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

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My alternate house rule is:

You can perform somatic components of a spell even if you have a weapon in that hand. You still need to be able to move your hand and the weapon.
It's assumed that you are simply doing the appropriate gestures (such as pointing at your target) with the weapon.
​

Now, maybe that's not complex enough for you. That's fine. But I'm not simply "ignoring the rule", and in my experience it's how most DMs deal with it if they come up with an explanation at all.

Your houserule is fine.

But for the purposes of this thread, I'm interested in alternative ruleset that chuck out the entire sections on hand and object usage, and start from fresh.

That is, not using any of the existing rules in whole or in part.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay. Spell out the too-good combinations, and why they're too good. Then we'll have something to work on.



You know what they say about assumptions. If you don't want to wind up making an ass out of mption, it's worth actually discussing why we need some rules on this. Once we establish the 'why', we can tailor the rules to suit it.

If you are fine with replacing the existing rules with "nothing" (but common sense) that's a perfectly valid stance to take.

But it also means there's no thread

So this thread isn't about the "why", it's about the "how".

Consider it a thought experiment if you can't come up with another reason. Whatever makes you move on from asking *why* we do this and onto *how* you would replace the existing ruleset.

Thx

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I rule that your action determines what's in your hands and that what is in your hands stays that way until the start of your next turn.

For example, you have a mace and a shield, with a holy symbol engraved into the shield.

You cast a spell? Then you tucked the mace into your armpit, or grabbed it in your shield hand. You can't use it for attacks of opportunity.

You attacked with the mace? Then you have the mace in your hand. You can use the mace to make an attack of opportunity (but not cast a spell e.g. war caster or similar).

You used Channel Divinity? Then you have the mace in your hand, since the holy symbol is (effectively) in your shield hand.

For example, you have a glaive.

You cast a spell? You took one hand off the glaive to cast the spell. You can't use the glaive to make an attack of opportunity, since that needs two hands.

But how would you phrase that in rules language, assuming you start from scratch (not using the existing rules)? ☺

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

Your houserule is fine.

But for the purposes of this thread, I'm interested in alternative ruleset that chuck out the entire sections on hand and object usage, and start from fresh.

That is, not using any of the existing rules in whole or in part.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Then I have no idea what your goals are. Do you have a vision? Even a target of "this should look like _____" from a narrative standpoint?

My house rule is based on any number of films/video games/etc where the protagonist channels spells through their weapon. I'm implementing rules that let my players enact that trope.

I could see adding additional rules, like you have to bond with your weapon for an hour or somehow prepare it to be useful to channel your mystical energy. Your blessed weapon has no additional benefit other than that you can hold it while casting spells with somatic components.

But I suspect that it won't be enough for you. Without knowing where you want to go I don't know how to give direction.

Anyway, good luck!

 

[guachi]

Personally I would use
V not in silence, not gagged.
S not paralyzed, not handcuff.
M need only material with GP value, somewhere at your belt.

Some classes can't use a focus. What do you do about that?

 

[CrusaderX]

If the PHB spellcasting rules are thrown out the window (which I believe they should be), does that lessen the value of the War Caster feat? Should the War Caster feat be beefed up a bit to compensate?

 

[Horwath]

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then I have no idea what your goals are. Do you have a vision? Even a target of "this should look like _____" from a narrative standpoint?

See post #3 of this very thread!

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Isn't Warcaster made for this sort of issue?

 

[CapnZapp]

If the PHB spellcasting rules are thrown out the window (which I believe they should be), does that lessen the value of the War Caster feat? Should the War Caster feat be beefed up a bit to compensate?

Depends on what you replace them with

In my case (see post #3) anyone except "divine casters" (Clerics, Paladins) need the feat to cast spells with a greatweapon or sword'n'board or dualwielding.

Of course, now we're only talking about one out of three benefits of the feat. My players take the feat to gain advantage on Concentration checks even when they don't need benefit #2 (the somatic) and seldom use benefit #3 (spell opportunity attack).

So the feat is probably okay regardless of what somatic rules you end up with.