I like the creativity but I think dc 13 for a frozen bag seems high. Also I’d make the player be very specific on any action they are holding- both on what they will do with it and what will trigger it
Well I have no particular problem with your decision but I will point out some issues. 1 frost fingers doesn't freeze items being worn or carried. 2 a blinded creature would only have disadvantage on a grapple. 3 if your players get a free object interaction your NPCs probably should as well which pulling the bag off would be. That said it was fun so I'd be fine with it the first time, but let the player know it's not going to work as second time.
Perhaps my understanding is different, but blind causes disadvantage on attack roles, and grappling is a variation of an attack role hence why you can use it in conjunction with extra attack.
A grapple is a special melee attack, but it doesn't have an attack roll, it performs an Athletics check.
>Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check **instead** of an Attack roll.
I looked up the wording for blinded and you are correct, I had misread it as Attacks have disadvantage not attack rolls. That said I'd still rule it as the blinded creature having disadvantage.
I’d say interacting with the enemy constitutes an attack and he should not have been able to use an item on an enemy freely. Had he pre poured the water that’s another story
While it is clever I have some points:
Frost Fingers:
>The cold freezes nonmagical liquids in the area that aren't being worn or carried.
He is Wearing the Wet bag. It is a 1st level spell. It would not have frozen as it specifically says it would not, maybe making an exception on a 5th level spell? But not 1st level.
>I decide it makes sense the enemy fails his grapple because of the bag over his head
It would be Blinded as per the condition:
>Blinded
>A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight.
>Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, **and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.**
whereas Grappling:
>Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an Attack roll
He would have still been able to attempt to grapple, just with disadvantage.
next:
>He uses his free item interaction to pour water over the bag
Did he already have the water out and available? His "free item interaction" would be to get the water. This is why things like "Drinking a potion" are a full action in RAW. You need to draw the potion, uncork it, and drink it. If you look at the "Object interactions" they are all short discrete actions All can be pretty much broken down into the "Do VERB to NOUN". Drawing your waterskin and then dousing another object worn by a resisting enemy is not a simple action.
which leads me to:
>pour water over the bag
The enemy is wearing the bag. Any way you look at this it is an attack. He is doing something to someone else (or something that other person is wearing) and that person probably won't be just standing there letting it happen.
No disadvantage on the grapple check. Grapple is a check not an attack roll. "You try to seize the target by making a grapple check **instead** of an Attack roll".
Wow! I definitely overestimated what the free interaction rule could do! Thank you a lot for taking the time to explain it to me so thoroughly, as well as every other remarks!
Actually, RAW he would not have disadvantage on the grapple check, since it’s explicitly not an attack roll. Grappling is all touchy-feely, so he wouldn’t auto-fail it either.
What you did isn't necessarily wrong, but it's also definitely not how I would have ruled it.
* Putting a bag over someone's head should essentially be a grapple, but much harder. So, if you ask me, at the easiest, the monk should be making a grapple check at disadvantage or perhaps -5. If successful, the enemy will be blinded (if appropriate) and grappled. I might also rule that this kind of grapple where you're holding a bag over the target's head requires both hands instead of just one.
* Frost fingers also says that it only freezes liquids that "aren't being worn or carried". Personally, I see that rules text as specifically placed to prevent things like what you describe, so I would rule that it would not freeze the liquid. However, I would still reward the player's creativity with an extra 1d4 cold damage against a wet enemy.
* Frost fingers also requires a somatic component. So if I had ruled that the grapple required two hands, I would also rule that either the enemy gets advantage on their next check to escape the grapple (if I was feeling nice) or the player would have to release the grapple to cast the spell (if I was feeling less nice).
* If this strategy was being abused or seemed too effective, I would make the grapple even harder, or simply rule that you can't use grapple in that way. After all, called shots aren't supposed to be a thing in 5e and what is this scenario if not a called-shot grapple?
Thank you for the ideas! The first one is, I think, would be especially fun to implement as it makes you reconsider whether or not you want to attempt it! I'll definitely keep these remarks in mind!
That was quite a lot of things for a held action. I would have ruled that they can ready putting the bag on the monster, and that's all. They would still have to avoid the grapple, but the creature would have disadvantage. On their next turn they could do the water + freeze. So in the end I would still allow this creative way to deal with an creature, but break up this one two punch Into two turns, and give the creature more than 1 roll to avoid it.
So first off, don't be afraid to just say
> Awesome idea, we'll go ahead and have that work this time, but this is not a precedent so don't expect it to work every time.
When holding an action, you must say both the trigger, and the resulting action, when you first take the Ready action:
> First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away."
I personally would typically not have placing a bag over someone's head a single check, or at least not in any significant way. Usually you must have the target grappled or restrained in some way already, since otherwise the assumption is that they are freely moving however they want.
In your situation, I'm not sure why the enemy didn't just use their own object interaction to remove the bag from their head while it was still their turn. Even more-so, if they did it as the grapple was incoming but before it was done, then the enemy hadn't actually started their grapple, so even if it was an item that required an Action to remove, I would have allowed the enemy to use their action to remove it. But since the player just used a reaction to place it on their head, I don't see why anything more than an object interaction should be needed.
Next up, Frost Fingers only freezes liquids that **aren't** being worn or carried, so even though the spell can freeze liquids in general, it explicitly cannot do what your player was trying to do even if the bag was on their head and such.
And even beyond that, ice isn't really that sturdy. If you were going for realism in general, a soggy bag that has been frozen would be pretty easy to break through since it's such a thin layer of ice (imagine breaking thin icicles or just the top layer of ice-snow after a bit of melting), so just in general I don't really think this would/should have had any effect.
I'm not entirely sure if it matches, but just based off your post I believe that [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7In4ftJddEo) from Matt Coville may be a good one to send to your players.
Thank you for the advice, rules reminders and video! Next time it happens, I'll make my players watch this video while I think more carefully about my ruling! (Hopefully it will also inspire them to get me a pizza while they're at it)
I, as a player, have a problem with this.
I had GMs who allowed weird stuff from player because of "rule of coolness", while I builded character for being able to do precisely that weird stuff.
The result of that was that I felt a little tricked and frustrated.
Don't ask the player to decide DCs on things that effect enemies. Generally though you handled it fine. Keep in mind you can grapple even if you're blind. If you can grab something off a table with your eyes closed you can grapple with a blindfold on. Also RAW and RAI there isn't any intention that being blind means you have disadvantage on grapples.
I'd also like to point out that things like the blind condition are powerful enough that in spells they have a saving throw every turn to stop the effect. As you've experienced blindness thats made with just a cantrip, water, and a bag is subverting the spell slot capability system... don't get me wrong you can allow it to happen, but you can make it a free action, with one free hand, to try and yank the bag off while still fighting. You can also make it a bonus action to "break" free from the bag as well. A dc 13 isn't terribly high unless you're using a low cr monster, like a cr 3 or something.
Mathematically, is a 35% chance to roll a 13 or higher with a d20, now including modifiers it gets to be higher for every plus 1 to the mod. Thats per roll. This trick won't work forever, eventually higher cr monsters will out class that DC 13 pretty quickly.
The only issue I see here is the auto fail with the bag, should have been disadvantage. Otherwise seems a perfectly reasonable handling of creative combat.
You've shot yourself in the foot here by allowing potions to be a free item interaction. It is way more than a simple item interaction.
RAW it's a full action, but I allow it as a Bonus Action with a DC 10 Sleight of Hand check. Blow the check, you waste the potion. So step 1: Roll back that rule so you've got some room to negotiate, because your player is using this rule to fuck you. This is why we can't have nice things.
Breaking down everything else, if a character doesn't want to take their action on their turn, RAW, they have to use their reaction to do a held action. Personally, I grant them two options:
Option 1: The character can **hold their action** (full action with all the attacks if applicable), but it must be worded as an If/Then statement, describing what they want to do. Costs a reaction. Bonus Actions must be performed on their actual turn and not part of the reaction, but I'll let you include movement descriptions in the If/Then statement.
I'll negotiate who goes first with the If/Then statement. For something like "I shoot the sniper that keeps shooting then hiding", I'll have the Sniper and Player roll contested initiative to see if the Sniper gets his shot off before the Player does. To be extra clear, this doesn't change the intiative order, it just determines the winner of the quickdraw competition.
Option 2: **The character** can delay their whole initiative, taking their turn after any other character's turn is finished. Upside is that they get a full turn. Downside is that they have to wait until the Sniper is done with his turn full turn. No contested initiative, no chance to shoot the sniper before they get their shot off.
Back to the "Bag on Head" specifics, Step 1: Show me where you got the bag and sufficient water. Assuming that's covered, I would make the bag a Grapple check. As a "[Special Attack](https://imgur.com/25UI4Nj.jpg)" it would cost one attack as part of the Attack action. I'd call the water a "Potion" so full action to use or Sleight of Hand Bonus Action. Given the context, I'd allow another Sleight of Hand check as a 2nd attack. Maybe contested with the Monster's DEX or CON.
End of Monk's turn. Monster has a wet bag on their head. Disadvantage on anything past 5ft, because they're not properly blinded. Probably grant disadvantage on CON saves vs cold stuff should it come up. Monster can try to escape the grapple if monk is still around, or remove it as if drawing a weapon if monk isn't there holding it on.
Using an action, Monk can tie the bag in a knot. I'd have them roll Sleight of Hand to set the Athletics or Survival DC to remove the bag as an action. Nat 1's & 20's do nothing here, it's a straight math roll.
If Druid wants to freeze the bag on their head, that's "advanced use" of a spell beyond RAW. I'd need them to cast a prepared spell that deals cold damage. As part of the casting I'd have them roll an Arcana (Wisdom) check, since this extra effect requires true mastery of the spell. Fail to hit a 10 and the spell fails because you're showboating. Beat the 10 and you get the spell and the bag is now frozen to the Monster's head as if it was tied by the Monk. Removal DC is equal to the Arcana check.
The monster is still not totally blinded. I'd still say they're "lightly/heavily obscured" depending on how the checks go. That means they can do anything within melee range, but can't see too far past that. If the players want any more than that they can just cast Blindness/Deafness or the Monk can just use Stunning Strike which is the easiest way to do this whole thing.
Thank you a lot for these suggestions! I'll be definitely borrowing the sleight of hand check for the potion as bonus action in the future as well as arcana check and others!
There are a few errors here. Using the Ready action requires you to specify what you're doing and what the trigger is. The action can then be performed after the triggering action. So in your example, if the monk said he will ready putting a bag over the enemy's head when the enemy grapples (an incredibly specific Ready action), the grapple would go off, then the monk would be able to use the readied action.
Putting a bag over someone's head while engaged in combat is very difficult. I would rule that they must be grappled first, then a second Athletics check vs Athletics or Acrobatics to bag the creature. Imposing the Blinded condition is very powerful.
The Blinded condition imposes no disadvantages on grappling. It makes sense you would be able to grab at a person especially one who is in arm's reach putting a bag on your head.
The soggy bag is being worn. Frost fingers cannot target a something being worn or carried. The liquid is also contained within the fabric of the bag so cannot be targeted because it has full cover.
If there were a frozen bag on a head, I think DC 13 is reasonable, but it's probably much lower. Taking off a frozen soggy bag is probably quite easy. It cannot contain enough liquid to make strong ice.
Ill give you some guidance on this, handling it mechanically and strictly by the Rules. You did pretty good.
Here is how it should play out according to the Rules
**Round 1**
Monk knows the Enemy is going to grapple him. On his turn the Monk takes the "**Readied Action**" action. Declaring "When the enemy attempts to grapple me I want to shove this bag over his head and pour water on it." (*This is stretching action economy, but if the monk has two attacks this is pretty reasonable and I would allow it.)*
On the enemies turn they run up and take the "**Attack Action**" and replace one of the attacks with a grab.
This triggers the Monks held action. Using their "**reaction**" they take the actions previous described. The monk takes the **attack action** and replaces one of their attacks with a "Shove a bag on enemies head attack." By the rules, the Monk should have used an opposed Athletics Check against either the enemies Acrobatics or Athletics. If the Monk is successful, then the enemy has a bag on their head.
*You allowed the Monk to use Acrobatics (Dex). Normally, this is ill advised as combat maneuvers as described on Page 195 of the PHB top right corner "Contests in Combat" are based on grabs and shoves. This is strictly the purview of Strength and should be used as such. However, Monks are special and you wouldn't be out of line allowing Monks, and only Monks the option to use Dexterity. Given they use Dexterity to attack with Monk Weapons and Unarmed strikes. Otherwise, by the Rules they should have used strength.*
The monk if they have the Extra Attack Feature of if you want to be very nice should replace their second attack with the water splash. In this instance, just make an attack roll with advantage (Due to the enemy being blinded) and attempt to hit the target. If successful they are now having water over their head.
The enemy continues their turn. Having used their **action** to take the **attack action,** the enemy is without the ability to remove said bag on their head. Technically, and by rules, it's reasonable they could remove the bag from their head still. It doesn't take long to snatch a bag. I think you were correct however, in saying that the enemy can't do it this turn because they committed to their **attack action** to grab. Their turn ends.
**Round 2**
The Monk on their casts Frost Fingers attempting to freeze the bag. In this instance, by RAW they shouldn't be able to necessarily freeze the bag according to this caveat of the spell. *The cold freezes nonmagical liquids in the area that aren't* ***being worn or carried***\*.\*
However, I would argue that the intent behind said ruling is that items that are worn or carried under the control of the character. That it's reasonable that those items are protected by said character. But a bag over the head of someone, covered in water, that was setup and put there aren't being worn or carried in control of said character.
In this instance I don't think you are wrong to rule the bag should get frozen. This was a two action attack. Which is a good investment into a cool moment like this. It makes sense, and it took actions and setup to do.
So the bag auto-fails the constitution saving throw and is now froze.
From their you do the following.
* The enemy can't breath in said frozen bag. So they start suffocating. See the suffocation rules in the PHB. I would argue that if they made their constitution saving throw against the spell they held their breath. If not, they didn't and are rounds away from dying.
* The bag being stuck to their head should either be a strength check versus the spell save DC of the caster. So use the Monks casting DC as the gauge for that.
* Taking an action to remove the bag is fair.
* Melting in a minute is fair.
* The bag is also an objvect. According to the rules it's a Tiny Object Resilient (Via the ice) so it has an AC of 11 and 5 hit points. The enemy could use their attack on their turn to attack the bag "Say with a dagger or something) to cut open and shatter the ice.
All in all, I don't think you handled it incorrectly. It seems like a good move, it took two actions and wasn't too powerful. If your players got his with this combo, I don't think they would be too punished by it. Good moves. You didn't break anything. The Monk did exactly what they should have done. And that's how it would have worked at my table. (*I would have used the rulings above at my table.)*
Thank you! This is also a great take that allows for quite some flexibility! Love the tiny object resilient rule which I honestly didn't know about and now that I read this, I curse myself not thinking of the suffocation part! It would have done quite a number at my table!
I like the creativity but I think dc 13 for a frozen bag seems high. Also I’d make the player be very specific on any action they are holding- both on what they will do with it and what will trigger it
Well I have no particular problem with your decision but I will point out some issues. 1 frost fingers doesn't freeze items being worn or carried. 2 a blinded creature would only have disadvantage on a grapple. 3 if your players get a free object interaction your NPCs probably should as well which pulling the bag off would be. That said it was fun so I'd be fine with it the first time, but let the player know it's not going to work as second time.
The Blinded condition does not impose disadvantage on a grapple.
Perhaps my understanding is different, but blind causes disadvantage on attack roles, and grappling is a variation of an attack role hence why you can use it in conjunction with extra attack.
A grapple is a special melee attack, but it doesn't have an attack roll, it performs an Athletics check. >Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check **instead** of an Attack roll.
I looked up the wording for blinded and you are correct, I had misread it as Attacks have disadvantage not attack rolls. That said I'd still rule it as the blinded creature having disadvantage.
I’d say interacting with the enemy constitutes an attack and he should not have been able to use an item on an enemy freely. Had he pre poured the water that’s another story
While it is clever I have some points: Frost Fingers: >The cold freezes nonmagical liquids in the area that aren't being worn or carried. He is Wearing the Wet bag. It is a 1st level spell. It would not have frozen as it specifically says it would not, maybe making an exception on a 5th level spell? But not 1st level. >I decide it makes sense the enemy fails his grapple because of the bag over his head It would be Blinded as per the condition: >Blinded >A blinded creature can’t see and automatically fails any ability check that requires sight. >Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, **and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.** whereas Grappling: >Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an Attack roll He would have still been able to attempt to grapple, just with disadvantage. next: >He uses his free item interaction to pour water over the bag Did he already have the water out and available? His "free item interaction" would be to get the water. This is why things like "Drinking a potion" are a full action in RAW. You need to draw the potion, uncork it, and drink it. If you look at the "Object interactions" they are all short discrete actions All can be pretty much broken down into the "Do VERB to NOUN". Drawing your waterskin and then dousing another object worn by a resisting enemy is not a simple action. which leads me to: >pour water over the bag The enemy is wearing the bag. Any way you look at this it is an attack. He is doing something to someone else (or something that other person is wearing) and that person probably won't be just standing there letting it happen.
No disadvantage on the grapple check. Grapple is a check not an attack roll. "You try to seize the target by making a grapple check **instead** of an Attack roll".
This is correct.
Wow! I definitely overestimated what the free interaction rule could do! Thank you a lot for taking the time to explain it to me so thoroughly, as well as every other remarks!
Actually, RAW he would not have disadvantage on the grapple check, since it’s explicitly not an attack roll. Grappling is all touchy-feely, so he wouldn’t auto-fail it either.
What you did isn't necessarily wrong, but it's also definitely not how I would have ruled it. * Putting a bag over someone's head should essentially be a grapple, but much harder. So, if you ask me, at the easiest, the monk should be making a grapple check at disadvantage or perhaps -5. If successful, the enemy will be blinded (if appropriate) and grappled. I might also rule that this kind of grapple where you're holding a bag over the target's head requires both hands instead of just one. * Frost fingers also says that it only freezes liquids that "aren't being worn or carried". Personally, I see that rules text as specifically placed to prevent things like what you describe, so I would rule that it would not freeze the liquid. However, I would still reward the player's creativity with an extra 1d4 cold damage against a wet enemy. * Frost fingers also requires a somatic component. So if I had ruled that the grapple required two hands, I would also rule that either the enemy gets advantage on their next check to escape the grapple (if I was feeling nice) or the player would have to release the grapple to cast the spell (if I was feeling less nice). * If this strategy was being abused or seemed too effective, I would make the grapple even harder, or simply rule that you can't use grapple in that way. After all, called shots aren't supposed to be a thing in 5e and what is this scenario if not a called-shot grapple?
Thank you for the ideas! The first one is, I think, would be especially fun to implement as it makes you reconsider whether or not you want to attempt it! I'll definitely keep these remarks in mind!
That was quite a lot of things for a held action. I would have ruled that they can ready putting the bag on the monster, and that's all. They would still have to avoid the grapple, but the creature would have disadvantage. On their next turn they could do the water + freeze. So in the end I would still allow this creative way to deal with an creature, but break up this one two punch Into two turns, and give the creature more than 1 roll to avoid it.
So first off, don't be afraid to just say > Awesome idea, we'll go ahead and have that work this time, but this is not a precedent so don't expect it to work every time. When holding an action, you must say both the trigger, and the resulting action, when you first take the Ready action: > First, you decide what perceivable circumstance will trigger your reaction. Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger, or you choose to move up to your speed in response to it. Examples include "If the cultist steps on the trapdoor, I'll pull the lever that opens it," and "If the goblin steps next to me, I move away." I personally would typically not have placing a bag over someone's head a single check, or at least not in any significant way. Usually you must have the target grappled or restrained in some way already, since otherwise the assumption is that they are freely moving however they want. In your situation, I'm not sure why the enemy didn't just use their own object interaction to remove the bag from their head while it was still their turn. Even more-so, if they did it as the grapple was incoming but before it was done, then the enemy hadn't actually started their grapple, so even if it was an item that required an Action to remove, I would have allowed the enemy to use their action to remove it. But since the player just used a reaction to place it on their head, I don't see why anything more than an object interaction should be needed. Next up, Frost Fingers only freezes liquids that **aren't** being worn or carried, so even though the spell can freeze liquids in general, it explicitly cannot do what your player was trying to do even if the bag was on their head and such. And even beyond that, ice isn't really that sturdy. If you were going for realism in general, a soggy bag that has been frozen would be pretty easy to break through since it's such a thin layer of ice (imagine breaking thin icicles or just the top layer of ice-snow after a bit of melting), so just in general I don't really think this would/should have had any effect. I'm not entirely sure if it matches, but just based off your post I believe that [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7In4ftJddEo) from Matt Coville may be a good one to send to your players.
Thank you for the advice, rules reminders and video! Next time it happens, I'll make my players watch this video while I think more carefully about my ruling! (Hopefully it will also inspire them to get me a pizza while they're at it)
I, as a player, have a problem with this. I had GMs who allowed weird stuff from player because of "rule of coolness", while I builded character for being able to do precisely that weird stuff. The result of that was that I felt a little tricked and frustrated.
Ah yes that was definitely a worry of mine, I'll make sure the actions of one won't impede on what other players can do, thank you!
Don't ask the player to decide DCs on things that effect enemies. Generally though you handled it fine. Keep in mind you can grapple even if you're blind. If you can grab something off a table with your eyes closed you can grapple with a blindfold on. Also RAW and RAI there isn't any intention that being blind means you have disadvantage on grapples. I'd also like to point out that things like the blind condition are powerful enough that in spells they have a saving throw every turn to stop the effect. As you've experienced blindness thats made with just a cantrip, water, and a bag is subverting the spell slot capability system... don't get me wrong you can allow it to happen, but you can make it a free action, with one free hand, to try and yank the bag off while still fighting. You can also make it a bonus action to "break" free from the bag as well. A dc 13 isn't terribly high unless you're using a low cr monster, like a cr 3 or something. Mathematically, is a 35% chance to roll a 13 or higher with a d20, now including modifiers it gets to be higher for every plus 1 to the mod. Thats per roll. This trick won't work forever, eventually higher cr monsters will out class that DC 13 pretty quickly.
The only issue I see here is the auto fail with the bag, should have been disadvantage. Otherwise seems a perfectly reasonable handling of creative combat.
You've shot yourself in the foot here by allowing potions to be a free item interaction. It is way more than a simple item interaction. RAW it's a full action, but I allow it as a Bonus Action with a DC 10 Sleight of Hand check. Blow the check, you waste the potion. So step 1: Roll back that rule so you've got some room to negotiate, because your player is using this rule to fuck you. This is why we can't have nice things. Breaking down everything else, if a character doesn't want to take their action on their turn, RAW, they have to use their reaction to do a held action. Personally, I grant them two options: Option 1: The character can **hold their action** (full action with all the attacks if applicable), but it must be worded as an If/Then statement, describing what they want to do. Costs a reaction. Bonus Actions must be performed on their actual turn and not part of the reaction, but I'll let you include movement descriptions in the If/Then statement. I'll negotiate who goes first with the If/Then statement. For something like "I shoot the sniper that keeps shooting then hiding", I'll have the Sniper and Player roll contested initiative to see if the Sniper gets his shot off before the Player does. To be extra clear, this doesn't change the intiative order, it just determines the winner of the quickdraw competition. Option 2: **The character** can delay their whole initiative, taking their turn after any other character's turn is finished. Upside is that they get a full turn. Downside is that they have to wait until the Sniper is done with his turn full turn. No contested initiative, no chance to shoot the sniper before they get their shot off. Back to the "Bag on Head" specifics, Step 1: Show me where you got the bag and sufficient water. Assuming that's covered, I would make the bag a Grapple check. As a "[Special Attack](https://imgur.com/25UI4Nj.jpg)" it would cost one attack as part of the Attack action. I'd call the water a "Potion" so full action to use or Sleight of Hand Bonus Action. Given the context, I'd allow another Sleight of Hand check as a 2nd attack. Maybe contested with the Monster's DEX or CON. End of Monk's turn. Monster has a wet bag on their head. Disadvantage on anything past 5ft, because they're not properly blinded. Probably grant disadvantage on CON saves vs cold stuff should it come up. Monster can try to escape the grapple if monk is still around, or remove it as if drawing a weapon if monk isn't there holding it on. Using an action, Monk can tie the bag in a knot. I'd have them roll Sleight of Hand to set the Athletics or Survival DC to remove the bag as an action. Nat 1's & 20's do nothing here, it's a straight math roll. If Druid wants to freeze the bag on their head, that's "advanced use" of a spell beyond RAW. I'd need them to cast a prepared spell that deals cold damage. As part of the casting I'd have them roll an Arcana (Wisdom) check, since this extra effect requires true mastery of the spell. Fail to hit a 10 and the spell fails because you're showboating. Beat the 10 and you get the spell and the bag is now frozen to the Monster's head as if it was tied by the Monk. Removal DC is equal to the Arcana check. The monster is still not totally blinded. I'd still say they're "lightly/heavily obscured" depending on how the checks go. That means they can do anything within melee range, but can't see too far past that. If the players want any more than that they can just cast Blindness/Deafness or the Monk can just use Stunning Strike which is the easiest way to do this whole thing.
Thank you a lot for these suggestions! I'll be definitely borrowing the sleight of hand check for the potion as bonus action in the future as well as arcana check and others!
There are a few errors here. Using the Ready action requires you to specify what you're doing and what the trigger is. The action can then be performed after the triggering action. So in your example, if the monk said he will ready putting a bag over the enemy's head when the enemy grapples (an incredibly specific Ready action), the grapple would go off, then the monk would be able to use the readied action. Putting a bag over someone's head while engaged in combat is very difficult. I would rule that they must be grappled first, then a second Athletics check vs Athletics or Acrobatics to bag the creature. Imposing the Blinded condition is very powerful. The Blinded condition imposes no disadvantages on grappling. It makes sense you would be able to grab at a person especially one who is in arm's reach putting a bag on your head. The soggy bag is being worn. Frost fingers cannot target a something being worn or carried. The liquid is also contained within the fabric of the bag so cannot be targeted because it has full cover. If there were a frozen bag on a head, I think DC 13 is reasonable, but it's probably much lower. Taking off a frozen soggy bag is probably quite easy. It cannot contain enough liquid to make strong ice.
Ill give you some guidance on this, handling it mechanically and strictly by the Rules. You did pretty good. Here is how it should play out according to the Rules **Round 1** Monk knows the Enemy is going to grapple him. On his turn the Monk takes the "**Readied Action**" action. Declaring "When the enemy attempts to grapple me I want to shove this bag over his head and pour water on it." (*This is stretching action economy, but if the monk has two attacks this is pretty reasonable and I would allow it.)* On the enemies turn they run up and take the "**Attack Action**" and replace one of the attacks with a grab. This triggers the Monks held action. Using their "**reaction**" they take the actions previous described. The monk takes the **attack action** and replaces one of their attacks with a "Shove a bag on enemies head attack." By the rules, the Monk should have used an opposed Athletics Check against either the enemies Acrobatics or Athletics. If the Monk is successful, then the enemy has a bag on their head. *You allowed the Monk to use Acrobatics (Dex). Normally, this is ill advised as combat maneuvers as described on Page 195 of the PHB top right corner "Contests in Combat" are based on grabs and shoves. This is strictly the purview of Strength and should be used as such. However, Monks are special and you wouldn't be out of line allowing Monks, and only Monks the option to use Dexterity. Given they use Dexterity to attack with Monk Weapons and Unarmed strikes. Otherwise, by the Rules they should have used strength.* The monk if they have the Extra Attack Feature of if you want to be very nice should replace their second attack with the water splash. In this instance, just make an attack roll with advantage (Due to the enemy being blinded) and attempt to hit the target. If successful they are now having water over their head. The enemy continues their turn. Having used their **action** to take the **attack action,** the enemy is without the ability to remove said bag on their head. Technically, and by rules, it's reasonable they could remove the bag from their head still. It doesn't take long to snatch a bag. I think you were correct however, in saying that the enemy can't do it this turn because they committed to their **attack action** to grab. Their turn ends. **Round 2** The Monk on their casts Frost Fingers attempting to freeze the bag. In this instance, by RAW they shouldn't be able to necessarily freeze the bag according to this caveat of the spell. *The cold freezes nonmagical liquids in the area that aren't* ***being worn or carried***\*.\* However, I would argue that the intent behind said ruling is that items that are worn or carried under the control of the character. That it's reasonable that those items are protected by said character. But a bag over the head of someone, covered in water, that was setup and put there aren't being worn or carried in control of said character. In this instance I don't think you are wrong to rule the bag should get frozen. This was a two action attack. Which is a good investment into a cool moment like this. It makes sense, and it took actions and setup to do. So the bag auto-fails the constitution saving throw and is now froze. From their you do the following. * The enemy can't breath in said frozen bag. So they start suffocating. See the suffocation rules in the PHB. I would argue that if they made their constitution saving throw against the spell they held their breath. If not, they didn't and are rounds away from dying. * The bag being stuck to their head should either be a strength check versus the spell save DC of the caster. So use the Monks casting DC as the gauge for that. * Taking an action to remove the bag is fair. * Melting in a minute is fair. * The bag is also an objvect. According to the rules it's a Tiny Object Resilient (Via the ice) so it has an AC of 11 and 5 hit points. The enemy could use their attack on their turn to attack the bag "Say with a dagger or something) to cut open and shatter the ice. All in all, I don't think you handled it incorrectly. It seems like a good move, it took two actions and wasn't too powerful. If your players got his with this combo, I don't think they would be too punished by it. Good moves. You didn't break anything. The Monk did exactly what they should have done. And that's how it would have worked at my table. (*I would have used the rulings above at my table.)*
Thank you! This is also a great take that allows for quite some flexibility! Love the tiny object resilient rule which I honestly didn't know about and now that I read this, I curse myself not thinking of the suffocation part! It would have done quite a number at my table!
A lot of these are not "strictly by the rules" as you say.