D&D General Dual Wielder, Two-weapon Fighting, Nick

[pawsplay]

Um, okay.

Seriously, are Crawford's posts in the witness protection program, or what?

 

[pukunui]

Seriously, are Crawford's posts in the witness protection program, or what?

He didn’t post it himself. A YouTuber asked him about it at a convention, and that was his verbal response. You can find it fairly easily both on this forum, where this subject has been talked about numerous times since Sept, and via Google.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I hate how clunky Dual wielder and TWF are written in 5.24 and how bad TWF is for fighters.

• TWF will always be good for rogues trying to make sure at least one attack hits (so they get to inflict SA damage). Nick means they still can Cunning Action.
• TWF with nick is good for a Ranger using Hunter's Mark.
• TWF with nick would be good for Bladelocks using Hex if the specifics of being a bladelock played ball with TWF (maybe it works for a dex>cha warlock, I will have to check).

TWF with nick and Dual wielder... there are precious few examples where this looks great. Something with extra damage per attack that doesn't require constant bonus actions (such as moving around your hex or hunter's mark). Amazingly this seems to be barbarians (rage damage) and paladins using Divine Favor (note: both missing the bonus action attack for the first round of combat).

• The barbarian is not as tied to THF as 2014 Reckless Attack+GWM synergy used to make it seem, but without a fighting style or fighter's extra ASIs, going TWF is quite a commitment.
• The Paladin still needs to spend their first round bonus action casting Divine Favor, and the extra attack is competing with smite spells for bonus action (may have uses in altered rest-rules campaigns)

Both of them are spending a feat, so if we compare at 5th level to a 2HF with GWM and 18 str for either and greatsword or shortsword/handaxe and scimitar:

• The barbarian is doing 4d6+3x str+4x rage (34 avg) compared to 4d6+2x str+2x rage +2x PB +possible bonus action 2d6+str+rage+PB (32, plus possible 16). Not exactly optimal.
• The paladin is doing 4d6+4x str +4d4 (40) compared to 4d6*+2x str+2x PB+2d4 +possible bonus action 2d6+str+PB+2d4, or spend L2 spell for extra 3d8** (33, plus possible 16.5, or else possible 13.5) *and +1 AC for defensive fighting style, as I won't inflict GWF on this poor sod (+2 with possible +1 dmg on bonus attack if you disagree). **or less damage but other effects.

Again, with first round of combat missing the bonus action to put up the spell or rage. So the paladin is the best option, and even then it needs a bunch of situational setups (long combats, needing to conserve spells, not a lot of bonus-action attacks coming from GWM) to outperform a more standard build.

I think if you are dead set on building a twf character, and don't have a lot of consistent use for your bonus action (so maybe that fighter you mention), then perhaps it's worth the feat since you're going to be twf-ing anyways. Otherwise a valor bard Conjure Minor Elemental build I suppose*. *these seem to be 90% theory-craft anyways, might as well max out the concept

Otherwise, this feat seems to be like 2014's True Strike -- a reasonable ability designed for a slightly different game than the one we ended up with. If there were other bonus-action-less per-attack damage-adds (maybe this alt-D&D's Hunter's Mark could be moved as part of an attack action like drawing a weapon), or there was a power-attack feat similar to 2014 SS/GWM (that worked for light weapons), it would be a good feat.