What is 'wielding'?

[Draz0000]

I know it has been stated that Polearm Master's opportunity attack is not intended to work with war caster, but for this lets assume they interact fine.

Does a caster using those two feats need both hands on a Glaive/Halberd (or a hand free) to satisfy the 'wielding' condition of Polearm master, or are they fine holding something else in their off hand? To me, it seems that this combination does not require a free hand. Reason being that the opportunity to preform the opportunity attack granted by Polearm Master happens before the attack takes place, and two hands are only required on a Two-Handed weapon the moment an attack is made. The gray zone arises around the use of the word wielding.

Presumably a standard Polearm Master could have his weapon in one hand, and if the opportunity attack triggers bring his second hand to the weapon to make an attack. And likewise I doubt that is necessary for Polearm Master War Caster with a free hand to bring his second hand to the weapon to cast a spell. But a Polearm Master War Caster without a free hand, are they still wielding?


Two-Handed
This weapon requires two hands when you Attack with it.

Reach
This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it.

Polearm Master
While wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.

War Caster
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, instead of making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of only 1 action and must target only that creature.

[Expected]

One interpretation could be that it would require object interaction (you get one free during your turn) to make an opportunity attack, if the weapon states you need to wield it with both hands--meaning you could cast a spell (if you have War Caster) or attack with a quarterstaff (because of versatile), but not attack with a halberd or glaive.

[Greywander]

Generally, my interpretation is that "wielding" a two-handed weapon requires you to use both hands. However, grabbing or releasing a weapon doesn't require any kind of action, so if, say, using a greatsword, you can take one hand off to cast a spell then immediately put your hand back on it. For example, an EK and cast a cantrip then make a BA attack with a two-handed weapon.

Under this interpretation, I suppose one question might be if you could grab or release a weapon while it isn't your turn. Do you need to decide whether to end your turn holding your two-handed weapon with both hands or just one? Or can you switch back and forth even when it isn't your turn?

Arguably, from a game balance perspective, a two-handed weapon is meant to occupy both hands at all times, but nothing actually prevents you from holding the weapon in one hand, and there aren't any rules regarding actions and switching between one-handing and two-handing. It's enough to prevent you from using a shield, but not enough to stop you from casting spells, or pulling out and throwing a dart, or shoving, etc.

Another way to think of it would be that "wielding" a two-handed weapon requires a free hand, in addition to the hand that holds the weapon. This free hand can be used for other things (like casting spells), but if it stops being a free hand (e.g. you pull out an item) then you can't wield that weapon anymore.

[Tanarii]

It is a term that's been used for at least the last three editions of D&D, without being defined as a game term.

It's bounced back and forth between 'hold as if to fight' and 'fighting with', with some people occasionally thinking it should mean 'hold'. A large part of the reason is D&D initiative since 3e is an individual turn based system, so each character acts completely before the next does, while supposedly being a simultaneous segment of time. Another is the term is itself unclear if it means to be able to use, or to actively use.

I really wish D&D rules writers would stop using the word.

[Edenbeast]

The gray zone arises around the use of the word wielding.

You're creating a grey zone that is not there.

First of all, you seem to forget about War caster point two:


You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.

(Assuming your DM allows an incorrect interpretation of the Polearm Master feat.)

Material components may be a problem still...

Then wielding, which refers to both holding and using a weapon or tool. Some online dictionary entries: here (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/wielding), here (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/wielding) and here (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/wield).
There is no ambiguity! You're not just holding it, but also using it (effectively).

Wielding a 1-handed weapon means you need one (1) hand.
Wielding a 2-handed weapon means you need two (2) hands.


I really wish D&D rules writers would stop using the word.

I guess we can then as well say they should stop using words... Or include a dictionary.

[Tanarii]

I guess we can then as well say they should stop using words... Or include a dictionary.
Given the ambiguity of the term, if they're going to use it as a game term they need to define what they mean:
1) Hold and be able to use
2) hold and use

Both require holding a weapon in the required number of hands. The latter may require attacking with it, given 'defend' isn't an action. Given the abstraction, it may not. OTOH the latter would require your character be combative, not just standing there, which would affect if you were attacked by surprise or the like.

[Yunru]

Both require holding a weapon in the required number of hands. The latter may require attacking with it, given 'defend' isn't an action.

Defend is definitely an action.
It may not be an Action, but that doesn't matter.

[Laserlight]

In Real Life, if you're using a 2H weapon against me and you take one hand off of it, then you'd better be able to retreat very quickly.

[Mongobear]

Assuming they interact with one-another, and you had a feature to treat the polearm as a Focus, it would work fine with 2-hands on the Polearm.

War Caster also has the " you can perform Somatic components" clause, which combined with a Weapon=Focus ability would allow you to twirl your big stick around and toss a Disintegrate at the poor sap who provoked you.

The issue I have with this, I that BB/GFB don't work ofd the PAM opp attack, as it triggers at 10ft, and the SCAGtrips have a range of 5 ft. You'd need a 3rd Feat, Spell Sniper, for this.