Free action item draw/stow: overpowered?

[Ferghis]

Both the Disembodied Hand and the Rakshasha Claw familiars grant the following:

Constant Benefits
You can retrieve or stow an item as a free action instead of as a minor action.

There are no limitations on it. At paragon and epic levels, characters can accumulate plenty of (lower-level) magic items. While a weapon or implement can have only one enchantment, being able to swap it out at the blink of an eye considerably erodes that limitation. As far as I can tell, there are only two factors that constrain this advantage.

First, the DM controls the item economy. However, this is a blunt tool for the job. In fourth edition, magic items, to a substantial degree, are part of character development. For example, if a character takes a feat that synergizes with a magic item, the DM could prevent the character from obtaining that item, limiting the utility of the feat. By strangling a character's economy, a DM is playing against a player's game-expectations, which could turn into a problem. More specifically, the DM generally just gives out loot and gold and the party divvies it up. In a normal game economy, at epic level, a character can afford dozens of heroic-tier items with little impact on the party's resources.

The rarity system might give DMs a better tool tool with which to limit the different enchantments a character can wield, but it's not exactly consistent in categorizing items. I understand this categorization is being revised, but I don't know when that's going to get done. I certainly wouldn't want the job of reviewing the rarity of every item that the PCs got their hands on.

Second, free actions are limited. As far as I understand, for the most part, they are "reactions" as in they do not interrupt action. Perhaps someone that knows more can correct me. This is a very useful broad-rule constraint that DMs don't have to fuss with.

In certain circumstances, the DM might decide to limit the use of free actions further. For instance, if an adventurer has already used free actions during a particular turn to talk, drop things, and use a class feature, the DM might rule that the adventurer can use no more free actions during that turn.

This is perhaps the best way to constrain the advantage of swapping items. Still, it leaves the question of how many such swaps it would be reasonable to allow.

My questions:

How many free draw/stow actions would you allow a character per turn? Or per round?

Is the free stow/draw benefit overpowered (in some game-breaking sense of the term)?

If you think an unlimited use of this benefit is overpowered how would you balance it?

 

[JohnnyO]

I don't see a way in which drawing/stowing 50 items during a turn would really give you a material advantage, so I wouldn't worry too much about it.

I suppose you could have something like a defensive weapon you pull out at the end of every turn, and an offensive weapon you pull out at the start of every turn, but other than that, I think its a pretty minimal advantage for a feat.

Do you have an example of a particular egregious use of those feats?

 

[Ferghis]

I can't say if this counts as egregious, but a paragon or epic level warlock could use, in addition to keeping a "main" implement or weapon in his or her main hand, keep a Rod of Brutality+1 in his or her off-hand to reroll ones on his curse damage. Then swap one for a Rod of Corruption+1 to spread his curse quickly, and the other for a Rod of Avernus+1 to use that item's slide property. And then go back to his or her original "layout."

 

[FreeXenon]

I imagine that you cannot use free actions during the resolution of an existing action, which would prevent your stated situation.

 

[Ryujin]

I can't say if this counts as egregious, but a paragon or epic level warlock could use, in addition to keeping a "main" implement or weapon in his or her main hand, keep a Rod of Corruption+1 in his or her off-hand to spread his curse quickly. Then swap either item out for a Rod of Avernus+1 after an attack roll to use that item's slide property. And then swap out either one for a Rod of Brutality+1 to reroll ones on his curse damage. And then go back to his or her original "layout."

I have been said Warlock though I started with a Quickcurse Rod, then swapped to a Rod of Corruption, following that up again with a Pact Blade dagger if I thought that I'd be wading into minions. Never did I expect to get the effects of more than one item, on my turn. We fully resolved an action before moving on to another action, even if it was a free action. We didn't permit a free action to interrupt another action.

The Quickcurse Rod got me a cursed opponent, as a free action (pre-nerf). After my attack sequence I would switch to the Rod of Corruption, to take advantage of it if a party member managed to drop one of my my cursed opponents.

 

[Ferghis]

I imagine that you cannot use free actions during the resolution of an existing action...

This is actually not true: you can use free actions in the middle of another action. You can charge someone while unarmed, and then use quickdraw to equip a weapon, and resolve the attack with the weapon. A monk could use Crane's Wings to hit someone, use his or her Flurry of Blows as a free action on that target, and then resolve Crane's Wings, pushing the target beyond the normal FoB range. Elven Accuracy is a free action that is resolved in the middle of an attack action. Many free action item powers are triggered off of a hit (and not damage).

 

[Unwise]

I imagine that you cannot use free actions during the resolution of an existing action, which would prevent your stated situation.

Couldn't you swing from a rope while calling out "die ye land lubbers!"? Or drop your weapon while fleeing in terror? Or in the middle of resolving damage for an attack, use a free action to add in an extra d10 from some ability or item? I thought a few of them were written as free actions, not triggers, I could be wrong.

If there was no limit on the use of the free actions though, you could a 2 handed weapon, beat on the enemy, then use a few free actions to stow your two hander and get out your shield and defensive weapon. It really relies on DM fiat to work properly I think. In the same way that the DM decides just how much you can say during a turn, you want to be able to able to talk dramatically during a fight, but you want the PCs to be actually fighting the opponent as they try and talk him down.

I have a Slayer in my game who is annoying enough being able to swap weapons on a whim. Bow attack + free move from stance, then move in and attack with a spear from reach + free move back out, then close with a glaive and knock the target prone + free move over the top of them. I certainly would not not allow that to be come too wide spread through magic items.

 

[JohnnyO]

If there was no limit on the use of the free actions though, you could a 2 handed weapon, beat on the enemy, then use a few free actions to stow your two hander and get out your shield and defensive weapon.

Not quite, it's still a standard action to equip a shield

 

[Ryujin]

Couldn't you swing from a rope while calling out "die ye land lubbers!"? Or drop your weapon while fleeing in terror? Or in the middle of resolving damage for an attack, use a free action to add in an extra d10 from some ability or item? I thought a few of them were written as free actions, not triggers, I could be wrong.

Sure you can do that. There's essentially zero gaming effect, so it doesn't really matter when that yell occurs.

A quick check, of a few items, shows they tend to be "When X occurs, do Y as a free action." For example the Rousing Hammer says, "When you hit an enemy with this weapon (X), each ally you can see can stand up as a free action(Y)." Trigger and reaction.

If there was no limit on the use of the free actions though, you could a 2 handed weapon, beat on the enemy, then use a few free actions to stow your two hander and get out your shield and defensive weapon. It really relies on DM fiat to work properly I think. In the same way that the DM decides just how much you can say during a turn, you want to be able to able to talk dramatically during a fight, but you want the PCs to be actually fighting the opponent as they try and talk him down.

I have a Slayer in my game who is annoying enough being able to swap weapons on a whim. Bow attack + free move from stance, then move in and attack with a spear from reach + free move back out, then close with a glaive and knock the target prone + free move over the top of them. I certainly would not not allow that to be come too wide spread through magic items.

There is actually a limit on free actions; what the DM specifies, as stated in the combat section of PHB1. There are times when it's just silly, to give the requested free action. Swapping implements in order to obtain a second effect, after using a different implement to obtain an initial effect, is one of those times. To me, that hits the Bag o' Rats exception, head on.

Additionally you can only use one free action attack power, per turn, if that effects the actions that the player wants to perform.

 

[Ferghis]

Can I bring the focus of the thread back to the main issue? You should play your games however you want, but the fact is that, normally, free actions can be permitted in the midst of other actions.

I imagine that you cannot use free actions during the resolution of an existing action...

There are times when it's just silly, to give the requested free action. Swapping implements in order to obtain a second effect, after using a different implement to obtain an initial effect, is one of those times. To me, that hits the Bag o' Rats exception, head on.

Are you both saying this because you feel that the ability to draw or stow as a free action is overpowered?