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

[Ilbranteloth]

It is, but hopefully you have no problem with that, since by now, you know it isn't about applying common sense patches to the RAW, but to envision a complete rewrite that ditches the rules-words of the PHB.

In other words, there's nothing particularly wrong with something simple as just saying "if you drop something, that's the quickest object interaction, so you can probably do one more" and "if you pick something up, that's the slowest object interaction, so even if you want to also drop one, that rounds up to two object interactions and not one".

It's just not what I started the thread to discuss.

No need to get passive-aggressive about it. It's as simple as recognizing that I wasn't asking "what's the minimal RAW patch that fixes the object interaction rules?" when I was asking "Imagine every single word of the RAW was erased. How would you write its replacement?"

OK, to simplify this "rewrite in its entirety" requirement, can you at least provide all of the rules that you'd like us to rewrite, or at least page numbers and a description of which paragraphs?

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Whereas the actual buckler was invented specifically to get around the rule that donning or doffing a shield requires an action, since it is carried, drawn, and wielded just like a sword. A small, blunt, pancake-shaped sword. So don't knock inventions for getting around rules. Real people do it too.

But yeah, I tend to assume that any hands-free protective gear like a vambrace is included in your Armor Class by default as part of, y'know, your armor. "Can I strap a shield to my chest and get +2 AC for blocking with that?" "That's called a breastplate."

Well, no not really. That has nothing to do with why the buckler was invented. Any round shield with a boss (the metal half-sphere that sticks out of the front) was wielded by a handle that goes across the middle of the boss on the back. The method of using such a shield, was to simply pick it up, and then you "punched" at the incoming attack to deflect it. Those types of shields typically didn't have guige straps that were used to strap it to your back, although a targe (a round shield without a boss and utilizing straps - one over the forearm and the second to hold with your hand) might. But shields with a boss are older and are very quick to just grab and go.

More importantly, though, the amount of time it took to don armor or grab a shield were also irrelevant. War was a prepared thing, with plenty of time to prepare on your side of the battlefield. It would have been very rare for somebody to worry about whether it took 2 seconds or 15 seconds to prepare their shield. Just like it didn't usually matter that it could take as long as 30 seconds or longer to load the heaviest crossbows. Because you could prepare a couple of crossbows before the other side charged, and once the other side was closing for melee, you'd drop your crossbow and draw a melee weapon.

By the time bucklers were coming around, they were designed to be used against lighter weapons (rapiers, etc.) and opponents wearing less armor. The use of a buckler was similar to the old round shields, but smaller and faster, which is necessary against something like a rapier. The point of balance is closer to the hand, which allows you to maneuver the blade more quickly, particularly the tip.

The buckler, dagger (particularly the main-gauche) or a cloak were all used to not only provide a defense against a quick weapon like that, but to hopefully push it out of position and open an opportunity for your riposte while they recover. So it has nothing to do with the speed of arming your shield. It was all about how to better defend yourself against the emerging weapons and fighting styles of the period. Note that neither were particularly useful on a battle shield with armored fighters wielding longswords and such. Neither the rapier nor the buckler were heavy enough for that type of fighting.

So yes, the inventions were designed for a purpose, but not to get around game rules. Sometimes they were designed to be faster, sometimes more powerful, etc. But on the other hand, there were a few thousand years of evolution of these types of weapons, shields and armor up through the renaissance. The designs that were developed were developed because they worked against the weapons and tactics of the time. A vambrace was designed to protect your forearm and was a fitted piece of armor. A shield strapped to your arm will rotate around your arm too much to be effective without the stabilization of using your hand to prevent it from doing so.

So like I said, it really doesn't make any difference if you wish to use it or not. Unless it makes a difference to you as to whether it's got a historical basis (not a requirement in a fantasy world), and is reasonable expected to be functional (also not a requirement). Designing and adding new types of armor, shields, etc. is just fine. But for the armor that's based off of historical types, I like to try to know how they worked and reflect that in the rules.

Regardless, my point was simply what he was describing wasn't a buckler. He asked about the origin of what he was calling a buckler. And that's it.

 

[CapnZapp]

OK, to simplify this "rewrite in its entirety" requirement, can you at least provide all of the rules that you'd like us to rewrite, or at least page numbers and a description of which paragraphs?

Nah. I think I'm done. The people who wanted to post in the spirit of the thread have probably done so already.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Nah. I think I'm done. The people who wanted to post in the spirit of the thread have probably done so already.

Well, since I only found it yesterday, whatever. I'd actually be quite willing to do it, but as I said, all of your examples in the OP are about spellcasting, and I haven't had time to read all of the posts.

So if you're calling it done, what's the consensus? What did we come up with?

 

[steeldragons]

I was wondering about the idea of introducing components as you advance spell levels.

Namely...

A 1st level spell will have a verbal or somatic component.
A 2nd level spell will have a verbal and somatic components.
A 3rd level spell will have a 2 of the following: verbal and/or somatic and/or material components.
A 4th level spell may have 2 of the 3 or all 3.
A 5th level spell will have all 3.
6th and higher level spells are suitably complex, powerful, and intricate enough to automatically have all three components, typically with high gp value special material components and may require multiple persons for proper verbal and/or somatic elements.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

More importantly, though, the amount of time it took to don armor or grab a shield were also irrelevant. War was a prepared thing, with plenty of time to prepare on your side of the battlefield. It would have been very rare for somebody to worry about whether it took 2 seconds or 15 seconds to prepare their shield.

"War"? Bucklers, like rapiers, main-gauches, and cloaks, were the tools of the street-fighter, not the soldier. I'm a little bemused that I have to say this, because you are clearly already aware exactly how these weapons were used, and even mention that they would not be very effective against battlefield arms and armor. So how can you be saying that that draw speed doesn't matter? It's obviously one of the things for which bucklers were optimized. When Romeo Montague, proceeding down a Veronese avenue, turns a corner and finds himself face-to-face with the murderous Tybalt, he has every reason to care whether it takes 2 seconds or 15 seconds to prepare his shield. It's by the same token that he's wearing a light sword in a scabbard on his belt rather than lugging around a pike or a crossbow.

 

[Oofta]

Well, since I only found it yesterday, whatever. I'd actually be quite willing to do it, but as I said, all of your examples in the OP are about spellcasting, and I haven't had time to read all of the posts.

So if you're calling it done, what's the consensus? What did we come up with?

I don't think there was a consensus, because Mr Zapp could never give much useful feedback on what he wanted. IMHO rewriting rules without a goal is pointless, but we could never get an understanding of what goal was. Kind of like saying "I want to go somewhere but I don't want to take the car." When asked where you're going the response is "I already told you, I don't want to take the car. "

The issue most people see is that classes that are melee based have issues with using the sword and weapon style. If you have to have a free hand to cast spells, that presents a bit of an issue unless you have the war caster feat which means you no longer need a free hand.

An exploit of the current rules is that you can in theory drop your weapon, cast a spell and then pick up your weapon. Dropping is considered no action, while picking up the weapon takes up your free object interaction for the turn.

So, if you want to stop the exploit because it's silly you can either change the rules so the exploit is no longer necessary, or change it so that the exploit is no longer worthwhile.

To change the rules so that the exploit is no longer necessary is pretty straightforward. Let people perform the somatic component of their spell with a hand that is holding a weapon if you can move the hand. So no somatic if you're tied up (at least without some checks), but other than that sword and shield if fine. In my experience, this is what most DMs do.

To change the rules so that the exploit is no longer worthwhile has a few options.

• Dropping a weapon really means that you set it down to avoid damaging yourself (dropping a hammer on your foot) or the weapon. Therefore dropping a weapon takes up your free object interaction so you can't pick it up on your turn.
• Picking up an object provokes an opportunity attack.
• Picking up an object requires an action.
• Have intelligent enemies ready actions to attack or steal the unattended weapon.

Of course the DM can also always say "You can't drop your weapon cast a spell and pick up your weapon. That's just silly"

I personally let people cast weapons with a weapon in their hand (fulfilling the somatic component by pointing at the target for example) because it fits my vision of how spells work.

So sorry for the long-winded response. I actually think this is an interesting topic. Probably should have just started a different thread and let this one die after I was told I wasn't responding in the correct fashion.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, to simplify this "rewrite in its entirety" requirement, can you at least provide all of the rules that you'd like us to rewrite, or at least page numbers and a description of which paragraphs?

Well, since I only found it yesterday, whatever. I'd actually be quite willing to do it, but as I said...

I don't think he's even looking for a re-write, just an outright replacement, an alternative. You needn't know or even look at the rules in question, just come up with your own version for the subjects they cover:

the subjects of hand use, object interaction and spell components.

You can lift 'object interaction' from your initiative rules, for instance, so you're a fair chunk of the way there, already. Since the request was for something /simple/ (which was beyond me, my attempt was still fairly complicated), there shouldn't be that much too it, either...

...certainly nothing that should've taken 150+ posts...

So if you're calling it done, what's the consensus? What did we come up with?

IDK about a consensus, exactly, but AFAICT, the majority response can be boiled down to "STFU, Zapp!"

I don't think there was a consensus, because Mr Zapp could never give much useful feedback on what he wanted.

I suspect it'd be very disrespectful to ommit a title, that way, were Zapp really a capn, let alone a Captain.

Zapp in this thread reminds of Cleese in the Cheese Shop sketch.

I mean, 5e is all about DM Empowerment, we're all supposed to be 'making the game our own,' coming up with our own variations and modules as well as choosing from those in the DMG and UA & DMsG and so forth. But walk into the community and /ask/ for something like that? Nope, fresh out of the one you waanted, we've got lots of others, though, just tell us what you want... nope, sorry, no such thing, we've got plenty of 'em, though, just tell us what you want...

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think there was a consensus, because Mr Zapp could never give much useful feedback on what he wanted. IMHO rewriting rules without a goal is pointless, but we could never get an understanding of what goal was. Kind of like saying "I want to go somewhere but I don't want to take the car." When asked where you're going the response is "I already told you, I don't want to take the car. "


So sorry for the long-winded response. I actually think this is an interesting topic. Probably should have just started a different thread and let this one die after I was told I wasn't responding in the correct fashion.

If you didn't understand even after being told repeatedly and even given an example, you could have asked follow-up questions. But you were never interested in reading my original question and just went ahead discussing your own thing.

I think starting your own thread is a GREAT idea.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Oofta]

If you didn't understand even after being told repeatedly and even given an example, you could have asked follow-up questions. But you were never interested in reading my original question and just went ahead discussing your own thing.





Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Here's the thing. I'm interested in the topic and how others deal with it and ideas of how to fix it.

You kept trying to shut down the conversation because the responses weren't in exactly the format you wanted.

But the person that starts a thread doesn't own the thread. Threads regularly meander back and forth, sometimes shifting. Once a topic is out there in the wilds, it has a life of it's own.

I don't understand why that bothers you.