Another Counterspell hread

[MrStabby]

With counterspell poping up for discussion on the forum again, I was wondering if it might be possible to go back in time a bit a spread the role of counerspell amongst different spels, much as it was before.

A propose a system of antagonist spells - like darkness and light, that are opposed to each other thematically and a spell can be used to counter its antagonist spell as a reaction. To counter the a spell this way you must be within range of the caster for the spell you use. Roll a spellcasting ability check with a DC of 10 + the casting stat of the caster you are trying to counter + twice the difference in spell level between the original spell and the antagonist spell.

If you want to counter darkness cast by a creature with a casting stat of 16, using daylight as an antagonist spell, then the DC would be 10+3-2, so a DC 11. Then features like the abjuration wizards bonus to counterspells could just be added to their roll.

Of course, a lot of this would come down to detail. Ideally it should feel natural for a character and those spells to be effective but not sure all of them are.

So a bit of a spitball (I think it worth adding that cantrips would not be able to be used to dispell):

All spells that do fire damage and spells that do cold damage are antagonistic.
Any spell that creats light/darkness is antagonistic to the other
Banishment can be used to counter summoning spells
Freedom of movement is anagonistic to any spell that inflicts the restrained condition and wall of force and force cage.
Any spell that heals can be used to couner a spell that deals necrotic damage and vice versa
Earthbind is antagonistic to fly, levitate, wind walk and featherfall

For a start. An easier way of prasing it is probably "as the DM sees as appropriate", but a guide might still be useful. Possibly a guide point might be that single target is needed to counter a spell with a single target and an area spell is needed to dispel as spell on an area...

Ideally I would hope that it could even up the value of some spells - cold spells don't quite have the puch of fire spells, but if they also have the ability to protect the party from fire spells they might be a bit better. In combat healing might be a bit more attractive if it can effecively be done as a reaction. It would also effecively enable some poor or niche spells to sometimes be cast as a reaction - say earthbind vs featherfall or fly

So some pros and cons...

1) It gives every spellcaster access to countermagic. Might be good, or might not be good... but their ability to counter spells is hopefully thematic, i.e. they can counter things their class feels opposed to rather than just a Universal Counterspell. It probably benefits clerics the most (massive spell list +domain spells will give some lattitude to take some spells for defensive purposes, ability to switch spells means can face threats, no current counterspell in class list)
2) It might make counterspelling more or less common. Is hard to tell. The raw numbers are that counterspelling is worse - for any given spell level where you could have used counterspell you will have a lower chance of success using an anagonist spell. On the other hand you can use lower level spell slots, opening up countermagic for classes like the ranger.
3) It would make some options like getting spells such as shield or silvery barbs on every caster that can less attractive as evey caster would now have something they might want to use reactions on.

I am tryting to work out what really obvious flaw I have missed.

[follacchioso]

I understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate the effort, but it would be a great mess to implement at the table.

Every turn, players and DM would have to spend time figuring out which spells can be cast to counterspell, slowing everything down.

Some spells would become much stronger than others - Chromatic Orb could counterspell almost everything.

The economy of V,S,M components would be disrupted - Counterspell is S only for a few reasons, for example, you can't cast it if your hands are full and do not have warcaster. The change you are proposing would alter that.

Some classes would be much better at counter spelling than others, depending on which spells they have in their list. There it would be a lot of work to rebalance all the spell lists, to account for that. Every time a new book introduces new spells, such balance would need to be re-evaluated.

Overall, it would require a huge effort to rebalance the game, the benefits would minimal, while the pace of the game would be slowed down.

[KorvinStarmast]

With counterspell poping up for discussion on the forum again While your line of thought has some neat thematic points - ability to counter another spell being cast - I think the implementation you are working on is too fiddly since you'd have to create a whole lot of 'as a reaction' statements due to the immense size of the spell list/lists.

Counterspell, cast as a reaction, is a very simple and efficient way of applying the thematic idea of a quick counter to a spell being cast. Yes, the mechanical shortcoming (as you see it) is that not all spell casting classes can do that. But you don't need to have a reaction based counter to do what you are thematically seeking to do.

You can counter darkness with daylight after the darkness has been cast, for example. No need to try and wedge a reaction into that.

Dispel magic can already overcome a lot of magical effects, not as a reaction, once one recognizes that a magical effect is active.

[meandean]

If this is how Magic: The Gathering works, which I get the impression it is, then they might well do it :smallannoyed:

But, I hope not. The purpose of eliminating counterspell would be to ensure that both players and enemies get to do their cool stuff. I don't think there's much point in having a middle ground.

[Black Jester]

This sounds like a fun minigame, allowing the players to improveise and come up with new ideas and uses for their spells. Sounds like a fun concept, rewarding out of the box thiniking. I can see that this could be fiddly when you try to predetermine evry posible outcome, but fortunately, a game of Dungeons and Dragons includes a final arbiter who can make ad hoc rulings based on their interpretation of the world.

However, it would probably be a lor simpler, and more rewarding, to bring back spells triggering opportunity attacks already. It is already way too complicated to interrupt spellcasters and making it more fiddly doesn't help.While punching a mad sorcerer in the snout to shut him up is the quintessential rewarding D&D experience.

Also, remember that that being grappled already prevents casting any spells with somatic components. The rules do not state this explicitely, but fortunately, we can think and apply basic common sense to the situation. There is no solution respceting the intelligence of the players (and yourself) that could contradict this.

[KorvinStarmast]

While punching a mad sorcerer in the snout to shut him up is the quintessential rewarding D&D experience. Yes. :smallcool:

Also, remember that that being grappled already prevents casting any spells with somatic components. The rules do not state this explicitely That opens up quite a bit of gray area, so discuss with DM and see how the table feels about it. Strictly speaking, from RAW, grapple won't stop somatic components, and even though restrained probably should, it doesn't explicitly do that.


Grappled
• A grappled creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• The condition ends if the grappler is incapacitated (see the condition).
• The condition also ends if an effect removes the grappled creature from the reach of the grappler or grappling effect, such as when a creature is hurled away by the thunderwave spell.
Restrained
• A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
• Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s attack rolls have disadvantage.
• The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws. If you want to argue that Restrained should prevent spell casting with somatic components, I can offer a partial agreement as that would be a complement to disadvantages on attacks. I see no reason for grappled to interfere with spell casting.

, but fortunately, we can think and apply basic common sense to the situation. There is no solution respceting the intelligence of the players (and yourself) that could contradict this. As above, each table need to arrive at their own take on this.

[RSP]

RAW, Grapples do not impact Spellcasting in any way.

One point to the OP: this would require everyone to know what’s being cast, before it’s cast.

That changes how some tables play (we use “I cast a spell”, rather than announcing what is being cast).

Also, if I’m understanding correctly, countering goes from being a 3rd level slot at min, to Cantrips can Counterspell, if applicable (or at least a 1st level slot can counter any spell, roll permitting).

[Black Jester]

RAW, Grapples do not impact Spellcasting in any way.

RAW, there are also no rules that a character who falls into a cess pool filled with feces and rotting fish guts probably has disadvantage on charisma-based skills, until they took a bath or otherwise being able to clean up. It also doersn't specify that covering an area with flour reveals invisible creatures (or at least their foot prints) or, that water is, indeed, wet.

Fortunately, we are not automatons but are able to apply situational assessments and pure intuitive logic to solve these situations rationally.

Honestly, I don't care that much if grappling prevents somatic spellcasting or doesn't (it really should, but there are metageming reasons, like notoriously whiny mage players or the unfortunately common 'grapplophobia' many D&D players suffer from to ignore this logical conclusion) but it represents neatly why a slavish dedication to the rules avtually holds you back and diminishes your game.
Do you think it is cool and rewarding for your players to counter an enemy's fireball with a sleet storm of their own? Then allow it, do it. Allow your player to feel smug about it, for an encounter or two. It is trivial to destroy any player character, or their ability to contribute to the game compared to giving them the impression of having figured out something clever. You can crush their confidence later, if you must.

[RSP]

Fortunately, we are not automatons but are able to apply situational assessments and pure intuitive logic to solve these situations rationally.


I think you’re assuming Grappling is more impactful than it is. Grappling is essentially grabbing some part of a creature to prevent movement, but not actions.

If Grappling is powerful enough to prevent either arm/hand from being free to do S components, then it would logically prevent either arm/hand from attacking (or any other action that requires an arm/hand).

That’s not what Grappling does, and, at least in my opinion, Grappling would become way more powerful if that’s how it’s implemented.

[Black Jester]

Have you ever been grappled? Hell, do you have any siblings with whom you fought over the control of the TV remote? Grappling somebody is not something exotically difficult, yet quite effective. It is not a full restraint, obviously, but logically, it immobilizes an arm (yes, grappling should only prevent somatic spells when the caster's other arm is occupied, as it should prevent the use of a shield, but that is a grey zone between simplicity and speed of gameplay and details that really don't matter all that much in effective play).


Think for yourselves. The rule book can't think for you. The rule book can't run the game for you. The real world is infinetely complex, and the rules simply can't ever truly simulate that, or translate every creative plan a player might come up with. In a worst case scenario, this reduces the whole game to a mere white list of predetermined decisions and fixed moves or maneuvers, smothering any spark of creativity with predetermined possible outcomes.

[RSP]

Have you ever been grappled? Hell, do you have any siblings with whom you fought over the control of the TV remote? Grappling somebody is not something exotically difficult, yet quite effective. It is not a full restraint, obviously, but logically, it immobilizes an arm (yes, grappling should only prevent somatic spells when the caster's other arm is occupied, as it should prevent the use of a shield, but that is a grey zone between simplicity and speed of gameplay and details that really don't matter all that much in effective play).


Think for yourselves. The rule book can't think for you. The rule book can't run the game for you. The real world is infinetely complex, and the rules simply can't ever truly simulate that, or translate every creative plan a player might come up with. In a worst case scenario, this reduces the whole game to a mere white list of predetermined decisions and fixed moves or maneuvers, smothering any spark of creativity with predetermined possible outcomes.

It’s not letting the rule book think for anyone. It’s a question of how powerful the Grapple mechanic is, or should be.

If it lets you shut down your opponent’s attacks, that’s more powerful that it ought to be. “I grapple their sword arm, so now they can’t attack except for 1+Str mod damage”, shouldn’t be a thing. And that goes for enemies as well as PCs.

[MrStabby]

I understand where you are coming from, and I appreciate the effort, but it would be a great mess to implement at the table.

Every turn, players and DM would have to spend time figuring out which spells can be cast to counterspell, slowing everything down.

Some spells would become much stronger than others - Chromatic Orb could counterspell almost everything.

The economy of V,S,M components would be disrupted - Counterspell is S only for a few reasons, for example, you can't cast it if your hands are full and do not have warcaster. The change you are proposing would alter that.

Some classes would be much better at counter spelling than others, depending on which spells they have in their list. There it would be a lot of work to rebalance all the spell lists, to account for that. Every time a new book introduces new spells, such balance would need to be re-evaluated.

Overall, it would require a huge effort to rebalance the game, the benefits would minimal, while the pace of the game would be slowed down.

Yeah, its probably too fiddly to work as it is - the extensive list of rules would certainly make it unworkable as an overall system (not least because the number of interactions would grow quadratically with the number of spells so new additions would then need a whole slew of corrections.

Chromatic orb is a good catch, I guess is true of any spell that does multiple things - flame strike, chromatic orb... That might need to be changed.

The VSM issue, I guess I am less worried about that. If you cant use your spell to counter another due to hands being full etc., then I am kind of OK with that.

I guess I was thinking of this as a bit of a niche thing - not that people would be dispelling frequently, but rather people would have very occasional cool moments where they are able to use their natrual affinity for a type of magic to have a cool moment.




While your line of thought has some neat thematic points - ability to counter another spell being cast - I think the implementation you are working on is too fiddly since you'd have to create a whole lot of 'as a reaction' statements due to the immense size of the spell list/lists.

Counterspell, cast as a reaction, is a very simple and efficient way of applying the thematic idea of a quick counter to a spell being cast. Yes, the mechanical shortcoming (as you see it) is that not all spell casting classes can do that. But you don't need to have a reaction based counter to do what you are thematically seeking to do.

You can counter darkness with daylight after the darkness has been cast, for example. No need to try and wedge a reaction into that.

Dispel magic can already overcome a lot of magical effects, not as a reaction, once one recognizes that a magical effect is active.

I think this is one where I agree with your observations but might come to different conclusions. The whole darkness/light thing is a bit of a balance thing - if a third level spell and an action and a spell known/prepared slot worth it for geting rid of darkness, and allowing any benefits it might have in the intervening time. I figure that if you take a niche spell like daylight then you should have at least some good value out of it. I suspect that maybe this should mean that its a very restricted option and just add value to otherwise underused/unusable spells.


If this is how Magic: The Gathering works, which I get the impression it is, then they might well do it :smallannoyed:

But, I hope not. The purpose of eliminating counterspell would be to ensure that both players and enemies get to do their cool stuff. I don't think there's much point in having a middle ground.
Maybe not. I was thinking along the lines of "if counterspell were not a thing, would this be cool?"


This sounds like a fun minigame, allowing the players to improveise and come up with new ideas and uses for their spells. Sounds like a fun concept, rewarding out of the box thiniking. I can see that this could be fiddly when you try to predetermine evry posible outcome, but fortunately, a game of Dungeons and Dragons includes a final arbiter who can make ad hoc rulings based on their interpretation of the world.

However, it would probably be a lor simpler, and more rewarding, to bring back spells triggering opportunity attacks already. It is already way too complicated to interrupt spellcasters and making it more fiddly doesn't help.While punching a mad sorcerer in the snout to shut him up is the quintessential rewarding D&D experience.

Also, remember that that being grappled already prevents casting any spells with somatic components. The rules do not state this explicitely, but fortunately, we can think and apply basic common sense to the situation. There is no solution respceting the intelligence of the players (and yourself) that could contradict this.

This was closer to my thinking - just a layer of additional ineraction and to help some suboptimal spell choices go a bit further.



I think you’re assuming Grappling is more impactful than it is. Grappling is essentially grabbing some part of a creature to prevent movement, but not actions.

If Grappling is powerful enough to prevent either arm/hand from being free to do S components, then it would logically prevent either arm/hand from attacking (or any other action that requires an arm/hand).

That’s not what Grappling does, and, at least in my opinion, Grappling would become way more powerful if that’s how it’s implemented.

I figure grabbing someone by their shirt is a grapple by the rules, and wouldn't stop any hand movements.



All in all maybe this won't fly, but if it could be made to work efficinetly (in terms of knowledge, consistency of rulings and table time/flow of the game) then it could be fun... not sure if that is possible though.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you ever been grappled? Yes, I have wrestled and done a bit of Judo. You are combining the game states of "restrained" and "grappled" it seems to me, and that muddies the points we are discussing.
A bit further up I posted the two conditions that seem relevant: restrained and grappled. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25518045&postcount=6)
It might be worth your while to take a look at them both, and not get hung up on the RL, standard English term grappling (which accounts for both of the things that those two game conditions separate mechanically).

With the above in mind, I tend to agree that if one is able to restrain a spell caster, then spell casting would become either difficult or impossible, particularly for spells with somatic components.
This is a good place for a DM to make a ruling and brief the players on it ahead of time.

One of the problems with the basic game is that there isn't a simple transition from "grappled" to "restrained" by simply taking the grapple one step further.
They gated it behind the Grappler feat (feats are optional rules, WTF?) which is somewhat lackluster when all is said and done.

What a few of us have discussed, and what I tried out in play a few years ago, was that a successful grapple allowed an attempt to restrain by the one grappling. No feat needed.
If you have one attack (level 1 fighter, for example) you can grapple, and if successful you get a chance to restrain on the next turn. A level 5 fighter would be able to try to grapple and then restrain on the same turn, using the two attacks as the 'special attacks' that grappling and shoving represent. Each case is a separate "contest" per the skill check rules.
Simply saying "I grapple {that spell caster/enemy}!" is not a win button. :smallwink:

Worked well enough, but it didn't come up all that often.

[Anymage]

Think for yourselves. The rule book can't think for you. The rule book can't run the game for you. The real world is infinetely complex, and the rules simply can't ever truly simulate that, or translate every creative plan a player might come up with.

My issue here is that I've seen too many "creative solutions" that were in fact an attempt to make an end run around the rules. If my options are strict RAW or allowing the players to trivialize/autokill an opponent through descriptions, I'll err on the former because you get more interesting encounters out of that than you do letting everything die to exposition.

Also, this helps cover why "if the PCs can do it so can NPCs" falls flat. A player might feel cool if they autokill an enemy through exposition. (Even while the other players might feel less excited for anticlimactically having nothing to do.) Turning that around and no-save-just-die to any PC is going to cause a lot of frustration.


I guess I was thinking of this as a bit of a niche thing - not that people would be dispelling frequently, but rather people would have very occasional cool moments where they are able to use their natrual affinity for a type of magic to have a cool moment.

Just spitballing my own thought here. But using your reaction and blowing a spell slot to lower the a spell's save DC sounds like a quick and effective way to blunt an enemy caster's big effect without adding layers of mechanical complexity and bluffing games that most Counterspell ideas have. Optionally with a way to negate damage on a successful save (possibly supersuccessful by beating the DC by 5 or 10 points), possibly as a perk for 10th+ abjurers since a fair amount of their 10th level feature is tied up in Counterspell. Again, just spitballing the thought and it'll need some refinement.

It doesn't do much against buffs or other non-save effects, but I'm okay with those requiring Dispel Magic and an action. And countering with my idea is strong when there aren't normally many ways to increase your save target number, but the opportunity cost of a spell slot and the fact that a bonus to save doesn't guarantee that everyone will succeed should help keep this from becoming game warping.

[Segev]

In defense of "improvising actions," the rules for grappling and shoving are examples of how to resolve contested things of this nature. Grappling is resolving "I don't want you getting away from me" and Shoving is resolving "I want you here or there or on the ground now." "I want to interfere with his ability to use somatic/verbal components by grabbing his fingers, fouling his movements, or shoving my hand over his mouth or uppercutting him while he's trying to speak a tongue twister" would all be valid things to do. You might require a successful grapple be initiated, but even that's your call as DM. Allowing a contested STrength(Athletics) vs. his choice of the same or, perhaps, Intelligence(Arcane) to physically interfere with his ability to get off a wizard spell, or maybe Wisdom(Religion) for a cleric spell, or Wisdom(Nature) for a druid spell, etc., would not be out of the pale.

If you beat them in the roll, until they break the hold/grapple (which may be as easy as moving away from you if they're NOT grappled), they can't cast spells.

On a similar note, I could see "I move in real close so he can't bring a reach or two-handed weapon to bear on me," might be a fair thing to do instead of a grapple, requiring the target to move away from you to be able to use anything but a one-handed or light weapon on you.

[Black Jester]

Yes, I have wrestled and done a bit of Judo.

See, and this is why I would trust your judgement call as a DM, based on lived experience.



It might be worth your while to take a look at them both, and not get hung up on the RL, standard English term grappling (which accounts for both of the things that those two game conditions separate mechanically).

And here it gets frustrating. Words have meaning. When you have to come up with an explanation akin to "grappling, from the perspective of the game system, doesn not imply actual grappling", there is something amiss. I vastly prefer to play any situation like this by focussing on the simulated events (what is actually going on within the game world) and not on the matter simulation (how the rules interpret this and might handle it) because the substance to noise is so much better.

It is also a question of player agency, I think. "You can't do that (even though it is logical, tactical sound and clearly within the capabilities of your character as established within the reality of the game world), because there is no rule for this" is quite literaly a depowering, deprotagonizing step deeply antagonisitc to the players. Fortunately, Dungeons and Dragons includes a final arbitter by design who can adjust the rules, make ad hoc rulings and circumvent this form of antagonism.


My issue here is that I've seen too many "creative solutions" that were in fact an attempt to make an end run around the rules. If my options are strict RAW or allowing the players to trivialize/autokill an opponent through descriptions, I'll err on the former because you get more interesting encounters out of that than you do letting everything die to exposition.


Experiences may vary, but if I would take the abilitiy to find solutions out of the box from my players whiler continue to run the game world as a coherent setting inhabitated by more-or-less smart, more-or-less vicious antagonists who really don't want to get killed by wandering adventurers (but are not necessarily opposed to do the killing part themselves), I would probably wipe out the player characters on a monthly base or so.

I also don't buy into the " if players can use, NPCs can" philosophy. NPCs can do a lot of stuff, PCs won't bother with (like farming, or social networking) and have their own opportunities to increase the pressure - coordinated attacks, ambushes, prepared kill zones, alliances with other groups the PCs might have had a run-in in the past, etc. The Dungeon Master's task is to provide a problem, but it is the players' role to find a solution.

[RSP]

And here it gets frustrating. Words have meaning. When you have to come up with an explanation akin to "grappling, from the perspective of the game system, doesn not imply actual grappling", there is something amiss. I vastly prefer to play any situation like this by focussing on the simulated events (what is actually going on within the game world) and not on the matter simulation (how the rules interpret this and might handle it) because the substance to noise is so much better.

It is also a question of player agency, I think. "You can't do that (even though it is logical, tactical sound and clearly within the capabilities of your character as established within the reality of the game world), because there is no rule for this" is quite literaly a depowering, deprotagonizing step deeply antagonisitc to the players. Fortunately, Dungeons and Dragons includes a final arbitter by design who can adjust the rules, make ad hoc rulings and circumvent this form of antagonism.

It’s not a question of player agency or not allowing “out of the box” solutions.

“In real life”, which as I understand it is the basis for your argument of what should be allowed in 5e, a person with a knife can end another’s life in under 6 seconds.

However, the game isn’t designed this way. Why bother with “I grapple the Wizard’s hands so they can’t cast”, when you could just go with “I slit the Wizard’s throat.” Either is a valid “in real life” action someone could try to perform in under 6 seconds. Likewise, “I bash their jaw with my maul, so they can’t perform V components”, or “I cut their hand off with my sword, so they can’t perform S components.”

The fact that those can all be done “in real life”, doesn’t mean they should translate as actions in 5e, which isn’t designed to function that way.

Any of those actions are “logical, tactical sound and clearly within the capabilities of your character as established within the reality of the game world”, but they break the game and what it’s supposed to do.

And yes, it’s logical, tactically sound and clearly within the capabilities of enemies/monsters as established within the reality of the game world to kill a 14th level Paladin PC by stabbing their brain through their eye with a short sword; however, that’s not horribly fun to play as resolved with a single d20 attack roll.

And none of those are particularly creative solutions to 5e encounters.

[KorvinStarmast]

See, and this is why I would trust your judgement call as a DM, based on lived experience. Thanks. The boundary between abstractions and verisimilitude and game mechanics to make play run smoothely can create a blurring of lines. While D&D 5e generally uses 'normal English' it does in some cases take the time to use game specific meanings for particularly relevant game terms.
Concentration is a normal English word that has, for purposes of play, a specific meaning of "something done that keeps a spell going which can be interrupted by events X, Y, and Z ..."

Grappled is similarly given a game specific definition In Appendix A, just as Incapacitated, Restrained, and Poisoned are. This is necessary for both a shared understanding and to keep play moving smoothly.

I share some of your frustration, because from the PC side all that grapple does is stop an opponent from moving, whereas the monsters in the MM often have grapple attacks, and you discover (the Roper is a fine example) that it imposes the restrained condition on a successful attack.
A PC's attempt at grapple does not impose the restrained condition.
The general explanation of Monsters and PCs have different abilities (true) is modestly acceptable.
The point of "restrained is too powerful of a condition to be so easily imposed" (possibly true, possibly not) is a lot less satisfying.
Numerous players have asked me why a PC can't restrain an opponent with a successful grapple (Unless they invest in a feat). I think it's a valid question, so I finally made that ruling. I'd rather that 'once grappled, another grapple attempt can be made to restrain the grappled opponent' (remember, the opponent is presumed to always be resisting, to it isn't a win button) was baked into the basic actions of Chapter 9.

And here it gets frustrating. Words have meaning.
But they often have multiple meanings. I think that it is useful, when the game authors take the time as they do in Appendix A, to explain certain terms explicitly in terms of how they have specific results within the bounds of the game engine.

Blades in the Dark does this as well: it has keywords (helpfully bolded in the game's text) which provide specific in game results when applies. Examples in clude Attune, Command, Consort, Finesse, Hunt, Prowl, Skirmish, Study, Survey, Sway, Tinker, Wreck, Coin, and Cohort. Note that "attune" in Blades in the Dark is not the same as Attune in D&D 5e, even though both are the same word in English. :smallwink:

It is also a question of player agency, I think. "You can't do that (even though it is logical, tactical sound and clearly within the capabilities of your character as established within the reality of the game world), because there is no rule for this" is quite literaly a depowering, deprotagonizing step deeply antagonisitc to the players. Fortunately, Dungeons and Dragons includes a final arbitter by design who can adjust the rules, make ad hoc rulings and circumvent this form of antagonism. Yes, making a ruling that makes the game 'feel' more realistic is well within the DM's remit.

[Segev]

I share some of your frustration, because from the PC side all that grapple does is stop an opponent from moving, whereas the monsters in the MM often have grapple attacks, and you discover (the Roper is a fine example) that it imposes the restrained condition on a successful attack.
A PC's attempt at grapple does not impose the restrained condition.
The general explanation of Monsters and PCs have different abilities (true) is modestly acceptable.
The point of "restrained is too powerful of a condition to be so easily imposed" (possibly true, possibly not) is a lot less satisfying.
Numerous players have asked me why a PC can't restrain an opponent with a successful grapple (Unless they invest in a feat). I think it's a valid question, so I finally made that ruling. I'd rather that 'once grappled, another grapple attempt can be made to restrain the grappled opponent' (remember, the opponent is presumed to always be resisting, to it isn't a win button) was baked into the basic actions of Chapter 9.

Definitely within the broader purview of improvising an action. "I want to grapple him MORE."

Personally, I am beginning to think I would allow somebody to attempt more restrictive actions, still, that just become riders on "while the target is grappled in this way," adjudicated to a reasonable degree by how many limbs you really can bring to bear to enforce it.

Prevent speech/calling out
Prevent object interactions
Restrict the use of one, maybe two limbs if you can justify the grip (or perhaps have rope)
Make a disarm attempt using the grapple/shove rules rather than the DMG's optional rules that assume you're doing a fencing-like disarm.
Tie somebody up in a way that causes the grapple to persist without you having to remain adjacent

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. Some of them, I would, depending on circumstances, only allow until the end of the grappler's next turn, or would not allow in combination based on number of limbs, relative size, etc., and I think that the highly situational nature of what I'd allow is a reason why these fall into "improvise an action" rather than getting hard and fast rules in 5e.