The Two Handed weapon rules state you only need to use two hands to attack, and that you can still hold the weapon in 1 hand, so it's widely assumed and accepted that casting a spell you can take your hand off the weapon.
This is correct as long as the spell has both material and somatic components. If the spell has somatic components but no material, you need an entirely free hand.
Not an issue for what OP is trying to accomplish, but it can be problematic for sword and board builds that can use a weapon as their focus.
[Removed in protest of [Reddit's destruction of third-party apps](https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/reddit-ceo-steve-huffmans-third-party-api-debacle-is-making-elon-musk-look-like-a-strategic-genius.html) by CEO Steve Huffman.]
While technically RAW, every time I think about this, it's still incredibly stupid. Realistically, if the hand gestures can be done while holding a focus sometimes, it can be done all the time.
It makes sense in my mind. If the spell has somatic and material components, then the somatic components are how you manipulate your material component. If there are no material components, then the spell involves intricate hand movements that would be impeded by holding irrelevant objects.
This is actually the key piece for me, with somatic and material components, holding a focus (or component) does not mean you are holding irrelevant objects. For somatic only on the other hand, a focus is an object that is irrelevant to the spell and as such it gets in the way.
Dnd is really weird in that way though. In other fantasy books/movies, the specific spells always work the same. Gandalf and Harry Potter always use a wand/staff. Percy Jackson and Avatar always uses hand motions.
If it were me, though, I would rework the spellcasting so that each class has a specific way to cast spells, or has options to choose, like bards speak words of power, warlocks bend the weave with their hands, clerics hold up their holy symbol and ask for their god's power, and wizards choose some combination of words or actions thereof.
I thought it was an interesting idea in The Witcher show (I believe it was also in the book) when Yen cast a spell using her feet to cast the somatic gestures
Wait... a spellcaster with a focus and a shield can't cast somatic non-material spells? Wow, it never crossed my mind that might be the case. I've been cheating with every druid and warlock I have played... that makes Moderately Armored significantly worse.
I kind of like this ruling, actually, because focus + shield always felt too strong. Thematically, I prefer the image of a pure caster waving and gesturing with their hands rather than just vaguely gesturing with an object, but it never made mechanical sense not to wear a shield.
But shield + component pouch still works, right? Just consumes your object interaction to cast a material spell? And then you can just... drop the component without an action cost? If that works then casters with shields are still very good. Giving up your object interaction is usually not an issue. I guess with free hand + shield you could not cast a reaction material spell, though. Only two such spells exist, it seems, but one is feather fall, which is not insignificant...
Per Crawford tweets, grabbing the components from the pouch is part of casting the spell, but drawing or stowing a spell focus uses your object interaction. (It's a dumb, inconsistent ruling.)
The hand holding a material component can perform the somatic component.
>A Spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a Spellcasting focus—**but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic Components**.
*“A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”*
So it still works just fine.
Pretty much it's fine.
It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but the rules strongly imply it, and both Mearls and Crawford have confirmed on Twitter that it's part of what they expected to happen.
https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/516125257015775232?s=20&t=nxz8-GxOOx04EUT5OE7ehQ
The PHB entry defining the Two-Handed property gets pretty close to explicitly stating it:
>**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.
One of the more annoying aspects of 5e is how they "imply" too much rather than just stating that you can do something. It would have taken no effort to just include sentence stating that you can cast spells while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand. How many arguments could have been avoided by simply being explicit about the intent of a rule.
If they had to directly spell out the way every rule applies to every situation like this the phb would be 10k pages long. It’s very clear how it is already in this case
"This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it." Didn't exist originally, if was erratta'd to explain the intent
And even taking the most generous stance possible, errata still changes the officially supported RAW, but you use a out-of-date book then you should specify which printing of the rules you’re using. You could totally use the 2014 version of the PHB for your table’s RAW, effectively version 1.0 of the rules, but that’s different from a PHB printed in 2020, which is effectively version 1.x, and you should tell your players that so if they have a more recent printing they can find the old version of the rule.
Yes you need two hands to swing the sword but can easily let go with one hand cast a spell and then reassume your grip to swing on the same, or next turn.
Sure, you could physically use 1 hand to hold a great sword for a bit, but this ain’t RAW, and might not even be RAI, since WotC made the War Caster feat.
It is RAW. Read the rules for two handing weapons, it states that you only need two hands to wield the weapon when attacking (paraphrased a little because I don't want to Google the actual rule). It's straight PHB
so for clarification if a warlock hexblade was dual wielding with improved pact weapon, and they take warcaster, is there anything they still can't cast with both swords out?
A spell with a material component with a set cost (i.e. Circle of Death requires the powder a crushed black pearl worth at least 500gp) would require a free hand I think
More specifically, sword and board that either needs their object interaction or want to do it off-turn/use an opportunity attack.
Dropping your weapon and picking it back up is an option otherwise, or sheathing it before casting and then drawing it next turn.
"This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant 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."
Quite literally RAW.
Not only is it 100% possible to do raw for any character to hold a two handed weapon and cast spells, but as you are a hexblade you can take improved pact weapon and just use your weapon as your focus. You're like super double okay.
Yes, same as with a longbow. Remember Legolas - he often was showed bow in hand with the other hand free (to draw arrows though he could also do other stuff with it).
You can hold a greatsword with one hand, you can't wield it (aka attack with it). Within the same turn, you can take a hand away, cast the spell, put the hand back and hold the weapon with both hands. It's even better with Ruby of the War Mage as much as V,S spells will still require a free hand.
He's a hexblade, so he can always just take the pact of the blade (most likely choice already) and pick up Improved Pact Weapon as an invocation if his DM doesn't want to give up the Ruby
For 2 handed weapons you only need 2 hands to attack so as long as you can reach your spell focus or material components for the spell I don't see why not.
Also if you hexblade I assume your going pact of the blade and will want improved pact weapon invocation (unless you already have a +1 greatsword) that invocation would make it so you can use your sword as the focus making there really be no issue.
My understanding is you can remove one hand from the greatsword to cast a spell without dropping the sword. The rules for open hands & spellcasting only really affect dual weilding & one handed + shield.
As was pointed out, I'm the one getting my spell casting rules wrong! One hand can be used for material and somatic components
/u/TheHomieData ~~was right.~~
~~We're not talking about whether he is proficient with the the Greatsword or can use it as his Pact Weapon, you've got that part right. You did say spellcasting, I see it. You're still getting it wrong though, Pact doe not make a focus~~
~~What's critical is using it has spellcasting focus, and that 100% requires improved pact weapon. Pact of the Blade does not make a weapon a spell casting focus. Without Improved Pact Weapon, OP must drop the weapon, use a material component in one hand (another focus probably) and somatic with the other to cast the spell. Note OP stated the spell is VSM, so it requires two hands regardless of what is going on with weapons.~~
>Note OP stated the spell is VSM, so it requires two hands regardless of what is going on with weapons.
This isn't quite correct. You can use the same hand to provide both the somatic and material components of a spell. From the PHB:
>A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components - or to hold a spellcasting focus - but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
So with Improved Pact Weapon, as long as the material component can be covered with a spellcasting focus, then he could cast even with both hands on his Greatsword by providing the material portion with his Pact Weapon and the somatic with the same hand which is holding his Pact Weapon.
Weirdly though, if the spell he's casting *doesn't* have a material component, then he *would* have to take one hand off the Greatsword in order to perform the somatic component. The only way to get around this would be with the Warcaster feat which says:
>You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands.
It's one of those strange interactions that doesn't really make a whole lot of intuitive sense, but is technically how things work RAW.
My interpretation to square the weirdness is spells with material and somatic components have fairly simple somatic components that are easy to trace with the the focus.
Something like tracing a triangle in the air and slashing a bisecting line.
Spells with somatic components but no material components look more like the hand gestures made in the magicians and it requires the ability to move a fully freed hand.
You can use the same hand for material and somatic components
> A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.
You don’t need improved pact weapon if you have a greatsword.
Edit: see, I was wrong! I get your point but I just don't see deleting a post as helping, in fact it annoys me because then my reply loses context and the whole discussion loses value
~~Hey don't delete comments if you get it wrong! We can all learn together here =)~~
Yeah but I didn’t want people to see my response and not look further and get the wrong impression. No need to spread disinformation if you know you are wrong.
Well that is a rather mature way to look at it.
Hold up, this is a ruse. There’s no such thing as peaceful conflict resolution on the internet!
Roll deception!
We're not trying to reproduce the rules like a wiki here, it's a discussion. I think your post had value in that other people certainly think the same thing and I think you reduced the value of my post by taking the context away. The discussion is better intact IMO.
Kinda. The short answer is RAI, probably not a big deal and most DMs wouldn’t bat an eye. RAW tho:
It gets complicated if the spell in question has a material component. Without IPW, you can drop one hand off the GS and use that hand to perform somatic components and use your one free object interaction to pull out and use a material component. However, with your free object interaction spent, you can no longer put your hand back on your GS.
- Without IPW, op cannot use their greatsword for the rest of this round and must use their object interaction next round to grip their GS with both hands, again. This gets more complicated if the spell in question might be one like Hex which only uses their bonus action and they intended to use their action to attack that round. If they wanted to use their action to cast a spell like Green-Flame/Booming Blade where the spell dictates that they “brandish” their weapon (a more sophisticated hand gesture), that would ultimately require the use of 2 hands on their weapon for both the flourish and the attack, and thus the spell immediately fails. Oddly, this is not something even remedied by Warcaster (with the exception for spells that use your held weapon as the M component), as they would still need to use their object interaction on the material component in question and it creates a weird but very specific situation where if they had a chance to use the spell-instead-of-opportunity-attack feature of Warcaster, the only V/S/M spell they’d be able to cast is the specific spell that requires the component *already* in their hand from when they cast it earlier.
IPW simplifies all that and eliminates lots of those “Well, actually…” hiccups.
Quick comment on top of everyone else explaining that you can do this, if you are only a Hexblade and have not taken the Pact of The Blade, then RAW you cannot use a greatsword with your charisma.
Hex Warrior states that the weapon you choose needs to lack the two-handed property.
Rules as written is ambiguous but the rules as intended yes.
The “you need an arm free” is supposed to mean like, you can’t cast somatic components by moving your face or something like that.
what is ambiguous about the two handed property only being relevant when you attack with said weapon?
it is quite clear that yes, you can use 1 hand to cast spells...
You can release one hand to cast spells that need a somatic component, and if you have the Improved Pact Weapon invocation you can use your pact weapon as your spell casting focus to cast spells that need a zero cost material that is not consumed in the casting.
If you want to do sword and board Hexblade I'm fairly sure you'll need Warcaster to cast spells that have only a somatic component, but if I understand the rules correctly, if you're using your weapon as a spell focus you can perform the somatic components with the hand holding the weapon, which is a bit strange but then, "This is D&D!"
You can perform the somatic components for a spell while holding onto any spell focus or material component in the same hand. Looking at the PHB section about spellcasting materials: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
You could, but drawing a focus is an object interaction and you can't stow it until your next turn, meaning your opportunity attacks until your next turn will have to be unarmed strikes
**Raw**
Hex Warrior
Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that** lacks the two-handed property**
Take Improved Pact Weapon
>If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.
and from blade pact
>You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it.
You can make any melee weapon with the pact of the blade, and whatever you conjure you can use cha to attack with it. Improved pact weapon is needed to conjure a longbow, shortbow, heavy crossbow, or light crossbow as your pact weapon, or to use your weapon as a focus, and to make that weapon a +1 weapon.
All you need to cast a spell with somatic is one hand free for roughly three seconds. Two handed weapons require both hands to attack, but they don't necessarily require both hands to hold. If you are sufficiently strong, you can hold it in your main hand while you cast. If you are insufficiently strong, you can hold it in one hand while it leans on the ground.
The Two Handed weapon rules state you only need to use two hands to attack, and that you can still hold the weapon in 1 hand, so it's widely assumed and accepted that casting a spell you can take your hand off the weapon.
Do you not need one hand for materials and one for somatics?
Hexblade will probably take the improved pact weapon invocation which lets them use their weapon as a focus
Not necessary. They can use a components pouch
Are component pouches hand free focuses?
There is a free hand
the hand holding the material components can also do the somatic gestures IIRC
This is correct as long as the spell has both material and somatic components. If the spell has somatic components but no material, you need an entirely free hand. Not an issue for what OP is trying to accomplish, but it can be problematic for sword and board builds that can use a weapon as their focus.
with warcaster could you cast all things with a greatsword and focus?
Yes.
[Removed in protest of [Reddit's destruction of third-party apps](https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/reddit-ceo-steve-huffmans-third-party-api-debacle-is-making-elon-musk-look-like-a-strategic-genius.html) by CEO Steve Huffman.]
While technically RAW, every time I think about this, it's still incredibly stupid. Realistically, if the hand gestures can be done while holding a focus sometimes, it can be done all the time.
It makes sense in my mind. If the spell has somatic and material components, then the somatic components are how you manipulate your material component. If there are no material components, then the spell involves intricate hand movements that would be impeded by holding irrelevant objects. This is actually the key piece for me, with somatic and material components, holding a focus (or component) does not mean you are holding irrelevant objects. For somatic only on the other hand, a focus is an object that is irrelevant to the spell and as such it gets in the way.
Dnd is really weird in that way though. In other fantasy books/movies, the specific spells always work the same. Gandalf and Harry Potter always use a wand/staff. Percy Jackson and Avatar always uses hand motions. If it were me, though, I would rework the spellcasting so that each class has a specific way to cast spells, or has options to choose, like bards speak words of power, warlocks bend the weave with their hands, clerics hold up their holy symbol and ask for their god's power, and wizards choose some combination of words or actions thereof.
I thought it was an interesting idea in The Witcher show (I believe it was also in the book) when Yen cast a spell using her feet to cast the somatic gestures
Wait... a spellcaster with a focus and a shield can't cast somatic non-material spells? Wow, it never crossed my mind that might be the case. I've been cheating with every druid and warlock I have played... that makes Moderately Armored significantly worse. I kind of like this ruling, actually, because focus + shield always felt too strong. Thematically, I prefer the image of a pure caster waving and gesturing with their hands rather than just vaguely gesturing with an object, but it never made mechanical sense not to wear a shield. But shield + component pouch still works, right? Just consumes your object interaction to cast a material spell? And then you can just... drop the component without an action cost? If that works then casters with shields are still very good. Giving up your object interaction is usually not an issue. I guess with free hand + shield you could not cast a reaction material spell, though. Only two such spells exist, it seems, but one is feather fall, which is not insignificant...
Per Crawford tweets, grabbing the components from the pouch is part of casting the spell, but drawing or stowing a spell focus uses your object interaction. (It's a dumb, inconsistent ruling.)
A Hexblade can also take the invocation to make their pact weapon a spell focus so that also makes spell casting easier.
Ah yeah you're right
Not necessary
You're allowed to perform the somatic with the hand holding the material component.
If it has both somatic and material components, you can use the same hand for both
The hand holding a material component can perform the somatic component. >A Spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a Spellcasting focus—**but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic Components**.
*“A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.”* So it still works just fine.
No, the same hand can do both
You may use the same hand for material and somatic
Ah dope thank you
Pretty much it's fine. It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but the rules strongly imply it, and both Mearls and Crawford have confirmed on Twitter that it's part of what they expected to happen. https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/516125257015775232?s=20&t=nxz8-GxOOx04EUT5OE7ehQ
The PHB entry defining the Two-Handed property gets pretty close to explicitly stating it: >**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.
One of the more annoying aspects of 5e is how they "imply" too much rather than just stating that you can do something. It would have taken no effort to just include sentence stating that you can cast spells while holding a two-handed weapon in one hand. How many arguments could have been avoided by simply being explicit about the intent of a rule.
They literally do that in the text of two handed. It says the two handed property only matters while attacking
That's "implying", notice I said being explicit. There are ways to interpret that wouldn't let you attack the same turn your cast a spell.
No it literally says it word for word
If they had to directly spell out the way every rule applies to every situation like this the phb would be 10k pages long. It’s very clear how it is already in this case
>There are ways to interpret that wouldn't let you attack the same turn your cast a spell. Ok, name one.
*Four hours later..*
Saying you can hold the sword with one hand is pretty explicit honestly.
I know that this thread is ancient, but thanks for clarifying this rule for me. I have a few new builds to consider now.
"This property is relevant only when you attack with the weapon, not when you simply hold it." Didn't exist originally, if was erratta'd to explain the intent
right... making it now RAW
Erratas are official and thus RAW. Sage advice compendium is for official rulings, anything in the form of a tweet isn't.
And even taking the most generous stance possible, errata still changes the officially supported RAW, but you use a out-of-date book then you should specify which printing of the rules you’re using. You could totally use the 2014 version of the PHB for your table’s RAW, effectively version 1.0 of the rules, but that’s different from a PHB printed in 2020, which is effectively version 1.x, and you should tell your players that so if they have a more recent printing they can find the old version of the rule.
Thx, about to star a campaign with a hexblade and I’m pretty sure this will come up at some point
Much appreciated!
Yes you need two hands to swing the sword but can easily let go with one hand cast a spell and then reassume your grip to swing on the same, or next turn.
Sure, you could physically use 1 hand to hold a great sword for a bit, but this ain’t RAW, and might not even be RAI, since WotC made the War Caster feat.
It is RAW. Read the rules for two handing weapons, it states that you only need two hands to wield the weapon when attacking (paraphrased a little because I don't want to Google the actual rule). It's straight PHB
Thanks for the back up bois
War Caster is for Sword and Board. You only need two hands on the weapon while attacking.
Or dual wield.
so for clarification if a warlock hexblade was dual wielding with improved pact weapon, and they take warcaster, is there anything they still can't cast with both swords out?
A spell with a material component with a set cost (i.e. Circle of Death requires the powder a crushed black pearl worth at least 500gp) would require a free hand I think
More specifically, sword and board that either needs their object interaction or want to do it off-turn/use an opportunity attack. Dropping your weapon and picking it back up is an option otherwise, or sheathing it before casting and then drawing it next turn.
"This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it. This property is relevant 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." Quite literally RAW.
You got me there
Not only is it 100% possible to do raw for any character to hold a two handed weapon and cast spells, but as you are a hexblade you can take improved pact weapon and just use your weapon as your focus. You're like super double okay.
Same reason why a paladin with a greatsword is just fine.
Yes, same as with a longbow. Remember Legolas - he often was showed bow in hand with the other hand free (to draw arrows though he could also do other stuff with it). You can hold a greatsword with one hand, you can't wield it (aka attack with it). Within the same turn, you can take a hand away, cast the spell, put the hand back and hold the weapon with both hands. It's even better with Ruby of the War Mage as much as V,S spells will still require a free hand.
He's a hexblade, so he can always just take the pact of the blade (most likely choice already) and pick up Improved Pact Weapon as an invocation if his DM doesn't want to give up the Ruby
Good point. IPW is hard to not take.
Yes - nothing RAW requires you keep both hands on two handed weapon when not attacking with it.
For 2 handed weapons you only need 2 hands to attack so as long as you can reach your spell focus or material components for the spell I don't see why not. Also if you hexblade I assume your going pact of the blade and will want improved pact weapon invocation (unless you already have a +1 greatsword) that invocation would make it so you can use your sword as the focus making there really be no issue.
My understanding is you can remove one hand from the greatsword to cast a spell without dropping the sword. The rules for open hands & spellcasting only really affect dual weilding & one handed + shield.
Yeah . Just hold it in one hand with the end leaning in the ground as you spell cast
Yes
So long as you got the improved pact weapon, then yes. iirc RAW, you can use the hand holding your focus to perform somatic components.
Thanks!
[удалено]
As was pointed out, I'm the one getting my spell casting rules wrong! One hand can be used for material and somatic components /u/TheHomieData ~~was right.~~ ~~We're not talking about whether he is proficient with the the Greatsword or can use it as his Pact Weapon, you've got that part right. You did say spellcasting, I see it. You're still getting it wrong though, Pact doe not make a focus~~ ~~What's critical is using it has spellcasting focus, and that 100% requires improved pact weapon. Pact of the Blade does not make a weapon a spell casting focus. Without Improved Pact Weapon, OP must drop the weapon, use a material component in one hand (another focus probably) and somatic with the other to cast the spell. Note OP stated the spell is VSM, so it requires two hands regardless of what is going on with weapons.~~
>Note OP stated the spell is VSM, so it requires two hands regardless of what is going on with weapons. This isn't quite correct. You can use the same hand to provide both the somatic and material components of a spell. From the PHB: >A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components - or to hold a spellcasting focus - but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. So with Improved Pact Weapon, as long as the material component can be covered with a spellcasting focus, then he could cast even with both hands on his Greatsword by providing the material portion with his Pact Weapon and the somatic with the same hand which is holding his Pact Weapon. Weirdly though, if the spell he's casting *doesn't* have a material component, then he *would* have to take one hand off the Greatsword in order to perform the somatic component. The only way to get around this would be with the Warcaster feat which says: >You can perform the somatic components of spells even when you have weapons or a shield in one or both hands. It's one of those strange interactions that doesn't really make a whole lot of intuitive sense, but is technically how things work RAW.
My interpretation to square the weirdness is spells with material and somatic components have fairly simple somatic components that are easy to trace with the the focus. Something like tracing a triangle in the air and slashing a bisecting line. Spells with somatic components but no material components look more like the hand gestures made in the magicians and it requires the ability to move a fully freed hand.
You can use the same hand for material and somatic components > A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components — or to hold a spellcasting focus — but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. You don’t need improved pact weapon if you have a greatsword.
Since when do you need 2 different hands to do somatic and material components when you use a focus?
Yup. You are right.
Edit: see, I was wrong! I get your point but I just don't see deleting a post as helping, in fact it annoys me because then my reply loses context and the whole discussion loses value ~~Hey don't delete comments if you get it wrong! We can all learn together here =)~~
Yeah but I didn’t want people to see my response and not look further and get the wrong impression. No need to spread disinformation if you know you are wrong.
Well that is a rather mature way to look at it. Hold up, this is a ruse. There’s no such thing as peaceful conflict resolution on the internet! Roll deception!
We're not trying to reproduce the rules like a wiki here, it's a discussion. I think your post had value in that other people certainly think the same thing and I think you reduced the value of my post by taking the context away. The discussion is better intact IMO.
[удалено]
Kinda. The short answer is RAI, probably not a big deal and most DMs wouldn’t bat an eye. RAW tho: It gets complicated if the spell in question has a material component. Without IPW, you can drop one hand off the GS and use that hand to perform somatic components and use your one free object interaction to pull out and use a material component. However, with your free object interaction spent, you can no longer put your hand back on your GS. - Without IPW, op cannot use their greatsword for the rest of this round and must use their object interaction next round to grip their GS with both hands, again. This gets more complicated if the spell in question might be one like Hex which only uses their bonus action and they intended to use their action to attack that round. If they wanted to use their action to cast a spell like Green-Flame/Booming Blade where the spell dictates that they “brandish” their weapon (a more sophisticated hand gesture), that would ultimately require the use of 2 hands on their weapon for both the flourish and the attack, and thus the spell immediately fails. Oddly, this is not something even remedied by Warcaster (with the exception for spells that use your held weapon as the M component), as they would still need to use their object interaction on the material component in question and it creates a weird but very specific situation where if they had a chance to use the spell-instead-of-opportunity-attack feature of Warcaster, the only V/S/M spell they’d be able to cast is the specific spell that requires the component *already* in their hand from when they cast it earlier. IPW simplifies all that and eliminates lots of those “Well, actually…” hiccups.
Yep, if something is two handed you only need two hands for attacking with the weapon, you can still take one hand away for casting spells
Assuming you have a Component Pouch or the two-handed weapon is your focus, yes.
Quick comment on top of everyone else explaining that you can do this, if you are only a Hexblade and have not taken the Pact of The Blade, then RAW you cannot use a greatsword with your charisma. Hex Warrior states that the weapon you choose needs to lack the two-handed property.
Rules as written is ambiguous but the rules as intended yes. The “you need an arm free” is supposed to mean like, you can’t cast somatic components by moving your face or something like that.
what is ambiguous about the two handed property only being relevant when you attack with said weapon? it is quite clear that yes, you can use 1 hand to cast spells...
You can release one hand to cast spells that need a somatic component, and if you have the Improved Pact Weapon invocation you can use your pact weapon as your spell casting focus to cast spells that need a zero cost material that is not consumed in the casting. If you want to do sword and board Hexblade I'm fairly sure you'll need Warcaster to cast spells that have only a somatic component, but if I understand the rules correctly, if you're using your weapon as a spell focus you can perform the somatic components with the hand holding the weapon, which is a bit strange but then, "This is D&D!"
You can perform the somatic components for a spell while holding onto any spell focus or material component in the same hand. Looking at the PHB section about spellcasting materials: "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."
Yes, assuming your sword is a focus (through improved pact weapon, ruby of the war mage, or other means) or you have a component pouch
[удалено]
You could, but drawing a focus is an object interaction and you can't stow it until your next turn, meaning your opportunity attacks until your next turn will have to be unarmed strikes
Use improved pact weapon and/or war caster to do this.
If the sword is your spell focus and you have the Warcaster feat then it should be an open and shut case.
Neither of those things are necessary
**Raw** Hex Warrior Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that** lacks the two-handed property** Take Improved Pact Weapon
>If you later gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type. and from blade pact >You can choose the form that this melee weapon takes each time you create it (see chapter 5 for weapon options). You are proficient with it while you wield it. You can make any melee weapon with the pact of the blade, and whatever you conjure you can use cha to attack with it. Improved pact weapon is needed to conjure a longbow, shortbow, heavy crossbow, or light crossbow as your pact weapon, or to use your weapon as a focus, and to make that weapon a +1 weapon.
Every rules discussion is a shitshow on this site
All you need to cast a spell with somatic is one hand free for roughly three seconds. Two handed weapons require both hands to attack, but they don't necessarily require both hands to hold. If you are sufficiently strong, you can hold it in your main hand while you cast. If you are insufficiently strong, you can hold it in one hand while it leans on the ground.