Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 9593134" data-attributes="member: 6799660">I think they are both sub-optimal. The primary advantages of twf w/ Dual Wielder over PAM are that is compliments Dex and can be stacked on top of Nick-based off-hand attack. Otherwise it is inferior (as it should be). Both of them struggle with the limited number of situations where you can get enough per-attack damage-stacking to make the bonus-action attack worth the expenditure and not have to move your hex or hunter's mark around every other round -- divine favor paladin or raging barb (especially after already taking GWM) might be the the optimal answers (although both lose first round bonus actions, plus the alternate uses of their feats and bonus actions). Even with the improvements to 2wf Nick provides, I think it is mostly a labor of love to try to make work 'okay enough' for anyone except a rogue (who is mostly looking for at least one successful hit per round to proc their SA, and usually want to preserve their bonus action). Mage Slayer is indeed a good feat -- nearly over-tuned-- and rarely a bad choice. The only real downside it has is that it's marginal worth is dependent on how good you otherwise are at Int/Wis/Cha saves (it is the most benefit if those are low), yet you really can't rely on only one such save per short rest. There are a few feats (Mage Slayer and Mounted Combatant, as examples) that have really impressive benefits because of the innate limits they also come with. In the end, that is what is going to have to happen. The goal of the thought experiment was to get the bonus-action attack created by the feat, and have it be with the main hand (which would have the magic weapon, and dex to damage without selecting 2wf fighting style), while sacrificing the off-hand attack, which I could then exert no effort towards boosting (finding magic weapon, taking 2wf fighting style, etc.). There just doesn't seem to be a way to get that to happen.</blockquote>

Verification