Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 7159499" data-attributes="member: 6801845">OK ... last time. Restates the rule, adds nothing.  You have a free hand so you can cast spells. Changes the rule, you no longer need a free hand for divine spells only.  But if, and only if, one hand is holding a shield for some reason I can't quite fathom. Restates the rule, adds nothing.  You have a free hand so you can cast spells.  I glossed over this one.  I also disagree with it. Ever carried an axe?  You don't use two hands all the time.  Worst case, letting go with one hand would be free, grabbing the weapon again should use your object interaction. Restates the rule, adds nothing.  You have a free hand so you can cast spells. Restates the rule, adds nothing.  You don't have a free hand, you can't cast spells with somatic components. You are restating the rules without adding value in 4 out of 6.  In the sword & board case you're house ruling but only allowing this one exception.  It's not consistent ... either follow the rules or don't.  There are plenty of deities in D&D mythology that use two weapons or a two-handed weapon.  Why are their chosen warriors punished?The best I can say about your two-handed melee is a ruling that I simply disagree with it, it's getting really nit-picky for no reason.  I know this was addressed in the sage advice tweets (it's allowed), but it never made it into the official sage advice column.Anyway this thread isn't really much of a discussion. It's more a bunch of people saying what they do and giving alternatives and you rejecting pretty much all of it.  It's your prerogative of course, but there's reason to continue.</blockquote>

Verification