D&D 5E Dropping your sword during the enemy's turn?

[Hawk Diesel]

RAW are covered above. RAI is subject to debate as I'm not really sure whether designers would gave wanted that access toshield without a feat or free hand. However, this is one of those situations where I encourage folks that are not bound by the RAW to ask what ruling seems like more fun? D&D when reasonable player requests are granted. It encourages creativity and heroics that feel like heroics. To that end, regardless of RAW, I'd allow it.

This. All day, every day. The rules serve a purpose, but do we let the rules become such rigid boundaries that it hampers fun or runs counter to intuition?

Especially when you consider this is a big trade-off for a player. Yes, they save themselves from a potentially life-threatening attack (another good point. Would you still prohibit this if the attack could be lethal if it connects?), but this player wields a weapon for a reason. Obviously they can use magic, but clearly this weapon is more likely to be their primary means of attack, otherwise they'd just use their cantrips. That mears regardless, this player is either losing their next action to pick up the weapon, or they are doing sub-prime damage for the remainder of the encounter.

This player is already taking a hit by dropping their weapon. Does it really make sense to punish them even further because they are trying to survive an encounter?

 

[UnknownDyson]

RAW are covered above. RAI is subject to debate as I'm not really sure whether designers would gave wanted that access to shield without a feat or free hand. However, this is one of those situations where I encourage folks that are not bound by the RAW to ask what ruling seems like more fun? D&D when reasonable player requests are granted. It encourages creativity and heroics that feel like heroics. To that end, regardless of RAW, I'd allow it.

My problem with it, is that from my point of view it isn't really fair to give that to the fighter. I can understand making allowances for players in a game based on everyone having fun. The people I play with and I tend to go by the rules in situations like this. The Fighter already has access to plate-mail and giving him a shield on top of that already puts the fighter at 20 armor class. On a reaction the eldritch knight can go up to 25 armor class, 26 with the defensive fighting style, 27-28 while under the effects of haste, these effects persist for the entire round. I wouldn't be comfortable giving that to any character "for free" at least with war caster you have to spend a feat to attain that, forgoing ability score increases. What do you do when the wizard asks if he/she can gain proficiency with martial weapons or heavy armor for free? After giving the eldritch knight all of that it almost seems hypocritical to say no. Shield is arguably the best 1st level spell in the game, and remains useful at every level.

However, in a game based around fun where you don't really adhere to any rules or restrictions, I can see it being a non issue.

 

[KahlessNestor]

This. All day, every day. The rules serve a purpose, but do we let the rules become such rigid boundaries that it hampers fun or runs counter to intuition?

Especially when you consider this is a big trade-off for a player. Yes, they save themselves from a potentially life-threatening attack (another good point. Would you still prohibit this if the attack could be lethal if it connects?), but this player wields a weapon for a reason. Obviously they can use magic, but clearly this weapon is more likely to be their primary means of attack, otherwise they'd just use their cantrips. That mears regardless, this player is either losing their next action to pick up the weapon, or they are doing sub-prime damage for the remainder of the encounter.

This player is already taking a hit by dropping their weapon. Does it really make sense to punish them even further because they are trying to survive an encounter?

Actually he isn't giving up his Action to pick it up. It's an Object Interaction he gets for free.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Actually he isn't giving up his Action to pick it up. It's an Object Interaction he gets for free.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk

Just checked on that. That seems strange to me that picking up a dropped weapon is a free action. While those might be the RAW, in my game I would rule it's either an action to pick up a dropped weapon, or it draws attacks of opportunity. In a melee, reaching for a dropped weapon is never that easy or safe.

 

[jgsugden]

My problem with it, is that from my point of view it isn't really fair to give that to the fighter....

You're never going to convince most people that defenses that are off the chart are a huge problem. ACs in the mid 20s are going to keep you up a long time and they are not terribly hard to achieve by mid-levels if defense is a focus. Plate, shield and a little magic is all it takes.

However, in a game based around fun where you don't really adhere to any rules or restrictions, I can see it being a non issue.

Few games "don't really adhere to the rules". In my games, we generally follow the rules - until the rules get in the way of the game. This is a role playing game. Break that down: Role playing - game. Playing a role is something you do in a story. This is a game about the story. When the mechanics get in the way of a good story, you're not serving the game. Here, the hero dropping their weapon to cast a protective spell at the last second is a good piece of the story... and once that weapon hits the ground, it is an unattended object. Now, if a fighter drops their weapon in front of my somewhat crafty monster, I can think of a lot of ways to interact with the object and make the PC regret dropping it.

Actually he isn't giving up his Action to pick it up. It's an Object Interaction he gets for free.

Not quite free - you only get the one interaction. And a dropped weapon can be kicked away, picked up by an enemy, etc... which is also a fun element of a good story.

 

[UnknownDyson]

I've been on both sides of the table, and maybe I won't be able to convince players of that. But as a DM, AC that high changes entire encounters. The level 8 fighter with AC higher than Tiamat can be problematic.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

That AC lasts one round, burns a limited resource, and does nothing to protect against effects that require a saving throw or ability checks.

 

[UnknownDyson]

The AC boost runs out when the fighter runs out of spell slots. The fighter also has access to the indomitable feature which allows the reroll of a failed saving throw. Also, if we are operating under the assumption that the fighter is allowed to cast shield with both hands full, no feat, than they can take feats like resilient to ensure that they don't fail, as well as boost dump stats.

 

[Wuzzard]

You get to make somatic gestures as part of casting the spell as a reaction. The first gesture is to open your hand. If the weapon decides on its own to follow gravity and drop to the ground then that's on the weapon's own time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hawk Diesel]

The AC boost runs out when the fighter runs out of spell slots. The fighter also has access to the indomitable feature which allows the reroll of a failed saving throw. Also, if we are operating under the assumption that the fighter is allowed to cast shield with both hands full, no feat, than they can take feats like resilient to ensure that they don't fail, as well as boost dump stats.

Sounds like your real problem is with 5e Fighters and feats in general. Yes, they are powerful, but doing this isn't broken. As mentioned above, whose to say a monster wouldn't eat the fighter's sword, or it get kicked into a fireplace, or stolen by a wiry goblin that happened to be watching the combat waiting for something valuable and the opportunity to grab it.