Yes the pure path with 2 feats is rather cumbersome and probably not for most folks. Given that most campaigns don’t go to L20 I fully expect that many bards and rogues are likely to do a 1 level dip into fighter or ranger to pick up martial weapons and heavier armors as well as spells for rogues and spell progression for bards if they take ranger. Then they their options are expanded considerably.
Yes the pure path with 2 feats is rather cumbersome and probably not for most folks. Given that most campaigns don’t go to L20 I fully expect that many bards and rogues are likely to do a 1 level dip into fighter or ranger to pick up martial weapons and heavier armors as well as spells for rogues and spell progression for bards if they take ranger. Then they their options are expanded considerably.
Yeah, I agree. A one level dip in this UA Ranger is going to be extremely tempting for anyone. I'm somewhat concerned that it is too good because of all the things you get access to right from the start. In fact, all three of these Expert classes can benefit from dipping into each other for doubling Expertise, spell options, and combat power boosts. They're very front loaded with complimentary features. I wonder if that's going to be a trend with each of the class groups going forward.
It is definitely a buff. Losing 1 average damage in exchange for an entire bonus action is huge. Fighters now get more attacks with action surge, monks can now get 5 attacks per turn, barbarians can rage and make 2 attacks on the same turn, rangers can cast hunters mark and make 2 attacks on the same turn, paladins can cast a smite spell and make 2 attacks, rogues can make 2 attacks and still cunning action, etc.
This is a buff to every single martial class and makes 2 weapon fighting actually viable.
For me the main issue here is that there is no need to completely remove the ability two dual wield warhammers, battleaxes, longswords from the game. If it is only an average of one damage why take it away? As much as the bonus action being wide open is a buff. The thematic nerf is huge, and very unnecessary. I do wonder if they something else in mind for the warrior classes.
It is definitely a buff. Losing 1 average damage in exchange for an entire bonus action is huge. Fighters now get more attacks with action surge, monks can now get 5 attacks per turn, barbarians can rage and make 2 attacks on the same turn, rangers can cast hunters mark and make 2 attacks on the same turn, paladins can cast a smite spell and make 2 attacks, rogues can make 2 attacks and still cunning action, etc.
This is a buff to every single martial class and makes 2 weapon fighting actually viable.
For me the main issue here is that there is no need to completely remove the ability two dual wield warhammers, battleaxes, longswords from the game. If it is only an average of one damage why take it away? As much as the bonus action being wide open is a buff. The thematic nerf is huge, and very unnecessary. I do wonder if they something else in mind for the warrior classes.
Oh yeah, I wasn't actually arguing against being able to dual wield any 1 handed weapon. I agree that should stay.
They could phrase it something like "you can treat any 1 handed weapon as if it has the light property" or "all 1 handed weapons have the light property for you." They can add "effectively... for the purposes of making an additional attack," if they don't want it to interact with some other class feature, IDK.
I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
In real history, there were duelists that wielded dual swords, like the legendary Miyamoto Musashi. It took great skill (like gaining experience and feats), but it worked. I mean, there's quite a lot of evidence about dual wielding fighting styles.
However, in real history, humans never had to fight creatures twice their size and eight times their mass in melee (if they hoped to survive) - which happens all the time in DnD. So your point about realism is quite unfounded.
The change of two weapon fighting to the light property is a buff, the fact you can still use a bonus action is huge, this means Paladin can now cast smite spells while using two weapons, ranger or warlock can shift hunter's mark/hex while getting all the attacks. Rogue can disengage or dash, this is a massive buff.
The Dual Wielder feat got nerfed and way too much tho, it is lackluster and needs to give more.
The nerf to the feat is less than the aforementioned buff from freeing up the bonus action tho, since action economy tends to be very overpowered in 5E.
The real game changers is freeing the BA because now you can hex/divine favor/hunters mark for some meaningful damage.
Twf always scaled when you had one of these rider effects to boost dmg. Which basically means that fighters are probably the least optimal class for twf.
The clear winner is the monk currently.Short swords are now monk weapons (simple melee weapon), they can TWF and still get their BA attack/Flurry of blows. Also the dmg dice for all attacks scale off their unarmed dmg.
Rogue- TWF just means more SA they don’t care about dmg dice of the weapon
Paladin and Ranger both have spells to boost dmg
Monk has scaling dmg dice
Barbarian has advantage from reckless and rage to boost dmg
Fighter gets … an extra attack every 5 levels.
The feat still sucks because in most of the instances above … no one cares about the difference of 1d6 vs 1d8 … except the fighter who has no way to boost dmg.
First off, the ability to have one of the weapons not be light opens up new damage type options. The only light weapons which do 1d6 damage deal either peircing (shortsword) or slashing (handaxe and scimitar). There are plenty of 1d4 weapons, of all types, and a monk doesn't need to worry about that for pure damage. Magic weapons might mix that up, though, but we also don't know how the warrior group is going to shake things up.
Secondly, while the feat does add +1 Dexterity that doesn't mean it's just for finesse weapons. A barbarian who starts with only 13 Dexterity would certainly want to use this to bring theirs up to 14, while still relying on Strength for their weapon attacks, and dish out a little more. Assuming, of course, barbarians retain medium armor training. And a Champion Fighter in medium armor might want it, too. Or even certain bard subclasses; like the College of Swords.
Thirdly, the feat lets you draw two weapons simultaneously. If your character is caught unawares and doesn't already have a weapon in-hand, they're not using TWF that first round. If you're going to center your argument around damage potential, then you can't ignore this.
Lastly, the shortsword was already a monk weapon. It just shifted categories.
I wouldn't worry about the fighting style and the feat too much at this point, I think the real question is: What should be the baseline?
The 5e rules are: Attack action only cares about the main hand weapon Offhand weapon uses a bonus action and has separate rules (restrictions what weapons can be used, no attribute bonus)
The OneD&D suggestion: Both attacks are made as part of the attack action Restrictions to get the offhand attack during the attack action pretty much stay the same.
Another possible rule that comes to mind: You make one attack with both weapons during the attack action. ToHit gets averaged between the weapons (rounded up), Damage uses both weapon dice + Average of the Attribute Boni.
This does something interesting: It gives you the same values for a heavy twohanded weapon like Maul or Greatsword (2d6) and dual wielded Shortswords/Scimitars.
So what about the second attack roll? That goes away for the baseline, simple as that. However, making separate attacks with each hand could be rolled into the Fighting Style. The benefit of doing it this way: Attacks always add the attribute bonus to damage. If it is one attack with both weapons, the damage bonus is added once. If it is two attacks with each hand separate, both get the damage bonus.
Why use a rule that requires rounding? Because it usually doesn't. It will mostly happen for the ToHit when one weapon has a ToHit bonus and the other one doesn't, but rounding up should make that a non-issue most of the time. The other case where you need to round comes from using a finesse weapon and a non-finesse weapon together while having a higher DEX bonus than STR bonus. This would only happen in the rare cases where a DEX based charakter gets stuck with a non-finesse magic weapon that is just too good to pass up. If STR is higher or equal to DEX, you would just use STR for your finesse weapons and no rounding is required. If both weapons are finesse weapons, you would use the better value for them, which would be the same.
The Elephant in the room: Rogues Rogues are the only class that uniquely benefits from getting a second attack (i.e. second chance to hit) from dual wielding rules. This is because they only need to hit once per turn to apply their sneak attack which represents the majority of their damage output. You could argue the same for Paladin with smites, but Paladins get Fightings Styles and you could just add TwoWeaponFighting to the list there. Rogues need some class feature to enable dual wielding for them, but that should be easy to add.
I think we should first have a really hard look at what the baseline should be and build everything else around it afterwards.
........ The Elephant in the room: Rogues Rogues are the only class that uniquely benefits from getting a second attack (i.e. second chance to hit) from dual wielding rules. This is because they only need to hit once per turn to apply their sneak attack which represents the majority of their damage output. You could argue the same for Paladin with smites, but Paladins get Fightings Styles and you could just add TwoWeaponFighting to the list there. Rogues need some class feature to enable dual wielding for them, but that should be easy to add.
I think we should first have a really hard look at what the baseline should be and build everything else around it afterwards.
while I am not against your principle about baseline, there are enough places in 5e where class features of attacks actually affects things greatly. Rangers and monks in particular i would say their classes inherently want separate attacks. (via spell boosts or chances to stun)
I think, Finding synergy for a boost while maintaining power disparity scope is important to the game. ease of use is also a factor. your method might be easier in the short term but more complex with add on features or spells (huntersmark, enlarge/reduce, giving up attacks for companions ect)
I think Drawing weapons is fair game. It use to give a round to use your BA for some kind of set up but now your BA is free from the start and you don’t need the setup.
I think that most classes benefit greatly from TWF based on the UA. I just don’t think the fighter is the strongest candidate.
And while the feat isn’t completely useless, it is a far cry from GWM (yes even in the UA condition) or any other styles like feat (Sharpshooter/Xbow feat/shield master). Each of these feats enhances their play style and brings something to the table.
The TWF feat fails to alter how you play this style or enhance it in a significant way. I would argue that the feat and the Style should be swapped. Feat - off hand ability dmg And Style: allows you to use main hand dice for off hand.
I wouldn't worry about the fighting style and the feat too much at this point, I think the real question is: What should be the baseline?
The 5e rules are: Attack action only cares about the main hand weapon Offhand weapon uses a bonus action and has separate rules (restrictions what weapons can be used, no attribute bonus)
The OneD&D suggestion: Both attacks are made as part of the attack action Restrictions to get the offhand attack during the attack action pretty much stay the same.
There are no actual rules for handedness. If you have the Extra Attack feature and want to attack once each with a battleaxe and warhammer, you absolutely can.
Thirdly, the feat lets you draw two weapons simultaneously. If your character is caught unawares and doesn't already have a weapon in-hand, they're not using TWF that first round. If you're going to center your argument around damage potential, then you can't ignore this.
From the latest UA:
ATTACK [ACTION] When you take the Attack Action, you can make one attack with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike. EQUIPPING WEAPONS You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after each attack you make as part of this Action, even if the attack is with an Unarmed Strike.
So the "draw two weapons at once" part of the feat literally does nothing as per latest iteration of playtest. Anyway, if you ask me, it was always ridiculous - if even I, an average human without HEMA or kendo tarining, can draw two weapons at once with one simple motion, then how come epic heroes can't do that?
The rules glossary doesn't carry over from one play test to the next, which means the feat only applies to the second play test.
If the text was still there in the second play test, then it was likely an oversight and should have been caught during open feedback. I was going through some stuff and didn't fill it out. I'm confident more attentive people did.
The rules glossary doesn't carry over from one play test to the next, which means the feat only applies to the second play test.
If the text was still there in the second play test, then it was likely an oversight and should have been caught during open feedback. I was going through some stuff and didn't fill it out. I'm confident more attentive people did.
Rules glossary doesn't, but you can still use feats and races and classes from previous play tests. That is a feat from the playtest not a rules glossary item.
I just want to be able to wield 2 long swords or similar weapons, not tiny toothpick in both hands.
I am sure people using the "new" Goliath and other races (ops!), I mean ancestry (ops!), I mean blood (ops!), I mean... whatever is no ofensive nowsadays for the same meaning (species? yeah!), are not happy with tiny weapon + weapon.
I just want to be able to wield 2 long swords or similar weapons, not tiny toothpick in both hands.
I am sure people using the "new" Goliath and other races (ops!), I mean ancestry (ops!), I mean blood (ops!), I mean... whatever is no ofensive nowsadays for the same meaning (species? yeah!), are not happy with tiny weapon + weapon.
Thank you.
Maybe they are saving that for the Warior classes, allowing them two dual wield non light weapons or even heavy.
I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
In real history, there were duelists that wielded dual swords, like the legendary Miyamoto Musashi. It took great skill (like gaining experience and feats), but it worked. I mean, there's quite a lot of evidence about dual wielding fighting styles.
However, in real history, humans never had to fight creatures twice their size and eight times their mass in melee (if they hoped to survive) - which happens all the time in DnD. So your point about realism is quite unfounded.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yes the pure path with 2 feats is rather cumbersome and probably not for most folks. Given that most campaigns don’t go to L20 I fully expect that many bards and rogues are likely to do a 1 level dip into fighter or ranger to pick up martial weapons and heavier armors as well as spells for rogues and spell progression for bards if they take ranger. Then they their options are expanded considerably.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Yeah, I agree. A one level dip in this UA Ranger is going to be extremely tempting for anyone. I'm somewhat concerned that it is too good because of all the things you get access to right from the start. In fact, all three of these Expert classes can benefit from dipping into each other for doubling Expertise, spell options, and combat power boosts. They're very front loaded with complimentary features. I wonder if that's going to be a trend with each of the class groups going forward.
For me the main issue here is that there is no need to completely remove the ability two dual wield warhammers, battleaxes, longswords from the game. If it is only an average of one damage why take it away? As much as the bonus action being wide open is a buff. The thematic nerf is huge, and very unnecessary. I do wonder if they something else in mind for the warrior classes.
Oh yeah, I wasn't actually arguing against being able to dual wield any 1 handed weapon. I agree that should stay.
They could phrase it something like "you can treat any 1 handed weapon as if it has the light property" or "all 1 handed weapons have the light property for you." They can add "effectively... for the purposes of making an additional attack," if they don't want it to interact with some other class feature, IDK.
I just hope they change their minds and let us dual wield 2 long swords and such weapons.
I really hate when a new edition breaks my favorite character's build, no more 2 long swords, very sad :P
I hope they dont change thier minds as wielding two longswords is silly and duel wielding them with any skill in combat would mean doing so without taking disadvantage. At least in comparison of game mechanics and real world combat.
In real history, there were duelists that wielded dual swords, like the legendary Miyamoto Musashi. It took great skill (like gaining experience and feats), but it worked. I mean, there's quite a lot of evidence about dual wielding fighting styles.
However, in real history, humans never had to fight creatures twice their size and eight times their mass in melee (if they hoped to survive) - which happens all the time in DnD. So your point about realism is quite unfounded.
The change of two weapon fighting to the light property is a buff, the fact you can still use a bonus action is huge, this means Paladin can now cast smite spells while using two weapons, ranger or warlock can shift hunter's mark/hex while getting all the attacks. Rogue can disengage or dash, this is a massive buff.
The Dual Wielder feat got nerfed and way too much tho, it is lackluster and needs to give more.
The nerf to the feat is less than the aforementioned buff from freeing up the bonus action tho, since action economy tends to be very overpowered in 5E.
The real game changers is freeing the BA because now you can hex/divine favor/hunters mark for some meaningful damage.
Twf always scaled when you had one of these rider effects to boost dmg. Which basically means that fighters are probably the least optimal class for twf.
The clear winner is the monk currently.Short swords are now monk weapons (simple melee weapon), they can TWF and still get their BA attack/Flurry of blows. Also the dmg dice for all attacks scale off their unarmed dmg.
Rogue- TWF just means more SA they don’t care about dmg dice of the weapon
Paladin and Ranger both have spells to boost dmg
Monk has scaling dmg dice
Barbarian has advantage from reckless and rage to boost dmg
Fighter gets … an extra attack every 5 levels.
The feat still sucks because in most of the instances above … no one cares about the difference of 1d6 vs 1d8 … except the fighter who has no way to boost dmg.
You're ignoring some aspects of the feat.
First off, the ability to have one of the weapons not be light opens up new damage type options. The only light weapons which do 1d6 damage deal either peircing (shortsword) or slashing (handaxe and scimitar). There are plenty of 1d4 weapons, of all types, and a monk doesn't need to worry about that for pure damage. Magic weapons might mix that up, though, but we also don't know how the warrior group is going to shake things up.
Secondly, while the feat does add +1 Dexterity that doesn't mean it's just for finesse weapons. A barbarian who starts with only 13 Dexterity would certainly want to use this to bring theirs up to 14, while still relying on Strength for their weapon attacks, and dish out a little more. Assuming, of course, barbarians retain medium armor training. And a Champion Fighter in medium armor might want it, too. Or even certain bard subclasses; like the College of Swords.
Thirdly, the feat lets you draw two weapons simultaneously. If your character is caught unawares and doesn't already have a weapon in-hand, they're not using TWF that first round. If you're going to center your argument around damage potential, then you can't ignore this.
Lastly, the shortsword was already a monk weapon. It just shifted categories.
I wouldn't worry about the fighting style and the feat too much at this point, I think the real question is: What should be the baseline?
The 5e rules are:
Attack action only cares about the main hand weapon
Offhand weapon uses a bonus action and has separate rules (restrictions what weapons can be used, no attribute bonus)
The OneD&D suggestion:
Both attacks are made as part of the attack action
Restrictions to get the offhand attack during the attack action pretty much stay the same.
Another possible rule that comes to mind:
You make one attack with both weapons during the attack action. ToHit gets averaged between the weapons (rounded up), Damage uses both weapon dice + Average of the Attribute Boni.
This does something interesting: It gives you the same values for a heavy twohanded weapon like Maul or Greatsword (2d6) and dual wielded Shortswords/Scimitars.
So what about the second attack roll? That goes away for the baseline, simple as that.
However, making separate attacks with each hand could be rolled into the Fighting Style.
The benefit of doing it this way: Attacks always add the attribute bonus to damage. If it is one attack with both weapons, the damage bonus is added once. If it is two attacks with each hand separate, both get the damage bonus.
Why use a rule that requires rounding?
Because it usually doesn't.
It will mostly happen for the ToHit when one weapon has a ToHit bonus and the other one doesn't, but rounding up should make that a non-issue most of the time.
The other case where you need to round comes from using a finesse weapon and a non-finesse weapon together while having a higher DEX bonus than STR bonus. This would only happen in the rare cases where a DEX based charakter gets stuck with a non-finesse magic weapon that is just too good to pass up.
If STR is higher or equal to DEX, you would just use STR for your finesse weapons and no rounding is required.
If both weapons are finesse weapons, you would use the better value for them, which would be the same.
The Elephant in the room: Rogues
Rogues are the only class that uniquely benefits from getting a second attack (i.e. second chance to hit) from dual wielding rules. This is because they only need to hit once per turn to apply their sneak attack which represents the majority of their damage output. You could argue the same for Paladin with smites, but Paladins get Fightings Styles and you could just add TwoWeaponFighting to the list there. Rogues need some class feature to enable dual wielding for them, but that should be easy to add.
I think we should first have a really hard look at what the baseline should be and build everything else around it afterwards.
while I am not against your principle about baseline, there are enough places in 5e where class features of attacks actually affects things greatly. Rangers and monks in particular i would say their classes inherently want separate attacks. (via spell boosts or chances to stun)
I think, Finding synergy for a boost while maintaining power disparity scope is important to the game. ease of use is also a factor. your method might be easier in the short term but more complex with add on features or spells (huntersmark, enlarge/reduce, giving up attacks for companions ect)
I think Drawing weapons is fair game. It use to give a round to use your BA for some kind of set up but now your BA is free from the start and you don’t need the setup.
I think that most classes benefit greatly from TWF based on the UA. I just don’t think the fighter is the strongest candidate.
And while the feat isn’t completely useless, it is a far cry from GWM (yes even in the UA condition) or any other styles like feat (Sharpshooter/Xbow feat/shield master). Each of these feats enhances their play style and brings something to the table.
The TWF feat fails to alter how you play this style or enhance it in a significant way. I would argue that the feat and the Style should be swapped.
Feat - off hand ability dmg And Style: allows you to use main hand dice for off hand.
There are no actual rules for handedness. If you have the Extra Attack feature and want to attack once each with a battleaxe and warhammer, you absolutely can.
From the latest UA:
ATTACK [ACTION]
When you take the Attack Action, you can make one attack with a Weapon or an Unarmed Strike.
EQUIPPING WEAPONS
You can equip or unequip one Weapon before or after each attack you make as part of this Action, even if the attack is with an Unarmed Strike.
So the "draw two weapons at once" part of the feat literally does nothing as per latest iteration of playtest. Anyway, if you ask me, it was always ridiculous - if even I, an average human without HEMA or kendo tarining, can draw two weapons at once with one simple motion, then how come epic heroes can't do that?
The rules glossary doesn't carry over from one play test to the next, which means the feat only applies to the second play test.
If the text was still there in the second play test, then it was likely an oversight and should have been caught during open feedback. I was going through some stuff and didn't fill it out. I'm confident more attentive people did.
Rules glossary doesn't, but you can still use feats and races and classes from previous play tests. That is a feat from the playtest not a rules glossary item.
I just want to be able to wield 2 long swords or similar weapons, not tiny toothpick in both hands.
I am sure people using the "new" Goliath and other races (ops!), I mean ancestry (ops!), I mean blood (ops!), I mean... whatever is no ofensive nowsadays for the same meaning (species? yeah!), are not happy with tiny weapon + weapon.
Thank you.
Maybe they are saving that for the Warior classes, allowing them two dual wield non light weapons or even heavy.