D&D General Hands slot economy

[tetrasodium]

if enemy has a Ready action prepared exactly for that, then sure.
it's a pretty high cost for something that might happen.

you can hold pretty much any 1Handed weapon and grasp a shield with one hand no problem.

but I do agree that we could have had 3 levels of shields.
one for each armor category:

1. Buckler, tied to light armor
+1 AC you can fight normally with weapons and a buckler strap to your hand but you do not gain AC bonus until the start of your next turn
you can carry items or cast spells with "buckler hand" and keep AC bonus

2. Shield, default, tied to medium armor

3. Heavy shield, tied to heavy armor
+3 AC
min STR 15+
-5ft speed
disadvantage on Acrobatics checks

Not my point. When talking about locking down the quantum "hand slot" of her 5e creates... carving a loophole by holding your weapon in your armpit in order to free the hand holding it for spellcasting is such a slapstick move rooted in some form of loophole seeking tedious malicious compliance that it doesn't require any action from an opponent to slap it to the ground with their own weapon just by virtue of knowing how to hold and use their own weapon

 

[Horwath]

Not my point. When talking about locking down the quantum "hand slot" of her 5e creates... carving a loophole by holding your weapon in your armpit in order to free the hand holding it for spellcasting is such a slapstick move rooted in some form of loophole seeking tedious malicious compliance that it doesn't require any action from an opponent to slap it to the ground with their own weapon just by virtue of knowing how to hold and use their own weapon

maybe spells that are not touch, cone or personal range should provoke AoO, then you can always use AoO to disarm the caster.

I would rather have ranged spells suffer AoO than to worry about "hand" slots.

 

[tetrasodium]

maybe spells that are not touch, cone or personal range should provoke AoO, then you can always use AoO to disarm the caster.

I would rather have ranged spells suffer AoO than to worry about "hand" slots.

The spellcasting provokes an AoO thing should never have been removed just as the clearly defined and present on the character sheet body slots being turned into the same quantum clown show of armpits multiple quivers/backpacks/etc and such was a mistake.

The quantum hand slot that 5e bends over to roll out a red carpet for only serves to combine all of those design mistakes into a situation that encourages the sort of "if you the GM make an in the moment gm call in response to me as a player inventing new rules to break the already ridiculously overly lax rules on free hands & casting I'm going to cite raw and mechanics that you are violating or maybe find a Crawford clip where wotc says holding your weapon in your armpit so you can cast a spell without it in your hand is RAI" disruption in play where the GM looks bad no matter what & everyone ignores that the player is inventing rules. It's the kind of disruption in play that I have no interest in derailing my sessions with, no matter how it's settled, that in the moment stretch and narrative result lost the moment and nobody cares about anything but the annoying disruption that delayed their next turn even more.

 

[CreamCloud0]

but I do agree that we could have had 3 levels of shields.
one for each armor category:

1. Buckler, tied to light armor
+1 AC you can fight normally with weapons and a buckler strap to your hand but you do not gain AC bonus until the start of your next turn
you can carry items or cast spells with "buckler hand" and keep AC bonus

2. Shield, default, tied to medium armor

3. Heavy shield, tied to heavy armor
+3 AC
min STR 15+
-5ft speed
disadvantage on Acrobatics checks

this is quite close to how i would implement shields (i'd implement heavy shield slightly differently myself) but i'd much prefer shields to be their own category of proficiency rather than being tied so tightly to the other specific armour tiers, so that you could end up with things like default Cleric with Heavy Armour proficiency who can't use shields, or a Monk with no armour proficiencies but who does use shields.

as it is, shield proficiency is basically Medium+, and i'd like to see that + to be able to be, or not be, alongside any other level of armour proficiency.

 

[Horwath]

this is quite close to how i would implement shields (i'd implement heavy shield slightly differently myself) but i'd much prefer shields to be their own category of proficiency rather than being tied so tightly to the other specific armour tiers, so that you could end up with things like default Cleric with Heavy Armour proficiency who can't use shields, or a Monk with no armour proficiencies but who does use shields.

as it is, shield proficiency is basically Medium+, and i'd like to see that + to be able to be, or not be, alongside any other level of armour proficiency.

the whole armor proficiency is kind of dumb anyway, its just pure gamist thing, for the sake of some balance I guess.

but the str requirement has merit and it should be for all armors. no proficiency, only str.
some classes can get +2 to effective str for using armor.

as for shields, they should be available to all like all simple weapons.
it's just a part of weapon set, not really armor.

you have:
TWF
2handed weapon
"sword" and board

and also 1Hander + free hand if you really desperately need a free hand for something.

 

[CreamCloud0]

the whole armor proficiency is kind of dumb anyway, its just pure gamist thing, for the sake of some balance I guess.

but the str requirement has merit and it should be for all armors. no proficiency, only str.
some classes can get +2 to effective str for using armor.

as for shields, they should be available to all like all simple weapons.
it's just a part of weapon set, not really armor.

you have:
TWF
2handed weapon
"sword" and board

and also 1Hander + free hand if you really desperately need a free hand for something.

unfortunately i disagree with most of what you say here, but i have no real desire to start quibbling over hypothetical implementations so i'll leave it at that.