Two-Weapon Fighting

Huh?

you add the modifier to the damage, what made you confused?

The "if you aren't already adding it to the damage" part

is to prevent things like "oh this magic dagger that i have lets me add my modifier into the damage even if i use the light property so i guess i add 3 damage + the 3 of my feat so 6 dmg", they made it as a fail safe for min max probably

Quote from Subtlelogic >>

The "if you aren't already adding it to the damage" part

It means that you don't add the modifier to the damage again if you already have some other feature that lets you do that.

I think anyone with a secondary light weapon can make an extra attack in D&D 2024. Having the Two-Weapon fighting style or feat, I believes then allows you to add ability modifier to damage, and not for anyone else just using a second "light" weapon. I tried to find corroberation of this, but could not find it.

I looked again and found it. It really messes up my dual wielding build, because in order to use two-weapon fighting, both weapons must be light to allow the extra bonus action attack. Frak!

As it says "AN extra attack", does this also work with the additional attack the Dual Wielder feat gives? Since that additional attack is distinct from "the extra attack from the Light property" but still uses the Light property.

My reasoning is that if it were only affecting "the extra attack from the Light property" it would say "THE extra attack".

Quote from deffdefying >>

As it says "AN extra attack", does this also work with the additional attack the Dual Wielder feat gives? Since that additional attack is distinct from "the extra attack from the Light property" but still uses the Light property.

My reasoning is that if it were only affecting "the extra attack from the Light property" it would say "THE extra attack".

I would interpret it as applying to both the Dual Wielder extra attack and the plain old Light extra attack, but the rules around dual-wielding in general are an absolute mess in the 2024 rules, so who knows.

I know the whole DnD Internet seems to have settled this, but I still don’t see how RAI there is more than one “extra attack from using a weapon with the light property”.

Yes, the Dungeon Dudes confirmed that Jeremy Crawford said so during a Convention. But did he maybe just capitulate to the masses of action economy hungry min maxers? 

Dual Wielder lets you use a non light weapon to make the extra attack on your bonus action, besides the ability score increase and quick draw. But following the common interpretation of  the 4-attack-dual-wielder-crowd, you would have to use a light weapon plus a weapon with the nick property, which are always light (for a reason I’d argue). Isn’t it strange that this feat supposedly gives you an extra attack as a bonus action, but only if you combine it in a way that lets you ignore the other benefit it gives you? Obviously getting an extra bonus action attack is worth more than upgrading your extra attack from a light to a non-two-handed weapon. So why bother having the non-two-handed instead of must-be-light in the first place? 

Admittedly, the dual wielder feat in my interpretation seems weaker (+1 average damage per attack moving from d6 to d8 weapons) than e.g. great weapon master or polearm master. 
Also, the fact that two weapon fighting says “an extra attack” instead of “the extra attack” points to the common interpretation.

I just think an extra attack is overpowered compared to all other options and every melee character should be a dual wielder. That’s what makes me suspicious. 

Quote from NightMask >>

Isn’t it strange that this feat supposedly gives you an extra attack as a bonus action, but only if you combine it in a way that lets you ignore the other benefit it gives you? Obviously getting an extra bonus action attack is worth more than upgrading your extra attack from a light to a non-two-handed weapon. So why bother having the non-two-handed instead of must-be-light in the first place? 

I think you're misunderstanding. When it says "an extra attack as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property", it's not talking about using a Light weapon for the extra attack; it's referring to how using a Light weapon as part of the Attack action enables you to make a bonus action attack using another weapon. It's saying that this feat's benefits apply to an extra attack you're making as a result of already having attacked with a Light weapon, which applies to both the normal Light property extra attack and the other one granted by the Dual Wielder feat.

My comment should have been on the dual wielder fest page, not here :)

the ambiguity isn’t with what two weapon fighting does, but with the interpretation that there are two extra attacks triggered by using a light weapon + another (light) weapon with nick (Make it as part of the action not bonus action) and then from dual wielder as a bonus action which would have to be one of your two light weapons unless you assume RAI is to switch your weapon and do your bonus attack with non-two-handed weapon number three in the same round. 

Quote from NightMask >>

My comment should have been on the dual wielder fest page, not here :)

the ambiguity isn’t with what two weapon fighting does, but with the interpretation that there are two extra attacks triggered by using a light weapon + another (light) weapon with nick (Make it as part of the action not bonus action) and then from dual wielder as a bonus action which would have to be one of your two light weapons unless you assume RAI is to switch your weapon and do your bonus attack with non-two-handed weapon number three in the same round. 

I don't understand, then, what you meant earlier by:

"Isn’t it strange that this feat supposedly gives you an extra attack as a bonus action, but only if you combine it in a way that lets you ignore the other benefit it gives you?"

I do not see anything in either feat that requires you to ignore any of the benefits either feat gives you. Can you explain what exactly you mean there?

What I meant is that if you go for the “two extra attacks” interpretation, you’d have to use only light weapons: one light weapon to trigger the extra attack and one light nick weapon to make the extra attack part of the attack action. Plus the bonus extra attack from dual wielder with either of these light weapons. 

If this is the killer feature of dual wielder, why does it allow you to make the extra attack with any weapon that lacks the two handed property?

So if two extra attacks is a thing (I argue RAI it shouldn’t be), dual wielder makes you chose between

1. two extra attacks, but both weapons are light (one of them nick) 

2. Only one extra attack but you can use a non-two-handed weapon and benefit from +1 avg damage and another weapon mastery

Since action economy is key, option 1 is clearly superior. So it’s one of those choices that aren’t a choice (aside from roleplay / flavor). And the text of dual wielder isn’t framed as “either of these two benefits”. That all just goes to argue that RAI dual wielder should not give you an extra attack. To me, DW and the nick mastery are two separate things: nick is essentially for Rogues or Bards who have lots of uses of bonus actions. DW for fighter / ranger builds that have more feats and where fighting with a light and a larger weapon is the theme and aesthetic you’re going for. Too bad it’s somewhat weaker than Great weapon master or polearm master.