D&D 5E Casting with two handed weapon?

[Ovinomancer]

Yup. You must have two free hands to attack, there's nothing about grips. If you have two hands available to attack with the weapon, and it is currently 'in hand', then you can attack. No need to use actions to swap between ready to attack and having a free hand.

 

[Quartz]

What about spells that use a non-expendable material component? Do you rule that casting a spell includes getting out the components and putting them back?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe the errata told us that its ok to hold a two handed weapon and cast a spell.

I guess the original intend was that you can´t cast with a two handed weapon which is why the quarterstaff is a one handed versatile weapon.

Here is how I would do it: Since versatile weapon´s benefit is so rarely useful, I would allow holding a two handed weapon one handed, as long as you are not in close combat, where I would believe juggling around with your grip is difficult. If you do in close combat, your two handed weapon is not ready for opportunity attacks.

 

[77IM]

Yes, manipulating components is already part of the action to cast a spell. You only need a free hand to do it. It can even be the same hand used to perform somatic components. (PHB p.203)

 

[UnknownDyson]

I believe the errata told us that its ok to hold a two handed weapon and cast a spell.

I guess the original intend was that you can´t cast with a two handed weapon which is why the quarterstaff is a one handed versatile weapon.

Here is how I would do it: Since versatile weapon´s benefit is so rarely useful, I would allow holding a two handed weapon one handed, as long as you are not in close combat, where I would believe juggling around with your grip is difficult. If you do in close combat, your two handed weapon is not ready for opportunity attacks.

But then... what is the point of the war caster feat?

 

[Al2O3]

But then... what is the point of the war caster feat?

To cast while wielding two weapons or a one-handed weapon and a shield. I guess it's most useful to characters like paladins and clerics.

 

[bganon]

I think the quarterstaff weirdness is more about monk usage and preventing GWF shenanigans than anything to do with casters.

 

[the Jester]

I'm not sure if there has been official word on it, but I think going from welding a weapon with two hands to holding it with one and having one free counts as totally free, similar to dropping hammer to the ground.

The thing where you don't use your object interaction to drop something is totally a house rule. It's really commonly used, but beware of building a rules argument that includes it.

 

[jodyjohnson]

What about spells that use a non-expendable material component? Do you rule that casting a spell includes getting out the components and putting them back?

I rule they just have to be in your spell component pouch - you grab your sack quick and cast, then go back to having both hands on your weapon.

Alternately you use the Spell focus (which includes a spell component pouch).

 

[Ovinomancer]

The thing where you don't use your object interaction to drop something is totally a house rule. It's really commonly used, but beware of building a rules argument that includes it.

Pretty sure that it qualifies as DM purview under not an action, like talking or other trivial things. So, you could totally build a rules argument on that foundation. Also, I think Crawford weighed in that it's not an action via twitter at some point, so that's even more sturdiness to the foundation.