Confusion re: free hands and Warcaster

[Dalebert]

I lose count of how many people insist that you must already have your hand free for somatic or have a focus/component in it depending on the spell in order to cast a spell unless you have Warcaster. It's been established firmly that you can draw or sheath a weapon/item as part of your action. The main benefits of Warcaster are huge--concentration improvement and AoO with spells. The casting with a weapon in hand is nice because you remain ready to get an AoO with that weapon even after casting if you want or to cast a spell as an AoO with the weapon still in your hand from the prior turn.

This doesn't impact full casters much at all and it's not intended to. It's a feat mainly intended for a gish so you can fight with two weapons or a shield and just always be ready with AoO without having to put away either. A full caster can typically have a focus in one hand and a weapon in the other and just sheath the weapon to cast a spell with somatic but no material component. The minor downside is (s)he is not ready for an AoO.

This aspect of warcaster seems even more minor now that it's been tweeted that you can sheath AND draw another weapon (or presumably a focus) as part of your action.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VnwLPVkbKOD

I've only ever seen people nitpick these minor actions on forums or Facebook threads. I've never yet seen a DM bring it up in game when someone has been attacking one round and casts a spell the next or vice-versa and I've played under at least half a dozen different DMs in the last several weeks.

[Tanarii]

I've only ever seen people nitpick these minor actions on forums or Facebook threads. I've never yet seen a DM bring it up in game when someone has been attacking one round and casts a spell the next or vice-versa and I've played under at least half a dozen different DMs in the last several weeks.It's appropriate in a rules-strict, logistics heavy, CaW game.

It's like counting arrows. It tends to get ignored. Which is not only 'fine', it's a good thing in many game styles. The most popular game styles IMX.

[ryan92084]

I lose count of how many people insist that you must already have your hand free for somatic or have a focus/component in it depending on the spell in order to cast a spell unless you have Warcaster. It's been established firmly that you can draw or sheath a weapon/item as part of your action. The main benefits of Warcaster are huge--concentration improvement and AoO with spells. The casting with a weapon in hand is nice because you remain ready to get an AoO with that weapon even after casting if you want or to cast a spell as an AoO with the weapon still in your hand from the prior turn.

This doesn't impact full casters much at all and it's not intended to. It's a feat mainly intended for a gish so you can fight with two weapons or a shield and just always be ready with AoO without having to put away either. A full caster can typically have a focus in one hand and a weapon in the other and just sheath the weapon to cast a spell with somatic but no material component. The minor downside is (s)he is not ready for an AoO.

This aspect of warcaster seems even more minor now that it's been tweeted that you can sheath AND draw another weapon (or presumably a focus) as part of your action.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1900-D-D-5th-Edition-Sage-Advice-from-Designers-Mearls-Crawford#.VnwLPVkbKOD

I've only ever seen people nitpick these minor actions on forums or Facebook threads. I've never yet seen a DM bring it up in game when someone has been attacking one round and casts a spell the next or vice-versa and I've played under at least half a dozen different DMs in the last several weeks.

While I agree with the first part the sheathe quote is from Mearls. He generally only says how he plays it not what the rules allow or were intended to allow. Crawford over ruled this 9 days later http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/11/sheating-or-draw/


Jeremy Crawford ‎@JeremyECrawford

@West_Thijs_23 Without a special feature or feat, an Attack action could include sheathing or drawing a weapon, not both.

As for it mattering/not mattering I'm playing a game with a sorcerer who for reasons carries a shield and likes to get up close and personal with the new scag cantrips. Therefore it matters quite a bit until he can grab warcaster in my game. To be completely honest though if he hadn't volunteered to keep track of his weapon I probably wouldn't have pushed for it.

[SharkForce]

for a melee sorcerer, subtle spell can take care of somatic components as well (doesn't help with material components at all unfortunately).

[Dalebert]

While I agree with the first part the sheathe quote is from Mearls. He generally only says how he plays it not what the rules allow or were intended to allow. Crawford over ruled this 9 days later http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/11/sheating-or-draw/

That actually does seem more reasonable to me. My point was actually made based on this understanding. The Mearls tweet was just icing. You can put your weapon away and cast this turn and then draw it and attack the next turn without an issue. It's mainly AoO that are impacted which is not a big deal for most full casters who are usually hoping they're far enough out of the heat of battle to not get them in the first place. Warcaster is mainly about concentration and enhancing AoO options.


for a melee sorcerer, subtle spell can take care of somatic components as well (doesn't help with material components at all unfortunately).

It seems to me, and this is how I would handle it, the sorcerer just needs to touch the component with his hand. He doesn't have to wave it around somatically. So it still hurts him if his hands aren't free but he could just put his hand in his pocket casually where the component is and cast, yes?

[ryan92084]

...snip


It seems to me, and this is how I would handle it, the sorcerer just needs to touch the component with his hand. He doesn't have to wave it around somatically. So it still hurts him if his hands aren't free but he could just put his hand in his pocket casually where the component is and cast, yes?

That is how we handle it yes, so only the only mechanical effects thus far have been not being able AoO or cast reaction spells between the turns he sheathes and draws. I do not consider the fondling of his component pouch to be an item interaction but part the casting a spell action. So it often goes Turn 1 cast ranged magics, unsheathe weapon, and close distance> Turn 2 green flame blade, and sheath weapon for reaction casting purposes> etc etc

Pretty minor but as he was intending on getting warcaster regardless so it'll make the feat all the sweeter. At least I think that's his motivation but I guess it could be some weird weapon sheathing/pouch fondling innuendo fetish thing... and now I'm weirded out.

[Dalebert]

I'm probably going to take Warcaster for my bladesinger. It's an excellent feat for any caster who expects to get into melee. It's not my goto plan because bladesingers still have crappy hit points and have to burn resources to do it, but I will selectively decide to enter melee depending on context. And the benefits to concentration are so good as to help justify the decision for the times when I'm not wading into melee. Warcaster is about the AoO options and being able to cast a spell as a reaction is sweet!

[Tanarii]

Bladesingers are the Wizard that needs Warcaster the least. They've got the best concentration checks of any Wizard, the have an effective OA already, and they still have a free hand for spellcasting. The whole point of a Bladesinger is he builds up the kind of things Warcaster gives so you don't need to burn a feat or multi class for them.

Ditto the AC bonus and light armor so you don't need to crank up Dex to have a decent AC and can use Str instead for your weapon attacks.

[SwordChuck]

That actually does seem more reasonable to me. My point was actually made based on this understanding. The Mearls tweet was just icing. You can put your weapon away and cast this turn and then draw it and attack the next turn without an issue. It's mainly AoO that are impacted which is not a big deal for most full casters who are usually hoping they're far enough out of the heat of battle to not get them in the first place. Warcaster is mainly about concentration and enhancing AoO options.



No. From what JC said is not "sheathing a weapon and then casting a spell" but that you can sheath it if you use the Attack action.

The cast a spell action is a different action.

Part of casting a spell is pulling out/putting away materials or using your hand in specific ways or whatever. That free using item is being used up and can't also be doing something else (sheathing a sword).

As a DM I wave a lot of fiddly stuff that 5e still clings too but its important to note that what JC said is a bit different than what you are saying he said.

[ryan92084]

No. From what JC said is not "sheathing a weapon and then casting a spell" but that you can sheath it if you use the Attack action.

The cast a spell action is a different action.

Part of casting a spell is pulling out/putting away materials or using your hand in specific ways or whatever. That free using item is being used up and can't also be doing something else (sheathing a sword).

As a DM I wave a lot of fiddly stuff that 5e still clings too but its important to note that what JC said is a bit different than what you are saying he said.

"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action" phb.190. As an example you are allowed to perform sheathing or drawing a sword "in tandem with your movement and action" phb.190 The type of action is irrelevant.

Edit: you could certainly argue that the fondling of your already exposed component pouch takes your item interaction but I consider that as part of the take a spell action. Also not all spells require a component.

[Tanarii]

You can put your weapon away and cast. It just takes your free object interaction. Same as if you draw your weapon and attack.

JC's tweet doesn't invalidate the requirement to use your free object interaction to draw if you draw and attack.

[Dalebert]

Bladesingers are the Wizard that needs Warcaster the least. They've got the best concentration checks of any Wizard, the have an effective OA already, and they still have a free hand for spellcasting. The whole point of a Bladesinger is he builds up the kind of things Warcaster gives so you don't need to burn a feat or multi class for them.

Ditto the AC bonus and light armor so you don't need to crank up Dex to have a decent AC and can use Str instead for your weapon attacks.

You can absolutely do fine without it if you don't want to use your resources in that manner. That said, it still seems like a nice min-max decision to have bladesinging bonuses to concentration AND advantage. It's also nice for those times you're in combat (a lot more often than most wizards) to be able to cast a spell as an AoO when you're a WIZARD. Also, you're not always bladesinging so you won't always get that concentration benefit. In particular, you're less likely to be wasting the 2/rest resource when you're hanging back and casting really scary aggro-inducing concentration effects. I still think it's a good investment of a feat, though I will be waiting until I've maxed my Int.

Also I'm shocked that anyone thinks of making a bladesinger as a Str fighter. I'd be surprised if any melee with light armor doesn't go the finesse direction. Why wouldn't you want even more AC? When is a certain AC ever enough when it's possible for it to be more? :) This is especially true when you're still somewhat squishy when it comes to HP.

[Dimers]

It seems to me, and this is how I would handle it, the sorcerer just needs to touch the component with his hand. He doesn't have to wave it around somatically. So it still hurts him if his hands aren't free but he could just put his hand in his pocket casually where the component is and cast, yes?

Or have all the components he uses for close-quarters spells built into the haft or grip of his weapon/shield :smallwink:

[SwordChuck]

You can put your weapon away and cast. It just takes your free object interaction. Same as if you draw your weapon and attack.

JC's tweet doesn't invalidate the requirement to use your free object interaction to draw if you draw and attack.

You still wouldn't be able to cast a spell with material components cause you already used the free use an item.

Unless you have a feat or special ability allowing you to do so.

[Tanarii]

Why not? You've got a free hand. Casting a spell with an M component is part of the spell as long as you have a free hand and a component pouch. There's no requirement for an object interaction.

[Dalebert]

You still wouldn't be able to cast a spell with material components cause you already used the free use an item.

Unless you have a feat or special ability allowing you to do so.

That's almost never going to be an issue for a full caster, i.e. non-gish. Assuming you don't have a shield, you'll probably typically have a focus in one hand and a weapon in the other. Just put away the weapon and cast. Next turn pull out the weapon and attack. One object interaction per turn will generally get you where you want to be. Again, it's AoO that suffers but that's something you don't care much about. If you do, get Warcaster.

I'm not 100% sure about Tanarii's claims but it doesn't affect what I just mentioned.

[Tanarii]

I'm not 100% sure about Tanarii's claims but it doesn't affect what I just mentioned.
Spellcasting clearly tells you the requirements for casting an M spell: the component (or a component pouch or focus) and a free hand. Neither the spellcasting section not the object interaction list in the PHB make any mention of needing to use an object interaction as part of casting a spell.

[Dalebert]

Spellcasting clearly tells you the requirements for casting an M spell: the component (or a component pouch or focus) and a free hand. Neither the spellcasting section not the object interaction list in the PHB make any mention of needing to use an object interaction as part of casting a spell.

Well yes, and attacking requires a weapon. It doesn't say the weapon needs to be in your hand when you use it because that's fairly obvious. The pouch itself is not the focus or component. It's just a short-cut way of saying, if you spend this much on a component pouch, it's assuming you have purchased all the components you need for your spells. Those components still need to be in your hand.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just not seeing it as that straight-forward to automatically interpret it as you have based on just what you have referenced.

[Tanarii]

Weapons are clearly listed as something that takes an object interaction to draw or sheath though. They aren't comparable.

More to the point, you can consider that they *are* comparable. Weapons being in the table shows that spellcasting doesn't require an object interaction, because it's not on the table. That logics a little shaky though. Pretty sure there's a fallacy for it. ;)

[MaxWilson]

While I agree with the first part the sheathe quote is from Mearls. He generally only says how he plays it not what the rules allow or were intended to allow. Crawford over ruled this 9 days later http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/11/sheating-or-draw/

The goofy part of is that you can still drop your weapon, cast a spell, and pick it back up using your free object interaction, which satisfies both RAW and Crawford's tweet.

[Tanarii]

Honestly I just wish they'd ruled all 'change attack states' as a single object interaction, and been done with it. That'd put all fighting styles and spellcasting on an even footing, one free change between them per round.

It'd also make Warcaster a feat tax. But at least all the different fighting styles would be consistent as to how far away from being able to cast they are, and rule out silly 'drop your weapon' shenanigans.

Edit: I means all styles except one hand free styles. Since that's not actually a 'style' given the way Dueling was ruled.

[ryan92084]

The goofy part of is that you can still drop your weapon, cast a spell, and pick it back up using your free object interaction, which satisfies both RAW and Crawford's tweet.
True enough, pending DM approval obviously. None of my players like that or the leather thong wrist strap technique so it slipped my mind.

[Dalebert]

A caster not using their bonus action could tell their unseen servant to put something in their hand. :)

[Longcat]

I enforce the rule at my table, so a character with both hands occupied cannot cast a spell with somatic components without sheathing at least one of the items.

[djreynolds]

I cradle the staff in my armpit, or lean it on my chest and cast. I mean you are casting a spell, not doing the Lambada or singing the rain with an umbrella. If that doesn't work, just get war caster.

You know you could have warcaster as free feat and split it up at 1, 3, and 5th level and your player chooses which part of the feat he wants to get as he levels up. And tell the warrior to stuff it.