Changing fighting styles into feats is meant to make it so they can add new ones in a book like xanithar’s, then print new classes and subclasses in a book like storm king’s thunder and not have to reprint all of the fighting style.
Even just in this book, it means you don't have to re-list them in every Class or have one Class reference another. Since the list is now the same for everyone, it makes sense to list them separately.
@@gloryrod86this is actually nothing to scoff at: soul knife looks like the worst rogue for dpr, but actually with a single fighter dip he can benefit from the throwing and, with an asi, dueling fs, and since it's really hard to add to the damage of the psychic blades, it's very convenient
A small thing about the equip and unequip rule. It starts with "When you take the Attack action" (implying it only works with the attack action (just clarifying this)) And the sentence "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." directly says you "equip OR unequip ONE weapon" which implies you can't to both per attack (you unequip one weapon as part of the first attack and equip a second weapon as part of the second attack and now can't unequip as part of the second attack). And the last part says "as part of this action" calls into question whether that ONE equip or unequip is part of each attack or part of each Attack action. And if it's per Attack action, then that limits how many times you can switch weapons. And in the Utilize [Action] that you show it uses an example of "such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action". (Although I can see that this could go either way) I'm not saying what the correct interpretation is, just that the wording is weird and could have different meanings that could limit how much weapon swapping you can do.
Although in the attack action description it says: "... have a feature such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as past of this action". And then the description of the equipping rule:"when you make an attack as part of this action", and then the description of the Nick property "you can make it as part of the attack action", I would say that it states that you can equip or unequip every attack (even the attack of the Nick property. Although you possibly can't equip or unequip as the dual wielder bonus action attack.
I am quite positive your interpretation is right. Otherwise the 'quick draw' trait of the Dual Wielder feat wouldn't add anything. I am 100% positive none of the game developers had 'weapon juggling' in mind when designing these feats. Despite D&D sometimes being quite silly, this 'fighting style' is quite ridiculous to take seriously. I hate how the 2024 PHB made it so obviously apparent how many D&D players are power gamers instead of roleplayers. I mean, look at the lashback on the Ranger and the changes in the sharpshooter and GWM feats. I mean, look at the backlash on the Smite spell change. Clearly these things needed to be nerfed, as they were not only imbalanced, they made a lot of players feel obligated to take these styles of fighting or have non-optimal build. IMO they REALLY tried to make the 2024 PHB in a way that allowed players to play in a more varied way. instead we now get ridiculous builds like this that clearly try to loophole RAI to create powerplays. I guess people should do whatever rows their boat, but it just saddens me that that is the state of D&D nowadays...
@@apjapki Well I be damned, though I still think the weapon juggling presented here is not what Crawford is talking about. Since he mentions the 'extra' attack I think this involved 'normal' attacks not two handed ones. 1. You are allowed to draw or stow ONE weapon per attack DURING the attack action, that seems clear... otherwise the 'quick draw' trait of the dual wielder feat doesn't add anything. 2. The free object interaction seems to be an 'object or feature OF THE ENVIRONMENT', clarified by the example. Your equipment is NOT part of the environment. in 2014 this was differently worded I think, but now they explicitly stated you have one 'object interaction' with your weapons during your attack ACTION, and one 'object interaction' with the environment for free. So what Jeremy confirms is that you can: on one turn, start attacking with a trident to topple the enemy, then switch to a Greataxe or smth do attack with advantage and benefit from the cleave option. That doesn't say anything about dual wielding and bonus attacks, because NOWHERE is stated that you can draw a weapon as part of your BONUS attack. Sure, you can stow the greataxe after your attack, but then you end your turn empty handed. To further prove this point: the throwing weapons trait states you can draw the weapon as part of the ATTACK (so not specified as attack action, in contrast to drawing a weapon as part of the attack ACTION). This is clarify that ONLY throwing weapons are allowed to be drawn in multitudes during OUTSIDE of the attack action (like making a throwing attack with a light weapon as a bonus action). And to be honest, that DOES make sense. since you throw them away this wouldn't be juggling, and these small weapons are a lot easier to draw than let's say a greatsword or halberd (okay let's not thing about how you 'stow' a pike for now haha).
I’ve been thinking through different parts of this puzzle sporadically for the past month and a half, thank you for laying everything out so nicely. My party is playing other games for the most part for now, but when we come back to D&D this is one video that will be mandatory viewing haha
I think rules as written, and how I interpret rules as intended, I would not allow the bonus action attack, even with the nick property moving it to the same attack action, to be replaced with true strike using the original weapon. The only reason that the extra attack is permitted is because the light property allows the attack with another weapon. If you don't actually end up attacking with the other weapon, you've never actually met the conditions required that allows the extra attack in the first place.
I agree. The way I see the usage of the nick attack as part of the attack action is you aren't making two separate attacks but swinging both weapons at the same time. Any feature that lets you replace an attack from the attack action replaces the whole attack not just the nick part.
Long ago, I once made a Rogue character whose backstory included a stint juggling knives as a street performer. Maybe you could use something like that to have an in-character justification for doing all these crazy weapon tricks mid-combat...if your DM has a sense of humor. The Buneary has ten billion weapons and no armor. He is now a Barbarian (BUNEBARIAN).
I'm excited to subscribe to this channel. Really well done. I'm effectively banning 'juggling' at my table. Except maybe the thrown juggle, which was an amazing revelation btw. Juggling is incredibly complex and takes time and enjoyment from the rest of the party. I'm all for giving melee builds more power (and finally having a viable dual wielder build that keeps up) which I believe the light weapon, nick property, weapon mastery and other enhancements have done admirably, but there's no need to make this into a mathematics competition. It's supposed to be simple and fun for all party members. I don't want this level of complexity at my table. It makes it more difficult for new players and veterans to co-exist in the same game, which I have a lot of. To each, their own. I don't disagree with anything you have brought to the table here and I applaud your work zealously. It's amazing the thought you put into this. Bravo. Subscription Earned X10.
Yeah, that's absolutely reasonable. A player can prep juggles in advance, which would mean that it only takes a little longer, but I know from experience that most players don't prep their turns. Real world time is a significant factor of the game, so making rulings to address that is absolutely fine in my book. Thanks for the sub.
Okey ive seen juggling before, but this Is the first Time i ACTUALLY understand it and, maybe more important: its the first Time I think its cool. You did a fantastic job pal, keep it up!
I did not know about juggling with 2 light weapons and a pole weapon, thats crazy strong. I don't know why they made the wording around two-weapon fighting and the nick property so vague. If they had kept the original: "When you take the attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand." And if they made it clear that the extra attack from Nick has to be from a Nick weapon, there wouldnt be any of this confusion. You could still do alot of crazy stuff cuz of the drawing/stowing rule change, but it would eliminate the problematic juggles and all the interpretation issues.
It is spefically so it works with thrown weapons. Like a lot of things they changed the wording so it works with a particular mechanic they had in mind but didn't think about it applied to other things. For example they reworked Divine Intervention so it works on Raise Dead but didn't think about things like Ceremony, Hallow, and Prayer of Healing. I'm actually fine with it working on Prayer of Healing but some people don't like the fact that in can impart the benefits of a Short Rest mid combat. Warlocks and Monks are going to love the Cleric.
Yeah, as Xander said, it's so that thrown weapons work. I wouldn't mind if they brought back the other hand clause though, as long as it didn't require you to hold both at the same time. That would at least shut down Two-Weapon Shielding.
I mean not to be a party pooper you're 5 attack dreams just aren't raw. As soon as you use the pole arm you can't use the two weapons fighting as it's specifically for light weapons now. The nick feature is there to add access to a different bonus action for like a rogue. It specifically says no more attacks juicing
@@chrisg8989 Most of the loopholes are with martial mechanics, which means: largely not a problem. I won't be nitpicking a martial over what _might_ be an extra attack or two. It's just not worth the table debate and martials deserve it anyway. It's the emanation spells which represent the more serious encounter balance challenge. But then spells have _always_ been a giant balance challenge. And there are always errata released right after the PHB and other sourcebooks, and often enough those errata are balance fixes. It's just that rarely do we get so many new rules at one time as when we get a new PHB. It's one of the big reasons people overreact and freeze with what they know every. single. time. a new PHB comes out.
The rule my table is going to use is that you can draw or drop a weapon for each attack, but stow only once per round as the free object interaction. This allows for thrown weapons to be drawn and enables some weapon juggling but within limits. I feel you should be able to have preloaded crossbows and muskets etc available on hand and get a greater rate of fire, be able to draw and throw sheathed easily accessible weapons as fast as someone using arrows can draw them, but wish to put reasonable limits on weapon juggling and I think this works as a compromise.
Lol I'm 3 mins in, you haven't gotten to the rules, and I'm already loving it. Gotta be honest about the real drive to make D&D videos. MONEY!! $2 a video is such sweet sweet cash.
I think there is a better way to juggle the weapons. It allows you to attack with the warhammer two-handed both times and you don't even need to assume the "inclusive or". It works with an "exclusive or" as well: You start with only the Warhammer in your hands. * First attack: Attack with Warhammer two-handed and stow it * Second attack: Draw both the Dagger and the Handaxe (quick draw) and attack with the Dagger * Nick attack: Attack with the Handaxe and immediately stow both weapons (quick stow) * Free Utilize: Draw the Warhammer * Bonus action: Attack with the Warhammer two-handed * You again end your turn with just the Warhammer in your hands (so the cycle is stable)
I believe you don't need the free utilize action here. Nick attack effect can stow both dagger and axe in this example. Bonus action attack and wield the war hammer again.
@@ChadMcFresh The draw/stow per attack is in the description of the Attack Action. It doesn't apply to the bonus action, which is why you can't draw a weapon as part of your bonus action attack.
Weapon juggling doesn’t make much narrative sense to me. A round is 6 seconds - I really would like to see someone actually attempt this. Stowing a weapon in combat is much slower than drawing - it’s awkward. Even in games like GoW swapping weapons causes a break in combat flow. Overall I think it should be limited to one swap - can’t imagine they intended this. But I’ve given up trying to find a common through line with the design teams philosophy. It seems weapon juggling is undermining the fighters ability to apply other weapon masteries to different weapons as a later level trait. At that point just give it to them early and let combat flow easier.
Being a melee fighter in a world where caster are cloning themselves and summoning meteors doesn't make narrative sense either. Weapon juggling is ridiculous but no more ridiculous than consciously choosing to be a melee fit in a world where casters clearly dominate everything. Might as well just let them rock and at least be a little bit stronger compared to the godlike power of casters.
The holding a shield thing with a light weapon is clearly intentional since the new crossbow expert fest lets you load your crossbow even without a free hand implying you can hold a shield with any crossbow, light and hand crossbow included. Me personally I have no problem with this you know with the whole martial caster divide. Idk why anyone would think this is too much when casters are getting infinite mind control with the new suggestion or permanent 157 temp hp with polymorph. It's not really making them that strong but it does at least let it feel less bad to not be an op caster. And for anybody saying this make things worse for the dm you're forgetting the dm can do anything the players can and can really never lose if they don't want to so that's not a real argument.
Yes. It's absolutely possible to prep for this, and if you do it probably only extends your turn by about 30 seconds, but the vast majority of players I've seen do not prep turns. If you're trying to work juggles out on the spot, they take a while, especially if you don't know the rules inside out like I do.
I love this video. Thank you for breaking this down so methodically. The visual aids were a fantastic help. I have been struggling to find a comprehensive guide on this subject that clearly explained everything on a level that even my ADHD brain can grasp.
Brilliant, really glad you liked it. I think that visuals are really important. I will say though, that I'm particularly happy that you enjoyed it with ADHD. I've been putting a lot of effort into trying to keep my videos fast paced by doing stuff like putting features on the screen instead of reading them out, specifically to avoid what would otherwise be boring lulls. I think that this suggests that I'm getting there, which is good.
No juggling at my table. I believe it refers to the action as the entire attack action, not the individual attacks within that action. So I think you can draw and stow once per turn. This means that you stow your longsword in exchange for your warhammer, but you can't then change it back to your longsword for your second attack. The only exception I would make for this is for throwing weapons. Because you don't have to stow them before pulling out the next one.
I'm not super tuned in so maybe I'm missing something that the developers said to prove their intent, but I'd interpret the Nick attack as not qualifying as a light weapon attack for the purpose of making a dual wielder attack. Another way to put this is, the bonus action that was saved by Nick loses the ability to be used to attack. From my point of view the purpose of Nick is to free up your bonus action for something else, not to add a free attack because then, as stated, dagger is the best secondary mastery. But yeah, running through it all in my head, RAW, for sure it works... just didn't see anyone else stating this exactly, so I decided to.
This is the way I read it, but it's also not the way I'll run it. Rogues are not in the upper tier of single-target damage in 5r. Neither are Rangers (except for Tier 1). Nothing breaks by allowing Nick and the bonus action light weapon attack together in the same turn. And I'd rather not be picky enough about it to need a rules discussion of that minutiae at the table. So, bring it on martials. I'm keeping my eyes on full casters.
When you draw a weapon as part of a throwing attack, if you have the dual wielder feat, can you draw one more weapon at the same time? That'd be 4 drawings/stowings in one attack. The rules for thrown weapon say you can draw *that* weapon, and the rules for dual weilder say you can draw 2 when you could normally draw 1. I think it's a case of which rules take priority.
You can draw two daggers, throw one, and then nick throw the other one. You can't draw two daggers, throw them both, and then nick draw/ throw 2 more. Can you hold a shield, throw a dagger and then nick throw another dagger? RAW I think you can and you don't even the feat and dual wielder would let you throw a third a dagger as a Bonus Action.
I don't think that you can, because the Thrown property says that you can draw "that weapon", which is more specific than a normal draw. If you can though, this would allow you to go from a 2H weapon to dual wielding in a single attack, which is pretty good.
to confirm, if I had a fighter, with cleave, knick and duel wielder, I can in order, swing with the cleave weapon, swing the cleave extra attack, stow the cleave weapon, swap to a normal and light weapon, attack with the normal weapon, attack with the knick weapon(or swap that for a spell/attack replacer feature) then bonus action attack with the normal weapon via duel wielder feat? or am i missing a part of the rules that disallows this? edit: I somehow missed the entire part covering this via PAM though, i would assume DW workes the same way, and would just get you 2 attacks with a non light weapon mastery option.
I'm a DM and one of my players is the DM at our other game where I play. We have been going over these rules in detail and mostly came to the same conclusions, though not the replacing the attack with a spell. It's nice to see everything put into one video that we have been hashing out over discord for days. 2024 Two Weapon fighting is arguably one of the most ill defined and confusing things to come out of the new PHB. There is no way I could explain any of this to a new player even if I had a week to do so.
the first weapon demo, after you attack your not able to use any spells anymore am i wrong? unless he could use that spell as a bonus and the clubs second attac kdidnt count as a bonus strike becouse of certain other feets, not to mention i thought you had to use a different weapon for your second attack, also as for swapping, so you would be able to stow 1 weapon, than attack, stow and draw 1 weapon each, make an attack and then draw 1 more weapon using utilze i assume, if you have all of those options, becouse where do you get utelize from? also before i used 2 scimitar with whatever the ability was to do get an extra attck without all the swapping a stuf and then another attack with a weapon of the same type or a different tpe as long as its light allowing me to attack using the bonus action eitherway getting 4 attacks, while leaving slots ope nto swap weaopns or stow them and punshing after with a bonus action if i had it dealing 5 times damage anyways, but not sure since ive never done that i might be mis remembering the last part about the bonus action.
i haven't finished the video but I've already hab my mind blown by the simplicity of Magic Initiate (Druid-Int) with shillelagh to 'solve' psi warriors and eldricth knights
Partially. You also run into the problem that Eldritch Knights and Psy Warriors, like most martials, want feats that boost their combat prowess, such as PAM and Sentinel which boost the physical stats, and the feats that boost the mental skills tend to be related to spellcasting.
@@jordanholt9170 why? PAM gives you an use for your BA and Reaction. As a EK you might have a better BA damage adder than 1d4 bludgeoning. Sentinels gives you some battle field control, but can give the same thing with more spell options. The way i see it, none of the base fighter feats uses Str/Dex for any ability. if you get 13 Str for Heavy Armour and only focus on Int and Con, you'll end with a SAD character, a caster with excellent spell mod, save DC and all the survivability of the fighter class. I'm currently workshopping a Human, Magic Initiate Druid-Int with the Sage background Fighter (taking the Shadow,Fey Touched and War Caster feats) .And at level 8, being able to do use 1 stat for all attacks and spellcasting, having access to spells like magic weapon and an 'almost smite' with True Strike makes me want to play a pure fighter from 1 to 20.
@@Klaital1 i know, but this way just one number going up makes everything. But yeah, high int EK is something that makes more sense in a high lvl campaing with 7 to 12 lvls in wizard just for flavor
Great video, however, saw that you overlooked a better juggle route for PAM. Below, I have a route that gives 4 attacks at lvl 5 with PAM. This route also works with cleave to get 5. I'll be using a shorstword,scimitar, and halberd for my examples. Without Cleave and with a halberd in hand you can 1. (Draw SS) attack with Shortsword. 2. (Stow SS) Attack with halberd. 3. (Draw Scim) Nick attack with Scimitar 4. (Free item stow Scim) BA PAM attack. This allows you to do 4 attacks within melee range, and you even get to apply vex to the more important halberd attack over the Nick one. The only difference that Cleave would make is that after the Nick attack, you can stow the Scim without using an item interaction. As long as you are a str martial this would do more dmg then using DW itself since you will be making the same amount of attacks and you ger reactive strike and the option of grabbing GWM down the line.
Yep, that works. I went with the throwers just to sort of hammer in how good they are. In that cycle I didn't use a single "Equipping or unequipping weapons" section or "Interacting with Things".
I would agree with you about replacing attacks because of the “must” in the light weapon description. However, I think it might also come down to what comes first. Exceptions supersede general rules and this is stacking exceptions. So, light property has dual wielded as an exception which has the breath attack as another exception. So 1 attack becomes 2 which becomes 3 which can now have a substitution. Or it could be a branching decision so 1 attack can be replaced by the breath and the light property and feat don’t take effect. I think it depends on a DM how they want to stack the rules.
I think it’s funny that, when playing optimally, a Barbarian would never actually use dual hand axes like all of the official art. Because they wouldn’t get the Nick property. They have to use a scimitar, like it or not. Why they chose to put Nick on only a few weapons knowing how powerful it is I will never know. But boy do I love being limited to 1 weapon.
The Berserker and Soul Knife are the only two characters in the entire book who are shown dual wielding. There's one image with a party of four, one of whom is in a wheelchair, and in that picture David Tennant is holding a sword and his scabbard, but I don't think that counts.
@@the_twig131 With berserker I would pretty much always use a two-hander though, as it gives you lot more damage on your retaliation attacks, plus also lets you benefit from gwm of course, as well as polearm master. Halberd is probably the best weapon for berserker since it also has cleave.
great presentation! I want to see a build using two-handed thrown/melee weapons (+Grappling!) Fighter 1-> Monk 1-> Ranger 2-> Monk (Elements) 10-12) -> Fighter 2-> Ranger 5-7 (just because I couldn't plan it as well as you!)
I absolutely think you are correct on section 4, in that the BA attack has to be made with a light weapon. Even if the RAW is fuzzy, RAI is definitely, give up one of your main hand attacks for true strike, still get a nick attack offhand, plus another off-hand attack. So it's still very powerful and fits the rules.
This video was the first of yours I've seen. TBH, you were not on my youtube radar until now. But upon seeing this video I immediately pressed like, subscribe, notify all, and share as I pushed your video to my DnD group. Thank you! I look forward to watching the backlog I've missed and to see more in the future. I like your thorough nature but with a pacing that keeps moving. If you haven't done so already, might I suggest a rules analysis video on the new phrasing of spells luke spirit guardians and Moonbeam? If I cast spirit guardians can an ally still push an enemy into my spell effect on their later turn?
Great video and really clean editing to describe an incredibly complicated topic! So I couldn't quite tell, but you think the Dual Wielder bonus action attack can be made with a non-loght weapon, but the Nick attack still has to be? That's at least how it reads to me. I read Nick that it doesn't matter if you attack with the Nick weapon first or second. I guess that's a fourth interpretation.
Yes, that's how I think it works, but as I said, there are multiple interpretations, and I'm not going to tell anyone that they are wrong. Being forced to use Nick last is also the weakest. Hand Crossbows in particular get a lot stronger if you can Nick first.
What is treantmonk’s reasoning for why the replacing would work? Also nice use of Yugioh cards lol Your channel is the best thing that’s come out of the new edition.
So, Chris was specifically talking about the Beast Master. "My logic is that an attack with a different light weapon is still an attack with the attack action, and primal companion gives you a specific ability to replace an attack with the attack action." And yes, that was Berserk Gorilla.
Given the interpretation that Chris had, I think you can make a SAD Beastmaster. With shillelagh, a club/quarter staff, and another nick weapon, you can attack with your club or quarterstaff using wisdom, then replace your nick attack with your beast’s attack. This would free up your bonus action to move around HM, or if you went with the quarter staff, you could grab PAM so you have an option when not switching your HM. Keeping the nick weapon as a scimitar or a dagger also opens up defensive duelist. You will also not be attacking with the nick weapon, so you can take another fighting style.
I honestly am really confused as Dm 😅... I was thinking about our eldritch knight that some times switch between sword with shield to lance (two hands) aaaaand i think this is not possible or i was thinking that maybe he can benefict something if he use the bonus action to teleport his weapon to the hand... I don't know 🙆♂️... It will be so broken if i make he switch the shield as if it was a draw/draft weapon staff with the action?
So there was apparently a typo in the first run printings with relation to shields. It didn't say what action they required, meaning that everyone thought you could equip/unequip with your free once per turn “Interacting with Things”. This has now been corrected on D&D Beyond, and shields require a full action to equip/unequip.
24:10 it is the PROPERTY of the weapon itself - you have to use that weapon. fighters can use tactical mastery to swap a weapons for push, sap or slow. basically making those techniques part of the fighter, not the weapon.
The fact that the ‘new and improved PHB’ wasn’t vetted by the well known optimizers from YT (pact tactics and treantmonk for two examples) is a crime. Weird and vague wording still pervades the game.
This may be a silly question: are there any rules around using shillelagh on a quarterstaff that can separate into two smaller clubs? Thus giving you two light weapons that use your spellcasting modifier for attack and damage?
It's a bonus action to cast but it lasts for a minute. You can just have two clubs but it will take two rounds to set up and eat up your bonus action twice. I don't see any DM allowing you to break a weapon in half and use two improvised weapons that still maintain their magical properties. If the quarterstaff is designed to break apart in this way then that's a homebrew weapon and you definitely have to talk to your DM about it.
@@malcolmvanstralen3474 Sorry to have misinformed you earlier. It isn't concentration but it does say the spell ends early if you cast it again. Talk to your DM anyway. Maybe they'll find a way to make it work for you.
There aren't any rules like that, but it sounds cool. Probably the best that you can do is a Pact of the Blade Warlock with Shillelagh. That will give you two Charisma weapons.
I think the action salad is a mistake, stow and draw and swap... it makes no rational sense and just becomes rules kibitzing. Im all for weapons abilities and empowering melee... but this is too complex for the average table (IMHO)
So I'm in a bit of a weird position here, because I love juggling. I think it's super fun, has an amazing flow, fixes a bunch of issues, and creates a tonne of really interesting option. But I 100% agree that it's entirely inaccessible to the normal player. In my perfect world, it should be left basically as is. I actually don't see how you could make the system much better for me personally. In a more practical world though, it should probably be once per attack action. Once per turn anyone can draw or stow one thing with the "Interacting with Things" rule, but if you take the Attack action, you can also draw or stow one more thing. I think that would be a healthy middle ground.
@@the_twig131 Im not sure what Stow and draw per turn fixes. it made sense to me that you could draw a weapon as part of an action (like swing a sword) it makes sense that putting a weapon away takes more time (its own action) and if you want to quickly draw a second item you have to drop the first. What doesnt make sense about that?, honest question, not being argumentative
Treantmonk is coping hard for thinking that beastmasters can replace the nick attack. Especially since he also argues war magic being able to replace the haste attack action attack is ambiguous.
So, here's a really squinty question. If you use a Halberd to cast True Strike (which you don't even have to draw or stow, you just need a free hand for the Material Component, right?), and you use the Cleave property, do you add the additional force damage from True Strike to the Cleave attack? It's still one attack, so you would, right? My interpretation is that you're cleaving through one enemy into another with the same attack, and that attack simply has two attack and two damage rolls. On that note, I have a strange feeling we're going to continue never seeing any magic halberds get printed.
The Cleave attack is a separate attack, so you use STR. I think. Cleave is another really weird mastery because it's maybe not technically in the Attack action? Or maybe it is?
The most powerful two weapon fighter is probably a Monk, the dmg die will eventually be d12s and you could flurry of blows 3 attacks as a bonus action at 11th lvl
Duel wielding with monk now is stupidly good and makes monk rogue multiclass very powerful. Go 5 levels of rogue to get cunning attack, the rest monk. Pick of the nick and vex masteries to duel wield with short sword and dagger. the short sword will make far easier to pull of your sneak attack consistently. Eventually this means your character will be able to make 6 attacks in one turn (thanks to flurry of blows) and all of them are D10 s thanks to martial arts and you get an additional 3D6 sneak attack damage with the option to use one of the cunning attack options. You can grab the feat gives you fighting style (if your table uses old books, If not 1-2 lvl fighter dip would work)
My character has a Scimitar of Speed. If I wanted to dual wield with the Scimitar of Speed and say, a spear(using it one handed). How would that work using Dual Wielder and Two Weapon Fighting Feats?
Scimitar of Speed lets you make an additional Bonus Action Attack. You don't need Two Weapon Fighting, and you can't do both a BA Scimitar attack and a Dual Wielder Spear attack in the same turn, since you only have one bonus action.
@the_twig131 okay, that's what I figured, I would only generate an extra attack then if offhand weapon also had the Light property because it is moved into the attack action?
I'm looking up a monk/ranger multiclass because at lvl 7 with 2 ranger levels and 5 monk you can BA huntersmark and attack 2 times +1 nick attack with dagger or scimitar and monks martial arts die improve weapons like daggers. then on your second turn you can attack 2times +1nick +2flurry of blows(unarmed attacks can be made with kicks or headbutts etc.) and also on ranger 2 you get fighting style and on ranger 1 weapon masteries + first lvl spells. although you could just go 1 lvl fighter for both fighting style and masteries. the only thing I hesitate is ... should I go straight monk and focus on grappling people? because I can move them AND I get advantage on them with grappler feat. and I think foregoing one attack per turn to instead have advantage on all 4 attacks is better...
Are you talking about the bonus action attack? It's in the nick property itself. "You can make this extra attack only once per turn" referring to the extra attack of the light property. You need the dual wielder feat to overcome this restriction.
If you started as a monk and used any of the Nick weapons; and also took 1 level in fighter. Then at level 6 you could get 5 1d8 attacks if you use flurry of blows. Not to mention you don't need the Dual Wielder feat, because your BA will be flurry of blows. Unless I'm missing something here.
Question Pact of the chain familiars can attack if you give up one of your attacks. "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction." Let's say I attack with a club(light property) so I can make an extra attack later with a bonus action using a different light weapon. I want to forego that second attack to allow my familiar to attack. Do I even need to be holding the other light weapon? Could it just be sheathed? Could I hold a shield? Just wondering peoples thoughts...
So assuming that you can replace your Nick attack (which I don't think you can), yes, you can use it to make a familiar attack. As for do you need your dagger equipped, that depends on your reading of the Nick Trigger. Ask your DM.
@@the_twig131hmmm good point, doesn't actually say attack to be given up has to be part of the attack action. Just says when you take the Attack action. Reads to me like as long as I've satisfied the first part I can give up an attack. Maybe JC will address this
My brain is exploding while watching this. Only thing I’m still confused about is does nick allow you to stow/draw again during your turn because I thought it was just another attack as apart of the attack action. How does that allow more draws/stows?
Dual wielder does not require you to have taken the nick attack to work, it just requires you to have light weapon in one hand and any other weapon in the other, it basically just lets you to use non-light weapon for your bonus action attack. So you can use it even if you aren't swapping weapons all the time.
In my opinion, the attack with a nick weapon (for example, a scimitar) should be the second one, because it is activated by the first attack with a light weapon (for example, a handaxe with vex for adv.)!
There were a few typos in the book that D&D Beyond changed. The main ones are Shields require an action again, and the upcasting on Giant Insect and Conjure Woodland Beings (not Conjure Minor Elementals) were fixed.
This was really good! I might have to cone back and listen when im less tired but I think at least the juggling is going to be simple. I'm the only one who is likely to go this indepth into the rules and Im also the DM. If a player comes up with this and asks about it we will work it out, but until then I kinda hate the fiddliness of it all and will moatly just ignore it. Just as all the nonsense around spell casting/components/arcane focus/free hands.
Sure, I tried to make the juggling as easy to follow as possible with the demos, but it is an inherently pretty complex thing. Use as much or as little of it as you like.
I think that you should add: unless that weapon is thrown, to The_Twig his homebrew rule about weapon juggling while holding a shield. Since throwing gets rid of the handling complexity that so many people have an issue with. I mean even under the old rules, but after Tasha's. Scenario: we are holding a shield and a sword/battleaxe and there's 2 badly wounded foes 1 of which is within 5 ft, 1 normal health at 30 ft and 1 at 100 ft from the healty foe, we are lvl 11 fighter with the sharpshooter feat. We attack foe 1 and slay it with with our sword/axe and stow it, than we move on to the healthy foe and while moving there when we get within range with our movement we draw and fling a javelin as part of the thrown attack, at the other weakened foe, killing it and when we get in melee with the healthy foe we draw our sword/axe and hit that foe. This^ scenario we could already do in Tasha's and that's not weapon juggling (I teach {juggling, unicycle and clowns} in a youth circus) under the new rules and with the additional attack (just replace the first sword/axe with scimitar and add maybe an additional handaxe thrown at healty foe) this shouldn't be an issue at all. I make such a big deal out of this because people get rather cranky about RAW, RAI, believable and breaking immersion, so that once they establish a rule they don't want any exceptions to that rule even if it totally makes sense!
We have a hammer and sickle wielding tabaxi rogue anarchist (?) played by a communist at our table which got a homebrewed clawattack acid dmg (lsd reference) cantrip because she was so bummed out by 5e dualwielding. She'll love this change and hear about other hammer and sickle wielding characters! :D
9:30 well if you use nick with light weapon "extra attack" - yes you have to use two weapons to trigger it BUT the breath weapon could replace the nick attack instead of the first attack setting up light weapon attack because breath weapon only states it has to be an attack part of the attack action - which the nick attack would still be. I don't know I think that it is a "order of operations" thing. triggering the ability to add the light weapon attack means it has to be two light weapons wielded in the same turn - and with nick you just get to use it as part of the attack action - but once that condition has been met and the attack is "being made" you can swap it out for a breath weapon attack. your interpretation adds this locked in feature of order of operations where you check if you CAN swap the attack as the attack is being made and that MUST condition breaks the interaction of using anything else but a light weapon.... huh... I think that actually makes a lot of sense but in my mind the conditions/text of the light weapon property are the conditions to MAKE the attack but switching out the attack is this wholly different mechanic on top of the order of operations ... and I don't think that declaring the attack and then resolving the attack as "not with a light weapon" makes the attack fail.... but there is an argument that is how it SHOULD work...
I have a build idea I'm campaigning with rn. Rogue/Swords Bard. WM with Hand Crossbow (vex) and Dagger (nick). Two Weapon Fighting style. Dual Wielder feat. Attack 1: hand crossbow (vex) Attack 1.2: Throw dagger (nick) Proc Sneak Attack B. Attack: Throw another dagger / Use second hand crossbow At Bard 6, throw in another dagger or a third hand crossbow show for Extra attack. Optimal? No. Fun? Yes. Can even take a 1 lvl dip into fighter for Thrown Weapon fighting style if you don't want to invest an entire feat for it.
So the theme there is "Yugioh, Magic, and Pokémon with memes about them being good". Basically all of them are completely unplayable (except Theseus), but they have some meme hyping them up as being amazing.
@@the_twig131 Ah, I see! I don't play Magic, so those went over my head, but I can see your theme now with Berserk Gorilla and Regigigas. Don't remember that worm's name, though.
This made my head spin a bit... Thanks for breaking it down, but when rules need to be broken down in flowcharts that's when it feels like they have lost the intuitive edge and personally I think they went a bit on the complex side here...
Ngl, this is somehow feeling more complicated than spellcasting, keeping up with the amount of action interaction with the weapons. Which is pretty cool, but relearning how to optmize my damage is crazy haha
You can NOT switch to new weapons every attack. It says you can equip OR unequip a weapon before OR after the attack, not AND. This means you equip, attack, attack, THEN you can unequip after the second attack if you want to switch weapons. This wording for unequipping a weapon means you can't even drop a weapon as a free action anymore since that is now a part of unequipping.
@@apjapki 5e is very specific with it's wording. I am not referring to the entire attack action. Before or after an individual attack, you can equip OR unequip a weapon, not AND.
@@apjapki No... how are you not understanding this?? Starting with no weapons, the rules only allow: Attack 1: Equip weapon A then Attack with weapon A Attack 2: Attack with weapon A, then Unequip weapon A RAW, you can NOT do the following: Attack 1: Equip weapon A, Attack with weapon A, then Unequip weapon A Attack 2: Equip weapon B, Attack with weapon B, unequip weapon B
I mean, you're right, you can only draw/stow once either before or after each attack. But I never did otherwise, or said that you could. Because you can't.
Regarding the replacement of an attack with the dragon's breath - after the fifth level, when you have an extra attack, it works! You attack once with a light weapon, you release the dragon's breath and as part of this attacking action, you also add a nick attack! Otherwise, in my opinion, it does not work!
That's definitely on my shortlist. I have a slightly older video about unarmed strikes that I made around playtest 5, but a lot has changed since then.
The main problem with the replacement attack thing is that the replacement features don't care about which attack they replace. I think a sage advice is warranted to clarify the intention.
If you want Treantmonk's exact words, he was talking specifically about the Beast Master. "My logic is that an attack with a different light weapon is still an attack with the attack action, and primal companion gives you a specific ability to replace an attack with the attack action." I can see where he's coming from, I just think that the "must" in the Light property holds precedence.
I will definitely ban the one-handed dual-wielding exploit. Regarding anything else, i think once the players start getting magical weapons the entire game changes, and juggling becomes far less appealing until at some point they will have many good magical weapons. And weaving those around sounds less like a solved problem and more like fun area of character and combat style exploration.
Yeah, this is I think a big thing that people miss when complaining about juggling. It's not, and cannot be a solved problem. The optimal juggle changes constantly depending on what you have and what you're fighting. It's a massive piece of piloting tech, rather than another metric to min-max.
23:00 how do you have enough stowing/weilding points if you get 1+#attacks? 4 attacks with one hand requires 6 points and your making 4 attacks... Thats only getting you 5 stow/wield points. Not enough to pull out warhammer and use dual wielder feat bonus action attack. Also, the order of your attacks matters and you must make the second attack with the dagger instead of the handaxe or else you won't be able to use nick. Doing so lets you use the hand axe as a bonus action attacks as well.
This. I believe the "three weapon circle juggles" are impossible RAW and extra swaps were inserted in error by Twig and others. This is my understanding.
That's an awesome video! However, I must say I agree with you that the attack replacement shouldn't, per RAW, work. Nick says "When you make the extra attack from the Light property", and if you're not making the extra attack from the Light property then Nick is useless and doesn't do anything. It requires you to make that specific attack for it to qualify to be part of the attack action. The "When you make" there is disallowing that replacement interaction, as far as I'm concerned.
"after you throw it, it is not in your hand anymore"
This is the insight I am showing up for
Only the deepest, most profound revelations.
Changing fighting styles into feats is meant to make it so they can add new ones in a book like xanithar’s, then print new classes and subclasses in a book like storm king’s thunder and not have to reprint all of the fighting style.
Even just in this book, it means you don't have to re-list them in every Class or have one Class reference another. Since the list is now the same for everyone, it makes sense to list them separately.
Also, although I would not recommend it, it means you can take it with an asi.
@@gloryrod86 Only if you have one already due to prerequisite stuff, but this is viable to get a second one, yeah.
@@gloryrod86this is actually nothing to scoff at: soul knife looks like the worst rogue for dpr, but actually with a single fighter dip he can benefit from the throwing and, with an asi, dueling fs, and since it's really hard to add to the damage of the psychic blades, it's very convenient
@@ElManReborn616 That's super smart
Love that this is basically an update to your first video
Yeah, I tried to put a few references in as well. I consider this one a fairly significant milestone for myself.
A small thing about the equip and unequip rule. It starts with "When you take the Attack action" (implying it only works with the attack action (just clarifying this))
And the sentence "You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action." directly says you "equip OR unequip ONE weapon" which implies you can't to both per attack (you unequip one weapon as part of the first attack and equip a second weapon as part of the second attack and now can't unequip as part of the second attack).
And the last part says "as part of this action" calls into question whether that ONE equip or unequip is part of each attack or part of each Attack action. And if it's per Attack action, then that limits how many times you can switch weapons. And in the Utilize [Action] that you show it uses an example of "such as when you draw a sword as part of the Attack action". (Although I can see that this could go either way)
I'm not saying what the correct interpretation is, just that the wording is weird and could have different meanings that could limit how much weapon swapping you can do.
I agree with what you wrote but he did mention that with the dual weilder feat you can do this with two weapons each attack
Although in the attack action description it says: "... have a feature such as Extra Attack, that gives you more than one attack as past of this action". And then the description of the equipping rule:"when you make an attack as part of this action", and then the description of the Nick property "you can make it as part of the attack action", I would say that it states that you can equip or unequip every attack (even the attack of the Nick property. Although you possibly can't equip or unequip as the dual wielder bonus action attack.
@@apjapki what do you mean with that?
I am quite positive your interpretation is right. Otherwise the 'quick draw' trait of the Dual Wielder feat wouldn't add anything.
I am 100% positive none of the game developers had 'weapon juggling' in mind when designing these feats. Despite D&D sometimes being quite silly, this 'fighting style' is quite ridiculous to take seriously. I hate how the 2024 PHB made it so obviously apparent how many D&D players are power gamers instead of roleplayers. I mean, look at the lashback on the Ranger and the changes in the sharpshooter and GWM feats. I mean, look at the backlash on the Smite spell change.
Clearly these things needed to be nerfed, as they were not only imbalanced, they made a lot of players feel obligated to take these styles of fighting or have non-optimal build.
IMO they REALLY tried to make the 2024 PHB in a way that allowed players to play in a more varied way. instead we now get ridiculous builds like this that clearly try to loophole RAI to create powerplays. I guess people should do whatever rows their boat, but it just saddens me that that is the state of D&D nowadays...
@@apjapki
Well I be damned, though I still think the weapon juggling presented here is not what Crawford is talking about. Since he mentions the 'extra' attack I think this involved 'normal' attacks not two handed ones.
1. You are allowed to draw or stow ONE weapon per attack DURING the attack action, that seems clear... otherwise the 'quick draw' trait of the dual wielder feat doesn't add anything.
2. The free object interaction seems to be an 'object or feature OF THE ENVIRONMENT', clarified by the example. Your equipment is NOT part of the environment. in 2014 this was differently worded I think, but now they explicitly stated you have one 'object interaction' with your weapons during your attack ACTION, and one 'object interaction' with the environment for free.
So what Jeremy confirms is that you can:
on one turn, start attacking with a trident to topple the enemy, then switch to a Greataxe or smth do attack with advantage and benefit from the cleave option.
That doesn't say anything about dual wielding and bonus attacks, because NOWHERE is stated that you can draw a weapon as part of your BONUS attack. Sure, you can stow the greataxe after your attack, but then you end your turn empty handed.
To further prove this point: the throwing weapons trait states you can draw the weapon as part of the ATTACK (so not specified as attack action, in contrast to drawing a weapon as part of the attack ACTION). This is clarify that ONLY throwing weapons are allowed to be drawn in multitudes during OUTSIDE of the attack action (like making a throwing attack with a light weapon as a bonus action). And to be honest, that DOES make sense. since you throw them away this wouldn't be juggling, and these small weapons are a lot easier to draw than let's say a greatsword or halberd (okay let's not thing about how you 'stow' a pike for now haha).
Great video. That made my head hurt. One note, If you juggle the club, the shillelagh spell ends when you let go of it.
Yes. Good point. Juggling is out for shillelagh (makes Thri Kreen and Plasmoid characters appealing for same tactic using shillelagh though)
I’ve been thinking through different parts of this puzzle sporadically for the past month and a half, thank you for laying everything out so nicely. My party is playing other games for the most part for now, but when we come back to D&D this is one video that will be mandatory viewing haha
I think rules as written, and how I interpret rules as intended, I would not allow the bonus action attack, even with the nick property moving it to the same attack action, to be replaced with true strike using the original weapon. The only reason that the extra attack is permitted is because the light property allows the attack with another weapon.
If you don't actually end up attacking with the other weapon, you've never actually met the conditions required that allows the extra attack in the first place.
I agree. The way I see the usage of the nick attack as part of the attack action is you aren't making two separate attacks but swinging both weapons at the same time. Any feature that lets you replace an attack from the attack action replaces the whole attack not just the nick part.
Tri kreen looking real tempting at tables that won't let you juggle
Thri-kreen does indeed look pretty nifty.
Yup. Also plasmoid while limited to 2 arms and as many psuedopods as it wants is not limited in the number of "makeshift" hands it can have.
Long ago, I once made a Rogue character whose backstory included a stint juggling knives as a street performer. Maybe you could use something like that to have an in-character justification for doing all these crazy weapon tricks mid-combat...if your DM has a sense of humor.
The Buneary has ten billion weapons and no armor. He is now a Barbarian (BUNEBARIAN).
Sure, that seems like a cool idea.
Thanks for compiling all of the dual wielding rules into this video. It’s an awesome resource!
I'm excited to subscribe to this channel. Really well done.
I'm effectively banning 'juggling' at my table. Except maybe the thrown juggle, which was an amazing revelation btw. Juggling is incredibly complex and takes time and enjoyment from the rest of the party. I'm all for giving melee builds more power (and finally having a viable dual wielder build that keeps up) which I believe the light weapon, nick property, weapon mastery and other enhancements have done admirably, but there's no need to make this into a mathematics competition. It's supposed to be simple and fun for all party members. I don't want this level of complexity at my table. It makes it more difficult for new players and veterans to co-exist in the same game, which I have a lot of.
To each, their own. I don't disagree with anything you have brought to the table here and I applaud your work zealously. It's amazing the thought you put into this. Bravo. Subscription Earned X10.
Yeah, that's absolutely reasonable. A player can prep juggles in advance, which would mean that it only takes a little longer, but I know from experience that most players don't prep their turns. Real world time is a significant factor of the game, so making rulings to address that is absolutely fine in my book.
Thanks for the sub.
Okey ive seen juggling before, but this Is the first Time i ACTUALLY understand it and, maybe more important: its the first Time I think its cool.
You did a fantastic job pal, keep it up!
Glad you liked it. I had to think for a fair while how to make juggling as clear as possible, because it is inherently pretty complicated.
I did not know about juggling with 2 light weapons and a pole weapon, thats crazy strong.
I don't know why they made the wording around two-weapon fighting and the nick property so vague. If they had kept the original:
"When you take the attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand."
And if they made it clear that the extra attack from Nick has to be from a Nick weapon, there wouldnt be any of this confusion.
You could still do alot of crazy stuff cuz of the drawing/stowing rule change, but it would eliminate the problematic juggles and all the interpretation issues.
It is spefically so it works with thrown weapons. Like a lot of things they changed the wording so it works with a particular mechanic they had in mind but didn't think about it applied to other things. For example they reworked Divine Intervention so it works on Raise Dead but didn't think about things like Ceremony, Hallow, and Prayer of Healing. I'm actually fine with it working on Prayer of Healing but some people don't like the fact that in can impart the benefits of a Short Rest mid combat. Warlocks and Monks are going to love the Cleric.
Yeah, as Xander said, it's so that thrown weapons work. I wouldn't mind if they brought back the other hand clause though, as long as it didn't require you to hold both at the same time. That would at least shut down Two-Weapon Shielding.
That makes sense. Man, the 2024 rules feel super under baked. There are so many loopholes and missed "bugs" in the new system.
I mean not to be a party pooper you're 5 attack dreams just aren't raw. As soon as you use the pole arm you can't use the two weapons fighting as it's specifically for light weapons now. The nick feature is there to add access to a different bonus action for like a rogue. It specifically says no more attacks juicing
@@chrisg8989 Most of the loopholes are with martial mechanics, which means: largely not a problem. I won't be nitpicking a martial over what _might_ be an extra attack or two. It's just not worth the table debate and martials deserve it anyway.
It's the emanation spells which represent the more serious encounter balance challenge.
But then spells have _always_ been a giant balance challenge. And there are always errata released right after the PHB and other sourcebooks, and often enough those errata are balance fixes. It's just that rarely do we get so many new rules at one time as when we get a new PHB.
It's one of the big reasons people overreact and freeze with what they know every. single. time. a new PHB comes out.
Best video I have seen for weapon swapping and dual Wielding. Thank you.
The rule my table is going to use is that you can draw or drop a weapon for each attack, but stow only once per round as the free object interaction. This allows for thrown weapons to be drawn and enables some weapon juggling but within limits. I feel you should be able to have preloaded crossbows and muskets etc available on hand and get a greater rate of fire, be able to draw and throw sheathed easily accessible weapons as fast as someone using arrows can draw them, but wish to put reasonable limits on weapon juggling and I think this works as a compromise.
Perfect vidro, thanks!!!! You made a compilation about all the things about the theme, grear work
Lol I'm 3 mins in, you haven't gotten to the rules, and I'm already loving it. Gotta be honest about the real drive to make D&D videos. MONEY!! $2 a video is such sweet sweet cash.
Man, these fools have no idea how much we rake in for these 50 hour projects.
I think there is a better way to juggle the weapons. It allows you to attack with the warhammer two-handed both times and you don't even need to assume the "inclusive or". It works with an "exclusive or" as well:
You start with only the Warhammer in your hands.
* First attack: Attack with Warhammer two-handed and stow it
* Second attack: Draw both the Dagger and the Handaxe (quick draw) and attack with the Dagger
* Nick attack: Attack with the Handaxe and immediately stow both weapons (quick stow)
* Free Utilize: Draw the Warhammer
* Bonus action: Attack with the Warhammer two-handed
* You again end your turn with just the Warhammer in your hands (so the cycle is stable)
will not work below level 5. due to the 2 handed Warhammer not granting an extra attack latter in the round, that need a light weapon.
@@blakenelson4158 Sure, but I was responding to a video where the entire video assumes you have Extra Attack.
I believe you don't need the free utilize action here. Nick attack effect can stow both dagger and axe in this example. Bonus action attack and wield the war hammer again.
@@ChadMcFresh The draw/stow per attack is in the description of the Attack Action. It doesn't apply to the bonus action, which is why you can't draw a weapon as part of your bonus action attack.
@@dermaniac5205 fair enough.
Weapon juggling doesn’t make much narrative sense to me. A round is 6 seconds - I really would like to see someone actually attempt this.
Stowing a weapon in combat is much slower than drawing - it’s awkward. Even in games like GoW swapping weapons causes a break in combat flow.
Overall I think it should be limited to one swap - can’t imagine they intended this. But I’ve given up trying to find a common through line with the design teams philosophy.
It seems weapon juggling is undermining the fighters ability to apply other weapon masteries to different weapons as a later level trait. At that point just give it to them early and let combat flow easier.
Being a melee fighter in a world where caster are cloning themselves and summoning meteors doesn't make narrative sense either. Weapon juggling is ridiculous but no more ridiculous than consciously choosing to be a melee fit in a world where casters clearly dominate everything. Might as well just let them rock and at least be a little bit stronger compared to the godlike power of casters.
The holding a shield thing with a light weapon is clearly intentional since the new crossbow expert fest lets you load your crossbow even without a free hand implying you can hold a shield with any crossbow, light and hand crossbow included. Me personally I have no problem with this you know with the whole martial caster divide. Idk why anyone would think this is too much when casters are getting infinite mind control with the new suggestion or permanent 157 temp hp with polymorph. It's not really making them that strong but it does at least let it feel less bad to not be an op caster. And for anybody saying this make things worse for the dm you're forgetting the dm can do anything the players can and can really never lose if they don't want to so that's not a real argument.
Great video, love the music choices
Awesome video! Keep up the great work
I read into this for 2 hours before I got to this video, and this is by far the best piece of information out there. Well done
Thanks this is great, I have been explaining this to others and making builds - I will now link people to this video
Glad you liked it.
Great in-depth breakdown as always 🍻
Its not that these abilities are mathematically OP
But its definitely going to add to table complexity and extended battle times.
Yes. It's absolutely possible to prep for this, and if you do it probably only extends your turn by about 30 seconds, but the vast majority of players I've seen do not prep turns. If you're trying to work juggles out on the spot, they take a while, especially if you don't know the rules inside out like I do.
I love this video. Thank you for breaking this down so methodically. The visual aids were a fantastic help. I have been struggling to find a comprehensive guide on this subject that clearly explained everything on a level that even my ADHD brain can grasp.
Brilliant, really glad you liked it. I think that visuals are really important.
I will say though, that I'm particularly happy that you enjoyed it with ADHD. I've been putting a lot of effort into trying to keep my videos fast paced by doing stuff like putting features on the screen instead of reading them out, specifically to avoid what would otherwise be boring lulls. I think that this suggests that I'm getting there, which is good.
No juggling at my table. I believe it refers to the action as the entire attack action, not the individual attacks within that action.
So I think you can draw and stow once per turn. This means that you stow your longsword in exchange for your warhammer, but you can't then change it back to your longsword for your second attack.
The only exception I would make for this is for throwing weapons. Because you don't have to stow them before pulling out the next one.
Great video as always!
I'm not super tuned in so maybe I'm missing something that the developers said to prove their intent, but I'd interpret the Nick attack as not qualifying as a light weapon attack for the purpose of making a dual wielder attack.
Another way to put this is, the bonus action that was saved by Nick loses the ability to be used to attack.
From my point of view the purpose of Nick is to free up your bonus action for something else, not to add a free attack because then, as stated, dagger is the best secondary mastery. But yeah, running through it all in my head, RAW, for sure it works... just didn't see anyone else stating this exactly, so I decided to.
This is the way I read it, but it's also not the way I'll run it. Rogues are not in the upper tier of single-target damage in 5r. Neither are Rangers (except for Tier 1).
Nothing breaks by allowing Nick and the bonus action light weapon attack together in the same turn.
And I'd rather not be picky enough about it to need a rules discussion of that minutiae at the table.
So, bring it on martials. I'm keeping my eyes on full casters.
You are criminally underrated
When you draw a weapon as part of a throwing attack, if you have the dual wielder feat, can you draw one more weapon at the same time? That'd be 4 drawings/stowings in one attack.
The rules for thrown weapon say you can draw *that* weapon, and the rules for dual weilder say you can draw 2 when you could normally draw 1. I think it's a case of which rules take priority.
You can draw two daggers, throw one, and then nick throw the other one. You can't draw two daggers, throw them both, and then nick draw/ throw 2 more. Can you hold a shield, throw a dagger and then nick throw another dagger? RAW I think you can and you don't even the feat and dual wielder would let you throw a third a dagger as a Bonus Action.
I don't think that you can, because the Thrown property says that you can draw "that weapon", which is more specific than a normal draw. If you can though, this would allow you to go from a 2H weapon to dual wielding in a single attack, which is pretty good.
Slight correction, Greatsword has Graze, not Cleave. You probably meant Greataxe. Outstanding video! Keep up the great work!
Good catch.
to confirm, if I had a fighter, with cleave, knick and duel wielder, I can in order, swing with the cleave weapon, swing the cleave extra attack, stow the cleave weapon, swap to a normal and light weapon, attack with the normal weapon, attack with the knick weapon(or swap that for a spell/attack replacer feature) then bonus action attack with the normal weapon via duel wielder feat? or am i missing a part of the rules that disallows this?
edit: I somehow missed the entire part covering this via PAM though, i would assume DW workes the same way, and would just get you 2 attacks with a non light weapon mastery option.
That is the general gist of it, yes.
I'm a DM and one of my players is the DM at our other game where I play. We have been going over these rules in detail and mostly came to the same conclusions, though not the replacing the attack with a spell. It's nice to see everything put into one video that we have been hashing out over discord for days.
2024 Two Weapon fighting is arguably one of the most ill defined and confusing things to come out of the new PHB.
There is no way I could explain any of this to a new player even if I had a week to do so.
the first weapon demo, after you attack your not able to use any spells anymore am i wrong? unless he could use that spell as a bonus and the clubs second attac kdidnt count as a bonus strike becouse of certain other feets, not to mention i thought you had to use a different weapon for your second attack, also as for swapping, so you would be able to stow 1 weapon, than attack, stow and draw 1 weapon each, make an attack and then draw 1 more weapon using utilze i assume, if you have all of those options, becouse where do you get utelize from? also before i used 2 scimitar with whatever the ability was to do get an extra attck without all the swapping a stuf and then another attack with a weapon of the same type or a different tpe as long as its light allowing me to attack using the bonus action eitherway getting 4 attacks, while leaving slots ope nto swap weaopns or stow them and punshing after with a bonus action if i had it dealing 5 times damage anyways, but not sure since ive never done that i might be mis remembering the last part about the bonus action.
i haven't finished the video but I've already hab my mind blown by the simplicity of Magic Initiate (Druid-Int) with shillelagh to 'solve' psi warriors and eldricth knights
Honestly I’ve been surprised that I’ve seen almost nobody talking about that
Partially. You also run into the problem that Eldritch Knights and Psy Warriors, like most martials, want feats that boost their combat prowess, such as PAM and Sentinel which boost the physical stats, and the feats that boost the mental skills tend to be related to spellcasting.
@@jordanholt9170 why? PAM gives you an use for your BA and Reaction. As a EK you might have a better BA damage adder than 1d4 bludgeoning. Sentinels gives you some battle field control, but can give the same thing with more spell options. The way i see it, none of the base fighter feats uses Str/Dex for any ability. if you get 13 Str for Heavy Armour and only focus on Int and Con, you'll end with a SAD character, a caster with excellent spell mod, save DC and all the survivability of the fighter class. I'm currently workshopping a Human, Magic Initiate Druid-Int with the Sage background Fighter (taking the Shadow,Fey Touched and War Caster feats) .And at level 8, being able to do use 1 stat for all attacks and spellcasting, having access to spells like magic weapon and an 'almost smite' with True Strike makes me want to play
a pure fighter from 1 to 20.
Eldritch Knights don't need high int, you can just pick spells that don't care about your int.
@@Klaital1 i know, but this way just one number going up makes everything. But yeah, high int EK is something that makes more sense in a high lvl campaing with 7 to 12 lvls in wizard just for flavor
This is a great video I just hate the whole weapon juggling concept.
Great video, however, saw that you overlooked a better juggle route for PAM. Below, I have a route that gives 4 attacks at lvl 5 with PAM. This route also works with cleave to get 5.
I'll be using a shorstword,scimitar, and halberd for my examples.
Without Cleave and with a halberd in hand you can
1. (Draw SS) attack with Shortsword.
2. (Stow SS) Attack with halberd.
3. (Draw Scim) Nick attack with Scimitar
4. (Free item stow Scim) BA PAM attack.
This allows you to do 4 attacks within melee range, and you even get to apply vex to the more important halberd attack over the Nick one.
The only difference that Cleave would make is that after the Nick attack, you can stow the Scim without using an item interaction.
As long as you are a str martial this would do more dmg then using DW itself since you will be making the same amount of attacks and you ger reactive strike and the option of grabbing GWM down the line.
Yep, that works. I went with the throwers just to sort of hammer in how good they are. In that cycle I didn't use a single "Equipping or unequipping weapons" section or "Interacting with Things".
Dual wielder feat says that you can draw OR stow 2 weapons. So should it not be impossible to draw and stow the scimitar?
Nvm I wasnt far enough into the vid yet
I would agree with you about replacing attacks because of the “must” in the light weapon description. However, I think it might also come down to what comes first. Exceptions supersede general rules and this is stacking exceptions. So, light property has dual wielded as an exception which has the breath attack as another exception. So 1 attack becomes 2 which becomes 3 which can now have a substitution. Or it could be a branching decision so 1 attack can be replaced by the breath and the light property and feat don’t take effect.
I think it depends on a DM how they want to stack the rules.
I think it’s funny that, when playing optimally, a Barbarian would never actually use dual hand axes like all of the official art. Because they wouldn’t get the Nick property.
They have to use a scimitar, like it or not.
Why they chose to put Nick on only a few weapons knowing how powerful it is I will never know. But boy do I love being limited to 1 weapon.
The Berserker and Soul Knife are the only two characters in the entire book who are shown dual wielding. There's one image with a party of four, one of whom is in a wheelchair, and in that picture David Tennant is holding a sword and his scabbard, but I don't think that counts.
@@the_twig131 Are you trying to say that the dual axe wielding Barbarian hasn’t been used as iconic imagery for countless years? Really?
No, it absolutely has. I've actually just made one except they have a dagger because of course they do.
@@the_twig131 With berserker I would pretty much always use a two-hander though, as it gives you lot more damage on your retaliation attacks, plus also lets you benefit from gwm of course, as well as polearm master. Halberd is probably the best weapon for berserker since it also has cleave.
@@the_twig131 Because you need the Nick property now.
Can I booming blade and nick attack? And then extra attack from dual wielder
... it's been 2 years? No way. That's wild, I remember the first video like it was yesterday.
Yep, it's gone by fast.
great presentation! I want to see a build using two-handed thrown/melee weapons (+Grappling!) Fighter 1-> Monk 1-> Ranger 2-> Monk (Elements) 10-12) -> Fighter 2-> Ranger 5-7 (just because I couldn't plan it as well as you!)
I absolutely think you are correct on section 4, in that the BA attack has to be made with a light weapon. Even if the RAW is fuzzy, RAI is definitely, give up one of your main hand attacks for true strike, still get a nick attack offhand, plus another off-hand attack. So it's still very powerful and fits the rules.
Does treantmonk think you can replace a Nick attack with a net attack save? Can’t think of a reason not if other effects can replace it.
This video was the first of yours I've seen. TBH, you were not on my youtube radar until now. But upon seeing this video I immediately pressed like, subscribe, notify all, and share as I pushed your video to my DnD group. Thank you! I look forward to watching the backlog I've missed and to see more in the future. I like your thorough nature but with a pacing that keeps moving.
If you haven't done so already, might I suggest a rules analysis video on the new phrasing of spells luke spirit guardians and Moonbeam? If I cast spirit guardians can an ally still push an enemy into my spell effect on their later turn?
Great video and really clean editing to describe an incredibly complicated topic!
So I couldn't quite tell, but you think the Dual Wielder bonus action attack can be made with a non-loght weapon, but the Nick attack still has to be? That's at least how it reads to me.
I read Nick that it doesn't matter if you attack with the Nick weapon first or second. I guess that's a fourth interpretation.
Yes, that's how I think it works, but as I said, there are multiple interpretations, and I'm not going to tell anyone that they are wrong.
Being forced to use Nick last is also the weakest. Hand Crossbows in particular get a lot stronger if you can Nick first.
Great break down!
Great Vid! my brain hurts now but the potential is wonderful...and a headache for DMs like me
It's definitely a lot to learn, but it's so much fun working out all of the different juggling patterns.
I would argue dual wielder allows you to make 2 bonus action attack due to the wording you can make an 'extra' bonus action attack.
What is treantmonk’s reasoning for why the replacing would work?
Also nice use of Yugioh cards lol
Your channel is the best thing that’s come out of the new edition.
So, Chris was specifically talking about the Beast Master.
"My logic is that an attack with a different light weapon is still an attack with the attack action, and primal companion gives you a specific ability to replace an attack with the attack action."
And yes, that was Berserk Gorilla.
@@the_twig131 I got to say, to me, that makes sense. I would probably run it that way at my table
Given the interpretation that Chris had, I think you can make a SAD Beastmaster. With shillelagh, a club/quarter staff, and another nick weapon, you can attack with your club or quarterstaff using wisdom, then replace your nick attack with your beast’s attack. This would free up your bonus action to move around HM, or if you went with the quarter staff, you could grab PAM so you have an option when not switching your HM. Keeping the nick weapon as a scimitar or a dagger also opens up defensive duelist. You will also not be attacking with the nick weapon, so you can take another fighting style.
I honestly am really confused as Dm 😅... I was thinking about our eldritch knight that some times switch between sword with shield to lance (two hands) aaaaand i think this is not possible or i was thinking that maybe he can benefict something if he use the bonus action to teleport his weapon to the hand... I don't know 🙆♂️... It will be so broken if i make he switch the shield as if it was a draw/draft weapon staff with the action?
So there was apparently a typo in the first run printings with relation to shields. It didn't say what action they required, meaning that everyone thought you could equip/unequip with your free once per turn “Interacting with Things”.
This has now been corrected on D&D Beyond, and shields require a full action to equip/unequip.
Absolutely necessary and incredibly informative. Any tips for Soul Knife?
24:10 it is the PROPERTY of the weapon itself - you have to use that weapon. fighters can use tactical mastery to swap a weapons for push, sap or slow. basically making those techniques part of the fighter, not the weapon.
I feel like not switching to action points was a huge mistake
I do like action point systems, but I think it would probably be too big of a change.
1:25 Nothing in the "Light" text says you can only trigger it once per turn. "Nick" is the only one here that say it is limited to once per turn.
The fact that the ‘new and improved PHB’ wasn’t vetted by the well known optimizers from YT (pact tactics and treantmonk for two examples) is a crime. Weird and vague wording still pervades the game.
This may be a silly question: are there any rules around using shillelagh on a quarterstaff that can separate into two smaller clubs? Thus giving you two light weapons that use your spellcasting modifier for attack and damage?
It's a bonus action to cast but it lasts for a minute. You can just have two clubs but it will take two rounds to set up and eat up your bonus action twice. I don't see any DM allowing you to break a weapon in half and use two improvised weapons that still maintain their magical properties. If the quarterstaff is designed to break apart in this way then that's a homebrew weapon and you definitely have to talk to your DM about it.
@@XanderHarris1023 thanks for the explanation! In my brain I always just thought you could only cast it on one weapon at a time
@@malcolmvanstralen3474 Sorry to have misinformed you earlier. It isn't concentration but it does say the spell ends early if you cast it again. Talk to your DM anyway. Maybe they'll find a way to make it work for you.
There aren't any rules like that, but it sounds cool. Probably the best that you can do is a Pact of the Blade Warlock with Shillelagh. That will give you two Charisma weapons.
I think the action salad is a mistake, stow and draw and swap... it makes no rational sense and just becomes rules kibitzing.
Im all for weapons abilities and empowering melee... but this is too complex for the average table (IMHO)
So I'm in a bit of a weird position here, because I love juggling. I think it's super fun, has an amazing flow, fixes a bunch of issues, and creates a tonne of really interesting option. But I 100% agree that it's entirely inaccessible to the normal player.
In my perfect world, it should be left basically as is. I actually don't see how you could make the system much better for me personally. In a more practical world though, it should probably be once per attack action.
Once per turn anyone can draw or stow one thing with the "Interacting with Things" rule, but if you take the Attack action, you can also draw or stow one more thing. I think that would be a healthy middle ground.
@@the_twig131 Im not sure what Stow and draw per turn fixes.
it made sense to me that you could draw a weapon as part of an action (like swing a sword)
it makes sense that putting a weapon away takes more time (its own action)
and if you want to quickly draw a second item you have to drop the first.
What doesnt make sense about that?, honest question, not being argumentative
Treantmonk is coping hard for thinking that beastmasters can replace the nick attack.
Especially since he also argues war magic being able to replace the haste attack action attack is ambiguous.
So, here's a really squinty question. If you use a Halberd to cast True Strike (which you don't even have to draw or stow, you just need a free hand for the Material Component, right?), and you use the Cleave property, do you add the additional force damage from True Strike to the Cleave attack? It's still one attack, so you would, right? My interpretation is that you're cleaving through one enemy into another with the same attack, and that attack simply has two attack and two damage rolls.
On that note, I have a strange feeling we're going to continue never seeing any magic halberds get printed.
The Cleave attack is a separate attack, so you use STR. I think.
Cleave is another really weird mastery because it's maybe not technically in the Attack action? Or maybe it is?
The most powerful two weapon fighter is probably a Monk, the dmg die will eventually be d12s and you could flurry of blows 3 attacks as a bonus action at 11th lvl
Duel wielding with monk now is stupidly good and makes monk rogue multiclass very powerful. Go 5 levels of rogue to get cunning attack, the rest monk. Pick of the nick and vex masteries to duel wield with short sword and dagger. the short sword will make far easier to pull of your sneak attack consistently. Eventually this means your character will be able to make 6 attacks in one turn (thanks to flurry of blows) and all of them are D10 s thanks to martial arts and you get an additional 3D6 sneak attack damage with the option to use one of the cunning attack options. You can grab the feat gives you fighting style (if your table uses old books, If not 1-2 lvl fighter dip would work)
My character has a Scimitar of Speed. If I wanted to dual wield with the Scimitar of Speed and say, a spear(using it one handed). How would that work using Dual Wielder and Two Weapon Fighting Feats?
Scimitar of Speed lets you make an additional Bonus Action Attack. You don't need Two Weapon Fighting, and you can't do both a BA Scimitar attack and a Dual Wielder Spear attack in the same turn, since you only have one bonus action.
@the_twig131 okay, that's what I figured, I would only generate an extra attack then if offhand weapon also had the Light property because it is moved into the attack action?
Aw hell yeah! Sickle OP!
I'm looking up a monk/ranger multiclass because at lvl 7 with 2 ranger levels and 5 monk you can BA huntersmark and attack 2 times +1 nick attack with dagger or scimitar and monks martial arts die improve weapons like daggers. then on your second turn you can attack 2times +1nick +2flurry of blows(unarmed attacks can be made with kicks or headbutts etc.) and also on ranger 2 you get fighting style and on ranger 1 weapon masteries + first lvl spells. although you could just go 1 lvl fighter for both fighting style and masteries.
the only thing I hesitate is ... should I go straight monk and focus on grappling people? because I can move them AND I get advantage on them with grappler feat. and I think foregoing one attack per turn to instead have advantage on all 4 attacks is better...
the juggling dosen't function with a shield and wep. If i understand this right, the shield by itself needs an full Action to be equipt?
Yes, shields do need a Utilize action. You can just juggle the weapon though, leaving the shield in your other hand for the entire fight.
Where in the rules does it say you can't do another extra attack with your secondary weapon once you've done it?
Are you talking about the bonus action attack? It's in the nick property itself. "You can make this extra attack only once per turn" referring to the extra attack of the light property. You need the dual wielder feat to overcome this restriction.
I homebrewed Fighting Initiate into a general feat allowing characters without the Fighting Style Feature to take a Fighting Style feat
very helpfull :) thanks!
If you started as a monk and used any of the Nick weapons; and also took 1 level in fighter. Then at level 6 you could get 5 1d8 attacks if you use flurry of blows. Not to mention you don't need the Dual Wielder feat, because your BA will be flurry of blows. Unless I'm missing something here.
Question
Pact of the chain familiars can attack if you give up one of your attacks. "when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its Reaction."
Let's say I attack with a club(light property) so I can make an extra attack later with a bonus action using a different light weapon. I want to forego that second attack to allow my familiar to attack. Do I even need to be holding the other light weapon? Could it just be sheathed? Could I hold a shield?
Just wondering peoples thoughts...
So assuming that you can replace your Nick attack (which I don't think you can), yes, you can use it to make a familiar attack.
As for do you need your dagger equipped, that depends on your reading of the Nick Trigger. Ask your DM.
@@the_twig131 but what if I just use the bonus action light attack? Or do you think that also should not be able to be forgone?
@@the_twig131 Btw thanks for responding Mr Twig :)
If you're just using your BA, not Nick, then you can't give it up, because it's not part of the Attack Action.
@@the_twig131hmmm good point, doesn't actually say attack to be given up has to be part of the attack action. Just says when you take the Attack action. Reads to me like as long as I've satisfied the first part I can give up an attack. Maybe JC will address this
My brain is exploding while watching this. Only thing I’m still confused about is does nick allow you to stow/draw again during your turn because I thought it was just another attack as apart of the attack action. How does that allow more draws/stows?
Yep, Nick makes it a part of the Attack action, so it gives you an extra draw/stow.
Dual wielder does not require you to have taken the nick attack to work, it just requires you to have light weapon in one hand and any other weapon in the other, it basically just lets you to use non-light weapon for your bonus action attack. So you can use it even if you aren't swapping weapons all the time.
Correct. I do think that you're kind of missing a trick if you don't also use a Nick weapon though. That's a free attack that you're just not taking.
In my opinion, the attack with a nick weapon (for example, a scimitar) should be the second one, because it is activated by the first attack with a light weapon (for example, a handaxe with vex for adv.)!
And the shielf stuff, its still an action? I have a copy and didnt see it..
@@apjapki ok, should say on the book
There were a few typos in the book that D&D Beyond changed. The main ones are Shields require an action again, and the upcasting on Giant Insect and Conjure Woodland Beings (not Conjure Minor Elementals) were fixed.
I think the Nick Weapon for Nick attack is the best, because can benefit more of other masteries
This was really good! I might have to cone back and listen when im less tired but I think at least the juggling is going to be simple. I'm the only one who is likely to go this indepth into the rules and Im also the DM. If a player comes up with this and asks about it we will work it out, but until then I kinda hate the fiddliness of it all and will moatly just ignore it. Just as all the nonsense around spell casting/components/arcane focus/free hands.
Sure, I tried to make the juggling as easy to follow as possible with the demos, but it is an inherently pretty complex thing. Use as much or as little of it as you like.
was waiting for this. Thanks Twig.
I think that you should add: unless that weapon is thrown, to The_Twig his homebrew rule about weapon juggling while holding a shield. Since throwing gets rid of the handling complexity that so many people have an issue with. I mean even under the old rules, but after Tasha's. Scenario: we are holding a shield and a sword/battleaxe and there's 2 badly wounded foes 1 of which is within 5 ft, 1 normal health at 30 ft and 1 at 100 ft from the healty foe, we are lvl 11 fighter with the sharpshooter feat. We attack foe 1 and slay it with with our sword/axe and stow it, than we move on to the healthy foe and while moving there when we get within range with our movement we draw and fling a javelin as part of the thrown attack, at the other weakened foe, killing it and when we get in melee with the healthy foe we draw our sword/axe and hit that foe.
This^ scenario we could already do in Tasha's and that's not weapon juggling (I teach {juggling, unicycle and clowns} in a youth circus) under the new rules and with the additional attack (just replace the first sword/axe with scimitar and add maybe an additional handaxe thrown at healty foe) this shouldn't be an issue at all.
I make such a big deal out of this because people get rather cranky about RAW, RAI, believable and breaking immersion, so that once they establish a rule they don't want any exceptions to that rule even if it totally makes sense!
Yeah, that sounds reasonable I think.
@@the_twig131 That's what I figured anyway. When you make a rule it's easy to overlook something that would be an exception.
What? You mean my Hammer and Sickle wielding communist Monk is a niche character!? Why I never!!
Wait until the comrades hear about this.
I think that all D&D campaigns should have a buff, shirtless Karl Marx.
We have a hammer and sickle wielding tabaxi rogue anarchist (?) played by a communist at our table which got a homebrewed clawattack acid dmg (lsd reference) cantrip because she was so bummed out by 5e dualwielding. She'll love this change and hear about other hammer and sickle wielding characters! :D
@@the_twig131 *furiously writing charakter background manifesto*
9:30 well if you use nick with light weapon "extra attack" - yes you have to use two weapons to trigger it BUT the breath weapon could replace the nick attack instead of the first attack setting up light weapon attack because breath weapon only states it has to be an attack part of the attack action - which the nick attack would still be.
I don't know I think that it is a "order of operations" thing. triggering the ability to add the light weapon attack means it has to be two light weapons wielded in the same turn - and with nick you just get to use it as part of the attack action - but once that condition has been met and the attack is "being made" you can swap it out for a breath weapon attack.
your interpretation adds this locked in feature of order of operations where you check if you CAN swap the attack as the attack is being made and that MUST condition breaks the interaction of using anything else but a light weapon.... huh... I think that actually makes a lot of sense but in my mind the conditions/text of the light weapon property are the conditions to MAKE the attack but switching out the attack is this wholly different mechanic on top of the order of operations ... and I don't think that declaring the attack and then resolving the attack as "not with a light weapon" makes the attack fail.... but there is an argument that is how it SHOULD work...
I have a build idea I'm campaigning with rn. Rogue/Swords Bard. WM with Hand Crossbow (vex) and Dagger (nick). Two Weapon Fighting style. Dual Wielder feat.
Attack 1: hand crossbow (vex)
Attack 1.2: Throw dagger (nick) Proc Sneak Attack
B. Attack: Throw another dagger / Use second hand crossbow
At Bard 6, throw in another dagger or a third hand crossbow show for Extra attack.
Optimal? No. Fun? Yes. Can even take a 1 lvl dip into fighter for Thrown Weapon fighting style if you don't want to invest an entire feat for it.
Are those tokens your favorite yugioh cards or are they just convenient art?
So the theme there is "Yugioh, Magic, and Pokémon with memes about them being good".
Basically all of them are completely unplayable (except Theseus), but they have some meme hyping them up as being amazing.
@@the_twig131 Ah, I see! I don't play Magic, so those went over my head, but I can see your theme now with Berserk Gorilla and Regigigas. Don't remember that worm's name, though.
It's called Zone Eater.
"A monster attacked by this card will be destroyed during the End Phase of the 5th turn after the attack."
It's 250/200.
@the_twig131 that's right! He was originally from Happy Meals too. He's hard to completely forget about.
Hunter's Mark 🤝 Divine Favor
Just a friendly reminder that It is impossible to sheathe a polearm weapon
I reckon something like a naginata probably has a sheath.
Why?
@@joshuadadad5414 because the definition of a polearm is a weapon way much bigger than the person wielding it?????
This made my head spin a bit... Thanks for breaking it down, but when rules need to be broken down in flowcharts that's when it feels like they have lost the intuitive edge and personally I think they went a bit on the complex side here...
Agreed.
Two Weapon Fighting, my beloved, all grown up!
Weapon juggling? One step closer to d&d becoming dmc
What about dart?
The dart is not a light weapon unfortunately. I kind of wish it was. Sling too.
Yeah I was just thinking about using it with daggers on a monk for vex
Ngl, this is somehow feeling more complicated than spellcasting, keeping up with the amount of action interaction with the weapons. Which is pretty cool, but relearning how to optmize my damage is crazy haha
Yeah, it's super cool. There's so damn much to do with it all, and it makes weapon selection really important.
You can NOT switch to new weapons every attack. It says you can equip OR unequip a weapon before OR after the attack, not AND. This means you equip, attack, attack, THEN you can unequip after the second attack if you want to switch weapons. This wording for unequipping a weapon means you can't even drop a weapon as a free action anymore since that is now a part of unequipping.
@@apjapki Read the Attack Action at 13:14.
@@apjapki If you don't already have a weapon out, you can't do what he says at 12:30.
@@apjapki 5e is very specific with it's wording. I am not referring to the entire attack action. Before or after an individual attack, you can equip OR unequip a weapon, not AND.
@@apjapki No... how are you not understanding this??
Starting with no weapons, the rules only allow:
Attack 1: Equip weapon A then Attack with weapon A
Attack 2: Attack with weapon A, then Unequip weapon A
RAW, you can NOT do the following:
Attack 1: Equip weapon A, Attack with weapon A, then Unequip weapon A
Attack 2: Equip weapon B, Attack with weapon B, unequip weapon B
I mean, you're right, you can only draw/stow once either before or after each attack. But I never did otherwise, or said that you could. Because you can't.
Regarding the replacement of an attack with the dragon's breath - after the fifth level, when you have an extra attack, it works! You attack once with a light weapon, you release the dragon's breath and as part of this attacking action, you also add a nick attack! Otherwise, in my opinion, it does not work!
I want you to make a video about unarmed figthing
That's definitely on my shortlist. I have a slightly older video about unarmed strikes that I made around playtest 5, but a lot has changed since then.
Weapon juggling annoys me because I just want to use a Rapier and Dagger, but that doesn’t work without juggling
The main problem with the replacement attack thing is that the replacement features don't care about which attack they replace. I think a sage advice is warranted to clarify the intention.
If you want Treantmonk's exact words, he was talking specifically about the Beast Master.
"My logic is that an attack with a different light weapon is still an attack with the attack action, and primal companion gives you a specific ability to replace an attack with the attack action."
I can see where he's coming from, I just think that the "must" in the Light property holds precedence.
I dont mind light+shield so long as youre throwing all the weapons
I will definitely ban the one-handed dual-wielding exploit.
Regarding anything else, i think once the players start getting magical weapons the entire game changes, and juggling becomes far less appealing until at some point they will have many good magical weapons. And weaving those around sounds less like a solved problem and more like fun area of character and combat style exploration.
Yeah, this is I think a big thing that people miss when complaining about juggling. It's not, and cannot be a solved problem. The optimal juggle changes constantly depending on what you have and what you're fighting. It's a massive piece of piloting tech, rather than another metric to min-max.
23:00 how do you have enough stowing/weilding points if you get 1+#attacks? 4 attacks with one hand requires 6 points and your making 4 attacks... Thats only getting you 5 stow/wield points. Not enough to pull out warhammer and use dual wielder feat bonus action attack. Also, the order of your attacks matters and you must make the second attack with the dagger instead of the handaxe or else you won't be able to use nick. Doing so lets you use the hand axe as a bonus action attacks as well.
This. I believe the "three weapon circle juggles" are impossible RAW and extra swaps were inserted in error by Twig and others. This is my understanding.
That's an awesome video! However, I must say I agree with you that the attack replacement shouldn't, per RAW, work. Nick says "When you make the extra attack from the Light property", and if you're not making the extra attack from the Light property then Nick is useless and doesn't do anything. It requires you to make that specific attack for it to qualify to be part of the attack action. The "When you make" there is disallowing that replacement interaction, as far as I'm concerned.