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.
There really isn't. The keh is that for most attacks you can use the same weapon. Also dual weirder let's you fk Two weapons at once.
Earlier in the thread I explained why the Attack action rule really cannot be considered to be a specific vs general exception to the object interaction rule such that you can only do one or the other. It has to do with what is allowed by each rule and when it is allowed.
Suppose we assume that chocolate ice cream is one particular type of ice cream.
Now suppose we are playing a game where we take turns drawing one numbered marble from a bag.
We start with this general rule: If you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 1 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of ice cream that is any flavor that you choose.
Now we add this other rule: if you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 8 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of chocolate ice cream.
This doesn't really make sense as a specific exception. Why would we even need this rule? I can already use the other rule in all of the same situations to eat chocolate ice cream. It makes more sense if this is an additional thing that can be done in these specific situations.
Earlier in the thread I explained why the Attack action rule really cannot be considered to be a specific vs general exception to the object interaction rule such that you can only do one or the other. It has to do with what is allowed by each rule and when it is allowed.
Suppose we assume that chocolate ice cream is one particular type of ice cream.
Now suppose we are playing a game where we take turns drawing one numbered marble from a bag.
We start with this general rule: If you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 1 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of ice cream that is any flavor that you choose.
Now we add this other rule: if you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 8 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of chocolate ice cream.
This doesn't really make sense as a specific exception. Why would we even need this rule? I can already use the other rule in all of the same situations to eat chocolate ice cream. It makes more sense if this is an additional thing that can be done in these specific situations.
I think two bowls of ice cream is enough for six seconds, even if one of them has to be chocolate.
Any more than that and you’ll surely get a brain freeze.
I'm not sure where to post this video since the list of threads with similar questions is already a bit overwhelming (*). However, this thread seems like a good option, as it's specifically about the rule discussed on it.
I'd like to share the following video because it explains well the interaction between Equipping and Unequipping Weapons, the Light weapon property, Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat and Nick weapon mastery while using a Shield .
Beyond the rules themselves, the opinions at the end of the video about the intent or how the game should be played are also valuable.
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)
[...]
Reading this example again, I now have a doubt.
Shouldn't the last step (Bonus Action Attack) be done with the Scimitar? I'm asking because of the snippets that mention "... extra attack must be made with a different weapon."
Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon [...]
Dual Wielder
Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. [...]
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)
[...]
Reading this example again, I now have a doubt.
Shouldn't the last step (Bonus Action Attack) be done with the Scimitar? I'm asking because of the snippets that mention "... extra attack must be made with a different weapon."
The DW attack is triggered by every attack with a light weapon, including the nick attack.
Shouldn't the last step (Bonus Action Attack) be done with the Scimitar? I'm asking because of the snippets that mention "... extra attack must be made with a different weapon."
Not necessarily if you consider the Scimitar attack made as part of the Attack action to be the one trigerring the Bonus Action attack from Dual Wielder feat .
tarodnet is correct. You only get to take a bonus action attack AND a nick attack if you have Enhanced Dual Wielding from the feat. Without the feat, the extra attack from taking the Attack action simply preserves the bonus action attack. The one attack it grants is consumed by the nick property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Shouldn't the last step (Bonus Action Attack) be done with the Scimitar? I'm asking because of the snippets that mention "... extra attack must be made with a different weapon."
Not necessarily if you consider the Scimitar attack made as part of the Attack action to be the one trigerring the Bonus Action attack from Dual Wielder feat .
On a technical level, they're all triggering it. You just only get to use one, of your choice, because of the shortage of bonus actions.
Yes when you take the Attack action and attack with a Light weapon , it triggers the Nick Mastery, Light Property and Dual Wielder. If making any of them, all you need to keep track is
Light Nick attack be done with different weapon than the attack that trigger it.
Dual Wielder attack be done with different weapon than the attack that trigger it.
The equip and unequip language in the Rules Glossary does not override the one object interaction limit or grant an attacker any additional object interactions at all.
It is simply there to clarify that you can take that one free interaction before or after any one of your attacks that are part of the attack action.
You get one object interaction per turn for free. If you use that one object interaction to draw or sheathe a weapon as part of the attack action, and you have the Dual Wielder feat, you may draw or sheathe a second weapon. Otherwise, if you want a second object interaction you must use the Utilize Action (forgoing your Attack action unless you have Action Surge).
If you are a Rogue with the Fast Hands subclass feature, you are granted Bonus Actions that can also enable you to exceed the one object interaction limit and still have an Attack action.
In particular, it ignores the basic principle of the rules -- that specific beats general. It's very early in chapter 1 of the PHB. If a rule says you can do a thing under specific circumstances, you can do that thing, even if there's a more general rule that says you can't.
Furthermore, if they meant you to be restricted to the one object interaction, they didn't need to say it in the attack action. They just needed to say it in the basic object interaction rules, and be done with it.
By doing so, they have added a rule in the attack action that gives you additional, more limited, object interactions.
That is a very restrictive and uncommon interpretation you have of the rules on
Free Item Interaction
Equip & Unequip Weapons
Actually, my interpretation is the well established interpretation from the 2014 rules, with reasonable accommodation of the explicit changes made in the 2024 rules. What I have left out is the arbitrary assumption that many have made that weapon interactions are not counted as object interactions, which is completely inconsistent with both the 2014 and the 2024 rules.
In particular, it ignores the basic principle of the rules -- that specific beats general. It's very early in chapter 1 of the PHB. If a rule says you can do a thing under specific circumstances, you can do that thing, even if there's a more general rule that says you can't.
Furthermore, if they meant you to be restricted to the one object interaction, they didn't need to say it in the attack action. They just needed to say it in the basic object interaction rules, and be done with it.
By doing so, they have added a rule in the attack action that gives you additional, more limited, object interactions.
There is nothing in the very generally-worded Equipping and Unequipping Weapons guidance which explicitly states that it overrides the very specific language of the Time-Sensitive Object Interaction rules.
So, I would say that it is you who are ignoring the basic principle that specific overrides general.
They put it in the Attack Action specifically because they had received questions about such things as: > Can I equip a weapon as part of the Attack action even if I am not using that weapon in the attack? > If I already have a weapon in hand and my character has two attacks per round, can I equip a second weapon after my first attack but before my second attack? > If I have two attacks per round, can I make an attack with one weapon that was already in hand, then drop, then draw a second weapon for use in my second attack?
It is these kinds of questions that they regularly got from people for the past edition that led them to put in clarification for the Attack action in the glossary so they wouldn't have to look in multiple places for the rules.
Both the rules and the sage advice for the 2014 edition are clear about the one object interaction per turn.
The 2024 rules make clear that drawing a sword is considered an object interaction.
The 2024 rules also are clear and consistent with the 2014 rules with regard to the limit of one object interaction per turn, and the NEED to use the Utilize action if you want a second object interaction in the same turn.
The 2024 rules kept the Dual Wielder feat's feature of being able to draw a second weapon, which would be nullified by your interpretation of the rules.
The 2024 rules kept the Fast Hands feature of the Thief subclass of Rogue which allows rogues to get a Utilize action as a Bonus Action, thereby allow them to bypass the one object interaction limitation without using their Action.
The 2024 rules for Weapon Properties make an explicit exception for Thrown weapons and for Ammunition, but make no explicit exception for Finesse, Heavy, Light, Ranged, Reach, Two-Handed, or Versatile weapons.
Despite the fact that your interpretation would represent a MASSIVE rule change, it was never marketed as such in any of the official WoTC videos and has not been addressed by any errata or sage advice. Not very likely.
Both the rules and the sage advice for the 2014 edition are clear about the one object interaction per turn.
The 2024 rules make clear that drawing a sword is considered an object interaction.
The 2024 rules also are clear and consistent with the 2014 rules with regard to the limit of one object interaction per turn, and the NEED to use the Utilize action if you want a second object interaction in the same turn.
The 2024 rules kept the Dual Wielder feat's feature of being able to draw a second weapon, which would be nullified by your interpretation of the rules.
The 2024 rules kept the Fast Hands feature of the Thief subclass of Rogue which allows rogues to get a Utilize action as a Bonus Action, thereby allow them to bypass the one object interaction limitation without using their Action.
The 2024 rules for Weapon Properties make an explicit exception for Thrown weapons and for Ammunition, but make no explicit exception for Finesse, Heavy, Light, Ranged, Reach, Two-Handed, or Versatile weapons.
Despite the fact that your interpretation would represent a MASSIVE rule change, it was never marketed as such in any of the official WoTC videos and has not been addressed by any errata or sage advice. Not very likely.
And yet you seem to be the only one advocating your interpretaton; so might it be that you are interpreting it wrong as everyone else seems to be in agreement with eachother about how
it works; also, why would you necro this thread when you already hijacked a recent thread as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war |Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
That is a very restrictive and uncommon interpretation you have of the rules on
Free Item Interaction
Equip & Unequip Weapons
Actually, my interpretation is the well established interpretation from the 2014 rules, with reasonable accommodation of the explicit changes made in the 2024 rules. What I have left out is the arbitrary assumption that many have made that weapon interactions are not counted as object interactions, which is completely inconsistent with both the 2014 and the 2024 rules.
Your interpretation of the rules don't make accommodation of the explicit changes made in the 2024 rules but nullify it. The Attack Action Equip & Unequip rules 2024 would be unecessary and superflous if it was using your free item interaction rather than being complementary to it like its meant to. Same for the Ammunition or Thrown property.
Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
Both the rules and the sage advice for the 2014 edition are clear about the one object interaction per turn.
The 2024 rules make clear that drawing a sword is considered an object interaction.
The 2024 rules also are clear and consistent with the 2014 rules with regard to the limit of one object interaction per turn, and the NEED to use the Utilize action if you want a second object interaction in the same turn.
The 2024 rules kept the Dual Wielder feat's feature of being able to draw a second weapon, which would be nullified by your interpretation of the rules.
The 2024 rules kept the Fast Hands feature of the Thief subclass of Rogue which allows rogues to get a Utilize action as a Bonus Action, thereby allow them to bypass the one object interaction limitation without using their Action.
The 2024 rules for Weapon Properties make an explicit exception for Thrown weapons and for Ammunition, but make no explicit exception for Finesse, Heavy, Light, Ranged, Reach, Two-Handed, or Versatile weapons.
Despite the fact that your interpretation would represent a MASSIVE rule change, it was never marketed as such in any of the official WoTC videos and has not been addressed by any errata or sage advice. Not very likely.
And yet you seem to be the only one advocating your interpretaton; so might it be that you are interpreting it wrong as everyone else seems to be in agreement with eachother about how
it works; also, why would you necro this thread when you already hijacked a recent thread as well.
It requires no interpretation. The rules are quite clear as written.
An appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There really isn't. The keh is that for most attacks you can use the same weapon. Also dual weirder let's you fk Two weapons at once.
Earlier in the thread I explained why the Attack action rule really cannot be considered to be a specific vs general exception to the object interaction rule such that you can only do one or the other. It has to do with what is allowed by each rule and when it is allowed.
Suppose we assume that chocolate ice cream is one particular type of ice cream.
Now suppose we are playing a game where we take turns drawing one numbered marble from a bag.
We start with this general rule: If you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 1 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of ice cream that is any flavor that you choose.
Now we add this other rule: if you draw a marble that is labeled with any number between 8 and 10 inclusive, then you may eat a bowl of chocolate ice cream.
This doesn't really make sense as a specific exception. Why would we even need this rule? I can already use the other rule in all of the same situations to eat chocolate ice cream. It makes more sense if this is an additional thing that can be done in these specific situations.
I think two bowls of ice cream is enough for six seconds, even if one of them has to be chocolate.
Any more than that and you’ll surely get a brain freeze.
I'm not sure where to post this video since the list of threads with similar questions is already a bit overwhelming (*). However, this thread seems like a good option, as it's specifically about the rule discussed on it.
I'd like to share the following video because it explains well the interaction between Equipping and Unequipping Weapons, the Light weapon property, Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat and Nick weapon mastery while using a Shield .
Beyond the rules themselves, the opinions at the end of the video about the intent or how the game should be played are also valuable.
(*)
Reading this example again, I now have a doubt.
Shouldn't the last step (Bonus Action Attack) be done with the Scimitar? I'm asking because of the snippets that mention "... extra attack must be made with a different weapon."
The DW attack is triggered by every attack with a light weapon, including the nick attack.
tarodnet is correct. You only get to take a bonus action attack AND a nick attack if you have Enhanced Dual Wielding from the feat. Without the feat, the extra attack from taking the Attack action simply preserves the bonus action attack. The one attack it grants is consumed by the nick property.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
On a technical level, they're all triggering it. You just only get to use one, of your choice, because of the shortage of bonus actions.
Ok, guys, understood. Thanks for the explanations! ❤️
I think everyone here has lost their minds.
The equip and unequip language in the Rules Glossary does not override the one object interaction limit or grant an attacker any additional object interactions at all.
It is simply there to clarify that you can take that one free interaction before or after any one of your attacks that are part of the attack action.
You get one object interaction per turn for free. If you use that one object interaction to draw or sheathe a weapon as part of the attack action, and you have the Dual Wielder feat, you may draw or sheathe a second weapon. Otherwise, if you want a second object interaction you must use the Utilize Action (forgoing your Attack action unless you have Action Surge).
If you are a Rogue with the Fast Hands subclass feature, you are granted Bonus Actions that can also enable you to exceed the one object interaction limit and still have an Attack action.
That is a very restrictive and uncommon interpretation you have of the rules on
In particular, it ignores the basic principle of the rules -- that specific beats general. It's very early in chapter 1 of the PHB. If a rule says you can do a thing under specific circumstances, you can do that thing, even if there's a more general rule that says you can't.
Furthermore, if they meant you to be restricted to the one object interaction, they didn't need to say it in the attack action. They just needed to say it in the basic object interaction rules, and be done with it.
By doing so, they have added a rule in the attack action that gives you additional, more limited, object interactions.
Actually, my interpretation is the well established interpretation from the 2014 rules, with reasonable accommodation of the explicit changes made in the 2024 rules. What I have left out is the arbitrary assumption that many have made that weapon interactions are not counted as object interactions, which is completely inconsistent with both the 2014 and the 2024 rules.
There is nothing in the very generally-worded Equipping and Unequipping Weapons guidance which explicitly states that it overrides the very specific language of the Time-Sensitive Object Interaction rules.
So, I would say that it is you who are ignoring the basic principle that specific overrides general.
They put it in the Attack Action specifically because they had received questions about such things as:
> Can I equip a weapon as part of the Attack action even if I am not using that weapon in the attack?
> If I already have a weapon in hand and my character has two attacks per round, can I equip a second weapon after my first attack but before my second attack?
> If I have two attacks per round, can I make an attack with one weapon that was already in hand, then drop, then draw a second weapon for use in my second attack?
It is these kinds of questions that they regularly got from people for the past edition that led them to put in clarification for the Attack action in the glossary so they wouldn't have to look in multiple places for the rules.
And yet you seem to be the only one advocating your interpretaton; so might it be that you are interpreting it wrong as everyone else seems to be in agreement with eachother about how
it works; also, why would you necro this thread when you already hijacked a recent thread as well.
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war | Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
Your interpretation of the rules don't make accommodation of the explicit changes made in the 2024 rules but nullify it. The Attack Action Equip & Unequip rules 2024 would be unecessary and superflous if it was using your free item interaction rather than being complementary to it like its meant to. Same for the Ammunition or Thrown property.
Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
It requires no interpretation. The rules are quite clear as written.
An appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy.