Switching from bow to swords - how does it work?

[OSEZNO]

If you rule QD as is being stated above by Abdul and Aurance and Mneme, then you for the sake of consistency, you must also allow a player to draw both weapons, without QD, with a minor action.

From PHB1: Minor actions (p.289)
Draw or sheathe a weapon | You can draw or sheathe a weapon.

It is ultimately up to your DM, but I would suggest he rule the same way in both instances. Drawing a weapon either means as many weapons, or a weapon.

 

[mneme]

Um, no?

Again, "draw or sheath a weapon" is clearly using the "a" as a quantifier, and has no implication that the quantifier comes from somewhere else.

Osezno, one can draw a (thin) logical line for your Quickdraw ruling. It's not the prevailing interpretation -- and it's thin, but it's not an illogical ruling; just probably wrong.

OTOH, your false logic regarding claiming that if "a" in the case of QD means "a (for each trigger)" then one must also interpret -every- "a" in rules text as meaning multiples is actively offensive--implying that any interpretation of QD as being able to trigger multiply involves redefining the english language -- when that just ain't so.

 

[OSEZNO]

Um, no?

Again, "draw or sheath a weapon" is clearly using the "a" as a quantifier, and has no implication that the quantifier comes from somewhere else.

Osezno, one can draw a (thin) logical line for your Quickdraw ruling. It's not the prevailing interpretation -- and it's thin, but it's not an illogical ruling; just probably wrong.

OTOH, your false logic regarding claiming that if "a" in the case of QD means "a (for each trigger)" then one must also interpret -every- "a" in rules text as meaning multiples is actively offensive--implying that any interpretation of QD as being able to trigger multiply involves redefining the english language -- when that just ain't so.

"A" always quantifies a thing.
It always quantifies a thing as one of many.
This is a car. There are many like it.

A never identifies a plural. I have some dogs. I have a dog. I take an action. I take some actions.

You don't take an actions. You don't draw a weapons.

You draw ONE weapon.
You draw A weapon as part of THE same action to attack with THE weapon.
You don't draw any number of items or weapons as the same part of the action to use them. That's not the wording.

A. I have a dollar.
I drive a car. There are many other cars like it.
You can drive a car as long as the car is filled with gas.

RAW. You draw one.
RAI. You can draw as many as you want.

You can't magically decide in your own head when you think they meant to use "a" as a quantifier (especially when it always quantifies a thing) and when it's meant as just a random definite article.

There is NO line to your logic.

My line is draw by them having identical wording. One says you can draw a weapon as part of the action to use it. The other says you can draw a weapon as part of a minor action. You tell me how they're different.

As previously stated, there is no inflection to written language, it is about careful, selective, non-ambiguous word choice. As an aside, your word choice is borderline offensive and I ask that you mind it, perhaps unfairly since you seem to have little idea of how language or logic work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Hasn't it been established that you can use Quickdraw to draw large numbers of weapons in order to use powers like Blinding Barrage before you get a magic weapon?

 

[kaomera]

Hasn't it been established that you can use Quickdraw to draw large numbers of weapons in order to use powers like Blinding Barrage before you get a magic weapon?

You don't need quickdraw to effectively use your powers, just enough ammunition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

"A" always quantifies a thing.
It always quantifies a thing as one of many.
This is a car. There are many like it.

A never identifies a plural. I have some dogs. I have a dog. I take an action. I take some actions.

You don't take an actions. You don't draw a weapons.

You draw ONE weapon.
You draw A weapon as part of THE same action to attack with THE weapon.
You don't draw any number of items or weapons as the same part of the action to use them. That's not the wording.

A. I have a dollar.
I drive a car. There are many other cars like it.
You can drive a car as long as the car is filled with gas.

RAW. You draw one.
RAI. You can draw as many as you want.

You can't magically decide in your own head when you think they meant to use "a" as a quantifier (especially when it always quantifies a thing) and when it's meant as just a random definite article.

There is NO line to your logic.

My line is draw by them having identical wording. One says you can draw a weapon as part of the action to use it. The other says you can draw a weapon as part of a minor action. You tell me how they're different.

As previously stated, there is no inflection to written language, it is about careful, selective, non-ambiguous word choice. As an aside, your word choice is borderline offensive and I ask that you mind it, perhaps unfairly since you seem to have little idea of how language or logic work.

I can drive a car if I have the keys for it.

This does not imply ANY SPECIFIC CAR, nor does it imply that I couldn't have the keys to multiple cars and potentially drive any of them. This is where your analysis fails.

In the case of QD when it talks about 'a weapon' it is talking about drawing a weapon when it is to be used with an attack/attack power (unclear but it actually doesn't matter for this discussion). Thus it is perfectly legitimate to interpret this as follows:

I decide to use my Twin Strike power. I will attack with my bastard sword, QD allows me to draw 'a weapon' (the bastard sword) and attack with it. Now I will attack with my short sword, and again QD allows me to draw 'a weapon' (the short sword) and attack with it. This is perfectly valid semantics. In fact even if QD said 'the weapon' it wouldn't matter. Each instance of drawing a weapon is quantified to one, but QD doesn't put ANY general restriction on its use. Every time you meet the criteria to use the feat benefit you can use it. If that happens to occur twice in the same power use so what?

You have to show me where I'm doing something that plainly violates actual rules text before what I'm doing is against the rules. Using QD twice in one attack doesn't violate any rule which I can find anywhere in the system, so it is perfectly legal.

In fact all this debate has accomplished from my perspective is to convince me that QD will let you draw whatever you need in order to carry out the use of a power or other action. The only case I know of where this actually will come up is with multi-attack powers, but I guess it is possible it could show up somewhere else. Lets suppose I needed to draw a spike and a hammer in order to pound in the spike as a standard action. QD wouldn't cover that because THEY BOTH ARE USED TOGETHER to carry out the one action, and that would involve one invocation of QD to do one thing and I couldn't draw 2 things. Twin Strike is doing 2 different things, albeit in one action, and invokes QD twice.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You don't need quickdraw to effectively use your powers, just enough ammunition.

Thrown weapons aren't ammunition.

I think I found the FAQ answer I was thinking of, though, and it was just magic weapons:

13. I am using a magical thrown weapon as part of an area of effect power. If I am attacking multiple enemies within that area, do I need multiple weapons, or will one suffice?


One is enough in this case. Magical thrown weapons return to you after each attack, so you’ll be able to use it against each enemy as part of using your power.

No help there.

 

[Storminator]

At my table I said "just use your powers, don't bother me with petty BS." The hand swapping that D&D has created is one of the more annoying aspects of the time/action bookkeeping. So I just ignore it all.

I realize this is of no help to the OP, but I like to read my own posts...

PS

 

[Mercurius]

LOL at this thread. I thought I got a clear answer within the first half dozen posts but then I made the mistake of reading the next few pages and now I'm rather confused.

For simplicity's sake, I'll stick with my character: a ranger with Quick Draw and a paired bastard sword. Is this right?

Minor action to stow the bow (or free action to drop it)
Move -> Minor action to draw the paired weapon
Free action to split the weapon
Standard action to attack

The one confusing part is that Quick Draw allows drawing a weapon and attacking as part of the same standard action, but with a paired weapon you have to split it inbetween the two. If the sequence doesn't matter then I wouldn't have to use my move action to draw the weapon; however, sequentially it doesn't seem to make sense that the drawing of the weapon could "leap frog" splitting and be part of the attack.

Or in this case could drawing and splitting be all part of the attack action?

 

[Aulirophile]

Thrown weapons aren't ammunition

Thrown weapons are ammunition when used in a ranged attack, actually. The rule is that if you are using non-magical thrown weapons you can draw them as a free action for each target of an area attack, so long as you have enough. Same way if you're dual attacking with a Superior Xbow you can load it as a free action for attacks 2-x.

So 3 targets, one dagger in hand, two in the belt, you're fine.