You won't get a consistent Vex increases damage by X%
Sorry you are simply incorrect in this instance (if we ignore the fact that the flat modifier isn't doubled on criticals). Vex only affects the chance to hit thus we can cancel out the damage per hit since:
A = expected damage without Vex = tohit_withoutVex * damage B = expected damage with Vex = tohit_withVex * damage
B/A = tohit_withoutVex/tohit_withVex
The only issue to a single number for the benefits of Vex is that this ratio of B/A depends on your baseline chance to hit because Advantage is geometric rather than linear. i.e. Chance to hit with Advantage =/= C * Chance to hit without Advantage. If instead Vex gave a flat bonus rather than Adv would could calculate one precise universal number for the damage bonus from Vex under all circumstances. But this is not the case, the % damage increase from Vex decreases as your chance to hit increases since the relative benefits of Advantage are reduced.
i.e. Chance to hit = 0.6, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.84 -> Vex ~ 24% increase in damage Chance to hit = 0.8, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.96 -> Vex ~ 17% increase in damage Chance to hit = 0.3, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.51 -> Vex ~ 20% increase in damage
However as you can see above the variance in the percent increase in damage from Vex isn't that big so we can say that Vex grants ~ 20% +/- 5% increase in damage.
In contrast, for Flex our chance to hit is irrelevant since Flex does not impact it at all.
A2 = expected damage without Flex = tohit * damage_withoutFlex B2 = expected damage with Flex = tohit * damage_withFlex
B2/A2 = damage_withoutFlex/damage_withFlex
However, Flex gives a fixed bonus to damage not a multiplier so the B/A ratio is not fixed it depends on your baseline damage (let's call it D): B2/A2 = (D+1)/D
You can easily see that B2/A2 approaches 1 (i.e. 0 effect of Flex) as D increases. The minimum D possible with a Flex weapon is 4.5 : a 1d8 weapon with 0 modifier. Thus the Maximum possible bonus to damage from Flex is 5.5/4.5 = 22%. i.e. The maximum possible benefit from Flex (which requires a terribly built character) is roughly the same as the average benefit from Vex. Watch how this quickly shrinks to far below even the lowest estimates for Vex as your baseline damage increases:
The MAJOR difference between Vex and Flex is that Vex provides 0 benefits if we already have advantage from another source, whereas Flex always gives us that +1 damage regardless of the situation.
Also all of these calculations get messed up when we consider once-per-turn damage bonuses as opposed to per-attack damage bonuses.
You won't get a consistent Vex increases damage by X%
Sorry you are simply incorrect in this instance (if we ignore the fact that the flat modifier isn't doubled on criticals). Vex only affects the chance to hit thus we can cancel out the damage per hit since:
You can't ignore the fact that the flat modifier isn't doubled on criticals tho. Vex affects both the chance to hit and the chance to critical. All damage applies to chance to hit but dice rolled damage applies to the critical, so going back to the idea of a flame tongue shortsword. That adds 2d6 which applies to the critical. Assume a Mod of +4
Normal Attack, normal shortsword (1d8 + 4) * 0.6 + 1d8 * 0.05 = 5.325
You can say it's going to fall in a general range, but the increase is not a consistent x% increase. That range would likely be around 41~47% increase on the advantaged attacks. You can then calculate the amount of advantaged attacks you might get over 2/3/5/10/etc attacks and figure out a rough average of increase but it'd still differ based on different variables in the attack.
The MAJOR difference between Vex and Flex is that Vex provides 0 benefits if we already have advantage from another source, whereas Flex always gives us that +1 damage regardless of the situation.
Also all of these calculations get messed up when we consider once-per-turn damage bonuses as opposed to per-attack damage bonuses.
This ignore the fact that Vex also adds utility, which Flex doesn't. If you don't have advantage then there are things you may be enabled to do with Vex. The following action with Vex does not need to be made with the Vex Weapon, so you can use it to basically get True Strike without using a bonus action or concentration while also performing an attack, you get your cake and eat it. Further Flex is more limited in the specific weapons it can apply too, Vex can apply to simply a much greater range of weapons, including many ranged weapons.
One Example maybe that if you have a longsword and a shortsword, without advantage you can attack first with your offhand weapon (the shortsword) to benefit for advantage on the following longsword attack if that shortsword attack hits.
I am probably going to drop it now, since it's dragging on and there are other things for consideration.
EDIT: one thing that I'd also change is nick. Nick says the extra attack is still limited to being used once per turn. Personally I think Nick should remove the extra attack limit of once per turn for action surge, increasing 2+1 attacks to 2(2+1) instead of doing 2+2+1... it is a hit to fighting with two weapons that it is weaker with action surge.
I am probably going to drop it now, since it's dragging on and there are other things for consideration.
EDIT: one thing that I'd also change is nick. Nick says the extra attack is still limited to being used once per turn. Personally I think Nick should remove the extra attack limit of once per turn for action surge, increasing 2+1 attacks to 2(2+1) instead of doing 2+2+1... it is a hit to fighting with two weapons that it is weaker with action surge.
Take a statistics class and then come back. You aren't getting it. Averages include 0's. If you are taking into account hit chance than you ARE taking into account when other abilities add 0. If you are not doing the same for vex you are skewing your results. If you don't understand go take a math class and stop wasting everyone's time.
The MAJOR difference between Vex and Flex is that Vex provides 0 benefits if we already have advantage from another source, whereas Flex always gives us that +1 damage regardless of the situation.
Also all of these calculations get messed up when we consider once-per-turn damage bonuses as opposed to per-attack damage bonuses.
This actually isn't entirely true. Vex adds 0 if you have a way to consistently have advantage. But it still adds if you find a way to get advantage when you wouldn't have had advantage because it increases the odds your next attack will be at advantage.
Further we can account for crit damage increase using the same method. You just call it crit damage increase % and recognize the fact that the percentage is going to be high, but the damage it does is astronomically low.
Take a statistics class and then come back. You aren't getting it. Averages include 0's. If you are taking into account hit chance than you ARE taking into account when other abilities add 0. If you are not doing the same for vex you are skewing your results. If you don't understand go take a math class and stop wasting everyone's time.
... you're the one not getting it but whatever. I am not saying the 0s don't count, I am saying you're adding an irrelevant breakdown. If 40% of the time you have a 60% chance to add 0 or a 40% chance to add 0, then 100% of that 40% of the time, you're adding 0. So we can just summarise this as, 40% of the time you're adding 0 and not worry about that further break down which means that further breakdown is irrelevant, the equations I am using are still accounting for the 40% of the time that vex did nothing.
The MAJOR difference between Vex and Flex is that Vex provides 0 benefits if we already have advantage from another source, whereas Flex always gives us that +1 damage regardless of the situation.
Also all of these calculations get messed up when we consider once-per-turn damage bonuses as opposed to per-attack damage bonuses.
This actually isn't entirely true. Vex adds 0 if you have a way to consistently have advantage. But it still adds if you find a way to get advantage when you wouldn't have had advantage because it increases the odds your next attack will be at advantage.
Errr what? I think you missed the point... tho as you say, it isn't entirely true. Because Flex doesn't give you a +1 when you miss or unable to make an attack and gives you a +2 when you crit. It also doesn't add a +1 if you're out of range... there is a lot of places where Vex is actually usable and Flex isn't given Vex works with weapons like short bows.
This rainbowy licorn ego post war with brick of numbers is meh.
Just pointing out that previously TWF was useless compared to 2H fighting, and now its even worse, 2H fighting get a buff. Also ranger and rogue which the most need that nick thing can't access it before level 4
This ******* ego post war with brick of numbers is meh.
Just pointing out that previously TWF was useless compared to 2H fighting, and now its even worse, 2H fighting get a buff. Also ranger and rogue which the most need that nick thing can't access it before level 4
Seems perfectly fine.
Until you got Extra Attack, the old 1D&D rules gave absolutely no reason to use 2H instead of TWF. They both did 2d6 + mod at base, but TWF spread it out over two attacks (generally considered a good thing) and had a much better fighting style. Now, the reason to use TWF instead of 2H is much more interesting; whereas 2H will do more damage, TWF will get you access to more masteries in a single turn. I really think that's the best way of doing it.
Also, the thing about Nick is that Ranger definitely does not need it, and Rogue needs a hell of a lot more than it.
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'm against bonus action used for dual fighting. Bonus action should be reserved for class signature abilities (spells included). A bonus action is the little extra that ur class is known for. Removing that because you want to dual wield is non sense.
And the implementation of nick as it is with feat lvl 4 is really fuc ted up.
This ******* ego post war with brick of numbers is meh.
Just pointing out that previously TWF was useless compared to 2H fighting, and now its even worse, 2H fighting get a buff. Also ranger and rogue which the most need that nick thing can't access it before level 4
Seems perfectly fine.
I don't deny my flaw.
Weapon Mastery only came out this UA, so currently, sure limited to level 4, but we don't know if that is actually intended for Rogue, Ranger and Paladin since they haven't seen further UAs (as yet). However, Rogue doesn't really need Nick before level 5, since Extra Attack doesn't exist yet and most other damage features aren't actually beating out sneak attack.
It's not about using sneak attack its about using any bonus action the class is designed for, and dual wielding. Why could you not dual wield and bonus action dash on level 2. Nothing should prevent that.
Same for dual wielding and hunter mark or second wind. You can use ur class ability with a rainbowy licorny 2 handed weapon, but not with two weapons ? There is not a single because behind that.
Two Weapon fighting was always grossly overpowered in tier 1 (the fact that it doesn't scale with extra attack has always created balance issues; currently it's roughly balanced for a character with one extra attack), so having it be weaker until you can take a feat at level 4 is a step in the right direction.
As I understand it, because the Light property doesn't actually require you to be holding a second weapon to make your Extra Attack, and because the Attack action says you can draw or stow a weapon as a part of each attack you make with the Attack action, you could theoretically make the Extra Attack while holding a shield.
What if the Light property were fixed so that the Extra attack was only possible if you were holding two weapons when you started your attack, but the Bonus Action required for the Bonus Attack was removed? Then, the Nick mastery were replaced with something like Quick: this property allows you to make the Extra attack of the Light weapon property with the same weapon as your initial Light weapon attack. The idea is that the weapon is small and light enough that you can make two quick stabs with it in the time another weapon could only make one. In essence it would allow two weapon fighting style damage while using a shield, and it frees up the Bonus Action and sounds plausible for a Light weapon.
I just feel like removing the Bonus Action from Two Weapon Fighting was the simple fix the fighting style needed. Adding it back only to get rid of it again with this weapon mastery property feels like having to buy something that you should have gotten for free in the first place. It just feels wrong somehow.
As I understand it, because the Light property doesn't actually require you to be holding a second weapon to make your Extra Attack, and because the Attack action says you can draw or stow a weapon as a part of each attack you make with the Attack action, you could theoretically make the Extra Attack while holding a shield.
What if the Light property were fixed so that the Extra attack was only possible if you were holding two weapons when you started your attack, but the Bonus Action required for the Bonus Attack was removed? Then, the Nick mastery were replaced with something like Quick: this property allows you to make the Extra attack of the Light weapon property with the same weapon as your initial Light weapon attack. The idea is that the weapon is small and light enough that you can make two quick stabs with it in the time another weapon could only make one. In essence it would allow two weapon fighting style damage while using a shield, and it frees up the Bonus Action and sounds plausible for a Light weapon.
I just feel like removing the Bonus Action from Two Weapon Fighting was the simple fix the fighting style needed. Adding it back only to get rid of it again with this weapon mastery property feels like having to buy something that you should have gotten for free in the first place. It just feels wrong somehow.
I believe the lightbweapon property says the second attack needs to come from a different light weapon. I completely agree with you on that making it a bonus action again wasn’t the right move. Having that second attack as part of the original attack worked perfectly for other classes like rouge and ranger. I’d rather see Nick be replaced with something else
I believe the lightbweapon property says the second attack needs to come from a different light weapon. I completely agree with you on that making it a bonus action again wasn’t the right move. Having that second attack as part of the original attack worked perfectly for other classes like rouge and ranger. I’d rather see Nick be replaced with something else
I think part of the problem is that they're trying to make two-weapon fighting what people expect it to be (more attacks) but have to find some way to limit that (because doubling the attacks would be far too much). But realistically that's not what two-weapon fighting is, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is that you can use either one to block or attack, which is good for keeping an opponent off guard.
So really it should be a middle-ground between one-handed + shield (best protection) and two-handed (best damage), but they don't seem to want to do that for some reason. I'd like to see something more like how riposte works on the Battlemaster, e.g- after an enemy misses you (you blocked with one weapon) you get some kind of bonus to your next attack against them (suddenly strike with the other).
Because I've never found the 5e two-weapon fighting all that satisfying; if you don't fully buy in with the fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat and pick a class/sub-class that doesn't added bonus actions you need then it ends up a bit weak overall.
Having access to potentially two different masteries is nice, but I don't think it solves the actual problems as such; people will just try to get Nick + something else, but then you still end up with having to make at least one different attack on your turn when you're using both (which is the thing I hate about the off-hand weapon not adding the modifier if you don't have the TWF style, because it's so easy to forget or do wrong).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
But realistically that's not what two-weapon fighting is, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is that you can use either one to block or attack, which is good for keeping an opponent off guard.
So really it should be a middle-ground between one-handed + shield (best protection) and two-handed (best damage), but they don't seem to want to do that for some reason. I'd like to see something more like how riposte works on the Battlemaster, e.g- after an enemy misses you (you blocked with one weapon) you get some kind of bonus to your next attack against them (suddenly strike with the other).
^ THIS
Yes, 2 weapon fighting should be an AC increase of +1 and a reaction attack on miss against you. Generally two-weapon fighting would be with a longer weapon and a short weapon; Such as a Rapier with a Parrying Dagger or Buckler, a short sword with a long sword or the Japanese Daishō (which is also long sword + short sword). For this, I would place Buckler in as a weapon rather than a shield, since Bucklers are intended to be used to deliver punches and of a very small size.
I'm not against then still having the bonus action attack but the reason people jumped on to the whole removal of it in earlier UAs and for the Nick Property, is just how much it freed up for rogues, which just goes to show how Rogue lacking extra attack actually harms them and doesn't really make sense. Rogue's extra attack could be limited to attacks made with Dexterity and contain the caveat that it does not stack with other extra attack features, job done. If the bonus action attack is adding too much, just make it only do Dexterity damage on bonus action, unless you have the feat which would re-add the dice roll and any other modifiers.
Base TWF in 5e is more like brutish and unskilled windmilling your two weapons at someone (not literally, I’m exaggerating a little to make a point: it is without the sophistication of being someone who has practiced at TWF to the point of being an expert, because anyone can do it).
Dual Wielder gives you that “middle ground” between no shield and a shield: +1 AC.
What it OUGHT to give you (maybe in place of one of the other sub-features of the Feat) is the stat bonus to your offhand weapon. (right now that comes from the Fighting style for this).
Maybe:
Base TWF: extra BA attack with the secondary/off-hand weapon, but no AC bonus, no stat bonus to damage, limited to light weapons.
Have Dual Wielder give you the +1 AC, but not the “can use non-light weapons” ability. This reflects the “lesser shield benefit” of an offhand weapon.
Move the non-light weapons ability to the related Fighting Style, and not the offhand damage bonus.
Weapon Mastery: Adds the off-hand damage bonus to that weapon when it is your offhand weapon. You only get it when THAT is your off-hand weapon.
Then combine all of that with Defensive Dualist.
A plausible build for a Fighter. A difficult but do-able build for a Ranger or Sword Bard. But a bit harder for a Rogue. Rather difficult for a Wizard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry you are simply incorrect in this instance (if we ignore the fact that the flat modifier isn't doubled on criticals). Vex only affects the chance to hit thus we can cancel out the damage per hit since:
A = expected damage without Vex = tohit_withoutVex * damage
B = expected damage with Vex = tohit_withVex * damage
B/A = tohit_withoutVex/tohit_withVex
The only issue to a single number for the benefits of Vex is that this ratio of B/A depends on your baseline chance to hit because Advantage is geometric rather than linear. i.e. Chance to hit with Advantage =/= C * Chance to hit without Advantage. If instead Vex gave a flat bonus rather than Adv would could calculate one precise universal number for the damage bonus from Vex under all circumstances. But this is not the case, the % damage increase from Vex decreases as your chance to hit increases since the relative benefits of Advantage are reduced.
i.e.
Chance to hit = 0.6, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.84 -> Vex ~ 24% increase in damage
Chance to hit = 0.8, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.96 -> Vex ~ 17% increase in damage
Chance to hit = 0.3, Chance to hit with Adv = 0.51 -> Vex ~ 20% increase in damage
However as you can see above the variance in the percent increase in damage from Vex isn't that big so we can say that Vex grants ~ 20% +/- 5% increase in damage.
In contrast, for Flex our chance to hit is irrelevant since Flex does not impact it at all.
A2 = expected damage without Flex = tohit * damage_withoutFlex
B2 = expected damage with Flex = tohit * damage_withFlex
B2/A2 = damage_withoutFlex/damage_withFlex
However, Flex gives a fixed bonus to damage not a multiplier so the B/A ratio is not fixed it depends on your baseline damage (let's call it D):
B2/A2 = (D+1)/D
You can easily see that B2/A2 approaches 1 (i.e. 0 effect of Flex) as D increases. The minimum D possible with a Flex weapon is 4.5 : a 1d8 weapon with 0 modifier. Thus the Maximum possible bonus to damage from Flex is 5.5/4.5 = 22%. i.e. The maximum possible benefit from Flex (which requires a terribly built character) is roughly the same as the average benefit from Vex. Watch how this quickly shrinks to far below even the lowest estimates for Vex as your baseline damage increases:
Modifier | % damage increase from Flex
+1 | 18%
+2 | 15%
+3 | 13%
+4 | 12%
+5 | 11%
The MAJOR difference between Vex and Flex is that Vex provides 0 benefits if we already have advantage from another source, whereas Flex always gives us that +1 damage regardless of the situation.
Also all of these calculations get messed up when we consider once-per-turn damage bonuses as opposed to per-attack damage bonuses.
Looking at this post makes me more clear than D&D needs options for deadly combat, to avoid all those maths, maths, maths, maths…
The unexpected, being adaptive, to improvise, making everything useful at its manner, all that stuff is so nice.
You can't ignore the fact that the flat modifier isn't doubled on criticals tho. Vex affects both the chance to hit and the chance to critical. All damage applies to chance to hit but dice rolled damage applies to the critical, so going back to the idea of a flame tongue shortsword. That adds 2d6 which applies to the critical. Assume a Mod of +4
Normal Attack, normal shortsword (1d8 + 4) * 0.6 + 1d8 * 0.05 = 5.325
Advantaged Attack, normal shortsword (1d8 + 4) * 0.84 + 1d8 * 0.0975 = 7.57875
Increase = ~42.34% from advantage
Normal Attack, flame tongue shortsword (1d8 + 4 + 2d6) * 0.6 + (1d8 + 2d6) * 0.05 = 9.875
Advantaged Attack, flame tongue shortsword (1d8 + 4 + 2d6) * 0.84 + (1d8 + 2d6 ) * 0.0975 = 14.14125
Increase = ~43.2 % from advantage
Now what about if you crit on a 19 with a flametongue?
Normal Attack, flame tongue shortsword (1d8 + 4 + 2d6) * 0.6 + (1d8 + 2d6) * 0.1 = 10.45
Advantaged Attack, flame tongue shortsword (1d8 + 4 + 2d6) * 0.84 + (1d8 + 2d6 ) * 0.19 = 15.205
Increase = ~45.5% from advantage
Similarly your dart +3 usage
Normal Attack, normal shortsword (1d4 + 4 + 3) * 0.6 + 1d4 * 0.05 = 5.825
Advantaged Attack, normal shortsword (1d4 + 4 + 3) * 0.84 + 1d4 * 0.0975 = 8.22375
Increase = ~41.18% from advantage
You can say it's going to fall in a general range, but the increase is not a consistent x% increase. That range would likely be around 41~47% increase on the advantaged attacks. You can then calculate the amount of advantaged attacks you might get over 2/3/5/10/etc attacks and figure out a rough average of increase but it'd still differ based on different variables in the attack.
This ignore the fact that Vex also adds utility, which Flex doesn't. If you don't have advantage then there are things you may be enabled to do with Vex. The following action with Vex does not need to be made with the Vex Weapon, so you can use it to basically get True Strike without using a bonus action or concentration while also performing an attack, you get your cake and eat it. Further Flex is more limited in the specific weapons it can apply too, Vex can apply to simply a much greater range of weapons, including many ranged weapons.
One Example maybe that if you have a longsword and a shortsword, without advantage you can attack first with your offhand weapon (the shortsword) to benefit for advantage on the following longsword attack if that shortsword attack hits.
I am probably going to drop it now, since it's dragging on and there are other things for consideration.
EDIT: one thing that I'd also change is nick. Nick says the extra attack is still limited to being used once per turn. Personally I think Nick should remove the extra attack limit of once per turn for action surge, increasing 2+1 attacks to 2(2+1) instead of doing 2+2+1... it is a hit to fighting with two weapons that it is weaker with action surge.
Take a statistics class and then come back. You aren't getting it. Averages include 0's. If you are taking into account hit chance than you ARE taking into account when other abilities add 0. If you are not doing the same for vex you are skewing your results. If you don't understand go take a math class and stop wasting everyone's time.
This actually isn't entirely true. Vex adds 0 if you have a way to consistently have advantage. But it still adds if you find a way to get advantage when you wouldn't have had advantage because it increases the odds your next attack will be at advantage.
Further we can account for crit damage increase using the same method. You just call it crit damage increase % and recognize the fact that the percentage is going to be high, but the damage it does is astronomically low.
... you're the one not getting it but whatever. I am not saying the 0s don't count, I am saying you're adding an irrelevant breakdown. If 40% of the time you have a 60% chance to add 0 or a 40% chance to add 0, then 100% of that 40% of the time, you're adding 0. So we can just summarise this as, 40% of the time you're adding 0 and not worry about that further break down which means that further breakdown is irrelevant, the equations I am using are still accounting for the 40% of the time that vex did nothing.
Errr what? I think you missed the point... tho as you say, it isn't entirely true. Because Flex doesn't give you a +1 when you miss or unable to make an attack and gives you a +2 when you crit. It also doesn't add a +1 if you're out of range... there is a lot of places where Vex is actually usable and Flex isn't given Vex works with weapons like short bows.
This rainbowy licorn ego post war with brick of numbers is meh.
Just pointing out that previously TWF was useless compared to 2H fighting, and now its even worse, 2H fighting get a buff.
Also ranger and rogue which the most need that nick thing can't access it before level 4
Seems perfectly fine.
Until you got Extra Attack, the old 1D&D rules gave absolutely no reason to use 2H instead of TWF. They both did 2d6 + mod at base, but TWF spread it out over two attacks (generally considered a good thing) and had a much better fighting style. Now, the reason to use TWF instead of 2H is much more interesting; whereas 2H will do more damage, TWF will get you access to more masteries in a single turn. I really think that's the best way of doing it.
Also, the thing about Nick is that Ranger definitely does not need it, and Rogue needs a hell of a lot more than it.
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)
Agree on rogue, disagree on Ranger.
I'm against bonus action used for dual fighting.
Bonus action should be reserved for class signature abilities (spells included).
A bonus action is the little extra that ur class is known for.
Removing that because you want to dual wield is non sense.
And the implementation of nick as it is with feat lvl 4 is really fuc ted up.
I don't deny my flaw.
Weapon Mastery only came out this UA, so currently, sure limited to level 4, but we don't know if that is actually intended for Rogue, Ranger and Paladin since they haven't seen further UAs (as yet). However, Rogue doesn't really need Nick before level 5, since Extra Attack doesn't exist yet and most other damage features aren't actually beating out sneak attack.
It's not about using sneak attack its about using any bonus action the class is designed for, and dual wielding.
Why could you not dual wield and bonus action dash on level 2.
Nothing should prevent that.
Same for dual wielding and hunter mark or second wind.
You can use ur class ability with a rainbowy licorny 2 handed weapon, but not with two weapons ?
There is not a single because behind that.
Two Weapon fighting was always grossly overpowered in tier 1 (the fact that it doesn't scale with extra attack has always created balance issues; currently it's roughly balanced for a character with one extra attack), so having it be weaker until you can take a feat at level 4 is a step in the right direction.
As I understand it, because the Light property doesn't actually require you to be holding a second weapon to make your Extra Attack, and because the Attack action says you can draw or stow a weapon as a part of each attack you make with the Attack action, you could theoretically make the Extra Attack while holding a shield.
What if the Light property were fixed so that the Extra attack was only possible if you were holding two weapons when you started your attack, but the Bonus Action required for the Bonus Attack was removed? Then, the Nick mastery were replaced with something like Quick: this property allows you to make the Extra attack of the Light weapon property with the same weapon as your initial Light weapon attack. The idea is that the weapon is small and light enough that you can make two quick stabs with it in the time another weapon could only make one. In essence it would allow two weapon fighting style damage while using a shield, and it frees up the Bonus Action and sounds plausible for a Light weapon.
I just feel like removing the Bonus Action from Two Weapon Fighting was the simple fix the fighting style needed. Adding it back only to get rid of it again with this weapon mastery property feels like having to buy something that you should have gotten for free in the first place. It just feels wrong somehow.
I believe the lightbweapon property says the second attack needs to come from a different light weapon. I completely agree with you on that making it a bonus action again wasn’t the right move. Having that second attack as part of the original attack worked perfectly for other classes like rouge and ranger. I’d rather see Nick be replaced with something else
I think part of the problem is that they're trying to make two-weapon fighting what people expect it to be (more attacks) but have to find some way to limit that (because doubling the attacks would be far too much). But realistically that's not what two-weapon fighting is, the advantage of two-weapon fighting is that you can use either one to block or attack, which is good for keeping an opponent off guard.
So really it should be a middle-ground between one-handed + shield (best protection) and two-handed (best damage), but they don't seem to want to do that for some reason. I'd like to see something more like how riposte works on the Battlemaster, e.g- after an enemy misses you (you blocked with one weapon) you get some kind of bonus to your next attack against them (suddenly strike with the other).
Because I've never found the 5e two-weapon fighting all that satisfying; if you don't fully buy in with the fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat and pick a class/sub-class that doesn't added bonus actions you need then it ends up a bit weak overall.
Having access to potentially two different masteries is nice, but I don't think it solves the actual problems as such; people will just try to get Nick + something else, but then you still end up with having to make at least one different attack on your turn when you're using both (which is the thing I hate about the off-hand weapon not adding the modifier if you don't have the TWF style, because it's so easy to forget or do wrong).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
^ THIS
Yes, 2 weapon fighting should be an AC increase of +1 and a reaction attack on miss against you. Generally two-weapon fighting would be with a longer weapon and a short weapon; Such as a Rapier with a Parrying Dagger or Buckler, a short sword with a long sword or the Japanese Daishō (which is also long sword + short sword). For this, I would place Buckler in as a weapon rather than a shield, since Bucklers are intended to be used to deliver punches and of a very small size.
I'm not against then still having the bonus action attack but the reason people jumped on to the whole removal of it in earlier UAs and for the Nick Property, is just how much it freed up for rogues, which just goes to show how Rogue lacking extra attack actually harms them and doesn't really make sense. Rogue's extra attack could be limited to attacks made with Dexterity and contain the caveat that it does not stack with other extra attack features, job done. If the bonus action attack is adding too much, just make it only do Dexterity damage on bonus action, unless you have the feat which would re-add the dice roll and any other modifiers.
Yes :)
In other words: the benefit of Dual Wielder.
Base TWF in 5e is more like brutish and unskilled windmilling your two weapons at someone (not literally, I’m exaggerating a little to make a point: it is without the sophistication of being someone who has practiced at TWF to the point of being an expert, because anyone can do it).
Dual Wielder gives you that “middle ground” between no shield and a shield: +1 AC.
What it OUGHT to give you (maybe in place of one of the other sub-features of the Feat) is the stat bonus to your offhand weapon. (right now that comes from the Fighting style for this).
Maybe:
Base TWF: extra BA attack with the secondary/off-hand weapon, but no AC bonus, no stat bonus to damage, limited to light weapons.
Have Dual Wielder give you the +1 AC, but not the “can use non-light weapons” ability. This reflects the “lesser shield benefit” of an offhand weapon.
Move the non-light weapons ability to the related Fighting Style, and not the offhand damage bonus.
Weapon Mastery: Adds the off-hand damage bonus to that weapon when it is your offhand weapon. You only get it when THAT is your off-hand weapon.
Then combine all of that with Defensive Dualist.
A plausible build for a Fighter. A difficult but do-able build for a Ranger or Sword Bard. But a bit harder for a Rogue. Rather difficult for a Wizard.