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'm going to disagree here. I'd say that there are a lot more people/DMs that made houserules to make the 2014 rules a bit more allowing for drawing/sheathing weapons then there is/will be people that restricts the 2024 rules. Not being able to use your weapons in a reasonable fashion just isn't fun and the "haha, dropping it on the ground is free" loophole is just stupid and making the 2024 rules have a more workable rule was, IMO, a good change.
Jeremy Crawford is not a fan of anything that produces analysis paralysis in combat. It seems very unlikely to me that the rules designers intended for Fighters to consider a dozen permutations of weapon mastery effects every round because of having multiple swaps + free draws from throwing weapons + two-weapon fighting shenanigans.
JC is actually on record saying it's one of the thing he actually loved playing a high level fighter that would use different weapon Mastery on various attacks to exploit effects.
100% agree. JC was waxing poetic about weapon swapping in regards to Weapon Mastery.
Also as @ThriKreen also posted, The editors would have been bluntly said- once per turn, as they said the use of Nick, because of the use of Action Surge by fighters. Because then it would get carried away.
it’s without a doubt, During your Action phase, choosing Attack, allowing you to equip or unequip a weapon per attack (during this phase). Also negating the possibility of having a shield because you would need to use the Utilize Action of the Action phase. Hence thwarting you from using a shield. And impossible to use a 2hd weapon with it equipped. Is my opinion of why they added the shield needing a requirement of 1 action to don/doff which is severely overlooked in lots of posts. The editors took that into consideration, so the only thing you can do with a shield is bash with it.
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.
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.
You want to know what that means? It means exactly what it says. You can draw that weapon as part of the attack. It doesn’t say that drawing the weapon is exempt from the rules for object interaction. So, if you don’t have a weapon in hand, and you’ve already used your object interaction, then you can’t draw the weapon to use in as part of your attack. That doesn’t mean you can’t attack, it means you can’t draw a weapon.
To be 100% clear, this is not up for debate as it pertains to the 2014 rules. Those rules had similar (although admittedly not identical) wording to the 2024 edition. Nonetheless, the Sage Advice from 2014 confirmed that you could NOT draw and throw two weapons even if you had multiple attacks per action unless you had the Dual Wielder feat.
There should be no debate on that.
The arguments being made that suggest that the minor wording changes in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons section of the 2024 PHB definitively exempt weapon interactions made as part of an attack from the objective interaction limitations are weak. If that was the intent of the authors, they did an awful job. But, what I find incredible is that no one seems to acknowledge that such an interpretation begs the question of why they didn’t market this significant rule change and the impact it has on the game. I’m pretty confident that I know why: because it was NOT their intent to change the object interaction rules at all when they wrote the equipping and Unequipping weapons section.
If you want to ignore that in 2014 they used “during” and “as part of” synonymously, that’s up to you. If you want to ignore that they never said that those words had fundamentally distinct meanings now, that’s also up to you. If you want to believe that the Dual Wielder feat got nerfed without a mention, and the Thief became a less viable subclass, and that was done with intent, again it’s on you.
What I can say, as a guy who has a lifetime of experience working with legal documents and the precise wording of software requirements is that your interpretation is unnecessary and unsupported by the history of this rule and by the marketing of the 2024 edition.
Can I be 100% sure of the author’s intent? No. Am I close to 100% sure I would end up winning a court case over this? Yes. So, if their intent matches your interpretation, they really need to issue errata to correct their existing rules.
But, what I find incredible is that no one seems to acknowledge that such an interpretation begs the question of why they didn’t market this significant rule change and the impact it has on the game.
Because it didn't have a significant impact on the game
Basically no one played the 2014 rules under the strictest RAW interpretation of the weapon interaction rules. Perhaps the most obvious, and famous, example is Vax's "dagger dagger dagger" from Critical Role
Until you can explain why the 2024 rules would allow fighters to a) take a Thrown Weapon Fighting Style to specialize in thrown weapons, b) get four attacks per turn at level 20, but then c) have no way to actually throw four weapons in a turn, your argument is a non-starter
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)
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.
You want to know what that means? It means exactly what it says. You can draw that weapon as part of the attack. It doesn’t say that drawing the weapon is exempt from the rules for object interaction. So, if you don’t have a weapon in hand, and you’ve already used your object interaction, then you can’t draw the weapon to use in as part of your attack. That doesn’t mean you can’t attack, it means you can’t draw a weapon.
I have to ask:
By your interpretation, if you are throwing a weapon not on your turn, can you draw it? The free object interaction only applies to your turn, after all.
If no, then the Thrown property is actively deceptive, as it claims to enable something that it never does. (The free object interaction exists regardless of that clause.)
If yes, then I can't actually figure out the underlying principles of your rule model.
To be 100% clear, this is not up for debate as it pertains to the 2014 rules. Those rules had similar (although admittedly not identical) wording to the 2024 edition. Nonetheless, the Sage Advice from 2014 confirmed that you could NOT draw and throw two weapons even if you had multiple attacks per action unless you had the Dual Wielder feat.
There should be no debate on that.
I won't debate what the 2014 rules said. They're not under discussion here.
I will certainly argue that the 24 rules are not similar. They add entirely new parts about drawing and stowing weapons.
Also, the object interaction rules in chapter 8 of the 14 PHB are just grossly inadequate. They're one paragraph that barely establishes anything about how object interactions work.
The 24 object interaction rules are entirely new. Backreferencing the 14 rules to back your argument is pointless. These are not the same rules in any way, shape, or form.
Anyway, the 24 rules are complete in and of themselves. You can play D&D from them without ever having to look back at the 14 books, indeed you never even have to have seen those books. While they've said sage advice answers from 14 may apply, that is explicitly only about the parts of the rules that are unchanged. Which is not the object interaction rules.
The arguments being made that suggest that the minor wording changes in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons section of the 2024 PHB definitively exempt weapon interactions made as part of an attack from the objective interaction limitations are weak. If that was the intent of the authors, they did an awful job. But, what I find incredible is that no one seems to acknowledge that such an interpretation begs the question of why they didn’t market this significant rule change and the impact it has on the game. I’m pretty confident that I know why: because it was NOT their intent to change the object interaction rules at all when they wrote the equipping and Unequipping weapons section.
...They didn't market any of the low-level mechanical changes. First one that comes to mind: the change from the fussy multiple-spell-per-turn rule to the much cleaner "one leveled spell"? Not marketed.
They're not selling points. "Updated classes", "New and improved backgrounds", etc. Those are the things they marketed. They're selling points.
Object interactions? That falls under "revised and cleaned up rules".
What I can say, as a guy who has a lifetime of experience working with legal documents and the precise wording of software requirements is that your interpretation is unnecessary and unsupported by the history of this rule and by the marketing of the 2024 edition.
As somebody with a lifetime of experience on the subject, I'm sure that you're well aware that trying to interpret a legal document, or indeed a law, without an understanding of the broader legal framework in which it exists is a great way to reach bad conclusions.
So, speaking as a game designer with specialization in rule systems: D&D 5e is what's known as an exception-based system, in which one establishes a basic rules framework, and then various specific parts of the game make exceptions to how those rules operate, but only when the part granting the exception is being used. This is a well-established structure, going back at least to Cosmic Encounter (Eon, 1977), and whose most famous example is probably Magic: the Gathering (Wizards of the Coast, 1993).
This is inherently a permissive game structure: when something says that you may do a certain thing under a specific circumstance, it inherently creates an exception to a more general rule saying that you cannot. So, rules text saying "you may draw a weapon when you make an attack", means exactly that. If it is intended to be a reminder, or to be linked to a limited resource, it must state so explicitly.
Your framework of interpretation, which seems to be that statements that the player may do a thing are inherently limited by all general restrictions on doing the thing, is exactly backwards as to how the rules of D&D are constructed.
To be 100% clear, this is not up for debate as it pertains to the 2014 rules. Those rules had similar (although admittedly not identical) wording to the 2024 edition. Nonetheless, the Sage Advice from 2014 confirmed that you could NOT draw and throw two weapons even if you had multiple attacks per action unless you had the Dual Wielder feat.
There should be no debate on that.
Actually there is debate on that point, and it is something that helps us understand the 2024 rules too.
The SAC answer you talk about did say that you couldn't draw two weapons without the Dual Wielder feat, and at the time they wrote that it was correct because at that time the Thrown property didn't have any text that allowed you to draw a weapon. But then came Tasha's and we got a Thrown Weapon fighting style and that did have language that said "and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack" in it. But they never updated that SAC answer to match. Of course technically the answer was still correct but where it said "You need a feature like the Dual Wielder feat to draw or stow a second weapon for free" they could have added/changed it to the Thrown Weapon fighting style as another feature that would allow you to draw and throw multiple weapons on your turn.
And now in the 2024 rules-set they have moved the "and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack." from the fighting style to the Thrown property instead. So the 2014 intentions that you keep coming back to have been changed twice to include a more permissive language. If that isn't a clear indication that they actually intended the rule to change then I don't know what is, especially as the rule worked just fine for their original intentions without the new additional wording.
and the Thief became a less viable subclass, and that was done with intent, again it’s on you.
This really isn't an argument at all tbh. If you think that the Thief sub class in any relevant way hinges upon the fact that them and them alone can draw an extra weapon during a fight then I don't know what to tell you. Drawing a weapon is the least impactful use of taking the Utilize Action or using a magic item.
If you want to believe that the Dual Wielder feat got nerfed without a mention,
Of all the changes that happened to the Dual Wielder feat this is the least impactful one I'd say. It lost the additional AC and it lost the ability to make the first TWF attack with a non-Light weapon. In fact considering how much easier/cheaper (and thus more prevalent) Nick is to get hold of I don't see what use the Enhanced Dual Wielding part of the Dual Wielder feat is at all if you don't allow the draw-as-part-of-an-attack rule. Attacking with three different weapons doesn't work if all you have is one object interaction (even if you can draw or stow two weapons with it). Considering that neither Light nor Nick nor Dual Wielder requires you to actually hold more than one weapon in your hands at any given time I'd say that drawing/stowing two weapons at the same time is more of an RP flourish than an important rules mechanic at this point (unless you go full on weapons juggling ofc but I think we can leave those scenarios for another time).
So, if their intent matches your interpretation, they really need to issue errata to correct their existing rules.
But they did. As I mentioned at the top they have added or changed text/features twice since the point in time you keep referencing. What you are asking for isn't an errata, it's a public explanation of the change they made but they rarely if ever does those for this kind of tweaks. They do them for big updates and for adding new concepts. New things like adding weapon masteries where they, incidentally, talked about changing weapons a lot more often than what your interpretation would allow.
I understand not liking this change. But not liking it and not accepting that it has been made are two different things.
The dual wielder feat would never be needed if you could draw one weapon with each attack (except in that rare instance that you are not using a weapon with nick). The more I read it, the more certain I am that you can only draw one weapon per action, with any attack during that action. Otherwise, dual wielder has no meaning and drawing a weapon with each attack ends up with absurd results that I don't think was definitely not intended.
The dual wielder feat would never be needed if you could draw one weapon with each attack (except in that rare instance that you are not using a weapon with nick). The more I read it, the more certain I am that you can only draw one weapon per action, with any attack during that action. Otherwise, dual wielder has no meaning and drawing a weapon with each attack ends up with absurd results that I don't think was definitely not intended.
The main reason for Dual Wielder to allow drawing 2 weapons is so you can have a weapon for each of the attacks from the Attack action and the Bonus Action.
WoTC try to use as less words as possible, so if they added more words ''when you make an attack'' is for me a big indication they meant 1/attack and not 1/action otherwise not adding them would have suffice to limit it this way.
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. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
The dual wielder feat would never be needed if you could draw one weapon with each attack (except in that rare instance that you are not using a weapon with nick). The more I read it, the more certain I am that you can only draw one weapon per action, with any attack during that action. Otherwise, dual wielder has no meaning and drawing a weapon with each attack ends up with absurd results that I don't think was definitely not intended.
Is this actually so? It may not be common, but it's certainly possible to construct normal scenarios where you need DW to operate your desired weapons.
It probably also always happens when you're starting empty handed.
First example that comes to mind: Rogue, with Nick mastery, DW, and a desire to use a bigger weapon: Draw dagger (attack action), draw dagger #2 (attack action), sheathe dagger (free interaction) and draw rapier (?)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm going to disagree here. I'd say that there are a lot more people/DMs that made houserules to make the 2014 rules a bit more allowing for drawing/sheathing weapons then there is/will be people that restricts the 2024 rules. Not being able to use your weapons in a reasonable fashion just isn't fun and the "haha, dropping it on the ground is free" loophole is just stupid and making the 2024 rules have a more workable rule was, IMO, a good change.
100% agree. JC was waxing poetic about weapon swapping in regards to Weapon Mastery.
Also as @ThriKreen also posted, The editors would have been bluntly said- once per turn, as they said the use of Nick, because of the use of Action Surge by fighters. Because then it would get carried away.
it’s without a doubt, During your Action phase, choosing Attack, allowing you to equip or unequip a weapon per attack (during this phase). Also negating the possibility of having a shield because you would need to use the Utilize Action of the Action phase. Hence thwarting you from using a shield. And impossible to use a 2hd weapon with it equipped. Is my opinion of why they added the shield needing a requirement of 1 action to don/doff which is severely overlooked in lots of posts. The editors took that into consideration, so the only thing you can do with a shield is bash with it.
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.
You want to know what that means? It means exactly what it says. You can draw that weapon as part of the attack. It doesn’t say that drawing the weapon is exempt from the rules for object interaction. So, if you don’t have a weapon in hand, and you’ve already used your object interaction, then you can’t draw the weapon to use in as part of your attack. That doesn’t mean you can’t attack, it means you can’t draw a weapon.
To be 100% clear, this is not up for debate as it pertains to the 2014 rules. Those rules had similar (although admittedly not identical) wording to the 2024 edition. Nonetheless, the Sage Advice from 2014 confirmed that you could NOT draw and throw two weapons even if you had multiple attacks per action unless you had the Dual Wielder feat.
There should be no debate on that.
The arguments being made that suggest that the minor wording changes in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons section of the 2024 PHB definitively exempt weapon interactions made as part of an attack from the objective interaction limitations are weak. If that was the intent of the authors, they did an awful job. But, what I find incredible is that no one seems to acknowledge that such an interpretation begs the question of why they didn’t market this significant rule change and the impact it has on the game. I’m pretty confident that I know why: because it was NOT their intent to change the object interaction rules at all when they wrote the equipping and Unequipping weapons section.
If you want to ignore that in 2014 they used “during” and “as part of” synonymously, that’s up to you. If you want to ignore that they never said that those words had fundamentally distinct meanings now, that’s also up to you. If you want to believe that the Dual Wielder feat got nerfed without a mention, and the Thief became a less viable subclass, and that was done with intent, again it’s on you.
What I can say, as a guy who has a lifetime of experience working with legal documents and the precise wording of software requirements is that your interpretation is unnecessary and unsupported by the history of this rule and by the marketing of the 2024 edition.
Can I be 100% sure of the author’s intent? No. Am I close to 100% sure I would end up winning a court case over this? Yes. So, if their intent matches your interpretation, they really need to issue errata to correct their existing rules.
Because it didn't have a significant impact on the game
Basically no one played the 2014 rules under the strictest RAW interpretation of the weapon interaction rules. Perhaps the most obvious, and famous, example is Vax's "dagger dagger dagger" from Critical Role
Until you can explain why the 2024 rules would allow fighters to a) take a Thrown Weapon Fighting Style to specialize in thrown weapons, b) get four attacks per turn at level 20, but then c) have no way to actually throw four weapons in a turn, your argument is a non-starter
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 have to ask:
By your interpretation, if you are throwing a weapon not on your turn, can you draw it? The free object interaction only applies to your turn, after all.
If no, then the Thrown property is actively deceptive, as it claims to enable something that it never does. (The free object interaction exists regardless of that clause.)
If yes, then I can't actually figure out the underlying principles of your rule model.
I won't debate what the 2014 rules said. They're not under discussion here.
I will certainly argue that the 24 rules are not similar. They add entirely new parts about drawing and stowing weapons.
Also, the object interaction rules in chapter 8 of the 14 PHB are just grossly inadequate. They're one paragraph that barely establishes anything about how object interactions work.
The 24 object interaction rules are entirely new. Backreferencing the 14 rules to back your argument is pointless. These are not the same rules in any way, shape, or form.
Anyway, the 24 rules are complete in and of themselves. You can play D&D from them without ever having to look back at the 14 books, indeed you never even have to have seen those books. While they've said sage advice answers from 14 may apply, that is explicitly only about the parts of the rules that are unchanged. Which is not the object interaction rules.
...They didn't market any of the low-level mechanical changes. First one that comes to mind: the change from the fussy multiple-spell-per-turn rule to the much cleaner "one leveled spell"? Not marketed.
They're not selling points. "Updated classes", "New and improved backgrounds", etc. Those are the things they marketed. They're selling points.
Object interactions? That falls under "revised and cleaned up rules".
As somebody with a lifetime of experience on the subject, I'm sure that you're well aware that trying to interpret a legal document, or indeed a law, without an understanding of the broader legal framework in which it exists is a great way to reach bad conclusions.
So, speaking as a game designer with specialization in rule systems: D&D 5e is what's known as an exception-based system, in which one establishes a basic rules framework, and then various specific parts of the game make exceptions to how those rules operate, but only when the part granting the exception is being used. This is a well-established structure, going back at least to Cosmic Encounter (Eon, 1977), and whose most famous example is probably Magic: the Gathering (Wizards of the Coast, 1993).
This is inherently a permissive game structure: when something says that you may do a certain thing under a specific circumstance, it inherently creates an exception to a more general rule saying that you cannot. So, rules text saying "you may draw a weapon when you make an attack", means exactly that. If it is intended to be a reminder, or to be linked to a limited resource, it must state so explicitly.
Your framework of interpretation, which seems to be that statements that the player may do a thing are inherently limited by all general restrictions on doing the thing, is exactly backwards as to how the rules of D&D are constructed.
Actually there is debate on that point, and it is something that helps us understand the 2024 rules too.
The SAC answer you talk about did say that you couldn't draw two weapons without the Dual Wielder feat, and at the time they wrote that it was correct because at that time the Thrown property didn't have any text that allowed you to draw a weapon. But then came Tasha's and we got a Thrown Weapon fighting style and that did have language that said "and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack" in it. But they never updated that SAC answer to match. Of course technically the answer was still correct but where it said "You need a feature like the Dual Wielder feat to draw or stow a second weapon for free" they could have added/changed it to the Thrown Weapon fighting style as another feature that would allow you to draw and throw multiple weapons on your turn.
And now in the 2024 rules-set they have moved the "and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack." from the fighting style to the Thrown property instead. So the 2014 intentions that you keep coming back to have been changed twice to include a more permissive language. If that isn't a clear indication that they actually intended the rule to change then I don't know what is, especially as the rule worked just fine for their original intentions without the new additional wording.
This really isn't an argument at all tbh. If you think that the Thief sub class in any relevant way hinges upon the fact that them and them alone can draw an extra weapon during a fight then I don't know what to tell you. Drawing a weapon is the least impactful use of taking the Utilize Action or using a magic item.
Of all the changes that happened to the Dual Wielder feat this is the least impactful one I'd say. It lost the additional AC and it lost the ability to make the first TWF attack with a non-Light weapon.
In fact considering how much easier/cheaper (and thus more prevalent) Nick is to get hold of I don't see what use the Enhanced Dual Wielding part of the Dual Wielder feat is at all if you don't allow the draw-as-part-of-an-attack rule. Attacking with three different weapons doesn't work if all you have is one object interaction (even if you can draw or stow two weapons with it).
Considering that neither Light nor Nick nor Dual Wielder requires you to actually hold more than one weapon in your hands at any given time I'd say that drawing/stowing two weapons at the same time is more of an RP flourish than an important rules mechanic at this point (unless you go full on weapons juggling ofc but I think we can leave those scenarios for another time).
But they did. As I mentioned at the top they have added or changed text/features twice since the point in time you keep referencing. What you are asking for isn't an errata, it's a public explanation of the change they made but they rarely if ever does those for this kind of tweaks. They do them for big updates and for adding new concepts. New things like adding weapon masteries where they, incidentally, talked about changing weapons a lot more often than what your interpretation would allow.
I understand not liking this change. But not liking it and not accepting that it has been made are two different things.
Edited for readability!
The dual wielder feat would never be needed if you could draw one weapon with each attack (except in that rare instance that you are not using a weapon with nick). The more I read it, the more certain I am that you can only draw one weapon per action, with any attack during that action. Otherwise, dual wielder has no meaning and drawing a weapon with each attack ends up with absurd results that I don't think was definitely not intended.
The main reason for Dual Wielder to allow drawing 2 weapons is so you can have a weapon for each of the attacks from the Attack action and the Bonus Action.
WoTC try to use as less words as possible, so if they added more words ''when you make an attack'' is for me a big indication they meant 1/attack and not 1/action otherwise not adding them would have suffice to limit it this way.
Is this actually so? It may not be common, but it's certainly possible to construct normal scenarios where you need DW to operate your desired weapons.
It probably also always happens when you're starting empty handed.
First example that comes to mind: Rogue, with Nick mastery, DW, and a desire to use a bigger weapon: Draw dagger (attack action), draw dagger #2 (attack action), sheathe dagger (free interaction) and draw rapier (?)