New player here, doing my 1st campaign as wood elf fighter. I have some rules questions:
1. at certain levels you get an extra attack. I understand those are considered double/tripe/quadruple attacks within the same action. Must these all be performed in succession before you can move again or do something else? Or can you do attack 1 → move → attack 2, for example?
2. the Fighting Initiate feat (Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything): ".. you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different." Is this a repeatable feat (as long as you pick a different one each time)?
3. Two-Weapon Fighting: if you start your attack with one weapon equipped but draw a second one during/after your attack action (as allowed in the 5.5 rules), does that count as prerequisite for making a bonus action attack with the other weapon?
4. If I am attacking with my second weapon (as a bonus action), if I drop my 1st weapon can I still continue my attack?
New player here, doing my 1st campaign as wood elf fighter. I have some rules questions:
1. at certain levels you get an extra attack. I understand those are considered double/tripe/quadruple attacks within the same action. Must these all be performed in succession before you can move again or do something else? Or can you do attack 1 → move → attack 2, for example?
2. the Fighting Initiate feat (Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything): ".. you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different." Is this a repeatable feat (as long as you pick a different one each time)?
3. Two-Weapon Fighting: if you start your attack with one weapon equipped but draw a second one during/after your attack action (as allowed in the 5.5 rules), does that count as prerequisite for making a bonus action attack with the other weapon?
4. If I am attacking with my second weapon (as a bonus action), if I drop my 1st weapon can I still continue my attack?
Thanks!
It's not 5.5. It's an update to 5th edition. Bell of Lost Souls, for whatever reason, seems extremely hell bent on calling it 5.5 but Wizards isn't. So it'd be best not to refer it to that, as nothing else officially does.
1: How you take your attacks and movement is your choice. There are no restrictions on this unless an ability specifically states there is.
2: No
3: This is where it gets sketchy. I assume you're referring to the weird Scimitar/Nick stuff and the bonus action attacks with light weapons. RAW, I believe this does work but I'd never let it work at my table.
1) The Extra Attack feature allows you to make additional Weapon Attacks when you take the Attack Action. You can move before, between, and after each attack roll, assuming you still have movement for the turn.
2) Unless a feat expressly says "you can take this feat multiple times", you can only take it once.
3) The pre-reqs for TWF are: a- make an attack with a light weapon and b- have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack. Not sure exactly what you're envisioning here; technically the RAW of the update might allow some kind of involved "weapon juggling" if you're trying to do that for some reason, but it's a fair ball for the DM to shoot the concept down if it seems like some convoluted exploit.
4) Looking to try and game the system with both a shield and TWF? The TWF rules specifically say you need to attack with a weapon in your other hand, so barring one or two races that have additional appendages as features there's no way to keep one hand occupied holding something besides a light weapon for a whole turn and still be able to TWF.
New player here, doing my 1st campaign as wood elf fighter. I have some rules questions:
1. at certain levels you get an extra attack. I understand those are considered double/tripe/quadruple attacks within the same action. Must these all be performed in succession before you can move again or do something else? Or can you do attack 1 → move → attack 2, for example?
You can use any combination of attacks and movement you desire, so long as you still have movement and attacks left for that turn.
2. the Fighting Initiate feat (Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything): ".. you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different." Is this a repeatable feat (as long as you pick a different one each time)?
If a feat can be taken more than once, it will say so in its description. Currently, Elemental Initiate is the only feat you're allowed to select multiple times.
3. Two-Weapon Fighting: if you start your attack with one weapon equipped but draw a second one during/after your attack action (as allowed in the 5.5 rules), does that count as prerequisite for making a bonus action attack with the other weapon?
Comes down to GM's call
4. If I am attacking with my second weapon (as a bonus action), if I drop my 1st weapon can I still continue my attack?
You can only make one attack with your secondary weapon when using your bonus action for two weapon fighting. No exceptions.
Thanks!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Not sure exactly what you're envisioning here; technically the RAW of the update might allow some kind of involved "weapon juggling" if you're trying to do that for some reason, but it's a fair ball for the DM to shoot the concept down if it seems like some convoluted exploit.
Of course you have guessed it: I was wondering what the exact RAW rules are for two weapon fighting.
If you could somehow combine the duelling fighting style - +2 bonus dmg when holding only one (finesse) weapon - and adding the dex modifier to your bonus attack of two weapon fighting by drawing or stowing weapons, that would potentially cause some extra damage. Especially now the 2024 rulebook seems to be flexible with switching weapons between attacks.
The thing is that the rules aren't very precise (like in many board games) for example by defining: - under exact which conditions you are allowed to make that bonus attack and - if these conditions have to be maintained during the full attack.
The pre-reqs for TWF are: a- make an attack with a light weapon and b- have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack.
If I would take that as the only applicable rules with no additional requirements, my fighter could totally benefit from both fighting styles.
Looking at my example of a level 11 fighter with 3 attacks: I do not see the rules forbid attacking with one hand equipped with a dagger and subsequently taking out a second weapon to engage in a two weapon attack. RP wise, that would actually be a realistic and quite smart & sneaky move, which is regularly depicted in series and movies.
→ Even if the condition for the bonus attack is already holding a second weapon while making the attack with the first weapon it should still be possible by drawing a second weapon between attacks 2 and 3, losing the duelling bonus in attack 3. If however the condition is holding two light weapons after making an attack and/or before beginning the bonus action attack, I guess making 3 duelling attacks would be viable. → Of course, if you also have to hold the 1st weapon when engaged in the bonus attack or it will fizzle, it would also be impossible to get the extra duelling dmg in the bonus attack.
So concluding: the combination of fighting styles would potentially add 4 - 8 dmg per turn, depending on how you read the rules.
If you could somehow combine the duelling fighting style - +2 bonus dmg when holding only one (finesse) weapon - and adding the dex modifier to your bonus attack of two weapon fighting by drawing or stowing weapons, that would potentially cause some extra damage. Especially now the 2024 rulebook seems to be flexible with switching weapons between attacks.
I would never allow this at my table, full stop
This is one of those times when it's good to remember that a round lasts six seconds, and your "attack" represents all the stuff you do in that six seconds, whether it's scream in your enemy's face while you do a big windup with your maul, or a bunch of tricky little feints and position shifts as you probe for weaknesses in their defenses (which is what the Dueling fighting style represents). It isn't just one stab or smash per attack roll
The idea that you can draw/stow/swap weapons multiple times in those six seconds and still get the damage bonus because you happen to have only one weapon in hand at the exact right moment just doesn't fly for me
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The idea that you can draw/stow/swap weapons multiple times in those six seconds and still get the damage bonus because you happen to have only one weapon in hand at the exact right moment just doesn't fly for me
I can see that. Still, realistically, making 4-5 successful attacks within 6 seconds seems far more unlikely than drawing one weapon (you could already have your hand on it at the start of the attack) and stowing/dropping one within that timeframe.
I find it strange though that although the rules allow doing stuff, DMs would forbid it? And if you'd do exactly the same - but without triggering some mechanic - it would be no problem at all and it would be perfectly legal. It may be that I am used to boardgames - but I find this pretty weird.
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You can do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don't need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it."
"The pre-reqs for Two Weapon Fighting are: a. make an attack with a light weapon and b. have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack. "
"Dueling (PHB). When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
The main reason DMs disallow this kind of corner case is because you are trying to go to an extreme length to create a benefit solely for your character. If you really want this rule to be in play, then tell the DM. "I think it's a good rule and I think any and all enemies you have should use this rule with their attacks against our party!" If you can look the DM in the eye and honestly make a statement like that, they are much more likely to enable it. If it seems like a deadly combination used against every individual in your party, then perhaps it is best to stick with normal and reasonable interpretations of these rules.
I find it strange though that although the rules allow doing stuff, DMs would forbid it? And if you'd do exactly the same - but without triggering some mechanic - it would be no problem at all and it would be perfectly legal. It may be that I am used to boardgames - but I find this pretty weird.
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You can do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don't need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it."
"The pre-reqs for Two Weapon Fighting are: a. make an attack with a light weapon and b. have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack. "
"Dueling (PHB). When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
The reason I would ban it is intent vs reality. This kind of thing exists in every edition and in other combat based ttrpgs. The intent behind changing the object interaction with weapons during combat was to make thrown weapon fighting viable. What it did on accident was create an edge case where because of the wording you're dropping weapons to get more attacks.
That isn't the intent and the reality is it's dumb. No seasoned fighter is dropping their weapon every round.
The reason we have DMs rather than just playing Elder Scrolls Online is so that we can do stuff that a computer won't let us do because it can only allow what the programmers foresaw - we want to do stuff that makes sense but isn't necessarily prepared for. That can be narrative wise or mechanical.
The thing is, that cuts both ways. Not only does it mean that we can do stuff that the programmers didn't foresee, but also it stops us from cheesing the rules in ways the programmers didn't foresee.
So yes, there are DMs that will put their foot down and say no to what you're doing. I would too, the narrative reason you're getting a mechanical bonus for Duelling is that for that Action, you're focusing on your single weapon. Drawing a second weapon defeats that narrative reason, so yeah, I'd turn around and say that you can draw the second weapon ready for the next round, but you can't attack with it - or you can forego the bonus to your Duelling attack(s) (if you haven't rolled, if you have, then that's why you discuss with me what your plans are first because you've now foregone that opportunity to reconsider 😁).
Could you find a DM that would let you do this? Absolutely, in confident that you could. We're just warning you that not all DMs would let you, so you need to double check with them before you try to pull this stunt. A lot of DMs would say no to it, and there's nothing worse than trying to sneak a stunt past a DM and the DM having to slap you down - it saps the fun out of the game for everyone. Just ask and see if they're happy with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The main reason DMs disallow this kind of corner case is because you are trying to go to an extreme length to create a benefit solely for your character.
Well to be honest I think your reactions are quite harsh. :-|
I am used to board games and mmorpgs like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, ESO.. in these game it is common to improve and optimise you build (sometimes up to the point that people frown upon sub-optimal builds) and creative finds within the rules (like the above) would actually be praised. After all: if you deal more damage, your healer has less work to do and your team suffers less damage because the enemy is down a few turns sooner. Win-win for everyone, not just you.
It's difficult to see what you do want to see in DnD. If for example our paladin and I both take the Interception fighting style (where we can prevent 10+ damage per player, per turn), is that ok, even if it's stronger than the abovementioned (ab)use of mechanics? And if so: why?
I would too, the narrative reason you're getting a mechanical bonus for Duelling is that for that Action, you're focusing on your single weapon. Drawing a second weapon defeats that narrative reason, so yeah, I'd turn around and say that you can draw the second weapon ready for the next round, but you can't attack with it - or you can forego the bonus to your Duelling attack(s).
I do not see how you could say that it defeats the narrative. If some musketeer wielding his rapier (duelling expert) makes a few attacks and pulls a dagger from underneath his clothes to stab his enemy .. doesn't seem very unnatural and game breakingly far fetched to me. In fact I think that in reality, this happened quite often, even if they were expert duellists.
You're getting a bonus for focusing on your Duelling weapon - hence why you don't get a bonus if you have a weapon in the other hand. If you're going to pull a dagger or another weapon out and then make another strike with it in less time than it takes to make another strike with your primary weapon, the you're going to have to plan and prepare beforehand. That means you're not focusing on your primary weapon...thus no bonus.
If you're wanting fewer words and less reasoning...it takes less effort to simply have the weapon in your hand than it does to draw it. If having a weapon in your hand is too much of a distraction to keep the bonus, then drawing it is definitely too much.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The main reason DMs disallow this kind of corner case is because you are trying to go to an extreme length to create a benefit solely for your character.
Well to be honest I think your reactions are quite harsh. :-|
I am used to board games and mmorpgs like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, ESO.. in these game it is common to improve and optimise you build (sometimes up to the point that people frown upon sub-optimal builds) and creative finds within the rules (like the above) would actually be praised. After all: if you deal more damage, your healer has less work to do and your team suffers less damage because the enemy is down a few turns sooner. Win-win for everyone, not just you.
It's difficult to see what you do want to see in DnD. If for example our paladin and I both take the Interception fighting style (where we can prevent 10+ damage per player, per turn), is that ok, even if it's stronger than the abovementioned (ab)use of mechanics? And if so: why?
I would too, the narrative reason you're getting a mechanical bonus for Duelling is that for that Action, you're focusing on your single weapon. Drawing a second weapon defeats that narrative reason, so yeah, I'd turn around and say that you can draw the second weapon ready for the next round, but you can't attack with it - or you can forego the bonus to your Duelling attack(s).
I do not see how you could say that it defeats the narrative. If some musketeer wielding his rapier (duelling expert) makes a few attacks and pulls a dagger from underneath his clothes to stab his enemy .. doesn't seem very unnatural and game breakingly far fetched to me. In fact I think that in reality, this happened quite often, even if they were expert duellists.
So, lets rewind here. Linklite, quoting your post but the reality is most of it is intended for the OP.
No one is being rude or harsh. The concept of rules as written vs rules as intended are always up for discussion. I think most in this thread are in the rules as intended boat with the 2024 wording on this.
The issue the rules as intended folks have? It doesn't make sense. The way Nick is worded in the 2024 Rules is "When you make the extra attack of the light property, you can make it as part of your attack action instead of a bonus action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn". No one has an issue with that, because all it's doing is specifically stating you free up your bonus action. The light weapon property also specifically wants you to make the attack with a different weapon. Hitting someone with a scimitar and pulling out a dagger is the intended purpose here. In 2014, if this were the first round and you hadn't pulled out your Scimitar to start battle, your first turn would have your free interact with object as your scimitar, and you couldn't bonus action attack with a weapon in your off hand. You have no more interactions left.
That said, you just said rapier. Rapier in the 2024 Rules has the Vex Mastery, not Nick. Vex gives the next attack you make against the creature have advantage before the end of your next turn. Basically, a fantastic way for Rogues to give themselves Advantage for their sneak die without relying on someone else. Rapier is still a light weapon though, so you can still make a bonus action attack with another light weapon. With the Dual Wielding Feat, you can draw daggers and throw them. All of this is allowed, cool, and intended. The clown fiesta starts with dropping Scimitars and how people are reading the new rules.
So, in short, the big reason the rules as intended crowd have? They see people are looking for the weapon with the highest damage die with the Nick option and is Light, which is that Scimitar, and then trying to power game with a specific feat(Dual Wielding) to try and game out a way to get a magical third attack out of one action. That isn't what is supposed to happen there. Dual Wielding lets you do what you are describing without penalty by allowing you to stow/draw multiple weapons in the turn. It's not intended for you to take a swing with the scimitar which has the nick property letting you take another attack with a different weapon, then dropping scimitar 1 to draw scimitar 2, hitting with a DIFFERENT light weapon to then allow a new attack as a bonus action. I read the new rules as going "They already got their bonus action attack added to the attack action with Nick, they don't get a 2nd one, but they do get to use their now freed up bonus action in any way their character is capable"
I guess we may conclude that I am suffering a bit from a culture shock .. the DnD world is just a tad different from what I am used to! 😆
In what way?
The reason my logic path follows that is how I described earlier, but then also turn two.
Turn two, you have a scimitar on the ground and a scimitar in your hand. Are you now attacking with that one and picking the one off the ground to make the attack? Are you drawing a third scimitar? How many scimitars are you carrying?
That's why it's not happening in my game. The way Nick works is fine. Attacking with your weapon and drawing a throwing dagger to throw or using another light weapon is fine. It's specifically the dropping of weapons to get more attacks piece.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi all,
New player here, doing my 1st campaign as wood elf fighter. I have some rules questions:
1. at certain levels you get an extra attack. I understand those are considered double/tripe/quadruple attacks within the same action. Must these all be performed in succession before you can move again or do something else? Or can you do attack 1 → move → attack 2, for example?
2. the Fighting Initiate feat (Source: Tasha's Cauldron of Everything): ".. you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different."
Is this a repeatable feat (as long as you pick a different one each time)?
3. Two-Weapon Fighting: if you start your attack with one weapon equipped but draw a second one during/after your attack action (as allowed in the 5.5 rules), does that count as prerequisite for making a bonus action attack with the other weapon?
4. If I am attacking with my second weapon (as a bonus action), if I drop my 1st weapon can I still continue my attack?
Thanks!
It's not 5.5. It's an update to 5th edition. Bell of Lost Souls, for whatever reason, seems extremely hell bent on calling it 5.5 but Wizards isn't. So it'd be best not to refer it to that, as nothing else officially does.
1: How you take your attacks and movement is your choice. There are no restrictions on this unless an ability specifically states there is.
2: No
3: This is where it gets sketchy. I assume you're referring to the weird Scimitar/Nick stuff and the bonus action attacks with light weapons. RAW, I believe this does work but I'd never let it work at my table.
4: See number three.
1) The Extra Attack feature allows you to make additional Weapon Attacks when you take the Attack Action. You can move before, between, and after each attack roll, assuming you still have movement for the turn.
2) Unless a feat expressly says "you can take this feat multiple times", you can only take it once.
3) The pre-reqs for TWF are: a- make an attack with a light weapon and b- have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack. Not sure exactly what you're envisioning here; technically the RAW of the update might allow some kind of involved "weapon juggling" if you're trying to do that for some reason, but it's a fair ball for the DM to shoot the concept down if it seems like some convoluted exploit.
4) Looking to try and game the system with both a shield and TWF? The TWF rules specifically say you need to attack with a weapon in your other hand, so barring one or two races that have additional appendages as features there's no way to keep one hand occupied holding something besides a light weapon for a whole turn and still be able to TWF.
You can use any combination of attacks and movement you desire, so long as you still have movement and attacks left for that turn.
If a feat can be taken more than once, it will say so in its description. Currently, Elemental Initiate is the only feat you're allowed to select multiple times.
Comes down to GM's call
You can only make one attack with your secondary weapon when using your bonus action for two weapon fighting. No exceptions.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Of course you have guessed it: I was wondering what the exact RAW rules are for two weapon fighting.
If you could somehow combine the duelling fighting style - +2 bonus dmg when holding only one (finesse) weapon - and adding the dex modifier to your bonus attack of two weapon fighting by drawing or stowing weapons, that would potentially cause some extra damage. Especially now the 2024 rulebook seems to be flexible with switching weapons between attacks.
The thing is that the rules aren't very precise (like in many board games) for example by defining:
- under exact which conditions you are allowed to make that bonus attack and
- if these conditions have to be maintained during the full attack.
If I would take that as the only applicable rules with no additional requirements, my fighter could totally benefit from both fighting styles.
Looking at my example of a level 11 fighter with 3 attacks: I do not see the rules forbid attacking with one hand equipped with a dagger and subsequently taking out a second weapon to engage in a two weapon attack. RP wise, that would actually be a realistic and quite smart & sneaky move, which is regularly depicted in series and movies.
→ Even if the condition for the bonus attack is already holding a second weapon while making the attack with the first weapon it should still be possible by drawing a second weapon between attacks 2 and 3, losing the duelling bonus in attack 3. If however the condition is holding two light weapons after making an attack and/or before beginning the bonus action attack, I guess making 3 duelling attacks would be viable.
→ Of course, if you also have to hold the 1st weapon when engaged in the bonus attack or it will fizzle, it would also be impossible to get the extra duelling dmg in the bonus attack.
So concluding: the combination of fighting styles would potentially add 4 - 8 dmg per turn, depending on how you read the rules.
Anyway: thanks all for the replies!
I would never allow this at my table, full stop
This is one of those times when it's good to remember that a round lasts six seconds, and your "attack" represents all the stuff you do in that six seconds, whether it's scream in your enemy's face while you do a big windup with your maul, or a bunch of tricky little feints and position shifts as you probe for weaknesses in their defenses (which is what the Dueling fighting style represents). It isn't just one stab or smash per attack roll
The idea that you can draw/stow/swap weapons multiple times in those six seconds and still get the damage bonus because you happen to have only one weapon in hand at the exact right moment just doesn't fly for me
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I can see that. Still, realistically, making 4-5 successful attacks within 6 seconds seems far more unlikely than drawing one weapon (you could already have your hand on it at the start of the attack) and stowing/dropping one within that timeframe.
But well, we'll see ... :-)
Yeah, that’s the kind of cheese exploit DMs will typically veto.
Ok then.
I find it strange though that although the rules allow doing stuff, DMs would forbid it?
And if you'd do exactly the same - but without triggering some mechanic - it would be no problem at all and it would be perfectly legal.
It may be that I am used to boardgames - but I find this pretty weird.
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You can do so either before or after the attack.
If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don't need to use it for that attack.
Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it."
"The pre-reqs for Two Weapon Fighting are:
a. make an attack with a light weapon and
b. have a different light weapon in a different hand before you take the bonus action for the TWF attack. "
"Dueling (PHB). When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."
The main reason DMs disallow this kind of corner case is because you are trying to go to an extreme length to create a benefit solely for your character. If you really want this rule to be in play, then tell the DM. "I think it's a good rule and I think any and all enemies you have should use this rule with their attacks against our party!" If you can look the DM in the eye and honestly make a statement like that, they are much more likely to enable it. If it seems like a deadly combination used against every individual in your party, then perhaps it is best to stick with normal and reasonable interpretations of these rules.
The reason I would ban it is intent vs reality. This kind of thing exists in every edition and in other combat based ttrpgs. The intent behind changing the object interaction with weapons during combat was to make thrown weapon fighting viable. What it did on accident was create an edge case where because of the wording you're dropping weapons to get more attacks.
That isn't the intent and the reality is it's dumb. No seasoned fighter is dropping their weapon every round.
"I'd like to action surge" "Sure, what with? You dropped all your weapons as part of trying to cheese the rules"
Yep.
The other piece I look at as a DM when stuff like this happens is in a normal place, how is this happening naturally?
20th level fighters get four attacks, and with their bonus action potentially a 5th in current rules.
So with some dubious rules lawyering, we are letting non fighters get four attacks at 8th level if they have the right feats?
Nah fam. I'm good.
The reason we have DMs rather than just playing Elder Scrolls Online is so that we can do stuff that a computer won't let us do because it can only allow what the programmers foresaw - we want to do stuff that makes sense but isn't necessarily prepared for. That can be narrative wise or mechanical.
The thing is, that cuts both ways. Not only does it mean that we can do stuff that the programmers didn't foresee, but also it stops us from cheesing the rules in ways the programmers didn't foresee.
So yes, there are DMs that will put their foot down and say no to what you're doing. I would too, the narrative reason you're getting a mechanical bonus for Duelling is that for that Action, you're focusing on your single weapon. Drawing a second weapon defeats that narrative reason, so yeah, I'd turn around and say that you can draw the second weapon ready for the next round, but you can't attack with it - or you can forego the bonus to your Duelling attack(s) (if you haven't rolled, if you have, then that's why you discuss with me what your plans are first because you've now foregone that opportunity to reconsider 😁).
Could you find a DM that would let you do this? Absolutely, in confident that you could. We're just warning you that not all DMs would let you, so you need to double check with them before you try to pull this stunt. A lot of DMs would say no to it, and there's nothing worse than trying to sneak a stunt past a DM and the DM having to slap you down - it saps the fun out of the game for everyone. Just ask and see if they're happy with it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well to be honest I think your reactions are quite harsh. :-|
I am used to board games and mmorpgs like World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, ESO.. in these game it is common to improve and optimise you build (sometimes up to the point that people frown upon sub-optimal builds) and creative finds within the rules (like the above) would actually be praised.
After all: if you deal more damage, your healer has less work to do and your team suffers less damage because the enemy is down a few turns sooner. Win-win for everyone, not just you.
It's difficult to see what you do want to see in DnD. If for example our paladin and I both take the Interception fighting style (where we can prevent 10+ damage per player, per turn), is that ok, even if it's stronger than the abovementioned (ab)use of mechanics? And if so: why?
I do not see how you could say that it defeats the narrative. If some musketeer wielding his rapier (duelling expert) makes a few attacks and pulls a dagger from underneath his clothes to stab his enemy .. doesn't seem very unnatural and game breakingly far fetched to me.
In fact I think that in reality, this happened quite often, even if they were expert duellists.
You're getting a bonus for focusing on your Duelling weapon - hence why you don't get a bonus if you have a weapon in the other hand. If you're going to pull a dagger or another weapon out and then make another strike with it in less time than it takes to make another strike with your primary weapon, the you're going to have to plan and prepare beforehand. That means you're not focusing on your primary weapon...thus no bonus.
If you're wanting fewer words and less reasoning...it takes less effort to simply have the weapon in your hand than it does to draw it. If having a weapon in your hand is too much of a distraction to keep the bonus, then drawing it is definitely too much.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
So, lets rewind here. Linklite, quoting your post but the reality is most of it is intended for the OP.
No one is being rude or harsh. The concept of rules as written vs rules as intended are always up for discussion. I think most in this thread are in the rules as intended boat with the 2024 wording on this.
The issue the rules as intended folks have? It doesn't make sense. The way Nick is worded in the 2024 Rules is "When you make the extra attack of the light property, you can make it as part of your attack action instead of a bonus action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn". No one has an issue with that, because all it's doing is specifically stating you free up your bonus action. The light weapon property also specifically wants you to make the attack with a different weapon. Hitting someone with a scimitar and pulling out a dagger is the intended purpose here. In 2014, if this were the first round and you hadn't pulled out your Scimitar to start battle, your first turn would have your free interact with object as your scimitar, and you couldn't bonus action attack with a weapon in your off hand. You have no more interactions left.
That said, you just said rapier. Rapier in the 2024 Rules has the Vex Mastery, not Nick. Vex gives the next attack you make against the creature have advantage before the end of your next turn. Basically, a fantastic way for Rogues to give themselves Advantage for their sneak die without relying on someone else. Rapier is still a light weapon though, so you can still make a bonus action attack with another light weapon. With the Dual Wielding Feat, you can draw daggers and throw them. All of this is allowed, cool, and intended. The clown fiesta starts with dropping Scimitars and how people are reading the new rules.
So, in short, the big reason the rules as intended crowd have? They see people are looking for the weapon with the highest damage die with the Nick option and is Light, which is that Scimitar, and then trying to power game with a specific feat(Dual Wielding) to try and game out a way to get a magical third attack out of one action. That isn't what is supposed to happen there. Dual Wielding lets you do what you are describing without penalty by allowing you to stow/draw multiple weapons in the turn. It's not intended for you to take a swing with the scimitar which has the nick property letting you take another attack with a different weapon, then dropping scimitar 1 to draw scimitar 2, hitting with a DIFFERENT light weapon to then allow a new attack as a bonus action. I read the new rules as going "They already got their bonus action attack added to the attack action with Nick, they don't get a 2nd one, but they do get to use their now freed up bonus action in any way their character is capable"
I guess we may conclude that I am suffering a bit from a culture shock .. the DnD world is just a tad different from what I am used to! 😆
In what way?
The reason my logic path follows that is how I described earlier, but then also turn two.
Turn two, you have a scimitar on the ground and a scimitar in your hand. Are you now attacking with that one and picking the one off the ground to make the attack? Are you drawing a third scimitar? How many scimitars are you carrying?
That's why it's not happening in my game. The way Nick works is fine. Attacking with your weapon and drawing a throwing dagger to throw or using another light weapon is fine. It's specifically the dropping of weapons to get more attacks piece.