D&D 5E Experiences with a PC garrote weapon?

[Quickleaf]

So a 1st level rogue gets the jump on an Archmage (MM monster stats) . +5 to hit with advantage vs AC 12. So a 9% chance of a miss. The rogue is likely to before the archmage due to initiative modifier. Archmage is surprised, so it gets no action on the 1 turn it could take an action. At the start of the next round the archmage begins dying.

Is that the desired result?

Thanks for the catch. The intent is that the surprise round would not "count" towards the target's rounds of suffocation. In other words, that the spirit of the suffocation rules – that you at least get 1 round to try and save yourself – would be maintained here.

I couldn't find any clean concise wording to that effect.

But if the archmage was not able to break free – through any of the methods @Fenris-77 mentions – by the end of the actual non-surprise 1st round of combat (see what I mean? there's no clean language for that in 5e), then it would be KO'ed and begin dying.

 

[Quickleaf]

I personally would make these changes:

• Allow it to apply to a creature one size larger than you if you can get access to its neck.
• Remove Finesse and the Dex component of the escape DC. You're exerting pressure and holding in place against someone trying to relieve it.
• Clarify whether the "cannot make sounds louder than a whisper" prevents verbal components. (I'm assuming it does, but it is important enough that I think it needs spelling out.)
• I might allow sneak attack damage: Rogues seem the type that would be very adept at garrotting people. Or maybe just add damage equal to the rogue's number of sneak attack dice to the damage: Garrotting is a very sure way of killing an unarmed person if you're stronger and take them by surprise, but it takes a lot longer than just stabbing them to death.
• I'm not sure of the concentration mechanic. I don't see strangling someone as preventing you from concentrating on a spell in a way that actively fighting them in melee doesn't. You are very vulnerable to getting stabbed up by your victim and their friends, but doing so isn't necessarily going to prevent you from maintaining the strangle unless you choose to drop it to defend yourself.

Thanks for your feedback, Cap'n!

So the "cannot make sounds louder than a whisper" is something I've discussed with my players. You'll notice it's different language from "it cannot speak." The intent here is that the creature can still cast spells and use command words. However, it would not be able to shout to alert a sentry on the other side of the ramparts.

That's where the concentration mechanic comes in. Setting aside simulation concerns for a moment – they're important, just need to clarify something first – being able to deprive a creature of the ability to cast verbal spells is so potent in 5e that it only appears in the silence spell which requires concentration. The reason for this is that, say, if you weren't able to move or you were stunned, and were in the area of a silence spell, at least the concentration mechanic provides a way for your companions to rescue you. Similar thinking with using concentration with a single-target silence effect that's difficult to escape.

 

[jgsugden]

The Archmage could very easily have a magic item that does reasonable melee damage, enough at least to force a tougher concentration save. There are a couple of non-verbal spells that could do the same in a pinch. Even the basic concentration save is 50-50. I'm not unduly worried at the prospect of having to deal with this unlimbered against villains. Really, if garrotes are a thing it would make sense for the DM to adjust right? Not to make them useless, but to make them realistically useful. That same Archmage with Contingency in his 6th level slot isn't getting dummied by a 1st level Rogue.

The archmage doesn't get to act.

 

[Fenris-77]

The archmage doesn't get to act.

See @Quickleaf's post above about having at least round to save yourself. A Ring of Free Action would work too. Anyway, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be an auto-win. Grappling has some combos that are already almost as lopsided, and it's not like that's ruined the game or anything. Grapple inside a silence spell and that Archmage is toast. I don't think the garrote is more problematic than that. It also doesn't work against a lot of other types of big bads who simply don't breath, or are too big, etc etc.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Not to make them useless, but to make them realistically useful.

Do you mean that in the "realism" sense, or in the sense of being balanced correctly so that using one is a viable choice without being OP?

My design (in a previous post) was based on a desire to focus on asphyxiation instead of regular damage. Just because it's cool and fun and different. Because asphyxiation is potentially so powerful....not only taking out creatures very quickly, but preventing them from casting spells in the meantime...I looked for ways to make it less effective. So I made it difficult to use, eliminated normal damage, added the Con save to (potentially) delay the onset of the effect, and added two ways to escape (break Grapple, or break concentration).

Are those "realistic"? I couldn't care less. Balance > Realism. (It may not be balanced either...I certainly haven't playtested it. All I meant was that I was going for balance not realism.)

 

[jgsugden]

See @Quickleaf's post above about having at least round to save yourself. A Ring of Free Action would work too. Anyway, I'm just saying it doesn't need to be an auto-win....

To each their own.

It is an extremely high probability win by a solo PC against much more powerful foes. If you're ok with that in your game, more power to you. To me, it is akin to putting vorpal swords in every weapon store in the game for less than a GP each.

 

[Fenris-77]

@Elfcrusher - I very much meant realistically useable within the existing game rules. Good enough to be an option, not so good it's always the first choice.

 

[Pauln6]

I would say the garotte is a grapple attack with disadvantage so that it's always difficult and only worthwhile if you have the drop on someone.

While the grapple is maintained, inflict strength damage automatically plus 1d4 + Str/dex weapon damage if you successfully hit with a normal attack), plus sneak attack where applicable. When the victim is bloodied, apply the suffocation mechanics.

1. The first attack has disadvantage to hit making this more useful as a Rogue weapon. With disadvantage, the initial attack can't get sneak damage. The real damage comes maintaining strangulation.
2. Some auto damage for maintaining the grapple.
3. If you get a good grip I.e. Successfully hit you do additional 1d4 + stat damage.
4. Only a rogue is likely to take someone down with a garotte so sneak attack is king.
5. Suffocation mechanism kicks in when target is bloodied. Tough opponents can be taken down but not easily,.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I agree with your thoughts, and this does reflect a lot of how I run my own games.
For a complete overanalysis read below, but TL;DR version:
Garroting is balanced on the standard three (3)-round combat encounter, and adds a really cool option for exploration challenges.
It is extremely powerful vs one single enemy (probably too much!) and more balanced against encounters with multiple enemies - but that is a common issue I have with 5e anyways, and based in what I have seen on forums something others do as well.

Deepdive:
*The champion would take three (3) rounds to knock unconsicous that way, as it is 1 + Con mod (2) = 3. - But this doesn’t affect your point at all and you are correct, so I won’t use the champion as an example.

I agree it is a powerful tactic against certain types of creatures, especially as some people mentioned higher in thread - specifically the high HP but low Str/Con. But I see this as a good strategic option that is one more tool for players to have, and it only efficient in certain encounters.

The grappled condition only prevents movement and does not gove disadvantage on attack rolls, so the grappled target will always have at least one creature to attack.

Brute type enemies typically have higher Con (to survive at least 2-4 rounds) and higher Str (to break the grapple). They usually have strong melee attacks, so this tactic isn’t super effective at ending the fight faster.

Skirmisher- type enemies use high mobility and could have ranged attacks. This is where the Garrote is most effective, and I think this is a great tactic to have available. It may be too powerful for some groups, but my group really enjoys using complicated rock-scissor-paper type strategies and this opens up another option.

Glass-cannon type creatures would not last long being choked - but if someone is within melee distance with advantage then they are already not expected to survive long


Combats are balanced to last 3 rounds (taken from how to calculate monster CR from the DMG). Most creatures have certain tactics they use reflected in their ability scores and abilities.
The Garrote is most effective against high HP/low Con creatures, which is a rare form in itself. Unless it is a high-CR creature, like the archmage. But if you are within melee distance to an archmage with advantage on the attack, the (probably higher level) party should be expected to be able to kill the mage within 2 rounds anyways.

Edit: it is great to see support on the GoFundMe!

Correction. The party likes it up until you have a party of assassins, or worse, low level creatures with pack tactics as a feature perform the maneuver on their high level characters and kill all them within 2 rounds because "Why do we need to have a high con if we're ranged characters or a rogue?" It's basically Tucker's Kobolds except clearly the best option to use for every fight, and with none of the clever setup that makes it entertaining or the ability for the party to just avoid it all by choosing to not go in the cave in the first place.

My main concern with this houserule is that I seriously worry it would fail to pass my one hard rule when considering houserules: if the players can use it, so can the monsters and the players must accept it without objection.

 

[Chryssis]

Thanks for your feedback, Cap'n!

So the "cannot make sounds louder than a whisper" is something I've discussed with my players. You'll notice it's different language from "it cannot speak." The intent here is that the creature can still cast spells and use command words. However, it would not be able to shout to alert a sentry on the other side of the ramparts.

That's where the concentration mechanic comes in. Setting aside simulation concerns for a moment – they're important, just need to clarify something first – being able to deprive a creature of the ability to cast verbal spells is so potent in 5e that it only appears in the silence spell which requires concentration. The reason for this is that, say, if you weren't able to move or you were stunned, and were in the area of a silence spell, at least the concentration mechanic provides a way for your companions to rescue you. Similar thinking with using concentration with a single-target silence effect that's difficult to escape.

If i'm not mistaken they actually couldn't cast spells, only use command words as being choked is pretty darn similar to being gagged in that sounds would be muffled/restricted.

Verbal (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.

can't do pitch and resonance in a choked whisper.