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

[Oofta]

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.

But isn't the solution then one of the following?

1. Tell people they need a free hand. If you want to use the weapon for the remainder of the turn or until the start of your next turn, don't use a shield or the the war caster feat.
2. Change the rules so you can sheathe and draw your weapon on your turn
3. Change the rule so they don't need a free hand (possibly with other restrictions).

You can dress it up any way you like but if you don't want silliness (and I agree dropping/picking up a weapon is silliness) those are basically your options, right?

At a certain point I'm not sure what the debate is any more. Choose one of the options and move on.

 

[CapnZapp]

At a certain point I'm not sure what the debate is any more.

Debate? This is a thread where we discuss how a replacement of the current rules on object interaction, hand usage and spell components would look like.

Specifically, the current rules say dropping a weapon is "free" and you get one object interaction a round. So you can pick up what you just dropped. That this is the root cause is hopefully obvious to all.

Instead of trying to patch that up, how about starting from scratch, and not having rules for which hand does what, and how many times the hand can clench and unclench.

 

[OB1]

Hey [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - apologies for writing this before I've read the entire thread, but here is the ruleset I've been using for 2 years. It's proved to be simple, elegant, fun for the players and works for both PCs and their opponents.

Object Interaction - At the start of your turn, you can use your object interaction to replace anything in your two hands with any other objects on your person that is not in a container (such as a backpack or bag of holding, which require your action).

Casting - You can use one hand to perform both the Material and Somatic functions of a spell.

Warcaster - You do not need a free hand to perform Material and Somatic functions of a spell, provided the material components or focus are on your person and you are not paralyzed or incapacitated.

A fighter can use this to switch between a bow and a sword and shield at the beginning of their turn.

A bard can use this to switch between sword and shield and musical instrument and shield or sword at the beginning of their turn.

 

[MarkB]

Debate? This is a thread where we discuss how a replacement of the current rules on object interaction, hand usage and spell components would look like.

Specifically, the current rules say dropping a weapon is "free" and you get one object interaction a round. So you can pick up what you just dropped. That this is the root cause is hopefully obvious to all.

Instead of trying to patch that up, how about starting from scratch, and not having rules for which hand does what, and how many times the hand can clench and unclench.

Or just allow everyone two object interactions instead of one. Not only will it help spellcasters, it'll also help ranged attackers who don't want to drop their bow when they enter melee combat, and dual-wielders who don't want to spend their first round of combat with only one weapon drawn.

 

[Oofta]

Debate? This is a thread where we discuss how a replacement of the current rules on object interaction, hand usage and spell components would look like.

Specifically, the current rules say dropping a weapon is "free" and you get one object interaction a round. So you can pick up what you just dropped. That this is the root cause is hopefully obvious to all.

Instead of trying to patch that up, how about starting from scratch, and not having rules for which hand does what, and how many times the hand can clench and unclench.

Dropping your weapon is not defined anywhere in the PHB. Like many things outside of the defined rules, it's up to the DM to make a ruling on how to handle it. You could rule that every time you drop your weapon you have a chance to damage or even break it. The PC's opponents could ready an action to pick up or smash the weapon after the first time the caster does it. As a DM you are within your rights to simply say "No, that's dumb I don't allow it".

But if you want to fix it, you need a goal. All the word-smithing in the world isn't going to change anything if you don't know what your target is.

Which is why I say you can either follow the rules as written, change how you interact with objects or change the way somatic materials work. But you have to decide on the goal first.

If I was playing with a DM that was a stickler for the rule, I simply wouldn't use a shield until I had the opportunity to take the war caster feat. For the games I run I changed the rules because it doesn't make any sense that certain classes would not be able to use weapons and cast spells at the same time.

 

[CapnZapp]

Or just allow everyone two object interactions instead of one. Not only will it help spellcasters, it'll also help ranged attackers who don't want to drop their bow when they enter melee combat, and dual-wielders who don't want to spend their first round of combat with only one weapon drawn.

I don't see how that gets rid of either the drop-cast-pickup routine or the headache that is the intersection between the rules for hand use, spell components and spell focuses?

In fact, unless I'm wrong, two interactions make many of these rules essentially useless, since there no longer are many limitations you can't trivially circumvent.

That to me only exacerbates the hot mess: having a load of rules that are difficult to understand and use, until you realize other rules completely undermine them.

Why not instead erase all of that, and imagine a 5th edition free from rules that frankly would have stood out as byzantine even in the old bad days when all rules were byzantine...?

 

[CapnZapp]

Dropping your weapon is not defined anywhere in the PHB. Like many things outside of the defined rules, it's up to the DM to make a ruling on how to handle it. You could rule that every time you drop your weapon you have a chance to damage or even break it. The PC's opponents could ready an action to pick up or smash the weapon after the first time the caster does it. As a DM you are within your rights to simply say "No, that's dumb I don't allow it".

First off, the "you can always say no, so the rules don't need to be changed like ever" is a dumb excuse. Yes, I can always make on-the-cuff rulings, but that completely misses the point: that I should not have to.

5th edition doesn't deserve labyrintine rules like these. And this thread is expressly about imagining the game without them.

That said, you're wrong: take disarming for instance. The PHB defines disarming a target as forcing it to drop one item of your choosing. The object lands at the creature's feet. No mention of anything breaking or getting damaged. (Which makes sense assuming we're talking about weapons of war, not porcelain vases) So no, the DM doesn't have to make a ruling, she can just use common sense to read the PHB and assume the RAI is "the object is now at your feet, ready to be picked up again"

But if you want to fix it, you need a goal. All the word-smithing in the world isn't going to change anything if you don't know what your target is.

Which is why I say you can either follow the rules as written, change how you interact with objects or change the way somatic materials work. But you have to decide on the goal first.

Why do you keep saying this despite me being excessively clear about my goals?

Everybody else in the thread understands. What is it about the current rules that you can't let go of? Why do you refuse to acknowledge my goals - they're really really simple. Imagine the PHB is blank on the subjects of hand use, object interaction and spell components.

Now it's your task, Oofta, to write up a set of rules that result in characters doing much the same things the PHB allows them to, yet avoids loopholes such as the ones we have been talking about.

I should tell you, I simply won't believe it if you say you would end up with the same ruleset as today's - I absolutely believe you're much better than that. Remember, a clean slate. No copying existing chunks of text. Would you, as the new star 5e designer, really start writing fiddly rules (that you later spread out all over the book) about which hand goes where, and how some but not all focuses can do double duty when used in highly specific component combinations? I have faith in you.

 

[MarkB]

I don't see how that gets rid of either the drop-cast-pickup routine or the headache that is the intersection between the rules for hand use, spell components and spell focuses?

In fact, unless I'm wrong, two interactions make many of these rules essentially useless, since there no longer are many limitations you can't trivially circumvent.

That to me only exacerbates the hot mess: having a load of rules that are difficult to understand and use, until you realize other rules completely undermine them.

Why not instead erase all of that, and imagine a 5th edition free from rules that frankly would have stood out as byzantine even in the old bad days when all rules were byzantine...?

So, for the nth time in this thread, what do you want? You don't like the current limitations, and you don't like any solution which circumvents those limitations. What form of limitation would actually satisfy your as-yet-undefined requirements? What is it acceptable to you for spellcasters to be able to do while holding weapons, and what should they not be able to do?

If you actually define those requirements, we can get to work on tailoring the simplest possible ruleset to satisfy them.

 

[Oofta]

write up a set of rules that result in characters doing much the same things the PHB allows them to, yet avoids loopholes such as the ones we have been talking about.

I've given you my answer multiple times. I'd keep the existing rules but add the following exceptions:

• Somatic components require that you have use of a hand that you can freely move. That hand can be holding a light object, such as a one-handed weapon or wand, but not a shield.
• Forgot to mention this one, because I don't think it's an exception to the current rules: People that wield two-handed weapons can let go of their weapon with one hand long enough to cast a spell with somatic components.
• I might add: A character can make any single weapon an arcane focus by bonding with it for an hour.

Dropping a weapon is not covered by the rules because they can't cover everything. If you don't want to punish characters for dropping their weapons*, I can't think of any possible rule to stop it other than making it an unnecessary exploit. If someone was constantly dropping their weapon, as a DM I'd have intelligent creatures either steal it or break it. Using the rules from the DMG, anything made of wood would be fairly easy to break - AC 15, probably 10 HP. Staves, ax/hammer handles would become kindling. Swords and other metal weapons probably wouldn't be sundered (I have to have some basis in reality) but could possibly be bent to the point of needing repair. Magical weapons would just be stolen.

Would it be silly for creatures to attack weapons? Maybe. Depending on how much the person wielding the weapon relies on the weapon it may be worth it.

I go with my version because it suits my vision of how magic should work for people that swing weapons and cast magic for a living work.

[EDIT]
*Or rule that dropping a weapon still counts as their free object interaction for the round.

 

[Satyrn]

But isn't the solution then one of the following?

1. Tell people they need a free hand. If you want to use the weapon for the remainder of the turn or until the start of your next turn, don't use a shield or the the war caster feat.
2. Change the rules so you can sheathe and draw your weapon on your turn
3. Change the rule so they don't need a free hand (possibly with other restrictions).

You can dress it up any way you like but if you don't want silliness (and I agree dropping/picking up a weapon is silliness) those are basically your options, right?

At a certain point I'm not sure what the debate is any more. Choose one of the options and move on.

Well of course. I was just trying to help [MENTION=6788312]Greenstone.Walker[/MENTION] identify his ephemeral feeling of dislike for the scenario by telling him why I dislike it.

My solution is not fit for print. (Well, not fit for print under Zapp's authoritarian rule)