1. Eldritch Knights. Do they worry about somatic gestures? If so - what about Eldritch Knights who dual wield or use great weapons? What's the smart choice of weapon for an Eldritch Knight?
2. Fighters hit stuff, Wizards cast spells - What's a Bard to do in combat? The Skald looks more melee oriented, what about a College of Lore Bard? They don't have lots of evocation spells. How do Bards fight? 
I think I'll have a few more still going through the book!
While "a free hand" is required for Somatic and Material components, the intent of the rules is to offer DM's the choice of how they see it working out. As it is not a balance issue in 5e Mike Mearls clarified a few days ago on twitter that simply swapping grip to free a hand was sufficient unless the DM wanted it to require stowing a weapon. As DM you get to choose how to handle it. In my game casters can simply toss their two-hander over their shoulder or lean it against them and cast with a free hand before gripping the weapon again. Tucking a sword under an arm as a dual-wielder or gripping a mace in the shield hand for a cleric is sufficient as well. If you feel it is more important to make a bigger deal out of these components, you should.
Bards fight with a combination of spells and weapons. College of Lore bards tend to be very good skillmonkeys, which can have some in combat applications as well. How they choose to fight is a matter of how they place their stats (rolled or bought as your group chooses—my players roll) and choose their feats/spells/etc. Lacking better armor, more Lore bards will tend towards Dex/ranged builds than melee ones, but it is up to the player's desires for their character.
I usually play a Lore Bard with ranged weapons. It doesn't have to be the case, but at low levels they're not much different than any other class that doesn't specialize in them. They do have the 2d4 cantrip that causes the enemy to be frightened (I think) too.
Vicious mockery deals 1d4 damage and applies Disadvantage on the target's next attack roll before the bard's next turn if the enemy fails their Wis save. It's definitely an option worth considering during some situations, even if the damage potential isn't up to other ranged weapons. (Disadvantage to attack on an enemy in melee with the party's Wizard is big, for example.)
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Something like that. It's artifact (consistency for earlier editions) plus RP fluff. Some people prefer restricting casting, some prefer to let it go. It's meant to provide that flexibility without being a "hard and fast" rule. Hence the fairly ambiguous wording of the rules. (Which resulted in a lot of discussion, with people weighing in for both sides with an array of arguments, so there's clearly a need for people to be able to rule this the way they see fit.)
Bear in mind that Somatic components are definitely going to be a restriction to creatures who are grappled, bound, pinned, etc. Material components are similarly a problem for any caster without their focus or components pouch, or otherwise unable to get the components or focus in hand.
So there are restrictions on spell casting, but if it makes sense to you to have your Eldritch Knight be able to cast in combat (most of them will be using two-handed or sword and board) then you should allow it. After all, the difference between allowing it and making them stow/draw their weapon is this:
They can't use their reaction for an Attack of Opportunity with their weapon.
That's all you're removing from them by making them put their weapon away.
Knowing that, you should have enough information to make a call.
ABGaming wrote:
Zyph wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Timborama wrote:
Regarding Eldritch Knights and casting spells, I largely ignore it (same with clerics and other spellcasting classes) unless I see a real issue when I run my games. My justification is this: Being able to use a weapon and cast spells has been a problem of weapon design since ancient times (since at least the ancient elves) and one handed weapons are built matter of course with a thong (or other device) built into the weapon so you can release the grip "dropping" the weapon without losing it entirely. [It's something that's not only completely feasable but actually built in many RL weapons where disarming is an issue.] Likewise for two-handed weapons I simply rule that you only need two hands to attack with a weapon, not to hold it and use of that second hand is 'free'.
Why am I rather lax about this? IMHO the whole POINT of having the ability to have weapon attacks and spells is the ability to switch and use them without worrying about it (certainly I don't remember this being an isssue in 1e with clerics) so with a little reasonably handwavium, I see no reason to make a mountian out of what really is a molehill.
-Polaris
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Don't forget the "other activity on your turn" bit in the PHB. Using those rules, it's easy to say you temporarily stow one of the items so that you have a free hand, or that you let one hand free of your two-hander. While I don't think it's necessary, if someone has an issue this could help you out.
ABGaming, there's actually several threads at this point, with heated discussion, about this very topic. While I don't really want to restart the debate again, I will give you my take on it as a DM, and explain why. You may choose to agree with me, or agree with others. It's your call and between you and your DM.
- Can you cast V,S spells while holding a weapon in both hands (two handed weapons) or a weapon,shield in each hand? No. The reason is that the War Caster feat states that as an exception, you can. If the War Caster feat is the exception to the rule, then the non exception rule states you can't do V,S or V,S,M spell when both hands are holding weapons or shields.
- Can you just release one hand from a two handed weapon to free up one hand, and then put it back on the hilt the same round? Errr, this one is hotly hotly debated. Personally, I say no as I believe two handed weapons are meant to not only be swung two handed, but held two handed as well. Plus, it would render useless Versatile weapons which are designed specifically with this mind. They are one handed weapons that can be swung two handed. But they also do D10 instead of D12 like a pure two handed weapon would. For me, it's a matter of balance and this is what I believe the game designers had in mind when conceiving of these weapon properties. But this is pretty much in the air and I'd strongly urge you to talk with your DM about this. But given War Caster is designed for casters who are using both hands on weapons or shields, it would make the feat redundant and hence why i'm leaning towards the no side.
- Can you cast V,S,M.spells while holding a two handed weapon? Absolutely not. And here's why: There's also a debate about this on the forums, but unlike the two handed grip arguments, who's rules are vague enough to put it up to interpretation, the object interaction rules make it very impossible to pull your foci or component bag out of your belt and place it in your hand, and put it back on your belt in the same turn as you can only do one of these for free. There are some people that will argue that it is not an object interaction, or that you do not need to grab it in your hands, but the spellcasting rules are very clear about you needing a free hand to access your components. And given comparable actions, like pulling a weapon from it's scabbard or pulling potions from your pack ARE object interactions, then it's natural to assume that using a free hand to manipulate components is as well. So even if you *could*, under some interpretations, hold a two handed weapon with one hand for a moment, you wouldn't be able to put that hand back on the grip in the same turn as you are still holding your component bag or foci until the next turn.
My recommendation? If you wish to use both hands at all times for holding shields of weapons, get the War Caster feat and don't cast spells with the material component property. Anything V or V,S is fine.
If you wish to cast the whole range of V,S,M spells as well, use a Versatile weapon in one hand, component bag in the other. That way, if on one turn you don't wish to cast spells anymore, you can put away your component bag and hold the weapon with both hands right away instead. Mind you, you may also choose not to if you wish to take the Dueling fighting style for the added 2 damage to one handed usage (as you'd lose that by attacking with both hands).
In fact, you really should just take the War Caster feat, period, if you are a frontline hydrid caster. A lot of your best spells are Concentration spells, and War Caster gives you an advantage on maintaining Concentration when hit. It's widely considered an indispensable feat by everyone here.
I won't dispute the advantages of War Caster which are unrelated to Somatic components. As Karl says: it's a good feat which allows you to react with spells and gain advantage on your concentration checks. I'll just note that the specific clause about the Somatic components is designed to give players an out should their DM share Karl's opinions. (The "free hand" rule being the DM's out.)
Of course for DM's using that out and restricting feats, players tend to be boned...
I'm a big fan of listening to my players' desires. I'd hope that any DM considering restricting anything listens to the players and how they envision their characters, because in the end how the players feel about the game is more important than how closely the DM feels he can get to the "letter of the law" ...
(Similarly, if the players want components restricted and the DM doesn't, the DM should listen to their concerns the other way around.)