What makes you imagine that you can put the star map on a shield?
It is odd that all of the spells that the star map allows you to cast are V,S spells, but nothing indicates that you should treat the spells any differently than the rules tell you.
The fact that it seems to be impossible RAW to cast any of the spells that the map gives you without doffing your shield seems to be an oversight on the part of the designers. With that being said, within the framework of the game that seems exactly what you need to do. As for your follow up question, it seems as though you do not need two hands free - or even one - to use the ability provided by the archer form. That may be up to the DM, but the feature doesn't tell you. I would probably rule that "hurling a luminous arrow" requires a single hand free.
I realize this is a super old quote, only referencing it because you posted in this thread recently. What makes you think you can't? It's a tiny object, and the Scroll, hide and Tablet could be attached to the inside of a shield very easily (I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to be), and the crystal could be embedded into the shield handle so you're directly holding it as you hold the shield. Of course DM can always just say 'no' and the glass discs or book forms would pose additional challenges anyway, but as long as it's in a suitable form nothing in the RAW precludes you doing so that I can see.
Mostly I say it because no rule says that you can, whereas any other focus that can be explicitly combined or used as another item tells you that in the text.
I realize this is a super old quote, only referencing it because you posted in this thread recently. What makes you think you can't? It's a tiny object, and the Scroll, hide and Tablet could be attached to the inside of a shield very easily (I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to be), and the crystal could be embedded into the shield handle so you're directly holding it as you hold the shield. Of course DM can always just say 'no' and the glass discs or book forms would pose additional challenges anyway, but as long as it's in a suitable form nothing in the RAW precludes you doing so that I can see.
Mostly I say it because no rule says that you can, whereas any other focus that can be explicitly combined or used as another item tells you that in the text.
I don't think anyone would consider the list of things you "can" do with items within the rules of 5e to be exhaustive. The rules also don't say you can tie a string around an object and wear it around your neck, so that you can drop it and have it dangle rather than falling to the ground, and easily grab it back in your hand whenever desired. It would seem silly to me for someone to claim that since the rules don't say you can it's somehow impossible to do so. I'm not sure exactly which rules you're quoting, but if you're thinking of for example staffs being called out as being able to be used as focuses, to me that seems like a different thing entirely. That's declaring that you can use a combat ready weapon rather than something which is strictly ritualistic. Declaring you can use a staff as a focus and / or a weapon at the same time in my eyes at least in no way precludes (for example) someone hanging weights from both sides of their staff so while they're working out and pumping iron they still have their focus in hand, or any other item interactions or combinations which could be realistically achieved. Would you disagree?
Well, that is a way of understanding that is incompatible with the rest of the rules. Sure 5e doesn't tell you all of what you can do all the time, but as far as mechanics go, nearly all rules do tell you what you are allowed to do, rather than what you can't. "The rules don't say I can't" is not good rules advice or a good way of determining what mechanics the rules allow for. I disagree.
Well, that is a way of understanding that is incompatible with the rest of the rules. Sure 5e doesn't tell you all of what you can do all the time, but as far as mechanics go, nearly all rules do tell you what you are allowed to do, rather than what you can't. "The rules don't say I can't" is not good rules advice or a good way of determining what mechanics the rules allow for. I disagree.
It ultimately depends on what you see D&D as, I suppose. Whether you view it as a simulationist representation of an environment the players are exploring and operating within, or as a combat board game. The rules don't say you can set up trade routes, or sleep in a tree, or use a lever to increase the amount you can move, or seduce a guard and then blackmail them for entry somewhere, or any of a million other things. I personally don't at all see doing those things as remotely incompatible with the rest of the rules. The first line in the three pillars of adventure in the first chapter of the PHB is "Adventurers can try to do anything their players can imagine".
While the DM always has final say on how difficult a task may be and how successful a player is, as well as what drawbacks may exist to that setup, the idea that the entirety of actions capable of being performed is spelled out by the rules isn't one established anywhere in the rules or supported by the rules to my knowledge. As far as I can see, the rules DO NOT tell you what you're allowed to do, they tell you HOW you can do certain things - the mechanics under which certain actions would operate. For example, a short rest: "A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." It's not saying that you can Only eat, drink, read, or tend to wounds. It's saying you Can't do something "more strenuous". If we went with the interpretation that it's specifically listing the only allowed actions, you wouldn't be able to talk during a short rest, which is just silly.
To each their own of course but yeah, to me it seems we have fundamentally different ideas as to what D&D is and what is and is not possible within it. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing but for me, "The rules don't say you can't" is Absolutely valid rules advice.
Well, yeah, if you are talking about how a DM is free to change a game, that is certainly different than the default rules of what is printed in the books. We will certainly disagree.
Well, yeah, if you are talking about how a DM is free to change a game, that is certainly different than the default rules of what is printed in the books. We will certainly disagree.
No, not talking about how a DM is free to change a game. Just saying that within the RAW, their baseline responsibility is to adjudicate the results of the player's actions, and the player's default action list is comprised of "anything [they] can imagine". That's the default rules printed in the books, first thing, chapter 1. Regardless, that's ok, it's perfectly fine that we disagree. Just saying, I'm not talking Rule 0, DM can change whatever they want sort of stuff here. I'm talking Chapter 1 Rule 1 Within RAW is that the players can try to do literally anything they can think of and the responsibility of the DM is to determine how it goes. Someone trying to make a parachute (or use one) is totally permitted by RAW despite not having specific rules for it, not because the DM is free to change the game, but because the base rules of the game specify you can try it and the DM has to figure out how it goes, same as mounting a hand crossbow to the top of a shield or attaching a star map to the inside.
But still RAW, the mechanics tell you what you can do. Again, "the rules don't say I can't use 4 greataxes on my single attack" is not tacit permission. The "anything you can imagine" part of the game is not what you can do to change the mechanics, it is what you can do within them.
For example, you can imagine any tiny item to represent your star map (that's working with anything you can imagine within the mechanics), but making that tiny item part of another is not something that the focus rules allow without one of the special features that allow using something other than a separate item as a focus (combining a focus with anything else without rules permission is changing the mechanics).
If you can't see the difference between those two, then I can see why we disagree. I do consider myself a rules first player of this game.
But still RAW, the mechanics tell you what you can do. Again, "the rules don't say I can't use 4 greataxes on my single attack" is not tacit permission. The "anything you can imagine" part of the game is not what you can do to change the mechanics, it is what you can do within them.
For example, you can imagine any tiny item to represent your star map (that's working with anything you can imagine within the mechanics), but making that tiny item part of another is not something that the focus rules allow without one of the special features that allow using something other than a separate item as a focus (combining a focus with anything else without rules permission is changing the mechanics).
If you can't see the difference between those two, then I can see why we disagree. I do consider myself a rules first player of this game.
The rules DO say you can't use 4 greataxes on your attack though. A Greataxe has the Two Handed property, meaning it takes 2 hands to wield, so unless you have 8 hands the rules say you can't wield 4 of them.
A Thri Kreen with Dual Wielder can wield 2 longswords and another 2 Scimitars or other light weapons fwiw, though doing so won't increase their number of attacks per round. But regardless, it's not that you can do anything you can imagine, it's that you can try anything you can imagine. Certainly your character can try to monkey grip 2 greataxes per hand, and wield all 4 at once. They would likely rapidly find it's way too heavy to wield effectively, and would get -at best- disadvantage on the exact same number of attacks they would otherwise get (if the DM allowed an attack at all, instead of saying due to the weight they couldn't effectively wield it and disallowing the attack entirely), but that doesn't mean they can't try it.
Ironically your example I see as literally the opposite - much like the requirements in terms of types of weapons and hands required to use them are specifically prescribed by the rules, the form of your star map is specifically called out from a list of fixed values - either you pick one off the table or roll on it randomly, I would Not allow deviation from that list by RAW. What you can do with that item once its form is determined though isn't (to my knowledge) specifically called out or limited at all. If you have a RAW quote on an imposed limitation in the way you can combine a focus with another item I'd love to see it, I am not aware of such a rule, and thus, to my knowledge, there's no mechanic there to change.
You already have rules permission, in that you can try anything you can imagine. There's no guarantee it'll work of course. If you embed a gem into a shield handle it may well shatter the first time you're struck in combat, rendering both the star map useless until it can be replaced and the shield incapable of being wielded properly. That's up to DM discretion as far as what the impact of the attempt is. But whereas the form of the star map has a specifically called out, imposed limitation, the use of the star map once its form has been determined is, as far as I'm aware, wide open.
Wait, so you admit that the rules explicitly tell you that the star map is a tiny object of a few particular forms?
Then this isn't a question. You just admitted you are wrong. In so vehemently missing my point, i think you've actually inadvertently proved it.
Yeah ok so it seems you're not capable of having a good faith discussion, I guess we're done here. For the record, I never claimed it Wasn't. The contention always was and has been what you can do With that tiny object. A few choice quotes:
It's a tiny object, and the Scroll, hide and Tablet could be attached to the inside of a shield very easily (I can't see any reason why they wouldn't be able to be), and the crystal could be embedded into the shield handle so you're directly holding it as you hold the shield.
I don't think anyone would consider the list of things you "can" do with items within the rules of 5e to be exhaustive. The rules also don't say you can tie a string around an object and wear it around your neck, so that you can drop it and have it dangle rather than falling to the ground, and easily grab it back in your hand whenever desired.
Even if I go with the most charitable interpretation possible and assume you're trying to say that you can't combine it because then it wouldn't be a tiny object in the form in question (as though tying a string around something or placing it within another object fundamentally changes its form or makes it a different thing), I already addressed that very thing from when I first started discussing this. So you're just ignoring what I'm saying in hopes of creating what you perceive as a "gotcha" moment, rather than even trying to understand my statements or position. And that's the most charitable interpretation. I did not vehemently miss your point, I am capable of understanding what you're saying, I just disagree with it, for the reasons already stated and supported by the rules as written. You're free to play your game as you wish, we're not at the same table, but regardless, it's clear that there is no point discussing this with you. Lesson learned.
The rules still tell you what you can do. An omission in them is not tacit permission. Still.
That's the point that I've been trying to make for several posts now that you have been adamantly ignoring. If you don't agree, then yes, there is nothing more to discuss. (Although your subsequent posts and posts in other threads seem as though you understand me, you just don't want to apply the concept to this particular topic.)
I think that one needs to understand the difference between "the rules don't say I can't" and "the rules allow me to do this" to have a functional understanding of the rules.
Mostly I say it because no rule says that you can, whereas any other focus that can be explicitly combined or used as another item tells you that in the text.
I don't think anyone would consider the list of things you "can" do with items within the rules of 5e to be exhaustive. The rules also don't say you can tie a string around an object and wear it around your neck, so that you can drop it and have it dangle rather than falling to the ground, and easily grab it back in your hand whenever desired. It would seem silly to me for someone to claim that since the rules don't say you can it's somehow impossible to do so. I'm not sure exactly which rules you're quoting, but if you're thinking of for example staffs being called out as being able to be used as focuses, to me that seems like a different thing entirely. That's declaring that you can use a combat ready weapon rather than something which is strictly ritualistic. Declaring you can use a staff as a focus and / or a weapon at the same time in my eyes at least in no way precludes (for example) someone hanging weights from both sides of their staff so while they're working out and pumping iron they still have their focus in hand, or any other item interactions or combinations which could be realistically achieved. Would you disagree?
Well, that is a way of understanding that is incompatible with the rest of the rules. Sure 5e doesn't tell you all of what you can do all the time, but as far as mechanics go, nearly all rules do tell you what you are allowed to do, rather than what you can't. "The rules don't say I can't" is not good rules advice or a good way of determining what mechanics the rules allow for. I disagree.
It ultimately depends on what you see D&D as, I suppose. Whether you view it as a simulationist representation of an environment the players are exploring and operating within, or as a combat board game. The rules don't say you can set up trade routes, or sleep in a tree, or use a lever to increase the amount you can move, or seduce a guard and then blackmail them for entry somewhere, or any of a million other things. I personally don't at all see doing those things as remotely incompatible with the rest of the rules. The first line in the three pillars of adventure in the first chapter of the PHB is "Adventurers can try to do anything their players can imagine".
While the DM always has final say on how difficult a task may be and how successful a player is, as well as what drawbacks may exist to that setup, the idea that the entirety of actions capable of being performed is spelled out by the rules isn't one established anywhere in the rules or supported by the rules to my knowledge. As far as I can see, the rules DO NOT tell you what you're allowed to do, they tell you HOW you can do certain things - the mechanics under which certain actions would operate. For example, a short rest: "A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds." It's not saying that you can Only eat, drink, read, or tend to wounds. It's saying you Can't do something "more strenuous". If we went with the interpretation that it's specifically listing the only allowed actions, you wouldn't be able to talk during a short rest, which is just silly.
To each their own of course but yeah, to me it seems we have fundamentally different ideas as to what D&D is and what is and is not possible within it. Neither a good thing nor a bad thing but for me, "The rules don't say you can't" is Absolutely valid rules advice.
Well, yeah, if you are talking about how a DM is free to change a game, that is certainly different than the default rules of what is printed in the books. We will certainly disagree.
No, not talking about how a DM is free to change a game. Just saying that within the RAW, their baseline responsibility is to adjudicate the results of the player's actions, and the player's default action list is comprised of "anything [they] can imagine". That's the default rules printed in the books, first thing, chapter 1. Regardless, that's ok, it's perfectly fine that we disagree. Just saying, I'm not talking Rule 0, DM can change whatever they want sort of stuff here. I'm talking Chapter 1 Rule 1 Within RAW is that the players can try to do literally anything they can think of and the responsibility of the DM is to determine how it goes. Someone trying to make a parachute (or use one) is totally permitted by RAW despite not having specific rules for it, not because the DM is free to change the game, but because the base rules of the game specify you can try it and the DM has to figure out how it goes, same as mounting a hand crossbow to the top of a shield or attaching a star map to the inside.
But still RAW, the mechanics tell you what you can do. Again, "the rules don't say I can't use 4 greataxes on my single attack" is not tacit permission. The "anything you can imagine" part of the game is not what you can do to change the mechanics, it is what you can do within them.
For example, you can imagine any tiny item to represent your star map (that's working with anything you can imagine within the mechanics), but making that tiny item part of another is not something that the focus rules allow without one of the special features that allow using something other than a separate item as a focus (combining a focus with anything else without rules permission is changing the mechanics).
If you can't see the difference between those two, then I can see why we disagree. I do consider myself a rules first player of this game.
The rules DO say you can't use 4 greataxes on your attack though. A Greataxe has the Two Handed property, meaning it takes 2 hands to wield, so unless you have 8 hands the rules say you can't wield 4 of them.
A Thri Kreen with Dual Wielder can wield 2 longswords and another 2 Scimitars or other light weapons fwiw, though doing so won't increase their number of attacks per round. But regardless, it's not that you can do anything you can imagine, it's that you can try anything you can imagine. Certainly your character can try to monkey grip 2 greataxes per hand, and wield all 4 at once. They would likely rapidly find it's way too heavy to wield effectively, and would get -at best- disadvantage on the exact same number of attacks they would otherwise get (if the DM allowed an attack at all, instead of saying due to the weight they couldn't effectively wield it and disallowing the attack entirely), but that doesn't mean they can't try it.
Ironically your example I see as literally the opposite - much like the requirements in terms of types of weapons and hands required to use them are specifically prescribed by the rules, the form of your star map is specifically called out from a list of fixed values - either you pick one off the table or roll on it randomly, I would Not allow deviation from that list by RAW. What you can do with that item once its form is determined though isn't (to my knowledge) specifically called out or limited at all. If you have a RAW quote on an imposed limitation in the way you can combine a focus with another item I'd love to see it, I am not aware of such a rule, and thus, to my knowledge, there's no mechanic there to change.
You already have rules permission, in that you can try anything you can imagine. There's no guarantee it'll work of course. If you embed a gem into a shield handle it may well shatter the first time you're struck in combat, rendering both the star map useless until it can be replaced and the shield incapable of being wielded properly. That's up to DM discretion as far as what the impact of the attempt is. But whereas the form of the star map has a specifically called out, imposed limitation, the use of the star map once its form has been determined is, as far as I'm aware, wide open.
Wait, so you admit that the rules explicitly tell you that the star map is a tiny object of a few particular forms?
Then this isn't a question. You just admitted you are wrong. In so vehemently missing my point, i think you've actually inadvertently proved it.
Yeah ok so it seems you're not capable of having a good faith discussion, I guess we're done here. For the record, I never claimed it Wasn't. The contention always was and has been what you can do With that tiny object. A few choice quotes:
Even if I go with the most charitable interpretation possible and assume you're trying to say that you can't combine it because then it wouldn't be a tiny object in the form in question (as though tying a string around something or placing it within another object fundamentally changes its form or makes it a different thing), I already addressed that very thing from when I first started discussing this. So you're just ignoring what I'm saying in hopes of creating what you perceive as a "gotcha" moment, rather than even trying to understand my statements or position. And that's the most charitable interpretation. I did not vehemently miss your point, I am capable of understanding what you're saying, I just disagree with it, for the reasons already stated and supported by the rules as written. You're free to play your game as you wish, we're not at the same table, but regardless, it's clear that there is no point discussing this with you. Lesson learned.
The rules still tell you what you can do. An omission in them is not tacit permission. Still.
That's the point that I've been trying to make for several posts now that you have been adamantly ignoring. If you don't agree, then yes, there is nothing more to discuss. (Although your subsequent posts and posts in other threads seem as though you understand me, you just don't want to apply the concept to this particular topic.)
I think that one needs to understand the difference between "the rules don't say I can't" and "the rules allow me to do this" to have a functional understanding of the rules.