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

[tetrasodium]

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.

I said it earlier.... "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 or require rules lawyering justification.

The rules lawyering appears to be coming into trying to justify why a player can do something like cast shield while using a greatsword in combat because they are not attacking with it at the time they are casting the spell. Whatever the spell is, the GM has declared that it can not be cast while wielding a two handed weapon.

 

[James Gasik]

What was the errata for two handed weapons for, then? Why clarify that you need two hands to attack with it? Not only is that fairly obvious, it doesn't seem to be closing any loopholes, and in fact, creates one, if you're not supposed to be able to cast spells as a two handed weapon user.

This is extra suspicious, since in 3.5, this sort of interaction was allowed. So if they didn't want it, not adding this errata seems to be the best move.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I said it earlier.... "You can't cast spells while using a two handed weapon period

But that's not true. Unless you're attacking with the weapon the same time you're casting the spell.

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 or require rules lawyering justification.

The rules lawyering appears to be coming into trying to justify why a player can do something like cast shield while using a greatsword in combat because they are not attacking with it at the time they are casting the spell. Whatever the spell is, the GM has declared that it can not be cast while wielding a two handed weapon.

It seems to be rules lawyering to claim that putting your hand on the hilt is an object interaction. Also, I'd be interested hearing your thoughts on how bows work as they're two-handed weapons yet require a free hand to draw an arrow...

 

[tetrasodium]

But that's not true. Unless you're attacking with the weapon the same time you're casting the spell.


It seems to be rules lawyering to claim that putting your hand on the hilt is an object interaction. Also, I'd be interested hearing your thoughts on how bows work as they're two-handed weapons yet require a free hand to draw an arrow...

Reaction spells are a thing, you attacked on your turn and don't get to suddenly free up a hand to cast because you want to cast shield or whatever.

The gm in this case already said that it's not allowed. The gm doesn't need to rules lawyer anything and it should have ended the moment the gm said its not possible. "rulings not rules" & "natural language" is the source of this problem.

As to my thoughts on how bows work.. In a word I'd say "poorly". The quiver allows arrows to be drawn as part of each shot but 5e got rid of slots & didn’t really finish container rules. Now the gm needs to homebrew things like "you can only wear one quiver not two or three or five".

What was the errata for two handed weapons for, then? Why clarify that you need two hands to attack with it? Not only is that fairly obvious, it doesn't seem to be closing any loopholes, and in fact, creates one, if you're not supposed to be able to cast spells as a two handed weapon user.

This is extra suspicious, since in 3.5, this sort of interaction was allowed. So if they didn't want it, not adding this errata seems to be the best move.

Citing 3.5 doesn't work because this isn't about 3.5. The rules in 3.5 didn't need stuff to limit casting spells while holding a weapon because the act of casting nearly all spells provoked an AoO. 5e got rid of that and replaced it with some murky wording on free hand requirements.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Reaction spells are a thing, you attacked on your turn and don't get to suddenly free up a hand to cast because you want to cast shield or whatever.

Yes you do. Why wouldn't you? Presumably you're allowed to move your hands as apart of the reaction, otherwise most reactions wouldn't be possible.

The gm in this case already said that it's not allowed. The gm doesn't need to rules lawyer anything and it should have ended the moment the gm said its not possible. "rulings not rules" & "natural language" is the source of this problem.

Sure, GM has the power to make rulings. Even terrible ones like in this case.

As to my thoughts on how bows work.. In a word I'd say "poorly". The quiver allows arrows to be drawn as part of each shot

Yes. But if you still need to free your hand to do it. If you think "re-gripping" the weapon is an object interaction, you cannot put your hand back on the bow for second time to fire a second arrow. Loading property already exists to cover a weapon that works like that.

but 5e got rid of slots & didn’t really finish container rules. Now the gm needs to homebrew things like "you can only wear one quiver not two or three or five".

Why would it matter? It seems unlikely that you could empty your one quiver in one fight. Perhaps some crazy high level fighter in a long battle could, but I really don't think some mythic hero having two quivers really is an issue.

 

[James Gasik]

Reaction spells are a thing, you attacked on your turn and don't get to suddenly free up a hand to cast because you want to cast shield or whatever.

The gm in this case already said that it's not allowed. The gm doesn't need to rules lawyer anything and it should have ended the moment the gm said its not possible. "rulings not rules" & "natural language" is the source of this problem.

As to my thoughts on how bows work.. In a word I'd say "poorly". The quiver allows arrows to be drawn as part of each shot but 5e got rid of slots & didn’t really finish container rules. Now the gm needs to homebrew things like "you can only wear one quiver not two or three or five".

Citing 3.5 doesn't work because this isn't about 3.5. The rules in 3.5 didn't need stuff to limit casting spells while holding a weapon because the act of casting nearly all spells provoked an AoO. 5e got rid of that and replaced it with some murky wording on free hand requirements.

Sure but it still doesn't explain why they errata was made in the first place. Why bother to state "you only need two hands to attack with a two handed weapon" unless there's some circumstance where you can take a hand off when not attacking?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

In the context of 5e, what's a swordmage?

 

[jmartkdr2]

In the context of 5e, what's a swordmage?

A character who uses weapons and magic as primary things they do - aka a gish. Eldritch Knights, bladelocks, melee clerics, and paladins (and many other subclasses) would count.

In 5e, if you don't want to take a feat, they are restricted to two-handed weapons or taking a -2 hit to AC. This is not reflected in the lore or tropes at all, makes no sense from a balance perspective, and has never been true of DnD since elves were playable characters. It's just a weird restriction that comes solely from how the rules for components are organized.

 

[Bolares]

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

Yeah… this is all wrong

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure but it still doesn't explain why they errata was made in the first place. Why bother to state "you only need two hands to attack with a two handed weapon" unless there's some circumstance where you can take a hand off when not attacking?

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

Yes you do. Why wouldn't you? Presumably you're allowed to move your hands as apart of the reaction, otherwise most reactions wouldn't be possible.


Sure, GM has the power to make rulings. Even terrible ones like in this case

Yes. But if you still need to free your hand to do it. If you think "re-gripping" the weapon is an object interaction, you cannot put your hand back on the bow for second time to fire a second arrow. Loading property already exists to cover a weapon that works like that.



Why would it matter? It seems unlikely that you could empty your one quiver in one fight. Perhaps some crazy high level fighter in a long battle could, but I really don't think some mythic hero having two quivers really is an issue.

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.