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

[jmucchiello]

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 wouldn't be so sure of that. PF1 and PF2 are still recognizably D&D. The talk in other threads about meaningful decisions at every level is already very far from 5e IMO.

 

[Horwath]

we simplified some actions:

As an object interaction(1 free per round): you can exchange one weapon set with other. That means put away current weapon and draw new weapon(s).

Somatic(S) components: if you are not tied down, pinned or have both hands 100% occupied(like hanging from a cliff with one hand while holding your friend with the other or dragging 300kg barrel of ale) you can cast spells with S components.

Verbal(V) components: if you are not in a silence spell or similar effect, gagged or under water(without water breathing), you can cast spells with V components.
Can try stealth check to chant quietly.

Material(M): same rules as S components. You are considered to always have non costly components, unless you were mugged a minute ago or put in jail after being padded down for any contraband.

Costly components: these are tracked normally.

 

[Phoebasss]

Material(M): same rules as S components. You are considered to always have non costly components, unless you were mugged a minute ago or put in jail after being padded down for any contraband.

Always search wizards for their bat naughty word. Or there'll be a fireball in your future.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Any character race/ancestry/heritage/whatever with natural weapons/armor should not have that instantly overshadowed by regular equipment.

I’m not sure I automatically agree we that, in all cases. Some features are core, and some are ribbons.

Also, while I agree with you about spell components and opening doors, I LIKE the rules that require you to sheathe a weapon to hold a torch, or that keep you from freely switching between sword & board and crossbow.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

The reason people don't use them is because the designers in their infinite lack of wisdom have provided so many workarounds.

Time was, S-component meant you had to have BOTH hands free and have your movements otherwise completely unrestricted for as long as it took you to cast the spell, otherwise you flat-out could not cast. Toning this down - which started with 3e and has continued since - has IMO done more to enhance casters than any other single change - well, other than Combat Casting; another dumb idea.

V-component is easy: you can't cast if you can't speak clearly and-or cannot make sound. No reason ever not to use this one.

M-component is the tricky one. Yes, tracking them all is a pain and for those components that don't cost anything the 3e idea of the 'components pouch' is a decent compromise. But components with a cost do need to be tracked just like any other significant expenses the character undertakes or possessions the character has.

For brevity, I also added a fourth component to all my spell write-ups (which I've redone from scratch over the years): L. L means line of sight is required between the caster and (usually) the target; absence of L means the spell can be cast into an unseen space or behind a closed door. I did this to save having to type into every single bloody spell description whether line of sight was required or not.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I don't mind the monetary value in principle* but I'm not at all a fan of the cost being based on the target's HD.

* - a DM can always adjust the value up or down to suit the economics of her particular game-setting-campaign.

 

[jmucchiello]

My problem with the monetary components is the concept of 100 gp of diamond dust. Who is paying 100 gp for any amount of diamond dust? The value of a diamond is in its structural integrity and uniform purity. If you grind it into dust it loses all value. (I don't think most fantasy campaigns have diamond tipped drills made from polymers with diamond dust embedded within them.)

My favorite is Hallow (herbs, oils, and incense worth at least 1 ,000 gp, which the spell consumes). How much space does that take up? How many towns do you have to clean out of all their herb, oils, and incense just to acquire 1,000 gp of it? And it only affects 60 ft. How does one hallow an entire church and surrounding cemetary?

 

[Guest 6801328]

My problem with the monetary components is the concept of 100 gp of diamond dust. Who is paying 100 gp for any amount of diamond dust? The value of a diamond is in its structural integrity and uniform purity. If you grind it into dust it loses all value. (I don't think most fantasy campaigns have diamond tipped drills made from polymers with diamond dust embedded within them.)

I've always interpreted that to mean the dust of a 100gp diamond.

(And, yes, I realize that this still makes no sense. A 1,000gp diamond would not produce the same amount of dust as 20 50gp diamonds.)

 

[CapnZapp]

I’m not sure I automatically agree we that, in all cases. Some features are core, and some are ribbons.

Okay. Just make sure it's much clearer than in 5E which horns/shells/etc are meant to be useful and which are only ornamental.

My point is something slightly different: have natural weapons that really are useful. Don't have only natural weapons that in the end turn out to be useless, except in corner cases at very low level.

Also, while I agree with you about spell components and opening doors, I LIKE the rules that require you to sheathe a weapon to hold a torch, or that keep you from freely switching between sword & board and crossbow.

I am not suggesting you should be able to switch instantly between loadouts.

I am suggesting that "switch between loadouts" become a standardized action that doesn't force players to keep track of (and thereby optimize) hand usage.

As for the torch example, well, that's special. The D&D game simply isn't doing a good job balancing between "sword and torch" and other weapon loadouts. Meaning that if you don't have darkvision, you're simply worse off. Designers usually take same effort to balance two weapons, greatweapon and sword-and-board, but I see zero evidence sword-and-torch is given a balanced design. Especially since it is so trivial to avoid the non-darkvision races, and/or have a caster use magical light.

The idea that every fighter pretty much needs his own light source to fight effectively just isn't supported by D&D. (Have you ever been in a dark place where your buddy holds the flashlight? If you have, you realize the idea of "I put magical light on the tip of my blade" should really make it impossible for everyone else to see anything, since your light source would pretty much cause a dizzying kaleidoscope rather than the steady light everyone assumes is given off by somebody else's torch)

This is especially evident in Pathfinder 2 with much more fiddly hand usage rules. Basically, my players don't even consider reserving one hand to hold a torch, as that would lower DPS dramatically. Rangers are simply expected to use both hands on their knives or longbow. Barbarians are simply expected to use a greatweapon with both hands. The only characters that can afford to keep one hand free are the casters that don't need to, since they'd rather use magic than mundane equipment. Plus, it's so damn easy to go around the "use torch" idea - a human can simply multiclass into Wizard to get a light cantrip and thereby solve his own lighting issue.

So let's not force characters to count hands and spend a different amount of actions just to open doors! Simply say it takes one action to open the goddamn door, and every hand interaction with your weapon loadout is included. Nobody's interested in the difference between the sword and boarder having to sheathe his sword, open the door, and draw his sword again vs the greatweapon wielder releasing the grip to use hand to open the door vs the two daggers guy having to hold both daggers in one hand while opening the door. Move next to the door, spend your action, and... you're back in action! Ready to move into the next room, every hand and every weapon right where it needs to be!

Simplify the game for an universally positive benefit.

I'm arguing that we need to open our eyes to realize nothing is lost by dropping the old byzantine hand usage rules.

 

[clearstream]

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?

The design should be more crisp. Components should only be listed and tracked where they have a non-trivial cost / scarcity. Maybe all spells that can be ritual cast should have such non-trivial component costs (and those that should not have a cost made into cantrips).

Otherwise, casters should just require a focus, which by default takes one hand to wield. Upgrades possibly then become 2H focuses, e.g. Rod of Warlock becomes a 2H focus.

Something like that would not make casters stronger, and would be streamlined in play.