I am making a Warlock with the Pact of the Blade feature, and want to wield a glaive (heavy, 2-handed, reach). My concern arises with the somatic and material components of spells, and have several associated questions.
1) Does a character wielding a two-handed weapon have to hold it with both hands, even if they are not making an attack with it? Or does the 2H tag specifically refer to taking actions with it?
(PHB p. 147 - "Two-handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.")
1b) If you are allowed to hold a 2H in one hand while taking an action with the other hand, does doing so prevent you from completing that action on your turn and re-gripping with both hands, allowing you to take bonus action attacks and/or reaction opportunity attacks with that weapon?
(PHB p. 190 - "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.)
2) The War Caster feat allows you to perform somatic components of spells even if you have a weapon/shield in both hands. The rules for material components state that you can access components with the same hand you use to perform somatic components. Does War Caster allow you to access material components as well, then? It is unclear to me whether or not this feat allows you to free up a hand while wielding somehow, or lets you replace somatic components with weapon gestures, or some other compromise.
(PHB p. 203 - "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand tha the or she uses to perform somatic components.")
(PHB p.170 - "You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.)
3) An Arcane Focus can replace the material components for spells that don't have a gold value assigned to them. In such cases, does it still require a hand to access said focus, or could it be worn like a divine symbol?
Short version: Is it possible for a warlock wielding a glaive to cast a spell with a somatic and material component?
I think there has been a little debate about this previously.
As a DM, I would allow it. You do not need two hands to hold a poleaxe, only to wield it effectively. The same question can apply to using a bow or crossbow and casting a spell. If a ranger had to put her bow away every time she wanted to cast a spell, that'd be a pretty huge nerf.
Whir wrote:
1) You only need two hands to attack with a two-handed weapon, so you can just let go of one to cast your spell.
2) If a spell has material components, War Caster won't help it.
3) It depends what the focus his, but they are usually handled. The holy symbol is an exception though.
Short answer: yes, because you can let go of one hand and this hand used to perform material component can be the same hand used to perform somatic components.
PHB203 Material: 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.
AradonTemplar wrote:
The problem isnt with having two hands on the weapon at all times. The problem is you need two hands on the weapon to attack, and one hand on the arcane focus to use it (cant just be worn like a holy symbol). Assuming you start the round with two hands on your weapon (from the previous rounds attack and having the ability to do AoO), then you need to release one hand, take out an arcane focus, cast your spell, put the arcane focus back, put your 2nd hand back on your weapon. The problem is taking out the arcane focus is your one free item interaction per turn. You dont have a second free item interaction to put it back. You could drop it on the ground for free (but that limits your mobility). You could carry multiple arcane focuses (but thats expensive). You could give up AoO with your weapon (by keeping one hand on your weapon and one on the arcane focus at the end of your turn). But something has to give.
I would allow the war caster feat to include pulling out whatever componets you need, so that would solve your problem (although the text itself is a bit ambigous and other DM's might not let you).
obsid wrote:
obsid wrote:
Inaubryyn wrote:
Since a spell component pouch does *not* need to be held in the hand, I'm not sure what would strictly be wrong with building an arcane focus into a weapon. This isn't the same as it being rules-legal, mind.
Obsid actually nailed this one on the head.
Interacting with an object is free *once per turn*. Or more specifically, taking an object or putting it away (just holding it in your hand round to round doesn't count). So basically, you cannot both attack with a two handed weapon AND cast a spell on the same turn. Taking that material component and waving somatic gestures with a a free hand is free ... but you cannot then put it away to swing with your greatsword. Putting it away, and hence interacting with that object a second time in the same round, counts as a full action.
This is why Versatile weapons now are very very useful, contrary to previous editions. On one round, you can swing using both hands (D10 damage), and the next round, you can use only one hand (D8 damage), but free up your hand to cast a spell or grapple someone. As a DM, I would go one step further and say you cannot keep a two handed only weapon ready with one hand. Think about it ... all two handed only weapons, like greatswords and greataxes, have especially long hafts specifically due to needing both hands to keep the weapon balanced. If you let go of the weapon with one of your hands, the weight would just tilt the whole thing to the ground OR you are forced to hold the weapon on your forearm. Either way, the weapon becomes unreadied and would require a free action (which you wouldn't be able to use as you're using it to put away your material components) to be ready to swing again. Remember, a two handed weapon doesn't require two hands just to swing it. It requires two handed to *equip* it. It's been like this in every edition and I believe that's what the devs hand in mind for this edition as well. In my opinion, this is why the suggested martial weapon for the cleric is the warhammer, a versatile weapon.
Also note that some spells, used as a bonus action, do not require somatic or material components. For example, Wrathful Smite is verbal only, meaning a greatsword paladin can cast it and attack on the same turn. As for War Caster ... well, given you just need a free hand for somatic components, but do not actually need to use material components, and hence don't need to 'interact with an object', I *could* allow it with a greatsword. Freeing up your hand to cast it would automatically unready your greatsword, and then you can use your free action to ready it again before attacking. I *think* that's the intent behind that feat.
This leads to a problem with visualisation, though. I can't pull out a pinch of bat guano, cast a spell and put it away again, but I presumably *can* pull out the pinch of bat guano and then just *leave it*. It's just a pinch of bat guano, I've got loads of the stuff.
I suppose you could argue that the simple act of putting my hand on a sword counts as an "object interaction" but that seems spurious.
Well, let's go with realism ... a tightly packed component pouch will require more than a split second to pull out a specific bit of bat guano. I'd say the intent is that you are holding the entire component pouch in your hand when you cast, and as long as the bat guano is in the pouch, the spell will go off.
Does it help that the book doesn't appear to consider drawing items from your component pouch to be your 'free action?' Making your somatic gestures (and simultaneously using material components from a component pouch) is folded into the action of casting your spell, from what I can tell. The only question is, does it take your free action/object usage to shift to/from wielding your weapon with two hands? The way I'm reading it, judging from the responses in thi sthread, is like this:
1) Wielding a weapon in 2 hands. Can make an attack.
2) Shift hand off weapon. This doesn't seem like it'd use up your free action. You are now able to cast spells with somatic components, and material if you have a component pouch.
3) Return hand to weapon. This may or may not take your free action, considering it is similar to 'drawing' a weapon, in that you are readying it.
At this point, you are able to resume making melee attacks. Have I missed something?
As for grabbing and releasing an arcane focus, I think I agree that it would act like drawing or sheathing a weapon, so you'd only be able to do one in your turn. Even though, from a balance perspective, a component pouch enables the same behavior more optimally, a focus has to be wielded, where a pouch does not, if I'm reading this correctly.
Am I just stupid or does:
- Drop weapon
- Cast spell
- Pick up weapon
not render the entire thing a matter of how you want to refluff the above at worst?
Yunru wrote:
Well, here's the thing, and you can argue semantics if you wish: Spellcasting with material components requires that you *use* a foci or component pouch. Using it implies that you are drawing it from your belt and placing it in your hand. In the interact with an object section earlier, drawing a weapon or item counts as one of those once a turn free actions. In essence, you are equiping your foci or component pouch in your free hand.
Remember, a material pouch should not be an easier foci. Or else, every wizard would just use them and wands everywhere would just sit on a shelf gathering dust.
AradonTemplar wrote:
Casting a spell requires drawing a pouch or foci into a your hand as I mentioned earlier. You wouldn't be able to pick up your sword that same turn. Only on the next. Again, War Caster may negate that as you don't need to use the pouch or foci.
Personally, just for cinematic purposes, I'd just say you *unreadied* your greatsword or shield to free up a hand and need to *ready* it again before using it. Feels like silly than having to drop your mighty sword on the ground and then stoop down to pick it up. While an orc is swinging a club at you. :P
EDIT: Woooooops ... War Caster negates the *somatic* aspect of the spell, not the material one. Which makes that whole War Caster approach moot for this debate. Hmmmm ... now even I am starting to wonder about that. I'm still leaning on the idea that drawing mats or foci uses a free action, but I'm thinking of letting War Caster cover both the somatic and material components, and not just somatic.
EDIT PART DEUX: Of course, it's entirely possible that War Caster is meant for V,S spells instead of V,S,M ones. It *would* seem a bit overpowered to allow it to negate both the somatic AND material components of a spell.
KarlB wrote:
AradonTemplar wrote:
KarlB wrote:
AtomicPope wrote:
I think some of you found the answer without clicking that you did. A caster needs to have a hand free to *access* components of foci. Stress on the word access. That implies the act of taking an object or component that is on your person and placing it on your hand. This is equivalent to drawing a weapon and hence falls under the 'interact with an object' rule, i.e. once a round free action.
AtomicPope: well, in terms of War Caster, it comes to the same thing for the examples we are seeing above. Although you are indeed right in that it doesn't negate the somatic component per se ... you wouldn't be able to cast the spell if your hands were tied, for example.
KarlB wrote:
Honestly, I get the impression that this should be in whatever FAQ we should expect to see soon. It seems to be a pretty heated debate with arguments coming from both ends :P
Pretty sure that unless an explicit ruling comes down from somewhere, this is just going to be an issue we sort out at my table, so I appreciate all the perspectives and arguments. Should make reaching a reasonable consensus a lot quicker.
Oh hey, I just realized something that should put this debate to rest.
Both the somatic and material components of a spell state they need a free hand to use, right? It also states that if you use a material component, you can use that same hand to use somatic gestures. But the somatic section doesn't state that anything taking care of somatic also takes care of material. You still need a free hand for material, no matter what, if the spell requires it.
If you look at the War Caster feat, it states that one of it's features is that you can cast the somatic element even if you are have weapons or shield in both hands. As in equiped. It doesn't state anything about attacking. It just talks about the act of having those weapons (or weapon, singular) in both hands. Logically, that implies that without the War Caster feat, you cannot cast a spell that requires you have a free hand if you have both hands on your weapon. If you could just remove one hand from your weapon, cast the spell, and then put it back on, then that part of the War Caster feat would be redundant.
I'm sure you could say it should only apply to a second weapon or shield in the offhand, and that it does not apply to a two handed weapon, but at that point, you're twisting intent ;)
In my opinion, you need both hands to even wield a greatsword, not just attack with it. Hence why Versatile weapons are a good option now. By design, you only need one hand to wield it, even if you can use both to attack.
KarlB wrote:
Errr, I'd call that stretching it a bit. I highly doubt that the devs intended that to be possible. I wouldn't allow it as a DM, personally. *Especially* when you consider you're also trying to interact with your material components in the same turn (which you cannot do as material components are not covered under the ammunition rules on PHB 146).
When does it say you interact with the component pouch? (geniunely curious, don't have PHB on me)
Also, having to spend you interaction on components is pretty obviously not intended, since it would stop you from casting bonus action spells that require them if you've already used you interaction (say, with an earlier spell).
There's nothing stopping the drop, cast, retrieve. Nothing that it does to harm you mechanically, either. Drop is free. Cast takes action. Retrieve is interaction.
Casting spells doesn't take interaction. Interaction is actually limited in what it does in some way, and isn't used for a lot of things you do to manipulate items. (One of the things it is not used for is handling components.)
Actually, on page 203 of the PHB, under Material (M):
"A spellcaster must have a hard free to access these components". Accessing something implies interacting with it. Only specific cases (Ammunition rules for example) involve interacting with an object more than once per turn. As a general rule, taking an object that was not in your hand and then placing it in your hand counts as interaction. Seriously, take a look at the cited examples. All of them involve taking an object from *somewhere*, whether on your person or elsewhere, and placing it in your hand. Why would components, a component pouch, or a foci, normally hooked on your belt, not count as such?
Yunru, this is why you can use a component pouch or foci in lieu of a specific component. You can take the whole pouch or foci in your hand instead of just one component at a time, hence allowing you to cast bonus spells.
Except it doesn't say you have to access it if we want to get technical. It only says you have to be able to. #TruelyTechnical :P
Regardless, it doesn't say it consumes your interaction so it doesn't. That's how it works.
Uhm ... you're grasping at straws here. No offense.
The general rule, as presented by countless examples, is that the act of taking something that is not in your hand, and then placing it in your hand, counts as 'interacting with an object'. The rules for material components says you need a free hand to access your material components. It's not like it's there for you to feel good about having your mats nearby, but to actually *use* said hand to access it. The only times where it wouldn't count are *specific* rules to cover that, such as that covering ammunition. So unless it says specifically that it does not consume your interaction, it does. It's really really obvious, man. Sorry, but if you're not seeing it, it's because you really REALLY want to be able to cast magic and wield a greatsword at the same time.
Hey, if your DM allows it, go nuts. But that's a house rule. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it.
You don't need to burn item interaction to cast a spell. If you did, it would have been up top of that section, and bolded.
KarlB wrote:
Hi folks!
Let's make some order. 
It'll be redundant, but it's needed. I'll switch viewpoints and go a little bit off topic just to find some "truth" here and there.
This doesn't answer the original question, not completely at least, but helps a bit to coordinate our ideas and base them on the actual writing.
Here's what we have, by RAW:
---> PHB, p. 190. I guess this is the part that seems a bit odd, for an issue in terms of how things are written.
- under "Other activities on your turn": they say "...or you could draw your weapon as part of the SAME action you use to attack." At the same time, they go on: "...if you want to interact with a second object you need to use your action."
---> PHB, p. 192.
- under "Cast a Spell". Basically says that casting a spell can be a single action, can take a minute, a reaction or other time units.
---> PHB, p. 193.
- under "Making an attack" there's a perfect balance between "weapon attacks" and "spell attacks". The framework structure is the same: choose target, roll, apply modifiers. They treat EVERY attack as the same beast. No exceptions.
---> PHB, p. 203.
- under "Casting a spell": says that casting a spell requires THE SPECIFIED time unit (action, minute, etc), as above mentioned.
- under "Components (somatic)": "If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have a free use of at least one hand to perform the gestures."
- under "Components (material)": "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."
RAW, it seems like this: if I JUST attack, I can consider my weapon / components in my hand (meaning that a pull 'em out with the same action of the attack). That's pretty clear.
Now: let's assume that I've put my quarterstaff/greatsword back to my belt/back, wherever... That's my "interaction". By rules, I won't be able to cast a spell with components, because:
- A: i can technically take an action, but I'm not ABLE TO GET my components as part of it because NOW I'm required to take a FULL action to interact with them and I can't. So, paradoxically, my action will be "take the M component" (useless, since I just need it AT THE SAME TIME I CAST. That's a basic conceptual difference between a weapon and a component.
- B: i can't even make a normal attack, obviously, because my action will be "ready my weapon", now.
We can really expand the argument saying that even Verbal components should take an "interaction", just because p. 190 mentions "speaking"... Verbal components are "complex wordings"... By RAI, should we say that casting a spell requires, at least, 1 interaction per component? That's obviously impossibile, so it's gettin' obvious the idea that every single thing in spellcasting is part of the action required to cast a spell... And maybe that, in the designers' intention there was the idea of considering "components handling (V, S and M)" completely OUT of the action economy...
So, even if it seems a little absurd by some means from the "spellcasting side", I don't see why it should be different than this. That's even a price for simplicity (that I like here), so...
That specified, let's come to the topic.
I'd take a look to another line of the War Caster feat (PHB, p. 170). "...you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature (provoking an opportunity attack, nda)...The spell must have a casting time of 1 action...).
So...That part doesn't mention any further "discounting" in terms of components, 5th edition is pretty straightforward... it basically assumes that you can cast a spell as a reaction without actualy bothering about components... Yeah, because (again) by RAW, with the above mentioned scenario, you WILL NOT BE ABLE to cast the spell unless you didn't have used interactions in your turn... It seems insanely annoying and completely out of the edition's mindset.
But, at the same time, it can be insidious:
- FIGHTER POV: I don't have a ready weapon. I got to react as an opportunity attack. Do I consider the reaction as an "action", so that I get the "free interaction of pulling out my weapon" OR
- War caster pov: I just leave the war caster feat to be insanely powerful, basically allowing me to make a further interaction outside the basic one I get in my turn (yeah, because if it was different, we would have read: "you can use your reaction to cast ASSUMING that you can take your interaction" - pretty absurd, but following what you say, seemingly obvious)...
Again, this is the price for simplicity (and again, I like it)...
In the end, I'd say: if you want to cast a spell WHILE holding a 2HW, you give up a hand to get components/make gestures and you CAN'T use it UNTIL the next turn, but that's the only thing you'll do outside movement.
That seems the most logical idea. Same is for a shield: you can use M components with your shield hand, but you won't benefit from the shield protection until the next turn.
The only solution for letting the game flow and keep some intellectual balance, is to consider "ready a weapon" and "get components" the same framework in game terms, so that the same thing applies to combatants as another side of the coin: a Fighter who (in example) changes its weapon, won't be able attack (outside bonus actions or similar mechanics).
In this way:
- War Caster is still efficient: everybody can use, say, a shield hand to cast/get components, but ONLY WAR CASTER can benefit of the object (be protective or offensive) at the same time. No War caster, no party.
- it respects the game-mindset: simple idea of getting something + attacking = same action.
- the War Caster feat basically allows you to get components "at the speed of light" as a reaction, ignoring any overcomplicated action-economy calculations. You get to cast in reaction without bothering about you just did 1 second earlier... That's your "trick".
Prism wrote:
KarlB wrote:
Which cantrips have Material components?
Dancing Lights, Light, to name two.
hI GUYS,
I've created a long analysis the page before and I apologize for that. But I'm pretty convinced that the whole game (from RAW to RAI) tends to the simplier version: you can perform a spell and handle components in the same action. If you look at the little text-box at p. 190, you can see that any example points that even pulling up a cloak is an interaction. I guess, it should mean that IF the spell has a material component, you USE your interaction; if not, you don't.
For the other part of the topic, I'd say that you can't benefit from the shield/weapon/i-phone you handle while casting with Somatic And/or Material components. You're not leaving it to the ground, you're just "doingo something that doesn't allow you to use that object in the proper manner" (say, use your shield hand to get something in your pouch, obviously assuming with no issues that the shield is secured to your arm).
So, let's be flexible and still "in the game's mindset".
I'm approaching this from the opposite end. Let's look at other types of casters.
Wizard, Sorcerer and Warlock use either components or Arcane Focuses, which are specific items (crystal, orb, rod, staff, and wand ranging from 5 to 20 gold)
Bards use either components or Musical Intruments (Bagpipes, Drum, Dulcimer, Flute, Lute, Lyre, Horn, Pan Flute, Shawm, and Viol ranging from 2 to 35 gold)
Clerics and Paladins get components or Holy Symbols (Amulet, Emblem and Reliquary all 5 gold)
Druids get components or Druidic Focuses (Sprig of Mistletoe, Totem, Wooden Staff, and Yew wand ranging from 1 to 10 gold)
Out of all of these only the Holy symbol states it still works if it is just displayed or worn. I know this is traditional, but it does create a break between divine magic and all other magic. Divine magic can be used if you are bound as long as it does not have a Somatic component. However, it doesn't make sense that all these focuses need to be used the same way, for example could a wizard have their crystal worked into a ring they wear on their hand, just like the cleric carves a symbol into there shield? Do Druid totems really need to be held, could it instead be worked into anklets that they shake (similiar to the bells worn by Indian dancers? This is especially a question for bards, do all bards stop and play their instruments to cast? What if they can play without needing their hands like the bell example? why the vast difference in prices for all these items?
But here is the thing that really gets me thinking the focuses can be worked into items to allow easier access, we have more spellcasting classes
Totem Barbarians, Eldritch Knights, Rangers, and Arcane Tricksters do not gain any access to a focus of any kind meaning they need to use components.
These classes all share one thing, they are half-casters. So full casters and the paladin (who uses the super special divine magic) have focuses, half casters who are not masters of their craft do not
Final thing, pg 203 where focuses are finally mentioned.
"A character can use a component pouch (which would obviously hold components) or a spellcasting focus in place of the compnents specified for the spell, but if the cost is indicated for the specific component the character must have that componenet." a paragraph about consumed components. Then " A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components"
So a focus can be used in place of components, and it only specifies you need a hand free to access components. This is a problem for most of the half-casters, but allows full casters (who should have more mastery anyways) to still be effective in combat
Though, honestly, this is actually almost a non-issue for most casters (who do not typically have both hands occupied). The exceptions being divine casters (who would typically present a shield), arcane types wielding a quarterstaff (which is versatile and typically will be folded into a arcane focus staff) and Druids (who actually if they need a free hand cannot wield a weapon and shield as they may typically be doing) or 2 handed wielding warlocks or bards who are the only ones with access to the big weapons and no other equivalent focus.
King_Kaius wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/504001681689169920
The upshot is that it's not a balance issue and you can feel free to just free a hand during casting and have it go back to whatever it was doing before you started once you complete the spell.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Yeah. Rule is "hand must be free." Intent is to offer DMs a reason to restrict what can be done (same reason gravity doesn't work in 5e, I'd imagine...the logic fits) if they feel it is needed. It's not seen as a balance issue by the devs, and can be freely ignored if a group prefers.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Opening my hand is instant. Making that take my entire item interaction is ludicrous. It's clearly intended as a check to whatever the DM doesn;t want to have happen, and that's fine, but it's ridiculous any way you look at it to believe that the act of opening your hand is in any way equivalent to drinking an entire ale, pass off an item to another character, or withdraw an item from your pack.
Again: I get why they give the DM an out. But as the DM? People can drop crap all day long at the table as far as I'm concerned.
Worth noting, in the LMoP liveplay Dunnigan gets item interaction and a free object (torch) drop.
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
CorwynnMaelstrom wrote:
Did no one else catch the wording of Other Activity on Your Turn? You get to interact with one object for free, not one free interaction. Those are distinct. By RAW you could sheath and draw your sword on the same round, because that's the same object. Only interacting with a second object requires you to use your action.
KarlB wrote:
onceMoreIntoBreech wrote:
You guys read too much into the rules. To cast a spell you need just one hand free. Using foci and material component is part of the spellcasting action. It doesn't use up any limited resource.
In that respect it is similar to shooting a longbow. You just need one hand free to get an arrow from your quiver and nock it, you can do it multiple times per round, it isn't counted against your 'one interaction with an object per round'
Aramur wrote:
KarlB wrote:
Aramur wrote:
Moribund wrote: