You cannot take your bonus action attack in the middle of your Attack action. [...]
Are the rules clear enough to disallow that?
I mean, maybe they are, but I personally don't see it preventing something like: Attack #1, enemy #1 defeated, move, Bonus Action on enemy #2, enemy #2 defeated, move, Attack #2 on enemy #3.
This was discussed on previos pages of this thread, though.
You cannot take your bonus action attack in the middle of your Attack action. [...]
Are the rules clear enough to disallow that?
I mean, maybe they are, but I personally don't see it preventing something like: Attack #1, enemy #1 defeated, move, Bonus Action on enemy #2, enemy #2 defeated, move, Attack #2 on enemy #3.
This was discussed on previos pages of this thread, though.
I concede that there is some ambiguity as to whether you can or cannot use the BA to break up your attack action. Even if you can't use your BA to break up the attack action, you can still make the sequence work if (a) you use thrown weapons, or (b) you already have a weapon(s) equipped at the start of your turn. So you could start combat by dishing out a couple of thrown weapons, and then on subsequent turns, when you already have weapons out, you can execute the sequence using your weapon interactions and free object interaction.
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.
I don't see this particular sequence working at all even under the most liberal interpretation of the Attack Action rule. You can only take one interaction per attack, and it must occur when you make the attack. The interaction must happen either before or after the attack. You cannot save them up to use them later and you cannot use a bunch of them and then make your attacks later. The interaction must correspond with an attack that is happening.
-- Attack with longsword (gain one interaction) . . . sheathe it (used that interaction)
-- Draw Scimitar and Shortsword --> You cannot do this. You must attack before you are able to take this second interaction.
. . . Instead, you could: Draw Scimitar, attack, draw shortsword, attack. But now you've already used up all of your interactions. You cannot now sheathe both weapons. You cannot even sheathe one of them unless you combine that with an immediately following future attack. But the next attack on your list is not part of your Attack Action, so that would not qualify for gaining more interactions.
The new rule is not just "do whatever you want". There are still limitations.
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.
I don't see this particular sequence working at all even under the most liberal interpretation of the Attack Action rule. You can only take one interaction per attack, and it must occur when you make the attack. The interaction must happen either before or after the attack. You cannot save them up to use them later and you cannot use a bunch of them and then make your attacks later. The interaction must correspond with an attack that is happening.
-- Attack with longsword (gain one interaction) . . . sheathe it (used that interaction)
-- Draw Scimitar and Shortsword --> You cannot do this. You must attack before you are able to take this second interaction.
The rules explicitly say you can do it before or after the attack. It's not "you gain an interaction to use later", it's "you can make an interaction along with the attack".
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. 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. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
. . . Instead, you could: Draw Scimitar, attack, draw shortsword, attack. But now you've already used up all of your interactions. You cannot now sheathe both weapons. You cannot even sheathe one of them unless you combine that with an immediately following future attack. But the next attack on your list is not part of your Attack Action, so that would not qualify for gaining more interactions.
The new rule is not just "do whatever you want". There are still limitations.
The scenario given is entirely legit, assuming you have Dual Wielder
I don't see this particular sequence working at all even under the most liberal interpretation of the Attack Action rule. You can only take one interaction per attack, and it must occur when you make the attack. The interaction must happen either before or after the attack. You cannot save them up to use them later and you cannot use a bunch of them and then make your attacks later. The interaction must correspond with an attack that is happening.
-- Attack with longsword (gain one interaction) . . . sheathe it (used that interaction)
-- Draw Scimitar and Shortsword --> You cannot do this. You must attack before you are able to take this second interaction.
. . . Instead, you could: Draw Scimitar, attack, draw shortsword, attack. But now you've already used up all of your interactions. You cannot now sheathe both weapons. You cannot even sheathe one of them unless you combine that with an immediately following future attack. But the next attack on your list is not part of your Attack Action, so that would not qualify for gaining more interactions.
The new rule is not just "do whatever you want". There are still limitations.
Happy to explain it. I only made two assumptions:
Assumption 1: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once for every attack when you make the attack, and not just once per action or once per turn. This assumption seems to be held by at least half of the people commenting in this thread
Assumption 2: The "one free interaction per turn" described in the Interacting with Objects section is separate and can be used to additionally draw or stow a weapon once per turn. This assumption is quite liberal, I agree, but it's not something I made up. It's something I've seen optimizers on this forum, reddit, and youtube use.
Aside from these two assumptions, the rest is just rules as written. I think mainly there are two rules that you overlooked which leads to your confusion:
Rule 1: When you draw or stow a weapon as part of an attack, you can do so before or after the attack. See the Attack Action
Rule 2: Dual Wielder Feat allows you to draw or stow two weapons when you could otherwise do only one.
Now, you might understand how it works, but I'll still go over it once more:
You start by already holding a Longsword
You take the Attack Action. For each attack (Assumption 1) we can stow or draw two weapons(Rule 2) either before or after (Rule 1) the attack:
First Attack: Attack with the Longsword. Stow it afterwards.
Second Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Vex) which you draw before the attack (Rule 1) together with the Scimitar (Rule 2)
Nick Attack: Attack with Scimitar (with advantage if the Shortsword attack hit). After the attack (Rule 1) stow both weapons (Rule 2)
Now we use our free interaction with an object (Assumption 2) to draw the Longsword
Bonus Action: Attack with the Longsword as per the Dual Wielder Feat
End of turn: You are again holding a Longsword, making the pattern repeatable.
I don't see this particular sequence working at all even under the most liberal interpretation of the Attack Action rule. You can only take one interaction per attack, and it must occur when you make the attack. The interaction must happen either before or after the attack. You cannot save them up to use them later and you cannot use a bunch of them and then make your attacks later. The interaction must correspond with an attack that is happening.
-- Attack with longsword (gain one interaction) . . . sheathe it (used that interaction)
-- Draw Scimitar and Shortsword --> You cannot do this. You must attack before you are able to take this second interaction.
. . . Instead, you could: Draw Scimitar, attack, draw shortsword, attack. But now you've already used up all of your interactions. You cannot now sheathe both weapons. You cannot even sheathe one of them unless you combine that with an immediately following future attack. But the next attack on your list is not part of your Attack Action, so that would not qualify for gaining more interactions.
The new rule is not just "do whatever you want". There are still limitations.
Happy to explain it. I only made two assumptions:
Assumption 1: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once for every attack when you make the attack, and not just once per action or once per turn. This assumption seems to be held by at least half of the people commenting in this thread
Assumption 2: The "one free interaction per turn" described in the Interacting with Objects section is separate and can be used to additionally draw or stow a weapon once per turn. This assumption is quite liberal, I agree, but it's not something I made up. It's something I've seen optimizers on this forum, reddit, and youtube use.
Aside from these two assumptions, the rest is just rules as written. I think mainly there are two rules that you overlooked which leads to your confusion:
Rule 1: When you draw or stow a weapon as part of an attack, you can do so before or after the attack. See the Attack Action
Rule 2: Dual Wielder Feat allows you to draw or stow two weapons when you could otherwise do only one.
Now, you might understand how it works, but I'll still go over it once more:
You start by already holding a Longsword
You take the Attack Action. For each attack (Assumption 1) we can stow or draw two weapons(Rule 2) either before or after (Rule 1) the attack:
First Attack: Attack with the Longsword. Stow it afterwards.
Second Attack: Attack with Shortsword (Vex) which you draw before the attack (Rule 1) together with the Scimitar (Rule 2)
Nick Attack: Attack with Scimitar (with advantage if the Shortsword attack hit). After the attack (Rule 1) stow both weapons (Rule 2)
Now we use our free interaction with an object (Assumption 2) to draw the Longsword
Bonus Action: Attack with the Longsword as per the Dual Wielder Feat
End of turn: You are again holding a Longsword, making the pattern repeatable.
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
Also, I think everyone can agree at this point that Assumption 2 is valid.
Ah, I didn't have the Dual Wielder Feat in front of me -- I forgot about the 2 instead of 1 portion of the Feat and I was thinking only about the Bonus Action attack that it provides.
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
It's not the argument that was being made against the scenario.
Also, I've yet to see a good argument for it that doesn't come down to trying to define "when" as specific rules terminology.
Also, I think everyone can agree at this point that Assumption 2 is valid.
Arguing that it's just referring to the free interaction certainly happens. It doesn't hold up, but it happens.
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
Also, I think everyone can agree at this point that Assumption 2 is valid.
I think without Assumption 1 we can't have a 1-turn repeatable pattern if we can only stow once and draw once.
Let's first look at our options without weapon juggling:
Option 1: Simply stick to Light weapons:
Hold a Shortsword and a Scimitar
Attack with Shortsword (Vex)
Attack with Shortsword again (Vex)
Nick Attack with Scimitar
Bonus Action Attack with Shortsword (Vex)
Result: 4d6+4STR+3Vex. For STR=4 that would be 30 average damage assuming everything hits but 3/4 attacks have Vex!
Option 2: Forgo Nick and use a Shortsword+Longsword combination:
Hold a Longsword
Draw a Shortsword and attack with it
Object Interaction: Stow Shortsword so we can use the Longsword with both hands.
Extra Attack with Longsword
Bonus Action Attack with Longsword
Result: 1d6+2d10+3STR+1xVex+2xSap. For STR=4 that would be 26.5 average damage if everything hits, but only 1/3 attacks have Vex. Note that we end the turn with just the Longsword in hand, so we can make two-handed opportunity attacks.
Option 3: A 2-turn pattern where the first turn swaps in the Longsword and the second turn swaps it out:
Turn 1:
Hold a Shortsword and a Scimitar
Attack with Shortsword
Nick Attack with Scimitar and stow both weapons
Object Interaction: Draw Longsword
Attack with Longsword
Bonus Action attack with Longsword
Turn 2:
Holding a Longsword
Attack with Longsword and stow it
Object Interaction: Draw Shortsword and Scimitar
Attack with Shortsword
Nick attack with Scimitar
Bonus Action attack with Shortsword
Over 2 turns, this would result in 5d6+3d10+8STR+3xVex+3xSap. For STR=4, that works out to 66 average damage in 2 turns, or 33 average damage per turn, if everything hits but only 3/8 attacks have Vex.
The extra Vexing in Option 1 might actually make up for the extra 3 damage per turn in Option 3, so I feel like Option 1 and Option 3 are probably pretty equally effective. Maybe Option 3 is slightly more powerful. A very clever player might use Option 3 when fighting enemies with low AC and move to Option 1 when enemies have high AC (and advantage is very useful).
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
It's not the argument that was being made against the scenario.
Also, I've yet to see a good argument for it that doesn't come down to trying to define "when" as specific rules terminology.
Also, I think everyone can agree at this point that Assumption 2 is valid.
Arguing that it's just referring to the free interaction certainly happens. It doesn't hold up, but it happens.
I think the greatest argument for the interpretation that you can move as many weapons as you have attacks, and two if you have dual weapons, is the fact that no example includes any suggestion whatsoever that two handed cleave, and enhanced duel wielding (two weapon fighting) are ever meant to interact, and, that the language is vague, meaning that there are multiple ways to read it. Meaning that you have to choose to interpret the rules in the most ridiculous way possible to get there. Which is possible, since, it's worded vaguely.
In my personal opinion, the rule is meant to be read as being able to go from not holding a weapon with a torch in hand, to wielding your weapon(s) and being able to attack.
Further, absolutely nothing allows you to take two bonus actions in a turn, even though the actions are basically identical (making an attack).
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
It's not the argument that was being made against the scenario.
Also, I've yet to see a good argument for it that doesn't come down to trying to define "when" as specific rules terminology
I think the greatest argument for the interpretation that you can move as many weapons as you have attacks, and two if you have dual weapons, is the fact that no example includes any suggestion whatsoever that two handed cleave, and enhanced duel wielding (two weapon fighting) are ever meant to interact, and, that the language is vague, meaning that there are multiple ways to read it. Meaning that you have to choose to interpret the rules in the most ridiculous way possible to get there. Which is possible, since, it's worded vaguely.
In my personal opinion, the rule is meant to be read as being able to go from not holding a weapon with a torch in hand, to wielding your weapon(s) and being able to attack.
This isn't really an argument that the rules don't say it, just that they shouldn't.
I don't like it myself, and I'll probably step on any silliness through the logistics argument, or the "could you just not?" argument.
But I can't argue that the rules don't say it. I don't even think there's any ambiguity. (Once again, it hinges on "when")
And it doesn't break the game (all the juggling ends up being over a few points of damage, and it requires a non-trivial resource investment to do it), and I don't expect it to get silly at most tables.
Further, absolutely nothing allows you to take two bonus actions in a turn, even though the actions are basically identical (making an attack).
I don't really follow what you're getting at here.
If you're trying to argue some congruence between object interactions and bonus actions, it doesn't fly. If a specific ability said you get a second bonus action, then you would have two bonus actions. The Attack action says you get additional object interactions, so you do.
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack? This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
It's not the argument that was being made against the scenario.
Also, I've yet to see a good argument for it that doesn't come down to trying to define "when" as specific rules terminology
I think the greatest argument for the interpretation that you can move as many weapons as you have attacks, and two if you have dual weapons, is the fact that no example includes any suggestion whatsoever that two handed cleave, and enhanced duel wielding (two weapon fighting) are ever meant to interact, and, that the language is vague, meaning that there are multiple ways to read it. Meaning that you have to choose to interpret the rules in the most ridiculous way possible to get there. Which is possible, since, it's worded vaguely.
In my personal opinion, the rule is meant to be read as being able to go from not holding a weapon with a torch in hand, to wielding your weapon(s) and being able to attack.
This isn't really an argument that the rules don't say it, just that they shouldn't.
I don't like it myself, and I'll probably step on any silliness through the logistics argument, or the "could you just not?" argument.
But I can't argue that the rules don't say it. I don't even think there's any ambiguity. (Once again, it hinges on "when")
And it doesn't break the game (all the juggling ends up being over a few points of damage, and it requires a non-trivial resource investment to do it), and I don't expect it to get silly at most tables.
Further, absolutely nothing allows you to take two bonus actions in a turn, even though the actions are basically identical (making an attack).
I don't really follow what you're getting at here.
If you're trying to argue some congruence between object interactions and bonus actions, it doesn't fly. If a specific ability said you get a second bonus action, then you would have two bonus actions. The Attack action says you get additional object interactions, so you do.
I am not sure how you read that to have ZERO ambiguity, or that people couldn't read that sentence multiple ways, but the last point about bonus actions was reading earlier in the thread, that suggested you could take both the bonus action attack using two handed weapon properties, and the bonus action attack from two weapon fighting. In that rule, there is no ambiguity, in my opinion.
As you say, though, it hinges on the if/then statement of "when", which can be taken multiple ways in informal English. Which is what most of the book is written in. Thereby, there is ambiguity. And you get to choose for your own table how that gets interpreted. Some seem insistent on reading it in the most unlikely way it could be interpreted, which just seems a weird choice. Obviously, no matter how you read it, you should interpret it in the way that brings your table the most joy. I have doubts that reading it this way accomplishes that for most tables, either. There will be some it does, who like feeling like they are warping the system to their benefit, even if it's extremely noodly and conceptually damned silly.
I play for verisimilitude, and flowing turns, but some would enjoy this expression of "eking out every drop" of effectiveness. I just disagree that it's the intendedway to read these particular rule interactions.
Also, something to note: Pretty much every rule interaction results in 3 attack using light weapons, and two attacks using two-handed weapons, across many interactions, UNLESS you read the rule as allowing you to attack with mixed two handed weapons and two light weapons using weapon juggling shenanigans. As a game designer, I might be tied into reading the rule, if it is possible to do so, in the way that still upholds the clear design intentions. So it's possible, that that makes me lean extra hard into that "when" than you would find relevant in your personal reading, as you have a different baseline.
I think the greatest argument for the interpretation that you can move as many weapons as you have attacks, and two if you have dual weapons, is the fact that no example includes any suggestion whatsoever that two handed cleave, and enhanced duel wielding (two weapon fighting) are ever meant to interact, and, that the language is vague, meaning that there are multiple ways to read it. Meaning that you have to choose to interpret the rules in the most ridiculous way possible to get there. Which is possible, since, it's worded vaguely.
In my personal opinion, the rule is meant to be read as being able to go from not holding a weapon with a torch in hand, to wielding your weapon(s) and being able to attack.
This isn't really an argument that the rules don't say it, just that they shouldn't.
I don't like it myself, and I'll probably step on any silliness through the logistics argument, or the "could you just not?" argument.
But I can't argue that the rules don't say it. I don't even think there's any ambiguity. (Once again, it hinges on "when")
And it doesn't break the game (all the juggling ends up being over a few points of damage, and it requires a non-trivial resource investment to do it), and I don't expect it to get silly at most tables.
I am not sure how you read that to have ZERO ambiguity, or that people couldn't read that sentence multiple ways
There's no such thing as zero ambiguity in practice; somebody will always find a way to read it wrong, or get confused. People come from different dialects, usage patterns, and expectations.
But it's low-ambiguity when analyzed.
As you say, though, it hinges on the if/then statement of "when", which can be taken multiple ways in informal English. Which is what most of the book is written in. Thereby, there is ambiguity. And you get to choose for your own table how that gets interpreted. Some seem insistent on reading it in the most unlikely way it could be interpreted, which just seems a weird choice. Obviously, no matter how you read it, you should interpret it in the way that brings your table the most joy. I have doubts that reading it this way accomplishes that for most tables, either. There will be some it does, who like feeling like they are warping the system to their benefit, even if it's extremely noodly and conceptually damned silly.
Let's analyze it, then.
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons.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. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
Let's simplify it:
You can (do X) when you (do Y) as part of this action.
Where "do X" = "either equip or unequip one weapon"
and "do Y" = "make an attack"
(If you want to argue that the correct simplification is "You can (do X) when you (do Y)" and Y is "make an attack as part of this action", feel free. It doesn't matter.)
The first question is: what does it mean to make an attack as part of the attack action? I think there is general consensus on this one:
If you have no special abilities, you make one attack as part of the attack action
If you have basic extra attack, you make two
Nick gives you another one
and so on.
So now we turn to "you can do X when you do Y". This is extremely straightforward. When you do the one thing, you can also do the other. Barring assigning some special rules significance to the choice of the word "when", which is not something D&D does, I see no real argument about what this means.
Now, is there a different way to parse the sentence? English is unfortunately lacking in a lexical scoping operator, so there might be. Specifically:
You can (do X when you do Y) as part of this action, or, re-expanded:
You can (either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack) as part of this action
I find it impossible to argue that this changes the meaning. Ultimately "when you do Y" must account for the fact that you can do Y multiple times as part of the action.
Now, for the secondary argument:
If the designers had intended for only a single weapon interaction for the entire Attack action, they could have written the rule much more clearly and concisely. The "when you make an attack" clause is simply unnecessary -- you always make an attack as part of the Attack action.
The counterargument here is "the designers are sometimes sloppy when writing rules". While this is true, their sloppiness always (or nearly so) comes from oversimplifying and using colloquial English instead of more rigorous wording. Adding an extraneous clause that complicates things is not typically their failure mode.
And, even if we acknowledge the possibility that they may have screwed up in that manner, it does not counter the argument, but merely introduces a level of doubt. If the primary analysis were weaker than it is, this might be a problem. As it is, both arguments point to the same result, and while neither is fully conclusive, they reinforce each other.
(And if you want to take the "designers could have screwed up" argument to its fullest extent, then no rules are unambiguous. But that way lies Calvinball.)
Now, does this interpretation allow for results that are silly? It does. Quite a few of the rules do, if you try hard enough. Did the designers intend to allow for these silly results? We cannot tell. They may be intended. They may be unintended. They may be unintended but not considered worth complicating the desired effects of the rules in order to stop them.
Barring official statements, all we have are the rules. And, ultimately, the designers' intent doesn't matter -- it's not included in the book. D&D isn't MtG, so if we don't like the results, we can fix them at the table.
That is what I am not understanding. Free interaction is part of an action or move. Attack action details an opportunity to use the free action as part of the attack action, with additional details related to what weapon is used for attacking. I do not see how "you can" means additional interactions, when interactions for combat specify one. And it does not explicitly say it is not an interaction, while meeting the definition of an interaction.
"You can" move before or after your attack, or not at all, it does not grant more movement.
I likely won't understand. So thank you for reiterating the point. I'll wait to see if DMG clarifys.
That is what I am not understanding. Free interaction is part of an action or move. Attack action details an opportunity to use the free action as part of the attack action, with additional details related to what weapon is used for attacking. I do not see how "you can" means additional interactions, when interactions for combat specify one. And it does not explicitly say it is not an interaction, while meeting the definition of an interaction.
"You can" move before or after your attack, or not at all, it does not grant more movement.
I likely won't understand. So thank you for reiterating the point. I'll wait to see if DMG clarifies.
The argument for this rule creating an additional resource seemed pretty compelling to me, but I also eagerly await an official ruling or clarification from the new source material.
So now we turn to "you can do X when you do Y". This is extremely straightforward. When you do the one thing, you can also do the other. Barring assigning some special rules significance to the choice of the word "when", which is not something D&D does, I see no real argument about what this means.
Great, you did X when you did Y. Good Job. You're done now? You did the thing. Does it explicitly say you can do it again?
So now we turn to "you can do X when you do Y". This is extremely straightforward. When you do the one thing, you can also do the other. Barring assigning some special rules significance to the choice of the word "when", which is not something D&D does, I see no real argument about what this means.
Great, you did X when you did Y. Good Job. You're done now? You did the thing. Does it explicitly say you can do it again?
Well, I'm going to do X again, so I can do Y again right? It doesn't say I can't.
That is what I am not understanding. Free interaction is part of an action or move. Attack action details an opportunity to use the free action as part of the attack action, with additional details related to what weapon is used for attacking. I do not see how "you can" means additional interactions, when interactions for combat specify one. And it does not explicitly say it is not an interaction, while meeting the definition of an interaction.
"You can" move before or after your attack, or not at all, it does not grant more movement.
I likely won't understand. So thank you for reiterating the point. I'll wait to see if DMG clarifys.
We know that Equiping & Unequiping Weapons is meant to be in addition to the Time-Limited Object Interaction rule by the play example and explanation showing it's doing both before an attack. (PHB 31)
14. Russell. I drop my sword and pull out my warhammer. Time to break some bones!. My first attack is 21 to hit for 7 bludgeoning damage.
14. Vulnerability. An attack that deals bludgeoning damage is deadly to skeletons. Shreeve knows this from past experience, which is why she drops her sword and switches to a Bludgeoning weapon. She rolls only 7 damage, but the DM knows the skeleton actually takes 14 damage.
That is what I am not understanding. Free interaction is part of an action or move. Attack action details an opportunity to use the free action as part of the attack action, with additional details related to what weapon is used for attacking. I do not see how "you can" means additional interactions, when interactions for combat specify one. And it does not explicitly say it is not an interaction, while meeting the definition of an interaction.
An explicit principle of the game (new PHB, chapter 1) is that exceptions supersede general rules. They already said that you get one object interaction. If you want to open a door as part of your attack, you already have permission. If you want to draw one weapon as part of your attack, you already have permission.
The rule under discussion is not that. It does not mention your standard free interaction. It presents you with a more limited interaction (drawing or sheathing a weapon) with a specific trigger condition (making an attack as part of your attack action). If you open a door before you attack, can you then draw a weapon? Yes, because the attack action says you can. If you make a second attack as part of your attack action, can you then draw another weapon? Yes, because the attack action says you can.
You only get one action per turn. If a fighter uses their action surge, can they take a second action? Yes, because action surge says they can. It's the same principle.
"You can" move before or after your attack, or not at all, it does not grant more movement.
Not without something saying that you get to move when a specific condition happens.
Here's a Barbarian class feature:
Level 7: Instinctive Pounce
As part of the Bonus Action you take to enter your Rage, you can move up to half your Speed.
This is not part of your normal move. It works even if you have moved to your fullest ability.
I likely won't understand. So thank you for reiterating the point. I'll wait to see if DMG clarifys.
It won't. Clarifications to the PHB is not its task. (Also, they already wrote it and it's at the printers.) Any clarification will be statements from the designers, and they might add clarifications to future print runs of the PHB, but I suspect they won't for this.
So now we turn to "you can do X when you do Y". This is extremely straightforward. When you do the one thing, you can also do the other. Barring assigning some special rules significance to the choice of the word "when", which is not something D&D does, I see no real argument about what this means.
Great, you did X when you did Y. Good Job. You're done now? You did the thing. Does it explicitly say you can do it again?
Well, I'm going to do X again, so I can do Y again right? It doesn't say I can't.
Exactly. There's no explicit limit on uses, and it doesn't consume a resource, like bonus action abilities do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Are the rules clear enough to disallow that?
I mean, maybe they are, but I personally don't see it preventing something like: Attack #1, enemy #1 defeated, move, Bonus Action on enemy #2, enemy #2 defeated, move, Attack #2 on enemy #3.
This was discussed on previos pages of this thread, though.
I concede that there is some ambiguity as to whether you can or cannot use the BA to break up your attack action. Even if you can't use your BA to break up the attack action, you can still make the sequence work if (a) you use thrown weapons, or (b) you already have a weapon(s) equipped at the start of your turn. So you could start combat by dishing out a couple of thrown weapons, and then on subsequent turns, when you already have weapons out, you can execute the sequence using your weapon interactions and free object interaction.
I don't see this particular sequence working at all even under the most liberal interpretation of the Attack Action rule. You can only take one interaction per attack, and it must occur when you make the attack. The interaction must happen either before or after the attack. You cannot save them up to use them later and you cannot use a bunch of them and then make your attacks later. The interaction must correspond with an attack that is happening.
-- Attack with longsword (gain one interaction) . . . sheathe it (used that interaction)
-- Draw Scimitar and Shortsword --> You cannot do this. You must attack before you are able to take this second interaction.
. . . Instead, you could: Draw Scimitar, attack, draw shortsword, attack. But now you've already used up all of your interactions. You cannot now sheathe both weapons. You cannot even sheathe one of them unless you combine that with an immediately following future attack. But the next attack on your list is not part of your Attack Action, so that would not qualify for gaining more interactions.
The new rule is not just "do whatever you want". There are still limitations.
The rules explicitly say you can do it before or after the attack. It's not "you gain an interaction to use later", it's "you can make an interaction along with the attack".
The scenario given is entirely legit, assuming you have Dual Wielder
Happy to explain it. I only made two assumptions:
Aside from these two assumptions, the rest is just rules as written. I think mainly there are two rules that you overlooked which leads to your confusion:
Now, you might understand how it works, but I'll still go over it once more:
The scenario given is entirely legit, assuming you have Shortsword and Scimitar weapon masteries.
How would it work if you changed Assumption 1 to be: Drawing or stowing a weapon can be done once per Attack [Action] when you make the attack?
This assumption seems to be held by at bit less than half of the people commenting in this thread.
Also, I think everyone can agree at this point that Assumption 2 is valid.
Ah, I didn't have the Dual Wielder Feat in front of me -- I forgot about the 2 instead of 1 portion of the Feat and I was thinking only about the Bonus Action attack that it provides.
Carry on!
It's not the argument that was being made against the scenario.
Also, I've yet to see a good argument for it that doesn't come down to trying to define "when" as specific rules terminology.
Arguing that it's just referring to the free interaction certainly happens. It doesn't hold up, but it happens.
I think without Assumption 1 we can't have a 1-turn repeatable pattern if we can only stow once and draw once.
Let's first look at our options without weapon juggling:
Option 1: Simply stick to Light weapons:
Result: 4d6+4STR+3Vex. For STR=4 that would be 30 average damage assuming everything hits but 3/4 attacks have Vex!
Option 2: Forgo Nick and use a Shortsword+Longsword combination:
Result: 1d6+2d10+3STR+1xVex+2xSap. For STR=4 that would be 26.5 average damage if everything hits, but only 1/3 attacks have Vex. Note that we end the turn with just the Longsword in hand, so we can make two-handed opportunity attacks.
Option 3: A 2-turn pattern where the first turn swaps in the Longsword and the second turn swaps it out:
Over 2 turns, this would result in 5d6+3d10+8STR+3xVex+3xSap. For STR=4, that works out to 66 average damage in 2 turns, or 33 average damage per turn, if everything hits but only 3/8 attacks have Vex.
The extra Vexing in Option 1 might actually make up for the extra 3 damage per turn in Option 3, so I feel like Option 1 and Option 3 are probably pretty equally effective. Maybe Option 3 is slightly more powerful. A very clever player might use Option 3 when fighting enemies with low AC and move to Option 1 when enemies have high AC (and advantage is very useful).
I think the greatest argument for the interpretation that you can move as many weapons as you have attacks, and two if you have dual weapons, is the fact that no example includes any suggestion whatsoever that two handed cleave, and enhanced duel wielding (two weapon fighting) are ever meant to interact, and, that the language is vague, meaning that there are multiple ways to read it. Meaning that you have to choose to interpret the rules in the most ridiculous way possible to get there. Which is possible, since, it's worded vaguely.
In my personal opinion, the rule is meant to be read as being able to go from not holding a weapon with a torch in hand, to wielding your weapon(s) and being able to attack.
Further, absolutely nothing allows you to take two bonus actions in a turn, even though the actions are basically identical (making an attack).
This isn't really an argument that the rules don't say it, just that they shouldn't.
I don't like it myself, and I'll probably step on any silliness through the logistics argument, or the "could you just not?" argument.
But I can't argue that the rules don't say it. I don't even think there's any ambiguity. (Once again, it hinges on "when")
And it doesn't break the game (all the juggling ends up being over a few points of damage, and it requires a non-trivial resource investment to do it), and I don't expect it to get silly at most tables.
I don't really follow what you're getting at here.
If you're trying to argue some congruence between object interactions and bonus actions, it doesn't fly. If a specific ability said you get a second bonus action, then you would have two bonus actions. The Attack action says you get additional object interactions, so you do.
I am not sure how you read that to have ZERO ambiguity, or that people couldn't read that sentence multiple ways, but the last point about bonus actions was reading earlier in the thread, that suggested you could take both the bonus action attack using two handed weapon properties, and the bonus action attack from two weapon fighting. In that rule, there is no ambiguity, in my opinion.
As you say, though, it hinges on the if/then statement of "when", which can be taken multiple ways in informal English. Which is what most of the book is written in. Thereby, there is ambiguity. And you get to choose for your own table how that gets interpreted. Some seem insistent on reading it in the most unlikely way it could be interpreted, which just seems a weird choice. Obviously, no matter how you read it, you should interpret it in the way that brings your table the most joy. I have doubts that reading it this way accomplishes that for most tables, either. There will be some it does, who like feeling like they are warping the system to their benefit, even if it's extremely noodly and conceptually damned silly.
I play for verisimilitude, and flowing turns, but some would enjoy this expression of "eking out every drop" of effectiveness. I just disagree that it's the intended way to read these particular rule interactions.
Also, something to note: Pretty much every rule interaction results in 3 attack using light weapons, and two attacks using two-handed weapons, across many interactions, UNLESS you read the rule as allowing you to attack with mixed two handed weapons and two light weapons using weapon juggling shenanigans. As a game designer, I might be tied into reading the rule, if it is possible to do so, in the way that still upholds the clear design intentions. So it's possible, that that makes me lean extra hard into that "when" than you would find relevant in your personal reading, as you have a different baseline.
There's no such thing as zero ambiguity in practice; somebody will always find a way to read it wrong, or get confused. People come from different dialects, usage patterns, and expectations.
But it's low-ambiguity when analyzed.
Let's analyze it, then.
Let's simplify it:
You can (do X) when you (do Y) as part of this action.
Where "do X" = "either equip or unequip one weapon"
and "do Y" = "make an attack"
(If you want to argue that the correct simplification is "You can (do X) when you (do Y)" and Y is "make an attack as part of this action", feel free. It doesn't matter.)
The first question is: what does it mean to make an attack as part of the attack action? I think there is general consensus on this one:
So now we turn to "you can do X when you do Y". This is extremely straightforward. When you do the one thing, you can also do the other. Barring assigning some special rules significance to the choice of the word "when", which is not something D&D does, I see no real argument about what this means.
Now, is there a different way to parse the sentence? English is unfortunately lacking in a lexical scoping operator, so there might be. Specifically:
You can (do X when you do Y) as part of this action, or, re-expanded:
You can (either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack) as part of this action
I find it impossible to argue that this changes the meaning. Ultimately "when you do Y" must account for the fact that you can do Y multiple times as part of the action.
Now, for the secondary argument:
If the designers had intended for only a single weapon interaction for the entire Attack action, they could have written the rule much more clearly and concisely. The "when you make an attack" clause is simply unnecessary -- you always make an attack as part of the Attack action.
The counterargument here is "the designers are sometimes sloppy when writing rules". While this is true, their sloppiness always (or nearly so) comes from oversimplifying and using colloquial English instead of more rigorous wording. Adding an extraneous clause that complicates things is not typically their failure mode.
And, even if we acknowledge the possibility that they may have screwed up in that manner, it does not counter the argument, but merely introduces a level of doubt. If the primary analysis were weaker than it is, this might be a problem. As it is, both arguments point to the same result, and while neither is fully conclusive, they reinforce each other.
(And if you want to take the "designers could have screwed up" argument to its fullest extent, then no rules are unambiguous. But that way lies Calvinball.)
Now, does this interpretation allow for results that are silly? It does. Quite a few of the rules do, if you try hard enough. Did the designers intend to allow for these silly results? We cannot tell. They may be intended. They may be unintended. They may be unintended but not considered worth complicating the desired effects of the rules in order to stop them.
Barring official statements, all we have are the rules. And, ultimately, the designers' intent doesn't matter -- it's not included in the book. D&D isn't MtG, so if we don't like the results, we can fix them at the table.
That is what I am not understanding. Free interaction is part of an action or move. Attack action details an opportunity to use the free action as part of the attack action, with additional details related to what weapon is used for attacking. I do not see how "you can" means additional interactions, when interactions for combat specify one. And it does not explicitly say it is not an interaction, while meeting the definition of an interaction.
"You can" move before or after your attack, or not at all, it does not grant more movement.
I likely won't understand. So thank you for reiterating the point. I'll wait to see if DMG clarifys.
The argument for this rule creating an additional resource seemed pretty compelling to me, but I also eagerly await an official ruling or clarification from the new source material.
Great, you did X when you did Y. Good Job. You're done now? You did the thing. Does it explicitly say you can do it again?
Well, I'm going to do X again, so I can do Y again right? It doesn't say I can't.
We know that Equiping & Unequiping Weapons is meant to be in addition to the Time-Limited Object Interaction rule by the play example and explanation showing it's doing both before an attack. (PHB 31)
An explicit principle of the game (new PHB, chapter 1) is that exceptions supersede general rules. They already said that you get one object interaction. If you want to open a door as part of your attack, you already have permission. If you want to draw one weapon as part of your attack, you already have permission.
The rule under discussion is not that. It does not mention your standard free interaction. It presents you with a more limited interaction (drawing or sheathing a weapon) with a specific trigger condition (making an attack as part of your attack action). If you open a door before you attack, can you then draw a weapon? Yes, because the attack action says you can. If you make a second attack as part of your attack action, can you then draw another weapon? Yes, because the attack action says you can.
You only get one action per turn. If a fighter uses their action surge, can they take a second action? Yes, because action surge says they can. It's the same principle.
Not without something saying that you get to move when a specific condition happens.
Here's a Barbarian class feature:
This is not part of your normal move. It works even if you have moved to your fullest ability.
It won't. Clarifications to the PHB is not its task. (Also, they already wrote it and it's at the printers.) Any clarification will be statements from the designers, and they might add clarifications to future print runs of the PHB, but I suspect they won't for this.
Exactly. There's no explicit limit on uses, and it doesn't consume a resource, like bonus action abilities do.