Halberd and other 2 handed weapon and spells

[Joe dirt]

My question is if u are say a war priest and u use a 2 handed weapon... would u need the war caster feat to cast spells?

[BRC]

In my opinion, no.

While you need two hands on a 2-hander to properly use the weapon, you don't need both hands to hold it. So, it's simple enough to take one hand off the weapon, do whatever somatic components you need, then put your hand back whenever you take a swing. Look at the classic Staff-wielding Wizard for an example.

[Tanarii]

No. But a Warhammer and Shield with emblazoned Holy Symbol also doesn't need Warcaste to cast S component spells that also have an M component. Only S component spells that don't have an M component. (Like Cure Wounds.)

[odigity]

No. But a Warhammer and Shield with emblazoned Holy Symbol also doesn't need Warcaste to cast S component spells that also have an M component. Only S component spells that don't have an M component. (Like Cure Wounds.)

Wait, what? Is there support for this in PHB?

[Tanarii]

Wait, what? Is there support for this in PHB?Yes.

Paraphrasing and going from memory:
In the magic section, under material components: You can use a hand using a material component or focus for S components as well.
Either In the equipment section under Holy Symbol, or in the cleric section under holy symbol: If you emblazon one on a shield, the shield is your focus.

[Daishain]

Only S component spells that don't have an M component. (Like Cure Wounds.)Yeah, there's no good reason, fluff or balance wise, for this exception. If you can perform somatic components with a focus when a material component is required, you should be perfectly capable of performing somatic components with a focus when such is not. It isn't RAW either, but instead a harsh interpretation of awkward grammar, made as if WOTC was known for their godlike ability to write rules subject to no possible misinterpretation.

But as to the OP query, the general consensus seems to be, and if I recall correctly this was supported by a dev quote, that the 2 handed wielder is perfectly capable of taking a hand off of their weapon, casting the spell, and then grasping the weapon once again.

[Tanarii]

It isn't RAW either, but instead a harsh interpretation of awkward grammar, made as if WOTC was known for their godlike ability to write rules subject to no possible misinterpretation.There's really no need to claim a straightforward reading of RAW isn't RAW, just because you don't personally like the way it works. Just stick with saying you don't like it.

[Daishain]

There's really no need to claim a straightforward reading of RAW isn't RAW, just because you don't personally like the way it works. Just stick with saying you don't like it.
It is anything but a straightforward reading. RAW makes a specific exception to a general rule. Namely that somatic components can be performed with a focus. Now, the way it was worded can be interpreted to mean that this exception is only valid when material components are in play, or it could be interpreted to mean that somatics are fair game via focus whether or not material components are involved. Without knowing the intent, either is valid. Now, if there were practical or fluff reason to go with the more limiting interpretation, I'd assume that was the intent. But there is not, and so I do not.

[JumboWheat01]

Do note, that for the most part "taking a hand off your weapon" counts as your "free interaction" for that one turn, thus depriving you of putting your hand back on your weapon to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks. Your next turn, however, you can put your hand back on your weapon and swing as per normal. If you need to grab materials or a focus to cast the spell, well... you're kinda out of luck.

You're probably best off on a cleric going weapon and shield with symbol attached. Can always put the weapon away to cast a non-material spell and grab it again the next turn.

[Tanarii]

or it could be interpreted to mean that somatics are fair game via focus whether or not material components are involved.No. It can't. Here is the rule from the Basic Rules document.

A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell.
&
A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
&
Holy Symbol. <snip> To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield.

You can use a spellcasting focus in place of material components. In that case, you must have a free hand to hold it, but it can be the same hand you use to perform somatic components. Clerics can bear it on a shield. There is no way to interpret this as "somatics are fair game via focus whether or not material components are involved", because if the spell doesn't use material components, the spellcasting focus is never used.

So again, just state you don't like it. Don't try to claim RAW isn't RAW.


Do note, that for the most part "taking a hand off your weapon" counts as your "free interaction" for that one turn, thus depriving you of putting your hand back on your weapon to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks.No it doesn't. Assuming you're talking about a 2H weapon here. It does count as a free interaction to put your one-handed weapon away (or take it back out) if you're fighting Mace&Shield style though.


You're probably best off on a cleric going weapon and shield with symbol attached. Can always put the weapon away to cast a non-material spell and grab it again the next turn.Yeah, M&B style you basically trade out your OA capability to cast a V,S or S-only spell that round.

[Saggo]

It is anything but a straightforward reading. RAW makes a specific exception to a general rule. Namely that somatic components can be performed with a focus. Now, the way it was worded can be interpreted to mean that this exception is only valid when material components are in play, or it could be interpreted to mean that somatics are fair game via focus whether or not material components are involved. Without knowing the intent, either is valid. Now, if there were practical or fluff reason to go with the more limiting interpretation, I'd assume that was the intent. But there is not, and so I do not.
"If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures."

"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." (p203)

It's fairly self-explanatory, the only exception to both Somatic and Material general rules is if a spell has both components. Allowing you to use a hand that isn't free, even if it's holding a focus or materials, for an S or S,V spell is speculating on intent.


Do note, that for the most part "taking a hand off your weapon" counts as your "free interaction" for that one turn, thus depriving you of putting your hand back on your weapon to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks. Your next turn, however, you can put your hand back on your weapon and swing as per normal. If you need to grab materials or a focus to cast the spell, well... you're kinda out of luck.

You're probably best off on a cleric going weapon and shield with symbol attached. Can always put the weapon away to cast a non-material spell and grab it again the next turn.

This isn't really supported by the PHB, it's certainly not included in the list of examples. The only support for this is that a DM has the ability to decide what constitutes an interaction and may be fastidious enough to consider it, and likely considers dropping an item your free interaction for a turn too.

[odigity]

That's a nonsensical interpretation. Casting an S,M spell should be more difficult than casting an S,- spell. It flies in the face of all reason that you couldn't cast an S,- spell under conditions that would allow you to cast an S,M spell. There is no way I would tolerate a DM that rules that way.

The cleric with a holy symbol shield should be able to cast S,- spells while holding a weapon in the other hand.

[Saggo]

That's a nonsensical interpretation. Casting an S,M spell should be more difficult than casting an S,- spell. It flies in the face of all reason that you couldn't cast an S,- spell under conditions that would allow you to cast an S,M spell. There is no way I would tolerate a DM that rules that way.

The cleric with a holy symbol shield should be able to cast S,- spells while holding a weapon in the other hand.
I don't think so nonsensical. It's not so hard to imagine that some spells take intricate finger and hand gestures versus some that just need to channel a focus in a specific pattern. It's also not so hard to imagine the WotC wanted some spells to not be done with equipment in both hands regardless of what was held, forcing a player to manage when certain spells are used like Cure Wounds.

The former is just applying a narrative as the complexity of the S component is only imagined, and while the latter is just speculation on their intent it easily shows how S vs S,M have impact on mechanical balance and tactical choices.

Regardless of intent, it is fairly straightforward, as Tanarii mentioned earlier.

[tkuremento]

Do note, that for the most part "taking a hand off your weapon" counts as your "free interaction" for that one turn, thus depriving you of putting your hand back on your weapon to take advantage of Opportunity Attacks. Your next turn, however, you can put your hand back on your weapon and swing as per normal. If you need to grab materials or a focus to cast the spell, well... you're kinda out of luck.

You're probably best off on a cleric going weapon and shield with symbol attached. Can always put the weapon away to cast a non-material spell and grab it again the next turn.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/30/eldritch-free-hand/

Mike Mearls would allow it it seems but he also is basically saying 5e's motto, ask your DM

[Tanarii]

That's a nonsensical interpretation. Casting an S,M spell should be more difficult than casting an S,- spell. It flies in the face of all reason that you couldn't cast an S,- spell under conditions that would allow you to cast an S,M spell. There is no way I would tolerate a DM that rules that way.Its not harder. It's easier. S component spells only require a free hand. S and M component spells require a free hand and access to a component, a component pouch, or a focus. They are therefore harder to cast. (Note: it doesn't require you to use a free object interaction to get the focus in your hand, you just need access to it. But the only reasonable interpretation is that any hand filled with a focus is the free hand required.)

The problem for Clerics and Paladins arise because they're given the special ability to fill their hand with a Shield Holy Symbol all the time. So they no longer have a free hand, they have a hand always occupied by their focus. Which is only a 'free hand' using a focus when casting an M spell.


The cleric with a holy symbol shield should be able to cast S,- spells while holding a weapon in the other hand.IIRC at least one game designer disagrees with you. Crawford has either ruled in Sage Advice or Tweeted (I forget which) that Clerics can't cast S-only spells with a Sheild Holy Symbol and Weapon in hand, using Cure Wounds as the specific example.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think it's an unreasonable house-rule to say 'a hand occupied by a focus is always a free hand for S or M spells'. It makes Warcaster slightly less valuable for Clerics and Paladins, but most people seem to view that part of the feat as the least relevant part anyway.