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

[Ganymede81]

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.

There isn't a Crawford tweet 100% on point, but this tweet exchange makes it pretty clear that releasing your grip on something does not consume your object interaction.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/

 

[Caliban]

...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.

So first you say 5e doesn't make it clear...then you say it is RAW. Doesn't sound very RAW to me.

But since you think it is RAW, then I expect you have a page number and paragraph where the RAW explicitly states that dropping an object (i.e. ceasing to manipulate it) counts as an object manipulation?

Because

when discussing RAW, you have to discuss what is written.

And if you can't show me exactly where this rule of yours is written...then it is not RAW.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Legit ruling?

yes

 

[jmucchiello]

But since you think it is RAW, then I expect you have a page number and paragraph where the RAW explicitly states that dropping an object (i.e. ceasing to manipulate it) counts as an object manipulation?

I don't need a page that says that. I need a page that talks about manipulating objects.

You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw sword as part of an attack. When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action. This action is also useful when you want to interact with more than one object on your turn.

This says all object interactions uses the interact with an object rules. Everything else would need to be an explicit exception. There is no exception for dropping an object so it is the same as drawing a sword or eating some food.

 

[Caliban]

I don't need a page that says that. I need a page that talks about manipulating objects.

I thought as much. No RAW.

This says all object interactions uses the interact with an object rules. Everything else would need to be an explicit exception. There is no exception for dropping an object so it is the same as drawing a sword or eating some food.

Your aren't interacting with an object when you drop it. You are ceasing to interact with it.

Therefore, your interpretation isn't RAW. Just what you believe the rules intend, or RAI - even if you choose not to use that interpretation.

Which is fine. Just don't claim it's RAW.

 

[jmucchiello]

Whatever.

 

[Charlaquin]

There isn't a Crawford tweet 100% on point, but this tweet exchange makes it pretty clear that releasing your grip on something does not consume your object interaction.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/02/2-weapon-casting/

Actually there is, its linked on the first page of this thread.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/

For the record, I do think that by a very technical reading of the rules as written that dropping an object is interacting with it and would therefore cost an Interact With an Object, but I am glad that the rules as intended are that it does not, because that would be silly.

 

[Ganymede81]

Actually there is, its linked on the first page of this thread.

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/

For the record, I do think that by a very technical reading of the rules as written that dropping an object is interacting with it and would therefore cost an Interact With an Object, but I am glad that the rules as intended are that it does not, because that would be silly.

Ahh, my Google-foo is weak. Thanks.

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.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

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?

Sure, and it's not even really about whether dropping an object adds complexity. When wielding a bow, a right-handed person holds the bow in their left hand. They'll draw their sword with their right.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

So how do either of you rule it and how un-RAW does it get. Do you allow a pc to stow a bow, draw a weapon, and attack?

No, because stowing a bow is more difficult to do, for one. It takes your focus away from the action immediately in front of you, and it's even more difficult if you're wearing other equipment, armor, a cloak, or whatever, and it's going to require two hands to do.

Also, in regards to dropping the bow, although I noted that I allow it because dropping it is relatively easy to do, like anything, it's also a question of circumstances. Historically, charges were often effective in battle because they gave the enemy too little time to react. If they wanted to shoot their bow (or arquebus or musket later on) against those charging, it generally gave them too little time to drop their bow and draw another weapon to defend themselves. In essence, they would have advantage on the side that's charging at them (if their nerve held up), but then the charging side would have advantage against them because they weren't prepared to defend themselves. A single shot from an arrow or early firearm could drop (not necessarily kill) their target, and the hope was that enough of them would drop to disrupt the charge. Otherwise you were relying on somebody in the second or third rank to be prepared to defend against the charging opponent.

So really my answer is that it's much more circumstantial. I prefer the rules to not have fixed results, and allow the circumstances to alter the chances of success. So attempting to stow a bow while actively engaged in melee would probably result in your opponent having advantage on his next attack (if his turn hasn't occurred yet), or granting an opportunity attack if it has.

We base our adjudication of the rules (or change them if necessary) to allow us to recreate whatever combat scene we'd like. So we look at the actions and circumstances and apply advantage, disadvantage, and opportunity attacks depending on those, rather than a rule that says "if two minis are in this position on a battle mat, you get this." This applies whether we're using minis or not.

So for something like flanking, if you're in the open, you almost always need to have three people to flank somebody, since generally as long as the target keeps moving it's tough, though not impossible, to flank them with only two people (to the degree that one or both of you would get a 25% increase in their chance of success of your attack). On the other hand, if you're in a hallway, and you can get one person on either side of them, then it's much easier. Of course, the target's best option at that point is to try to get past one or the other of you.

A lot of it depends on what you're looking for out of the game/combat rules. Some folks like the idea that certain moves or maneuvers always work the same way, produce the same results, and focus on trying to set up the situation so that they can always use their "best" option every round. To us, combat doesn't work that way. Gaining an advantage is quite difficult. Imposing disadvantage is easier. In our campaign, imposing disadvantage puts the target on the defensive, attempting to end whatever condition or position that's impacting their ability to fight. Advantage, on the other hand, can often end a fight. A target that's knocked prone and disarmed for example would know that their chance of survival just dropped considerably, and then it's really a question of how good they are (or think they are), and whether risking death is worth not surrendering/being captured.