Should swapping weapons cost actions? Is it worth tracking what is in your hands?

[frankthedm]

How worthwhile is it to have changing weapons cost actions? Does the game gain anything by NOT assuming a competent warrior can quickdraw to the weapon needed to make that round's attack(s)?

How much is gained by tracking what is in a character's hands? Is it worth making a character spend time digging through a backpack to get out the rope and grappling hook when the floor is caving in?

Should putting weapons away cost more in the economy of actions than dropping weapons on the ground?

 

[delericho]

IMO, yes. It should take a Minor action to draw or put away a weapon or shield. Dropping one should be a free action.

 

[darkwing]

I say no. But I wouldn't let them be swapped more than once per round. Also changing this, and situations like it, would mean we no longer need minor actions, which might make the game go slightly faster.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree, there should be some action cost, but leaving it as a minor should be suffucient.

The bigger question is what sheathing aweapon should cost. Do people want to go with a more realistic Move or even Standard or the more FPS Minor or none?

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think the model (in D&D at least) is os crude then it does not matter to the action economy. Though I would not loose any slepp at either way.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My answer is colored by my preference to drop minors (and merge standard/move into a dual action economy, but that's another topic).

If the only such action you do is to stow or draw a single, easily accessible item, then it should be free. If you swap equipment and/or pull out or stow several things, then it should cost the equivalent of a move.

Rationale: Drawing a sword, notching an arrow, readying a shield, pulling a potion out of a belt pouch, etc. are so common that adventurers would have mastered these things, and will easily do them while doing something else related, such as moves and attacks. They are so fluid, that simulating the minor cost of doing them is too much simulation for too little return. OTOH, as both a nod to simulation and tactical game play, the game should discourage you from willy-nilly changing equipment any time you like, at no appreciable cost. This makes the rough edges of the action somewhat realistic while also creating meaningful decision points.

 

[Rechan]

Thing is D&D is the only game I've ever seen that has rules about drawing weapons/etc. But then, D&D is the only game I've seen that puts so much focus on what you're holding and why it's important. Potions and magical items and magical item slots and so forth. D&D is very equipment focused.

Because in other games, if you have a magical item, you have one. And that's what you use all the time.

As long as equipment is so important (Do you have a shield and are you armed and you need to use that wand of healing?), then you'll have to devote attention (rules) to switching equipment in your hands.

 

[frankthedm]

Thing is D&D is the only game I've ever seen that has rules about drawing weapons/etc.

Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2E: Taking out a weapon takes half an action, [called a Ready], but you get to put away one other object at the same time, something fairly unique in RPG system. A special talent is available to take this half action once per round, for free, called quickdraw. Talents however can not be cherry picked like feats like in D&D post 3E. Also most characters must have out a melee weapon to be able to defend against melee attacks at all.

Savage Worlds XE : Taking out a weapon takes your action, leaving you with just your movement for the round. You can also take a significant penalty on your dice rolls for a round to draw the weapon out and do another action, like say, attack. An edge called Quickdraw is available, but edges are very valuable things in SW. if you don't have a melee weapon out, you suffer a significant penalty to melee defenses

 

[Rechan]

Like I said it's the only one I've ever seen. Never read those.

 

[SKyOdin]

I voted no in the poll, but with a few caveats. It is definitely worth tracking what weapons a player is currently holding in their hands. However, a character should be able to freely switch from their halberd to their shortsword, or switch from sword-and-boarding to wielding their sword two-handed. However, players shouldn't be able to do this without restriction. A player should have to specifically ready a weapon as a backup. Likewise, they shouldn't be able to pull that axe they looted and threw into their backpack out without some kind of significant action cost.

Also, once a player actually makes an attack, they should be stuck with the weapons they have currently in their hands until their next turn rolls around. No switching to a halberd for big damage, then swapping back to a shield to boost your defense between turns.

I would be okay if a player can equip four or so weapons, shields, and other large objects (such as lanterns or grappling hooks) they can switch to immediately, while other items are stowed in their backpack, where they can't be accessed mid-combat.