Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
"One-handed" is not a defined term. If a weapon with the two-handed property is wielded in one hand due to a special ability, is it one-handed? Ultimately, that's DM's call, but there's no game mechanic that says it's not one-handed here.
By the improvised weapon rules, it can be treated as a club, with all that entails.
We don't actually need a consensus, and it's not going to help you even if it agrees with you. This is your DM's call.
Also, the answers may well differ between 5e and 5.5.
But yes, if you're wielding two versatile weapons, you probably get the dual-wielding extra attack in 5e, and the Light extra attack in 5.5. That's basically text.
Whether the Dual Wielder feat lets you extend it to versatile+two-handed in either version is uncertain at best.
DW with 2H+2H is questionable in 5e, and doesn't fly in 5.5.
But again, your DM has final say here, and they can be either more or less permissive than what the rules say. (Inasmuch as they actually have anything clear to say. This is a question that should have been answered by the authors of Brutal Grip, and I'm judging them for not doing so.)
No. It's still a two-handed weapon. The weapon has not changed.
Ok. Would you then allow me to cast Shillelagh on this longsword?
I'm not sure about that. The rule states:
Weapon Equivalents. If an improvised weapon resembles a Simple or Martial weapon, the DM may say it functions as that weapon and uses that weapon’s rules. For example, the DM could treat a table leg as a Club.
It is of course up to your DM, however I would not rule that the hilt of a longsword resembles a club. I don't see how someone could conceivably wield a longsword "backwards" the same way they would a club. For one, a club is a Light weapon, and I don't see how you could really change a non-light weapon (longsword) into a light weapon simply by wielding it by the blade (which also sounds painful).
Anyone can hold a Two-Handed Weapon in one hand.
Your Goliath Barbarian with Brutal Grip can now attack with each Two-Handed weapon with Extra Attack.
But you can't benefit from Dual Wielder with Two-Handed weapons, only with a Light weapon and a non-Two-Handed weapon.
The basic problem here is that you're trying to combine the old version of Dual Wielder with a feat written for 5.5 rules in Brutal Grip, even though there's an updated 5.5 version of Dual Wielder
As a DM (well, first of all, as a DM I wouldn't be allowing anything from Valda's at the table at all, because I think those books are extremely poorly written and balanced, as this thread demonstrates) I'd tell you that if you wanted to use Brutal Grip, you also have to use the 2024 version of Dual Wielder, which makes it very clear that your combo isn't going to work
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So, a versatile weapon is one-handed? It lacks the property.
If I were to let you treat it as a club, yes.
(I do not, in fact, think it's the best fit. But that doesn't matter. If you can sell your GM on it, the rules allow it.)
If you're playing with 5.0 rules otherwise, that'd be a choice.
Also, I'd allow the combo if I were playing with that book in 5.5. It may be against the letter of the rules, but definitely not the intent. They're paying two feats for all this. If it doesn't give them something solid, why do it?
Brutal Grip is clearly intended to expand light-weapon fighting to a larger set of weapons. If BG+DW doesn't allow versatile+2H, then Dual Wielder is mostly subsumed by Brutal Grip. We're saying it doesn't work because of careful textual interpretation of the rules in the context of a book that's "poorly written". That's just going to make things that were supposed to work not do so.
Correct.
Ok, then you'd be making a non-RAW ruling about that. That spell requires that the weapon IS a club, not that it's being used AS a club, which, of course is the whole point of the example.
So a versatile weapon being wielded two-handed is a one-handed weapon?
I mean, you can do that and it's consistent, but also it doesn't seem like you're gonna get a lot of agreement there.
The relevant rule is:
If the weapon is being treated by the DM as a club, then it's mechanically a club. It gets whatever mastery clubs get. Any ability that keys off a weapon being a club counts it as a club.
Not every feat is going to synergize perfectly with others. That's not a flaw
And it's not "careful textual interpretation". 5.5 Dual Wielder flatly forbids using it with weapons that have the Two-Handed property. It's about as clear and simple as these rules get
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes how you wield a weapon doesn't generally grant or remove weapon property, so for example;
Lance (5.5) still has the property, you can just use it one-handed.
Also, that is not the question at hand. 5.0 DW doesn't care about the two-handed property. It cares if the weapon is one-handed, which is not a defined game term.
You can rule that a character wielding a versatile weapon two-handed can still use two-weapon fighting with it. I just think that's not a mainstream choice. And the brutal grip question hinges on how one defines one-handed. (And also the lance question, since 5.0 Lance does not have the two-handed property.)
(Yes, that is possible to do.)
The problem is not what DW says, but what BG says, doesn't say, and is intended to do.
RAW is a limited tool for dealing with the mainline D&D rules. When you're dealing with how it interacts with third-party rules that are supposedly poorly written, it's useless. Especially in this case, where it may have been written for the 5.0 rules. (I have no idea, but most of the third-party books were.)
Intent is more important. If BG was written mechanically clearly for 5.5, would it explicitly override that restriction? I have no idea, but the fact that it makes DW virtually meaningless is an indicator that it should.
Unless BG explicitly said "Ignore the Dual Wielder restriction on Two-Handed weapons if you have both feats", what it says is irrelevant. Feats do not have to work perfectly together
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
We interpret it differently i guess, i read '' Two-Handed (unless mounted)'' to mean it has the property unless you're mounted.