Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I'd say in 5.5 the main mechanical benefit is an extra BA attack that stacks with Nick, although it does also allow for thematic rapier/dagger pairings and the like
It's still a pretty massive downgrade from the 5.0 version in terms of which weapons you can use though. No more barbarians with twin battle axes
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have a question about this.
I understand options 1 and 2.. but 3 and 4?
If you attack with a Scimitar as your main attack, the scimitar light properties does indeed give you the chance of using the BA for the other hand (short sword in this case). But the shortsword has not the nick property so how does it get squeezed in the main attack action thus freeing the BA for DW?
What is the reading of the rules that would allow this?
Also, can the BA attack be made inbetween the Main attack and the Nick attack of the attack actions? Meaning, can the BA attack "Interrupt" the attacks of the attack action?
The shortsword doesn't have the Nick mastery, but the Scimitar does. The Nick mastery is rather poorly written and doesn't actually specify which attack (the triggering attack or the Light property bonus attack) needs to be made with the Nick weapon. So, in actual play, people often rule that it can be either one as long as at least one of the weapons has Nick.
There's been some debate about this. In chapter 1 of the Player's Handbook, there's a section called "One Thing at a Time" that indicates that you can't take an action in the middle of another action, and it's generally understood that this is meant to apply to bonus actions as well.
However, some people have pointed out that the definition of "bonus action" just after this in the same chapter says that you get to choose when to take a bonus action in your turn unless the specific bonus action says otherwise, and argue that this means you can choose to take it in the middle of an action if you want. I don't agree with this interpretation, but it's worth mentioning as a thing people have brought up.
Personally, I would be inclined to take it on a case-by-case basis depending on the specific action and bonus action we're talking about. In the case where both are just making a bunch of attacks, I'd probably allow you to interleave them, though I also think it's unlikely that that would ever make much difference in practice.
pronouns: he/she/they
The one case that comes to mind to me is Divine Smite. It is a bonus action you take immediately after hitting. If you are a Pal 5 and you hit both with the first attack and your extra attack, Divine Smite can go right in between your main attack and the extra attack or after the extra attack.
Let say a high level padlock with pact of the blade has their 3 attacks with their pact weapon (a shortsword).
They also wields a dagger (nick).
They have the Dual Wielder feat and Two Weapon Fighting.
Their owl familiar gives them advantage on the first attack with the help action.
The logical sequence in my mind would be (assuming it is always the same target)
In the next round the first attack against the attacker would be with ADV from Vex, without any need for the familiar help.
Although it is strange that a dual wielding fighting style would basically ensure only 1 hit with the second weapon, the rules are clear that the Dual Wielder BA attack needs to be with a different weapon from the one that triggers it. Also like this, 4 of 5 attacks get advantage from the main weapon, which is nice.
If BA can interrupt the attack action sequence, then it could also be
This feels more like 2 weapons fighting, but it also is less optimized as in the following round you start without the advantage from vex.
I was wondering if there was a tidy way to optimize this sequence and have advantage on all 5 attacks. Right now the BA attack will always lack it.
EDIT: As an exercise, I posited a way to do it using 2 shortswords (A and B) and a dagger.. but this weapon juggling sounds a bit inelegant.
Depends on how your table plays Nick. If you read it as the Nick weapon has to be used for the enabling attack, then you can lead with the dagger, enable both the Light and DW attacks off that, and make both with the shortsword.
If you read it as the Nick weapon has to be used to make the Light extra attack, then no.
I was wondering if there was a way to optimize this sequence and have advantage on all 5 attacks. Right now in any way I see it, the BA attack will always lack it.
Depends on how your table plays Nick. If you read it as the Nick weapon has to be used for the enabling attack, then you can lead with the dagger, enable both the Light and DW attacks off that, and make both with the shortsword.
If you read it as the Nick weapon has to be used to make the Light extra attack, then no.
Interesting.
Could you elaborate on that a bit more please?
Because when I play this out one attack (the second) still ends up lacking vex.
Can the warlock pact of the blade 2 extra attacks (thirsting and devouring blade) be triggered with the short sword if the first short sword attack is itself the extra attack from the nick property?
You're right; I just screwed up.
Since you must make an attack without vex every round, there's no way not to break the chain, unless you can get advantage from an external source every round.
The extra attacks you get from the invocations are an inherent property of the attack action -- you take the Attack action, you get three attacks because you have those abilities.
Some other examples could be Flurry of Blows, the Heavy Weapon Master benefit from the Great Weapon Master feat, the Pole Strike benefit from the Polearm Master feat, the Barbarian's Travel Along the Tree, or the Rogue's Steady Aim.
I read One Thing at a Time as it applies to the main Actions (a previous paragraph in the rules), while still allowing Bonus Actions and Reactions to be used in the middle of other actions "unless the Bonus Action's timing is specified" or "unless the Reaction's description says otherwise".
Basically, this seems fine to me if you have Extra Attacks: Attack #1 --> Bonus Action (Flurry of Blows/Pole Strike/Steady Aim, for example) --> Attack #2.
Anyway, as wagnarokkr said, I'm one of the people who have brought this up before :) I also recognize that it's debatable in some cases (I'd say not for Smites) and is something to discuss with your DM.
It would work if there was a way to follow this order.
1 Shortsword
2 Shortsword
3 Shortsword
4 Shortsword
5 Dagger
I don't think you can though 🤔
I just wanted to point out that while restricting BA timing might be the general consensus here, on their Discord Rules channel the consensus is much more in the other direction: that is, that a BA is not an "action" as described in the OTAAT section of the rules and can, therefore, be placed anywhere unless it has specific timing.
Food for thought.
I think that's probably closer to RAW than the other reading. (There's no actual RAW because OTAAT doesn't go into bonus actions at all, so their status is uncertain.)
My personal opinion is that the Attack action is quite complicated enough, and I don't want to deal. :)
Another interpretation is that a Bonus Action that defines a particular timing trigger, such as the smite spells, creates a specific vs general exception to the One at a Time rule, allowing it to be taken and resolved in the middle of an Attack Action even though some other types of Bonus Actions would not be allowed to occur with such timing.
Sure, but I think you could actually use DS to argue the other way just as well (it's forcing you to take your BA immediately after hitting to cast it, rather than allowing you to cast it with your BA at any time), so I don't think it's a great example. Indeed, even with the looser interpretation of when you can take a BA, you would be hard pressed to convince me that you could take it before an attack has resolved (after you've hit), without that specific wording.
In 5.5e the second attack of Extra Attack does not need to occur right after the first attack, nor does the additional attack of the Light weapon property (unlike 5e). You can move between each, so it stands to reason you could place the Bonus Action between any of them as well. The one thing at a time rule is meant for one action per round (searching, utilizing, hiding (unless a bonus action), magic action, attacking, etc.). One thing at a time does not mean no interruptions between multiple attacks, and there are plenty of examples of uses of Bonus Actions that would occur between attacks.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I'm not entirely convinced of that. First off, "Moving between attacks" is a general rule in the Attack [Action] glossary entry. Second, unless I'm mistaken, you aren't allowed to move between Flurry of Blows attacks or if you somehow have multiple attacks in a reaction you take on your turn. This means that using the moving between attacks logic as evidence that BAs are allowed between attacks doesn't work, because you can't go the other way (move OR take an action inside your BA or Reaction). It stands to reason that the two, then, are completely separate. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't put a BA inside an Action, but I don't think the evidence that you can is all that compelling.
All that said, I also don't think there are any "problems" with allowing BAs inside your attack action, generally, from a power-gamey perspective. I can't find any egregious examples of increased player power by simply allowing it. And, in the case of this topic's... erm... topic, it's almost completely irrelevant (only mattering if you wanted to use a non-light weapon with DW inside your attack action for some reason, which, due to increased weapon juggling pre-requisites is just not worth the hassle for no gain).
Flurry of Blows is a unique ability, and nothing can occur between those attacks, and reactions are usually taken on someone else's turn, which is why you can only do the prepared/readied action during the reaction and nothing else (you can't use a bonus action during a reaction either, as you can only use a bonus action on your turn).
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (original Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
I'm ruling that way, so movement is allowed during the Attack Action (e.g. between Extra Attacks), but not during a Bonus Action (e.g. Flurry of Blows) or a Reaction. Moving either before or after those types of actions would also be allowed. Example if following this ruling:
- Attack 1 --> move
- Bonus Action [FoB for x2 attacks] --> move
- Attack 2 --> move
This thread I created two years ago (!) was about this topic: 2024 Moving between Attacks
Also:
- Moving a bonus action?
- Knock Back and Warrior of the Open Hand Monk; Flurry of Blows Movement