I guess I'm counting the cleave attack as an attack, maybe I shouldn't be?
Cleave does indeed provide an attack (in the right circumstances) so that's not an issue.
Some people have claimed that cleave does not actually occur within the attack action and therefore you couldn't equip/unequip a weapon during that attack. I have altered my 6 attacks to remove the issue with cleave so that it doesn't matter which position on cleave you take. But I think nsidaria was meaning attack on the attack action than just an attack.
Some people have claimed that cleave does not actually occur within the attack action and therefore you couldn't equip/unequip a weapon during that attack. I have altered my 6 attacks to remove the issue with cleave so that it doesn't matter which position on cleave you take. But I think nsidaria was meaning attack on the attack action than just an attack.
That is correct. Cleave provides an attack but it occurs on its own, not as a part of whatever action the triggering attack came from (which IMO is poor design but other disagree).
I guess I'm counting the cleave attack as an attack, maybe I shouldn't be?
This works better I believe (I used a hunter ranger to get 6 attacks every round that you don't use hunter's mark) As far as I can tell nothing in the rules require the Scimitar attacks to be in a row. (I'm not even sure if the Cleave attack has to be directly after the first attack.) Scimitar A and B alternate rounds as the starting weapon.
Scimitar A Stow Scimitar A Great Axe Great Axe Cleave Great Axe Horde Breaker Scimitar B Pull Scimitar B Out as Nick makes this attack on the attack Action Scimitar B Bonus action.
I see what you're trying to do here, but why not start Great Axe, attack 1, Cleave, Horde Breaker, then stow the Great Axe, Pull out both Scimitars, and attack 2, Nick attack, and BA attack?
If you start Scimitar A, stow it, equip Great Axe, stow it, and equip Scimitar B, you're doing 4 separate object interactions, and depending your GM's interpretation of the original question on this thread, you might not be able to do that at some tables.
General rule: you get one free object interaction per turn
Now, can a fifth-level fighter open a door (free interaction), then draw and throw two daggers?
They can, because the Thrown property says that you can draw the weapon as part of attacking. That's the specific rule. It says you can take an object interaction. Therefore, you can take that interaction because the specific rule overrides the general.
Hmm. Let's see:
Thrown
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.
Agreed. The Thrown property is a case of a specific rule superseding the general, because the Thrown property clearly specifies that you can draw a weapon as part of each Thrown attack. If you can make multiple attacks in a turn, you can draw and throw a weapon with each one. Even if you've already used your free object interaction, you would still be able to draw and Throw weapons
Similarly, a fighter can open a door, then unsling their bow and attack with it, because the Attack action says you can equip a weapon when you attack as part of this action.
Hmm. Let's see:
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
This is what I'm talking about, with you making an assumption. There's actually nothing in there that necessarily grants you additional object interactions the way the Thrown property does, even if you can make multiple attacks. It specifies that you can equip/unequip ONE weapon as part of this Attack action. That's then your ONE free interaction -- the rule is simply telling you when you make it (either before or after an attack made as part of the Attack action)
Let me ask you this, since I don't think it's come up yet. If you can equip/unequip a weapon with every attack you make, why is the "you don't need you use it for that attack" line even in there? Why would you equip a weapon and not use it for your current attack, if you can just equip it later when you are ready to attack with it instead?
EDIT: Even if you believe the Attack action is granting you one extra object interaction -- which is a plausible interpretation, I will admit -- it's still not one per attack, but one per Attack action
You could open the door, unsling your bow and shoot it multiple times. You couldn't open the door and juggle three different light weapons while making multiple attacks with them
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 guess I'm counting the cleave attack as an attack, maybe I shouldn't be?
This works better I believe (I used a hunter ranger to get 6 attacks every round that you don't use hunter's mark) As far as I can tell nothing in the rules require the Scimitar attacks to be in a row. (I'm not even sure if the Cleave attack has to be directly after the first attack.) Scimitar A and B alternate rounds as the starting weapon.
Scimitar A Stow Scimitar A Great Axe Great Axe Cleave Great Axe Horde Breaker Scimitar B Pull Scimitar B Out as Nick makes this attack on the attack Action Scimitar B Bonus action.
I see what you're trying to do here, but why not start Great Axe, attack 1, Cleave, Horde Breaker, then stow the Great Axe, Pull out both Scimitars, and attack 2, Nick attack, and BA attack?
If you start Scimitar A, stow it, equip Great Axe, stow it, and equip Scimitar B, you're doing 4 separate object interactions, and depending your GM's interpretation of the original question on this thread, you might not be able to do that at some tables.
So some people have taken issue with equipping/unequipping a weapon as part of the cleave action. You may be able to get around it, but I figured it was best just to alter the order and remove any issues with whether or not Cleave happens on the attack action or in its own little bubble. Presumably if cleave happens in its own bubble horde breaker would as well. If someone objects to the 4 seperate object interactions I don't think there is a way to do all 6 attacks. You could still do 5 regardless You would just have to do them with Scimitars. This depends on how you take cleave. The entire sequence just seems silly to me, and I don't think it is something I would actually do in game. Five attacks at level 5 is already going to probably drive a DM crazy. and Especially the poor spellcasters who just get to take one attack/action per turn.
General rule: you get one free object interaction per turn
Now, can a fifth-level fighter open a door (free interaction), then draw and throw two daggers?
They can, because the Thrown property says that you can draw the weapon as part of attacking. That's the specific rule. It says you can take an object interaction. Therefore, you can take that interaction because the specific rule overrides the general.
Hmm. Let's see:
Thrown
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.
Agreed. The Thrown property is a case of a specific rule superseding the general, because the Thrown property clearly specifies that you can draw a weapon as part of each Thrown attack. If you can make multiple attacks in a turn, you can draw and throw a weapon with each one. Even if you've already used your free object interaction, you would still be able to draw and Throw weapons
Similarly, a fighter can open a door, then unsling their bow and attack with it, because the Attack action says you can equip a weapon when you attack as part of this action.
Hmm. Let's see:
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.
This is what I'm talking about, with you making an assumption. There's actually nothing in there that necessarily grants you additional object interactions the way the Thrown property does, even if you can make multiple attacks. It specifies that you can equip/unequip ONE weapon as part of this Attack action. That's then your ONE free interaction -- the rule is simply telling you when you make it (either before or after an attack made as part of the Attack action)
Let me ask you this, since I don't think it's come up yet. If you can equip/unequip a weapon with every attack you make, why is the "you don't need you use it for that attack" line even in there? Why would you equip a weapon and not use it for your current attack, if you can just equip it later when you are ready to attack with it instead?
It's nice to see someone trying to take this even farther in the other direction, suggesting that the free equip/unequip that you get when you make an attack as part of the Attack [Action] also somehow uses up your free once-per-turn object interaction. I disagree with this notion, but it's interesting to see how many different ways someone can interpret the same wording.
Regarding your last question, you might want to equip a weapon and attack with it later so you can stow your first weapon when you make your second attack. Maybe to optimize your masteries? I don't really think it would come up often.
It's nice to see someone trying to take this even farther in the other direction, suggesting that the free equip/unequip that you get when you make an attack as part of the Attack [Action] also somehow uses up your free once-per-turn object interaction. I disagree with this notion, but it's interesting to see how many different ways someone can interpret the same wording.
Regarding your last question, you might want to equip a weapon and attack with it later so you can stow your first weapon when you make your second attack. Maybe to optimize your masteries? I don't really think it would come up often.
I think he would be correct. If the free object interaction is what is supposed to happen during the equip/unequip step, then it should use up your free object interaction. There is almost never a case where this would matter. In the situation someone mentioned where you open a door and then draw your weapon to attack the correct order of events should be that you open the door and then everyone rolls for initiative, at which point you have your free interaction back. If you are in the middle of combat, its probably unlikely that you are going to be opening a door on the round you draw your weapon. Its probably better to have the warlock or mage open the door anyway at that point.
And in my games, never open a door in the middle of combat. There is probably an encounter on the other side and you are going to head into a TPK. (Unless opening the door is part of the encounter for some reason)
It's hard to keep up with some of these rapid fire threads, but I've posted the solution to your 6 attack sequence twice now -- perhaps that was in a different thread though, I'm not sure.
First, you get one weapon interaction for every Attack action attack, not just one for every Attack action. Plus, you get one free object interaction.
Second, a detail that many are missing which was pointed out by @bhthephoenix early on: You do NOT need to ever stow the greataxe -- you simply hold it in one hand while weapon swapping with the other hand. By doing this, only 4 interactions are required total in order to start with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands and ending with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands.
Sequence:
Greataxe (gain interaction 1)
Greataxe Cleave
Greataxe Horde Breaker
(Now, hold the Greataxe in one hand, freeing up the other hand)
Draw Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Scimitar (Extra Attack) (gain interaction 2)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 3)
Scimitar (Nick, part of Attack action) (gain interaction 3)
Scimitar (Dual Wielder Feat)
Stow Other Scimitar (use free object interaction)
----------
Hmm, I just realized that that won't quite work because there is too much time between gaining the first interaction and using it. Sure, it's "after" the attack, but that won't fly, I'm sure. The timing does work if we start out and end up holding the Greataxe and Scimitar and doing the Scimitar sequence first. That means you'd have to use the Scimitar for Opportunity Attacks but whatever . . .
Hold Greataxe and Scimitar
Scimitar attack (gain interaction 1)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Other Scimitar attack (Nick / same Attack action) (gain interaction 2)
Bonus Action Other Scimitar attack (Dual Wielder Feat)
[...] Jeremy Crawford has stated that the intention is the Dual Wielding feat allows you to make four attacks. So it would be an extra attack. I assume you could have two attacks as a bonus action if you didn't have nick? But I have no idea. [...]
Two bonus actions are not possible in any case, or am I missing something with the new rules?
Horde Breaker. Once on each of your turns when you make an attack with a weapon, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target, that is within the weapon’s range, and that you haven’t attacked this turn.
I also wonder if One Thing at a Time is intend to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not.
One Thing at a Time
The game uses actions to govern how much you can do at one time. You can take only one action at a time. This principle is most important in combat, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter.
Actions can come up in other situations, too: in a social interaction, you can try to Influence a creature or use the Search action to read the creature’s body language, but you can’t do both at the same time. And when you’re exploring a dungeon, you can’t simultaneously use the Search action to look for traps and use the Help action to aid another character who’s trying to open a stuck door (with the Utilize action).
[...] Jeremy Crawford has stated that the intention is the Dual Wielding feat allows you to make four attacks. So it would be an extra attack. I assume you could have two attacks as a bonus action if you didn't have nick? But I have no idea. [...]
Two bonus actions are not possible in any case, or am I missing something with the new rules?
As far as I know there can be only one bonus action. Its the wording that says you get an extra attack as a bonus action. So I think if you took dual wielder you would need Nick to take advantage of the three attacks, but I'm not sure it's intended to need something else for the feat to work.
My opinion is you probably do need Nick with dual wielder to get 3 attacks. My confusion lies in that you are using your bonus action to attack and it could be like the fighters extra attack. Since you have two extra attacks as a bonus action I think it's at least possible that you could take two attacks with one bonus action .
So no equip/unequip on attacks granted by Cleave or Hoard Breaker, which invalidate most of combos presented in this thread.
I posted a fixed sequence which you start with a Scimitar then go to greataxe, then go to a completely different Scimitar which avoids needing to equip/unequip for cleave/hoard breaker.
It's hard to keep up with some of these rapid fire threads, but I've posted the solution to your 6 attack sequence twice now -- perhaps that was in a different thread though, I'm not sure.
First, you get one weapon interaction for every Attack action attack, not just one for every Attack action. Plus, you get one free object interaction.
Second, a detail that many are missing which was pointed out by @bhthephoenix early on: You do NOT need to ever stow the greataxe -- you simply hold it in one hand while weapon swapping with the other hand. By doing this, only 4 interactions are required total in order to start with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands and ending with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands.
Sequence:
Greataxe (gain interaction 1)
Greataxe Cleave
Greataxe Horde Breaker
(Now, hold the Greataxe in one hand, freeing up the other hand)
Draw Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Scimitar (Extra Attack) (gain interaction 2)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 3)
Scimitar (Nick, part of Attack action) (gain interaction 3)
Scimitar (Dual Wielder Feat)
Stow Other Scimitar (use free object interaction)
----------
Hmm, I just realized that that won't quite work because there is too much time between gaining the first interaction and using it. Sure, it's "after" the attack, but that won't fly, I'm sure. The timing does work if we start out and end up holding the Greataxe and Scimitar and doing the Scimitar sequence first. That means you'd have to use the Scimitar for Opportunity Attacks but whatever . . .
Hold Greataxe and Scimitar
Scimitar attack (gain interaction 1)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Other Scimitar attack (Nick / same Attack action) (gain interaction 2)
Bonus Action Other Scimitar attack (Dual Wielder Feat)
Stow Other Scimitar (use interaction 3)
Greataxe (Extra Attack) (gain interaction 3)
Greataxe Cleave
Greataxe Horde Breaker
Draw Scimitar with Free Object Interaction
Assuming we have the Dual Wielder feat in all scenarios.
Interpretation 1: You get one free equip/unequip per attack (Plus your free object interaction) Interpretation 2: You get one free equip/unequip per Attack [Action] (Plus your free object interaction) - This is how I think it should work btw
This works for both interpretations 1 and 2 - Greataxe, Greataxe Cleave, Greataxe hordebreaker, Use your free object interaction to unequip the Greataxe, then use your free equip (two weapons) from Dual Wielder to equip both Scimitars, then Extra attack, Nick attack, and Attack [Bonus Action] - That's 6 attacks every other round.
Interpretation 3: You can use your free object interaction during your Attack [Action] to equip or unequip one weapon.
You don't have enough equip/unequips to pull this off if you follow interpretation 3. I personally think that Interpretation 1 is overkill, and interpretation 3 is too limiting.
Since the default free object interaction can already be used in that way, there would be absolutely no reason for the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule to even exist at all if it were somehow simply replacing the object interaction that you already have, for a total of one.
A perfectly plausible (imo, probable) reason for that text to exist is that the general object interaction rules leave a lot of important questions unanswered for how it relates to the Attack action; an action which is both extremely common and also arguably the most complex because it's the only action that's not atomic. Once Extra Attack gets involved, it can be broken up by bonus actions, reactions, movement, and other creatures' reactions to any of those (e.g. opportunity attacks).
When is the interaction allowed to happen? It's not obvious at all that you would be allowed to do it after the attack; if you only have one attack, or you're making your last attack, the action would be over.
If I use my object interaction to draw a weapon during the Attack action, do I then have to use it for the attack?
Am I allowed to pick weapons off the floor? Does dropping a weapon count as an interaction?
These are all perfectly sensible questions that will come up sooner or later, the general object interaction rules don't address, and are so specific to the Attack action that it wouldn't make sense to put elsewhere. The glossary is meant to be your cheat sheet. The more self-contained it is, the better. If you do have to cross-reference something (e.g. Unarmed Strikes), it should ideally be another glossary entry, not text in the middle of the book. That's why the rules chapters keep doing things like: "Here's a short summary of all the actions. If you want to learn more about one of them, look it up in the glossary."
Edit: Hmm the Dual Wielder feat seems to have some issues that could possibly be taken to allow for two separate additional attacks. There are big issues both with the concept and the language, I would be extremely surprised if this didn't get an errata (or at least an SAC/dragon talk) really soon as it seems to be some very poor writing/design.
I would bet good money the way Dual Wielder works is intentional.
For one thing, TWF needed a buff for Fighters. The more attacks you can do, the worse TWF gets compared to a two-handed weapon. (Rangers used to be an exception to this due to Hunter's Mark and limited Fighting Style choices, but now that they can pick any Fighting Style in the 2024 rules and use two-handed weapons with old subclass features like the Hunter's Horde Breaker, you could make the case they need a TWF buff too.)
For another, it would've been a way simpler to reuse the phrasing from Nick and say "When you make the extra attack of the Light property..." We've seen plenty of examples where they've streamlined the rules. They're practically jumping through hoops to make sure you can't confuse the feat's bonus action with the Light/Nick attack.
Finally, they also went out of their way to make the Two-Weapon Fighting Style wording more open-ended. "When you make an extra attack as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property..." is both broader and less straightforward than the Nick phrasing.
Edit: Hmm the Dual Wielder feat seems to have some issues that could possibly be taken to allow for two separate additional attacks. There are big issues both with the concept and the language, I would be extremely surprised if this didn't get an errata (or at least an SAC/dragon talk) really soon as it seems to be some very poor writing/design.
I would bet good money the way Dual Wielder works is intentional.
For one thing, TWF needed a buff for Fighters. The more attacks you can do, the worse TWF gets compared to a two-handed weapon. (Rangers used to be an exception to this due to Hunter's Mark and limited Fighting Style choices, but now that they can pick any Fighting Style in the 2024 rules and use two-handed weapons with old subclass features like the Hunter's Horde Breaker, you could make the case they need a TWF buff too.)
For another, it would've been a way simpler to reuse the phrasing from Nick and say "When you make the extra attack of the Light property..." We've seen plenty of examples where they've streamlined the rules. They're practically jumping through hoops to make sure you can't confuse the feat's bonus action with the Light/Nick attack.
Finally, they also went out of their way to make the Two-Weapon Fighting Style wording more open-ended. "When you make an extra attack as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property..." is both broader and less straightforward than the Nick phrasing.
Honest question, guys. How do you come to that conclusion? I mean, this sentence from @Thezzaruz: "the Dual Wielder feat seems to have some issues that could possibly be taken to allow for two separate additional attacks".
Removing Extra Attack from the equation. if you're just wielding two light weapons, with Nick Mastery and Dual Wielder feat, isn't 3 the maximum number of attacks, one of which is a Bonus Action attack?
I may have misunderstood what Thezzaruz meant by "two separate additional attacks." My interpretation is that you can use both the Nick property and the Dual Wielder feat for two additional attacks (1 of which uses your bonus action), so yes, 3 would be the max you'd normally achieve without Extra Attack.
I may have misunderstood what Thezzaruz meant by "two separate additional attacks." My interpretation is that you can use both the Nick property and the Dual Wielder feat for two additional attacks (1 of which uses your bonus action), so yes, 3 would be the max you'd normally achieve without Extra Attack.
Okay, thanks!
I'm going crazy with so many combinations 🤣
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some people have claimed that cleave does not actually occur within the attack action and therefore you couldn't equip/unequip a weapon during that attack. I have altered my 6 attacks to remove the issue with cleave so that it doesn't matter which position on cleave you take. But I think nsidaria was meaning attack on the attack action than just an attack.
That is correct. Cleave provides an attack but it occurs on its own, not as a part of whatever action the triggering attack came from (which IMO is poor design but other disagree).
I see what you're trying to do here, but why not start Great Axe, attack 1, Cleave, Horde Breaker, then stow the Great Axe, Pull out both Scimitars, and attack 2, Nick attack, and BA attack?
If you start Scimitar A, stow it, equip Great Axe, stow it, and equip Scimitar B, you're doing 4 separate object interactions, and depending your GM's interpretation of the original question on this thread, you might not be able to do that at some tables.
Hmm. Let's see:
Agreed. The Thrown property is a case of a specific rule superseding the general, because the Thrown property clearly specifies that you can draw a weapon as part of each Thrown attack. If you can make multiple attacks in a turn, you can draw and throw a weapon with each one. Even if you've already used your free object interaction, you would still be able to draw and Throw weapons
Hmm. Let's see:
This is what I'm talking about, with you making an assumption. There's actually nothing in there that necessarily grants you additional object interactions the way the Thrown property does, even if you can make multiple attacks. It specifies that you can equip/unequip ONE weapon as part of this Attack action. That's then your ONE free interaction -- the rule is simply telling you when you make it (either before or after an attack made as part of the Attack action)
Let me ask you this, since I don't think it's come up yet. If you can equip/unequip a weapon with every attack you make, why is the "you don't need you use it for that attack" line even in there? Why would you equip a weapon and not use it for your current attack, if you can just equip it later when you are ready to attack with it instead?
EDIT: Even if you believe the Attack action is granting you one extra object interaction -- which is a plausible interpretation, I will admit -- it's still not one per attack, but one per Attack action
You could open the door, unsling your bow and shoot it multiple times. You couldn't open the door and juggle three different light weapons while making multiple attacks with them
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)
So some people have taken issue with equipping/unequipping a weapon as part of the cleave action. You may be able to get around it, but I figured it was best just to alter the order and remove any issues with whether or not Cleave happens on the attack action or in its own little bubble. Presumably if cleave happens in its own bubble horde breaker would as well. If someone objects to the 4 seperate object interactions I don't think there is a way to do all 6 attacks. You could still do 5 regardless You would just have to do them with Scimitars. This depends on how you take cleave. The entire sequence just seems silly to me, and I don't think it is something I would actually do in game. Five attacks at level 5 is already going to probably drive a DM crazy. and Especially the poor spellcasters who just get to take one attack/action per turn.
It's nice to see someone trying to take this even farther in the other direction, suggesting that the free equip/unequip that you get when you make an attack as part of the Attack [Action] also somehow uses up your free once-per-turn object interaction. I disagree with this notion, but it's interesting to see how many different ways someone can interpret the same wording.
Regarding your last question, you might want to equip a weapon and attack with it later so you can stow your first weapon when you make your second attack. Maybe to optimize your masteries? I don't really think it would come up often.
I think he would be correct. If the free object interaction is what is supposed to happen during the equip/unequip step, then it should use up your free object interaction. There is almost never a case where this would matter. In the situation someone mentioned where you open a door and then draw your weapon to attack the correct order of events should be that you open the door and then everyone rolls for initiative, at which point you have your free interaction back. If you are in the middle of combat, its probably unlikely that you are going to be opening a door on the round you draw your weapon. Its probably better to have the warlock or mage open the door anyway at that point.
And in my games, never open a door in the middle of combat. There is probably an encounter on the other side and you are going to head into a TPK. (Unless opening the door is part of the encounter for some reason)
It's hard to keep up with some of these rapid fire threads, but I've posted the solution to your 6 attack sequence twice now -- perhaps that was in a different thread though, I'm not sure.
First, you get one weapon interaction for every Attack action attack, not just one for every Attack action. Plus, you get one free object interaction.
Second, a detail that many are missing which was pointed out by @bhthephoenix early on: You do NOT need to ever stow the greataxe -- you simply hold it in one hand while weapon swapping with the other hand. By doing this, only 4 interactions are required total in order to start with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands and ending with wielding the greataxe in 2 hands.
Sequence:
Greataxe (gain interaction 1)
Greataxe Cleave
Greataxe Horde Breaker
(Now, hold the Greataxe in one hand, freeing up the other hand)
Draw Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Scimitar (Extra Attack) (gain interaction 2)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 3)
Scimitar (Nick, part of Attack action) (gain interaction 3)
Scimitar (Dual Wielder Feat)
Stow Other Scimitar (use free object interaction)
----------
Hmm, I just realized that that won't quite work because there is too much time between gaining the first interaction and using it. Sure, it's "after" the attack, but that won't fly, I'm sure. The timing does work if we start out and end up holding the Greataxe and Scimitar and doing the Scimitar sequence first. That means you'd have to use the Scimitar for Opportunity Attacks but whatever . . .
Hold Greataxe and Scimitar
Scimitar attack (gain interaction 1)
Stow Scimitar (use interaction 1)
Draw Other Scimitar (use interaction 2)
Other Scimitar attack (Nick / same Attack action) (gain interaction 2)
Bonus Action Other Scimitar attack (Dual Wielder Feat)
Stow Other Scimitar (use interaction 3)
Greataxe (Extra Attack) (gain interaction 3)
Greataxe Cleave
Greataxe Horde Breaker
Draw Scimitar with Free Object Interaction
Two bonus actions are not possible in any case, or am I missing something with the new rules?
If i'm not mistaken we have no indication that a Bonus Action can be taken during an Attack action like in 2014.
What's Hoard Breaker wording exactly? I don't have PHB with me. Because equip/unequip on it's attack is possible only if part of the Attack action.
Let me put here the description for you:
Thanks @tarodnet!
So no equip/unequip on attacks granted by Cleave or Hoard Breaker, which invalidate most of combos presented in this thread.
I also wonder if One Thing at a Time is intend to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not.
As far as I know there can be only one bonus action. Its the wording that says you get an extra attack as a bonus action. So I think if you took dual wielder you would need Nick to take advantage of the three attacks, but I'm not sure it's intended to need something else for the feat to work.
My opinion is you probably do need Nick with dual wielder to get 3 attacks. My confusion lies in that you are using your bonus action to attack and it could be like the fighters extra attack. Since you have two extra attacks as a bonus action I think it's at least possible that you could take two attacks with one bonus action .
I posted a fixed sequence which you start with a Scimitar then go to greataxe, then go to a completely different Scimitar which avoids needing to equip/unequip for cleave/hoard breaker.
Assuming we have the Dual Wielder feat in all scenarios.
Interpretation 1: You get one free equip/unequip per attack (Plus your free object interaction)
Interpretation 2: You get one free equip/unequip per Attack [Action] (Plus your free object interaction) - This is how I think it should work btw
This works for both interpretations 1 and 2 - Greataxe, Greataxe Cleave, Greataxe hordebreaker, Use your free object interaction to unequip the Greataxe, then use your free equip (two weapons) from Dual Wielder to equip both Scimitars, then Extra attack, Nick attack, and Attack [Bonus Action] - That's 6 attacks every other round.
Interpretation 3: You can use your free object interaction during your Attack [Action] to equip or unequip one weapon.
You don't have enough equip/unequips to pull this off if you follow interpretation 3. I personally think that Interpretation 1 is overkill, and interpretation 3 is too limiting.
A perfectly plausible (imo, probable) reason for that text to exist is that the general object interaction rules leave a lot of important questions unanswered for how it relates to the Attack action; an action which is both extremely common and also arguably the most complex because it's the only action that's not atomic. Once Extra Attack gets involved, it can be broken up by bonus actions, reactions, movement, and other creatures' reactions to any of those (e.g. opportunity attacks).
These are all perfectly sensible questions that will come up sooner or later, the general object interaction rules don't address, and are so specific to the Attack action that it wouldn't make sense to put elsewhere. The glossary is meant to be your cheat sheet. The more self-contained it is, the better. If you do have to cross-reference something (e.g. Unarmed Strikes), it should ideally be another glossary entry, not text in the middle of the book. That's why the rules chapters keep doing things like: "Here's a short summary of all the actions. If you want to learn more about one of them, look it up in the glossary."
I would bet good money the way Dual Wielder works is intentional.
For one thing, TWF needed a buff for Fighters. The more attacks you can do, the worse TWF gets compared to a two-handed weapon. (Rangers used to be an exception to this due to Hunter's Mark and limited Fighting Style choices, but now that they can pick any Fighting Style in the 2024 rules and use two-handed weapons with old subclass features like the Hunter's Horde Breaker, you could make the case they need a TWF buff too.)
For another, it would've been a way simpler to reuse the phrasing from Nick and say "When you make the extra attack of the Light property..." We've seen plenty of examples where they've streamlined the rules. They're practically jumping through hoops to make sure you can't confuse the feat's bonus action with the Light/Nick attack.
Finally, they also went out of their way to make the Two-Weapon Fighting Style wording more open-ended. "When you make an extra attack as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property..." is both broader and less straightforward than the Nick phrasing.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Honest question, guys. How do you come to that conclusion? I mean, this sentence from @Thezzaruz: "the Dual Wielder feat seems to have some issues that could possibly be taken to allow for two separate additional attacks".
Removing Extra Attack from the equation. if you're just wielding two light weapons, with Nick Mastery and Dual Wielder feat, isn't 3 the maximum number of attacks, one of which is a Bonus Action attack?
I may have misunderstood what Thezzaruz meant by "two separate additional attacks." My interpretation is that you can use both the Nick property and the Dual Wielder feat for two additional attacks (1 of which uses your bonus action), so yes, 3 would be the max you'd normally achieve without Extra Attack.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Okay, thanks!
I'm going crazy with so many combinations 🤣