It seems that the community is divided about 60/40 on this rule, the majority supporting the interpretation that you can equip or unequip a weapon each time you make an attack as part of the Attack [Action], while the minority read this as meaning that you can equip or unequip a weapon once as part of your Attack [Action], regardless of how many attacks you can actually make.
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
The rules as printed specifically states as part of an attack not as part of the attack action.
With that said the Two Weapon fighting feat and the throw property may suggest it was supposed to be as part of the Attack Action and not an attack.
Not to mention the shenanigans of using a two handed weapon (with cleave) into a light weapon and getting 5 attacks at level 5 or the ability to use a shield while making the attacks, may suggest it was supposed to be Action not attack. (Or WotC needs to hire at least one optimizer for rule tests.)
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
You are incorrect."as part of this action" modified attack based on English grammar. The attack must be part of the attack action.
The sentence says you can equip/unequip weapons. In then modies that to be when you attack and further modifies that the attacks must be part of the action.
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action.
If you are trying to answer the question of "when" you can do something then it probably is a bad idea to ignore the part of the rule that starts with "when".
The rule says "when you make an attack as part of this action". It doesn't say "when you take this action" or include any limiters like "once" or "the first time" or anything such.
IMO it is quite clear that you can equip/un-equip one weapon for every attack you are allowed to make with the action.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
Well you interpret wrong. The rule in question is found in the description of the Attack Action and thus it is only relevant when you take the Attack Action. It has nothing to do with the general concept of Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
This makes for some interesting side effects. If some game feature would allow you to take the Attack Action as a reaction or bonus action then you would be allowed to equip/unequip for each attack you can make (but I don't expect this to ever happen).
However it also means, as @Plaguescarred noted in another thread, that if you attack in any way that isn't the Attack Action then you are not allowed to equip/unequip at all (unless the thing that allows the attack specifically allows it).
Though the thrown property is redundant if you can already do that.
No the property is most definitely not redundant.
Firstly, the part that allows you to actually throw the weapon is quite handy.
And secondly, the part that allows you to draw the weapon is very useful whenever you make an attack without using the Attack Action, for example an opportunity attack (this needed a fighting style in the 2014 rules, one that didn't exist until Tasha's came out even).
It's clear to me that this rule doesn't apply at all to bonus actions or reactions, but the crux of the debate is in the wording.
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action"
So, I take the Attack [Action]. I draw my hand axe and attack. I equipped a weapon when I made an attack as part of the action. I should be done, right?
I'm not really invested in any particular outcome here, I just think this means once per Attack [Action]
I feel like if it was meant to be 'once per attack', it would read:
"You can either equip or unequip a weapon each time you make an attackas part of this action"
Though the thrown property is redundant if you can already do that.
No the property is most definitely not redundant.
Firstly, the part that allows you to actually throw the weapon is quite handy.
And secondly, the part that allows you to draw the weapon is very useful whenever you make an attack without using the Attack Action, for example an opportunity attack (this needed a fighting style in the 2014 rules, one that didn't exist until Tasha's came out even).
Yeah I keep forgetting the drawing and stowing of weapons is only for the attack action.
I agree with @Plaguescarredand the similar answers provided here.
So, for example, if you have the Extra Attack feat, you could equip or unequip two weapons when you take the Attack Action.
Another example: if you have both the Extra Attack and the Dual Wielder feat, when you take the Attack Action, you could equip or unequip up to four weapons. Your reasons for doing so are entirely your own. Maybe you're 'Pirate Hunter' Zoro.
Dual Wielder
[...] Quick Draw. You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
The detail given by @Thezzaruz is important: you can equip or unequip before or after an attack as part of the Attack Action. Unequip or equip is not possible with Bonus Actions or Reactions.
Points in favor of swapping once per attack (i.e. multiple times per Attack action):
It's possible to read it that way.
Points against:
It's also possible to read it the other way (also see next point.)
Every other time the writers give you something as many times as a condition occurs, they use whenever, e.g. "Whenever you hit a creature with an attack granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target.", "Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect." If multiple swaps was the intent, why didn't they write "whenever you make an attack as part of this action"?
The Thrown property letting you draw a weapon as part of the ranged attack is largely redundant if you can just draw a weapon for each attack.
Jeremy Crawford is not a fan of anything that produces analysis paralysis in combat. It seems very unlikely to me that the rules designers intended for Fighters to consider a dozen permutations of weapon mastery effects every round because of having multiple swaps + free draws from throwing weapons + two-weapon fighting shenanigans. By the time Fighters have Extra Attack, they can have 4 mastery properties, and there's already 24 different ways to shuffle them so they each occur once. In practice there's even more permutations because you might want to Topple or Sap two different enemies. And that's before considering other options they'd get through subclasses, like Battle Master maneuvers.
If I had to bet money on one or the other, I'd put it on getting errata to clarify it's meant to be one swap per Attack action.
Points in favor of swapping once per attack (i.e. multiple times per Attack action):
It's possible to read it that way.
Points against:
It's also possible to read it the other way (also see next point.)
Every other time the writers give you something as many times as a condition occurs, they use whenever, e.g. "Whenever you hit a creature with an attack granted by your Flurry of Blows, you can impose one of the following effects on that target.", "Whenever you use your Unarmed Strike, choose one of the following options for its effect." If multiple swaps was the intent, why didn't they write "whenever you make an attack as part of this action"?
The Thrown property letting you draw a weapon as part of the ranged attack is largely redundant if you can just draw a weapon for each attack.
Jeremy Crawford is not a fan of anything that produces analysis paralysis in combat. It seems very unlikely to me that the rules designers intended for Fighters to consider a dozen permutations of weapon mastery effects every round because of having multiple swaps + free draws from throwing weapons + two-weapon fighting shenanigans. By the time Fighters have Extra Attack, they can have 4 mastery properties, and there's already 24 different ways to shuffle them so they each occur once. In practice there's even more permutations because you might want to Topple or Sap two different enemies. And that's before considering other options they'd get through subclasses, like Battle Master maneuvers.
If I had to bet money on one or the other, I'd put it on getting errata to clarify it's meant to be one swap per Attack action.
I would as well. Via shenanigans ive reached 5 attacks at level 5 and that's with a greataxe and cleave. And then light weapons.
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
You are incorrect."as part of this action" modified attack based on English grammar. The attack must be part of the attack action.
The sentence says you can equip/unequip weapons. In then modies that to be when you attack and further modifies that the attacks must be part of the action.
This is incorrect. English grammar in this situation is ambiguous. You can correctly word it this way regardless of which meaning you intend. This was one of the original criticisms when they said they were switching to "natural language" rules, since English as a language involves many ambiguous constructions.
I feel like if it was meant to be 'once per attack', it would read:
"You can either equip or unequip a weapon each time you make an attackas part of this action"
It does though, "when", "each time" or "whenever" are all functionally the same when put infront of "you make an attack as part of this action". Neither of those words limits the number of times it can occur. Yes both "each time" and "whenever" is more clearly indicating that it can be multiple times but clarity (or consistency) have never been a strong suit of JC and the rest of the designers.
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
You are incorrect."as part of this action" modified attack based on English grammar. The attack must be part of the attack action.
The sentence says you can equip/unequip weapons. In then modies that to be when you attack and further modifies that the attacks must be part of the action.
This is incorrect. English grammar in this situation is ambiguous. You can correctly word it this way regardless of which meaning you intend. This was one of the original criticisms when they said they were switching to "natural language" rules, since English as a language involves many ambiguous constructions.
It doesn't. You can is the sentence. The rest of the sentence modifies that sentence. Either Equip or unequip tells us what we can do. When you make an attack then modifies that the equip/unequip. As part of this action is just another modifier. It modifies the attack has to be part of the the action.
It isn't ambiguous in any way. It only has one meaning. You can equip or unequip when you take an attack. English can be ambiguous, but this sentence is not.
Also how i read it — either/or — means that when you make an attack as part of the Attack action you can either equip or unequip one weapon, not both.
Even Dual Wielder doesn't let you do both, it increase the numer of weapon instead.
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / attack.
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / attack.
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
You are incorrect."as part of this action" modified attack based on English grammar. The attack must be part of the attack action.
The sentence says you can equip/unequip weapons. In then modies that to be when you attack and further modifies that the attacks must be part of the action.
This is incorrect. English grammar in this situation is ambiguous. You can correctly word it this way regardless of which meaning you intend. This was one of the original criticisms when they said they were switching to "natural language" rules, since English as a language involves many ambiguous constructions.
I think ShanetheStrange makes a really good argument in his first paragraph.
I don't see anything that would support the interpretation suggested in his second paragraph, however. I couldn't find a description of an attack [Bonus Action] or an attack [Reaction] in the Rules Glossary, and I think the entire second point he is trying to make is a diversion. It's a completely separate question from the original topic - the Attack [Action], and how many free equip/unequips we are supposed to have.
Jeremy Crawford is not a fan of anything that produces analysis paralysis in combat. It seems very unlikely to me that the rules designers intended for Fighters to consider a dozen permutations of weapon mastery effects every round because of having multiple swaps + free draws from throwing weapons + two-weapon fighting shenanigans.
JC is actually on record saying it's one of the thing he actually loved playing a high level fighter that would use different weapon Mastery on various attacks to exploit effects.
It seems that the community is divided about 60/40 on this rule, the majority supporting the interpretation that you can equip or unequip a weapon each time you make an attack as part of the Attack [Action], while the minority read this as meaning that you can equip or unequip a weapon once as part of your Attack [Action], regardless of how many attacks you can actually make.
Can we get a ruling on this please?
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/rules-glossary#AttackAction
The wording "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" (emphasis mine) reads to me pretty clearly that you can equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action. So if your action allows you to do more attacks, that's irrelevant; it's one equip/unequip per action. I can't speak to RAI, but the RAW seems pretty clear here.
FWIW I interpret "action" here to mean Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction (as all are types of action; see PHB 15). This part is a bit more open to interpretation though, I think.
If it was 1 equip/unequip per action it would have simply said;
You can either equip or unequip one weapon as part of this action.
It instead also say;
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action.
Meaning it gotta be 1 equip/unequip per attack.
Which would align with Thrown rules saying:
If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack, and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack.
The rules as printed specifically states as part of an attack not as part of the attack action.
With that said the Two Weapon fighting feat and the throw property may suggest it was supposed to be as part of the Attack Action and not an attack.
Not to mention the shenanigans of using a two handed weapon (with cleave) into a light weapon and getting 5 attacks at level 5 or the ability to use a shield while making the attacks, may suggest it was supposed to be Action not attack. (Or WotC needs to hire at least one optimizer for rule tests.)
Though the thrown property is redundant if you can already do that.
You are incorrect."as part of this action" modified attack based on English grammar. The attack must be part of the attack action.
The sentence says you can equip/unequip weapons. In then modies that to be when you attack and further modifies that the attacks must be part of the action.
If you are trying to answer the question of "when" you can do something then it probably is a bad idea to ignore the part of the rule that starts with "when".
The rule says "when you make an attack as part of this action". It doesn't say "when you take this action" or include any limiters like "once" or "the first time" or anything such.
IMO it is quite clear that you can equip/un-equip one weapon for every attack you are allowed to make with the action.
Well you interpret wrong. The rule in question is found in the description of the Attack Action and thus it is only relevant when you take the Attack Action. It has nothing to do with the general concept of Action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
This makes for some interesting side effects. If some game feature would allow you to take the Attack Action as a reaction or bonus action then you would be allowed to equip/unequip for each attack you can make (but I don't expect this to ever happen).
However it also means, as @Plaguescarred noted in another thread, that if you attack in any way that isn't the Attack Action then you are not allowed to equip/unequip at all (unless the thing that allows the attack specifically allows it).
Edit: Damn, I got ninja'd. 🤣
No the property is most definitely not redundant.
Firstly, the part that allows you to actually throw the weapon is quite handy.
And secondly, the part that allows you to draw the weapon is very useful whenever you make an attack without using the Attack Action, for example an opportunity attack (this needed a fighting style in the 2014 rules, one that didn't exist until Tasha's came out even).
It's clear to me that this rule doesn't apply at all to bonus actions or reactions, but the crux of the debate is in the wording.
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action"
So, I take the Attack [Action]. I draw my hand axe and attack. I equipped a weapon when I made an attack as part of the action. I should be done, right?
I'm not really invested in any particular outcome here, I just think this means once per Attack [Action]
I feel like if it was meant to be 'once per attack', it would read:
"You can either equip or unequip a weapon each time you make an attack as part of this action"
Yeah I keep forgetting the drawing and stowing of weapons is only for the attack action.
I agree with @Plaguescarred and the similar answers provided here.
So, for example, if you have the Extra Attack feat, you could equip or unequip two weapons when you take the Attack Action.
Another example: if you have both the Extra Attack and the Dual Wielder feat, when you take the Attack Action, you could equip or unequip up to four weapons. Your reasons for doing so are entirely your own. Maybe you're 'Pirate Hunter' Zoro.
The detail given by @Thezzaruz is important: you can equip or unequip before or after an attack as part of the Attack Action. Unequip or equip is not possible with Bonus Actions or Reactions.
Points in favor of swapping once per attack (i.e. multiple times per Attack action):
Points against:
If I had to bet money on one or the other, I'd put it on getting errata to clarify it's meant to be one swap per Attack action.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I would as well. Via shenanigans ive reached 5 attacks at level 5 and that's with a greataxe and cleave. And then light weapons.
This is incorrect. English grammar in this situation is ambiguous. You can correctly word it this way regardless of which meaning you intend. This was one of the original criticisms when they said they were switching to "natural language" rules, since English as a language involves many ambiguous constructions.
It does though, "when", "each time" or "whenever" are all functionally the same when put infront of "you make an attack as part of this action". Neither of those words limits the number of times it can occur. Yes both "each time" and "whenever" is more clearly indicating that it can be multiple times but clarity (or consistency) have never been a strong suit of JC and the rest of the designers.
It doesn't. You can is the sentence. The rest of the sentence modifies that sentence. Either Equip or unequip tells us what we can do. When you make an attack then modifies that the equip/unequip. As part of this action is just another modifier. It modifies the attack has to be part of the the action.
It isn't ambiguous in any way. It only has one meaning. You can equip or unequip when you take an attack. English can be ambiguous, but this sentence is not.
This I would probably agree with but until we have such errata then the current RAW is quite clear.
Also how i read it — either/or — means that when you make an attack as part of the Attack action you can either equip or unequip one weapon, not both.
Even Dual Wielder doesn't let you do both, it increase the numer of weapon instead.
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / attack.
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / attack.
I think ShanetheStrange makes a really good argument in his first paragraph.
I don't see anything that would support the interpretation suggested in his second paragraph, however. I couldn't find a description of an attack [Bonus Action] or an attack [Reaction] in the Rules Glossary, and I think the entire second point he is trying to make is a diversion. It's a completely separate question from the original topic - the Attack [Action], and how many free equip/unequips we are supposed to have.
JC is actually on record saying it's one of the thing he actually loved playing a high level fighter that would use different weapon Mastery on various attacks to exploit effects.
New Weapon Mastery | 2024 Player's Handbook | D&D (youtube.com) (12:08)