You’re absolutely right! Thanks for catching that. I’ll pin your comment so no one gets confused. Apologies, this is my first time using an editor so we had a few little hiccups.
I love how everyone one in the comments is playing DnD, a TTRPG played in a fantasy setting where high lvl wizard can shape reality and singlehandedly wipe out cities and armies yet a fighter swapping weapons in 6 seconds is the line they wanna draw because immersion
@@solarkhan484 not because of immersion, because it's stupid to do this type of "juggling". If you want to go to this length to win the make believe game, then why even play? This is retarded.
As a DM, the issue I have with weapon swapping is the idea that it “stacks” with the free stow/draw interaction that all characters have, particularly those without weapon mastery. This is really the only sticking point I hsve with the concept, and I suspect this will eventually find itself in a future errata along with conjure minor elementals. By the way, Crawford is in a strict position out of necessity to support the new rules “as written”, because it’s so early in the date of release. So he’s also gonna confirm how Conjure Minor Elementals functions as written, despite it being so obviously broken. You can’t expect WotC to alter rules that were released 10 minutes later. It takes time. The fact that weapon juggling/swapping has already created confusion and scores of clarification videos is telling.
@roberttschaefer I mean it makes sense to me. Everyone can naturally stow or draw a weapon for free. However, a martial who either has nick or extra attack is trained in fighting and can swap multiple times. Many weapons aren't 1 size fit all. This should be one of the least controversial changes in the new edition when we have stuff like suggestion: drown and Divine intervention Hallow/Prayer of Healing
@@roberttschaefer Has it caused confusion? I haven't seen very many people confused in my comments section. That said, you could definitely be right about future errata and the absolutely broken Conjure Minor Elementals. But, I'm just the messenger. I happen to like this mechanic because it gives martials more options that they still sorely need but, as always, you're free to run your own games however you'd like (regardless of any future errata. However, I will leave you with this: WOTC has already made changes to the PHB on DNDBeyond versus the first print run of the physical book. The poisoner feat and several other rules issues have already been fix. This would seem to go against your instincts about Crawford being "locked in" to RAW just because the book was released so recently. Just some food for thought there!
I can’t wait to see how badly this plus multiple weapon masteries grinds AL play to a halt. Adding potential battlemaster style maneuvers and saving throws to multiple hits from several players every turn sounds like a nightmare. Wizards, and some other spell casters will have plenty of time to nap between turns.
I actually don't think that's the case! Even with the wild number of possibilities with these new rules, most martials are only going to have access to two weapon masteries in any given adventuring day. I think equipping/stowing will become pretty second nature and fairly easy to remember the combo after a slight learning curve. It certainly won't halt games like some spells still do haha.
@@michaelmuirhead910 I hope I’m right too haha. I guess I should count myself lucky to have such great players 😅 Playing on a stream does certainly force us to be more streamlined (pun not intended)
Weapon masteries are still waaaaayyyyyy simpler than spells and you only get a couple. I'm never gonna complain that the simplest classes in the game get a bit more complicated when we still have the casters to grind everything to a halt as always.
I agree completely, which is why I will definitely be subjecting this to House Rules (something that AL tables cannot do...I pity the DM who is managing 15-minute combat rounds for a party with three martial class players. Might as well play Pathfinder at that point, LOL.
Can you only do it with 2 attacks? say at level 1? Shortsword-Stow, Equip-Scimitar, and you're stuck with that right? even if you free interaction stow you can't actually do anything else, it has to be an odd number of attacks to loop back
That is correct, yes! It’s fairly limited until you start getting more attacks. I just wanted to illustrate that you could do it at level 1 at least one time.
The way I tend to do things as a DM, would allow a 1st level character to do the following: Shortsword-Stow, Equip Scimitar, use Bonus Action to re-arm the Shortsword. Basically, if the player is creative enough to provide an eloquent and realistic description for what they are attempting to do and how they plan on achieving it, I will work with it to make it happen. There are limits though, and the litany of weapon swapping exploits being bandied about are downright silly and not good for the game. I have heard some people claim that they can swap out a weapon to perform the second part of the Nick property effect, when it clearly refers to the mastery of one "blade flourish" using the same sword attack.
Great video! I may not be ready to switch to the 2024 handbook yet, but this is awesome for martial classes. They could keep up with spellcasters. Thanks for the awesome video!! 👍👍😁⚔️
You could also use divine favor if you dip into pali or can get it through other means somehow. Stay ranged the first two rounds to set up your spells if you wanna then move in for the kill. Could even smite if you wanted since neither df nor smite spells use concentration any more. I personally think searing smite is the best smite at start as long as the target doesn’t resist fire damage. It’s a guaranteed additional 4d6 if you hit using a second level slot, and can potentially extend damage over more turns if they fail, AND doesn’t require concentration. Wrathful smite is pretty good too for frightened. But i digress, level 5 can put out some serious damage.
As it relates to this "feature," if it is intended, I wish it was less.... "clunky." Imagining the 6 seconds go by and seeing a psychotic warrior violently swinging, sheathing, drawing, and swinging again just feels off. I get the mechanics and trust the legality, but it doesn't help visuals get into the game when the actions being performed are, as it relates to real life, so nonsensical.
I feel the same. I’m not going to allow weapon juggling at my table. In way of compensation I will allow my players to use multiple weapon masteries for the same weapon so long as they are carrying weapons with that mastery on their person and have multiple attacks. That way the player is not penalised but also I don’t have to suffer the loss of immersion nonsensical weapon juggling will cause. I want to play a role playing game not a video game simulator.
I don't think your interpretation is correct. You only get 1 attack action per turn. Regardless of the number of attacks. Unless you action surge as a fighter.
The free draw/sheathe screams a iaido/batto-jutsu homebrew class. Think Kenshin Himura from rurounin kenshin anime if you're familiar. Love the visualization on the ranger combo. It clearly explains what the combo does.
@@TheRobversion1 Thanks Rob! I thought long and hard about how to represent that so as to make it less confusing. Reading the script by itself made my head spin a bit the first time haha
I came to the comments to say that I think the weapon juggling is dumb, but it looks like everybody else came to say the same thing. I'm not going to argue that it isn't legal or isn't what they intended. I'm cool with 2 weapon fighting, switching from ranged to melee or vice versa, or drawing and throwing weapons, but swapping between 2 or 3 different weapons in the middle of a turn for different properties? If someone were REALLY trying to do this in a battle, they'd be dead, not optimal.
I track your logic here but I think we should also keep in mind that we're playing in a game where magic and dragons exist. I've already sacrificed plenty of realism to make room for those fantasies. Why not this one?
@@ConstructedChaos Because it's not something you can do because it's a fantastical world, it's something you can do because you are rule lawyering and that kind of meta-gaming breaks the immersion in the game.
@@sortehuse surely it only breaks the immersion if you allow it to? what if the fighter is just that skilled that when they attack its a blur of weapons such that you're never quite sure what just hit you. What if the ranger has a magical scabbard or hilt that allows them to switch weapons with ease.
@@ConstructedChaos i can see that! ive just watched a montage and there are definitely a few moments were his weapons just seem to flow from one to the other
I wondering if you can kinda get around the warcaster spellcasting thing by drawing a melee weapon, hitting, then using free interaction to stow it ready for the next round to cast a spell?
This would work but you may want to keep in mind that you’d have no weapon equipped for opportunity attacks! This might be something better to do by stowing your weapon for free at the start of your turn to cast and then drawing it to attack with the attack action equip!
Great video. Though, my imterpretstion of the draw or stow rule before or after your attacks. Is it's mainly meant to allow the throwing of multiple weapons, if you have extra attack. Or want to throw a weapon with your off hand.
It is not the intention because it's not necessary. Thrown weapons can already be drawn as part of the attack as part of the thrown property. They added this specifically for weapon swapping.
Honestly I think weapon juggling can be awesome as long as it’s thematically done well, character specific, and not every single martial. Plus if you are using a bunch of different weapons, you need a lot of magic weapons at higher levels.
That’s a great point! I’ve been playing a harengon paladin in a live stream that uses a lesser version of this tactic and I’ve found the flavor just fine by describing the way he smoothly swaps his weapon on the follow through of one swing into another but I think it could be done even more cleanly. And you’re absolutely right about magic weapons! That is a downside to a tactic like this!
The wording of the free action is specifically talking about the environment and does not mention weapons to the contrary of the 2014 phb, which added to the fact that weapon stowing and drawing is made part of attacks of the attack action, makes me think that the free interaction does not include weapons, making this combo undoable with a shield (thus making dual wielding work with two weapons out only, which makes more sense)
@@ConstructedChaos thanks for the clarification ! I was basing myself on DND beyond phb version, having not received the physical one yet. This one states : "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." But it may lack examples from the book
@@vincentboumard4640 there is a section before that called “what is an object?” That’s where the sword reference is. Just confirmed that it is in the digital DNDbeyond PHB
The Nerf hammer will swing heavily at my table. Not because it's op but more for its absurdity. I'd rather just allow multiple weapon masteries than allow weapon juggling.
@@misterright4528 I think that’s totally fair! Every table runs differently. I do feel like most players that would run this would probably have their turn pre-meditated pretty well in advance anyway.
Hi! Good video. One clarification. On D&D beyond it is clarified that equipping and unequipping a shield still requires you to use the utilize action like it did in 2014. So you can't really juggle weapons while using a shield.
@@urbanassassin26 you can still juggle the weapons! I am aware of this change and at no point did I mention that we use these rules to equip or unequip a shield! We can wield a shield because we never have to use more than one hand for all of our weapons.
I disagree. Otherwise I think we'd have seen the rules worded differently so as to indicate that you could swap a weapon "once per attack action" rather than when you attack as part of that action.
@@ConstructedChaos Yeah, it does seem like RAI they wanted one to be able to go for a ranged attack and a melee attack with different weapons if you have extra attack, or vice versa. But the thing is that it also opens up space for very strange interactions and this unrealistic weapon juggling where things get very comical... Imagine you're watching a movie where a guy keeps sheathing and drawing two different swords IN THE MIDLE OF COMBAT... lol
Yeah as others said Im not sure this is RAI, especially getting the free object interaction along with the equip/unequip per attack. Feels like its more of an either/or situation. The rules in chapter 1 also say "when time is short such as in combat...the interaction must occur during a creatures movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action" The juggling described towards the end of the video is clever from a min/max perspective but it brings the mechanics a little too close to a video game for my taste.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to even be able to get the extra attack as a bonus action (or part of attack for nick weapon mastery weapons), don’t the rules state you need to be wielding 2 different types of light (non 2h weapons with dual wielder feat) weapons in hand? I get being able to draw a weapon as part of the attack action to pull out the 2nd weapon, but not understanding how switching out weapons with one hand while wearing a shield is giving any options for an extra attack
You are incorrect. The book mentions that the attack must be made with a different weapon but it says nothing about wielding it in a different hand-nor does it mention wielding both weapons at the same time.
@ConstructedChaos- it literally does say it in the light property, "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". Also there's common sense, this interpretation is a bad faith reading of the light property. Technically it doesn't say you always have to have both weapons equipped at the same time, but a common reading and the example text would say that you do.
@@sabotooth an example such as this is only an example of what could work and does not serve as an exclusionary rule. It is one possible illustration of the rule.
@@ConstructedChaos wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the rule even being called "dual wielding", as in wielding two weapons at the same time? I get your angle on this though, that it doesn't explicitly state that you have to be wielding both of the weapons at the same time to get to use that feature. Seems like the ultimate, pure RAW rules lawyering I've ever seen haha
@@TragedyoftheCommons I don’t think it does, necessarily. There are still some situations where you’d want to dual wield without a shield-like using multiple hand crossbows and swapping two weapons at once in order to ignore the loading property for example. I’ll absolutely admit that it’s all a bit much. But in terms of game balance, it doesn’t really break anything. At the end of the day, I’m just the messenger. I didn’t write the book haha.
@@darcyw156 I would and will allow it haha. I like the design of this feature honestly. Feel free to check out any realtime implementations of this during our live streams 😜
@@darcyw156 For the weapon juggling abuse, I hope not. But I hope DM's will allow a draw weapon as part of a weapon throw. Which I think this rules was meant to allow. But unfortunately didn't take into account the potential for abuse. Maybe a homebrew solution could be, if be if you draw a another weapon before you attack or after you attack, you can only throw it. Or something along those lines, I'm not really good with wording game mechanics.
@@reneroache2955 This wasn't actually about thrown weapons. The throwing weapon property it-self states that you can draw a throwing weapon as part of the attack. You may not like it but this is actually the intended use of the rule. They want us to be swapping weapons more and have said as much.
I would because it doesnt break any game balance and if its too silly for you as a DM, just flavoring it in a way that you or your player likes. You're fullcaster can destroy combats practically single-handedly let the martial do a cool flourish with their weapons
The problem with this juggling is that you cannot stow and draw a weapon in the same "attack". In your example you say: Attack with Shortsword, then Stow Draw Scimitar, Attack with Scimitar Stow Scimitar Draw Shortsword, Attack with Shortsword You have too many stows and draws for this to work.
Are you sure you can get a third attack with Dual Wielder? The Nick weapon property on dndbeyond says “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.” I know some things have already been erratad on dndbeyond maybe this is something that’s different than the print version already.
I’m positive. Like I said in the video, it’s been clarified by Jeremy Crawford at gencon. Additionally, you aren’t making the extra attack with the light property. You’re making it with the dual wielder feat. So the rules from the Nick mastery don’t apply.
@@ConstructedChaos I’ve seen other youtube videos that say that Jeremy Crawford ruled one way for some people and the other way for others. The way the Dual Wielder feat reads to me is that the Enhanced Dual Wielding feature just enhances two weapon fighting to remove the light property restriction of the second weapon. Which would mean that Nick is still just allowing you to use that extra attack on your action instead of your bonus action.
@@davidschreiber7561 where’d you see that he ruled another way? Just curious. I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed their tune on that but I’m operating with the information that’s available to me.
@@ConstructedChaos it was at least a week ago and I honestly have been watching so many of these 2024 rules videos that I don’t remember which ones it was. They basically said there were conflicting reports from people at Gen Con that asked Jeremy about this ruling. It was probably another video about weapon juggling specifically and maybe a Nerd Immersion video, but I’m not positive.
@ConstructedChaos ofc I'm not blaming you. You just doing your thing. But since this whole weapon juggling drama started I've binge watched the one armed swordsman movies like thrice.
@@MrMuddyWheels That’s a fair outlook but I’m actually not so sure. Yes, dual wielder isn’t meant to be used that way. But I think it makes plenty of sense that a character might train in order to sheath and draw their blades at lightning speed. There could even be a special mechanism for it that makes the flavor that much more interesting. I’ve always hated how martials were often reduced to “I swing my sword” over and over again. This feels like a nice new way to add some exciting complexity. But, that is just my opinion. And I completely respect yours!
Yeah weapon juggling wouldn’t be ok at my table. Can we just get better martial abilities that don’t require strange hijinks. This and the loophole for free casts to break spell-casting seem like a reflection of poor design and lack of overall cohesion in this system.
I honestly believe that the free casts for two spells in a turn is by design. This, I’ve heard, wasn’t by design but I don’t think it’s a problem. Applying multiple masteries at the very least and not having to worry so much about having a free hand for things makes the game a lot more fun in my opinion. But that is just my opinion!
@@ConstructedChaos I've incorporated Dael Kingsmill's "Every Fighter get's combat superiority" and even Level UP Advanced 5e's Combat Maneuvers if folks wanna go even more into crunch. That and the passive weapon properties and Martial Options of Tales of the Valiant makes for some fun martial choices without being overtly broken....overtly being the operative word.
@@TheAllAroundG I will say that I don't think this is broken in the sense of being overpowered. Honestly, martials could still use the power boost even with the gap between them and casters closed a bit with this latest edition.
I don't think you can use your "Interacting with Things" to draw a weapon, because the rules state "You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free". You could argue that you should be able to use this for drawing a weapon, but allow this if it create extra problems. I also think that you can rules that it isn't physically to make that many switches. You have to follow the rules of the game, but you also have to follow the physics of the game world. I think this kind of weapon juggling would break the immersion in the game if you allow it.
It lists objects under the “what is an object?” section and a sword is one of the items listed. I hear a lot of people saying that this breaks immersion for them as well and I think that’s a fine enough reason not to allow it. However, keep in mind that this is far from the most fantastical thing you can do in D&D. I envision this as just about any scene of Legolas fighting in the LOTR movies. It definitely doesn’t break immersion at my table haha.
Is it just me or is the character builder for the new stuff horribly organized? Race being selected so far into it is absurd and it, among other selections, overwrites many of the choices you make, causing you to have to go through the pages 2-3 times.
@@thesistersofbattle I have a full review of the PHB coming next week but I actually like selecting class first. It’s probably a personal preference thing but I do find that my character concepts often start with the kind of character I want to play before I select their species and such. What you’re describing is actually how I felt about the 2014 book haha
@@ConstructedChaos I think the big issue is more so the fact I have to keep going back and forth. Starting with class isn't an issue but definitely a preference as the other side of the coin are the people who start with a character in mind and build a class around that. I just think it would be better to have the class and race side-by-side and the background in the same page. At the end of the day, it is a huge oversight when I add something like a background and it automatically removes something else due to a conflict and I have to find that conflict and resolve it, rather than it being all in one place.
@@thesistersofbattle I think that’s a fair assessment and I can see what you mean. For what it’s worth, I don’t really like how they implemented backgrounds either. The idea is cool but it’s needlessly restrictive IMO.
Doesn't the idea of making 2 attacks as a lvl 1 fighter with a shield kinda die after just 2 rounds? Round 1, object interaction draw shortsword. Attack stow shortsword, draw scimitar attack. Round 2, object interaction stow scimitar, draw shortsword attack, but now you need to stow shortsword and draw scimitar at the same time. I guess you can just alternate between doing 2 attacks round 1, then 1 attack round 2, then 2 attacks round 3, 1 attack round 4 etc. Which is still good. Or am I missing something that lets you do 2 attacks each round? EDIT: Found the solution myself after sleeping on it. Just use your weapons in reverse order each round, though if you do this, both weapons need the nick property (I think) but you can get away with not having that on the first round. Round 1: Object interaction draw shortsword, Attack stow shortsword, Draw 1st scimitar/dagger attack. Round 2: Attack stow 1st scimitar/dagger, draw 2nd scimitar/dagger attack. Round 3: Attack stow 2nd scimitar/dagger, draw 1st scimitar/dagger attack. Repeat round 2 and 3. 2 attacks every round. In fact you still have your object interaction each round except the first. If you want to be more tanky, follow the initial post and do 2 attacks, then 1, then 2, etc. You'll do a little less damage, but you'll apply vex every time, giving your target disadvantage on their first attack roll, which is arguably better than 1d6 or 1d4 damage with no modifiers.
Even though the weapon juggling thing feels cool I think it is a terrible design decision and goes to show just how bad the whole action-bonus action system is, especially when paired with two-weapon fighting. I would love to see this as a super niche build thing for a fighter that very experienced players use and which gives mostly utility and not clear dpr superiority. Making this convoluted mess a staple is just terrible, and it will most likely make it impossible for new players to get in the game. Dnd must either transition into an action point system, or, even better, do away with extra attacks and instead focus more on maneuvers for martial combat.
@@TheTerrainWizard haha I don’t think it’ll actually slow down combat. A lot of these combos would be premeditated or at least understood after using them the first time since most characters would only have two weapon masteries on any given adventuring day. Meanwhile casters are still trying to figure out how to place a wall of fire, which side is the hot side, and how and when enemies are supposed to roll saves against the damage.
@@ConstructedChaos I run online paid games four nights a week, and I have get a fair share of new players in my various campaigns. This is just going to complicate the game sessions. 5e has had alot of power creep from the original publication and is no longer the steamlined game I once enjoyed running. 🤷🏻♂️ WOTC hired a few game designers from Paizo and it shows.
@@TheTerrainWizard that’s totally okay! I also DM very often and my experience has been different. All that means is that every table is different and we know this to be true. There’s no right or wrong and I wish you all the best as you run the best possible sessions for your friends-online or otherwise! 😊
@@ConstructedChaos Thank you. Transitioning from one rule set to another, without the new edition being completely finished, the multiple release dates of the PBH, the copyright strikes of UA-camrs, and day one rules addendum/errata demonstrates how the transition to 5.24 is going to be rough and is not very well planned out. I’m not surprised by anything the publishers do any more, just frustrated. Personally, after all the drama the past year and half, and with this half way finished game transition to the new system, I’m simply fed up with WOTC not doing their jobs as a publisher and game designer. I wish my players would switch to a different gaming system entirely, but they signed up for D&D campaigns and so thats what we play. Best of gaming to you and good luck with the transition to D&D 5.24!
@@TheTerrainWizard I can totally understand that frustration. I do think some of the issues likely stemmed from a lack of designers on the project but there’s no denying that a lot of the playtest issues slipped through the cracks. Either way, I think it’s more polished than the 2014 5e release was prior to its own numerous errata and I can appreciate that at least. There’s no denying that WOTC themselves has not cultivated a lot of good will in the community but I still have a lot of respect for the designers themselves. Regardless, thanks for the insightful convo! It can be hard to have discourse like this on the internet these days haha.
It really doesn't seem to be the intended way for it to work. Specially seeing how it breaks some mechanics and feats. It could be turned into a Feat that you let you switch weapons between attacks, but it's not something that should be a normal way to work
You are correct that it isn’t RAI-specifically the stuff with the dual wielder feat. I think that much is pretty clear. But it is definitely RAW. And it doesn’t create anything all that overpowered in my opinion.
@@ConstructedChaos I think this interaction could fit as a fighter specialty or something like that. Being able to switch weapons mid attacks to use the weapon masteries better could be a cool specialization by a feat. But if it works as you said, anyone could attack with one/two weapons, sheath one by this rule and then take the shield out as free item interaction and have that AC boost no problem. It is good, but feels too... gamey? Idk, it's kinda weird being a standard option
@@IottiPHthat is actually not the case. The rules on DNDbeyond now clarify that shields specifically must use the “utilize action” in order to don or doff. The free item interaction, however, lists swords as an option for interacting and so implies that weapons can be drawn/sheathed with it.
this makes the game so slow, I think many GM will cap the weapon masteries to 2-3/combat. otherwise it is just spamming powers all day against monsters that are already so weak. not to mention that (almost) all the players will have their weapon masteries... it will make the game so boring and slow.
I completely disagree. Most martials will only have access to two weapon masteries anyway and this interaction actually happens pretty fast when you’ve pre-meditated what you’re doing on your turns. Once you’ve made your first set of attacks with this, I don’t see it taking anywhere near as long as some spells do.
It's not like each weapon mastery is all that complex. Way simpler than spells. Even cantrips are often more complex than the masteries and casters spam those all day.
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of the attack action. In this example we have alread unequiped the short sword after the first attack and equiped the scimitar before the second attack as part of it. If we want to unequip this scimitar we would need to use the interact with objects action. So we cannot use anything anymore to equip the short sword again because it would be a bonus action attack, which we would want to make with this short sword. Bonus action does not give us a free equip.
@@burgernthemomrailer Let's run it down Start: Short sword (SS) Attack 1: unequip SS Attack 2: equip Scimitar (S) Free Object Interaction: unequip S Nick 1: equip SS attack Bonus Action: attack with SS again using feat and trigger from attack 2? See the issue here is there is a confusion on how the triggers for each property are maintained. If triggers are discarded when not used then you need to change that short sword with another weapon to do the Bonus action attack from the feat. If they just stay there waiting for you to use them then sure. I guess it all depends how the rules go about here. I would argue that you get the trigger and then decide. So in the middle of your attack action you can take a bonus action attack, but if you don't then it is lost until you fulfill the trigger condition again.
“You can dual wield multiple weapons and holding a shield!” Hard no in my games. If Jeremy Crawford said this was intentional then that’s just more evidence that he’s an awful game designer and should have been fired years ago.
@@ConstructedChaos Because the rules on something that should be simple are unclear and potentially stupid, two hallmarks of Crawford's decade with the game which leads to absurd debates like these.
@@roberthearn6397 I can see where you're coming from. But, you have to admit, this isn't exactly creating problems for game balance--just giving martials another boost that they kinda still need!
I honestly hate the weapon juggling system. It looks clunky, and there's no question it's dumb. Just try to imagine someone doing that in real life. And since they still kept martial characters comparable to the physical limitations of real life humans, I have to assume they wanted them to be somewhat realistic. But here we are, desperately trying to squeeze a bit of damage out of our martials, seeing as we no longer have power attacks. The only good thing about this is that it finally gives me an excuse to build a grappler. In the old system a grappler wasn't good, because you couldn't use power attacks with one of your hands tied up. Now it seems that weapons in only one hand is the way to go with the new rules. Unfortunately, they won't let us choose the feats we need at first level, so we have to wait even longer for our builds to come online. Most of the origin feats suck, and none of them are vital to any of my build ideas. And all the advantage we get is going to feel almost meaningless without the ability to increase our damage when we have the opportunity. They need to make power attacks a core martial feature that doesn't require any specific weapon. That way, all the weapons stay balanced, and martials can still bring single target damage to the party. Masteries are a good idea, but we were better off with the old rule set. If they had left feats alone this game would have been fine.
This can't possibly be the correct interpretation of the rules. It sounds rediculous (yeah I know, fantasy game). It also makes no sense when compared to other things. Ranger with shield/short sword/scimitar at level 5 does more attacks than an actual dual wielder that doesn't have to switch weapons and doesn't get a shield? This straight up makes dual wielding even more useless than it was in 2014 PHB and it was hot garbage then. More attacks and WAY more damage than a monk that doesn't even need to use weapons and is supposed to be the quintessential fast attacking martial character? If the rule requires an interpretation, a diagram and youtube videos to explain to achieve an OP build, there's a decent chance the interpretation is flawed even if it's rules as written.
@@johnlines9864 I agree that the dual wielder feat part is definitely not RAI. But swapping weapons with attacks certainly is! I’d say that’s the only bit that probably won’t fly at most tables. But, at the end of the day, the build still isn’t OP. Like I mentioned in the video, that ranger still gets out damaged by every caster in the game.
@ConstructedChaos I agree on comparisons to the caster. Casters are still stronger (same as but less so than 2014). My problem is that this interpretation out damages other martial that it seems like it shouldn't. I fully understand I am applying real world logic to a fantasy game here. But it just feels off.
For what it's worth, I do think the actual juggling aspect of this video may not fly at every table. Being able to swap weapons for different mastery properties with multiple attacks, however? That's something I think we should fully embrace!
@@ConstructedChaos both honestly. It feels very munchkin-esque to me. It feels like sacrificing flavor to pinch out a bit more damage with mechanical equivalent of flailing. It feels like a lot to keep track and is counterintuitive to someone that doesn't know the letter of the law when it comes to the rules so it'll come across as borderline cheating at a lot of tables I think
@@Mithrandork First of all, I totally get where you're coming from. I really hate munchkin haha. My wife loves the game, though, so we play it often enough. That said, I don't think the rule has to sacrifice flavor. In fact, I think it leaves room to add a lot of flavor instead. Personally, I get excited at the prospect of describing how my character tosses a sword into the air, fires their crossbow from a loop on their belt before letting it fall back to their hip, and then catches the blade just in time to finish off the goblin right in front of them. Personally, I think the rule will become a lot easier to understand the more people use it. But I can also see where it could be a little clunky at first!
@@ConstructedChaos which is why I think it would be neat to have a select character take advantage of it here and there because that kind of flavor could be neat to flesh out but if literally everyone is doing it every turn I think it'll lose the novelty
@@Mithrandork I could totally see that being the case as well, sure. But I think it's also a rather sleek way of allowing martials to scale their use of weapon masteries as they level up and get more attacks. That, of course, applies more to just being able to switch weapons reliably and not necessarily weapon juggling itself.
This will be subject to House Rules. The wording for the Quick Draw feature aspect of the Dual Wielder feat is: “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.*” This feature *replaces* the rule of equipping/unequipping that governs all characters who do NOT have the dual wielder feat. It does not ADD to the rule. Because this feature *replaces* rather than stacks, a third weapon swap is not possible, especially using a free interaction, which involves the environment around you. The equip/unequip is inexorably tied to the attack action, the free interaction is not. Hence the max number of times a character without the Dual Wielder feat can equip a new weapon on their turn is ONCE (I would probably allow a bonus action to accomplish a bit more, but every table will be different about this). The max number of times a character with the dual wielder feat can swap weapons is TWICE. However, if the person is not holding a shield or anything else in their opposite hand, I would probably allow them an additional stow/draw with the offhand depending on what else they are attempting to accomplish in the same turn. The idea of hot swapping three weapons with one arm is downright ludicrous.
@@roberttschaefer your logic appears flawed here. You’re right that the rule replaces the typical equip/stow mechanic but it applies EACH time you can draw or stow. This actually improves your ability to weapon juggle if you wield weapons in both hands anyway because now you’d be able to conceivably attack as needed with one of TWO weapons that you are wielding at any given time. I won’t go into too much detail here since I doubt you’ll agree with me but it’s hard to deny that this is what it says RAW. Again, this much has already been clarified by the designers but you’re welcome to run it however you’d like!
So you say each attack is an attack action? So you have 2 actions at lvl 5 as a fighter? Sorry, read pg 361. Moving between attacks. "Extra attack that gives you more than 1 attack in your attack action" so u u get 1 attack action for a fighter that will give u up to 4 attacks within its 1 action attack. @@ConstructedChaos
@@davelariviere1129 I’ve explained all of this in the video and the designers have already clarified that this is the way the rule works. It was intended to be utilized with thrown weapons. The rule here more or less states that you get an equip/stow on each attack as part of the attack action. Sorry if that has upset you in some way. You seem really mad but I’m just telling you what the rules say.
I love pack tactics! I actually didn’t know they made a video on this topic but I did see nerd immersion’s video on it. Either way. Check my weapon mastery video from two months ago. I’ve been talking about this mechanic for a long time already and this was actually recorded 3 weeks ago. My editor just took a long time with it.
5:05 the description of the fighting style doesn't match it's name
You’re absolutely right! Thanks for catching that. I’ll pin your comment so no one gets confused. Apologies, this is my first time using an editor so we had a few little hiccups.
the final fantasy gilgamesh build
*battle on the bridge intensifies
I love how everyone one in the comments is playing DnD, a TTRPG played in a fantasy setting where high lvl wizard can shape reality and singlehandedly wipe out cities and armies yet a fighter swapping weapons in 6 seconds is the line they wanna draw because immersion
This is exactly the outlook I have as well haha. But, hey, whatever makes it fun for the table!
@@solarkhan484 not because of immersion, because it's stupid to do this type of "juggling". If you want to go to this length to win the make believe game, then why even play? This is retarded.
As a DM, the issue I have with weapon swapping is the idea that it “stacks” with the free stow/draw interaction that all characters have, particularly those without weapon mastery. This is really the only sticking point I hsve with the concept, and I suspect this will eventually find itself in a future errata along with conjure minor elementals.
By the way, Crawford is in a strict position out of necessity to support the new rules “as written”, because it’s so early in the date of release. So he’s also gonna confirm how Conjure Minor Elementals functions as written, despite it being so obviously broken. You can’t expect WotC to alter rules that were released 10 minutes later. It takes time.
The fact that weapon juggling/swapping has already created confusion and scores of clarification videos is telling.
@roberttschaefer I mean it makes sense to me. Everyone can naturally stow or draw a weapon for free. However, a martial who either has nick or extra attack is trained in fighting and can swap multiple times. Many weapons aren't 1 size fit all. This should be one of the least controversial changes in the new edition when we have stuff like suggestion: drown and Divine intervention Hallow/Prayer of Healing
@@roberttschaefer Has it caused confusion? I haven't seen very many people confused in my comments section. That said, you could definitely be right about future errata and the absolutely broken Conjure Minor Elementals. But, I'm just the messenger. I happen to like this mechanic because it gives martials more options that they still sorely need but, as always, you're free to run your own games however you'd like (regardless of any future errata.
However, I will leave you with this: WOTC has already made changes to the PHB on DNDBeyond versus the first print run of the physical book. The poisoner feat and several other rules issues have already been fix. This would seem to go against your instincts about Crawford being "locked in" to RAW just because the book was released so recently. Just some food for thought there!
I can’t wait to see how badly this plus multiple weapon masteries grinds AL play to a halt. Adding potential battlemaster style maneuvers and saving throws to multiple hits from several players every turn sounds like a nightmare.
Wizards, and some other spell casters will have plenty of time to nap between turns.
I actually don't think that's the case! Even with the wild number of possibilities with these new rules, most martials are only going to have access to two weapon masteries in any given adventuring day. I think equipping/stowing will become pretty second nature and fairly easy to remember the combo after a slight learning curve. It certainly won't halt games like some spells still do haha.
I hope you’re right, but seeing as many players as I have not know the mechanics of their 5e characters, I tend to think it won’t be as smooth.
@@michaelmuirhead910 I hope I’m right too haha. I guess I should count myself lucky to have such great players 😅
Playing on a stream does certainly force us to be more streamlined (pun not intended)
Weapon masteries are still waaaaayyyyyy simpler than spells and you only get a couple. I'm never gonna complain that the simplest classes in the game get a bit more complicated when we still have the casters to grind everything to a halt as always.
I agree completely, which is why I will definitely be subjecting this to House Rules (something that AL tables cannot do...I pity the DM who is managing 15-minute combat rounds for a party with three martial class players. Might as well play Pathfinder at that point, LOL.
I’ve been really curious about trying this so thanks for the explanation!
Of course! I’m happy you found it helpful!
Can you only do it with 2 attacks? say at level 1? Shortsword-Stow, Equip-Scimitar, and you're stuck with that right? even if you free interaction stow you can't actually do anything else, it has to be an odd number of attacks to loop back
That is correct, yes! It’s fairly limited until you start getting more attacks. I just wanted to illustrate that you could do it at level 1 at least one time.
The way I tend to do things as a DM, would allow a 1st level character to do the following: Shortsword-Stow, Equip Scimitar, use Bonus Action to re-arm the Shortsword. Basically, if the player is creative enough to provide an eloquent and realistic description for what they are attempting to do and how they plan on achieving it, I will work with it to make it happen. There are limits though, and the litany of weapon swapping exploits being bandied about are downright silly and not good for the game. I have heard some people claim that they can swap out a weapon to perform the second part of the Nick property effect, when it clearly refers to the mastery of one "blade flourish" using the same sword attack.
Great video! I may not be ready to switch to the 2024 handbook yet, but this is awesome for martial classes. They could keep up with spellcasters. Thanks for the awesome video!! 👍👍😁⚔️
@@TriSkyward thank you for watching! I’m glad you enjoyed it. Happy adventuring!
Dude your production value is really amazing ! Amazing job
Thank you!! I have some fun with my green screen haha
I've always wanted to try a FF15 Armiger Noctis build. I'm glad they added this, Archfey Warlock + Fighter weapon juggling build sounds fun!
You could also use divine favor if you dip into pali or can get it through other means somehow. Stay ranged the first two rounds to set up your spells if you wanna then move in for the kill. Could even smite if you wanted since neither df nor smite spells use concentration any more. I personally think searing smite is the best smite at start as long as the target doesn’t resist fire damage. It’s a guaranteed additional 4d6 if you hit using a second level slot, and can potentially extend damage over more turns if they fail, AND doesn’t require concentration. Wrathful smite is pretty good too for frightened. But i digress, level 5 can put out some serious damage.
As it relates to this "feature," if it is intended, I wish it was less.... "clunky." Imagining the 6 seconds go by and seeing a psychotic warrior violently swinging, sheathing, drawing, and swinging again just feels off. I get the mechanics and trust the legality, but it doesn't help visuals get into the game when the actions being performed are, as it relates to real life, so nonsensical.
I feel the same. I’m not going to allow weapon juggling at my table. In way of compensation I will allow my players to use multiple weapon masteries for the same weapon so long as they are carrying weapons with that mastery on their person and have multiple attacks. That way the player is not penalised but also I don’t have to suffer the loss of immersion nonsensical weapon juggling will cause. I want to play a role playing game not a video game simulator.
real life... in a fantasy game... with dragons... and spells... dude, come one ;)
@@antrodeldungeonmaster You need to expand your interpretation of statements.
@@garethhamilton1252 that’s a pretty clean solution honestly! I dig it. And whatever makes the game more fun for the table, I’m in full support!
I don't think your interpretation is correct. You only get 1 attack action per turn. Regardless of the number of attacks. Unless you action surge as a fighter.
The free draw/sheathe screams a iaido/batto-jutsu homebrew class. Think Kenshin Himura from rurounin kenshin anime if you're familiar.
Love the visualization on the ranger combo. It clearly explains what the combo does.
@@TheRobversion1 Thanks Rob! I thought long and hard about how to represent that so as to make it less confusing. Reading the script by itself made my head spin a bit the first time haha
@@ConstructedChaos its a wonky mechanic i think for most western folks. Us asians are fine with it as this is common in anime.
@@TheRobversion1 as an anime fan, maybe that’s why I like it so much haha
I came to the comments to say that I think the weapon juggling is dumb, but it looks like everybody else came to say the same thing. I'm not going to argue that it isn't legal or isn't what they intended. I'm cool with 2 weapon fighting, switching from ranged to melee or vice versa, or drawing and throwing weapons, but swapping between 2 or 3 different weapons in the middle of a turn for different properties? If someone were REALLY trying to do this in a battle, they'd be dead, not optimal.
I track your logic here but I think we should also keep in mind that we're playing in a game where magic and dragons exist. I've already sacrificed plenty of realism to make room for those fantasies. Why not this one?
@@ConstructedChaos Because it's not something you can do because it's a fantastical world, it's something you can do because you are rule lawyering and that kind of meta-gaming breaks the immersion in the game.
@@sortehuse surely it only breaks the immersion if you allow it to? what if the fighter is just that skilled that when they attack its a blur of weapons such that you're never quite sure what just hit you. What if the ranger has a magical scabbard or hilt that allows them to switch weapons with ease.
@@pabloainsworth1287 just about any scene of Legolas fighting in the LOTR movies comes to mind for me.
@@ConstructedChaos i can see that! ive just watched a montage and there are definitely a few moments were his weapons just seem to flow from one to the other
I wondering if you can kinda get around the warcaster spellcasting thing by drawing a melee weapon, hitting, then using free interaction to stow it ready for the next round to cast a spell?
This would work but you may want to keep in mind that you’d have no weapon equipped for opportunity attacks! This might be something better to do by stowing your weapon for free at the start of your turn to cast and then drawing it to attack with the attack action equip!
Great video. Though, my imterpretstion of the draw or stow rule before or after your attacks. Is it's mainly meant to allow the throwing of multiple weapons, if you have extra attack. Or want to throw a weapon with your off hand.
I have also heard that this was the intent by the designers but it baffles me that the didn’t try to work it differently if that’s the case.
It is not the intention because it's not necessary. Thrown weapons can already be drawn as part of the attack as part of the thrown property. They added this specifically for weapon swapping.
@@MannonMartin Ah good to know! I'm not sure where I picked up that rumor from but what you're saying here tracks!
Honestly I think weapon juggling can be awesome as long as it’s thematically done well, character specific, and not every single martial. Plus if you are using a bunch of different weapons, you need a lot of magic weapons at higher levels.
That’s a great point! I’ve been playing a harengon paladin in a live stream that uses a lesser version of this tactic and I’ve found the flavor just fine by describing the way he smoothly swaps his weapon on the follow through of one swing into another but I think it could be done even more cleanly.
And you’re absolutely right about magic weapons! That is a downside to a tactic like this!
The wording of the free action is specifically talking about the environment and does not mention weapons to the contrary of the 2014 phb, which added to the fact that weapon stowing and drawing is made part of attacks of the attack action, makes me think that the free interaction does not include weapons, making this combo undoable with a shield (thus making dual wielding work with two weapons out only, which makes more sense)
It does mention weapons. It specifically speaks about interacting with an object and lists a sword as an option.
@@ConstructedChaos thanks for the clarification ! I was basing myself on DND beyond phb version, having not received the physical one yet. This one states : "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."
But it may lack examples from the book
@@vincentboumard4640 there is a section before that called “what is an object?” That’s where the sword reference is.
Just confirmed that it is in the digital DNDbeyond PHB
Well that settles it, dual wielding with one hand it is !
TOTALLY AGREE. You understand this better than 90% of the You Tube celebrities out there.
The Nerf hammer will swing heavily at my table. Not because it's op but more for its absurdity. I'd rather just allow multiple weapon masteries than allow weapon juggling.
@@misterright4528 I think that’s totally fair! Every table runs differently. I do feel like most players that would run this would probably have their turn pre-meditated pretty well in advance anyway.
Thri-kreen will be banned as well?
@@jesseseva2219 that’s a great point honestly. I did notice that the new rules might kinda go off with that!
@@jesseseva2219 Imagine the true horrors of the marilith now, as she juggles a variety of weapons with her 6 arms and attacks. 😂
@@TheTerrainWizard and the tail attack. Can't forget that
Hi! Good video. One clarification. On D&D beyond it is clarified that equipping and unequipping a shield still requires you to use the utilize action like it did in 2014. So you can't really juggle weapons while using a shield.
@@urbanassassin26 you can still juggle the weapons! I am aware of this change and at no point did I mention that we use these rules to equip or unequip a shield!
We can wield a shield because we never have to use more than one hand for all of our weapons.
@@ConstructedChaos My mistake! I was listening while doing morning chores.
@@urbanassassin26 haha no worries! I appreciate the good intentions so thanks for looking out and for doing the dishes…. Now I need to do mine 😭
It's triggered only once per turn. That is why the Dual Wielder feat exists I think.
I disagree. Otherwise I think we'd have seen the rules worded differently so as to indicate that you could swap a weapon "once per attack action" rather than when you attack as part of that action.
@@ConstructedChaos Yeah, it does seem like RAI they wanted one to be able to go for a ranged attack and a melee attack with different weapons if you have extra attack, or vice versa. But the thing is that it also opens up space for very strange interactions and this unrealistic weapon juggling where things get very comical... Imagine you're watching a movie where a guy keeps sheathing and drawing two different swords IN THE MIDLE OF COMBAT... lol
Will definitely be requiring my table to hold a weapon in each hand for 2 weapon fighting. Call me old fashioned ;)
@@alliedvoyd haha nothing wrong with that, friend! I totally understand!
I will be doing the exact same thing !
Yeah as others said Im not sure this is RAI, especially getting the free object interaction along with the equip/unequip per attack. Feels like its more of an either/or situation. The rules in chapter 1 also say "when time is short such as in combat...the interaction must occur during a creatures movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action" The juggling described towards the end of the video is clever from a min/max perspective but it brings the mechanics a little too close to a video game for my taste.
What page is the free interaction rule on? I can’t seem to find it in the new phb.
It's honestly well hidden in Chapter 1. I can't recall the page but it's under the "What is an object?" section.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but in order to even be able to get the extra attack as a bonus action (or part of attack for nick weapon mastery weapons), don’t the rules state you need to be wielding 2 different types of light (non 2h weapons with dual wielder feat) weapons in hand?
I get being able to draw a weapon as part of the attack action to pull out the 2nd weapon, but not understanding how switching out weapons with one hand while wearing a shield is giving any options for an extra attack
You are incorrect. The book mentions that the attack must be made with a different weapon but it says nothing about wielding it in a different hand-nor does it mention wielding both weapons at the same time.
@ConstructedChaos- it literally does say it in the light property, "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". Also there's common sense, this interpretation is a bad faith reading of the light property. Technically it doesn't say you always have to have both weapons equipped at the same time, but a common reading and the example text would say that you do.
@@sabotooth an example such as this is only an example of what could work and does not serve as an exclusionary rule. It is one possible illustration of the rule.
@@ConstructedChaos wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the rule even being called "dual wielding", as in wielding two weapons at the same time? I get your angle on this though, that it doesn't explicitly state that you have to be wielding both of the weapons at the same time to get to use that feature. Seems like the ultimate, pure RAW rules lawyering I've ever seen haha
@@TragedyoftheCommons I don’t think it does, necessarily. There are still some situations where you’d want to dual wield without a shield-like using multiple hand crossbows and swapping two weapons at once in order to ignore the loading property for example.
I’ll absolutely admit that it’s all a bit much. But in terms of game balance, it doesn’t really break anything. At the end of the day, I’m just the messenger. I didn’t write the book haha.
You cant draw the scimitar and stow the scimitar as part of the same action. Its either one or the other.
I explained how it works based on the rules in the video. It’s for each attack as part of the action, not for each action.
I think this is nice for a Benkei themed character.
Are there any DMs that would actually allow this? Good video. Terrible game design.
@@darcyw156 I would and will allow it haha. I like the design of this feature honestly. Feel free to check out any realtime implementations of this during our live streams 😜
@@darcyw156 For the weapon juggling abuse, I hope not. But I hope DM's will allow a draw weapon as part of a weapon throw. Which I think this rules was meant to allow. But unfortunately didn't take into account the potential for abuse. Maybe a homebrew solution could be, if be if you draw a another weapon before you attack or after you attack, you can only throw it. Or something along those lines, I'm not really good with wording game mechanics.
@@reneroache2955 This wasn't actually about thrown weapons. The throwing weapon property it-self states that you can draw a throwing weapon as part of the attack. You may not like it but this is actually the intended use of the rule. They want us to be swapping weapons more and have said as much.
I would because it doesnt break any game balance and if its too silly for you as a DM, just flavoring it in a way that you or your player likes. You're fullcaster can destroy combats practically single-handedly let the martial do a cool flourish with their weapons
The problem with this juggling is that you cannot stow and draw a weapon in the same "attack". In your example you say:
Attack with Shortsword, then Stow
Draw Scimitar, Attack with Scimitar
Stow Scimitar
Draw Shortsword, Attack with Shortsword
You have too many stows and draws for this to work.
I'm tracking your logic but, in the video, I mentioned the third equip/stow (the scimitar stow) is done with your free per turn item interaction.
Are you sure you can get a third attack with Dual Wielder? The Nick weapon property on dndbeyond says “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.” I know some things have already been erratad on dndbeyond maybe this is something that’s different than the print version already.
I’m positive. Like I said in the video, it’s been clarified by Jeremy Crawford at gencon.
Additionally, you aren’t making the extra attack with the light property. You’re making it with the dual wielder feat. So the rules from the Nick mastery don’t apply.
@@ConstructedChaos I’ve seen other youtube videos that say that Jeremy Crawford ruled one way for some people and the other way for others. The way the Dual Wielder feat reads to me is that the Enhanced Dual Wielding feature just enhances two weapon fighting to remove the light property restriction of the second weapon. Which would mean that Nick is still just allowing you to use that extra attack on your action instead of your bonus action.
@@davidschreiber7561 where’d you see that he ruled another way? Just curious. I wouldn’t be surprised if they changed their tune on that but I’m operating with the information that’s available to me.
@@ConstructedChaos it was at least a week ago and I honestly have been watching so many of these 2024 rules videos that I don’t remember which ones it was. They basically said there were conflicting reports from people at Gen Con that asked Jeremy about this ruling. It was probably another video about weapon juggling specifically and maybe a Nerd Immersion video, but I’m not positive.
Now I have a new way to tell if a player is overly dramatic... They use the term Weapon Juggling.
@@lulospawn hahaha I didn’t come up with it. I believe we have Reddit to thank for that.
@ConstructedChaos ofc I'm not blaming you. You just doing your thing.
But since this whole weapon juggling drama started I've binge watched the one armed swordsman movies like thrice.
haha no worries! I didn’t think you were ❤️
I hate weapon juggling. it doesn't make any sense
Mechanically or narratively? Because I think there are solutions to both issues!
@ConstructedChaos a bit of both I understand how it works but how it works is insane and nonsensical. Dual wielding should require two hands
@@MrMuddyWheels That’s a fair outlook but I’m actually not so sure. Yes, dual wielder isn’t meant to be used that way. But I think it makes plenty of sense that a character might train in order to sheath and draw their blades at lightning speed. There could even be a special mechanism for it that makes the flavor that much more interesting.
I’ve always hated how martials were often reduced to “I swing my sword” over and over again. This feels like a nice new way to add some exciting complexity. But, that is just my opinion. And I completely respect yours!
@ConstructedChaos I think it can happen too many times which makes it a bit too video gamie
If a combat round is 6 seconds. weapon juggling and donning a shield doesn’t make sense.
I wanted to make it work!!! But I could not
@@Oddthebard haha yeah your build is just too tied to that one weapon but I’m sure we’ll see it come up in our games eventually!
Yeah weapon juggling wouldn’t be ok at my table. Can we just get better martial abilities that don’t require strange hijinks.
This and the loophole for free casts to break spell-casting seem like a reflection of poor design and lack of overall cohesion in this system.
I honestly believe that the free casts for two spells in a turn is by design. This, I’ve heard, wasn’t by design but I don’t think it’s a problem. Applying multiple masteries at the very least and not having to worry so much about having a free hand for things makes the game a lot more fun in my opinion. But that is just my opinion!
@@ConstructedChaos I've incorporated Dael Kingsmill's "Every Fighter get's combat superiority" and even Level UP Advanced 5e's Combat Maneuvers if folks wanna go even more into crunch. That and the passive weapon properties and Martial Options of Tales of the Valiant makes for some fun martial choices without being overtly broken....overtly being the operative word.
@@TheAllAroundG I will say that I don't think this is broken in the sense of being overpowered. Honestly, martials could still use the power boost even with the gap between them and casters closed a bit with this latest edition.
I don't think you can use your "Interacting with Things" to draw a weapon, because the rules state "You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free". You could argue that you should be able to use this for drawing a weapon, but allow this if it create extra problems.
I also think that you can rules that it isn't physically to make that many switches. You have to follow the rules of the game, but you also have to follow the physics of the game world. I think this kind of weapon juggling would break the immersion in the game if you allow it.
It lists objects under the “what is an object?” section and a sword is one of the items listed. I hear a lot of people saying that this breaks immersion for them as well and I think that’s a fine enough reason not to allow it.
However, keep in mind that this is far from the most fantastical thing you can do in D&D. I envision this as just about any scene of Legolas fighting in the LOTR movies. It definitely doesn’t break immersion at my table haha.
@@ConstructedChaos Legolas's shenanigans did actually break my immersion in the LOTR movie.
@@sortehuse fair enough then! Maybe this mechanic just isn’t for you! It might just need to be your first bit of homebrew for the new edition.
@@ConstructedChaos I don't think my players are going to use it anyway, so I don't think that any homebrew is needed.
Is it just me or is the character builder for the new stuff horribly organized? Race being selected so far into it is absurd and it, among other selections, overwrites many of the choices you make, causing you to have to go through the pages 2-3 times.
@@thesistersofbattle I have a full review of the PHB coming next week but I actually like selecting class first. It’s probably a personal preference thing but I do find that my character concepts often start with the kind of character I want to play before I select their species and such. What you’re describing is actually how I felt about the 2014 book haha
@@ConstructedChaos I think the big issue is more so the fact I have to keep going back and forth. Starting with class isn't an issue but definitely a preference as the other side of the coin are the people who start with a character in mind and build a class around that. I just think it would be better to have the class and race side-by-side and the background in the same page. At the end of the day, it is a huge oversight when I add something like a background and it automatically removes something else due to a conflict and I have to find that conflict and resolve it, rather than it being all in one place.
@@thesistersofbattle I think that’s a fair assessment and I can see what you mean. For what it’s worth, I don’t really like how they implemented backgrounds either. The idea is cool but it’s needlessly restrictive IMO.
@@thesistersofbattle It's just you! Linear thinking, unable to adapt to change.
@@falconnm There's the internet prick.
Doesn't the idea of making 2 attacks as a lvl 1 fighter with a shield kinda die after just 2 rounds?
Round 1, object interaction draw shortsword. Attack stow shortsword, draw scimitar attack.
Round 2, object interaction stow scimitar, draw shortsword attack, but now you need to stow shortsword and draw scimitar at the same time.
I guess you can just alternate between doing 2 attacks round 1, then 1 attack round 2, then 2 attacks round 3, 1 attack round 4 etc. Which is still good.
Or am I missing something that lets you do 2 attacks each round?
EDIT: Found the solution myself after sleeping on it.
Just use your weapons in reverse order each round, though if you do this, both weapons need the nick property (I think) but you can get away with not having that on the first round.
Round 1: Object interaction draw shortsword, Attack stow shortsword, Draw 1st scimitar/dagger attack.
Round 2: Attack stow 1st scimitar/dagger, draw 2nd scimitar/dagger attack.
Round 3: Attack stow 2nd scimitar/dagger, draw 1st scimitar/dagger attack.
Repeat round 2 and 3.
2 attacks every round. In fact you still have your object interaction each round except the first.
If you want to be more tanky, follow the initial post and do 2 attacks, then 1, then 2, etc. You'll do a little less damage, but you'll apply vex every time, giving your target disadvantage on their first attack roll, which is arguably better than 1d6 or 1d4 damage with no modifiers.
Even though the weapon juggling thing feels cool I think it is a terrible design decision and goes to show just how bad the whole action-bonus action system is, especially when paired with two-weapon fighting. I would love to see this as a super niche build thing for a fighter that very experienced players use and which gives mostly utility and not clear dpr superiority. Making this convoluted mess a staple is just terrible, and it will most likely make it impossible for new players to get in the game.
Dnd must either transition into an action point system, or, even better, do away with extra attacks and instead focus more on maneuvers for martial combat.
Hmmm…how do we slow down combat even more? D&D 5.24?Weapon juggling. 😂
@@TheTerrainWizard haha I don’t think it’ll actually slow down combat. A lot of these combos would be premeditated or at least understood after using them the first time since most characters would only have two weapon masteries on any given adventuring day.
Meanwhile casters are still trying to figure out how to place a wall of fire, which side is the hot side, and how and when enemies are supposed to roll saves against the damage.
@@ConstructedChaos I run online paid games four nights a week, and I have get a fair share of new players in my various campaigns. This is just going to complicate the game sessions.
5e has had alot of power creep from the original publication and is no longer the steamlined game I once enjoyed running. 🤷🏻♂️
WOTC hired a few game designers from Paizo and it shows.
@@TheTerrainWizard that’s totally okay! I also DM very often and my experience has been different. All that means is that every table is different and we know this to be true. There’s no right or wrong and I wish you all the best as you run the best possible sessions for your friends-online or otherwise! 😊
@@ConstructedChaos Thank you.
Transitioning from one rule set to another, without the new edition being completely finished, the multiple release dates of the PBH, the copyright strikes of UA-camrs, and day one rules addendum/errata demonstrates how the transition to 5.24 is going to be rough and is not very well planned out. I’m not surprised by anything the publishers do any more, just frustrated.
Personally, after all the drama the past year and half, and with this half way finished game transition to the new system, I’m simply fed up with WOTC not doing their jobs as a publisher and game designer.
I wish my players would switch to a different gaming system entirely, but they signed up for D&D campaigns and so thats what we play.
Best of gaming to you and good luck with the transition to D&D 5.24!
@@TheTerrainWizard I can totally understand that frustration. I do think some of the issues likely stemmed from a lack of designers on the project but there’s no denying that a lot of the playtest issues slipped through the cracks. Either way, I think it’s more polished than the 2014 5e release was prior to its own numerous errata and I can appreciate that at least.
There’s no denying that WOTC themselves has not cultivated a lot of good will in the community but I still have a lot of respect for the designers themselves.
Regardless, thanks for the insightful convo! It can be hard to have discourse like this on the internet these days haha.
It really doesn't seem to be the intended way for it to work. Specially seeing how it breaks some mechanics and feats.
It could be turned into a Feat that you let you switch weapons between attacks, but it's not something that should be a normal way to work
You are correct that it isn’t RAI-specifically the stuff with the dual wielder feat. I think that much is pretty clear. But it is definitely RAW. And it doesn’t create anything all that overpowered in my opinion.
@@ConstructedChaos I think this interaction could fit as a fighter specialty or something like that. Being able to switch weapons mid attacks to use the weapon masteries better could be a cool specialization by a feat.
But if it works as you said, anyone could attack with one/two weapons, sheath one by this rule and then take the shield out as free item interaction and have that AC boost no problem.
It is good, but feels too... gamey? Idk, it's kinda weird being a standard option
@@IottiPHthat is actually not the case. The rules on DNDbeyond now clarify that shields specifically must use the “utilize action” in order to don or doff. The free item interaction, however, lists swords as an option for interacting and so implies that weapons can be drawn/sheathed with it.
@@ConstructedChaos Oh, that would make it more balanced as not to break some mechanics/feats. They probably thought about it haha
@@IottiPH haha yeah this is almost definitely an afterthought by them because it isn’t printed that way and they added it on DNDbeyond.
this makes the game so slow, I think many GM will cap the weapon masteries to 2-3/combat. otherwise it is just spamming powers all day against monsters that are already so weak. not to mention that (almost) all the players will have their weapon masteries... it will make the game so boring and slow.
I completely disagree. Most martials will only have access to two weapon masteries anyway and this interaction actually happens pretty fast when you’ve pre-meditated what you’re doing on your turns. Once you’ve made your first set of attacks with this, I don’t see it taking anywhere near as long as some spells do.
It's not like each weapon mastery is all that complex. Way simpler than spells. Even cantrips are often more complex than the masteries and casters spam those all day.
You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of the attack action. In this example we have alread unequiped the short sword after the first attack and equiped the scimitar before the second attack as part of it. If we want to unequip this scimitar we would need to use the interact with objects action. So we cannot use anything anymore to equip the short sword again because it would be a bonus action attack, which we would want to make with this short sword. Bonus action does not give us a free equip.
@@arnejansen2218 Nick weapon mastery says hi
^^^
@@burgernthemomrailer
Let's run it down
Start: Short sword (SS)
Attack 1: unequip SS
Attack 2: equip Scimitar (S)
Free Object Interaction: unequip S
Nick 1: equip SS attack
Bonus Action: attack with SS again using feat and trigger from attack 2?
See the issue here is there is a confusion on how the triggers for each property are maintained. If triggers are discarded when not used then you need to change that short sword with another weapon to do the Bonus action attack from the feat.
If they just stay there waiting for you to use them then sure.
I guess it all depends how the rules go about here. I would argue that you get the trigger and then decide. So in the middle of your attack action you can take a bonus action attack, but if you don't then it is lost until you fulfill the trigger condition again.
“You can dual wield multiple weapons and holding a shield!” Hard no in my games. If Jeremy Crawford said this was intentional then that’s just more evidence that he’s an awful game designer and should have been fired years ago.
I’m curious, if it was intentional, why do you think it’s bad design? Martials could definitely use the boost I think
@@ConstructedChaos Because the rules on something that should be simple are unclear and potentially stupid, two hallmarks of Crawford's decade with the game which leads to absurd debates like these.
@@roberthearn6397 that’s fair enough! How would you have laid these rules out instead?
@@ConstructedChaos They had it in the old version of the feat. "while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand"
@@roberthearn6397 I can see where you're coming from. But, you have to admit, this isn't exactly creating problems for game balance--just giving martials another boost that they kinda still need!
I honestly hate the weapon juggling system. It looks clunky, and there's no question it's dumb. Just try to imagine someone doing that in real life. And since they still kept martial characters comparable to the physical limitations of real life humans, I have to assume they wanted them to be somewhat realistic. But here we are, desperately trying to squeeze a bit of damage out of our martials, seeing as we no longer have power attacks.
The only good thing about this is that it finally gives me an excuse to build a grappler. In the old system a grappler wasn't good, because you couldn't use power attacks with one of your hands tied up. Now it seems that weapons in only one hand is the way to go with the new rules. Unfortunately, they won't let us choose the feats we need at first level, so we have to wait even longer for our builds to come online. Most of the origin feats suck, and none of them are vital to any of my build ideas.
And all the advantage we get is going to feel almost meaningless without the ability to increase our damage when we have the opportunity. They need to make power attacks a core martial feature that doesn't require any specific weapon. That way, all the weapons stay balanced, and martials can still bring single target damage to the party.
Masteries are a good idea, but we were better off with the old rule set. If they had left feats alone this game would have been fine.
This can't possibly be the correct interpretation of the rules. It sounds rediculous (yeah I know, fantasy game). It also makes no sense when compared to other things. Ranger with shield/short sword/scimitar at level 5 does more attacks than an actual dual wielder that doesn't have to switch weapons and doesn't get a shield? This straight up makes dual wielding even more useless than it was in 2014 PHB and it was hot garbage then. More attacks and WAY more damage than a monk that doesn't even need to use weapons and is supposed to be the quintessential fast attacking martial character? If the rule requires an interpretation, a diagram and youtube videos to explain to achieve an OP build, there's a decent chance the interpretation is flawed even if it's rules as written.
@@johnlines9864 I agree that the dual wielder feat part is definitely not RAI. But swapping weapons with attacks certainly is! I’d say that’s the only bit that probably won’t fly at most tables.
But, at the end of the day, the build still isn’t OP. Like I mentioned in the video, that ranger still gets out damaged by every caster in the game.
@ConstructedChaos I agree on comparisons to the caster. Casters are still stronger (same as but less so than 2014). My problem is that this interpretation out damages other martial that it seems like it shouldn't. I fully understand I am applying real world logic to a fantasy game here. But it just feels off.
Liberal draw/stow rules are intended to make combat simpler, not open up weird loopholes. This video barely even touches on the juggling madness!
For what it's worth, I do think the actual juggling aspect of this video may not fly at every table. Being able to swap weapons for different mastery properties with multiple attacks, however? That's something I think we should fully embrace!
Eeeeew... I really hate this 😅 it would be novel for a character in a campaign but if this becomes the norm I'm going to be so annoyed
Hahaha what’s annoying about it to you? The mechanics? The flavor?
@@ConstructedChaos both honestly. It feels very munchkin-esque to me. It feels like sacrificing flavor to pinch out a bit more damage with mechanical equivalent of flailing. It feels like a lot to keep track and is counterintuitive to someone that doesn't know the letter of the law when it comes to the rules so it'll come across as borderline cheating at a lot of tables I think
@@Mithrandork First of all, I totally get where you're coming from. I really hate munchkin haha. My wife loves the game, though, so we play it often enough. That said, I don't think the rule has to sacrifice flavor. In fact, I think it leaves room to add a lot of flavor instead. Personally, I get excited at the prospect of describing how my character tosses a sword into the air, fires their crossbow from a loop on their belt before letting it fall back to their hip, and then catches the blade just in time to finish off the goblin right in front of them.
Personally, I think the rule will become a lot easier to understand the more people use it. But I can also see where it could be a little clunky at first!
@@ConstructedChaos which is why I think it would be neat to have a select character take advantage of it here and there because that kind of flavor could be neat to flesh out but if literally everyone is doing it every turn I think it'll lose the novelty
@@Mithrandork I could totally see that being the case as well, sure. But I think it's also a rather sleek way of allowing martials to scale their use of weapon masteries as they level up and get more attacks. That, of course, applies more to just being able to switch weapons reliably and not necessarily weapon juggling itself.
This will be subject to House Rules. The wording for the Quick Draw feature aspect of the Dual Wielder feat is:
“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.*”
This feature *replaces* the rule of equipping/unequipping that governs all characters who do NOT have the dual wielder feat. It does not ADD to the rule. Because this feature *replaces* rather than stacks, a third weapon swap is not possible, especially using a free interaction, which involves the environment around you. The equip/unequip is inexorably tied to the attack action, the free interaction is not. Hence the max number of times a character without the Dual Wielder feat can equip a new weapon on their turn is ONCE (I would probably allow a bonus action to accomplish a bit more, but every table will be different about this). The max number of times a character with the dual wielder feat can swap weapons is TWICE. However, if the person is not holding a shield or anything else in their opposite hand, I would probably allow them an additional stow/draw with the offhand depending on what else they are attempting to accomplish in the same turn. The idea of hot swapping three weapons with one arm is downright ludicrous.
@@roberttschaefer your logic appears flawed here. You’re right that the rule replaces the typical equip/stow mechanic but it applies EACH time you can draw or stow. This actually improves your ability to weapon juggle if you wield weapons in both hands anyway because now you’d be able to conceivably attack as needed with one of TWO weapons that you are wielding at any given time.
I won’t go into too much detail here since I doubt you’ll agree with me but it’s hard to deny that this is what it says RAW. Again, this much has already been clarified by the designers but you’re welcome to run it however you’d like!
Your interpretation is misleading. You only get 1 attack action per turn unless you action surge. Multiple attacks is multiple attack actions.
I disagree and it has been clarified by the designers now that my interpretation is correct.
So you say each attack is an attack action? So you have 2 actions at lvl 5 as a fighter? Sorry, read pg 361. Moving between attacks. "Extra attack that gives you more than 1 attack in your attack action" so u u get 1 attack action for a fighter that will give u up to 4 attacks within its 1 action attack. @@ConstructedChaos
Each player only gets 1 attack action per turn. That action can be made up of 1, 2, 3 or attacks. Not 1 to 4 attack actions.
@@davelariviere1129 I’ve explained all of this in the video and the designers have already clarified that this is the way the rule works. It was intended to be utilized with thrown weapons.
The rule here more or less states that you get an equip/stow on each attack as part of the attack action. Sorry if that has upset you in some way. You seem really mad but I’m just telling you what the rules say.
Not mad at all. Just disagree with you interpretation, I didn't put my thoughts in 1 message
Wow, plagiarizing Pack Tactics for views and cash. Sad
I love pack tactics! I actually didn’t know they made a video on this topic but I did see nerd immersion’s video on it. Either way. Check my weapon mastery video from two months ago. I’ve been talking about this mechanic for a long time already and this was actually recorded 3 weeks ago. My editor just took a long time with it.
No it's fine. I want him to cover this. Don't worry about it.
The kobold, the myth, the legend himself!!
Dude don't be cringe. There can be multiple takes or perspectives on a topic. Especially when its a topic as polarizing as weapon juggling