A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
If you need a white board, slide rule, spreadsheet, and magnifying glass to interpret a rule - you're probably interpreting it incorrectly. Remember, they intended the game to be easily understood (failed miserably at this, but that was their intent). So when adjudicating rules, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one.
They really need to hire a better proof-reader before they publish stuff. [Hint - i'm available WoTC - just saying]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
This. Frankly all the rules seem intended to be "you can make one extra attack after attacking with a Light weapon, and here are all the things that can modify that one extra attack". The second line of Nick even makes it explicit that you only get one, regardless of whether it happens on your Bonus Action or as part of your Attack action
Nick
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. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.
Unfortunately, the way they worded Dual Wielder, it can be rules lawyered to be a completely separate extra attack -- which is dumb, because the wording is functionally identical to the wording on Light, and it seems obvious to me that it's intended to be just another modification of the one extra Light attack
Light -- one extra attack as a Bonus Action with a different Light weapon Nick -- the one extra attack gets shifted to the Attack action Dual Wielder -- the one extra attack can be with a better weapon TWF -- you add your ability mod to the one extra attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
If you need a white board, slide rule, spreadsheet, and magnifying glass to interpret a rule - you're probably interpreting it incorrectly.
Sounds more like the other way around to me. The people who can't accept that WotC has decided to make these changes will come up with hypothetical errors in the wording and twisty interpretations to not make it so, instead of just reading the rules plainly.
I'm not convinced that "you actually have to pay attention to what's being said" means that the interpretation is wrong. There have been a couple of things where there's been a plain reading of the rules, then Crawford, the lead designer, has turned around and said "nope, it's meant to be done this way", which seemed bonkers to me.
I can see it both ways. I think technically, RAW is that you get the extra attack, but I can see why that could have been an oversight... and also why they may have intended it the way it's written. If you can't see both sides and it doesn't give you pause...then I suggest that you're being presumptuous rather than it being obvious.
I think it is something that could be made explicit. It's problems like these that are the reason why I don't like it when, rather than saying "this is how X works", they have the rules spread out over several locations and you have to piece it all together to figure out how a mechanic is supposed to work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
If you need a white board, slide rule, spreadsheet, and magnifying glass to interpret a rule - you're probably interpreting it incorrectly. Remember, they intended the game to be easily understood (failed miserably at this, but that was their intent). So when adjudicating rules, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one.
The argument against this is that it's all internally consistent. In particular TWF is phrased in a slightly unusual way to allow it to encompass DW's extra attack.
Also, without the extra attack, DW's entirely a crap feat. It gives you very little over and above what you get just by using Light weapons.
The other argument against this is that it's just a complete wildcard to use against any rule you don't like. "They screwed up" is totally applicable sometimes, such as the "which weapon needs to have Nick?" question. There's zero evidence of it here.
They really need to hire a better proof-reader before they publish stuff. [Hint - i'm available WoTC - just saying]
This is not something a proofreader can catch and fix. Rules writing is a specialized skill that not all game designers are any good at. (It's essentially technical writing.)
A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
The idea that they wanted to change 1 thing about the TWF rules and instead of just doing that, copied the entire TWF rules into the feat and accidentally wrote it as a different bonus action is insanely farfetched. There's no reason to write Dual Wielder in such a long-winded way other than wanting a second bonus action that's mostly the same as the Light property but needs to be distinct.
And yes, compared to what Grappler, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, Defensive Duelist, Sentinel, etc offer, just upgrading from a d6 to a d8 would be really weak and barely worth a feat (also consider that they removed the +1 AC bonus of the 2014 version.)
It's not like the 2 bonus hits are game-breakingly good or anything. With Great Weapon Master adding your PB to heavy weapons, Polearm Master granting bonus and reaction attacks with heavy polearms, and heavy weapons having Cleave and Graze, Dual Wielder only keeps up for characters with 1 extra attack. For anyone with Haste or 2 extra attacks, you're doing less damage and limiting your mastery options.
I don't disagree that it's a bit unfortunate that the TWF rules are spread out, but Nick and Light are both on the weapons table and Dual Wielder is not something a new player starting at 1st level has to concern themselves with until 4th level.
And yes, compared to what Grappler, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, Defensive Duelist, Sentinel, etc offer, just upgrading from a d6 to a d8 would be really weak and barely worth a feat (also consider that they removed the +1 AC bonus of the 2014 version.)
It also gives you access to Topple and Sap, which you can't get with Light weapons
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Also, as it was pointed out in another thread, this interaction was confirmed by the Devs to be intended. Dungeon Dudes asked during GenCon.
So RAW and RAI are in alignment. It could have been written more clearly, but this is what we have.
While true, I have to say that "go to this YouTube video (or comment?) where somebody says they asked one of the devs" is a extremely poor way of disseminating rulings.
Also, as it was pointed out in another thread, this interaction was confirmed by the Devs to be intended. Dungeon Dudes asked during GenCon.
So RAW and RAI are in alignment. It could have been written more clearly, but this is what we have.
While true, I have to say that "go to this YouTube video (or comment?) where somebody says they asked one of the devs" is a extremely poor way of disseminating rulings.
RAI: It seems HIGHLY LIKELY to me that the DW extra attack text is intended to modify the extra attack you get from the Light Property, and not be another independent attack, however it doesn't specify that (and the Nick property explicitly does state that it modifies the attack from the Light property).
It seems like this should be very quick and easy for the designers to clarify.
The Light property also does not specify anything about requiring melee attacks or using different hands, so you could wear a shield and throw 2 daggers (or maybe 3 with DW) in a turn. Has this been disproven somewhere?
RAI: It seems HIGHLY LIKELY to me that the DW extra attack text is intended to modify the extra attack you get from the Light Property, and not be another independent attack, however it doesn't specify that (and the Nick property explicitly does state that it modifies the attack from the Light property).
It seems like this should be very quick and easy for the designers to clarify.
It appears that they intended it for DW to give an additional attack. You can look back in this thread for discussion of that.
The Light property also does not specify anything about requiring melee attacks or using different hands, so you could wear a shield and throw 2 daggers (or maybe 3 with DW) in a turn. Has this been disproven somewhere?
You can totally do that. I suspect throwing was why they didn't specify two-handedness was required.
Yes, it works with throwing weapons, but the Dual Wielding melee attacks with a shield run into a problem at some point because you can only equip or unequip a weapon as part of the attack. So, you could enter the fight with one weapon drawn, attack once, unequip that weapon, and then before making the second attack, draw a different weapon and then attack. But that would be the end of it. Sure, you could unequip the weapon as part of a third attack, but you could not draw another weapon. That is unless you read the Quick Draw feature a certain way. It says "You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." You could now interpret it in a way that it would allow you to equip a weapon before making the attack and then unequipping the same weapon after the attack and then rinse and repeat. But to my mind, that would be a misinterpretation as it says that you can draw or stow two weapons rather than one, not that you can draw and stow the same weapon during an attack.
However, with throwing weapons, that problem would not occur. Unless you read Dual Wielder a certain way. It says: "...you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon...". You could interpret this in a way that the Dual Wielder extra attack would have to be a melee attack. But that would - to my mind - also be a misinterpretation because a dagger is a melee weapon that happens to have the thrown property. To me, this just means that the Dual Wielder extra attack cannot be made with a Hand Crossbow or a Pistol. The extra attack from the Light property can be made with a Hand Crossbow.
But it says that you can't make THIS extra attack only once per turn and THIS extra attack is the extra attack of the Light property. It says nowhere that you could not make an extra attack from a different source like the Dual Wielder feat. Then it would have to say that you can make AN extra attack only once per turn.
Overall, the wording is pretty clear to me. The extra attacks from the Light property and Dual Wielder stack, regardless of the Nick property as the Nick property only moves the extra attack from the Light property from the bonus action to the action. There's nothing that says otherwise. So, a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 short swords makes 4 attacks as part of the action and 2 attack as part of the bonus action while a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 scimitars makes 5 attacks as part of the action and 1 attack as part of the bonus action.
In other occasions, when stacking does not apply, the wording is different. Extra attack for Fighters, Paladins, Valor Bards, Barbarians, and Thirsting Blade is phrased differently. Here, it doesn't say that you get an "extra attack"; it says that you get to attack "twice instead of once". And no matter how many features you accumulate through multiclassing that allow to attack twice, it never becomes more than twice. For AC and Unarmored Defense, it explicitly says that you have to chose one way to calculate your AC and cannot use multiple ones. For Temp HP, it explicitly states that they don't stack. Slasher and Slow, however, do stack and so do Bane, Blade Ward, and Mind Sliver.
But if you want to change any of that at your table, that is completely up to you because at your table, you own the rules, not WotC and no matter what Crawford & Co say, you have the last word in the matter.
Overall, the wording is pretty clear to me. The extra attacks from the Light property and Dual Wielder stack, regardless of the Nick property as the Nick property only moves the extra attack from the Light property from the bonus action to the action. There's nothing that says otherwise. So, a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 short swords makes 4 attacks as part of the action and 2 attack as part of the bonus action while a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 scimitars makes 5 attacks as part of the action and 1 attack as part of the bonus action.
In other occasions, when stacking does not apply, the wording is different. Extra attack for Fighters, Paladins, Valor Bards, Barbarians, and Thirsting Blade is phrased differently. Here, it doesn't say that you get an "extra attack"; it says that you get to attack "twice instead of once". And no matter how many features you accumulate through multiclassing that allow to attack twice, it never becomes more than twice. For AC and Unarmored Defense, it explicitly says that you have to chose one way to calculate your AC and cannot use multiple ones. For Temp HP, it explicitly states that they don't stack. Slasher and Slow, however, do stack and so do Bane, Blade Ward, and Mind Sliver.
The bonus action attacks don't stack because you can't spend one bonus action on two separate abilities.
Overall, the wording is pretty clear to me. The extra attacks from the Light property and Dual Wielder stack, regardless of the Nick property as the Nick property only moves the extra attack from the Light property from the bonus action to the action. There's nothing that says otherwise. So, a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 short swords makes 4 attacks as part of the action and 2 attack as part of the bonus action while a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 scimitars makes 5 attacks as part of the action and 1 attack as part of the bonus action.
In other occasions, when stacking does not apply, the wording is different. Extra attack for Fighters, Paladins, Valor Bards, Barbarians, and Thirsting Blade is phrased differently. Here, it doesn't say that you get an "extra attack"; it says that you get to attack "twice instead of once". And no matter how many features you accumulate through multiclassing that allow to attack twice, it never becomes more than twice. For AC and Unarmored Defense, it explicitly says that you have to chose one way to calculate your AC and cannot use multiple ones. For Temp HP, it explicitly states that they don't stack. Slasher and Slow, however, do stack and so do Bane, Blade Ward, and Mind Sliver.
The bonus action attacks don't stack because you can't spend one bonus action on two separate abilities.
You can play it however you want. If you feel that the wording of Bonus Action ("You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.") trumps this, that's ok with me. In that case, you just combine the Dual Wielder feat with the Nick Property and make the Light Property Bonus Action attack as part of the Attack Action and then the Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack as the Bonus Action. It's the same number of attacks and you can dual-wield a scimitar with a short sword, so mechanically, it makes very little difference, so to me, that gets into nitpicking territory.
The main question that bugs me is the wording of the Nick property. "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." Does this mean that the main hand weapon has to have to Nick property or the offhand (different) weapon as mentioned by the Light property? Given that it says "when you make the extra attack of the Light property", it suggests that the weapon with which I make the extra attack has to have to Nick property, not the main hand weapon. But apparently, if I read two articles on this matter, I end up with three different opinions.
A simpler explanation is that they simply screwed up the wording, which is now being over-analyzed by every person who looks for any loophole to exploit the game.
If you need a white board, slide rule, spreadsheet, and magnifying glass to interpret a rule - you're probably interpreting it incorrectly. Remember, they intended the game to be easily understood (failed miserably at this, but that was their intent). So when adjudicating rules, the simplest explanation is most often the correct one.
They really need to hire a better proof-reader before they publish stuff. [Hint - i'm available WoTC - just saying]
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
This. Frankly all the rules seem intended to be "you can make one extra attack after attacking with a Light weapon, and here are all the things that can modify that one extra attack". The second line of Nick even makes it explicit that you only get one, regardless of whether it happens on your Bonus Action or as part of your Attack action
Unfortunately, the way they worded Dual Wielder, it can be rules lawyered to be a completely separate extra attack -- which is dumb, because the wording is functionally identical to the wording on Light, and it seems obvious to me that it's intended to be just another modification of the one extra Light attack
Light -- one extra attack as a Bonus Action with a different Light weapon
Nick -- the one extra attack gets shifted to the Attack action
Dual Wielder -- the one extra attack can be with a better weapon
TWF -- you add your ability mod to the one extra attack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sounds more like the other way around to me. The people who can't accept that WotC has decided to make these changes will come up with hypothetical errors in the wording and twisty interpretations to not make it so, instead of just reading the rules plainly.
I'm not convinced that "you actually have to pay attention to what's being said" means that the interpretation is wrong. There have been a couple of things where there's been a plain reading of the rules, then Crawford, the lead designer, has turned around and said "nope, it's meant to be done this way", which seemed bonkers to me.
I can see it both ways. I think technically, RAW is that you get the extra attack, but I can see why that could have been an oversight... and also why they may have intended it the way it's written. If you can't see both sides and it doesn't give you pause...then I suggest that you're being presumptuous rather than it being obvious.
I think it is something that could be made explicit. It's problems like these that are the reason why I don't like it when, rather than saying "this is how X works", they have the rules spread out over several locations and you have to piece it all together to figure out how a mechanic is supposed to work.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The argument against this is that it's all internally consistent. In particular TWF is phrased in a slightly unusual way to allow it to encompass DW's extra attack.
Also, without the extra attack, DW's entirely a crap feat. It gives you very little over and above what you get just by using Light weapons.
The other argument against this is that it's just a complete wildcard to use against any rule you don't like. "They screwed up" is totally applicable sometimes, such as the "which weapon needs to have Nick?" question. There's zero evidence of it here.
This is not something a proofreader can catch and fix. Rules writing is a specialized skill that not all game designers are any good at. (It's essentially technical writing.)
The idea that they wanted to change 1 thing about the TWF rules and instead of just doing that, copied the entire TWF rules into the feat and accidentally wrote it as a different bonus action is insanely farfetched. There's no reason to write Dual Wielder in such a long-winded way other than wanting a second bonus action that's mostly the same as the Light property but needs to be distinct.
And yes, compared to what Grappler, Polearm Master, Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, Defensive Duelist, Sentinel, etc offer, just upgrading from a d6 to a d8 would be really weak and barely worth a feat (also consider that they removed the +1 AC bonus of the 2014 version.)
It's not like the 2 bonus hits are game-breakingly good or anything. With Great Weapon Master adding your PB to heavy weapons, Polearm Master granting bonus and reaction attacks with heavy polearms, and heavy weapons having Cleave and Graze, Dual Wielder only keeps up for characters with 1 extra attack. For anyone with Haste or 2 extra attacks, you're doing less damage and limiting your mastery options.
I don't disagree that it's a bit unfortunate that the TWF rules are spread out, but Nick and Light are both on the weapons table and Dual Wielder is not something a new player starting at 1st level has to concern themselves with until 4th level.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Also, as it was pointed out in another thread, this interaction was confirmed by the Devs to be intended. Dungeon Dudes asked during GenCon.
So RAW and RAI are in alignment. It could have been written more clearly, but this is what we have.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
It also gives you access to Topple and Sap, which you can't get with Light weapons
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
While true, I have to say that "go to this YouTube video (or comment?) where somebody says they asked one of the devs" is a extremely poor way of disseminating rulings.
I don't disagree
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
RAW: Nick + DW = 3 attacks (with light weapons)
RAI: It seems HIGHLY LIKELY to me that the DW extra attack text is intended to modify the extra attack you get from the Light Property, and not be another independent attack, however it doesn't specify that (and the Nick property explicitly does state that it modifies the attack from the Light property).
It seems like this should be very quick and easy for the designers to clarify.
The Light property also does not specify anything about requiring melee attacks or using different hands, so you could wear a shield and throw 2 daggers (or maybe 3 with DW) in a turn. Has this been disproven somewhere?
It appears that they intended it for DW to give an additional attack. You can look back in this thread for discussion of that.
You can totally do that. I suspect throwing was why they didn't specify two-handedness was required.
Yes, it works with throwing weapons, but the Dual Wielding melee attacks with a shield run into a problem at some point because you can only equip or unequip a weapon as part of the attack. So, you could enter the fight with one weapon drawn, attack once, unequip that weapon, and then before making the second attack, draw a different weapon and then attack. But that would be the end of it. Sure, you could unequip the weapon as part of a third attack, but you could not draw another weapon. That is unless you read the Quick Draw feature a certain way. It says "You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one." You could now interpret it in a way that it would allow you to equip a weapon before making the attack and then unequipping the same weapon after the attack and then rinse and repeat. But to my mind, that would be a misinterpretation as it says that you can draw or stow two weapons rather than one, not that you can draw and stow the same weapon during an attack.
However, with throwing weapons, that problem would not occur. Unless you read Dual Wielder a certain way. It says: "...you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon...". You could interpret this in a way that the Dual Wielder extra attack would have to be a melee attack. But that would - to my mind - also be a misinterpretation because a dagger is a melee weapon that happens to have the thrown property. To me, this just means that the Dual Wielder extra attack cannot be made with a Hand Crossbow or a Pistol. The extra attack from the Light property can be made with a Hand Crossbow.
But it says that you can't make THIS extra attack only once per turn and THIS extra attack is the extra attack of the Light property. It says nowhere that you could not make an extra attack from a different source like the Dual Wielder feat. Then it would have to say that you can make AN extra attack only once per turn.
Overall, the wording is pretty clear to me. The extra attacks from the Light property and Dual Wielder stack, regardless of the Nick property as the Nick property only moves the extra attack from the Light property from the bonus action to the action. There's nothing that says otherwise. So, a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 short swords makes 4 attacks as part of the action and 2 attack as part of the bonus action while a level 20 Fighter with Dual Wielder and 2 scimitars makes 5 attacks as part of the action and 1 attack as part of the bonus action.
In other occasions, when stacking does not apply, the wording is different. Extra attack for Fighters, Paladins, Valor Bards, Barbarians, and Thirsting Blade is phrased differently. Here, it doesn't say that you get an "extra attack"; it says that you get to attack "twice instead of once". And no matter how many features you accumulate through multiclassing that allow to attack twice, it never becomes more than twice. For AC and Unarmored Defense, it explicitly says that you have to chose one way to calculate your AC and cannot use multiple ones. For Temp HP, it explicitly states that they don't stack. Slasher and Slow, however, do stack and so do Bane, Blade Ward, and Mind Sliver.
But if you want to change any of that at your table, that is completely up to you because at your table, you own the rules, not WotC and no matter what Crawford & Co say, you have the last word in the matter.
The bonus action attacks don't stack because you can't spend one bonus action on two separate abilities.
You can play it however you want. If you feel that the wording of Bonus Action ("You can take only one Bonus Action on your turn, so you must choose which Bonus Action to use if you have more than one available.") trumps this, that's ok with me. In that case, you just combine the Dual Wielder feat with the Nick Property and make the Light Property Bonus Action attack as part of the Attack Action and then the Dual Wielder Bonus Action attack as the Bonus Action. It's the same number of attacks and you can dual-wield a scimitar with a short sword, so mechanically, it makes very little difference, so to me, that gets into nitpicking territory.
The main question that bugs me is the wording of the Nick property. "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." Does this mean that the main hand weapon has to have to Nick property or the offhand (different) weapon as mentioned by the Light property? Given that it says "when you make the extra attack of the Light property", it suggests that the weapon with which I make the extra attack has to have to Nick property, not the main hand weapon. But apparently, if I read two articles on this matter, I end up with three different opinions.