How would you handle this? Grappling a mage?

[BoutsofInsanity]

I was thinking about grappling, conditions and so forth and wonder how you guys would look at this.

First caveat - The rules are here to facilitate players. So if a player tries to attempt something not explicitly covered in the rules, we as DM's are to try and ad-hock a ruling to warrant it. (Provided its within bounds of the reality of the game.)


So a fighter/Barbarian Half-Orc with expertise in Athletics from Prodigy, rages and runs over to the enemy Wizard with their movement. They replace their first attack with a shove prone. Once the enemy is prone they use their second attack to grapple. (I'm assuming they succeed here with their bonuses). They Action Surge. They take their second attack action.

Using their second attack action the player states the following. "I would like to use my hands to grab the Wizard's hands and prevent somatic components from working". Replacing their now third attack with another grapple. Even if the DM throws Disadvantage at the player for the maneuver they still would most likely succeed with their massive strength and athletics differential. Finally, with the final attack they state " I would like to press my Knee or leg or whatever into the Wizard's throat, cutting off their air supply and preventing verbal components and potentially begin choking out the Wizard. The DM again applies disadvantage, but again, with Expertise in Athletics, Rage counteracting the disadvantage making it a normal roll, the Fighter/Barbarian might succeed.

So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?


Now I would rule as the DM that the Wizard can still attack as I don't think that the disruption of complex hand gestures is as hard as preventing someone from punching which is a simpler task. I would also rule that the Fighter would have to replace each attack each round with another attempt for each "condition" they are applying, with disadvantage. Lastly, the Wizard is not prevented from attempting to breaking the grapple which I would rule breaks all the previous conditions.

Thanks.

[Amnestic]

I was thinking about grappling, conditions and so forth and wonder how you guys would look at this.

First caveat - The rules are here to facilitate players. So if a player tries to attempt something not explicitly covered in the rules, we as DM's are to try and ad-hock a ruling to warrant it. (Provided its within bounds of the reality of the game.)


So a fighter/Barbarian Half-Orc with expertise in Athletics from Prodigy, rages and runs over to the enemy Wizard with their movement. They replace their first attack with a shove prone. Once the enemy is prone they use their second attack to grapple. (I'm assuming they succeed here with their bonuses). They Action Surge. They take their second attack action.

Using their second attack action the player states the following. "I would like to use my hands to grab the Wizard's hands and prevent somatic components from working". Replacing their now third attack with another grapple. Even if the DM throws Disadvantage at the player for the maneuver they still would most likely succeed with their massive strength and athletics differential. Finally, with the final attack they state " I would like to press my Knee or leg or whatever into the Wizard's throat, cutting off their air supply and preventing verbal components and potentially begin choking out the Wizard. The DM again applies disadvantage, but again, with Expertise in Athletics, Rage counteracting the disadvantage making it a normal roll, the Fighter/Barbarian might succeed.

So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?


Now I would rule as the DM that the Wizard can still attack as I don't think that the disruption of complex hand gestures is as hard as preventing someone from punching which is a simpler task. I would also rule that the Fighter would have to replace each attack each round with another attempt for each "condition" they are applying, with disadvantage. Lastly, the Wizard is not prevented from attempting to breaking the grapple which I would rule breaks all the previous conditions.

Thanks.

In this scenario the fighter/barbarian has essentially taken themself out of the fight entirely (their hands/arms/legs are occupied disabling the spellcaster) to temporarily inhibit the wizard who does have a chance, albeit a slim one, to escape. It also won't have interrupted any existing concentration.

Seems fair to me.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I remember discussing something similar on here before. It's trivially easy for anyone who's done a single year of real-life BJJ to tie someone (especially a weak someone) up in a grapple in such a way that they can't use their hands or even their mouth.

But the response i got was that this would be impossible for a level 20 Barbarian because the rules don't explicitly say you can do it. Needless to say, that's the sorta "weaker than the guy at the gym" thing contributing to "caster supremacy".

[JNAProductions]

I'd allow it. I would, of course, let the players know that the enemies can do the same thing to their casters, but seems reasonable to me.

[Unoriginal]

As a DM I would allow blocking the hands/the mouth of the target to be a part of the grapple.

I would also allow the grappler to just strangle the target.



I remember discussing something similar on here before. It's trivially easy for anyone who's done a single year of real-life BJJ to tie someone (especially a weak someone) up in a grapple in such a way that they can't use their hands or even their mouth.

But the response i got was that this would be impossible for a level 20 Barbarian because the rules don't explicitly say you can do it. Needless to say, that's the sorta "weaker than the guy at the gym" thing contributing to "caster supremacy".

Pretty sad, I find.


I'd allow it. I would, of course, let the players know that the enemies can do the same thing to their casters, but seems reasonable to me.

An important point.

[da newt]

IMO, what you describe is perfectly reasonable and realistic, but also not supported by RAW. If you were my DM and explained that this is your ruling, I wouldn't even bat an eye.


I'm of the opinion that the restrained condition should be amended so that it specifically prevents Somatic components of spell casting, and that a prone and grappled creature is restrained.

[Chronos]

Seems perfectly in line with "The DM can use these contests as models for improvising others.", from page 195. The rules explicitly recognize that you'll sometimes do something that isn't laid out in detail in the rules, and provides you a framework for how to do so.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Thanks for the replies. I was gut checking my own thoughts about it.

I'm of the opinion having ran this game for 5+ years now, that my grasp of the rules are pretty strong.

But coming to the realization that now that I know most of the things that the rules do, that I can explicitly handle when a new player describes what they want to do, and I can facilitate their actions within the framework of the rules.

That I no longer have to say no, but, yah You need to make X roll to make that happen.

[HappyDaze]

I wouldn't allow it, because I'm one of those guys that sticks with RAW knowing full well the Pandora's Box that "well, it would work IRL" thinking introduces to the game.

[Tanarii]

After you grapple them, reduce them to 0 hps. Now they're completely locked down under your control. That's what HPs are for.

[HappyDaze]

After you grapple them, reduce them to 0 hps. Now they're completely locked down under your control. That's what HPs are for.
This I support. Its playing the game by it's own rules. That's what those rules are for.

[JNAProductions]

This I support. Its playing the game by it's own rules. That's what those rules are for.

I can respect that, but it does seem to be kinda missing the point of playing a TTRPG. To me, I like games like D&D over a computer port because I can do anything-even if it's not codified in the rules.

So long as your table has fun, though, that's what matters.

[HappyDaze]

I can respect that, but it does seem to be kinda missing the point of playing a TTRPG. To me, I like games like D&D over a computer port because I can do anything-even if it's not codified in the rules.

So long as your table has fun, though, that's what matters.

Allowing the grapple shutdown is rules wise the same as allowing someone to declare that their stab/slash cuts the bad guy's throat without using the rules for hit points.

[JNAProductions]

Allowing the grapple shutdown is rules wise the same as allowing someone to declare that their stab/slash cuts the bad guy's throat without using the rules for hit points.

Except there's a direct counter to the grapple-make your own Acrobatics or Athletics check to break free.

Moreover, it takes four attacks (as presented by the OP) to reach this state.

Assuming you're rocking a +8 with advantage, versus a -1 with no (dis)advantage, you've got about a 3/4 chance of succeeding. Which is pretty good! But you've spent a TON of build resources to get good at this.

Take away Advantage, and it drops to less than 50% chance of succeeding on all four.

And all your foe has to do is succeed ONCE to get enough air to cast Misty Step and you have to start all over again-only without Action Surge this time.

[stoutstien]

Personally I think I'd allow the PC to interfere with either V or S spell components but not both.
Grappling could use a slight boost vs casters who can just use force movement or teleport effects to completely negate it.

[Mellack]

Would you allow the same barbarian to eliminate a martial character with just 3 attacks then?

1. shove prone
2. grapple
3. immobilize arms

That seems the same actions you are allowing on the caster. I would fear this makes grappling too powerful.

[NorthernPhoenix]

After you grapple them, reduce them to 0 hps. Now they're completely locked down under your control. That's what HPs are for.


That's a silly comparison. You can control someone without attacking their HP. In the context of BJJ, once you have someone under you're control, you can then spend longer breaking their arms or choking them out, represented by HP. Actually controlling someone is just grabbing them correctly.


Would you allow the same barbarian to eliminate a martial character with just 3 attacks then?

1. shove prone
2. grapple
3. immobilize arms

That seems the same actions you are allowing on the caster. I would fear this makes grappling too powerful.

It's only powerful in 1v1 vs an equally sized foe. Like in real life, grappling should be very powerful against a single foe, but it does leave you completely exposed to attacks from elsewhere, making it inappropriate in large scale combat (mostly). It also rarely works on enormous foes.

[Amnestic]

Would you allow the same barbarian to eliminate a martial character with just 3 attacks then?

1. shove prone
2. grapple
3. immobilize arms

That seems the same actions you are allowing on the caster. I would fear this makes grappling too powerful.

They can essentially do this already using the DMG Disarm move (either throwing the weapon away or moving the enemy away from it). Immobilizing a martial's arms and tossing their weapon away while they're grappled and prone are effectively the same thing.

Monks are kind of the exception but unarmed strikes can be done with legs anyway.

And again, this is 3-4 attacks spent on not only doing zero damage but also effectively zeroing out the 'attackers' damage for subsequent turns.

[Mellack]

They can essentially do this already using the DMG Disarm move (either throwing the weapon away or moving the enemy away from it). Immobilizing a martial's arms and tossing their weapon away while they're grappled and prone are effectively the same thing.

Monks are kind of the exception but unarmed strikes can be done with legs anyway.

And again, this is 3-4 attacks spent on not only doing zero damage but also effectively zeroing out the 'attackers' damage for subsequent turns.

If you use the optional Disarm rule, I think that is also overpowered, which is why my gaming group does not use it. Too easy to make a check that effectively negates many opponents.

[Unoriginal]

Too easy to make a check that effectively negates many opponents.

What makes you consider it a problem?

[Amnestic]

If you use the optional Disarm rule, I think that is also overpowered, which is why my gaming group does not use it. Too easy to make a check that effectively negates many opponents.

Well in the case of this example, it's not 'a' check, it's 3-4 contested checks all at once, and failing one tends to make the rest of them much less good. Chances are the martial is going to have a better ath/acro skill than the theoretical mage in this example would too, meaning success is far less guaranteed.

It's a worse version of Hold Person that, sure, doesn't take a spell slot, but also is far less effective even if you're specifically built to do it. Is that a balance concern?

[Mellack]

What makes you consider it a problem?

Skills are far easier to get very high than things like attack rolls or spell DC's, and monsters often have poor skills. It seems to me to not work with the basic 5e concept of bounded accuracy.

[Hytheter]

Skills are far easier to get very high than things like attack rolls or spell DC's

The disarm rule requires an attack roll, not a skill check.

[Sorinth]

I really don't understand the RAW argument for not allowing outright.

It's right there at the very beginning of the PHB.
"The players describe what they want to do ... the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."


So the player describes that he wants to choke out the wizard. The DM simply has to determine how difficult that is (And whether it would require it's own action or as a Special Attack) and then roll the dice to see if it works and what happens. However what is often overlooked is that the DM can and should apply circumstantial bonuses/penalties and not just rely on advantage/disadvantage. So if the DM thinks it should be very difficult to restrain someones hands they can apply a flat bonus/penalty and it's still completely within RAW.


To the OP, personally I'm a fan of making grappling a strong anti-caster tactic so I wouldn't even force the player to knock the wizard prone. Once grappled you can use an attack to try and choke the caster or restrain their hands. I'd probably not allow you to do both choke out and restrain the hands so the grappler would have to choose which one to do.

[HappyDaze]

That's a silly comparison. You can control someone without attacking their HP. In the context of BJJ, once you have someone under you're control, you can then spend longer breaking their arms or choking them out, represented by HP. Actually controlling someone is just grabbing them correctly.



It's only powerful in 1v1 vs an equally sized foe. Like in real life, grappling should be very powerful against a single foe, but it does leave you completely exposed to attacks from elsewhere, making it inappropriate in large scale combat (mostly). It also rarely works on enormous foes.

In real life, grappling an armed foe can get you killed with one stab too. That element of risk is largely absent in D&D, so there's no reason grappling has to keep all of its bite.

Besides that, grappling isn't all that popular in fantasy stories, and D&D is far true to that (even though it's still quite far off) than it is to real life.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Appreciate the responses. Glad I'm not going crazy in my interpretation.

Answering those who think it's overpowered. I would consider that a caster can with one second level spell

Make a target loses a turn and all attacks critical hit it. From distance. And the Wizard can continue doing stuff.

The Grapple Maneuver requires multiple rolls, every turn, to attempt to even begin locking down anything. It burns actions, removes damage, and you have to be in close range.

Just consider that before banning players from doing cool stuff outright.

For the Raw crowd. I would offer that RAW indicates, along with every interview ever with the lead design team, to adjudicate player actions with rolls and DC's through your own determination as a Dungeon Master. To not get so caught up in the ruling of what's written down that you forget that it's impossible to encode all actions a player may take within the bounds of imagination and your job is to make it happen. (Within reason of course).

Which means if a player wishes to Strangle and prevent somatic components from happening, you can rule differently than how I would go about doing it. But because it's within the bounds of some measure of reality, I would argue your job is to make it happen somehow and not shut down a player for a reasonable ask.

[Tanarii]

Regardless of allowing a check to put the enemy in a state where they cannot use components / you tie them up with a rope / put manacles on them / etc, choking out the enemy should absolutely require putting them down to 0 hps to accomplish.

[Segev]

I will say that I understand those who say, “The rules don’t support that.” It can be frustrating to have to make up a system on the spot.

After you grapple them, reduce them to 0 hps. Now they're completely locked down under your control. That's what HPs are for.
What was the point of grappling the wizard, then, rather than just inflicting damage with each attack?

[Unoriginal]

Regardless of allowing a check to put the enemy in a state where they cannot use components / you tie them up with a rope / put manacles on them / etc, choking out the enemy should absolutely require putting them down to 0 hps to accomplish.

I disagree. 5e has rules for what happens regarding not being able to breath, choking should use them.

Putting someone to 0 HPs and fluffing the killing blow as strangulation is pretty much saying "you can't really do that in any meaningful way".

Forgoing your action to maintain the choke, knowing it likely takes several rounds to have an effect, it's certainly not OP. It's just an alternative solution for situations like having to kill a lion immune to weapon damage or an high-level Moon Druid.

[HappyDaze]

I will say that I understand those who say, “The rules don’t support that.” It can be frustrating to have to make up a system on the spot.

What was the point of grappling the wizard, then, rather than just inflicting damage with each attack?

The point of grappling in 5e is to prevent movement. This is clearly spelled out in the grappled condition.

It does not matter that grappling often means more in real life; stabbing someone with a blade means often more in real life too. If you can accept that the blade doesnt really get a good hit in until hp hit 0, then the grappler doesn't lock in the hold until 0 hp either.

[Tanarii]

I disagree. 5e has rules for what happens regarding not being able to breath, choking should use them.

5e has rules for how you knock someone unconscious with physical attacks. You do it by reducing them to 0 hp.

[Unoriginal]

5e has rules for how you knock someone unconscious with physical attacks. You do it by reducing them to 0 hp.

Indeed. What does it have to do with strangling someone to death?

[Tanarii]

Indeed. What does it have to do with strangling someone to death?
It's a physical attack trying to knock someone unconscious or kill them.

It's pretty much is the definition of the price of milk. :smallamused:

[Naanomi]

If allowed, every group of vaguely intelligent monsters should be grappling the obvious casters in the party if they outnumber them

[Townopolis]

If allowed, every group of vaguely intelligent monsters should be grappling the obvious casters in the party if they outnumber them

I, for one, am all for this. I say this as both player and DM.

I hold this opinion mostly because I like to play and run games where the non-combat elements of adventures actually mean something, which tends to put a spotlight on how D&D's balance assumes the opposite, which is why it considers it fair to give everyone else powerful noncombat utility for basically free without making warrior-types remotely more important in combat than everyone else.

If you're playing a game where you follow the pillar balance the books are written for, I can see how rulings that shift the spotlight onto warriors in combat might be unbalancing.

[Segev]

The point of grappling in 5e is to prevent movement. This is clearly spelled out in the grappled condition.

It does not matter that grappling often means more in real life; stabbing someone with a blade means often more in real life too. If you can accept that the blade doesnt really get a good hit in until hp hit 0, then the grappler doesn't lock in the hold until 0 hp either.

I know that. The point of my question was to get at, if your goal is to grapple the mage to silence him, why grapple him if the silencing comes from beating his hp out of him?

[HappyDaze]

I know that. The point of my question was to get at, if your goal is to grapple the mage to silence him, why grapple him if the silencing comes from beating his hp out of him?

So don't grapple him if that's your goal. Simple as that.

[NorthernPhoenix]

So don't grapple him if that's your goal. Simple as that.

I'm sorry but i don't see any reason a level 20 Barbarian should be much worse at this than "guy at the gym". The books let the DM decide this, so it really comes down to how much each DM thinks of grappling.



Besides that, grappling isn't all that popular in fantasy stories, and D&D is far true to that (even though it's still quite far off) than it is to real life.

I appreciate you bringing up the narrative argument, since you can go around in circles forever on the "what would X do if" realism. I'd contend that while it's definitely true that advanced grappling is a rare sight in popular fantasy, these stories also feature "grappling" that involves Strong Guy™ grabbing and picking up people by the throat with one arm, rendering them more helpless than they "realistically" would be.

[BoutsofInsanity]

It's actually supported in the rule book. Look at Page 195 of the PHB. It specifically states using the systems provided to adjudicate other abstract contests of prowess via improvisation.

[Segev]

So don't grapple him if that's your goal. Simple as that.

Tanarii wrote his post as if grappling then beating him to unconsciousness was the right way to go about it.

I responded by asking what the point of the grapple step was, then.

You're saying "there's no point," which is fine, but that does mean Tanarii's answer is not useful to the OP's question after all.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii wrote his post as if grappling then beating him to unconsciousness was the right way to go about it.

I responded by asking what the point of the grapple step was, then.

You're saying "there's no point," which is fine, but that does mean Tanarii's answer is not useful to the OP's question after all.
It is useful, in a "you can't do it with grappling if a DM rules the way I stated" kind of way. :smallwink: (Edit: Oh sorry, I totally missed your point. Grappling helps in that they can't easily move away from you. But other than that, you're right, it doesn't.)

OTOH I do not contend that my answer was the only proper answer to the question "can you hold a caster in a way so they can't perform S and/or V components?" That'd be a DM ruling, and one solid potential answer is: yes, and it should be some kind of opposed check, and it might as well be grappling checks.

IMO, whether or not a DM should rule to allow it really depends on how much Players want enemies to easily stop their PC casters from casting. Or make being MAD with Athletics or Acrobatics a requirement for playing a caster. IMO anything that makes anti-casting easier hurts PCs far more than monsters.

I do think allowing choking someone out without reducing them to 0 hit points is something every DM should rule "no way" on.

[Yuroch Kern]

This thread sounds like an attempt to homebrew more combat options for grappling, like the "optional" Disarm, for everyone. I usually allow a being that has already grappled a caster to do a further grapple check to force Concentration. No damage, just a lot of shaking and yelling. But that is also an example of house rules, and not RAW. I also think the Grappler feat is actually a useful yardstick for this, as "Pinning" is what is also being discussed. If you can achieve these results with a rope or gag, how can you emulate it with your bare hands? Can you?

[Segev]

AS for house-ruling, if the grappler is willing to devote his actions to preventing the mage from casting, I think a reasonably fair way to do it would be to have the grapple check's result (which, I believe, is always going to be a Strength(Athletics) check) set a DC for a Concentration check the mage must make in order to successfully cast a spell despite the attempts to hold his limbs, mouth, or whatever still/silent, as if the mage were checking for Concentration against damage taken while Concentrating on a spell.

[Yuroch Kern]

AS for house-ruling, if the grappler is willing to devote his actions to preventing the mage from casting, I think a reasonably fair way to do it would be to have the grapple check's result (which, I believe, is always going to be a Strength(Athletics) check) set a DC for a Concentration check the mage must make in order to successfully cast a spell despite the attempts to hold his limbs, mouth, or whatever still/silent, as if the mage were checking for Concentration against damage taken while Concentrating on a spell.

That is an elegant theory. I will test this next time, if I may.

[Satori01]

After you grapple them, reduce them to 0 hps. Now they're completely locked down under your control. That's what HPs are for.

Tanaril, do you have no Narrative descriptions in your game?
Is it all Attack Roles and vague terms like Grappling?
I am asking to just get a better sense of your POV.

The scenario described in the original post is a violent, but relatively non bloody affair.

Being beaten into unconsciousness is fairly gruesome, it typically leads to permanent injuries, often death still occurs.

The consequence of "that's what HP are for" is the players are forced to do this:
https://abcnews.go.com/Archives/video/march-1991-rodney-king-videotape-9758031

A player asking to add an Ad Hoc condition as part of a grapple...silencing the spell caster by holding their mouth shut, or restraining their hands to prevent somatic components, for example, has a resolution mechanism: That is what Saving Throws are for.

The role of Saving Throws since the games inception has been a method of resolving effects that bypass Hit Points.

Poison doesn't have to just do Hit Point damage, it can outright kill you instead. A Medusa doesn't need to bring someone to zero HP to petrify a creature, it just needs to make eye contact.

You are neglecting a resolution mechanic, the Saving Throw, that is an essential part of D&D's identity.

[Tanarii]

Tanaril, do you have no Narrative descriptions in your game?
Is it all Attack Roles and vague terms like Grappling?
I am asking to just get a better sense of your POV.
Lets just say if I ever wanted to play a caster in the DMs campaign, I'd be going "hold on a second ...".

It's not as nerfing to casters as reintroducing any hit negates a spell and casting a spell provokes an OA. But it sure makes it easy for humanoid enemies to take a caster out of the picture in short order.

Now if you think it's fine for a couple of Orcs to dogpile a Tier 2 caster and bypass their HPs to take them out of the fight, go to it.

[Unoriginal]

It's actually supported in the rule book. Look at Page 195 of the PHB. It specifically states using the systems provided to adjudicate other abstract contests of prowess via improvisation.

We know, but this doesn't actually support any side of the argument. A DM can, and should, decide if they say "yes" or "no" about anything.



Besides that, grappling isn't all that popular in fantasy stories, and D&D is far true to that (even though it's still quite far off) than it is to real life.

What do you mean by "grappling isn't all that popular in fantasy stories"?

[Satori01]

"Now if you think it's fine for a couple of Orcs to dogpile a Tier 2 caster and bypass their HPs to take them out of the fight, go to it."

Technically, not having enough bat guano can stop a spell caster in their tracks....being bound and gagged by ruffians at least has more dignity then being out of bat 💩.

Honestly, an Arcane Trickster can steal a casters component pouch or holy symbol as a bonus action, ad nauseum.

The actions described in the OP at least expended a fair chunk of that PCs resources...the glass is always half full when you are the DM.😈

[Unoriginal]

Now if you think it's fine for a couple of Orcs to dogpile a Tier 2 caster and bypass their HPs to take them out of the fight, go to it.


"Now if you think it's fine for a couple of Orcs to dogpile a Tier 2 caster and bypass their HPs to take them out of the fight, go to it."

Technically, not having enough bat guano can stop a spell caster in their tracks....being bound and gagged by ruffians at least has more dignity then being out of bat 💩.

Several orcs can definitively shove a rag in a caster's mouth and tie up/shackle their hands if they have the material for it. If they're able to do it without the material is the question.

[BoutsofInsanity]

The important point to consider is narrative action.

If hit points are the only way to reduce someone to a helpless state, then all other options are removed from viable tactical equations. Straight attack rolls become the most important thing to consider. Further, there becomes no point in description or action taken other than "I attack". This is a massive buff to spell casters. By removing tactical physical actions from being arbitrated, you instead only allow spell casting to cause conditional one off effects. Because they are explicitly stated.

If that's the case, better to go play 3.5 where feats and specific character abilities are specialized with narrow scope that explicitly say that a player can do said action.

Rather than in 5e which runs systems with broad scope to prevent bloat. Relying on DM's to arbitrate narration within the rule set.

Which in my opinion is a regression of the progress that 20 years of game design have improved upon.

That way at least players have the opportunity to do things and not having the Dungeon Master say no.

[NorthernPhoenix]

The important point to consider is narrative action.

If hit points are the only way to reduce someone to a helpless state,

But we know that's not even true, since a bunch of spells do just that.

[Tanarii]

This is a massive buff to spell casters.
No. It's failing to create a massive NERF to casters.

The Massive buff to casters came about in 3e.

[Dienekes]

Personally, this is of course not RAW.

But that does not necessarily mean it is good or bad. A lot of RAW is pretty idiotic.

So the question then becomes, what are the effects of what they’re asking to do? Would this break the game? Does it change the way combat is done at a fundamental level? Are these changes positive or negative to the player experience?

The effect is providing a martial a means of shutting down some of a casters ability to cast spells.

Would it break the game? Not that I see, no. There are a lot points of failure here. And it’s not even like they’re removing all options. As there are spells without components that can be theoretically blocked with a grapple.

Does it change the combat experience? Yes. This provides a new effective strategy against casters. Specifically a way to lock them down and disable them. One that is best performed not by other casters as is the norm but by strength focused martials.

Are the changes positive or negative to the player experience? For the martial. Probably universally positive. A new tool in the toolbelt that makes thematic and logical sense. One with distinct pros and cons, like grappling normally it is not to be used in every fight where you might be more important as straight damage or tank. But when you really got to stop someone from casting a spell. It’s there.

For the caster. I don’t know. It’s a new challenge that is always a threat. But not a guaranteed one. And there is counterplay available to the caster. Provided they understand how the rules work and can plan accordingly. If said player is interested in tactical engagement this may make combat more fun overall. If they only want to cast their big spells unimpeded they will have less.


As an aside. Not to name names. But I do remember some posting on this thread during the great martial/caster debate from a few weeks ago who claimed there was no imbalance because a martial could use their strength and skills in cool completely open ways to solve problems.

And here we have a martial using their Strength and skills in a cool open to interpretation way to solve a problem. And they’re saying it shouldn’t be allowed because the rules do not explicitly say it is so.

[Valmark]

I wouldn't allow it on somebody without Grappler feat.

Without it you can't even Restrain a target, and what the OP asked is clearly past Restraining.

Of course this still isn't RAW.

IRL, if I tried to do that without training I'd get a face full of fist. I mean, I probably have something like an 8 in strenght IRL, but the principle is that one. A barbarian has no more benefit then a wizard for a grapple besides better strenght an advantage. Hell, the monk is a terrible grappler and they are the iconic martial artist.

So I'd first require the Grappler feat, then sure, they can limit movements and voice through two Special Attacks. And at that point they are both locked down, of course. Though the original grappler will have their voice available.
For contests... Athletics vs Athletics/Acrobatics sounds fair, and the grappled can use an action to get free. As in, one thing free, not everything.

[BoutsofInsanity]

Personally, this is of course not RAW.

But that does not necessarily mean it is good or bad. A lot of RAW is pretty idiotic.

So the question then becomes, what are the effects of what they’re asking to do? Would this break the game? Does it change the way combat is done at a fundamental level? Are these changes positive or negative to the player experience?

The effect is providing a martial a means of shutting down some of a casters ability to cast spells.

Would it break the game? Not that I see, no. There are a lot points of failure here. And it’s not even like they’re removing all options. As there are spells without components that can be theoretically blocked with a grapple.

Does it change the combat experience? Yes. This provides a new effective strategy against casters. Specifically a way to lock them down and disable them. One that is best performed not by other casters as is the norm but by strength focused martials.

Are the changes positive or negative to the player experience? For the martial. Probably universally positive. A new tool in the toolbelt that makes thematic and logical sense. One with distinct pros and cons, like grappling normally it is not to be used in every fight where you might be more important as straight damage or tank. But when you really got to stop someone from casting a spell. It’s there.

For the caster. I don’t know. It’s a new challenge that is always a threat. But not a guaranteed one. And there is counterplay available to the caster. Provided they understand how the rules work and can plan accordingly. If said player is interested in tactical engagement this may make combat more fun overall. If they only want to cast their big spells unimpeded they will have less.


As an aside. Not to name names. But I do remember some posting on this thread during the great martial/caster debate from a few weeks ago who claimed their was no imbalance because a martial could use their strength and skills in cool completely open ways to solve problems.

And here we have a martial using their Strength and skills in a cool open to interpretation way to solve a problem. And they’re saying it shouldn’t be allowed because the rules do not explicitly say it is so.

See this is the best reasoning i've seen for it.

Because that's how I feel. I get whiplash so fast. It's like, casters are the best. Martial Characters suck. And here is a potential narrative, multiple points of failure idea, that is provided for within the bounds of the system that would allow Martial Characters an interesting way to use their strength and skill to compete even a little bit.

And then everyone freaks out because casters might not be able to easily one spell cast their way out of the bag. Go check out the reddit post I threw down. It's wild. All of the sudden physical prowess does matter and everyone loses their cool.

It's not even that bad. Pretty Much fighters and Monks can do it in a round. Everyone else takes two rounds to get there in the provided example. Hell it's more efficient anyway to use Sharpshooter and Dexterity to drop characters from 600 feet.

It's even more efficient to just throw Hold Person and win that way.

[Kyutaru]

So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?
This is literally one of the original uses for grappling and one of the most commonly used forms of it in 2nd and 3rd edition. There's even a video game called Knights of the Chalice that has 3.5 rules with grappling implemented and the enemies frequently do it to YOU too. For those claiming it's strong, yes it is and it's one of the basic advantages that strong fighters get for dealing with puny mages. AD&D mages were utterly defenseless against gags and handcuffs because they had no still or silent metamagic. Some spells were verbal only and didn't require hands and some spells were somatic and didn't need words but all spells needed something. It was a common tactic to capture wizards by disabling them and then tying them up. The rules of combat were horrendously unfair in AD&D and using creative solutions to encounters was basically mandatory because in a straight math fight the monsters would probably win.

Grappling down wizards so they can't cast is one of the non-damaging perks of being a martial. Works on other threatening things too, like stopping that giant from swinging his club at your squishy friends. Grappling is awesome and not enough people realize it because of how bare-bones the rules for it are.

Just remember that what PCs can do monsters can do too. Giants are terrifying to fight against when they use their 24 strength scores to grapple the party. Even the fighter can be disabled and good luck winning without him hacking them to pieces. What's that? Your wizard needs to beat an opposed strength check against something with three times his strength? Good luck and wait for rescuing.

Oh and one more thing, this is why wizards tended to be at the BACK of the room away from all the would-be grapplers. It's also why engulfing slimes and things with tentacles should never be allowed near the wizard ever.

[Chaosity]

Personally, I would add this effect to the pin option of the grappler feat
Good way to make that feat more usefull and it has the caveat of restraining yourself too so there is a tactical downside to it

[JNAProductions]

So, first off, this can't come online till level 7, if you're going mainly Barbarian for Rages (Fighter 2 (Action Surge)/Barbarian 5 (Extra Attack)), or level 6 if you're going mainly Fighter (Barbarian 1 (Rage)/Fighter 5 (Extra Attack)).

To those who would consider it OP, compare to what a straight Battlemaster 6 can do.

You can Action Surge (four attacks) and make each one a Disarming Strike, for instance-getting rid of their casting focus or component pouch on a failed Strength saving throw
Or just use whatever maneuver and slam them at four attacks, +8 to-hit, for 2d6+5+1d8 per hit. If VHuman with GWM, +3 to-hit, but 2d6+15+1d8 per hit. Assuming an AC of 14 (Mage Armor, +1 Dex) that's just shy of 50 damage (no GWM) or just over 50 (GWM yes).

Yes, this is a potent tactic-but it's gonna require you to expend build resources, and usually both short and long rest resources to get it done in a timely fashion. At the very least, you REALLY need Action Surge, since only grappling and making prone a target leaves them able to Misty Step or anything else like that away.

[Keltest]

Personally, i would allow it, with the understanding that the NPCs can do it to the players as well. Requiring components for spells becomes pretty pointless if those components dont actually meaningfully represent a resource or vulnerability to be targeted.

[Satori01]

I wouldn't allow it on somebody without Grappler feat.

Without it you can't even Restrain a target, and what the OP asked is clearly past Restraining.


I think that is an entirely valid way to look at this, especially if another PC has the Grappler feat.
Yet, I personally have never met, nor read a post of a person whom took the Grappler feat for the pin action the feat contains.

The Restrained condition is a terrible state to be in, and nobody wants to inflict that on themselves.

There is essentially no guidance on what the narrative distinction is between the two conditions outside of the illustrations in the PHB, displayed next to the mechanical description.

The Grapple condition is represented by a heavily armored dwarf being raised several feet off the ground by tentacles.
This tells me that even outlandish physical acts, such as those displayed in Entertainment Wrestling, are Grapples.

The Restrained condition is depicted with a human stuck, spread eagle, in a web. The limbs of this human are depicted as if they are tied to this web. The human, to me, appears almost like a fly stuck in fly paper.
This tells me, being bound hand and foot with rope, or stuck by some preternatural adhesive substance is what constitutes the Restrained condition.

Everything described in the OP, reads as a grapple.
An Angry, (Raging)Andre the Giant, (action surged), basically moved faster then anyone could stop, and manhandled, someone.

The character with the Restrained feat is like a living net.
You can't move, and they can't move, and you both are sitting ducks.

[sithlordnergal]

Allowing the grapple shutdown is rules wise the same as allowing someone to declare that their stab/slash cuts the bad guy's throat without using the rules for hit points.

I mean, the "targeting the throat " thing actually already exists. I can't remember if its a homebrew thing or a rule variant, but its called a Called Shot. You suffer disadvantage on the attack roll, and then you generally roll a Con save or suffer a penalty and a Lasting Injury. The AC of the target also tends to increase by a set amount based on how easy it is to hit.

I.E. you wanna do a headshot? +2 to the target's AC. You want to specifically target an eye? +5 to AC, maybe a bit more if its a really hard shot.

As for grappling shutting down casting, I'd be fine with that. I find grappling to be ok...but somewhat weak because you can only grapple creatures one size category larger than yourself. Meaning a Grapple focused build is utterly useless if they face a Huge creature or larger. This is a good way to make it a bit stronger.

[Chaosmancer]

I have a little bit of personal experience with this, and I have to say, I think the Grappler feat was a mistake and the grapple rules should be opened up to allow things like this.

I actually had a sorcerer years ago who was under a "blessing" from an evil god (the entire party was). Every so often, determined by a roll, we had to make a wisdom save, if we succeeded we were fine, but failure meant that we were compelled to kill as many people as possible until we succeeded on the save. Each kill gave us a mark, and the curse lasted until we had gone a number of days equal to our marks without killing anyone. (it was a "blessing" because reaching certain numbers of marks gave us boons, which were great for melee, but no so much for spellcasting)

The only time my character failed his wisdom save was when we were standing in the center of an intelligent mouse civilization in the room of an attic. My character was one spell away from killing hundreds of thousands of intelligent beings, and the DM came to me afterward to tell me that if I had done that, the curses power would have been so great, I would have become an NPC demigod of Slaughter, and possibly a new BBEG for the campaign.


We had a Barbarian and Fighter who immediately said they would stop me, and I had to explain to them that they couldn't. Literally. Nothing they could do could stop me from casting a spell. Regardless that they each had strength over 20, there was not a single thing they could do in a single round of combat that could stop me. It fell to the cleric, who didn't have silence. So the only way I could be stopped was Hold Person.

I was never so glad to fail a save in my life.


Similar situation to a degree. Different DM, different game. We came into a situation where a dark cultist was going to sacrifice a woman to complete a dark ritual. The Barbarian (or maybe he was a fighter) ran through the horde of enemies, taking OA's, to grapple the cultist by the altar. Cultist shrugged, and drove the dagger into the woman's heart, completing the ritual. Because nothing a fighter or barbarian can do can prevent someone from taking an action.

I still remember their "Wait, what?" when they realized they had wasted their entire turn, and taken damage, to accomplish nothing.




So, yeah. I'm fine with the OPs proposed scenario. Let a martial spend their actions to take an enemy out of the fight, with the understanding that they will be granting advantage to attacks against them (if you are that entangled, you aren't dodging) and can take no other actions that would require your arms or legs.

Because as it stands? If you need to stop someone from taking an action, only a spellcaster can do that. No martial character can do anything except prevent movement.

[HappyDaze]

I have a little bit of personal experience with this, and I have to say, I think the Grappler feat was a mistake and the grapple rules should be opened up to allow things like this.

I actually had a sorcerer years ago who was under a "blessing" from an evil god (the entire party was). Every so often, determined by a roll, we had to make a wisdom save, if we succeeded we were fine, but failure meant that we were compelled to kill as many people as possible until we succeeded on the save. Each kill gave us a mark, and the curse lasted until we had gone a number of days equal to our marks without killing anyone. (it was a "blessing" because reaching certain numbers of marks gave us boons, which were great for melee, but no so much for spellcasting)

The only time my character failed his wisdom save was when we were standing in the center of an intelligent mouse civilization in the room of an attic. My character was one spell away from killing hundreds of thousands of intelligent beings, and the DM came to me afterward to tell me that if I had done that, the curses power would have been so great, I would have become an NPC demigod of Slaughter, and possibly a new BBEG for the campaign.


We had a Barbarian and Fighter who immediately said they would stop me, and I had to explain to them that they couldn't. Literally. Nothing they could do could stop me from casting a spell. Regardless that they each had strength over 20, there was not a single thing they could do in a single round of combat that could stop me. It fell to the cleric, who didn't have silence. So the only way I could be stopped was Hold Person.

I was never so glad to fail a save in my life.


Similar situation to a degree. Different DM, different game. We came into a situation where a dark cultist was going to sacrifice a woman to complete a dark ritual. The Barbarian (or maybe he was a fighter) ran through the horde of enemies, taking OA's, to grapple the cultist by the altar. Cultist shrugged, and drove the dagger into the woman's heart, completing the ritual. Because nothing a fighter or barbarian can do can prevent someone from taking an action.

I still remember their "Wait, what?" when they realized they had wasted their entire turn, and taken damage, to accomplish nothing.




So, yeah. I'm fine with the OPs proposed scenario. Let a martial spend their actions to take an enemy out of the fight, with the understanding that they will be granting advantage to attacks against them (if you are that entangled, you aren't dodging) and can take no other actions that would require your arms or legs.

Because as it stands? If you need to stop someone from taking an action, only a spellcaster can do that. No martial character can do anything except prevent movement.

Shove the cumtist away from the target then grapple them. They can still try to throw the dagger, I suppose, but that's a bit different.

[Yuroch Kern]

Well, I haven't been able to test some of these scenarios yet, but the discussion does turn my mind to a more mundane scenario about silencing your target: silencing guards. It is the same thing, clapping your hand over their mouth, typically by surprise, and either slipping the dagger in the back, or to their throat for a similar effect or an Intimidate. How do you maintain the Human Gag? Going for HP is a little silly, since not everyone has Sneak Attack, and a dagger will generally at most do 9 points of damage. What if they have 20 HP? Is there no way to keep them from "casting" Raise the Alarm? Or even the other guard spell, Death Rattle? What if I did it with a gag in the first place, since those clearly work? I don't see much in this thread for even that common scenario, and all this nerfing caster nonsense already happens with their hit die. Seriously, are we just saying without a feat or homebrew, you should run around with manacles and slap them on, and tie a gag around their mouth as attack actions, or what?

[Mellack]

I have a little bit of personal experience with this, and I have to say, I think the Grappler feat was a mistake and the grapple rules should be opened up to allow things like this.

I actually had a sorcerer years ago who was under a "blessing" from an evil god (the entire party was). Every so often, determined by a roll, we had to make a wisdom save, if we succeeded we were fine, but failure meant that we were compelled to kill as many people as possible until we succeeded on the save. Each kill gave us a mark, and the curse lasted until we had gone a number of days equal to our marks without killing anyone. (it was a "blessing" because reaching certain numbers of marks gave us boons, which were great for melee, but no so much for spellcasting)

The only time my character failed his wisdom save was when we were standing in the center of an intelligent mouse civilization in the room of an attic. My character was one spell away from killing hundreds of thousands of intelligent beings, and the DM came to me afterward to tell me that if I had done that, the curses power would have been so great, I would have become an NPC demigod of Slaughter, and possibly a new BBEG for the campaign.


We had a Barbarian and Fighter who immediately said they would stop me, and I had to explain to them that they couldn't. Literally. Nothing they could do could stop me from casting a spell. Regardless that they each had strength over 20, there was not a single thing they could do in a single round of combat that could stop me. It fell to the cleric, who didn't have silence. So the only way I could be stopped was Hold Person.

I was never so glad to fail a save in my life.


Similar situation to a degree. Different DM, different game. We came into a situation where a dark cultist was going to sacrifice a woman to complete a dark ritual. The Barbarian (or maybe he was a fighter) ran through the horde of enemies, taking OA's, to grapple the cultist by the altar. Cultist shrugged, and drove the dagger into the woman's heart, completing the ritual. Because nothing a fighter or barbarian can do can prevent someone from taking an action.

I still remember their "Wait, what?" when they realized they had wasted their entire turn, and taken damage, to accomplish nothing.




So, yeah. I'm fine with the OPs proposed scenario. Let a martial spend their actions to take an enemy out of the fight, with the understanding that they will be granting advantage to attacks against them (if you are that entangled, you aren't dodging) and can take no other actions that would require your arms or legs.

Because as it stands? If you need to stop someone from taking an action, only a spellcaster can do that. No martial character can do anything except prevent movement.


They may have had options. One would be to grapple and then move. If they can break line of sight that eliminates a large number of spell possibilities. It might not be quite as easy, but there are usually options.

[Ignimortis]

I was thinking about grappling, conditions and so forth and wonder how you guys would look at this.

First caveat - The rules are here to facilitate players. So if a player tries to attempt something not explicitly covered in the rules, we as DM's are to try and ad-hock a ruling to warrant it. (Provided its within bounds of the reality of the game.)


So a fighter/Barbarian Half-Orc with expertise in Athletics from Prodigy, rages and runs over to the enemy Wizard with their movement. They replace their first attack with a shove prone. Once the enemy is prone they use their second attack to grapple. (I'm assuming they succeed here with their bonuses). They Action Surge. They take their second attack action.

Using their second attack action the player states the following. "I would like to use my hands to grab the Wizard's hands and prevent somatic components from working". Replacing their now third attack with another grapple. Even if the DM throws Disadvantage at the player for the maneuver they still would most likely succeed with their massive strength and athletics differential. Finally, with the final attack they state " I would like to press my Knee or leg or whatever into the Wizard's throat, cutting off their air supply and preventing verbal components and potentially begin choking out the Wizard. The DM again applies disadvantage, but again, with Expertise in Athletics, Rage counteracting the disadvantage making it a normal roll, the Fighter/Barbarian might succeed.

So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?


Now I would rule as the DM that the Wizard can still attack as I don't think that the disruption of complex hand gestures is as hard as preventing someone from punching which is a simpler task. I would also rule that the Fighter would have to replace each attack each round with another attempt for each "condition" they are applying, with disadvantage. Lastly, the Wizard is not prevented from attempting to breaking the grapple which I would rule breaks all the previous conditions.

Thanks.

The dude spent two resources and four attacks just to lock one enemy down. Not even kill or permanently incapacitate them. They didn't do 4d12+28 (at least) damage to the wizard, instead choosing to do zero damage and use themselves as a poor man's Hold Person. I would not do anything in this situation, that's a well-deserved result that isn't even all that powerful. The wizard is welcome to try to break out of the grapple by Athletics contest. And no, the barbarian doesn't need to spend attacks to keep someone grappled. They should be able to spend attacks to headbutt the wizard out of existence, or break the wizard's arms (HP damage anyway).

Your ruling seems like a bad case of "I don't want my players to be too awesome". Why not?

[Sorinth]

Allowing the grapple shutdown is rules wise the same as allowing someone to declare that their stab/slash cuts the bad guy's throat without using the rules for hit points.

It's really not though. The player decides to attempt something, the DM still decides what happens on success. So yeah as a player you can say I try to slash at the bad guy's throat but the DM decides how hard it is for you to hit the throat and what hitting the throat actually accompishes. And for the record hitting someone in the throat isn't even an insta-kill in real life so the enemy likely have a few rounds in them anyways.

So as an example let's say you try to attack the throat, as the DM I'll say make an attack roll at disadvantage, and if you beat the AC by say more than 5 you've succeeded in hitting the throat area and they'll they'll take some bleeding damage every round until they get some healing/first aid. If you hit but don't beat the AC by 5 then you hit but miss the neck/important bits so it's a normal hit. It's all well within the spirit of the rules.

How good or bad an idea of making that kind of "called shot" is going to depend on how easy the DM makes the attempt versus the bonuses you get from success. But the idea that you can't even attempt that kind of thing is absurd to me.

[Tanarii]

How good or bad an idea of making that kind of "called shot" is going to depend on how easy the DM makes the attempt versus the bonuses you get from success. But the idea that you can't even attempt that kind of thing is absurd to me.
Hit Points represent a characters ability to defend against every character who is taking their best shot at killing or disabling you (knocking you unconscious) already. That's what they are for.

Some characters have this maneuver built in already. Rogues get sneak attack to represent being better at these kinds of maneuvers against opponents that's guards are down. Battle masters get maneuvers to try special tricks.

It's no absurd, it's acknowledging the entire point of hit points and special class features that represent knowing how to be more effective at certain special tricks.

[Sorinth]

Hit Points represent a characters ability to defend against every character who is taking their best shot at killing or disabling you (knocking you unconscious) already. That's what they are for.

Some characters have this maneuver built in already. Rogues get sneak attack to represent being better at these kinds of maneuvers against opponents that's guards are down. Battle masters get maneuvers to try special tricks.

It's no absurd, it's acknowledging the entire point of hit points and special class features that represent knowing how to be more effective at certain special tricks.

So you think every single attack roll an attacker makes is them trying to lop off the opponents head? Do they never attempt body shots that are likely to hurt but not be the "best shot at killing"?

Yeah that's pretty pretty absurd.

[Chaosmancer]

Shove the cumtist away from the target then grapple them. They can still try to throw the dagger, I suppose, but that's a bit different.

I don't remember if they had two attacks to shove and grapple. Guess you can't stop someone from stabbing a innocent until level 5, and you need to succeed on two check.

By the way, level 1 is sleep for casters. Level 3 is hold person. Level 5 is Hypnotic Pattern. So, casters have mulitple options to shut down multiple targets before level 5, and a fighter might be able to spend their entire turn to stop one person.



They may have had options. One would be to grapple and then move. If they can break line of sight that eliminates a large number of spell possibilities. It might not be quite as easy, but there are usually options.

I would have still had line of sight, if you are talking about the sorcerer.

And if it takes your entire movement to get to a target like the cultist, then you don't have any left to drag them away. And, if they happen to have Misty step, then you again wasted your turn, because they just misty step free and stab.



Hit Points represent a characters ability to defend against every character who is taking their best shot at killing or disabling you (knocking you unconscious) already. That's what they are for.

Some characters have this maneuver built in already. Rogues get sneak attack to represent being better at these kinds of maneuvers against opponents that's guards are down. Battle masters get maneuvers to try special tricks.

It's no absurd, it's acknowledging the entire point of hit points and special class features that represent knowing how to be more effective at certain special tricks.

How does this apply to suffocation and drowning that completely ignore HP?

There are dozens of spells that bypass hp to paralyze or knock someone unconscious. By the logic of "you can't restrain them without hitting their hp" then Hold Person shouldn't work. It is bypassing their HP. A Water Elemental shouldn't be able to whelm someone and drown them, that is bypassing hp. Drow Poison shouldn't work, because it bypasses HP. Actually, that goes for quite a few poisons.


But, all of those things do work, and they do bypass HP, so why can't you grapple someone and prevent them from acting, without reducing their HP to zero? And, honestly, if we want "reduce hp to zero" to be the only way to stop someone, then we have a lot of things we need to ban for breaking that.

[HappyDaze]

I don't remember if they had two attacks to shove and grapple. Guess you can't stop someone from stabbing a innocent until level 5, and you need to succeed on two check.

By the way, level 1 is sleep for casters. Level 3 is hold person. Level 5 is Hypnotic Pattern. So, casters have mulitple options to shut down multiple targets before level 5, and a fighter might be able to spend their entire turn to stop one person.




I would have still had line of sight, if you are talking about the sorcerer.

And if it takes your entire movement to get to a target like the cultist, then you don't have any left to drag them away. And, if they happen to have Misty step, then you again wasted your turn, because they just misty step free and stab.




How does this apply to suffocation and drowning that completely ignore HP?

There are dozens of spells that bypass hp to paralyze or knock someone unconscious. By the logic of "you can't restrain them without hitting their hp" then Hold Person shouldn't work. It is bypassing their HP. A Water Elemental shouldn't be able to whelm someone and drown them, that is bypassing hp. Drow Poison shouldn't work, because it bypasses HP. Actually, that goes for quite a few poisons.


But, all of those things do work, and they do bypass HP, so why can't you grapple someone and prevent them from acting, without reducing their HP to zero? And, honestly, if we want "reduce hp to zero" to be the only way to stop someone, then we have a lot of things we need to ban for breaking that.

Sometime you just have to accept that magic is better. In D&D, that sometimes is a lot more frequent than in other games.

[Amnestic]

Sometime you just have to accept that magic is better. In D&D, that sometimes is a lot more frequent than in other games.

Sure, but if the concern is "this series of grapple events is too powerful" when casters can do it better, faster, and more consistently then it does fall a bit short.

[HappyDaze]

Sure, but if the concern is "this series of grapple events is too powerful" when casters can do it better, faster, and more consistently then it does fall a bit short.

I disallow it not on a concern for power, but because it doesnt fit the RAW. Magic can do more by RAW. If you want to do those things, play a magic user. Character creation is equal opportunity but not necessarily equal outcomes (although I disallow random ability generation, as I want choices, rather than randomness, to be key). I make sure my players understand that. Those that don't accept it are encouraged to find another.game that better suits them.

[JNAProductions]

Sometime you just have to accept that magic is better. In D&D, that sometimes is a lot more frequent than in other games.

"Well, sure, it sucks, but that's how it is."

So why not CHANGE how it is? It's not hard to do-if you're the DM, you can just... Allow players to be cool.

RAW is not binding. It's a common reference point, and significant deviations should be noted in advance, but if ignoring RAW or allowing people to do more than what RAW says they can makes the game more fun? Then do it.

[HappyDaze]

"Well, sure, it sucks, but that's how it is."

So why not CHANGE how it is? It's not hard to do-if you're the DM, you can just... Allow players to be cool.

RAW is not binding. It's a common reference point, and significant deviations should be noted in advance, but if ignoring RAW or allowing people to do more than what RAW says they can makes the game more fun? Then do it.

Because if it sucks enough, I'll play a different game instead. It doesnt matter enough to me though, so I'm not going to change it.

[NorthernPhoenix]

"Well, sure, it sucks, but that's how it is."

So why not CHANGE how it is? It's not hard to do-if you're the DM, you can just... Allow players to be cool.

RAW is not binding. It's a common reference point, and significant deviations should be noted in advance, but if ignoring RAW or allowing people to do more than what RAW says they can makes the game more fun? Then do it.

Not only that, i'd argue being a slave to the RAW is remnant of 3.x game culture and is against the spirit of 5e. And we've had countless threads on the subject that lead to this: Why are martials bad? Because "RAW" they're less good than the Guy at the Gym. How can can playing a martial not suck when "RAW" leads to me the student being a better grappler than the Primal Champion?

[HappyDaze]

Not only that, i'd argue being a slave to the RAW is remnant of 3.x game culture and is against the spirit of 5e. And we've had countless threads on the subject that lead to this: Why are martials bad? Because "RAW" they're less good than the Guy at the Gym. How can can playing a martial not suck when "RAW" leads to me the student being a better grappler than the Primal Champion?

Following the rules is not being a slave. I have to show this to people at my workplace all the time. I don't feel like wasting the energy at a game table. They can either follow the rules that everyone at the table agreed to (the ones in the books we use), or they don't play with us. Simple as that.

[JNAProductions]

Following the rules is not being a slave. I have to show this to people at my workplace all the time. I don't feel like wasting the energy at a game table. They can either follow the rules that everyone at the table agreed to (the ones in the books we use), or they don't play with us. Simple as that.

So what’s the action for flipping a switch? Or is that not in the rules, so they can’t do it?
What about making a sandwich?
Seducing a prince(ss)?
Writing a book commentating your actions?

Why play a Tabletop game if you aren’t going to use it to its fullest?

[Demonslayer666]

I made house rules covering how to take a grapple to a restrained condition, and a restrained condition to a pin. They take actions instead of attacks, so it can't be done in a single turn. I also house ruled that the restrained condition forces a concentration check to cast spells with somatic components.

I do not have rules on restricting verbal components, but I would make that pretty difficult as an improvised action, and I doubt I would allow it unless they were restrained or pinned by someone else or tied up.

[Naanomi]

They take actions instead of attacks, so it can't be done in a single turn.
Seems... like a way to punish martial characters with multiple attacks rather than reward them. A rogue or bard with expertise (especially a lore bard who could insult a penalty on the oppositional check) would make a much better grappler than a high level fighter (who would be wasting a bunch of attacks in trying to grapple)

[HappyDaze]

So what’s the action for flipping a switch? Or is that not in the rules, so they can’t do it?
What about making a sandwich?
Seducing a prince(ss)?
Writing a book commentating your actions?

Why play a Tabletop game if you aren’t going to use it to its fullest?

Flipping a switch is usually an object interaction. Making a sandwich is usually part of a short rest. Seducing is multiple checks, likely with a mix of Persuasion, Insight, Deception, and possibly other skills. Writing that book is a downtime activity.

Do we need to go on?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Following the rules is not being a slave. I have to show this to people at my workplace all the time. I don't feel like wasting the energy at a game table. They can either follow the rules that everyone at the table agreed to (the ones in the books we use), or they don't play with us. Simple as that.

It is "being a slave" though, since as has been mentioned before, it deliberately ignores the rules for freeform contests in the PHB in favor of a static list of options. You're just choosing to selectively apply the rules you prefer in a limiting fashion.

[fbelanger]

Allow to choke a character, but remove somatic and verbal component from spell.

[Tvtyrant]

Following the rules is not being a slave. I have to show this to people at my workplace all the time. I don't feel like wasting the energy at a game table. They can either follow the rules that everyone at the table agreed to (the ones in the books we use), or they don't play with us. Simple as that.

Seems like we are in agreement not to play together then. Huzzah!

I don't think there is anything wrong with your approach, but 5E is far too barebones for me to play it that way. If not open to house rules I would just as certainly walk away from your table as you would want me to.

[Glorthindel]

For me this sort of comes down to a "Is this fun" vs "Is this frustrating"

And this usually comes down to frequency of use, and what the implications are of the DM turning around and using it on the players. Sure, a one-off novel tactic that cuts a dangerous fight short is fun. That one time. But a go-to tactic that one particular character (I am looking at you Barbarian in this instance) pulls out at every single fight gets un-fun fast. And so does the DM dumping a concerted gank-squad on the party Wizard every single fight because whats good for the players is good for him too.

We can easily argue either way that it can be done (and I feel in the last few pages, people have done so for both sides of the arguement) but to me, a more compelling arguement, is should it be done? Is allowing the Barbarian to neutralise every monster spellcaster the DM brings out fun for him? Sure it is. Is it fun for the DM? Maybe, maybe not. Is it fun for the Wizard who now not only has to avoid getting hit, has to avoid regular dogpiles? Probably not.

[HappyDaze]

It is "being a slave" though, since as has been mentioned before, it deliberately ignores the rules for freeform contests in the PHB in favor of a static list of options. You're just choosing to selectively apply the rules you prefer in a limiting fashion.

So I'm exercising choice while being a slave? That's a whole lot of conflicting nonsense.

[NorthernPhoenix]

So I'm exercising choice while being a slave? That's a whole lot of conflicting nonsense.

The only thing that's conflicting here is you pretending you're "just following the rules" except when it suits you to stop pretending.

[HappyDaze]

The only thing that's conflicting here is you pretending you're "just following the rules" except when it suits you to stop pretending.

I remain unconflicted. How are you?

[Demonslayer666]

Seems... like a way to punish martial characters with multiple attacks rather than reward them. A rogue or bard with expertise (especially a lore bard who could insult a penalty on the oppositional check) would make a much better grappler than a high level fighter (who would be wasting a bunch of attacks in trying to grapple)

I don't see that as punishment since I am allowing things not covered by the rules.

[Keltest]

I don't see that as punishment since I am allowing things not covered by the rules.

In this case, because it is an action rather than an attack, martial characters, fighters in particular, suffer a significantly higher opportunity cost from the lost extra attacks than, say, a bard would.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I remain unconflicted. How are you?

You're not really contributing to the thread here. My goal is never to convince people like you, but to show other people who might read these discussions that there is a better way. That's why i find it weird you're so defensive over what you do at your table. That doesn't really matter to anyone but you, but trying to promote worse play for other tables does. So you might as well not do it and just keep to yourself.

[Sorinth]

I disallow it not on a concern for power, but because it doesnt fit the RAW. Magic can do more by RAW. If you want to do those things, play a magic user. Character creation is equal opportunity but not necessarily equal outcomes (although I disallow random ability generation, as I want choices, rather than randomness, to be key). I make sure my players understand that. Those that don't accept it are encouraged to find another.game that better suits them.

It is RAW though, it's under the How to Play section of the Introduction of the PHB.

EDIT: And if you need furthur proof that you can attempt anything reasonable even if it's not listed there's page 192 of the PHB about the combat section where it states

"When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure."

So by RAW you can very much attempt to do the things described in this thread.

[Chaosmancer]

Sometime you just have to accept that magic is better. In D&D, that sometimes is a lot more frequent than in other games.

Honestly, this just crushes any desire I have to continue discussing this topic.

Magic users are just better than martials. Get used to it, that's RAW.


And people wonder why the game started giving everyone magic.



For me this sort of comes down to a "Is this fun" vs "Is this frustrating"

And this usually comes down to frequency of use, and what the implications are of the DM turning around and using it on the players. Sure, a one-off novel tactic that cuts a dangerous fight short is fun. That one time. But a go-to tactic that one particular character (I am looking at you Barbarian in this instance) pulls out at every single fight gets un-fun fast. And so does the DM dumping a concerted gank-squad on the party Wizard every single fight because whats good for the players is good for him too.

We can easily argue either way that it can be done (and I feel in the last few pages, people have done so for both sides of the arguement) but to me, a more compelling arguement, is should it be done? Is allowing the Barbarian to neutralise every monster spellcaster the DM brings out fun for him? Sure it is. Is it fun for the DM? Maybe, maybe not. Is it fun for the Wizard who now not only has to avoid getting hit, has to avoid regular dogpiles? Probably not.

There is a lot of opportunity cost involved though. The Barbarian is essentially removing himself from the fight to stop one enemy. And making themselves a prime target for attacks.

This can't really be a go to solution, because the cost of doing it is so high, it would only really be used in extreme circumstances.




I don't see that as punishment since I am allowing things not covered by the rules.


I don't see it as a punishment as much as it is just narratively and thematically unappealing.

Fighter's are the best at grappling in terms of getting between 1 and 6 attempts by level 11.

However, they are equal or worse to everyone else in this ability to turn that grapple into a restrain or a pin, because as an action, they are now not able to bring their superior martial ability to bear. And this makes the rogue and bard better, because they can have higher bonuses, due to expertise.

[Kireban]

Why not just let the fighter stun the caster by bashing the caster's head on the floor after the shove?
It is a better use for what is left from his attacks- stun+damage.

Spells cost slots and take actions. What limitations should you give the fighter?

The main problem with adding new action types is that the game wasn't designed to deal with them.

[Sorinth]

The main problem with adding new action types is that the game wasn't designed to deal with them.

Except the game was designed to deal with them. Check the sidebar called Improvising an Action in the Combat section of the PHB.

[Nhorianscum]

I was thinking about grappling, conditions and so forth and wonder how you guys would look at this.

First caveat - The rules are here to facilitate players. So if a player tries to attempt something not explicitly covered in the rules, we as DM's are to try and ad-hock a ruling to warrant it. (Provided its within bounds of the reality of the game.)


So a fighter/Barbarian Half-Orc with expertise in Athletics from Prodigy, rages and runs over to the enemy Wizard with their movement. They replace their first attack with a shove prone. Once the enemy is prone they use their second attack to grapple. (I'm assuming they succeed here with their bonuses). They Action Surge. They take their second attack action.

Using their second attack action the player states the following. "I would like to use my hands to grab the Wizard's hands and prevent somatic components from working". Replacing their now third attack with another grapple. Even if the DM throws Disadvantage at the player for the maneuver they still would most likely succeed with their massive strength and athletics differential. Finally, with the final attack they state " I would like to press my Knee or leg or whatever into the Wizard's throat, cutting off their air supply and preventing verbal components and potentially begin choking out the Wizard. The DM again applies disadvantage, but again, with Expertise in Athletics, Rage counteracting the disadvantage making it a normal roll, the Fighter/Barbarian might succeed.

So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?


Now I would rule as the DM that the Wizard can still attack as I don't think that the disruption of complex hand gestures is as hard as preventing someone from punching which is a simpler task. I would also rule that the Fighter would have to replace each attack each round with another attempt for each "condition" they are applying, with disadvantage. Lastly, the Wizard is not prevented from attempting to breaking the grapple which I would rule breaks all the previous conditions.

Thanks.

This seems perfectly reasonable. If anything you're already on the strict side (the restrain and chike should probably have advantage).

It's functionally, prone->grapple->restrain->choke. Which is a chain supported by raw.

This is just good play by the barb.

{As for any "wow OP" arguments. There are plenty of ways for casters to break out of this lock (contingency, subtle, elemental wildshape, some channel divinities, etc) and it required quite the investment. If a caster skipped that day in mage gym class... get outsmarted by the barb nerd.}

[HappyDaze]

You're not really contributing to the thread here. My goal is never to convince people like you, but to show other people who might read these discussions that there is a better way. That's why i find it weird you're so defensive over what you do at your table. That doesn't really matter to anyone but you, but trying to promote worse play for other tables does. So you might as well not do it and just keep to yourself.

You say "better way" and I say it is not. It is a different way, but it is not inherently better. How about I describe my way, you describe your way, and let others decide what is "better" for themselves? I'm not defensive because I'm not trying to convince anyone, quite unlike you. I'm sorry if you want me to keep my ideas ro myself but I'm not going to do that.

[Kireban]

Except the game was designed to deal with them. Check the sidebar called Improvising an Action in the Combat section of the PHB.

So why not shove everything and stun lock them with head bashing? you should be able to keep couple of creatures simultaneously stunned like that for the whole fight.

[Nhorianscum]

So why not shove everything and stun lock them with head bashing? you should be able to keep couple of creatures simultaneously stunned like that for the whole fight.

Melemancy is really good in tier's 1 and 2.

[Sorinth]

So why not shove everything and stun lock them with head bashing? you should be able to keep couple of creatures simultaneously stunned like that for the whole fight.

You could certainly try to do that, but as a tactic it's probably not going to be effective because the difficulty involved in stun-locking someone is going to be very high so you will fail most of the time.


EDIT: I should also point out that as a player you don't get to choose whether head bashing someone can actually result in a stun. As a player you describe what you want to attempt, so in this case you say I grab his head and bash it against the hard ground. The DM is still the one who is supposed to decide whether that can result in a stunned condition and how likely it would.

[Damon_Tor]

As others have said, this seems like it should be an alternative application of the grappler feat, and the result of the grappling should be in line with the power of the restrained condition, which means an extra chance a spell fails, equivalent to having disadvantage on an attack. I'd let them try to cast, but they would have to pass a dex save (DC = your last grapple check) to wiggle themselves free enough to move their hands and/or mouth enough to cast. On a fail they waste the spell.

[Naanomi]

Increases the power of summoning for casters also, best option to stop another caster will be to summon something strong to grapple them and keep your own action in the meantime

[Chaosmancer]

Increases the power of summoning for casters also, best option to stop another caster will be to summon something strong to grapple them and keep your own action in the meantime

Not really, any of the plethora of action denial spells are still just as effective. Stinking Cloud, Hold Person, Hypnotic Pattern, Tasha's Hideos Laughter, Confusion (limited use I know), Crown of Madness, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Polymorph, Silence, Bestow Curse (silence), Fear, Cause Fear, Charm Person (they get advantage, but once charmed they can't attack you)


Also, while I'm not sure if this is a rule, summoned creautures generally don't act on the turn they were summoned, so the enemy caster has a round to respond.

[HappyDaze]

Also, while I'm not sure if this is a rule, summoned creautures generally don't act on the turn they were summoned, so the enemy caster has a round to respond.

They can act on the same turn, if their Initiative is less than the caster's. Just another reason for casters to push Dex and strive for high Initiative.

[Tanarii]

Also, while I'm not sure if this is a rule, summoned creautures generally don't act on the turn they were summoned, so the enemy caster has a round to respond.
Depends on the casters initiative relative to the enemies. If you go right after the enemy caster, it's very likely your conjured creatures will get a turn before them. If they go right after you, it's very unlikely.

It's one of those few times turn order isn't the only thing that matters, but rather the original init rolls do.

[Yuroch Kern]

Had a chance to test some things in this thread, which actually caused me to facepalm at myself. There is already a RAW mechanic. Improvised Tools/Weapons. So, to restrain a mage from Somatic, you tie them with rope or manacles or rope right? So, you use your hands as an Improvised rope/manacles. No proficiency to use, slap on Disadvantage, and breaking the grapple also removes the Improvised Tool. Same with a gag/muzzle for Verbal. The house rule can evolve from there, which at my table installs Grappler feat with the removal of Disadvantage for optional grapple maneuvers, and Tavern Brawler adding proficiency to an attack roll with an Improvised tool. Thoughts?

[Tanarii]

Thoughts?
Were you a player testing it on NPCs, or a DM testing it on PCs?

[Yuroch Kern]

Were you a player testing it on NPCs, or a DM testing it on PCs?

DMing some PCs. Only real way to test is headfirst application, in my opinion. It is a young group too, shifting away from WoW to paper, and they like the sneaky simplicity of 5e. The 10 year old is playing a Thief rogue, and decided to alter their playstyle as a Thief-taker, since bonus action Item use would complement his non-lethal play style.

[Kireban]

Had a chance to test some things in this thread, which actually caused me to facepalm at myself. There is already a RAW mechanic. Improvised Tools/Weapons. So, to restrain a mage from Somatic, you tie them with rope or manacles or rope right? So, you use your hands as an Improvised rope/manacles. No proficiency to use, slap on Disadvantage, and breaking the grapple also removes the Improvised Tool. Same with a gag/muzzle for Verbal. The house rule can evolve from there, which at my table installs Grappler feat with the removal of Disadvantage for optional grapple maneuvers, and Tavern Brawler adding proficiency to an attack roll with an Improvised tool. Thoughts?

But being restrained by rope/manacles doesnt stop you from using your hands to cast spells. Also, I cant find any RAW way to silence without magic. Most likely since it is too hard to negate. Spells give you saves. Trying to remove restraining objects requires actions to be spent on checks with high dc.

[Chaosmancer]

But being restrained by rope/manacles doesnt stop you from using your hands to cast spells. Also, I cant find any RAW way to silence without magic. Most likely since it is too hard to negate. Spells give you saves. Trying to remove restraining objects requires actions to be spent on checks with high dc.

Well, it should cancel somatic.

Somatic specifies you "need a hand free" and being bound by rope or manacles is not "free"

So, it works in theory.

[Kyutaru]

But being restrained by rope/manacles doesnt stop you from using your hands to cast spells. Also, I cant find any RAW way to silence without magic. Most likely since it is too hard to negate. Spells give you saves. Trying to remove restraining objects requires actions to be spent on checks with high dc.
Cutting out your tongue works. Try pronouncing your spells now!

[Sorinth]

As others have said, this seems like it should be an alternative application of the grappler feat, and the result of the grappling should be in line with the power of the restrained condition, which means an extra chance a spell fails, equivalent to having disadvantage on an attack. I'd let them try to cast, but they would have to pass a dex save (DC = your last grapple check) to wiggle themselves free enough to move their hands and/or mouth enough to cast. On a fail they waste the spell.

I personally don't think it should be feat locked. Anyone should be able to try and stop someone from calling out because you shouldn't need a feat to clamp your hand over someones mouth. Having a related feat should just make you better/faster at stuff.

[Kireban]

Cutting out your tongue works. Try pronouncing your spells now!

Likewise, taking any kind of damage should effect the pc's ability to act and fight. This is not how the game works in case that you didn't notice.

[Kyutaru]

Likewise, taking any kind of damage should effect the pc's ability to act and fight. This is not how the game works in case that you didn't notice.
Actually it's exactly how the game works. Hit points are not direct damage and one of the interpretations posed is they represent exhaustion and only the final hit actually downs a person or causes serious injury. Debilitating actions can and do effect the PC's ability to fight and even exhaustion is an existing status effect that can be employed at any time your DM decides your PCs have grown tired. D&D is not a tactics game with a strict action flowchart and turn structure but a combination simulation, RPG, and tactics adventure. It lacks the minutiae rule depth that permissive rulesets possess and drags on during battles because the combat is but a fraction of the game overall. What you mean is that there isn't a specific set of rules that detail the process of removing tongues from things and ergo there is no way to obtain the hand of a barghest either because severing limbs isn't in the Action bar. You're thinking with video game logic about a roleplaying game, not RPG as computer games use the term but a true roleplaying game. But by your logic adventurers are incapable of so much as defecating as the rules provide no ability to do so.

[Tanarii]

DMing some PCs. Only real way to test is headfirst application, in my opinion. It is a young group too, shifting away from WoW to paper, and they like the sneaky simplicity of 5e. The 10 year old is playing a Thief rogue, and decided to alter their playstyle as a Thief-taker, since bonus action Item use would complement his non-lethal play style.
How did the players feel about their PCs having casting counteracted?

[Yuroch Kern]

But being restrained by rope/manacles doesnt stop you from using your hands to cast spells. Also, I cant find any RAW way to silence without magic. Most likely since it is too hard to negate. Spells give you saves. Trying to remove restraining objects requires actions to be spent on checks with high dc.

What you gotta then ask yourself then is: is Subtle Spell metamagic totally stupid? Like a ball gag and 50' of only rope mummifying their hands won't stop it? The OP did ask what the DM should do in these situations, and being reasonable is important for both DM's and players. And getting the objects on isn't free either. Also, it's not exactly silence or full restraint you are doing. How many tropes have we seen where mispronouncing a word or missing a key gesture messes things up? Frankly, stick them in Ring Mail. According to RAW, they can't cast in armor they're not proficient in, and a 13 AC isn't too bad to deal with for a prisoner.


How did the players feel about their PCs having casting counteracted?

It was fine. They simply altered tactics and protected the Wizard better. The Sorcerer was fine, she has Subtle Spell. It only came up a couple times too, mostly it was trying to counter opposing casters. It really doesn't come up as often as you might think. The stealth was the primary use, as maintaining the silence became crucial. They also didn't just try to physically restrain them all the time. If you do that, as has been pointed out, you aren't hurting them and hands that could be doing other things are now holding on for dear life. The best tactic is still taking them out fast, as canny casters should have spells that don't require all components. The opposing Bard still wreaked havoc with Vicious Mockery and Inspiring his allies, and shutting the guard up didn't prevent him from attempting to throw a dagger at the bell. He missed because the Thief dragged him out of close range. Also, it didn't always work, as everything does. Still gotta roll. Just like Counterspell doesn't always work. Honestly, it's like you come up with a thing, and everyone assumes it automatically functions and breaks the game.

[Corran]

...
So in one round, in a potential white room scenario, the Fighter/Barbarian can really lock down a character? I think with how powerful spell casters are, it would make sense to me to allow it. But how would you handle it?

Hmm, I think I'd have the caster make a concentration check. DC 10 most likely, since this whole thing is outside the rules since I dont think what the barbarian is doing should inconvenience the wizard more than a hit of up to 21 damage (on a failure, their casting would fail). But I'd get some second opinions for sure, particularly about if/how the barbarian's athletics check should correlate with the DC of the concentration check.

A way to represent mechanically what the player wants to do, is to rule that after the pc has grabbed the mage, the pc uses his action to ready an attack when the mage starts casting. Which is most likely a DC 10 concentration check on a hit. My houserule above is more or less balanced to the actual rules. You no longer need to hit, but instead you need to succeed on up to two different checks. Needlessly complicated on second thought. I'd use the ready attack action and let the player's description stand as to what the character see actually happening.

[Damon_Tor]

I personally don't think it should be feat locked. Anyone should be able to try and stop someone from calling out because you shouldn't need a feat to clamp your hand over someones mouth. Having a related feat should just make you better/faster at stuff.

Feats serve a purpose though. One could argue that anyone should be able to try to attack with the pommel of a polearm, for example, but that ability is locked behind a feat as well.

[Yuroch Kern]

Feats serve a purpose though. One could argue that anyone should be able to try to attack with the pommel of a polearm, for example, but that ability is locked behind a feat as well.

Yes, however that is an example of reasonable arguement in play. Without the feat, though, the pole arm is not Light, and therefore ineligible for dual-weapon use. Feats also tend to remove penalties or create exceptions. Attacking with the pommel would definitely be an Improvised Bludgeoning Weapon use at the least. You could probably use Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler as the arguement, since they remove both the Light requirement, and adds Improvised proficiency. You would still have to convince the DM to to house rule it.

[Sorinth]

Feats serve a purpose though. One could argue that anyone should be able to try to attack with the pommel of a polearm, for example, but that ability is locked behind a feat as well.

Actually anyone can attack with the pommel of a polearm, it's merely an improvised weapon. The feat simply makes it better by being a bonus action and giving you proficiency bonus to hit.