Dealing with spellcasters as a martial

[Erechel]

Grapple doesn't grant disadvantage, only reduces movement to 0. Restrained grants disadvantage. Also your example doesn't help your case for game balancing. Also when we are talking about spellcasters, wizards aren't the only ones. Most casters have a limited number of spells they can learn, so a lot might not have the defense that wizards might have.

Oh, for God's sake! The GRAPPLE has disadvantage to succeed, it is MORE DIFFICULT to make a grapple to choke than a simple grapple.
Player: "I want to choke the wizard"
DM: "Make an Athletics check at disadvantage"
Player: "I've rolled a 7 and an 18. I have Athletics +7, so it's a 14"
DM: "The wizard rolled a 12, you succeed. The target is grappled, and can't cast verbal components. He stabs you with his dagger"
See?

 

[5ekyu]

To me, improvisitional action guidelines and allowance are there to allow for a player and GM to manage unspecified actions into the game within the context of the rules.

Its **not** intended to be a go-to to describe something slightly differently and get around and bypass the existing rules.

 

[Erechel]

To me, improvisitional action guidelines and allowance are there to allow for a player and GM to manage unspecified actions into the game within the context of the rules.

Its **not** intended to be a go-to to describe something slightly differently and get around and bypass the existing rules.

There is no rule that prevents anyone to choke anyone. There is no rule for choking at all. Like there is no rule to kick the groin, nor to throw sand on the eyes of the enemies, nor to bash someone's head against a wall, nor to any specific attack. They could be modeled, instead, with the rules that already are there.

Saying that choking someone could be modeled as a grapple at disadvantage is only adjudicating actions. Modeling an action that a fighter could theoretically attempt, with a rule that it is already there. As it grants a better result, you give it some drawback, like you attempt it at disadvantage.

But of course, you could always go against the rules, and don't allow a fighter to do something that it is perfectly capable of, and negate anything outside the prescribed actions. Even if it is against RAW.

Quote:
"IMPROVISING AN ACTION
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores. See descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.
When you describe an action noy 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"
PHB 192

So, unless you think choking someone is impossible (and I don't see a reason why), as a DM you can assign an ability check (such as athletics at disadvantage opposed to athletics or acrobatics -target's choice-).

 

[MechaPilot]

A choke really should only affect spells with verbal components. I haven't checked if there are any, but a caster who's being choked should still be able to cast any spells without a verbal component.

 

[5ekyu]

There is no rule that prevents anyone to choke anyone. There is no rule for choking at all. Like there is no rule to kick the groin, nor to throw sand on the eyes of the enemies, nor to bash someone's head against a wall, nor to any specific attack. They could be modeled, instead, with the rules that already are there.

Saying that choking someone could be modeled as a grapple at disadvantage is only adjudicating actions. Modeling an action that a fighter could theoretically attempt, with a rule that it is already there. As it grants a better result, you give it some drawback, like you attempt it at disadvantage.

But of course, you could always go against the rules, and don't allow a fighter to do something that it is perfectly capable of, and negate anything outside the prescribed actions. Even if it is against RAW.

Quote:
"IMPROVISING AN ACTION
Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character's ability scores. See descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.
When you describe an action noy 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"
PHB 192

So, unless you think choking someone is impossible (and I don't see a reason why), as a DM you can assign an ability check (such as athletics at disadvantage opposed to athletics or acrobatics -target's choice-).

Straw man...

Nothing more...

I did not say a fighter could not choke a mage... I said (as a broad statement) about imptlrov action) the general principle of working how that is resolved into the rules and within the context of the rules - not as a way to bypass rules.

The key difference is... Does a gm allow choking to be resolved as inflicting a much more severe penalty that gets around or shuts down a frigging ton other existing rules?

Does he say choking prevents spelk casting?
Does he say choking creates a massive damage type situation due to change of crushing windpipe?

Does he rule that a kick in the groin can render a full hp foghter in plate incapacitated for 5 rds?

The oft thrown straw man pretext of the bypass rules with improvs is always along the lines of "you're saying it cannot be done" when in reality what is being said is "it can be done but not with the consequences you hoped for (in my game or within the context of the rules and mechanics we use.)

You want you grab for the throat to be resolved stop the mage from casting... Well my bet is the barbarian with the axe wants his axe shot to hit the throat too and for that to stop casting too...

 

[neogod22]

Oh, for God's sake! The GRAPPLE has disadvantage to succeed, it is MORE DIFFICULT to make a grapple to choke than a simple grapple.
Player: "I want to choke the wizard"
DM: "Make an Athletics check at disadvantage"
Player: "I've rolled a 7 and an 18. I have Athletics +7, so it's a 14"
DM: "The wizard rolled a 12, you succeed. The target is grappled, and can't cast verbal components. He stabs you with his dagger"
See?

So if I had a large or bigger creature that grappled and restrained your fighter, would it be fair if I told you you didn't get an attack,because it pinned your arms? And every round you will take squeeze damage unless you can break,out of the grapple? Keep in mind you will have disadvantage and they will have advantage becaise of the size difference.

 

[Erechel]

So if I had a large or bigger creature that grappled and restrained your fighter, would it be fair if I told you you didn't get an attack,because it pinned your arms? And every round you will take squeeze damage unless you can break,out of the grapple? Keep in mind you will have disadvantage and they will have advantage becaise of the size difference.

Maybe. The creature will have disadvantage on the check to restraint? It will be another check? Will it be uncapable of using said hands to attack me? If it does, of course. I still can kick it for puny unarmed damage. Or try to escape at disadvantage. Or cast a spell without somatic/material components, such as Vicious mockery

Also, keep in mind that I never said restrained. There are already rules for restraining someone: Grappler feat. And the restrained condition only gives Disadvantage, not incapacitates.
"A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws."
That's the same that knocking someone prone and then grapple, except for the Disadvantage on Dex saves. Something that a big creature already does.

My choke, also, won't incapacitate, only silence or at least make really difficult to cast something with verbal components. This is a strawman. I already said it: the caster isn't restrained. Is grappled, and silenced @MechaPilot. It hasn't disadvantage. The caster can still use its hands to attack. Or its feet. Or its head. Or cast spells without verbal components (there is one?).
I think I'm making myself clear with my words.

 

[5ekyu]

"Oh, for God's sake! The GRAPPLE has disadvantage to succeed, it is MORE DIFFICULT to make a grapple to choke than a simple grapple."

You are aware of how many things give you advantage that would cancel out that disad, right?

In my experience, advantage and disadvantage are very fluid and so getying disadvantage is not some "for God's sake" penalty, especially when weighed against the value of spelkcasting and when being applied to skill checks between the attackers main stats and class skill and a defender's seconday sstat and non-class skill.

Really, the combo of fervered and off-scale defense of the outcome desired fits the traditional mold of the "declare improv to get around rules" approach.

Why bother with the choke, just improv into killing them with going thru hp?

 

[neogod22]

Maybe. The creature will have disadvantage on the check to restraint? It will be another check? Will it be uncapable of using said hands to attack me? If it does, of course. I still can kick it for puny unarmed damage. Or try to escape at disadvantage. Or cast a spell without somatic/material components, such as Vicious mockery

Also, keep in mind that I never said restrained. There are already rules for restraining someone: Grappler feat. And the restrained condition only gives Disadvantage, not incapacitates.
"A restrained creature’s speed becomes 0, and it can’t benefit from any bonus to its speed.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage, and the creature’s Attack rolls have disadvantage.
The creature has disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws."
That's the same that knocking someone prone and then grapple, except for the Disadvantage on Dex saves. Something that a big creature already does.

My choke, also, won't incapacitate, only silence or at least make really difficult to cast something with verbal components. This is a strawman. I already said it: the caster isn't restrained. Is grappled, and silenced @MechaPilot. It hasn't disadvantage. The caster can still use its hands to attack. Or its feet. Or its head. Or cast spells without verbal components (there is one?).
I think I'm making myself clear with my words.

Here's the point I'm making, on the player side you're trying to argue "sure this is a great idea, I can choke wizards and not allow them to cast spells. Nice way to exploit the rules." As a DM, I say, this a 2 way street. I will choke every single one of your casters in every combat and you'll never get a heal or support. Your casters will missed and probably threaten to never play again. All thanks to the fighter who wants to exploit the rules.

 

[MechaPilot]

. . . many things give you advantage that would cancel out that disad. . . .

That is true. With that in mind it might be better to require succeeding on the grapple check by 5+. That's my go-to rule when a player wants to add an effect to a normal attack, such as sweeping someone prone with a kick.