So most PCs get two. This means you can dual-wield light weapons, wield one two-handed weapon, or one normal weapon and a shield. That much is clear.
What's not so clear to me is how easily you can change what's in your hands.
Dual-wielding on your turn and then pulling out your shield at the end of the turn seems like exploiting a loophole.
But what about a monk using two-handed d8 quarterstaff damage and then using an unarmed strike? I guess it's a bit of a non-issue, since I imagine monks can use a kick as an unarmed strike. But suppose I just want to let go of my quarterstaff with one hand and do a punch?
What about spells with somatic and/or material components? Do they take one or two hands? Can I make a weapon attack while holding a shield, then sheathe my weapon and cast a spell as a bonus action? What if I just hold a shield and cast a spell, but then want to make an opportunity attack on an enemy's turn? Can I be holding my shield and spellcasting focus / material components on my turn, and then my shield and weapon when it's not my turn?
What about a ranger who alternates between dual-wielding and ranged attacks? Can I dual-wield shortswords on one turn and then shoot my longbow on the next? Can I shoot my longbow, then make an opportunity attack between turns, and shoot my longbow again next turn?
It all seems quite complicated, and I prefer to let players mix and match their actions, as long as they aren't trying to do something ridiculous like dual-wield and have a shield. But RAW am I doing it wrong?
If you've used your free object interaction, you would need to use the Use an Object action
Dropping an object doesn't taken an action as it qualifies as a 'flourish' that requires neither your action nor your move
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
Your ranger who wants to switch between dual wielding and ranged attacks would have to either drop both their weapons and pull out their bow, then spend multiple object interactions picking them back up, or spend multiple object interactions putting them away in the first place. Basically you're effectively limited on how much you can do each turn
So most PCs get two. This means you can dual-wield light weapons, wield one two-handed weapon, or one normal weapon and a shield. That much is clear.
What's not so clear to me is how easily you can change what's in your hands.
Dual-wielding on your turn and then pulling out your shield at the end of the turn seems like exploiting a loophole.
Shields require your whole action to put on or take off, so there's no exploitable loophole there.
But what about a monk using two-handed d8 quarterstaff damage and then using an unarmed strike? I guess it's a bit of a non-issue, since I imagine monks can use a kick as an unarmed strike. But suppose I just want to let go of my quarterstaff with one hand and do a punch?
Two-handed weapons (or versatile weapons being used in two hands) only require two hands when you actually make the attack with them. Once that attack is over, you're free to let go with one of your hands and use it for something else, like an unarmed strike.
What about spells with somatic and/or material components? Do they take one or two hands? Can I make a weapon attack while holding a shield, then sheathe my weapon and cast a spell as a bonus action? What if I just hold a shield and cast a spell, but then want to make an opportunity attack on an enemy's turn? Can I be holding my shield and spellcasting focus / material components on my turn, and then my shield and weapon when it's not my turn?
Somatic and material components each require one free hand, but if the spell requires both components, the same free hand can satisfy both if you use a spellcasting focus. You get one free "item interaction" per turn, which you can use to sheathe your weapon, freeing up that hand to cast a bonus action spell, but if you've already used that free interaction for something else (like drawing the weapon), you need to use your main action to sheathe it, which you'll no longer have available to you if you attacked. No, you can't be holding your focus on your turn and your weapon when it's not your turn, but you can make an unarmed strike as an attack of opportunity.
What about a ranger who alternates between dual-wielding and ranged attacks? Can I dual-wield shortswords on one turn and then shoot my longbow on the next? Can I shoot my longbow, then make an opportunity attack between turns, and shoot my longbow again next turn?
No. If you're dual-wielding shortswords, you can sheathe one of them for free, but you need to spend your action to sheathe the other one, which means you can't attack. If you have the Dual Wielder feat, you can draw or sheathe both of them at the same time, but then you still need your action to pull out your longbow, which means you can't attack.
It all seems quite complicated, and I prefer to let players mix and match their actions, as long as they aren't trying to do something ridiculous like dual-wield and have a shield. But RAW am I doing it wrong?
It's not that complicated, but it is a pain in the ass; the action economy simply doesn't support a lot of switching back and forth between stuff, so it's usually better to not bother.
Dropping an object doesn't take an action as it qualifies as a 'flourish' that requires neither your action nor your move
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
This is generally excepted by the mass majority, but isn't strictly RAW so even a DM that is by-the-books may rule differently.
Dropping an object is only mentioned in the rules twice (as the effects of heat metal and disarming attack). The section of the rules that mentions flourishes is also the section that mentions limited item interactions. While dropping objects is not on the list of examples that use item interaction (this list is in the wrong section of this chapter), that is also not a complete list.
This is generally excepted by the mass majority, but isn't strictly RAW so even a DM that is by-the-books may rule differently.
Dropping an object is only mentioned in the rules twice (as the effects of heat metal and disarming attack). The section of the rules that mentions flourishes is also the section that mentions limited item interactions. While dropping objects is not on the list of examples that use item interaction (this list is in the wrong section of this chapter), that is also not a complete list.
Things that you can explicitly 100% RAW do as many times as you like in a turn without any action:
release a grapple that you're maintaining with one hand.
It would be pretty odd if you can release any number of grapples in a round for free, but can only release your grip on one weapon. You're technically correct that the PHB doesn't explicitly tell you that you can drop items for free... but I have never heard anyone take the position that releasing and dropping held objects is not unlimited free. The possibility that your DM might choose to be the first one on record is vanishingly low, and probably not worth worrying about.
This is generally excepted by the mass majority, but isn't strictly RAW so even a DM that is by-the-books may rule differently.
Dropping an object is only mentioned in the rules twice (as the effects of heat metal and disarming attack). The section of the rules that mentions flourishes is also the section that mentions limited item interactions. While dropping objects is not on the list of examples that use item interaction (this list is in the wrong section of this chapter), that is also not a complete list.
Things that you can explicitly 100% RAW do as many times as you like in a turn without any action:
release a grapple that you're maintaining with one hand.
It would be pretty odd if you can release any number of grapples in a round for free, but can only release your grip on one weapon. You're technically correct that the PHB doesn't explicitly tell you that you can drop items for free... but I have never heard anyone take the position that releasing and dropping held objects is not unlimited free. The possibility that your DM might choose to be the first one on record is vanishingly low, and probably not worth worrying about.
Oh, I agree with you. Just pointing out the possibility.
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
You can't use your bonus action for your free object interaction. Bonus actions are for very specific things. And if the character isn't moving then the free interaction isn't part of a move or action.
And the DM is entitled to decide where the sword lands when you drop it, so it might not be within easy reach when you come to try and pick it back up.
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
You can't use your bonus action for your free object interaction. Bonus actions are for very specific things. And if the character isn't moving then the free interaction isn't part of a move or action.
And the DM is entitled to decide where the sword lands when you drop it, so it might not be within easy reach when you come to try and pick it back up.
You can perform a free object interaction as part of your action on your turn.
A bonus action is a type of action therefore you can perform a free object interaction as part of a bonus action.
Now this assumes you have a valid bonus action to perform, you can't just say "I'm going to use my bonus action to do my free object interaction" and nothing else.
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
You can't use your bonus action for your free object interaction. Bonus actions are for very specific things. And if the character isn't moving then the free interaction isn't part of a move or action.
And the DM is entitled to decide where the sword lands when you drop it, so it might not be within easy reach when you come to try and pick it back up.
You can perform a free object interaction as part of your action on your turn.
A bonus action is a type of action therefore you can perform a free object interaction as part of a bonus action.
Now this assumes you have a valid bonus action to perform, you can't just say "I'm going to use my bonus action to do my free object interaction" and nothing else.
Glad to see your qualification about the need for a valid bonus action. Many new players come to this forum, read misinformation, and then take it back to their table. "Everyone gets a Bonus Action every turn" is an issue I have run across several times with new players.
The other thing I would like clarify is wrt to your Eldritch Knight example. While the description you detailed is accurate, if there is the need for the EK to access a Material Component for the spell, that would burn the Object Interaction, and the EK would NOT be able to pick up their sword until the next turn. So V, and VS spells no problem. VM, SM, and VSM spells...problem.
The other thing I would like clarify is wrt to your Eldritch Knight example. While the description you detailed is accurate, if there is the need for the EK to access a Material Component for the spell, that would burn the Object Interaction, and the EK would NOT be able to pick up their sword until the next turn. So V, and VS spells no problem. VM, SM, and VSM spells...problem.
I don't think that it is universally accepted that accessing a material component of a spell uses up an object interaction for the turn. I believe most people play that a material component or focus can be accessed or touched sufficiently to cast as part of the casting itself without using an interaction. The rules say you "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" not that you have to retrieve those objects from your inventory before the casting starts.
That being said, I also don't personally believe in the ability to drop a sword, cast a spell, then pick up the sword all in one turn. I think that defeats the purpose of the entire component system so have house-ruled around it.
The other thing I would like clarify is wrt to your Eldritch Knight example. While the description you detailed is accurate, if there is the need for the EK to access a Material Component for the spell, that would burn the Object Interaction, and the EK would NOT be able to pick up their sword until the next turn. So V, and VS spells no problem. VM, SM, and VSM spells...problem.
I don't think that it is universally accepted that accessing a material component of a spell uses up an object interaction for the turn. I believe most people play that a material component or focus can be accessed or touched sufficiently to cast as part of the casting itself without using an interaction. The rules say you "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" not that you have to retrieve those objects from your inventory before the casting starts.
That being said, I also don't personally believe in the ability to drop a sword, cast a spell, then pick up the sword all in one turn. I think that defeats the purpose of the entire component system so have house-ruled around it.
Actually, Crawford was explicit. Accessing Material Components is NOT part of the act of casting a spell. Therefore, it has to be something "other". Given any shenanigans with a sword are going to burn, at the very least, free actions, that means accessing Mat Comps is an Object Interaction. So your House Rule is one VERY solid ground.
TLDR: You can draw your swordON YOUR TURN(1) while you move, or (2) whenever you do anything at all that costs an Action, or (3) whenever you make an attack (no matter whether that attack was part of the Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Opportunity Attack, [Tooltip Not Found], or some other misc. actionthat grants an attack, and regardless of whether that action was taken using an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction), or (4) just trivially on its own while doing nothing else with your turn.
You can perform a free object interaction as part of your action on your turn.
A bonus action is a type of action therefore you can perform a free object interaction as part of a bonus action.
Now this assumes you have a valid bonus action to perform, you can't just say "I'm going to use my bonus action to do my free object interaction" and nothing else.
Problematic "action" synonyms had their own thread the other day, but I would pipe up to say that that's a super questionable way to phrase things right there. I mean, you landed at the right result (nothing says you can only draw a sword for free during the Attack action, just that you can draw a sword for free during an attack), but it's not because Bonus Actions are Actions (or actions, or a type of action... ehhh). And you wouldn't need to use your bonus action to do free object interaction because there's already a section that says that you can do it as part of Other Activity separate from the action economy entirely, and..... ehhhh... I need color coding to try to explain this better.
Red for Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, etc., the units of action economy... aka "what it costs". A Bonus Actionis not a type of Action, but they are instead co-equal units in theeconomy of a turn. Green for the enumerated actions you can take: Attack, Dodge, etc. are all Actions, while Two-Weapon Fighting is a Bonus Action, an Opportunity Attack is a Reaction, and you could even argue that"Free Object Interaction" is atype of "Other Activity" or "Free Action"unit in the economy of a turn... aka "what you're doing." And I'll sprinkle blue for the action economy itself, aka "activity on your turn," aka "doing something," which is the only sense where saying "a bonus action is a type of action" could be seen as a correct (though, unnecessarily misleading) statement. The PHB almost never uses the word "action" in this blue sense, but when it does, it's confusing as heck: the Other Activity on your Turn section is actually the only one I can think of, (edit: it does it in the "Bonus Action" section too), which is a bummer. We'll get to that below, but usually it's just us using our own shorthand terms like "action economy" or really talking about "activity" while misusing the word "action" that you see this confusion pop up.
When you take youraction on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.
You get one Action. There are several different actionsit can be spent on.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a swordas part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Objectaction. Thisaction is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.
You normally interact with an object just during any misc. activity on your turn, including the specific example of drawing a sword as part of an attack. Attack action has not been specified as required, any attack should do, no matter what activity that attack was part. But if you do more interactions, those will require their own special [Tooltip Not Found] action, taking up your Action.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword...
Interpretation is a little open on this:
does this mean that you can always draw a sword "in tandem" (as part of? in addition to?) with any use of yourAction, not just alongside one that involves an attack (so, draw a sword as part of your [Tooltip Not Found] or Hide, for example)? And that you also can draw a sword "in tandem" with movement when no Action is taken and no attacks made?
Or was this just a general statement that boils down to something like '~by default you move and have an action, but there may be some other misc. interactions you can do as Other Activity on your turn~', and we should then look down the page to the [Tooltip Not Found] section to see it more specifically describe that drawing a sword happens (A) during an attack or (B) as a [Tooltip Not Found] action, but not during movement or aHideor whatever?
Or do we hybrid these two sections, to conclude that you can draw a sword alongside any attack, or any action using an Action, or your movement?
I think most people read it the third way (that you truly can just draw a sword alongside any Action even when it doesn't involve making an attack, or alongside movement, or alongside any attack no matter what type of Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction that attack is made with).
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take abonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do somethingas abonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus actionduring your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
Stop, stop, it's already dead! This section uses terms in such a different way as everything else in the PHB, that I really have no recourse other than to say "it doesn't mean what it says it means." You rarely are described as "taking an Action", so talking about "taking a Bonus Action" (over, and over, and over again) is weird. You "use" your Action in order to "take" actions like Attack, and you should read this section with a little voice in your head telling you to swap terms to make it read that way yourself, if you know what's good for you! My color coding tries to get at that above, with "take a" being a euphemism for whatever specific action you're actually taking, like a Cunning ActionHide, but... Oof. And there's that first line where it pretty clearly is using "action" in the forbidden blue sense, or... telling you that a Bonus Action is an Action, like Davyd claims. That way lies madness though, don't take the bait.
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environmentfor free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
There it is, the culprit. "Action you use to attack" is such a weird statement, once you start color coding... it didn't say "as part of the Attackaction." It probably isn't trying to say "as part of an Action you use to make an attack." 99% of people read that line to mean "as part of an attack" and just omit the word "action" entirely, and I think that's the correct way to read that section as intended.
Soo...... that was pretty long right, and overly complicated? But I hope the colors helped you follow along... TLDR again you can draw your swordON YOUR TURN while you move, or whenever you do anything that costs an Action, or whenever you make an attack (no matter whether that attack was part of the Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Opportunity Attack, [Tooltip Not Found], or some other misc. action, and regardless of whether it was made as part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction), or just trivially on its own while doing nothing else.
TLDR: You can draw your sword (1) while you move, or (2) whenever you do anything at all that costs an Action, or (3) whenever you make an attack (no matter whether that attack was part of the Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Opportunity Attack, Cast A Spell, or some other misc. actionthat grants an attack, and regardless of whether that action was taken using an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction), or (4) just trivially on its own while doing nothing else with your turn...
I think this is mostly right, except you can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction attack. Your free object interaction can be at any time during (including at the start or end of) any part of any activity (Action, Bonus Action or movement) on your turn, but not on another creature's turn.
If your Attack of Opportunity is triggered on an opponent's turn you are restricted to attacking with whatever weapon(s) you have in hand, or an unarmed strike.
Yes, agreed. If you use your Reaction on your own turn to make an attack somehow, then you would be able to draw a sword during it. But there's enough "on your turn...."s sprinkled around in all the above sections, that it's clear that drawing a sword doesn't care about what action type its part of, but does care very much that it be on your own turn. Thanks for pointing that out.
Actually, Crawford was explicit. Accessing Material Components is NOT part of the act of casting a spell. Therefore, it has to be something "other". Given any shenanigans with a sword are going to burn, at the very least, free actions, that means accessing Mat Comps is an Object Interaction. So your House Rule is one VERY solid ground.
Possible implications if you take Crawford at face value here:
Any spell with three or more separate material components listed cannot be cast at all, because no character has three hands, unless:
multiple components only count as a single object, and thus can be held in a single hand (plausible, except when the components being described sound substantial, like a crystal orb or a weapon, but is supported by PHB language that a character "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components"); or
components are separate objects but multiple objects may be held in a single hand while being used to cast a spell regardless (pretty extreme, possibly far-reaching! but also matches PHB language above); or
components don't need to be handled or withdrawn at all, just the Component Pouch "used" as a unit (RAW seems correct in general with fewest slippery slopes, but does conflict with the spell descriptions of many spells, which hold mechanical weight and must be obeyed when cast).
Any spell with a casting time of one Action with two or more separate material components cannot be cast in a single turn, unless:
multiple components may be grabbed with a single free object interaction (either so long as they're in the same material component pouch, or possibly regardless of where they're stored); or
multiple components count as a single object (see above); or
components don't need to be withdrawn, and are used simply by manhandling your pouch (see above).
I absolutely enforce drawing/stowing a Arcane Focus to the same extent that I enforce drawing/stowing a weapon, or a potion, etc. But it's debatable whether the Component Pouch was intended to be used as a single unit the same way that a Arcane Focus is, or if instead it's more of a Handy Haversack for components, a quantum pocket for any non-cost component you reach for, which either (A) still requires you to reach in one at a time (as JC seems to be saying) or (B) disregards Use an Object entirely, so long as you have a free hand (as Regent seems to prefer).
I have no idea what you are writing. I get lost halfway through the first reply.
The rules are clear: The spell caster needs a free hand to access an Arcane Focus or Material Components (both of which require an Object Interaction) and then use the same hand to do the Somatic components of the spell. Many spells need a precise item as a Mat Component, and no Arcane Focus can replace them. If my Warlock who happens to have a Rod of the Pact Holder wants to cast Circle of Death at the highest possible DC, which means having the Rod out as a spell focus. One hand must hold the Rod, and the other hand hold the 500 GP of crushed black pearl powder and do the Somatic component with that hand.
If the caster's hands are both free before the caster's turn comes, with the Rod tucked in his belt, and the spell pouch tucked inside his robes, the spell cannot be cast this turn, because it takes two Object Interactions. Most groups don't play that way because "It is no fun". But I do. That is RAW. The game is supposed to be tough, with very precise rules in certain areas.
How many interactions does it take to cast Shillelagh (wooden club, mistletoe, shamrock) starting from two empty hands, with a club on one hip and a component pouch on the other? Is the answer different if you have a shamrock in one pocket and mistletoe in another, vs. if both are in your component pouch? If the mistletoe had a cost (“rare mistletoe worth 1 gp”) would that change anything?
The rules are clear: The spell caster needs a free hand to access an Arcane Focus or Material Components (both of which require an Object Interaction) and then use the same hand to do the Somatic components of the spell. Many spells need a precise item as a Mat Component, and no Arcane Focus can replace them. If my Warlock who happens to have a Rod of the Pact Holder wants to cast Circle of Death at the highest possible DC, which means having the Rod out as a spell focus. One hand must hold the Rod, and the other hand hold the 500 GP of crushed black pearl powder and do the Somatic component with that hand.
If the caster's hands are both free before the caster's turn comes, with the Rod tucked in his belt, and the spell pouch tucked inside his robes, the spell cannot be cast this turn, because it takes two Object Interactions. Most groups don't play that way because "It is no fun". But I do. That is RAW.
I don't believe this is neither RAW nor RAI, at least not if you're allowing the use of the rod as a focus. There is no need to handle both the focus/pouch and the costly components, at least not RAW. RAW simply states you must "have" the costly component in order to cast the spell. RAW states you can use the focus/pouch in place of material components, not "free" components. That is: you can always use your focus/pouch in place of material components, even costly ones, but you must have the costly component (that is, you can't avoid obtaining a costly component by using a focus or pouch, but there is no need to actually handle it as part of the casting).
The rules are clear: The spell caster needs a free hand to access an Arcane Focus or Material Components (both of which require an Object Interaction) and then use the same hand to do the Somatic components of the spell. Many spells need a precise item as a Mat Component, and no Arcane Focus can replace them. If my Warlock who happens to have a Rod of the Pact Holder wants to cast Circle of Death at the highest possible DC, which means having the Rod out as a spell focus. One hand must hold the Rod, and the other hand hold the 500 GP of crushed black pearl powder and do the Somatic component with that hand.
If the caster's hands are both free before the caster's turn comes, with the Rod tucked in his belt, and the spell pouch tucked inside his robes, the spell cannot be cast this turn, because it takes two Object Interactions. Most groups don't play that way because "It is no fun". But I do. That is RAW.
I don't believe this is neither RAW nor RAI, at least not if you're allowing the use of the rod as a focus. There is no need to handle both the focus/pouch and the costly components, at least not RAW. RAW simply states you must "have" the costly component in order to cast the spell. RAW states you can use the focus/pouch in place of material components, not "free" components. That is: you can always use your focus/pouch in place of material components, even costly ones, but you must have the costly component (that is, you can't avoid obtaining a costly component by using a focus or pouch, but there is no need to actually handle it as part of the casting).
The game is supposed to be tough, with very precise rules in certain areas.
I don't think we're playing the same game. The game is supposed to be fun.
The following is directly from the Wizards site, SAC, written by Crawford March 23rd, 2015. I will bold the key part of the answer:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
"If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component."
So, in the case I created, the Rod of the Pact Holder has to be held to get a higher DC. And the powder from the crushed black pearl must also be handled to cast that particular spell. Therefore, two hands are needed at the same time.
Now, if the Arcane Focus aka the Rod was being used for casting something like Fly, which uses "generic, uncosted material components", where the Arcane Focus can take the place of said components, this portion of the answer to the same question applies:
"If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component."
You cannot simply have the crushed black pearl powder on your person. You must handle it to cast the spell.
Where does it say you need to handle the costly component even when using a focus or pouch? If you're not using a pouch or focus, then yes, you need to handle the crushed black pearl. But if you're using a focus or pouch, you handle that instead of the actual material component. But, if the actual component is costly, you need to have it (not "handle" it). It means you can't simply go "oh, I don't need to buy 500gp worth of crushed black pearl, I'm using my focus". You do need to actually have the 500gp worth of crushed black pearl.
And yes, most people find challenging games fun, but there's a difference between "actually following the rules is a challenge" and "the game presents challenges to confront". "Defeating a group of enemies that are closely matched to the party" is a fun challenge; "figuring out how to comply with convoluted spellcasting and action economy rules in order to actually act on my turn" is... well, it can be fun, if that's the focus of the game... but that's not the focus of this game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So most PCs get two. This means you can dual-wield light weapons, wield one two-handed weapon, or one normal weapon and a shield. That much is clear.
What's not so clear to me is how easily you can change what's in your hands.
Dual-wielding on your turn and then pulling out your shield at the end of the turn seems like exploiting a loophole.
But what about a monk using two-handed d8 quarterstaff damage and then using an unarmed strike? I guess it's a bit of a non-issue, since I imagine monks can use a kick as an unarmed strike. But suppose I just want to let go of my quarterstaff with one hand and do a punch?
What about spells with somatic and/or material components? Do they take one or two hands? Can I make a weapon attack while holding a shield, then sheathe my weapon and cast a spell as a bonus action? What if I just hold a shield and cast a spell, but then want to make an opportunity attack on an enemy's turn? Can I be holding my shield and spellcasting focus / material components on my turn, and then my shield and weapon when it's not my turn?
What about a ranger who alternates between dual-wielding and ranged attacks? Can I dual-wield shortswords on one turn and then shoot my longbow on the next? Can I shoot my longbow, then make an opportunity attack between turns, and shoot my longbow again next turn?
It all seems quite complicated, and I prefer to let players mix and match their actions, as long as they aren't trying to do something ridiculous like dual-wield and have a shield. But RAW am I doing it wrong?
So there are a few key concepts:
So if a eldritch knight has a sword and shield in hand and wants to then cast a spell with a somatic component, they could drop their weapon (no action), cast the spell with their action, then scoop up their weapon again as their single free object interaction as part of their move or bonus action. You could even flavour this as throwing the weapon into the air, quickly casting the spell, and then catching the weapon.
Your ranger who wants to switch between dual wielding and ranged attacks would have to either drop both their weapons and pull out their bow, then spend multiple object interactions picking them back up, or spend multiple object interactions putting them away in the first place. Basically you're effectively limited on how much you can do each turn
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Shields require your whole action to put on or take off, so there's no exploitable loophole there.
Two-handed weapons (or versatile weapons being used in two hands) only require two hands when you actually make the attack with them. Once that attack is over, you're free to let go with one of your hands and use it for something else, like an unarmed strike.
Somatic and material components each require one free hand, but if the spell requires both components, the same free hand can satisfy both if you use a spellcasting focus. You get one free "item interaction" per turn, which you can use to sheathe your weapon, freeing up that hand to cast a bonus action spell, but if you've already used that free interaction for something else (like drawing the weapon), you need to use your main action to sheathe it, which you'll no longer have available to you if you attacked. No, you can't be holding your focus on your turn and your weapon when it's not your turn, but you can make an unarmed strike as an attack of opportunity.
No. If you're dual-wielding shortswords, you can sheathe one of them for free, but you need to spend your action to sheathe the other one, which means you can't attack. If you have the Dual Wielder feat, you can draw or sheathe both of them at the same time, but then you still need your action to pull out your longbow, which means you can't attack.
It's not that complicated, but it is a pain in the ass; the action economy simply doesn't support a lot of switching back and forth between stuff, so it's usually better to not bother.
Yeah, seems like you mostly overlooked a few spaced out rules that answer all your questions. Davyd did such a great job addressing these that I won't even repeat them.
One thing though:
This is generally excepted by the mass majority, but isn't strictly RAW so even a DM that is by-the-books may rule differently.
Dropping an object is only mentioned in the rules twice (as the effects of heat metal and disarming attack). The section of the rules that mentions flourishes is also the section that mentions limited item interactions. While dropping objects is not on the list of examples that use item interaction (this list is in the wrong section of this chapter), that is also not a complete list.
Things that you can explicitly 100% RAW do as many times as you like in a turn without any action:
It would be pretty odd if you can release any number of grapples in a round for free, but can only release your grip on one weapon. You're technically correct that the PHB doesn't explicitly tell you that you can drop items for free... but I have never heard anyone take the position that releasing and dropping held objects is not unlimited free. The possibility that your DM might choose to be the first one on record is vanishingly low, and probably not worth worrying about.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Oh, I agree with you. Just pointing out the possibility.
You can't use your bonus action for your free object interaction. Bonus actions are for very specific things. And if the character isn't moving then the free interaction isn't part of a move or action.
And the DM is entitled to decide where the sword lands when you drop it, so it might not be within easy reach when you come to try and pick it back up.
You can perform a free object interaction as part of your action on your turn.
A bonus action is a type of action therefore you can perform a free object interaction as part of a bonus action.
Now this assumes you have a valid bonus action to perform, you can't just say "I'm going to use my bonus action to do my free object interaction" and nothing else.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Glad to see your qualification about the need for a valid bonus action. Many new players come to this forum, read misinformation, and then take it back to their table. "Everyone gets a Bonus Action every turn" is an issue I have run across several times with new players.
The other thing I would like clarify is wrt to your Eldritch Knight example. While the description you detailed is accurate, if there is the need for the EK to access a Material Component for the spell, that would burn the Object Interaction, and the EK would NOT be able to pick up their sword until the next turn. So V, and VS spells no problem. VM, SM, and VSM spells...problem.
I don't think that it is universally accepted that accessing a material component of a spell uses up an object interaction for the turn. I believe most people play that a material component or focus can be accessed or touched sufficiently to cast as part of the casting itself without using an interaction. The rules say you "must have a hand free to access a spell's material components" not that you have to retrieve those objects from your inventory before the casting starts.
That being said, I also don't personally believe in the ability to drop a sword, cast a spell, then pick up the sword all in one turn. I think that defeats the purpose of the entire component system so have house-ruled around it.
Actually, Crawford was explicit. Accessing Material Components is NOT part of the act of casting a spell. Therefore, it has to be something "other". Given any shenanigans with a sword are going to burn, at the very least, free actions, that means accessing Mat Comps is an Object Interaction. So your House Rule is one VERY solid ground.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/11/grabbing-an-arcane-focus-from-belt-counts-as-your-1-free-object-interaction-or-is-a-part-of-casting-action/
Problematic "action" synonyms had their own thread the other day, but I would pipe up to say that that's a super questionable way to phrase things right there. I mean, you landed at the right result (nothing says you can only draw a sword for free during the Attack action, just that you can draw a sword for free during an attack), but it's not because Bonus Actions are Actions (or actions, or a type of action... ehhh). And you wouldn't need to use your bonus action to do free object interaction because there's already a section that says that you can do it as part of Other Activity separate from the action economy entirely, and..... ehhhh... I need color coding to try to explain this better.
Red for Action, Bonus Action, Reaction, etc., the units of action economy... aka "what it costs". A Bonus Action is not a type of Action, but they are instead co-equal units in the economy of a turn. Green for the enumerated actions you can take: Attack, Dodge, etc. are all Actions, while Two-Weapon Fighting is a Bonus Action, an Opportunity Attack is a Reaction, and you could even argue that "Free Object Interaction" is a type of "Other Activity" or "Free Action" unit in the economy of a turn... aka "what you're doing." And I'll sprinkle blue for the action economy itself, aka "activity on your turn," aka "doing something," which is the only sense where saying "a bonus action is a type of action" could be seen as a correct (though, unnecessarily misleading) statement. The PHB almost never uses the word "action" in this blue sense, but when it does, it's confusing as heck: the Other Activity on your Turn section is actually the
only one I can think of, (edit: it does it in the "Bonus Action" section too), which is a bummer. We'll get to that below, but usually it's just us using our own shorthand terms like "action economy" or really talking about "activity" while misusing the word "action" that you see this confusion pop up.PHB Chapter 9, Actions in Combat:
You get one Action. There are several different actions it can be spent on.
PHB Chapter 9, Use an Object:
You normally interact with an object just during any misc. activity on your turn, including the specific example of drawing a sword as part of an attack. Attack action has not been specified as required, any attack should do, no matter what activity that attack was part. But if you do more interactions, those will require their own special [Tooltip Not Found] action, taking up your Action.
PHB Chapter 9, Movement & Positioning (sidebar):
Interpretation is a little open on this:
I think most people read it the third way (that you truly can just draw a sword alongside any Action even when it doesn't involve making an attack, or alongside movement, or alongside any attack no matter what type of Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction that attack is made with).
PHB Chapter 9, Bonus Actions:
Stop, stop, it's already dead! This section uses terms in such a different way as everything else in the PHB, that I really have no recourse other than to say "it doesn't mean what it says it means." You rarely are described as "taking an Action", so talking about "taking a Bonus Action" (over, and over, and over again) is weird. You "use" your Action in order to "take" actions like Attack, and you should read this section with a little voice in your head telling you to swap terms to make it read that way yourself, if you know what's good for you! My color coding tries to get at that above, with "take a" being a euphemism for whatever specific action you're actually taking, like a Cunning Action Hide, but... Oof. And there's that first line where it pretty clearly is using "action" in the forbidden blue sense, or... telling you that a Bonus Action is an Action, like Davyd claims. That way lies madness though, don't take the bait.
PHB Chapter 9, Other Activity on your Turn:
There it is, the culprit. "Action you use to attack" is such a weird statement, once you start color coding... it didn't say "as part of the Attack action." It probably isn't trying to say "as part of an Action you use to make an attack." 99% of people read that line to mean "as part of an attack" and just omit the word "action" entirely, and I think that's the correct way to read that section as intended.
Soo...... that was pretty long right, and overly complicated? But I hope the colors helped you follow along... TLDR again you can draw your sword ON YOUR TURN while you move, or whenever you do anything that costs an Action, or whenever you make an attack (no matter whether that attack was part of the Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, Opportunity Attack, [Tooltip Not Found], or some other misc. action, and regardless of whether it was made as part of an Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction), or just trivially on its own while doing nothing else.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think this is mostly right, except you can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction attack. Your free object interaction can be at any time during (including at the start or end of) any part of any activity (Action, Bonus Action or movement) on your turn, but not on another creature's turn.
If your Attack of Opportunity is triggered on an opponent's turn you are restricted to attacking with whatever weapon(s) you have in hand, or an unarmed strike.
Yes, agreed. If you use your Reaction on your own turn to make an attack somehow, then you would be able to draw a sword during it. But there's enough "on your turn...."s sprinkled around in all the above sections, that it's clear that drawing a sword doesn't care about what action type its part of, but does care very much that it be on your own turn. Thanks for pointing that out.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Possible implications if you take Crawford at face value here:
I absolutely enforce drawing/stowing a Arcane Focus to the same extent that I enforce drawing/stowing a weapon, or a potion, etc. But it's debatable whether the Component Pouch was intended to be used as a single unit the same way that a Arcane Focus is, or if instead it's more of a Handy Haversack for components, a quantum pocket for any non-cost component you reach for, which either (A) still requires you to reach in one at a time (as JC seems to be saying) or (B) disregards Use an Object entirely, so long as you have a free hand (as Regent seems to prefer).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I have no idea what you are writing. I get lost halfway through the first reply.
The rules are clear: The spell caster needs a free hand to access an Arcane Focus or Material Components (both of which require an Object Interaction) and then use the same hand to do the Somatic components of the spell. Many spells need a precise item as a Mat Component, and no Arcane Focus can replace them. If my Warlock who happens to have a Rod of the Pact Holder wants to cast Circle of Death at the highest possible DC, which means having the Rod out as a spell focus. One hand must hold the Rod, and the other hand hold the 500 GP of crushed black pearl powder and do the Somatic component with that hand.
If the caster's hands are both free before the caster's turn comes, with the Rod tucked in his belt, and the spell pouch tucked inside his robes, the spell cannot be cast this turn, because it takes two Object Interactions. Most groups don't play that way because "It is no fun". But I do. That is RAW. The game is supposed to be tough, with very precise rules in certain areas.
How many interactions does it take to cast Shillelagh (wooden club, mistletoe, shamrock) starting from two empty hands, with a club on one hip and a component pouch on the other? Is the answer different if you have a shamrock in one pocket and mistletoe in another, vs. if both are in your component pouch? If the mistletoe had a cost (“rare mistletoe worth 1 gp”) would that change anything?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don't believe this is neither RAW nor RAI, at least not if you're allowing the use of the rod as a focus. There is no need to handle both the focus/pouch and the costly components, at least not RAW. RAW simply states you must "have" the costly component in order to cast the spell. RAW states you can use the focus/pouch in place of material components, not "free" components. That is: you can always use your focus/pouch in place of material components, even costly ones, but you must have the costly component (that is, you can't avoid obtaining a costly component by using a focus or pouch, but there is no need to actually handle it as part of the casting).
I don't think we're playing the same game. The game is supposed to be fun.
The following is directly from the Wizards site, SAC, written by Crawford March 23rd, 2015. I will bold the key part of the answer:
What’s the amount of interaction needed to use a spellcasting focus? Does it have to be included in the somatic component?
"If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component."
So, in the case I created, the Rod of the Pact Holder has to be held to get a higher DC. And the powder from the crushed black pearl must also be handled to cast that particular spell. Therefore, two hands are needed at the same time.
Now, if the Arcane Focus aka the Rod was being used for casting something like Fly, which uses "generic, uncosted material components", where the Arcane Focus can take the place of said components, this portion of the answer to the same question applies:
"If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component."
You cannot simply have the crushed black pearl powder on your person. You must handle it to cast the spell.
And my idea of fun is a challenging game.
Where does it say you need to handle the costly component even when using a focus or pouch? If you're not using a pouch or focus, then yes, you need to handle the crushed black pearl. But if you're using a focus or pouch, you handle that instead of the actual material component. But, if the actual component is costly, you need to have it (not "handle" it). It means you can't simply go "oh, I don't need to buy 500gp worth of crushed black pearl, I'm using my focus". You do need to actually have the 500gp worth of crushed black pearl.
And yes, most people find challenging games fun, but there's a difference between "actually following the rules is a challenge" and "the game presents challenges to confront". "Defeating a group of enemies that are closely matched to the party" is a fun challenge; "figuring out how to comply with convoluted spellcasting and action economy rules in order to actually act on my turn" is... well, it can be fun, if that's the focus of the game... but that's not the focus of this game.