Also how i read it — either/or — means that when you make an attack as part of the Attack action you can either equip or unequip one weapon, not both.
Even Dual Wielder doesn't let you do both, it increase the numer of weapon instead.
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / attack.
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / attack.
or
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / Attack [Action].
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / Attack [Action].
I think ShanetheStrange makes a really good argument in his first paragraph.
He makes no argument at all ffs. He quotes the rule then just states what he thinks it means, then he restates it and then he says that that is clearly what it means. No reasoning or justification or argument made at all.
I think ShanetheStrange makes a really good argument in his first paragraph.
He makes no argument at all ffs. He quotes the rule then just states what he thinks it means, then he restates it and then he says that that is clearly what it means. No reasoning or justification or argument made at all.
Also how i read it — either/or — means that when you make an attack as part of the Attack action you can either equip or unequip one weapon, not both.
Even Dual Wielder doesn't let you do both, it increase the numer of weapon instead.
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / attack.
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / attack.
or
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / Attack [Action].
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / Attack [Action].
Just reiterating the wording for the Attack action, because it's easier than editing quotes:
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
You take the Attack action. As part of that action, you make (say) a melee weapon attack. Clearly, you can equip or unequip a thing.
Now, because you have Extra Attack, you can make a second melee weapon attack as part of your attack action. Since you're making an attack as part of your attack action, you can again equip or unequip a thing.
While I'm not going to base an entire argument on deriving intent by phrasing, had they meant it to be one equip per Attack action, they could and should have said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you take this action."
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.
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
You are not allowed to equip or unequip a thing when you make the Light (or Dual Wielder) bonus attack, since it's not part of the Attack action, but instead a separate bonus action, but you can if you're doing it for free due to Nick.
I agree, the wording could be tweaked either way to make it more clear, to support either option. I can definitely see both interpretations being valid with the current wording, but we need someone at Wizards to clarify. It's a core mechanic and we can't have something this basic remain this ambiguous.
I think 'Once per Attack [Action]' would be easier for most players to conceptualize, and would help discourage shenanigans like weapon juggling.
I agree, the wording could be tweaked either way to make it more clear, to support either option. I can definitely see both interpretations being valid with the current wording, but we need someone at Wizards to clarify. It's a core mechanic and we can't have something this basic remain this ambiguous.
I think 'Once per Attack [Action]' would be easier for most players to conceptualize, and would help discourage shenanigans like weapon juggling.
Idk I really want to show up to a game and use a greataxe with cleave then go into dual weapons and have a DM just look at me.
I know that I certainly would not permit it regardless of how the "official" ruling goes. I take a dim look to anything I feel is cheesing the action economy, and this reeks of limburger.
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.
I agree, the wording could be tweaked either way to make it more clear, to support either option. I can definitely see both interpretations being valid with the current wording, but we need someone at Wizards to clarify. It's a core mechanic and we can't have something this basic remain this ambiguous.
I don't think it's ambiguous. I don't like it at an aesthetic level, but the rules are clear.
This, along with the hijinks around Light, Nick, and Dual Wielder, strike me as the designers adding too-clever-by-half things for the rules lawyers, which leave the average player saying "that can't possibly be right".
I know that I certainly would not permit it regardless of how the "official" ruling goes. I take a dim look to anything I feel is cheesing the action economy, and this reeks of limburger.
My first house rule is that you can only equip/unequip a weapon once per action. 2nd house rule is that to dual wield weapons you must in fact dual wield the weapons.
And then I told the players that if something comes up I'll address that then, but I am basically banning my own shenanigans from my game, while i don't think any of my players would have ever thought of it.
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.
That's a good point, though it doesn't necessarily negate what I said. It's still possible to get 2-3 mastery properties with just 1 object interaction considering you have two hands, thrown weapons are both free to draw and free to "drop" (they leave your hand when you throw them) and two-handed weapons only require both hands when you attack with them. You can Cleave with a greataxe and then throw a javelin for Slow. Or you can throw a handaxe for Vex, make a TWF attack with a club for Slow, and then draw a mace using Extra Attack for Sap. Having two or three equip/stows explodes the number of possibilities though.
Also note that shortly before the quote you're talking about he also says they had to keep the complexity level low because of how often it comes up and that he wanted them to be impactful but not bog down play.
The reason I said he doesn't like an explosion of choices is based on one of the Dragon Talk podcasts where they discuss the Ready action. In older editions you could choose to delay your entire turn, which would lower your initiative count, but it led to the problem of everyone at the table trying to consider all the possible ways they could shuffle their turns around.
If I had to bet money on one or the other, I'd put it on getting errata to clarify it's meant to be one swap per Attack action.
If there is any sort of official clarification, I really feel pretty strongly that it's going to be the opposite.
I believe that there was an intentional design change where they are trying to allow weapon drawing and/or weapon swapping to be a LOT easier during combat. Mainly because it's more fun. It allows more playstyles and character flavorings, being able to free up your hands for spellcasting and all sorts of things that people were doing anyway in their games and if they were told that they couldn't because of a "technicality" they would react poorly to that since it "feels like" you should be able to do certain things that were previously pretty restricted if you followed the rules. So, characters were walking around town with weapons drawn "just in case" or they were dropping their bows on the ground when enemies got into melee range, or they were dropping their weapon on the ground to cast a spell and then picking it back up . . . It's just more fun if such "workarounds" are eliminated in favor of just letting the characters do the small things so that they aren't told that they would be burning an entire action to do something so small, and instead just let them focus on doing the big, cool things with their action.
If I had to bet money on one or the other, I'd put it on getting errata to clarify it's meant to be one swap per Attack action.
If there is any sort of official clarification, I really feel pretty strongly that it's going to be the opposite.
I believe that there was an intentional design change where they are trying to allow weapon drawing and/or weapon swapping to be a LOT easier during combat. Mainly because it's more fun. It allows more playstyles and character flavorings, being able to free up your hands for spellcasting and all sorts of things that people were doing anyway in their games and if they were told that they couldn't because of a "technicality" they would react poorly to that since it "feels like" you should be able to do certain things that were previously pretty restricted if you followed the rules. So, characters were walking around town with weapons drawn "just in case" or they were dropping their bows on the ground when enemies got into melee range, or they were dropping their weapon on the ground to cast a spell and then picking it back up . . . It's just more fun if such "workarounds" are eliminated in favor of just letting the characters do the small things so that they aren't told that they would be burning an entire action to do something so small, and instead just let them focus on doing the big, cool things with their action.
I think you are right about their intent. But I think the law of unintentional consequences is coming for them. Im not sure it is reasonable that my level 5 PC should be able to take 5 attacks 41+ damage every single turn. I think I can do more. Damage.
When the entire rule is cited (the rule is the Glossary entry for Attack[Action]), I think it is pretty clearly worded that it is one swap/attack made with the Attack action and NOT one swap/Attack action.
"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 rule doesn't say one swap every time you take this action, it doesn't say one swap on the first attack made as part of this action, it doesn't say one swap on only one attack made with this action ... it clearly says one swap when you make "an attack" as part of this action. (the first attack and any attacks provided by Extra Attack or similar features are ALL attacks made using this action).
In addition, the rule goes on to say that you can swap before or after making the attack itself (NOT taking the action). It references "the attack" which is "an attack made as part of this action". None of this limits the swapping to one weapon/attack action ... it limits it to one weapon/attack unless you have the dual wielder feat in which case it is 2 weapons any time you are allowed to swap one.
Is this change to allow easier swapping of weapons intentional? I'd say yes. With the introduction of weapon mastery and weapon properties, it becomes desirable to be able to use different weapons within one Attack action in order to make best use of weapons with different mastery properties. For example, if you hit with a weapon with cleave and damage a second creature, it might be desirable to pull out a different weapon for the second attack because cleave is only usable once/turn. e.g. hit something with a greataxe then pull out your longsword to give the target disadvantage on their next attack (unless they changed that two handed weapons only need two hands when making an attack ... in which case, pick a different example).
Anyway, without the ability to change out weapons easily, some aspects of weapon mastery are less useful so I personally think this change is intentional and will not see errata.
When the entire rule is cited (the rule is the Glossary entry for Attack[Action]), I think it is pretty clearly worded that it is one swap/attack made with the Attack action and NOT one swap/Attack action.
"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 rule doesn't say one swap every time you take this action, it doesn't say one swap on the first attack made as part of this action, it doesn't say one swap on only one attack made with this action ... it clearly says one swap when you make "an attack" as part of this action. (the first attack and any attacks provided by Extra Attack or similar features are ALL attacks made using this action).
In addition, the rule goes on to say that you can swap before or after making the attack itself (NOT taking the action). It references "the attack" which is "an attack made as part of this action". None of this limits the swapping to one weapon/attack action ... it limits it to one weapon/attack unless you have the dual wielder feat in which case it is 2 weapons any time you are allowed to swap one.
Is this change to allow easier swapping of weapons intentional? I'd say yes. With the introduction of weapon mastery and weapon properties, it becomes desirable to be able to use different weapons within one Attack action in order to make best use of weapons with different mastery properties. For example, if you hit with a weapon with cleave and damage a second creature, it might be desirable to pull out a different weapon for the second attack because cleave is only usable once/turn. e.g. hit something with a greataxe then pull out your longsword to give the target disadvantage on their next attack (unless they changed that two handed weapons only need two hands when making an attack ... in which case, pick a different example).
Anyway, without the ability to change out weapons easily, some aspects of weapon mastery are less useful so I personally think this change is intentional and will not see errata.
I agree with you and the others earlier in the thread.
“when you make an attack as part of this action.” if you have One attack it is part of “this action”. If you have two attacks (extra attack, for example) each one of those is “an attack as part of this action”. Same goes for three, four, or five attacks. The are all “part of this action” so “when you make an attack” applies to all of them. So you can swap each time, not just once per Attack action.
If they wanted it to be once, they could have used the phrase they use quite often “once on your turn, when you make an attack…”
The reason I said he doesn't like an explosion of choices is based on one of the Dragon Talk podcasts where they discuss the Ready action. In older editions you could choose to delay your entire turn, which would lower your initiative count, but it led to the problem of everyone at the table trying to consider all the possible ways they could shuffle their turns around.
I think that is quite a different issue though. The Initiative stuff (which was mentioned in the SAC too) was about not just a player but the whole party gaming out one or several rounds to find all possible synergies that could come up at some future point in time, which I agree could take quite some time. But the weapon swapping thing is a single player looking at his options for what he can do right now. Still requires some thinking but not nearly the same IMO.
I think you are right about their intent. But I think the law of unintentional consequences is coming for them. Im not sure it is reasonable that my level 5 PC should be able to take 5 attacks 41+ damage every single turn. I think I can do more. Damage.
Possible but I think that the issues are more coming from the things that can create more attacks and not from being able to swap weapons and thus it is the things that create attacks that should get fixes/errata.
My first house rule is that you can only equip/unequip a weapon once per action. 2nd house rule is that to dual wield weapons you must in fact dual wield the weapons.
The first one seems excessive but the second one is very reasonable. Dual wielding should be wielding multiple weapons in both hands at the same time, not wielding multiple weapons in one hand consecutively.
When the entire rule is cited (the rule is the Glossary entry for Attack[Action]), I think it is pretty clearly worded that it is one swap/attack made with the Attack action and NOT one swap/Attack action.
"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."
Not really. "when you make an attack" is just reiterating that object interactions (such as equipping/unequipping) are part of a larger action. It's not indicating you can equip/unequip every single time you make an attack
Utilize [Action]
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
It's very clear in that section that the equipping/unequipping is tied to the Attack action, and not to any attack you make during an Attack action
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
When the entire rule is cited (the rule is the Glossary entry for Attack[Action]), I think it is pretty clearly worded that it is one swap/attack made with the Attack action and NOT one swap/Attack action.
"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."
Not really. "when you make an attack" is just reiterating that object interactions (such as equipping/unequipping) are part of a larger action. It's not indicating you can equip/unequip every single time you make an attack
Utilize [Action]
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
It's very clear in that section that the equipping/unequipping is tied to the Attack action, and not to any attack you make during an Attack action
I'm starting to think the object interaction rule should come into play which states you can only interact with one object as part of an action and any other uses needs to use the utilize action. Which I think makes everything make more sense.
I had assumed this overode the object interaction rules, but I'm starting to think it doesn't, it just establishes when that free action happens.
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
It's very clear in that section that the equipping/unequipping is tied to the Attack action, and not to any attack you make during an Attack action
So a short reminder in the description of a different action trumps the full text in the actual action? That seems like a really poor way to design/write the rules tbh.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
or
Any Wielder: equip or unequip 1 weapon / Attack [Action].
Dual Wielder: equip or unequip 2 weapons / Attack [Action].
?
He makes no argument at all ffs. He quotes the rule then just states what he thinks it means, then he restates it and then he says that that is clearly what it means. No reasoning or justification or argument made at all.
I sure do love a good argument.
The rule doesn't say attack action.
Just reiterating the wording for the Attack action, because it's easier than editing quotes:
You take the Attack action. As part of that action, you make (say) a melee weapon attack. Clearly, you can equip or unequip a thing.
Now, because you have Extra Attack, you can make a second melee weapon attack as part of your attack action. Since you're making an attack as part of your attack action, you can again equip or unequip a thing.
While I'm not going to base an entire argument on deriving intent by phrasing, had they meant it to be one equip per Attack action, they could and should have said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you take this action."
You are not allowed to equip or unequip a thing when you make the Light (or Dual Wielder) bonus attack, since it's not part of the Attack action, but instead a separate bonus action, but you can if you're doing it for free due to Nick.
I agree, the wording could be tweaked either way to make it more clear, to support either option. I can definitely see both interpretations being valid with the current wording, but we need someone at Wizards to clarify. It's a core mechanic and we can't have something this basic remain this ambiguous.
I think 'Once per Attack [Action]' would be easier for most players to conceptualize, and would help discourage shenanigans like weapon juggling.
Idk I really want to show up to a game and use a greataxe with cleave then go into dual weapons and have a DM just look at me.
I know that I certainly would not permit it regardless of how the "official" ruling goes. I take a dim look to anything I feel is cheesing the action economy, and this reeks of limburger.
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
I don't think it's ambiguous. I don't like it at an aesthetic level, but the rules are clear.
This, along with the hijinks around Light, Nick, and Dual Wielder, strike me as the designers adding too-clever-by-half things for the rules lawyers, which leave the average player saying "that can't possibly be right".
My first house rule is that you can only equip/unequip a weapon once per action. 2nd house rule is that to dual wield weapons you must in fact dual wield the weapons.
And then I told the players that if something comes up I'll address that then, but I am basically banning my own shenanigans from my game, while i don't think any of my players would have ever thought of it.
That's a good point, though it doesn't necessarily negate what I said. It's still possible to get 2-3 mastery properties with just 1 object interaction considering you have two hands, thrown weapons are both free to draw and free to "drop" (they leave your hand when you throw them) and two-handed weapons only require both hands when you attack with them. You can Cleave with a greataxe and then throw a javelin for Slow. Or you can throw a handaxe for Vex, make a TWF attack with a club for Slow, and then draw a mace using Extra Attack for Sap. Having two or three equip/stows explodes the number of possibilities though.
Also note that shortly before the quote you're talking about he also says they had to keep the complexity level low because of how often it comes up and that he wanted them to be impactful but not bog down play.
The reason I said he doesn't like an explosion of choices is based on one of the Dragon Talk podcasts where they discuss the Ready action. In older editions you could choose to delay your entire turn, which would lower your initiative count, but it led to the problem of everyone at the table trying to consider all the possible ways they could shuffle their turns around.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If there is any sort of official clarification, I really feel pretty strongly that it's going to be the opposite.
I believe that there was an intentional design change where they are trying to allow weapon drawing and/or weapon swapping to be a LOT easier during combat. Mainly because it's more fun. It allows more playstyles and character flavorings, being able to free up your hands for spellcasting and all sorts of things that people were doing anyway in their games and if they were told that they couldn't because of a "technicality" they would react poorly to that since it "feels like" you should be able to do certain things that were previously pretty restricted if you followed the rules. So, characters were walking around town with weapons drawn "just in case" or they were dropping their bows on the ground when enemies got into melee range, or they were dropping their weapon on the ground to cast a spell and then picking it back up . . . It's just more fun if such "workarounds" are eliminated in favor of just letting the characters do the small things so that they aren't told that they would be burning an entire action to do something so small, and instead just let them focus on doing the big, cool things with their action.
I think you are right about their intent. But I think the law of unintentional consequences is coming for them. Im not sure it is reasonable that my level 5 PC should be able to take 5 attacks 41+ damage every single turn. I think I can do more. Damage.
When the entire rule is cited (the rule is the Glossary entry for Attack[Action]), I think it is pretty clearly worded that it is one swap/attack made with the Attack action and NOT one swap/Attack action.
"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 rule doesn't say one swap every time you take this action, it doesn't say one swap on the first attack made as part of this action, it doesn't say one swap on only one attack made with this action ... it clearly says one swap when you make "an attack" as part of this action. (the first attack and any attacks provided by Extra Attack or similar features are ALL attacks made using this action).
In addition, the rule goes on to say that you can swap before or after making the attack itself (NOT taking the action). It references "the attack" which is "an attack made as part of this action". None of this limits the swapping to one weapon/attack action ... it limits it to one weapon/attack unless you have the dual wielder feat in which case it is 2 weapons any time you are allowed to swap one.
Is this change to allow easier swapping of weapons intentional? I'd say yes. With the introduction of weapon mastery and weapon properties, it becomes desirable to be able to use different weapons within one Attack action in order to make best use of weapons with different mastery properties. For example, if you hit with a weapon with cleave and damage a second creature, it might be desirable to pull out a different weapon for the second attack because cleave is only usable once/turn. e.g. hit something with a greataxe then pull out your longsword to give the target disadvantage on their next attack (unless they changed that two handed weapons only need two hands when making an attack ... in which case, pick a different example).
Anyway, without the ability to change out weapons easily, some aspects of weapon mastery are less useful so I personally think this change is intentional and will not see errata.
I agree with you and the others earlier in the thread.
“when you make an attack as part of this action.” if you have One attack it is part of “this action”. If you have two attacks (extra attack, for example) each one of those is “an attack as part of this action”. Same goes for three, four, or five attacks. The are all “part of this action” so “when you make an attack” applies to all of them. So you can swap each time, not just once per Attack action.
If they wanted it to be once, they could have used the phrase they use quite often “once on your turn, when you make an attack…”
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I think that is quite a different issue though. The Initiative stuff (which was mentioned in the SAC too) was about not just a player but the whole party gaming out one or several rounds to find all possible synergies that could come up at some future point in time, which I agree could take quite some time. But the weapon swapping thing is a single player looking at his options for what he can do right now. Still requires some thinking but not nearly the same IMO.
Possible but I think that the issues are more coming from the things that can create more attacks and not from being able to swap weapons and thus it is the things that create attacks that should get fixes/errata.
The first one seems excessive but the second one is very reasonable. Dual wielding should be wielding multiple weapons in both hands at the same time, not wielding multiple weapons in one hand consecutively.
Not really. "when you make an attack" is just reiterating that object interactions (such as equipping/unequipping) are part of a larger action. It's not indicating you can equip/unequip every single time you make an attack
It's very clear in that section that the equipping/unequipping is tied to the Attack action, and not to any attack you make during an Attack action
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm starting to think the object interaction rule should come into play which states you can only interact with one object as part of an action and any other uses needs to use the utilize action. Which I think makes everything make more sense.
I had assumed this overode the object interaction rules, but I'm starting to think it doesn't, it just establishes when that free action happens.
So a short reminder in the description of a different action trumps the full text in the actual action? That seems like a really poor way to design/write the rules tbh.