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.
I saw the other thread. I do not read the rule as being able to draw/stow more than one weapon for free per turn. So once you draw that first scimitar, you're done with the free draws and stows, so there's no "oh, gonna stow this one now". Even if I am reading the rules wrong, I'd outright ban this kind of cheesy behavior at my table. "No, you are not exploiting the action economy here."
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.
‘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.’
How are you interpreting this as once per action, when you can have more than one attack per action?
How you play at your table is up to you! :-)
Edit: Sorry, that sounded quite rude! I was actually being genuine when I asked how?
‘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.’
How are you interpreting this as once per action, when you can have more than one attack per action?
It literally says you can equip or unequip ONE weapon as part of the action
When time is short, such as in combat, interactions with objects are limited: one free interaction per turn. That interaction must occur during a creature’s movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter.
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)
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you get to do more than one free object interaction per turn.
But as for attacks, lets break this down a little further for the syntax:
‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon (when you make an attack) as part of this action.‘
For your interpretation to be valid everything inside the brackets would need to be absent, then the sentence would be clear and the intent would obviously be once per turn.
However the words inside the brackets were included and they contain the condition for equipping and unequipping, and vitally you can attack multiple times as part of the Attack Action.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you get to do more than one free object interaction per turn.
That is literally what you are arguing
Weapons are objects. You only get one free interaction per turn
The math's pretty simple
But as for attacks, lets break this down a little further for the syntax:
‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon (when you make an attack) as part of this action.‘
For your interpretation to be valid everything inside the brackets would need to be absent, then the sentence would be clear and the intent would obviously be once per turn.
No, you're simply wrong. The language in brackets is making it explicit that the equip/unequip must be part of the Attack action. It's not giving you license to make one equip/unequip per attack
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
Absolutely nowhere does anything suggest you get multiple free weapon interactions per turn if you can make multiple attacks
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)
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you get to do more than one free object interaction per turn.
That is literally what you are arguing
Weapons are objects. You only get one free interaction per turn
The math's pretty simple
But as for attacks, lets break this down a little further for the syntax:
‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon (when you make an attack) as part of this action.‘
For your interpretation to be valid everything inside the brackets would need to be absent, then the sentence would be clear and the intent would obviously be once per turn.
No, you're simply wrong. The language in brackets is making it explicit that the equip/unequip must be part of the Attack action. It's not giving you license to make one equip/unequip per attack
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action. When an object requires an action for its use, you take the Utilize action.
Absolutely nowhere does anything suggest you get multiple free weapon interactions per turn if you can make multiple attacks
I'm inclined to agree with you that likely the object interaction rule should come into play. Makes sense. Though I do think this is one of the issues about having rules spread across the first chapter of the book and the last chapter and not repeating rules when they become relevant. Reminding people that they have free object interaction as part of another action would be important.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you get to do more than one free object interaction per turn.
That is literally what you are arguing
Weapons are objects. You only get one free interaction per turn
You get one free interaction.
That is, one interaction that has no preconditions, that you can do regardless of what else you were doing that turn.
Consider thrown weapons:
If a weapon has the Thrown property, you can throw the weapon to make a ranged attack, and you can draw that weapon as part of the attack.
If a fighter with four attacks wants to draw and throw four daggers, they can do so despite only having one free interaction. The thrown property gives them the extra interactions, with the precondition that they attack with it. It doesn't even use their free interaction.
The math's pretty simple
But as for attacks, lets break this down a little further for the syntax:
‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon (when you make an attack) as part of this action.‘
For your interpretation to be valid everything inside the brackets would need to be absent, then the sentence would be clear and the intent would obviously be once per turn.
No, you're simply wrong. The language in brackets is making it explicit that the equip/unequip must be part of the Attack action. It's not giving you license to make one equip/unequip per attack
"as part of this action" is what establishes that it must be part of the Attack action.
Here's the definition of the Attack Action:
Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
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.
You take the Attack action.
As part of that action, you make an attack with a dagger. (Making an attack is not the same thing as taking the Attack action.) Because you are making an attack as part of the attack action, you can equip or unequip a weapon.
Because you have Extra Attacks, you then make another attack with your dagger. It's still part of the same Attack action, so it fulfills the condition. You can equip or unequip another weapon.
Now you're done with the attack action. Because you attacked with a Light weapon, you can make a Bonus action attack. Let's say you attack with a scimitar. Because this attack is not part of the Attack action, you cannot equip or unequip a weapon.
As part of that action, you make an attack with a dagger. (Making an attack is not the same thing as taking the Attack action.) Because you are making an attack as part of the attack action, you can equip or unequip a weapon.
No, you have the cart before the horse. As part of the Attack action, you can equip or unequip ONE weapon. That object interaction happens "when you make an attack."
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)
So now that it has been helpfully restated what the Free Object Interaction rule and Drawing and Stowing weapons do… e.g. You can see that this means you could open a door, then draw a Shortsword and attack, then draw a Scimitar and Attack (with Nick) at lv1. However if you had a Bonus Action attack you couldn’t then stow or draw a different weapon.
We have also reestablished in the last few pages, very helpfully, that you can attack with one-handed weapons whilst holding a two-handed weapon in the other hand (just not the other way around - same as 2014). So, in terms of drawing and stowing weapons, I believe that it should be clear that there are no problems in the rules with this strategy.
Now it may not be the most effective strategy in the world, unless the build heavily capitalises on quantity of attacks but does not care about which weapon you use to make them. For example stacking lots of things like Rage’s bonus damage.
Edit: Ah I see this is still not 100% clear for everyone. Anton you are emphasising the wrong word in the sentence. English can at times allow you to put extra stress on basically any word in a sentence and change the meaning but that is only true when the sentence is constructed with the necessary ambiguity.
Also Jl8e is making explicit what I left implied, that the ‘Equipping and Uneqipping Weapons’ rule is contained within the Attack Action rules. And so when it says THIS ACTION the Attack Action is being referred to (explicitly).
So this means that the sentence has a clear structure:
What you can do: ‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon’ (not two, unless you have the Dual Wielder Feat, which adds to this rule)
When you can do it: ‘when you make an attack’ (Which can be done more than once)
Further clarification: as part of this action. (So not during any other type of Action, like True Strike as a Magic Action or a normal Bonus Action as part of the Light Weapon property)
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.
My read is that the Nick property replaces the Dual Wielder BA attack. Dual Wielder doesn't confer any BA attack, the Light property of the weapon is what allows the attack, the Nick property moves the DW attack from the Bonus Action to the Attack action, which leaves you a free BA but not for a DW attack. You folks are reading it differently?
My read is that the Nick property replaces the Dual Wielder BA attack. Dual Wielder doesn't confer any BA attack, the Light property of the weapon is what allows the attack, the Nick property moves the DW attack from the Bonus Action to the Attack action, which leaves you a free BA but not for a DW attack. You folks are reading it differently?
The Nick property modifies the Light property's attack
DW requires a light weapon, but operates independently of the Light property's attack.
(Ugh. Why are these three rules in three separate places?)
Light
When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage
Nick
When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon,
If you attack with a Nick weapon and have DW, you can make three attacks:
the initial attack
the nick extra attack
the DW bonus action attack
2 and 3 can be with the same weapon, or you can do silly wield/unwield tricks on attacks 1 and 2, but not 3.
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.
My read is that the Nick property replaces the Dual Wielder BA attack. Dual Wielder doesn't confer any BA attack, the Light property of the weapon is what allows the attack, the Nick property moves the DW attack from the Bonus Action to the Attack action, which leaves you a free BA but not for a DW attack. You folks are reading it differently?
Multiple content creators have said the Crawford has said that the intended function of the Dual Wielder BA attack is a straight up additional attack as a BA independent of the Light property thus independent of Nick.
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.
My read is that the Nick property replaces the Dual Wielder BA attack. Dual Wielder doesn't confer any BA attack, the Light property of the weapon is what allows the attack, the Nick property moves the DW attack from the Bonus Action to the Attack action, which leaves you a free BA but not for a DW attack. You folks are reading it differently?
Multiple content creators have said the Crawford has said that the intended function of the Dual Wielder BA attack is a straight up additional attack as a BA independent of the Light property thus independent of Nick.
To be fair it was only one content creator. The other 40 are just repeating what the one claimed. (I mean I don't not believe him, but it was only a single content creator that actually spoke to Crawford)
The dual wielder feat is almost useless if it doesn’t allow you to attack with Nick and your Bonus Action. So it makes it pretty easy to see why that would be the RAI interpretation.
2nd Atk: Halberd (65% + 65% likelihood of advantage is 80% hit ) = 1d10+3 (8.5) x 0.8 = 6.8
3rd Atk: Halberd Cleave (65% hit BUT only if the Halberd hit) = 1d10 (5.5) x 0.65 x 0.8 = 2.86
4th Atk: Light Hammer w/ Nick (65% hit) 1d4+3 (5.5) x 0.65 = 3.575
Total damage if all attacks hit: 1d4 +1d6 +2d10 +9 (26)
Total damage with hit chances calculated: 17.46 (taking into account 3rd attack’s 20% chance of not existing at all)
then to add Crit damage:
(5% chance of d6 = 0.175) + (8% chance of d10 = 0.44) + (5% chance of d10 with damage reduced by 20% to account for cleave possibility = 0.22) + (5% chance of d4 = 0.125)
0.96 extra damage… So a grand total of 18.42 average damage
To vastly improve that we could make our species Bugbear
Edit: So fascinatingly I was wrong when I said much earlier in this thread that simply Dual Wielding with Handaxe and Light Hammer would be stronger as actually at the same level the damage would be 17.646 (0.774 less average damage).
Then if you added Bugbear 38.3 for Halberd and Light Weapons (DamagexHit=8.775 + 12.4 + 6.5 + 8.125)+(CritxCritChance=0.525+1+0.5+0.475) as apposed to 35.133
So this might actually be the strongest pure martial build! …At least in terms of reliable damage, a Greataxe with Great Weapon Master could do slightly more but is much less likely to get the Cleave and/or the Bonus Action attack.
2nd Atk: Halberd (65% + 65% likelihood of advantage is 80% hit ) = 1d10+3 (8.5) x 0.8 = 6.8
3rd Atk: Halberd Cleave (65% hit BUT only if the Halberd hit) = 1d10 (5.5) x 0.65 x 0.8 = 2.86
4th Atk: Light Hammer w/ Nick (65% hit) 1d4+3 (5.5) x 0.65 = 3.575
You cannot do the attacks in this order. There are other sequences that work, but the nick attack has to be part of the same attack action in which the light weapon was used.
It's also uncertain as to whether the cleave attack gets you a free weapon interaction or not. (I think not, but it could be ruled either way.)
Axe, hammer, halberd, halberd would work for one round, but you need to burn your action surge to make this happen anyway, so the fact that the weapon interactions don't work for the next round don't matter until 5th level.
2nd Action: Halberd (65% hit ) (12.5+3x0.65)+(12.5x0.05) = 10.7
Cleave: Halberd (65% hit only if the Halberd hit) ((12.5x0.65)+(12.5x0.05))x0.65 = 5.6875
Total: 36.4475
Though an interesting note, as Bugbear offers reach (on your turn) up until level four you wouldn’t be sacrificing much in terms of positioning and flexibility to instead use the following weapons: Shortsword, Scimitar and Greataxe and there would be a tidy little damage bump.
I'm not sure how you are making multiple attacks with true stike. It requires a magic action to cast a spell. Which means the light property doesn't trigger as that requires an attack action. The extra attack from class features also requires you to take the attack action.
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.
I saw the other thread. I do not read the rule as being able to draw/stow more than one weapon for free per turn. So once you draw that first scimitar, you're done with the free draws and stows, so there's no "oh, gonna stow this one now". Even if I am reading the rules wrong, I'd outright ban this kind of cheesy behavior at my table. "No, you are not exploiting the action economy here."
I would be inclined to agree with you. I have already banned my own shinannigans in my own campaign. I was just more curious how far I could go with just a straight class and following a specific rules interpretation. I wouldn't recommend anyone allow it in their game.
I'm not sure how you are making multiple attacks with true stike. It requires a magic action to cast a spell. Which means the light property doesn't trigger as that requires an attack action. The extra attack from class features also requires you to take the attack action.
Class feature that allows a cantrip as part of the attack action, I assume.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I saw the other thread. I do not read the rule as being able to draw/stow more than one weapon for free per turn. So once you draw that first scimitar, you're done with the free draws and stows, so there's no "oh, gonna stow this one now". Even if I am reading the rules wrong, I'd outright ban this kind of cheesy behavior at my table. "No, you are not exploiting the action economy here."
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
‘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.’
How are you interpreting this as once per action, when you can have more than one attack per action?
How you play at your table is up to you! :-)
Edit: Sorry, that sounded quite rude! I was actually being genuine when I asked how?
It literally says you can equip or unequip ONE weapon as part of the action
The Interacting With Objects section is also quite clear
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)
I don’t think anyone is arguing that you get to do more than one free object interaction per turn.
But as for attacks, lets break this down a little further for the syntax:
‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon (when you make an attack) as part of this action.‘
For your interpretation to be valid everything inside the brackets would need to be absent, then the sentence would be clear and the intent would obviously be once per turn.
However the words inside the brackets were included and they contain the condition for equipping and unequipping, and vitally you can attack multiple times as part of the Attack Action.
That is literally what you are arguing
Weapons are objects. You only get one free interaction per turn
The math's pretty simple
No, you're simply wrong. The language in brackets is making it explicit that the equip/unequip must be part of the Attack action. It's not giving you license to make one equip/unequip per attack
See also the Utilize action
Absolutely nowhere does anything suggest you get multiple free weapon interactions per turn if you can make multiple attacks
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)
I'm inclined to agree with you that likely the object interaction rule should come into play. Makes sense. Though I do think this is one of the issues about having rules spread across the first chapter of the book and the last chapter and not repeating rules when they become relevant. Reminding people that they have free object interaction as part of another action would be important.
You get one free interaction.
That is, one interaction that has no preconditions, that you can do regardless of what else you were doing that turn.
Consider thrown weapons:
If a fighter with four attacks wants to draw and throw four daggers, they can do so despite only having one free interaction. The thrown property gives them the extra interactions, with the precondition that they attack with it. It doesn't even use their free interaction.
"as part of this action" is what establishes that it must be part of the Attack action.
Here's the definition of the Attack Action:
You take the Attack action.
As part of that action, you make an attack with a dagger. (Making an attack is not the same thing as taking the Attack action.) Because you are making an attack as part of the attack action, you can equip or unequip a weapon.
Because you have Extra Attacks, you then make another attack with your dagger. It's still part of the same Attack action, so it fulfills the condition. You can equip or unequip another weapon.
Now you're done with the attack action. Because you attacked with a Light weapon, you can make a Bonus action attack. Let's say you attack with a scimitar. Because this attack is not part of the Attack action, you cannot equip or unequip a weapon.
No, you have the cart before the horse. As part of the Attack action, you can equip or unequip ONE weapon. That object interaction happens "when you make an attack."
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)
Thank you jl8e!
So now that it has been helpfully restated what the Free Object Interaction rule and Drawing and Stowing weapons do… e.g. You can see that this means you could open a door, then draw a Shortsword and attack, then draw a Scimitar and Attack (with Nick) at lv1. However if you had a Bonus Action attack you couldn’t then stow or draw a different weapon.
We have also reestablished in the last few pages, very helpfully, that you can attack with one-handed weapons whilst holding a two-handed weapon in the other hand (just not the other way around - same as 2014). So, in terms of drawing and stowing weapons, I believe that it should be clear that there are no problems in the rules with this strategy.
Now it may not be the most effective strategy in the world, unless the build heavily capitalises on quantity of attacks but does not care about which weapon you use to make them. For example stacking lots of things like Rage’s bonus damage.
Edit: Ah I see this is still not 100% clear for everyone. Anton you are emphasising the wrong word in the sentence. English can at times allow you to put extra stress on basically any word in a sentence and change the meaning but that is only true when the sentence is constructed with the necessary ambiguity.
Also Jl8e is making explicit what I left implied, that the ‘Equipping and Uneqipping Weapons’ rule is contained within the Attack Action rules. And so when it says THIS ACTION the Attack Action is being referred to (explicitly).
So this means that the sentence has a clear structure:
What you can do: ‘You can either equip or unequip one weapon’ (not two, unless you have the Dual Wielder Feat, which adds to this rule)
When you can do it: ‘when you make an attack’ (Which can be done more than once)
Further clarification: as part of this action. (So not during any other type of Action, like True Strike as a Magic Action or a normal Bonus Action as part of the Light Weapon property)
My read is that the Nick property replaces the Dual Wielder BA attack. Dual Wielder doesn't confer any BA attack, the Light property of the weapon is what allows the attack, the Nick property moves the DW attack from the Bonus Action to the Attack action, which leaves you a free BA but not for a DW attack. You folks are reading it differently?
The Nick property modifies the Light property's attack
DW requires a light weapon, but operates independently of the Light property's attack.
(Ugh. Why are these three rules in three separate places?)
If you attack with a Nick weapon and have DW, you can make three attacks:
2 and 3 can be with the same weapon, or you can do silly wield/unwield tricks on attacks 1 and 2, but not 3.
Multiple content creators have said the Crawford has said that the intended function of the Dual Wielder BA attack is a straight up additional attack as a BA independent of the Light property thus independent of Nick.
To be fair it was only one content creator. The other 40 are just repeating what the one claimed. (I mean I don't not believe him, but it was only a single content creator that actually spoke to Crawford)
The dual wielder feat is almost useless if it doesn’t allow you to attack with Nick and your Bonus Action. So it makes it pretty easy to see why that would be the RAI interpretation.
Fighter lv2 (with Action Surge) and Fighting Style: Two Weapon Fighting
1st Atk: Handaxe (65% hit) = 1d6+3 (6.5) x 0.65 = 4.225
2nd Atk: Halberd (65% + 65% likelihood of advantage is 80% hit ) = 1d10+3 (8.5) x 0.8 = 6.8
3rd Atk: Halberd Cleave (65% hit BUT only if the Halberd hit) = 1d10 (5.5) x 0.65 x 0.8 = 2.86
4th Atk: Light Hammer w/ Nick (65% hit) 1d4+3 (5.5) x 0.65 = 3.575
Total damage if all attacks hit: 1d4 +1d6 +2d10 +9 (26)
Total damage with hit chances calculated: 17.46 (taking into account 3rd attack’s 20% chance of not existing at all)
then to add Crit damage:
(5% chance of d6 = 0.175) + (8% chance of d10 = 0.44) + (5% chance of d10 with damage reduced by 20% to account for cleave possibility = 0.22) + (5% chance of d4 = 0.125)
0.96 extra damage… So a grand total of 18.42 average damage
To vastly improve that we could make our species Bugbear
Edit: So fascinatingly I was wrong when I said much earlier in this thread that simply Dual Wielding with Handaxe and Light Hammer would be stronger as actually at the same level the damage would be 17.646 (0.774 less average damage).
Then if you added Bugbear 38.3 for Halberd and Light Weapons (DamagexHit=8.775 + 12.4 + 6.5 + 8.125)+(CritxCritChance=0.525+1+0.5+0.475) as apposed to 35.133
So this might actually be the strongest pure martial build! …At least in terms of reliable damage, a Greataxe with Great Weapon Master could do slightly more but is much less likely to get the Cleave and/or the Bonus Action attack.
You cannot do the attacks in this order. There are other sequences that work, but the nick attack has to be part of the same attack action in which the light weapon was used.
It's also uncertain as to whether the cleave attack gets you a free weapon interaction or not. (I think not, but it could be ruled either way.)
Axe, hammer, halberd, halberd would work for one round, but you need to burn your action surge to make this happen anyway, so the fact that the weapon interactions don't work for the next round don't matter until 5th level.
Oops, yep you are right, I had forgotten the specifics of what action surge actually did whilst building my excel spreadsheet.
Okay taking away the Vex before the Halberd attack will make the Cleave attack a bit less likely and reduce damage a bit up until lv5
Edit working it out again:
Fighter lv2 (with Action Surge) and Two Weapon Fighting:
1st Action: Handaxe (65% hit) (3.5+3x0.65)+(3.5x0.05) = 4.4
Nick: Light Hammer (80% hit) (2.5+3x0.8)+(2.5x0.08) = 4.6
2nd Action: Halberd (65% hit ) (5.5+3x0.65)+(5.5x0.05) = 5.8
Cleave: Halberd (65% hit only if the Halberd hit) ((5.5x0.65)+(5.5x0.05))x0.65 = 2.5025
Total: 17.3025
With Bugbear:
1st Action: Handaxe (65% hit) (10.5+3x0.65)+(10.5x0.05) = 9.3
Nick: Light Hammer (80% hit) (9.5+3x0.8)+(9.5x0.08) = 10.76
2nd Action: Halberd (65% hit ) (12.5+3x0.65)+(12.5x0.05) = 10.7
Cleave: Halberd (65% hit only if the Halberd hit) ((12.5x0.65)+(12.5x0.05))x0.65 = 5.6875
Total: 36.4475
Though an interesting note, as Bugbear offers reach (on your turn) up until level four you wouldn’t be sacrificing much in terms of positioning and flexibility to instead use the following weapons: Shortsword, Scimitar and Greataxe and there would be a tidy little damage bump.
Edit: also just saw this video and thought it might be of interest to this group: https://youtu.be/eTVL4QspQ6o?si=X8yoUCQRzV-YGWx2
Without this video I wouldn’t have seen this possibility:
Eldritch Knight w/Shillelagh
-Club (Shillelagh)
-Scimitar (True Strike replace Nick attack)
-Shield and Duelling Fighting Style and Dual Wielder Feat
Atks at lv7:
Club x3: 3d10+18 Force
Shillelagh (Scimitar): 2d6+6 Radiant
(47.5x0.65)+(23.5x0.05) = 32.05
I'm not sure how you are making multiple attacks with true stike. It requires a magic action to cast a spell. Which means the light property doesn't trigger as that requires an attack action. The extra attack from class features also requires you to take the attack action.
I would be inclined to agree with you. I have already banned my own shinannigans in my own campaign. I was just more curious how far I could go with just a straight class and following a specific rules interpretation. I wouldn't recommend anyone allow it in their game.
Class feature that allows a cantrip as part of the attack action, I assume.