And "viability" to you means two non-light weapons instead of just one?
I never said anything like that. I said that using two non-light weapons should be viable. Right now, dual wielding needs at least one light weapon to be viable. There should be advantageous to using light weapons and/or trade offs for using two non-light weapons, such as requiring a feat, but it shouldn't be completely unsupported to the point where it is just not viable.
Its makes sense and is viable in the future. In Gandalfs scene both Glamdring and his staff have powers and properties. The new Weapon features 1dd is planning to release with the Warrior playtest. Having two weapons means twice the feature options, which means this is more viable. Its not viable for True two weapon fighting, in other words it shouldnt benefit from the Light Property and a free extra attack, unless at least one weapon is Light. I couldnt agree more with this as this how fighting works for real, movie tropes aside.
In your example and in my experience dual wielding a staff is light enough to use a offhand block while using a medium length sword. Actually attacking effectively with the staff while duel wielding wont work. Perhaps with the Feat they should add the +1 AC if your weapon isnt Light and you are wielding two non light weapons 'fighting with two weapons'. But you dont get the extra attack you would of gotten if one or both were Light.
Its makes sense and is viable in the future. In Gandalfs scene both Glamdring and his staff have powers and properties. The new Weapon features 1dd is planning to release with the Warrior playtest. Having two weapons means twice the feature options, which means this is more viable. Its not viable for True two weapon fighting, in other words it shouldnt benefit from the Light Property and a free extra attack, unless at least one weapon is Light. I couldnt agree more with this as this how fighting works for real, movie tropes aside.
In your example and in my experience dual wielding a staff is light enough to use a offhand block while using a medium length sword. Actually attacking effectively with the staff while duel wielding wont work. Perhaps with the Feat they should add the +1 AC if your weapon isnt Light and you are wielding two non light weapons 'fighting with two weapons'. But you dont get the extra attack you would of gotten if one or both were Light.
Unless the feature options can somehow work in conjunction, I wouldn't call it viable. Plus we honestly should be aiming for bare minimum viability.
I feel like the dual wielder feat should just straight up grant the ability to use two non-light weapons together.
Also, during the first hobbit movie, I remember Gandalf using both as melee weapons together and not just for their magical abilities or properties.
It's a movie; don't hold it up as Gospel. I suggest taking a longer look at the history of the game and how it's been handled.
From the AD&D 1st edition DMG (p. 70)
Attacks with Two Weapons
Characters normally using a single weapon may choose to use one in each hand (possibly discarding the option of using a shield). The second weapon must be either a dagger or hand axe. Employment of a second weapon is always at a penalty. The use of a second weapon causes the character to attack with his or her primary weapon at -2 and the secondary weapon at -4. If the user’s dexterity is below 6, the reaction/attacking Adjustment penalties shown in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK are added to EACH weapon attack. If the user’s dexterity is above 15, there is a downward adjustment in the weapon penalties as shown, although this never gives a positive (bonus) rating to such attacks, so that at 16 dexterity the secondary/primary penalty is -3/-1, at 17 -2/0, and at 18 -1/0.
In Second Edition, this was moved to the PH and stipulated the secondary weapon had to be smaller, both in size and weight, than the main weapon. The only exception was daggers, where wielding two was always possible.
In 3.X, you could reduce the penalty for your off-hand weapon if was a light melee weapon. You could elect to not do so, but the penalties to hit left it undesirable. Trading an extra point of damage, on average, for an additional -2 to hit with both weapons wasn't worth it.
In 4E, everything was limited to attack powers. You couldn't even make more than one attack unless your power let you. That said, there was still some dual wielding. To use a second weapon, it had to have the "off-hand" property. What this really did was increase versatility. If you couldn't make more than one attack, you could decide which attack powers (because some were dependent on weapons) to use. This helped mix things up.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, 5E was the aberration. That was the first time wielding two weapons of "normal" size didn't come with a drawback. And it's honestly one of the reasons why I like Speed Factor Initiative; since it encourages anyone engaging in TWF to still wield a light weapon.
It's a movie; don't hold it up as Gospel. I suggest taking a longer look at the history of the game and how it's been handled.
From the AD&D 1st edition DMG (p. 70)
Attacks with Two Weapons
Characters normally using a single weapon may choose to use one in each hand (possibly discarding the option of using a shield). The second weapon must be either a dagger or hand axe. Employment of a second weapon is always at a penalty. The use of a second weapon causes the character to attack with his or her primary weapon at -2 and the secondary weapon at -4. If the user’s dexterity is below 6, the reaction/attacking Adjustment penalties shown in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK are added to EACH weapon attack. If the user’s dexterity is above 15, there is a downward adjustment in the weapon penalties as shown, although this never gives a positive (bonus) rating to such attacks, so that at 16 dexterity the secondary/primary penalty is -3/-1, at 17 -2/0, and at 18 -1/0.
In Second Edition, this was moved to the PH and stipulated the secondary weapon had to be smaller, both in size and weight, than the main weapon. The only exception was daggers, where wielding two was always possible.
In 3.X, you could reduce the penalty for your off-hand weapon if was a light melee weapon. You could elect to not do so, but the penalties to hit left it undesirable. Trading an extra point of damage, on average, for an additional -2 to hit with both weapons wasn't worth it.
In 4E, everything was limited to attack powers. You couldn't even make more than one attack unless your power let you. That said, there was still some dual wielding. To use a second weapon, it had to have the "off-hand" property. What this really did was increase versatility. If you couldn't make more than one attack, you could decide which attack powers (because some were dependent on weapons) to use. This helped mix things up.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, 5E was the aberration. That was the first time wielding two weapons of "normal" size didn't come with a drawback. And it's honestly one of the reasons why I like Speed Factor Initiative; since it encourages anyone engaging in TWF to still wield a light weapon.
So why is this suddenly a big deal?
It's a popular movie of a story that has laid the foundation for the Fantasy Genre. Also, I remember in second edition being able to dual wield katanas in a kensei/mage dual class build.
Also, this is a big deal because it is a common fantasy trope. It is something people want to have available, and there is little reason to not include it. Being able to use two non-light weapon through a feat doesn't break the game in anyway; it is a d6 to a d8, which is an average of 1 damage.
Right, so missing out on 1 point of damage isn't nearly as big as deal as you're making it out to be.
And, no, Tolkien's The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) did not lay the foundation for the fantasy genre. We had fantasy stories for centuries before either were published. Heck, we had full-blown isekai stories like Alice in Wonderland (1865), Peter Pan (1902), and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900). Tolkien got his goblins from The Princess and the Goblin (1872); which was cited in his legendarium.
Never mind that D&D borrows much from pulp and science fiction stories. We get Vancian spellcasting and Vecna from Jack Vance and his Dying Earth books; only two of which were written before D&D was first codified. The last two were published in '83 and '84. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to.
So this obsession with a handful of scenes from a film adaptation of just one of many sources of inspiration for this kitchen sink of a game is, sorry, weird.
Right, so missing out on 1 point of damage isn't nearly as big as deal as you're making it out to be.
And, no, Tolkien's The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) did not lay the foundation for the fantasy genre. We had fantasy stories for centuries before either were published. Heck, we had full-blown isekai stories like Alice in Wonderland (1865), Peter Pan (1902), and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900). Tolkien got his goblins from The Princess and the Goblin (1872); which was cited in his legendarium.
Never mind that D&D borrows much from pulp and science fiction stories. We get Vancian spellcasting and Vecna from Jack Vance and his Dying Earth books; only two of which were written before D&D was first codified. The last two were published in '83 and '84. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to.
So this obsession with a handful of scenes from a film adaptation of just one of many sources of inspiration for this kitchen sink of a game is, sorry, weird.
I am at work and cant upvote. But I just want you to know this deserves 100 up votes. Limiting DnD to "lord of the rings" is just so weird.
It's a popular movie of a story that has laid the foundation for the Fantasy Genre. Also, I remember in second edition being able to dual wield katanas in a kensei/mage dual class build.
I agree Tolkien work popularized and laid the foundation in our imagination of modern & mainstream Fantasy especially D&D. Elves, Orcs, Halflings or Hobbits as we see them come from his work directly. As Jounichi pointed out even Tolkien was inspired by previous authors. Authors before him told fantastical and whimsical stories, thought to be more suitable for younger minds, Lord of the Rings broke that mold, he deserves that credit. The true foundation of fantasy goes to the storytellers of ancient times.
Remember, kids: throwing fireballs from your hands is okay. Punching dragons to death is okay. Tanking a sword with your bare torso if you're a barbarian is okay. BUT NOT WIELDING TWO BATTLEAXES OR LONGSWORDS! It is completely unrealistic! This must never be a part of fantasy genre because it breaks immersion, unlike being able to literally dodge a lightning if you're a rogue. You might be strong enough to lift 600 pounds, but never strong enough to fight with two 3 lb longswords, forget it, that's impossible. Now, 3 lb scimitars are a whole different thing, because these 3 lbs are light, unlike a longsword's 3 lbs...
Remember, kids: throwing fireballs from your hands is okay. Punching dragons to death is okay. Tanking a sword with your bare torso if you're a barbarian is okay. BUT NOT WIELDING TWO BATTLEAXES OR LONGSWORDS! It is completely unrealistic! This must never be a part of fantasy genre because it breaks immersion, unlike being able to literally dodge a lightning if you're a rogue. You might be strong enough to lift 600 pounds, but never strong enough to fight with two 3 lb longswords, forget it, that's impossible. Now, 3 lb scimitars are a whole different thing, because these 3 lbs are light, unlike a longsword's 3 lbs...
Realism has, so far, been invoked more times by people mocking the idea than people in support of the idea. Maybe you should dial down the sarcasm and honestly engage with people over the subject.
Remember, kids: throwing fireballs from your hands is okay. Punching dragons to death is okay. Tanking a sword with your bare torso if you're a barbarian is okay. BUT NOT WIELDING TWO BATTLEAXES OR LONGSWORDS! It is completely unrealistic! This must never be a part of fantasy genre because it breaks immersion, unlike being able to literally dodge a lightning if you're a rogue. You might be strong enough to lift 600 pounds, but never strong enough to fight with two 3 lb longswords, forget it, that's impossible. Now, 3 lb scimitars are a whole different thing, because these 3 lbs are light, unlike a longsword's 3 lbs...
I can buy a wizard throwing fireballs and a monks beating a dragon down with his bare fists, maybe because I cant practice these things. But wielding two weapons ineffectively I cant stand by, its not the weight of 3lbs, its the length that makes them unwieldable together. Even if you made them lighter they would still be to long to wield together.
I dont buy this because anyone can pick up big sticks and find for yourself why a shorter weapon works better in the offhand. With two long weapons either one sits in guard while the other is active as you will switch up which side you are attacking from but rarely be able to attack unpredictably and at the same time with both weapons which is easy with a offhand weapon which is what the Extra Attack we get from 'Light" represents.
3 lb scimitars in D&D arent the longer Eastern 'Scimitars" they are more like elven swords we get in Lotr or more to me like short Sabers. In other words they are the perfect size for duel wielding. Longswords on the other hand are the great sword of its day before the greatswords, they are most effectively used in two hands. The Longsword blade can easily be twice the length of the replica sword Legolas carries in Lotr based on historical evidence and records.
Part of the problem is D&D doesnt have Swords between Shortsword and Longsword length if a did have just a Sword then that would be your weapon for wielding two swords. So basically you have two wield two scimitars or two shortswords.
I can buy a wizard throwing fireballs and a monks beating a dragon down with his bare fists, maybe because I cant practice these things. But wielding two weapons ineffectively I cant stand by, its not the weight of 3lbs, its the length that makes them unwieldable together. Even if you made them lighter they would still be to long to wield together. I dont buy this because anyone can pick up big sticks and find for yourself why a shorter weapon works better in the offhand. With two long weapons either one sits in guard while the other is active as you will switch up which side you are attacking from but rarely be able to attack unpredictably and at the same time with both weapons which is easy with a offhand weapon which is what the Extra Attack we get from 'Light" represents.
In other words, you're okay with fireballs and martial arts because you can't do it, but you're not okay with dual wielding because you can't do it. But have you considered that maybe someone with experience, a high level combatant, could demonstrate this feat of mastery with this particular fighting style... Is it difficult and unpractical? Yes. But so is using a dagger against a sword, or a sword against a polearm, you're signing your death sentence if you even try. And so is thinking that "studded leather armor" that weighs a mere laughable 13 lbs can protect you from anything stronger than a fork or domestic cat's claws. I mean, I have a leather jacket that weighs more than that, and I didn't even put extra rivets or spikes on it like some other metalheads in my younger days. But for some reason people vehemently attack the idea of dual wielding while being okay with so many other conventions that this game is practically made of.
3 lb scimitars in D&D arent the longer Eastern 'Scimitars" they are more like elven swords we get in Lotr or more to me like short Sabers. In other words they are the perfect size for duel wielding. Longswords on the other hand are the great sword of its day before the greatswords, they are most effectively used in two hands. The Longsword blade can easily be twice the length of the replica sword Legolas carries in Lotr based on historical evidence and records.
You just made it up because there's no official confirmation for that in any of sourcebooks, it's only your fantasy.
3 lb scimitars in D&D arent the longer Eastern 'Scimitars" they are more like elven swords we get in Lotr or more to me like short Sabers. In other words they are the perfect size for duel wielding. Longswords on the other hand are the great sword of its day before the greatswords, they are most effectively used in two hands. The Longsword blade can easily be twice the length of the replica sword Legolas carries in Lotr based on historical evidence and records.
You just made it up because there's no official confirmation for that in any of sourcebooks, it's only your fantasy.
That's enough, you're both pretty.
The word "scimitar" itself is a corruption of the shamshir, and its use is purely to contrast it from the straight-edges swords of Europe. Just because it's a catch-all term for any curved oriental sword does not mean the game needs to treat it as such. Functionally, it can take the place of any one-handed slashing weapon that cannot be wielded with two hands. That could include medieval arming swords or the straight swords of one Drizzt Do'Urden.
As for the comparison between the historical longsword and the "fighting knives" of Legolas Greenleaf, Lord_Shadowborne is correct. The historical longsword had a blade length ranging from 80 to 110 cm (31 to 43 in); whereas the film props had an overall length of only 22 3/8 in (56.8325 cm).
You really ought to think, and do a little research, before you type.
3 lb scimitars in D&D arent the longer Eastern 'Scimitars" they are more like elven swords we get in Lotr or more to me like short Sabers. In other words they are the perfect size for duel wielding. Longswords on the other hand are the great sword of its day before the greatswords, they are most effectively used in two hands. The Longsword blade can easily be twice the length of the replica sword Legolas carries in Lotr based on historical evidence and records.
You just made it up because there's no official confirmation for that in any of sourcebooks, it's only your fantasy.
That's enough, you're both pretty.
The word "scimitar" itself is a corruption of the shamshir, and its use is purely to contrast it from the straight-edges swords of Europe. Just because it's a catch-all term for any curved oriental sword does not mean the game needs to treat it as such. Functionally, it can take the place of any one-handed slashing weapon that cannot be wielded with two hands. That could include medieval arming swords or the straight swords of one Drizzt Do'Urden.
As for the comparison between the historical longsword and the "fighting knives" of Legolas Greenleaf, Lord_Shadowborne is correct. The historical longsword had a blade length ranging from 80 to 110 cm (31 to 43 in); whereas the film props had an overall length of only 22 3/8 in (56.8325 cm).
You really ought to think, and do a little research, before you type.
You forgot to add the part that explains how any of that is in any way related to DnD. Because here's the scimitar. Anything beyond what is written in this entry is nothing but your conjecture.
I am very researched. Where do you think i didnt research? but ill try and explain my opinion from my research as it would seem you agree with my points, misunderstanding aside. Sure my opinion of scimitars is my own fantasy or conjecture, however it happens to be used prominently in official product illustration.
The Scimitar or 'Legolas' or look again at 'Drizzt's swords' they are curved, its picture is meant to be the iconic picture representation of the PHB use of Scimitar, a common observation and of course it doesnt need to be the only representation and the fact that it curved slightly less is to help distinguish it from weta workshops models, copyright. Which you better believe inspired that look and they wanted to capitalize on that. Also the stats more importantly represent a Long Knife or Saber to me but sure for the sake of agreement ill agree to light Scimitar of its dimensions though not a bigger Scimitar of all types, functionally if we can agree to that. As for it functionally being an arming sword well that you fantasy, it doesnt say that in the PHB right?
So based on these facts are you agreeing about the Longswords length? Can you see how hard and restricting it would be to dual wield them and how the 'Scimitar' being dual wielded is mechanic wise an excellent fit for the extra attack rule while two longswords or battle axes is actually a hollywood prop, they are super light which helps and if you actually slow mo the choreography you can watch how the the stuntman waits and facilitates the awkward movement to make it work or the camera skips or cuts away to make it appear fluid. Anyone in Hema, stuntwork or action choreography can tell you this. But if fighting with props they attack at Disadvantage - Int, so instead use a offhand weapon its moves way better and enables agile and lethal strikes from both weapons at the same time both cinematically and in your imagination!
Let me tell you a basic fact about a scimitar. It's a slashing weapon. And as such, it has its center mass shifted towards the end, to give the slash maximum momentum and force. It's more unwieldy, less maneuverable than a longsword, which has center mass closer to the hilt, due to the heavier guard and pommel that was made specifically for the purpose of shifting the mass towards the hand, making it more controllable. Once you start a slashing motion with a scimitar, you have less control over it than you would with a longsword. Not to mention that the only option is to slash, most scimitars weren't meant to be able to thrust, and they didn't have a second edge. So, realistically speaking, dual wielding actual scimitars Drizzt-style makes less sense than dual wielding longswords.
Let me tell you a basic fact about a scimitar. It's a slashing weapon. And as such, it has its center mass shifted towards the end, to give the slash maximum momentum and force. It's more unwieldy, less maneuverable than a longsword, which has center mass closer to the hilt, due to the heavier guard and pommel that was made specifically for the purpose of shifting the mass towards the hand, making it more controllable. Once you start a slashing motion with a scimitar, you have less control over it than you would with a longsword. Not to mention that the only option is to slash, most scimitars weren't meant to be able to thrust, and they didn't have a second edge. So, realistically speaking, dual wielding actual scimitars Drizzt-style makes less sense than dual wielding longswords.
Here's the scimitar. Anything beyond what is written in this entry is nothing but your conjecture.
Guys, it’s probably time to agree to disagree, at least till we see the fighter UA and what they do with dual wielding there. A major problem is that there are dozens of different long knives/swords in reality and only 5 (so far) in 1D&D: 1) the short stabbing sword called a short sword. 2) the short sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a scimitar (whether that is a good name is a different discussion) 3) the long stabbing sword called a rapier 4) the long sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a Longsword 5) the extra long slashing sword called a great sword
by the 1dnd rules so far you can: 1) light weapon rule: get a second attack on your attack action if you wield a light weapon in each hand, but you don’t get your stat bonus on the second attack. 2) two weapon fighting style: get the stat bonus on the second attack when attacking with 2 light weapons. 3) dual wielding feat: use a non light, non heavy weapon as one of the 2 weapons when using the light weapon rule.
so as it stands now no dual longswords or rapiers. But that was just from the expert class UA, it would not surprise me if, when the fighter UA comes out, they had a dual wielding 2 feat that allowed for 2 non light and non heavy weapons but it would have the dual wielding feat as a prerequisite. I wouldn’t even be completely surprised if they had a “monkey paw” feat allowing you to wield 1 or 2 great weapons dual wielding if you had a 20+ strength some how. But for that we can argue over sword interpretations til the cows come home without resolution until we see just what they have in the fighter UA.
If during the Warrior playtest they introduce more weapon traits or differentiation between weapons other than "this is a 1d6 slashing weapon and this is a 1d6 slashing weapon with a different name" it'll be worth being able to pair a main hand 1d8 weapon with an offhand 'special trait' light weapon.
But even then, that doesn't address the problem that Dual Wielder is an underwhelming feat. The net benefit of +1 avg damage would most often be outweighed by a pure ASI or other feat.
As mentioned, returning the +1 AC or ability to wield two non-Light weapons would be enough to make it mechanically competitive again
Duel Wielder
AB Increase.
Enhanced Dual Wielding: If we add...Alternatively if you are fighting with two non light weapons you may add +1 to your AC. The logic here is the greater threat reach justifies the +1 AC but you wouldnt get the extra attack from Light.
If during the Warrior playtest they introduce more weapon traits or differentiation between weapons other than "this is a 1d6 slashing weapon and this is a 1d6 slashing weapon with a different name" it'll be worth being able to pair a main hand 1d8 weapon with an offhand 'special trait' light weapon.
But even then, that doesn't address the problem that Dual Wielder is an underwhelming feat. The net benefit of +1 avg damage would most often be outweighed by a pure ASI or other feat.
As mentioned, returning the +1 AC or ability to wield two non-Light weapons would be enough to make it mechanically competitive again
Duel Wielder
AB Increase.
Enhanced Dual Wielding: If we add...Alternatively if you are fighting with two non light weapons you may add +1 to your AC. The logic here is the greater threat reach justifies the +1 AC but you wouldnt get the extra attack from Light.
Quickdraw: Should also be buffed or changed.
There wouldn't be much of a point to that, I'm afraid. You'd be better off with a single weapon and a shield than you would with two weapons. The point of two weapon fighting is the additional attack. Heck, they wouldn't even benefit from the fighting style.
Guys, it’s probably time to agree to disagree, at least till we see the fighter UA and what they do with dual wielding there. A major problem is that there are dozens of different long knives/swords in reality and only 5 (so far) in 1D&D: 1) the short stabbing sword called a short sword. 2) the short sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a scimitar (whether that is a good name is a different discussion) 3) the long stabbing sword called a rapier 4) the long sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a Longsword 5) the extra long slashing sword called a great sword
by the 1dnd rules so far you can: 1) light weapon rule: get a second attack on your attack action if you wield a light weapon in each hand, but you don’t get your stat bonus on the second attack. 2) two weapon fighting style: get the stat bonus on the second attack when attacking with 2 light weapons. 3) dual wielding feat: use a non light, non heavy weapon as one of the 2 weapons when using the light weapon rule.
so as it stands now no dual longswords or rapiers. But that was just from the expert class UA, it would not surprise me if, when the fighter UA comes out, they had a dual wielding 2 feat that allowed for 2 non light and non heavy weapons but it would have the dual wielding feat as a prerequisite. I wouldn’t even be completely surprised if they had a “monkey paw” feat allowing you to wield 1 or 2 great weapons dual wielding if you had a 20+ strength some how. But for that we can argue over sword interpretations til the cows come home without resolution until we see just what they have in the fighter UA.
And this is where reskinnning weapons comes into play. A "scimitar" could be an arming/knightly sword, cutlass, falcata, falchion, khopesh (though they have more in common with axes than swords), saber, shamshir, or tulwar. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm almost certainly missing something.
If I haven't said it outright, I'm pretty sure I've implied it. But I'll say it now: getting hung up on the name in the book isn't helpful. Maybe the books should have more variants listed. I'm pretty sure we only have some wuxia (though I think it ought to be xianxia) variants listed in the DMG.
And maybe there will be "feat trees" with prerequisites at 8th or 12-level. But I hope there aren't. We don't get that many, and I don't think the game needs them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I never said anything like that. I said that using two non-light weapons should be viable. Right now, dual wielding needs at least one light weapon to be viable. There should be advantageous to using light weapons and/or trade offs for using two non-light weapons, such as requiring a feat, but it shouldn't be completely unsupported to the point where it is just not viable.
Its makes sense and is viable in the future. In Gandalfs scene both Glamdring and his staff have powers and properties. The new Weapon features 1dd is planning to release with the Warrior playtest. Having two weapons means twice the feature options, which means this is more viable. Its not viable for True two weapon fighting, in other words it shouldnt benefit from the Light Property and a free extra attack, unless at least one weapon is Light. I couldnt agree more with this as this how fighting works for real, movie tropes aside.
In your example and in my experience dual wielding a staff is light enough to use a offhand block while using a medium length sword. Actually attacking effectively with the staff while duel wielding wont work. Perhaps with the Feat they should add the +1 AC if your weapon isnt Light and you are wielding two non light weapons 'fighting with two weapons'. But you dont get the extra attack you would of gotten if one or both were Light.
Unless the feature options can somehow work in conjunction, I wouldn't call it viable. Plus we honestly should be aiming for bare minimum viability.
I feel like the dual wielder feat should just straight up grant the ability to use two non-light weapons together.
Also, during the first hobbit movie, I remember Gandalf using both as melee weapons together and not just for their magical abilities or properties.
It's a movie; don't hold it up as Gospel. I suggest taking a longer look at the history of the game and how it's been handled.
From the AD&D 1st edition DMG (p. 70)
In Second Edition, this was moved to the PH and stipulated the secondary weapon had to be smaller, both in size and weight, than the main weapon. The only exception was daggers, where wielding two was always possible.
In 3.X, you could reduce the penalty for your off-hand weapon if was a light melee weapon. You could elect to not do so, but the penalties to hit left it undesirable. Trading an extra point of damage, on average, for an additional -2 to hit with both weapons wasn't worth it.
In 4E, everything was limited to attack powers. You couldn't even make more than one attack unless your power let you. That said, there was still some dual wielding. To use a second weapon, it had to have the "off-hand" property. What this really did was increase versatility. If you couldn't make more than one attack, you could decide which attack powers (because some were dependent on weapons) to use. This helped mix things up.
If you really want to get down to brass tacks, 5E was the aberration. That was the first time wielding two weapons of "normal" size didn't come with a drawback. And it's honestly one of the reasons why I like Speed Factor Initiative; since it encourages anyone engaging in TWF to still wield a light weapon.
So why is this suddenly a big deal?
It's a popular movie of a story that has laid the foundation for the Fantasy Genre. Also, I remember in second edition being able to dual wield katanas in a kensei/mage dual class build.
Also, this is a big deal because it is a common fantasy trope. It is something people want to have available, and there is little reason to not include it. Being able to use two non-light weapon through a feat doesn't break the game in anyway; it is a d6 to a d8, which is an average of 1 damage.
Right, so missing out on 1 point of damage isn't nearly as big as deal as you're making it out to be.
And, no, Tolkien's The Hobbit (1937) and The Lord of the Rings (1954-1955) did not lay the foundation for the fantasy genre. We had fantasy stories for centuries before either were published. Heck, we had full-blown isekai stories like Alice in Wonderland (1865), Peter Pan (1902), and The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900). Tolkien got his goblins from The Princess and the Goblin (1872); which was cited in his legendarium.
Never mind that D&D borrows much from pulp and science fiction stories. We get Vancian spellcasting and Vecna from Jack Vance and his Dying Earth books; only two of which were written before D&D was first codified. The last two were published in '83 and '84. I could go on, but I shouldn't have to.
So this obsession with a handful of scenes from a film adaptation of just one of many sources of inspiration for this kitchen sink of a game is, sorry, weird.
I am at work and cant upvote. But I just want you to know this deserves 100 up votes. Limiting DnD to "lord of the rings" is just so weird.
I agree Tolkien work popularized and laid the foundation in our imagination of modern & mainstream Fantasy especially D&D. Elves, Orcs, Halflings or Hobbits as we see them come from his work directly. As Jounichi pointed out even Tolkien was inspired by previous authors. Authors before him told fantastical and whimsical stories, thought to be more suitable for younger minds, Lord of the Rings broke that mold, he deserves that credit. The true foundation of fantasy goes to the storytellers of ancient times.
Remember, kids: throwing fireballs from your hands is okay. Punching dragons to death is okay. Tanking a sword with your bare torso if you're a barbarian is okay. BUT NOT WIELDING TWO BATTLEAXES OR LONGSWORDS! It is completely unrealistic! This must never be a part of fantasy genre because it breaks immersion, unlike being able to literally dodge a lightning if you're a rogue. You might be strong enough to lift 600 pounds, but never strong enough to fight with two 3 lb longswords, forget it, that's impossible. Now, 3 lb scimitars are a whole different thing, because these 3 lbs are light, unlike a longsword's 3 lbs...
Realism has, so far, been invoked more times by people mocking the idea than people in support of the idea. Maybe you should dial down the sarcasm and honestly engage with people over the subject.
I can buy a wizard throwing fireballs and a monks beating a dragon down with his bare fists, maybe because I cant practice these things. But wielding two weapons ineffectively I cant stand by, its not the weight of 3lbs, its the length that makes them unwieldable together. Even if you made them lighter they would still be to long to wield together.
I dont buy this because anyone can pick up big sticks and find for yourself why a shorter weapon works better in the offhand. With two long weapons either one sits in guard while the other is active as you will switch up which side you are attacking from but rarely be able to attack unpredictably and at the same time with both weapons which is easy with a offhand weapon which is what the Extra Attack we get from 'Light" represents.
3 lb scimitars in D&D arent the longer Eastern 'Scimitars" they are more like elven swords we get in Lotr or more to me like short Sabers. In other words they are the perfect size for duel wielding. Longswords on the other hand are the great sword of its day before the greatswords, they are most effectively used in two hands. The Longsword blade can easily be twice the length of the replica sword Legolas carries in Lotr based on historical evidence and records.
Part of the problem is D&D doesnt have Swords between Shortsword and Longsword length if a did have just a Sword then that would be your weapon for wielding two swords. So basically you have two wield two scimitars or two shortswords.
In other words, you're okay with fireballs and martial arts because you can't do it, but you're not okay with dual wielding because you can't do it. But have you considered that maybe someone with experience, a high level combatant, could demonstrate this feat of mastery with this particular fighting style... Is it difficult and unpractical? Yes. But so is using a dagger against a sword, or a sword against a polearm, you're signing your death sentence if you even try. And so is thinking that "studded leather armor" that weighs a mere laughable 13 lbs can protect you from anything stronger than a fork or domestic cat's claws. I mean, I have a leather jacket that weighs more than that, and I didn't even put extra rivets or spikes on it like some other metalheads in my younger days. But for some reason people vehemently attack the idea of dual wielding while being okay with so many other conventions that this game is practically made of.
You just made it up because there's no official confirmation for that in any of sourcebooks, it's only your fantasy.
That's enough, you're both pretty.
The word "scimitar" itself is a corruption of the shamshir, and its use is purely to contrast it from the straight-edges swords of Europe. Just because it's a catch-all term for any curved oriental sword does not mean the game needs to treat it as such. Functionally, it can take the place of any one-handed slashing weapon that cannot be wielded with two hands. That could include medieval arming swords or the straight swords of one Drizzt Do'Urden.
As for the comparison between the historical longsword and the "fighting knives" of Legolas Greenleaf, Lord_Shadowborne is correct. The historical longsword had a blade length ranging from 80 to 110 cm (31 to 43 in); whereas the film props had an overall length of only 22 3/8 in (56.8325 cm).
You really ought to think, and do a little research, before you type.
You forgot to add the part that explains how any of that is in any way related to DnD. Because here's the scimitar. Anything beyond what is written in this entry is nothing but your conjecture.
I am very researched. Where do you think i didnt research? but ill try and explain my opinion from my research as it would seem you agree with my points, misunderstanding aside. Sure my opinion of scimitars is my own fantasy or conjecture, however it happens to be used prominently in official product illustration.
The Scimitar or 'Legolas' or look again at 'Drizzt's swords' they are curved, its picture is meant to be the iconic picture representation of the PHB use of Scimitar, a common observation and of course it doesnt need to be the only representation and the fact that it curved slightly less is to help distinguish it from weta workshops models, copyright. Which you better believe inspired that look and they wanted to capitalize on that. Also the stats more importantly represent a Long Knife or Saber to me but sure for the sake of agreement ill agree to light Scimitar of its dimensions though not a bigger Scimitar of all types, functionally if we can agree to that. As for it functionally being an arming sword well that you fantasy, it doesnt say that in the PHB right?
So based on these facts are you agreeing about the Longswords length? Can you see how hard and restricting it would be to dual wield them and how the 'Scimitar' being dual wielded is mechanic wise an excellent fit for the extra attack rule while two longswords or battle axes is actually a hollywood prop, they are super light which helps and if you actually slow mo the choreography you can watch how the the stuntman waits and facilitates the awkward movement to make it work or the camera skips or cuts away to make it appear fluid. Anyone in Hema, stuntwork or action choreography can tell you this. But if fighting with props they attack at Disadvantage - Int, so instead use a offhand weapon its moves way better and enables agile and lethal strikes from both weapons at the same time both cinematically and in your imagination!
Let me tell you a basic fact about a scimitar. It's a slashing weapon. And as such, it has its center mass shifted towards the end, to give the slash maximum momentum and force. It's more unwieldy, less maneuverable than a longsword, which has center mass closer to the hilt, due to the heavier guard and pommel that was made specifically for the purpose of shifting the mass towards the hand, making it more controllable. Once you start a slashing motion with a scimitar, you have less control over it than you would with a longsword. Not to mention that the only option is to slash, most scimitars weren't meant to be able to thrust, and they didn't have a second edge. So, realistically speaking, dual wielding actual scimitars Drizzt-style makes less sense than dual wielding longswords.
Here's the scimitar. Anything beyond what is written in this entry is nothing but your conjecture.
Guys, it’s probably time to agree to disagree, at least till we see the fighter UA and what they do with dual wielding there. A major problem is that there are dozens of different long knives/swords in reality and only 5 (so far) in 1D&D:
1) the short stabbing sword called a short sword.
2) the short sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a scimitar (whether that is a good name is a different discussion)
3) the long stabbing sword called a rapier
4) the long sometimes curved sometimes not slashing sword called a Longsword
5) the extra long slashing sword called a great sword
by the 1dnd rules so far you can:
1) light weapon rule: get a second attack on your attack action if you wield a light weapon in each hand, but you don’t get your stat bonus on the second attack.
2) two weapon fighting style: get the stat bonus on the second attack when attacking with 2 light weapons.
3) dual wielding feat: use a non light, non heavy weapon as one of the 2 weapons when using the light weapon rule.
so as it stands now no dual longswords or rapiers.
But that was just from the expert class UA, it would not surprise me if, when the fighter UA comes out, they had a dual wielding 2 feat that allowed for 2 non light and non heavy weapons but it would have the dual wielding feat as a prerequisite. I wouldn’t even be completely surprised if they had a “monkey paw” feat allowing you to wield 1 or 2 great weapons dual wielding if you had a 20+ strength some how. But for that we can argue over sword interpretations til the cows come home without resolution until we see just what they have in the fighter UA.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Duel Wielder
AB Increase.
Enhanced Dual Wielding: If we add...Alternatively if you are fighting with two non light weapons you may add +1 to your AC. The logic here is the greater threat reach justifies the +1 AC but you wouldnt get the extra attack from Light.
Quickdraw: Should also be buffed or changed.
There wouldn't be much of a point to that, I'm afraid. You'd be better off with a single weapon and a shield than you would with two weapons. The point of two weapon fighting is the additional attack. Heck, they wouldn't even benefit from the fighting style.
And this is where reskinnning weapons comes into play. A "scimitar" could be an arming/knightly sword, cutlass, falcata, falchion, khopesh (though they have more in common with axes than swords), saber, shamshir, or tulwar. And that's just off the top of my head. I'm almost certainly missing something.
If I haven't said it outright, I'm pretty sure I've implied it. But I'll say it now: getting hung up on the name in the book isn't helpful. Maybe the books should have more variants listed. I'm pretty sure we only have some wuxia (though I think it ought to be xianxia) variants listed in the DMG.
And maybe there will be "feat trees" with prerequisites at 8th or 12-level. But I hope there aren't. We don't get that many, and I don't think the game needs them.