D&D 5E Disarming a caster's component pouch to prevent him from casting spells

[CapnZapp]

Hi,

the optional rule for Disarming says:



Usually a caster uses a component pouch (at least in our games). So, would you allow e.g. a ranged attacker to target the component pouch of a caster to shoot it off his grasp, then pick it up himself to prevent the caster from further spells?

Kind regards!

Would you be okay if a monster did this to you (when you play a caster)?

If so, yes.

If not, no.

My hunch is that few players will appreciate there being a cheesy tactic they're defenseless against, and that most of us would be in the second group of the two...

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Li Shenron]

My players tend to prefer the spellcasting focus option for precisely this reason.

And spellcasting focuses can definitely be disarmed.

So, for fairness' sake, I would assume that any material component pouch a character did use would have to be used in such a manner that it could be disarmed.

Ok if it's done for fairness, but a spellcasting focus doesn't need to be held in hand, so it can't always be disarmed.

IIRC there is a mention somewhere that a Cleric's holy symbol can either be held or emblazoned (e.g. on your shield), but no details on how other kinds of spellcasting focus are required to be used*, and the general Material Components rules only require a free hand to genericall "access" them. So there is nothing preventing to say that a spellcaster just needs to touch the focus which could be hidden in her pocket, as long as she is required to have a free hand for that.

*I vaguely even remember a discussion on the fact that a Bard doesn't strictly need to play a musical instrument to use it as a focus

 

[Charlaquin]

I like to encourage alternative tactics, so yes, I would allow players to disarm spellcasters to divest them of their component pouches and/or spellcasting foci. But, I would probably not allow it with a ranged attack. You can’t get quite that pinpoint-accurate with a bow.

 

[schnee]

Personally I regard the component pouch / material components as one of those "don't ask, don't tell" rules that are better left unspecified or it will lead the gaming group to endless useless discussions.

90% of the component rules are there for flavor. Arcane casters have a bunch of odd creepy things with them or some cumbersome expensive obvious focus, Clerics have theirs emblazoned on their shields, Druids carry some plant-related thing, etcetera. They each have different mechanical benefits and drawbacks, but they all point back to the flavor of each archetype.

But, I always thought the idea of the spell pouch was 'everyone can pay through the nose to get something adventurer-worthy, that won't get lost, dropped, or waterlogged'. It guarantees you will always have a hand free in between casting spells, it won't disappear if you get dunked in a river, it doesn't identify you immediately as a caster, and probably a few other things.

 

[The Human Target]

Yeah, no.

The disarm rules stink.

If you can do this kind of stuff, that's all anyone would ever do.

The entire rest of the ruleset doesn't really support it.

If you can pinpoint disarm a weapon or spell pouch, why can't you pinpoint cut off someone's hand or head?

 

[5ekyu]

Now, on a possibly more appealing type of concept...

"I ready my action so that when that guy there starts to draw something from his pouch, i hit them in the hand or item to knock it out of their hand, causing them to not pull the item they needed out. Not trying to damage, just thwart the draw"

When time comes

GM roll your attack roll vs (whatever the normal disarm would be) and ...

roll successful

Gm to "NPC" you dropped the stuff... action spoiled.

could be applied to drawing potions, drawing magic dust, drawing healer kit stuff, or yes drawing spell components for this spell.

Now, instead of turning the question into shutting down a character for quite a bit with a single shot, we have a "i use my turn to try and counter your action." kind of trade off.

One character devoting their action to try and counter another charcters action thru exploiting their dependence on "stuff" for that action.


thoughts?

 

[jaelis]

thoughts?

It's basically a variant on called shots. If you can aim to disrupt their spell casting, why couldn't you aim for their eyes to blind them?

Some people like called shots, some people don't. If it works for your table go for it. My experience suggests that players like using called shots a lot more than they like being the subject of them. So I would use them pretty sparingly from the DM side of the screen. And of course if you do let your players do this kind of thing, you'll want to take into account with encounter design.

 

[schnee]

It's basically a variant on called shots. If you can aim to disrupt their spell casting, why couldn't you aim for their eyes to blind them?

Some people like called shots, some people don't. If it works for your table go for it. My experience suggests that players like using called shots a lot more than they like being the subject of them. So I would use them pretty sparingly from the DM side of the screen. And of course if you do let your players do this kind of thing, you'll want to take into account with encounter design.

Yeah, to see how they will react, run an encounter with an equal number of spellcasters, each equipped with Counterspell.

Then, add a Battlemaster with Disarm and a couple other 'I nerf you this round' maneuvers.

Their reactions will be telling.

 

[5ekyu]

It's basically a variant on called shots. If you can aim to disrupt their spell casting, why couldn't you aim for their eyes to blind them?

Some people like called shots, some people don't. If it works for your table go for it. My experience suggests that players like using called shots a lot more than they like being the subject of them. So I would use them pretty sparingly from the DM side of the screen. And of course if you do let your players do this kind of thing, you'll want to take into account with encounter design.

So is disarm so is shove so is grapple.

First if you assume is is treated the same to shoot the object in hand as to shoot the eye thats fine... But not necessarily the same thing.

If i can shove you down or grapple you why cant i do that level of grab control to prevent grabbing components?

Should the "if i cans..." Take out shove, grapple, disarm from the options of thing we do too?

Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[jaelis]

So is disarm so is shove so is grapple.

I'd basically agree about disarm, and I'd stand by my statements about it. Not sure I'd say the same about grapple or shove. You don't grapple a particular body part, and the grappled condition is (like regular attacks) quite abstract.

Using a grapple mechanic to disarm someone (or to break their arm, for that matter) would be more akin to a called shot.