Stopping Weapon dropping shenanigans

[Tanarii]

As any sane DM is aware, weapon dropping shenanigans are the bane of D&D verisimilitude. This has been the case for several iterations of the game. So, what can be done to prevent this? Both within the rules (for AL DMs) and house rules (for home games)? Looking not to screw over legitimate in-character reasons a PC might reasonably intentionally drop their weapon in combat. Just players who make a constant drop-draw or drop-pick up rotation.

First, let's define the problem. There are several ways drop shenanigans come into play. Usually the intent is to have a free hand for some other purpose for a portion of the round, but a weapon in hand for opportunity attacks. Occasionally it's to use several different weapons in a round, sometimes to take advantage of multiple rules that would otherwise not be possible to use in the same round. So there are two potential reasons for the problem: the rule requiring a free hand/different weapons is a problem; the player is looking to circumvent a rule that's there for a good reason. Methods can involve drop & draw new weapon, drop & pick up old weapon, and (rarely) drop & summon weapon.

So there are several components to look at:
1) is the rule requiring a free hand or soecific weapon reasonable?
2) is circumventing the rule by weapon dropping shenanigans obvious bull**** on the part of the player?
3) how easy or difficult should it be to swap to new weapons?
4) how easy or difficult should it be to retrieve a dropped weapon at your own feat during combat?
5) what are the unintended consequences?

Case in point:
Spellcasting S or M component spells requires a free hand. I like this rule. Obviously if you don't like it, the quickest fix is to ignore it. But I like it. So players doing drop shenanigans are trying to circumvent this rule I want in play. For reasons, which boil down to I like it. I don't want it to be hard for a player to, for example, drop his bow and draw a shortsword because an enemy got in melee range. I do want consequences for making that choice, especially if it's a valuable weapon.

House rule: picking up a dropped item/weapon 'provokes' an opportunity attack. It's still an object interaction.

Unintended Consequences: It makes disarm (in melee range) more powerful. It doesn't do anything about weapon dropping when there is no adjacent enemy. It doesn't do anything about weapon dropping to try and take advantage of different weapons in the same round. It's a house-rule so it doesn't do anything about the situation in AL.

Suggestions for other house-rules for this or other rules being circumvented? Non-house rules suggestions?

[Kryx]

The problem as you've outlined is the drop and pickup. I'm not sure the rules can be codified in such a way to only address this specific scenario. I would just enforce the cost of sheathe and draw on drop and draw if a player is abusing it.

[Plaguescarred]

To me the real problem is not dropping but dropping and then interacting with other items as well as taking an action because dropping or switching held hands is not listed as an exemple of free item interactions. A good way to limit items juggling is to have them count as an item interaction. This would limit most abuse since after doing so switching hands, drawing or picking up another item on the same turn would then require an action.

A possible houserule could also be to require a successful Strenght contest an action or reaction to pick-up an item within reach of an hostile creature.

[DivisibleByZero]

Simply tell your players that if the drop/swap is done in a manner that you see as abusive, it costs their action. If it is done in a manner which you do not consider abusive, it is their item interaction and they still get to use their action.
They'll figure out which is which in no time.

[Naanomi]

Make dropping cost your item interaction

[DivisibleByZero]

Make dropping cost your item interaction

That's essentially the same thing as above, because the second interaction (swap) would then cost your action by default.
But that comes with the issue of making simply dropping something in a reasonable and non-abusive manner cost your interaction, which I don't think it should.

So basically I agree, but only when it's considered abusive, and therefore the DMs call. But like I said, they'll figure out which is which in no time.

[mgshamster]

I like the suggestions above, especially Zero's.

Here's an alternative thought:

How far does object interaction go? Can you interact with an object 5' away? Or does it have to be in the same square (when using grids).

If it doesn't have to be in the same square, then have that enemy use their object interaction to kick it away. Or better yet, pick it up and flee the battle. If the player keeps doing this in the same turn so the weapon isn't on the ground long enough, have an aware enemy prepare a readied action to steal the weapon when it leaves the players hand.

Maybe when they start losing equipment, they'll stop doing shenanigans.

[TheOldCrow]

You could roll a scatter die for a dropped item. When someone drops an item, roll a d20. On a 1, the item skitters 5' forward, on a 2 it goes forward to the right, and so on clockwise. on a 9 or 10 it skitters out 10' (roll d8 for direction). On 11 through 20 it lands at their feet.

[RulesJD]

I like the suggestions above, especially Zero's.

Here's an alternative thought:

How far does object interaction go? Can you interact with an object 5' away? Or does it have to be in the same square (when using grids).

If it doesn't have to be in the same square, then have that enemy use their object interaction to kick it away. Or better yet, pick it up and flee the battle. If the player keeps doing this in the same turn so the weapon isn't on the ground long enough, have an aware enemy prepare a readied action to steal the weapon when it leaves the players hand.

Maybe when they start losing equipment, they'll stop doing shenanigans.

This. Full stop. Watch a player lose an item or two (especially if they're magical items) and they'll never, ever try that again.

[Segev]

As others have alluded to, dropping items is its own flaw. The item is no longer in their control. It takes only an uncontested action to remove it from their immediate reach, or even just take it entirely. And they'd better not move without recovering it!

[Maxilian]

Don't modify anything, make the mobs they fight smarter, and done, its not like the mob cannot pick the player weapon or kick it away, if the player do all that in their round, you got the ready action for that.

[TheOldCrow]

The OP was talking about someone dropping an item then using item interaction before their turn ends to pick it up again. The object isn't sitting there past their turn, so it is unlikely that opponents will ever get a chance to pick it up, use an action to kick it away, or run off with it. An opponent would have to ready an action.

[DanyBallon]

We don't have this problem because we consider droping an item as an item interaction. So if a character using a bow, end up in close combat, he can use it's free object interaction to drop his bow, and then spend an action unsheating his sword. This way, he is ready to use its sword as part of OA. It may look harsh on the player, but considering a round last 6 seconds, I think we can say it's close to versimilitude.

[Segev]

If item-dropping is happening repeatedly, nothing stops an enemy from readying an action to claim it the next time they do it.

[Maxilian]

The OP was talking about someone dropping an item then using item interaction before their turn ends to pick it up again. The object isn't sitting there past their turn, so it is unlikely that opponents will ever get a chance to pick it up, use an action to kick it away, or run off with it. An opponent would have to ready an action.

If they do it over and over again, its not hard to have a ready action for that

[Tanarii]

Having enemies do stuff with dropped items doesn't stop issued with drop/pick-up when there is no enemy nearby. Of course, neither does my proposed house-rule. (Edit: plus as someone pointed out, picking up on your turn makes that a non-issue RAW. And spending a Ready action to kick something away, especially a non-magical weapon, may not be an efficient use of actions. Making the enemy use their action to do that may be even better than the drop-pickup rotation.)

I like the idea of having a drop cost an item interaction. Personally I even like the idea of having 'changing hands on a weapon' have that cost too, but that's probably too much.

[Maxilian]

Having enemies do stuff with dropped items doesn't stop issued with drop/pick-up when there is no enemy nearby. Of course, neither does my proposed house-rule.

I like the idea of having a drop cost an item interaction. Personally I even like the idea of having 'changing hands on a weapon' have that cost too, but that's probably too much.

IMHO talk this with your player, cause it seens that your players its using it over and over again, cause its character its based around the possibility to do that to be able to do other things (so if you make a change like that it will be a slap to the face), and if you don't want it to keep happening just talk it out with your player (either way, you only want him to stop abusing that and your way of changing it may most likely bring the player to want to change its character cause it is not as effective as he had it planned to be -its a let down for the player, even more because all its RAW-, you as a DM may be right in the end, but just talk it up with your player to evade future problems (in the end, the real point of the game is to have everyone have fun, if not everyone is having fun, then it will just slowly -fur surely- fall apart or just will become worse and worse -Until you and/or the players get sick of it and will go like "Lets start a new campaign!")

[DanyBallon]

Having enemies do stuff with dropped items doesn't stop issued with drop/pick-up when there is no enemy nearby. Of course, neither does my proposed house-rule.

I like the idea of having a drop cost an item interaction. Personally I even like the idea of having 'changing hands on a weapon' have that cost too, but that's probably too much.

I don't think its too much, after all the examples for Interacting With Objects Around You all involve an interaction with an object (pretty obvious :smallwink:) Why would dropping something or changing an object from hands would be different than handing an item to another character, removing a ring, or planting a banner in the ground?

[RickAllison]

Having enemies do stuff with dropped items doesn't stop issued with drop/pick-up when there is no enemy nearby. Of course, neither does my proposed house-rule.

I like the idea of having a drop cost an item interaction. Personally I even like the idea of having 'changing hands on a weapon' have that cost too, but that's probably too much.

See, I don't like that. Dropping something in hand takes as much interaction as opening ones hand, something that shouldn't really take an object interaction to do. Same with changing hands on a sword, it doesn't take much of any thought to do so as a layman and anyone experienced in it would do out of habit.

Instead, I just use the scattering die someone mentioned above when I consider it applicable. Lots of movement like in combat would mean it could be thrown all over the place. When I judge it appropriate, I use a d6 together with a d20. Whichever way the 1 or 6 are pointed (same direction, just which of the two makes more sense) determines where it scatters with vertical meaning it stays at foot, while the d20 determines how many feet it moves with all the ambient movement (cinematic rules). If a 1 is rolled, it miraculously lands point into the ground. If a 20 is rolled, it gets stuck somewhere very inconvenient like under a dresser or off a ledge.

[BillyBobShorton]

To me the real problem is not dropping but dropping and then interacting with other items as well as taking an action because dropping or switching held hands is not listed as an exemple of free item interactions. A good way to limit items juggling is to have them count as an item interaction. This would limit most abuse since after doing so switching hands, drawing or picking up another item on the same turn would then require an action.

A possible houserule could also be to require a successful Strenght contest an action or reaction to pick-up an item within reach of an hostile creature.
The rules of an action/turn state as examples for other things you may also do ALONG WITH the standard "move, att/cast/dodge/etc" combat action moveset, and one of them is to pick up an item on the ground. So if you can stop/slow down, careful not to cut yourself by grabbing the hilt of a weapon, and continue your move without losing any base movement speed or provoking opp attacks, why is just opening your hand unthinkable?

Personally, I think that's far fetched and renders useless certain abilities like battle master disarm or heat metal/force drop, command:Drop your sword! etc.

However, you state that dropping is not listed as free item interaction, but if all that is involved with PICKING UP a weapon is allowed, why, logically, would that in any way imply that simply letting go of an item is somehow too much extra activity to squeeze into a standard move?

But I get the main point here, and ppl everywhere abuse the "I drop my weapon so I can use a diff weapon or focus or component to cast a spell!"

It basically grants you instant fighter/mage if there are no consequences, or need to play as a caster ready to wield magic in the thick of battle. There should be something to encourage choices. Plus it's not realistic (as realistic as portraying a fantasy rpg character can be, at least) for a Cleric to just drop his life saving defense weapon so he can grab his cross and start weilding magic, or a fighter who needs his sword/axe to just fling it aside carelessly so he can whip out a bow and shoot a bad guy, or vice-versa.

I played with a DM who had a brilliant solution to this problem. Roll a d20. 8 or less it breaks. Magical items and soft ground, etc would lessen his call on the roll, and adverse conditions would increase it or alter the potential outcome, like it tumbles away on a rickety bridge, through ice that may be thin, near the edge of a boat or cliff, on a steep hill, etc.

We (the party) actually became interested and offered further situations, like a barfight-maybe some drunk in the crowd picks it up and slips away, a crafty wizard casts shatter, or uses a familiar or unseen servant or mage hand to snatch it/move it. The bow doesn't break but it was a bow you took off some goblin and the string jars loose or snaps from awkward tension on impact. How's your perception? Did you notice the extra gap between floor boards over there? No-then it lands point down and will require a move to remove it, plus it's now an obstacle. How about a short sword breaks, everyone within 15' roll d100. 25% chance a shard hits you. Now roll a d6 to see if it's a leg 1/2, arm 3/4, torso, or head shot? Did you just cost your ALERT Feated super perceptive Rogue scout an eye by flinging your weapon down so you could magic missle an orc for 5 damage?

I think weapon drop is not some impossible action to take nor should it be disallowed, but it's quasi-cheating to a degree. IRL, no Knight Templar is not going to cast his cherished shield or his beloved sword onto some rocks like an empty can of soda so he can fire a slingshot or fire a crossbow in the thick of battle.. a sword he earned, named, tells stories about, is proud of, and cleans/sharpens daily. Likewise, did Gandalf ever fling his staff aside without looking so he could get more leverage with a 2 handed swing of Glamdring (?) on some orc grunt?

And a common thing I see a lot of DM's overlook is when they ask "marching order", they often forget to ask, "what are you all carrying, how are you armed? Drifflebunny the Gnome Assissin/Nercromancer, what is in your hand? Your arcane focus or your crossbow?

So while it's not something that should be disallowed by the rules, it is something the DM needs to add a dimension of realism to by adding realistic consequenses and creativity.

Lastly, there are certain classes and archetypes who can cast without a focus, as well as feats, spells and abilities that enable quick draw, weapon summoning, quick access to a focus, as well as common ingenuity to get around the whole "might break my stuff" issue. Example:had a Bard whose focus was a harmonica. Asked DM if I could have his focus implanted into the hilt of his scimitar. He said yes, find a dwarf willing to craft it, have 4000 gp and magic item to offer to his diety. Then you can fight or cast without dropping. It was a lot of workn but SOOO worth it.

Bottom line, weapon drop is a sh*t move and foolish, and house rules or an expansion option set should make players accountable for it, because it's totally cartoonish and abused because there is no downside in the rules.

Cheers.

Sorry that was a long read.

[Tanarii]

IMHO talk this with your playerI have too many players to have one on one discussions with them.

I'd prefer to find a RAW way to stop this, so that I can rule it in AL games I DM as well. That's where I see it abused the most.

[Maxilian]

I have too many players to have one on one discussions with them.

I'd prefer to find a RAW way to stop this, so that I can rule it in AL games I DM as well. That's where I see it abused the most.

Not with all, just the guy who do this, the RAW way too stop this, is having mobs take advantage of their own actions, or just abuse this as much as they do.

There's no RAW way to deal with this cause their actions are OK by RAW.

[Tanarii]

See, I don't like that. Dropping something in hand takes as much interaction as opening ones hand, something that shouldn't really take an object interaction to do. Same with changing hands on a sword, it doesn't take much of any thought to do so as a layman and anyone experienced in it would do out of habit.Yeah, ruling it as an object interaction is definitely a gamist approach.

Edit:

Not with all, just the guy who do this, the RAW way too stop this, is having mobs take advantage of their own actions, or just abuse this as much as they do.

There's no RAW way to deal with this cause their actions are OK by RAW.Yeah. Well I guess I'll just suck it up when running AL games.

[Plaguescarred]

However, you state that dropping is not listed as free item interaction, but if all that is involved with PICKING UP a weapon is allowed, why, logically, would that in any way imply that simply letting go of an item is somehow too much extra activity to squeeze into a standard move?Oh but as i suggested you should be able to drop an held item for free, during either your move or your action. But If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.

I believe it's a sound suggestion to limit weapon dropping shenanigans that Tanarii inquired.

[DanyBallon]

Not with all, just the guy who do this, the RAW way too stop this, is having mobs take advantage of their own actions, or just abuse this as much as they do.

There's no RAW way to deal with this cause their actions are OK by RAW.

I would disagree, by RAW, there's a few example of what an item interaction is, and it's fair game to say that dropping a weapon is one. It's a DM call. It's as if all the examples would take about a minute to do, and dropping an item takes almost none. All these examples can be done for free in a 6 seconds round, in addition to attacking with a weapon, or casting a spell. In this regard, we can argue that take 1s or less to do, pretty much the same as dropping an item.

[Maxilian]

I would disagree, by RAW, there's a few example of what an item interaction is, and it's fair game to say that dropping a weapon is one. It's a DM call. It's as if all the examples would take about a minute to do, and dropping an item takes almost none. All these examples can be done for free in a 6 seconds round, in addition to attacking with a weapon, or casting a spell. In this regard, we can argue that take 1s or less to do, pretty much the same as dropping an item.

True, but its also said that you can freely interact with an item as part of an action that require such item (like an attack of a weapon that is in your feet)

[DanyBallon]

True, but its also said that you can freely interact with an item as part of an action that require such item (like an attack of a weapon that is in your feet)

I agree, but you can do this only once. i.e. You may draw a weapon as an attack and it counts as your free item interaction. But if in the same round you previously sheat a weapon in order to draw a new one, then you can't do it as part of your attack. If you consider that dropping an item is an interraction (and I've shown that my position can make sense), the same goes if you decide to drop an item, your next interaction will cost you an action.

[malachi]

Snip

Actually, I can think of a few examples where a character would reasonably be expected to drop the weapon that they're using to pull out a different one - although they don't all work with DnD mechanics.

An orc charges an archer. After hitting the archer once, the archer drops their bow and draws a vicious dagger.

A mounted knight charges into the enemy line with his lance, skewering an orc - but can't get safely out of the melee to leverage the power of his lance on another charge, so he drops it and draws a sword. (although this doesn't work quite so well in the 5e rules)

A bard is dueling an enemy orc, when he is surprised bow another three, so he drops his rapier to pull out his flute to cast a spell to immobilize them all. (This actually makes less sense from a common sense standpoint, as it should be hard to focus on playing an instrument/casting a spell when surrounded by enemies, but it works well in DnD)

A barbarian cleaves an orc in half with his great axe, but an evil sorcerer casts entangle on him, so he drops his great axe to whip out a pair of throwing axes to toss at the sorcerer.

Granted, I'm aware that these are NOT the cases that are typically brought up as problem cases, as these are all swapping one item for another a single time, and not doing it repeatedly in mid-turn to try to optimize the actions allowed during and outside the character's turn.

[RickAllison]

This is also why I wish rules for reactions were looser. I think someone should be able to use their object interaction as a reaction, which would solve this problem anyway.

[Spore]

This one isn't as broken as it seems. I have seen a few (cheesy) action films where the hero drops his weapons to temporarily fight with the environment only to pick them up in no time. I dont say it is incorrect that you don't like it. But I tell you that maybe your players dont even see this as problematic.

[Autocon]

I would probably make a houserule (so, not AL legal):
If you voluntarily drop an item, you may not interact with it again until your next turn.

This will prevent the drop > action > pick up shenanigans without making disarm and similar abilities over powered, or taking away the drop > draw new weapon > action ability.

[Segev]

Why do you consider this such a problem? Is it increasing PC power beyond your ability to deal with it? Does it just plain not make sense to you? Why is preventing this behavior important to you?

[jas61292]

First off, if you don't like the weapon dropping shenanigans, just don't allow them. That is fully within your authority as DM and is not even bending RAW or anything. Contrary to what a lot of people claim, dropping things is not free by RAW. While it has been clarified by twitter that it is free by RAI (which is dumb in my opinion), the RAW on this issue... is non-existent. The books do not cover what kind of action, if any dropping an item takes, and so, by the rules as written, you would handle such a situation by making a call as a DM. You could call it free. You could call it an object interaction. You could say it needs the use an object action. None of these is more or less correct than the other by RAW. So, if you find this kind of dropping to be an issue, just don't allow it. The rule books will be on your side.

Now that said, it is good to be consistent and have a specific way of ruling this kind of thing. Personally, I have no problem with dropping being free in any of itself. The only issue I have is if someone wants to drop, and then pick up again on the same turn, usually in an attempt to allow themselves to cast spells with both hands effectively full. There are rules on this sort of thing, and those rules are about drawing and sheathing weapons. If you are trying to use dropping and picking up to do something sheathing and drawing would not allowed, you are gaming the rules, and I don't like that. I don't mind dropping one weapon to draw another. That has the disadvantage of your old weapon being on the ground, so its not as good as sheathing and then drawing. But dropping and then picking up would be stronger.

So, what I do is make dropping an item free and picking up an item cost your item interaction, with the exception that if you drop an item, picking it up on the same turn requires the use an object action. Furthermore, I reserve the right to adjust this ruling based on what is being dropped. Its one thing to want to drop a sword to draw a hammer instead. Its another to try and abuse the fact that dropping remains free be going over someone and "dropping" dozens of items, for free, on their head.

[Breashios]

Reading these posts, I feel so lucky that in all the years of D&D I’ve never encountered this issue. I think it could strike me as annoying if it had happened in certain ways. I probably came closest to creating it myself with a shield wearing caster I played. The DM did not seem to care about these details, but I like to be as close to “correct” as I can be, so when I cast a spell with a somatic component, I imagined I would drop my staff into the crook of my shield arm. I would make it ready again after casting. The only issue I saw (up to the level I played) was using the Shield spell. As it requires a free hand to cast, I could only cast it on turns when my staff was not in hand. I believed I could “drop” it again to use Shield, but not ready it again until my turn. I also believed this was reasonable based on “in game” realism.

Is this an example of something that would bother other players or be an issue as stated in the OP?

Would the use of an actual material component use your free object interaction, thus preventing a character from re-readying their weapon?

[BillyBobShorton]

Oh but as i suggested you should be able to drop an held item for free, during either your move or your action. But If you want to interact with a second object, you need to use your action.

I believe it's a sound suggestion to limit weapon dropping shenanigans that Tanarii inquired.
Fair enough, and I totally agree. Apologies for misreading your entire point. Yes, interacting with an item in a way that requires as much time or more than using a weapon should count as your action.

:uses reaction to counter snip via mass delete proficiency:
Snip

.

Good examples. Yes, there ARE situations that warrant it and make sense, but for the most part, players seem to be doing the "drop my stuff to use other stuff" in a very video-gamey/cartoonish way. Drop a bow and unsheath a weapon as an attacker closes in: totally legit. Mindlessly dropping ing the weapon that keeps you alive on the ground like a bubble gum wrapper rather than stow it in the sheath you paid for and tied to your waist just so you can fetch an eel's eye or ruby or whatever from your pocket and make the ground slippery or an imaginary pile of flaming poo appear just seems over the top. Same goes for weapon switching-the meat of the issue. If it's necessary for time/safety or a dire point in a fight, fine.

But many ppl seem to be playing with the mindset of,

"Oh, jim just hacked down the last bugbear we were both swinging axes at. No more close enemies around? Welp, time for a move I like to call the 'Drop & Pop'.

"1st I DROP this silly ole Frostbrand anywhere on this rocky hilltop, (without looking, of course)casually walking away from it to get a better angle...

(And here comes the awesome.... waaaait for iiit....)

"Meanwhile, as I menacingly wander a few paces from where I just was, I whip out this awesome Shortbow of Uber Common-ness +0(I named her Charlene...) I scored her in a freshly dead farmer's shed behind his wheelbarrow as we heroically looted his corpse and burglarized his entire estate, not to mention napping in his home instead of burying him...

Once Charlene is out and ready to extend her legacy, I POP a handy ole "Arrow of Meh" at the last remaining wounded bugbear for 3 dmg before our lvl 7 Evoker can fire his tier2 firebolt that would have killed it easily even if I missed. But hey, I MIGHT have killed it if I did more damage, justifying my epic action economy ballhogging battle skills. Pop&Drop: Why SHEATH IT when you can LEAVE IT? That's my motto! Yuk yuk yuk."

::mage casts heat metal on this d-bag::

So, at least in my little world, that's pretty much what the weapon drop/switch move comes off as.

[Cybren]

Honestly I think using the "interact with an item" part of your turn to pick up a dropped item is kind of ridiculous. Honestly, I think the "interact with an item" part of your turn in general is kind of ridiculous. Just make it a bonus action. Jeez.

[BillyBobShorton]

First off, if you don't like the weapon dropping shenanigans, just don't allow them. That is fully within your authority as DM and is not even bending RAW or anything. Contrary to what a lot of people claim, dropping things is not free by RAW. While it has been clarified by twitter that it is free by RAI (which is dumb in my opinion), the RAW on this issue... is non-existent. The books do not cover what kind of action, if any dropping an item takes, and so, by the rules as written, you would handle such a situation by making a call as a DM. You could call it free. You could call it an object interaction. You could say it needs the use an object action. None of these is more or less correct than the other by RAW. So, if you find this kind of dropping to be an issue, just don't allow it. The rule books will be on your side.

Now that said, it is good to be consistent and have a specific way of ruling this kind of thing. Personally, I have no problem with dropping being free in any of itself. The only issue I have is if someone wants to drop, and then pick up again on the same turn, usually in an attempt to allow themselves to cast spells with both hands effectively full. There are rules on this sort of thing, and those rules are about drawing and sheathing weapons. If you are trying to use dropping and picking up to do something sheathing and drawing would not allowed, you are gaming the rules, and I don't like that. I don't mind dropping one weapon to draw another. That has the disadvantage of your old weapon being on the ground, so its not as good as sheathing and then drawing. But dropping and then picking up would be stronger.

So, what I do is make dropping an item free and picking up an item cost your item interaction, with the exception that if you drop an item, picking it up on the same turn requires the use an object action. Furthermore, I reserve the right to adjust this ruling based on what is being dropped. Its one thing to want to drop a sword to draw a hammer instead. Its another to try and abuse the fact that dropping remains free be going over someone and "dropping" dozens of items, for free, on their head.

One problem, even if we were all DM's in our respective current D&D campaign(s), many of us are also PLAYERS elsewhere and have no sayso in the matter.

[Vogonjeltz]

Case in point:
Spellcasting S or M component spells requires a free hand. I like this rule.

Taking out a material spell component (to have it in hand) requires the object interaction, so they wouldn't be able to retrieve a weapon from the ground.

[Tanarii]

Taking out a material spell component (to have it in hand) requires the object interaction, so they wouldn't be able to retrieve a weapon from the ground.debatebable. but who does that instead of using a spell component pouch? Accessing your component pouch in place of an M component is part of casting the spell action. It just requires a free hand.

[bardo]

Spellcasting S or M component spells requires a free hand. I like this rule.

As a player of a class that gets spellcasting, martial weapons, and shields, I want to be able to use all of them. I don't think that's asking too much. Please, reserve the "why don't you take Warcaster?" comments until the end.

Requiring a free hand for spellcasting forces the sword-and-board spellcaster into a pick-two situation every morning when getting dressed. Shield and weapon but no casting, or shield and casting but no weapon, or casting and weapon but no shield. Most classes don't have to ditch one of their class features before leaving the inn, why are sword-and-board spell casters penalized so harshly? It's an iconic build for Gygax's sake.

It hurts so bad that the game added two (2) official ways to get around it. One is the Warcaster feat, comments on which you will kindly reserve until the end. The other is the shield-arm-wiggle.

Hey yo DM / Say something to the cleric / Holla at her / I got one question / How do you fit wielding a shield, casting Shield of Faith, and making a weapon attack all in one round? / You know what to do with that big fat shield arm / Wiggle wiggle wiggle

Oh yes, the shield-arm-wiggle is the hottest dance. All the cool clerics and paladins are doing it. First you etch a holy symbol on your shield, don't ask why, it's not a matter of choice, you just do it. Then you wiggle your shield arm and pretend that counts as both the S and the M components for the spell. Next the book-keeping starts. Which spells have that precious M component that allows casting it by wiggling your shield arm? Gotta be an M. You can't cast it if it's just an S. Gotta have an M. An S and an M is alright too because there's an M in it. Bless? sure. Shield of Faith? sure. Cure Wounds? Nope. Detect Poison? Sure. Detect Magic? Nope.

The shield-arm-wiggle is just as stupid as dropping and picking up weapons. Think about it, clerics and paladins in sword-and-board can cast an arbitrary subset of their spells because literally deus ex machina. How's that for verisimilitude? Not to mention is seriously screws Valor Bards and EKs who have no deus.

Let players use their shield hand as a free hand. It does away with so much stupidity.

Your shield is strapped to your arm. It won't fall to the ground when you release your grip. That part is already in the rules (1 round to doff a shield). You free your hand by releasing your grip on your shield, then cast a spell/load a crossbow/grapple/interact with an object/whatever. Yeah it takes some practice not to bump the shield into things, but that's covered by having shield proficiency. When you're done you can re-grab the shield's grip. Obviously the shield would provide less protection when you're not gripping it. Maybe 1AC, maybe none. Your call.

I'm not a history buff, but I'm pretty sure knights did more with their shield hand than just hold the shield. Jousting comes to mind, aren't they holding the reins with their shield hand? If a knight wants to grab a rope, open a door, or help a friend get back on their feet, wouldn't they use their shield hand for that? I'm pretty sure they won't sheathe or drop their weapon on the battle field! So in terms of verisimilitude I'd say it's hard to beat a shield hand being a free hand when you need it.

In terms of mechanics you're just letting the players do whatever their class already allows them to do but with a +2AC bonus from wielding a shield, which their class also already allows them to do. No biggie.

Now, if you're still inclined to do so, and you find the following answers unsatisfactory, you may ask why not just take the Warcaster feat
- Feats are an optional rule. At some tables you simply can't take feats.
- It puts sword-and-board spell casters (an iconic build for Gygax's sake) one ASI behind the rest.
- Players found a third way to to get around the free hand limitations, dropping weapons and looking like a fool but hey I still got my ASI.

;TLDR; A shield hand should count as a free hand when you need it.

Bardo.

[Cybren]

I don't think "gishes don't use shields" is that bad of an aesthetic compromise. The "take a hand off a two hander to cast" was around for a while, and seems to have settled as people's assumed default for 5e

[Sigreid]

I'd probably just roll my eyes at the culprit and say "Don't do that crap."

[Tanarii]

As a player of a class that gets spellcasting, martial weapons, and shields, I want to be able to use all of them. I don't think that's asking too much. Please, reserve the "why don't you take Warcaster?" comments until the end.Cool. I don't want that to happen. I want the rules for components to have meaning, as written.

Also Cleric/Paladins don't have to wiggle their shield any more than Wizards have to wiggle their wand. Nothing says the S gesture when using a focus as an M component must be the same as casting it with an actual M component. Presenting your holy symbol (on shield if that's where it is) or pointing your wand could qualify as the needed guestures. They aren't defined.

I also don't have a problem with players having to pay attention to using S-only vs S&M components, if they're using two occupied hands. I like that it means they'll focus on certain spells, or choose fighting styles that work with any spell. Or players can do the other thing: sheath their weapon to cast a spell that requires a free hand as a free object interaction, then cast the spell.

--------------------------------------
General commentary (ie not in response to Bardo).

All in all, I think my simplest solution is just to make dropping an object count as the one free object interaction. And it wouldn't interfere with the narrative idea of a ranged attacker pulling out his backup weapon if they got caught in melee ... it'd just encourage them to use a one handed weapon as backup instead of a two-handed, so they could hold on to their bow (or whatever) instead of dropping it, and still have only used one object interaction. That's a side effect I like.

[Hrugner]

I personally don't consider a problem, and like to hang my bow on a mage hand holding a small hook when I'm not using the bow. So I'm probably part of the problem.

However, if it is a problem, here's a couple of options to consider.
1. "The item is still falling, you'll need to catch it out of the air." set DC, action, and check type as needed.
2. Create a new rule for "fumbled items" give others a reaction to recover any item that has become uncontrolled in an adjacent square.
3. Combine 1 and 2. If the player wants to contest the fumble, then they need to immediately recover the object with a contested roll, but they are once again holding the item.
4. Allow players to simply juggle weapons more effectively at the cost of a feat. Point out that the "Dual Wielder" feat allows two such item interactions and explicitly state that this is the only way to drop and recover an item in the same round, even allowing a draw and sheath in the same round. It improves a lackluster feat, doesn't take away what the players want to do, but still makes it less likely to become a regular problem.

At our table, when someone wants to do a number of item interactions that are potentially doable, we tell the DM the plan and ask how far into the plan we get before the turn is over. This prevents item juggling, as it's a nonsense plan, but it does require dialogue with players who are trying to push the rules. This isn't always successful.

[AttilatheYeon]

I've always thought object interaction should only be for objects the character has posession of. So if a weapon is dropped, it should take an action to pick it up.

[bardo]

Cool. I don't want that to happen. I want the rules for components to have meaning, as written.

Also Cleric/Paladins don't have to wiggle their shield any more than Wizards have to wiggle their wand. Nothing says the S gesture when using a focus as an M component must be the same as casting it with an actual M component. Presenting your holy symbol (on shield if that's where it is) or pointing your wand could qualify as the needed guestures. They aren't defined.

I also don't have a problem with players having to pay attention to using S-only vs S&M components, if they're using two occupied hands. I like that it means they'll focus on certain spells, or choose fighting styles that work with any spell. Or players can do the other thing: sheath their weapon to cast a spell that requires a free hand as a free object interaction, then cast the spell.

--------------------------------------
General commentary (ie not in response to Bardo).

All in all, I think my simplest solution is just to make dropping an object count as the one free object interaction. And it wouldn't interfere with the narrative idea of a ranged attacker pulling out his backup weapon if they got caught in melee ... it'd just encourage them to use a one handed weapon as backup instead of a two-handed, so they could hold on to their bow (or whatever) instead of dropping it, and still have only used one object interaction. That's a side effect I like.

You obviously care for material component rules way more than I do.

Your solution is a valid interpretation of RAW. You might get players questioning why does dropping an item cost an item interaction when RAW dropping prone is a freebie. Sheathing a weapon or stashing an item becomes strictly better than dropping it, so PCs and NPCs would never have a reason to drop an item which might hurt story telling. You might have issues with reaction spells. Feather Fall, for example, is a VM reaction. Under your solution, could a sword-and-board or a dual-wielder ever cast Feather Fall? Whether it's the caster that is falling or somebody else, are they allowed to sheathe a weapon as part of a reaction?

Bardo.

[bardo]

I've always thought object interaction should only be for objects the character has posession of. So if a weapon is dropped, it should take an action to pick it up.

Pick up a dropped axe is one of the examples of interacting with objects given on page 190 of the PHB (sidebar). I interpret that list as fair game for any item that's within your reach and isn't in possession of another creature.

Bardo.

[quinron]

It's probably not a popular take, but I've removed the action cost of sheathing an item from my game. I know that my players are clever enough to come up with nonsense like strapping their weapons to their belt or something, so why not just allow them to sheathe the weapon? I think it's more damaging to verisimilitude to think that a trained warrior would just straight up drop a valuable personal effect than that it's quite quick to sheathe a weapon, and it makes the flow of combat far smoother than when sheathing and drawing are more granular. It's just what works best for my game.

[Sabeta]

As any sane DM is aware, weapon dropping shenanigans are the bane of D&D verisimilitude

If this were just about Verismilitude I could easily defeat it, but the rest of your post makes it clear that the real problem is mechanical in nature. I'll do my best.


Usually the intent is to have a free hand for some other purpose for a portion of the round, but a weapon in hand for opportunity attacks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al1CpCfSEHo

At around the one minute mark Jiguro drops his spear in order to dodge an attack. This is very risky because he creates two openings (the opening necessary to convince his opponent to overcommit, and the the brief moment he no longer has control of the spear), but takes advantage of the surprise to dodge, grab the spear, and deal a finishing blow. As far as verisimilitude is concerned there's your answer. The world is already one in which someone can run 30 feet and attack four different people in one turn at full power, so a quick "spear trick" like this doesn't seem that farfetched. In fact it sounds awesome and stylish. Imagine the Bladepact Warlock casually flicking his sword in the air then grabbing his Eye of Newt or whatever to blast out some Eldritch Spears before catching the falling blade.

Is that stupidly hard to pull off in real life? Yeah, sure. Is D&D real life? No, it's not. I'm sure it's not the answer you necessarily want, but this one gets a pass from me.


Occasionally it's to use several different weapons in a round, sometimes to take advantage of multiple rules that would otherwise not be possible to use in the same round.
I'm going to need some more clarification here, because I actually can't imagine what using multiple weapons would grant the user. The only things I could imagine people trying to break with this is Crossbow Expert and Two Weapon Fighting, both of which have more than enough RAW (IIRC) to specifically deny this.

As a fun mental excersize. Arcane Focuses are already bogus. A Wand can be used as an Arcane Focus. What is stopping me from doing this:
http://readysetbored.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/ancientweapons/15-Lantern-Shield.jpg
with a Wand, or hell even a Quarterstaff.

Actually, I'm doing that now. If I ever make an Eldritch Knight or a Valor Bard the Lantern Shield is what they're bringing into combat.

[Batou1976]

If you're an EK, or a cleric (or whatever else), using a weapon and a shield, and want to cast a spell, there doesn't seem to me to be any need to drop your weapon. Just quickly tuck it under your non-casting arm, fire off your spell, then whip it back out. IRL this would probably require you to also backpedal away from your opponent to avoid an AoO... but if I understand 5E rules correctly* casting doesn't provoke those anymore in any case.


*I have the PHB and DMG but haven't actually played 5E yet.

[bid]

Easy solution with very little RAW impact.

Pick something on the ground gives OA.

Problem solved.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Solutions that focus on up-picking don't address shenanigans based on dropping things that can be carried in quantity, such as daggers; you just shed them one by one and don't care what happens to them until the end of the battle.

[Zanthy1]

As others have alluded to, dropping items is its own flaw. The item is no longer in their control. It takes only an uncontested action to remove it from their immediate reach, or even just take it entirely. And they'd better not move without recovering it!

I would absolutely do this if they are abusing it. A baddie uses its reaction to kick it away, snatch it, or whatever. If they are doing it in a nonabusive manner, such as swapping from range to melee, then probably the baddie wouldn't care about the weapon. However, if they leave the bow on the ground, who is to say it does not get stepped on or stolen? some ideas

[RickAllison]

I would absolutely do this if they are abusing it. A baddie uses its reaction to kick it away, snatch it, or whatever. If they are doing it in a nonabusive manner, such as swapping from range to melee, then probably the baddie wouldn't care about the weapon. However, if they leave the bow on the ground, who is to say it does not get stepped on or stolen? some ideas

I've used this against a DM! Had a rogue who closed with crossbowmen, they drew scimitars for melee, then he dropped their crossbows over the ledge. No more crossbows and they were stuck far away from battle!

[BillyBobShorton]

So in a nutshell, seems that it's not so much dropping as it is picking the item back up. If it costs no extra turn, or doesn't possibly break, it's a free stash/weapon switch that sounds illogical and should require a dex check or something. Does every NFL player always snatch up the loose ball as he runs toward it? Non sometimes he almost grabs and it slips, or he taps or kicks it rolling some more.

That seems a specialized skill that not every character, nor enemy should be able to perform because of a RAW glitch. It should provoke opp attacks if they are in melee, at the very least. And should cancel your initial att action.

Think about it; it takes longer to bend over and pick ANYTHING up than it does to swing a weapon. By the RAW logic, any character should be able to to attack/spell cast, move, AND open/close a door, a chest or pick up an item. And if he hasn't attacked yet, he STILL could ready the weapon he just stopped to grabn aim it effectively, and strike with it? No penalty or anything?

Something a fighter trained in multi-attacks or an agile rogue/bard should be able to don or certain PC's with special bonus action abilities (AT mage hand is a bonus to control).

The whole "anyone can do it" concept renders many abilities useless. Take an Eldritch Knight. He can summon a weapon he has attuned with as an action. So he drops his swd, whips out a bow, and fires it. Next turn he wants his sword back. He uses his action to resummon it. Now he cannot attack. Had he just dropped his bow, bent over and picked up the sword, he would still have an attack??? Huh?

I agree that dropping, yelling out short commandsn kicking something like a door or dropped weapon could all be "extra" moves along with a normal set of actions, but picking something up and preparing it to use should require your action. A higher level fighter could do both with his extra attack, but he is someone SPECIALIZING in combat and killing. Why should the 9 dex cleric be able to do the same thing with no penalty, just because he "wants to be able use all the powers he has access to"? Ok then, take the dual-wielder feat or mage initiate to have a servant or hand or familiar. It should COST SOMETHING.

[MeeposFire]

Funny I have taken the opposite track. I made it so that you get one object interaction per attack you get from your attack action. SO if you have extra attack at level 5 you get two object interactions. I also make it so that when you draw or sheathe your weapons you can draw an off hand weapon with it so long as you do them both at the same time. This also makes throwing builds work.

Doing this also makes dropping weapons not needed for the warrior types.

Heck now I am thinking of allowing one to give up multiple object interactions to equip or unequip a shield. Really only a high level fighter can take advantage of it but hey I consider them masters of using items so I thin kit fits.

[Zanthy1]

I've used this against a DM! Had a rogue who closed with crossbowmen, they drew scimitars for melee, then he dropped their crossbows over the ledge. No more crossbows and they were stuck far away from battle!

Beautiful. A DM must always remember, if it can happen to PCs, it can happen to NPCs. Respect.

[RickAllison]

Beautiful. A DM must always remember, if it can happen to PCs, it can happen to NPCs. Respect.

The DM rather enjoyed the twist, especially after the encounter appeared to be more difficult than he intended with the swarm of lower-level undead:smallbiggrin:

[Knaight]

Beautiful. A DM must always remember, if it can happen to PCs, it can happen to NPCs. Respect.

Your point? This sounds like exactly the sort of thing that a DM who wants item dropping a bit penalized would want to happen, and that's before we get into how it's nice to see options taken that aren't explicitly listed in the rules.

[Thrudd]

I would houserule that picking up an item off the ground is impossible while engaged in melee, and the only type of item interaction you can perform would be unsheathing/drawing a weapon that is readily accessible (hung on belt or can be pulled without stooping, unhooking or opening anything).

I'd rule that when not in melee, an item cannot both be dropped and picked up on the same turn. Picking up an item from the ground costs an item interaction. If the picked up item was a crossbow, I would also rule that it requires your movement for that turn to span and load it.

[Batou1976]

So in a nutshell, seems that it's not so much dropping as it is picking the item back up. If it costs no extra turn, or doesn't possibly break, it's a free stash/weapon switch... [snip]



If a steel sword is so fragile it can possibly break just by being dropped on the ground, it should also have a chance to break every time it contacts another weapon, or someone's armor... or even when cutting through bone. Think carefully about all the ramifications before you implement a rule that says a weapon can be broken just by dropping it.

[Slipperychicken]

My GM let us do "swap between weapons" all in one object-interaction. Just go from one weapon to the other, no fuss. During play it was smooth and felt like a plausible action.

[Arkhios]

A small question to people who think weapon dropping is a world-ending issue (no, not seriously):

Let's take note that hand crossbows can reasonably be thought of as a substitute for a single-shot pistol in a world where gunpowder isn't common (or doesn't exist).

With that said, would you consider this abusive:

A character with Crossbow Expert decides to buy multiple hand crossbows (not very cheap mind you!) and keeps them loaded and sheathed, ready for use.
The character would normally attack with a one-handed melee weapon but would occasionally draw and fire a hand crossbow, and then just drop it knowing he or she is unable to load it, and that he or she has another ready for next time anyway.

Knowing that when pistols were only a single-shot variety, this behaviour was quite common, especially among pirates. Now, would it really break verisimilitude if a fantasy character did the same with hand crossbows?

[DanyBallon]

A small question to people who think weapon dropping is a world-ending issue (no, not seriously):

Let's take note that hand crossbows can reasonably be thought of as a substitute for a single-shot pistol in a world where gunpowder isn't common (or doesn't exist).

With that said, would you consider this abusive:

A character with Crossbow Expert decides to buy multiple hand crossbows (not very cheap mind you!) and keeps them loaded and sheathed, ready for use.
The character would normally attack with a one-handed melee weapon but would occasionally draw and fire a hand crossbow, and then just drop it knowing he or she is unable to load it, and that he or she has another ready for next time anyway.

Knowing that when pistols were only a single-shot variety, this behaviour was quite common, especially among pirates. Now, would it really break verisimilitude if a fantasy character did the same with hand crossbows?

I'll speak for myself, but I don't have any problem with someone droping its weapon. I'm just saying that it takes up your free interraction with an object that you get on your turn.
In your example, the character will be able to slash with its weapon, shot a bolt with its hand crossbow, on its next turn, he'll be able to attack again with his main weapon, draw a loaded hand crossbow and shoot with it. Or he could start with shooting a bolt, drop crossbow, and draw main weapon, in order to be able to use it in the case of an eventual reaction. What he won't be able to do is, attack with main weapon, shoot bolt, drop, and draw on the same turn.

Don't you think that my view on the matter is as close as yours on how pirates used pistols?

The beauty of This, is that both our interpretation are true to RAW :smallbiggrin:

[Arkhios]

Don't you think that my view on the matter is as close as yours on how pirates used pistols?

The beauty of This, is that both our interpretation are true to RAW :smallbiggrin:

Indeed :smallbiggrin:

[Sabeta]

I don't think dropping a weapon taking your interaction is considered RAW. But in either case, if you have Crossbow Expert it would make more sense to fire the crossbow as many times as you can, then drop it and draw your sword.

[DanyBallon]

I don't think dropping a weapon taking your interaction is considered RAW. But in either case, if you have Crossbow Expert it would make more sense to fire the crossbow as many times as you can, then drop it and draw your sword.

Why wouldn't it? All that RAW gives is examples of item interraction. I can argue that dropping an item is the same as passing one to a friend, drinking from a flask or donning a mask. All of them takes a fraction of a 6 second round.

And on the other hand, you could argue that dropping an item take less time than any action given as example, and you would be in your right. In the end its a DM call based on the examples given by RAW. So either one is true by RAW or none is.

[ZX6Rob]

Easy solution with very little RAW impact.

Pick something on the ground gives OA.

Problem solved.

I like this solution because it also makes disarming people actually have an effect. If you have the drop on someone and they have to reach down to pick up their stuff, you ought to get to stick 'em at least once.

Every scene where someone is suddenly disarmed in a swordfight ends with the other guy holding them at swordpoint, and the first person realizing they're at a huge disadvantage. It always stuck a bit in my craw that 5e doesn't have a great way to simulate that.

More on topic, I haven't had players try to do anything like this in-game, but I think the OA rule would give them pause, possibly. I don't think I'd mind it as much if a player wanted to drop a weapon or something, at least not from a sense of verisimilitude -- after all, there's something cool about the image of a barbarian not just dropping his greataxe, but driving it into a log on the ground to hold it as he pulls his shortbow out to shoot down the dragon-riding sorcerer.

I think if I had a player who wanted to try something like weapon cords (which Pathfinder allowed for all kinds of gunslinger-related shenanigans), I'd probably say sure, yeah, you can do that, but you have to invest in something to gain proficiency in it. Let's call it a tool proficiency, and you can give up one skill proficiency at 1st level to gain proficiency in weapon cords or drop-fu or juggling or whatever.

[Thrudd]

A small question to people who think weapon dropping is a world-ending issue (no, not seriously):

Let's take note that hand crossbows can reasonably be thought of as a substitute for a single-shot pistol in a world where gunpowder isn't common (or doesn't exist).

With that said, would you consider this abusive:

A character with Crossbow Expert decides to buy multiple hand crossbows (not very cheap mind you!) and keeps them loaded and sheathed, ready for use.
The character would normally attack with a one-handed melee weapon but would occasionally draw and fire a hand crossbow, and then just drop it knowing he or she is unable to load it, and that he or she has another ready for next time anyway.

Knowing that when pistols were only a single-shot variety, this behaviour was quite common, especially among pirates. Now, would it really break verisimilitude if a fantasy character did the same with hand crossbows?

Dropping things isn't actually the problem being discussed. It's people who drop a weapon so they can do something with a free hand or use a different weapon and then think they should be able to pick up the first weapon again before the end of their turn. Or they have sword and shield, they drop the shield, cast a spell, and then want to pick up the shield again so they still have the AC bonus. It's cheese.

[Tanarii]

A small question to people who think weapon dropping is a world-ending issue (no, not seriously):
What if I drop my vorpal blade, and it accidentally cuts the head off the Titan Atlas?


A character with Crossbow Expert decides to buy multiple hand crossbows (not very cheap mind you!) and keeps them loaded and sheathed, ready for use.I'd want to know where they were keeping them. Then I'd probably make the character check to see if he shot his, uh, privates off every time they tried an athletic or acrobatic stunt, or fell/was pushed to the ground.

Yes, I'm one of those DMs. You're allowed to throw a fireball (with the right components and training), but you better not try and have 6 loaded hand-crossbows hanging off your bandoleer ready to use. Mainly because the other players will think it's stupid and breaks verisimilitude.


Knowing that when pistols were only a single-shot variety, this behavior was quite common, especially among pirates.Sure. In movies. In real life? Not so much. Right before a battle they might load up one, or maybe two. As would knights with horse pistols. But not just sailing or riding around. And even then it'd need to be a flintlock, this wouldn't work with a matchlock.


Now, would it really break verisimilitude if a fantasy character did the same with hand crossbows?Yes. Because it already does with pistols.

Edit: But as was said above me, generally speaking weapons shenanigans are used to work around required components. Sometimes for trying to get an extra attack or bonuses from two contrary fighting styles in the same round. I'm not going to worry about a character who specifically has a hand-crossbow designed to hold the bolt in place even if it's upside down or hanging from his belt, and loads it (ie one of them) right before a battle.

[Doug Lampert]

Sure. In movies. In real life? Not so much. Right before a battle they might load up one, or maybe two. As would knights with horse pistols. But not just sailing or riding around. And even then it'd need to be a flintlock, this wouldn't work with a matchlock.

The Wheellock predates the flintlock and was invented and used precisely for this sort of situation, you don't need a flintlock (although once invented the flintlock is both better and cheaper and will supersede the wheellock).

The reason you don't just walk around with lots of loaded pistols off a battlefield is that the powder is Hygroscopic and goes bad after you load (time depending on humidity and weather, I suspect wooden ships were not ideal). So ideally you loaded the morning of the day you expected a fight.

I have no real idea about pirates with a brace or two of pistols, but a quick google of "brace of pistols" gives as one of its first hits a page claiming that privateers were often required to have a minimum of two pistols and that six was not uncommon. Although the same page says that dropping or throwing away pistols was not done, they were instead stowed one way or another after firing (given the delicacy of the various lock mechanisms this strikes me as plausible).

If I really cared I'd look for ship's articles from pirates and privateers, a fair number of such survive. But we in fact know that at least some people did carry multiple pistols, the Roundhead cavalry manual recommends carrying something like 4 firearms (one musket and the rest pistols) [You mention knights, but period cavalry was mostly non-knights and many units carried multiple pistols.].

I see no real reason otherwise lightly loaded infantry would be unable to carry 2-4 pistols without difficulty or 6 if they worked at it. Cost would be the major concern (especially for wheellocks, which were not cheap).

[Sigreid]

I like this solution because it also makes disarming people actually have an effect. If you have the drop on someone and they have to reach down to pick up their stuff, you ought to get to stick 'em at least once.

Every scene where someone is suddenly disarmed in a swordfight ends with the other guy holding them at swordpoint, and the first person realizing they're at a huge disadvantage. It always stuck a bit in my craw that 5e doesn't have a great way to simulate that.

More on topic, I haven't had players try to do anything like this in-game, but I think the OA rule would give them pause, possibly. I don't think I'd mind it as much if a player wanted to drop a weapon or something, at least not from a sense of verisimilitude -- after all, there's something cool about the image of a barbarian not just dropping his greataxe, but driving it into a log on the ground to hold it as he pulls his shortbow out to shoot down the dragon-riding sorcerer.

I think if I had a player who wanted to try something like weapon cords (which Pathfinder allowed for all kinds of gunslinger-related shenanigans), I'd probably say sure, yeah, you can do that, but you have to invest in something to gain proficiency in it. Let's call it a tool proficiency, and you can give up one skill proficiency at 1st level to gain proficiency in weapon cords or drop-fu or juggling or whatever.

So when you disarm someone why wouldn't you use your object interaction to kick it away or pick it up yourself?

[Arkhios]

I'm sorry, and maybe it's just me, but I find it both amusing and sad that realistic reasons conflict so vividly with a fantastical game. Isn't that kinda the point of playing a fantasy game with swords and spells and dragons and all kinds of marvellous creatures and items and effects? If I wanted to play a realistic game, D&D wouldn't be the first one I'd look at.

[Tanarii]

I'm sorry, and maybe it's just me, but I find it both amusing and sad that realistic reasons conflict so vividly with a fantastical game. Isn't that kinda the point of playing a fantasy game with swords and spells and dragons and all kinds of marvellous creatures and items and effects? If I wanted to play a realistic game, D&D wouldn't be the first one I'd look at.You may find it sad, but it's very common. And when you play with large groups of players, you have to take into account the way most players think, what most of them will accept without blinking vs what will make them say wtf. And the most common way players think is that things that are based on real-world physics behave at least something like they do in the real-world, or you need to provide an explanation of why they don't. Whereas fantastical things can stretch the boundaries. For example, most players won't blink an eye at a repeating crossbow to get around this whole issue, because they know it was a thing in the real world. But if someone starts trying to go all John Woo with hand-crossbows that aren't auto-loading, someone at the table will call BS in no time.

Edit: I'm fully aware that repeating crossbows IRL used two hands and didn't "autoload" the way automatic pistols do. But sometimes just the veneer of an explanation will make people buy it. And sometimes it won't. From personal experience, I know that a player with many pre-loaded hand-crossbows hanging off the belt will start cries of BS.

[DanyBallon]

I'm sorry, and maybe it's just me, but I find it both amusing and sad that realistic reasons conflict so vividly with a fantastical game. Isn't that kinda the point of playing a fantasy game with swords and spells and dragons and all kinds of marvellous creatures and items and effects? If I wanted to play a realistic game, D&D wouldn't be the first one I'd look at.

Considering that the origines of D&D comes from war games, and that one of the first D&D world, Greyhawk, is more a medieval setting with an touch of fantasy, it isn't too farfetch to have a vast community that is looking, at some degree, to real world versimilitude for the medieval part of medieval fantasy.

[ZX6Rob]

So when you disarm someone why wouldn't you use your object interaction to kick it away or pick it up yourself?

Good question! I actually have two answers.

First, I don't feel like I should have to. If you look at cinematic swordfights, it's rare that the disarming fighter has to kick or throw away his or her opponent's sword after disarming them. You flick their sword away with a flourish, and before they can pick it up, you have the tip of your blade at their throat. The kick it away method doesn't simulate that.

Second, and more grounded in the rules, if I spend a turn to disarm my opponent, and then they spend their turn to disengage and go pick up their sword, neither of us has done anything, really. It ends up not really having much impact on the fight except to waste turns. So, the rules as written don't work for what I want to simulate. So I change them.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Knowing that when pistols were only a single-shot variety, this behaviour was quite common, especially among pirates. Now, would it really break verisimilitude if a fantasy character did the same with hand crossbows?

Disregarding the issue of carrying multiple loaded crossbows and such, I don't have much of a problem with this simply because it presents a logical chain of events - draw, fire, drop - whereas other weapon-dropping exploits depend on gaming the round abstraction in ways that cannot be justified in the narrative (except very badly).


I'm sorry, and maybe it's just me, but I find it both amusing and sad that realistic reasons conflict so vividly with a fantastical game.

Here we go again...


Isn't that kinda the point of playing a fantasy game with swords and spells and dragons and all kinds of marvellous creatures and items and effects? If I wanted to play a realistic game, D&D wouldn't be the first one I'd look at.

Why not have nonmagical daggers do 2d12 damage? It's not supposed to be realistic.

[Arkhios]

Why not have nonmagical daggers do 2d12 damage? It's not supposed to be realistic.

I believe you got me wrong. That 'it's not supposed to be realistic' was my point all along.

[Sigreid]

Good question! I actually have two answers.

First, I don't feel like I should have to. If you look at cinematic swordfights, it's rare that the disarming fighter has to kick or throw away his or her opponent's sword after disarming them. You flick their sword away with a flourish, and before they can pick it up, you have the tip of your blade at their throat. The kick it away method doesn't simulate that.

Second, and more grounded in the rules, if I spend a turn to disarm my opponent, and then they spend their turn to disengage and go pick up their sword, neither of us has done anything, really. It ends up not really having much impact on the fight except to waste turns. So, the rules as written don't work for what I want to simulate. So I change them.

Is there any reason to believe the disarmed weapon would fall straight down and not fly/bounce far enough to require movement and give an opportunity attack if they try for it?

[Vogonjeltz]

debatebable. but who does that instead of using a spell component pouch? Accessing your component pouch in place of an M component is part of casting the spell action. It just requires a free hand.

It may be niche, but I was thinking of it being a problem for objects too large to fit in the pouch / which have a specific cost (PHB 151) and therefore are not contained in the pouch.