D&D General Hands slot economy

[DEFCON 1]

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.

Very true, and my apologies for not actually answering the question.

But I will say that in some ways I think the details of why I don't use 'hand economy' do in fact go a long way towards figuring out the kinds of things one would have to consider if they decided to go in that direction. All the issues I being up are the same issues one would have to deal with and account for, whether they do adopt the economy or they don't. Which to me seems it could be just as useful as someone who just explains what they do... especially if what they do turns out to not be that detailed in the slightest, LOL.

But note taken!

 

[Sword of Spirit]

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.

These are exactly the sorts of things that do need to be addressed. In my own games I start with the RAW for "hand economy" and then tweak it for exactly that purpose. For example, with my house rules, TWF is the most powerful melee style. Therefore, the fact that they don't have any easily available free hand works. I like the rules to make sense in the fiction, and I also like there to be a balance between the options. It doesn't actually end up being any more complicated than the official rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

When running or playing 5E I normally stick to the rules as written. Which may mean dropping a weapon as a free action to cast a spell if I can't spare an item interaction to sheath it.

When running or playing old school with 10 second or 1 minute combat rounds and a single action per character, I'm looser about stowing and drawing items- there's more time and less juggling.

 

[mellored]

I rarely see people swap what they are holding in combat.

Mostly because they took a feat / options / items that makes them good at that particular thing.
I.e. great weapon master with a +2 greatswoed ,isn't going to swap to a dagger very often.

 

[LordEntrails]

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".

Rulings not Rules.
A table should not need a rule for everything that players can try to do that is gonzo or silly. Just make a ruling as the DM, no you can't do that, and continue play.

 

[Li Shenron]

These are exactly the sorts of things that do need to be addressed. In my own games I start with the RAW for "hand economy" and then tweak it for exactly that purpose. For example, with my house rules, TWF is the most powerful melee style. Therefore, the fact that they don't have any easily available free hand works. I like the rules to make sense in the fiction, and I also like there to be a balance between the options. It doesn't actually end up being any more complicated than the official rules.

Ok! So do you play 5e and what specifically did you add or tweak to enforce a TWFer to have his hands occupied?

Say for example that your TWFer wants to retrieve and quaff a potion, or pick up and pocket an object from the floor, then go back to TWFing. What do you rule to make it impaired compared to another PC with a free hand?

 

[AlViking]

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.

I should explain that for a while I did follow the rules of the game fairly strictly and I was trying to explain why I stopped. Paladins can ignore the rules for the most part because only a handful of their spells that will be cast in combat have somatic components, at least in 5e. So that primarily leaves clerics and rangers that are penalized. But many builds of cleric don't use weapons and rangers frequently use bows. So the question is, do you really need to enforce the rules for that small subset? Because the easiest solution as a player is to not use a shield if using weapon. Which then narrows it down even more, likely to clerics that usually cast spells but occasionally want

If you're using the 2024 rules, the glossary clarifies in the attack action that you can equip or unequip a weapon as part of the attack. With previous editions it was a bit murkier but in most cases there was an option to stow or worst case drop a weapon if you need a free hand. So I'm not sure what extra rules you would want or what you're trying to add to the game that would require any new rules since the game already has rules for this even if they vary a bit from edition to edition. It's a pretty niche thing to be concerned about because of realism considering that most of the game puts ease of play and fun over realism which is something many if not most games of all kinds do.

But if you do follow the rules a character that wants to make a difficult climb needs to have both hands free to climb or switch from melee to a bow. If they don't have a shield equipped it can usually be done for free or with an object interaction. Equipping or unequipping a shield is going to take an action for a lot of things but that's usually going to be a judgement call.

The rules we have work fine without any specific house rules. They're annoying for the minority of players that it affects but I don't know that there's anything to fix. If I did still strictly enforce the rules I'd give someone climbing I'd make with a shield equipped, I'd make them stow their weapon and have disadvantage on their athletics check but that's about it.

 

[occam]

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.

But clerics have an advantage over other spellcasters for precisely this reason: their typical spellcasting implement, the Holy Symbol, can be worn rather than held. This doesn't help for spells with Somatic or Material components, but you also see this principle operating in spell selection: just in the Player's Handbook, clerics have Verbal-only spells at every spell level but 8th, something even wizards don't get.

Plus, there's always the War Caster feat, specifically meant (in part) to get around the Somatic component requirement for characters that "have weapons or a Shield in one or both hands".

The rules for a "hands slot economy" are already there in 5e (and prior editions), and corner cases can be DM-adjudicated based on the fiction and personal or table preferences. That some/many people ignore those rules because they have different thresholds for fiddliness doesn't negate that.

(I, for one, pay attention to "hands slots" because not doing so breaks my suspension of disbelief. For example, I rewrote the Crossbow Expert feat to remove the ridiculous "you can load a piece of ammunition into it even if you lack a free hand" comment because, come on! Loading a crossbow in a second or two is already stretching SoD, but how do you reload it with one hand!)

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

In 3.5 it mattered more. You could equip a shield as a move action so the penalty was loss of movement or loss of an attack. 5e is more punishing since you are forced to lose an action if you want to don or doff a sheild


3.5 also let you hold items in your hands if you had a light shield or buckler but not a heavy shield so you had option.

Picking items up off the ground gave enemies attacks of opportunity.

Because of all this, you needed to track stuff.

Are you wearing a heavy shield and need to grab a spell component? Do you need to move? I’d so, you might now want use you move action to take your shield off. And you might want that AC bonus. And if you want to also attack, you have to move, drop your weapon and grab that thing you want. But it matters if the weapon is on the ground because it provokes an AoO.

In 5e, there’s not a lot of need to keep track. Drop an item, pull something out as an item interaction and then pick up your dropped item for free later.

 

[AlViking]

But clerics have an advantage over other spellcasters for precisely this reason: their typical spellcasting implement, the Holy Symbol, can be worn rather than held. This doesn't help for spells with Somatic or Material components, but you also see this principle operating in spell selection: just in the Player's Handbook, clerics have Verbal-only spells at every spell level but 8th, something even wizards don't get.

Plus, there's always the War Caster feat, specifically meant (in part) to get around the Somatic component requirement for characters that "have weapons or a Shield in one or both hands".

The rules for a "hands slot economy" are already there in 5e (and prior editions), and corner cases can be DM-adjudicated based on the fiction and personal or table preferences. That some/many people ignore those rules because they have different thresholds for fiddliness doesn't negate that.

(I, for one, pay attention to "hands slots" because not doing so breaks my suspension of disbelief. For example, I rewrote the Crossbow Expert feat to remove the ridiculous "you can load a piece of ammunition into it even if you lack a free hand" comment because, come on! Loading a crossbow in a second or two is already stretching SoD, but how do you reload it with one hand!)

My bad, I forgot about the war caster feat but it can become a bit of a feat tax. When it comes to material component it goes back to the same issue as somatic components, it seems to only affect arcane casters who chose the few builds where they aren't going to have a free hand anyway. It's not a bad thing to enforce the rules it's just a question of whether it's worthwhile or what the OP is trying to solve with house rules that isn't already covered or will always require a judgement call.

As far as crossbows I agree.