How would you handle this? Grappling a mage?

[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.