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

[steeldragons]

I would, for the cleric's case, consider the "forceful presentation of your holy symbol" to be a part and parcel of a spells given somatic components. The holy symbol, itself, takes care of the material component/replacement for most spells. So it's doing double duty.

Seems the relevant rule for this is the "one hand free" stipulation, which means, if you're using a symbol emblazoned on your shield as your holy symbol (still giving you some freedom for finger wriggling with that hand, anyway) and the other hand is free, then there's no worries. For what few spells would require another special [gp value] material component, that's part of the reason you need a free hand. So you're using both hands (one for your holy symbol, which you need fo cleric casting) and one for whatever other somatic and/or material considerations the spell requires.

So...I guess, I don't really perceive or am misunderstanding the perceived problem.

Drawing/sheathing your weapon is a "nul"/uncounted "action." So I don't quite understand the "drop your weapon on the ground" thing. You stash your weapon, pull out whatever you need to or do your hand gestures, presenting your holy symbol as you do so, then -using your action- cast the spell. Move, use a bonus action if you have one, whatever else you [can] do on your turn. Next turn, you casting again or drawing your weapon and attacking with it [or doing something else]?

No big.

 

[CapnZapp]

So...I guess, I don't really perceive or am misunderstanding the perceived problem.

Drawing/sheathing your weapon is a "nul"/uncounted "action." So I don't quite understand the "drop your weapon on the ground" thing. You stash your weapon, pull out whatever you need to or do your hand gestures, presenting your holy symbol as you do so, then -using your action- cast the spell. Move, use a bonus action if you have one, whatever else you [can] do on your turn. Next turn, you casting again or drawing your weapon and attacking with it [or doing something else]?

No big.

Not that it really matters, no, but in case you're wondering the desired result the minmaxer wants is:

#1 To start the round weapon + shield in hands (because of #2)
#2 To end the round weapon + shield in hands (to be able to make an Opportunity Attack)
and
#3 To still be able to cast a spell during your round

Now, your free object interaction lets you either sheathe or draw your weapon. Not both.

So the only way to pull off this is to drop the weapon on the ground (since dropping is free), cast, and then use your object interaction to - not draw, but to pick up the weapon from the ground.

Rinse and repeat.

Then add to this how divine casters ARE allowed to keep both weapon and shield if they use their shield as their holy symbol. If the spell is a divine spell. And it has a material component, since the "divine focus acts as somatic component" special case doesn't really trigger for somatic components, it triggers for material components, and there is yet another special rule (that still is super unclearly written) saying you get to claim your somatic and material component with the same hand.

---

The "drop your weapon on the ground" then, is about how the rules first make it hard or impossible to both cast a spell and still threaten (=make armed OAs), makes super complicated special allowances for some casters in some circumstances with essential zero impact on game balance, playability or world verisimiltude... and then allows an entirely silly loophole that makes it trivial to shuck all of that on the garbage heap and STILL cast a spell and still threaten, at just the minor cost of looking and acting like you're a video game character with a bad spasm.

Why first go to the trouble of making a thing impossible? And then add very difficult and intricate and complex exceptions? Only to then allow you to bypass all of those stupid rules using an even stupider routine?

That is the question.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think your "clarification" is worse than the current rules and more confusing.

I don't believe you.

But we're done.

 

[Oofta]

I would, for the cleric's case, consider the "forceful presentation of your holy symbol" to be a part and parcel of a spells given somatic components. The holy symbol, itself, takes care of the material component/replacement for most spells. So it's doing double duty.

Seems the relevant rule for this is the "one hand free" stipulation, which means, if you're using a symbol emblazoned on your shield as your holy symbol (still giving you some freedom for finger wriggling with that hand, anyway) and the other hand is free, then there's no worries. For what few spells would require another special [gp value] material component, that's part of the reason you need a free hand. So you're using both hands (one for your holy symbol, which you need fo cleric casting) and one for whatever other somatic and/or material considerations the spell requires.

So...I guess, I don't really perceive or am misunderstanding the perceived problem.

Drawing/sheathing your weapon is a "nul"/uncounted "action." So I don't quite understand the "drop your weapon on the ground" thing. You stash your weapon, pull out whatever you need to or do your hand gestures, presenting your holy symbol as you do so, then -using your action- cast the spell. Move, use a bonus action if you have one, whatever else you [can] do on your turn. Next turn, you casting again or drawing your weapon and attacking with it [or doing something else]?

No big.

For what it's worth I consider the presentation of a shield with holy symbol to also apply to the somatic components. Since the holy symbol is at that point being used as a focus, you don't normally need to worry about material component either (unless it has a cost). However, the rules state that you need a free hand for somatic components.

As far as sheathing your weapon, you can interact with one object on your turn. If you need to do so a second time it normally takes an action. If you want to cast (even as a bonus action) and attack on your turn it becomes an issue. In addition, if you sheathe your weapon it won't be available for opportunity attacks.

Paladins and eldritch knights (along with several others I'm sure) in particular may want to cast and attack during the same turn.

Which is why some people state that you could drop your weapon (not considered an action at all, not even a free one) and then pick it up after you're done casting the spell on your turn. It's silly but works according to the letter of the rules.

So for some characters it can be a pretty big deal. Or am I just missing something?

 

[Oofta]

I don't believe you.

But we're done.

Glad to know you think you can tell me what my opinion is.

Have a good one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Why first go to the trouble of making a thing impossible? And then add very difficult and intricate and complex exceptions? Only to then allow you to bypass all of those stupid rules using an even stupider routine?

That is the question.

Well, which of those things would be 'nobler in the mind?'

;|

OK, seriously, the real 5e litmus-test question is "does it evoke the classic game?"



Seriously, though, (for real, well, as seriously as I can manage) this is the kinda thing that comes from parsing natural-language rules too closely. (Which, if we're being fair, is the kinda thing that comes from writing rules in natural language, instead of jargon, in the first place.)
Can you drop a weapon, cast a spell, and pick the weapon up all on your turn, but to sheath the weapon, cast a spell, and draw it again, drawing waits until your next turn?
Well, technically, if you parse the rules literally, sure.

OTOH, if it seems like the latter implies the former shouldn't be possible, well, the DM rules no, and it's over. Not even 'carefully crafts a house rule that avoids the ambiguity,' just says, "no, y'can't do that, it's lame."

Or, if he's feeling it, he may just have someone else pick up the weapon when you disarm yourself, then rule the casting provokes from them. Or introduce a lot of highly magnetic floors. DMs can get weird, too.


Not that I don't prefer rules to make sense, or that I have a problem with discussing variants that make more sense than the official rules. Just that, well, we are talking about D&D, here.

 

[Li Shenron]

I love role-playing games and I love D&D. With two exceptions: the insanely complex and fiddly rules for object interaction and spell-casting components.

I don't like them either. I don't think they make the game any better or more interesting. I would also want simplicity and consistency.

1) A first really simple idea could be:

- all spells have verbal and somatic components, period ("material" components don't exist); no more need to check anything if all spells work the same

- verbal means the usual thing: you must be able to speak clearly (as loud as normal conversation), you can't do it if silenced or gagged

- somatic means you need one free hand, but it's up to you to describe it as waving a wand/symbol/whatever, sprinkling ingredients, or just gesturing (make the latter always working as a backup choice, so that it's not inherently a penalty to choose something else)

- you can still add a requirement for expensive ingredients to a few specific spells

2) A complication on the previous idea, for more tactical variety, could be made by adding these:

- some spells are "magic words", i.e. don't need the somatic component

- some spells are "silent spells", i.e. don't need the verbal component

Apart from still not having material components, how is this different from the normal rules? It's all in the presentation of the spells! The normal rules require you to check which components a spell has. In this variant, you assume both components unless the spell is marked as "word" or "silent". IMO it would be more comfortable.

------

As for the object interaction rules, I would just totally ignore the "one object" restriction and use common sense. If it feels too much to do in a single turn, the DM just says you can't do more than what you've already done.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Not that it really matters, no, but in case you're wondering the desired result the minmaxer wants is:

#1 To start the round weapon + shield in hands (because of #2)
#2 To end the round weapon + shield in hands (to be able to make an Opportunity Attack)
and
#3 To still be able to cast a spell during your round

I don't like characters being able to do that. However, I struggle to put into words exactly why I don't like it. I think I want players to make a choice, and have real consequences for their choice. Cast a spell - that choice has a consequence of not being able to make a weapon attack of opportunity.

I also detest the drop weapon - cast - pick up weapon routine. But again, I'm not actually sure why.

 

[Darkness]

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.

Hey, take it easy - this is just an internet forum about pretending to be an elf. It's fine if you don't want to continue a given discussion - but handle it with civility, please.

 

[Satyrn]

I also detest the drop weapon - cast - pick up weapon routine. But again, I'm not actually sure why.

Because it's a silly looking thing for someone to do in a fight, and it's only happening that way because it fits the rules, not because it fits the fiction.

Another way to say that is it's excessively gamist.