Dealing with spellcasters as a martial

[The Crimson Binome]

I understand your line of thought. But I digress in your conclussion: gagging someone is specifically quoted as a way to impede verbal components, and verbal components are rules. And any attempt of gagging someone would quickly lead to a combat, in some way or another. And it is mostly relevant in combat, not outside it.

Gagging someone mostly comes up outside of combat, when you've already beaten someone unconscious and you want to keep them alive for some reason. It is important to the rules, specifically for this scenario. If you were meant to do that sort of thing in the middle of combat, then they would have mentioned it somewhere.

And it is an order of magnitude more powerful under specific circumstances: it only impedes casting with verbal components, but there are multiple actions that said caster could take, including casting spells without verbal components. And there are spells and actions a caster could do to invalidate this very easily: spells like freedom of movement that renders your caster immune to this, and spells like misty step, that allow you to escape. And there are more than one physical approach: Athletics or Acrobatics.

Sure, and stealing the fighter's greatsword doesn't render them helpless, because they can still punch you.

Furthermore, why do even include verbal components if they aren't relevant?

Lots of reasons, but primarily so that everyone around you knows when you're casting a spell. Not only is it an important aspect of how magic works within the genre, but it also means you can take a spellcaster prisoner by gagging them (and blindfolding them and binding their hands).

The fact is, there are spells that do something like that, and worse. Hold Person, that paralyzes and imposes a Saving Throw no martial has.

It's a saving throw, which means any PC or worthy enemy will succeed, causing the spellcaster to waste both a turn and a spell slot. This is backed up by empirical evidence.

And, as I've said earlier, this is in the same order of magnitude than a disarm.

There are no rules for disarming in the PHB. Even if you use those hilarious optional rules in the DMG, they can still pick up their weapon again with their free object interaction. And if the setting ever got to the point where disarming someone, grabbing their weapon, and running away became a routine inconvenience, you can be certain that weapon chains would come back.

As for your specific example, Arcana checks aren't used for spellcasting, spellcasting has its own rules.

Athletics checks aren't used for denying primary class features. Taking away the wizard's spellcasting is exactly the same category of effect as taking away the fighter's attack. That you include an opposed check that they have no chance of winning is irrelevant. You can argue that it's realistic to try and choke someone, but it's also realistic to just slit their throat. Where realism would make the game rules irrelevant, realism should be ignored (or else there's no point in playing the game).

Of course, as I've said, if you come with a better way to do it, one you think it is more balanced, I'll be glad to hear them.

Are you specifically talking about a mechanic for trying to gag someone in combat? Or do you just want any method for a fighter to shut down a spellcaster without going through their hit points?

 

[Erechel]

Gagging someone mostly comes up outside of combat, when you've already beaten someone unconscious and you want to keep them alive for some reason. It is important to the rules, specifically for this scenario. If you were meant to do that sort of thing in the middle of combat, then they would have mentioned it somewhere.

They specifically said that they can't take account of every possible action in combat, and give guidelines to improvise. See above.

Sure, and stealing the fighter's greatsword doesn't render them helpless, because they can still punch you.

And the wizard can still stab you. Or cast a cantrip without material components, like Thunderclap. Or cast a spell like steel wind strike, to make 5 attacks against any 5 creatures in 30 feet, for 5d10 slashing damages, then teleport to any of them, and then walk away, and then cast misty step again to get out up to 90 feet away from the choker.

Lots of reasons, but primarily so that everyone around you knows when you're casting a spell. Not only is it an important aspect of how magic works within the genre, but it also means you can take a spellcaster prisoner by gagging them (and blindfolding them and binding their hands).

Exactly. You can take a spellcaster prisoner by gagging them (and blindfolding them and binding their hands so they can't really attempt anything, because, you know, they can escape a gag).

It's a saving throw, which means any PC or worthy enemy will succeed, causing the spellcaster to waste both a turn and a spell slot. This is backed up by empirical evidence.

And a saving throw a Fighter or a rogue haven't much more possibilities to escape than a wizard of a grapple, as at best it is a tertiary stat for them and neither have proficiency with. And the caster doesn't need to succeed two ability checks, one with disadvantage, nor renounce to their attacks or spells, nor even being at close distance. And a wizard NPC has many ways to escape, like, say flying.

There are no rules for disarming in the PHB. Even if you use those hilarious optional rules in the DMG, they can still pick up their weapon again with their free object interaction. And if the setting ever got to the point where disarming someone, grabbing their weapon, and running away became a routine inconvenience, you can be certain that weapon chains would come back.

Exactly those. And it falls under the Other Activity on your Turn: you disarm, then you kick the sword. If the disarmed character wants to recover it, you have an Opportunity Attack. Done that also. More than a couple of times.

Athletics checks aren't used for denying primary class features. Taking away the wizard's spellcasting is exactly the same category of effect as taking away the fighter's attack. That you include an opposed check that they have no chance of winning is irrelevant.
You aren't denying primary class features, see above. You are impeding casting spells with verbal components. And, if you disarm a wizard from its rod with an Athletics check, you are still impeding him to cast spells... with material components. And he has less opportunities to escape this, as you don't have disadvantage on the check to disarm.

You can argue that it's realistic to try and choke someone, but it's also realistic to just slit their throat. Where realism would make the game rules irrelevant, realism should be ignored (or else there's no point in playing the game).

As for the (very bad) comparison, slit its throat is akin to make an attack... or more specifically, the Assassin's sneak attack. I'm not talking also about realism, but about verosimilitude: a wizard can wish to transform into a golem, while flying at 600 meters, but a fighter can't choke someone? Yeah... real fair rules.

Are you specifically talking about a mechanic for trying to gag someone in combat? Or do you just want any method for a fighter to shut down a spellcaster without going through their hit points?

For the sake of the argument, let's go for the fist one. But dealing with casters as a whole is a need in many games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And the wizard can still stab you. Or cast a cantrip without material components, like Thunderclap. Or cast a spell like steel wind strike, to make 5 attacks against any 5 creatures in 30 feet, for 5d10 slashing damages, then teleport to any of them, and then walk away, and then cast misty step again to get out up to 90 feet away from the choker.

Which is to say, more likely than not, the wizard can do nothing; they can waste time and maybe roll some dice, that will not have a meaningful impact on the outcome of the encounter in any way. Wizards don't have the stats necessary to make meaningful use of a dagger, and even if they did, the damage is irrelevant because they aren't a combat-specialized class and they never get Extra Attack. Thunderclap offers a Constitution save to negate. Steel Wind Strike, if I recall my obscure supplements correctly, would require them to be some sort of weird gish that could already use a sword; and the fighter wouldn't bother trying to choke that sort of melee combatant in the first place!

Exactly those. And it falls under the Other Activity on your Turn: you disarm, then you kick the sword. If the disarmed character wants to recover it, you have an Opportunity Attack. Done that also. More than a couple of times.

If your DM let you get away with that, then that's on them. It's not a reflection of the game at large, or how the rules work at any other table.

I will say that, if your house rulings allow you to disarm someone and get rid of their weapon entirely as one action, then being able to take shut down a wizard entirely as one action would have precedence at that table.

For the sake of the argument, let's go for the fist one. But dealing with casters as a whole is a need in many games.

Here's my ruling, as a DM: If you want to choke someone in combat, then it needs to be a surprise attack. They can't know that there's an enemy nearby, or else they would be on general combat alert, which would foil the attempt. Then you can make a Stealth check against their Passive Perception to get behind them, at which point a successful opposed Athletics check will allow you to cover their mouth in such a way as to prevent spellcasting with a verbal component. I'd even let you restrain them with your other hand, while you're there.

Once combat starts, getting your hand around someone's neck is exactly as difficult as applying a dagger to their neck - you need to get through their Hit Points before you can disable them.

 

[5ekyu]

"Are you conscious that you are not concerned at all about balance or the game"

Since i have made numerous comments about balance in the game, power levels of the martials etc... Inluding you responding to one of my power case examples in the same post this comment was in... This comnent is amazingly missing the mark.

Again, if you need this for your table, great. Nobody here is gonna tell you its wrong. But your push for some sort of validation even in the absence (no one gave me better) is off kilter.

Why haven't i given you a "better way" for fighters to have a shut down grapple vs mages... Because that degree of shut down is not needed, is imbalancing and is not in keeping with the 5e playstyle which does not generally hand that gross a shut down opions to an otherwise strong class as an unlimited use multi-try per turn option.

You keep asking for, in essence, better arsenic omlette recipes and seem to be doing so to let you spin a lack of them as sign you have a good arsenic omelette recipe.

Chow down.

 

[Tony Vargas]

"Are you conscious that you are not concerned at all about balance or the game"

Don't mistake active abhorrence of balance for lack of concern about balance. ;P

Seriously, though (well, a little bit less flippantly, maybe) casters have had it a lot harder than they do in 5e, back when they were still considered the most powerful classes (at least at higher levels), in spite of how the deck was often stacked against them. There's a lot of room for a DM who wants to either evoke that classic feel - or just take (certain) casters down a peg or two - to rule vindictively or outright change rules to disfavor casting a good deal, before having to worry that he was maybe being a little too hard on 'em, and maybe even negatively impacting 'balance.'

 

[TheSword]

Couple of points, though Saelorn makes the case against the action better than I could.

- Being gagged is for when you have already been disabled through surrender or knocked out. Not in combat. I know of no instance in TV, film or literature where a person has been gagged mid combat. At best it might be something you could surprise someone with.

- With improvised actions the DM decides whether it is possible. Therefore it is not “against the rules” for the DM to say this is impossible.

- Am opposed grapple check is far too easy a test for a fighter to do something that would be very difficult. Maybe if you passed an opposed grapple check where you beat the opponent by +10 I might let you succeed. Though this is passing well beyond the grapple attack action.

- This definitely wouldn’t be accepted by my PCs if I tried this one on them. They would consider it grossly unfair, being shut down so easily.

- While a DM isn’t required to follow their own precedents, I think it is bad form if they don’t at least attempt to. Internal logic and consistency. If the choker has a unique physiology - such as tentacle hands - then perhaps they can do unique things.

- The fundamental disagreement seems to be that you think this is an easy action that anyone should be able to do. Others (myself included) see it as a very difficult thing.

Yes wizards are good. However nobody wants to see an Archmage taken down by a cheap grapple check round one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

With improvised actions the DM decides whether it is possible. Therefore it is not “against the rules” for the DM to say this is impossible.

Nor is it in any way pushing things for the DM to just narrate success. Stopping someone from casting a V/S/M spell, for instance, shouldn't be too hard, really. It's kind crazy how easy casting has gotten the last few eds.

- Am opposed grapple check is far too easy a test for a fighter to do something that would be very difficult. Maybe if you passed an opposed grapple check where you beat the opponent by +10 I might let you succeed. Though this is passing well beyond the grapple attack action.

You realize the highest possible Athletics check is +17, right, and a single-class fighter can't have it, +11 at 20th, max, and the worst possible is -1. So, a contested check is not exactly a gimme. Not like casting a DC 19 spell on someone with a -1 save.

While a DM isn’t required to follow their own precedents, I think it is bad form if they don’t at least attempt to. Internal logic and consistency. If the choker has a unique physiology - such as tentacle hands - then perhaps they can do unique things.

Every situation might be different, and if you rule one way and think better of it, later, you shouldn't restrict yourself to continuing to rule badly on the topic from then on...

The fundamental disagreement seems to be that you think this is an easy action that anyone should be able to do. Others (myself included) see it as a very difficult thing.

Grapple, followed by Grapple w/Disadvantage doesn't sound at all easy. That's three d20's that have to go your way... no, wait, they're both contested, so /five/.

 

[TheSword]

You realize the highest possible Athletics check is +17, right, and a single-class fighter can't have it, +11 at 20th, max, and the worst possible is -1. So, a contested check is not exactly a gimme. Not like casting a DC 19 spell on someone with a -1 save.

... ...

Grapple, followed by Grapple w/Disadvantage doesn't sound at all easy. That's three d20's that have to go your way... no, wait, they're both contested, so /five/.

Disadvantage is easy to work around, as has been discussed in a number of earlier threads. There is no point using it as a discouraging factor as the work arounds are so easy.

While your statement is correct that +11 is the max at 5th level it can already be at +7. While if the wizard is at -1 for strength then the wizard stands 8 points behind. The probability of success in that instance is 80.5% so yes it is a very easy roll. The equivalent of rolling a 5 or more on a d20. I’d take those odds if if two actions are required.

Now stick a +10 threshold on it and we stand at -2 and there’s a 42% chance of the grappler being successful. Even that looks a bit easy to me.

I take your point on spellcasting being easier now. I guess if you want to make it harder you can. The game has moved away from fiat stopping people being able to act but some DMs will want to play it that way. It’s the same principal with a rogues cunning action and hiding or a caster spell focus item. We could fill a new thread and them some about whether you should be able to stop a wizard casting their one seventh level spell that has already cancelled a previous high level spell they cast because of concentration.

[Edit. The Grappler feat allows you to pin somebody. Effectively you cannot pin someone well enough to count as restrained without some special training or expertise. It seems reasonable that the same applies to holding their mouth closed while in combat. Particularly as even Restrained doesn’t stop you spellcasting]

 

[Tony Vargas]

Disadvantage is easy to work around, as has been discussed in a number of earlier threads. While your statement is correct that +11 is the max at 5th level it can already be at +7. While if the wizard is at -1 for strength then the wizard stands 8 points behind. The probability of success in that instance is 80.5% so yes it is a very easy roll.

Making two such checks in a row takes it down to 69.7, and disadvantage on the second check would further reduce it. That's lower than the 75% chance of a DC 15 save affecting whichever save the fighter dumped at 5th...

And are there really a /lot/ of things that trivially grant advantage on grapple checks? What if the wizard has one of them, too? Do you also have a way of trivially imposing disadvantage?

At that point you're as much as arguing that Adv/Dis is a meaningless sub-system.
It's actually one of 5e's brighter spots.

I take your point on spellcasting being easier now. I guess if you want to make it harder you can. The game has moved away from fiat stopping people being able to act but some DMs will want to play it hat way. It’s the same principal with a rogues cunning action and hiding or a caster spell focus item. We could fill a new thread and them some about whether you should be able to stop a wizard casting their one seventh level spell that has already cancelled a previous high level spell they cast because of concentration.

Making casting difficult or risky is not the same as flat stopping them from acting. Telling them 'no you can't do that, it's impossible' is flat stopping them. ;P

 

[Mage of Spellford]

Personally i wouldn't allow such a choke action because it is just like a called shot to hamstring or to blind an opponent it is too specific.

In my view D&D has always had the issue where in order for unarmed combat to be 'realistic' it should offer an option to KO or restrain an opponent like in 'real life'. This is unfortunately opposite to the concept of hit points. The game for better of worse uses hit points as a tally of more than a way of keeping track of physical damage.

If you want to prevent a mage from casting you need to put them to zero hit points the same as if a three story tall giant or a dragon needs to drop the fighter to zero hit points to knock him out of the fight. In my opinion any rule that bypasses this is not in the spirit of the game.

Magic breaks the rules but at least in 5e allows the victim various opportunities to save again. Even when a character is restrained or even unconscious an attack is not an autokill. Critical yes. Advantage yes. But the game goes out of its way to prevent the 'ol slit the fallen opponent's throat.

Just my opinion, but choking no matter how it's justified or what rules you use: not at my table.

MarkK