Level Up (A5E) Object interaction, spell components, unarmed attacks and hand usage

RED FLAG WARNING! DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!

@CapnZapp - what you're proposing above makes casting even easier than it already is, meaning casters in general become more powerful and versatile than they already are.

Are you sure you want this? Are you really sure? Ask yourself: do casters really need any more help?

One of the greatest and best brakes on casters has always been that their spells are (or should be!) hard and-or fussy to cast and therefore easy to interrupt. Those brakes have somewhat come off in recent editions. Here you'd remove them entirely, it seems.

Why?
Because barely anyone ever actually uses them.

I can understand why the 5E designers left spell components in the game in the first place... they knew 99% of the tables would never use them, but that there would be that 1% that found them exceedingly important. So why not give it to them? Did it hurt anyone for them to put a couple small words like "bat guano" in every spell block for flavor text if nothing else? Nope! Considering that if I had to venture a guess, most were probably just copied wholesale from previous books anyways. So all those VSMs would be skipped and ignored by most people like they always were, but the few tables that wanted them probably appreciated it.

But that being said... if Morrus is truly going to write a completely new book from the ground up... unless the "Advanced" part of the game is going to go more in-depth in making components and handiness a thing to deal with as part of the game... it can all be jettisoned. There is no reason not to keep anything in the game that isn't made specially Advanced for it... especially if barely anyone uses it in the base game as it is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

In over 40 years of playing, I can only think of one campaign where we used components at all, and that was central to the campaign. I think I've always ignored them, other than for "rituals", which we have always made up our own rules for. Kill the beast!
 

What's good for the casters can be good for the martials, too. Imagine not having to juggle weapons while trying to turn a doorknob. Or being able to throw four daggers. The ammo property will finally make sense (right now a Fighter can draw and knock 4 arrows a turn, but can't get that second dagger out of the sheath). A simple and consistent rule would make me very happy all the way around.
 

what you're proposing above makes casting even easier than it already is, meaning casters in general become more powerful and versatile than they already are.

One of the greatest and best brakes on casters has always been that their spells are (or should be!) hard and-or fussy to cast and therefore easy to interrupt. Those brakes have somewhat come off in recent editions. Here you'd remove them entirely, it seems.
I'm with @DEFCON 1 here. I don't think caster classes are balanced with spell components in mind. But since they can add a touch of verisimilitude here and there ("I cast Command!" "Um, you might need to wait until the Mute effect wears off"), it's hard to flat-out get rid of them.

The best I can recommend for Level Up is to avoid introducing new, flawed, components. For example, the Imprisonment material component has a monetary value, which is entirely dependent on the DM's economy-handling (or lack thereof), and it also requires metagaming because the value of the component is tied to the hit dice of the spell's target.

Don't know what Cap will say, but I would say, the amount it would help casters in universe is dwarfed by the amount it would help players at the table. Making the experience at the table better should be a primary goal. And if you think that makes casters more powerful, either nerf them some other way, or buff up the non-casters somehow.
Fully support helping players play. But... some of the OP suggestions are pretty integral to 5e design (like action economy). So even if changing one doesn't break the game, it might result in an experience that is no longer "5e." I don't think Level Up is trying to make, for example, the jump from Pathfinder to Pathfinder 2, and fixing 5e's "issues" might approximate that.
 

Fully support helping players play. But... some of the OP suggestions are pretty integral to 5e design (like action economy). So even if changing one doesn't break the game, it might result in an experience that is no longer "5e." I don't think Level Up is trying to make, for example, the jump from Pathfinder to Pathfinder 2, and fixing 5e's "issues" might approximate that.
I think barring the "unlimited interactions per turn" bit, it doesn't do anything 5e doesn't already do. It's pretty much just hassle removal. Granted, stuff like mute is an interesting counterexample, but mute pretty much only exists because almost all spells require some form of speech. So it might be easier to just have mute say "no spells" as part of its text, since verbal is the most common component.
 

Fully support helping players play. But... some of the OP suggestions are pretty integral to 5e design (like action economy). So even if changing one doesn't break the game, it might result in an experience that is no longer "5e." I don't think Level Up is trying to make, for example, the jump from Pathfinder to Pathfinder 2, and fixing 5e's "issues" might approximate that.
Well, that sounds reasonable... until you realize that actually... no, they contribute nothing to the feeling of 5e, and no, they're not approximating anything useful at all. Or rather, name a single "hand use"-related restriction that's useful and makes 5E gameplay better! :) (y)

This thread is about Level Up, and how it could be used to finally get rid of a lot of old d20 crud from 5E, but since you mention Pathfinder 2... and specifically, how you phrase it as if Pathfinder 2 somehow is better than Pathfinder 1...

Well... let's just say you have it coming :)

Did you know... a greataxe user must spend an action to switch from holding the axe (requiring one hand) to wielding it (requiring two hands)?

If you retrieve a two-handed item with only one hand, you still need to change your grip before you can wield or use it.

Did you know... that if you fall off a cliff, you need to have a hand free to save yourself? Meaning, if you wield a greataxe, or fight with sword & board, you're sold out of luck!

The Grab an Edge does not require your hands to be free, only "not tied behind your back or otherwise restrained". But look closer! Unless you score a critical success, a regular success won't do diddly squat for you unless you have one hand free. And don't think you can let go (with one hand) of that greataxe of yours - the Release action might be free, but free actions still can't be spent outside of your turn, when you commonly fall off cliffs.

If you have no hands free, you continue to fall as if you had failed the check.

If you want to prepare to Release something outside of your turn, use the Ready activity.
(I gotta love the way Release is a Manipulate action, yet doesn't trigger Attacks of Opportunities that, wait for it, are triggered by Manipulate actions!)

What this means is that you need to prepare by stowing your shield or greataxe before getting anywhere close to a cliff, then wield a backup (single-handed) weapon... ¯\(ツ)

Did you know... that you can't make a special attack with a weapon you haven't yet drawn, despite having Quick Draw? Quick Draw lets you - with a single action - Interact to draw a weapon, then Strike with that weapon. But Strike means the specific Strike action, not just any old attack action, such as Twin Takedown (Ranger) or Twin Feint (Rogue). So you need to, in that first round of combat reverse the order of your actions. Instead of first performing your Twin Takedown or Twin Feint first (without MAP) and additional Strike(s) only later, you need to first make a regular Strike (through Quick Draw) and only then performing your Twin Takedown or Twin Feint (at MAP). Isn't this wonderful? You get to recalculate your entire attack routine - fun! :sick:

Quick Draw is an action that lets you Interact, then Strike with a weapon.

In other words, thank you for giving me the opportunity to illustrate exactly the kind of horrifying rule nobody asked for and nobody needs. I'm arguing they have zero reasons to exist in D&D Advanced 5E Level Up! :)
 


Because barely anyone ever actually uses them.

I can understand why the 5E designers left spell components in the game in the first place... they knew 99% of the tables would never use them, but that there would be that 1% that found them exceedingly important. So why not give it to them? Did it hurt anyone for them to put a couple small words like "bat guano" in every spell block for flavor text if nothing else? Nope! Considering that if I had to venture a guess, most were probably just copied wholesale from previous books anyways. So all those VSMs would be skipped and ignored by most people like they always were, but the few tables that wanted them probably appreciated it.

But that being said... if Morrus is truly going to write a completely new book from the ground up... unless the "Advanced" part of the game is going to go more in-depth in making components and handiness a thing to deal with as part of the game... it can all be jettisoned. There is no reason not to keep anything in the game that isn't made specially Advanced for it... especially if barely anyone uses it in the base game as it is.
Just as an aside, the character Caleb in campaign two of Critical Role makes extensive use/description of spell components every time he casts. I feel it really lends an extra level of realism to the game.
 

Just as an aside, the character Caleb in campaign two of Critical Role makes extensive use/description of spell components every time he casts. I feel it really lends an extra level of realism to the game.
He can still do that with a one or two handed focus item. Also it sounds like you might be confusing the "free hand"concept with specific material components not expensive enough to rise to the level of needing to be found or purchased separately from your component pouch or your focus item meets that requirement
 

He can still do that with a one or two handed focus item. Also it sounds like you might be confusing the "free hand"concept with specific material components not expensive enough to rise to the level of needing to be found or purchased separately from your component pouch or your focus item meets that requirement
I was replying to the idea @DEFCON 1 suggested of removing components altogether. Dealing with the hand issue as the OP suggested sounds good to me.
 

Remove ads

Top