At the start of his turn a Eldritch knight uses his bonus action to teleport his sheathed weapon to a free hand using the weapon bond feature (page 75 of the phb). He then uses his attack action and uses the interacting with objects around you rule on page 190 of the phb to sheathe his weapon when he is done, ending his turn with a free hand again.
It seems to follow the rules as I understand them. I'm curious what other dm's and players opinions are. Is it a legitimate turn, am I missing anything.
Seems like it would work. You can draw or sheathe a sword as part of your attack. So if you are effectively using your bonus action to draw it, it seems like you’d be able to sheathe it as part of your attack.
It's a bit of rules nonsense and basically your DM will probably just let you cast spells with a weapon and a shield equipped if they have sense, effectively ignoring Somatic components as you can do this:
Open your weapon hand at the start of your turn. This should not require an action or a bonus action. If opening your hand requires either of these, then it needs to be universally applied to all actions, which means that taking an arrow from a quiver, or closing your hand around a bottle needs an action or bonus action, so you can't both grasp a bottle and then pick it up without using 2 actions or 1 free action and 1 action. If you can't do this, then you also can't change from using a Versatile weapon between 1 and 2 hands without using your free action, which makes no sense at all. So let's assume your DM isn't crazy, and allows you to open your hand for free.
Opening your hand causes your melee weapon to fall to the ground. You now have a free hand to cast a spell with Somatic components.
Pick up the weapon that you just dropped. You can do this using a free action, it's specifically stated as such in the PhB.
Repeat forever. If the weapon gets knocked away, use a Bonus Action to teleport it back.
Because this is essentially a waste of everybody's time to describe, and a good DM will just rule that Somatic components are performed by moving your weapons in an arcane pattern or use some other effect. Sometimes the rules need to be dealt with through common sense.
It's a bit of rules nonsense and basically your DM will probably just let you cast spells with a weapon and a shield equipped if they have sense, effectively ignoring Somatic components as you can do this:
Open your weapon hand at the start of your turn. This should not require an action or a bonus action. If opening your hand requires either of these, then it needs to be universally applied to all actions, which means that taking an arrow from a quiver, or closing your hand around a bottle needs an action or bonus action, so you can't both grasp a bottle and then pick it up without using 2 actions or 1 free action and 1 action. If you can't do this, then you also can't change from using a Versatile weapon between 1 and 2 hands without using your free action, which makes no sense at all. So let's assume your DM isn't crazy, and allows you to open your hand for free.
Opening your hand causes your melee weapon to fall to the ground. You now have a free hand to cast a spell with Somatic components.
Pick up the weapon that you just dropped. You can do this using a free action, it's specifically stated as such in the PhB.
Repeat forever. If the weapon gets knocked away, use a Bonus Action to teleport it back.
Because this is essentially a waste of everybody's time to describe, and a good DM will just rule that Somatic components are performed by moving your weapons in an arcane pattern or use some other effect. Sometimes the rules need to be dealt with through common sense.
I’ve seen this used before as a way to avoid Warcaster feats - but I try to keep it legitimate in my campaigns. If baddie sees you doing this they are definitely holding action to grab a dropped weapon in your space.
Players love to find ways to have their cake and eat it too, and I’d rather they just get a Spellcasting focus like the rest of them.
So, I allow the above (and certainly don’t ask for them to describe it each round), but it only takes a couple lost weapons before they start to re-think how they play.
It's a bit of rules nonsense and basically your DM will probably just let you cast spells with a weapon and a shield equipped if they have sense, effectively ignoring Somatic components as you can do this:
Open your weapon hand at the start of your turn. This should not require an action or a bonus action. If opening your hand requires either of these, then it needs to be universally applied to all actions, which means that taking an arrow from a quiver, or closing your hand around a bottle needs an action or bonus action, so you can't both grasp a bottle and then pick it up without using 2 actions or 1 free action and 1 action. If you can't do this, then you also can't change from using a Versatile weapon between 1 and 2 hands without using your free action, which makes no sense at all. So let's assume your DM isn't crazy, and allows you to open your hand for free.
Opening your hand causes your melee weapon to fall to the ground. You now have a free hand to cast a spell with Somatic components.
Pick up the weapon that you just dropped. You can do this using a free action, it's specifically stated as such in the PhB.
Repeat forever. If the weapon gets knocked away, use a Bonus Action to teleport it back.
Because this is essentially a waste of everybody's time to describe, and a good DM will just rule that Somatic components are performed by moving your weapons in an arcane pattern or use some other effect. Sometimes the rules need to be dealt with through common sense.
I’ve seen this used before as a way to avoid Warcaster feats - but I try to keep it legitimate in my campaigns. If baddie sees you doing this they are definitely holding action to grab a dropped weapon in your space.
Players love to find ways to have their cake and eat it too, and I’d rather they just get a Spellcasting focus like the rest of them.
So, I allow the above (and certainly don’t ask for them to describe it each round), but it only takes a couple lost weapons before they start to re-think how they play.
Everyone DM will have a different take obviously.
There isn't anything illegitimate about dropping a weapon to free up a hand for somatic components of a spell. Dropping a weapon is a free action and picking up a weapon on the same turn is your "interact with objects" action. This seems to fall in line with the intent of the rules as well: Link 1 and Link 2.
Anyway, outside of Anti-Magic Field, tossing the weapon into a portal, transforming the weapon into something else (thus breaking the bond), or destroying the weapon, there's no other way to force an EK to lose their weapon. The exceptions to this are highly unlikely to happen and even if the EK loses their weapon by some horrible stroke of an enemy's readied spell for the explicit purpose of destroying an EK's weapon bond, they'll likely still have a second bonded weapon to use.
It's a bit of rules nonsense and basically your DM will probably just let you cast spells with a weapon and a shield equipped if they have sense, effectively ignoring Somatic components as you can do this:
Open your weapon hand at the start of your turn. This should not require an action or a bonus action. If opening your hand requires either of these, then it needs to be universally applied to all actions, which means that taking an arrow from a quiver, or closing your hand around a bottle needs an action or bonus action, so you can't both grasp a bottle and then pick it up without using 2 actions or 1 free action and 1 action. If you can't do this, then you also can't change from using a Versatile weapon between 1 and 2 hands without using your free action, which makes no sense at all. So let's assume your DM isn't crazy, and allows you to open your hand for free.
Opening your hand causes your melee weapon to fall to the ground. You now have a free hand to cast a spell with Somatic components.
Pick up the weapon that you just dropped. You can do this using a free action, it's specifically stated as such in the PhB.
Repeat forever. If the weapon gets knocked away, use a Bonus Action to teleport it back.
Because this is essentially a waste of everybody's time to describe, and a good DM will just rule that Somatic components are performed by moving your weapons in an arcane pattern or use some other effect. Sometimes the rules need to be dealt with through common sense.
I’ve seen this used before as a way to avoid Warcaster feats - but I try to keep it legitimate in my campaigns. If baddie sees you doing this they are definitely holding action to grab a dropped weapon in your space.
Players love to find ways to have their cake and eat it too, and I’d rather they just get a Spellcasting focus like the rest of them.
So, I allow the above (and certainly don’t ask for them to describe it each round), but it only takes a couple lost weapons before they start to re-think how they play.
Everyone DM will have a different take obviously.
If an enemy decided to Ready action purely to try to pick up my weapon, this should be declared by the DM. I can't find any specific rulings on making the DM declare NPC and monster Readied actions, but if your DM begins saying "The NPC readies an action," and does not describe what the readied action is and what condition will set it off, then effectively they are giving their NPC/monster licence to take any possible action under any possible circumstances. I would begin calling BS on this, especially if they begin saying something as strange as "He tries to pick up your weapon."
But let's say he either does or doesn't declare it. In this case it would be "If an enemy adjacent to the NPC drops their weapon, the NPC will pick it up."
They Ready an action, and I would be aware that they are holding the action. I can then decide if I want to drop my weapon or not.
If I don't drop my weapon this turn (which only happens when I need to cast Shield or another Reaction spell), the enemy has spent an entire action doing absolutely nothing. This is possibly actually more advantageous to me than having to expend a spell slot defending myself, since they don't get to attack (especially funny if they have multi attack)
If I want to cast a spell, I can sheath the weapon, cast the spell, then use a Bonus action to Weapon Bond teleport it back to my hand, or since I'm not attacking this turn, just leave it where it is. Unless I'm level 18 I can't attack with it as a bonus attack anyway.
If I want to cast Shield, then my enemy having a Readied action to get the weapon is only going to matter if they take their turn and Ready an action, then someone else forces me to use a defensive spell before it's my turn again.
Even if somehow they manage to get my weapon from me, I use Weapon Bond at the start of my next turn to teleport it back to my hand. Any Readied action used this way achieves nothing but to trade their Action for my Bonus Action. That's an excellent trade, unless they are just a random kobold or something.
If an enemy decided to Ready action purely to try to pick up my weapon, this should be declared by the DM. I can't find any specific rulings on making the DM declare NPC and monster Readied actions, but if your DM begins saying "The NPC readies an action," and does not describe what the readied action is and what condition will set it off, then effectively they are giving their NPC/monster licence to take any possible action under any possible circumstances. I would begin calling BS on this, especially if they begin saying something as strange as "He tries to pick up your weapon."
They Ready an action, and I would be aware that they are holding the action. I can then decide if I want to drop my weapon or not.
See I think you have highlighted exactly why the DM shouldn’t have to declare their actions at all, it means you are less tempted to meta-game as you seem to want to do. If your character has a fighting style which perplexingly includes dropping weapons constantly, an observant enemy should see that as a tactical option to take advantage of but they needn’t telegraph that beyond simple not attacking on their turn - DM has a DM screen for a reason, things should be a surprise and challenge to overcome....
In this case quite easily, you simply use your bonus action and the weapon the disarmed you of teleports back to your hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
See I think you have highlighted exactly why the DM shouldn’t have to declare their actions at all, it means you are less tempted to meta-game as you seem to want to do. If your character has a fighting style which perplexingly includes dropping weapons constantly, an observant enemy should see that as a tactical option to take advantage of but they needn’t telegraph that beyond simple not attacking on their turn - DM has a DM screen for a reason, things should be a surprise and challenge to overcome....
In this case quite easily, you simply use your bonus action and the weapon the disarmed you of teleports back to your hand.
In this example, the DM is meta-gaming by having enemies take a completely illogical (and suicidal) action. For a DM to suggest that their NPCs or monsters are doing this is ridiculous, and if a DM is going to start making the NPCs take absurd actions then you should feel free to do whatever you want.
Instead of attacking, casting a spell or disengaging, this suicidal enemy is standing ready in the middle of a combat waiting to pick up a weapon that may or may not be dropped in the next 6 seconds, in order to prevent one enemy (presumably out of a few) from casting a first level spell, which may or may not happen. My EK could even move away from them, or just kill them outright by attacking, and instead of fighting him, this NPC is standing there hoping to get hold of a weapon that will just reappear in my hand anyway?
The DM needs to describe something, even if they don't describe what the creature's intention is, and what follows ought to make sense in light of it. So they might say "The elf stands looking tense as though he's preparing to act, and he keeps his eyes on your weapon." But again, it's largely irrelevant as you can get it back for a Bonus action.
At the start of his turn a Eldritch knight uses his bonus action to teleport his sheathed weapon to a free hand using the weapon bond feature (page 75 of the phb). He then uses his attack action and uses the interacting with objects around you rule on page 190 of the phb to sheathe his weapon when he is done, ending his turn with a free hand again.
It seems to follow the rules as I understand them. I'm curious what other dm's and players opinions are. Is it a legitimate turn, am I missing anything.
Seems like it would work. You can draw or sheathe a sword as part of your attack. So if you are effectively using your bonus action to draw it, it seems like you’d be able to sheathe it as part of your attack.
It works fine.
It's a bit of rules nonsense and basically your DM will probably just let you cast spells with a weapon and a shield equipped if they have sense, effectively ignoring Somatic components as you can do this:
Because this is essentially a waste of everybody's time to describe, and a good DM will just rule that Somatic components are performed by moving your weapons in an arcane pattern or use some other effect. Sometimes the rules need to be dealt with through common sense.
I’ve seen this used before as a way to avoid Warcaster feats - but I try to keep it legitimate in my campaigns. If baddie sees you doing this they are definitely holding action to grab a dropped weapon in your space.
Players love to find ways to have their cake and eat it too, and I’d rather they just get a Spellcasting focus like the rest of them.
So, I allow the above (and certainly don’t ask for them to describe it each round), but it only takes a couple lost weapons before they start to re-think how they play.
Everyone DM will have a different take obviously.
There isn't anything illegitimate about dropping a weapon to free up a hand for somatic components of a spell. Dropping a weapon is a free action and picking up a weapon on the same turn is your "interact with objects" action. This seems to fall in line with the intent of the rules as well: Link 1 and Link 2.
Anyway, outside of Anti-Magic Field, tossing the weapon into a portal, transforming the weapon into something else (thus breaking the bond), or destroying the weapon, there's no other way to force an EK to lose their weapon. The exceptions to this are highly unlikely to happen and even if the EK loses their weapon by some horrible stroke of an enemy's readied spell for the explicit purpose of destroying an EK's weapon bond, they'll likely still have a second bonded weapon to use.
If an enemy decided to Ready action purely to try to pick up my weapon, this should be declared by the DM. I can't find any specific rulings on making the DM declare NPC and monster Readied actions, but if your DM begins saying "The NPC readies an action," and does not describe what the readied action is and what condition will set it off, then effectively they are giving their NPC/monster licence to take any possible action under any possible circumstances. I would begin calling BS on this, especially if they begin saying something as strange as "He tries to pick up your weapon."
But let's say he either does or doesn't declare it. In this case it would be "If an enemy adjacent to the NPC drops their weapon, the NPC will pick it up."
If an enemy decided to Ready action purely to try to pick up my weapon, this should be declared by the DM. I can't find any specific rulings on making the DM declare NPC and monster Readied actions, but if your DM begins saying "The NPC readies an action," and does not describe what the readied action is and what condition will set it off, then effectively they are giving their NPC/monster licence to take any possible action under any possible circumstances. I would begin calling BS on this, especially if they begin saying something as strange as "He tries to pick up your weapon."
See I think you have highlighted exactly why the DM shouldn’t have to declare their actions at all, it means you are less tempted to meta-game as you seem to want to do. If your character has a fighting style which perplexingly includes dropping weapons constantly, an observant enemy should see that as a tactical option to take advantage of but they needn’t telegraph that beyond simple not attacking on their turn - DM has a DM screen for a reason, things should be a surprise and challenge to overcome....
In this case quite easily, you simply use your bonus action and the weapon the disarmed you of teleports back to your hand.
In this example, the DM is meta-gaming by having enemies take a completely illogical (and suicidal) action. For a DM to suggest that their NPCs or monsters are doing this is ridiculous, and if a DM is going to start making the NPCs take absurd actions then you should feel free to do whatever you want.
Instead of attacking, casting a spell or disengaging, this suicidal enemy is standing ready in the middle of a combat waiting to pick up a weapon that may or may not be dropped in the next 6 seconds, in order to prevent one enemy (presumably out of a few) from casting a first level spell, which may or may not happen. My EK could even move away from them, or just kill them outright by attacking, and instead of fighting him, this NPC is standing there hoping to get hold of a weapon that will just reappear in my hand anyway?
The DM needs to describe something, even if they don't describe what the creature's intention is, and what follows ought to make sense in light of it. So they might say "The elf stands looking tense as though he's preparing to act, and he keeps his eyes on your weapon." But again, it's largely irrelevant as you can get it back for a Bonus action.