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

[Charlaquin]

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.

 

[Stormonu]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[John R Davis]

I think the answer is:

Never come to a forum to get an answer to a rules query!

 

[gnarlygninja]

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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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]

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).

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.

 

[Quartz]

Imagine your greatsword is sheathed. You draw it (with one hand, obviously),

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.