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

[dave2008]

Oh, I agree that the rules as written are not good. I'm just saying that your proposed replacement for them is also not good. Arguing subjective degrees of not-goodness seems like a pointless semantic diversion, so I'll pass on that.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you submit some better ideas? If so, can you point me to their location?

Personally I am not in favor of stances and prefer something more like the intuitive rules approach that [MENTION=6788312]Greenstone.Walker[/MENTION] proposed in post #63.

 

[dave2008]

Their only advantage over the RAW is that they're all in one place.

That would be a huge advantage and I think it is his primary goal. Put all the related rules in one precise location for easy learning and reference. That is a lot easier than jumping all over the PHB, erratta, sage advice to get the correct answer.

He is basically asking if his approach recreates the rules in a simpler, easier to use, format.

 

[dave2008]

I'm not saying the rules are 100% clear. I usually take a few minutes at the start of a campaign explaining how I run it. If I felt the need to post it to my campaign intro document I gave you the two short paragraphs that pulls together all of the various rules that I would use. You ignored it.

I also choose to house rule that you can cast spells with somatic components while wielding a weapon. I don't make the arbitrary rule that one hand has to be holding a shield. I don't make the ruling (contradicted by the devs) that you can't free up a hand long enough to cast a spell while holding a two handed weapon.

You ask for feedback and ignore it.

Have fun.

I think you are missing the point of this thread. He asked in the OP for a way to make the rules simpler and more clear, not necessarily to change them. Specifically asking for suggestions and examples and then provided one of his own. Perhaps I missed it, but don't think you have added anything to the discussion. IF the PHB, errata, and sage advie as written are sufficient for you, then this thread (as stated) is not for you.

Personally, though I don't like his solution (but I don't have a better solution myseld yete), I appreciate CapnZapp's efforts to point out areas of the text that are unclear or needlessly complex and look for solutions. I think most things that need errata, sage advice, or require no feat/feature page flipping to clarify could probably be revised to be more clear / simplified and I feel that is what [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is trying to do.

 

[MarkB]

Perhaps I missed it, but did you submit some better ideas? If so, can you point me to their location?

You'll find my suggestion in Post #5 of this thread. It's not fancy, but it's simple.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps I missed it, but did you submit some better ideas? If so, can you point me to their location?

Personally I am not in favor of stances and prefer something more like the intuitive rules approach that @Greenstone.Walker proposed in post #63.

I don't know if my ideas are "better". I think the rules could be explained better without changing anything.

Something like:

In order to cast a spell with a somatic component, you need to have at least one free hand. Therefore if you are currently wielding a shield and a weapon or otherwise have both hands occupied you will need to drop or stow an item, typically your weapon. Remember that you have one free item interaction per turn (including sheathing or picking up a weapon) and that doffing (taking off) a shield requires an action.

A few other notes:

• The War Caster feat allows you to cast spells with somatic components even if when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
• If you are using a two-handed weapon, it is assumed that you only need to be using both hands when attacking.
• Being restrained does not stop you from moving your hands enough to cast a spell
• Under certain circumstances (e.g. hands bound) you may be prevented from casting a spell with somatic components.

​

I have a house rule which overrides those rules:

You can use a weapon (or wand/magical staff) to complete the somatic components of a spell as long as you can move the weapon.

For example you may complete the somatic component of a spell such as pointing at your target by pointing at it with your weapon.​

My house rule seems to be a pretty common solution to the problem.

The "stance" solution bothers me because it feels like we're adding to the rules and burying the house rule (weapon and shield can cast) in amongst other stuff.


EDIT: Just to be clear, my point is that if you want to clarify the existing rules, then clarify the existing rules. Don't add extra labels or layers of complexity.

If you're going to make a house rule, be clear and consistent. Don't over-explain it by including the fact that you are not overriding other rules. For example there's no reason to state that if you have a free hand you can cast spells with somatic components. That's a given and by adding it to your home rule you're just confusing the issue.


If you have a ruling that may differ from some other people's, you may want to explain your ruling.

 

[dave2008]

You'll find my suggestion in Post #5 of this thread. It's not fancy, but it's simple.

Thank you - I missed that. I'm not sure if you proposal covers all of the issues, but I like its simplicity. It is similar to what Greenstone.Walker came up with in post #63 (though less codified) and I like that better than the stances.

 

[dave2008]

I don't know if my ideas are "better". I think the rules could be explained better without changing anything.

Something like:

Thank you for clarify. Not sure it covers everything, but it is simple. Thank you for sharing.

The "stance" solution bothers me because it feels like we're adding to the rules and burying the house rule (weapon and shield can cast) in amongst other stuff.

EDIT: Just to be clear, my point is that if you want to clarify the existing rules, then clarify the existing rules. Don't add extra labels or layers of complexity.

I think this is a misconception, at least the way I understand Caps intent. I think the approach is a theoretical what if scenario. What if, you were writing the item interaction rules, how would you simply the writing/design/layout from what is printed in the PHB, sage advice, etc. He is not trying to add anything, but simply replace it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think I'd prefer to go the other way, with respect to spells, since I feel casters have had it way too easy in the WotC era:

"To cast a spell with somatic and/or material components you must have nothing in your hands except the required components or focus."

'Focus' might even need to say something like: a focus must be dedicated entirely to magic and attuned to the caster. Even if a focus has the form of a weapon, such as a dagger or staff, or is part of armor, shield, tools or other gear, it cannot be used as such without negating that attunement and becoming useless for spellcasting until re-attuned.

 

[Oofta]

Thank you for clarify. Not sure it covers everything, but it is simple. Thank you for sharing.

Yep, it's a draft. In addition, there will always be edge cases (e.g. casting spells while polymorphed).

I think this is a misconception, at least the way I understand Caps intent. I think the approach is a theoretical what if scenario. What if, you were writing the item interaction rules, how would you simply the writing/design/layout from what is printed in the PHB, sage advice, etc. He is not trying to add anything, but simply replace it.

I understand what he's trying to do (I think), I just disagree with the approach.

My preference would be

Repeat the rules in a consolidated manner so that you can read everything you need to know at a glance.
Add exceptions to the general rule.​

So while I disagree with the weapon + shield only (and only for divine), I would have something like

summary
An exception to the rule is that if you are a divine caster using a weapon and a shield, you do not need a free hand to cast spells with somatic components.​

That way if I have a decent understanding of the rules as listed elsewhere, I just glance through the summary and pay attention to the exception.

I also have a lot of sympathy for the people trying to write these rules. Writing this kind of stuff is really tough. There was an interview with Mr Hanselman a while back talking about the stealth rules and how much difficulty they had coming up with them. At one point he had a long detailed explanation of how they worked but they decided to throw them all out. It was a conscious decision on their part to leave the rules open for DMs to implement what worked best for their group.

I don't have a problem with the stealth rules as written, but I'm sure a lot of people would have preferred the detailed draft. If I wanted more of that crunchy detail spelled out for me, I'd probably be playing PathFinder.

I understand why they were trying to avoid duplicating the rules in the book (as I do with my summary) because of the tiny issues that could creep in. They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

 

[Satyrn]

I think I'd prefer to go the other way, with respect to spells, since I feel casters have had it way too easy in the WotC era:

"To cast a spell with somatic and/or material components you must have nothing in your hands except the required components or focus."

'Focus' might even need to say something like: a focus must be dedicated entirely to magic and attuned to the caster. Even if a focus has the form of a weapon, such as a dagger or staff, or is part of armor, shield, tools or other gear, it cannot be used as such without negating that attunement and becoming useless for spellcasting until re-attuned.

Ooh. And then I'd give warrior clerics a feature that lets them keep that attunement when using the focus!