D&D 5E Wind Walk and Grappled

[beaumontsebos]

Some folks being Crawford in a serious ruling (Google will turn up the video).

Just found the video. It's interesting he claimed it was intentional that "See Invisibility" doesn't negate the advantage/disadvantage of invisibility. Not to hijack my own thread... but it seems this reduces much of the effectiveness of "See Invisibility". However, it does allow characters to use spells and other "powers" that require you to see your target.

 

[Lanefan]

As a DM, I tend to not infer additional game mechanics to spells or other "powers" unless they are explicit. For me, if Wind Walk was supposed to provide any additional mechanical benefits beyond what's in the spell description, it would say so.

Which might mean you're short-changing your players a bit, in that it would seem the intent is that those inferences be made.

Still comes down to either hasty design (not thinking it all through) or poor writing (not making it clear), though.

 

[Umbran]

Still comes down to either hasty design (not thinking it all through) or poor writing (not making it clear), though.

Neither. 5e was never intended to be Rigorous Rules As Written. There is expectation the GMs will make rulings based on the natural language presented.

In that light, there is nothing wrong with the OP's ruling. It just seems like a missed opportunity for interesting flavor and moments.

 

[beaumontsebos]

Neither. 5e was never intended to be Rigorous Rules As Written. There is expectation the GMs will make rulings based on the natural language presented.

In that light, there is nothing wrong with the OP's ruling. It just seems like a missed opportunity for interesting flavor and moments.

It was interesting and flavorful when they were grappled and about to die while the other characters could do nothing!

 

[Seramus]

It was interesting and flavorful when they were grappled and about to die while the other characters could do nothing!

How did you narrate the grapple?

 

[beaumontsebos]

How did you narrate the grapple?

Like Pecos Bill wrangling a tornado.

 

[Clint_L]

Neither. 5e was never intended to be Rigorous Rules As Written. There is expectation the GMs will make rulings based on the natural language presented.

In that light, there is nothing wrong with the OP's ruling. It just seems like a missed opportunity for interesting flavor and moments.

For me, this is a strength rather than a weakness, but YVMV. It hearkens back to the earlier days of D&D, where it was expected that each table and DM would work out any disagreements for themselves.

 

[MNblockhead]

The enemy was a Breath Drinker. And, for your scenario using gaseous form to adjudicate, I'd give them a STR save with advantage as the gaseous form spell stipulates.

Hmmm...I would probably rule that an aberration with the form like that depicted in the artwork for the Death Drinker could grapple creatures in a gaseous / cloud-like form. But that really isn't based on any RAW. There is nothing in incorporeal movement that would allow this. I would just make it a home rule for some specific creatures, like gaseous aberrations.

I might adjudicate it like a grapple, but describe it more like mini clouds "colliding". If they fail a the str/dex check, then they merge, combined with the grappling gaseous force. If they succeed, maybe both parties to the contest have to take a bit of lightning damage. But that's assuming the Death Drinker is in gaseous form, which is not RAW on the stat block, but makes sense from the art work. For rule of cool, I would home brew it to make for a cool encounter.