Drawing and sheathing weapons as one item interaction

Question

In PHB, page 190, it explains about the free item interaction:

You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.

At the top of the list of "Interacting with Objects Around You" it lists:

draw or sheathe a sword

It is generally understood (reading the various answers on this site) that if you want to switch weapon and attack on the same turn (let's say you are a fighter with a sword, bow and the Extra Attack class feature; you kill the enemy in front of you with your sword, then want to switch to your bow and shoot another enemy that you otherwise can't reach this turn) then you have to do this strange sequence of moves where you "drop" your sword so that you don't waste that precious free item interaction that you need to draw your bow. Then you have to pick it up again later (assuming someone else, friend or foe, doesn't do so before you).

Basically I think this sequence is a bit daft and think that it breaks the suspension of disbelief when the fighter suddenly drops his main weapon just so that he can use his bow this turn. I was thinking of just houseruling that you can draw and sheath a weapon as one item interaction, let's call it the "switch weapon" item interaction as opposed to the "draw weapon" and "sheathe weapon" item interactions (I'm just making up these terms to emphasise my houserule).

Now, I know that one gameplay-related concern might be the Dual Wielder feat, since they can draw and sheathe two weapons at once; as so not to weaken this feat, I'd still say that you need that feat to draw or sheathe two weapons at once, regardless of drawing and sheathing. So let's say this fighter actually has two swords drawn at the start of that scenario, I would houserule that it's only possible to sheathe one of those swords without the feat, similarly for sheathing the bow and drawing the swords again later; you'd only be able to draw one sword at a time without the feat, regardless of whether you are sheathing something or not.

So hopefully that still makes that aspect of the Dual Wielder feat useful, despite my houserule. So my question, finally, is what are the impacts of my houserule on combat tactics? Obviously this question isn't asking for approval to use this houserule or anything like that, since anyone can houserule whatever they like; this question is just about understanding the impacts of doing so with this particular houserule.

---

The answers below question my assertion that dropping a weapon doesn't make sense. On reflection, I agree with them and not my past-self. It's not dropping a weapon that's "daft", it's my lack of imagination for not being able to see why that would make sense and why it can create a more interesting battle. This is largely due to expecting everybody to do the "video game weapon switch", which I believe is actually the problem here. I need to unlearn video games' lesson that everyone can juggle weapons and re-learn that notion that IRL that's a bit more difficult and time consuming. And if ever someone can imagine a way that a certain character would totally be able to juggle weapons around, it can always be a homebrew feat, which is much better for balance than a houserule that lets everyone do this for free.

Answer 1

As you also noticed, it will mainly impact those who employ different types of attacks: melee, ranged or spell (with Material and/or Somatic components). Normally someone with a ranged weapon at the ready is greatly inconvenienced by an enemy engaging them in close combat: either they keep attacking with the ranged weapon at Disadvantage or switch weapons which either takes a turn or forces them to drop their ranged weapon. If they can simply switch to a melee weapon, this drawback is lost. Ranged weapons already do damage on par with melee ones while granting the wielder the tactical advantage of distance. I would advise against eliminating their drawbacks.

If you wish to add something like this to your game, I suggest making a feat that grants the ability to "switch" among other minor bonuses.

Answer 2

Besides not being a good representation of the clunky process that sheathing a weapon is, combining drawing and sheathing weapons into a single free action on a turn trivializes weapon selection. As has been pointed out, a ranged character is less inconvenienced (although still plenty inconvenienced) by an enemy moving into melee threat range. But moreover, a melee character can switch between, say, a reach weapon or a high damage weapon without cost. Even if restricted to one-handed weapons, it lets a character move between sword-and-shield and two-weapon fighting without cost. And again, if restricted away from shields, it lets a character switch between weapons of different damage types without cost (for instance, in an attempt to overcome a resistance).

Finally, doing away with the existing cost for more complex weapon-switching behavior does away with the action-economic and timing differences between a character that does make the decision to drop versus a character that chooses to sheath.

Answer 3

Thematically I disagree with your statement:

"Basically I think this sequence is a bit daft and think that it breaks the suspension of disbelief when the fighter suddenly drops his main weapon just so that he can use his bow this turn."

There are many films or tv shows, for instance, where a character is presented with a situation where the weapon they are holding is the incorrect one and they do not have the time to do anything but drop it to get the required one out. The most dramatic is perhaps the scene in the Matrix where Neo and Trinity go to rescue Morphius and go through a whole series of weapons, dropping them rather than taking the time to stow them or to re-load (though I recognise that that is not a fantasy setting I don't think there is a significant difference for this purpose).

Given that this is the key point around which the rules change you propose:

"I was thinking of just houseruling that you can draw and sheath a weapon as one item interaction"

I think it has an important role in answering your question:

"what are the impacts of my houserule on combat tactics"

in that it will significantly change the combat tactics used and choices made by a character for a thematically incorrect assumption, that the rules as they stand hurt the suspension of disbelief less than the house rule does. What you will see is characters relying on their ability to make super-fast weapon changeovers with little or no consequences (such as losing their primary weapon) and such things as characters able to reliably sheath their sword, take a bow from across their shoulders, load an arrow and shoot accurately, perhaps more than once with extra attack, all in a six second time frame which is just too much to believe. Take one of those things out and it becomes more believable, and of course you have the rules as they stand.

Answer 4

I think what you rather want is for Extra Attack feat to also act as if it provides a weapon draw/sheathe action.

If I draw my sword during my move, use it to attack and kill an enemy, then sheathe it as part of the Action and get an Extra Attack from it (with a house-ruled draw/sheathe extra action), I can just draw my bow and use it to attack or draw my sword again and use it to attack still.

It does make it somewhat more powerful but not by too much if you just limit it to a "draw/sheathe action" when the characters get an Extra Attack.

If you don't limit it to a draw/sheathe action, someone could just open a door during their action, shoot an arrow to kill someone, then shoot another one and then close the door. That would make it way too powerful in my opinion.

Answer 5

We are playing with a 1" battle grid where each square represent 5ft. We use the player's walking speed to determine how far they can move. If their walking speed is 30ft/turn, then they can move 6 squares per turn, etc.

So we made this houserule where we do not use the free interaction rule. Instead, any interaction with any objects costs 5ft (1 square) of walking distance. For example, if we put our bow away, and draw our long sword, then we can only move 4 squares on our turn instead of 6. Drinking a potion costs 1 square. Opening a door costs 1 square. Closing the same door after walking through it costs another square, etc.

And if we have no movement square left then we can't move and can't interact with anything anymore. It also means that if we didn't grab the materials for casting our M-spell while we are out of movement, then we cannot cast that M-spell. Wizard have to be careful with their movements to make sure they don't exhaust all of it if they need time to grab their spell's material. Another example: A Dual wielding bard must sacrifice 2 squares to sheath both weapons and 1 square to grab their lute in order to cast their S-spell, and then they can decide if they want to move 3 squares or spend the last 3 square putting their lute away and draw both weapons to be ready for next round.

We all loved these houserules. It penalises weapon switching, potion drinking, material grabbing (as it should), but in a fair way. And it makes sense because any action should cost time, so penalizing time seems to be the right thing to do.

The point is, nobody likes wasting a turn switching weapons or drinking a potion followed by grabbing spell material. The penalty is too harsh. Nobody feels that having zero penalty was fair either. This houserule made everyone happy. Happy players means happy DM. It is all about having a great time, right? ☺️

And the best part is: no more 'dropping our bows on the ground to spare our one free interaction' loophole only to realise too late that we forgot to retrieve our bows after the battle was over and moved on hahahaha 🤣

Answer 6

Mike Mearls uses this houserule, therefore must believe that it doesn't affect combat too much

Although I don't intend to change the accepted answer, since I believe the frame challenge was the correct response, I have stumbled upon this tweet in which Mike Mearls houserules as I was proposing to do, at least some of the time for certain situations.

Therefore, if someone did want to houserule this, even though I probably won't now thanks to Szega's answer, it seems that even the designers don't seem too concerned with this particular sequence of events.

This, however, doesn't nullify the points Szega and others have raised about how this does influence the choices of weapons and which enemies to engage. It is simply interesting that the designers (or Mike Mearls, at least) doesn't feel that this impacts combat tactics or affects balance that much...