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

[CrusaderX]

Re: OP

If I was looking for a mechanical solution, I would say that a character who found themselves unable to cast in one of the situations that you laid out above could use their REACTION to pull it off.

Simulating using the "extra" time and effort to pull it off being used up, leaving them unable to react.

For a start, I'd get rid of any game-mechanical distinction between material and somatic components - they both require you to do something with your hand, let them be functionally part of the same action.

Then, rather than tracking how a person is juggling between equipment on their turn and what exactly they have to wind up holding, just impose a simple game-mechanical cost on them. For instance, if someone wants to use a spell with components other than verbal and doesn't have a free hand, it's assumed that they manage to free up a hand long enough to do so - but instead of tracking the specifics, just rule that doing so expends their reaction, preventing them from making opportunity attacks or or similar actions until their next turn.

I like this. But how would this work with the 3rd part of the War Caster feat?

 

[Shiroiken]

Historically a buckler is literally a small hand-held shield. A piece of armor strapped to the forearm is a vambrace. You may not care.

Hmm. You're right. I've seen a type of shield that straps to the arm, similar to a vambrace (but circular like a shield), and the owner called it a buckler. I tried to find it online, and can't find out what it's called. I may have to just call it a vambrace...

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Or picking up an item off the ground provokes an opportunity attack.*

But I suspect that solution would be deemed too simple for this thread. Only full repeal and replace rewrite is allowed here.

[EDIT]
*If you are in melee, of course.

No, I think bending over to pick anything up makes sense to provoke an opportunity attack. But you didn't rewrite the entire section of rules, so it doesn't count.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hmm. You're right. I've seen a type of shield that straps to the arm, similar to a vambrace (but circular like a shield), and the owner called it a buckler. I tried to find it online, and can't find out what it's called. I may have to just call it a vambrace...

It's a LARP/fantasy concept of a buckler so you can still use your hand. Invented specifically to get around rules like these....

 

[Ilbranteloth]

That and OAs consume your 1&only Reaction, many uses for that reaction coming up frequently could be frustrating...

Wow, sounds like the sort of thing the OP was looking for - care to share?

I already did: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?554094-No-Combat-Rounds

Note that it's not about things in your hands, it's about changing the way combat as a whole works.

Short explanation:

Combat is measured by segments of about 1 second starting at 1.
Initiative is variable, based on the action you're taking. It's really more about when your action resolves - so a normal attack uses d6, an attack with a light or finesse weapon a d4, and a two-handed weapon a d8. (This part was inspired by Mike Mearles rule). To add a little more time between things, after the first turn, you roll dx+4.

Your Turn consists of your Action, potential bonus actions, and reaction.

So if you decide you're making a melee attack with a long sword, you roll a d6 and get a 2 + 4 = 6. So you go on segment 6. Your Turn starts at segment 6, and you can take your action, or a bonus action if you have it. As soon as you complete your Action, you roll again to determine your next segment. You can use your reaction, and appropriate bonus action, between the completion of your action and the start of your next Turn.

In general, the idea is that you are already performing the action, and when you use your action, you are just resolving it. So if you decide you want to attack somebody, then you are attacking, blocking, parrying, etc., and the segment when you get your turn is when you find an opening. So if you want to change your action before your Turn starts, you use your reaction and roll again. If it's your Turn and you want to change your action, then you just roll again.

Think of it this way - you are a cleric and initially move to attack with your mace. You're in the process of that and an ally is heavily wounded. So you react to that (use your reaction) to start to cast a healing spell instead. If it's already your turn, then you just start casting the spell instead (which takes time, represented by the roll).

It sounds far more complicated than it is. It also comes across as very complicated in an example.

--

Movement is entirely separated from your Turn. In general, somebody can move 5' in a segment, but really you approach it from the opposite direction. Where do you want to go? A quick estimation from the DM to determine if you can do that walking, or do you have to run? So 6 segments lets you walk about 30'. I'm not going to quibble over 5', and I don't use a grid anyway. Otherwise you have to run.

I have a parry rule - you can use your attacks and/or reaction to parry your opponent. This is just an opposed attack roll. You can also use a reaction to start a Dash, but must use your action to continue to Dash.

So back to movement - if you're 50' away, you need to run (Dash). So you use your reaction to Dash so you're able to close for melee by your action. So we almost never have to consider movement at all, other than that.

Since movement isn't tied to your turn, as soon as you finish your action, you can continue moving - most likely toward whatever you need to, but it can also be away from something. For example, you're 30' away from an ogre that starts running toward you. You can simply start moving away from it, but it's faster, so use your reaction to start to run away. It automatically adds a method to start a chase in the midst of combat.

Players only need to know when their next segment is, and it's always different. You can delay your Action, you just don't get to roll for your next one until you complete it.

Spells work mostly the same - start and end of their next turn is the same since it always gives them a chance to end something whether their turn is this round or next. Start and end of your turn is either the same, if it's not something that really matters, or 10 segments if you want to just set a duration. That would be about the equivalent of lasting until the same point in the next round (a little better actually), but not two rounds.

--

So since it's basically measuring time, whenever you have a free segment, you can do something minor like sheath a sword. Either you have time to do it, or you don't.

I'd still fix the weirdness of a cleric holding a shield/focus and casting a spell that requires somatic without material to cast the spell using the focus.

And I like the idea of an opportunity attack when picking something up. I already allow an opportunity attack when somebody is standing up - but remember that you can use a reaction to attempt to parry an opportunity attack too. And I have combat maneuvers (mostly for fighters) that take advantage of the reaction as well.

Edit: This is better formatted than the thread: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12xPT-45PCBvaAJ3FaKI2Tkz2UmMGzoFcCzG0i7BfOss/edit

 

[Tony Vargas]

It sounds far more complicated than it is. It also comes across as very complicated in an example.

It sounds a bit like a more in-depth take on RQ strike ranks, a sub-system that I don't recall ever seeing used, not because it was complicated, but because the output wasn't worth the little extra complication it involved.

So since it's basically measuring time, whenever you have a free segment, you can do something minor like sheath a sword. Either you have time to do it, or you don't.

I can see that, yes.
Thanks.

 

[Satyrn]

I like that a lot. I'd also suggest that the Cleric's holy symbol is functionally just a spell focus - it lets the Cleric do exactly the same things that any other spellcaster can do with their spell focus.

I'm not too keen on spell focuses doing double duty, though - the spell focus / holy symbol shouldn't also function as a weapon, or a shield, or any other combat implement. Otherwise they end up being the only types of item anyone uses as a spell focus.

Tony had stated much the samd idea earlier, and I replied suggesting that warrior clerics (those clerics who get a bonus weapon damage at level 8 instead of the cantrip boost) ought to be able to use the holy symbol emblazoned on their shield as a focus because they are really seem to be designedto be sword and board fighting spellcasters.

And then, the other clerics ought to need to hold their holy symbol in hand while casting. It would add a neat little difference between warrior clerics and support clerics (or whatever you want to call Life clerics and their ilk).

I might also add in that eldritch knights and bladelocks can use a bonded weapon as a focus.

That is, I'd complicate your rule with exceptions.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

It sounds a bit like a more in-depth take on RQ strike ranks, a sub-system that I don't recall ever seeing used, not because it was complicated, but because the output wasn't worth the little extra complication it involved.

In the past I would have agreed, although I didn't quite have all the parts.

I realized that what bothered are more about the round and turn-based action economy approach of 5e was that it tied movement to your turn. Once I split that out, it resolved a lot of things, but added it's own complications. Combined with discussions about a "delay" option (which I also can't stand), and encouraging actions to cross into subsequent rounds made me ultimately question the need for rounds at all.

With movement separated, it suddenly seemed like they weren't needed at all. You just need to know when your next turn is. By using the sequential (lower is better) approach Mike Mearles is using, and recognizing that different die types account for speed factor, and then there are no modifiers, makes it super simple.

But the biggest win is that everybody is always engaged in the combat. Because in between your actual turn, you're still able to make decisions and do something by moving, using a bonus action, or reaction. It also breaks everything down to components, so there's a lot more back and forth, rather than watching somebody take and resolve their turn before everybody else gets to do something.

 

[Shiroiken]

It's a LARP/fantasy concept of a buckler so you can still use your hand. Invented specifically to get around rules like these....

Gotcha! I guess I'll have to get rid of it then. Oh well

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Gotcha! I guess I'll have to get rid of it then. Oh well

It's probably an art thing too, that looks cool. That's not to say that it wouldn't work, essentially you're actively blocking with your forearm, and the design has to be one that would stay in place. I'm just saying that if you care about what a buckler actually is, that's not it.

Here's my version:

Buckler
A buckler is a small hand-held shield, usually without an arm strap. (A similar looking small shield that is strapped to the is an oversized vambrace. See armor pieces above.)
It grants advantage to parry attempts.
It can also be used as a light weapon that causes 1d3 bludgeoning damage. If a spike is added to the boss, it does 1d4 piercing damage.
When used in a sap maneuver, it increases the save DC by 2.

In my campaign, shields provide cover. I also allow you to use your attack or your reaction to parry, which is just an opposed attack roll. A buckler is better for that purpose.

Edit: A simple 5e-friendly option would also be a +2 bonus to AC against a single attack that you can see.