D&D (2024) Dual Wielding

[Crimson Longinus]

Not sure that I agree. There have always been parts of the game that make you do things when it isn't your turn that have nothing to do with your own action economy.

Let's imagine for a moment that a character is holding an object they for some reason want to get rid off. It is not their turn, they're not under any sort of compulsion to hold the object. Would you genuinely tell the player that they cannot prop the object, but another character whose turn it is can take it from them? Like doesn't this strike to you as blatantly absurd?

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Glossary, Attack action. 'Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing or dropping it'

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Lets imagine for a moment that a character is holding an object they for some reason want to get rid off. It is not their turn, they're not under any sort of compulsion to hold the object. Would you genuinely tell the player that they cannot prop the object, but another character whose turn it is can take it from them? Like doesn't this strike to you as blatantly absurd?

I mean, I'd probably let them drop it because I don't really care - but I don't think that it's absurd. The timing of a round is a strange beast - somehow both simultaneous and yet consecutive - so it's not totally illogical that if they didn't take the chance to drop it on their turn, then they chose not to do that. But if someone takes it, and they let them (as opposed to fight them, in which they'd usually get a saving throw), then they do. I just don't think that it's all that weird. I'm fine if you want to feel otherwise, but I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Note that I'm not 100% sure how it all works, just that I read that Dropping was listed alongside Sheathing as the same thing action-economy-wise. Maybe it was just an example of things you could choose to do, but you can still do it at other times? At any rate, it was probably phrased that way to stop the weapon-swapping shenanigans, but maybe not for simple dropping.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Glossary, Attack action. 'Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing or dropping it'

There you go. I know that I read it.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

There you go. I know that I read it.

Yeah, you saying it reminded me of where I'd seen it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, I'd probably let them drop it because I don't really care - but I don't think that it's absurd. The timing of a round is a strange beast - somehow both simultaneous and yet consecutive - so it's not totally illogical that if they didn't take the chance to drop it on their turn, then they chose not to do that. But if someone takes it, and they let them (as opposed to fight them, in which they'd usually get a saving throw), then they do. I just don't think that it's all that weird. I'm fine if you want to feel otherwise, but I'm not sure why it bothers you.

Yeah, we obviously look at this so different ways that this is unlikely to go anywhere. To me the idea that the physical process of one uncurling their fingers to release their grip of an object is a different rule widget depending on whether someone else has their hand on the object or not is so self-evidently absurd result that I would instantly laugh at any rule that would suggest such.

Note that I'm not 100% sure how it all works, just that I read that Dropping was listed alongside Sheathing as the same thing action-economy-wise. Maybe it was just an example of things you could choose to do, but you can still do it at other times? At any rate, it was probably phrased that way to stop the weapon-swapping shenanigans, but maybe not for simple dropping.

Who knows! I guess the RAW depends on whether dropping is mentioned in any other context.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, we obviously look at this so different ways that this is unlikely to go anywhere. To me the idea that the physical process of one uncurling their fingers to release their grip of an object is a different rule widget depending on whether someone else has their hand on the object or not is so self-evidently absurd result that I would instantly laugh at any rule that would suggest such.

Oh yeah, I get why you feel that way - I used to do too - but I've long since accepted that sometimes the rules are the rules and the fiction is the fiction. As long as you can still let it go (which you can), then the rules saying when you can (the rules tell you when you can and can't do a lot of things) is not a big deal.

IF the rules are as I've suggested, then all it means fiction-wise, is that intentionally dropping is on your turn, passing it over is on an ally's turn, and having it forced out of your hands is on an enemy's turn. It all still occurs consistently in the fiction as you letting go either willingly or unwillingly. It's just a timing issue of the game, that IMO doesn't impact the fiction.

Who knows! I guess the RAW depends on whether dropping is mentioned in any other context.

Indeed.

 

[mellored]

They could, except you cannot let go of it because it is no longer your turn!

You can choose to fail a disarm save.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You can choose to fail a disarm save.

Or fail it, for that matter.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let's imagine for a moment that a character is holding an object they for some reason want to get rid off. It is not their turn, they're not under any sort of compulsion to hold the object. Would you genuinely tell the player that they cannot prop the object, but another character whose turn it is can take it from them? Like doesn't this strike to you as blatantly absurd?

I mean, considering the fact that all turns in a round are theoretically happening simultaneously, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to rule that your turn represents all of the activity you can accomplish in that timeframe, and therefore there really can’t be off-turn actions. But, the existence of reactions does kind of put a damper on that model of the round.