D&D 5E RAW weapon question

[Oofta]

About the only time drawing (or picking up) a weapon ever comes into play is if you need to draw multiple weapons. There's a feat (two weapon fighting? I don't have books here) that allows you to draw two at once for those dual wielders.

This is hand waved by a lot of DMs, but for example your fighter may not be able to throw more than one javelin per round (depending on if he had a javelin in hand) even if he has multiple attacks.

So it really depends on how closely you want to follow the rules.

 

[Croesus]

Interesting, thank you, is their a point to disarming if they will just pick their weapon up on their turn?

Even if you leave the weapon where it fell, you take away the opponent's option to take opportunity attacks. This could be important if you want to give another character (say, a wizard caught in melee) the option of withdrawing from combat without taking the Disengage action.

 

[Pathkeeper24601]

Since you can interact with the object 1/turn, you can hook a foot and send it SAILING away. I did just this with my Battlemaster, and re-fluffed it that he catches it and tosses it.

Had a party do this to a Fire Giant once (really good vs. really bad roll). Taking a creatures damage from 6d6+6 to 3+6 twice a round really changes the scope of the battle. Of course then the Giant started grappling and throwing stuff, so really just changed from one problem to another.

 

[Rocksome]

At my table "switching weapons" is a single object interaction and I think that was even clarified somewhere as being the intent of the rules (no, I don't have a reference).

We simply decided that dropping a weapon should still be a free action, so that a player could drop a weapon and draw a new one in a round. Then as a DM I just decided that it seemed like pointless nit-picking and somewhat immersion breaking to have all these heroes with magic weapons littering the ground with ancient artifacts during fights.

I believe this is still within the spirit of the rules, they're only doing one thing "swapping", but they can't open a door and draw a weapon etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

At my table "switching weapons" is a single object interaction and I think that was even clarified somewhere as being the intent of the rules (no, I don't have a reference).

We simply decided that dropping a weapon should still be a free action, so that a player could drop a weapon and draw a new one in a round. Then as a DM I just decided that it seemed like pointless nit-picking and somewhat immersion breaking to have all these heroes with magic weapons littering the ground with ancient artifacts during fights.

I believe this is still within the spirit of the rules, they're only doing one thing "swapping", but they can't open a door and draw a weapon etc.

I have also been easy on this, and allowed characters to swap weapons without using any action of its own. It does feel within the spirit of the rules to me, just like the movement rules in combat are now a lot more free than how they were in 3e.

I don't even think the RAW is pristine clear in this case. It does seem to suggest that if you store away a weapon and draw a second one, you should be spending your action on this turn, which means losing all your regular attacks (but not your bonus action) for the current round. But then the RAW could also be interpreted in a very annoying way, and start arguing for example that you can draw one arrow as part of the attack but not two because technically it's 2 different objects, or that you can't draw your bow and an arrow in the same round for the same reason. Or they could be argued the other way around by saying that the "ammunition" property allows each arrow to be drawn as part of its attack (instead of action).

Actually in the 3e era I used to be more strict about this sort of things, but it made sense back there when the game was more rules-oriented, and the rules were more clear: IIRC drawing was a move-equivalent action (but with a special discount if you had BAB higher than 0), sheathing and picking up were move-equivalent actions, and dropping was a free action; these meant that there was a simple logic that created tactical choices. In 5e it's a bit more fuzzy, and to me it suggests that your gaming group should discuss+agree+settle on some rules for consistency, but only if you think it's worth doing so (I don't, not on this area of the game, I don't find it interesting enough at the moment to be worth spending time discussing it with the players).

You could also choose to handle the entire subject narratively. I know that some gaming groups enjoy immersing more in narrative descriptions than rules minutia, and for them it might be better for the DM to decide depending on what weapon they are using (e.g. drawing/sheathing a greatsword not the same as with a dagger), or other circumstances.

 

[futrtrubl]

But then the RAW could also be interpreted in a very annoying way, and start arguing for example that you can draw one arrow as part of the attack but not two because technically it's 2 different objects, or that you can't draw your bow and an arrow in the same round for the same reason. Or they could be argued the other way around by saying that the "ammunition" property allows each arrow to be drawn as part of its attack (instead of action).

I think Raw is pretty clear here with the specific "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. " overruling the general. I do tend to house rule darts as an ammunition weapon to allow as many to be thrown as you have attacks. Gives the player a reason to have them over daggers.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is rather important for spellcasters who want to use a shield, wield a weapon and cast spells...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Satyrn]

Yes, of course.

Disarm, then use your own "interact with object" action to pick up their weapon.

Now you have a weapon.

You can attack with it (adding injury to insult). Move away (and maybe suffer an attack that deals 1 damage) and drop it somewhere inconvenient for free.

And that's just the start of what you can do. You could use your Interact action to kick it somewhere else. You could replace their weapon with a rubber chicken. You could do basically anything you want to or can imagine doing if you're not so preoccupied with the action economy that you talk yourself out of trying things at all.


-Brad

There's also the distinct possibility (a certainty if I'm DMing) the DM won't have the foe you just disarmed won't pick up his weapon. That would be boring to me as a DM, and I'd rather use the opportunity to do something else.

 

[Li Shenron]

This is rather important for spellcasters who want to use a shield, wield a weapon and cast spells...

I think the important thing is to be fair to different characters/players.

You can't be picky on a player who wants her character to switch weapons during combat, and then totally handwave it for a cleric who wants to use a weapon, a shield, and a focus in the same round. You are either picky on everyone, or go easy on everyone.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

RAW you can't switch weapons without using an action for it.

I think it's pretty clear on that:
1. You get one action, one bonus action, one reaction and one object interaction per round.
2. One object interaction would be "Drawing a weapon", another one "Sheathing a weapon", a third one "Picking up a weapon off the ground".
3. You can use your Action to do a second object interaction in one round.

Even dropping a weapon could be considered object interaction going by RAW, but Jeremy Crawford clarified that RAI would be that "It only requires an object interaction if it requires appreciable effort".

That being said, if you really try to keep track of it, it is a huge amount of work. It isn't without benefits, e.g. it gives players the tough decision between sheathing their weapons after their attack or not. If you sheathe your weapon the advantage is that on your next turn you are free to draw any you want depending on situation, but it comes at the expense of having to do attacks of opportunity without weapon. But you have to decide yourself if that benefit is worth the extra effort, because it tends to end up with the DM constantly having to say something like "You didn't say you sheathe your sword on the last turn, so you can't use your bow now."