Monster Ability to Disable Spellcasting

[Amnestic]

I've already implemented this so it's an after the fact consideration. It's not a 'balance' question so to speak but a 'feel' question.

Party in one of my play-by-post games is going up against, among other things, some lizardfolk monks who I've given the ability to shutdown spellcasting for one turn - requires a successful hit and to fail a Con save, so it's essentially Stunning Strike except instead of Stunning them it switches off their casting abilities. It also doesn't automatically end Concentration. Objectively, it's weaker than Stunning Strike. Targets the same save, has the same 'setup' and the target can still move, attack, disengage, dodge etc. and use non-spellcasting class abilities if they have any even if they fail the save.

As I was making the rolls though I started thinking about it from a player perspective and wondering if it felt unfair and targeted. If they were deployed against your party without any prior foreshadowing would you (as a hypothetical spellcaster player) feel slighted or penalised? As a "soft" crowd control ability I was equating it in my head to a disarm but I don't know if that feels the same.

(Also are there any official monster abilities that do something similar? I can't think of any but I might've missed them)

[nickl_2000]

It seems weird that there wouldn't be rumors of a group that could do this, considering it's a pretty special ability.

However, as a party I don't see an issue with it as long as it isn't used to often. A spellcaster can get away from them and can make the same to prevent it from happening, and it's an encounter that gives the martials a chance to be in the spotlight.

[DevilMcam]

It really depends on the party.
A party where everyone is good with a weapon will be laughing at these people.
A party full of spellcaster may feel like they are getting antagonised.
And a party with a single spellcaster may have him feel specifically neutered.

Foreshadowing is always a good idea.

[Amnestic]

It really depends on the party.
A party where everyone is good with a weapon will be laughing at these people.
A party full of spellcaster may feel like they are getting antagonised.
And a party with a single spellcaster may have him feel specifically neutered.

Foreshadowing is always a good idea.

In this case, we've got a druid (shepherd), bard (lore), wizard (transmuter), barbarian (ancestral) and warlord (homebrew), so three 'casters' and two 'mundanes'.

[da newt]

Demi-Litch and Beholders have an anti-magic effect that not only shuts down spell casting but all magical items too - no saving throw. I'm guessing there are other examples.

[Imbalance]

I was hunting something similar: an effect that inhibits concentration - not an automatic cancellation, but something more balanced that requires a successful hit on the caster and a save, just like maintaining concentration. Instead, the effect is until the caster's next turn they would be unable to begin a concentration spell.

And, yeah, if it's homebrew you have to be up front about it and make it so that the party can learn it and also use it.

[MrStabby]

Demi-Litch and Beholders have an anti-magic effect that not only shuts down spell casting but all magical items too - no saving throw. I'm guessing there are other examples.

Yeah, this would be where I would take it. Stopping spells would make it feel like it was an ability to just shut down some players - which is fine in moderation; a counterspell here and there can be a good thing. But overall, if it were to be more generally antimagic, I think it would feel like a more natural ability to just disproportionately affected some characters rather than actively targetting them.

Also... there can be some fun surprises as characters lose darkvision, flying and the ability to harm Lycanthropes for a turn. Dispelling abilities might be too strong bur surpressing them might not be. And stopping healing for the duration would add tension to the fight.

[Hytheter]

And, yeah, if it's homebrew you have to be up front about it and make it so that the party can learn it and also use it.

Uh, what?

A) Players aren't supposed to just know what every monster can do. Whether pulling something out of the manual or creating a monster from scratch, the GM doesn't have to forewarn the players about them or their abilities. (although some ingame telegraphing is often a good idea)

B) The game is already full of monster abilities players can't learn. GMs have no obligation to allow players to learn abilities bestowed to NPCs.


Yeah, this would be where I would take it. Stopping spells would make it feel like it was an ability to just shut down some players - which is fine in moderation; a counterspell here and there can be a good thing. But overall, if it were to be more generally antimagic, I think it would feel like a more natural ability to just disproportionately affected some characters rather than actively targetting them.

OP described the creatures as monks, using the ability in the same way as Stunning Strike. That sounds to me like some kind of mystical pressure point thing, like how Ty Lee from Avatar the Last Airbender can disable bending by hitting someone in a certain way. So from that perspective, stopping magic only seems sensible while suppressing magic items would not be.

[Man_Over_Game]

When it comes to any sort of "denial" effect, it basically has to either be a telegraphed punishment, or something the player chose.

Static Anti Magic Field surrounding an arcane rift that the players don't have to go through? Fine.
A giant fog that shuts down magic that the boss conjured midfight? Bad.
An effect an enemy afflicts by punching you? Good.
Counterspell? Bad.

The difference from this and an enemy having more damage or AC is that anti-magic effects don't make certain options less efficient, but generally make those choices impossible. It's not "Take 3x damage equal to the spell slot", but "You can't use spell slots".

Denying choices means less game for the player it's afflicting, as your options generally become less interesting, circumstantial or diverse. Sure, you made the game harder, but did you make it any better? By including consequence and choice into the mix, the player has to weighed the risk/reward of losing that feature from the getgo, and a player that chooses to have no casting (such as a Barbarian/Warlock combo) determined their game was better without needing those elements of the game.

If I gave you a potion that turned you into a berserking Mr. Hyde, and it took away your ability to choose your actions, you've already decided that those features are not something you need to enjoy the game at the time you drank that potion. Similarly, as a punishment or a tradeoff, antimagic effects must be something the player can foresee and avoid.

Put simply, try to either introduce denial effects as either making choices inefficient instead of impossible (delaying concentration spells), have it be a proactive player choice (Rage effect), or an obviously-avoidable punishment.

Your Stunning Strike alternative hits that last one perfectly.

[Composer99]

As a player spellcaster, if an enemy gets into melee range with me, it's either good if I'm built for melee or bad if I'm not. Whether they may or may not have stunning strike, mage slayer feat, or what have you is kind of... redundant after that, although it might make getting away more difficult.

Apropos of the specific feature you've devised, I don't see that you have any responsibility to telegraph it if the players don't make an effort to gather information about the local lizardfolk. However, unless this technique is a very recent development, and it strikes me that it wouldn't be, the players should have every chance to learn of its existence if they try to learn stuff before heading into swamp country or wherever they might run into the lizards. Not a guarantee, but a decent chance - DC between 12 and 15 I would reckon if I were DMing, assuming a few steady years of interaction, hostile or otherwise, between the lizardfolk and neighbours.

The last thing to think about is your "table culture". If this kind of ability lines up with the challenges, encounters, and stories your table enjoys, go for it. If not, either use it sparingly or not at all.

Edit to add: Actually, your table culture is the first thing to think about.

[Samayu]

As a player, my own failures are easier to take than my being locked down and not able to do my thing. In other words, when I'm being prevented, the fun is being taken out of the game. But this happens sometime - that's the nature of it. So if this spellcaster hasn't had a chance to shine in a while, he may take this penalty harder than you expected. I'm not saying it would be wrong of you to do this, only to be aware that this may have a strong effect on this player's fun.

In short, probably not a big deal.

[Pex]

I've already implemented this so it's an after the fact consideration. It's not a 'balance' question so to speak but a 'feel' question.

Party in one of my play-by-post games is going up against, among other things, some lizardfolk monks who I've given the ability to shutdown spellcasting for one turn - requires a successful hit and to fail a Con save, so it's essentially Stunning Strike except instead of Stunning them it switches off their casting abilities. It also doesn't automatically end Concentration. Objectively, it's weaker than Stunning Strike. Targets the same save, has the same 'setup' and the target can still move, attack, disengage, dodge etc. and use non-spellcasting class abilities if they have any even if they fail the save.

As I was making the rolls though I started thinking about it from a player perspective and wondering if it felt unfair and targeted. If they were deployed against your party without any prior foreshadowing would you (as a hypothetical spellcaster player) feel slighted or penalised? As a "soft" crowd control ability I was equating it in my head to a disarm but I don't know if that feels the same.

(Also are there any official monster abilities that do something similar? I can't think of any but I might've missed them)

I would. It's too specific. By the same token I hate rust monsters exist. It might have been a joke or whatever when first created long ago, but it's a complete middle finger. This ability may be weaker overall compared to stunning, but it feels like a personal target. It may not be logical, but I'd rather be hit with stunning. When it's too obvious in appearance of some monster ability that shuts down a PC's shtick it feels adversarial even when Honest True the DM just wanted a particular challenge for the encounter. It's emotional. It's fine for a PC's greatest strength not to be efficient for an encounter, but while obviously the DM purposely designed the encounter you need the illusion it's happenstance. The player needs to realize for himself his Plan A won't work rather than the DM forbidding it.

[MaxWilson]

I would. It's too specific. By the same token I hate rust monsters exist. It might have been a joke or whatever when first created long ago, but it's a complete middle finger. This ability may be weaker overall compared to stunning, but it feels like a personal target. It may not be logical, but I'd rather be hit with stunning. When it's too obvious in appearance of some monster ability that shuts down a PC's shtick it feels adversarial even when Honest True the DM just wanted a particular challenge for the encounter. It's emotional. It's fine for a PC's greatest strength not to be efficient for an encounter, but while obviously the DM purposely designed the encounter you need the illusion it's happenstance. The player needs to realize for himself his Plan A won't work rather than the DM forbidding it.

I am inclined to feel this way too. The ability as written hurts my suspension of disbelief. Just make it a fully normal Stunning Strike.