You don't need the sketchy interpretation of DW, nor your free interaction. You get an equip/unequip per attack that's part of your attack action. The nick attack is part of your attack action, therefore you can draw the scimitar as part of it.
And, of course, one can say "I don't allow that level of weapon juggling in my game". But asking somebody to leave for wanting to do something in the rules strikes me as excessive. (And, of course, if you are going to house-rule it, you should make it clear what the new boundary is.)
Absolutely. As a DM, I advocate understanding RAW before making changes. As a player, I advocate being communicative about your plans with your DM so there aren't surprises mid-session.
It is completely RAW. You may have your opinions on RAI, but RAW is clear.
Let me see if I understand your RAW interpretation.
Only using a single hand. If I do not swap out any weapons I get a single attack.
But if I was to swap out a weapon, I now get two attacks.
Is that what RAW states?
Yes. There is never a printed requirement that you use two hands.
RAW also states that if I have one attack per Attack action, I can punch once. If I pick up a Scimitar, I can attack once. If I pick up a second Scimitar, I can attack twice. I had two fists, why couldn't I punch twice?
This whole nonsense maneuver only works if you always start combat with a weapon and shield equipped. If you walk around town with weapons drawn for all your social interactions, your DM should be having the shop keepers and city watch asking you to leave the shop and leave town. If you pull a weapon during a conversation with the thieves guild, the entire guild should pounce on you.
And if you do NOT walk around with a weapon equipped at all times, when initiative rolls how many of you are still going to try to play 3 attacks in one turn, even though it no longer actually works rules as written, cause you ran out of enough equip/unequips to move all the weapons around? if you try that, you're pulling some shenanigans.
So, no, to simplify this, I've homebrewed this that the additional attack you get from Light or Nick or Dual prohibits a shield.
Simple fix: any use of Light, nick, or dual features prohibits the use of a shield, and possibly any non-light weapon in either hand.
As mentioned, the Thri-kreen can use a shield with two weapons. This is because they have 4 arms. The secondary arms can only wield Light weapons. Your house rule prevents that race from doing something with four hands because you don't like that other races can do it with 2 hands. You can house rule what you want at your table, but you are complaining about one logical problem and your fix creates the exact same issue, just mirrored.
Dual Wielder only requires one Light Weapon. If you attack with a Light Weapon during an Attack action, Dual Wielder allows you to then follow up with any melee weapon that does not have the two-handed property. Your house rule also nerfs Dual Wielder from its intended function of allowing you to make one attack as a Bonus Action. You are cutting out:
Battleaxe
Flail
Javelin
Longsword
Mace
Morning Star
Psychic Blade (If you are a Soul Knife)
Quarterstaff
Rapier
Spear
Trident
War Pick
Warhammer
Whip
Yklwa
Rapier and Main Gauche (Dagger I guess?) was a common two-weapon dueling combination. While it is strange to model it with leading with the off hand weapon (main gauche means "left hand" and was wielded in the off hand), it is still a valid combo in the RAW that your house rule changes for ... reasons?
Dont forget: Bonus action cast hunters mark at the start to add 1d6 for each attack....
Are you casting a spell with your Bonus Action or attacking? You can't combine Dual Wielder with Hex or Hunter's Mark, at least not on turn 1. Either way, you're shifting the goal posts. This is a conversation Two-weapon Fighting with a shield. Dual Wielder is relevant. Hex and Hunters Mark are not.
Let me see if I understand your RAW interpretation.
Only using a single hand. If I do not swap out any weapons I get a single attack.
But if I was to swap out a weapon, I now get two attacks.
Is that what RAW states?
You ask this like it is some trick question but it really isn't. Yes it is strange that they don't require you to wield the weapons simultaneously but as it stands neither Light or Dual Wielder does.
We should also remember that the player making that "single attack" you mention gets to use a weapon with a bigger damage die and still gets to pick a weapon mastery, a fighting style feat and a general feat to augment that single attack (or give them other benefits).
:"Thri-kreen can use a shield with two weapons. This is because they have 4 arms."
Yes. And everyone who wants to play one, wants it strictly for the roleplay...
"Know the rules before you change them."
First of all, i know the rules just fine.
Second of all none of those rules say you are the boss of me. And yet you keep issuing me orders. Weird feel free to stop tellijg me what to do anytime.
I said i think these rules are overpowered, which is a perfectly legit opinion to have unless they changed the rules about opinions, and more importsntly i said i dont allow this when i DM, which is also a perfectly fine thing to say, unless rule zero got nerfed.
"Let me see if I understand your RAW interpretation.
Only using a single hand. If I do not swap out any weapons I get a single attack.
But if I was to swap out a weapon, I now get two attacks.
Is that what RAW states?"
Well, the rules say if you attavk with a weapon with the light property, you can bonus attack with another light weapon. The rules also say you get one free object interaction during your Action (which can be used as a weapon equip/unequip) and you get one weapon interaction for every attack you do. So the idea is you have a shield one one arm. And with your other hand yiu attack w8th a light weapon, unequip it, equip the other oight weapon. Bonus action light attack witg the second light weapon. That b9nus attak is just weapon damage, not weapon+abikity m9difier damage.
Everything else is just bells and whistles to induce power creep into the game. Nick weapon mastery lets you move the light attack to your action, freeing up your bonus action. Two wewpon fighting lets you add avility modifier damage to that light attack. And the dual wielder feat lets you add yet anothrr light attack into your bonus action again.
So a level 1 fighter can wear a shield and do 2 attacks per turn, while wearing a shield. Why anyone would use a non light weapon is beyond me.
A level 4 fighter can take dual wielding feat and do 3 attacks per turn. And at level 5, they do 4 attavks per turn, al doing full weapon plus abmod damage, all while wearing a shield.
Is it dumb? Yes. Is it over powered? Yes.
With this idiocy, non light, single handed weapons have become useless, cause they only do avg 1 pt more dmg per hit, but you only do a single attack for the first 4 levels and only 2 attacks after level 5.
Best thing to do is ban it. At the very least, disallow it to work while using a shield. And maybe get rid of light attack completely. You can get a dual attack with a level 4 feat, one extra attack, but disallow shields with that as well.
You could maybe just get rid of the nick property. Then the light attack stays on the bonus action and dual wielding doesnt stack another atgack in there.
You do 2 light attacks for levels 1-3, then you could do 2 dual wielding attavcks at level 4. And 3 attacks at level 5. Only one more than a single handed non-light weapkn fighter.
That one change and a lot od this madness goes away.
Simple fix: any use of Light, nick, or dual features prohibits the use of a shield, and possibly any non-light weapon in either hand.
I go with a requirement that for any light/nick/dual attack to trigger the additional attack you must be holding a one-handed weapon in another hand during the triggering attack. Holding a versatile weapon is fine.
The player is then free to pull whatever weapon swap shenanigans to maximise damage/mastery effect output they want, but the underlying intent of a multi-way fighting style is maintained.
You could maybe just get rid of the nick property. Then the light attack stays on the bonus action and dual wielding doesnt stack another atgack in there.
Then the dual wielder feat becomes trash. You also hurt rogues who want to use light weapons by taking away their cunning action.
You also make the light weapon fighters drop behind the heavy weapon fighters, who are all using big weapons and Great Weapon Mastery. And probably the pole arm master fighters.
The reference fighter for light/nick/DW is not the feat-less sword and shield fighters. It's the other fighters who are building for damage. The sword-and-shield fighter is presumably building for something else, or just doesn't care. (Or there's another feat I'm forgetting, which is possible. Dueling helps them some, but I believe they do lag behind.) TWF isn't overpowered, unless you consider any focussed fighting style build overpowered.
But it's not easy to change things without knock-on effects like that. (Similarly, trying to ban using the light/nick/DW complex one-handed is an unnecessary nerf to anybody trying to do a throwing build.)
Now, you can still do it, and nobody except your players can stop you, but it's not the clean fix to the supposed problem you're making it out to be.
Almost every player I've ever seen using a sword and board style does it for the fantasy of playing the classic heroic archetype. Sometimes they use a spear. For extra sucking. LOL.
Apart from the look of it, there isn't really a defined archetype for what a sword and board fighter actually does, and dueling is also supposed to subsume the even more mechanically challenged fantasy archetype of a one-handed sword duelist that doesn't wield a weapon in the off hand, but also doesn't use a shield.
Having said that, the fantasy of just rapidly swapping weapons during a fight for no discernible reason just doesn't exist, so this is purely an optimizer's sort of thing, and hashing out agreements on the level of optimization in a game is just a thing you do in Session Zero. Most reasonable optimizers who can see the level of efficacy the rest of the team is bringing can tone it down or try their hand at optimizing a particularly challenging premise (see: one-handed duelist) instead of blowing out encounters on their own and ruining the table for everyone.
Doing it this way is cleaner and clearer than messing with the Light or the Nick property, IMO. Most people simply won't try to do this anyway, and most reasonable optimizers can be made to not do it if it's obviously going to be disruptive. Moreover, it allows a bit of flex in that you can just allow folks who are lagging behind a bit to play this trick for a bit with a wink and a nudge just until you can do something a bit more permanent to square things off. It really depends on the table and the dynamics of the group.
The Mastery properties and the Light and Nick rules are in enough places in the ruleset that I personally don't want to meddle with it too much. As mentioned, the amount of damage gained is kind of meh anyway. It just looks kinda stupid.
Lets assune a ability modifier of 18 at level 5. Thats a +4 damage bump per hit. Will do all calculations at level 5, assuming feat is used for dual wielding or polearm master. Damage is max possible. Multiply by roughly 70% for average dmg per turn. Polerm master adds 1d4+4=6 dmg.
Light/nick/2wf/dual: Scimitars use a d6 × 4 attacks = 30 dmg. Shield, but only because shenanigans.
Single weapon, not light: d8 * 2 attacks =17 dmg + pam = 23. Shield is standard.
Heavy/2 handed: d10 * 2 attacks = 19 dmg plus pam = 25dmg. Shield is impossible.
Light/nick/2wf/dual gives the highest damage per turn, AND lets you use a shield AND gives you 4 attacks per turn, so you are more likely to get at least one hit per turn (which is good for a rogue and sneak attack, or someone just wanting to force a spellcaster to fail a concentration save, by forcing them to make losts of saves.) Someone tell me why play any other combination?
Whoever came up with this really screwed up.
The idea should be you have to make tradeoffs in your character design. You want max damage, you cant carry a shield. You want a shield, you gotta accept lower damage per round. You want plate armor, you have to max str and dump dex meaning you go last ik initiative most times and your DEX saves suck.
But this magic combo? You get the best of everything. You get more dpr than any other weapon combo build. You still get a shield. You can even wear plate. Imagine a plate armored paladin, with a shield, rocking an ac of 20 or higher, rolls up on the scene and somehow hot swaps 4 dagger attacks per turn, doing the most damage of anyone on the field, and gets a high charisma so they hog all the time when the party interacts with npcs. Throw in a gd 2 level warlock dip for the best ranged attack in game, and you are literally the best at evergthing. Highest dpr. Highest ac. Best ranged attack. And best talker.
Why would you play literally anything else?
For the roleplay opportunities??? Yeah, thats what mister thri-kreen all say. They power game every stat, and say its just what they felt like roleplaying today.
The power creep in dnd is gonzo right now. The rules should force tradeoffs, wanna be good in one thing, you gotta be bad at something else. But light/nick/2wf/dual is the best at everything it has a slider knob on. Its got game balance completely whacked
If sword and board had the best ac (as the only one that can carry shield) and less damage, and then you could go heavy or light for more damagr, but no shield, that might force at least a little bit of a tradeoff. But between heavy and light, heavy should do more damage, so light/nick weapons shouldnt do more than 1d4 weapon dmg. More attacks means things like hunters mark starts piling up fast, so gotta keep the initial dmg lower. And light usually means low str and high dex, and high dex is better thsn high str cause dex improves your initiative and dex saves which happen a lot.
This light/dual nonsense is like someone from sales ignored decades of game design advances and just said "now this one goes to 11".
Lets assune a ability modifier of 18 at level 5. Thats a +4 damage bump per hit. Will do all calculations at level 5, assuming feat is used for dual wielding or polearm master. Damage is max possible. Multiply by roughly 70% for average dmg per turn. Polerm master adds 1d4+4=6 dmg.
Light/nick/2wf/dual: Scimitars use a d6 × 4 attacks = 30 dmg. Shield, but only because shenanigans.
Single weapon, not light: d8 * 2 attacks =17 dmg + pam = 23. Shield is standard.
Heavy/2 handed: d10 * 2 attacks = 19 dmg plus pam = 25dmg. Shield is impossible.
Light/nick/2wf/dual gives the highest damage per turn, AND lets you use a shield AND gives you 4 attacks per turn, so you are more likely to get at least one hit per turn (which is good for a rogue and sneak attack, or someone just wanting to force a spellcaster to fail a concentration save, by forcing them to make losts of saves.) Someone tell me why play any other combination?
Whoever came up with this really screwed up.
The idea should be you have to make tradeoffs in your character design. You want max damage, you cant carry a shield. You want a shield, you gotta accept lower damage per round. You want plate armor, you have to max str and dump dex meaning you go last ik initiative most times and your DEX saves suck.
But this magic combo? You get the best of everything. You get more dpr than any other weapon combo build. You still get a shield. You can even wear plate. Imagine a plate armored paladin, with a shield, rocking an ac of 20 or higher, rolls up on the scene and somehow hot swaps 4 dagger attacks per turn, doing the most damage of anyone on the field, and gets a high charisma so they hog all the time when the party interacts with npcs. Throw in a gd 2 level warlock dip for the best ranged attack in game, and you are literally the best at evergthing. Highest dpr. Highest ac. Best ranged attack. And best talker.
Why would you play literally anything else?
For the roleplay opportunities??? Yeah, thats what mister thri-kreen all say. They power game every stat, and say its just what they felt like roleplaying today.
The power creep in dnd is gonzo right now. The rules should force tradeoffs, wanna be good in one thing, you gotta be bad at something else. But light/nick/2wf/dual is the best at everything it has a slider knob on. Its got game balance completely whacked
If sword and board had the best ac (as the only one that can carry shield) and less damage, and then you could go heavy or light for more damagr, but no shield, that might force at least a little bit of a tradeoff. But between heavy and light, heavy should do more damage, so light/nick weapons shouldnt do more than 1d4 weapon dmg. More attacks means things like hunters mark starts piling up fast, so gotta keep the initial dmg lower. And light usually means low str and high dex, and high dex is better thsn high str cause dex improves your initiative and dex saves which happen a lot.
This light/dual nonsense is like someone from sales ignored decades of game design advances and just said "now this one goes to 11".
This isn't quite correct. The DPR estimate as standardized seems on the up and up, but the only difference between what's going on here and what a standard TWF would have achieved is similar. So a standard TWF estimate here is higher, regardless. You're just really talking about +2 AC.
Damage estimates are off because you're not accounting for Mastery properties on the other weapons. Putting Graze on the Reach weapon makes up the damage difference, and you have a Reach Advantage. You could also take Great Weapon Master instead of PAM at level 5. You get +3 per attack, so the damage goes up the same as with PAM, but you get to use your Bonus Action more freely, which is a fairly substantial advantage, on top of Reach.
Battle Axe on the One Handed Weapon allows you to Prone your opponents, and that advantage is difficult to quantify mathematically. You could also get Sap and force nearby opponents to make their next attack with Disadvantage, which is a great defensive option. Both of these would nerf the damage calc a bit, as Duelist only adds +4, not +6. I am not sure how we're using PAM with a d8 on a sword and board build, because the only weapons that can be wielded like that and accept PAM are quarterstaff and spear, and they're both d6 damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
This is true but not obvious.
Absolutely. As a DM, I advocate understanding RAW before making changes. As a player, I advocate being communicative about your plans with your DM so there aren't surprises mid-session.
Yes. There is never a printed requirement that you use two hands.
RAW also states that if I have one attack per Attack action, I can punch once. If I pick up a Scimitar, I can attack once. If I pick up a second Scimitar, I can attack twice. I had two fists, why couldn't I punch twice?
That is what RAW states.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
oh lordy. you found the power gamers species. Good job.
This whole nonsense maneuver only works if you always start combat with a weapon and shield equipped. If you walk around town with weapons drawn for all your social interactions, your DM should be having the shop keepers and city watch asking you to leave the shop and leave town. If you pull a weapon during a conversation with the thieves guild, the entire guild should pounce on you.
And if you do NOT walk around with a weapon equipped at all times, when initiative rolls how many of you are still going to try to play 3 attacks in one turn, even though it no longer actually works rules as written, cause you ran out of enough equip/unequips to move all the weapons around? if you try that, you're pulling some shenanigans.
So, no, to simplify this, I've homebrewed this that the additional attack you get from Light or Nick or Dual prohibits a shield.
You don't need to walk with a Shield and a Shortsword equipped all day since you can;
Dont forget: Bonus action cast hunters mark at the start to add 1d6 for each attack....
Simple fix: any use of Light, nick, or dual features prohibits the use of a shield, and possibly any non-light weapon in either hand.
You forgot Conjure Minor Elementals for +2d8 damage. =D
So the fact that Dual Wielder explicitly allows for a non-Light weapon is also too much? Seems quite harsh tbh.
Rapier and Main Gauche (Dagger I guess?) was a common two-weapon dueling combination. While it is strange to model it with leading with the off hand weapon (main gauche means "left hand" and was wielded in the off hand), it is still a valid combo in the RAW that your house rule changes for ... reasons?
Know the rules before you change them.
Are you casting a spell with your Bonus Action or attacking? You can't combine Dual Wielder with Hex or Hunter's Mark, at least not on turn 1. Either way, you're shifting the goal posts. This is a conversation Two-weapon Fighting with a shield. Dual Wielder is relevant. Hex and Hunters Mark are not.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You ask this like it is some trick question but it really isn't. Yes it is strange that they don't require you to wield the weapons simultaneously but as it stands neither Light or Dual Wielder does.
We should also remember that the player making that "single attack" you mention gets to use a weapon with a bigger damage die and still gets to pick a weapon mastery, a fighting style feat and a general feat to augment that single attack (or give them other benefits).
:"Thri-kreen can use a shield with two weapons. This is because they have 4 arms."
Yes. And everyone who wants to play one, wants it strictly for the roleplay...
"Know the rules before you change them."
First of all, i know the rules just fine.
Second of all none of those rules say you are the boss of me. And yet you keep issuing me orders. Weird feel free to stop tellijg me what to do anytime.
I said i think these rules are overpowered, which is a perfectly legit opinion to have unless they changed the rules about opinions, and more importsntly i said i dont allow this when i DM, which is also a perfectly fine thing to say, unless rule zero got nerfed.
"Let me see if I understand your RAW interpretation.
Only using a single hand. If I do not swap out any weapons I get a single attack.
But if I was to swap out a weapon, I now get two attacks.
Is that what RAW states?"
Well, the rules say if you attavk with a weapon with the light property, you can bonus attack with another light weapon. The rules also say you get one free object interaction during your Action (which can be used as a weapon equip/unequip) and you get one weapon interaction for every attack you do. So the idea is you have a shield one one arm. And with your other hand yiu attack w8th a light weapon, unequip it, equip the other oight weapon. Bonus action light attack witg the second light weapon. That b9nus attak is just weapon damage, not weapon+abikity m9difier damage.
Everything else is just bells and whistles to induce power creep into the game. Nick weapon mastery lets you move the light attack to your action, freeing up your bonus action. Two wewpon fighting lets you add avility modifier damage to that light attack. And the dual wielder feat lets you add yet anothrr light attack into your bonus action again.
So a level 1 fighter can wear a shield and do 2 attacks per turn, while wearing a shield. Why anyone would use a non light weapon is beyond me.
A level 4 fighter can take dual wielding feat and do 3 attacks per turn. And at level 5, they do 4 attavks per turn, al doing full weapon plus abmod damage, all while wearing a shield.
Is it dumb? Yes. Is it over powered? Yes.
With this idiocy, non light, single handed weapons have become useless, cause they only do avg 1 pt more dmg per hit, but you only do a single attack for the first 4 levels and only 2 attacks after level 5.
Best thing to do is ban it. At the very least, disallow it to work while using a shield. And maybe get rid of light attack completely. You can get a dual attack with a level 4 feat, one extra attack, but disallow shields with that as well.
But yeah, it really is that crappy of a rule.
"We should also remember that the player making that "single attack" you mention gets to use a weapon with a bigger damage die"
Lets assune a ability modifier of 18 at level 5.
Scimitars are light and have the nick property and use a d6. Avg=3.5 dmg and 4 attacks per turn at level 5. Thats 30 dmg.
Single handed non-light weapons generally use a d8 avg=4 dmg, and 2 attacks per turn at level 5. Thats 16 dmg.
Big 2 handed weapons usually ise a d10 or 2d6, avg=5.5 to 7.0 dmg, only 2 attacks per turn, and cant equip a shield. Thats 22 dmg and no shield.
Take all those total damages and multiply by your chance to hit, which would be maybe 75%.
You could maybe just get rid of the nick property. Then the light attack stays on the bonus action and dual wielding doesnt stack another atgack in there.
You do 2 light attacks for levels 1-3, then you could do 2 dual wielding attavcks at level 4. And 3 attacks at level 5. Only one more than a single handed non-light weapkn fighter.
That one change and a lot od this madness goes away.
I go with a requirement that for any light/nick/dual attack to trigger the additional attack you must be holding a one-handed weapon in another hand during the triggering attack. Holding a versatile weapon is fine.
The player is then free to pull whatever weapon swap shenanigans to maximise damage/mastery effect output they want, but the underlying intent of a multi-way fighting style is maintained.
Then the dual wielder feat becomes trash. You also hurt rogues who want to use light weapons by taking away their cunning action.
You also make the light weapon fighters drop behind the heavy weapon fighters, who are all using big weapons and Great Weapon Mastery. And probably the pole arm master fighters.
The reference fighter for light/nick/DW is not the feat-less sword and shield fighters. It's the other fighters who are building for damage. The sword-and-shield fighter is presumably building for something else, or just doesn't care. (Or there's another feat I'm forgetting, which is possible. Dueling helps them some, but I believe they do lag behind.) TWF isn't overpowered, unless you consider any focussed fighting style build overpowered.
But it's not easy to change things without knock-on effects like that. (Similarly, trying to ban using the light/nick/DW complex one-handed is an unnecessary nerf to anybody trying to do a throwing build.)
Now, you can still do it, and nobody except your players can stop you, but it's not the clean fix to the supposed problem you're making it out to be.
Almost every player I've ever seen using a sword and board style does it for the fantasy of playing the classic heroic archetype. Sometimes they use a spear. For extra sucking. LOL.
Apart from the look of it, there isn't really a defined archetype for what a sword and board fighter actually does, and dueling is also supposed to subsume the even more mechanically challenged fantasy archetype of a one-handed sword duelist that doesn't wield a weapon in the off hand, but also doesn't use a shield.
Having said that, the fantasy of just rapidly swapping weapons during a fight for no discernible reason just doesn't exist, so this is purely an optimizer's sort of thing, and hashing out agreements on the level of optimization in a game is just a thing you do in Session Zero. Most reasonable optimizers who can see the level of efficacy the rest of the team is bringing can tone it down or try their hand at optimizing a particularly challenging premise (see: one-handed duelist) instead of blowing out encounters on their own and ruining the table for everyone.
Doing it this way is cleaner and clearer than messing with the Light or the Nick property, IMO. Most people simply won't try to do this anyway, and most reasonable optimizers can be made to not do it if it's obviously going to be disruptive. Moreover, it allows a bit of flex in that you can just allow folks who are lagging behind a bit to play this trick for a bit with a wink and a nudge just until you can do something a bit more permanent to square things off. It really depends on the table and the dynamics of the group.
The Mastery properties and the Light and Nick rules are in enough places in the ruleset that I personally don't want to meddle with it too much. As mentioned, the amount of damage gained is kind of meh anyway. It just looks kinda stupid.
Lets assune a ability modifier of 18 at level 5. Thats a +4 damage bump per hit. Will do all calculations at level 5, assuming feat is used for dual wielding or polearm master. Damage is max possible. Multiply by roughly 70% for average dmg per turn. Polerm master adds 1d4+4=6 dmg.
Light/nick/2wf/dual: Scimitars use a d6 × 4 attacks = 30 dmg. Shield, but only because shenanigans.
Single weapon, not light: d8 * 2 attacks =17 dmg + pam = 23. Shield is standard.
Heavy/2 handed: d10 * 2 attacks = 19 dmg plus pam = 25dmg. Shield is impossible.
Light/nick/2wf/dual gives the highest damage per turn, AND lets you use a shield AND gives you 4 attacks per turn, so you are more likely to get at least one hit per turn (which is good for a rogue and sneak attack, or someone just wanting to force a spellcaster to fail a concentration save, by forcing them to make losts of saves.) Someone tell me why play any other combination?
Whoever came up with this really screwed up.
The idea should be you have to make tradeoffs in your character design. You want max damage, you cant carry a shield. You want a shield, you gotta accept lower damage per round. You want plate armor, you have to max str and dump dex meaning you go last ik initiative most times and your DEX saves suck.
But this magic combo? You get the best of everything. You get more dpr than any other weapon combo build. You still get a shield. You can even wear plate. Imagine a plate armored paladin, with a shield, rocking an ac of 20 or higher, rolls up on the scene and somehow hot swaps 4 dagger attacks per turn, doing the most damage of anyone on the field, and gets a high charisma so they hog all the time when the party interacts with npcs. Throw in a gd 2 level warlock dip for the best ranged attack in game, and you are literally the best at evergthing. Highest dpr. Highest ac. Best ranged attack. And best talker.
Why would you play literally anything else?
For the roleplay opportunities??? Yeah, thats what mister thri-kreen all say. They power game every stat, and say its just what they felt like roleplaying today.
The power creep in dnd is gonzo right now. The rules should force tradeoffs, wanna be good in one thing, you gotta be bad at something else. But light/nick/2wf/dual is the best at everything it has a slider knob on. Its got game balance completely whacked
If sword and board had the best ac (as the only one that can carry shield) and less damage, and then you could go heavy or light for more damagr, but no shield, that might force at least a little bit of a tradeoff. But between heavy and light, heavy should do more damage, so light/nick weapons shouldnt do more than 1d4 weapon dmg. More attacks means things like hunters mark starts piling up fast, so gotta keep the initial dmg lower. And light usually means low str and high dex, and high dex is better thsn high str cause dex improves your initiative and dex saves which happen a lot.
This light/dual nonsense is like someone from sales ignored decades of game design advances and just said "now this one goes to 11".
This isn't quite correct. The DPR estimate as standardized seems on the up and up, but the only difference between what's going on here and what a standard TWF would have achieved is similar. So a standard TWF estimate here is higher, regardless. You're just really talking about +2 AC.
Damage estimates are off because you're not accounting for Mastery properties on the other weapons. Putting Graze on the Reach weapon makes up the damage difference, and you have a Reach Advantage. You could also take Great Weapon Master instead of PAM at level 5. You get +3 per attack, so the damage goes up the same as with PAM, but you get to use your Bonus Action more freely, which is a fairly substantial advantage, on top of Reach.
Battle Axe on the One Handed Weapon allows you to Prone your opponents, and that advantage is difficult to quantify mathematically. You could also get Sap and force nearby opponents to make their next attack with Disadvantage, which is a great defensive option. Both of these would nerf the damage calc a bit, as Duelist only adds +4, not +6. I am not sure how we're using PAM with a d8 on a sword and board build, because the only weapons that can be wielded like that and accept PAM are quarterstaff and spear, and they're both d6 damage.