Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erechel" data-source="post: 7408045" data-attributes="member: 6784868">Reasoned objections? Which ones? You haven't addressed not even one of my counter-arguments. You only keep the attack, reducing my arguments to only deflections, and making absurd claims as to be te same to one hitting monsters and such.-You said "But in my small amount of experience, a rule like this seems counter to the general rule structure of 5e" It doesn't. I've adressed that. You don't even said why it counters the general rule structure. Furthermore, it isn't a rule, is a ruling, an improvised action (not so much at this point, but it is based on improvised actions such as disarm, that "goes against what a fighter could do best"). It uses disadvantage (for balancing purposes, as a disarm against a two handed weapon). It uses the grappled condition. It has a DC (opposed check) and a resolution (target can't speak). It has several ways to escape (Acrobatics, Athletics, stabbing the grappler to death, help from a friend, being a druid and shapeshifting into a Black Bear). It has a few drawbacks (halved speed, melee distance, one busy hand that you may be using in many other ways, like attacking).-"and not needed" If it were not needed, I've never would come with such a tactic. In many cases, you need to prevent casters to cast. That's why there even are spells that do something like that, like Silence, that act in an area. But you, as a martial won't always have a cleric or bard to back you up. Or they are busy doing something else. Sometimes, you don't have to kill them but disable them to cast.-"and even harmful to set as a precedent in many games i have seen or experienced." Harmful how? Any improvised action can be subject to the very same arguments you've made.  "Do you want to throw sand in the eyes of the enemies to blind them and cause them to not cast spells that require sight? And what impedes you to make troll blood poultices to..." Improvised actions are RAW, PHB 193, and RAI. They are expected in the game. They aren't deviations from it. The game can't cover every possibility with small rules, but grants tools to improvise them. IT IS against the rules to say no to improvising (not improving), unless a specific rule has that area covered, such as trying to kill the wizard to prevent it to cast (the most absurd example of abuse you've made). And, of course, as a DM you will always dictate the check AND the DC AND the action type needed (reaction? Bonus action? Action? Several actions? This case scenario, there is an example of a contest, as per PHB 195). That's the way it is balanced. It is more harmful to require a specific rule to attempt something. You just stifle any creativity, and condemn the martials to "I attack. I attack. I attack".-You are objecting on principle. You aren't objecting anything specific of my ruling, and derail the example to abuses not nearly linked to what I've proposed. You don't really address nothing from my arguments, only the fact that I'm saying that I've experience with this particular way of playing, and that you ridicule my arguments without addressing them, toting absurd improvisation abuses without examples of DC, drawbacks, effects or resolutions. But I've addressed them, and said how I would manage them (by assigning a check and a difficulty; absurdly high if it were something fantastic, somehow low if it weren't). This is one way to work around silencing a caster without spells. Most DMs toss antimagic fields like they were no biggie, or just throw monsters. Martial PCs are just <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ed, because they can be hold up, deprived to act and even countered in their stronger points with things like a simple disarm. How do you would resolve that? Illuminate me. If you say how would you manage depriving a caster to speak without spells nor kill, I would recognize that you aren't ojecting in principle, and apologize.</blockquote>

Verification