D&D 5E Draw a sword and sheathe a dagger with free action ?

[Kithas]

That's fair, I would take that as a fine alternative to dropping your sword, as a dm I may add a chance to drop the weapon if you are attacked while it's in your shield hand for thematic reasons. Also the switch+switch back total would cost you an interaction just for the time taken to do it.

 

[slaughterj]

That's fair, I would take that as a fine alternative to dropping your sword, as a dm I may add a chance to drop the weapon if you are attacked while it's in your shield hand for thematic reasons. Also the switch+switch back total would cost you an interaction just for the time taken to do it.

I doubt I would care about the double-switch taking the interaction personally. I would like people to be able to hand the blade off briefly, use the open hand to turn a door knob, then switch the weapon back into the hand as they nudge the door open, seems reasonable in the grand scheme of things. But then again, I wouldn't even require the weapon switch to open a door, I walk around my own house with a hammer in my hand to fix things and open doors with that hand just fine.

For me, a lot of it goes back to my point about Thieves being able to use their Bonus Action to pick locks. If a GM micromanages object interactions, making that ability a Bonus Action is worthless. E.g., a Thief has two daggers out and is faced with a locked door in the midst of a fight, a GM may require an interaction or two to stash one or both weapons, then an interaction to retrieve lock picks, the Bonus Action to pick the lock, another interaction to stow the lock picks, and a couple more interactions to re-equip those weapons, i.e., it's an impossibility. Even a GM who just requires one open hand to use tools to pick a lock is still going to require too many interactions, or if the Thief has 1 dagger out but a GM requires two hands to pick locks, that will still take too many interactions. That's why I consider the retrieval and stowage of the lock picks to be part of the Bonus Action to use them, would allow the Thief to put the dagger in his mouth (same if armed but then have to climb) and retrieve it for free, thus enabling a Thief to the do the following: Bonus Action pick lock, Object Interaction open door, and Standard Action for combat, the lock pick and dagger manipulation would be free.

However, I would have some limitations on the actions. I would require either two free hands or at a free hand and a semi-available shield hand to utilize the lock pics though. If the Thief was armed with two daggers, they probably can't freely stow and retrieve both, so maybe they would free stow one and drop the other (though a smart thief will probably just have 1 out unless they need the other, and draw that in a round that they need it, otherwise keep it stowed).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Here's the thing, it's not ambiguous. You have a clear list of things you can use your object interaction on, you have one object interaction per turn.

Actually read what you've quoted. It says, quite clearly, "Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action". That means this is not intended as a definitive list, and anything not explicitly on this list is up to DM discretion.

And as you should be able to see, neither "Draw two weapons," nor "Sheathe one weapon and draw another," are on this list. Which means they're up to DM discretion. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the DM can't allow you to do anything not explicitly on the list, or that the DM must always allow those things on the list even where circumstances would suggest otherwise. Which would be a phenomenally stupid interpretation of the rules, and there's no way you could possibly be stating that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually read what you've quoted. It says, quite clearly, "Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action". That means this is not intended as a definitive list, and anything not explicitly on this list is up to DM discretion.

And as you should be able to see, neither "Draw two weapons," nor "Sheathe one weapon and draw another," are on this list. Which means they're up to DM discretion. To argue otherwise would be to argue that the DM can't allow you to do anything not explicitly on the list, or that the DM must always allow those things on the list even where circumstances would suggest otherwise. Which would be a phenomenally stupid interpretation of the rules, and there's no way you could possibly be stating that.

It says, "draw or sheathe a sword." Unless you're saying that the singular, indefinite article "a" is now ambiguous as to number, you're out of English to argue.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It says, "draw or sheathe a sword." Unless you're saying that the singular, indefinite article "a" is now ambiguous as to number, you're out of English to argue.

I'm not arguing that you can't use your Object Interaction to draw a sword, or to sheathe a sword. I'm arguing that the fact you could use your Object Interaction to draw a sword doesn't automatically prohibit you from using an Object Interaction to draw two swords. Anything not explicitly on the list is up to DM discretion.

I'll also point out that one of the entries on the list is to "fish a few coins from your belt pouch", which does serve as an example of doing twice as much stuff with the same amount of Object Interaction - unless you want to try and argue that you can't retrieve a single coin, or that you could grab two coins but not four coins.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm not arguing that you can't use your Object Interaction to draw a sword, or to sheathe a sword. I'm arguing that the fact you could use your Object Interaction to draw a sword doesn't automatically prohibit you from using an Object Interaction to draw two swords. Anything not explicitly on the list is up to DM discretion.

I'd agree to changes in kind, but not changes in scope. For instance, it doesn't say you can draw a mace, but it's reasonable to infer that a sword and mace are interchangeable -- they're within the same scope of a single weapon. However, it's a change in scope to assume that because it explicitly mentions a single weapon as an example of an object interaction and doesn't explicitly mention multiple weapons that it's the same thing to allow that kind of change. That clearly exceeded the established scope of the examples.

I'll also point out that one of the entries on the list is to "fish a few coins from your belt pouch", which does serve as an example of doing twice as much stuff with the same amount of Object Interaction - unless you want to try and argue that you can't retrieve a single coin, or that you could grab two coins but not four coins.

I can't tell if you're serious, here.

 

[Kithas]

@Saelorn It does give those as examples, however when it's defining what an object interaction is it clearly states "If you want to interact with a second object you will need to use your action." I don't know how more clear it could be, you can interact with one object as part of your attack or movement, if you want a second you need to spend your action, drawing one sword=one object, that second sword is a second object. Therefore a requiring an action.

I'm not citing the list as what it gives are examples and completely unimportant when looking at the rule, I only quoted it so that we would have the entirety of it here.

It also covers that more complicated object interactions may by default cost your action. Basically the "object interaction" is much much less time than you are thinking. Keep in mind that it is part of an attack or movement, running 30' drawing a sword, and doing 3-10(reaction included) attacks in 6 seconds is already pushing the scope of realism but doing that and drawing 2 swords, sheathing one and drawing another, opening two doors etc. is clearly not what is intended. I understand how it seems unreasonable when I can easily sheathe two swords, draw them or switch weapons in about 3-4 seconds while standing still with relative ease. I definitely could not even come close to doing that while jogging(30' in 6 seconds is about 3.5mph), and attacking as much as when I wasn't.

@slaughterj
If it wasn't flavored as being part of an attack or movement then I would agree with you. As is I can't see someone putting a sword in their shield hand, opening a door Casting a Spell and then handing the sword back. Without the door sure. The timing also seems wrong for including it in the action. I am not questioning whether he/she has the manual dexterity rather if he/she has the time.

On lockpicking, not sure how old locks worked but modern ones open the door when you pick them, well they unlatch it at least.
On using thieves tools with your bonus action. Compare it to a rogue without that feature;
run to the door drop your weapon(s), pull out the tools, action to pick the lock. next turn put up the tools and pick up one weapon.

with the feature
run to the door, drop your weapon(s), object interaction to pull out tools, pick the lock, put up the tools with your action and move on.
if you only have one weapon this is even better as now you are done in one round, and the next round you can pull your weapon out and attack whereas without you have to spend the next turn not attacking.
It's definitely not as simple as just using your bonus action but it is a definite improvement.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'd agree to changes in kind, but not changes in scope. For instance, it doesn't say you can draw a mace, but it's reasonable to infer that a sword and mace are interchangeable -- they're within the same scope of a single weapon. However, it's a change in scope to assume that because it explicitly mentions a single weapon as an example of an object interaction and doesn't explicitly mention multiple weapons that it's the same thing to allow that kind of change.

Great. You've made a ruling. You've realized that the explicit rules are deficient, and interpreted what you think is a reasonable extrapolation from that. You exercised your judgment, based on what you think the relevant parts of those examples are. That's the exact same thing I did, but I used slightly different parameters for determining what's reasonable or not. You're going to get differences in judgment whenever you have a ruleset that isn't based on explicitly codified lists.

The ability to retrieve 1, 2, or 4 coins - or a greatsword rather than a short sword - suggests that there is some scaling allowed with the action. You might be able to argue that there's a difference, but it's not a given. It requires DM adjudication to resolve, and as the DM at my table, this is my interpretation which is exactly as valid as your own.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Great. You've made a ruling. You've realized that the explicit rules are deficient, and interpreted what you think is a reasonable extrapolation from that. You exercised your judgment, based on what you think the relevant parts of those examples are. That's the exact same thing I did, but I used slightly different parameters for determining what's reasonable or not. You're going to get differences in judgment whenever you have a ruleset that isn't based on explicitly codified lists.

The ability to retrieve 1, 2, or 4 coins - or a greatsword rather than a short sword - suggests that there is some scaling allowed with the action. You might be able to argue that there's a difference, but it's not a given. It requires DM adjudication to resolve, and as the DM at my table, this is my interpretation which is exactly as valid as your own.

You keep saying this as if an interpretation that follows the clear intent of the rule and stays within that scope is comparable to an expansion of the scope as presented. It's not. You're expanding the scope. Yes, you can do this, but pretending it's functionally the same is ridiculous. You might as well say that a mace is as good as a warhammer because the rules don't explicitly say it isn't. Yes, it has one size smaller damage die, but I let it roll it's damage twice and take the better because I interpret the list as non-exclusive of my ruling. You cannot now argue with me that my ruling is in any way different or worse than yours, because the rules don't explicitly outlaw mine. Ergo, mace is a better weapon that warhammer, and everyone know it. Don't cause a TPK with your poor choice of warhammer, bro.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It does give those as examples, however when it's defining what an object interaction is it clearly states "If you want to interact with a second object you will need to use your action." I don't know how more clear it could be, you can interact with one object as part of your attack or movement, if you want a second you need to spend your action, drawing one sword=one object, that second sword is a second object. Therefore a requiring an action.

And they immediately counteract that example by letting you retrieve multiple coins at once, proving that the number of objects is not an immutable rule. For the purposes of Object Interaction, a small number of coins is considered a single object. The question remains, whether two short swords are considered a single object for this purpose. You could make an argument, but you would have to actually argue it. It's not a given.

Basically the "object interaction" is much much less time than you are thinking. Keep in mind that it is part of an attack or movement, running 30' drawing a sword, and doing 3-10(reaction included) attacks in 6 seconds is already pushing the scope of realism but doing that and drawing 2 swords, sheathing one and drawing another, opening two doors etc. is clearly not what is intended. I understand how it seems unreasonable when I can easily sheathe two swords, draw them or switch weapons in about 3-4 seconds while standing still with relative ease. I definitely could not even come close to doing that while jogging(30' in 6 seconds is about 3.5mph), and attacking as much as when I wasn't.

If you can jog 30' and draw a greataxe and swing it nine times in six seconds - which nobody is disputing - then it seems oddly specific to suggest that you can't jog 30' and draw two short swords and swing them ten times in six seconds. It seems really weird that you choose that specific place to draw the line.

If you'd tried to actually measure the time taken by those actions in real life, I'm inclined to believe that the latter set would be somewhat quicker. More to the point at hand, I find it difficult to believe that it takes any more time to unsheathe two scimitars than it would take to unsheathe one greatsword. Youcould come to that conclusion, if you were a computer trying to execute the rules of the game as though it was code, but that's why we have an actual DM at the table instead of an unthinking machine.