Why wouldn't those characters use a two handed weapon and just remove a hand to cast. You could maybe argue they couldn't do this as a reaction but during their turn I think most people would allow this.
Arguably, (and I agree that is is quite arguable) it could be ruled that yes, they can remove the hand to cast, but they are then unable to use the two handed weapon because their hand has already been 'occupied' for the turn (or vice versa, they can't remove their hand if they already used it to attack). This would affect classes such as the Eldritch Knight who are capable of casting a spell and making a weapon attack in the same turn, due to their features.
This isn't a requirement that is explicitly required by the rules (nor do I think it is even implicitly required by the rules), but I could see a DM making such a ruling, especially in the name of 'balance'. In such a case a Versatile weapon would definitely be useful since it can be used for two-handed attacks normally, switching to one handed when a somatic component was required. We are speaking fairly theoretically, however, at this point and that theoretical situation pretty much requires a semi-specific houserule.
Arguably, (and I agree that is is quite arguable) it could be ruled that yes, they can remove the hand to cast, but they are then unable to use the two handed weapon because their hand has already been 'occupied' for the turn (or vice versa, they can't remove their hand if they already used it to attack). This would affect classes such as the Eldritch Knight who are capable of casting a spell and making a weapon attack in the same turn, due to their features.
This isn't a requirement that is explicitly required by the rules (nor do I think it is even implicitly required by the rules), but I could see a DM making such a ruling, especially in the name of 'balance'. In such a case a Versatile weapon would definitely be useful since it can be used for two-handed attacks normally, switching to one handed when a somatic component was required. We are speaking fairly theoretically, however, at this point and that theoretical situation pretty much requires a semi-specific houserule.
It has even been clarified by the designers that you only need to use two hands when you attack with a two-handed weapon, switching to cast a spell is not a problem. Of course if you are using a Focus then it could become an issue as that might still occupy your hand after the casting of the spell.
I wish they had made doffing and donning a shield a Bonus Action, or even part of the attack action, if you got Shield Master.
Or at least I wish they brought back bucklers like in 3rd Ed.
Bucklers (at least the sort most RPGs want to have) is probably the most unrealistic piece of equipment out there. I get why people want it and I get how it fits nicely in some sort of defensive benefit v drawback progression but it is just such BS. [takes doge action ;) ]
Arguably, (and I agree that is is quite arguable) it could be ruled that yes, they can remove the hand to cast, but they are then unable to use the two handed weapon because their hand has already been 'occupied' for the turn (or vice versa, they can't remove their hand if they already used it to attack). This would affect classes such as the Eldritch Knight who are capable of casting a spell and making a weapon attack in the same turn, due to their features.
This isn't a requirement that is explicitly required by the rules (nor do I think it is even implicitly required by the rules), but I could see a DM making such a ruling, especially in the name of 'balance'. In such a case a Versatile weapon would definitely be useful since it can be used for two-handed attacks normally, switching to one handed when a somatic component was required. We are speaking fairly theoretically, however, at this point and that theoretical situation pretty much requires a semi-specific houserule.
It has even been clarified by the designers that you only need to use two hands when you attack with a two-handed weapon, switching to cast a spell is not a problem. Of course if you are using a Focus then it could become an issue as that might still occupy your hand after the casting of the spell.
There are so many ways around the focus issue I just don't see it coming up. You just never need a weapon to be versatile using the rules. Style points sure, have at it. But mechanically it is pointless.
You just never need a weapon to be versatile using the rules. Style points sure, have at it. But mechanically it is pointless.
It's basically two weapons for the price (and weight, and equipage) of one. That a shield can only practically be swapped out between combats isn't actually a downside of the weapon.
You just never need a weapon to be versatile using the rules. Style points sure, have at it. But mechanically it is pointless.
It's basically two weapons for the price (and weight, and equipage) of one. That a shield can only practically be swapped out between combats isn't actually a downside of the weapon.
1 damage difference is not two weapons for the price of one. If you are swapping between sword and shield and two handed, just carry a rapier/shield and a two handed sword, 8 pounds wont make a difference. And as you start getting feats you will be nailing down a specific style so you just wont be swapping, you will either be two handed boy or sword and board.
Versatile weapons are kind of a leftover from 3.5 Edition, when it was possible to get a high damage difference between a one-handed and two-handed weapon thanks to getting a 1.5 multiplier on the damage bonus from a high strength score and the Power Attack feat's damage bonus was doubled.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There are so many ways around the focus issue I just don't see it coming up. You just never need a weapon to be versatile using the rules. Style points sure, have at it. But mechanically it is pointless.
Dual Wielder, Enhanced Dual Wielding: When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property.
Some magic weapons, such as a Sylvan Talon can never be a two-handed weapon.
Having a magic Versatile weapon gives you the benefit regardless of whether you are using it one-handed or two-handed.
A Versatile weapon can benefit from both the Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting fighting style feats depending on how it's wielded. Sadly, this does not extend to Great Weapon Master.
Two Versatile Weapons can be thrown while none of the Two-handed ones can (though the Hoopak is also a sling).
There are some niche magical items, like the Sub Blade. If you are proficient with a Shortsword or Longsword, you are proficient with it and it acts as a Longsword with Finesse, opening the Rogue up to two-handed sneak attacks. There is also a magical Spear with Finesse.
If you are playing with the 2014 rules, the Hex Blade's Hex Warrior excludes weapons with the Two-handed property so Versatile weapons may be the source of your biggest weapon damage dice. If you are playing with the 2024 rules, this is irrelevant as the new Pact of the Blade provides mostly the same benefit without the Two-handed restriction.
There may be other cases where Versatile weapons provide benefits over separate one-handed and two-handed weapons or even over a singular two-handed weapon.
Back to a Shield and Sword Juggling For Fun and Profit,
It is unclear whether a Plasmoid's Pseudopod could wield a shield, but most likely not. (The pseudopod has a restricted list of actions that can be performed when you extend or retract it, but it is not explicit whether those restrictions are in place the rest of the time; I would lean towards yes.)
Note that a Hasted Fighter could action surge to Doff a Shield, make the full set of Two-handed attacks, and then use the action from Haste to don the shield keeping the AC bonus between rounds, but at the expense of one attack action's worth of attacks.
Again, there may be more methods for juggling.
Edit: Corrected fight style reference to Great Weapon Fighting.
You've listed a lot of edge scenarios, most of which don't actually benefit from the ability to wield the weapon two handed.
Dual Wielder says that the extra attack must be with a weapon that does not have the Two-handed property. It does not say that it cannot be wielded in two hands.
Have one magic weapon that you use in one or two hands, as needed, is not an edge case.
Versatile thrown weapons are not an edge case, fulfilling three potential roles. Given that a Spear can be used with Pole Arm Master, it is an excellent weapon option.
Given the number of 2014 builds with dips into Hexblade, I wouldn't call that an edge case, but it is not relevant for those using the 2024 rules.
Specific magic items are generally edge cases, but that can still be worth mentioning.
I don't expect anyone to take both Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting, but it's worth noting that Versatile weapons can be used with either just by changing how you are wielding them. Alternatively, if you are using another fighting style, like Defense, you can change without issue (this also applies to fully changing out weapons).
You've listed a lot of edge scenarios, most of which don't actually benefit from the ability to wield the weapon two handed.
Dual Wielder says that the extra attack must be with a weapon that does not have the Two-handed property. It does not say that it cannot be wielded in two hands.
It doesn't need to, because the rules for two-weapon fighting already specify that you have to be wielding the weapons with one hand each. Even if they didn't, you'd still need at least three hands to pull off two-weapon fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. And you'd still only be giving yourself an average of one point extra of damage.
Have one magic weapon that you use in one or two hands, as needed, is not an edge case.
Versatile thrown weapons are not an edge case, fulfilling three potential roles. Given that a Spear can be used with Pole Arm Master, it is an excellent weapon option.
Given the number of 2014 builds with dips into Hexblade, I wouldn't call that an edge case, but it is not relevant for those using the 2024 rules.
Specific magic items are generally edge cases, but that can still be worth mentioning.
I don't expect anyone to take both Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting, but it's worth noting that Versatile weapons can be used with either just by changing how you are wielding them. Alternatively, if you are using another fighting style, like Defense, you can change without issue (this also applies to fully changing out weapons).
These are all edge cases because the point where it's actually beneficial to use a versatile weapon with both hands vs just using one hand are rare. I mean, seriously, you're citing taking Duelist and Great Weapon Fighting together on the same build? GWF is already the worst fighting style in the game, taking Duelist means that it's outright better to fight using a one-handed weapon: 1d8+2 is simply superior to 1d10, minimum roll of 3: both have the same minimum damage but the former is going to have significantly better average damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It doesn't need to, because the rules for two-weapon fighting already specify that you have to be wielding the weapons with one hand each. Even if they didn't, you'd still need at least three hands to pull off two-weapon fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. And you'd still only be giving yourself an average of one point extra of damage.
In the 2024 rules there is no requirement to use different hands, just different weapon.
Using the 2024 rules, with Equipping and Unequipping Weapons + Free Object Interaction + Quick Draw (Dual Wielder), you can be really Versatile (no pun intended?)
It doesn't need to, because the rules for two-weapon fighting already specify that you have to be wielding the weapons with one hand each. Even if they didn't, you'd still need at least three hands to pull off two-weapon fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. And you'd still only be giving yourself an average of one point extra of damage.
In the 2024 rules there is no requirement to use different hands, just different weapon.
Under the Rules as Written you are technically correct (the best kind of correct). You could attack with a Light weapon, unequip as your free part of making that attack, attack with the Versatile weapon, then equip the Light weapon as part of that attack (or some subsequent attack if you are allowed multiple attack per attack action).
However, I wouldn't recommend fighting too hard if a DM wants to houserule that they aren't going to allow such shenanigans. I probably wouldn't unless you came up with something that made such a method of fighting appear at least somewhat plausible (which means that I would allow someone to draw and throw a dagger, then use their Versatile weapon two handed as a bonus action because of their Dual Wielder feat, because that method of fighting seems somewhat plausible).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Arguably, (and I agree that is is quite arguable) it could be ruled that yes, they can remove the hand to cast, but they are then unable to use the two handed weapon because their hand has already been 'occupied' for the turn (or vice versa, they can't remove their hand if they already used it to attack). This would affect classes such as the Eldritch Knight who are capable of casting a spell and making a weapon attack in the same turn, due to their features.
This isn't a requirement that is explicitly required by the rules (nor do I think it is even implicitly required by the rules), but I could see a DM making such a ruling, especially in the name of 'balance'. In such a case a Versatile weapon would definitely be useful since it can be used for two-handed attacks normally, switching to one handed when a somatic component was required. We are speaking fairly theoretically, however, at this point and that theoretical situation pretty much requires a semi-specific houserule.
It has even been clarified by the designers that you only need to use two hands when you attack with a two-handed weapon, switching to cast a spell is not a problem. Of course if you are using a Focus then it could become an issue as that might still occupy your hand after the casting of the spell.
Bucklers (at least the sort most RPGs want to have) is probably the most unrealistic piece of equipment out there. I get why people want it and I get how it fits nicely in some sort of defensive benefit v drawback progression but it is just such BS. [takes doge action ;) ]
There are so many ways around the focus issue I just don't see it coming up. You just never need a weapon to be versatile using the rules. Style points sure, have at it. But mechanically it is pointless.
It's basically two weapons for the price (and weight, and equipage) of one. That a shield can only practically be swapped out between combats isn't actually a downside of the weapon.
1 damage difference is not two weapons for the price of one. If you are swapping between sword and shield and two handed, just carry a rapier/shield and a two handed sword, 8 pounds wont make a difference. And as you start getting feats you will be nailing down a specific style so you just wont be swapping, you will either be two handed boy or sword and board.
Versatile weapons are kind of a leftover from 3.5 Edition, when it was possible to get a high damage difference between a one-handed and two-handed weapon thanks to getting a 1.5 multiplier on the damage bonus from a high strength score and the Power Attack feat's damage bonus was doubled.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
There may be other cases where Versatile weapons provide benefits over separate one-handed and two-handed weapons or even over a singular two-handed weapon.
Back to a Shield and Sword Juggling For Fun and Profit,
Again, there may be more methods for juggling.
Edit: Corrected fight style reference to Great Weapon Fighting.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You've listed a lot of edge scenarios, most of which don't actually benefit from the ability to wield the weapon two handed.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Dual Wielder says that the extra attack must be with a weapon that does not have the Two-handed property. It does not say that it cannot be wielded in two hands.
Have one magic weapon that you use in one or two hands, as needed, is not an edge case.
Versatile thrown weapons are not an edge case, fulfilling three potential roles. Given that a Spear can be used with Pole Arm Master, it is an excellent weapon option.
Given the number of 2014 builds with dips into Hexblade, I wouldn't call that an edge case, but it is not relevant for those using the 2024 rules.
Specific magic items are generally edge cases, but that can still be worth mentioning.
I don't expect anyone to take both Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting, but it's worth noting that Versatile weapons can be used with either just by changing how you are wielding them. Alternatively, if you are using another fighting style, like Defense, you can change without issue (this also applies to fully changing out weapons).
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It doesn't need to, because the rules for two-weapon fighting already specify that you have to be wielding the weapons with one hand each. Even if they didn't, you'd still need at least three hands to pull off two-weapon fighting while wielding a weapon with two hands. And you'd still only be giving yourself an average of one point extra of damage.
These are all edge cases because the point where it's actually beneficial to use a versatile weapon with both hands vs just using one hand are rare. I mean, seriously, you're citing taking Duelist and Great Weapon Fighting together on the same build? GWF is already the worst fighting style in the game, taking Duelist means that it's outright better to fight using a one-handed weapon: 1d8+2 is simply superior to 1d10, minimum roll of 3: both have the same minimum damage but the former is going to have significantly better average damage.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
In the 2024 rules there is no requirement to use different hands, just different weapon.
Using the 2024 rules, with Equipping and Unequipping Weapons + Free Object Interaction + Quick Draw (Dual Wielder), you can be really Versatile (no pun intended?)
Under the Rules as Written you are technically correct (the best kind of correct). You could attack with a Light weapon, unequip as your free part of making that attack, attack with the Versatile weapon, then equip the Light weapon as part of that attack (or some subsequent attack if you are allowed multiple attack per attack action).
However, I wouldn't recommend fighting too hard if a DM wants to houserule that they aren't going to allow such shenanigans. I probably wouldn't unless you came up with something that made such a method of fighting appear at least somewhat plausible (which means that I would allow someone to draw and throw a dagger, then use their Versatile weapon two handed as a bonus action because of their Dual Wielder feat, because that method of fighting seems somewhat plausible).