Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Shields and Somatic Components: Will you play it "as is?"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6377475" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>In 3e we typically played by the rules: you needed a free hand to cast spells with somatic component, so you had to take into account every action for freeing your hand (such as dropping or stoving a weapon and then retrieving it, or changing hands, whatever the action economy dictated). That's because 3e was highly tactical, and this sort of things mattered. No <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />ting shortcuts like mace-straps or whatever, the tactical choices were supposed to be part of the game, so you either accepted this tactical edge of 3e or completely removed the issue of somatic components (for everyone, not just the cleric) without a need for explanation.</p><p></p><p>In 5e I don't feel like I want to go back to that tactical detail, at least for a long time. So I am basically just considering somatic components irrelevant, except perhaps in corner cases when it might sound interesting to add some challenge (e.g. a character is completely immobilized, or is using both hands to holding something important, or to hold herself from falling).</p><p></p><p>I may also consider doing the same for material components and divine focus. Except for rare circumstances, the spellcaster is going to have whatever it takes her to get the proficiency bonus on spells. Once in a while, it might serve the story to have her lose access to that: maybe she loses her staff/orb/wand/pouch. What matters to me is that I will try to treat all character options equally. For example with musical instruments as bardic focus, I don't want to see people feel penalized because they chose a lute over a flute or drum. Now if the game actually provided trade-offs (so that instruments requiring 2 hands had additional benefits) it would become a tactical choice, but since it doesn't, I don't want to see some characters penalized for such kind of choice, and I don't want suddenly all "smart" bards in the fantasy world to be singers because it's more convenient...</p><p></p><p>Verbal components are actually the more interesting ones to decide about. If you enforce "full volume" required, you have spellcasters who can't cast spells while hiding, or who can't conceal their spellcasting while for example in a social environment. However this is not necessarily the right choice. It's just as valid to have a fantasy world where spells can be <em>whispered</em>, as a way to conceal them, or stay hidden while spellcasting; considering that you can always let the dice decide (i.e. request a Hide or similar check), I will probably allow this to happen. Completely removing verbal components on the other hand may have more significant consequences, for instance in the interaction with spells like <em>Silence</em> so I won't probably go that far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6377475, member: 1465"] In 3e we typically played by the rules: you needed a free hand to cast spells with somatic component, so you had to take into account every action for freeing your hand (such as dropping or stoving a weapon and then retrieving it, or changing hands, whatever the action economy dictated). That's because 3e was highly tactical, and this sort of things mattered. No :):):):):):):):)ting shortcuts like mace-straps or whatever, the tactical choices were supposed to be part of the game, so you either accepted this tactical edge of 3e or completely removed the issue of somatic components (for everyone, not just the cleric) without a need for explanation. In 5e I don't feel like I want to go back to that tactical detail, at least for a long time. So I am basically just considering somatic components irrelevant, except perhaps in corner cases when it might sound interesting to add some challenge (e.g. a character is completely immobilized, or is using both hands to holding something important, or to hold herself from falling). I may also consider doing the same for material components and divine focus. Except for rare circumstances, the spellcaster is going to have whatever it takes her to get the proficiency bonus on spells. Once in a while, it might serve the story to have her lose access to that: maybe she loses her staff/orb/wand/pouch. What matters to me is that I will try to treat all character options equally. For example with musical instruments as bardic focus, I don't want to see people feel penalized because they chose a lute over a flute or drum. Now if the game actually provided trade-offs (so that instruments requiring 2 hands had additional benefits) it would become a tactical choice, but since it doesn't, I don't want to see some characters penalized for such kind of choice, and I don't want suddenly all "smart" bards in the fantasy world to be singers because it's more convenient... Verbal components are actually the more interesting ones to decide about. If you enforce "full volume" required, you have spellcasters who can't cast spells while hiding, or who can't conceal their spellcasting while for example in a social environment. However this is not necessarily the right choice. It's just as valid to have a fantasy world where spells can be [I]whispered[/I], as a way to conceal them, or stay hidden while spellcasting; considering that you can always let the dice decide (i.e. request a Hide or similar check), I will probably allow this to happen. Completely removing verbal components on the other hand may have more significant consequences, for instance in the interaction with spells like [I]Silence[/I] so I won't probably go that far. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Shields and Somatic Components: Will you play it "as is?"
Top