Does casting True Strike automatically puts the weapon into your hand if you do not have it equipped?
Casting True Strike is a Magic action, not an Attack Action, therefore you only have your 1 free object interaction per round (which can be used to equip the weapon) and not the extra free equip/unequip the attack action grants.
Let's say a character, without the Warcaster feat, is holding a shield in their left hand and their right hand is empty. Could they, at their turn, cast true strike, use the free object interaction to unequip the weapon and then cast shield as a reaction (which requires a free hand) after their turn?
Or would they need to first use their free object interaction to equip the weapon, cast true strike and end their turn with both hands occupied, thus being unable to cast shield afterwards?
The spell component of True Strike says:
a weapon with which you have proficiency and that is worth 1+ CP.
And about the material components, the Player Handbook says:
Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
Let's say a character, without the Warcaster feat, is holding a shield in their left hand and their right hand is empty. Could they, at their turn, cast true strike, use the free object interaction to unequip the weapon and then cast shield as a reaction (which requires a free hand) after their turn?
nope.
Or would they need to first use their free object interaction to equip the weapon, cast true strike and end their turn with both hands occupied, thus being unable to cast shield afterwards?
yep.
Unless they were True-Strike-ing with a thrown weapon, in which case they could draw it as part of the attack (even without the Attack Action), and throw it, thus not using the free object interaction at all.
This is sort of a weird edge case where it seems like the rules on material components and equipping/unequipping weapons were written without considering things like True Strike.
I think the RAW here is that you don't need to draw the weapon before casting, because the weapon is the material component, and the rules on material components seem to be saying you can "access" them with a free hand as part of casting the spell. And while the ability to draw a weapon as part of making an attack is now defined as part of the Attack action in 5.5e, there is no general rule saying you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made as part of some other kind of action.
The (not-strictly-RAW) way I would probably rule it in practice is that you can always draw a weapon as part of making an attack with that weapon, regardless of what type of action is used to make the attack.
This is sort of a weird edge case where it seems like the rules on material components and equipping/unequipping weapons were written without considering things like True Strike.
I think the RAW here is that you don't need to draw the weapon before casting, because the weapon is the material component, and the rules on material components seem to be saying you can "access" them with a free hand as part of casting the spell. And while the ability to draw a weapon as part of making an attack is now defined as part of the Attack action in 5.5e, there is no general rule saying you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made as part of some other kind of action.
The (not-strictly-RAW) way I would probably rule it in practice is that you can always draw a weapon as part of making an attack with that weapon, regardless of what type of action is used to make the attack.
Yeah, if you need a RAW-ish justification for keeping a hand free, that would probably be it. The Material component rules are not as precise as the rules on equipping with the Attack action
Material (M)
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
Because the weapon's an M component, drawing it could be viewed as part of the casting of true strike, and then stowing it would be your free object interaction
If you rule that way, drawing the weapon as part of the casting would also apply to Warcaster reaction spell attacks as well -- although in that case you'd then start your next turn with the weapon in hand, because you wouldn't get an object interaction to stow it
That said, JC did have a somewhat questionable tweet about this back in the day. I don't think he considered how that ruling would apply to reaction spells like feather fall though, which would suddenly become impossible to cast if you weren't already holding the M component or focus equivalent
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Let's say a character, without the Warcaster feat, is holding a shield in their left hand and their right hand is empty. Could they, at their turn, cast true strike, use the free object interaction to unequip the weapon and then cast shield as a reaction (which requires a free hand) after their turn?
nope.
I have doubts on this and i tend to agree with Wagnarokkr, let me explain:
the weapon IS the material component of the spell itself, same as a ball of bat guano and sulfur for casting fireball.
Wouldn't that mean that every single time you cast a fireball you must use your free object interaction to extract the bat guano and sulfur components and you can not, let's say, open a door as well? I am not sure it is meant that way.
..And while the ability to draw a weapon as part of making an attack is now defined as part of the Attack action in 5.5e, there is no general rule saying you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made as part of some other kind of action.
The (not-strictly-RAW) way I would probably rule it in practice is that you can always draw a weapon as part of making an attack with that weapon, regardless of what type of action is used to make the attack.
Technically if you have an AoO and you find yourself with empty hands, RAW you can not equip a weapon and you are stuck with unharmed attacks and grappling/pushing.
If you rule that way, drawing the weapon as part of the casting would also apply to Warcaster reaction spell attacks as well -- although in that case you'd then start your next turn with the weapon in hand, because you wouldn't get an object interaction to stow it
I do not think you can cast True Strike as a reaction with War Caster, the target is Self so it is not allowed. Same for Green Flame Blade. You are stuck with Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp.
That said, JC did have a somewhat questionable tweet about this back in the day. I don't think he considered how that ruling would apply to reaction spells like feather fall though, which would suddenly become impossible to cast if you weren't already holding the M component or focus equivalent
Yeah that would be a mess you are right. It does not make much sense in 5.5 ed at least, and the Tweet is from 2018, way before then.
Let's say a character, without the Warcaster feat, is holding a shield in their left hand and their right hand is empty. Could they, at their turn, cast true strike, use the free object interaction to unequip the weapon and then cast shield as a reaction (which requires a free hand) after their turn?
nope.
I have doubts on this and i tend to agree with Wagnarokkr, let me explain:
the weapon IS the material component of the spell itself, same as a ball of bat guano and sulfur for casting fireball.
Wouldn't that mean that every single time you cast a fireball you must use your free object interaction to extract the bat guano and sulfur components and you can not, let's say, open a door as well? I am not sure it is meant that way.
(This is all very ideosyncratic, either way, so the weeds are thick here.)
To cast with a material component, you need to "access" it with a free hand; nothing says you need to pull it out of the component pouch or remove the amulet from your neck... Accessing a component is left vague to allow for lots of different stuff like component pouches and different kinds of foci.
To attack with a weapon, you need to draw it. Drawing a weapon is, for better or worse, an explicit part of the action economy (with some finicky rules that they massively expanded in 2024). Drawing and accessing are not the same thing.
Sure, you could start to cast True Strike with your sword sheathed and a free hand, since you can access the sword. But the moment the spell needs you to make an attack, you need a way to draw it first. 1) So use a thrown weapon, since you can always draw one of those as part of any attack. 2) Or be an Eldritch Knight or whatever, so you can cast the cantrip as one of your attacks in the Attack Action, thus being able to draw as part of the attack...
If you rule that way, drawing the weapon as part of the casting would also apply to Warcaster reaction spell attacks as well -- although in that case you'd then start your next turn with the weapon in hand, because you wouldn't get an object interaction to stow it
I do not think you can cast True Strike as a reaction with War Caster, the target is Self so it is not allowed. Same for Green Flame Blade. You are stuck with Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp.
FWIW, Self is the "range," thus the point of origin, not the target. I think all of those spells are eligible for War Caster reaction, but this has been a flamewar in dozens and dozens of threads and we don't need to rehash it.
Could the spellcaster not access the Material component (drawing the weapon with a free hand) while casting True Strike?
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
The argument could be made but this still wouldn't count as equipping the weapon, even if you permitted it for the cantrip, so you'd not be able to make the follow-up attack with the club without then equipping it, on it's attack. I know it doesn't make logical sense since why aren't you equipping the weapon you just used in a cantrip but as far as I see, nothing permits equipping the weapon as such.
This is all very ideosyncratic, either way, so the weeds are thick here.)
To cast with a material component, you need to "access" it with a free hand; nothing says you need to pull it out of the component pouch or remove the amulet from your neck... Accessing a component is left vague to allow for lots of different stuff like component pouches and different kinds of foci.
There surely is a difference between the manipulation of a spellcasting focus like an amulet or a shield an a regular spell component like bat guano.
RAW:
To use a regular spell component a spellcaster must have a hand free to access them.
To use a Component Pouch, you must have a hand free to reach into it.
To use a Spellcasting Focus, you must hold it unless its description says otherwise (see chapter 6 for descriptions).
I can imagine fireball been casted with the bat guano in your hand and out of the pouch, with all the gestures required. I mean except the case if you want the fireball to be centered on yourself :D.
To attack with a weapon, you need to draw it. Drawing a weapon is, for better or worse, an explicit part of the action economy (with some finicky rules that they massively expanded in 2024). Drawing and accessing are not the same thing.
I tend to think however that if the Devs had wanted the drawing of the weapon to be excluded by the spell they would have said so (something like "the weapon need to be in your hand already").
Because then, if you have opened a door already in your action, casting True Strike becomes impossible, even if you have a free hand to grab the weapon (The weapon is a regular component.). It seems a relevant detail that they should have included.
To cast with a material component, you need to "access" it with a free hand; nothing says you need to pull it out of the component pouch or remove the amulet from your neck... Accessing a component is left vague to allow for lots of different stuff like component pouches and different kinds of foci.
There surely is a difference between the manipulation of a spellcasting focus like an amulet or a shield an a regular spell component like bat guano. I agree that is very ambigous.
I can imagine fireball been casted with the bat guano in your hand and out of the pouch, with all the gestures required. I mean except the case if you want the fireball to be centered on yourself :D.
The bat guano (actually, "ball of bat guano and sulfur") isn't consumed. So it would (presumably) go back in the pouch. So your case, perhaps needlessly, raises the question of "can you draw, attack, and sheath all in the process of casting?" Which would be way more powerful than how it works in the Attack Action.
To attack with a weapon, you need to draw it. Drawing a weapon is, for better or worse, an explicit part of the action economy (with some finicky rules that they massively expanded in 2024). Drawing and accessing are not the same thing.
I tend to think however that if the Devs had wanted the drawing of the weapon to be excluded by the spell they would have said so (something like "the weapon need to be in your hand already").
I mean, they kinda did. You can draw a (non-thrown) weapon with a free object interaction or as part of an attack in the Attack Action. You can't in a Magic Action.
The bat guano (actually, "ball of bat guano and sulfur") isn't consumed. So it would (presumably) go back in the pouch. So your case, perhaps needlessly, raises the question of "can you draw, attack, and sheath all in the process of casting?" Which would be way more powerful than how it works in the Attack Action.
I think this is where the ambiguity you mentioned comes into play. We assume that you can put back the guano (and the sulfur yes) back into your pocket immediately after casting the spell as part of the spell itself. But you could also decide to keep them into your hand if you wish to cast fireball again next round. If you do, casting another spell with M component will require you to put them back in the next round and switch components. Same thing here. It does not strike me as overpowered. If you keep it in your hand you can not do extra attacks anyways because it is a magic action.
This is a spell after all, it replicates an attack but it is still a spell. The weapon is a regular component, so it should be treated as such.
Also compare with the text of Shillelagh, where the weapon which is enchanted is not the material (the mistletoe is):
A Club or Quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature’s power.
I really think that if they had meant for the caster to be already holding the weapon, they would have done so, like they did for this spell.
Does casting True Strike automatically puts the weapon into your hand if you do not have it equipped?
Casting True Strike is a Magic action, not an Attack Action, therefore you only have your 1 free object interaction per round (which can be used to equip the weapon) and not the extra free equip/unequip the attack action grants.
Let's say a character, without the Warcaster feat, is holding a shield in their left hand and their right hand is empty. Could they, at their turn, cast true strike, use the free object interaction to unequip the weapon and then cast shield as a reaction (which requires a free hand) after their turn?
Or would they need to first use their free object interaction to equip the weapon, cast true strike and end their turn with both hands occupied, thus being unable to cast shield afterwards?
The spell component of True Strike says:
And about the material components, the Player Handbook says:
nope.
yep.
Unless they were True-Strike-ing with a thrown weapon, in which case they could draw it as part of the attack (even without the Attack Action), and throw it, thus not using the free object interaction at all.
This is sort of a weird edge case where it seems like the rules on material components and equipping/unequipping weapons were written without considering things like True Strike.
I think the RAW here is that you don't need to draw the weapon before casting, because the weapon is the material component, and the rules on material components seem to be saying you can "access" them with a free hand as part of casting the spell. And while the ability to draw a weapon as part of making an attack is now defined as part of the Attack action in 5.5e, there is no general rule saying you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made as part of some other kind of action.
The (not-strictly-RAW) way I would probably rule it in practice is that you can always draw a weapon as part of making an attack with that weapon, regardless of what type of action is used to make the attack.
pronouns: he/she/they
Yeah, if you need a RAW-ish justification for keeping a hand free, that would probably be it. The Material component rules are not as precise as the rules on equipping with the Attack action
Because the weapon's an M component, drawing it could be viewed as part of the casting of true strike, and then stowing it would be your free object interaction
If you rule that way, drawing the weapon as part of the casting would also apply to Warcaster reaction spell attacks as well -- although in that case you'd then start your next turn with the weapon in hand, because you wouldn't get an object interaction to stow it
That said, JC did have a somewhat questionable tweet about this back in the day. I don't think he considered how that ruling would apply to reaction spells like feather fall though, which would suddenly become impossible to cast if you weren't already holding the M component or focus equivalent
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have doubts on this and i tend to agree with Wagnarokkr, let me explain:
the weapon IS the material component of the spell itself, same as a ball of bat guano and sulfur for casting fireball.
Wouldn't that mean that every single time you cast a fireball you must use your free object interaction to extract the bat guano and sulfur components and you can not, let's say, open a door as well? I am not sure it is meant that way.
Technically if you have an AoO and you find yourself with empty hands, RAW you can not equip a weapon and you are stuck with unharmed attacks and grappling/pushing.
I do not think you can cast True Strike as a reaction with War Caster, the target is Self so it is not allowed. Same for Green Flame Blade. You are stuck with Chill Touch and Shocking Grasp.
Yeah that would be a mess you are right. It does not make much sense in 5.5 ed at least, and the Tweet is from 2018, way before then.
(This is all very ideosyncratic, either way, so the weeds are thick here.)
To cast with a material component, you need to "access" it with a free hand; nothing says you need to pull it out of the component pouch or remove the amulet from your neck... Accessing a component is left vague to allow for lots of different stuff like component pouches and different kinds of foci.
To attack with a weapon, you need to draw it. Drawing a weapon is, for better or worse, an explicit part of the action economy (with some finicky rules that they massively expanded in 2024). Drawing and accessing are not the same thing.
Sure, you could start to cast True Strike with your sword sheathed and a free hand, since you can access the sword. But the moment the spell needs you to make an attack, you need a way to draw it first.
1) So use a thrown weapon, since you can always draw one of those as part of any attack.
2) Or be an Eldritch Knight or whatever, so you can cast the cantrip as one of your attacks in the Attack Action, thus being able to draw as part of the attack...
FWIW, Self is the "range," thus the point of origin, not the target. I think all of those spells are eligible for War Caster reaction, but this has been a flamewar in dozens and dozens of threads and we don't need to rehash it.
My opinion from a different thread:
Jayce_Danathar, here's a thread related to your question if you want to read more opinions: Equipping a weapon when not taking the Attack action eg for True Strike [2024]
The bat guano (actually, "ball of bat guano and sulfur") isn't consumed. So it would (presumably) go back in the pouch. So your case, perhaps needlessly, raises the question of "can you draw, attack, and sheath all in the process of casting?" Which would be way more powerful than how it works in the Attack Action.
I mean, they kinda did. You can draw a (non-thrown) weapon with a free object interaction or as part of an attack in the Attack Action. You can't in a Magic Action.
I think this is where the ambiguity you mentioned comes into play. We assume that you can put back the guano (and the sulfur yes) back into your pocket immediately after casting the spell as part of the spell itself. But you could also decide to keep them into your hand if you wish to cast fireball again next round. If you do, casting another spell with M component will require you to put them back in the next round and switch components. Same thing here. It does not strike me as overpowered. If you keep it in your hand you can not do extra attacks anyways because it is a magic action.
This is a spell after all, it replicates an attack but it is still a spell. The weapon is a regular component, so it should be treated as such.
Also compare with the text of Shillelagh, where the weapon which is enchanted is not the material (the mistletoe is):
I really think that if they had meant for the caster to be already holding the weapon, they would have done so, like they did for this spell.