Feats are certainly optional, but the intent that can be inferred from the related rules remains clear and present even if you choose to ignore the optional bits.
D&D 5E Draw a sword and sheathe a dagger with free action ?
- Thread starter maritimo80
- Start date
Feats are certainly optional, but the intent that can be inferred from the related rules remains clear and present even if you choose to ignore the optional bits.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
We don't know that action A or action B both take exactly X time. It's not necessarily the case that every single Object Interaction in the universe takes the exact same amount of time.
At best, we know that however much time we have allocated from X, both action A and action B are individually under that limit. It doesn't rule out the possibility that (A+B) is also under that limit.
That's why we have DM discretion as an over-arching rule, to prevent ridiculous situations (where the DM is the arbiter of what is or is-not ridiculous). Personally, I find that constantly dropping your sword because you don't have time to sheathe it is kind of ridiculous. I find constant sword dropping to be significantly more ridiculous than sheathing a weapon, drawing another weapon, and attacking with that other weapon all in the course of six seconds. YMMV, obviously. Fortunately, the rules are flexible enough that we can both play as we wish, and neither of us has to introduce any House Rules in order to do so.
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
It doesn't take an action to draw every arrow that you fire; it's drawn as part of the action to attack, including the extra attack feature. Similarly, I don't count drawing a weapon before making an attack with it as your free object interaction.
I, too, did like the playtests rule of having object interactions cost feet of movement.
I, too, did like the playtests rule of having object interactions cost feet of movement.
Kithas
First Post
It seems like you're intentionally ignoring people that are countering your points so I will try once more;
Leaving out Feats doesn't change how the base rules work. Period.
Basically your argument is that if there is no ability that is tied to doing it then it's fine just to let everyone do it. That is not the case.
Similarly if they took every instance of flight out of the game we wouldn't assume that everyone can now fly. That may be a hyperbolic example but I'll try for a tamer explanation. The Feats are designed as exceptions to existing rules. Adding exceptions to rules does not invalidate the original rules, and not using exceptions to rules does not change those original rules. For instance if there was no "extra attack" feature and the rules weren't changed, then you could never make more than one attack per attack action. Not using the exception doesn't change the original rule, you end up with no exceptions to that rule.
Again though, what you do at your own table is completely up to you. My issue is that you are stating this as an alternative and not mentioning that it is a house-rule. It is definitely a house-rule and is neither Rules as Written or Rules as Intended.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Yeah, I'm not buying that. At all. If you're not using a rule, then it has no applicability to the game whatsoever, and it shouldn't be taken into consideration for any reason. The feat rules in 5E have no more impact on my interpretation of anything else in 5E than the feat rules in Pathfinder do. They aren't a part of my game, at all, in any way whatsoever. That's what it means for something to not be a rule in the game.
As the most basic counter-example to your mis-guided argument, look at the Object Interaction rules in regard to Drizzt, or any other dual-wielder but specifically him because he's the mascot of the entire brand. If you don't include feats in the game and if you insist on taking the existence of the feat ability as precedence, then there's no way for him to draw both Icingdeath and Twinkle and attack with them; he'd have to choose between drawing them in the first round while doing nothing productive, or drawing one and attacking with it (probably twice) before subsequently drawing and attacking with the other one on the next round.
And that's just ridiculous. There's no way that this story, of which he's the star - which new players will hope to emulate - would do such a thing.
The fundamental basis of this edition is that the DM (with possible contribution from the players) is going to fill in the gaps in the system. That's the whole point of Rulings-Not-Rules. The literal rule in the book is that, wherever something is uncertain, ask the DM and maybe it would involve a check but probably the DM just says yes or no. That is the rule. And since there is uncertainty here (because the exact situation is not addressed), the DM is interpreting and coming up with a solution in order to be fair and balanced and consistent with everything else in the game. That's not a House Rule; it's just the rule.
I'm not saying that my use of Object Interaction is the one true way that it should be done, or even that it's the only way to read the rules. I'm just saying that it's one valid way to read the rules, and it's not violating the letter or the spirit of the rules in order to do so. There's enough ambiguity that an argument can be made, and that's all it takes.
Last edited:
Thats actually pretty much *exactly* what it means. If you go to a store and they say "for $1 you can get a hotdog or a corndog", so you give them a dollar and grab both.... they are not going to be pleased.
The list is pretty straightforward, it says you can do A *or* B.... and somehow you want to interpret that to mean A *and* B works. That just doesn't make sense. Why stop there... by your logic you could sheathe a sword, and grab a potion, then grab another potion, unlock a door, open it, and draw your sword.....
You are abandoning all sense of the English language to get to your desired result.
The relevant question is, " Is sheathing one weapon and drawing another weapon," enough like "Sheathing one weapon," or "Drawing one weapon," that we can fold it into the same category? That answer is going to vary from person to person, but given that it doesn't upset the game balance (since clerics and paladins can already do it regardless), and given that it simplifies the bookkeeping significantly, my ruling is that it is similar enough for what we care about.
It's definitely open to interpretation, though, and you might be able to make a compelling case to your DM (or as the DM) if you really feel that it's important. Ultimately, though, it's up to the DM - but it's a case of Rulings-Not-Rules, and not an instance of House-Ruling.[/QUOTE]
The Crimson Binome
Hero
There's a funny story about that, actually. It turns it, there's been at least one case of a country which abandoned its own currency in favor of the US Dollar, and while they were able to get enough cash into circulation to keep the whole system functioning, they suffered from a deficit of coinage. There were plenty of bills to go around, but not enough dimes or quarters. The result was that, for a wide range of low-end goods, just about anything was going for exactly $1 - be it a loaf of bread, a dozen eggs, a CD, a paperback novel - that was the smallest denomination they had access to, so everything cheaper than that was just rounded up.
It's kind of a similar situation here. Our smallest increment of time, during a turn, is "you can manipulate an object up to a certain complexity as long as it isn't so complicated that you run out of time to swing a sword twice or cast a spell"; and that's a hugely variable chunk of time, but it does give some examples. Sheathing a sword and drawing a sword are both okay, as is retrieving a potion or opening a door, but operating one of those hand cranks to raise or lower a drawbridge is too far.
Other things are not on that list, so we have to use our judgment, but it's easy enough to make comparisons with what's already there. Does it take any more time to draw two swords simultaneously than it does to draw just one sword? I think it's obvious that it does not, because we've all seen someone perform that action and the hands clearly move independently of each other. You might be able to make an argument to the contrary, and I can't imagine one that I would find compelling, but the DM is there if you can convince them.
Does it take any more time to sheathe a sword and subsequently draw a javelin than it does to just sheathe a sword or just draw a javelin? I think it's obvious that it does, but it's not obvious if it's enough to say that it would take your whole turn to do just that. If it takes one of your six seconds to sheathe your sword, then even if it would take one second to draw a javelin, that doesn't mean it would take two seconds to perform both actions; it might only take 1.4 seconds to do both, since your hand is already in the right area. Nor is it sufficient to say, even if it did take two seconds to perform both, that this is beyond the time allotted by the Object Interaction and now it takes your whole action. I mean, the combined motion is still much closer to sheathing a sword or drawing a javelin than it is to lowering a drawbridge.
I might agree with you if this was just a series of abstract logical statements that didn't correspond to any physical actions within the narrative, but everything in the game means something, and the rules are just a best-fits reflection of that world after making a bunch of assumptions. There's a reason why we have a DM to arbitrate, instead of leaving it all up to a computer, and the fact that we have the DM to interpret the rules is a huge part of why those rules are what they are.
Oh it gets better. Eldritch knight no action drop his sword. Casts a spell and then using his free interaction picks up the dropped sword. Technically allowed if you follow the "dropping stuff doesn't count as your free interaction" rule. I also love the "throw a weapon, free interaction draw your melee weapon, move up and then hit the guy with your melee weapon" trick. Might not be optimal but it sure looks much cooler than "drop my throwing weapon, move up and draw my melee weapon and then hit him in the face." I'd probably award inspiration if someone did the cool thing rather than the optimal thing.
As for punishing TWFing if you aren't using feats. It is a punishment. But the punishment already exists in the rules IF you do use TWFing until about level 4. For the sacrifice of +2 Dex you can stop being punished. Otherwise you make sure you initiate combat away from the enemy or you spend a round moving in and only fighting with one sword before you draw the second blade (happens in cinema all the time). Or you can houserule it. Arguing about whether or something is a houserule doesn't really seem like a good use of time to me.
slaughterj
Explorer
Probably not, but it is important for someone to realize something is a house rule in the event they go play at someone else's house or in AL, at a con, etc.
Drawing a sheathed weapon looks like a classic object interaction to me, but drawing ammunition is included in the attack action. I'd be tempted to treat thrown daggers from a bandolier that way too.
Sheathing a weapon should realistically be an action as it requires focus/concentration, like stowing a shield, but I suspect in practice I'd likely allow it as the interaction too. It's more when PCs get silly with the weapon swaps (melee to missile to melee, say) that I'll step in.
Edit: I agree with the designers that dropping stuff is free. However bending down to pick stuff
up is not just an object interaction; it's either a full action, or at least equivalent to standing
from prone. I would likely apply a house rule that it provokes an Opportunity Attack, too.
Sheathing a weapon should realistically be an action as it requires focus/concentration, like stowing a shield, but I suspect in practice I'd likely allow it as the interaction too. It's more when PCs get silly with the weapon swaps (melee to missile to melee, say) that I'll step in.
Edit: I agree with the designers that dropping stuff is free. However bending down to pick stuff
up is not just an object interaction; it's either a full action, or at least equivalent to standing
from prone. I would likely apply a house rule that it provokes an Opportunity Attack, too.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
A take on dual wielding
