So I've made valor bard with a finesse weapon. I have 16 Dex 18 Cha. I'm using a shield and a rapier. The issue that I have is how do I cast a spell that has a somatic component if I don't have a free hand?
The solution I came up with is: Sheathe weapon cast. Next round, draw weapon attack. But that is not only impractical, but silly. The valor bard gets the ability to make a weapon attack after casting. How are you even supposed to do that?
If I didn't have the shield, then this would be fixed, but, if I don't have the shield, why would I go valor bard if not from the +2 AC from the shield?
I'm not sure since I haven't read them, but I believe the same goes for the Eldritch Knight and the Spellthief.
P.S. do only users post on the forums, or is there a chance of some official answer?
You can get a more official answer from Twitter. But yes, Mearls has already confirmed you can stow in the same action as you cast, and you can draw in the same action you attack with the weapon. It's not an issue.
Technically, you can take Dual Wielder and claim your flute is an (improvised) club. Then, you get +1 AC for dual wielding and you don't have to sheathe your weapons to cast.
Well, maybe not a flute. I'm sure some musical instrument can be used as a club effectively.
The weapon attack as a bonus action does not necessarily need to be after the action used to cast a spell. You could attack, sheathe your weapon, then cast a spell. On the subsequent turn, you could cast a spell, draw your weapon, then cast a spell.
Failing that, just momentarily put your weapon in your shield hand while you cast your spell.
Undrhil wrote:
I've yet to see a DM rigorously enforce component restrictions for casters, especially for hybrid casters (paladins, rangers, bards). Hopefully you don't have a stickler DM, and you can just cast while wielding without a fuss.
One thing you could try is using your rapier to etch your somatic components in the air, leaving a brief glowing trace behind as you flourish your blade. Like a magical Zorro!
It says you can interact with "one object" for free. So stow the weapon, cast, then draw the same weapon again. You cant switch weapons doing this, but you can cast and still have your sword out.
obsid wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
obsid wrote:
Constant management of drawing and storing weapon is not in line with the "simple rule" of 5ed,
There has been a long debate on the holy symbole, and we start another one here, and the druid will follow.
Personally I would get rid of the free hand rule. And simply ask to be proficient with the weapon and shield to make them not interfer in the casting process.
frbelanger wrote:
Spellcasting without a free hand isn't that bad.
Some spells, including a lot of bard spells, only have verbal components. These do not require a free hand.
Next, you can always stow the weapon. You can do this as your 'interact with object' action and then just cast the spell as your action. On your next turn, you draw the weapon (as part of your 'interact with object' action) and still have your action to attack. There is no real disadvantage except that you don't have a weapon out in order to provoke opportunity attacks. If you have a two weapons... then you'd still get an opportunity attack even with one weapon out and there isn't any real issue.
I'll also point out that anyone without a hand free suffers this issue in many fights even if they can't cast spells. You need to put away a weapon in order to open a door, pull a lever, swing on a rope, etc. Archers, two-weapon fights, two-handed weapon folks, those with a sword and shield, etc. all have similiar issues. Bards may need to stow weapons to use a musical instrument, open a lock, etc.
Also, in 5E, there is less need to continuously cast spells. Many concentration spells pretty much prevent futher spellcasting. Many spells aren't that great in melee. Typically, if you are a valor bard, most of the time your weapon attacks are your primary action -- and typically so once you are forced/enter melee. Putting a sword away to cast a heal isn't a big deal. If you are going valor... you should consider that you'll likely cast maybe a buff or other spell, and then plan on entering melee and staying there for some time -- at which point your weapon attacks are more optimal.
Mearls had a "his interpretation" answer on twitter. It was basically you transfer your rapier to your sheild hand for a second, cast the spell and then transfer it back. Of course, he also said that if you can't cast a spell while weilding a two handed weapon. I guess you can't hold it in one hand for a few seconds or something like that... 
BW0222 wrote:
slaughterj wrote:
Perhaps this is just me, but I like the vibrance that requiring a free hand brings to the game.
- It requires the player to consider spellcasting in gear selection, and gear in spell selection.
- It means that not everyone is running around with weapon + shield because, let's face it, +2 AC is REALLY good due to bounded accuracy.
- It provides caster hybrids something to look forward to when their spells are used up; rather than simply being less effective, unsling your shield.
- It promotes diversity in spell selection.
- It gives WotC a way to balance spells of the same level
I think it's perfectly legitimate for DMs to consider components an optional rule, but personally I think it makes the game a little worse.
Ahrimon wrote:
RCanine wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
I'm a bit stricter than that, but there are certainly plenty of V-only spells that a cleric can cast while holding a weapon. Worst case, the cleric sheathes the weapon, casts blade barrier or whatever, then draws it again on the next turn.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MrUber wrote:
RCanine wrote: