Dual Wielder feat: Its a trap!

[Malifice]

Why would anyone (other than fluff) ever take this feat?

It is a total trap feat in almost every scenario possible. It gives no bonuses to hit, only lets you increase your attacks damage by (on average) 1 point per hit over what you could do anyways (d6 to d8), and adds +1 to your AC. You get the marginal benefit of drawing both weapons at once.

Dex based TWF characters should clearly just stick with using two shortswords and boosting Dex till it hits 20 first. Every Dex boost gets you +1 to hit and damage on all your attacks, and to your AC, initiative, Dex saves and all your Dex skills. Only when Dex is maxed would you want to take the DW feat, and even then I would take Lucky, Alert or Resilient any day of the week over the feats negligble benefits.

Even a (subotimal) Str based TWFer (probably only a Barbarian) would arguably be better just boosting Strength (+1 hit and damage on all attacks, Str saves, Str skills - read: athletics). As you advance in level and gain more main hand attacks, the STR boost becomes more important, and the simple dice increase on the off hand attack less so.

Im struggling to see any real mathmatical reason to take this feat unless youve maxed out your attacking stat and really really want an extra point of AC and damage per round in exchange for +2 to your ability scores or a far better feat.

I'm totally considering allowing it to add +1 to Dex in addition to its normal benefits, or allowing some kind of extra bonus action/ reaction trick it may allow (a parry as a reaction or rend if both attacks hit or something).

Am I missing something here? As written its worse than Charger. If im right, what to do to fix it, and make it worth it over the ASI? I considered allowing an additonal attack at a certain Prof bonus, but even then no-one will take it till their Prof bonus is that high.

[JNAProductions]

Dual-Wielding Lances while riding a panther is a very nice use of it.

However, without abusing that little trick, yeah. It's rather shoddy.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Yeah, it's not great. It's another reason for me to hate how weapons are handled in DnD. Mechanically, it's better to ask your DM to let you refluff your shortswords as longswords (or whatever). I've met with a surprising amount of resistance for that though. >_> Which is why I haven't really bothered with TWF in my games yet.

I dunno. I guess it's nice to be able to draw both weapons when you'd normally be allowed to only draw one, but that seems like a silly restriction for people without the feat anyway.

[archaeo]

Im struggling to see any real mathmatical reason to take this feat?

Unless somebody comes up with a really clear explanation of how this ends up working out as a net positive, you're probably right; Dual Wielder is mostly non-math benefits. I imagine that in some campaigns, particularly those with a surplus of non-light one-handed weapons and a DM with a penchant for paying attention to drawing and sheathing rules, those fluffy bonuses will be impactful, and at Dex 20, a +1 AC isn't awful.

While I'll totally concede that Dual Wielder is probably never optimal, how far behind does one really fall?


Im totally considering allowing it to add +1 to Dex in addition to its normal benefits, or allowing some kind of extra bonus action/ reaction trick it may allow (a parry as a reaction or rend if both attacks hit or something).

I think the parry thing is ok, but I'd def. not do the +1 Dex bonus; finding some kind of mathy bonus that isn't a direct attribute bonus seems like a good idea for the weapon feats.

[Malifice]

Mechanically, it's better to ask your DM to let you refluff your shortswords as longswords (or whatever). I've met with a surprising amount of resistance for that though.

Take a level of Monk. Explain to your DM that you practice tàijíquán (t'ai chi). Refluff handaxes or shortswords to Jians. Point to P78 of the PHB where this is expressly allowed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Jian_%28sword%29.jpg

Go crouching tiger hidden dragon on things.



I think the parry thing is ok, but I'd def. not do the +1 Dex bonus; finding some kind of mathy bonus that isn't a direct attribute bonus seems like a good idea for the weapon feats.

Yeah, but I dont want to step on defensive duelist's toes.

Allowing an opportunity attack to be made with both weapons as a single reaction perhaps?

[Tenmujiin]

rapier and shortsword

RaW you can't dual wield a rapier at all without the feat. BOTH weapons have to be light. I'd allow a rapier and dagger personally since you net the same damage output as 2 d6 weapons but even that isn't RaW.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Dex based TWF characters should clearly just stick with using a rapier and shortsword and boosting Dex till it hits 20 first.

Small nit-pick, but to use TWF without the feat, both weapons need to be light. Dual shortswords or scimitars is as good as it gets.

Edit: Ninja'd

[Magic Myrmidon]

Take a level of Monk. Explain to your DM that you practice tàijíquán (t'ai chi). Refluff handaxes or shortswords to Jians. Point to P78 of the PHB where this is expressly allowed.

Go crouching tiger hidden dragon on things.

That's what confuses (and frankly, frustrates) me. I don't wanna HAVE to take a level of monk to just say my weapon is something else, with no actual change in the rules. I feel like that section of the book suggests that all weapons can easily be refluffed, go ahead, just do it. Strangely, I've had an easier time asking for a weapon that isn't in the book while using the stats of one that is. What, because a weapon is listed in the book, it's suddenly a special case?

But this is getting off topic, and I'm not sure who I'm arguing with. :smallredface:

[DireSickFish]

If you start as human or already have your attack stat at 20 is when you would take this feat.

[D.U.P.A.]

Still effectively it gives you 2 fighting style benefits, Defense as +1 to AC when wielding two weapons and Duelist by increasing each weapon's by one die, which could translate +1 point of damage using the averages. And with proper class having dual wield fighting style. So definitely a worthy feat if you plan go dual wielding in your career.

[Malifice]

If you start as human or already have your attack stat at 20 is when you would take this feat.

Which kind of sucks. Even then I am not sure that +1 to damage and +1 to AC is worth it. A straight Dex bump gets you all that and more.

It would be nice if it allowed a special ability (Rend: if you hit with your main weapon and off hand weapon attack, you deal extra 1d6 points of weapon damage with one of those attacks?)

[JNAProductions]

You know, I actually made a Prestige Class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409635-Two-Weapon-Master-Prestige-Class-PEACH) that included parts of Dual Wielder as class features.

[Easy_Lee]

This bothers me as well. TWF is sub optimal for literally every class, as there are better options available via feats or fighting styles.

My proposed update is this: with the dual wielder feat, once per turn, you may make a single attack roll with both held weapons in place of an attack, combining the weapons' damage die. If both weapons have an enhancement bonus to attack, use only the higher bonus. You may be use a bonus action to make an attack this turn.

What that does is allow players to get some benefit out of dual wielding on rounds when they want to conserve their bonus action, and also allows users to opportunity attack with both weapons using a single attack roll. Notably, it doesn't increase the damage one can do on their turn, and increases reaction damage by a maximum of 1d8+extra weapon effects. This would be particularly beneficial to rogues, rangers, and bards who have plenty of uses for their bonus action besides weapon attacks. The limitation of being unable to use another attack on the same turn prevents abuse by favored souls, warlocks, and similar.

[archaeo]

TWF is sub optimal for literally every class, as there are better options available via feats or fighting styles.

I think maybe my question got missed upthread, but I'm still curious; how far behind are we really talking? It's one thing if your average damage just gets totally wrecked with TWF, but if it's just a handful of average DPR, it's likely to be lost in the shuffle for most players.

[DireSickFish]

Which kind of sucks. Even then I am not sure that +1 to damage and +1 to AC is worth it. A straight Dex bump gets you all that and more.

It would be nice if it allowed a special ability (Rend: if you hit with your main weapon and off hand weapon attack, you deal extra 1d6 points of weapon damage with one of those attacks?)

It is inferior, that's why you take it once the main stat is at 20. It is also the only way at that point to increase your combat effectiveness with a feat if you are a dual wielder. You could take another feat to give you more hit points, or move further or whatever but besides Savage Attacker I don't know what feat you'd compare it to for increase in effectiveness as a dual wielder.

[coredump]

Not saying the feat nor the style is going to take over the world, but...

Variant humans can't take the Dex boost at first level, so if going TWF, the feat makes some sense.
Non-human fighters will hit Dex 20 by level 6, so you can take the feat at lvl 8 when you can't boost Dex anymore.
By level 5, you are getting +3 damage per round (+1 each, 3 attacks)
For you dagger throwers, it now allows you to draw and throw 2 daggers a round, every round.
Not many other ways to increase AC at that point.

[Malifice]

I think maybe my question got missed upthread, but I'm still curious; how far behind are we really talking? It's one thing if your average damage just gets totally wrecked with TWF, but if it's just a handful of average DPR, it's likely to be lost in the shuffle for most players.

For a Dex based TWFer you gain +1 average damage per attack, and +1 AC, and only when dual wielding.

Just boosting Dex instead gets you +1 to hit and damage on all your attacks (including ranged attacks), and +1 to your AC, initiative, Dex saves and all your Dex skills.

Its like increasing your Dex, but far worse.

If the extra point of damage and AC is important when Dex is maxed you might want to take the DW feat, but even then I hazard a guess most would take Lucky, Alert or Resilient over the feats fairly negligble benefits.

As it stands the feat cant mathmatically make you a better dual weilder than if you simply bumped your stats (which also results in you striking quicker, and more accurately, with a wider range of weapons, and having better skills and saves to boot); unless your stats are already maxed at which point the benefits are reasonably negligble.

I could handle this discrepancy if it also gave you a cool trick to pull off in addtion to simply allowing dual drawing of weapons, and I cant see how the game would suffer from it.

[Easy_Lee]

I think maybe my question got missed upthread, but I'm still curious; how far behind are we really talking? It's one thing if your average damage just gets totally wrecked with TWF, but if it's just a handful of average DPR, it's likely to be lost in the shuffle for most players.

It depends on the class and build, but in general:
if you get a fighting style dueling is better for the Shield bonus and retained bonus attack, along with the option to take shield mastery a great weapon with GWM is better for the better damage and option to take - 5 hit and +10 damage. GWF style adds about 2 damage per hit, average, due to rerolling 1s and 2s, while also working exceptionally well with crits and other sources of bonus damage die.
archery is better for the higher accuracy, range, equal number of attacks if one takes the crossbow expert feat in place of dual wielder, and option to pick up sharpshooter
If you don't get a fighting style, crossbow expert or polearm mastery are better since they add a bonus attack with attribute damage, along with the other benefits associated with their weapon types and feats. And great weapon mastery is better for all of the same reasons.

Edit: these things are in addition to what Malifice said, that the feat is flatly inferior to +2 DEX, making it a poor choice to begin with.

[noce]

My take at the feat:

+1 AC while dual wielding
you can dual wield non-light melee weapons
you can draw/stow two weapons
if you're fighting with two weapons and both are light, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with your off-hand weapon, instead of just one.


This way a lvl 5 toon with extra attack would do 4*(1d6 + dex) with action + bonus action.
Compare it with polearm master and it still seems a little lacking.

[DireSickFish]

Oh I forgot a scenario: You have magic weapons that are larger than can be dual wielded.

If you are strength based dual weidler and have two +1 longswords or what have you. Being able to use multiple magic weapons is great.

It shouldn't be better or the same as getting 2 points in dex. As it has the advantage of being able to go on top of dexterity. It has opportunity cost and the situations which it should be taken are few, but the bonuses are good in those situations.

[Easy_Lee]

My take at the feat:

+1 AC while dual wielding
you can dual wield non-light melee weapons
you can draw/stow two weapons
if you're fighting with two weapons and both are light, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with your off-hand weapon, instead of just one.


This way a lvl 5 toon with extra attack would do 4*(1d6 + dex) with action + bonus action.
Compare it with polearm master and it still seems a little lacking.

I take issue to a feat that allows one to mimic a 20 fighter's greatsword damage output, minus 4d6, by level 5-8. I've tried to find ways to incorporate another attack into two Weapon Fighting and haven't found a single one that doesn't break the math. Consider that a level 5 ranger with hoard breaker, using your feat, could make 5 attacks in one standard round.

[Ziegander]

The best idea here, I think, is once per round you may attack with both weapons as a single attack. Now, this does allow the weird situation where, at 1st level you use the feat to attack once with your main-hand and off-hand combined, and then spend your bonus action to attack with your main-hand, but once you get your Extra Attack, it all evens out.

At 5th level, the best you'd be looking at is 3d8+15 damage + 1d8+5 damage with bonus action, an average of 38 damage vs a Greatsword Fighter's damage (w/GWF and the GWM feat) sitting at 4d6+10 which averages to 26.66, but with the bonus action attack from GWM that brings it up to 39.99, and if the Greatsword Fighter can connect at -5 to hit, then his damage skyrockets up to 69.99.

This baseline ebb and flow pattern stays relatively the same all the way to 20th level, where a 20th level Dual Wielder outdamages the Great Weapon Master only when the GWM gets no benefit from his feat. To me, this seems fair and balanced. The GWM is a little more swingy, the Dual Wielder is a little more reliable, but both have their advantages, and both have an equal opportunity cost.

[Easy_Lee]

The best idea here, I think, is once per round you may attack with both weapons as a single attack. Now, this does allow the weird situation where, at 1st level you use the feat to attack once with your main-hand and off-hand combined, and then spend your bonus action to attack with your main-hand, but once you get your Extra Attack, it all evens out.

My main issues with retaining the bonus attack while still being able to make a double attack are:

The early damage, particularly on a level 1 variant human fighter with the feat, is too high. 3d8+6 is better than one should achieve at that level.
It opens up magic weapon and poison shenanigans to get extra swings in a given round (an attack with two weapons is two swings with one attack roll and modifier)

This would make dual wield superior to great weapon fighting on virtually everyone besides a level 11+ Fighter. Since more gameplay happens at low levels, rather than high, I don't think that would be good for the game. In fact, I suspect that reason alone was why WotC was okay with the current state of dual wield.

[Rhaegar14]

You know, this whole topic just kind of makes me want to know why every D&D design team seems to hate two-weapon fighting. I can't think of a single edition where it's mechanically valid to use two weapons simply because you want to. Even 4e isn't great, since it's limited to Ranger or Tempest Fighter (you can argue Whirling Barbarian but the best Barbarian at-will still requires a two-handed weapon).

[Ziegander]

My main issues with retaining the bonus attack while still being able to make a double attack are:

The early damage, particularly on a level 1 variant human fighter with the feat, is too high. 3d8+6 is better than one should achieve at that level.
It opens up magic weapon and poison shenanigans to get extra swings in a given round (an attack with two weapons is two swings with one attack roll and modifier)

This would make dual wield superior to great weapon fighting on virtually everyone besides a level 11+ Fighter. Since more gameplay happens at low levels, rather than high, I don't think that would be good for the game. In fact, I suspect that reason alone was why WotC was okay with the current state of dual wield.

I agree at first level, it's REAL high, for sure. But I demonstrated that it evens out by 5th level, and from there it remains relatively even. I don't even think that magic weapons AND poison combined together make up the difference all that much.

[Totema]

At 5th level, the best you'd be looking at is 3d8+15 damage + 1d8+5 damage with bonus action, an average of 38 damage vs a Greatsword Fighter's damage (w/GWF and the GWM feat) sitting at 4d6+10 which averages to 26.66, but with the bonus action attack from GWM that brings it up to 39.99, and if the Greatsword Fighter can connect at -5 to hit, then his damage skyrockets up to 59.99.Maybe I'm just a bit ignorant to the math involved, but I'm not sure how this version is better balanced than allowing the extra attack with the offhand weapon. Instead of 3d8+15 + 1d8+5, we're looking at 2d8+10 + 2d8+10. And unless I'm mistaken... that's the same. Could you explain?

[Icewraith]

Is it a bigger deal at first level than a human with Heavy Armor Master? DR 3 is pretty strong there, whereas the increased damage just means you one-shot kobolds EVEN HARDER.

[Boci]

This bothers me as well. TWF is sub optimal for literally every class, as there are better options available via feats or fighting styles.

Even rogues? What would a melee rogue go for? Rapier fencing? Or are you comparing it to a ranged weapon?

[Easy_Lee]

Is it a bigger deal at first level than a human with Heavy Armor Master? DR 3 is pretty strong there, whereas the increased damage just means you one-shot kobolds EVEN HARDER.

Heavy armor mastery quickly becomes a weak choice as high damage and unaffected damage types both become more common. TWF getting an extra attack scales up with magic weapons, weapons with additional effects, spells like elemental weapon, and poison, in addition to making TWF convincingly the best style at early levels when we consider that it would do the most damage and have +1 AC to boot.

So yeah, I would say it's a bigger deal.

[noce]

I take issue to a feat that allows one to mimic a 20 fighter's greatsword damage output, minus 4d6, by level 5-8. I've tried to find ways to incorporate another attack into two Weapon Fighting and haven't found a single one that doesn't break the math. Consider that a level 5 ranger with hoard breaker, using your feat, could make 5 attacks in one standard round.

At level 20, a ranger with horde breaker and my dual wield feat does:
action: 2 * (1d6 + 5) = 17 average
bonus action: 2 * (1d6 + 5) = 17 average
horde breaker: 1d6 + 5 (if there's another enemy nearby) = 8.5 average
Total damage using mundane weapons and no spells, with 20 dexterity is: 42.5

A 20 fighter with 20 strength, a mundane greatsword and great weapon fighting style does:
action: 4 * ("2d6" + 5) = 4 * (8.33 + 5) = 53.33 average damage

In this example, a fighter does 25.5% more damage than a ranger, without using his bonus action and without spending a feat.


Point buy example: ranger level 5 with 17 dexterity and fighter level 5 with 17 strength and polearm master, against a single opponent.
Ranger: 4*(1d6 + 3) = 26 average damage (horde breaker doesn't apply)
Fighter: 2*("1d10" + 3) + "1d4" + 3 = 24.6 average damage (including great weapon style)

In this example, ranger deals 5.7% more damage than fighter, but fighter triggers more attacks of opportunity.

It still seems pretty balanced to me.

[Person_Man]

In defense of the Dual Wielder Feat, IF your DM gives you two magic weapons that aren't both Light, AND you can't use them without this Feat, AND your DM doesn't give you other magic items that require Attunement that you would prefer, THEN it would be an ok idea to take.

This is a very, very rare/corner case. But I've seen it happen in 3.X/PF games. DM hands out particular (sometimes randomly generated) treasure, and then players shape their build around using it.

Having said that, I agree with the general consensus that it is a subpar Feat.

My preferred fix is:



You may draw and/or stow any two items a free action during your turn. (Allowing you to draw/stow potions or other magic items without having to drop stuff more easily, not just weapons)
+1 AC when not using a shield or a weapon with the Two Handed or Heavy property. (Benefits a Monk or someone who wants to use just 1 weapon without a shield)
Any weapon you wield that does not have the Two Handed or Heavy property counts as a Light and Finesse weapon when it is beneficial to do so. (Lets a Rogue use a greater variety of weapons)
Your unarmed strike counts as a Light and Finesse weapon when it is beneficial to do so. (Lets people attack with Unarmed Strike using Dex without being a Monk, and makes Rogue/Monk more viable).

[Rhaegar14]

Even rogues? What would a melee rogue go for? Rapier fencing? Or are you comparing it to a ranged weapon?

A Rogue is usually better off using their bonus action for Cunning Action than getting an extra 3 damage from an off-hand weapon, though the second attack is nice to make sure they get their Sneak Attack damage if they miss with their main hand.

[Ziegander]

Maybe I'm just a bit ignorant to the math involved, but I'm not sure how this version is better balanced than allowing the extra attack with the offhand weapon. Instead of 3d8+15 + 1d8+5, we're looking at 2d8+10 + 2d8+10. And unless I'm mistaken... that's the same. Could you explain?

It's a teensy, weensy difference, but allowing a combined attack once per round means it can be used on a reaction attack if you chose not to do it on your own turn, a small difference, I know, but sometimes a meaningful one.

[Boci]

A Rogue is usually better off using their bonus action for Cunning Action than getting an extra 3 damage from an off-hand weapon, though the second attack is nice to make sure they get their Sneak Attack damage if they miss with their main hand.

Yeah, that's my point. And what's the alternative? Rapier gives +1 damage, but needing to miss twice as often to not get SA seems like its more reliable. Plus with assassinate its 2d6 extra damage in the surprise round. Still not too much, but potentially useful, although it does largely depend on how generous your DM is with hints on badly damaged an enemy is.

[Easy_Lee]

One thing nobody has addressed is that dual wielding means that spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon benefit you less than they would a polearm master, great weapon fighter, shield user, or bow user. A compete solution ought to take that into account.

My only issue with Person_man's change above is that, as a rogue, I would use it to wield a quarterstaff and pick up the polearm mastery feat, just because I enjoy thief acrobats. That wouldn't really have much to do with the name "dual wielder" though.

[Ziegander]

One thing nobody has addressed is that dual wielding means that spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon benefit you less than they would a polearm master, great weapon fighter, shield user, or bow user. A compete solution ought to take that into account.

My only issue with Person_man's change above is that, as a rogue, I would use it to wield a quarterstaff and pick up the polearm mastery feat, just because I enjoy thief acrobats. That wouldn't really have much to do with the name "dual wielder" though.

Oh, yeah, I think Person_Man's feat is okay, still really niche, but it certainly shouldn't be called Dual Wielder anymore.

[Naanomi]

The only build I have considered it for was dual wielding whips for a Combat Control focused Battle-Master. Still probably not 'optimal' overall, but it was applicable to what I was going for. More than I've ever been interested in taking Charger or Linguist

[Strill]

Still effectively it gives you 2 fighting style benefits, Defense as +1 to AC when wielding two weapons and Duelist by increasing each weapon's by one die, which could translate +1 point of damage using the averages. And with proper class having dual wield fighting style. So definitely a worthy feat if you plan go dual wielding in your career.

The fighting style would give +2 damage. It's one and a half fighting styles, which is probably why it's considered sub-par.

[Person_Man]

Oh, yeah, I think Person_Man's feat is okay, still really niche, but it certainly shouldn't be called Dual Wielder anymore.

How about "Niche Build Feat Requirement"?

[Easy_Lee]

How about "Niche Build Feat Requirement"?

I actually really like the feat idea, though not necessarily for dual wield, and might roll it into a form of Versatile Mastery:

Treat versatile weapons as having the light and finesse properties
Any time you have an open hand, you may make a second free object interaction on your turn
Whenever you take the Attack action and make a one-handed attack with a versatile weapon, you may make a two-handed attack with the same weapon as a bonus action during that turn. You have advantage on the bonus attack, but do not add your attribute modifier to its damage roll.

What do you think of that? You trade one damage on the one-handed attack and up to five on the bonus for one free source of advantage, which does not stack with any sources of advantage you already have due to advantage mechanics. That's a bit different from other weapon mastery feats, and encourages use of a single versatile weapon with an open hand, switching between one-handed and two-handed attacks with it on any given turn the way versatile weapons are meant to be used.

[Spacehamster]

It should make your offhand attack be part of your normal attack routine too, then it would be worth taking for a dualwielder. :)
let your bonus action be free for cunning action and the like. :)

[RulesJD]

This bothers me as well. TWF is sub optimal for literally every class, as there are better options available via feats or fighting styles.

My proposed update is this: with the dual wielder feat, once per turn, you may make a single attack roll with both held weapons in place of an attack, combining the weapons' damage die. If both weapons have an enhancement bonus to attack, use only the higher bonus. You may be use a bonus action to make an attack this turn.

What that does is allow players to get some benefit out of dual wielding on rounds when they want to conserve their bonus action, and also allows users to opportunity attack with both weapons using a single attack roll. Notably, it doesn't increase the damage one can do on their turn, and increases reaction damage by a maximum of 1d8+extra weapon effects. This would be particularly beneficial to rogues, rangers, and bards who have plenty of uses for their bonus action besides weapon attacks. The limitation of being unable to use another attack on the same turn prevents abuse by favored souls, warlocks, and similar.

False. TWF + Dual Wielding feat + rest in Monk levels + magical quarter staffs and daggers that do extra damage per hit.

Monk weapons = the damage die increases with level (turns a dagger into a Shortsword/Longsword/Polearm/Greataxe.

A level 5 monk with the Spider Staff + Dragon Tooth Dagger = dual-wielding greatswords. Combine with Stunning Strike for super damage off crits. Just take the feat at first level and you can max Dex by level 8. So at-will damage per round will be 3 attacks at: 2d6+5. As strong as a GWF/GWM Fighter/Paladin? Probably not, but still pretty damn strong when combined with the fun Monk tricks and automatically increasing damage die. By level 11 you average 3 attacks at 1d8+1d6+5 = 13 dmg * 3 = 39 average damage on three hits per round. Combine with 3 forced DC 15 Con saves or be stunned, and you have a terrifying melee combatant.

[Easy_Lee]

False. TWF + Dual Wielding feat + rest in Monk levels + magical quarter staffs and daggers that do extra damage per hit.

Monk weapons = the damage die increases with level (turns a dagger into a Shortsword/Longsword/Polearm/Greataxe.

A level 5 monk with the Spider Staff + Dragon Tooth Dagger = dual-wielding greatswords. Combine with Stunning Strike for super damage off crits. Just take the feat at first level and you can max Dex by level 8. So at-will damage per round will be 3 attacks at: 2d6+5. As strong as a GWF/GWM Fighter/Paladin? Probably not, but still pretty damn strong when combined with the fun Monk tricks and automatically increasing damage die. By level 11 you average 3 attacks at 1d8+1d6+5 = 13 dmg * 3 = 39 average damage on three hits per round. Combine with 3 forced DC 15 Con saves or be stunned, and you have a terrifying melee combatant.

I believe that you completely missed the parts of my post that said, "once per turn," and, "you cannot use a bonus action to make an attack this turn."

[Icewraith]

What about

"
You may draw or stow any two items as a free action on your turn.

You may treat any melee weapon that is not two-handed or heavy as having the light and finesse properties.

You gain +1 AC when not wearing a shield and either wielding two melee weapons or one melee weapon without the two-handed or heavy properties or that does not benefit from being classified as a "polearm", and one unarmed strike.

You may treat your unarmed strike as a light finesse weapon.

When you make an opportunity attack and qualify for the AC bonus granted by this feat, you may rend the target, adding your off-hand weapon damage dice and any weapon-specific rider effects (like poisons or the flaming enchantment) in addition to your normal main hand damage. Temporary bonuses to damage, such as those from the Elemental Weapon spell, may not be added more than once, but the attack has all the beneficial properties of both weapons (being treated as magic if either weapon is magical, for instance).

When you take the attack action and qualify for the AC bonus granted by this feat, you may either make one rending attack as described above OR make your normal attack(s) and attack with your off-hand weapon as a bonus action, adding your Str or Dex modifier to damage. If you have bonus attacks, you may instead use your bonus action to resolve all of your attack action attacks as rending attacks (You may still substitute a grapple or shove for an attack, but may not rend with that attack). You may make this decision after the results of your regular attack rolls are known, but before rolling for any damage."? Edit: If you have bonus attacks and choose to rend, but do not spend a bonus action to rend with all your attacks, only the first attack roll applies and the others are discarded.

The idea here is to do a number of things:

1: I like dual wielders being able to make opportunity attacks with both weapons (but not double dex mod to damage), even if they're not rogues.
2: I like dual wielders being able to rend (hit with both weapons on one attack roll) during their regular attack action to preserve their bonus action OR use their bonus action to get a second attack (they missed all/most of their attacks or missed their attack and are a rogue), but doing both looks like it adds too much damage. Having multiple attacks turns rending into free damage (instead of reducing the opportunity cost of always having your off-hand full) and encourages nasty combos/raises questions with bonus actions, so you can rend with all your attacks if you spend your bonus action.
3: I like Str users being able to dual-wield, and dual-wielding being viable for STR users. This should be pretty strong for high level fighters but Great Weapon should still beat it. I think.
4: This feat should be incompatible with the other weapon style feats. Dueling combat style might still be a problem as written, but even then you won't be able to use a shield.
5: Should keep the monk-rogue benefits mentioned earlier.

[RulesJD]

I believe that you completely missed the parts of my post that said, "once per turn," and, "you cannot use a bonus action to make an attack this turn."

I didn't miss it, it just has precisely zero to do with what I was pointing out was an incorrect statement on your part. There are builds where dual-wield and TWF are optimal. Limited, but they exist especially in the current adventures.

[Easy_Lee]

I didn't miss it, it just has precisely zero to do with what I was pointing out was an incorrect statement on your part. There are builds where dual-wield and TWF are optimal. Limited, but they exist especially in the current adventures.

Then you're going to have to post in a bit more detail exactly how you achieved the "dual greatswords" thing. You can't attack with two weapons at once, monks can't apply their unarmed damage die to anything but monk weapons, and unarmed damage die starts at a d4.

Also, you replied to my entire post and said "false." I have no idea what part of it you claim is false. I assume that it was the bolded section, which is still true, because we do not assume magic items when determining whether a thing is optimal. This is because the correct magic item will make any build "OP."

[Magic Myrmidon]

I see magic weapons brought up a lot in weapon style discussions, but that hardly seems fair to me. 5e doesn't have 3.5's magic mart, at least not without some effort put into things. It's not like a player can expect to get the specific item they need, at least not as easily as they used to. Indeed, magic items are entirely optional now. Having two magic weapons for a dual wielder doesn't really feel like a fair argument to put them on par with two handed weapons or the like.

[MrStabby]

Hmm. Interesting to read this. I kind of thought that this was as much to do with thrown weapons as anything else. You can draw and throw one and draw another to charge into melee with.

[Icewraith]

Hmm. Interesting to read this. I kind of thought that this was as much to do with thrown weapons as anything else. You can draw and throw one and draw another to charge into melee with.

Or you can charge into melee and hit something twice. If you only have one attack and you're built for charging into melee, why are you drawing and throwing something?

If things are out of range, draw and throw something on this turn, then next turn, draw something else and charge into melee.

If things are getting close and you don't want to lose an opportunity attack by not having a weapon ready on your next turn, but somehow the enemies aren't within charging distance, and you wouldn't rather just ready an action...

[coredump]

Or you can charge into melee and hit something twice. If you only have one attack and you're built for charging into melee, why are you drawing and throwing something?

If things are out of range, draw and throw something on this turn, then next turn, draw something else and charge into melee.
.Because now you can draw and throw *2* things this turn.
then draw and throw 2 things next turn
Then draw and fight with 2 things the next turn.

[coredump]

The discussion has morphed.

The OP is that the *Feat* is a trap.... which I think is false, the feat is pretty good, just not as good as getting your Dex to 20 first.

The other issue is if TWF is a decent style, or if its superceded by GWF and S/Sh

[Magic Myrmidon]

The discussion has morphed.

The OP is that the *Feat* is a trap.... which I think is false, the feat is pretty good, just not as good as getting your Dex to 20 first.

The other issue is if TWF is a decent style, or if its superceded by GWF and S/Sh

The problem might be that BOTH the feat and TWF are a bit underwhelming. For one, the feat is boring, and feels like a feat tax. A slight increase in die size isn't anything to get excited about, drawing both weapons is something I should be able to do already, and +1 AC, while good, isn't anything that makes my character particularly cool (usually).

As for TWF, I love the image of the style, but the mechanics in so many DnD type games is hard to work with. The rest of this topic has started to talk about that.

[Giant2005]

It might be a little OP, but what if the feat allowed you to use your proficiency bonus for attack and damage rolls in place of an ability mod?
At low levels it would probably be weaker but it has more potential and can lower a class's MADness. I think it is kind of thematic too - Dual Wielding always seemed like a style that required a lot more skill to pull off than physical ability.

[Safety Sword]

It might be a little OP, but what if the feat allowed you to use your proficiency bonus for attack and damage rolls in place of an ability mod?

I don't know about you, but I'm already using my proficiency bonus in my attack rolls with weapons I'm proficient with...

[Giant2005]

I don't know about you, but I'm already using my proficiency bonus in my attack rolls with weapons I'm proficient with...

Yeah but by using your proficiency bonus instead of your ability bonus, you would have proficiency bonus x2 rather than proficiency bonus + ability bonus on your attack rolls.

[Malifice]

Im currently thinking about giving TWF a niche; if we assumede GWF nice is single targt high damage, and S+B is defence, my current plan is to make TWF niche spread damage.

Im tweaking the feat to allow 2 extra attacks per round, but with the caveat they must be directed at different targets.

Working a bit of Horde breaker into the feat (that stacks with HB).

[Giant2005]

Wghat about: "Whenever you make a melee weapon attack that is not part of the attack action, you may make that attack once with each of your main and off-hand weapons."

[Safety Sword]

Yeah but by using your proficiency bonus instead of your ability bonus, you would have proficiency bonus x2 rather than proficiency bonus + ability bonus on your attack rolls.

Have you really thought about what that does to the rest of the game?

[Giant2005]

Have you really thought about what that does to the rest of the game?

I have somewhat... Although it sounds like you have found issues that I hadn't perceived...

[Dontdestroyme]

The problem might be that BOTH the feat and TWF are a bit underwhelming. For one, the feat is boring, and feels like a feat tax. A slight increase in die size isn't anything to get excited about, drawing both weapons is something I should be able to do already, and +1 AC, while good, isn't anything that makes my character particularly cool (usually).

As for TWF, I love the image of the style, but the mechanics in so many DnD type games is hard to work with. The rest of this topic has started to talk about that.

I think the feat kind of sucks. +1 AC is nice but obviously you want to max dex or strength first.

The style I think is fine. It gets a bad rap but it's a reliable second attack idk why people hate. Most classes don't even get a third attack. So for almost everyone from 1-4 you double your attacks every round you don't use a bonus action and from 5 on you still increase your attacks by 50%. Every rider on that (hex, hunters mark, magic weapons, the level 12 bladelock ability, improved divine smite, rage damage, any of the numerous other attack modifying spells ie enlarge or elemental weapon or whatever) gets to get added again one more time a round. Then once you've maxed your attack stat you can take the feat and get half a shield added to your AC while you still get to attack.

Also you can hit more enemies, use mobile better, apply more poison, shove or grapple with an attack and then bonus attack with your other weapon, etc etc. You already said you don't think magic items should be included in the discussion, an opinion I disagree with because I think in most campaigns you'll get two magic weapons if your thing is two weapon fighting, but even without that there's so much twf gives you.

I think if the feat was buffed a little and gave an option like heavy weapon master or pole arm master or sharp shooter people would like the style more. But I don't even think it's lacking because of that really.

Yes a level 20 battlemaster with gwm can burn all his dice on accurate attack, action surge, and hit something for like 180 average damage, but that's a) at the very end of the game and b) even still a level 20 battlemaster with twf can still do a respectable amount of damage so idk if youre really gimping yourself that hard. And anyway a paladin in the right circumstances will do more damage dual wielding (if he already cast a smite the round before) because a third smite will do more damage on average than 20 bonus damage (and hit more often). Though I'll admit it the gwm paladin crits on one of her two attacks then... Game over twf. But that's unrelible. Ultimately if you include feat support even if twf is bad, maxed out, a character with the feat will have 1 more AC than a great weapon fighter, which isn't too shabby once you start hitting AC limits.

The long winded point I'm trying to make is that twf is still a valid choice. It does not often do more damage than some well aimed hits with a great sword but so what??? It doesn't mean it sucks. In an empty room in which all attacks connect maybe it's worse but........................ Something has to be the best doesn't it? For pure damage?

[Magic Myrmidon]

Hmm... you may have a point. Something I'm noticing in 5th edition is that things that seem like problems on paper are not actually a problem in practice or when more closely examined. I guess one of the problems I have is a second weapon being a "stat stick", meaning that it's just another weapon damage, regardless of your character's stats. I know, the fighting style takes that away, but it still seems odd to me.

The other reason I probably was thinking the style was lame is because of the feat, and the options available to the fighting style. Nearly every other style has interesting options (even if feats are required), while TWF needs a feat just to get your basic image. It feels like a regression back to 3.P, where feat taxes were super common.

A lot of my problems in 5th (and D&D in general) just come from the weapon stats, honestly. And maybe posting before I think REALLY critically about things. I do think critically, just maybe not to the degree I should.

[Giant2005]

Personally, I think the issue with dual-wielding isn't so much the feat, it is the Fighting Style.
The Fighting Style offers nothing that shouldn't be happening already by default - essentially the style is required to bring Dual-Wielding in line with the other martial combat combinations whereas the other Fighting Styles enhance the other styles and in doing so, put themselves out of reach of the Dual-Wielder.

[Malifice]

Proposed fix:

Dual wielder


When fighting with two weapons the weapons do not need to be light
When fighting with two weapons you gain a +1 bonus to your AC
You may draw or stow two weapons at once when you could normally draw or stow one
When you fight with two weapons and use your bonus action to make an off hand attack, you can make another attack with the same weapon against a different creature that is within 5 feet of the original target and within reach of your weapon.


Gives two weapon fighting more of a niche role in spread damage instead of single target damage.

Thoughts?

A quick fix I was thinking about, that doesn't change the DPR calculations and is far less fiddly was changing the final dot point to read:


Wall of blades: Whenever you wield two weapons, you cannot be flanked

[Naanomi]

My inclination is to just give it +1 Dex or Strength and leave the rest as is. Some other marginal feats could probably afford to be 'bumped' to 'half feats' in this way as well

[Malifice]

My inclination is to just give it +1 Dex or Strength and leave the rest as is. Some other marginal feats could probably afford to be 'bumped' to 'half feats' in this way as well

Yeah I may just do that.

[WickerNipple]

My inclination is to just give it +1 Dex or Strength and leave the rest as is. Some other marginal feats could probably afford to be 'bumped' to 'half feats' in this way as well

Completely agree.

[calebrus]

I haven't read the three pages prior, so someone may have already said this if they do the same, but our table changed it.
The Dual Wielder feat now adds +1 AC and grants mod to damage.
The TWF style now allows the use of non-light weapons.
Once you reach level 11, TWF (and Martial Arts) grants two attacks with its bonus action (at which point the Monk's Flurry increases to 3).
So now, at our table, anyone can use TWF effectively with the feat, but only Fighters and Rangers can do so with better weapons.

We believe (our group) that this (the mod and weapon portions swapped) is what it would have been like anyway. Except by making Feats optional, they had to change it to make TWF Rangers (and Fighters, but mostly Rangers, which are iconic TWFers) a viable option. That isn't the case straight out of the box (without optional rules in play) if mod to damage goes to the Feat.

[Easy_Lee]

My inclination is to just give it +1 Dex or Strength and leave the rest as is. Some other marginal feats could probably afford to be 'bumped' to 'half feats' in this way as well

I'll give that a third vote of confidence. It's simple enough, and many of the things others, including me, have come up with would be better as new feats.

[ChubbyRain]

I don't see the feat as a trap as it gives a small bonus to damage and defense.

Niche? Sure, but so is two weapon fighting to begin with. Rogues and Paladins really are the only ones that can pull it off with any real effectiveness that makes it shine.

A trap option is something that just isn't effective at all and actually works toward either not helping or actively hurting your character. The +1 AC is very nice, I've seen so many DM misses by 1 point that I will never say 1 AC is nothing. Plus with the paladin gaining defensive style (since they are twf) they are getting their shield and using two weapons at the same time.

Could it be boosted? Sure, I would just add in the fighter style (+ mod to damage) into that feat, probably make every fighting style a feat (like how you can get any Cantrip via a feat).

[Malifice]

I'm loathe to use feat chains but, how about DW opening up:

Dual wielding mastery
Prerequisite: Dual wielder feat, two weapon fighting style, proficiency bonus +3 or greater

When you fight with two manufactured weapons, you gain the following benefits:


You can make two melee weapon attacks with the weapon you wield in your off hand as a single bonus action. Both of these attacks must be directed at different creatures within reach of your off hand weapon.
You can choose to forgo making any weapon attacks with your off hand weapon. If you do so, you may declare one melee weapon attack directed at you before the start of your next turn to be made with disadvantage

[Magic Myrmidon]

I haven't read the three pages prior, so someone may have already said this if they do the same, but our table changed it.
The Dual Wielder feat now adds +1 AC and grants mod to damage.
The TWF style now allows the use of non-light weapons.
Once you reach level 11, TWF (and Martial Arts) grants two attacks with its bonus action (at which point the Monk's Flurry increases to 3).
So now, at our table, anyone can use TWF effectively with the feat, but only Fighters and Rangers can do so with better weapons.

We believe (our group) that this (the mod and weapon portions swapped) is what it would have been like anyway. Except by making Feats optional, they had to change it to make TWF Rangers (and Fighters, but mostly Rangers, which are iconic TWFers) a viable option. That isn't the case straight out of the box (without optional rules in play) if mod to damage goes to the Feat.

I rather like this. I remember seeing it a while back (maybe in a topic I made a few months back), but it seems like it brings the feat more to the power of what a feat should, be, and makes the fighter fighting style feel more fighter-y. Plus, it seems more in line with what the fighting styles typically do, a nice small numeric bonus that puts them above most weapons users, not something that is absolutely desired by everyone using the style

[Easy_Lee]

If we're altering the fighting styles, the way I'd do it is this:

TWF style adds +1 hit, +1 AC
Armored fighting style and defensive fighting style now combined
Dual wielder feat adds attribute damage to offhand instead of +1 AC

It's not an interesting set of changes, but they get the job done.

[calebrus]

I rather like this. I remember seeing it a while back (maybe in a topic I made a few months back), but it seems like it brings the feat more to the power of what a feat should, be, and makes the fighter fighting style feel more fighter-y. Plus, it seems more in line with what the fighting styles typically do, a nice small numeric bonus that puts them above most weapons users, not something that is absolutely desired by everyone using the style

Precisely.
As I said, we feel that this is what it should have been. But with Feats being optional, it was changed so that the better of the two was given to the style.
Otherwise, in a game without Feats, TWF would basically be useless if it didn't get mod to damage with the style. So Feats being optional required the opposite of what one would expect (and what arguably makes the most logical and thematic sense).

[ChubbyRain]

If we're altering the fighting styles, the way I'd do it is this:

TWF style adds +1 hit, +1 AC
Armored fighting style and defensive fighting style now combined
Dual wielder feat adds attribute damage to offhand instead of +1 AC

It's not an interesting set of changes, but they get the job done.

You know, I feel like the fighter class should just be broken up into a ton of feats. Then allow others to take those feats at specific levels.

This might be my next homebrew stuff.

Example:

Second Wind
+1 Str or Con
BA, 1/S or L rest heal: 1d10+level damage. When you use Second Wind you have resistance to B/P/S damage till the end of your next turn.

Duel Wielder
+1 Str or Dex
Twf with any two 1 handed martial weapons (or thrown weapons). Add modifier to off hand damage. Gain +1 AC when wielding two weapons.

[unwise]

Did the devs ever comment on why getting a fighting style was not an option for feats? It just seems odd that one cannot spend a feat to get the +stat damage on the other attack. I'd be tempted to offer my PCs either +1 stat or a duel-wielding fighting style along with the feat.

[RulesJD]

Then you're going to have to post in a bit more detail exactly how you achieved the "dual greatswords" thing. You can't attack with two weapons at once, monks can't apply their unarmed damage die to anything but monk weapons, and unarmed damage die starts at a d4.

Also, you replied to my entire post and said "false." I have no idea what part of it you claim is false. I assume that it was the bolded section, which is still true, because we do not assume magic items when determining whether a thing is optimal. This is because the correct magic item will make any build "OP."

Monk damage die (that increases in level) modifies Monk weapon damage die as well. So a level 5 monk will do 1d6 damage with a dagger, rather than 1d4.

By level 5, it is relatively easy to get 2 different weapons that add a d6 to each hit. I play almost exclusively in AL, so those are the adventures I know. Thus:
1. First attack with magical quarterstaff = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4 (increase dex at level 4).
2. Bonus attack with magical dagger = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4

Thus you are dual-wielding great swords. It absolutely relies on magical weapons, but almost no one wants to use daggers outside of Monks so you can be pretty well guaranteed those weapons.

[SharkForce]

Monk damage die (that increases in level) modifies Monk weapon damage die as well. So a level 5 monk will do 1d6 damage with a dagger, rather than 1d4.

By level 5, it is relatively easy to get 2 different weapons that add a d6 to each hit. I play almost exclusively in AL, so those are the adventures I know. Thus:
1. First attack with magical quarterstaff = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4 (increase dex at level 4).
2. Bonus attack with magical dagger = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4

Thus you are dual-wielding great swords. It absolutely relies on magical weapons, but almost no one wants to use daggers outside of Monks so you can be pretty well guaranteed those weapons.

so you blew a feat (and lost attribute damage on the bonus attack since monks don't get TWF style) on a MAD class under the assumption that you'll for sure get two weapons that add d6 damage, bearing in mind you won't get to add that to your flurry anyways, and that certain attacks require unarmed strikes for monk...

yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and say that this is not optimal for a monk. it isn't completely awful, but it definitely isn't the best.

[RulesJD]

so you blew a feat (and lost attribute damage on the bonus attack since monks don't get TWF style) on a MAD class under the assumption that you'll for sure get two weapons that add d6 damage, bearing in mind you won't get to add that to your flurry anyways, and that certain attacks require unarmed strikes for monk...

yeah, i'm gonna go ahead and say that this is not optimal for a monk. it isn't completely awful, but it definitely isn't the best.

If you read my original posts, you see that I take 1 level of Fighter for TWF. It's stupid that you have to, but there you go. Have a short-rest rechargeable heal is pretty handy as well, especially because I'm going Shadow.

I'm going Shadow Monk so I don't care about Quivering Palm or the Elemental unarmed only attacks.

The only way it's sub-optimal is if you plan on taking your Monk to 17, which I don't imagine I'll ever get to see in AL. The best way to spend Ki is Stunning Strike (by far). The extra riders to Flurry from Open Palm are nice, especially if you can force advantage through failed Dex saves, but that still cost a Ki point to trigger from the Flurry. I'd rather force a Con save and get advantage anyways (plus all my party mates even the ranged attackers) while removing their next turn.

[Kidbuu51]

Not everything in DND needs to be optimal, its a role playing game, to me math only works if you rp an optimizer. Think less on the numbers and more of the world and character.

[Kryx]

The Dual Wielder feat now adds +1 AC and grants mod to damage.
The TWF style now allows the use of non-light weapons.
..
So now, at our table, anyone can use TWF effectively with the feat, but only Fighters and Rangers can do so with better weapons.

We believe (our group) that this (the mod and weapon portions swapped) is what it would have been like anyway. Except by making Feats optional, they had to change it to make TWF Rangers (and Fighters, but mostly Rangers, which are iconic TWFers) a viable option. That isn't the case straight out of the box (without optional rules in play) if mod to damage goes to the Feat.
I like this. It fits perfectly that Rangers and Fighters would use bigger weapons while other classes would use mod.

I think somehow daggers should be improved so that they are a viable alternative to shortswords, but.. alas.



Once you reach level 11, TWF (and Martial Arts) grants two attacks with its bonus action (at which point the Monk's Flurry increases to 3).
This part I'm not so sure about. I'd have to run the math on this. I think Easy_Lee's proposed removing of the bonus action may be more balanced.




If we're altering the fighting styles, the way I'd do it is this:

Armored fighting style and defensive fighting style now combined

Do you mean protection, nor armored? If so that wouldn't work on Ranger.

[Easy_Lee]

Do you mean protection, nor armored? If so that wouldn't work on Ranger.

I mean "protection" and "defense" if you want to get technical, which would work on a ranger as they would, in effect, get both by having access to "defense." Nobody ever takes the protection style, while +1 AC compares poorly to +2 Hit (Archery), so these two fighting styles could both use a buff.

[Kryx]

Nobody ever takes the protection style
I've had 2 players take it. It's quite good if the party has multiple melee allies.
It's quite effective imo.



while +1 AC compares poorly to +2 Hit (Archery)
Not sure I agree. One focuses on damage and one focuses on defense. The +2 is meant to counteract the half-cover from ranged attacks so it is less than +2 in actual play.



Assuming we change dual wielder to be stat on second weapon and the TWF fighting style to be bigger weapons I'd like to propose a dagger fighting style as an alternate to bigger weapons:

Dagger Master
You gain +1 to hit when wielding 2 daggers/kukris/etc

[Malifice]

Monk damage die (that increases in level) modifies Monk weapon damage die as well. So a level 5 monk will do 1d6 damage with a dagger, rather than 1d4.

By level 5, it is relatively easy to get 2 different weapons that add a d6 to each hit. I play almost exclusively in AL, so those are the adventures I know. Thus:
1. First attack with magical quarterstaff = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4 (increase dex at level 4).
2. Bonus attack with magical dagger = 1d6+1d6 (extra damage from magical weapon) + 4

Thus you are dual-wielding great swords. It absolutely relies on magical weapons, but almost no one wants to use daggers outside of Monks so you can be pretty well guaranteed those weapons.

Why would you hurt your character like this?

A Monk 5 could simply attack twice with the magic Quarterstaff doing 1d8+1d6+6 damage on each attack, then follow up with one (or two with flurry) unarmed attacks dealing 1d6+4 damage as a bonus action using martial arts.

Youve wasted a feat and dipped into Fighter to do less damage.

[weaseldust]

Dual Wielder does allow you to do some useful stuff. You can throw 2 hand-axes per round, then draw another 2 and make melee attacks with them. That adds a decent amount of tactical flexibility to a barbarian or fighter. You can also dual-wield improvised weapons, so you're much more capable than, say, a dual-crossbow wielder when taken by surprise away from your equipment.

I'll also note that getting +1 to AC is more powerful than the comparison with increasing your dexterity mod would suggest, because it stacks with heavy and medium armour. For comparison, Medium Armour Master effectively offers just +1 AC and a single lesser benefit.

Besides, there are very few things that allow you to raise your AC over 18: shields, which inhibit your damage; a fighting style; monk and barbarian class features that will rarely actually take them past 18; ...if there's anything else, I've forgotten it. In the context of bounded accuracy, being able to increase this soft cap from 18 to 19 is more powerful than advancing your AC from, say, 17 to 18. After all, imagine there were a feat called Dexterous that let you imitate all the effects of increasing your dexterity mod by 1: +1 to AC, attacks and damage with finesse weapons, and dexterity checks and saves. That feat would be unbalanced in 5e because it would effectively let you increase your dexterity over 20, and the rest of the game is designed around that being forbidden. Part of Dual Wielder imitates maybe half of Dexterous - the AC and damage bonuses - and, by comparison with Dexterous, this part amounts to more than half of what you'd get by increasing your dexterity mod by 1 (because it can be stacked on top of 20 dexterity). Consequently, the remaining part of Dual Wielder should be less powerful than that. It does look like merely being able to draw weapons quickly is under-egging it (though, as the hand-axes mentioned above show, this is the same thing as being able to draw ammo quickly), but I can understand the developers' reasons for caution.

One more comment: I feel that the extra damage from feats like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter is often overestimated, because it is more likely to be wasted on over-killing weak enemies (of course, another part of GWM is designed to counteract this, but that doesn't change the fact that the potential +10 damage part won't always deliver what it promises). In contrast, an extra +1 damage to each attack on a character that focuses on making lots of small attacks rather than a couple of big ones is less likely to be wasted.


All that said, I would be in favour of a small, fluffy boost. I like the idea of not being able to be flanked, but flanking is optional (and I don't think it's worth adding). You could instead phrase it as: enemies can't gain any benefit from the fact that another enemy is adjacent to you. That would make you immune to Pack Tactics and Sneak Attack, and maybe some other stuff I'm not remembering. Alternatively, I wouldn't mind seeing the ability to Use an Object as a bonus action while you attack with the other hand. It would be kind of fun to throw oil on someone and then hit them with the torch you're carrying in the same round. That might step on the toes of the Thief a little bit, though.

[Person_Man]

Did the devs ever comment on why getting a fighting style was not an option for feats? It just seems odd that one cannot spend a feat to get the +stat damage on the other attack. I'd be tempted to offer my PCs either +1 stat or a duel-wielding fighting style along with the feat.

Feats are optional, and not an assumed part of the game. And they wanted TWF to be a viable option on par with other weapon choices starting at level 1, because its popular.

[Magic Myrmidon]

Assuming we change dual wielder to be stat on second weapon and the TWF fighting style to be bigger weapons I'd like to propose a dagger fighting style as an alternate to bigger weapons:

I dunno, it seems easier to just use shortsword stats and say they're daggers. They're identical except one is d4, the other is d6. They're not even that different in terms of fighting style or image, really. Enough to make a difference, sure, but DMs who are open to any refluffing at all should be open to that.

[Pex]

Yeah but by using your proficiency bonus instead of your ability bonus, you would have proficiency bonus x2 rather than proficiency bonus + ability bonus on your attack rolls.

Since I'd have my starting attacking ability score be at least a 16 for a +3 modifier, I'd never take this revised feat since modifier + proficiency will be higher than proficiency x 2. Only at level 17 is proficiency x 2 guaranteed to be higher, but I've already been playing for 16 levels without the feat why would I take it then?

[Giant2005]

Since I'd have my starting attacking ability score be at least a 16 for a +3 modifier, I'd never take this revised feat since modifier + proficiency will be higher than proficiency x 2. Only at level 17 is proficiency x 2 guaranteed to be higher, but I've already been playing for 16 levels without the feat why would I take it then?

Yes as I said you would likely start off weaker but eventually you would catch up in strength and then eventually surpass it.
Meanwhile instead of spending your ASIs on boosting Str or Dex, you can use them boosting other, more interesting things.

[JNAProductions]

Like Strength, for Athletics, or Dexterity, for AC, Initiative, and Acrobatics!

Wait...

[RulesJD]

Why would you hurt your character like this?

A Monk 5 could simply attack twice with the magic Quarterstaff doing 1d8+1d6+6 damage on each attack, then follow up with one (or two with flurry) unarmed attacks dealing 1d6+4 damage as a bonus action using martial arts.

Youve wasted a feat and dipped into Fighter to do less damage.

Until you actually do the math, please don't tell me that the setup does less damage. This setup does 1.5 more damage on average due to the extra damage dice from the Bonus attack. (Fist = 1d6+4, Magic Dagger = 1d6+1d6+4).

Once you hit level 11, the setup does 3.5 more damage per turn due to the increased hit dice size.

Unfortunately, the Dueling setup with a magical weapon in one hand is still superior damage wise, but you miss out on the +1 AC. So still a trade off because Dueling setup does not require a feat.

[Malifice]

Until you actually do the math, please don't tell me that the setup does less damage. This setup does 1.5 more damage on average due to the extra damage dice from the Bonus attack. (Fist = 1d6+4, Magic Dagger = 1d6+1d6+4).

Once you hit level 11, the setup does 3.5 more damage per turn due to the increased hit dice size.

Unfortunately, the Dueling setup with a magical weapon in one hand is still superior damage wise, but you miss out on the +1 AC. So still a trade off because Dueling setup does not require a feat.

No mate, you're resding rhe rules wrong.

If you were just a Monk 5 (with no feats, a simple boost to Dex at 4th level with the same magical staff wielded in two hands you would have TWO attacks with the attack action thanks to extra attack (using your Attack action) each dealing 1d8+1d6+5 damage.

You would also gain a bonus action unarmed attack from martial arts class feature dealing 1d6+4 damage. Two attacks with flurry of blows.

This is strictly superior to the damage you're dealing at present, and it has zero feat investment.

Also, all your keyed special monk attacks are keyed to hitting with flurry of blows attacks that use your bonus action (you're currently using that bonus action to attack with a dagger using two weapon fighting and not with martial arts).

Your build is rather crippling.

Assuming a dip in fighter for TWF style and blowing your feat on DW, at 5th level you are only getting two attacks at present (one with your staff one handed as an action, and one with your dagger as a bonus action with the off hand). That's it. Two attacks and you're done. You can't uses most of the rider effects of the open hand style either, and your hands are full meaning you can't catch deflected missiles. You also don't have stunning strike yet.

[RulesJD]

No mate, you're resding rhe rules wrong.

If you were just a Monk 5 (with no feats, a simple boost to Dex at 4th level with the same magical staff wielded in two hands you would have TWO attacks with the attack action thanks to extra attack (using your Attack action) each dealing 1d8+1d6+5 damage.

You would also gain a bonus action unarmed attack from martial arts class feature dealing 1d6+4 damage. Two attacks with flurry of blows.

This is strictly superior to the damage you're dealing at present, and it has zero feat investment.

Also, all your keyed special monk attacks are keyed to hitting with flurry of blows attacks that use your bonus action (you're currently using that bonus action to attack with a dagger using two weapon fighting and not with martial arts).

Your build is rather crippling.

Assuming a dip in fighter for TWF style and blowing your feat on DW, at 5th level you are only getting two attacks at present (one with your staff one handed as an action, and one with your dagger as a bonus action with the off hand). That's it. Two attacks and you're done. You can't uses most of the rider effects of the open hand style either, and your hands are full meaning you can't catch deflected missiles. You also don't have stunning strike yet.

You are so beyond wrong. Please, just stop. Yes, as was clearly articulated in my first post, you take a 1 level Fighter dip for TWF + Second Wind. You also go Human Variant for Dual-Wielding feat at level 1.

You clearly haven't ever played a Monk. I am going SHADOW MONK. SHADOW MONK. Okay? Please reference your PHB. None of the Monk attacks that I care about are related to unarmed strike. Primarily, the advantage attack from the Shadow Monk teleport (melee weapon) and the Stunning Strike (works with any melee weapon, even a greatsword).

Yes, a straight Monk will get 2 attacks before a Fighter 1/Monk 5, that is the effect of multiclassing. Once both are Monk level 5, then the damage increase goes to the dual-wielding Monk/Fighter due to the extra damage dice from the magical weapon in each hand. The Monk will also have +1 AC.

For reference, here's the math:
Straight monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Bonus Attack: 1d6+4 (average 7.5)
Total Average: (31.5)

Fighter/Monk:
First Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Second Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Bonus Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Total Average: 33

Once damage dice increases:
Straight monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+4 (average 8.5)
Total Average: (32.5)

Fighter/Monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Total Average: 36

The Dueling Fighting Style increases the damage at the cost of +1 AC and being able to take a different feat at level 1, and not needing 2 magical weapons.

[Giant2005]

The only reason those calculations of your fighter dip and feat combo are superior is because you have given the dual-wielder two magic item bonuses and the Monk only one. If we even out that imbalance, the Monk looks more like this:

First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Total Average: 36


The only difference between the two is that the Monk has the potential to get stronger due to still having room to improve his damage die.

[RulesJD]

The only reason those calculations of your fighter dip and feat combo are superior is because you have given the dual-wielder two magic item bonuses and the Monk only one. If we even out that imbalance, the Monk looks more like this:

First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Total Average: 36


The only difference between the two is that the Monk has the potential to get stronger due to still having room to improve his damage die.

I can't count how many times I've said that the particular Dual-wielding build required 2 magical weapons. It's in literally everything I posted it. The only other magical thing the straight Monk could have would be +1 fist, which do exist. However, the daggers also add +1 so it events out and that's why I didn't include it. There are NO UNARMED STRIKE MAGICAL WEAPONS THAT ADD AN EXTRA DAMAGE DIE that exist in published adventures. Hence, the unarmed strike bonus action is stuck without an extra damage rider. This increase in damage increases more when the Monk crits.

[Giant2005]

I can't count how many times I've said that the particular Dual-wielding build required 2 magical weapons. It's in literally everything I posted it. The only other magical thing the straight Monk could have would be +1 fist, which do exist. However, the daggers also add +1 so it events out and that's why I didn't include it. There are NO UNARMED STRIKE MAGICAL WEAPONS THAT ADD AN EXTRA DAMAGE DIE that exist in published adventures. Hence, the unarmed strike bonus action is stuck without an extra damage rider. This increase in damage increases more when the Monk crits.

As far as I know, there are no +1, +1D6 damage daggers in existence either.
If you are playing a Monk and your DM is chucking multiple powerful, homebrew daggers at you and not a fist weapon, then he is a bit of a douche. Even if your DM is being that much of a douche I don't think it is wise to give up a level and a feat to try and make the best of that bad situation - you are giving up more than you gain and the only real reason to do it would be to send your DM the message that you don't care about his tricks.

[Ziegander]

Just ignore this post. It was full of lies.

[calebrus]

You guys do realize that you're arguing with someone who has built his character around the fact that he is the player at the table that is going to end up with two very specific magic weapons, do you not?

When we're talking about the type of player who takes metagame knowledge of items and applies that knowledge with the assumption that he's going to be the one to get those items, and then bases his character build around that metagame knowledge and that assumption, we're talking about the type of player that will not give an inch in a debate about optimization.
You may as well let it go.

[RulesJD]

As far as I know, there are no +1, +1D6 damage daggers in existence either.
If you are playing a Monk and your DM is chucking multiple powerful, homebrew daggers at you and not a fist weapon, then he is a bit of a douche. Even if your DM is being that much of a douche I don't think it is wise to give up a level and a feat to try and make the best of that bad situation - you are giving up more than you gain and the only real reason to do it would be to send your DM the message that you don't care about his tricks.

Dragon Tooth Dagger. Rise of Tiamat.

[RulesJD]

Here's the thing, man, even if we compare two SHADOW MONKS, the one that didn't multiclass or take the Dual Wielder feat is still going to beat you in damage for at least 6 levels, if not every level all the way to 20. What you're proposing is certainly viable, but that doesn't mean it's actually better than the alternatives.

Let's actually look at some real math.

Two Variant Human Shadow Monks. Starting with a 27 point buy have the exact same ability scores: Str 10, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 16, and Cha 8. Joe the "normal" Monk, chooses Savage Attacker as his 1st level feat, while Edge, the Fighter, takes Dual Wielder.

Now, by 6th level, both Joe and Edge have used their Ability Score Increase to raise their respective Dexterity scores to 18.

When Joe attacks he swings with Liveoak, a magical Quarterstaff, twice to deal 2d8+8 + 2d6 radiant damage (avg 24) and once with a psuedo-magical Unarmed Strike (Ki-Empowered Strikes) to deal 1d6+4 damage (avg 7.5), for an average total of 31.5 for the round before taking Savage Attacker into account. Once per round, if one of Joe's attacks deal less than average damage, let's say, Joe can reroll an attack's damage roll increasing his overall average damage by 3.17, bringing him to 34.67. It's actually slightly higher due to critical hits, but incorporating the math for Savage Attacker on crits is more than I feel like worrying about.

So, while Joe does miss out on 2 hit points and +1 to AC, he does deal 1.67 more damage per round, on average. Plus he's already got Shadow Step which is awesome just because of the teleportation, but it also gives him advantage to his attacks a lot of the time, further increasing his actual damage when compared with Edge's against real threats. And if Edge gets to have two rare or better magic items, then so does Joe. That Amulet of Health or Bracers of Defense are looking really nice right now... Even a simple Ring of Protection would serve.



It turns out that actually it's because he didn't give the non-dual wielder a feat.

Savage Attacker does not work how you think it does, it definitely doesn't not increase his average damage by 3.17.

[Ziegander]

Savage Attacker does not work how you think it does, it definitely doesn't not increase his average damage by 3.17.

Oh, damn, you're right. Sleepy math is dumb brain. Meh, as long as you acknowledge you're spending a feat to do a few more points of damage per round and only because you get a couple rare magic items by 5th level, then we're cool.

[Giant2005]

Dragon Tooth Dagger. Rise of Tiamat.

Fair enough, the weapon is still in the default game.
I still think your DM is being a bit of a douche though but I do understand the desire to "stick it to the man" even if you are giving up a bit more than you gain. In one of my campaigns my DM seems obsessed with throwing magic daggers at us too and rather than wait for a Rapier like he would have wanted, my character is choosing to use one of the magic daggers. I can't remember what he called it exactly but my entirely male character dubbed the weapon "Laddydagger" or "Laday's Best Friend" or something like that - he figured hanging a lantern on it himself was a better option than someone else bringing up his feminine weapon.
Now that I think about it... that same DM also gave my character access to a free suit of female's Platemail. Thankfully the Wizard of the party managed to Fabricate out the female-ness of that armor but now that I think about it, my DM might be trying to turn my character into a cross-dresser.

[Malifice]

For reference, here's the math:
Straight monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Bonus Attack: 1d6+4 (average 7.5)
Total Average: (31.5)

Fighter/Monk:
First Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Second Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Bonus Attack: 2d6+4 (11)
Total Average: 33

Once damage dice increases:
Straight monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (average 12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+4 (average 8.5)
Total Average: (32.5)

Fighter/Monk:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Bonus Attack: 1d8+1d6+4 (12)
Total Average: 36

The Dueling Fighting Style increases the damage at the cost of +1 AC and being able to take a different feat at level 1, and not needing 2 magical weapons.

Your numbers are wrong.

You need to be a Monk 5/ Fighter 1 to do the above damage per round, I was assuming Monk 4/ Fighter 1. Also, you have blown a feat on DW, so lets factor a +2 Dex into the Monk 6.

Also, you are using the versatile damage for the staff as if you are weilding it two handed. The damage should be 1d6 as youre only using one hand. Your dagger does a d4 base, bumped up to 1d6 thanks to martial arts.

So it actually works out to be:

Straight monk 6:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13) - staff of srtiking 2H
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13) - ditto via extra attack
Bonus Attack: 1d6+4 (average 7.5) - unarmed strike bonus action
Total Average: (33.5)
+1 AC, Dex saves and skills and initiative

Fighter 5/Monk 1:
First Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - staff of striking 1H
Second Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - staff of striking 1H
Bonus Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - dagger off hand bonus action
Total Average: 33
+1 AC from DW feat.

As both characters level up the damage dice increases (and the straight Monk will hit those levels earlier).

Even with the magic weapons, its totally suboptimal. The only other thing you gain from Fighter is an extra HP and second wind. You can also draw both weapons at once.

In exchange lose have 1 less point of Ki, miss your second Monastic feature (shadow step), delay your ASI and unarmed damage increases and all the juicy monk class features, and are down +1 to Dex saves, skills and initiative AND do less average damage per round that the straight Monk with the staff.

And even thats when you are armed with no fewer than two potent magic weapons. Remember you'll also frequently be using flurry of blows (particularly at higher levels) and/ or Ki dodge, so youll be wasting that bonus action on other stuff anyways.

Look at the numbers again mate, they dont lie.

[Ziegander]

Your numbers are wrong.

You need to be a Monk 5/ Fighter 1 to do the above damage per round, I was assuming Monk 4/ Fighter 1. Also, you have blown a feat on DW, so lets factor a +2 Dex into the Monk 6.

Also, you are using the versatile damage for the staff as if you are weilding it two handed. The damage should be 1d6 as youre only using one hand. Your dagger does a d4 base, bumped up to 1d6 thanks to martial arts.

So it actually works out to be:

Straight monk 6:
First Attack: 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13) - staff of srtiking 2H
Second Attack: 1d8+1d6+5 (average 13) - ditto via extra attack
Bonus Attack: 1d6+4 (average 7.5) - unarmed strike bonus action
Total Average: (33.5)
+1 AC, Dex saves and skills and initiative

Fighter 5/Monk 1:
First Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - staff of striking 1H
Second Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - staff of striking 1H
Bonus Attack: 1d6+1d6+4 (11) - dagger off hand bonus action
Total Average: 33
+1 AC from DW feat.

As both characters level up the damage dice increases (and the straight Monk will hit those levels earlier).

Even with the magic weapons, its totally suboptimal. The only other thing you gain from Fighter is an extra HP and second wind. You can also draw both weapons at once.

In exchange lose have 1 less point of Ki, miss your second Monastic feature (shadow step), delay your ASI and unarmed damage increases and all the juicy monk class features, and are down +1 to Dex saves, skills and initiative AND do less average damage per round that the straight Monk with the staff.

And even thats when you are armed with no fewer than two potent magic weapons. Remember you'll also frequently be using flurry of blows (particularly at higher levels) and/ or Ki dodge, so youll be wasting that bonus action on other stuff anyways.

Look at the numbers again mate, they dont lie.

He's not "blowing" a feat, he's Variant Human, so he has a bonus feat that he has to take, he can't use it for an ASI. At Monk 4 he still uses the ASI he gains there to increase his Dexterity, so both his Fighter 1/Monk 5 and a Monk 6 build should have the same Dexterity modifier, even if the Monk 6 was an Elf or something.

[ChubbyRain]

He's not "blowing" a feat, he's Variant Human, so he has a bonus feat that he has to take, he can't use it for an ASI. At Monk 4 he still uses the ASI he gains there to increase his Dexterity, so both his Fighter 1/Monk 5 and a Monk 6 build should have the same Dexterity modifier, even if the Monk 6 was an Elf or something.

As a monk I tend to like to pick up a better feat at level 1 than twf.

Magic Initiate for example. You can grab some neat spells that may not improve your damage output, but will improve your overall performance. MI: Druid works nicely as you can get a 1/ day Earth Tremor or Ice Knife that will hive you some utility/elemental damage. For a shadow monk, to fill some gaps in their monk-ness I would grab Frostbite, Thorn Whip , and Earth Tremor.

Earth Tremor will allow you to move in, action prone every enemy within 10', disengage (ki), move out of the area. Frostbite gives you some cold damage and a really good rider effect. Thorn Whip gives you a great way to move enemies around the battlefield.

Straight shadow monk 6 like this will do good damage when needed, stun things when needed, prone things when needed, move enemies into position when needed, and can still teleport and all the other goodies that monks can do. This feat broadens the horizon of the monk instead of putting more dakka on their dakka.

Monks are already damn good damage dealers, adding feats that improve on that is somewhat of a waste. Feats that improve on the versatility of the class however... Hell this feat kinda makes you a mini monk of all trades as you can simulate the other two traditions good enough.

I'm not saying fighter/monk is bad, just not really needed. You aren't adding anything new to your build by going fighter or twf and I think one is wasting a perfectly good feat slot.

[Ziegander]

As a monk I tend to like to pick up a better feat at level 1 than twf.

Oh, I realize, he was just being very pedantic and technical, setting out (and succeeding) to prove that, for a very specific build, in a highly niche situation, Dual Wielder is better than simply not taking the feat. Half of that reason is because you take it at 1st level when you can't take an ASI instead, and the other half is because of having multiple magic weapons with multiple damage dice, but still, his point stands, even if it is really pretty petty at that point. 0.25 points for Gryffindor?

[ChubbyRain]

Oh, I realize, he was just being very pedantic and technical, setting out (and succeeding) to prove that, for a very specific build, in a highly niche situation, Dual Wielder is better than simply not taking the feat. Half of that reason is because you take it at 1st level when you can't take an ASI instead, and the other half is because of having multiple magic weapons with multiple damage dice, but still, his point stands, even if it is really pretty petty at that point. 0.25 points for Gryffindor?

Hmmm...

What we need to do is look at the average HP of creatures in adventures at level 1 and onward. Then figure out how many hits on average each build needs to land to drop an enemy to 0.


Depending on the average HP it actually could be the same number of hits, thus making twf unneeded until the average HP hits a number in which twf will drop the monsters at least 1 round earlier.

For example.

Monk (twf): deals 7 damage/ round on average
Monk: deals 6 damage / round on average

Average HP: Winner

6 or less: Non-twf (as they didn't waste the feat)
7: Twf (as the feat was useful)
8 - 12: Non-twf (both take two rounds to kill)
13-14: TWF (feat was useful and kills 1 round faster)
15-18: Non-twf (as both kills in 3 rounds)

And so on. That is how one can figure out if twf is really worth it.

What people tend to forget is that it isn't just how much damage you can do, but how much HP the target has. If a creature has 5 HP and the cleric can do 6 consistently and someone else can do 100 consistantly... Then there really isn't much difference between the two (non-pcs typically die at 0 HP).

[Malifice]

He's not "blowing" a feat, he's Variant Human, so he has a bonus feat that he has to take, he can't use it for an ASI. At Monk 4 he still uses the ASI he gains there to increase his Dexterity, so both his Fighter 1/Monk 5 and a Monk 6 build should have the same Dexterity modifier, even if the Monk 6 was an Elf or something.

Ok - so the monk 6 uses his human bonus feat on mobile or alert (or for damage takes magic initiate for eldrich blast and hex).

The latter option pushes his DPR through the roof, putting his average damage 14 ahead of the TWF monk)

[coredump]

Oh, I realize, he was just being very pedantic and technical, setting out (and succeeding) to prove that, for a very specific build, in a highly niche situation, Dual Wielder is better than simply not taking the feat. Half of that reason is because you take it at 1st level when you can't take an ASI instead, and the other half is because of having multiple magic weapons with multiple damage dice, but still, his point stands, even if it is really pretty petty at that point. 0.25 points for Gryffindor?
If I understand this 'build'.... it requires picking that at first level you take Fighter, TWF and Human with DW.... all in the hopes that you find *and get* a single magic item to be found in Rise of Tiamat.... so when you are what 11th level?

That is some commitment to being 'prepared'. And a lot of wasted resources for 10ish levels.

[Ziegander]

If I understand this 'build'.... it requires picking that at first level you take Fighter, TWF and Human with DW.... all in the hopes that you find *and get* a single magic item to be found in Rise of Tiamat.... so when you are what 11th level?

That is some commitment to being 'prepared'. And a lot of wasted resources for 10ish levels.

No, according to him it's pretty easy to get two of those weapons before 5th level.

[coredump]

No, according to him it's pretty easy to get two of those weapons before 5th level.

The dagger he mentioned was from RoT.... not sure how he is getting that by level 5.

[Ziegander]

The dagger he mentioned was from RoT.... not sure how he is getting that by level 5.

*shrug* :smallconfused:

[Spacehamster]

Why would you hurt your character like this?

A Monk 5 could simply attack twice with the magic Quarterstaff doing 1d8+1d6+6 damage on each attack, then follow up with one (or two with flurry) unarmed attacks dealing 1d6+4 damage as a bonus action using martial arts.

Youve wasted a feat and dipped into Fighter to do less damage.

Cant use flurry after quarterstaff attacks cause flurry of blows is a bonus action attack whos trigger is doing unarmed attacks with your attack action if I remember right so his build is legit. :)

[Kryx]

flurry of blows is a bonus action attack whos trigger is doing unarmed attacks with your attack action)
Nope. See PHB 78


Flurry of Blows
Immediately after you take the Attack action on your turn, you can spend 1 ki point to make two unarmed strikes as a bonus action

[Spacehamster]

Nope. See PHB 78

Oh cool remembered wrong then, bit sad that I did then cause then there is absolutely no point to using unarmed attacks instead of a monk weapon if you can get your hands on a magic weapon ofc. :)

[Kryx]

Oh cool remembered wrong then, bit sad that I did then cause then there is absolutely no point to using unarmed attacks instead of a monk weapon if you can get your hands on a magic weapon ofc. :)
At 11 unarmed strikes are d8 and the quarterstaff is ditched.

This assumes that your dm gives magic fists items (one is in the Tiamat adventure). If they don't then they hate monks.

[Spacehamster]

At 11 unarmed strikes are d8 and the quarterstaff is ditched.

This assumes that your dm gives magic fists items (one is in the Tiamat adventure). If they don't then they hate monks.

But the quarterstaff also becomes d8 so its still the same no since monk weapons scale with martial arts die? :)

[ad_hoc]

At 11 unarmed strikes are d8 and the quarterstaff is ditched.

This assumes that your dm gives magic fists items (one is in the Tiamat adventure). If they don't then they hate monks.

That all depends on how magic items are handled in the campaign.

The Monk class is built so that they don't need magic unarmed attacks.

The neat thing about Flurry is that you can use it even if you aren't using Monk weapons.

[calebrus]

The neat thing about Flurry is that you can use it even if you aren't using Monk weapons.

Not really.
I mean, technically, yes, there is not restriction listed against it.
But realistically, no, you can't. Because using Flurry grants two unarmed strikes, and if you're holding a non-monk weapon then you're spending a point of Ki to make those unarmed strikes do one single point of damage.
Not worth the Ki expenditure.
So technically you can use Flurry even if you aren't using monk weapons, but realistically you never will because doing so borders on useless.

edit:
And that's just the rules lawyer reading. The obvious intent is that Flurry is a part or subset of Martial Arts, and as such, any DM would be well within their rights to not even allow the use if you were armored, carrying a shield, or wielding a non-monk weapon.

[Torched Forever]

Beyond the heated math debate there are some other things to consider. There are only a couple of classes/builds that would even consider dual wielding. Battle Master gains the ability to use more maneuvers at once by TWF, Rouge gains the opportunity to try again for a sneak attack if the first misses, a Beast Master mounted on its animal can dual wield lances, and any melee build without Extra Attack with some attack trigger are all I can think of. The feat is a necessity for these builds as it gives +1 damage per attack (+3 for lances), +1 AC (a large benefit with bounded accuracy), possible access to a magic weapon previously unavailable, and the ability to instantly switch to TWF from another weapon. Also, if your DM hates you and throws hordes at you regularly TWF allows for better damage distribution.

[SharkForce]

Beyond the heated math debate there are some other things to consider. There are only a couple of classes/builds that would even consider dual wielding. Battle Master gains the ability to use more maneuvers at once by TWF, Rouge gains the opportunity to try again for a sneak attack if the first misses, a Beast Master mounted on its animal can dual wield lances, and any melee build without Extra Attack with some attack trigger are all I can think of. The feat is a necessity for these builds as it gives +1 damage per attack (+3 for lances), +1 AC (a large benefit with bounded accuracy), possible access to a magic weapon previously unavailable, and the ability to instantly switch to TWF from another weapon. Also, if your DM hates you and throws hordes at you regularly TWF allows for better damage distribution.

the problem is that all of those builds (except the dual-lance build, which requires a fairly permissive DM to say the least) would benefit more from taking a different feat.

for example, the rogue would benefit more from crossbow expert (gets to add dex to damage on the bonus hit, which is worth more), and the battle master would be better off with polearm master (which grants an easy reaction attack, has a better style supporting it, and allows the use of GWM feat with it).

the combat style has situational use when there are no feats, but really isn't very good at all if you do have feats.

[ChubbyRain]

the problem is that all of those builds (except the dual-lance build, which requires a fairly permissive DM to say the least) would benefit more from taking a different feat.

for example, the rogue would benefit more from crossbow expert (gets to add dex to damage on the bonus hit, which is worth more), and the battle master would be better off with polearm master (which grants an easy reaction attack, has a better style supporting it, and allows the use of GWM feat with it).

the combat style has situational use when there are no feats, but really isn't very good at all if you do have feats.

Hmmm

Twf works with thrown weapon properties. Is there a thrown weapon that deals d8? You can already twf with handaxes and throw them... Maybe the spear has a better range?

I need to go check my weapon table but a strength based throwing character may want to take twf and there is no better feat option for them. Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter all who would be this kind of build (strength based two weapon throwers). Maybe the javelin?

Vuman Fighter (twf) with duel wielder can hold two javelins. They can throw both as an attack and bonus action attack. If they have the sharpshooter feat (Lv 4) they can throw these javelins without disadvantage at a range of 320 feet. They deal 1d6+Str, 1d6+Str. When they get extra attack that is another 1d6+Str for each extra attack.

At level 10 the fighter grabs archery style from champion. At level 20 the fighter gains extra attack (3) for 4 attacks. The fighter also has action surge.

9d6+45 (+5 strength modifier to each damage) damage (average w/o crit is 66) is OK... But at a range of 320 feet this leads us to 9 javelins raining down on someone in a very 300 arrows block out the sun kinda way.

The only issue I see with this is that most fights don't happen at this range (thus its more of a s eak attack sort of thing) or that you may or may not be able to draw that many javelin without a magic quiver made for javelins or something... Oh and you will run out of javelins pretty darn fast.

[Easy_Lee]

Regarding a TWF throwing weapon character, monks are proficient with and can use their dexterity and martial arts die for all simple melee weapons. So a monk can absolutely carry javelins to throw, using dual wielder to draw two if his DM wanted to be anal about the weapon drawing rules, using his dex and martial arts for the attack and damage rolls. Since that counts as an attack, he could then go on to make a bonus melee attack or flurry unarmed.

That's about the only way I can see the dual wielder feat being especially necessary. The monk already has great mobility, so I question whether one would need ranged weapons at all. If I were attacking a flying mob as a monk, I would try to use a dagger with a chain attached (grapple hook) to pull it to the ground, or climb the chain and open hand flurry (shove prone) the flyer into the ground sooner than I would resort to taking a feat just to use more than one thrown weapon attack per turn.

[SharkForce]

ruleswise, you can draw one javelin per turn, or two with the dual wielder feat.

so yes, a thrower build will want the feat (mostly because there is nothing else that helps more), but no, it isn't even remotely close to being optimal because you're limited to two attacks per round (pretty sure TWF requires melee attacks to allow the bonus action attack as well for that matter).

[ChubbyRain]

Regarding a TWF throwing weapon character, monks are proficient with and can use their dexterity and martial arts die for all simple melee weapons. So a monk can absolutely carry javelins to throw, using dual wielder to draw two if his DM wanted to be anal about the weapon drawing rules, using his dex and martial arts for the attack and damage rolls. Since that counts as an attack, he could then go on to make a bonus melee attack or flurry unarmed.

That's about the only way I can see the dual wielder feat being especially necessary. The monk already has great mobility, so I question whether one would need ranged weapons at all. If I were attacking a flying mob as a monk, I would try to use a dagger with a chain attached (grapple hook) to pull it to the ground, or climb the chain and open hand flurry (shove prone) the flyer into the ground sooner than I would resort to taking a feat just to use more than one thrown weapon attack per turn.

Oh certainly, however taking the feat is safer and more likely to work than asking your DM if you can do all that other stuff.

Can I use my grappling hook on the flying creature? Can lead to NO or Disadvantage on the attack.

Can I climb up the rope to the flying creature? May lead to NO, insanely hard athletics check, or getting half way up and the creature unhooks itself.

Can I pull a creature with my grappling hook? Can lead to NO, athletics contest (monks suck at that usually), or being called a munchin.

Personally that is the type if stuff I would love to see but many DMs hate that sort of stuff. I saw a guy kicked out of a game when he asked if he could use the "climb o to bigger creature" action... And that's something right in the DMG (for reference the other member were using DMG rules such as race and classes). When that guy left (it was 2 minutes into the game) I just picked up my stuff and left *blah*.

Twf and sharpshooter (yeah you need a second feat to make it really good, though not necessarily needed) is the safe route. They tell you exactly what you can do and give you a way to know what you need to build for in order to pull it off instead of relying on the whin of a DM.

[Easy_Lee]

Personally that is the type if stuff I would love to see but many DMs hate that sort of stuff. I saw a guy kicked out of a game when he asked if he could use the "climb o to bigger creature" action... And that's something right in the DMG (for reference the other member were using DMG rules such as race and classes). When that guy left (it was 2 minutes into the game) I just picked up my stuff and left *blah*.

Twf and sharpshooter (yeah you need a second feat to make it really good, though not necessarily needed) is the safe route. They tell you exactly what you can do and give you a way to know what you need to build for in order to pull it off instead of relying on the whin of a DM.

That's rough...I would have gotten up and left, too. The only reason to play d&d instead of an online game is specifically so you can do those kinds of things.

Regarding sharpshooter, it's not supposed to work with thrown weapons according to at least one dev comment I've read, but by the rules I believe it does. Specifying that a thrown weapon may treat drawing the weapon as part of the thrown weapon attack, similar to drawing an arrow, wouldn't be an unreasonable house rule if one wants to make a dedicated thrower.

[calebrus]

Regarding sharpshooter, it's not supposed to work with thrown weapons according to at least one dev comment I've read, but by the rules I believe it does.

The Dev said No because by the rules the answer is No.
"When you make an attack with a ranged weapon...."
A thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. A thrown weapon is almost always a melee weapon that they threw.
Look at the weapon chart. Is that thrown weapon on the Melee or the Ranged listing? It is not a ranged weapon. It's a melee weapon that you're using at range.
The only thrown ranged weapons are net and dart, so Sharpshooter works with those two (but a net doesn't do any damage, so Sharpshooter is worthless with it). So it works with a dart, a blowgun, bows, and crossbows.

A DM would be well within his rights to allow it with thrown weapons, but by the book it doesn't work.

[Easy_Lee]

The Dev said No because by the rules the answer is No.
"When you make an attack with a ranged weapon...."
A thrown weapon is not a ranged weapon. A thrown weapon is almost always a melee weapon that they threw.
Look at the weapon chart. Is that thrown weapon on the Melee or the Ranged listing? It is not a ranged weapon. It's a melee weapon that you're using at range.
The only thrown ranged weapons are net and dart, so Sharpshooter works with those two (but a net doesn't do any damage, so Sharpshooter is worthless with it). So it works with a dart, a blowgun, bows, and crossbows.

A DM would be well within his rights to allow it with thrown weapons, but by the book it doesn't work.

As we all can see, one has to be very careful who one plays with when trying to do a thing that's not outright stated in the PHB. Some players and DMs will attack anyone who thinks of something the developers did not, or who tries to do something that the developers did not intend.

[calebrus]

As we all can see, one has to be very careful who one plays with when trying to do a thing that's not outright stated in the PHB. Some players and DMs will attack anyone who thinks of something the developers did not, or who tries to do something that the developers did not intend.

Passive aggressive much?
That wasn't an attack.
You said it worked by the rules. It does not.
It was a correction, not an attack.

[Zhrcreator]

Dex is the single most potent attribute. It is in most games. In our current campaign I built a pure fighter champion path variant human for a new player he bumped his dex with one of his +1, giving him a 19 at level 1 and as a feat, DW, so at level 1 he had 2 attacks per turn with the strongest finesse weapons available (also in studded leather of course). Now that he is level 5 and has a +1 rapier in his main hand and a 20 dex. Which in all gives him 3 attacks per turn at high initiative, high-crit, while still maintaining a modest 18 AC. It keeps his total damage output competitive with our ranger/rogue, and is the mid range for AC in our group, which is only possible because of DW. Yea sure you COULD take a feat that ups an attribute, but if you were smart you wouldn't need it since you stuffed your highest rolls and racial bonuses into the proper places from square one. (And if you didn't roll that high, don't blame feats for your lack of luck)

[Tenmujiin]

Dex is the single most potent attribute. It is in most games. In our current campaign I built a pure fighter champion path variant human for a new player he bumped his dex with one of his +1, giving him a 19 at level 1 and as a feat, DW, so at level 1 he had 2 attacks per turn with the strongest finesse weapons available (also in studded leather of course). Now that he is level 5 and has a +1 rapier in his main hand and a 20 dex. Which in all gives him 3 attacks per turn at high initiative, high-crit, while still maintaining a modest 18 AC. It keeps his total damage output competitive with our ranger/rogue, and is the mid range for AC in our group, which is only possible because of DW. Yea sure you COULD take a feat that ups an attribute, but if you were smart you wouldn't need it since you stuffed your highest rolls and racial bonuses into the proper places from square one. (And if you didn't roll that high, don't blame feats for your lack of luck)

OK. First, point buy is generally the assumed stat method since it removes the massive random chance from stats and allows two characters to actually be compared. Second, this character gained 1 AC and 1 damage per attack from dual wielder. Its not dual wielder that allowed him to keep up its simply the fact that it's almost impossible to fall behind in 5e

[coredump]

Now give that same PC a 20 in Str, platemail, GWF, Glaive, and polearm master or GWM. Heck, could even drop to 19 Str and take both feats.

Dex is the stronger ability, but Str has better feat support.

[Pex]

OK. First, point buy is generally the assumed stat method since it removes the massive random chance from stats and allows two characters to actually be compared. Second, this character gained 1 AC and 1 damage per attack from dual wielder. Its not dual wielder that allowed him to keep up its simply the fact that it's almost impossible to fall behind in 5e

It does make for an interesting thought if a feat works out better depending on character creation method used. Point Buy you can never get an 18 at first level and never a 20 until level 8 or 6 if a Fighter. Race is a factor. Dice rolling you can reach 20 at level 1 depending on race and 18 by luck or race. That extra +1 or +2 might be all the difference that's needed.

[BW022]

Why would anyone (other than fluff) ever take this feat?
...
Am I missing something here?


Yes. You are forgetting several key problems with dual wielding. You are assuming a toe-to-toe fight with weapon already drawn. Combats rarely go that way.

Getting your Weapons Out
You can only perform one interact with an object per round without using actions. Thus, you need to start with at least one weapon in a hand to draw another weapon. There are lots of times when this isn't the case -- normal travel, in a tavern, needing to open doors, switching to/from ranged weapons, etc. Rangers with a bow. Rogues needing to open locks. Barbarian needing to open a door, pour a potion of healing into someone. A character using thrown weapons. Any character with spell casting (needing to free hands). Any character needing to climb, swim, grab a falling character, light a torch, etc. Anytime you need to switch weapons for damage types (you have short swords and skeletons attack). The feat is worth it just for this. In a typical combat, many characters will spend a quarter or more of their actions doing something other than attacking -- most of these require free hands. The interact with object rules make TWF really pay for this as it can take two rounds to get both weapons in your hands without giving up all attacks.

AC Bonus
There aren't a lot of things which increase AC. TWF immediately means you can't have a shield. For heavy armor, strength builds... this is one of the few ways to get a higher AC. Medium armor caps dexterity bonus to AC, so again... it is one of the few ways to get an AC bonus. Even for high dexterity builds your dexterity is capped at 20. With a 20 dexterity and leather+1, that is still only an 18 AC. You will be hit an awful lot. That bonus isn't anything to turn down.

Non-light Weapons
Minor, yet... when you start considering properties, other weapons do have advantages. Not many light bludgeoning weapons. Thrown weapon ranges are limited on light weapons. None have reach or are versatile. These are specific, but if you need them, the feat is the only way to have those builds.

Is it for everyone... no. There are non-TWF builds which might be as or more powerful if shear damage is your only concern -- say polearm mastery, or great weapon fighting. However, TWF does have its advantages (spreading out damage, more concentration checks against folks, great chance to land one hit, useful when you have damage bonuses per hit, say hex or something, etc.) and people do use it. If you are going to... the feat is probably worth it -- primarily to negate some of the issues with getting weapons in your hands and the no shield/low AC caps of 5e.

[Malifice]

Yes. You are forgetting several key problems with dual wielding. You are assuming a toe-to-toe fight with weapon already drawn. Combats rarely go that way.

Getting your Weapons Out
You can only perform one interact with an object per round without using actions. Thus, you need to start with at least one weapon in a hand to draw another weapon. There are lots of times when this isn't the case -- normal travel, in a tavern, needing to open doors, switching to/from ranged weapons, etc. Rangers with a bow. Rogues needing to open locks. Barbarian needing to open a door, pour a potion of healing into someone. A character using thrown weapons. Any character with spell casting (needing to free hands). Any character needing to climb, swim, grab a falling character, light a torch, etc. Anytime you need to switch weapons for damage types (you have short swords and skeletons attack). The feat is worth it just for this. In a typical combat, many characters will spend a quarter or more of their actions doing something other than attacking -- most of these require free hands. The interact with object rules make TWF really pay for this as it can take two rounds to get both weapons in your hands without giving up all attacks.

AC Bonus
There aren't a lot of things which increase AC. TWF immediately means you can't have a shield. For heavy armor, strength builds... this is one of the few ways to get a higher AC. Medium armor caps dexterity bonus to AC, so again... it is one of the few ways to get an AC bonus. Even for high dexterity builds your dexterity is capped at 20. With a 20 dexterity and leather+1, that is still only an 18 AC. You will be hit an awful lot. That bonus isn't anything to turn down.

Non-light Weapons
Minor, yet... when you start considering properties, other weapons do have advantages. Not many light bludgeoning weapons. Thrown weapon ranges are limited on light weapons. None have reach or are versatile. These are specific, but if you need them, the feat is the only way to have those builds.

Is it for everyone... no. There are non-TWF builds which might be as or more powerful if shear damage is your only concern -- say polearm mastery, or great weapon fighting. However, TWF does have its advantages (spreading out damage, more concentration checks against folks, great chance to land one hit, useful when you have damage bonuses per hit, say hex or something, etc.) and people do use it. If you are going to... the feat is probably worth it -- primarily to negate some of the issues with getting weapons in your hands and the no shield/low AC caps of 5e.

For a dex based build, the last two problems are mitigated by simply increasing your Dex by +2 instead of taking the DW feat.

Doing so, increases your chance to hit, while increasing your damage on each attack by one (the same difference from switching to a 1d6 weapon to a 1d8 weapon when you get DW). In fact your average DPR is better off by increasing your Dex instead of taking the feat (the increased chance to hit with the higher Dex pushes it higher).

In additon to the increased DPR via the to hit bump, you also get the +1 to AC from the increased dex, +1 to dex saves and all dex skills, and +1 to initiative.

I mean, if you regularly walk around with both weapons not drawn then maybe, but I dont really see why you would take the feat otherwise than when your Dex is maxed out.

[Easy_Lee]

As above, the short version of why dual wielder is weak overall is that +2 DEX is provably superior. Dexterity boost provides the same benefits and more, meaning that dual wielder is weaker than it should be, unless your DM has OCD about weapons being sheathed.

[SharkForce]

i wouldn't go so far as to call it a trap though. it's something you shouldn't prioritize over +2 dex, but once you've got all the +2 dex you can fit, it becomes a question whether you start maxing another attribute or feat, or pick up the option that gives you +1 damage and +1 AC.

[Troacctid]

It lets you use a shield as an (improvised) offhand weapon. That makes it effectively +3 AC. Pretty big boost, that.

Also, why are we assuming all dual wielders are Dex-based? You can dual-wield with Strength. Nothing stopping you. This feat makes much more sense on a Strength-based character.

[Easy_Lee]

It lets you use a shield as an (improvised) offhand weapon. That makes it effectively +3 AC. Pretty big boost, that.

Also, why are we assuming all dual wielders are Dex-based? You can dual-wield with Strength. Nothing stopping you. This feat makes much more sense on a Strength-based character.

Polearm mastery deals as much damage as dual wield assuming extra attack (1), while also granting reach and extra opportunity attacks. It also lets you use just one weapon, meaning that your reaction attacks are stronger, you benefit more from spells like magic weapon and haste, and you only have to attune one thing. That's the trouble with dual wield on a strength character.

[Hawkstar]

ruleswise, you can draw one javelin per turn, or two with the dual wielder feat.Then why can you draw more than one arrow per turn?

[Easy_Lee]

Then why can you draw more than one arrow per turn?

Because arrows count as "ammunition" while javelins do not. It's silly.

[PhantomRenegade]

Wasn't there a tweet from Mearls about drawing a weapon as part of an attack?

[SharkForce]

Then why can you draw more than one arrow per turn?

ruleswise or logically?

ruleswise because arrows are ammunition, not a weapon themselves, and the ammunition property allows you to draw one piece of ammunition per attack with a weapon that uses said ammunition (technically, this allows you to draw one sling bullet from whacking someone with a loaded sling as an impromptu flail, but i would be inclined to ignore that particular rules interaction)

logically, i'd say it depends on what you imagine when i say the word "javelin".

if you're thinking of something that is, say, 3ish feet long, then there really isn't any compelling reason (though that is *really* short for a throwing spear... i'd say 4ish feet is even on the short end from what i can tell). it's larger than an arrow certainly, but i'm not sold on it being so unwieldy as to be impossible.

on the other hand, if you're thinking of something like the olympic javelin which is just over 8 feet long and is generally thrown with a running start (and is probably slightly on the long end for a throwing spear), one per turn sounds quite reasonable.

however, i would be inclined to look more towards the middle of the range, or about 5.5-6.5 feet long. why? because it's pretty close in damage and weight to the regular spear when used in one hand. the main differences i would expect are that it is more balanced for throwing, and is probably a bit less sturdy because that let's you throw it farther (perhaps also a slightly more streamlined shape, though i'm not sold on getting *massive* improvements from aerodynamics on weapons with relatively low velocity)

[Malifice]

ruleswise or logically?

ruleswise because arrows are ammunition, not a weapon themselves, and the ammunition property allows you to draw one piece of ammunition per attack with a weapon that uses said ammunition (technically, this allows you to draw one sling bullet from whacking someone with a loaded sling as an impromptu flail, but i would be inclined to ignore that particular rules interaction)

logically, i'd say it depends on what you imagine when i say the word "javelin".

if you're thinking of something that is, say, 3ish feet long, then there really isn't any compelling reason (though that is *really* short for a throwing spear... i'd say 4ish feet is even on the short end from what i can tell). it's larger than an arrow certainly, but i'm not sold on it being so unwieldy as to be impossible.

on the other hand, if you're thinking of something like the olympic javelin which is just over 8 feet long and is generally thrown with a running start (and is probably slightly on the long end for a throwing spear), one per turn sounds quite reasonable.

however, i would be inclined to look more towards the middle of the range, or about 5.5-6.5 feet long. why? because it's pretty close in damage and weight to the regular spear when used in one hand. the main differences i would expect are that it is more balanced for throwing, and is probably a bit less sturdy because that let's you throw it farther (perhaps also a slightly more streamlined shape, though i'm not sold on getting *massive* improvements from aerodynamics on weapons with relatively low velocity)

As for carrying javelins, it was usually done with the shield hand:

http://www.dbaol.com/images/faces/1335_face.jpg

You'd carry two to four in your shield hand when ready for battle. It's a free action to switch hands, so I have no problem with a PC throwing as many as he has on him in a round - as long as he told me in advance that this is how he is carrying them.

[SharkForce]

As for carrying javelins, it was usually done with the shield hand:

http://www.dbaol.com/images/faces/1335_face.jpg

You'd carry two to four in your shield hand when ready for battle. It's a free action to switch hands, so I have no problem with a PC throwing as many as he has on him in a round - as long as he told me in advance that this is how he is carrying them.

i'd say irl you would probably need to drop the spears before using the shield as a shield. most likely having 3-4 spears in your hand is gonna really reduce your ability to grip the shield.

not sure i'd care enough to make that distinction in D&D though.

[Easy_Lee]

i'd say irl you would probably need to drop the spears before using the shield as a shield. most likely having 3-4 spears in your hand is gonna really reduce your ability to grip the shield.

not sure i'd care enough to make that distinction in D&D though.

It's got multiple straps, and may even be strapped to his arm with a shield that size. It's not a buckler.

[SharkForce]

It's got multiple straps, and may even be strapped to his arm with a shield that size. It's not a buckler.

the information that has been passed on from those who use shields is (afaict) that there are two kinds of shields:

the kind you hold in your hand, and the kind you strap on *and* hold in your hand.

nobody has mentioned a shield where you don't use your hand to grip it. it's just a question of whether it has additional bracing beyond just gripping it.

[Malifice]

the information that has been passed on from those who use shields is (afaict) that there are two kinds of shields:

the kind you hold in your hand, and the kind you strap on *and* hold in your hand.

nobody has mentioned a shield where you don't use your hand to grip it. it's just a question of whether it has additional bracing beyond just gripping it.

Dude; you can hold a shield and a few javelins in the same hand.

Go outside and pick up your garbage lid and I assure you you can hold a mop or three in the same hand as well, without it really interfering with your ability to block stuff with the garbage lid.

I would assume a trained soldier would have even less difficulty.

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/595873/595873,1323296482,2/stock-photo-new-guinea-indonesia-december-unidentified-warriors-of-a-papuan-tribe-in-traditional-clothes-90350869.jpg

http://agemaminiatures.co.uk/wp-content/themes/agema/images/gallery1/Velite%20Agema%20Miniatures%208.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Agrianian3.jpg

[SharkForce]

none of those appear to depict someone actually holding a javelin in their shield hand while blocking with said shield.

[Malifice]

none of those appear to depict someone actually holding a javelin in their shield hand while blocking with said shield.

Like I said. Go grab this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41L%2ByN7hXpL._SX300_.jpg

And a few of these:

http://www.safetyquip.com.au/Uploads/ProdImages/JEH135A.jpg

And give it a go yourself.

I'm sure with enough practice (like what a Fighter has a lifetime of), you'll be just fine.

[coredump]

For a dex based build, the last two problems are mitigated by simply increasing your Dex by +2 instead of taking the DW feat.

Doing so, increases your chance to hit, while increasing your damage on each attack by one (the same difference from switching to a 1d6 weapon to a 1d8 weapon when you get DW). In fact your average DPR is better off by increasing your Dex instead of taking the feat (the increased chance to hit with the higher Dex pushes it higher).

In additon to the increased DPR via the to hit bump, you also get the +1 to AC from the increased dex, +1 to dex saves and all dex skills, and +1 to initiative.

I mean, if you regularly walk around with both weapons not drawn then maybe, but I dont really see why you would take the feat otherwise than when your Dex is maxed out.

Okay, we all agree that for a Dex based TWF the dex boost is better than the DW feat.

But since each PC gets between 5 and 8 chances at taking a feat, and you would only be able to use 2 of those for Dex boosts.... that leaves a lot of opportunites for DW.
Not to mention the Vuman can't take the +2 Dex boost as his starting feat.

[coredump]

It's got multiple straps, and may even be strapped to his arm with a shield that size. It's not a buckler.
Based on the style of shield, and the time period of the fighter, I would bet it is being held like a buckler, with a single center point to grip.

[Malifice]

Okay, we all agree that for a Dex based TWF the dex boost is better than the DW feat.

I'm not sure it's worth it for a Str based character either. Taking the Str bump instead of the feat increases your DPR more than just taking the feat, and gives you +1 to Str saves and skills. Taking into account the extra +1 to AC, ts about on par with the feat really, especially considering the stat bump allows you to use the strength with other weapons (including thrown ones as well).


But since each PC gets between 5 and 8 chances at taking a feat, and you would only be able to use 2 of those for Dex boosts.... that leaves a lot of opportunites for DW.

Oh yeah; if youre maxed out in your stat of choice, then it becomes better. But it's really the icing; not the cake.


Not to mention the Vuman can't take the +2 Dex boost as his starting feat.

That's a corner case that works for sure. I allow all characters to take a feat at 1st level, so it does see some uses in my games.

I'm considering adding the following dot point to the feat:


Once you reach 11th level, you can make 2 attacks per round as a single bonus action with a weapon you wield in your off hand.

[coredump]

Dude; you can hold a shield and a few javelins in the same hand. Dude... did you even look at the pictures you posted. The first two have 'javelins' that are way too big for what you are suggesting, they would have trouble holding just two of them, let alone also holding a shield....
The third one has possibilities, but I can't tell if the proportions are correct on the hand.


Go outside and pick up your garbage lid and I assure you you can hold a mop or three in the same hand as well, without it really interfering with your ability to block stuff with the garbage lid.

I would assume a trained soldier would have even less difficulty.
Not saying it can't be done at all.... but it isn't as trivial as you seem to be implying. One sure, two..... a bit iffy but maybe. Three...?? With a shield? That is a lot to hold on to. And I dont' think 'fighter training' is really going to help, its just a matter of how much you can hold in your hand at once.

[coredump]

I'm not sure it's worth it for a Str based character either. Taking the Str bump instead of the feat increases your DPR more than just taking the feat, and gives you +1 to Str saves and skills. Taking into account the extra +1 to AC, ts about on par with the feat really, especially considering the stat bump allows you to use the strength with other weapons (including thrown ones as well). Str, Dex.... same logic applies.



Oh yeah; if youre maxed out in your stat of choice, then it becomes better. But it's really the icing; not the cake.
But that happens at level 6-8 with point buy, and maybe 4 if rolled. There are a *lot* of feats that are taken after the stat bumps. Do you think Resilent is a trap? Or Inspiring Leader? Or Lucky?
Bumping your main stat is often a great idea, but you have lots more opportunities after that. If your criteria is "Is the feat better or worse than bumping your main stat?", then most of the feats are a 'trap'.

[Malifice]

Dude... did you even look at the pictures you posted. The first two have 'javelins' that are way too big for what you are suggesting, they would have trouble holding just two of them, let alone also holding a shield....

Its possible.

The picture you refer to was a Peltast. From Wiki:

Agrianian peltast. This peltast holds three javelins, one in his throwing hand and two in his pelte hand as additional ammunition..

If historical precedent isnt good enough for you, Im not sure what else is.


Not saying it can't be done at all.... but it isn't as trivial as you seem to be implying. One sure, two..... a bit iffy but maybe. Three...?? With a shield? That is a lot to hold on to. And I dont' think 'fighter training' is really going to help, its just a matter of how much you can hold in your hand at once.

You can get away with at least two. Three maybe. Your fourth in your other hand. You could probably get away with drawing one from your back and pegging that as well.

Thats 5 javelins in 6 seconds. Totally do-eable by a highly skilled warrior (and only a Fighter of 11th level action surging can do it).

[Malifice]

If your criteria is "Is the feat better or worse than bumping your main stat?", then most of the feats are a 'trap'.

Not at all. Half feats can bum your main stat AND give you bonuses. Feats like Lucky, Alert and GWM allow you to do pretty remarkable things you couldnt already do.

DW adds 1 to the damage of your main and off hand, 1 to your AC, and lets you draw 2 weapons at once (situationally useful ability I guess). It needs either another non numerical minor special ability to make it worth it (other than in situations where you have to take a feat such as vhuman or when your stat is maxed out - and even then I would rather take Lucky or Resilient - Wisdom, or simply bump Con).

[SharkForce]

Like I said. Go grab this:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41L%2ByN7hXpL._SX300_.jpg

And a few of these:

http://www.safetyquip.com.au/Uploads/ProdImages/JEH135A.jpg

And give it a go yourself.

I'm sure with enough practice (like what a Fighter has a lifetime of), you'll be just fine.

no thanks, i think i'll pass on practicing having people murder me while i have my poor excuse for a shield and half a dozen broomsticks in one hand. i like my fingers unbroken, oddly enough. just one of those quirks of mine.

like i said, i don't know that i'd really care enough to prevent someone from doing it in D&D (you're getting, what, 2 whole rounds of being able to use suboptimal weapons slightly less suboptimally out of it? *if* you've specifically prepared to do so? sure, go ahead). i just very much doubt it has at any point been considered a good idea to do it irl.

[Easy_Lee]

Okay, we all agree that for a Dex based TWF the dex boost is better than the DW feat.

But since each PC gets between 5 and 8 chances at taking a feat, and you would only be able to use 2 of those for Dex boosts.... that leaves a lot of opportunites for DW.
Not to mention the Vuman can't take the +2 Dex boost as his starting feat.

That depends on the class. A fighter has the best opportunity to take feats, given that fighters are usually SAD and can start with a 14 in their non-primary melee stat. For example, a 20 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON fighter would be reasonable, leaving him room to pick up a couple feats. But a barbarian? Forget it, he can afford one feat, two if variant human, unless he rolled stats. And even then, he'd like max STR, CON, and DEX if he could help it, since he has class features that rely on all three.

And then there are monks who rely heavily on WIS and DEX. While a barbarian can safely forget about DEX and CON for a while, just raising strength and picking up a feat, monks really need to get their stats up as soon as possible. Every +2 DEX is +1 AC, to-hit and damage, dexterity save, and initiative, while every +2 WIS is +1 AC, WIS Save, and stunning strike / other monk ability DC. Very few feats are more important.

Long story short, rogues and fighters can conceivably afford dual wielder. For everyone else, I'd argue that it's just not worth it in the vast majority of cases. And even when it is viable, feats like lucky, crossbow expert, polearm mastery, resilient, sentinel, and others are arguably much more useful.

[Ardantis]

Based on the style of shield, and the time period of the fighter, I would bet it is being held like a buckler, with a single center point to grip.


Are we talking about Captain America here? It sounds like we're talking about Captain America.

[coredump]

Long story short, rogues and fighters can conceivably afford dual wielder. For everyone else, I'd argue that it's just not worth it in the vast majority of cases. And even when it is viable, feats like lucky, crossbow expert, polearm mastery, resilient, sentinel, and others are arguably much more useful.

And which are the classes most likely to be TWF? Hint: Its not Monks...

[Easy_Lee]

And which are the classes most likely to be TWF? Hint: Its not Monks...

Probably Rangers, if the mechanics supported it.

Edit: and I consider it a failure of the mechanics if they don't suit the world and lore.

[SharkForce]

well, at least rangers make great archers in 5e.

[Ardantis]

well, at least rangers make great archers in 5e.

Yeah, competing with Bards. Most of their great archery comes from spells.

They're not very versatile, is all I'm saying, and the most versatile class can mimic their best schtick just as well as they can pull it off.

TWF be damned.

[SharkForce]

Yeah, competing with Bards. Most of their great archery comes from spells.

They're not very versatile, is all I'm saying, and the most versatile class can mimic their best schtick just as well as they can pull it off.

TWF be damned.

a ranger can shoot a volley of arrows that hits an entire area without casting a spell. a bard can sorta do that, but only if they cast a spell.

a ranger gets archery style for +2 to hit and has dexterity as their primary attribute with little need to ever take wisdom at all, and has more room for (presumably archery-oriented) feats. a bard gets no fighting style and has charisma as their primary attribute, and gives up quite a bit from not maxing it.

a ranger gets a bonus attack or bonus damage on a single attack. a bard only gets anything remotely equivalent based on their charisma; see the point above.

bards make good archers. in one specific way (access to swift quiver) they are superior to the ranger.

in a variety of other ways, the ranger is better (note that the ranger can actually get as many attacks without swift quiver as the bard can get with swift quiver if they so desire by choosing the correct class features, although one must be made at a different target than the rest and they have to use a hand crossbow).

[Easy_Lee]

a ranger can shoot a volley of arrows that hits an entire area without casting a spell. a bard can sorta do that, but only if they cast a spell.

a ranger gets archery style for +2 to hit and has dexterity as their primary attribute with little need to ever take wisdom at all, and has more room for (presumably archery-oriented) feats. a bard gets no fighting style and has charisma as their primary attribute, and gives up quite a bit from not maxing it.

Rangers make good archers, this is true. They're the most versatile archer class because of hunter bonuses and their spells. However, Rangers are still MAD. Bards, because they have a larger spell list, are more able than Rangers to only pick spells that have no DC. One could conceivably build a bard with not a single DC or attack roll on any of his spells, spells like haste, find steed, and so on. Doing the same with a ranger would be more difficult simply because of the ranger's smaller spell list.

Fighting styles are a relevant point in the ranger's favor. Bard archers may be wise to take four levels of ranger for this reason.

[SharkForce]

rangers have a lot fewer spells known as well, though. there are certainly a few where they might like to have them that have a DC, but it is still quite easy to fill their spells known.

what's more, they don't have a large portion of their spell list focused on CC.

[Spacehamster]

Suggestion: add this to the feat, "when using your bonus action to make an offhand attack you may do an additional attack with the same weapon" or alternatively make the feat grant +1 damage on main and offhand attacks when wielding two weapons.

[Easy_Lee]

Suggestion: add this to the feat, "when using your bonus action to make an offhand attack you may do an additional attack with the same weapon" or alternatively make the feat grant +1 damage on main and offhand attacks when wielding two weapons.

Swapping 1AC for that would be reasonable. It would bring dual wielder in line with other weapon feats.

[Spacehamster]

Swapping 1AC for that would be reasonable. It would bring dual wielder in line with other weapon feats.

Swapping the use of 1d8 weapons for it makes more sense to me as the +1ac fits pretty well thematically. :)

[Easy_Lee]

Swapping the use of 1d8 weapons for it makes more sense to me as the +1ac fits pretty well thematically. :)

But then nobody can do double longsword, double axe, or rapier + dagger.

[Spacehamster]

But then nobody can do double longsword, double axe, or rapier + dagger.

True but tbh there is really no point of removing anything from the feat as is since its quite underpowered as is. 1 extra bonus attack would make dw around as powerful as the other weapon feats imo. :)

[Easy_Lee]

True but tbh there is really no point of removing anything from the feat as is since its quite underpowered as is. 1 extra bonus attack would make dw around as powerful as the other weapon feats imo. :)

It would, except that having +1 AC and +1 damage (effectively) on top of that would be a bit much. That would be like a fighting style and a feat rolled into one, whereas other weapon feats (like polearm mastery) grant one small boost in addition to their bonus attack (more reaction attacks, in that case).

The only other thing I would say about the bonus attack is that the second one, if you're going with that route, should not come online until level 11+. Otherwise, you've got level 1 fighters making three attacks per round, then four at level 5. That's a bit much, especially considering that dual wield is already the premier option for levels 1-4. It's not until level 5 that great weapons start overtaking it, and level 11 when duelists start winning (unless they did the polearm mastery w/quarterstaff BS).

I made a post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul)overhauling the entire TWF system (basic TWF, the fighting style, and the feat) over in the homebrew forum. It may help if you're looking for a comprehensive dual wield update to increase TWF damage without making it too strong.

[Sindeloke]

But then nobody can do double longsword, double axe, or rapier + dagger.

I'll never understand what makes double longsword the least bit desirable. And rapier+main-gauche should be the default behavior of dual-wield, no feat required.

The frothing savage with a giant axe in each hand is certainly iconic, though. Maybe barbs should get a tempest or dervish subclass that lets them go dual falchion or battleaxe. Or it could just be a default capability of rage (though it'd make frenzy even more obsolete).

[Easy_Lee]

I'll never understand what makes double longsword the least bit desirable. And rapier+main-gauche should be the default behavior of dual-wield, no feat required.

The frothing savage with a giant axe in each hand is certainly iconic, though. Maybe barbs should get a tempest or dervish subclass that lets them go dual falchion or battleaxe. Or it could just be a default capability of rage (though it'd make frenzy even more obsolete).

Some people like it, some people don't. There's some (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZNZyhNFSaE)historical basis for the whole two full-length sword thing, although (much like rapier-dagger) you really only saw it in duels. On a medieval battlefield, you really want a shield, pole weapon, or ranged weapon. Or a gun if you want to, you know, cheat.

Many claim that it wouldn't lead to extra attacks. Well, I'm not sold on that. Having an offhand weapon allows you to defend and attack at the same time, much as a shield does, so it could lead to more mainhand strikes. It could also be used in a move where you switch hands, defending with the mainhand for a surprise attack with the offhand. Naturally, the better you got with dual wielding, the better you would be at doing that. For that reason, I think EverQuest actually had the best two-weapon system I've seen in a game: you only got an offhand strike every few swings, but the frequency increased with your skill level.

[Zhrcreator]

OK. First, point buy is generally the assumed stat method since it removes the massive random chance from stats and allows two characters to actually be compared. Second, this character gained 1 AC and 1 damage per attack from dual wielder. Its not dual wielder that allowed him to keep up its simply the fact that it's almost impossible to fall behind in 5e

you know, fair enough, i forget about point buy frequently, in the umpteen years i have been sitting around a table, i have never been asked to use the point buy system...
and no he gained more damage, there are no d8 finesse weapons that are light, so by taking DW he gained access to Rapiers. effectively raising the potential damage output further, and with high-crit from champion, he is more likely to increase the gap.

as far as "keeping up" or "falling behind goes" when in a group of 7 people the highest AC is 22 and the lowest is 12, having a 19 is a good place to be, his dex mod allows him to generally be one of the first to arms in combat, and he generally connects more attacks than those of us who are lacking a max stat in offensive capability. running as much as you can off of one attribute, allows you to grow in larger leaps and bounds. DW is just putting the largest finesse weapon available in both of his hands.

so yes DW only directly allows for a number here and a number there, but the ability to have a mid grade weapon, act with initiative, possible surpass the AC of someone in Plate armor, AND stack four attacks per turn, that comes from streamlining everything on DEX, now any feats he may take are not needed to up attributes, which opens up more doors than having to sacrifice a point gain.

[Psikerlord]

Yeah dex is already the king stat. The reason TWF feat is a bit average might be because of balance. It does increase your max a little more. Only considering the average +1 is misleading. It could be as high as +2! :smallwink:

[Easy_Lee]

Yeah dex is already the king stat. The reason TWF feat is a bit average might be because of balance.

I doubt it. WoTC would have to be pretty insane to knowingly make one stat better than the others, then try to resolve that by making its melee damage options weak but leaving it as the best ranged option. It's more likely, I think, that WoTC wanted DEX to have slightly inferior melee options since it has superior ranged options.

However, neither of the above addresses why dual wield, which can use either stat (a fact people often forget), should be inferior to dueling or great weapons.

[Tenmujiin]

you know, fair enough, i forget about point buy frequently, in the umpteen years i have been sitting around a table, i have never been asked to use the point buy system...
and no he gained more damage, there are no d8 finesse weapons that are light, so by taking DW he gained access to Rapiers. effectively raising the potential damage output further, and with high-crit from champion, he is more likely to increase the gap.

as far as "keeping up" or "falling behind goes" when in a group of 7 people the highest AC is 22 and the lowest is 12, having a 19 is a good place to be, his dex mod allows him to generally be one of the first to arms in combat, and he generally connects more attacks than those of us who are lacking a max stat in offensive capability. running as much as you can off of one attribute, allows you to grow in larger leaps and bounds. DW is just putting the largest finesse weapon available in both of his hands.

so yes DW only directly allows for a number here and a number there, but the ability to have a mid grade weapon, act with initiative, possible surpass the AC of someone in Plate armor, AND stack four attacks per turn, that comes from streamlining everything on DEX, now any feats he may take are not needed to up attributes, which opens up more doors than having to sacrifice a point gain.

Except that all the feat is gaining him is 1 AC and 1 damage per attack compared to a dual weilder without the feat. I personally don't consider dualwielding particually underpowered but the feat deffinately is.

[Zhrcreator]

Except that all the feat is gaining him is 1 AC and 1 damage per attack compared to a dual weilder without the feat. I personally don't consider dualwielding particually underpowered but the feat deffinately is.


you cannot dual Rapiers without the feat, the rapiers are the key, as they are currently the ONLY d8 Finesse weapon, but they are not light. its not about the direct effects of the feat, but the implications of having all of your stats streamlined, and still using the strongest weapon of its type in two hands. getting the most attacks, earliest in the turn, at the highest mod, lvl 1...

[Tenmujiin]

you cannot dual Rapiers without the feat, the rapiers are the key, as they are currently the ONLY d8 Finesse weapon, but they are not light. its not about the direct effects of the feat, but the implications of having all of your stats streamlined, and still using the strongest weapon of its type in two hands. getting the most attacks, earliest in the turn, at the highest mod, lvl 1...

Yes, dual rapiers is where the 1 damage per attack comes from. The feat lets you use a d8 weapon rather than a d6 weapon, this results in a averqge of 1 extra damage per attack (3.5 increases to 4.5). The rest of the bonuses come from just dual weilding.

[Zhrcreator]

Yes, dual rapiers is where the 1 damage per attack comes from. The feat lets you use a d8 weapon rather than a d6 weapon, this results in a averqge of 1 extra damage per attack (3.5 increases to 4.5). The rest of the bonuses come from just dual weilding.

sure that works on average, and im not saying that this makes it OP or anything, but in the hands of a champion fighter, you also crank out 15% chance of critical hits, meaning for two weapons at double damage is an average of 4 damage. i don't think this feat is anywhere near perfect, but i also don't believe it is anywhere near as bad as some of these comments make it sound. stable, repeatable damage gain is not easy to come by once you have your attributes capped, the very same can be said for AC as well. so yes, there are ways to get much of the same results from other sources, but why not take them as well? have it all if you know how to swing it!

[djreynolds]

what about two weapon rend? or something like that? any suggestion or being able to add your deception modifier or sleight of hand modifier to the off hand attack or allowing a rouge to use the off hand attack as a sneak attack

[PoeticDwarf]

Why would anyone (other than fluff) ever take this feat?

It is a total trap feat in almost every scenario possible. It gives no bonuses to hit, only lets you increase your attacks damage by (on average) 1 point per hit over what you could do anyways (d6 to d8), and adds +1 to your AC. You get the marginal benefit of drawing both weapons at once.

Dex based TWF characters should clearly just stick with using two shortswords and boosting Dex till it hits 20 first. Every Dex boost gets you +1 to hit and damage on all your attacks, and to your AC, initiative, Dex saves and all your Dex skills. Only when Dex is maxed would you want to take the DW feat, and even then I would take Lucky, Alert or Resilient any day of the week over the feats negligble benefits.

Even a (subotimal) Str based TWFer (probably only a Barbarian) would arguably be better just boosting Strength (+1 hit and damage on all attacks, Str saves, Str skills - read: athletics). As you advance in level and gain more main hand attacks, the STR boost becomes more important, and the simple dice increase on the off hand attack less so.

Im struggling to see any real mathmatical reason to take this feat unless youve maxed out your attacking stat and really really want an extra point of AC and damage per round in exchange for +2 to your ability scores or a far better feat.

I'm totally considering allowing it to add +1 to Dex in addition to its normal benefits, or allowing some kind of extra bonus action/ reaction trick it may allow (a parry as a reaction or rend if both attacks hit or something).

Am I missing something here? As written its worse than Charger. If im right, what to do to fix it, and make it worth it over the ASI? I considered allowing an additonal attack at a certain Prof bonus, but even then no-one will take it till their Prof bonus is that high.


Two lances riding something, and you can with the good fighting style do 1d12+3 (later 1d12+4 or 1d12+5, you want a high strenght anyways if you take this) extra damage.
It is just usefull if you are a low level adventurer this way but in a short campaign it is nice.
The +1 AC is just nice because you can get a 1d12 weapon and a shield. Instead of 16 AC and 2d6+6 damage you have 17 AC and 2d12+6 damage or instead of 18 AC and 1d8+3 damage you have 17 AC and 2d12+6 damage.

[cannonheads]

one thing we can't forget about is magic weapons guys. finding a flametongue you can't use cause you dual wield short swords will probably make you mad as hell. and rightly so flametongues are awesome! i think if we are gonna try to fix this feat we should still try to replicate abilities that are in the book and instead of trying to increase damage just worry about flexibility. what if instead of an extra bonus action attack and additional damage to earlier attacks, we just let you choose to do an extra d8 and forgo the bonus action. this benefits alot of people, if you're playing a rogue, you don't really care about the extra attack, you just want to make sure you hit at least once per turn. if you do, you get a little bonus damage and can use your bonus action however you want. if you miss you can still make the bonus action attack. this still helps fighters who want to use their second wind and the damage should even out with gwf. it'll also let rangers not feel as though their being sub optimal whenever they cast their spells. what do you guys think?

[Specter]

Come on, who brought this up again?

For a dual wielder, if you're a variant human or have 20DEX, it's a matter of when, not if, you're taking this. If you don't, enjoy shortswords and handaxes for the rest of your life. Oh, and also enjoy attacking with only one weapon on your first turn of combat. Dropped weapons/switched between melee and range? Sorry, feel bad for another turn.

+1AC is something everyone can get behind, especially guys taking War Caster and Medium Armor Master who pretty much take an entire feat for +2AC.

[MaxWilson]

+1AC is something everyone can get behind, especially guys taking War Caster and Medium Armor Master who pretty much take an entire feat for +2AC.

That's an interesting way to look at it.

Warcaster gives (effectively) +2 AC, and a better opportunity attack (Booming Blade >>> regular attack), and concentration benefits. It's basically the gish-tank feat.

I've never seen anyone take Medium Armor Master but I have seen PCs take Moderately Armored for +3 to AC. E.g. Dex 17 and Mage Armor (AC 16) => Dex 18 and (potentially) half-plate and shield (AC 19). Another PC went from Dex 14 and Mage Armor (AC 15) to Dex 15, breastplate and shield (AC 18).

[Captain Panda]

Well, bladesingers can not use a shield. So getting the extra +1 ac is actually a really solid option if they've already maxed dexterity.

Consider 20 dex, 20 int, haste, shield, bladesong, and now this feat on top of mage armor.

13+5+5+5+2+1. Toss in defensive style and you're virtually untouchable at 32ac.

[Spacehamster]

Why would anyone (other than fluff) ever take this feat?

It is a total trap feat in almost every scenario possible. It gives no bonuses to hit, only lets you increase your attacks damage by (on average) 1 point per hit over what you could do anyways (d6 to d8), and adds +1 to your AC. You get the marginal benefit of drawing both weapons at once.

Dex based TWF characters should clearly just stick with using two shortswords and boosting Dex till it hits 20 first. Every Dex boost gets you +1 to hit and damage on all your attacks, and to your AC, initiative, Dex saves and all your Dex skills. Only when Dex is maxed would you want to take the DW feat, and even then I would take Lucky, Alert or Resilient any day of the week over the feats negligble benefits.

Even a (subotimal) Str based TWFer (probably only a Barbarian) would arguably be better just boosting Strength (+1 hit and damage on all attacks, Str saves, Str skills - read: athletics). As you advance in level and gain more main hand attacks, the STR boost becomes more important, and the simple dice increase on the off hand attack less so.

Im struggling to see any real mathmatical reason to take this feat unless youve maxed out your attacking stat and really really want an extra point of AC and damage per round in exchange for +2 to your ability scores or a far better feat.

I'm totally considering allowing it to add +1 to Dex in addition to its normal benefits, or allowing some kind of extra bonus action/ reaction trick it may allow (a parry as a reaction or rend if both attacks hit or something).

Am I missing something here? As written its worse than Charger. If im right, what to do to fix it, and make it worth it over the ASI? I considered allowing an additonal attack at a certain Prof bonus, but even then no-one will take it till their Prof bonus is that high.

Agree its not a strong feat but should not scoff at 2 extra damage and 1AC with bounded accuracy, also it broadens your options on what weapons to dual wield since without it you could not dw that flaming longsword and that neat voporal battle axe for example. Should be a half feat tho, that would make it a great option instead of a half decent one once maxed out your attack stat.

[Gignere]

Well, bladesingers can not use a shield. So getting the extra +1 ac is actually a really solid option if they've already maxed dexterity.

Consider 20 dex, 20 int, haste, shield, bladesong, and now this feat on top of mage armor.

13+5+5+5+2+1. Toss in defensive style and you're virtually untouchable at 32ac.

This is an impossibility, how many ASI's do you think wizards get. Not possible to get 20 dex and 20 int while still have any ASI's left at least before level 19.

So this feat is still garbage for bladesingers unless people regularly roll double 18s in ability scores to start.

[Captain Panda]

This is an impossibility, how many ASI's do you think wizards get. Not possible to get 20 dex and 20 int while still have any ASI's left at least before level 19.

So this feat is still garbage for bladesingers unless people regularly roll double 18s in ability scores to start.

Not everyone uses standard array. It definitely not something I'd recommend for someone who needs the ASIs to puff up dex or int, but that's not something I claimed in the first place. It's not every time, but sometimes people roll good stats... honestly, 4d6d1 very commonly leads to people having arrays better than standard. Saying 'not every wizard could do that' would be fair. Saying it's an impossibility is completely false. It's possible to roll a stat array like 17, 16, 15, 12, 11, 7, because that's the set I rolled for my wizard.

So, -if- you have a good set and do not need those ASIs to push your primary two stats, the feat becomes a very solid option. +1 ac in this edition is no joke, and for a bladesinger it's +1 ac that doesn't compete with a shield.

[ad_hoc]

Not everyone uses standard array. It definitely not something I'd recommend for someone who needs the ASIs to puff up dex or int, but that's not something I claimed in the first place. It's not every time, but sometimes people roll good stats... honestly, 4d6d1 very commonly leads to people having arrays better than standard. Saying 'not every wizard could do that' would be fair. Saying it's an impossibility is completely false. It's possible to roll a stat array like 17, 16, 15, 12, 11, 7, because that's the set I rolled for my wizard.

So, -if- you have a good set and do not need those ASIs to push your primary two stats, the feat becomes a very solid option. +1 ac in this edition is no joke, and for a bladesinger it's +1 ac that doesn't compete with a shield.

Yes, feats are broken when you roll for stats. That doesn't just apply to dual wielding.

[Citan]

Well then, since someone reopened the Pandora's Box, I might as well bring in my opinion on this.
Which is that OP is far too extreme in his opinion.

Non-Light dual wield.
Maybe OP and others lack imagination, or there is something I missed... But this means...

1. You can wield any one-handed weapon and a net, which you can throw as a bonus action. Granted, this may not be allowed everywhere, because this is a "special" weapon, with thrown, but also a 5 range feet. So it may be a houserule on my part, not sure at all about RAW/RAI. I would allow it whatever those are anyways, because ROF always goes first for me (and I don't see how this could be worse mechanically then succeeding in shoving prone, since it's usually easy to break away from the net). ;)

2. You can actually wield a one-handed weapon, a shield, and still have the bonus action attack. Because the shield is then an improvised weapon. Sure, you lose the "+1 AC benefit" (well, RAI I'm sure, but pretty sure it's also RAW) but since the shield provides a +2, you don't care. Then...
- Either you don't care about not being proficient in it (unless the DM is cool about it because you were "proficient with shield" but that would clearly be a boon), because you have good chance to hit anyways. I agree though I don't see many such situations.
- Or it was part of your concept and you took Tavern Brawler, which is why I suggested this in the first place to be honest. ;)
Absolutely perfect for a Paladin because of smite or a multiclass Warlock/Ranger (Hex, Hunter's Mark). Also great on an Eldricht Knight with one dip for damage buff (you could achieve the same with Polearm Master if DM allows the "bonus action" while wielding a shield though. But this restricts the kind of weapons). Also nice on a Rogue who wants to max his AC hence wielding a shield for the extra +1 compared to usual benefit. ;)

3. You can wield a classic weapon and a reach weapon, including finesse ones (thinking rapier+whip here). Is it useful often? Probably not. But being able to make a reach Sneak Attack is invaluable when you need it, and you can still carry your magic finesse weapon for when it's safe.
Sure, it is a minor benefit if you consider you could (un)sheathe weapons, but this avoids micromanagement (also, with a cool DM, you could interact with objects "through" your whip such as opening door, grabbing objects etc. Total DM domain though but, thanks to Indiana Jones's legacy XD, I don't know many people that would refuse that to a player, unless it's totally out of character or straight overpowered/improbable).

4. You can dual-wield any thrown weapon, so you could perfectly throw both and still use your free interaction to draw two other, meaning 1 for bonus action and 1 to keep in hands in case you get a chance for OA (or you have a defensive feature requiring a weapon, such as Parry or Defensive Duelist).

5. You can wield a quarterstaff that also acts as your focus, and use a "better" weapon (reach, magic, thrown, etc) in the other, so you can attack and still cast without Warcaster.
Again, this would not be meaningful for all classes, but for those who want to cast spells and do not have shield proficiency, it is a nice flexibility.

+1 AC
Well, it would be great for any class, even those STR based (heavy armor), but it certainly favors a bunch of people who have to rely on light or unarmored and have difficulties getting high AC for a long time: namely Wizards/Sorcerers/Warlock (you have Mage Armor, but usually not higher than 16 and you want to pump your casting stat), Monks (starting Madness, and does not prevent you to sheathe your weapon if you want to use FoB), Barbarians, even possibly Rogues.

And it is totally compatible with any other "AC feature" or armor.

It also fares very well with Defensive Duelist, so you can have a versatile/reach weapon in one hand, and still keep a dagger or such to get better AC against a powerful attack.

Conclusion
Are all of these benefits strong, taken each separately? Arguably not.
Is Dual Wielder more complex to exploit, and bringing less measurable benefit than the others? Certainly yes.
Does it though provide a good overall package, with extreme versatility to adapt to any specific situation? Certainly yes.

>>>> This feat shines the brightest on...
A Variant Human Bladesinger Wizard (lvl 1 feat): wield a quarterstaff in one hand, a dagger in the other, take Defensive Duelist at level 4. You have 17 AC, a nice defensive reaction to avoid blowing a Shield when it would be overkill, and from level 1 to 5 at least, a better attack than weapon cantrip. Then 6th Extra Attack makes it competitive again against single target up until level 11.

A tankish Variant Human Vengeance (or Devotion+Hex dip) Paladin (lvl 1 feat): take your weapon and a shield. At level 3 you can apply Hunter's Mark, at level 4 take Brawler feat, you can now make "Divine Skull Bashes" with your shield. Certainly not the most "optimized" but still works well, and a refreshing concept. Blows things away if you build around it (Fighter 2 for TWF + Action Surge, multiclass Sorcerer or Warlock to get sustainable spell slots).


Yes, feats are broken when you roll for stats. That doesn't just apply to dual wielding.
Very true, and my gut tells me this is one of the big reasons they made feats an option in the first place. ;)

[TripleD]

A tankish Variant Human Vengeance (or Devotion+Hex dip) Paladin (lvl 1 feat): take your weapon and a shield. At level 3 you can apply Hunter's Mark, at level 4 take Brawler feat, you can now make "Divine Skull Bashes" with your shield. Certainly not the most "optimized" but still works well, and a refreshing concept. Blows things away if you build around it (Fighter 2 for TWF + Action Surge, multiclass Sorcerer or Warlock to get sustainable spell slots).


It's funny you mention that, as I currently am playing a Variant Human Vengeance Paladin with Dual Wielder, although I'm using it in a completely different way. Our party didn't have a rogue, so I decided to build a DEX-based "Stealth Paladin", roughly inspired by Sonia Belmont from Castlevania, who fights with a whip and dagger in leather armor.

Honestly for what I originally designed as a purely for fun character she's been remarkably effective. Duel Wielder, along with "Defensive" fighting style, bumps her AC up to 17, just one below our two-hander fighter in plate. I have her dart in and out of combat, using the whip to trip characters or provide the help action so our fighter can attack with advantage. She can make two attempts at tripping (hopefully one of which will hit) then Dual Wielder allows her to hit one with a dagger at advantage and dart away without having to use disengage or risk an attack of opportunity.

Things got even crazier with Hunter's Mark in play. I'd move away from my marked creature, hit a different one twice, then use the bonus attack granted by Dual Wielder to chuck a dagger at the marked creature from across the room for that sweet, sweet extra damage.

Would I like it more if only the off-hand weapon had to be light and I could have sunk +2 into DEX? Of course. But if this it what it takes to get the fighting style I want then I feel like I've gained plenty from it.

[Sabeta]

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, but could someone explain to me why everyone here is so ass-blasted about one character option being not quite as good as other character options?
It's a role playing game, not a competitive shooter. Your DM should be scaling combat to your party's relative outputs anyway. If everyone is running around with max DPR then all that changes is how much HP enemies have. Are you all so shallow that if you aren't #1 DPR at the table you suddenly can't enjoy your character?

[TripleD]

I'm sorry, I haven't read the entire thread, but could someone explain to me why everyone here is so ass-blasted about one character option being not quite as good as other character options?
It's a role playing game, not a competitive shooter. Your DM should be scaling combat to your party's relative outputs anyway. If everyone is running around with max DPR then all that changes is how much HP enemies have. Are you all so shallow that if you aren't #1 DPR at the table you suddenly can't enjoy your character?

It's more theory crafting than anything. I don't know anyone personally that would consciously notice a difference between 3 and 3.5 average damage per turn.

Although to be honest it can give some interesting insights into game design. As others have pointed out, unless your Dexterity is maxed out Dual Wielder doesn't give you much that a +2 DEX wouldn't give you and more. In a well designed game Fluff and Crunch should line up, and the fluff for feats is that they should give you something equivalent to a +2 ability score increase. To get something that is in many ways worse... many DMs would like to tweak it for interested players, to make sure that they aren't getting cheated out of an important character decision.

[ad_hoc]

In a well designed game Fluff and Crunch should line up, and the fluff for feats is that they should give you something equivalent to a +2 ability score increase.

I disagree.

Feats need to be worse than a +2 increase. A +2 increase is a broad increase in power. A feat is specialized and tailored to the character.

The default should be to take a +2. When the default turns to taking a feat, there is a problem. The problem is that the feat is no longer special. It doesn't let a character stand out because every character that can use it, does. It just becomes a basic ability.

[Ravinsild]

I disagree.

Feats need to be worse than a +2 increase. A +2 increase is a broad increase in power. A feat is specialized and tailored to the character.

The default should be to take a +2. When the default turns to taking a feat, there is a problem. The problem is that the feat is no longer special. It doesn't let a character stand out because every character that can use it, does. It just becomes a basic ability.

That's kind of how I feel about Polearm Master. Every two-handed weapon build eventually has to become this build and it sucks if you like...Swords or Axes or Mauls or anything that isn't a Halberd or Glaive.

[Sabeta]

If I take Polearm Master its because polearms are my favorite weapon. Not because I felt I needed to arbitrarily increase my DPR so that my DM could give my enemies more health which results in a zero net gain.

Feats need not be stronger or worse than a +2 bonus. They should simply allow your character to do something they couldn't before. The only crime of 5E Feats is that most of them boil down to more damage, and people tend to throw away anything that doesn't do "max" damage. In my opinion, 4E's class or background specific feats were awesome. Gaining a daily power to transform into a treant seriously made me feel way more like a nature warrior than anything 5e has come up with so far. I can't for the life of me remember if that power was balanced or not, but it didn't matter because I had fun.

Although 5e definitely isn't balanced for this, the best way to handle feats in any edition is to allow players both ASIs and Feats. This way feats can be safely balanced against each other rather than against universally useful stats like Dex.

[Ravinsild]

If I take Polearm Master its because polearms are my favorite weapon. Not because I felt I needed to arbitrarily increase my DPR so that my DM could give my enemies more health which results in a zero net gain.

Feats need not be stronger or worse than a +2 bonus. They should simply allow your character to do something they couldn't before. The only crime of 5E Feats is that most of them boil down to more damage, and people tend to throw away anything that doesn't do "max" damage. In my opinion, 4E's class or background specific feats were awesome. Gaining a daily power to transform into a treant seriously made me feel way more like a nature warrior than anything 5e has come up with so far. I can't for the life of me remember if that power was balanced or not, but it didn't matter because I had fun.

Although 5e definitely isn't balanced for this, the best way to handle feats in any edition is to allow players both ASIs and Feats. This way feats can be safely balanced against each other rather than against universally useful stats like Dex.

Well that's the issue though. I feel like going just normal Greatsword is objectively inferior to going Polearm with Polearm master due to the reach and everything else. It feels bad knowing you COULD be doing more but you chose not to. Especially if you're a team player and want to help your team by bringing the best character you can to each session so that it's fun for everyone. Nobody wants to be weak link or the guy getting carried in every encounter because they made a trash character. Even worse your DM starts gimping encounters making it boring for everyone.

[CaptainSarathai]

Easy fix: swap the ability to dual-wield non-light weapons from the Feat, for the ability to add your stat to damage from the fighting style.
So now Fighters can go in with a pair of d8 weapons (+1avg dam/hit over a d6) and everyone can get the +Stat to damage (up to +5avg dam/hit)

[Theodoxus]

Easy fix: swap the ability to dual-wield non-light weapons from the Feat, for the ability to add your stat to damage from the fighting style.
So now Fighters can go in with a pair of d8 weapons (+1avg dam/hit over a d6) and everyone can get the +Stat to damage (up to +5avg dam/hit)

I do this - I honestly thought the layout team got those crossed when I first read the PHB. Makes way more sense, in a personal fighting development kind of way. The fighter/ranger would learn to use bigger weapons. The rogue would take a feat to make them hurt more.

[ad_hoc]

Feats need not be stronger or worse than a +2 bonus. They should simply allow your character to do something they couldn't before. The only crime of 5E Feats is that most of them boil down to more damage, and people tend to throw away anything that doesn't do "max" damage.

Most of the feats aren't damage related. It's just that a few feats that are damage related are too good. This isn't a problem with feats in general, this is a problem with those specific feats being too good.

Savage Attacker should not be in the game. There is no way to balance it properly. It is either too good or too bad. It doesn't add anything to a character.


Although 5e definitely isn't balanced for this, the best way to handle feats in any edition is to allow players both ASIs and Feats. This way feats can be safely balanced against each other rather than against universally useful stats like Dex.

Again, I disagree. I am glad that feats are optional in 5e. Not just as rules, but even when used they are optional on a character by character basis. They should be rare and special. I don't want to be forced to take feats, that just makes them uninteresting.

Feats like Actor, Inspiring Leader, Magic Initiate, and Resilient are well designed.

Feats like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, and Savage Attacker are not.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Easy fix: swap the ability to dual-wield non-light weapons from the Feat, for the ability to add your stat to damage from the fighting style.
So now Fighters can go in with a pair of d8 weapons (+1avg dam/hit over a d6) and everyone can get the +Stat to damage (up to +5avg dam/hit)


I do this - I honestly thought the layout team got those crossed when I first read the PHB. Makes way more sense, in a personal fighting development kind of way. The fighter/ranger would learn to use bigger weapons. The rogue would take a feat to make them hurt more.

I'm a rogue player and I think this is the simplest and best TWF fix I've seen for my purposes. Thanks! I think I'll suggest it to my DM, though it may be too far down the line anyway. I had previously written off the feat as dissatisfying (although when I said as much on a WotC board rogue guide thread that rated it as a good feat, nobody responded).

[Sabeta]

Well that's the issue though. I feel like going just normal Greatsword is objectively inferior to going Polearm with Polearm master due to the reach and everything else. It feels bad knowing you COULD be doing more but you chose not to. Especially if you're a team player and want to help your team by bringing the best character you can to each session so that it's fun for everyone. Nobody wants to be weak link or the guy getting carried in every encounter because they made a trash character. Even worse your DM starts gimping encounters making it boring for everyone.

Speak for yourself, I've had way more fun playing with people who show up with a Goliath homebrewed to be mountable (he had a leather harness that someone could use to "stand" on his back, and javelins lashed to his side." He played his character as little more than a beast of burden who liked being around friendly people, he was also a Barbarian and whenever he raged he would buck whoever was on him off. THAT character was interesting. Nobody cared that he wasted turns tossing his allies off his back, or that his allies would be intentionally gimping themselves by climbing on board to throw Javelins instead of their normal class features because it was fun. Another player in that party was a drunken dwarf who took the Tavern Brawler feat and refused to fight with any weapon but an ale mug. He spent a lot of time grappling people so that he could bash them with his nice cup. At one point he even had the cup inlaid with silver so he could fight werewolves.

I remember these characters better than I remember the dozen or so great sword wielding fighters or or rapier wielding rogues. There is literally no benefit to optimizing your character for anything but fluff. Your DM will write the story in a way that makes it interesting. Like I said before, if your Party comprises a Battlemaster Fighter, a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Wizard then all that's going to happen to you is the DM will inflate enemy stats so that you don't go around crushing everyone's skull in one hit. Nothing feels more lame than the DM hyping up the boss of a dungeon, and the Paladin walking up to him and one-shotting him with a crit.

[Ravinsild]

Speak for yourself, I've had way more fun playing with people who show up with a Goliath homebrewed to be mountable (he had a leather harness that someone could use to "stand" on his back, and javelins lashed to his side." He played his character as little more than a beast of burden who liked being around friendly people, he was also a Barbarian and whenever he raged he would buck whoever was on him off. THAT character was interesting. Nobody cared that he wasted turns tossing his allies off his back, or that his allies would be intentionally gimping themselves by climbing on board to throw Javelins instead of their normal class features because it was fun. Another player in that party was a drunken dwarf who took the Tavern Brawler feat and refused to fight with any weapon but an ale mug. He spent a lot of time grappling people so that he could bash them with his nice cup. At one point he even had the cup inlaid with silver so he could fight werewolves.

I remember these characters better than I remember the dozen or so great sword wielding fighters or or rapier wielding rogues. There is literally no benefit to optimizing your character for anything but fluff. Your DM will write the story in a way that makes it interesting. Like I said before, if your Party comprises a Battlemaster Fighter, a Paladin, a Cleric, and a Wizard then all that's going to happen to you is the DM will inflate enemy stats so that you don't go around crushing everyone's skull in one hit. Nothing feels more lame than the DM hyping up the boss of a dungeon, and the Paladin walking up to him and one-shotting him with a crit.

I literally was speaking for myself? Hence I began with "I feel" ??

[Sabeta]

Nobody wants to be weak link or the guy getting carried in every encounter because they made a trash character. Even worse your DM starts gimping encounters making it boring for everyone.

and ended with "nobody", speaking for everyone. Maybe read your own post?

[Ravinsild]

and ended with "nobody", speaking for everyone. Maybe read your own post?

Is it wrong of me to assume most people realize that D&D is a cooperative experience in which everyone is coming together with the understanding they will be working together toward a common goal and therefore do not want to deliberately sabotage the game?

It's not like LFD in an MMO where you randomly get thrown together and you pay your 15$ a month so you feel justified to suck ass and don't bother learning your character.

Is it a far stretch to guess most players would want a capable character that brings value to a party unless it's agreed upon having a silly concept that is purposefully suboptimal knowing other players are probably playing decent characters that can carry them?

Otherwise why show up trying to play a team based game? "I'm average joe the average joe I bring nothing to this party ever, thanks for having me along. Expect me to die every combat and waste more of the parties resources making every fight a slog!" I recognize there are the 10% who do bring this attitude to the table because it's "funny" or something, but I don't want them at my table unless it's a silly game agreed on by everyone.

I think the game makers assumed people could come to this game as a band of heroes working together to defeat great obstacles and play...heroic character capable of great feats. Incorrect?