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

[cmad1977]

Way overthinking it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Croesus]

We empathically agree the RAW rules aren't worth the hassle.

But this thread is about showcasing possible replacements. Not merely to say "shrug"

Have you found houserules in this regards that replaces the PHB rules with something much more in line with 5E? Or do you have any comments on my rough blueprint (above)?

Regards,
Zapp

Well, three of us have suggested a replacement - throw out the holding an object rules when casting spells. If you want to keep them in some form, then the question becomes...why? What benefit do we gain from those rules? Once we know that, we can propose some ideas. So far, I haven't heard any arguments for why we need any such rules concerning casting while holding a weapon, or a shield, or whatever in one's hands.

 

[SkidAce]

My method is to just quietly ignore the whole hands thing. If the Ranger gets charged, and wants to fight in melee, then she can holster (? is that the word?) her bow, and draw her longsword, and that's fine. If the wizard wants to hold a staff and cast a spell and maybe even still attack with the staff (bonus action spell maybe), then fine.

I've seen your previous comments on this topic, and at the time I decided to just not worry about it; you observe the fiddliness of it all, and I estimated that the balance concerns were probably marginal in the extreme either way. The whole 'hands' thing is removed, and most players are actually unaware of them, since usually it only came up because I asked, "Oh, wait, is that spell somatic? What do you do with your staff?" Now I don't ask, the players do what they want, and everyone is happy.

I don't know if this is suitably concrete for your preference, though.

I rule similarly....merely asking the players to describe their actions.

I.e. somatic: wave my hands around, flick my fingers, draw a rune in the air. Material: pull out a cricket, throw some sand, light the bat dung on fire, etc.


The only time I worry about hands is when the character is restrained. Similarly, I only worry about somatic when silenced, material when their stuff is stolen, etc.

 

[SkidAce]

Re: OP

If I was looking for a mechanical solution, I would say that a character who found themselves unable to cast in one of the situations that you laid out above could use their REACTION to pull it off.

Simulating using the "extra" time and effort to pull it off being used up, leaving them unable to react.

OR: they could use their free object interaction to do the same, if you feel that losing the reaction is to harsh.

(I feel that only so much can happen during a six second simultaneous round, so if I was choosing, I would use the reaction.)

 

[ccs]

I largely ignore the interact with objects rules.
Yes, you need at least 1 hand free (empty) if your spell has a somatic component that hasn't changed. But I'm not at all worried about policing wether you've dropped your mace on the ground or hooked it on your belt & then retrieved it.
Should this difference ever seem important we'll deal with it on a case by case basis.

 

[Oofta]

Technically by the rules, in most cases a caster can normally drop their weapon (not an action), do the somatic component, pick up their weapon as their object interaction. Unless a creature has a readied action to pick up the weapon there's no harm. Most DMs also allow someone with weapon and shield to temporarily tuck the weapon under their shield arm.

But actual house rule? Like I said. As long as you can trace the mystic runes in the air with a finger or two you're OK. So you need to be able to move a hand, even if that hand is holding a weapon. Unlike Doctor Strange you don't need both hands nor do you have to make grand gestures.

Restrained does stop casting spells with somatic components, although if you're tied up you might be able to wiggle your hand loose enough to still cast a spell.

 

[Croesus]

Restrained does stop casting spells with somatic components, although if you're tied up you might be able to wiggle your hand loose enough to still cast a spell.

Surprisingly, per RAW, the restrained condition doesn't explicitly prevent spellcasting with somatic and/or material components. It just gives the caster disadvantage on attack rolls. I still allow characters to tie up someone sufficiently to prevent such spellcasting, but that's different from an otyugh grabbing someone around the waist with a tentacle.

 

[Oofta]

Surprisingly, per RAW, the restrained condition doesn't explicitly prevent spellcasting with somatic and/or material components. It just gives the caster disadvantage on attack rolls. I still allow characters to tie up someone sufficiently to prevent such spellcasting, but that's different from an otyugh grabbing someone around the waist with a tentacle.

True. I guess I should have said "bound and tied". Kind of a super-restrained that's outside of the current rule set.

If you can swing your weapon enough to attack (even with disadvantage) you could move your hand enough to do somatic components unless the restrain is specifically trying to stop it which is also something left up to the DM.

 

[GMMichael]

If you can swing your weapon enough to attack (even with disadvantage) you could move your hand enough to do somatic components unless the restrain is specifically trying to stop it which is also something left up to the DM.

I can see that some of the posters here are not experienced spellcasters. If you were, you'd know that it is perilous to attempt to cast a somatic-component spell with -anything- in hand. I've seen apprentices be immolated just by losing their grip on their holy symbols.

But, adhering to the captain's "the rules are wrong" assumption, I wouldn't implement a new series of Stance rules because it's not easy to streamline while implementing new rules. You might try a helpful DM reminder to caster-players that they can't do-all-things-at-all-times, and then Rule Zero the rest so it makes sense, and in WotC's design eye, is balanced.

Or, rather, it actually does work. If you drop your mace, cast your spell and then pick up your mace again. Which is insane. But also RAW.

If this is what qualifies as "insane," I'm not sure I can offer much more help.

 

[Croesus]

If you drop your mace, cast your spell and then pick up your mace again. Which is insane. But also RAW.

If this is what qualifies as "insane," I'm not sure I can offer much more help.

Well, it may not be insane, but it sure is silly. I'm hard-pressed to think of a single short story or book where the caster does something like this, much less every 6 seconds during a fight. Sometimes the rules lead to situations that are just wacko from a story perspective. I suspect that's an important reason why CapnZapp wants to come up with better rules for object interaction.