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

[Mercule]

And yet the rules clearly do allow the things I mentioned

This is a pretty fine line. RPGs are, IMO, different from other games in that the rules are more guidelines for making things work than hard and fast. I find that I really get burned out quickly when the rules are thrown around as justification for things that just seem silly, broken, or otherwise harm the narrative aspect of play. There's a balance, to be sure, and players should have reasonable expectation of a solid foundation/framework. I just strongly favor the human aspect of the GM being able to say, "Stop being a twit."

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

I'll agree with this. My gut reaction was that you were posting something just to be contrary and the whole thing was rather absurd. When I actually looked at the rules and thought about it, I kinda came to a point of "Well, those rules work as well as anything I could come up with for certain actions." I'm not sure whether I'd really call it a "shove" or not, but I'm not opposed to appropriating rules that are "close enough" for a given task to avoid a stupidly complex system.

Someone will always come up with something not covered, which is one of the reasons why I'm a proponent of rules as framework, GM as referee/arbiter (or abattoir, whatever).

 

[mrpopstar]

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

The concepts of controlling your mount and combatting a bigger creature you've climbed on top of are not 'out there' at all, it's just important to make the distinction and adjudicate appropriately.

With regard to an untrained mount, Dungeon Masters are guided to use the rules for combat to determine whether or not you can climb onto a larger creature's back in the first place, rendering the question of whether or not you can shove or grapple the creature moot.

I don't mean to speak for anyone, but it occurs to me that others in this thread are struggling to articulate that a player's description of what they want to do does not force the Dungeon Master's hand (i.e. using the words shove or grapple does not a combat make).

We control mounts and combat larger creatures we climb on top of. Toggling between definitions of the creature we're 'riding' is both awkward and confusing.

 

[Saeviomagy]

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.

End up was meant to indicate through multiple DMs.

And it's not really that poor a choice for the DM to make: DMs typically are handling creatures that don't have multiple attacks in the same way the PCs do, so you get used to the idea that an action that takes an attack is synonymous with an action that takes a round. Reminding a DM that your character has better ways of doing things than an NPC might is just a good idea.

 

[Corwin]

End up was meant to indicate through multiple DMs.

???

And it's not really that poor a choice for the DM to make: DMs typically are handling creatures that don't have multiple attacks in the same way the PCs do, so you get used to the idea that an action that takes an attack is synonymous with an action that takes a round. Reminding a DM that your character has better ways of doing things than an NPC might is just a good idea.

Have you had largely bad experiences with DMs? Or are you your group's DM? Do you do this? Is that why you keep making such poor assumptions of how "DMs do things"?

 

[Saeviomagy]

Have you had largely bad experiences with DMs? Or are you your group's DM? Do you do this? Is that why you keep making such poor assumptions of how "DMs do things"?

Are you suggesting that no DM you've ever had or observed has ever proposed an ability check for an action when other rules exist for resolving it? Are you the DM for your group, and therefore that's why you assume no DM ever misses a rule? Have you polled your players to confirm that you are not suffering from confirmation bias?

I've personally and indirectly seen a range of DMs falling back to "spend an action and succeed at an ability check" to resolve many actions that are less-than-ubiquitous. It doesn't make a bad DM. It's a fairly easy way to resolve an action that doesn't seem unduly onerous or require cracking open a rulebook and breaking the flow. Which is why if you've got a better way of doing things, it behooves you to state it up front, rather than waiting for the DM to make the call, then starting a rule dispute.

 

[jgsugden]

D&D is a role playing game. The only questions (IMHO) when analyzing how corner case rules should work is whether they mess with either the role playing or the game.

Role playing means playing a role in a story. So the first thing we need to determine is if the use of a corner case rule (any rule that is being applied outside of the primary anticipated use of the rule) will ruin the story aspects of the game. If the application of the rule would disrupt the story and not make sense from a narrative standpoint, the rule should not be applied as written and the DM should make a judgment call on how to proceed.

Second, the rule application should be balanced for the game. This is not an exact science, but if the DMfeels tht application of the corner case rule to a situation ptovides too much benefit (or detriment) to a PC relative to the design of the encounter, it should not be allowed unmodified.

However, if a player comes up with an ingenious way to use a rule that does not disrupt the flow of the game or the balance of the game, the DM should allow it to go forward and for the player and PC to benefit from being creative. It is up to the DM to decide.

 

[Corwin]

Are you suggesting that no DM you've ever had or observed has ever proposed an ability check for an action when other rules exist for resolving it? Are you the DM for your group, and therefore that's why you assume no DM ever misses a rule? Have you polled your players to confirm that you are not suffering from confirmation bias?

How is this related to your "guarantee"? Are you backpedaling? Good move, if so, IMO.

I've personally and indirectly seen a range of DMs falling back to "spend an action and succeed at an ability check" to resolve many actions that are less-than-ubiquitous. It doesn't make a bad DM. It's a fairly easy way to resolve an action that doesn't seem unduly onerous or require cracking open a rulebook and breaking the flow. Which is why if you've got a better way of doing things, it behooves you to state it up front, rather than waiting for the DM to make the call, then starting a rule dispute.

Sounds like you tend to play at tables that foster more of "gotcha", or a DM vs. players, playstyle. Which is totally fine, as long as everyone is into that sort of thing. I prefer a bit more cooperative playstyle, where the DM works *with* the players. Just a personal preference. Not saying its objectively better.

 

[Caliban]

If I can imagine how it would work, then I'd let the player try it - possibly at disadvantage if I think physics are not in their favor.

I can imagine a "shove" on a creature you are riding as suddenly putting all your weight on its head or one side as its moving, throwing it off balance and possibly causing it to fall.

Holding it down is a matter of leverage, it is possible for a human to hold down a Large cow or horse, although usually cowboys so with the aid of a rope to hinder them. Maybe give advantage on the check if you use a lasso and have a background that implies you know how to use it.