D&D 5E Can you shove or grapple a creature that you're riding?

[Corwin]

But it's okay to state your opinion or playstyle as fact?

Quote me doing so or stop muddying the conversation with your agenda. And an apology would be nice, if you can muster it.

 

[Mercule]

As far as I can tell you can, but I'm curious if the following examples hold true (or if I'm completely wrong in the first place).

(a). You're riding a horse out of combat and decide to "shove" it into the ground. Since the horse probably wasn't expecting you to be a source of danger, I'm thinking it's safe to assume that it's surprised, thus can't act on the first round of combat that you just initiated. You attempt the shove and succeed, forcing the horse prone (and you're probably thrown to the ground as well), effectively stopping it's movement until it can act next.

First, if you do this, you're a jerk. What did the horse ever do to you?

While I'm not sure that I'd consider it a "shove" by the dictionary definition, I might actually allow the use of the Shove attack to attempt what you're describing. I'd do it with disadvantage, for sure, because 1) you don't have any actual leverage other than your own body weight, 2) I've ridden horses and can't picture a way to knock one down without doing more damage to myself than to the horse, and 3) it's got four legs pretty much exactly where it wants them to be to resist you. Actually, I'd probably give the rider disadvantage because of #1 and the horse advantage because of #3 and not feel guilty about stacking the deck because of #2.

As far as surprise goes, I'm kinda serious about the jerk thing. If you're on the horse and safely riding it, why would you even want to trip it up? Maybe if you see an obstacle that it doesn't, but that doesn't really give you a reason to care about anything beyond the first attack. In that case, sure, why not? If you're actually intending on killing/disabling the horse, how did you get on the horse's back, in the first place in a non-threatening way?

(b). What if you did it while riding on the back of a Wyvern? Would it immediately fall to the ground prone? Are there rules I've missed somewhere stating how far you can fall in a round, or is it just assumed that the Wyvern has no chance to recover before hitting the ground?

Numbers to note: If I'm doing the math right, a critter can be assumed to fall about 575 feet in the first round, assuming complete loss of lift and ability to act. Anything above that height, we'll just assume recovers safely, but needs to change it's underwear. Also, terminal velocity (about 200 ft/sec, allowing for some drag) kicks in at about the six-second mark, so, we can just assume anything after that is a stain.

I'm not aware of specific rules for knocking a flying creature prone w/o also disabling them. So I'm going to assume that, barring unconsciousness, being "knocked prone" while in flight really just means disrupting the creatures flight, momentarily. Why? A combination of common sense and game balance: I can't see anything short of a full grapple completely destroying the wyvern's ability to fly for long enough to totally fall and it would make a Shove attack too potent and the only sensible option in aerial combat. Since getting up from prone costs half movement, so successfully "shoving prone" a flying creature would just cost it half its movement with no further effect. If you want to change its elevation, use the Shove attack directed downwards.

(c). What if you grappled instead of shoved? Are you literally pinning a horse to the ground after putting it into an Equine Full Nelson? Is the Wyvern totally screwed as you both plummet to your deaths?

Looking at the Grappled condition, the only real effect is to reduce the critter's speed to 0. So, go ahead and make the check. I might give the horse's rider disadvantage, just because that's a somewhat sub-optimal point of leverage, but it also makes sense that the rider is going to swing in front/underneath the horse, too. So maybe give the rider the choice of either taking disadvantage or do a rather uncomfortable dismount as part of the grapple -- being left behind, if he fails.

The wyvern might be similar, but doesn't have the ground to bash the rider with. Cinematically, I don't like the idea of a failed grapple resulting in the attacker going into free fall, solo. So, go for it. If you succeed, you're both in it, together, and share the date with the dirt.

Now, two flying creatures grappling might be pretty cool, as each tries to trap the other in free fall while pulling themselves out, at the last second. YMMV.

Anyway, am I missing something or would that stuff really play out the way it seems?

Depends on your goals. I hate rules for the sake of rules, in RPGs. Story first, with the rules there to add just enough structure. If common sense says you can or can't do something, then common sense prevails. Ditto for genre conventions and narrative flow.

 

[mrpopstar]

As far as I can tell you can, but I'm curious if the following examples hold true (or if I'm completely wrong in the first place).

Personally, it seems inappropriate to treat a mount as a hostile combatant for the sake of adjudication in these examples.

(a). You're riding a horse out of combat and decide to "shove" it into the ground. Since the horse probably wasn't expecting you to be a source of danger, I'm thinking it's safe to assume that it's surprised, thus can't act on the first round of combat that you just initiated. You attempt the shove and succeed, forcing the horse prone (and you're probably thrown to the ground as well), effectively stopping it's movement until it can act next.

You make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to control your mount when you attempt a risky maneuver, such as forcing your mount prone.

(b). What if you did it while riding on the back of a Wyvern? Would it immediately fall to the ground prone? Are there rules I've missed somewhere stating how far you can fall in a round, or is it just assumed that the Wyvern has no chance to recover before hitting the ground?

If the wyvern is tamed to be a mount, see above, otherwise I would adjudicate that a shove can push the wyvern away from you, but not knock it prone.

(c). What if you grappled instead of shoved? Are you literally pinning a horse to the ground after putting it into an Equine Full Nelson? Is the Wyvern totally screwed as you both plummet to your deaths?

If these animals are your mount, see above, otherwise the normal rules for grappling apply.

Anyway, am I missing something or would that stuff really play out the way it seems?

You seem to be missing the difference between a mount and a bigger creature you've climbed on top of.

 

[discosoc]

You seem to be missing the difference between a mount and a bigger creature you've climbed on top of.

And yet the rules clearly do allow the things I mentioned

 

[Bacon Bits]

As far as I can tell you can, but I'm curious if the following examples hold true (or if I'm completely wrong in the first place).

(a). You're riding a horse out of combat and decide to "shove" it into the ground. Since the horse probably wasn't expecting you to be a source of danger, I'm thinking it's safe to assume that it's surprised, thus can't act on the first round of combat that you just initiated. You attempt the shove and succeed, forcing the horse prone (and you're probably thrown to the ground as well), effectively stopping it's movement until it can act next.

The problem with shoving a creature you're riding is that you haven't got something to push against. So you're not so much shoving as pushing yourself away from the horse you're riding, or shifting your weight around. I'd probably grant you disadvantage. In any event, you and the horse are immediately 5 feet apart. Simply put, you have to push pretty hard to shove something the size of a horse, and Mearls and Crawford don't override Newton.

(b). What if you did it while riding on the back of a Wyvern? Would it immediately fall to the ground prone? Are there rules I've missed somewhere stating how far you can fall in a round, or is it just assumed that the Wyvern has no chance to recover before hitting the ground?

A flying creature knocked prone does immediately fall, but I would say that pushing a flying Wyvern doesn't really do anything except piss it off and maybe make it slow down. Again, the problem is that you've got nothing to push against. The only result is you would force yourself to dismount if you're not tied down, since you're suddenly 5 feet away from it.

Rule of thumb for falling I've used: You fall 500 ft in the first round, and 1,000 ft every round thereafter. You reach terminal velocity by the end of the first round. That's like 15%(?) slower than the actual values calculated without accounting for air resistance and good enough for the game. Acceleration due to gravity is significant.

(c). What if you grappled instead of shoved? Are you literally pinning a horse to the ground after putting it into an Equine Full Nelson? Is the Wyvern totally screwed as you both plummet to your deaths?

A horse? You can absolutely do that. The head, ears, mane and neck are right there. So are the reins, and pulling those sharply certainly applies leverage. I would probably not apply disadvantage here.

For a wyvern? Again, probably. Wyverns are only size Large. It's somewhat unrealistic that they can get off the ground with a Medium size rider as it is. You can, again, harrass them with the reins, and at the very least you can grab onto a wing and potentially force the both of you to fall if you want. However, if the Wyvern breaks your grip and you're not tied on, the one who will be falling is you.

 

[discosoc]

The problem with shoving a creature you're riding is that you haven't got something to push against.

Or the problem is that everyone is trying to insert physics into the prerequisites when the game clearly doesn't care about it in other similar situations. For example, you can grapple another person with one hand and shove them to the ground with that same hand, and suddenly they are incapable of standing up. Only your opponent is prone, yet you are magically able to hold them to the ground one-handed while also being totally capable of attacking someone else (or them) next to you if you want.

How does that work? Well maybe -- just maybe -- the "shove" action is not meant to be a literal description for every possible explanation. Maybe you "shoved" them down by twisting their arm (after grappling it with your free hand first) into a position where it brings them to their knees. That makes sense and doesn't really require the same physics as a literal shove would, but it's definitely something you see happen in all kinds of movies. Even the art of Akido basically comes down to finding ways to shove someone with their own momentum rather than pushing against them.

All I'm saying is that as crazy as these ideas sound, I don't think the right answer is to instinctively houserule a ban or require a complicated set of skill checks or "stack the deck" against the action from happening in the first place.

 

[mrpopstar]

And yet the rules clearly do allow the things I mentioned

So clearly that you needed to start a thread about it?

 

[discosoc]

So clearly that you needed to start a thread about it?

The more I thought about it, the more I realized the whole concept isn't nearly as 'out there' as I first did.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think a lot of people can't get past the name of the maneuver: "shove".

First up: shove can do one of two things - either render a creature prone, or move it 5 feet away from you. Can I imagine someone doing something that would render the creature they are riding prone? Yes. Can I imagine someone doing something to their mount that would move it 5 feet away from them? Sure.

Second up: other people are saying that they'd rather the player state their goal and then the DM will adjudicate the action. I guarantee you that in this case if you do that, you'll end up spending your entire turn making a stupid skill-based roll that will most likely fail because you don't have animal handling. Or you'll end up grappling your mount.

Saying "I want to shove my mount" is just being precise. You want to spend a single attack from your routine making a specific check in order to have a specific effect. Ideally you'll say "I take the attack action. My first attack is a shove on my mount. '<character name> throws himself to the side while grabbing the wyvern's earhole, attempting to flip it over and render it flightless'", combining the narrative and the action you're taking.

As for why you might want to do such a thing to your horse? Nightmares from the MM are a pretty good example.

 

[Corwin]

Second up: other people are saying that they'd rather the player state their goal and then the DM will adjudicate the action. I guarantee you that in this case if you do that, you'll end up spending your entire turn making a stupid skill-based roll that will most likely fail because you don't have animal handling. Or you'll end up grappling your mount.

Fascinating "guarantee" you made there. Vapid, of course. But fascinating, none-the-less. Please don't think to speak for others. It's bad form. Just because you consider yourself a DM who makes poor choices doesn't mean others do. But thanks for your input on my previous post. Your opinion is noted.