Level Up (A5E) Object interaction, spell components, unarmed attacks and hand usage

[CapnZapp]

Tell the reader, where? In the write-up for each differently-working spell?

That'd be fine if there's only ten such exceptions, but a lot of redundancy if there's 100.

Also, your arguing for removal of hand usage and object-interaction rules - while laudable in its attempts to make things more efficient - IMO opens up a lot of room for abuse and, in a way, serves to make the PCs even more powerful.

How does it make the PCs more powerful, you ask? Because far more often it's the PCs, rather than their opponents, who have enough possessions to have to worry about what is in which hand. Removing restrictions such that, in effect, anything the PC is carrying can be in either hand at any time serves to make life much easier for the PCs while not helping (most of) the monsters at all; hence, it's a PC power boost in relation to their opponents.

And PCs in 5e already have more than enough going for them.

Most of the time, when you look at a sacred cow you'll find it's achieved that status for a good reason.

If you could come up with any of those reasons, or how this makes characters too powerful, you would have a point.

I don't see any, though. Are you sure you're not just being cautious because you assume there is value in these rules...?

Questioning that is my entire point.

And I'm not trying to be snarky, either. I genuinely do not see any reason to keep the detail level on these rules, not in a game like 5E, which trusts the DM to a much larger extent than 3E ever did.

So I woul love nothing more than to be able to persuade you Lanefan, since you're sceptical enough to bother with a reply. Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

PS. As for your question about component exceptions, obviously wide ones could be addressed at the class level. The Bard for instance.

I'm instead thinking about how the rules ask players to find, keep track of, and remember the spells which lack somatic components, for instance, when trying to cast while bound or similar.

In the context of 5E I question the value of that level of subtlety, especially since it applies to any caster with his hands already full.

It is a hassle. Is it worth it? Would something important be lost by, let's say... simply skipping all of it??

 

[Krachek]

It’s a matter of balance.
you have verbal component, players ask to choke caster,
somatic component, can we restrain him?
material or focus, can we disarm him?
do fighter have to worry about space need to swing their weapon? Polearm user fight without concern in sewer, cave, hang on a cliff.
is magic powerful enough to add restriction with component, interrupt, break concentration?

 

[tetrasodium]

It’s a matter of balance.
you have verbal component, players ask to choke caster,
somatic component, can we restrain him?
material or focus, can we disarm him?
do fighter have to worry about space need to swing their weapon? Polearm user fight without concern in sewer, cave, hang on a cliff.
is magic powerful enough to add restriction with component, interrupt, break concentration?

Yea it seems that way sure, but go look through the spell list & find how many exemptions from the vsm inclusion there are. Most classes can probably count them on one hand with fingers left over. everyone ignores them because there are so few exemptions that they are always relevant & there aren't enough to do any kind of conceptual buildwork around.

 

[Lanefan]

If you could come up with any of those reasons, or how this makes characters too powerful, you would have a point.

I did, in the very post you quoted.

To repeat myself:

Because far more often it's the PCs, rather than their opponents, who have enough possessions to have to worry about what is in which hand. Removing restrictions such that, in effect, anything the PC is carrying can be in either hand at any time serves to make life much easier for the PCs while not helping (most of) the monsters at all; hence, it's a PC power boost in relation to their opponents.

I don't see any, though. Are you sure you're not just being cautious because you assume there is value in these rules...?

There's value in any rule that helps in the fiction to tone down the ability to cast spells.

And I'm not trying to be snarky, either. I genuinely do not see any reason to keep the detail level on these rules, not in a game like 5E, which trusts the DM to a much larger extent than 3E ever did.

Ah, but my point of comparison is not 3e. It's 1e, which put far more in the DM's hands than 5e ever has and yet still had very harsh guidelines for spellcasting (must be completely free to move, must be able to coherently speak, spells take time to cast and can be interrupted by anything, casting in melee is impossible, etc.) - guidelines which I've always appreciated and which I've long thought did a great deal to keep casters in check.

In fact, IMO it was the removal of these guidelines that made casters unstoppable in 3e. 4e-5e went the wrong way about fixing this - far too concerned with nerfing spells instead of just making them trickier to cast.

1e also had harsh (too harsh, IMO, given the length of 1e rounds) guidelines on what one could do with drawing/sheathing/switching objects in hand. I don't mind easing up on these to a point, but removing them entirely is too much - particularly in the 5e environment where rounds are so much shorter.

 

[Lanefan]

PS. As for your question about component exceptions, obviously wide ones could be addressed at the class level. The Bard for instance.

I'm instead thinking about how the rules ask players to find, keep track of, and remember the spells which lack somatic components, for instance, when trying to cast while bound or similar.

In the context of 5E I question the value of that level of subtlety, especially since it applies to any caster with his hands already full.

It is a hassle. Is it worth it? Would something important be lost by, let's say... simply skipping all of it??

One way to make it simple for the players - and I admit it's work that either the DM or a player has to do once as for some reason the game doesn't do it for us - is to make a "short list" of spells, listed by level and class, where the key info is presented in one line. A few hypothetical spells in the 2nd-level Wizard list might look like (in a system that uses casting times; and imagine there's a tab where each '---' appears to put these in nice neat columns):

SPELL --- RANGE --- AREA of EFFECT --- DURATION --- CAST TIME --- COMP --- SAVE?
Rope Trick --- 50' --- 10x10' cube --- 30 min/level --- 2 seg --- VSM --- N
Shatter --- 30' --- 1 object --- Instantaneous --- 3 seg --- V --- Y

With a list like this the key info for all a class' spells for a given level or two can be on one page. Or, the player can make up customized lists like this for a particular PC's spells if needed. And obviously, if you need anything more specific you still look at the full write-up as before.

Once you've done this, if your caster is tied up and you need to see what you can cast without S components, it's a triviality to just look down the list for any spells that don't show 'S' in the 'COMP' column.

 

[CapnZapp]

I did, in the very post you quoted.

To repeat myself:

Because far more often it's the PCs, rather than their opponents, who have enough possessions to have to worry about what is in which hand. Removing restrictions such that, in effect, anything the PC is carrying can be in either hand at any time serves to make life much easier for the PCs while not helping (most of) the monsters at all; hence, it's a PC power boost in relation to their opponents.

Nope, that's just you speculating.

Have you actually tried it? I submit exactly no 5E caster will become uncontrollably overpowered here. Having to track components and what you hold in what hands simply doesn't have that power.

Again, I ask you all to not simply assume there is a reason for these rules (other than reminding you of old times). What good does it actually do?

Nothing, I say!

Ah, but my point of comparison is not 3e. It's 1e, which put far more in the DM's hands than 5e ever has and yet still had very harsh guidelines for spellcasting (must be completely free to move, must be able to coherently speak, spells take time to cast and can be interrupted by anything, casting in melee is impossible, etc.) - guidelines which I've always appreciated and which I've long thought did a great deal to keep casters in check.

I'm sorry but none of that has applied to most tables for thirty years...

What I'm arguing is, and now I'm addressing the entire audience, that 5E has already cast off nearly every niggly little rule of the D&D editions of old. Yet, one peculiar exception persist - in the form of spell component and hand interaction.

I say they are a relic - they read as a rule written from an old edition, not appropriate for a game of 5th Edition's simplicity and friendliness. And since they serve no purpose, cast them off entirely in Level Up!

 

[CapnZapp]

Once you've done this, if your caster is tied up and you need to see what you can cast without S components, it's a triviality to just look down the list for any spells that don't show 'S' in the 'COMP' column.

With respect, I'm envisioning something far simpler and more presentable.

Don't hide the rules behind components. In fact, skip "somatic" and "verbal" entirely. If the rules say "you need to be able to speak and you must have one hand free" then add a line to each and every spell with an exception: "You can cast this spell even while tied up" (or some easy language like that) and then make sure that only applies for spells where it actually makes sense (keeping the number of exceptions as low as possible).

If a class relies on holding weapons or shields in his hands, don't make him have to shuffle that around. If he gets spells, assume he has learned to cast them without any hands free! (Either that, or give him only out-of-combat spells)

 

[Lanefan]

Nope, that's just you speculating.

Have you actually tried it? I submit exactly no 5E caster will become uncontrollably overpowered here. Having to track components and what you hold in what hands simply doesn't have that power.

You're talking about three things at once here: hand usage, hand freedom, and component tracking. Let's break 'em out.

Component tracking, except for those components that carry a monetary cost, is a pain. I've already conceded this, and noted the 3e idea of the 'components pouch' is a good compromise: if you've got your pouch you've got whatever minor components you need.

Hand usage mostly applies durign combat, and sometimes during exploration: tracking what is being carried in which hand. The rules have always said (quite rightly IMO) that - for example - sheathing a weapon and drawing another takes a certain amount of time, however that particular edition measures such (a segment, an action, whatever). What you seem to be proposing is to take away that time, which has the end result of having everything a character can carry in effect be in its hands at once, one thing per hand - whatever you need >poof< it's there. I can get behind a magic backpack having this ability, but beyond that it verges on ridiculous.

Hand freedom is another thing again, that only really matters to casters. Here the issue is whether casters can cast while bound or being jostled or attacked or are otherwise hampered in their movements. Below you state this hasn't mattered to most tables for thirty years; I'll give you twenty years instead, i.e. since the release of 3e and the corresponding gleeful player-side acceptance of its colossal blunder on this point. My point is that it should be made to matter again - you can't cast if you're restrained or under attack, barring a very few spells noted as exceptions. Once this is done, some spell nerfs can maybe come off.

I'm sorry but none of that has applied to most tables for thirty years...

What I'm arguing is, and now I'm addressing the entire audience, that 5E has already cast off nearly every niggly little rule of the D&D editions of old. Yet, one peculiar exception persist - in the form of spell component and hand interaction.

I say they are a relic - they read as a rule written from an old edition, not appropriate for a game of 5th Edition's simplicity and friendliness. And since they serve no purpose, cast them off entirely in Level Up!

A5e seems to want to go more complex, not less. Not sure how this fits.

 

[Lanefan]

If a class relies on holding weapons or shields in his hands, don't make him have to shuffle that around. If he gets spells, assume he has learned to cast them without any hands free! (Either that, or give him only out-of-combat spells)

This takes away the sometimes-painful choice a martial caster has to make - whether to drop/sheathe weapon and cast, or keep fighting and not cast.

5e's easy enough on the players/characters. Let's not make it any easier!