Two weapon Fighting (aka Nick) cannot be used in the manner you described according to Interact with Objects rules:
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.
You can only interact with an object once. Trying to interact with another object requires an Utilize Action, thus losing your additional attack.
So can make your first attack, drop the weapon and draw your second weapon for the Nick attack. But you can't attack, stow it and draw another weapon and attack with the new weapon. RAI is that you have a weapon in each hand, but nothing in the description expressly requires it.
Equipping and Unequipping Weapons. You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack. Equipping a weapon includes drawing it from a sheath or picking it up. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
And yes, it's for every attack, and yes, it's in addition to the free interaction. These have been hashed out ad nauseam in other threads.
(And dropping a weapon is an object interaction, anyway., no different from sheathing it.)
Ad nauseam or not, it's still being debated in this thread. From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI). 2) Even your own quote shows You can't do both in the same action, due to the "or" preposition. But it's only my perspective and I have no desire to debate the point forever.
Attack Action [Revised Rule] The Attack action contains several revisions:
- The action now specifies that it involves an attack with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike. - The action now allows you to equip or unequip one weapon with each attack you make with the action. - The ability to move between attacks during com-at is now a function of the Attack action rather than a general rule.
PS. But yeah, it's still being debated across several threads, even in parallel.
From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI).
That's not RAI, that's a house rule. Neither Light, Nick, TWF or DW has any sort of requirement that you wield the weapons simultaneously.
Why would you change weapons? That is the most illogical thing. If you have a weapon already in the hand, then you use that weapon twice. Not once then use a completely different weapon.
To consider that you can use a weapon, then use a 2nd weapon in the same hand is flat out unethical. It makes no sense you get a single attack. But because you change weapons, you get two attacks. To say this is a game with magic et. al. means there is no logic, is a bigger part of being unethical. There still needs to be certain logic to teh rules, and suspending belief for some does not mean throwing logic out the window.
If using two weapon fighting does not imply two handed, then the logical result is a rulebook probably double or even triple in size to to ensure all intent is included.
If using two weapon fighting does not imply two handed, then the logical result is a rulebook probably double or even triple in size to to ensure all intent is included.
There is no "two weapon fighting" any more, it is called attacking with a Light weapon. And nothing in the phrase "light weapon" implies using two hands nor does anything in its description.
Light
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.
If using two weapon fighting does not imply two handed, then the logical result is a rulebook probably double or even triple in size to to ensure all intent is included.
There is no "two weapon fighting" any more, it is called attacking with a Light weapon. And nothing in the phrase "light weapon" implies using two hands nor does anything in its description.
Light
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.
Based on what you quoted this is definitely for 2 hands: ...you can attack with a Shortswordin one handand a Daggerin the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action,...
Having a single hand get 2 attacks if you use a different weapon vice only one attack if you keep the weapon is utterly without any logic.
Under feats you have dual wielder which can only be interpretated as two handed. To twist it otherwise to a single hand using different weapons makes one appear to be unethical trying to twist the rules for ones personal gain and not for making a better game experience.
EDIT: The rules are written to prevent from someone trying to use a second attack with one hand. You have twisted that attempt to ensure there are 2 different weapons (one per hand) back into using this one handed.
From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI).
That's not RAI, that's a house rule. Neither Light, Nick, TWF or DW has any sort of requirement that you wield the weapons simultaneously.
To be fair, the names of the fighting style (Two-Weapon Fighting) and the feat (Dual Wielding) at least suggest the intention that that's how they were meant to be used. Doesn't apply to the Light property or the Nick mastery, necessarily.
From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI).
That's not RAI, that's a house rule. Neither Light, Nick, TWF or DW has any sort of requirement that you wield the weapons simultaneously.
To be fair, the names of the fighting style (Two-Weapon Fighting) and the feat (Dual Wielding) at least suggest the intention that that's how they were meant to be used. Doesn't apply to the Light property or the Nick mastery, necessarily.
At the same time, there have been a number of changes to improve inclusiveness. Although changes to overtly remove barriers regarding disabilities have been fewer, it could be that these changes fall under the umbrella of removing mechanical penalties for these characters even if the legacy names were preserved.
From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI).
That's not RAI, that's a house rule. Neither Light, Nick, TWF or DW has any sort of requirement that you wield the weapons simultaneously.
Why would you change weapons? That is the most illogical thing. If you have a weapon already in the hand, then you use that weapon twice. Not once then use a completely different weapon.
To consider that you can use a weapon, then use a 2nd weapon in the same hand is flat out unethical. It makes no sense you get a single attack. But because you change weapons, you get two attacks. To say this is a game with magic et. al. means there is no logic, is a bigger part of being unethical. There still needs to be certain logic to teh rules, and suspending belief for some does not mean throwing logic out the window.
"Unethical" is very much an overreaction. Playing the game in a way the rules allow isn't unethical. Is this particular quirk weird? Sure. Not really what you imagine? Absolutely. Something the DM can shut down at their table if it bugs them? Yes, though if somebody asked me if I'd allow it, I'd be more likely to give them the mechanical effects without the narration.
Most importantly, however, it's not something most people are gonna do in actual play. If you're building a two-weapon fighter, you're not going to go for a shield and stupid weapon-swapping tricks because that doesn't fit with your character concept.
They presumably chose to have permissive weapon-swapping rules in the 24 rules to try to make sure that the scenarios that are likely to come up in actual play are allowed. Kill somebody and draw your bow? Allowed. Take a swing with your sword, discover it's useless against the monster, so you want to put it away and grab a club? Allowed. Want to be a shield-using dagger thrower? Allowed, and you get the light weapon attacks. Stand alone in the entrance fighting off the goblin horde, setting aside your usual weapon when you get an opening to try to thin their numbers with a big sweep of your polearm? Allowed.
It's not possible to allow all the various things people might want that you consider reasonable while stopping those you don't. Permissive rules are always going to have that issue, but it's better to let the PCs do stuff by default, and have the GM intercede against problems, rather than making them ask the GM for permission to exceed the usual limits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ad nauseam or not, it's still being debated in this thread. From my perspective 1) you have to use a weapon in each hand (RAI). 2) Even your own quote shows You can't do both in the same action, due to the "or" preposition. But it's only my perspective and I have no desire to debate the point forever.
MPA, I know you don't want to debate the point, but it's also explained as a change between editions in the Converting to System Reference Document 5.2.1:
PS. But yeah, it's still being debated across several threads, even in parallel.
That's not RAI, that's a house rule. Neither Light, Nick, TWF or DW has any sort of requirement that you wield the weapons simultaneously.
The "or" limitation is per attack, not per action.
Why would you change weapons? That is the most illogical thing. If you have a weapon already in the hand, then you use that weapon twice. Not once then use a completely different weapon.
To consider that you can use a weapon, then use a 2nd weapon in the same hand is flat out unethical. It makes no sense you get a single attack. But because you change weapons, you get two attacks. To say this is a game with magic et. al. means there is no logic, is a bigger part of being unethical. There still needs to be certain logic to teh rules, and suspending belief for some does not mean throwing logic out the window.
If using two weapon fighting does not imply two handed, then the logical result is a rulebook probably double or even triple in size to to ensure all intent is included.
There is no "two weapon fighting" any more, it is called attacking with a Light weapon. And nothing in the phrase "light weapon" implies using two hands nor does anything in its description.
Based on what you quoted this is definitely for 2 hands: ...you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action,...
Having a single hand get 2 attacks if you use a different weapon vice only one attack if you keep the weapon is utterly without any logic.
Under feats you have dual wielder which can only be interpretated as two handed. To twist it otherwise to a single hand using different weapons makes one appear to be unethical trying to twist the rules for ones personal gain and not for making a better game experience.
EDIT: The rules are written to prevent from someone trying to use a second attack with one hand. You have twisted that attempt to ensure there are 2 different weapons (one per hand) back into using this one handed.
To be fair, the names of the fighting style (Two-Weapon Fighting) and the feat (Dual Wielding) at least suggest the intention that that's how they were meant to be used. Doesn't apply to the Light property or the Nick mastery, necessarily.
At the same time, there have been a number of changes to improve inclusiveness. Although changes to overtly remove barriers regarding disabilities have been fewer, it could be that these changes fall under the umbrella of removing mechanical penalties for these characters even if the legacy names were preserved.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
"Unethical" is very much an overreaction. Playing the game in a way the rules allow isn't unethical. Is this particular quirk weird? Sure. Not really what you imagine? Absolutely. Something the DM can shut down at their table if it bugs them? Yes, though if somebody asked me if I'd allow it, I'd be more likely to give them the mechanical effects without the narration.
Most importantly, however, it's not something most people are gonna do in actual play. If you're building a two-weapon fighter, you're not going to go for a shield and stupid weapon-swapping tricks because that doesn't fit with your character concept.
They presumably chose to have permissive weapon-swapping rules in the 24 rules to try to make sure that the scenarios that are likely to come up in actual play are allowed. Kill somebody and draw your bow? Allowed. Take a swing with your sword, discover it's useless against the monster, so you want to put it away and grab a club? Allowed. Want to be a shield-using dagger thrower? Allowed, and you get the light weapon attacks. Stand alone in the entrance fighting off the goblin horde, setting aside your usual weapon when you get an opening to try to thin their numbers with a big sweep of your polearm? Allowed.
It's not possible to allow all the various things people might want that you consider reasonable while stopping those you don't. Permissive rules are always going to have that issue, but it's better to let the PCs do stuff by default, and have the GM intercede against problems, rather than making them ask the GM for permission to exceed the usual limits.