Hi there, RAW it appears the free Use an Object of 2014 days is no more. That was where everyone had one free interaction, then if another was needed would take the Use an Object action. It seems the free interaction has been wrapped up in the Attack action, and that the previous wording is no longer there. Is that right?
Nevermind, I found the same language preserved from 2014.
Interacting with Things. You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.
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.
Interacting with Things.You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.
If you want to interact with a second object, you need to take the Utilize action. Some magic items and other special objects always require an action to use, as stated in their descriptions.
Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can also interact with weapons as described in that 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.
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
For that interaction and to have 4 attacks, I’m guessing the Fighter has the Dual Wielder feat, right?
Nice, the more I play 24 the more I find subtleties like this. At a glance, 24 appears very similar to 14. But when you start playing it gets deeper.
Yeah, a lot of the changes are subtle, but actually have a big impact on how they are used at the table. It also seems like the game has become much more balanced than it was with the old rules, along with several quality of life improvements for the players and classes. Very happy with the changes so far.
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
This is not universally accepted as an interpretation of the object interaction rules, by the way
They can also be read as allowing one free interaction, and one extra interaction per Attack action -- not one extra interaction per attack
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)
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
This is not universally accepted as an interpretation of the object interaction rules, by the way
They can also be read as allowing one free interaction, and one extra interaction per Attack action -- not one extra interaction per attack
There are certainly people who argue that, but I have yet to see somebody make such an argument that holds up in the face of the text of the rules.
(And if you wanna try, I suggest taking it to one of the threads specifically discussing the question.)
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
This is not universally accepted as an interpretation of the object interaction rules, by the way
They can also be read as allowing one free interaction, and one extra interaction per Attack action -- not one extra interaction per attack
There are certainly people who argue that, but I have yet to see somebody make such an argument that holds up in the face of the text of the rules.
(And if you wanna try, I suggest taking it to one of the threads specifically discussing the question.)
As you said, there are other threads to litigate it, but the fact that 'one swap per attack' makes the Quick Draw part of Dual Wielder basically pointless is more than enough support for me from a rules perspective
Beyond the rules, I think that sort of weapon juggling is just trash in general, and will never allow it at my table
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 disagree that the Dual Welder: Quick Draw feature is pointless because you can equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of the Attack action, it should still allow you to draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
In fact, per attack it makes the feature capable of doing it even more often, and thus be more useful if anything.
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
This is not universally accepted as an interpretation of the object interaction rules, by the way
They can also be read as allowing one free interaction, and one extra interaction per Attack action -- not one extra interaction per attack
There are certainly people who argue that, but I have yet to see somebody make such an argument that holds up in the face of the text of the rules.
(And if you wanna try, I suggest taking it to one of the threads specifically discussing the question.)
As you said, there are other threads to litigate it, but the fact that 'one swap per attack' makes the Quick Draw part of Dual Wielder basically pointless is more than enough support for me from a rules perspective
Beyond the rules, I think that sort of weapon juggling is just trash in general, and will never allow it at my table
I'm going to both agree and disagree with you on that. I think that a lot of this stuff gets to be kind of picayune to the point where sometimes (n.b., I'm saying sometimes, not all the time) it is violating the 'bad faith' clause in the DMG 2024 and certainly I would never, ever argue that you don't have the right to just houserule that a specific rule isn't going to be handled a certain way because of the problems the RAW create.
That said, for any real discussion of 'the rules' we kind of have to make sure we are all on the same page. Anyone can houserule anything, so saying 'in my game I wouldn't allow that' doesn't do us much good. I could decide for my entire campaign that Clerics don't exist because the Gods are all dead, but it wouldn't be constructive for me to write that in any post asking about Clerics.
Of course I'm simply talking about houserules, in this case. Having a different interpretation of something (e.g. just who, exactly, does the spell target for True Strike?) is a different matter since that is a discussion trying to figure out the details of our shared framework.
(A great example of this is whether True Strike can trigger Weapon Mastery or other weapon properties such as Light. The fact that it behaves one way when a Bard uses one of their extra attacks from an Attack Action to cast the cantrip and a different, less effective way, when the exact same Bard uses a dedicate Magic Action to cast the cantrip is so non-sensical that I'm going to houserule different from the strict RAW. However, I'm not about to go into the thread on that and say that I find RAW dumb and I'm going to houserule differently because it doesn't serve any real point)
I disagree that the Dual Welder: Quick Draw feature is pointless because you can equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of the Attack action, it should still allow you to draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
In fact, per attack it makes the feature capable of doing it even more often, and thus be more useful if anything.
The number of scenarios where you would need to draw/stow more than one weapon per attack are absolutely insignificant. It isn't even a ribbon feature at that point
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)
That said, for any real discussion of 'the rules' we kind of have to make sure we are all on the same page. Anyone can houserule anything, so saying 'in my game I wouldn't allow that' doesn't do us much good.
Which is why I distinguished my personal opinion from the actual RAW
There are basically two ways to parse "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." In a vacuum, one's as valid as the other, but rules don't work in a vacuum. One of those interpretations makes one of the features of the Dual Wielder feat effectively pointless, in addition to creating other issues which have been discussed in previous threads
My only purpose in posting here was to point out that the most liberal interpretation of the new weapon utilization rules are not universally accepted, and you shouldn't assume as a player that your DM is going to be OK with them
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)
The number of scenarios where you would need to draw/stow more than one weapon per attack are absolutely insignificant. It isn't even a ribbon feature at that point
Yea but you shouldn't blame the attack action equipping rule for that. If the additional attacks from the Light property and from Dual Wielder required actually wielding dual weapons instead of weapon juggling then being able to draw two weapons at once would mean something.
The number of scenarios where you would need to draw/stow more than one weapon per attack are absolutely insignificant. It isn't even a ribbon feature at that point
Yea but you shouldn't blame the attack action equipping rule for that. If the additional attacks from the Light property and from Dual Wielder required actually wielding dual weapons instead of weapon juggling then being able to draw two weapons at once would mean something.
That's how I personally think it should work, so the character should already be Dual Wielding two weapons when you start the Attack action to benefit from things related to two weapon fighting.
the character should already be Dual Wielding two weapons when you start the Attack action to benefit from things related to two weapon fighting
While it's cited as example, the Light Property isn't worded to require it like Two-Weapon Fighting in 5E14 that's the thing.
Light: For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack 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
Beyond the rules, I think that sort of weapon juggling is just trash in general, and will never allow it at my table
Anything that removes the utter madness we had of people dropping weapons on the ground to be able to equip another weapon is an improvement IMO.
Ehh. It's a very cinematic thing to toss away your bow as you draw your sword when the enemy gets too close
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi there, RAW it appears the free Use an Object of 2014 days is no more. That was where everyone had one free interaction, then if another was needed would take the Use an Object action. It seems the free interaction has been wrapped up in the Attack action, and that the previous wording is no longer there. Is that right?
Nevermind, I found the same language preserved from 2014.
Yes, the relevant rules regarding free interactions are as follows, including the one you already quoted:
Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can also interact with weapons as described in that action:
Yeah, the new rules actually gives you more object interactions if you are attacking on your turn. For example, a level 5 fighter could draw his first weapon, attack, draw second weapon, attack, Nick weapon mastery attack, stow first weapon, bonus action attack with second weapon, then step back and pull a level or slam a door shut. It's pretty nice to have such freedom with your interactions with items.
For that interaction and to have 4 attacks, I’m guessing the Fighter has the Dual Wielder feat, right?
Correct, you would need the dual-wielder feat for the last bonus action attack.
Nice, the more I play 24 the more I find subtleties like this. At a glance, 24 appears very similar to 14. But when you start playing it gets deeper.
Yeah, a lot of the changes are subtle, but actually have a big impact on how they are used at the table. It also seems like the game has become much more balanced than it was with the old rules, along with several quality of life improvements for the players and classes. Very happy with the changes so far.
This is not universally accepted as an interpretation of the object interaction rules, by the way
They can also be read as allowing one free interaction, and one extra interaction per Attack action -- not one extra interaction per 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)
There are certainly people who argue that, but I have yet to see somebody make such an argument that holds up in the face of the text of the rules.
(And if you wanna try, I suggest taking it to one of the threads specifically discussing the question.)
As you said, there are other threads to litigate it, but the fact that 'one swap per attack' makes the Quick Draw part of Dual Wielder basically pointless is more than enough support for me from a rules perspective
Beyond the rules, I think that sort of weapon juggling is just trash in general, and will never allow it at my table
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 disagree that the Dual Welder: Quick Draw feature is pointless because you can equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of the Attack action, it should still allow you to draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
In fact, per attack it makes the feature capable of doing it even more often, and thus be more useful if anything.
I'm going to both agree and disagree with you on that. I think that a lot of this stuff gets to be kind of picayune to the point where sometimes (n.b., I'm saying sometimes, not all the time) it is violating the 'bad faith' clause in the DMG 2024 and certainly I would never, ever argue that you don't have the right to just houserule that a specific rule isn't going to be handled a certain way because of the problems the RAW create.
That said, for any real discussion of 'the rules' we kind of have to make sure we are all on the same page. Anyone can houserule anything, so saying 'in my game I wouldn't allow that' doesn't do us much good. I could decide for my entire campaign that Clerics don't exist because the Gods are all dead, but it wouldn't be constructive for me to write that in any post asking about Clerics.
Of course I'm simply talking about houserules, in this case. Having a different interpretation of something (e.g. just who, exactly, does the spell target for True Strike?) is a different matter since that is a discussion trying to figure out the details of our shared framework.
(A great example of this is whether True Strike can trigger Weapon Mastery or other weapon properties such as Light. The fact that it behaves one way when a Bard uses one of their extra attacks from an Attack Action to cast the cantrip and a different, less effective way, when the exact same Bard uses a dedicate Magic Action to cast the cantrip is so non-sensical that I'm going to houserule different from the strict RAW. However, I'm not about to go into the thread on that and say that I find RAW dumb and I'm going to houserule differently because it doesn't serve any real point)
The number of scenarios where you would need to draw/stow more than one weapon per attack are absolutely insignificant. It isn't even a ribbon feature at that point
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)
Which is why I distinguished my personal opinion from the actual RAW
There are basically two ways to parse "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." In a vacuum, one's as valid as the other, but rules don't work in a vacuum. One of those interpretations makes one of the features of the Dual Wielder feat effectively pointless, in addition to creating other issues which have been discussed in previous threads
My only purpose in posting here was to point out that the most liberal interpretation of the new weapon utilization rules are not universally accepted, and you shouldn't assume as a player that your DM is going to be OK with them
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)
Essentially one feature from a feat doesn't change how i interpret the feature from an Action available to all.
Yea but you shouldn't blame the attack action equipping rule for that. If the additional attacks from the Light property and from Dual Wielder required actually wielding dual weapons instead of weapon juggling then being able to draw two weapons at once would mean something.
Anything that removes the utter madness we had of people dropping weapons on the ground to be able to equip another weapon is an improvement IMO.
That's how I personally think it should work, so the character should already be Dual Wielding two weapons when you start the Attack action to benefit from things related to two weapon fighting.
It's a nice observation, I agree.
While it's cited as example, the Light Property isn't worded to require it like Two-Weapon Fighting in 5E14 that's the thing.
Ehh. It's a very cinematic thing to toss away your bow as you draw your sword when the enemy gets too close
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)