D&D (2024) Two Weapon Fighting and Nick article

[Pauln6]

Not sure what you're asking. If you don't want to add extra affects, you don't have to.

In the case we're talking about, it has to do with the Light Property. The Light Property allows you to make an off hand attack as a bonus action if you are wielding two Light weapons. So, a lvl 5 Fighter would have two attacks as part of his Attack action, and one attack as a bonus action with the off hand. Just like 2014 DND.

If you have the weapon Mastery over a weapon that grants Nick, then the Nick Weapon Mastery allows you to make the bonus action attack granted by the Light Property and makes it a part of the Attack Action. So that same Fighter, if he were using a scimitar and had Mastery over it, would make three attacks as part of his Attack Action, and still have a bonus action to use on something else.

And that's where the Dual Wielding Feat comes in. It allows a SEPERATE Bonus Action attack, distinct from the one granted by the Light Property. So if you have mastery over Scimitar's, and are wielding two weapons, That same Fighter can then make 3 attacks as part of their action and another one with their bonus action.

Most classes don't get Masteries, however. Just predominantly martial ones, unless they take a Feat.

Nick only applies to d6 or d4 weapons though? So this is just a way to even up damage dealt if people want to use iconic smaller weapons?

 

[mellored]

Nick only applies to d6 or d4 weapons though?

Yes.
And you need a second d4 or d6 weapon to trigger it.
And no +mod by default.

Except for monks who can scale it to a d12. But they don't get it by default.

So this is just a way to even up damage dealt if people want to use iconic smaller weapons?

Yes, basically.

A Maul will do 2d6+3
Nick will total 1d6+3 then 1d6.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Oh boy! This is exactly the sort of gamey nonsense I don't want to deal with in my game.

The concept of masteries is fine in itself, but this weapon swapping silliness is really off-putting.

And I don't think most of the masteries themselves are that interesting. Most of them are just some DPR bonus in one way or another. Push is definitely most fun and evocative.

 

[tglassy]

Oh boy! This is exactly the sort of gamey nonsense I don't want to deal with in my game.

The concept of masteries is fine in itself, but this weapon swapping silliness is really off-putting.

And I don't think most of the masteries themselves are that interesting. Most of them are just some DPR bonus in one way or another. Push is definitely most fun and evocative.

I played a Sea Elf Eldritch Knight play testing the new Eldritch Knight last fall. He bonded a Trident, so he could summon it back to his hand as a bonus action after throwing it, getting two throws in the first round while he closed the distance between him and his targets for the second round.

Eventually he got a Nine Lives Stealer Greatsword, which has Graze, doing 5 damage on a miss. It's not a whole lot, but it is reliable. He couldn't do less than 10 damage in a round, and did a whole lot more when he hit.

It was amazing. One of the most effective damage dealers I've ever played. Trident has Topple, so every time he hit, the target went prone. Knocking Hobgoblins off their horses was so much fun.

And that's just the two I wound up playing with. With Vex on a Rapier, the Rogue has a new way of gaining advantage. Nick makes two weapon fighting viable for once. And yeah, Push looks like a riot. I can just see a dwarf with a Warhammer knocking everyone left and right.

 

[Thommy H-H]

Oh boy! This is exactly the sort of gamey nonsense I don't want to deal with in my game.

The concept of masteries is fine in itself, but this weapon swapping silliness is really off-putting.

Well, luckily for you, it's not really possible in the way the article in the OP describes, and even the version of it that is possible is barely worth the effort! As mentioned above, it just means PCs aren't penalised for using previously "sub optimal" weapons.

 

[tglassy]

I guess I haven't commented on the weapon swapping part of this.

Yeah, a buddy of mine figured out how that works a while back. Having a longsword, scimitar and short sword, swapping things out to make sure you got two extra attacks instead of one. And with a Fighter having access to so many attacks, yeah, you really could do some crazy things with it.

I likely wouldn't bother doing so with my characters, cause it just feels like a lot, but I wouldn't really mind it if I had a player do it. Probably because all the people I run games for wouldn't have the patience to set it up. The worst I would do would be to have a dagger on hand, besides my Scimitar and short sword, that I could throw if I suddenly needed a ranged attack. It's tempting to grab a rapier or longsword with the Dual Wielder Feat, but then it gets tricky on how to activate every extra attack, and it looks silly, and aesthetics are a big one for me.

 

[mellored]

While I still haven't see the final rules in the book. The official article makes the RAI clear.

You need a weapon in each hand. No 1-hand swapping shenanigans.

"When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding."

 

[roguish]

While I still haven't see the final rules in the book. The official article makes the RAI clear.

You need a weapon in each hand. No 1-hand swapping shenanigans.

"When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding."

Oh great, the article is different than the book. Love their attention to detail!

D&D Beyond: "[Light] still functions the same way: When you make an attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can use a Bonus Action to make one attack with a different Light weapon you’re wielding. The Nick mastery property allows you to make the additional attack you receive from wielding two Light weapons as part of the initial attack action."

PHB 2024: "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. [...] Nick: When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn."

Notable words missing from the PHB: "you're wielding". So by RAW you don't actually have to be wielding the second weapon at the time of the first attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

What's wrong with this? These are weapon combos, like a fighting game. I think this is sick, and I'm glad WotC designed it this way. I'd rather be able to come up with fun combos with weapon masteries (which means creating my OWN masteries can open up MORE combos) then the boring combat of 2014.

Till you realize you are doing the same sequence every round

It won’t be any less boring. It might be more interesting at character creation.

 

[Shardstone]

Till you realize you are doing the same sequence every round

It won’t be any less boring. It might be more interesting at character creation.

So, my argument is through a perspective of "I can create more content for my games." Through this lens, what's important to me is the quality of the foundation more so then the comprehensive nature of the first party rules.

Because of this, I can (and have) create a suite of weapon masteries and more weapons, thus allowing for a number of combos. And, of course, not every combo is always the most optimal choice; dual-wielding weapons allows you to cover a range of edge cases once the dual-wielder feat comes into play.

So, you're totally correct that just using the PHB won't lead to the huge diversity my post implies. However, homebrewers and third party designers like myself now have a better foundation to build material off of to create the kinds of games we want to see. That's what I like about 2024 the most; it is a better foundation then 2014 for people that share my lens.