Draw and Stow Weapon 2024 Clarification

Quote from jl8e >>

Quote from BlackstoneMorgan >>

I find this convincing *if* we rule that dropping an item is indeed an object interaction (RAW says this, but again thats patently stupid as letting something fall is exactly NOT interacting with it), otherwise its a example of play that simply doesnt track with the new rules.

If you want to look at it from a "realism" perspective, you're in the middle of a fight. If you just drop the weapon you're holding, you're likely to trip over it. Similarly, you can't just fling it aside without risking hitting an ally. Dropping it or setting it down requires a modicum of time and attention.

 Looked at from purely a game-mechanical sense, you don't want there to be multiple ways of ridding yourself of a wielded weapon in the action economy -- it adds extra complication and potential confusion. (And people who want to do silly weapon swapping tricks will use the free method to get even sillier. They'll end up fighting with a pile of weapons at their feet, picking them up with an interaction, and dropping them again for free.)

 upvoting is not working for some reason, so consider this a stand-in

Quote from jl8e>>

If you want to look at it from a "realism" perspective, you're in the middle of a fight. If you just drop the weapon you're holding, you're likely to trip over it. Similarly, you can't just fling it aside without risking hitting an ally. Dropping it or setting it down requires a modicum of time and attention.

 Looked at from purely a game-mechanical sense, you don't want there to be multiple ways of ridding yourself of a wielded weapon in the action economy -- it adds extra complication and potential confusion. (And people who want to do silly weapon swapping tricks will use the free method to get even sillier. They'll end up fighting with a pile of weapons at their feet, picking them up with an interaction, and dropping them again for free.)

 
That's literally why you have 2 OPTIONS provided to you to prevent the pile of weapons sitting at your feet...

1st turn:
Equip weapon A from FOI
Stow weapon A from Attack

2nd turn:
Equip weapon B from FOI
Stow weapon B from Attack

repeat for weapon C, D, E....Z

The new SRD 5.2.1 has a conversion guide from SRD 5.1 to SRD 5.2.1 for creators looking to update their materials SRD v5.2.1 - System Reference Document - D&D Beyond 

It contains the following text confirming that you're intended to be able to equip and unequip on each attack of the Attack action;

Attack Action [Revised Rule] The Attack action contains several revisions:

• The action now specifies that it involves an attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.

• The action now allows you to equip or unequip one weapon with each attack you make with the action.

• The ability to move between attacks during combat is now a function of the Attack action rather than a general rule.

Quote from Staypunk1989 >>

 

Looked at from purely a game-mechanical sense, you don't want there to be multiple ways of ridding yourself of a wielded weapon in the action economy -- it adds extra complication and potential confusion. (And people who want to do silly weapon swapping tricks will use the free method to get even sillier. They'll end up fighting with a pile of weapons at their feet, picking them up with an interaction, and dropping them again for free.)

 
That's literally why you have 2 OPTIONS provided to you to prevent the pile of weapons sitting at your feet...

1st turn:
Equip weapon A from FOI
Stow weapon A from Attack

2nd turn:
Equip weapon B from FOI
Stow weapon B from Attack

repeat for weapon C, D, E....Z

It's an oversimplification where letting go of something requires a free object interaction/free unequip, but picking a weapon off the ground requires the same effort (a free object interaction/free equip) as drawing a weapon from a sheath. 

As a player or a DM, if your "opponent" is dropping weapons to switch between them, pick them up and use them.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

I think this rule change was done in order to help martials catch up with caster damage output and flexibility, not for.any excuses such as realism.

 It's unlikely, because it really doesn't do that. The best one can get out of running the weapon-swapping mechanics as hard as one can is a few extra points of damage. Maybe a cleave attack you wouldn't have otherwise got, but only under the right circumstances.

I think it was mostly to have clearer mechanics that 5.0 had, while making sure that players could do anything that any likely situation would call for. The weapon swapping wasn't the point, but I don't think it was something they were concerned with, either.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589>>

When i played 1st edition, i think we could stow or draw 1 weapon per turn. If you had a sword drawn and need to make a ranged attack, might as well skip your turn.

There is also a lot of silliness in 2024 about light property, nick mastery, two weapon fighting, and dual wielding feat that gives folks 3 attacks early on and 4 attacks at level 5.  Its wotcs way of buffing marttuals without rewritting everything..

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

"That just lets the two-weapon fighters keep up,"

A character with simple weapons shouldnt be doing the same damage per turn as a charavter with martial weapons.

But thats where we are. 

The guy with only simple weapon proficiency got something else. They shoukd use that. But power creep pushed until a guy with 2 daggers is probably doing more damage than a guy with a greatsword.

Rogues get sneak atack. They get simple weapons, and if they can qualify for sneak attavk, they get a LOT more damage. If they cant hide, no sneak attack. Thats the trade off.  But now, rogues can just do 4 attacks. That means they keep up with a longsword when they cant get sneak attack, and when they DO get sneal attack, they outpace the guy with the longsword.

I havent seen someone playing a straight fighter in years. And the reason is simple, they get the worst combination of rules.and other classes can outpace them. Second edition, the rogue was a lot more interested in picking pockets than combat. Now base rogues do more sustained damage (zeronresource) than any base class. 

 
This combination requires a bit of commitment with fighting styles and extra attack (dip), dual wielder feat and more.
It trades off bonus action utility for an attack. Its not like rogues get it for free...

Without DW, a rogue can only do 2 attacks instead of 3, with nick freeing the Bonus Action. 2d6+4 vs 3d6+4 its a 27% damage loss (no dual wielder) .
Without TWF, 2 out of the 3 weapon attacks dont benefit of modifiers. 3d6+4 vs 3d6+12 its a 36% damage loss (DW but no two-weapon fighting).
Without TWF and extra attack from 5lvl dip, you lose out on 1 attack. 3d6+4 vs 4d6+16 its a 52% damage loss (DW but no extra attack no TWF).

Pure fighter might be scarce, but is mostly the #1 DIP any martial would take with the early benefits of fighting styles, action surge, 2 self heals/free ability check rerolls.  And if u dip for the extra attack you also get multiple benefits from improved crit (19-20 is 10% chance to crit), manouvers for more control or additional dices damage when u crit, spells or psi powers...

Also nothing prevents a pure fighter to take this route as well (DW, TWF, 1nick&1vex weapon + longsword).
With the amount of extra attacks he's able to deal he wont be behind no rogue tbh.
2x attacks on vex + nick (stow both) + (equip longsword) BA attack + any longsword extra attack.
That's 2d6+2d10 +Xd10 (for any X extra attack) + modifiers & other sources of damage. 

Or you could take a 3lv dip in ranger for extra fighting style with duelist and bump a +2 on any attack + hunter's mark while juggling weapons

The "problem" is that BIG WEAPONS might be left behind at this point vs multiple weapon wielding, not the fighter class itself...

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589>>

"That just lets the two-weapon fighters keep up,"

A character with simple weapons shouldnt be doing the same damage per turn as a charavter with martial weapons.

But thats where we are. 

The guy with only simple weapon proficiency got something else. They shoukd use that. But power creep pushed until a guy with 2 daggers is probably doing more damage than a guy with a greatsword.

Rogues get sneak atack. They get simple weapons, and if they can qualify for sneak attavk, they get a LOT more damage. If they cant hide, no sneak attack. Thats the trade off.  But now, rogues can just do 4 attacks. That means they keep up with a longsword when they cant get sneak attack, and when they DO get sneal attack, they outpace the guy with the longsword.

I havent seen someone playing a straight fighter in years. And the reason is simple, they get the worst combination of rules.and other classes can outpace them. Second edition, the rogue was a lot more interested in picking pockets than combat. Now base rogues do more sustained damage (zeronresource) than any base class. 

 Here's the thing about 1/2e rogues: they were more interested in picking pockets because they were terrible in combat. (They were also terrible at picking pockets, but never mind that.) Since those days, the designers have understood that, if the game spends as much time in combat as D&D does, everybody should be able to feel that they're contributing, because that's what's fun. That's why rogues get their relatively easy sneak attack, why casters get combat cantrips, etc. Fighters keep up with other martials just fine; they're just straightforward, and so some people are going to find them uninteresting.

Full casters do outpace martials over the short-medium run, but that's because of fundamental design choices D&D made way back when, and fixing that requires a radical redesign on the level of 4e. In the long run, it's a lot more even, because casters run out of juice, while martials are like "I can do this all day", but creating the kind of circumstances where that regularly matters in a campaign requires particular constraints on how the characters interact with the world.