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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7409381" data-attributes="member: 6775031">I'm not arguing on that point. Spellcasting in combat used to be much more difficult. Nowadays, it's much easier, and balanced by the fact that the spells are much less effective baseline - and by the fact that fighting is much more effective for fighters than it used to be; a wizard is expected to throw a cantrip every round that they aren't casting another spell, and their dagger is relatively even less effective than it used to be.The improvisation rules say that the DM should use the existing rules as a guideline for what is or is-not possible, and how to model them. That is both the letter and the intent of the rule. Nobody is arguing with that.The issue at hand is that this particular ruling - this specific mechanic for performing this action - is completely out of line with what is otherwise possible within the rules that are codified. It is an order of magnitude more powerful than either shoving or grappling. A reasonable person would not read the rules in the book, and then assume that they could make an opposed Athletics check to gag a spellcaster during combat.The logical ruling here would be that the DM says such an action is impossible, exactly the same as if the wizard player wanted to use their knowledge of magical weather to trap the fighter in an ethereal tornado. It doesn't matter if the fighter could theoretically escape by making an opposed Arcana check. It would invalidate the game that everyone else signed up to play, the same as if you let someone bypass hit points by taking a 'slit throat' action. Any action that is egregiously out of line with existing actions should be impossible.</blockquote>

Verification