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

[Kithas]

The list of examples of object interactions, as with everything in a green box in the phb is extra material that has no bearing on the rules. End of story. It's a nice little add in to help people understand what an object interaction is. It is not a justification for anything.
In the actual rules part of the paragraph it limits you to one object per interaction very plainly.

For it's example it is treating a handful of coins as one object, you wouldn't be able to grab one handful and then another. The same with a handful of sand, there's a lot of individual grains but one real object.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

Maybe this comes closer to the point, but what do you think the clear intent of the Object Interaction rule is? Because I see it as saying that you don't need to waste an entire round of combat before you can actually do something useful, and I don't see it as intentionally setting out to hinder the Ranger rather than the Barbarian.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe this comes closer to the point, but what do you think the clear intent of the Object Interaction rule is? Because I see it as saying that you don't need to waste an entire round of combat before you can actually do something useful, and I don't see it as intentionally setting out to hinder the Ranger rather than the Barbarian.

To limit shenanigans. I find it does that very well. I find the number of times it adversely affects a player is very, very small, so I don't see the hindrance of the Ranger (presumably because they might switch back and forth between missile and melee, or use two weapons vs the barb's one?) as a stumbling block.

 

[Kithas]

Maybe this comes closer to the point, but what do you think the clear intent of the Object Interaction rule is? Because I see it as saying that you don't need to waste an entire round of combat before you can actually do something useful, and I don't see it as intentionally setting out to hinder the Ranger rather than the Barbarian.

It doesn't penalize certain classes so much as certain loadouts. If you are using two weapon fighting you get a bonus action attack, if you are using a sword and shield you get +2 AC. You get neither of these with a two handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and a free hand.
This is called balance, you pay something to get something else. If there was no cost to doing sword/shield or twf it would clearly always be the best choice. And that isn't balanced.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It doesn't penalize certain classes so much as certain loadouts. If you are using two weapon fighting you get a bonus action attack, if you are using a sword and shield you get +2 AC. You get neither of these with a two handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and a free hand.

With two weapon fighting, you get to deal less damage than if you were using a greatsword. You get 2d6 per attack with the greatsword, or 1d6 per attack and one extra attack with the short swords. If they're balanced, which sure let's just say that they're close enough and ignore the theory-crafting, then they're balanced for already being in combat.

Not having your weapons drawn, because you were taken by surprise or whatever, isn't a sufficiently common enough event that it would factor into the equation.

For that matter, neither is it a balance issue to ask someone to drop a sword on the ground before drawing a bow, rather than sheathing it. There's no practical effect on the outcome of an encounter; you get your full attack action either way. It's just more paperwork to track where the sword is sitting.

 

[Ovinomancer]

With two weapon fighting, you get to deal less damage than if you were using a greatsword. You get 2d6 per attack with the greatsword, or 1d6 per attack and one extra attack with the short swords. If they're balanced, which sure let's just say that they're close enough and ignore the theory-crafting, then they're balanced for already being in combat.

Not having your weapons drawn, because you were taken by surprise or whatever, isn't a sufficiently common enough event that it would factor into the equation.

I don't see how you deal less damage absent extra attacks. Depending on AC, either could pull ahead.

 

[slaughterj]

@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.

I think the time involved is unknown. We have no idea how long casting a spell takes for instance, but certainly no more than 6 seconds. Combat back in 1e era was considered not to involve a single swing, but some back and forth for a round, I haven't looked to see whether it is defined one way or other in this edition. But casting a spell is equivalent in time to someone taking their combat action. If their combat action is naught but a single swing (or multiple for higher level attackers), a hero appears that they could take a swing (or the equivalent, cast a standard action spell) in a second or two, swap a weapon back and forth, and open a door, all within 6 seconds.

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.

Take a higher level look at it. The game equates use an object (not the one free object interaction) as taking a standard action, so you have to choose to use an object or to take a combat action or cast a spell. The game gives Thieves of 3rd level or higher the ability to pick locks as a bonus action, leaving you still with your standard action. My impression that at least under RAI, was that this is to enable Thieves to take that Bonus Action and do things like pick locks, but still have their Standard Action available for a combat action. So I interpret the object interaction to fit that narrative. It may or may not be adjusting the RAW, but it appears to at least be the RAI.

Let me break down your analysis above though, with comments in parentheticals:
"with the feature
run to the door (movement), drop your weapon(s) (free), object interaction to pull out tools (1 object interaction), pick the lock (bonus action), put up the tools with your action (standard action) and move on (continuing movement)." Note that you are still missing here picking up the weapon, yet another object interaction. Picking locks also arguably does not open the door, so there is potentially yet another object interaction. So even in this instance, it is very hard to accomplish much by making pick locks a Bonus Action, and it still takes away 1 combat action.

"On using thieves tools with your bonus action. Compare it to a rogue without that feature;
run to the door drop your weapon(s) (free), pull out the tools (1 object interaction), action to pick the lock (standard action). next turn put up the tools (1 object interaction) and pick up one weapon (presumably standard action, as already used 1 object interaction)." Without the feature, this would end up taking 2 standard actions - I highly doubt the designers under RAI had the intent for such a routine action as picking locks to get micromanaged with object interactions to effectively take up a character's standard actions across 2 rounds.

 

[Kithas]

With two weapon fighting, you get to deal less damage than if you were using a greatsword. You get 2d6 per attack with the greatsword, or 1d6 per attack and one extra attack with the short swords. If they're balanced, which sure let's just say that they're close enough and ignore the theory-crafting, then they're balanced for already being in combat.

Not having your weapons drawn, because you were taken by surprise or whatever, isn't a sufficiently common enough event that it would factor into the equation.

For that matter, neither is it a balance issue to ask someone to drop a sword on the ground before drawing a bow, rather than sheathing it. There's no practical effect on the outcome of an encounter; you get your full attack action either way. It's just more paperwork to track where the sword is sitting.

Generally speaking in the first round of combat your ranger is going to be using Hunter's mark for his bonus action, so not having his second sword out is no penalty. Also the sword and shield fighter can attack with this versatile weapon in two hands meaning he hits harder for the first round. Both are interesting things that having the object interactions matter brings to light.

Honestly Versatile matters so little that I've been thinking of trying out requiring it for getting the 'free hand' with a two-handed weapon. Basically if you wanted to be a gish with a big sword it turns into using a longsword until you get warcaster then you can upgrade to your GS. That rule is unclear and I wish it was more clear as it would make for more interesting choices.
Basically what it comes down to is just that. The more one fudges the rules the fewer interesting choices there are. Because your choices cease to matter. If I chose my Greatsword because I want to be at peak combat performance more quickly and by the interaction I see that it takes longer to pull out a shield too I choose a great weapon. Then when I get to the table and Billy pulls out his sword and shield for free, my choice no longer mattered, I could have had a sword and shield, I could have had two swords, it doesn't matter. The 'Ruling' made my choice not invalid but less important. The more you do this the farther we get from playing a game and closer to story time.

Personally I love games, I love rules. Call me a dirty dirty powergamer if you will but I like my choices having meaning and when they are invalidated constantly I have much less fun, both from a mechanical and an rp standpoint the game becomes less enjoyable.

That said I know that other people enjoy a 'looser' version of the rules. That is fine, absolutely fine. The reason I am trying to clarify the RAW and RAI is because that has a lot to do with how I play the game. The RAW and RAI don't have that much to do with the tables that play loose, they house-rule what they want and ruling away what they miss so they have an epic story and that's fine. I am A OK with houseruling and rulings.

My issue is when people fail to see that it is a house rule. Because that pollutes the rules knowledge about the game. It muddles what in fact are the rules. A new player at my table could very well show up with a sword and shield and expect to draw them as one object interaction. And when I tell them that's not how it works suddenly I'm the bad guy, because he read these forums and saw that the rules didn't say that he couldn't do it. Now this is easily solved and not that big of a deal but it is a slippery slope. Go try to play a tournament of Yugioh and you'll see what I mean. Basically you play a card and hope it does what it says it will. That's not a fun game.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Basically what it comes down to is just that. The more one fudges the rules the fewer interesting choices there are. Because your choices cease to matter. If I chose my Greatsword because I want to be at peak combat performance more quickly and by the interaction I see that it takes longer to pull out a shield too I choose a great weapon. Then when I get to the table and Billy pulls out his sword and shield for free, my choice no longer mattered, I could have had a sword and shield, I could have had two swords, it doesn't matter. The 'Ruling' made my choice not invalid but less important. The more you do this the farther we get from playing a game and closer to story time.

I get that. A game is defined as a series of meaningful choices, so we want to have our choices be meaningful. It's a good point, although it's probably a bad example since donning a shield definitely requires an Action - no amount of Object Interactions will allow you to equip a shield without spending an Action to do so. (Fortunately, the longsword is Versatile, so you're not completely out-of-luck in those situations when you can't spend an entire Action to get your shield ready.) If you're talking about two scimitars, compared to a greatsword, then you have a definite point in that this would distinguish between the two styles and can be used as a basis for making your decision.

Think about it this way, though: Is it a more interesting decision to choose between fighting styles, if time-to-ready becomes a factor between them? Or does it make the decision less interesting, by making the less-optimal choice even less optimal, to the point where it's not even a choice? To me, without feats and over the lifetime of the character, the greatsword is already significantly ahead; if using two weapons meant that sometimes you would just flat-out deal less damage, because you weren't able to draw the second weapon, then that would be the final nail in the coffin for TWF as far as Fighters and Rangers were concerned. By letting them draw both weapons at once, it helps to keep them almost competitive, so the decision becomes more interesting.

My issue is when people fail to see that it is a house rule. Because that pollutes the rules knowledge about the game. It muddles what in fact are the rules. A new player at my table could very well show up with a sword and shield andexpect to draw them as one object interaction. And when I tell them that's not how it works suddenly I'm the bad guy, because he read these forums and saw that the rules didn't say that he couldn't do it.

Probably the most important thing that a new player needs to know about the game is that the DM decides how to resolve an uncertain situation, and reasonable people can have differences of opinion. If you think you know what the rule is saying, but you aren't 100% certain, then you should ask your DM to clarify. That's why my answer, instead of saying that anyone can totally sheathe+draw or draw paired weapons with a single Object Interaction, is to always ask your DM.

The rules in the book are ambiguous. There's plenty of evidence on either side, but I stand firm with my interpretation that you can draw two weapons simultaneously or sheathe+draw as a single Object Interaction, barring unusual circumstances. I see that you can draw a weapon as a codified example of what you can do with this mechanic, and my understanding of the underlying physics of the game world, and clues from context about how rules are presented in the book, all lead me to believe that this is a reasonable interpretation. I am also aware, based on my knowledge of player types, that any random DM at some other table might not agree with this interpretation. If I really wanted to play a Ranger in some other campaign, then I would ask that DM for a ruling before deciding to go TWF.

Edit: It does mean that, when you're sitting at home with your books, you can't really theorycraft a character since you can't know for certain whether anything even remotely questionable will be okay with your DM; that's somewhat unfortunate, for certain types of player, but I also find it in keeping with the tone of the books.

 

[Kithas]

@Saelorn
Firstly good catch on the shield, I missed that.
I'm glad we could see eye to eye on something finally. It is valuable to instill in new players respect for dm rulings and that is definitely how it should be. I disagree that making the rules unclear is the best way to accomplish that.


Personally I wish the rules were much tighter, it would make theorycrafting more fun and easier to predict how the sheet(character) hits the fan. As is it's a toss-up sometimes and the over-vagueness is honestly a cause for constant annoyance in my playgroup. Two examples come to mind; (For reference my playgroup has been playing every week, or more, since last august)
Only on this last session did we manage to find a concrete point of discernment on spells like Ice Knife, Hail of Thorns and Lightning arrow. The language is vague enough that one could see IK and LA doing the aoe damage to the one you shot too, only when we compared it to the wording on Hail of thorns did we decide that it didn't and that until it was made actually clear that is how we'll play with it.

The wording on Improved Divine Smite. Honestly we have no clue what is intended. It's clear that on a normal melee attack you add 1d8 Radiant. The confusing part comes in when you use the normal Divine Smite. For instance if I use a 1st level slot and am wielding a Rapier I do 1d8P and 3d8R, what if I use a 4th level slot? Does this mean that the highest slot I can use goes down to 3rd level? Or does it bypass the original maximum because it is from a different source? Basically the question is does it limit the 5d8 from Divine smite and Then add the 1d8 from improved or does it add first and then limit to 5. It isn't clear and could easily be either way.

For my group, we play a lot of different games from Mtg to Dominion, a more codified set of rules in actual rules language would have been sooo much better. Then you have the option to make rulings based on the dm's judgement even if it goes against the rules(as in my pushing attack example earlier) but as is the rules are so unclear you need your dm's interpretation to know what will happen. I don't like unpredictable tools. You know what you call a hammer that only works 95% of the time? trash. If I am trying to roleplay a character who goes into life-or-death combat on a regular basis I would never rely or even probably use something unpredictable to get the job done, and having the choices I make for a seasoned veteran not have the results he desired when he would know how it works just breaks the immersion for me.


As to the balance between twf and greatswords, yes by the numbers on damage in a white-room they are about equal and you have to spend your Bonus action to get there with twf. However once you start adding on-hit effects(Hunter's Mark, Crusader's Mantle, Elemental Weapon, Flametongue weapons etc.) or things that care more that you got one hit this round than how many(sneak attack) two weapon fighting does pull ahead in damage. It's not a viable option for a straight fighter(maybe champion if you're lucky, or you find 2 flametongue shortswords ), however for rogues(sneak atk), rangers(hunter's mark), warlocks(hex), barbarians(Rage dmg), and even Paladins(crusader's mantle) it is definitely a viable option.


I still disagree that you can do those things with your object interaction but clearly we aren't going to agree on that, to summarize our sides;
For me the sentence "If you want to interact with a second object you need to use your action," clearly rules out drawing two swords as they are two objects, after the first sword the second is a second object and you need to use your action. For draw/sheathe I see it as two different actions, basically can you open a door, shoot someone then close the door? No, so the same goes for weapons.
Also I see any text in green boxes in the phb as extra fluff and not part of the rules.

For you the example of "fish a few coins from your belt pouch," contradicts the earlier limitation of one object, making it unclear. And without the dual wielder feat, which is optional, there is no mention of any ability that let's you do this so it is unclear whether you are allowed to or not. This un-clearness requires your dm's Ruling.