D&D (2024) Dual Wielding

[Pauln6]

One of our players has been using two longswords since the 80s. It wasn't rules legal then, so I guess it's OK to let him carry on.

 

[Shardstone]

One of our players has been using two longswords since the 80s. It wasn't rules legal then, so I guess it's OK to let him carry on.

If a player ever wants to, though no one has taken me up on this offer yet, I have some custom materials that let you, with some investment, dual-wield greatswords ala FromSoft games. Hopefully a player will one day go into combat against me with two greatswords, one in each hand.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

If you only attack once, topple won't add any damage.

Hopefully the rest of your team will be there too.

Graze is fine in empty-room no-advantage-from-teamwork DPR scenarios, I just don't see it being an attractive mastery.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

No one feels good rolling a 1 or 2 for damage. Knowing you'll at least do 3 damage, or 6 with a Greatsword, is nice. It feels like a strong baseline

It doesn't feel good, though... When you're rolling a d12, getting a 3 feels the same as a 1. It's only good for greatsword.

That said, I have already had a player pick Graze just to always do something, so with that one the feel seems to be there.

Does it apply to all damage?
I.e. smite, hunter's mark, Divine favor

Good point. Though TWF would get more out of those.

At least GWF still works with smite, so there is support for the archetypical Paladin look.

 

[Shardstone]

It's not, though. When you're rolling d12, getting a 3 feels the same as a 1. It's only good for greatsword.

Feels a lot better than getting a 1 or a 2. I've played with this mastrey and I prefer it. I know other people have, and this is not an opinion only I have espoused.

If it doesn't feel better to you, that's perfectly valid. Consistency in the art of game design is about creating something that many, not all, people can appreciate. There are things that are consistent in the game for others that are not for me, for example, showing that you'll rarely hit the mark 100% for any individual person. That's not a flaw in the design, that's your tastes diverging from the game's angle, and you wanting something different, which again is perfectly 100% valid.

 

[mellored]

Hopefully the rest of your team will be there too.

Graze is fine in empty-room no-advantage-from-teamwork DPR scenarios, I just don't see it being an attractive mastery.

If you have advantage from teamwork, topple adds 0 damage. (Though could still be good for positioning).

Also, topple is heavily affected by initiative order. The enemy could just stand back up before any ally goes. And delaying to after the enemy turn can be painful.

With teamwork, push is probably going to be best.

 

[Pauln6]

Well the discussion alone shows there are now options, which is more than fighters got previously.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hopefully the rest of your team will be there too.

Graze is fine in empty-room no-advantage-from-teamwork DPR scenarios, I just don't see it being an attractive mastery.

If you already have advantage from teamwork then ones like vex do even less. Nick is a given if you dual wield. But beyond that nothing else really does a lot either.

You could topple but your scenario already assumes advantage, so at most it’s just a movement restriction on an enemy already in melee with you. You could give them disadvantage on a single attack. Not great either. You could slow then but you are already in melee with them. You could use cleave, but it’s fairly situational. I think it leaves push which can be really good in some situations but those situations tend to be even more situational than cleaves.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Alright.

I still think it is (clearly) a nerf to Dual Wielder that you can't wield two non-Light weapons. I get that Nick requires the Light property, so for optimization purposes you would always want to have a light weapon in at least one hand. Personally, I think Nick should not be tied to the Light property, but that's another separate gripe.

I'm not seeing how that is a nerf.

Edit:

Here's how I would have written a 5.5e Dual Wielder feat.

Dual Wielder
Prerequisite: Must be proficient with at least one martial finesse weapon, and 4th level or possess the Weapon Mastery feature.

You may use the rules for dual wielding so long as both weapons have either the light or finesse property, and you can make the associated additional attack as part of the Attack action, rather than as a Bonus action. This allows you to use your Bonus action for something else, if you desire. Further, any finesse weapon you wield may use its normal mastery property, or Nick, but you can only make use of one mastery property each round, chosen when you attack with that weapon.

You also gain a +1 bonus to AC while wielding two one-handed weapons with either the light or finesse property, and any time you would be able to draw a weapon, you may draw two one-handed weapons, so long as each weapon has either the light or finesse property.

That is way too much. That gives a fourth attack, while dual-wielding rapiers, doesn't allow you to dual-wield other d8 weapons for some reason, allows you to still use Vex on the attacks, gives a +1 AC and gives a bonus to dexterity I assume.

I've already shown that GWM and Great Weapons does about 30 damage. This would be dealing 4d8+20 or 38 damage, while also giving advantage on some attacks and +1 AC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That is way to much for the feat, also remember that all of our feats give us a +1 to a stat like dex for this one.

The bonus for the dual weld feat has moved from welding 2 d8 weapons to having a 4th attack (assuming mastery) which is much better in my opinion. 2-3 bonus damage on average from the larger weapon to and extra 1d6 (possibly+modifier) damage is a vast improvement even if it does take your bonus action.

What we need is a rule on rapiers that state that if you wielding a dagger in your off hand the rapier counts as being light. How ever with how amazing defensive dualists is I would be using that and the great ac bump instead of the minor damage bump.

Honestly, I know it is modifying the rules instead of what was written, yadda yadda... but if I had a player who was truly desperate to use a Rapier and a dagger and treat them the same as using a shortsword and scimitar (because they have the same mastery properties)... I'd just let them. 2d8+2d4 =14 = 14 = 2d6+2d6. I see it as no different than just reflavoring the weapons, in this exact instance.