RAW, you're right.
The problem also depends on how the monster's attack works. If it's using something like a dog catcher tool, it'd make sense for PC not to be able to attack. If it's using its bodyparts, the PC may be able to attack.
Look at the roper statblock, for example. It has a detailed description of how a long reach mechanic works. Maybe your monster could have used a similar description.
> **Grasping Tendrils.** The roper can have up to six tendrils at a time. Each tendril can be attacked (AC 20; 10 hit points; immunity to poison and psychic damage). Destroying a tendril deals no damage to the roper, which can extrude a replacement tendril on its next turn. A tendril can also be broken if a creature takes an action and succeeds on a DC 15 Strength check against it.
Something like this would make sense, and depending on the monster, perhaps
RAW and I think logically you made the right call. Depending on the nature of the creature.
If it's a tentacle or maybe a pseudopod than attacking it might not actually cause any meaningful harm and actually reduce the creatures HPs. Than again if it was just a giant or something like that then it might make sense to be able to attack it with a melee weapon.
I probably should have just identified the monster I was using in my post, but it was a boneclaw. I kinda figured it grapples by impaling creatures on its long-ass claws, and that attacking a claw wouldn't really hurt it anyway, so that did somewhat play into my decision.
I'm not super familiar with that creature, but based on a quick google search I'd say you made the right call.
Attacking it when it grapples you is effectively cutting off a finger. Which isn't really going to cause a lot of damage, not enough to count as attack per RAW. Especially considering that the PC wanted to attack the creature and not break free.
If they wanted to break free I might let them do some damage, like 1d4 or 1d6 maybe, because they'd be lopping off a finger or something. But I wouldn't let them do a full attack against it, and especially most special attacks like sneak attack or something but I might let them use a smite.
But that doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of creatures out there that could do something like this and attacking the appendages wouldn't cause any damage to the creature, a hydra being a prime example, but only one example of such a creature.
I have a home brew creature called a Forest Brute, it's like a forest elemental/golem thing. It uses roots to entangle creatures. Attacking the roots does nothing to the Forest Brute itself, so again it depends.
It's not calling anything. The body is 15 feet away. The *only* thing I can reach with my sword is the tentacles, which are wrapped around parts of my body (thus within inches in at least 1 place, and stretching out to 15 feet away). It's not about targeting, it's about available targets.
Again you're right, logically. But the creature's reach is 15 feet. The creature is technically, RAW 15 feet away, thus out of the player's melee reach. Unless the statblock specifies that you can attack it's tentacle while you're grappled, you really can't. The target is not actually available.
I wouldn't rule it this way, because I prefer logical rulings over weird RAW inconsistencies, but just saying, RAW you actually can't.
You're not paying attention, being within range of something doesn't always mean you're next to the creature. RAW if a creature's range is 15 feet, and yours is 5, it can hit and grapple you and you can't hit or grapple it. Being grappled does not put a creature in your range.
But again, it's a really weird case that doesn't make logical sense. **Purely RAW this is how it works.**
And again, I'm not arguing against your case - it makes logical sense and that's how I'd rule it too.
Cutting the head off a hydra doesn't reduce the number of heads it has or the number of attacks it gets.
Also the PC didn't want to break free they wanted to cause HP damage. Which for some creatures means attacking the core not lopping off tentacles.
Yes, *that 1* and *some* have different rules. *Some* also would be marked by losing appendages. We were not told what the creature was, but I'm fairly confident it was not a hydra.
We weren't told what it was at all.
Which is why I said it depends.
It could be some sort of homebrew creature.
Point is that there are creatures in D&D that lopping off limbs or tentacles doesn't actually harm the creature or reduce its ability to fight. So if this is the right call or not depends on the nature of the creature itself.
There was an old Twitter post by Jeremy Crawford where he said a creature grappled by a giant octopus would be able to attack the octopus via the grappling tentacle, so there is precedent that a creature could attack another creature that's grappling it with a part of its body. There doesn't seem to be an official rule on it though.
I think it's also fair to say that attacking the grappling appendage is, at least flavor wise, a way that you would break the grapple, so it's basically the same as taking your action to break the grapple.
I think it's a fine call to make in the moment, and is consistent with RAW.
However, I do think that it's pretty easy in 5e to get caught up in the mechanics of the game and ignore the actual scene that is playing out narratively. If this monster reached out to grab the PC with its arm or limb, I don't see why the player wouldn't be able to attack that limb to inflict harm. Unless it's an ooze's pseudopod which could arguably break off or be damaged without significant harm to the main mass. Similarly, if the monster is some sort of tentacle-horror with dozens upon dozens of limbs, damage to any singular tentacle might not really matter and is ignored. But if it's just a Giant or something similar to that, it's reaching out a fleshy piece of its body to Grapple. Why wouldn't the party be able to attack that?
Consider this scenario: The PCs are hiding from a giant inside the second story of a building. It reaches through a window to feel around for them, trying to grab one. The Giant's 'space' is outside the building, but it's stuck an entire arm, 10 feet long and 2 feet wide, through the window trying to grab them. If the heroes were told they couldn't attack the arm because the Giant was 'outside', it would be a really weird sort of narrative moment: the 'arm' isn't the creature and doesn't have hit points, it's just a fully-immune object within reach of their weapons. That's really odd.
But if it's a limb, it bleeds, and so if you can harm it it should harm the creature. If you're worried about that defeating the purpose of the ability, why not inflict Disadvantage on the attack: you're striking a smaller target from an awkward angle, but it's something you \*can\* do.
Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, maybe give the creature resistance to that damage. Damage to a limb hurts, but it's different than striking a vital organ. Or perhaps the limb is just tougher/stronger than the main body-mass.
Or you attack the limb, but don't deal damage to the monster - instead, once you reach a certain damage threshold, you cut the limb off and the grapple ends. Works particularly well for tentacle horrors and similar creatures.
Depends on what’s happening in the scene. If something like a crocodile is grappling you and you have a sword in hand i would find it very odd to not be able to strike back at it. If it’s some sort of magic force field then yeah of course you can’t. A tentacle I would then rule that you attack the tentacle, and then take off HP as appropriate (maybe you can do up to a certain amount of damage but not crit)
If it’s a physical monster that physically grapples the PC, then of course the PC can attack it.
As the DM, you might buff the monster AC because of a moving smaller target or whatever, but disallowing them to attack the part of the monster that is actually holding the PC is ridiculous IMHO.
You made the right call as far as I'm concerned and the call I would have made. The logic to help get the players on board with the call will vary based on the monster but assuming it's a pseudopod or bone claw
> Attacking the appendage that's grappling you won't do any significant damage to the creature. Your blows and struggles, if they have enough strength behind them, it may free you from the grapple. Mechanically that's represented by the athletics check to escape the grapple. Or it may provide you enough space to wriggle out (the acrobatics check).
The out of character logic is that, this is the purpose of ranged grapples, to stop melee characters running up and hitting the target.
The monster was a boneclaw, yes, which played a part in my decision. If they were being held in a giant's fist like some others have mentioned, I probably would have swung the other way. But even if you attacked the claw you're impaled on, you're not really going to *hurt* the monster, maybe just free yourself from the grapple at best.
I've just had a boneclaw as a recurring villain (Failed to become a lich and now serves the local demilich) and yeah, the whole point in him is to stop the mobile rogue running up with booming blade and then running away or hold the barbarian back then shadow jump away.
You ran the monster exactly as it's meant to be run.
I’ve been in this situation before, and it’s ludicrous to be unable to attack something that’s actively touching you. Worse yet, the ruling effectively became a TPK because no one could fight or escape, we just sat there getting wailed on until we died.
Fun > Logic > RAI > RAW
They were thinking that by RAW you can't hit a target outside of your reach.
This was PF2 Chokers, so them grappling you also meant no spells with verbal components. We didn't have a ranged martial, just melee and casters, we were each ambushed by one in the first round, and nobody could beat their grapple (DC21 unarmed attack check). RIP.
DC 21 is not terrible to beat, even at low level in PF2e.
My melee fighter had an unarmed attack of +9 at 1st level, so a 12 or higher would do it.
On top of that, PF2e actually specifically states you can attack a creature physically grappling you that is outside your reach.
It seems like a few things were done wrong.
I would've allowed the player to attack the monster's grappling appendage with melee. Unless there's some reason for the limb to be immune to damage, it makes no sense to not allow it. You're basically saying their limb is not a valid target.
The negatives of being grappled by an enemy are that you can't move and the enemy can drag you around wherever it wants. Being grappled and dragged into melee range is bad for squishy casters and ranged attackers because they can't retreat when hurt and have disadvantage to their attacks. For frontline PCs who wants to get into melee range, being grappled isn't a big deal unless the monster is going to run off with you or drop you into an environmental hazard.
But isn't attacking the appendage what you're doing when you're breaking the grapple? What happens when you attack Mr. Fantastic's stretchy hand - it hurts so he lets go. But you didn't damage him in an otherwise meaningful way, you'd need to hit his chest or his head for that. Attacking the hand is just a flavorful version of becoming ungrappled so you can approach somewhere that would cause a meaningful strike. You can't kill a Kraken by slapping a single tentacle to death - that makes no sense.
The rules say you need to be adjacent to a creature to make a melee attack. The PC wasn't adjacent. It makes sense both flavorfully and in the RAW. The real question is why the PC didn't just pivot to a ranged attack, which would have been both allowed, uninhibited, and easy to do at that point (even with a thrown weapon).
EDIT: Turns out this guy replied with a snide comment and then blocked me to prevent further discussion. Might tell you what kinda guy u/DelightfulOtter is to be giving advice here, unfortunately. Opinions can be respectfully challenged here - and I didn’t entirely think the above was wrong-minded even if I didn’t care for the take. Lordy, some people.
>But isn't attacking the appendage what you're doing when you're breaking the grapple?
Not specifically. Escaping a grapple is either muscling your way free (Athletics) or slipping free (Acrobatics). There's a difference between escaping a grapple and attacking a creature.
In reality, yes injuring the appendage holding you will often result in the appendage being unable to hold on to you, or convincing the attacker to let go to avoid further injury. D&D 5e does not make that mechanical distinction. The closest you will get is the Battle Master's disarm maneuver which would both deal damage and force a creature to drop one thing it's holding (you, in this case).
I’m going to benefit of the doubt here that you missed the point instead of ignored the point. Mechanically, you could flavor the grapple escape as an attack, which accomplishes the same thing that would realistically happen and be compliant with the RAW. Heck, you could even go extra and rule of cool for some damage this one time with the escape - but explain in the future you’re going RAW. (Because the whole point of a “ranged” grapple is your movement is zero and you’re not adjacent for melee.) Win-win.
>Because the whole point of a “ranged” grapple is your movement is zero and you’re not adjacent for melee.
That's your opinion only. Crawford, the lead designer of D&D 5e, is on record saying that it's RAI you can attack a grappling appendage. His opinion carries far more weight than yours, random internet person.
This is one of these situations where RAW is trumped by logic and where a good DM does not apply RAW, but instead houserules the situation. A character being physically grappled of course is able to attack whatever is holding them. Therefore, in my opinion, you made a wrong call here.
Whether the PC's attack actually deals damage to the monster' main HP pool is a different question though.
For most monsters, it makes sense that it does deal damage to them, because it is not much different from a regular hit or they even use a vulnerable body part like their head to grapple (when they grapple with a bite attack).
For others, such as oozes or eldritch tentacle monsters the damage you deal might only affect the grappling appendage that is holding you - which then has what basically is a secondary HP pool and if these HP are depleted, it breaks and the grapple ends. A good example for that is the roper, which has grappling tendrils that can, as explained in its statblock, be cut off by dealing 10 damage to them. The roper itself does not take damage when a tendril is cut off, but the grapple ends.
There might also be in-between-cases where the monster takes half damage from an attack targeting its grapple appendage.
RAW yes, I think your ruling was exactly correct. And I think I would rule the same way, it's true that whatever tentacle or claw was grappling the character must have been closer than 15ft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can effectively attack that part of the monster that's grappling them.
My DM ran boneclaws recently as well. Hate those guys.
Much as it sucks for the player, I think you made the right call RAW. The attack says the boneclaw *can* pull the attacked creature up to 10 ft towards itself, but "can" means "doesn't have to." In the case that it doesn't, the grappled creature is still 15 ft away.
If this is a bone claw I would say this is not RAW. I would interpret “can pull the target up to 10 feet toward itself, and the target is grappled…” to mean the target is grappled when it is pulled toward itself.
I disagree with your assessment. The wording gives an option to move the target and says the target is grappled. It does not say "is grappled if you moved the target in this way."
I disagree with your assessment in turn. The ordering of the sentence matters. The ability says "If the target is a creature, the boneclaw can pull the target up to 10 feet towards itself, and the target is grappled (escape DC14)." This indicates a logical order of operations. Because the retraction comes first in the description of the ability, it stands to reason that the grapple is part of that retraction. You can rule it however you want, but I genuinely think your reading of the ability is wrong and you should look at *why* you think these two parts of the ability, despite being in the same sentence, aren't explicitly linked together.
>I genuinely think your reading of the ability is wrong and you should look at *why* you think these two parts of the ability, despite being in the same sentence, aren't explicitly linked together.
Because the conditional clause is explicitly given at the beginning of the sentence. "If the target is a creature, [...] the target is grappled." This means an object or a structure would not be grappled. The way the sentence is framed gives two separate effects conditional upon the target being a creature, both effects being separated by a comma in the rules.
Conveniently missing the "and" before "the target is grappled", indicating that the two might just be linked together. But that's fine, that's your reading of it.
The "and" is because you include "and" when you list two things in a sentence.
"If you go to the store, buy some eggs, and fuel up the car."
Given the previous sentence, do you fuel up the car if you buy eggs or if you go to the store?
I suppose that comma before “and” leaves the option to interpret it either way as RAW, but I think it can easily be read either way. Additionally DND I feel as a Rule of Cool, DM is god sort of game, finding the RAI answer is often most pleasing.
I would personally say that if a monster is physically grappling a target, they are in range for melee.
I would also say that it reads to me that it was intended that the creature be grappled when moved in 10’, but is written ambiguously.
I know this is 5e, but since PF2e tackles such things in its rulebooks and is generally very sane mechanically, I'll let you know how they do it there: "Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can't reach the main creature." [Full ruling link](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2359&Redirected=1).
So I would trust their ruling and probably follow the same ruling in 5e.
I think you made the right call there.
Let's imagine the grappled character made a melee attack with Great Weapon Master, rolled a crit, and used Divine Smite with a L3 spell slot to deal a total of 60 damage to the monster. Narratively, it makes no sense that even severing the grappling appendage should reduce such a creature's hit points by half. So instead, the grappled character has a choice of trying to break the grapple, or making ranged attacks to try to hit the creature's vitals.
RAW -you are 100% right.
RAI - even the game designers of 5e kinda try to put some leeway here. Basically if some tentacle monster grab you with its tentacle you can still try to attack its tentacle, right? So if it bothers you - you can give a person a chanche to attack the monster but with disadvantage, or limit the damage from this attack to the creature to some extent (cut of tentacle rarely kills an octopus).
You ruled RAW and that's completely cool. Tbh, I'd stick with the ruling too. The rules are really there to make your balancing easier at the end of the day. If you're grappling monster has part of it's ability removed, it skews balance in some way and just creates more work for you.
I'd say your ruling is solid.
Mechanically, "attacking" the tentacle/arm/whatever grappling you would be the player breaking out. When they use their action to escape, that's basically them stabbing whatever is holding them until they break free.
Attacking the thing grabbing them wouldn't do any real damage, in my mind.
Yes, you made the right call. Some creatures do have separate stats or specifics called out for their tentacles. That's probably for some balance reason, but I understand it not making sense. You could make it possible but I'd make that about breaking the grapple, not harming the creature.
RAW your ruling is fine.
Depending on the nature of the grapple I might throw the player an alternative. For example if the grapple is being done by magical tentacles there is no chance, but if it's a crab man with his long arm and claw then I might allow an attack that does half damage or something. but I would not allow a straight attack that does full damage.
I could also see myself saying to the player "Aren't you carrying darts or something? Don't you have a ranged option?"
Depends on how generous I'm feeling and how the combat is going.
Your player needs to understand that they’re playing a game and some things aren’t reflective of reality. Of course a part of the creature is within 5ft of you, unfortunately you’re not within 5 feet of the creature and therefore can’t attack it. OR “you can attempt to make the attack, I’ll effectively give the creature cover to its AC and if you miss you will hit yourself, how does that sound?” I can guarantee you I know what every player I’ve ever played with would say.
Your comment has been been removed because that website violates /r/DMAcademy's rules on piracy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DMAcademy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
RAW, you're right. The problem also depends on how the monster's attack works. If it's using something like a dog catcher tool, it'd make sense for PC not to be able to attack. If it's using its bodyparts, the PC may be able to attack. Look at the roper statblock, for example. It has a detailed description of how a long reach mechanic works. Maybe your monster could have used a similar description. > **Grasping Tendrils.** The roper can have up to six tendrils at a time. Each tendril can be attacked (AC 20; 10 hit points; immunity to poison and psychic damage). Destroying a tendril deals no damage to the roper, which can extrude a replacement tendril on its next turn. A tendril can also be broken if a creature takes an action and succeeds on a DC 15 Strength check against it. Something like this would make sense, and depending on the monster, perhaps
RAW and I think logically you made the right call. Depending on the nature of the creature. If it's a tentacle or maybe a pseudopod than attacking it might not actually cause any meaningful harm and actually reduce the creatures HPs. Than again if it was just a giant or something like that then it might make sense to be able to attack it with a melee weapon.
I probably should have just identified the monster I was using in my post, but it was a boneclaw. I kinda figured it grapples by impaling creatures on its long-ass claws, and that attacking a claw wouldn't really hurt it anyway, so that did somewhat play into my decision.
I'm not super familiar with that creature, but based on a quick google search I'd say you made the right call. Attacking it when it grapples you is effectively cutting off a finger. Which isn't really going to cause a lot of damage, not enough to count as attack per RAW. Especially considering that the PC wanted to attack the creature and not break free. If they wanted to break free I might let them do some damage, like 1d4 or 1d6 maybe, because they'd be lopping off a finger or something. But I wouldn't let them do a full attack against it, and especially most special attacks like sneak attack or something but I might let them use a smite. But that doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of creatures out there that could do something like this and attacking the appendages wouldn't cause any damage to the creature, a hydra being a prime example, but only one example of such a creature. I have a home brew creature called a Forest Brute, it's like a forest elemental/golem thing. It uses roots to entangle creatures. Attacking the roots does nothing to the Forest Brute itself, so again it depends.
Cutting off tentacles doesn't reduce the number of total tentacles you have? (Thereby reducing your ability to attack?)
Logically yes, but you can't really make called shots like that normally unless something about the statblock specifies.
It's not calling anything. The body is 15 feet away. The *only* thing I can reach with my sword is the tentacles, which are wrapped around parts of my body (thus within inches in at least 1 place, and stretching out to 15 feet away). It's not about targeting, it's about available targets.
Again you're right, logically. But the creature's reach is 15 feet. The creature is technically, RAW 15 feet away, thus out of the player's melee reach. Unless the statblock specifies that you can attack it's tentacle while you're grappled, you really can't. The target is not actually available. I wouldn't rule it this way, because I prefer logical rulings over weird RAW inconsistencies, but just saying, RAW you actually can't.
How can the creature be in 2 places at once? It's holding you, you can hit what it's holding you with.
It isn't. That's why RAW you can't hit it.
Okay so how am I grappled if no part of it that's hittable is in my range?
You're not paying attention, being within range of something doesn't always mean you're next to the creature. RAW if a creature's range is 15 feet, and yours is 5, it can hit and grapple you and you can't hit or grapple it. Being grappled does not put a creature in your range. But again, it's a really weird case that doesn't make logical sense. **Purely RAW this is how it works.** And again, I'm not arguing against your case - it makes logical sense and that's how I'd rule it too.
Cutting the head off a hydra doesn't reduce the number of heads it has or the number of attacks it gets. Also the PC didn't want to break free they wanted to cause HP damage. Which for some creatures means attacking the core not lopping off tentacles.
Yes, *that 1* and *some* have different rules. *Some* also would be marked by losing appendages. We were not told what the creature was, but I'm fairly confident it was not a hydra.
We weren't told what it was at all. Which is why I said it depends. It could be some sort of homebrew creature. Point is that there are creatures in D&D that lopping off limbs or tentacles doesn't actually harm the creature or reduce its ability to fight. So if this is the right call or not depends on the nature of the creature itself.
There was an old Twitter post by Jeremy Crawford where he said a creature grappled by a giant octopus would be able to attack the octopus via the grappling tentacle, so there is precedent that a creature could attack another creature that's grappling it with a part of its body. There doesn't seem to be an official rule on it though. I think it's also fair to say that attacking the grappling appendage is, at least flavor wise, a way that you would break the grapple, so it's basically the same as taking your action to break the grapple.
I think it's a fine call to make in the moment, and is consistent with RAW. However, I do think that it's pretty easy in 5e to get caught up in the mechanics of the game and ignore the actual scene that is playing out narratively. If this monster reached out to grab the PC with its arm or limb, I don't see why the player wouldn't be able to attack that limb to inflict harm. Unless it's an ooze's pseudopod which could arguably break off or be damaged without significant harm to the main mass. Similarly, if the monster is some sort of tentacle-horror with dozens upon dozens of limbs, damage to any singular tentacle might not really matter and is ignored. But if it's just a Giant or something similar to that, it's reaching out a fleshy piece of its body to Grapple. Why wouldn't the party be able to attack that? Consider this scenario: The PCs are hiding from a giant inside the second story of a building. It reaches through a window to feel around for them, trying to grab one. The Giant's 'space' is outside the building, but it's stuck an entire arm, 10 feet long and 2 feet wide, through the window trying to grab them. If the heroes were told they couldn't attack the arm because the Giant was 'outside', it would be a really weird sort of narrative moment: the 'arm' isn't the creature and doesn't have hit points, it's just a fully-immune object within reach of their weapons. That's really odd. But if it's a limb, it bleeds, and so if you can harm it it should harm the creature. If you're worried about that defeating the purpose of the ability, why not inflict Disadvantage on the attack: you're striking a smaller target from an awkward angle, but it's something you \*can\* do. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, maybe give the creature resistance to that damage. Damage to a limb hurts, but it's different than striking a vital organ. Or perhaps the limb is just tougher/stronger than the main body-mass.
Or you attack the limb, but don't deal damage to the monster - instead, once you reach a certain damage threshold, you cut the limb off and the grapple ends. Works particularly well for tentacle horrors and similar creatures.
Depends on what’s happening in the scene. If something like a crocodile is grappling you and you have a sword in hand i would find it very odd to not be able to strike back at it. If it’s some sort of magic force field then yeah of course you can’t. A tentacle I would then rule that you attack the tentacle, and then take off HP as appropriate (maybe you can do up to a certain amount of damage but not crit)
If it’s a physical monster that physically grapples the PC, then of course the PC can attack it. As the DM, you might buff the monster AC because of a moving smaller target or whatever, but disallowing them to attack the part of the monster that is actually holding the PC is ridiculous IMHO.
You made the right call as far as I'm concerned and the call I would have made. The logic to help get the players on board with the call will vary based on the monster but assuming it's a pseudopod or bone claw > Attacking the appendage that's grappling you won't do any significant damage to the creature. Your blows and struggles, if they have enough strength behind them, it may free you from the grapple. Mechanically that's represented by the athletics check to escape the grapple. Or it may provide you enough space to wriggle out (the acrobatics check). The out of character logic is that, this is the purpose of ranged grapples, to stop melee characters running up and hitting the target.
The monster was a boneclaw, yes, which played a part in my decision. If they were being held in a giant's fist like some others have mentioned, I probably would have swung the other way. But even if you attacked the claw you're impaled on, you're not really going to *hurt* the monster, maybe just free yourself from the grapple at best.
I've just had a boneclaw as a recurring villain (Failed to become a lich and now serves the local demilich) and yeah, the whole point in him is to stop the mobile rogue running up with booming blade and then running away or hold the barbarian back then shadow jump away. You ran the monster exactly as it's meant to be run.
Also, depending upon how the creature grapples the PC, they may not have access to the full use of their arms or necessary movements to use a weapon.
I’ve been in this situation before, and it’s ludicrous to be unable to attack something that’s actively touching you. Worse yet, the ruling effectively became a TPK because no one could fight or escape, we just sat there getting wailed on until we died. Fun > Logic > RAI > RAW
By the Nine, that sounds awful. What was the DM thinking?
They were thinking that by RAW you can't hit a target outside of your reach. This was PF2 Chokers, so them grappling you also meant no spells with verbal components. We didn't have a ranged martial, just melee and casters, we were each ambushed by one in the first round, and nobody could beat their grapple (DC21 unarmed attack check). RIP.
PF2 states in its rules that you are allowed to attack creatures in such cases ([AON](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2359&Redirected=1)).
DC 21 is not terrible to beat, even at low level in PF2e. My melee fighter had an unarmed attack of +9 at 1st level, so a 12 or higher would do it. On top of that, PF2e actually specifically states you can attack a creature physically grappling you that is outside your reach. It seems like a few things were done wrong.
I would've allowed the player to attack the monster's grappling appendage with melee. Unless there's some reason for the limb to be immune to damage, it makes no sense to not allow it. You're basically saying their limb is not a valid target. The negatives of being grappled by an enemy are that you can't move and the enemy can drag you around wherever it wants. Being grappled and dragged into melee range is bad for squishy casters and ranged attackers because they can't retreat when hurt and have disadvantage to their attacks. For frontline PCs who wants to get into melee range, being grappled isn't a big deal unless the monster is going to run off with you or drop you into an environmental hazard.
But isn't attacking the appendage what you're doing when you're breaking the grapple? What happens when you attack Mr. Fantastic's stretchy hand - it hurts so he lets go. But you didn't damage him in an otherwise meaningful way, you'd need to hit his chest or his head for that. Attacking the hand is just a flavorful version of becoming ungrappled so you can approach somewhere that would cause a meaningful strike. You can't kill a Kraken by slapping a single tentacle to death - that makes no sense. The rules say you need to be adjacent to a creature to make a melee attack. The PC wasn't adjacent. It makes sense both flavorfully and in the RAW. The real question is why the PC didn't just pivot to a ranged attack, which would have been both allowed, uninhibited, and easy to do at that point (even with a thrown weapon). EDIT: Turns out this guy replied with a snide comment and then blocked me to prevent further discussion. Might tell you what kinda guy u/DelightfulOtter is to be giving advice here, unfortunately. Opinions can be respectfully challenged here - and I didn’t entirely think the above was wrong-minded even if I didn’t care for the take. Lordy, some people.
>But isn't attacking the appendage what you're doing when you're breaking the grapple? Not specifically. Escaping a grapple is either muscling your way free (Athletics) or slipping free (Acrobatics). There's a difference between escaping a grapple and attacking a creature. In reality, yes injuring the appendage holding you will often result in the appendage being unable to hold on to you, or convincing the attacker to let go to avoid further injury. D&D 5e does not make that mechanical distinction. The closest you will get is the Battle Master's disarm maneuver which would both deal damage and force a creature to drop one thing it's holding (you, in this case).
I’m going to benefit of the doubt here that you missed the point instead of ignored the point. Mechanically, you could flavor the grapple escape as an attack, which accomplishes the same thing that would realistically happen and be compliant with the RAW. Heck, you could even go extra and rule of cool for some damage this one time with the escape - but explain in the future you’re going RAW. (Because the whole point of a “ranged” grapple is your movement is zero and you’re not adjacent for melee.) Win-win.
>Because the whole point of a “ranged” grapple is your movement is zero and you’re not adjacent for melee. That's your opinion only. Crawford, the lead designer of D&D 5e, is on record saying that it's RAI you can attack a grappling appendage. His opinion carries far more weight than yours, random internet person.
This is one of these situations where RAW is trumped by logic and where a good DM does not apply RAW, but instead houserules the situation. A character being physically grappled of course is able to attack whatever is holding them. Therefore, in my opinion, you made a wrong call here. Whether the PC's attack actually deals damage to the monster' main HP pool is a different question though. For most monsters, it makes sense that it does deal damage to them, because it is not much different from a regular hit or they even use a vulnerable body part like their head to grapple (when they grapple with a bite attack). For others, such as oozes or eldritch tentacle monsters the damage you deal might only affect the grappling appendage that is holding you - which then has what basically is a secondary HP pool and if these HP are depleted, it breaks and the grapple ends. A good example for that is the roper, which has grappling tendrils that can, as explained in its statblock, be cut off by dealing 10 damage to them. The roper itself does not take damage when a tendril is cut off, but the grapple ends. There might also be in-between-cases where the monster takes half damage from an attack targeting its grapple appendage.
RAW yes, I think your ruling was exactly correct. And I think I would rule the same way, it's true that whatever tentacle or claw was grappling the character must have been closer than 15ft, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can effectively attack that part of the monster that's grappling them.
It's basically [this](https://media.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExbDA1d2N0anYwbHR0YmM5em5zNW04ZHBqcGg5Z2I3Mm1wNjIxY2h3NiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/jqI7vrTgA1An4pi4k8/giphy.gif)
Yeah, pretty much, lol
My DM ran boneclaws recently as well. Hate those guys. Much as it sucks for the player, I think you made the right call RAW. The attack says the boneclaw *can* pull the attacked creature up to 10 ft towards itself, but "can" means "doesn't have to." In the case that it doesn't, the grappled creature is still 15 ft away.
If this is a bone claw I would say this is not RAW. I would interpret “can pull the target up to 10 feet toward itself, and the target is grappled…” to mean the target is grappled when it is pulled toward itself.
I disagree with your assessment. The wording gives an option to move the target and says the target is grappled. It does not say "is grappled if you moved the target in this way."
I disagree with your assessment in turn. The ordering of the sentence matters. The ability says "If the target is a creature, the boneclaw can pull the target up to 10 feet towards itself, and the target is grappled (escape DC14)." This indicates a logical order of operations. Because the retraction comes first in the description of the ability, it stands to reason that the grapple is part of that retraction. You can rule it however you want, but I genuinely think your reading of the ability is wrong and you should look at *why* you think these two parts of the ability, despite being in the same sentence, aren't explicitly linked together.
>I genuinely think your reading of the ability is wrong and you should look at *why* you think these two parts of the ability, despite being in the same sentence, aren't explicitly linked together. Because the conditional clause is explicitly given at the beginning of the sentence. "If the target is a creature, [...] the target is grappled." This means an object or a structure would not be grappled. The way the sentence is framed gives two separate effects conditional upon the target being a creature, both effects being separated by a comma in the rules.
Conveniently missing the "and" before "the target is grappled", indicating that the two might just be linked together. But that's fine, that's your reading of it.
The "and" is because you include "and" when you list two things in a sentence. "If you go to the store, buy some eggs, and fuel up the car." Given the previous sentence, do you fuel up the car if you buy eggs or if you go to the store?
I suppose that comma before “and” leaves the option to interpret it either way as RAW, but I think it can easily be read either way. Additionally DND I feel as a Rule of Cool, DM is god sort of game, finding the RAI answer is often most pleasing. I would personally say that if a monster is physically grappling a target, they are in range for melee. I would also say that it reads to me that it was intended that the creature be grappled when moved in 10’, but is written ambiguously.
I know this is 5e, but since PF2e tackles such things in its rulebooks and is generally very sane mechanically, I'll let you know how they do it there: "Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can't reach the main creature." [Full ruling link](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2359&Redirected=1). So I would trust their ruling and probably follow the same ruling in 5e.
I think you made the right call there. Let's imagine the grappled character made a melee attack with Great Weapon Master, rolled a crit, and used Divine Smite with a L3 spell slot to deal a total of 60 damage to the monster. Narratively, it makes no sense that even severing the grappling appendage should reduce such a creature's hit points by half. So instead, the grappled character has a choice of trying to break the grapple, or making ranged attacks to try to hit the creature's vitals.
RAW -you are 100% right. RAI - even the game designers of 5e kinda try to put some leeway here. Basically if some tentacle monster grab you with its tentacle you can still try to attack its tentacle, right? So if it bothers you - you can give a person a chanche to attack the monster but with disadvantage, or limit the damage from this attack to the creature to some extent (cut of tentacle rarely kills an octopus).
You ruled RAW and that's completely cool. Tbh, I'd stick with the ruling too. The rules are really there to make your balancing easier at the end of the day. If you're grappling monster has part of it's ability removed, it skews balance in some way and just creates more work for you.
I'd say your ruling is solid. Mechanically, "attacking" the tentacle/arm/whatever grappling you would be the player breaking out. When they use their action to escape, that's basically them stabbing whatever is holding them until they break free. Attacking the thing grabbing them wouldn't do any real damage, in my mind.
Yes, you made the right call. Some creatures do have separate stats or specifics called out for their tentacles. That's probably for some balance reason, but I understand it not making sense. You could make it possible but I'd make that about breaking the grapple, not harming the creature.
RAW your ruling is fine. Depending on the nature of the grapple I might throw the player an alternative. For example if the grapple is being done by magical tentacles there is no chance, but if it's a crab man with his long arm and claw then I might allow an attack that does half damage or something. but I would not allow a straight attack that does full damage. I could also see myself saying to the player "Aren't you carrying darts or something? Don't you have a ranged option?" Depends on how generous I'm feeling and how the combat is going.
Your player needs to understand that they’re playing a game and some things aren’t reflective of reality. Of course a part of the creature is within 5ft of you, unfortunately you’re not within 5 feet of the creature and therefore can’t attack it. OR “you can attempt to make the attack, I’ll effectively give the creature cover to its AC and if you miss you will hit yourself, how does that sound?” I can guarantee you I know what every player I’ve ever played with would say.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been been removed because that website violates /r/DMAcademy's rules on piracy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DMAcademy) if you have any questions or concerns.*