D&D 5E 5e's stumbles

[GX.Sigma]

Ok, it's not about the standard wizard. He's holding his staff in one hand, and casting with the other which is holding nothing. Easy peasy.

But say you are a "gish" - a fighting caster of some kind... like let's say an eldrich knight. Now if you are fighting with a great weapon, still no problem - your left hand holds on to the halberd while you cast with the right. Once you've done casting, your right hand re-grasps the halberd.

BUT. If you are fighting with a shield and sword, or two swords, then it gets complicated fast. You can put away or draw "for free" as part of your attack or spellcasting, but *not both*. And more importantly, you can't do that as part of a bonus action or reaction. So you can cast/attack on your action and end your action with drawing/sheathing your sword... leaving yourself with a weapon in hand. But then if you have a reaction - you can cast, or you can attack, but if you "chose wrong" (ie you still have your sword in hand but you really need to cast shield) you are kinda screwed.

And why is this a problem for you? Is it because it incentivizes using two-handed weapons?

 

[Ancalagon]

And why is this a problem for you? Is it because it incentivizes using two-handed weapons?

It's a rather complex situation, one that is not plainly stated. Because of that, we aren't sure of the intent behind the rule leading to questions as to the acceptability of work-arounds. Are weapons embedded with spell focus acceptable? what if your sword is on a lanyard tied to your wrist? Can you briefly pin your mace between your torso and shield (something that is faster done than properly sheathing a sword, and relatively safe if you are wearing armor)? etc etc.


There are also issues with hand crossbow usages when conjoined with feats.

 

[Iosue]

EDIT: Upon reading, I am just saying what @Iosue said. Except I made a flashdance joke and he made an anatomical pun. The message is the same, though.

Way late on this, but I did not make an anatomical pun, I made a Goonies reference. Darkwing Duck is the one with their mind in a gutter!

 

[Jester David]

E

Ok, it's not about the standard wizard. He's holding his staff in one hand, and casting with the other which is holding nothing. Easy peasy.

But say you are a "gish" - a fighting caster of some kind... like let's say an eldrich knight. Now if you are fighting with a great weapon, still no problem - your left hand holds on to the halberd while you cast with the right. Once you've done casting, your right hand re-grasps the halberd.

BUT. If you are fighting with a shield and sword, or two swords, then it gets complicated fast. You can put away or draw "for free" as part of your attack or spellcasting, but *not both*. And more importantly, you can't do that as part of a bonus action or reaction. So you can cast/attack on your action and end your action with drawing/sheathing your sword... leaving yourself with a weapon in hand. But then if you have a reaction - you can cast, or you can attack, but if you "chose wrong" (ie you still have your sword in hand but you really need to cast shield) you are kinda screwed.

How is this a 5e problem? That same issue existed in 1e, 2e, and 3e. Probably OD&D and Basic as well. It's not a problem you have with 5e, it's a problem you have with D&D.

Now, I don't see this affecting the wizard, as a two weapon fighting wizard is.... odd. I'm not sure why anyone would design that.
The only eldritch knight is more funky. The Warcaster feat helps, but they still can't use a focus or material components. A house rule allowing them use their bonded weapon as an arcane focus would fix that problem.

 

[AverageCitizen]

How is this a 5e problem?

By being a problem that exists in 5e.

 

[spectacle]

Now, I don't see this affecting the wizard, as a two weapon fighting wizard is.... odd. I'm not sure why anyone would design that.

You don't remember Gandalf fighting with a sword in one hand an a staff in the other? Under 5E rules the staff could be a Focus so he could use it to cast spells that require Material and Somatic components, but he would have to drop it or the sword to cast a spell that only requires Somatic. That makes perfect sense and wizards are extra cool when they drop and pick up stuff from time to time while in combat.

 

[Jester David]

You don't remember Gandalf fighting with a sword in one hand an a staff in the other? Under 5E rules the staff could be a Focus so he could use it to cast spells that require Material and Somatic components, but he would have to drop it or the sword to cast a spell that only requires Somatic. That makes perfect sense and wizards are extra cool when they drop and pick up stuff from time to time while in combat.

1) Lots or thing in LotR don't map well to D&D, Wizards especially
2) Gandalf's staff was very much his focus, either a specialty class feature or specific item
3) A staff is a two-handed weapon, so you wouldn't be able to fight with it using TWF anyway
4) Gandalf doesn't really do any casting while fighting with his sword?

 

[Ancalagon]

I just want to note in passing that I didn't bring up the hand economy first, I just explained it

 

[Avalongod]

Totally late to this thread, so sorry if I repeat. I *like* 5e, but like most versions it has it's limitations. My main beef right now is the low number of spells per day, particularly at high levels, that casters get. I know casters had to be balanced better in this edition than in previous, but the economy of spell casting, particularly for wizards (for whom copying spells is rather circumstance, gold and time prohibitive) seems to have penned in spell casting a bit much. I think adding 1 to the spells per day to the final tallies at the higher level spells would have fixed this.

I'm also not a fan of the "short rest" mechanic which makes healing difficult and also, due to some classes relying on short rests to recuperate abilities like ki and spells (for warlocks) can make it difficult to balance those classes against classes that don't rely on short rests. Too many short rests and they become OP, too few and they are at significant disadvantage.

Just my $.02 of course.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Just a note on 3. A staff is a versatile weapon in 5e, so if you have the feat then you can dual wield it. It would look weird but would be possible.

That right there is one of 5e's stumbles.