Then they should just make it part of the Thrown property. I’m not allowing all that juggling.
This feels like it's close, but I think it needs a separate section for thrown weapon attacks, since it leaves it open to abuse still, daggers for example have both the light and thrown properties.
I also believe that the light property should be altered to something like: "When you take the attack action and only attack with a light weapon in one hand, you can expend your bonus action to add an attack to your attack action. The additional attack must be made with a light weapon in your other hand, this attack does not gain your ability score modifier to it's damage roll unless it's negative."
Or something to that effect, since right now the RAW is a mess in the UA, even if the RAI is a bit easier to understand.
Then they should just make it part of the Thrown property. I’m not allowing all that juggling.
This feels like it's close, but I think it needs a separate section for thrown weapon attacks, since it leaves it open to abuse still, daggers for example have both the light and thrown properties.
I also believe that the light property should be altered to something like: "When you take the attack action and only attack with a light weapon in one hand, you can expend your bonus action to add an attack to your attack action. The additional attack must be made with a light weapon in your other hand, this attack does not gain your ability score modifier to it's damage roll unless it's negative."
Or something to that effect, since right now the RAW is a mess in the UA, even if the RAI is a bit easier to understand.
The RAW for equipping and unequipping is fine, and the RAI. Its just not what some people are used to. It basically says yes you can draw multiple weapons in fights, and how much you can do this is based on how many attacks you can do. The old one OI was not good, not scalable, and less interesting.
the biggest problem with the current rule, is that maybe there is a simpler way to say the same thing, but I don't have one that solves as many issues.
this allows you to reasonably draw weapons, reasonably drop weapons, reasonably swap weapons, reasonably throw weapons.
And it makes using the right weapon for the job feasible, it didnt matter as much before because they basically made it so there was almost never a reason to use a different weapon.
For me the only problem with the current rule is that as written, it lets you TWF with one hand, which I don't think the designers intended. Not being able to benefit from a shield, as well as not having a free hand for somatic components, and having a fighting style tax to unlock your full damage, are all meant to be clear drawbacks of two-weapon fighting.
To reiterate an earlier post of mine, I think the UA3 version of these features got it the most right - so I'm confused why we backed off that clear wording to something more ambiguous again. Here's what UA3 had to say about the Light property; I only made one small tweak to that original wording, basically to keep the offhand attack as a bonus action baseline so that the Nick property retains its ability to overcome that restriction.
LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand and have a Light weapon in the other hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Actionas a Bonus Action. That extra attack must be made with the Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage.
Similarly, all Dual Wielder would need to say is:
DUAL WIELDER 4th-Level Feat Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial Weapon Repeatable: No You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits: Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you are holding a weapon in each hand, you can treat those weapons as though they had the Light property, as long as none of them have the Two-Handed or Heavy properties.
with the Light property in one hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon in your other hand as if it had the Light property, provided that Weapon lacks the Two-Handed property. 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.
If they made these tweaks/restorations, as well as the "requip on each attack" wording also from UA3, we'd have the most martial utility for TWFers with the least ambiguity.
For me the only problem with the current rule is that as written, it lets you TWF with one hand, which I don't think the designers intended. Not being able to benefit from a shield, as well as not having a free hand for somatic components, and having a fighting style tax to unlock your full damage, are all meant to be clear drawbacks of two-weapon fighting.
To reiterate an earlier post of mine, I think the UA3 version of these features got it the most right - so I'm confused why we backed off that clear wording to something more ambiguous again. Here's what UA3 had to say about the Light property; I only made one small tweak to that original wording, basically to keep the offhand attack as a bonus action baseline so that the Nick property retains its ability to overcome that restriction.
LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand and have a Light weapon in the other hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Actionas a Bonus Action. That extra attack must be made with the Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage.
Similarly, all Dual Wielder would need to say is:
DUAL WIELDER 4th-Level Feat Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial Weapon Repeatable: No You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits: Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20. Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you are holding a weapon in each hand, you can treat those weapons as though they had the Light property, as long as none of them have the Two-Handed or Heavy properties.
with the Light property in one hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon in your other hand as if it had the Light property, provided that Weapon lacks the Two-Handed property. 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.
If they made these tweaks/restorations, as well as the "requip on each attack" wording also from UA3, we'd have the most martial utility for TWFers with the least ambiguity.
the issue of the equip rules and the light property is two different issues.
As far as the meaning of your light property, it doesnt allow throwing weapons to benefit from the light property. Because once you throw one weapon, you no longer have a weapon in the other hand.
Also, i dont think the light property's BA rule needs to be tied to wielding weapons in two hands. Light weapons, need to have a benefit irrespective of dual wielding.
Dual wielding needs to have its own seperate benefit from the light property. and dual wielding shouldnt be competing with shield use, it should be competing with Great weapon use.
if they really want to nerf shields interaction with light weapons, thats fine, (though i think its overkill, as i think shield fighters need to be higher dps than just two attacks) as long as it doesnt effect throwing or other uses. The best use for the Dual wielder feat, is it allows you to swap to two handed weapons easily.
Dual Wielder should probably have another sub feature:
if you are wielding two weapons when you hit an opponent, you can do double attack as a BA, make one attack roll, if it hits it does the damage from both wielded weapons(no mod) you can choose either(maybe both) weapons mastery effect on hit.
or you can go for a non BA effect, if the goal is to keep the BA free. Once per round you can do damage with both weapons at once, if you do this, you cant use your BA for any attacks.
or maybe, while you wield two weapons, nick gains the additional effect:you crit on 10 as well as 20. and you can apply both mastery effects on each attack
regardless the point is dual wielding needs its own greater benefit, than just a BA attack with a light weapon with no mod.
I think I agree with R3sistance and PsyrenXY's takes. I have no real problems with the rules for equipping/unequipping—I just think two-weapon fighting should require two hands.
I wonder if most recent version of the Light property wording was to support Hand Crossbows, which are Light, but couldn't technically ever be used as such, since you need a free hand to load the crossbow. If that were the case, though, I feel like they should have just changed the Loading property to let you pre-load such weaponry.
As far as the meaning of your light property, it doesnt allow throwing weapons to benefit from the light property. Because once you throw one weapon, you no longer have a weapon in the other hand.
Nah, it still works - the equip rules allow you to draw your next weapon into the main hand as part of throwing the last one, so you will have a weapon in your main hand by the time the offhand throw occurs and thus qualify.
Also, i dont think the light property's BA rule needs to be tied to wielding weapons in two hands. Light weapons, need to have a benefit irrespective of dual wielding.
Huh? In all of 5e, Light's only benefit is related to dual-wielding. The property does nothing outside of that context. Are you thinking of Finesse?
As far as the meaning of your light property, it doesnt allow throwing weapons to benefit from the light property. Because once you throw one weapon, you no longer have a weapon in the other hand.
Nah, it still works - the equip rules allow you to draw your next weapon into the main hand as part of throwing the last one, so you will have a weapon in your main hand by the time the offhand throw occurs and thus qualify.
Also, i dont think the light property's BA rule needs to be tied to wielding weapons in two hands. Light weapons, need to have a benefit irrespective of dual wielding.
Huh? In all of 5e, Light's only benefit is related to dual-wielding. The property does nothing outside of that context. Are you thinking of Finesse?
having to pull another weapon before making another attack So you can attack faster doesnt really make sense, other than because the system would require it. Its a pointless tax on your attack/equip action just to artificially limit things. Especially when you may not have another light weapon after throwing it.
I throw my dagger at the fleeing man, I throw my second dagger.
Sorry that needs your BA you used for Hunters mark.
why?
you need to pull out another dagger before throwing the one in your other hand.
Why? I want to throw my last dagger at fleeing man, he can't escape! I don't have anymore!
so that shield users can't throw weapons well.
....wha......?
in 5e light property is about twf, but this isnt 5e anymore. They purposefully removed the language about holding weapons in each hand.
Monk unarmed attack used to be about adding to the attack action. Weapon design used to be about equipping one weapon, and most weapons being similar, things change. The question is are the changes better.
in 5e light property is about twf, but this isnt 5e anymore. They purposefully removed the language about holding weapons in each hand.
It's not OneD&D yet either, it's a playtest. Hence us suggesting things. Light meaning you can benefit from TWF's free attack and a shield at the same time doesn't seem intended.
I throw my dagger at the fleeing man, I throw my second dagger.
Sorry that needs your BA you used for Hunters mark.
why?
If you're throwing daggers you wouldn't need your BA, dagger has the Nick property. What I was describing is/would be just the base rule, before WM.
If however you don't have WM or didn't have enough of them to apply it to daggers, that's an expected drawback of not having WM. So your concept would probably want a dip or feat.
in 5e light property is about twf, but this isnt 5e anymore. They purposefully removed the language about holding weapons in each hand.
It's not OneD&D yet either, it's a playtest. Hence us suggesting things. Light meaning you can benefit from TWF's free attack and a shield at the same time doesn't seem intended.
I throw my dagger at the fleeing man, I throw my second dagger.
Sorry that needs your BA you used for Hunters mark.
why?
If you're throwing daggers you wouldn't need your BA, dagger has the Nick property. What I was describing is/would be just the base rule, before WM.
If however you don't have WM or didn't have enough of them to apply it to daggers, that's an expected drawback of not having WM. So your concept would probably want a dip or feat.
the concept is the basic usecase of throwing weapons, and your rule requires a dagger in both hand wether its nick, or not nick. If someone throws a dagger they can have a dagger in both hands unless they have an extra dagger to unsheather and wield. Which really has no logical reason to enable faster throwing of the Dagger you already have in your hand.
As far as shield benefiting, first off your frame of mind is wrong, shield is benefiting from the light property. you think of these as synonymous, but it is intentionally no longer the case.
why doesnt it seem intended?,
onednd is trying to fix some 5e flaws.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
tw fighting fighting style +1feat 5e: 17.8 dpr (dual wielder) or 20% more damage than 1h fighting
2h fighting fighting style+1 feat 23.8dpr (gwm) or 62% more damage than 1h fighting
Onednd improved this by making optimal use of power attack lower, but it also raised sub optimal use of that feat. letting one handers have the option of light property brings them into line damage wise, and gives them a real choice of, damage or utility, do I push, topple, sap, slow? or do I get extra damage.
5e's 1h/twf/2h ratios were totally broken. They should not be trying to replicate this in onednd. furthermore, 2h gets even stronger with two feats. Old 5e balance was bad, we don't need it, changes should be made.
basically if they revert the rule, they need to fix 1h weapon fighting damage, and they need to fix dual wielding damage. As of now, they only need to fix dual wield damage.
lets look at onednds current balance.
1h with nick/vex fighting style+feat (3.5+5+2)*2+4.5(charger)=25.5*.84(vex) =21.42+(3.5+2)nick*.65= 24.99
1h with cc masteries= fighting style+feat(4.5+5+2)*2=23+4.5 charger =27.5*.65=17.875
2h with graze, fighting style, 1feat= (8.3+5)*2+.3*(8.3+5)=30.59*.65=19.9+6(pb)+4=29.9
2h with cc mastery, fighting style, 1 feat=25.99
as you can see, 1h becomes a better option than before, relatively, and 1h users have a dps mastery style and a cc mastery style, similar to 2h users.
twf in one dnd and 5e is bad, basically equal to 1h from this analysis, even if they take away light property use from 1h, dual wielding is still poor.
the problem is not 1h using light, the problem is dual wielding not providing enough benefit.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
range versus melee is a totally different discussion, but you still wouldn't want finesse melee weapons, in the case you describe, xbow master and sharpshooter.
and 2h weapons sucking without feats in 5e, isnt really a good case for following 5e weapon paradigms.
the old system wasn't actually well balanced, so I don't see the value in trying to replicate it in ways that make it less balanced than the tests.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
range versus melee is a totally different discussion, but you still wouldn't want finesse melee weapons, in the case you describe, xbow master and sharpshooter.
and 2h weapons sucking without feats in 5e, isnt really a good case for following 5e weapon paradigms.
the old system wasn't actually well balanced, so I don't see the value in trying to replicate it in ways that make it less balanced than the tests.
None of this means they intend for you to benefit from a shield while you also benefit from the light property on two separate weapons. RAW is unclear on how you can switch weapons, or how that interacts with the "use an object" or if the attack from the bonus action should be specifically considered part of the same action or a separate action, where you are taking the attack action. I believe, the intention is that the bonus action attack is made as part of the same action and thus "use an object" can not be used between attacks, you can either equip or unequip a weapon but not both and that can occur before/after any attack, however you only get to do this once.
Thus I believe the intention of being able to equip or unequip a weapon mostly relates to thrown weapons, so you can pull out a new thrown weapon or put your thrown weapon anyway to pull out a melee weapon on the following turn if out of position to use the thrown weapon. It would be clearer if it stated the bonus action attack of using two light weapons must be made using the alternate hand that was used during the attack action, unless you made attacks using both hands (i.e. extra attack), in which case it can be either hand.
The RAW for equipping and unequipping is fine, and the RAI. Its just not what some people are used to. It basically says yes you can draw multiple weapons in fights, and how much you can do this is based on how many attacks you can do. The old one OI was not good, not scalable, and less interesting.
The RAW is terrible, it was much better in UA3, the RAI is inferred in the next paragraph.
For example, if you take the Attack action on your turn and have a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other—each of which has the Light property—you can make one attack with each weapon using your action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.
Clearly the intention is that yes, you have a weapon in both hands, since this piece of fluff is still sticking with that idea. If they intended weapon switching to be a thing, they'd have indicated it more clearly but nothing exists to indicate any such RAI for that.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
range versus melee is a totally different discussion, but you still wouldn't want finesse melee weapons, in the case you describe, xbow master and sharpshooter.
and 2h weapons sucking without feats in 5e, isnt really a good case for following 5e weapon paradigms.
the old system wasn't actually well balanced, so I don't see the value in trying to replicate it in ways that make it less balanced than the tests.
None of this means they intend for you to benefit from a shield while you also benefit from the light property on two separate weapons. RAW is unclear on how you can switch weapons, or how that interacts with the "use an object" or if the attack from the bonus action should be specifically considered part of the same action or a separate action, where you are taking the attack action. I believe, the intention is that the bonus action attack is made as part of the same action and thus "use an object" can not be used between attacks, you can either equip or unequip a weapon but not both and that can occur before/after any attack, however you only get to do this once.
Thus I believe the intention of being able to equip or unequip a weapon mostly relates to thrown weapons, so you can pull out a new thrown weapon or put your thrown weapon anyway to pull out a melee weapon on the following turn if out of position to use the thrown weapon. It would be clearer if it stated the bonus action attack of using two light weapons must be made using the alternate hand that was used during the attack action, unless you made attacks using both hands (i.e. extra attack), in which case it can be either hand.
The RAW for equipping and unequipping is fine, and the RAI. Its just not what some people are used to. It basically says yes you can draw multiple weapons in fights, and how much you can do this is based on how many attacks you can do. The old one OI was not good, not scalable, and less interesting.
The RAW is terrible, it was much better in UA3, the RAI is inferred in the next paragraph.
For example, if you take the Attack action on your turn and have a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other—each of which has the Light property—you can make one attack with each weapon using your action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.
Clearly the intention is that yes, you have a weapon in both hands, since this piece of fluff is still sticking with that idea. If they intended weapon switching to be a thing, they'd have indicated it more clearly but nothing exists to indicate any such RAI for that.
the rule you quoted isnt part of the equip unequip rules, its part of the light property, those are two different rules.
this is the unequip equip rules.
ATTACK [ACTION] When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack 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, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
its clear the rule is a framework that gives you one unequip or equip choice for each attack within the attack action. It isnt just meant for throwing, this is to resolve a number of issues, including what dropping a weapon is considered in terms of action economy. And getting better use from mastery for fighters, and other effects that give expanded attack actions.
As far as the light property example, examples just give a common usecase, not the only usecase. it was changed most likely to aid throwing, but also perhaps for races that wont use hands, or have prehensile tails. However they know of this usecase of one handed weapons, most definitely because the feed back has been there for like 4 cycles, and the rule still contains it, even as it has changed in other ways. Nothing in the words communicates other intent.
also note. If a shield user can throw light weapons, and use the light property, you may as well let them do it in melee. Otherwise they will just start throwing these weapons to achieve the same effect. And you create a perverse incentive.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
range versus melee is a totally different discussion, but you still wouldn't want finesse melee weapons, in the case you describe, xbow master and sharpshooter.
and 2h weapons sucking without feats in 5e, isnt really a good case for following 5e weapon paradigms.
the old system wasn't actually well balanced, so I don't see the value in trying to replicate it in ways that make it less balanced than the tests.
None of this means they intend for you to benefit from a shield while you also benefit from the light property on two separate weapons. RAW is unclear on how you can switch weapons, or how that interacts with the "use an object" or if the attack from the bonus action should be specifically considered part of the same action or a separate action, where you are taking the attack action. I believe, the intention is that the bonus action attack is made as part of the same action and thus "use an object" can not be used between attacks, you can either equip or unequip a weapon but not both and that can occur before/after any attack, however you only get to do this once.
Thus I believe the intention of being able to equip or unequip a weapon mostly relates to thrown weapons, so you can pull out a new thrown weapon or put your thrown weapon anyway to pull out a melee weapon on the following turn if out of position to use the thrown weapon. It would be clearer if it stated the bonus action attack of using two light weapons must be made using the alternate hand that was used during the attack action, unless you made attacks using both hands (i.e. extra attack), in which case it can be either hand.
The RAW for equipping and unequipping is fine, and the RAI. Its just not what some people are used to. It basically says yes you can draw multiple weapons in fights, and how much you can do this is based on how many attacks you can do. The old one OI was not good, not scalable, and less interesting.
The RAW is terrible, it was much better in UA3, the RAI is inferred in the next paragraph.
For example, if you take the Attack action on your turn and have a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other—each of which has the Light property—you can make one attack with each weapon using your action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.
Clearly the intention is that yes, you have a weapon in both hands, since this piece of fluff is still sticking with that idea. If they intended weapon switching to be a thing, they'd have indicated it more clearly but nothing exists to indicate any such RAI for that.
the rule you quoted isnt part of the equip unequip rules, its part of the light property, those are two different rules.
this is the unequip equip rules.
ATTACK [ACTION] When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack 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, picking it up, or retrieving it from a container. Unequipping a weapon includes sheathing, stowing, or dropping it.
its clear the rule is a framework that gives you one unequip or equip choice for each attack within the attack action. It isnt just meant for throwing, this is to resolve a number of issues, including what dropping a weapon is considered in terms of action economy. And getting better use from mastery for fighters, and other effects that give expanded attack actions.
As far as the light property example, examples just give a common usecase, not the only usecase. it was changed most likely to aid throwing, but also perhaps for races that wont use hands, or have prehensile tails. However they know of this usecase of one handed weapons, most definitely because the feed back has been there for like 4 cycles, and the rule still contains it, even as it has changed in other ways. Nothing in the words communicates other intent.
also note. If a shield user can throw light weapons, and use the light property, you may as well let them do it in melee. Otherwise they will just start throwing these weapons to achieve the same effect. And you create a perverse incentive.
You're ignoring what people have already pointed out, it states one weapon, not one weapon per attack; you can equip/unequip that weapon for any attack but applies to only a singular weapon. Only three light weapons can be thrown (dagger, handaxe and light hammer) and this can easily be adjusted to avoid any such breakage, it should go under the thrown property and apply to when making a thrown weapon attack.
For races with prehensile tails, they can simply include a caveat that says "for the purposes of two weapon fighting, you may use a weapon held by your tail as if it were held in a different hand." specific beats general and this makes it so much more clearer and cleaner that this would be a usage of that tail.
The equip/unequip rules are only relevant if you can use the, "use an object" feature between the action and bonus action, I think you missed the reason that I was bringing up that it is not clear if the bonus action attack is part of the attack action or a separate action. If it's the same action then you can not use "use an object" between two attacks, but if it is separate actions then you can use, "use an object" between an action and a bonus action.
If we read everything to the letter of the law, the attack action allows for one attack with one weapon, and you can draw or stow that one weapon as part of the attack action. Any additional attacks come from features that state
'LEVEL 5: EXTRA ATTACK
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever
you take the Attack action on your turn'
There is nothing about getting extra equip and unequip actions there, only more attacks with your attack action.
If we read everything to the letter of the law, the attack action allows for one attack with one weapon, and you can draw or stow that one weapon as part of the attack action. Any additional attacks come from features that state
'LEVEL 5: EXTRA ATTACK
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever
you take the Attack action on your turn'
There is nothing about getting extra equip and unequip actions there, only more attacks with your attack action.
it says
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action."
when you make an attack as part of this action, that means every attack that is part of the attack action.
extra attack says you can attack twice as part of the attack action.
that means two attack, and two opportunities to equip or unequip.
for two attacks, this isnt crazy, because you would need to stow, with one attack, and equip with the other. This basically allows one weapon swap for most players.
this also allows you to throw a equip and throw a weapon every attack (unlike the old OI which would let you equip one dagger, and throw it, and then maybe do unarmed attack)
this also allows you to drop a weapon on each attack if you desire.
also to be clear, as of now, you still have an object interation. Because unless they expresslly overwrite, or tell you something is going away, its still there.
its really not that crazy in use case. It mostly only benefits fighter, haste people, and maybe dual wielders, slightly
Drawing weapons: "Immediately before you make an attack on your turn, you may draw one weapon as part of that attack if you currently have a free hand. When you roll Initiative you may immediately don a shield and/or draw weapons in each of your hands."
Stowing weapons: "At the end of your turn you may stow any weapons you are currently holding."
Two weapon fighting: "If you have a different Light weapon in each of your hands when you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action."
Dual wielder: "You deal additional damage equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to each attack you make while holding a different weapon in each of your hands."
------------------------
But really the big problem in the game is PAM, they need to remove the BA attack from PAM.
Drawing weapons: "Immediately before you make an attack on your turn, you may draw one weapon as part of that attack if you currently have a free hand. When you roll Initiative you may immediately don a shield and/or draw weapons in each of your hands."
Stowing weapons: "At the end of your turn you may stow any weapons you are currently holding."
Two weapon fighting: "If you have a different Light weapon in each of your hands when you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action."
Dual wielder: "You deal additional damage equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to each attack you make while holding a different weapon in each of your hands."
------------------------
But really the big problem in the game is PAM, they need to remove the BA attack from PAM.
they went throwing weapons to get the BA/free attack interaction.
Also your rules dont allow stowing weapons mid turn. SO i guess you are saying you shouldnt be able to switch most weapons mid turn. Which is a big limiter on the Fighters ability to choose the right weapon for the situation. they give them like 6 masteries for a reason.
Drawing weapons: "Immediately before you make an attack on your turn, you may draw one weapon as part of that attack if you currently have a free hand. When you roll Initiative you may immediately don a shield and/or draw weapons in each of your hands."
Stowing weapons: "At the end of your turn you may stow any weapons you are currently holding."
Two weapon fighting: "If you have a different Light weapon in each of your hands when you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action."
Dual wielder: "You deal additional damage equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to each attack you make while holding a different weapon in each of your hands."
------------------------
But really the big problem in the game is PAM, they need to remove the BA attack from PAM.
I disagree on PAM, I don't think they should remove it, just alter it so that:
A) the BA attack is only usable a number of times equal to proficiency bonus, per long rest
B) 1d4 back to normal weapon die for the BA attack
Drawing weapons: "Immediately before you make an attack on your turn, you may draw one weapon as part of that attack if you currently have a free hand. When you roll Initiative you may immediately don a shield and/or draw weapons in each of your hands."
Stowing weapons: "At the end of your turn you may stow any weapons you are currently holding."
Two weapon fighting: "If you have a different Light weapon in each of your hands when you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action."
Dual wielder: "You deal additional damage equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to each attack you make while holding a different weapon in each of your hands."
------------------------
But really the big problem in the game is PAM, they need to remove the BA attack from PAM.
they went throwing weapons to get the BA/free attack interaction.
Also your rules dont allow stowing weapons mid turn. SO i guess you are saying you shouldnt be able to switch most weapons mid turn. Which is a big limiter on the Fighters ability to choose the right weapon for the situation. they give them like 6 masteries for a reason.
You can drop a weapon mid turn if you need to switch weapons, e.g. Move -> drop current weapon -> draw new weapon -> attack -> stow weapon -> pick up previous weapon. Fighters get to swap the masteries on their weapons a higher levels so they don't need to swap weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This feels like it's close, but I think it needs a separate section for thrown weapon attacks, since it leaves it open to abuse still, daggers for example have both the light and thrown properties.
I also believe that the light property should be altered to something like: "When you take the attack action and only attack with a light weapon in one hand, you can expend your bonus action to add an attack to your attack action. The additional attack must be made with a light weapon in your other hand, this attack does not gain your ability score modifier to it's damage roll unless it's negative."
Or something to that effect, since right now the RAW is a mess in the UA, even if the RAI is a bit easier to understand.
The RAW for equipping and unequipping is fine, and the RAI. Its just not what some people are used to. It basically says yes you can draw multiple weapons in fights, and how much you can do this is based on how many attacks you can do. The old one OI was not good, not scalable, and less interesting.
the biggest problem with the current rule, is that maybe there is a simpler way to say the same thing, but I don't have one that solves as many issues.
this allows you to reasonably draw weapons, reasonably drop weapons, reasonably swap weapons, reasonably throw weapons.
And it makes using the right weapon for the job feasible, it didnt matter as much before because they basically made it so there was almost never a reason to use a different weapon.
For me the only problem with the current rule is that as written, it lets you TWF with one hand, which I don't think the designers intended. Not being able to benefit from a shield, as well as not having a free hand for somatic components, and having a fighting style tax to unlock your full damage, are all meant to be clear drawbacks of two-weapon fighting.
To reiterate an earlier post of mine, I think the UA3 version of these features got it the most right - so I'm confused why we backed off that clear wording to something more ambiguous again. Here's what UA3 had to say about the Light property; I only made one small tweak to that original wording, basically to keep the offhand attack as a bonus action baseline so that the Nick property retains its ability to overcome that restriction.
LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY]
When you take the Attack Action on your turn
and attack with a Light weapon in one hand and
have a Light weapon in the other hand, you can
make one extra attack
as part of the same Actionas a Bonus Action.That extra attack must be made with the Light
weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add
your ability modifier to the extra attack’s
damage.
Similarly, all Dual Wielder would need to say is:
DUAL WIELDER
4th-Level Feat
Prerequisite: Proficiency with Any Martial
Weapon
Repeatable: No
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining
the following benefits:
Ability Score Increase. Increase your Strength
or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you are holding a weapon in each hand, you can treat those weapons
as though they had the Light property, as long as none of them have the Two-Handed or Heavy properties.
with the Light property inone hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon inyour other hand as if it had the Light property,provided that Weapon lacks the Two-Handedproperty.Quick Draw. You can draw or stow twoWeapons that lack the Two-Handed propertywhen you would normally be able to draw orstow only one.If they made these tweaks/restorations, as well as the "requip on each attack" wording also from UA3, we'd have the most martial utility for TWFers with the least ambiguity.
the issue of the equip rules and the light property is two different issues.
As far as the meaning of your light property, it doesnt allow throwing weapons to benefit from the light property. Because once you throw one weapon, you no longer have a weapon in the other hand.
Also, i dont think the light property's BA rule needs to be tied to wielding weapons in two hands. Light weapons, need to have a benefit irrespective of dual wielding.
Dual wielding needs to have its own seperate benefit from the light property. and dual wielding shouldnt be competing with shield use, it should be competing with Great weapon use.
if they really want to nerf shields interaction with light weapons, thats fine, (though i think its overkill, as i think shield fighters need to be higher dps than just two attacks) as long as it doesnt effect throwing or other uses. The best use for the Dual wielder feat, is it allows you to swap to two handed weapons easily.
Dual Wielder should probably have another sub feature:
if you are wielding two weapons when you hit an opponent, you can do double attack as a BA, make one attack roll, if it hits it does the damage from both wielded weapons(no mod) you can choose either(maybe both) weapons mastery effect on hit.
or you can go for a non BA effect, if the goal is to keep the BA free. Once per round you can do damage with both weapons at once, if you do this, you cant use your BA for any attacks.
or maybe, while you wield two weapons, nick gains the additional effect:you crit on 10 as well as 20. and you can apply both mastery effects on each attack
regardless the point is dual wielding needs its own greater benefit, than just a BA attack with a light weapon with no mod.
I think I agree with R3sistance and PsyrenXY's takes. I have no real problems with the rules for equipping/unequipping—I just think two-weapon fighting should require two hands.
I wonder if most recent version of the Light property wording was to support Hand Crossbows, which are Light, but couldn't technically ever be used as such, since you need a free hand to load the crossbow. If that were the case, though, I feel like they should have just changed the Loading property to let you pre-load such weaponry.
Nah, it still works - the equip rules allow you to draw your next weapon into the main hand as part of throwing the last one, so you will have a weapon in your main hand by the time the offhand throw occurs and thus qualify.
Huh? In all of 5e, Light's only benefit is related to dual-wielding. The property does nothing outside of that context. Are you thinking of Finesse?
having to pull another weapon before making another attack So you can attack faster doesnt really make sense, other than because the system would require it. Its a pointless tax on your attack/equip action just to artificially limit things. Especially when you may not have another light weapon after throwing it.
I throw my dagger at the fleeing man, I throw my second dagger.
Sorry that needs your BA you used for Hunters mark.
why?
you need to pull out another dagger before throwing the one in your other hand.
Why? I want to throw my last dagger at fleeing man, he can't escape! I don't have anymore!
so that shield users can't throw weapons well.
....wha......?
in 5e light property is about twf, but this isnt 5e anymore. They purposefully removed the language about holding weapons in each hand.
Monk unarmed attack used to be about adding to the attack action. Weapon design used to be about equipping one weapon, and most weapons being similar, things change. The question is are the changes better.
It's not OneD&D yet either, it's a playtest. Hence us suggesting things. Light meaning you can benefit from TWF's free attack and a shield at the same time doesn't seem intended.
If you're throwing daggers you wouldn't need your BA, dagger has the Nick property. What I was describing is/would be just the base rule, before WM.
If however you don't have WM or didn't have enough of them to apply it to daggers, that's an expected drawback of not having WM. So your concept would probably want a dip or feat.
the concept is the basic usecase of throwing weapons, and your rule requires a dagger in both hand wether its nick, or not nick. If someone throws a dagger they can have a dagger in both hands unless they have an extra dagger to unsheather and wield. Which really has no logical reason to enable faster throwing of the Dagger you already have in your hand.
As far as shield benefiting, first off your frame of mind is wrong, shield is benefiting from the light property. you think of these as synonymous, but it is intentionally no longer the case.
why doesnt it seem intended?,
onednd is trying to fix some 5e flaws.
one of the largest flaws, with weapons, was two handed fighting totally eclipsing other fighting styles, to the point of making the other two fighting styles worthless.
1h fighting fighting style +1 feat 5e: 14.95dpr (no dps feat)
tw fighting fighting style +1feat 5e: 17.8 dpr (dual wielder) or 20% more damage than 1h fighting
2h fighting fighting style+1 feat 23.8dpr (gwm) or 62% more damage than 1h fighting
Onednd improved this by making optimal use of power attack lower, but it also raised sub optimal use of that feat. letting one handers have the option of light property brings them into line damage wise, and gives them a real choice of, damage or utility, do I push, topple, sap, slow? or do I get extra damage.
5e's 1h/twf/2h ratios were totally broken. They should not be trying to replicate this in onednd. furthermore, 2h gets even stronger with two feats. Old 5e balance was bad, we don't need it, changes should be made.
basically if they revert the rule, they need to fix 1h weapon fighting damage, and they need to fix dual wielding damage. As of now, they only need to fix dual wield damage.
lets look at onednds current balance.
1h with nick/vex fighting style+feat (3.5+5+2)*2+4.5(charger)=25.5*.84(vex) =21.42+(3.5+2)nick*.65= 24.99
1h with cc masteries= fighting style+feat(4.5+5+2)*2=23+4.5 charger =27.5*.65=17.875
2h with graze, fighting style, 1feat= (8.3+5)*2+.3*(8.3+5)=30.59*.65=19.9+6(pb)+4=29.9
2h with cc mastery, fighting style, 1 feat=25.99
as you can see, 1h becomes a better option than before, relatively, and 1h users have a dps mastery style and a cc mastery style, similar to 2h users.
twf in one dnd and 5e is bad, basically equal to 1h from this analysis, even if they take away light property use from 1h, dual wielding is still poor.
the problem is not 1h using light, the problem is dual wielding not providing enough benefit.
That's entirely a problem with great weapon mastery and polearm mastery; without those feats two handed weapon fighting is kinda trash. Even with those feats, I would argue that you're better off taking a fighting style that works with finesse weapons, because being able to fight effectively at range is huge advantage; under real adventuring situations a character with two weapon fighting who also has a longbow will do more damage than the polearm or great weapon mastery build, for the simple reason that he isn't stuck doing absolutely nothing of any value a significant percentage of the time due to range.
range versus melee is a totally different discussion, but you still wouldn't want finesse melee weapons, in the case you describe, xbow master and sharpshooter.
and 2h weapons sucking without feats in 5e, isnt really a good case for following 5e weapon paradigms.
the old system wasn't actually well balanced, so I don't see the value in trying to replicate it in ways that make it less balanced than the tests.
None of this means they intend for you to benefit from a shield while you also benefit from the light property on two separate weapons. RAW is unclear on how you can switch weapons, or how that interacts with the "use an object" or if the attack from the bonus action should be specifically considered part of the same action or a separate action, where you are taking the attack action. I believe, the intention is that the bonus action attack is made as part of the same action and thus "use an object" can not be used between attacks, you can either equip or unequip a weapon but not both and that can occur before/after any attack, however you only get to do this once.
Thus I believe the intention of being able to equip or unequip a weapon mostly relates to thrown weapons, so you can pull out a new thrown weapon or put your thrown weapon anyway to pull out a melee weapon on the following turn if out of position to use the thrown weapon. It would be clearer if it stated the bonus action attack of using two light weapons must be made using the alternate hand that was used during the attack action, unless you made attacks using both hands (i.e. extra attack), in which case it can be either hand.
The RAW is terrible, it was much better in UA3, the RAI is inferred in the next paragraph.
Clearly the intention is that yes, you have a weapon in both hands, since this piece of fluff is still sticking with that idea. If they intended weapon switching to be a thing, they'd have indicated it more clearly but nothing exists to indicate any such RAI for that.
the rule you quoted isnt part of the equip unequip rules, its part of the light property, those are two different rules.
this is the unequip equip rules.
its clear the rule is a framework that gives you one unequip or equip choice for each attack within the attack action. It isnt just meant for throwing, this is to resolve a number of issues, including what dropping a weapon is considered in terms of action economy. And getting better use from mastery for fighters, and other effects that give expanded attack actions.
As far as the light property example, examples just give a common usecase, not the only usecase. it was changed most likely to aid throwing, but also perhaps for races that wont use hands, or have prehensile tails. However they know of this usecase of one handed weapons, most definitely because the feed back has been there for like 4 cycles, and the rule still contains it, even as it has changed in other ways. Nothing in the words communicates other intent.
also note. If a shield user can throw light weapons, and use the light property, you may as well let them do it in melee. Otherwise they will just start throwing these weapons to achieve the same effect. And you create a perverse incentive.
You're ignoring what people have already pointed out, it states one weapon, not one weapon per attack; you can equip/unequip that weapon for any attack but applies to only a singular weapon. Only three light weapons can be thrown (dagger, handaxe and light hammer) and this can easily be adjusted to avoid any such breakage, it should go under the thrown property and apply to when making a thrown weapon attack.
For races with prehensile tails, they can simply include a caveat that says "for the purposes of two weapon fighting, you may use a weapon held by your tail as if it were held in a different hand." specific beats general and this makes it so much more clearer and cleaner that this would be a usage of that tail.
The equip/unequip rules are only relevant if you can use the, "use an object" feature between the action and bonus action, I think you missed the reason that I was bringing up that it is not clear if the bonus action attack is part of the attack action or a separate action. If it's the same action then you can not use "use an object" between two attacks, but if it is separate actions then you can use, "use an object" between an action and a bonus action.
If we read everything to the letter of the law, the attack action allows for one attack with one weapon, and you can draw or stow that one weapon as part of the attack action. Any additional attacks come from features that state
'LEVEL 5: EXTRA ATTACK
You can attack twice, instead of once, whenever
you take the Attack action on your turn'
There is nothing about getting extra equip and unequip actions there, only more attacks with your attack action.
it says
"You can either equip or unequip one weapon
when you make an attack as part of this action."
when you make an attack as part of this action, that means every attack that is part of the attack action.
extra attack says you can attack twice as part of the attack action.
that means two attack, and two opportunities to equip or unequip.
for two attacks, this isnt crazy, because you would need to stow, with one attack, and equip with the other. This basically allows one weapon swap for most players.
this also allows you to throw a equip and throw a weapon every attack (unlike the old OI which would let you equip one dagger, and throw it, and then maybe do unarmed attack)
this also allows you to drop a weapon on each attack if you desire.
also to be clear, as of now, you still have an object interation. Because unless they expresslly overwrite, or tell you something is going away, its still there.
its really not that crazy in use case. It mostly only benefits fighter, haste people, and maybe dual wielders, slightly
TBH I would much prefer the simpler option:
Drawing weapons: "Immediately before you make an attack on your turn, you may draw one weapon as part of that attack if you currently have a free hand. When you roll Initiative you may immediately don a shield and/or draw weapons in each of your hands."
Stowing weapons: "At the end of your turn you may stow any weapons you are currently holding."
Two weapon fighting: "If you have a different Light weapon in each of your hands when you take the Attack action, you can make one attack with one of those weapons as a bonus action."
Dual wielder: "You deal additional damage equal to half your proficiency bonus (rounded down) to each attack you make while holding a different weapon in each of your hands."
------------------------
But really the big problem in the game is PAM, they need to remove the BA attack from PAM.
they went throwing weapons to get the BA/free attack interaction.
Also your rules dont allow stowing weapons mid turn. SO i guess you are saying you shouldnt be able to switch most weapons mid turn. Which is a big limiter on the Fighters ability to choose the right weapon for the situation. they give them like 6 masteries for a reason.
I disagree on PAM, I don't think they should remove it, just alter it so that:
A) the BA attack is only usable a number of times equal to proficiency bonus, per long rest
B) 1d4 back to normal weapon die for the BA attack
Obviously B being contingent on A occurring.
You can drop a weapon mid turn if you need to switch weapons, e.g. Move -> drop current weapon -> draw new weapon -> attack -> stow weapon -> pick up previous weapon. Fighters get to swap the masteries on their weapons a higher levels so they don't need to swap weapons.