Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 8694417" data-attributes="member: 93670">Yes there is and it's possibly 5e's most marketed feature &quot;rulings not rules&quot;.&nbsp; Once upon a time the rules were unambiguous &amp; involved a style more akin to technical writing that didn't lead to these kinds of deliberate ambiguities. There are no mentions of the word &quot;re-gripping&quot; in the PHB but there are several mentions of the word grip.&nbsp; Page76's &quot;grip of sleep&quot; monk fluff story is very much unrelated to this situation and all of the rest appear to be in the spell descriptions for contagion, mord's sword, &amp; telekinesis).&nbsp; There areobviously no rules for &quot;re-gripping&quot; anything &amp; creating new rules is not an option given to players[spoiler=&quot;phb146&quot;]Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.[/spoiler][spoiler=&quot;phb170&quot;]Warcaster: ...You can perform the somatic com ponents of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands[/spoiler].[spoiler=&quot;phb190&quot;]Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:• draw or sheathe a sword[/spoiler]The player could drop their focus item for free &amp; draw their two handed sword as part of an attack using the sword, but they mention &quot;re-gripping&quot; not dropping the focus &amp; drawing the weapon.[spoiler=&quot;phb203&quot;]ComponentsA spell’s com ponents are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M ) components.[/ispoiler][ispoiler]If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s com ponents, you are unable to cast the spell.[/ispoiler]Somatic(S)[ispoiler]Spellcasting gestures might include a forcefulgesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spellrequires a somatic com ponent, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.[/ispoiler]Material (M)[ispoiler]Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the com ponent entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the com ponents specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a com ponent, a character must have that specific com ponent before he or she can cast the spell.[/ispoiler][ispoiler]If a spell states that a material com ponent is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this com ponent for each casting of the spell.[/ispoiler][ispoiler]A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these com ponents, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic com ponents.[/ispoiler][/spoiler]This is the flip side of having a crunchy system dumping the work of supporting the illusion of being a rules light narrative ruleset onto the GM.&nbsp; Specifically there are times where the GM's &quot;ruling not rule&quot; will not be to a player's liking &amp; the system needs to support the gm in both types of ruling or &quot;rulings not rules&quot; is something very different than Wotc puts it out as being.&nbsp; &quot;You can't cast spells while using a two handed weapon period but here's a justification for why&quot; &amp; &quot;a 2 handed weapon needs to be sheathed or dropped to free a hand for spellcasting not &quot;re-gripped&quot; or whatever because there's no rule for &quot;re-gripping&quot; anything.&quot; are hardly rulings that should be controversial.The alternate phrasing of that bolded bit is &quot;A GM should be able to expect &amp; even require players to follow the rules without needing to handhold &amp; justify every step of every rule a player wants to ignore&quot;.&nbsp; Using that prasing also pretty much invalidates the rest of your post though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 8694417, member: 93670"] Yes there is and it's possibly 5e's most marketed [I]feature[/I] "rulings not rules". Once upon a time the rules were unambiguous & involved a style more akin to technical writing that didn't lead to these kinds of deliberate ambiguities. There are no mentions of the word "re-gripping" in the PHB but there are several mentions of the word grip. Page76's "grip of sleep" monk fluff story is very much unrelated to this situation and [I]all[/I] of the rest appear to be in the spell descriptions for contagion, mord's sword, & telekinesis). There areobviously no rules for "re-gripping" anything & creating new rules is not an option given to players [spoiler="phb146"] Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.[/spoiler] [spoiler="phb170"] Warcaster: ... You can perform the somatic com ponents of spells [B]even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands[/B][/spoiler]. [spoiler="phb190"] Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action: • draw or sheathe a sword [/spoiler] The player could drop their focus item for free & draw their two handed sword as part of an attack using the sword, but they mention "re-gripping" not dropping the focus & drawing the weapon. [spoiler="phb203"] Components A spell’s com ponents are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M ) components.[/ispoiler] [B][ispoiler]If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s com ponents, you are unable to cast the spell.[/ispoiler][/B] Somatic(S) [ispoiler]Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic com ponent, [B]the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.[/B][/ispoiler] Material (M) [ispoiler]Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the com ponent entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the com ponents specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a com ponent, a character must have that specific com ponent before he or she can cast the spell.[/ispoiler] [ispoiler]If a spell states that a material com ponent is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this com ponent for each casting of the spell.[/ispoiler] [ispoiler][B]A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these com ponents[/B], but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic com ponents.[/ispoiler] [/spoiler] This is the flip side of having a crunchy system dumping the work of supporting the illusion of being a rules light narrative ruleset onto the GM. Specifically there are times where the GM's "ruling not rule" will not be to a player's liking & the system needs to support the gm in both types of ruling or "rulings not rules" is something very different than Wotc puts it out as being. [I]"You can't cast spells while using a two handed weapon period but here's a justification for why" [/I]& [I]"a 2 handed weapon needs to be sheathed or dropped to free a hand for spellcasting not "re-gripped" or whatever because there's no rule for "re-gripping" anything."[/I] are hardly rulings that should be controversial. The alternate phrasing of that bolded bit is "[I]A GM should be able to expect & even require players to follow the rules without needing to handhold & justify every step of every rule a player wants to ignore"[/I]. Using that prasing also pretty much invalidates the rest of your post though. [/QUOTE]

Verification