D&D (2024) A take on dual wielding

clearstream

(He, Him)
What seems like an undeniable miss in the new edition is dual wielding, which takes a kind of Voltron approach to rule construction. Here is what I see as the relevant text

Attack action: You can either equip or unequip one weapon when you make an attack as part of this action. You do so either before or after the attack. If you equip a weapon before an attack, you don’t need to use it for that attack.​
Interacting with Things: You can interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or action. For example, you could open a door during your move as you stride toward a foe.​
Light: 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. For example, you can attack with a Shortsword in one hand and a Dagger in the other using the Attack action and a Bonus Action, but you don’t add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the damage roll of the Bonus Action unless that modifier is negative.​
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.​
Dual Wielder: 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, which must be a Melee weapon that lacks the Two-Handed property. You don’t add your ability modifier to the extra attack’s damage unless that modifier is negative.​

The miss of course is the possible construal that a character can make that extra attack with a weapon they've just then equipped. It could even be interpreted to allow board and dual-sword, or a one-armed ranger to strike with first one and then a different scimitar that they've only just drawn. Whether or not one believes a free interaction allows equipping a weapon, it surely allows dropping one, freeing up the hand.

The example could guide toward insisting that the second attack must be with a different weapon in the other hand, but that still contains holes. The take I prefer is to read that the check for what counts as a "different weapon" is made at the first moment you attack with a light weapon and "sees" only those valid to attack with (i.e. equipped) at that time. Characters can normally have only one weapon equipped per hand, so the "different weapon" must be one in the other hand, which is the one now qualified to make the extra attack. That seems to sustain appealing play and I haven't yet noticed any residual glitches... although perhaps others have spotted something I've missed?

EDIT Note for latecomers that while this conversation is proving productive, I changed my mind about needing the weapon equipped. I now believe the whole "different weapon" requirement erroneous.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Xeviat

Dungeon Mistress, she/her
The only reason I like relaxation of having both weapons in hand when you start is throwing builds should be able to draw darts/daggers and throw them with both hands. But I do want TWFing attacks to be made with different hands.

I have my own house rules TWFing rules for my games that have worked out well.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
The miss of course is the possible construal that a character can make that extra attack with a weapon they've just then equipped. It could even be interpreted to allow board and dual-sword, or a one-armed ranger to strike with first one and then a different scimitar that they've only just drawn. Whether or not one believes a free interaction allows equipping a weapon, it surely allows dropping one, freeing up the hand.

The example could guide toward insisting that the second attack must be with a different weapon in the other hand . . . That seems to sustain appealing play and I haven't yet noticed any residual glitches... although perhaps others have spotted something I've missed?
"Appealing play" sounds pretty subjective.

Note that "cleave" no longer means "cleave," so why should "dual wield" mean "dual wield?"

Your insistence that a dual weapon must be in another hand doesn't take into account the needs and feelings of mono-handed people. (Which I suspect is where WotC was going with this one.)
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
"Appealing play" sounds pretty subjective.
Yes, that's why I used that word. To indicate that I felt these sorts of choices can come down to matters of taste.

Note that "cleave" no longer means "cleave," so why should "dual wield" mean "dual wield?"
Yes, a group could decide the words mean something like "swift wield" and would then need to decide if "two weapon fighting" implies two weapons.

Your insistence that a dual weapon must be in another hand doesn't take into account the needs and feelings of mono-handed people. (Which I suspect is where WotC was going with this one.)
It doesn't seem particularly plausible that WotC had that in mind. The example they give in the text goes against it, and the retained labels are at best horribly misleading if that were their intent. Do you know anywhere that they directly allude to it?

If a player said that they would like to take dual wielding for their one-armed Ranger (say) to challenge assumptions about capability, I would still favour my interpretation, which is that the second attack must be made with a weapon that is equpped at the moment the first attack is made (in this case the same weapon), and for avoidance of doubt would rule strapping on a shield interferes with that. I wouldn't require them to do as my earlier Ranger did, and drop their first scimitar to draw another!
 
Last edited:

clearstream

(He, Him)
The only reason I like relaxation of having both weapons in hand when you start is throwing builds should be able to draw darts/daggers and throw them with both hands. But I do want TWFing attacks to be made with different hands.
Thrown weapons is a great call-out. I'll need to reflect more on that. Thinking about @GMMichael's speculation about what may have motivated wordings, it seems quite possible that WotC had thrown weapons in mind.

I have my own house rules TWFing rules for my games that have worked out well.
Can you post them here?
 
Last edited:

Horwath

Legend
I dont know why this feat is so badly written?

Simpler:

your Main hand weapon can be one handed without light property for TWF, offhand still needs to be light.

You can make one extra attack as a Bonus action with a weapon that lacks 2Handed property.
You can take that attack as a part of Attack action if you take it with off-hand weapon that uses Nick mastery.
this extra attack does not get your ability modifier to damage, unless negative. TWF style applies for this attack also.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Weighing up @Xeviat's point about thrown weapons and @GMMichael's about potential ableism, I end up feeling that WotC's wording is - however clunky it looks on surface - a reasonable place to have landed.

The only mechanically worrying case I can think of is dual-sword-and-board, or dual-throwing-axe-and-board. Annoying to keep track of all the drawing, dropping or throwing, and resultant weapon locations, unattractive to imagine (a matter of taste), and possibly overshadowing other options.
 

GMMichael

Guide of Modos
It doesn't seem particularly plausible that WotC had that in mind. The example they give in the text goes against it, and the retained labels are at best horribly misleading if that were their intent. Do you know anywhere that they directly allude to it?
No direct allusions - that's why I'm just suspecting. But they've scrubbed cultural references, religious references, race references, and co-workers from the game, so why not scrub ableism, too? There was this, after all:

 

Horwath

Legend
"Appealing play" sounds pretty subjective.

Note that "cleave" no longer means "cleave," so why should "dual wield" mean "dual wield?"

Your insistence that a dual weapon must be in another hand doesn't take into account the needs and feelings of mono-handed people. (Which I suspect is where WotC was going with this one.)
if someone is missing a hand there is always options with "pata swords" or any kind of weapon strapped to the forearm.
 

Xeviat

Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Thrown weapons is a great call-out. I'll need to reflect more on that. Thinking about @GMMichael's speculation about what may have motivated wordings, it seems quite possible that WotC had thrown weapons in mind.


Can you post them here?
Certainly!

FIGHTING WITH TWO WEAPONS
When you take the Attack Action and make an attack with a light weapon in one hand, you can make an additional attack with your other hand and a different weapon as part of the same action. Your off-hand attack does not add your ability modifier to damage, unless it is negative. If you have Extra Attack, you can make this off-hand attack with each additional attack. You cannot use your weapon mastery ability with your off-hand attacks.

(Note: unarmed attacks are light weapons at my table. This TWFing attack doesn't stack with monk martial arts attacks. Also, the dagger has a new property that allows it to be wielded as an off-hand weapon alongside a one-handed non-heavy weapon, allowing for the likes of rapier+dagger).

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
Fighting Style feat
When you fight with two weapons, your weapons can be any one-handed, non-heavy weapons.

(This makes the damage bonus equivalent to duelist’s +2, going from 1d6 to 1d8 weapons.)

DUAL WIELDER
General Feat
+1 Str or Dex
When you fight with two weapons, you are able to use the weapon mastery feature with your off-hand attacks. Additionally, you may add your Str modifier (or Dex modifier if the weapon is finesse) to your off-hand weapon damage rolls.

This is a comparable damage increase as Great Weapon Mastery's add proficiency to damage. Extra mastery procs is balanced against bonus action attacks, hopefully.

NICK
Removing the Nick property from 1d6 weapons. Nick changed to allowing TWFing when paired with a one-handed weapon, like rapier/dagger.
 

Remove ads

Top