How would you handle this? Grappling a mage?

[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.