I don't think this is intended, but as far as I know, there's no rule about having to hold the weapon for a light attack in your other hand, so from my understanding of RAW, you could do this:
Begin with shield and light weapon (say scimitar with nick)
1. Do your main attack
2. Stow your scimitar as a part of that attack
3. Draw, say, a shortsword as a part of the nick attack
4. Attack with the shortsword as a part of the same attack
You don't even need nick, as you can use you Free Object Interaction to draw the weapon, or get Dual Wielder and use that feat's extra weapon stowing, and if you have dual wieldeer you could get 4 attacks at level 5, or 3 attacks at level 4, all with a shield, right?
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
This was brought up when the 24 version first came out. As I recall the argument came down to, while it may be RAW, good luck finding a DM who will allow you to do it.
And even the RAW part needs to ignore the general rule of good faith interpretation of the rules.
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
No, you have the right of it. It's not that big of a deal, but my usual players are pretty chill so I am fine with allowing it. From the base weapon itself, this is about an extra 3.5 (No Two-weapon Fighting style) to 8.5 damage per round, possibly more depending on if it's a magic weapon or other effects like Hex. I'm not worried about it.
Yeah, what you propose is allowed and valid per the rules.
Aralas4543 there area a couple of recent threads about the same scenario you asked about. If you want, take a look at the answers there for more thoughts:
I don't think this is intended, but as far as I know, there's no rule about having to hold the weapon for a light attack in your other hand, so from my understanding of RAW, you could do this:
Begin with shield and light weapon (say scimitar with nick)
1. Do your main attack
2. Stow your scimitar as a part of that attack
3. Draw, say, a shortsword as a part of the nick attack
4. Attack with the shortsword as a part of the same attack
You don't even need nick, as you can use you Free Object Interaction to draw the weapon, or get Dual Wielder and use that feat's extra weapon stowing, and if you have dual wieldeer you could get 4 attacks at level 5, or 3 attacks at level 4, all with a shield, right?
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
If I understand this, you want the advantage of 2 weapon fighting, without the penalty of a lower AC? You found a potential loophole in the rules (law) to exploit and use. That sounds very unethical.
I don't think this is intended, but as far as I know, there's no rule about having to hold the weapon for a light attack in your other hand, so from my understanding of RAW, you could do this:
Begin with shield and light weapon (say scimitar with nick)
1. Do your main attack
2. Stow your scimitar as a part of that attack
3. Draw, say, a shortsword as a part of the nick attack
4. Attack with the shortsword as a part of the same attack
You don't even need nick, as you can use you Free Object Interaction to draw the weapon, or get Dual Wielder and use that feat's extra weapon stowing, and if you have dual wieldeer you could get 4 attacks at level 5, or 3 attacks at level 4, all with a shield, right?
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
As far as we can tell, it's intended, or at least the general weapon swapping rules are intended, and this is one consequence of it. And IMO it's not that big a deal, power-wise.
Except for the dual-wielder thing. That lets you draw two, or stow two, but not one of each, which limits your options.
If I understand this, you want the advantage of 2 weapon fighting, without the penalty of a lower AC? You found a potential loophole in the rules (law) to exploit and use. That sounds very unethical.
I have a hard time calling it a loophole tbh, it seems entirely intended. The 2014 rules called it two-weapon fighting and explicitly said that you needed to hold the two weapons at the same time. The 2024 rules never even hints at needing to hold the two weapons simultaneously and the only place it mentions "two" or "dual" is in in the name (but not the descriptions) of the related feats (Two-Weapon FightingandDual Wielder).
I don't think this is intended, but as far as I know, there's no rule about having to hold the weapon for a light attack in your other hand, so from my understanding of RAW, you could do this:
Begin with shield and light weapon (say scimitar with nick)
1. Do your main attack
2. Stow your scimitar as a part of that attack
3. Draw, say, a shortsword as a part of the nick attack
4. Attack with the shortsword as a part of the same attack
You don't even need nick, as you can use you Free Object Interaction to draw the weapon, or get Dual Wielder and use that feat's extra weapon stowing, and if you have dual wieldeer you could get 4 attacks at level 5, or 3 attacks at level 4, all with a shield, right?
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
As far as we can tell, it's intended, or at least the general weapon swapping rules are intended, and this is one consequence of it. And IMO it's not that big a deal, power-wise.
Except for the dual-wielder thing. That lets you draw two, or stow two, but not one of each, which limits your options.
I disagree, as this allows a sword and board fighter to get an extra attack with no down side.
Two weapon fighting implies that you have two weapons that you are holding, so you cannot receive that shield AC. You are trading off defensive AC for an extra attack.
This is a big deal if it is correct, because now you have the advantage of an extra attack and the advantage of higher AC, there is no downside.
I disagree, as this allows a sword and board fighter to get an extra attack with no down side.
Two weapon fighting implies that you have two weapons that you are holding, so you cannot receive that shield AC. You are trading off defensive AC for an extra attack.
This is a big deal if it is correct, because now you have the advantage of an extra attack and the advantage of higher AC, there is no downside.
Two-weapon fighting doesn't exist in the 2024 rules though so there is no such implication in the current rules.
As far as we can tell, it's intended, or at least the general weapon swapping rules are intended, and this is one consequence of it. And IMO it's not that big a deal, power-wise.
I disagree, as this allows a sword and board fighter to get an extra attack with no down side.
Two weapon fighting implies that you have two weapons that you are holding, so you cannot receive that shield AC. You are trading off defensive AC for an extra attack.
This is a big deal if it is correct, because now you have the advantage of an extra attack and the advantage of higher AC, there is no downside.
The thing is that, if you compare TWF, even with a shield, to what you can get for similar investments in other fighting styles, it doesn't really come out ahead. The sword and board fighter is downgrading to lighter weapons, and has to devote a fighting style, and later a feat, to keep the damage up. If they'd taken a different fighting style and feat, and stuck with boring old longsword, they'd still be competitive.
Also, I remain unconvinced that people are doing it in actual play, and not just when talking about character optimization.
The best part that will make DMs truly hate you is that you can use the Dueling fighting style too!
When would you take it? As your startup fighting style, instead of TWF? At 4th, instead of Dual Wielder's stat bump and full-blown extra attack?
Dueling + TWF requires two extra feats and a weapon mastery over straight dueling. And yes, you get two extra attacks, but that's not really an unreasonable payoff for the investment.
The best part that will make DMs truly hate you is that you can use the Dueling fighting style too!
They won’t hate you; they’ll just refer you to Rule 0 and the good faith section in the DMG and give you the boot if you keep insisting you should have your way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't think this is intended, but as far as I know, there's no rule about having to hold the weapon for a light attack in your other hand, so from my understanding of RAW, you could do this:
Begin with shield and light weapon (say scimitar with nick)
1. Do your main attack
2. Stow your scimitar as a part of that attack
3. Draw, say, a shortsword as a part of the nick attack
4. Attack with the shortsword as a part of the same attack
You don't even need nick, as you can use you Free Object Interaction to draw the weapon, or get Dual Wielder and use that feat's extra weapon stowing, and if you have dual wieldeer you could get 4 attacks at level 5, or 3 attacks at level 4, all with a shield, right?
This feels unintended and a bit overpowered to me, but it could be done, right? Am I missing something?
This was brought up when the 24 version first came out. As I recall the argument came down to, while it may be RAW, good luck finding a DM who will allow you to do it.
And even the RAW part needs to ignore the general rule of good faith interpretation of the rules.
No, you have the right of it. It's not that big of a deal, but my usual players are pretty chill so I am fine with allowing it. From the base weapon itself, this is about an extra 3.5 (No Two-weapon Fighting style) to 8.5 damage per round, possibly more depending on if it's a magic weapon or other effects like Hex. I'm not worried about it.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Yeah, what you propose is allowed and valid per the rules.
Aralas4543 there area a couple of recent threads about the same scenario you asked about. If you want, take a look at the answers there for more thoughts:
- Shields, Dual Wielding, drawing and sheathing and the free object interaction
- question about light weapon (dnd2024)
EDIT: for clarity.
If I understand this, you want the advantage of 2 weapon fighting, without the penalty of a lower AC? You found a potential loophole in the rules (law) to exploit and use. That sounds very unethical.
As far as we can tell, it's intended, or at least the general weapon swapping rules are intended, and this is one consequence of it. And IMO it's not that big a deal, power-wise.
Except for the dual-wielder thing. That lets you draw two, or stow two, but not one of each, which limits your options.
I have a hard time calling it a loophole tbh, it seems entirely intended. The 2014 rules called it two-weapon fighting and explicitly said that you needed to hold the two weapons at the same time. The 2024 rules never even hints at needing to hold the two weapons simultaneously and the only place it mentions "two" or "dual" is in in the name (but not the descriptions) of the related feats (Two-Weapon Fighting and Dual Wielder).
I disagree, as this allows a sword and board fighter to get an extra attack with no down side.
Two weapon fighting implies that you have two weapons that you are holding, so you cannot receive that shield AC. You are trading off defensive AC for an extra attack.
This is a big deal if it is correct, because now you have the advantage of an extra attack and the advantage of higher AC, there is no downside.
Two-weapon fighting doesn't exist in the 2024 rules though so there is no such implication in the current rules.
The thing is that, if you compare TWF, even with a shield, to what you can get for similar investments in other fighting styles, it doesn't really come out ahead. The sword and board fighter is downgrading to lighter weapons, and has to devote a fighting style, and later a feat, to keep the damage up. If they'd taken a different fighting style and feat, and stuck with boring old longsword, they'd still be competitive.
Also, I remain unconvinced that people are doing it in actual play, and not just when talking about character optimization.
The best part that will make DMs truly hate you is that you can use the Dueling fighting style too!
You can do it yourself, can't you? Tools combobox -> Delete.
When would you take it? As your startup fighting style, instead of TWF? At 4th, instead of Dual Wielder's stat bump and full-blown extra attack?
Dueling + TWF requires two extra feats and a weapon mastery over straight dueling. And yes, you get two extra attacks, but that's not really an unreasonable payoff for the investment.
They won’t hate you; they’ll just refer you to Rule 0 and the good faith section in the DMG and give you the boot if you keep insisting you should have your way.