Duelist Fighting Style, "Why I'm afraid to speak up for a bonus?"

[djreynolds]

A question, why does the duelist only affect the one handed weapon wielder and a shield bearer.

And not a two weapon fighter's main hand.

Why would a battle axe wielder ever go shield-less? I mean 1d10, for a versatile battle axe wielded two handed and isn't even "legally" eligible for GWM's -5,+10 since its not a heavy weapon; versus 1d8 +2, with shield, which is better than 1d10.

I say the designers need to make the duelist bonus for only one weapon fighters signifying that during the fight you will be wielding that weapon, because not all are versatile, at some point with two hands or allow it for both two weapon wielder's main hand and a shield bearer's as well.

I'm afraid to even mention it. But its like a mistake on your paycheck, they're coming for it sooner or later.

[Dhavaer]

versus 1d8 +2, with shield, which is 3d10.

I can't quite parse this bit. How do you get 3d10?

[djreynolds]

I can't quite parse this bit. How do you get 3d10?

Thanks, I fixed it, but 1d8 plus 2 is better than straight up 1d10, right?

[Giant2005]

A Duelist shouldn't have reason to stop Dueling and wield his weapon two-handed - he was trained to fight one-handed so he absolutely should be better at it.
I would allow a Duelist to get his Duelist damage bonus while dual-wielding though, provided he doesn't actually attack with his off-hand weapon that round.

[djreynolds]

A Duelist shouldn't have reason to stop Dueling and wield his weapon two-handed - he was trained to fight one-handed so he absolutely should be better at it.
I would allow a Duelist to get his Duelist damage bonus while dual-wielding though, provided he doesn't actually attack with his off-hand weapon that round.

Fair enough, its just unfair that a guy with a shield does get and a guy with two weapons does not.
So a fighter say with 3 attacks could get it for two of the attacks and not for the bonus action attached to one of his three strikes. Am I reading that correctly.

[Giant2005]

Fair enough, its just unfair that a guy with a shield does get and a guy with two weapons does not.
So a fighter say with 3 attacks could get it for two of the attacks and not for the bonus action attached to one of his three strikes. Am I reading that correctly.

No. That Fighter wouldn't get a bonus action attack at all - his off-hand weapon would be either doing nothing for the round, or it would be acting purely defensively as a pseudo-shield if he had the Dual Wielder feat.
If the guy with two-weapons wants to use both weapons offensively and effectively, he has his own Fighting Style that he can train for and receive benefits from - he doesn't need to nor should expect to receive the bonuses associated with the guy that spent his time training to duel.

[Gurka]

I'd have no problem with a guy using TWF getting the duelist bonus if they take that fighting style, for their main hand.

It has yet to come up in one of our games, but truth be told, I'd allow it for both weapons for TWF, since after the first few levels TWF is really far behind in terms of damage.

It even makes sense, since Florentine (Fighting with a fencing sword and a dagger) was a style which I believe was predominantly used FOR dueling. It certainly wasn't ever a battlefield technique.

Our most recent game, we've revamped two weapon fighting a lot, and even with the damage we added to it, it's still behind the other martial damage styles, so I wouldn't worry about it from a balance perspective.

So RAW, you're right, it definitely doesn't count for TWF, but at my table I'd certainly allow it.

[Dimolyth]

Emm... the answer is - D&D is about medieval fantasy word? In Midlle Age, "dueling" are always shield-wielding (either with lance on the horse or with mace/sword/axe as a footman), and never about dual-wielding. That is a clear Midlle Age archetype for knight tournaments, and it fits.

Yes, we did got rapier and swashbucler from 16-18 centures for movie-like agile fighters (zoro, musketeers, etc), but that doesn`t mean we ought to have their dueling style (rapier + back up dagger for parring) NAMED as dueling style (you still can simulate it through feats and two-weapon fighting style).

As for me, that is more about design, and much less about math.

[AgentPaper]

I actually ran the numbers a while back, dual wielding is competitive (or better) for all classes at all levels...except for fighters at level 11+. The only fix needed is to give fighters a second off-hand attack with their bonus action when they hit 11. For everyone else, no change is needed.

[Malifice]

I'm ok with 'fighter with sword and shield is better than without a shield'

[EvilAnagram]

Properly fighting with two weapons is extremely different from fighting with one. The rules reflect this.

That said, a Razorclaw Shifter gets to use its bonus action attack while Dueling, and because of that is the best damage-dealing Fighter build in the game.

[Arial Black]

I think that they should've kept the 'no weapon or shield' wording.

I liked the idea that each of the four fighting styles from 2E (weapon and shield, single 1H weapon, 2H weapon, and two-weapon) each got their very own 5E equivalent.

Then I realised that they changed the wording so that weapon and shield not only get their own style, but can also steal the thunder of single weapon style. Some people think that it can also steal the Protection style by calling a shield 'wearing armour'.

This takes away a valid choice to be a single weapon wielder, because now instead of choosing between +2 AC and +2 damage, the shield guy can get both, leaving the single weapon guy just 2 AC worse for no benefit.

In my games, the 'or shield' wording has been restored.

[Slipperychicken]

Why would a battle axe wielder ever go shield-less? I mean 1d10, for a versatile battle axe wielded two handed and isn't even "legally" eligible for GWM's -5,+10 since its not a heavy weapon; versus 1d8 +2, with shield, which is better than 1d10.


He wouldn't. If he wanted to fight without a shield or second weapon, he'd use a greatsword, maul, or greataxe. With the great weapon style, rerolling 1s and 2s, a 2d6 weapon averages 8.33 before modifiers, which is better than 1d8+2 (6.5).

Also remember the bonus attacks from GWM. They happen more often than you'd think, and don't require a heavy weapon.

[djreynolds]

But my question, and pray I'm seeing it right, that if you wield a battle axe it's 1d8 with one and 1d10 with two hands, and since its not heavy it is not eligible for gwm or gw style. Yet with the duelist style you get +2 damage, meaning you do 3-10 damage with one hand or 1-10 damage with two hands. Is that correct? And you wield a shield? Just seems unfair.

[Doug Lampert]

But my question, and pray I'm seeing it right, that if you wield a battle axe it's 1d8 with one and 1d10 with two hands, and since its not heavy it is not eligible for gwm or gw style. Yet with the duelist style you get +2 damage, meaning you do 3-10 damage with one hand or 1-10 damage with two hands. Is that correct? And you wield a shield? Just seems unfair.

Why do you think a style you're not trained in (single two-handed weapon) be as good as the one you specialize in (weapon and shield)?

Now, personally, if I were designing a game, I'd declare that "fighter" means you are skilled with all weapons and get EVERY style or feat benefit that adds to some weapons for free; then styles and feats are for the more specialized types.

But it's not my game, they gave styles that you only get one or two of and that give an advantage, given this you should EXPECT using the style you are trained for to beat any other, if it doesn't then they've done something horribly wrong.

[Easy_Lee]

Allowing dueling to apply to versatile weapons wielded in two hands is a common house rule. I'd recommend that.

[Naanomi]

Meh if your weapon of choice is a battle axe you should almost always use a shield or second weapon. If you don't want a shield, use a dedicated two-handed weapon. If you can't use a shield or two handed weapon, then you don't have a fighting style to stress out about anyways.

What concept has you using a battle axe preferentially two handed often enough to worry about it?

[Ralanr]

Doesn't the -5 to hit +10 damage require a heavy weapon?

it sucks that power attack is forced into two-handers.

Also, battle axe with a shield is a very good combo in real life. Axes being easier to produce than swords (depending on the area. They were great improvised weapons when needed) than swords.

It's also a scary weapon.

[EvilAnagram]

But my question, and pray I'm seeing it right, that if you wield a battle axe it's 1d8 with one and 1d10 with two hands, and since its not heavy it is not eligible for gwm or gw style. Yet with the duelist style you get +2 damage, meaning you do 3-10 damage with one hand or 1-10 damage with two hands. Is that correct? And you wield a shield? Just seems unfair.

You're making an unfair comparison. For ease of math and fairness, let's compare a battle axe wielder with Dueling to a battle axe wielder with Great Weapong Fighting. Both have 20 Str.


A die deals an average (x/2)+0.5 damage normally, where x equals the number of sides on the die.
Do the math yourself, this holds true for all dice.
For the Duelist, his d8 deals 4.5 average damage ((1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8).
The Duelist deals 1d8+5+2=4.5+7=11.5 damage per hit (on average).
GWF changes the math by providing rerolls on 1s and 2s. Each reroll shares the normal average of the die.
The average damage for the GWF battle axe is (5.5+5.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10=6.3
So, GWF maths out to 1d10+5=6.3+5=11.3
Duelist gets 11.5, GWF gets 11.3
Essentially, it's the same damage.

[Doug Lampert]

You're making an unfair comparison. For ease of math and fairness, let's compare a battle axe wielder with Dueling to a battle axe wielder with Great Weapong Fighting. Both have 20 Str.


A die deals an average (x/2)+0.5 damage normally, where x equals the number of sides on the die.
Do the math yourself, this holds true for all dice.
For the Duelist, his d8 deals 4.5 average damage ((1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8).
The Duelist deals 1d8+5+2=4.5+7=11.5 damage per hit (on average).
GWF changes the math by providing rerolls on 1s and 2s. Each reroll shares the normal average of the die.
The average damage for the GWF battle axe is (5.5+5.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10=6.3
So, GWF maths out to 1d10+5=6.3+5=11.3
Duelist gets 11.5, GWF gets 11.3
Essentially, it's the same damage.

And GWF does an extra 6.3 on a critical, duelist does only 4.5 extra on a critical.

If you critical on 1/9th of hits the average damage is exactly the same. Most characters won't critical that often against normal AC, but with advantage or a champion of high enough level to crit more often the battleaxe in actually two hands moves ahead.

[AgentPaper]

Properly fighting with two weapons is extremely different from fighting with one. The rules reflect this.

That said, a Razorclaw Shifter gets to use its bonus action attack while Dueling, and because of that is the best damage-dealing Fighter build in the game.

That doesn't work. If you treat their claws as a weapon for twf, then you don't get dueling because you're wielding two weapons. If you treat it as an unarmed attack, then you don't get a bonus action attack since you're not wielding two weapons.

[Easy_Lee]

Meh if your weapon of choice is a battle axe you should almost always use a shield or second weapon. If you don't want a shield, use a dedicated two-handed weapon. If you can't use a shield or two handed weapon, then you don't have a fighting style to stress out about anyways.

What concept has you using a battle axe preferentially two handed often enough to worry about it?

This just proves the point that there's no support for certain weapon setups. A fighter can't use the versatile property of a versatile weapon without sacrificing damage in the process. Aragorn is unsupported.

[Ralanr]

This just proves the point that there's no support for certain weapon setups. A fighter can't use the versatile property of a versatile weapon without sacrificing damage in the process. Aragorn is unsupported.

No feats for versatile weapons is pretty odd, I just assumed that shield master covered that.

[EvilAnagram]

That doesn't work. If you treat their claws as a weapon for twf, then you don't get dueling because you're wielding two weapons. If you treat it as an unarmed attack, then you don't get a bonus action attack since you're not wielding two weapons.
You don't treat their claws as a weapon for TWF. They have an ability that allows them to make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. Unarmed strikes, as of the errata, are not weapons. Therefore, you can attack using Dueling. Because you make an attack using Dueling, you fulfill the requirements for making the Razorclaw bonus attack. With Tavern Brawler, that's a 1d4+Dex attack.

Relevant errata:

Unarmed strike doesn’t belong on the Weapons table.


Melee Attacks (p. 195). The rule on unarmed strikes should read as follows: “Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an un- armed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow (none of which count as weapons). On a hit, an unarmed strike deals bludgeoning damage equal to 1 + your Strength modifier. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes.”


Razorclaw Shifter Rules:

Shifting Feature. While shifting, you can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action. You can use your Dexterity for its attack and damage bonus, and this attack deals slashing damage.

Dueling Rule:

When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

Your unarmed strikes are not weapons, therefore Dueling comes into effect.

If you are shifting, you can make an unarmed strike as a bonus action with the full damage bonus.

If you have Tavern Brawler, your unarmed strikes are 1d4+relevant modifier.

Therefore, you can attack with your full dueling bonus and still make a bonus action attack with the Dex damage bonus, essentially benefiting from both Dueling and TWF without having to take TWF.

[AgentPaper]

Therefore, you can attack with your full dueling bonus and still make a bonus action attack with the Dex damage bonus, essentially benefiting from both Dueling and TWF without having to take TWF.

Interesting. Though, not the "highest damage in the game" by a long shot. You're dealing 1d6+2 and 1d4 compared to someone with the TWF feat and style dealing 1d8 with both The first averages to 8, while the second averages to 9, so a TWF is actually ahead in damage at low levels. They pull ahead a bit at level 11, but by then you probably have magic weapons and resistance to non-magic attacks which make your unarmed strikes a bit lackluster. Plus, since you're using dex, you don't benefit much from tavern brawler's grappling bonuses or your free hand, whereas the TWF get their bonus +1 AC, so I don't think that's really a very good build.

[Gurka]

This just proves the point that there's no support for certain weapon setups. A fighter can't use the versatile property of a versatile weapon without sacrificing damage in the process. Aragorn is unsupported.

I see what you're getting at, and would love for them to make either a combat style or a feat which caters to that play style since a lot of people do like the imagery and well, style of it.

That said, even though you're not getting any numeric damage bonuses for doing so, having a free hand to take improvised actions isn't all bad either. I've made some very good uses of that free hand in a couple of games. The "I must hit it 'till it's hit points go down to zero" mindset doesn't always represent the best way to defeat given adversary.

What I'd personally like to see, is a "free hand" fighting style that utilizes one-hand and versatile weapons, which allows you to take a bonus action to make a non-damaging attack action (ie grapple, push, attempt to dissarm, throw dirt in his eyes, etc). In other words, any action which you could use in lieu of a regular attack.

[EvilAnagram]

Interesting. Though, not the "highest damage in the game" by a long shot. You're dealing 1d6+2 and 1d4 compared to someone with the TWF feat and style dealing 1d8 with both The first averages to 8, while the second averages to 9, so a TWF is actually ahead in damage at low levels. They pull ahead a bit at level 11, but by then you probably have magic weapons and resistance to non-magic attacks which make your unarmed strikes a bit lackluster. Plus, since you're using dex, you don't benefit much from tavern brawler's grappling bonuses or your free hand, whereas the TWF get their bonus +1 AC, so I don't think that's really a very good build.

Let's assume Lv. 20 Fighters with 20 STR. and 20 DEX. TWF gets the Dual Wielder feat. Dueling has Tavern Brawler.

TWF:

2 longswords
4 attacks + bonus attack
1 attack deals 1d8+5 damage
Total damage= 5d8+25
1d8 averages 4.5 damage
5d8+25=47.5 Damage



Dueling:

1 Rapier + Razorclaw attack
4 attacks + bonus attack
4 attacks deal 1d8+7 damage
Bonus attack deals 1d4+5
d4 averages 2.5 damage
7x4=28+5=33
Total damage= 1d4+4d8+33 damage
Total damage= 53.5 damage



GWF:

1 Greatsword
4 attacks at 2d6+5 damage
GWF d6 averages 4.167 damage
Total damage= 8d6+20 damage
Total damage= 53 1/3 damage


If

Razorclaw Dueling is the best average damage for fighters

and

Fighters have the best average resourceless damage

then

Razorclaw Dueling is the best at consistent damage, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master notwithstanding.

Edit: Someone brought up Polearm Master, which I forgot about. That maths out to an average of 53.2 damage.

I should mention that the great weapon builds still perform better on Action Surges, though TWF falls further behind.

[Joe the Rat]

What I'd personally like to see, is a "free hand" fighting style that utilizes one-hand and versatile weapons, which allows you to take a bonus action to make a non-damaging attack action (ie grapple, push, attempt to dissarm, throw dirt in his eyes, etc). In other words, any action which you could use in lieu of a regular attack.Would you go with a fighting style or build a feat for that one? I'd be happy with either.


Best I can come up with is to unfocus your options slightly - duelist style and great weapon mastery, for example. same (actually slightly better) damage one-handed, but you can double-grip for power swings. Worse AC than a dedicated 1-weapon meleer, worse damage than a full-time two-hander.

I suppose the big issue is that for any particular use for a free-hand meleer, you can find an option to make it obsolete.

[djreynolds]

Allowing dueling to apply to versatile weapons wielded in two hands is a common house rule. I'd recommend that.

Thank you for answering my question.
At least someone is paying attention. Battle axes and longsword are versatile. I bring up these because the longsword especially is a commonly made weapon, more likely to be magical and can fit into any build, two handed, to shield, to one handed to two weapon.

[djreynolds]

Meh if your weapon of choice is a battle axe you should almost always use a shield or second weapon. If you don't want a shield, use a dedicated two-handed weapon. If you can't use a shield or two handed weapon, then you don't have a fighting style to stress out about anyways.

What concept has you using a battle axe preferentially two handed often enough to worry about it?

I'd like the thank everyone for their input.

A battle axe is versatile like the long sword. It's a weapon that can used with a shield, but can drop that shield and wield it two handed because I need the extra damage. But MR. Lee answer suffices, giving the duelist stlye damage to versatile weapons wielded two handed.

Also I apologize but great weapon fighting style allows for two handed or versatile and great weapon master power attack portuin requires heavy.

[AgentPaper]

If

Razorclaw Dueling is the best average damage for fighters

and

Fighters have the best average resourceless damage

then

Razorclaw Dueling is the best at consistent damage, Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master notwithstanding.

First, level 20 is not representative of what players actually play. Second, at that level you have magic weapons, and with +3 weapons against something resistant to non-magic weapons, you deal (slightly) more damage with TWF than your build. Third, you're ignoring other ways to get damage, such as cleave (GWF), power attack (GWF and PLM), and reaction attacks (PLM).

And finally, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter*. Average ~90 damage at level 20 with two hand crossbows, and even taking into account reduced chance to hit, it still hovers around 60-70. Personally, I don't allow that combo in my games (house rule: sharpshooter requires two hands), but if you're looking at RAW that's what you want.

Anyways, back on topic, allowing Duelist with versatile weapons doesn't break anything, you deal less 7.5 damage compared to a GWF dealing 8.3, and have the advantage of being able to grapple and attack at the same time if you so desire by one-handing your weapon for a bit. Still lacks feats, but you could probably homebrew up something nice.


*I know you said Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master notwithstanding, but I don't know why you wouldn't include those for any reason other than to make your build look better.

[EvilAnagram]

First, level 20 is not representative of what players actually play.
It's extremely convenient for discussing optimization, though, as it provides a place at which everything is equal save the subjects being compared. That is to say, all things being equal, the build I put forward is superior.


Second, at that level you have magic weapons, and with +3 weapons against something resistant to non-magic weapons, you deal (slightly) more damage with TWF than your build.
According to the books, +3 weapons are ridiculously rare. Like, worth a kingdom rare. So, yes, if a TWF PC had a kingdom's worth of extra magic on his side, he'd be at an advantage, but I specifically did not pay attention to magic items because of both their rarity and because they distract from the core subject being discussed.



Third, you're ignoring other ways to get damage, such as cleave (GWF), power attack (GWF and PLM), and reaction attacks (PLM).
I was specifically comparing fighting styles, but you're right that I should have considered the Polearm Master build. However, I specifically mentioned two of those feats as being ignored for the sake of what I was discussing.


And finally, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter*. Average ~90 damage at level 20 with two hand crossbows,
I thought you were upset about comparing things at level 20? I mean, I don't know why this upset you so much, but it clearly did. Perhaps you should think about why you're angry before posting again.

Also, two hand crossbows, as per the errata, can only get two shots off because you need a free hand to load.


*I know you said Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master notwithstanding, but I don't know why you wouldn't include those for any reason other than to make your build look better.
Because the math on them is more complicated and relies on more assumptions than simply stating that stats and feats are equal.

I did the math for GWM, and it came out as being slightly under my build with an assumed AC of 22 for simplicity (50% chance to hit normally). Of course, that doesn't represent the relative strength of GWM very well because of both the potential bonus attack and the fact that most players only go for the damage when they have something to mitigate the attack penalty. The actual usefulness of this feat depends too much on player agency to be accurately modelled. Sharpshooter is a bit better off because Archery is a solid attack bonus mitigater, but I was implicitly comparing melee options.

I'm sorry my desire to make things simple for ease of math and digestibility ao offends you.

[Gritmonger]

Am I dumb for playing a battlemaster duellist who only uses one handed weapons, no shield, finesse and 16 DEX - and occasionally uses a whip instead of a rapier?

[EvilAnagram]

Am I dumb for playing a battlemaster duellist who only uses one handed weapons, no shield, finesse and 16 DEX - and occasionally uses a whip instead of a rapier?

Nah. That sounds like a lot of fun to me. Pump that Dex, and you'll be feeling pretty damn powerful in a few levels.

[Ralanr]

Am I dumb for playing a battlemaster duellist who only uses one handed weapons, no shield, finesse and 16 DEX - and occasionally uses a whip instead of a rapier?

Sounds like a badass.

No wrong play styles. The ones who live pass down their art.

[Giant2005]

I'd like the thank everyone for their input.

A battle axe is versatile like the long sword. It's a weapon that can used with a shield, but can drop that shield and wield it two handed because I need the extra damage. But MR. Lee answer suffices, giving the duelist stlye damage to versatile weapons wielded two handed.

Also I apologize but great weapon fighting style allows for two handed or versatile and great weapon master power attack portuin requires heavy.

So an entire thread full of people tell you that you can't and shouldn't add the dueling damage with a versatile weapon, except for one solitary guy that says he would allow it, and yet that one solitary voice is the only relevant opinion?
If all you wanted was some kind of ehco-chamber, you should have said so in the opening post and we would have complied or at least stayed out of the thread entirely. I'm sure you don't want us nay-sayers cluttering up your thread that was looking for nothing more than reaffirmation of your own opinion.
Although I guess if you aren't interested in any opinions but your own, the entire thread is kind of pointless in the first place, so you would have been better off simply not creating it rather than requesting an echo-chamber.

[Spacehamster]

Properly fighting with two weapons is extremely different from fighting with one. The rules reflect this.

That said, a Razorclaw Shifter gets to use its bonus action attack while Dueling, and because of that is the best damage-dealing Fighter build in the game.

What is a "razorclaw shifter"? Some new subclass? :)

[Giant2005]

What is a "razorclaw shifter"? Some new subclass? :)

It is a race from the first Unearthed Arcana.
I have no idea what makes him think it is the best Fighter damage in the game though... OBviously a Greatsword-Wielding Razorclaw would do more while Shifted.

[Spacehamster]

It is a race from the first Unearthed Arcana.
I have no idea what makes him think it is the best Fighter damage in the game though... OBviously a Greatsword-Wielding Razorclaw would do more while Shifted.

Got a link to it perhaps? :)

[Giant2005]

Got a link to it perhaps? :)

This (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/unearthed-arcana-eberron) will do the trick.

[PoeticDwarf]

A question, why does the duelist only affect the one handed weapon wielder and a shield bearer.

And not a two weapon fighter's main hand.

Why would a battle axe wielder ever go shield-less? I mean 1d10, for a versatile battle axe wielded two handed and isn't even "legally" eligible for GWM's -5,+10 since its not a heavy weapon; versus 1d8 +2, with shield, which is better than 1d10.

I say the designers need to make the duelist bonus for only one weapon fighters signifying that during the fight you will be wielding that weapon, because not all are versatile, at some point with two hands or allow it for both two weapon wielder's main hand and a shield bearer's as well.

I'm afraid to even mention it. But its like a mistake on your paycheck, they're coming for it sooner or later.

Because a quarterstaff/battle axe etc. is better for shield fighting.
And because you can get another fighting style if you go for two weapon fighting. But battle axe is bad for two hand fighting.

Average damage maul/greatsword 7, with great weapon master 7,16666666. +str mod
Average damage battle axe 5,5 (so why would you use this over maul/greatsword) +str mod
Average damage 1 hand battle axe with dueling 6,5 +str mod
(average damage 2 shortswords is 7 + 2 times dex mod.)

Dueling is nice, but with great weapon master you do also more damage.
With dual wielding style, you do also more damage, not 2 more, but 3, 4 or 5 more.

[djreynolds]

So an entire thread full of people tell you that you can't and shouldn't add the dueling damage with a versatile weapon, except for one solitary guy that says he would allow it, and yet that one solitary voice is the only relevant opinion?
If all you wanted was some kind of ehco-chamber, you should have said so in the opening post and we would have complied or at least stayed out of the thread entirely. I'm sure you don't want us nay-sayers cluttering up your thread that was looking for nothing more than reaffirmation of your own opinion.
Although I guess if you aren't interested in any opinions but your own, the entire thread is kind of pointless in the first place, so you would have been better off simply not creating it rather than requesting an echo-chamber.

Not at all, I added an addition to the post because I saw that versatile weapons can benefit duelist one-handed if you have that style or great weapon style if you have that. So there is my answer to the versatile weapon riddle?

[Giant2005]

No-one has mentioned this yet but the inevitable conclusion of the OP's position also leads to the combatant receiving the benefits of the GWF style while using his Longsword and Shield. Obviously if you can gain your Duelist bonus while using a Versatile weapon two-handed, then you can get the GWF bonus while using a Versatile weapon one-handed.
It basically ends up with the distinction of fighting styles being completely meaningless due to them both applying at the same time regardless of what you are doing. Hell if you remove the Light Weapon restriction of dual-wielding via the feat, you could probably make the argument that you should gain the benefits of all three fighting styles (GWF, Dueling and TWF) while using two Longswords.

[djreynolds]

Because a quarterstaff/battle axe etc. is better for shield fighting.
And because you can get another fighting style if you go for two weapon fighting. But battle axe is bad for two hand fighting.

Average damage maul/greatsword 7, with great weapon master 7,16666666. +str mod
Average damage battle axe 5,5 (so why would you use this over maul/greatsword) +str mod
Average damage 1 hand battle axe with dueling 6,5 +str mod
(average damage 2 shortswords is 7 + 2 times dex mod.)

Dueling is nice, but with great weapon master you do also more damage.
With dual wielding style, you do also more damage, not 2 more, but 3, 4 or 5 more.

I like versatile weapons because you can change your load as needed. You can dual wielding with a off-hand weapon, throw an off hand weapon, pick up a shield, or go two-handed for extra power. Versatile does enable you to benefit from gw stlye and duelist style. A long sword is like a swiss army knife, it may not be the best but it can get the job done.

[djreynolds]

No-one has mentioned this yet but the inevitable conclusion of the OP's position also leads to the combatant receiving the benefits of the GWF style while using his Longsword and Shield. Obviously if you can gain your Duelist bonus while using a Versatile weapon two-handed, then you can get the GWF bonus while using a Versatile weapon one-handed.
It basically ends up with the distinction of fighting styles being completely meaningless due to them both applying at the same time regardless of what you are doing. Hell if you remove the Light Weapon restriction of dual-wielding via the feat, you could probably make the argument that you should gain the benefits of all three fighting styles (GWF, Dueling and TWF) while using two Longswords.

I'm stating that you can either get the duelist bonus for a one handed weapon, or GWF if wielded two handed. It states it in the style. Obviously I was confused and Mr Lee gave a solution. But that solution is wrong because as I read the style description, versatile enables you to use a weapon one handed and get the duelist benefit or two-handed or versatile and get the GW style benefit, but does not have the heavy weapon property to get you the -5, +10 of the GW feat.

Meaning you can go one handed and shield and drop the shield and go two handed.

[AgentPaper]

It's extremely convenient for discussing optimization, though, as it provides a place at which everything is equal save the subjects being compared. That is to say, all things being equal, the build I put forward is superior.

If you want ease of comparability, then earlier levels are better, because we can say with much more certainty what they have available to them. Level 1 characters, for example, probably don't have any magic items. As you increase in levels, there are more and more things like feats, magic items, and enemy resistances to take into account, so things get complicated. Trying to examine two character builds while ignoring all of those factors completely is just worthless.


According to the books, +3 weapons are ridiculously rare. Like, worth a kingdom rare. So, yes, if a TWF PC had a kingdom's worth of extra magic on his side, he'd be at an advantage, but I specifically did not pay attention to magic items because of both their rarity and because they distract from the core subject being discussed.

Incredibly rare, yes, but so are level 20 adventurers. You can't just pretend that magic items don't exist to help support your argument. Magic items increase your damage, and you're talking about who does the most damage. Magic items are exactly at the core of what you're talking about.


I thought you were upset about comparing things at level 20? I mean, I don't know why this upset you so much, but it clearly did. Perhaps you should think about why you're angry before posting again.

I don't like it, but it's where you made your argument, so I did as well. And I don't know how you're reading my posts, but I'm not angry. I disagree with you, but I'm not upset. Annoyed at you trying to cut out elements of the discussion that don't support your conclusion, maybe, but not angry.


Also, two hand crossbows, as per the errata, can only get two shots off because you need a free hand to load.

My mistake. You should only be using a single, one-handed crossbow, but you still get the same 5 attacks, so the math is identical and my point stands.


Because the math on them is more complicated and relies on more assumptions than simply stating that stats and feats are equal.

It might be harder to say "it does exactly 7.53 more points of damage", but that doesn't mean you can ignore it outright. Using power attack boosts your average damage dramatically, especially for a crossbow user. It makes your statement of "


I did the math for GWM, and it came out as being slightly under my build with an assumed AC of 22 for simplicity (50% chance to hit normally). Of course, that doesn't represent the relative strength of GWM very well because of both the potential bonus attack and the fact that most players only go for the damage when they have something to mitigate the attack penalty. The actual usefulness of this feat depends too much on player agency to be accurately modelled. Sharpshooter is a bit better off because Archery is a solid attack bonus mitigater, but I was implicitly comparing melee options.

Very few monsters go above 20 AC, but we'll use 22 as our benchmark if you wish. A GWM with 20 strength and a +3 weapon has +14 to hit at that level, or a 65% hit rate. If they power attack, their hit rate changes to 40%. 40/65= ~61% as many hits. With four attacks, 8d6+20(str)+12(weapon)+40(power attack)= ~105 average damage. Multiply that by .61 and you get ~64.25 damage.

Giving your character a +3 weapon, 53.5 increases by 12 to 65.5. However, as you go down in AC the GWF's average goes up more than the duelist, and there are other benefits, notably cleave which can make GWF deal significantly more.


I'm sorry my desire to make things simple for ease of math and digestibility ao offends you.

Making things simple is great, as long as it's still correct. If you remove too many variables and ignore the big picture, you just end up being wrong. You probably have good intentions, but you're still spreading misinformation. In this case, you're claiming an average (at best) build is the best in the game, and presenting misleading numbers that don't reflect the true balance between the various weapon styles.

[EvilAnagram]

It is a race from the first Unearthed Arcana.
I have no idea what makes him think it is the best Fighter damage in the game though... OBviously a Greatsword-Wielding Razorclaw would do more while Shifted.

The unarmed strike bonus attack damage is based in Dex. I mean, if you have 20 Str and 20 Dex it will be totally superior, but otherwise it's not great.

[Giant2005]

The unarmed strike bonus attack damage is based in Dex. I mean, if you have 20 Str and 20 Dex it will be totally superior, but otherwise it's not great.

It isn't based on Dex, it just has the ability to use Dex instead of Strength like a Monk or Finessable weapon does.

[coredump]

I'm stating that you can either get the duelist bonus for a one handed weapon, or GWF if wielded two handed. It states it in the style. Obviously I was confused and Mr Lee gave a solution. But that solution is wrong because as I read the style description, versatile enables you to use a weapon one handed and get the duelist benefit or two-handed or versatile and get the GW style benefit, but does not have the heavy weapon property to get you the -5, +10 of the GW feat.

Meaning you can go one handed and shield and drop the shield and go two handed.

Still not sure what you are saying.

This is how it works from my reading.

If you have both fighting styles, GWF and Dual Weilding
When you use a longsword in one hand you get an extra +2 damage, but cannot reroll 1-2's. (Assuming no weapon in other hand)
When you use longsword in two hands, you do not get extra +2 damage, but can reroll 1-2's.

Is that what you are saying?

[djreynolds]

Still not sure what you are saying.

This is how it works from my reading.

If you have both fighting styles, GWF and Dual Weilding
When you use a longsword in one hand you get an extra +2 damage, but cannot reroll 1-2's. (Assuming no weapon in other hand)
When you use longsword in two hands, you do not get extra +2 damage, but can reroll 1-2's.

Is that what you are saying?

Precisely. Versatile weapons can benefit from both GWF and duelist, providing you have the styles. It was my fault initially, as I did not see that in the rules in GWF about it being two-handed and versatile weapons. AND I"M SORRY.

Its why I come on this forum, sometimes expert advice is needed. I'm sorry about the confusion. Initially I thought a long-sword or battle axe only benefited from the duelist style. But the guys here straightened me out. A lot of the magical weapons I'm seeing are your standards, long-sword and battle axe.

I know the damage and all that. It was confusing at first seeing damage of a one hand strike with duelist vs. a two handed strike to be almost similar, but someone mentioned GWF and versatile weapons, and I see the design.

And I will check out the razorclaw.

[coredump]

Precisely. Versatile weapons can benefit from both GWF and duelist, providing you have the styles. It was my fault initially, as I did not see that in the rules in GWF about it being two-handed and versatile weapons. AND I"M SORRY.

Its why I come on this forum, sometimes expert advice is needed. I'm sorry about the confusion. Initially I thought a long-sword or battle axe only benefited from the duelist style. But the guys here straightened me out. A lot of the magical weapons I'm seeing are your standards, long-sword and battle axe.

I know the damage and all that. It was confusing at first seeing damage of a one hand strike with duelist vs. a two handed strike to be almost similar, but someone mentioned GWF and versatile weapons, and I see the design.

And I will check out the razorclaw.
The confusion I was having (and so maybe others) is I thought you were saying a versatile weapon could benefit from GWF and Duelist *at the same time*, meaning the same attack. You may not have meant that.... but that was my confusion.

[djreynolds]

The confusion I was having (and so maybe others) is I thought you were saying a versatile weapon could benefit from GWF and Duelist *at the same time*, meaning the same attack. You may not have meant that.... but that was my confusion.

No you're right, you were not confused, I was stupid but you and Mr GIANT2005 set me straight. I'm trying to make a samurai who would switch from two handed long sword to one handed and then dual wield long and short swords. The samurai would be better off multiclassed to gain the necessary styles. Unfortunatley with RAW he'll need a good dexterity and strength score and minimums 13 charisma and wisdom if grab ranger and paladin. I'm thinking 12 paladin or 6 paladin. And then grab fighter for 11 or 4, and then ranger 4.

I have dwarf champion now and I'm closing in on a second style. I brought battle axe only cause that's what I use and find that magic item wise war hammer, battle axe, and long sword are plentiful. I like the idea of war hammer and battle axe because you throw shield up during the fight, our DM let's me use a bonus action for that change but only after our turn, he suggest the dual wield feat with the quick draw could allow me to do freely, counting the shield in this case just for the purpose of moving it over the shoulder and to the back is the same as stowing or drawing a weapon. He said then I could at least throw an occasional off hand axe or light hammer as well. I just like a minimal weapon setup. Any thoughts on that?

[Gnomes2169]

Looking over Razorclaw... It actually can't shift and bonus action attack all day long. It has 1 minute of doing so per long/ short rest, the first round of which it cannot use a bonus action. So it should be treated as a single action surge, really. It's an equivalent of 9 1d4+str/dex attacks over all if you remain in combat all 9 rounds.

However, it does not, in any way, benefit from dueling. Straight-up. Why? Because it is either not a weapon (and thus is not the weapon that the duelist is gaining the benefit from, which is explicitely limited to the single weapon in the fighting style's description), or it counts as a different weapon and neither it nor dueling gets the fighting style (not viable via errata, but still able to be brought up here since the only way for a razorclaw to get the benefit of duelist on the claw is for their unarmed strike to be a weapon). Either way, the unarmed strike deals 2 less damage than projected, potentially 18 less damage over the 9 rounds it will be active (though realistically, it will be closer to 2-4 rounds in one combat).

It's not exactly the end-all, be-all build for melee combat, really. And getting a bonus action from, say, a scimitar of speed with duelist will blow the quick claw damage out of the water (especially since the scimitar is definitely a single weapon, and also indisputably a weapon, so it qualifies fully for the duelist buff on its bonus action attack).

[Arial Black]

A claw, razor or not, is not a weapon 'held' in your hand. The only things required for the +2 are a weapon held in one hand while no weapon is held in the other. You don't 'hold' your hand in your hand!

[coredump]

A claw, razor or not, is not a weapon 'held' in your hand. The only things required for the +2 are a weapon held in one hand while no weapon is held in the other. You don't 'hold' your hand in your hand!

You need to re-read the rules... they do not say what you are claiming.

[Sigreid]

Am I dumb for playing a battlemaster duellist who only uses one handed weapons, no shield, finesse and 16 DEX - and occasionally uses a whip instead of a rapier?

If you haven't seen it, you should watch Zorro The Gay Blade. Not having a go at your character, you just made me think of a really funny movie.

[Psikerlord]

Fighting with single one handed weapon has a very significant advantage actually - your other hand is free to grapple with, or throw a dagger, or interact with an object. If you want roleplay the occasional double grip of your weapon ala Aragorn - cool beans, go for it.

[Gritmonger]

If you haven't seen it, you should watch Zorro The Gay Blade. Not having a go at your character, you just made me think of a really funny movie.

Must - get - colorful -wardrobe!

Would it help to say his primary skills are Intimidation and Persuasion (Noble background) and that his next highest stat is Charisma?

[Arial Black]

You need to re-read the rules... they do not say what you are claiming.

Let's see what it does say:-

"Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

'Wielding' can mean 'holding' and it can mean 'attacking with', but either way it applies to a 'weapon'.

In 5E, there are 'weapons', which are objects designed to damage creatures, and 'weapon attacks', which include any attack that uses the attack roll mechanic and that isn't a spell/magic. Despite the name, 'weapon attacks' don't require a 'weapon'; you can make a 'weapon attack' with things that are not 'weapons', like claw, bite, tail spike, chair leg, fist.

So, does the Dueling style refer to 'weapon', or 'weapon attack'?

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons...!

So, Dueling talks only about 'weapons', not 'weapon attacks'. You can only get the damage bonus to a damage roll from an actual 'weapon'; you don't get it to attacks from claws, fists, bites, etc.

"...and no other weapons..." means that, if you wield a 'weapon' to get the +2 damage, you are prevented from getting that +2 if you wield another 'weapon'. Fists, claws, bites etc. are not 'weapons', therefore they do not prevent you gaining the +2.

[Gnomes2169]

Let's see what it does say:-

"Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon."

'Wielding' can mean 'holding' and it can mean 'attacking with', but either way it applies to a 'weapon'.

In 5E, there are 'weapons', which are objects designed to damage creatures, and 'weapon attacks', which include any attack that uses the attack roll mechanic and that isn't a spell/magic. Despite the name, 'weapon attacks' don't require a 'weapon'; you can make a 'weapon attack' with things that are not 'weapons', like claw, bite, tail spike, chair leg, fist.

So, does the Dueling style refer to 'weapon', or 'weapon attack'?

"When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons...!

So, Dueling talks only about 'weapons', not 'weapon attacks'. You can only get the damage bonus to a damage roll from an actual 'weapon'; you don't get it to attacks from claws, fists, bites, etc.

"...and no other weapons..." means that, if you wield a 'weapon' to get the +2 damage, you are prevented from getting that +2 if you wield another 'weapon'. Fists, claws, bites etc. are not 'weapons', therefore they do not prevent you gaining the +2.

But the claw/ bite/ punch does not get the damage as well, as it is both not a weapon (and thus duelist fighting style can't apply to it anyway), and it is not the one (and only one) specified weapon denoted by the fighting style (last line, "... You gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon," meaning the weapon that you are wielding without a weapon in your other hand). I'm not seeing how you are refuting either of these points, which were the points brought up in my first post on this topic that you responded to. Nothing more, really.

[Arial Black]

But the claw/ bite/ punch does not get the damage as well, as it is both not a weapon (and thus duelist fighting style can't apply to it anyway), and it is not the one (and only one) specified weapon denoted by the fighting style (last line, "... You gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon," meaning the weapon that you are wielding without a weapon in your other hand). I'm not seeing how you are refuting either of these points, which were the points brought up in my first post on this topic that you responded to. Nothing more, really.

I don't disagree with any of that.

If a razorclaw shifter has Dueling style, his 1H weapon gets the +2, his claw doesn't, and his claw doesn't prevent his 1H weapon getting the +2.

Are we, in fact, in agreement?

[Anlashok]

Reminded of some dumbness back in 4e where gnolls with claws (and maybe another race IIRC) couldn't be grapplers or swordmages because they never had a hand free because their claws took up their offhand slot

[coredump]

I don't disagree with any of that.

If a razorclaw shifter has Dueling style, his 1H weapon gets the +2, his claw doesn't, and his claw doesn't prevent his 1H weapon getting the +2.

Are we, in fact, in agreement?

What makes you assume a natural weapon is not a weapon?

[Arial Black]

What makes you assume a natural weapon is not a weapon?

The game differentiates 'weapon' (manufactured objects designed to hurt creatures) and 'weapon attack' (any way to hurt a creature with an 'attack roll' that isn't a spell/magic).

'Weapons' are on the Weapons Table in the PHB. There may be new weapons on new Weapons Tables in future products, but I expect 5E to keep these to a minimum, by having us re-skin the weapons on that table (as advised in the Monk section) rather than a new Weapons Table in each book.

There are some spells (for example) that must be cast on a 'weapon', and so claws/bites would not be valid targets. This is the reason behind the errata that removed unarmed strike from the Weapons Table, because its inclusion made it a valid target for these effects, and that was never the intent. Removing it from the table solved the problem, and put unarmed strikes alongside natural weapons; able to make 'weapon attacks' but not actually 'weapons'.

[coredump]

The game differentiates 'weapon' (manufactured objects designed to hurt creatures) and 'weapon attack' (any way to hurt a creature with an 'attack roll' that isn't a spell/magic).

'Weapons' are on the Weapons Table in the PHB. There may be new weapons on new Weapons Tables in future products, but I expect 5E to keep these to a minimum, by having us re-skin the weapons on that table (as advised in the Monk section) rather than a new Weapons Table in each book.

There are some spells (for example) that must be cast on a 'weapon', and so claws/bites would not be valid targets. This is the reason behind the errata that removed unarmed strike from the Weapons Table, because its inclusion made it a valid target for these effects, and that was never the intent. Removing it from the table solved the problem, and put unarmed strikes alongside natural weapons; able to make 'weapon attacks' but not actually 'weapons'.

No, I understand that you feel a Natural Weapon is not considered a Weapon.... but I was asking what rule supports that?

Do you really think every weapon is in the PHB weapons list? Does that mean the Drow Scourge is not a weapon? Or the golem's Sword? Or Grimlocks Spiked bone club? etc. Or maybe the list of weapons in the Player's handbook is meant as a list of weapons for the players to use....

Why do you assume that Natural Weapons are to be treated the same as an Unarmed Strike? You are again assuming that a Natural Weapon is not a weapon...... why?

[AgentPaper]

No, I understand that you feel a Natural Weapon is not considered a Weapon.... but I was asking what rule supports that?

Do you really think every weapon is in the PHB weapons list? Does that mean the Drow Scourge is not a weapon? Or the golem's Sword? Or Grimlocks Spiked bone club? etc. Or maybe the list of weapons in the Player's handbook is meant as a list of weapons for the players to use....

Why do you assume that Natural Weapons are to be treated the same as an Unarmed Strike? You are again assuming that a Natural Weapon is not a weapon...... why?

Because there's no such thing as a Natural Weapon by the rules. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, like anything else, but they are not weapons. The actions listed in the monster manual are just that: actions which the monsters can use to produce certain effects (usually an attack for damage). Anything beyond that is purely at the DM's discretion, because most of the time it's irrelevant. It's the same reason why you can't benefit from Duelist style or Two Weapon Master when your druid shapeshifts into a bear or a wolf.

[Malifice]

But my question, and pray I'm seeing it right, that if you wield a battle axe it's 1d8 with one and 1d10 with two hands, and since its not heavy it is not eligible for gwm or gw style. Yet with the duelist style you get +2 damage, meaning you do 3-10 damage with one hand or 1-10 damage with two hands. Is that correct? And you wield a shield? Just seems unfair.

How is that unfair?

The person in question has received specialist training to be better with wielding a weapon in a single hand. He's had no specialist training in wielding it with two hands (and he's no better than any other warrior when doing so).

Wielding the weapon two handed means he forgoes the benefit of his special training.


And finally, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter*. Average ~90 damage at level 20 with two hand crossbows, and even taking into account reduced chance to hit, it still hovers around 60-70. Personally, I don't allow that combo in my games (house rule: sharpshooter requires two hands), but if you're looking at RAW that's what you want.

Might want to read the Crossbow master feat again brother.

You only need the one hand crossbow (held in one OR two hands) to take advantage of the bonus action hand crossbow attack. You don't need to be TWF with 2 hand crossbows - only one suffices (in fact, you cant TWF as the ammunition property of the crossbow expressly requires a free hand to load it).

So Marksman + Crossbow master works with a single hand crossbow for (attack action + bonus action extra attack) all with -5/+10.

[GiantOctopodes]

Because there's no such thing as a Natural Weapon by the rules. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, like anything else, but they are not weapons. The actions listed in the monster manual are just that: actions which the monsters can use to produce certain effects (usually an attack for damage). Anything beyond that is purely at the DM's discretion, because most of the time it's irrelevant. It's the same reason why you can't benefit from Duelist style or Two Weapon Master when your druid shapeshifts into a bear or a wolf.

That's not what the rules say at all.

From the Monster Manual Page 11:
"The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook."

Note this as well from the DMG Page 273:
"If a monster wields a manufactured weapon, you can replace that weapon with a different one. For example, you could replace a hobgoblin's longsword with a halberd."

So monsters wield weapons, for example, the hobgoblin wields a longsword. They do not wield actions. You could absolutely cast Magic Weapon or Elemental Weapon on a Hobgoblin's longsword, as it is a manufactured weapon wielded by them. The MM lists the actions that can be taken with the weapon rather than listing the weapon as equipment or whatever else because of expediency and to minimize the text needed per entry, the same reason it lists the armor it wears in parenthesis next to its AC. That doesn't mean the armor it is wearing is a metaphysical construction which reduces the chance for damage. It's still armor, and can be targeted by effects which target armor (such as heat metal), and looted afterwards. Same as weapons.

Per the monster manual, the other option for weapons used with melee and ranged attacks by monsters is a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. It specifically indicates they are weapons used to make melee or ranged weapon attacks. As such, you could absolutely cast Magic Weapon or Elemental weapon on a Wyvern's Stinger, Claws, or Bite. The reason Duelist or Two Weapon Wielder don't work is because of the the last word there- wielder. Duelist says "When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand", two weapon fighting says "When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand". The Wyvern's Stinger is expressly a weapon according to the monster manual, but it certainly is not wielded in any hands, and as such, it does not interact with those fighting styles, same as the Druid's Bear Claws in your example.

Edit: In terms of the Razorclaw, he does not have a natural weapon, however. Looking at it, it states you may make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, which is expressly not a weapon and is not a natural weapon. As such, it would certainly not benefit from the damage bonus from duelist (it adds the damage to "that weapon", the melee weapon you are wielding in one hand, so I think everyone is in agreement it would not apply), but it does not prevent duelist from taking effect, either (as it is not a weapon, being an unarmed strike). So assuming you were attacking with a sword or axe or whatever and using the shifter bonus action attack, only the shifter bonus action attack would lack the +2 bonus. I will point out that material in UA is not often a great starting point for a discussion on balanced material, since there is no guarantee it is available in any given campaign, which is doubly true for campaign specific UA material.

[Arial Black]

From the Monster Manual Page 11:
"The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook."

Note the inverted commas around the word "weapon" here: 'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.' This indicates that they are using the word loosely. If they thought that claws/tail spikes really were actual weapons, then the inverted commas would have no function. If the rules refer to a game term, they use bold, not inverted commas.

[georgie_leech]

Just gonna chime in to say that the existence or lack thereof of weapons other than those found on the table are confusing, needlessly convoluted, frequently discussed, and unlikely to be resolved in any timely fashion. Ask Your DM(TM) if any of this applies to your character.

[GiantOctopodes]

From the Monster Manual Page 11:
"The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks. These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike. For more information on different kinds of attacks, see the Player's Handbook."

Note the inverted commas around the word "weapon" here: 'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.' This indicates that they are using the word loosely. If they thought that claws/tail spikes really were actual weapons, then the inverted commas would have no function. If the rules refer to a game term, they use bold, not inverted commas.

Such as on the PHB page 192, where it says "See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.", they're using scare quotes there as well? It's not that they're using them to make reference to another part of the text, no, they're trying to say you're not really making an attack. Totally, that's a thing they do in rules texts in general. The function of quotation marks is to make reference to the word or phrase in question, separating it from the rest of the sentence for grammatical context.

"If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the “Unseen Attackers and Targets” section later in this chapter"
"The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter."
"The “Movement and Position” section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move"
"If you can’t decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in “Actions in Combat.”"
"Throughout this chapter, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control."

Need I provide more? That was just from 3 pages worth of rules text. I find your statement without support.

[coredump]

Because there's no such thing as a Natural Weapon by the rules. Interesting claim. Perhaps you can provide the rule that states that...?? I mean, if it is 'by the rules'...



Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks, like anything else, but they are not weapons. No one has claimed otherwise. Glad we are in agreement.

. It's the same reason why you can't benefit from Duelist style or Two Weapon Master when your druid shapeshifts into a bear or a wolf.You may want to recheck those rules... they require that you are wielding a weapon in one hand, or wielding with two hands.... Further, Dueling says you can't have any other weapons.

IOW, there are other reasons why those two fighting styles don't work that way.

[Arial Black]

The original line reads, 'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.'

Now, without those quotes. Er...I mean..."quotes"... : )

'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the weapon might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.'

This sentence (without the offending "quotes") makes perfect sense, but defines claws/tail spikes as actual weapons. Putting the word "weapon" in the quotes serves to show that they are not defining claws as actual weapons. Making the writing choice to type those "quotes" only makes sense if the writer was taking care to avoid giving the impression that these 'weapon attack' are made by actual 'weapons'.

Further, all the "quotes" you've quoted refer to sections of the rules, like the "making an attack" section. Bolding is used for game terms, like initiative, round, ability score and so on, where they appear in a place written to teach the rules.

[Arial Black]

You may want to recheck those rules... they require that you are wielding a weapon in one hand, or wielding with two hands.... Further, Dueling says you can't have any other weapons.

IOW, there are other reasons why those two fighting styles don't work that way.

Are you claiming that a wolf holds its bite in one or two hands?

[coredump]

The original line reads, 'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the "weapon" might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.'

Now, without those quotes. Er...I mean..."quotes"... : )

'These can be spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the weapon might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike.'

This sentence (without the offending "quotes") makes perfect sense, but defines claws/tail spikes as actual weapons. Putting the word "weapon" in the quotes serves to show that they are not defining claws as actual weapons. That is an assumption that you are making. The rules never state that, you just think that is what the intention is.

It is just as likely that they used the quote marks to indicate that something may be a bit out of the ordinary, or a bit different than may be expected. If you ask someone for an example of a weapon, odds are you will not get 'claws' as an answer. Thus including Natural Weapons as a weapon is somewhat different than is first expected, thus warrants the quote marks.




Making the writing choice to type those "quotes" only makes sense if the writer was taking care to avoid giving the impression that these 'weapon attack' are made by actual 'weapons'. Not our fault that is the 'only' reason you can think of for using quote marks. As has been shown multiple times now... there are plenty of other reasons for using quotation marks.



Are you claiming that a wolf holds its bite in one or two hands?I have neither claimed nor stated nor implied any such thing. I have no idea why you even ask that.

[GiantOctopodes]

Further, all the "quotes" you've quoted refer to sections of the rules, like the "making an attack" section. Bolding is used for game terms, like initiative, round, ability score and so on, where they appear in a place written to teach the rules.



"Throughout this chapter, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control."


"When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher, effectively “filling” a slot with the spell."
"Stealth. If the Armor table shows “Disadvantage” in the Stealth column, the wearer has disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks."
"Flaw: I have a “tell” that reveals when I'm lying."
"Personality Trait: I’m a hopeless romantic, always searching for that “special someone.”"
"You either have inspiration or you don’t—you can’t stockpile multiple “inspirations” for later use"

If you need more, just say so, I'm happy to oblige.

[squiggit]

How is that unfair?

The person in question has received specialist training to be better with wielding a weapon in a single hand. He's had no specialist training in wielding it with two hands (and he's no better than any other warrior when doing so).

Wielding the weapon two handed means he forgoes the benefit of his special training.
Well, from a mechanical perspective it's dumb because it makes the versatile property a trap.

From a fluff perspective it's dumb first because it's pretty glaring gap in that supposed training and second because it's rather silly to imagine that touching your weapon with a second hand suddenly makes you significantly worse at wielding it.

[AgentPaper]

Interesting claim. Perhaps you can provide the rule that states that...?? I mean, if it is 'by the rules'...

I can't prove a negative. Natural weapons aren't a rules construct because nowhere are any rules stated on what a "natural weapon" refers to. The closest is the Monster Manual that mentions that monsters might have manufactured or natural weapons, but that doesn't make those into formal definitions.


Such as on the PHB page 192, where it says "See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.", they're using scare quotes there as well? It's not that they're using them to make reference to another part of the text, no, they're trying to say you're not really making an attack. Totally, that's a thing they do in rules texts in general. The function of quotation marks is to make reference to the word or phrase in question, separating it from the rest of the sentence for grammatical context.

"If you succeed, you gain certain benefits, as described in the “Unseen Attackers and Targets” section later in this chapter"
"The most common actions you can take are described in the “Actions in Combat” section later in this chapter."
"The “Movement and Position” section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move"
"If you can’t decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in “Actions in Combat.”"
"Throughout this chapter, the rules address you, the player or Dungeon Master. The Dungeon Master controls all the monsters and nonplayer characters involved in combat, and each other player controls an adventurer. “You” can also mean the character or monster that you control."

Need I provide more? That was just from 3 pages worth of rules text. I find your statement without support.

Quotation marks can be used for more than one thing. In this case, they're used to refer to specific sections of other parts of the book. This is not what is being done when the Monster Manual talks about "weapons".


I'm not sure what this is all meant to accomplish though. If unarmed strikes are treated as "natural weapons" like any other weapon, then duelist doesn't work with anything other than an unarmed strike, because you're wielding, say, a longsword and an unarmed strike, which is two weapons...

If you want to houserule in that a scorpion can duel with it's stinger or whatever, then just go for it. No need to twist words and upend the basic structure of the game, just say, "Houserule #21: Scorpions can benefit from Duelist with their stingers."

[GiantOctopodes]

I can't prove a negative. Natural weapons aren't a rules construct because nowhere are any rules stated on what a "natural weapon" refers to. The closest is the Monster Manual that mentions that monsters might have manufactured or natural weapons, but that doesn't make those into formal definitions.



Quotation marks can be used for more than one thing. In this case, they're used to refer to specific sections of other parts of the book. This is not what is being done when the Monster Manual talks about "weapons".


I'm not sure what this is all meant to accomplish though. If unarmed strikes are treated as "natural weapons" like any other weapon, then duelist doesn't work with anything other than an unarmed strike, because you're wielding, say, a longsword and an unarmed strike, which is two weapons...

If you want to houserule in that a scorpion can duel with it's stinger or whatever, then just go for it. No need to twist words and upend the basic structure of the game, just say, "Houserule #21: Scorpions can benefit from Duelist with their stingers."

Emphasis mine. I 100% agree! When something is a "natural weapon", there is no need to try to twist words and upend the basic structure of the game to attempt to claim that it is not a weapon! Nor does doing so accomplish anything!

However, I don't believe *anyone* has claimed natural weapons are wielded and as such I don't believe anyone at all is claiming they are eligible for use with duelist or two weapon wielder. Unarmed strike is a totally different thing, though. Note the following:


In terms of the Razorclaw, he does not have a natural weapon, however. Looking at it, it states you may make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, which is expressly not a weapon and is not a natural weapon. As such, it would certainly not benefit from the damage bonus from duelist (it adds the damage to "that weapon", the melee weapon you are wielding in one hand, so I think everyone is in agreement it would not apply), but it does not prevent duelist from taking effect, either (as it is not a weapon, being an unarmed strike). So assuming you were attacking with a sword or axe or whatever and using the shifter bonus action attack, only the shifter bonus action attack would lack the +2 bonus. I will point out that material in UA is not often a great starting point for a discussion on balanced material, since there is no guarantee it is available in any given campaign, which is doubly true for campaign specific UA material.

Emphasis mine. The errata clearly states that an unarmed strike is not a weapon, you don't "wield" an unarmed strike, in no way shape or form does duelist interact with unarmed strikes whatsoever, for good or ill. Someone making unarmed strikes with bonus actions (such as a monk or a shifter) is not ineligible for duelist with the weapons they *are* wielding in any way.

[coredump]

I can't prove a negative. Natural weapons aren't a rules construct because nowhere are any rules stated on what a "natural weapon" refers to. The closest is the Monster Manual that mentions that monsters might have manufactured or natural weapons, but that doesn't make those into formal definitions. Well, when they call claws a natural *weapon*, I kind of assume that means it is a, y'know... weapon. Kind of like assuming that a silver dragon is still a dragon, or a water elemental is still an elemental. A Natural Weapon is still a weapon.
Plus, they are explicitly called a weapon in the monster manual... the book devoted to creatures that have natural weapons. (unlike the PHB). Of course, the MM does use those quotation marks....



If unarmed strikes are treated as "natural weapons" like any other weapon, I am sorry... who has made that claim?? Unarmed Strikes are explicitly attacks made *without* a weapon. Thats kinda the point....

[Xetheral]

Unarmed Strikes are explicitly attacks made *without* a weapon. Thats kinda the point....

Kind of. On the one hand, unarmed strikes are not weapons. On the other hand, an attack with an unarmed strike is an "attack using a weapon with which you are proficient". (If it wasn't, even proficient characters (i.e. everyone) wouldn't be eligible to add their proficiency bonus to the attack roll, per PHB 194.)

So, an unarmed strike itself is not a weapon, but an attack with an unarmed strike is an attack with a weapon, or else the rules don't function. (An attack with an unarmed strike is, of course, also a Weapon Attack.)

[coredump]

Kind of. On the one hand, unarmed strikes are not weapons. On the other hand, an attack with an unarmed strike is an "attack using a weapon with which you are proficient". No, it is not. It is an equivalent substitution, does not make it the same.
You can get in by paying $10, or by giving them your watch." This does not mean that your Watch is "legal tender good for all debts public and private".



So, an unarmed strike itself is not a weapon, Correct
but an attack with an unarmed strike is an attack with a weapon, No. No it is not. The errata clearly states that it is not.
or else the rules don't function. (An attack with an unarmed strike is, of course, also a Weapon Attack.)And the rules work just fine without needing your incorrect assertions.

[Knaight]

From a fluff perspective it's dumb first because it's pretty glaring gap in that supposed training and second because it's rather silly to imagine that touching your weapon with a second hand suddenly makes you significantly worse at wielding it.
You get marginally worse, and that's entirely believable. Using two hands on a weapon does give up a bit of range, and it does give up certain attack angles. Actual two handed weapons generally have long enough handles or shafts and are generally longer in the first place, so there's a major speed and leverage gain that more than counteracts this. With the weapons listed as versatile though, the tradeoff is a bit closer. People who are better at leveraging the increased speed or taking advantage of leverage are going to realistically benefit from a second hand, people who are more reach focused and are better at getting in through certain angles are liable to be better off keeping the second hand away (though both could generally benefit from either a proper two handed weapon or something to put in the other hand. Realistically speaking I'd expect the person using a two handed approach to do the occasional one handed strike, particularly with lunges; I'd expect the person using the one handed approach to occasionally take advantage of their free hand to grab the weapon and do something with it.

That's modeling in more detail than D&D really does though, as that sort of thing takes place over a split second. I'd assume that two handed weapon use assumes mostly two handed weapon use for versatile weapons and some two handed weapons, and one handed weapon use with nothing in the other hand assumes only mostly one handed weapon use with nothing in the other hand for versatile weapons. It's entirely realistic that someone would be better at the second case.

[Xetheral]

No, it is not. It is an equivalent substitution, does not make it the same.
You can get in by paying $10, or by giving them your watch." This does not mean that your Watch is "legal tender good for all debts public and private".


Correct No. No it is not. The errata clearly states that it is not. And the rules work just fine without needing your incorrect assertions.

PHB 194 states that you add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll under two conditions:

"When you attack using a weapon with which you are proficient." "When you attack with a spell."
The errata didn't change that paragraph. So, assuming that proficient characters get to add their proficiency bonus to attack rolls when using unarmed strikes, an attack with unarmed strike must be either in category 1 or category 2. Where do you disagree?

(Note that PHB 194 doesn't say "when you make a weapon attack" or "when you make a spell attack", so the errata provision declaring attacks with unarmed strikes to be melee weapon attacks isn't relevant.)

[coredump]

PHB 194 states that you add your proficiency bonus to your attack roll under two conditions:

"When you attack using a weapon with which you are proficient." "When you attack with a spell."
The errata didn't change that paragraph. So, assuming that proficient characters get to add their proficiency bonus to attack rolls when using unarmed strikes, an attack with unarmed strike must be either in category 1 or category 2. Where do you disagree? Of course I disagree. That is an overly pedantic reading of the rules which is only beneficial if actively trying to break the game.
You add proficiency if proficient with the weapon. Instead of using a weapon, you can use an UAS, thus the same rule will apply to the UAS.

This just isn't that complicated. The rules are clear in how they work.

[Xetheral]

Of course I disagree. That is an overly pedantic reading of the rules which is only beneficial if actively trying to break the game. You add proficiency if proficient with the weapon. Instead of using a weapon, you can use an UAS, thus the same rule will apply to the UAS.

This just isn't that complicated. The rules are clear in how they work.

Quite the contrary, rather than trying to break the game my reading permits the obvious intention that proficiency bonus be applied on unarmed attacks.

Post-errata, unarmed strikes are no longer weapons, but the PHB wasn't written to account for the possibility of attacks with things other than weapons or spells. Because of this, the errata specified that one can attack with an unarmed strike as a melee weapon attack, to avoid breaking the game. Far from being pedantic, my reading of the errata also infers that an attack with an unarmed strike is similarly "an attack with a weapon", also to avoid breaking the game.

[Gnomes2169]

Quite the contrary, rather than trying to break the game my reading permits the obvious intention that proficiency bonus be applied on unarmed attacks.

Post-errata, unarmed strikes are no longer weapons, but the PHB wasn't written to account for the possibility of attacks with things other than weapons or spells. Because of this, the errata specified that one can attack with an unarmed strike as a melee weapon attack, to avoid breaking the game. Far from being pedantic, my reading of the errata also infers that an attack with an unarmed strike is similarly "an attack with a weapon", also to avoid breaking the game.

The eratta explicitely states that you may make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike despite it not being a weapon, and that you are automatically proficient in such attacks. It also lists that you deal 1+str damage if you hit. There should be no need for houserules to fix this on the unarmed strike end, and the monster manual will be getting eratta (likely for damage reduction, which can easily be accomplished by changing the weapons category to "...; Bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non-magic sources") that will be fixing a few things broken by the PHB eratta.

And as for the "weapon" argument, the quotation marks are being used to define what exactly is under the category of "weapon." Similarly, one could say:

-When referring to "damage," both damage from spells and damage from weapons is treated the same, barring appropriate damage resistance against the particular damage type or source.

-"Spells" from arcane, divine and psionic sources are treated as spells for the purpose of dispelling, magic resistance, anti-magic fields and any effect that targets spells.

-If mention of "nationality" is brought up, it refers only to nations formally recognized by the united nations.

-Unless stated otherwise, "humanoids" originate on the material plane and have the same general shape (two legs, two arms, five digits on each, and a face with a nose, two eyes, two ears and a mouth). A humanoid typically has a maximum age, stated in their stat block, and many (though not all) can be used as player characters.

Since there are no exceptions listed when it covers what kind of "weapon" a monster has, that means that everything following it is considered a weapon, both manufactured and natural weapons.

[Xetheral]

The eratta explicitely states that you may make a melee weapon attack with an unarmed strike despite it not being a weapon, and that you are automatically proficient in such attacks. It also lists that you deal 1+str damage if you hit. There should be no need for houserules to fix this on the unarmed strike end.

You're quite correct. Unfortunately, the problem stems from the fact that according to PHB 194, you only add your proficiency modifier to attacks rolls when making "an attack using a weapon with which you are proficient" (or a spell). So, for proficiency with unarmed strikes to mean anything, we have to interpret the errata as declaring an unarmed strike to be, not only a melee weapon attack, but also an "attack using a weapon". Otherwise even proficient characters can't add their proficiency bonus.

It isn't much of a stretch to go from unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks to unarmed strikes being attacks using a weapon--one might even argue it can be inferred. It's a minor point, but an important one to keep the rules functioning as intended.

[Gnomes2169]

You're quite correct. Unfortunately, the problem stems from the fact that according to PHB 194, you only add your proficiency modifier to attacks rolls when making "an attack using a weapon with which you are proficient" (or a spell). So, for proficiency with unarmed strikes to mean anything, we have to interpret the errata as declaring an unarmed strike to be, not only a melee weapon attack, but also an "attack using a weapon". Otherwise even proficient characters can't add their proficiency bonus.

It isn't much of a stretch to go from unarmed strikes being melee weapon attacks to unarmed strikes being attacks using a weapon--one might even argue it can be inferred. It's a minor point, but an important one to keep the rules functioning as intended.

The general does not interfere with the specific.

General rule: When making a weapon attack, you must have proficiency with the weapon you are using to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

Specific rule: When making a weapon attack with an unarmed strike, you are proficient with your unarmed strike (despite it not being a weapon) and add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. This is part of the eratta ("characters are proficient with their unarmed strike"), and is in every printing of the PHB to come out since the eratta.

It's an exception to the general rule, and thus does not need justification or logical leaps to keep the general rule functioning at 100%.

[GiantOctopodes]

The general does not interfere with the specific.

General rule: When making a weapon attack, you must have proficiency with the weapon you are using to add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll.

Specific rule: When making a weapon attack with an unarmed strike, you are proficient with your unarmed strike (despite it not being a weapon) and add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll. This is part of the eratta ("characters are proficient with their unarmed strike"), and is in every printing of the PHB to come out since the eratta.

It's an exception to the general rule, and thus does not need justification or logical leaps to keep the general rule functioning at 100%.

I don't think that either of you actually disagrees on the way the game works or the logic behind it. I think what he's pointing out is merely that "proficient" is meaningless in and of itself, as far as I can discern. Instead, the game defines explicit scenarios (in 2 or 3 different places, but the same list every time) under which you add your proficiency bonus, one of those being attacks with a weapon with which you are proficient, rather than being "weapon attacks using something where you are proficient" or something like that. The game simply lacks any rules for adding a proficiency to *any* attack roll made with something other than a spell or weapon (since pre errata such a scenario did not exist), and as such the errata is just missing that last bit you had there "and add your proficiency bonus to the attack roll". Lacking that, saying you are "proficient", while aptly conveying intent, does not actually cause any interaction with existing game mechanics, since it is is none of the following:

• Attack rolls using weapons you’re proficient with
• Attack rolls with spells you cast
• Ability checks using skills you’re proficient in
• Ability checks using tools you’re proficient with
• Saving throws you’re proficient in
• Saving throw DCs for spells you cast (explained in
each spellcasting class)

which is what you add your proficiency bonus to. A clever catch, and a fascinating technicality, but ultimately meaningless since again the intent is clear and I can't imagine any DM anywhere saying that you thus can't add your proficiency bonus to unarmed strikes.