...
The issue most people see is that classes that are melee based have issues with using the sword and weapon style. If you have to have a free hand to cast spells, that presents a bit of an issue unless you have the war caster feat which means you no longer need a free hand.
An exploit of the current rules is that you can in theory drop your weapon, cast a spell and then pick up your weapon. Dropping is considered no action, while picking up the weapon takes up your free object interaction for the turn.
So, if you want to stop the exploit because it's silly you can either change the rules so the exploit is no longer necessary, or change it so that the exploit is no longer worthwhile.
To change the rules so that the exploit is no longer necessary is pretty straightforward. Let people perform the somatic component of their spell with a hand that is holding a weapon if you can move the hand. So no somatic if you're tied up (at least without some checks), but other than that sword and shield if fine. In my experience, this is what most DMs do.
To change the rules so that the exploit is no longer worthwhile has a few options.
- Dropping a weapon really means that you set it down to avoid damaging yourself (dropping a hammer on your foot) or the weapon. Therefore dropping a weapon takes up your free object interaction so you can't pick it up on your turn.
- Picking up an object provokes an opportunity attack.
- Picking up an object requires an action.
- Have intelligent enemies ready actions to attack or steal the unattended weapon.
Of course the DM can also always say "You can't drop your weapon cast a spell and pick up your weapon. That's just silly"
I personally let people cast weapons with a weapon in their hand (fulfilling the somatic component by pointing at the target for example) because it fits my vision of how spells work.
So sorry for the long-winded response. I actually think this is an interesting topic. Probably should have just started a different thread and let this one die after I was told I wasn't responding in the correct fashion.
Don't apologize about the length, mine will probably be double that...
I don't think he's even looking for a re-write, just an outright replacement, an alternative. You needn't know or even look at the rules in question, just come up with your own version for the subjects they cover:
You can lift 'object interaction' from your initiative rules, for instance, so you're a fair chunk of the way there, already. Since the request was for something /simple/ (which was beyond me, my attempt was still fairly complicated), there shouldn't be that much too it, either...
...
I mean, 5e is all about DM Empowerment, we're all supposed to be 'making the game our own,' coming up with our own variations and modules as well as choosing from those in the DMG and UA & DMsG and so forth. But walk into the community and /ask/ for something like that? Nope, fresh out of the one you waanted, we've got lots of others, though, just tell us what you want... nope, sorry, no such thing, we've got plenty of 'em, though, just tell us what you want...
OK, these two responses help, and somehow I missed Zapp's three items as: Hand Use, Object Interaction, Spell Components
While I love my approach to initiative/rounds, I'll try and stick within the current ruleset.
Spell Components
I covered this, but I'll clarify it.
A spell focus can be used to replace the need for (most) material components, and it can be used to
perform the somatic components. Therefore, if you are bound so you can't freely move your hands and arms, you still can't use somatic components.
Somatic components need a single hand free, and can use that hand to gather and use the material components as part of the somatic component. Personally, I don't like the component pouch, but I'm willing to leave it alone.
Well, maybe not. If you wanted to, I think it would be reasonable to say you need to use a bonus action to retrieve components from a component pouch. That differentiates it from a spellcasting focus.
So why use a component pouch then? Well, we could require it for components for rituals. Also, to keep in the spirit of 5e simplicity, the component pouch could include components up to x gp amount in value. Once you use them, you can replenish them by spending the gold. So in most cases, the component pouch would only be used for spells that cannot be cast with a focus because they require specific components.
Looking at this further, it could be said that material components are a backup (and an older method of casting) for when your focus is not available. If the spell focus is a newer and better option, it also opens up the possibility for magic spell foci, such as one that grants a +1 die type and +2 spell attack/DC for fire spells. OK, enough of that tangent...
Weapon as a Spell Focus
Since 5e doesn't allow for a weapon to be a spell focus, I'll stick with that.
Another reason I like it, is it gives you the option of using that as a class ability (for an Eldritch Knight, or Bladesinger for example). In fact I'll probably use it to replace the Eldritch Knight's bonded weapon, since I can't stand abilities like that. But I certainly don't think it would break the game if you let an Eldritch Knight and Bladesinger use their weapon as a spell focus.
Casting a Spell with Hands Full
So the question is, what about somebody who has both hands full, and one is not a spell focus? Well, you can't cast a spell with somatic and material components. I really don't have
any problem saying this. This hurts the Arcane Trickster and Ranger the most.
Should we care? Should every spellcasting class be able to cast spells no matter what's in their hands? See, that's the answer that really needs to be answered. Because initially the answer is no, but then some exceptions are possible (shield, weapon for certain classes). Should there be an exception for everybody? If so, then there's no rule, the exceptions are the rule.
I'll leave this as a no for now.
Interacting with Objects
So if you can't cast a spell with both hands full, what do you do? Historically, archers and crossbowmen would shoot until the enemy charged to within melee range, and simply dropped their weapons. They didn't worry about them at all until the battle was won. All of your focus is on kill or be killed.
The 5e rules don't penalize casting in melee like other editions. In AD&D, it was nearly guaranteed that you would not be able to cast a spell in combat (and in the process be killed). Even in 3.5e, you provoked an opportunity attack, unless you "cast on the defensive" by making a concentration check first.
So without any penalties attempting to cast a spell in combat, I think the expectation is that more will cast a spell in combat. If you had spellcasting and good melee combat ability in AD&D, you tended to cast spells first, then close to engage in melee. This approach was probably based off of the idea of ranged combat then close to melee.
But without any penalties, you can now find yourself in the midst of combat, wielding two weapons, and want to cast a spell. I, for one, don't have any sympathies. You can fight well
and cast spells? Drop something. Sheath something.
I'm not a fan of passing a weapon to your shield hand, or the hand using your other weapon. Aside from how easy that actually may or may not be, in the midst of battle you're completely dropping your guard and should just be killed. So that leads us to:
Dropping, Stowing, Drawing, and Picking Stuff Up
One free action each round for each hand. What's free? Drop something. Stow something (easy, not taking off your backpack and opening it - sheath a dagger type of stow). Draw something. Grab something within reach.
If you've already done one free action, your next one costs a bonus action. You can also use a bonus action for something that's more than a free action, and less than an action. Picking something on the ground up (you have to bend over to get it, rather than just grabbing it off the table). It's up to you to determine if this provokes and opportunity attack (probably will in my campaign...actually just had a thought, see below).
If you've used your free action and bonus action, then you can also use your action to do any of these things.
Does it need to be any more complicated?
Drop a weapon (free), cast a spell (use your action, including the material somatic components), pick up the weapon (bonus action), and you're ready for your opportunity attack. If you're a rogue, you're giving up your cunning action to pick up your weapon.
Another option would be picking up an item (on the floor) costs half your movement, like standing up. However, this would allow: drop a weapon, cast a spell, pick up a weapon, use your bonus action to make a an attack with the weapon in your other hand.
I prefer the bonus action approach - you must make a decision to arm yourself with a second weapon, or make the second attack.
Conclusion
As I think about it, I think the biggest problem I have with how things play out now, is that bending over or actions like that (standing up is another one) doesn't provoke an opportunity attack. In my system, I have a parry action, and you can use your reaction to parry an attack against you. However, when you're bending over to pick something up, or when you're trying to stand up, then you can't attempt to parry, since you're doing something else.
Really, anytime you are doing something during a segment in my game, you can't use your reaction. If you can't use your reaction, you can't parry. So I'm wondering if you can't parry attack, are you open to an attack? Does that mean you're open to an opportunity attack? Something I'll have to think about.
