D&D 5E Rules Discussion: Somatic Components and Restrained

[The Human Target]

Lots of things come up here:

1. I like how the OP handled this in the first place, with one exception: when the Cleric woke up I'd have given him a save at that point (probably at a penalty, or at disadvantage) to see if he got lucky in how he happened to fall into the web. If he makes that save he can cast etc. as normal, if not, he's stuck.

1a. The OP isn't clear as to what spell the Cleric cast, but if it was targeting anything other than the caster or someone standing within the caster's reach I have to ask how the caster could see the target, as web obscures vision. We also don't know, for example, whether the Cleric ended up hanging upside-down in the web; this would also impede spellcasting I would think.

2. The rules problem is not that a failed save blocks spellcasting (it should), but that on a failed save you can still swing weapons and-or fire missiles. Those are fine if you *make* your save, as is very slow movement; but if you fail your ONLY allowable action should be a Strength check to either free yourself within the web or move out of it. Put differently, the RAW are way too generous on a failed save. Put differently again, a failed save should hose pretty much anyone, not just casters.

3. I still like (and would put back in) the 1e version where on a natural '1' on your save the web is either strangling or suffocating you, leading to death if you're not soon rescued.

4. Casting in manacles is a complete non-starter with the exception of those few spells that have only V components.

Lanefan

Why I much prefer rules over rulings.

 

[PinkRose]

1. Every DM can rule differently in this situation. And that's ok. That's one of the reasons I like 5e so much.
2. I would rule yes to the casting. I don't want web to restrict so much at second level.
3. For reference, reading The Reaver by Richard Lee Byers, the Wizard turns her back and wiggles her fingers so other can't see her cast, so a web on her in that book would not restrict her casting.

 

[Mort]

1. Every DM can rule differently in this situation. And that's ok. That's one of the reasons I like 5e so much.

IMO, I would hope not. Ideally, the rules should be clear enough that two different DMs would rule the same way. Especially on something like this. Web cast to restrain a caster is common enough that you want a consistent result.

 

[jrowland]

IMO, I would hope not. Ideally, the rules should be clear enough that two different DMs would rule the same way. Especially on something like this. Web cast to restrain a caster is common enough that you want a consistent result.

To be fair,this was not "web cast to restrain a caster", this was web cast to catch a falling caster friend.

In addition, the "consistent" result is possible, regardless of ruling. That is, the DM can make a ruling and then apply it consistently (which is the OPs original dilemma: Keep the ad hoc ruling or set down a more nuanced ruling. But we are talking about "two different DMs" here. Why do we want to two different DMs to be consistent? If its a RPGA type event or some other sanctioned think like Adventurer's League, then those "officials" can make the ruling.

But for the OPs table, my table, your table:

PinkRose[/B]]

1. Every DM can rule differently in this situation. And that's ok. That's one of the reasons I like 5e so much.

The game is flexible enough for each table to determine its own fate.

 

[Mort]

...But we are talking about "two different DMs" here. Why do we want to two different DMs to be consistent? If its a RPGA type event or some other sanctioned think like Adventurer's League, then those "officials" can make the ruling.

But for the OPs table, my table, your table:

The game is flexible enough for each table to determine its own fate.

I guess I come at this from a Lawyer's mindset. If a rule is ambiguous enough that 2 people reading it come to different conclusions about what it says - that's a failing in the rule.

I will agree that consistency at the same table is more important than consistency across different tables - certainly for the individual group. But from a design and clarity perspective - consistency across different tables is a worthwhile goal.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Lots of things come up here:

1. I like how the OP handled this in the first place, with one exception: when the Cleric woke up I'd have given him a save at that point (probably at a penalty, or at disadvantage) to see if he got lucky in how he happened to fall into the web. If he makes that save he can cast etc. as normal, if not, he's stuck.

I didn't do this, as I figured letting him not die was good, and that unconscious characters just auto-fail saves. But I understand having him make a save as he wakes. It might even be RAW/RAI. I haven't looked.

1a. The OP isn't clear as to what spell the Cleric cast, but if it was targeting anything other than the caster or someone standing within the caster's reach I have to ask how the caster could see the target, as web obscures vision. We also don't know, for example, whether the Cleric ended up hanging upside-down in the web; this would also impede spellcasting I would think.

He first cast healing word on himself. I let this work. It targeted him and was verbal only. He next wanted to cast sacred flame. It was targeting the air elemental that had just dropped him, so he target was on the far side of the web from him. Disadvantage on the attack wouldn't have come into play here. I could have made it advantage on the save. It's mechanically very similar, but it feels weird.

4. Casting in manacles is a complete non-starter with the exception of those few spells that have only V components.

Lanefan

I tend to agree. But the exact rule is the caster must have "free use of at least one hand". Different Dms can and will rule differently on what, exactly, "free use" means.

But from a design and clarity perspective - consistency across different tables is a worthwhile goal.

I agree. However, I think the freedom to use spells in unintended ways, like web to catch a falling ally, necessarily limits the consistency across tables. This is the first time in my decades of DMing a character tried to catch a falling character by casting web. I'm not sure the specific situation will come up again.

Thaumaturge.

 

[jrowland]

I guess I come at this from a Lawyer's mindset. If a rule is ambiguous enough that 2 people reading it come to different conclusions about what it says - that's a failing in the rule.

I will agree that consistency at the same table is more important than consistency across different tables - certainly for the individual group. But from a design and clarity perspective - consistency across different tables is a worthwhile goal.

Consistency is a worthwhile goal from a design and clarity perspective. I beg to differ. A perfectly clear game, designed for ultimate consistency may be worthwhile for poker, for example, but for a game that relies on individual creative input clear, consistent design gets in the way of creativity.

The problem is how to maintain consistency and allow for differing play styles. This what is meant by rulings, not rules. Some tables may prefer web to be a spell-casting killer (for both players and monsters) and some tables prefer it to be simply a hindrance. They could write the rules to allow for both with language that says you can play it as A or B or C, but what if there is another option D? I prefer the slight ambiguity. It gives rise to conversations such as this at the table, and the players and DMs can determine what is best. These conversations are a strength of TTRPGs, not a flaw.

 

[Thaumaturge]

These conversations are a strength of TTRPGs, not a flaw.

I think this is the current belief in the mage's tower by the sea.

And I agree.

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Question is essentially "does someone who falls unconscious into a web have their hands caught?"

Since the purpose of the casting was to catch the falling character, I'd have no trouble ruling that this means that they can't cast spells with somatic or material components -- they've been securely caught in the sticky web and if they want to get out, they can feel free to make some ability checks. The caster presumably made the web so as to have the best chance to catch the falling character, and the falling character had no chance to avoid it.

I don't think "it would have said it explicitly if that was the intent!" is a valid thing in 5e. You're not entitled to your spellcasting. The DM can mess it up for any reason they want. 5e is pretty cool with people having limited actions on their turn, and it doesn't break the game, so even if they can't shoot fire right now and they have to make an ability check instead, they'll be fine.