D&D 5E hand use rules of D&D: object interaction, spellcasting focus and components

[CapnZapp]

I love role-playing games and I love D&D. With two exceptions: the insanely complex and fiddly rules for object interaction and spell-casting components.

Take this question for instance:

Can my Cleric cast her somatic spells while still holding stuff in both her hands at the same time?

There is an answer, but finding out requires us to delve into a huge load of intricate and complex rules interactions... that basically are bullcrap. None of this makes sense in a game of such simplicity and accessibility as 5th Edition.

Yet, here we are...

The answer is...

Yes. If one of the things you hold is a shield. That you're using as your Holy Symbol, your spell-casting focus. And the spell you're trying to cast has a... wait for it... material component.

- If you would have preferred to emblazon your god's symbol on your armor, or your helmet, say, it doesn't work.
- If you prefer a physical symbol like an amulet you wear around your neck, it doesn't work.
- If you prefer to not use a focus at all (instead using a component pouch), it doesn't work.
- If you're multi-classing into warlock, say, it only works for your Cleric spells.
- And last but not least, it doesn't work for spells with no material component such as Cure Wounds.

Or, rather, it actually does work. If you drop your mace, cast your spell and then pick up your mace again. Which is insane. But also RAW.

And this is only one of many questions and corner cases that arise from the labyrinthine rules on hand use.

You don't believe me. Read up on the rules for yourself with these handy links. But don't say I didn't warn ya!

https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/4p1f26/how_the_spell_component_spellcasting_focus_and/
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice/rules-spellcasting

To me, this is complete madness. Utterly bonkers. There is not a single thing about this that makes a lick of sense (as regards user-friendliness and ease of play). It's not an immersion issue. It's not a balance issue. The restrictions aren't logical.

It's a huge clusterfrak. Everything would be strictly better and more fun if these rules did not exist.

And before I reinvent the wheel, my first question is: do you know of any effort to rewrite the rules on what you can "do with your hands" in a simple, clean and easy way? You know, like the rest of 5e.


Regards
Zapp

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a thread wherein we defend the current rules. This thread assumes you basically agree it's a load of hog. Feel free to analyze and discuss them, but not defend them. This thread is about FIXING something broken. If you want to argue "it's fine as it is" or "there are reasons to keep it this way", do it in another thread. Thank you.

 

[Shiroiken]

I agree that it's fiddly, but two simple modifications makes it somewhat workable. I allow the spellcasting focus to work on spells that have a somatic component, but no material component. I have also created the buckler, which is a +1 AC shield that keeps the hand free (but cannot be used for a weapon attack). Between these two, almost every class can use a focus or component pouch with very little difficulty (TWF casters need War Caster feat).

Another option is to change the rules for S and M components. I would suggest: Somatic components require that your hands are unrestrained, and material components require you possess the items or focus on your person. This keeps the hands from being required (but keeps bound casters limited) so it reduces the amount of fiddly-ness, but such a major change to the visuals isn't good IMO. YMMV.

 

[CapnZapp]

As a (very) rough sketch to show you what I want and what I think would serve the game MUCH better, would be to scrap the existing rules entirely and instead base a new set of rules on "stances", and for each stance define what actions are restricted or outright impossible, with the notion that anything not specifically limited is okay.

Also, a ruleset that much more defers to the DMs rulings and common sense, rather than trying to be exhaustive.

Something like this (again, a very rough outline, more meant to steer the thread than to be a complete proposal).

---

At the start of each of your turns, you decide upon a stance (see below), which you are assumed to remain in until the start of your next turn. There is no cost (in actions) in switching stances, except when you switch into or from a shield stance - to do this you need to spend your action on the don/doff action.

One-handed stance. Example: you wield a Longsword with one hand, having the other hand free. You can't benefit from a shield. You can cast spells or you can hold a lantern or you can manipulate one object (choose one each turn).

Shield stance. Example: you wield a warhammer in one hand and wear a shield in the other. You can cast divine spells. You can't hold a lantern, cast arcane spells, or manipulate objects.

Empty stance. Example: you hold nothing. You can cast spells, hold a lantern, manipulate one object, and manipulate one more object (choose any two each turn). You have no threat range and can't make Opportunity Attacks unless your unarmed attacks deal more than 1 damage. You can spend your action to don a shield, turning this stance into a shield stance and reducing your choice to one each turn.

Two-handed melee stance. Example: you wield a Greatsword with both hands. You can't benefit from a shield, you can't cast spells and you can't hold a lantern or manipulate objects.

Two-handed ranged stance. Example: you wield a Longbow with both hands. You can cast spells or manipulate an object. You can't benefit from a shield, and you can't hold a lantern. You have no threat range and can't make Opportunity Attacks unless your unarmed attacks deal more than 1 damage.

Two-weapon stance. Example: you wield two shortswords. You can't benefit from a shield, you can't cast spells and you can't hold a lantern or manipulate objects.

---

Simple huh? That might actually be it - EVERYTHING you need. (I might have forgotten an obvious stance, remember this is rough)

Don't worry about the details - the main point is that the 5E rules could have been VASTLY more newb-friendly and fast and simple!

Do note a little polish is probably needed. For instance how "you hold nothing" allows "cast spells" - this assumes you can grab your focus that turn (if you use a spellcasting focus or have otherwise found a magic wand etc). Holding a "lantern" is obviously not meant to exclude torches or your adventure company's banner (or whatever). "Manipulating an object" includes everything from sheathing a weapon and pulling out a scroll from your gear to picking up a key from a table or locking the chest with the key.

Hopefully you will see how the focus is on what you do during your action, not how you got there. Switching between stances implicate drawing and sheathing just the right amount of gear without needlessly making you worry about it.

Then you might add a few bits and bobs. I'm mainly thinking of differentiating between spells with and without material and somatic components. You should be able to cast spells with neither even if you made another "choice" (such as holding a torch). We probably need give Bards two seconds of thought.

It's important to me that we analyse the rules we end up with so the BS move "drop weapon cast spell pick up weapon" is entirely impossible.

The rule "you can use the same hand for both material and somatic component" is assumed, since we say you can cast your spells with one hand free, so no need to get that complex.

Focus-less spellcasters (such as Arcane Knights) are shafted, but then again, so they are in the core rules (I think?).

 

[S'mon]

I love the "We get to create our own reality" vibe of the OP.

Anyway I suggest ignoring the rules and allow eg a worn holy symbol. And shield proficiency to include casting wearing shield, weapon proficiency to include casting through weapon.

 

[MarkB]

The stances concept seems no less fiddly to track and remember than the current rules, and doesn't answer what I think is the most fundamental question on this topic: Does this add anything useful to the game?

Generally speaking, I find that it doesn't, but if it's something you particularly want to keep within the rules, here's the ultimate simplified version:

Allow characters two free 'manipulate object' actions on their turn instead of one, and rule that casting any spell with somatic and/or material components expends one of those actions.

 

[Charles Rampant]

My method is to just quietly ignore the whole hands thing. If the Ranger gets charged, and wants to fight in melee, then she can holster (? is that the word?) her bow, and draw her longsword, and that's fine. If the wizard wants to hold a staff and cast a spell and maybe even still attack with the staff (bonus action spell maybe), then fine.

I've seen your previous comments on this topic, and at the time I decided to just not worry about it; you observe the fiddliness of it all, and I estimated that the balance concerns were probably marginal in the extreme either way. The whole 'hands' thing is removed, and most players are actually unaware of them, since usually it only came up because I asked, "Oh, wait, is that spell somatic? What do you do with your staff?" Now I don't ask, the players do what they want, and everyone is happy.

I don't know if this is suitably concrete for your preference, though.

 

[Croesus]

My method is to just quietly ignore the whole hands thing. If the Ranger gets charged, and wants to fight in melee, then she can holster (? is that the word?) her bow, and draw her longsword, and that's fine. If the wizard wants to hold a staff and cast a spell and maybe even still attack with the staff (bonus action spell maybe), then fine.

I've seen your previous comments on this topic, and at the time I decided to just not worry about it; you observe the fiddliness of it all, and I estimated that the balance concerns were probably marginal in the extreme either way. The whole 'hands' thing is removed, and most players are actually unaware of them, since usually it only came up because I asked, "Oh, wait, is that spell somatic? What do you do with your staff?" Now I don't ask, the players do what they want, and everyone is happy.

Ditto. I enforced the object interaction rules for about a year, but grew tired of constantly telling the same couple players, "Gee, sorry, but you can't do that because it involves multiple object interactions and the rules say..." Now I enforce those rules for only a few things: pulling something out of a backpack, opening a door or pulling a lever, stuff like that. That's pretty much it. Makes the game much simpler and has zero balance issues. It does have some verisimilitude effects, but that's unavoidable with 6-second turns, which I tend to hand-wave anyway.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Ditto. I enforced the object interaction rules for about a year, but grew tired of constantly telling the same couple players, "Gee, sorry, but you can't do that because it involves multiple object interactions and the rules say..." Now I enforce those rules for only a few things: pulling something out of a backpack, opening a door or pulling a lever, stuff like that. That's pretty much it. Makes the game much simpler and has zero balance issues. It does have some verisimilitude effects, but that's unavoidable with 6-second turns, which I tend to hand-wave anyway.

You've reminded me of another idea on this theme, which I've been ruminating: making Potions not count as Magical Items for this purpose. So you can toss a potion down for 'free' on your turn, the Thief can do that twice, etc. It seems interesting, but I'm not sure on the ramifications.

 

[Oofta]

I've never played in a game where it was an issue. Pretty much every DM just lets the cleric cast away. It's assumed that you just need a finger or two to trace the mystical symbols in the air - as long as you can move your hand you can trace the symbol. Even if that hand is also holding onto a weapon.

Because honestly, it's just not worth the hassle unless you are looking for something to complain about.

 

[CapnZapp]

We empathically agree the RAW rules aren't worth the hassle.

But this thread is about showcasing possible replacements. Not merely to say "shrug"

Have you found houserules in this regards that replaces the PHB rules with something much more in line with 5E? Or do you have any comments on my rough blueprint (above)?

Regards,
Zapp