UPGRADE Dual Wielder in Sage Advice & Errata 5.5

Hi everyone,
I think the time has come to update "Dual Wielder" in the Sage Advice & Errata.

There is a need for clarity, and I believe we need to eliminate any alternative interpretations of this feat.
There are two interpretations regarding this feat on every forum.
I am officially asking the minds currently managing D&D 5.5 to update the errata and tell us precisely how to handle the number of attacks.

Thank you.

What alternative interpretation is there? I think it's pretty clear what the intent is, though it could be worded a little better.

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

 

I mean the other question is whether 4 scimitar attacks using 2 different scimitars in a single hand is bonkers, but i think everyone agrees its bonkers, but also everyone wants more power, so of course we accept it. 

In fairness, some of us very much don't accept it.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/241063-rosie-the-riveter

Light property gives a bonus action Light attack (no str/dex mod to dmg)

Nick mastery moves Light Attack to be part of Attack Action.

Two weapon fighting style lets you add str/dex mod to attacks using the Light property

Dual Wielding feat: when you attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can bonus action Dual attack with a different weapon  (if its also light then two weapon fighting style applies to Dual attack and Dual attack can also add str/dex mod)

 

The questions that ive seen include:

Whether Dual Wielding intended to require one weapon in each hand or whether it allows hot swapping 2 weqpons in one hand while the other hand carries a shield or something.

Does the dual wielding quick draw feature work with drawing/stowing 2 weapons in sequence with the same hand? Or was it intended to work with only one weapon in each hand? There can be an issue with not enough free object interactions to end a turn with the same weapon in your one hand that you started with.

I mean the other question is whether 4 scimitar attacks using 2 different scimitars in a single hand is bonkers, but i think everyone agrees its bonkers, but also everyone wants more power, so of course we accept it.

 

I was referring specifically to point 4.
 Greater clarity—and therefore a correction—would be appreciated.

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

I play at two different tables, and they use the two different interpretations.
One table uses JC's explanation, the other doesn't.
That statement by JC seems to have been made off the cuff at a convention; I’d say it doesn't carry much weight.

I’d like to see an official errata released.

Quote from AndreaBaldi >>

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

I play at two different tables, and they use the two different interpretations.
One table uses JC's explanation, the other doesn't.
That statement by JC seems to have been made off the cuff at a convention; I’d say it doesn't carry much weight.

I’d like to see an official errata released.

 Crawford's comment is consistent with what the rules say.

The whole thing is still scattered and requires too much careful reading of the text, so they really ought to clarify, just so people who aren't experienced at parsing out rules have somewhere to go.

People do sometimes lose sight of what Sage Advice is for. The rules being logically consistent and unambiguous doesn't matter if players and DMs are still confused by them.

Also, Jeremy Crawford's comments on rules is (for me at least) absolutely a "don't know what you've got til it's gone" thing. Even despite me disagreeing with some of them, and some even being inconsistent with each other, it's still far more preferable to complete silence.

Part of the problem is that it has the same name as a 2014 feat, so it's reasonable to think its purpose is the same, and the purpose of the 2014 feat wasn't getting an extra attack, it was being able to dual wield effectively with non-light weapons. My initial assumption was that, so I looked at it and went "wow, they took a marginal feat and made it even worse".

Quote from jl8e >>

The whole thing is still scattered and requires too much careful reading of the text, so they really ought to clarify, just so people who aren't experienced at parsing out rules have somewhere to go.

It's the kind of thing one of the old class handbooks would be perfect for. "Want to build a fighter who wields two weapons at the same time? Here's all the rules for it and how they work together, plus some extra feats/magic items that work well with the concept to get you to buy the book"