D&D 5E Drop bow and unsheathe sword: still get to attack?

[Ilbranteloth]

What megagaming do you see as a result?

I'd agree with [MENTION=6777737]Bacon Bits[/MENTION]. The metagaming he's talking about is a question as to whether you're focusing on the action in the game, or the rules of the game. We prefer to focus almost entirely on the action, rather than the rules. So if somebody wants to drop their bow and draw a sword in the same movement, it's really a question of whether it makes sense within the present action as to whether we say yes or no. The opposite is a "let's check the rules" approach, which draws you out of the game and into interacting/engaging the rules.

If you adjudicate the action based on the action, then you don't have to think about the rules much. For example, in our game, does the current action/situation warrant advantage/disadvantage, or an opportunity attack? If not, you just continue with your normal attack and damage rolls, which require very little interaction with the rules. On the other hand, 3.5e and 4e had all sorts of combinations, actions, and circumstances that would allow bonuses or penalties to hit, etc. And they often required more math to accomplish, so you're drawn out of the game-world action to the metagame, that is, the things in this world that make the things in that world possible.

 

[Hriston]

I should point out though that Crawford's tweets have the same function of the rules themselves; when he says it, it's the rules.

In some tweets he gives a ruling based on his interpretation of the rules, but here he's talking about intent. So it establishes RAI, not RAW. It leaves RAW open to interpretation and table preference.

 

[epithet]

The rules say "talking" can be done with no action. The rules say "ending a grapple" can be done with no action. The rules do NOT say "dropping a held item" can be done with no action. OTOH, they do say you can combine a lot object manipulation actions with your move or with an attack ONCE per turn without using the "Use an Object" action. Historically, in 3e and 4e, dropping something is not an action. But 5e doesn't make that clear. You can argue RAI but RAW state dropping an item uses up the one free object manipulation for the round.

I'm not telling you how to play your game. I allow the drop for free in my own games. But when discussing RAW, you have to discuss what is written.

You are mistaken in your reading of the rules ("as written.")

To drop an item is not an action or interaction, and there is no need to specifically state in the rules that you can drop an item freely. In point of fact, the rules would have to specifically state that dropping an item requires an interaction or action for that to be the case, because it is completely counter-intuitive. Here's how you know that you can drop something freely: you can do it while unconscious. That's right, an unconscious character, without the ability to move, act, or react, can (and in fact does) nevertheless drop whatever it's holding as it falls prone (note that falling prone requires none of your movement, just as dropping an item doesn't use your interaction.)

There are many things a PC can do which would not use its interaction. Honestly, I don't know where this ridiculous notion that 'the only things a character can do are those which are specifically enumerated in the published rules' came from, but it runs completely contrary to the fundamental principal of D&D.

 

[Ganymede81]

In some tweets he gives a ruling based on his interpretation of the rules, but here he's talking about intent. So it establishes RAI, not RAW. It leaves RAW open to interpretation and table preference.

It does not look like he's referencing RAI at all. Instead, it looks like he's simply answering a rules question.

To me, the use of the word "intent" is incidental and colloquial.

 

[jmucchiello]

You have found the written rule that at least provides a basis for dropping an item being free. A rule I missed. That means there is a specific rule about dropping an object (a point I said before there was no specific rule for). Your interpretation is still an inference but it is an inference with a rule behind. Before the unconsciousness rule was brought up, there was nothing else about dropping objects specifically. Thank you for finding a rule that makes this situation make sense. Also, remember I asked at the beginning "Am I reading this right?" The answer to that is "No, you missed this other rule."

I have already said, I do allow free item drops. I just could not find in the rules why that should be.

 

[Hriston]

It does not look like he's referencing RAI at all. Instead, it looks like he's simply answering a rules question.

To me, the use of the word "intent" is incidental and colloquial.

Can you explain how a statement that basically says, "This was our intent when we wrote the rules," doesn't establish RAI?

 

[Ganymede81]

Can you explain how a statement that basically says, "This was our intent when we wrote the rules," doesn't establish RAI?

I already explained my view that the statement does not "basically says" that, so the question is moot.

 

[swampslug]

In my last session I allowed the fighter to drop his bow, unsheathe his sword, and still attack on the same turn. The PHB only mentions unsheathing the sword as an example of a free object interaction, but I figured dropping an object adds hardly any further complexity to the undertaking (certainly no more than reaching into a backpack to pull out a potion bottle, which is allowed). Legit ruling?

I do it as many others have mentioned. Drop bow (free), draw sword (interact), attack (action).

I'm playing an archer ranger in my current campaign and I don't even drop my bow, I just draw a sword for melee. You only need one hand to hold a weapon, even if it requires two hands to use meaning I have a free hand to use for melee combat, sheathing my sword when I want to go ranged again. Besides, if I drop my bow I'm then either stuck in melee for the rest of the combat or have to spend time retrieving my bow.

As an archer, dexterity is my primary ability so it makes more sense to me to carry a short sword or rapier as a backup melee weapon than it would be to carry anything that would benefit or needs two hands, such as a longsword or greatsword.

The matter might be different if I had high enough strength to make effective use of a greatsword or if I decided to dual wield.

 

[Hriston]

I already explained my view that the statement does not "basically says" that, so the question is moot.

Huh. Then what intent do you think he's talking about?

 

[Ganymede81]

Huh. Then what intent do you think he's talking about?

Dude, just scroll up and read what I already said.

Even better, learn to deal with the fact that someone else on the internet disagrees with you.