone is just a fancy way of saying 'you shove them' since thats essentially what you're doing anyway. the shove attack is to push someone somewhere they don't want to go, while not following them. and dropping them certainly could be seen to fall under that banner.

TL:DR you're in a bit of a grey area with regard to RaW. and the ruling your DM seems to have gone with (i.e. grapple+shove) is not an insane ruling, in fact i'd argue that its downright reasonable and permissive even. However, under ordinary circumstances (i.e. just moving someone around on the battle field) moving a person you've grappled requires no roll. you're just at half speed. also keep in mind that the rules don't spell out that you control the persons position relative to you when you move them. only that they stay with you

[Mastikator]

You did it wrong.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#toc_42

First roll on your turn when you use your action to attempt to grapple, you roll athletics vs their athletics or acrobatics.


Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an Attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target’s Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you succeed, you subject the target to the Grappled condition (see Conditions )


Second roll on their turn when they try to escape, you roll athletics vs their athletics or acrobatics.


Escaping a Grapple: A Grappled creature can use its action to Escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.

The important part is that you don't need to use the shove action when grappling a target.



Moving a Grappled Creature: When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you.
No mention of any contested checks here, they just move when you do. Being airborne you can easily move to a position of them being over the air, then drop them as a free action.

[BoutsofInsanity]

You did it wrong.

https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Combat#toc_42

First roll on your turn when you use your action to attempt to grapple, you roll athletics vs their athletics or acrobatics.


Second roll on their turn when they try to escape, you roll athletics vs their athletics or acrobatics.


The important part is that you don't need to use the shove action when grappling a target.


No mention of any contested checks here, they just move when you do. Being airborne you can easily move to a position of them being over the air, then drop them as a free action.

Got it absolutely right here. Grappling is awesome and you can literally just move people around with it. No roll required once you have them grappled. Important note about grapple, shove, and other actions not explicitly denoted by the PHB. They replace the attacks you have when you take the attack action. Therefore, if you have multiple attacks you can shove and grapple as many times as you have attacks in your turn. However, when taking the escape grapple action, you only get one chance because it's an action.

Depending on your Dungeon Master, strength can be much more versatile and important if your DM is good at adjudicating actions not explicitly mentioned in the PHB.

[da newt]

If you position yourself over the ship and shove them over the side, it's a pretty black and white single contested shove.

With a grapple (contested), then drag (auto success, cost double movement), then drop the bit that's a little grey is should the drop be contested (assuming the cultists does not want to fall to it's death) leaving a bit of DM interpolation. By strict RAW, a drop is not contested and they fall (assuming the cultist has no turn to act and grapple you), but I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the DM to rule the cultist will resist being dropped and give them a chance to contest it.

[Ionathus]

If you position yourself over the ship and shove them over the side, it's a pretty black and white single contested shove.

With a grapple (contested), then drag (auto success, cost double movement), then drop the bit that's a little grey is should the drop be contested (assuming the cultists does not want to fall to it's death) leaving a bit of DM interpolation. By strict RAW, a drop is not contested and they fall (assuming the cultist has no turn to act and grapple you), but I wouldn't think it unreasonable for the DM to rule the cultist will resist being dropped and give them a chance to contest it.

Absolutely this -- a single Shove attempt is all you'd need if they're 5ft from the edge. I'd probably go one further and allow a 5ft "Pull" check, with the same modifiers, in this situation. That's only because you possess a flying mount, though, and it's really only a narrative/flavor difference at that point.

I would give a PC in that same situation a DEX save if they whiffed their check to resist the shove, but that's just DM mercy...NPCs have to play by the rules, and the rules are "one good Shove and you're gone."

[Segev]

If the DM wishes to give them a second "saving throw," the best moves is either a Dexterity Save or a Dexterity(Acrobatics) check to grab you or grab the side of the cliff/boat/whatever as they fall off. Maybe requiring their reaction.

But yeah, your choices by the RAW are a grapple, which is one opposed check, and then moving them with you, followed by letting them go; or a shove, which is a single opposed check that moves them 5 feet in a direction of your choosing (or knocks them prone) if you win it. Improvising a pull action that works like a shove but yanks them five feet towards you as you move five feet back would also be reasonable.

[Ionathus]

If the DM wishes to give them a second "saving throw," the best moves is either a Dexterity Save or a Dexterity(Acrobatics) check to grab you or grab the side of the cliff/boat/whatever as they fall off. Maybe requiring their reaction.

But yeah, your choices by the RAW are a grapple, which is one opposed check, and then moving them with you, followed by letting them go; or a shove, which is a single opposed check that moves them 5 feet in a direction of your choosing (or knocks them prone) if you win it. Improvising a pull action that works like a shove but yanks them five feet towards you as you move five feet back would also be reasonable.

I'd be fine with either a DEX save or a Dex (Acrobatics) check, but doing a save feels more thematic - my rule of thumb is that checks are active, saves are reactive. Even though grapples being a contested check makes sense, there are still certain situations where I feel like the attempted victim gets cheated out of their skillset due to missing a Saving Throw bonus on the roll. I can't think of another time in the game where an ability check is reactive (aside from Initiative, I guess).

And if people think that only requiring a single contested check here makes Strength super powerful in certain situations...yeah, it does, and I think that's good! I've long felt that Strength is only considered a dump stat in 5e because 1) DMs don't create terrain that makes grapple and shove meaningful combat choices, 2) DMs don't shoot enough Webs at their players, and 3) DMs are awfully permissive about the difference between "Athletics" and "Acrobatics." Incorporate those behaviors, and Strength becomes a game changer.

Heck, I currently DM for a halfling necromancer who can restructure almost all reality at her whim...but gets tossed around like a ragdoll basically every combat, thanks to her 5 in STR. The player had the option to take a more smoothed-out stat array, and knew that my monsters would exploit 5 STR, but gave me that beautiful gift anyway. I've had lots of fun finding ways for my villains to target that weakness.

[Mellack]

An issue with the grab/move in this case is you were on a mount. Unless the DM rules that you can spend your move distance to move the grappled creature, I have mostly seen where you can move them with you when the PC moves, as that is the strict reading of the rules. Now being mounted causes a problem as you are not moving, your mount is. Also, the mount has its own turn. Some DMs allow you to use the mount's movement throughout your own turn, others do not. It would not be unreasonable to ban splitting up the mount's movement within your own actions.

[Segev]

An issue with the grab/move in this case is you were on a mount. Unless the DM rules that you can spend your move distance to move the grappled creature, I have mostly seen where you can move them with you when the PC moves, as that is the strict reading of the rules. Now being mounted causes a problem as you are not moving, your mount is. Also, the mount has its own turn. Some DMs allow you to use the mount's movement throughout your own turn, others do not. It would not be unreasonable to ban splitting up the mount's movement within your own actions.

The RAW do explicitly intermingle the initiative of (controlled) mount and rider. It is an interesting problem whether the halved movement applies to the mount's movement when the mount is moving you but you've got the guy grappled. Arguably, the RAW are that you're moved away from the grappled guy, but you are not doing the moving, so he stays put and you move, releasing him from the grapple. The DM can rule differently, of course, and probably should, but he also can then rule however he thinks is fitting for the mount's movement to be affected.

[Christew]

The RAW do explicitly intermingle the initiative of (controlled) mount and rider. It is an interesting problem whether the halved movement applies to the mount's movement when the mount is moving you but you've got the guy grappled. Arguably, the RAW are that you're moved away from the grappled guy, but you are not doing the moving, so he stays put and you move, releasing him from the grapple. The DM can rule differently, of course, and probably should, but he also can then rule however he thinks is fitting for the mount's movement to be affected.
Yeah, I think pure RAW your mount moving qualifies as an effect that would end the grapple.

That said, I'd probably allow it (halve the mounts speed while mounted grappling unless two sizes smaller). Probably rule it a difficult maneuver and call for an Animal Handling check though.

[Contrast]

well..for one, bless doesn't matter

Just to further explain this because its a common mistake - there are generally speaking 4 types of rolls in 5e. Three are made with d20s (attack rolls, saving throws, ability checks) and then there's damage rolls.

Bless helps with attack rolls and saving throws but grappling relies on an ability check. The Guidance cantrip or Enhance Ability spell are examples of spells that effect ability checks but not attack rolls or saving throws.

[greenstone]

I had initially assumed I would only need one grapple check apiece to do this.

Let's turn it around. If a foe grappled your character and threw them off a flying boat to their certain death, would you be OK with only a single roll between you and a new character?

[ad_hoc]

Let's turn it around. If a foe grappled your character and threw them off a flying boat to their certain death, would you be OK with only a single roll between you and a new character?

Yeah. The grappling or shoving character only needs 1 check but I would be giving the target a save. With shoving it's to hold onto the edge of whatever and for flying grapplers it is to hold onto the grappler.

[SociopathFriend]

Let's turn it around. If a foe grappled your character and threw them off a flying boat to their certain death, would you be OK with only a single roll between you and a new character?

No, because I would never engage a flying enemy within 5 feet of the edge of a flying boat without some manner of flight available to me.

But otherwise yes, I would, because those are the rules that I'm playing with. If I put myself in a scenario where an enemy can one-shot me and the enemy does so- only I* am to blame.

*Unless the DM does something particular jerkish like having a flying creature ignore three people shooting it to kill me, assuming I shot it not at all, in that manner- that's a good time to start giving the DM the middle finger.

[kazaryu]

If you position yourself over the ship and shove them over the side, it's a pretty black and white single contested shove.


even then its not wholly black and white. the side of the ship *absolutely* has walls, so arguably a single shove might not be enough to lift up and over a wall.

[Mastikator]

Let's turn it around. If a foe grappled your character and threw them off a flying boat to their certain death, would you be OK with only a single roll between you and a new character?

I'd allow a saving throw to grab a hold of the side of the boat, if they grabbed they would climb back up after some number of rounds. So if their team wins they live, if their team dies they lose.

[Contrast]

No, because I would never engage a flying enemy within 5 feet of the edge of a flying boat without some manner of flight available to me.

In fairness you just did unless you have some means of flying outside of the griffon you were riding.

If you'd encountered anything with a forced movement effect you'd have been one attack roll or failed save away from plummeting off.

[Tanarii]

Yes, but ...

You also needed to make sure that the total carrying capacity of your griffin not exceeded by your weight + your gear + cultist. Grappling doesn't override the drag/lift rule, it's half speed if you're under your carrying capacity, 5ft if you're over it.

[Zuras]

It’s entirely reasonable for the DM to require two checks, although only the first is required RAW. If you required a second attack (converted to a grapple/shove) to drop them over the side, that *is* departing from the rules—after you grapple it only takes your movement to drag them around.

There’s nothing preventing the DM from ruling the grappled creature can use its reaction to try to keep you from dropping it or trying to grab on to your saddle, etc…. That’s the sort of leeway most DMs provide to PCs rather than the bad guys, as has been mentioned, but it’s well within the rules.

[SociopathFriend]

To be clear to the thread while I absolutely understand the desire to have a save to grab ahold of the railing or the like and I also understand the approach that it'd be unfun to have a single roll stand between you and death- the DM's approach was not factoring in any of that.

The DM very genuinely the thought that I needed to first 'control' the enemy and then the second grapple check would be needed to 'do' something with the enemy. It would've been the same exact thing if we both stood on flat ground without a cliff or drop anywhere in sight.

That's why I made the thread. It wasn't a circumstantial argument- it was raw mechanics. The same session involved a debate about whether you subtracted your spent movement speed from your Mount's movement speed when you mounted it. It was just one of those sessions where everyone did things we normally didn't do.

[Ionathus]

Let's turn it around. If a foe grappled your character and threw them off a flying boat to their certain death, would you be OK with only a single roll between you and a new character?

Whenever my players propose a new homebrew, or discover a cool loophole in the rules that they can exploit, I always say the same thing: "I will absolutely let you do this...but don't be surprised if the bad guys pick up on it and start using it right back on you." They ultimately opted to not start doing Magic Missile coups-de-grace, for instance, because the idea of a PC getting perma-killed in the same way was so daunting and not worth the added benefit. Turns it into a bit of a MAD dynamic (the nuclear acronym, not the ability score acronym :smallbiggrin:)

That being said...I always imply that the monsters get the same chances that the players do, but I don't roll death saves for every minion. I probably wouldn't let every mook make that DEX save to survive the shove either -- or would fudge the save and let them fall regardless. Especially for a low-level peon like a skeleton or guard, I prefer to keep the focus on the PC's actions and let the moment succeed or fail based on that.


To be clear to the thread while I absolutely understand the desire to have a save to grab ahold of the railing or the like and I also understand the approach that it'd be unfun to have a single roll stand between you and death- the DM's approach was not factoring in any of that.

The DM very genuinely the thought that I needed to first 'control' the enemy and then the second grapple check would be needed to 'do' something with the enemy. It would've been the same exact thing if we both stood on flat ground without a cliff or drop anywhere in sight.

Yep, I should've clarified. Your DM was wrong, and by RAW it only takes succeeding on a single contested check to knock them off. I'm just assuming your DM thought "whoa that's totally unbalanced, there must be at least 2 points of failure", which is not a surprising thing for a DM to think. Shoving off a cliff is brutal in 5e, one of the few "save or die" situations that still remain. I just wanted to give an example of another tactic I used to simulate the same "two points of failure" while still trying to not make the interaction frustrating for a player who wants a cool moment of shoving some mook off an airship.

The DEX save homebrew, in my opinion, gives you the best of both worlds. Even if they save, they're stuck on the side of the airship (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0936.html), so you didn't waste your turn.


The same session involved a debate about whether you subtracted your spent movement speed from your Mount's movement speed when you mounted it.

Your wording makes it sound like this debate was resolved -- but this is a D&D forum, so I'm going to offer my two cents anyways :smallwink: The mount's movement speed is their own: you just need to have half your speed remaining by the time you reach the mount so you can spend it climbing aboard. No subtracting happens!