D&D 5E Re-gripping your weapon uses an object interaction?

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
Wait, what? That certainly can't be right?
I should clarify somatic spells and possibly if you have to retrieve a material component.

A combo of sage advice, warcaster feat, and object usage. Warcaster Feat specifically allows you to cast somatic spells even if your hands are full with a weapon (and shield). This is a specific rule that means you can't normally cast a somatic spell if hands are full. However, Sage Advice clarified you don't have to drop a weapon/shield to cast. You can pin, hold with another hand, etc. However, my take is that storing a weapon/shield in this way to free up a hand would cost a "free" action of sheathing a weapon (storing it to free up a hand). Since you're using your free action, you have to wait till your next turn to adjust the weapon/shield differently. This might mean a loss in AC or the ability to use the weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity.

Otherwise, if you could store, cast, and restore, the Warcaster Feat feature would be rendered useless.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I should clarify somatic spells and possibly if you have to retrieve a material component.

A combo of sage advice, warcaster feat, and object usage. Warcaster Feat specifically allows you to cast somatic spells even if your hands are full with a weapon (and shield). This is a specific rule that means you can't normally cast a somatic spell if hands are full. However, Sage Advice clarified you don't have to drop a weapon/shield to cast. You can pin, hold with another hand, etc. However, my take is that storing a weapon/shield in this way to free up a hand would cost a "free" action of sheathing a weapon (storing it to free up a hand). Since you're using your free action, you have to wait till your next turn to adjust the weapon/shield differently. This might mean a loss in AC or the ability to use the weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity.

Otherwise, if you could store, cast, and restore, the Warcaster Feat feature would be rendered useless.
But you're not storing anything, and both of your hands are not full. You can hold the two-handed weapon with one hand. The things you mention only matter if you have a weapon in both hands or a weapon and a shield.
 


gnarlygninja

Explorer
I wouldn't rule that regripping a sword takes an object interaction at all, because you aren't drawing or stowing it, and for what its worth JC appears to agree
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I've always ruled that people using a 2 handed weapons who wanted to do something with one hand (cast a spell, drink a potion, pick their nose etc etc) can hold the weapon momentarily while the other hand does the thing.

Now I am sure there are specific circumstances where this might not work or backfire, but it shouldn't be something common.
 

I should clarify somatic spells and possibly if you have to retrieve a material component.

A combo of sage advice, warcaster feat, and object usage. Warcaster Feat specifically allows you to cast somatic spells even if your hands are full with a weapon (and shield). This is a specific rule that means you can't normally cast a somatic spell if hands are full. However, Sage Advice clarified you don't have to drop a weapon/shield to cast. You can pin, hold with another hand, etc. However, my take is that storing a weapon/shield in this way to free up a hand would cost a "free" action of sheathing a weapon (storing it to free up a hand). Since you're using your free action, you have to wait till your next turn to adjust the weapon/shield differently. This might mean a loss in AC or the ability to use the weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity.

Otherwise, if you could store, cast, and restore, the Warcaster Feat feature would be rendered useless.
To be fair, making that part of the feat redundant wouldn't be a bad thing, since as it stands it's a feat tax for swordmages with shields or two-weapon fighting (but not two-handed weapons).

And the feat would still be a dang good choice without the tax status. If it weren't a tax you could just get it when you wanted rather than needing it right away.
 

Bolares

Hero
I should clarify somatic spells and possibly if you have to retrieve a material component.

A combo of sage advice, warcaster feat, and object usage. Warcaster Feat specifically allows you to cast somatic spells even if your hands are full with a weapon (and shield). This is a specific rule that means you can't normally cast a somatic spell if hands are full. However, Sage Advice clarified you don't have to drop a weapon/shield to cast. You can pin, hold with another hand, etc. However, my take is that storing a weapon/shield in this way to free up a hand would cost a "free" action of sheathing a weapon (storing it to free up a hand). Since you're using your free action, you have to wait till your next turn to adjust the weapon/shield differently. This might mean a loss in AC or the ability to use the weapon in hand for attacks of opportunity.

Otherwise, if you could store, cast, and restore, the Warcaster Feat feature would be rendered useless.
Yeah, this is just wrong in the case of 2 handed weapons. If you are using a two handed weapon you can use one hand to use somatic and material components while you hold the weapon in the other. You only have to use both hands while attacking.
 



toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
But you're not storing anything, and both of your hands are not full. You can hold the two-handed weapon with one hand. The things you mention only matter if you have a weapon in both hands or a weapon and a shield.
Yeah, this is just wrong in the case of 2 handed weapons. If you are using a two handed weapon you can use one hand to use somatic and material components while you hold the weapon in the other. You only have to use both hands while attacking.
I don't disagree; it's well-settled one can hold 2-handed weapons with a single hand. My issue is whether "propping it" in one hand counts as your free action for the round. Absent a rule, it's pure DM discretion.

If so, then for the rest of the round it would affect your ability to take attacks of opportunity because you'd have to wait until your next turn to use a free action to get 2 hands on the weapon again.

If not, the Warcaster Feat, subsection #2, becomes irrelevant when using 2-handed weapons.

Also see D&D's 2015 "Rules of Spellcasting" (Sage Advice) page, relating to when your hands are free for casting:

Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

There's a specific rule under Material Components that says when a hand is holding a spell's Focus, you can use the same hand for Somatics, but this ruling is not extended to spells without a Focus. The cross-reference is whether there is a "spirit of the rules" that a restriction applies unless you take the Feat to overcome it.
 

I don't disagree; it's well-settled one can hold 2-handed weapons with a single hand. My issue is whether "propping it" in one hand counts as your free action for the round. Absent a rule, it's pure DM discretion.

If so, then for the rest of the round it would affect your ability to take attacks of opportunity because you'd have to wait until your next turn to use a free action to get 2 hands on the weapon again.

If not, the Warcaster Feat, subsection #2, becomes irrelevant when using 2-handed weapons.

Also see D&D's 2015 "Rules of Spellcasting" (Sage Advice) page, relating to when your hands are free for casting:



There's a specific rule under Material Components that says when a hand is holding a spell's Focus, you can use the same hand for Somatics, but this ruling is not extended to spells without a Focus. The cross-reference is whether there is a "spirit of the rules" that a restriction applies unless you take the Feat to overcome it.
None of this applies to two-handed weapons unless you rule that just moving your hand is an object interaction and that I feel would be hella bizarre.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
If not, the Warcaster Feat, subsection #2, becomes irrelevant when using 2-handed weapons.
It IS irrelevant when using 2-handed weapons. That bit is about sword-and-board, where both hands are normally busy and one of them is strapped on. You gotta put your weapon somewhere to free your hand. It's normally an object interaction to sheath, hook, or tuck it under your shield-arm's armpit.

With a 2-handed weapon, you just let go. Just as free as dropping it would be, but the other hand still holds it.
 

Bolares

Hero
My issue is whether "propping it" in one hand counts as your free action for the round. Absent a rule, it's pure DM discretion.
I disagree because "propping" is not a thing. Sure, everything in the game is at DM discretion, but creating an action or stance like propping just to stop a player from doing something the game let's them do is kind of bad.
I don't see what's the problem with part of warcaster being useless for 2 handed characters. Not every feat has to work with every build. It's okay for the feat to be less valuable to some gish characters.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Also, citing the supposedly-optional Warcaster Feat to determine what the game rules are is a little suspect, don't you think?*

*Sure, most people play with Feats, but if the game functions without them, determining if something is balanced because of the presence/absence of a Feat seems a little off to me.
 

I think, this is why versatile weapons exist. To be able to switch gripping easily.
I think using a two handed weapon and casting spells while balancing a two handed weapon in one hand is too much. It is having your cake and eat it.
(My personal take, I might make an exception for especially light two handed weapons like the longbow.)
 

toucanbuzz

No rule is inviolate
None of this applies to two-handed weapons unless you rule that just moving your hand is an object interaction and that I feel would be hella bizarre.
You've got a point. Doing some searching, found designer and Sage Advice guy Crawford tweeted in 2017 that "gripping" (switching between 1 and 2 hands on a 2-handed weapon) is meant to be a "non-action."

While Crawford's Sage Advice tweets rarely seem to put to rest any issues on these forums, I tend to lean to the designers when it comes to "spirit of the rules" rulings, even if WOTC (now) considers his tweets unofficial rulings unless they make it into the Sage Advice compendium.

Has anyone seen this post/tweet? If so, please quote/link.
The above Sage Advice link will give you something to take to your DM with the caveat that the Sage Advice compendium doesn't consider any of Crawford's tweets as an "official" rule for universal gameplay (they did prior to 2019, when the tweet was made). So, your DM is correct in the sense they are using DM discretion to make a house rule on how two-handed weapons work. If your DM believes it is an official rule, that's been covered ad nauseum that it is not.
 




Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This week my DM told me half-way through my extra attack sequence that when nothing is in your hands except your two-handed weapon, removing one hand takes your free interaction even though it costs nothing to drop the weapon (removing both hands!), and that re-gripping it takes another object interaction, therefore using my action, therefore not having an action left, therefore I can't use the Attack action!

He said he saw a tweet or something somewhere, but he couldn't find it again.

Later he said that the tweeter/poster/whatever got mixed up. What they said was that getting your spell components out of your component pouch was your free interaction and re-gripping your greatsword with that hand was also an object interaction, leaving no action remaining to attack.

So the position is either:-

* both removing one hand from your held 2H weapon AND re-gripping it each costs its own object interaction

OR

* letting go with one hand costs nothing, but re-gripping it costs your free interaction.

Imagine your greatsword is sheathed. You draw it (with one hand, obviously), you then grip it with your other hand because you need both hands to attack with it, then attack.

Nope! Drawing your weapon IS your free object interaction for this round! If you then grip it with your other hand it takes another object interaction, which uses your action, so you don't have an action to attack! Of course if you DON'T grip it with your other hand then you can't attack with a 2H weapon if only one hand is on it!

Is this correct? Are users of 2H weapons unable to draw and attack with them in the same turn, while users of 1H weapons are unhindered?

Or is this, as I suspect, total BS?

Has anyone heard of this 'rule'? If so, please cite the book and page number.

Has anyone seen this post/tweet? If so, please quote/link.
Even if that is correct, I wouldn't do that to a player given the insignificant interaction involved. You should tell your DM that the hilt of a two handed weapon is long enough to draw with two hands and that you are using both. ;)
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top