CapnZapp
Legend
Even though 5E is far friendlier than any previous edition, it still inexplicably features a couple of unbelievably complicated rules for no good reason. While not crucial by any means, Level Up would still do well to finally fix the following issues.
Most players are only interested in the end result of "I'm using a two-handed weapon", "I'm using two weapons", "sword and shield", or "I have a hand free for showmanship and flair". Instead of repeating pretty much the same set of simulationist rules 5E inherited from 3E, how about... just not doing that?
This ties into verbal, somatic and material components. Time to finally give this legacy junk a rest. Forcing players to keep track whether spells need a hand free (or worse, how many droppings of bat guano you have left) simply isn't the 5E way, or shouldn't have been. The far simpler and friendlier approach is to simply say "Paladins can cast paladin spells when wielding a sword and shield", full stop. "Wizards can cast wizard spells using a hand or by waving around a crystal, wand or staff". GMs can take it from there, trust me, they really can.
The few spells that make loud noise, or need extended movement, etc should be listed in their respective spell descriptions. Material components (that matter) already are listed there. Otherwise just assume a Bard can cast bardy spells, a Druid can cast druidy spells etc without no hassle. If you want, say, a Cleric to choose between sword-and-shield and one-hand-free "loadouts" simply give them different spell lists. Don't make players have to note niggly details about individual spells. (And for the love of Crom, don't first have general rules that make the lack of a hand free appear as a significant limitation, and then add a special rule that lets cleric cast by painting a symbol on their shield or simply hanging the symbol around their neck, making the player go "why did I have to read that hand use malarkey again?!")
Just assume people move their hands whenever appropriate. Retaining "hand optimization" as a minigame is not appreciated.
Don't repeat the WotC clusterfrak with unarmed attacks not being weapons. If your design can't simply list "fist/foot" in the weapons table, with zero special exceptions, you're doing it wrong. Yes, it really is that simple.
Any character race/ancestry/heritage/whatever with natural weapons/armor should not have that instantly overshadowed by regular equipment.
Finally, leave object interaction explicitly in the hands of the GM: The only rule is "you can open exactly as many chests, pull as many ropes, sheath exactly as many weapons in your turn as the DM allows". Embrace the fact that D&D characters rely on their weapon loadout to function. Having to decide where to put your weapon just to open a door should be considered just as mundane as toilet breaks. In other words, not something the rules concern themselves with. Finally make a ruleset where a Greataxe Barbarian or Twin Dagger Rogue never has any reason to drop a weapon as a free action for later retrieval.
If an action simply can't be performed with weapon(s) in hand, list that specifically at each action. Or better yet, impose a penalty so high-level heroes can do it anyway. Only differentiate between "armed" and "unarmed". Swimming or climbing while armed gains the penalty, but noone cares how you're armed. (The way you already can swim in full plate mail with a small penalty should be a hint!) Then have two simple actions "stow" and "wield" to go from armed to unarmed and vice versa; without bothering to count the number and nature of items stowed or wielded. (The notion Zorro should be able to stow his weapon faster than either of the Barbarian or War Cleric is a thoroughly obsolete notion for a game of 5E's complexity level, with or without the Level Up add-on)
The simple truth is that no class or build ever is balanced with these minuscule variations in mind, so why not simply strike it from the game, and trust the heroes to do their jobs without us players having to micro manage their hand usage?
Most players are only interested in the end result of "I'm using a two-handed weapon", "I'm using two weapons", "sword and shield", or "I have a hand free for showmanship and flair". Instead of repeating pretty much the same set of simulationist rules 5E inherited from 3E, how about... just not doing that?
This ties into verbal, somatic and material components. Time to finally give this legacy junk a rest. Forcing players to keep track whether spells need a hand free (or worse, how many droppings of bat guano you have left) simply isn't the 5E way, or shouldn't have been. The far simpler and friendlier approach is to simply say "Paladins can cast paladin spells when wielding a sword and shield", full stop. "Wizards can cast wizard spells using a hand or by waving around a crystal, wand or staff". GMs can take it from there, trust me, they really can.
The few spells that make loud noise, or need extended movement, etc should be listed in their respective spell descriptions. Material components (that matter) already are listed there. Otherwise just assume a Bard can cast bardy spells, a Druid can cast druidy spells etc without no hassle. If you want, say, a Cleric to choose between sword-and-shield and one-hand-free "loadouts" simply give them different spell lists. Don't make players have to note niggly details about individual spells. (And for the love of Crom, don't first have general rules that make the lack of a hand free appear as a significant limitation, and then add a special rule that lets cleric cast by painting a symbol on their shield or simply hanging the symbol around their neck, making the player go "why did I have to read that hand use malarkey again?!"
)Just assume people move their hands whenever appropriate. Retaining "hand optimization" as a minigame is not appreciated.
Don't repeat the WotC clusterfrak with unarmed attacks not being weapons. If your design can't simply list "fist/foot" in the weapons table, with zero special exceptions, you're doing it wrong. Yes, it really is that simple.
Any character race/ancestry/heritage/whatever with natural weapons/armor should not have that instantly overshadowed by regular equipment.
Finally, leave object interaction explicitly in the hands of the GM: The only rule is "you can open exactly as many chests, pull as many ropes, sheath exactly as many weapons in your turn as the DM allows". Embrace the fact that D&D characters rely on their weapon loadout to function. Having to decide where to put your weapon just to open a door should be considered just as mundane as toilet breaks. In other words, not something the rules concern themselves with. Finally make a ruleset where a Greataxe Barbarian or Twin Dagger Rogue never has any reason to drop a weapon as a free action for later retrieval.
If an action simply can't be performed with weapon(s) in hand, list that specifically at each action. Or better yet, impose a penalty so high-level heroes can do it anyway. Only differentiate between "armed" and "unarmed". Swimming or climbing while armed gains the penalty, but noone cares how you're armed. (The way you already can swim in full plate mail with a small penalty should be a hint!) Then have two simple actions "stow" and "wield" to go from armed to unarmed and vice versa; without bothering to count the number and nature of items stowed or wielded. (The notion Zorro should be able to stow his weapon faster than either of the Barbarian or War Cleric is a thoroughly obsolete notion for a game of 5E's complexity level, with or without the Level Up add-on)
The simple truth is that no class or build ever is balanced with these minuscule variations in mind, so why not simply strike it from the game, and trust the heroes to do their jobs without us players having to micro manage their hand usage?
Last edited:
