what does it break if I ignore hand management during combat casting? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 intently May 10, 2015 12:59:10	I've read several descriptions of how to manage a character's hands when she's casting in combat. For example, "be sure you attack, then use a free action to remove one hand and cast with a bonus action, then next turn use your bonus action before using a free action to replace your hand and attack". Ugh! I don't want to micromanage that kind of stuff. As a DM, what does it break if I just ignore the hand stuff and let casters cast when it very loosely makes sense? For example: Verbal component: you're not gagged or silenced? you're good Somatic component: You aren't tied up? you're good Material component: You have your pouch or focus on your person? You aren't tied up? you're good What does this break? How bad is it to do this?
#2 Greenstone.Walker May 10, 2015 17:01:11	It invalidates at least one feat - War Caster.
#3 Illithidbix May 10, 2015 17:38:38	Providing you remember that shields count as armour and specify the require an action to don/doff. War Caster (as already mentioned) It also very slightly devalues the "single one handed weapon" fighting style. Otherwise very little; personally I think it matters very little and generally can't be bothered with the interaction with an object rule when DMing, and neither has any DM i've played with cared. It kinda seems totally out of place with the way the rest of 5E works. When it comes to the tweets from Mearls; he appears to kinda agree. Although Crawford seems to be more insistant on it. http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/somatic/ @Faytte Simplifying a question from earlier: Somatic Spells seem ultra hard to work around. Drop Shield? Drop your bow? Sheath/unsheath? yeah, the rule in play is really there to curb abuse and make it clear when you can't cast. Personally, I don't worry about it — Mike Mearls (@mikemearls) September 11, 2014 @mikemearls Any advice on handling Clerics/druids with shields and spell casting? They seem disadvantaged without a hand free for S/M comps 0 retweets0 favorites Reply
#4 AaronOfBarbaria May 10, 2015 17:58:33	It's not a huge impact to handle components this way, nor does it invalidate the entire War Caster feat as Greenstone states it does - it just negates the need for one of the 3 traits the feat provides, and the least potent of the 3 at that.
#5 Barky May 10, 2015 18:07:23	intently wrote:
#6 intently May 10, 2015 19:13:54	Ok, I saw that it weakened War Caster. If I run my game lazily like this, does it enable any harmful combos? For example, I've got a wood elf cleric who is firing a long bow (attack action) and casting/directing a spiritual weapon (verbal + somatic components, bonus action) each turn. Does that seem reasonable?
#7 OoftaMeg May 10, 2015 19:48:34	I've never enforced the rule and have never seen any significant abuse. Warcaster always felt like a feat tax otherwise.
#8 intently May 11, 2015 6:29:37	So basically most people think it doesn't matter? The cleric in my party doing spiritual weapon + longbow every round (level 3) is out damaging the fighter. Sure, she only has two level 2 spells per day, but when she uses them its pretty insane.
(Reply to #8) OoftaMeg	intently wrote:
#10 Kayal May 11, 2015 7:32:38	I consider the shield hand to be "free." I mean, the shield is strapped on. Yes, you have to grip to to block, but (IMO) you can always let go long enough to manage your components. In that regard, I'm not treating sword-and-board any differently than how I handle two-handed weapons (youcan take a hand off the weapon long enough to cast a spell, and place it back on the weapon when you need to use it). I don't think either is significant enough to be called an "item interraction" ... much like drawing your weapon during an attack or uncorking a potion before you drink it. It's all just part of the same action. In contrast, a character holding two weapons definitely has his hands full. I would count stowing the weapon as an "item interraction" (thus freeing up a hand) ... but I would still allow the character to draw the weapon for free next turn (as part of the attack action). Even in this instance, the only things the character is losing are item interractions and reactions that require a drawn weapon. Even then, the character is only losing them every-other round. I don't treat drawing a weapon as a seperate action. I don't consider drawing a bow as a seperate action either. I don't treat readying your material components as a seperate action. In all cases, you need a free hand to do whatever it is you're doing ... but grabbing the items you need to complete the action is treated as part of said action. Note, however, that you have to have a weapon in your hand already to make opportunity attacks, because they are reactions, not actions. I do, however, allow characters to make "unarmed" opportunity attacks.
#11 Ralif_Redhammer May 11, 2015 7:45:08	That’s pretty much my exact feelings and how I have handled it for years. I tried out spell components for a while, but again, it got to just be too much bean (or bat guano) counting. If it’s an expensive or rare material component I will make them keep track of it, though. intently wrote:
#12 intently May 11, 2015 8:26:07	So... it sounds like most people (at least, those who are replying here) just ignore the hands issue for the most part?
#13 Bumpo May 11, 2015 8:39:29	Components only matter during the casting, not in subsequent rounds, so there should be no conflict with bow and spiritual weapon.
#14 randl May 11, 2015 9:52:55	I pretty much ignore this as well. I assume a character using weapons and armor they are proficient in know how to cast with those items. I then buff War Caster to allow the caster to ignore one non-costed (monetary) component of a spell. This way, a a caster can cast when in a silenced area, but not if bound an gagged. Of course, this is for a home game, and would be a ltittle more stricter for AL.
#15 Rya.Reisender May 11, 2015 10:15:25	intently wrote:
#16 Kayal May 11, 2015 11:13:38	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#17 lall May 11, 2015 20:57:43	It weakens the sorcerer slightly by making Subtle Spell less valuable.
#18 Rya.Reisender May 12, 2015 0:05:53	Kayal wrote:
(Reply to #16) AaronOfBarbaria	Kayal wrote:
(Reply to #17) AaronOfBarbaria	lall wrote:
#21 intently May 12, 2015 13:07:07	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#22 DemoMonkey May 12, 2015 13:18:21	Considering the rules don't actually say a non two-handed weapon requires a hand to use, it seems allowable to just..wait for it...hand wave the whole thing.
#23 Kayal May 12, 2015 15:37:01	Rya.Reisender wrote:
(Reply to #20) lall	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
(Reply to #24) AaronOfBarbaria	lall wrote:
#26 Rya.Reisender May 12, 2015 23:30:24	@Kayal Pure DM decision I'd say. I personally would not allow it as I consider it more powerful than a different use, without any sacrifice in exchange.
#27 Kayal May 13, 2015 15:09:53	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#28 DemoMonkey May 13, 2015 15:55:45	"DM #3 rules that the shield cover cannot be used to bear a holy symbol and places a magical shield in every single adventure, none of which are engraved with the symbol of the cleric's deity. Did his ruling have any bearing on balance? Yes. It certianly did." Why wouldn't the cleric GET their holy symbol emblazoned/engraved/inlaid on the magic shield? There is no rule in 5E against that.
#29 Fimbrial May 13, 2015 16:43:39	Nothing breaks. You're good. Long version: IIRC, originally the designers wanted the rules to allow as many trivial actions (i.e., drawing weapons, opening doors, etc.) as the player needed. When playtesters quickly found ways to abuse infinite actions, the designers threw on a quick hand management rule to cover most of the loopholes. As long as your players aren't trying to wield three weapons or steal a king's entire treasury in a single turn, you should have no problems using the simplified rule. Source: Memories of forumites arguing about it during the open playtest.
#30 Rya.Reisender May 14, 2015 0:07:34	Magical Focus and Holy Emblem are part of the starting equip of spellcasters, so it's not really something the DM can decide. But the DM can rule that only the 3 types covered by the rules can be chosen at character creation.
#31 Kayal May 14, 2015 2:54:09	DemoMonkey wrote:
#32 Kayal May 14, 2015 2:56:03	Rya.Reisender wrote:
(Reply to #31) AaronOfBarbaria	Kayal wrote:
#34 Kayal May 14, 2015 9:03:49	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#35 Rya.Reisender May 14, 2015 11:35:04	A Holy Symbol is an item, it has a cost attached to it (5 GP), even for the emblem type, so you obviously can't just paint it on a shield. There could theoretically be an NPC specialized to attach holy symbols on a shield who charges 5 GP for that service, but as long as the group doesn't find such an NPC they can't just move the emblem.
#36 Kayal May 14, 2015 13:56:13	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#37 Rya.Reisender May 14, 2015 23:16:07	I certainly would allow crafting it yourself if the players reasons it well enough (does his background contain that he learned how to do it?). It also requires appropriate tools and items. Painting I would not allow because for me the rules are clear that it needs to be "carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield". Also if it's a magical shield, who guarantees that it doesn't lose its magical properties if you start engraving something on it? Can you even engrave something on a magical item? Wouldn't your tools break before the shield even gets a scratch?
#38 CFK May 15, 2015 0:00:10	Now i'm confused... Is a holy symbol on a shield a substitue for both the S and M part of the spell or just the M (not including the expencive ones...) I thought it was for both, but now i'm starting to doubt it.
#39 Rya.Reisender May 15, 2015 1:26:51	CFK wrote:
#40 Kayal May 15, 2015 2:57:34	Rya.Reisender wrote:
#41 Rya.Reisender May 15, 2015 3:19:43	I guess it's not that clear after all. I always read the "might" as "player can select freely out of one of these". But my point is that the list of examples gives you an idea of what would be a balanced usage of the holy symbol. So a usage that adds an advantage but has no disadvantage in exchange would be out-of-balance. And regarding magic items, that's even less clear by the rules. If you go by realism, you can only engrave something if the tool you are using is of a harder material than the item you engrave, otherwise you would only destroy your tool. Then the question would be if a Shield+1 is of a harder material than a Shield or if the magical enchantment does nothing other than making it easier to handle. And of course, how does a magic enchantment work at all? Where in the item is it? Can it be destroyed? I guess you need to houserule that.
#42 Kayal May 15, 2015 10:08:35	Rya.Reisender wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

intently

May 10, 2015 12:59:10

I've read several descriptions of how to manage a character's hands when she's casting in combat. For example, "be sure you attack, then use a free action to remove one hand and cast with a bonus action, then next turn use your bonus action before using a free action to replace your hand and attack".

Ugh! I don't want to micromanage that kind of stuff.

As a DM, what does it break if I just ignore the hand stuff and let casters cast when it very loosely makes sense? For example:

Verbal component: you're not gagged or silenced? you're good
Somatic component: You aren't tied up? you're good
Material component: You have your pouch or focus on your person? You aren't tied up? you're good

What does this break? How bad is it to do this?

Greenstone.Walker

May 10, 2015 17:01:11

It invalidates at least one feat - War Caster.

Illithidbix

May 10, 2015 17:38:38

Providing you remember that shields count as armour and specify the require an action to don/doff.

War Caster (as already mentioned)

It also very slightly devalues the "single one handed weapon" fighting style.

Otherwise very little; personally I think it matters very little and generally can't be bothered with the interaction with an object rule when DMing, and neither has any DM i've played with cared.

It kinda seems totally out of place with the way the rest of 5E works.

When it comes to the tweets from Mearls; he appears to kinda agree. Although Crawford seems to be more insistant on it.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/somatic/

@Faytte Simplifying a question from earlier: Somatic Spells seem ultra hard to work around. Drop Shield? Drop your bow? Sheath/unsheath?

yeah, the rule in play is really there to curb abuse and make it clear when you can't cast. Personally, I don't worry about it — Mike Mearls (@mikemearls) September 11, 2014

@mikemearls Any advice on handling Clerics/druids with shields and spell casting? They seem disadvantaged without a hand free for S/M comps

0 retweets0 favorites

Reply

AaronOfBarbaria

May 10, 2015 17:58:33

It's not a huge impact to handle components this way, nor does it invalidate the entire War Caster feat as Greenstone states it does - it just negates the need for one of the 3 traits the feat provides, and the least potent of the 3 at that.

Barky

May 10, 2015 18:07:23

intently wrote:

intently

May 10, 2015 19:13:54

Ok, I saw that it weakened War Caster.

If I run my game lazily like this, does it enable any harmful combos? For example, I've got a wood elf cleric who is firing a long bow (attack action) and casting/directing a spiritual weapon (verbal + somatic components, bonus action) each turn. Does that seem reasonable?

OoftaMeg

May 10, 2015 19:48:34

I've never enforced the rule and have never seen any significant abuse. Warcaster always felt like a feat tax otherwise.

intently

May 11, 2015 6:29:37

So basically most people think it doesn't matter? The cleric in my party doing spiritual weapon + longbow every round (level 3) is out damaging the fighter. Sure, she only has two level 2 spells per day, but when she uses them its pretty insane.

(Reply to #8)

OoftaMeg

intently wrote:

#10

Kayal

May 11, 2015 7:32:38

I consider the shield hand to be "free." I mean, the shield is strapped on. Yes, you have to grip to to block, but (IMO) you can always let go long enough to manage your components. In that regard, I'm not treating sword-and-board any differently than how I handle two-handed weapons (youcan take a hand off the weapon long enough to cast a spell, and place it back on the weapon when you need to use it).

I don't think either is significant enough to be called an "item interraction" ... much like drawing your weapon during an attack or uncorking a potion before you drink it. It's all just part of the same action.

In contrast, a character holding two weapons definitely has his hands full. I would count stowing the weapon as an "item interraction" (thus freeing up a hand) ... but I would still allow the character to draw the weapon for free next turn (as part of the attack action). Even in this instance, the only things the character is losing are item interractions and reactions that require a drawn weapon. Even then, the character is only losing them every-other round.

I don't treat drawing a weapon as a seperate action. I don't consider drawing a bow as a seperate action either. I don't treat readying your material components as a seperate action. In all cases, you need a free hand to do whatever it is you're doing ... but grabbing the items you need to complete the action is treated as part of said action.

Note, however, that you have to have a weapon in your hand already to make opportunity attacks, because they are reactions, not actions. I do, however, allow characters to make "unarmed" opportunity attacks.

#11

Ralif_Redhammer

May 11, 2015 7:45:08

That’s pretty much my exact feelings and how I have handled it for years. I tried out spell components for a while, but again, it got to just be too much bean (or bat guano) counting. If it’s an expensive or rare material component I will make them keep track of it, though.

intently wrote:

#12

intently

May 11, 2015 8:26:07

So... it sounds like most people (at least, those who are replying here) just ignore the hands issue for the most part?

#13

Bumpo

May 11, 2015 8:39:29

Components only matter during the casting, not in subsequent rounds, so there should be no conflict with bow and spiritual weapon.

#14

randl

May 11, 2015 9:52:55

I pretty much ignore this as well. I assume a character using weapons and armor they are proficient in know how to cast with those items. I then buff War Caster to allow the caster to ignore one non-costed (monetary) component of a spell. This way, a a caster can cast when in a silenced area, but not if bound an gagged. Of course, this is for a home game, and would be a ltittle more stricter for AL.

#15

Rya.Reisender

May 11, 2015 10:15:25

intently wrote:

#16

Kayal

May 11, 2015 11:13:38

Rya.Reisender wrote:

#17

lall

May 11, 2015 20:57:43

It weakens the sorcerer slightly by making Subtle Spell less valuable.

#18

Rya.Reisender

May 12, 2015 0:05:53

Kayal wrote:

(Reply to #16)

AaronOfBarbaria

Kayal wrote:

(Reply to #17)

AaronOfBarbaria

lall wrote:

#21

intently

May 12, 2015 13:07:07

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#22

DemoMonkey

May 12, 2015 13:18:21

Considering the rules don't actually say a non two-handed weapon requires a hand to use, it seems allowable to just..wait for it...hand wave the whole thing.

#23

Kayal

May 12, 2015 15:37:01

Rya.Reisender wrote:

(Reply to #20)

lall

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

(Reply to #24)

AaronOfBarbaria

lall wrote:

#26

Rya.Reisender

May 12, 2015 23:30:24

@Kayal

Pure DM decision I'd say. I personally would not allow it as I consider it more powerful than a different use, without any sacrifice in exchange.

#27

Kayal

May 13, 2015 15:09:53

Rya.Reisender wrote:

#28

DemoMonkey

May 13, 2015 15:55:45

"DM #3 rules that the shield cover cannot be used to bear a holy symbol and places a magical shield in every single adventure, none of which are engraved with the symbol of the cleric's deity. Did his ruling have any bearing on balance? Yes. It certianly did."

Why wouldn't the cleric GET their holy symbol emblazoned/engraved/inlaid on the magic shield? There is no rule in 5E against that.

#29

Fimbrial

May 13, 2015 16:43:39

Nothing breaks. You're good.

Long version: IIRC, originally the designers wanted the rules to allow as many trivial actions (i.e., drawing weapons, opening doors, etc.) as the player needed. When playtesters quickly found ways to abuse infinite actions, the designers threw on a quick hand management rule to cover most of the loopholes. As long as your players aren't trying to wield three weapons or steal a king's entire treasury in a single turn, you should have no problems using the simplified rule.

Source: Memories of forumites arguing about it during the open playtest.

#30

Rya.Reisender

May 14, 2015 0:07:34

Magical Focus and Holy Emblem are part of the starting equip of spellcasters, so it's not really something the DM can decide. But the DM can rule that only the 3 types covered by the rules can be chosen at character creation.

#31

Kayal

May 14, 2015 2:54:09

DemoMonkey wrote:

#32

Kayal

May 14, 2015 2:56:03

Rya.Reisender wrote:

(Reply to #31)

AaronOfBarbaria

Kayal wrote:

#34

Kayal

May 14, 2015 9:03:49

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#35

Rya.Reisender

May 14, 2015 11:35:04

A Holy Symbol is an item, it has a cost attached to it (5 GP), even for the emblem type, so you obviously can't just paint it on a shield. There could theoretically be an NPC specialized to attach holy symbols on a shield who charges 5 GP for that service, but as long as the group doesn't find such an NPC they can't just move the emblem.

#36

Kayal

May 14, 2015 13:56:13

Rya.Reisender wrote:

#37

Rya.Reisender

May 14, 2015 23:16:07

I certainly would allow crafting it yourself if the players reasons it well enough (does his background contain that he learned how to do it?). It also requires appropriate tools and items.

Painting I would not allow because for me the rules are clear that it needs to be "carefully engraved or inlaid as an emblem on a shield".

Also if it's a magical shield, who guarantees that it doesn't lose its magical properties if you start engraving something on it? Can you even engrave something on a magical item? Wouldn't your tools break before the shield even gets a scratch?

#38

CFK

May 15, 2015 0:00:10

Now i'm confused... Is a holy symbol on a shield a substitue for both the S and M part of the spell or just the M (not including the expencive ones...)

I thought it was for both, but now i'm starting to doubt it.

#39

Rya.Reisender

May 15, 2015 1:26:51

CFK wrote:

#40

Kayal

May 15, 2015 2:57:34

Rya.Reisender wrote:

#41

Rya.Reisender

May 15, 2015 3:19:43

I guess it's not that clear after all. I always read the "might" as "player can select freely out of one of these". But my point is that the list of examples gives you an idea of what would be a balanced usage of the holy symbol. So a usage that adds an advantage but has no disadvantage in exchange would be out-of-balance.

And regarding magic items, that's even less clear by the rules. If you go by realism, you can only engrave something if the tool you are using is of a harder material than the item you engrave, otherwise you would only destroy your tool. Then the question would be if a Shield+1 is of a harder material than a Shield or if the magical enchantment does nothing other than making it easier to handle. And of course, how does a magic enchantment work at all? Where in the item is it? Can it be destroyed? I guess you need to houserule that.

#42

Kayal

May 15, 2015 10:08:35

Rya.Reisender wrote: