Could a character hold a greatsword in one hand, not attack with it, and use the free hand for somatic spell components? To clarify, could a character cast a spell as a reaction/BA (ie shield) while wielding a great weapon, by holding it in one hand and using the other for somatic components. Thanks for the answers!
Could a character hold a greatsword in one hand, not attack with it, and use the free hand for somatic spell components? To clarify, could a character cast a spell as a reaction/BA (ie shield) while wielding a great weapon, by holding it in one hand and using the other for somatic components. Thanks for the answers!
Yes. However, note that after doing so, you won't be wielding the weapon in two hands, which may have interactions with other rules - e.g. you can't make OAs with the greatsword (if you have some way to make an OA after casting Shield - I don't know of any, but it could exist), and you'll need to consume your 1/turn free object interaction to resume wielding it on your turn.
We also don't have any rules in general governing non-actions taken as part of some other Reaction - for example, we have no RAW at all on whether or not you can drop a weapon as part of an OA. This falls under the same category of question as yours - you're trying to drop an object from one hand (without dropping it from the other) in order to cast a Reaction spell. The rules don't discuss this even a little. My interpretation is that this lack of discussion implies that you can drop things as part of any other Reaction, but your DM might interpret differently. If your DM won't let you drop things as part of a Reaction in general, you'll need to drop at the end of your turn, instead of dropping as part of the cast.
You'll have trouble finding a PHB quote defining "wielded" as distinct from "held," but Quin is correct that you don't need to fully wield a weapon just to hold it, and just holding it doesn't require that you wield it.
The Two-Handed property doesn't even actually use "wielded," but does answer your question directly:
Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it.
The implied second question, "can I freely switch from wielding to holding whenever I want, including off turn?" is... fuzzy. Taken to its most extreme... permissive wielding->holding might be used to let you do things like benefit from the Dueling fighting style despite holding a weapon in your offhand, because you're only "wielding" one of them for any given attack.... but then deciding that actually, you are wielding that second weapon when you're attacked, for the purpose of qualifying for the Dual Wielder feat's +1 AC. It's hard to define exactly when/how "wielding" can become "holding" or vice versa, other than to say, "I know it when I see it." Deciding to take one hand off of a weapon hat requires two hands to attack, that's clearly meaningfully stopping to "wield" it, and most DMs would agree... but does that take a free interaction on your own turn? What about the reverse? Hard to say, DMs could differ.
I encountered this with my Eldritch Knight, who used a warhammer, a shield, and then needed to be able to cast shield.
By common sense, any spell with a somatic component has to enable you to open your hand to drop something. If it didn't, then that means that you can't open your hand during somatic components, which is too illogical to consider.
Then you get this weird situation where on your own turn, you drop your warhammer, cast a somatic component spell, then use a free action to pick it up again (picking up a weapon is one of the specific examples of a free action). Combat becomes a peculiar game of picky-droppy hammer.
We just decided to wave the somatic component altogether rather than mess around with meaningless free actions.
In the example of using a greatweapon, if anyone wants to get pernickity about rules, you can sheathe your greatsword at the end of your turn as a free action, then draw it again at the start of the next turn. And if people are really into rules about how many hands you have free, just take Warcaster and then you never have to think about it again.
I encountered this with my Eldritch Knight, who used a warhammer, a shield, and then needed to be able to cast shield.
By common sense, any spell with a somatic component has to enable you to open your hand to drop something. If it didn't, then that means that you can't open your hand during somatic components, which is too illogical to consider.
Then you get this weird situation where on your own turn, you drop your warhammer, cast a somatic component spell, then use a free action to pick it up again (picking up a weapon is one of the specific examples of a free action). Combat becomes a peculiar game of picky-droppy hammer.
We just decided to wave the somatic component altogether rather than mess around with meaningless free actions.
In the example of using a greatweapon, if anyone wants to get pernickity about rules, you can sheathe your greatsword at the end of your turn as a free action, then draw it again at the start of the next turn. And if people are really into rules about how many hands you have free, just take Warcaster and then you never have to think about it again.
Wait, Eldritch Knights don't treat their bonded weapons as spell focuses...? Wow, can that subclass get any worse? :p
Wait, Eldritch Knights don't treat their bonded weapons as spell focuses...? Wow, can that subclass get any worse? :p
Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters are the only Spellcasters (as in the feature) in the game that don't get access to using foci as part of their feature set, now that Rangers can use Druidic foci.
Near as I can figure, all you need is the Warcaster Feat and your Greataxe can be used for the Somatic part at least. Yes, you can hold a Greataxe in one hand, I don't think you can use it for much else. Other than that, I'll leave things to people who know the rules a lot better than I do. :-)
My general thought is that two-handed weapons preclude you from using shields, or being able to grapple and make weapon attacks. Basically, anything that actively occupies a single hand for longer than a turn. Nobody bats an eye at the Ranger carrying a Longbow casting a spell on their turn or as a reaction, but a Longbow is also a two-handed weapon. It's just easier to visualize using it with one hand free because you only need both hands when firing an arrow.
My general thought is that two-handed weapons preclude you from using shields, or being able to grapple and make weapon attacks. Basically, anything that actively occupies a single hand for longer than a turn. Nobody bats an eye at the Ranger carrying a Longbow casting a spell on their turn or as a reaction, but a Longbow is also a two-handed weapon. It's just easier to visualize using it with one hand free because you only need both hands when firing an arrow.
Yes, this is a good point. Ruling differently on longbows and mauls is highly sus, and we all know you don't have two hands on a longbow outside of during an attack with it.
I encountered this with my Eldritch Knight, who used a warhammer, a shield, and then needed to be able to cast shield.
By common sense, any spell with a somatic component has to enable you to open your hand to drop something. If it didn't, then that means that you can't open your hand during somatic components, which is too illogical to consider.
Then you get this weird situation where on your own turn, you drop your warhammer, cast a somatic component spell, then use a free action to pick it up again (picking up a weapon is one of the specific examples of a free action). Combat becomes a peculiar game of picky-droppy hammer.
We just decided to wave the somatic component altogether rather than mess around with meaningless free actions.
In the example of using a greatweapon, if anyone wants to get pernickity about rules, you can sheathe your greatsword at the end of your turn as a free action, then draw it again at the start of the next turn. And if people are really into rules about how many hands you have free, just take Warcaster and then you never have to think about it again.
Wait, Eldritch Knights don't treat their bonded weapons as spell focuses...? Wow, can that subclass get any worse? :p
I think that Eldritch Knight can be a really strong class, but only if you build it in a particular way.
This basically gives you an AC of 21 without magic items, which you can increase to 26 with Shield, and if you have Prot Evil and Good up then the advantage means it's the equivalent of AC31. You can potentially have all of these available at level 4 (I got plate at level 6) regardless of race, and could have +1 additional AC if you're Warforged, additional AC through magic items. Then you have absorb elements and if you can get Warcaster then you're using booming blade to lock down enemy targets.
This isn't how most people want to play EK though - I think they mostly want it to be a fighter/blaster type battlemage, which is definitely isn't.
This basically gives you an AC of 21 without magic items, which you can increase to 26 with Shield, and if you have Prot Evil and Good up then the advantage means it's the equivalent of AC31. You can potentially have all of these available at level 4 (I got plate at level 6) regardless of race, and could have +1 additional AC if you're Warforged, additional AC through magic items. Then you have absorb elements and if you can get Warcaster then you're using booming blade to lock down enemy targets.
This isn't how most people want to play EK though - I think they mostly want it to be a fighter/blaster type battlemage, which is definitely isn't.
As C_C pointed out, you'll need to drop your weapon to cast, which is annoying.
Booming Blade targets the caster, so it's not eligible for War Caster.
This basically gives you an AC of 21 without magic items, which you can increase to 26 with Shield, and if you have Prot Evil and Good up then the advantage means it's the equivalent of AC31. You can potentially have all of these available at level 4 (I got plate at level 6) regardless of race, and could have +1 additional AC if you're Warforged, additional AC through magic items. Then you have absorb elements and if you can get Warcaster then you're using booming blade to lock down enemy targets.
This isn't how most people want to play EK though - I think they mostly want it to be a fighter/blaster type battlemage, which is definitely isn't.
As C_C pointed out, you'll need to drop your weapon to cast, which is annoying.
Booming Blade targets the caster, so it's not eligible for War Caster.
Warcaster:
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
Good point on Booming Blade though. It's still good for an EK between levels 1-4 and then 7-11 since you can use War Magic to cast a Cantrip then make a Bonus Action attack. After that it's pretty situational though.
This basically gives you an AC of 21 without magic items, which you can increase to 26 with Shield, and if you have Prot Evil and Good up then the advantage means it's the equivalent of AC31. You can potentially have all of these available at level 4 (I got plate at level 6) regardless of race, and could have +1 additional AC if you're Warforged, additional AC through magic items. Then you have absorb elements and if you can get Warcaster then you're using booming blade to lock down enemy targets.
This isn't how most people want to play EK though - I think they mostly want it to be a fighter/blaster type battlemage, which is definitely isn't.
As C_C pointed out, you'll need to drop your weapon to cast, which is annoying.
Booming Blade targets the caster, so it's not eligible for War Caster.
Warcaster:
You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
Good point on Booming Blade though. It's still good for an EK between levels 1-4 and then 7-11 since you can use War Magic to cast a Cantrip then make a Bonus Action attack. After that it's pretty situational though.
We're talking about an EK, not an Artificer, so you can perform the S component of Booming Blade while armed anyway.
So, what I'm picking up is the biggest problem with Eldritch Knight is that they cannot use a spellcasting focus... they must, by default, use a component pouch or just seek out the individual items they use as spell components. Even if an EK got a sword or shield that had the ability to be used as a spellcasting focus they couldn't use it. Therefore, an EK generally can't use a shield... I believe an EK can still use two-handed weapons easily, however, since two-handed weapons only require a second hand free when attacking, and it's reasonable to believe they can simply take one hand off their weapon to cast spells.
Warcaster mitigates this somewhat, as an EK can now perform Somatic components while holding a sword and shield... but it does not replace the Material component, so an EK can be fully equipped and still cast spells, but they must limit themselves to spells that have no material component. Warcaster is still a pretty useful spell for an EK even if you don't take advantage of that aspect of the feat, since advantage on concentration checks and spellcasting as an AOO is still game changing, but it's nice that it opens up a lot of spells and a different equipment setup.
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
There have been plenty of other LONG threads debating what is or isn't a "target" for AOE spells, lets not necro this old thread for that... The rules are unclear and inconsistent and it won't be quick or pleasant.
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
They changed the spell and the range is now officially “self (5-foot radius)” which definitively precludes it working with War Caster, as the feat specifically requires the spell “target only that creature.” (For the record, I houserule it works anyway, but RAW it does not. 🤷♂️)
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
They changed the spell and the range is now officially “self (5-foot radius)” which definitively precludes it working with War Caster, as the feat specifically requires the spell “target only that creature.” (For the record, I houserule it works anyway, but RAW it does not. 🤷♂️)
Self (5-foot radius) means you are the spell's point of origin. not the target of the spell. you target any creature within a 5 foot radius of yourself.
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
They changed the spell and the range is now officially “self (5-foot radius)” which definitively precludes it working with War Caster, as the feat specifically requires the spell “target only that creature.” (For the record, I houserule it works anyway, but RAW it does not. 🤷♂️)
Self (5-foot radius) means you are the spell's point of origin. not the target of the spell. you target any creature within a 5 foot radius of yourself.
No "target any creature within a 5 foot radius of yourself" is written "range: 5 ft" which is what they changed it FROM.
"Range: self (5-foot radius)" is an AOE that targets self as a point of origin, like sword burst.
Could a character hold a greatsword in one hand, not attack with it, and use the free hand for somatic spell components? To clarify, could a character cast a spell as a reaction/BA (ie shield) while wielding a great weapon, by holding it in one hand and using the other for somatic components. Thanks for the answers!
Yes. However, note that after doing so, you won't be wielding the weapon in two hands, which may have interactions with other rules - e.g. you can't make OAs with the greatsword (if you have some way to make an OA after casting Shield - I don't know of any, but it could exist), and you'll need to consume your 1/turn free object interaction to resume wielding it on your turn.
We also don't have any rules in general governing non-actions taken as part of some other Reaction - for example, we have no RAW at all on whether or not you can drop a weapon as part of an OA. This falls under the same category of question as yours - you're trying to drop an object from one hand (without dropping it from the other) in order to cast a Reaction spell. The rules don't discuss this even a little. My interpretation is that this lack of discussion implies that you can drop things as part of any other Reaction, but your DM might interpret differently. If your DM won't let you drop things as part of a Reaction in general, you'll need to drop at the end of your turn, instead of dropping as part of the cast.
The short answer is yes. You can do what you are asking about.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
You'll have trouble finding a PHB quote defining "wielded" as distinct from "held," but Quin is correct that you don't need to fully wield a weapon just to hold it, and just holding it doesn't require that you wield it.
The Two-Handed property doesn't even actually use "wielded," but does answer your question directly:
The implied second question, "can I freely switch from wielding to holding whenever I want, including off turn?" is... fuzzy. Taken to its most extreme... permissive wielding->holding might be used to let you do things like benefit from the Dueling fighting style despite holding a weapon in your offhand, because you're only "wielding" one of them for any given attack.... but then deciding that actually, you are wielding that second weapon when you're attacked, for the purpose of qualifying for the Dual Wielder feat's +1 AC. It's hard to define exactly when/how "wielding" can become "holding" or vice versa, other than to say, "I know it when I see it." Deciding to take one hand off of a weapon hat requires two hands to attack, that's clearly meaningfully stopping to "wield" it, and most DMs would agree... but does that take a free interaction on your own turn? What about the reverse? Hard to say, DMs could differ.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I encountered this with my Eldritch Knight, who used a warhammer, a shield, and then needed to be able to cast shield.
By common sense, any spell with a somatic component has to enable you to open your hand to drop something. If it didn't, then that means that you can't open your hand during somatic components, which is too illogical to consider.
Then you get this weird situation where on your own turn, you drop your warhammer, cast a somatic component spell, then use a free action to pick it up again (picking up a weapon is one of the specific examples of a free action). Combat becomes a peculiar game of picky-droppy hammer.
We just decided to wave the somatic component altogether rather than mess around with meaningless free actions.
In the example of using a greatweapon, if anyone wants to get pernickity about rules, you can sheathe your greatsword at the end of your turn as a free action, then draw it again at the start of the next turn. And if people are really into rules about how many hands you have free, just take Warcaster and then you never have to think about it again.
Wait, Eldritch Knights don't treat their bonded weapons as spell focuses...? Wow, can that subclass get any worse? :p
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters are the only Spellcasters (as in the feature) in the game that don't get access to using foci as part of their feature set, now that Rangers can use Druidic foci.
Near as I can figure, all you need is the Warcaster Feat and your Greataxe can be used for the Somatic part at least. Yes, you can hold a Greataxe in one hand, I don't think you can use it for much else. Other than that, I'll leave things to people who know the rules a lot better than I do. :-)
<Insert clever signature here>
My general thought is that two-handed weapons preclude you from using shields, or being able to grapple and make weapon attacks. Basically, anything that actively occupies a single hand for longer than a turn. Nobody bats an eye at the Ranger carrying a Longbow casting a spell on their turn or as a reaction, but a Longbow is also a two-handed weapon. It's just easier to visualize using it with one hand free because you only need both hands when firing an arrow.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Yes, this is a good point. Ruling differently on longbows and mauls is highly sus, and we all know you don't have two hands on a longbow outside of during an attack with it.
I think that Eldritch Knight can be a really strong class, but only if you build it in a particular way.
This basically gives you an AC of 21 without magic items, which you can increase to 26 with Shield, and if you have Prot Evil and Good up then the advantage means it's the equivalent of AC31. You can potentially have all of these available at level 4 (I got plate at level 6) regardless of race, and could have +1 additional AC if you're Warforged, additional AC through magic items. Then you have absorb elements and if you can get Warcaster then you're using booming blade to lock down enemy targets.
This isn't how most people want to play EK though - I think they mostly want it to be a fighter/blaster type battlemage, which is definitely isn't.
Warcaster:
Good point on Booming Blade though. It's still good for an EK between levels 1-4 and then 7-11 since you can use War Magic to cast a Cantrip then make a Bonus Action attack. After that it's pretty situational though.
We're talking about an EK, not an Artificer, so you can perform the S component of Booming Blade while armed anyway.
So, what I'm picking up is the biggest problem with Eldritch Knight is that they cannot use a spellcasting focus... they must, by default, use a component pouch or just seek out the individual items they use as spell components. Even if an EK got a sword or shield that had the ability to be used as a spellcasting focus they couldn't use it. Therefore, an EK generally can't use a shield... I believe an EK can still use two-handed weapons easily, however, since two-handed weapons only require a second hand free when attacking, and it's reasonable to believe they can simply take one hand off their weapon to cast spells.
Warcaster mitigates this somewhat, as an EK can now perform Somatic components while holding a sword and shield... but it does not replace the Material component, so an EK can be fully equipped and still cast spells, but they must limit themselves to spells that have no material component. Warcaster is still a pretty useful spell for an EK even if you don't take advantage of that aspect of the feat, since advantage on concentration checks and spellcasting as an AOO is still game changing, but it's nice that it opens up a lot of spells and a different equipment setup.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Booming blade targets any creature in a 5 foot radius from its point of origin, which is yourself. you do not target yourself with the spell. it is absolutely eligible for War Caster.
There have been plenty of other LONG threads debating what is or isn't a "target" for AOE spells, lets not necro this old thread for that... The rules are unclear and inconsistent and it won't be quick or pleasant.
They changed the spell and the range is now officially “self (5-foot radius)” which definitively precludes it working with War Caster, as the feat specifically requires the spell “target only that creature.” (For the record, I houserule it works anyway, but RAW it does not. 🤷♂️)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Self (5-foot radius) means you are the spell's point of origin. not the target of the spell. you target any creature within a 5 foot radius of yourself.
No "target any creature within a 5 foot radius of yourself" is written "range: 5 ft" which is what they changed it FROM.
"Range: self (5-foot radius)" is an AOE that targets self as a point of origin, like sword burst.
After the errata, booming blade targets just 1 creature as much as lightning bolt does...