How do you handle weapon switching?

[Lavaeolus]

So, this is more of a question of how you've handled the rules in sessions you might've run than literally what the rules are, but I'm a little curious.

My experience is that a lot of players tend to pick one weapon and stick with it through thick and thin (unless you offer them something new and better), but 5e will often stick you with a fair few redundant weapons at character creation. There are also a lot of pertinent reasons why you might want to make a ranged attack vs a melee one. At some point, then, you might get it in your head to switch from one weapon to another.

What are the literal rules?
You get one free object interaction per turn. Drawing and sheathing different weapons are both individual object interactions. Dropping a weapon isn't an object interaction (maybe -- this thread proves it's a little under contention, since it largely got established through old Crawford tweets). This creates the following implications that the designers have mostly doubled down on:


Assuming their weapons were initially sheathed, two-weapon wielders should draw one weapon on their first turn, then on their second turn be able to draw their second weapon. The Dual Wielder feat lets you get around this.
You can switch weapon by stowing a weapon at the end of a turn, then drawing a different one at the start of your next one.
You can switch weapon by stowing a weapon, then using your action to draw a new one (via the Use an Object action). Notably, Thief Rogues can use Fast Hands to instead draw as a bonus action.
If it's allowed, you can switch weapon by dropping your weapon, then using your free object interaction to draw a new one.


Is this good?
I've always been pretty generous about letting players start with their weapons drawn, but if you're a little more attentive about that then it's a bit of an inconvenience for TWF. Not worrying about it does devalue the Dual Wielder feat and the Thief subclass. It's easier on my end and the player's end, though.

As far as changing weapons goes, dropping a weapon is a little risky, which means there's usually a tactical trade-off there. It is kind of all-or-nothing, though: either your enemy just picks up the weapon, usually removing it from play until they're down, or you pick it up at your next turn with no cost. Spending a turn unarmed is usually less risky, but might cause you some complications. On the flipside, this all does feel a little non-intuitive.

You could simplify it: one way might be to make it one object interaction to switch weapons. This makes weapon switching pretty free and easy... but means, say, getting that two-handed bow user into melee range doesn't hurt them as much -- they can just switch to their rapier without much real pain. (A one-handed bow user, of course, could always just pull out a sword with their free hand, though it temporarily renders their bow useless.) I suppose if you wanted to punish this more, you could, say, have opportunity attacks be triggered by weapon switching, or institute other house rules.

Getting to the point
So, not really looking for a definitive right answer here. I've just seen a surprising amount of table variation over this, at least from a cursory glance around the internet. Everything from sticking to RAW, to house-ruling that you can draw a weapon as a bonus action.

But how have you forumgoers been handling it, then? Any methods you've tried that you find the most fun, the most convenient, or the most intuitive? Is RAW the way forward, or do you differ a bit?

[NorthernPhoenix]

Sort of like the encumbrance rules, i generally only care about the "RAW" of this if someone is trying to be cheeky. I run it so that anything someone could reasonably do in a movie without looking dumb, you can do as a free object action.

Yes i realize this might be a "nerf" to some features (thief? DW feat?), but that's generally never come up as a problem before.

[Zhorn]

I tend to stick pretty close to RAW on weapon drawing;

I like to retain values of features, doubly so if a PC is already building out in that direction
I've played with a few people in the past who are very quick to turn a simple quality-of-life deviation from RAW into .an exploitable loophole letting them get away with unintended consequences, so now I'm a little more cautious about those things.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

My multiple weapon users PCs and NPCs tie their weapons to their bodies (like soldiers do IRL, me and my party all served in the military so we know it is reasonable and easy to use).

So dropping the weapon is not a problem.
"The Drow soldier drop his hand cross bow that swing from his belt and cut you with his scimitar as he draw it."
If he will still be in melee rang he will draw his second scimitar.

Same for the wizard that used his wand of fireball and want to use his staff of defense for shield if he will be shoot. He will drop the wand, let him swing from his waist draw the staff(lats assume he only have one hand for this example).

[Asisreo1]

I've currently started a similar debate in another thread, but what makes people believe dropping a weapon is not an object interaction? There's no mention of free actions and the only activities the PHB explicitly calls out as having no cost is flourishing and talking.

I understand it seems simple and it's reasonable you can drop something without much effort, but in essence, you are still interacting with such objects.

[Zhorn]

I understand it seems simple and it's reasonable you can drop something without much effort, but in essence, you are still interacting with such objects.
I can understand the point of view you are expressing, and while I don't agree with that stance on the matter, I agree it is as a valid a view to hold on object interactions as any other.
I like to think of it as the difference between dropping prone and standing up. Standing up takes effort, where dropping prone is a ceasing of effort.
Then applying the same equivalence to object interaction, picking up an object is an amount of effort, dropping the object is a ceasing of effort.

[da newt]

Interacting with an object is a free action (PHB pg 190) and does not cost any movement or action. Most tables I've played with allow 1 object interaction per turn in combat. The provided list is a pretty handy guide.

At every table I've played with dropping anything (prone, weapon, concentration, grapple ...) has no action cost (but I'm not sure if that is RAW).

For me, the action cost of donning/doffing a shield using a full action is the one that frustrates me - it totally makes sense, but I wish my PCs could switch from ranged-bow to melee-sword&shield more efficiently.

I also agree that a handcrossbow or wand could easily be tethered, but a longsword, staff, bow - that's probably too much.

[Lunali]

How I handle it as a player is currently by giving up 1 damage to hold my bow in the off hand instead of using a longsword two handed whenever ranged combat seems plausible. This lets me attack in melee or sheath the single weapon to make ranged attacks freely. If it gets to a point where ranged attacks are particularly unlikely, I put the bow away and use the sword two handed.

As a DM I handle it differently for different people. Some of the players have a good grasp of the rules so I expect them to follow the rules on weapon switching. The other players struggle with the rules and I'm happy enough with them deciding ranged attacks are a thing they should use and I don't want to discourage them. It isn't really fair, but the players in the first group are also the people that take turns DMing and they do similar things when they're DM so there's no complaining about it.

[Riggdgames]

But how have you forumgoers been handling it, then? Any methods you've tried that you find the most fun, the most convenient, or the most intuitive? Is RAW the way forward, or do you differ a bit?

I prefer RAW as a player and when I've DMed. Does it sometimes feel clunky or even just difficult to grasp for newer players? Perhaps, but I think the advantages far outweigh the drawbacks. The biggest advantage in my mind is that it actually forces the player to make choices that matter about how they approach a fight and what combination of weapon(s)/shield/focus they choose. If you simply houserule that a character can stow a weapon and pull another in the same round, it diminishes the importance of those choices. I personally like having to make those decisions at the start of and throughout combat.

The RAW also just makes some weapons better because of their versatility. Melee weapons that can be thrown or weapons that literally have the 'versatility' attribute take an unintended nerf (in my mind) when you rule that item swaps are basically free (or closer to it).

[Lavaeolus]

I've currently started a similar debate in another thread, but what makes people believe dropping a weapon is not an object interaction? There's no mention of free actions and the only activities the PHB explicitly calls out as having no cost is flourishing and talking.

I understand it seems simple and it's reasonable you can drop something without much effort, but in essence, you are still interacting with such objects.

Absolutely a fair point: I think for a long time (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248) Crawford tweets were kind of treated as though they were official rulings, before they understandably veered away from that in favour of just pointing people towards the Sage Advice Compendium, but just going by the wording of the PHB it's definitely not an unambiguous point. (It at least establishes that there can be movements that don't require an action or interaction, but I think what could be considered as part of "a variety of flourishes" would be pretty DM-dependent, dropping a weapon aside.)

I'll leave it to everyone's tables to determine if they'd allow dropping freely, but I put in a quick note in the OP of my understanding of the drawing/stowing rules.

[Aimeryan]

Absolutely a fair point: I think for a long time (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/1105277917582389248) Crawford tweets were kind of treated as though they were official rulings, before they understandably veered away from that in favour of just pointing people towards the Sage Advice Compendium, but just going by the wording of the PHB it's definitely not an unambiguous point. (It at least establishes that there can be movements that don't require an action or interaction, but I think what could be considered as part of "a variety of flourishes" would be pretty DM-dependent, dropping a weapon aside.)

I'll leave it to everyone's tables to determine if they'd allow dropping freely, but I put in a quick note in the OP of my understanding of the drawing/stowing rules.

The closest I've came to is various examples of letting go of things that don't cost an action (like grappling), and therefore extrapolating that to mean anything that would feasibly not require extra attention or time.

A particular case is the Unconscious condition; it doesn't let you take any actions, and you drop anything you are holding - ergo, dropping something cannot take any form of action.

[Asisreo1]

The closest I've came to is various examples of letting go of things that don't cost an action (like grappling), and therefore extrapolating that to mean anything that would feasibly not require extra attention or time.

A particular case is the Unconscious condition; it doesn't let you take any actions, and you drop anything you are holding - ergo, dropping something cannot take any form of action.
I don't know...object interactions are not listed as actions anyways. It's something you can do with either you action or movement, but specific beats general. Dropping weapons is a symptom of being unconscious, that doesn't necessarily mean dropping a weapon doesn't require interaction.

[Tanarii]

Dropping or sheathing a weapon is an object interaction.
Picking up or unsheathing is a n object interaction.
Plan accordingly.

I'm aware of the Crawford tweets, but this is how I rule it. Because I saw abuse in official play. To counter point and paraphrase another posters comment on not trusting DMs, if you can't trust players, make a ruling on it.

It helps there's no particular RAW justification for dropping being 'free'. And object interactions exist.

[HPisBS]

My position would have to be:

Of course, you can drop what you're holding without taking any extra time or effort. Regardless of what RAW does or doesn't say on the matter, treating it any other way is dumb. It's just letting go of what you're already holding, after all. It takes about as much time to do it as it does to think about doing it.

... Now, if you want to say that carelessly letting your sword simply fall from shoulder height onto the stone floor you're standing on is a bad idea because it could get chipped or whatever, then that's another matter. But even then, I'd still call BS on requiring your turn's only "object interaction" to avoid that. I can see bending down for a sec to drop it from a lower height costing you 5 ft of movement or something, but that's it.

[Lunali]

Dropping or sheathing a weapon is an object interaction.
Picking up or unsheathing is a n object interaction.
Plan accordingly.

I'm aware of the Crawford tweets, but this is how I rule it. Because I saw abuse in official play. To counter point and paraphrase another posters comment on not trusting DMs, if you can't trust players, make a ruling on it.

It helps there's no particular RAW justification for dropping being 'free'. And object interactions exist.

I prefer a different approach to deal with abuse, someone drops a weapon to avoid stowing it properly? intelligent enemy sees weapon, grabs it and runs or tosses it somewhere.

[Pex]

In games I've played it depends on the DM. Some are more lenient than others, but even the less lenient are reasonable. They don't push enforcement hard all the time, and at the very least will allow you to drop your current weapon to draw another one for the free object interaction. In particular situations of climactic moments Rule of Cool will trump everything.

In my game as DM it only matters for the rogue since everyone else uses only one weapon. I allow him to switch between his crossbow and rapier on his turn for free. It's not a bother to me.

[Tanarii]

I prefer a different approach to deal with abuse, someone drops a weapon to avoid stowing it properly? intelligent enemy sees weapon, grabs it and runs or tosses it somewhere.
Given there's no penalty for picking up a weapon in an opponents space, and as an object interaction to boot, I can see that working.

[Mellack]

I will mention that you can drop your whole body to the ground for no cost, so it seems odd to not allow dropping just an object from your hand the same way.

[firelistener]

I used to be strict on it, but I have really lazy players that don't remember a lot of rules despite having played for years, so I dropped it. It was too much for me to manage as DM remembering who did or did not have what weapons drawn each turn and enforce the rule to keep people from hot-swapping between dual daggers and a crossbow, for example. People often get upset when I have to remind them they can't do something because of a rule, so I try to minimize the number of easy-to-forget rules (and there's still a lot, for my players). Shields are the only thing I enforce now since that +2AC is a pretty noticeable difference.

[HappyDaze]

Our Bard is a terrible offender when it comes to "What's in your hands?" Often it's the evebright lantern, sometimes it's a rapier, sometimes a hand crossbow, sometimes a musical instrument, and sometimes it's conveniently empty. The player has terrible memory and can't keep it straight. But really, we don't care all that much.

[Asisreo1]

Let's be honest, it doesn't really even need to be enforced unless a player is purposefully trying to cheese it. Like, who is actually going to drop in instead of sheathe their weapon? Really, unless the weapon you're replacing is two-handed, just hold onto the other weapon. You're not going to use it to attack anyways. You have a bow and want to draw a rapier? Just hold the bow in one hand and draw/attack with the other.

[Misterwhisper]

I will enforce weapon switching or drawing when casters have to spend sometime to draw specific tiny items from a component pouch.

[Sindal]

Me personally as a dm?

A full weapons swap (from a maul to say, sword and board) Would take your bonus action . Usually seems fair.
Considering someone like a fighter can swing up to 8+ times in a turn, I think that's enough of a cost for adapting.

If your just putting something away or taking something out, free.

[MoiMagnus]

Quite lax, and I let the players handle it a long as it feels reasonable.

If I wanted to enforce it on forgetful players, I would probably print some cards to represent "empty hand" or the objects commonly used by the PCs (plus some blank ones for improvised objects), and ask the players to keep in front of them the two cards representing what they are holding.
It would also have the advantage of me not needing to ask them to quickly know what they are holding.

[HappyDaze]

I will enforce weapon switching or drawing when casters have to spend sometime to draw specific tiny items from a component pouch.

Yeah. The "just touch the pouch" means the contents hardly matter at all. Just shake the bag.

[Sparky McDibben]

I just use it as a full-round action (action, bonus action, but not movement) to switch weapons, but not to draw two weapons. I also assume they have weapons out always in the dungeon.

[Pex]

I just use it as a full-round action (action, bonus action, but not movement) to switch weapons, but not to draw two weapons. I also assume they have weapons out always in the dungeon.

That's a nerf taking away the bonus action. You get one free minor object interaction. That covers stowing a weapon. Drawing a weapon to ready it for combat would be the Use An Object Action. Could be vice versa - stowing the weapon is Use An Object, drawing a weapon is the free minor object interaction.

[Tanarii]

Yeah. The "just touch the pouch" means the contents hardly matter at all. Just shake the bag.
It's included in the action already spent on casting. The same way drawing a weapon is included in the attack.

Oops my bad. The context is that M components, accessing a pouch or focus, doesn't use an object interaction. Whereas drawing a weapon does. Both are part of the action but the latter is definitely more restrictive.

[Misterwhisper]

It's included in the action already spent on casting.

The same way drawing a weapon is included in the attack.

Not the same thing.

One is drawing a weapon to attack from a sheath that is usually large and obvious, but you can only do it once.
Pull a dagger from from a belt, takes some action, sometimes, draw, align, knock and draw back an arrow... nothing.


The other is sifting through a pouch of possibly dozens of random tiny bits to grab exactly what you need.

Anyone else tries to do that with another pouch, bag, or backpack, it costs them some form of action, but nope casters get to do it for free and never costs them any form of action.

Drawing a non-hidden item from a designated place on yourself should have never cost anyone anything, all it does is make dual wielder even more useless and make thrown weapon builds almost impossible.

[Dessunri]

The best way I've ever seen it handled is this: You can draw a weapon as a free action and you can sheath a weapon as a free action, but not both in the same turn. So, if you're already holding a weapon, lets say a battleaxe, and you wanted to pull out a bow to shoot someone, you'd have to drop your battleaxe in order to draw your bow for free. Or you can sheath your battleaxe for free but then take your action to draw your bow. As you said, most of the time the players are going to stick with their trust weapons through thick and thin but there are occasionally times when they want to switch. It's then up to them to actually remember to pick up their weapons. This can of course be hand waved by them saying they loot the bodies and pick up their weapons yadda yadda. But I have had a DM "punish" a player because he would never say he picked up his weapon so one time in a small skirmish he was told he didn't have his weapon lol.