Should players be able to stop a spell or weapon attack?

[ChubbyRain]

I didn't want to bog down the thread with a different, though slightly simular, topic...

First, should players be able to use an action or reaction to stop a spell from being cast or a weapon attack from being made?

Second... Is the answer to all this grappling?

As it stands right now, I could see ruling that grappling...

A) As the condition

1) Imposes disadvantage on all attacks as you can't move freely.

2) If you cast a spell directly on someone, command for instance, that creature gains advantage on their save.

3) Point spells can have their begin shifted as targeting is harder while being grappled.

However... That makes grappling very strong... Which would make sense as grappling shpuld be very strong. Thwre is a reason grappling (wrestling in some shape or form) as a form of combat has been around since probably the dawn of man (not just talking for the sport of it).

Perhaps make grab, grappling, and restrained all separate things.

Grab: Imobalize a creature (one or two handed). May forcefully move them until the target breaks free.

Grapple: Disadvantage on attacks and spell casting, including giving saves advantage (two handed). The creature grappling the target is also grappled. Unarmed strikes against a creature you are grappled with don't take disadvantage.

Restraining: Target can't focus to cast spells or cantrip. Target can only attack the person reatraining them with unarmed attacks but with disadvantage. The creature doing the restraining is also restrained and have the same limitations.

Some creatures that have natural weapons (or are made of unsafe material ;) ) can still attack with those options while grappled or restrained.

Grappling shouldn't be the stupid 3e crap, but I think 5e went too far the oposite way and made it into an option that isn't worth attempting most of the time.

Grab, Grapple, Restraining works on both martial and magic so it isn't unfair exactly though a barbarian will have a better time hurting someone that is grappling them than a mage will... Which should be the case! A mage has can screw you 10 ways till Sunday while not being bothered while a Barbarian has pretty much one way.

Note: Under the Grab, Grapple, Restrained set up above, I was assuming that anyone can grab to grapple or restrain you would need a specific proficiency to even attempt it. You could put these under weapon proficiency as grappling/restraining is a weapon in itself (like using unarmed strikes).

Note: I don't actually like the counterspell spell, way too many issues come up and you have counterspelling of counterspelling.

Anti-Magic fields, my my friends and I, are just "Real Life Fields" that cause the game's rules to play more like real life (meaning no supernatural or extraordinary stuff as the physucs is just plain weird).

[metaridley18]

Grappling is strong enough as it is. Forced and preventative movement is very nice. I wouldn't add more to the condition. If players want to make it hard for their grappled foes to attack, they can knock them Prone and keep them there as a separate action/attack, which imposes disadvantage on the Prone entities' melee attack rolls (including melee spell attacks). Grappled also forces the creature to remain in melee, which means that any Ranged Spell Attacks and Ranged Weapon Attacks are made with disadvantage. Grappling also forces casters to remain in previously set up zones of Silence, disrupting casting in that way, for instance.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow the Disarming rules (DMG) to apply to component pouches or spell foci, which allows martial players to halt any spell that requires M components, which is most of the powerful combat ones.

About the only thing not covered by the existing rules and conditions is binding and/or gagging spell casters. It wouldn't be unreasonable to add a rider onto Grappled, similar to Pinned, whereby a PC could use manacles or one's body to bind a caster's hands, limiting access to material or somatic components with an additional opposed check. I wouldn't roll it into Grappled, though, I would require an additional action.

[ChubbyRain]

Grappling is strong enough as it is. Forced and preventative movement is very nice. I wouldn't add more to the condition. If players want to make it hard for their grappled foes to attack, they can knock them Prone and keep them there as a separate action/attack, which imposes disadvantage on the Prone entities' melee attack rolls (including melee spell attacks). Grappled also forces the creature to remain in melee, which means that any Ranged Spell Attacks and Ranged Weapon Attacks are made with disadvantage. Grappling also forces casters to remain in previously set up zones of Silence, disrupting casting in that way, for instance.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow the Disarming rules (DMG) to apply to component pouches or spell foci, which allows martial players to halt any spell that requires M components, which is most of the powerful combat ones.

About the only thing not covered by the existing rules and conditions is binding and/or gagging spell casters. It wouldn't be unreasonable to add a rider onto Grappled, similar to Pinned, whereby a PC could use manacles or one's body to bind a caster's hands, limiting access to material or somatic components with an additional opposed check. I wouldn't roll it into Grappled, though, I would require an additional action.

See... The forced movememt and 0 speed really isn't that strong.

You have three types of creatures.

1) The type that doesn't care to be grappled to your character and could probably grapple your character.

2) The type that doesn't want to be grappled by your character.

3) Casters. Casters have so many options that even if you grapple them... Misty Step, Command, Thunderwave, and so many more options allow them to break grapples without an opposed roll (athletics v ath or acro). With no penalty they can use their action to damage you, move you, and get out of your grapple. The spells I mentioned are the more popular options to boot and they would be taken without thinkimg of "in case I'm grappled".

Speaking for the majority of playtime (level 1 - 10) this means most will be able to grapple or attack OR grapple and make one attack. They give up their main thing for very little reward. Might as well just do two attacks and try to (mostly) permanently keep the enemy from moving.

It isn't a HUGE deal but one that gets on my nerves. Grappling, a lot of the time, isn't worth the return. One of the best fighting styles and ways to capture anything... Is one of yhe least effective in D&D.

[JNAProductions]

Grapple, then prone your enemy. They're stuck on the ground, can't get up, and you have advantage on all attacks against them.

[ChubbyRain]

Grapple, then prone your enemy. They're stuck on the ground, can't get up, and you have advantage on all attacks against them.

Any of the above spells completely negate what you said.

Thunderwave knocks your pc back, caster can stand up and walk away.

Command them to stand.

Hell, lets go one spell level higher... Suggestion would have them pick you up and carry you bridal style to safety because you want to elope (or because you have information on some really sweet swag)

Misty Step lets you get 30' away. Stand up is half your movement (15'). Move half your movement (15') then dash for full movement (30').

Way too many casters seem to carry misty step.

[JNAProductions]

Any of the above spells completely negate what you said.

Thunderwave knocks your pc back, caster can stand up and walk away.

Command them to stand.

Hell, lets go one spell level higher... Suggestion would have them pick you up and carry you bridal style to safety because you want to elope (or because you have information on some really sweet swag)

Misty Step lets you get 30' away. Stand up is half your movement (15'). Move half your movement (15') then dash for full movement (30').

Way too many casters seem to carry misty step.

Thunderwave requires you to fail a save.

Same for Command.

Suggestion is NOT that powerful-it's a reasonable suggestion, and as a general rule, when you're knocking someone down to murder them, you won't suddenly pick them up and marry them.

Misty Step, though, would work. It does stop them from casting any other spell other than a cantrip that turn.

[SharkForce]

first off, grappling is a standard form of combat in every part in the world, yes.

and as soon as we figured out weapons, it became the option that you don't want to have to use (unless you're expecting a massive advantage, like the other guy having no idea that you're there). it should not be more powerful or better than weapons, because otherwise the first guy to make a weapon would have been called an idiot and laughed at instead of everyone thinking "hey, that's a great idea, we should all do that". clubs and spears have also been weapons used in basically every part of the world as far as i'm aware. should we make them better than every other weapon, too?

secondly, grappling is not too weak for how easy it is, and how often it can be done. people have already mentioned how it can be used to good effect, so i won't repeat it here.

thirdly, for your three categories of creatures:

1) there aren't an awful lot of these. in fact, if you have a strength-based character who is proficient in athletics, the primary restriction on who you can probably grapple is not enemy ability modifier, it is size.

2) this is, in fact, the great majority of enemies in the game. there are varying degrees of not wanting to be grappled, but basically nothing is going to be thrilled about it, because it gives you the ability to move them around as you please, and keeps them from going after whoever they please. even enemies that can escape grapples easily usually can't do so without costing actions, so it's even pretty decent on most powerful demons.

3) those options are much less valuable than what they could have otherwise used. a caster that uses misty step is stuck resorting to a cantrip instead of something better like fireball or hypnotic pattern. command is a level 1 spell. it's nice and all, trades actions 1:1 (potentially), but again, not nearly as bad as a hypnotic pattern or fireball. if you have grappled an enemy caster, and they trade in their action for getting away from you, then that is a spectacular success. unless you're talking about level 1 characters and they used thunderwave... because at that point, a regular attack is potentially an instant KO. with that said, the game should not be balanced around level 1 for the whole way through to level 20.

grappling is good enough right now that people deliberately build to be able to do it. it is not weak at all, it does not need buffing to be a viable option, and it certainly does not need to be made more powerful just for historic reasons.

[Mellack]

Should there be a move that stops spell or weapon attacks - no. The action economy already favors the side with more people, this would make it even worse. The side with more actions could negate the other sides attacks and have their extras used to damage. It devolves to a long, boring grindfest.

[BeefGood]

The action economy already favors the side with more people, .
This is interesting. Could you explain a little more? Like, are there particular features of the action economy that favor the side with more people? Does 5e differ from the older editions in this manner?

[Hawkstar]

This reminds me of an argument I looked up that occurred last year (Following a signature quote) where people were arguing about 5e's lack of a codified skill system, and combat.

The inability to allow a character to do something as simple as lock a person's arm is a glaring absence in the rules.

[BiPolar]

The bigger issues is that things like Grappling involve the use of Athletics/Acrobatics checks, which players are able to gain expertise in, but do not seem to be included in the standard Monster stat block. By increasing the abilities of Grapple beyond the conditions stated in the PHB, you are inherently putting your players at an advantage that wasn't accounted for in the system.

[Daishain]

I've always let players attempt to stop spells. Ready an action to attack the mage during the casting. If it hits, said mage needs to make a Conce check to keep going, with the DC going up for high damage

Grapple rules already allow for a pinning action. It isn't easy, but it can be done, which is as it should be.

Stopping an attack on the fly however, I'm not so sure about. Hmm, perhaps a variant of the first kind of attempt. What do people think of this? Players can ready an action to attack at the right moment and spoil the enemy's strike, if it hits, they can roll a d6 and subtract it from their opponent's attack roll.

As to the question of using grappling on various monsters without listed athletics/acrobatics stats, I just use some common sense. I'm not going to say that grappling some multitentacled abomination that lacks anything resembling a proper clinch point is impossible, but it is not going to be anything resembling an easy task, even if no such advantage is actually listed.

[BiPolar]

I've always let players attempt to stop spells. Ready an action to attack the mage during the casting. If it hits, said mage needs to make a Conce check to keep going, with the DC going up for high damage

This is pretty interesting, and a good exchange of action economy. If the mage doesn't cast a spell, they've lost their action.



Grapple rules already allow for a pinning action. It isn't easy, but it can be done, which is as it should be.
Where does it allow for a 'pinning action'?

[Daishain]

This is pretty interesting, and a good exchange of action economy. If the mage doesn't cast a spell, they've lost their action.


Where does it allow for a 'pinning action'?
Grappler feat

[BiPolar]

Grappler feat

Gotcha, although that move still only gives the Restrained condition and creatures can still attack (with disadvantage) and cast spells without any problems.

[Coffee_Dragon]

This is pretty interesting, and a good exchange of action economy. If the mage doesn't cast a spell, they've lost their action.

And also if the mage doesn't cast a spell, everyone at the table will glance at each other sombrely and think, "Yeah, metagaming."

[N810]

Might as well take mage slayer then.
You know if you plan on grappling mages.

[BiPolar]

Might as well take mage slayer then.
You know if you plan on grappling mages.
It's almost like someone thought about this before.


And also if the mage doesn't cast a spell, everyone at the table will glance at each other sombrely and think, "Yeah, metagaming."
Hehe. That too. Although mages don't necessarily cast spells every turn, but it does open up it up for abuse by DMs and/or players. Probably why it's not an actual rule, eh?

[Falcon X]

I would allow a readied action to count as an interrupt action, finishing right before the spell is cast and thus giving the opportunity to stop it.
I would only have it apply to spells that take the full attack action, not a bonus action or reaction.

[Deleted]

Might as well take mage slayer then.
You know if you plan on grappling mages.

You know, Mage Slayer actually doesn't make you better at slaying mages... It doesn't give you any real bonus to killing mages. Hell, by JC it doesn't even protect you from shocking grasp (as the spell goes off first) and every mage that has access to it, takes shocking grasp.

1: Creature casts a spell, you use a reaction to make an attack.
Most mages aren't going to stick around to find out if you have mage slayer. If they do stick around to cast a spell, that means you are in a win-win situation anyways or they are about to shocking grasp you (see above). A mage is more likely to get the hell away from you than anything else. Where this shines is perhaps with polearms but let's be real, even that is too close for mages to stick around.

2: Disadvantage on a creature's concentration when you attack a creature concentrating on a spell

Concentration isn't hard to pass. It is a DC 10 or half damage taken. Unless you do spike damage, and even then you need a lot of it, the concentration check is going to be 10. Odd aren't in their favor but they aren't bad. That's without a bonus to Con or their concentration bonus (resiliant or warcaster). Hell, warcaster negates this.


3: Advantage on saving throws if they are cast within 5' of you.

Mages don't stick around you to cast spells. If they are around you, shocking grasp doesn't offer a save.


Conclusion


Mage Slayer sucks as it works under the assumption that mages are stupid and have no concept of self preservation. It also sucks because it doesn't make you a slayer of mages. It really should have been called something like "Very rare instances you are defensive versus mages" feat.

[metaridley18]

You know, Mage Slayer actually doesn't make you better at slaying mages... It doesn't give you any real bonus to killing mages. Hell, by JC it doesn't even protect you from shocking grasp (as the spell goes off first) and every mage that has access to it, takes shocking grasp.

That's strange, as the only other time that timing on Reactions is specified (Opportunity Attacks, Feather Fall, Counterspell) they happen before or during the triggering stimulus. So I'm not sure why Mage Slayer would be an exception and not trigger first. I don't think every mage takes Shocking Grasp, though.



Conclusion
Mage Slayer sucks as it works under the assumption that mages are stupid and have no concept of self preservation. It also sucks because it doesn't make you a slayer of mages. It really should have been called something like "Very rare instances you are defensive versus mages" feat.

Well, it's also pretty good if you're a mage grappler. :D

[BiPolar]

You know, Mage Slayer actually doesn't make you better at slaying mages... It doesn't give you any real bonus to killing mages. Hell, by JC it doesn't even protect you from shocking grasp (as the spell goes off first) and every mage that has access to it, takes shocking grasp.

Oh, c'mon. I can refute each of those. For every instance it fails, I can point to an instance it succeeds. Just like everything else in D&D.




1: Creature casts a spell, you use a reaction to make an attack.
Most mages aren't going to stick around to find out if you have mage slayer. If they do stick around to cast a spell, that means you are in a win-win situation anyways or they are about to shocking grasp you (see above). A mage is more likely to get the hell away from you than anything else. Where this shines is perhaps with polearms but let's be real, even that is too close for mages to stick around.
Pretty sure the best way to stop a mage is to kill it. And that generally means getting within melee range if you're a melee fighter, which is kinda your job. And why most intelligent enemies will try to bypass the melee fighters to get to your mages. You close your distance and attack. If the mage runs first, you get an OA. If it tries to cast a spell,you get an OA. Seems like a pretty good thing to have if you're plan is to go after mages.



2: Disadvantage on a creature's concentration when you attack a creature concentrating on a spell

Concentration isn't hard to pass. It is a DC 10 or half damage taken. Unless you do spike damage, and even then you need a lot of it, the concentration check is going to be 10. Odd aren't in their favor but they aren't bad. That's without a bonus to Con or their concentration bonus (resiliant or warcaster). Hell, warcaster negates this.
You could also say that the feat negates warcaster. Currently, the only ways to disrupt a spell under concentration is to either kill the mage or hurt it. Making that Con check at disadvantage can be a big deal. It's kinda why disadvantage is supposed to be a big deal (I don't know if the math supports this, but I hope it does. Otherwise why have Dis/Adv?) So yeah, making it harder for them to keep spells going is a big part of stopping a mage.



3: Advantage on saving throws if they are cast within 5' of you.

Mages don't stick around you to cast spells. If they are around you, shocking grasp doesn't offer a save.
You do get your reaction BEFORE the spell effects are given (just like Shield). And if you're in close, a mage is best spent casting on you and not attacking you, given that's their best chance of hurting you. Getting advantage on that saving throw could keep you going.



Conclusion


Mage Slayer sucks as it works under the assumption that mages are stupid and have no concept of self preservation. It also sucks because it doesn't make you a slayer of mages. It really should have been called something like "Very rare instances you are defensive versus mages" feat.
Everything is situationally good and bad in 5e. And Mage Slayer falls into that as well. Yes, you're taking a feat specifically for dealing with Mages, but if that's your thing, then this is definitely a good thing to have. However, if it doesn't fit with the character you've created or your DM never sends mages after you...not so much. But it doesn't suck.

[Mellack]

You do get your reaction BEFORE the spell effects are given (just like Shield). And if you're in close, a mage is best spent casting on you and not attacking you, given that's their best chance of hurting you. Getting advantage on that saving throw could keep you going.



Sorry, but this part is wrong. Spells get their effects before the OA.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/02/shocking-grasp-on-a-mage-slayer/

[BiPolar]

Sorry, but this part is wrong. Spells get their effects before the OA.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/24/caster-near-mage-slayer/

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/06/02/shocking-grasp-on-a-mage-slayer/

I stand corrected, but I still don't think it's as bad as Deleted thinks it is. It is very situational, and the use of Shocking Grasp is a way to avoid it, but not every mage will have it, or have it prepared. And the Mage still has to hit with Shocking Grasp (which it probably will...)

But thank you for the clarification!

I do however, stand by my assessment that you shouldn't be able to stop a spell or weapon attack outside of the regular system. If you want to homebrew something, go for it, but there's a lot of balance to consider when doing that that the current system doesn't have. I still think the best way to stop a mage (or win an encounter) is generally by defeating the enemy as fast as possible. The best defense is a good offense.

[Deleted]

That's strange, as the only other time that timing on Reactions is specified (Opportunity Attacks, Feather Fall, Counterspell) they happen before or during the triggering stimulus. So I'm not sure why Mage Slayer would be an exception and not trigger first. I don't think every mage takes Shocking Grasp, though.



Well, it's also pretty good if you're a mage grappler. :D

Reactions happen after the trigger, casting the spell (and having the reactions taken away) is before the OA.

I'm not saying this is how it SHOULD be, just how it is.

Mage Slayer's OA should interrupt the spell from being completed and do minimal or no damage. Or at the very least say something like "you attack before the spell is completed, if you kill the target then the spell is not cast" or whatever.

Every mage may not take shocking grasp, but if they are going to let you near them, the chances of them having shocking grasp is higher than not. The only two classes that can hope to catch up to mages, and do something, are going to be Monks and Rogues.