Grappling and spellcasting

[Demonic Spoon]

As far as I know, there is no RAW mechanism for a grapple to stop a caster from spellcasting. Similarly, aside from disadvantage on spell attacks, being prone doesn't seem to do it either.

What does the Playground think about this? Should casting a spell with a somatic component be limited while grappled? Should it force a concentration check?

[GiantOctopodes]

My personal feeling is that a spell with somatic components should be impossible while grappled or otherwise restrained, in the same way that a spell with verbal components is impossible in a zone of silence. It would definitely be a houserule, of course, but that makes logical sense to me- while grappled, or in a net, or what have you, the kind of precise movements required would be hampered at best, or impossible at worst, and for the sake of cleanliness I'd rather disallow it entirely than deal with it on a situation by situation basis.

[Daishain]

I think only the pinned condition removes the ability to make rude gestures and somatic components. Up until that point you're basically just holding onto them, not restraining their arms.

However, I do think its a bit ridiculous that you have to take a feat in order to figure out how to grab someone's arm and would likely allow anyone to inflict the pinned condition, possibly with a penalty of some kind to the check.

Likewise, being jerked around by a big brute is not going to be easy on one's ability to concentrate. Yes, I'd say it forces a check.

Main thing I'd be cautious of though, if one makes it too simple to interrupt spellcasting this way, it won't take long before your average fight with spellcasters devolves into the WWF.

[GiantOctopodes]

I think only the pinned condition removes the ability to make rude gestures and somatic components. Up until that point you're basically just holding onto them, not restraining their arms.

However, I do think its a bit ridiculous that you have to take a feat in order to figure out how to grab someone's arm and would likely allow anyone to inflict the pinned condition, possibly with a penalty of some kind to the check.

Likewise, being jerked around by a big brute is not going to be easy on one's ability to concentrate. Yes, I'd say it forces a check.

Main thing I'd be cautious of though, if one makes it too simple to interrupt spellcasting this way, it won't take long before your average fight with spellcasters devolves into the WWF.

The thing is, being in the pinned inflicts the restrained condition. As such, I assume you have no issues with other effects that cause the restrained condition also prohibiting somatic gestures, which would include entangle, entangling strike, evard's black tentacles, etc. So that means that in spellcaster vs spellcaster warfare, you have made it more complex and interesting, with more possible counters to each other, but unless someone is a grappler, you have made it impossible for them to cause the same kind of impact, barring the use of a net (the weakest method of restraining someone ever). Pinning someone requires being adjacent to them and also accepting the restrained condition yourself (which means automatic advantage on all attacks against you, and disadvantage on your dex saves), so it's not like it's guaranteed that it is a wise course of action, even when it's possible. If you were to go that route, I would definitely say you should give everyone the ability to pin, without any sort of penalties on the roll.

From my perspective, sure, grappling may be just holding on to them, but if it's a wizard, why not hold them by the arm or hand, specifically to reduce their ability to spellcast? I look at what you would likely do with a spellcaster, and short of killing them, gagging and binding them, and taking away their component pouch while you're at it, seems like the way to go, but I don't want to force a party to have a dedicated grappler to get that done. Thus my including the grappled condition in that which precludes spells with somatic components.

[Giant2005]

Grappled spellcasters performing Somatic components of spells doesn't make a lot of sense but it doesn't make less sense than someone wielding a Polearm while grappled. If you want to inject a bit more reality into the grappled condition, it would require a massive overhaul and be both extremely detailed and cumbersome.
I prefer the simplicity that we have, even at the expense of verisimilitude.

[Mellack]

Grappling is just a simple mechanic for trying to show you have a hold of someone. It is grabbing the front of their robe. Trying to grab a hand would be much more difficult, probably why it requires a feat. If you let people automatically have the casters hand, why not allow other called shots for free. Why would they not instead be able to say I grabbed their throat and now they can't make any sounds? For that matter, why can they only make that kind of called shot in grappling? Is stabbing a dagger that different from grabbing? We don't have that level of target specificity with weapons, why would they when grabbing?

[silveralen]

Being able to choose to restrain someone should just be part of grappling mechanics imo. I feel like the entire feat should've just been part of the basic rules. The fact half of it was basically made unneeded by making it a default part of the rules makes house the feat away as part of default combat ability pretty justifiable.

I do think it odd that you don't have a good way to shut down spellcasting. Even with mage slayer, the attack doesn't force a concentration save unless the spell is concentration, or really disrupt the spell casting in any way. Even if you are a battle master who uses that reaction to knock them prone, they still don't (by raw) struggle to cast it normally. It's odd and bothers me somewhat.

[Gwendol]

Grapple them in a Silence area of effect and silently snicker as they try to form the vocal part of spellcasting.
Grappling is truly a great tactic vs spellcasters.

[GiantOctopodes]

Grappling is just a simple mechanic for trying to show you have a hold of someone. It is grabbing the front of their robe. Trying to grab a hand would be much more difficult, probably why it requires a feat. If you let people automatically have the casters hand, why not allow other called shots for free. Why would they not instead be able to say I grabbed their throat and now they can't make any sounds? For that matter, why can they only make that kind of called shot in grappling? Is stabbing a dagger that different from grabbing? We don't have that level of target specificity with weapons, why would they when grabbing?

A fair point, and combined with Silveralen's excellent post above, I revise my stance. My own houserules would give everyone the effects of the grappler feat for free (make it part of the basic rules), and make the restrained condition eliminate the ability to spellcast with somatic components.

I will also add in a gag, in two flavors: A basic one (minimal cost) which prevents the target from speaking or casting spells with verbal components, used in the same manner as tying someone up with rope or using manacles. That one will have 'anyone, including the person currently wearing the gag, can remove it with the Interact with Object action, unless they are restrained', and then a metal one which seals and locks and contains horrible mechanisms for preventing the jaw from working properly. That one will be at least twice as expensive as manacles, and follow the same rules in terms of breaking it or picking the lock to remove it.

[Mellack]

Is there any equivalent way that stops martial attacks? Prone or restrained gives disadvantage, but I don't think that there is anything that would just say you cannot attack at all (that would not stop all actions, such as unconscious.) Would posters who say that characters cannot cast also rule that weapon attacks are likewise impossible? I would think wielding a mace would require quite a bit of freedom to make a swing.

[Demonic Spoon]

What if a target is shoved prone and grappled? It has similar effects to being restrained. If you wanted to allow everyone to pin, it may be better to replace an Attack rather than a full action

[Giant2005]

A fair point, and combined with Silveralen's excellent post above, I revise my stance. My own houserules would give everyone the effects of the grappler feat for free (make it part of the basic rules), and make the restrained condition eliminate the ability to spellcast with somatic components.

I will also add in a gag, in two flavors: A basic one (minimal cost) which prevents the target from speaking or casting spells with verbal components, used in the same manner as tying someone up with rope or using manacles. That one will have 'anyone, including the person currently wearing the gag, can remove it with the Interact with Object action, unless they are restrained', and then a metal one which seals and locks and contains horrible mechanisms for preventing the jaw from working properly. That one will be at least twice as expensive as manacles, and follow the same rules in terms of breaking it or picking the lock to remove it.

If you are going to do that, you should also house-rule that restrained people can't attack with any weapon that doesn't have the light property too.

[Eslin]

If you are going to do that, you should also house-rule that restrained people can't attack with any weapon that doesn't have the light property too.

Seconded. Attacking with a halberd when being grappled is just as silly as casting during it.

[GiantOctopodes]

If you are going to do that, you should also house-rule that restrained people can't attack with any weapon that doesn't have the light property too.

100% agreed, and done. I also think it adds to verisimilitude (desirable but not a primary goal) in that it supports people having a backup or "holdout" dagger or similar, which they can draw when they are otherwise restrained to cut away at the thing preventing them from making a proper swing. Their movements are still limited, so still disadvantage, but it's not possible for them to just wield a polearm in all situations regardless of circumstances, which I find to be an acceptable consequence. Of note, the actual houserule would be that they can only attack with weapons that have the light property, or with unarmed or natural attacks.

Anything else that would need to be modified or should be taken into consideration?

[jaydubs]

My opinion, if verisimilitude is one of your stated goals.

Somatic components only require 1 free hand. A grappler would need both hands to secure both hands of a struggling opponent. So a grappler trying to prevent spell-casting would be left unable to wield any weapons himself, unless he was a creature with more than 2 arms (or was fighting a creature with less than 2 arms). Pinning could get around this, as it suggests a more advantageous position.

I'm not an expert on the topic, but most of the real-life grappling holds I've seen don't involve neutralizing both arms. You can even try it with a friend. See how long it takes you to get him in a position where he can't hold one arm away from you while waggling his fingers - probably much harder than you'd imagine.

[Demonic Spoon]

How about grappling invokes a concentration contest against the Athletics check of the grapple, and the grappler can pin as an attack in order to stop spellcasting?

[MadGrady]

And what happens if the tentacles have grabbed your foot (more realistic in my mind since your speed drops). That doesn't mean my hands aren't free to cast something against that tentacle.

I think the point here Im trying to make is that it very likely might be situational. Does the situation make sense to impose disadvantage or a concentration check? If so go with - players beware the more powerful DM muahhahahaha

If it doesn't let em cast!

[Slipperychicken]

Why not just require a concentration check, like in 3.5? If the caster makes his con save, that means he manages to eke out the somatic component despite the grapple. If he's restrained, then impose disadvantage on the concentration check.

[Kyutaru]

Considering armor was deemed so hindering to magical somatic components that there has always been a measure of spell failure, I doubt any caster can eke out anything while being grappled. If any Joe Someboy could flick his wrist in such a way and cause a fireball to appear, wizards wouldn't be anything special. The fact is that casting a spell requires extremely precise motions that you simply cannot produce while being grappled, and even if you succeed in producing them I'd say there's a similar high chance of spell failure.

I can't imagine being grappled would restrict your ability to make fluid motion LESS than armor would.

[Giant2005]

Considering armor was deemed so hindering to magical somatic components that there has always been a measure of spell failure, I doubt any caster can eke out anything while being grappled. If any Joe Someboy could flick his wrist in such a way and cause a fireball to appear, wizards wouldn't be anything special. The fact is that casting a spell requires extremely precise motions that you simply cannot produce while being grappled, and even if you succeed in producing them I'd say there's a similar high chance of spell failure.

I can't imagine being grappled would restrict your ability to make fluid motion LESS than armor would.

Armor doesn't impede spellcasting in 5e.

[Kyutaru]

Armor doesn't impede spellcasting in 5e.

It disables it completely. Kinda of impeding, no?

[Giant2005]

It disables it completely. Kinda of impeding, no?

Nah, in 5e you can cast without penalty in any armor you are proficient in.

[Mellack]

You can cast in plate, if proficient. You also only need one hand free. Not even that if you take warcaster. Also note, that since there was never any discussion about what kind of spells were being cast, clerics have cast in all armors pretty much forever.

[Slipperychicken]

Nah, in 5e you can cast without penalty in any armor you are proficient in.

I can't imagine that many spellcasters are proficient with men and monsters who are actively trying to wrestle or crush them to death.

[Talin]

As far as I know, there is no RAW mechanism for a grapple to stop a caster from spellcasting. Similarly, aside from disadvantage on spell attacks, being prone doesn't seem to do it either.

What does the Playground think about this? Should casting a spell with a somatic component be limited while grappled? Should it force a concentration check?

Personally I say as far as grappling goes, that when you grapple a spell caster you decide how you are holding them (So a choke-hold to block out verbal, and like arm-locks or nelson holds to keep them from using somatic components), but I leave in the whole advantage on rolls and "against size class larger than you" bits into the feat. As far as the pinning bit goes I say that it does take a bit of strength to get a grappled guy to the ground (I used to wrestle in high school and even if someone is grappled it doesn't mean you are gonna pin em). So that being said here's what I say.

No Grappler Feat: When a spell-caster is grappled the Grappler decides one of the two components to stop as long as he maintains the grapple.

Grappler Feat: While the grappler has the spell-caster he can pin them and then as long as they are pinned both casting conditions are blocked out, ontop of the other features of the feat.

[Gwendol]

I can't imagine that many spellcasters are proficient with men and monsters who are actively trying to wrestle or crush them to death.

Agreed. Also, divine casting has been said to have much simpler somatic components, thus allowing casting in armor.

[jaydubs]

I get the feeling a lot of people are having trouble letting go of past editions when playing 5e. On the one hand, this thread is full of people who are looking at somatic components from what appears to be a 3rd edition perspective. On the other, I had someone telling me the other day how wrong it felt that a wizard couldn't fly and be invisible at the same time, due to concentration.

Lots of things about magic changed from 3.x to 5e. Casters get less high level spell slots. Battlefield control, buffing, and summoning are much more limited. Is it really so hard to believe that somatic components are just meant to be simpler (and therefore harder to disrupt) in 5e? Think coordination on the level sign language, or flipping someone the bird, where the purpose is for the gesture to be understandable, rather than surgery where minor disruptions cause failure.

[Gwendol]

This the current description of somatic components:


Somatic (S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful
gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell
requires a somatic component, the caster must have free
use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Free use is a stricter requirement than a free hand. There is an argument to be made that the DM can judge the grapple to restrict hand movements, and thus not allowing spells with somatic components to be cast.



Restrained
• A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t
benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage,
and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.
• The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity
saving throws.

The easiest way to mess with spellcasters when grappling is to ready an attack to hit them as soon as they try to start casting. Push them prone and gain advantage on the attack. Since they can't stand up while grappled, they have a hard time ending the advantage. The second easiest is to do it in a zone of silence.

[GiantOctopodes]

I get the feeling a lot of people are having trouble letting go of past editions when playing 5e. On the one hand, this thread is full of people who are looking at somatic components from what appears to be a 3rd edition perspective. On the other, I had someone telling me the other day how wrong it felt that a wizard couldn't fly and be invisible at the same time, due to concentration.

Lots of things about magic changed from 3.x to 5e. Casters get less high level spell slots. Battlefield control, buffing, and summoning are much more limited. Is it really so hard to believe that somatic components are just meant to be simpler (and therefore harder to disrupt) in 5e? Think coordination on the level sign language, or flipping someone the bird, where the purpose is for the gesture to be understandable, rather than surgery where minor disruptions cause failure.

For me, it's more about wanting two things:

- More options in combat, to make it so players have more interesting things to do with their actions, if they feel so inclined, other than necessarily just attack.

- A way to successfully capture spellcasters alive. I want there to be a means by which a character can bind and gag the spellcaster and strip them of their component pouch, and actually take a spellcaster into custody without having to beat said caster unconscious and keep them unconscious at all times to prevent them from casting spells. It's important to me from the stand point of verisimilitude (as otherwise casters would either reign supreme due to being outside of the ability of justice to bring them to trial, or killed on sight upon committing a crime as they're too dangerous to be kept alive) and from the standpoint of giving characters and NPCs more options for what to do beyond just knocking someone unconscious or killing them through HP damage.

The restrained condition seems like a great way to accomplish those goals.

[jaydubs]

Free use is a stricter requirement than a free hand. There is an argument to be made that the DM can judge the grapple to restrict hand movements, and thus not allowing spells with somatic components to be cast.

First of all, "free hand" is no longer a term of art for 5e. It's almost not used at all, and even then just used colloquially.

Even if it were, are you really making the argument that having "free use of a hand" is totally different from having "a free hand?" And the writers chose to highlight the difference by using extremely similar language and then never speaking of it again?


The easiest way to mess with spellcasters when grappling is to ready an attack to hit them as soon as they try to start casting. Push them prone and gain advantage on the attack. Since they can't stand up while grappled, they have a hard time ending the advantage. The second easiest is to do it in a zone of silence.

How so? If you ready an attack to hit them as soon as they start casting, that only stops the spell if you knock them unconscious with that attack. Concentration checks are now limited to concentration spells.

[jaydubs]

For me, it's more about wanting two things:

- More options in combat, to make it so players have more interesting things to do with their actions, if they feel so inclined, other than necessarily just attack.



I can appreciate that.


- A way to successfully capture spellcasters alive. I want there to be a means by which a character can bind and gag the spellcaster and strip them of their component pouch, and actually take a spellcaster into custody without having to beat said caster unconscious and keep them unconscious at all times to prevent them from casting spells. It's important to me from the stand point of verisimilitude (as otherwise casters would either reign supreme due to being outside of the ability of justice to bring them to trial, or killed on sight upon committing a crime as they're too dangerous to be kept alive) and from the standpoint of giving characters and NPCs more options for what to do beyond just knocking someone unconscious or killing them through HP damage.

The restrained condition seems like a great way to accomplish those goals.

Remember that it's extremely easy to capture people alive in 5e. It basically means saying "I don't want them dead" when you knock them to 0 hit points with a melee attack.

As for going beyond binding, gagging, and removing their component pouch, I don't think there's anyone arguing that that wouldn't prevent spellcasting, except against certain class features (like Archdruid for level 20 druids).

Edit: I missed that last bit. Misreading on my part. I don't really have an objection to the idea that anyone can pin as per the grappler feat. Or that restrained as inflicted by the grappler feat could interfere with spellcasting. But in my mind, regular "grappled" is basically just holding onto someone.

The other thing that bothers me is the constant reference to older editions as the way things are "supposed to be." Don't get me wrong, I still really like playing 3.x. I just like 5e as a different experience.

[Demonic Spoon]

Remember that it's extremely easy to capture people alive in 5e. It basically means saying "I don't want them dead" when you knock them to 0 hit points with a melee attack.

As for going beyond binding, gagging, and removing their component pouch, I don't think there's anyone arguing that that wouldn't prevent spellcasting, except against certain class features (like Archdruid for level 20 druids).

He addressed capturing people alive via beating them unconscious.

The problem is that there is currently no mechanism sans the Grappler feat to actually bind and gag someone who is resisting.

[jkat718]

The easiest way to mess with spellcasters when grappling is to ready an attack to hit them as soon as they try to start casting. Push them prone and gain advantage on the attack. Since they can't stand up while grappled, they have a hard time ending the advantage. The second easiest is to do it in a zone of silence.

I was going to point out that Readied Actions occur after the trigger, but it seems like you already know that, because you specified after they "try to start casting," which IMO is a slightly underhanded way to get around that rule. However, I am interested in whether that would work. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it, but as a player… :smallamused:

[GiantOctopodes]

Edit: I missed that last bit. Misreading on my part. I don't really have an objection to the idea that anyone can pin as per the grappler feat. Or that restrained as inflicted by the grappler feat could interfere with spellcasting. But in my mind, regular "grappled" is basically just holding onto someone.

The other thing that bothers me is the constant reference to older editions as the way things are "supposed to be." Don't get me wrong, I still really like playing 3.x. I just like 5e as a different experience.

100% agreed, on both counts. Originally I was thinking that grappled should also do it, but 1) that's too easy, and 2) as you said, grappling basically just means you have a hold on them, nothing more. And in terms of using older editions as a reference, on the one hand I can see using them as a model or baseline when attempting to flesh out the rules a bit if and where you feel it is needed (after all, if there's one thing 3.5 has in abundance, it's rules), but in terms of how things are "supposed to be", well, there are hundreds of different tabletop RPGs out there, some of which bear a marked resemblance to 3.5 (such as pathfinder) and some of which have little to no similarity at all. I wouldn't, while playing Deathwatch, say "but in D&D 3.5 things are this way", so I wouldn't accept as valid someone making the same argument in 5e either. It is its own game, and stands on its own merits, and if 3.5 is what people want to play, they can still do so.

I do think that one of the merits of 5e is what I personally perceive as the elegant simplicity of its rules, and since in many (really virtually all) game systems I've played in grappling is a complex thing rarely understood or used by the players I hesitate to touch it at all, but giving people a feat for free and modifying the restrained condition to include "while restrained, you cannot cast a spell with a somatic component, and you can only make attacks with weapons with the light quality, or with unarmed or natural attacks" seems like a light enough touch to not do too much damage.

[Talderas]

He addressed capturing people alive via beating them unconscious.

The problem is that there is currently no mechanism sans the Grappler feat to actually bind and gag someone who is resisting.

This is where spellcasters on your side are extremely useful. Have a melee character grapple a caster. The caster now has 0ft movement speed. Both characters are still free to attack. Have on of your allies cast silence centered on the caster. The enemy caster is now unable to cast a majority of his spells unless they lack a verbal component.

[Demonic Spoon]

This is where spellcasters on your side are extremely useful. Have a melee character grapple a caster. The caster now has 0ft movement speed. Both characters are still free to attack. Have on of your allies cast silence centered on the caster. The enemy caster is now unable to cast a majority of his spells unless they lack a verbal component.

Let's put aside this talk of spellcasters for the moment.

RAW, there is no way to pin and restrain a person. You cannot grapple someone and actually restrain them. Doesn't matter if you have 20 strength and they have 8, the most you can do is knock them down and hold onto them. Does that seem right to you?

[DireSickFish]

I don't think grappling should shut down casters anymore. In 3.5 a lot of situations could be solved that were otherwise mechanically challenging by just swarming a person and and holding them down. It wasn't lateral thinking so much as abusing an over complicated subset of rules abuse.

You completely take away all of the spellcasters agency when you make him subdue able by a simple grapple check int his edition. Beating him unconscious is a perfectly good and serviceable way to capture spellcasters. Especially since anyone that would be grappling him is already going to be in melee and the best way to knock them out is with melee attacks.

I don't even think it breaks verisimilitude with the way 5e is set up. Casting is far easier to pull off, there are no checks to be made if you take damage while casting, only needing a foci and not spell component pouches, the whole armor thing. I think its fair to say that a class that is built around casting is going to be good at casting under pressure. Is someone trying to interfere with your spells via wrestling seems less effective than someone trying to cut me in half with a greatax while casting, or being swallowed by an ooze.

[Demonic Spoon]

I don't think grappling should shut down casters anymore. In 3.5 a lot of situations could be solved that were otherwise mechanically challenging by just swarming a person and and holding them down. It wasn't lateral thinking so much as abusing an over complicated subset of rules abuse.


I don't understand why a very large, strong person being able to stop a smaller, weaker person who relies on precise hand movements via superior strength is abuse. That just makes sense. On the contrary, the idea that a warrior next to a spellcaster isn't able to do anything to interrupt precise hand movements is silly.

It's one thing to be weaving and dodging and being able to still cast your spell - that's being good under pressure, and what is happening when someone attacks you while you cast. However, if a guy is literally grabbing your arm and not letting you move it - which definitely seems like something that should be possible - how are you casting?

[silveralen]

Let's put aside this talk of spellcasters for the moment.

RAW, there is no way to pin and restrain a person*. You cannot grapple someone and actually restrain them. Doesn't matter if you have 20 strength and they have 8, the most you can do is knock them down and hold onto them. Does that seem right to you?

*Without a feat that is definitively non functional due to at least part of the "benefits" doing nothing under the current rules.

Some things make sense for feats. This... doesn't make a ton of sense to me in the first place as a restricted acfion, and the cost is without a doubt too high.

Maybe if it were part of tavern brawler? I could see that.

[Mellack]

Let's put aside this talk of spellcasters for the moment.

RAW, there is no way to pin and restrain a person. You cannot grapple someone and actually restrain them. Doesn't matter if you have 20 strength and they have 8, the most you can do is knock them down and hold onto them. Does that seem right to you?

There is indeed a feat that specifically lets you restrain a person, even going so far as to place them under the "restrained" condition. Pin is not a game term, but could easily be described as restrained while prone. Now many people do not like the grappler feat and think it is not worth taking, but the method does exist. What you may actually be saying is that there is no way to keep somebody from taking actions, but that applies to all characters. I think there is equally no way to stop a monk from attacking.

[Demonic Spoon]

There is indeed a feat that specifically lets you restrain a person, even going so far as to place them under the "restrained" condition. Pin is not a game term, but could easily be described as restrained while prone. Now many people do not like the grappler feat and think it is not worth taking, but the method does exist. What you may actually be saying is that there is no way to keep somebody from taking actions, but that applies to all characters. I think there is equally no way to stop a monk from attacking.


That feat is literally broken in that part of the description doesn't even apply to the current rules.

Furthermore, feats should give you the ability to do something extraordinary. Being capable of using a massive strength advantage to restrain someone does not count.

[Mellack]

As I said, you may not consider the feat worth taking, but that does not translate into it not existing. There are rules that accomplish restraining someone, you just do not like them. Those are different.

[Gwendol]

Even if it were, are you really making the argument that having "free use of a hand" is totally different from having "a free hand?" And the writers chose to highlight the difference by using extremely similar language and then never speaking of it again?



How so? If you ready an attack to hit them as soon as they start casting, that only stops the spell if you knock them unconscious with that attack. Concentration checks are now limited to concentration spells.

Yes, since the phrase "free use of a hand" is also the requirement for reaching and using the material component of a spell. But as usual, no sane DM will ever worry about enforcing the actual rules for spellcasting so lets ignore that. I can't see how that can be interpreted in any other way than having unrestricted use of one hand.
As for damage while casting: if the casting time is longer than an action you do risk losing the spell if concentration is broken during the casting. I thought it also included spells cast within an action, but that's no longer so.

[Gwendol]

There is indeed a feat that specifically lets you restrain a person, even going so far as to place them under the "restrained" condition. Pin is not a game term, but could easily be described as restrained while prone. Now many people do not like the grappler feat and think it is not worth taking, but the method does exist. What you may actually be saying is that there is no way to keep somebody from taking actions, but that applies to all characters. I think there is equally no way to stop a monk from attacking.

Correction: Pin is not a condition. Restrained is. In the case of grappling, pinning your opponent is restraining them since:

You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled
by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If
you succeed, you and the creature are both restrained
until the grapple ends.

If your opponent is both prone and restrained (pinned), they're as good as dead. All (melee) attacks have advantage, and they can't do much about anything.

[ad_hoc]

So, you've made a successful grapple check, you are now holding them with one hand.

What about taking away their spell component pouch?

I agree that it is completely unfair to tell spell casters they just can't do something anymore.

Material components are in the game so that spell casters can be disarmed.

How about allowing for another athletics contest to snatch their component pouch? (assuming you have another hand free)

It would make material components interesting and spell casters would want to prepare some spells that don't need them just in case.

[Gwendol]

That's totally doable, for a rogue at least.

[Giant2005]

and they can't do much about anything.
They can still do pretty much anything they want except for move. They can still fight although they have disadvantage on all attacks. They can attack the guy that is pinning them without penalty considering all attacks against him have advantage which cancels out the disadvantage imposed by being restrained.

[ad_hoc]

That's totally doable, for a rogue at least.

Why just a rogue? You don't need to be sneaky about it. You are already fighting the person.

[Gwendol]

Well, I was mostly thinking of the ability check involved: STR for a held object such as a weapon or wand, DEX for a worn or carried object such as a divine symbol or spell component pouch. Anyone can do it, but the rogue will typically be better at it.

[Talderas]

Let's put aside this talk of spellcasters for the moment.

RAW, there is no way to pin and restrain a person. You cannot grapple someone and actually restrain them. Doesn't matter if you have 20 strength and they have 8, the most you can do is knock them down and hold onto them. Does that seem right to you?

It seems right to me. Restraining people is not as simple as you might think unless you have a significant advantage in size and strength which confers a grip advantage that is otherwise lacking. Restraining an individual is a non-trivial solution that usually requires training and understanding of techniques. Restraining techniques that lock both hands (somatic components only require a free hand not a free arm) essentially are going to require you to be employing pins where you aren't going to be free to perform any useful actions beyond making and maintaining the pin.

[cmac]

I definitely side with the idea of having a bit more fleshed out grapples.

I expand the Grappling Feat for my tables so that grappling not only disables somatic components of spell casting, but gives disadvantage to melee attacks of the target of the grapple and advantage to the melee attacks of the grappler if the grappler is using an appropriate close quarters weapon (short swords, hand axes, and knives and other small or light weapons).

My thought process is mainly that the PC taking grappling for a feat should be able to grapple and manipulate his target to his advantage. And my players usually get really creative if they adopt this view (had a rogue who liked to turn the NPC around and use them for a meat shied as he stabbed at their vitals or slit their throat, had a fighter who liked to step in and drop his longsword, grapple his opponent, then strip an enemy's focus or weapon and then draw a hand axe and go to town).

An unfeated character attempting to grapple, on the other hand, wouldn't have the training or experience to do more than hold the target in place or drag him around.

If you've ever seen a decent amateur wrestler in a street fight, you'll understand how helpless a nongrappler is when a grappler get's their hands on you.

[Vogonjeltz]

As far as I know, there is no RAW mechanism for a grapple to stop a caster from spellcasting. Similarly, aside from disadvantage on spell attacks, being prone doesn't seem to do it either.

What does the Playground think about this? Should casting a spell with a somatic component be limited while grappled? Should it force a concentration check?

By RAW: Improvised Action->Gag. Contest that substitutes for an attack (from Attack Action or whatever), Must have one hand free or an object such as a gag. Opposed Athletics vs Acrobatics/Athletics check, if successful, target is gagged and can not speak or use verbal components.

Freeing oneself from the Gag depends on what is being used. (If they're using their hand, anything that removes the grapple would remove it; If it's an object it would require an item interaction AFTER freeing oneself from the Grapple. Alternatively, use action/contest to repeat the check for the target to ungag itself).

I know Gag isn't one of the example contests, but the rules for contests and improvised actions are in the PHB, so it's technically RAW :)

As for somatic components being limited, No. Grappling now is really more of: You get a hold on the opponent so they can't move away, it doesn't otherwise restrain them. I would certainly allow for further contests to bind their hands or hogtie them, or whatever.

Concentration check: It's not damage and it's not incapacitation. I suppose the player could make the argument that it's disruptive as a wave tossed ship...DC 10, but I probably wouldn't make the check unless they made that argument. Like they were trying to be as rough as possible in grabbing the enemy. So...maybe.


First of all, "free hand" is no longer a term of art for 5e. It's almost not used at all, and even then just used colloquially.

Even if it were, are you really making the argument that having "free use of a hand" is totally different from having "a free hand?" And the writers chose to highlight the difference by using extremely similar language and then never speaking of it again?

It's the difference between not holding anything in at least one hand, and being able to move that limb without restraint. (i.e. A hand could be empty, but if someone is holding the wrist, the owner doesn't have free use of it).


He addressed capturing people alive via beating them unconscious.

The problem is that there is currently no mechanism sans the Grappler feat to actually bind and gag someone who is resisting.

Technically that doesn't bind or gag them, it pins them. Binding would be the use of materials (rope, etc...) to restrain someone's limbs, Gagging is placing something in or covering their mouth. Pinning is more like grabbing them in such a way they can't move, but it doesn't imply the use of any materials at all.

I definitely like that 5th edition actively encourages DMs and Players to create answers for doing anything they can imagine happening.

[The Shadowdove]

I remember in one of the forgotten realms books,

A captured drow Mage was so dextrous that he managed to cast a spells somatic parts with his toes.

He had to kick his boots off to do so, of course. Being tied up and all.

Much to the surprise of his comrades who'd never heard of such a thing.

[Malifice]

I remember in one of the forgotten realms books,

A captured drow Mage was so dextrous that he managed to cast a spells somatic parts with his toes.

He had to kick his boots off to do so, of course. Being tied up and all.

Much to the surprise of his comrades who'd never heard of such a thing.

That's the Still Spell feat in action.

He was obviously a 3.x character.

;)

[Randonius]

We must keep in mind to use grapple is an action. So if we have a class, say monk, that has multiple attacks, he can use one of his attack actions to grapple, and then the second attack would be telling the dm, "I am going to choke the wizard who I have grappled" the Dm could call for another attack roll, to see if your choke is effective. If you beat the AC then it is.

This choke would not cause damage in any way, but would cause the wizard to be unable to breath, which would prevent the wizard from being able to pull of the verbal component of the spell, if of course your dm encourages creativity, if not than the wizard would be 21st a disadvantage. Anyways, these two actions would hinder the wizard to perform the spell properly. The downfall to this is that you would need to succeed on both the grapple and the attack roll, and you would you be doing any damage, but the upside is that Mr bad wizard cannot effectively cast his spells, putting him out of the fight.

[Malifice]

I require a DC 10 Con save to cast a spell while grappled. Casting while restrained is DC 15.

[Cybren]

I'm not an expert on the topic, but most of the real-life grappling holds I've seen don't involve neutralizing both arms. You can even try it with a friend. See how long it takes you to get him in a position where he can't hold one arm away from you while waggling his fingers - probably much harder than you'd imagine.
Most real life grappling holds don't involve fighting someone that can make them shoot lasers from their nipples if they throw some gang signs, but if they did, it would be more common.

[Zman]

RAW, no. Grappling doesn't affect spellcasting.

In my houserules I have added a DC10 concentration check to maintain concentration while grappled.... which the DM was free to impose for being distracted anyways. I also impose a DC10 concentration check to cast a spell with a somatic component.

[Zman]

I require a DC 10 Con save to cast a spell while grappled. Casting while restrained is DC 15.

Shouldn't casting while restrained be impossible for somatic or material components, yet unhindered for verbal only spells?

[BiPolar]

I require a DC 10 Con save to cast a spell while grappled. Casting while restrained is DC 15.

But no problems for a melee creature who actually has to swing a weapon? Or do you give them an ability test as well? DC 10 CON to be able to maneuver to swing? Athletics/Acrobatics?

If you're going to create a nerf to casters who don't need to move that much, shouldn't there be an equal or greater nerf for melee/ranged attacks?

[Cybren]

But no problems for a melee creature who actually has to swing a weapon? Or do you give them an ability test as well? DC 10 CON to be able to maneuver to swing? Athletics/Acrobatics?

If you're going to create a nerf to casters who don't need to move that much, shouldn't there be an equal or greater nerf for melee/ranged attacks?

Most historical melee combat was at grappling ranges though. Theoretically only the largest weapons should be at penalty in that range. Even greatswords have a long ricasso for close range half swording