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

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
There’s nothing to suggest a two-handed weapon needs any sort of “propping” to be held in one hand.
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.
Likewise, there’s nothing to suggest that an object interaction is required to grip a weapon in two hands. All you need is two free hands.
If not, the Warcaster Feat, subsection #2, becomes irrelevant when using 2-handed weapons.
That’s correct, in the same way that the second part of crossbow expert is irrelevant when wielding a longbow. The benefit affects dual-wielding, and sword-and-board.
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 is relevant to two-handed weapons. You can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, in which case, the other hand is free. You can use that free hand to perform the material and somatic components of spells, or grapple, or make unarmed strikes, or interact with objects, or hold the weapon that’s in your other hand so you can attack with it.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Stormonu

Legend
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.
I would be happy to see that rule go bye-bye, and that part of the feat as well.

Most shields that I'm familiar with are built so that you could hold a torch or small item in that hand, wiggling fingers for a spell shouldn't be too impossible. And taking a hand off a two-handed weapon to unleash a bonus spell probably shouldn't require you to sheathe the sword to do it.

And it just unfairly punishes the likes of Paladins and Eldritch knights who use weapon + shield or two-handed weapons, were they wanting to get off a smite spell or green-fire cantrip or the like.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.)
Versatile weapons mostly exist so you can switch between sword-and-board and two-handing without having to carry another weapon. That, and to give Small characters an option to two-hand something other than a greatclub without disadvantage.
 

Li Shenron

Legend
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

First, even if your DM chooses to enforce the object interaction rule for changing grip/configuration of your weapon, note that by the RAW the rule gives you free interaction with ONE OBJECT per turn, not ONE INTERACTION. So you can change hands as many times you wish per turn as long as it's the SAME weapon. You can also draw it, juggle it, drop it, pick it up again, scratch your back with it, pick your nose... still free. Yes the object interaction RAW is really that dumb, but if a DM wants to go with the RAW, let them choke on it.

But as others have already said, it's very reasonable not to even count it at all. Use the "Interacing with objects around you" list as a reference, and see how all examples are at least a little more time-consuming than changing hands.

Then, your DM is free to overrule that in their game changing weapon configuration is a tactical choice that should have a cost in the action economy (I've seen DMs requiring a full action to change weapon). But it should be a conscious DM's choice.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
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.
You bring up a 2 handed weapon & spell components. Your gm might be pointing at the wrong rule, but you simply can not cast spells while wielding a 2 handed weapon if the spell requires a free hand for somatic/material components unless you have an appropriate feat or similar that allows you to do so using the weapon instead of a free hand.. The 2handed and versatile weapon properties are not the same in their ability to leave a hand free.

Your gm might be thinking of this video
 
Last edited:


gnarlygninja

Explorer
You bring up a 2 handed weapon & spell components. Your gm might be pointing at the wrong rule, but you simply can not cast spells while wielding a 2 handed weapon if the spell requires a free hand for somatic/material components unless you have an appropriate feat or similar that allows you to do so using the weapon instead of a free hand.. The 2handed and versatile weapon properties are not the same in their ability to leave a hand free.

Your gm might be thinking of this video
There's nothing in the rules that says you must always hold a 2 handed weapon at all times, only that you need to have both hands on it to attack with it.
 

You bring up a 2 handed weapon & spell components. Your gm might be pointing at the wrong rule, but you simply can not cast spells while wielding a 2 handed weapon if the spell requires a free hand for somatic/material components unless you have an appropriate feat or similar that allows you to do so using the weapon instead of a free hand.. The 2handed and versatile weapon properties are not the same in their ability to leave a hand free.
Still not true. Like it has been said several times, two-handed weapon requires two hands only when attacking with it, not when you're just holding it.
 

Horwath

Hero
we just hand wave the "weapons and Somatic/Material components" problem away.

If you can reasonably make your hand free for a second to cast a spell, then you can.
You can tuck your weapon under your shoulder or grab both 1Handed weapons with one hand or just be super cool and throw you weapon into the air, cast a spell and then catch it(Sleight of hand might be required for this).

1657975781288.png

this is a nice picture of a cleric with mace+shield casting a spell.
Yeah, you might say it is maybe 3.5e light shield or normal shield for 5e, but idea stands. Hold a shield and a weapon in one hand for a second while manipulating S and/or M components.
 


Greatswords aren't sheathed. One of the defining factors of a greatsword is that it's too big for a sheath or scabbard. Rather, they're carried around unsheathed.

Zweihander.jpg

It can even be used to attack with it from this position with one hand. So I was told by people who seemed to know what they were saying.
 

DND_Reborn

Legend
Greatswords aren't sheathed. One of the defining factors of a greatsword is that it's too big for a sheath or scabbard. Rather, they're carried around unsheathed.
While often true, they DID have sheaths to keep the blade protected and make certain the carrier didn't accidentally cut themselves. The sheathes had straps to help carry the weapon (often over the shoulder or on the back) when not in use (or expected to be used).

It can even be used to attack with it from this position with one hand. So I was told by people who seemed to know what they were saying.
Yeah, we folded the two-handed property into heavy, so you can attack with a greatsword (for example) with just one hand holding it but your attack has disadvantage.
 


DND_Reborn

Legend
Yes, but not when in actual use. Getting a greatsword out of its sheath was a protracted affair.
Actually, if you are already holding it (as opposed to it being on your back/shoulder), it was pretty easy to release the sheath and slide it off the blade, usually discarding it as you grip the weapon with your (now) free hand to attack.

Now, if the player DOES have a sheathed greatsword on their back, I could understand a DM ruling free action to get it off the back but Use an Object action to then un-sheath it.

Of course, a house-rule we use is you can use your bonus action for a second object interaction instead of your action provided the interaction doesn't say you muse take the Use an Object action (such as many magic items...).
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
Didn't they rule that Use Magic Item and Use an Object are different actions, so that the Thief can't use magic items as a bonus action?

EDIT: answered my own question, it's on DMG 141.
 

A DM who gets so into the hyperminutia of weapon gripping is probably going to think of a thousand other ways to bog down the action economy of players and observant and creative players will point out any number of things to bog down the action economy of the monsters in retaliation, and combat will be a static slog where nothing dynamic or creative ever happens.

Nip this one in the bud. The "tweet they read" is being misremembered or misunderstood if it ever existed. Watch basically any video of one of the 5e designers running a game (of which the internet provides many) and you will generally find that even they are a bit fast and loose on free object interactions. The better rule for free object interactions is "you get at least one, and as many more as seem plausible to achieve within the totality of the circumstances of what else you did in your six second turn". Also the table doesn't want to hear you rattle off the minutia of how you shift your weapon around.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
There's nothing in the rules that says you must always hold a 2 handed weapon at all times, only that you need to have both hands on it to attack with it.
Yes there is and it's possibly 5e's most marketed feature "rulings not rules". Once upon a time the rules were unambiguous & involved a style more akin to technical writing that didn't lead to these kinds of deliberate ambiguities.

There are no mentions of the word "re-gripping" in the PHB but there are several mentions of the word grip. Page76's "grip of sleep" monk fluff story is very much unrelated to this situation and all of the rest appear to be in the spell descriptions for contagion, mord's sword, & telekinesis). There areobviously no rules for "re-gripping" anything & creating new rules is not an option given to players
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.
Warcaster: ...
You can perform the somatic com ponents of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands
.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
• draw or sheathe a sword
The player could drop their focus item for free & draw their two handed sword as part of an attack using the sword, but they mention "re-gripping" not dropping the focus & drawing the weapon.
Components
A spell’s com ponents are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M ) components.[/ispoiler]
If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s com ponents, you are unable to cast the spell.
Somatic(S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful
gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell
requires a somatic com ponent, the caster must have free
use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.


Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the com ponent entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the com ponents specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a com ponent, a character must have that specific com ponent before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material com ponent is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this com ponent for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these com ponents, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic com ponents.


This is the flip side of having a crunchy system dumping the work of supporting the illusion of being a rules light narrative ruleset onto the GM. Specifically there are times where the GM's "ruling not rule" will not be to a player's liking & the system needs to support the gm in both types of ruling or "rulings not rules" is something very different than Wotc puts it out as being. "You can't cast spells while using a two handed weapon period but here's a justification for why" & "a 2 handed weapon needs to be sheathed or dropped to free a hand for spellcasting not "re-gripped" or whatever because there's no rule for "re-gripping" anything." are hardly rulings that should be controversial.

A DM who gets so into the hyperminutia of weapon gripping is probably going to think of a thousand other ways to bog down the action economy of players and observant and creative players will point out any number of things to bog down the action economy of the monsters in retaliation, and combat will be a static slog where nothing dynamic or creative ever happens.

Nip this one in the bud. The "tweet they read" is being misremembered or misunderstood if it ever existed. Watch basically any video of one of the 5e designers running a game (of which the internet provides many) and you will generally find that even they are a bit fast and loose on free object interactions. The better rule for free object interactions is "you get at least one, and as many more as seem plausible to achieve within the totality of the circumstances of what else you did in your six second turn". Also the table doesn't want to hear you rattle off the minutia of how you shift your weapon around.
The alternate phrasing of that bolded bit is "A GM should be able to expect & even require players to follow the rules without needing to handhold & justify every step of every rule a player wants to ignore". Using that prasing also pretty much invalidates the rest of your post though.
 

@tetrasodium two-handed property has been errated a long time ago to say: "This weapon requires two hands when you Attack with it," to avoid this exact confusion. Attack, not use. And yes, a GM can make a ruling that moving one's hand to the hilt is an object interaction, but frankly, that would be a very bad ruling.

And warcaster refers to holding two separate weapons, not a two-handed weapon, which can be held in one hand just fine.
 
Last edited:

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
@tetrasodium two-handed property has been errated a long time ago to say: "This weapon requires two hands when you Attack with it," to avoid this exact confusion. Attack, not use. And yes, a GM can make a ruling that moving one's hand to the hilt is an object interaction, but frankly, that would be a very bad ruling.

And warcaster refers to holding two separate weapons, not a two-handed weapon, which can be held in one hand just fine.
That errata doesn't change that the somatic & material component free hand use of the spells is detailed on phb203 & is not part of the PHB190/193 object interaction obfuscation text. Too much of the phrasing in this thread reminds me of the sort of questionable rules lawyering to force open a loophole for their advantage described in
The entire kerfluffle is because spell components are coming into play somehow.
 

That errata doesn't change that the somatic & material component free hand use of the spells is detailed on phb203 & is not part of the PHB190/193 object interaction obfuscation text. Too much of the phrasing in this thread reminds me of the sort of questionable rules lawyering to force open a loophole for their advantage described in
The entire kerfluffle is because spell components are coming into play somehow.
I don't get what your point is. You have a free hand. One hand casts the spell, other holds the great sword. This is not hard.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top