| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1VowtzSep 20, 2014 10:06:31 | 1. If I'm unarmed, can I draw one weapon, throw it to attack a foe, then draw another weapon and throw that too with Extra attack?
2. If I'm wielding two weapons, can I sheathe one weapon, cast a spell, then draw this weapon again?
3. On my turn, Can I draw a weapon, attack, then sheathe that weapon to keep a hand free to cast spells?
Normally you can interact with only one object, but attacking more than once with a throwing weapons, like daggers and javelins is something that 5e rules should cover, maybe I overlooked this information, can someone find these rules? |
| #2rmn498Sep 20, 2014 10:47:41 | 1) No. You are limited to one free object interaction per turn, not per attack. The dual wielder feat will let you draw two weapons as part of your one free object interaction but these must be at the same time, not spread out between attacks. 2) No. You can sheath or unsheath a weapon as your free object interaction, but not both on the same turn. 3) No. Same as #2. Note: The Eldritch Knight's Sword Bond can help with this issue. You can sheath a weapon as your free interaction, cast a spell, then summon your weapon astheira bonus action. Or you could draw a dagger, throw it, then summon it back. |
| #3FluffyBunbunKittensSep 20, 2014 11:52:46 | Well...rules as written say 'you can interact with one object for free'. So, technically, if it is still the same object, you could argue for drawing and sheathing it as many times as you want.
:p |
| (Reply to #3)rmn498 |
|
| #5FluffyBunbunKittensSep 20, 2014 14:54:30 |
|
| (Reply to #5)rmn498 |
|
| #7VowtzSep 20, 2014 16:59:23 | Hmmmm.... So by raw it's impossible to make a "dagger throwing" type of character? |
| (Reply to #7)2Chlorobutanal | Difficult but not impossible.
A rogue can throw daggers pretty easily, because rogues only attack once per turn.
Taking the Dual Wielder feat allows you to draw 2 daggers per "draw" interaction, allowing a rogue to keep pace with two-weapon dagger throwing. Alternatively, it would allow a character with Extra Attack, such as a Monk, to draw two daggers per round and throw both with Extra Attack. |
| #9Ganymede425Sep 20, 2014 21:33:38 |
|
| #10TimboramaSep 22, 2014 8:15:36 | Interestingly, it doesn't say what (if any) action it is to drop something. So you can feasibly drop your sword (as a "free" action, or no action), then cast your spell, then pick up your sword as your Interact With Objects Action. Using what the game has provided, it's not a stretch in the least to say that dropping something is "No Action."
There will be times where this is bad, like when swimming or flying, but it's certainly something I would allow. Even though the developers are fine with DMs just handwaving this, anyway |
| (Reply to #10)2Chlorobutanal | While there is no example of "dropping an object" in the sidebar about interacting with objects, the PHB index refers "dropping an object" or maybe "drop an object" to the same page with the sidebar. As a DM, I would limit players to one "drop" or "pick up" interaction if they made a habit of dropping things every turn and picking them back up. |
| #12frbelangerSep 22, 2014 17:56:56 | And some Dm might rule that store a weapon provoke an oppportunity attack because you let your defense down! |
| #13Ganymede425Sep 22, 2014 19:34:12 |
|
| #142ChlorobutanalSep 22, 2014 21:02:08 | Whether or not it's an error, it's the closest thing to a mention of the "drop an object" action in the PHB.
Additionally, the limitation on what a character can do "for free" in one turn is largely stipulated to allow DMs some method for reining in "unruly" players. If a player makes a habit out of dropping items and picking them up in order to achieve a better action economy (because they think it "takes less time" in the rules than sheathing and drawing the same items) I would rule otherwise to curb "abusive" behavior. |
| (Reply to #14)Ganymede425 |
|
| #16NoonSep 23, 2014 2:46:56 |
|
| #17SorxoresSep 23, 2014 4:41:56 |
|
| #18mrpopstarSep 23, 2014 4:58:40 |
|
| #19Ganymede425Sep 23, 2014 9:27:57 | Awkward things like a kobold kicking your sword into a ravine? |
| #20FluffyBunbunKittensSep 23, 2014 12:07:49 |
|
| (Reply to #17)Inaubryyn |
|
| #22IllithidbixSep 23, 2014 15:08:08 | Rules as written have already been adequately covered by rmn498 and co.
However, personally as a DM I wouldn't massively care about a player taking multiple item/enviroment actions, providing it roughly made sense with what else they were doing and the six second timeframe. I'm not a huge fan of duel-weilding but I don't think you should need a feat or to spend your action to draw two short swords.
IMO: The current (sometimes bizaare) restrictiveness of the interaction with object action doesn't really feel in the spirit of the rest of the Next's action rules.
Some of the tweets by Mike Mearls and co' seem to imply agreement with me. https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/11/somatic-spell-abuse/ (see. https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/)
I think it's the way it is because the intent was how it appeared in the the earlier playtests:
Many of the most common interactions with items—drawing or sheathing a sword, moving through a door that opens easily, picking up a scroll, withdrawing a potion from your backpack, and the like—do not require an action. You are generally assumed to be able to incorporate such uses into your turn, while you move and take your action.
... However this technically allowed you to use a greatsword to attack and then switch to a shield at the end of your turn for the extra AC. So we've ended up with something a bit clunkier.
I'm holding out hope that the DMG will have a bit going "Dudes! Don't worry about drawing/sheathing weapons and stuff! Just enforce that rule if you think a player is taking the piss!" |
| (Reply to #20)2Chlorobutanal |
|
| #24Ganymede425Sep 23, 2014 21:13:56 | The War Caster feat is funny, though, at least regarding its benefit to cast spells when you hands are full.
Presumably, if you have the War Caster feat, you'll want to take full advantage of it by weilding two weapons or a shield. This would allow you to cast spells without wasting your object interaction to shuffle around your weapons. That's great and all, but it doesn't actually provide much of any material benefit. Sure, the character with War Caster can cast a spell and still have his free interaction, but what can he possibly use that interaction on? If he wants to do most anything at all, he'll have to sheathe his weapon in order to free up a hand, burning up his free interaction in the process. He could toss a weapon on the ground for free so he could then throw a switch, dig for some coins, or draw a potion, but everyone could do that: dropping a weapon frees up a hand for spellcasting anyways. No, outside of some corner cases (kicking a door shut with a free interaction), I don't see that feature of War Caster providing much of a benefit at all.
|
| #252ChlorobutanalSep 23, 2014 21:19:56 | The main benefit is that it allows a spellcaster to use reaction spells with full hands or end a turn with full hands (for a better OA) after casting a spell, since there is no "between (the character's) turns" period where the character would have a sheathed weapon (no OA) or "hands full" (no reaction spell). |
| #26FluffyBunbunKittensSep 24, 2014 0:42:55 |
|
| #272ChlorobutanalSep 24, 2014 0:57:46 | They can pick specific spells or weapon combos to fight and cast just fine. If you want to use the most or biggest weapons possible, you may have to adjust your actions to compensate.
The bladesinger and swordmage in 3rd and 4th editions used an empty hand while fighting, for a historical perspective. |