1
\$\begingroup\$

I'm designing an outlander wood elf warlock who only has one hand. I feel like this would prevent me from cheating the action economy, while still allowing me to carry things with that hand. If I need to cast, I'd have to drop my weapon to do so.

Does this make sense? or would this be too much?

\$\endgroup\$
5
\$\begingroup\$

Generally, you would need a free hand for your focus anyway.

The effect of an arcane focus is that you may use it in place of most material components, but to supply them for a spell requires a free hand to manipulate them anyway.

You would just be going from needing a hand for the components to needing a hand for the focus, be it wand, pendant, or even ring.

Regarding your one-handed warlock, having the hand gone yet being able to cast with the other hand full would be almost equivalent, mechanically, to having the hand permanently occupied with the focus and nothing else (not even the shield from your other question). So balance concerns over casting handless should be minimal, but it’s ultimately up to your DM.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Handless arm is probably going to be taken by a shield: rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/156953/… \$\endgroup\$ – Revolver_Ocelot Sep 29 at 5:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yes, I am planning to try and put a shield on the hand-less arm (If I can avoid breaking the game to do it). That is why I am wondering if I could maintain balance by being required to drop anything held in the hand in order to use the ring as a focus. For example: if I am wielding a weapon in that hand, and need to cast, I would have to drop the weapon in order to do so. Which now has me wondering... I know it costs an action to pick up a weapon, does it also cost an action to drop one? \$\endgroup\$ – VarisBersk Sep 29 at 15:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.