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
They only get access to martial weapons with the finesse property and simple weapons. They should not be able to change out the mastery of the weapons they are using that is a fighter thing.
You don't complain on other class than mage or priest accessing to spells, so why complain on weapon masteries being accessible by other than martial. tx
You don't complain on other class than mage or priest accessing to spells, so why complain on weapon masteries being accessible by other than martial. tx
Because Mages and Priests already have their things. Mages all have unrestricted access to the largest spell list in the game, while Priests all have Channel Divinity (or equivalent). Experts all have Expertise. So what do Warriors all have? Weapon Mastery. Nothing else. If we're just going to make the best Warrior not a Warrior, why even have the group there?
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 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)
You're right, and I definitely want both rogues and rangers to get access to some masteries natively. But in the absolute worst case scenario all it will take is a fighter dip.
Maybe Rogue can get the Mastery for any finesse weapon, and Ranger can get it for a selection of weapons like Barbarian does.
Dual wielding classes: - Rogue - extra chance for sneak - Ranger - hunters Mark - Hexblade - Hex - Barbarian - +2 dmg rage per attack - Bladesinger - shadowblade + 1 more weapon can be really good. - Fighter (obviously)
If you look at the damage now for new dual wielding vs. sword&board & great weapon fighter, you can find that TWF is now equal to a greatsowrd, then better with the fighting styles, but then the GWM feat makes the GWM stronger than DW. With the new rules, 2 longswords/rapiers/lances are no longer viable.
Ah yes, double long swords everyone’s favorite fantasy dual wield. There , at least, 3 question to think about: 1) is it really physically possible? 2) Was it ever really a real world “thing”?, 3) what were the actual real world dual wielding “things (and why)? Here are my answers: 1) yes it’s physically possible - you can hold a longsword/katana/etc in each hand and swing the around slicing things with the blades, I know because I’ve done just that to see how it works. 2) no it wasn’t ever really a real world thing - there might have a few folks over time that tried to master it but it was never a significant part of either actual western or eastern swordplay - (looks really cool in fantasy though doesn’t it?). 3) A) western sword play - the only real double weapon set in the west was rapier and dagger. To my knowledge while earlier warriors often carried daggers and other weapons they typically were either using sword/axe and shied or some sort of two handed weapons. ( or maybe 2 hand axes or hand axe/ dagger and short sword (saxons?) ). B) eastern weapon play: lots of double weapons - sais, to fans, nunchucks, butterfly swords, short(Jo) staves, etc. but with one exception these are all double short, light, finesse weapons by D&D rules so not a problem. The one real exception - katana And wakazashi - by D&D standards this is long and short sword - the eastern equivalent of rapier and dagger. Both of these are covered by the dual wielding feat added to two weapon fighting. So what are the real problems with double long swords? Well for one thing they are long - as long as your arms so they and your arms are constantly in each other’s way. Short weapons can swing and move inside the arcs of the arms, long weapons can’t. Second, because they are long they are (relatively) slow. Short weapons are fast enough o be used defensively in far more effective ways than long weapons. Katana’s and long swords are slashing weapons, this means they need room to swing in order to slash. The rapier is ( potentially) different since it is a thrusting weapon. It would be potentially possible to dual wield rapiers in such a way that they don’t interfere with each other with each being responsible for one side of the body for both offense and defense just as martial artist use their arms ( and legs) to cover one side with the occasional X block to cover pure center line attacks. But you still have to deal with the speed differences between hilt and tip because of their lengths.
The 2014 rules allow double long weapon fighting which is fine as D&D IS a fantasy setting not. Real world simulation. The UA rules are closer to reality allowing for only a single long weapon. We will have to see what they actually do with this in 2024.
The 2014 rules allow double long weapon fighting which is fine as D&D IS a fantasy setting not. Real world simulation. The UA rules are closer to reality allowing for only a single long weapon. We will have to see what they actually do with this in 2024.
What is more likely in the real world? someone mastering fighting with two long swords, or some one casting fireball.... or any other spell. What people did or do in the real world has no bearing at all in a game with magic and monsters.
The idea of making the fighting classes as close to reality as possible is absurd in a game with all powerful mages. At this point I really don't care what they do in the rules I will continue to run my games with the old ones, or some variant that allows fighters to dual wield long swords, battle axes, and warhammers. A fantasy world where a dwarf fighter can't have to warhammers but a scrawny human with a scraggly beard can cast a fireball is ridicules.
The 2014 rules allow double long weapon fighting which is fine as D&D IS a fantasy setting not. Real world simulation. The UA rules are closer to reality allowing for only a single long weapon. We will have to see what they actually do with this in 2024.
What is more likely in the real world? someone mastering fighting with two long swords, or some one casting fireball.... or any other spell. What people did or do in the real world has no bearing at all in a game with magic and monsters.
The idea of making the fighting classes as close to reality as possible is absurd in a game with all powerful mages. At this point I really don't care what they do in the rules I will continue to run my games with the old ones, or some variant that allows fighters to dual wield long swords, battle axes, and warhammers. A fantasy world where a dwarf fighter can't have to warhammers but a scrawny human with a scraggly beard can cast a fireball is ridicules.
not that I approve of the nerf, but I think its primarily to keep the damage from being a lot higher due to flex. they don't want them to have d10s in each hand. They want it to be comparable to PAM.
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.
agreed you can literally rename the weapons on your DND beyond character sheet. My character wields a rapier and a main gauche.... does it matter? no, but I know what I am imagining the character looking like and the style of the weapons so I renamed it. Simple.
Too much is being made of nothing. Off hand weapon as part of action is a great boost to those of us who would like to use our bonus action. I wouldn't take the feat personally. Unless maybe I had an odd ability score I wanted to fix, but even then I'd probably take something to help weaponize my bonus action, like getting Hex.
As far as drawing they need to preserve action economy in some way. Letting more people take more object interactions without paying a cost like a feat will only spiral out of control.
Carry primary weapon, BA spell with free hand, free object interaction to draw off-hand weapon, go to work... seems very clean to me
That's a fair point actually you get two attacks for the price of 1 every attack since the light weapon attack is now part of that attack action. You drop a little bit in damage for essentially every class with melee weapons and extra attacks to be able to double their swings, if I am reading this correctly.
Also, dual welding irl is.... well, when you might with two weapons you're trying to use one (usually a lot smaller) mostly as a shield and a shield does a better job.
That's a fair point actually you get two attacks for the price of 1 every attack since the light weapon attack is now part of that attack action. You drop a little bit in damage for essentially every class with melee weapons and extra attacks to be able to double their swings, if I am reading this correctly.
Also, dual welding irl is.... well, when you might with two weapons you're trying to use one (usually a lot smaller) mostly as a shield and a shield does a better job.
You don't get two attacks, you get one additional attack. So when you get Extra Attack, you make three, not four attacks.
It is still extremely frustrating that both weapons have to be light. Rapier and dagger? Obviously a superhuman trait that is too wild even for fantasy. Unlike literally dodging lightning or throwing fireballs. I'm not even talking about dual wielding longswords. That's, like, +1 to average damage on every attack, so +3 damage per round if all attacks hit, comparable to GWM's +1d6 damage once per round. It is that busted and unrealistic?
I think I may be reading this wrong, but if you now get that off hand as part of your attack action, wouldn't you also gain an additional attack for each attack action you get in combat? For instance, you are a 5th level ranger and gained the extra attack action, being that you now have 2 attack actions wouldn't you get 4 total attacks (2 main 2 off) instead of just 3 when it was treated as a bonus action? If this is the case, even with only being able to wield 1 non-light non-heavy weapon, having the increased number of attacks would be an overall benefit over the past iteration of twf. I am new to 5e and may not understand how attack actions work entirely, but this would be similar to 3.5 where you could get more off hand attacks by taking the proper feats when you got additional main hand attacks.
I think I may be reading this wrong, but if you now get that off hand as part of your attack action, wouldn't you also gain an additional attack for each attack action you get in combat? For instance, you are a 5th level ranger and gained the extra attack action, being that you now have 2 attack actions wouldn't you get 4 total attacks (2 main 2 off) instead of just 3 when it was treated as a bonus action? If this is the case, even with only being able to wield 1 non-light non-heavy weapon, having the increased number of attacks would be an overall benefit over the past iteration of twf. I am new to 5e and may not understand how attack actions work entirely, but this would be similar to 3.5 where you could get more off hand attacks by taking the proper feats when you got additional main hand attacks.
No, Extra Attack does not give you an extra attack action, you still take only 1 action and use it to Attack but you make 2 attacks as part of that action. You still only get 1 off-hand attack and the Nick property specifically specifies this. However, according to Treankmonk, he asked Crawford about the new Dual Wielder feat, and according to them the intention is for it to work as such:
Action : Attack - at least 1 attack must use a Light weapon, if using a weapon with Nick you can make one extra attack as part of this action Bonus Action: 1x attack with any one-handed weapon (does not need to be light), which works on top of the extra attack from Nick
When you multi-attack, I believe that only one of the attacks has to be with a light weapon to trigger nick. So you swing your scimitar once which activates nick, your Longsword for your other action attack, scimitar for your nick attack, then you can bonus action attack you can swing your longsword again.
I think. I'm not 100% until I can actually read it myself, but I /think/ only one of the attacks has to be with a light weapon to activate both nick and DW. What I am not certain of, is if the weapon has to be a /different/ light weapon. I don't think it does, but I'm not positive. I can't remember which UA it was in, and don't want to dumpster dive for it; I'll just wait for the book so I can read it all in it's final version.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So since 3.5 they just nerfed two weapon fighting into the ground along with sneak attack. Damn, I guess my current rogue/ranger character is just wasting bonus actions then. I'm so glad I play in two different groups.
So since 3.5 they just nerfed two weapon fighting into the ground along with sneak attack. Damn, I guess my current rogue/ranger character is just wasting bonus actions then. I'm so glad I play in two different groups.
The 5e2024 rules are probably the best twf has been. (If you use nick)
you can make 3 attacks without a BA, and 4 with a BA, weapon mastery exists, better swapping, and you can theoretically use a 2xbow style.
that said, the fourth attack, you will have to choose between your BAs and an extra strike, but I think that’s ok.
So since 3.5 they just nerfed two weapon fighting into the ground along with sneak attack. Damn, I guess my current rogue/ranger character is just wasting bonus actions then. I'm so glad I play in two different groups.
The 5e2024 rules are probably the best twf has been. (If you use nick)
you can make 3 attacks without a BA, and 4 with a BA, weapon mastery exists, better swapping, and you can theoretically use a 2xbow style.
that said, the fourth attack, you will have to choose between your BAs and an extra strike, but I think that’s ok.
Sadly I disagree, TWF is now the most powerful fighting style for any class that gets to add damage to each attack - i.e. Warlock (Hex, Spirit Shroud), Ranger (Hunter's Mark, Conjure Minor Elementals), Barbarian (Rage damage) and Paladin (Divine Favour, Spirit Shroud). I really wish they had stuck to their guns about changing all the spells/abilities that deal damage on each hit to scaling damage once per turn as it would prevent builds designed for the maximum number of attacks per turn from dominating once again.
You don't complain on other class than mage or priest accessing to spells, so why complain on weapon masteries being accessible by other than martial. tx
Because Mages and Priests already have their things. Mages all have unrestricted access to the largest spell list in the game, while Priests all have Channel Divinity (or equivalent). Experts all have Expertise. So what do Warriors all have? Weapon Mastery. Nothing else. If we're just going to make the best Warrior not a Warrior, why even have the group there?
Just seing that, and that it got lifted. People really like to read what they want to read. Idc but still risible.
My current character is more based on stealth and infiltration in 5e. Warforged rogue (assassin) / ranger (gloom stalker). It uses 2 shortsword armblades. I don't really use hunter's mark. My main spell for buffing is zephyr strike which only can be used on one attack. He is an ambush attacker, so it tries to take out enemies before they even know it is there. I just wish there was an option to gain more offhand attacks like there used to be, the prerequisites were pretty fair 13 for twf, 15 for itwf, and 17 for gtwf. I've been playing since ADnD and this edition seems so limiting.
I suspect you’re going to have a bit of a love/hate reaction to 2024 revisions. Gloomstalker’s rnd 1 nova is being nerf while it’s rnd 2+ is getting enhanced. Further, the changes to the rules for light weapons and TWF are going be helpful. If I read the changes correctly you don’t need to use a bonus action to attack a second time when wielding two light weapons but can then use a bonus action to get a 3rd attack with a light weapon getting your stat bonus on all three attacks if you have the 2weapon fighting feat. I haven’t seen if they are changing zephyr strike but you may want to use it somewhat differently than I think you are using it now from your description. It sounds like you are using it all up in a single round to get the speed boost and extra damage on rnd 1. It’s real strength is that it removes opportunity attacks from those you bypass as long as it’s up so you can move around without risking losing concentration from the opportunity attacks the movement would otherwise generate. That lets you move around using those 3-5 attacks to eliminate minions quickly and effectively.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They only get access to martial weapons with the finesse property and simple weapons. They should not be able to change out the mastery of the weapons they are using that is a fighter thing.
You don't complain on other class than mage or priest accessing to spells, so why complain on weapon masteries being accessible by other than martial.
tx
Because Mages and Priests already have their things. Mages all have unrestricted access to the largest spell list in the game, while Priests all have Channel Divinity (or equivalent). Experts all have Expertise. So what do Warriors all have? Weapon Mastery. Nothing else. If we're just going to make the best Warrior not a Warrior, why even have the group there?
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)
You're right, and I definitely want both rogues and rangers to get access to some masteries natively. But in the absolute worst case scenario all it will take is a fighter dip.
Maybe Rogue can get the Mastery for any finesse weapon, and Ranger can get it for a selection of weapons like Barbarian does.
I dont think two longswords was common practice. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wt9p6/is_there_a_reallife_precedent_behind_dualwielding/
The light weapon + nonlight is actually a bit more feasible.
I do think the +1AC is better though than the DEX/STR.
Dual wielding classes:
- Rogue - extra chance for sneak
- Ranger - hunters Mark
- Hexblade - Hex
- Barbarian - +2 dmg rage per attack
- Bladesinger - shadowblade + 1 more weapon can be really good.
- Fighter (obviously)
If you look at the damage now for new dual wielding vs. sword&board & great weapon fighter, you can find that TWF is now equal to a greatsowrd, then better with the fighting styles, but then the GWM feat makes the GWM stronger than DW.
With the new rules, 2 longswords/rapiers/lances are no longer viable.
Ah yes, double long swords everyone’s favorite fantasy dual wield. There , at least, 3 question to think about: 1) is it really physically possible? 2) Was it ever really a real world “thing”?, 3) what were the actual real world dual wielding “things (and why)? Here are my answers:
1) yes it’s physically possible - you can hold a longsword/katana/etc in each hand and swing the around slicing things with the blades, I know because I’ve done just that to see how it works.
2) no it wasn’t ever really a real world thing - there might have a few folks over time that tried to master it but it was never a significant part of either actual western or eastern swordplay - (looks really cool in fantasy though doesn’t it?).
3) A) western sword play - the only real double weapon set in the west was rapier and dagger. To my knowledge while earlier warriors often carried daggers and other weapons they typically were either using sword/axe and shied or some sort of two handed weapons. ( or maybe 2 hand axes or hand axe/ dagger and short sword (saxons?) ).
B) eastern weapon play: lots of double weapons - sais, to fans, nunchucks, butterfly swords, short(Jo) staves, etc. but with one exception these are all double short, light, finesse weapons by D&D rules so not a problem. The one real exception - katana And wakazashi - by D&D standards this is long and short sword - the eastern equivalent of rapier and dagger. Both of these are covered by the dual wielding feat added to two weapon fighting.
So what are the real problems with double long swords? Well for one thing they are long - as long as your arms so they and your arms are constantly in each other’s way. Short weapons can swing and move inside the arcs of the arms, long weapons can’t. Second, because they are long they are (relatively) slow. Short weapons are fast enough o be used defensively in far more effective ways than long weapons. Katana’s and long swords are slashing weapons, this means they need room to swing in order to slash. The rapier is ( potentially) different since it is a thrusting weapon. It would be potentially possible to dual wield rapiers in such a way that they don’t interfere with each other with each being responsible for one side of the body for both offense and defense just as martial artist use their arms ( and legs) to cover one side with the occasional X block to cover pure center line attacks. But you still have to deal with the speed differences between hilt and tip because of their lengths.
The 2014 rules allow double long weapon fighting which is fine as D&D IS a fantasy setting not. Real world simulation. The UA rules are closer to reality allowing for only a single long weapon. We will have to see what they actually do with this in 2024.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
What is more likely in the real world? someone mastering fighting with two long swords, or some one casting fireball.... or any other spell. What people did or do in the real world has no bearing at all in a game with magic and monsters.
The idea of making the fighting classes as close to reality as possible is absurd in a game with all powerful mages. At this point I really don't care what they do in the rules I will continue to run my games with the old ones, or some variant that allows fighters to dual wield long swords, battle axes, and warhammers. A fantasy world where a dwarf fighter can't have to warhammers but a scrawny human with a scraggly beard can cast a fireball is ridicules.
not that I approve of the nerf, but I think its primarily to keep the damage from being a lot higher due to flex. they don't want them to have d10s in each hand. They want it to be comparable to PAM.
agreed you can literally rename the weapons on your DND beyond character sheet. My character wields a rapier and a main gauche.... does it matter? no, but I know what I am imagining the character looking like and the style of the weapons so I renamed it. Simple.
Too much is being made of nothing. Off hand weapon as part of action is a great boost to those of us who would like to use our bonus action. I wouldn't take the feat personally. Unless maybe I had an odd ability score I wanted to fix, but even then I'd probably take something to help weaponize my bonus action, like getting Hex.
As far as drawing they need to preserve action economy in some way. Letting more people take more object interactions without paying a cost like a feat will only spiral out of control.
Carry primary weapon, BA spell with free hand, free object interaction to draw off-hand weapon, go to work... seems very clean to me
That's a fair point actually you get two attacks for the price of 1 every attack since the light weapon attack is now part of that attack action. You drop a little bit in damage for essentially every class with melee weapons and extra attacks to be able to double their swings, if I am reading this correctly.
Also, dual welding irl is.... well, when you might with two weapons you're trying to use one (usually a lot smaller) mostly as a shield and a shield does a better job.
You don't get two attacks, you get one additional attack. So when you get Extra Attack, you make three, not four attacks.
It is still extremely frustrating that both weapons have to be light. Rapier and dagger? Obviously a superhuman trait that is too wild even for fantasy. Unlike literally dodging lightning or throwing fireballs. I'm not even talking about dual wielding longswords. That's, like, +1 to average damage on every attack, so +3 damage per round if all attacks hit, comparable to GWM's +1d6 damage once per round. It is that busted and unrealistic?
I think I may be reading this wrong, but if you now get that off hand as part of your attack action, wouldn't you also gain an additional attack for each attack action you get in combat? For instance, you are a 5th level ranger and gained the extra attack action, being that you now have 2 attack actions wouldn't you get 4 total attacks (2 main 2 off) instead of just 3 when it was treated as a bonus action? If this is the case, even with only being able to wield 1 non-light non-heavy weapon, having the increased number of attacks would be an overall benefit over the past iteration of twf. I am new to 5e and may not understand how attack actions work entirely, but this would be similar to 3.5 where you could get more off hand attacks by taking the proper feats when you got additional main hand attacks.
No, Extra Attack does not give you an extra attack action, you still take only 1 action and use it to Attack but you make 2 attacks as part of that action. You still only get 1 off-hand attack and the Nick property specifically specifies this. However, according to Treankmonk, he asked Crawford about the new Dual Wielder feat, and according to them the intention is for it to work as such:
Action : Attack - at least 1 attack must use a Light weapon, if using a weapon with Nick you can make one extra attack as part of this action
Bonus Action: 1x attack with any one-handed weapon (does not need to be light), which works on top of the extra attack from Nick
When you multi-attack, I believe that only one of the attacks has to be with a light weapon to trigger nick. So you swing your scimitar once which activates nick, your Longsword for your other action attack, scimitar for your nick attack, then you can bonus action attack you can swing your longsword again.
I think. I'm not 100% until I can actually read it myself, but I /think/ only one of the attacks has to be with a light weapon to activate both nick and DW. What I am not certain of, is if the weapon has to be a /different/ light weapon. I don't think it does, but I'm not positive. I can't remember which UA it was in, and don't want to dumpster dive for it; I'll just wait for the book so I can read it all in it's final version.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
So since 3.5 they just nerfed two weapon fighting into the ground along with sneak attack. Damn, I guess my current rogue/ranger character is just wasting bonus actions then. I'm so glad I play in two different groups.
The 5e2024 rules are probably the best twf has been. (If you use nick)
you can make 3 attacks without a BA, and 4 with a BA, weapon mastery exists, better swapping, and you can theoretically use a 2xbow style.
that said, the fourth attack, you will have to choose between your BAs and an extra strike, but I think that’s ok.
Sadly I disagree, TWF is now the most powerful fighting style for any class that gets to add damage to each attack - i.e. Warlock (Hex, Spirit Shroud), Ranger (Hunter's Mark, Conjure Minor Elementals), Barbarian (Rage damage) and Paladin (Divine Favour, Spirit Shroud). I really wish they had stuck to their guns about changing all the spells/abilities that deal damage on each hit to scaling damage once per turn as it would prevent builds designed for the maximum number of attacks per turn from dominating once again.
Just seing that, and that it got lifted.
People really like to read what they want to read.
Idc but still risible.
My current character is more based on stealth and infiltration in 5e. Warforged rogue (assassin) / ranger (gloom stalker). It uses 2 shortsword armblades. I don't really use hunter's mark. My main spell for buffing is zephyr strike which only can be used on one attack. He is an ambush attacker, so it tries to take out enemies before they even know it is there. I just wish there was an option to gain more offhand attacks like there used to be, the prerequisites were pretty fair 13 for twf, 15 for itwf, and 17 for gtwf. I've been playing since ADnD and this edition seems so limiting.
I suspect you’re going to have a bit of a love/hate reaction to 2024 revisions. Gloomstalker’s rnd 1 nova is being nerf while it’s rnd 2+ is getting enhanced. Further, the changes to the rules for light weapons and TWF are going be helpful. If I read the changes correctly you don’t need to use a bonus action to attack a second time when wielding two light weapons but can then use a bonus action to get a 3rd attack with a light weapon getting your stat bonus on all three attacks if you have the 2weapon fighting feat. I haven’t seen if they are changing zephyr strike but you may want to use it somewhat differently than I think you are using it now from your description. It sounds like you are using it all up in a single round to get the speed boost and extra damage on rnd 1. It’s real strength is that it removes opportunity attacks from those you bypass as long as it’s up so you can move around without risking losing concentration from the opportunity attacks the movement would otherwise generate. That lets you move around using those 3-5 attacks to eliminate minions quickly and effectively.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.