Big Lizard, where is the rule about bleeding out to -10 in the 1E books? Asking out of genuine curiosity - I looked in mine but couldn't find it, despite knowing it's in there. It's been so long since I used the 1E books my retained memory about where things are in those oddly organized tomes has faded.
In terms of ability scores: if we go by the standard array provided in the 5E PHB, character ability scores aren't likely to be all that higher in 5E than in 1E - but they'll get more and better modifiers with those same scores. A 14 ability score in 5E will net you +2 modifier; in 1E, 14 gets you nothing.
A 1st level 1E magic-user is severely underpowered compared to a 1st level 5E wizard. The 5E likely has more hit points (but not significantly more) but has more options. Once that 1E wizard, pre-Unearthed Arcana, fired off their one and only spell for the day, that's it. Sure, they can throw darts or wield a dagger, but they're highly unlikely to have any positive modifiers for those attacks or damage, and their To Hit chart was much harder than the fighter's.
Adventures for AD&D and B/X D&D were extremely deadly but not because the system was deadly but because they are balanced to be deadly.
I think it was something of both. Just reading the text of the 1E PHB and DMG (especially the latter) as well as official adventures, and characters surviving to higher levels (or at least doing so without multiple deaths and resurrections) seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. That version of the game feels engineered to be tougher on PCs than 5E is.
We (at least I) love to read the feedback here, but please, participate in the official feedback. Be sure to specify how you used the playtest content.
"I looked it over and didn't like these things" is valid feedback. Don't discount the effect of their presentation.
Yes. Using the content in play is highly desired, but there's also whether they're succeeding in getting their intent and information across to players/potential players. Saying you didn't like something in print even though you didn't use it in play might point out something they didn't explain well or something where they flat-out made a mistake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
We (at least I) love to read the feedback here, but please, participate in the official feedback. Be sure to specify how you used the playtest content.
"I looked it over and didn't like these things" is valid feedback. Don't discount the effect of their presentation.
Yes. Using the content in play is highly desired, but there's also whether they're succeeding in getting their intent and information across to players/potential players. Saying you didn't like something in print even though you didn't use it in play might point out something they didn't explain well or something where they flat-out made a mistake.
Not only that 'I looked it over and didn't playtest it because I refuse to use these rules and intend to stick with current 5e if these changes are made' is a clear indicator of whether you intend to spend money on this product, which is frankly their biggest driving factor. Yes, DMs/tables can choose to homebrew a certain rule, but if there's so much homebrewing that you question why you'd pay for it, say so.
Likewise, if there was something you particularly liked in the UA, make sure you explicitly say so.
No. That's not valid feedback.
😜
Kidding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
We (at least I) love to read the feedback here, but please, participate in the official feedback. Be sure to specify how you used the playtest content.
"I looked it over and didn't like these things" is valid feedback. Don't discount the effect of their presentation.
Yes. Using the content in play is highly desired, but there's also whether they're succeeding in getting their intent and information across to players/potential players. Saying you didn't like something in print even though you didn't use it in play might point out something they didn't explain well or something where they flat-out made a mistake.
I'd like to comment on this, because it's very difficult to use the content we've been given so far in an actual playtest beyond very basic theorycrafting and forming opinions on how we feel about the changes.. Without the larger context of how these origin rules interact with updated class rules (i.e. spell lists, skills, equipment, class abilities), updated spell descriptions, and additionally, higher-level feats to really get a feel for how the 1st level feats we did get affect character builds and game play beyond first level. If we're to assume that all current 5e content is legal and current 5e feats not given a level are legal at first level, then a Human Paladin with Polearm Master and Primal Magic Initiate (CHA) for Shillelagh as it currently is written is pretty busted at first level (toss in Thorn Whip and either Ensnaring Strike or Longstrider for even more Shenanigans) and will only get stronger from there.
If we're not to assume that (and I assume we aren't), we really do need actual rules for what feats are useable when, what feats exist at higher levels, any changes to spell descriptions, how classes interact with the consolidated spell lists, what changes have been made to classes, etc, in order to playtest the content. We can't actually use the new Character Origins in play without making a lot of assumptions. Given the number of variables involved, I think the only safe assumption is that any playtest of the Character Origins rules as they are probably won't be an accurate depiction of how the game will play out with a complete (even if only tentative) handout of the basic rules.
During the DND NEXT playtest, we had full copies of the rules and sample adventures to run with them, and could give concrete feedback on how certain encounters went, how class abilities interacted, etc. I'm not sure how to use the Character Origins packet in a similar way.
Just to add my negative five cents regarding spell lists. Yurei helpfully told me to watch the video, which I did in full. The portion about spell lists is around the 40 or 44 minute mark, if I am not mistaken. To clear things up:
No. There is no confirmation that class spell lists will stay
No. There is no confirmation that class spell lists will get replaced.
Here is a useful quote that is basically we all we have right now:"People will have to wait for upcoming unearthed arcanas to see how classes use those lists, because classes are going to use those lists but also have access to spells that go beyond that universal list."-Quote from J Craw, at 46:20ish seconds into the video.
I personally am a pessimist, and have little faith in WOTC to do reasonable things, so I fear that they will remove class lists. It is clear that there will be other spells accessible to classes, we simply do not know how it will all be implemented. Ye of little faith, watch the video, and just play 5e how it is, if you want. I dislike the current iteration of One DND, so I will probably be sticking with dnd post Tashas and pre WBtW. But I encourage everyone to give One DND a chance, even if you do not want to. And remember that you can always tell WOTC what you like and want in the upcoming survey. In summary....just do whatever you want, but please don't shame others for their preferences. I hope no one has, but this does happen to be the internet.
I see significant problems with the playtesting rules. I've done a little experimenting with them and looking forward, I see significant problems.
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...).
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20?
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think?
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists.
1. Maybe, but Crawford had a point - where a martial rolls one or two dice, a monster rolls two or more, so crits already work differently for monsters, they're more effective. While I like monster crits as a brutal element in battle, I also dislike random deaths out of nowhere, especially on low levels.
2. Why do spellcasters then whine about no crits for spells?) Crits for martials usually suck. When you do 1d10+17 (avg.22) damage, you'd want more than rolling an additional d10 (avg.5).
3. On that, I agree. While attacks and saves are pretty clear and binary - hit or miss, save or fail - skill checks can have any kind of result. The cap has to be described by the rules in very clear and strict definitions.
4. If you can't challenge your players, you're just a bad DM. We once had a paladin who had maxed out charisma for saving throws, high constitution, wore demon armor and had some enchanted shield. Basically, he wanted to be an unkillable tank. You know what almost killed him (genuinely scaring the player) in a one-on-one combat? Rug of smothering.
5. Theme-based spell lists are just for categorization, like schools of magic or creature types.
Just referring to Kam, your fifth point is speculation. I have noticed that practically everyone has an opinion on class spell lists and divine/primal/arcane, but can we please all stop. I realize that people interpret things in different ways. But at least state that you think they are [insert theory], instead of acting like it's cemented. Jeremy Crawford was intentionally vague, so can we please stop speculating while pretending its fact? Sorry if I seem unhappy or rude, it is probably because I kind of am. Sorry again, lets just all not pretend we know anything. Because we kind of don't.
Just referring to Kam, your fifth point is speculation. I have noticed that practically everyone has an opinion on class spell lists and divine/primal/arcane, but can we please all stop. I realize that people interpret things in different ways. But at least state that you think they are [insert theory], instead of acting like it's cemented. Jeremy Crawford was intentionally vague, so can we please stop speculating while pretending its fact? Sorry if I seem unhappy or rude, it is probably because I kind of am. Sorry again, lets just all not pretend we know anything. Because we kind of don't.
-Bob
Why assume the opposite? Why assume that all class-based spell lists and divisions are being thrown out when Crawford specifically said that certain classes, subclasses, and abilities can be exceptions to the three overarching classes of spell? Saying "all spell list differentiation is gone" is just as much 'speculation' as saying "classes still have their spell lists, these are just a secondary method of classification".
Just referring to Kam, your fifth point is speculation. I have noticed that practically everyone has an opinion on class spell lists and divine/primal/arcane, but can we please all stop. I realize that people interpret things in different ways. But at least state that you think they are [insert theory], instead of acting like it's cemented. Jeremy Crawford was intentionally vague, so can we please stop speculating while pretending its fact? Sorry if I seem unhappy or rude, it is probably because I kind of am. Sorry again, lets just all not pretend we know anything. Because we kind of don't.
-Bob
Why assume the opposite? Why assume that all class-based spell lists and divisions are being thrown out when Crawford specifically said that certain classes, subclasses, and abilities can be exceptions to the three overarching classes of spell? Saying "all spell list differentiation is gone" is just as much 'speculation' as saying "classes still have their spell lists, these are just a secondary method of classification".
That is correct. I personally assume the opposite, but I will not continue to propagate that online as it is in fact speculation. I do not take issue with people having opinions, that would be foolish of me. I simply wish that they would make it clear that their thoughts were just speculation, instead of some truth. When you told me that spell lists were staying, I was very confused, and I bought it. I respect your opinion, but its clearly not truth. As in, I do not know if it is true or not, and no one can or does(except for maybe J Craw.) If you had told me that you did not believe that they would get rid of class lists, that would make a lot more sense. I am not sure if what I am typing currently makes much sense, I have a huge headache right now. But tldr:Both sides are assumptions with some basis, and that is probably a fact. I did make an assumption that class lists were going away forever, and I should probably find and delete that post, as it was riddled with flaws. But my mistakes do not make my point invalid. I am a pessimist, I assume the opposite, I will not hide that assuming the opposite is a baseless assumption grounded in very little. But... Jeremy Crawford said barely anything about it, so here I am. I think I am rambling and I need to drink some water, so....uhh... just stop pretending things are fact please? It makes it very confusing for people like me who until recentlyish did not rewatch the video 3 times. And it makes things even more confusing for me post video. Because saying that class lists arent going anywhere seems like a better indicator of not watching the video than anything else. Anyways..off to chug some ice water.Go fill out some surveys people, just like I finished doing.
The context of the playtest is currently the backwards compatibility—using the content within 5e. That's part of the reason why we don't have the entire Codename: One D&D ruleset right now but are still being asked to playtest. Substitute the specified Codename: One D&D specifics in what we have with 5e now and gauge how it does and doesn't work. It would do them less good to give us the entire Codename: One D&D ruleset when people have the idea that they must playtest only within the entire Codename: One D&D context. They'd end up with so little backwards compatibility feedback.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I like the video hate the new great weapon feat monks still have no useful feats and finally two weapon fighting is still trash. The 4th level feat dose next to nothing and the fighting stile is also bad. Just let us make more attacks is that so hard?
The ranger got better; I still think hunters mark should work like sneak attack so that enemies that are immune to spells bellow level 5 would render many key features useless.
Sneak attack should also work on opportunity attacks, and bard is good.
P.S. I wonder what will come after expertise test will it be persist or marshals?
Yeah, two weapon fighting has improved since it no longer sucks up you BA, but since you can only do it once per turn, they haven't addressed the real problem that it doesn't scale with level like your main hand does. Given that your damage is lower due to your weapons being light, it starts off pretty strong but quickly becomes inferior.
I'm guessing the problem is that if they directly scaled attacks (having the number of offhand attacks equal the number of main attacks), it would significantly outclass one weapon fighting, which isn't acceptable. If they did half the number of main attacks (rounded up or down), then it would only change the balance at the end of most adventures (you get the second Extra Attack at L11 when most adventures end at L12ish). There's no easy way around this. Maybe you get a pool of offhand attacks that refresh on a short rest or something?
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.
The benefit of TWF fighting style seriously outweighs the feat. I'd suggest that they switched places. TWF fighting style could let you dual wield non-light weapons, while Dual Wielder feat could let you add anility score modifier to damage of the offhand attack, and, say, let you forgo the offhand attack to instead focus on defense somehow, like mitigate the next attack's damage by your offhand weapon damage roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Big Lizard, where is the rule about bleeding out to -10 in the 1E books? Asking out of genuine curiosity - I looked in mine but couldn't find it, despite knowing it's in there. It's been so long since I used the 1E books my retained memory about where things are in those oddly organized tomes has faded.
In terms of ability scores: if we go by the standard array provided in the 5E PHB, character ability scores aren't likely to be all that higher in 5E than in 1E - but they'll get more and better modifiers with those same scores. A 14 ability score in 5E will net you +2 modifier; in 1E, 14 gets you nothing.
A 1st level 1E magic-user is severely underpowered compared to a 1st level 5E wizard. The 5E likely has more hit points (but not significantly more) but has more options. Once that 1E wizard, pre-Unearthed Arcana, fired off their one and only spell for the day, that's it. Sure, they can throw darts or wield a dagger, but they're highly unlikely to have any positive modifiers for those attacks or damage, and their To Hit chart was much harder than the fighter's.
I think it was something of both. Just reading the text of the 1E PHB and DMG (especially the latter) as well as official adventures, and characters surviving to higher levels (or at least doing so without multiple deaths and resurrections) seemed to be the exception rather than the rule. That version of the game feels engineered to be tougher on PCs than 5E is.
The bleeding out rule for 1e is on page 82 of the DMG.
Feedback opens soon!
We (at least I) love to read the feedback here, but please, participate in the official feedback. Be sure to specify how you used the playtest content.
"I looked it over and didn't like these things" is valid feedback. Don't discount the effect of their presentation.
Yes. Using the content in play is highly desired, but there's also whether they're succeeding in getting their intent and information across to players/potential players. Saying you didn't like something in print even though you didn't use it in play might point out something they didn't explain well or something where they flat-out made a mistake.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Not only that 'I looked it over and didn't playtest it because I refuse to use these rules and intend to stick with current 5e if these changes are made' is a clear indicator of whether you intend to spend money on this product, which is frankly their biggest driving factor. Yes, DMs/tables can choose to homebrew a certain rule, but if there's so much homebrewing that you question why you'd pay for it, say so.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Likewise, if there was something you particularly liked in the UA, make sure you explicitly say so.
No. That's not valid feedback.
😜
Kidding.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I'd like to comment on this, because it's very difficult to use the content we've been given so far in an actual playtest beyond very basic theorycrafting and forming opinions on how we feel about the changes.. Without the larger context of how these origin rules interact with updated class rules (i.e. spell lists, skills, equipment, class abilities), updated spell descriptions, and additionally, higher-level feats to really get a feel for how the 1st level feats we did get affect character builds and game play beyond first level. If we're to assume that all current 5e content is legal and current 5e feats not given a level are legal at first level, then a Human Paladin with Polearm Master and Primal Magic Initiate (CHA) for Shillelagh as it currently is written is pretty busted at first level (toss in Thorn Whip and either Ensnaring Strike or Longstrider for even more Shenanigans) and will only get stronger from there.
If we're not to assume that (and I assume we aren't), we really do need actual rules for what feats are useable when, what feats exist at higher levels, any changes to spell descriptions, how classes interact with the consolidated spell lists, what changes have been made to classes, etc, in order to playtest the content. We can't actually use the new Character Origins in play without making a lot of assumptions. Given the number of variables involved, I think the only safe assumption is that any playtest of the Character Origins rules as they are probably won't be an accurate depiction of how the game will play out with a complete (even if only tentative) handout of the basic rules.
During the DND NEXT playtest, we had full copies of the rules and sample adventures to run with them, and could give concrete feedback on how certain encounters went, how class abilities interacted, etc. I'm not sure how to use the Character Origins packet in a similar way.
Just to add my negative five cents regarding spell lists. Yurei helpfully told me to watch the video, which I did in full. The portion about spell lists is around the 40 or 44 minute mark, if I am not mistaken. To clear things up:
Yes. Watch the video, just like everyone else is saying.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOQ_Exh0DmY&t=2928s
No. There is no confirmation that class spell lists will stay
No. There is no confirmation that class spell lists will get replaced.
Here is a useful quote that is basically we all we have right now:"People will have to wait for upcoming unearthed arcanas to see how classes use those lists, because classes are going to use those lists but also have access to spells that go beyond that universal list."-Quote from J Craw, at 46:20ish seconds into the video.
I personally am a pessimist, and have little faith in WOTC to do reasonable things, so I fear that they will remove class lists. It is clear that there will be other spells accessible to classes, we simply do not know how it will all be implemented. Ye of little faith, watch the video, and just play 5e how it is, if you want. I dislike the current iteration of One DND, so I will probably be sticking with dnd post Tashas and pre WBtW. But I encourage everyone to give One DND a chance, even if you do not want to. And remember that you can always tell WOTC what you like and want in the upcoming survey. In summary....just do whatever you want, but please don't shame others for their preferences. I hope no one has, but this does happen to be the internet.
N/A
1. Maybe, but Crawford had a point - where a martial rolls one or two dice, a monster rolls two or more, so crits already work differently for monsters, they're more effective. While I like monster crits as a brutal element in battle, I also dislike random deaths out of nowhere, especially on low levels.
2. Why do spellcasters then whine about no crits for spells?) Crits for martials usually suck. When you do 1d10+17 (avg.22) damage, you'd want more than rolling an additional d10 (avg.5).
3. On that, I agree. While attacks and saves are pretty clear and binary - hit or miss, save or fail - skill checks can have any kind of result. The cap has to be described by the rules in very clear and strict definitions.
4. If you can't challenge your players, you're just a bad DM. We once had a paladin who had maxed out charisma for saving throws, high constitution, wore demon armor and had some enchanted shield. Basically, he wanted to be an unkillable tank. You know what almost killed him (genuinely scaring the player) in a one-on-one combat? Rug of smothering.
5. Theme-based spell lists are just for categorization, like schools of magic or creature types.
Just referring to Kam, your fifth point is speculation. I have noticed that practically everyone has an opinion on class spell lists and divine/primal/arcane, but can we please all stop. I realize that people interpret things in different ways. But at least state that you think they are [insert theory], instead of acting like it's cemented. Jeremy Crawford was intentionally vague, so can we please stop speculating while pretending its fact? Sorry if I seem unhappy or rude, it is probably because I kind of am. Sorry again, lets just all not pretend we know anything. Because we kind of don't.
-Bob
N/A
Why assume the opposite? Why assume that all class-based spell lists and divisions are being thrown out when Crawford specifically said that certain classes, subclasses, and abilities can be exceptions to the three overarching classes of spell? Saying "all spell list differentiation is gone" is just as much 'speculation' as saying "classes still have their spell lists, these are just a secondary method of classification".
Please do not contact or message me.
That is correct. I personally assume the opposite, but I will not continue to propagate that online as it is in fact speculation. I do not take issue with people having opinions, that would be foolish of me. I simply wish that they would make it clear that their thoughts were just speculation, instead of some truth. When you told me that spell lists were staying, I was very confused, and I bought it. I respect your opinion, but its clearly not truth. As in, I do not know if it is true or not, and no one can or does(except for maybe J Craw.) If you had told me that you did not believe that they would get rid of class lists, that would make a lot more sense. I am not sure if what I am typing currently makes much sense, I have a huge headache right now. But tldr:Both sides are assumptions with some basis, and that is probably a fact. I did make an assumption that class lists were going away forever, and I should probably find and delete that post, as it was riddled with flaws. But my mistakes do not make my point invalid. I am a pessimist, I assume the opposite, I will not hide that assuming the opposite is a baseless assumption grounded in very little. But... Jeremy Crawford said barely anything about it, so here I am. I think I am rambling and I need to drink some water, so....uhh... just stop pretending things are fact please? It makes it very confusing for people like me who until recentlyish did not rewatch the video 3 times. And it makes things even more confusing for me post video. Because saying that class lists arent going anywhere seems like a better indicator of not watching the video than anything else. Anyways..off to chug some ice water.Go fill out some surveys people, just like I finished doing.
N/A
The context of the playtest is currently the backwards compatibility—using the content within 5e. That's part of the reason why we don't have the entire Codename: One D&D ruleset right now but are still being asked to playtest. Substitute the specified Codename: One D&D specifics in what we have with 5e now and gauge how it does and doesn't work. It would do them less good to give us the entire Codename: One D&D ruleset when people have the idea that they must playtest only within the entire Codename: One D&D context. They'd end up with so little backwards compatibility feedback.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I like the video hate the new great weapon feat monks still have no useful feats and finally two weapon fighting is still trash. The 4th level feat dose next to nothing and the fighting stile is also bad. Just let us make more attacks is that so hard?
The ranger got better; I still think hunters mark should work like sneak attack so that enemies that are immune to spells bellow level 5 would render many key features useless.
Sneak attack should also work on opportunity attacks, and bard is good.
P.S. I wonder what will come after expertise test will it be persist or marshals?
Yeah, two weapon fighting has improved since it no longer sucks up you BA, but since you can only do it once per turn, they haven't addressed the real problem that it doesn't scale with level like your main hand does. Given that your damage is lower due to your weapons being light, it starts off pretty strong but quickly becomes inferior.
I'm guessing the problem is that if they directly scaled attacks (having the number of offhand attacks equal the number of main attacks), it would significantly outclass one weapon fighting, which isn't acceptable. If they did half the number of main attacks (rounded up or down), then it would only change the balance at the end of most adventures (you get the second Extra Attack at L11 when most adventures end at L12ish). There's no easy way around this. Maybe you get a pool of offhand attacks that refresh on a short rest or something?
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 benefit of TWF fighting style seriously outweighs the feat. I'd suggest that they switched places. TWF fighting style could let you dual wield non-light weapons, while Dual Wielder feat could let you add anility score modifier to damage of the offhand attack, and, say, let you forgo the offhand attack to instead focus on defense somehow, like mitigate the next attack's damage by your offhand weapon damage roll.