Grasping your weapon uses your free interaction?

[Arial Black]

This week my DM told me half-way through my extra attack sequence that when nothing is in your hands except your two-handed weapon, removing one hand takes your free interaction even though it costs nothing to drop the weapon (removing both hands!), and that re-gripping it takes another object interaction, therefore using my action, therefore not having an action left, therefore I can't use the Attack action!

He said he saw a tweet or something somewhere, but he couldn't find it again.

Later he said that the tweeter/poster/whatever got mixed up. What they said was that getting your spell components out of your component pouch was your free interaction and re-gripping your greatsword with that hand was also an object interaction, leaving no action remaining to attack.

So the position is either:-

* both removing one hand from your held 2H weapon AND re-gripping it each costs its own object interaction

OR

* letting go with one hand costs nothing, but re-gripping it costs your free interaction.

Imagine your greatsword is sheathed. You draw it (with one hand, obviously), you then grip it with your other hand because you need both hands to attack with it, then attack.

Nope! Drawing your weapon IS your free object interaction for this round! If you then grip it with your other hand it takes another object interaction, which uses your action, so you don't have an action to attack! Of course if you DON'T grip it with your other hand then you can't attack with a 2H weapon if only one hand is on it!

Is this correct? Are users of 2H weapons unable to draw and attack with them in the same turn, while users of 1H weapons are unhindered?

Or is this, as I suspect, total BS?

Has anyone heard of this 'rule'? If so, please cite the book and page number.

Has anyone seen this post/tweet? If so, please quote/link.

[meandean]

There's no (relevant) usage of the word "grip" in the Player's Handbook. I'm not aware of "gripping" a weapon being a concept in the game.

[Warder]

Your DM is mistaken - but that's how it works in Pathfinder 2. In PF2, you use an action to add a second hand to a gripped weapon, but letting go is a free action. Maybe that's where he got it from.

[Psyren]

It's a non-action in 5e. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/836293963979972608)

[No brains]

It's this kind of rigmarole that led us down the path of one-handed quarterstaffs! I'm a revenant who repeatedly dies on weird hills, but this one is one of my favorites. There is no reason whatsoever for changing a grip on a weapon to take any kind of measurable action. It defies game logic, verisimilitude, and rule of fun.

Switching some order here, but if anyone can speak in defense of changing grip taking an object interaction as 'fun' speak now! I am officially suspending disbelief for anyone who thinks 'martial arts, but with extra steps' leads to a more enjoyable game experience. It's far beyond my imagination that I'm taking a mulligan on making any kind of insight on this one.

For game logic: If changing a grip on a weapon took an action, that would essentially give longbows the loading property. Changing your grip on the weapon is intrinsic to how a longbow works, yet it is built into the design of the game that multiple attacks can be made with a longbow. If changing grips took interactions, bows would fire as slow as siege engines. You will need 3-4 object interactions to take out your bow, grab an arrow, nock the arrow, and possibly draw the arrow (the draw weight of bows demands considerable effort to change your grip on the weapon that way). Given that there are multiple creatures with the Multiattack option that can make multiple longbow attacks, this is clearly not within the intent of the game.

For verisimilitude: changing grips on a weapon is useful for getting the full range of motion out of the weapon. Leaving out the example of longbows above, changing one's grip on a weapon can happen multiple times within the span of time that an 'action' would take. This is especially true of disarming techniques, but even switching from parries to strikes can call for changing one's grip on a longsword. Also consider the quick hands of someone using a quarterstaff, it's foolish to think their hands are going to remain exactly where they are on the staff while the move between different ranges that demand different strikes.

There. The three Silmarils of rule justification all flushed down Ungoliant's hideous maw. Why obey a rule that isn't realistic, doesn't help the game, and isn't fun? Even if this were RAW, this would only be RAW as an example that a DM can and should defy RAW to deliver an experience that enriches everyone at the table.

Re: One-handed quarterstaffs: I recall a similar quibble from editions past where some DMs demanded that a staff' designation as a two-handed weapon mandated a two-handed grip at all times, severely janking out spellcasters reliant on spell components who wanted to use magic staffs. I can only imagine that one-handed quarterstaffs came about as a direct rebuke to this line of thinking; a deliberate sacrifice of sense on the altar of fun to make certain this rigid thinking never profaned a game table again. That's at least my take on it, but then again, I have no brains.

[Keravath]

In 5e, changing a grip on a weapon does not require an object interaction.

The entire process of drawing a weapon or sheathing a weapon is considered an object interaction.

The rules specifically state that two hands are needed for a two handed weapon only when making an actual attack.

"Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."

So two handed weapons clearly do not require an object interaction to change from one to two hands holding the weapon.

[Tanarii]

Having to use your object interaction to switch a 2H weapon between being usable and not being usable is a rather strict interpretation, if not necessarily a bad one. It certainly helps cut down on some shenanigans. But most of the most objectionable shenanigans involve dropping and repicking up a weapon, and are more easily resolved by making dropping a weapon use an object interaction. Neither of those are explicitly called out as examples of object interactions, but the list of object interactions is exactly that, a list of examples.

Using a component pouch is not an object interaction. It's part of casting a spell, as long as you have a free hand to access it.

Interpreting going between being able to attack with a 2H weapon and not being able to as an object interaction definitely hurts Gish. They depend on 2H melee weapons for their style, exactly because S&B or TWF requires sheathing and redrawing your weapon to cast spells, or a workaround that takes some investment.

[Samayu]

Next time, tell your GM you are readying your weapon instead of drawing it, as your object interaction. That may make it more clear as to what position it will be in when you're done.


... But most of the most objectionable shenanigans involve dropping and repicking up a weapon, and are more easily resolved by making dropping a weapon use an object interaction. Neither of those are explicitly called out as examples of object interactions, but the list of object interactions is exactly that, a list of examples...

I agree with this. Dropping an object is one thing, but setting it down so it doesn't get damaged, or fall badly and land on your foot, is a different story.

[Rynjin]

Your DM is mistaken - but that's how it works in Pathfinder 2. In PF2, you use an action to add a second hand to a gripped weapon, but letting go is a free action. Maybe that's where he got it from.

Every time somebody mentions a dumb new mechanic they forced in for PF2 I die a little inside.

They REALLY needed to go out of their way and codify the "metaphorical hands of effort" thing into an actual action, huh?

[Arial Black]

It's a non-action in 5e. (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/836293963979972608)

Thanks for this!

[Frogreaver]

I don't think what constitutes an object interaction is defined with any amount of specificity. So IMO by a strict RAW reading it would seem DM decides.

I don't agree that his ruling makes the most sense but I think it's his ruling to make as the game doesn't do a good job of defining it.

[Warder]

Every time somebody mentions a dumb new mechanic they forced in for PF2 I die a little inside.

They REALLY needed to go out of their way and codify the "metaphorical hands of effort" thing into an actual action, huh?

It makes pretty good sense within the 3 action system, honestly. Though whether or not it actually adds much of anything to the game, I am not sure - I think it's mostly a matter of consistency. Adding a hand to your grip is an Interact action which costs an action, and releasing is a Release action, which is free. You see those two actions in many other parts of the game so I think consistency is what they aimed for here.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 5e, changing a grip on a weapon does not require an object interaction. The entire process of drawing a weapon or sheathing a weapon is considered an object interaction.
The rules specifically state that two hands are needed for a two handed weapon only when making an actual attack.

"Two-Handed. This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it."

So two handed weapons clearly do not require an object interaction to change from one to two hands holding the weapon. This is what the DM needs to read and understand.
For the OP: it might be a good idea to provide a link to Keravath's post. :smallsmile:
For the OP: this part of that rules quote Two-Handed (p. 147). This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it was published in the errata. My first printing of the PHB doesn't have that additional clarification. (Nor does my 2018 basic rules, so I guess Errata version 1.22 came out after that, or they missed an edit).

[da newt]

Just to (shamelessly) piggy back, drawing a weapon is as an object interaction when making an attack with that weapon, per RAW:

- what if a two weapon fighting PC starts combat empty handed? Do they only get to use one weapon on round 1?

- without the thrown weapon feat, can a PC with a shield on one arm and an open hand make multi attacks with thrown weapons? Can you draw the second javelin / dagger / dart?

- if a PC starts a round holding a crossbow and decides they want to switch to a melee weapon, do they have to drop the crossbow on the floor?

This sort of stuff usually gets ignored / rule of cooled in games, but what is RAW?

[Psyren]

- what if a two weapon fighting PC starts combat empty handed? Do they only get to use one weapon on round 1?

Yes, unless they have the Dual Wielder feat or similar.


- without the thrown weapon feat, can a PC with a shield on one arm and an open hand make multi attacks with thrown weapons? Can you draw the second javelin / dagger / dart?

It's a Fighting Style, not a feat, so some classes get it sooner - but otherwise, you need it to make multiple thrown attacks.


- if a PC starts a round holding a crossbow and decides they want to switch to a melee weapon, do they have to drop the crossbow on the floor?

No, you can use your OI to stow the crossbow instead if you have one. You'd only need to drop it if you used your OI on something else.

[da newt]

thanks.

1) you need the dual wielder feat to draw 2 weapons in one round and attack
2) you need the thrown weapon fighting style to draw multiple thrown weapons and attack in one round (could be more than two)
3) you cannot stow one weapon and draw another in the same round and also attack

[Keravath]

Just to (shamelessly) piggy back, drawing a weapon is as an object interaction when making an attack with that weapon, per RAW:

- what if a two weapon fighting PC starts combat empty handed? Do they only get to use one weapon on round 1?

- without the thrown weapon feat, can a PC with a shield on one arm and an open hand make multi attacks with thrown weapons? Can you draw the second javelin / dagger / dart?

- if a PC starts a round holding a crossbow and decides they want to switch to a melee weapon, do they have to drop the crossbow on the floor?

This sort of stuff usually gets ignored / rule of cooled in games, but what is RAW?

Just to clarify Psyren's response in the third case - the first two answers are correct.

"- if a PC starts a round holding a crossbow and decides they want to switch to a melee weapon, do they have to drop the crossbow on the floor?"

Pulling out a melee weapon requires an object interaction. If you start off holding a crossbow and use an object interaction to stow it then you can not pull out a melee weapon on the same turn. However, if you drop the crossbow, which is usually considered a non-action though I don't think that is explicitly stated anywhere then you can use your object interaction to draw a melee weapon.

So, yes - if they want to switch to a melee weapon they have to drop the crossbow.

----

As for the first two - you can only draw one weapon as an object interaction in a turn unless you have the dual wielder feat. So if a character that likes to use two weapons has no weapons in hand at the start of combat then on the first round they can only draw one weapon unless they have the feat.

Multiple thrown weapon attacks are only possible if you start with a thrown weapon in hand or if you have the thrown weapon fighting style. Otherwise, you are still limited to one object interaction to draw a weapon. So the answer to the second question is also No. A character with an empty hand without the fighting style can only make one thrown weapon attack because they only have one object interaction with which to draw a weapon.

[Psyren]

3) you cannot stow one weapon and draw another in the same round and also attack

To be fair, you said "a melee weapon" - which could be a natural weapon :smalltongue:

But yes, if you need to draw the second weapon, you're probably dropping the crossbow.

[Unoriginal]

Also, getting your spell components from your pouch is part of the Cast a Spell action/bonus action/reaction, so long as it is on you and you have the free hand to do it.

Now I want to see a bunch of casters who have neither focuses nor component pouches (maybe as part of a "disarm to avoid troubles" security measure) have a fight in an esoteric market, with everyone havibg to grab ingredients and equipment from the stalls and shops.

[Pex]

As a personal opinion matter, I don't begrudge a warrior using his weapons. Switching between melee (with shield) and range, doing something while holding a sword and shield, the PC can do it. The Non-Attack Thing may require the Use An Object action, but I'm not quibbling how the character is holding his weapons while doing it and can attack normally next round. If the official rules back me up, great. If not, this minutiae of detail isn't important to me. Making a Thing a Use An Object action gives the player a choice of priority and curtails unforeseen abuse of grace for now worrying about weapon placement for trivial things.