Sorry for the late reply- from reading many of these threads, I suspect that the free interaction from 2014 should generally no longer apply, but probably not a huge deal if allowed at DM discretion.
RAW, the only thing limiting melee classes from 4 attacks at level 5 (assuming Nick, Extra Attack, and Dual Wielder) while also holding shield is the draw/stow economy. If you allow exceptions, there is no major advantage to keeping weapons in both hands to take the most benefit from Dual Wielder.
Further, while each attack action allows a draw/stow, as per attack action definition, this would only apply to the main attack, extra attack at level 5/6, and Nick attack (that becomes part of the attack action by rule). As mentioned above, there would not be an extra draw/stow for a Bonus Action attack, like from Dual Wielder.
In theory, having only 3 draw OR stow per turn after extra attack at level 5/6 makes holding a shield much trickier. The order of attacks may have to vary from round to round, especially if a weapon is left in the hand for an opportunity attack. Also, it may require War Caster for classes like Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, who may want to cast a spell or weapon cantrip at some point.
There are still workarounds. For example, if you carry a ton of daggers, you can throw them and as part of thrown weapon definition, you can always draw a new one as part of an attack. Plus, it leaves the hand free to help with spell casting. A ranger with dual wielder and sharpshooter at level 8 can easily get 4 dagger attacks with ability modifier, a shield, plus hunter's mark, even in melee range. The drawback is that every attack base damage is only d4 and you may not have enough magic daggers to get magic bonuses after the first magic one is thrown. If you aren't a caster, it's much easier to manage, since you don't have to worry about somatic and/or material components.
In practice, people are often attacking with d8 weapons four times per turn because the rules aren't strictly followed, so maybe not a big deal to allow d4/d6 with shield ;-) It just kind of nerfs rogues a bit, as they can't usually use shields and would otherwise get the benefit of dual wielder that a shield holder would not.
Even if you don't allow the free interaction for 2024 rules, I think you can still manage it with shield, with very careful selection of weapons, feats, and order of attacks. Even mixing in one thrown dagger while approaching a target might do it, for example. It's not trivial, so hopefully the player has at least done this analysis to show what they will be doing. The biggest downside is it requires a lot of mental tracking for both player and DM if you try to follow the draw/stow economy RAW. All bets are off if you are trying to guess RAI.
The free object interaction does mention it can be used to equip/unequip weapons, and it is a distinct rule from the one allowing the player to equip/unequip weapon as part of their attacks during the Attack action, especially considering that none of these rules references the other.
But there's a big problem with what the player is trying to do, as R3sistance mentioned. In the Round 1 scenario:
First Attack with True Strike (changing attack with Cantrip) using the Scimitar, enabling Nick and then sheathing the Scimitar
Unsheathe Club <-- Free Object Interaction
Additional Action: Shillelagh on the Club (given Nick freed this)
Second attack with the Club
Given the light property, an additional attack with the club.
Sheath club
And in the Round 2 scenario:
Unsheathe Scimitar
First Attack with True Strike (changing attack with Cantrip) using the Scimitar, enabling Nick
Second attack with Scimitar (this attack will have Dex mod instead of Char)
Sheathe Scimitar
Unsheathe Club <-- Free Object Interaction
Additional Action: Shillelagh on the Club (given Nick freed this)
Bonus attack given the Light property, then sheathe the Club
In both cases, for this to work, they would need to use their free object interaction at the "Unsheathe Club" part, since they try to activate Shillelagh right after instead of making an attack, which means that they're trying to sheathe/unsheathe the scimitar as part of the True Strike cantrip attack. That doesn't work.
If they choose to replace an attack with a cantrip, they lose the ability to equip/unequip weapons as part of that attack. You're either making an attack as part of the Attack action and benefit from the weapon swapping rules, or you cast a cantrip instead, but you can't have your cake and eat it. The fact that True Strike involves a weapon attack is irrelevant because that attack is part of the spell. This is not an attack made as part of the Attack action, it's an attack made as part of a spell, which itself is exceptionally made as part of the Attack action.
Imo, this is not RAW at all, but I guess it would work if they don't use Shillelagh at all. My main issue with this is that it's clearly not RAI. I like the idea of a house rule that says "you can only use the extra attack from the Light property while still holding the weapon that triggered it."
If they choose to replace an attack with a cantrip, they lose the ability to equip/unequip weapons as part of that attack. You're either making an attack as part of the Attack action and benefit from the weapon swapping rules, or you cast a cantrip instead, but you can't have your cake and eat it. The fact that True Strike involves a weapon attack is irrelevant because that attack is part of the spell. This is not an attack made as part of the Attack action, it's an attack made as part of a spell, which itself is exceptionally made as part of the Attack action.
Here I would have to disagree, the spell replaces an attack of the Attack Action and thus is part of the Attack Action and thus the attack it produces is also a part of the Attack Action. So yea they get to both eat the cake and swap the weapon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry for the late reply- from reading many of these threads, I suspect that the free interaction from 2014 should generally no longer apply, but probably not a huge deal if allowed at DM discretion.
RAW, the only thing limiting melee classes from 4 attacks at level 5 (assuming Nick, Extra Attack, and Dual Wielder) while also holding shield is the draw/stow economy. If you allow exceptions, there is no major advantage to keeping weapons in both hands to take the most benefit from Dual Wielder.
Further, while each attack action allows a draw/stow, as per attack action definition, this would only apply to the main attack, extra attack at level 5/6, and Nick attack (that becomes part of the attack action by rule). As mentioned above, there would not be an extra draw/stow for a Bonus Action attack, like from Dual Wielder.
In theory, having only 3 draw OR stow per turn after extra attack at level 5/6 makes holding a shield much trickier. The order of attacks may have to vary from round to round, especially if a weapon is left in the hand for an opportunity attack. Also, it may require War Caster for classes like Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Valor Bard, who may want to cast a spell or weapon cantrip at some point.
There are still workarounds. For example, if you carry a ton of daggers, you can throw them and as part of thrown weapon definition, you can always draw a new one as part of an attack. Plus, it leaves the hand free to help with spell casting. A ranger with dual wielder and sharpshooter at level 8 can easily get 4 dagger attacks with ability modifier, a shield, plus hunter's mark, even in melee range. The drawback is that every attack base damage is only d4 and you may not have enough magic daggers to get magic bonuses after the first magic one is thrown. If you aren't a caster, it's much easier to manage, since you don't have to worry about somatic and/or material components.
In practice, people are often attacking with d8 weapons four times per turn because the rules aren't strictly followed, so maybe not a big deal to allow d4/d6 with shield ;-) It just kind of nerfs rogues a bit, as they can't usually use shields and would otherwise get the benefit of dual wielder that a shield holder would not.
Even if you don't allow the free interaction for 2024 rules, I think you can still manage it with shield, with very careful selection of weapons, feats, and order of attacks. Even mixing in one thrown dagger while approaching a target might do it, for example. It's not trivial, so hopefully the player has at least done this analysis to show what they will be doing. The biggest downside is it requires a lot of mental tracking for both player and DM if you try to follow the draw/stow economy RAW. All bets are off if you are trying to guess RAI.
Stopped playing AD&D in '82, came back to 5e during COVID. Good times.
The free object interaction does mention it can be used to equip/unequip weapons, and it is a distinct rule from the one allowing the player to equip/unequip weapon as part of their attacks during the Attack action, especially considering that none of these rules references the other.
But there's a big problem with what the player is trying to do, as R3sistance mentioned. In the Round 1 scenario:
And in the Round 2 scenario:
In both cases, for this to work, they would need to use their free object interaction at the "Unsheathe Club" part, since they try to activate Shillelagh right after instead of making an attack, which means that they're trying to sheathe/unsheathe the scimitar as part of the True Strike cantrip attack. That doesn't work.
If they choose to replace an attack with a cantrip, they lose the ability to equip/unequip weapons as part of that attack. You're either making an attack as part of the Attack action and benefit from the weapon swapping rules, or you cast a cantrip instead, but you can't have your cake and eat it. The fact that True Strike involves a weapon attack is irrelevant because that attack is part of the spell. This is not an attack made as part of the Attack action, it's an attack made as part of a spell, which itself is exceptionally made as part of the Attack action.
Imo, this is not RAW at all, but I guess it would work if they don't use Shillelagh at all. My main issue with this is that it's clearly not RAI.
I like the idea of a house rule that says "you can only use the extra attack from the Light property while still holding the weapon that triggered it."
Here I would have to disagree, the spell replaces an attack of the Attack Action and thus is part of the Attack Action and thus the attack it produces is also a part of the Attack Action. So yea they get to both eat the cake and swap the weapon.