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

[haakon1]

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

And a free action if it's combined with a move action and your BAB is +1 or higher. (Can you tell I DM and like 3.5e? )

 

[delericho]

And a free action if it's combined with a move action and your BAB is +1 or higher. (Can you tell I DM and like 3.5e? )

Indeed I can.

Actually, 3.5e would have been improved (just slightly) by making drawing a weapon a Swift action instead of a Move. Shame the "Expanded Psionics Handbook" didn't introduce Swift actions until after the PHB was out. (And, changing it to a Swift action probably removes the need for the "BAB +1... bit".)

 

[Viking Bastard]

I voted no, except for special circumstances, when it would should be a move action. But I'm all for just dropping minor actions.

 

[frankthedm]

TBH I'm starting to feel charging actions to swap weapons just rewards "Hit it hard over and over with the same weapon until it works" style play. I'm a big fan of rewarding those who have the sense to switch to a mace against skeletons, an axe against treants and a bow against vampires.

 

[Kingreaper]

I really like the idea of having a set of readied weapons (that you can switch to for free) and any further weapons cost a move action or similar.

You have X many weapons in easy to reach sheaths, but the rest of them cost actions to switch to.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I answered yes.

Conceptually, I think the action economy is really important. The mechanics of D&D aren't about what you can do in a day, an hour, or an "encounter" they're about what you can do in a round. I'm a fan of swift/minor actions. I'm not a fan of gratuitous weapon switching (the "golf bag" mentality), and I like seing the onerous aspects of swordplay emphasized in the mechanics.

And yet, as a DM, I feel like I handwave the drawing of weapons all the time. Interesting.

 

[Salamandyr]

I think I would prefer to see the action cost based on size of the weapon. Drawing a dagger or dart? Free action. Drawing a longsword, or readying a mace? Move action.

This would allow you to get rid of minor actions (at least for purposes of drawing weapons), and would provide an interesting contextual reason for a fighter (fighter here meaning "one who fights" not just the class) to carry, and occasionally use a small light weapon.

Something I really want to see from 5e...less emphasis on specialization. I want a fighter to begin a fight throwing an axe, then drawing a broadsword. At some point it's knocked from his hand, and he grabs a knife, wrestling with an orc as he stabs him in the chest.

 

[Li Shenron]

Could be made into a 3-tier modular ruleset.

Tier 1: no rules, free swapping

Tier 2: simple rules like in 3ed, e.g. one action type to draw and a couple of exceptions

Tier 3: size-based tables, circumstance penalties and whatever needed to add realism

Generally speaking I like making it important for the players to declare what they have ready in hand, and make them pay a price when they change (it's a change of tactic after all).

I suppose this is a bit old-fashioned... but I like having to think mundane sometimes, for example "who's carrying the torch?". I understand however how many players could hate this.

 

[foolish_mortals]

I think I would prefer to see the action cost based on size of the weapon. Drawing a dagger or dart? Free action. Drawing a longsword, or readying a mace? Move action.

This would allow you to get rid of minor actions (at least for purposes of drawing weapons), and would provide an interesting contextual reason for a fighter (fighter here meaning "one who fights" not just the class) to carry, and occasionally use a small light weapon.

Something I really want to see from 5e...less emphasis on specialization. I want a fighter to begin a fight throwing an axe, then drawing a broadsword. At some point it's knocked from his hand, and he grabs a knife, wrestling with an orc as he stabs him in the chest.

this is amazing, it's the first thought I had when I saw the threads title. I have to agree completely.

I might change my mind if it added horrible complexity to the game but I'm liking this idear the best.

foolish_mortals

 

[Wormwood]

As someone who cares less and less about managing little events that don't really add to the game, I don't think I'd bother with having a detailed list of every action. Just a general time frame for a turn's duration and common sense as a guideline.