D&D General Carrying and dragging stuff

[TheSword]

The fact that official monster stat blocks tell you absolutely nothing about their weight, says a lot about how much you're supposed to consider their weight, in terms of game mechanics. You're meant to rely on T/S/M/L/H/G sizes; and should the party propose such things as piling corpses on wagons, stuffing 'em in their backpacks, or dragging them, it's entirely up to the DM to determine their weight and bulk and whether their means of conveyance can handle it.

I think you’re probably right based on JCs post.

However the results of approaching the game this way are so unsatisfying and counter infinitive to me on pretty much every level that I’m happy taking the carrying capacity and the interpreting sizes from that. Particularly as the rules seem very clear and make total sense if you interpret them that as working as written.

The grapple rules don’t at any point say you can move a creature bigger than you. It’s does say:

• “Every foot of movement costs it 1 extra foot unless you are Tiny or two sizes smaller than it.” (Grappled condition)
• “Your speed isn’t halved when you move a creature grappled by you if the creature is your size or smaller.” (Grappler Feat)
• “Grappler is possible only if the target is no more than one size bigger than you and if you have an and free to grab it”. (Unarmed Strike, Grapple)
• “Shove is only possible if the target is no more than size larger than you.” (Unarmed Strike, Shove)

If something is two sizes smaller than you or Tiny you can move it in a grapple at full speed.
If you can carry someone/thing you can move it during a grapple at half speed unless you have the grappler feat in which case you can move it at full speed if it’s your size or less.
If something is too heavy to carry you can drag it when grappling at 2.5 feet speed. Unless you have grappler feat in which case it is 5ft.
Instead you can shove something 5ft where it makes a saving throw against your Strength+Proficiency or is moved 5ft.
A monk can use their skill to move things this way and grapple using Dex instead of Str.

Str 10 - 150lbs - slender, light human or large child unarmoured
Str 12 to 14 - 180 to 210lbs - average human or slender human armoured
Str 16 - 240 lbs - particularly heavy human. Or average human in armour.
Str 18+ 270 - fully armoured and above average human.

In short if you want to move a large creature - shove it - if you want to move a light creature carry or drag it

 

[James Gasik]

The grapple rules don’t at any point say you can move a creature bigger than you. It’s does say:

• “Your speed isn’t halved when you move a creature grappled by you if the creature is your size or smaller.” (Grappler Feat)

Um, isn't that implying you can move a bigger creature at half your speed?

 

[TheSword]

Um, isn't that implying you can move a bigger creature at half your speed?

No. It’s a direct amendment to the previous rule that said you couldn’t do that. With a clear instruction that it only applies to your size or smaller. In the same way that the previous rule had a similar cap.

If you were strong enough and the large creature was light enough. Some kind of skeleton for instance or physically large but light creature it might be possible.

Even if it was read that way, It’s such a stretch though to say that because a rule says you can do one thing, that it implies that what you are able to lift doesn’t matter any more. Would you not expect something a bit more explicit.

I understand that in any RPG there need to be gameist elements where necessary. We see that all the time. There’s usually a good reason for them, I guess you have to ask yourself the question what would such a loophole be good for in this case? What benefit to the game do you get by interpreting that grappling ignores carrying capacity?

Until I understand that, I will do what I always do, which is - where there is doubt I let things fall on the side that is less powerful/disruptive. I think if more folks did that there would be less complaints about 5e 2024 being to powerful.

 

[Charlaquin]

Even if it was read that way, It’s such a stretch though to say that because a rule says you can do one thing, that it implies that what you are able to lift doesn’t matter any more. Would you not expect something a bit more explicit.

I wouldn’t say it’s a stretch, due to “specific beats general.” There’s a general rule about how much weight you can lift and how much you can push, pull, or drag. Then there’s a more specific rule about moving grappled creatures, which doesn’t care about their weight.

Again, I think applying weight limits to moving grappled creatures makes more sense in terms of internal logic and verisimilitude, and it curtails OP applications of grappling, which are both good reasons to consider ruling that way. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to come to the conclusion that they aren’t both intended to apply from a game design perspective.

 

[tetrasodium]

[snip]

Until I understand that, I will do what I always do, which is - where there is doubt I let things fall on the side that is less powerful/disruptive. I think if more folks did that there would be less complaints about 5e 2024 being to powerful.

Not looking to weigh in with agreement or disagreement on the snipped bit, but this deserves a type correction because it ignores the consequences of design that requires the GM to use it just to fix a conflict with "give players what they want"design intent.

When the gm starts using it to subvert design intent and outright reverse irrelivant by design elements so they become relevant it starts creating an adversarial table dynamic where players look for strict Rules As Written and see it with a Rules As A Guarantee. Once that shift happens the gm winds up making things worse by becoming the embodiment of "the [DM] is a cheating bastard" for dismissing those guarantees the rules gave their PCs. That adversarial descent doesn't happen the other way around when the GM is dismissing a restrictive rule with a potentially one off or frequent exception.

 

[TheSword]

Not looking to weigh in with agreement or disagreement on the snipped bit, but this deserves a type correction because it ignores the consequences of design that requires the GM to use it just to fix a conflict with "give players what they want"design intent.

When the gm starts using it to subvert design intent and outright reverse irrelivant by design elements so they become relevant it starts creating an adversarial table dynamic where players look for strict Rules As Written and see it with a Rules As A Guarantee. Once that shift happens the gm winds up making things worse by becoming the embodiment of "the [DM] is a cheating bastard" for dismissing those guarantees the rules gave their PCs. That adversarial descent doesn't happen the other way around when the GM is dismissing a restrictive rule with a potentially one off or frequent exception.

I don’t disagree. However I also don’t accept that weight is an irrelevant concept or in opposition to giving players a what they want. I appreciate the merits of this particular instance isn’t your concern but D&D is a referreed game. Interpreting the rules is par for the course.

The designers have sensibly chosen not to be bound to calculate the weight of every living creature in D&D. Probably because it won’t be needed in almost every encounter. Now if that is taken by some as tacit permission to ignore what things weigh then that’s up to them. For me I have carrying capacity rules.

When it is needed the DM can be sensible about it. In the same way they might need to estimate if the PCs want to lift the gold inlayed stature in the nobles manor.

 

[TheSword]

Duplicated

 

[zakael19]

When you're grappling with somebody, you're not picking them up or dragging them around like deadweight. If you were, you wouldn't be grappling. Moving somebody you're actively contesting with as they squirm around and move their feet and try to regain control is a matter of technique and using their own propulsion against them. The reduced movement speed makes sense as somebody who is actively having to work against another creature's attempts to regain control.

Dragging somebody is like, actual dead weight; same thing with carrying.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t disagree. However I also don’t accept that weight is an irrelevant concept or in opposition to giving players a what they want. I appreciate the merits of this particular instance isn’t your concern but D&D is a referreed game. Interpreting the rules is par for the course.

The designers have sensibly chosen not to be bound to calculate the weight of every living creature in D&D. Probably because it won’t be needed in almost every encounter. Now if that is taken by some as tacit permission to ignore what things weigh then that’s up to them. For me I have carrying capacity rules.

When it is needed the DM can be sensible about it. In the same way they might need to estimate if the PCs want to lift the gold inlayed stature in the nobles manor.

I don't think that bold bit is irrelevant and would very much prefer that inventory weight tracking/encumbrance had proper rules+sheet support not intended to nullify their own impact. Just that the 5e mechanics related to it pretty much makes it difficult for weight of things carried in inventory to be meaningful enough for the gm to not look like a jerk trying to force players to track something that the official character sheet doesn't even bother pretending to support as a normal thing for players to track.

I snipped the stuff about creatures and weight because too many associated rules are generally more broadly irrelevant by design far beyond just creature weight and rulings by JC have been a waste of precious milliwatts that could be powering something useful like Terminator T-800 vrs predator fight videos since before those were even a thing. As long as the design encourages rules as a guarantee with a stipulation that the GM could poison things by revoking it there are bigger problems than the poor ais