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

[S'mon]

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.

Yes, in an heroic game I'd be tempted to allow the "Driz'zt Quickdraw" as a single interaction.
This would also let a character draw two throwing daggers at once, being able to throw both in 1 turn.

 

[slaughterj]

@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.

I missed this before. Actually historically weapons were often held in shield hands. They could actually be wielded in some circumstances, but for larger shields you could hold the weapon but not wield it.

See at least the first half of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ1q-IfLDdo

DnD may have rules that the shield hand is not "free" for purposes of casting spells, but that doesn't mean they are not free to do some activities in reality.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes, in an heroic game I'd be tempted to allow the "Driz'zt Quickdraw" as a single interaction.
This would also let a character draw two throwing daggers at once, being able to throw both in 1 turn.

And of course, I can easily imagine a game with a grittier tone, where the DM goes into detail about the straps and buckles necessary to secure a weapon while it is stowed. In that case, it would obviously take much longer to draw two weapons than just one. The nice part is that neither way is against the rules.

So, like I said, it's up to the DM.

 

[slaughterj]

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.

Just to be clear, sheathing a weapon and picking up a dropped weapon are both clearly listed on the object interaction chart, so modifying the action to either a Standard Action or adding an OA would be PC-penalizing actions likely not well received (sure, it *could* affect creatures, but not nearly so often as PCs). Further, on the idea of adding an OA, that would be very significant, because unlike 3e where you took an OA for most everything, you hardly ever get ones in 5e, so that would be a major penalizing addition.

 

[Kithas]

I missed this before. Actually historically weapons were often held in shield hands. They could actually be wielded in some circumstances, but for larger shields you could hold the weapon but not wield it.

See at least the first half of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ1q-IfLDdo

DnD may have rules that the shield hand is not "free" for purposes of casting spells, but that doesn't mean they are not free to do some activities in reality.

I am seeing that we have different ideas of what a shield is... I wouldn't give someone +2ac for a pot lid.
Since we only have one type of shield, no option of buckler or tower. I assume it to be a medium shield. At least this size;

I will give that you could probably put the dagger in that hand but you would have to be careful about it, I would still have it cost the interaction, giving the advantage over dropped that you don't lose it if you move.

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.

That's exactly what I am saying. The base rules all by themselves, not taking feats into consideration at all, don't let you do the things you are listing. You are actually citing feats, and by not using them, claiming a change to the base rules.

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.

If I had Chris Perkins in my game playing Dizzt Dourden himself, without feats, I would require him to take one object interaction per sword. Story doesn't change the RAW, you can houserule them or ignore them but they don't change.

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.

Yes Rule0 exists for a reason and at any table at any time the DM can overrule the written rules for any reason he sees fit. This doesn't throw out the rulebook though. The rules still have a clear way they say things are supposed to go and anything else is an exception or a houserule.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Yes Rule0 exists for a reason and at any table at any time the DM can overrule the written rules for any reason he sees fit. This doesn't throw out the rulebook though. The rules still have a clear way they say things are supposed to go and anything else is an exception or a houserule.

Rule Zero says that the DM can change rules. Rulings-Not-Rules says that the DM is in charge of interpreting, whenever the rules aren't clear. When Rulings-Not-Rules is in effect, you don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything.

For you, it seems like the Object Interaction rules are clear, and changing them would require Rule Zero.

For me, I'm claiming that there is some ambiguity within the Object Interaction rules, but I don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything because I have Rulings-Not-Rules to justify my interpretation.

The thing is, you cannot unilaterally declare that a statement is unambiguous. All it takes is a single counter-example to prove that it's not clear. I disagree with your interpretation, therefore ambiguity exists, and my interpretation becomes the RAW at my table because that's the definition of Rulings-Not-Rules. Your interpretation becomes RAW at your table, because of your own implementation of Rulings-Not-Rules, and neither of us is more correct than the other.

TLDR: The RAW and RAI of 5E is that the DM rules whenever things are ambiguous, because it's a pain to write/implement a ruleset that is completely unambiguous. The fact that you can I can disagree on a rule means that the rule is definitionally ambiguous.

 

[dmnqwk]

Too many spells are given Somatic Components in DnD. Only ones which really require the action to create the spell (Glyph of Warding or Magic Circle spring to mind) really should've had them which is why if you focus too much on what you can and cannot reasonably do with weapons becomes the kind of minutia nobody need.

If you feel a situation wouldn't allow a player to switch weapons (restrained, for example) by all means enforce it but don't worry that a character is wielding a sword/shield, casts a spell, then switches both out for a crossbow to attack because you'd just get bogged down by details which are unlikely to have any impact on the game.

 

[77IM]

Rule Zero says that the DM can change rules. Rulings-Not-Rules says that the DM is in charge of interpreting, whenever the rules aren't clear. When Rulings-Not-Rules is in effect, you don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything.

For you, it seems like the Object Interaction rules are clear, and changing them would require Rule Zero.

For me, I'm claiming that there is some ambiguity within the Object Interaction rules, but I don't need to resort to Rule Zero to change anything because I have Rulings-Not-Rules to justify my interpretation.

The thing is, you cannot unilaterally declare that a statement is unambiguous. All it takes is a single counter-example to prove that it's not clear. I disagree with your interpretation, therefore ambiguity exists, and my interpretation becomes the RAW at my table because that's the definition of Rulings-Not-Rules. Your interpretation becomes RAW at your table, because of your own implementation of Rulings-Not-Rules, and neither of us is more correct than the other.

Extremely well put, Saelorn. This should be required reading for all humans who post on these forums.

 

[Kithas]

~snip~

Extremely well put, Saelorn. This should be required reading for all humans who post on these forums.

For reference here I will also quote the section of the Basic Rules that we are talking about so we can literally be on the same page.

Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require
neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through
brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
You can also interact with one object or feature of the
environment for free, during either your move or your
action. For example, you could open a door during your
move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your
weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need
to use your action. Some magic items and other special
objects always require an action to use, as stated
in their descriptions.
The DM might require you to use an action for any
of these activities when it needs special care or when it
presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM
could reasonably expect you to use an action to open a
stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.

Interacting with Objects Around You
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in
tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
open or close a door
withdraw a potion from your backpack
pick up a dropped axe
take a bauble from a table
remove a ring from your finger
stuff some food into your mouth
plant a banner in the ground
fish a few coins from your belt pouch
drink all the ale in a flagon
throw a lever or a switch
pull a torch from a sconce
take a book from a shelf you can reach
extinguish a small flame
don a mask
pull the hood of your cloak up and over your head
put your ear to a door
kick a small stone
turn a key in a lock
tap the floor with a 10-foot pole
hand an item to another character

Alright, I think that's it. I would also quote "Rulings not Rules" but I honestly cannot find it, it's not in my phb, it's not in the dnd dm basic rules v0.3, I don't have a dm guide handy, but I can check later.

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. By your logic it is also ambiguous that I can't Dash and Attack with one Action because they are both listed under options for my Action and I don't think running fast means I can't attack. This is very clear as written in the book. It literally says "If you want to interact with a second object you need to use your action," interacting with the same object twice would be two interactions with that object by basic logic.

Just because that doesn't fit what you expect, or what you would like combat to look like doesn't mean it's ambiguous.

To speak on "Rulings not Rules";
This is honestly basically the same as rule0 as far as I can tell. What the dm says goes. If you want to ask your dm every time you draw your swords if he thinks you have time to do it be my guest, however that doesn't change how the rules work as written. Sure your dm may allow it, my dm allowed me to end my movement in an allied space last game because I was shoving an enemy that was in front of him, and planned to take that space, strictly speaking I knew I couldn't(you cannot end your movement in an occupied space) but I asked because I thought it would be the kind of thing he would allow and our group would enjoy. THAT's what rulings not rules is and it has no place in a discussion on the RAW or RAI. It is part of how the game is played not how the game is made, and because it varies wildly from dm to dm we could honestly answer every single question on this board with "Ask your DM." But that is simply not helpful or a good use of our time.

Also to be clear if your dm makes the same "ruling" consistently it's called a houserule. Because contrary to that mantra that I honestly think is misleading Rulings MAKE Rules.
That's how the justice system in our country has worked for centuries, a court makes a ruling on a specific case and any subsequent case is usually handled the same way, therefore making a rule.

TL/DR;

• The rule isn't ambiguous and I quoted it in it's entirety for you.
• Bringing up "Rulings not Rules" in a discussion about the Rules is pointless and not useful to anyone. Yes we could get a Ruling on everything in the game, then we wouldn't need a rulebook and we'd be playing pretend in our tree-house. Which while quite enjoyable and I highly recommend it is not the purpose of these forums or this game.

 

[slaughterj]

I am seeing that we have different ideas of what a shield is... I wouldn't give someone +2ac for a pot lid.
Since we only have one type of shield, no option of buckler or tower. I assume it to be a medium shield. At least this size;

I will give that you could probably put the dagger in that hand but you would have to be careful about it, I would still have it cost the interaction, giving the advantage over dropped that you don't lose it if you move.

We do not have different ideas about shields, obviously the +2 is meant to reflect a middle of the road shield. While the video showed a person wielding a buckler, his discussion was not limited to bucklers. The handle in your image can be either a thick bar or a thinner strap, the latter of which would easily enable holding an item in the hand as well, which reflects historical accuracy.

Some examples:
http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/pix/axe_behind_shield2.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/...aXBWf7f51xumHp_OG1gmG5HMallyOl2KeOpsiI9MKTSyA

I don't consider moving an item from one hand to another hand to cost an object interaction. I understand people could vary on that though.