Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
No. Not good enough for a feat. A good solution for how the core rules for wielding two weapons can work, but a very dissatisfying feat.
Dual-weapon fighting is extremely lackluster
- Thread starter Halivar
- Start date
No. Not good enough for a feat. A good solution for how the core rules for wielding two weapons can work, but a very dissatisfying feat.
Whirl Wind of Death, Halfling Fighter, Slayer fighter style. Glancing Blow, Cleave, and jab manvuevers at level 5. Dex instead of strength.
TWF attacks against two goblins, each of these attacks kills one goblin, which means spend dice so you can cleave to kill another goblin, fot four dead goblins. Unless you can use twf to split each cleave attack, in which case its would be six dead goblins.
TWF attacks against two goblins, each of these attacks kills one goblin, which means spend dice so you can cleave to kill another goblin, fot four dead goblins. Unless you can use twf to split each cleave attack, in which case its would be six dead goblins.
Halivar
First Post
That build may find success at lower levels, but against monsters that aren't one-shots it ceases to have advantage over other builds.
Victim
First Post
Really? Compared to the other feats?
Rapid Shot is the same deal as TWF. Sniper takes an action, so it's only useful if you have very tight ammo constraints, another advantage dependent power, or face a lot of cover. Aura of Souls takes an action after something died and only lasts a minute, and attacking with the undead minion also takes an action for a weakish attack and damage. The Guardian feats compete with each other since they both use up a character's reaction - which is also used up by AoO AND and many fighter moves.
Most of the feats are not all that good; the best one by far looks to be Healer's Touch - and you really only need that once per party. Toughness also looks good, but the specialties so far force you to take it in multiples.
slobster
Hero
I think that the new method of dual wielding is an interesting, apparently balanced way of approaching it. I also think it should be the default rules for anyone attempting it, and not require a feat. I seem to be in good company in this opinion, judging from other posts.
As a quick thought experiment, what would happen if you did such a thing? Would the resulting dual wielding character be more powerful than other melee builds? Not really. Others have covered the pros and cons of dual wielding better than I will here, but the overall result is that dual wielding is optimal for some situations, suboptimal in places where 2-handing or sword'n'boarding shine. In my opinion, that is as it should be.
Too often in D&D, the choices at first level seem to be thus: 1) do it like everyone else does, darn you, 2) do it differently to set your character apart but be punished for your temerity with penalties, 3) do it differently and be about as good as someone who does it normally. . . but it's gonna cost you a feat. That is lame. There should be meaningful choices to distinguish your character at low levels, and charging a character for the privilege of being different works against that level of customization, even if strictly speaking it doesn't make it impossible.
In other words, take a page from 4E's book (or your flexible RPG of choice). If it doesn't affect balance but makes a character more interesting, exciting, engaging, or just more awesome, allow it!
As a quick thought experiment, what would happen if you did such a thing? Would the resulting dual wielding character be more powerful than other melee builds? Not really. Others have covered the pros and cons of dual wielding better than I will here, but the overall result is that dual wielding is optimal for some situations, suboptimal in places where 2-handing or sword'n'boarding shine. In my opinion, that is as it should be.
Too often in D&D, the choices at first level seem to be thus: 1) do it like everyone else does, darn you, 2) do it differently to set your character apart but be punished for your temerity with penalties, 3) do it differently and be about as good as someone who does it normally. . . but it's gonna cost you a feat. That is lame. There should be meaningful choices to distinguish your character at low levels, and charging a character for the privilege of being different works against that level of customization, even if strictly speaking it doesn't make it impossible.
In other words, take a page from 4E's book (or your flexible RPG of choice). If it doesn't affect balance but makes a character more interesting, exciting, engaging, or just more awesome, allow it!
Seems like a fine feat to me. Double the chance to crit (quadruple with advantage), double the chance to add Deadly Strike damage, double the chance to knock an enemy prone, chance to kill two things instead of one, or just two chances to kill one thing. If full damage and half damage are both going to kill a kobold, may as well make two attacks.
It provides a tactical option. Does it provide a benefit to overall damage against one target? Maybe, maybe not. Opportunity costs need to be weighed, and we currently don't have anything to compare it to that gives a bonus to fighting with a two handed weapon. Also chance to hit and chance to crit matter. We don't know if there will be ways to improve chances to hit with light weapons, heavy weapons, crit, or do extra crit damage. Too many unknowns to pull out any math.
It provides a tactical option. Does it provide a benefit to overall damage against one target? Maybe, maybe not. Opportunity costs need to be weighed, and we currently don't have anything to compare it to that gives a bonus to fighting with a two handed weapon. Also chance to hit and chance to crit matter. We don't know if there will be ways to improve chances to hit with light weapons, heavy weapons, crit, or do extra crit damage. Too many unknowns to pull out any math.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
No...fighting with a dagger in the off hand is not that hard...at all. It's no harder than fighting with a buckler in the off hand, and the purpose is the same. It can be picked up in the same time it takes to get basic familiarity with a rapier, ie a few months. The masters taught rapier and dagger, rapier and cloak, buckler. The idea was to have an object in the off-hand to help block, because early rapiers were really long, really heavy, and could only fence in single time. As rapiers lightened, becoming smallswords, the ability to fight in double time (parry and riposte) became easier, and an open hand to grapple with became much more common; except for the Italians, who loved them some daggers.
In reality, two weapon fighting is not the outlier, single weapon fighting is. You fight with your whole body. If you're wielding a one handed object, you either grab and punch with the off hand, or grab your weapon in two hand to hit harder. If you've got access to a second weapon, you pull that out to block with, or stab with. And don't forget to kick, bite, headbutt, pommel smash, swing the quillons into their temple. If you're using a buckler, you grind it into your opponents face as you cut at their legs or stab them in the belly.
It is true that the Master's tended to consider fighting with two swords to be very difficult and not something to try until you'd mastered using one sword in either hand. Based on my experience, it's not that difficult, but tends to have the disadvantage of causing you to face your entire body towards an opponent. When fighting with two swords, one sword should always be primary, the other used opportunistically. The advantage of rapier and dagger is that this comes naturally (the rapier is always primary).
Crazy Jerome
First Post
There is very little to nothing in the current playtest to take advantage of it, but another way in which this version of dual wielding could have increased usefulness is any situation in which you really need to get at least one hit in. Something like readying an action to disrupt an enemy wizard, for example.
I do think the "game simulation" instinct to mindlessly equate "two weapons" with "double attack rolls" really doesn't benefit anyone, though. It doesn't bear any resemblance to reality, nor to most fiction (where parrying or feinting or simply using what is at hand in the best way possible, would be the prime reason to use it). In a lot of ways, it would be easier to combine a shield bash with a short sword hit against two targets, or sweep with a greatsword, than pull off two separate attacks with rapier and "dagger". In all those case, the wielder has two hands, and is using them best they can. Putting a second weapon in your off-hand doesn't change this.
All that said, one could do worse (and has!) than half damage from two rolls. If that really relates to two quick jabs with rapier while the dagger covers you, then no big deal. Plus, in a bounded accuracy system, the +1 AC when fighting a single opponent with a single attack of your main weapon, is hardly chicken feed.
I do think the "game simulation" instinct to mindlessly equate "two weapons" with "double attack rolls" really doesn't benefit anyone, though. It doesn't bear any resemblance to reality, nor to most fiction (where parrying or feinting or simply using what is at hand in the best way possible, would be the prime reason to use it). In a lot of ways, it would be easier to combine a shield bash with a short sword hit against two targets, or sweep with a greatsword, than pull off two separate attacks with rapier and "dagger". In all those case, the wielder has two hands, and is using them best they can. Putting a second weapon in your off-hand doesn't change this.
All that said, one could do worse (and has!) than half damage from two rolls. If that really relates to two quick jabs with rapier while the dagger covers you, then no big deal. Plus, in a bounded accuracy system, the +1 AC when fighting a single opponent with a single attack of your main weapon, is hardly chicken feed.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I was actually fine with 4e's flat +1 to damage for having a weapon in the off-hand. I'd actually prefer something like that to this roll twice, do half damage thing.
If they did something like letting you make two attacks, but the damage dice are reduced, say, 2 steps, or 1 step if your off hand is a light weapon, and you only add half a strength bonus or dex bonus, I'd be fine with it.
As it is, I have 3 issues with it as written...
1) it does not encourage the use of a dagger in the off hand over two equal sized weapons
2) the requirement to only use finesse weapons means you're stuck with smaller damage dice already (esp. compared to its otherwise identical feat, rapid shot).
3) Depending on how the division is done, your damage can be reduced by how you figure your damage. Consider, two rapiers, +3 stat bonus. 1d6+3 divided by two round down, the max damage is *8*.
As an alternative, might I suggest...
Dual Wielder
You are trained in using a weapon in either hand.
Effect: when you are using a finesse weapon in either hand, or a dagger or hand axe in the off-hand, and you hit, you may roll the damage dice for both weapons and use whichever one is greater.
You'd lose the ability to attack two targets (I'd design some higher level feat for that), and you wouldn't do more damage than with one weapon, but your average would be a little higher.
Upper level feats: some kind of cleave that allows you to attack more than one opponent with your two weapons, and eventually the ability to use two one-handed, non-finessable weapons.
If they did something like letting you make two attacks, but the damage dice are reduced, say, 2 steps, or 1 step if your off hand is a light weapon, and you only add half a strength bonus or dex bonus, I'd be fine with it.
As it is, I have 3 issues with it as written...
1) it does not encourage the use of a dagger in the off hand over two equal sized weapons
2) the requirement to only use finesse weapons means you're stuck with smaller damage dice already (esp. compared to its otherwise identical feat, rapid shot).
3) Depending on how the division is done, your damage can be reduced by how you figure your damage. Consider, two rapiers, +3 stat bonus. 1d6+3 divided by two round down, the max damage is *8*.
As an alternative, might I suggest...
Dual Wielder
You are trained in using a weapon in either hand.
Effect: when you are using a finesse weapon in either hand, or a dagger or hand axe in the off-hand, and you hit, you may roll the damage dice for both weapons and use whichever one is greater.
You'd lose the ability to attack two targets (I'd design some higher level feat for that), and you wouldn't do more damage than with one weapon, but your average would be a little higher.
Upper level feats: some kind of cleave that allows you to attack more than one opponent with your two weapons, and eventually the ability to use two one-handed, non-finessable weapons.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
