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

[Croesus]

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.

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

CapnZapp, I think if you combine these two posts, you have all you need. The first addresses whether or not spells can be cast when holding items in ones hands (yes). The second addresses when spells with specific requirements cannot be cast.

In rules language, it might be something like this:

Spells with a verbal requirement cannot be cast when silenced, gagged, or otherwise unable to speak.
Spells with a somatic requirement cannot be cast when paralyzed, handcuffed, or otherwise bound.
Spells with a material requirement cannot be cast if the material is not readily accessible.

So long as the above requirements are met, spells may be cast regardless of what the caster has in his hands at the time of casting.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

What with this and all your talk about stances earlier, for a moment there you had me thinking I stumbled onto the Forge.


And I gotta tell, I was worried about my sanity.

 

[Blue]

And before I reinvent the wheel, my first question is: do you know of any effort to rewrite the rules on what you can "do with your hands" in a simple, clean and easy way?

The question becomes: what is the purpose of verbal, somatic, and material components in 5e. You need to know that to have a goal for redesigning.

There are two design goals I could see as fitting, but that doesn't eman that they /should/ both be in play. (Also, I'm ignoring the sacred cow aspect.)

First is weapon equivalency: If it takes (at least) one hand to wield a weapon, it should take one hand to cast a spell. So you can't benefit from weapon (to make attacks as your action or reaction), shield (to boost your AC) and many spells in the same round. A simplification that fits this is: you need a hand free to cast any spell with S or M components.

My *guess* is that spell focus was away to have half-casters like paladins who could actually handle all three by overloading one, but it's done in an ugly way.

The second is disarming: If there is a way to as-needed-by-plot minorly and majorly reduce the effectiveness of a weapon wielder, plot should be able to do the same for a caster. For example, if you're captured they might take your weapons and components, but you still can punch, grab weapons, have hidden daggers, and cast spells with V or S. The far end of what plot needs is you're locked up and have no weapons or armor, and no gestures or components. Both give the occasional move out of the comfort zone where you try to work out given what you have.

If you think one or both of those are reasonable design goals (or good bases to start with), it's pretty straightforward to design a component rule to satisfy them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To answer one of your other questions, Capn... yes, Mike and Co. were trolling us.

They know components are stupid, just like 90% of the D&D populace know they are stupid. But there's still those 10% who would have complained of the game didn't include them. So Mike et. al. spent probably 15 minutes copying and slightly editing component rules from another edition, threw them into the game and then washed their hands of it... knowing full-well that those old school players who actually care about that crap probably had their own already-established opinions on how they are supposed work, and nothing WotC included was going to be looked upon favorably. So since they would house-rule their own component rules in anyway... Mike's decision to not waste their own design time putting together intricate rules no one would care to use was probably the right one.

-See the Hiding rules for a similar situation.

Sent from my SM-J320V using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

See post #3 of this very thread!

I was debating posting this more long-winded response but I'm procrastinating on some things I really should be doing...

I think part of the problem here is that what you define as "vastly more newb friendly" in post #3, IMHO is not.

For example your "Shield stance" if I read it right is basically "ignore the rules on needing a hand". The others? They simply restate rules that are already pretty clear and are well explained in the rules. Your hand isn't free if you are using it to wear a shield. There's no need to explain that your character can't hold a shield, a weapon and a torch since most people realize that they don't have 3 hands.

If I create house rules it has to add something to the game. I'm sorry, but your example didn't do that. They just restated (other than Shield stance) the rules in a different way and gave them a label. I don't see the point.

The only confusion I've ever seen with newbies is that I have to clarify how shields work and that you can't hold anything with the same hand as a shield.

But your other "stances"? They're just an alternate, wordier version of what the rules already say. I really don't think a stance that says "if you don't have anything in your hands, your hands are free to do other things" adds any value.

Now, I wasn't going to post any of that because I didn't want to sound insulting. I thought maybe if we explained the alternative rules we use that you'd have some feedback and maybe we could figure something out.

If I was being super-detailed (and didn't change the rules) I would have a section in my campaign intro on spell casting 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.

​

No "extra" rules, just a restatement of the rules and a clarification of my rulings. I might even throw in some footnotes so people don't have to hunt down the exact reference. But this list only scratches the surface. What if my character is polymorphed? Do I have to physically pull out material components? Does this mean that if I use a wand I can't have anything in my other hand? At a certain point, if I keep adding clarifications it's not going to be clear at all.

And why stop at somatic components? What about material? How loudly do I need to speak verbal components? How do you calculate the range to a target if the target is at a different elevation? All of these are legitimate questions, and I'm sure there are many, many more I'm not thinking of. Personally I just address them when and if they come up during the game.

Outside of that? We're creating house rules. I gave you mine and gave you justification but you seemed to dismiss it out of hand.

 

[CapnZapp]

You repeatedly use very colorful language to say all this doesn't make sense, but you don't give us much indication what exactly you don't think makes sense about it. The spellcasting rules say that these spells have a somatic component and a material component, meaning you need to hold something in your hand and manipulate it in order to cast the spell. Just like the fighter needs to hold a sword in his hand and manipulate it in order to attack enemies. All of these facts you list are natural consequences of this requirement: you can't use a symbol on your armor or around your neck because you can't manipulate it, just like the fighter can't attack with a sword strapped to his back. You can't use a symbol that casts spells for one class to cast for another class, just like the fighter can't use a sword in his hand to shoot arrows.

Look, I know you said you don't want people defending the rules, that you're trying to fix what's broken, but I honestly can't get a good read on what you think is broken about this, and so I can't give you much in the way of advice on fixing it. What in-universe logic are you envisioning here that these bullet points contradict, and what do you think should be happening instead? If I try to figure that out by simply reversing the bullet points, I get results like "You should be able to cast using a material component pouch even if both your hands are occupied" and "You should be able to cast warlock spells with a holy symbol", but that doesn't seem right either. Do you perhaps just feel that cleric spells shouldn't have material and/or somatic components? Maybe try that?

See, this is different, because this actually doesn't make sense. A rules patch saying that a hand holding an appropriate focus can always be used to perform somatic components does seem to be in order.

Okay fair enough.

First off, my true desire is for it not to matter where you put your god's symbol. I see nothing good coming from "you can walk around with an amulet around your neck, but it will inconvenience you later on".

In the general sense, it shouldn't matter whether your display is on your shield, or on your forehead, or on your chest. It's much more important you get to describe a cool character, and details take a distant second place to that.

But this doesn't mean we should abandon the D&D:isms of the game.

A wizard should imho need to use a hand to cast his spells (whether by literal hand, or wand, or orb or whatever). A bard has traditionally been forced to create her magic by music - 5E's interpretation is a reasonable compromise between preserving this image and not actually forcing you to make noise (disregarding that your spell most likely has a verbal component).

That doesn't have to... that SHOULDN'T have to mean the rules for this needs to be byzanthine and perplexing, like they are in 5E (and probably AD&D and d20 too).

And they should sure as hell not allow stupid BS moves like the excrecable "drop, cast, pick up", much less make that an actual optimal strategy.

When I started this thread I was doing so with the firm belief we should be able to express the good stuff (the D&D-isms we want to preserve) without the bad stuff but to do so MUCH SIMPLER than the current rules.

5E is not nearly as complex and fiddly as previous editions. With object interaction and spell component fulfillment as easily ignorable but still glaring exceptions.

WHY, I ask. Why were the rules this muddy when they can be so much simpler and better (while saying essentially the same thing minus the headaches and the nerdrage)?

We should not have to even TALK about where your hand is, or which component goes where. "It's natural you need a hand if your spell has a material component" is a much to simulationist and detail-obsessed question to ask.

We should simply ask the players to describe what their character looks like when he or she does heroic stuff, and from that simply say what actions are restricted or outright impossible.

You fight with two axes? Way cool... but you can't also carry the lantern or cast any spells.

Fiddling about with "can't I shuck one of my axes and cast real quick and then draw the axe again" is micro-management. Within a single round that's a waste. Much better and more in the spirit of 5e to simply define what weapon/shield combos that are available for you if you want to cast a spell.

All assuming "that round". Nothing stops you from choosing "I hold a single axe" the next round and cast your spell then.

What says we must have fiddly rules to achieve complete "realism" for sub-round hand use combos in the first place?

I'm sure if we give up the ability to cast a spell despite dualwielding (or whatever) we gain SOO MUCH MORE in saved text on the page, and saved brain hurt trying to grok all those maddeningly fiddly rules figments, not to mention how they all end up being monumentally pointless anyway since you can always drop-cast-pickup to completely evade them anyway...

That's it

 

[CapnZapp]

Or instead of 'drop' it could be 'hook mace to belt' or something similarly less immersion breaking.

Or you could add layers of completely unnecessary rules that only serve to slow the game down for no real benefit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure if you're advocating "no rules are the best rules"...?

Or are you talking about the rules as written or my suggestion?

(If anything "layers of completely unnecessary rules that only serve to slow the game down for no real benefit" makes me think of the rules in the PHB that got me starting the thread in the first place)

 

[CapnZapp]

In order to reach the "how" we need the "why". Rules are built to serve specific purposes, so they can't be built in a vacuum.

Since nothing that's been suggested so far seems to suit your needs (and yes, a few people, myself included, have made suggestions other than "nothing"), it's clear that your needs must be specific.

So if you don't actually specify them, there's not much anyone can do to help you.

Look.

I want the rules to end up allowing much the same use cases as today minus the complexity and definitely minus the "silly walk" outliers.

I think this can be accomplished much more simply than they're currently. I even provided a hands-on example in post #3. I believe it shows how you can accomplish much of what the PHB sets out to do, but with much fewer words, much more easily understood and with much less opportunity to "cheat" the system (by things like drop-cast-pickup which is only silly).

PS. I'm sure "just use common sense" is even simpler, but it also makes for a very dull design discussion

 

[CapnZapp]

CapnZapp, I think if you combine these two posts, you have all you need. The first addresses whether or not spells can be cast when holding items in ones hands (yes). The second addresses when spells with specific requirements cannot be cast.

In rules language, it might be something like this:

Spells with a verbal requirement cannot be cast when silenced, gagged, or otherwise unable to speak.
Spells with a somatic requirement cannot be cast when paralyzed, handcuffed, or otherwise bound.
Spells with a material requirement cannot be cast if the material is not readily accessible.

So long as the above requirements are met, spells may be cast regardless of what the caster has in his hands at the time of casting.

Sure, but it also departs from the D&D:isms.

Essentially you've replaced the current rules with "nothing" apart from the basic definitions of V, S and M.

I'll give you quick and easy. But as a design challenge, there's not really much to discuss.

I was hoping for something that hews much more closely to the D&D-isms, despite being MUCH less complex and fiddly than the PHB.

Besides, you haven't really "solved" the question of hand use. You've only made the question irrelevant for spellcasting.

But for "who holds the lantern" or "who has the key to the Golem Door" questions your rules are silent.

There's a reason this thread title is about object interaction as well as spell components...!

 

[CapnZapp]

The question becomes: what is the purpose of verbal, somatic, and material components in 5e. You need to know that to have a goal for redesigning.

There are two design goals I could see as fitting, but that doesn't eman that they /should/ both be in play. (Also, I'm ignoring the sacred cow aspect.)

First is weapon equivalency: If it takes (at least) one hand to wield a weapon, it should take one hand to cast a spell. So you can't benefit from weapon (to make attacks as your action or reaction), shield (to boost your AC) and many spells in the same round. A simplification that fits this is: you need a hand free to cast any spell with S or M components.

My *guess* is that spell focus was away to have half-casters like paladins who could actually handle all three by overloading one, but it's done in an ugly way.

The second is disarming: If there is a way to as-needed-by-plot minorly and majorly reduce the effectiveness of a weapon wielder, plot should be able to do the same for a caster. For example, if you're captured they might take your weapons and components, but you still can punch, grab weapons, have hidden daggers, and cast spells with V or S. The far end of what plot needs is you're locked up and have no weapons or armor, and no gestures or components. Both give the occasional move out of the comfort zone where you try to work out given what you have.

If you think one or both of those are reasonable design goals (or good bases to start with), it's pretty straightforward to design a component rule to satisfy them.

Well, I'm not trying to redefine V S M or remove components from the game.

And I have a goal for redesigning the rules already: the existing ones do a piss poor job of being simple, easy with intuitive and desirable results!

(That Clerics can't cast spells without Material components, or that you can drop-cast-pickup, are entirely manufactured artifacts that make no sense and shouldn't be there - and in fact didn't need to be there if the rules were simpler and more straightforward to begin with)

That doesn't mean I disagree with what you're saying. I guess I've already taken everything you say for granted and moved on to the next stage, that's all