Would you ban this build

[Skrum]

Tabaxi Fighter (Psi Warrior) 7
feat: mobility, skill expert
item: boots of speed, spellwrought tattoo (spiked growth)
base speed: 40

(activate boots of speed at the beginning of combat, a bonus action. It lasts 10m and can be turn on and off at will. Base speed 80)
the turn: make grapple check against adjacent opponent(s)
action surge to use your tattoo and cast spiked growth, adjacent to yourself
use feline agility to double speed to 160
bonus action use Psi Leap to double speed again, to 320 w/ flying

move 160' through the spiked growth, dealing 60d4, or ~150 damage
===============
Well that's the basic tactic. The tattoo is obviously costly, where you can even find it, so optimally someone in your party can cast spiked growth. In that case, the damage could go up over 300 in a single round as you can spend action surge to move. Could even do 2 targets at once, though it'd probably take a round to set up

[tiornys]

Nah. At most I might nerf "double speed" to stacking additively instead of multiplicatively. That's a lot of investment, including multiple options that aren't generally considered high tier (Mobile, Skill Expert, Psi Warrior), for a tactic that requires teamwork or DM cooperation for the tattoo. The resulting nova is extremely powerful but not out of line compared with the similar (and synergistic) things a Daolock can do with less investment, and mostly investment in things that are generally considered high tier (Repelling Blast, Crusher, Genie). I'm ok with rewarding that level of investment.

[Skrum]

Nah. At most I might nerf "double speed" to stacking additively instead of multiplicatively. That's a lot of investment, including multiple options that aren't generally considered high tier (Mobile, Skill Expert, Psi Warrior), for a tactic that requires teamwork or DM cooperation for the tattoo. The resulting nova is extremely powerful but not out of line compared with the similar (and synergistic) things a Daolock can do with less investment, and mostly investment in things that are generally considered high tier (Repelling Blast, Crusher, Genie). I'm ok with rewarding that level of investment.

Well nerfing the multiplicative speed boosts would nerf the build quite a lot - the speed would drop to 80 ft while grappling. That's a 50% reduction in the damage dealt.

[tiornys]

Well nerfing the multiplicative speed boosts would nerf the build quite a lot - the speed would drop to 80 ft while grappling. That's a 50% reduction in the damage dealt.
It would yes. I'd really have to see it in play and get a feel for how reliable and repeatable the combo is, and how the character plays against targets that are difficult (fliers) or impossible (huge+) for them to grapple (without help). I think I'd be ok with it at full power, but part of why I'd allow it is because I'd reserve the right to pull that nerf (player would of course be forewarned).

[Yakk]

Wait, doesn't that do the damage to both the PC and the grappled foe?

Seems pretty suicidal.

Or are you doing something where you carefully dangle the foe through the spikes while not yourself entering them?

[Skrum]

Wait, doesn't that do the damage to both the PC and the grappled foe?

Seems pretty suicidal.

Or are you doing something where you carefully dangle the foe through the spikes while not yourself entering them?

psi-powered leap does give a fly speed, so yes, could just fly over it. Or run around it, dragging the poor victim besides you - though that might rely on the DM letting you (are there RAW rules for what square a grappled creature goes in when being moved?)

[Gignere]

Wait, doesn't that do the damage to both the PC and the grappled foe?

Seems pretty suicidal.

Or are you doing something where you carefully dangle the foe through the spikes while not yourself entering them?

It’s the latter, basically you grapple the target and move them into spike growth and you just run around the perimeter of the spike growth while grappling them.

A moon Druid can also pull this trick off by shifting into a form that can grapple and just move the enemy through the spike growth cheese grater.

[Skrum]

It’s the latter, basically you grapple the target and move them into spike growth and you just run around the perimeter of the spike growth while grappling them.

A moon Druid can also pull this trick off by shifting into a form that can grapple and just move the enemy through the spike growth cheese grater.

Not even druids have a move speed of 320' though xD

[Gignere]

Not even druids have a move speed of 320' though xD

Well if you’re a tablaxi moondruid with mobile and boots of speed you basically have the same move speed. It’s not like most of the move speed is coming from class abilities. You can even shift into forms with a greater base move and multiply from there. Unless the DM rules that you can’t use the Tabaxi ability while shifted.

Edit: also as a Druid you can add on longstrider.

[Yakk]

From my perspective, you are grappled and dragging them around. You are either both in the spikes or not, unless you want to stunt (which is fair). Expecting it to reliably work won't fly.

[tiornys]

From my perspective, you are grappled and dragging them around. You are either both in the spikes or not, unless you want to stunt (which is fair). Expecting it to reliably work won't fly.
Grappling doesn't move you and the grappled creature into the same space as far as I know. I don't see any RAW justification for disallowing the idea of moving along the perimeter with you out and the target in. Unless you just meant that's how you'd nerf the concept with your own house rules.

[kazaryu]

Tabaxi Fighter (Psi Warrior) 7
feat: mobility, skill expert
item: boots of speed, spellwrought tattoo (spiked growth)
base speed: 40

(activate boots of speed at the beginning of combat, a bonus action. It lasts 10m and can be turn on and off at will. Base speed 80)
the turn: make grapple check against adjacent opponent(s)
action surge to use your tattoo and cast spiked growth, adjacent to yourself
use feline agility to double speed to 160
bonus action use Psi Leap to double speed again, to 320 w/ flying

move 160' through the spiked growth, dealing 60d4, or ~150 damage
===============
Well that's the basic tactic. The tattoo is obviously costly, where you can even find it, so optimally someone in your party can cast spiked growth. In that case, the damage could go up over 300 in a single round as you can spend action surge to move. Could even do 2 targets at once, though it'd probably take a round to set up

im with yakk, being able to reliably move your opponent through whatever space you want while you have them grappled isn't something im terribly keen on. so imo the only way it really works is if you are in the mix with them. That also follows with the way i run grapples. when you move a grappled opponent i DO allow you to choose where they end up at the end of the movement. but duringthe movement they're counted as essentially following one space behind you.


Grappling doesn't move you and the grappled creature into the same space as far as I know. I don't see any RAW justification for disallowing the idea of moving along the perimeter with you out and the target in. Unless you just meant that's how you'd nerf the concept with your own house rules.
you don't need a Raw justification. the grappling rules don't specify where the target is relative to you when you move them via grapple. it just says


When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you,

since it is non specific as to where they are, by RaW, its always 'up to the DM.' using your logic, there's no RaW justification that the player gets to decide the position the grappled creature is in while being moved.

[tiornys]

Fair. Looks like it's TRDSIC either way.

[kazaryu]

Fair. Looks like it's TRDSIC either way.

ehh, i mean i suppose. but thats not really a thing in 5e. IMO its really just a way for a player to try to subvert 'its up to the DM'.

[Dork_Forge]

I wouldn't ban it, but you most likely wouldn't be getting those items and I rule you are in the same space as the creature you grapple anyway.

[Jervis]

Well nerfing the multiplicative speed boosts would nerf the build quite a lot - the speed would drop to 80 ft while grappling. That's a 50% reduction in the damage dealt.

Man sometimes I forget that 5e never actually made additive multiplication the default. That was the default rules in 3.x and I think 4E so whenever I see multiplication in dnd I do the math that way. I was actually confused when I read the OP for a sec.

[stoutstien]

Seems like a standard win harder thing so I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's not even in the top 5 blender build

[Kane0]

Wouldnt fuss me, seems a fine gimmick.

[Mastikator]

I'd allow it, but I'd also warn the player that to grapple while "flying" you need to be able to carry the grapplee, even if they're technically on ground level. So any creature that would put you over the encumbrances limit will also ground you.

I'd probably be a bit worried that your character would have little to do when you can't pull off your gimic

[da newt]

Isn't the spellwrought tat a single use item?

[PhillipJokar]

I'd allow both interpretations people have posted.

All that for 150 average, that has a ton of ways for it to easily fail or be unusable and requires investment and resource usage seems fine.

[JackPhoenix]

Yes, I would ban this build. Tabaxi aren't a race that exist in my games. Everything else seems fine.


you don't need a Raw justification. the grappling rules don't specify where the target is relative to you when you move them via grapple.

The grappling rules don't, but the Movement and Position rules are pretty clear that the grappler and the target can't be in the same space: "You can move through a nonhostile creature’s space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature’s space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature’s space is difficult terrain for you.

Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space."

[Damon_Tor]

The problem would be the availability of the item. A magic tattoo artist is rare enough, then you'd have to find one that can craft 2nd level spells into one, and then you would have to find one that specifically knows Spike Growth AND is willing to actually put this together for you. I won't say "never" here, but the amount of time it would take you to find this guy would probably make you wish you had just taken 3 levels in druid to get the spell organically.

But no, I wouldn't ban this. If there's a druid in your party for example this would work just fine as a team tactic. Remind your druid buddy to cast Longstrider on you too. And if you don't have access to a handy cheese grater that's fine too, because you can hit them with the old reliable psychic piledriver (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624030-The-Hextuple-Psychic-Piledriver-Or-how-to-wield-THE-PLANET-as-a-20d6-weapon&highlight=psychic+piledriver).

[kazaryu]

Yes, I would ban this build. Tabaxi aren't a race that exist in my games. Everything else seems fine.



The grappling rules don't, but the Movement and Position rules are pretty clear that the grappler and the target can't be in the same space: "You can move through a nonhostile creature’s space. In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature’s space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you. Remember that another creature’s space is difficult terrain for you.

Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space."

sure, but in this instance, that rule is more general than the grappling rules. meaning that even by RaW, its entirely possible for grappling to be an exception. i don't personally rule that they're in the same space. but its not beyond RaW to say that they are.

[JackPhoenix]

sure, but in this instance, that rule is more general than the grappling rules. meaning that even by RaW, its entirely possible for grappling to be an exception. i don't personally rule that they're in the same space. but its not beyond RaW to say that they are.

For a grappling rule to be an exception, it would have to state the creatures can share space. Specific beats general, but unwritten rule is neither.

[Guy Lombard-O]

It's a way for a martial PC (with tremendous investment in both build and resource usage) to do something awesome (if conditions permit, and only one time which uses up the tattoo). To do it again, it'd require teamwork and the concentration of someone who can cast Spike Growth.

So, yeah. I'd allow it.

[sithlordnergal]

It would work perfectly by RAW. By RAW, you are not in the creatures space, and you can be anywhere you want around the creature when you grapple and drag it. You can absolutely be 5ft over a creature and drag it across the ground, through a Spike growth.

The only thing that could be tricky is getting the magic items for it to work. Though if you make the build in AL, its child's play to do so. And you can even get an item to boost your speed further.

[Jervis]

It's a way for a martial PC (with tremendous investment in both build and resource usage) to do something awesome (if conditions permit, and only one time which uses up the tattoo). To do it again, it'd require teamwork and the concentration of someone who can cast Spike Growth.

So, yeah. I'd allow it.

TBF I think artificers can make both of those

[stoutstien]

TBF I think artificers can make both of those

Not readily. The SWT is limited to lv 1 spells or cantrips via infusion.

[Selion]

I would be more concerned about this player's expectations than about this specific build. If
you ban it, they could just pick another gimmick which they came with or they read online. It's not a problem as long as this is compatible with the play style of your table, does its 160 feet run in circle break other players immersion or it can be narrated in a way that sounds plausible by your standards? Or again, it's a common thing at your table countering weird tricks with weirder environments?
I usually advice against this kind of builds, after performing the trick a couple of times they tend to become boring

[sithlordnergal]

I would be more concerned about this player's expectations than about this specific build. If
you ban it, they could just pick another gimmick which they came with or they read online. It's not a problem as long as this is compatible with the play style of your table, does its 160 feet run in circle break other players immersion or it can be narrated in a way that sounds plausible by your standards? Or again, it's a common thing at your table countering weird tricks with weirder environments?
I usually advice against this kind of builds, after performing the trick a couple of times they tend to become boring

I mean, I'm not sure how it would break immersion...you're basically the Flash with this sort of build.

[Selion]

I mean, I'm not sure how it would break immersion...you're basically the Flash with this sort of build.

Y, speed is super fine, grappling and flying over thorns is fine or even spectacular... Once (I think speedsters in comics did something similar on occasions) resolving on this one trick every time could break immersion imho. Flash isn't grappling and running through thorns every day.
Mix and max the basic concept with a monk or a rogue or a sword welding fighter and it could be a great character (something I could even steal)
Edit: In short, I'd just remove the thorn tattoo (or limit it someway) , but the entire point of the build (which I guess is delivering over 100 dmg at level 7, and not being a super fast fighter) would lose its appealing

[Yakk]

Grappling doesn't move you and the grappled creature into the same space as far as I know. I don't see any RAW justification for disallowing the idea of moving along the perimeter with you out and the target in. Unless you just meant that's how you'd nerf the concept with your own house rules.
So, when you grapple something, the thing grappling them must be in their space, and is in reach of attackers who can reach that space. For example, if a crab has someone grabbed with their claw with a 10' reach, the target with no reach weapons can still attack the crab; while the crab doesn't control the space the target is in, the crab's claw is still there, as it is holding someone there. Normally where the crab's claws are is unimportant, as it just avoids being attacked; but when the claw is actually doing something somewhere, so is the crab.

Thus, if you are holding someone, part of your body is in that space. And if that space has thorns, you get to feel the pain of them. You aren't grappling them with psychic powers.

The "space you control" isn't always the only space you extend into. Otherwise bite attacks with 10' range make no sense.

On top of that, there is a difference between "they move along with you" and "you control exactly where they go as you move along". Where they end up when you move is not fully under the control of the mover. So arranging so that, for example, they are extended into the thorns while you are just short of it isn't an automatic feature of moving while grappling.

[Skrum]

So, when you grapple something, the thing grappling them must be in their space, and is in reach of attackers who can reach that space. For example, if a crab has someone grabbed with their claw with a 10' reach, the target with no reach weapons can still attack the crab; while the crab doesn't control the space the target is in, the crab's claw is still there, as it is holding someone there. Normally where the crab's claws are is unimportant, as it just avoids being attacked; but when the claw is actually doing something somewhere, so is the crab.

Thus, if you are holding someone, part of your body is in that space. And if that space has thorns, you get to feel the pain of them. You aren't grappling them with psychic powers.

The "space you control" isn't always the only space you extend into. Otherwise bite attacks with 10' range make no sense.

On top of that, there is a difference between "they move along with you" and "you control exactly where they go as you move along". Where they end up when you move is not fully under the control of the mover. So arranging so that, for example, they are extended into the thorns while you are just short of it isn't an automatic feature of moving while grappling.

This is not any interpretation of space that I've heard of. Medium creatures by RAW occupy exactly one 5' cube, even though many medium creatures are taller than 5'. That's just RAW. Saying your arm extended into the square below you while flying is enough to trigger spiked growth damage....yeah it sounds like you're just reaching for a way for this to not work.

[Skrum]

Obviously this is a gimmick build, but I think it could still be really fun - it's not limited to LITERALLY one thing. Mobility feat means you can essentially be as far from combat as you want to be, and still able to strike whenever you want and get out. Grappling and yanking your allies around the battlefield could be a very useful as well.

The most hilarious use of speed though is grappling an enemy and dragging them 160' away from the battle, and then watching them spend 3 turns to get back.

And the tattoo obviously isn't optimal play - optimally, someone in your party can cast spiked growth. Or if you're playing higher than 7th, get it yourself. The tattoo was strictly for "what can be done using only a single character's resources, in a single round (well except for activating the boots, but they have good duration), at the lowest level possible." The tattoo would absolutely be a "break glass in case of emergency" thing if this were to be played in an actual game.

[Greywander]

One thing that has never really been settled is how you can move a grappled creature. Do you just drag them behind you? Can you hold them to one side and drag them sideways (e.g. through Spike Growth)? Can you move them around you while you stand still (e.g. to drop them off a cliff right next to you)? If so, how much movement does it cost, or is it free? I don't think the rules actually specify on these points.

Instead of halving speed, you could house rule that you have to spend movement for both yourself and the creature you are grappling. If you move them around you while standing still, you spend movement for them but not for yourself. You can drag them sideways so long as you first position them to your side. Though this has the side effect that the best cheese grater strat is to stand still and furiously waggle them in the spikes, spending all your movement to move them and not yourself.

[sithlordnergal]

Y, speed is super fine, grappling and flying over thorns is fine or even spectacular... Once (I think speedsters in comics did something similar on occasions) resolving on this one trick every time could break immersion imho. Flash isn't grappling and running through thorns every day.
Mix and max the basic concept with a monk or a rogue or a sword welding fighter and it could be a great character (something I could even steal)
Edit: In short, I'd just remove the thorn tattoo (or limit it someway) , but the entire point of the build (which I guess is delivering over 100 dmg at level 7, and not being a super fast fighter) would lose its appealing

I guess it could break immersion if you only rely on this one trick for everything, though at the same time I find most characters tend to rely on one or two tricks at most. Though you absolutely should mix it with other creatures...I could see making a build that shoves, grapples, then drags a target around to be a really good addition to the party, even if they're a one trick pony.

[JLandan]

One thing that has never really been settled is how you can move a grappled creature. Do you just drag them behind you? Can you hold them to one side and drag them sideways (e.g. through Spike Growth)? Can you move them around you while you stand still (e.g. to drop them off a cliff right next to you)? If so, how much movement does it cost, or is it free? I don't think the rules actually specify on these points.

Instead of halving speed, you could house rule that you have to spend movement for both yourself and the creature you are grappling. If you move them around you while standing still, you spend movement for them but not for yourself. You can drag them sideways so long as you first position them to your side. Though this has the side effect that the best cheese grater strat is to stand still and furiously waggle them in the spikes, spending all your movement to move them and not yourself.

I would agree with this. But... I would also require a serious athletics check based on the weight of the creature being moved. I use the encumbrance variant, so that would be in effect too.

[Greywander]

I would agree with this. But... I would also require a serious athletics check based on the weight of the creature being moved. I use the encumbrance variant, so that would be in effect too.
That sounds reasonable, though I'd count it as dragging rather than lifting unless you're flying or something.

[Jak]

8/8
Would not ban.

However, if this is done consistently, word will spread, and enemies will try to prepare or innovate.

This doesn't seem like an encounter ender, unless the encounter is just a boss.

[kazaryu]

One thing that has never really been settled is how you can move a grappled creature. Do you just drag them behind you? Can you hold them to one side and drag them sideways (e.g. through Spike Growth)? Can you move them around you while you stand still (e.g. to drop them off a cliff right next to you)? If so, how much movement does it cost, or is it free? I don't think the rules actually specify on these points.
.
well...technically it was settled. you are correct that the rules don't specifiy enemy positioning relative to the grappler while moving. as such, its entirely up to the individual DMs'.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Grappling doesn't move you and the grappled creature into the same space as far as I know. I don't see any RAW justification for disallowing the idea of moving along the perimeter with you out and the target in. Unless you just meant that's how you'd nerf the concept with your own house rules.

My basic issue with this build is along these lines. Unless you're a lot bigger and stronger than whatever you are grappling, you're not going to be able to effectively hold it out perpendicular as you run along. It's not that I wouldn't allow anyone to ever do this; I'd just be considering encumbrance and the weight of the 'prey'. In all likelihood the character would end up moving considerably slower than max in most situations.

On the other hand, flying over a hazard would be a simpler calculation. Provided the grappling character can carry their foe, gravity is actually helping you out.

[Skrum]

My basic issue with this build is along these lines. Unless you're a lot bigger and stronger than whatever you are grappling, you're not going to be able to effectively hold it out perpendicular as you run along. It's not that I wouldn't allow anyone to ever do this; I'd just be considering encumbrance and the weight of the 'prey'. In all likelihood the character would end up moving considerably slower than max in most situations.

On the other hand, flying over a hazard would be a simpler calculation. Provided the grappling character can carry their foe, gravity is actually helping you out.

FWIW, I built this character with 18 Str and a +10 athletics check.

And I agree, flying over the hazard and dragging someone beneath you is an easier thing to imagine - though I could also imagine something similar with dragging someone diagonally adjacent to you, if they had extraordinary strength. 18 is pretty extraordinary.

Re: moving slower. Well that is the RAW rules. Moving someone around while grappling then reduces your movement by half. But this character, when all of their speed boosts are active, has a movement of 320'. So half speed is still 160', as many as 32 squares through spiked growth. And at 2d4 damage per square, it's a lot of damage.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

FWIW, I built this character with 18 Str and a +10 athletics check.

And I agree, flying over the hazard and dragging someone beneath you is an easier thing to imagine - though I could also imagine something similar with dragging someone diagonally adjacent to you, if they had extraordinary strength. 18 is pretty extraordinary.

Re: moving slower. Well that is the RAW rules. Moving someone around while grappling then reduces your movement by half. But this character, when all of their speed boosts are active, has a movement of 320'. So half speed is still 160', as many as 32 squares through spiked growth. And at 2d4 damage per square, it's a lot of damage.

Yes, dragging someone behind you is hard. My point is moving while holding someone out sideways is considerably harder. After considering it a bit, I think I'd calculate encumbrance by doubling the weight of the creature being held out in such a way. Whatever speed the character could still move (if any) would be fair game.
So in answer to the original question, I wouldn't ban it. I think a good rule of thumb is, 'Don't say no; determine difficulty."

[Damon_Tor]

This is the visual I always have in my head for this maneuver:
https://ssb.wiki.gallery/images/thumb/8/8f/Ridley_Side_B_SSBU.gif/300px-Ridley_Side_B_SSBU.gif

[Pildion]

I wouldn't ban this build at all, basically alot of work to just be a moon druid haha. Gignere had it right, just be a Tabaxi Moon Druid and do it all yourself! lol

[Yakk]

This is not any interpretation of space that I've heard of. Medium creatures by RAW occupy exactly one 5' cube, even though many medium creatures are taller than 5'. That's just RAW. Saying your arm extended into the square below you while flying is enough to trigger spiked growth damage....yeah it sounds like you're just reaching for a way for this to not work.
It is the same reason why you can attack a giant crab who can grappled you with 10' reach when they have you grappled.

Their claw is holding you. You are somewhere. So the claw can be attacked, as the claw is part of the crab.

The space you control is not always the only place where the creature is.

[Damon_Tor]

It is the same reason why you can attack a giant crab who can grappled you with 10' reach when they have you grappled.

Their claw is holding you. You are somewhere. So the claw can be attacked, as the claw is part of the crab.

The space you control is not always the only place where the creature is.

That logic has strange implications though. If a giant with 10' reach makes an unarmed attack against me, is he entering, then exiting, my space to do so? Do I get an opportunity attack against him?

[Greywander]

That logic has strange implications though. If a giant with 10' reach makes an unarmed attack against me, is he entering, then exiting, my space to do so? Do I get an opportunity attack against him?
No and no. The giant doesn't move in this scenario, staying ten feet away the entire time.

Now, I might allow you to ready an action to attack his arm when he makes an unarmed strike against you, but even that is DM discretion, not RAW.

Edit: I'm AFB right now, but I believe there's a special rule that allows a grappled creature to attack the grappler, regardless of distance.

[Yakk]

That logic has strange implications though. If a giant with 10' reach makes an unarmed attack against me, is he entering, then exiting, my space to do so? Do I get an opportunity attack against him?
He isn't moving. So no OA; OA is triggered by (willing) movement.

If you are in a zone of fire damage, I'd apply the fire damage. His arm entered your space.

And you could ready an attack to attack the arm, and do it even if you aren't within reach of the spaces the giant controls.

If they grapple you, the arm stays there, and can be attacked.

...

By default, I assume the grid in 5e is an aid to theater of the mind, not the other way around.

[DarknessEternal]

Moving a Grappled Creature: When you move, you can drag or carry the Grappled creature with you,

Second case first: If you're carrying the target, it's not touching the spikes.

Drag: I can't speak for your understanding of dragging, but no where in my experience would this word be used to describe holding something perpendicular to your movement.

[Gignere]

Second case first: If you're carrying the target, it's not touching the spikes.

Drag: I can't speak for your understanding of dragging, but no where in my experience would this word be used to describe holding something perpendicular to your movement.

I mean the five feet square is an abstraction but you can definitely drag on something to one side of you. The person and object dragged maybe slightly at an angle behind you but you can definitely drag something that is beside you.

It’s a technique I’ve seen many movers use on particularly unwieldy pieces of furniture.

[Yakk]

I mean the five feet square is an abstraction but you can definitely drag on something to one side of you. The person and object dragged maybe slightly at an angle behind you but you can definitely drag something that is beside you.

It’s a technique I’ve seen many movers use on particularly unwieldy pieces of furniture.
Any of them squrming and fighting back?

I find a lot of "I can do X move" presumes a foe that is already defeated. In real life, disarming a foe is "won the fight" pretty much. Similarly, "I can hold you at arms length and drag you around like a rag doll, positioning you where I choose, carefully dragging you against these thorns while keeping myself safe" is something you can do against an already defeated foe.

There are mechanics for making a foe already defeated. They are called reducing the foe to 0 HP. (Sometimes games introduce other mechanics, like the BM maneuver).

[Gignere]

Any of them squrming and fighting back?

I find a lot of "I can do X move" presumes a foe that is already defeated. In real life, disarming a foe is "won the fight" pretty much. Similarly, "I can hold you at arms length and drag you around like a rag doll, positioning you where I choose, carefully dragging you against these thorns while keeping myself safe" is something you can do against an already defeated foe.

There are mechanics for making a foe already defeated. They are called reducing the foe to 0 HP. (Sometimes games introduce other mechanics, like the BM maneuver).

I think that’s what the grapple check is about success you have someone grappled and you can now move them using two times movement. I mean this is the RAW if they continue struggling they get another grapple check to get out on their turn. I mean you’re just adding house rules and certainly fine but it is house rules. The in game rules as written allows you to move a grappled target.

[Damon_Tor]

1. I don't see anything that allows the creature being grappled to attack the grappler regardless of range. RAW, there doesn't appear to be any effect that causes the grapper to occupy any part of the grappled creature's space.

2. The words "Carry" and "Drag" (which are used by the "Moving a grappled creature" subsection) are not well defined game terms. Both terms are discussed in the section "Encumbrance, Lifting and Carrying" but nowhere does it specify how the space you occupy interacts with the space of the creature or object you are carrying or dragging or exactly how the carried/dragged object moves relative to you.

My ruling would be this:

If you are strong enough to CARRY the creature you are grappling (usually you are not: critically, a Tabaxi lacks the Powerful Build trait) you can basically move them in any way you like. You can lift them over your head and scrape them against a ceiling hazard, you could hold them to your side as you run past a wall hazard, or you could hold them out in front of you and slam them into something ahead of you.

If you are DRAGGING them, you inherently have LESS CONTROL over exactly where they go. A creature you drag will follow behind you, and can only enter the square you just left. This is because the word "drag" is defined as a form of PULLING which is itself movement TOWARD'S ONES SELF.

[Mellack]

Pulling would almost never be directly behind a humanoid due to how we are built. A grappled creature is held with just one hand, per the rules. Our hands are at the ends of our arms, which are connected to the side, not the center of the body. In men, the shoulders are typically the widest point. So when dragging, it is natural for the thing being dragged to follow beside the path travelled by the person doing the dragging, not exactly straight behind. Watch people pulling their luggage one-handed. I see no reason a person moving next to spikes couldn't drag something through the spikes.

https://cdn.w600.comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp35668966.jpg

[Psyren]

I'd allow this but not give the player a spiked growth tattoo. If you want to pull off a combo like this you should have help from the party, making it a teamwork combo.

(Either that or you're multiclassing, and thus you'd be using this on much stronger foes as well as diluting your own build.)

[Willie the Duck]

For a grappling rule to be an exception, it would have to state the creatures can share space. Specific beats general, but unwritten rule is neither.
Right, that tells us where they can't be, but not where they are.


I think that’s what the grapple check is about success you have someone grappled and you can now move them using two times movement. I mean this is the RAW if they continue struggling they get another grapple check to get out on their turn. I mean you’re just adding house rules and certainly fine but it is house rules. The in game rules as written allows you to move a grappled target.
The rules as written are silent on what level of positioning control you have over the opponent. Claiming RAW to your own position but houseruledom to Yakk's is unsupported.


One thing that has never really been settled is how you can move a grappled creature. Do you just drag them behind you? Can you hold them to one side and drag them sideways (e.g. through Spike Growth)? Can you move them around you while you stand still (e.g. to drop them off a cliff right next to you)? If so, how much movement does it cost, or is it free? I don't think the rules actually specify on these points.
This is the fundamental issue. "Drag or carry the grappled creature with you," is unclear. Drag would make sense as behind you (where you've just stepped) and could also be more things (trailing on the right or left) but one can't assume so (as in, different DMs will rule differently). "carry with you" is even less clear if grappled creatures don't share your space (how are they with you? where are they with you?).

From a balance, challenge, and gaming perspective (where cool ideas are cool until they become always-go-to gimmicks), I like the idea of using a single use magic item for mass damage. It's neat! Change that to having expertise in athletics turn fighting at the top of cliffs/in front of lava pools near auto-wins. That sounds too scarily close to 3e grapple-rule nightmares.


Instead of halving speed, you could house rule that you have to spend movement for both yourself and the creature you are grappling. If you move them around you while standing still, you spend movement for them but not for yourself. You can drag them sideways so long as you first position them to your side. Though this has the side effect that the best cheese grater strat is to stand still and furiously waggle them in the spikes, spending all your movement to move them and not yourself.
I don't know if I love the idea of a speedsters best option is to grab their enemy and then stand perfectly still, only moving their opponent. Thematically, that seems... just not quite right.

[Damon_Tor]

Pulling would almost never be directly behind a humanoid due to how we are built. A grappled creature is held with just one hand, per the rules. Our hands are at the ends of our arms, which are connected to the side, not the center of the body. In men, the shoulders are typically the widest point. So when dragging, it is natural for the thing being dragged to follow beside the path travelled by the person doing the dragging, not exactly straight behind. Watch people pulling their luggage one-handed. I see no reason a person moving next to spikes couldn't drag something through the spikes.

https://cdn.w600.comps.canstockphoto.com/can-stock-photo_csp35668966.jpg


A human is not a 5-foot cubic mass. Look at the picture you posted: Imagine the framing of the shot is a 5-foot cube. The luggage he is dragging is not 5 feet to his right. It is not even 2.5 feet to his right. It is offset from his center line by maybe a foot. That suitcase is in his space.

[Mellack]

A human is not a 5-foot cubic mass. Look at the picture you posted: Imagine the framing of the shot is a 5-foot cube. The luggage he is dragging is not 5 feet to his right. It is not even 2.5 feet to his right. It is offset from his center line by maybe a foot. That suitcase is in his space.

5 feet square is the space controlled, not that you physically take up. There is nothing stating that you must be in the center of that square. Indeed, it is strongly suggested that you are moving about in that 5' square. You must be, otherwise it would be impossible to hit an opponent with an unarmed attack. So the grappler is near the edge of one square while their opponent (who by rules is not in the same square) is to the side and rear. The rules make it clear that the grappled creature is not sharing your square. Since that part is clear, the only question is which adjoining square are they? I believe I showed how behind and besides is very reasonable.

[wuaffiliate]

I wouldn't ban this, nor would they get Boots of Speed. Also, Dispel Magic is not a rare spell and really puts the breaks on this build.

[Damon_Tor]

5 feet square is the space controlled, not that you physically take up. There is nothing stating that you must be in the center of that square. Indeed, it is strongly suggested that you are moving about in that 5' square. You must be, otherwise it would be impossible to hit an opponent with an unarmed attack. So the grappler is near the edge of one square while their opponent (who by rules is not in the same square) is to the side and rear. The rules make it clear that the grappled creature is not sharing your square. Since that part is clear, the only question is which adjoining square are they? I believe I showed how behind and besides is very reasonable.

The "suitcase" will always be at least partially behind you, so even in a situation where you sidle up as close as you can to the spiked squares on your right (you don't want to enter them at all, remember?) the suitcase will always be "between" the two squares in question. Which makes it a judgement call as to which square he's in, at best. One space he could fully be in, and once space he could only partially be in. So... I would think the space he could fully be in would get the benefit of the doubt?

And the other guy is not a rolling suitcase. He's an unwilling participant in this whole thing and would probably rather not be dragged over a cheese grater. So in the above situation where you've got a guy in schrodinger's space and it's not clear which space he should count as entering, his own preference on the matter might be the tie-breaker.

[Yakk]

I think that’s what the grapple check is about success you have someone grappled and you can now move them using two times movement. I mean this is the RAW if they continue struggling they get another grapple check to get out on their turn. I mean you’re just adding house rules and certainly fine but it is house rules. The in game rules as written allows you to move a grappled target.
Grappled isn't "completely helpless". When you move (at double cost) they come along. They don't say "and you pick exactly where they move as you move along down to the foot".

And you'd have to have it down to something like the foot to both drag them through something while your limbs stay safely outside of it.

They aren't a rag doll.

[Greywander]

I believe the AoE rules are that circles need to cover at least 50% of a square to affect a target in that square, whereas all other AoE shapes only need to overlap that square by any amount. This, by the way, is how you make Create Bonfire hit a 2x3 area (place it on the border between two squares and rotate it 45 degrees). Now, you might find this... not intelligent, but don't blame me; I didn't write the rules.

Point is, I think for Spike Growth to apply, a creature would only need to be barely inside the affected area. If you can drag a creature mostly behind you and slightly to one side, even just the most minuscule amount, then it would be affected by Spike Growth while you would not. Then again, to avoid a peasant railgun situation we have to be sure we're being consistent about the rules. While the AoE rules are clear, the rules don't actually say one way or another if you can drag someone slightly to the side of you.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it. There are plenty of ways to counter it, the easiest of which is to throw in an extra monster or two to waste your time dragging them through the spikes. But ranged or flying enemies can be difficult to grapple, and incorporeal enemies can't be grappled at all. So it's not like there aren't options if the "drag them through spikes" gag is getting stale.

[Skrum]

I wouldn't ban this, nor would they get Boots of Speed. Also, Dispel Magic is not a rare spell and really puts the breaks on this build.

I'm really not trying to pick on you, but this frankly sounds like the worst option. Telling a player "yes, you can do that" but than making sure they can *never* do that is really antagonistic. If you think the combo (or any combo, option, etc) is strong enough that it needs special considerations on your part, just ban it. A DM can and should consider the impact things will have on the table.

[Mellack]

The "suitcase" will always be at least partially behind you, so even in a situation where you sidle up as close as you can to the spiked squares on your right (you don't want to enter them at all, remember?) the suitcase will always be "between" the two squares in question. Which makes it a judgement call as to which square he's in, at best. One space he could fully be in, and once space he could only partially be in. So... I would think the space he could fully be in would get the benefit of the doubt?

And the other guy is not a rolling suitcase. He's an unwilling participant in this whole thing and would probably rather not be dragged over a cheese grater. So in the above situation where you've got a guy in schrodinger's space and it's not clear which space he should count as entering, his own preference on the matter might be the tie-breaker.

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "between squares". They grappled creature has to be in a square, and we know that they cannot share the square of the grappler. So they have to be in an adjacent square. I just don't think that square needs to be directly behind the direction of movement, but can also be besides that direction.
As to what the grappled target wants, they probably would rather not be moved or even grappled, but they lost their choice when they got grappled. Same with any most forced movement.

[Bigmouth]

So 320' of movement. Cut that in half because you are grappling someone. 160'. Half that for difficult terrain. 80'. (Which I think would be in effect even if the grappler was out of the difficult terrain themselves. They are dragging someone through that difficult terrain.) So 16x2 or 32d4. 80 points of damage on average. Also, you can only do it with someone who weighs less than or equal to 270, any heavier and your speed drops to 5.

Personally, I think it would be great the first time I saw it done. But as with all one trick pony builds, it would get less cool the more it is used, but because of all that investment, the player is going to (rightly) want to use it whenever possible.

[Greywander]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "between squares". They grappled creature has to be in a square,
The grid is a tool to make play easier, but there's no reason you can't ignore it when it suits you. Moving or positioning things not on the grid is entirely possible. It's just that most of the time there isn't a reason to do so.

[Dork_Forge]

The grid is a tool to make play easier, but there's no reason you can't ignore it when it suits you. Moving or positioning things not on the grid is entirely possible. It's just that most of the time there isn't a reason to do so.

This seems like a DM decision, not a player whenever it suits them

[Joe the Rat]

You get the full benefit once per combat, or every other turn if you really want to reset the tabaxi sprint. It would be better as a teamwork build, that way you could use your action surge to dash for another grind if necessary. Though the number of creatures that are tabaxi-portable and have that many hit points is a fairly short list.


So 320' of movement. Cut that in half because you are grappling someone. 160'. Half that for difficult terrain. 80'. (Which I think would be in effect even if the grappler was out of the difficult terrain themselves. They are dragging someone through that difficult terrain.) So 16x2 or 32d4. 80 points of damage on average. Also, you can only do it with someone who weighs less than 241 pounds, any heavier and your speed drops to 5.

I think this is the first time I've seen difficult terrain brought up in regards to shredded cheese tactics. If you are dragging or pulling something through difficult terrain, but you yourself are not in difficult terrain, does the terrain penalty apply to your movement?

[Bigmouth]

I don't see how you would get the damage of the Spike Growth without the movement penalty. The movement penalty is the source of the damage. Dragging them through the spike growth is the equivalent of throwing out an anchor. I'm sure someone could argue RAW, but don't see how it could be argued to make sense.

[Skrum]

I don't see how you would get the damage of the Spike Growth without the movement penalty. The movement penalty is the source of the damage. Dragging them through the spike growth is the equivalent of throwing out an anchor. I'm sure someone could argue RAW, but don't see how it could be argued to make sense.


It's clearly not RAW. There's difficult terrain, and you're not in it. There's also terrain that causes 2d4 damage for every 5' of movement within that area. It's two different sentences in the spell descriptor.

Like if you want to make that ruling as a DM, I can't say I entirely disagree with your logic. But it's also applying common sense to DND rules, which in general is a bad idea.

[Damon_Tor]

I honestly have no idea what you mean by "between squares". They grappled creature has to be in a square, and we know that they cannot share the square of the grappler. So they have to be in an adjacent square. I just don't think that square needs to be directly behind the direction of movement, but can also be besides that direction.
As to what the grappled target wants, they probably would rather not be moved or even grappled, but they lost their choice when they got grappled. Same with any most forced movement.

Part of the problem here is that Spiked Growth is itself an "off grid" effect. It's a radius effect, which it doesn't even fully "occupy" the squares at its edges. So using the grid's imprecision to justify the effect you desire here just doesn't make a lot of sense.

Your argument is somehow both gamist (technically you have to be in one square or another, so by getting super close to the edge of my square the other guy crosses over a little bit into the square next to me and is therefore in that that square, not the one behind me, even though the center of his mass is closer to the square behind me than the one I want him to be in) and realist (humans drag things a little off center) at the same time. Neither argument works well by itself, so you've kind of combined them to arrive at your conclusion.

If you (and your DM) want to play a realistic scenario, that's fine. Running around the edge of an effect only gets you a fraction of your desired result because only half the guy's body is entering the sharp rocks, and so it stands to reason he would only take half damage. Bam, realism.

Or if you want it run as a more gamist scenario, the DM has to make the call what squares a dragged creature can be made to occupy. "A drag is a type of pull" is the literal definition of the word "drag". And my judgement as a DM would be that a dragged creature must enter the space vacated by the grappler to meet that definition. If you as a DM would make another call, that's fine too.

[kazaryu]

They grappled creature has to be in a square, and we know that they cannot share the square of the grappler. we actually don't know that. specific trumps general. so the specific rules of grappling could easily trump the general rules involving creatures occurpying the same space.

in fact, that grappling rules somewhat support this.


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.

what exactly it means by 'or carry' and how that affects creature position is left up to the DM. but it is incorrect to say that they cannot share the same space. a DM that rules they do share the same space is still well within RaW.

[Foxydono]

I would allow it. Seems like fun and fun is good, as long as it is within the group balance (not having one OP character).

I'm no expert at RAW by any means, but I thought it was generally accepted creatures cannot share the same space, so by drag/lift, I assumed the creature was in a 5 ft square above/below/beside you. Hence making it easy to drop someone of a cliff, or dragging them through the edge of the spike growth.

Or alternatively fly above it with the target 5 ft below you. In my imagination that would actually make sense. That does of course make the combo much more potent, especially in thight spaces. And not even mentioning haste, but as a DM I can easily balance the game difficulty or enemy intelligence.

Tldr: as long as everyone at the table is ok with it and characters have similar strength level, go for it and enjoy. Cats rule the world after all :)

[kazaryu]

I'm no expert at RAW by any means, but I thought it was generally accepted creatures cannot share the same space, so by drag/lift, I assumed the creature was in a 5 ft square above/below/beside you. Hence making it easy to drop someone of a cliff, or dragging them through the edge of the spike growth.


it is only 'generally' accepted in the sense that no rule explicitly overrides the general rules of movement, yet. Grappling is the only one that has language that implies the possibility.

but as i said, its implicit, and pretty weakly implicit at that. meaning that in reality its all up to GM discretion. However, when discussing things on forums such as this, people often don't like acknowledging that 'DM choice' is sometimes the 'RaW' answer. So they look for/debate reasons why their interpretation must be RaW, and everything else a houserule.

to be clear, i understand why 'DM discretion' is such an unsatisfying answer. its a non answer. it makes it hard to analyze certain things if you don't have a specific DM in mind (i.e. planning a character for a campain). im not condemning anyone for wanting for explicit rules. only pointing out a phenomenon that i have observed

[Willie the Duck]

As to what the grappled target wants, they probably would rather not be moved or even grappled, but they lost their choice when they got grappled. Same with any most forced movement.
That is certainly an answer not in contradiction to the existing (vague) rules, but also certainly not implied to have to be the case (the rules say you can drag of carry them with you, not that you can force them into squares of your choosing).
I think there is some discrepancy in how people picture someone being successfully (as in, lost the contest) grappled -- is it have them in a controlling wrestling hold, where you can (to a greater or lesser degree) move them about as you please -- or is it you have an unbreakable (until the next roll of the dice) grip on at least part of them and if you move away from them, they will be dragged along behind? The rules don't really say one way or the other (we can infer from other things, like they can still attack with most weapons or the like, but those are all conjectural).

From a game-consequence level, I worry about the ruling of successful grapple -> can do with what you will. There are so many ways to get really good at grappling (barbarian with expertise and athletics, for instance) and so many creatures with just their str-mod as a skill-total. It seems, if not the horror stories of 3.5e's grappling rules, at least in line with maybe 3e's touch-attacks, where there were some amazing insta-kill or insta-suck effects where the defense was touch AC, but there were so few creatures with good values that 'well, they got a defense check against this and lost' becomes a really unsatisfying answer. Sure, for this one trick (where, outside of single use magic items or requiring you to build your character around multiple movement doublings, is only going to be 20-30D4 damage) it isn't a problem, but generalizing it to cliff faces, lava-bearing rooms, anywhere with a sphere of annihilation effect, etc. it seems like an outsized benefit to a high athletics skill (admittedly, martials should get nice things, I'm just not sure this counts). Forced movement in general is a little too easy in this edition, but excepting telekinesis (so a high level spell slot), it generally is restricted to directly towards or directly away, meaning you have to be creative and strategic to force people into environmental hazards.


to be clear, i understand why 'DM discretion' is such an unsatisfying answer. its a non answer. it makes it hard to analyze certain things if you don't have a specific DM in mind (i.e. planning a character for a campain). im not condemning anyone for wanting for explicit rules. only pointing out a phenomenon that i have observed

Agreed. I generally side with the decision of rulings over rules (or at least devaluing RAW as a primary concern and empowering DMs to use good judgement). However, there are places where clear guidance would have been better, and basic tasks like vision/illumination, stealth, grappling and such certainly make the list.

[wuaffiliate]

I'm really not trying to pick on you, but this frankly sounds like the worst option. Telling a player "yes, you can do that" but than making sure they can *never* do that is really antagonistic. If you think the combo (or any combo, option, etc) is strong enough that it needs special considerations on your part, just ban it. A DM can and should consider the impact things will have on the table.

Perhaps you misunderstood me or took some implication where I meant none. My players can play the builds want to play, and perhaps I deal out magic items differently than you do. Players don't get to choose their magic items at my table and I don't play Adventurers League.

To be complely clear, if a player came to me with such a build I would have to clarify that I don't let players choose their magic items and they can play the build without the guarantee of the item they want.

I should have expressed myself more clearly, I left out the context behind "never".

[sithlordnergal]

I think this is the first time I've seen difficult terrain brought up in regards to shredded cheese tactics. If you are dragging or pulling something through difficult terrain, but you yourself are not in difficult terrain, does the terrain penalty apply to your movement?

I mean, that's pretty simple. The rule for Difficult Terrain is "You move at half speed in difficult terrain—moving 1 foot in Difficult Terrain costs 2 feet of speed—so you can cover only half the normal distance in a minute, an hour, or a day." So the question you need to answer is "Are you in Difficult Terrain"?

If you're not in Difficult Terrain, then your speed is not lowered by it. If you are in Difficult Terrain, your speed is lowered by it. Since you can't be in the same space as a creature you are fighting without being a lot larger or smaller than it, that means you have to be in an adjacent square. Spike Growth only create difficult terrain in its AoE, so as long as you're on the edge of or above that circle, you're not in Difficult Terrain.

I will agree that grappling rules are a bit weird that way, but its an edge case. Its kinda like how if a creature with reach grapples you, you can't make a melee attack on them because they're out of your reach, despite the fact that they're grappling you.

[sithlordnergal]

Perhaps you misunderstood me or took some implication where I meant none. My players can play the builds want to play, and perhaps I deal out magic items differently than you do. Players don't get to choose their magic items at my table and I don't play Adventurers League.

To be complely clear, if a player came to me with such a build I would have to clarify that I don't let players choose their magic items and they can play the build without the guarantee of the item they want.

I should have expressed myself more clearly.

Time to make an Artificer 8D

[wuaffiliate]

Time to make an Artificer 8D

Fair game!

[Yakk]

I will agree that grappling rules are a bit weird that way, but its an edge case. Its kinda like how if a creature with reach grapples you, you can't make a melee attack on them because they're out of your reach, despite the fact that they're grappling you.
But you can clearly attack a creature who is grappling you with their arm.

If they grappled you with their arm, then their arm is holding on to you. That is what grappling is.

The space they control isn't within your reach; but their arm, quite simply, is. The arm is touching you, continuously. That is within your 5' reach.

They are within your reach. D&D isn't a computer game. "The monster is holding you in its hand" isn't just fluff, it is part of what is going on in the world, and what is going on in the world impacts what your character can do.

Now, you can play D&D as a computer game, where the "grapple" attack with reach is some kind of TK ability that moves the arm out of your reach after the attack occurs, yet still holds you still. But that isn't what 5e rules tell you to do, really and honestly.


A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions.
5' x 5' isn't your physical dimensions, it is the area you control in combat.

The optional grid combat reduces movement to 5' squares, but the default actually has 1' resolution and cares where you physically are, and difficult terrain rules care what terrain you move through, not what terrain the space you control moves through.

Reach, again, refers to the distance between creatures. Not the distance between the space they control.

You can usually use a shortcut, where you say "5' reach means the space you control is adjacent to a space they control" etc. But that isn't the actual rules of 5e D&D; even the "playing on a grid" optional rule doesn't say that!

But mistaking that shortcut for the actual rules is not "finding a hole in the rules". Possibly you are remembering 3e or 4e rules that also agree with this shortcut, and assuming the shortcut is the actual rules.

[Skrum]

But you can clearly attack a creature who is grappling you with their arm.

If they grappled you with their arm, then their arm is holding on to you. That is what grappling is.

The space they control isn't within your reach; but their arm, quite simply, is. The arm is touching you, continuously. That is within your 5' reach.

They are within your reach. D&D isn't a computer game. "The monster is holding you in its hand" isn't just fluff, it is part of what is going on in the world, and what is going on in the world impacts what your character can do.

Now, you can play D&D as a computer game, where the "grapple" attack with reach is some kind of TK ability that moves the arm out of your reach after the attack occurs, yet still holds you still. But that isn't what 5e rules tell you to do, really and honestly.


5' x 5' isn't your physical dimensions, it is the area you control in combat.

The optional grid combat reduces movement to 5' squares, but the default actually has 1' resolution and cares where you physically are, and difficult terrain rules care what terrain you move through, not what terrain the space you control moves through.

Reach, again, refers to the distance between creatures. Not the distance between the space they control.

You can usually use a shortcut, where you say "5' reach means the space you control is adjacent to a space they control" etc. But that isn't the actual rules of 5e D&D; even the "playing on a grid" optional rule doesn't say that!

But mistaking that shortcut for the actual rules is not "finding a hole in the rules". Possibly you are remembering 3e or 4e rules that also agree with this shortcut, and assuming the shortcut is the actual rules.


So is your point that because the grappler's arm extends into the square with the spiked growth, they also take the damage? Even if they're not touching it? The spiked growth effect literally fills the entire 5' cube.

[Damon_Tor]

The spiked growth effect literally fills the entire 5' cube.

Point of fact, the spiked growth effect is a radius from a point. The spaces on the outside of the effect are only partially filled. Of course this sort of thing only matters if you're trying to split hairs about whose arm is extending where, and that exact same logic leads to game-killing death spirals of "well the guy being grappled is a 6-foot-3 orc with a strength score of 18, which according to this website from 15 years ago, means he probably has a shoulder width of 2 feet 6 inches, thus his torso does not extend far enough into the square in question for him to be affected."

In other words, if you're using the grid, just use the grid. If you really want to track the actual physical dimensions of the various participants, more power to you, but it stands to reason that by that point the grid is moot.

[Selion]

I'm really not trying to pick on you, but this frankly sounds like the worst option. Telling a player "yes, you can do that" but than making sure they can *never* do that is really antagonistic. If you think the combo (or any combo, option, etc) is strong enough that it needs special considerations on your part, just ban it. A DM can and should consider the impact things will have on the table.

I second this.
There are a lot of ways to make this gimmick unusable, beginning with battles with many minor foes or with a single huge size monster.
The thing is that this build is either unusable or extremely powerful, so it's difficult building encounter around it, and still making the other players relevant.
Basically in tier 2 every boss or mini boss with medium/large size may be one shot (if the check is successful, otherwise, again, zero effect).
Its not the power of this build the issue (there are worse things, by level 9 a couple of spellcaster may perform the infamous wall of force/sickening radiance combo, and that seriously has not so many counter plays), it's its randomness. It all depends by the player's playstyle IMHO, if they want to play flash and performing the weird gimmick a couple of times, i don't see any trouble in that, if the core of their experience is finding loopholes in rules to break the system.. then this is an antagonist play from players part, don't fall in the trap and stick to your table playstyle.
If the table playstyle is power playing and antagonism, i don't see anything wrong about it, just it's not my cup of tea

[Yakk]

So is your point that because the grappler's arm extends into the square with the spiked growth, they also take the damage? Even if they're not touching it? The spiked growth effect literally fills the entire 5' cube.
I'm saying that if you are holding someone that you are dragging through the spikes, doing so without sticking your arm in the spikes as well requires more than zero extra effort.

This trick is predicated on having exact positioning control over anyone you have grappled while moving, as well as full control over where your arms are holding them, while moving at the highest speed you can manage with them. It is no different than saying "I move alongside the wall, dragging them along it as their flesh is torn off by the bricks".

[Skrum]

I'm saying that if you are holding someone that you are dragging through the spikes, doing so without sticking your arm in the spikes as well requires more than zero extra effort.

This trick is predicated on having exact positioning control over anyone you have grappled while moving, as well as full control over where your arms are holding them, while moving at the highest speed you can manage with them. It is no different than saying "I move alongside the wall, dragging them along it as their flesh is torn off by the bricks".

I don't think it would be hard at all, especially if I could fly. Grab someone, fly right above the ground drag them behind me. Easy peasy.

[Yakk]

I don't think it would be hard at all, especially if I could fly. Grab someone, fly right above the ground drag them behind me. Easy peasy.
Again, they aren't a rag doll. They aren't defeated. You don't even have them pinned enough that someone else attacking has advantage. You are struggling with them constantly.

With a rag doll? No problem. But if someone is a rag doll in your hands, you already won, and the spike drag is just post-fight theatrics.

Imagine an active wrestling match where you just have the upper hand, not "you have them in your grip and can do with them what you will". You are flying slowly because they are attacking or threatening to attack your wings as you move along, your motion isn't regular and controlled but in fits and starts, and if you stop paying attention they'll get free.

I mean, if you have someone grappled and walk over to a cliff, there is nothing in the rules that says you can say "and they are over the cliff, then I let go". The only rules are that they come along with you, not that you now have full control over their position.

You could definitely drag them to the edge of the cliff; at least within 10' (you aren't over the cliff, and you are at the edge of the cliff, and when dragging it seems reasonable they are adjacent). Then push them over as they are unable to move on their own, possibly requiring 2 actions to do it.

As for the dragging along the spikes -- you'd be able to do it with some risk, possibly burning an action to maneuver them as you move. It would be similar to dragging someone along a brick wall.

[Skrum]

If that's the way you'd homebrew grappling, and your players are cool with it, than by all means. But the rules are clear: you can move while grappling someone, and they come along with you. The mechanical representation of the struggle is you move at half speed.

The unclear part of grappling is where the grappled creature is in relation to the grappler, and how much control they have over that position. But what you seem to be saying is it takes extraordinary actions to move someone somewhere they don't want to go, and that's just not supported in the rules.