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

[OB1]

Ask your DM.

At my table, performing a weapon change counts as your free object interaction for the round. I think the most I've ever seen it matter was a couple of times when the paladin would sheathe a sword, draw and throw two javelins, and then draw the sword again.

Seriously, we don't want this game to turn into Pathfinder. If you're using an object interaction to change weapons, then you have free reign to swap them back and forth, but you can't draw a potion or open a door or anything else. It's way easier, and I think it still fits with the underlying spirit of the rules. Just be sure to check with your DM first.

I basically allow the same thing in games that I DM, but I do restrict it to the start of the character's turn unless they have the Dual Wielder feat. This prevents shenanigans such as attacking with a two handed weapon at the start of your turn, and then pulling out the longsword and shield at the end. In other words, you get to "call" whatever items you want to your hands so that you can take the action you want to in your turn, but you are then set with those items until the start of your next turn. If a player doesn't make a change at the start of their turn, they are then allowed to use the regular object interaction rules.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Allowing for drawing two weapons (or 3 in your example) is really controlled by the dual-wielder feat unfortunately (the drawing limitation really kills STR-based thrown-weapon characters once they get extra attack, unless they get the feat, and even with it, still suck for range and never can draw and throw 3 times in a round for fighters with 3 attacks).

It's only controlled by the dual-wielder feat if you're using feats. It's one of the main reasons why we're not using them in my game. I think it's the same with that combat casting feat that's otherwise-required for an arcane fighter to use a shield or two weapons - if you're using feats, then the feat is necessary, but if you aren't using feats then it's within the realm of interpretation that anyone can just do it anyway.

I see no reason to further penalize the Paladin and Barbarian when they're forced to attack at range, given that the short range on a javelin is so severe, and given that they're already denied the use of their magic swords in that situation. Saying that they're also limited to just one attack seems unnecessarily strict.

I basically allow the same thing in games that I DM, but I do restrict it to the start of the character's turn unless they have the Dual Wielder feat. This prevents shenanigans such as attacking with a two handed weapon at the start of your turn, and then pulling out the longsword and shield at the end.

Donning or doffing a shield requires an Action, as the Barbarian player discovered in our third session. There's not really a ton of room for abuse in the system, which is why I don't feel the need to strictly enforce that aspect of the action economy. It really just means that nobody is forced to drop a weapon instead of sheathing it, which was always one of my least-favorite parts of Pathfinder.

 

[OB1]

Oh yeah, forgot about the needing to use an action to don/duff a shield. I still allow it as part of the "call" at the beginning of the turn. Haven't found that it causes any problems with making combat too trivial. I just hate the idea of players having to spend an entire turn readjusting their gear so that they can actually do what they want the following turn.

 

[Yardiff]

You know a combat turn is all of 6 seconds so there should a limit of some sort on what can be done in 6 sec.

 

[OB1]

Yes and I have a limit, it's put away two items and take out two items. I assume that PCs spend a lot of time around camp figuring out the best way to prep their equipment so that they can quickly switch out items while in combat. There very lives depend on it. Plus I tend a bit toward action movie logic in the game I'm running.

 

[slaughterj]

It's only controlled by the dual-wielder feat if you're using feats. It's one of the main reasons why we're not using them in my game. I think it's the same with that combat casting feat that's otherwise-required for an arcane fighter to use a shield or two weapons - if you're using feats, then the feat is necessary, but if you aren't using feats then it's within the realm of interpretation that anyone can just do it anyway.

I would anticipate the vast majority use the feats, and even without, it does not appear within the realm of interpretation to cast while wielding two weapons or sword and board, but it is certainly fine if you want to run your game to enable it, especially if feats aren't around to address the issue. Otherwise, Paladins get to cast through their holy symbol shields, but EKs can't, which sucks.

I see no reason to further penalize the Paladin and Barbarian when they're forced to attack at range, given that the short range on a javelin is so severe, and given that they're already denied the use of their magic swords in that situation. Saying that they're also limited to just one attack seems unnecessarily strict.

I agree that one attack seems unnecessarily strict, I think the rules should have said you can draw as many weapons as you can attack with. I'm facing this situation currently as I have a level 5 Paladin, and running into a lot of flying creatures, so I think I will be taking Magic Initiate at level 8 to get Eldritch Blast to shore up that weakness.

 

[Kithas]

It's only controlled by the dual-wielder feat if you're using feats. It's one of the main reasons why we're not using them in my game. I think it's the same with that combat casting feat that's otherwise-required for an arcane fighter to use a shield or two weapons - if you're using feats, then the feat is necessary, but if you aren't using feats then it's within the realm of interpretation that anyone can just do it anyway.

By that logic everyone can move an extra 10' and not take opportunity attacks if they hit someone because you don't have the Mobile feat and it's within the "realm of interpretation." Not trying to be snarky but if you are leaving out the feats it means you only have the base rules and how they are written/interpreted, leaving out the feats doesn't change what any of the base rules say/how they function. Your paladin can't cast VS spells with his sword+shield, your EK can't cast VS, or VSM spells with his either, stab the sword into the dirt and get to casting, then draw it again. (flavorful dropping) And your 12th level Fighter can't throw 3 javelins in one round.
To be clear what you do at your own table is completely your business, I am merely stressing that this is a house-rule and not how the system works RAW or RAI.

Personally at my table we've been dropping, it makes sense as frantic as combat gets that you don't have time to safely sheathe a weapon and draw another. Most of the time in combat one wouldn't even switch weapons without a lot of time to do it, not wanting to leave openings for attack, and it being a desperate action, dropping seems appropriate. Remember you've only got 6 seconds a round, and you're also moving 30'+ making up to 9 attacks (average of 2-3) or casting an entire spell, that's a lot in 6 seconds already.
I do wish drawing was free and sheathing cost an action, drawing can be done with much less care and from a mechanics standpoint would be much more usable for range on martial characters, as is they are screwed. This comes from a 15/2 fighter barbarian, my only ranged for 90% of the game has been handaxes, not the best option, but that lets the ranger and monk on my team really shine, I can tell them to shoot people with Commander's Strike and I often do(they get colossus slayer again!).

As for shields as divine symbols, I don't dm much but I would allow shields as druidic/arcane foci too. it would be as expensive as those foci normally are, but there's no reason your shield can't be made of magical wood or have a crystal in it near your hand. I would probably even allow one shield to be 2 types of foci, like a shield that is divine/arcane.


@slaughterj(I would quote you but I'm too lazy this morning)
Your shield hand doesn't have a 'free hand' so you can't hold a sword in it, even temporarily. Most combat shields strap your arm in at the forearm and have a sizable handle for your hand, there isn't room to hold a sword in the same hand.
Also I would never put a bladed weapon in my armpit/ under my arm, especially in combat. o.o
As to "dropping his sword and picking it up again" I usually flavor it as sticking it tip-down in the dirt.

 

[77IM]

I liked the playtest version of "incidental actions" where it was explicitly up to the DM's discretion just how many objects you could interact with. I feel like there are some groups where switching weapons takes time because it is a fun tactical challenge for them, and there are other groups where switching weapons is totally free so that you can get right down to the business of attacking.

 

[slaughterj]

Sounds like a nice option.

I would have liked the base system to have been looser, to avoid the issues of holding items on your turn and trying to cast (somatic restrictions really seem more intended to limit casting by casters who are bound), issues of limited ability to draw ranged weapons equal to the amount of attacks one can take, etc.

This would have meant an adjustment to at least two feats, which I would have done as follows:
1. Dual Wielder Feat: Remove the last bullet about drawing/stowing two weapons, and add in something else, maybe the Two-Weapon Fighting Fighting Style to add ability modifier to the second attack. Maybe that would be a bit strong, but hey, Feats cost a lot.
2. War Caster Feat: Remove the second bullet about casting spells when both hands are occupied, and instead add in the ability to cast attack spells without disadvantage while adjacent to foes.

As an aside, I would have also adjusted Shield Master to give the shield's AC bonus to DEX saves against all spells or harmful effects to the PC, not just ones that target the PC, to avoid the issue of limited contingent modifiers that are a PITA to track and that I thought this edition was getting away from.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I would anticipate the vast majority use the feats, and even without, it does not appear within the realm of interpretation to cast while wielding two weapons or sword and board, but it is certainly fine if you want to run your game to enable it, especially if feats aren't around to address the issue. Otherwise, Paladins get to cast through their holy symbol shields, but EKs can't, which sucks.

Here's my interpretation, and it has nothing to do with where your hands are. Basically, a spell can have up to three components, and each of those components is checking for one specific thing.

A somatic component is very specifically checking for whether you're free to move your arms. Are you tied up, with both arms bound? Are you paralyzed? If not, then you're fine.

A verbal component is very specifically checking for whether you can speak freely. Are you gagged? Are you trying to be sneaky? If not, then you're fine.

A material component is very specifically checking for whether you have the material component (or focus) on hand. Has your component pouch been taken from you? Has your focus been stolen or confiscated? If not, then you're fine.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. Having read the rules for the matter when the book first came out, and again just now, it still seems like a reasonable interpretation to me. Allow me to quote some text at you:

If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
[...]A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

So it really comes down to what it means for a hand to be "free". One side could say that the hand needs to be entirely empty and free of anything, and the other side could say that you just need the hand to not be bound or otherwise incapable of movement. It's a judgment call for the DM.

If you're playing with feats, though, then there exists a feat which will counter the strict interpretation. If you aren't playing with feats, then you're only out of luck if the DM is using that strict interpretation.