@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).
Yep. However, interpreting "action" in the context of "One Thing at a Time" to include bonus actions and reactions, results in a lot of, for me, "unrealistic" side effects that don't make sense from a narrative perspective.
The reason I say this is that the rules explicitly allow for other activities between multiple attacks as part of the Attack Action. You can move for example.
So, a character can attack, move, then make an extra attack.
A character could move, attack, move, open a door (object interaction), move, attack. (Object interactions must occur during a character's movement OR action - so clearly one thing at a time doesn't apply to object interactions).
If a character can do all of these things between attacks of the attack action, it makes no sense to me to prohibit bonus actions or reactions in that context.
Examples:
For a character with one attack:
attack, move away from target, target makes an op attack, character casts shield - perfectly ok because they used their attack and completed the attack action.
BUT - having a second attack prevents the use of the reaction??
For a character with multiple attacks:
attack, move away from target, target makes an op attack, character is prevented from casting shield because they have an attack remaining and the attack action hasn't ended? Nonsense or unintended side effect would be my personal ruling in that case.
Similarly, a rogue can use cunning action at any point in their turn.
Rogue dual wielding with a nick weapon has 2 attacks in the attack action.
Rogue moves, attacks, kills their target, has insufficient movement left to reach the next target, decides to use cunning action to dash to reach a target for their second attack but CAN'T because their Attack action is not complete since they will use another attack. Problem is also an issue with a fighter/rogue with extra attack and cunning action as well.
Bonus actions and reactions can be used whenever their conditions are met or at any time if the timing of the bonus action isn't specified. Trying to make the attack action nuclear to prevent this results in a lot of narrative dissonance that makes no sense in my opinion since various other things are possible between attacks of the attack action.
Finally, the rule on one action at a time includes multiple examples but these all consist of actual actions - not bonus actions or reactions. If the example said, you can't cast shield or counterspell while in the middle of an attack action then it would be clear.
Anyway, if it is every clarified that the statements that a "You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified." and reactions are "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise." If the "One Thing at a Time" rule was intended to over ride the timing of these other actions so then I think it needs to be much more explicitly stated.
May be they wanted to nix counterspelling while casting a spell, Shield attack between attacks during Attack action sequence., some weapons juggling, limit what casters can do during Longer Casting Time etc...basically wanting you to take actions only in succession.
Maybe we're overthinking the rule? And it's just saying: "ok, you can take/choose only one action (e.g. Attack, Magic, Bonus Action, Reaction, Dash, Hide, etc.) at the a time, so you cannot do/choose two things simultaneously".
Well.. in fact, is saying that with examples :D
"... 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"
"... you can’t simultaneously use the Search action to look for traps and use the Help action to aid another character..."
It was my initial thought since the example only include Actions but One Thing at a Time use action without capital A or the word ''main'' as they're referred to and also the way it's all organised under Actions section with others.
Actions
When you do something other than moving or communicating, you typically take an action. The Action table lists the game’s main actions, which are defined in more detail in the rules glossary.
Even though the word "main" isn't explicitly mentioned, let's assume they are referring to the main Actions when the plural "actions" is used in the book: Attack, Dash, Disengage, Dodge, Help, Hide, Influence, Magic, Ready, Search, Study, Utilize. Also, we know there could be additional actions ("from the special actions provided by your features").
The paragraph about One Thing at a Time is located between the main Actions and the rules for Bonus Action and Reaction. Perhaps intentionally, because those two have special rules to consider, as described just below the One Thing at a Time paragraph.
Following this reasoning, One Thing at a Time would apply only to the main Actions, allowing Bonus Actions and Reactions to be used according to their specific rules, and permitting some of the examples that @David42 mentioned (similar to 2014 then):
BA: "You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified."
Reaction: "A Reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s."
Well obviously, this doesn't apply to reactions. It's very common for a Reaction to occur during an action and the general rule for when you take a reaction is:
A Reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s.
and also:
In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise.
So, whenever that trigger happens, you can react to it. You don't have to stop and think about whether or not you are in the middle of an Action or not.
The only thing that would disqualify Bonus Actions from being taken during an action is whether or not there is any interaction between these two rules:
You can take only one action at a time.
. . .
Anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a Bonus Action.
I just want to point out that in the glossary section, the section on equipping and unequipping a weapon is under the "Attack [Action]" entry which starts by saying "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike." Then goes into the equip and unequip explanation. So the trigger saying, "when you make an attack as part of this action." is a little vague and could apply to per attack or per Attack Action because it doesn't go into detail about what happens when you have more than one attack per Attack Action. This is also important because without that Attack [Action] connection, it could be argued that you could equip or unequip a weapon as part of a spell attack.
And cannot be applied to bonus actions or reactions.
There are other sections and features that seem to imply that (lowercase) "action" and (uppercase) "Action" are the same, like the incapacitated condition that says "You can't take any action, Bonus Action or Reaction." (with (lowercase) "action" being hyperlinked to the (uppercase) "Action" entry) and the entry in the glossary for "Action" which starts by saying "On your turn, you can take one action." and lists a number on things you can do with your (lowercase) "action" (attack, dodge, hide etc.). The "Bonus Action" entry says that it is a "special action" that can be used in the same turn as an (lowercase) "action" implying that "an action" is different than a "Bonus Action. and similar wording in the "Reaction" entry saying that you can use your Reaction on the same turn as your (lowercase) "action" and Bonus Action.
Yes, the term "action" pretty much always refers to something that you can do that uses up a certain portion of your action economy. It's never really used in a broader common language way. So, the phrase "as part of this action" does NOT mean something like "the action of attacking a creature" or anything like that -- it is definitely referring specifically to "this Attack action".
But even so, there are still two ways to interpret the rule: "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action."
This could mean: As part of this Attack action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon. You can do this when you make an attack that is part of this Attack action.
In my opinion, if this was the intent then it wouldn't have been written exactly in the way that it was written.
The rule could also mean: When you make an attack as part of this Attack action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon.
In my opinion, this is much more likely to be the intent based on how the rule is written and in the context of the entire Attack action description and overall game design.
I think the new dual wielder rules are problematic owing to weapon swapping shenanigans. Assuming you can equip/unequip as part of every attack using the attack action only, here is what you can legally do as a level 5 fighter with the Dual Wielder Feat and 18 strength:
You start combat with no weapons equipped
You take the Attack action
First attack: you draw a Battleaxe (first weapon interaction) -> you attack with the Battleaxe using the versatile property (1d10+4) -> you stow the Battleaxe (second weapon interaction)
Second attack: you draw a Shortsword and a Scimitar (first & second weapon interaction) -> you attack with the Shortsword (1d6+4)
Nick attack: you attack with the Scimitar (1d6+4) -> you stow both Shortsword and Scimitar (first & second weapon interaction)
Using a bonus action, you draw a Trident (free draw because of thrown property) -> you attack with the trident using the versatile property (1d10+4)
Assuming every attack hit, you just did (2d10+2d6+4*4) = 34 damage on average, and you potentially applied a bunch of weapon masteries like topple and vex (or slow/graze/sap if you swap out any of the weapons mentioned above). Within 6 seconds (one round) you also just: (a) drew, attacked with, and stowed a Battleaxe; (b) drew, attacked with, and stowed 2 light weapons; (c) drew and attacked with a trident. All at level 5.
Additionally: if you have a heavy weapon, such as a maul or halberd, equipped at the start of combat, you could make one attack with that weapon instead of the Battleaxe. Assuming you also get a free object interaction per round and that you can use this free object interaction to equip or unequip a weapon, you can now permanently do all of this with a heavy/2H weapon attack even when you have no weapons equipped at the start of your turn. This would allow you to now use cleave weapon mastery to make a 5th attack.
edit: now imagine things like action surge, hunter's mark, etc. It's just getting pretty complicated, the damage and utility is very high, and the amount of weapon swapping within 6 seconds is just completely unrealistic, especially as you get even more extra attacks. As a result, I will ban the second point of the Dual Wielder Feat in all of my games until this has been fixed.
I think the new dual wielder rules are problematic owing to weapon swapping shenanigans. Assuming you can equip/unequip as part of every attack using the attack action only, here is what you can legally do as a level 5 fighter with the Dual Wielder Feat and 18 strength:
You start combat with no weapons equipped
You take the Attack action
First attack: you draw a Battleaxe (first weapon interaction) -> you attack with the Battleaxe using the versatile property (1d10+4) -> you stow the Battleaxe (second weapon interaction)
Second attack: you draw a Shortsword and a Scimitar (first & second weapon interaction) -> you attack with the Shortsword (1d6+4)
Nick attack: you attack with the Scimitar (1d6+4) -> you stow both Shortsword and Scimitar (first & second weapon interaction)
Using a bonus action, you draw a Trident (free draw because of thrown property) -> you attack with the trident using the versatile property (1d10+4)
You don''t get two interactions on the first attack, and you don;t get a free draw off Thrown unless you're throwing it, at which point you only get 1d8, and also no longer have the trident.
Also, frankly, you're overcomplicating it.
Start with scimitar and battleaxe
Attack with scimitar, stow it
Attack 2H battleaxe
Draw and attack with second scimitar
Bonus action attack 1H battleaxe
It's still a bit silly, but I'm willing to accept silly optimization tricks in exchange for players being able to clearly do normal weapon stuff without concern.
"You don't get two interactions on the first attack, and you don't get a free draw off Thrown unless you're throwing it, at which point you only get 1d8, and also no longer have the trident."
Why don't you get two interactions on the first attack? RAW:
From Rules Glossary: "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of [the attack action]"
From Dual Wielder Feat: "Quick Draw.You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."
This suggests you do get two interactions on the first attack.
In terms of attacking with the trident, depending on your reading of the 2024 PHB, you could indeed argue that you'd have to throw the trident. You can still manage your weapon economy in such a way that you still get the bonus action attack using the versatile weapon property (since you can draw or stow two weapons per attack when using the attack action).
Here is something you can still pull off:
Start with Greataxe
Attack 1: Cleave for 2d12+4, now stow Greataxe (one weapon interaction only as greataxe has the 2H property)
Attack 2: Draw Scimitar and Shortsword (2 interactions), attack with Shortsword (1d6+4)
Nick Attack: Attack with Scimitar (1d6+4), stow both scimitar and shortsword (2 interactions)
Bonus action: either throw trident for 1d8+4 or use your free object interaction to draw a versatile weapon to attack for 1d10+4.
That's 5 different attacks (or 4 if no Cleave target) using 4 different weapons, including a Greataxe, every 6 seconds at level 5. You also get to apply weapon masteries. As you get multiple extra attacks, you get to exchange even more weapons. This is just plain stupid. Now, if you only had 1 item interaction per attack (in effect banning the second point of the dual wielder feat), you can pull something similar off as a one-off when you take action surge, thereby living up to the fantasy of the multi-weapon user (4+ different weapons per turn). But this should be a one-off power move, using a feature like action surge, not something you do every single turn.
"You don't get two interactions on the first attack, and you don't get a free draw off Thrown unless you're throwing it, at which point you only get 1d8, and also no longer have the trident."
Why don't you get two interactions on the first attack? RAW:
From Rules Glossary: "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of [the attack action]"
From Dual Wielder Feat: "Quick Draw.You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."
This suggests you do get two interactions on the first attack.
No, it says you get one, with two weapons.
Before attack: you may draw or stow a weapon. Let's say you do, so you may draw or stow two instead
Attack
After attack: you may not draw or stow a weapon, because you did so before.
It is not "you get a second free-floating interaction". It is "your interaction can be two weapons at the point that you take it".
In terms of attacking with the trident, depending on your reading of the 2024 PHB, you could indeed argue that you'd have to throw the trident.
There's no good reading otherwise.
If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack, and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack.
You can still manage your weapon economy in such a way that you still get the bonus action attack using the versatile weapon property (since you can draw or stow two weapons per attack when using the attack action).
Yes, yes you can.
But, fundamentally, your weapon juggling nets you something like four points of damage over the simple "have two light weapons, and fight with them".
That is not a big enough deal to care about.
If you can get cleave into the deal, it's more worthwhile, but here, have a scenario:
The lone warrior is beset by goblins. He gives a mighty swing with his halberd, then drops it to draw his swords. Occasionally, as more goblins arrive, he picks up his pole arm again to try to force them back.
Realistic? No. Silly? Also no.
You can make it silly, but you're again chasing those extra four points of damage, or just making it silly to prove that you can make it silly. There's lots of ways to make D&D silly if you try.
Not an english native speaker here, sorry in advance.
RAW, I agree that:
The Attack action lets you draw orstow one weapon, per attack;
The Light property lets you have an extra attack with a different weapon as a bonus action (never states about which hand wields it);
The Nick property lets you move the extra attack gained in the Light property from the BA to the current Attack action;
The Dual Wielder feat states a condition that gives you an extra attack as a bonus action, which is NOT the extra attack given to you by the fact that you just used a Light weapon.
Now, with that being agreed upon, it brings some '"problems" in the game design. Without delving into juggling for max damage and/or masteries usage, the acknowledgement of the above brings into conclusion that:
Wielding one light weapon in one hand and a shield in the other hand doesn't impede you to use all the properties listed above. This by itself, renders the TWF style (almost) useless, as in this configuration you qualify for the Dueling Style, which is better overall (and also mathematically, once you can do 3 atks or more per turn);
The wording on TWF is clear about giving the bonus on the extra attack given as a result of using a Light weapon, which is the actual extra attack given by the Light property, NOT any other extra attacks, such as the one given by Dual Wielder feat. Just because DW also requires an attack using a Light weapon to activate, doesn't mean that attack was given to you as a result of using a light weapon, it was in fact given to you as a result of having that feat, and satisfying its stated condition;
Lastly, about using a shield and TWF/DW in the RAW-agreed mode, you're effectively using a single-hand combat style with properties which were named (designed) in a way that suggests a warrior using two weapons at the same time, not one at a time, IMO;
The Quick Draw property of the DW feat is (again, almost) useless.
I know most people in this thread agreed upon at least two different interpretations of the Equip/Unequip part of the Attack action, which is what made this topic's discussion get so far.
So hear me out.
If we focus on the "ONE" in the weapon draw/stow part, as in you get to draw/stow only one, when you make an attack with the Attack action, this gives you the understanding that you can draw or stow only once, and the last bit that says "...when you make an attack as part of this action." is there only to give you flexibility to choose when you do so, especially if you have more than one attack in that same action, whether it is because of Extra Attack or Nick. Acknowledging this brings:
Usefulness to the Quick Draw property of the DW feat;
Stops you from exploiting (too much) of the "single-handedly dual wielding". Yes, you can still start a turn with a weapon in hand, attack, drop it using your free interaction, and drawing another, but that's it.
I accept that dropping a weapon is now the same as sheating/stowing upon the Equip/Unequip ruling on Attack action, but the possibility of free interactions are not well descripted in the new book, and dropping a weapon is also the only free interaction ever shown in the book as an example, in page 29 and 30:
"(14) Russell: I drop my sword and pull out my warhammer. Time to break some bones! My first attack is a 21 to hit for 7 Bludgeoning damage."
"(14)—Vulnerability
An attack that deals Bludgeoning damage is deadly to skeletons. Shreeve knows this from past experience, which is why she drops her sword and switches to a Bludgeoning weapon. She rolls only 7 damage, but the DM knows the skeleton actually takes 14 damage."
Notice that they purposedly used the word "drop" twice, never clarifying if she did sheathe/stow or actually dropped on the ground.
Outside of that, the "Your Turn" rules in page 23 states that you can only interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, and the sentence ends with an example of opening a door as you move. But, if you infer that both "object" and "feature" in that sentence are only the ones in the environment and not include the ones on your person, then they wouldn't include the "drop and draw" example on pages 29 and 30.
I believe that most of the rules discussed in this topic will receive errata, to clarify their real intent (RAI and RAW alignment).
I agree that being able to juggle a bit with weapons makes the martial classes more fun, but I also think that the only viable way (as in being a little realistic, at least) is by dropping the wielded weapon after the first attack and drawing the second one, unless you get the dual wielder feat to draw a third along. I personally would include one sheathe/stow in the possible free interactions and not just the dropping, as to stop some dirty DMs to have their monsters picking up your dropped magical weapon, but hey, that's just me.
I really think that RAI the Light property is intended to work with an attack using your second hand, it brings sense to the TWF and DW names, and usefulness to their mechanics and design. Also, the example given in the Light property text sheds a little light in that way, describing you using a short sword in your Attack and then using a dagger in your other hand in your Bonus Action. Another point that sheds some light into this reasoning is the "Ignore Loading" property in the Crossbow Expertise, clarifying that you don't need a free hand to load ammunition in a crossbow, which also combines with the "Dual Wielding" property of the same feat, again hinting at you wielding two things at once, and mechanically allowing to attack with a shortsword and then firing a hand crossbow, or even firing one crossbow and then firing with a second crossbow, while you dual wield both.
Sorry for the confusing text, I tried to stay on topic but kinda ended up going back and forth a bit on different rules.
While RAW is questionable, to me the example in the Light property clearly indicate how it's intended to be used;
Light: For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.
@DiogoDudaEstrazulas I've already shared my opinion in various threads about how I interpret the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule included in the Attack action (e.g. here). At least for now, based on my understanding of the current rules in the 2024 PHB
That said, I believe the intent behind the Light weapon property, Dual Wielder feat, or Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat is to wield two weapons, one in each hand. Unfortunately, this isn't fully supported by the strict RAW.
I hope future updates in the books can clarify all those things. Maybe, as you suggested, one of the fixes could be: "no, you can only Equip or Unequip once per Attack action, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make".
Yep. However, interpreting "action" in the context of "One Thing at a Time" to include bonus actions and reactions, results in a lot of, for me, "unrealistic" side effects that don't make sense from a narrative perspective.
The reason I say this is that the rules explicitly allow for other activities between multiple attacks as part of the Attack Action. You can move for example.
So, a character can attack, move, then make an extra attack.
A character could move, attack, move, open a door (object interaction), move, attack. (Object interactions must occur during a character's movement OR action - so clearly one thing at a time doesn't apply to object interactions).
If a character can do all of these things between attacks of the attack action, it makes no sense to me to prohibit bonus actions or reactions in that context.
Examples:
For a character with one attack:
attack, move away from target, target makes an op attack, character casts shield - perfectly ok because they used their attack and completed the attack action.
BUT - having a second attack prevents the use of the reaction??
For a character with multiple attacks:
attack, move away from target, target makes an op attack, character is prevented from casting shield because they have an attack remaining and the attack action hasn't ended? Nonsense or unintended side effect would be my personal ruling in that case.
Similarly, a rogue can use cunning action at any point in their turn.
Rogue dual wielding with a nick weapon has 2 attacks in the attack action.
Rogue moves, attacks, kills their target, has insufficient movement left to reach the next target, decides to use cunning action to dash to reach a target for their second attack but CAN'T because their Attack action is not complete since they will use another attack. Problem is also an issue with a fighter/rogue with extra attack and cunning action as well.
Bonus actions and reactions can be used whenever their conditions are met or at any time if the timing of the bonus action isn't specified. Trying to make the attack action nuclear to prevent this results in a lot of narrative dissonance that makes no sense in my opinion since various other things are possible between attacks of the attack action.
Finally, the rule on one action at a time includes multiple examples but these all consist of actual actions - not bonus actions or reactions. If the example said, you can't cast shield or counterspell while in the middle of an attack action then it would be clear.
Anyway, if it is every clarified that the statements that a "You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified." and reactions are "In terms of timing, a Reaction takes place immediately after its trigger unless the Reaction’s description says otherwise." If the "One Thing at a Time" rule was intended to over ride the timing of these other actions so then I think it needs to be much more explicitly stated.
But moving is not an action. Neither is talking or anything else with no action required. One Thing at a Time concern only one action at a time.
May be they wanted to nix counterspelling while casting a spell, Shield attack between attacks during Attack action sequence., some weapons juggling, limit what casters can do during Longer Casting Time etc...basically wanting you to take actions only in succession.
Maybe we're overthinking the rule? And it's just saying: "ok, you can take/choose only one action (e.g. Attack, Magic, Bonus Action, Reaction, Dash, Hide, etc.) at the a time, so you cannot do/choose two things simultaneously".
Well.. in fact, is saying that with examples :D
It was my initial thought since the example only include Actions but One Thing at a Time use action without capital A or the word ''main'' as they're referred to and also the way it's all organised under Actions section with others.
It's also when i look at the Incapacitated condition or the Action glossary that distinctively refers to them that makes me wonder:
Alright, let's try this approach then:
Does this make sense for you guys?
It could, hard to say, i think WoTC will have to clear this up considering different possible interpretations.
Well obviously, this doesn't apply to reactions. It's very common for a Reaction to occur during an action and the general rule for when you take a reaction is:
and also:
So, whenever that trigger happens, you can react to it. You don't have to stop and think about whether or not you are in the middle of an Action or not.
The only thing that would disqualify Bonus Actions from being taken during an action is whether or not there is any interaction between these two rules:
I just want to point out that in the glossary section, the section on equipping and unequipping a weapon is under the "Attack [Action]" entry which starts by saying "When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike." Then goes into the equip and unequip explanation. So the trigger saying, "when you make an attack as part of this action." is a little vague and could apply to per attack or per Attack Action because it doesn't go into detail about what happens when you have more than one attack per Attack Action. This is also important because without that Attack [Action] connection, it could be argued that you could equip or unequip a weapon as part of a spell attack.
And cannot be applied to bonus actions or reactions.
There are other sections and features that seem to imply that (lowercase) "action" and (uppercase) "Action" are the same, like the incapacitated condition that says "You can't take any action, Bonus Action or Reaction." (with (lowercase) "action" being hyperlinked to the (uppercase) "Action" entry) and the entry in the glossary for "Action" which starts by saying "On your turn, you can take one action." and lists a number on things you can do with your (lowercase) "action" (attack, dodge, hide etc.). The "Bonus Action" entry says that it is a "special action" that can be used in the same turn as an (lowercase) "action" implying that "an action" is different than a "Bonus Action. and similar wording in the "Reaction" entry saying that you can use your Reaction on the same turn as your (lowercase) "action" and Bonus Action.
Yes, the term "action" pretty much always refers to something that you can do that uses up a certain portion of your action economy. It's never really used in a broader common language way. So, the phrase "as part of this action" does NOT mean something like "the action of attacking a creature" or anything like that -- it is definitely referring specifically to "this Attack action".
But even so, there are still two ways to interpret the rule: "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action."
This could mean: As part of this Attack action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon. You can do this when you make an attack that is part of this Attack action.
In my opinion, if this was the intent then it wouldn't have been written exactly in the way that it was written.
The rule could also mean: When you make an attack as part of this Attack action, you can either equip or unequip one weapon.
In my opinion, this is much more likely to be the intent based on how the rule is written and in the context of the entire Attack action description and overall game design.
I'm not sure about the intent. The wording is definitely every attack. They seem to not have given any thought to what it would allow in game.
Reading the initial part of the attack action description you have:
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
It explicitly says one attack roll, however-
Level 5: Extra Attack
You can attack twice instead of once whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.
The extra attack ability allows you to make two attack instead of the "one" in the initial description. It is , however missing the word "roll"
The second part of "attack action" also only says "attack"
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action.
Extra attack is defined as making two attacks whenever taking the attack action
So if you can make two attacks as part of the attack action, you can equip/unequip on each.
Whether or not this is what was intended the wording seems to allow it.
I think the new dual wielder rules are problematic owing to weapon swapping shenanigans. Assuming you can equip/unequip as part of every attack using the attack action only, here is what you can legally do as a level 5 fighter with the Dual Wielder Feat and 18 strength:
Assuming every attack hit, you just did (2d10+2d6+4*4) = 34 damage on average, and you potentially applied a bunch of weapon masteries like topple and vex (or slow/graze/sap if you swap out any of the weapons mentioned above). Within 6 seconds (one round) you also just: (a) drew, attacked with, and stowed a Battleaxe; (b) drew, attacked with, and stowed 2 light weapons; (c) drew and attacked with a trident. All at level 5.
Additionally: if you have a heavy weapon, such as a maul or halberd, equipped at the start of combat, you could make one attack with that weapon instead of the Battleaxe. Assuming you also get a free object interaction per round and that you can use this free object interaction to equip or unequip a weapon, you can now permanently do all of this with a heavy/2H weapon attack even when you have no weapons equipped at the start of your turn. This would allow you to now use cleave weapon mastery to make a 5th attack.
edit: now imagine things like action surge, hunter's mark, etc. It's just getting pretty complicated, the damage and utility is very high, and the amount of weapon swapping within 6 seconds is just completely unrealistic, especially as you get even more extra attacks. As a result, I will ban the second point of the Dual Wielder Feat in all of my games until this has been fixed.
You don''t get two interactions on the first attack, and you don;t get a free draw off Thrown unless you're throwing it, at which point you only get 1d8, and also no longer have the trident.
Also, frankly, you're overcomplicating it.
It's still a bit silly, but I'm willing to accept silly optimization tricks in exchange for players being able to clearly do normal weapon stuff without concern.
"You don't get two interactions on the first attack, and you don't get a free draw off Thrown unless you're throwing it, at which point you only get 1d8, and also no longer have the trident."
Why don't you get two interactions on the first attack? RAW:
This suggests you do get two interactions on the first attack.
In terms of attacking with the trident, depending on your reading of the 2024 PHB, you could indeed argue that you'd have to throw the trident. You can still manage your weapon economy in such a way that you still get the bonus action attack using the versatile weapon property (since you can draw or stow two weapons per attack when using the attack action).
Here is something you can still pull off:
That's 5 different attacks (or 4 if no Cleave target) using 4 different weapons, including a Greataxe, every 6 seconds at level 5. You also get to apply weapon masteries. As you get multiple extra attacks, you get to exchange even more weapons. This is just plain stupid. Now, if you only had 1 item interaction per attack (in effect banning the second point of the dual wielder feat), you can pull something similar off as a one-off when you take action surge, thereby living up to the fantasy of the multi-weapon user (4+ different weapons per turn). But this should be a one-off power move, using a feature like action surge, not something you do every single turn.
No, it says you get one, with two weapons.
It is not "you get a second free-floating interaction". It is "your interaction can be two weapons at the point that you take it".
There's no good reading otherwise.
Yes, yes you can.
But, fundamentally, your weapon juggling nets you something like four points of damage over the simple "have two light weapons, and fight with them".
That is not a big enough deal to care about.
If you can get cleave into the deal, it's more worthwhile, but here, have a scenario:
The lone warrior is beset by goblins. He gives a mighty swing with his halberd, then drops it to draw his swords. Occasionally, as more goblins arrive, he picks up his pole arm again to try to force them back.
Realistic? No. Silly? Also no.
You can make it silly, but you're again chasing those extra four points of damage, or just making it silly to prove that you can make it silly. There's lots of ways to make D&D silly if you try.
Hi all,
Not an english native speaker here, sorry in advance.
RAW, I agree that:
Now, with that being agreed upon, it brings some '"problems" in the game design. Without delving into juggling for max damage and/or masteries usage, the acknowledgement of the above brings into conclusion that:
I know most people in this thread agreed upon at least two different interpretations of the Equip/Unequip part of the Attack action, which is what made this topic's discussion get so far.
So hear me out.
If we focus on the "ONE" in the weapon draw/stow part, as in you get to draw/stow only one, when you make an attack with the Attack action, this gives you the understanding that you can draw or stow only once, and the last bit that says "...when you make an attack as part of this action." is there only to give you flexibility to choose when you do so, especially if you have more than one attack in that same action, whether it is because of Extra Attack or Nick. Acknowledging this brings:
I accept that dropping a weapon is now the same as sheating/stowing upon the Equip/Unequip ruling on Attack action, but the possibility of free interactions are not well descripted in the new book, and dropping a weapon is also the only free interaction ever shown in the book as an example, in page 29 and 30:
"(14)
Russell: I drop my sword and pull out my warhammer. Time to break some bones! My first attack is a 21 to hit for 7 Bludgeoning damage."
"(14)—Vulnerability
An attack that deals Bludgeoning damage is deadly to skeletons. Shreeve knows this from past experience, which is why she drops her sword and switches to a Bludgeoning weapon. She rolls only 7 damage, but the DM knows the skeleton actually takes 14 damage."
Notice that they purposedly used the word "drop" twice, never clarifying if she did sheathe/stow or actually dropped on the ground.
Outside of that, the "Your Turn" rules in page 23 states that you can only interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, and the sentence ends with an example of opening a door as you move. But, if you infer that both "object" and "feature" in that sentence are only the ones in the environment and not include the ones on your person, then they wouldn't include the "drop and draw" example on pages 29 and 30.
I believe that most of the rules discussed in this topic will receive errata, to clarify their real intent (RAI and RAW alignment).
I agree that being able to juggle a bit with weapons makes the martial classes more fun, but I also think that the only viable way (as in being a little realistic, at least) is by dropping the wielded weapon after the first attack and drawing the second one, unless you get the dual wielder feat to draw a third along. I personally would include one sheathe/stow in the possible free interactions and not just the dropping, as to stop some dirty DMs to have their monsters picking up your dropped magical weapon, but hey, that's just me.
I really think that RAI the Light property is intended to work with an attack using your second hand, it brings sense to the TWF and DW names, and usefulness to their mechanics and design. Also, the example given in the Light property text sheds a little light in that way, describing you using a short sword in your Attack and then using a dagger in your other hand in your Bonus Action.
Another point that sheds some light into this reasoning is the "Ignore Loading" property in the Crossbow Expertise, clarifying that you don't need a free hand to load ammunition in a crossbow, which also combines with the "Dual Wielding" property of the same feat, again hinting at you wielding two things at once, and mechanically allowing to attack with a shortsword and then firing a hand crossbow, or even firing one crossbow and then firing with a second crossbow, while you dual wield both.
Sorry for the confusing text, I tried to stay on topic but kinda ended up going back and forth a bit on different rules.
While RAW is questionable, to me the example in the Light property clearly indicate how it's intended to be used;
@DiogoDudaEstrazulas I've already shared my opinion in various threads about how I interpret the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons rule included in the Attack action (e.g. here). At least for now, based on my understanding of the current rules in the 2024 PHB
That said, I believe the intent behind the Light weapon property, Dual Wielder feat, or Two-Weapon Fighting Style feat is to wield two weapons, one in each hand. Unfortunately, this isn't fully supported by the strict RAW.
I hope future updates in the books can clarify all those things. Maybe, as you suggested, one of the fixes could be: "no, you can only Equip or Unequip once per Attack action, regardless of the number of attacks you can normally make".