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

[Crimson Longinus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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]

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.

 

[Reynard]

:headdesk:

Find a better DM

Or help your DM become better by showing them the rule and explaining.

If they balk, THEN find a better DM.

 

[Mull Ponders]

It's not a very good ruling. A bow is 2 handed. Do you have to put it down to retrieve an arrow, then pick it back up? What do you do with the arrow if both hands are on the bow?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I think, this is why versatile weapons exist. To be able to switch gripping easily.

no, versatile weapons exist to mark weapons that can be used to attack with either one or two hands. that's a completely separate thing from what's being discussed.

 

[Maxperson]

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.