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

We aren't talking about opening/closing a door or something. Do you have everyone using homebrew ioun stone style spellcasting focus items that float or come with their own hand so they don't fall when the PC drops it to put their hand back on the weapon? a player can't interact with the focus and stow the focus and interact with their weapon as their one free object interaction.
Oh, so now you're saying that you can't cast spells with one hand at all?

And it was about components, not the focus, but given that the focus can be just some trinket that hangs on their belt or neck, they certainly could use it with one interaction.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Oh, so now you're saying that you can't cast spells with one hand at all?

And it was about components, not the focus, but given that the focus can be just some trinket that hangs on their belt or neck, they certainly could use it with one interaction.
It's schrodinger's cat not schrodinger's free hand. If that hand is occupied holding a two handed weapon, because the hand is occupied wielding a weapon rather than being free to cast spells. This is a very simple thing.
  • Both hands are wielding the weapon the PC just used or intends to use.
    • There is no object interaction yet.
  • PC removes one hand to interact with their spellcasting focus item to perform the somatic & material component of casting a spell
    • There is an object interaction with the focus
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can't use a second
    • There is no second free object interaction & the player used their action to cast the spell so can't use one for that even if this wasn't a reaction
  • Both hands are wielding the weapon the PC just used or intend to use. PC draws & attacks with a greatsword using their free object interaction
    • The free object interaction is used.
  • PC is attacked & wants to cast shield but can't because they used their object interaction this round.
    • There is an object interaction left to interact with the focus, spellcasting is not possible right now
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can because they are still wielding the weapon.


  • PC is wielding a weapon & the player attacks
    • A round passes
  • .PC wants to use their object interaction on their focus item to cast a spell. They have not used their object interaction yet so can but the weapon dictates what they can do.
    • If the PC is wielding a single 1 handed weapon great go ahead because one hand is free
    • If the PC is dual wielding a pair of one handed weapons they must choose between
      • sheathing one of the two with their free object interaction (presumably after their attack) & casting the spell next turn
      • dropping one of the pair to the ground at no cost & using their free object interaction to interact with the spellcasting focus
    • If they are wielding a two handed weapon the choices are the same
      • Sheath it using the object interaction after their attack & casting the spell next round
      • Drop the two handed weapon at no cost other than it being on the ground & using the free object interaction to interact with their spellcasting focus item to cast a spell.
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can't use a second
    • There is no second free object interaction & the player used their action to cast the spell so can't use one for that even if this wasn't a reaction
 

It's schrodinger's cat not schrodinger's free hand. If that hand is occupied holding a two handed weapon, because the hand is occupied wielding a weapon rather than being free to cast spells.
But it isn't! You are not attacking with the weapon at that moment, so only one hand is occupied holding it!

This is a very simple thing.
It indeed is, so I don't know how you have so hard time understanding it.

  • Both hands are wielding the weapon the PC just used or intends to use.
    • There is no object interaction yet.
  • PC removes one hand to interact with their spellcasting focus item to perform the somatic & material component of casting a spell
    • There is an object interaction with the focus
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can't use a second
    • There is no second free object interaction & the player used their action to cast the spell so can't use one for that even if this wasn't a reaction
And no second object interaction is needed. Making an AoO doesn't require an object interaction, why on Earth you'd think that it would?

  • Both hands are wielding the weapon the PC just used or intend to use. PC draws & attacks with a greatsword using their free object interaction
    • The free object interaction is used.
  • PC is attacked & wants to cast shield but can't because they used their object interaction this round.
    • There is an object interaction left to interact with the focus, spellcasting is not possible right now
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can because they are still wielding the weapon.
Yes, you cannot draw two items. Shield spell however doesn't have material components, so they can cast it.

  • PC is wielding a weapon & the player attacks
    • A round passes
  • .PC wants to use their object interaction on their focus item to cast a spell. They have not used their object interaction yet so can but the weapon dictates what they can do.
    • If the PC is wielding a single 1 handed weapon great go ahead because one hand is free
    • If the PC is dual wielding a pair of one handed weapons they must choose between
      • sheathing one of the two with their free object interaction (presumably after their attack) & casting the spell next turn
      • dropping one of the pair to the ground at no cost & using their free object interaction to interact with the spellcasting focus
    • If they are wielding a two handed weapon the choices are the same
      • Sheath it using the object interaction after their attack & casting the spell next round
      • Drop the two handed weapon at no cost other than it being on the ground & using the free object interaction to interact with their spellcasting focus item to cast a spell.
  • PC gets to make an AoO due to sentinel but already used their free object interaction and can't use a second
    • There is no second free object interaction & the player used their action to cast the spell so can't use one for that even if this wasn't a reaction
You don't drop the two-handed weapon, nor you need to sheathe it, because your other hand holds it!
 




tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
This feels like a tremendous stretch to me
Actually I think it speaks to a failing of 5e when viewed in the history of d&d. The question it was in response to was why wotc made a particular errata. Back in past editions like 1st 2nd& 3.x there was significant page space devoted to how things work & why stuff is the way it is. In those editions we could look at relevant sections to intuit how a particular errata makes an area of the rules align better with intent but we can not do the same in 5e because that sort of insight into how & why is largely absent. There's no way to know why wotc made one particular 5e errata addition any more than there is to know if a secondary bit of the rules is interacting with it as intended with (un)desirable results or not.

Edit: Absent that insight or tighter wording of the rules themselves we wind up with this hostile to GM situation where the rules are vague with the expressed goal of making it easy for the gm to make changes to a ruleset that has a rules light player facing presentation but explicit enough so that almost any change the gm makes is guaranteed to generate accusations of bad rulings while relying on the GM to provide life support for that illusory one sided rules light presentation should a player not like it.
 
Last edited:

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
There's no way to know what any "rule" means in 5e or why it was written because of natural language & rulings not rules.




You get one free object interaction, not two. Either use it to interact with the sword by inventing a rule to "re-grip" it or to interact with your spellcasting focus for the somatic/material component. the only way to interact with both is to drop one or do it on different turns because you can't have a focus in your hand while holding a two handed weapon with two hands.
What if your focus was a wand you keep in a quiver?
 

You might as well be starting confusion over why a character might need to drop one or use multiple object interactions to go from a greatsword to a crossbow (or vice versa) even though you want to end with your hands in the original position. You need to switch to or from the spellcasting focus depending on which order the cast/weapon use is in.
Ah. Are you starting confusion over number of hands needed Tetrasodium? If you're under the impression that, for example, swapping to and from crossbows and greatswords to make attacks in a single round is equivalent to casting a spell with a somatic component, that could explain a lot.

A Character does indeed need to "drop one or use multiple object interactions to go from a greatsword to a crossbow (or vice versa) even though you want to end with your hands in the original position." Just as you say Tetrasodium.

This is because they have the two-handed property. The two-handed property requires two hands when you attack with it.

Since most characters only have two hands, in order to use a crossbow when they previously had attacked with a greatsword, they will indeed need to remove the greatsword from their hands in order to use those hands on the crossbow. Thus the greatsword will indeed need to be stowed or dropped.

However this discussion is about casting spells Tetrasodium. Spells do not require two hands to cast, only a single hand. Therefore you do not need to sheathe or drop a greatsword that you were using in order to cast a spell as your previous post implied.
Since most characters have at least two hands, they are able to have a hand free to cast the spell and they will still have a hand available to hold the greatsword.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
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.
This is arrant nonsense in either case. I call shenanigans. There is no 'regripping your weapon' action.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
you know, i think we're all ignoring something here -
Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property-the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
notice how absolutely nothing in this property states or even suggests you need to spend an object interaction to change between attacking it with one or two hands. this means that you could absolutely make one attack with a versatile weapon with one hand and the next with two and still have an available object interaction.

the two-handed property only requires you to have two hands on the weapon when you make an attack with it. this means that you can hold a two-handed weapon with one hand, you just can't make an attack with it while doing so. there is no specific rule that states two-handed weapons behave differently from versatile weapons in any way regarding what is or is not an object interaction while handling them. ergo, you MUST be able to move one hand on or off a two-handed weapon before or after making an attack with it without using an object interaction. a GM can rule otherwise, obviously, but they will not be playing RAW (or RAI, as noted earlier).

oh, and also-
Both hands are wielding the weapon the PC just used or intend to use. PC draws & attacks with a greatsword using their free object interaction
  • The free object interaction is used.
my brother in christ, please tell me you are not unironically suggesting that making an attack with a weapon counts as an object interaction. PLEASE tell me this was a typo of some sort.
 


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
you know, i think we're all ignoring something here -
Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property-the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack.
notice how absolutely nothing in this property states or even suggests you need to spend an object interaction to change between attacking it with one or two hands. this means that you could absolutely make one attack with a versatile weapon with one hand and the next with two and still have an available object interaction.

the two-handed property only requires you to have two hands on the weapon when you make an attack with it. this means that you can hold a two-handed weapon with one hand, you just can't make an attack with it while doing so. there is no specific rule that states two-handed weapons behave differently from versatile weapons in any way regarding what is or is not an object interaction while handling them. ergo, you MUST be able to move one hand on or off a two-handed weapon before or after making an attack with it without using an object interaction. a GM can rule otherwise, obviously, but they will not be playing RAW (or RAI, as noted earlier).

oh, and also-

my brother in christ, please tell me you are not unironically suggesting that making an attack with a weapon counts as an object interaction. PLEASE tell me this was a typo of some sort.
The difference between a versatile long sword and a two handed great sword is that one can be used one handed leaving you with a free hand. The other can and does not. It's not being ignored,. The player does not need to engage in shenanigans like inventing a "re-grip" rules exclusion as the OP describes in order to free a hand without stowing or dropping the weapon.... Critically also the longs word can't be used with gwm+gwf & you have some real tradeoff for gaining the ability to use a focus item to cast spells.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I'm not going to get out of bed to check my PHB but I'm about 80% you can draw a weapon as part of the attack action. But it's written in natural language and that apparently means it is impossible to tell.
I even quoted it and gave page number earlier. It says that you can draw OR sheath not draw AND sheath. You can only do one for free not both.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I'm not going to get out of bed to check my PHB but I'm about 80% you can draw a weapon as part of the attack action. But it's written in natural language and that apparently means it is impossible to tell.
You can, but doing so is specifically given as an example of the sort or object interaction you’re allowed to do once per turn. Technically object interactions aren’t performed as discrete actions, they’re done as part of either your action or your movement.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
The difference between a versatile long sword and a two handed great sword is that one can be used one handed leaving you with a free hand. The other can and does not. It's not being ignored,.
"used" in this context is "make attacks". nothing is stopping you from holding a two-handed weapon with one hand, you just can't make attacks while doing so. for the purposes of holding an object with one or two hands, this is distinction without difference.
The player does not need to engage in shenanigans like inventing a "re-grip" rules exclusion as the OP describes in order to free a hand without stowing or dropping the weapon....
as crimson said earlier, you're the only one here inventing any sort of "re-grip"...anything, really. point to me where in the rules it says that two-handed weapons are different from versatile weapons in terms of moving a hand off or on it being an object interaction. until you do that, there's 0 point in you continuing because you'll be arguing from nowhere.
Critically also the longs word can't be used with gwm+gwf & you have some real tradeoff for gaining the ability to use a focus item to cast spells.
actually, you can use the first point of GWM (making another attack as a bonus action after dropping an enemy to 0 hp or landing a crit) with a longsword because it only specifies you need a melee weapon. the second point you can't, yes, because it requires a weapon with the heavy property. you also can use GWF with a longsword because it has the versatile property, so long as you're using it two handed. so not only is this point irrelevant, you're also just objectively wrong about it.
I even quoted it and gave page number earlier. It says that you can draw OR sheath not draw AND sheath. You can only do one for free not both.
more of a technicality, but "use an object" does state you only need to take the use an object action if you specifically want to interact with more then one object - it gives no limitations as to how many interactions you can make with one object. and this does not conflict with the phrasing of "draw or sheathe" - the "or" here could very well be inclusive or (i.e. and/or). the existence of the inclusive or is also part of why legal documents suck to read (because every time they mean exclusive or - i.e. or and not and - they need to specify as such). not that this is relevant or probably even intended - i just thought it was an interesting thing to note about the language of the action. THAT you can throw under your "natural language" complaint pretty safely i think.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
"used" in this context is "make attacks". nothing is stopping you from holding a two-handed weapon with one hand, you just can't make attacks while doing so. for the purposes of holding an object with one or two hands, this is distinction without difference.

as crimson said earlier, you're the only one here inventing any sort of "re-grip"...anything, really. point to me where in the rules it says that two-handed weapons are different from versatile weapons in terms of moving a hand off or on it being an object interaction. until you do that, there's 0 point in you continuing because you'll be arguing from nowhere.

actually, you can use the first point of GWM (making another attack as a bonus action after dropping an enemy to 0 hp or landing a crit) with a longsword because it only specifies you need a melee weapon. the second point you can't, yes, because it requires a weapon with the heavy property. you also can use GWF with a longsword because it has the versatile property, so long as you're using it two handed. so not only is this point irrelevant, you're also just objectively wrong about it.

more of a technicality, but "use an object" does state you only need to take the use an object action if you specifically want to interact with more then one object - it gives no limitations as to how many interactions you can make with one object. and this does not conflict with the phrasing of "draw or sheathe" - the "or" here could very well be inclusive or (i.e. and/or). the existence of the inclusive or is also part of why legal documents suck to read (because every time they mean exclusive or - i.e. or and not and - they need to specify as such). not that this is relevant or probably even intended - i just thought it was an interesting thing to note about the language of the action. THAT you can throw under your "natural language" complaint pretty safely i think.
5e's poorly worded rules related to somatic/material compoonent with focus items & object interaction force it the gm to flesh them out for wotc's ruleset. We have several years of hearing how this is somehow a strength of 5e. he GM in question has ruled already ruled & I rule very similar. A free hand needs to be free at my table too, you simply can not cast spells while running around wielding a greatsword or some other 2 handed weapon.
 

James Gasik

Legend
Supporter
I don't really see the big deal anyways. The only reason to use a two hander is GWM's "power attack" or PAM anyways. A versatile longsword does 1.5 less damage per hit than a greatsword, and if you have Dueling Fighting Style, just using the thing in one hand is only half a point less damage on average.
 

I don't really see the big deal anyways. The only reason to use a two hander is GWM's "power attack" or PAM anyways. A versatile longsword does 1.5 less damage per hit than a greatsword, and if you have Dueling Fighting Style, just using the thing in one hand is only half a point less damage on average.
The other reason is to play a mixed warrior/caster without a feat tax.
 

W'rkncacnter

Adventurer
5e's poorly worded rules related to somatic/material compoonent with focus items & object interaction force it the gm to flesh them out for wotc's ruleset. We have several years of hearing how this is somehow a strength of 5e.
i agree that 5e has poorly worded rules and is effectively a rules-heavy system pretending to be rules-light. this is not an example of that.
he GM in question has ruled already ruled & I rule very similar.
good for you, and if your players are ok with it then good for them too, but this discussion isn't about what the gm should rule, it's about if the gm's ruling is based in actual rules of the game or if it's a house rule.
A free hand needs to be free at my table too, you simply can not cast spells while running around wielding a greatsword or some other 2 handed weapon.
except the entire point being made is that you can easily free that hand, so long as you put the hand back before making an attack, which is trivial because it isn't any type of action or interaction. once again, if your ruling works for you, great. it's still a house rule.
A versatile longsword does 1.5 less damage per hit than a greatsword,
i'm assuming you calculated this by averaging the difference between one-handing and two-handing a longsword for comparing against the greatsword?
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top