Example: If I draw a shortsword and stow a longsword I have drawn or stowed 2 weapons.
No you haven't draw or stow 2 weapons in your example, you have draw and stow 2 weapons.
Quick Draw increase the number of weapons interacted with, not the number of interactions itself. If you can either equip or unequip two weapons when you would only one, you can't both both.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip onetwo weapon* when you make an attack as part of this action.
This is just wrong. If you say I had drawn and stowed 2 weapons then I would have pulled out 2 weapons and put them both away because the verbs are linked. You can say that I've drawn 1 weapon and stowed 1 weapon but not that I have drawn and stowed 2 weapons.
Sorry, MeatLuggin, I wasn’t able to respond to your replies earlier. This is how my brain parses Quick Draw:
You can draw two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw only one,
or
you can stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to stow only one.
Basically, it replaces one single draw, or one single stow.
This is the interpretation I agree with, but I can't say the other reading is definitely wrong.
It ultimately depends on whether you parse the object interaction you're taking as "draw or stow a weapon" or "draw a weapon"/"stow a weapon", and object interactions aren't (and shouldn't be) rigidly categorized, so we can't tell.
IMO, since you can't both draw and stow a single weapon at the same time, the interaction you're doing is "draw a weapon", and thus DW turns it into "draw two weapons". (And similarly for stowing.)
So you agree that what I'm saying is a perfectly valid interpretation that you can't refute. Actually what you said about parsing supports my argument in that the dual wielder feat does not parse them out rather lumps them together.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
The wording in the rules is
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.
It's that last part of the sentence that makes the RAI, in my mind, two draws or two stows, but not one of each
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This is the interpretation I agree with, but I can't say the other reading is definitely wrong.
It ultimately depends on whether you parse the object interaction you're taking as "draw or stow a weapon" or "draw a weapon"/"stow a weapon", and object interactions aren't (and shouldn't be) rigidly categorized, so we can't tell.
IMO, since you can't both draw and stow a single weapon at the same time, the interaction you're doing is "draw a weapon", and thus DW turns it into "draw two weapons". (And similarly for stowing.)
So you agree that what I'm saying is a perfectly valid interpretation that you can't refute.
Well, I can't say it's definitively wrong. That's not the same as saying it's right.
Actually what you said about parsing supports my argument in that the dual wielder feat does not parse them out rather lumps them together.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
You are making way too strong of a statement here. Your argument is based upon there being a specific game action "draw or stow". It can equally be argued that there are two separate game actions "draw" and "stow". Since they're direct opposites, there's a fair amount of support for that. They could easily be listing them together because they're used in the same context, and there's no actual need for a specific "draw or stow" object interaction to even exist.
In other words, this is one of those "English is not a formal logic system" issues. There is ambiguity, and you cannot argue that only you are correct based on that ambiguity.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
The wording in the rules is
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.
It's that last part of the sentence that makes the RAI, in my mind, two draws or two stows, but not one of each
You're quoting rules that support what I've said and then adjusting the verbiage later to contradict it. To get into the grammar of "draw or stow two weapons" there are 2 verbs that the subject can choose from for the object which in this case is the weapons. The objects are not tied to a specific verb so there is nothing in the phrase to indicates that the verb the subject chooses has to be the same for both weapons. If you wanted the object of the sentence tied to the specific verb it would have been worded "When you would normally be able to draw or stow a weapon you can draw two weapons or stow two weapons if they lack the Two-Handed property". You can make that change with 2 extra words, so I find it hard to believe that was the intention.
This is the interpretation I agree with, but I can't say the other reading is definitely wrong.
It ultimately depends on whether you parse the object interaction you're taking as "draw or stow a weapon" or "draw a weapon"/"stow a weapon", and object interactions aren't (and shouldn't be) rigidly categorized, so we can't tell.
IMO, since you can't both draw and stow a single weapon at the same time, the interaction you're doing is "draw a weapon", and thus DW turns it into "draw two weapons". (And similarly for stowing.)
So you agree that what I'm saying is a perfectly valid interpretation that you can't refute.
Well, I can't say it's definitively wrong. That's not the same as saying it's right.
Actually what you said about parsing supports my argument in that the dual wielder feat does not parse them out rather lumps them together.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
You are making way too strong of a statement here. Your argument is based upon there being a specific game action "draw or stow". It can equally be argued that there are two separate game actions "draw" and "stow". Since they're direct opposites, there's a fair amount of support for that. They could easily be listing them together because they're used in the same context, and there's no actual need for a specific "draw or stow" object interaction to even exist.
In other words, this is one of those "English is not a formal logic system" issues. There is ambiguity, and you cannot argue that only you are correct based on that ambiguity.
Please don't strawman my argument. There doesn't need to be a specific game action of "draw or stow" for the interaction to work as I've described. You can come to my understanding from a plain reading of the rules. You can disagree all you want as to the intention but if you can't refute what I'm saying then it stands to reason that it is RAW. Saying I don't think it works that way and rewriting the feature is not a valid argument and that's all that has been done so far. As per the forum rules RAW can be weird and not be intuitive. It can also not be the intention.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
The wording in the rules is
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.
It's that last part of the sentence that makes the RAI, in my mind, two draws or two stows, but not one of each
You're quoting rules that support what I've said and then adjusting the verbiage later to contradict it.
No, my dude, I am doing no such thing. The rule does not clearly support your position, and I adjusted nothing. I even specified that I was talking about my interpretation of the intention behind the rules (RAI) -- the spirit of the rule, not the letter (RAW)
As for your attempted lecture on "grammar", LOL. What you should be focused on is the inherent ambiguity of the word 'or' in the rule, and why the 'and/or' conjunction was created in the first place
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As an interesting side note, I ran into a player at the LGS today who seemed to believe in an interpretation I had never heard - but makes more sense the more I think about it.
The premise is that when you attack with a Light weapon for the first time in your Attack action, both Light and Dual Wielder attempt to create extra attacks but these extra attacks need to be valid at the time they're generated (as well as when they're taken).
So let's say you're holding a Dagger and a Long Sword. The first time you attack with the Dagger, both a Light/Nick attack and a Dual Wielder attack try to be created. The Light/Nick attack does not get created because the only 'different weapon' available is the non-Light Long Sword. However, the Dual Wielder attack you can take as a Bonus Action is created because Long Sword is a valid choice for that attack. When it gets around to your Bonus Action, you can only take the attack with the Long Sword you were holding at the time the Bonus Action option was created.
On the other hand, if you're holding a Dagger and a Short Sword, both Light/Nick and Bonus Action attacks would be valid and you could take them both - with the Short Sword.
This interpretation - requiring that the conditions be met both when the attacks are created and when you finally get around to resolving them - does not appear to be contradicted by the text. While it's tough to argue you must interpret it this way, it's equally tough to argue you can't interpret it this way.
However, if you do interpret it this way, pretty much all the nuttiness around two weapon fighting vanishes. No more juggling weapons. No more 'dual wielding' as a S&B fighter. You just dual wield like common sense indicates you should dual wield - getting an extra attack (or two) because you're holding a pair of eligible weapons.
I believe that common sense (updated SAC?) is something we need for sure.
For example, in my case, I'm ruling to get the extra attack as a Bonus Action, you should start the Attack action already wielding two Light weapons, and I consider Nick is activated when you attack with that weapon for the Light additional attack, based on the article Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook and my interpretation of Light weapons.
[...] It still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding.
The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action. [...]
But that's just my personal take, and I can understand other points of view depending on how the rules are interpreted.
The premise is that when you attack with a Light weapon for the first time in your Attack action, both Light and Dual Wielder attempt to create extra attacks but these extra attacks need to be valid at the time they're generated (as well as when they're taken).
. . .
This interpretation - requiring that the conditions be met both when the attacks are created and when you finally get around to resolving them - does not appear to be contradicted by the text.
Bonus Actions do not work this way. They are not "triggered" in the same sense as Reactions are triggered. They are features and rules that a character always has available to them. The feature which provides the Bonus Action might specify some prerequisites, and it might specify a timing for when and how this Bonus Action can be taken, but it's not really something that is "created" per se. A character might have many different features which can be used as a Bonus Action all at the same time -- in such cases, they must choose which one they will use if and when they decide to use their Bonus Action for that turn.
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called 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.
. . .
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.
So, the only reason why the first attack is relevant to the timing of the Bonus Action is because that attack has to have happened before taking this Bonus Action. Nothing related to the Bonus Action is actually happening at the moment that the first attack is made. You decide when to take your Bonus Action during your turn. When you do finally decide that you will take your Bonus Action to make this extra attack . . . at that moment we check to see if the prerequisites are met, not beforehand.
I'm ruling to get the extra attack as a Bonus Action, you should start the Attack action already wielding two Light weapons, and I consider Nick is activated when you attack with that weapon for the Light additional attack
This also is not how it works.
First, you always have the Bonus Action extra attack of the Light property available to you as a game feature. At the moment when you decide that you want to use this Bonus Action you check to see if the prerequisites are met -- you don't check for this beforehand. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to begin your attack action wielding a light weapon in one hand and with your second hand empty. After you make your initial attack, if you so choose, you could use the "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" clause of the Attack action to draw a second light weapon into your empty hand. Then, as a Bonus Action, you could make the extra attack of the Light property. This is a totally reasonable sequence that is well within the rules which a player should expect will work if they choose to do it this way. The Light property itself makes no mention of any requirement to dual wield weapons before, during or after using the rule given by the Light property.
Nick is indeed activated at the moment that you are making your extra attack of the Light Property. Instead of using your Bonus Action to do so, you can decide to use the Nick rule to do so as part of your Attack action -- nothing that happens prior to this decision point affects the timing of this interaction. There is no reason why you would need to begin your Attack action with a weapon in both hands in order to use the Nick mastery property, and there is no reason why you would need to have a weapon in both hands at the moment that you are making your initial attack with your Attack action in order to subsequently make the extra attack of the Light property (either via the Light property as a Bonus Action or via the Nick mastery property as part of your Attack action).
So you agree that what I'm saying is a perfectly valid interpretation that you can't refute.
Well, I can't say it's definitively wrong. That's not the same as saying it's right.
Actually what you said about parsing supports my argument in that the dual wielder feat does not parse them out rather lumps them together.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
You are making way too strong of a statement here. Your argument is based upon there being a specific game action "draw or stow". It can equally be argued that there are two separate game actions "draw" and "stow". Since they're direct opposites, there's a fair amount of support for that. They could easily be listing them together because they're used in the same context, and there's no actual need for a specific "draw or stow" object interaction to even exist.
In other words, this is one of those "English is not a formal logic system" issues. There is ambiguity, and you cannot argue that only you are correct based on that ambiguity.
Please don't strawman my argument. There doesn't need to be a specific game action of "draw or stow" for the interaction to work as I've described. You can come to my understanding from a plain reading of the rules. You can disagree all you want as to the intention but if you can't refute what I'm saying then it stands to reason that it is RAW.
No.
It's ambiguous. There are two interpretations possible. I believe one is better supported, but cannot rule out the other.
I'm ruling to get the extra attack as a Bonus Action, you should start the Attack action already wielding two Light weapons, and I consider Nick is activated when you attack with that weapon for the Light additional attack
This also is not how it works. [...]
Ok. I started saying "I'm ruling... ", and wrapping it up with "... that's just my personal take".
I call it The Tarod Way. But maybe it's the intent. Who knows.
Bonus Actions do not work this way. They are not "triggered" in the same sense as Reactions are triggered. They are features and rules that a character always has available to them. The feature which provides the Bonus Action might specify some prerequisites, and it might specify a timing for when and how this Bonus Action can be taken
Hmm. What's a word that means "activates or becomes available to use only when certain conditions are met"... ?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Bonus Actions do not work this way. They are not "triggered" in the same sense as Reactions are triggered. They are features and rules that a character always has available to them. The feature which provides the Bonus Action might specify some prerequisites, and it might specify a timing for when and how this Bonus Action can be taken
Hmm. What's a word that means "activates or becomes available to use only when certain conditions are met"... ?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The point is: You don't have to make any decision at the moment that you are making your initial attack about whether or not you are using that Bonus action nor do we make the determination regarding whether or not you meet the requirements to take that Bonus action at that time. When you do finally decide to take that Bonus action, it only matters that that initial attack occurred at some prior moment on your turn. It doesn't matter if you are wielding only one weapon at the moment when you made your initial attack -- that game state does not trigger any sort of availability or restriction of that Bonus Action. Such a determination is made at the moment that you decide to use that Bonus Action.
It doesn't matter if you are wielding only one weapon at the moment when you made your initial attack -- that game state does not trigger any sort of availability or restriction of that Bonus Action. Such a determination is made at the moment that you decide to use that Bonus Action.
Just like the determination on whether you can use a Reaction is made when you decide to use it
Trying to make a semantic distinction between "triggered" and "activates only under certain conditions" adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion, in addition to being flat out incorrect since they mean the same thing
Aside from the mechanics of one being a Bonus Action and the other being a Reaction, the only practical difference between a Nick attack and, say, an Opportunity Attack is that the former is triggered by your own choices, while the latter triggered by something external. They both still require a trigger, though
To make the point even clearer that the distinction you're trying to create doesn't actually exist in RAW, just as you said a Bonus Action is a feature "a character always has available to them", so is an Opportunity Attack
A Reaction is a special action taken in response to a trigger defined in the Reaction’s description. You can take a Reaction on another creature’s turn, and if you take it on your turn, you can do so even if you also take an action, a Bonus Action, or both. Once you take a Reaction, you can’t take another one until the start of your next turn. The Opportunity Attack is a Reaction available to all creatures.See also “Opportunity Attacks” and “Playing the Game” (“Actions”).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ultimately, there is nothing in the rules that supports the "anything goes" interpretation of how two weapon fighting works as more correct than the "everything locked in when you attack with the Light weapon" interpretation. However, RAI strongly favors the latter interpretation since it creates a far simpler, more consistent rules set that functions the way players natively expect two weapon fighting to function.
Ultimately, there is nothing in the rules that supports the "anything goes" interpretation of how two weapon fighting works as more correct than the "everything locked in when you attack with the Light weapon" interpretation. However, RAI strongly favors the latter interpretation since it creates a far simpler, more consistent rules set that functions the way players natively expect two weapon fighting to function.
Actually there is. The light property.
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. 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.
I see zero evidence here that you must be wielding the "different Light weapon" must be held when you "take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon".
edit: before you say it, the example does have them wielding the weapons simultaneously, but that is simply the standard use case and not the required one
The Light Property: "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. 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."
There is absolutely nothing in that rules text that favors a ruling that you only need to make the check about weapons when you take the later attack. The attack is obviously qualified and it makes complete sense that the attack option isn't created when you don't meet the criteria at the time it is created.
Ultimately, it really does boil down to the simple realization that if you've got two possible interpretations of the rules and one leads to completely absurd outcomes - like "dual wielding" while holding a Shield the entire time - the other one must necessarily be correct.
The Light Property: "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. 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."
There is absolutely nothing in that rules text that favors a ruling that you only need to make the check about weapons when you take the later attack. The attack is obviously qualified and it makes complete sense that the attack option isn't created when you don't meet the criteria at the time it is created.
Ultimately, it really does boil down to the simple realization that if you've got two possible interpretations of the rules and one leads to completely absurd outcomes - like "dual wielding" while holding a Shield the entire time - the other one must necessarily be correct.
You are just not supported by the text. Taking 30 seconds to actually read it quickly disproves your viewpoint. The text says, "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..." Read that and tell me you need to be duel wielding for it to apply.
The text of the Light weapon property makes it abundantly clear that the different Light weapon is a pre-requisite for receiving the additional attack. You are claiming that this requirement is only checked when you take the attack. I am pointing out is it equally valid to claim that the check must be true both when you create the additional attack and when you take the additional attack.
Essentially, you want to argue that you can 'fool' the rules via some sort of bait and switch tactic.
Your interpretation leads to unnecessarily complex interactions and absurd scenarios. The interpretation I was given leads to simple, sensible applications of dual wield that matches both how the game has traditionally player and how most players assume it plays.
The text of the Light weapon property makes it abundantly clear that the different Light weapon is a pre-requisite for receiving the additional attack. You are claiming that this requirement is only checked when you take the attack. I am pointing out is it equally valid to claim that the check must be true both when you create the additional attack and when you take the additional attack.
Your interpretation leads to unnecessarily complex interactions and absurd scenarios. The interpretation I was given leads to simple, sensible applications of dual wield that matches both how the game has traditionally player and how most players assume it plays.
There is no "check" you need to make and that notion makes no sense. How can you check if you will make an attack with a weapon in the future?
There is absolutely a 'check'. The Light property conditions the extra attack on using a different Light weapon. Nor is there any 'future sight' required. The attack isn't created in the first place if the conditions are invalid, nor can the attack be used if its conditions are invalid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is just wrong. If you say I had drawn and stowed 2 weapons then I would have pulled out 2 weapons and put them both away because the verbs are linked. You can say that I've drawn 1 weapon and stowed 1 weapon but not that I have drawn and stowed 2 weapons.
So you agree that what I'm saying is a perfectly valid interpretation that you can't refute. Actually what you said about parsing supports my argument in that the dual wielder feat does not parse them out rather lumps them together.
What I'm saying is that rules as written the language allows for the interaction as I've described it. To read the interaction as "draw 2 weapons or stow 2 weapons" instead of "draw or stow 2 weapons" is not the wording in the rules.
The wording in the rules is
It's that last part of the sentence that makes the RAI, in my mind, two draws or two stows, but not one of each
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, I can't say it's definitively wrong. That's not the same as saying it's right.
You are making way too strong of a statement here. Your argument is based upon there being a specific game action "draw or stow". It can equally be argued that there are two separate game actions "draw" and "stow". Since they're direct opposites, there's a fair amount of support for that. They could easily be listing them together because they're used in the same context, and there's no actual need for a specific "draw or stow" object interaction to even exist.
In other words, this is one of those "English is not a formal logic system" issues. There is ambiguity, and you cannot argue that only you are correct based on that ambiguity.
You're quoting rules that support what I've said and then adjusting the verbiage later to contradict it. To get into the grammar of "draw or stow two weapons" there are 2 verbs that the subject can choose from for the object which in this case is the weapons. The objects are not tied to a specific verb so there is nothing in the phrase to indicates that the verb the subject chooses has to be the same for both weapons. If you wanted the object of the sentence tied to the specific verb it would have been worded "When you would normally be able to draw or stow a weapon you can draw two weapons or stow two weapons if they lack the Two-Handed property". You can make that change with 2 extra words, so I find it hard to believe that was the intention.
Please don't strawman my argument. There doesn't need to be a specific game action of "draw or stow" for the interaction to work as I've described. You can come to my understanding from a plain reading of the rules. You can disagree all you want as to the intention but if you can't refute what I'm saying then it stands to reason that it is RAW. Saying I don't think it works that way and rewriting the feature is not a valid argument and that's all that has been done so far. As per the forum rules RAW can be weird and not be intuitive. It can also not be the intention.
Edited for clarity.
No, my dude, I am doing no such thing. The rule does not clearly support your position, and I adjusted nothing. I even specified that I was talking about my interpretation of the intention behind the rules (RAI) -- the spirit of the rule, not the letter (RAW)
As for your attempted lecture on "grammar", LOL. What you should be focused on is the inherent ambiguity of the word 'or' in the rule, and why the 'and/or' conjunction was created in the first place
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
As an interesting side note, I ran into a player at the LGS today who seemed to believe in an interpretation I had never heard - but makes more sense the more I think about it.
The premise is that when you attack with a Light weapon for the first time in your Attack action, both Light and Dual Wielder attempt to create extra attacks but these extra attacks need to be valid at the time they're generated (as well as when they're taken).
So let's say you're holding a Dagger and a Long Sword. The first time you attack with the Dagger, both a Light/Nick attack and a Dual Wielder attack try to be created. The Light/Nick attack does not get created because the only 'different weapon' available is the non-Light Long Sword. However, the Dual Wielder attack you can take as a Bonus Action is created because Long Sword is a valid choice for that attack. When it gets around to your Bonus Action, you can only take the attack with the Long Sword you were holding at the time the Bonus Action option was created.
On the other hand, if you're holding a Dagger and a Short Sword, both Light/Nick and Bonus Action attacks would be valid and you could take them both - with the Short Sword.
This interpretation - requiring that the conditions be met both when the attacks are created and when you finally get around to resolving them - does not appear to be contradicted by the text. While it's tough to argue you must interpret it this way, it's equally tough to argue you can't interpret it this way.
However, if you do interpret it this way, pretty much all the nuttiness around two weapon fighting vanishes. No more juggling weapons. No more 'dual wielding' as a S&B fighter. You just dual wield like common sense indicates you should dual wield - getting an extra attack (or two) because you're holding a pair of eligible weapons.
I believe that common sense (updated SAC?) is something we need for sure.
For example, in my case, I'm ruling to get the extra attack as a Bonus Action, you should start the Attack action already wielding two Light weapons, and I consider Nick is activated when you attack with that weapon for the Light additional attack, based on the article Your Guide to Weapon Mastery in the 2024 Player's Handbook and my interpretation of Light weapons.
But that's just my personal take, and I can understand other points of view depending on how the rules are interpreted.
RAW juggling weapons is a thing in any case.
Bonus Actions do not work this way. They are not "triggered" in the same sense as Reactions are triggered. They are features and rules that a character always has available to them. The feature which provides the Bonus Action might specify some prerequisites, and it might specify a timing for when and how this Bonus Action can be taken, but it's not really something that is "created" per se. A character might have many different features which can be used as a Bonus Action all at the same time -- in such cases, they must choose which one they will use if and when they decide to use their Bonus Action for that turn.
So, the only reason why the first attack is relevant to the timing of the Bonus Action is because that attack has to have happened before taking this Bonus Action. Nothing related to the Bonus Action is actually happening at the moment that the first attack is made. You decide when to take your Bonus Action during your turn. When you do finally decide that you will take your Bonus Action to make this extra attack . . . at that moment we check to see if the prerequisites are met, not beforehand.
This also is not how it works.
First, you always have the Bonus Action extra attack of the Light property available to you as a game feature. At the moment when you decide that you want to use this Bonus Action you check to see if the prerequisites are met -- you don't check for this beforehand. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable to begin your attack action wielding a light weapon in one hand and with your second hand empty. After you make your initial attack, if you so choose, you could use the "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" clause of the Attack action to draw a second light weapon into your empty hand. Then, as a Bonus Action, you could make the extra attack of the Light property. This is a totally reasonable sequence that is well within the rules which a player should expect will work if they choose to do it this way. The Light property itself makes no mention of any requirement to dual wield weapons before, during or after using the rule given by the Light property.
Nick is indeed activated at the moment that you are making your extra attack of the Light Property. Instead of using your Bonus Action to do so, you can decide to use the Nick rule to do so as part of your Attack action -- nothing that happens prior to this decision point affects the timing of this interaction. There is no reason why you would need to begin your Attack action with a weapon in both hands in order to use the Nick mastery property, and there is no reason why you would need to have a weapon in both hands at the moment that you are making your initial attack with your Attack action in order to subsequently make the extra attack of the Light property (either via the Light property as a Bonus Action or via the Nick mastery property as part of your Attack action).
No.
It's ambiguous. There are two interpretations possible. I believe one is better supported, but cannot rule out the other.
This means that neither are RAW.
Ok. I started saying "I'm ruling... ", and wrapping it up with "... that's just my personal take".
I call it The Tarod Way. But maybe it's the intent. Who knows.
Let's see if we get any clarifications.
EDIT: clarity.
Hmm. What's a word that means "activates or becomes available to use only when certain conditions are met"... ?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
The point is: You don't have to make any decision at the moment that you are making your initial attack about whether or not you are using that Bonus action nor do we make the determination regarding whether or not you meet the requirements to take that Bonus action at that time. When you do finally decide to take that Bonus action, it only matters that that initial attack occurred at some prior moment on your turn. It doesn't matter if you are wielding only one weapon at the moment when you made your initial attack -- that game state does not trigger any sort of availability or restriction of that Bonus Action. Such a determination is made at the moment that you decide to use that Bonus Action.
Just like the determination on whether you can use a Reaction is made when you decide to use it
Trying to make a semantic distinction between "triggered" and "activates only under certain conditions" adds absolutely nothing useful to the discussion, in addition to being flat out incorrect since they mean the same thing
Aside from the mechanics of one being a Bonus Action and the other being a Reaction, the only practical difference between a Nick attack and, say, an Opportunity Attack is that the former is triggered by your own choices, while the latter triggered by something external. They both still require a trigger, though
To make the point even clearer that the distinction you're trying to create doesn't actually exist in RAW, just as you said a Bonus Action is a feature "a character always has available to them", so is an Opportunity Attack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Ultimately, there is nothing in the rules that supports the "anything goes" interpretation of how two weapon fighting works as more correct than the "everything locked in when you attack with the Light weapon" interpretation. However, RAI strongly favors the latter interpretation since it creates a far simpler, more consistent rules set that functions the way players natively expect two weapon fighting to function.
Actually there is. The light property.
I see zero evidence here that you must be wielding the "different Light weapon" must be held when you "take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon".
edit: before you say it, the example does have them wielding the weapons simultaneously, but that is simply the standard use case and not the required one
The Light Property: "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. 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."
There is absolutely nothing in that rules text that favors a ruling that you only need to make the check about weapons when you take the later attack. The attack is obviously qualified and it makes complete sense that the attack option isn't created when you don't meet the criteria at the time it is created.
Ultimately, it really does boil down to the simple realization that if you've got two possible interpretations of the rules and one leads to completely absurd outcomes - like "dual wielding" while holding a Shield the entire time - the other one must necessarily be correct.
You are just not supported by the text. Taking 30 seconds to actually read it quickly disproves your viewpoint. The text says, "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..." Read that and tell me you need to be duel wielding for it to apply.
The text of the Light weapon property makes it abundantly clear that the different Light weapon is a pre-requisite for receiving the additional attack. You are claiming that this requirement is only checked when you take the attack. I am pointing out is it equally valid to claim that the check must be true both when you create the additional attack and when you take the additional attack.
Essentially, you want to argue that you can 'fool' the rules via some sort of bait and switch tactic.
Your interpretation leads to unnecessarily complex interactions and absurd scenarios. The interpretation I was given leads to simple, sensible applications of dual wield that matches both how the game has traditionally player and how most players assume it plays.
There is no "check" you need to make and that notion makes no sense. How can you check if you will make an attack with a weapon in the future?
There is absolutely a 'check'. The Light property conditions the extra attack on using a different Light weapon. Nor is there any 'future sight' required. The attack isn't created in the first place if the conditions are invalid, nor can the attack be used if its conditions are invalid.