Somatic spells while holding a 2h weapon, need official ruling please

[Shwaazi]

So the Somatic component can be a bit vague when talking about what type of gestures and hand freedom one would need. I for instance have a level 2 cleric in my campaign, follower of Gorum. He uses his Diety's weapon, a greatsword, which is two handed. So he naturally took emblazon armament cleric 2 feat, which makes his greatsword his holy symbol. Now here is the kicker, he wants to cast magic weapon and do a strike action in 1 turn. My groups argument is that magic weapon has a somatic component, so he would need to release his weapon with one hand to make the gesture, then interact action to grab his greatsword with that hand, ending his turn. Here is the RAW on somatic components:

"Somatic
A somatic component is a specific hand movement or
gesture that generates a magical nexus. The spell gains the manipulate trait and requires you to make gestures. You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.
Spells that require you to touch the target require a somatic component. You can do so while holding something as long as part of your hand is able to touch the target (even if it’s through a glove or gauntlet)."

My group and I think that grasping a greatsword with 2 hands would count as "otherwise unable to gesture freely.".

However, the post I found on Reddit is a split 50/50 argument, the other side stating one could flourish their weapon to do the gesture.

I understand doing a gesture while holding a holy symbol, or a dagger, or something light, but a 2 handed weapon I believe would require taking a hand off.

Please comment below your thoughts, or any link to a developer making a ruling on this. Thank you for your time!

[Laran]

BY the very nature of the forums, you cannot get an "official" ruling on the forums for anything. You can get interpretations but that is it.

If you want an "official" answer you need to post this question in the rules clarification thread and hope that the devs think it is important enough to warrant a response. You are asking for clarification of every the degree and type of restraint that prohibits somatic components. In this particular case, you seem to be asking if taking a hand off a 2H weapon to cast a spell and then placing it back on counts as an explicit interact action which would hinder spellcasting.

I would give you my interpretation that the rules allow it since the PC is not being restrained against their will but that is not official

*Edit* I would also argue that the somatic component can be modified to incorporate the action around the weapon

[Unicore]

During the playtest, they did have rules for requiring you to free a hand for spell casting, and feats to allow you to ignore it. They deliberately changed the rule to remove all of that and allow somatic casting while holding items.

The rules for “unable to gesture freely” are much more explicit than they may look. You must be restrained (a defined term) or its equivalent to be unable to cast somatically. Holding a two handed weapon is not included in that description.

Now obviously, create whatever house rules make the fiction work best for your table, but the RAW and RAI on this are that having a free hand is not required for somatic casting. There is no allowance for holding 1 item in 2 hands being more restrictive than holding two separate items.

Another way to make the fiction work for you might be to assume that regrouping the weapon is a part of the somatic casting action, which makes a whole lot of sense when casting magic weapon.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Laran is correct about 'official' answers not really being available on the forums. My $.02:

Shwaazi wrote:

You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.

As I read it, holding something in both hands is a subset of holding something in your hand, so it doesn't hinder somatic components. Whether you need to flourish the weapon I don't know (nor see much reason to care).

"Restrained" is a pretty severe condition: "You're tied up and can barely move, or a creature has you pinned." So I'd expect "otherwise unable to gesture freely" to cover similarly severe conditions, like being paralyzed, not "lightweight" conditions like holding something 2-handedly.

[thenobledrake]

There is no reason present within the PF2 rules to believe that a two-handed weapon falls under 'or otherwise unable to gesture freely' rather than falling under 'holding something in your hand.'

This seems to me like a case of having gotten used to doing something a particular way (playing with rules that require empty hands for spell casting) and when presented with a change having difficulty letting go of the way you're used to - and then thinking that the rules are going to do the thing which rules never do because it is a waste of space and ink to say "this rule is different from previous versions of the game, and we meant it to be different". In this case that would like adding "(even a two-handed weapon)" into the rules after "while holding something in your hand."

I do find it a little bit amusing though that folks coming at this rule can be 100% certain that if a character has a steel shield in one hand and a mace in the other that they are fine to cast spells, but then think it's different if both hands were instead occupied by the same piece of equipment.

[Nefreet]

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Shwaazi wrote:

You can use this component while holding something in your hand, but not if you are restrained or otherwise unable to gesture freely.

As I read it, holding something in both hands is a subset of holding something in your hand, so it doesn't hinder somatic components.

"Restrained" is a pretty severe condition: "You're tied up and can barely move, or a creature has you pinned." So I'd expect "otherwise unable to gesture freely" to cover similarly severe conditions

+1 to all of this.

[Ravingdork]

Material components require a hand too. If your group rules that somatic components need a free hand, does that mean spellcasters can never hold anything, or do anything with their hands so that they can use both to cast?

I think not. You can use somatic components while wielding swords. That's my take.

[Aservan]

Would it change things if the wizard where holding a staff in two hands rather than a sword?

If it helps there is a rule that makes it clear (at least in my mind). Look at weapon storm (CRB384).

"Determine the die size as if you were attacking with the weapon; for instance, if you were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you’d use its two-hand damage die." The spell has a somatic component. If you couldn't cast while wielding a two handed weapon you wouldn't need the text about two handed weapons.

[Ravingdork]

Aservan wrote:

Would it change things if the wizard where holding a staff in two hands rather than a sword?

If it helps there is a rule that makes it clear (at least in my mind). Look at weapon storm (CRB384).

"Determine the die size as if you were attacking with the weapon; for instance, if you were wielding a two-hand weapon in both hands, you’d use its two-hand damage die." The spell has a somatic component. If you couldn't cast while wielding a two handed weapon you wouldn't need the text about two handed weapons.

Not so clear to some people.

[Squiggit]

Ravingdork wrote:

Not so clear to some people.

That thread seems pretty definitive. As stated there and here, if you rule it that way the spell doesn't even function. So that's probably an incorrect ruling and we should stick with what the text says.

[Qaianna]

I'd agree. Besides, even when you'd wield a weapon it's not like your hands are glued in one grip. Plus it covers when you're using a two-handed spell focus (like, say, a Gorumite greatsword).