Shoving a Grappled Creature

[Gale]

I learned recently that if you or someone else is grappled, then you can use the Shove action rather than the Escape a Grapple action in order to separate the creatures, as a grapple ends if the grappler is no longer in reach of whomever they have grappled. This has a distinct advantage as you can Shove as an attack, meaning characters with Extra Attack can make multiple escape attempts on their turn, or if they succeed on their first try then they can attack afterwards.

However, I just realized another quirk of this. Rather than shoving the grappler themselves, you can shove the grappled creature instead to separate them. By doing it this way you can deny the grappler any opportunity to contest. Additionally, the person who is grappled can (probably) choose to willing fail the contested check, or at least use the worse skill between Athletics and Acrobatics in order to maximize the chances of success.

This seems broken to me and I'm not sure whether or not this works according to RAW. Creatures shouldn't be able to cut out the middle man in a grapple by shoving their friend instead. Am I wrong about this interaction? Or is this just an unintended side effect of the shove and grapple rules?

[CheddarChampion]

Yes it's RAW. I'd rule that shoving your friend out of an enemy's grapple should be a contested check between you and the enemy though.

[JonBeowulf]

Yes it's RAW. I'd rule that shoving your friend out of an enemy's grapple should be a contested check between you and the enemy though.

Yep, any other ruling nerfs grappling to the point it should be removed from the game. The DM can do anything the players are allowed to do. Actually, the DM can do more than the players, but freely shoving friends out of a grapple completely invalidates all grappler builds.

[Demonslayer666]

Shoving someone held by another should just spin them around the grappler, rather than break the hold.

It would have to be a violent shove to break a hold, like a tackle.

[BoutsofInsanity]

We do have some guidance on this by the book. Page 195 of the PHB top right corner "Contests in combat". It's a little blurb at the top right corner of the book.

This rule that's written down, lends weight to adjudicating the scenario logically. Over the idea of "RAW', freely shoving a grappled target, letting them fail the opposed check and removing them from grapple. It's a written down rule, but whether it's a RAW or RAI is up to the individual and how you define either term.

Spoiler: Quote Page 195 Contests in Combat

Show

Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM can use these contests as models for improvising others.

In the scenario described

Orc has grappled the wizard. The fighter runs up and shoves the wizard out of the orc's reach. The fighter isn't actually contesting his check against the wizard. He is contesting against the orc. In that case it's opposed athletics versus the orc. I would argue this to be the correct interpretation because the rule book lays out that you can't write down a specific ruling for every action.

[Gale]

We do have some guidance on this by the book. Page 195 of the PHB top right corner "Contests in combat". It's a little blurb at the top right corner of the book.

This rule that's written down, lends weight to adjudicating the scenario logically. Over the idea of "RAW', freely shoving a grappled target, letting them fail the opposed check and removing them from grapple. It's a written down rule, but whether it's a RAW or RAI is up to the individual and how you define either term.

Spoiler: Quote Page 195 Contests in Combat

Show

Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM can use these contests as models for improvising others.

In the scenario described

Orc has grappled the wizard. The fighter runs up and shoves the wizard out of the orc's reach. The fighter isn't actually contesting his check against the wizard. He is contesting against the orc. In that case it's opposed athletics versus the orc. I would argue this to be the correct interpretation because the rule book lays out that you can't write down a specific ruling for every action.

Good point! I thought it made more sense for the contest to be between the shover and the grappler, but didn't know of a way to support that stance with the book. However, the way you put it makes sense. It's clearly not a contested check if the two creatures involved have the same goal, therefore the Shove action as written isn't applicable here. The only logical conclusion is to improvise a new type of contest.

My thought process for a lot of these weird rule interactions is usually, "How would this be adjucated in an official Adventurer's League game?" rather than "How would my DM or I rule this?" I'm curious what things are rules legal even if unbalanced and completely unintended. But I don't think this is really one of those cases when you can say this works according to RAW without ignoring the definition of what a contested check is. You are right that the designers can't possibly account for every type of contested check, and it's clearly up to the DM to fill in the gaps.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Good point! I thought it made more sense for the contest to be between the shover and the grappler, but didn't know of a way to support that stance with the book. However, the way you put it makes sense. It's clearly not a contested check if the two creatures involved have the same goal, therefore the Shove action as written isn't applicable here. The only logical conclusion is to improvise a new type of contest.

My thought process for a lot of these weird rule interactions is usually, "How would this be adjucated in an official Adventurer's League game?" rather than "How would my DM or I rule this?" I'm curious what things are rules legal even if unbalanced and completely unintended. But I don't think this is really one of those cases when you can say this works according to RAW without ignoring the definition of what a contested check is. You are right that the designers can't possibly account for every type of contested check, and it's clearly up to the DM to fill in the gaps.

Just laying my cards fully on the table. I go further than even that interpretation. Because D&D is not a board game or computer game, characters can take actions that aren't described explicitly in the rules in regards to "Contests within Combat".

• Eyepokes
• Prevent material, somatic or verbal components for casting
• Liver shots
• pocket sand
• Feinting

The blurb explicitly calls out that you should attempt to use the model of grapples and shoves for improvising new actions. To me, that describes when players want to do something "special" they simply replace an attack or action with an opposed ability check and forgo damage to inflict a status effect, or achieve some kind of personal benefit. Deciding what those statuses are, is up to the GM.

I think most of the battle master maneuvers provide a good example of what spending attacks to inflict status effects could look like. The Battle Master of course gets to still inflict damage, have an additional dice in to hit or damage, and attacks saving throws instead of opposed checks for spending resources. But the idea that martial characters could have access to a plethora of options outside of swing and hit doesn't seem unrealistic to me. Especially when they are sacrificing damage to do it.

That's my two cents anyway.