When a character gets more than one attack, can they make their attack action a combination of melee and ranged attacks? It does say under dual wielding that the attacker can throw the 2nd weapon, but that only applies if the weapon is light. Can fighters (who get the most attacks) start out by bashing with their melee, then switch to a bow if they've cleared the space around them?
When a character gets more than one attack, can they make their attack action a combination of melee and ranged attacks? It does say under dual wielding that the attacker can throw the 2nd weapon, but that only applies if the weapon is light. Can fighters (who get the most attacks) start out by bashing with their melee, then switch to a bow if they've cleared the space around them?
I don't use the rule that taking out a weapon requires an action, but I would rule that no, you can't switch which weapon you have in your hands in-between attacks made by the Extra Attack feature. However, I would allow it with say, a shortsword and a hand crossbow, assuming you're holding both weapons already.
You can use any combination of attacks that you want when you take the Attack action, but you can only draw or put away a weapon once per turn as part of your movement or action, and taking off a shield always requires an action. Setting aside the problem if how you're storing your bow, that means you can't both sheathe your sword and pull out your bow on the same turn. If you don't have a shield equipped, you could drop your sword on the ground for free and then pull out your bow.
Having both hands on your bow also means you can't make opportunity attacks other than weak unarmed strikes, so if you plan on going into melee range constantly it's usually more practical to keep some throwable melee weapons on you instead of relying on two-handed ranged weapons. The main advantage of bows and crossbows is their much longer range, which shouldn't be an issue if you're running towards your enemies anyways.
You can mix melee & ranged attacks with the Attack action. With Extra Attack, you can attack twice, whenever you take the Attack action. With the Attack action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
The issue is with item interactions, which you're only allowed 1 per turn without using the Use an Item action, which means you won't be able to sheat and draw a weapon. As InquisitiveCoder said, you can always drop an held item for free though.
If you are holding the longbow in 1 hand and a longsword in the other, you could attack with the longsword then sheathe it, and make any other attacks that round with your longbow.
The longbow is a 2-handed weapon to use when making an attack with it, but is carried or held in 1 hand.
And as it has already been mentioned you can always drop one weapon for free and draw another as a free action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
When a character gets more than one attack, can they make their attack action a combination of melee and ranged attacks? It does say under dual wielding that the attacker can throw the 2nd weapon, but that only applies if the weapon is light. Can fighters (who get the most attacks) start out by bashing with their melee, then switch to a bow if they've cleared the space around them?
Yes, you can attack with different weapons with extra attack and even change your weapons. Just remember you only get 1 item interaction, sheathing and drawing each count as 1, so you would have to drop weapons on the ground or already be holding the bow.
Thanks everybody, this really helped. So, my takeaway is that it theoretically can be done, but only really works with thrown weapons/one-handed ranged weapons. This makes sense to me
Thanks everybody, this really helped. So, my takeaway is that it theoretically can be done, but only really works with thrown weapons/one-handed ranged weapons. This makes sense to me
Unless you are dropping stuff on the ground, yeah.
Can someone please point me to the RAW that says items/objects/weapons can be dropped for free - in my book that's still an "interaction".
P190 features a list of things you can do that require Use an Object, and all of them are more effort than dropping something. Dropping something you're holding takes even less effort than dropping prone, and I've never heard of anyone ruling that dropping prone takes anything at all.
I would not count just purely dropping something as use of your object interaction, although I could see why someone would. However, If someone dropped their weapon one turn and then wanted to pick it up the next (or even on the same turn), I might consider asking for more than their object interaction to do so. If it takes less effort to drop than sheathe, it should take more effort to pick up than to draw.
Can someone please point me to the RAW that says items/objects/weapons can be dropped for free - in my book that's still an "interaction".
P190 features a list of things you can do that require Use an Object, and all of them are more effort than dropping something. Dropping something you're holding takes even less effort than dropping prone, and I've never heard of anyone ruling that dropping prone takes anything at all.
Yes, I'm aware of that list (and its a list of things you can use your 'interact with object' with not your 'use an object' action) - if only it included 'dropping an item' either to include or exclude it, then this would be much less of an issue. Fact is it doesn't. I'm happy that people will subjectively decide dropping is somehow less than an interact with object but I see no RAW to back it up.
Dropping prone sacrifices movement - even if only the movement required to get up again, I agree it costs nothing at the time but if it did I'd expect it to be a speed tax not an action tax.
I would not count just purely dropping something as use of your object interaction, although I could see why someone would. However, If someone dropped their weapon one turn and then wanted to pick it up the next (or even on the same turn), I might consider asking for more than their object interaction to do so. If it takes less effort to drop than sheathe, it should take more effort to pick up than to draw.
For sure the interactions listed are not all equal but none of them are very much either. There seems to be no accounting for volume of effort. They are just incidental things we don't want to gum up the action economy with.
Picking up a dropped axe is definitively on the list, so that's an interaction - even though I'd say that was considerably more effort than putting an ear to a door or kicking a small stone. I still see nothing that alludes to dropping an object not being an object interaction.
Other Activity on Your Turn
Your turn can include a variety of flourishes that require neither your action nor your move.
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.
This states there are things, "flourishes", that are less than an action and also somehow not 'interacting with an object" but the only thing it mentions is communication. By implication anything else has a cost.
Dropping things being a non-action is not stated anywhere explicitly but it is implied by other rules and not running that way leads to some pretty silly inconsistencies in my opinion.
The main evidence is:
An unconscious creature automatically drops anything it's holding despite being incapacitated and unable to move.
The grappling rules allow you to release a grappled creature at any time, no action required. This includes during other creature's turns, where an object interaction would be impossible.
Also consider that if letting go requires an object interaction, you're screwing over anyone that ever has to hold a weapon in two hands. Letting go for a grapple would cost them their object interaction, letting go to perform S components would cost them their object interaction, and they're unable to grab other objects that turn since that'd require a second object interaction. That also means no spells with material components on the same turn they removed one of their hands. These consequences are worse than the "drop your weapon and pick it back up on the same turn" loophole. That little wrinkle rarely comes up and can be easily fixed by requiring the Use An Object action to pick something up from a standing position, or house ruling that doing so counts as dropping prone.
Holding on to an object requires a small but constant amount of effort. Letting go is simply the cessation of that effort. An object interaction also requires a small amount of active effort (you can't do it while unconscious.) They're not the same thing.
Dropping things being a non-action is not stated anywhere explicitly but it is implied by other rules and not running that way leads to some pretty silly inconsistencies in my opinion.
The main evidence is:
An unconscious creature automatically drops anything it's holding despite being incapacitated and unable to move.
The grappling rules allow you to release a grappled creature at any time, no action required. This includes during other creature's turns, where an object interaction would be impossible.
Also consider that if letting go requires an object interaction, you're screwing over anyone that ever has to hold a weapon in two hands. Letting go for a grapple would cost them their object interaction, letting go to perform S components would cost them their object interaction, and they're unable to grab other objects that turn since that'd require a second object interaction. That also means no spells with material components on the same turn they removed one of their hands. These consequences are worse than the "drop your weapon and pick it back up on the same turn" loophole. That little wrinkle rarely comes up and can be easily fixed by requiring the Use An Object action to pick something up from a standing position, or house ruling that doing so counts as dropping prone.
Holding on to an object requires a small but constant amount of effort. Letting go is simply the cessation of that effort. An object interaction also requires a small amount of active effort (you can't do it while unconscious.) They're not the same thing.
Both unconscious and grappling would fall into special overriding general if they were actually applicable, which I'm far from certain they are. I certainly can't see how they constitute RAW that dropping is some kind of extra-free interaction. RAW isn't an inference of something from some other rule, at best that rule may or may not demonstrate RAI.
Dropping the grapple is the more persuasive of the two but only in the same way you could argue that loosing an arrow was 'dropping an item' for free as part of an attack, seems a stretch.
What you consider as 'screwing over' another may consider 'reasonable' - it's opinion not fact. I've already said I have no objection to how its run at anyone's table but I am concerned that in multiple threads I've seen 'dropping as some kind of free action' getting handwaved as RAW - it just isn't.
The only thing you list that looks a bit wonky to me is the swapping a two-handed grip for a one-handed grip. That's really only polearms (bows are actually held in one hand, you need two to load and loose - you can argue the same for crossbows) and I personally would allow that as a shift of grip and not charge an interaction. But at this point we're all making rulings because there is no RAW. I guess my cut off point is different to yours which is fine.
The wrinkle isn't dropping and picking up in the same turn - which would be two interactions and thus would require your Use an Object action to achieve. The wrinkle is being able to drop, draw and attack - changing weapons without penalty by ignoring the interaction rules or inventing an extra-free interaction rule. Whether those wrinkles offend is again subjective and thus mostly irrelevant to a question of RAW - as I say my real concern is the number of times I've seen this cited as unquestioned RAW by otherwise knowledgeable and respected posters.
None of the listed interactions have equality of effort, I can't see that argument holding water. It's the same effort for a someone to press their unfettered ear against a door as it is for someone else to remove helmet, coif and arming cap to do the same. We just cannot draw that level of simulation across the listed interactions. I just really, really, really wish they'd included (or specifically excluded) it from that list - I mean it was one of the most common bug-come-features of 3.5 play, it was bound to come up, why ignore it?
I would say that generally dropping something is much easier than picking it up effort wise.
I still say that dropping is an interaction simply because it just makes sense to me to be an interaction.
The somatic/material components of a spell seem to be included as part of casting that spell as an action or BA so I rarely think of that as object interaction.
Really the only think I can think of is jumping down from a reasonable height...is that considered action or movement? What if a ladder is involved?
Most of the time I hand wave it anyway as its not going to matter 99% of the time what you do as long as combat keeps flowing.
And yet, the overwhelming evidence for the contrary is the fact that "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." It does not define which interaction it is, dropping it is a conscious action on an object and therefore an interaction. It does not define which interaction it is, dropping it is a conscious action on an object and therefore an interaction.
Ok, but
Not every interaction with an object counts as your free object interaction, as you know. e.g. Drawing ammunition for an attack, manipulating a material component while casting a spell.
The rules also allow you to do things on your turn that are truly free, like talking.
An unconscious creature can't take object interactions or do anything consciously but still drops things.
So "an object is involved so it has to count as an object interaction" isn't always true, and "it's a conscious decision" isn't relevant since so is talking.
Why is that ? They are not dropping the weapon when you change how you are holding it.
Why does it matter if the object falls to the ground or not? Does the object interaction-ness of relaxing your fingers depend on whether gravity goes to work on whatever you were holding?
Why? There is a specific rule for it, which overrides the general rule on objects...In general components are consumed, and if they are not, you will not want to drop them anyway.
I'm talking about letting go of a two-handed/versatile weapon (or a musical instrument or really anything else you'd normally hold in two hands). There's nothing in the grappling rules that says going from a two-handed grip to a one-handed grip costs you your object interaction unless you're specifically using it for grappling. And if taking a hand off your weapon costs an object interaction you wouldn't be able to cast a spell with an M component anyways since you'd need another object interaction to fetch your spellcasting focus.
I don't agree. For me, it's more an effort to let go and make sure it drops properly, not anywhere, not on my foot, etc.
Nobody said anything about dropping it "properly". An unconscious creature doesn't drop things "properly". It just does, and it's presumably not using up its object interaction in the process (it's likely not even their turn.) Why shouldn't a conscious creature be able to do the same?
An object interaction also requires a small amount of active effort (you can't do it while unconscious.) They're not the same thing.
Again, specific rule for unconsciousness. But most people holding something do it without thinking, whereas dropping it in the middle of a battle will require some thinking.
Speaking during combat requires far more thinking and more time yet is explicitly listed as an example of other activity you can do during your turn truly for free.
Again, I fully acknowledge it's a grey area since the rules don't explicitly give you permission. My point was never that "this is 100% allowed by RAW", because it's not.
And yet, the overwhelming evidence for the contrary is the fact that "You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." It does not define which interaction it is, dropping it is a conscious action on an object and therefore an interaction. It does not define which interaction it is, dropping it is a conscious action on an object and therefore an interaction.
Ok, but
Not every interaction with an object counts as your free object interaction, as you know. e.g. Drawing ammunition for an attack, manipulating a material component while casting a spell.
The rules also allow you to do things on your turn that are truly free, like talking.
An unconscious creature can't take object interactions or do anything consciously but still drops things.
So "an object is involved so it has to count as an object interaction" isn't always true, and "it's a conscious decision" isn't relevant since so is talking.
Why is that ? They are not dropping the weapon when you change how you are holding it.
Why does it matter if the object falls to the ground or not? Does the object interaction-ness of relaxing your fingers depend on whether gravity goes to work on whatever you were holding?
Why? There is a specific rule for it, which overrides the general rule on objects...In general components are consumed, and if they are not, you will not want to drop them anyway.
I'm talking about letting go of a two-handed/versatile weapon (or a musical instrument or really anything else you'd normally hold in two hands). There's nothing in the grappling rules that says going from a two-handed grip to a one-handed grip costs you your object interaction unless you're specifically using it for grappling. And if taking a hand off your weapon costs an object interaction you wouldn't be able to cast a spell with an M component anyways since you'd need another object interaction to fetch your spellcasting focus.
I don't agree. For me, it's more an effort to let go and make sure it drops properly, not anywhere, not on my foot, etc.
Nobody said anything about dropping it "properly". An unconscious creature doesn't drop things "properly". It just does, and it's presumably not using up its object interaction in the process (it's likely not even their turn.) Why shouldn't a conscious creature be able to do the same?
An object interaction also requires a small amount of active effort (you can't do it while unconscious.) They're not the same thing.
Again, specific rule for unconsciousness. But most people holding something do it without thinking, whereas dropping it in the middle of a battle will require some thinking.
Speaking during combat requires far more thinking and more time yet is explicitly listed as an example of other activity you can do during your turn truly for free.
Again, I fully acknowledge it's a grey area since the rules don't explicitly give you permission. My point was never that "this is 100% allowed by RAW", because it's not.
Speaking during combat requires far more thinking and more time yet is explicitly listed as an example of other activity you can do during your turn truly for free.
See Combat section of PHB:
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
Note the limitation as to HOW MUCH talking you can do, so not entirely free to give speeches.
Speaking during combat requires far more thinking and more time yet is explicitly listed as an example of other activity you can do during your turn truly for free.
See Combat section of PHB:
You can communicate however you are able, through brief utterances and gestures, as you take your turn.
Note the limitation as to HOW MUCH talking you can do, so not entirely free to give speeches.
True. It is still opening and closing your mouth several times while making sounds that convey a complicated thought all for free though.
Where as dropping a weapon is opening your hand once with much less thought, energy, and time required.
Dropping items really should have had its own rule though, but accidentally leaving out crucial details then never addressing it even after it causes countless arguments is 5e's signature style.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
When a character gets more than one attack, can they make their attack action a combination of melee and ranged attacks? It does say under dual wielding that the attacker can throw the 2nd weapon, but that only applies if the weapon is light. Can fighters (who get the most attacks) start out by bashing with their melee, then switch to a bow if they've cleared the space around them?
I don't use the rule that taking out a weapon requires an action, but I would rule that no, you can't switch which weapon you have in your hands in-between attacks made by the Extra Attack feature. However, I would allow it with say, a shortsword and a hand crossbow, assuming you're holding both weapons already.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
You can use any combination of attacks that you want when you take the Attack action, but you can only draw or put away a weapon once per turn as part of your movement or action, and taking off a shield always requires an action. Setting aside the problem if how you're storing your bow, that means you can't both sheathe your sword and pull out your bow on the same turn. If you don't have a shield equipped, you could drop your sword on the ground for free and then pull out your bow.
Having both hands on your bow also means you can't make opportunity attacks other than weak unarmed strikes, so if you plan on going into melee range constantly it's usually more practical to keep some throwable melee weapons on you instead of relying on two-handed ranged weapons. The main advantage of bows and crossbows is their much longer range, which shouldn't be an issue if you're running towards your enemies anyways.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
You can mix melee & ranged attacks with the Attack action. With Extra Attack, you can attack twice, whenever you take the Attack action. With the Attack action, you make one melee or ranged attack.
The issue is with item interactions, which you're only allowed 1 per turn without using the Use an Item action, which means you won't be able to sheat and draw a weapon. As InquisitiveCoder said, you can always drop an held item for free though.
If you are holding the longbow in 1 hand and a longsword in the other, you could attack with the longsword then sheathe it, and make any other attacks that round with your longbow.
The longbow is a 2-handed weapon to use when making an attack with it, but is carried or held in 1 hand.
And as it has already been mentioned you can always drop one weapon for free and draw another as a free action.
Yes, you can attack with different weapons with extra attack and even change your weapons. Just remember you only get 1 item interaction, sheathing and drawing each count as 1, so you would have to drop weapons on the ground or already be holding the bow.
Thanks everybody, this really helped. So, my takeaway is that it theoretically can be done, but only really works with thrown weapons/one-handed ranged weapons. This makes sense to me
Unless you are dropping stuff on the ground, yeah.
Can someone please point me to the RAW that says items/objects/weapons can be dropped for free - in my book that's still an "interaction".
P190 features a list of things you can do that require Use an Object, and all of them are more effort than dropping something. Dropping something you're holding takes even less effort than dropping prone, and I've never heard of anyone ruling that dropping prone takes anything at all.
I would not count just purely dropping something as use of your object interaction, although I could see why someone would. However, If someone dropped their weapon one turn and then wanted to pick it up the next (or even on the same turn), I might consider asking for more than their object interaction to do so. If it takes less effort to drop than sheathe, it should take more effort to pick up than to draw.
Yes, I'm aware of that list (and its a list of things you can use your 'interact with object' with not your 'use an object' action) - if only it included 'dropping an item' either to include or exclude it, then this would be much less of an issue. Fact is it doesn't. I'm happy that people will subjectively decide dropping is somehow less than an interact with object but I see no RAW to back it up.
Dropping prone sacrifices movement - even if only the movement required to get up again, I agree it costs nothing at the time but if it did I'd expect it to be a speed tax not an action tax.
For sure the interactions listed are not all equal but none of them are very much either. There seems to be no accounting for volume of effort. They are just incidental things we don't want to gum up the action economy with.
Picking up a dropped axe is definitively on the list, so that's an interaction - even though I'd say that was considerably more effort than putting an ear to a door or kicking a small stone. I still see nothing that alludes to dropping an object not being an object interaction.
This states there are things, "flourishes", that are less than an action and also somehow not 'interacting with an object" but the only thing it mentions is communication. By implication anything else has a cost.
Dropping things being a non-action is not stated anywhere explicitly but it is implied by other rules and not running that way leads to some pretty silly inconsistencies in my opinion.
The main evidence is:
Also consider that if letting go requires an object interaction, you're screwing over anyone that ever has to hold a weapon in two hands. Letting go for a grapple would cost them their object interaction, letting go to perform S components would cost them their object interaction, and they're unable to grab other objects that turn since that'd require a second object interaction. That also means no spells with material components on the same turn they removed one of their hands. These consequences are worse than the "drop your weapon and pick it back up on the same turn" loophole. That little wrinkle rarely comes up and can be easily fixed by requiring the Use An Object action to pick something up from a standing position, or house ruling that doing so counts as dropping prone.
Holding on to an object requires a small but constant amount of effort. Letting go is simply the cessation of that effort. An object interaction also requires a small amount of active effort (you can't do it while unconscious.) They're not the same thing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Both unconscious and grappling would fall into special overriding general if they were actually applicable, which I'm far from certain they are. I certainly can't see how they constitute RAW that dropping is some kind of extra-free interaction. RAW isn't an inference of something from some other rule, at best that rule may or may not demonstrate RAI.
Dropping the grapple is the more persuasive of the two but only in the same way you could argue that loosing an arrow was 'dropping an item' for free as part of an attack, seems a stretch.
What you consider as 'screwing over' another may consider 'reasonable' - it's opinion not fact. I've already said I have no objection to how its run at anyone's table but I am concerned that in multiple threads I've seen 'dropping as some kind of free action' getting handwaved as RAW - it just isn't.
The only thing you list that looks a bit wonky to me is the swapping a two-handed grip for a one-handed grip. That's really only polearms (bows are actually held in one hand, you need two to load and loose - you can argue the same for crossbows) and I personally would allow that as a shift of grip and not charge an interaction. But at this point we're all making rulings because there is no RAW. I guess my cut off point is different to yours which is fine.
The wrinkle isn't dropping and picking up in the same turn - which would be two interactions and thus would require your Use an Object action to achieve. The wrinkle is being able to drop, draw and attack - changing weapons without penalty by ignoring the interaction rules or inventing an extra-free interaction rule. Whether those wrinkles offend is again subjective and thus mostly irrelevant to a question of RAW - as I say my real concern is the number of times I've seen this cited as unquestioned RAW by otherwise knowledgeable and respected posters.
None of the listed interactions have equality of effort, I can't see that argument holding water. It's the same effort for a someone to press their unfettered ear against a door as it is for someone else to remove helmet, coif and arming cap to do the same. We just cannot draw that level of simulation across the listed interactions. I just really, really, really wish they'd included (or specifically excluded) it from that list - I mean it was one of the most common bug-come-features of 3.5 play, it was bound to come up, why ignore it?
I would say that generally dropping something is much easier than picking it up effort wise.
I still say that dropping is an interaction simply because it just makes sense to me to be an interaction.
The somatic/material components of a spell seem to be included as part of casting that spell as an action or BA so I rarely think of that as object interaction.
Really the only think I can think of is jumping down from a reasonable height...is that considered action or movement? What if a ladder is involved?
Most of the time I hand wave it anyway as its not going to matter 99% of the time what you do as long as combat keeps flowing.
Ok, but
So "an object is involved so it has to count as an object interaction" isn't always true, and "it's a conscious decision" isn't relevant since so is talking.
Why does it matter if the object falls to the ground or not? Does the object interaction-ness of relaxing your fingers depend on whether gravity goes to work on whatever you were holding?
I'm talking about letting go of a two-handed/versatile weapon (or a musical instrument or really anything else you'd normally hold in two hands). There's nothing in the grappling rules that says going from a two-handed grip to a one-handed grip costs you your object interaction unless you're specifically using it for grappling. And if taking a hand off your weapon costs an object interaction you wouldn't be able to cast a spell with an M component anyways since you'd need another object interaction to fetch your spellcasting focus.
Nobody said anything about dropping it "properly". An unconscious creature doesn't drop things "properly". It just does, and it's presumably not using up its object interaction in the process (it's likely not even their turn.) Why shouldn't a conscious creature be able to do the same?
Speaking during combat requires far more thinking and more time yet is explicitly listed as an example of other activity you can do during your turn truly for free.
Again, I fully acknowledge it's a grey area since the rules don't explicitly give you permission. My point was never that "this is 100% allowed by RAW", because it's not.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Fair points...
Seems to be a DM dependant area.
See Combat section of PHB:
Note the limitation as to HOW MUCH talking you can do, so not entirely free to give speeches.
True. It is still opening and closing your mouth several times while making sounds that convey a complicated thought all for free though.
Where as dropping a weapon is opening your hand once with much less thought, energy, and time required.
Dropping items really should have had its own rule though, but accidentally leaving out crucial details then never addressing it even after it causes countless arguments is 5e's signature style.