How much would the game change with these new rules?

[Specter]

I have a good idea, but I'd like to hear it from the playground.

- A creature who casts a spell with somatic components while grappled must succeed on a DC10 ability check using their spellcasting ability. On a failure, the casting of the spell fails (but the spell slot is not wasted.
- A restrained creature can't cast spells with somatic components.

[Mjolnirbear]

I have a good idea, but I'd like to hear it from the playground.

- A creature who casts a spell with somatic components while grappled must succeed on a DC10 ability check using their spellcasting ability. On a failure, the casting of the spell fails (but the spell slot is not wasted.
- A restrained creature can't cast spells with somatic components.

RAW, à grapple affects only your movement, like grabbing onto the scruff of the neck. Assuming you want grapples to be like bear hugs, this could work. However, the attacker probably needs to use both hands for this kind of grapple.

For restrained, I have a similar rule, though mine is a check to see if it prevents casting.

[Pex]

Result: Every wizard and sorcerer learns and prepares Misty Step. No one will play a land druid. Clerics cast Spiritual Weapon more often.

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

[Armored Walrus]

IMO, the first rule wouldn't have much effect after about level 5, but the second rule would increase the value of subtle metamagic appreciably, and would have your casters combing their spell lists to make sure they have some escape spell prepared every day so they don't get locked out of combat.

[Mjolnirbear]

Misty Step is already a great spell. It's well worth taking anyways. Further, a land druid can still shift into a porcupine. Third, planning for escape when opponents inevitably try to counter your magic advantage is something EVERY caster should already be doing.

[clash]

You would see more casters with proficiency in acrobatics and if available the acrobat feat for double proficiency.

[Sans.]

Furthermore, land druids can also be Coastal.

[Mjolnirbear]

You would see more casters with proficiency in acrobatics and if available the acrobat feat for double proficiency.

"Even grappled and prone, this thug can't hurt me! I have magic!" despite disadvantage to attack rolls and any AoE able to hit his attacker potentially also hitting himself.

"oh crap! À chance to lose magic if grappled? ACROBATICS BABY"

I'm very pro-magic. Love playing casters. But as a player you can't assume you can magic out of everything. OP is simply codifying in this into rules that also help his martials be less helpless against magic users. And players who fail to be prepared for then their magic is useless *should* suffer, just as a martial who loses his weapon or armour needs to be prepared.

[Armored Walrus]

But as a player you can't assume you can magic out of everything.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you should. OP asked how making this rule change would change the game. I think it's very fair to suggest that one change you would see is more magic-users taking acrobatics proficiency.

[Specter]

Responding generally:

- I'm aware grappling does not necessarily involve arms, but I see somatic components as somewhat complex to perform. Having something upclose with you harassing you should be a bit inconvenient to this process.
- Doesn't every Sorc/Wiz have Misty Step already? 90% of those I've seen, at least.
- This would add a gamble effect to grappled casters: you can Misty Step and cast a cantrip with 100% success, or have 30-20% chance of casting a better spell while grappled.
- Land Druids can already turn into animals and Coast ones learn Misty Step.
- Acrobatics doesn't seem like a good deal to me; you would use your action to try to escape the grapple. Seems less likely to succeed than just casting while grappled. But sure, Acrobatics would be more important.

The reasons I proposed these rules were:
- To increase realism when it comes to casting (a Wizard that can cast regardless of whether there are black tentacles all over him is not something that sits well in my mind. It also seems intuitively right to try to restrain someone with magic, but that's nowhere to be seen in 5e);
- To incentivize strategy during mage fights;
- TO make grappling more relevant against casters.

[HidesHisEyes]

Responding generally:

- I'm aware grappling does not necessarily involve arms, but I see somatic components as somewhat complex to perform. Having something upclose with you harassing you should be a bit inconvenient to this process.
- Doesn't every Sorc/Wiz have Misty Step already? 90% of those I've seen, at least.
- This would add a gamble effect to grappled casters: you can Misty Step and cast a cantrip with 100% success, or have 30-20% chance of casting a better spell while grappled.
- Land Druids can already turn into animals and Coast ones learn Misty Step.
- Acrobatics doesn't seem like a good deal to me; you would use your action to try to escape the grapple. Seems less likely to succeed than just casting while grappled. But sure, Acrobatics would be more important.

The reasons I proposed these rules were:
- To increase realism when it comes to casting (a Wizard that can cast regardless of whether there are black tentacles all over him is not something that sits well in my mind. It also seems intuitively right to try to restrain someone with magic, but that's nowhere to be seen in 5e);
- To incentivize strategy during mage fights;
- TO make grappling more relevant against casters.

I am pretty much convinced. Let us know how it turns out in play. I think I just love the idea of a burly warrior type grabbing a wizard's arm and being all "not so powerful now eh!?" And equally I love the idea of the Mage then misty-stepping to twenty feet away (although he's spent a spell slot, of course).

[MeeposFire]

I am pretty much convinced. Let us know how it turns out in play. I think I just love the idea of a burly warrior type grabbing a wizard's arm and being all "not so powerful now eh!?" And equally I love the idea of the Mage then misty-stepping to twenty feet away (although he's spent a spell slot, of course).

It would delay the warrior to be sure but if the caster is still in range after the step then the warrior could just run up and do it again. Keeping a caster to just cantrips and using up spell slots to get away temporarilly would be a good strategy though I believe the caster could get out of range for a bit since they could misty step, walk, and cast a cantrip.

Still it would slow down what a caster would likely put out in a set amount of time.

[MeeposFire]

I would also say bards would be great at this and a lore bard could be sure they would not lose their action.

[Pex]

Misty Step is already a great spell. It's well worth taking anyways. Further, a land druid can still shift into a porcupine. Third, planning for escape when opponents inevitably try to counter your magic advantage is something EVERY caster should already be doing.

A land druid can't cast spells while a porcupine, so he's not contributing to the combat. The moon druid is wild shaped into a fighting animal contributing meaningfully and can use his spell slots he's not casting to heal himself. Misty Step is a great spell. It now becomes a tax.


Furthermore, land druids can also be Coastal.

Point. Now every land druid will be.

[Armored Walrus]

- Acrobatics doesn't seem like a good deal to me; you would use your action to try to escape the grapple. Seems less likely to succeed than just casting while grappled. But sure, Acrobatics would be more important.

The reason for Acrobatics would be to avoid the grapple in the first place, since a grapple attack is an opposed roll of Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics. So avoiding the grapple completely is superior to being able to ignore the grapple once grappled.

Other than that, I think your thinking is logical. I certainly would be willing to play in a game with this house rule as a player. I don't tend to have my enemies try grappling very often as a DM, so it's not a rule I'd likely implement myself.

[Mellack]

Responding generally:

- I'm aware grappling does not necessarily involve arms, but I see somatic components as somewhat complex to perform. Having something upclose with you harassing you should be a bit inconvenient to this process.
- Doesn't every Sorc/Wiz have Misty Step already? 90% of those I've seen, at least.
- This would add a gamble effect to grappled casters: you can Misty Step and cast a cantrip with 100% success, or have 30-20% chance of casting a better spell while grappled.
- Land Druids can already turn into animals and Coast ones learn Misty Step.
- Acrobatics doesn't seem like a good deal to me; you would use your action to try to escape the grapple. Seems less likely to succeed than just casting while grappled. But sure, Acrobatics would be more important.

The reasons I proposed these rules were:
- To increase realism when it comes to casting (a Wizard that can cast regardless of whether there are black tentacles all over him is not something that sits well in my mind. It also seems intuitively right to try to restrain someone with magic, but that's nowhere to be seen in 5e);
- To incentivize strategy during mage fights;
- TO make grappling more relevant against casters.

Do you think the same points apply to melee weapon combatants? If being grappled makes it difficult to use a hand to cast, wouldn't it have a similar effect on most weapon swings? Do you inend to apply penalties to those trying to swing a halbard, spear or mace while grappled?

[Zman]

I have a good idea, but I'd like to hear it from the playground.

- A creature who casts a spell with somatic components while grappled must succeed on a DC10 ability check using their spellcasting ability. On a failure, the casting of the spell fails (but the spell slot is not wasted.
- A restrained creature can't cast spells with somatic components.

Raw you can't cast somatic component spells while restrained.

I already use the DC10 Concentration save to cast a spell while grapple, and being grappled triggers a DC10 Concentration save. So far it has t come up very often, when it did it definitely made the caster sweat and become more fearful of getting tangled up.

In my experience it is a good houserule, though isn't often going to come up that often, but when it does it "feels" right.

[The Cats]

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

I mean... I kinda think the thread should have ended right there...

[Specter]

I mean... I kinda think the thread should have ended right there...

And yet you felt the irresistible urge to post something.

[The Cats]

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

Yup. Gonna post it again too. Maybe third time you read it it'll sink in.

[Pex]

Yup. Gonna post it again too. Maybe third time you read it it'll sink in.

Mind, those are Grod's words originally, hence the quotation marks. I probably should have acknowledged it in the original post. I like to say "PCs should not be punished for doing what they're supposed to be doing", but that doesn't really apply in this case. "Grod's Law" is more pertinent.

[TheUser]

The game gives verbal and somatic components for a reason; to be used by the DM to act as requirements/constraints to casting.

The reason they were left out of grapples is because they wanted to simplify the rules as much as possible and leave the door open to DM's with regards to how much grapples/restraints affect spell casting.

If your players are never put into positions where there verbal or somatic components are being interfered with or taken note of by enemies then there's no reason to have them included in the spell descriptions, BUT THEY ARE (making a sorcerer's subtle spell useful).

The DM's job is to challenge the party and if a bunch of intelligent attackers are facing off against the group and see a powerful spellcaster invoking spells you can bet your ass they will do their best to stop that from happening.

If I were a strong warrior and put into melee range with a caster the first thing I'd do is clamp a hand over that mouth of theirs and whatever modifiers/requirements the DM wants to put on me to let me explore this venue is their prerogative.

The point of the game is freedom to do what your imagination lets you. Maybe it requires two hands to properly interfere with verbal components (the more important component to interfere with btw), or maybe you need to beat their opposed athletics/acrobatics check by 5+, maybe you make the grapple check at disadvantage. Whatever the circumstance the DM has the freedom to modify grapples/restraints how they see fit and the players can adapt and play around those rules.

The key is transparency and consistency. Make sure your players know that modifiers are being put into play (if they are) and that the options they choose to explore can cut both ways (meaning those tactics can be used against them).

[The Cats]

Mind, those are Grod's words originally, hence the quotation marks. I probably should have acknowledged it in the original post. I like to say "PCs should not be punished for doing what they're supposed to be doing", but that doesn't really apply in this case. "Grod's Law" is more pertinent.

Right. I think I've seen it in some folks' signatures before. Nice to know the name behind it. A good law: The first thing to consider when homebrewing, I think.

[Susano-wo]

this is hardly making casting annoying to use. :smallannoyed: Casting still works fine, its not like he's making casters make caster level checks to cast spells under normal circumstances, this is making grappling do something that is logical for grappling to do-restrict your opponent's movements. Sure, you can devise counters, though they don't seem to be absolute, but for petes sake, its silly to launch into an "the caster must have absolute defense, so all casters will do whatever it takes to have it" hyperbole. :smallsigh: It will likely make those tactics more valuable, but not 100% ubiquitous.

Though it is a very fair point that it should restrict melee attacks as well.

[MeeposFire]

this is hardly making casting annoying to use. :smallannoyed: Casting still works fine, its not like he's making casters make caster level checks to cast spells under normal circumstances, this is making grappling do something that is logical for grappling to do-restrict your opponent's movements. Sure, you can devise counters, though they don't seem to be absolute, but for petes sake, its silly to launch into an "the caster must have absolute defense, so all casters will do whatever it takes to have it" hyperbole. :smallsigh: It will likely make those tactics more valuable, but not 100% ubiquitous.

Though it is a very fair point that it should restrict melee attacks as well.

The classic way of restricting weapon users in a grapple would be to restrict effective weapon use to smaller weapons like daggers and unarmed attacks.

[Gryndle]

these changes would also undervalue the mage slayer feat (or whatever it is called) somewhat. It doesn't make it useless by any means, but still less appealing.

[HidesHisEyes]

The game gives verbal and somatic components for a reason; to be used by the DM to act as requirements/constraints to casting.

The reason they were left out of grapples is because they wanted to simplify the rules as much as possible and leave the door open to DM's with regards to how much grapples/restraints affect spell casting.

If your players are never put into positions where there verbal or somatic components are being interfered with or taken note of by enemies then there's no reason to have them included in the spell descriptions, BUT THEY ARE (making a sorcerer's subtle spell useful).

The DM's job is to challenge the party and if a bunch of intelligent attackers are facing off against the group and see a powerful spellcaster invoking spells you can bet your ass they will do their best to stop that from happening.

If I were a strong warrior and put into melee range with a caster the first thing I'd do is clamp a hand over that mouth of theirs and whatever modifiers/requirements the DM wants to put on me to let me explore this venue is their prerogative.

The point of the game is freedom to do what your imagination lets you. Maybe it requires two hands to properly interfere with verbal components (the more important component to interfere with btw), or maybe you need to beat their opposed athletics/acrobatics check by 5+, maybe you make the grapple check at disadvantage. Whatever the circumstance the DM has the freedom to modify grapples/restraints how they see fit and the players can adapt and play around those rules.

The key is transparency and consistency. Make sure your players know that modifiers are being put into play (if they are) and that the options they choose to explore can cut both ways (meaning those tactics can be used against them).

This x 1000.

This seems related to what we're getting at in my "theatre of the mind" thread. If we're playing the larger game and a wizard starts casting a spell, I might well decide to rush him and clinch his arms so he can't cast it. Just because the combat sub-rules have nothing to say about that, should I not be able to do it in combat? That sense that D&D is two different games - one an RPG and one a board game - is what I'm trying to escape.

I'm going to implement concentration saves to cast while grappled in my games from now on, unless my players make a big fuss about it. Keep those wizards away from the front lines, that's always been part of being a wizard!

[Specter]

Yup. Gonna post it again too. Maybe third time you read it it'll sink in.

It's funny that if the thread ended there, I wouldn't have gotten half of the positive input and productive criticism that made me want to actually change what I proposed. So not only are you factually wrong, but also deliberately sabotaging a good argument. Please don't post in any of my threads again.

As for the rest of you, thanks a lot, many things to consider before applying all this or not.

[Beelzebubba]

Result: Every wizard and sorcerer learns and prepares Misty Step. No one will play a land druid.

Wrong.


"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

Half-assed, lazy, and easily rationalized to apply to anything.

[Lombra]

I can't envision a change of meta but I don't even see the need for those rules in the first place. Can you explain why would you like to use them? Restrained characters already can't cast spells with somatic components, but grapples don't restrain, plus, why not just make the first check a concentration check? The mechanic is there, so why not implement what already works?

Edit: missed the explaination post.

[Hooligan]

Please don't post in any of my threads again.

As for the rest of you, thanks a lot, many things to consider before applying all this or not.

If you don't want opinions on your revelatory muppet rulings don't post them on a message board.

If you do (and you do; apparently you felt you needed approval from someone), don't whine when people weigh in, and especially don't try to shut them up.

[Hooligan]

Half-assed, lazy, and easily rationalized to apply to anything.

You could say the same of much of the narcissist preaching that passes for "fixes", "improvements" and "homebrew".

[Laserlight]

I've toyed with the idea that there should be a Casting skill, and casters roll it every spell. Grappled gives you disadvantage. Take a penalty to increase the effect, area, save DC, twin, or quicken. Extra cast time, special spell components, minions standing around chanting with you, etc, gives a bonus to the roll; perhaps that lets you cast spells that are above your level.

[The Cats]

It's funny that if the thread ended there, I wouldn't have gotten half of the positive input and productive criticism that made me want to actually change what I proposed. So not only are you factually wrong, but also deliberately sabotaging a good argument. Please don't post in any of my threads again.

As for the rest of you, thanks a lot, many things to consider before applying all this or not.



Ok, I'm not factually wrong (I mean, I wasn't even stating a fact.), but that was definitely trolly behavior: I apologize for being a knee-jerk jerk.

Lemme try again without the arrogant sarcasm: I see all of the individual points of Pex's arguments being refuted but I don't see the core of his argument being addressed: That this rule change breaks Grod's law. (TheUser and Susano-Wo have kind of addressed this since. I don't entirely agree with them, but they did at least address the actual issue.)



Wrong.


Half-assed, lazy, and easily rationalized to apply to anything

Um...

[Specter]

If you don't want opinions on your revelatory muppet rulings don't post them on a message board.

If you do (and you do; apparently you felt you needed approval from someone), don't whine when people weigh in, and especially don't try to shut them up.

I want opinions that at the very least follow the title of the thread, and if that can't be done, then at least some non-passive-aggressive confirmation of what others have said. I may not agree with what Pex said, but at least he said it in a way that evolves the argument. /endthread is not a good reply, not here, not anywhere.

[The Cats]

If you don't want opinions on your revelatory muppet rulings don't post them on a message board.

If you do (and you do; apparently you felt you needed approval from someone), don't whine when people weigh in, and especially don't try to shut them up.

Hoo dang! I didn't weigh in, dude. I pretty much just called him and everyone who agrees with him a dummy. I mean, I appreciate the standing-up-to-perceived-tyranny thing but this was probably the wrong battle to pick: I'm pretty clearly the bad guy here.

[Hooligan]

I want opinions that at the very least follow the title of the thread, and if that can't be done, then at least some non-passive-aggressive confirmation of what others have said. I may not agree with what Pex said, but at least he said it in a way that evolves the argument. /endthread is not a good reply, not here, not anywhere.

Sorry kiddo. You're guaranteed none of that by throwing your insect rulings up on a forum for dissection.
You make yourself look petty and small by telling internet people to "stop posting on muh threads cause I don't like what you say huhh"

Just ignore it if you don't care for it.

[The Cats]

You make yourself look petty and small.

Um...

Anyways, his 'demand' sounded more like a statement of "I'ma just ignore you cause you're being a tool" than anything he'd expect me to actually follow.

And clearly I am being a tool since now the thread's derailed. Muh bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

Raw you can't cast somatic component spells while restrained. Aye.
I already use the DC10 Concentration save to cast a spell while grappled, and being grappled triggers a DC10 Concentration save. So far it hasn't come up very often. When it did it definitely made the caster sweat and become more fearful of getting tangled up. Hmmm, I am trying to figure out why you repeated yourself there, but I may be missing a point that you are making. (I think your idea on this homebrew is a decent one).
You could say the same of much of the narcissist preaching that passes for "fixes", "improvements" and "homebrew". Yeah.
I want opinions that at the very least follow the title of the thread, and if that can't be done, then at least some non-passive-aggressive confirmation of what others have said. In response to

If you don't want opinions on your revelatory muppet rulings don't post them on a message board. If you do (and you do; apparently you felt you needed approval from someone), don't whine when people weigh in, and especially don't try to shut them up. Yeah: don't ask a question if you aren't prepared to hear answers that you might not like.
OR,
When asking a question, be prepared for answers that you may not care for.

[Specter]

Whoa, whia, slow down. There's a line between 'things I don't want to hear' and 'things that amount to nothing but spite', and I'm very clear on both. There are two certainties in life, death and that no one is convinced by a jerk. If you think my 'insect' rulings would be bad, you state why as everyone else or you don't crowd the plate with snottiness. This wouldn't fly in any community, and here's no different. So Hooligan, if you'd care to rxplain why this might be a poor choice I'm all ears, otherwise you know what to do.

But no prob The Cats, now we're on the same page, that's good.

[Armored Walrus]

I can't envision a change of meta but I don't even see the need for those rules in the first place. Can you explain why would you like to use them? Restrained characters already can't cast spells with somatic components, but grapples don't restrain, plus, why not just make the first check a concentration check? The mechanic is there, so why not implement what already works?

Second time I'm seeing this cited in this thread (and Korvin "aye"s it shortly after the quoted post as well) but I'm not seeing it in the PHB or the DMG. Where does it state that restrained characters can't cast spells with somatic components?

Note, I don't disagree that it seems logical that they *shouldn't* be able to, but I don't see where this is written. Is this another one of those rules that everyone "knows" but that doesn't actually exist? (like nat 20 auto-success on skill checks?)

[Lombra]

Second time I'm seeing this cited in this thread (and Korvin "aye"s it shortly after the quoted post as well) but I'm not seeing it in the PHB or the DMG. Where does it state that restrained characters can't cast spells with somatic components?

Note, I don't disagree that it seems logical that they *shouldn't* be able to, but I don't see where this is written. Is this another one of those rules that everyone "knows" but that doesn't actually exist? (like nat 20 auto-success on skill checks?)

I guess it's an example of Mandela effect. You may have a free hand even if you are restrained. I keep mixing incapacitated and restrained conditions.

[BRC]

I can't say things would change that much.

A spellcaster already doesn't want to be in melee with anything fightery. At most, you're looking at a %30 chance of spell failure IF the grappler wins the contest (Assuming at least a +3 in the casting stat), and to get this the Grappler is giving up an attack. Compared to just stabbing the wizard in the face and making them choose between withdrawing, eating an AoO, or suffering another round in the brawl, it doesn't seem to be that big a deal. There are not that many spells that a Caster might want to cast while Grappled anyway (besides stuff like Misty Step).

Maybe make an exception for Touch range spells, where the Somatic component is "Reach out and touch them".

The bigger deal is that monsters that auto-grapple on a hit become much more dangerous to Casters, since they're not giving anything up to grapple the caster. That or Grapple-based PC's trying to shut down Caster Bossfights (Since any other NPC caster it's probably more efficient to just stab them than to spend attacks to force DC 10 checks), which may be exactly what you're going for.


Result: Every wizard and sorcerer learns and prepares Misty Step. No one will play a land druid. Clerics cast Spiritual Weapon more often.

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."

Eh, not sure that really applies here. This isn't just "making Casters annoying to play", it's ALSO providing a way for martial PCs to inconvenience Casters in much the same way that Casters can inconvenience Martials. Meanwhile, it's adding additional tactical concerns to playing a Caster (avoiding Grapples becomes more important), rather than just extra bookkeeping or misty step as a spell-tax.


I suppose I don't see the benefit of forcing the check being enough to justify giving up an attack, unless you're in a scenario where you would want to grapple the caster anyway. It's a fun bit of flavor, but I'm not sure it would really do much to balance casters against Martials. It does give Martials another option in combat besides "Run up and stab in face", even if face-stabbage is usually going to be the better choice.

[Zman]

Aye. Hmmm, I am trying to figure out why you repeated yourself there, but I may be missing a point that you are making. (I think your idea on this homebrew is a decent one).

Casting any spell while grappled requires a concentration check to successfully cast the spell. If you are concentrating on a spell being grappled would trigger a concentration check just as taking damage would do. Kind of a codified ruling that many DMs would aready rule being grappled would trigger a con check as the rule want DMs determining when they are often needed.

[Pex]

Wrong.



Half-assed, lazy, and easily rationalized to apply to anything.

Players react to the rules given to them. If you add in a complication players will try to mitigate it as much as possible. Except for moon druid and warrior-type clerics, spellcasters want to stay away from melee anyway. They don't need more encouragement. Range attack spells are at disadvantage. They could get hit for lots of damage to ruin concentration and their lower hit points. Spells are what they have to get away, defend themselves, or take one for the team to cast an attack spell anyway if they're not using Acrobatics as their means to escape. The proposed rule restricts their options, the point I'm sure, but it is to such a degree that anything that makes it not happen becomes that much more important. Ergo, the value of Misty Step (and Acrobatics I acknowledge) skyrockets.

[KorvinStarmast]

Casting any spell while grappled requires a concentration check to successfully cast the spell. If you are concentrating on a spell being grappled would trigger a concentration check just as taking damage would do. Kind of a codified ruling that many DMs would aready rule being grappled would trigger a con check as the rule want DMs determining when they are often needed. Thank you for the extra explanation, makes sense, I will keep this in mind for an optional rule. For our next campaign. :smallcool:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Result: Every wizard and sorcerer learns and prepares Misty Step. No one will play a land druid. Clerics cast Spiritual Weapon more often.

"You cannot and should not balance bad mechanics by making them annoying to use."
I disagree that this is a Grod's Law situation. "Grapples make it hard to cast" is a fairly simple logical ruling, not some arcane annoyance intended as "balance." (IE, "track all your spell components individually.") It makes it a little more dangerous to be a spellcaster on both sides of the board. Not everything is going to grapple you, and grapples were already dangerous to squishy casters. It's a minor nerf, certainly, but not really a game-breaking one. You might see a bit more Misty Step or Acrobatics Proficiency, but those things were already useful and taken for that exact purpose.


Right. I think I've seen it in some folks' signatures before. Nice to know the name behind it. A good law: The first thing to consider when homebrewing, I think.
Aww, thanks!

[The Cats]

I disagree that this is a Grod's Law situation. "Grapples make it hard to cast" is a fairly simple logical ruling, not some arcane annoyance intended as "balance." (IE, "track all your spell components individually.") It makes it a little more dangerous to be a spellcaster on both sides of the board. Not everything is going to grapple you, and grapples were already dangerous to squishy casters. It's a minor nerf, certainly, but not really a game-breaking one. You might see a bit more Misty Step or Acrobatics Proficiency, but those things were already useful and taken for that exact purpose.

Um, excuse me Literally-the-Guy-Who-Coined-the-Law but (*pushes glasses up bridge of nose*) AKshually...

For real though: It doesn't add anything to the game but one more combat mechanic to keep track of, one more thing to optimize around, one more dice roll each turn. Grapples are already dangerous for casters. So what's the point of making them slightly more so, besides indirectly making Mage Slayer a worse option?

Maybe not Grod's law, but if all your new mechanic does is add a new mechanic, why bother?

[Matrix_Walker]

There would be no great change to the game... Squishier spellcasters are already wary of getting too close, and no one wants to get grappled.

You would probably find more grappling builds to take advantage of this new minor vulnerability.

I would probably restrict it to after a pin when the caster is Restrained, rather than just grappled.

[Kane0]

I'd make it a Concentration roll but otherwise looks alright.

Funny how even Mage Slayer can't stop a mage misty stepping away as written, but this way if he's grappling at least the caster gets disadvantage on the roll and then gets hit if he fails.

[Pex]

I'd make it a Concentration roll but otherwise looks alright.

Funny how even Mage Slayer can't stop a mage misty stepping away as written, but this way if he's grappling at least the caster gets disadvantage on the roll and then gets hit if he fails.

Misty Step is Verbal only. The proposed rule affects spells with Somatics. Misty Step is unaffected.

Many a spellcaster are probably casting Misty Step anyway when grappled under normal rules. The proposed rule makes it undesirable to try anything else.

[JackPhoenix]

Do you think the same points apply to melee weapon combatants? If being grappled makes it difficult to use a hand to cast, wouldn't it have a similar effect on most weapon swings? Do you inend to apply penalties to those trying to swing a halbard, spear or mace while grappled?

I have a houserule for that: You can't use two-handed weapon in grapple, and you have disadvantage when trying to use non-light weapon. Also a disadvantage for trying to use Heavy weapon while mounted, but that never came up yet.

[Armored Walrus]

Many a spellcaster are probably casting Misty Step anyway when grappled under normal rules. The proposed rule makes it undesirable to try anything else.

Other potential options would include Command, Dissonant Whispers, and Suggestion. But yeah, your options are limited at that point.

To me, probably the biggest negative of the proposed rule is that it removes all of the spellcaster's combat cantrips. Seems like if I'm grappled, it should actually be easier to apply Chill Touch, or Shocking Grasp, for example.

[Hooligan]

Whoa, whia, slow down. There's a line between 'things I don't want to hear' and 'things that amount to nothing but spite', and I'm very clear on both. There are two certainties in life, death and that no one is convinced by a jerk. If you think my 'insect' rulings would be bad, you state why as everyone else or you don't crowd the plate with snottiness. This wouldn't fly in any community, and here's no different. So Hooligan, if you'd care to rxplain why this might be a poor choice I'm all ears, otherwise you know what to do.

But no prob The Cats, now we're on the same page, that's good.

Personally to answer the thread title question: Not much. I dont think they're bad, or good...just nigh imperceptible to most players at your table.

I just thought you and especially beel were being obnoxious.

[Pex]

Other potential options would include Command, Dissonant Whispers, and Suggestion. But yeah, your options are limited at that point.

:smallcool:


To me, probably the biggest negative of the proposed rule is that it removes all of the spellcaster's combat cantrips. Seems like if I'm grappled, it should actually be easier to apply Chill Touch, or Shocking Grasp, for example.

Heh.

[Matrix_Walker]

Given that Unarmed Defense (or even just a DX bonus) still protects you while you are unconscious, it just seems to be below the resolution of D&D to me.