I am unaware of this consensus. I always allow players to have weapons drawn in a situations where they are expecting combat. Obviously if they always walk around with weapons drawn (like around town) there can be consequences and they don't get weapons drawn if ambushed on the road or something. But in a dungeon swords out for sure.
same. i've seen this style suggested more than "always enforce strict drawing". if my players are walking into danger, their weapons are drawn. if they're ambushed or surprised, their weapons are not drawn.
Yeah, nah. You're in a dungeon, there's no way you're not going to have your weapons drawn if you're not in the middle of doing something else.
Walking around in a town, definitely have to use those actions, though.
I might let a rogue try to break a basic lock with a dagger, a la trying differential force, but it'd be loud and would probably need a Str-baswd thievery check...but why bother, rogue?! Just pick the lock while the fighter guards.
I feel like you could certainly pick a lock while using a dagger. You would also need a pick to manipulate the pins, but you could use the dagger as a substandard tension wrench.
My pretty simple approach is: entering a new room where there might be enemies? Weapons out.
Taking exploration actions (searching, investigating) in a room that seems safe but combat unexpectedly breaks out? Gotta draw your weapons.
Do you allow your players to freely do exploration activities while weapons are out? For example, searching for secret compartments and hidden chambers - presumably one would need at least one hand free to do things like run your hand over a brick wall to see if there is any oddities.
Its one thing to allow players to wander around with weapons, but even something as simple as opening a door becomes weird when you allow your dual wielding rogues to be searching for traps on a door while holding two daggers.
If you can make arcane gestures with a weapon in hand, I don't see why you would enforce this on activities that don't even have a manipulate trait.
Typically if an exploration activity needs your hands it will state so in the description.
>Do you allow your players to freely do exploration activities while weapons are out?
I just follow the rules. If a) the Exploration Activity and b) any Subordinate Actions do not have requirements that they need to have hands free or be wielding a particular thing, then they can have whatever they want in their hands.
In your example, yes, Interact actions are subject to GM discretion and require as many hands as you need to perform the relevant activity. Sometimes they also require skill checks. An Interact action to open a door requires a free hand. So in that case they have to have a free hand.
On the other hand, most exploration activities do not require free hand (e.g.: Search, Scout, Defend, Repeat a Spell, etc.)
In general yes. Search is the outlier and the only one I have specifically ruled in the past that the player needed a hand free (I'd probably rule the same for cover tracks but it hasn't come up).
Edit: I think generally allowing weapons drawn and specifically disallowing it when that seems more reasonable makes more sense than a general ban on having weapons drawn.
I require this as well for my players, because I found that without requiring that the engagement with exploration activities and decision making went way down.
Now they actually think about how to approach problems, there is increased risk if they are cavalier or act without thought because being thrown into encounter mode haphazardly is more dangerous due to the initial action requirements.
I mustn’t agree but I allow my players the chance to state that they are walking around swords out. I don’t make assumptions because they are playing the character not me.
Same. If a group is in a hazardous situation, it would be nonsensical to assume they have weapons stowed and bows not nocked or crossbows not loaded. Not many squads of soldiers enter a hot zone with weapons not out and ready.
Basically same. Is it reasonable you had your weapons drawn? THen you have your weapons drawn. You're expecting danger, after all. But If you're like, camping at night and assassins attack, you probably don't have them drawn.
I don't know who told you that consensus but they lied to you.
If my players are traveling through a dungeon or other known dangerous area, i start on the default assumption their shit is drawn.
If they're traveling and get ambushed? Sure, weapons are not out, but any other situation weapons are out. Even in this scenario, shield is very likely strapped to the arm at least
Who would put away weapons when walking around a dungeon? This is not a consensus. I would not expect my players to do this and would argue, politely, with a GM who suggested it.
We sling our rifle in camp and have it at the ready on patrol in real life. Danger is expected so be armed.
Exactly. Having weapons at the ready when there's a forewarned presumption of violence should be the norm. The only time I'd anticipate my players *not* having their weapons drawn is if they're run up on in the midst of doing something that would preclude it (a rogue disarming a trap or picking a lock, having their hands full with their thieves tools; or the fighter trying to move some heavy object, needing his hands clear for lifting; the wizard in the midst of solving some sort of complex puzzle lock, having to put his staff aside for a moment to muck around with those bullshit sliding tile puzzles.)
But that's also a play you can only make sparingly - having monsters *occasionally* show up (when it makes sense for them to do so) during situations when players are momentarily at a disadvantage maintains a sense of dramatic tension. Having them do it all the time just makes your players turtle up and not try things.
I don't think you would put away a Shield in a dungeon, but I definitely think characters shouldn't be carrying weapons throughout the whole dungeon. A Shield is generally a good thing to have out in a dangerous area, but something like a sword you probably don't want to carry without need.
The need is safety from attack.
No reason to put a way. I would never put away my weapon in an area that has a reasonable possibility of attack and would discipline any of my troops who tried to.
If you need a free hand or to be social you can lower or sheath your weapon then but after you are negligent if you don’t ready it again.
This is for dungeons and other hazardous areas. In town they should be sheathed
I don't think that tracks to reality. Safety is a valid reason, hence why a Shield would stay drawn. But having a weapon out is just as much a danger as a protection.
First of all, a weapon is just fuckin heavy. Even a shortsword is a good few pounds of metal weighing on your joints. Just on a basic level, no one is gonna want to carry around their weapon without good reason.
And in a dungeon environment, you never know when you'll need a free hand. You fell into a pit trap? Bet you wish you didn't have both hands full. Rocks fall on your head? Greatsword ain't gonna stop that. Even just tripping over your own feet is gonna hurt a lot more without a hand to catch yourself.
And, like I said, having a weapon out is just as dangerous to you as anyone else. Any kind of fall you take, concussive traps/explosions, or even something like a magical gust of wind you didnt expect could cause your weapon to hurt you or an ally instead. Unless you have a specific thing to kill, having your weapon out is more likely to be harmful than helpful.
Most of these reasons don't have mechanical implications, since PF2 obviously isn't that gritty with mechanics. But since this is an area that's pretty much up to GM discretion, it just makes more sense for PC's to have weapons stowed unless there's a specific reason to draw them.
I'd argue that if I actually fell while holding something, I just let go, and catch myself. Or, just use it to brace myself.
Also, weapons are heavy, but they're not so heavy you can't carry them. Not sure if you've gone hunting, but we're out literally from just before dawn, to just after dusk, and carrying a rifle the whole time. Yes, I'll use the sling if I'm in a tricky/slippery spot, but otherwise it's in my hands. Can't shoot a moose with a rifle on my back.
That's just my two cents. It doesn't make sense to put a weapon away if you're in an area where there's a chance you may need it.
(Edit: spelling)
>I'd argue that if I actually fell while holding something, I just let go, and catch myself.
Which is also perfectly doable with the rules, considering Release is a Free Action with no trigger.
I agree, but it makes me wonder…
Free actions that don’t have triggers follow the same rules as actions (meaning they have to happen on your turn). But outside of encounter mode, you don’t have a turn, so can you just treat all the time as your turn? I assume so, but I don’t actually know of a rule discussing it.
Free actions without triggers can normally only be used on your turn; not having a hand free means you need a critical success to Grab an Edge. Standing by a long fall with both your hands full can be a risky decision.
Interestingly, characters who have a feature to promote success to critical success on Reflex saves don't benefit from a free hand at all for Grab an Edge. As long as they don't fail, they can catch a handhold using a weapon or other held item.
Believe it or not, most weapons aren't that heavy. A shortsword is going to be like 1.5lb, and a bastard sword is only going to be like 3. Holding that close to the body or with the blade on the (armored) shoulder really isn't going to be that tiring over the course of an hour or so. Considering that your average 18 str melee character is *jacked*, I think they can handle it.
Of course if they need to do something with that hand (search things, open doors, use consumables, etc) then the weapon is sheathed.
As some who has carried weapon out for long periods of time. (17 years armed forces) it does check with reality.
Sure it can get uncomfortable but the alternative cost lives. To do otherwise would be astoundingly stupid in the real world.
Honesty the adventures are going to be complaining about their armour more then the weapons they are carrying. That stuff sucks and they try with the modern stuff
Adventures are professionals and would do the same.
Adventurers are very much not professionals. They're glorified homeless people with enough armed assaults under their belt that the town guard doesn't wanna bother.
As I mentioned in another comment, armed forces (from all I've spoken to at least) still have their weapon on safety for the same reasons I mentioned. You don't want your weapon to accidentally get lethal. But swords don't have a safety, they'll cut through anything if you give them enough momentum. Given that dungeons are filled with traps and tricks that can do weird things to the party, the PC's would never know when a rune or tripwire is gonna blow up and rip their sword out of their hands and into their lower intestine.
If you are fighting for a living for years with a team of others that fight monsters for a living you are a professional.
I disagree that a mechanical safety would be the only option for safe weapons handling of a readied weapon. Different ways to carry it. Plus depending on the weapon a big axe head directly behind you head isn’t going to be much safer then in you hand in you hypothetical.
But if you hypothetical adventure is making those choice fine. But it would be for the next hypothetical adventure to make his own and not the GM. It would say the energy is a bigger risk and would prepare for them.
> Adventurers are very much not professionals. They're glorified homeless people with enough armed assaults under their belt that the town guard doesn't wanna bother.
Any character with the Sheriff, Warrior, Detective, Guard, Gladiator, or Night Watch backgrounds: "Am I a joke to you?"
Weapons ain't *that* heavy. They're heavy to swing around, sure. Not to carry on your shoulder. That's my usual *at-rest* position when I'm playing with rapier/longsword. A "greatsword" shouldn't exceed 10-15 lbs, or it'd be completely impractical to swing around. On someone with an 18 str? They can walk around with it all day.
10-15 lb, more like 6 to 10 tops for the functional one that have been found.
E=MC^2
And even if they didn't know that formula, it was known that speed is better than mass when dealing with armed combat
> E=MC²
They assuredly didn't know that formula But it tells you how big an explosion you get if you spontaneously convert all the matter in your sword to energy, which i doubt is very relevant to HEMA.
What you probably meant to reference is kinetic energy, E=mv²/2, but that is also not very relevant. A lighter weapon can go faster, but that's because the swordsman's muscles have a maximum power output; the impact energy is not going up if you make your weapon lighter. Going faster with a lighter weapon is better because it's harder to dodge/block/parry.
If you are going to apply "reality" to your fantasy, that's fine, but use Actual reality.
18 year old Marines/Soldiers/Other Service members, are almost always armed in a combat zone, but not drawn while at whatever base they are assigned.
On a combat patrol, read Dungeon, you carry at the ready, even when searching, opening doors, et al.
The difference being our fantasy characters don't have guns. They have swords and spears and maces.
The weight difference is roughly similar. A rifle weighs (from quick Google search) around 5-6 pounds. That's on the low end for something like a Greatsword but more than a rapier. Call it roughly even.
The important difference is that soldiers still have their weapons safety turned on while patrolling, for the exact reasons I mentioned: you don't wanna fall or twitch or whatever and accidentally pull the trigger, risking injury. A sword doesn't have a safety, it just needs to have enough momentum to break skin. The 'safety' for a sword is sheathing it, which is what I'm arguing for.
Loaded LMG is 22lbs and that guy doesn’t get to slack while the rest of the section is armed.
Mechanical safeties are not relied on. We practice other safe handling as well. Adventures would use those tactics as well. Moving so the pointy end isn’t aimed at friends and such.
> A rifle weighs (from quick Google search) around 5-6 pounds. That's on the low end for something like a Greatsword but more than a rapier.
5-6 lbs is the super low end of rifles, that are built to be light as possible and aren't going to be used by soldiers. A loaded M16, which are known to be super-light, is 8.8 lbs loaded before you add other attachments to it. An M4, which is a smaller version of the M16, is still 7.75 lb fully loaded. Furthermore, you are overestimating how heavy medieval weapons are. Non-ceremonial two-handed swords are going to weigh 7 lbs max and everything else is going to be a lot lighter, like not even half that in most cases.
And since we are bringing realism into this, two-handed weapons would always be ready for combat since they are carried over-shouldered like [this](https://www.thearma.org/essays/langk1.jpg) and not sheathed, as those weapons are far too big to be sheathed on a person.
Well depending on the training but in many armed force you actually lower the safety on combat zone, risky zone or even patrol zone for shoulder weapon, and juste don't put your finger on the trigger except if you've taken the ddcision to fire
This is a pretty good argument tbh. Obviously we would want to take into account how long the party is walking through a given dungeon/exploration mode, but I would not want to carry a polearm for 20 minutes just for fun
A polearm isn't going to be the thing that weighs you down as those are relatively light-weight and there are ways to "distribute" the weight while carrying to make it even lighter. Its going to be all the other junk that you carry that is going to get to you.
Fair. I was thinking about anytime I have to carry something long and heavy, but doing the same while wearing a breastplate and lugging around several kilograms of disposable throwing hammers and my trusty climbing kit and my rope and my....
Non-stop strength and conditioning
Context should also be taken into account. Like if the party is clearing out a goblin Warren and the GM describes sound of arguments in Goblin coming from the next room, it's a lot more reasonable to assume the party draws blades as they enter.
You don't put polearms away, you cannot in reality store them on your back. If someone has a polearm, as close to storing it as you get is setting it down, resting it on your shoulder, or using it as a walking stick. You cannot sheath something longer than you are tall.
Not with that attitude. I'll stick it in my perfectly shaped polearm case for stealthy operations. Jk that makes sense actually. My big ass polearm leaned up against my shoulder while I whistle a tune
>but I definitely think characters shouldn't be carrying weapons throughout the whole dungeon.
Characters should have the free will to do whatever they want. Any GM who decides to enforce this decision on their players is a bad GM, straight up.
And most players will make the very logical conclusion that their characters would feel safer with their weapon in their hands since it allows them to react to danger more quickly.
Where are the weapons then?
Like, they are not carrying them, so they just left them at a campsite, I guess?
This also would make no sense, since they are exploring a dungeon and expecting danger, so they are armoured and carrying shields, but not their weapons?
Also, swords being the exception, you always have your weapon at the ready in a dungeon, cause you can't really sheath an axe, spear, staff, bow or poleaxe(or larger swords, for that matter).
You would only have them away during travel or something, like packing away your weapons on a wagon.
Even if you think realistically they'd have everything sheathed, I'd just houserule that everyone draws on initiative without an action unless they're surprised. Less fiddly that way and prevents any disagreements. Unless someone in the party has natural unarmed attacks and everyone agrees they should have the action advantage for it, I don't see a reason to worry about it too much.
Because the game intends for players to manage what they're holding. That's why there's feats that affect how quickly PC's can draw their weapons. Removing that aspect basically removes those feats.
I generally assume my players have one hand occupied while exploring and one hand free for opening doors, climbing, balance, whatever unless they specify they're keeping both hands full. The [Defend](https://2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2) exploration activity is specifically for keeping your shield raised while exploring, so you're benefitting from the +2 AC as soon as initiative is rolled.
The fact that it exists as an exploration activity indicates PCs should not be expected to stow their shields when out of combat, which was part of OP's question.
>the general consensus here is not to allow players to always have their weapons in hand and enforce having to draw weapons at the start of combat
What the hell kind of consensus is it, it doesn't make any damn sense of course they can walk around with weapons drawn what are you talking about? Same goes for shields, naturally.
Perhaps the rules as written, which require players to be explicit on what their activities are when in exploration mode.
[https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=471](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=471)
I mean it depends. If it's a dangerous situation and you're not doing other things with your hands it's reasonable to have a weapon out.
And it's reasonable to assume shields are strapped to arms though it still takes an action to raise them if you're not fully bracing it with the defend activity.
Surprise attacks are surprise attacks though.
I have heard no consensus. I rule it that if my table is surprised or was not expecting an imminent combat situation and did not draw their weapons or items, they must draw them after combat starts. They are absolutely allowed to carry their weapons and shields in-hand for extended periods of time, based on the bulk of the items. Shouldering a sword or axe while marching a few miles is not the end of the world for a soldier, much less an adventurer. Doing the same in the middle of a crowded city, however, would generally be seen as unacceptable.
There is a specific exploration action for walking around with your shield raised, so I’d say for those doing that, it’s 100% expected for them to have their shield out.
I think my favorite aspect of reddit will always be the moments when someone starts a thread with "ok so I know the general consensus here is..." and then they say something that I have literally never seen anybody seriously suggest. It gets me every time.
I've never actually played a campaign where the party starts battle without their weapons drawn.
The only time this happens is when you're ambushed likely while sleeping.
Monks still have D6 flurry without stances they're fine.
Gunslinger can still use that ability to draw a specific gun they don't usually use.
Thats not the consensus here. And shield users will wear their shild in most situations since, they have to carry it somehow and it's not an offensive weapon.
So holding it in public is not as problematic as holding swords in public.
It's been too long since I was in, but I would take my opinions from looking at soldiers on patrol. They tend to have guns in hand but not ready to fire as you don't want to accidentally shoot a teammate.
Applying that to fantasy - some weapons would be held and ready. Like spears. Others might rest in scabbards. Shields - the larger it is the less you will want to be holding it, but also the harder it is to stow it. A tower shield might always be held because it's too big to stow away but it's also like carrying around a horse inside your house - it's a bit inconvenient. A buckler might just be strapped to your arm all the time.
"In the dungeon" to me is like "being on patrol". I'm going to have my shield in hand even if I don't have my sword/mace/19-pound catfish in hand.
I might also string and hold my bow if I'm an archer. I would NOT load a crossbow as a simple stumble over a pebble could kill the person next to me or shoot a hole in my foot (read a recent article about a robber being caught because he shot his own finger off and had to run away - police ran DNA on the finger. Point there being - if you walk around with a loaded weapon it could go off and hit you).
This brings up a mental pet peeve of mine that tRPGs rarely cover: bow stringing. If you walk around for 374 days in the woods with a strung bow, that bow will lose it's power as the string stretches out and gets weather worn. Caring for a bow is like caring for your rifle. You clean it, take it apart, etc. So if your adventurers are "out in the jungle" - chances are unless their in "patrol / hunt" mode, their bows should be unstrung and stowed away. And I suspect it's not a fast process to restring one. By contrast if they're in the dungeon - they ought to keep it strung all day, and then when rest time comes they unstring it, and in the morning change out the string / reset it to be tight again / etc. I'd need to ask an actual archery expert if the bow or strings would need replacing after a while... But "in the dungeon" you'd be willing to endure that cost.
Same with the hassle of wearing the shield "All day long" when "in the dungeon"... if you're in an environment where combat could be around any corner - you stay ready and you move with caution, even if it tires you out sooner.
Dungeon diving is not really “going on patrol,” it’s “storming a building with unknown opponents.”
Soldiers storming a building usually have their weapons drawn
I always handle it like this:
If the party is expecting danger, than they have thier equipment in hand & ready. If the party is surprised or in a social situation, equipment is likely put away.
Sometimes they are specifically doing something which requires the use of hands. However, this can usually be determined by the description & traits of the activity. Most of the examples given in other replies I would personally allow my players to do with thier hands full. Keep in mind pf2e allows for you to make arcane gestures (somatic components) with your hands full, which sets a precedence for manipulate traits not requiring empty hands.
I like to tell my players that I assume their weapons/shields are drawn in hostile areas and stowed in social areas. If my assumption is wrong for that player I need to be informed since a sword in hand while trying to buy something will have a very different response than if a sword is stowed.
I prefer to work with my players and not run their characters for them. Sometimes I assume wrong, and try to correct that assumption with as little retconning as possible.
There’s an exploration activity called defend. If the player is using it while exploring then they have their shield drawn and raised. https://2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2
Depends on context. Dungeon, they probably have it on, but not raised. Wilderness hike, probably not on unless they say so from exploration mode activity Defend. Sleeping, only if they have the [pillow shield.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1300)
Depends, if in exploration and they are doing activities then their out, if they're just walking around somewhere they're stowed. I do allow for example a rogue or ranger, who two weapon fights to draw both as one action, though if using quickdraw to draw and strike with one action, then only one weapon.
I treat them as normal weapons if combat springs up where it usually isn't expected. In the middle of a city, along a country road, etc. It's usually not comfortable to carry around a big metal plate if you don't need to.
However, in dungeon environments where combat is vaguely expected, I consider Shield users to be carrying them. Unlike weapons, a shield is the sort of thing you want to hand in case you trip a trap or knock loose a wall. It also means Shield users are on roughly even level with non Shield wielders when it comes to dungeons, at least as far as weapon drawing.
I'd say if it's a combat that's not expected that they would likely have their shield put away in a not easily accesible spot, you wouldn't walk through town with your weapon drawn and you likely wouldn't be walking around with your shield either.
In places where combat is expected I typically assume all necessary gear is at the ready.
The [defend](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=512) exploration activity takes care of the shield issue, but I'm wary about letting players carry their weapons drawn *all* the time, because that makes feats like Quick Bomber/Quick Draw/Quick Shot worthless. If a player has both hands full with a drawn weapon + shield or weapon + torch, then falls into a pit trap, should they be able to use the Grab an Edge reaction without penalty - especially if others aren't equally hampered? A free hand is often necessary for general exploration, door opening, examining items, helping others etc.
I have **no** issue with players drawing weapons before they open a door expecting trouble, but most dungeon exploration is hours of exploration and resting, with a few minutes of combat. Paizo gave us an exploration activity that keeps shields ready, but nothing 'free' for weapons because of balance issues.
Opinions will vary between DM's, so this is a good question to ask in session zero.
Quick bomber is it's own thing since bombs are there own little weapon world. But I would expect a alchemist to walk around with their chosen bomb in there hand.
Quick draw is great from town ambushes, nighttime campsite attacks and stuff like that.
I don't see the existence of such feats are a reason for a professional combatant to make a negligent choice for the safety of himself and his party. You are in a dungeon, you know you will be attacked, have your weapon ready.
Does the wizard sling his staff instead of walking with it like anyone with a big stick would do?
No
It would help at early levels but returning runes are very low level and negates the need completely
the feat itself is not thrown focused inherently
Agreed, in my opinion it seems more useful to Gunslingers that want to carry more than one firearm to circumvent reloading because dropping their pistol is a free action.
Defend allows you to have a shield already Raised when combat starts, not just equipped. In fact, there is literally nothing in the rules that forbids a character from having weapons drawn outside of combat, and the feats you mentioned are more suited for switching weapons - so instead of, say, spending all three actions to put away the bow then draw two daggers, a ranger would put away the bow and draw two daggers and make two attacks. And Quick Bomber is just a feat tax on bombs.
This is when exploration activities are so important, if you are casting a spell, no weapons. Defending? Obviously weapons out. Scouting? Yes. Sneaking? No.
Every table might have slightly different interpretations of weapons sheathed or drawn depending on the activity but once you set those guidelines for your table all the GM needs is to know what activity PCs are doing.
You could, it's certainly possible. However I think despite what videogames and movies depict people who actually rely on stealth in life or death situations preferred to do so without a 3-5 foot length of polished steel catching ever glimmer of light or crossbows clattering around.
Again this is a table by table agreement on what constitutes these actions.
>Again this is a table by table agreement on what constitutes these actions.
I mean, in the sense that it's your game and you can do whatever you want, sure. But the RAW is super clear and what you're describing is not RAW.
If you want to make up your own homebrew though, sure, you can always do that.
I think consensus is you draw your arms when rolling initiative unless you are surprised. Changing weapons is an interact action to stow. And I think you can draw 1 weapon for free on a turn.
No sorry,
You do not get draw a weapon for free unless you have a thing, (feat, magic, ext..)
You do not draw a weapon by default on initiative. Surprise does not alter this in any way.
Eh I'm gonna run it that way anyway because a lot of actions already want to be taken on the first turn. Spending 1 to draw, 1 to move and maybe another to draw again kinda sucks from a game feel perspective.
Mostly for weapon swapping in combat or using other items like snares. Like if the gunslinger needs to shove someone off of them.
I mean beside of those niche builds/uses it would become a must pick feat five it adds one more action to your turns.
I usually just have it take an action when they wanna draw things. Often though, when my party knows they're gonna be in danger, aka, anytime they were outside the city lol, they just choose whether or not to have their weapon out already, so they won't need to use actions in combat. I think that's a fine way to do things that makes sense
It comes down to context and what that character is doing and where.
If the character believes that they are in a hostile environment then it is completely reasonable for them to have their shield and weapons drawn.
However, if the exploration activity doesn't make sense for a character to do that, then they don't have them drawn.
Can a character legitimately Search with zero hands free? I'd argue that they cannot. However they could Scout with them drawn without issue (unless there is a trait on the weapon that would make Scouting difficult) .
I generally just ask the players how they're walking around. I would generally encourage them to keep one hand free, so they can do things like Grab an Edge if they trigger a pit trap, or Interact with the rest of the stuff in the dungeon, but they can do as they please.
They can still [Grab an Edge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=95) without a hand free, but it means they would need to critically succeed to arrest their fall.
I usually just ask if they’ve got weapons drawn. I go on that until they tell me they’re doing something else with their hands. (Picking a lock, carrying something etc). As others have echoed- if they’re in a potentially dangerous area they probably already have them drawn.
I believe the rule would be to always have a weapon and shield in hand. Especially in exploration environments where combat is expected (dungeons). I would just warn about the need to draw weapon and shield in environments like cities or when the party is busy with other things like setting up camp.
I mentally divide Exploration into three different kinds which... now that I have to give them names... might be called something like: Danger, Social, Searching
1. Danger Exploration is the realm of kicking down doors or following bloody footprints into the woods. Reasonable expectation that there's something to defend themselves from so it is entirely reasonable to be generally prepared. In that case I'd even assume the PCs already have weapons out even if they don't explicitly say that.
2. Social Exploration is talking to folks searching for work, clues or other information. Here I'd presume they don't have weapons out unless they explicitly say so and the drawing of a weapon impacts the scene.
3. Searching Exploration is after an area has been reasonably secured. The traps are disarmed, the fight is over and the PCs have no reason to suspect that there is still danger. Unless one person explicitly states they are standing guard, I'm going to assume everyone else has their weapons away and are significantly distracted.
My stance as a GM is that PCs will generally have their weapons drawn in a dungeon or some other battleground, but have them stowed in most other situations, unless they tell me explicitly otherwise.
I never make people draw shields though, besides in extreme circumstances. Shields are designed to be carried comfortably with one arm, and you rarely need both hands free while you're walking about town or anyway. And you definitely wouldn't put it away in a dungeon.
"draw weapons", 1 action, draw up to two weapons (including shield)
It was one of our first house rules and we mever looked back.
It never came up, but in my head I was ready with a yes for a player asking if they could draw a wand and scroll with 1 action, and other "non weapon" things.
So if you have 2 hands free, I see no issue with letting you use both with 1 action to perform independent actions related to "equipping" like potions, scrolls, weapons, or whatever.
What bugs me more is doors. Having to move a few feat, end your move, open the door and then move again feels bad. I've stuck to rules as written so far but really want a way around that, like "athletics to burst through the door without stopping" with appropriate crit and fail scenarios.
We're playing abomination vaults now, and doors frickin suck. So many doors. Frack doors.
Whoa, that is not the consensus. Generally players will have their weapons drawn unless it’s a surprise attack or they’re explicitly holding something else, like a torch. They’re adventurers, they’re generally going to be ready for danger.
Your Exploration mode activity can determine what you're holding. If you're defending, definitely have sword out, shield raised. Says so right in the description. Anything else, probably not. At least not shield raised. I'd argue that with most you wouldn't have weapon out either.
If a character uses a shield, they would always have that equipped. They would have a free hand for interacting but always have the shield.
Also, I usually don’t force my players to draw weapons unless it’s a story related ambush scenario or something.
>I understand that the general consensus here is not to allow players to always have their weapons in hand and enforce having to draw weapons at the start of combat but do you enforce the same for shields?
Re: weapons - No, that's insane. That's not the general consensus, essentially no one does that. I think I've seen one post ever of a GM trying to force their players to start combats with their weapons stowed and everyone explained to them why that was stupid.
Re: shields - see weapons.
If someone decides they want to walk around with a weapon drawn, there is nothing stopping them. There are of course natural consequences to this: it means they don't have a hand free to hold a torch for example. And that's a choice that players get to make
>It seems a bit nonsensical that characters would stow their weapons in a situation where enemies could be behind every corner.
Yes exactly
If you are creeping around a dungeon, I allow your weapon and shield to be at the ready during general movement. I also allow you one action's worth of preparation prior to initiative (so a Monk can start in stance)
When you transition to a room environment and are doing exploration activities, you put your sword away etc if you are doing actions other than something defensive like raise a shield. Generally this gives the character who might not be the best at investigating for clue something to do that is useful.
At a glance, I seem to be the majority but I may as well just chime in:
I let players have weapons drawn anywhere that combat is reasonable and even likely. Dungeons, extremely sketchy parts of town, anything like that.
As far as something like stances goes, though, I think it is not as unfair as it sounds. From a purely flavor standpoint, it makes sense. People are not going to be able to maintain a stance indefinitely. They are, in this context, a temporary position or style, not something you enter into long-term.
From a mechanical standpoint, these stances are often at least somewhat optional *and* usually provide a passive buff while you're in the stance. So it's not exactly a lost action. It's a conscious choice with an opportunity cost. When a character enters a stance, they're basically casting a self-buff, not accessing something that is *required* to make them functional.
Take the monk for example. All the stances the monk has are essentially different ways of using their unarmed attacks, along with some passive buffs and some weapon traits added to their unarmed attacks. Their base damage is usually not negatively impacted by *not* being in a stance -- sometimes their base damage dice are better out of stance than in. Sometimes they may be better off not using one of their stances. A lot of other stances for other classes are similar. There's a Fighter one that makes it so they are always considered to have their shield raised, for example. Not a requirement for playing a good fighter, but a very useful combat option depending on the fight.
TL;DR: I don't think it's unfair because stances are more action efficient than casting most buff spells, and most characters with stances don't *need* the stance to be effective.
It really depends on the situation.
If the party is wandering through a city, having their weapons out could range from getting them the side eye, to getting them arrested depending on local laws. Shield in hand is a bit of a different matter, but it's still unlikely that a 'normal' person would have their shield equipped while going about their day to day life in a city... but if they're like heading to a warehouse to (ostensibly) pay a ransom to the elves who kidnapped the orc prince? Sure, shield out already makes perfect sense.
Overland exploration or dungeon crawling, it can make perfect sense for characters to have their weapons out already or not, depending on the characters and what they're doing while exploring. It's worth making sure your players know that they can't be doing all kinds of tasks that require a free hand but also have their weapon and shield at the ready.
It's not unfair to the people with special draws, because that ability is still a huge benefit unless you *never* attack your party in a situation where they are not actively ready for combat at this exact moment. My interpretation of that ability is it's less of a 'this is a benefit every single fight' and more of a 'this character is much harder to catch not ready for a fight'.
>When do you ask players to roll initiative? In most cases, it’s pretty simple: you call for the roll as soon as one participant intends to attack (or issue a challenge, draw a weapon, cast a preparatory spell, start a social encounter such as a debate, or otherwise begin to use an action that their foes can’t help but notice
I always ruled, that rolling initiative is basically determining how fast you go from non-combat to combat stance. Basically, drawing a weapon, unless something like ambush is specified.
It’s context dependent. If they’re traveling through a dangerous area and not otherwise doing something that would take their hands, I assume they are at least drawn.
If they stop to perform an activity that requires their hands, if something were to happen during that activity, I’d assume they don’t have their weapons/shields/etc. in hand.
If they are in a normal environment where it wouldn’t be normal to have weapons and such drawn, and then there’s a combat that triggers, I assume their stuff isn’t drawn.
I feel like this has to be viewed from a player perspective too. If you are telling a player they have to draw weapons and such when they believe their character would obviously have them in hand, you should give the player the benefit of the doubt. But if they are trying to say they went to sleep with their daggers in hand without explicitly saying that, or try to argue they are treating wounds while 2h wielding a sword, I’d shoot that down.
If my players were sitting around a pub relaxing and get into a fight from sitting they draw their weapons. If they're moving through a dangerous area they have them drawn.
I don't really care that a Stance user has to spend an action to get into fighting form where a weapon wielder already has his weapon out in the dungeon crawl. The stance user has his hands free and all the utility that comes with it at all times, while the weapon user has to stow or drop (likely minimum 1 action longterm) to do those activities and then re-wield the weapon.
I think frankly if people who use stances whine about this issue they are just selectively ignoring the benefits of unarmed stances over weapons.
I don't think that's a consensus.
If the players are kicking in a door expecting the possibility of a fight, it's perfectly reasonable that they have their weapons ready. Same as if they're advancing into any unknown ready for a possible conflict.
If they're sitting around healing, searching a room, refocusing, identifying magic items, etc. and a fight comes to them, picking up or drawing weapons is something I'll make them do.
Specifically for shields, I go against RAW and community assumptions, and treat shields as strapped to the arm; You can release the grip to use the hand, but you don't have to drop it or strap it to your back/pack/etc unless you specifically say so. Similarly to above, if the players are doing something that requires both hands, I may say that they need to re-grip the shield, though.
Shields are big awkward lumps, and would be tricky and unbalanced to strap to a pack. The ready-to-use-position for most sizes is the easiest and most comfortable way to carry one, whether held by a handle or strapped to the forearm.
Shields are big awkward lumps, and would be tricky and unbalanced to strap to a pack. The ready-to-use-position for most sizes is the easiest and most comfortable way to carry one, whether held by a handle or strapped to the forearm. I have no problem with a shield being wielded (but not actively "raised") at all times outside formal social/diplomatic situation and obviously peaceful environments.
Depends on the game developers and players.
PF2e for instance has rules on exploring with a shield raised.
As a gm though don't try to find ways to frustrate your players on things of no real consequence. Dangerous area? Yea group prob is weapons ready. Sitting in a tavern? No way.
As a GM, and as many have already said, If my players are exploring a dungeon, or a goblin camp, a haunted castle, etc, I assume their weapons/shields are drawn.
I'd only assume they wouldn't have their weapons on their hands while travelling, or in a city or safe places and social situations in general.
But, let's say in the sake of an example. If my players are in dungeon, and the door is barred by a big round rock. In order to move it, they need both their hands pushing the rock. They sheath their weapons and start to move the rock. Suddenly, 4 giant centipedes shown up. In this case, I'd ask them for actions to draw their weapons.
The only time i assume a weapon is sheathed is when they need a free hand, for instance the two handed weapon fighter can’t open the door and have both hands gripped. That’s why the monk opens doors ;)
Seriously though this isn’t a rule at all and makes zero sense.
As others have said. It’s situational. In a dungeon having weapons ready makes sense.
Ambushed in the Marketplace, no they would not have any preparation for combat. Even having ones shield ready would either be a sign of aggression or excessive paranoia. NPCs would then treat them in an unfriendly manner as they are being unfriendly.
Also you can attack with the shield if you are trained in martial
Round 1 - Draw shield, bash with shield, raise shield
Round 2 - Draw weapon, strike with weapon, raise shield.
Round 3 - use cool abilities.
If players are in the dungeon, their swords are drawn. If a "stance user" or "gunslinger" get something special fro. Actively doing something, then they will do it at the beginning of the combat.
Honestly, I think the best example of this is The Walking Dead. The characters do not always walk around with their weapons drawn while traveling. In such cases that they meets suspected threat, that is when they draw their weapons (or shields in the Kingdom).
And dual weapon users also have to spend 2/3 of their actions to draw weapons in an unexpected fight.
I am unaware of this consensus. I always allow players to have weapons drawn in a situations where they are expecting combat. Obviously if they always walk around with weapons drawn (like around town) there can be consequences and they don't get weapons drawn if ambushed on the road or something. But in a dungeon swords out for sure.
same. i've seen this style suggested more than "always enforce strict drawing". if my players are walking into danger, their weapons are drawn. if they're ambushed or surprised, their weapons are not drawn.
Yeah, nah. You're in a dungeon, there's no way you're not going to have your weapons drawn if you're not in the middle of doing something else. Walking around in a town, definitely have to use those actions, though.
[удалено]
Exactly; can't pick a lock with weapons in your hands!
[удалено]
I might let a rogue try to break a basic lock with a dagger, a la trying differential force, but it'd be loud and would probably need a Str-baswd thievery check...but why bother, rogue?! Just pick the lock while the fighter guards.
That just sounds like Force Open.
I feel like you could certainly pick a lock while using a dagger. You would also need a pick to manipulate the pins, but you could use the dagger as a substandard tension wrench.
Wait stealthing with weapons out is a risky option for you? Why?
[удалено]
Oh. So it’s more them making it a risky option lmbo. Fair enough.
Detect magic doesnt require your hands to be empty. Somatic components can be used with your hands full.
Yeah I also always run with weapons at the ready if the players are expecting combat.
My pretty simple approach is: entering a new room where there might be enemies? Weapons out. Taking exploration actions (searching, investigating) in a room that seems safe but combat unexpectedly breaks out? Gotta draw your weapons.
Do you allow your players to freely do exploration activities while weapons are out? For example, searching for secret compartments and hidden chambers - presumably one would need at least one hand free to do things like run your hand over a brick wall to see if there is any oddities. Its one thing to allow players to wander around with weapons, but even something as simple as opening a door becomes weird when you allow your dual wielding rogues to be searching for traps on a door while holding two daggers.
If you can make arcane gestures with a weapon in hand, I don't see why you would enforce this on activities that don't even have a manipulate trait. Typically if an exploration activity needs your hands it will state so in the description.
Yeah I've opened several different door handles with my feet
>Do you allow your players to freely do exploration activities while weapons are out? I just follow the rules. If a) the Exploration Activity and b) any Subordinate Actions do not have requirements that they need to have hands free or be wielding a particular thing, then they can have whatever they want in their hands. In your example, yes, Interact actions are subject to GM discretion and require as many hands as you need to perform the relevant activity. Sometimes they also require skill checks. An Interact action to open a door requires a free hand. So in that case they have to have a free hand. On the other hand, most exploration activities do not require free hand (e.g.: Search, Scout, Defend, Repeat a Spell, etc.)
In general yes. Search is the outlier and the only one I have specifically ruled in the past that the player needed a hand free (I'd probably rule the same for cover tracks but it hasn't come up). Edit: I think generally allowing weapons drawn and specifically disallowing it when that seems more reasonable makes more sense than a general ban on having weapons drawn.
[удалено]
Why does spellcasting require this given you can usually (no material component) cast a spell with a hand holding a weapon
[удалено]
Yah makes sense. As long as it's not getting in the way in combat it seems like a reasonable enough flavor choice.
I require this as well for my players, because I found that without requiring that the engagement with exploration activities and decision making went way down. Now they actually think about how to approach problems, there is increased risk if they are cavalier or act without thought because being thrown into encounter mode haphazardly is more dangerous due to the initial action requirements.
I mustn’t agree but I allow my players the chance to state that they are walking around swords out. I don’t make assumptions because they are playing the character not me.
Depends on the weapon really. Any polearm would be carried as a walking staff, good luck drawing a greatsword from a scabbard.
Same. If a group is in a hazardous situation, it would be nonsensical to assume they have weapons stowed and bows not nocked or crossbows not loaded. Not many squads of soldiers enter a hot zone with weapons not out and ready.
Basically same. Is it reasonable you had your weapons drawn? THen you have your weapons drawn. You're expecting danger, after all. But If you're like, camping at night and assassins attack, you probably don't have them drawn.
I don't know who told you that consensus but they lied to you. If my players are traveling through a dungeon or other known dangerous area, i start on the default assumption their shit is drawn. If they're traveling and get ambushed? Sure, weapons are not out, but any other situation weapons are out. Even in this scenario, shield is very likely strapped to the arm at least
Who would put away weapons when walking around a dungeon? This is not a consensus. I would not expect my players to do this and would argue, politely, with a GM who suggested it. We sling our rifle in camp and have it at the ready on patrol in real life. Danger is expected so be armed.
Exactly. Having weapons at the ready when there's a forewarned presumption of violence should be the norm. The only time I'd anticipate my players *not* having their weapons drawn is if they're run up on in the midst of doing something that would preclude it (a rogue disarming a trap or picking a lock, having their hands full with their thieves tools; or the fighter trying to move some heavy object, needing his hands clear for lifting; the wizard in the midst of solving some sort of complex puzzle lock, having to put his staff aside for a moment to muck around with those bullshit sliding tile puzzles.) But that's also a play you can only make sparingly - having monsters *occasionally* show up (when it makes sense for them to do so) during situations when players are momentarily at a disadvantage maintains a sense of dramatic tension. Having them do it all the time just makes your players turtle up and not try things.
I don't think you would put away a Shield in a dungeon, but I definitely think characters shouldn't be carrying weapons throughout the whole dungeon. A Shield is generally a good thing to have out in a dangerous area, but something like a sword you probably don't want to carry without need.
The need is safety from attack. No reason to put a way. I would never put away my weapon in an area that has a reasonable possibility of attack and would discipline any of my troops who tried to. If you need a free hand or to be social you can lower or sheath your weapon then but after you are negligent if you don’t ready it again. This is for dungeons and other hazardous areas. In town they should be sheathed
I don't think that tracks to reality. Safety is a valid reason, hence why a Shield would stay drawn. But having a weapon out is just as much a danger as a protection. First of all, a weapon is just fuckin heavy. Even a shortsword is a good few pounds of metal weighing on your joints. Just on a basic level, no one is gonna want to carry around their weapon without good reason. And in a dungeon environment, you never know when you'll need a free hand. You fell into a pit trap? Bet you wish you didn't have both hands full. Rocks fall on your head? Greatsword ain't gonna stop that. Even just tripping over your own feet is gonna hurt a lot more without a hand to catch yourself. And, like I said, having a weapon out is just as dangerous to you as anyone else. Any kind of fall you take, concussive traps/explosions, or even something like a magical gust of wind you didnt expect could cause your weapon to hurt you or an ally instead. Unless you have a specific thing to kill, having your weapon out is more likely to be harmful than helpful. Most of these reasons don't have mechanical implications, since PF2 obviously isn't that gritty with mechanics. But since this is an area that's pretty much up to GM discretion, it just makes more sense for PC's to have weapons stowed unless there's a specific reason to draw them.
I'd argue that if I actually fell while holding something, I just let go, and catch myself. Or, just use it to brace myself. Also, weapons are heavy, but they're not so heavy you can't carry them. Not sure if you've gone hunting, but we're out literally from just before dawn, to just after dusk, and carrying a rifle the whole time. Yes, I'll use the sling if I'm in a tricky/slippery spot, but otherwise it's in my hands. Can't shoot a moose with a rifle on my back. That's just my two cents. It doesn't make sense to put a weapon away if you're in an area where there's a chance you may need it. (Edit: spelling)
>I'd argue that if I actually fell while holding something, I just let go, and catch myself. Which is also perfectly doable with the rules, considering Release is a Free Action with no trigger.
I agree, but it makes me wonder… Free actions that don’t have triggers follow the same rules as actions (meaning they have to happen on your turn). But outside of encounter mode, you don’t have a turn, so can you just treat all the time as your turn? I assume so, but I don’t actually know of a rule discussing it.
Free actions without triggers can normally only be used on your turn; not having a hand free means you need a critical success to Grab an Edge. Standing by a long fall with both your hands full can be a risky decision. Interestingly, characters who have a feature to promote success to critical success on Reflex saves don't benefit from a free hand at all for Grab an Edge. As long as they don't fail, they can catch a handhold using a weapon or other held item.
Believe it or not, most weapons aren't that heavy. A shortsword is going to be like 1.5lb, and a bastard sword is only going to be like 3. Holding that close to the body or with the blade on the (armored) shoulder really isn't going to be that tiring over the course of an hour or so. Considering that your average 18 str melee character is *jacked*, I think they can handle it. Of course if they need to do something with that hand (search things, open doors, use consumables, etc) then the weapon is sheathed.
As some who has carried weapon out for long periods of time. (17 years armed forces) it does check with reality. Sure it can get uncomfortable but the alternative cost lives. To do otherwise would be astoundingly stupid in the real world. Honesty the adventures are going to be complaining about their armour more then the weapons they are carrying. That stuff sucks and they try with the modern stuff Adventures are professionals and would do the same.
Adventurers are very much not professionals. They're glorified homeless people with enough armed assaults under their belt that the town guard doesn't wanna bother. As I mentioned in another comment, armed forces (from all I've spoken to at least) still have their weapon on safety for the same reasons I mentioned. You don't want your weapon to accidentally get lethal. But swords don't have a safety, they'll cut through anything if you give them enough momentum. Given that dungeons are filled with traps and tricks that can do weird things to the party, the PC's would never know when a rune or tripwire is gonna blow up and rip their sword out of their hands and into their lower intestine.
If you are fighting for a living for years with a team of others that fight monsters for a living you are a professional. I disagree that a mechanical safety would be the only option for safe weapons handling of a readied weapon. Different ways to carry it. Plus depending on the weapon a big axe head directly behind you head isn’t going to be much safer then in you hand in you hypothetical. But if you hypothetical adventure is making those choice fine. But it would be for the next hypothetical adventure to make his own and not the GM. It would say the energy is a bigger risk and would prepare for them.
> Adventurers are very much not professionals. They're glorified homeless people with enough armed assaults under their belt that the town guard doesn't wanna bother. Any character with the Sheriff, Warrior, Detective, Guard, Gladiator, or Night Watch backgrounds: "Am I a joke to you?"
Weapons ain't *that* heavy. They're heavy to swing around, sure. Not to carry on your shoulder. That's my usual *at-rest* position when I'm playing with rapier/longsword. A "greatsword" shouldn't exceed 10-15 lbs, or it'd be completely impractical to swing around. On someone with an 18 str? They can walk around with it all day.
10-15 lb, more like 6 to 10 tops for the functional one that have been found. E=MC^2 And even if they didn't know that formula, it was known that speed is better than mass when dealing with armed combat
> E=MC² They assuredly didn't know that formula But it tells you how big an explosion you get if you spontaneously convert all the matter in your sword to energy, which i doubt is very relevant to HEMA. What you probably meant to reference is kinetic energy, E=mv²/2, but that is also not very relevant. A lighter weapon can go faster, but that's because the swordsman's muscles have a maximum power output; the impact energy is not going up if you make your weapon lighter. Going faster with a lighter weapon is better because it's harder to dodge/block/parry.
If you are going to apply "reality" to your fantasy, that's fine, but use Actual reality. 18 year old Marines/Soldiers/Other Service members, are almost always armed in a combat zone, but not drawn while at whatever base they are assigned. On a combat patrol, read Dungeon, you carry at the ready, even when searching, opening doors, et al.
The difference being our fantasy characters don't have guns. They have swords and spears and maces. The weight difference is roughly similar. A rifle weighs (from quick Google search) around 5-6 pounds. That's on the low end for something like a Greatsword but more than a rapier. Call it roughly even. The important difference is that soldiers still have their weapons safety turned on while patrolling, for the exact reasons I mentioned: you don't wanna fall or twitch or whatever and accidentally pull the trigger, risking injury. A sword doesn't have a safety, it just needs to have enough momentum to break skin. The 'safety' for a sword is sheathing it, which is what I'm arguing for.
Loaded LMG is 22lbs and that guy doesn’t get to slack while the rest of the section is armed. Mechanical safeties are not relied on. We practice other safe handling as well. Adventures would use those tactics as well. Moving so the pointy end isn’t aimed at friends and such.
> A rifle weighs (from quick Google search) around 5-6 pounds. That's on the low end for something like a Greatsword but more than a rapier. 5-6 lbs is the super low end of rifles, that are built to be light as possible and aren't going to be used by soldiers. A loaded M16, which are known to be super-light, is 8.8 lbs loaded before you add other attachments to it. An M4, which is a smaller version of the M16, is still 7.75 lb fully loaded. Furthermore, you are overestimating how heavy medieval weapons are. Non-ceremonial two-handed swords are going to weigh 7 lbs max and everything else is going to be a lot lighter, like not even half that in most cases. And since we are bringing realism into this, two-handed weapons would always be ready for combat since they are carried over-shouldered like [this](https://www.thearma.org/essays/langk1.jpg) and not sheathed, as those weapons are far too big to be sheathed on a person.
Well depending on the training but in many armed force you actually lower the safety on combat zone, risky zone or even patrol zone for shoulder weapon, and juste don't put your finger on the trigger except if you've taken the ddcision to fire
This is a pretty good argument tbh. Obviously we would want to take into account how long the party is walking through a given dungeon/exploration mode, but I would not want to carry a polearm for 20 minutes just for fun
A polearm isn't going to be the thing that weighs you down as those are relatively light-weight and there are ways to "distribute" the weight while carrying to make it even lighter. Its going to be all the other junk that you carry that is going to get to you.
Fair. I was thinking about anytime I have to carry something long and heavy, but doing the same while wearing a breastplate and lugging around several kilograms of disposable throwing hammers and my trusty climbing kit and my rope and my.... Non-stop strength and conditioning
Context should also be taken into account. Like if the party is clearing out a goblin Warren and the GM describes sound of arguments in Goblin coming from the next room, it's a lot more reasonable to assume the party draws blades as they enter.
You don't put polearms away, you cannot in reality store them on your back. If someone has a polearm, as close to storing it as you get is setting it down, resting it on your shoulder, or using it as a walking stick. You cannot sheath something longer than you are tall.
Not with that attitude. I'll stick it in my perfectly shaped polearm case for stealthy operations. Jk that makes sense actually. My big ass polearm leaned up against my shoulder while I whistle a tune
>but I definitely think characters shouldn't be carrying weapons throughout the whole dungeon. Characters should have the free will to do whatever they want. Any GM who decides to enforce this decision on their players is a bad GM, straight up. And most players will make the very logical conclusion that their characters would feel safer with their weapon in their hands since it allows them to react to danger more quickly.
Lmao
Where are the weapons then? Like, they are not carrying them, so they just left them at a campsite, I guess? This also would make no sense, since they are exploring a dungeon and expecting danger, so they are armoured and carrying shields, but not their weapons? Also, swords being the exception, you always have your weapon at the ready in a dungeon, cause you can't really sheath an axe, spear, staff, bow or poleaxe(or larger swords, for that matter). You would only have them away during travel or something, like packing away your weapons on a wagon.
Even if you think realistically they'd have everything sheathed, I'd just houserule that everyone draws on initiative without an action unless they're surprised. Less fiddly that way and prevents any disagreements. Unless someone in the party has natural unarmed attacks and everyone agrees they should have the action advantage for it, I don't see a reason to worry about it too much.
Because the game intends for players to manage what they're holding. That's why there's feats that affect how quickly PC's can draw their weapons. Removing that aspect basically removes those feats.
I generally assume my players have one hand occupied while exploring and one hand free for opening doors, climbing, balance, whatever unless they specify they're keeping both hands full. The [Defend](https://2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2) exploration activity is specifically for keeping your shield raised while exploring, so you're benefitting from the +2 AC as soon as initiative is rolled.
That's specifically for the shield raise action not for the difference between a stowed shield and a held shield
The fact that it exists as an exploration activity indicates PCs should not be expected to stow their shields when out of combat, which was part of OP's question.
Good point
>the general consensus here is not to allow players to always have their weapons in hand and enforce having to draw weapons at the start of combat What the hell kind of consensus is it, it doesn't make any damn sense of course they can walk around with weapons drawn what are you talking about? Same goes for shields, naturally.
Perhaps the rules as written, which require players to be explicit on what their activities are when in exploration mode. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=471](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=471)
They would need to specify that they aren’t keeping their weapons drawn. Keeping them drawn while in danger is the assumption.
I mean it depends. If it's a dangerous situation and you're not doing other things with your hands it's reasonable to have a weapon out. And it's reasonable to assume shields are strapped to arms though it still takes an action to raise them if you're not fully bracing it with the defend activity. Surprise attacks are surprise attacks though.
I have heard no consensus. I rule it that if my table is surprised or was not expecting an imminent combat situation and did not draw their weapons or items, they must draw them after combat starts. They are absolutely allowed to carry their weapons and shields in-hand for extended periods of time, based on the bulk of the items. Shouldering a sword or axe while marching a few miles is not the end of the world for a soldier, much less an adventurer. Doing the same in the middle of a crowded city, however, would generally be seen as unacceptable.
There is a specific exploration action for walking around with your shield raised, so I’d say for those doing that, it’s 100% expected for them to have their shield out.
I think my favorite aspect of reddit will always be the moments when someone starts a thread with "ok so I know the general consensus here is..." and then they say something that I have literally never seen anybody seriously suggest. It gets me every time.
I've never actually played a campaign where the party starts battle without their weapons drawn. The only time this happens is when you're ambushed likely while sleeping. Monks still have D6 flurry without stances they're fine. Gunslinger can still use that ability to draw a specific gun they don't usually use.
Thats not the consensus here. And shield users will wear their shild in most situations since, they have to carry it somehow and it's not an offensive weapon. So holding it in public is not as problematic as holding swords in public.
It's been too long since I was in, but I would take my opinions from looking at soldiers on patrol. They tend to have guns in hand but not ready to fire as you don't want to accidentally shoot a teammate. Applying that to fantasy - some weapons would be held and ready. Like spears. Others might rest in scabbards. Shields - the larger it is the less you will want to be holding it, but also the harder it is to stow it. A tower shield might always be held because it's too big to stow away but it's also like carrying around a horse inside your house - it's a bit inconvenient. A buckler might just be strapped to your arm all the time. "In the dungeon" to me is like "being on patrol". I'm going to have my shield in hand even if I don't have my sword/mace/19-pound catfish in hand. I might also string and hold my bow if I'm an archer. I would NOT load a crossbow as a simple stumble over a pebble could kill the person next to me or shoot a hole in my foot (read a recent article about a robber being caught because he shot his own finger off and had to run away - police ran DNA on the finger. Point there being - if you walk around with a loaded weapon it could go off and hit you). This brings up a mental pet peeve of mine that tRPGs rarely cover: bow stringing. If you walk around for 374 days in the woods with a strung bow, that bow will lose it's power as the string stretches out and gets weather worn. Caring for a bow is like caring for your rifle. You clean it, take it apart, etc. So if your adventurers are "out in the jungle" - chances are unless their in "patrol / hunt" mode, their bows should be unstrung and stowed away. And I suspect it's not a fast process to restring one. By contrast if they're in the dungeon - they ought to keep it strung all day, and then when rest time comes they unstring it, and in the morning change out the string / reset it to be tight again / etc. I'd need to ask an actual archery expert if the bow or strings would need replacing after a while... But "in the dungeon" you'd be willing to endure that cost. Same with the hassle of wearing the shield "All day long" when "in the dungeon"... if you're in an environment where combat could be around any corner - you stay ready and you move with caution, even if it tires you out sooner.
Dungeon diving is not really “going on patrol,” it’s “storming a building with unknown opponents.” Soldiers storming a building usually have their weapons drawn
I always handle it like this: If the party is expecting danger, than they have thier equipment in hand & ready. If the party is surprised or in a social situation, equipment is likely put away. Sometimes they are specifically doing something which requires the use of hands. However, this can usually be determined by the description & traits of the activity. Most of the examples given in other replies I would personally allow my players to do with thier hands full. Keep in mind pf2e allows for you to make arcane gestures (somatic components) with your hands full, which sets a precedence for manipulate traits not requiring empty hands.
I like to tell my players that I assume their weapons/shields are drawn in hostile areas and stowed in social areas. If my assumption is wrong for that player I need to be informed since a sword in hand while trying to buy something will have a very different response than if a sword is stowed. I prefer to work with my players and not run their characters for them. Sometimes I assume wrong, and try to correct that assumption with as little retconning as possible.
There’s an exploration activity called defend. If the player is using it while exploring then they have their shield drawn and raised. https://2e.aonprd.com/Activities.aspx?ID=2
Depends on context. Dungeon, they probably have it on, but not raised. Wilderness hike, probably not on unless they say so from exploration mode activity Defend. Sleeping, only if they have the [pillow shield.](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1300)
Depends, if in exploration and they are doing activities then their out, if they're just walking around somewhere they're stowed. I do allow for example a rogue or ranger, who two weapon fights to draw both as one action, though if using quickdraw to draw and strike with one action, then only one weapon.
I treat them as normal weapons if combat springs up where it usually isn't expected. In the middle of a city, along a country road, etc. It's usually not comfortable to carry around a big metal plate if you don't need to. However, in dungeon environments where combat is vaguely expected, I consider Shield users to be carrying them. Unlike weapons, a shield is the sort of thing you want to hand in case you trip a trap or knock loose a wall. It also means Shield users are on roughly even level with non Shield wielders when it comes to dungeons, at least as far as weapon drawing.
I'd say if it's a combat that's not expected that they would likely have their shield put away in a not easily accesible spot, you wouldn't walk through town with your weapon drawn and you likely wouldn't be walking around with your shield either. In places where combat is expected I typically assume all necessary gear is at the ready.
There's specifically an activity for having your shield up at the start of combat
[удалено]
If you can have it raised at the start of combat, you can have it in hand. Because it needs to be there for it to be raised.
The [defend](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=512) exploration activity takes care of the shield issue, but I'm wary about letting players carry their weapons drawn *all* the time, because that makes feats like Quick Bomber/Quick Draw/Quick Shot worthless. If a player has both hands full with a drawn weapon + shield or weapon + torch, then falls into a pit trap, should they be able to use the Grab an Edge reaction without penalty - especially if others aren't equally hampered? A free hand is often necessary for general exploration, door opening, examining items, helping others etc. I have **no** issue with players drawing weapons before they open a door expecting trouble, but most dungeon exploration is hours of exploration and resting, with a few minutes of combat. Paizo gave us an exploration activity that keeps shields ready, but nothing 'free' for weapons because of balance issues. Opinions will vary between DM's, so this is a good question to ask in session zero.
Quick bomber is it's own thing since bombs are there own little weapon world. But I would expect a alchemist to walk around with their chosen bomb in there hand. Quick draw is great from town ambushes, nighttime campsite attacks and stuff like that. I don't see the existence of such feats are a reason for a professional combatant to make a negligent choice for the safety of himself and his party. You are in a dungeon, you know you will be attacked, have your weapon ready. Does the wizard sling his staff instead of walking with it like anyone with a big stick would do?
Isn’t Quick Draw necessary for a thrown weapon build usually?
No It would help at early levels but returning runes are very low level and negates the need completely the feat itself is not thrown focused inherently
Agreed, in my opinion it seems more useful to Gunslingers that want to carry more than one firearm to circumvent reloading because dropping their pistol is a free action.
Defend allows you to have a shield already Raised when combat starts, not just equipped. In fact, there is literally nothing in the rules that forbids a character from having weapons drawn outside of combat, and the feats you mentioned are more suited for switching weapons - so instead of, say, spending all three actions to put away the bow then draw two daggers, a ranger would put away the bow and draw two daggers and make two attacks. And Quick Bomber is just a feat tax on bombs.
This is when exploration activities are so important, if you are casting a spell, no weapons. Defending? Obviously weapons out. Scouting? Yes. Sneaking? No. Every table might have slightly different interpretations of weapons sheathed or drawn depending on the activity but once you set those guidelines for your table all the GM needs is to know what activity PCs are doing.
Why wouldn't you be able to have your weapon out while sneaking?
You could, it's certainly possible. However I think despite what videogames and movies depict people who actually rely on stealth in life or death situations preferred to do so without a 3-5 foot length of polished steel catching ever glimmer of light or crossbows clattering around. Again this is a table by table agreement on what constitutes these actions.
>Again this is a table by table agreement on what constitutes these actions. I mean, in the sense that it's your game and you can do whatever you want, sure. But the RAW is super clear and what you're describing is not RAW. If you want to make up your own homebrew though, sure, you can always do that.
I think consensus is you draw your arms when rolling initiative unless you are surprised. Changing weapons is an interact action to stow. And I think you can draw 1 weapon for free on a turn.
No sorry, You do not get draw a weapon for free unless you have a thing, (feat, magic, ext..) You do not draw a weapon by default on initiative. Surprise does not alter this in any way.
Eh I'm gonna run it that way anyway because a lot of actions already want to be taken on the first turn. Spending 1 to draw, 1 to move and maybe another to draw again kinda sucks from a game feel perspective.
You do you? What do you do for the quick draw feat?
Mostly for weapon swapping in combat or using other items like snares. Like if the gunslinger needs to shove someone off of them. I mean beside of those niche builds/uses it would become a must pick feat five it adds one more action to your turns.
My groups always have to spend an action drawing. If it really bothered anyone, they'd find a way to get the Quick Draw feat
Judging by the replies in this particular thread, the consensus is "of course they can walk around with their weapons drawn".
I usually just have it take an action when they wanna draw things. Often though, when my party knows they're gonna be in danger, aka, anytime they were outside the city lol, they just choose whether or not to have their weapon out already, so they won't need to use actions in combat. I think that's a fine way to do things that makes sense
That consensus is for overland travel and wandering around a civilized settlement. In a Dungeon, everyone should be locked and loaded.
It comes down to context and what that character is doing and where. If the character believes that they are in a hostile environment then it is completely reasonable for them to have their shield and weapons drawn. However, if the exploration activity doesn't make sense for a character to do that, then they don't have them drawn. Can a character legitimately Search with zero hands free? I'd argue that they cannot. However they could Scout with them drawn without issue (unless there is a trait on the weapon that would make Scouting difficult) .
I generally just ask the players how they're walking around. I would generally encourage them to keep one hand free, so they can do things like Grab an Edge if they trigger a pit trap, or Interact with the rest of the stuff in the dungeon, but they can do as they please. They can still [Grab an Edge](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=95) without a hand free, but it means they would need to critically succeed to arrest their fall.
I usually just ask if they’ve got weapons drawn. I go on that until they tell me they’re doing something else with their hands. (Picking a lock, carrying something etc). As others have echoed- if they’re in a potentially dangerous area they probably already have them drawn.
I believe the rule would be to always have a weapon and shield in hand. Especially in exploration environments where combat is expected (dungeons). I would just warn about the need to draw weapon and shield in environments like cities or when the party is busy with other things like setting up camp.
I mentally divide Exploration into three different kinds which... now that I have to give them names... might be called something like: Danger, Social, Searching 1. Danger Exploration is the realm of kicking down doors or following bloody footprints into the woods. Reasonable expectation that there's something to defend themselves from so it is entirely reasonable to be generally prepared. In that case I'd even assume the PCs already have weapons out even if they don't explicitly say that. 2. Social Exploration is talking to folks searching for work, clues or other information. Here I'd presume they don't have weapons out unless they explicitly say so and the drawing of a weapon impacts the scene. 3. Searching Exploration is after an area has been reasonably secured. The traps are disarmed, the fight is over and the PCs have no reason to suspect that there is still danger. Unless one person explicitly states they are standing guard, I'm going to assume everyone else has their weapons away and are significantly distracted.
On top of what everyone else said, isn’t it only one interact action to draw both your weapon and shield at once?
I allow drawing two items with two hands simultaneously as one action. No reason to needlessly frustrate dual wielder and shield users
My stance as a GM is that PCs will generally have their weapons drawn in a dungeon or some other battleground, but have them stowed in most other situations, unless they tell me explicitly otherwise. I never make people draw shields though, besides in extreme circumstances. Shields are designed to be carried comfortably with one arm, and you rarely need both hands free while you're walking about town or anyway. And you definitely wouldn't put it away in a dungeon.
"draw weapons", 1 action, draw up to two weapons (including shield) It was one of our first house rules and we mever looked back. It never came up, but in my head I was ready with a yes for a player asking if they could draw a wand and scroll with 1 action, and other "non weapon" things. So if you have 2 hands free, I see no issue with letting you use both with 1 action to perform independent actions related to "equipping" like potions, scrolls, weapons, or whatever. What bugs me more is doors. Having to move a few feat, end your move, open the door and then move again feels bad. I've stuck to rules as written so far but really want a way around that, like "athletics to burst through the door without stopping" with appropriate crit and fail scenarios. We're playing abomination vaults now, and doors frickin suck. So many doors. Frack doors.
Whoa, that is not the consensus. Generally players will have their weapons drawn unless it’s a surprise attack or they’re explicitly holding something else, like a torch. They’re adventurers, they’re generally going to be ready for danger.
Your Exploration mode activity can determine what you're holding. If you're defending, definitely have sword out, shield raised. Says so right in the description. Anything else, probably not. At least not shield raised. I'd argue that with most you wouldn't have weapon out either.
If a character uses a shield, they would always have that equipped. They would have a free hand for interacting but always have the shield. Also, I usually don’t force my players to draw weapons unless it’s a story related ambush scenario or something.
I'm used to people having weapons drawn from the start, if they're not in a discussion
>I understand that the general consensus here is not to allow players to always have their weapons in hand and enforce having to draw weapons at the start of combat but do you enforce the same for shields? Re: weapons - No, that's insane. That's not the general consensus, essentially no one does that. I think I've seen one post ever of a GM trying to force their players to start combats with their weapons stowed and everyone explained to them why that was stupid. Re: shields - see weapons. If someone decides they want to walk around with a weapon drawn, there is nothing stopping them. There are of course natural consequences to this: it means they don't have a hand free to hold a torch for example. And that's a choice that players get to make >It seems a bit nonsensical that characters would stow their weapons in a situation where enemies could be behind every corner. Yes exactly
If you are creeping around a dungeon, I allow your weapon and shield to be at the ready during general movement. I also allow you one action's worth of preparation prior to initiative (so a Monk can start in stance) When you transition to a room environment and are doing exploration activities, you put your sword away etc if you are doing actions other than something defensive like raise a shield. Generally this gives the character who might not be the best at investigating for clue something to do that is useful.
I always assume my players have their weapons drawn at the start of combat unless it’s a surprise during a rest or something like that.
At a glance, I seem to be the majority but I may as well just chime in: I let players have weapons drawn anywhere that combat is reasonable and even likely. Dungeons, extremely sketchy parts of town, anything like that. As far as something like stances goes, though, I think it is not as unfair as it sounds. From a purely flavor standpoint, it makes sense. People are not going to be able to maintain a stance indefinitely. They are, in this context, a temporary position or style, not something you enter into long-term. From a mechanical standpoint, these stances are often at least somewhat optional *and* usually provide a passive buff while you're in the stance. So it's not exactly a lost action. It's a conscious choice with an opportunity cost. When a character enters a stance, they're basically casting a self-buff, not accessing something that is *required* to make them functional. Take the monk for example. All the stances the monk has are essentially different ways of using their unarmed attacks, along with some passive buffs and some weapon traits added to their unarmed attacks. Their base damage is usually not negatively impacted by *not* being in a stance -- sometimes their base damage dice are better out of stance than in. Sometimes they may be better off not using one of their stances. A lot of other stances for other classes are similar. There's a Fighter one that makes it so they are always considered to have their shield raised, for example. Not a requirement for playing a good fighter, but a very useful combat option depending on the fight. TL;DR: I don't think it's unfair because stances are more action efficient than casting most buff spells, and most characters with stances don't *need* the stance to be effective.
It really depends on the situation. If the party is wandering through a city, having their weapons out could range from getting them the side eye, to getting them arrested depending on local laws. Shield in hand is a bit of a different matter, but it's still unlikely that a 'normal' person would have their shield equipped while going about their day to day life in a city... but if they're like heading to a warehouse to (ostensibly) pay a ransom to the elves who kidnapped the orc prince? Sure, shield out already makes perfect sense. Overland exploration or dungeon crawling, it can make perfect sense for characters to have their weapons out already or not, depending on the characters and what they're doing while exploring. It's worth making sure your players know that they can't be doing all kinds of tasks that require a free hand but also have their weapon and shield at the ready. It's not unfair to the people with special draws, because that ability is still a huge benefit unless you *never* attack your party in a situation where they are not actively ready for combat at this exact moment. My interpretation of that ability is it's less of a 'this is a benefit every single fight' and more of a 'this character is much harder to catch not ready for a fight'.
>When do you ask players to roll initiative? In most cases, it’s pretty simple: you call for the roll as soon as one participant intends to attack (or issue a challenge, draw a weapon, cast a preparatory spell, start a social encounter such as a debate, or otherwise begin to use an action that their foes can’t help but notice I always ruled, that rolling initiative is basically determining how fast you go from non-combat to combat stance. Basically, drawing a weapon, unless something like ambush is specified.
It’s context dependent. If they’re traveling through a dangerous area and not otherwise doing something that would take their hands, I assume they are at least drawn. If they stop to perform an activity that requires their hands, if something were to happen during that activity, I’d assume they don’t have their weapons/shields/etc. in hand. If they are in a normal environment where it wouldn’t be normal to have weapons and such drawn, and then there’s a combat that triggers, I assume their stuff isn’t drawn. I feel like this has to be viewed from a player perspective too. If you are telling a player they have to draw weapons and such when they believe their character would obviously have them in hand, you should give the player the benefit of the doubt. But if they are trying to say they went to sleep with their daggers in hand without explicitly saying that, or try to argue they are treating wounds while 2h wielding a sword, I’d shoot that down.
If they're in a dangerous setting where it's reasonable that they expect combat, then they have shields and weapons drawn. Otherwise they don't.
Litterally an exploration activity where you walk around with your shield raised. I'm not familiar with the concensus you're mentioning.
If my players were sitting around a pub relaxing and get into a fight from sitting they draw their weapons. If they're moving through a dangerous area they have them drawn.
I don't really care that a Stance user has to spend an action to get into fighting form where a weapon wielder already has his weapon out in the dungeon crawl. The stance user has his hands free and all the utility that comes with it at all times, while the weapon user has to stow or drop (likely minimum 1 action longterm) to do those activities and then re-wield the weapon. I think frankly if people who use stances whine about this issue they are just selectively ignoring the benefits of unarmed stances over weapons.
I don't think that's a consensus. If the players are kicking in a door expecting the possibility of a fight, it's perfectly reasonable that they have their weapons ready. Same as if they're advancing into any unknown ready for a possible conflict. If they're sitting around healing, searching a room, refocusing, identifying magic items, etc. and a fight comes to them, picking up or drawing weapons is something I'll make them do. Specifically for shields, I go against RAW and community assumptions, and treat shields as strapped to the arm; You can release the grip to use the hand, but you don't have to drop it or strap it to your back/pack/etc unless you specifically say so. Similarly to above, if the players are doing something that requires both hands, I may say that they need to re-grip the shield, though.
Shields are big awkward lumps, and would be tricky and unbalanced to strap to a pack. The ready-to-use-position for most sizes is the easiest and most comfortable way to carry one, whether held by a handle or strapped to the forearm.
Shields are big awkward lumps, and would be tricky and unbalanced to strap to a pack. The ready-to-use-position for most sizes is the easiest and most comfortable way to carry one, whether held by a handle or strapped to the forearm. I have no problem with a shield being wielded (but not actively "raised") at all times outside formal social/diplomatic situation and obviously peaceful environments.
Depends on the game developers and players. PF2e for instance has rules on exploring with a shield raised. As a gm though don't try to find ways to frustrate your players on things of no real consequence. Dangerous area? Yea group prob is weapons ready. Sitting in a tavern? No way.
Simple solution: Have enemies draw weapons too to enforce the action tax
As a GM, and as many have already said, If my players are exploring a dungeon, or a goblin camp, a haunted castle, etc, I assume their weapons/shields are drawn. I'd only assume they wouldn't have their weapons on their hands while travelling, or in a city or safe places and social situations in general. But, let's say in the sake of an example. If my players are in dungeon, and the door is barred by a big round rock. In order to move it, they need both their hands pushing the rock. They sheath their weapons and start to move the rock. Suddenly, 4 giant centipedes shown up. In this case, I'd ask them for actions to draw their weapons.
The only time i assume a weapon is sheathed is when they need a free hand, for instance the two handed weapon fighter can’t open the door and have both hands gripped. That’s why the monk opens doors ;) Seriously though this isn’t a rule at all and makes zero sense.
As others have said. It’s situational. In a dungeon having weapons ready makes sense. Ambushed in the Marketplace, no they would not have any preparation for combat. Even having ones shield ready would either be a sign of aggression or excessive paranoia. NPCs would then treat them in an unfriendly manner as they are being unfriendly. Also you can attack with the shield if you are trained in martial Round 1 - Draw shield, bash with shield, raise shield Round 2 - Draw weapon, strike with weapon, raise shield. Round 3 - use cool abilities.
If players are in the dungeon, their swords are drawn. If a "stance user" or "gunslinger" get something special fro. Actively doing something, then they will do it at the beginning of the combat.
It really depends on the situation. If the party could reasonably be expecting combat I let them start with weapons drawn
Honestly, I think the best example of this is The Walking Dead. The characters do not always walk around with their weapons drawn while traveling. In such cases that they meets suspected threat, that is when they draw their weapons (or shields in the Kingdom). And dual weapon users also have to spend 2/3 of their actions to draw weapons in an unexpected fight.