Dealing with spellcasters as a martial

[TheSword]

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

I would say making up a new use of grapple out of proportion with existing abilities is DM fiat. As is saying there are no obstacles big enough to hide behind, or that when the combat starts there happens to be two bugbears standing next to the wizard... oh wow, the bugbears won initiative.

To be clear I’m not against DM fiat - it is an essential part of this game that needs a referee. However let’s not pretend that this grapple rule isn’t fiat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would say making up a new use of grapple out of proportion with existing abilities is DM fiat.

Is it that out of proportion? Best-case, you're looking at a little better than a two-in three chance of preventing a second spell from being cast, for the price of giving up two attacks.

And that's a very improbable best case, because the defender can use the better of DEX or STR - while wizards stereotypically dump STR, they often prioritize DEX, and 8's in both STR & DEX are going to be rare, indeed. Even a modest 14 DEX will shift those percentages to 74% for a given round, and 54% to successfully establish the 'choke hold' in the first place, and prevent one spell, assuming you trivially gain advantage and the target doesn't.

Any less 'best case' than that - training in athletics or acrobatics, for instance, or being unable to cancel the disadvantage - and the improvisational maneuver becomes a long shot.

Of course, it's a long shot to begin with, because you're just declaring an action and hoping the DM doesn't just narrate failure...

To be clear I’m not against DM fiat - it is an essential part of this game that needs a referee. However let’s not pretend that this grapple rule isn’t fiat.

Let's not pretend it's a rule!

The actual rules are that you can cast a spell that requires pulling out a material component, making arcane gestures, and speaking various magic words, while someone with a sword is standing right next to you, making a good faith attempt to kill you, with no chance at all of failure or interruption and without the poor sucker targeted having any better a chance of saving against it. You only need to make one simple motion to throw a spear (or whatever else is handy), but if there's a guy with a sword trying to kill you (or even a guy with a stick trying to annoy you), you have disadvantage to hit.

Them's the rules.

The DM should definitely run them over with his Fiat given half a chance.

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.

Another thing to consider about letting a choke action literally cut off the victim's air: after 10 or 20 rounds of succeeding at it every single round, the guy might actually risk passing out...

Compare that to beating him unconscious with unarmed attacks.

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.

So, dead set against Hold Person, then? It should have a hp threshold like Sleep?

 

[TheSword]

Is it that out of proportion? Best-case, you're looking at a little better than a two-in three chance of preventing a second spell from being cast, for the price of giving up two attacks.

Let's not pretend it's a rule!

The actual rules are that you can cast a spell that requires pulling out a material component, making arcane gestures, and speaking various magic words, while someone with a sword is standing right next to you, making a good faith attempt to kill you, with no chance at all of failure or interruption and without the poor sucker targeted having any better a chance of saving against it. You only need to pull an arrow and make one simple motion to shoot someone with a bow, but if there's a guy with a sword trying to kill you (or even a guy with a stick trying to annoy you), you have disadvantage on the shot.

You’re not preventing a second spell. You have two attacks therefore you’re doing this round one. The likelihood (because the example caster has a 20% of breaking the grapple) is that you are shutting down all further spell casting.

Okay let me rephrase that to “grapple ruling” as opposed to rule.

I understand what you’re saying about provoking in earlier editions. However the old attack of opportunity/defensive casting rules pretty much meant that you could cast without provoking even in 3e the king of strategic combat editions. There were plenty of ways round provoking from bow shot too.

The wizard isn’t necessarily a doddery old man fumbling in his spell pouch. He also probably isn’t standing there unarmed but has a large stave batting away sword thrusts as he chants and waves his free hand.

The new mechanic for limiting spell casting is concentration. Namely you can disrupt complicated spells with damage or distraction but simple spells can’t be stopped. That’s the mechanic the OP should use if they want to try and limit wizards. At best the OPs Grappler should be able to interfere with that.

 

[TheSword]

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.

Help will give you advantage which is the simplest method. So yes it is trivially easy. It takes another action but you’re potentially taking out a high level caster so still worth it.

If you want to go it alone there are any number of buffs (enlarge or enhance ability being two low level example)

Then there’s the barbarian’s rage.

Or you could impose any number of conditions on the wizard, or a hex from a friendly warlock)

If nothing else it’s probably worth using inspiration

Dip into rogue for double proficiency on your roll

Or the lucky feat,

Or how about a friendly party diviner makes it auto success.

In short yes it is trivially easy to gain success on rolls like this when they’re already stacked in your favour. The issue is making the ability to shut down a spellcaster hang on one dice roll or action.

Let me put it another way. If a 5th level wizard could cast a spell with a DC so high it meant a 12th level fighter had to roll a 17+ to act each round would you think that was reasonable? That’s effectively the same as a 12th level mate needing to break away from the 5th level fighter in the example above. (The onus is on the wizard to break free once the grapple is inflicted.) Except in this case it is usable at will, doesn’t take concentration and can be used on anyone.

It’s bad enough that grapple and shove is a thing, without turning every BBEG into a wrestling match.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In short yes it is trivially easy to gain success on rolls like this when they’re already stacked in your favour. The issue is making the ability to shut down a spellcaster hang on one dice roll or action.

Two actions, 3 if you're being helped to cancel disadvantage. 3 dice rolls, two if you're being helped, opposed by two more.

If a 5th level wizard could cast a spell with a DC so high it meant a 12th level fighter had to roll a 17+ to act each round would you think that was reasonable?

If you're not proficient in a save you can be 20th, and your chance of success may be no better. In an example above, it was 16+ to resist a Hold Person. One action, one roll, by the RaW, 75% chance of success, no DM fiat required.

Except in this case it is usable at will, doesn’t take concentration and can be used on anyone.

It's not actually at-will, it's a declared 'improvised' action and a resolution in that moment, it applies once. Not 1/day or 1/encounter or until you run out of slots, once. Next time you try it, it may be harder (or easier - anything that requires multiple contested checks is actually pretty difficult to pull off dependably) or automatically fail. And, while you can use it on anyone, keeping someone from speaking is really a pretty minor thing outside of spells requiring Verbal components. It's a limitation on those spells, just like concentration is a limitation on the much smaller sub-set of spells that require it.

It’s bad enough that grapple and shove is a thing, without turning every BBEG into a wrestling match.

A medium-sized BBeG with 8 STR & 8 DEX & no training in either Athletics or Acrobatics, and no minions to keep the melee types off, ain't very B or B, at all.

 

[TheSword]

Perhaps you’re right Tony. Keep the grapple ruling. After all, 3 actions across a party of six is a pretty big investment in time. I mean that will take a third of of the party their action for the first round. (Unless a fighter uses action surge, but what are the odds of that). What’s wrong with 1 round combats? Everyone knows rolling initiative is the best bit. Then finally we can stop end boss wizards spoiling the game for everyone. No more pesky Arch mage villains. Luckily the same will apply to the party so soon nobody will be playing non-combat casters at all. Every wizard will be an elf acrobat or gish. I mean if I’m making up grapple rules I can always make up some more V only spells, or maybe just write into stat blocks the counter to this. After all I’m the DM so am totally able to ignore the balancing methods of the game. So then I can penalize the party and have all the toys for myself. Mwahahaha. Wait let’s just play in Middle Earth and be done with it...

... or we can just ignore the idea of choke grapples and use the rules as they have been written.

 

[Tony Vargas]

After all I’m the DM so am totally able to ignore the balancing methods of the game.

The DM /is/ the game's balancing method.

... or we can just ignore the idea of choke grapples and use the rules as they have been written.

That's the great thing about 5e, the rules as written let players declare actions, and DMs decide on the results, calling for a roll (or rolls), if there's uncertainty.

The whole thing was as raw as a vegan kale salad.

 

[Erechel]

Help will give you advantage which is the simplest method. So yes it is trivially easy. It takes another action but you’re potentially taking out a high level caster so still worth it.

If you want to go it alone there are any number of buffs (enlarge or enhance ability being two low level example)

Then there’s the barbarian’s rage.

Or you could impose any number of conditions on the wizard, or a hex from a friendly warlock)

If nothing else it’s probably worth using inspiration

Dip into rogue for double proficiency on your roll

Or the lucky feat,

Or how about a friendly party diviner makes it auto success.

In short yes it is trivially easy to gain success on rolls like this when they’re already stacked in your favour. The issue is making the ability to shut down a spellcaster hang on one dice roll or action.

Let me put it another way. If a 5th level wizard could cast a spell with a DC so high it meant a 12th level fighter had to roll a 17+ to act each round would you think that was reasonable? That’s effectively the same as a 12th level mate needing to break away from the 5th level fighter in the example above. (The onus is on the wizard to break free once the grapple is inflicted.) Except in this case it is usable at will, doesn’t take concentration and can be used on anyone.

It’s bad enough that grapple and shove is a thing, without turning every BBEG into a wrestling match.

If you consider spending further actions trivial, it is trivially easy too for the wizard to have help itself, even by a low level minion like a familiar, for example. And it isn't even outside the theme of a wizard. So now the grappler hasn't Advantage nor disadvantage (as they don't stack), but the wizard has Advantage to escape. External factors count both ways, you know.

As for the Lucky feat, or the multiclass with rogue, it suddenly isn't a trivial factor, but a specific build: you are building a melee grappler, that costs you in feats and levels. And you are dedicated to melee combat, so it is expected for you to be better in it that than a pansly mage with 8 strength, who has nothing to do in melee range. It should be the lesser of it's concerns the possibility of being grappled. And it has a LOT of ways to get out of melee, such as a level 1 spell: levitate, or the omnipresent 3rd fly. Suddenly, all your concerns on being grappled disappear.

An even then, you only impede spells with verbal components by the rules. You don't even impede casting. I've made more than a few mentions on spells without verbal components.

Even then, as I've being realized with these discussions, the grapple/choke is suboptimal to counter wizards [MENTION=17343]Tony_V[/MENTION]argas. It is bothersome, requires too much actions, and the disadvantage is a pain in the ass. And many of the fake rules lawyer's and "balance concerned" people of this post are bothered by this idea. I've realized that the best option is, simply, disarm. It only takes one attack, you haven't disadvantage and most of the most dangerous spells have Material components. If the enemy wizard or cleric has an arcane or divine focus (as most of them have), you disarm them and suddenly they can't cast a wide array of spells, including the most party dangerous ones, such as fireball and lightning bolt. You can even do it as part of an attack if you're a Battle master, doing extra damage. Then kick or grab the focus, and laugh, and laugh, and laugh.

You can still grapple the puny wizard to avoid him to reach his focus. And it will be entirely without DMs fiat.

 

[Erechel]

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!

It is in the Xanathar's Guide to Everything, the "first official expansion" of the game. You don't need to be a gish. And offer a Save is how the spells usually work.

See that there are 22 spells without Verbal components for wizard only. I wouldn't call it exactly "powerless" or without options. There are plenty of options. Further, those spells advantage fall into meaninglessness if you suddenly ignore the Verbal components althogeter

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.!

It falls under the Interact with an object. See https://mobile.twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/542134515909414912

You are perfectly able to retrieve, grab, kick or otherwise interact with the weapon in the floor. And it doesn't take an action at all. Heck, you could even step on it, if you're concerned with timing. Feel free to look at the rules. If it is at 5 feet of you, it is within your melee reach.

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.

It seems sensible enough. It isn't exactly my cup of tea, though,as it seems very restrictive. But, then, as it is the same as pulling a dagger in it's neck, then I'll have to make an attack. And I don't have to take it at disadvantage, furthermore: I could grant myself advantage knocking prone the wizard first, also without disadvantage. And I could look at the terrain, looking for a water source, to grapple and then make a swirly.

Then, if I want to disable casting with material components, then I only have to disarm the wizard, without disadvantage, and as a part of an attack if I'm a Battlemaster and interact with an object to kick or stomp into the caster staff, rod, crystal or whatever without further checks. Goodbye fireballs and lightning bolts.

If you put me against the ropes and say "the object fall out of your reach" then a shove (shield or extra attack, heck, even as an action surge, if I don't have any of those), again without disadvantage, moves the caster 5 feet, and then interact with the object as part of the movement. Or a grapple, and move the wizard out of place, away from the arcane focus, at half your movement. I believe that it is best at disabling a lot of casting than several grapples with disadvantage.

Again, entirely RAW.

 

[TheSword]

Then, if I want to disable casting with material components, then I only have to disarm the wizard, without disadvantage, and as a part of an attack if I'm a Battlemaster and interact with an object to kick or stomp into the caster staff, rod, crystal or whatever without further checks. Goodbye fireballs and lightning bolts .

Disarm in the DMG is an optional addition. It will depend on your DM/table.

How do you disarm a wizard when their components are kept in pockets inside their robes? Do you strip them naked? Can you do that with a grapple check too?

I had to laugh when you said the other readers were too ‘rules lawery’.

Of the 22 most are cantrips dealing a small amount of damage the rest are unhelpful.

You seem obsessed with a quick one round take down of a spellcaster of any level. It’s really odd. Maybe don’t show your DM this thread, it probably won’t convince him any more than it’s convinced me.