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

[Ilbranteloth]

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

If you can within reason make your hand free for a second or two you can cast spell with somatic/material components.

I.E: two handed weapon, easiest, you dont need to hold twohanded weapon with both hands 100% of the time, only when attacking. Just let go for an instant and cast a spell.

If you have two weapons just grasp one by the blade in off hand and you have a hand free. I tried it, it's easy. Same as weapon and shield.

Because if you've been playing for a long time, like since AD&D, you have a different perspective on spellcasting. A round was one minute long, separated into 10 6-second segments. Spells took x amount of segments to cast, typically about 1 segment per level of the spell. So it's not just wave your hand around for a second or two - a 5th level spell was wave your hand around for 30 seconds. And if you were interrupted during that time, you lost the spell.

Some of us prefer something similar. So from my perspective, the idea that you need a hand free for the round to use a somatic component doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

None of your examples would be easy in the midst of battle. Despite the way many people play it, you aren't making a single swing with your sword every round when you roll the die, and you're also busy blocking and parrying the opponents blows at the same time. Stopping that process in the middle of combat to cast a spell is a good way to get yourself killed as far as I'm concerned. Sure you can hold a weapon with your offhand to have a hand free. But while you're holding the weapon, your shield is far less useful since you aren't stabilizing it, and a two handed weapon loses a lot of its effectiveness defensively if you're holding it one handed.

Obviously you can approach things how you'd like, but those examples just don't make sense to me. Especially if you're in the midst of melee with somebody else.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?).

Simple? Uh, no.

So instead of remembering one set of rules, I need to remember six sets of rules?

So what happens in a round where I choose the two-weapon stance, and then drop both of my weapons? Oh wait, then I draw another weapon. Whoa! Wait! That's three stances in the same round. Doing something I could easily do in 6 seconds. Why can't I?

See, the thing that's great about 5e, is that many of the situations like this are left to DM adjudication. Because most of it isn't really that complicated. Dropping something takes basically no time. Drawing something takes a little longer, but not long enough to qualify as a bonus action, action or reaction.

It also allows each campaign to find what works for them. For example, ever tried to stow a bow on your back while wearing a quiver, much less other equipment? It's not really that quick. If you're done with the bow in combat then you'll probably just drop the bow and draw a weapon.

The only real problem I see (and the only specific one you've provided) is the weirdness with spellcasting. I've already addressed that.

 

[Oofta]

This, or something along these lines. The core of the problem as I understand it is that the rules say dropping a weapon, doing something else, then picking it back up from the ground is pretty close to a "free action", when in reality, it takes a fair amount of attention and effort. So solve the problem by requiring the proper amount of attention and effort. Now, I do think that dropping something is and ought to be pretty close to free. One can imagine without trouble, say, a fighter dropping his sword to catch a thrown item or reach out and grapple a foe. It's the pick-up part that strains credulity. Make it cost a full action, or some movement, or something.

Or picking up an item off the ground provokes an opportunity attack.*

But I suspect that solution would be deemed too simple for this thread. Only full repeal and replace rewrite is allowed here.

[EDIT]
*If you are in melee, of course.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Or picking up an item off the ground provokes an opportunity attack.

I considered that, and it makes in-universe sense, but I suspect that 5E very deliberately avoided the 3E syndrome of "what exactly does and does not provoke an OA again?" There is currently exactly one thing that provokes, and I don't really want to mess with that.

 

[Oofta]

I considered that, and it makes in-universe sense, but I suspect that 5E very deliberately avoided the 3E syndrome of "what exactly does and does not provoke an OA again?" There is currently exactly one thing that provokes, and I don't really want to mess with that.

Assuming you don't want to take the throw the baby out with the bathwater approach and rewrite the rules to basically say "you can't do that" what options are there?

Opportunity attack to pick an item off the floor
- Still allows people to pick up things (not just weapons), and it makes at least as much sense as leaving a threatened area provoking.

Dropping a weapon takes up your item interaction
- You do need to make sure you aren't dropping your sword on your foot after all. I envision more setting it down than "dropping".

Picking up an item requires an action
- Seems to run contrary to the whole dynamic interaction with the environment allowed by 5E. Why can I open a pull something out of a pouch but not pick something up off the floor?

I kind of like the second option. Dropping an item is not covered in the rules so it's DM's ruling territory while still solving the issue. No need to change anything, just make a logical ruling for something not covered.

 

[MarkB]

Before you start getting into complex rules like this, it's probably important to understand the reasoning behind the rules:

a) A spell focus must be something you hold in your hand.
b) A spell focus replaces the material component - so if your shield is a focus, that takes care of that.
c) A spell that requires a material and somatic component can use a single hand, where retrieving the material component is a part of the somatic component of casting the spell. Since the spell focus replaces the material component, the act of using the spell focus supplies the somatic component.
d) A spell that doesn't use a material component is different. The act of using the focus doesn't apply, because a spell with no material component doesn't use a spell focus. So now the spell focus (the shield) is just something in your hand preventing you from using the somatic component.

So here's a much simpler solution

1. A spell focus is an item that must be held in your hand.
2. A spell focus replaces material and/or somatic components.
3. A caster can cast a spell that requires a material and/or somatic component(s) with both hands occupied provided one of the items is a spell focus.

Problem solved. As long as the item that is held in one of your hands is a spell focus, then you can cast any spell with any types of components (except those with material components that can't be replaced by a spell focus).

I like that a lot. I'd also suggest that the Cleric's holy symbol is functionally just a spell focus - it lets the Cleric do exactly the same things that any other spellcaster can do with their spell focus.

I'm not too keen on spell focuses doing double duty, though - the spell focus / holy symbol shouldn't also function as a weapon, or a shield, or any other combat implement. Otherwise they end up being the only types of item anyone uses as a spell focus.

 

[MarkB]

Look, you don't get to pretend to be reasonable without getting called on it.

What I want? I've several times said what I want: for people to imagine the current rules language in this area to be wiped, and to see what they would come up with instead. I've even given a complete (well, roughly so) example of what that might look like. You don't have to like it, but don't pretend you haven't seen it.

It isn't about changing the game, or making it run differently. It's about envisioning a rules rewrite.

To end up with much of the same consequences of today's rules, minus the stupid crap, only expressed in a clear concise friendly simple manner, instead of the hot mess we have today.

It hasn't been entirely clear where you draw the line between reasonable consequences and stupid crap. Partly, that's probably because you and I place that line very differently. Personally I think that if a system is going to have so many spellcasting / weapon using hybrids, it should let them be true hybrids instead of requiring them to literally juggle between their two roles.

But that's not what you're looking for. You just a way for the juggling to look more straightforward and not quite so undignified.

For a start, I'd get rid of any game-mechanical distinction between material and somatic components - they both require you to do something with your hand, let them be functionally part of the same action.

Then, rather than tracking how a person is juggling between equipment on their turn and what exactly they have to wind up holding, just impose a simple game-mechanical cost on them. For instance, if someone wants to use a spell with components other than verbal and doesn't have a free hand, it's assumed that they manage to free up a hand long enough to do so - but instead of tracking the specifics, just rule that doing so expends their reaction, preventing them from making opportunity attacks or or similar actions until their next turn.

 

[SkidAce]

Then, rather than tracking how a person is juggling between equipment on their turn and what exactly they have to wind up holding, just impose a simple game-mechanical cost on them. For instance, if someone wants to use a spell with components other than verbal and doesn't have a free hand, it's assumed that they manage to free up a hand long enough to do so - but instead of tracking the specifics, just rule that doing so expends their reaction, preventing them from making opportunity attacks or or similar actions until their next turn.

Hey thats my idea from dozens of posts ago....

 

[Tony Vargas]

I considered that, and it makes in-universe sense, but I suspect that 5E very deliberately avoided the 3E syndrome of "what exactly does and does not provoke an OA again?"

That and OAs consume your 1&only Reaction, many uses for that reaction coming up frequently could be frustrating...

But I've shifted to a new approach to combat that makes all of this irrelevant in my campaign anyway...

Wow, sounds like the sort of thing the OP was looking for - care to share?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I like that a lot. I'd also suggest that the Cleric's holy symbol is functionally just a spell focus - it lets the Cleric do exactly the same things that any other spellcaster can do with their spell focus.

RAW, that's exactly what it is.

I'm not too keen on spell focuses doing double duty, though - the spell focus / holy symbol shouldn't also function as a weapon, or a shield, or any other combat implement. Otherwise they end up being the only types of item anyone uses as a spell focus.

That's normally the case. However, there is a special exception that allows a holy symbol -- not any other type of spell focus -- to be placed on a shield.