D&D General Hands slot economy

[Li Shenron]

This is not a subject limited to the current D&D edition. Every now and then I ask myself how the game would change if I introduced a more rigid "hands slot economy" (please feel free to suggest a better name) by which every character has strict rules on what they can hold or how they can use their hands in one combat turn. To be clear, this would not apply out of combat, so it would go hand-in-hand with the well known "action economy".

The real gist of the idea would be that on each round each character would need to decide in advance whether they want to keep a free hand for certain possible activities (such as casting a spell, picking up items, quaffing a potion, drawing ammunition or operating a simple object such as a door or lever) or even both hands for more complex activities (climbing, grappling or lockpicking).

There can be still options for changing your mind during the turn, such as dropping something to free one hand at no action cost, or stowing it more securely for a higher action cost.

But what would not be an option, is to use narrative to bend the rules and avoid the cost, such as "I have a lace on my mace so I can just grab it back freely after casting a spell", or "I hold my two-handed greatsword in my teeth while climbing" or "I have my holy symbol tattooed on my forehead so I don't need a hand".

Essentially a way of dealing with this in the same way as "action economy" where normally players aren't allowed to get actions discounts for narrative ideas, so everyone is really on equal footing, that is why I am referring to the idea as another "economy".

So is someone using this sort of more codified rules in their games, and to which D&D edition (or other RPG) are you applying them to?

edit: actual question highlighted for clarity

 

[DrJawaPhD]

5e has strict* rules on what can be held and swapped in your hands during combat. *Strictly defined anyways - they are rather lenient in terms of how many weapon swaps you can do in a turn, but the rules are at least clearly defined

I'm not familiar with older editions, but I'd say start with the 5e rules and potentially modify as desired to make the rules more restrictive as desired

 

[Horwath]

But what would not be an option, is to use narrative to bend the rules and avoid the cost, such as "I have a lace on my mace so I can just grab it back freely after casting a spell",

I just posted this in another thread, when S components and weapons come into play:

and yes, you CAN hold a weapon and shield in the same hand.

 

[Li Shenron]

5e has strict* rules on what can be held and swapped in your hands during combat. *Strictly defined anyways - they are rather lenient in terms of how many weapon swaps you can do in a turn, but the rules are at least clearly defined

I'm not familiar with older editions, but I'd say start with the 5e rules and potentially modify as desired to make the rules more restrictive as desired

That doesn't directly answer my question, but I get that you are playing 5e?

So, in the context of 5e for you, are you using the 5e rules for how you use objects in your hands during combat strictly as-written, or are you using them only roughly/approximately?

 

[aco175]

Is this a player issue at your table? It seems like a lot of work to make and track for not a lot of pay. There are examples of one-handed people climbing or grappling. I see previews for a movie of a wrestler in high school who is one-handed and I saw a college basketball player on the women's team one-handed. If a starting out halfling can out strength a goliath, then picturing these things is not much.

You could introduce a DEX save or check to hold onto something or swap hands.
"You attack with your longsword with two hands to deal 1d10 and now you cannot open the door."
"Fine, then I'll kick it down."
"You already moved 30ft, so you cannot use you legs."
"Dude, really?"
"OK, you can make a DEX check DC12 to just be able to kick the door. Then make a STR check DC15 to force the door open."

 

[AlViking]

There's no need for any new rules for spells with somatic components you just have to enforce the rules we have and have had for as long as I remember. I don't have my books handy but you've needed a free hand for several editions. Most GMs don't really enforce it though in my experience because it tends to have no effect on wizards and sorcerers while heavily penalizes character that use a shield and a weapon. I even had a GM that stated that I couldn't cast a spell because I was holding a two-handed sword.

But what's the alternative? Drop your weapon, cast the spell, use your object interaction to pick up the weapon? As the OP stated tie the weapon to your wrist so it never falls to the ground but ignore the fact that you have this 5 pound weight swinging around wildly as you are doing "forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures"? Ignore the time needed to tie and untie the weapon when something else comes up?

Most GMs ignore the requirement for a free hand when casting a spell unless your hands are bound because it's simply not fun for the player and he workarounds are a bit silly. Meanwhile it makes it more difficult to play a cleric that wants to use a weapon and shield in particular.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My biggest issue with 'hand economy' has always been that the penalties associated with having to "juggle" items for those classes with weapons / components etc. has never been commensurate with the bonuses you get when you finally accomplish what you wanted to do.

For example... you have two paladins, one who has a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other and the second who has a two-handed weapon. Then when it comes time for the paladin to cast a spell, the two-handed weapon wielder gets to just take a hand off the weapon and cast, while the other one has to drop their weapon on the ground or sheathe their weapon etc. in order to get a hand free to cast... and then has to use actions after the fact to get their weapon back in hand. But does the +2 AC bonus that paladin gets from the shield (while simultaneously not getting the bonus to damage that a 2H weapon gives) offset the action economy penalties they have to go through in order to cast? Usually not at all-- the balance between the two is +2 AC vs extra damage from 2H-- and thus the sword and board paladin is getting penalized in their spellcasting for no reason whatsoever.

So any attempts at trying to introduce some genuine sort of 'hand economy' has to take these issues into account, for instance giving casting bonuses to the sword and board character that goes through the problems of swapping weapons for open hands etc. that the 2H weapon character doesn't go through. Otherwise... you are basically just going to find every player just taking the easiest path and forsaking the more difficult ones. You'll get everyone using 2H weapons and no one using shields because the economy just isn't worth it.

It could be done... but it would involve a much more detailed design that really delves into the true mechanical balances between one-handed weapon alone, two one-handed weapons in both hands to dual-wield, one-handed weapon and shield, two-handed weapon, which spells have somatic components, which of those somatic components can be accomplished with a hand holding something, what are the needed material components, which material components have to have an open hand to be brought out and presented versus a material component that can be attached or emblazoned on an already-presented object (or indeed a weapon already in hand being the material component) so on and so forth. Because at the end of the day... I think most players will just take the easiest route more often than not. And whatever roadblocks get thrown up in defense of 'hand economy' will get worked around in the easiest way possible. Because usually it isn't worth it.

Hand economy is like spell components themselves, encumbrance, and tracking rations/ammo/light sources. There are some players out there who find those "puzzles" to be compelling... but most of them don't want to bother, they just want to kill things and play the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is this a player issue at your table?

No, and I am not asking for suggestions. I am asking if someone does use some sort of rules for this, in which case they are welcome to tell what they are actually using.

 

[Li Shenron]

Most GMs don't really enforce it though in my experience ...

... but most of them don't want to bother, they just want to kill things and play the game.

Thanks for your insights, most of which aligns with what I think myself. But you could have just answered that you don’t use the sort of codified rules I am asking about. I want to hear from those who do, in order to understand how it works for them.

 

[Krachek]

For 5ed economist would praise for a
Left hand bonus action and right hand bonus action.