D&D 5E Casting with two handed weapon?

[CM]

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.

All this innuendo is making Eric's grandma blush.

 

[Gillywonka]

I wouldnt get too caught up in the weeds here. If you're attacking with a 2H sword that round, then your hand isnt free to cast a spell (S). If you attack with a spell, no problem, you're holding the 2H sword/weapon with your other hand.

 

[Ristamar]

I used to be in the "you can hold it with one hand" crowd, but I changed my stance soon after. Those that wield with two hands (without War Caster) must sheathe or drop before casting. It makes the versatile property useful for fighter-mage types.

 

[Valador]

I used to be in the "you can hold it with one hand" crowd, but I changed my stance soon after. Those that wield with two hands (without War Caster) must sheathe or drop before casting. It makes the versatile property useful for fighter-mage types.

It's a lot easier to hold a "2 handed" weapon in one hand than it is to try and hold two regular weapons in the same hand or a sword in a hand that's supposed to be holding a shield strap...

Saying you can't hold a great sword in one hand while waving the other around is like saying it's impossible to turn the handle on a door if your great sword is is unsheathed. It's unrealistic, untypical and just wrong on a lot of levels.

Dual wielding makes more sense to require a weapon to be dropped or stowed due to the awkwardness of trying to hold two item in one hand or under your arm, etc...

 

[Rya.Reisender]

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.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/tag/interaction/

 

[Ristamar]

It's a lot easier to hold a "2 handed" weapon in one hand than it is to try and hold two regular weapons in the same hand or a sword in a hand that's supposed to be holding a shield strap...

Saying you can't hold a great sword in one hand while waving the other around is like saying it's impossible to turn the handle on a door if your great sword is is unsheathed. It's unrealistic, untypical and just wrong on a lot of levels.

Dual wielding makes more sense to require a weapon to be dropped or stowed due to the awkwardness of trying to hold two item in one hand or under your arm, etc...

I'm not sure where I advocated for holding a weapon in a hand that is already holding a weapon or shield...?

Aside from that, I'm not particularly concerned with absolute realism within D&D. I'm fairly certain I could draw or stow two weapons simultaneously with little training and effort IRL, but my PC would need the Dual Wielder feat to accomplish such a daunting task within the span of 6 seconds without using a valuable action.

 

[Shendorion]

I like how they did the saber battles in the second Star Wars trilogy. You know how the jedi and sith combatants are going at it hammer and tongs with the sabers, but every now and then one of them will take a hand off their weapon to force push the other combatant or some piece of battlefield clutter around? It should be like that. No special rules, no action tax; you just thrust a hand toward the target for a second and then get back to work.

. . . unless your weapon is embedded in your gargantuan opponent and you're clutching the hilt for dear life as it thrashes around in an attempt to dislodge you. Then you need to make some kind of Athletics check or something.