Not All Weapons Require Hands

[strangebloke]

In the title.

So, a lot of things say you need to use a hand. The ammunition property. The Two-handed property. Two-weapon fighting. Grappling. Spells with Somatic components. Shields. Even improvised weapons must be possible to wield with one or two hands.

But weapons, in general, don't require hands. Technically. AFAICT there's no actual line of text saying 'weapons require a hand to use'.

Now naturally the rules aren't meant to be the end of discussions, your DM can easily rule that your training with the longsword doesn't apply when you're holding the longsword in your mouth, or that you don't have the strength to wield a battleaxe with your toes. But theoretically, from a pure RAW perspective, I think its fine.

What's even more surprising to me is how little this breaks. Sure, a moon druid can become an octopus and wield six different shortswords (each with a different 'bane' property?), and sure you can probably grapple or get and OA where you otherwise wouldn't, but really holding a one-handed weapon tend to be one of the less useful things you can do with your hand.

[Tanarii]

Closest thing I could find is in the combat section, referencing melee attacks typically using a "handheld" weapon on pg 195.

[strangebloke]

Closest thing I could find is in the combat section, referencing melee attacks typically using a "handheld" weapon on pg 195.

Yup. There's quite a lot that seems to assume you're holding and drawing these weapons, but nothing saying you have to.

again, I'm not saying this always makes sense, just that its somewhat funny that the rules missed this despite being so explicit with everything else.

In a similar vein its specified that you need a free hand to start a grapple, but not to continue one.

[MadMusketeer]

You missed versatile - you can attack with one or two hands, which means you can't attack with one hand. More broadly, I haven't been able to find any rule preventing this - if it wasn't the intent, I think that needing a hand holding the weapon while you attack would been so obvious they forgot to mention it. Also, I agree about this not breaking anything - there's not really much benefit to extra arms, except grappling more people, and (as a DM) I would rule it so that if both (or all) your arms are being used to grapple, you have disadvantage against any target you aren't currently grappling with a weapon in your mouth.

[Skrum]

Um, I wildly disagree re: not really doing anything.

I would argue the primary benefit of the War Caster feat is that you can cast a spell while holding a weapon or shield. "Not holding a weapon while using it" (love trying to imagine that btw) would be hugely consequential for casters who also use melee weapons. Also grapplers. Both of these builds have to make series concessions with their defense to do their casting or grappling.

In fact, this is so important that in the process of workshopping a custom magic item that was a mechanical arm that clipped to your armor, the group decided it broke hand and action economy too much to allow.

I would be shocked if a DM actually allowed these shenanigans, but it would greatly change the game if they did.

[meandean]

Even improvised weapons must be possible to wield with one or two hands.Hey, and it doesn't even say you have to wield them in your hands, you just have to theoretically be able to. I suppose that, if I can pick up a broken beer bottle with my toes (I don't intend to test this theory), I can attack with it even if I'm handcuffed.

It would "break things" IMO, or at least drastically change how everything is balanced, if there essentially was no tradeoff involved in carrying a shield or ensuring a hand that can do somatic components. But we probably don't need to spend too much time contemplating a world where it's routine for DMs to allow longsword pelvic thrust attacks. Still, it'd be great comedy value if it happened and they needed to issue an errata where every weapon that isn't two-handed or versatile is listed as one-handed.

[sandmote]

Interestingly they remembered this for shields and holy symbols:


A shield is made from wood or metal and is carried in one hand.


To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm sorry, but anyone who tried to pull this at the table would get at minimum a sharp look and a "stop trying to be funny, it isn't working" comment. This kind of rule-pedantry leads to all sorts of things, because the rules weren't written for robots. RAW-only isn't actually what's intended to be used. And trying to play with RAW-only doesn't work.

[sandmote]

And trying to play with RAW-only doesn't work. The truth value of this statement depends on what you want to do by playing with RAW-only. If you're trying to use it in an actual game it doesn't work. If you want to poke fun at rules weirdness, it works great.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The truth value of this statement depends on what you want to do by playing with RAW-only. If you're trying to use it in an actual game it doesn't work. If you want to poke fun at rules weirdness, it works great.

But the rules weirdness only exists because you're artificially (and against the rules) chopping out the bits that make it work and interpreting it with maximal uncharity. And by doing that, anything can be made to be weird. The weirdness is entirely the fault of the screwed up interpretation and has nothing to do with the actual rules. Lots of rules can be weird if you don't read them in context.

[sandmote]

Lots of rules can be weird if you don't read them in context. And some are weird unless you provide context the rules never actually mention.


But the rules weirdness only exists because you're artificially (and against the rules) chopping out the bits that make it work Speaking of, could I get the page number of the bit being chopped out?

[strangebloke]

You missed versatile - you can attack with one or two hands, which means you can't attack with one hand. More broadly, I haven't been able to find any rule preventing this - if it wasn't the intent, I think that needing a hand holding the weapon while you attack would been so obvious they forgot to mention it. Also, I agree about this not breaking anything - there's not really much benefit to extra arms, except grappling more people, and (as a DM) I would rule it so that if both (or all) your arms are being used to grapple, you have disadvantage against any target you aren't currently grappling with a weapon in your mouth.
True enough. So replace my mentioning of longswords with rapiers, I suppose.

Um, I wildly disagree re: not really doing anything.

I would argue the primary benefit of the War Caster feat is that you can cast a spell while holding a weapon or shield. "Not holding a weapon while using it" (love trying to imagine that btw) would be hugely consequential for casters who also use melee weapons. Also grapplers. Both of these builds have to make series concessions with their defense to do their casting or grappling.

In fact, this is so important that in the process of workshopping a custom magic item that was a mechanical arm that clipped to your armor, the group decided it broke hand and action economy too much to allow.

I would be shocked if a DM actually allowed these shenanigans, but it would greatly change the game if they did.

Hey, and it doesn't even say you have to wield them in your hands, you just have to theoretically be able to. I suppose that, if I can pick up a broken beer bottle with my toes (I don't intend to test this theory), I can attack with it even if I'm handcuffed.
that's true and I hadn't thought of it.
It would "break things" IMO, or at least drastically change how everything is balanced, if there essentially was no tradeoff involved in carrying a shield or ensuring a hand that can do somatic components. But we probably don't need to spend too much time contemplating a world where it's routine for DMs to allow longsword pelvic thrust attacks. Still, it'd be great comedy value if it happened and they needed to issue an errata where every weapon that isn't two-handed or versatile is listed as one-handed.

Well, having a shield and sword and arcane focus isn't really that sweet a combo. Generally, free item interactions make it pretty easy to swap somatic-component-hand for sword-hand, and the only time things change is when you have something like an OA off your turn, or when you want to cast a spell as a bonus action.

It's nice to have a free hand, but think about it. The only way you're justifying your sword-not-in-hand is if you're holding the sword in your mouth, which.... Verbal components, man. Warcaster gives advantage on concentration and cantrip OAs (which make holding a weapon off-turn irrelevant anyway), the free hand thing is emphatically not the main benefit.


But the rules weirdness only exists because you're artificially (and against the rules) chopping out the bits that make it work and interpreting it with maximal uncharity. And by doing that, anything can be made to be weird. The weirdness is entirely the fault of the screwed up interpretation and has nothing to do with the actual rules. Lots of rules can be weird if you don't read them in context.

This would be relevant if I was actually arguing that you can go to the DM and say "rules don't say I can't therefore I can." I very specifically clarified that the rules aren't the end of the DM's power and that you're going to have to justify what you're doing regardless, just thatt there's a funny gap in the rules here. I mentioned this to my DM, he laughed and said, "yeah, sounds fun. You should play a dog or someone with no arms next."

Quirky rules discussions can provoke interesting character discussion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Quirky rules discussions can provoke interesting character discussion.

For example - Would a Wildshaped Druid be able to use certain weapons? It's hardly the most broken thing a Druid could do with their action, could be pretty cool though.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Quirky rules discussions can provoke interesting character discussion.

On the one hand, yes, this made me smile for a moment so you're not wrong.

On the other hand, I also feel like there's a fine line between "rules quirks" and "pedantry over lack of detail" and this is butting right up against that line. I believe you that the PHB doesn't say that, just like I'm pretty sure the PHB doesn't mention that living beings need to breathe, that food is ingested via chewing and swallowing, or that fire is hot. But if these assumptions are correct, that doesn't really lead to a funny rule interaction if I point out that technically it never says my character needs oxygen. It's just something the authors didn't feel was nearly as important to specify.

On the mage hand that I apparently get from choosing Arcane Trickster, don't know when that happened, this does potentially open the doors for some unorthodox character concepts if your GM is willing to go along with it. Replace one of your hands with a sword! Be very careful when you dress yourself.

[strangebloke]

For example - Would a Wildshaped Druid be able to use certain weapons? It's hardly the most broken thing a Druid could do with their action, could be pretty cool though.
Right?

On the one hand, yes, this made me smile for a moment so you're not wrong.

On the other hand, I also feel like there's a fine line between "rules quirks" and "pedantry over lack of detail" and this is butting right up against that line. I believe you that the PHB doesn't say that, just like I'm pretty sure the PHB doesn't mention that living beings need to breathe, that food is ingested via chewing and swallowing, or that fire is hot. But if these assumptions are correct, that doesn't really lead to a funny rule interaction if I point out that technically it never says my character needs oxygen. It's just something the authors didn't feel was nearly as important to specify.

On the mage hand that I apparently get from choosing Arcane Trickster, don't know when that happened, this does potentially open the doors for some unorthodox character concepts if your GM is willing to go along with it. Replace one of your hands with a sword! Be very careful when you dress yourself.

I think this sort of rules pedantry is annoying when someone says "x build works because by RAW you can do y, and this build is great because all combat is like z and..."

But that's not my intent here. I don't mean to say this is RAI, or that it would fly as an exploit at every table, just that its kind of funny, and implies some fun concepts (and a couple stupid ones - sword, shield, and spell may not be overpowered, but it is pretty silly to be holding the rapier in the crook of your elbow or whatever while casting, just to get a marginal benefit.)

I also mentioned the "You don't need a hand to maintain a grapple" thing which would similarly never fly at any table ever. The idea that you can reach out, grab some one, somehow maintain that grip and grab with the same hand again, is, uh. Silly. And wouldn't fly.

[Dame_Mechanus]

But that's not my intent here. I don't mean to say this is RAI, or that it would fly as an exploit at every table, just that its kind of funny, and implies some fun concepts (and a couple stupid ones - sword, shield, and spell may not be overpowered, but it is pretty silly to be holding the rapier in the crook of your elbow or whatever while casting, just to get a marginal benefit.)

Come on, everyone knows you put the rapier in your mouth and nod a lot. Now you're the Dread Pirate Roberts!

[Vampyre_Lord]

On the one hand, yes, this made me smile for a moment so you're not wrong.

On the other hand, I also feel like there's a fine line between "rules quirks" and "pedantry over lack of detail" and this is butting right up against that line. I believe you that the PHB doesn't say that, just like I'm pretty sure the PHB doesn't mention that living beings need to breathe, that food is ingested via chewing and swallowing, or that fire is hot. But if these assumptions are correct, that doesn't really lead to a funny rule interaction if I point out that technically it never says my character needs oxygen. It's just something the authors didn't feel was nearly as important to specify.

On the mage hand that I apparently get from choosing Arcane Trickster, don't know when that happened, this does potentially open the doors for some unorthodox character concepts if your GM is willing to go along with it. Replace one of your hands with a sword! Be very careful when you dress yourself.

this actually got me thinking... IS there anywhere that says fire is hot? or that fire damage is hot? like, if you stick your hand in fire, you take fire damage. but is it the heat dealing the damage, or the fire itself? now, this is purely a theoretical thought exploration, maybe if it leads to cool and interesting ideas i might look into codifying it. but at any actual table of play i wouldnt even think of bringing it up.

[ProsecutorGodot]

this actually got me thinking... IS there anywhere that says fire is hot? or that fire damage is hot? like, if you stick your hand in fire, you take fire damage. but is it the heat dealing the damage, or the fire itself? now, this is purely a theoretical thought exploration, maybe if it leads to cool and interesting ideas i might look into codifying it. but at any actual table of play i wouldnt even think of bringing it up.

I remember a thread (probably years back) that argued you could still take actions while dead because it doesn't say you can't.

There are lines to be drawn about reasonable expectations, we understand that fire is a phenomenon that usually involves heat, there are listed exceptions to that (continual flame*) that likely make exceptions because it is counter to our expectation.

Wielding a handful of weapons in unorthodox ways isn't entirely unbelievable, especially from a fantasy standpoint. Daggers thrown with a kick, swords swung with a mouth, animals with harnesses that allow them to swing blades, limbs that have been replaced by a weapon entirely.
*Which, ironically, also sets parameters for what a "regular flame" is, in that it creates heat and uses oxygen.

[Vampyre_Lord]

I remember a thread (probably years back) that argued you could still take actions while dead because it doesn't say you can't.

There are lines to be drawn about reasonable expectations, we understand that fire is a phenomenon that usually involves heat, there are listed exceptions to that (continual flame*) that likely make exceptions because it is counter to our expectation.

Wielding a handful of weapons in unorthodox ways isn't entirely unbelievable, especially from a fantasy standpoint. Daggers thrown with a kick, swords swung with a mouth, animals with harnesses that allow them to swing blades, limbs that have been replaced by a weapon entirely.
*Which, ironically, also sets parameters for what a "regular flame" is, in that it creates heat and uses oxygen.

yeah, after making the comment, i went looking and actually found exactly continual flame. so thats that idea down. was interesting while it lasted!

[DarknessEternal]

The rules tell you what you can do.

They do not list the infinite things you can't do. Ink isn't free.

[Greywander]

I discovered a while back that there are no rules for holding items. I think it was in the thread asking if holding (not wearing) a magic shield gives you the +X bonus (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637239-Does-a-shield-X-give-the-X-bonus-without-wielding-it) (by RAW it does, silly as it is), and the question came up regard what counts as "holding" a shield. For example, if someone else is wielding a magic shield and you grab the rim of the shield, are you "holding" it, and therefore benefit from the shield's +X bonus? The rules don't say. My intuition at the time, and still today, is that you can't hold an item currently being held by another creature. They have to let go of the shield before you can hold it.

Honestly, I think it may have been written this way on purpose so that common sense can be applied. At first, it seems logical to say that holding an item requires a free hand, but then you can only hold two items at a time. We know that's flat out wrong, as I can gather, say, a bundle of sticks up in my arms, holding a lot more than two sticks, and those sticks aren't even in my hands. Making it an explicit rule that holding a weapon, shield, or other item requires a free hand would get in the way of a lot of practical roleplay where you should be able to grab more than just two things. Even something like a fistful of coins would run counter to that idea, as each coin is an item and therefore a single coin should occupy an entire hand, if we were being strict about it.

The intent, then, seems to be that the DM can enforce the implied rule of one item per hand when it makes sense to do so, and ignore it when it doesn't make sense to enforce it. Picking up coins? Sure, grab a handful. Gathering firewood? Don't expect to swing a weapon around, but yeah, your hands are technically free to grab something else. Using a weapon? That's where we're going to crack down and require an entire hand for that.

Some other rules weirdness is that there's no range on stabilizing a dying creature. Also, the blinded and invisible conditions contain effects that are redundant with the vision rules, thus being able to see or be seen has no effect on the advantage and disadvantage bestowed by those conditions. My theory is that they were written before vision rules existed, and thus had those effects baked in directly. But the result is that simply being able to see only partly negates those conditions (by strict RAW, which almost no one would actually use in this case).

As an aside, I hate how every time someone points out a badly written rule, some people treat it as though we're trying to "cheat" or something. This isn't "here's a sneaky trick you can pull on your DM, and they have to allow it because it's RAW." It's not that at all. It's pointing out flaws in the rules and criticizing them, and it's providing a valuable service to DMs out there by giving them a heads up about this. Because if we can find it, so can other people, who might not have any qualms about actually trying to use this at a table. By being aware of a poorly written rule, DMs can figure out how they want to handle it ahead of time instead of getting blindsided mid-session and having to come up with something on the spot. I'm just sick of getting treated like a terrible person for daring to point out flaws in the rules.

Also, this:

And besides, I think a player will take it better if you say, "I know the rules say X, but I want to avoid some issues that would cause, so we're doing Y instead, " rather than, "The rules don't say X, they say Y." Acknowledging that the player had a correct interpretation of the rules and that you've chosen to change those rules will rankle them much less than insisting they read the rules wrong (when they didn't).

In this case, though, I think it's more of a novelty. Almost everyone has just assumed that rules for holding items exist, and that they understand those rules, and somehow most people seem to already agree on what those rules are. All this in spite of the fact that there aren't actually any rules for holding items. I'm sure someone would try, but I'd like to think that even the most munchkin powergamer would look at this and think it was just too ridiculous to try to exploit.

[Battlebooze]

You guys are really missing a key fact.

The rules don't say if these hands have to be your hands, or if they can be some hands your character just found laying on the ground. It really makes sense to keep a several extra hands in a bag at your waist. Maybe have them tanned so they last longer. Then, when the GM asks if your character has enough hands free to wield twin two handed swords, use a shield, and also cast spells, you can honestly say yes!
:smallcool:

[RSP]

In a similar vein its specified that you need a free hand to start a grapple, but not to continue one.

And a good thing too: if you needed a free hand to grapple, then another free hand each time you maintain a grapple, you’d only be able to maintain a grapple for 1 round, and you’d two free hands to do that.