Also you keep bringing in 2014 rules, but we are talking about 2024; so does rules don't matter for this discussion.
Context matters. This discussion has been going on for a decade. The wording of the object interaction limitations is virtually identical to the prior edition. If they had intended to massively alter those rules, they wouldn’t have hidden it with vague language buried in one glossary entry and then not even mentioned it during any of their release videos.
So your claim is that Two Weapon Fighting is broken unless you acquire a level-locked feat, and that thrown weapons aren't compatible with the Extra Attack feature. Huh. That's... definitely a take
This question was answered a long time ago in the 2014 Sage Advice. The rules have not changed since then.
I think I see the problem now. In fact, the rules have changed since then
By the way, 2024 Sage Advice says this (emphasis mine)
When you use Extra Attack, do you have to use the same weapon for all the attacks?
Extra Attack imposes no limitation on what you use for the attacks. You can use regular weapons, improvised weapons, Unarmed Strike, or a combination of these options for the attacks. However, you must still follow the rules for equipping and unequipping weapons as part of the Attack action.
Now, you will likely interpret that to fit your own take on the object interaction rules, just as you did earlier by inventing a Dual Wielder feat for Russell's character in the PHB example combat, but by highlighting that you must follow the equipping/unequipping rules from the Attack action and not the general object interaction rules, they are giving you a really, really strong hint that those two things are not exactly the same
I will also point out again that your interpretation makes Two Weapon Fighting essentially broken unless you have Dual Wielder (which you cannot get until 4th level) or Fast Hands (unavailable to all but one Rogue subclass at 3rd level) if it requires you to take a Utilize action to draw a second weapon. Your interpretation also makes thrown weapon fighting completely incompatible with Extra Attack if you cannot draw a weapon with the Thrown property as part of an attack, independent of your free object interaction
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)
Also you keep bringing in 2014 rules, but we are talking about 2024; so does rules don't matter for this discussion.
Context matters. This discussion has been going on for a decade. The wording of the object interaction limitations is virtually identical to the prior edition. If they had intended to massively alter those rules, they wouldn’t have hidden it with vague language buried in one glossary entry and then not even mentioned it during any of their release videos.
Except that everything about 2014 (for this subject) isn't the context for 2024 as the rules have been rewritten.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war |Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
Why would you say that “but that counts as your one free object interaction” is not RAW.
I would say that because it's not written. The Attack Action Equip& Unequip, The Ammunition property and the Thrown Property don't say that they counts as your one free object interaction.
Even int 2014 rules, how many DMs actually enforced the equip/unequip rules? None of mine did, and I didn't when I was the DM. Equip/unequip is so annoying and slows down combat that most tables probably evoked Rule #1 and ignored it.
Nowhere does it say this "but that counts as your one free object interaction". The ONE free object interaction (my emphasis) is not meant to be interpreted as "only one" except in that it is "only one FOR FREE" (again my emphasis). The word "one" is not intended to limit all object interactions in a turn. It is explaining, in essence, "how you pay for it", i.e. free. Attack action "pays for" another, very specific type of object interaction, namely equip or unequip. If you want to interact with another object other than equipping or unequipping a weapon, THAT'S what the Utilize action is for and the reason why it is called out in the Interacting with Things section.
And since others have brought it into the discussion, Thrown weapons in the Thrown property allow the character to draw as part of the attack. If I remember correctly, it doesn't say anything there about whether or not that attack comes as part of an Attack action, a Reaction, or a Bonus action. Which means, Thrown weapons are distinguished from an equip or unequip as part of the Attack action and don't really lend much to the argument one way or the other. The crux is whether or not the equip or unequip as part of an Attack action, as @Arrinos put it, "counts as your one free object interaction", which, I submit, is clearly an incorrect reading of the RAW (based on what I said in my previous post about "one free object interaction" not being meant to limit the total number of object interactions in a turn.
Another point confirming that RAW supports exactly what I am saying it says is the following from the Combat section of the Player’s Handbook:
“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.”
Here, they make clear that not all object interactions are equal. Some “always require an action”, which means some require the Utilize action. it does NOT say “also, some object interactions taken as part of your Attack action do not count as object interactions.” Yet, that is exactly the claim others here are making.
Where in the RAW does it state that drawing or sheathing a weapon is ever NOT counted as an object interaction?
Ammunition are objects so your interpretation makes all ranged weapon acting like it had the Loading property, unable to draw a second Ammunition and benefit from Extra Attack feature.
Worse, if you don't already have the ranged weapon in hand, you can't draw the ranged weapon and draw an ammunition on the same turn!
The wording of the Attack actions Equipping and Unequipping Weapons language is VERY general. It does not explicitly mention any additional object interactions being granted (as the authors have done with the Quick Draw feature of the Dual Wielder feat).
Meanwhile, the wording of the Time-Sensitive Object Interaction rule is VERY specific. It makes clear that you are allowed only one object interaction that must be taken as part of a move or an action. It also states that if you want a second object interaction, you NEED to use the Utilize action. That is VERY specific. Any language intended to override that would need to be more specific (such as Dual Wielder's language and the language of the Fast Hands feature of the rogue).
So, it is you who are ignoring the rule that specific overrides general. There is nothing in the Equipping and Unequipping Weapons clarification of the Attack Action that explicitly states that it overrides the general rule. Nor, is such an override the obvious logical conclusion from the actual language used.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "specific" and "general".
The basic object interaction rule is general. It always applies. No matter what you do in your turn, you always have that free object interaction. Dash? Free interaction is available. Utilize? The free interaction is also available. Attack? The free interaction is also available. It is the baseline for the turn.
The Thrown property, or the equip/unequip rules in the Attack action are specific. They have additional requirements, and also specific limitations. You get an object interaction to draw the weapon you are throwing, but that is all you can do with it, and specifically when you are making an attack with it. Similarly, you can draw a weapon when you take the Attack action and make an attack, because it says you can. It requires that you take the attack action and make an attack, and it is also restricted to drawing or stowing a weapon.
If they wanted these things to use up the free object interaction, they would have had to state so explicitly. (And the thrown weapon one cannot use your free object interaction, as it can potentially happen outside your turn, when you don't have one -- readying an action to draw and throw a dagger if the enemy attacks, while giving the bard time to deescalate things on their turn is entirely legal.)
And since others have brought it into the discussion, Thrown weapons in the Thrown property allow the character to draw as part of the attack. If I remember correctly, it doesn't say anything there about whether or not that attack comes as part of an Attack action, a Reaction, or a Bonus action. [...]
You're right. Drawing Ammunition or a Thrown weapon isn't necessarily part of the Attack action, so it can also happen when making an attack as a Bonus Action or a Reaction.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "specific" and "general".
The basic object interaction rule is general. It always applies. No matter what you do in your turn, you always have that free object interaction. Dash? Free interaction is available. Utilize? The free interaction is also available. Attack? The free interaction is also available. It is the baseline for the turn.
I do agree with what you are saying here but I still feel like a better and simpler way to explain it is that the One Free Object Interaction only applies to interactions that would otherwise require the Utilize action to perform. You would take the Utilize action for an interaction that is a standalone activity that has not yet been accounted for anywhere else in the action economy. Any time a rule declares that an interaction occurs as part of some action such as the Attack action or the Magic action then that interaction has already been paid for and therefore the Utilize action is not required in those cases (the description for the Utilize action confirms this -- many interactions occur "while doing something else". It's only the interactions for which this is NOT the case that would require the Utilize action to perform). Out of the subset of interactions that would normally require taking a Utilize action, you get to perform ONE OF THOSE for free by taking your One Free Object Interaction. All other interactions are already "free" in the sense that they are already a part of some other action which has been expended and so the One Free Object Interaction action economy resource does not have to be used in those cases.
Context matters. This discussion has been going on for a decade. The wording of the object interaction limitations is virtually identical to the prior edition. If they had intended to massively alter those rules, they wouldn’t have hidden it with vague language buried in one glossary entry and then not even mentioned it during any of their release videos.
I think I see the problem now. In fact, the rules have changed since then
By the way, 2024 Sage Advice says this (emphasis mine)
Now, you will likely interpret that to fit your own take on the object interaction rules, just as you did earlier by inventing a Dual Wielder feat for Russell's character in the PHB example combat, but by highlighting that you must follow the equipping/unequipping rules from the Attack action and not the general object interaction rules, they are giving you a really, really strong hint that those two things are not exactly the same
I will also point out again that your interpretation makes Two Weapon Fighting essentially broken unless you have Dual Wielder (which you cannot get until 4th level) or Fast Hands (unavailable to all but one Rogue subclass at 3rd level) if it requires you to take a Utilize action to draw a second weapon. Your interpretation also makes thrown weapon fighting completely incompatible with Extra Attack if you cannot draw a weapon with the Thrown property as part of an attack, independent of your free object interaction
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)
Except that everything about 2014 (for this subject) isn't the context for 2024 as the rules have been rewritten.
"grandpa" Salkur, Gnome Arti/Sorc: Forged in Chaos | Pepin, Human Arti/Cleric: Goblin horde | Mixtli, Volc Genasi Arti: Champions of the Citadel | Erix Vadalitis, Human Druid: Rising from the last war | Smithy, Human Arti: Night Ravens: Black orchids for Biscotti | Tamphalic Aliprax, Dragonborn Wizard: Chronicles of the Accursed | Doc, Dwarven Cleric (2024): Adventure at Hope's End | Abathax, Tiefling Illriger: Hunt for the Balowang | Gorin Mestel, Human Arti: Descend into Avernus
I would say that because it's not written. The Attack Action Equip& Unequip, The Ammunition property and the Thrown Property don't say that they counts as your one free object interaction.
Even int 2014 rules, how many DMs actually enforced the equip/unequip rules? None of mine did, and I didn't when I was the DM. Equip/unequip is so annoying and slows down combat that most tables probably evoked Rule #1 and ignored it.
Nowhere does it say this "but that counts as your one free object interaction". The ONE free object interaction (my emphasis) is not meant to be interpreted as "only one" except in that it is "only one FOR FREE" (again my emphasis). The word "one" is not intended to limit all object interactions in a turn. It is explaining, in essence, "how you pay for it", i.e. free. Attack action "pays for" another, very specific type of object interaction, namely equip or unequip. If you want to interact with another object other than equipping or unequipping a weapon, THAT'S what the Utilize action is for and the reason why it is called out in the Interacting with Things section.
And since others have brought it into the discussion, Thrown weapons in the Thrown property allow the character to draw as part of the attack. If I remember correctly, it doesn't say anything there about whether or not that attack comes as part of an Attack action, a Reaction, or a Bonus action. Which means, Thrown weapons are distinguished from an equip or unequip as part of the Attack action and don't really lend much to the argument one way or the other. The crux is whether or not the equip or unequip as part of an Attack action, as @Arrinos put it, "counts as your one free object interaction", which, I submit, is clearly an incorrect reading of the RAW (based on what I said in my previous post about "one free object interaction" not being meant to limit the total number of object interactions in a turn.
Ammunition are objects so your interpretation makes all ranged weapon acting like it had the Loading property, unable to draw a second Ammunition and benefit from Extra Attack feature.
Worse, if you don't already have the ranged weapon in hand, you can't draw the ranged weapon and draw an ammunition on the same turn!
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by "specific" and "general".
The basic object interaction rule is general. It always applies. No matter what you do in your turn, you always have that free object interaction. Dash? Free interaction is available. Utilize? The free interaction is also available. Attack? The free interaction is also available. It is the baseline for the turn.
The Thrown property, or the equip/unequip rules in the Attack action are specific. They have additional requirements, and also specific limitations. You get an object interaction to draw the weapon you are throwing, but that is all you can do with it, and specifically when you are making an attack with it. Similarly, you can draw a weapon when you take the Attack action and make an attack, because it says you can. It requires that you take the attack action and make an attack, and it is also restricted to drawing or stowing a weapon.
If they wanted these things to use up the free object interaction, they would have had to state so explicitly. (And the thrown weapon one cannot use your free object interaction, as it can potentially happen outside your turn, when you don't have one -- readying an action to draw and throw a dagger if the enemy attacks, while giving the bard time to deescalate things on their turn is entirely legal.)
You're right. Drawing Ammunition or a Thrown weapon isn't necessarily part of the Attack action, so it can also happen when making an attack as a Bonus Action or a Reaction.
I do agree with what you are saying here but I still feel like a better and simpler way to explain it is that the One Free Object Interaction only applies to interactions that would otherwise require the Utilize action to perform. You would take the Utilize action for an interaction that is a standalone activity that has not yet been accounted for anywhere else in the action economy. Any time a rule declares that an interaction occurs as part of some action such as the Attack action or the Magic action then that interaction has already been paid for and therefore the Utilize action is not required in those cases (the description for the Utilize action confirms this -- many interactions occur "while doing something else". It's only the interactions for which this is NOT the case that would require the Utilize action to perform). Out of the subset of interactions that would normally require taking a Utilize action, you get to perform ONE OF THOSE for free by taking your One Free Object Interaction. All other interactions are already "free" in the sense that they are already a part of some other action which has been expended and so the One Free Object Interaction action economy resource does not have to be used in those cases.
That is a good way to look at it i agree.