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

[Oofta]

Well, it may not be insane, but it sure is silly. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single short story or book where the caster does something like this, much less every 6 seconds during a fight. Sometimes the rules lead to situations that are just wacko from a story perspective. I suspect that's an important reason why CapnZapp wants to come up with better rules for object interaction.

In general though, I can't think of any stories/films where someone was expected to wield a weapon and cast spells. It seems to be pretty specific to D&D.

I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all fantasy books/movies but most spellcasters either don't use weapons (Dr Strange) or use the weapon as part of the spell (Gandalf in the LOTR movies).

I don't see a problem replicating that in my game by saying that you are waving around your sword/mace/quarterstaff as the somatic component.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is that the rules first create a non-trivial (read "insanely complex") ruleset that doesn't allow you to wield the things you think you need...

...only to provide a silly (read "supremely pathetic") alternative that lets you do it anyway.

W T F

Why first make it complex and difficult only to then allow it anyway, but in a silly manner?

It's like the rules are deliberately trolling us. It's like if there's something you want to accomplish by the rules, but after a thorough investigation you find out that you can't by RAW. But then John Cleese appears and tells you that if your character does the Silly Walk that makes it work, completely legit.

I don't see a problem replicating that in my game by saying that you are waving around your sword/mace/quarterstaff as the somatic component.

The issue isn't that you can easily ignore the rules - you can.

The issue is that the rules doesn't serve the game. This thread is not meant for people to simply say "I make it work" (That's fine, but doesn't make for much of a thread ). This thread is instead meant to arrive at a completely different ruleset that allows most or all of the good stuff you want to do in a much more accessible and easy to understand way, while doing away with any silly exceptions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, three of us have suggested a replacement - throw out the holding an object rules when casting spells. If you want to keep them in some form, then the question becomes...why? What benefit do we gain from those rules? Once we know that, we can propose some ideas. So far, I haven't heard any arguments for why we need any such rules concerning casting while holding a weapon, or a shield, or whatever in one's hands.

First off, the main concern here isn't complete fidelity to the existing rules.

The goal is to completely throw out the existing rules, and in their place bring in something completely different and much easier to use and understand...

...that just so happens to allow all the good stuff you can do now, and disallowing the few too-good combinations (just as the current rules mostly does).

If you prefer to shuck the existing rules and replace them with ...nothing (but common sense) I respect that, but it isn't much of a thought experiment.

Herein I'm trying to envision what rules the PHB should have had. The assumption is that it will need some rules on this, or there is nothing for the thread to discuss

 

[Oofta]

The issue is that the rules doesn't serve the game. This thread is not meant for people to simply say "I make it work" (That's fine, but doesn't make for much of a thread ). This thread is instead meant to arrive at a completely different ruleset that allows most or all of the good stuff you want to do in a much more accessible and easy to understand way, while doing away with any silly exceptions.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My alternate house rule is:

You can perform somatic components of a spell even if you have a weapon in that hand. You still need to be able to move your hand and the weapon.
It's assumed that you are simply doing the appropriate gestures (such as pointing at your target) with the weapon.
​

Now, maybe that's not complex enough for you. That's fine. But I'm not simply "ignoring the rule", and in my experience it's how most DMs deal with it if they come up with an explanation at all.

 

[MarkB]

First off, the main concern here isn't complete fidelity to the existing rules.

The goal is to completely throw out the existing rules, and in their place bring in something completely different and much easier to use and understand...

...that just so happens to allow all the good stuff you can do now, and disallowing the few too-good combinations (just as the current rules mostly does).

Okay. Spell out the too-good combinations, and why they're too good. Then we'll have something to work on.

If you prefer to shuck the existing rules and replace them with ...nothing (but common sense) I respect that, but it isn't much of a thought experiment.

Herein I'm trying to envision what rules the PHB should have had. The assumption is that it will need some rules on this, or there is nothing for the thread to discuss

You know what they say about assumptions. If you don't want to wind up making an ass out of mption, it's worth actually discussing why we need some rules on this. Once we establish the 'why', we can tailor the rules to suit it.

 

[BoldItalic]

Rule Zero: all spellcasters have three hands.

 

[CM]

I just let casters cast, regardless of whether their hands are occupied with weapons/shields. IMO all you need are a few gestures with the hand/fingers , even if it's got a weapon in it.

The world hasn't ended yet.

Now if their hands were tied or manacled or severed it might be a different story.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I rule that your action determines what's in your hands and that what is in your hands stays that way until the start of your next turn.

For example, you have a mace and a shield, with a holy symbol engraved into the shield.

You cast a spell? Then you tucked the mace into your armpit, or grabbed it in your shield hand. You can't use it for attacks of opportunity.

You attacked with the mace? Then you have the mace in your hand. You can use the mace to make an attack of opportunity (but not cast a spell e.g. war caster or similar).

You used Channel Divinity? Then you have the mace in your hand, since the holy symbol is (effectively) in your shield hand.

For example, you have a glaive.

You cast a spell? You took one hand off the glaive to cast the spell. You can't use the glaive to make an attack of opportunity, since that needs two hands.

 

[Krachek]

Personally I would use
V not in silence, not gagged.
S not paralyzed, not handcuff.
M need only material with GP value, somewhere at your belt.

 

[hastur_nz]

I have a really simple rule that has worked really well ever since we started testing the 5e rules all those years ago - the Player who this Affects reads the PBH and Works it Out before play starts.

If they really need or want to, they can tell me how it works, but as DM I find I usually don't need to care (until I start playing something like a spell-casting sword-swinger, which for example I have been the last year or so).