Its correct in that light/nick/2wf/dual wins any comparison cause it gets shields and works with dex and then adding in any per-hit features like huntrrs mark or barbarian rage damage just keeps scaling the difference in damage.
If you add graze, then heavy weapons catch up in damage, but still dont have shields. Which is the focus of the thread.
But also heavy weqpons arent finesse, so you have to max STR, meaning DEX isnt as great, maybe 14 and medium armor or 8 and heavy armor. And then you roll worse in initiative and have worse dex saves than the nick/light/2wf/dual combo that is also finesse and probably dex based.
"You're just really talking about +2 AC."
Again, ir is the point of the thread
It is? But you're skewing the comparison to make it worse. Like, everything you said about the situation would be just as true without this interaction. The TWF guy's AC would just be 2 AC worse. That's it. That doesn't mean no one would do anything else. For one thing, this idea is frickin' stupid and no one but optimizers would enjoy that. Other kinds of players would hate this with such a passion that even if they knew about it, they just wouldn't do it on principle, even if the DM allowed it. It's not true that there wouldn't be a reason to play anything else.
You don't need to walk with a Shield and a Shortsword equipped all day since you can;
Equip Shortsword [Free Item Interaction]
Attack with Shortsword and unequip Shortsword [Attack Action]
Equip Scimitar and attack with Scimitar [Nick Mastery]
Attack with Scimitar [Dual Wielder]
That's why sheathing a weapon should actually be an action (like doffing a shield), since scabbards don't come with funnels.
I disagree that it should be an action to unequip a weapon and think its fine with the Utilize action, your Free Item Interaction or an attack with the Attack action.
I disagree that it should be an action to unequip a weapon and think its fine with the Utilize action, your Free Item Interaction or an attack with the Attack action.
You can disagree, but have you ever sheathed a sword yourself? The only way how to unequip a weapon as a free action, or part as of an attack action should be to simply drop it.
Rules arent physics is helpful to deal with someone who is bending the rules and justifying it based on physics.
This discussion is part "how do i light/nick/2wf/dual to do 4 attacks while holding a shield?" And part "is that not completely unbalanced game mechanics?:
I think folks saying "that is unbalanced" might also refer to physical reality limitations as a means to find a better solution, but i dont think anyone here is simply saying "rule breaks physics, therefore rule bad".
If nothing else, this thread makes it abundantly clear that the rules are so obfuscated that some people are still shocked when they learn this is legal.
A lot of rules are general, and apply to lots situations. Attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws are all generic concepts that apply in lots of different situations. The specifics are which abikity is being used, do uou habr proficiency or not, and so on. Once you understand saving throws in general, you know a chunk of the game.
But light/nick/2wf/dual are all extremely niche, they only kick in during one or two situations, they have seemingly arbitrary features, and when you put these seemingly niche and arbitrary features together, they surprisingly allow a player the highest DPR for a non-magical martial build.
So, the thing to invoke here isnt "rules arent physics". The thing going on here is these rules are crap, they are unbalanced, they are completely unintuitive, they add multiple levels of needless complexity to the game. And it basically allows max dmg of any martial build, max armor class with shield, highest dex for initive and dex saves, and the moment you stack this with hunters marrk or whatever +1d6 per hit spell, its just gonna blow up.
And who is defending these kind of crap rules but power gamers with their thri-kreen builds...
Im pretty sure the designers were trying to get martial characters to catch up with the years of power creep that have gone into magic using builds. Paladin-Warlock builds are just bonkers.
But having a weapon property (light) you purchase, a weapon mastery (nick) that you havr to learn, a fighting style (2 weapon fighting) that you have to gain, and a feat (dual wielding) that you have to unlock and suddenly you have max dpr, highest ac, best initiative, best dex saving throws, and a level 1 spell will add 26 more damage per round?
Is that "character development"??? Because it doesnt feel like character development to me. What it feels like is someone took their character sheet and went Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.
:"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...
Yes. People play thri-kreen because they want to play telepathic bug people. Four arms is part of their deal, just like elves get some freebie magic spells, and humans get a free feat. If they're playing a thri-kreen who's quad-wielding two scimitars, a rapier, and a shield, is that because they're munchkining, or because "swashbuckling mantis pirate" sounded like a cool idea to them? (To be fair, it totallyis a cool idea. I have a heavily-aquatic campaign idea on the back burner and I'm now sad because thri-kreen pirates just don't fit the rest of the world.)
Will people choose species and feats because they enable a specific thing? Sometimes, but it's at least as often going to be "I have this cool-but-janky barbarian/warlock idea, and I need to be a variant human to get the stats up", rather than "if I play a thri-kreen, I can be slightly more effective in combat."
The D&D you talk about, where players are trying to exploit the rules for every mechanical advantage, and the DM must take steps to stop them, well, I'm not going to say it doesn't exist at all, but it's very far out of the norm. Your average D&D player not only is not going to change their character idea to get the most plusses, they would never think of going to the work to figure out what the most plusses are. It's the world of character optimizers, which is a real hobby that people enjoy, but it has little to do with how people, probably including most of the optimizers, actually play. (But if a group wants to go all-out on the character optimization, more power to them. Their fun is not my fun, but their fun is ok.)
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.
If you're going to try arguing by DPR between different fighting styles, the necessary calculations get a lot more complex. Hit percentage matters when Graze weapons enter the fray. Critical chance has to be factored in once your dice change. Etc. And, of course, you shouldn't be comparing a well-chosen light/nick setup with a less-optimal other weapon setup. (Not to mention the hard-to-calculate intangibles. What's the advantage of reach weapons worth? What about archery? And so on, and so forth.)
And yes, I can't be bothered, but I've seen the calculations done by the people who can be, and the damage numbers are pretty close. Light is not the clear winner. It may not even be the leader. (But, of course, these things aren't consistent across all levels. IIRC, it edges out the others at some points, but not consistently.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is? But you're skewing the comparison to make it worse. Like, everything you said about the situation would be just as true without this interaction. The TWF guy's AC would just be 2 AC worse. That's it. That doesn't mean no one would do anything else. For one thing, this idea is frickin' stupid and no one but optimizers would enjoy that. Other kinds of players would hate this with such a passion that even if they knew about it, they just wouldn't do it on principle, even if the DM allowed it. It's not true that there wouldn't be a reason to play anything else.
"That's why sheathing a weapon should actually be an action (like doffing a shield), since scabbards don't come with funnels. "
Hm. Equip and/or drop a weapon to ground is a normal object interaction and can be done as part of attacking with that weapon during your Action.
Unequip a weapon to your scabbard, and/or picking up a weapon from the ground is a utiluze action?
That might be another solution...
I disagree that it should be an action to unequip a weapon and think its fine with the Utilize action, your Free Item Interaction or an attack with the Attack action.
You can disagree, but have you ever sheathed a sword yourself? The only way how to unequip a weapon as a free action, or part as of an attack action should be to simply drop it.
Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world.
Rules arent physics is helpful to deal with someone who is bending the rules and justifying it based on physics.
This discussion is part "how do i light/nick/2wf/dual to do 4 attacks while holding a shield?" And part "is that not completely unbalanced game mechanics?:
I think folks saying "that is unbalanced" might also refer to physical reality limitations as a means to find a better solution, but i dont think anyone here is simply saying "rule breaks physics, therefore rule bad".
If nothing else, this thread makes it abundantly clear that the rules are so obfuscated that some people are still shocked when they learn this is legal.
A lot of rules are general, and apply to lots situations. Attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws are all generic concepts that apply in lots of different situations. The specifics are which abikity is being used, do uou habr proficiency or not, and so on. Once you understand saving throws in general, you know a chunk of the game.
But light/nick/2wf/dual are all extremely niche, they only kick in during one or two situations, they have seemingly arbitrary features, and when you put these seemingly niche and arbitrary features together, they surprisingly allow a player the highest DPR for a non-magical martial build.
So, the thing to invoke here isnt "rules arent physics". The thing going on here is these rules are crap, they are unbalanced, they are completely unintuitive, they add multiple levels of needless complexity to the game. And it basically allows max dmg of any martial build, max armor class with shield, highest dex for initive and dex saves, and the moment you stack this with hunters marrk or whatever +1d6 per hit spell, its just gonna blow up.
And who is defending these kind of crap rules but power gamers with their thri-kreen builds...
Im pretty sure the designers were trying to get martial characters to catch up with the years of power creep that have gone into magic using builds. Paladin-Warlock builds are just bonkers.
But having a weapon property (light) you purchase, a weapon mastery (nick) that you havr to learn, a fighting style (2 weapon fighting) that you have to gain, and a feat (dual wielding) that you have to unlock and suddenly you have max dpr, highest ac, best initiative, best dex saving throws, and a level 1 spell will add 26 more damage per round?
Is that "character development"??? Because it doesnt feel like character development to me. What it feels like is someone took their character sheet and went Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start.
Yes. People play thri-kreen because they want to play telepathic bug people. Four arms is part of their deal, just like elves get some freebie magic spells, and humans get a free feat. If they're playing a thri-kreen who's quad-wielding two scimitars, a rapier, and a shield, is that because they're munchkining, or because "swashbuckling mantis pirate" sounded like a cool idea to them? (To be fair, it totally is a cool idea. I have a heavily-aquatic campaign idea on the back burner and I'm now sad because thri-kreen pirates just don't fit the rest of the world.)
Will people choose species and feats because they enable a specific thing? Sometimes, but it's at least as often going to be "I have this cool-but-janky barbarian/warlock idea, and I need to be a variant human to get the stats up", rather than "if I play a thri-kreen, I can be slightly more effective in combat."
The D&D you talk about, where players are trying to exploit the rules for every mechanical advantage, and the DM must take steps to stop them, well, I'm not going to say it doesn't exist at all, but it's very far out of the norm. Your average D&D player not only is not going to change their character idea to get the most plusses, they would never think of going to the work to figure out what the most plusses are. It's the world of character optimizers, which is a real hobby that people enjoy, but it has little to do with how people, probably including most of the optimizers, actually play. (But if a group wants to go all-out on the character optimization, more power to them. Their fun is not my fun, but their fun is ok.)
If you're going to try arguing by DPR between different fighting styles, the necessary calculations get a lot more complex. Hit percentage matters when Graze weapons enter the fray. Critical chance has to be factored in once your dice change. Etc. And, of course, you shouldn't be comparing a well-chosen light/nick setup with a less-optimal other weapon setup. (Not to mention the hard-to-calculate intangibles. What's the advantage of reach weapons worth? What about archery? And so on, and so forth.)
And yes, I can't be bothered, but I've seen the calculations done by the people who can be, and the damage numbers are pretty close. Light is not the clear winner. It may not even be the leader. (But, of course, these things aren't consistent across all levels. IIRC, it edges out the others at some points, but not consistently.)