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

[Tony Vargas]

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

War Clerics, I assume you mean? I could see that instead of Extra Attack, perhaps? And some spells, like Healing Word and the blade cantrips, could be exceptions...

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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".

Upon consideration, I think this can be refined slightly. Say that each round, each hand can hold one item or be free, and certain actions require hands to be either holding certain items or free.

To attack with a weapon, you need to be holding a weapon. To attack with a weapon with two hands, you need to be holding a weapon with one hand and the other hand to be free.
To cast a spell with S components, you need one hand to be either free or holding an appropriate spell focus. (Properly decorated shields count as spell focuses for divine casters.)
To cast a spell with M components, you need one hand to be holding material components or an appropriate spell focus.
To use an item in your possession, you need to be holding the item. Some items may also require a free hand.
To use an item in the environment (opening a door, pulling a lever), you need one hand to be free. Some items may require two free hands.
To begin a grapple, you need one hand to be free. Your hand is then grappling the other creature and is neither holding an item nor free.
To continue a grapple, one hand needs to be grappling the creature.
To break a grapple, one hand needs to be grappling the creature or free.
Etc.

I think this approach lets you do an end-run around some of the modifications and exceptions you were beginning to spell out. For instance, as you can see, you just have to say that a cleric's shield counts as a spell focus and then it follows automatically that the hand holding a shield fulfills the requirements for casting a spell. It also lets you be a little more flexible with free hands, and makes having a free hand more valuable (which I think is desirable). You can open a door and then cast a somatic spell or swing a greatsword, for example.

 

[dave2008]

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.​

I think that is what he is doing. However, I think you, like me, don't like how he decided to frame that around stances.

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.

These forums certainly prove the last statement to be true.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

I guess I didn't want to say un-nice things and therefore said nothing at all.

But since you repeatedly have asked for feedback: any suggestion that still base itself off of the current rules isn't cutting it in my opinion. This thread is about a wholesale renovation, not patching it up.

Besides, your rule still (as far as I can see) allows drop-cast-pickup (mostly since you keep the object interaction rule I so intensely dislike), so the most positive thing I can say is to say nothing at all.

Have a nice day.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Again, the point is to erase EVERYTHING and start with a slate wiped clean.

Therefore, while you are entitled to your opinion, that particular criticism makes zero sense, unless you still evaluate it as an addition to the existing rules somehow, or as a "clarification" that still bases itself on the current rules.

In the immortal words of Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your eyes can deceive you; don't trust them.

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 most emphatically do NOT want to clarify the existing rules.

The existing rules are rank garbage, and this thread is about a bright future where they never existed!

I really really thought I made that clear by not holding back in my original post. Apparently, I was wrong.

 

[CapnZapp]

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 hand[] except the required components or focus."

This here is da sheet, folks.

It's saying what the rulebook trips over itself several time to say, yet completely fails anyway.

Thank you.

(I replaced the plural with a singular since my reply has nothing to so with your main point. See below)

'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.

I have no particular beef against a Wizard using his Staff of Magic Powers as a +1 Quarterstaff. Why? Because the game is so effectively making the weapon-using spellcaster a suboptimal build anyway. It simply isn't really needed imo.

Same with a Warlock using a Rod as a club/mace.

I prefer the 4E take where instead of choosing your cantrip, it was decided by your choice of implement (orb, book that kind of thing).

I'm having trouble seeing even a single instance where you can abuse the fact your Dagger of Spellcasting also doubles as a magic weapon? OAs maybe. Any other time, each action you use to stab a critter with your dagger is an action where you aren't casting a spell, which per definition for a mid- to high level wizard is to gimp yourself...

Please note: I'm not pooping over your suggestion as much as I'm pointing out that this check is probably already handled by the game in other ways...

Regards,
Zapp

 

[CapnZapp]

I also have a lot of sympathy for the people trying to write these rules.

PLEASE NOTE: This is NOT a thread wherein we defend the current rules. This thread assumes you basically agree it's a load of hog. Feel free to analyze and discuss them, but not defend them. This thread is about FIXING something broken. If you want to argue "it's fine as it is" or "there are reasons to keep it this way", do it in another thread. Thank you.

Okay, [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], just a heads up: any further replies from you in the same vein and I will treat you as a troll and a thread derailer. If you want me to respond and not ignore you, you now know need what to focus on. If you don't want to, feel free to leave the thread.

 

[CapnZapp]

Upon consideration, I think this can be refined slightly. Say that each round, each hand can hold one item or be free, and certain actions require hands to be either holding certain items or free.

This was my intermediate step too.

Then I figured to simplify this into a complete set of stances, finally getting rid of what hand does what completely

 

[Oofta]

Okay, [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], just a heads up: any further replies from you in the same vein and I will treat you as a troll and a thread derailer. If you want me to respond and not ignore you, you now know need what to focus on. If you don't want to, feel free to leave the thread.

LOL. You don't own the thread. I responded to [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION] ... sorry that bothers you.

I disagree with your approach. I, and several others, attempted to give you feedback, explaining other approaches.

I never said the current rules are "fine". I said "here's how I deal with it". IMHO you need to either do away with the current requirement for a completely free hand for somatic components or change the rule to add exceptions as I did.

We disagree. I think your "clarification" is worse than the current rules and more confusing. It happens.

What did you expect? That you could throw out an idea, get only feedback that praises you and showers you with XP? It's not how it works. Throw out an idea and you need to justify what you said, maybe change your thought process a little bit. Listen to feedback and respond instead of shaking your metaphorical fist at the world complaining about how you are the only one who owns the issue.

Good luck and have fun!

 

[Satyrn]

War Clerics, I assume you mean? I could see that instead of Extra Attack, perhaps? And some spells, like Healing Word and the blade cantrips, could be exceptions...

No, by "warrior cleric," I meant a more nebulous defintion than just the War Cleric. I was thinking specifically of those that gain a bonus 1d8 to weapon damage instead of the cantrip modification at level 8. I figure those are the sorts of clerics spellcasters that are truly intended to wield a weapon and cast spells at the same time. So, also the Eldritch Knight.