@DiogoDudaEstrazulas I've already shared my opinion in various threads about how I interpret the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule included in the Attack action (e.g. here). At least for now, based on my understanding of the current rules in the 2024 PHB
That said, I believe the intent behind the Light weapon property, Dual Wielder feat, or Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat is to wield two weapons, one in each hand. Unfortunately, this isn't fully supported by the strict RAW.
I hope future updates in the books can clarify all those things. Maybe, as you suggested, one of the fixes could be: "no, you can only Equip or Unequip once per Attack action, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make".
I think the intent is also very clear, and, yeah, believe you should just rule it the way it makes sense. For most everyone's text reading in this thread, it is very interesting that "Nowhere" in the book, does an example even hint to mixing a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting.
In my opinion, the RAI are super ultra clear. I think 4 attacks using two light weapons, one of which has nick, and the dual wielder feat is the intended mathematical balance. Same with using a two handed weapon with cleave resulting in three attacks.
I don't think there is any reasonable belief, given the examples if nothing else, that these two were ever meant to come together, or even make sense to do so.
So just make a ruling on limiting it to RAI, or, if weird bogged down combat is the goal (which is another way of saying maximising effect at the cost of time per turn), then, do what makes you happy. I think they are written a bit ambiguously, but RAI is clear, and championing for the possible RAW interpretation that seems ridiculous a bit reductive.
Unless your the GM, and you want this flavour in your game. At which point......carry on!
If we focus on the "ONE" in the weapon draw/stow part, as in you get to draw/stow only one, when you make an attack with the Attack action, this gives you the understanding that you can draw or stow only once, and the last bit that says "...when you make an attack as part of this action." is there only to give you flexibility to choose when you do so, especially if you have more than one attack in that same action, whether it is because of Extra Attack or Nick. Acknowledging this brings:
I disagree with this. We should not acknowledge this since this is not the rule. As written, the trigger for being able to perform the interaction is "when you make an attack". Within the Attack action, this interaction is allowed per attack.
I accept that dropping a weapon is now the same as sheating/stowing upon the Equip/Unequip ruling on Attack action, but the possibility of free interactions are not well descripted in the new book, and dropping a weapon is also the only free interaction ever shown in the book as an example, in page 29 and 30:
. . .
Notice that they purposedly used the word "drop" twice, never clarifying if she did sheathe/stow or actually dropped on the ground.
This doesn't need to be clarified. Drop means dropped on the ground. Otherwise, they would have written "sheathed" or "stowed". But there is no reason to assume that these would be treated differently by the Object Interaction rule. In 2014, they were listed together in the same bullet point:
draw or sheathe a sword
In 2024 they removed many of these explicit examples for some reason, but that doesn't mean that those activities shouldn't still fall under the rules for an Object Interaction unless some other rules in the game have been changed or added. For example, the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule for the Attack action now states that "Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it" so it's logical that these are now also grouped together in that they would all require an Object Interaction when using that rule.
I believe that the designers are trying to go out of their way to disincentivize "having to" drop a weapon for any reason other than pure role playing reasons.
Although not explicitly written anywhere, I believe that a decent rule of thumb for what qualifies as an Object Interaction is whenever you go from an Object not in your hands to an Object in your hands, or whenever you go from an Object in your hands to an Object not in your hands -- that requires (only) an object interaction assuming that you are not attempting to actually do anything else with that object and also that doing this does not fall into the category where "it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle". In my opinion, going from holding an object in 1 hand to holding it in 2 hands or vice versa should generally not require an Object Interaction. In addition, some other types of interactions should require using your Object Interaction, such as knocking over an object, hitting an object, kicking an object as long as such activities do not rise to the level of requiring some sort of attack roll.
Hopefully there will be more guidance on these rules eventually.
There is an exemple in the Player's Hanbook that contradict this option, specifically letting the character drop a weapon and equip another before attacking.
I'm pretty much fully in the 3rd camp now, the option that wasn't even listed when I posted this originally.
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack.
What Action are you taking? Attack [Action] <--- this action
What can you do? equip or unequip one weapon
When can you do it? when you make an attack as part of this action [either before or after the attack]
How many times can you do this? Once, because you are only allowed one object interaction in a round.
PHB pg 24: "If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action"
One of the base principles of the game is that specific rules override general rules. In other words, when a rule says you can do X under condition Y, it overrides a different rule that says that you can't do X.
By your argument, the Thrown property:
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.
...doesn't work for somebody with more than one attack.
Which raises the question of why that clause is even there. If your only weapon interaction is the default one, the clause is not only redundant, but also misleading.
However, because specific beats general, we don't have that problem. The thrown property overrides the general interaction rule, allowing you more as part of the specific act of throwing a weapon.
Similarly, the Attack action says that you can draw/sheathe a weapon when you make an attack as part of it. This overrides the general rule, giving you additional specific interactions when you take the Attack action.
(And no, this doesn't make the Thrown property redundant, because you can make attacks that are not part of the Attack action. It also lets you drop your two-handed sword and start throwing daggers.)
When you say the object interaction described in the Equip/Unequip is the same free interaction already granted by the object interaction rules, if we assume that the whole sentence is just there to be a "specific beats general", then it is in regards to beating another general rule, which is the "One Thing at a Time". That general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack, beause you'd need first to end both attacks to only then "be free" to do another action.
Also, the same line of thought is accepted as an argument in regards to Dual Wielder and Light both giving you an attack as a BA, but you still have only one BA per turn and thus you cannot have two BA neither include both granted attacks into the same BA.
Thought honestly, again, the "drop and draw" example on pages 29-30 is still evidence to me that this wouldn't be the case.
When you say the object interaction described in the Equip/Unequip is the same free interaction already granted by the object interaction rules, if we assume that the whole sentence is just there to be a "specific beats general", then it is in regards to beating another general rule, which is the "One Thing at a Time". That general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack, beause you'd need first to end both attacks to only then "be free" to do another action.
This really cannot be the case. It's not a specific beats general situation. It's just a narrower scope. It adds an additional option within that narrower scope, otherwise, there is no reason for the rule to exist at all since it would already be granted by the general rule.
Why would you think that the general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack? An Object Interaction is not an action -- it's not an activity that is restricted by the "one thing at a time" rule. Instead, the general Object Interaction is allowed:
during either your move or action.
So again, anything that can be done via the Attack action's "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" rule can already be done via the general "Interacting with Things" rule. There wouldn't be any reason to "overwrite" this rule to allow something that is already allowed. This rule creates an additional resource in the specific situation to which it applies.
When you say the object interaction described in the Equip/Unequip is the same free interaction already granted by the object interaction rules, if we assume that the whole sentence is just there to be a "specific beats general", then it is in regards to beating another general rule, which is the "One Thing at a Time". That general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack, beause you'd need first to end both attacks to only then "be free" to do another action.
This really cannot be the case. It's not a specific beats general situation. It's just a narrower scope. It adds an additional option within that narrower scope, otherwise, there is no reason for the rule to exist at all since it would already be granted by the general rule.
Why would you think that the general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack? An Object Interaction is not an action -- it's not an activity that is restricted by the "one thing at a time" rule. Instead, the general Object Interaction is allowed:
during either your move or action.
So again, anything that can be done via the Attack action's "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" rule can already be done via the general "Interacting with Things" rule. There wouldn't be any reason to "overwrite" this rule to allow something that is already allowed. This rule creates an additional resource in the specific situation to which it applies.
That’s very well put. You’re probably right. So I guess you get one weapon interaction and one object interaction?
So again, anything that can be done via the Attack action's "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" rule can already be done via the general "Interacting with Things" rule. There wouldn't be any reason to "overwrite" this rule to allow something that is already allowed. This rule creates an additional resource in the specific situation to which it applies.
That’s very well put. You’re probably right. So I guess you get one weapon interaction and one object interaction?
One object interaction, that could be with a weapon -- its only restriction is that some interactions are too difficult/complicated for it, and you have to use Utilize or Magic.
Then one weapon interaction per attack that you make as part of the Attack action. (Does not apply to bonus action attacks, probably not to Cleave attacks, etc.)
There's no official rule for this. However, I do think that if you have like, a greatsword in your backpack (which doesn't even fit anyways), you shouldn't be able to pull it out as part of the attack. However, if you have it sheathed, you can, because it's closer to you and easier to reach. And to unequip, just drop the weapon.
I'm seeing the concensus being towards one free item interaction and it seperate from the Attack Action weapon interaction.
I have not seen it addressed looking through the thread, of there being any rule which adds more interactions. For example we have one action, one bonus action, one reaction, one free interaction, and movement.
If more movement is desired there is the Dash Action.
If more item interaction is desired there is the Utilize Action.
If more Actions is desired there is Action Surge.
So how are more interactions being given by the Attack Action ? I read it more akin to Opportunity Attacks and Reaction, where it details a possible way to use the resource. This thread does not seem to treat the item interactions and weapon interaction as the same resource, or the limitation to one as restricted as the other resource restrictions.
Dropping works if you don't care about using it again. But when people try to come up with "weapon juggling" strategies, they are typically supposed to be repeatable.
One silly strategy I can see if weapon juggling is allowed (that is: if in addition to the object interaction we allow every attack to draw or sheathe weapons) is:
Attack with Longsword (Sap) and sheathe it
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Object Interaction: Draw Longsword
Bonus Action from Dual Wielder Feat: Attack with Longsword (Sap)
For 2d10+2d6+4xSTR damage + 2xSap + 1xVex.
Since it ends in the same configuration as it started, it's repeatable. But it wouldn't work if you just drop the weapon to unequip.
Dropping works if you don't care about using it again. But when people try to come up with "weapon juggling" strategies, they are typically supposed to be repeatable.
One silly strategy I can see if weapon juggling is allowed (that is: if in addition to the object interaction we allow every attack to draw or sheathe weapons) is:
Attack with Longsword (Sap) and sheathe it
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Object Interaction: Draw Longsword
Bonus Action from Dual Wielder Feat: Attack with Longsword (Sap)
For 2d10+2d6+4xSTR damage + 2xSap + 1xVex.
Since it ends in the same configuration as it started, it's repeatable. But it wouldn't work if you just drop the weapon to unequip.
Yup. Btw, according PHB 2024, dropping a weapon now also counts as an item interaction in the same way that drawing or sheathing a weapon does. And when it comes to the above mentioned attack sequence, you can also add in a greataxe attack with Cleave for 1d10 less (longsword) and 2d12 extra (greataxe with cleave).
Dropping works if you don't care about using it again. But when people try to come up with "weapon juggling" strategies, they are typically supposed to be repeatable.
One silly strategy I can see if weapon juggling is allowed (that is: if in addition to the object interaction we allow every attack to draw or sheathe weapons) is:
Attack with Longsword (Sap) and sheathe it
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Object Interaction: Draw Longsword
Bonus Action from Dual Wielder Feat: Attack with Longsword (Sap)
For 2d10+2d6+4xSTR damage + 2xSap + 1xVex.
Since it ends in the same configuration as it started, it's repeatable. But it wouldn't work if you just drop the weapon to unequip.
Yup. Btw, according PHB 2024, dropping a weapon now also counts as an item interaction in the same way that drawing or sheathing a weapon does. And when it comes to the above mentioned attack sequence, you can also add in a greataxe attack with Cleave for 1d10 less (longsword) and 2d12 extra (greataxe with cleave).
How do you fit in the Greataxe? You can't use it for the bonus action attack because it requires a weapon without the Two-Handed property, and if you plan to use it for the first attack, you'd need another sheathe and draw, but I've already exhausted all of them.
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
You're not intended to make the extra attack with a different Light weapon as part of the Attack action instead of a Bonus Action without both Nick Mastery weapon and training. You probably mean:
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Shortsword (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Scimitar (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Most weapon juggling attack pattern i see are made with the assumption that the character already has weapon(s) equipped but you're not always having it in hand, and when not, then you must use your free object interaction to draw a weapon first if you want to unequip it after attacking, meaning when you interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action.
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
You're not intended to make the extra attack with a different Light weapon as part of the Attack action instead of a Bonus Action without both Nick Mastery weapon and training. You probably mean:
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Shortsword (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Scimitar (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Thanks for the correction. I was just mixed up about which weapon had which property. From memory I thought Scimitar was the Vex weapon and Shortsword the Nick weapon, but it's the other way around.
And yes, the strategy assumes Mastery proficiency in Scimitar, Shortsword, and Longsword, Extra Attack, Two Weapon Fighting Style, and Dual Wielder Feat (so, basically a typical 5th level Fighter or Ranger built four Dual Wielding).
I'm seeing the concensus being towards one free item interaction and it seperate from the Attack Action weapon interaction.
I have not seen it addressed looking through the thread, of there being any rule which adds more interactions. For example we have one action, one bonus action, one reaction, one free interaction, and movement.
If more movement is desired there is the Dash Action.
If more item interaction is desired there is the Utilize Action.
If more Actions is desired there is Action Surge.
So how are more interactions being given by the Attack Action ? I read it more akin to Opportunity Attacks and Reaction, where it details a possible way to use the resource. This thread does not seem to treat the item interactions and weapon interaction as the same resource, or the limitation to one as restricted as the other resource restrictions.
The attack action explicitly grants extra object interactions. A general principle of the rules is that specific rules beat general. The attack action says that you can draw or sheath a weapon for every attack you make as part of it, therefore you can do that, even though the general rule about object interactions says otherwise.
Dropping works if you don't care about using it again. But when people try to come up with "weapon juggling" strategies, they are typically supposed to be repeatable.
One silly strategy I can see if weapon juggling is allowed (that is: if in addition to the object interaction we allow every attack to draw or sheathe weapons) is:
Attack with Longsword (Sap) and sheathe it
Extra Attack: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword and attack with Scimitar (Vex)
Nick Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Nick) and sheathe both weapons again
Object Interaction: Draw Longsword
Bonus Action from Dual Wielder Feat: Attack with Longsword (Sap)
For 2d10+2d6+4xSTR damage + 2xSap + 1xVex.
Since it ends in the same configuration as it started, it's repeatable. But it wouldn't work if you just drop the weapon to unequip.
Yup. Btw, according PHB 2024, dropping a weapon now also counts as an item interaction in the same way that drawing or sheathing a weapon does. And when it comes to the above mentioned attack sequence, you can also add in a greataxe attack with Cleave for 1d10 less (longsword) and 2d12 extra (greataxe with cleave).
How do you fit in the Greataxe? You can't use it for the bonus action attack because it requires a weapon without the Two-Handed property, and if you plan to use it for the first attack, you'd need another sheathe and draw, but I've already exhausted all of them.
Imagine the following sequence:
you are a level 5 fighter with two-weapon fighting and dual wielder. Your strength modifier is +4. You have no weapons equipped.
combat starts and it is your turn.
Attack 1: you draw a warhammer and a handaxe. You throw the handaxe (1d6+4).
Bonus Action: you use dual wielder to attack with the warhammer using the versality weapon property (1d10+4). You use the weapon's push property to position an enemy within 5 ft of another.
Nick Attack: You throw a Light Hammer which you can draw for free as part of your ranged attack with thrown weapons - no weapon interaction required (1d4+4). At the end of the attack, you use your weapon interaction to stow your Warhammer.
Attack 2: with the enemy now positioned adjacent to another enemy thanks to the warhammer's push, you now draw your greataxe to cleave (2d12+4).
Assuming everything hits, you just did 1d6+1d10+1d4+2d12+4*4 damage. That's 40.5 damage on average which is repeatable every turn, assuming you have 2 targets for cleave. You also have a free object interaction left, which you could use to make a melee attack instead of throwing a light hammer. You can also combine this with features like the crusher and charger feats, or the battlemaster's push attack, to create even more movement effects in order to better position enemies for cleave.
you are a level 5 fighter with two-weapon fighting and dual wielder. Your strength modifier is +4. You have no weapons equipped.
combat starts and it is your turn.
Attack 1: you draw a warhammer and a handaxe. You throw the handaxe (1d6+4).
Bonus Action: you use dual wielder to attack with the warhammer using the versality weapon property (1d10+4). You use the weapon's push property to position an enemy within 5 ft of another.
Nick Attack: You throw a Light Hammer which you can draw for free as part of your ranged attack with thrown weapons - no weapon interaction required (1d4+4). At the end of the attack, you use your weapon interaction to stow your Warhammer.
Attack 2: with the enemy now positioned adjacent to another enemy thanks to the warhammer's push, you now draw your greataxe to cleave (2d12+4).
Assuming everything hits, you just did 1d6+1d10+1d4+2d12+4*4 damage. That's 40.5 damage on average which is repeatable every turn, assuming you have 2 targets for cleave. You also have a free object interaction left, which you could use to make a melee attack instead of throwing a light hammer. You can also combine this with features like the crusher and charger feats, or the battlemaster's push attack, to create even more movement effects in order to better position enemies for cleave.
You cannot take your bonus action attack in the middle of your Attack action.
I have no idea whether you can work the sequencing to make it work, especially since you don't get a free weapon interaction on the bonus action attack. (This just means I didn't try, not that I tried and couldn't make it work.)
I think the intent is also very clear, and, yeah, believe you should just rule it the way it makes sense. For most everyone's text reading in this thread, it is very interesting that "Nowhere" in the book, does an example even hint to mixing a two-handed weapon with two-weapon fighting.
In my opinion, the RAI are super ultra clear. I think 4 attacks using two light weapons, one of which has nick, and the dual wielder feat is the intended mathematical balance. Same with using a two handed weapon with cleave resulting in three attacks.
I don't think there is any reasonable belief, given the examples if nothing else, that these two were ever meant to come together, or even make sense to do so.
So just make a ruling on limiting it to RAI, or, if weird bogged down combat is the goal (which is another way of saying maximising effect at the cost of time per turn), then, do what makes you happy. I think they are written a bit ambiguously, but RAI is clear, and championing for the possible RAW interpretation that seems ridiculous a bit reductive.
Unless your the GM, and you want this flavour in your game. At which point......carry on!
I disagree with this. We should not acknowledge this since this is not the rule. As written, the trigger for being able to perform the interaction is "when you make an attack". Within the Attack action, this interaction is allowed per attack.
This doesn't need to be clarified. Drop means dropped on the ground. Otherwise, they would have written "sheathed" or "stowed". But there is no reason to assume that these would be treated differently by the Object Interaction rule. In 2014, they were listed together in the same bullet point:
In 2024 they removed many of these explicit examples for some reason, but that doesn't mean that those activities shouldn't still fall under the rules for an Object Interaction unless some other rules in the game have been changed or added. For example, the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule for the Attack action now states that "Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it" so it's logical that these are now also grouped together in that they would all require an Object Interaction when using that rule.
I believe that the designers are trying to go out of their way to disincentivize "having to" drop a weapon for any reason other than pure role playing reasons.
Although not explicitly written anywhere, I believe that a decent rule of thumb for what qualifies as an Object Interaction is whenever you go from an Object not in your hands to an Object in your hands, or whenever you go from an Object in your hands to an Object not in your hands -- that requires (only) an object interaction assuming that you are not attempting to actually do anything else with that object and also that doing this does not fall into the category where "it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle". In my opinion, going from holding an object in 1 hand to holding it in 2 hands or vice versa should generally not require an Object Interaction. In addition, some other types of interactions should require using your Object Interaction, such as knocking over an object, hitting an object, kicking an object as long as such activities do not rise to the level of requiring some sort of attack roll.
Hopefully there will be more guidance on these rules eventually.
I'm pretty much fully in the 3rd camp now, the option that wasn't even listed when I posted this originally.
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack.
What Action are you taking?
Attack [Action] <--- this action
What can you do?
equip or unequip one weapon
When can you do it?
when you make an attack as part of this action [either before or after the attack]
How many times can you do this?
Once, because you are only allowed one object interaction in a round.
PHB pg 24: "If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action"
There is an exemple in the Player's Hanbook that contradict this option, specifically letting the character drop a weapon and equip another before attacking.
One of the base principles of the game is that specific rules override general rules. In other words, when a rule says you can do X under condition Y, it overrides a different rule that says that you can't do X.
By your argument, the Thrown property:
...doesn't work for somebody with more than one attack.
Which raises the question of why that clause is even there. If your only weapon interaction is the default one, the clause is not only redundant, but also misleading.
However, because specific beats general, we don't have that problem. The thrown property overrides the general interaction rule, allowing you more as part of the specific act of throwing a weapon.
Similarly, the Attack action says that you can draw/sheathe a weapon when you make an attack as part of it. This overrides the general rule, giving you additional specific interactions when you take the Attack action.
(And no, this doesn't make the Thrown property redundant, because you can make attacks that are not part of the Attack action. It also lets you drop your two-handed sword and start throwing daggers.)
Well I can see a bit of sense in that reasoning.
When you say the object interaction described in the Equip/Unequip is the same free interaction already granted by the object interaction rules, if we assume that the whole sentence is just there to be a "specific beats general", then it is in regards to beating another general rule, which is the "One Thing at a Time". That general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack, beause you'd need first to end both attacks to only then "be free" to do another action.
Also, the same line of thought is accepted as an argument in regards to Dual Wielder and Light both giving you an attack as a BA, but you still have only one BA per turn and thus you cannot have two BA neither include both granted attacks into the same BA.
Thought honestly, again, the "drop and draw" example on pages 29-30 is still evidence to me that this wouldn't be the case.
This really cannot be the case. It's not a specific beats general situation. It's just a narrower scope. It adds an additional option within that narrower scope, otherwise, there is no reason for the rule to exist at all since it would already be granted by the general rule.
Why would you think that the general rule by itself wouldn't let you equip or unequip a weapon once you started your Attack action and have more than one attack? An Object Interaction is not an action -- it's not an activity that is restricted by the "one thing at a time" rule. Instead, the general Object Interaction is allowed:
So again, anything that can be done via the Attack action's "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" rule can already be done via the general "Interacting with Things" rule. There wouldn't be any reason to "overwrite" this rule to allow something that is already allowed. This rule creates an additional resource in the specific situation to which it applies.
That’s very well put. You’re probably right. So I guess you get one weapon interaction and one object interaction?
One object interaction, that could be with a weapon -- its only restriction is that some interactions are too difficult/complicated for it, and you have to use Utilize or Magic.
Then one weapon interaction per attack that you make as part of the Attack action. (Does not apply to bonus action attacks, probably not to Cleave attacks, etc.)
There's no official rule for this. However, I do think that if you have like, a greatsword in your backpack (which doesn't even fit anyways), you shouldn't be able to pull it out as part of the attack. However, if you have it sheathed, you can, because it's closer to you and easier to reach. And to unequip, just drop the weapon.
Roll for Initiative: [roll]1d20+7[/roll]
Proud member of the EVIL JEFF CULT! PRAISE JEFF!
Homebrew Races: HERE Homebrew Spells: HERE Homebrew Monsters: HERE
MORE OF ME! (And platypodes/platypi/platypuses) (Extended signature)
I'm seeing the concensus being towards one free item interaction and it seperate from the Attack Action weapon interaction.
I have not seen it addressed looking through the thread, of there being any rule which adds more interactions. For example we have one action, one bonus action, one reaction, one free interaction, and movement.
If more movement is desired there is the Dash Action.
If more item interaction is desired there is the Utilize Action.
If more Actions is desired there is Action Surge.
So how are more interactions being given by the Attack Action ? I read it more akin to Opportunity Attacks and Reaction, where it details a possible way to use the resource. This thread does not seem to treat the item interactions and weapon interaction as the same resource, or the limitation to one as restricted as the other resource restrictions.
Dropping works if you don't care about using it again. But when people try to come up with "weapon juggling" strategies, they are typically supposed to be repeatable.
One silly strategy I can see if weapon juggling is allowed (that is: if in addition to the object interaction we allow every attack to draw or sheathe weapons) is:
For 2d10+2d6+4xSTR damage + 2xSap + 1xVex.
Since it ends in the same configuration as it started, it's repeatable. But it wouldn't work if you just drop the weapon to unequip.
Yup. Btw, according PHB 2024, dropping a weapon now also counts as an item interaction in the same way that drawing or sheathing a weapon does. And when it comes to the above mentioned attack sequence, you can also add in a greataxe attack with Cleave for 1d10 less (longsword) and 2d12 extra (greataxe with cleave).
How do you fit in the Greataxe? You can't use it for the bonus action attack because it requires a weapon without the Two-Handed property, and if you plan to use it for the first attack, you'd need another sheathe and draw, but I've already exhausted all of them.
You're not intended to make the extra attack with a different Light weapon as part of the Attack action instead of a Bonus Action without both Nick Mastery weapon and training. You probably mean:
Most weapon juggling attack pattern i see are made with the assumption that the character already has weapon(s) equipped but you're not always having it in hand, and when not, then you must use your free object interaction to draw a weapon first if you want to unequip it after attacking, meaning when you interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action.
Thanks for the correction. I was just mixed up about which weapon had which property. From memory I thought Scimitar was the Vex weapon and Shortsword the Nick weapon, but it's the other way around.
And yes, the strategy assumes Mastery proficiency in Scimitar, Shortsword, and Longsword, Extra Attack, Two Weapon Fighting Style, and Dual Wielder Feat (so, basically a typical 5th level Fighter or Ranger built four Dual Wielding).
The attack action explicitly grants extra object interactions. A general principle of the rules is that specific rules beat general. The attack action says that you can draw or sheath a weapon for every attack you make as part of it, therefore you can do that, even though the general rule about object interactions says otherwise.
Imagine the following sequence:
Assuming everything hits, you just did 1d6+1d10+1d4+2d12+4*4 damage. That's 40.5 damage on average which is repeatable every turn, assuming you have 2 targets for cleave. You also have a free object interaction left, which you could use to make a melee attack instead of throwing a light hammer. You can also combine this with features like the crusher and charger feats, or the battlemaster's push attack, to create even more movement effects in order to better position enemies for cleave.
You cannot take your bonus action attack in the middle of your Attack action.
I have no idea whether you can work the sequencing to make it work, especially since you don't get a free weapon interaction on the bonus action attack. (This just means I didn't try, not that I tried and couldn't make it work.)