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

[toucanbuzz]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[Stalker0]

I do disagree with your DM, though man I think people are getting on their case a bit much. People make honest mistakes, the DM might have seen something online that confused them and that's why they made that call. But I wouldn't assume maliciousness or "its time to find a new DM"....sheesh.

 

[gnarlygninja]

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]

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.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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]

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.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Cite the internet for everything you want to do as well.

I'll tweet about how certain characters can make their weapons vorpal as a bonus action to help you out.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Cite the internet for everything you want to do as well.

I'll tweet about how certain characters can make their weapons vorpal as a bonus action to help you out.

Save yourself some work and just use DnDwiki for your next character.

 

[toucanbuzz]

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.