free action to sheathe ?

[Anubis]

I should point out, that as far as the game designers are concerned, the FAQ and the errata have the same weight. As such, the FAQ can be considered errata. You see, it's updated far more frequently than the errata is, and as such it's become obvious to me that the FAQ has become a sort of "working errata". Seeing as the FAQ is an official release, this makes perfect logical sense; besides the designers are the ones in charge of the official rules, and Skip Williams (the Sage) is one of them.

Besides, cheathing as a free action during a move makes perfect sense based on the game mechanics, so I'm assuming that's the reason for the change.

Anyway, as long as you remember that the FAQ has the same weight as the errata, you'll be fine.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I should point out, that as far as the game designers are concerned, the FAQ and the errata have the same weight. As such, the FAQ can be considered errata.

No, they don't, and no, it can't.

 

[Deset Gled]

I should point out, that as far as the game designers are concerned, the FAQ and the errata have the same weight. As such, the FAQ can be considered errata.

Anyway, as long as you remember that the FAQ has the same weight as the errata, you'll be fine.

Where did you get that idea? My reading of the PHB Errata tells me the exact opposite.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[Anubis]

Yes it does. The FAQ is written by the game designers and is effectively an extension of the product. The errata is there to fix typos more than anything else. Both are valid.

Or do you suddenly have more say than the writers of the game? They designed it, they wrote it, they playtested it. I'd say their word is law as far as "official" sources go.

If you want to do differently, house rule it at your table. When people ask for the official rule, though, now we can safely say you can draw OR sheath for free as part of a move. You can't really contest official sources.

 

[Scharlata]

Yes it does. The FAQ is written by the game designers and is effectively an extension of the product. The errata is there to fix typos more than anything else. Both are valid.

Or do you suddenly have more say than the writers of the game? They designed it, they wrote it, they playtested it. I'd say their word is law as far as "official" sources go.

If you want to do differently, house rule it at your table. When people ask for the official rule, though, now we can safely say you can draw OR sheath for free as part of a move. You can't really contest official sources.

Full support here from me!

Kind regards

 

[Hypersmurf]

When people ask for the official rule, though, now we can safely say you can draw OR sheath for free as part of a move. You can't really contest official sources.

So do acid and sonic damage officially ignore hardness, or does hardness officially apply?

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

I dunno, look it up. The FAQ being the most recent source, I'd go with whatever it says. Errata second, original RAW third.

I don't have it memorized, though, so I'd go with whatever the FAQ says.

 

[shilsen]

I dunno, look it up. The FAQ being the most recent source, I'd go with whatever it says. Errata second, original RAW third.

I don't have it memorized, though, so I'd go with whatever the FAQ says.

IIRC, the FAQ actually says both!

 

[radferth]

The way I like to run it (which is supposed to be close to RAW, but is probably not perfect):

Draw weapon: move action, may be combined with move yada yada, does not provoke AoO
Sheath weapon: move action, may not be combined, does provoke AoO
Drop weapon: free action, no provoke

I let the Quick Draw feat allow a character to totally draw and/or sheath whatever weapons they want as a free action. Probably a bit better than RAW, but its easy to keep track of and does not seem overpowering. And, yes, I'm sure some clever player could find a way to game this, but I would just disallow it. (I make it clear when I run that I will immediately ,and retroactively if necessary, close any loopholes the players come up with. It doesn't totally keep people from trying to game the system, but it seems to ensure that they run it by me first, which helps.)

 

[Rystil Arden]

It was more than likely a mistake.

It seems innocent to let sheathing be a free action, until the PRCs start showing up that give bonuses on "attacking from the draw".

I Like sheathing to be the move equivelant action since doing so makes the act of sheathing in combat a stronger "I do not wish to fight" act.

You mean like Iajutsu Master?