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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

Spoiler: scenario A

• 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

Spoiler: scenario B

• 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.

Spoiler: scenario C

• 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

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Spoiler: scenario A

• 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?

Spoiler: scenario B

• 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.

Spoiler: scenario C

• 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]

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?

Sentinek requires you to be wielding a melee weapon not a focus item while carrying a weapon you lack the object interaction to wield.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sentinek requires you to be wielding a melee weapon not a focus item while carrying a weapon you lack the object interaction to wield.

The weapon is already drawn, you don't need an object interaction.

 

[gnarlygninja]

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

This feels like a tremendous stretch to me

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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]

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.