Personally, I believe the rules allow for multiple swaps per Attack action, but without errata or an updated Sage Advice Compendium, the debate will probably continue.
Some people are just in denial (and/or can homebrew whatever limitations they desire). "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action" is pretty unequivocal. Note: that's not a full weapon "swap;" it's just half of one. However, anyone can still use their 1 free "object interaction" per turn to draw or stow a single weapon...
If it makes anyone less nervous about this rule...from Dual Wielder: "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." Which, I think, means you can draw a pair or stow a pair, not do two full draws/stows. So it still doesn't allow a full swap per attack.
Yeah, sorry, I meant that when I wrote "swap". I've just updated my answer.
- Attack with the hand crossbow - End of the attack: equip the scimitar - as nowhere does it state that the weapon having the equip/unequip interaction needs to be the same as the one that did the attack
Main hand: hand crossbow Offhand: scimitar
- Move up close - Nick attack with the scimitar - End of the attack: unequip the scimitar to be ready to load my crossbow on the next round or second attack starting at level 5
Main hand: hand crossbow Offhand: free
Rinse and repeat
As you can see, my hand crossbow basically stays always equipped and its attacks are only used to equip the scimitar. By the looks of it, does that seems reasonable? I would probably end up getting Crossbow Expert anyways at level 8, so those "shenanigans" would only last 4 levels.
I was forgetting to answer this.
Many people will agree with that interaction, and I can't say RAW it's wrong.
Again, it's a hot debate in the forums, but I still think that RAI you should already be Dual Wielding two Light weapons when you start the Attack action to benefit from Light and Nick. EDIT: the problem then is that you might need the crossbow to be loaded beforehand.
That said, "Move up close" is valid:
Moving between Attacks. If you move on your turn and have a feature, such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as part of the Attack action, you can use some or all of that movement to move between those attacks.
I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure of my basic premise either. It does seem like if they meant it for every attack roll then they should have specified that more clearly, but I can definitely see why they wouldn't simply put the ability to equip or unequip a weapon under attack rolls (since they can be made because of a Reaction or Bonus Action).
I'm not sure how much more clear than "when you make an attack..." they can do it tbh. But either way this rule should never been written under the "attack roll" rule, that just defines the difference between the different d20 rolls we can make. It could possibly have been put in the "making an attack" section under "combat" but then, as you say, it would need additional text or it would have applied to attacks made with other sorts of actions.
- Move up close - Nick attack with the scimitar - End of the attack: unequip the scimitar to be ready to load my crossbow on the next round or second attack starting at level 5
So here is the problem with that; using Nick makes the second attack part of the same Attack Action that you made with the hand crossbow. You get to equip or unequip a weapon once per Attack Action, not per attack roll
I think, on the contrary, that the fact that they specified "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." and not "You can either equip or unequip one weapon during this action." confirms that it's actually for every attack roll that are part of the PC's turn Attack action (which, I think, would exclude Opportunity Attacks and Bonus Action triggered attacks).
Wow, ok, now I feel bad for not having found those posts earlier, especially since I'm restating a lot of the stuff that has already been discussed. Sorry about that, folks!
Wow, ok, now I feel bad for not having found those posts earlier, especially since I'm restating a lot of the stuff that has already been discussed. Sorry about that, folks!
It is all good. I think the general idea is the wordings seems to imply that you can equip/unequip a weapon with each attack, however, the designers likely didn't realize the shenanigans that could result. (Dual wielding with a shield, going from two handed weapons to dual wielding), etc. I think they attempted to allow you to combo weapon masteries, but it can definitely become an issue quickly.
I understand and follow how this works. It just seems needlessly convoluted and cumbersome. I can see they wanted to make it more flexible than 5e14 but there has to be an easier way than this. https://100001****/
Dropping weapons without incurring in an attack is allowed as a Time-Limited Object Interaction which is part of the move action.
I still think the example text should have explained the player's "dropping" decision better. I still think they were referring to an old exploit, simply because they could have sheathed the sword as a free action instead of dropping it.
Please disregard the nonsense below, left unedited for context.
The example with Russell completely contradicts the rules for the attack action. This needs to be corrected as an errata. There's no other way to interpret the rules.
As it is now:
Jared: It tries to block your swing, but the force of your blow destroys the skeleton!
Russell: I swing at the next skeleton with 11 to hit.
Jared: The skeleton dodges out of the way.
Russell: Rats. That’s my turn.
The only scenario where this would be allowed would be if Russell has 3 attacks and had decided to completely forego his first attack. If this were the case the errata needs to say it:
Jared: It tries to block your swing, but the force of your blow destroys the skeleton!
Russell: For my third attack, I swing at the next skeleton with 11 to hit.
Jared: The skeleton dodges out of the way.
Russell: Rats. That’s my turn.
The truth is that this was not what the writer had in mind, they were just using an old 2014 exploit as a force of habit and none of the editors noticed. So instead of pushing the three-attack scenario which would be a terrible example, the text should be corrected to show Russell attacking once to limited damage, then deciding to stow the sword as part of the first attack. Like so:
Jared: Skeletons are vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, so your damage was doubled! It tries to block your swing, but the force of your blow destroys the skeleton!
The example with Russell completely contradicts the rules for the attack action. This needs to be corrected as an errata. There's no other way to interpret the rules.
As it is now:
Jared: It tries to block your swing, but the force of your blow destroys the skeleton!
Russell: I swing at the next skeleton with 11 to hit.
Jared: The skeleton dodges out of the way.
Russell: Rats. That’s my turn.
Russell gets one free object interaction on his turn, and a weapon interaction as part of attacking. One to drop, one to draw.
The only scenario where this would be allowed would be if Russell has 3 attacks and had decided to completely forego his first attack. If this were the case the errata needs to say it:
The attack action says:
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.
You don't do the weapon interaction instead of making the attack. When you make an attack, you can draw or stow a weapon in addition to making the attack.
The truth is that this was not what the writer had in mind, they were just using an old 2014 exploit as a force of habit and none of the editors noticed.So instead of pushing the three-attack scenario which would be a terrible example, the text should be corrected to show Russell attacking once to limited damage, then deciding to stow the sword as part of the first attack. Like so:
While I do think that it is highly likely that is true, the fact still remains that the drop, attack, attack sequence is actually fully legal (as been pointed out).
I just find it annoying that they didn't use this combat example to show/mention a few of the most common (and new) things that happens in combat and explained how the object interaction and weapon switching rules works, it would have been a perfect place to do it.
Yeah, sorry, I meant that when I wrote "swap". I've just updated my answer.
I was forgetting to answer this.
Many people will agree with that interaction, and I can't say RAW it's wrong.
Again, it's a hot debate in the forums, but I still think that RAI you should already be Dual Wielding two Light weapons when you start the Attack action to benefit from Light and Nick. EDIT: the problem then is that you might need the crossbow to be loaded beforehand.
That said, "Move up close" is valid:
Additionally, you have one free interaction per turn available if needed.
I'm not sure how much more clear than "when you make an attack..." they can do it tbh. But either way this rule should never been written under the "attack roll" rule, that just defines the difference between the different d20 rolls we can make. It could possibly have been put in the "making an attack" section under "combat" but then, as you say, it would need additional text or it would have applied to attacks made with other sorts of actions.
I think, on the contrary, that the fact that they specified "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." and not "You can either equip or unequip one weapon during this action." confirms that it's actually for every attack roll that are part of the PC's turn Attack action (which, I think, would exclude Opportunity Attacks and Bonus Action triggered attacks).
Thanks for pointing me to that thread, had no idea it existed, probably not worded my searches correctly X)
Nah, don't worry friend! I'm a master of storing related threads 😅 Here's a list of related threads, a special gift for you!
Wow, ok, now I feel bad for not having found those posts earlier, especially since I'm restating a lot of the stuff that has already been discussed. Sorry about that, folks!
It is all good. I think the general idea is the wordings seems to imply that you can equip/unequip a weapon with each attack, however, the designers likely didn't realize the shenanigans that could result. (Dual wielding with a shield, going from two handed weapons to dual wielding), etc. I think they attempted to allow you to combo weapon masteries, but it can definitely become an issue quickly.
Thanks, I saw this & the others you posted - was there ever an official ruling?
You're always welcome!
AFAIK, there's no official ruling or clarification yet :( I guess that's why there are so many threads discussing this.
I understand and follow how this works. It just seems needlessly convoluted and cumbersome. I can see they wanted to make it more flexible than 5e14 but there has to be an easier way than this. https://100001****/
Edit:
I stand corrected!
Dropping weapons without incurring in an attack is allowed as a Time-Limited Object Interaction which is part of the move action.
I still think the example text should have explained the player's "dropping" decision better. I still think they were referring to an old exploit, simply because they could have sheathed the sword as a free action instead of dropping it.
Please disregard the nonsense below, left unedited for context.
The example with Russell completely contradicts the rules for the attack action. This needs to be corrected as an errata. There's no other way to interpret the rules.
As it is now:
The only scenario where this would be allowed would be if Russell has 3 attacks and had decided to completely forego his first attack. If this were the case the errata needs to say it:
The truth is that this was not what the writer had in mind, they were just using an old 2014 exploit as a force of habit and none of the editors noticed. So instead of pushing the three-attack scenario which would be a terrible example, the text should be corrected to show Russell attacking once to limited damage, then deciding to stow the sword as part of the first attack. Like so:
Linking to the attack action rules for emphasis: Rules Glossary - Free Rules - Dungeons & Dragons - Sources - D&D Beyond. Honestly I can't see how people are confused by this.
Russell gets one free object interaction on his turn, and a weapon interaction as part of attacking. One to drop, one to draw.
The attack action says:
You don't do the weapon interaction instead of making the attack. When you make an attack, you can draw or stow a weapon in addition to making the attack.
@Benz74M I think it's possible because it's using the "Time-Limited Object Interactions" plus the "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" rules.
EDIT: ninja'd by @jl8e!
While I do think that it is highly likely that is true, the fact still remains that the drop, attack, attack sequence is actually fully legal (as been pointed out).
I just find it annoying that they didn't use this combat example to show/mention a few of the most common (and new) things that happens in combat and explained how the object interaction and weapon switching rules works, it would have been a perfect place to do it.
Personally, I view it as one draw and stow per attack (not Attack) because of my fondness of Rules as Fun.
Let the martials carry and use weapons like they’re in Ultrakill or Doom Eternal, I say!
Thanks for the clarification, everyone! I've edited my post.