It’s rare, Erechel, but I think five pages of posters are fairly uniformly against a grapple style action being allowed to stop a spellcaster speaking.
It’s tricky for me because I like to say yes as a dm if you were grappling a guard and wanted to stop him shouting for help using your other hand and a second grapple at disadvantage to cover his mouth sounds like a good improvised action. Of course a guard is stronger, probably proficient in athletics and probably can’t cast spells. The problem is it has such a disproportionate effect on what are a key component of the game... spellcasters.
I’d probably rule that you can cover their mouth but they can still chant the words even if you’re covering their mouth. As I said with concentration.
I’m not sure you’re gonna change hearts and minds with this one Erechel.
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.
