D&D 5E How do you rule switching weapons?

[Li Shenron]

After your own analysis of the RAW or otherwise your decision to ignore it, eventually how did you settle the matter of switching weapons in your games, in terms of the type/amount of actions required?

Not interested here in discussing the RAW again, just trying to gather some statistics on how your group REALLY handles this in practice.

In our game the issue happens almost every encounter but is limited to switching from a ranged weapon at the beginning to a melee weapon later, rarely the other way around. We have no 2WFer and no thrown weapons, so I don't need to think what I'd do for those. Basically I handwave the whole thing without requiring an action, on the ground that you could almost do the same by dropping the first weapon instead of sheathing, and it would only make a (minor) difference in specific circumstances.

 

[Shiroiken]

I've seen games where you can sheath & draw as a single action, and don't feel that it's OP or anything, I just prefer characters dropping weapons to switch. This can sometimes lead to dynamic combats, where characters have to run back for their dropped weapons, or sometimes leave them behind during a chase/withdrawal.

 

[Olrox17]

My own players decided how to handle this issue, and I was surprised by their decision. They decided that drawing and sheating are separate object interactions, and dropping a weapon causes attacks of opportunity, because if you drop a weapon, you're dropping your guard.

 

[Tallifer]

As someone who used to run 4E, I allow weapon switching in 5E according to the 4E rules. (I still think in terms of Move and Action, although I like the split movement of 5E). Swapping does not happen much however, so I cannot eve recall the particular rules offhand. I do recall that both sheathing and drawing require some sort of action in 4E.

 

[CapnZapp]

I hate the hand use and object interaction rules.

Compared to the rest of 5th edition they're cluttered, inelegant, and complicated. They invite stupid rules abuse. They aren't well explained. They're also completely overblown.

What happened with rulings, not rules?

The PHB should instead simply laid out the common cases and left everything else up to DM adjucation:

Wielding a sword and shield - your hands are effectively used up, you cannot hold anything else.

Wielding a two-handed weapon - you can free one hand for a second (for example to cast a somatic spell), but you can't hold a lantern, say, if you want to make attacks with your weapon.

Two weapons. Like board and sword.

One weapon. You can be the torchbearer.

With language like this the issue of picking-dropping items to min-max the hand use wouldn't even come into play, since such a request would now sound just as patently absurd it really is.

Just listen: "Okay so my hands are full. But. Can I really quickly drop my bow and draw my sword, attack, then pick up the bow again?"

Now, with clean and easy guidelines, it becomes obvious the correct response from the DM is:

"Of course not. Are you stupid or something?"

---

Clerics and Paladins are not forced to hold their spell focus (they can paint it on a shield or hang it around the neck), but since that only helps with non-somatic spells, it's cluttery and complicated - like 5th wants to force you to keep track of which spells have somatic.

Why even have such a stupid admission? Either say "clerics can cast spells without hands" or drop it altogether.

 

[Nevvur]

I'm on the generous side. Rather than looking at each hand independently and using discrete draw/sheathe item interactions, I treat "switching load outs" as a single item interaction. You can basically swap out what's in each of your hands for free. So you could stow your bow, draw a sword, and swing the sword all on the same turn. Hell, you could draw two swords at the same time in the middle of that sequence if you want. But you can only switch load outs for free once per turn, so you wouldn't be able to then sheathe the sword(s) or drop them and pull out the bow again.

I also allow stowing/equipping a shield as an action or bonus action. My players' shield users always use a bonus action, of course, but the option is there in case they have another use for it, like a cleric casting Healing Word as he shifts to defense.

Swapping load outs doesn't come up that often in the first place, though, and action economy is constrained enough that my house rule doesn't feel open to abuse.

 

[Croesus]

I'm on the generous side. Rather than looking at each hand independently and using discrete draw/sheathe item interactions, I treat "switching load outs" as a single item interaction. You can basically swap out what's in each of your hands for free. So you could stow your bow, draw a sword, and swing the sword all on the same turn. Hell, you could draw two swords at the same time in the middle of that sequence if you want. But you can only switch load outs for free once per turn, so you wouldn't be able to then sheathe the sword(s) or drop them and pull out the bow again.

I also allow stowing/equipping a shield as an action or bonus action. My players' shield users always use a bonus action, of course, but the option is there in case they have another use for it, like a cleric casting Healing Word as he shifts to defense.

Swapping load outs doesn't come up that often in the first place, though, and action economy is constrained enough that my house rule doesn't feel open to abuse.

After the umpteenth time a player asked if they could draw their bow and shoot, this is pretty much what I did. I told them to ignore the interaction limits, but whatever weapon(s) they use is what they have until their next turn. It simplifies play and hasn't been OP. I still keep the action to equip/stow a shield, though I could see making that a bonus action.

 

[5ekyu]

I use drop as non-action and sheathe as interaction.

Why?

First it creates choices with consequences. Drop means the item leaves your control and costs nothing. Sheathe means item remains in control but uses interaction.

Second, it creates terrain issues, so to speak, with weapons on the floor/desk etc and terrain always adds options.

Third, it creates "area" issues since many AoE effects won't damage carried items but will affects unattended items just sitting on floor/desk.

All three of these add to the degrees of tactical options and consequences that make for quite interesting options in play *when* someone goes the route of dropping weapons to get the most out of your action economy.

Note however, while under normal, uncontested circumstances i allow the usual "pick up item" as interaction, i rule "enemy also in reach of item" as an "unusual obstacle" and so require picking up an item that is within reach of an enemy/rival as an action, not an interaction.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I allow one interact a turn and dropping is free. If you want to drop your bow and draw your sword, that's fine. But sheathing your sword and picking up your bow would use the turn's interact and an Action. I'll allow any number of thrown weapons to be drawn and thrown in a round provided an Attack action supports that number of attacks. I don't mind a somatic component being used with a 2-handed weapon as long as the weapon isn't used to attack in the turn. Bearing a shield takes an Action as normal.

 

[Brandon Kettler]

I have a barbarian in one of my groups that likes to switch between his 2h greataxe and 1h battleaxe and shield. To switch weapons after combat begins he isn't gracefully swapping between the two, he drops one set on the ground to pull out the other. It was the only way to realistically handle it in my mind.