Kerrec, a whip extends your reach “when you attack with it.” There is no risk it could be used to justify dagger attacks from 10 feet away.
You completely misunderstood. In the example I provided, the wizard would declare attacking with the 'best' weapon at their disposal. If the creature ran past the wizard within 5 feet, the wizard would declare "I draw my dagger and attack" instead of "I draw my whip and attack", because the dagger does more damage (in this hypothetical example). That's is BS, and for that reason, the weapon has to be equipped already to be able to use it for an OA.
Why is it BS to use the best weapon at your disposal? You can’t draw a weapon off turn, agreed, but not because of the OA rules but instead because of the free action/use object rules.
I've seen this multiple times now and this seems to be generally overlooked by the community yet it is specified so clearly: "When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike". RAW PHB p. 195.
Also you are NOT correct on the drawing/sheathing part. Rules are very specific about when you can draw or sheath a weapon and it's only as part of your movement or action. RAW in side block PHB p.190. IF you were correct, then I could draw a new weapon for free every time I make an attack, no matter the source I gain this attack from. This would undermine feats that specifically give you the ability to draw a new weapon as part of something other than movement or action like Quick Toss does. There the feature specifically reads: "As a bonus action, you can expend one superiority die and make a ranged attack with a weapon that has the thrown property. You can draw the weapon as part of making this attack." So with this feature(a maneuver) you can draw a weapon as part of a bonus action! Which is great because you normally can't. When ever you can do something differently the rules say so. This is the beauty of D&D5e. You do not have to interpret the rules you just have to read them. As with your example the Commander's Strike reads: "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll." It only says that creature can make a weapon attack. Nowhere does it say that this creature can draw a weapon as part of its reaction. So if someone uses their Commander's Strike on a creature that is currently unarmed that creature can make one weapon attack with its unarmed strike and that's it. Commanding a character to strike when they're not wielding a weapon only lets the commander look like a fool unless the commanded character is a Monk or otherwise very skilled at making unarmed strikes. :D
This is all just RAW and as we all know fun sometimes demands to stray from the rules or bend them to our fun. I'd still recommend not to bend them to a degree that your players are getting too used to always getting their way for free even when they fumble and forget to mention things a lot and then try to argue their way out of a situation they don't like. I'd recommend to always make them feel like... they've accomplished something. Let them get creative. Give them opportunities to prove they're worthy adventurers. So in the case of your Wizard lady... next time that happens just ask her... "Okay you apparently forgot to draw your dagger, but can you think of something you could do to draw it anyway now that you realized you need it?" Then you give her the opportunity to explain and come up with a creative solution. Maybe you could then rule to give her a sleight of hand check or something similar. Maybe she already has her Mage Hand cast and she could argue: "My trusty Mage Hand gives me a... hand in the matter." So you not only have given her a chance to make use of her other abilities as an adventurer and to feel great about herself and her quick thinking but maybe also a good laugh for the entire group on the table. Well at least that's how I'd rule it anyway. Inspire people and they will most likely inspire you in turn.
What you have in your hands at the end of your turn is important. It determines what your enemies can expect from you. Hands full of weapons and shields? Then you won't be casting certain spells. No weapon? Then your opportunity attacks aren't very scary. That information will determine what your enemies do on their turns, if they're smart.
You can bend the rules here if you like. I don't like it, but I also recognize there's some absurdity that results from closely sticking to these rules 100% of the time. People dropping their stuff on the floor and whatnot. But I think it's a neat tactical and thematic thing if, say, a Cleric has to put down his weapon to cast Revivify.
I think most players don't want to think at all about components. They want the only limiting factor on their spells to be their spell slots. I don't like what happens to the game when a DM rules in favor of this, but I'll concede that I wouldn't really mind if some new version of the game was built around it.
What you have in your hands at the end of your turn is important. It determines what your enemies can expect from you. Hands full of weapons and shields? Then you won't be casting certain spells. No weapon? Then your opportunity attacks aren't very scary. That information will determine what your enemies do on their turns, if they're smart.
Exactly what I'm thinking. At the end of the game D&D still is a game and a game needs rules, even when sometimes those rules seem to be illogical in the sense of what we know about our world and its nature. The fact is though: a game world is not our world and a game world only works in its own predefined sense that's the vision the designer had in mind. If we as players(which should be noted: in case of D&D also the DM is a player) go into this world and alter its rules we ultimately alter the creative vision of the game and by chance also the fine balancing that we at times may or may not even recognize. What I've learned is, that most of the time it really helps to put things into perspective: what if the DM pulled that what I'm currently trying to do on me? "Hey why could that Orc make his opportunity attack with his Greataxe on me even though he had nothing in his hands just now?" "Yeah well he just forgot to draw it last round and while you were walking by he remembered. It's the same thing I granted to you earlier, remember?"
You hit the nail on the head with your statement that it's a very tactical decision what we do in combat. Everything we do is based on a momentary picture in space time in D&D's combat system. And even though we get the feeling that every turn in a round must naturally be separated by the 6 seconds the system tells us a turn takes, in reality if you think about it for a second(or six ;) ) you must realize that turns are actually happening at the same time. It doesn't make sense for an opponent who sees me, no matter how slow he is, to react 6, 12, 18... seconds later than I do. He reacts immediately, almost as immediate as I do. I just have this split second(s) edge over him. And although D&D is also about atmosphere, storytelling and all that and some of us may not enjoy the combat as much as others do, this thing still has to work for everybody involved at the end of the day. And yes I realize that the "real world" argument also doesn't track when it comes down to a game that should just be fun to play. But then that's exactly the point I'm making. The game is meant to be fun and already designed with that goal in mind; bending the rules might have implications that may or may not lead to confusion and break the fun for someone at some point.
A couple workarounds I can think of to have a means for AoOs in this sort of situation:
Using a Ruby of the War Mage or Dragon-Touched Focus to make a dagger your spellcasting focus. Now it’ll always be on hand even between turns
At the end of every turn, use your object interaction to pick up your dagger, then drop it at the beginning of every turn. Looks asinine but ensures you’re always wielding it when it counts.
If you have a different spellcasting focus, you can still use it as an improvised weapon to deal the same d4 damage the dagger would have. (If it’s sufficiently dagger-shaped, perhaps I could see a DM clearing ‘rod’ or ‘crystal’ if described properly, you might even be able to treat it as a dagger per the rules for improvised weapons.) Otherwise this strat is inferior to a real dagger due to scaling off strength and likely lacking proficiency, but it’s still better than dealing zero damage with an 8 STR unarmed strike.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You completely misunderstood. In the example I provided, the wizard would declare attacking with the 'best' weapon at their disposal. If the creature ran past the wizard within 5 feet, the wizard would declare "I draw my dagger and attack" instead of "I draw my whip and attack", because the dagger does more damage (in this hypothetical example). That's is BS, and for that reason, the weapon has to be equipped already to be able to use it for an OA.
Why is it BS to use the best weapon at your disposal? You can’t draw a weapon off turn, agreed, but not because of the OA rules but instead because of the free action/use object rules.
We’re really arguing over nothing here.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I've seen this multiple times now and this seems to be generally overlooked by the community yet it is specified so clearly: "When you are unarmed, you can fight in melee by making an unarmed strike". RAW PHB p. 195.
Also you are NOT correct on the drawing/sheathing part. Rules are very specific about when you can draw or sheath a weapon and it's only as part of your movement or action. RAW in side block PHB p.190. IF you were correct, then I could draw a new weapon for free every time I make an attack, no matter the source I gain this attack from. This would undermine feats that specifically give you the ability to draw a new weapon as part of something other than movement or action like Quick Toss does. There the feature specifically reads: "As a bonus action, you can expend one superiority die and make a ranged attack with a weapon that has the thrown property. You can draw the weapon as part of making this attack." So with this feature(a maneuver) you can draw a weapon as part of a bonus action! Which is great because you normally can't. When ever you can do something differently the rules say so. This is the beauty of D&D5e. You do not have to interpret the rules you just have to read them. As with your example the Commander's Strike reads: "When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack's damage roll." It only says that creature can make a weapon attack. Nowhere does it say that this creature can draw a weapon as part of its reaction. So if someone uses their Commander's Strike on a creature that is currently unarmed that creature can make one weapon attack with its unarmed strike and that's it. Commanding a character to strike when they're not wielding a weapon only lets the commander look like a fool unless the commanded character is a Monk or otherwise very skilled at making unarmed strikes. :D
This is all just RAW and as we all know fun sometimes demands to stray from the rules or bend them to our fun. I'd still recommend not to bend them to a degree that your players are getting too used to always getting their way for free even when they fumble and forget to mention things a lot and then try to argue their way out of a situation they don't like. I'd recommend to always make them feel like... they've accomplished something. Let them get creative. Give them opportunities to prove they're worthy adventurers. So in the case of your Wizard lady... next time that happens just ask her... "Okay you apparently forgot to draw your dagger, but can you think of something you could do to draw it anyway now that you realized you need it?" Then you give her the opportunity to explain and come up with a creative solution. Maybe you could then rule to give her a sleight of hand check or something similar. Maybe she already has her Mage Hand cast and she could argue: "My trusty Mage Hand gives me a... hand in the matter." So you not only have given her a chance to make use of her other abilities as an adventurer and to feel great about herself and her quick thinking but maybe also a good laugh for the entire group on the table. Well at least that's how I'd rule it anyway. Inspire people and they will most likely inspire you in turn.
Have a nice next session everyone!
What you have in your hands at the end of your turn is important. It determines what your enemies can expect from you. Hands full of weapons and shields? Then you won't be casting certain spells. No weapon? Then your opportunity attacks aren't very scary. That information will determine what your enemies do on their turns, if they're smart.
You can bend the rules here if you like. I don't like it, but I also recognize there's some absurdity that results from closely sticking to these rules 100% of the time. People dropping their stuff on the floor and whatnot. But I think it's a neat tactical and thematic thing if, say, a Cleric has to put down his weapon to cast Revivify.
I think most players don't want to think at all about components. They want the only limiting factor on their spells to be their spell slots. I don't like what happens to the game when a DM rules in favor of this, but I'll concede that I wouldn't really mind if some new version of the game was built around it.
Exactly what I'm thinking. At the end of the game D&D still is a game and a game needs rules, even when sometimes those rules seem to be illogical in the sense of what we know about our world and its nature. The fact is though: a game world is not our world and a game world only works in its own predefined sense that's the vision the designer had in mind. If we as players(which should be noted: in case of D&D also the DM is a player) go into this world and alter its rules we ultimately alter the creative vision of the game and by chance also the fine balancing that we at times may or may not even recognize. What I've learned is, that most of the time it really helps to put things into perspective:
what if the DM pulled that what I'm currently trying to do on me? "Hey why could that Orc make his opportunity attack with his Greataxe on me even though he had nothing in his hands just now?" "Yeah well he just forgot to draw it last round and while you were walking by he remembered. It's the same thing I granted to you earlier, remember?"
You hit the nail on the head with your statement that it's a very tactical decision what we do in combat. Everything we do is based on a momentary picture in space time in D&D's combat system. And even though we get the feeling that every turn in a round must naturally be separated by the 6 seconds the system tells us a turn takes, in reality if you think about it for a second(or six ;) ) you must realize that turns are actually happening at the same time. It doesn't make sense for an opponent who sees me, no matter how slow he is, to react 6, 12, 18... seconds later than I do. He reacts immediately, almost as immediate as I do. I just have this split second(s) edge over him. And although D&D is also about atmosphere, storytelling and all that and some of us may not enjoy the combat as much as others do, this thing still has to work for everybody involved at the end of the day. And yes I realize that the "real world" argument also doesn't track when it comes down to a game that should just be fun to play. But then that's exactly the point I'm making. The game is meant to be fun and already designed with that goal in mind; bending the rules might have implications that may or may not lead to confusion and break the fun for someone at some point.
A couple workarounds I can think of to have a means for AoOs in this sort of situation: