D&D 5E [Rules Question] Two-handed Weapons and Somatic Components

[Thaumaturge]

How do two-handed weapons interact with somatic components?

Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands to use.

Somatic (S) Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.

Is there no penalty for using a two-handed weapon and wanting to cast spells? If there is a penalty/consequence, what is it?

Thaumaturge.

 

[jadrax]

How do two-handed weapons interact with somatic components?

Is there no penalty for using a two-handed weapon and wanting to cast spells? If there is a penalty/consequence, what is it?

Thaumaturge.

I am pretty sure that according to Mearls on twitter, the whole reason for the Quarterstaff becoming a one handed versatile weapon, is that you would not be able to use it as a spell focus with somatic spells if it were two handed as you would not have a free hand. So basically you cant cast spells with somatic components with a two handed weapon. I will now try and dig up the quote.


Edit: O.k., it's not as concrete as I thought. But one the plus side, I am getting much better at searching twitter.

Matt Petruzzelli ‏@mpetruzz Jul 28
Does an arcane focus staff also/always count as a quarterstaff? @mikemearls
Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls
@mpetruzz believe so, yes. i think that's why the quarterstaff became a one-handed/versatile weapon

 

[Ritorix]

I'm assuming you can let go with one hand to cast a spell, then put your hand back to swing later. In the meantime you aren't "using" the 2-hander, just holding onto it.

The somatic component thing is also an issue for clerics and the like - if you have a shield strapped to one arm, a mace in the other, how are you going to use somatic component spells? That's most of the spell list.

 

[jadrax]

I am pretty sure that according to Mearls on twitter, the whole reason for the Quarterstaff becoming a one handed versatile weapon, is that you would not be able to use it as a spell focus with somatic spells if it were two handed as you would not have a free hand. So basically you cant cast spells with somatic components with a two handed weapon.

Thinking about it further, I am not sure my conclusions are valid.

You need to be *using* a Quarterstaff to use it as a Spell focus, you would not need to be using a Great Sword.

Also the Alpha had a feat that among other things granted 'Holding weapons or a shield in each hand doesn’t prevent you from performing the somatic components of spells.' There is nothing about Two Handed weapons in there, just duel welding and shields. That leads me to believe that holding a two-handed weapon is not actually an impediment to casting that needs to be removed.

But yeah, you going to want to talk to your GM before creating the character on this.

 

[SkidAce]

I go with:

If you are attacking that round with the 2 hander, no somatic spells.

If you are casting a somatic spell that round, then your 2 handed sword is leaning on the ground and your casting with your free hand.

YMMV.

 

[Prism]

Other things to consider.

Could you use material components while holding a two-handed weapon? How about draw and then put away an arcane focus? Divine casters are ok here as they can wear their focus rather than hold it. However they also have a number of touch spells. Surely you need a free hand for this or can you kick someone with a cure wounds spell?

I don't think we will get a formal answer about any of this stuff. Some groups will hand wave all of this and others will like to emphasize the benefits of versatile weapons and component pouches over arcane focuses (in some cases)

 

[Gargoyle]

Not sure this is really why they felt the need to make the staff versatile in 5e, seems like it would be more to emulate Gandalf: "You shall not pass!"

Casting and attacking with a two handed weapon in the same round are fine with me as I don't see these actions as simultaneous. But you couldn't have a lantern in one hand and a weapon in the other, or a shield and weapon, or two weapons, etc as that clearly makes it impossible to cast. So the absence of two-handed weapons in the list of restrictions seems logical to me and reinforces the notion that you can hold a two handed weapon in one hand while casting with the other.

"You can't cast if your hands are full" seems simple and logical enough to me and seems to be the intent of the rules.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm assuming you can let go with one hand to cast a spell, then put your hand back to swing later. In the meantime you aren't "using" the 2-hander, just holding onto it.

That's how I'd rule, even if it turns out it's not RAW.

The somatic component thing is also an issue for clerics and the like - if you have a shield strapped to one arm, a mace in the other, how are you going to use somatic component spells? That's most of the spell list.

If the shield is strapped to the arm, move the mace to the shield hand, cast spell, move mace back. Or perhaps hook mace in belt, cast, recover mace.

Frankly, I would usually just handwave this ... if we're down in the details of what's in your left and right hand to determine if a character can use class abilities, we're probably defeating the purpose of open, streamlined rules. I've never told a cleric player with a weapon and shield that they couldn't cast, or had to closely monitor weapon swaps.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Thanks for the replies, all.

I mostly DM, so this is a rule I want to get a handle on before we play.

I was originally worried about an EK using a two-handed weapon to get an opportunity attack and then casting shield. But he can't do that, because he only has one reaction. I can't see any other balance reason for not allowing it.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Warbringer]

I'm assuming you can let go with one hand to cast a spell, then put your hand back to swing later. In the meantime you aren't "using" the 2-hander, just holding onto it.

And this is why AC should be a parry!

Clearly you cannot in the same action (the rules are explicit), but it's less clear for bonus and reaction.

I'm tempted to say for reaction then it depends on the last action, for bonus action you can switch.