Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
Actually, there is nothing in the example of play that is not supported by the rules as written (what you are calling ‘my interpretation’). Russell could easily accomplish what is stated if he has the Dual Wielder feat. Which is one of the main reasons for having that feat.
More likely though is that whoever wrote the example was a long-time D&D player who forgot to account for the change in rules with regard to dropping a weapon being counted as an object interaction. In the 2014 rules, it was not counted as such. But, that is just speculation.
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.
No accommodation is needed. What is stated in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons section is not inconsistent with the one object interaction limitation, unless you misinterpret it as you have done by adding meaning that is not there in the RAW.
I have already addressed why it was added. It was put there specifically to address questions raised about whether you could use your one object interaction to draw one weapon only before the Attack, or if you could draw it between two attacks, or draw it after the attack even if the weapon you were drawing was not used in the attack. Please read what I just wrote, and then go compare it to the text of the Equipping and Unequipping section.
As for the rules for weapons with the Thrown or Ammunition properties, I have also already addressed those. But, to be clear, neither of those constitute a rule change from 2014. They are clarifications made to address questions about the 2014 rules that have already been answered. Drawing and throwing are not considered two object interactions for a Thrown weapon. However, you can still only draw one weapon. If you already had one throwing weapon in hand at the start of your turn, you could draw a second and throw both of them. But, if you had no weapons in hand, the only way you can draw two and throw them is with the Dual Wielder feat. This is 100% consistent with 2014 rules, and reflects prior Sage Advice on this topic.
Similarly, it has always been the case that the use of Ammunition has not been counted as an object interaction. Why? Because, by RAW, treating the loading of Ammunition as an object interaction would force an archer to take one round to equip a useless bow, and the second round to fire one shot. Do I think they should have explicitly stated that the loading of Ammunition does not count as an object interaction? Probably. But, I think they didn’t want to make the wording any more complicated, especially in light of the separate rules for weapons with the Loading property. But, that is speculation.
It is quite clear to me that no fundamental rule change was intended by the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons language, nor is any such interpretation required to make sense from that language. And even though I don’t think it should be needed, I would welcome Sage Advice or errata to confirm this, if only because it would put an end to what appears to be a fruitless debate.
Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
Actually, there is nothing in the example of play that is not supported by the rules as written (what you are calling ‘my interpretation’). Russell could easily accomplish what is stated if he has the Dual Wielder feat. Which is one of the main reasons for having that feat.
More likely though is that whoever wrote the example was a long-time D&D player who forgot to account for the change in rules with regard to dropping a weapon being counted as an object interaction. In the 2014 rules, it was not counted as such. But, that is just speculation.
The Dual Wielder feat let you draw or stow two weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one, not draw one and stow another.
The speculation is you saying that the example of play include a feat without saying it somehow.
The Free Item Interaction don't need the Attack Action Equip/Unequip rules whatsoever to draw a weapon during the Attack Action, it can do so before an attack, after an attack, between two attacks with Extra Attack etc...
Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
Actually, there is nothing in the example of play that is not supported by the rules as written (what you are calling ‘my interpretation’). Russell could easily accomplish what is stated if he has the Dual Wielder feat. Which is one of the main reasons for having that feat.
No, I doubt that. The players and examples are using basic rules, and the feat isn't even mentioned, so it's not used.
Also, as Plaguescarred explained, Dual Wielder doesn’t work the way you're saying. Quick Draw lets you draw two weapons or stow two weapons simultaneously, not one of each.
BTW, why are you splitting your arguments across two threads at the same time? You're Equipping and Unequipping two different threads a lot.
Not to mention it doesn't match the exemple of play in the 2024 PHB where Russell unequip a weapon, equip another and attack...
Actually, there is nothing in the example of play that is not supported by the rules as written (what you are calling ‘my interpretation’). Russell could easily accomplish what is stated if he has the Dual Wielder feat. Which is one of the main reasons for having that feat.
No, I doubt that. The players and examples are using basic rules, and the feat isn't even mentioned, so it's not used.
Also, as Plaguescarred explained, Dual Wielder doesn’t work the way you're saying. Quick Draw lets you draw two weapons or stow two weapons simultaneously, not one of each.
BTW, why are you splitting your arguments across two threads at the same time? You're Equipping and Unequipping two different threads a lot.
Considering there are sidebars to explain how reactions work (12), how Sneak Attack works (13) and how Vulnerability works (14), it's highly unlikely there wouldn't be one for Dual Wielder as well if it were necessary to explain how Russell's character was swapping weapons
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
BTW, why are you splitting your arguments across two threads at the same time? You're Equipping and Unequipping two different threads a lot.
I agree with this. Discussion about how the Object Interaction rules work should be contained to the new thread which was opened to discuss how the Object Interaction rules work. The original purpose of this thread was to discuss the wording of the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons clause of the Attack action rules and whether or not that clause is specifying an allowable activity once per attack or once per Attack action. Continuing to go into the weeds of how the Object Interaction rules work in this thread is Off-Topic -- especially when there is a current ongoing active discussion of that topic happening in another thread.
The rules seem to allow you to draw or stow a weapon as part of each attack. This leads to some weird things, like dual wielding with a shield etc. Which was likely not the intent.
I think it is fair to think the one object interaction must come into play here simply because rule leads to so many issues you would think the designers would have realized was going to be an issue.
As for the rules for weapons with the Thrown or Ammunition properties, I have also already addressed those. But, to be clear, neither of those constitute a rule change from 2014. They are clarifications made to address questions about the 2014 rules that have already been answered. Drawing and throwing are not considered two object interactions for a Thrown weapon. However, you can still only draw one weapon. If you already had one throwing weapon in hand at the start of your turn, you could draw a second and throw both of them. But, if you had no weapons in hand, the only way you can draw two and throw them is with the Dual Wielder feat. This is 100% consistent with 2014 rules, and reflects prior Sage Advice on this topic.
I'm just going to adress this one for now, because it is the heart of your argument.
You are saying that:
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.
Does not in fact mean what it says, but instead that you can draw exactly one thrown weapon, and that a 20th-level fighter who wants to throw four (or even eight) of them is simply out of luck.
As an argument that the rules don't mean exactly what they say, you have a rather high bar to clear, and appeals to the 2014 rules, which have been superseded here, and sage advice answers based on the 2014 rules (both without citations, I will note), is nothing like good enough.
The thrown weapon rule, in particular, has a complete lack of any ambiguity; your argument is entirely based on asserting that "specific beats general" doesn't apply.
Nobody says you have to like the absurd levels of weapon swapping that the 2024 rules allow for, nor that you have to allow them at your table. (Though, except for theorycrafters, I'm unconvinced anybody's really doing it.) But the rules say what they say, and arguing otherwise just sows confusion for people looking for answers.
Nobody says you have to like the absurd levels of weapon swapping that the 2024 rules allow for, nor that you have to allow them at your table. (Though, except for theorycrafters, I'm unconvinced anybody's really doing it.)
Ruling that it's one additional equip/unequip per Attack action, rather than per individual attack, (mostly) solves this anyway
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Nobody says you have to like the absurd levels of weapon swapping that the 2024 rules allow for, nor that you have to allow them at your table. (Though, except for theorycrafters, I'm unconvinced anybody's really doing it.)
Ruling that it's one additional equip/unequip per Attack action, rather than per individual attack, (mostly) solves this anyway
Sure, but that's as much a house rule as "it's all the free interaction".
I mostly just don't think it's a general problem in actual play, and it's better to have a permissive rule where the GM can step in if there's an actual problem that is hurting their game. (I think it's solvable by asking questions about the physical logistics of the weapon swapping. Even a third sword is a lot to manage, much less swapping in polearms and battle axes.)
Nobody says you have to like the absurd levels of weapon swapping that the 2024 rules allow for, nor that you have to allow them at your table. (Though, except for theorycrafters, I'm unconvinced anybody's really doing it.)
Ruling that it's one additional equip/unequip per Attack action, rather than per individual attack, (mostly) solves this anyway
Sure, but that's as much a house rule as "it's all the free interaction"
This thread is double-digit pages long for a reason. Pretending your position is the One True RAW is just silly
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
IMO, the main reason for the alternate reading is that the RAW reading strikes people as absurd, so they go looking for something that feels better.
But that doesn't allow for the possibility that the rules simply allow for absurd results, for whatever reason. (Unconcern with the silly stuff, prioritizing simplification, or whatever.)
Go back and see JC video where he is discussing weapon mastery or even Fighter class. It was absolutely intended to be able to “switch” “juggle” weapons. Because Fighters get the most extra attacks and the most weapon mastery, then any class. So, it’s intended to be able to switch weapons between attacks, to utilize all those features. Sometimes there are loop holes found or exploited by players, hence when donning a shield, which my opinion is why they made it one Action economy to wear or take off the shield. So would nullify the ability to have a shield (worn) and weapon juggle. You choose to attack or the latter, not both.
So a fighter can, use graze, topple, vex, nick all in the same Action attack, by switching weapons as the rule states. If wearing a shield wouldn’t allow for 2hd weapons, or juggling because you are blowing your Action economy to remove it,
But once again each table have their own opinion, but hearing what JC said, and being the lead architect design of weapon mastery is what the intent of the feature was supposed to be. But people are going to have different opinions and that what makes DnD unique and special.
Similarly, it has always been the case that the use of Ammunition has not been counted as an object interaction. Why? Because, by RAW, treating the loading of Ammunition as an object interaction would force an archer to take one round to equip a useless bow, and the second round to fire one shot. Do I think they should have explicitly stated that the loading of Ammunition does not count as an object interaction? Probably. But, I think they didn’t want to make the wording any more complicated, especially in light of the separate rules for weapons with the Loading property. But, that is speculation.
Follow your reasoning....
In 2014 Ammunition are objects, and the reason they don't count as Free Item Interaction is because they specifically say "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack"
In 2024 now you also similarly have;
Attack You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action.
Thrown you can draw that weapon as part of the attack.
Ammunition Drawing the ammunition is part of the attack.
Go back and see JC video where he is discussing weapon mastery or even Fighter class. It was absolutely intended to be able to “switch” “juggle” weapons. Because Fighters get the most extra attacks and the most weapon mastery, then any class. So, it’s intended to be able to switch weapons between attacks, to utilize all those features. Sometimes there are loop holes found or exploited by players, hence when donning a shield, which my opinion is why they made it one Action economy to wear or take off the shield. So would nullify the ability to have a shield (worn) and weapon juggle. You choose to attack or the latter, not both.
So a fighter can, use graze, topple, vex, nick all in the same Action attack, by switching weapons as the rule states. If wearing a shield wouldn’t allow for 2hd weapons, or juggling because you are blowing your Action economy to remove it,
But once again each table have their own opinion, but hearing what JC said, and being the lead architect design of weapon mastery is what the intent of the feature was supposed to be. But people are going to have different opinions and that what makes DnD unique and special.
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The problem is, what is "switching weapons normally"? How does one allow all the "normal" ones while disallowing the rest?
Especially since different tables will have different opinions about what is reasonable.
The 24 rules went for an extremely permissive structure. While I can't know their thinking, I strongly suspect that they figure that DMs will step on anything that goes too far for their tables.
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The problem is, what is "switching weapons normally"? How does one allow all the "normal" ones while disallowing the rest?
Especially since different tables will have different opinions about what is reasonable.
The 24 rules went for an extremely permissive structure. While I can't know their thinking, I strongly suspect that they figure that DMs will step on anything that goes too far for their tables.
And that's a perfectly reasonable approach.
Yeah but then you are saying Player A can switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries, but Player B cannot switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries. If you allow it at all you pretty much have to allow the crazy combinations as well because they are being used for the exact same reason.
I think to be fair, you have to limit it to like once a turn. Otherwise you have to allow the crazy combinations.
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The problem is, what is "switching weapons normally"? How does one allow all the "normal" ones while disallowing the rest?
Especially since different tables will have different opinions about what is reasonable.
The 24 rules went for an extremely permissive structure. While I can't know their thinking, I strongly suspect that they figure that DMs will step on anything that goes too far for their tables.
And that's a perfectly reasonable approach.
Yeah but then you are saying Player A can switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries, but Player B cannot switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries. If you allow it at all you pretty much have to allow the crazy combinations as well because they are being used for the exact same reason.
I think to be fair, you have to limit it to like once a turn. Otherwise you have to allow the crazy combinations.
You really don't. As a GM, you get to apply judgement. "Fair" cannot be defined so easily. What is the player attempting to achieve?
In particular, there are many reasons to want to switch weapons besides "taking advantage of multiple weapon masteries". In actual play, I remain unconvinced that's a thing notable amounts of people are doing.
And, frankly, if allowing unremarkable situations like "draw sword, find out it's ineffective, drop it and grab a club", "kill enemy, sheath sword, draw and use bow", etc, means I have to allow Bob the Amazing Juggling Fighter, who swaps between four weapons each turn to scratch out a marginal increase in DPS under perfect conditions?
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The problem is, what is "switching weapons normally"? How does one allow all the "normal" ones while disallowing the rest?
Especially since different tables will have different opinions about what is reasonable.
The 24 rules went for an extremely permissive structure. While I can't know their thinking, I strongly suspect that they figure that DMs will step on anything that goes too far for their tables.
And that's a perfectly reasonable approach.
Yeah but then you are saying Player A can switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries, but Player B cannot switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries. If you allow it at all you pretty much have to allow the crazy combinations as well because they are being used for the exact same reason.
I think to be fair, you have to limit it to like once a turn. Otherwise you have to allow the crazy combinations.
You really don't. As a GM, you get to apply judgement. "Fair" cannot be defined so easily. What is the player attempting to achieve?
In particular, there are many reasons to want to switch weapons besides "taking advantage of multiple weapon masteries". In actual play, I remain unconvinced that's a thing notable amounts of people are doing.
And, frankly, if allowing unremarkable situations like "draw sword, find out it's ineffective, drop it and grab a club", "kill enemy, sheath sword, draw and use bow", etc, means I have to allow Bob the Amazing Juggling Fighter, who swaps between four weapons each turn to scratch out a marginal increase in DPS under perfect conditions?
I'm fine with that.
But, of course, I don't.
You are saying Player A can do that because they are just using specific weapons to be effective, while claiming player B can't do that just because they are using specific weapons to be effective. As a DM you can't say player A can do something and then say player B can't do the exact same thing. Especially since you are saying the rule works one way for Player A and a completely different way for Player B.
I also object that you are "taking advantage" of something the rules specifically allow you to do.
Of course I agree lots of people aren't doing it, but I also think that is because (1) most people are still playing 2014, (2) most people likely didn't even read the new rulebook to realize you can do it and (3) I think a good portion of people are interpreting or houseruling the rule to only allow you to do it once.
I also think with Hunter's Mark and perhaps other spells it becomes much more than just a marginal increase in DPS. Especially at low levels.
At level 5 you can
Attack with a Great Axe Cleave Attack with a scimitar Attack with a scimitar Attack with a scimitar
And if you action surge you get two additional great axe attacks.
Yeah but then you are saying Player A can switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries, but Player B cannot switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries. If you allow it at all you pretty much have to allow the crazy combinations as well because they are being used for the exact same reason.
I think to be fair, you have to limit it to like once a turn. Otherwise you have to allow the crazy combinations.
You really don't. As a GM, you get to apply judgement. "Fair" cannot be defined so easily. What is the player attempting to achieve?
In particular, there are many reasons to want to switch weapons besides "taking advantage of multiple weapon masteries". In actual play, I remain unconvinced that's a thing notable amounts of people are doing.
And, frankly, if allowing unremarkable situations like "draw sword, find out it's ineffective, drop it and grab a club", "kill enemy, sheath sword, draw and use bow", etc, means I have to allow Bob the Amazing Juggling Fighter, who swaps between four weapons each turn to scratch out a marginal increase in DPS under perfect conditions?
I'm fine with that.
But, of course, I don't.
You are saying Player A can do that because they are just using specific weapons to be effective, while claiming player B can't do that just because they are using specific weapons to be effective. As a DM you can't say player A can do something and then say player B can't do the exact same thing. Especially since you are saying the rule works one way for Player A and a completely different way for Player B.
I'm not sure exactly what scenario you are constructing in your head, where I'm shutting down Bob the Juggling Fighter, but not somebody who is doing the exact same thing.
Unless, by "the exact same thing", you mean "weapon swapping in general", and ignoring that there's a difference between "exploiting weapon swapping to the max" and "I have Dual Wielder, so I'd like to be able to use a rapier for my bonus action attack".
I also object that you are "taking advantage" of something the rules specifically allow you to do.
You're the one who was talking about switching weapons to "take advantage of weapon masteries".
Of course I agree lots of people aren't doing it, but I also think that is because (1) most people are still playing 2014, (2) most people likely didn't even read the new rulebook to realize you can do it and (3) I think a good portion of people are interpreting or houseruling the rule to only allow you to do it once.
Most people just don't think this way. They conceptualize their character as a specific type of weapon wielder, probably take the feats that fit that, and don't think about it again. If they're a trident person, maybe they'll use a spear instead, but tell them they could be doing more damage by swapping in a greataxe for some of their attacks, and they won't care.
I also think with Hunter's Mark and perhaps other spells it becomes much more than just a marginal increase in DPS. Especially at low levels.
At level 5 you can
Attack with a Great Axe Cleave Attack with a scimitar Attack with a scimitar Attack with a scimitar
And if you action surge you get two additional great axe attacks.
So, you took Dual Wielder as your feat, 9.5+6.5+6.5+3.5+3.5=29.5
If you had instead taken GWM and just hack around with the greataxe, 12.5+9.5+12.5=34.5
Even with Hunter's Mark, you can't pull into the lead, 43.5 vs 45
I can't be bothered to do the math to mix in the fighting styles, and you probably do manage it, but it's still a marginal increase in DPS.
(Also, light weapon fighting competes for the bonus action with Hunter's Mark, and the straight GWM character gains more from the action surge than Juggling Bob)
So, no, I'm not particularly concerned about allowing the full weapon swapping mechanics in terms of combat effectiveness. I'm more concerned about things feeling silly for the players, but I don't expect them to bother, and the mechanics will be there to adjudicate that weird situation where somebody really does need to do a lot of it, or the slightly more common ones where they want to do a little.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Actually, there is nothing in the example of play that is not supported by the rules as written (what you are calling ‘my interpretation’). Russell could easily accomplish what is stated if he has the Dual Wielder feat. Which is one of the main reasons for having that feat.
More likely though is that whoever wrote the example was a long-time D&D player who forgot to account for the change in rules with regard to dropping a weapon being counted as an object interaction. In the 2014 rules, it was not counted as such. But, that is just speculation.
No accommodation is needed. What is stated in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons section is not inconsistent with the one object interaction limitation, unless you misinterpret it as you have done by adding meaning that is not there in the RAW.
I have already addressed why it was added. It was put there specifically to address questions raised about whether you could use your one object interaction to draw one weapon only before the Attack, or if you could draw it between two attacks, or draw it after the attack even if the weapon you were drawing was not used in the attack. Please read what I just wrote, and then go compare it to the text of the Equipping and Unequipping section.
As for the rules for weapons with the Thrown or Ammunition properties, I have also already addressed those. But, to be clear, neither of those constitute a rule change from 2014. They are clarifications made to address questions about the 2014 rules that have already been answered. Drawing and throwing are not considered two object interactions for a Thrown weapon. However, you can still only draw one weapon. If you already had one throwing weapon in hand at the start of your turn, you could draw a second and throw both of them. But, if you had no weapons in hand, the only way you can draw two and throw them is with the Dual Wielder feat. This is 100% consistent with 2014 rules, and reflects prior Sage Advice on this topic.
Similarly, it has always been the case that the use of Ammunition has not been counted as an object interaction. Why? Because, by RAW, treating the loading of Ammunition as an object interaction would force an archer to take one round to equip a useless bow, and the second round to fire one shot. Do I think they should have explicitly stated that the loading of Ammunition does not count as an object interaction? Probably. But, I think they didn’t want to make the wording any more complicated, especially in light of the separate rules for weapons with the Loading property. But, that is speculation.
It is quite clear to me that no fundamental rule change was intended by the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons language, nor is any such interpretation required to make sense from that language. And even though I don’t think it should be needed, I would welcome Sage Advice or errata to confirm this, if only because it would put an end to what appears to be a fruitless debate.
The Dual Wielder feat let you draw or stow two weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one, not draw one and stow another.
The speculation is you saying that the example of play include a feat without saying it somehow.
The Free Item Interaction don't need the Attack Action Equip/Unequip rules whatsoever to draw a weapon during the Attack Action, it can do so before an attack, after an attack, between two attacks with Extra Attack etc...
No, I doubt that. The players and examples are using basic rules, and the feat isn't even mentioned, so it's not used.
Also, as Plaguescarred explained, Dual Wielder doesn’t work the way you're saying. Quick Draw lets you draw two weapons or stow two weapons simultaneously, not one of each.
BTW, why are you splitting your arguments across two threads at the same time? You're Equipping and Unequipping two different threads a lot.
Considering there are sidebars to explain how reactions work (12), how Sneak Attack works (13) and how Vulnerability works (14), it's highly unlikely there wouldn't be one for Dual Wielder as well if it were necessary to explain how Russell's character was swapping weapons
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I agree with this. Discussion about how the Object Interaction rules work should be contained to the new thread which was opened to discuss how the Object Interaction rules work. The original purpose of this thread was to discuss the wording of the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons clause of the Attack action rules and whether or not that clause is specifying an allowable activity once per attack or once per Attack action. Continuing to go into the weeds of how the Object Interaction rules work in this thread is Off-Topic -- especially when there is a current ongoing active discussion of that topic happening in another thread.
The rules seem to allow you to draw or stow a weapon as part of each attack. This leads to some weird things, like dual wielding with a shield etc. Which was likely not the intent.
I think it is fair to think the one object interaction must come into play here simply because rule leads to so many issues you would think the designers would have realized was going to be an issue.
I'm just going to adress this one for now, because it is the heart of your argument.
You are saying that:
Does not in fact mean what it says, but instead that you can draw exactly one thrown weapon, and that a 20th-level fighter who wants to throw four (or even eight) of them is simply out of luck.
As an argument that the rules don't mean exactly what they say, you have a rather high bar to clear, and appeals to the 2014 rules, which have been superseded here, and sage advice answers based on the 2014 rules (both without citations, I will note), is nothing like good enough.
The thrown weapon rule, in particular, has a complete lack of any ambiguity; your argument is entirely based on asserting that "specific beats general" doesn't apply.
Nobody says you have to like the absurd levels of weapon swapping that the 2024 rules allow for, nor that you have to allow them at your table. (Though, except for theorycrafters, I'm unconvinced anybody's really doing it.) But the rules say what they say, and arguing otherwise just sows confusion for people looking for answers.
Ruling that it's one additional equip/unequip per Attack action, rather than per individual attack, (mostly) solves this anyway
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure, but that's as much a house rule as "it's all the free interaction".
I mostly just don't think it's a general problem in actual play, and it's better to have a permissive rule where the GM can step in if there's an actual problem that is hurting their game. (I think it's solvable by asking questions about the physical logistics of the weapon swapping. Even a third sword is a lot to manage, much less swapping in polearms and battle axes.)
This thread is double-digit pages long for a reason. Pretending your position is the One True RAW is just silly
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not going to reiterate the arguments, but they're sound, if I do say so myself. :)
IMO, the main reason for the alternate reading is that the RAW reading strikes people as absurd, so they go looking for something that feels better.
But that doesn't allow for the possibility that the rules simply allow for absurd results, for whatever reason. (Unconcern with the silly stuff, prioritizing simplification, or whatever.)
Go back and see JC video where he is discussing weapon mastery or even Fighter class. It was absolutely intended to be able to “switch” “juggle” weapons. Because Fighters get the most extra attacks and the most weapon mastery, then any class.
So, it’s intended to be able to switch weapons between attacks, to utilize all those features. Sometimes there are loop holes found or exploited by players, hence when donning a shield, which my opinion is why they made it one Action economy to wear or take off the shield. So would nullify the ability to have a shield (worn) and weapon juggle. You choose to attack or the latter, not both.
So a fighter can, use graze, topple, vex, nick all in the same Action attack, by switching weapons as the rule states. If wearing a shield wouldn’t allow for 2hd weapons, or juggling because you are blowing your Action economy to remove it,
But once again each table have their own opinion, but hearing what JC said, and being the lead architect design of weapon mastery is what the intent of the feature was supposed to be. But people are going to have different opinions and that what makes DnD unique and special.
Follow your reasoning....
In 2014 Ammunition are objects, and the reason they don't count as Free Item Interaction is because they specifically say "Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack"
In 2024 now you also similarly have;
Attack You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action.
Thrown you can draw that weapon as part of the attack.
Ammunition Drawing the ammunition is part of the attack.
The issue is that you do not need to remove your shield to dual wield. You can sufficiently switch weapons to dual wield and hold a shield at the same time. This means you should never use a longsword as a light weapon grants you more attacks.
I am fairly certain the intent wasn't some of the crazy things you can do with it. But instead was to make switching weapons normally easier.
The problem is, what is "switching weapons normally"? How does one allow all the "normal" ones while disallowing the rest?
Especially since different tables will have different opinions about what is reasonable.
The 24 rules went for an extremely permissive structure. While I can't know their thinking, I strongly suspect that they figure that DMs will step on anything that goes too far for their tables.
And that's a perfectly reasonable approach.
Yeah but then you are saying Player A can switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries, but Player B cannot switch weapons to take advantage of multiple weapon masteries. If you allow it at all you pretty much have to allow the crazy combinations as well because they are being used for the exact same reason.
I think to be fair, you have to limit it to like once a turn. Otherwise you have to allow the crazy combinations.
You really don't. As a GM, you get to apply judgement. "Fair" cannot be defined so easily. What is the player attempting to achieve?
In particular, there are many reasons to want to switch weapons besides "taking advantage of multiple weapon masteries". In actual play, I remain unconvinced that's a thing notable amounts of people are doing.
And, frankly, if allowing unremarkable situations like "draw sword, find out it's ineffective, drop it and grab a club", "kill enemy, sheath sword, draw and use bow", etc, means I have to allow Bob the Amazing Juggling Fighter, who swaps between four weapons each turn to scratch out a marginal increase in DPS under perfect conditions?
I'm fine with that.
But, of course, I don't.
You are saying Player A can do that because they are just using specific weapons to be effective, while claiming player B can't do that just because they are using specific weapons to be effective. As a DM you can't say player A can do something and then say player B can't do the exact same thing. Especially since you are saying the rule works one way for Player A and a completely different way for Player B.
I also object that you are "taking advantage" of something the rules specifically allow you to do.
Of course I agree lots of people aren't doing it, but I also think that is because (1) most people are still playing 2014, (2) most people likely didn't even read the new rulebook to realize you can do it and (3) I think a good portion of people are interpreting or houseruling the rule to only allow you to do it once.
I also think with Hunter's Mark and perhaps other spells it becomes much more than just a marginal increase in DPS. Especially at low levels.
At level 5 you can
Attack with a Great Axe
Cleave
Attack with a scimitar
Attack with a scimitar
Attack with a scimitar
And if you action surge you get two additional great axe attacks.
I'm not sure exactly what scenario you are constructing in your head, where I'm shutting down Bob the Juggling Fighter, but not somebody who is doing the exact same thing.
Unless, by "the exact same thing", you mean "weapon swapping in general", and ignoring that there's a difference between "exploiting weapon swapping to the max" and "I have Dual Wielder, so I'd like to be able to use a rapier for my bonus action attack".
You're the one who was talking about switching weapons to "take advantage of weapon masteries".
Most people just don't think this way. They conceptualize their character as a specific type of weapon wielder, probably take the feats that fit that, and don't think about it again. If they're a trident person, maybe they'll use a spear instead, but tell them they could be doing more damage by swapping in a greataxe for some of their attacks, and they won't care.
So, you took Dual Wielder as your feat, 9.5+6.5+6.5+3.5+3.5=29.5
If you had instead taken GWM and just hack around with the greataxe, 12.5+9.5+12.5=34.5
Even with Hunter's Mark, you can't pull into the lead, 43.5 vs 45
I can't be bothered to do the math to mix in the fighting styles, and you probably do manage it, but it's still a marginal increase in DPS.
(Also, light weapon fighting competes for the bonus action with Hunter's Mark, and the straight GWM character gains more from the action surge than Juggling Bob)
So, no, I'm not particularly concerned about allowing the full weapon swapping mechanics in terms of combat effectiveness. I'm more concerned about things feeling silly for the players, but I don't expect them to bother, and the mechanics will be there to adjudicate that weird situation where somebody really does need to do a lot of it, or the slightly more common ones where they want to do a little.