Putting yours fingers on/off an object is interacting with it in some way.
Not having your hand on it is decidedly: not interacting with it.
You're having your hand on it in order to let go of it. It's in your hand and you interact with it in some way to drop it.
Holding an item that has already been in your hand is not an item interaction.
Not holding an item is also not an item interaction.
So, not holding an item that was previously in your hand is still not an item interaction.
You express two static state hold/not hold while the object intereaction is the action of letting go of it that happen in between them specifically. Picking up is one exemple provided, dropping isn't, which is the reverse.
I appreciate the potential, gaming mechanical balance in gaming in saying that it takes a round to either don or doff a shield but, as far as physical mechanics is concerned, this is BS.
Unless a shield is being moved to a stowed position it could be relatively easy to either drop the shield or leave it hanging from a strap. It could then be pretty easy to swing it around again to grab hold of it.
In 5E a shield normally always occupy a free hand and use an action to don/doff.
Yes IRL shields have different ways to hold them and some don't occupy your hand but showing vids of them to disprove how 5E handles it RAW serves no purposes in rules discussions because design in D&D is not based on realisms but balance more than anything.
A DM is always free to rule that a shield leaves your hand free and can be don or doff as a bonus actionif he want of course.
Yes IRL shields have different ways to hold them and some don't occupy your hand but showing vids of them to disprove how 5E handles it RAW serves no purposes in rules discussions because design in D&D is not based on realisms but balance more than anything. ...
I appreciate the potential, gaming mechanical balance in gaming in saying that it takes a round to either don or doff a shield but, as far as physical mechanics is concerned, this is BS. ...
5e is a gaming mechanic which has internal consistency.
The film who framed roger rabbit has a mechanic whereby he could only slip his hand out of the handcuffs to hold the table to help the detective hacksaw through the chain of the handcuffs, "when it was funny". It doesn't matter if it doesn't make real-world sense as it makes sense within the world of toon. However, if anyone (or wotc) wants to consider fitting real-world conditions in their games, there's plenty of reference materials out there.
Putting yours fingers on/off an object is interacting with it in some way.
Not having your hand on it is decidedly: not interacting with it.
You're having your hand on it in order to let go of it. It's in your hand and you interact with it in some way to drop it.
Holding an item that has already been in your hand is not an item interaction.
Not holding an item is also not an item interaction.
So, not holding an item that was previously in your hand is still not an item interaction.
You express two static state hold/not hold while the object intereaction is the action of letting go of it that happen in between them specifically. Picking up is one exemple provided, dropping isn't, which is the reverse.
@DnDMontreal what are the rules on dropping weapons? People are dropping weapons to circumvent only having one 'Interaction with Object'
@JeremyECrawford The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.
Letting go isn't "doing something" it is "not doing something". Specifically, you're not holding it.
Not doing something... isn't an action.
Edit: Interacting with an item means trying to control it in some way. Every example illustrates this. If you are trying to control the object, control where it lands, action. Control how it moves, action. Change it in some way or otherwise use it, action. Your first item interact is free. Letting go isn't controlling it, it is relinquishing control of it. You are stopping something not doing something.
Not doing something isn't an action. You're not doing an infinite number of things at all times.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes IRL shields have different ways to hold them and some don't occupy your hand but showing vids of them to disprove how 5E handles it RAW serves no purposes in rules discussions because design in D&D is not based on realisms but balance more than anything. ...
I appreciate the potential, gaming mechanical balance in gaming in saying that it takes a round to either don or doff a shield but, as far as physical mechanics is concerned, this is BS. ...
5e is a gaming mechanic which has internal consistency.
The film who framed roger rabbit has a mechanic whereby he could only slip his hand out of the handcuffs to hold the table to help the detective hacksaw through the chain of the handcuffs, "when it was funny". It doesn't matter if it doesn't make real-world sense as it makes sense within the world of toon. However, if anyone (or wotc) wants to consider fitting real-world conditions in their games, there's plenty of reference materials out there.
Yes, internal consistency. A shield always requires an action to doff. That is as consistent as you can get. What you are asking for is homebrew rules based on an external source of information about a special type of shield.
D&D is both a game and a fantasy/medeival world simulation. Sometimes those two things are at odds. There are many places in the rules where the simulation half needs to give way in order to maintain the integrity of the game half. Shield and armor "management" is one of those cases, as is attaching every single one of your items to a wallet chain so you never have to spend actions putting anything away.
If someone drops their weapon to be able to cast a spell, then the enemy would likely just use their own "interacting with objects" freebie to pick your weapon up and take it, or kick it aside, so this wouldn't work at all under RAW or reality.
If someone drops their weapon to be able to cast a spell, then the enemy would likely just use their own "interacting with objects" freebie to pick your weapon up and take it, or kick it aside, so this wouldn't work at all under RAW or reality.
The idea is drop your weapon as free action, cast spell, use your object interaction to pick up your own weapon all in a single turn.
If someone drops their weapon to be able to cast a spell, then the enemy would likely just use their own "interacting with objects" freebie to pick your weapon up and take it, or kick it aside, so this wouldn't work at all under RAW or reality.
Free item interaction takes place on your turn, not other's turn. So RAW en enemy couldn't interact with a weapon you have dropped on your turn.
Other Activities On Your Turn: You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.
If RAW allows this, as a DM I would say this is not RAF because it isn't just unrealistic, it is preposterous to allow automatically (which is what the War Caster feat allows since that requires training and foregoing your ability score improvement). It would be easy for a DM to simply require a dexterity ability check to pick up a weapon they dropped to cast that spell. All kinds of things can happen when you drop something in a battle. It can bounce a weird way, roll or whatever.
But to avoid this nonsense couldn't someone just sheathe a sword (free interaction) and cast the spell, and then on their next turn draw the sword again? What is the purpose of dropping it and picking it up on the same turn? Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?
Edit to add: picking up a dropped ax (free, p. 190) assumes the dropped ax is right there for the picking. When you drop something on purpose, you never know where it is going to land especially in a battle, so there should be some risk in doing this, and a random happening or other ability check is in order. If you want to be sure of what happens, sheathe it or stow it and redraw it next turn, or get the War Caster feat.
If RAW allows this, as a DM I would say this is not RAF because it isn't just unrealistic, it is preposterous to allow automatically (which is what the War Caster feat allows since that requires training and foregoing your ability score improvement). It would be easy for a DM to simply require a dexterity ability check to pick up a weapon they dropped to cast that spell. All kinds of things can happen when you drop something in a battle. It can bounce a weird way, roll or whatever.
You typically drop an item on the ground in the space you occupy. If you as a DM decide that an object could bound and land somewhere else, I don't think anyone would fault you for this, since I do not know of any rule that says where a object that you release will land.
But to avoid this nonsense couldn't someone just sheathe a sword (free interaction) and cast the spell, and then on their next turn draw the sword again? What is the purpose of dropping it and picking it up on the same turn? Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?
You could just sheathe the sword for the round, but then you don't have a weapon ready for any opportunity attack you want to make before your next turn. That is why this comes up as a possible thing to do.
This argument has to happen once a month for all time, or the devil contract keeping 5e alive will be broken.
If you're not using your interaction to drop the weapon, then you have zero control over where it lands. Which means I have that control. And I am not inclined to be kind in this regard.
This is a circumnavigation of the intended penalties for having one's cake and eating it. I've been bullied into accepting it because as a DM you're outnumbered and nobody likes a buzzkill. Too bad. Your weapon hits your foot. Make a Dexterity save or fall prone.
A guy messing around with LARP shields and swords doesn't mean that real shields (of heavy wood or metal) are going to react in the same way, and let's see you juggle with a shield and a two-handed weapon while somebody is physically attacking you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You express two static state hold/not hold while the object intereaction is the action of letting go of it that happen in between them specifically. Picking up is one exemple provided, dropping isn't, which is the reverse.
A Dev clarified the intent on Twitter so we know it's at least RAI https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/584435399767883776?s=20
I agree they provided just a few exemples and cannot put down every single ways to interact with an object.
In 5E a shield normally always occupy a free hand and use an action to don/doff.
Yes IRL shields have different ways to hold them and some don't occupy your hand but showing vids of them to disprove how 5E handles it RAW serves no purposes in rules discussions because design in D&D is not based on realisms but balance more than anything.
A DM is always free to rule that a shield leaves your hand free and can be don or doff as a bonus actionif he want of course.
I don't see that we are disagreeing.
5e is a gaming mechanic which has internal consistency.
The film who framed roger rabbit has a mechanic whereby he could only slip his hand out of the handcuffs to hold the table to help the detective hacksaw through the chain of the handcuffs, "when it was funny". It doesn't matter if it doesn't make real-world sense as it makes sense within the world of toon. However, if anyone (or wotc) wants to consider fitting real-world conditions in their games, there's plenty of reference materials out there.
Letting go isn't "doing something" it is "not doing something". Specifically, you're not holding it.
Not doing something... isn't an action.
Edit: Interacting with an item means trying to control it in some way. Every example illustrates this. If you are trying to control the object, control where it lands, action. Control how it moves, action. Change it in some way or otherwise use it, action. Your first item interact is free. Letting go isn't controlling it, it is relinquishing control of it. You are stopping something not doing something.
Not doing something isn't an action. You're not doing an infinite number of things at all times.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Yes, internal consistency. A shield always requires an action to doff. That is as consistent as you can get. What you are asking for is homebrew rules based on an external source of information about a special type of shield.
D&D is both a game and a fantasy/medeival world simulation. Sometimes those two things are at odds. There are many places in the rules where the simulation half needs to give way in order to maintain the integrity of the game half. Shield and armor "management" is one of those cases, as is attaching every single one of your items to a wallet chain so you never have to spend actions putting anything away.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If someone drops their weapon to be able to cast a spell, then the enemy would likely just use their own "interacting with objects" freebie to pick your weapon up and take it, or kick it aside, so this wouldn't work at all under RAW or reality.
The idea is drop your weapon as free action, cast spell, use your object interaction to pick up your own weapon all in a single turn.
Free item interaction takes place on your turn, not other's turn. So RAW en enemy couldn't interact with a weapon you have dropped on your turn.
If RAW allows this, as a DM I would say this is not RAF because it isn't just unrealistic, it is preposterous to allow automatically (which is what the War Caster feat allows since that requires training and foregoing your ability score improvement). It would be easy for a DM to simply require a dexterity ability check to pick up a weapon they dropped to cast that spell. All kinds of things can happen when you drop something in a battle. It can bounce a weird way, roll or whatever.
But to avoid this nonsense couldn't someone just sheathe a sword (free interaction) and cast the spell, and then on their next turn draw the sword again? What is the purpose of dropping it and picking it up on the same turn? Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?
Edit to add: picking up a dropped ax (free, p. 190) assumes the dropped ax is right there for the picking. When you drop something on purpose, you never know where it is going to land especially in a battle, so there should be some risk in doing this, and a random happening or other ability check is in order. If you want to be sure of what happens, sheathe it or stow it and redraw it next turn, or get the War Caster feat.
You typically drop an item on the ground in the space you occupy. If you as a DM decide that an object could bound and land somewhere else, I don't think anyone would fault you for this, since I do not know of any rule that says where a object that you release will land.
You could just sheathe the sword for the round, but then you don't have a weapon ready for any opportunity attack you want to make before your next turn. That is why this comes up as a possible thing to do.
This argument has to happen once a month for all time, or the devil contract keeping 5e alive will be broken.
If you're not using your interaction to drop the weapon, then you have zero control over where it lands. Which means I have that control. And I am not inclined to be kind in this regard.
This is a circumnavigation of the intended penalties for having one's cake and eating it. I've been bullied into accepting it because as a DM you're outnumbered and nobody likes a buzzkill. Too bad. Your weapon hits your foot. Make a Dexterity save or fall prone.
Hey Siri, set a reminder in one month...
Or maybe I'll just start a new thread about Faerie Fire causing all the armor the invisible rogue is wearing to start glowing? :)
Only if I get to post the thread about goliaths getting to dual wield greatswords.
A guy messing around with LARP shields and swords doesn't mean that real shields (of heavy wood or metal) are going to react in the same way, and let's see you juggle with a shield and a two-handed weapon while somebody is physically attacking you.