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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

It can even be used to attack with it from this position with one hand. So I was told by people who seemed to know what they were saying.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

While often true, they DID have sheaths to keep the blade protected and make certain the carrier didn't accidentally cut themselves. The sheathes had straps to help carry the weapon (often over the shoulder or on the back) when not in use (or expected to be used).

It can even be used to attack with it from this position with one hand. So I was told by people who seemed to know what they were saying.

Yeah, we folded the two-handed property into heavy, so you can attack with a greatsword (for example) with just one hand holding it but your attack has disadvantage.

 

[Quartz]

While often true, they DID have sheaths to keep the blade protected and make certain the carrier didn't accidentally cut themselves.

Yes, but not when in actual use. Getting a greatsword out of its sheath was a protracted affair.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, but not when in actual use. Getting a greatsword out of its sheath was a protracted affair.

Actually, if you are already holding it (as opposed to it being on your back/shoulder), it was pretty easy to release the sheath and slide it off the blade, usually discarding it as you grip the weapon with your (now) free hand to attack.

Now, if the player DOES have a sheathed greatsword on their back, I could understand a DM ruling free action to get it off the back but Use an Object action to then un-sheath it.

Of course, a house-rule we use is you can use your bonus action for a second object interaction instead of your action provided the interaction doesn't say you muse take the Use an Object action (such as many magic items...).

 

[James Gasik]

Didn't they rule that Use Magic Item and Use an Object are different actions, so that the Thief can't use magic items as a bonus action?

EDIT: answered my own question, it's on DMG 141.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

A DM who gets so into the hyperminutia of weapon gripping is probably going to think of a thousand other ways to bog down the action economy of players and observant and creative players will point out any number of things to bog down the action economy of the monsters in retaliation, and combat will be a static slog where nothing dynamic or creative ever happens.

Nip this one in the bud. The "tweet they read" is being misremembered or misunderstood if it ever existed. Watch basically any video of one of the 5e designers running a game (of which the internet provides many) and you will generally find that even they are a bit fast and loose on free object interactions. The better rule for free object interactions is "you get at least one, and as many more as seem plausible to achieve within the totality of the circumstances of what else you did in your six second turn". Also the table doesn't want to hear you rattle off the minutia of how you shift your weapon around.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Yes there is and it's possibly 5e's most marketed feature "rulings not rules". Once upon a time the rules were unambiguous & involved a style more akin to technical writing that didn't lead to these kinds of deliberate ambiguities.

There are no mentions of the word "re-gripping" in the PHB but there are several mentions of the word grip. Page76's "grip of sleep" monk fluff story is very much unrelated to this situation and all of the rest appear to be in the spell descriptions for contagion, mord's sword, & telekinesis). There areobviously no rules for "re-gripping" anything & creating new rules is not an option given to players

Spoiler: phb146

Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.

Spoiler: phb170

Warcaster: ...
You can perform the somatic com ponents of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands

.

Spoiler: phb190

Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
• draw or sheathe a sword

The player could drop their focus item for free & draw their two handed sword as part of an attack using the sword, but they mention "re-gripping" not dropping the focus & drawing the weapon.

Spoiler: phb203

Components
A spell’s com ponents are the physical requirements you must meet in order to cast it. Each spell’s description indicates whether it requires verbal (V), somatic (S), or material (M ) components.[/ispoiler]
If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s com ponents, you are unable to cast the spell.
Somatic(S)
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful
gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell
requires a somatic com ponent, the caster must have free
use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Material (M)
Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the com ponent entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the com ponents specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a com ponent, a character must have that specific com ponent before he or she can cast the spell.
If a spell states that a material com ponent is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this com ponent for each casting of the spell.
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these com ponents, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic com ponents.

This is the flip side of having a crunchy system dumping the work of supporting the illusion of being a rules light narrative ruleset onto the GM. Specifically there are times where the GM's "ruling not rule" will not be to a player's liking & the system needs to support the gm in both types of ruling or "rulings not rules" is something very different than Wotc puts it out as being. "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.

A DM who gets so into the hyperminutia of weapon gripping is probably going to think of a thousand other ways to bog down the action economy of players and observant and creative players will point out any number of things to bog down the action economy of the monsters in retaliation, and combat will be a static slog where nothing dynamic or creative ever happens.

Nip this one in the bud. The "tweet they read" is being misremembered or misunderstood if it ever existed. Watch basically any video of one of the 5e designers running a game (of which the internet provides many) and you will generally find that even they are a bit fast and loose on free object interactions. The better rule for free object interactions is "you get at least one, and as many more as seem plausible to achieve within the totality of the circumstances of what else you did in your six second turn". Also the table doesn't want to hear you rattle off the minutia of how you shift your weapon around.

The alternate phrasing of that bolded bit is "A GM should be able to expect & even require players to follow the rules without needing to handhold & justify every step of every rule a player wants to ignore". Using that prasing also pretty much invalidates the rest of your post though.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@tetrasodium two-handed property has been errated a long time ago to say: "This weapon requires two hands when you Attack with it," to avoid this exact confusion. Attack, not use. And yes, a GM can make a ruling that moving one's hand to the hilt is an object interaction, but frankly, that would be a very bad ruling.

And warcaster refers to holding two separate weapons, not a two-handed weapon, which can be held in one hand just fine.

 

[tetrasodium]

@tetrasodium two-handed property has been errated a long time ago to say: "This weapon requires two hands when you Attack with it," to avoid this exact confusion. Attack, not use. And yes, a GM can make a ruling that moving one's hand to the hilt is an object interaction, but frankly, that would be a very bad ruling.

And warcaster refers to holding two separate weapons, not a two-handed weapon, which can be held in one hand just fine.

That errata doesn't change that the somatic & material component free hand use of the spells is detailed on phb203 & is not part of the PHB190/193 object interaction obfuscation text. Too much of the phrasing in this thread reminds me of the sort of questionable rules lawyering to force open a loophole for their advantage described in

Spoiler: this video

The entire kerfluffle is because spell components are coming into play somehow.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That errata doesn't change that the somatic & material component free hand use of the spells is detailed on phb203 & is not part of the PHB190/193 object interaction obfuscation text. Too much of the phrasing in this thread reminds me of the sort of questionable rules lawyering to force open a loophole for their advantage described in

Spoiler: this video

The entire kerfluffle is because spell components are coming into play somehow.

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.