In response the the chainsaw, this is only three weapon swaps… I encourage you to count out loud six seconds and mime unsheathing two weapons from your hips, attacking then sheathing them again and then taking a weapon of your back and attacking three times… you will see that it is easily possible, six seconds is a long time in a fight - if anything DnD is a bit slow as a combat simulator
As has been the case since the game was first created, a single attack does not represent one swing of your weapon
An attack is a series of movements, feints etc that add up to one batch of damage, if successful. That's why Multiattack makes sense -- you aren't swinging your weapon faster, you're getting more efficient at all the various little things that add up to an "attack"
But even in your example, no, it wouldn't be possible for either you or I to land five significant strikes within six seconds against an opponent who's trying not to get hit while swapping between three different weapons, especially when one of those weapons is a freaking halberd
Again let me restate that gritty realism is not my aim, but also that even if it were... using multiple weapons is very realistic of medival combat (especially when thrown)!
Thank you for pointing out that narrative of combat fluff rules because I think they help illustrate my point: If your proficiency and attacking stat are high enough that you hit all of your attacks, then clearly you outmatch your opponent to such a degree that in this case you ARE hitting with every swing just like with the justification of Extra Attack... and say Fighters getting ten attacks at level 20 (they are demi-gods with the blade).
BUT the joy of a story-telling game is that the player and the DM get to tell the story of what combat looks like! If the player wants the game to feel like they are Neo or Arthur from King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) then so be it, whats wrong with that? https://youtu.be/5Rdvvp7KJZI?si=ZQX7kCDONgDbtEJu
Pick any six-second stretch of that you want. Nowhere in there is he making what would be considered in D&D two attacks with the shortsword and three with the halberd -- and again, he's doing that against air, not an actual opponent
You''re only rebutting your own argument with that video
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
He’s also never attacking with the sword and the halberd in combination. He’s pretty much holding the halberd in one hand while attacking with the sword, then he chucks the sword away and starts wielding the halberd with two hands. Only after that do we see any remotely offensive action made with the halberd.
I feel like we are mostly having two different conversations with moving goalposts.
I believe what you are saying is that switching/ using multiple weapons goes against your perception of what late medieval combat looked like and therefore you shouldn’t be able to do it in D&D (all-the-more, when there are multiple attacks) - is that a fair summary (I don’t want to use a straw-man representation here). Therefore, any attempt a character makes to ‘weapon-juggle’ would disrupt your suspension of disbelief in the narrative of combat in D&D…?
I am saying that d&d characters are supernatural, so it stands to reason that they can do more than we did in real life in the late medieval period. I am happy to therefore supply a narrative that fits with anything in the framework of the rules, making it feel plausible. BUT I am also trying to show you that what I am describing is plausible even within natural human limits. Not because we play at the same table, but because I would hate for someone to get laughed out of their game or blocked for trying a concept within the rules.
Where we are having two different conversations is in the narrative of combat.
I am looking at the rules first to decide what is possible, then looking to supply a narrative that fits it.
It appears to me that you are looking at the narrative first in order to decide what to do with the rules. Fair enough!
So where I think we might be able to agree is that DnD is not realistic and the rules of the game are boundaries to guide narrative, and to codify it into dice rolls. It is after those dice rolls dictate success that the DM and the players forge the building blocks of combat into a narrative for the imagination. Yes?
Where we disagree is that I believe that what I am describing is possible not only for supernatural beings but also for human beings who can do things like this (https://youtube.com/shorts/W2WtFwQbIFo?si=y0BeVb0KG3LIoFLf). Whereas you are convinced that for human beings attacking five times with the different weapons in six seconds is impossible - fair enough!
BUT can you agree that in DnD, it shouldn’t matter what a real life person can do, as long as that is what the character can do? And that part of it being a corporate storytelling game, is then turning those abilities into a story? If not, I’m not sure we are ever going to come to any sort of accord…
I am curious about so many naysayers when it comes to even minor buffs in martial versatility or power.
Why do so many people want martial characters to be gritty realistic (slow, weak, basic) and so casters to completely overshadow them in a DnD system where you can have demi-god like attributes by lvs4-8
Literally any breakout build or in this case even just a new option for attack per round ceiling and it seems half of DMs are going to home-brew it to remove… what? The fun of the player? Enforce the martials to stay in their lane?
Because someone with a stick should not be equal to a wizard who can throw fireballs and summon demons. Its frankly kinda stupid how we try to video gamize everything and make all classes "Equal". Sorry, but someone with a metal stick shouldn't be able to approach what a wizard can do.
I am curious about so many naysayers when it comes to even minor buffs in martial versatility or power.
Why do so many people want martial characters to be gritty realistic (slow, weak, basic) and so casters to completely overshadow them in a DnD system where you can have demi-god like attributes by lvs4-8
Literally any breakout build or in this case even just a new option for attack per round ceiling and it seems half of DMs are going to home-brew it to remove… what? The fun of the player? Enforce the martials to stay in their lane?
It seems very gamey that every second you are drawing and/or stowing a weapon between attacks. Like did the designers really intend for you to use a great sword, switch to double scimitars, switch back to the great sword. And end up with like 4+ attacks at level 5?
In response the the chainsaw, this is only three weapon swaps… I encourage you to count out loud six seconds and mime unsheathing two weapons from your hips, attacking then sheathing them again and then taking a weapon of your back and attacking three times… you will see that it is easily possible, six seconds is a long time in a fight - if anything DnD is a bit slow as a combat simulator
As has been the case since the game was first created, a single attack does not represent one swing of your weapon
An attack is a series of movements, feints etc that add up to one batch of damage, if successful. That's why Multiattack makes sense -- you aren't swinging your weapon faster, you're getting more efficient at all the various little things that add up to an "attack"
But even in your example, no, it wouldn't be possible for either you or I to land five significant strikes within six seconds against an opponent who's trying not to get hit while swapping between three different weapons, especially when one of those weapons is a freaking halberd
I'd ban this combo simply for the fact that it would be the "optimal" weapon mastery for basically every situation. Having a single tactic that's always or even nearly always the best choice is a bad thing in a game.
Also, in that interview it's stated that the intent was to allow different weapon masteries to have synergy together, not for them to combine in order to grant more attacks than a pack of chainsaw-wielding ninjas.
But as for banning things, do y’all flat out just ban Caster classes from your table then?
No, but any intelligent enemy will prioritize the casters just like the players do to enemy casters. But also yes, many spells and spell combos are either hard (flat out banned) or soft banned (all boss enemies have and use legendary resistances to negate them) at my table because they make the game less fun.
The DM is a player in this game too. DMing needs to be fun for a TTRPG to thrive - at least until someone replaces them with AI. Players simply shutting down monsters and completing encounters without a scratch is not fun for the DM (most of the time). Hence making it easier for more PCs to do that is bad for the game. I would much rather have seen 2024 nerf casters to be more on par with martials than the reverse.
I’m pretty sure the optimal damage two Mastery combo is Vex and Nick for nearly all attacks at advantage and an extra attack.
It wasn't until they revealed the new Dual Wielder feat, mathematically the first couple UA were pretty balanced across combat styles when optimized. But with the feats Dual Wielding has jumped ahead significantly since because of the full additional attack you get with it in addition to the Nick attack. This is also bad for the game, and I'll probably be HBing that at my table that the BA attack from Dual Wielder replaces Nick-attacks.
Hi Agilemind, I'm intrigued by your approach as I would consider this lowering of the power ceiling to be quite heavy handed as both a player and DM. How do players at your table respond, especially if they are new to your table?
Personally, I adopt the opposite approach to power creep, I adjust encounters upwards to match the power of the party. And give more oppertunities to weaker characters to get stronger magic items and feats through training/experience. But this is the kind of game that we enjoy as a table, and it doesn't lead to players feeling like gods, or weirdly unbalanced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
The players are generally fine with it, but then my tables are either: (1) non-optimizers who just make characters they think are fun regardless of power. (2) ex-DMs that are fans of strategic combat who know very well that 5e is unbalanced.
In response the the chainsaw, this is only three weapon swaps… I encourage you to count out loud six seconds and mime unsheathing two weapons from your hips, attacking then sheathing them again and then taking a weapon of your back and attacking three times… you will see that it is easily possible, six seconds is a long time in a fight - if anything DnD is a bit slow as a combat simulator
Now that we actually have the rules, I'm pretty sure you can't swap three weapons.
You can either draw/pick up OR sheathe/drop as part of your attack. Not both. So, if you are holding one at the start of the round, attack with it, you can then drop/sheathe it, sure. You then draw the second one, and attack with it, sure. But you can neither drop nor sheathe the second weapon, since you already did one interaction with it when you drew it. And the interaction rules specifically call out dropping it as an interaction now. So you're stuck holding the second one.
It makes it kind of impossible to use three weapons in a turn. You can do two, but the third doesn't work.
Yeah this exercise was me talking about how much you can do in six seconds. The limits you mention are something I have had some time to think about
Here are some solutions to this problem Xalthu:
1. Attacking more than once with the same weapon like the Halberd will allow you to draw and stow it
2. Throwing Light weapons as the attack means they are no longer in your hand.
3. The Dual Wielder Feat: Quick Draw. You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
D&D, Youth Work and the Priesthood sadly do not typically interact... I do what I can!
Here is a post I made elsewhere to clarify some of these rules, for if you want to also get creative with the new 2024 weapon juggling:
Weapon drawing and stowing is much more flexible now, and is clarified as part of the Attack action: "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."
Something worth noting is that this flexibility no longer extends to donning or doffing a Shield, which would require the Utilize action, this is clarified in the online version of the Armor Table.
There is one specific question I would love to get some Sage Advice on though and this is in regards to the Thrown property. This Weapon Property specifically states ‘and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack’, is this in addition to the drawing and stowing from the Attack action?
If so this means two things:
That you can attack with a thrown weapon that you are not currently holding as a bonus action, from say the Light property, which normally you could not do.
If you throw a weapon as part of the Attack action, then you can also draw or stow another weapon... For example, a lv5 Fighter with Polearm Master and a Pike could Attack, use the BA Polearm attack, then throw a Trident (one-handed) and draw a Halberd ready to take two opportunity attacks if the opportunity presents itself.
Another note is that two weapon Masteries allow for additional attacks during an Attack action, these would also allowing for more weapon swaps:
Cleave: When used would allow for a Halberd or Greataxe, to be drawn and stowed at level one, ready for the free object interaction to draw a different weapon.
Nick: Makes the Light property extra attack part of the Attack action, and so able to be used to draw or stow a weapon, which if Thrown can allow for some real weapon juggling to take place even at level one.
I've seen this concept tossed out before. I haven't taken a good look at the exact weapon-juggling rules in the new edition, which is the big sticking point, but honestly if I was a DM I'd nix the combo. It's too much of a gamey exploit imo and breaks my suspension of disbelief.
Pretty sure you don't get to draw or stow more than one weapon per turn. This doesn't work as written to my understanding
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Here is a post I made elsewhere to clarify some of these rules, for if you want to also get creative with the new 2024 weapon juggling:
Weapon drawing and stowing is much more flexible now, and is clarified as part of the Attack action: "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."
Something worth noting is that this flexibility no longer extends to donning or doffing a Shield, which would require the Utilize action, this is clarified in the online version of the Armor Table.
There is one specific question I would love to get some Sage Advice on though and this is in regards to the Thrown property. This Weapon Property specifically states ‘and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack’, is this in addition to the drawing and stowing from the Attack action?
If so this means two things:
That you can attack with a thrown weapon that you are not currently holding as a bonus action, from say the Light property, which normally you could not do.
If you throw a weapon as part of the Attack action, then you can also draw or stow another weapon... For example, a lv5 Fighter with Polearm Master and a Pike could Attack, use the BA Polearm attack, then throw a Trident (one-handed) and draw a Halberd ready to take two opportunity attacks if the opportunity presents itself.
Another note is that two weapon Masteries allow for additional attacks during an Attack action, these would also allowing for more weapon swaps:
Cleave: When used would allow for a Halberd or Greataxe, to be drawn and stowed at level one, ready for the free object interaction to draw a different weapon.
Nick: Makes the Light property extra attack part of the Attack action, and so able to be used to draw or stow a weapon, which if Thrown can allow for some real weapon juggling to take place even at level one.
This doesn't really work. Dumping the pike costs your free draw/stow. As part of the throw weapon, you could draw and throw the trident, because it's free for throwing. Since you used your stow on the Pike though, you have no draw or stow left for the Halberd.
However, I /would/ allow you to hold your pike in one hand while you throw the trident. That's neither a draw, nor a stow. Since you've neither drawn, nor stowed the pike, you should be GTG with the pike for any OA necessary.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Here is a post I made elsewhere to clarify some of these rules, for if you want to also get creative with the new 2024 weapon juggling:
Weapon drawing and stowing is much more flexible now, and is clarified as part of the Attack action: "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."
Something worth noting is that this flexibility no longer extends to donning or doffing a Shield, which would require the Utilize action, this is clarified in the online version of the Armor Table.
There is one specific question I would love to get some Sage Advice on though and this is in regards to the Thrown property. This Weapon Property specifically states ‘and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack’, is this in addition to the drawing and stowing from the Attack action?
If so this means two things:
That you can attack with a thrown weapon that you are not currently holding as a bonus action, from say the Light property, which normally you could not do.
If you throw a weapon as part of the Attack action, then you can also draw or stow another weapon... For example, a lv5 Fighter with Polearm Master and a Pike could Attack, use the BA Polearm attack, then throw a Trident (one-handed) and draw a Halberd ready to take two opportunity attacks if the opportunity presents itself.
Another note is that two weapon Masteries allow for additional attacks during an Attack action, these would also allowing for more weapon swaps:
Cleave: When used would allow for a Halberd or Greataxe, to be drawn and stowed at level one, ready for the free object interaction to draw a different weapon.
Nick: Makes the Light property extra attack part of the Attack action, and so able to be used to draw or stow a weapon, which if Thrown can allow for some real weapon juggling to take place even at level one.
This doesn't really work. Dumping the pike costs your free draw/stow. As part of the throw weapon, you could draw and throw the trident, because it's free for throwing. Since you used your stow on the Pike though, you have no draw or stow left for the Halberd.
However, I /would/ allow you to hold your pike in one hand while you throw the trident. That's neither a draw, nor a stow. Since you've neither drawn, nor stowed the pike, you should be GTG with the pike for any OA necessary.
I posted on another thread how to get five attacks at level five.
Start combat with a Great Axe. (Going to have to be carrying it on your shoulder, but sometimes you got to make sacrifices)
Attack One. Attack with the Great Axe. If you Hit continue with Cleave attack. If you Miss Draw Scimitar.
Cleave Attack. Attack with the Great Axe. Afterwards draw Scimitar.
Attack Two. Attack with Scimitar trigger LIght Weapon and Nick. Stow Scimitar A.
Attack Light Weapon 1. Draw Scimitar B. Attack with Scimitar B.
Bonus Action Attack: Attack with Scimitar B. (This works because the feat and Nick require the weapon to be different than the initial light weapon, but not each other.
Round 2
You have to start with the scimitar and stow it. Then attack with the Great axe for attack two and cleave. Then Draw Scimitar A, which is now a different Scimitar than the one triggering the light weapon attacks. Then repeat. This works because a two handed weapon only requires both hands when you attack with it, and one handed weapons never require the other hand.
You can't equip or unequip a weapon with Cleave attack because it's not an attack made as part of the Attack action but a complete seperate one that can be triggered during Bonus Action or Reaction for example.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A youtube video of Björn Rüther handily using a Halberd and an off-hand sword: https://youtu.be/GY0GX0uAR88?si=HRG4SRanZ7xMF7bv&t=247
Again let me restate that gritty realism is not my aim, but also that even if it were... using multiple weapons is very realistic of medival combat (especially when thrown)!
Thank you for pointing out that narrative of combat fluff rules because I think they help illustrate my point: If your proficiency and attacking stat are high enough that you hit all of your attacks, then clearly you outmatch your opponent to such a degree that in this case you ARE hitting with every swing just like with the justification of Extra Attack... and say Fighters getting ten attacks at level 20 (they are demi-gods with the blade).
BUT the joy of a story-telling game is that the player and the DM get to tell the story of what combat looks like! If the player wants the game to feel like they are Neo or Arthur from King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017) then so be it, whats wrong with that? https://youtu.be/5Rdvvp7KJZI?si=ZQX7kCDONgDbtEJu
Pick any six-second stretch of that you want. Nowhere in there is he making what would be considered in D&D two attacks with the shortsword and three with the halberd -- and again, he's doing that against air, not an actual opponent
You''re only rebutting your own argument with that video
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
He’s also never attacking with the sword and the halberd in combination. He’s pretty much holding the halberd in one hand while attacking with the sword, then he chucks the sword away and starts wielding the halberd with two hands. Only after that do we see any remotely offensive action made with the halberd.
I feel like we are mostly having two different conversations with moving goalposts.
I believe what you are saying is that switching/ using multiple weapons goes against your perception of what late medieval combat looked like and therefore you shouldn’t be able to do it in D&D (all-the-more, when there are multiple attacks) - is that a fair summary (I don’t want to use a straw-man representation here). Therefore, any attempt a character makes to ‘weapon-juggle’ would disrupt your suspension of disbelief in the narrative of combat in D&D…?
I am saying that d&d characters are supernatural, so it stands to reason that they can do more than we did in real life in the late medieval period. I am happy to therefore supply a narrative that fits with anything in the framework of the rules, making it feel plausible. BUT I am also trying to show you that what I am describing is plausible even within natural human limits. Not because we play at the same table, but because I would hate for someone to get laughed out of their game or blocked for trying a concept within the rules.
Where we are having two different conversations is in the narrative of combat.
I am looking at the rules first to decide what is possible, then looking to supply a narrative that fits it.
It appears to me that you are looking at the narrative first in order to decide what to do with the rules. Fair enough!
So where I think we might be able to agree is that DnD is not realistic and the rules of the game are boundaries to guide narrative, and to codify it into dice rolls. It is after those dice rolls dictate success that the DM and the players forge the building blocks of combat into a narrative for the imagination. Yes?
Where we disagree is that I believe that what I am describing is possible not only for supernatural beings but also for human beings who can do things like this (https://youtube.com/shorts/W2WtFwQbIFo?si=y0BeVb0KG3LIoFLf). Whereas you are convinced that for human beings attacking five times with the different weapons in six seconds is impossible - fair enough!
BUT can you agree that in DnD, it shouldn’t matter what a real life person can do, as long as that is what the character can do? And that part of it being a corporate storytelling game, is then turning those abilities into a story? If not, I’m not sure we are ever going to come to any sort of accord…
Because someone with a stick should not be equal to a wizard who can throw fireballs and summon demons. Its frankly kinda stupid how we try to video gamize everything and make all classes "Equal". Sorry, but someone with a metal stick shouldn't be able to approach what a wizard can do.
It seems very gamey that every second you are drawing and/or stowing a weapon between attacks. Like did the designers really intend for you to use a great sword, switch to double scimitars, switch back to the great sword. And end up with like 4+ attacks at level 5?
Yes it was totally intended: https://youtu.be/-nu-JmZ4joo?si=axERHl83jG9KOOO0
If you listen from about 12 minutes in
THIS!!
I'd ban this combo simply for the fact that it would be the "optimal" weapon mastery for basically every situation. Having a single tactic that's always or even nearly always the best choice is a bad thing in a game.
Also, in that interview it's stated that the intent was to allow different weapon masteries to have synergy together, not for them to combine in order to grant more attacks than a pack of chainsaw-wielding ninjas.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I’m pretty sure the optimal damage two Mastery combo is Vex and Nick for nearly all attacks at advantage and an extra attack.
But the thing is they work for all sorts of aims and builds I have a Crowd Control build that knocks enemies back and prone effectively taking them out of the fight (which some forum people were also as angry about, and wanted to ban): https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/class-forums/barbarian/203341-dnd-2024-barbarian-build-thoughts
Also discussed here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/tips-tactics/203337-push-master-build-keep-them-back
But as for banning things, do y’all flat out just ban Caster classes from your table then?
No, but any intelligent enemy will prioritize the casters just like the players do to enemy casters. But also yes, many spells and spell combos are either hard (flat out banned) or soft banned (all boss enemies have and use legendary resistances to negate them) at my table because they make the game less fun.
The DM is a player in this game too. DMing needs to be fun for a TTRPG to thrive - at least until someone replaces them with AI. Players simply shutting down monsters and completing encounters without a scratch is not fun for the DM (most of the time). Hence making it easier for more PCs to do that is bad for the game. I would much rather have seen 2024 nerf casters to be more on par with martials than the reverse.
It wasn't until they revealed the new Dual Wielder feat, mathematically the first couple UA were pretty balanced across combat styles when optimized. But with the feats Dual Wielding has jumped ahead significantly since because of the full additional attack you get with it in addition to the Nick attack. This is also bad for the game, and I'll probably be HBing that at my table that the BA attack from Dual Wielder replaces Nick-attacks.
Hi Agilemind, I'm intrigued by your approach as I would consider this lowering of the power ceiling to be quite heavy handed as both a player and DM. How do players at your table respond, especially if they are new to your table?
Personally, I adopt the opposite approach to power creep, I adjust encounters upwards to match the power of the party. And give more oppertunities to weaker characters to get stronger magic items and feats through training/experience. But this is the kind of game that we enjoy as a table, and it doesn't lead to players feeling like gods, or weirdly unbalanced.
The players are generally fine with it, but then my tables are either: (1) non-optimizers who just make characters they think are fun regardless of power. (2) ex-DMs that are fans of strategic combat who know very well that 5e is unbalanced.
Now that we actually have the rules, I'm pretty sure you can't swap three weapons.
You can either draw/pick up OR sheathe/drop as part of your attack. Not both. So, if you are holding one at the start of the round, attack with it, you can then drop/sheathe it, sure. You then draw the second one, and attack with it, sure. But you can neither drop nor sheathe the second weapon, since you already did one interaction with it when you drew it. And the interaction rules specifically call out dropping it as an interaction now. So you're stuck holding the second one.
It makes it kind of impossible to use three weapons in a turn. You can do two, but the third doesn't work.
Yeah this exercise was me talking about how much you can do in six seconds. The limits you mention are something I have had some time to think about
Here are some solutions to this problem Xalthu:
1. Attacking more than once with the same weapon like the Halberd will allow you to draw and stow it
2. Throwing Light weapons as the attack means they are no longer in your hand.
3. The Dual Wielder Feat: Quick Draw. You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Here is a post I made elsewhere to clarify some of these rules, for if you want to also get creative with the new 2024 weapon juggling:
Weapon drawing and stowing is much more flexible now, and is clarified as part of the Attack action: "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."
Something worth noting is that this flexibility no longer extends to donning or doffing a Shield, which would require the Utilize action, this is clarified in the online version of the Armor Table.
There is one specific question I would love to get some Sage Advice on though and this is in regards to the Thrown property. This Weapon Property specifically states ‘and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack’, is this in addition to the drawing and stowing from the Attack action?
If so this means two things:
Another note is that two weapon Masteries allow for additional attacks during an Attack action, these would also allowing for more weapon swaps:
Pretty sure you don't get to draw or stow more than one weapon per turn. This doesn't work as written to my understanding
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
This doesn't really work. Dumping the pike costs your free draw/stow. As part of the throw weapon, you could draw and throw the trident, because it's free for throwing. Since you used your stow on the Pike though, you have no draw or stow left for the Halberd.
However, I /would/ allow you to hold your pike in one hand while you throw the trident. That's neither a draw, nor a stow. Since you've neither drawn, nor stowed the pike, you should be GTG with the pike for any OA necessary.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I posted on another thread how to get five attacks at level five.
Start combat with a Great Axe. (Going to have to be carrying it on your shoulder, but sometimes you got to make sacrifices)
Attack One. Attack with the Great Axe. If you Hit continue with Cleave attack. If you Miss Draw Scimitar.
Cleave Attack. Attack with the Great Axe. Afterwards draw Scimitar.
Attack Two. Attack with Scimitar trigger LIght Weapon and Nick. Stow Scimitar A.
Attack Light Weapon 1. Draw Scimitar B. Attack with Scimitar B.
Bonus Action Attack: Attack with Scimitar B. (This works because the feat and Nick require the weapon to be different than the initial light weapon, but not each other.
Round 2
You have to start with the scimitar and stow it. Then attack with the Great axe for attack two and cleave. Then Draw Scimitar A, which is now a different Scimitar than the one triggering the light weapon attacks. Then repeat. This works because a two handed weapon only requires both hands when you attack with it, and one handed weapons never require the other hand.
You can't equip or unequip a weapon with Cleave attack because it's not an attack made as part of the Attack action but a complete seperate one that can be triggered during Bonus Action or Reaction for example.