So the new UA turns the extra attack from dual wielding into part of your action, rather than being a bonus action. That's fine: I get why they're doing this, as there are a lot of martial characters who choose dual wielding styles and feats but can't use bonus action magic (smite spells, for instance) when doing so.
But I've long thought that what actually needs to change is the drawback in using two weapons when you're not trained for it. My suggestion/idea is that using two-weapon fighting, any character without the fighting style or feat either gets disadvantage on the extra attack or doesn't get to use their proficiency bonus for the attack role. These make far more sense to me than not allowing a really strong or dexterous character use that natural ability; the penalty should come from lack of training - i.e., proficiency - rather than treating is as if you're suddenly weaker or less coordinated.
Finally, I really dislike the short sword becoming a simple weapon. It still takes skill and training to use properly. Just because it's not 3+ feet long doesn't automatically make it easier to use effectively in combat.
I think the shortsword being simple is mostly because it was the only martial monk weapon, which was kinda weird. They wanted the system to be simpler, but they also wanted monks to keep shortswords, so they compromised.
Also, dual wielding has been a part of your action since the first UA.
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)
Also, dual wielding has been a part of your action since the first UA.
Right, but they made a change to light weapons (which affects dual wielding). Regardless, I think the RAW penalty makes far less sense than disadvantage or loss of proficiency bonus for two weapon fighting.
They want people to actually choose two-weapon fighting, not penalize them for doing so. Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to -4 to hit, and loss of proficiency bonus is -2 to -6, both make taking dual weapons a liability.
The RAW penalty is that you don't hit as hard with your off hand as with your strong hand, which is fair enough.
They want people to actually choose two-weapon fighting, not penalize them for doing so. Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to -4 to hit, and loss of proficiency bonus is -2 to -6, both make taking dual weapons a liability.
The RAW penalty is that you don't hit as hard with your off hand as with your strong hand, which is fair enough.
And regardless of if the item is finesse or not finesse it symbolizes the awkwardness of it. Awkward handles mean less strength behind the blow and less finesse with a finesse weapon.
They want people to actually choose two-weapon fighting, not penalize them for doing so. Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to -4 to hit, and loss of proficiency bonus is -2 to -6, both make taking dual weapons a liability.
The RAW penalty is that you don't hit as hard with your off hand as with your strong hand, which is fair enough.
At my table, both my melee damage players have chosen dual-wielding and continue to fight with their finesse weapons despite the larger, more powerful weapons I've given them (as loot).
The issue I see in this UA is that, combined with the changes to the Attack action, some players will want to interpret the rules to say they can draw both their short swords as part of their attack action.
I am already having a problem with this at my table because our Ranger insists that his DEX 20 gives him the ability to instantly switch from bow to dual-wield and still get in both attacks the very next turn. My Eldritch Knight, however, built his character specifically around the weapon-summoning ability so that he can go from bow to full dual-wield damage in one and a half rounds. He is already annoyed that the Ranger plays by a different interpretation of the rules. I can already see that these new rules would render that Eldritch Knight/ Warlock ability completely useless, so I hope they have a remedy for that.
My suggestion/idea is that using two-weapon fighting, any character without the fighting style or feat either gets disadvantage on the extra attack or doesn't get to use their proficiency bonus for the attack role. These make far more sense to me than not allowing a really strong or dexterous character use that natural ability; the penalty should come from lack of training - i.e., proficiency - rather than treating is as if you're suddenly weaker or less coordinated.
I've tried to implement the "does not allow proficiency" rule in my own homebrews. What happens is that it creates a more complicated formula for die rolls that is hard for everybody at the table to follow. The result is that the player opts to leave the math in their backpack (or sells it when they get back to town).
It also requires the honor system, which can be a game killer if some players consistently "fumble" their calculations in favor of themselves.
Which is why I lean harder towards the "disadvantage without training" (i.e., the feat or the fighting style) version. No math involved, and it uses a core mechanic already in place.
Which is why I lean harder towards the "disadvantage without training" (i.e., the feat or the fighting style) version. No math involved, and it uses a core mechanic already in place.
This still leads to the "leave it in the backpack and sell it" the change to light weapons was because duel wielding was too punishing before and none of these rules really change what happens when someone actually wants focus on two-weapon fighting and takes the fighting style. Further this just punishes any class, martial or otherwise, that can't get the two-weapon fighting style.
I am already having a problem with this at my table because our Ranger insists that his DEX 20 gives him the ability to instantly switch from bow to dual-wield and still get in both attacks the very next turn. My Eldritch Knight, however, built his character specifically around the weapon-summoning ability so that he can go from bow to full dual-wield damage in one and a half rounds. He is already annoyed that the Ranger plays by a different interpretation of the rules. I can already see that these new rules would render that Eldritch Knight/ Warlock ability completely useless, so I hope they have a remedy for that.
I think this kind of tedious micromanaging of what you are holding is the worst part of the rules in 5E. Its complicated, confusing, and ultimately just punishes players for no good purpose. Who really cares if a ranger shoots his bow one turn and then attacks with 2 swords the next? Let weapon users do cool things!
I am already having a problem with this at my table because our Ranger insists that his DEX 20 gives him the ability to instantly switch from bow to dual-wield and still get in both attacks the very next turn. My Eldritch Knight, however, built his character specifically around the weapon-summoning ability so that he can go from bow to full dual-wield damage in one and a half rounds. He is already annoyed that the Ranger plays by a different interpretation of the rules. I can already see that these new rules would render that Eldritch Knight/ Warlock ability completely useless, so I hope they have a remedy for that.
I think this kind of tedious micromanaging of what you are holding is the worst part of the rules in 5E. Its complicated, confusing, and ultimately just punishes players for no good purpose. Who really cares if a ranger shoots his bow one turn and then attacks with 2 swords the next? Let weapon users do cool things!
The issue is not that the DM is micro-managing. It is that one player built a really cool character around the RAW and the other character wants to ignore those rules so their character can also be cool. The result is a strain at the table.
One of the reasons for having these rules at low level is so that players can feel like they have earned the right to ignore them when their character gets to a higher level. The Eldritch Knight waited until level 2 to gain the summoning ability, then level 4 to add on their Dual Wielder Feat, which gave them the ability to summon both weapons at the same time, but the Ranger decided he had it at level 1 because he built his character with a DEX score of 20.
I admit that I am guilty, in part, for letting the Ranger play this way. I mean, I bend the rules all the time--from thugs who forget to attack when it's their turn (because their target is down to 1 HP) to the collapsing ceiling trap that somehow only does 1d10 to the low-level player who just joined the table. But if we're going to just make everybody ultimate from the beginning, why have a rule book to begin with, right?
If they rules encourage and reward tedious unintuitive micromanaging, they are bad rules and should be changed. Overall 5e has done an excellent job writing simple and intuitive rules that naturally flow from the narrative and very natural and unobtrusive in play. Having to micromanage what you are holding and when you can swap them, just requires a much higher degree of detail than the rest of the rules.
The ability to summon a weapon into the hand whenever desired has been a well-appreciated boon in DnD since the earliest versions.
I don't see WOTC getting rid of that mechanic and letting everybody do it from level 1 just because they can't find an easier way to write it out in the rules.
Likely what will happen is that they will give the Warlock (and Eldritch Knight) something more powerful, but then the other players will want that at level 1 and the 2034 edition will have to change the rules again to appease the children who screamed the loudest.
I personally hate the rules for equipping and unequipping weapons. They just lead to players doing weird things to get around them like dropping their sword on the ground to hold their focus and cast a spell, then kicking their sword the direction they are running to pick it back up the next turn. Otherwise they force players to just stick with one mode of attack a whole battle.
Things need hands to use. There's a reason a focus takes one hand. For game balance. But as long as my players pick one mode for the whole turn, I don't care if they switch every time. They can use a bow one turn, two swords the next, and their focus the one after that. I just don't want to hound them on it and force them to either not do what they want that turn, or do something silly to game the rules. There are a lot of other nice perks for summoning a weapon instantly anyway. Like never being unarmed, even in prison or in front of a king.
But that being said... I do understand why it would be frustrating for one player to build their character by the rules and see another player just skip around them. You have to do what works for you and your table. So I'm fine with whatever rules they want to make for it. And I'm fine with ignoring some myself.
I am already having a problem with this at my table because our Ranger insists that his DEX 20 gives him the ability to instantly switch from bow to dual-wield and still get in both attacks the very next turn. My Eldritch Knight, however, built his character specifically around the weapon-summoning ability so that he can go from bow to full dual-wield damage in one and a half rounds. He is already annoyed that the Ranger plays by a different interpretation of the rules. I can already see that these new rules would render that Eldritch Knight/ Warlock ability completely useless, so I hope they have a remedy for that.
I think this kind of tedious micromanaging of what you are holding is the worst part of the rules in 5E. Its complicated, confusing, and ultimately just punishes players for no good purpose. Who really cares if a ranger shoots his bow one turn and then attacks with 2 swords the next? Let weapon users do cool things!
The issue is not that the DM is micro-managing. It is that one player built a really cool character around the RAW and the other character wants to ignore those rules so their character can also be cool. The result is a strain at the table.
One of the reasons for having these rules at low level is so that players can feel like they have earned the right to ignore them when their character gets to a higher level. The Eldritch Knight waited until level 2 to gain the summoning ability, then level 4 to add on their Dual Wielder Feat, which gave them the ability to summon both weapons at the same time, but the Ranger decided he had it at level 1 because he built his character with a DEX score of 20.
I admit that I am guilty, in part, for letting the Ranger play this way. I mean, I bend the rules all the time--from thugs who forget to attack when it's their turn (because their target is down to 1 HP) to the collapsing ceiling trap that somehow only does 1d10 to the low-level player who just joined the table. But if we're going to just make everybody ultimate from the beginning, why have a rule book to begin with, right?
It depends on if you are playing with these playtest rules. If you are playing 5e rules then you can’t switch from bow to dual wielding even if you had the dual weilder feat in one action if you want to attack that turn. In 5e you wouldn’t even be able to stow the bow, draw one weapon and attack. You would need draw one melee weapon and attack with it this turn. Stow the bow next turn attack melee. Then get second melee on a third turn and attack with both. If you have dual wielder feat it’s better to stow bow, draw both weapons and forgo your attack that first round. If you don’t have it then the progression I gave is the best. In One D&D you can pull off the switch once you hit lvl 5 and gain extra attack. Before this it’s not possible in One playtest. In one you start turn with bow in hand declare attack action. Draw one sword before attack and attack with sword. Before next attack with same sword stow bow and attack. Declare attack with other weapon, draw weapon in second hand before attack and attack with second weapon. I hope this helps.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So the new UA turns the extra attack from dual wielding into part of your action, rather than being a bonus action. That's fine: I get why they're doing this, as there are a lot of martial characters who choose dual wielding styles and feats but can't use bonus action magic (smite spells, for instance) when doing so.
But I've long thought that what actually needs to change is the drawback in using two weapons when you're not trained for it. My suggestion/idea is that using two-weapon fighting, any character without the fighting style or feat either gets disadvantage on the extra attack or doesn't get to use their proficiency bonus for the attack role. These make far more sense to me than not allowing a really strong or dexterous character use that natural ability; the penalty should come from lack of training - i.e., proficiency - rather than treating is as if you're suddenly weaker or less coordinated.
Finally, I really dislike the short sword becoming a simple weapon. It still takes skill and training to use properly. Just because it's not 3+ feet long doesn't automatically make it easier to use effectively in combat.
I think the shortsword being simple is mostly because it was the only martial monk weapon, which was kinda weird. They wanted the system to be simpler, but they also wanted monks to keep shortswords, so they compromised.
Also, dual wielding has been a part of your action since the first UA.
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)
Right, but they made a change to light weapons (which affects dual wielding). Regardless, I think the RAW penalty makes far less sense than disadvantage or loss of proficiency bonus for two weapon fighting.
They want people to actually choose two-weapon fighting, not penalize them for doing so. Disadvantage is roughly equivalent to -4 to hit, and loss of proficiency bonus is -2 to -6, both make taking dual weapons a liability.
The RAW penalty is that you don't hit as hard with your off hand as with your strong hand, which is fair enough.
And regardless of if the item is finesse or not finesse it symbolizes the awkwardness of it. Awkward handles mean less strength behind the blow and less finesse with a finesse weapon.
All fair enough. I don't agree, and will likely house rule it in my games.
At my table, both my melee damage players have chosen dual-wielding and continue to fight with their finesse weapons despite the larger, more powerful weapons I've given them (as loot).
The issue I see in this UA is that, combined with the changes to the Attack action, some players will want to interpret the rules to say they can draw both their short swords as part of their attack action.
I am already having a problem with this at my table because our Ranger insists that his DEX 20 gives him the ability to instantly switch from bow to dual-wield and still get in both attacks the very next turn. My Eldritch Knight, however, built his character specifically around the weapon-summoning ability so that he can go from bow to full dual-wield damage in one and a half rounds. He is already annoyed that the Ranger plays by a different interpretation of the rules. I can already see that these new rules would render that Eldritch Knight/ Warlock ability completely useless, so I hope they have a remedy for that.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I've tried to implement the "does not allow proficiency" rule in my own homebrews. What happens is that it creates a more complicated formula for die rolls that is hard for everybody at the table to follow. The result is that the player opts to leave the math in their backpack (or sells it when they get back to town).
It also requires the honor system, which can be a game killer if some players consistently "fumble" their calculations in favor of themselves.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
Which is why I lean harder towards the "disadvantage without training" (i.e., the feat or the fighting style) version. No math involved, and it uses a core mechanic already in place.
This still leads to the "leave it in the backpack and sell it" the change to light weapons was because duel wielding was too punishing before and none of these rules really change what happens when someone actually wants focus on two-weapon fighting and takes the fighting style. Further this just punishes any class, martial or otherwise, that can't get the two-weapon fighting style.
I think this kind of tedious micromanaging of what you are holding is the worst part of the rules in 5E. Its complicated, confusing, and ultimately just punishes players for no good purpose. Who really cares if a ranger shoots his bow one turn and then attacks with 2 swords the next? Let weapon users do cool things!
The issue is not that the DM is micro-managing. It is that one player built a really cool character around the RAW and the other character wants to ignore those rules so their character can also be cool. The result is a strain at the table.
One of the reasons for having these rules at low level is so that players can feel like they have earned the right to ignore them when their character gets to a higher level. The Eldritch Knight waited until level 2 to gain the summoning ability, then level 4 to add on their Dual Wielder Feat, which gave them the ability to summon both weapons at the same time, but the Ranger decided he had it at level 1 because he built his character with a DEX score of 20.
I admit that I am guilty, in part, for letting the Ranger play this way. I mean, I bend the rules all the time--from thugs who forget to attack when it's their turn (because their target is down to 1 HP) to the collapsing ceiling trap that somehow only does 1d10 to the low-level player who just joined the table. But if we're going to just make everybody ultimate from the beginning, why have a rule book to begin with, right?
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
If they rules encourage and reward tedious unintuitive micromanaging, they are bad rules and should be changed. Overall 5e has done an excellent job writing simple and intuitive rules that naturally flow from the narrative and very natural and unobtrusive in play. Having to micromanage what you are holding and when you can swap them, just requires a much higher degree of detail than the rest of the rules.
The ability to summon a weapon into the hand whenever desired has been a well-appreciated boon in DnD since the earliest versions.
I don't see WOTC getting rid of that mechanic and letting everybody do it from level 1 just because they can't find an easier way to write it out in the rules.
Likely what will happen is that they will give the Warlock (and Eldritch Knight) something more powerful, but then the other players will want that at level 1 and the 2034 edition will have to change the rules again to appease the children who screamed the loudest.
~not a "lazy dungeon master"
I personally hate the rules for equipping and unequipping weapons. They just lead to players doing weird things to get around them like dropping their sword on the ground to hold their focus and cast a spell, then kicking their sword the direction they are running to pick it back up the next turn. Otherwise they force players to just stick with one mode of attack a whole battle.
Things need hands to use. There's a reason a focus takes one hand. For game balance. But as long as my players pick one mode for the whole turn, I don't care if they switch every time. They can use a bow one turn, two swords the next, and their focus the one after that. I just don't want to hound them on it and force them to either not do what they want that turn, or do something silly to game the rules. There are a lot of other nice perks for summoning a weapon instantly anyway. Like never being unarmed, even in prison or in front of a king.
But that being said... I do understand why it would be frustrating for one player to build their character by the rules and see another player just skip around them. You have to do what works for you and your table. So I'm fine with whatever rules they want to make for it. And I'm fine with ignoring some myself.
It depends on if you are playing with these playtest rules. If you are playing 5e rules then you can’t switch from bow to dual wielding even if you had the dual weilder feat in one action if you want to attack that turn. In 5e you wouldn’t even be able to stow the bow, draw one weapon and attack. You would need draw one melee weapon and attack with it this turn. Stow the bow next turn attack melee. Then get second melee on a third turn and attack with both. If you have dual wielder feat it’s better to stow bow, draw both weapons and forgo your attack that first round. If you don’t have it then the progression I gave is the best. In One D&D you can pull off the switch once you hit lvl 5 and gain extra attack. Before this it’s not possible in One playtest. In one you start turn with bow in hand declare attack action. Draw one sword before attack and attack with sword. Before next attack with same sword stow bow and attack. Declare attack with other weapon, draw weapon in second hand before attack and attack with second weapon. I hope this helps.