UPGRADE Dual Wielder in Sage Advice & Errata 5.5

Hi everyone,
I think the time has come to update "Dual Wielder" in the Sage Advice & Errata.

There is a need for clarity, and I believe we need to eliminate any alternative interpretations of this feat.
There are two interpretations regarding this feat on every forum.
I am officially asking the minds currently managing D&D 5.5 to update the errata and tell us precisely how to handle the number of attacks.

Thank you.

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/241063-rosie-the-riveter

Light property gives a bonus action Light attack (no str/dex mod to dmg)

Nick mastery moves Light Attack to be part of Attack Action.

Two weapon fighting style lets you add str/dex mod to attacks using the Light property

Dual Wielding feat: when you attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can bonus action Dual attack with a different weapon  (if its also light then two weapon fighting style applies to Dual attack and Dual attack can also add str/dex mod)

 

The questions that ive seen include:

Whether Dual Wielding intended to require one weapon in each hand or whether it allows hot swapping 2 weqpons in one hand while the other hand carries a shield or something.

Does the dual wielding quick draw feature work with drawing/stowing 2 weapons in sequence with the same hand? Or was it intended to work with only one weapon in each hand? There can be an issue with not enough free object interactions to end a turn with the same weapon in your one hand that you started with.

I mean the other question is whether 4 scimitar attacks using 2 different scimitars in a single hand is bonkers, but i think everyone agrees its bonkers, but also everyone wants more power, so of course we accept it.

 

I was referring specifically to point 4.
 Greater clarity—and therefore a correction—would be appreciated.

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

I play at two different tables, and they use the two different interpretations.
One table uses JC's explanation, the other doesn't.
That statement by JC seems to have been made off the cuff at a convention; I’d say it doesn't carry much weight.

I’d like to see an official errata released.

Quote from AndreaBaldi >>

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Quote from jl8e >>

I assume they're talking about the one where DW is modifying the extra attack of the light property, not granting an extra attack of its own.

It's an interpretation which I think is mostly based on people's reaction of "if one reads it this way, it's too powerful, so it must be meant some other way" and not the actual text, but it's not uncommon. (Even though lots of weak attacks aren't actually that great, and it makes DW terrible.)

And the whole light weapon attack complex could stand some clarity in sage advice, mostly because it's scattered around and based on some fussy wording interpretation.

 The Jeremy Crawford ruling was:

X standard attack with Action.

1 extra attack with Light, Nick moves that to your Action

1 extra attack with Dual Wielder, can be a non-light weapon, cannot benefit from Nick.

If your Light extra attack does not use Nick, you cannot use the Dual Wielder extra attack as well

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

I play at two different tables, and they use the two different interpretations.
One table uses JC's explanation, the other doesn't.
That statement by JC seems to have been made off the cuff at a convention; I’d say it doesn't carry much weight.

I’d like to see an official errata released.

 Crawford's comment is consistent with what the rules say.

The whole thing is still scattered and requires too much careful reading of the text, so they really ought to clarify, just so people who aren't experienced at parsing out rules have somewhere to go.

People do sometimes lose sight of what Sage Advice is for. The rules being logically consistent and unambiguous doesn't matter if players and DMs are still confused by them.

Also, Jeremy Crawford's comments on rules is (for me at least) absolutely a "don't know what you've got til it's gone" thing. Even despite me disagreeing with some of them, and some even being inconsistent with each other, it's still far more preferable to complete silence.

Part of the problem is that it has the same name as a 2014 feat, so it's reasonable to think its purpose is the same, and the purpose of the 2014 feat wasn't getting an extra attack, it was being able to dual wield effectively with non-light weapons. My initial assumption was that, so I looked at it and went "wow, they took a marginal feat and made it even worse".

Quote from jl8e >>

The whole thing is still scattered and requires too much careful reading of the text, so they really ought to clarify, just so people who aren't experienced at parsing out rules have somewhere to go.

It's the kind of thing one of the old class handbooks would be perfect for. "Want to build a fighter who wields two weapons at the same time? Here's all the rules for it and how they work together, plus some extra feats/magic items that work well with the concept to get you to buy the book"

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Quote from jl8e >>.

 Crawford's comment is consistent with what the rules say.

The whole thing is still scattered and requires too much careful reading of the text, so they really ought to clarify, just so people who aren't experienced at parsing out rules have somewhere to go.

 

The problem is that the rules involve

1 light weapon property

2 nick weapon mastery (which only some classes get)

3:  two weapon fighting style (which only some classes get, not the same as weapon masteries)

4 dual wielding feat

The goal of all these rules, best as I can tell was to help martials catch up with the damage output of casters. So they try to split things up, like weapon masteries and fighting styles, so that only martials can take advantage of this. The problem is that one level of fighter gives you everything you need and then grab the feat at level 4.

A full explanation of all 4 of these features requires a flowchart, because one might have any one of these but not the other three. Which creates something like a dozen different possible combinations.

i tried to capture at least all 4 features in this post here:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/241063-rosie-the-riveter

 

 

I thought the intent was to have two weapon style catch up with big ass weapon style. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

I thought the intent was to have two weapon style catch up with big ass weapon style. 

Well, the only reason that's a problem is because they buffed big ass weapon style in 2024. It's very hard to tell what they were actually after, because there are far more straightforward ways of accomplishing either (allow using non-light weapons to dual wield) and (allow extra offhand attacks when dual wielding), which are the two most likely interpretations.

Quote from SunIsGettingRealLow96589 >>

Quote from Perringaiden >>

Note: As far as I can read, nothing suggests you can equip or stow a weapon during your Bonus Action, though Nick moving an attack to your Attack action might allow that to swap.

 

Dual Wielding "Quick Draw. You can draw or stow two weapons that lack the Two-Handed property when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one"

You could use quickdraw just before your bonus action.

You also get one free object per turn

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/phb-2024/playing-the-game#TimeLimitedObjectInteractions

Which you could use during your bonus action to draw stow a weapon, meaning you could also use quickdraw during bonus action.

 The key element is:

when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

You cannot draw or stow one weapon on your Bonus Action.  So as long as you get all your switching done during your Action, that's fine, but it means whatever you use for your Bonus Action cannot be swapped until your next turn's Action.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

I thought the intent was to have two weapon style catch up with big ass weapon style. 

Well, the only reason that's a problem is because they buffed big ass weapon style in 2024. It's very hard to tell what they were actually after, because there are far more straightforward ways of accomplishing either (allow using non-light weapons to dual wield) and (allow extra offhand attacks when dual wielding), which are the two most likely interpretations.

 I thought they'd nerfed big weapons in 2024, by replacing the -5/+10 with just proficiency bonus, but I will admit not actually paying attention to the comparative math.

The calculations I've seen say that the various fighting styles are reasonably close in damage output in 5.5.

 

Quote from jl8e>>

 I thought they'd nerfed big weapons in 2024, by replacing the -5/+10 with just proficiency bonus, but I will admit not actually paying attention to the comparative math.

Speaking personally, I'd rather have -0/+PB than -5/+10. The only real downside to GWM now is that (a) it doesn't work on reaction/opportunity attacks anymore, and (b) it works with ranged weapons (Heavy Crossbows and Longbows) but is still a Str-only boost, so it results in anti-synergy for those builds.

After consulting countless forums—and posting about it here, too—there is still no consensus on the interpretation.
There will always be conflicting opinions.
So, the only solution is the one I proposed:
The answer must come in the form of an official correction!
Which leads me to ask: How do we force the hand of those responsible for handling this?

Quote from AndreaBaldi >>

After consulting countless forums—and posting about it here, too—there is still no consensus on the interpretation.
There will always be conflicting opinions.
So, the only solution is the one I proposed:
The answer must come in the form of an official correction!
Which leads me to ask: How do we force the hand of those responsible for handling this?

 You don't/can't

Quote from AndreaBaldi >>

After consulting countless forums—and posting about it here, too—there is still no consensus on the interpretation.

If you're looking to the internet for a "consensus" on anything, you're bound to be disappointed

Quote from AntonSirius >>

If you're looking to the internet for a "consensus" on anything, you're bound to be disappointed

Having it published in sage advice would at least create consensus on the officially correct ruling, but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

I'm not sure there is, ultimately, as much confusion about it as it may seem looking at discussions. I think the vast majority of people arrive at the JC ruling after carefully parsing the wording of everything and there are a few people that don't, mostly trying to find some excuse that some things you can do with it couldn't possibly be intended (see below). For example, whenever I've seen it come up, it's usually one person with the alternate reading (or just general confusion) and a bunch of others trying to explain why the JC reading is correct.

I also cede that that particular reading gives us weapon swapping with a shield, which, regardless of how much I dislike it and feel it's well outside of the fantasy of a "two-weapon fighter", is also RAW.

The text on dual wielder is pretty clear

 When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon

if you attack with a light weapon you get the option to make a bonus action attack.

the text on light property and nick is clear as well

light property

When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative

if you attack with a light weapon you can make a bonus action attack. if nick didn't exist you had the dual wielder feat you would be able to make a bonus action attack and have the choice between which source it came from. Just has if you have 2 ways to cast misty step you would choose which one you decide to use.

nick

When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.

now one of your 2 potential bonus action attack is part of your action leaving the other one as a possibility for the bonus action attack.

now the two weapon fighting style says

When you make an extra attack as a result of using a weapon that has the Light property, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of that attack if you aren't already adding it to the damage.

this says if light property is what let you make an extra attack you can add your ability score. Both nick and dual wielder require you to have a weapon that has the light property in order to be granted the extra attack. Thus, you can apply your ability to the damage of both dual wielder and nick attacks.

Seems like letter of the law interpretation to me now is this broken?

If you do DPR calculations of dual wielding and great weapon fighting it is very similar for the entirety of the game. The biggest difference comes from things like attacks of opportunity, magical weapons and action surge are things that will benefit great weapon builds more and some spells like divine favor, conjure minor elemental(errataed version is still too strong), font of moonlight will benefit dual wielding more. Seems like a good place to be, both options are viable and there are reasons to want one or the other.

I wouldn't mind a sage advice confirming it so players who are unsure can reference it, but i don't think there is a need for an errata or wording change so far.

The one place where rules as written fail in my opinion is by not requiring you to be dual wielding at any point to use dual wielding features. This allows a rules as written loophole where you can weapon juggle to benefit from the features while holding a shield in the other hand. Obviously DM discretion if you can do it at your table, but it would be nice if the official rules covered it since it is an obvious case of RAW and RAI been different. to me the simplest solution is to make this change to the light property and dual wielder feat: 

When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon while holding another light weapon in your other hand, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon, and you don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative

When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property while wielding a weapon in your other hand, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon

Maybe i'm missing some edge cases, but it would cover dual wielding as stowing a shield take an entire action not just an object interaction and not requiring the attack to be made with the weapon you have in the other hand allows for thrown weapons to work with dual wielder+nick. I don't know if dual wielder was meant to allow the extra attack to be made with a weapon that isn't light so I'm not changing that part of the text.