Wow they are right, it doesn't even specify using a different hand, only that two of the attacks must be with different weapons.
1) First attack with shortsword mastery. Vex grants advantage on next attack, if same creature. 2) 1x stow shortsword, draw scimitar. Scimitar mastery Nick allows free attack from a different Light property weapon, no bonus action, 1x per turn. 3) Extra attack (at level 5) with scimitar. Enhanced Dual Wielding (from Dual Wielder feat at level 4) grants bonus action attack. 4) 2x stow scimitar, draw shortsword from Quick Draw feature of Dual Wielder. Bonus action attack from EDW with a different non-two-handed melee weapon and shortsword vex mastery gives advantage first attack next turn vs same creature, if you haven't killed it with 4d6 plus 4x modifiers from TWF, hunters mark, etc. 5) Repeat.
You can basically get the same result with Scimitar->Shortsword->Shortsword->Scimitar, depending on whether you infer that the Nick weapon attack causes the free extra attack, or if the Nick weapon must be in hand to make the free extra attack from Light property.
So, you can do all this WITH a shield in the offhand. Seems to not only be written, but also as intended, given the wording of EDW and QD.
It's obviously not as intended, because that isn't dual-wielding. And there's certainly an argument to be made that "draw or stow two weapons... when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one" means you can draw two weapons or stow weapons, not that you can draw one weapon and stow another, and I think that's definitely the more straightforward reading (and the obvious intent; it's meant to let you immediately begin dual-wielding even if both your weapons are sheathed when combat starts).
I still really wish they'd just specified that the bonus attack must be made with a weapon in a different hand, and that you have to have both weapons in hand for the whole sequence.
I have come to the conclusion that the Object interaction rule should apply.
"Time-Limited Object Interactions
When time is short, such as in combat, interactions with objects are limited: one free interaction per turn. That interaction must occur during a creature’s movement or action. Any additional interactions require the Utilize action, as explained in “Combat” later in this chapter."
So I think effectively you need weapons in both hands because you can only draw/stow 1 weapon for free. To do so again requires the utilize action. Which I think makes sense. It makes everything work as one would think without certain abilities being pointless or redundancies that don't matter.
Yes, unless you have the Quick Draw Feature of Dual Wielder that would increase that to two, if the interaction is draw or stow. Originally, (mis?)interpreted that rule as two draw and two stow. Even if you interpret it as two total draw or stow, I believe the order I proposed in this post would still allow a shield:
I am reasonably convinced it works regardless, as long as you have a light weapon in each hand, and at least one of them has the Nick property in which you are proficient. Whether or not you can pull it off with a shield depends on careful order of the attacks and draw/stow, unless they issue an errata specifying main and offhand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stopped playing AD&D in '82, came back to 5e during COVID. Good times.
Treantmonk Update on today's video: Monty from the Dungeon Dudes contacted me to let me know he had asked Jeremy Crawford about Dual Wielder at Gencon, and here's how it works: It provides a single bonus action attack, so if you are using a weapon with the Nick Mastery that's one more attack. Two Weapon Fighting does add your ability score modifier to the damage of the extra attack.
And from the also top comment, since it reads so easily.
tomislavtomic5085 I'm pretty sure we're overcomplicating things regarding dual wielding. My interpretation: Everyone may take an offhand attack as a bonus action without adding the ability modifier. Nick allows it without using up the bonus action. The dual wielder feat allows 2 offhand attacks (one from Nick and one from the bonus action). The two weapon fighting style allows us to add the ability score modifier to any offhand attack we may have. That's logical and balanced progression IMO and probably what the designers intended.
So, to sum it up, a total of 3 attacks up to level 5 and if the character gains the extra attack ability then, 4 attacks from that point forward.
Yup- and to be fair, you do have to use up your fighting style, level 4 feat, a weapon mastery for a 1d6 weapon, and limit all but one of the attacks to 1d6 weapons. Guessing it may not be imbalanced with all the other changes in mind, though maybe it's top tier if you can use a shield, too.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Stopped playing AD&D in '82, came back to 5e during COVID. Good times.
It looks as if rules as written, you can't dual weird a rapier and dagger, probably one of the most iconic real world dual welding fighting styles?
Or is there some option not with the basic two weapon fighting options that allows this?
Well, a character can always wield both a rapier and dagger, and attack with either on their turn. Nothing in the rules prevents that. If they have the Extra Attack feature, they can freely use either for each attack, which could include throwing the dagger. This is me being facetious, though. Your question is really whether a character can gain any bonuses from the style.
A character with the Dual Wielder feat can make a bonus action attack with a weapon that does not have the two-handed property, as long as they attack with a light weapon first. So, a rapier/dagger wielder with that feat would have to attack with dagger first in order to get the rapier attack as a bonus action. A character with both Extra Attack and Dual Wielder could attack with rapier then dagger during their attack action, then rapier again with their bonus action. The net effect is to add one dagger attack to your turn.
There's another possible bonus as well. The Defensive Duelist feat only requires a character to be holding a finesse weapon. Simply holding a dagger (or other finesse weapon) enables that feat's defensive reaction. A rapier/dagger duelist could be using the dagger as a parrying weapon with or without Dual Wielder.
I think that is a generous reading. My read is that Enhanced Dual Wielding is simply restating the Two-Weapon Fighting BA with changes for weapon types allowed. The BA attack is still the only one you get and Nick moves it to the regular Attack action but this doesn't allow another BA attack. It could be worded better.
If it was simply re-stating the light weapon property attack, they would have stated that "in addition to making the bonus action attack granted by the Light Property.... yadda yadda".
They don't, so my reading is that it grants a seperate bonus action attack. If a similar feat granted a bonus action spell, would you assume that because the Quickened Spell metamagic allows you to cast a spell as a bonus action, then that feat must be referencing the Quickened Spell feature? Of course not, the two are not related, they just both have similar effects.
Also, if the Dual Weilder feat didn't grant an additional bonus action... what would be the point of it?? It allows you to make an off-hand attack with a non-light weapon and you can't add your modifiers to it? I'm not wasting my level 4 feat selection on "sometimes an extra d8 in combat".
The only reading that makes sense as it's own feat is that the bonus action attack granted in the text of the feat is seperate from the bonus action attack granted by the Light weapon property.
It looks as if rules as written, you can't dual weird a rapier and dagger, probably one of the most iconic real world dual welding fighting styles?
Or is there some option not with the basic two weapon fighting options that allows this?
You can dual wield rapier and dagger with the Dual Wielder Feat. But unfortunately it's probably not going to be optimal.
You have the choice between
Shortsword and Scimitar: First attack Scimitar -> Nick attack Shortsword -> Feat attack with advantage (because of Vex) Shortsword
Dagger and Rapier: First attack Dagger -> Feat attack Rapier
It's a bit better balanced if you have Extra Attack, but two light weapons is still optimal:
Shortsword and Scimitar: First attack Scimitar -> Nick attack Shortsword -> Second attack with advantage Shortsword -> Feat attack with advantage Shortsword
Dagger and Rapier: First attack Rapier -> Second attack with advantage Dagger -> Feat attack Rapier
(Better:) Shortsword and Rapier: First attack Rapier -> Second attack with advantage Shortsword -> Feat attack with advantage Rapier
(It's a bit more complicated with the advantage, because Vex only gives advantage to the next attack if it hit, but it's close enough)
Why did they make dual wielding so overly and unnecessarily complicated? It really didn't have to be this difficult. I can't imagine a new group picking up the 2024 rules and even remotely understanding how attacking with two weapons function in this version. It boggles my mind at how bad the designers are that they hired to mechanically design this edition. Most of the main youtubers do better jobs at fixing these problems. They were supposed to fix so many problems with 5E but just ended up making a lot of them worse.
I’ll stand by my read on it. Dual Wielder is a feat that also grants a stat increase, and granting another attack if you can take advantage of a weapon property would be odd. Also, JC clarified that there is only one additional attack (cited above). That said, Scimitar of Speed has similar but different wording. If you had the SoS you could make your TW/DW attack as part of your attack action using nick and then make the BA attack of the SoS also it appears. Enjoy your game!
It's a feat that grants a single stat increase, and if it didn't let you make an additional attack, that's basically all it would do. There's zero reason to take the feat with your incorrect reading.
That said, I am 100% in agreement with SkorVoltag's post that these interactions are extremely and unnecessarily convoluted.
Why did they make dual wielding so overly and unnecessarily complicated? It really didn't have to be this difficult. I can't imagine a new group picking up the 2024 rules and even remotely understanding how attacking with two weapons function in this version. It boggles my mind at how bad the designers are that they hired to mechanically design this edition.
It's first and foremost a problem with back-compatibility. Any ability not superseded still exists. So you've already got the dual wielder feat and the two-weapon fighting style, both of which have to be accounted for, along with the baseline two-weapon attack system. And, once you're adding weapon masteries, they ought to be involved.
The decisions they made on how to fit all these pieces together are not necessarily the ones I would have made, but I can't say they're bad.
The problem is less game design and more rules-writing, which is a separate skill. The two-weapon combat rules are scattered over four different places, and their interactions are not made clear. There needed to be a single place, in the rules glossary, where this was all put together.
It's first and foremost a problem with back-compatibility. Any ability not superseded still exists. So you've already got the dual wielder feat and the two-weapon fighting style, both of which have to be accounted for, along with the baseline two-weapon attack system. And, once you're adding weapon masteries, they ought to be involved.
The decisions they made on how to fit all these pieces together are not necessarily the ones I would have made, but I can't say they're bad.
This is is spot-on but I do think it's fair to call them bad when it requires peeling back so many layers of rules to see the full picture and the end result of that complexity is slower gameplay (one more attack every round) and a fighting style that still fails to scale with Two Extra Attacks.
Prior to the 2024 PHB I'd been house-ruling Extra Attack for non-Monks to let players deal 1d4 with the other weapon's damage when they TWF. That was enough to let TWF fall a bit short of heavy weapons (it's still less than 2d6 with rerolls on 1-2) if you didn't take the bonus action, and a bit stronger if you did.
They could've done something like that for the Nick property and let Dual Wielder extend Nick to non-Light weapons. That way legacy characters keep their double longsword shenanigans (they did made the stupid double hand crossbow thing official after all.) Increase the bonus damage from a d4 to a d6 or d8 so it can keep up with GWM's Proficiency Bonus damage boost and you'd be set.
I don't think so. The Nick property moves the BA attack from the Light property to the Attack action, which frees the BA for something else. Dual Wielder doesn't actually grant an attack, it modifies the one from the Light property I believe.
So. level 5:
1st. Scimitar, Light allows a BA attack, Nick modifies it to the Attack action.
2nd. Shortsword attack from Nick mastery.
3rd. Extra Attack with Scimitar/Shortsword.
Use BA for some other purpose if you have one. Drink a potion or something.
This is incorrect. 1/ Shortsword does not have the nick property. It has Vex. 2/ With Dual wielder feat you can make an extra attack as a bonus action, with any weapon, as long as you first attacked with a light weapon. The Nick mastery moves the extra attack from the Light property as part of the attack action, instead of the bonus action.
I agree with Gris_X. The Dual Wielder feat does not explicitly state the bonus action from a light weapon is modified. It's a completely separate bonus action option from that granted by the Light weapon property. That's why it stacks with Nick.
Secretly, I think this is all just to make Driz'zt cooler. He wields two scimitars.
It's important to note that the new PHB rules are intended to supercede the previous. Yes, you can still use legacy classes, backgrounds, etc., but the rules aren't meant to be mix and match. Of course, any DM can decide otherwise. As presented in the new book, there are NO baseline two weapon fighting rules anymore. During the UA phase, they specifically mentioned moving two weapon fighting out of the rules and into the weapon property to remove abuses of the rules as intended.
From the introduction :
This is the 2024 version of the fifth edition Player’s Handbook. If you’ve read the 2014 version, much of this book will feel familiar, since the fundamental rules of the game are the same. But the book contains many new or redesigned elements, and the versions of things in this book replace versions from older books.
That's what I said. The scimitar has Nick, which allows the Shortsword attack to be on the attack action. The issue is the interpretation of the Dual Wielder feat granting another bonus attack, with which I disagree. The only avenue to this that I find is with the Scimitar of Speed which specifically adds a bonus action attack unrelated to Two-Weapon or Dual Wielder.
So in essence, what you're saying is that there is a pretty substantial error in the wording of the Dual Wielder feat.
I'm going to use the term "bonus action option" here for clarity. I assume we all agree that a creature can only have one bonus action per turn, and various class features, feats, etc. all provide options they can spend that action on each turn.
For Nick, the game reads: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action." The game is very clear that the mastery applies to the attack of the Light property.
In your interpretation, if the game writers were consistent with the wording of Nick, then the Dual Wielder feat should read: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it with a melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property instead of only with a Light weapon." Or something similar. It would be very clear, like Nick, that the Light property option is being modified.
But they didn't word it that way. Instead, the bonus action option granted by Dual Wielder is worded almost identically to the bonus action option granted by the Light property, with the exception of the qualifying weapons. Since the one of the goals of the 2024 edition is clarity, this is an epic fail since we readers now must imply that Dual Wielder modifies the Light property, instead of having it clearly spelled out like Nick.
This then is the crux of the disagreement. Some of us are concluding that, if the game designers meant for Dual Wielder to modify the Light property, they would have worded it that way, just like Nick. The difference in wording means Light property and Dual Wielder feat offer separate bonus action options. Thus, Nick does not modify the Dual Wielder option, and Dual Wielder does not apply to the Nick option.
I guess future errata is likely the only way this would be solved. As long as you're enjoying the game your way, go for it.
I feel like either I'm missing something or everyone else is.
"When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack"
You only have one attack action that triggers one extra attack if you attack with a weapon that has the light property. Further attacks do not trigger extra attacks.
I feel like either I'm missing something or everyone else is.
"When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack"
You only have one attack action that triggers one extra attack if you attack with a weapon that has the light property. Further attacks do not trigger extra attacks.
People are talking about the 2024 rules, which have changed how two-weapon fighting works in some non-obvious ways.
Yes, unless you have the Quick Draw Feature of Dual Wielder that would increase that to two, if the interaction is draw or stow. Originally, (mis?)interpreted that rule as two draw and two stow. Even if you interpret it as two total draw or stow, I believe the order I proposed in this post would still allow a shield:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/d-d-beyond-general/general-discussion/204959-2024-two-weapon-fighting-with-dual-wielder-and?comment=28
I am reasonably convinced it works regardless, as long as you have a light weapon in each hand, and at least one of them has the Nick property in which you are proficient. Whether or not you can pull it off with a shield depends on careful order of the attacks and draw/stow, unless they issue an errata specifying main and offhand.
Stopped playing AD&D in '82, came back to 5e during COVID. Good times.
So, to sum it up, a total of 3 attacks up to level 5 and if the character gains the extra attack ability then, 4 attacks from that point forward.
https://startplaying.games/game-master/dmgrisix
Yup- and to be fair, you do have to use up your fighting style, level 4 feat, a weapon mastery for a 1d6 weapon, and limit all but one of the attacks to 1d6 weapons. Guessing it may not be imbalanced with all the other changes in mind, though maybe it's top tier if you can use a shield, too.
Stopped playing AD&D in '82, came back to 5e during COVID. Good times.
Am I reading this right?
It looks as if rules as written, you can't dual weird a rapier and dagger, probably one of the most iconic real world dual welding fighting styles?
Or is there some option not with the basic two weapon fighting options that allows this?
Well, a character can always wield both a rapier and dagger, and attack with either on their turn. Nothing in the rules prevents that. If they have the Extra Attack feature, they can freely use either for each attack, which could include throwing the dagger. This is me being facetious, though. Your question is really whether a character can gain any bonuses from the style.
A character with the Dual Wielder feat can make a bonus action attack with a weapon that does not have the two-handed property, as long as they attack with a light weapon first. So, a rapier/dagger wielder with that feat would have to attack with dagger first in order to get the rapier attack as a bonus action. A character with both Extra Attack and Dual Wielder could attack with rapier then dagger during their attack action, then rapier again with their bonus action. The net effect is to add one dagger attack to your turn.
There's another possible bonus as well. The Defensive Duelist feat only requires a character to be holding a finesse weapon. Simply holding a dagger (or other finesse weapon) enables that feat's defensive reaction. A rapier/dagger duelist could be using the dagger as a parrying weapon with or without Dual Wielder.
If it was simply re-stating the light weapon property attack, they would have stated that "in addition to making the bonus action attack granted by the Light Property.... yadda yadda".
They don't, so my reading is that it grants a seperate bonus action attack. If a similar feat granted a bonus action spell, would you assume that because the Quickened Spell metamagic allows you to cast a spell as a bonus action, then that feat must be referencing the Quickened Spell feature? Of course not, the two are not related, they just both have similar effects.
Also, if the Dual Weilder feat didn't grant an additional bonus action... what would be the point of it?? It allows you to make an off-hand attack with a non-light weapon and you can't add your modifiers to it? I'm not wasting my level 4 feat selection on "sometimes an extra d8 in combat".
The only reading that makes sense as it's own feat is that the bonus action attack granted in the text of the feat is seperate from the bonus action attack granted by the Light weapon property.
You can dual wield rapier and dagger with the Dual Wielder Feat. But unfortunately it's probably not going to be optimal.
You have the choice between
It's a bit better balanced if you have Extra Attack, but two light weapons is still optimal:
(It's a bit more complicated with the advantage, because Vex only gives advantage to the next attack if it hit, but it's close enough)
I don't know anymore. I think it's RAI to not have 4 attacks at level 5 but the wording is wonky.
Why did they make dual wielding so overly and unnecessarily complicated? It really didn't have to be this difficult. I can't imagine a new group picking up the 2024 rules and even remotely understanding how attacking with two weapons function in this version. It boggles my mind at how bad the designers are that they hired to mechanically design this edition. Most of the main youtubers do better jobs at fixing these problems. They were supposed to fix so many problems with 5E but just ended up making a lot of them worse.
It's a feat that grants a single stat increase, and if it didn't let you make an additional attack, that's basically all it would do. There's zero reason to take the feat with your incorrect reading.
That said, I am 100% in agreement with SkorVoltag's post that these interactions are extremely and unnecessarily convoluted.
It's first and foremost a problem with back-compatibility. Any ability not superseded still exists. So you've already got the dual wielder feat and the two-weapon fighting style, both of which have to be accounted for, along with the baseline two-weapon attack system. And, once you're adding weapon masteries, they ought to be involved.
The decisions they made on how to fit all these pieces together are not necessarily the ones I would have made, but I can't say they're bad.
The problem is less game design and more rules-writing, which is a separate skill. The two-weapon combat rules are scattered over four different places, and their interactions are not made clear. There needed to be a single place, in the rules glossary, where this was all put together.
This is is spot-on but I do think it's fair to call them bad when it requires peeling back so many layers of rules to see the full picture and the end result of that complexity is slower gameplay (one more attack every round) and a fighting style that still fails to scale with Two Extra Attacks.
Prior to the 2024 PHB I'd been house-ruling Extra Attack for non-Monks to let players deal 1d4 with the other weapon's damage when they TWF. That was enough to let TWF fall a bit short of heavy weapons (it's still less than 2d6 with rerolls on 1-2) if you didn't take the bonus action, and a bit stronger if you did.
They could've done something like that for the Nick property and let Dual Wielder extend Nick to non-Light weapons. That way legacy characters keep their double longsword shenanigans (they did made the stupid double hand crossbow thing official after all.) Increase the bonus damage from a d4 to a d6 or d8 so it can keep up with GWM's Proficiency Bonus damage boost and you'd be set.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This is incorrect.
1/ Shortsword does not have the nick property. It has Vex.
2/ With Dual wielder feat you can make an extra attack as a bonus action, with any weapon, as long as you first attacked with a light weapon. The Nick mastery moves the extra attack from the Light property as part of the attack action, instead of the bonus action.
https://startplaying.games/game-master/dmgrisix
I agree with Gris_X. The Dual Wielder feat does not explicitly state the bonus action from a light weapon is modified. It's a completely separate bonus action option from that granted by the Light weapon property. That's why it stacks with Nick.
Secretly, I think this is all just to make Driz'zt cooler. He wields two scimitars.
It's important to note that the new PHB rules are intended to supercede the previous. Yes, you can still use legacy classes, backgrounds, etc., but the rules aren't meant to be mix and match. Of course, any DM can decide otherwise. As presented in the new book, there are NO baseline two weapon fighting rules anymore. During the UA phase, they specifically mentioned moving two weapon fighting out of the rules and into the weapon property to remove abuses of the rules as intended.
From the introduction :
Hmmm
..
So in essence, what you're saying is that there is a pretty substantial error in the wording of the Dual Wielder feat.
I'm going to use the term "bonus action option" here for clarity. I assume we all agree that a creature can only have one bonus action per turn, and various class features, feats, etc. all provide options they can spend that action on each turn.
For Nick, the game reads: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action." The game is very clear that the mastery applies to the attack of the Light property.
In your interpretation, if the game writers were consistent with the wording of Nick, then the Dual Wielder feat should read: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it with a melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property instead of only with a Light weapon." Or something similar. It would be very clear, like Nick, that the Light property option is being modified.
But they didn't word it that way. Instead, the bonus action option granted by Dual Wielder is worded almost identically to the bonus action option granted by the Light property, with the exception of the qualifying weapons. Since the one of the goals of the 2024 edition is clarity, this is an epic fail since we readers now must imply that Dual Wielder modifies the Light property, instead of having it clearly spelled out like Nick.
This then is the crux of the disagreement. Some of us are concluding that, if the game designers meant for Dual Wielder to modify the Light property, they would have worded it that way, just like Nick. The difference in wording means Light property and Dual Wielder feat offer separate bonus action options. Thus, Nick does not modify the Dual Wielder option, and Dual Wielder does not apply to the Nick option.
I guess future errata is likely the only way this would be solved. As long as you're enjoying the game your way, go for it.
I feel like either I'm missing something or everyone else is.
"When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack"
You only have one attack action that triggers one extra attack if you attack with a weapon that has the light property. Further attacks do not trigger extra attacks.
People are talking about the 2024 rules, which have changed how two-weapon fighting works in some non-obvious ways.
The quote was the first part of the light weapon rule for 2024.