Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
RAW weapon question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7053859" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>one</em> arrow as part of the attack but not <em>two</em> because technically it's 2 different objects, or that you can't draw your bow <em>and</em> 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 <em>each</em> arrow to be drawn as part of its <em>attack</em> (instead of <em>action</em>).</p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p>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 <em>what weapon</em> they are using (e.g. drawing/sheathing a greatsword not the same as with a dagger), or other circumstances.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 7053859, member: 1465"] 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 [I]one[/I] arrow as part of the attack but not [I]two[/I] because technically it's 2 different objects, or that you can't draw your bow [I]and[/I] 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 [I]each[/I] arrow to be drawn as part of its [I]attack[/I] (instead of [I]action[/I]). 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 [I]what weapon[/I] they are using (e.g. drawing/sheathing a greatsword not the same as with a dagger), or other circumstances. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
RAW weapon question
Top