I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
All versatile weapons lack the two-handed property, i.e. they are exactly as one-handed as every other non-two-handed weapon. Nothing about versatile blocks a versatile weapon from working with the dual wielder feat.
I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
To expand on what quindraco said. There is no "One-handed" trait, only a Two-handed one. So any weapon that isn't Two-handed is technically "unspecified" but that is universally accepted to mean "One-handed".
The requirements for Two-Weapon Fighting are that the weapon is a melee weapon, that it can be wielded in one hand and that it has the Light property (there are no Versatile weapons that are also Light btw).
The Dual Wielder Feat removes the requirement for the weapon to be Light and thus the Versatile weapons become legal choices (as long as you wield them in one hand ofc).
An added tip is to take 1 lvl in Fighter and pick the "Two-Weapon Fighting" fighting style so you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the BA attack.
Also note, the dual wielder feat lets you draw 2 weapons in 1 turn. Make sure you also have the 2 weapon fighting style or else the bonus action attack deals less damage.
I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
To expand on what quindraco said. There is no "One-handed" trait, only a Two-handed one. So any weapon that isn't Two-handed is technically "unspecified" but that is universally accepted to mean "One-handed".
The requirements for Two-Weapon Fighting are that the weapon is a melee weapon, that it can be wielded in one hand and that it has the Light property (there are no Versatile weapons that are also Light btw).
The Dual Wielder Feat removes the requirement for the weapon to be Light and thus the Versatile weapons become legal choices (as long as you wield them in one hand ofc).
An added tip is to take 1 lvl in Fighter and pick the "Two-Weapon Fighting" fighting style so you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the BA attack.
He's still ruling that versatile isn't considered 1 handed 🙁 also taking a level in fighter isn't optimal since I would have to wait til lvl 5 to make use of the feat and two-weapon fighting.. I'll just have to muddle through somehow
also taking a level in fighter isn't optimal since I would have to wait til lvl 5 to make use of the feat and two-weapon fighting.. I'll just have to muddle through somehow
Lvl 5 and the Extra attack feature is of course a priority but if you want to lean into the dual wielding style then getting full damage on the BA attack is something you want.
Assuming you have overall good stats, I actually wouldn't bother with a single level dip into fighter and just get the Fighting Initiate Feat at level 8 instead, which you can use to get the Two Weapon Fighting Style. However, if you have a stat that desperately needs boosting it's still probably a better idea to go for the 1 level dip, since you'll still reach your ASI sooner, even if you delay the rest of your class features for a bit.
He's still ruling that versatile isn't considered 1 handed 🙁 also taking a level in fighter isn't optimal since I would have to wait til lvl 5 to make use of the feat and two-weapon fighting.. I'll just have to muddle through somehow
Option 1: Take Thezz's advice. Provided you don't mind sticking to Piercing and Bludgeoning damage, just use non-versatile 1d8 damage weapons.
Option 2: Switch to using a two-hander like your DM seems to want you to.
I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
Your DM is definitely not going RAW, since by RAW you can absolutely use versatile weapons for two-weapon fighting if you have the Dual Wielder feat. Here is the rule for two-weapon fighting:
"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. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."
It does NOT mention "one-handed weapons", because there is no "one-handed" property for weapons. It says "weapon that you're holding in one hand". You can wield a versatile weapon in one hand just fine. If you couldn't, it wouldn't be a versatile weapon, it would be a two-handed weapon.
ya most likely leaving the game, he also restricted us to only phb, only (non-variant) human, elf, dwarf, or halfling race, and druid, sorcerer and warlock are not aloud. and just found out he is planning on 16 sessions ending at lvl 6
ya most likely leaving the game, he also restricted us to only phb, only (non-variant) human, elf, dwarf, or halfling race, and druid, sorcerer and warlock are not aloud. and just found out he is planning on 16 sessions ending at lvl 6
Oof that sounds so un-fun... I mean, to each their own. I think it's good that they're letting you know ahead of time about these restrictions... I'm sure for some players the focus will be a lot more fun, but that's definitely not how I like to play. Sounds an awful lot like they're going for a very traditional Middle-Earth style setting. Not totally sure why those specific classes got banned... Warlock I can kind of get if they just don't want to deal with Patrons, but I can't think of why Druid and Sorcerer, specifically, might be banned.
As jd2319 points out your DM is not adhering to the rules as they are written. If this is a simple misunderstanding or trying to make a ruling on something that feels ambiguous, then hopefully jd2319's post helps clarify the matter.
Honestly the two-weapon fighting rules and relies on natural language definition of some key terms and in places uses a different term than in others. For example the two-weapon fighting rules refers to weapons you are "holding" but the Dual Wielder feat refers to weapons that you are "wielding". This is a minor thing but these terms do not have a discrete definition in D&D 5e and don't strictly mean the same thing. I doubt this causes any real problems in play but it unnecessarily adds ambiguity and increases the cognitive work load required to understand the rule.
If your DM is concerned about allowing something they feel would be too powerful, then hopefully we can assure them that there isn't a balance concern here. As Thezzaruz points out, there are 1d8 weapons without the Versatile or Two-Handed that they would still find acceptable. The highest damage dice a Versatile weapon gets when wielded in one hand is 1d8. I would say the only difference between a Versatile 1d8 weapon and a regular 1d8 weapon is that you could use the Versatile weapon two-handed for the first round for the 1d10 damage, and then switch to two-weapon fighting in the second round. Except that the Dual Wielder feat lets you draw both at the same time so this scenario will almost never come up, and when it does it represents an extra 1 or 2 damage for one round.
Two-weapon fighting may have been very powerful in previous editions of D&D but that is not the case in 5e. From a strict damage optimization stand point two-weapon fighting is in fact the worst playstyle. It is only truly competitive from levels 1-4 and quickly falls behind after that. The problem is that Polearm Master gives a consistent bonus action attack which is the advantage of two-weapon fighting. If you have a Strength of 18 then using a Spear with Polearm Master gives you the same damage as two-weapon fighting with two longswords, and you have a free hand to hold a shield for more AC or grapple an enemy with. If you dip into Fighter or spend a feat for a fighting style, then taking the Dueling style will always give you more damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style. And all of this isn't even considering that Polearm Master allows you another way to attack with your reaction, or can be used with a Two-Handed, Heavy weapon.
Edit: I realized the Dueling style will always yield better damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style.
ya most likely leaving the game, he also restricted us to only phb, only (non-variant) human, elf, dwarf, or halfling race, and druid, sorcerer and warlock are not aloud. and just found out he is planning on 16 sessions ending at lvl 6
Wow, I was trying to come from a position of maybe the DM is new or thinks dual wielding is OP. Clearly they have a style of play they prefer and have no qualms about enforcing it against their player's wishes. If this is just a random group online then yeah, I would find a new table.
my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
He's still ruling that versatile isn't considered 1 handed 🙁
Not both of these things is true. See versatile rules, PHB Chapter 5:
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 weapons can be used in one hand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
As jd2319 points out your DM is not adhering to the rules as they are written. If this is a simple misunderstanding or trying to make a ruling on something that feels ambiguous, then hopefully jd2319's post helps clarify the matter.
Honestly the two-weapon fighting rules and relies on natural language definition of some key terms and in places uses a different term than in others. For example the two-weapon fighting rules refers to weapons you are "holding" but the Dual Wielder feat refers to weapons that you are "wielding". This is a minor thing but these terms do not have a discrete definition in D&D 5e and don't strictly mean the same thing. I doubt this causes any real problems in play but it unnecessarily adds ambiguity and increases the cognitive work load required to understand the rule.
If your DM is concerned about allowing something they feel would be too powerful, then hopefully we can assure them that there isn't a balance concern here. As Thezzaruz points out, there are 1d8 weapons without the Versatile or Two-Handed that they would still find acceptable. The highest damage dice a Versatile weapon gets when wielded in one hand is 1d8. I would say the only difference between a Versatile 1d8 weapon and a regular 1d8 weapon is that you could use the Versatile weapon two-handed for the first round for the 1d10 damage, and then switch to two-weapon fighting in the second round. Except that the Dual Wielder feat lets you draw both at the same time so this scenario will almost never come up, and when it does it represents an extra 1 or 2 damage for one round.
Two-weapon fighting may have been very powerful in previous editions of D&D but that is not the case in 5e. From a strict damage optimization stand point two-weapon fighting is in fact the worst playstyle. It is only truly competitive from levels 1-4 and quickly falls behind after that. The problem is that Polearm Master gives a consistent bonus action attack which is the advantage of two-weapon fighting. If you have a Strength of 18 then using a Spear with Polearm Master gives you the same damage as two-weapon fighting with two longswords, and you have a free hand to hold a shield for more AC or grapple an enemy with. If you dip into Fighter or spend a feat for a fighting style, then taking the Dueling style will always give you more damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style. And all of this isn't even considering that Polearm Master allows you another way to attack with your reaction, or can be used with a Two-Handed, Heavy weapon.
Edit: I realized the Dueling style will always yield better damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style.
I've played dual-wielders before, and I've never felt like I was behind the damage curve. I even tried looking at the numbers using methods that made sense to me(not sure how everyone else does it), and the damage differential wasn't nearly as bad as some folks make it out to be. Plus. being the guy swinging a pair of battleaxes/warhammers/etc is FUN :)
I've played dual-wielders before, and I've never felt like I was behind the damage curve. I even tried looking at the numbers using methods that made sense to me(not sure how everyone else does it), and the damage differential wasn't nearly as bad as some folks make it out to be. Plus. being the guy swinging a pair of battleaxes/warhammers/etc is FUN :)
It depends on multiple factors for sure. The standard assumptions are as follows:
Baseline accuracy is a constant. The DMG CR table implies baseline accuracy should always be 65% except for a bizarre hiccup at level 9, where it's 70%. A popular Youtuber named Treantmonk uses 60% as a baseline. You can pick most any constant you like, just be explicit.
As suggested by the DMG CR guidelines, combats are assumed to be a fixed number of rounds, and the accepted standard number is 3.
The default curve in the DMG for a melee combatant is a greatsword wielded by someone who's S16 initially, S18 at level 4, and S20 at level 8, with Extra Attack at level 5. Treantmonk's default curve is a Warlock with the equivalent Charisma and Agonizing Blast casting Eldritch Blast. Again it really doesn't matter what you use to set a baseline, so long as you're explicit. Then you can describe everything else in the game relative to your baseline.
Problems with dual wielding are abundant:
The fighting style is distinct from the feat, so if you lack access to the style natively - as Barbarians do - you have to pay a cost to pick it up, which you could have spent on something else. Even if you have access to it natively, you could have picked a different style.
You get no benefit at all on Opportunity Attacks. There's no one accepted standard way to analyze how useful OA damage is, however.
You have to spend a Bonus Action which you might want to spend on something else. For example, a Barbarian can't Rage and Bonus Action Attack on the same turn.
The standard feats used to ramp up Damage Per Round are Great Weapon Master, Polearm Mastery, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow Expert. None of these are compatible with Dual Wielding, and no known Dual Wield build can keep up with them.
It's standard to make some assumptions about access to magic weapons. Unless you are in a campaign with truly abundant magic weapons, it's intrinsically a hassle trying to acquire 2 magic weapons instead of 1, unless your core build lets you render your weapons or attacks magical (or the equivalent).
It requires more manipulation of your action economy to cast a spell with 2 weapons out than 1. How relevant that is depends heavily on context, but in my experience it's predominantly important when casting spells using your Reaction.
Wielding a second weapon can still be quite good - below level 5, a Barbarian with 2 hand axes is honestly scary-dangerous - but the Dual Wielder feat especially faces stiff competition from other ways you could build a melee powerhouse, and while the TWF fighting style faces less competition (the GWF fighting style is unmitigated garbage), it does still have to compete with options like Blind Fighting and Defense.
Wait how are you supposed to wield Versatile weapons then, if they aren’t one handed according to your DM? Do you have to wield Longswords in two hands all the time, meaning their d8 damage die is unused?
Bringing this to the table rather late, but one could argue that most traditional swords and axes, especially longsword and Battleaxe, are slightly heavier than a typical arming sword or utility axe, but still very wieldy in one hand. The hilts/hafts would be large enough to comfortably allow use for two hands without limiting space for grip.
If in a future campaign your DM still is not comfortable awarding dual wielding for versatile weapons, maybe compromise a requirement in Ability Score to make it possible, e.g. A 15 or 16 in STR?
I belive there are actually no additional weapons to wield using the feature, when versatile weapons are not allowed. The feat description states: "You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits: (...)" IMHO, what mastering means is that you can comfortably dual-wield for longer time and/or dual-wield heavier weapons, etc... that leaves only versatile option, doesn't it? Which ones then? Also "One-handed" sounds like "used with one hand", not "supposed to be used with one hand"...
I belive there are actually no additional weapons to wield using the feature, when versatile weapons are not allowed. The feat description states: "You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits: (...)" IMHO, what mastering means is that you can comfortably dual-wield for longer time and/or dual-wield heavier weapons, etc... that leaves only versatile option, doesn't it? Which ones then? Also "One-handed" sounds like "used with one hand", not "supposed to be used with one hand"...
A Dual Wielder mastered fighting with two weapons and can now enjoy various benefits, while two-weapon fighting. One handed melee weapons that aren't light mentioned in the feat refers to those without the Two-Handed property. 5E weapons dropped weapon caterogies by One/Two hands that other editions used to have, so all weapons are basically one-handed weapons not requiring two hands to attack with it, unless they have the Two-Handed property.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm playing a barbarian dual wielder and next level I can take dual wielder feat, my dm is playing strictly RAW (for example I can only draw one weapon with my attack so either forgo first turn or draw off hand with second turn) versatile weapons don't have one handed or two handed types so does that mean they can't be used with dual wielding? Please add any officially rulings with your answers if possible
All versatile weapons lack the two-handed property, i.e. they are exactly as one-handed as every other non-two-handed weapon. Nothing about versatile blocks a versatile weapon from working with the dual wielder feat.
To expand on what quindraco said. There is no "One-handed" trait, only a Two-handed one. So any weapon that isn't Two-handed is technically "unspecified" but that is universally accepted to mean "One-handed".
The requirements for Two-Weapon Fighting are that the weapon is a melee weapon, that it can be wielded in one hand and that it has the Light property (there are no Versatile weapons that are also Light btw).
The Dual Wielder Feat removes the requirement for the weapon to be Light and thus the Versatile weapons become legal choices (as long as you wield them in one hand ofc).
An added tip is to take 1 lvl in Fighter and pick the "Two-Weapon Fighting" fighting style so you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the BA attack.
Also note, the dual wielder feat lets you draw 2 weapons in 1 turn. Make sure you also have the 2 weapon fighting style or else the bonus action attack deals less damage.
He's still ruling that versatile isn't considered 1 handed 🙁 also taking a level in fighter isn't optimal since I would have to wait til lvl 5 to make use of the feat and two-weapon fighting.. I'll just have to muddle through somehow
Well that's unfortunate... If it is the d8 dmg die you are after Flail, Morningstar, Rapier and War pick should still be OK.
Lvl 5 and the Extra attack feature is of course a priority but if you want to lean into the dual wielding style then getting full damage on the BA attack is something you want.
Assuming you have overall good stats, I actually wouldn't bother with a single level dip into fighter and just get the Fighting Initiate Feat at level 8 instead, which you can use to get the Two Weapon Fighting Style. However, if you have a stat that desperately needs boosting it's still probably a better idea to go for the 1 level dip, since you'll still reach your ASI sooner, even if you delay the rest of your class features for a bit.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Option 1: Take Thezz's advice. Provided you don't mind sticking to Piercing and Bludgeoning damage, just use non-versatile 1d8 damage weapons.
Option 2: Switch to using a two-hander like your DM seems to want you to.
Your DM is definitely not going RAW, since by RAW you can absolutely use versatile weapons for two-weapon fighting if you have the Dual Wielder feat. Here is the rule for two-weapon fighting:
"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. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it."
It does NOT mention "one-handed weapons", because there is no "one-handed" property for weapons. It says "weapon that you're holding in one hand". You can wield a versatile weapon in one hand just fine. If you couldn't, it wouldn't be a versatile weapon, it would be a two-handed weapon.
I'm sorry your DM is being a jerk :(
ya most likely leaving the game, he also restricted us to only phb, only (non-variant) human, elf, dwarf, or halfling race, and druid, sorcerer and warlock are not aloud. and just found out he is planning on 16 sessions ending at lvl 6
Oof that sounds so un-fun... I mean, to each their own. I think it's good that they're letting you know ahead of time about these restrictions... I'm sure for some players the focus will be a lot more fun, but that's definitely not how I like to play. Sounds an awful lot like they're going for a very traditional Middle-Earth style setting. Not totally sure why those specific classes got banned... Warlock I can kind of get if they just don't want to deal with Patrons, but I can't think of why Druid and Sorcerer, specifically, might be banned.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
As jd2319 points out your DM is not adhering to the rules as they are written. If this is a simple misunderstanding or trying to make a ruling on something that feels ambiguous, then hopefully jd2319's post helps clarify the matter.
Honestly the two-weapon fighting rules and relies on natural language definition of some key terms and in places uses a different term than in others. For example the two-weapon fighting rules refers to weapons you are "holding" but the Dual Wielder feat refers to weapons that you are "wielding". This is a minor thing but these terms do not have a discrete definition in D&D 5e and don't strictly mean the same thing. I doubt this causes any real problems in play but it unnecessarily adds ambiguity and increases the cognitive work load required to understand the rule.
If your DM is concerned about allowing something they feel would be too powerful, then hopefully we can assure them that there isn't a balance concern here. As Thezzaruz points out, there are 1d8 weapons without the Versatile or Two-Handed that they would still find acceptable. The highest damage dice a Versatile weapon gets when wielded in one hand is 1d8. I would say the only difference between a Versatile 1d8 weapon and a regular 1d8 weapon is that you could use the Versatile weapon two-handed for the first round for the 1d10 damage, and then switch to two-weapon fighting in the second round. Except that the Dual Wielder feat lets you draw both at the same time so this scenario will almost never come up, and when it does it represents an extra 1 or 2 damage for one round.
Two-weapon fighting may have been very powerful in previous editions of D&D but that is not the case in 5e. From a strict damage optimization stand point two-weapon fighting is in fact the worst playstyle. It is only truly competitive from levels 1-4 and quickly falls behind after that. The problem is that Polearm Master gives a consistent bonus action attack which is the advantage of two-weapon fighting. If you have a Strength of 18 then using a Spear with Polearm Master gives you the same damage as two-weapon fighting with two longswords, and you have a free hand to hold a shield for more AC or grapple an enemy with. If you dip into Fighter or spend a feat for a fighting style, then taking the Dueling style will always give you more damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style. And all of this isn't even considering that Polearm Master allows you another way to attack with your reaction, or can be used with a Two-Handed, Heavy weapon.
Edit: I realized the Dueling style will always yield better damage than the Two-Weapon Fighting style.
Wow, I was trying to come from a position of maybe the DM is new or thinks dual wielding is OP. Clearly they have a style of play they prefer and have no qualms about enforcing it against their player's wishes. If this is just a random group online then yeah, I would find a new table.
Not both of these things is true. See versatile rules, PHB Chapter 5:
Versatile weapons can be used in one hand.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I've played dual-wielders before, and I've never felt like I was behind the damage curve. I even tried looking at the numbers using methods that made sense to me(not sure how everyone else does it), and the damage differential wasn't nearly as bad as some folks make it out to be. Plus. being the guy swinging a pair of battleaxes/warhammers/etc is FUN :)
It depends on multiple factors for sure. The standard assumptions are as follows:
Problems with dual wielding are abundant:
Wielding a second weapon can still be quite good - below level 5, a Barbarian with 2 hand axes is honestly scary-dangerous - but the Dual Wielder feat especially faces stiff competition from other ways you could build a melee powerhouse, and while the TWF fighting style faces less competition (the GWF fighting style is unmitigated garbage), it does still have to compete with options like Blind Fighting and Defense.
Wait how are you supposed to wield Versatile weapons then, if they aren’t one handed according to your DM? Do you have to wield Longswords in two hands all the time, meaning their d8 damage die is unused?
Bringing this to the table rather late, but one could argue that most traditional swords and axes, especially longsword and Battleaxe, are slightly heavier than a typical arming sword or utility axe, but still very wieldy in one hand. The hilts/hafts would be large enough to comfortably allow use for two hands without limiting space for grip.
If in a future campaign your DM still is not comfortable awarding dual wielding for versatile weapons, maybe compromise a requirement in Ability Score to make it possible, e.g. A 15 or 16 in STR?
I belive there are actually no additional weapons to wield using the feature, when versatile weapons are not allowed.
The feat description states: "You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits: (...)"
IMHO, what mastering means is that you can comfortably dual-wield for longer time and/or dual-wield heavier weapons, etc... that leaves only versatile option, doesn't it? Which ones then? Also "One-handed" sounds like "used with one hand", not "supposed to be used with one hand"...
A Dual Wielder mastered fighting with two weapons and can now enjoy various benefits, while two-weapon fighting. One handed melee weapons that aren't light mentioned in the feat refers to those without the Two-Handed property. 5E weapons dropped weapon caterogies by One/Two hands that other editions used to have, so all weapons are basically one-handed weapons not requiring two hands to attack with it, unless they have the Two-Handed property.