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

[Ganymede81]

The easy way to fix this is to change this rule...

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

...to this rule...

"you can interact with objects or features of the environment for free, during either your move or your action."

That erases the clumsy one object/feature limitation and replaces it with freedom on the part of the player.

I can hear you all saying, "But couldn't this be abused?" That's why we have "The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities" in the very next paragraph. It's what we do when a PC tries to give an entire monologue during a combat turn, and it is perfectly serviceable here.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

You confuse two entirely different things:

1. The actual rules the characters need to follow (as in the specific allowances and limitations that result from reading the rules
2. The specific rules language (the words on the page) that give you the information in 1.

I have no particular problem with 1 (assuming the DM is given leeway to ban stupid abusive corner cases)

I have a huge problem with 2. In fact, it is probably the biggest failing of anything in the whole of 5E. (See the Reddit treatise of how absurdly complicated it gets, and compare to how straightforward most other 5E rules are).

Once you know the rules (or just are a veteran D&D gamer) it's easy to just use 1 and forget about 2.

But this thread is about asking you "what if the page where 2 used to be was blank?" and it was your job to write a new set of rules 2a that still ends up roughly with 1.

 

[CapnZapp]

But I suspect that solution would be deemed too simple for this thread.

It is, but hopefully you have no problem with that, since by now, you know it isn't about applying common sense patches to the RAW, but to envision a complete rewrite that ditches the rules-words of the PHB.

In other words, there's nothing particularly wrong with something simple as just saying "if you drop something, that's the quickest object interaction, so you can probably do one more" and "if you pick something up, that's the slowest object interaction, so even if you want to also drop one, that rounds up to two object interactions and not one".

It's just not what I started the thread to discuss.

No need to get passive-aggressive about it. It's as simple as recognizing that I wasn't asking "what's the minimal RAW patch that fixes the object interaction rules?" when I was asking "Imagine every single word of the RAW was erased. How would you write its replacement?"

 

[CapnZapp]

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 simple solutions

But just to be clear, this isn't the entirety of your proposed rewrite is it? (Since it doesn't even bring up the issue of what you can hold in each hand, I mean)

 

[Satyrn]

I wasn't asking "what's the minimal RAW patch that fixes the object interaction rules?" . . . I was asking "Imagine every single word of the RAW was erased. How would you write its replacement?"

I'm lazy and not very creative so my answer is "I'd write its replacement by plagiarizing it in its entirety except for this minimal patch that fixes it."

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it would be even better if the spellcaster didn't select a "weaponized" implement just to be able to make Opportunity Attacks.

I mean, if you have a weapon-wielding spellcaster, I'm entirely fine with allow rods and staffs to do double duty as maces and quarterstaffs.

I just want the rules to encourage casters with inconsequential weapon attacks to choose non-weaponized implements, since all they lose are weak OAs.

As you might imagine from the way I'm saying "implement" to mean focus, I like the 4E approach, where "bookish" wizards choose "book" (or wand) as their implement to signal that they don't care for weapon attacks. Another wizard might want to choose staff to signal their greater martial readiness.

I entirely agree staff shouldn't be a strictly better choice than book (to take an example), even if the only gain is a weak OA.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm lazy and not very creative so my answer is "I'd write its replacement by plagiarizing it in its entirety except for this minimal patch that fixes it."

Then we have entirely different opinions, since patching the actual behavior is the lesser of the two problems. Not having to read and grok the PHB rules is the real value here.

 

[Satyrn]

I'm just gonna put this in the right thread. This is my go at rewriting the hand use rules:


You have two hands. Unless you're a thrikreen; then you have four hands. Or a thrikreen bit your arm off, so you have only one hand. A mad wizard might have grafted an arm on your back giving you a third hand (or a fifth hand if you're a Thrikreen). You can hold one thing in each of your hands, though some things - like a halberd - need to be held in two hands to be used effectively, and thrikreens have built crazy contraptions that need 3 or 4 hands to use effectively. It's up to you to make sure your character is holding a reasonable number of things. Beholders, despite their name, have no hands. They can't hold anything.


(The third to last sentence is the rules-text. Everything else is fluff.)

 

[Oofta]

It's probably an art thing too, that looks cool. That's not to say that it wouldn't work, essentially you're actively blocking with your forearm, and the design has to be one that would stay in place. I'm just saying that if you care about what a buckler actually is, that's not it.

You mean something like

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's a LARP/fantasy concept of a buckler so you can still use your hand. Invented specifically to get around rules like these....

Whereas the actual buckler was invented specifically to get around the rule that donning or doffing a shield requires an action, since it is carried, drawn, and wielded just like a sword. A small, blunt, pancake-shaped sword. So don't knock inventions for getting around rules. Real people do it too.

But yeah, I tend to assume that any hands-free protective gear like a vambrace is included in your Armor Class by default as part of, y'know, your armor. "Can I strap a shield to my chest and get +2 AC for blocking with that?" "That's called a breastplate."