Overestimated/Underestimated Spells

[PhantomSoul]

And I tend to look more askance on cases where the player does something like

open door -> walk through -> shoot at someone -> walk out -> close door

than something like

open door -> look in -> close door

And the more things you stick in the middle, the less plausible it is (to me) that that's one object interaction. I'd have to think about the case where someone draws a weapon, attacks with it, then sheathes it.

Although really, I'm not particularly picky about object-action-economy (including things like drawing weapons, etc) unless it feels like someone's trying to cheese things. And it's the cheese I'm allergic to (really, I'm milk sensitive), not the action economy or rules issues.

At least for our table (including me specifically when I'm the DM) it's when the multiple "interaction parts" form a single clear whole (and one that doesn't break down into relevant units). Draw & sheathe are clearly separate (and they kind of need to be, otherwise tons of things seem pointless about restrictions to material or somatic components), and for looking in you could conceivably not even have let go of the door and done it as a single motion, while for entering and then departing it clearly have to have been two "events" (and frankly a stretch in the six seconds without others reasonably acting in the meantime, when in doubt).

[MaxWilson]

I believe the dividing line between "one interaction" and "interact with one object as much as you like" that the rules hint at is: "one meaningful interaction with an object or set thereof."

You can draw or sheathe a weapon. You can open your spell component pouch and pull out and manipulate the spell component. You can unlock and possibly open the door, or just open the door. You can close and possibly lock the door.

I don't think it's meant to grant unlimited interactions with any one object, nor do I think it's meant to limit your interactions with an object to only part of a meaningful result. So you can potentially squeeze a number of steps that might be considered "interaction," individually, into a single "object interaction," as long as they're reasonably quick when done in succession and are required for a single meaningful "thing" that you do in interacting with the object.

I don't see a meaningful difference between "take out your spell component pouch, manipulate the contents to cast a spell, put it back" and "take out your weapon, manipulate it to damage opponents, put it back."

Even if you did insist that sheathing a weapon is too hard to do compared to putting away a component pouch, all you accomplish is encouraging players to invent magnetic sheaths, tie their weapons to themselves with cords, carry backup weapons which they leave stuck in the bodies of their enemies after an attack sequence, etc.

Might as well just let them interact freely with the sword, says I, without nitpicking the details. It does prevent them from interacting with other things like doors in the same turn though.

Oof, was (sort of, kinda of) with you until this one! The cleric spell list is pretty bad, I agree, but with a few huge exceptions. Spirit Guardians is one of those exceptions. Spirit Guardians isn't a bad fireball, it's a totally different spell and in many situations is dramatically better than fireball. Sure, fireball is great if you can wipe out an area of weak mooks, but what about a situation where you can't fire it off because of friendlies? Spirit Guardians avoids friendly fire. It has a better damage type. It scales amazingly well. It slows targets who enter it. It continually deals area damage over potentially multiple fights.

If you only use Spirit Guardians against a single target... it's actually still okay, but it truly shines as a continual AoE affect. Fireball is a tempo play, Spirit Guardians is all about value.

A lot of the value of Spirit Guardians depends on whether the DM interprets a 15' radius as a 30' or a 35' diameter, and whether enemies lose half their speed and stop moving 15' away from you or 10' away.

If they stop 10' away (after completing their move) the caster is a lot more vulnerable to attacks with reach.

[PhantomSoul]

Even if you did insist that sheathing a weapon is too hard to do compared to putting away a component pouch, all you accomplish is encouraging players to invent magnetic sheaths, tie their weapons to themselves with cords, carry backup weapons which they leave stuck in the bodies of their enemies after an attack sequence, etc.

A lot of that sounds pretty good actually...
(But really, how often is sheathing mid-combat coming up as a relevant decision?)

[Valmark]

A lot of the value of Spirit Guardians depends on whether the DM interprets a 15' radius as a 30' or a 35' diameter, and whether enemies lose half their speed and stop moving 15' away from you or 10' away.

If they stop 10' away (after completing their move) the caster is a lot more vulnerable to attacks with reach.

Isn't diameter twice the radius by definition (so it couldn't be 35 if the radius is 15)?

[MaxWilson]

A lot of that sounds pretty good actually...
(But really, how often is sheathing mid-combat coming up as a relevant decision?)

Not very often IME. Only in fights where you're an Eldritch Knight archer caught in melee but after deciding to don a shield (insist of just shooting your hand crossbow), that are deadly enough justify spending Shield/Absorb Elements/Counterspell slots in combat instead of Defensive Duelist or just healing damage afterward (Second Wind or spells) and instead of using your reaction on opportunity attacks.

But most of the time as an EK, you're not using a shield because it hurts your damage output, and because there are better defenses than AC. So the whole rapier-juggling thing is rare, although the opposite (dropping a dagger or tossing it in the air long enough to fire off a bunch of crossbow attacks and then catch the dagger for Defensive Duelist reactions) can be something a PC does every single round because unlike Shield, DD is at-will.

Isn't diameter twice the radius by definition (so it couldn't be 35 if the radius is 15)?

You would think so, yes, but judging by forum comments a lot of people seem to expect their DMs to ignore that definition.

[Doug Lampert]

Isn't diameter twice the radius by definition (so it couldn't be 35 if the radius is 15)?

For a geometric circle and in ordinary usage, yes.

But abstractly (topology or graph theory) radius is the greatest distance from a central point, and if D&D land is defined by a grid, then a radius 15' area includes the central point, which is a grid space because there isn't anything smaller, plus everything within 15' of that, which covers a 35' diameter.

There's a weird set of "step into and out of the abstraction" going on here. Effectively, radius 0 is being defined as 1 grid square rather than as nothing, and grid squares are being treated as real.

I think that with 5th edition allegedly plain English rules and the grid is optional this doesn't work that way, but that's just me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

For a geometric circle and in ordinary usage, yes.

But abstractly (topology or graph theory) radius is the greatest distance from a central point, and if D&D land is defined by a grid, then a radius 15' area includes the central point, which is a grid space because there isn't anything smaller, plus everything within 15' of that, which covers a 35' diameter.

There's a weird set of "step into and out of the abstraction" going on here. Effectively, radius 0 is being defined as 1 grid square rather than as nothing, and grid squares are being treated as real.

I think that with 5th edition allegedly plain English rules and the grid is optional this doesn't work that way, but that's just me.

Side note (not a disagreement)--5e (in principle) treats grids as optional. Which separation of principle and practice[1] is, I think, where some of the weirdness comes in--the 5' discretization of space is tacked on as aftermarket, not designed in. Except all the places where it isn't. Definitely a weakness.

[1] cf old joke "what's the difference between principle and practice? In principle there isn't a difference, but in practice there is"

[Segev]

This is a good explanation for why they didn’t write 1 object interaction in the book. You are right that if they had we’d be talking about whether unlatching that potion from your belt and then taking the top off of it and then drinking it was allowed by raw due to that being definable as 3 object interactions.

This is a pretty good example; I was having a hard time coming up with one with conceivably multiple "interactions" that are (to me) obviously one "object interaction" on the scale I think the game is trying to permit. Thanks!

And I tend to look more askance on cases where the player does something like

open door -> walk through -> shoot at someone -> walk out -> close door

than something like

open door -> look in -> close door

And the more things you stick in the middle, the less plausible it is (to me) that that's one object interaction. I'd have to think about the case where someone draws a weapon, attacks with it, then sheathes it.

Although really, I'm not particularly picky about object-action-economy (including things like drawing weapons, etc) unless it feels like someone's trying to cheese things. And it's the cheese I'm allergic to (really, I'm milk sensitive), not the action economy or rules issues.

As another poster says later, I think the "things in between" make a big difference. Honestly, I'd probably be willing to fudge "close a door on your way through it" or "open an unlocked door on your way through it" as part of moving, as long as you weren't trying to be anything but extremely unsubtle. But if they're object interactions, I would say opening OR closing is one, unless it's just "open and close" as basically one motion with no pause or anything between. Really only useful for glancing inside. For dramatic/comedic timing, I might agree that opening the door, seeing the monster inside, and closing it are one interaction even with a sheepish pause in the middle.

I don't see a meaningful difference between "take out your spell component pouch, manipulate the contents to cast a spell, put it back" and "take out your weapon, manipulate it to damage opponents, put it back."

Even if you did insist that sheathing a weapon is too hard to do compared to putting away a component pouch, all you accomplish is encouraging players to invent magnetic sheaths, tie their weapons to themselves with cords, carry backup weapons which they leave stuck in the bodies of their enemies after an attack sequence, etc.

Might as well just let them interact freely with the sword, says I, without nitpicking the details. It does prevent them from interacting with other things like doors in the same turn though.

I don't think it's nitpicking the details because managing readied weapons is actually a significant part of action economy. I see no problem with requiring people to drop weapons (or tie them to themselves, which can have its own interesting consequences) if they want to very rapidly switch between them.

Iaijutsu just feels like something that DESERVES being a special feature for somebody who invests in it, to me.

That said, maybe they can't put the material component away in the same object interaction. Of course, most of the time, I see groups treat "interacting with the material component" as just part of the action of casting the spell; I would actually fully support making "drawing a weapon as part of attacking with it" be a thing, even though I wouldn't necessarily support sheathing it as a freebie object interaction if they'd done so. I'd need to think on this more (and probably will at some point, knowing me).



Interestingly, the cecaelia monk I am playing right now has a racial feat I brewed with the DM that gives him more "free" object interactions per round (total of 5, including the original free one). The idea is that his tentacles are multitasking. So he opens a door with one hand, goes through, and a tentacle closes and maybe even locks it behind him. Or he picks up multiple things off the ground at once. If he were the party cook, he'd be manipulating a pan with one tentacle while stirring something in a bowl with two others while picking up utensils for other purposes with others and shaking spices out in measured quantities to a couple other dishes all at once. (He isn't the party cook, though, so he doesn't do that.)

But that's a side note, just something amusing to me regarding object interactions and a character I'm playing.

[Reynaert]

(But really, how often is sheathing mid-combat coming up as a relevant decision?)

Well, this discussion started on the discussion of the Shield spell having somatic but no material components, and therefore requiring a free hand to use it.
So for any character who has access to that spell, and fights with both hands full (especially sword+board, notsomuch two-handed) it is a relevant decision every round.

So it averages out to "not very often" but all the instances are concentrated on a few specific character builds for which it's "all the time". :)

[PhantomSoul]

Well, this discussion started on the discussion of the Shield spell having somatic but no material components, and therefore requiring a free hand to use it.
So for any character who has access to that spell, and fights with both hands full (especially sword+board, notsomuch two-handed) it is a relevant decision every round.

So it averages out to "not very often" but all the instances are concentrated on a few specific character builds for which it's "all the time". :)

True; I'm so used to that being handwaived (haha) if you have Warcaster (yes, despite the rules for not-Shield Spells) and/or people who didn't ignore it blended it into the general routing (well, usually it was cast then attack, so it was easy; once you have a second hand full, you're often already done with casting that would be a problem). Plus other than for reactions the action economy usually already handles it (probably would be casting as an action and therefore you won't use the weapon until next turn, hence handwaiving).

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm not sure how you get that bless adds 7.5 to attack rolls. It adds an average of +2.5 to three attack rolls or saving throws.

This is notably weaker than Greater Invisibility, which automatically give you advantage on attack rolls and imposes disadvantage on enemy attack rolls, or Haste, which gives you +2 AC, an extra attack, and additional movement.

[ff7hero]

Others have addressed the OP more elegantly than I would be able to, but I wanted to hop on to clear up something I'm seeing in this thread. Casting a spell using a component pouch doesn't use any object interaction. You need a free hand to access your pouch, but it can be the hand that performs somatic components (if applicable). This is why I always go for the component pouch when given the choice, although I'll endure some combat juggling if an appropriate magic focus shows up.

As for making sure you have a Shield casting hand as a sword and boarder, I'll just say rope is cheap and dropping an item is free.

[Valmark]

Others have addressed the OP more elegantly than I would be able to, but I wanted to hop on to clear up something I'm seeing in this thread. Casting a spell using a component pouch doesn't use any object interaction. You need a free hand to access your pouch, but it can be the hand that performs somatic components (if applicable). This is why I always go for the component pouch when given the choice, although I'll endure some combat juggling if an appropriate magic focus shows up.

As for making sure you have a Shield casting hand as a sword and boarder, I'll just say rope is cheap and dropping an item is free.

Arcane focii also can be used with the same hand that does somatic components if that's what you mean by enduring combat juggling.

I think the difference between them is (mostly) for flavour.

[ff7hero]

Arcane focii also can be used with the same hand that does somatic components if that's what you mean by enduring combat juggling.

I think the difference between them is (mostly) for flavour.

For spells with S and M components you are correct. Technically by RAW you can't use a hand holding a focus to perform the S component of a spell without an M component.

[Selion]

I don't know if it's underestimated, but I think dragon's breath is a good spell to upcast. It's cast with bonus action, damage type can be adapted to situations, and its damage is better than bigby hand(upcast to level 5) and crown of stars (upcsdt to level 7).
I know bigby hand comes with utility and crown of stars doesn't require concentration, but if you are limited in spell selection and you just want a a single sustained damage spell I think it could be a good choice

[MaxWilson]

Others have addressed the OP more elegantly than I would be able to, but I wanted to hop on to clear up something I'm seeing in this thread. Casting a spell using a component pouch doesn't use any object interaction. You need a free hand to access your pouch, but it can be the hand that performs somatic components

I agree, and that's actually my point: the rules are already ridiculously permissive for spellcasters, so why should a DM get all hard-nosed about sheathing a sword after attacking with it? By strict RAW, you don't even need to TOUCH a component pouch in order to cast a spell using a component from the pouch, you just need a free hand with which you theoretically could touch it. ("A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.") Obviously this is nonsense, and the actual intent is that you do touch it, it just doesn't count against your object interaction the way drawing and/or sheathing a sword does, so you can interact with material components from a component pouch and still open a door on your turn, unlike with a sword.

For spells with S and M components you are correct. Technically by RAW you can't use a hand holding a focus to perform the S component of a spell without an M component.

Technically by RAW you don't need to hold a focus or component pouch to use it, you just need a free hand with which you could.

This is true regardless of whether the spell is SM or just M. You need a free hand for S (if required) and a free hand for M (if required), but they are allowed to be the same hand.

[ff7hero]

I agree, and that's actually my point: the rules are already ridiculously permissive for spellcasters, so why should a DM get all hard-nosed about sheathing a sword after attacking with it? By strict RAW, you don't even need to TOUCH a component pouch in order to cast a spell using a component from the pouch, you just need a free hand with which you theoretically could touch it. ("A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.") Obviously this is nonsense, and the actual intent is that you do touch it, it just doesn't count against your object interaction the way drawing and/or sheathing a sword does, so you can interact with material components from a component pouch and still open a door on your turn, unlike with a sword.



Technically by RAW you don't need to hold a focus or component pouch to use it, you just need a free hand with which you could.

This is true regardless of whether the spell is SM or just M. You need a free hand for S (if required) and a free hand for M (if required), but they are allowed to be the same hand.

Huh, that's interesting. I always took the "--or to hold a focus--" to mean one actually has to be holding the focus to cast a spell, but I see merit in your interpretation as well. What a strangely worded rule though...

[Frogreaver]

As for making sure you have a Shield casting hand as a sword and boarder, I'll just say rope is cheap and dropping an item is free.

Just wanted to say that your 'rope trick' isn't RAW and thus using it is at DM discretion for how well it works. Doing that in my games wouldn't work complication free.

[ff7hero]

Just wanted to say that your 'rope trick' isn't RAW and thus using it is at DM discretion for how well it works. Doing that in my games wouldn't work complication free.

Can you elaborate on which part of "I have a short rope tied to my sword hilt and my wrist. At the end of every turn, if I'm holding my sword and don't have an item interaction I drop it. Then if I want to attack on a later turn, I pick it up with my item interaction," isn't RAW?

[MaxWilson]

Can you elaborate on which part of "I have a short rope tied to my sword hilt and my wrist. At the end of every turn, if I'm holding my sword and don't have an item interaction I drop it. Then if I want to attack on a later turn, I pick it up with my item interaction," isn't RAW?

Arguably, dropping an item is an item interaction. It's not in RAW that it ISN'T one, anyway. Maybe that's what Frogreaver means.

[ff7hero]

Arguably, dropping an item is an item interaction. It's not in RAW that it ISN'T one, anyway. Maybe that's what Frogreaver means.

Preemptively, in case that's the issue. I did a quick Google and it seems my source was probably an old JC tweet. However, I would urge anyone considering this ruling to consider the poor martial before doing so. It hurts them a lot more than the spell casters.

[Frogreaver]

Preemptively, in case that's the issue. I did a quick Google and it seems my source was probably an old JC tweet. However, I would urge anyone considering this ruling to consider the poor martial before doing so. It hurts them a lot more than the spell casters.

It’s cheese and doesn’t emulate the fantasy genre. Thus, the best ruling IMO is to add in an appropriate penalty such that one can still do that but that it is not guaranteed to work. As it seems reasonably possible but not guaranteed to work every time.

What I mean by it’s not RAW is that RAW doesn’t provide any rules specifying that such an interaction is guaranteed to succeed. What you are doing is very much so in he purview of the DM.

[MaxWilson]

Preemptively, in case that's the issue. I did a quick Google and it seems my source was probably an old JC tweet. However, I would urge anyone considering this ruling to consider the poor martial before doing so. It hurts them a lot more than the spell casters.

Or just stick with RAW and let the poor martial interact with one object, without adding extra restrictions on top of that.

[Gignere]

I don't know if it's underestimated, but I think dragon's breath is a good spell to upcast. It's cast with bonus action, damage type can be adapted to situations, and its damage is better than bigby hand(upcast to level 5) and crown of stars (upcsdt to level 7).
I know bigby hand comes with utility and crown of stars doesn't require concentration, but if you are limited in spell selection and you just want a a single sustained damage spell I think it could be a good choice

Yes I think DB is underrated and it combos really well with familiars (owl in particular) and phantom steed.

[ff7hero]

It’s cheese and doesn’t emulate the fantasy genre. Thus, the best ruling IMO is to add in an appropriate penalty such that one can still do that but that it is not guaranteed to work. As it seems reasonably possible but not guaranteed to work every time.

What I mean by it’s not RAW is that RAW doesn’t provide any rules specifying that such an interaction is guaranteed to succeed. What you are doing is very much so in he purview of the DM.

In that case, were I playing a shield wearing spellcaster in your game, I'd just carry a half dozen of my weapon of choice so I can skip the rope and continue to have a casting hand for reactions. To me, that's more of a genre break, but I'll do whatever I have to do to be able to actually use my abilities. I don't feel like you're balking at the idea of dropping a weapon "for free" but if you are, consider that ending turn without a weapon in hand involves (effectively) forgoing OAs in a very telegraphed way.

Or just stick with RAW and let the poor martial interact with one object, without adding extra restrictions on top of that.

"Sorry Mr Fighter. You said you had your sword drawn so you can't throw even 1 javelin this turn. I guess you can use your Action Surge to attack with a Javelin once you use your object interaction to sheath the sword and a whole action to draw a javelin. Or you can dash to stand next to the enemy." 1 interaction is only enough for martials if dropping what you're holding is free.

[Frogreaver]

In that case, were I playing a shield wearing spellcaster in your game, I'd just carry a half dozen of my weapon of choice so I can skip the rope and continue to have a casting hand for reactions. To me, that's more of a genre break, but I'll do whatever I have to do to be able to actually use my abilities. I don't feel like you're balking at the idea of dropping a weapon "for free" but if you are, consider that ending turn without a weapon in hand involves (effectively) forgoing OAs in a very telegraphed way.

I agree that isn’t in genre either but it is also something explicitly allowed by rule.

I don’t have a problem dropping a weapon for free. I have a problem with it being attached to you via rope for the rest of the round causing no potential consequences.

[Valmark]

Yes I think DB is underrated and it combos really well with familiars (owl in particular) and phantom steed.

Agreed- especially if you have access to Twin metamagic (note: this depends on the DM, it does work at my tables).

In that case, were I playing a shield wearing spellcaster in your game, I'd just carry a half dozen of my weapon of choice so I can skip the rope and continue to have a casting hand for reactions. To me, that's more of a genre break, but I'll do whatever I have to do to be able to actually use my abilities. I don't feel like you're balking at the idea of dropping a weapon "for free" but if you are, consider that ending turn without a weapon in hand involves (effectively) forgoing OAs in a very telegraphed way.

To be fair there's a whole feat dedicated to easing exactly these restrictions, regardless of wether they should or shouldn't be enforced (and it comes with other goodies anyway).

I'd allow the rope trick but it's not like there aren't built-in ways to address the matter (though there is some discussion to be had regarding Warcaster and spells made with both material and somatic components).

[MaxWilson]

"Sorry Mr Fighter. You said you had your sword drawn so you can't throw even 1 javelin this turn. I guess you can use your Action Surge to attack with a Javelin once you use your object interaction to sheath the sword and a whole action to draw a javelin. Or you can dash to stand next to the enemy." 1 interaction is only enough for martials if dropping what you're holding is free.

Don't get me started on thrown weapons (javelins, needs object interaction by RAW) vs. arrows (drawn for free as part of each attack in an Attack action).

Tasha's provides a fighting style which lets you draw thrown weapons as part of the attack, but that's the wrong the solution. The right solution is just to say "object manipulations which can be pre-practiced as inherent parts of the action you're taking, including but not limited to manipulating spell components, drawing arrows from a quiver, and drawing thrown weapons as part of an attack, do not require a separate object interaction".

[Selrahc]

Can you elaborate on which part of "I have a short rope tied to my sword hilt and my wrist. At the end of every turn, if I'm holding my sword and don't have an item interaction I drop it. Then if I want to attack on a later turn, I pick it up with my item interaction," isn't RAW?

"Sure. And you're just kind of letting the sword dangle from you rather than putting it in a sheath? Sounds a little tricky to juggle the items like that, especially in the heat of combat. I could definitely see the loose sword hitting you, or throwing you off balance. Give me a dexterity roll to avoid complications. If you've got it, add sleight of hand proficiency"

RAW: The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.

If seems like a textbook example of a risky action, that should be resolved through an ability check. You're juggling a sword.