Using Powers While Restrained?

[Kaodi]

I have seen mentioned several times the notion that a wizard can use magic missile while bound and gagged, though there is no mention of where this is the limited case or the stereotypical case.

What I am wondering is, where in the books does it suggest that this is the case? Or is this merely what people are inferring based on meta-knowledge of previous editions?

 

[AkaKageWarrior]

bump. good question.

 

[Oompa]

The fluff description says you do something with youre hands (dont have books on me) and if the wizard could cast without having to see, hear, or move anything, he would be psionic..

And you have to see youre target..

 

[Mort_Q]

Various combat conditions are outlined on PH 277. Restrained seem to imply you're not helpless, as helpless is a different condition. That could be where the idea comes from.

I'd say that bound and gagged is more than just restrained however, as it implies that you lost the combat.

 

[Tuft]

I have seen mentioned several times the notion that a wizard can use magic missile while bound and gagged, though there is no mention of where this is the limited case or the stereotypical case.

What I am wondering is, where in the books does it suggest that this is the case? Or is this merely what people are inferring based on meta-knowledge of previous editions?

The fact that powers don't list Verbal and Somatic components, and that Implements aid in spellcasting, but are not required?

 

[Caliber]

I would call someone bound and gagged helpless, which definitely does inhibit spell casting. I'd expect you could coup de grace a tied down person as well.

 

[Irda Ranger]

What I am wondering is, where in the books does it suggest that this is the case?

Where in the books does it say it's not the case? Restrained says "-2 to all Attacks" not "You can't take actions." The only conditions that prevent you from taking actions (including casting spells) are Unconscious, Petrified, Stunned and Surprised (except Free Actions, in the case of Surprised).

Personally a mere -2 penalty seems a bit light for being Restrained, but I guess a full hogtie is actually Helpless, whereas Restrained imposes a lighter restraint. There's probably some DM judgment necessary as to what "condition" the PC is actually in.

 

[Tuft]

Where in the books does it say it's not the case? Restrained says "-2 to all Attacks" not "You can't take actions." The only conditions that prevent you from taking actions (including casting spells) are Unconscious, Petrified, Stunned and Surprised (except Free Actions, in the case of Surprised).

Personally a mere -2 penalty seems a bit light for being Restrained, but I guess a full hogtie is actually Helpless, whereas Restrained imposes a lighter restraint. There's probably some DM judgment necessary as to what "condition" the PC is actually in.

Well, it is most likely that Imprisoned should be its very own condition, as it doesn't seem to be covered by the standard ones. So you'd better house-rule it up, and think up how all powers relate to that new condition.

Exception-based design feels a bit like "if you want to extrapolate, you are on your own", though...

 

[Mort_Q]

If you look at the powers that cause the restrained conditioned (Cage of Chains and Stab and Grab), they are about grabbing and holding someone, not binding and gagging them.

I mean, you'd need to helpless for someone to bind and gag you, wouldn't you?

 

[Kaodi]

The fact that powers don't list Verbal and Somatic components, and that Implements aid in spellcasting, but are not required?

This is what I was referring to when I said this:

Or is this merely what people are inferring based on meta-knowledge of previous editions?

Your fundamental mistake is that you are approaching the issue as if the rules of the previous edition mattered. They do not. Someone who was picking up D&D for the first time with 4th Edition would have never have heard of Verbal and Somatic components. Thus, it would never occur to them that there was some reason that they did not actually have to do anything to use a power.

I think Irda Ranger is right in that you have to use a dose of common sense adjudication to tell what condition the character is in, though I would also add that I think there is some common sense involved in what a character can do as well. In the case of many spells, I think I would rule that you must be able to both gesture in the right direction with the appropriate body parts, and be able to satisfy the targetting requirements. Kind of like how it would seem obvious that attacking someone with a sword requires that you be able to at least meanuever the business end in the right direction.