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

[CapnZapp]

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.

If my rules only restated obvious rules, you might have a point. They do come across as something Captain Obvious might say - but consider that they replace the PHB rules. You're not meant to evaluate them in the context of the PHB rules; evaluate them as a clean slate.

Specifically, they replace everything the PHB has to say about object interaction (a huge win) and focuses and how they interaction with components (another huge win) while doing away with all and any nonsense such as drop-cast-pickup (the hugest win of them all).

No longer do we need nitpicky errata like the one for the two-handed weapon property. If you pick up a Greataxe, that's what you're gonna use (for that round). No corner cases. No worrying about casting spells and making opportunity attacks.

So I'm not sure what to say. "restating the rules in a different way" is high praise to me. That's exactly what this thread is about.

(Not restating rules like "you can only wield one weapon in any given hand". Yes that's obvious. But restating - or rather, doing away with - rules for spell components and objection interaction.)

No longer is there any "is your holy symbol on your shield or around your neck" malarkey. Its simply "you can cast divine spells in the sword and board configuration".

 

[MarkB]

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

I didn't find your stances particularly simpler than the current ruleset. You've got six stances, each with their own set of allowances and restrictions that players have to remember and keep track of, and they will either slow things down with players declaring their stance each turn, or lead to arguments if players assume their chosen stance is obvious when it isn't, or forget about a specific restriction.

It's exactly the sort of ruleset that sets players off to leafing through rulebooks to check on details that are completely inconsequential in their in-game effect, and that is simply poor rule design.

And they still don't serve any perceptible useful purpose. What narrative or balancing function do these rules fulfill?

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

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Here's my attempt:

Each round (from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn) each hand can only do one thing.

The things you can do are:
- Attack with a weapon. Some weapons require two hands.
- Wear a shield.
- Cast a spell with S components.
- Cast a spell with M components. This includes anything that says "you must present your holy symbol".
- Exception: The same hand can be used for a spell with both S and M components.
- Activate a magic item. E.g drink a potion, activate a wand.
- Hold or Use an item (which includes picking something up). E.g. hold a lantern, pick up a dropped sword, open a door, throw an oil flask, scatter caltrops. Some items require two hands.
- Make or continue a grapple.
- Break a grapple.

If you have two hands, you can pick at most two items from the list to do this round.

Some features will modify this. For example.
• Holy Symbols can be mounted on a shield. In this case, the same hand can "Wear a shield" and "Cast a spell with M components".
• If you have the War Caster feat then the same hand can "Wear a shield" and "Cast a spell with S components" and can "Attack with a weapon" and "Cast a spell with S components".

 

[Oofta]

If my rules only restated obvious rules, you might have a point. They do come across as something Captain Obvious might say - but consider that they replace the PHB rules. You're not meant to evaluate them in the context of the PHB rules; evaluate them as a clean slate.

Specifically, they replace everything the PHB has to say about object interaction (a huge win) and focuses and how they interaction with components (another huge win) while doing away with all and any nonsense such as drop-cast-pickup (the hugest win of them all).

No longer do we need nitpicky errata like the one for the two-handed weapon property. If you pick up a Greataxe, that's what you're gonna use (for that round). No corner cases. No worrying about casting spells and making opportunity attacks.

So I'm not sure what to say. "restating the rules in a different way" is high praise to me. That's exactly what this thread is about.

(Not restating rules like "you can only wield one weapon in any given hand". Yes that's obvious. But restating - or rather, doing away with - rules for spell components and objection interaction.)

No longer is there any "is your holy symbol on your shield or around your neck" malarkey. Its simply "you can cast divine spells in the sword and board configuration".

OK ... last time.

One-handed stance. Example: you wield a Longsword with one hand, having the other hand free. You can't benefit from a shield. You can cast spells or you can hold a lantern or you can manipulate one object (choose one each turn).

Restates the rule, adds nothing. You have a free hand so you can cast spells.

Shield stance. Example: you wield a warhammer in one hand and wear a shield in the other. You can cast divine spells. You can't hold a lantern, cast arcane spells, or manipulate objects.

Changes the rule, you no longer need a free hand for divine spells only. But if, and only if, one hand is holding a shield for some reason I can't quite fathom.

Empty stance. Example: you hold nothing. You can cast spells, hold a lantern, manipulate one object, and manipulate one more object (choose any two each turn). You have no threat range and can't make Opportunity Attacks unless your unarmed attacks deal more than 1 damage. You can spend your action to don a shield, turning this stance into a shield stance and reducing your choice to one each turn.

Restates the rule, adds nothing. You have a free hand so you can cast spells.

Two-handed melee stance. Example: you wield a Greatsword with both hands. You can't benefit from a shield, you can't cast spells and you can't hold a lantern or manipulate objects.

I glossed over this one. I also disagree with it. Ever carried an axe? You don't use two hands all the time. Worst case, letting go with one hand would be free, grabbing the weapon again should use your object interaction.

Two-handed ranged stance. Example: you wield a Longbow with both hands. You can cast spells or manipulate an object. You can't benefit from a shield, and you can't hold a lantern. You have no threat range and can't make Opportunity Attacks unless your unarmed attacks deal more than 1 damage.

Restates the rule, adds nothing. You have a free hand so you can cast spells.

Two-weapon stance. Example: you wield two shortswords. You can't benefit from a shield, you can't cast spells and you can't hold a lantern or manipulate objects.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Restates the rule, adds nothing. You don't have a free hand, you can't cast spells with somatic components.

​

You are restating the rules without adding value in 4 out of 6.

In the sword & board case you're house ruling but only allowing this one exception. It's not consistent ... either follow the rules or don't. There are plenty of deities in D&D mythology that use two weapons or a two-handed weapon. Why are their chosen warriors punished?

The best I can say about your two-handed melee is a ruling that I simply disagree with it, it's getting really nit-picky for no reason. I know this was addressed in the sage advice tweets (it's allowed), but it never made it into the official sage advice column.

Anyway this thread isn't really much of a discussion. It's more a bunch of people saying what they do and giving alternatives and you rejecting pretty much all of it. It's your prerogative of course, but there's reason to continue.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Thank you, Capn, I understand where you're coming from much better now.

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.

I think there are a couple of ways you can approach this. The first, as already suggested, is to ditch the component requirements of cleric spells. But you say you don't want to do that, and when I look at your suggested rules in post #3, I see that you don't think clerics should be able to cast spells with a two-handed or two-weapon stance. It's just with the shield that you say clerics can cast, right? So I suggest an even simpler approach: who said that clerics can only wear one holy symbol? If you've got a symbol around your neck, or embossed on your armor, or tattooed on your forehead, or whatever, surely that doesn't prevent you from also having the symbol emblazoned on your shield. In fact, if you're a cleric and you use a shield, it'd be kind of weird if you didn't, right?

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.

That makes sense to me. I'd suggest a system much like the one [MENTION=6788312]Greenstone.Walker[/MENTION] just outlined, boiling down to "Just say what your hands are doing this round." I think doing it on a hand-by-hand basis would be simpler and more intuitive than the stance system you outlined -- you don't have to worry about defining every combination.

 

[CapnZapp]

I didn't find your stances particularly simpler than the current ruleset.

I can't believe you find the current rules anything but a clusterfrack of epic proportions. Did you read the Reddit treatise I linked to?

What I mean is really that I have no trouble accepting that most of you haven't really thought about it, and casually think the PHB rules are "okayish" in this regard.

It's only when you really delve deep into the rules their true horrors dawns upon you

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's my attempt:

Each round (from the start of your turn to the start of your next turn) each hand can only do one thing.

The things you can do are:
- Attack with a weapon. Some weapons require two hands.
- Wear a shield.
- Cast a spell with S components.
- Cast a spell with M components. This includes anything that says "you must present your holy symbol".
- Exception: The same hand can be used for a spell with both S and M components.
- Activate a magic item. E.g drink a potion, activate a wand.
- Hold or Use an item (which includes picking something up). E.g. hold a lantern, pick up a dropped sword, open a door, throw an oil flask, scatter caltrops. Some items require two hands.
- Make or continue a grapple.
- Break a grapple.

If you have two hands, you can pick at most two items from the list to do this round.

Some features will modify this. For example.
• Holy Symbols can be mounted on a shield. In this case, the same hand can "Wear a shield" and "Cast a spell with M components".
• If you have the War Caster feat then the same hand can "Wear a shield" and "Cast a spell with S components" and can "Attack with a weapon" and "Cast a spell with S components".

Thank you for participating in the spirit of the thread

Your rules are already much better and with fewer baffling exceptions than the rules in the PHB!

But there are still questions.

You keep the distinction between symbol-on-shield and symbol-elsewhere. Any particular reason why? ("to stay true to the RAW" is an acceptable answer)

Can you hold a mace and wear a shield and still cast spells as a Cleric with a holy symbol inscribed elsewhere than your shield? (It seems clear you can't attack with the mace, but can you cast your spell without letting go of the mace?)

I'd phrase the War Caster differently. First off, I'd save its effects for the feat, and not talk about it in the general rules section at all. Second, I would phrase it not as allowing particular combos, but instead by lifting the restriction that you need a hand for spellcasting altogether.

 

[CapnZapp]

You are restating the rules without adding value in 4 out of 6.

IMHO you are completely discounting the huge value in merely the fact that "restating" does away with the current wording.

It's as if you aren't agreeing with the basic premise of the thread - that the current way of doing things is surprisingly arcane and complex, with bizarre exceptions and corner cases (read the Reddit treatise!).

I mean, if you're okay with the RAW (either because you use it, or because you're an old D&D hand that knows it already, or because you conveniently ignore it in part or whole), you don't need this thread...

This thread is a "what if the PHB's rules on these things actually made sense and was accessible for beginners?"

Assuming you have another reason for saying my proposal doesn't "add value", let me also argue that the mere fact that you are now asked to choose a "stance" means you are not asked to consider individual hand use. No object interaction. No considering of component, focus and hand usage interaction. If that all by itself isn't a huge win I don't know what to tell you.

 

[MarkB]

I can't believe you find the current rules anything but a clusterfrack of epic proportions. Did you read the Reddit treatise I linked to?

What I mean is really that I have no trouble accepting that most of you haven't really thought about it, and casually think the PHB rules are "okayish" in this regard.

It's only when you really delve deep into the rules their true horrors dawns upon you

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.

 

[Oofta]

IMHO you are completely discounting the huge value in merely the fact that "restating" does away with the current wording.

It's as if you aren't agreeing with the basic premise of the thread - that the current way of doing things is surprisingly arcane and complex, with bizarre exceptions and corner cases (read the Reddit treatise!).

I mean, if you're okay with the RAW (either because you use it, or because you're an old D&D hand that knows it already, or because you conveniently ignore it in part or whole), you don't need this thread...

This thread is a "what if the PHB's rules on these things actually made sense and was accessible for beginners?"

Assuming you have another reason for saying my proposal doesn't "add value", let me also argue that the mere fact that you are now asked to choose a "stance" means you are not asked to consider individual hand use. No object interaction. No considering of component, focus and hand usage interaction. If that all by itself isn't a huge win I don't know what to tell you.

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.