Do RPGs worry too much or not enough about drawing weapons & what is in your hands?

[DragonStryk72]

I'm pretty strict with it, honestly. But then, I'm strict on my side of the shield as well. I don't fudge dice either way, no unstatted NPCs of uber-awesome. I hold my side of things to the same rules as the players.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I used to be strict about it, but now I don't care.

I let the PCs have whatever they want to have in their hands for the situation at hand (*groan*). In 4e terms, I let them swap items-in-hand as a Free Action. This is unrealistic and breaks the laws of physics, but I don't care any more.

However, I do still enforce the appropriate action for the PC to *do* something with that item.

Examples using 4e terms:

Fighter has sword in main hand, wants to quaff potion. Fighter swaps sword for potion as Free Action, quaffs potion as minor action, re-draws sword as minor action [or free if he has Quickdraw].

Barbarian has greataxe in both hands, wants to fling a throwing axe at a distant enemy. He swaps greataxe for throwing axe as free action, throws the throwing axe as a Standard Action, and re-draws (re-equips, whatever) the greataxe as a minor action.

As to the question "where does the weapon go when it's being swapped out?" It doesn't go anywhere (or it goes to hyperspace, or hammerspace if you prefer). This is just a game mechanic to allow PCs to benefit from stowed potions or seldom used ranged weapons.

 

[Stormonu]

Up until about Pathfinder, I was pretty strict about drawing/sheathing/changing items. Somewhere recently though, I just stopped worrying about it (I think it's our group dynamic that made me so lax. Their characters aren't exactly combat engines) and about the only thing I still track is sheathing something (vs. dropping it).

Having read the thread so far, I think if it comes up in future games I'll just apply a hefty initiative penalty for not having weapons drawn (say, -10 to the first round). Or provoking AoO for trying to put something away in combat, instead of just dropping it.

Also, another thing to consider - having weapons out and at the ready as one walks around town.

 

[S'mon]

I think the 4e rules with the minor actions works well. I like the Master of Arms feat that conveniently lets you swap weapons as one minor action - making it a feat (that most people will take anyway) makes the videogame feel of easy weapon swapping much less harmful to SoD. The 3e rule that you can move+draw if you have BAB +1 is ok but a bit clunky.

In general, I don't want players to feel forced to always have weapons in-hand.

 

[delericho]

I feel it's about right - the games include an action type, but it's trivial for groups to ignore if they don't want to.

As for the specific action type, I'm inclined to think it should be the smallest that the game caters for. So, in 4e it was right that it should be a Minor action, in WFRP it's right that it was a Half action (with the "and you can put something away too" clause).

I didn't like the 3e version, though. It's a Move action, but if you have a +1 BAB or higher you can combine it with an actual move as a free action? No, I don't like that - too much extra complexity. 3.5e should have copied the WFRP rule (3.0e couldn't since it predated WFRP 2e), and then when they introduced Swift actions they should have reclassified the action type.

IMO, of course.

 

[Weregrognard]

I wonder, isn't this just a function of the initiative roll that's been needlessly outsourced to expanded rules?

You rolled high? You drew first.

The only problem that I see with this is accounting for personal quickness (Dex covers it in some editions), skill, and experience.

 

[S'mon]

I wonder, isn't this just a function of the initiative roll that's been needlessly outsourced to expanded rules?

You rolled high? You drew first.

That's definitely how it works in AD&D with the 1-minute combat rounds - surprise & initiative determine start conditions such as whether you have sword in hand, not a second by second breakdown of actions.

 

[the Jester]

I'm pretty strict about action economy as regards drawing weapons or otherwise messing about with what's in your hands in combat.

 

[Stormonu]

I wonder, isn't this just a function of the initiative roll that's been needlessly outsourced to expanded rules?

You rolled high? You drew first.

The only problem that I see with this is accounting for personal quickness (Dex covers it in some editions), skill, and experience.

Also, if one side already had weapons out or is using unarmed/natural weapons, it causes problems as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

... how strict are you with enforcing economy of actions when it comes to drawing and sheathing weapons?

I was very strict in 3ed, and I liked it a lot as a player too.

OTOH, I immediately thought that 3.5 and supplements had complicated to action economy too far for my tastes. Having more or less all possible actions given an action type and enforcing that is fine for me, having more than 3-4 types of actions is not.

But I could totally and happily play in the opposite way e.g. as in 5e playtest rules, i.e. with much less emphasis on the economy of action. Both ways are OK for me.