In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away. Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
The reach property says this: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." (emphasis mine)
Nothing about wielding a whip changes your reach for opportunity attacks made with the dagger. So yeah, if you're dual-wielding a whip and a dagger, you have two opportunities to choose to make an AoO (though you're still bound by having just one reaction).
In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away.Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
Thoughts?
Actually I just realized I don't really agree with what I wrote there. Naked, wielding a bow, or anything in between, you always threat 5-10 OA's, because you can always choose to take one with an unarmed attack. Anyway, other question above still stands about whether you can use the Reach weapon to complete a 5-10 OA triggered by reference to a non-reach weapon.
I think that's likely the intent. However, there's nothing in the attack of opportunity rules that says you have to make your reaction melee attack with the weapon that is determining your reach for the attack.
Anyway, other question above still stands about whether you can use the Reach weapon to complete a 5-10 OA triggered by reference to a non-reach weapon.
According to a JC tweet I read once. Your unarmed strike and different weapons each have different opportunity attack triggers. So if an enemy moves from 5 to 10 feet away, they would trigger an opportunity attack from unarmed strike or a dagger, but not the whip.
The problem with that tweet is, nothing in the text describes the OA being restricted to a single weapon decided at trigger... and if it did, then War Caster becomes even weirder ("I'm taking an opportunity attack with my dagger, to cast Inflict Wounds"?)
That, and as in the other thread, I'm pretty committed to the idea that you can draw a weapon as part of an OA using that weapon, even though it isn't already wielded and creating a threatened range. But I do see the argument for reading the intention to be otherwise like you're suggesting.
The problem with that tweet is, nothing in the text describes the OA being restricted to a single weapon decided at trigger... and if it did, then War Caster becomes even weirder ("I'm taking an opportunity attack with my dagger, to cast Inflict Wounds"?)
That, and as in the other thread, I'm pretty committed to the idea that you can draw a weapon as part of an OA using that weapon, even though it isn't already wielded and creating a threatened range. But I do see the argument for reading the intention to be otherwise like you're suggesting.
Basically, you reach is 5 feet so any enemy moving out of the reach triggers OAs. The reach property extends the reach of that weapon, so an enemy moving from 5 to 10 feet does not leave the reach of that weapon and does not trigger an OA from that weapon.
War caster replaces the OA, so you are not "taking an opportunity attack with a dagger to cast inflict wounds," you are just "casting inflict wounds."
You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
You can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction. Not because there is no rule saying you can't, but because there is no rule saying you can.
You can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction as part of the "other activity on your turn" rules, but you can explicitly draw a weapon as part of an attack in general. We know this, because the Use an Object rules describe that as a baseline of free activity that doesn't require a Use an Object action.
Absent a rule saying that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made with a reaction, we are left with the "you draw a sword as part of an attack" language in Chapter 9 saying that you can. :)
All use an object says is that you don't need to use an action to draw a weapon, it does not provide the rules for doing so. Those rules are mentioned twice earlier in the same chapter (which is what that rule was referencing).
For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
You need to find a rule that says you can draw a weapon as part of a reaction.
Absent a rule saying that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made with a reaction, we are left with the "you draw a sword as part of an attack" language in Chapter 9 saying that you can. :)
All use an object says is that you don't need to use an action to draw a weapon, it does not provide the rules for doing so. Those rules are mentioned twice earlier in the same chapter (which is what that rule was referencing).
For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
You need to find a rule that says you can draw a weapon as part of a reaction.
From reading the portions DxJxC shared, I'd be inclined to agree that it has to be on your turn as part of your movement or your action used to attack. I think that could preclude even bonus action attacks, but I'd have to look into it for sure. Those parts clearly identify using your action to attack and don't establish reaction as a valid option. At it's most RAW, you couldn't draw a weapon for an AoO and would be stuck with using the triggering weapon. It's open enough for arguments in RAI, since a reaction is a type of action but there is more inference there.
Note also that many enemy creatures have multiple reaches. The average adult dragon has claw 5', bite 10' and tail 15' attack options, so it could take an opportunity attack if you moved away from it anywhere within that zone.
Reach applies to only that weapon, and does extend the range AoOs are provoked from. Wielding multiple weapons does create multiple layers of AoO trigger zones. However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack. You can wield a whip & dagger for zone coverage. I've even recommended it to people in the past; it's an interesting combo that isn't OP or UP. Moving from 5'->10' provokes an attack with the dagger, and moving from 10'->15' provokes an attack with the whip.
Your Unarmed Strike reach is, apparently, not always considered active. If you are wielding weapons, you don't threaten any squares with your Unarmed Strike. I'm a bit ambivalent about all the implications, but leaning on the side of it being a good thing. Here's the Sage Advice (official) entry:
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks?
An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [Tooltip Not Found] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
The only way to fill a threatened range gap is with a Whip and another 1H non-reach weapon.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Reach applies to only that weapon, and does extend the range AoOs are provoked from. Wielding multiple weapons does create multiple layers of AoO trigger zones. However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack. You can wield a whip & dagger for zone coverage. I've even recommended it to people in the past; it's an interesting combo that isn't OP or UP. Moving from 5'->10' provokes an attack with the dagger, and moving from 10'->15' provokes an attack with the whip.
Your Unarmed Strike reach is, apparently, not always considered active. If you are wielding weapons, you don't threaten any squares with your Unarmed Strike. I'm a bit ambivalent about all the implications, but leaning on the side of it being a good thing. Here's the Sage Advice (official) entry:
How does a reach weapon work with opportunity attacks?
An opportunity attack is normally triggered when a creature you can see moves beyond your reach (PH, 195). If you want to make an opportunity attack with a reach weapon, such as a glaive or a halberd, you can do so when a creature leaves the reach you have with that weapon. For example, if you’re wielding a halberd, a creature that is right next to you could move 5 feet away without triggering an opportunity attack. If that creature tries to move an additional 5 feet—beyond your 10-foot reach—the creature then triggers an opportunity attack.
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [action]Cast a Spell[/spell] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
The only way to fill a threatened range gap is with a Whip and another 1H non-reach weapon.
According to this, a sorcerer with a wand and a free hand (for S spells, we'll assume no war caster in this case) cannot make opportunity attacks at any range?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a wand doesn't count as a weapon. If it did count as a weapon, then it would threaten whatever range is applicable to it (can't imagine anything other than 5'). Barring that, Unarmed Strike ought to be applicable.
This is exactly why I'm ambivalent about all the implications. It nicely resolves the paths to exploitation, but at what point does Unarmed Strike actively threaten squares? When you aren't holding any weapons at all? When you aren't wielding anything with Reach? There's gotta be a line somewhere at-or-between both.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [action]Cast a Spell[/spell] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
It's because of this that I would say unarmed strikes are viable choices for AoO's every time to everyone - but if you choose to use it - you cannot use anything that would require a weapon - such as Warcasting Booming Blade. The AoO was made with a kick or a punch - not a weapon.
I have no real opinions, and that was truly a question for discussion on something I don't understand. I don't really understand any of this stuff with multiple reaches and what attacks can be made when creatures use what reaches.
I specifically chose wand because I thought it was a focus that was not also a weapon so that the wizard would be in a position with no weapons in his hand. But I don't know that an unarmed wizard would want to take an AoO with an unarmed strike anyway. With warcaster, the wizard could easily put a dagger or 1h weapon in the other hand and then it would be obvious what happens (and they could use a spell with S components with both hands occupied for sure because of warcaster).
Nothing in the text of a monk's Martial Arts feature purports to turn their unarmed strike into anything other than an unarmed strike. Their fists do not become weapons, they are simply (better) unarmed strikes. If a monk is holding a quarterstaff, does he lose the ability to make OA Unarmed Strikes? No. Holding a weapon (be that weapon a regular melee weapon, a Reach melee weapon, or even a ranged weapon) does not change the fact that Unarmed Strikes always threaten squares and can be used to make OA's... because nothing anywhere in the rule books suggests that it does.
All use an object says is that you don't need to use an action to draw a weapon, it does not provide the rules for doing so. Those rules are mentioned twice earlier in the same chapter (which is what that rule was referencing).
For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
You need to find a rule that says you can draw a weapon as part of a reaction.
Merely because the section discusses how many times you can do free things during your turn (to prevent you from doing limitless free actions), that is not to say that the section purports to limit what free things you can do at other times. The baseline it sets is "You normally interact with an object while doing something else;" absent a rule explicitly saying that you can't interact with an object while doing something else, the baseline assumption is that you can, for all objects, during all activities. Helpfully, there is a section immediately below the Use an Object section which makes it doubly clear that the list of free actions and their timings is not comprehensive; "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section."
Draw a sheathed sword is something that is mentioned as happening "as part of an attack," "as part of the same action you use to attack," and as something you can do "in tandem" with other activities. Could you also draw your sword while drinking a potion? While making an intimidate check? Yeah, because there's no rule saying you can't, and in general "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and drawing a sword has been clearly identified as an example of a nearly-effortless interaction which is routinely taken alongside other actions of all sorts.
All use an object says is that you don't need to use an action to draw a weapon, it does not provide the rules for doing so. Those rules are mentioned twice earlier in the same chapter (which is what that rule was referencing).
For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe, or you could draw your weapon as part of the same action you use to attack.
Here are a few examples of the sorts of thing you can do in tandem with your movement and action:
draw or sheathe a sword
You need to find a rule that says you can draw a weapon as part of a reaction.
Merely because the section discusses how many times you can do free things during your turn (to prevent you from doing limitless free actions), that is not to say that the section purports to limit what free things you can do at other times. The baseline it sets is "You normally interact with an object while doing something else;" absent a rule explicitly saying that you can't interact with an object while doing something else, the baseline assumption is that you can, for all objects, during all activities. Helpfully, there is a section immediately below the Use an Object section which makes it doubly clear that the list of free actions and their timings is not comprehensive; "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section."
Draw a sheathed sword is something that is mentioned as happening "as part of an attack," "as part of the same action you use to attack," and as something you can do "in tandem" with other activities. Could you also draw your sword while drinking a potion? While making an intimidate check? Yeah, because there's no rule saying you can't, and in general "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and drawing a sword has been clearly identified as an example of a nearly-effortless interaction which is routinely taken alongside other actions of all sorts.
That's a real loosey goosey reading. That stuff that you're referring to is in a section called "Other activity on your turn." I'd be hard pressed to say that "other activity on your turn" can occur not on your turn (outside of held actions), especially because it says that these free actions occur as part of your move or action (not bonus action or reaction). The PHB is full of descriptions of what you CAN do and generally not a list of things you CANNOT do.
In an earlier thread, I took the position that an Opportunity Attack ques off of "your reach" and not "your weapon's reach." This matches the RAW language in Chapter 9, but not everyone agreed with my conclusions (and I made a pretty bonehead blunder by only reading half of the Reach description).
Anyway, I'm left wondering... what (if anything) changes about "your reach" when you are dual wielding a Whip and a non-reach weapon like a Dagger? If you are only wielding a Dagger, you get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away. If you are only wielding a Whip, you don't get an Opportunity Attack when a foe moves from 5 feet away to 10 feet away, but do when they move from 10 feet away to 15 feet away. Does dual wielding reach and nonreach weapons allow you to choose to take an Opportunity Attack when they move from 5 feet away to 10 feet away with the non-reach weapon? If so, to take it even further to a perverse conclusion, since (it's my position that) an Opportunity Attack doesn't normally require you to use any particular weapon when you make the attack, could you make the 5-10 foot OA using the whip, even though the whip wielded alone would only be able to be used on a 10-15 foot OA?
Thoughts?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The reach property says this: "This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it." (emphasis mine)
Nothing about wielding a whip changes your reach for opportunity attacks made with the dagger. So yeah, if you're dual-wielding a whip and a dagger, you have two opportunities to choose to make an AoO (though you're still bound by having just one reaction).
So would you say that Reach's "with it" language prevents using the whip for the 5-10 OA once triggered?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Actually I just realized I don't really agree with what I wrote there. Naked, wielding a bow, or anything in between, you always threat 5-10 OA's, because you can always choose to take one with an unarmed attack. Anyway, other question above still stands about whether you can use the Reach weapon to complete a 5-10 OA triggered by reference to a non-reach weapon.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I think that's likely the intent. However, there's nothing in the attack of opportunity rules that says you have to make your reaction melee attack with the weapon that is determining your reach for the attack.
According to a JC tweet I read once. Your unarmed strike and different weapons each have different opportunity attack triggers. So if an enemy moves from 5 to 10 feet away, they would trigger an opportunity attack from unarmed strike or a dagger, but not the whip.
The problem with that tweet is, nothing in the text describes the OA being restricted to a single weapon decided at trigger... and if it did, then War Caster becomes even weirder ("I'm taking an opportunity attack with my dagger, to cast Inflict Wounds"?)
That, and as in the other thread, I'm pretty committed to the idea that you can draw a weapon as part of an OA using that weapon, even though it isn't already wielded and creating a threatened range. But I do see the argument for reading the intention to be otherwise like you're suggesting.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Basically, you reach is 5 feet so any enemy moving out of the reach triggers OAs. The reach property extends the reach of that weapon, so an enemy moving from 5 to 10 feet does not leave the reach of that weapon and does not trigger an OA from that weapon.
War caster replaces the OA, so you are not "taking an opportunity attack with a dagger to cast inflict wounds," you are just "casting inflict wounds."
You can only draw your weapons during your turn as described by the "other activity on your turn" rules:
You can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction. Not because there is no rule saying you can't, but because there is no rule saying you can.
You can't draw a weapon as part of a reaction as part of the "other activity on your turn" rules, but you can explicitly draw a weapon as part of an attack in general. We know this, because the Use an Object rules describe that as a baseline of free activity that doesn't require a Use an Object action.
Absent a rule saying that you can't draw a weapon as part of an attack made with a reaction, we are left with the "you draw a sword as part of an attack" language in Chapter 9 saying that you can. :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
All use an object says is that you don't need to use an action to draw a weapon, it does not provide the rules for doing so. Those rules are mentioned twice earlier in the same chapter (which is what that rule was referencing).
You need to find a rule that says you can draw a weapon as part of a reaction.
From reading the portions DxJxC shared, I'd be inclined to agree that it has to be on your turn as part of your movement or your action used to attack. I think that could preclude even bonus action attacks, but I'd have to look into it for sure. Those parts clearly identify using your action to attack and don't establish reaction as a valid option. At it's most RAW, you couldn't draw a weapon for an AoO and would be stuck with using the triggering weapon. It's open enough for arguments in RAI, since a reaction is a type of action but there is more inference there.
Note also that many enemy creatures have multiple reaches. The average adult dragon has claw 5', bite 10' and tail 15' attack options, so it could take an opportunity attack if you moved away from it anywhere within that zone.
Reach applies to only that weapon, and does extend the range AoOs are provoked from. Wielding multiple weapons does create multiple layers of AoO trigger zones. However, an AoO can only be made with the weapon whose reach specifically triggered the attack. You can wield a whip & dagger for zone coverage. I've even recommended it to people in the past; it's an interesting combo that isn't OP or UP. Moving from 5'->10' provokes an attack with the dagger, and moving from 10'->15' provokes an attack with the whip.
Your Unarmed Strike reach is, apparently, not always considered active. If you are wielding weapons, you don't threaten any squares with your Unarmed Strike. I'm a bit ambivalent about all the implications, but leaning on the side of it being a good thing. Here's the Sage Advice (official) entry:
If Unarmed Strike were always available, the creature would always provoke an attack from 5'->10', no matter what they might be actually wielding; that would be highly exploitable. I've seen people try to assert that a creature can provoke an AoO with Unarmed Strike by moving 5'->10', use the [Tooltip Not Found] action via War Caster, and then say they use their Glaive as the weapon attack--since Unarmed Strikes do not qualify--for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade.
The only way to fill a threatened range gap is with a Whip and another 1H non-reach weapon.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
According to this, a sorcerer with a wand and a free hand (for S spells, we'll assume no war caster in this case) cannot make opportunity attacks at any range?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a wand doesn't count as a weapon. If it did count as a weapon, then it would threaten whatever range is applicable to it (can't imagine anything other than 5'). Barring that, Unarmed Strike ought to be applicable.
This is exactly why I'm ambivalent about all the implications. It nicely resolves the paths to exploitation, but at what point does Unarmed Strike actively threaten squares? When you aren't holding any weapons at all? When you aren't wielding anything with Reach? There's gotta be a line somewhere at-or-between both.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It's because of this that I would say unarmed strikes are viable choices for AoO's every time to everyone - but if you choose to use it - you cannot use anything that would require a weapon - such as Warcasting Booming Blade. The AoO was made with a kick or a punch - not a weapon.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I have no real opinions, and that was truly a question for discussion on something I don't understand. I don't really understand any of this stuff with multiple reaches and what attacks can be made when creatures use what reaches.
I specifically chose wand because I thought it was a focus that was not also a weapon so that the wizard would be in a position with no weapons in his hand. But I don't know that an unarmed wizard would want to take an AoO with an unarmed strike anyway. With warcaster, the wizard could easily put a dagger or 1h weapon in the other hand and then it would be obvious what happens (and they could use a spell with S components with both hands occupied for sure because of warcaster).
Nothing in the text of a monk's Martial Arts feature purports to turn their unarmed strike into anything other than an unarmed strike. Their fists do not become weapons, they are simply (better) unarmed strikes. If a monk is holding a quarterstaff, does he lose the ability to make OA Unarmed Strikes? No. Holding a weapon (be that weapon a regular melee weapon, a Reach melee weapon, or even a ranged weapon) does not change the fact that Unarmed Strikes always threaten squares and can be used to make OA's... because nothing anywhere in the rule books suggests that it does.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Merely because the section discusses how many times you can do free things during your turn (to prevent you from doing limitless free actions), that is not to say that the section purports to limit what free things you can do at other times. The baseline it sets is "You normally interact with an object while doing something else;" absent a rule explicitly saying that you can't interact with an object while doing something else, the baseline assumption is that you can, for all objects, during all activities. Helpfully, there is a section immediately below the Use an Object section which makes it doubly clear that the list of free actions and their timings is not comprehensive; "Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this section."
Draw a sheathed sword is something that is mentioned as happening "as part of an attack," "as part of the same action you use to attack," and as something you can do "in tandem" with other activities. Could you also draw your sword while drinking a potion? While making an intimidate check? Yeah, because there's no rule saying you can't, and in general "you normally interact with an object while doing something else," and drawing a sword has been clearly identified as an example of a nearly-effortless interaction which is routinely taken alongside other actions of all sorts.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's a real loosey goosey reading. That stuff that you're referring to is in a section called "Other activity on your turn." I'd be hard pressed to say that "other activity on your turn" can occur not on your turn (outside of held actions), especially because it says that these free actions occur as part of your move or action (not bonus action or reaction). The PHB is full of descriptions of what you CAN do and generally not a list of things you CANNOT do.