First of all, I would like to ask, are Somatic and Vocal components universal per spell, or could it be that whenever someone learns a spell can adapt it his own style (within reason). An example given, my EK knows Absorb Elements and Shield and whenever using them it's more of motion like "Neo stopping the bullets", to give an example.
That question is mainly due to the fact his main weapon is a Glaive, so, unless he's got the War caster feat, it would have to free both hands to perform the Somatic components for the spells.
Regarding the Vocal, is mostly curiosity of mine, could it be that once I know it's LeviosA, so long as I pronounce it the right way, could i cast it in a different language I know? (I suppose this question is more for flavor, but I still wanna know what's the general consensus on it)
In 5e, what the specifics of the somatic and vocal components are are strictly flavor, but the rules say somatic components require a hand and vocal components require your voice.
On the note of a Glaive, you can always freely remove a hand from a 2-handed weapon and put it back. Neither of those things are limited by the rules.
I agree with DxJxC. According to the rules, you have to have "free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures [somatic components]" and must be able to "[chant] mystic words....with specific pitch and resonance" if a verbal component is required. Exactly what these gestures and words are is left open in the rules and thus becomes a matter of flavor.
Many groups and players will leave it at that and be happy with simply saying something like, "I cast Magic Missile at the Darkness." Others may get more creative. For example, I am currently playing a warlock in a group that is pretty heavy into role-playing, so for that character I have made myself a prop Book of Shadows and an OOC cheat sheet with phrases from a draconic translator and gestures from artists collections of hand poses. Thus, If I'm playing Kiri, I might say something like:
"I raise my left hand in a sweeping motion, fist curled lightly, but with the index finger pointing at the largest gnoll, while shouting 'Suiaerl drevab!" and unleash an Eldritch Blast in its direction."
Details are really a matter of taste. I see no reason your Eldritch Knight can't grasp his glaive in one hand while gesturing with the other.
A glaive only requires two hands when you attack with it. At any other time, you can hold it one handed (it only weighs 6 pounds so holding it shouldn't be an issue), so if you are casting a spell, you are not attacking with a glaive, so that would be fine for spells with only verbal and somatic components...it might get more complicated with material ones though, depending on how you are playing.
The action economy for Eldritch Knights is a little weird, and by RAW takes some getting used to. If you're holding a weapon, like a greatsword, then it's true you can still let go to cast a spell with somatic components, such as thunderwave. The problem is what to do after. If you grip the weapon in anticipation of an Opportunity Attack, then you cannot perform the somatic components of, say, shield. Conversely, if you keep a hand free to cast a spell as a reaction, then you can't make an opportunity attack.
Honestly, they work better with Versatile weapons, like the longsword than any with the Two-handed property. If Feats are on the table, then War Caster will let you use bigger weapons with no problem.
EDIT: That's not entirely true. War Caster lets you cast any spell that only has one target as a reaction, in place of an Opportunity Attack. You could cast hold person on a valid target, but that requires a material component. Just stick with Versatile weapons.
The action economy for Eldritch Knights is a little weird, and by RAW takes some getting used to. If you're holding a weapon, like a greatsword, then it's true you can still let go to cast a spell with somatic components, such as thunderwave. The problem is what to do after. If you grip the weapon in anticipation of an Opportunity Attack, then you cannot perform the somatic components of, say, shield. Conversely, if you keep a hand free to cast a spell as a reaction, then you can't make an opportunity attack.
Honestly, they work better with Versatile weapons, like the longsword than any with the Two-handed property. If Feats are on the table, then War Caster will let you use bigger weapons with no problem.
EDIT: That's not entirely true. War Caster lets you cast any spell that only has one target as a reaction, in place of an Opportunity Attack. You could cast hold person on a valid target, but that requires a material component. Just stick with Versatile weapons.
The errata to the rules states that you only need to be using two hands for a two handed weapon when making an attack. This means that you never need to specify how many hands are holding the weapon. If you take a reaction to make an opportunity attack then you use two hands to hold it when you make the attack and don't need to do so at any other time. If you use a reaction to cast shield you are holding the weapon with one hand while doing so. It isn't a state that you need to specify for the rest of the turn.
P.S. The time this all becomes an issue is when you are using both a shield and holding a one handed weapon. Then you need the warcaster feat to cast a V,S spell (and a V,S,M spell if neither the shield nor weapon are a spellcasting focus assuming the class can use one)
You can't attack with a weapon you aren't properly holding. You can't draw and attack at the same time.
You don’t draw the weapon to attack if you are already holding it. Drawing implies it’s sheathed ie not held. So long as your second hand is free, you can Grab the weapon when you make any attack with it
the problem with that is, you're holding your material component at that point. you use your item interaction to grab your component. It's still in your hand until you let it go. On your next turn you can use your item interaction to put it away, but until that happens, you cannot re-grasp your 2h weapon to make an attack...unless you use a free action to drop your component on the ground.
So, if you are going to need to make an opportunity attack, you have to drop your component on the ground to re-grasp your 2h weapon, or give up the opportunity attack until your next turn when you can put your component away.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
the problem with that is, you're holding your material component at that point. you use your item interaction to grab your component. It's still in your hand until you let it go. On your next turn you can use your item interaction to put it away, but until that happens, you cannot re-grasp your 2h weapon to make an attack...unless you use a free action to drop your component on the ground.
So, if you are going to need to make an opportunity attack, you have to drop your component on the ground to re-grasp your 2h weapon, or give up the opportunity attack until your next turn when you can put your component away.
The original post was on V,S spells...material components do get tricky, but relevant to the OPs question they are not
You don't get to make object interactions as a reaction.
The bottom line, as always, is that the decision is up to the DM. However ...
PHB p147
"Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."
Two handed is only relevant when you attack with the weapon. It is not relevant at any other time. This is exactly what the rules say. Two handed is not relevant if you are standing around in combat waiting to make an attack. It is not relevant when it isn't your turn. You do not need to "prepare" to make an attack by holding it with two hands. You only have to have two hands available to hold it when you make the attack. That is literally exactly what the rules say.
This means that you do NOT need to be holding the weapon with two hands before using a reaction to make an opportunity attack. You only need to have the second hand free so that you CAN hold it with two hands when you make the opportunity attack.
----
In addition, the rules do NOT say that you need to hold the material component for the spell before or after the spell is cast. All it says is that you need a hand free to interact with the material component.
PHB p203
"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."
This rule does NOT say anything about holding the material component (spellcasting focus or component pouch) AFTER the spell has been cast. All it says is that, as part of the spellcasting, you access these components. All the spellcasting rules say is that you need a free hand to "access" the components as part of the spell casting.
Anyway, as I said, it is up to how your DM chooses to run it but my reading of the rules is that you do not need to hold your spellcasting focus or component pouch if you want to cast a spell as a reaction you ONLY need a free hand available to access the components WHEN you are casting the spell.
The action economy for Eldritch Knights is a little weird, and by RAW takes some getting used to. If you're holding a weapon, like a greatsword, then it's true you can still let go to cast a spell with somatic components, such as thunderwave. The problem is what to do after. If you grip the weapon in anticipation of an Opportunity Attack, then you cannot perform the somatic components of, say, shield. Conversely, if you keep a hand free to cast a spell as a reaction, then you can't make an opportunity attack.
Honestly, they work better with Versatile weapons, like the longsword than any with the Two-handed property. If Feats are on the table, then War Caster will let you use bigger weapons with no problem.
EDIT: That's not entirely true. War Caster lets you cast any spell that only has one target as a reaction, in place of an Opportunity Attack. You could cast hold person on a valid target, but that requires a material component. Just stick with Versatile weapons.
The errata to the rules states that you only need to be using two hands for a two handed weapon when making an attack. This means that you never need to specify how many hands are holding the weapon. If you take a reaction to make an opportunity attack then you use two hands to hold it when you make the attack and don't need to do so at any other time. If you use a reaction to cast shield you are holding the weapon with one hand while doing so. It isn't a state that you need to specify for the rest of the turn.
P.S. The time this all becomes an issue is when you are using both a shield and holding a one handed weapon. Then you need the warcaster feat to cast a V,S spell (and a V,S,M spell if neither the shield nor weapon are a spellcasting focus assuming the class can use one)
This is correct. The only time you have to have both hands on a weapon with the Two-Handed property is when you are making an attack with that weapon.
You don't get to make object interactions as a reaction.
Putting your offhand on a Two-Handed weapon that you are already holding is not an object interaction. Is it an object interaction to switch between holding a Versatile weapon one-handed to two-handed, or the reverse? No, it is not.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
So let me get this straight: in the heat of combat, you're going to take a relaxed stance and rest your greatsword before taking an Opportunity Attack? You're not going to hold it at the ready?
So let me get this straight: in the heat of combat, you're going to take a relaxed stance and rest your greatsword before taking an Opportunity Attack? You're not going to hold it at the ready?
However you choose to describe it is irrelevant. The rules explicitly allow this, and the devs are in agreement that this is an intended function. Switching between one and two hands is a non-action.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
the problem with that is, you're holding your material component at that point. you use your item interaction to grab your component. It's still in your hand until you let it go. On your next turn you can use your item interaction to put it away, but until that happens, you cannot re-grasp your 2h weapon to make an attack...unless you use a free action to drop your component on the ground.
So, if you are going to need to make an opportunity attack, you have to drop your component on the ground to re-grasp your 2h weapon, or give up the opportunity attack until your next turn when you can put your component away.
This is true, but is not relevant to the discussion.
the problem with that is, you're holding your material component at that point. you use your item interaction to grab your component. It's still in your hand until you let it go. On your next turn you can use your item interaction to put it away, but until that happens, you cannot re-grasp your 2h weapon to make an attack...unless you use a free action to drop your component on the ground.
So, if you are going to need to make an opportunity attack, you have to drop your component on the ground to re-grasp your 2h weapon, or give up the opportunity attack until your next turn when you can put your component away.
This is true, but is not relevant to the discussion.
Interacting with the spells components is part of the Cast a Spell action. It doesn't use the item interaction that accompanies the movement or attack options. If it did use your item interaction, then you wouldn't be able to cast any spell that had more than two component as a spell with a casting time of 1 action (a bonus action, yes, since you would use your free interaction with one component, your action with the second and then be able to cast with your bonus action). The timing of spells with more than two material components would have to be at least 12 seconds.
It's not relevant to the discussion, but I'd hate to have someone reading this and thinking that this was how spell casting worked.
On topic, there is nothing that says that you couldn't be holding your two handed weapon with two hands and remove a hand to cast a spell as a reaction. What would happen after wouldn't matter because your reaction would be used and you couldn't cast another spell or make an OA until the start of your next turn anyway.
I feel that it is relevant to why Jounichi was recommending a versatile weapon vs a true 2h weapon. it's also relevant to understanding the intricacies of the action economy.
Yes, you can remove your hand from your two handed weapon to cast a spell. There are things that should be factored into actually doing that though, it's not as simple as you just do it. Some DMs aren't going to let a liberal interpretation of the action economy fly. When making your weapon choices, how it works and how your table plays it needs to be factored in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I feel that it is relevant to why Jounichi was recommending a versatile weapon vs a true 2h weapon. it's also relevant to understanding the intricacies of the action economy.
Yes, you can remove your hand from your two handed weapon to cast a spell. There are things that should be factored into actually doing that though, it's not as simple as you just do it. Some DMs aren't going to let a liberal interpretation of the action economy fly. When making your weapon choices, how it works and how your table plays it needs to be factored in.
I'm not sure that it is a liberal interpretation of the action economy, but the fact that it may be more liberal than some DMs rule is valid. As always, the character concept should be discussed with the DM as soon as possible. This will allow for the player to plan accordingly for whatever ruling from the ultra conservative to the "the pirate code is more guidelines really" approach. This will inform you to whether a versatile weapon will be more appropriate or not.
If there is a rule that does say that you have to keep your hand on your weapon or forfeit your action/free interaction/etc., that would be good to post here.
Just the interpretation of using your item interactions. if you pull out a spell component to cast a spell, that uses your item interaction. You can't put it away until next round. To re-grasp your sword, you'd have to use a free action to drop the spell component on the ground. Shield isn't a problem since it has no material component (sword and shield users have a different problem with the shield spell, but that's another story). Other spells with material components aren't as forgiving as shield for two handed users.
Ruby of the Warmage solves most problems though, it should be stated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First of all, I would like to ask, are Somatic and Vocal components universal per spell, or could it be that whenever someone learns a spell can adapt it his own style (within reason).
An example given, my EK knows Absorb Elements and Shield and whenever using them it's more of motion like "Neo stopping the bullets", to give an example.
That question is mainly due to the fact his main weapon is a Glaive, so, unless he's got the War caster feat, it would have to free both hands to perform the Somatic components for the spells.
Regarding the Vocal, is mostly curiosity of mine, could it be that once I know it's LeviosA, so long as I pronounce it the right way, could i cast it in a different language I know?
(I suppose this question is more for flavor, but I still wanna know what's the general consensus on it)
In 5e, what the specifics of the somatic and vocal components are are strictly flavor, but the rules say somatic components require a hand and vocal components require your voice.
On the note of a Glaive, you can always freely remove a hand from a 2-handed weapon and put it back. Neither of those things are limited by the rules.
I agree with DxJxC. According to the rules, you have to have "free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures [somatic components]" and must be able to "[chant] mystic words....with specific pitch and resonance" if a verbal component is required. Exactly what these gestures and words are is left open in the rules and thus becomes a matter of flavor.
Many groups and players will leave it at that and be happy with simply saying something like, "I cast Magic Missile at the Darkness." Others may get more creative. For example, I am currently playing a warlock in a group that is pretty heavy into role-playing, so for that character I have made myself a prop Book of Shadows and an OOC cheat sheet with phrases from a draconic translator and gestures from artists collections of hand poses. Thus, If I'm playing Kiri, I might say something like:
"I raise my left hand in a sweeping motion, fist curled lightly, but with the index finger pointing at the largest gnoll, while shouting 'Suiaerl drevab!" and unleash an Eldritch Blast in its direction."
Details are really a matter of taste. I see no reason your Eldritch Knight can't grasp his glaive in one hand while gesturing with the other.
A glaive only requires two hands when you attack with it. At any other time, you can hold it one handed (it only weighs 6 pounds so holding it shouldn't be an issue), so if you are casting a spell, you are not attacking with a glaive, so that would be fine for spells with only verbal and somatic components...it might get more complicated with material ones though, depending on how you are playing.
The action economy for Eldritch Knights is a little weird, and by RAW takes some getting used to. If you're holding a weapon, like a greatsword, then it's true you can still let go to cast a spell with somatic components, such as thunderwave. The problem is what to do after. If you grip the weapon in anticipation of an Opportunity Attack, then you cannot perform the somatic components of, say, shield. Conversely, if you keep a hand free to cast a spell as a reaction, then you can't make an opportunity attack.
Honestly, they work better with Versatile weapons, like the longsword than any with the Two-handed property. If Feats are on the table, then War Caster will let you use bigger weapons with no problem.
EDIT: That's not entirely true. War Caster lets you cast any spell that only has one target as a reaction, in place of an Opportunity Attack. You could cast hold person on a valid target, but that requires a material component. Just stick with Versatile weapons.
The errata to the rules states that you only need to be using two hands for a two handed weapon when making an attack. This means that you never need to specify how many hands are holding the weapon. If you take a reaction to make an opportunity attack then you use two hands to hold it when you make the attack and don't need to do so at any other time. If you use a reaction to cast shield you are holding the weapon with one hand while doing so. It isn't a state that you need to specify for the rest of the turn.
P.S. The time this all becomes an issue is when you are using both a shield and holding a one handed weapon. Then you need the warcaster feat to cast a V,S spell (and a V,S,M spell if neither the shield nor weapon are a spellcasting focus assuming the class can use one)
You can't attack with a weapon you aren't properly holding. You can't draw and attack at the same time.
You don’t draw the weapon to attack if you are already holding it. Drawing implies it’s sheathed ie not held. So long as your second hand is free, you can Grab the weapon when you make any attack with it
the problem with that is, you're holding your material component at that point. you use your item interaction to grab your component. It's still in your hand until you let it go. On your next turn you can use your item interaction to put it away, but until that happens, you cannot re-grasp your 2h weapon to make an attack...unless you use a free action to drop your component on the ground.
So, if you are going to need to make an opportunity attack, you have to drop your component on the ground to re-grasp your 2h weapon, or give up the opportunity attack until your next turn when you can put your component away.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
You don't get to make object interactions as a reaction.
The original post was on V,S spells...material components do get tricky, but relevant to the OPs question they are not
The bottom line, as always, is that the decision is up to the DM. However ...
PHB p147
"Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."
Two handed is only relevant when you attack with the weapon. It is not relevant at any other time. This is exactly what the rules say. Two handed is not relevant if you are standing around in combat waiting to make an attack. It is not relevant when it isn't your turn. You do not need to "prepare" to make an attack by holding it with two hands. You only have to have two hands available to hold it when you make the attack. That is literally exactly what the rules say.
This means that you do NOT need to be holding the weapon with two hands before using a reaction to make an opportunity attack. You only need to have the second hand free so that you CAN hold it with two hands when you make the opportunity attack.
----
In addition, the rules do NOT say that you need to hold the material component for the spell before or after the spell is cast. All it says is that you need a hand free to interact with the material component.
PHB p203
"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."
This rule does NOT say anything about holding the material component (spellcasting focus or component pouch) AFTER the spell has been cast. All it says is that, as part of the spellcasting, you access these components. All the spellcasting rules say is that you need a free hand to "access" the components as part of the spell casting.
Anyway, as I said, it is up to how your DM chooses to run it but my reading of the rules is that you do not need to hold your spellcasting focus or component pouch if you want to cast a spell as a reaction you ONLY need a free hand available to access the components WHEN you are casting the spell.
This is correct. The only time you have to have both hands on a weapon with the Two-Handed property is when you are making an attack with that weapon.
Putting your offhand on a Two-Handed weapon that you are already holding is not an object interaction. Is it an object interaction to switch between holding a Versatile weapon one-handed to two-handed, or the reverse? No, it is not.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
So let me get this straight: in the heat of combat, you're going to take a relaxed stance and rest your greatsword before taking an Opportunity Attack? You're not going to hold it at the ready?
However you choose to describe it is irrelevant. The rules explicitly allow this, and the devs are in agreement that this is an intended function. Switching between one and two hands is a non-action.
Errata
Sage Advice
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
This is true, but is not relevant to the discussion.
Interacting with the spells components is part of the Cast a Spell action. It doesn't use the item interaction that accompanies the movement or attack options. If it did use your item interaction, then you wouldn't be able to cast any spell that had more than two component as a spell with a casting time of 1 action (a bonus action, yes, since you would use your free interaction with one component, your action with the second and then be able to cast with your bonus action). The timing of spells with more than two material components would have to be at least 12 seconds.
It's not relevant to the discussion, but I'd hate to have someone reading this and thinking that this was how spell casting worked.
On topic, there is nothing that says that you couldn't be holding your two handed weapon with two hands and remove a hand to cast a spell as a reaction. What would happen after wouldn't matter because your reaction would be used and you couldn't cast another spell or make an OA until the start of your next turn anyway.
I feel that it is relevant to why Jounichi was recommending a versatile weapon vs a true 2h weapon. it's also relevant to understanding the intricacies of the action economy.
Yes, you can remove your hand from your two handed weapon to cast a spell. There are things that should be factored into actually doing that though, it's not as simple as you just do it. Some DMs aren't going to let a liberal interpretation of the action economy fly. When making your weapon choices, how it works and how your table plays it needs to be factored in.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I'm not sure that it is a liberal interpretation of the action economy, but the fact that it may be more liberal than some DMs rule is valid. As always, the character concept should be discussed with the DM as soon as possible. This will allow for the player to plan accordingly for whatever ruling from the ultra conservative to the "the pirate code is more guidelines really" approach. This will inform you to whether a versatile weapon will be more appropriate or not.
If there is a rule that does say that you have to keep your hand on your weapon or forfeit your action/free interaction/etc., that would be good to post here.
Just the interpretation of using your item interactions. if you pull out a spell component to cast a spell, that uses your item interaction. You can't put it away until next round. To re-grasp your sword, you'd have to use a free action to drop the spell component on the ground. Shield isn't a problem since it has no material component (sword and shield users have a different problem with the shield spell, but that's another story). Other spells with material components aren't as forgiving as shield for two handed users.
Ruby of the Warmage solves most problems though, it should be stated.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha