Since The Weapon Master Feat only grants 1 mastery and it is not repeatable, I am assuming we are just talking about the Scimitar for Nick, for now.
Is there still a reason to not hold both weapons? The only one I can think of is spellcasting, so round one take the attack actions, attack with both weapons and then put the Scimitar away to free the hand, on the 2nd round then cast a BA spell and take the attack action, pulling out the scimitar? The only issue with this is you can't make a reaction spell that needs a free hand on the 2nd reaction but this is really the domain of the warcaster feat.
Anyways, I believe weapon juggling was highly opinionated in previous discussions and I don't see a good clarification in SAC, closest would be pulling out a light weapon. but that doesn't answer the question of if you can just switch weapons entirely in this fashion.
EDIT: by my intrepretation, it wouldn't be permitted, it's switch too much, too often. Round 2 more so, as it's 2 Unsheathe and 2 Sheathe actions from 3 attacks, where an attack allow only a single sheathe/unsheathe. So I really don't think that works. If Round 1 works is going to be opinionated and I personally would stick with no, it does not.
Seems to work fine. You don't even need to unequip weapons since the same hand accessing Material component can be used to perform Somatic components.
Personally, i require using the Nick weapon when making the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.
The idea was to hold the shield in one hand and exchange weapons with the other.
I felt it was a stretch, but I wanted to check with more people. RAW says you can equip/unequip as part of an attack (before or after), but agree that doing it several times feels too much
I am the DM and I'm wondering if this should be allowed or not.
The argument is that Equip/Unequip Weapons says that whenever you make an attack as part of the action, you can either equip or unequip. IMO, Nick freeing your bonus action shouldn't mean that you're so fast that you can equip/unequip 3 times.
The player is also leveraging the free action with objects, which feels again like a stretch since equipping or unequipping is covered in another section.
I am the DM and I'm wondering if this should be allowed or not.
The argument is that Equip/Unequip Weapons says that whenever you make an attack as part of the action, you can either equip or unequip. IMO, Nick freeing your bonus action shouldn't mean that you're so fast that you can equip/unequip 3 times.
The player is also leveraging the free action with objects, which feels again like a stretch since equipping or unequipping is covered in another section.
in 2014 sheating/unsheating/swapping weapons use to be done as the free item interaction from use an object but that was removed in 2024
The Object Interaction is not a free Utilize, it is a free quick usage of a single object only, which sheathe/unsheathe is not a quick usage, it is equipping/unequipping.
So I would say the free item interaction no longer relates to sheathing/unsheathing weapons like it did in 2014.
It says the DM may determine activities require an action, if the player decides to argue about it.
The DM might require you to use an action for any of these activities when it needs special care or when it presents an unusual obstacle. For instance, the DM might require you to take the Utilize action to open a stuck door or turn a crank to lower a drawbridge.
Ultimately as DM it is what you'd allow that matters.
The idea was to hold the shield in one hand and exchange weapons with the other.
I felt it was a stretch, but I wanted to check with more people. RAW says you can equip/unequip as part of an attack (before or after), but agree that doing it several times feels too much
I knew it was going to be a shield in the other hand, I'd hard say no to this personally. Swapping weapons like this shouldn't give more attacks then just holding a weapon and making attacks, even if people argue that RAW allows it (I disagree with that), it's simply a broken way to play the game.
Now every character that uses a shield needs to be constantly juggling weapons and that is simply unfun. The Paladin, better be switching between Scimitar and Shortsword, which they can benefit from Duelling on! Meanwhile the Cleric, well they need to get weapon master feat but switch between a mace and dagger constantly... playing a melee ranger? grab the Scimitar, shortsword and shield, yeah, no, I'd never allow this personally.
Ultimately we are still waiting for SAC or for an update to the rules, I believe the removal of requiring the other attack be made with the other hand is the worst mechanical change they made (but not the worst change, that'd be the ranger class).
The Attack action doesn't limit Equip/Unequip Weapons so you can do so when you make an attack as part of this action. Features such as Extra Attack or Nick can let you do it then more often.
No Sage Advice Compendium yet clarify if this is intended or not though.
The Attack action doesn't limit Equip/Unequip Weapons so you can do so when you make an attack as part of this action. Features such as Extra Attack or Nick can let you do it then more often.
No Sage Advice Compendium yet clarify if this is intended or not though.
I am not debating the attack action part, that explicitly allows the Equipping/Unequipping, it is the free item interaction side which was how it was done in 2014 but in 2024, I do not see that as being valid anymore (likely because it was moved to the Attack Action and to the Utilize Action). Again, it was 2 sheathe and 2 unsheathe actions in a round with only 3 attacks for round 2.
But further too this, I am staying that weapon juggling allowing a shield user with extra attack to do 4 attacks (since we didn't even bring in the old Dual Wielder Feat yet) is entirely broken and should never be allowed, just because RAW might technically allow it.
I'd say, strictly RAW, your scenario is legit. But I'd like to share my thoughts too:
- I'm ruling Nick the same way as Plaguescarred. And I know the order for Nick is debatable (I can share here some links if you're interested Belelros), so you can rule the Nick weapon mastery is activated when you make the Light additional attack (which is my take), or on the initial attack (as you wrote in your post).
- The link to the SAC posted by R3sistance is relevant, and that clarification doesn't forbid swapping weapons as you're describing, even while holding a Shield. IMO, this should be agreed upon at your table. Being you the DM, your word is sacred :)
For the purpose of the rules, an object is a discrete, inanimate item like a window, door, sword, book, table, chair, or stone. It isn’t a building or a vehicle, which are composed of many objects.
(emphasis mine)
Now the free interaction rule:
Time-Limited Object Interactions
When time is short, such as in combat, interactions with objects are limited: one free interaction per turn. That interaction must occur during a creature’s movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter.
Again, this is debatable in my opinion. The way I see this is grabbing a sword from a table that's there, but not sheathing / unsheathing .
That said, thanks a lot for the debate! I'm not sure I get the full difference between this with Nick and Light given the scimitar has both?
The way i see it, the Free Item Interaction let you draw a weapon without taking the Attack action, otherwise you'd have to take the Utilize action to do so.
Utilize: You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
Weapons are objects, which you normally interact with while doing something else such as during your movement or action. There's another place where it discuss Interacting with Things in the rules and it doesn't exclude weapons;
Interacting with Things. You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe. If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
The way i see it, the Free Item Interaction let you draw a weapon without taking the Attack action, otherwise you'd have to take the Utilize action to do so.
That's what he's trying to do? The last unsheathe goes attackless so he goes ready for next round
I also think you can equip or unequip a weapon using the "Time-Limited Object Interactions" rule, in addition to the interactions provided by "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" as part of the Attack action.
An example in the PHB suggests that this is possible:
Russell: I drop my sword and pull out my warhammer [...]
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. [...]
The one thing I'd question in this exchange is interrupting the Attack Action to cast a Bonus Action spell and then continuing the Attack Action. But seeing as you are the DM and didn't mention it I guess you are OK with it and then the sequence seems RAW legal.
Also a note for the player, this leaves them without a weapon in hand and thus makes any Opportunity Attacks they want to make a bit more restricted.
The one thing I'd question in this exchange is interrupting the Attack Action to cast a Bonus Action spell and then continuing the Attack Action. But seeing as you are the DM and didn't mention it I guess you are OK with it and then the sequence seems RAW legal.
Also a note for the player, this leaves them without a weapon in hand and thus makes any Opportunity Attacks they want to make a bit more restricted.
This is easily resolved by simply casting Shillelagh before the main action, however... since you bring this up... let me revisit these operations...
The correct course of action should be...
BA Cast Shillelagh (before anything else)
Attack with Club - Cast True Strike
Attack with Club - Sheathe Club
Attack with Scimitar - Unsheathe Scimitar and use Nick property
Sheathe Scimitar (if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this)
Round 2
Unsheathe Club (if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this)
Attack with Club - Cast True Strike
Attack with Club - Sheathe Club
Attack with Scimitar - Unsheathe Scimitar
Round 3...
This gets fun.. you need to sheathe the Scimitar - if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this
Sheathe Scimitar
Attack with Club - Unsheathe*
Attack with Club - Sheathe or cast True Strike*
? Attack with Scimitar - you can only do this if you Sheathed the Club in the last attack...
*Since you have to make an attack as per the attack action to Sheathe or Unsheathe the weapon, substituting an attack for a cantrip would not permit the Sheathe or Unsheathe option as you're not making an attack as per the attack action, you're casting a cantrip.
On writing this into words, I realised another piece we missed, the point I highlighted above... you Sheathe or Unsheathe when you perform an attack as part of the attack action but casting a cantrip is not an attack as part of the attack action. I also believe we generally agree that the Nick attack must be on the weapon used to perform the Nick attack, as such there is an action economy issue here. It would work only every other round.
The fact that attacks are being substituted for cantrips is actually an important piece we somehow missed earlier in discussion.
While I'll continue to say I think RAW is ultimately wrong in allowing these shenanigans, these Shenanigans do run into a weird issue on the 3rd round. This all said, I would DM rule this doesn't work, even if that is what RAW says, it's broken and shouldn't be allowed. It basically makes two weapon fighting entirely redundant and gives no penalty for equipping a shield at all, there should be a cost to using something that makes attacks miss you 10/15/20/25% of the time.
Also I wouldn't bother using this RAW issue against the player, it actually can be resolved via taking the Dual Wielder Feat... since the extra attack allows ANOTHER Scimitar attack as a BA which could be used to Sheathe it at the end of round 2/3/4/etc. This is just something I realised when looking over this, one of those fun tidbits. Instead just give a firm DM ruling - house rule the light property requires it's attack be made with the other hand. It's a simple and elegant fix to weirdness that just shouldn't exist in the system.
The one thing I'd question in this exchange is interrupting the Attack Action to cast a Bonus Action spell and then continuing the Attack Action. But seeing as you are the DM and didn't mention it I guess you are OK with it and then the sequence seems RAW legal.
Also a note for the player, this leaves them without a weapon in hand and thus makes any Opportunity Attacks they want to make a bit more restricted.
Personally, I'm ruling that you can use a Bonus Action in the middle of your main Action if the timing isn't specified:
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.
That said, I won't argue much. I recognize it’s debatable, and agree that your advice to the OP is the right call.
This gets fun.. you need to sheathe the Scimitar - if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this
Sheathe Scimitar
Attack with Club - Unsheathe*
Attack with Club - Sheathe or cast True Strike*
? Attack with Scimitar - you can only do this if you Sheathed the Club in the last attack...
*Since you have to make an attack as per the attack action to Sheathe or Unsheathe the weapon, substituting an attack for a cantrip would not permit the Sheathe or Unsheathe option as you're not making an attack as per the attack action, you're casting a cantrip.
On writing this into words, I realised another piece we missed, the point I highlighted above... you Sheathe or Unsheathe when you perform an attack as part of the attack action but casting a cantrip is not an attack as part of the attack action. I also believe we generally agree that the Nick attack must be on the weapon used to perform the Nick attack, as such there is an action economy issue here. It would work only every other round.
The fact that attacks are being substituted for cantrips is actually an important piece we somehow missed earlier in discussion. [...]
Could the spellcaster not access the Material component (drawing the weapon with a free hand) while casting True Strike?
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
[...] Also I wouldn't bother using this RAW issue against the player, it actually can be resolved via taking the Dual Wielder Feat... since the extra attack allows ANOTHER Scimitar attack as a BA which could be used to Sheathe it at the end of round 2/3/4/etc. This is just something I realised when looking over this, one of those fun tidbits. Instead just give a firm DM ruling - house rule the light property requires it's attack be made with the other hand. It's a simple and elegant fix to weirdness that just shouldn't exist in the system.
Just to add that Equipping and Unequipping weapons is not allowed with a Bonus Action.
Could the spellcaster not access the Material component (drawing the weapon with a free hand) while casting True Strike?
A Material component is a particular material used in a spell’s casting, as specified in parentheses in the Components entry. These materials aren’t consumed by the spell unless the spell’s description states otherwise. The spellcaster must have a hand free to access them, but it can be the same hand used to perform Somatic components, if any.
The argument could be made but this still wouldn't count as equipping the weapon, even if you permitted it for the cantrip, so you'd not be able to make the follow-up attack with the club without then equipping it, on it's attack. I know it doesn't make logical sense since why aren't you equipping the weapon you just used in a cantrip but as far as I see, nothing permits equipping the weapon as such.
It's kind of funny that I'm debating a scenario with you, R3sistance, when I also think it's something that should really be discussed between the DM and the players :D, regardless of whether it's legit per the rules.
Like you said, there are some grey areas in the scenario.
Hey here!
Wanted to check whether this is possible. Setting the stage within the 2024 rules.
Here's the proposed rotation:
Round 1
Round 2
I know the rules for changing weapons have changed, but is this feasible?
Is this a curosity of the rules or some specific build you're after? I can't see why you don't just hold both.
However need 1 clarification here, you note the Weapon Mastery Feat but two different weapons.
Since The Weapon Master Feat only grants 1 mastery and it is not repeatable, I am assuming we are just talking about the Scimitar for Nick, for now.
Is there still a reason to not hold both weapons? The only one I can think of is spellcasting, so round one take the attack actions, attack with both weapons and then put the Scimitar away to free the hand, on the 2nd round then cast a BA spell and take the attack action, pulling out the scimitar? The only issue with this is you can't make a reaction spell that needs a free hand on the 2nd reaction but this is really the domain of the warcaster feat.
Anyways, I believe weapon juggling was highly opinionated in previous discussions and I don't see a good clarification in SAC, closest would be pulling out a light weapon. but that doesn't answer the question of if you can just switch weapons entirely in this fashion.
EDIT: by my intrepretation, it wouldn't be permitted, it's switch too much, too often. Round 2 more so, as it's 2 Unsheathe and 2 Sheathe actions from 3 attacks, where an attack allow only a single sheathe/unsheathe. So I really don't think that works. If Round 1 works is going to be opinionated and I personally would stick with no, it does not.
Seems to work fine. You don't even need to unequip weapons since the same hand accessing Material component can be used to perform Somatic components.
Personally, i require using the Nick weapon when making the extra attack of the Light property as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action.
The idea was to hold the shield in one hand and exchange weapons with the other.
I felt it was a stretch, but I wanted to check with more people. RAW says you can equip/unequip as part of an attack (before or after), but agree that doing it several times feels too much
Ha i see well if you have a Shield then yeah you will need juggling weapon with the Attack Action and/or Free Item Interaction.
Not everyone agree on how Equip/Unequip Weapons works, so it's best to validate with your DM first.
I am the DM and I'm wondering if this should be allowed or not.
The argument is that Equip/Unequip Weapons says that whenever you make an attack as part of the action, you can either equip or unequip. IMO, Nick freeing your bonus action shouldn't mean that you're so fast that you can equip/unequip 3 times.
The player is also leveraging the free action with objects, which feels again like a stretch since equipping or unequipping is covered in another section.
in 2014 sheating/unsheating/swapping weapons use to be done as the free item interaction from use an object but that was removed in 2024
2014: Use an object: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/basic-rules-2014/combat#UseanObject
2024: Object Interactions: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#TimeLimitedObjectInteractions
Rather this got moved to the Utilize Action: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/rules-glossary#UtilizeAction
The Object Interaction is not a free Utilize, it is a free quick usage of a single object only, which sheathe/unsheathe is not a quick usage, it is equipping/unequipping.
So I would say the free item interaction no longer relates to sheathing/unsheathing weapons like it did in 2014.
Ultimately the decision is on the DM as per: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/br-2024/playing-the-game#YourTurn
It says the DM may determine activities require an action, if the player decides to argue about it.
Ultimately as DM it is what you'd allow that matters.
I knew it was going to be a shield in the other hand, I'd hard say no to this personally. Swapping weapons like this shouldn't give more attacks then just holding a weapon and making attacks, even if people argue that RAW allows it (I disagree with that), it's simply a broken way to play the game.
Now every character that uses a shield needs to be constantly juggling weapons and that is simply unfun. The Paladin, better be switching between Scimitar and Shortsword, which they can benefit from Duelling on! Meanwhile the Cleric, well they need to get weapon master feat but switch between a mace and dagger constantly... playing a melee ranger? grab the Scimitar, shortsword and shield, yeah, no, I'd never allow this personally.
Ultimately we are still waiting for SAC or for an update to the rules, I believe the removal of requiring the other attack be made with the other hand is the worst mechanical change they made (but not the worst change, that'd be the ranger class).
The Attack action doesn't limit Equip/Unequip Weapons so you can do so when you make an attack as part of this action. Features such as Extra Attack or Nick can let you do it then more often.
No Sage Advice Compendium yet clarify if this is intended or not though.
I am not debating the attack action part, that explicitly allows the Equipping/Unequipping, it is the free item interaction side which was how it was done in 2014 but in 2024, I do not see that as being valid anymore (likely because it was moved to the Attack Action and to the Utilize Action). Again, it was 2 sheathe and 2 unsheathe actions in a round with only 3 attacks for round 2.
But further too this, I am staying that weapon juggling allowing a shield user with extra attack to do 4 attacks (since we didn't even bring in the old Dual Wielder Feat yet) is entirely broken and should never be allowed, just because RAW might technically allow it.
I'd say, strictly RAW, your scenario is legit. But I'd like to share my thoughts too:
- I'm ruling Nick the same way as Plaguescarred. And I know the order for Nick is debatable (I can share here some links if you're interested Belelros), so you can rule the Nick weapon mastery is activated when you make the Light additional attack (which is my take), or on the initial attack (as you wrote in your post).
- The link to the SAC posted by R3sistance is relevant, and that clarification doesn't forbid swapping weapons as you're describing, even while holding a Shield. IMO, this should be agreed upon at your table. Being you the DM, your word is sacred :)
- Whether you can replace the extra attack granted by Light or Nick with a spell was discussed here: Questions regarding Shillelagh, War Magic, True Strike and Extra attacks (page 1 and 3).
EDIT: for clarity.
The player's PoV is
(emphasis mine)
Now the free interaction rule:
Again, this is debatable in my opinion. The way I see this is grabbing a sword from a table that's there, but not sheathing / unsheathing .
That said, thanks a lot for the debate! I'm not sure I get the full difference between this with Nick and Light given the scimitar has both?
The way i see it, the Free Item Interaction let you draw a weapon without taking the Attack action, otherwise you'd have to take the Utilize action to do so.
Weapons are objects, which you normally interact with while doing something else such as during your movement or action. There's another place where it discuss Interacting with Things in the rules and it doesn't exclude weapons;
That's what he's trying to do? The last unsheathe goes attackless so he goes ready for next round
I also think you can equip or unequip a weapon using the "Time-Limited Object Interactions" rule, in addition to the interactions provided by "Equipping and Unequipping Weapons" as part of the Attack action.
An example in the PHB suggests that this is possible:
The one thing I'd question in this exchange is interrupting the Attack Action to cast a Bonus Action spell and then continuing the Attack Action. But seeing as you are the DM and didn't mention it I guess you are OK with it and then the sequence seems RAW legal.
Also a note for the player, this leaves them without a weapon in hand and thus makes any Opportunity Attacks they want to make a bit more restricted.
This is easily resolved by simply casting Shillelagh before the main action, however... since you bring this up... let me revisit these operations...
The correct course of action should be...
BA Cast Shillelagh (before anything else)
Attack with Club - Cast True Strike
Attack with Club - Sheathe Club
Attack with Scimitar - Unsheathe Scimitar and use Nick property
Sheathe Scimitar (if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this)
Round 2
Unsheathe Club (if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this)
Attack with Club - Cast True Strike
Attack with Club - Sheathe Club
Attack with Scimitar - Unsheathe Scimitar
Round 3...
This gets fun.. you need to sheathe the Scimitar - if the free object interaction is assumed to be able to do this
Sheathe Scimitar
Attack with Club - Unsheathe*
Attack with Club - Sheathe or cast True Strike*
? Attack with Scimitar - you can only do this if you Sheathed the Club in the last attack...
*Since you have to make an attack as per the attack action to Sheathe or Unsheathe the weapon, substituting an attack for a cantrip would not permit the Sheathe or Unsheathe option as you're not making an attack as per the attack action, you're casting a cantrip.
On writing this into words, I realised another piece we missed, the point I highlighted above... you Sheathe or Unsheathe when you perform an attack as part of the attack action but casting a cantrip is not an attack as part of the attack action. I also believe we generally agree that the Nick attack must be on the weapon used to perform the Nick attack, as such there is an action economy issue here. It would work only every other round.
The fact that attacks are being substituted for cantrips is actually an important piece we somehow missed earlier in discussion.
While I'll continue to say I think RAW is ultimately wrong in allowing these shenanigans, these Shenanigans do run into a weird issue on the 3rd round. This all said, I would DM rule this doesn't work, even if that is what RAW says, it's broken and shouldn't be allowed. It basically makes two weapon fighting entirely redundant and gives no penalty for equipping a shield at all, there should be a cost to using something that makes attacks miss you 10/15/20/25% of the time.
Also I wouldn't bother using this RAW issue against the player, it actually can be resolved via taking the Dual Wielder Feat... since the extra attack allows ANOTHER Scimitar attack as a BA which could be used to Sheathe it at the end of round 2/3/4/etc. This is just something I realised when looking over this, one of those fun tidbits. Instead just give a firm DM ruling - house rule the light property requires it's attack be made with the other hand. It's a simple and elegant fix to weirdness that just shouldn't exist in the system.
Personally, I'm ruling that you can use a Bonus Action in the middle of your main Action if the timing isn't specified:
That said, I won't argue much. I recognize it’s debatable, and agree that your advice to the OP is the right call.
Could the spellcaster not access the Material component (drawing the weapon with a free hand) while casting True Strike?
Just to add that Equipping and Unequipping weapons is not allowed with a Bonus Action.
That's a good point, so yeah doesn't fix it.
The argument could be made but this still wouldn't count as equipping the weapon, even if you permitted it for the cantrip, so you'd not be able to make the follow-up attack with the club without then equipping it, on it's attack. I know it doesn't make logical sense since why aren't you equipping the weapon you just used in a cantrip but as far as I see, nothing permits equipping the weapon as such.
It's kind of funny that I'm debating a scenario with you, R3sistance, when I also think it's something that should really be discussed between the DM and the players :D, regardless of whether it's legit per the rules.
Like you said, there are some grey areas in the scenario.