Would you say this is a fair rule?

[Specter]

"A restrained creature can't cast spells with somatic components."

I haven't thought of it to balance spellcasters (even though they do have it easy in 5e), but for realism's sake.

What do you think?

[Blood of Gaea]

How are they restrained? If their hands aren't bound tightly I'd be likely to at least let them make a Concentration check to cast a spell.

[Avonar]

The only potential issue here is that no one really records the components for their spells. So yes, you could deny them somatic component spells but expect them to take at least 5 minutes going through their entire spell list to see if there's anything they can cast.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

As a newb I was honestly wondering if it was just assumed being grappled interfered with spell casting.

Even still I always re-read it wondering where the line was.

One time my Bard was possessed and acted against the party. The party decided (correctly) strength was my character's weakness so they first grappled, then essentially waterboarded her in an attempt to get the ghost out. The DM ruled that interfered with spell casting.

[Nettlekid]

I would say that's reasonable. Like what condition would you describe a creature who's tied up and manacled? That's definitely Restrained, and the circumstances prevent the movement of hands. I'd say that it should be on the DM to let a player know of any situation when they're Restrained but DON'T have their hands bound, but I imagine that's a minority of situations.

[Pelle]

The only potential issue here is that no one really records the components for their spells. So yes, you could deny them somatic component spells but expect them to take at least 5 minutes going through their entire spell list to see if there's anything they can cast.

Just deny them casting any spell if they don't know then. I guess that was the intent of the rule anyways.

[Mellack]

It would only be fair if you also include that restrained creatures cannot make any attack with a weapon. How is it fair (or realistic) that a caster cannot waggle one hand around enough but wielding a hammer, sword, or even a polearm is still fine?

[Rebonack]

It would only be fair if you also include that restrained creatures cannot make any attack with a weapon. How is it fair (or realistic) that a caster cannot waggle one hand around enough but wielding a hammer, sword, or even a polearm is still fine?

For the same reason that you can still swing a sword while wearing armor you aren't proficient in despite being unable to cast spells under the same circumstances because said armor is 'too distracting'.

If wearing unfamiliar armor is distracting enough to prevent spell casting I imagine getting vigorously groped by Black Tentacles is far worse.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The only potential issue here is that no one really records the components for their spells.

We don't?

They're on all my character sheets.

[Sinon]

OK, I can see something extreme, like the above mentioned tied up, but that isn’t the Restrained condition. That’s a lot more like Incapacitated, and at the very least would also prevent lots of other things, like using a sword.

When Restrained, I can make weapon attacks without even suffering any Disadvantage. I can draw a weapon.
I can load a crossbow, take aim, and fire.
I can take a potion out of my pack and drink it.
I could go on – it’s a pretty extensive list of things.

So, not disallowing a majority of the spells in the game feels like you are singling casters out.

If the whole point is verisimilitude, well, all those other things would have to be added to your list. Heck, I have some idea about using a crossbow, but a somatic component could be as simple as snapping one’s fingers. Realistically, you’d disallow those other sorts of things first.

But for me, the real issue is that (even just limited to spellcasting) it makes Restrained, and effects that create that condition, far more powerful than they were before.

Don't get me wrong - if you are tied to a post and can't move your arms, no, you should not get to use your somatic components. But there are a ton of other things you can't do either.

You don't need this rule.

[Tanarii]

The only potential issue here is that no one really records the components for their spells. So yes, you could deny them somatic component spells but expect them to take at least 5 minutes going through their entire spell list to see if there's anything they can cast.

All my players know this information. They need to know which spells they can't cast when silenced or when sneaking around. They need to know which ones they can't cast with full hands. They need to know which ones they can cast with War Magic Caster. Etc.

Besides, most decent spell cards already have it on. Some phone apps too, although they tend to leave off expensive components, which is irritating. If you're not using one of those, hopefully you've made your own, with the full text and details of each spell you can cast. Because otherwise as a spellcaster you're just wasting the entire table's time on a regular basis, leafing through a PHB.

And if electronic devices are acceptable at a table, if you want to look up a filtered list of No Somantic spells for a specific class and specific levels, donjon is right there.

[MaxWilson]

"A restrained creature can't cast spells with somatic components."

I haven't thought of it to balance spellcasters (even though they do have it easy in 5e), but for realism's sake.

What do you think?

Sure, it's fair. It has implications, and you'd definitely want to be as up front as possible with this rule at campaign start because it does weaken spellcasters relative to fighters, but overall I consider it a good rule and 100% fair. It's kind of a throwback to AD&D in some ways: implies that spellcasting relies on big dramatic contortions instead of mere finger wiggling.

[MaxWilson]

When Restrained, I can make weapon attacks without even suffering any Disadvantage.

No, you can't. Restrained imposes disadvantage on attacks.

[MaxWilson]

We don't?

They're on all my character sheets.

I favor just memorizing them. The patterns are pretty regular and the exceptions are ready to remember.

Character sheets IMO are only for things that are unique to the character.

YMMV. At any rate we both agree that players should know this info.

[Sinon]

No, you can't. Restrained imposes disadvantage on attacks.

I stand corrected.

[Joe the Rat]

Disadvantage on attack spells is covered.
You could deny access to Material components, or suggest that you can only get one or the other (say the mumbo and waggle hands, or say the mumbo and grab the jumbo needed to cast, but not both).

I'd be more inclined to case by case with the method of restraint.

[Blood of Gaea]

I'd be more inclined to case by case with the method of restraint.

I agree that this is the best answer.

[Vorpalchicken]

I think it's reasonable to say that with enough binding and gagging, the Incapacitated condition can be imposed on the subject. While escape is an action and not technically possible, a periodic save (less often than once per round) to allow escape seems about right.

Heck, this solves the problem of any restraints being escapable in a matter of minutes just by spamming the escape action every six seconds.

I realized just now that the target of Tasha's Hideous Laughter can still crawl around on the ground if it chooses, moving at half speed.

[TheYell]

I realized just now that the target of Tasha's Hideous Laughter can still crawl around on the ground if it chooses, moving at half speed.

Ah, but if it's touched by a level 14 warlock...

[MaxWilson]

I realized just now that the target of Tasha's Hideous Laughter can still crawl around on the ground if it chooses, moving at half speed.

Hahahaha! How apropos. :)

[Zalabim]

I realized just now that the target of Tasha's Hideous Laughter can still crawl around on the ground if it chooses, moving at half speed.

I think that's called rolling on the ground under those circumstances.

[Specter]

Responding generally:

- The restrained condition, as almost all conditions in 5e, is generic. If we look at it case by case, in some instances it is ludicrous not to cast, and in others it's ludicrous to cast. We have to be generalistic.
- Not casting in armor is spot on, and matches what I was aiming for.
- Attack spells get less and less relevant through the game, unless you're a Warlock or maybe an Evoker.
- I don't think of somatic components as just doing something random with your fingers, but as precise and elaborate patterns. Without being comfortable, I don't see how a caster could do them.

[Vorpalchicken]

In case I wasn't clear, I was suggesting that if you want a character to be unable to cast, give them the incapacitated condition. Restrained is not going to cut it. That's like maybe having two feet and one hand stuck.

[Blood of Gaea]

Responding generally:

- The restrained condition, as almost all conditions in 5e, is generic. If we look at it case by case, in some instances it is ludicrous not to cast, and in others it's ludicrous to cast. We have to be generalistic.
- Not casting in armor is spot on, and matches what I was aiming for.
- Attack spells get less and less relevant through the game, unless you're a Warlock or maybe an Evoker.
- I don't think of somatic components as just doing something random with your fingers, but as precise and elaborate patterns. Without being comfortable, I don't see how a caster could do them.

I mean, it still really depends on how you're restrained, and what movements you would have to make. You can solve a Rubix cube while tap dancing even if you have your hands handcuffs behind your back, for example.

[Asmotherion]

The most appropriate seems to be a Dexterity check (apply proficiency) contested by the effect that restrains them. If it's a Grapple, Str vs Dex. If it's a Magical Effect, against the Caster's DC. 5e seems to imply that 1 hand free is enough to cast most somatic components, and it shouldn't be that hard to get a hand free, when you know it can change the outcome of the battle.