I always have my swords drawn!

[Lye]

We have all had or been a tight-ass DM who likes to ambush the party and then be a sticker for action economy by making sure everyone spends the actions necessary to draw weapons, but this post isn't about us. This post is about that one guy who says

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

He's playing a rogue or a fighter because he doesn't like keeping track of spells and he always starts rolling a full attack after moving to flank. This is the same guy who pulls his lower lip up to his nose in intense contemplation of his damage roll for five minutes at a time, and never remembers it's his turn. He says

"I always have my swords drawn!"

because he wouldn't remember to draw them if they weren't. But remember that tight-ass DM? What does he do? He fights our friend here to the death at every opportunity, slowing the pace of the game to a crawl and pissing everybody off.

"You have to pick your weapon back up off the ground because you dropped them to unlock the door!"

Immersion is a distant memory at this point. Everybody's checking their phone, wondering why they blew off other plans to come and do this again.

This cautionary rant was brought to you by Sanders and Co.

[Segev]

Recommend to the rogue that he get quick draw; then he doesn't have to keep them drawn and the DM can't "screw" him by asking how he does something when his weapons are in his hands. (Phrasing designed to convince the player this is a good idea.)

Maybe get him an item like the boots in the MIC which allow for 3/day swift-action teleportation, so he can flank without "forgetting" that moving denies him a full attack.

With those in place, it might be easier to keep others focused with the reduction in argument, and you can make your own cheat sheet of his damage codes so if he starts contemplating for too long, you can just tell it to him.

[flappeercraft]

We have all had or been a tight-ass DM who likes to ambush the party and then be a sticker for action economy by making sure everyone spends the actions necessary to draw weapons, but this post isn't about us. This post is about that one guy who says

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

He's playing a rogue or a fighter because he doesn't like keeping track of spells and he always starts rolling a full attack after moving to flank. This is the same guy who pulls his lower lip up to his nose in intense contemplation of his damage roll for five minutes at a time, and never remembers it's his turn. He says

"I always have my swords drawn!"

because he wouldn't remember to draw them if they weren't. But remember that tight-ass DM? What does he do? He fights our friend here to the death at every opportunity, slowing the pace of the game to a crawl and pissing everybody off.

"You have to pick your weapon back up off the ground because you dropped them to unlock the door!"

Immersion is a distant memory at this point. Everybody's checking their phone, wondering why they blew off other plans to come and do this again.

This cautionary rant was brought to you by Sanders and Co.

I'm pretty sure there is a Weapon augment crystal that gives the benefit of quick draw with the weapon

[Geddy2112]

This reminds me of a scene in the movie The Gamers, where the rogue player says "but I'm a rogue, I am always sneaking"

It is perfectly reasonable for a player to have a weapon drawn anytime they are wandering a dungeon or anywhere where trouble is reasonably expected. In addition to quick draw, have the player use a 2 handed polearm, which is basically a walking stick that is always "drawn".

Although it sounds like the game has far more issues than that...

[John Longarrow]

Sounds like you need to talk to the player OOC. If they are not paying attention enough to what is going on in game that its disrupting the game, you need to see why. You may need to drop them from your game if they keep disrupting the game.

That said, I'd give them a yard stick. They have to hold onto the yardstick as "Their sword is out". Then see how quickly they put it down and forget to pick it up again. That might get them more attentive on what they can or can't do with their "Sword out".

As to the movement/damage issue, talk to them about the rules and make sure they remember or THEY have a cheat sheet that tells them what they can/can't do.

[rrwoods]

I'm pretty sure there is a Weapon augment crystal that gives the benefit of quick draw with the weapon

And to boot, it's a Least, meaning you can attach it to a masterwork weapon (no +1 required).

EDIT: It's the Returning crystal.

[Hunter Noventa]

Never forget that you can draw your weapons as part of a Movement Action if you have a BAB of +1 or higher.

Not going to solve your problems with the situation entirely, but it's a rule not to forget.

[StreamOfTheSky]

You know, it's really weird. Warriors are expected to sheathe their weapons in polite society, but no one questions a mage walking around w/ his spell component pouch (which is a free action to draw from) out on his belt. It's functionally equivalent to having a sword in hand in terms of time it takes to begin causing death and mayhem, yet it goes unchallenged by most DMs....

[ryu]

You know, it's really weird. Warriors are expected to sheathe their weapons in polite society, but no one questions a mage walking around w/ his spell component pouch (which is a free action to draw from) out on his belt. It's functionally equivalent to having a sword in hand in terms of time it takes to begin causing death and mayhem, yet it goes unchallenged by most DMs....

Probably because there's nothing you could do to challenge it that can't easily be worked around. Even if do manage to truly confiscate all twenty of the pouches I've hidden about my person, and INSIDE my person with shrink item and some string, rendering the problem moot at the outset is just a feat away.

[Erit]

You know, it's really weird. Warriors are expected to sheathe their weapons in polite society, but no one questions a mage walking around w/ his spell component pouch (which is a free action to draw from) out on his belt. It's functionally equivalent to having a sword in hand in terms of time it takes to begin causing death and mayhem, yet it goes unchallenged by most DMs....


Probably because there's nothing you could do to challenge it that can't easily be worked around. Even if do manage to truly confiscate all twenty of the pouches I've hidden about my person, and INSIDE my person with shrink item and some string, rendering the problem moot at the outset is just a feat away.

I now have a campaign concept bubbling up where known spellcasters are forbidden from carrying component pouches and must instead hand them over to the party's BSF whenever they enter a settlement. Probably been done a million times already though.

[ryu]

I now have a campaign concept bubbling up where known spellcasters are forbidden from carrying component pouches and must instead hand them over to the party's BSF whenever they enter a settlement. Probably been done a million times already though.

Indeed. This is why I got more creative with hiding ideas.

[NerdHut]

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

My response as a DM:
Your swords are always out? You can't use this skill, this skill, or this one with your hands full. You take a -20 on diplomacy, which, given the circumstances, you must roll for every non-confrontational conversation.


Maybe it's the min/max-ers in my group, but I have a short fuse for when a player tries to pull one over on the DM.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You know, it's really weird. Warriors are expected to sheathe their weapons in polite society, but no one questions a mage walking around w/ his spell component pouch (which is a free action to draw from) out on his belt. It's functionally equivalent to having a sword in hand in terms of time it takes to begin causing death and mayhem, yet it goes unchallenged by most DMs....

False equivalence. The pouch isn't the weapon, it's the sheathe. The weapon is the bat crap and spider webs inside it. Even if it was the same, it'd be no different from having a dagger tucked into your belt with no sheathe, slightly shady but not the same as actually having a weapon in hand. Put a peace-bond strap on the pouch and call it a day.

[Fizban]

False equivalence. The pouch isn't the weapon, it's the sheathe. The weapon is the bat crap and spider webs inside it. Even if it was the same, it'd be no different from having a dagger tucked into your belt with no sheathe, slightly shady but not the same as actually having a weapon in hand. Put a peace-bond strap on the pouch and call it a day.
Though it does call into question why casters get Quick Draw for free (well we actually know it's because spell components are for lol rather than any attempt at balance, but charging proper actions to draw components and not letting 99% of spells cast as a standard action would go a long way).

[Deophaun]

Wait... aren't weapons used as a focus in some spells? Does that mean you could store some weapons (dagger, dart) in a spell component pouch and draw them for free without Quick Draw?

[ryu]

Wait... aren't weapons used as a focus in some spells? Does that mean you could store some weapons (dagger, dart) in a spell component pouch and draw them for free without Quick Draw?

Sadly no. The pouch has no focuses, only components. Also the components must be costless.

[Deophaun]

Sadly no. The pouch has no focuses, only components. Also the components must be costless.
No:

A spellcaster with a spell component pouch is assumed to have all the material components and focuses needed for spellcasting, except for those components that have a specific cost, divine focuses, and focuses that wouldn’t fit in a pouch.
So, it holds components and focuses. It is assumed to have any material component or focus that has no specific cost and will fit. Of course, you can fix that assumption by buying the component/focus and store it in the spell component pouch.

However, upon further reading the spell component pouch is unnecessary, because preparing spell components is a free action anyway regardless of where those components are. So, Quick Draw for everyone!

[Quertus]

Sadly no. The pouch has no focuses, only components. Also the components must be costless.

Even if it were only components, and only free ones, you need only design a custom spell which uses a free quarter staff as a component, and you've got free quick draw.

[ryu]

Even if it were only components, and only free ones, you need only design a custom spell which uses a free quarter staff as a component, and you've got free quick draw.

You need no gimmick for free action quarterstaves. All you need is to come into physical contact with any real amount of wood and you can immediately craft all of it into staves with one of them in hand at the end. This is also why all spells based on trapping the enemy with walls of wood or would encasement are hilariously pointless.

[Darth Ultron]

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

This is a typical thing a bad player exploiting the game says, and they are very common. Most players that say such things are ''set'' in their ways, so there is not much point in speaking to them. You could say ''stop being a jerk", but they will just say "I'm a jerk 24/7 deal with it''.

Talking to the DM can work. Ask him to just apply ''common sense'' to it. Obviously the character can't do other things with full hands. And ''having swords drawn'', is no help with surprise....

[Thurbane]

I tend to side with the player over the DM in this case.

Putting aside the issues with his lack of understanding of the game mechanics and how long it takes him to have his turn, it's entirely reasonable for a professional adventurer to have his weapon drawn at any time when he might reasonably be expecting danger. In the typical campaign, this would include any dungeoneering where his hands aren't full doing something else, and during most wilderness exploration/travel.

As a DM, the only time I hit players with this is when they are caught sleeping - I don't allow them to sleep with their weapons readied.

All the DM is really doing is putting an action tax on mundanes - the casters happily shoot off their spells while others are fumbling weapons out of scabbards.

To echo some of the above comments, sounds like this game has a few issues besides those mentioned.

[Tvtyrant]

We have all had or been a tight-ass DM who likes to ambush the party and then be a sticker for action economy by making sure everyone spends the actions necessary to draw weapons, but this post isn't about us. This post is about that one guy who says

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

He's playing a rogue or a fighter because he doesn't like keeping track of spells and he always starts rolling a full attack after moving to flank. This is the same guy who pulls his lower lip up to his nose in intense contemplation of his damage roll for five minutes at a time, and never remembers it's his turn. He says

"I always have my swords drawn!"

because he wouldn't remember to draw them if they weren't. But remember that tight-ass DM? What does he do? He fights our friend here to the death at every opportunity, slowing the pace of the game to a crawl and pissing everybody off.

"You have to pick your weapon back up off the ground because you dropped them to unlock the door!"

Immersion is a distant memory at this point. Everybody's checking their phone, wondering why they blew off other plans to come and do this again.

This cautionary rant was brought to you by Sanders and Co.

We have all had a bad DM who is out to make the game unfun by insisting on the party standing around getting hit at the beginning of every encounter, and tying up the game by trying to punish them for taking steps to avoid TPK. The answer is to sit the DM down, point out how they are disrupting the group, and offer to let them keep DMing if they agree to not do it in the future.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Though it does call into question why casters get Quick Draw for free (well we actually know it's because spell components are for lol rather than any attempt at balance, but charging proper actions to draw components and not letting 99% of spells cast as a standard action would go a long way).

Meh. In practice it's a pretty negligible difference.

Yeah, the fighter has to spend an action at the beginning of combat to draw his weapon... if the enemy is immediately adjacent to him and he doesn't already have a weapon drawn because he's in a combat zone (wilderness/dungeon/enemy fortress/ etc). After that it doesn't come up again unless he's either a throwing specialist or has his main weapon disarmed by an enemy.

Meanwhile the caster (or archer for that matter) has to draw an item each round to even be able to strike, charging a move action for every one would mean they wouldn't be able to move in combat at all without giving up their attack, unless you include a rule like the one for drawing weapons while moving, putting it basically back to where it is already.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument to make here on balance concerns but having to choose to either move -or- do your class' thing is a rough choice to impose on a player for every round of every combat ever. That's just not gonna go down well as a house-rule for new players who read otherwise in the PHB or veterans who've been playing under the normal rules for years.

[Gruftzwerg]

"I always have my swords drawn!"


sounds like the cursed weapon did find a new owner xD

[StreamOfTheSky]

Probably because there's nothing you could do to challenge it that can't easily be worked around. Even if do manage to truly confiscate all twenty of the pouches I've hidden about my person, and INSIDE my person with shrink item and some string, rendering the problem moot at the outset is just a feat away.


False equivalence. The pouch isn't the weapon, it's the sheathe. The weapon is the bat crap and spider webs inside it. Even if it was the same, it'd be no different from having a dagger tucked into your belt with no sheathe, slightly shady but not the same as actually having a weapon in hand. Put a peace-bond strap on the pouch and call it a day.

No, the equivalent to requiring that weapons be sheathed would be spell component pouches in a backpack or some other compartment or container that requires at least a move action to retrieve. Hiding on your person would be fine; you'd need an action to retrieve it before drawing components from it.
The false equivalence is the sword to the bat crap. Because I can get the bat crap in hand as a free action, but need a move action to get the sword in my hand. All of this is ignoring the fact that I can harm you with bat crap from hundreds of feet away, while as I need to move close to you to hurt you with the sword.
So yeah, it's really silly that most DMs will require warriors to keep their weapons sheathed but never make the casters stow away their component pouches.

[Kish]

Even if it were only components, and only free ones, you need only design a custom spell which uses a free quarter staff as a component, and you've got free quick draw.
This runs into the eternal bane of theoretical optimizers: Custom spells do actually require DM approval, and a DM who isn't smiling and nodding at "I have my swords permanently affixed to my hands" is unlikely to smile and nod at, "What the spell does is unimportant, what's important is that its material component is a quarterstaff and stupid RAW is to be followed slavishly."

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, the equivalent to requiring that weapons be sheathed would be spell component pouches in a backpack or some other compartment or container that requires at least a move action to retrieve. Hiding on your person would be fine; you'd need an action to retrieve it before drawing components from it.
The false equivalence is the sword to the bat crap. Because I can get the bat crap in hand as a free action, but need a move action to get the sword in my hand. All of this is ignoring the fact that I can harm you with bat crap from hundreds of feet away, while as I need to move close to you to hurt you with the sword.
So yeah, it's really silly that most DMs will require warriors to keep their weapons sheathed but never make the casters stow away their component pouches.

You're trying to find an equivalence in the mechanics, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the object that poses a threat to those around the wielder. The pouch is no more a weapon than the sheathe a sword or dagger is in. A wizard doesn't simply take his pouch in hand and wave it at his enemies to kill them any more than a fighter does the same with his scabard and neither container is of any threat to anyone if it's empty (use as a makeshift club, not withstanding).

Now, mechanically, a more accurate comparison is the actual spells memorzied/ spell slots compared to an archer's arrows but they aren't equivalent in action mechanics either, just the other way around. In this case the component pouch still doesn't quite line up with the archer's (cross)bow but there is no perfect comparison here. The pouch's components are still closer to the actual weapon than the pouch itself, it just takes a different "bow" for each "arrow."

Ultimately it doesn't quite line up no matter how you slice it but a pouch is a sack is a container. It's just not the actual dangerous component to the bearer's offensive abilities. That distinction lies with the components/weapons themselves. I can understand wanting to see a mechanical equivalence from a game-design standpoint but they just aren't the same thing logically.

[Nightcanon]

This is a typical thing a bad player exploiting the game says, and they are very common. Most players that say such things are ''set'' in their ways, so there is not much point in speaking to them. You could say ''stop being a jerk", but they will just say "I'm a jerk 24/7 deal with it''.

Talking to the DM can work. Ask him to just apply ''common sense'' to it. Obviously the character can't do other things with full hands. And ''having swords drawn'', is no help with surprise....

I disagree- if anything, the DM is being the jerk springing ambushes on players then insisting that they first have to draw their weapons. Sure, if they are wandering round as civillians in a civilised society they might expect to be told to sheath their weapons by the guard, but in a dungeon or wilderness environment where attack is likely, weapons drawn or at least to hand such that drawing them is a free action would be my default expectation. If a rogue has to put his blade down to examine a trap, he puts it down close by, and no, he doesn't have to specify that he picks it up again any more than a cleric has to specify that he put his holy symbol round his neck when he woke up this morning.

[Crake]

I don't get all the hatred toward the titular statement. While adventuring in a dungeon or obviously hostile territory, I always assume my players have their weapons drawn and ready unless they actively do something that requires them to put their weapons away. Unless players are walking around town with weapons drawn, I don't see the issue at all, why would you NOT have your weapons drawn? And yeah, as it's already been mentioned, by second level, literally everyone can draw their weapons as part of a regular move action anyway, so the rogue who "always full attacks after moving in to flank" is perfectly within his rights to do so unless he's still level 1, because he would have drawn his weapons during that initial move.

Why is this such a big deal to everyone?

[rrwoods]

I've avoided getting involved in the actual discussion, but.... Screw it.

It. Depends. On. The. Players.

In games I'm playing or running, there's almost never argument over whether a weapon was drawn or not. If a fight breaks out at an arts festival, weapons probably not drawn. If you're exploring a dungeon, of course they are. No question.

But that's my games. The question is one of expectations. In the OP's case there is clearly a difference of expectations between the DM and the player. It's unreasonable to call either side unreasonable, IMO, and my answer would be to get a consensus from the players on what they want. Is it immersion breaking to just assume that weapons are somehow magically appropriately drawn or not? Or is it forcing micro management on players that don't want it to not let them assume their characters are behaving like adventurers normally would by default?

I deliberately put negative spin on both positions just there, to illustrate a point. Again, neither position is unreasonable, but anyone holding that their position is the only reasonable one is likely to assume the worst of anyone who disagrees.

[Fizban]

unless you include a rule like the one for drawing weapons while moving, putting it basically back to where it is already.
Draw while moving, yes. Assuming all spells had components, prevents surprise round spells unless you'd already drawn, and conflicts with metamagic for spontaneous casters anyway, until you take Quick Draw. Long way was rather exaggerated but there is a lot of room with those sort of action costs to reign things in, if you can make people eat the nerf.

[ryu]

Draw while moving, yes. Assuming all spells had components, prevents surprise round spells unless you'd already drawn, and conflicts with metamagic for spontaneous casters anyway, until you take Quick Draw. Long way was rather exaggerated but there is a lot of room with those sort of action costs to reign things in, if you can make people eat the nerf.

The response to this isn't quick draw. It's eschew material components.

[Fizban]

The response to this isn't quick draw. It's eschew material components.
Except for focii, but you're already saying focii work differently anyway.

[Vogie]

I've avoided getting involved in the actual discussion, but.... Screw it.

It. Depends. On. The. Players.

In games I'm playing or running, there's almost never argument over whether a weapon was drawn or not. If a fight breaks out at an arts festival, weapons probably not drawn. If you're exploring a dungeon, of course they are. No question.

But that's my games. The question is one of expectations. In the OP's case there is clearly a difference of expectations between the DM and the player. It's unreasonable to call either side unreasonable, IMO, and my answer would be to get a consensus from the players on what they want. Is it immersion breaking to just assume that weapons are somehow magically appropriately drawn or not? Or is it forcing micro management on players that don't want it to not let them assume their characters are behaving like adventurers normally would by default?

I deliberately put negative spin on both positions just there, to illustrate a point. Again, neither position is unreasonable, but anyone holding that their position is the only reasonable one is likely to assume the worst of anyone who disagrees.

Pretty much.

Honestly, if I was a player in this campaign, this would happen precisely once, and I'd adapt the character to it. Get wrist sheaths, gloves of storing or otherwise hide them for access without picking them up or putting them down, change my focus to a tattoo, you name it. As soon as you have a DM like that, you do what needs to be done.

In an ideal world, as soon as the group groans a second time, the DM would get a clue, but here we are.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Anything too big to be sheathed solves this problem, really. Guisarme, quarterstaff, greatsword - always carried across the shoulder/used as walking stick. Yet another reason two-handing is the best combat style!

[Segev]

Heck, if you want to get schmancy, get an item of permanent unseen servant and have it caddy your armaments for you. Your weapons are effectively hovering right there for you to grab at your convenience.

[FreddyNoNose]

We have all had or been a tight-ass DM who likes to ambush the party and then be a sticker for action economy by making sure everyone spends the actions necessary to draw weapons, but this post isn't about us. This post is about that one guy who says

"But I always have my swords drawn!"

He's playing a rogue or a fighter because he doesn't like keeping track of spells and he always starts rolling a full attack after moving to flank. This is the same guy who pulls his lower lip up to his nose in intense contemplation of his damage roll for five minutes at a time, and never remembers it's his turn. He says

"I always have my swords drawn!"

because he wouldn't remember to draw them if they weren't. But remember that tight-ass DM? What does he do? He fights our friend here to the death at every opportunity, slowing the pace of the game to a crawl and pissing everybody off.

"You have to pick your weapon back up off the ground because you dropped them to unlock the door!"

Immersion is a distant memory at this point. Everybody's checking their phone, wondering why they blew off other plans to come and do this again.

This cautionary rant was brought to you by Sanders and Co.
If you are going to be "that guy" who always has his sword out, then you have to accept the consequences of that.

[FreddyNoNose]

I tend to side with the player over the DM in this case.

Putting aside the issues with his lack of understanding of the game mechanics and how long it takes him to have his turn, it's entirely reasonable for a professional adventurer to have his weapon drawn at any time when he might reasonably be expecting danger. In the typical campaign, this would include any dungeoneering where his hands aren't full doing something else, and during most wilderness exploration/travel.

As a DM, the only time I hit players with this is when they are caught sleeping - I don't allow them to sleep with their weapons readied.

All the DM is really doing is putting an action tax on mundanes - the casters happily shoot off their spells while others are fumbling weapons out of scabbards.

To echo some of the above comments, sounds like this game has a few issues besides those mentioned.

So you don't like something therefore the DM is bad/wrong etc? What is wrong with players being accurate? Being accurate is fun.

There is a difference between: 1) My player takes the flying potion out of his backpack, drinks it and jumps off the cliff. and 2) The player jumpers off the cliff and falls to his death. The player might complain that obviously he would have drank the potion. It is that kind of backtracking which is annoying to me. Anything might be written off as "obviously I meant _________" and cheapens the game experience.

[Psyren]

Play Totemist or Monk, problem solved.

[Crake]

So you don't like something therefore the DM is bad/wrong etc? What is wrong with players being accurate? Being accurate is fun.

There is a difference between: 1) My player takes the flying potion out of his backpack, drinks it and jumps off the cliff. and 2) The player jumpers off the cliff and falls to his death. The player might complain that obviously he would have drank the potion. It is that kind of backtracking which is annoying to me. Anything might be written off as "obviously I meant _________" and cheapens the game experience.

What you're describing isn't the difference between accurate and inaccurate, it's the difference between being specific, and assuming the small details. Because seriously, why else would the player just randomly jump off a cliff, unless you want your PCs to have three stooges syndrome. Personally, I find immersion is lost when things don't make sense in character more than when someone clarifies what they were intending to do.

As a verbal medium, the game isn't going to be perfectly described, and what people see in their minds isn't always going to be perfectly conveyed, so I find it better to give players the benefit of the doubt, because I don't ask the players to describe every little detail of what they do throughout every moment of their day.

[Thurbane]

So you don't like something therefore the DM is bad/wrong etc? What is wrong with players being accurate? Being accurate is fun.

There is a difference between: 1) My player takes the flying potion out of his backpack, drinks it and jumps off the cliff. and 2) The player jumpers off the cliff and falls to his death. The player might complain that obviously he would have drank the potion. It is that kind of backtracking which is annoying to me. Anything might be written off as "obviously I meant _________" and cheapens the game experience.

I'm not saying the DM is "bad", just I disagree with their call on this issue. Your interpretation of what I said is a pretty far stretch - in general terms, I am very much against player entitlement and think that players need to show due respect to DMs and generally to defer to the DM when a compromise can't be reached.

Also, I don't think that example you gave is in any way equivalent to an adventurer having his weapons drawn unless there is a good reason not to do so.

The easy answer if the DM wants to be a stickler is to have a written card that states "Please note: Bob the Rogue will have his weapon drawn except in the following circumstances: 1. In polite company where it would cause offense; 2. hands full with another task; 3. sleeping etc.". I've virtually had to do this with a DM who insisted unless we specified EVERY TIME that we were listening at doors in a dungeon, we hadn't done so. This is AFTER I very clearly stated "Assume we listen at each door please, unless there's a good reason we wouldn't". The DM eventually agreed he was being a bit unreasonable in having to have us verbally state it each time, and a compromise was reached.

[Mordaedil]

If you aren't creating situations where Quick Draw would be a useful feat, you are kind of actively punishing the character who took it as a feat.

FYI.

[Deophaun]

If you aren't creating situations where Quick Draw would be a useful feat, you are kind of actively punishing the character who took it as a feat.
Passively, not actively.

But generally, Quick Draw is a feat that the player who took it should be able to create situations where it is useful. Otherwise... why take it?

Oh, stupid prerequisites. Right.

[Mordaedil]

Passively, not actively.
Thinking about it more closely, both can be true.



But generally, Quick Draw is a feat that the player who took it should be able to create situations where it is useful. Otherwise... why take it?

Oh, stupid prerequisites. Right.
Yeah... Generally I think both ought to be true though. Quick draw is about as good as improved initiative in terms of game changers.

[Mutazoia]

I've avoided getting involved in the actual discussion, but.... Screw it.

It. Depends. On. The. Players.

In games I'm playing or running, there's almost never argument over whether a weapon was drawn or not. If a fight breaks out at an arts festival, weapons probably not drawn. If you're exploring a dungeon, of course they are. No question.

But that's my games. The question is one of expectations. In the OP's case there is clearly a difference of expectations between the DM and the player. It's unreasonable to call either side unreasonable, IMO, and my answer would be to get a consensus from the players on what they want. Is it immersion breaking to just assume that weapons are somehow magically appropriately drawn or not? Or is it forcing micro management on players that don't want it to not let them assume their characters are behaving like adventurers normally would by default?

I deliberately put negative spin on both positions just there, to illustrate a point. Again, neither position is unreasonable, but anyone holding that their position is the only reasonable one is likely to assume the worst of anyone who disagrees.

Pretty much this.

Unless the players are shopping in the local market (for example), you can assume weapons are drawn and ready for battle. You wouldn't see soldiers crawling through bombed out cities, looking for enemy soldiers, with their weapons slung, would you? (Not if they wanted to live longer than a few minutes you wouldn't.)

You could allso assume that a rogue, after picking a lock, would pick his weapon back up before actually opening the door.

Making players actually state they are drawing weapons while in a dungeon, or making a rogue state that he is picking his sword up after picking a lock is rather pedantic at best. Next thing, he'll be making players roll CON checks because they haven't stated they are going to bathroom for weeks.

[Deophaun]

Next thing, he'll be making players roll CON checks because they haven't stated they are going to bathroom for weeks.
But that's how they track you!

That's why it's important to buy as many mason jars as you can carry.

[Mutazoia]

But that's how they track you!

That's why it's important to buy as many mason jars as you can carry.

Actually, that's why portable holes were invented. Because jars break.

[ryu]

Actually, that's why portable holes were invented. Because jars break.

Bah! Enveloping Pit. Go big or go home.

[Blackhawk748]

If im exploring a Dungeon, why wouldnt my weapon be in my hand? Hell i can open a door with a sword in hand. The only time id have to sheathe it is if i needed to climb or something, and then id pull it right back out.

Really i've never understood why people seem to get pissed when the Fighter says their weapon is always out.

[Mutazoia]

Bah! Enveloping Pit. Go big or go home.

Actually, this is probably the only really good use of the old "Bag of Devouring". Do your business in the bag, and you never have to clean it out.

[ryu]

Actually, this is probably the only really good use of the old "Bag of Devouring". Do your business in the bag, and you never have to clean it out.

The simple flaw with this plan is that you've lost an incredibly mortifying and hilarious way of trapping enemies.

[Quertus]

If you are going to be "that guy" who always has his sword out, then you have to accept the consequences of that.

... That you get invited to travel with other competent adventurers (or to babysit my signature academia mage)?


Actually, this is probably the only really good use of the old "Bag of Devouring". Do your business in the bag, and you never have to clean it out.

And why the wizard threatens to turn you into a sentient bag of devouring when you make fun of his tinfoil hat.

[Fouredged Sword]

At my table if we got this pendantic it would devolve into a conversation about the rules requirements of "wielding" and someone's player will grip his sword with his mouth.

[ryu]

At my table if we got this pendantic it would devolve into a conversation about the rules requirements of "wielding" and someone's player will grip his sword with his mouth.

Which is entirely legitimate. The mouth was a primary means of holding things before thumbs and thus recognizable hands happened.

[Flickerdart]

If im exploring a Dungeon, why wouldnt my weapon be in my hand? Hell i can open a door with a sword in hand.

If your play style is "kick down the door" then you never have to worry about freeing up your hands. :smallamused:

[ExLibrisMortis]

If your play style is "kick down the door" then you never have to worry about freeing up your hands. :smallamused:
That's the spirit in which Elder Mountain Hammer was conceived! Sheathes are for wusses!

[Mutazoia]

At my table if we got this pendantic it would devolve into a conversation about the rules requirements of "wielding" and someone's player will grip his sword with his mouth.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/59/93/0859936245fad990ea401fa582a360c0.jpg

[digiman619]

At my table if we got this pendantic it would devolve into a conversation about the rules requirements of "wielding" and someone's player will grip his sword with his mouth.
Y'know I bet someone is going to post a picture of-

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/59/93/0859936245fad990ea401fa582a360c0.jpg

Yep.

[Sliver]

Are we seriously at a point where mundane classes having their weapons drawn is not only considered an exploit, but one worth complaining over?:smallconfused:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ZRMEorOkbNRmM/200_s.gif

[Thurbane]

Are we seriously at a point where mundane classes having their weapons drawn is not only considered an exploit, but one worth complaining over?:smallconfused:

https://media2.giphy.com/media/ZRMEorOkbNRmM/200_s.gif

Yep, that's pretty much my take on it.

I always try to defer to the DM, but I can't in good conscience say that I agree with the DM ruling in the OP.