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

[CapnZapp]

I don't know why so many people are so hard-ass about spellcasting components.

I think it's a matter of playing by the rules.

I fully understand you (=everybody in this thread? ) feel these rules are nowhere as important as other rules, but that's beside the issue. MMearls & Co went to the (considerable) trouble of making up all these itty bitty rules for hand use and spell components, and if you want to play the game by the RAW, those rules are part of the package deal.

 

[CapnZapp]

Isn't Warcaster made for this sort of issue?

Not sure what you mean, Warcaster Horus...

 

[Oofta]

See post #3 of this very thread! View attachment 85821

I think ultimately we just approach the game differently. I start with a visual/narrative of what I want and the rules are just there to support that vision.

You want to start from the rules, so there's nothing to add to your post. My house rule is probably just too simple and straightforward for what you want. That's fine.

 

[Horwath]

I think it's a matter of playing by the rules.

I fully understand you (=everybody in this thread? ) feel these rules are nowhere as important as other rules, but that's beside the issue. MMearls & Co went to the (considerable) trouble of making up all these itty bitty rules for hand use and spell components, and if you want to play the game by the RAW, those rules are part of the package deal.

Then playing by the rules: drop the weapon(no action), cast a spell, pick up the weapon(1 free object interaction).

This is stupid! and by the rules. I can tell you that it's easier and faster to grasp a sword in off hand by the blade and return it into main hand than drop it on the floor and picking it up.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think ultimately we just approach the game differently. I start with a visual/narrative of what I want and the rules are just there to support that vision.

You want to start from the rules, so there's nothing to add to your post. My house rule is probably just too simple and straightforward for what you want. That's fine.

Yes, this thread is about replacing the rules. Not the "vision".

Still attempting to replicate "D&D". And agreed - that's a highly specific take, separate from most (all?) movies and comic books etc.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then playing by the rules: drop the weapon(no action), cast a spell, pick up the weapon(1 free object interaction).

This is stupid! and by the rules. I can tell you that it's easier and faster to grasp a sword in off hand by the blade and return it into main hand than drop it on the floor and picking it up.

Yes, of course.

But now we're talking in circles

 

[Krachek]

Some classes can't use a focus. What do you do about that?

You simply dont care about focus and no value material component.
It makes casting much like in 4ed.
It avoid the juggling to have a free hand for some spells.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

- 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.

You repeatedly use very colorful language to say all this doesn't make sense, but you don't give us much indication what exactly you don't think makes sense about it. The spellcasting rules say that these spells have a somatic component and a material component, meaning you need to hold something in your hand and manipulate it in order to cast the spell. Just like the fighter needs to hold a sword in his hand and manipulate it in order to attack enemies. All of these facts you list are natural consequences of this requirement: you can't use a symbol on your armor or around your neck because you can't manipulate it, just like the fighter can't attack with a sword strapped to his back. You can't use a symbol that casts spells for one class to cast for another class, just like the fighter can't use a sword in his hand to shoot arrows.

Look, I know you said you don't want people defending the rules, that you're trying to fix what's broken, but I honestly can't get a good read on what you think is broken about this, and so I can't give you much in the way of advice on fixing it. What in-universe logic are you envisioning here that these bullet points contradict, and what do you think should be happening instead? If I try to figure that out by simply reversing the bullet points, I get results like "You should be able to cast using a material component pouch even if both your hands are occupied" and "You should be able to cast warlock spells with a holy symbol", but that doesn't seem right either. Do you perhaps just feel that cleric spells shouldn't have material and/or somatic components? Maybe try that?

- 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.

See, this is different, because this actually doesn't make sense. A rules patch saying that a hand holding an appropriate focus can always be used to perform somatic components does seem to be in order.

 

[cmad1977]

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.

Or instead of 'drop' it could be 'hook mace to belt' or something similarly less immersion breaking.

Or you could add layers of completely unnecessary rules that only serve to slow the game down for no real benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MarkB]

If you are fine with replacing the existing rules with "nothing" (but common sense) that's a perfectly valid stance to take.

But it also means there's no thread

So this thread isn't about the "why", it's about the "how".

Consider it a thought experiment if you can't come up with another reason. Whatever makes you move on from asking *why* we do this and onto *how* you would replace the existing ruleset.

Thx

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

In order to reach the "how" we need the "why". Rules are built to serve specific purposes, so they can't be built in a vacuum.

Since nothing that's been suggested so far seems to suit your needs (and yes, a few people, myself included, have made suggestions other than "nothing"), it's clear that your needs must be specific.

So if you don't actually specify them, there's not much anyone can do to help you.