Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Erechel" data-source="post: 7409281" data-attributes="member: 6784868">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: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: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:Grapple rules: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.</blockquote>

Verification