Opinion on DM adjudication - swap position with ally

[Cicciograna]

I'd like to hear what you think about an adjudication by my DM last night. We were fighting some baddies, and at one point the Bard found herself between the Fighter and one of the enemies. The Fighter declared that he wanted to "grab the Bard by the collar and shove her behind himself", essentially swapping positions with her. The DM asked for an Athletics or Acrobatics check "to avoid the attack of opportunity that the movement out of the opponent's threatened area would have caused". The Fighter succeeded in his check, and then attacked.

There are various issues that I have with all of this, but I didn't say anything because in that group I already have the reputation of the rule lawyer, the DM is very permissive in his interpretation and, since the Fighter and the Bard are the "worst offenders" when it comes to custom actions and the resolution thereof, I already butted in againste them various times in the past.

So, my first issue is about the maneuver itself - which incidentally is the minor of the issues. There are classes and spells that allow for swapping the position of two allies, namely for example Benign transposition or the "Bait and Switch" maneuver from the Battle Master (the Fighter is not one): this use of a skill check to obtain an effect specific to other classes' abilities goes on the record as being a valid maneuver, and frankly this annoys me a little bit. On the other hand, however, the spells and the BM maneuver all have additional advantages, like range and an attack, to complement the swapping effect. Anyway, assuming that the check to swap positions was needed, it could not have been to avoid the AOO, because "forced movement" to leave a threatened area doesn't not provoke AOOs.
All in all, as I said, the issue with this maneuver is minor, and I'm not too annoyed by it.

I was annoyed instead by the fact that the Fighter was allowed to attack afterwards. As I said, the DM is extremely permissive, especially towards these two players with whom he has a long-standing friendship. The two of them, then, stretch this by A LOT, coming out with a lot of "beyond the rules" actions that would not be allowed at other tables. The deliberate ignorance of the sequence and scope of combat actions is one of the issues (in the past the Bard was allowed to: make an Intimidate check against some opponents; attack; cast a cantrip; make a Stealth check to hide from them; move away from them, all in the same round. Needless to say, I had a word with the DM afterwards).

Do you think that the adjudication of the DM on both points - the skill check and the attack afterwards - were reasonable? Am I over-reacting (and I'm very afraid of over-reacting, I might be somewhat biased towards these two players, because of the consistent way they cheat the system on the premises that the DM is permissive)?

[Amnestic]

Do you think that the adjudication of the DM on both points - the skill check and the attack afterwards - were reasonable?

Yes.

Am I over-reacting?

As a general rule, consider consulting this chart. It sounds like you spoke to the DM about this once before. Does it bother anyone else? And is it a dealbreaker? Could you go with the flow, and perhaps embrace the more...chaotic nature of the approach to the rules?

[Cicciograna]

Yes.

Fair enough. I would have said that interacting like that with his ally would count as an action in and by itself, thus preventing the attack, or at the very least requiring an expenditure of Action Surge, but YMMV.

As a general rule, consider consulting this chart. It sounds like you spoke to the DM about this once before. Does it bother anyone else? And is it a dealbreaker? Could you go with the flow, and perhaps embrace the more...chaotic nature of the approach to the rules?

See, the problem is that this is not the first time the DM adjudicates something beyond the scope of the rules, even when the rules are clearly written. I don't want to be the one that always has something to say, and for the most part I keep my mouth shut.

The point is that essentially I'm the one that knows the rules better. Generally the DM consults me when he doesn't remember the specific ruling. What annoys me, however, is the breach of agency on the part of the players, especially the Bard. She is the kind of player that wants to do everything herself, she's the one that always has to do the talking, that always has to butt in, be there, be always in the spotlight, and the DM enables her to do this.

One time the Cleric of the group was talking to some enemy we had captured, and she was trying to convert the guy to her religion: the Bard just butted in, said "I roll Persuasion to convince him to join us!", and the DM said "Oh, the guy is moved by your [Bard's] words and decides to roll with you!". Needless to say, the Cleric was disappointed, because she was handling the situation.

In another occasion, I had split from the group to do other stuff: the DM resolved first the actions of the group, then said "Moving on to [Cicciograna's player]...". Why, the first thing that the Bard did was taking her token and placing it next to mine. I had to forcefully say that I was doing my actions concurrently to theirs, because I didn't want any interference. The Bard was pissed at this. I talked to the DM about this situation, and he claimed he was unaware of all of this, and he just noticed the protagonism of the Bard when I called out that I was acting by myself and she moved the token nonetheless.

Sorry, this sounds a lot like a rant, and maybe the issue is the DM, rather than the player. It's just to say that this is not the first or the last problematic adjudication of a situation, and I am starting to get tired of this constant fight.

[jjordan]

Do you think that the adjudication of the DM on both points - the skill check and the attack afterwards - were reasonable? Am I over-reacting (and I'm very afraid of over-reacting, I might be somewhat biased towards these two players, because of the consistent way they cheat the system on the premises that the DM is permissive)?

I would rule that the reposition (which I would allow) is an action (and be backed up by a lot of evidence). Unless the fighter had a source for another action (or a bonus action attack they could use) I wouldn't let them perform an attack after the reposition. But it's not my table.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I'd say it's reasonable. Provided the Fighter had a hand free, I'd probably make it cost him half his movement speed or similar. Even if he didn't have a hand free, he could have maneuvered between the bard and the opponent, then bumped the bard back with his hips. It's not as demanding as performing a grapple or shove, so it wouldn't take an action or one of his attacks. Benign Transposition has a 30-ft. range, that's far more significant than swapping places with someone who's adjacent to you.

[Sepaulchre]

Sounds like you might not jive with this group. That's fine.

But it also sounds like the other folks are having fun with a more permissive application of the rules. DnD facilitates a lot of different types of play. There's a DM for a reason, and there's reason tabletop gaming is different from playing a video game. It opens up a space for the imagination. And a lot of people want to play out the sort of action that you see in movies, which isn't necessarily permitted by a strict application of the rules.

I would recommend that you relax your expectations about how the rules will be applied. Try to play imaginatively like they do. Don't think about every turn as a checklist, but try to improvise moves along with everyone else.

[Lord Ruby34]

I'd say it's reasonable. Provided the Fighter had a hand free, I'd probably make it cost him half his movement speed or similar. Even if he didn't have a hand free, he could have maneuvered between the bard and the opponent, then bumped the bard back with his hips. It's not as demanding as performing a grapple or shove, so it wouldn't take an action or one of his attacks. Benign Transposition has a 30-ft. range, that's far more significant than swapping places with someone who's adjacent to you.

I'm agreed. I would also allow it at my table exactly as your DM ruled, and I'm a bit of a rules lawyer myself. Putting yourself between an ally and an enemy is, in my opinion, a key part of what a lot of people want from a fighter. I try to make my rulings help fulfill the fantasy of the class.

[OldTrees1]

Do you think that the adjudication of the DM on both points - the skill check and the attack afterwards - were reasonable? Am I over-reacting (and I'm very afraid of over-reacting, I might be somewhat biased towards these two players, because of the consistent way they cheat the system on the premises that the DM is permissive)?

Was the adjudication reasonable? Yes.

Personally I would have ruled it cost 1 of the Fighter's attacks (so 5+ still gets an attack) and had no check required.

However it is reasonable to have it cost a Bonus Action (or maybe even an Object Interaction?) and passing an athletics check to avoid a penalty (AoO for provoking an opportunity, not for the forced movement leaving the reach).


Are you over-reacting? Yes. In 5E the rules omit rules for a ton of options/actions/interactions. Just because their are specialized rules for Benign Transposition or Bait and Switch does not mean characters are incapable of switching places with their allies. D&D demands DMs make rulings to fill in the gaps and 5E intentionally has more gaps. Thinking about this as "beyond the rules" is forgetting about major 5E rules.



On the other hand, it does sound like you are visibly biased against the Bard player and they seem to be acting out of turn / more often than I would expect the DM would rule is possible. I cannot solve that issue, but I can tell you the problem is not in the DM's rulings. Some more talking about it like adults might help.

[RSP]

By RAW, I’d say the Fighter (assuming they had a free hand - though otherwise they could have just Shoved the Bard) used the Attack Action and swapped out an attack with a Grapple on the Bard. They then used their 1/2 Speed movement while grappling to reposition the Bard.

I’d not allow repositioning allies as a “free” action.

[Tanarii]

Allowing an ability check to grab and move any ally as a no-action while also exempting them from opportunity attacks? That's not just permissive DMing, it's giving players a massive power boost.

An Athletics vs other PC choice of Athletics or Acrobatics check to grab them as one attack, dragging them at least 5ft at half speed, pulling them away (not swap), which still provides enemies an AO to enemies, then moving back through them (difficult terrain) into the space they previously occupied provided you still have Movement, is something that can already be done. That's the grapple maneuver.

Compare the two and you can see why this DM's ruling is considerably more than simply a permissive ruling. A permissive ruling would be "you don't have to make the Athletics check vs Athletics/Acrobatics".

[da newt]

IMO RAW should have gone like this:

Fighter declares he wants to shove the bard 5' (PHB pg 195/6) - this replaces one attack, bard is permissive so no check required, and it's forced movement so no Opp Att. Then Fighter uses their movement to step into the face of the bad guy. If the fighter still has another attack (multi-attack) and/or a BA, then they can continue to act to finish out their turn.

WRT how your DM does things, I too prefer a bit more formality for the mechanics of the game, but you've seen that this DM prefers a looser game and you've talked to them about this sort of thing already, now it's up to you to decide if you'd rather go with the flow and enjoy the freedom of rules leniency or find a new game.

I'd recommend that you decide to enjoy it for what it is.

[Quietus]

IMO RAW should have gone like this:

Fighter declares he wants to shove the bard 5' (PHB pg 195/6) - this replaces one attack, bard is permissive so no check required, and it's forced movement so no Opp Att. Then Fighter uses their movement to step into the face of the bad guy. If the fighter still has another attack (multi-attack) and/or a BA, then they can continue to act to finish out their turn.

WRT how your DM does things, I too prefer a bit more formality for the mechanics of the game, but you've seen that this DM prefers a looser game and you've talked to them about this sort of thing already, now it's up to you to decide if you'd rather go with the flow and enjoy the freedom of rules leniency or find a new game.

I'd recommend that you decide to enjoy it for what it is.

Came here to state exactly this. Shove, or for a larger reposition, grapple would also be acceptable. But if this is something you've already discussed, yeah, might just be time to let it go.

[Tanarii]

, bard is permissive so no check required,

Thats a ruling I personally wouldn't make, but I think it's probably the most common ruling.

IMO getting suddenly shoved or grabbed and pulled in combat, you're going to resist somewhat. You might do so less effectively because it's coming from a position you thought was occupied by an ally though. That could easily be represented by the defending player choosing the worse of Athletics or Acrobatics, instead of the better of them as normal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thats a ruling I personally wouldn't make, but I think it's probably the most common ruling.

IMO getting suddenly shoved or grabbed and pulled in combat, you're going to resist somewhat. You might do so less effectively because it's coming from a position you thought was occupied by an ally though. That could easily be represented by the defending player choosing the worse of Athletics or Acrobatics, instead of the better of them as normal.

Or making the check at disadvantage. I'd probably just let it happen, but that's more to save time than anything what.

[NecessaryWeevil]

An Athletics vs other PC choice of Athletics or Acrobatics check to grab them as one attack, dragging them at least 5ft at half speed, pulling them away (not swap), which still provides enemies an AO to enemies, then moving back through them (difficult terrain) into the space they previously occupied provided you still have Movement, is something that can already be done. That's the grapple maneuver.

That's not the grapple maneuver, because forced movement doesn't provoke. If it's not forced [and therefore provokes], why require an opposed check?

[Drakefall]

Hi OP.


Regarding the ally swapping:

Yes that's perfectly reasonable.

It is an approach that is very lenient towards the players and ignores the standard rules in place, but the rules are only guidelines for DMs and they are allowed to make whatever rulings they please. Whether or not any specific ruling is fair or a good idea depends on the specific situation of course.

In this situation it looks like the DM allowed the players to ignore certain movement rules for their benefit without stepping on a specific characters build choices (There are mechanics that allow the interaction in one way or another for PCs who possess them but it sounds like no PCs in this game have those abilities so no ones abilities were made light of by the ruling). I'd say that's perfectly acceptable.

Would I have allowed the same? No, based on my knowledge of how grappling works in 5e I probably would have allowed a PC to do it by giving up an attack and half their movement alongside the PC being moved giving up their reaction to go with the flow, or something like that, but its not always easy to make these rulings in the heat of the moment and erring on the side pf the players (Not necessarily the PCs) is generally a good call when a DM is stumped.

Is it still fair play? Yep.

It sounds like your DM just likes letting the players do Cool Stuff and having fun with it more than by the book, tactical combat, and that's okay. Not every playstyle is for everyone.

I do understand not wanting to be the bad guy rules lawyer, though. One thing to do might be to talk to your DM and see if he'd be cool with you taking notes of things you think he ruled incorrectly on during a game to discuss afterwards so as to help him with his rules knowledge. Dunno if he'd be interested in it but its a nice midway.

And, kinda stupid advice, but try to learn to roll with these things and enjoy the game. Its not really worth getting worked up over unless something is unfair to a player (Not just a PC). That's just my two cents as a rules lawyer myself :P.


Regarding your issue with the bard:

We're only hearing your opinion of this rather than the whole table's but it sounds like you believe she has an issue with spotlight hogging and that the DM is doing nothing to curb this.

As with all player and player issues open communication should be your first port of call. Speak to the DM and try to bring it to his attention so he can have a talk with her. If he doesn't believe it is a problem try to observe the other players and see how they feel about it. If you seem to be the only one with an issue then unfortunately there may simply be a compatibility issue between you and the group.

For what its worth, if the situation is as you describe I hope that both the DM and the bard's player are receptive to dialogue and the situation resolves to everyone's liking.


Good luck!

[Tanarii]

That's not the grapple maneuver, because forced movement doesn't provoke. If it's not forced [and therefore provokes], why require an opposed check?

Good catch, don't know what I was thinking. If it allows someone to sidestep an AO, I'd probably say they have to make the defensive roll at their best ability, as they usually would.

[Trafalgar]

IMO RAW should have gone like this:

Fighter declares he wants to shove the bard 5' (PHB pg 195/6) - this replaces one attack, bard is permissive so no check required, and it's forced movement so no Opp Att. Then Fighter uses their movement to step into the face of the bad guy. If the fighter still has another attack (multi-attack) and/or a BA, then they can continue to act to finish out their turn.

I agree with this as a one time ruling based on this specific situation where the bard was not planning on the fighter shoving them. But if the Bard and the Fighter start trying to use this on a regular basis and planning their strategy around it - as in the bard intentionally moves in to attack the enemy, knowing that the Fighter will shove them away before the monster can attack - I would stop it. Perhaps by having the shove trigger an opportunity attack as it is no longer a "forced movement" but a planned tactic.

[Quietus]

I agree with this as a one time ruling based on this specific situation where the bard was not planning on the fighter shoving them. But if the Bard and the Fighter start trying to use this on a regular basis and planning their strategy around it - as in the bard intentionally moves in to attack the enemy, knowing that the Fighter will shove them away before the monster can attack - I would stop it. Perhaps by having the shove trigger an opportunity attack as it is no longer a "forced movement" but a planned tactic.

I don't see a problem with it. It costs them an attack each time they do it, if they're actually shoving.

[MrStabby]

I'd like to hear what you think about an adjudication by my DM last night. We were fighting some baddies, and at one point the Bard found herself between the Fighter and one of the enemies. The Fighter declared that he wanted to "grab the Bard by the collar and shove her behind himself", essentially swapping positions with her. The DM asked for an Athletics or Acrobatics check "to avoid the attack of opportunity that the movement out of the opponent's threatened area would have caused". The Fighter succeeded in his check, and then attacked.

There are various issues that I have with all of this, but I didn't say anything because in that group I already have the reputation of the rule lawyer, the DM is very permissive in his interpretation and, since the Fighter and the Bard are the "worst offenders" when it comes to custom actions and the resolution thereof, I already butted in againste them various times in the past.

So, my first issue is about the maneuver itself - which incidentally is the minor of the issues. There are classes and spells that allow for swapping the position of two allies, namely for example Benign transposition or the "Bait and Switch" maneuver from the Battle Master (the Fighter is not one): this use of a skill check to obtain an effect specific to other classes' abilities goes on the record as being a valid maneuver, and frankly this annoys me a little bit. On the other hand, however, the spells and the BM maneuver all have additional advantages, like range and an attack, to complement the swapping effect. Anyway, assuming that the check to swap positions was needed, it could not have been to avoid the AOO, because "forced movement" to leave a threatened area doesn't not provoke AOOs.
All in all, as I said, the issue with this maneuver is minor, and I'm not too annoyed by it.

I was annoyed instead by the fact that the Fighter was allowed to attack afterwards. As I said, the DM is extremely permissive, especially towards these two players with whom he has a long-standing friendship. The two of them, then, stretch this by A LOT, coming out with a lot of "beyond the rules" actions that would not be allowed at other tables. The deliberate ignorance of the sequence and scope of combat actions is one of the issues (in the past the Bard was allowed to: make an Intimidate check against some opponents; attack; cast a cantrip; make a Stealth check to hide from them; move away from them, all in the same round. Needless to say, I had a word with the DM afterwards).

Do you think that the adjudication of the DM on both points - the skill check and the attack afterwards - were reasonable? Am I over-reacting (and I'm very afraid of over-reacting, I might be somewhat biased towards these two players, because of the consistent way they cheat the system on the premises that the DM is permissive)?

So I kind of get the DM here - whilst I wouldn't have ruled the same way, what they did as an on-the-fly decison wasn't too bad.

So yeah, you can grapple with a free hand, drag someone and use some movement to step into their space at the cost of an attack. There is a way to do this.

What I see as happening is someone wants to do something... kind of reasonable. They want to forecfully reposition an ally. Asking to do so isn't wrong by itself.

Then I see the DM thinking - "OK, dragging an ally about seems OK. Lets allow it, at least this once... but this is an unusual ask so there should be a cost to it, an interesting penalty for failure. An attack of opportunity seems about right... I guess the check should be an athletics check to see if you can do it quick enough".

I think the principal is fine - is it cool? Should there be a cost? What is the cost? I think that from time t time a DM making rulings is great; it is what is supoosed to happen. I think there is an error of judgement her in terms of picking a cost and what the landed on.

[Cicciograna]

Thank you all for the good answers. I'd like to clarify that at the end of the day I think that the resolution of the DM about the skill check for the swapping was a sound one: I'm not particularly fan of actions that bypass or duplicate other classes' capabilities, but in this situation I feel he made the right call.

As I said, my main gripe is on the attack. We are talking about level 2 characters, had the Fighter had multiple attacks coming from the high level I wouldn't have said anything; had he used Action Surge, I wouldn't have said anything. I think that positioning is an important part of combat, and knowing that he can just change position with a close ally as a free action is not an inconsequential boon, at least from my experience in gaming. Or maybe is, time will tell.

Anyway, again, my over-reaction depends not only from the fact that I'm a horrible person stickler for rules, but also from past issues that we had with these two players. As an additional piece of information, yeah, I'm not the one to be annoyed by the Bard antics, the Cleric doesn't really like her butting in all the time, and another player - incidentally, the only other player with some experience in RPGs - just flatly told her "You cannot do everything".

[Composer99]

The fighter is IMO effectively grappling/shoving their fellow character, so I personally would have that move eating the fighter's attack if I were DMing.

I don't think the DM's ruling is unreasonable, though, even though I wouldn't rule that way myself. Maybe try to convince the DM to attach a "spend 15 feet of your movement" clause to the trick if people are going to start using it more often.

I concur that the table writ large needs to have a talk with the bard about her tendency towards omni-involvement and the DM's enabling behaviours.

[ad_hoc]

I'd give them the following choice depending on how they want the narrative to play out:

1. Character grapples their friend and pulls them to safety. Costs an attack and some movement per grapple.

2. Friend spends their reaction to step back when the character moves into their space leaving the space for the character (swapping spaces). The friend provokes OAs as normal during this reaction.

[Pex]

Here's an event that happened in a game I was in. Relevant: Playing Barbarian/Fighter (Battle Master) multiclass. I have Shield Master feat. DM allows the bonus action shove to happen before I take the Attack action.

Paladin was surrounded by 3 gnolls. They will attack him before his turn. He will die if they hit. My turn. I move up to the group. Bonus Action I shove the Paladin 5 ft away from two of the gnolls. DM says Athletics check vs DC 10 since Paladin wasn't resisting. No OoA from the gnolls since it was forced movement. Paladin still next to a gnoll. I attack and hit the gnoll. I use Maneuvering Strike. Paladin uses his reaction to move away from that gnoll without OoA because of the maneuver's ability. I attack the gnoll again with second attack from Extra Attack. I saved the Paladin's life. Everyone was happy.

Your DM's ruling was sound, but where I disagree is the Fighter's maneuver should have used up one of his attacks since you can shove in an Attack action. If the fighter has Extra Attack he can use his second attack against the bad guy. No cause for OoA against the Bard because it's forced movement even though the players wanted it to happen. It's fine if there was no roll of Fighter against the Bard, but I suppose for balance purposes and respect to class abilities that do this a roll is warranted. DC 10 suffices, the base DC/AC.

The DM was generous for not using up one of the Fighter's attacks for the maneuver. The cost was if it failed Bard gets an OoA against him, an alternative and fair payment. The DM's adjudication was fine. I'm a rules lawyer too. You need to pick your battles. Sometimes you need to let it go. Let the rule break happen. When players are using teamwork and the DM sides with Rule of Cool, that is most definitely the time for rules lawyers to say nothing and be okay with it.

[Yakk]

So, by raw, the fighter does the grab action in place of an attack. The bard chooses not to resist. The fighter moves the bard 5' with 10' of movement, moves through bard for 15', and swaps places.

The bard is subject to zero OA, the fighter could be if threatened depending on geometry.

A level 5 fighter still gets an attack.

The DM if they took 1 attack off the fighter and charged a skill check to do it safely is being stricter than RAW.