D&D 5E The Grappler's Manual (2.0) - Grappling in 5th Edition

[johnlent]

This is literally all you would need to do, push target left, push target right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa4DJgkVe0w

 

[zaratan]

This is literally all you would need to do, push target left, push target right. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa4DJgkVe0w

still, your face is closer the spike growth than your antlers, do that without take damage will not be easy. While push someone forward looks easy (still, not in the rules), moving he left and right don't and he isn't grappled, he can go alway any time in his turn, you're not holding him. Seriously, I would love to see that work, I even have a building that can run 7200 feet in one turn (ok, lots of magic items), but giant elk grappler is push too much.

Stay at allosaur, elemental or even giant constritor snake even you need bigger size (but less movement).

 

[Grue AC]

All you guys are way off tangent here. He's talking about elk totem, not wildshaping into one.

 

[Colder]

All you guys are way off tangent here. He's talking about elk totem, not wildshaping into one.

6. Round 1: Cast Spike Growth; action surge drink Potion of Speed. Wild shape into Giant Elk,

No he isn't.

 

[Goken100]

Well no, but similarly there's no real narrative explanation for why a Tavern Brawler can hit someone with a broken table leg and then bonus grapple, but can't hit someone with a club the same size, shape, weight, balance, etc. as the table leg and make a bonus grapple...

Lol, fair point.

 

[Goken100]

Firaball say magic damage? Thunderwave? ANY other spell (please, say just one)? It's a spell, you really want to argue about that part?

Catapult, just off the top of my head. There is by no means a consensus on whether spells that use the environment to do piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage are doing magic damage. In my experience most rule that such damage is mundane, but talk to your DM, your mileage may vary.

 

[zaratan]

Catapult, just off the top of my head. There is by no means a consensus on whether spells that use the environment to do piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage are doing magic damage. In my experience most rule that such damage is mundane, but talk to your DM, your mileage may vary.

Again, this doesn't matter, because immunity or resistence is all about "nonmagical weapon", spike growth isn't "pircing weapon", is just "pircing".
And spike growth isn't mundane, if you break your concentration or the spell ends the spikes desappear, they are have camouflage that none real plant has. You didn't create real plants.

 

[doomedpaladin]

I have to drop in here and say that thanks to this guide I'm playing a Lizardfolk Bear totem Barbarian and its a thing of savage beauty. Two free hands, bite attack, built-in AC, breathing underwater AND a swim speed for taking my playmates for a little dip. The free proficiencies in Perception and Stealth help me ambush the unwary. I hope the OP eventually gets updated to include this great race.

 

[Goken100]

Again, this doesn't matter, because immunity or resistence is all about "nonmagical weapon", spike growth isn't "pircing weapon", is just "pircing".
And spike growth isn't mundane, if you break your concentration or the spell ends the spikes desappear, they are have camouflage that none real plant has. You didn't create real plants.

Huh... that's interesting. It's not exactly right, but close. Most stat blocks with resistance seem to say "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks" and similar wording. Doesn't say weapon damage, but does say from attacks, which is not what Spike Growth does. This also lines up with the Sage Advice ruling that werewolves can take falling damage; they are immune to bludgeoning attacks, but the ground isn't an attack. Interesting.

It's worth noting that effects on the player side, such as Barbarian Rage or Armor of Invulnerability, actually grant resistance to just the damage period. So it's not clear to me that the rules as intended are intentionally making monsters resist only attack damage vs. other effects that resist all of that type of damage. But that does seem to be how it is written.

As a side note, I'm not sure how Animate Objects is supposed to work. I've heard arguments both for and against it doing magical damage, though the fact that the spell specifically calls out bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing makes me think it's non-magical.

 

[zaratan]

Huh... that's interesting. It's not exactly right, but close. Most stat blocks with resistance seem to say "bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from nonmagical attacks" and similar wording. Doesn't say weapon damage, but does say from attacks, which is not what Spike Growth does. This also lines up with the Sage Advice ruling that werewolves can take falling damage; they are immune to bludgeoning attacks, but the ground isn't an attack. Interesting.

It's worth noting that effects on the player side, such as Barbarian Rage or Armor of Invulnerability, actually grant resistance to just the damage period. So it's not clear to me that the rules as intended are intentionally making monsters resist only attack damage vs. other effects that resist all of that type of damage. But that does seem to be how it is written.

As a side note, I'm not sure how Animate Objects is supposed to work. I've heard arguments both for and against it doing magical damage, though the fact that the spell specifically calls out bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing makes me think it's non-magical.

The eternal d&d problem, never clear enought. DMs problem, but I don't see why bludgeoning, slashing and pearcing damage from spell will not be magical but the rest will be.
The object was animated by magic, so he cause magical damage while the duration and concentration of the spell.

Magic weapon where created with spell and formulas to be permanent but the magic is basicaly the same.