Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8078584" data-attributes="member: 5889">I'm going to try and organize CapnZapp's argument as I see it.5e has generous object interaction rules combined with strange spell hand requirements. So many (if not most) players groups simply "handwave" the requirements by saying "the player swaps X thing out using free object interaction, casts the spell, and then gets X back in hand".This leads to:1) Player table imbalance. If your a table that does spells this way, you are going to see a very large difference in spell power compared to a table that really enforces hard hand requirements. A paladin for example, would have a completely difference spell casting experience at both of those tables, at one table they effectively cast spells with Sword and Shield in hand. At the other table they have to spend actions to swap out their sword and/or shield before casting the spell, and then actions to get them back. That is not a small difference, and one that is not good for the game. It should clearly be one or the other.2) "Real World" absurdity. For players who want the game to mirror more real world physics, the "handwave" that some players use to free up their hands feels "absurd" and grates on their sensibilities.From personal experience, I have played under 5 different DMs and 3 different "official gaming adventures". I never once seen a DM require a wizard to drop their staffs, or a cleric to sheath their weapons, to cast spells. So I would never say that "all tables" do it that way, but certainly a number of them are comfortable with the "handwave".So CapnZapp's point is... lets remove the weird parts of the somatic component that vaguely might imply the need for open hands. The example would be:Somatic: A caster must be able to move one of their hands in order to cast a spell with these components. The caster may have objects in their hands, but must be able to move their hands with the object to cast a spell. Example, a caster whose hands are bound, who is hanging from a ledge, or who has to keep one hand pressed on a magic symbol could not use a spell with somatic components.So what this does is still allow for the "normal" means of stopping casters from using certain spells. If you have the wizard tied up, you can't use a spell. If they are hanging on for dear life on a ledge, they cannot use certain spells. But it removes the weird absurdities that occur with normal objects. A wizard carrying a wizard staff can use somatic components, no problem. A paladin with sword and shield can use somatic components, no problem.Then, if we do want to make certain spells that really do require "complete unfettered hands", then we make that a special note in the spell.Awesome Paladin Prayer of AwesomenessComponents: V, S (see below).Special: To use this spell, the caster's hands cannot be holding anything, or touching anything.And then to Lanefan's point, 3e and 5e casters have it "too easy" to cast, which is one of the reasons they have become so powerful. I think this is a fair statement, but its not in contradiction to the point made above....because if the restriction was designed for power balance, its already failing as many tables simply ignore it. So remove the weirdness, and then if you want to add more restrictions, add new clear and concrete ones.For example, you could add a clause that says."Casting a spell in melee provokes Opportunity Attacks. If any of the OA hits, the spell does not go into effect". Now whether you think casters need that or not is debatable, but I think the use of this at a gaming table would be pretty clear and consistent (aka a DM who did not do this would know they are making a house rule, instead of simply an interpretation different from the normal).</blockquote>

Verification