There are no weapons - none at all - that have both the Two-handed AND Versatile properties. Versatile is given to one-handed weapons to allow them to be used with two hands. There are no cases of it being the other way around. Basically - there is no precedence for adding Versatile to the DBS.
I'm well aware that there's no precedent. But there's also nothing in the rules saying that a two-handed weapon can't be versatile. The ONLY definition of versatile is that it can be used with one or two hands, that's it. However, dual wielding requires one-handed weapons - that is, weapons with the one-handed property. You CAN have a two-handed property weapon with the versatile property, and that does not give it the one-handed property.
The Two-Handed property specifically states "This weapon requires two hands when you attack with it." While the Versatile property says "This weapon can be used with one or two hands." I would think the more concrete property of Two-Handed specifically disallowing attacking with less than 2 hands would overrule the choice given with the Versatile property. Not necessarily to say anyone is wrong for ruling otherwise, just wanted to give my two cents.
When doing weapon customization, you remove or ignore the two-handed and would add versatile. It would push the damage of the DBS to 1-8 damage one handed and 1d10 two-handed, and the backswing to 1d4 one handed and 1d6 two-handed. Rezilla wants the wapons to do max damage of 16 Just Because.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
When doing weapon customization, you remove or ignore the two-handed and would add versatile. It would push the damage of the DBS to 1-8 damage one handed and 1d10 two-handed, and the backswing to 1d4 one handed and 1d6 two-handed. Rezilla wants the wapons to do max damage of 16 Just Because.
Where are you getting that from? It would still be 2d4 when two-handed, and I already said it would make the most sense to have the versatile version - the one-handed attack - do the same as a normal scimitar which is 1d6. If you're worried about the potential 10 damage being too much for a one-handed attack, just change the Special to make it so that the bonus attack won't work unless the first attack was two-handed.
1. The versatile property increases the size of damage dice of a 1 handed weapon when wielded with 2 hands. That would make the DBS the same as dual wielding a Greatsword and Scimitar (2d6 attack, 1d6 bonus attack), that doesn't need the 2WFS to add modifier to BA attack, or have the heavy property, and be able to draw the weapon and make both attacks in 1 turn without a feat. Versatile would make DBS overpowered. It is already the strongest melee weapon in the game, it doesn't need a buff.
2. I don't know what your "designed purely for damage" comment even means. It is a weapon. The net is the only weapon designed to do something other than damage.
1. The versatile property allows you to use a one-handed weapon as two-handed, or two-handed as one-handed. The damage it deals depends on the weapon description. It does not have to increase the damage of the weapon. Using DBS with one hand could be the same damage-wise as a scimitar - 1d6.
You cannot dual wield if DBS is in one hand. You can only dual wield with one-handed weapons. The PHB is clear on this. Even with the versatile property, wielding DBS with one hand, you cannot put a weapon in the other hand, because DBS is still a two-handed weapon, even if it's wielding in one hand. In fact, you can wield a two-handed weapon in one hand anyway, you just can't attack with it, unless it has the versatile property.
From the PHB:
"Versatile. This weapon can be used with one or two hands. A damage value in parentheses appears with the property-the damage when the weapon is used with two hands to make a melee attack. "
Versatile does not turn a one-handed weapon into two-handed or vice versa.
2. You can have a weapon designed for damage and/or designed for utility. Weapons that can be used as monk weapons for instance have increased utility.
You conveniently omitted the paragraph of math that disproved your point again, but whatever.
1. The versatile property allows you to wield a weapon with one or two hands. It replaces the two handed property or it does nothing. And fair enough it doesn't require increasing the damage dice when wielded 2 handed, that is just the precedent of 6 out of 6 versatile weapons.
You would be able to dual wield it if it was versatile, because it would no longer be 2 handed. Not that it would matter since that would be a nerf compared to using it normally.
2. Weapons are designed for damage (except net). Class features and feats give those weapons utility. The only thing being a monk weapon does is let you do more damage, which the DBS doesn't need (I proved it twice). So are you suggesting polearm master or great weapon master work with it?
1. And fair enough it doesn't require increasing the damage dice when wielded 2 handed, that is just the precedent of 6 out of 6 versatile weapons.
You would be able to dual wield it if it was versatile, because it would no longer be 2 handed. Not that it would matter since that would be a nerf compared to using it normally.
2. Weapons are designed for damage (except net). Class features and feats give those weapons utility. The only thing being a monk weapon does is let you do more damage, which the DBS doesn't need (I proved it twice). So are you suggesting polearm master or great weapon master work with it?
1. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Logic would dictate that a two-handed versatile weapon would have less damage with one hand. It doesn't contradict the notion that a one-handed versatile weapon has more damage two-handed; if anything, they're complimentary.
I've already said, you can only dual wield weapons with the one-handed property. A two-handed versatile weapon does not have the one-handed property. "One-handed weapon" and "wielding a weapon with one hand" are not the same thing - the former refers to the weapon property, the latter refers to how the character is actually wielding the weapon.
In the PHB, it says you need a Light weapon to use two-weapon fighting aka dual wielding. The Dual Wielder feat allows you to do two-weapon fighting even when "the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding" are not light. Key term: one-handed melee weapon. If it's a two-handed melee weapon, it does not count even if you're wielding it in one hand.
2. You completely missed the point. A weapon being able to be used as a monk weapon is added utility. A weapon being versatile is added utility. A weapon being able to be dual-wielded is added utility. Having a property that allows for feats that cannot be gained without that property is added utility. DBS has no utility whatsoever. It can only be used in one specific way, and it only has the two-handed style and RB (which is racial so doesn't count) feat. It's lacking in utility.
1. And fair enough it doesn't require increasing the damage dice when wielded 2 handed, that is just the precedent of 6 out of 6 versatile weapons.
You would be able to dual wield it if it was versatile, because it would no longer be 2 handed. Not that it would matter since that would be a nerf compared to using it normally.
2. Weapons are designed for damage (except net). Class features and feats give those weapons utility. The only thing being a monk weapon does is let you do more damage, which the DBS doesn't need (I proved it twice). So are you suggesting polearm master or great weapon master work with it?
1. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Logic would dictate that a two-handed versatile weapon would have less damage with one hand. It doesn't contradict the notion that a one-handed versatile weapon has more damage two-handed; if anything, they're complimentary.
I've already said, you can only dual wield weapons with the one-handed property. A two-handed versatile weapon does not have the one-handed property. "One-handed weapon" and "wielding a weapon with one hand" are not the same thing - the former refers to the weapon property, the latter refers to how the character is actually wielding the weapon.
In the PHB, it says you need a Light weapon to use two-weapon fighting aka dual wielding. The Dual Wielder feat allows you to do two-weapon fighting even when "the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding" are not light. Key term: one-handed melee weapon. If it's a two-handed melee weapon, it does not count even if you're wielding it in one hand.
2. You completely missed the point. A weapon being able to be used as a monk weapon is added utility. A weapon being versatile is added utility. A weapon being able to be dual-wielded is added utility. Having a property that allows for feats that cannot be gained without that property is added utility. DBS has no utility whatsoever. It can only be used in one specific way, and it only has the two-handed style and RB (which is racial so doesn't count) feat. It's lacking in utility.
1a. That is what I said in a previous post (which was quoted in the comment you quoted then cut out). A versatile weapon is a non-2-handed weapon that can be wielded with 2 hands for additional damage. In all versatile weapons that exist, this additional damage has been represented by increasing the damage die by 1 size.
1b. There is no such thing as a "one-handed" property. All weapons that can be wielded 1 handed can be dual wielded. Versatile weapons can be wielded with 1 or 2 hands, two-handed weapons have to be wielded with 2 hands. A weapon can not have both properties.
1c. See above about "one handed" not being a weapon property. All weapons that can and are wielded with 1 hand are "one handed" weapons. If you try to insist that dual wielder let's you dual wield "one handed" weapons regardless of light property, then it can't dual wield longswords because they don't have the "one handed" property.
2. The fact that monk weapons having added utility that were granted by the class and not the weapon aside, the DBS is the most powerful melee weapon in the game, it's relative lack of utility is the balancing factor against that power. If the DBS was buffed (by being able to dual wield and use shields), there would be no reason to use any other melee weapon.
1a. That is what I said in a previous post (which was quoted in the comment you quoted then cut out). A versatile weapon is a non-2-handed weapon that can be wielded with 2 hands for additional damage. In all versatile weapons that exist, this additional damage has been represented by increasing the damage die by 1 size.
1b. There is no such thing as a "one-handed" property. All weapons that can be wielded 1 handed can be dual wielded. Versatile weapons can be wielded with 1 or 2 hands, two-handed weapons have to be wielded with 2 hands. A weapon can not have both properties.
1c. See above about "one handed" not being a weapon property. All weapons that can and are wielded with 1 hand are "one handed" weapons. If you try to insist that dual wielder let's you dual wield "one handed" weapons regardless of light property, then it can't dual wield longswords because they don't have the "one handed" property.
2. The fact that monk weapons having added utility that were granted by the class and not the weapon aside, the DBS is the most powerful melee weapon in the game, it's relative lack of utility is the balancing factor against that power. If the DBS was buffed (by being able to dual wield and use shields), there would be no reason to use any other melee weapon.
1a. For the last, no it is not. A versatile weapon is a weapon that can be used with one or two hands. That is the actual definition from the PHB. The versatile description does NOT say that the weapon has to be non-2 handed. Nowhere does it say this. Nowhere. I repeat: The versatile property just says that it can be used with one or two hands. It does not say anything about the weapon itself being one or two handed, only that it can be used with one or two hands.
1b. Actually, you're right about this. There's no one-handed property. However, logic dictates that anything without the two-handed property is one-handed. One-handed definitely should be an official property though since the grammar of the books specifically refers to one-handed weapons differently than a weapon wielded in one hand, which was my point. It's just like in Yugioh - the grammar matters, the grammar makes the rule, the grammar is what you go by.
1c. See above. The books specifically have a separation between "one-handed weapon" and "weapon wielded in one hand", and there are even places where they specifically say "one-handed weapon wielded in one hand". It's the grammar that matters.
2. DBS is not the most powerful weapon in the game. If we're talking about weapons without properties, Greatsword and Maul are the most powerful because they are 2-12. With weapon properties and without styles or feats, DBS is the most powerful only because it's 3-12. With feats and styles other than RB, 2LS is the most powerful weapon, or potentially GS/Maul, and technically they're still more powerful than RB DBS if we're talking max damage. If we're talking about proficiency and status bonus, GS/Maul is still more powerful than RB DBS.
My argument was never that DBS can't contend with RB. My argument was that it can't contend without, and RB is the only thing that makes it viable at endgame (styles+feats). RB is racial. Utility wise, DBS still has less utility than other weapons, such as 2LS. You've never managed to counter that.
My argument was never that DBS can't contend with RB. My argument was that it can't contend without, and RB is the only thing that makes it viable at endgame (styles+feats). RB is racial. Utility wise, DBS still has less utility than other weapons, such as 2LS. You've never managed to counter that.
You don't need the Revenant Blade feat to make the Double-Bladed Scimitar viable. All it does is give you +1 STR/DEX as well as +1 AC and makes it finesse.
You can easily get the +1 STR/DEX from another feat or go for ASI and get +2 (because it's possible that +1 won't change your modifier at all) and if you're using a strength build - making the DBS finesse is completely pointless. The +1 AC is nice but it doesn't affect damage output. So I don't really know why you think the DBS needs the RB feat?
You don't need the Revenant Blade feat to make the Double-Bladed Scimitar viable. All it does is give you +1 STR/DEX as well as +1 AC and makes it finesse.
You can easily get the +1 STR/DEX from another feat or go for ASI and get +2 (because it's possible that +1 won't change your modifier at all) and if you're using a strength build - making the DBS finesse is completely pointless. The +1 AC is nice but it doesn't affect damage output. So I don't really know why you think the DBS needs the RB feat?
You're absolutely correct. But DBS with RB is a package deal. RB makes it 5-14 instead of 3-12. That's compared to 2LS's 2-16 which can be made 4-18 with a similar feat. And because it isn't heavy, DBS can't get the +10 that GS and Maul get with their normal and bonus on the same feat that gives them that +10.
RB makes it work, but you're right - RB can be replaced with another feat. So RB shouldn't be considered, in which case DBS is just 3-12. DBS is fine in a featless, styleless game, which only lasts like 2 or 3 levels. Once feats and styles factor in, it can try to play catchup and still doesn't manage.
So my question for you is: Where are you getting that 100 gp for DBS at level 1? And then - why would you spend 100 gp after level 3 for DBS when it's already beaten by other weapons?
You're absolutely correct. But DBS with RB is a package deal. RB makes it 5-14 instead of 3-12. ... RB makes it work, but you're right - RB can be replaced with another feat. So RB shouldn't be considered, in which case DBS is just 3-12.
Again you're assuming the +1 gives you a +1 modifier - which it won't always do. Like I said - if you're using a Strength build and you have an even Strength - all RB will give you is +1 AC - that's it. In that situation an ASI would be better to give you the +1 modifier and it would still increase the damage to 5-14 (+1 modifier - two attacks). So ignoring RB doesn't keep it 3-12.
That's compared to 2LS's 2-16 which can be made 4-18 with a similar feat.
I don't know why you're comparing that? Without the Dual Wielder feat you cannot even use two Longswords. So comparing a no-feat DBS to no-feat 2LS isn't even a thing you can do.
Everyone else has already gone over the maths comparing DBS with dual wielding so I won't repeat it. Davedamon especially did an excellent reply which covers why DBS maintains being good throughout. You should really look over that post one more time as you appear to have missed it.
I've read everyone's comments and I still disagree. You're right that in the end, DBS does about the same damage as 2LS. It still lacks utility. Utility is its main problem.
I've read everyone's comments and I still disagree. You're right that in the end, DBS does about the same damage as 2LS. It still lacks utility. Utility is its main problem.
Ok - that. "Utility". What do you mean by that?
What can dual wielding 2 longswords offer in utility that the DBS can't? I'm curious.
What can dual wielding 2 longswords offer in utility that the DBS can't? I'm curious.
I already answered that. 2LS lets you switch to a shield or leave a hand open to grapple, and it lets you quick-draw/stow twice. GWM lets Heavy weapons do the +10 on all of your attacks if you take the -5 attack roll, and it gives a bonus attack for two-handed weapons. RB doesn't actually grant utility other than finesse, and generally a DBS user will be STR build anyway.
Utility is anything that isn't a minor score/armor increase, something that is optional and situational. An alternative way to use a weapon or alternative combat action involving the weapon.
When doing weapon customization, you remove or ignore the two-handed and would add versatile. It would push the damage of the DBS to 1-8 damage one handed and 1d10 two-handed, and the backswing to 1d4 one handed and 1d6 two-handed. Rezilla wants the wapons to do max damage of 16 Just Because.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Where are you getting that from? It would still be 2d4 when two-handed, and I already said it would make the most sense to have the versatile version - the one-handed attack - do the same as a normal scimitar which is 1d6. If you're worried about the potential 10 damage being too much for a one-handed attack, just change the Special to make it so that the bonus attack won't work unless the first attack was two-handed.
You conveniently omitted the paragraph of math that disproved your point again, but whatever.
1. The versatile property allows you to wield a weapon with one or two hands. It replaces the two handed property or it does nothing. And fair enough it doesn't require increasing the damage dice when wielded 2 handed, that is just the precedent of 6 out of 6 versatile weapons.
You would be able to dual wield it if it was versatile, because it would no longer be 2 handed. Not that it would matter since that would be a nerf compared to using it normally.
2. Weapons are designed for damage (except net). Class features and feats give those weapons utility. The only thing being a monk weapon does is let you do more damage, which the DBS doesn't need (I proved it twice). So are you suggesting polearm master or great weapon master work with it?
1. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Logic would dictate that a two-handed versatile weapon would have less damage with one hand. It doesn't contradict the notion that a one-handed versatile weapon has more damage two-handed; if anything, they're complimentary.
I've already said, you can only dual wield weapons with the one-handed property. A two-handed versatile weapon does not have the one-handed property. "One-handed weapon" and "wielding a weapon with one hand" are not the same thing - the former refers to the weapon property, the latter refers to how the character is actually wielding the weapon.
In the PHB, it says you need a Light weapon to use two-weapon fighting aka dual wielding. The Dual Wielder feat allows you to do two-weapon fighting even when "the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding" are not light. Key term: one-handed melee weapon. If it's a two-handed melee weapon, it does not count even if you're wielding it in one hand.
2. You completely missed the point. A weapon being able to be used as a monk weapon is added utility. A weapon being versatile is added utility. A weapon being able to be dual-wielded is added utility. Having a property that allows for feats that cannot be gained without that property is added utility. DBS has no utility whatsoever. It can only be used in one specific way, and it only has the two-handed style and RB (which is racial so doesn't count) feat. It's lacking in utility.
1a. That is what I said in a previous post (which was quoted in the comment you quoted then cut out). A versatile weapon is a non-2-handed weapon that can be wielded with 2 hands for additional damage. In all versatile weapons that exist, this additional damage has been represented by increasing the damage die by 1 size.
1b. There is no such thing as a "one-handed" property. All weapons that can be wielded 1 handed can be dual wielded. Versatile weapons can be wielded with 1 or 2 hands, two-handed weapons have to be wielded with 2 hands. A weapon can not have both properties.
1c. See above about "one handed" not being a weapon property. All weapons that can and are wielded with 1 hand are "one handed" weapons. If you try to insist that dual wielder let's you dual wield "one handed" weapons regardless of light property, then it can't dual wield longswords because they don't have the "one handed" property.
2. The fact that monk weapons having added utility that were granted by the class and not the weapon aside, the DBS is the most powerful melee weapon in the game, it's relative lack of utility is the balancing factor against that power. If the DBS was buffed (by being able to dual wield and use shields), there would be no reason to use any other melee weapon.
1a. For the last, no it is not. A versatile weapon is a weapon that can be used with one or two hands. That is the actual definition from the PHB. The versatile description does NOT say that the weapon has to be non-2 handed. Nowhere does it say this. Nowhere. I repeat: The versatile property just says that it can be used with one or two hands. It does not say anything about the weapon itself being one or two handed, only that it can be used with one or two hands.
1b. Actually, you're right about this. There's no one-handed property. However, logic dictates that anything without the two-handed property is one-handed. One-handed definitely should be an official property though since the grammar of the books specifically refers to one-handed weapons differently than a weapon wielded in one hand, which was my point. It's just like in Yugioh - the grammar matters, the grammar makes the rule, the grammar is what you go by.
1c. See above. The books specifically have a separation between "one-handed weapon" and "weapon wielded in one hand", and there are even places where they specifically say "one-handed weapon wielded in one hand". It's the grammar that matters.
2. DBS is not the most powerful weapon in the game. If we're talking about weapons without properties, Greatsword and Maul are the most powerful because they are 2-12. With weapon properties and without styles or feats, DBS is the most powerful only because it's 3-12. With feats and styles other than RB, 2LS is the most powerful weapon, or potentially GS/Maul, and technically they're still more powerful than RB DBS if we're talking max damage. If we're talking about proficiency and status bonus, GS/Maul is still more powerful than RB DBS.
My argument was never that DBS can't contend with RB. My argument was that it can't contend without, and RB is the only thing that makes it viable at endgame (styles+feats). RB is racial. Utility wise, DBS still has less utility than other weapons, such as 2LS. You've never managed to counter that.
You don't need the Revenant Blade feat to make the Double-Bladed Scimitar viable. All it does is give you +1 STR/DEX as well as +1 AC and makes it finesse.
You can easily get the +1 STR/DEX from another feat or go for ASI and get +2 (because it's possible that +1 won't change your modifier at all) and if you're using a strength build - making the DBS finesse is completely pointless. The +1 AC is nice but it doesn't affect damage output. So I don't really know why you think the DBS needs the RB feat?
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
You're absolutely correct. But DBS with RB is a package deal. RB makes it 5-14 instead of 3-12. That's compared to 2LS's 2-16 which can be made 4-18 with a similar feat. And because it isn't heavy, DBS can't get the +10 that GS and Maul get with their normal and bonus on the same feat that gives them that +10.
RB makes it work, but you're right - RB can be replaced with another feat. So RB shouldn't be considered, in which case DBS is just 3-12. DBS is fine in a featless, styleless game, which only lasts like 2 or 3 levels. Once feats and styles factor in, it can try to play catchup and still doesn't manage.
So my question for you is: Where are you getting that 100 gp for DBS at level 1? And then - why would you spend 100 gp after level 3 for DBS when it's already beaten by other weapons?
Again you're assuming the +1 gives you a +1 modifier - which it won't always do. Like I said - if you're using a Strength build and you have an even Strength - all RB will give you is +1 AC - that's it.
In that situation an ASI would be better to give you the +1 modifier and it would still increase the damage to 5-14 (+1 modifier - two attacks). So ignoring RB doesn't keep it 3-12.
I don't know why you're comparing that? Without the Dual Wielder feat you cannot even use two Longswords. So comparing a no-feat DBS to no-feat 2LS isn't even a thing you can do.
Everyone else has already gone over the maths comparing DBS with dual wielding so I won't repeat it. Davedamon especially did an excellent reply which covers why DBS maintains being good throughout. You should really look over that post one more time as you appear to have missed it.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Ok - that. "Utility". What do you mean by that?
What can dual wielding 2 longswords offer in utility that the DBS can't? I'm curious.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I already answered that. 2LS lets you switch to a shield or leave a hand open to grapple, and it lets you quick-draw/stow twice. GWM lets Heavy weapons do the +10 on all of your attacks if you take the -5 attack roll, and it gives a bonus attack for two-handed weapons. RB doesn't actually grant utility other than finesse, and generally a DBS user will be STR build anyway.
Utility is anything that isn't a minor score/armor increase, something that is optional and situational. An alternative way to use a weapon or alternative combat action involving the weapon.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
AlumniGood afternoon,
This Topic has been locked at the request of the OP.
Thanks,
Timer
[ Site Rules & Guidelines ] - [ Homebrew Rules ] - [ D&D Beyond FAQ ] - [ Homebrew FAQ ] - [ Homebrew Video Tutorials ]
Standard "free" content is restricted to the D&D 5th Edition Basic Rules, SRD, and other free content.