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.
Well we are getting a new weapon system, weapons will have abilites with the new Weapon abilities you might want a second weapon instead of the shield so, why not +1 AC., the point is to buff duel wielder.
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.
Well we are getting a new weapon system, weapons will have abilites with the new Weapon abilities you might want a second weapon instead of the shield so, why not +1 AC., the point is to buff duel wielder.
Okay, wow.
First, formatting. What the heck happened?
Second, you're still not getting it. Two-Weapon Fighting is a function of the light property. If you have two non-light weapons, then you aren't using Two-Weapon Fighting. There's no additional attack, so you just have two weapons in hand and +1 AC.
You're better off with the Dueling fighting style and a shield. What's the alternative: a feat for +1 to Dexterity, AC, and DPR?
Well we are getting a new weapon system, weapons will have abilites with the new Weapon abilities you might want a second weapon instead of the shield so, why not +1 AC., the point is to buff duel wielder.
The bottom line is that we should just wait and see. Though I must say I find increasing pauses between each playtest document concerning. We have less and less time for feedback and iterations, while the deadline of 2024 is set.
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.
Much of our modern fantasy genre was inspired immensely by Tolkien. That is laying the foundation in my book.
The obsession isn't with a handful of scenes from an adaptation. It is a common fantasy trope. You see it in games and shows. The idea has popularity. There isn't anything weird with it.
Honestly, at this point, your abrassive behavior feels like an attempt at drawing the worst out of people by insulting them on a near constant basis.
Just spitballing but SS allows a choice to take a -5, for plus 10 damage as does GWM. Why not give TWF a -2 or a -3 for a plus 5 damage on each attack. It could add 5, 10, or 15 but could cause misses as well. . Naybe scale the minue based on the attack -2, then a -3, then a -5 on the third attack?
Just spitballing but SS allows a choice to take a -5, for plus 10 damage as does GWM. Why not give TWF a -2 or a -3 for a plus 5 damage on each attack. It could add 5, 10, or 15 but could cause misses as well. . Naybe scale the minue based on the attack -2, then a -3, then a -5 on the third attack?
The playtest ditched that mechanic in favor of newer ones.
Great Weapon Master trades that in for bonus damage equal to your proficiency bonus, once per turn, with no penalty to hit. Sharpshooter now doesn't impose disadvantage if you fire when an enemy is within 5 feet. And both add +1 to an ability: Strength (GWM) or Dexterity (SS).
The new rules for Light weapons no longer seem to refer specifically to Melee attacks. Does this mean that dual hand crossbows can work?
Correct, though they will still need to make it clear the hand crossbows can be pre-loaded so they can be fired with only 1 hand. As it stands, the ammunition property requires ammo to be loaded the turn it is fired (often house ruled away).
Right, so missing out on 1 point of damage isn't nearly as big as deal as you're making it out to be.
Are you just intentionally missing the point that the objection is over narrative flavor, not mechanical strength?
They're saying the ability to use two non-light weapons is barely a difference (1 damage) so why are they bothering to take the fun away from people that want to do it.
I'm planning on taking it at 4th with my Artificer Armorer. At 5th level He will get two thunder gauntlet attacks and a follow up attack with a club enhanced with Shillelagh from 1st level Magic Initiate (Primal) using Intelligence as the stat for the attack. Then he will bonus action Heat Metal for 2d8 more damage.
I didn’t catch the only one weapon could be treated as not light with the dual wielder feat. That’s a big let down. I think the original version of two weapon fighting, where you don’t have to use a bonus action and still get to add your modified is great and a huge improvement, it’s not over powered or anything for non-martials. Now, the dual-wield feat, should definitely let you wield whatever you want as long as it’s not heavy, you should get the AC bonus, and still get the stat bump. It makes sense since it is a feat without those traits it’s kind of useless.
My big question is that I’m sure they changed this back because of the Nick Mastery. What’s this mean for Nick if they change it back the other way? What does everyone think Nick should do or a suitable replacement for it?
I didn’t catch the only one weapon could be treated as not light with the dual wielder feat. That’s a big let down. I think the original version of two weapon fighting, where you don’t have to use a bonus action and still get to add your modified is great and a huge improvement, it’s not over powered or anything for non-martials. Now, the dual-wield feat, should definitely let you wield whatever you want as long as it’s not heavy, you should get the AC bonus, and still get the stat bump. It makes sense since it is a feat without those traits it’s kind of useless.
My big question is that I’m sure they changed this back because of the Nick Mastery. What’s this mean for Nick if they change it back the other way? What does everyone think Nick should do or a suitable replacement for it?
I think Nick is fine, it's doing its job of encouraging dual light weapons / freeing up stabby rogues to use CA. No need to change it imo.
"I think Nick is fine, it's doing its job of encouraging dual light weapons / freeing up stabby rogues to use CA. No need to change it imo."
The big question is how broad an access to certain Weapon Masteries there will be.
As it stands, rogues can't use Nick, neither can Rangers, a class renowned for wanting to dual wield.
I'm guessing half martials like paladins, rangers, (and maybe rogues) will have to get access to one Mastery (maybe restricted to a certain limited selection) otherwise they're basically demanding you take a feat tax on top of your existing investment in another feat (Dual Wielder) and a Fighting Style to make it workable (lots of ranger subclasses have heavy use of their Bonus Action). That or a mandatory level dip in Fighter.
(Off tangent but I wonder whether martial subclasses of non-martial classes (eg. Bladesinger) will get the Weapon Mastery feature. We've seen that bladelocks don't)
I really hope that weapon mastery doesn't get given to any classes outside of the Warrior group, except maybe a few subclasses like War Domain. It's the only thing unique to Warriors, and it would suck if every martial got it. That would completely cement Warriors as the "we don't have any of those other things" group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I really hope that weapon mastery doesn't get given to any classes outside of the Warrior group, except maybe a few subclasses like War Domain. It's the only thing unique to Warriors, and it would suck if every martial got it. That would completely cement Warriors as the "we don't have any of those other things" group.
The only class I hope gets it outside the warrior groups is the rogue. They are the only other class that doesn't get spell casting by default, so giving them some weapon masteries I think is fair.
I really hope that weapon mastery doesn't get given to any classes outside of the Warrior group, except maybe a few subclasses like War Domain. It's the only thing unique to Warriors, and it would suck if every martial got it. That would completely cement Warriors as the "we don't have any of those other things" group.
The only class I hope gets it outside the warrior groups is the rogue. They are the only other class that doesn't get spell casting by default, so giving them some weapon masteries I think is fair.
Maybe if the Rouges got certain Masteries like Vex or Nick but not all of them just the ones that fit
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Haha I can tell that it hit a nerve. Wasn't talking to you this time though.
Well we are getting a new weapon system, weapons will have abilites with the new Weapon abilities you might want a second weapon instead of the shield so, why not +1 AC., the point is to buff duel wielder.
Okay, wow.
First, formatting. What the heck happened?
Second, you're still not getting it. Two-Weapon Fighting is a function of the light property. If you have two non-light weapons, then you aren't using Two-Weapon Fighting. There's no additional attack, so you just have two weapons in hand and +1 AC.
You're better off with the Dueling fighting style and a shield. What's the alternative: a feat for +1 to Dexterity, AC, and DPR?
Ironically, I do find copying to be flattering. At least you're learning to use the right argument)
The bottom line is that we should just wait and see. Though I must say I find increasing pauses between each playtest document concerning. We have less and less time for feedback and iterations, while the deadline of 2024 is set.
Much of our modern fantasy genre was inspired immensely by Tolkien. That is laying the foundation in my book.
The obsession isn't with a handful of scenes from an adaptation. It is a common fantasy trope. You see it in games and shows. The idea has popularity. There isn't anything weird with it.
Honestly, at this point, your abrassive behavior feels like an attempt at drawing the worst out of people by insulting them on a near constant basis.
Just spitballing but SS allows a choice to take a -5, for plus 10 damage as does GWM. Why not give TWF a -2 or a -3 for a plus 5 damage on each attack. It could add 5, 10, or 15 but could cause misses as well. . Naybe scale the minue based on the attack -2, then a -3, then a -5 on the third attack?
The playtest ditched that mechanic in favor of newer ones.
Great Weapon Master trades that in for bonus damage equal to your proficiency bonus, once per turn, with no penalty to hit. Sharpshooter now doesn't impose disadvantage if you fire when an enemy is within 5 feet. And both add +1 to an ability: Strength (GWM) or Dexterity (SS).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorStepping in to say that's enough of that. Both of you. It's fine to disagree on something as long as it's done so respectfully.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
The new rules for Light weapons no longer seem to refer specifically to Melee attacks. Does this mean that dual hand crossbows can work?
Correct, though they will still need to make it clear the hand crossbows can be pre-loaded so they can be fired with only 1 hand. As it stands, the ammunition property requires ammo to be loaded the turn it is fired (often house ruled away).
More viable if you’re a Thri-Kreen…
Are you just intentionally missing the point that the objection is over narrative flavor, not mechanical strength?
They're saying the ability to use two non-light weapons is barely a difference (1 damage) so why are they bothering to take the fun away from people that want to do it.
I'm planning on taking it at 4th with my Artificer Armorer. At 5th level He will get two thunder gauntlet attacks and a follow up attack with a club enhanced with Shillelagh from 1st level Magic Initiate (Primal) using Intelligence as the stat for the attack. Then he will bonus action Heat Metal for 2d8 more damage.
Not being able to dual wield rapiers or longswords really annoys me. Why take that away? :-(
I didn’t catch the only one weapon could be treated as not light with the dual wielder feat. That’s a big let down. I think the original version of two weapon fighting, where you don’t have to use a bonus action and still get to add your modified is great and a huge improvement, it’s not over powered or anything for non-martials. Now, the dual-wield feat, should definitely let you wield whatever you want as long as it’s not heavy, you should get the AC bonus, and still get the stat bump. It makes sense since it is a feat without those traits it’s kind of useless.
My big question is that I’m sure they changed this back because of the Nick Mastery. What’s this mean for Nick if they change it back the other way? What does everyone think Nick should do or a suitable replacement for it?
Yeah I provided that feedback on Dual Wielder. Hopefully they restore the 1H/1H functionality.
I think Nick is fine, it's doing its job of encouraging dual light weapons / freeing up stabby rogues to use CA. No need to change it imo.
"I think Nick is fine, it's doing its job of encouraging dual light weapons / freeing up stabby rogues to use CA. No need to change it imo."
The big question is how broad an access to certain Weapon Masteries there will be.
As it stands, rogues can't use Nick, neither can Rangers, a class renowned for wanting to dual wield.
I'm guessing half martials like paladins, rangers, (and maybe rogues) will have to get access to one Mastery (maybe restricted to a certain limited selection) otherwise they're basically demanding you take a feat tax on top of your existing investment in another feat (Dual Wielder) and a Fighting Style to make it workable (lots of ranger subclasses have heavy use of their Bonus Action). That or a mandatory level dip in Fighter.
(Off tangent but I wonder whether martial subclasses of non-martial classes (eg. Bladesinger) will get the Weapon Mastery feature. We've seen that bladelocks don't)
I really hope that weapon mastery doesn't get given to any classes outside of the Warrior group, except maybe a few subclasses like War Domain. It's the only thing unique to Warriors, and it would suck if every martial got it. That would completely cement Warriors as the "we don't have any of those other things" group.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
The only class I hope gets it outside the warrior groups is the rogue. They are the only other class that doesn't get spell casting by default, so giving them some weapon masteries I think is fair.
Maybe if the Rouges got certain Masteries like Vex or Nick but not all of them just the ones that fit