D&D (2024) Dual Wielding

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not seeing how that is a nerf.



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.

I built it off of the original, un-nerfed one. What more do you want from me? It gave +1 AC while dual-wielding. It allowed you to use the full dual-wielding rules--which now includes the use of Nick, since everyone has such a bugaboo about that--while wielding two non-light weapons.

If you don't like that, take it up with WotC.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A lot of people are really focusing too much on the math, which is an amateur mistake in game design. What matters is the feel more so than the math, with the math still being important of course, but the feel has to be "right."

Great Weapon Master: When you make an attack with a Melee weapon that you are holding with two hands, you can treat any 1 or 2 on a damage die as 3. The weapon must have the Two-Handed or Versatile weapon property to gain this benefit.

^ This is good design because it makes the weapons feel better. 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 and to a lot of people, that is valuable -- more so then having +2 damage (which achieves the same thing but isn't as pleasing as knowing those 1's and 2's are actually 3's).

There is an art to game design as much as there is a science. Consistency and feeling good are part of that art. WotC doesn't always achieve this, but here, they 100% did.

While true, that doesn't mean I'm not annoyed by the math showing it to be weak.

My current homebrew for it allows to double strength mod (I altered Polearm master to account for this), maybe going forward I'll just say the minimum result is 3 or your prof mod, whichever is higher, so it builds up to 4/5/6 over time.

Which, honestly isn't that broken, it just makes them consistent, since the average of most great weapons is 5.5, 6.5, or 7

Edit: Dang it, polearm master. That's the issue. To die max? I hate adding more text than is really needed...

Edit: Edit: Maybe just make it a minimum of 4 and call it day. That's probably closer to the +2 mark I'd shoot for, doesn't mess up Polearm master, and rolling a 4 on a d12 isn't the worst.

 

[Shardstone]

While true, that doesn't mean I'm not annoyed by the math showing it to be weak.

My current homebrew for it allows to double strength mod (I altered Polearm master to account for this), maybe going forward I'll just say the minimum result is 3 or your prof mod, whichever is higher, so it builds up to 4/5/6 over time.

Which, honestly isn't that broken, it just makes them consistent, since the average of most great weapons is 5.5, 6.5, or 7

Edit: Dang it, polearm master. That's the issue. To die max? I hate adding more text than is really needed...

Edit: Edit: Maybe just make it a minimum of 4 and call it day. That's probably closer to the +2 mark I'd shoot for, doesn't mess up Polearm master, and rolling a 4 on a d12 isn't the worst.

3 or your prof is a great idea, I sign off on that one.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I built it off of the original, un-nerfed one. What more do you want from me? It gave +1 AC while dual-wielding. It allowed you to use the full dual-wielding rules--which now includes the use of Nick, since everyone has such a bugaboo about that--while wielding two non-light weapons.

If you don't like that, take it up with WotC.

Yeah, you built it off a version that didn't include nick or the changes to general feats. I was also upset that this new version didn't give +1 AC, but the OLD version of Dual-Wielder only took your damage from 3d6+15 (25.5) to 3d8+15 (28.5). That was a minor change, so the increase to AC was warranted. This version takes you from 3d6+15 (25.5) to 4d6+20 (34) which is a MASSIVE buff to your damage. And it increases the dex mod, which might also give a +1 AC depending on the character. Along with everything else connected to Dex.

And again, you haven't explained why going from 28.5 damage to 34 damage is a NERF. It isn't. I can't think of a single scenario where this new version is worse, except if you had a 20 Dex and the old version would have given you a +1 AC... and even then I'll take the extra 5.5 damage per turn.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, you built it off a version that didn't include nick or the changes to general feats. I was also upset that this new version didn't give +1 AC, but the OLD version of Dual-Wielder only took your damage from 3d6+15 (25.5) to 3d8+15 (28.5). That was a minor change, so the increase to AC was warranted. This version takes you from 3d6+15 (25.5) to 4d6+20 (34) which is a MASSIVE buff to your damage. And it increases the dex mod, which might also give a +1 AC depending on the character. Along with everything else connected to Dex.

And again, you haven't explained why going from 28.5 damage to 34 damage is a NERF. It isn't. I can't think of a single scenario where this new version is worse, except if you had a 20 Dex and the old version would have given you a +1 AC... and even then I'll take the extra 5.5 damage per turn.

Well, you'll note I wanted this to be a first-level feat...so it wouldn't increase Dexterity.

As for the nerf, it's exactly what I have kept saying it is.

I want to be able to wield two non-light weapons, while being able to benefit from the things that light weapons give. That's what Dual Wielder was all about. Wielding two non-light weapons, but getting to do the things that wielding two light weapons let you do.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Well, you'll note I wanted this to be a first-level feat...so it wouldn't increase Dexterity.

Yeah, that is utterly bonkers broken for an Origin Feat.

As for the nerf, it's exactly what I have kept saying it is.

I want to be able to wield two non-light weapons, while being able to benefit from the things that light weapons give. That's what Dual Wielder was all about. Wielding two non-light weapons, but getting to do the things that wielding two light weapons let you do.

Okay, so you see it as a conceptual nerf. I don't, because the original let you do "all the things light weapons do" which was... make a bonus action attack. That was it. That was all light weapons did. And frankly, conceptually, it always felt like upgrading your dual-wielding. Your actual gameplay didn't change, you just got a +1 to damage on each hit.

And seeing this feat as an upgrade to dual-wielding, which is how I thought of the original feat.... that is exactly what this does. If I'm dual-wielding, I'm already planning on using Nick. It is just really good (and I feel better than Vex). And this feat allows me to upgrade that into a full extra attack.

 

[Pauln6]

Yeah, that is utterly bonkers broken for an Origin Feat.



Okay, so you see it as a conceptual nerf. I don't, because the original let you do "all the things light weapons do" which was... make a bonus action attack. That was it. That was all light weapons did. And frankly, conceptually, it always felt like upgrading your dual-wielding. Your actual gameplay didn't change, you just got a +1 to damage on each hit.

And seeing this feat as an upgrade to dual-wielding, which is how I thought of the original feat.... that is exactly what this does. If I'm dual-wielding, I'm already planning on using Nick. It is just really good (and I feel better than Vex). And this feat allows me to upgrade that into a full extra attack.

I agree, giving 3 attacks at level 1 would be broken. Is it still over-powered if if you ignore nick though and just wield two non-light weapons? You would be increasing your damage by 2 points if wielding two rapiers or two longswords and you still have to use your bonus action to get your second attack.

I noticed that A5E allows anyone to wield a non-light weapon in one hand already, instead specifying which weapons can be used in the off-hand with the 'dual wield ' property.

 

[mellored]

I agree, giving 3 attacks at level 1 would be broken. Is it still over-powered if if you ignore nick though and just wield two non-light weapons? You would be increasing your damage by 2 points if wielding two rapiers or two longswords and you still have to use your bonus action to get your second attack.

1d6 +3+1d6
Is the same as
2d6+3 maul

And most classes can add a little extra with rage, hunter mark, or a fighting style.

 

[Pauln6]

1d6 +3+1d6
Is the same as
2d6+3 maul

And most classes can add a little extra with rage, hunter mark, or a fighting style.

Yes but I meant in the context of the dual wielder feat at level 1, which could grant the to 3d6+9.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How bizarre…

They needed it so you could open doors. But object interaction no longer has anything to do with drawing or stowing weapons.

Another thing that is being overlooked in the shenanigans is that DROPPING a weapon now has the same action economy as sheathing it. It's not free. It's once as part of your attack with the attack action.