Dealing with spellcasters as a martial

[Krachek]

A Dm can always bug any aspect of play, he perceive too strong or need to be in check.

Choke caster! You should also try to limit weapon use base on space available!
Even if not written in the rules, a polearm cannot be used effectively in most dungeon rooms.
In fact any two handed weapon cannot be used if not enough space over head and aside.

Let players play and have fun instead of squeezing them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then you have all kinds of absurd claims, like this is akin to one-shoting wizards instead of forcing them to take sub-optimal actions..

A wizard has roughly two options for what they want to do with their spells in fifth edition:

1) Deal less damage than the fighter does.
2) Try to inflict some sort of condition, but probably do nothing because they are going to save against it.

And you want them to flail ineffectually with their dagger, instead. Because you can't handle the thought of them almost putting up a fight, or being able to kill a bunch of level 1 chumps who were irrelevant anyway.

Fair is fair, but fighters have already won this edition. Introducing special house rules to penalize spellcasters even further is just petty.

 

[Erechel]

A wizard has roughly two options for what they want to do with their spells in fifth edition:

1) Deal less damage than the fighter does.
2) Try to inflict some sort of condition, but probably do nothing because they are going to save against it.

And you want them to flail ineffectually with their dagger, instead. Because you can't handle the thought of them almost putting up a fight, or being able to kill a bunch of level 1 chumps who were irrelevant anyway.

Fair is fair, but fighters have already won this edition. Introducing special house rules to penalize spellcasters even further is just petty.

Wizards aren't only useful in combat. They can fly. They can teleport. They can charm. They can buff. They can inflict massive damage (like 8d6 in an area) hurling fireballs. They can do damage without fail. They can bypass damage immunities and resistances. They can summon and redirect the waters of a river in a single action. They can open gates to the planes. They can compel people to do anything they want. They can wreck the walls of a city calling meteors. They can become invisible. They can deflect volleys of arrows in a reaction with a magical shield. They can summon allies and monsters to fight in their side. They can wish anything to become real.

And seriously are you worried about a choke being overpowered?


...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wizards aren't only useful in combat. They can fly. They can teleport. They can charm. They can buff. They can inflict massive damage (like 8d6 in an area) hurling fireballs. They can do damage without fail. They can bypass damage immunities and resistances. They can summon and redirect the waters of a river in a single action. They can open gates to the planes. They can compel people to do anything they want. They can wreck the walls of a city calling meteors. They can become invisible. They can deflect volleys of arrows in a reaction with a magical shield. They can summon allies and monsters to fight in their side. They can wish anything to become real.

And seriously are you worried about a choke being overpowered?


...

Out of combat, wizards allow the party to travel to many different places, which they might not otherwise be able to reach. In combat, they can either deal less damage than the fighter, or try and cause a status effect which probably does nothing.

And for their insolence of daring to act as the party chauffeur, and letting the fighter shine during combat, you want to prevent them from even pretending like they're contributing?

 

[Erechel]

Are you kidding, right? Have you really played wizards? pretend to contribute? Really?
I've played a weird wizard (high strength mountain dwarf war wizard), and I was flying throwing fireballs. Or hasted, with false life, and using a battle-axe side to side with the champion, and dealing almost the same damage, but faster (Intelligence initiative) and being hit less and (reaction to shield or to deflect). Or being able to become invisible and suddenly blast every one. And I never mourn if I ever fall from a cliff.
Wizards are champions of versatility. If you are only pretending to contribute, then you don't really know how to use them.

Out of combat, wizards allow the party to travel to many different places, which they might not otherwise be able to reach. In combat, they can either deal less damage than the fighter, or try and cause a status effect which probably does nothing.

And for their insolence of daring to act as the party chauffeur, and letting the fighter shine during combat, you want to prevent them from even pretending like they're contributing?

 

[cooperjer]

At best, as a wizard you can have two pre-battle buffs (mage armor, and any Conc. buff), and you need to expend the slots. Furthermore, many concentration buffs have very short durations, so you need to cast them as close to combat as you can. A 1 minute spell, like Haste, will pass shortly after being cast.

As a player, I 've being dealing with casters since level 1. Priests, mages and hobgoblin Devastators are enemies with I've being dealing with. I have a big advantage: I'm a Strength fighter, human, with the Shieldmaster feat. This allowed me to improve my action economy. Furthermore, any effect that allows me to pass a Dex saving throw to halve my damage, I receive no damage instead as a reaction (and if said effect is directed against me only, it allows me to add the Shield bonus to my DST). But the main factor is the action economy: knocking prone spellcasters as a bonus action is incredibly useful. I use the following tactic: knock, grapple, choke. Choke isn't an action described on any manual, but it could be considered both as an attack and as a grapple. Succesfuly choking someone should silence and suffocate it, doing minimal (disarmed) damage. My DM usually considers it as a grapple at disadvantage (as it is more specific).

Other ways of disabling casters may be:

1) Heavy smoke: heavily obscures an area, so impedes casters to make targets or choose the point in which cast their targets. Also, it can provoke suffocation, thus "silence" creatures inside the area.
2) Sand in the eyes: Blinded condition doesn't allow to see, so any spell that requires to see the target can't.
3) Disarm: Any spell that requires material components and any caster with a Spellcasting focus such as a staff could be disarmed. That renders many powerful spells useless.
4) Kill them with lots of damage before they cast. Obviously.

Thougts? Ideas?

This is an interesting thread. You have an error in the number of spells that can be prepared by a wizard for non-concentration defense. You did catch Mage Armor, but another defensive spell is Mirror Image. One somewhat defensive spell is Blink. In addition, I like Freedom of Movement as an option to help prevent grapples on my dragons.

The long discussion about choking casters raises some points, but, I feel some did not look at what spells can be cast without verbal components. If your DM was concerned with this choke process, then using spells like Thunderclap, Catapult, and Ice knife would be on the NPC caster list. Higher level casters might have something like Hypnotic Pattern. In addition, if "the choker" became renowned, wizards may have Freedom of Movement cast on them at the beginning of combat. Cross reference DnDBeyond.com for a way to look at all of the spells and filter with various features.

Finally, since the grapple is at disadvantage, I would say that a wizard might be able to use their action to loosen the grapple around the neck just enough to get a verbal only spell off. This verbal only spell, Misty Step, is also on all of my dragons because it leaves the The Choker / grappler standing with nothing in his hands.

So, I'm not sure what is good from the player point of view to fight wizards. I guess it depends on the DM, and how much they want to stick to the spell list. I've found that some adventures put spells on NPC lists for thematic reasons, which then are useless in a combat encounter. These are spells like Scrying. I'll tend to take those spells out and replace them with something that I feel would help make the encounter more interesting. In the early levels, blocking sight is really good. It's kind of amazing how many spells have the text "a target you can see" in them. Stunning them with a stunning blow (i.e. monk) is effective. Removing hit points quickly as a rogue does is very effective. Silence is effective for some encounters. Antimagic fields and even the Dispell Magic spell is useful.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Are you kidding, right? Have you really played wizards? pretend to contribute? Really?
I've played a weird wizard (high strength mountain dwarf war wizard), and I was flying throwing fireballs. Or hasted, with false life, and using a battle-axe side to side with the champion, and dealing almost the same damage, but faster (Intelligence initiative) and being hit less and (reaction to shield or to deflect). Or being able to become invisible and suddenly blast every one. And I never mourn if I ever fall from a cliff.
Wizards are champions of versatility. If you are only pretending to contribute, then you don't really know how to use them.

I ran a game from 1-20, with two melee types and two wizard types. In any situation that wasn't just mopping the floor with a bunch of chumps, the melee characters were doing just fine while the casters alternated between less effective and ineffective. Anything worth fighting is going to have legendary resistance, which gives it immunity to the best spells and does nothing to impede warriors. Spellcasters can usually get around enemy resistances, but weapon-users can always get around resistances; nothing resists a magic sword. Etc, etc.

Of course, the relevant part of the topic at hand is how NPC spellcasters fare against martial PCs. They struggle. PCs have better stats, and class abilities that boost their saves or otherwise let them ignore effects. A high-level fighting monster can at least deal some damage. A high-level caster NPC or monster often does nothing, because the PCs make their saves and spells don't deal very much damage regardless.

Any rule that makes it harder for spellcasters is simply unnecessary.

 

[Dausuul]

Have you consider your DM using your tactics against a PC wizards?

Exactly. If I had a player wanting grapple to work this way, I'd ask if they really want to establish this as a precedent, and remind them that a lot of monsters have very high Strength scores, and pointedly look at the casters in the party.

I might allow grapple with disadvantage to impose a concentration save on spellcasting; for a spell with verbal components, make the save or it fizzles. But shutting down verbal components altogether? No.

 

[Erechel]

I ran a game from 1-20, with two melee types and two wizard types. In any situation that wasn't just mopping the floor with a bunch of chumps, the melee characters were doing just fine while the casters alternated between less effective and ineffective. Anything worth fighting is going to have legendary resistance, which gives it immunity to the best spells and does nothing to impede warriors. Spellcasters can usually get around enemy resistances, but weapon-users can always get around resistances; nothing resists a magic sword. Etc, etc.

Of course, the relevant part of the topic at hand is how NPC spellcasters fare against martial PCs. They struggle. PCs have better stats, and class abilities that boost their saves or otherwise let them ignore effects. A high-level fighting monster can at least deal some damage. A high-level caster NPC or monster often does nothing, because the PCs make their saves and spells don't deal very much damage regardless.

Any rule that makes it harder for spellcasters is simply unnecessary.

No, it isn't unnecessary. Perhaps in your game, you choose to ignore rules to improve the wizardry experience, which, for the first time, I read someone complain of as lacking power (!). Seriously, people that cast wish can't complain about being underpowered. I've run too several campaigns of D&D 5e, and, while I'm not a greybeard (I'm 33 years old), I've played D&D for a long, long time. I started with AD&D, and as one of the grognards say, there use to be much harder rules against spellcasting, like, say, you lose any spell you're casting if you are punched in the face. You. Lost. the. friggin. spell. Here you can cast in melee without any type of hindrance. You don't even need to be holding a weapon to defend yourself.

Furthermore, there is no new rule. If you bother on reading what I've being saying instead of closing in a war trench position, you will know that actually there is actually several rules in the PHB that support my claim. I'm going to quote them to you:

Components
A spell's components are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell's description indicates wheter it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M) components. If you can't provide one or more of a spell's components, you are unable to cast the spell.
Verbal
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.

Bolded is mine. As you can see, the rule actually calls the ability to speak clearly as a prerequisite, because the magic isn't in the words themselves, but on the pitch, resonance and the combination of sounds. And then immediately quotes possible sources of interruptions to the verbal components. As there is no specific rules for gagging a creature, but it is specifically quoted at a possible source of impeding verbal components, it falls under the following rule:

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 the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.
When you describe an action not 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."

So, if you want to gag a creature with your bare hands, there is no specific rule, and falls under Improvising an action. Granted, the DM cant deny said action, but it is there quoted as a possible source of interrupt verbal components, so you are immediately suspending one specific example given by the rules, and furthermore, harming suspension of disbelief in an attempt to "balance" the gameplay ignoring the rules. The best course of action isn't that: it is to allow such tactic (call it choke, call it something else, like grabbing the mouth of the spellcaster), and model the action in such a way that is more difficult than simply grapple the character.

A grapple falls into a contest rule, and it is a great starting point to further model the action, as it allows the enemy to resist and to escape. Even more, it requires the grappler to have at least one free hand, so it isn't an action without consequences. Quote:

Contests in Combat
Battle often involves pitting your prowess against that of your foe. Such a challenge is represented by a contest. This section includes the most common contests that require an action in combat: grappling and shoving a creature. The DM can use these contests as models for improvising others

Grapple rules:

Grappling
When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action o make a special melee attack, a grapple. If you are able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.
The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you and must be within your reach. Using at least one free hand, you try to seize the target by making a grapple check instead of an attack roll: a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check (the target chooses the ability to use). If you succeed, you subject the target to the grappled condition (see appendix A). The condition specifies the things that end it, and you can release the target whenever you like (no action required).
Escaping a grapple. A grappled creature can use its action to escape. To do so, it must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check contested by your Strength (Athletics) check.

So, as I've said earlier, I'm not claiming that a grapple is the rule to impede spellcasting. It is a model to improvise the action I want to make, as per the Contests in Combat rule and Improvisation rule. And, in this model, you need at least two attacks, and one of them at disadvantage; and I've actually quoted the disadvantage/advantage math: in the best case scenario, it doen't have advantage ever, where other tactis have. Furthermore, if it were a concern over balance, you could claim that the grappler needs two free hands instead of one, thus further impeding him to take their most optimal actions too: weapon attacks. So, as you see, it isn't even a win-win situation: it is an option you can take, a useful one, but not always the best one.

You can, rightfully, disagree with my specific way to model this action: you can model it in some other way, like an attack against a Constitution or Strength saving throw, a Concentration check or anything else, or even an ability check against a DC that goes as high as the DM wants to. You can What you can't do is ignore the rules because you feel that the wizards are weak (!). Or you can, but you are going against the rules of the game.

Furthermore, as someone said, there is a ton of spells that don't require verbal components. I took the work of counting them: they are 22 for the wizard only, the allegedly most affected by these rules, and 7 of them are cantrips and 5 of them are level one, like Ice Knife or catapult. And, as the same guy quoted, there is the spell freedom of movement, that lasts for an hour and it doesn't have concentration, and makes the caster immune to grapples, or at least escape them using 5 feet of their movement.

So it isn't that only a few specific builds can survive being silenced: you just need one cantrip and one spell, and that's it, although it is true that only a few specific builds can attempt this tactic (Strength fighters and Barbarians) with some degree of success. It isn't the equivalent to one-shoting a caster or a dragon aiming to the neck with an axe.

As a coda, you said that nothing is immune to a magical sword. You are wrong, a flying creature is immune to them, because the sword can't hit it. Suddenly, that flaming demon is out of reach and flailing the fighter, who can only respond with javelins for half the damage. Or needs the wizard to cast fly on him. AND, if you are counting magical items, that aren't granted by default, you can always create a ring of Freedom of Movement, whereas the fighter needs the good will of the DM.

Lastly, I compel you to look better at what you do in a game where a wizard is considered weak. It is true that it isn't the old "god mode" of 3.X era, but it is far from being a weakling. Someone that can cast Wish or polimorph itself into a T-Rex with a 4th level spell isn't, by any means, weak. And I compel you to revise the importance of gangs in 5e, as it is much, much more effective to toss several creatures than solos. Yes, fighters and paladins are better dealing with a Solo legendary monster than a wizard, as it should, but mobs are better handled by your wizard in many, many ways.

As I've said, many of you are objecting on principle, without any real concern of balance or RAW. If you come with an alternative to choke or gag or impede in some way the use of verbal components as a martial, more balanced, more ellegant, more in tune on the ways of 5e, I'll apologize and recognize that you are really concerned on balance or the rules of 5e. If not, I believe that nothing I can say can convince you, and I'm certain that I've never would play in such a restrictive, homebrewed game that ignores explicitly called rules, favoring spellcasters.

 

[5ekyu]

It isn't rare, but I think you nailed it. As it affects spellcasters more than anyone else, an otherwise perfectly reasonable tactic becomes taboo. It kills a sacred cow: the effectiveness of spellcasters.

It doesn't matter than a heavy armored cleric or paladin would be perfectly able to escape, so as a druid shapeshifting, or that a bard with expertise on Acrobatics is probably immune to this.

It doesn't matter that it actually isn't against the rules, or that takes several attacks, or that it is a contest.

It doesn't matter also that it isn't an auto kill, nor its result guaranteed, and that only maintains as long as the fighter renounces to the use of at least one hand and wins every attempt to escape (if it were a problem of balance, you could actually propose an alternative: the grappler need both hands to maintain the grapple, thus renouncing to make any attack)

It doesn't matter that it is something that actually points at rules usually ignored, like the verbal components needed to cast spells. Why do even bother with said rules if you are not going to give them any actual impact. They are fluff only.

It doesn't matter than the attempt is legit and the DM can assign a check and difficulty (even a very hard one). And that the rules explicitly say that improvised actions, and contests are allowed because the rules can't take account every possible outcome.

It doesn't matter that casters have many, many ways to disable a fighter without dropping them to 0 hit points, via spells like fear, charms, telekinesis, etc, and at a safe distance.

It doesn't matter that the caster could theoretically do anything else with its action, like performing an attack, wildshape, maintain Concentration, a shove, using an object, using a magic item, attempt to escape, and that isn't restraint in any other way: they only can't speak and their speed is 0.

It doesn't matter that it is only effective as long as you have proficiency in Athletics and high strength, and that is usually a not that common in many, many builds, like the vast majority of rogues and rangers, and at least half the fighters.

It doesn't matter balance. It doesn't matter anything I could theoretically say.

No. It becomes taboo because affects spellcasters, wizards more than anyone else. Because it is open to anyone to try to affect spellcasters, and that they have to take precautions to avoid being close to fighters, or invest on Acrobatics. It is denied on principle.

Then you have all kinds of absurd claims, like this is akin to one-shoting wizards instead of forcing them to take sub-optimal actions. Absurd claims like "grapple doesn't work like that""it goes against the. Rules", that didn't even acknowledge that the grapple is a mean to an end.

Don't bother. My post, that was intended to share means to counter casters, both as player and as DM, quickly degenerated in a discussion about playstyles, without any people actually coming with any experience on the subject to improve this, denying any other experience that I could have. And I'm tired to argue about that. I'm tired to have to clarify the same things once and again, only to new people pointing the same missreads. I don't intend to change your hearts about them.

There are times when one sees a perfect storm of a case, this post seems one.

There is a common phenomenon of "defend my mechanic-itis" and this case has gone critical.

Thanks for this post.