Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 brettlangbdl Oct 21, 2014 19:20:07	OK.. With weapon & shield ... As i understand it, you can sheath/draw 1 weapon per round as a free action. So if you have your weapon ready, you must sheath it then cast your spell. Which means if someone runs past you, you can only fist punch them as an AoE ?   Does something similar apply with spellcasting when wielding a two handed weapon ... or can you just 'free' a hand and cast as necessary ?
#2 2Chlorobutanal Oct 21, 2014 19:45:21	It's up to your table to decide.  Developers have given examples both for and against "freeing" a hand for spellcasting.   Personally, I would not allow a "two-handed" weapon user to "free" a hand other than by using the draw/sheathe guidelines.  This restriction creates a niche for using versatile weapons as a spellcaster (Elven Bladesinger, for example) and gives a reason for a player to select the War Caster feat if they really want the option to cast a spell and make greatsword OAs, for example.
#3 Plaguescarred1 Oct 21, 2014 19:49:58	Up to DM. Personally i don't treat putting/removing hand from object to be counting as an item intereaction, seeing you can release a grab freely.   If it was the case then picking-up an items with two hands would require an action, which is not the case.
#4 paulstrait Oct 21, 2014 19:58:36	brettlangbdl wrote:
#5 brettlangbdl Oct 21, 2014 20:46:19	Yes, sorry, I meant AoO.. attack of Opportunity
#6 OoftaMeg Oct 21, 2014 20:51:33	I would allow someone holding a two handed sword to cast all spells. Just because you need two hands to attack effectively, doesn't mean you always need two hands. I need two hands to chop wood, but not to carry an ax. It is up to your DM.
(Reply to #6) 2Chlorobutanal	OoftaMeg wrote:
(Reply to #6) Coredump00	OoftaMeg wrote:
#9 Ahrimon Oct 22, 2014 3:40:14	It's no less effort to release one hand and wigle your fingers than it is to wigle your fingers.  I'd even allow drawing material components out since you can draw a weapon as part of an action.   For those that don't allow spellcasting with 2h weapons I'd like to ask if you allow those players to open doors without sheathing or dropping their weapon?  Would you allow them to grab an ally and pull them out of danger?  99% of the time it's going to be one or the other, cast or swing.  The 1% where it's not are usually covered by special abilities/training that allow the character to do just that.   That's how I look at it anyway.
(Reply to #7) OoftaMeg	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#11 Coredump00 Oct 22, 2014 7:56:19	I have no problem with someone using a greatsword and casting a spell; as mentioned, it should be trivial to hold the weapon in one hand.  But then the weapon is not in a 'ready state'.  I would not allow any AoO that round, and I would *probably* not allow any attacks on the same turn as the spell casting... such as if one was a Bonus action....  Basically, I would treat it as if you 'sheathed' the weapon.
(Reply to #11) OoftaMeg	Coredump00 wrote:
#13 Coredump00 Oct 22, 2014 9:45:44	Because I don't agree that you can always do that, even with 'strict RAW'.   Its not difficult to remove the hand and cast and put the hand back.... but it means you are not prepared to 'react quickly' with the weapon.   Would you allow an unarmed character to draw his weapon in order to take an AoO?
(Reply to #13) OoftaMeg	Coredump00 wrote:
#15 austinmonster Oct 22, 2014 10:08:37	Point the blade down, allowing it to rest on the ground, remove one hand, cast spell with free hand, immediately put hand back on sword....   I don't see why this is so complicated?  I recall a dev saying that you could cast swoard and sheild by "just transfering the weapon into the shield hand for a second" while you cast and then going back to normal.   I don't think the restrictions on casting spells are ment for anything other than restricting a spellcaster "when the GM needs to."  By that I mean, Tired up and gagged in the hold of a ship, or holding onto a slipping vine for dear life perched over an inky-black chasm.   In sort - I think we are overcomplicating this.
#16 paulstrait Oct 22, 2014 11:03:18	OoftaMeg wrote:
#17 paulstrait Oct 22, 2014 11:05:43	austinmonster wrote:
#18 Saelorn Oct 22, 2014 11:35:19	For my games, I like to keep it simple. Material components mean that you must have the materials at hand. Somatic means that you must be free to gesture (not tied up, not hanging from a cliff). Verbal means you must be able to speak loudly (not gagged, not silenced).   Of course, I'll also allow you to draw two weapons at once, even if you don't have the feat which specifically allows it. This isn't Pathfinder. There's no need to track every incidental hand movement.
(Reply to #16) OoftaMeg	paulstrait wrote:
#20 paulstrait Oct 22, 2014 13:13:15	OoftaMeg wrote:
#21 Dooflegna Oct 22, 2014 21:44:46	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#22 Irithil Oct 24, 2014 5:52:39	With some of the twitter feedback from MM, the take away from that is the rule is there to provide guidance, and not to try and make the game one of limitations.  DMs should rule it as they will, even if/after clarifications come out, because that's DnD - your table, your game.   That said, with dropping an object being free, and drawing an object able to be done as part of an action, RAW, there's nothing that can prevent a 2 handed user, RAW from getting OAs.  Drop your free hand, cast, and use the "as part of the action" to draw again - which is even less than a draw because its in your hand and not a two hander behind your back.  MM said he wouldnt allow it;  unfortunately they baked no rules in to support it, in my reading.  Drawing a two handed sword and puting your hand back on a two handed sword which is already in your other hand are not equivalent, but we can treat them as such and it still fits their dropping, and drawing weapons options.  (I'm 99% of the time, a DM btw.)      I would actually prefer a rule which made versatile weapons the favored of the melee casters.  Longsword, spear, staff, all are great choices for classic tropes, imo.  I think you'd have to rework the rule to note: Mixing casting arts which require motion and components and the choatic dynamic of melee combat is hard.  Without training in a style that matches this, a person using two hands for weapons, a two handed weapon or a weapon and shield style, can expect to not have their weapon usable until the next standard action turn they take.  If a two weapon user falls into this rule, it's the player's choice of which weapon to free or sheath.  Note that a Shield is not a choice as its an action to remove it (so you'd need another action). Using a weapon which can easily be hafted in one hand while leaving the other hand free (one handed, or versatile weapons) does not impose this penalty.    That would favor versatile for folks who don't bother with the feat, and create a situation where they know there's no OA with weapon, or they take the feat.   Also, a lot of the classes the designers thought should do this have a lot of V only spells.      I'm also in favor of bringing the cast and attack once options of the EK and Bard into a feat, but I'm only running close to RAW right now, except where something feels broken, so houserule ideas are just getting noted.   There's still a little too much "arcane and divine are different but the same" going on there.   Long term, I intend to rework the components across all spells (and address the throw in version of ritual tags they did:  anything non-damaging is fine for ritual, and some spells should only be ritual, imo)   In any case, I think they didn't want it to be this complex.  They seemed to be trying to make flavor and to explain what happens to the weapon when you cast.   We, as overcaffeinated gamers, are so used to hard rules, and computers games, that we may need to just think about how we'd like to see it play at the table.     Edit:  and the monk free hand as part of unarmed is an interesting point to bring up:  it requires specific training which no one else has, and is done in the flow of combat.   That favors the warcaster feat to gain a class feature.  The palading and cleric holy symbol ruling throws a wrench (and a wierd one - works for M, not for S) into this whole thing.
#23 cowleymen Oct 27, 2014 1:44:17	IM conflicted. Of course you can still hold a two handed weapon up in one hand, "freeing" a hand for casting, but then part of the warcaster feat becomes something that clever talk around can be applied too. Thought war caster would still grant a benefit to sword and board and duel wielding casters. This isnt really helpful in deciding which way to swing. Im not sure if this is a RAI or just DM fiat......keep debating for my amusment!!!!!
#24 Illithidbix Oct 27, 2014 3:20:18	Until we get an official FAQ/Errata: here's the relevent tweets:  https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/30/2-weapon-casting/ https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/somatic-spell-abuse/ - Which seem to be vaguely in favour of letting players cast without sheathing their twohanded weapons.   I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a greatsword in one hand to cast a spell, or to hold a longsword in your shield arm (assuming said shield had a strap) and then switch it back into your hand once you've cast the spell. I'd say in such cases you couldn't attack on your turn with the weapons like that, but the action acconomy mostly deals with that as it is. (Checks for Somatic and bonus action/reaction spells here: http://community.wizards.com/comment/51251316#comment-51251316 )   Personally I think the interacting with a single object rule is far more rigidly defined than it needs to be, and I think it feels rather out of place with the looser feel of 5E rules.   I think it's a bit tigher than how it appeared in the earlier playtests where it was phrased:     Playtest Rules 29th October 2012
(Reply to #24) randl	Illithidbix wrote:
#26 Illithidbix Oct 27, 2014 18:57:26	randl wrote:
#27 WotC_Trevor Oct 29, 2014 11:33:00	Test, Just posting to see if the forums are working.
#28 Timborama Oct 29, 2014 12:08:32	Yay, it's back!
#29 Dyndrilliac Nov 01, 2014 13:03:24	The problem that I see with this is that even if you allow someone wielding say a Greatsword to cast spells with the hand that becomes free when they are only holding the blade with one hand, in order to cast spells with material components you still either need an Arcane Focus or a Component Pouch in that free hand if you don't have the War Caster feat which means you still have no hands free for somatic components like hand gestures.   The only way I can think of to solve that problem is not RAW, but you could discuss with your DM having a Crystal Arcane Focus embedded in the pommel of your sword for a routine extra fee (say 50% of the original cost). With the focus in the pommel of the blade and at least one hand holding the blade, that would count as your Arcane Focus (removing the need for non-costly non-consumed material components) and perform somatic components with the free hand. Whether or not this would allow Opportunity Attacks is still debatable, but I would lean toward yes since grasping a drawn blade can be done in a tiny fraction of a second.
#30 jonathonhawke Nov 01, 2014 19:20:38	PHB pg 203 "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."   If you are using an Arcane Focus, or material components in one hand, you don't need another free hand for somatic components. Also, no matter how many times you say otherwise, the book still does not say that you need to hold your component pouch (described as a "belt pouch") in your hand.
#31 h347h50 Nov 01, 2014 20:57:38	Coredump00 wrote:
#32 Derpnik Nov 01, 2014 22:07:54	If I were playing in a campaign, and the DM told me "you can't take one of your hands off of your weapon as a free action, and then use your object interaction to put it back on your greatsword" I would excuse myself from the table.   Dropping an item will always be a free action, as far as I'm concerned, and there's no earthly reason a character wouldn't be able to heave the sword over his/her shoulder, or even rest it against the ground while casting a spell, then life the sword back up with both hands.   Warcaster is for people that are in combat a lot, and are also casting spells, but the part relevant to this discussion fits best for the wizard using a shield, eldritch fighter with sword and shield/two weapons, or rogue with two weapons.