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.
This: "Nor is there any 'future sight' required. The attack isn't created in the first place if the conditions are invalid..." is a nonsequitur. Knowing whether the condition of the future attack being made with a different light weapon is fulfilled requires, as you call it, "future sight".
I'm not sure what's confusing you. At the time you declare the Light weapon attack, you're also saying "this different weapon in my other hand will be used for an extra attack later". There's no 'future sight' or predicting involved. If, when you finally take the attack and it's no longer valid, then you don't take the attack.
And, again, if you've got two equally valid interpretations, the one that doesn't lead to absurd results is the one you prefer.
I'm not sure what's confusing you. At the time you declare the Light weapon attack, you're also saying "this different weapon in my other hand will be used for an extra attack later". There's no 'future sight' or predicting involved. If, when you finally take the attack and it's no longer valid, then you don't take the attack.
And, again, if you've got two equally valid interpretations, the one that doesn't lead to absurd results is the one you prefer.
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
All of this is false.
The decision point for when you can use your Reaction is predetermined for you. A reaction is:
an instant response to a trigger of some kind
When such a qualifying trigger occurs, that means that the prerequisites have been met so that determination has already been made. At that moment (when the trigger occurs) you must make your decision about whether or not you will use your Reaction. If you do not use it instantly in response to the trigger, you lose your opportunity to do so.
The Bonus Action works totally differently. In the case of the Bonus Action,
You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn unless the Bonus Action’s timing is specified.
Claiming that the timing is the same with these two mechanics is a fundamental lack of understanding of the general rules of the game.
My semantic distinctions add absolutely everything to the discussion since the semantics in question do not mean the same thing, in addition to being 100% correct as supported by the text which has been directly quoted. Furthermore, I have never said anything resembling the idea that a Bonus Action "activates only under certain conditions". Bonus Actions do not activate. That's the whole point -- one which I have already previously made. Various options for using your Bonus Action are always available to you. You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn. When you do, for whichever option you decide to use for your Bonus Action you follow the rules that are given in that feature which provides that Bonus Action. If those rules require some prerequisites to be met, then you must meet those prerequisites in order to use it.
A Nick attack is not triggered by anything. You simply make that attack in accordance with the rules for that feature if you have access to that feature and you choose to use it. You can do this at any time between your initial attack and the end of your Attack action. You choose the timing within that range. You are not forced to instantly respond to any sort of trigger. It's not that kind of mechanic.
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.
This is all incorrect. Not only does RAI not strongly favor the latter interpretation, but there is also plenty of text within the rules which support the first interpretation. I had literally just finished quoting those rules for your benefit shortly before you responded with this. Just scroll up to my previous posts for that information.
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.
There are not two possible interpretations though. The interpretation that you are proposing is not based on the written text. The text which explains how this feature works has been quoted for you in previous posts. Your interpretation is invented by you, it is not written in the rules. These forums mainly discuss the Rules as they are Written.
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.
There is no such thing as "creating" the additional attack. You are using terminology which describes game mechanics that do not exist in D&D 5e. I wonder if it is possible that you also play other RPGs from other systems and are mixing up how those systems work with how D&D 5e works. Because what you are describing just isn't how this game works.
At this point, I'm not even sure why this side discussion has gone on for so long. You have made a proposal for an interpretation of how one of the rules related to this thread works, and you have been shown why your interpretation is incorrect. That should have been the end of it long ago.
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.
There's nothing in the rules that favors your interpretation, either.
Yours adds an extra mechanic that is not required for the mechanism to work. You still have to check for the legitimacy of the bonus attack when it is made -- what if the character discards that second weapon before their bonus action? What if they then draw another light weapon? What if they then draw a rapier (and don't have dual wielder)?
If your reading is adding a mechanic that is neither necessary nor sufficient, I don't think it's a good reading.
(I also suspect we can find situations where it's inconsistent with the known behavior of other conditional bonus actions, but I'm not in the mood to go hunting.)
Obviously, you can play it that way at your table, but it also invalidates situations that feel like they really ought to work. For instance:
two-handed dagger throwing
starting out empty handed -- Draw first weapon and attack, then draw second weapon and attack is perfectly normal behavior.
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.
Most rules can lead to absurd outcomes if people try hard enough. Building extra rules structure that invalidates expected uses in order to stop the weird ones is not the best idea.
The DM can just put their foot down on actual problems, even if they're technically permitted by the rules.
(Also, the light weapon rules do not actually say they're for two-weapon fighting. Dual wielding is only mentioned by the DW feat.)
When two interpretations are in conflict, the one that leads to simple, sensible outcomes is preferable to the one that leads to complex, absurd ones.
I did not add an extra mechanic. It's the same mechanic the rules require. I just pointed out that there's no reason to believe you get to satisfy that mechanic when you make the attack rather than when the attack comes into existence.
Two thrown daggers works just fine. The Light property gives you an extra attack (Nick) with your off-hand Dagger. However, it wouldn't allow you use both Dual Wielder and Nick/Light - which makes sense given that Dual Wielder is intended to be a melee feat.
I'd argue that the empty hand scenario you describe makes perfect sense given the Dual Wielder feat specifically gives you an ability to bypass this problem. If, as you assert, this isn't actually a problem then why does the Dual Wielder feat attempt to solve it?
The Light weapon rules give an explicit example of dual wielding.
However, it wouldn't allow you use both Dual Wielder and Nick/Light - which makes sense given that Dual Wielder is intended to be a melee feat
If your interpretation doesn't allow both Dual Wielder and Nick attacks in the same round, then it's flat broken
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)
It wouldn't allow Dual Wielder and Nick/Light with Thrown weapons. It would allow the combination with melee weapons. However, Dual Wielder is already 'broken' for Thrown weapons since it works for some and not others.
It wouldn't allow Dual Wielder and Nick/Light with Thrown weapons. It would allow the combination with melee weapons. However, Dual Wielder is already 'broken' for Thrown weapons since it works for some and not others.
1) start round empty-handed 2) draw two daggers using DW feat 3) throw one as Attack action; throw second with Nick attack 4) draw another weapon with free object interaction, make melee attack as Bonus Action
That should be perfectly valid
EDIT: actually, you could throw the third weapon too. Dual Wielder just says it has to be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property, so chucking another dagger would be fine
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)
1) start round empty-handed 2) draw two daggers using DW feat 3) throw one as Attack action; throw second with Nick attack 4) draw another weapon with free object interaction, make melee attack as Bonus Action
That should be perfectly valid
It's perfectly valid and don't even need your free object interaction depending how you interpret Equipping and Unequipping Weapons when you make an attack as part of the Attack action.
Thrown Weapons don't really function correctly under any interpretation.
Let's say you have the broadest interpretation of Light/Nick/Dual Wielder. You throw a Dagger with one hand. You draw/Throw a Dagger with the same hand via Light/Nick. You draw/Throw a Dagger with the same hand via Dual Wielder.
Sound somewhat reasonable. Until you realize you can't do this with Darts. You can't make a Dual Wielder attack with Darts because they're a Ranged weapon.
You also can't do it with magical weapons. That shiny +3 Returning Dagger you got for Christmas? You can't use it with either Light/Nick or Dual Wielder because it's not a "different weapon". You're back down to one attack.
Thrown weapons function correctly with Bonus Action extra attack of the Light property, or Dual Wielder, the exception with the latter is only Dart for the extra attack of Dual Wielder because it specifically works with melee weapon and i's a ranged weapon. You can even draw 2 Darts as part of an attack with them because that requirements isn't there for Quick Draw.
Indeed these extra attacks must be done with a different weapon than the one enabling them, so it can't be the same weapon ending up in your hand again after reappearing or being picked-up.
It wouldn't allow Dual Wielder and Nick/Light with Thrown weapons. It would allow the combination with melee weapons. However, Dual Wielder is already 'broken' for Thrown weapons since it works for some and not others.
1) start round empty-handed 2) draw two daggers using DW feat 3) throw one as Attack action; throw second with Nick attack 4) draw another weapon with free object interaction, make melee attack as Bonus Action
That should be perfectly valid
EDIT: actually, you could throw the third weapon too. Dual Wielder just says it has to be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property, so chucking another dagger would be fine
You don't need the DW feat to draw 2 thrown weapons and throw one. The thrown property lets you draw the thrown weapon as part of the attack and the attack action lets you draw a separate weapon as part of that attack. The DW feat plus thrown property gives you tons of weapon interactions. It makes me ask does the DW feat let you draw 2 weapons using the thrown property and another 2 from the attack action or is the weapon draw from the thrown property limited to that weapon used in the attack? Either way it gives you at least 3 weapon interactions with one attack.
Thrown: If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack, and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack. If the weapon is a Melee weapon, use the same ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls that you use for a melee attack with that weapon.
You don't need quick draw to draw 2 darts and throw one. The thrown property lets you draw the thrown weapon as part of the attack and the attack action lets you draw a separate weapon as part of that attack. The attack progression Anton posted above is actually ignoring a free weapon interaction for each thrown weapon.
Not sure if intended, but i agree in theory you don't need it, meaning with Quick Draw when you take the Attack action, you can even draw 2 Dart, throw one and draw another Dart. You could even draw up to 4 Darts but lacks free hands to do so.
You don't need quick draw to draw 2 darts and throw one. The thrown property lets you draw the thrown weapon as part of the attack and the attack action lets you draw a separate weapon as part of that attack. The attack progression Anton posted above is actually ignoring a free weapon interaction for each thrown weapon.
Not sure if intended, but i agree in theory you don't need it, meaning with Quick Draw when you take the Attack action, you can even draw 2 Dart, throw one and draw another Dart. You could even draw up to 4 Darts but lacks free hands to do so.
Darts just occupy a weird place in combat. They're the only ranged weapon you can use your strength modifier with. They don't have the light property even though a hand crossbow does. I feel like there's potential for a goofy build that is actually decent mechanically with them probably with a barbarian. Actually, a Path of the Giants barbarian would function pretty nicely with darts. Now I'm imagining a Barbarian throwing a dart that keeps coming back through elemental cleaver that deals 1d6 + 1d4 + str mod + rage, so slightly less than a regular greatsword attack, while wearing a shield. They don't even need to recklessly attack because of vex and can take the archery fighting style for a +2 to the attack through a multiclass into battle master fighter while grabbing the quick toss maneuver.
I personally think it would have been sensible for the new Sage Advice to include a thorough discussion of how Light weapons, the Nick property, Two-Weapon Fighting, the Two-Weapon Fighting style, and dual wielding all combine. It is one area I find horrendously confusing. The 2014 version was much cleaner and clearer, and that seemed to have caused much confusion in many itself.
So, weapon juggling just got the shield tossed into the mix. Interesting.
I did notice that it says in the question: “With the other hand”, meaning the drawing of the second weapon has to be done with the other hand.
[ then again they left a good bit of the rest of the Light property wording out. (Sigh)]
Shield Bashing could count as the second other hand attack, but is a shield a light improvised weapon?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
This: "Nor is there any 'future sight' required. The attack isn't created in the first place if the conditions are invalid..." is a nonsequitur. Knowing whether the condition of the future attack being made with a different light weapon is fulfilled requires, as you call it, "future sight".
I'm not sure what's confusing you. At the time you declare the Light weapon attack, you're also saying "this different weapon in my other hand will be used for an extra attack later". There's no 'future sight' or predicting involved. If, when you finally take the attack and it's no longer valid, then you don't take the attack.
And, again, if you've got two equally valid interpretations, the one that doesn't lead to absurd results is the one you prefer.
You don't ever need to say something like that.
I agree with your conclusion.
All of this is false.
The decision point for when you can use your Reaction is predetermined for you. A reaction is:
When such a qualifying trigger occurs, that means that the prerequisites have been met so that determination has already been made. At that moment (when the trigger occurs) you must make your decision about whether or not you will use your Reaction. If you do not use it instantly in response to the trigger, you lose your opportunity to do so.
The Bonus Action works totally differently. In the case of the Bonus Action,
Claiming that the timing is the same with these two mechanics is a fundamental lack of understanding of the general rules of the game.
My semantic distinctions add absolutely everything to the discussion since the semantics in question do not mean the same thing, in addition to being 100% correct as supported by the text which has been directly quoted. Furthermore, I have never said anything resembling the idea that a Bonus Action "activates only under certain conditions". Bonus Actions do not activate. That's the whole point -- one which I have already previously made. Various options for using your Bonus Action are always available to you. You choose when to take a Bonus Action during your turn. When you do, for whichever option you decide to use for your Bonus Action you follow the rules that are given in that feature which provides that Bonus Action. If those rules require some prerequisites to be met, then you must meet those prerequisites in order to use it.
A Nick attack is not triggered by anything. You simply make that attack in accordance with the rules for that feature if you have access to that feature and you choose to use it. You can do this at any time between your initial attack and the end of your Attack action. You choose the timing within that range. You are not forced to instantly respond to any sort of trigger. It's not that kind of mechanic.
This is all incorrect. Not only does RAI not strongly favor the latter interpretation, but there is also plenty of text within the rules which support the first interpretation. I had literally just finished quoting those rules for your benefit shortly before you responded with this. Just scroll up to my previous posts for that information.
There are not two possible interpretations though. The interpretation that you are proposing is not based on the written text. The text which explains how this feature works has been quoted for you in previous posts. Your interpretation is invented by you, it is not written in the rules. These forums mainly discuss the Rules as they are Written.
There is no such thing as "creating" the additional attack. You are using terminology which describes game mechanics that do not exist in D&D 5e. I wonder if it is possible that you also play other RPGs from other systems and are mixing up how those systems work with how D&D 5e works. Because what you are describing just isn't how this game works.
At this point, I'm not even sure why this side discussion has gone on for so long. You have made a proposal for an interpretation of how one of the rules related to this thread works, and you have been shown why your interpretation is incorrect. That should have been the end of it long ago.
There's nothing in the rules that favors your interpretation, either.
Yours adds an extra mechanic that is not required for the mechanism to work. You still have to check for the legitimacy of the bonus attack when it is made -- what if the character discards that second weapon before their bonus action? What if they then draw another light weapon? What if they then draw a rapier (and don't have dual wielder)?
If your reading is adding a mechanic that is neither necessary nor sufficient, I don't think it's a good reading.
(I also suspect we can find situations where it's inconsistent with the known behavior of other conditional bonus actions, but I'm not in the mood to go hunting.)
Obviously, you can play it that way at your table, but it also invalidates situations that feel like they really ought to work. For instance:
Most rules can lead to absurd outcomes if people try hard enough. Building extra rules structure that invalidates expected uses in order to stop the weird ones is not the best idea.
The DM can just put their foot down on actual problems, even if they're technically permitted by the rules.
(Also, the light weapon rules do not actually say they're for two-weapon fighting. Dual wielding is only mentioned by the DW feat.)
When two interpretations are in conflict, the one that leads to simple, sensible outcomes is preferable to the one that leads to complex, absurd ones.
I did not add an extra mechanic. It's the same mechanic the rules require. I just pointed out that there's no reason to believe you get to satisfy that mechanic when you make the attack rather than when the attack comes into existence.
Two thrown daggers works just fine. The Light property gives you an extra attack (Nick) with your off-hand Dagger. However, it wouldn't allow you use both Dual Wielder and Nick/Light - which makes sense given that Dual Wielder is intended to be a melee feat.
I'd argue that the empty hand scenario you describe makes perfect sense given the Dual Wielder feat specifically gives you an ability to bypass this problem. If, as you assert, this isn't actually a problem then why does the Dual Wielder feat attempt to solve it?
The Light weapon rules give an explicit example of dual wielding.
If your interpretation doesn't allow both Dual Wielder and Nick attacks in the same round, then it's flat broken
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)
It wouldn't allow Dual Wielder and Nick/Light with Thrown weapons. It would allow the combination with melee weapons. However, Dual Wielder is already 'broken' for Thrown weapons since it works for some and not others.
1) start round empty-handed
2) draw two daggers using DW feat
3) throw one as Attack action; throw second with Nick attack
4) draw another weapon with free object interaction, make melee attack as Bonus Action
That should be perfectly valid
EDIT: actually, you could throw the third weapon too. Dual Wielder just says it has to be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property, so chucking another dagger would be fine
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)
It's perfectly valid and don't even need your free object interaction depending how you interpret Equipping and Unequipping Weapons when you make an attack as part of the Attack action.
Thrown Weapons don't really function correctly under any interpretation.
Let's say you have the broadest interpretation of Light/Nick/Dual Wielder. You throw a Dagger with one hand. You draw/Throw a Dagger with the same hand via Light/Nick. You draw/Throw a Dagger with the same hand via Dual Wielder.
Sound somewhat reasonable. Until you realize you can't do this with Darts. You can't make a Dual Wielder attack with Darts because they're a Ranged weapon.
You also can't do it with magical weapons. That shiny +3 Returning Dagger you got for Christmas? You can't use it with either Light/Nick or Dual Wielder because it's not a "different weapon". You're back down to one attack.
Thrown weapons function correctly with Bonus Action extra attack of the Light property, or Dual Wielder, the exception with the latter is only Dart for the extra attack of Dual Wielder because it specifically works with melee weapon and i's a ranged weapon. You can even draw 2 Darts as part of an attack with them because that requirements isn't there for Quick Draw.
Indeed these extra attacks must be done with a different weapon than the one enabling them, so it can't be the same weapon ending up in your hand again after reappearing or being picked-up.
EDIT For clarity
You don't need the DW feat to draw 2 thrown weapons and throw one. The thrown property lets you draw the thrown weapon as part of the attack and the attack action lets you draw a separate weapon as part of that attack. The DW feat plus thrown property gives you tons of weapon interactions. It makes me ask does the DW feat let you draw 2 weapons using the thrown property and another 2 from the attack action or is the weapon draw from the thrown property limited to that weapon used in the attack? Either way it gives you at least 3 weapon interactions with one attack.
Thrown: If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack, and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack. If the weapon is a Melee weapon, use the same ability modifier for the attack and damage rolls that you use for a melee attack with that weapon.
Not sure if intended, but i agree in theory you don't need it, meaning with Quick Draw when you take the Attack action, you can even draw 2 Dart, throw one and draw another Dart. You could even draw up to 4 Darts but lacks free hands to do so.
Darts just occupy a weird place in combat. They're the only ranged weapon you can use your strength modifier with. They don't have the light property even though a hand crossbow does. I feel like there's potential for a goofy build that is actually decent mechanically with them probably with a barbarian. Actually, a Path of the Giants barbarian would function pretty nicely with darts. Now I'm imagining a Barbarian throwing a dart that keeps coming back through elemental cleaver that deals 1d6 + 1d4 + str mod + rage, so slightly less than a regular greatsword attack, while wearing a shield. They don't even need to recklessly attack because of vex and can take the archery fighting style for a +2 to the attack through a multiclass into battle master fighter while grabbing the quick toss maneuver.
Well, the new sage advice has settled the most recent topic of dispute, if not all the others around light weapon attacks:
Yeah, so true. I can finally forget about my personal ruling :)
I personally think it would have been sensible for the new Sage Advice to include a thorough discussion of how Light weapons, the Nick property, Two-Weapon Fighting, the Two-Weapon Fighting style, and dual wielding all combine. It is one area I find horrendously confusing. The 2014 version was much cleaner and clearer, and that seemed to have caused much confusion in many itself.
So, weapon juggling just got the shield tossed into the mix. Interesting.
I did notice that it says in the question: “With the other hand”, meaning the drawing of the second weapon has to be done with the other hand.
[ then again they left a good bit of the rest of the Light property wording out. (Sigh)]
Shield Bashing could count as the second other hand attack, but is a shield a light improvised weapon?
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
A shield is an improvised weapon if you attack with it, but it's not Light.
pronouns: he/she/they