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?
If you are looking at a 4th level PC who only has two weapons with the Nick property and the dual wielder feat than 3 attacks is the most possible.
Notes: (Remember to check your post and remove duplicated quotes / copy pastes)
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)
So, if it said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon each time you make an attack as part of this action.", which I hope you would agree allows it, it now would allow the object interactions above and beyond the free one?
That makes no sense. If the Attack action says you can take any interaction, then that is either beyond your free interaction or it isn't. It doesn't depend on how many interactions it grants.
This is the heart of the specific-beats-general rule. If something says you can do a thing, it is specific permission to do that thing. It's not just a reminder of the general rule. If you're trying to carefully parse specific wordings to decide whether it's really granting an exception, you're in for a bad time.
In fact, in an exception-based game design, which D&D is, you cannot just put a reminder there without a clear indicator that it is a reminder, because it creates rules by being there.
Would it be great if D&D was better templated? Sure. It's not, and that's not gonna change any time soon.
But even if it were well-templated, this wording would be 100% fine, and might in fact be unchanged.
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?
There are many possible reasons:
It's only attacks that are part of the Attack action. Since there are attacks that aren't part of it, they don't give you that right. If you have Dual Wielding, and only have your dagger drawn, you need to draw your rapier as part of the Attack action.
Stupid weapon juggling tricks can require it. You may not like that they did it, but they chose to make it easier.
The weapon you draw may provide some side ability that you want. Maybe you're attacking a Remorhaz and your secondary weapon gives you fire resistance.
You need to stow the weapon afterwards to do something that requires a free hand.
Showing off to the sentient weapon you're feuding with. You're a monk and want to lead off with a kick for style reasons. It honestly doesn't matter. Once they decided to allow multiple weapon interactions, there's no good reason not to.
And really, if it's just your free object interaction, the question is far more relevant. I would argue that if it were just your free interaction, not only should that statement not be there, but there needs to be an explicit statement that you can't draw or stow weapons as part of the Attack action, because otherwise people will ask the question.
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
OK, some questions about this part:
1: Do you think that "when you make an attack..." is functionally different from "whenever" or "each time"? Semantically, they're identical here in English.
2: Would you interpret it differently if it said "when you make an attack as part of this action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon"?
"When you do X, you can do Y" is an entirely normal way of writing this sort of thing, across a wide variety of games. The actual "you can do Y when you do X" does not change the meaning, it's just less clear because it puts the condition after the trigger.
3: Imagine for a moment the world where the folks who wrote 5e wrote it identically, except they named the game action you do when you take the Attack action "strike" instead of "attack". Is "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make a strike as part of this action." any different?
So, if it said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon each time you make an attack as part of this action.", which I hope you would agree allows it, it now would allow the object interactions above and beyond the free one?
Yes, if it were worded differently, it would be interpreted differently
Hypotheticals like that are absolutely pointless in a RAW discussion, though. The thing says what it says, not what you wish it said
That makes no sense. If the Attack action says you can take any interaction, then that is either beyond your free interaction or it isn't. It doesn't depend on how many interactions it grants.
It does though. If it says each or every, then even if you've already taken your free interaction, the rule would let you do more
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)
[...] 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 .
Unless things have changed a lot .. you only get ONE bonus action.
The Light property gives you an attack as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat gives you an attack as a bonus action with a weapon that does not have the light property.
So the dual wielder feat lets you attack with a dagger and make a bonus attack with a rapier or longsword for example.
I don't think you get two bonus action attacks from both the Light property and the dual wielder feat because you only have one bonus action and both of these features require the bonus action.
The difficulty lies with the Nick weapon property:
"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."
"Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
"Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
Nick allows you to move the bonus action attack provided by the Light property into the Attack action. Since it says "instead of as a bonus action", the nick property frees up the bonus action usage.
Then you get enhanced dual wielding from the feat which lets you make an attack as a bonus action LATER in the turn with a different weapon but the only constraint on that weapon is that it not have the Two-Handed property. This means that a character with the dual wielder feat could attack with a long sword and a short sword then use the attack with the short sword to trigger a bonus action attack with the long sword.
The problem is that combining Nick and Dual Wielder allows for a character dual wielding two light weapons with extra attack to make 3 attacks as part of the attack action plus an additional attack as a bonus action due to the dual wielder feat - allowing for 4 weapon attacks at level 5. Perhaps more when leveraging class features like horde breaker or weapon properties like cleave.
Unfortunately, this will require some errata to resolve and to perhaps clarify the intent.
Getting an additional attack as a bonus action already happens as part of the polearm master feat. In this case it is a d4+stat damage.
For the cost of a feat, the intent could be to get an additional bonus action attack from the Dual Wielder feat as well. In this case it is just weapon damage which is typically d4 (d6 in the case of a scimitar) and so comparable to the polearm attack. In addition, even when combined with nick property for another attack as part of the attack action this is only 2d6 (7) extra damage (since neither comes with a stat bonus by default) which is comparable to the damage of the polearm master attack for a character with 18-20 strength (6.5 to 7.5).
So no, the combination of nick with an extra attack from the dual wielder feat isn't overpowered compared to polearm master at its base level.
However, the "problem" arises in that the more attacks a character has, the more ways there are to stack damage effects. The Two-weapon fighting feat in this case will add the stat bonus to both of the d6 attacks. Hunter's mark or another damage multiplier will also stack on every attack so that the extra attack from the dual wielder property and the effective extra attack by using the nick property then scale.
Is this issue prevented by limiting the weapon swapping to one/attack action? Not entirely.
A character could still dual wield 2 scimitars and have 4 attacks at level 5. 3 attacks at level 4. Limiting weapon swapping would remove cases involving heavier weapons. For example, a character could not wield a long sword and a scimitar and then still get 4 attacks since with only one swap it is impossible to replace the long sword with another held weapon (dropping is now a weapon interaction - unless they get both a weapon swap and can swap a weapon as a general object interaction). (the light property requires an attack by a different held weapon - meaning that you need to either be wielding 2 light weapons to start with or you need to put a weapon away and draw a different light weapon that requires at least 2 weapon swaps).
Anyway, the interaction appears to have made dual wielding one of the more powerful options in revised 5e. A rogue with the dual wielder feat could make 3 attacks with light+nick weapons giving 3 chances to land a sneak attack.
P.S. Just including the bonus action rules which haven't changed - you have only one bonus action and you can take it whenever you like unless its timing is specified.
"You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
P.P.S. The one thing at a time rule is ambiguous since it uses the word "action" but all the examples are "Actions" and not bonus actions. Also, bonus action states that you can choose when to take it. So the new rules don't resolve whether you can take a bonus action between attacks of an Attack Action if you have the Extra Attack feature - or between multiple attacks due to the Nick weapon property.
[...] 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 .
Unless things have changed a lot .. you only get ONE bonus action.
The Light property gives you an attack as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat gives you an attack as a bonus action with a weapon that does not have the light property.
So the dual wielder feat lets you attack with a dagger and make a bonus attack with a rapier or longsword for example.
I don't think you get two bonus action attacks from both the Light property and the dual wielder feat because you only have one bonus action and both of these features require the bonus action.
The difficulty lies with the Nick weapon property:
"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."
"Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
"Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
Nick allows you to move the bonus action attack provided by the Light property into the Attack action. Since it says "instead of as a bonus action", the nick property frees up the bonus action usage.
Then you get enhanced dual wielding from the feat which lets you make an attack as a bonus action LATER in the turn with a different weapon but the only constraint on that weapon is that it not have the Two-Handed property. This means that a character with the dual wielder feat could attack with a long sword and a short sword then use the attack with the short sword to trigger a bonus action attack with the long sword.
The problem is that combining Nick and Dual Wielder allows for a character dual wielding two light weapons with extra attack to make 3 attacks as part of the attack action plus an additional attack as a bonus action due to the dual wielder feat - allowing for 4 weapon attacks at level 5. Perhaps more when leveraging class features like horde breaker or weapon properties like cleave.
Unfortunately, this will require some errata to resolve and to perhaps clarify the intent.
Getting an additional attack as a bonus action already happens as part of the polearm master feat. In this case it is a d4+stat damage.
For the cost of a feat, the intent could be to get an additional bonus action attack from the Dual Wielder feat as well. In this case it is just weapon damage which is typically d4 (d6 in the case of a scimitar) and so comparable to the polearm attack. In addition, even when combined with nick property for another attack as part of the attack action this is only 2d6 (7) extra damage (since neither comes with a stat bonus by default) which is comparable to the damage of the polearm master attack for a character with 18-20 strength (6.5 to 7.5).
So no, the combination of nick with an extra attack from the dual wielder feat isn't overpowered compared to polearm master at its base level.
However, the "problem" arises in that the more attacks a character has, the more ways there are to stack damage effects. The Two-weapon fighting feat in this case will add the stat bonus to both of the d6 attacks. Hunter's mark or another damage multiplier will also stack on every attack so that the extra attack from the dual wielder property and the effective extra attack by using the nick property then scale.
Is this issue prevented by limiting the weapon swapping to one/attack action? Not entirely.
A character could still dual wield 2 scimitars and have 4 attacks at level 5. 3 attacks at level 4. Limiting weapon swapping would remove cases involving heavier weapons. For example, a character could not wield a long sword and a scimitar and then still get 4 attacks since with only one swap it is impossible to replace the long sword with another held weapon (dropping is now a weapon interaction - unless they get both a weapon swap and can swap a weapon as a general object interaction). (the light property requires an attack by a different held weapon - meaning that you need to either be wielding 2 light weapons to start with or you need to put a weapon away and draw a different light weapon that requires at least 2 weapon swaps).
Anyway, the interaction appears to have made dual wielding one of the more powerful options in revised 5e. A rogue with the dual wielder feat could make 3 attacks with light+nick weapons giving 3 chances to land a sneak attack.
The key is both the light weapon and dual wielder specify that you get 'an extra attack'. There is nothing that prevents two attacks as part of the same bonus action, just as there is nothing preventing multiple attacks with the same attack action.
So, if it said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon each time you make an attack as part of this action.", which I hope you would agree allows it, it now would allow the object interactions above and beyond the free one?
Yes, if it were worded differently, it would be interpreted differently
Hypotheticals like that are absolutely pointless in a RAW discussion, though. The thing says what it says, not what you wish it said
I find them incredibly useful for drilling down into the other person in the dialogue's underlying assumptions and abstractions. (And also my own.)
That makes no sense. If the Attack action says you can take any interaction, then that is either beyond your free interaction or it isn't. It doesn't depend on how many interactions it grants.
It does though. If it says each or every, then even if you've already taken your free interaction, the rule would let you do more
The rule doesn't say that, though
That would appear to be arguable.
As far as I can tell, you believe that:
"you can do Y when you do X" and "you can do Y each time you do X" are mechanically different, even though they mean the same thing in English, and 5e has not established either of them as a term of art, and is deliberately not written at the level of precision that would enable that sort of thing. 5e24 may be more rigorous in this regard, but it's still not there. (And establishing differences in specific wording as mechanically significant when the text was not written for it does not go well.)
Because the Attack action only allows one object interaction, that clause is entirely a reference to the free object interaction, and does not create a second interaction.
I do not believe either of those are supportable from the text, particularly the second one.
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 .
Unless things have changed a lot .. you only get ONE bonus action.
The Light property gives you an attack as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat gives you an attack as a bonus action with a weapon that does not have the light property.
So the dual wielder feat lets you attack with a dagger and make a bonus attack with a rapier or longsword for example.
I don't think you get two bonus action attacks from both the Light property and the dual wielder feat because you only have one bonus action and both of these features require the bonus action.
The difficulty lies with the Nick weapon property:
"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."
"Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
"Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
Nick allows you to move the bonus action attack provided by the Light property into the Attack action. Since it says "instead of as a bonus action", the nick property frees up the bonus action usage.
Then you get enhanced dual wielding from the feat which lets you make an attack as a bonus action LATER in the turn with a different weapon but the only constraint on that weapon is that it not have the Two-Handed property. This means that a character with the dual wielder feat could attack with a long sword and a short sword then use the attack with the short sword to trigger a bonus action attack with the long sword.
You're correct on this.
The problem is that combining Nick and Dual Wielder allows for a character dual wielding two light weapons with extra attack to make 3 attacks as part of the attack action plus an additional attack as a bonus action due to the dual wielder feat - allowing for 4 weapon attacks at level 5. Perhaps more when leveraging class features like horde breaker or weapon properties like cleave.
I'm unconvinced it's a problem, mostly because, unless you're using yet another feature, you get only the base damage die on most of those attacks.
And yes, if you go all-out to maximize your attacks, it appears it can get rather silly. But those are stunt builds. They're no more a problem in ordinary play than all the 2014 sharpshooter-crossbow master/polearm master-sentinel/whatever builds were. The weapon swapping mechanics are there to reduce the friction on normal play, where you're more likely to see things like "I draw my sword and stab him, then draw my other sword and stab him again. He's dead? Great! I drop the sword and throw my dagger at the wizard!"
There does appear to be a deliberate attempt to improve dual-weapon fighting builds, which tended to fall behind others in the 2014 rules. I think they went about it in a rather fussy and non-obvious manner, but they were probably forced to do so by the need for back compatibility.
P.S. Just including the bonus action rules which haven't changed - you have only one bonus action and you can take it whenever you like unless its timing is specified.
"You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
P.P.S. The one thing at a time rule is ambiguous since it uses the word "action" but all the examples are "Actions" and not bonus actions. Also, bonus action states that you can choose when to take it. So the new rules don't resolve whether you can take a bonus action between attacks of an Attack Action if you have the Extra Attack feature - or between multiple attacks due to the Nick weapon property.
The key is both the light weapon and dual wielder specify that you get 'an extra attack'. There is nothing that prevents two attacks as part of the same bonus action, just as there is nothing preventing multiple attacks with the same attack action.
Each feature gives you a bonus action that you can use. Nothing in the rules allows you to combine two bonus actions, even if they're the same thing.
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."
"Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
"Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
The key is both the light weapon and dual wielder specify that you get 'an extra attack'. There is nothing that prevents two attacks as part of the same bonus action, just as there is nothing preventing multiple attacks with the same attack action.
I'd have to disagree with that statement.
Light property: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn"
Dual Wielder: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn "
Both of these have identical wording and BOTH give you an extra attack as a Bonus Action. There is nothing in the rules that say that if you get a bonus action to do one thing you can also do something granted by a different bonus action at the same time.
These give both give you an option for ONE extra attack as a bonus action.
"You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available."
When you have more than one bonus action available, you have to choose which you want to use. Both of these features are worded as using your bonus action so RAW there is no way that either can be combined with the other to give you two attacks as a bonus action.
The only way they are stacking in the current discussion is that the Nick property allows you to take the Bonus Action provided by the Light property and move it to the Attack Action INSTEAD of the bonus action. This frees up the bonus action for use by another feature like the attack provided by the dual wielder feat.
This is a fundamental rule on how bonus actions work. You can't combine two bonus actions to get two attacks as a one bonus action.
[...] P.P.S. The one thing at a time rule is ambiguous since it uses the word "action" but all the examples are "Actions" and not bonus actions. Also, bonus action states that you can choose when to take it. So the new rules don't resolve whether you can take a bonus action between attacks of an Attack Action if you have the Extra Attack feature - or between multiple attacks due to the Nick weapon property.
Reading this text from you, I remembered also this from @Plaguescarred:
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.
But that happens within the rules for fighters as they can change their weapon masteries. Level 9 tactical mastery lets you use different weapon masteries. If you could easily switch to a weapon with those masteries the level 9 feature would be almost pointless. (I think you are still limited by having only two masteries, and tactical mastery lets you supercede that limitation.
"...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."
"An attack" not "THE attack" twice. Only using "the attack" when setting a specific per use ruling
Seems that it's per attack and they have worded it with that in mind.
"...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."
"An attack" not "THE attack" twice. Only using "the attack" when setting a specific per use ruling
Seems that it's per attack and they have worded it with that in mind.
I'm still not sold that the intention was to make longswords pointless. There is no reason that ever melee character shouldn't use scrimitar/greataxe to get 5 attacks per round. Of course if you are going for damage there is almost no reason to go fighter and instead go ranger, either gloomstalker or hunter. A fighter even with action surge is going to do less damage.
"...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."
"An attack" not "THE attack" twice. Only using "the attack" when setting a specific per use ruling
Seems that it's per attack and they have worded it with that in mind.
I'm still not sold that the intention was to make longswords pointless. There is no reason that ever melee character shouldn't use scrimitar/greataxe to get 5 attacks per round.
And yet, I expect that very few players will do this. Longsword and shield will remain popular.
Of course if you are going for damage there is almost no reason to go fighter and instead go ranger, either gloomstalker or hunter. A fighter even with action surge is going to do less damage.
Most people don't build their characters for raw damage output. It's as simple as that. Maybe the dedicated optimizers will never use longswords again. (Were they using them before? I didn't think so, but I admit to not paying attention.)
We'll see more two-weapon fighters using light, nick, and dual-wield to get a base of three attacks per round. Most of them will do it by holding a light weapon in each hand.
Also, all of the super-attack combos I recall seeing are reliant on cleave/whatever that ranger feature is, and drop off considerably if you have to go one-on-one with an enemy.
"...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."
"An attack" not "THE attack" twice. Only using "the attack" when setting a specific per use ruling
Seems that it's per attack and they have worded it with that in mind.
I'm still not sold that the intention was to make longswords pointless. There is no reason that ever melee character shouldn't use scrimitar/greataxe to get 5 attacks per round.
And yet, I expect that very few players will do this. Longsword and shield will remain popular.
Of course if you are going for damage there is almost no reason to go fighter and instead go ranger, either gloomstalker or hunter. A fighter even with action surge is going to do less damage.
Most people don't build their characters for raw damage output. It's as simple as that. Maybe the dedicated optimizers will never use longswords again. (Were they using them before? I didn't think so, but I admit to not paying attention.)
We'll see more two-weapon fighters using light, nick, and dual-wield to get a base of three attacks per round. Most of them will do it by holding a light weapon in each hand.
Also, all of the super-attack combos I recall seeing are reliant on cleave/whatever that ranger feature is, and drop off considerably if you have to go one-on-one with an enemy.
Yeah if I was actually doing this id probably go gloomstalker rather than hunter for increased damage over another attack. I'm still not sure if cleave is better than topple. Just having topple might be better.
@tarodnet What David42 refers to is what i said in post 94, which was not so much regarding multiple attacks per action (i think you can whenever something allows you) but wonder if One Thing at a Time is intended to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not. Meaning if you're making multiple attacks as part of the Attack action, you may not take a Bonus action until after it.
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).
@tarodnet What David42 refers to is what i said in post 94, which was not so much regarding multiple attacks per action (i think you can whenever something allows you) but wonder if One Thing at a Time is intended to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not. Meaning if you're making multiple attacks as part of the Attack action, you may not take a Bonus action until after it.
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).
From my understanding if does. You can't take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action.
I understand most people don't build their characters for damage... But we haven't really made it to actually building a character.
Fighter with longsword is going to do about 20 damage per turn. Maybe 30 depending on fighter build which will be somewhat limited.
Meanwhile my ranger is doing 70+ damage every round. Maybe more if someone tried to optimize it. Also I'm doing more attacks than the ranger with action surge. Fighter is going to feel useless and weak all game.
Downside is even without the weapon swapping a fighter with a longsword isn't going to be anywhere near the damage output of a hunter or gloomstalker.
@tarodnet What David42 refers to is what i said in post 94, which was not so much regarding multiple attacks per action (i think you can whenever something allows you) but wonder if One Thing at a Time is intended to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not. Meaning if you're making multiple attacks as part of the Attack action, you may not take a Bonus action until after it.
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).
Oh, ok, got it! Thanks!
For now, I believe Bonus Actions can be taken at any time unless the timing is specified (like in 2014), but yes, I also believe the aim of the quoted rule (possibly?) is to prevent, for example, inserting Bonus Actions between attacks in a single action.
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.
A good example of timing is the difference between Flurry of Blows 2014 and 2024
2014: Flurry of Blows. Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.
2024: Flurry of Blows. You can expend 1 Focus Point to make two Unarmed Strikes as a Bonus Action.
This next chain of tweets from the Dev are related to the 2014 rules, but it's possible that these kinds of doubts were considered for the new rules. I won’t copy the entire conversation here because it’s long, but it might be useful for context.
Yep, I think that I've changed my mind on this because of that statement which reads: "Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action." Since there is a rule that "deprives you" (sort of) of your ability to take an action in the middle of another action, then in 2024 you probably should not be able to take a Bonus Action in the middle of another action either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you are looking at a 4th level PC who only has two weapons with the Nick property and the dual wielder feat than 3 attacks is the most possible.
So, if it said "You can either equip or unequip one weapon each time you make an attack as part of this action.", which I hope you would agree allows it, it now would allow the object interactions above and beyond the free one?
That makes no sense. If the Attack action says you can take any interaction, then that is either beyond your free interaction or it isn't. It doesn't depend on how many interactions it grants.
This is the heart of the specific-beats-general rule. If something says you can do a thing, it is specific permission to do that thing. It's not just a reminder of the general rule. If you're trying to carefully parse specific wordings to decide whether it's really granting an exception, you're in for a bad time.
In fact, in an exception-based game design, which D&D is, you cannot just put a reminder there without a clear indicator that it is a reminder, because it creates rules by being there.
Would it be great if D&D was better templated? Sure. It's not, and that's not gonna change any time soon.
But even if it were well-templated, this wording would be 100% fine, and might in fact be unchanged.
There are many possible reasons:
It's only attacks that are part of the Attack action. Since there are attacks that aren't part of it, they don't give you that right. If you have Dual Wielding, and only have your dagger drawn, you need to draw your rapier as part of the Attack action.
Stupid weapon juggling tricks can require it. You may not like that they did it, but they chose to make it easier.
The weapon you draw may provide some side ability that you want. Maybe you're attacking a Remorhaz and your secondary weapon gives you fire resistance.
You need to stow the weapon afterwards to do something that requires a free hand.
Showing off to the sentient weapon you're feuding with. You're a monk and want to lead off with a kick for style reasons. It honestly doesn't matter. Once they decided to allow multiple weapon interactions, there's no good reason not to.
And really, if it's just your free object interaction, the question is far more relevant. I would argue that if it were just your free interaction, not only should that statement not be there, but there needs to be an explicit statement that you can't draw or stow weapons as part of the Attack action, because otherwise people will ask the question.
OK, some questions about this part:
1: Do you think that "when you make an attack..." is functionally different from "whenever" or "each time"? Semantically, they're identical here in English.
2: Would you interpret it differently if it said "when you make an attack as part of this action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon"?
"When you do X, you can do Y" is an entirely normal way of writing this sort of thing, across a wide variety of games. The actual "you can do Y when you do X" does not change the meaning, it's just less clear because it puts the condition after the trigger.
3: Imagine for a moment the world where the folks who wrote 5e wrote it identically, except they named the game action you do when you take the Attack action "strike" instead of "attack". Is "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make a strike as part of this action." any different?
Yes, if it were worded differently, it would be interpreted differently
Hypotheticals like that are absolutely pointless in a RAW discussion, though. The thing says what it says, not what you wish it said
It does though. If it says each or every, then even if you've already taken your free interaction, the rule would let you do more
The rule doesn't say that, though
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)
Unless things have changed a lot .. you only get ONE bonus action.
The Light property gives you an attack as a bonus action.
The dual wielder feat gives you an attack as a bonus action with a weapon that does not have the light property.
So the dual wielder feat lets you attack with a dagger and make a bonus attack with a rapier or longsword for example.
I don't think you get two bonus action attacks from both the Light property and the dual wielder feat because you only have one bonus action and both of these features require the bonus action.
The difficulty lies with the Nick weapon property:
"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."
"Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
"Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative."
Nick allows you to move the bonus action attack provided by the Light property into the Attack action. Since it says "instead of as a bonus action", the nick property frees up the bonus action usage.
Then you get enhanced dual wielding from the feat which lets you make an attack as a bonus action LATER in the turn with a different weapon but the only constraint on that weapon is that it not have the Two-Handed property. This means that a character with the dual wielder feat could attack with a long sword and a short sword then use the attack with the short sword to trigger a bonus action attack with the long sword.
The problem is that combining Nick and Dual Wielder allows for a character dual wielding two light weapons with extra attack to make 3 attacks as part of the attack action plus an additional attack as a bonus action due to the dual wielder feat - allowing for 4 weapon attacks at level 5. Perhaps more when leveraging class features like horde breaker or weapon properties like cleave.
Unfortunately, this will require some errata to resolve and to perhaps clarify the intent.
Getting an additional attack as a bonus action already happens as part of the polearm master feat. In this case it is a d4+stat damage.
For the cost of a feat, the intent could be to get an additional bonus action attack from the Dual Wielder feat as well. In this case it is just weapon damage which is typically d4 (d6 in the case of a scimitar) and so comparable to the polearm attack. In addition, even when combined with nick property for another attack as part of the attack action this is only 2d6 (7) extra damage (since neither comes with a stat bonus by default) which is comparable to the damage of the polearm master attack for a character with 18-20 strength (6.5 to 7.5).
So no, the combination of nick with an extra attack from the dual wielder feat isn't overpowered compared to polearm master at its base level.
However, the "problem" arises in that the more attacks a character has, the more ways there are to stack damage effects. The Two-weapon fighting feat in this case will add the stat bonus to both of the d6 attacks. Hunter's mark or another damage multiplier will also stack on every attack so that the extra attack from the dual wielder property and the effective extra attack by using the nick property then scale.
Is this issue prevented by limiting the weapon swapping to one/attack action? Not entirely.
A character could still dual wield 2 scimitars and have 4 attacks at level 5. 3 attacks at level 4. Limiting weapon swapping would remove cases involving heavier weapons. For example, a character could not wield a long sword and a scimitar and then still get 4 attacks since with only one swap it is impossible to replace the long sword with another held weapon (dropping is now a weapon interaction - unless they get both a weapon swap and can swap a weapon as a general object interaction). (the light property requires an attack by a different held weapon - meaning that you need to either be wielding 2 light weapons to start with or you need to put a weapon away and draw a different light weapon that requires at least 2 weapon swaps).
Anyway, the interaction appears to have made dual wielding one of the more powerful options in revised 5e. A rogue with the dual wielder feat could make 3 attacks with light+nick weapons giving 3 chances to land a sneak attack.
P.S. Just including the bonus action rules which haven't changed - you have only one bonus action and you can take it whenever you like unless its timing is specified.
"You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified. Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action."
P.P.S. The one thing at a time rule is ambiguous since it uses the word "action" but all the examples are "Actions" and not bonus actions. Also, bonus action states that you can choose when to take it. So the new rules don't resolve whether you can take a bonus action between attacks of an Attack Action if you have the Extra Attack feature - or between multiple attacks due to the Nick weapon property.
The key is both the light weapon and dual wielder specify that you get 'an extra attack'. There is nothing that prevents two attacks as part of the same bonus action, just as there is nothing preventing multiple attacks with the same attack action.
I find them incredibly useful for drilling down into the other person in the dialogue's underlying assumptions and abstractions. (And also my own.)
That would appear to be arguable.
As far as I can tell, you believe that:
"you can do Y when you do X" and "you can do Y each time you do X" are mechanically different, even though they mean the same thing in English, and 5e has not established either of them as a term of art, and is deliberately not written at the level of precision that would enable that sort of thing. 5e24 may be more rigorous in this regard, but it's still not there. (And establishing differences in specific wording as mechanically significant when the text was not written for it does not go well.)
Because the Attack action only allows one object interaction, that clause is entirely a reference to the free object interaction, and does not create a second interaction.
I do not believe either of those are supportable from the text, particularly the second one.
You're correct on this.
I'm unconvinced it's a problem, mostly because, unless you're using yet another feature, you get only the base damage die on most of those attacks.
And yes, if you go all-out to maximize your attacks, it appears it can get rather silly. But those are stunt builds. They're no more a problem in ordinary play than all the 2014 sharpshooter-crossbow master/polearm master-sentinel/whatever builds were. The weapon swapping mechanics are there to reduce the friction on normal play, where you're more likely to see things like "I draw my sword and stab him, then draw my other sword and stab him again. He's dead? Great! I drop the sword and throw my dagger at the wizard!"
There does appear to be a deliberate attempt to improve dual-weapon fighting builds, which tended to fall behind others in the 2014 rules. I think they went about it in a rather fussy and non-obvious manner, but they were probably forced to do so by the need for back compatibility.
Each feature gives you a bonus action that you can use. Nothing in the rules allows you to combine two bonus actions, even if they're the same thing.
I'm still unconvinced that you can't use a single bonus action to take both attacks. As they are each an attack.
Flurry of blows for example specifically allows you to make two attacks as a bonus action.
I'd have to disagree with that statement.
Light property: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn"
Dual Wielder: "you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn "
Both of these have identical wording and BOTH give you an extra attack as a Bonus Action. There is nothing in the rules that say that if you get a bonus action to do one thing you can also do something granted by a different bonus action at the same time.
These give both give you an option for ONE extra attack as a bonus action.
"You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available."
When you have more than one bonus action available, you have to choose which you want to use. Both of these features are worded as using your bonus action so RAW there is no way that either can be combined with the other to give you two attacks as a bonus action.
The only way they are stacking in the current discussion is that the Nick property allows you to take the Bonus Action provided by the Light property and move it to the Attack Action INSTEAD of the bonus action. This frees up the bonus action for use by another feature like the attack provided by the dual wielder feat.
This is a fundamental rule on how bonus actions work. You can't combine two bonus actions to get two attacks as a one bonus action.
Reading this text from you, I remembered also this from @Plaguescarred:
Is this related to sentences such as "... you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn"? Or anything else in the new rules?
But that happens within the rules for fighters as they can change their weapon masteries. Level 9 tactical mastery lets you use different weapon masteries. If you could easily switch to a weapon with those masteries the level 9 feature would be almost pointless. (I think you are still limited by having only two masteries, and tactical mastery lets you supercede that limitation.
"...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."
"An attack" not "THE attack" twice. Only using "the attack" when setting a specific per use ruling
Seems that it's per attack and they have worded it with that in mind.
I'm still not sold that the intention was to make longswords pointless. There is no reason that ever melee character shouldn't use scrimitar/greataxe to get 5 attacks per round. Of course if you are going for damage there is almost no reason to go fighter and instead go ranger, either gloomstalker or hunter. A fighter even with action surge is going to do less damage.
And yet, I expect that very few players will do this. Longsword and shield will remain popular.
Most people don't build their characters for raw damage output. It's as simple as that. Maybe the dedicated optimizers will never use longswords again. (Were they using them before? I didn't think so, but I admit to not paying attention.)
We'll see more two-weapon fighters using light, nick, and dual-wield to get a base of three attacks per round. Most of them will do it by holding a light weapon in each hand.
Also, all of the super-attack combos I recall seeing are reliant on cleave/whatever that ranger feature is, and drop off considerably if you have to go one-on-one with an enemy.
Yeah if I was actually doing this id probably go gloomstalker rather than hunter for increased damage over another attack. I'm still not sure if cleave is better than topple. Just having topple might be better.
@tarodnet What David42 refers to is what i said in post 94, which was not so much regarding multiple attacks per action (i think you can whenever something allows you) but wonder if One Thing at a Time is intended to limit the use of special action like Bonus Action and Reaction as well or not. Meaning if you're making multiple attacks as part of the Attack action, you may not take a Bonus action until after it.
From my understanding if does. You can't take a bonus action in the middle of an attack action.
I understand most people don't build their characters for damage... But we haven't really made it to actually building a character.
Fighter with longsword is going to do about 20 damage per turn. Maybe 30 depending on fighter build which will be somewhat limited.
Meanwhile my ranger is doing 70+ damage every round. Maybe more if someone tried to optimize it. Also I'm doing more attacks than the ranger with action surge. Fighter is going to feel useless and weak all game.
Downside is even without the weapon swapping a fighter with a longsword isn't going to be anywhere near the damage output of a hunter or gloomstalker.
Oh, ok, got it! Thanks!
For now, I believe Bonus Actions can be taken at any time unless the timing is specified (like in 2014), but yes, I also believe the aim of the quoted rule (possibly?) is to prevent, for example, inserting Bonus Actions between attacks in a single action.
A good example of timing is the difference between Flurry of Blows 2014 and 2024
This next chain of tweets from the Dev are related to the 2014 rules, but it's possible that these kinds of doubts were considered for the new rules. I won’t copy the entire conversation here because it’s long, but it might be useful for context.
Yep, I think that I've changed my mind on this because of that statement which reads: "Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action." Since there is a rule that "deprives you" (sort of) of your ability to take an action in the middle of another action, then in 2024 you probably should not be able to take a Bonus Action in the middle of another action either.