Double bladed scimitar

[intregus]

What are your thoughts on the introduction of the double weapon from The Wayfinders guide to Eberron?

[Arkhios]

What are your thoughts on the introduction of the double weapon from The Wayfinders guide to Eberron?

I'm torn.

On one hand I'm disappointed that it doesn't utilize two-weapon fighting as-is like it should, but on the other, the way it is implemented is actually quite elegant, and certainly different from other two-handed melee weapons.

In addition, I think it's a good move to put the potential to use a double bladed scimitar as a finesse weapon behind a feat, instead of it being inherent to the weapon or a sub-class feature for some yet-to-be-revealed class.

[Mortis_Elrod]

For anyone who doesn’t know how it works could you explain it?


Asking for a friend

[MilkmanDanimal]

For anyone who doesn’t know how it works could you explain it?


Asking for a friend

Well, you've got a long stick with a scimitar on each end, and then you swing it around a couple times and chop your foot off.

For some reason, I can accept things like Elves, magical weapons, and spells that can re-shape reality itself, but the moment I see a double-bladed weapon my eyes roll back so hard I bruise my retinas.

[dejarnjc]

Well, you've got a long stick with a scimitar on each end, and then you swing it around a couple times and chop your foot off.

For some reason, I can accept things like Elves, magical weapons, and spells that can re-shape reality itself, but the moment I see a double-bladed weapon my eyes roll back so hard I bruise my retinas.

Eh that's how I feel about people using quarter staffs 1 handed or a STR 8 character even drawing a long bow :P

[ciarannihill]

Well, you've got a long stick with a scimitar on each end, and then you swing it around a couple times and chop your foot off.

For some reason, I can accept things like Elves, magical weapons, and spells that can re-shape reality itself, but the moment I see a double-bladed weapon my eyes roll back so hard I bruise my retinas.

I mean obviously this is a fantasy weapon, dual bladed pole weapons did exist in history, albeit there are few examples and it wasn't as simple as two identical sword blades attached to either side of a shaft -- for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade was a weapon that evolved from a need to protect oneself using a tool with another purpose, and it's barely bladed since they aren't sharpened, but it doesn't exist, strictly speaking.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's disgustingly strong. And I actually quite like it.

With it's intended feat, it offers an alternative to GWM and SS builds for martials that want to do something different without feeling penalized for using a substandard option. Without feats, it's only slightly better than a greatsword (approximately 3.5 better average damage at level 1 assuming a 16 in Strength, mellowing out to 2.5 better average damage at level 5 assuming an ASI of +2 in Strength and Extra Attack earned via class). With feats, it manages a niche by having much better reliability over GWM and SS, like TWF, but with much better damage all around than using two weapons. It also has an attunement advantage over TWF in games with magic items, since you only need to attune to a single magic weapon for all of your attacks to benefit, and can strictly wield the single best instead of best and second best.

And let's not neglect how much of a game changer this can be for Dex builds. After the feat, a rogue with a double scimitar starts punching way above any other pure rogue builds I can think of, since this is the only way they can add their Dex modifier to their 'offhand' attacks without multiclassing, and 2d4 beats even a rogue with Dual Wielder and rapiers in the damage department.

Not by, like, a ton, but enough that I foresee a lot of optimizers begging to allow the feat on variant humans.

[mephnick]

My thought is that if they want to kill dual wielding or the Berserker they should just come out and say it.

[mephnick]

And let's not neglect how much of a game changer this can be for Dex builds. After the feat, a rogue with a double scimitar starts punching way above any other pure rogue builds I can think of, since this is the only way they can add their Dex modifier to their 'offhand' attacks without multiclassing, and 2d4 beats even a rogue with Dual Wielder and rapiers in the damage department.

And this is why it's way too strong. There is literally zero reason to build anything but a Revanant Blade elf if you are going rogue. It's easily the best weapon for every subclass and it isn't particularly close.

[Gryndle]

Well, you've got a long stick with a scimitar on each end, and then you swing it around a couple times and chop your foot off.

For some reason, I can accept things like Elves, magical weapons, and spells that can re-shape reality itself, but the moment I see a double-bladed weapon my eyes roll back so hard I bruise my retinas.

I get where you are coming from, I just try to focus on the real world double weapons like the lajatang and picture that when someone is swinging away with the double-dire-whatsit in game

[jaappleton]

I love it for Dex based Paladins.

LOVE IT for them.

[Twigwit]

I think it should not automatically include your ability modifier on the BA attack. Having it is essentially giving the user the primary benefits of dipping Fighter 1 or Ranger 2 for that fighting style, even if the damage dice is slightly less on hit. Otherwise I think it and the feat with it is fine.

[mephnick]

If they errata Dual Wielder to be a half feat then it's fine. But they won't because they only admit mistakes by creating things that make their mistakes obsolete.

[Waterdeep Merch]

If they errata Dual Wielder to be a half feat then it's fine. But they won't because they only admit mistakes by creating things that make their mistakes obsolete.
Really, that and making the two-weapon fighting style just a normal aspect of dual wielding in the first place. Essentially what the double scimitar does with its 'offhand' attack.

That still can't make TWF catch up to great weapons and only barely lets it stay ahead of sword n' board with dueling, but it helps keep them close enough that you don't need special optimization just to make it function.

[Vogie]

I mean, it makes sense that they build it into the weapon. The fact that one needs a feat to smack a target with the other end of a polearm or quarterstaff is a bit on the odd side. The fact that the Morningstar is thrice as expensive and twice as heavy as a war pick, but deals the exact same damage, is sad.

I'd be more mad if they called it a double bladed scimitar and it was just a slightly different longsword.

[GlenSmash!]

Feats like GWM and PAM go a long way toward having a good mechanical reason to make a Strength based character.

Double Bladed Scimitar spits in the face of that, then drops a deuce on duel wielding just for good measure.

[Temperjoke]

Okay, I hear what you're saying, but all I can think of is the Sword of Plun-Darr (http://thundercats.wikia.com/wiki/Sword_of_Plun-Darr) from the original Thundercats cartoon, and it makes me want one.

[intregus]

So the weapon just needs to add a sentence to make it so you don't add your ability modifier to the damage on the BA attack

[Tetrasodium]

I like that it is an unusual weapon that you need to make an investment in beyond simply "choose one martial weapon". Also I like that it is a very unusual weapon that uses both hands so other builds aren't competing as much with these folks.
Others have noted the problem with dex already being way better than strength in almost every case I understand that elves are kinda dex based & that makes sense, but maybe some kind of orc or maybe skullcrusher ogre/war troll cleaver or something else nifty tailored for strength builds would be nice to add as well.

[Eric Diaz]

Would anyone give a short explanation on how it works?

[intregus]

Its 100 gp martial weapon 2d4 slashing twohanded and special.

Special. When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals slashing damage.

And a feat for it

F EAT : REVENANT BLADE

You are descended from a master of the double blade and their skills have passed on to you.
• Increase your Dexterity or Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• While wielding a double-bladed weapon with two hands, the weapon has the finesse, . trait for your attacks with it, and you gain +1 to AC.
On your turn, when you use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon, the weapon’s damage die for this attack increases to 2d4, instead of 1d4.

[JoeJ]

For some reason, I can accept things like Elves, magical weapons, and spells that can re-shape reality itself, but the moment I see a double-bladed weapon my eyes roll back so hard I bruise my retinas.

Yeah, something about people with a human body shape using weapons that were obviously not designed for the human body shape, but somehow are better than weapons that were. I get the same eye roll at the Klingon bat'leth. (I mean seriously. How is that not significantly inferior to a sword or a spear?)

[Eric Diaz]

Its 100 gp martial weapon 2d4 slashing twohanded and special.

Special. When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals slashing damage.

And a feat for it

F EAT : REVENANT BLADE

You are descended from a master of the double blade and their skills have passed on to you.
• Increase your Dexterity or Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• While wielding a double-bladed weapon with two hands, the weapon has the finesse, . trait for your attacks with it, and you gain +1 to AC.
On your turn, when you use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon, the weapon’s damage die for this attack increases to 2d4, instead of 1d4.

Thanks!

It's really ill-conceived... Seems that no one would use TWF anymore... everybody running around with double-bladed scimitars.

A 1d6+mod/1d6 weapon would make a lot more sense. Loses some versatility, gains some power with the "magic weapon" spell, doesn't require a new feat if it plays by the same rules as dual-wielding.

[Arkhios]

Actually, the text does NOT say you add your ability modifier to damage rolls with the "off-hand attack". Since the weapon doesn't qualify for two-weapon fighting in any way, it's really not that bad.

2d4 — with or without ability modifier is only max 8 damage per hit. just like longsword ... or rapier.
Without feat, it's only 1d4 for the "off-hand" (no ability bonus to damage roll!), which is same as if you were two-weapon fighting with a rapier and a dagger. No big deal. It's same maximum potential if you were using two short swords (1d6+1d6) without two-weapon fighting style:
6+6 = 4+4+4 = 12

The Revenant Blade feat brings the weapon to same level as the Dual Wielder feat does with two rapiers (2d4+2d4 ≈ 1d8+1d8)

Only difference is the average damage being slightly different. Maximum damage potential remains the same:
4+4+4+4 = 8+8 = 16

Revenant Blade gives you +1 AC if you hold a double bladed weapon in two hands.
Dual Wielder gives you +1 AC if you hold two melee weapons.

That it also gives the option for finesse is not a game breaker. A rogue with dual wielder and two rapiers can already do the same amount of damage with finesse.

[Glorthindel]

Actually, the text does NOT say you add your ability modifier to damage rolls with the "off-hand attack".

That's because it doesn't say its an off-hand attack. All the rules says is "you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon". I would agree with you if there was a line that said that this second attack counted as two-weapon fighting (or something to that effect) but it doesn't, it just says it is an attack, so without further clarification it should get the ability bonus to damage.

[Asmotherion]

I always imagined my PAM users till now using double-bladed weapons, just that the momentum of the second attack was less strong or something...

Overall, I haven't seen the actual thing (don't have the hard copy yet), but I think it must be Awesome.

[Arkhios]

That's because it doesn't say its an off-hand attack. All the rules says is "you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon". I would agree with you if there was a line that said that this second attack counted as two-weapon fighting (or something to that effect) but it doesn't, it just says it is an attack, so without further clarification it should get the ability bonus to damage.

Did you not see the quotation marks around "off-hand" that I had? I didn't say it was specifically an off-hand attack. I am aware it is not. However, it doesn't say you add your ability modifier to the damage roll, so why would you?

[OvisCaedo]

Did you not see the quotation marks around "off-hand" that I had? I didn't say it was specifically an off-hand attack. I am aware it is not. However, it doesn't say you add your ability modifier to the damage roll, so why would you?

Er... because adding your ability modifier to the damage roll of a weapon attack is the default universal rule unless something states otherwise? I don't think PAM's bonus action attack explicitly says to add your ability modifier either (at least in my copy), but that seems like it's generally accepted.

[Arkhios]

Er... because adding your ability modifier to the damage roll of a weapon attack is the default universal rule unless something states otherwise? I don't think PAM's bonus action attack explicitly says to add your ability modifier either (at least in my copy), but that seems like it's generally accepted.

And when exactly did generally accepted become RAI or RAW?

[Mortis_Elrod]

And when exactly did generally accepted become RAI or RAW?

Look at the rules for making an attack. The default is add mod to any weapon attack.

Do you think PAM doesn’t add mod on the other attack?

Don’t be ridiculous now.

Look at the combat section before you make claims

[RSP]

And when exactly did generally accepted become RAI or RAW?

Yeah the RAW is explicitly clear on this: “When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage.“ I’m not sure why you think it’s not RAW, but unless something tells you not to add the mod, you add the mod.

[z3rO1]

So this is practically Polearm Master feat for 100 gp., if we exaggerate? Did I understand what the special does correctly?

[Arkhios]

Look at the rules for making an attack. The default is add mod to any weapon attack.

Do you think PAM doesn’t add mod on the other attack?

Don’t be ridiculous now.

Look at the combat section before you make claims

Yeah the RAW is explicitly clear on this: “When attacking with a weapon, you add your ability modifier—the same modifier used for the attack roll— to the damage.“ I’m not sure why you think it’s not RAW, but unless something tells you not to add the mod, you add the mod.

I could swear I didn't see that part in there for some reason. Honestly, my mistake. Apparently you do add the modifier, so the weapon is perhaps slightly off balance. (Luckily, Wayfinder's Guide is ─ by Baker's words ─ subject to change at any time. It's not a finished product; it's more like in Unearthed Arcana playtest status.)


So this is practically Polearm Master feat for 100 gp., if we exaggerate? Did I understand what the special does correctly?
More or less, yes. It's a bit overtuned at the moment, but I'd be surprised if they didn't downgrade it soon-ish.

[z3rO1]

More or less, yes. It's a bit overtuned at the moment, but I'd be surprised if they didn't downgrade it soon-ish.

Well, I mean, hopefully they will. Or I will have to ask for a refund on my Polearm Master. Some puny stiched together swords conquering my Halberd is unforgivable!

[Tetrasodium]

Well, I mean, hopefully they will. Or I will have to ask for a refund on my Polearm Master. Some puny stiched together swords conquering my Halberd is unforgivable!


PAM also allows you to make an AoO when things approach, the dbs+revenant blade does not.


I'd like to see a strength based nifty toy though, maybe gnoll myrnaxe, war troll cleaver, etc. It could even be paired with powerful build to really make that worth something.

[KorvinStarmast]

Bloat continues to arrive; is Mearls in charge of this project? Why can't they fold Eberron into the basic 5e chassis?

[ZorroGames]

Bloat continues to arrive; is Mearls in charge of this project? Why can't they fold Eberron into the basic 5e chassis?

Bloat has always been a factor in D&D.

Might be time to start my non-AL but AL “like” campaign world design.

[Tetrasodium]

Bloat continues to arrive; is Mearls in charge of this project? Why can't they fold Eberron into the basic 5e chassis?
because they made pains to exclude eberron & darksun from that "basic 5e chassis?" in order to fit more "absolutely not forgotten realms default setting of forgotten realms" & that sort of careless lore dumping was awful the last couple times they tried it with eberron. Mike Mearls is listed under "additiional design" design & lead design are eberron people.

Rather than being upset that eberron adds "bloat", perhaps you should be upset that it's lore was excluded from "the basic 5e chassis" making it a requirement to add stuff in order to do eberron?... or are you more upset that eberron itself is getting some official support resulting in a good bit of additional content (http://www.dmsguild.com/browse.php?filters=0_0_0_0_45355_45462_0_0) now that it's allowed on dmsguild?

[jaappleton]

As far as bloat and why can't Eberron be folded into the basic 5e Chassis...

Keith Baker just did a FAQ on the Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron.

He wrote it. That's him. WOTC approached him about including Eberron in 5E. Now, its important to note, WOTC OWNS EBERRON. They do. Its theirs. Keith made it, but because he made it while working for WOTC, contractually, it doesn't belong to him. (This is why Monte Cook doesn't work for WOTC now, long and short of it, but that's another story)

WOTC went to Keith and said, "We want to bring Eberron to 5E. We want you involved."

And Keith got to work, and busted out the 110+ pages on Eberron lore. He also worked with Mearls, Crawford, and the rest of the team to make the mechanics of things work with 5E. He's counting on the community to help refine the mechanics and playtest all the mechanics.

Until its refined more, it will not receive the Adventurer's League stamp of approval.

Among other questions he answered were about Warforged and their integrated armor. The intent is that Warforged are innately enchanted creatures, and while they start with basically the maximum armor value granted by their proficiency (Essentially Plate if you get Heavy Armor, etc) they also are incapable of wearing armor. Especially magical armor. So while the value of the AC may be high, they'll always be at Disadvantage in Stealth because they can't get Mithral. They'll always be susceptible to Critical Hits because they can't get Adamantium. Etc.

On the Artificer: Keith is not designing the Artificer and has nothing to do with it. That's the core WOTC design team. That's on them. It WILL be included in the Wayfinder's Guide as a free update, Mearls said it should be coming next month.

Also, this part is very important and relates directly to the Double Bladed Scimitar: Eberron is a high magic world. Magic items are less rare than they typically are in other worlds. As a result, the numbers of things are typically higher. Therefore, in the world of Eberron, the Double Bladed Scimitar should be relatively fine, compared to other things players might get. Remember, its designed for a particular world. Its not supposed to be in Forgotten Realms or Grayhawk or Mystara.

[RSP]

Among other questions he answered were about Warforged and their integrated armor. The intent is that Warforged are innately enchanted creatures, and while they start with basically the maximum armor value granted by their proficiency (Essentially Plate if you get Heavy Armor, etc) they also are incapable of wearing armor. Especially magical armor. So while the value of the AC may be high, they'll always be at Disadvantage in Stealth because they can't get Mithral. They'll always be susceptible to Critical Hits because they can't get Adamantium. Etc.

I know you’re just relaying info, JA, so this isn’t directed at you, just using your post’s info.

I really dislike the design of the Warforged. Scaling Plate armor, from level 1, at the cost of “well it’s not Mithril or Admantium!”, isn’t good design.

That’s like saying the level 1 fighter should start with +1 Plate for free because “it isn’t +3 plate!”

[jaappleton]

I know you’re just relaying info, JA, so this isn’t directed at you, just using your post’s info.

I really dislike the design of the Warforged. Scaling Plate armor, from level 1, at the cost of “well it’s not Mithril or Admantium!”, isn’t good design.

That’s like saying the level 1 fighter should start with +1 Plate for free because “it isn’t +3 plate!”

I understand what you're saying.

Considering the sheer cost of plate mail, I'm not a fan of anyone starting off with it, either. That's not something you should have from level 1.

I like how they did it for Light Armor and Medium Armor. Heavy? Not really a fan.

[Arkhios]

I understand what you're saying.

Considering the sheer cost of plate mail, I'm not a fan of anyone starting off with it, either. That's not something you should have from level 1.

I like how they did it for Light Armor and Medium Armor. Heavy? Not really a fan.

I could live without the heavy plating as an option right from the get-go.

Heavy plating could be a racial feat for the Warforged.

[Tetrasodium]

I understand what you're saying.

Considering the sheer cost of plate mail, I'm not a fan of anyone starting off with it, either. That's not something you should have from level 1.

I like how they did it for Light Armor and Medium Armor. Heavy? Not really a fan.


what cost Literally my fighter 1 wizard 2 gnome was effectively given a set of gnome sized plate floating in a gelatinous cube last night. The reason I was 1/2 instead of 1/1 is because almost half the group was missing last week due to life issues & we wound up taking a restbefore going on that way.


I could live without the heavy plating as an option right from the get-go.

Heavy plating could be a racial feat for the Warforged.

Feats are very much more valuable in 5e than before. Put into perspective, heavy armor master gives +1 strength and dr3/magic. Medium armor magic gives a dex cap of 3 in medium armor and no more medium armor stealth disadvantage. It does not need to be & should not be a feat just to ensure warforged will fit into some hypothetical low magic low resource campaign because other races already provide a simple solution. Tiefling drow & several orther races have abilities that unlock at level 2/5/etc. I'm not convinced that even that sort of delay is even needed though because those hypothetical no magic low resource campaigns people keep mentioning are almost certainly well outside the norm.

[Tanngrisnr]

Regarding the weapon (and all the Eberron new races) I would like to point out that the 5e mechanics presented in WGtE were designed by Keith Baker with the help of Ruty Rutemberg.

Rutemberg is the same guy responsible for a DM's Guild book called Xanathar's Lost Notes on Everything Else.

If any of you has had a chance to read up on XLNtEE you'll notice the same type of inbalance present in the double scimitar and the Eberron races.

[Arkhios]

Feats are very much more valuable in 5e than before. Put into perspective, heavy armor master gives +1 strength and dr3/magic. Medium armor magic gives a dex cap of 3 in medium armor and no more medium armor stealth disadvantage. It does not need to be & should not be a feat just to ensure warforged will fit into some hypothetical low magic low resource campaign because other races already provide a simple solution. Tiefling drow & several orther races have abilities that unlock at level 2/5/etc. I'm not convinced that even that sort of delay is even needed though because those hypothetical no magic low resource campaigns people keep mentioning are almost certainly well outside the norm.

I though it would be obvious that, if the Heavy Plating was a racial feat, it would at the very least be a half-feat and maybe give something extra on top. Apparently people think so little of me....
#SadFace

[mephnick]

what cost Literally my fighter 1 wizard 2 gnome was effectively given a set of gnome sized plate floating in a gelatinous cube last night.

Just because your DM hands out equipment like candy doesn't mean it's supposed to be. The game presupposes that a martial character will not be able to afford plate until somewhere between level 5 and 6 unless literally everyone in the party spends all their money on one character. Full Plate generally comes with the jump to 2nd Tier. That's not an accident.

[RSP]

what cost Literally my fighter 1 wizard 2 gnome was effectively given a set of gnome sized plate floating in a gelatinous cube last night. The reason I was 1/2 instead of 1/1 is because almost half the group was missing last week due to life issues & we wound up taking a restbefore going on that way.

Is your argument that because your DM gave you plate mail last night at level 3, that it’s fine, RAW, for level 1 characters to start out with plate at no cost?

[Tetrasodium]

I though it would be obvious that, if the Heavy Plating was a racial feat, it would at the very least be a half-feat and maybe give something extra on top. Apparently people think so little of me....
#SadFace

Not thinking little of you, just acknowledging & drawing attention to the absurdity of the worries people are bringing up in regards to warforged in some hypothetical very unusual campaign world. After the numbers were broken down too clearly for the people voicing concern to continue with the "ac is too high"chant so they switched to talking about warforged in a hypothetical very low resource campaign world where saving for plate armor till higher levels.

In this thread and others, people have talked about how x race gets Y(plus a bunch of unmentioned stuff) while warforged get xyz (often not leaving anything out or comparing two specific features in isolation). When considering races like tiefling/high elf/etc with a cantrip at 1, nobody thinks "hey, will this still fit in a limited resource campaign without cantrips?". Warforged should not be subject to similarly absurd considerations. If locking off the heavy plating till level 2/3/5 is warranted sure. but I don't think compromise for compromise sake is warranted given that it's only a "problem" if scarce resources are an important factor in the campaign & having nice armor under those conditions is a big part of the warforged's wheelhouse.

[Spacehamster]

What is its stats?

[Tetrasodium]

Just because your DM hands out equipment like candy doesn't mean it's supposed to be. The game presupposes that a martial character will not be able to afford plate until somewhere between level 5 and 6 unless literally everyone in the party spends all their money on one character. Full Plate generally comes with the jump to 2nd Tier. That's not an accident.

I can't help but notice that you omitted this part of my post to make that point:
Feats are very much more valuable in 5e than before. Put into perspective, heavy armor master gives +1 strength and dr3/magic. Medium armor magic gives a dex cap of 3 in medium armor and no more medium armor stealth disadvantage. It does not need to be & should not be a feat just to ensure warforged will fit into some hypothetical low magic low resource campaign because other races already provide a simple solution. Tiefling drow & several other races have abilities that unlock at level 2/5/etc. I'm not convinced that even that sort of delay is even needed though because those hypothetical no magic low resource campaigns people keep mentioning are almost certainly well outside the norm.

It's almost like you realized that it defeated the entire absurd claim that the heavy plating needs to be more limited so warforged are just like meat based races. People are quick to whine about how a variant human fighter (starting with mobile/PAM/Sentinel or something) couldn't afford to buy plate for a few levels, but those same people don't want to talk about how the meat based race can upgrade their armor with any kind of magic armor they come across or starts with racial stuff of their own.


Is your argument that because your DM gave you plate mail last night at level 3, that it’s fine, RAW, for level 1 characters to start out with plate at no cost?

That is not what I said at all, you too needed to chop out most of my post in order to make that absurd claim. It's almost like you realized that your point is ridiculous and can not be supported so you gave up even attempting to & have continued to resort to "prove my assumption wrong" tactics rather than showing why it is right. It's not the end of the world if a player starts with 18 base ac because they can already start with 17 & dr3/magic (variant human defensive fighting style, fighter/paladin starting chainmail. a forge cleric can do the same with their starting chain mail & blessing of the forge)..

[Arkhios]

What is its stats?

100 gp, 2d4 slashing, 6lbs, Special, two-handed.

Special: When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals slashing damage.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Not thinking little of you, just acknowledging & drawing attention to the absurdity of the worries people are bringing up in regards to warforged in some hypothetical very unusual campaign world. After the numbers were broken down too clearly for the people voicing concern to continue with the "ac is too high"chant so they switched to talking about warforged in a hypothetical very low resource campaign world where saving for plate armor till higher levels.

In this thread and others, people have talked about how x race gets Y(plus a bunch of unmentioned stuff) while warforged get xyz (often not leaving anything out or comparing two specific features in isolation). When considering races like tiefling/high elf/etc with a cantrip at 1, nobody thinks "hey, will this still fit in a limited resource campaign without cantrips?". Warforged should not be subject to similarly absurd considerations. If locking off the heavy plating till level 2/3/5 is warranted sure. but I don't think compromise for compromise sake is warranted given that it's only a "problem" if scarce resources are an important factor in the campaign & having nice armor under those conditions is a big part of the warforged's wheelhouse.
Eberron's always been a higher power level campaign setting. It even had custom high power rules in its original incarnation (the original action points). You can't reliably buy powerful magic items, as people like to quickly point out, but that's not to say they aren't present and even plentiful- go to Xen'Drik, infiltrate Riedra or Argonessia, dig into Khyber, traipse across the other planes, even raid the remains of pre-Galifar ruins and you're likely to come across cataclysmic magical artifacts, things that make what's present in the DMG rather tame by comparison.

This is the world that the warforged belong in. Any world that doesn't use these same expectations really shouldn't be including them, and that's the sane answer- how is your low magic setting making magical golem soldiers, anyway? Much like a lot of Eberron players wanted core expectations kept out of it, Eberron's rules should likewise be built solely for Eberron with no care of how they port back.

The double scimitar is kind of the same, in regards to being over-the-top for an over-the-top setting. But I still really wish TWF was improved to match.

[mephnick]

I can't help but notice that you omitted this part of my post to make that point:.

Sorry, the other half was separated by another quote so I thought it was a separate subject and didn't read it. My bad.

Yes, I agree, I think using the level "gating" on other racial abilities is where this needs to end up.

[RSP]

That is not what I said at all, you too needed to chop out most of my post in order to make that absurd claim. It's almost like you realized that your point is ridiculous and can not be supported so you gave up even attempting to & have continued to resort to "prove my assumption wrong" tactics rather than showing why it is right. It's not the end of the world if a player starts with 18 base ac because they can already start with 17 & dr3/magic (variant human defensive fighting style, fighter/paladin starting chainmail. a forge cleric can do the same with their starting chain mail & blessing of the forge)..

I asked a question; I wasn’t making any claim. Here’s what you quoted, and posted:


I understand what you're saying.

Considering the sheer cost of plate mail, I'm not a fan of anyone starting off with it, either. That's not something you should have from level 1.

I like how they did it for Light Armor and Medium Armor. Heavy? Not really a fan.


what cost Literally my fighter 1 wizard 2 gnome was effectively given a set of gnome sized plate floating in a gelatinous cube last night. The reason I was 1/2 instead of 1/1 is because almost half the group was missing last week due to life issues & we wound up taking a restbefore going on that way.

Your quote very much answers JA’s post regarding the cost of plate mail, with “what cost” and then a story of how your 3rd level character got plate for free.

I’m not sure why you think my question equals an absurd claim. I’m also not sure why you think you didn’t post that story (based off your “that’s not what I said at all” statement) that very much implies you’re stating there is no cost to plate mail as you can just get it for free at level 3.

[Bloodcloud]

Personally, I'd lower the innate armor and create "armore core" magic item to modify it, maybe even racial feat for spikes/wings/claws/inbuilt weapon and whatnot. It was already a bit like that in 3.5.

[Tetrasodium]

Personally, I'd lower the innate armor and create "armore core" magic item to modify it, maybe even racial feat for spikes/wings/claws/inbuilt weapon and whatnot. It was already a bit like that in 3.5.

I suppose you would be free to do that in your game, but why would you? multiple people have shown that the ac is not a problem by breaking down the numbers & rather than dispute that you are moving straight to "well lets compromise anyways".

[Spacehamster]

100 gp, 2d4 slashing, 6lbs, Special, two-handed.

Special: When you take the attack action and make a two-handed attack with a double-bladed scimitar, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon. This attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and it deals slashing damage.

Thanks thats pretty cool but why are people calling OP about it? Less damage than a great sword with GWM especially if the bonus action is triggered, only thing is that you don’t need the feat tax for bonus attack which is quite nice, would be a cool Kensai weapon tho!

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I suppose you would be free to do that in your game, but why would you? multiple people have shown that the ac is not a problem by breaking down the numbers & rather than dispute that you are moving straight to "well lets compromise anyways".

For a level 1 character who wants to use heavy armor, the best you can expect at character creation is chainmail, for 16 AC. A Warforged gets 18. That's a sizeable difference. A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

For a level 1 character who uses light armor, let's assume we're talking about a 16 Dex Rogue. You start with 14 AC, since you get leather armor. A warforged with the same Dex starts with 16 AC. At 17 with 20 Dex, we have 20 AC on our rogue in +3 studded leather armor and 22 on our warforged, who again has an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

For a level 1 medium armor user, we'll assume 14 Dex. We get scale mail at level 1 from our package, so we have 15 AC with our +2 modifier. The level 1 warforged has 17. At level 17, we've upgraded to +3 half plate for 20 AC; the warforged has 21 and, again, an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

[GlenSmash!]

Thanks thats pretty cool but why are people calling OP about it? Less damage than a great sword with GWM especially if the bonus action is triggered, only thing is that you don’t need the feat tax for bonus attack which is quite nice, would be a cool Kensai weapon tho!

I think Kensai is actually the one that will get the least use out of it since Monk already has a 1d4 bonus action attack right out of the box.

[z3rO1]

Thanks thats pretty cool but why are people calling OP about it? Less damage than a great sword with GWM especially if the bonus action is triggered, only thing is that you don’t need the feat tax for bonus attack which is quite nice, would be a cool Kensai weapon tho!

Because before, to have an extra attack people had to either pay a feat tax with Polearm Master, Two-Weapon Fighter, or an subclass+exhaustion tax with Berserker or Battlerager. Well, no exhaustion on Battlerager, but still.

Now to get an extra attack you need to...Pay 100 gp.

[jaappleton]

I think Kensai is actually the one that will get the least use out of it since Monk already has a 1d4 bonus action attack right out of the box.

Paladins get a lot out of it at level 11 and after. Improved Smite adds +1d8 to all attacks, so having three attacks including a bonus action is quite good for them.

Bladelocks get something good out of it as well. Its a single weapon, so its a Pact Weapon. Bonus action attack keying off Dex. Hexblades can, of course, use Charisma.

Barb-Rogues can utilize it just fine as well.

[Spacehamster]

Paladins get a lot out of it at level 11 and after. Improved Smite adds +1d8 to all attacks, so having three attacks including a bonus action is quite good for them.

Bladelocks get something good out of it as well. Its a single weapon, so its a Pact Weapon. Bonus action attack keying off Dex. Hexblades can, of course, use Charisma.

Barb-Rogues can utilize it just fine as well.

Gloom ranger would be baller too, 3 attacks on first round at level 3!

[Arkhios]

Because before, to have an extra attack people had to either pay a feat tax with Polearm Master, Two-Weapon Fighter, or an subclass+exhaustion tax with Berserker or Battlerager. Well, no exhaustion on Battlerager, but still.

Now to get an extra attack you need to...Pay 100 gp.

Are you serious? To get an extra (bonus action) attack (even before dbs) one needs only two light melee weapons. No need for a feat or any specific classes.

[GlenSmash!]

Are you serious? To get an extra (bonus action) attack (even before dbs) one needs only two light melee weapons. No need for a feat or any specific classes.

But you don't get stat bonus to the offhand when dual wielding unless you wave the fighting style, you would with Double Bladed Scimitar.

[Spacehamster]

I think Kensai is actually the one that will get the least use out of it since Monk already has a 1d4 bonus action attack right out of the box.

More meant he can use it with DEX and it’s a less swingy damage option than a versatile battle axe or longsword. :)

[GlenSmash!]

More meant he can use it with DEX and it’s another less swingy damage than a versatile battle axe or longsword. :)

I guess that is a slight bonus.

[Spacehamster]

I guess that is a slight bonus.

Oh and since it’s a sword you could get your hands on a flame tounge version of it which would make it superior to the unarmed bonus action attack. :)

[jaappleton]

Honestly, what's the big deal?

It's PAM for Dex.

That's exactly what it is. At least this can't be abused with Shillelagh.

I can see getting up in arms about the Feat granting +1 to AC. But Dual Wielder does that, although it does require two separate weapons, which also can factor into multiple magic weapons, certain class features like Pact of the Blade, etc.

[Eric Diaz]

Honestly, what's the big deal?

It's PAM for Dex.

That's exactly what it is. At least this can't be abused with Shillelagh.

I can see getting up in arms about the Feat granting +1 to AC. But Dual Wielder does that, although it does require two separate weapons, which also can factor into multiple magic weapons, certain class features like Pact of the Blade, etc.

The problem isn't the feat, is using the weapon without it - you gain the benefit for TWF for free (if you don't, well, them the double-scimitar feat is really underwhelming!).

One may argue that both PAM and Dex are already more than good enough, so combining them is a bad idea, or that such (strange) weapons shouldn't be obviously better than more sensible ones, but I don't think this is the main issue.

[Tetrasodium]

For a level 1 character who wants to use heavy armor, the best you can expect at character creation is chainmail, for 16 AC. A Warforged gets 18. That's a sizeable difference. A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

For a level 1 character who uses light armor, let's assume we're talking about a 16 Dex Rogue. You start with 14 AC, since you get leather armor. A warforged with the same Dex starts with 16 AC. At 17 with 20 Dex, we have 20 AC on our rogue in +3 studded leather armor and 22 on our warforged, who again has an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

For a level 1 medium armor user, we'll assume 14 Dex. We get scale mail at level 1 from our package, so we have 15 AC with our +2 modifier. The level 1 warforged has 17. At level 17, we've upgraded to +3 half plate for 20 AC; the warforged has 21 and, again, an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.

a lot of what you posted is either flatly untrue or depends on avery subjective reading of the rules that iognores a great deal

Lets start at the top

"A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.".
- A suit of +3 adamantine plate is 21 ac with crit immune. a suit of adamantine alone is 18 & crit immune, both are out of reach to a warforged.
- A set of plate armor of invulnerability gets ac 18-21 depending on bonus plus: armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. Also out of reach to a warforged
-A set of plate armor of resistance? ac 18-21 & an elemental resist, also unusable by warforged
- Dragonscale?... see above
- Dwarven plate? 18-21 & a reaction to resist being moved. Unusable by warforged.
- Efreeti chain? ac19, gain a language, walk on magma, & fire immune. unusable by warforged
- so on & so forth.
"and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points." Riddle me this. How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire restyist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
For a level 1 character who uses light armor, let's assume we're talking about a 16 Dex Rogue. You start with 14 AC, since you get leather armor. A warforged with the same Dex starts with 16 AC. At 17 with 20 Dex, we have 20 AC on our rogue in +3 studded leather armor and 22 on our warforged, , who again has an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire resist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
- At any level... which is more useful when being hit by a fireball or trying to dodge a dragon's breath? +1 AC or a tiefling's fire resist? It's no secret that high AC alone becobes less valuable as you go up in levels, don't pretend otherwise
- Since you want to look at level 1 specifically, a rogue is not king of that hill, for that, s fighter, paladin, cleric, & so on have ac16 from that chainmail they started with. Add a shield every one of those can also start with & you get 18 AC. I'm failing to see the problem with a rogue starting with less AC than a cleric not carrying a shield. The "problem" of a warforged eventually having a higher maximum AC is invalidated by the fact that the other races have other options
"For a level 1 medium armor user, we'll assume 14 Dex. We get scale mail at level 1 from our package, so we have 15 AC with our +2 modifier. The level 1 warforged has 17. At level 17, we've upgraded to +3 half plate for 20 AC; the warforged has 21 and, again, an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- You are repeating yourself, see above.
- Not only are you repeating yourself, you are failing to show how/why any of this is a problem rather than just a difference

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Hey tetra, I'm using a rogue when I'm talking about light armor because I'm talking about characters that wear light armor. Why the absolute fork would I compare the light armor warforged feature to a character in heavy armor with a shield? In what forking universe does that make any sense?

Sure, not +3 adamantine full plate - but a vorpal sword. Or a ring of three wishes. Or a belt of storm giant strength. Or one of the good ioun stones. I concede, though, that a game in which literally every player has every magical item possible places a warforged at a theoretical disadvantage, and even then not until players are rocking +3 armor with special qualities - items so powerful and rare that they don't appear on the Legendary items table and exist only at the specific discretion of the DM.

For every hypothetical you can come at me with about situations where specific racial advantages matter, I can come up with an equally dumb hypothetical where they don't. My kingdom for a warforged's disease immunity and nonexistent metabolism in Chult! What good is my tiefling's fire resistance if no one does fire damage? How much money would my rogue give to have thieves tools literally integrated into his body? A lot, that's how much.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because there's a better implementation possible. Yes, it's not great that warforged don't get to take advantage of armor-specific enchantments. It's also not great that warforged have the highest AC possible without actually investing anything into it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Reducing the base warforged AC by one or two while allowing warforged to benefit from adamantine plating, damage resistance and other traits is a better balanced implementation at all levels of play.

[Kadesh]

a lot of what you posted is either flatly untrue or depends on avery subjective reading of the rules that iognores a great deal

Lets start at the top

"A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.".
- A suit of +3 adamantine plate is 21 ac with crit immune. a suit of adamantine alone is 18 & crit immune, both are out of reach to a warforged.
- A set of plate armor of invulnerability gets ac 18-21 depending on bonus plus: armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. Also out of reach to a warforged
-A set of plate armor of resistance? ac 18-21 & an elemental resist, also unusable by warforged
- Dragonscale?... see above
- Dwarven plate? 18-21 & a reaction to resist being moved. Unusable by warforged.
- Efreeti chain? ac19, gain a language, walk on magma, & fire immune. unusable by warforged
- so on & so forth.
"and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points." Riddle me this. How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire restyist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
For a level 1 character who uses light armor, let's assume we're talking about a 16 Dex Rogue. You start with 14 AC, since you get leather armor. A warforged with the same Dex starts with 16 AC. At 17 with 20 Dex, we have 20 AC on our rogue in +3 studded leather armor and 22 on our warforged, , who again has an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire resist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
- At any level... which is more useful when being hit by a fireball or trying to dodge a dragon's breath? +1 AC or a tiefling's fire resist? It's no secret that high AC alone becobes less valuable as you go up in levels, don't pretend otherwise
- Since you want to look at level 1 specifically, a rogue is not king of that hill, for that, s fighter, paladin, cleric, & so on have ac16 from that chainmail they started with. Add a shield every one of those can also start with & you get 18 AC. I'm failing to see the problem with a rogue starting with less AC than a cleric not carrying a shield. The "problem" of a warforged eventually having a higher maximum AC is invalidated by the fact that the other races have other options
"For a level 1 medium armor user, we'll assume 14 Dex. We get scale mail at level 1 from our package, so we have 15 AC with our +2 modifier. The level 1 warforged has 17. At level 17, we've upgraded to +3 half plate for 20 AC; the warforged has 21 and, again, an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- You are repeating yourself, see above.
- Not only are you repeating yourself, you are failing to show how/why any of this is a problem rather than just a difference

Wtf does this have to do with a Double Bladed Scimitar?

[GlenSmash!]

Honestly, what's the big deal?

It's PAM for Dex.

PAM and GWM are big parts of keeping Strength in competition with Dex. PAM tips the balance to far toward Dex for my tastes.


That's exactly what it is. At least this can't be abused with Shillelagh. No but it can be abused by Hexblades.


I can see getting up in arms about the Feat granting +1 to AC. But Dual Wielder does that, although it does require two separate weapons, which also can factor into multiple magic weapons, certain class features like Pact of the Blade, etc.

It grants a bonus action attack that gains full benefit of attack stat to damage (albeit Strength) with no feat or fighting style.

For fighters, Duel Wielding was at least competitive at doing damage up until level 11, but this changes that.

It does more average damage than duel wielding at level one, and frees up the fighting style for further damage (GWF) or more AC (Defense) right from the get go.

[Tetrasodium]

Hey tetra, I'm using a rogue when I'm talking about light armor because I'm talking about characters that wear light armor. Why the absolute fork would I compare the light armor warforged feature to a character in heavy armor with a shield? In what forking universe does that make any sense?

Sure, not +3 adamantine full plate - but a vorpal sword. Or a ring of three wishes. Or a belt of storm giant strength. Or one of the good ioun stones. I concede, though, that a game in which literally every player has every magical item possible places a warforged at a theoretical disadvantage, and even then not until players are rocking +3 armor with special qualities - items so powerful and rare that they don't appear on the Legendary items table and exist only at the specific discretion of the DM.

For every hypothetical you can come at me with about situations where specific racial advantages matter, I can come up with an equally dumb hypothetical where they don't. My kingdom for a warforged's disease immunity and nonexistent metabolism in Chult! What good is my tiefling's fire resistance if no one does fire damage? How much money would my rogue give to have thieves tools literally integrated into his body? A lot, that's how much.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because there's a better implementation possible. Yes, it's not great that warforged don't get to take advantage of armor-specific enchantments. It's also not great that warforged have the highest AC possible without actually investing anything into it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Reducing the base warforged AC by one or two while allowing warforged to benefit from adamantine plating, damage resistance and other traits is a better balanced implementation at all levels of play.
Oh... I see You do not want to discuss how or why it is a "problem" and want to discuss the fact that it is higher in isolation from the rest of the warforged compared to every other race, so you came here to this thread due to being run out of the threads disciussing it for lack of any coherent point supporting your (poor) argument? Go back to one of those threads, don't hijack this one.

[RSP]

a lot of what you posted is either flatly untrue or depends on avery subjective reading of the rules that iognores a great deal

Lets start at the top

"A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.".
- A suit of +3 adamantine plate is 21 ac with crit immune. a suit of adamantine alone is 18 & crit immune, both are out of reach to a warforged.
- A set of plate armor of invulnerability gets ac 18-21 depending on bonus plus: armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. Also out of reach to a warforged
-A set of plate armor of resistance? ac 18-21 & an elemental resist, also unusable by warforged
- Dragonscale?... see above
- Dwarven plate? 18-21 & a reaction to resist being moved. Unusable by warforged.
- Efreeti chain? ac19, gain a language, walk on magma, & fire immune. unusable by warforged
- so on & so forth.
"and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points." Riddle me this. How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire restyist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
For a level 1 character who uses light armor, let's assume we're talking about a 16 Dex Rogue. You start with 14 AC, since you get leather armor. A warforged with the same Dex starts with 16 AC. At 17 with 20 Dex, we have 20 AC on our rogue in +3 studded leather armor and 22 on our warforged, , who again has an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire resist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not
- At any level... which is more useful when being hit by a fireball or trying to dodge a dragon's breath? +1 AC or a tiefling's fire resist? It's no secret that high AC alone becobes less valuable as you go up in levels, don't pretend otherwise
- Since you want to look at level 1 specifically, a rogue is not king of that hill, for that, s fighter, paladin, cleric, & so on have ac16 from that chainmail they started with. Add a shield every one of those can also start with & you get 18 AC. I'm failing to see the problem with a rogue starting with less AC than a cleric not carrying a shield. The "problem" of a warforged eventually having a higher maximum AC is invalidated by the fact that the other races have other options
"For a level 1 medium armor user, we'll assume 14 Dex. We get scale mail at level 1 from our package, so we have 15 AC with our +2 modifier. The level 1 warforged has 17. At level 17, we've upgraded to +3 half plate for 20 AC; the warforged has 21 and, again, an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points."
- You are repeating yourself, see above.
- Not only are you repeating yourself, you are failing to show how/why any of this is a problem rather than just a difference


Interesting that you claim what he says is untrue that go on not to back that up, but instead talk about ridiculousness. It seems you’re a firm believer in +1 Plate is fine at level 1, because it could be +3. I think your logic is severely flawed with this summation.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It grants a bonus action attack that gains full benefit of attack stat to damage (albeit Strength) with no feat or fighting style.

For fighters, Duel Wielding was at least competitive at doing damage up until level 11, but this changes that.

It does more average damage than duel wielding at level one, and frees up the fighting style for further damage (GWF) or more AC (Defense) right from the get go.

It does concern me a bit that it's also got a weapon-specific feat to support it. And it's a pretty good feat - finesse, +1 Dex, +1 AC, +1d4 damage is a good little package. I'm less worried about this stepping on the toes of PAM than I am just obsoleting the DW style... again. If this were in my game I'd be asking my DM to make Dual Wielder a half-feat.


Oh... I see You do not want to discuss how or why it is a "problem" and want to discuss the fact that it is higher in isolation from the rest of the warforged compared to every other race, so you came here to this thread due to being run out of the threads disciussing it for lack of any coherent point supporting your (poor) argument? Go back to one of those threads, don't hijack this one.

I've been run out of threads? I'm, uh, pretty sure I hadn't posted anywhere else about the warforged AC until I responded here to you. So if you'd like to complain about threadjacking, I do suggest looking in the mirror. I'm happy to respond if you have thoughts based in fact.

Also, since you asked, the value in GP of fire resistance can be approximated from the ring of fire resistance, which as a rare item could be expected to be found by a character starting at level 5. It's got a listed value of 500-5000 gp. +3 armor is priced at 50,000+ gp.

[Tetrasodium]

PAM and GWM are big parts of keeping Strength in competition with Dex. PAM tips the balance to far toward Dex for my tastes.

No but it can be abused by Hexblades.


It grants a bonus action attack that gains full benefit of attack stat to damage (albeit Strength) with no feat or fighting style.

For fighters, Duel Wielding was at least competitive at doing damage up until level 11, but this changes that.

It does more average damage than duel wielding at level one, and frees up the fighting style for further damage (GWF) or more AC (Defense) right from the get go.



That's a very good point, but thank god they can't

The influence of your patron also allows you to mystically channel your will through a particular weapon. Whenever you finish a long rest, you can touch one weapon that you are proficient with and that lacks the two—handed property. When you attack with that weapon, you can use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls.This benefit lasts until you finish a long rest. If you later


the DBS is special, two-handed not versatile. Rather than clobbering the finesse capability the feat grants, I'd rather see a few nifty weapons that works off strength & maybe powerful build added

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That's a very good point, but thank god they can't

the DBS is special, two-handed not versatile. Rather than clobbering the finesse capability the feat grants, I'd rather see a few nifty weapons that works off strength & maybe powerful build added

To finish the quote:


gain the Pact of the Blade feature, this benefit extends to every pact weapon you conjure with that feature, no matter the weapon's type.

[Vorpalchicken]

If it indeed allows the ability damage mod to the bonus attack (and it seems to be worded that way) then this is blatant power creep.

I personally would only allow it if it follows the same rules as twf- no ability damage modifier to the bonus attack. (I realize this is not RAW and would be my ruling.)

I actually would consider rolling the bonus into the feat though. If someone wants to invest that much in an obscure weapon then they can have at it (possibly sacrificing discovering magical weapons or at least having a hard time of it)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

If it indeed allows the ability damage mod to the bonus attack (and it seems to be worded that way) then this is blatant power creep.

I personally would only allow it if it follows the same rules as twf- no ability damage modifier to the bonus attack. (I realize this is not RAW and would be my ruling.)

I actually would consider rolling the bonus into the feat though. If someone wants to invest that much in an obscure weapon then they can have at it (possibly sacrificing discovering magical weapons or at least having a hard time of it)

That bonus isn't part of the Dual Wielding feat though - it comes from the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style. Even if you add it to the Revenant Blade feat, two-weapon fighting is still behind - they need a fighting style and a full feat to catch up. Revenant Blade is a half-feat as is and grants +1 Dex or Str.

[Tetrasodium]

To finish the quote:

Yes but read the rest of it

You can use any weapon you summon with your Pact ofthe Blade feature as a spellcasting focus for your warlock spells.
In addition, the weapon gains a +1 bonus to its attack and damage rolls, unless it is a magic weapon that already has a bonus to those rolls.
Finally, the weapon you conjure can be a shortbow, longbow, light crossbow, or heavy crossbow.
That gives them +1 and lets them summon one as a pact weapon sure, but it does not let them override the fact that hex warrior explicitly excludes two handed weapons from being able to use charisma for hit/damage.


Also if you look at wgte 114 they miss out on some nifty perks that would apply to sayyy..... force damage by using it. My personal gripe about hexblades & scorlock is that WotC decided charisma can do everything for some reason decided that aside from charisma scorlocks shouldn't need strength or dex beyond 14 to cap out medium armor. I would rather see a hexblade using a double bladed scimitar using strength or dex than bleeping repelling agonizing blast on a loop for a change.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Yes but read the rest of it

That gives them +1 and lets them summon one as a pact weapon sure, but it does not let them override the fact that hex warrior explicitly excludes two handed weapons from being able to use charisma for hit/damage.

You're mistaken. That applies to the Improved Pact Weapon invocation, not to the Hex Warrior feature of the Hexblade. The Hex Warrior feature, as you note, excludes two-handed weapons unless they are conjured with the Pact Weapon feature from Pact of the Blade. All pact weapons, no matter what type, receive the benefits conferred by Hex Warrior. Improved Pact Weapon doesn't apply at all here.


Also if you look at wgte 114 they miss out on some nifty perks that would apply to sayyy..... force damage by using it. My personal gripe about hexblades & scorlock is that WotC decided charisma can do everything for some reason decided that aside from charisma scorlocks shouldn't need strength or dex beyond 14 to cap out medium armor. I would rather see a hexblade using a double bladed scimitar using strength or dex than bleeping repelling agonizing blast on a loop for a change.

Well, there's no reason not to make a Pact of the Blade Warlock that isn't a Hexblade. Pact of the Fiend is quite good as well. So if you want to use Str or Dex as a warlock, you can. Like you, I'm glad to see a variety of warlock styles supported. Throwing out agonizing eldritch blasts with your choice of control invocation on top gets a bit old. I'd most like to see an invocation that supports an archer archetype, but that's just me.

[Tetrasodium]

You're mistaken. That applies to the Improved Pact Weapon invocation, not to the Hex Warrior feature of the Hexblade. The Hex Warrior feature, as you note, excludes two-handed weapons unless they are conjured with the Pact Weapon feature from Pact of the Blade. All pact weapons, no matter what type, receive the benefits conferred by Hex Warrior. Improved Pact Weapon doesn't apply at all here.



Well, there's no reason not to make a Pact of the Blade Warlock that isn't a Hexblade. Pact of the Fiend is quite good as well. So if you want to use Str or Dex as a warlock, you can. Like you, I'm glad to see a variety of warlock styles supported. Throwing out agonizing eldritch blasts with your choice of control invocation on top gets a bit old. I'd most like to see an invocation that supports an archer archetype, but that's just me.


I see the problem hidden away on the next page. Even still however, that is a problem with the fact that someone at WotC is dating a scorlock & trying desperately to get them into bed sure... but that doesn't mean that every melee weapon ever needs to be crippled now that the gm's overtures have progressed from phb alone's "um... you know..." you phb+xge's "seriously wtf?!".

any kind of hypothetical fluff about the dbs being tied to your bloodline or something would be overruled by the pact blade's fluff. At this point, until WotC is willing to step up & start saying "well.. we uh... made hmm.. some uhm,,, mistakes & those two broke up", we just have to ignore that bit of cheese. Most importantly the dragonmarked options for humans in wgte make it easy to say "I'm banning variant human but these 4 awesome humans are an option". Yes it might get old, but scorlocks are already able to ignore rediculous punishment with spells like blink/mirror image/etc making raging barbarians look downright fragile but that's getting off topic.

I'd rather see something incentivize strength builds

[Kadesh]

I see the problem hidden away on the next page. Even still however, that is a problem with the fact that someone at WotC is dating a scorlock & trying desperately to get them into bed sure... but that doesn't mean that every melee weapon ever needs to be crippled now that the gm's overtures have progressed from phb alone's "um... you know..." you phb+xge's "seriously wtf?!".

any kind of hypothetical fluff about the dbs being tied to your bloodline or something would be overruled by the pact blade's fluff. At this point, until WotC is willing to step up & start saying "well.. we uh... made hmm.. some uhm,,, mistakes & those two broke up", we just have to ignore that bit of cheese. Most importantly the dragonmarked options for humans in wgte make it easy to say "I'm banning variant human but these 4 awesome humans are an option". Yes it might get old, but scorlocks are already able to ignore rediculous punishment with spells like blink/mirror image/etc making raging barbarians look downright fragile but that's getting off topic.

I'd rather see something incentivize strength builds

Have you heard yourself? Mate, seriously. This isn't healthy.

[JackPhoenix]

"A level 17 character rocking +3 platemail has 21 AC; a Warforged has 22 and an extra major magic item's worth of gold or treasure points.".
- A suit of +3 adamantine plate is 21 ac with crit immune. a suit of adamantine alone is 18 & crit immune, both are out of reach to a warforged.
- A set of plate armor of invulnerability gets ac 18-21 depending on bonus plus: armor. Additionally, you can use an action to make yourself immune to nonmagical damage for 10 minutes or until you are no longer wearing the armor. Once this special action is used, it can't be used again until the next dawn. Also out of reach to a warforged
-A set of plate armor of resistance? ac 18-21 & an elemental resist, also unusable by warforged
- Dragonscale?... see above
- Dwarven plate? 18-21 & a reaction to resist being moved. Unusable by warforged.
- Efreeti chain? ac19, gain a language, walk on magma, & fire immune. unusable by warforged
- so on & so forth.

- There's no +3 adamantine plate. There's +3 armor, and there's adamantine armor, and either may or may not come in plate version. But they can't be combined. The former is also legendary item. As is Armor of Invunlerability and Efreeti Chain. If he's got a free legendary choice the other races used on armor... how about a defender for even better AC? +3 shield one rarity tier lower. Ring of Elemental Command or Ring of Spell Turning. Or whatever else strikes your fancy.
-so the warforged doesn't wear armor of resistance. Too bad there are Rings of Resistance that are also rare items. Dragonscale? Not only it's a rarity tier higher, it's available as scale armor only, which isn't exactly the best medium armor type.


- How much gold or treasure points can a warforged spend to get a variant human's extra feat, a tiefling's fire resist, an aasimar's necrotic/radiant resist, so on & so forth? After you work that one out we can come back to if the cost for those things are reasonable or not

It's not like the armor is WF's only racial ability... they have resistance to poisons, immunity to diseases, and don't need to eat, sleep or breathe: just the later is the equivalent of two magic items, both of which require attunement, and one is uncommon and the other on rare item. Ring for tiefling's fire resist is also a rare item.

Oh, and let's not forget the immunity to exhaustion from lack of rest, and staying fully aware even while resting. Envoy subrace even has floating ASI, so you could get that extra Cha for your coffeelocking needs.


- At any level... which is more useful when being hit by a fireball or trying to dodge a dragon's breath? +1 AC or a tiefling's fire resist? It's no secret that high AC alone becobes less valuable as you go up in levels, don't pretend otherwise

At any level... which do you face more often, attacks against your armor class, or enemies using fire damage?

Back on topic: it wasn't mentioned here, but the Revenant Blade feat does have a requirement of playing an elf.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I see the problem hidden away on the next page.

It's not hidden away at all! It's literally part of the same passage you quoted. How is this complicated? Your quote ends in the middle of a sentence. All I did was finish the sentence! Am I taking crazy pills?


Even still however, that is a problem with the fact that someone at WotC is dating a scorlock & trying desperately to get them into bed sure... but that doesn't mean that every melee weapon ever needs to be crippled now that the gm's overtures have progressed from phb alone's "um... you know..." you phb+xge's "seriously wtf?!".

...Hex Warrior doesn't do anything to melee weapons except key them to run on a different skill. It's literally just Finesse-For-Charisma. If there's a thing that cripples melee weapons, it's the existence of a weapon that rolls the Two-Weapon Fighting style and half of Polearm Mastery into a single mechanically superior package.


any kind of hypothetical fluff about the dbs being tied to your bloodline or something would be overruled by the pact blade's fluff. At this point, until WotC is willing to step up & start saying "well.. we uh... made hmm.. some uhm,,, mistakes & those two broke up", we just have to ignore that bit of cheese. Most importantly the dragonmarked options for humans in wgte make it easy to say "I'm banning variant human but these 4 awesome humans are an option". Yes it might get old, but scorlocks are already able to ignore rediculous punishment with spells like blink/mirror image/etc making raging barbarians look downright fragile but that's getting off topic.

I'd rather see something incentivize strength builds

Oh. This is actually just about how Pact Weapon steps on the toes of some completely forking insignificant piece of Eberron fluff, isn't it. Until Wizards of the Coast is willing to cater to your exact specifications for this one godforsaken campaign setting and make every other piece of information subordinate to those expectations, it's horribly flawed and a terrible company and blah dee blaaaaaaaaah.

EDIT: I've literally never been as confused as I am right now. "Yes, playing a Dragonmarked Human might get old but sorlocks have powerful defensive options that make characters with superior hit die look fragile." Like wut wut and also wuttttttt?



Back on topic: it wasn't mentioned here, but the Revenant Blade feat does have a requirement of playing an elf.

Elven Accuracy, Drow High Magic, now Revenant Blade? These elves are all racist! They're hoarding the good feats!

[Tetrasodium]

It's not hidden away at all! It's literally part of the same passage you quoted. How is this complicated? Your quote ends in the middle of a sentence. All I did was finish the sentence! Am I taking crazy pills?
No, I just didn't scroll to the next page given all the whitespace above the image.



...Hex Warrior doesn't do anything to melee weapons except key them to run on a different skill. It's literally just Finesse-For-Charisma. If there's a thing that cripples melee weapons, it's the existence of a weapon that rolls the Two-Weapon Fighting style and half of Polearm Mastery into a single mechanically superior package.
wotc not doing enough sanity checking on invocations is a different problem that has nothing to do with the dbs,

anyone can take a dagger or short sword in their offhand & make an extra attack as a bonus action, the only difference is that this one is 2d4 instead of something else. PAM also gives the ability to AoO things that enter your threat range too. Given that the dbs is not a "glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff" it doesn't work together with it either.



Oh. This is actually just about how Pact Weapon steps on the toes of some completely forking insignificant piece of Eberron fluff, isn't it. Until Wizards of the Coast is willing to cater to your exact specifications for this one godforsaken campaign setting and make every other piece of information subordinate to those expectations, it's horribly flawed and a terrible company and blah dee blaaaaaaaaah.
No that was genuine annoyance over scorlocks, it has nothing to do with eberron




EDIT: I've literally never been as confused as I am right now. "Yes, playing a Dragonmarked Human might get old but sorlocks have powerful defensive options that make characters with superior hit die look fragile." Like wut wut and also wuttttttt?
oh really? how do you damage a character through blink?... you don't really. How do you damage a character through mirror image... it's pretty tough. How do you damage a character who can knock things back 10 feet multiple times/round with a d10+stat repelling agonizing blast when they can just misty step away if something dashes at them, etc. I suppose you would be confused if you don't know what kind of defensive spells a scorlock can have at their fingertips on top of either 13+dex or medium armor.

[JackPhoenix]

Elven Accuracy, Drow High Magic, now Revenant Blade? These elves are all racist! They're hoarding the good feats!

From in-setting perspective (which doesn't matter for the balance), the double-bladed scimitar is used by one specific elven culture and nobody else. And if you somehow get your hands on one anyway (without being one of them), be ready to deal with angry murderelves. Who like to stab/cut/shoot things. A lot. Because their ancestors used to stab things, and doing the same thing as their ancestors is important.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

From in-setting perspective (which doesn't matter for the balance), the double-bladed scimitar is used by one specific elven culture and nobody else. And if you somehow get your hands on one anyway (without being one of them), be ready to deal with angry murderelves. Who like to stab/cut/shoot things. A lot. Because their ancestors used to stab things, and doing the same thing as their ancestors is important.

Yeah, I know. I get the lore reasons. I'm just not sure that that belongs in 5E. There aren't that many feats and five of them are elf-specific. It's too much. We're trying to move away, I think, from the fiddly restrictionism of 3E.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

No, I just didn't scroll to the next page given all the whitespace above the image.

Uh, why not? You ended a quote two words into a sentence!


wotc not doing enough sanity checking on invocations is a different problem that has nothing to do with the dbs,

Invocations have nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. You just messed up reading a class ability.


anyone can take a dagger or short sword in their offhand & make an extra attack as a bonus action, the only difference is that this one is 2d4 instead of something else. PAM also gives the ability to AoO things that enter your threat range too. Given that the dbs is not a "glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff" it doesn't work together with it either.

PAM lets you make a bonus action attack with a two-handed weapon; it's the only feat that allows that. The DBS doesn't just let you make an attack at 1d4 damage; it lets you add your ability modifier. You can't do that ordinarily without access to the Two Weapon Fighting style. The DBS is also the only finessable two-handed weapon.


oh really? how do you damage a character through blink?... you don't really.

You hit them the 50% of the time they're on the Material Plane.


How do you damage a character through mirror image... it's pretty tough.

Literally any application of AE or volley damage.


How do you damage a character who can knock things back 10 feet multiple times/round with a d10+stat repelling agonizing blast when they can just misty step away if something dashes at them, etc.

With a bow from 150' away is an option that works pretty well, given that eldritch blast maxes at 120'. Of course, maybe they took Eldritch Spear, in which case they probably don't have the push. And if they did, you shoot from 400' away.


I suppose you would be confused if you don't know what kind of defensive spells a scorlock can have at their fingertips on top of either 13+dex or medium armor.

I understand this pretty well. Not to be arrogant, but I think I understand it better than you do. What I don't understand is what the heck this has to do with anything.

[CBAnaesthesia]

I'd like to see a strength based nifty toy though, maybe gnoll myrnaxe, war troll cleaver, etc. It could even be paired with powerful build to really make that worth something.

I would really hate that, honestly, because it makes that the clearly superior option (like this double scimitar is now the clearly superior Rogue weapon). I would rather WotC keep the release schedule slow than have this kind of power creep get released.

[JackPhoenix]

I would really hate that, honestly, because it makes that the clearly superior option (like this double scimitar is now the clearly superior Rogue weapon). I would rather WotC keep the release schedule slow than have this kind of power creep get released.

It's weird that it straight-on adds finesse quality, instead of just changing the ability score used for attack and damage, like monk, whem monk was made that way specifically to avoid rogue multiclass shennanigans.

[CBAnaesthesia]

anyone can take a dagger or short sword in their offhand & make an extra attack as a bonus action, the only difference is that this one is 2d4 instead of something else.
The dagger or shortsword doesn't add their modifier to damage which is a big deal. Even 1d4+mod is almost always better than 1d8, no mod. Also, even ignoring that, 2d4 is better damage than any 1-handed melee weapon.



PAM also gives the ability to AoO things that enter your threat range too. Given that the dbs is not a "glaive, halberd, pike, or quarterstaff" it doesn't work together with it either.

Yes but Revenant Blade gives you +1 Dex/Str and +1AC, which PAM doesn't. The AoO part of PAM isn't strictly better than this.



oh really? how do you damage a character through blink?... you don't really. How do you damage a character through mirror image... it's pretty tough. How do you damage a character who can knock things back 10 feet multiple times/round with a d10+stat repelling agonizing blast when they can just misty step away if something dashes at them, etc. I suppose you would be confused if you don't know what kind of defensive spells a scorlock can have at their fingertips on top of either 13+dex or medium armor.

Blink: readied actions for when they reappear, also they have a 55% chance not to disappear on the next turn.
Mirror Image: AoEs and Saving Throw spells are unaffected by Mirror Image.
Repelling Blast: attack from range.

[Tetrasodium]

I would really hate that, honestly, because it makes that the clearly superior option (like this double scimitar is now the clearly superior Rogue weapon). I would rather WotC keep the release schedule slow than have this kind of power creep get released.

Well it's kind of hard to backport setting specific weapons from "TotallyNotFaerun"into 5e without some of that power creep you mention because none of those other settings were considered much if at all in order to make more room forthings like drizzt's sidebar & a full page of names for humans in different regions within forgotten realms. The only way to avoid "power creep" is to make sure that nothing in it is desirable & we all know how that worked for the sword coast adventurers guide to green flame blade worked out.

Right now dex is equal or better than every single 1 handed weapon on phb149 (d4-d8, anything higher is 2 handed) on top of the fact that dex is objectively more useful than strength (lots of important dex saves vrs almost no strength saves & very rarely important ones. dex to ac str to nothing. dex to acrobatics stealth & slight of hand, str to athletics. Nearly everything you can use a strength save/athletics check against can also use a dex/acrobatics too... etc).as quicklyrainbow corrected me on earlier, all of the weapons on that table can be used with charisma & the value of charisma is no secret.

-a Myrnaxe is almost certainly going to be a 1 handed weapon that might be light making it viable for offhand strength based & a d8 slash/pierce damage would mean trength doesn't need the dual wielder feat for the equivalent of dual rapiers to make up for some of the greater value of dex over strength.

-A war troll cleaver might be 1handed with powerful build or 2 handed otherwise Give it a feat/special for a knockback/knockdown/debuff on a target or something & it could be very useful even if it was only a d10 , 1d6+1d4, or 3d4 depending on if you are using it 1 or 2 handed. with or without the feat for the extra benefits the improved averagewould be a nice thing If the feat allows other heavy weapons wielded with strength then it avoids your "clearly superior option"problem.

There is one comment of yours that needs special calling out though "I would rather WotC keep the release schedule slow than have this kind of power creep get released."... Fifth edition has been out for four years, six ifd you include the playtest & people have been complaining about a lack of rules for eberron stuff sop long that there are multiple community made adaptations of how things were adapted by different people (often coflicting in some way too). If 4-6 years is too quick for you, How many decades & official sourcebooks set in forgotten realms do you propose eberron fans wait for rules needed for their favorite setting to have official rules eh? (https://media1.tenor.com/images/59b1c3acd68d8a1aa6e87b2fb3043367/tenor.gif?itemid=10555981)

[CBAnaesthesia]

Well it's kind of hard to backport setting specific weapons from "TotallyNotFaerun"into 5e
No it isn't, just say "A double scimitar is a Glaive that takes extra training to wield effectively, so you're no good with the second blade unless you take PAM."


The only way to avoid "power creep" is to make sure that nothing in it is desirable & we all know how that worked for the sword coast adventurers guide to green flame blade worked out.
SCAG cantrips aren't the clear best option for every instance of a specific character build, all the time - they're best for an Eldritch Knight from levels 1-4 and 7-11 (and considering that EKs didn't have great damage options before this, it doesn't make them OP anyway, just good), and situational after that. They're best for an AT or Swashbuckler, too, but you lose out on dual-wielding for more chances to land Sneak Attack, which is extra good for Swashbucklers (since they don't need to bonus action Disengage, they're more likely to want to attempt a second Sneak Attack if they miss their main attack). The Dual Scimitar, on the other hand, is the best option for pretty much anyone who would use a 2-handed weapon, Str or Dex, unless they have GWM. It's definitely the best weapon for any melee Rogues or Hexblades.


snip, Dex vs Str discussion
Yeah, Dex is OP and Str is underpowered. I sympathize with that. I don't think finesse or ranged weapons should get +Dex to damage, but that ship has obviously sailed.
However, the fact that Dex is better than Str is only exacerbated by the Dual Scimitar, which is a Dex weapon that encroaches on the niche of Str weapons as they currently exist, and the way to fix that IMO is to throw the Dual Scimitar in the trash, not to introduce even more newer and betterer Str weapons and power creep even harder. New feats like Fell Handed or something, sure.
Also no, Athletics and Acrobatics are not interchangeable for everything. The skill descriptions are quite clear - Athletics is things like climbing, swimming, jumping, lifting, Acrobatics is things like keeping your balance. They can both be used to escape a grapple but they're clearly delineated if your DM is using them RAW.

As far as having WotC take their time to balance - I stand by it. They haven't been writing the Eberron book for 4 years. They should've started it earlier and had it come out earlier, but it shouldn't be released as-is because it's not balanced for 5e. I'm not saying they should take their time to release more FR sourcebooks before getting to other settings, just that when they actually start a book, don't rush it to market.

[MeeposFire]

Let us take a step back a second and really think about this for a second.

There are things about this weapon that should be looked at but I think there is a lot of talk about things that really do not matter.

My biggest indication of this I think is the talk about it being a two handed finesse weapon. Two handed weapon is not a good thing. I cannot think of one major thing that is good for being two handed property itself. You cannot use a shield, you cannot use a second item in your other hand and still attack, and its fighting style is rather lackluster especially if used how WotC says it is to be used (which for balance discussions on how WotC is designing things is the version you should use in discussions). The only thing I can think of which is not that big is that it is easier to use spell components with a two handed weapon than a person using shield or two weapons but that only affects certain characters and many of them are going to deal with that issue with the very useful warcaster feat.

Remember GWF feat only works with heavy weapons NOT two handed weapons. Yes all current heavy weapons are 2 handed but remember that heavy is not part of the two handed property (and nothing in the game says it has to be on a two handed weapon just all current examples are) PAM has several major advantages over this scimitar and its feat. First if you are using a staff it can be used one handed and gets to use a shield. If you use the actual polarm weapons then they are all heavy and that means you can pick up GWF to add +10 damage to that bonus action attack. The double scimitar cannot do that. In addition gives you the ability to make opportunity attacks to those in your reach and the double scimitar does not get this special bonus.

For damage 2d4 on the main hand and 1d4 on the bonus action is really similar to standard TWF damage (if you remove the ability score to damage I will get to that). Also note that 2d4 is not always advantageous over 1d8 such as playing a barbarian or using some other ability that specifies adding a weapons die to damage since the double scimitar only gets to add 1d4 not 2d4 (and the difference between 2d4 and 1d8 is rather small to begin with not IMO worth getting into a fight over). With the feat it is fairly similar to having the dual wielding feat in many ways.



Now there are things that should get a hard look here and the biggest one is that you get your ability score mod to damage with the bonus action attack. While I do think the effect is not overpowered (frankly that is something I would give an off hand attack as a default at the very least when you get the extra attack ability) it does fly in the face of TWF. To me that is more due to TWF being made too weak rather than this being too strong but I do believe it is unlikely that they are going to change TWF so I do think it is fair to consider removing the abiltiy score mod from damage on the bonus action attack. My recommendation would be to add the clause "this bonus action attack is treated as an off hand attack as per two weapon fighting". Or change TWF that would be my preference but it will not likely happen.

[CBAnaesthesia]

You're right that "two-handed," per se, isn't an advantage, but the problem is that it is a big-damage Dex weapon, which is highly desirable, since Dex is already overpowered compared to Str. Also the "1d8 is better than 2d4" situations you discuss are fairly edge cases, 2d4 is still generally better.
Also, in comparing the Double Scimitar to PAM weapons, you're right in that it doesn't get everything that PAM does but PAM is a full feat whereas Revenant Blade is a half feat, and it gives you additional AC unlike PAM. It is a strict upgrade to TWF, while also stepping on the toes of Str weapons in general.

[MeeposFire]

You're right that "two-handed," per se, isn't an advantage, but the problem is that it is a big-damage Dex weapon, which is highly desirable, since Dex is already overpowered compared to Str. Also the "1d8 is better than 2d4" situations you discuss are fairly edge cases, 2d4 is still generally better.
Also, in comparing the Double Scimitar to PAM weapons, you're right in that it doesn't get everything that PAM does but PAM is a full feat whereas Revenant Blade is a half feat, and it gives you additional AC unlike PAM. It is a strict upgrade to TWF, while also stepping on the toes of Str weapons in general.

First off people WAY overvalue dex over str. Secondly this is not really any better than what dex already has. It has an average damage of 5 compared to a rapiers damage of 4.5. If you want to compare it to TWF then you get 7 for dual short swords before accuracy and 7.5 for the double scimitar. In either case you are getting worked up over 1/2 a point of damage per attack that should be seen as well within any guidelines for creating something new. Many classes like rogues do not care about damage dice. When you have a +10d6 sneak attack the difference between a d6, d8, and 2d4 is minimal on your overall damage.

It does not step on the toes of str based weaponry because it cannot do what str based weaponry wants. Str based weapons have advantages in having access to the blunt damage type and to GWF which this weapon does neither. Everything else that str has going for it is mostly weapon agnostic (such as grappling or pushing). +1 AC is not something that makes it better than PAM if it was dual wielder would be seen as much better (and if you look many will tell you that dual wielder needs to be made into a half feat because it is so weak).

If you take out the ability score mod and take the time to consider some other pressing questions (is it like 3e where a double weapon had to have each end separately enchanted or is it like 4e where the weapon has one enchantment for the whole thing) then it really is not too terribly different from TWF. Most of the benefits that it would give are mostly not noticeable in a game since seeing a slightly higher average of damage is hard to gauge when the max damage is the same.

There are some things that need to be worked out here but honestly a lot of what is being argued about seems to be about some very small differences in numbers. Heck you could change the damage die to d8 and it really does not matter or you could even change it to a d6 on both ends by default and then have the feat upgrade it to d8s and it still makes little difference in the end.

[unusualsuspect]

It can't be used for GWM or Sharpshooter.

If it makes for a viable two weapon fighting style, awesome. Two weapon fighting sucks in 5th edition. You know it, I know it, my dog knows it, and of course the Shadow knows.

Unless you've got gimmicks, it isn't out-performing GWM or Sharpshooter. If you've got gimmicks, that's what a non-GWM or Sharpshooter weapon is for.

On its own, it's OK. With its feat, it roughly matches the better weapons that everyone uses because the other weapons suck.

Do we want another weapon that sucks? Is that our goal? Are all your Strength based characters going to abandon their Glaives and Greatswords and join the Double Scimitar revolution? Will you actually see *gasp* a Dex-based weapon that ISN'T A RAPIER? Truly, a horrifying prospect. :smalltongue:

[Tetrasodium]

It can't be used for GWM or Sharpshooter.

If it makes for a viable two weapon fighting style, awesome. Two weapon fighting sucks in 5th edition. You know it, I know it, my dog knows it, and of course the Shadow knows.

Unless you've got gimmicks, it isn't out-performing GWM or Sharpshooter. If you've got gimmicks, that's what a non-GWM or Sharpshooter weapon is for.

On its own, it's OK. With its feat, it roughly matches the better weapons that everyone uses because the other weapons suck.

Do we want another weapon that sucks? Is that our goal? Are all your Strength based characters going to abandon their Glaives and Greatswords and join the Double Scimitar revolution? Will you actually see *gasp* a Dex-based weapon that ISN'T A RAPIER? Truly, a horrifying prospect. :smalltongue:

two weapon doesn't "suck". I'm firmly in the camp not thinking there is a problem with 2d4+2d4, getting +stat on both of those might be worth looking at though.

I want to see more solid & interesting options for strength builds though because the value of having a high strength is so much less than a high dex. Being able to maim(debuff) a target with a myrnaxe,knock back/down a target with a war troll's cleaver as part of the normal attack, etc would mean that strength suddenly has interesting options again beyond simply hurting things.

[MeeposFire]

TWF is ok but not very good. It feels better when not allowing many extra options like feats or SCAG cantrips but when you allow the broad spectrum of stuff out there it starts to feel a bit lacking or at the very least tacked on. So many things do not work with it but probably should. The fact it requires the attack action means that if you making attacks without it you are effectively not getting to use the style and the same thing happens if you use bonus actions in general. A TWF EK just does not work at the same time you either get to use war magic or get to use two weapons but it is the only fighting style with the restriction. The fighting style is also not good enough to need those restrictions either.

Its clunkiness is its biggest problem. The fact it requires a bonus action for an extra attack in a system that has many ways of acquiring a bonus action attack that is even better really hurts it. Right now it is the only fighting style that does not really fight against fighting style but feats, spells, and sub class abilities.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Its clunkiness is its biggest problem. The fact it requires a bonus action for an extra attack in a system that has many ways of acquiring a bonus action attack that is even better really hurts it. Right now it is the only fighting style that does not really fight against fighting style but feats, spells, and sub class abilities.

I agree. I'm not sure adding a new item that replaces the fighting style does anything to solve this problem.

I am also not comfortable with deciding that everything that isn't GWM or Sharpshooter sucks, and therefore the correct choice is to introduce new options at that power level. That's a heck of a lot of power creep. A better option is just to nerf those two feats and be done with it.

[Tetrasodium]

I agree. I'm not sure adding a new item that replaces the fighting style does anything to solve this problem.

I am also not comfortable with deciding that everything that isn't GWM or Sharpshooter sucks, and therefore the correct choice is to introduce new options at that power level. That's a heck of a lot of power creep. A better option is just to nerf those two feats and be done with it.

I disagree. Better options would be to allow options that are lateral shifts so different options are varied in more than just damge type/level.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

A myrnaxe is almost certainly going to be nothing, because nobody (except you, apparently) cares about a weapon that showed up in one non-canon novel trilogy. And that isn't appreciably different from existing axe anyway.

A war troll cleaver, is, at best, going to be part of the war troll stat block, if we even got that one at all, not something for the players to wield, as trolls are large-sized. And, again, covered by existing axe.

[CBAnaesthesia]

I want to see more solid & interesting options for strength builds though because the value of having a high strength is so much less than a high dex.
I mean, I totally agree with this, I just don't think introducing new and more powerful weapons is the way to go about it, because those aren't really alternatives. If a weapon is just flat-out better, it's not an alternative, just an upgrade.
I'd be on board with using feats to do it, though, things more along the lines of Shield Master or Fell Handed.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Will you actually see *gasp* a Dex-based weapon that ISN'T A RAPIER? Truly, a horrifying prospect.
The issue is that there is already hardly any reason to build a Str character unless you want GWM because Dex is just a flat-out more useful stat. A better save, better AC at low levels and barely worse at high levels, initiative, infinitely better ranged options, etc. The only thing Str has going for it in combat is grapple/shove and bigger damage from 2H fighting (although Dex has Sharpshooter, which is even more OP), and this weapon definitely encroaches on that second niche.
There is no reason ever that an elf Rogue wouldn't take this weapon and Revenant Blade, unless maybe they use Booming Blade. There's also not much reason for a Paladin to use one of their limited feats on PAM since they mostly want it for the extra attack to try and get a 3rd smite - just use the DS instead.

[Tetrasodium]

I mean, I totally agree with this, I just don't think introducing new and more powerful weapons is the way to go about it, because those aren't really alternatives. If a weapon is just flat-out better, it's not an alternative, just an upgrade.
I'd be on board with using feats to do it, though, things more along the lines of Shield Master or Fell Handed.

feats are a great way to do it. The weapons I mentioned are just a few examples. I'm not sure that feats should be the only way of doing it.

@JackPhoenix, there are zero cannon eberron novels, not even Keith Baker's own novels are cannon. That is one of the major differences between eberron & forgotteb realms. It has been mentioned in sourcebooks though.

[unusualsuspect]

The issue is that there is already hardly any reason to build a Str character unless you want GWM because Dex is just a flat-out more useful stat. A better save, better AC at low levels and barely worse at high levels, initiative, infinitely better ranged options, etc. The only thing Str has going for it in combat is grapple/shove and bigger damage from 2H fighting (although Dex has Sharpshooter, which is even more OP), and this weapon definitely encroaches on that second niche.
There is no reason ever that an elf Rogue wouldn't take this weapon and Revenant Blade, unless maybe they use Booming Blade. There's also not much reason for a Paladin to use one of their limited feats on PAM since they mostly want it for the extra attack to try and get a 3rd smite - just use the DS instead.

So it's a viable option for some characters, but for each character that does it, they're giving up on other powerful options to do so.

GWM/PAM is still going to be the King of Consistent Damage. Double Scimitar encroaches, but still ain't there.

PAM does more than just the extra attack. You're almost guaranteed to have melee enemies approaching your character to attack, but there's pretty much never a guarantee that they'll try to run away from you once you engage. Hitting on entering a space is an incredibly powerful ability, and it stacks with other feats (GWM, Sentinel) in ways that the Double Scimitar will not.

Double Scimitar is a decent weapon if you don't want to invest in something. If you DO invest, GWM/PAM/Sharpshooter are all going to outperform the Double Scimitar in damage unless you're exploiting a gimmick (and if you were, there's little functional difference except a few points of damage from using TWF, which yes, does suck horribly).

D&D 5e has been out for years now. GWM and Sharpshooter have been in there since the very beginning, and the Devs haven't modified them in any way, shape, or form relevant to their balance. If they haven't done it yet, they won't do it. I'd rather they introduce more options that I will ACTUALLY USE than introduce new items that are balanced in a way that they're just OK and are never seen except on insanely niche builds. That means balancing against GWM/PAM/Sharpshooter, Agonizing Eldritch Blast, Booming Blade Rogues, etc., where it becomes a DECISION whether to pursue the new alternative for most builds rather than a SACRIFICE.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I don't agree that it's a decision. Every melee Dex character should be using a DBS - every single one. We've introduced one more homogenizing element. Yay.

I also want to get at this "it's decent if you don't invest anything" idea. It's not decent. It's the best no-investment weapon in the game, bar none, the end, because it's the only one that gives you your attribute modifier to damage on the bonus attack without investment.

The whole thing is poorly designed. It's race-specific and campaign setting-specific... but it's better mechanically than every weapon that doesn't benefit from the Big 3. It has a feat that represents some sort of ancestral aptitude... that you can't access until level 4. It changes type to a finesse weapon... once you take a feat, so your first three levels are going to be gimped by comparison.

[JoeJ]

Just looking at the thing, maybe a reasonable restriction could be that 50% of the time you have to make the bonus action attack against yourself.

[CBAnaesthesia]

I don't agree that it's a decision. Every melee Dex character should be using a DBS - every single one. We've introduced one more homogenizing element. Yay.

I also want to get at this "it's decent if you don't invest anything" idea. It's not decent. It's the best no-investment weapon in the game, bar none, the end, because it's the only one that gives you your attribute modifier to damage on the bonus attack without investment.

The whole thing is poorly designed. It's race-specific and campaign setting-specific... but it's better mechanically than every weapon that doesn't benefit from the Big 3. It has a feat that represents some sort of ancestral aptitude... that you can't access until level 4. It changes type to a finesse weapon... once you take a feat, so your first three levels are going to be gimped by comparison.

Thanks for summing up all my problems with it so succinctly, as well as pointing out the problem with how the feat is "gated."
It's also not only every melee Dex character who wants it - it's every melee character without PAM/GWM, period. All the talk about how Revenant Blade isn't quite as good as PAM is also sort of missing the point that RB is only a half-feat, and gives +1AC, mitigating half the opportunity cost of going 2-handed instead of S&B. These are non-trivial things, IMO.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's also not only every melee Dex character who wants it - it's every melee character without PAM/GWM, period.

True even for PAM/GWM characters before they get to pick up those feats at 4. That's why it's so problematic to compare to other weapons. It's indisputably better than they are, except that it doesn't qualify for two overpowered feats.

[Tetrasodium]

Thanks for summing up all my problems with it so succinctly, as well as pointing out the problem with how the feat is "gated."
It's also not only every melee Dex character who wants it - it's every melee character without PAM/GWM, period. All the talk about how Revenant Blade isn't quite as good as PAM is also sort of missing the point that RB is only a half-feat, and gives +1AC, mitigating half the opportunity cost of going 2-handed instead of S&B. These are non-trivial things, IMO.

In setting it's not a problem. Your average human soldier was like a level 1 fighter, the valenar elf mercenaries were like level 4.The same page of wgte that the double bladed scimitar starts on also includes an option for elves to start with proficiency in it, on the next page it talks about trading proficiency with some other martial weapon for nonelves. Not being skilled enough to use it effectively instead of a dagger/short sword/rapier/etc until you have gained a few levels also fits the lore for those weapons & people wielding them.

[CBAnaesthesia]

In setting it's not a problem... Not being skilled enough to use it effectively instead of a dagger/short sword/rapier/etc until you have gained a few levels also fits the lore for those weapons & people wielding them.

Yes but even without the feat, it's the best weapon, period (excepting PAM/GWM) so even a level 1 character can use it more effectively than the other weapons you're talking about even without the feat - at least, Str builds can. Getting the feat just makes it better by a wider margin.

[Tetrasodium]

Yes but even without the feat, it's the best weapon, period (excepting PAM/GWM) so even a level 1 character can use it more effectively than the other weapons you're talking about even without the feat - at least, Str builds can. Getting the feat just makes it better by a wider margin.

You'll get no argument that might be true for a strength build depending on intent of the offhand attack being an attack that includes stat mod or not, but the lore associated with the weapon itself & the setting it came from outweighs the relevance of if a dex build is suboptimal using strength with it or using some other weapon till level 4 when they can be skilled enough to use it effectively.

[CBAnaesthesia]

You'll get no argument that might be true for a strength build depending on intent of the offhand attack being an attack that includes stat mod or not, but the lore associated with the weapon itself & the setting it came from outweighs the relevance of if a dex build is suboptimal using strength with it or using some other weapon till level 4 when they can be skilled enough to use it effectively.
It's unambiguous that the bonus action attack includes the stat mod. It explicitly states in the PHB that an attack includes the stat mod unless otherwise stated, like with dual-wielding; the dual scimitar does not explicitly state this like dual-wielding does. Therefore, the stat mod is included.
Does the lore you're referring to also say that you need training to be better with the dual scimitar than with a longsword, or just a rapier? Because as-is, anyone is better off with the dual scimitar than they are with a longsword, feat or no.

[Kadesh]

I'm a Human with Shield Master. Why do I why do I want to be an elf with Revenant Blade?

[Tetrasodium]

It's unambiguous that the bonus action attack includes the stat mod. It explicitly states in the PHB that an attack includes the stat mod unless otherwise stated, like with dual-wielding; the dual scimitar does not explicitly state this like dual-wielding does. Therefore, the stat mod is included.
Does the lore you're referring to also say that you need training to be better with the dual scimitar than with a longsword, or just a rapier? Because as-is, anyone is better off with the dual scimitar than they are with a longsword, feat or no.

wtf man? I was pretty clear that we don't know if the wording conveys the intended mechanics or not. But since you ask... ECS119 (3.5) chapter six adventuring equipment starts with the following list of weapons:


Boomerang. Talenta: The halflings of the Talenta Plains use traditional boomerangs—simple curved. polished sticks designed to return to the thrower.
Boomerang. Xen’drik: The drow of Xendrik use three pronged boomerangs to hunt prey. Some adventurers and explorers learn to use the weapon while operating in the Xen’driik jungles. but few outside the draw communities ever master the intricacies ofthe Xen‘drilt boomerang.
A boomerang of any sort returns to its thrower when it misses its target. To catch a returning boomerang. the thrower must make an attack roll (as if he were throwing the boomerang) against AC 10. Failure indicates that the boomerang lands 10 Feet away from the thrower in a random direction.
Scimitar. Valenar Double: The elves of Valenar use a dangerous and exotic double weapon with curving scimitar blades on each end. You can fight with a double weapon as if fighting with two weapons. but if you do. you incur all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A creature using a double weapon in one hand. such as a Large creature using a Medium double scimitar. can't use it as a double weapon.
Sharrash. Talenta: Similar to a scythe. the Talenta sharrash developed by the halflings of the Plains consists of a sickle like blade at the end of a long pole. A sharrash has reach. You can strike opponents 10 feet away with it. but you can‘t use it against an adjacent foe.
Because of a sharrash's curved blade. you can also use it to make trip attacks. ”you are tripped during your own trip attempt. you can drop the sharrash to avoid being tripped
Tangat. Talenta: The tangat. developed by the halflings of the Talenta Plains. features a curved blade (like a scimitar's) mounted on a short halt.

They should not be designed in isolation from the much more detailed cultures associated with them as some of those get several mentions through the various eberron sourcebooks when talking about those cultures.

Now... take a minute to catch your breath, stop hyperventilating, and allow the adults to discuss this without the constant shrill shrieking about what is quite possibly an unintended wording.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm a Human with Shield Master. Why do I why do I want to be an elf with Revenant Blade?

You probably don't, if you're a vHu with Shield Master at level 1. If you're a regular human, then you probably want to carry around a DBS until you get level 4.

Of course, if the question you're asking is "why do I want to change the non-mechanics concept of my character?" then there's no good answer to that. You don't. But character concepts aren't about mechanics.


wtf man? I was pretty clear that we don't know if the wording conveys the intended mechanics or not.

Yes but no one cares if you're clear, because less than a page ago you were trying to tell us that Hex Warrior didn't work with Blade Pact weapons by quoting the Improved Pact Weapon invocation.


But since you ask... ECS119 (3.5) chapter six adventuring equipment starts with the following list of weapons:

They should not be designed in isolation from the much more detailed cultures associated with them as some of those get several mentions through the various eberron sourcebooks when talking about those cultures.

This is a different edition. Third Edition mechanics don't matter. Neither does Third Edition fluff. We have some nice, specific mechanics here already. PAM and the DBS add your ability modifier to damage. We know that because it says so in the text. Two Weapon Fighting is different - it specifically requires that you attack with a different weapon, that both weapons have the light property (Dual Wielder removes this requirement), and explicitly notes that you do not add your ability modifier to damage unless it's negative. The default state is adding ability modifiers to damage. You continue to do that unless you read words that say you shouldn't.


Now... take a minute to catch your breath, stop hyperventilating, and allow the adults to discuss this without the constant shrill shrieking about what is quite possibly an unintended wording.

Take your own advice here.

[CBAnaesthesia]

wtf man? I was pretty clear that we don't know if the wording conveys the intended mechanics or not.
The wording as-is means that the stat modifier is added. That part is RAW in 5e. Your 3.5 book isn't relevant to the way the double scimitar is implemented in 5e.


Now... take a minute to catch your breath, stop hyperventilating, and allow the adults to discuss this without the constant shrill shrieking about what is quite possibly an unintended wording.
I've been nothing but calm. The wording is very clear, you're the only one who keeps bringing up the question of whether it is intended or not. Stop projecting.

[Kadesh]

You probably don't, if you're a vHu with Shield Master at level 1. If you're a regular human, then you probably want to carry around a DBS until you get level 4.

Of course, if the question you're asking is "why do I want to change the non-mechanics concept of my character?" then there's no good answer to that. You don't. But character concepts aren't about mechanics.

Neither is the game, and its about time that it's mentioned. If you're specifically wanting to build a character concept that's gimped, then sure, but a DBS doesn't exactly throw every other character archetype under the bus. Unless you're actively trying to push the preventative measures the game has (i.e no Heavy Weapon wielding small characters), then you're not exactly going to be dying everytime.

The DBS doesn't beat GWM. It doesn't beat a Hexblade even, who already has a lot of competition for their Bonus Actions. Paladins will enjoy another chance to make use of with their Bless Boosted Smites, but if they're wanting to multiclass, then that 13 strength is going to take away a lot. A Frenzy Barbarian already suffers, in that so much grants Bonus Action attacks that the only way to run it is without feats or multiclassing.

The DBS changes absolutely nothing about the "meta". It has broken nothing that wasn't already borked.

This chicken little act needs its neck winding it.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The DBS doesn't beat GWM.

Obviously. Before GWM, it's the best weapon for Str characters who don't have a way to use their bonus action every single turn.


It doesn't beat a Hexblade even, who already has a lot of competition for their Bonus Actions

If you use your bonus action to swing once every three turns, it's better for a Hexblade than any other weapon until they take GWM or PAM.


This chicken little act needs its neck winding it.

You're doing a very good job making the case that the -5/+10 feats are overpowered, which I think everyone knew already. I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything else.

[CBAnaesthesia]

The DBS doesn't beat GWM...It has broken nothing

No, but it does beat 2-handed weapons without GWM, and debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack.
Same goes for pretty much any Dex build - it doesn't invalidate a rapier or short sword, but it's clearly a better option than either.
The main thing it's broken is the problem I also have with Hexblade - it makes Str, an underpowered stat, even less relevant than it already was.
I do agree that the game isn't about mechanics or optimisation and I don't like that mindset at a table. I really dislike hexsorcadins and such. But that's why I really hate power creep and I don't see how you could really classify the double scimitar as anything else.

[Kadesh]

You're doing a very good job making the case that the -5/+10 feats are overpowered, which I think everyone knew already. I'm not sure you've demonstrated anything else.
"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.

If you don't like power creep, why are you even considering buying or including content? Just flat outright ban any mechanics not in the PHB. If everything's a side grade or downgrade, there is no point in the content existing.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.

It's clearly better than every weapon based on the text of the weapon. The feat that supports it would be an upgrade on Dual Wielding even if it didn't give +1 Str/Dex. Every bit of power that other weapons have is based on qualification for GWM or the AoO combo. If "options" comes down to GWM or PAM+Sentinel+Tunnel Fighter, that's really not that different from arguing that 3.X balance is fine because you can play a cleric or a wizard or an archivist.

The point of supplements is to provide new options, not to make old ones obsolete.

[Kadesh]

They are not obsolete. This weapon does not make those combinations objectively worse than they already are, only by comparison is it worse. A Dual Rapier wielder is as effective as they always have been when vsing the guys out of the monster manual. If the DM adjusts stats based on the parties abilities to create a levelling system like Skyrim, when each creature gets an average 5HP increase to accomodate for a single party members average DPR increasing by 1/round, then sure, maybe watch out for the DBS, but in that instance, I'd also watch out for the DM.

People in 3.5 didn't run with Pun Pun, God Wizard, CoDzilla, All spells Ardents, D2 Crusaders, Mailman Sorcerer or any other "broken" build all the time because they played what they wanted to. If you have a problem with the DBS outstripping your character, then have a word with the DM and say that you're not having as much fun because the DBS wielder in your party is better than you and stepping on his toes, what can he do? In which case, if he's decent, he'll try and come up with a way in which you can be relevant without stepping on his toes.

Easiest way is to give your Dual Rapier wielder the ability to cause Status effects on a hit; a Rapier made from a Purple worm stinger dealing minor poison damage on a hit with a chance to poison, or a Scimitar that flashes in the direct sunlight causing the opponent to take a DC13 Dex or Blind Save on a hit.

Just a couple of ideas about DM's "worrying" about how the DBS is going to affect them.

[CBAnaesthesia]

"This options broken, it's better than everything else."
"No it's not, here's options"
"But they're broken too"

If they're all broken, then none of them broken. Broken is when it's clearly better than anything else. It's clearly not better than anything else, because Str based characters still have access to GWM and Shield Master for Team Advantage and personal resistance.

The scimitar isn't as good as GWM, but it's better without taking a feat than any other 2-handed weapon is without taking a feat. Without the feat it is "clearly better than anything else," so it's broken by your own definition.
If you're taking the feat, then it's clearly better than anything else for a Dex build, so it's still broken by your definition. It's also overall probably better than a Str build with PAM because Dex is better than Str overall, so, still broken.
I like Shield Master, but its +2 to saves is not as good as being able to focus on Dex (since most of the relevant effects are Dex saves anyway), and a bonus action attack is better than a bonus action shove/prone unless you have a very melee-heavy team (especially since Sage Advice ruled that the shove/prone has to come after the attack).

And beyond that, the game still functions even if I'm running the non-optimal build.
Nobody's disputing that, but it's irrelevant to whether something is broken or not.


If you don't like power creep, why are you even considering buying or including content? Just flat outright ban any mechanics not in the PHB. If everything's a side grade or downgrade, there is no point in the content existing.
That's not true at all. I think that things like the SCAG cantrips were a strict upgrade to something that was a bit underpowered, or at least under-developed, specifically EK War Magic. It was a core feature of the class that wasn't all that useful until SCAG, but it wasn't "power creep" because it didn't automatically make EKs the best fighter like the double scimitar is the best weapon (or like how Hexadin is the best Paladin and the best Warlock, etc).
"Sidegrades" can also be very interesting character options - I found playing Ancestral Guardian barbarian a lot of fun, for example, even if it's not strictly as good as Bear Totem or strictly better than Zealot. Like you say, the game's about what's fun, and you can keep things fun without dropping in new options that straight-up outperform existing options in the same niche.



a single party members average DPR increasing by 1/round, then sure, maybe watch out for the DBS
Without the feat or fighting style (which a Rogue won't get), it's significantly more than 1 damage/round


People in 3.5 didn't run with Pun Pun, God Wizard, CoDzilla, All spells Ardents, D2 Crusaders, Mailman Sorcerer or any other "broken" build all the time because they played what they wanted to. If you have a problem with the DBS outstripping your character, then have a word with the DM and say that you're not having as much fun because the DBS wielder in your party is better than you and stepping on his toes, what can he do? In which case, if he's decent, he'll try and come up with a way in which you can be relevant without stepping on his toes.
"Talk to your DM" is always an answer, sure, but it's not really relevant when discussing RAW. I mean, your DM could give you a +6 greatsword that gives you GWM without having to take the feat, he could give you heavy armor that gives you advantage to all your saves, whatever. It's what you should do if it becomes an issue, but the issues with the DBS shouldn't exist in the first place if the game is meant to be well-balanced. "Talk to your DM" also doesn't make 3.5e's brokenness inherently OK, incidentally.

[Kadesh]

Well, it seems like you guys have your narrative, so I'm going to let you enjoy whatever it is you're getting out of this :) Have fun.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

You do realize you've just defeated your argument, as 3.5 treated double weapon the same as normal TWF, while 5e's version of DBS doesn't, and negates all disadvantages of TWF, right?

[CBAnaesthesia]

Well, it seems like you guys have your narrative, so I'm going to let you enjoy whatever it is you're getting out of this :) Have fun.
Hey man, I'm willing to be convinced, I just haven't been.

[Tetrasodium]

You do realize you've just defeated your argument, as 3.5 treated double weapon the same as normal TWF, while 5e's version of DBS doesn't, and negates all disadvantages of TWF, right?

That is not my argument at all. Some people are trying to have a discussion over the 2d4/2d4. Others keep bringing up what is probably an unintended wording given how 3.5 was rather than discussing if the very reasonable 2d4/2d4 because it's easier to yell about the sky falling than to have another competitive option

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That is not my argument at all. Some people are trying to have a discussion over the 2d4/2d4.

Who? The fact that the second attack goes up to 2d4 isn't really a big deal. It's that it gets the +ability mod that matters.



Others keep bringing up what is probably an unintended wording given how 3.5 was rather than discussing if the very reasonable 2d4/2d4 because it's easier to yell about the sky falling than to have another competitive option

It's not an unintended wording, because it's the same wording PAM uses. If the 3.5 double scimitar were ported over, it would be Finesse, 1d6 + ability mod with a bonus action option to attack for 1d6. The feat would give +1 Dex, +1 AC and increase the base damage to 1d8. And it would be balanced with all the other two-weapon fighting options and not obviously better than a greatsword for a guy intending to go into GWM at level 4. The double scimitar would, in short, be like using double scimitars.

[Arkhios]

It's not an unintended wording, because it's the same wording PAM uses. If the 3.5 double scimitar were ported over, it would be Finesse, 1d6 + ability mod with a bonus action option to attack for 1d6. The feat would give +1 Dex, +1 AC and increase the base damage to 1d8. And it would be balanced with all the other two-weapon fighting options and not obviously better than a greatsword for a guy intending to go into GWM at level 4. The double scimitar would, in short, be like using double scimitars.

Honestly, I rather enjoy that all weapons don't follow same damage die pattern. As it is, no other existing weapon does damage with 2d4. Again, it's still only worth max 8 points of damage for one hit (yes, it's more than a scimitar would do, but it's still a single weapon that must be held in two hands, thus a two-handed weapon category makes sense and because a one-handed scimitar does 1d6, making it a two-handed is logical to increase the damage by one step to 1d8 or an equivalent). For a two-handed weapon, a maximum of 8 damage is same as with a Greatclub which is a simple weapon. Yes, you get a bonus action to attack with the opposite end, but as always, it's a separate chance to hit ... or miss.

I do agree, though, that the bonus action attack shouldn't get +ability mod by default. But with the feat? I mean, why not?

DBS+bonus action attack:
2d4+1d4 = 3-12
Greatsword:
2d6 = 2-12

DBS+Reventant Blade+bonus action attack:
2d4+2d4 = 4-16
Greatsword+GWM+bonus action "cleave":
2d6+10+2d6+10 = 24-32

Compared to greatsword or maul, DBS deals at minimum 1 point more damage, but at maximum they would be equal if the bonus action attack didn't add ability mod.

If the Greatsword or Maul user had GWM, DBS user with Revenant Blade (that would add ability on bonus action attack) would, however, still fall ridiculously behind GWM user, even considering that it has better chance to hit due to GWM's -5 to hit, and that's all before ability modifier gets into play.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

2d4 isn't an equivalent of 1d8. Max value isn't all there is: 2d4 has better minimum, slightly higher average, and better value distribution. It's the same reason why greatsword or maul is better than greataxe.

Same with your comparison to greatsword: 2 attacks are better than one, because the damage is more reliable. If you miss with a greatsword, you do no damage, if you miss with DBS, you'll get another chance. And anything that adds extra damage, like (Improved) Divine Smite, Sneak Attack, Rage or plain old ability bonus either gets more chances to apply, or gets applied multiple times.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Honestly, I rather enjoy that all weapons don't follow same damage die pattern. ... I do agree, though, that the bonus action attack shouldn't get +ability mod by default. But with the feat? I mean, why not?

Well, because ability mod to damage is tied to the Fighter and Ranger fighting style options, not to feats. As to the damage die, I was taking my cue from the special monk weapons entry - a monk might use a sai or a katar or a chakram or nunchuks, but they're all just reshadings of things that are already on the table. What better weapon to use to represent a double scimitar than double scimitars? I mean, surely they ought to be at least somewhat equivalent.

[Arkhios]

Well, because ability mod to damage is tied to the Fighter and Ranger fighting style options, not to feats. As to the damage die, I was taking my cue from the special monk weapons entry - a monk might use a sai or a katar or a chakram or nunchuks, but they're all just reshadings of things that are already on the table. What better weapon to use to represent a double scimitar than double scimitars? I mean, surely they ought to be at least somewhat equivalent.

if by double scimitars representing double scimitars you mean two scimitars being equivalent to double scimitars, consider this:

a standard scimitar isn't versatile and thus doesn't bestow any benefit if used with two hands. One of the logical reasons (imho) is that the scimitar's handle lacks length to be held in two hands. But, if a double scimitar is essentially two scimitars with their handles joined together, regardless of which end you use when you attack, you are holding a longer handle and thus essentially enabling the scimitars to be versatile because now you have long enough handle to use two hands instead of just one.

In other words, technically you have two scimitars which share one longer handle.
It makes sense for them to be treated like they were individual versatile scimitars (1d6 becoming 1d8/2d4) but both end used two-handedly.

I won't argue with gaining a class feature with a feat being bad design. I was barely awake when I wrote that.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

if by double scimitars representing double scimitars you mean two scimitars being equivalent to double scimitars, consider this:


Fair enough. I wouldn't care if it were 2d4+1d4 instead of 1d6+1d6, as long as that second hit isn't carrying bonus damage. It's better min and average values, but also twice as expensive, so it balances out in the first few levels when that matters most. (Although I wonder how you really make use of the longer handle - it's got a blade on both ends of it, so it's not like you can grip the bottom of the handle and swing away; you'd stab yourself.)

[Malifice]

Fair enough. I wouldn't care if it were 2d4+1d4 instead of 1d6+1d6, as long as that second hit isn't carrying bonus damage. It's better min and average values, but also twice as expensive, so it balances out in the first few levels when that matters most. (Although I wonder how you really make use of the longer handle - it's got a blade on both ends of it, so it's not like you can grip the bottom of the handle and swing away; you'd stab yourself.)

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

That isnt going to get annoying fast.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

That isnt going to get annoying fast.

It does, yeah. Unless I am bad at math (I am bad at math), that raises the average damage per main-hand swing to 6. A greatsword swing with GWF is 8.3. Assuming double rapiers, the Two Weapon Fighting style and the Dual Wielder feat, average damage on two hits will be 9 + double ability mod; DBS with GWF and Revenant Blade comes out to 12 + double ability mod.

And yeah, I think it would slow combat down to have a 50% chance of reroll per die on a 4d4.

[Arkhios]

It looks like it also benefits from the GWF style (re-roll 1's and 2's on your d4s). It qualifies for the GWF style because it's two handed.

It certainly does. It's good that this is just the first draft and many things are likely to change.

That's one thing, no doubt.

I think that introducing double weapons warrant the addition of a whole new weapon trait: double weapon, which would be separate from both two-handed and versatile.

They all could have this option to use two-weapon fighting rules for the attack made with the opposite end.
Maybe a double weapon wouldn't count as a two-handed weapon at all, but instead as two separate weapons, even though they aren't.
In addition, they probably could (?be used to?) add a +1 bonus to AC (?as a reaction?), so that they would be different enough from just wielding two weapons and simply fluffing them as a double weapon.

In other words, they wouldn't count as two-handed weapons, nor versatile, and thus wouldn't qualify for GWFS. But, they would qualify for TWFS instead.

[Neknoh]

I've been fiddling with a class or subclass that focuses on using historically short polearms as well as halfswording longswords and greatswords, one of the class features would probable be very applicable to something to make shoulder-head height weapons feel unique to others:

Leverage:
- The weapon's length allows you to to trip, hook and wrestle enemies more effectively. When wielding a weapon with two hands, you gain Advantage on all Contest Rolls in combat, including actions like Shove.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It certainly does. It's good that this is just the first draft and many things are likely to change.

That's one thing, no doubt.

I think that introducing double weapons warrant the addition of a whole new weapon trait: double weapon, which would be separate from both two-handed and versatile.

They all could have this option to use two-weapon fighting rules for the attack made with the opposite end.
Maybe a double weapon wouldn't count as a two-handed weapon at all, but instead as two separate weapons, even though they aren't.
In addition, they probably could (?be used to?) add a +1 bonus to AC (?as a reaction?), so that they would be different enough from just wielding two weapons and simply fluffing them as a double weapon.

In other words, they wouldn't count as two-handed weapons, nor versatile, and thus wouldn't qualify for GWFS. But, they would qualify for TWFS instead.
Personally, I dislike the way TWF is handled in 5e. This is coming from someone that is currently playing my third character with it (I'll always pick style over stats). It's unsatisfying and poorly developed.

But I think a lot of people would forgive the DBS easier if it counted as TWF, and you needed the accompanying fighting style to add the ability mod to the offhand. Just that little bit of extra work, since it seems everyone's most alarmed by what a rogue can do with it. And stopping those GWF rerolls, because oh man.

[GlenSmash!]

Personally, I dislike the way TWF is handled in 5e. This is coming from someone that is currently playing my third character with it (I'll always pick style over stats). It's unsatisfying and poorly developed.

But I think a lot of people would forgive the DBS easier if it counted as TWF, and you needed the accompanying fighting style to add the ability mod to the offhand. Just that little bit of extra work, since it seems everyone's most alarmed by what a rogue can do with it. And stopping those GWF rerolls, because oh man.

I'm definitely more concerned (I wouldn't says alarmed) by what the Fighter is doing with it since they can now freely skip the TWF Fighting style.

Rogue is just a slight bump to damage due to the nature of having very few attacks in a round.

The more attacks you have the more that small bump in damage starts to add up, even before taking re-rolls into account.

[MaxWilson]

No, but it does beat 2-handed weapons without GWM, and debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack.

The best part of PAM, besides the reaction attack, is when you combine it with GWM to effectively get a bonus action Shove (prone) which then lets you make your other attacks at advantage (offsetting the GWM penalty) and then move off after your attack sequence is complete so the enemy can't reach you to attack back on its next turn. (Standing up costs half its movement, and you're a full move away.) So at 5th level you wind up getting a Shove attempt and two attacks at advantage (d10 +13 and d4 + 13) and taking only one opportunity attack at disadvantage in exchange.

And if they do try to close with you, they take ANOTHER attack from your Polearm Master reaction clause.

Spending a feat to use Double Bladed Scimitars with Dex, by comparison, is relatively unexciting.

[Kane0]

For anyone who doesn’t know how it works could you explain it?

Asking for a friend

Ditto. Might have been in the last few pages but I didn't see it sorry.

[CBAnaesthesia]

The best part of PAM, besides the reaction attack, is when you combine it with GWM to effectively get a bonus action Shove (prone) which then lets you make your other attacks at advantage (offsetting the GWM penalty) and then move off after your attack sequence is complete so the enemy can't reach you to attack back on its next turn. (Standing up costs half its movement, and you're a full move away.) So at 5th level you wind up getting a Shove attempt and two attacks at advantage (d10 +13 and d4 + 13) and taking only one opportunity attack at disadvantage in exchange.

And if they do try to close with you, they take ANOTHER attack from your Polearm Master reaction clause.

Spending a feat to use Double Bladed Scimitars with Dex, by comparison, is relatively unexciting.
The reason you get to do the shove-GWM thing is because of the bonus attack, which is what I said is the best thing about PAM.
The point isn't just that you can finesse the DBS, but also that you can get the bonus attack aspect of PAM without taking a feat.

[MaxWilson]

The reason you get to do the shove-GWM thing is because of the bonus attack, which is what I said is the best thing about PAM.
The point isn't just that you can finesse the DBS, but also that you can get the bonus attack aspect of PAM without taking a feat.

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but when you wrote,


debatably beats PAM due to being able to focus on Dex instead of Str, an objectively better stat, and still get the best feature of PAM, the extra attack

I understood you to be talking about taking the Revenant Blade feat. Otherwise you're stuck using Str instead of Dex after all.

I agree that the featless usage of Double Bladed Scimitar constitutes power creep--any Str-based dual wielders might as well just use DBS (no TWF fighting style necessary!). But I didn't think you were talking about that scenario. Can you clarify?

[kenGarff]

Quick question, is this weapon and the feat for dex builds or str oriented ones as well?

[CBAnaesthesia]

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but when you wrote,



I understood you to be talking about taking the Revenant Blade feat. Otherwise you're stuck using Str instead of Dex after all.

I agree that the featless usage of Double Bladed Scimitar constitutes power creep--any Str-based dual wielders might as well just use DBS (no TWF fighting style necessary!). But I didn't think you were talking about that scenario. Can you clarify?
Oh, fair enough. I think it's power creep either way, to clarify - featless, it's power creep like you say, and with the feat, it's power creep for any Dex build. I'd even say it devalues S&B for Dex builds since you only miss out on 1 AC with the feat, but particularly for Rogues.

[MaxWilson]

Quick question, is this weapon and the feat for dex builds or str oriented ones as well?

By default it's for Str, but you can take a feat to make it a finesse weapon and slightly increase the damage on the bonus attack (IIRC from 1d4 to 2d4).



The double-bladed scimitar's base damage is 2d4, plus your strength modifier. A player can also use their bonus action to use the blade on the other end, which does an additional 1d4 of damage (plus your strength modifier). In addition, elves can pick up the revenant blade feat, which increases a player's dexterity or strength score by 1, and turns the double-bladed scimitar into a finesse weapon, which means that a player can add their dexterity modifier to their attack and damage rolls instead of their strength modifier. Plus, the base damage for the scimitar's bonus action attack increases from 1d4 to 2d4, making the weapon even more deadly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. Turning this weapon into a finesse weapon makes it an excellent choice for rogues or any build that's built around dexterity.


Str-based builds have better feats to take, and usually so do Dex builds, but I guess it's a minor buff to Hexblades who want to dual-wield without investing in Two Weapon Fighting style, and it's also a minor buff to Str-based builds that specialize in things other than doing damage. I.e. if you're taking no feats at all (e.g. a Paladin who is busy boosting Cha to 20 for +saves), then doing 2d4 + Str three times per round at the cost of your action + bonus action is arguably better than doing 2d6 + Str twice per round with a greatsword with just your action.

The really ironic thing though is that this feature is almost exactly equivalent to the Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes, and Battleragers are usually considered a bit on the weak and/or uninteresting side. That's should clue people in to the fact that this weapon isn't really that big of a deal. It is power creep in a sense, in that it is strictly better than a bad fighting technique (dual-wielding without TWF/Dual Wielder) and somewhat competitive with good fighting techniques (two-handed fighting with GWM or archery with Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert).

But honestly, nothing in the game would break if you simply let two-weapon fighting always work like this (everybody gets their stat bonus to damage on off-hand attacks) and found some other perk for the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, such as removing the bonus action cost and just folding the offhand attack into the Attack action. There are plenty of people who have already houseruled TWF for this very reason: it was weak.

HOWEVER, speaking as a DM, for aesthetic reasons I would impose a limitation on the Double-bladed Scimitar similar to the limitation on certain animal attacks like the Giant Crocodile: you can only use the bonus action attack on a creature you did not attack with any of your main attacks. It's a good weapon for horde-fighting, but there's nothing about putting a sword on the other end of your sword that ought to make you better at fighting one big creature like a dragon. Honestly it ought to just get in the way.

The whole idea of DBS is stupid but I'm willing to accommodate it at least to the extent of letting you attack a second creature with the other end, as a bonus action.

[JackPhoenix]

The really ironic thing though is that this feature is almost exactly equivalent to the Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes, and Battleragers are usually considered a bit on the weak and/or uninteresting side. That's should clue people in to the fact that this weapon isn't really that big of a deal. It is power creep in a sense, in that it is strictly better than a bad fighting technique (dual-wielding without TWF/Dual Wielder) and somewhat competitive with good fighting techniques (two-handed fighting with GWM or archery with Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert).

Battlerager comes at the cost of not picking any other barbarian subclass. There's a difference from getting a feature from subclass investment (which is pretty heavy opportunity cost) and no investment (100 gp isn't going to matter after first 3 or so levels).

For a melee dex character who's interested in additional BA attack, DBS comes at no cost, and it's strictly better than TWF. Not TWF without TWFS/Dual Wielder, as you claim, but TWF with both of them. You get all the benefits of Dual Wielder at the same cost (a feat), but you'll get better damage and +1 Str/Dex on top, and you don't need TWFS, as the scimitar already has it built in.

[Neknoh]

HOWEVER, speaking as a DM, for aesthetic reasons I would impose a limitation on the Double-bladed Scimitar similar to the limitation on certain animal attacks like the Giant Crocodile: you can only use the bonus action attack on a creature you did not attack with any of your main attacks. It's a good weapon for horde-fighting, but there's nothing about putting a sword on the other end of your sword that ought to make you better at fighting one big creature like a dragon. Honestly it ought to just get in the way.

The whole idea of DBS is stupid but I'm willing to accommodate it at least to the extent of letting you attack a second creature with the other end, as a bonus action.

Poleweapons with reinforced ends (these would have had quite nasty spikes historically, or in the case of some eastern weapons, a straight up blade) are ridiculously effective at fighting single targets, that's exactly where they were used historically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od7d0me2djE

So much so in fact that they came to dominate the foot-combat landscape for fully plated people throughout the 15th century.


The horde-fighting weapon (historically speaking) was the Montante (or Zweihänder or a plethora of different names, more polearm than sword and had their heyday in the 16th and early 17th centuries).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp1Gsh5W4vs

Montante style in particular was developed so that heavily armoured Spanish fighters (either on the battlefield or bodyguards to dignitaries in a city environment) could just absolutely mow down poorly armoured enemies (such as rioting mobs in a city or the Moorish armies in southern spain, often armed with wicker shields, spears and possibly mail (not talking about the nobility or their professional soldiers)).


EDIT: Worth noting here:

Short hafted pollaxes (much more like the DnD Versatile weapons) were purchased for keeping in the hallway of italian mansions according to 15th century letters, this so that a short but very powerful weapon could be used in the case of a home invasion by a rival family in, for instance, a Vendetta. These were not meant for crowd control in large areas, but rather for having a viable, powerful weapon in a tight space. A proper, in-game representation would indeed by a warhammer with versatile.

Halberds were often issued to city guards in the 16th century as a superior weapon for riot-control and fighting armed gangs of criminals, this is because the length of the halberd and the very choppy nature of its head gives you a vast advantage over somebody with a sword or rapier, not because the but-end is super effective at thwacking people with after you've hit them with the head of the weapon. Pollaxe techniques could be applied to tall halberds, but mostly you would apply techniques from the "hunter's staff" and similar "large polearm" schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD93F03suMc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CB6yc0vtHc

This is very aptly represented by "reach"

[CBAnaesthesia]

snip
I don't think anybody is arguing that polearms or greatswords like the ones you posted are stupid or ineffective. I think the concept of a double weapon like the DBS or the Swallow from Chrono Cross is unrealistic, though, and nothing like what you posted.

[Neknoh]

I don't think anybody is arguing that polearms like the ones you posted are stupid or ineffective. I think the concept of a double weapon like the DBS or the Swallow from Chrono Cross is unrealistic, though, and nothing like what you posted.

The argument was that it would be better for fighting multiple enemies than other two-handed weapons, my counter argument is that replacing the end-spike of a pollaxe with a slightly longer blade will not make it any less of a single-target weapon that is very agile (if a bit too fantastical) whilst there are other weapons that are, indeed, historical "aoe" and "crowd control" weapons (the halberd and montante).

Realistically, it's a single-target kind of weapon and fighting style, even if the weapon is unrealistic.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Neither does have a second blade coming from the other end of the shaft. We're talking about something akin to Darth Maul's double lightsabre, except without the deadly on a touch laser.

[Neknoh]

Neither does have a second blade coming from the other end of the shaft. We're talking about something akin to Darth Maul's double lightsabre, except without the deadly on a touch laser.

Talhofer 1459
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2UegJkJKJs/VDbq7DmsgeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/av6UezUcMpQ/s1600/Ms.Thott.290.2%C2%BA_110r.jpg

The large, screw-on blades and hooks are for the bottom of the weapon haft, while the ones with the langettes (the long iron "sleeves" or arms) are for going on top of the hammer head and locking the hammer to the top of the haft.

Very much a double bladed weapon. Not a 2-3 foot blade, but still very much a double bladed, shoulder-head height weapon (aka. a Pollaxe/Poleaxe, the word Poll/pole refering to "head" rather than the stick)


EDIT: And if two large daggers with additional smashing/piercing/hacking capability at one end, where both ends of the weapons are used is not enough, there is the Monk's Spade and other similar weapons out of east asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade

Yes, the Darth Maul lightsaber is a bit naff, but you can use quarterstaffs and various hafted weapons of varying length very efficiently for various purposes, it has been done throughout history, and extrapolating from that for the sake of a fantasy game is not unrealistic.

My post was merely to point out that such a weapon would likely fall under the single-target category of weapons, rather than an Area of Effect or Area Denial weapon, because there are other styles of weapons (halberds and greatswords) more suited to those tasks.

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

http://klubbsaga2015.wdfiles.com/local--files/eberron-weapons/Weapon%20Selection%2003.png

Monk spade and any other polearm is more handle/shaft than blade, double scimitar isn't. You won't have any leverage like this, and the other blade will get into your way. It's bad both as a sword and as a polearm. Only way to use that thing to hit the target with both blades (note that the blades are single-edged) would be to spin around, doing your best blender impression. But with hardly any strength behind the strikes. If the middle part had the length of a proper polearm, it would be different.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Talhofer 1459
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Q2UegJkJKJs/VDbq7DmsgeI/AAAAAAAAAxg/av6UezUcMpQ/s1600/Ms.Thott.290.2%C2%BA_110r.jpg

The large, screw-on blades and hooks are for the bottom of the weapon haft, while the ones with the langettes (the long iron "sleeves" or arms) are for going on top of the hammer head and locking the hammer to the top of the haft.

Very much a double bladed weapon. Not a 2-3 foot blade, but still very much a double bladed, shoulder-head height weapon (aka. a Pollaxe/Poleaxe, the word Poll/pole refering to "head" rather than the stick)


EDIT: And if two large daggers with additional smashing/piercing/hacking capability at one end, where both ends of the weapons are used is not enough, there is the Monk's Spade and other similar weapons out of east asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade

Yes, the Darth Maul lightsaber is a bit naff, but you can use quarterstaffs and various hafted weapons of varying length very efficiently for various purposes, it has been done throughout history, and extrapolating from that for the sake of a fantasy game is not unrealistic.

My post was merely to point out that such a weapon would likely fall under the single-target category of weapons, rather than an Area of Effect or Area Denial weapon, because there are other styles of weapons (halberds and greatswords) more suited to those tasks.

AFAIK, the bottom blade was mostly used against opponents who were knocked down, though I could be wrong. A big part of quarterstaffs and other hafted weapons being effective though, even in the videos you posted, is being able to choke up and down for varying reach, power, and parrying abilities.
The double scimitar doesn't really allow for that:
http://klubbsaga2015.wikidot.com/eberron-weapons
It's very much like the aforementioned Chrono Cross Swallow, just 2 scimitars stuck together. It's pretty goofy and unwieldy even by fantasy weapon standards.

[Neknoh]

http://klubbsaga2015.wdfiles.com/local--files/eberron-weapons/Weapon%20Selection%2003.png

Monk spade and any other polearm is more handle/shaft than blade, double scimitar isn't. You won't have any leverage like this, and the other blade will get into your way. It's bad both as a sword and as a polearm. Only way to use that thing to hit the target with both blades (note that the blades are single-edged) would be to spin around, doing your best blender impression. But with hardly any strength behind the strikes. If the middle part had the length of a proper polearm, it would be different.

Fair enough, ye olde propeller blade simulator will indeed not be of any use, either one or two handed, its hilt is even smaller than Darth Maul's saber.

I've always been under the impression that the double bladed scimitar was something more akin to the other double-blade elf staple (the blade staff)

https://www.lockharttactical.com/media/com_hikashop/upload/uc3043.jpg

http://www.calimacil.com/kira.html

which is what I based my entire argument on.

So, in case they keep the classic ceiling-fan look, it's going to be one of the weirdest two-handed weapons of 5e (ergonomically)


EDIT:

AFAIK, the bottom blade was mostly used against opponents who were knocked down, though I could be wrong

They were very much used as a spear, hook and lever (and if bladed, a blade), in fact, a lot of schools emphasize leading with the cue (the back-spike/blade/hook/steel ball) in order to not only threaten, but do damage with it and them smash in with the hammer/axe/beak after stabbing, binding, wrestling or feinting a stab with the cue.

For downed opponents, if you had the time, you'd rip their visor open with one hand and stab them in the face using your dagger with the other, if there wasn't time, you'd just get them on the ground and move on and let somebody else deal with them. Armour was not too heavy to stand up in, but in the chaos of melee, somebody is bound to step on you, stab you with something pointy or thwack you in the head with something blunt.


EDIT 2:

Mute this and put on some nice music of your own, modern duel showing plenty of but-end thrusts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Ygq2fFmmQ

And a series of drills from manuscripts using the cue
https://youtu.be/dxxwaH5I-KI?t=217

[MaxWilson]

For a melee dex character who's interested in additional BA attack, DBS comes at no cost, and it's strictly better than TWF. Not TWF without TWFS/Dual Wielder, as you claim, but TWF with both of them. You get all the benefits of Dual Wielder at the same cost (a feat), but you'll get better damage and +1 Str/Dex on top, and you don't need TWFS, as the scimitar already has it built in.

It's not strictly better than Dual Wielder + TWF. I think you realize this but just want to be sure because your writing is a little unclear in the bolded part.

2d4 damage per attack does not beat (up to) 1d12 damage per attack and +1 to AC.

[JackPhoenix]

It's not strictly better than Dual Wielder + TWF. I think you realize this but just want to be sure because your writing is a little unclear in the bolded part.

2d4 damage per attack does not beat (up to) 1d12 damage per attack and +1 to AC.

Double scimitar vs dual wielding two rapiers:
Feat investment: Revenant Blade vs. Dual Wielder. Moot.
Fighting Style investment: Nothing vs. Two Weapons Fighting Style. Double scimitar wins, as 2-rapier TWF needs fighting style just to get the same functionality. DBS wielder can use FS to get better AC or rerolls on 1s and 2s on top.
Damage: 2x 2d4+ability mod vs. 2x1d8+ability mod. Double scimitar wins.
AC: +1 vs +1: moot
Benefits from feats: Revenant blade: +1 Str or Dex, finesse (rapier already got that one), better damage on the BA attack, +1 AAC
Dual Wielder: better damage on BA attack (but DBS's is better), draw two weapons instead of one (can already do that with DBS), +1 AC. Comparing feats, Revenant Blade grants better benefits.

So yes, DBS + Revenant Blade + (whatever fighting style you want, or even none at all) is strictly better than dual wielding rapiers + DW + TWFS.

[Tetrasodium]

Double scimitar vs dual wielding two rapiers:
Feat investment: Revenant Blade vs. Dual Wielder. Moot.
Fighting Style investment: Nothing vs. Two Weapons Fighting Style. Double scimitar wins, as 2-rapier TWF needs fighting style just to get the same functionality. DBS wielder can use FS to get better AC or rerolls on 1s and 2s on top.
Damage: 2x 2d4+ability mod vs. 2x1d8+ability mod. Double scimitar wins.
AC: +1 vs +1: moot
Benefits from feats: Revenant blade: +1 Str or Dex, finesse (rapier already got that one), better damage on the BA attack, +1 AAC
Dual Wielder: better damage on BA attack (but DBS's is better), draw two weapons instead of one (can already do that with DBS), +1 AC. Comparing feats, Revenant Blade grants better benefits.

So yes, DBS + Revenant Blade + (whatever fighting style you want, or even none at all) is strictly better than dual wielding rapiers + DW + TWFS.

You do realize that the ability mod on the bonus action may not be the intent despite the wording right? Granted it could be the intent, but the discussion should take that possibility into account rather than using it as a strawman of support for an argument. Back in 3.5 they had a line talking about how you suffered all the normal penalties associated with dual wielding when using it (I quoted the section from the ECS earlier)

[JackPhoenix]

You do realize that the ability mod on the bonus action may not be the intent despite the wording right? Granted it could be the intent, but the discussion should take that possibility into account rather than using it as a strawman of support for an argument. Back in 3.5 they had a line talking about how you suffered all the normal penalties associated with dual wielding when using it (I quoted the section from the ECS earlier)

Irrelevant. We're not discussing 3.5 version, and we don't know the intent, only what's in the rules. To use a strawman, taking unstated intent into account would be like arguing that wizards can only use the spells from their selected school and no other.

[CBAnaesthesia]

It's not strictly better than Dual Wielder + TWF. I think you realize this but just want to be sure because your writing is a little unclear in the bolded part.

2d4 damage per attack does not beat (up to) 1d12 damage per attack and +1 to AC.

You get +1AC worth Revenant Blade, too, as well as +1 Dex/Str.
Where are you getting your d12, lances? That only works mounted, otherwise you're using d8s.

[Tetrasodium]

Irrelevant. We're not discussing 3.5 version, and we don't know the intent, only what's in the rules. To use a strawman, taking unstated intent into account would be like arguing that wizards can only use the spells from their selected school and no other.

No we are not. It is however relevant that we have been told explicitly that the wording on wgte is not final making the unusual wording worthy of consideration when viewed in light of the weapon's history of being like other dual wielding options in prior editions. If you are only willing to argue with the +stat+stat (something nobody is really saying anything but we need to wait & see), then your contributions are useless noise that has already been said many times over in this thread.

If it is +stat+stat, it's hardly the end of the world & gwm/pam/sentinel still have their wondrous little ring of awesome despite an unexpectedly competitive option.

[CBAnaesthesia]

No we are not. It is however relevant that we have been told explicitly that the wording on wgte is not final making the unusual wording worthy of consideration when viewed in light of the weapon's history of being like other dual wielding options in prior editions. If you are only willing to argue with the +stat+stat (something nobody is really saying anything but we need to wait & see), then your contributions are useless noise that has already been said many times over in this thread.

If it is +stat+stat, it's hardly the end of the world & gwm/pam/sentinel still have their wondrous little ring of awesome despite an unexpectedly competitive option.

The wording isn't "unusual," it's the exact wording that's been used for PAM.
The fact that it is not the final wording is relevant in that it can theoretically be changed to what you're saying by the time the book is published, but it isn't relevant to what is actually written down at the present time, which is explicitly the same as PAM, ie. the stat modifier is explicitly added to the bonus attack. You're the only person arguing anything different, based on complete speculation that "we just need to wait and see because it wasn't this way in 3.5," despite the fact that the wording is perfectly clear.
You can't just assume that because X was this way in previous editions, it'll be corrected to be the same in new editions. I mean, a two-handed sword in 1e only did 1d10 damage even though a longsword still did 1d8, so does that make 5e greatswords OP? No, because there were other factors in this decision for 1e (like different damage vs different-sized opponents), just like there were other factors for the DBS being written the way it was for 3.5e.
As far as "useless noise," well, like I said, you're the only one arguing that the +stat to the bonus attack is ambiguous, so it might be useful to direct that noise to WotC and see what they think.

[Arkhios]

I wouldn't say using the DBS is much different from spinning a bo-staff. It's less about strength than hand-eye-coordination (which, by the way, also fits into what Dexterity means). The bo-staff techniques use a very tight grip with both ends of the weapon spinning freely around your body, perfectly without hitting yourself. If you're skilled. Which I'd guess the Valenar warriors certainly are.

https://youtu.be/ENqMy1BU2-Y?t=129

[Tetrasodium]

The wording isn't "unusual," it's the exact wording that's been used for PAM.
The fact that it is not the final wording is relevant in that it can theoretically be changed to what you're saying by the time the book is published, but it isn't relevant to what is actually written down at the present time, which is explicitly the same as PAM, ie. the stat modifier is explicitly added to the bonus attack. You're the only person arguing anything different, based on complete speculation that "we just need to wait and see because it wasn't this way in 3.5," despite the fact that the wording is perfectly clear.
You can't just assume that because X was this way in previous editions, it'll be corrected to be the same in new editions. I mean, a two-handed sword in 1e only did 1d10 damage even though a longsword still did 1d8, so does that make 5e greatswords OP? No, because there were other factors in this decision for 1e (like different damage vs different-sized opponents), just like there were other factors for the DBS being written the way it was for 3.5e.
As far as "useless noise," well, like I said, you're the only one arguing that the +stat to the bonus attack is ambiguous, so it might be useful to direct that noise to WotC and see what they think.


Exactly, the sky will not fall & the world will not end because there is another competitive choice. PAM gives a other things like the ability to make an AoO when something enters your threat range & works with 3 different weapons, Are you admitting that the chicken little act is because something gives one of the PAM benefits with one weapon & a feat gives other benefits different from PAM?

[MaxWilson]

You get +1AC worth Revenant Blade, too, as well as +1 Dex/Str.

Ah, I wasn't aware that Revenant Blade came with +1 AC. That does seem a bit much for a half-feat.


Where are you getting your d12, lances? That only works mounted, otherwise you're using d8s.

Agreed. "(Up to) d12" is not the same thing as d12 all the time. Mounts have a lot of advantages though and are worth using for many reasons.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Exactly, the sky will not fall & the world will not end because there is another competitive choice. PAM gives a other things like the ability to make an AoO when something enters your threat range & works with 3 different weapons, Are you admitting that the chicken little act is because something gives one of the PAM benefits with one weapon & a feat gives other benefits different from PAM?
Are you admitting that the wording isn't ambiguous? Because you're bringing up a completely different argument from your last post saying that the +stat to the bonus attack wording is ambiguous (when it isn't), but no, that doesn't fix the other issues with it.
PAM requires a feat investment to get the bonus attack, DBS doesn't. It's not just "one of the PAM benefits," it's the primary one, with a trivial cost (100gp) for the DBS compared to a non-trivial cost (a feat/ASI) with PAM. Yeah, the reaction attack is nice, but with DBS giving you half of PAM already for basically free, you may well decide you're better off taking something like Sentinel that you would've had to forego to take PAM otherwise.
Similarly, you talking about "well it's not as good as GWM+PAM+Sentinel, so it's not OP, just competitive." That might be true of how powerful each build is once it fully comes online, but the DBS build requires at most 1 feat to fully come online, and the GWM+PAM build requires at least 2 feats. If taking 1 combat feat makes you "competitive" with taking 2 combat feats, that's still OP because you only made half the investment for a similar end result.
It's also totally irrelevant that "PAM works with 3 different weapons but DBS only works with one," you only need one weapon. Yeah you can get reach or go staff & shield, but again, that requires taking a feat vs zero investment with the DBS.


useless noise, chicken little act, etc
You might want to look into getting some of that chloride out of your sodium.

[MeeposFire]

Exactly, the sky will not fall & the world will not end because there is another competitive choice. PAM gives a other things like the ability to make an AoO when something enters your threat range & works with 3 different weapons, Are you admitting that the chicken little act is because something gives one of the PAM benefits with one weapon & a feat gives other benefits different from PAM?

Wait this is not a fair comparison here. While I do think you can compare the feats themselves (of which PAM is the stronger feat on the whole as the DBS feat is really a slightly better dual wielding feat what with increased damage, +1 AC and a boost to a stat which and that feat allows you to be dex based too is what many people say that feat should have been and still would be considered weaker than PAM) the thing everyone is talking about is the bonus action attack with a stat bonus but that is not from the feat in the case of the DBS but it is in the case of PAM.

Really everyone is talking about PAM but it really is not the same thing as the DBS feat. PAM gives you two new ways of getting extra attacks which is very potent. The DBS feat is really more like dual wielder+stat and so is much more comparable. It makes more sense that way anyway as the DBS is and was more like TWF than a polearm. In that light with the exception of the stat to the bonus action attack part the DBS with its feat is very similar to TWF with its feat (it is something like .5 damage per attack greater on average with the same max damage so very similar).

Now there really is no arguing with the fact that currently the DBS gets stat to damage with its bonus action attack because as written it does. You can try to make an argument that they may have intended to make it like TWF but made a mistake in how they wrote it (either because they forgot to say to treat it like TWF or that whomever wrote did not realize that the lack of stat to damage was intrinsic to off hand attacks not bonus action attacks in general) but if that is the case then you need to let them know that they made that mistake because right now it gets stat to damage on its bonus action attack and I do not see any reason why it should get that without the fighting style unless you are going to change how TWF works in general (which is actually my preferred option but I know that it is highly unlikely that is going to happen).

[CBAnaesthesia]

I wouldn't say using the DBS is much different from spinning a bo-staff. It's less about strength than hand-eye-coordination (which, by the way, also fits into what Dexterity means). The bo-staff techniques use a very tight grip with both ends of the weapon spinning freely around your body, perfectly without hitting yourself. If you're skilled. Which I'd guess the Valenar warriors certainly are.

https://youtu.be/ENqMy1BU2-Y?t=129
Fair enough, but why is it also such a good Strength weapon, in that case? You don't have to be a Valenar to be really good with one of these.
Further on in that video, he also does a whole lot of grip adjustments and such that would be impossible with the DBS. So given that, I could see an argument for the DBS being a more defensive weapon than the staff, I guess, but it's still less offensively useful - so why is it so much more mechanically powerful?
It just doesn't really make sense, and especially doesn't make sense for it to be as strong as it is.
This video is maybe not entirely 100% fair to a dual-sword, but it's not far off the mark in my estimation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=TPXOOKEnvoQ

[Arkhios]

Fair enough, but why is it also such a good Strength weapon, in that case? You don't have to be a Valenar to be really good with one of these.
Further on in that video, he also does a whole lot of grip adjustments and such that would be impossible with the DBS. So given that, I could see an argument for the DBS being a more defensive weapon than the staff, I guess, but it's still less offensively useful - so why is it so much more mechanically powerful?
It just doesn't really make sense, and especially doesn't make sense for it to be as strong as it is.
This video is maybe not entirely 100% fair to a dual-sword, but it's not far off the mark in my estimation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=TPXOOKEnvoQ


I didn't really say that you'd be able to use all bo-staff techniques with the DBS, did I? Of course the DBS has limitations in regards to different types of grips.

The person in your video seems to believe that if you use a sword (any kind of sword) you are always doing all the work with your arms, and therefore risk cutting yourself because the blades would hit yourself when swung with the other end. I believe the techniques you can use with a weapon like DBS are more suitable to draw the neccessary force from your legs, hip, and torso, in addition to your arms. The force you would muster with arms alone if you would use only a sword, is produced by your entire body instead. Do note that Strength as an ability doesn't only mean how much you can lift with your arms. With a double-ended weapon you'd keep your arms relatively close to your body, and therefore the weapon is closer to the point of momentum as well, which is your whole body.

I'd imagine that fighting with a DBS is more akin to dervish dance than to traditional sword-fighting.

Edit: In fact, to provide more support to using your whole body instead of just arms when fighting with a sword, as a former fencer I know from experience that the force to thrust comes from your legs, not from your arm. You only deliver the force from your legs through your arm to the sword.

Note: I'm not trying to defend the DBS as it is now, mechanically. I agree it's too strong and should be downgraded quite a bit. I can see why it's clearly superior to many other two-handed weapons, and definitely much stronger candidate for anyone interested in two-weapon fighting than just two separate weapons. But, I do think that it should be allowed to be a finesse weapon one way or another. And I do think that it's fair to have damage die of 1d8 for at least one blade (I'd prefer 2d4, but if it remains a two-handed weapon -- which it logically is, because it's a single weapon held with two hands -- 1d8 is probably more wise than 2d4).

[Kadesh]

One of my players wants to make annew character base on the Spellbreaker from Warcraft, using the Champion.

They're taken Mage Slayer, and Revenant Blade: and now I'm looking for inspiration behind the mechanics of the spellbreaking bit. It's a homebrew setting.

They're going to need an animated Shield, but I also love giving them a scaling magic item.

I'm thinking of giving the DBS the ability to take let the wielder concentrate on a Spell a creature was forced to drop concentration on due to its attacks, using the spell recognition mechanics (DC10+level, disadv if not on spell list), with it guaranteed on a Critical hit.

At next tier, it gains a +1, and treats all spells as if they were on its class list. At final tier, it deals additional psychic damage equal to the level of the spell stolen.

Opinions?

[Neknoh]

Fair enough, but why is it also such a good Strength weapon, in that case? You don't have to be a Valenar to be really good with one of these.
Further on in that video, he also does a whole lot of grip adjustments and such that would be impossible with the DBS. So given that, I could see an argument for the DBS being a more defensive weapon than the staff, I guess, but it's still less offensively useful - so why is it so much more mechanically powerful?
It just doesn't really make sense, and especially doesn't make sense for it to be as strong as it is.
This video is maybe not entirely 100% fair to a dual-sword, but it's not far off the mark in my estimation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=TPXOOKEnvoQ


Skal uses longswords, these are weapons of about 4 feet in length whereas the scimitar appear to be somewhere between 2 and 3, this does a lot, since spinning an 8 foot, 6 pound polearm is quite different from a 5-foot 4 pound one, and he's got problems with the large crossguards.

If we're talking staff weapons that you cannot slide your hands on, then the DBS would be a lot more similar to a modern day fire staff.

https://youtu.be/pc1rbr-iZYk?t=141

https://youtu.be/5fzj8JlsBaU?t=131

These staffs are generally around 5-6 feet and weigh about 3 pounds (the large wick ones as seen above can weigh up to 4 when loaded)

Smaller staffs are, as said, about 2 pounds, but since I can't find a video of somebody spinning a large one quickly (the group in the second video has done so on several occasions), here's some staff spinning on the lighter staff (which weighs about the same as a 2 foot historical sword)

https://youtu.be/ekOwUEzsMkA?t=190


This also shows why it's better as a Dexterity weapon than a strength weapon.


And finally, a 70+ year old man spinning a Jo of about 2 pounds (half the assumed weight of the DBS)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu_eHEpfXlE

It's more about generating force with your body than your arms (like with most weapons)

[JackPhoenix]

Ironically, Eberron also has a double scimitar-like weapon that's much more practical: Riedran Zulaat

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-02aXTJT7Yg0/VCoc3tpuvrI/AAAAAAABSoM/NhjDe1_0q8s/s1600/102999.jpg

[Imriel]

I actually like this a lot! Starting a campaign with rolled race/class combinations and now hoping A LOT to get elf as a race.

[Tetrasodium]

Are you admitting that the wording isn't ambiguous? Because you're bringing up a completely different argument from your last post saying that the +stat to the bonus attack wording is ambiguous (when it isn't), but no, that doesn't fix the other issues with it.
PAM requires a feat investment to get the bonus attack, DBS doesn't. It's not just "one of the PAM benefits," it's the primary one, with a trivial cost (100gp) for the DBS compared to a non-trivial cost (a feat/ASI) with PAM. Yeah, the reaction attack is nice, but with DBS giving you half of PAM already for basically free, you may well decide you're better off taking something like Sentinel that you would've had to forego to take PAM otherwise.
Similarly, you talking about "well it's not as good as GWM+PAM+Sentinel, so it's not OP, just competitive." That might be true of how powerful each build is once it fully comes online, but the DBS build requires at most 1 feat to fully come online, and the GWM+PAM build requires at least 2 feats. If taking 1 combat feat makes you "competitive" with taking 2 combat feats, that's still OP because you only made half the investment for a similar end result.
It's also totally irrelevant that "PAM works with 3 different weapons but DBS only works with one," you only need one weapon. Yeah you can get reach or go staff & shield, but again, that requires taking a feat vs zero investment with the DBS.


You might want to look into getting some of that chloride out of your sodium.

m I admitting that strict RAW is a questionable way of judging something in a document !that Wotc has said is still in flux (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1021493084536881159)? Given that there is zero ambiguity about that undeniable fact... sure! That's what I've been saying all along.

The detractors want to argue on strict RAW and argue against all facets of the DBS at once because it makes it easy to point at something else & say they were talking about that if someone presents evidence (such as PAM and two-weapon fighting fighting style) that they are overreacting.

A two handed weapon is far more limiting on options than two one handed weapons. The damage is not especially dissimilar to what other options like twf & pam can do. The weapon itself is excluded from fun like PAM's AoO attack on enter threat range & by extension what adding sentinel does there. The weapon does bot have reach like the various pole arms,nor can it be thrown like a dagger or gained with rogue1... instead it has a better average damage & interesting interaction with gwf. Not to mention the fact that there are no dothraki/klingon-like elves coming to ride you down (https://twitter.com/JM13136849/status/1024315075094605825) if you want to run around with twf or something either.

The detractors can't look at just what it has over $OtherOption while ignoring & dismissing any benefits that $OtherOption has over DBS/DBS+revenant blade, but doing otherwise undercuts the chicken little act so instead we keep seeing how $kitchen sink of eeverything dbs+revenant blade offers - any drawbacks vrs one very specific area $otherOption compares -anywhere $OtherOption shines.

[GlenSmash!]

The really ironic thing though is that this feature is almost exactly equivalent to the Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes, and Battleragers are usually considered a bit on the weak and/or uninteresting side. That's should clue people in to the fact that this weapon isn't really that big of a deal. It is power creep in a sense, in that it is strictly better than a bad fighting technique (dual-wielding without TWF/Dual Wielder) and somewhat competitive with good fighting techniques (two-handed fighting with GWM or archery with Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert).

The Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes can only occur while raging, making it far more limited that just using a DBS.

This is what makes the Battlerager particularly weak compared to other Paths, everything it gets only works while Raging ans some only work while Raging and Recklessly Attacking.

[GlenSmash!]

m I admitting that strict RAW is a questionable way of judging something in a document !that Wotc has said is still in flux (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1021493084536881159)? Given that there is zero ambiguity about that undeniable fact... sure! That's what I've been saying all along.

Of course it's still in flux. In fact WotC are specifically soliciting our feedback.

This is part of my feedback and it looks like a few other people's feedback too: It shouldn't have +Ability Mod to damage on the bonus action attack because that makes it equivalent to a fighting style without taking the fighting style.

[CBAnaesthesia]

snip

snip
Fair enough, I still think it would be pretty unwieldy compared to a staff or polearm but I also think how the DBS would actually work is a digression from how it works mechanically, which is the more important discussion.



Spellbreaker discussion

I think this sounds really cool! Maybe the "spell stealing" should use the player's reaction, just so there is an action cost for stealing a buff spell, but I like the idea of it. I think the scaling looks OK too.


m I admitting that strict RAW is a questionable way of judging something in a document !that Wotc has said is still in flux (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1021493084536881159)?
No, strict RAW is in fact the only way we have of really judging what is actually written at the present time, anything else is just speculation. WotC know the rules, they wrote them. If they made a mistake in the wording of the DBS, then they'll correct it, and then we will judge it based on the new wording. Again, your argument that it's ambiguous (which nobody except you is arguing) should be directed at Mearls or Crawford.



A two handed weapon is far more limiting on options than two one handed weapons.
Maybe with other 2-handed weapons, since you're forgoing the option of a bonus action attack, but there is quite literally nothing more limiting on the DBS than there is with TWF.

PAM and TWF are comparable to DBS
Yes, if you take the relevant PAM or TWF feats, they are comparable to the DBS without taking the feat, which is the key part you keep ignoring. For a Str build that would otherwise take PAM, there is little reason to take Revenant Blade. For a Dex build that would otherwise take TWF, there is no reason at all to take TWF over Revenant Blade.

[MaxWilson]

The Battlerager ability to attack with 1d4 + Str as a bonus action using their spikes can only occur while raging, making it far more limited that just using a DBS.

This is what makes the Battlerager particularly weak compared to other Paths, everything it gets only works while Raging ans some only work while Raging and Recklessly Attacking.

Oh, good point, especially since initiating Rage takes a bonus action.

[Tetrasodium]

Yes, if you take the relevant PAM or TWF feats, they are comparable to the DBS without taking the feat, which is the key part you keep ignoring. For a Str build that would otherwise take PAM, there is little reason to take Revenant Blade. For a Dex build that would otherwise take TWF, there is no reason at all to take TWF over Revenant Blade.
are they equivalent? every one of the PAM weapons has reach or is a simple weapon. A dagger requires no feat for foinesse, DBS does. A dagger is a light weapon that can be thrown, a dbs ca not. A club handaxe, light hammer, & sickle are all light finesse simple weapons. a DBS with no feats is none of those things. A scimitar & short sword are light finesse martial weapons without a feat. A rapier if finesse without a feat & rogues are given it free at level 1, the same is not true of a DBS with no feat. I'm seeing quite a few differences between them


Yes they look at feedback, but when your argument points at strict raw for the "overpowered" claim while ignoring a great many strict RAW features of the "weaker" stuff has going for it you devalue that feedback. When that already devalued feedback insists on judging all features of DBS or DVS+revenant blade together by simply lumping them on a scale & comparing it to the same merits of the other side rather than calling out specific bits that are problematic, it further devalues that feedback into practical irrelevance.

Edit: An offhand weapon can be dropped/sheathed/etc in order to hold a shield or I dunno.... a common wonderous item that grants resistance to 1 or two damage types with no attune requirements (wgte 114 orb of shielding)....

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

are they equivalent? every one of the PAM weapons has reach or is a simple weapon. A dagger requires no feat for foinesse, DBS does. A dagger is a light weapon that can be thrown, a dbs ca not. A club handaxe, light hammer, & sickle are all light finesse simple weapons. a DBS with no feats is none of those things. A scimitar & short sword are light finesse martial weapons without a feat. A rapier if finesse without a feat & rogues are given it free at level 1, the same is not true of a DBS with no feat. I'm seeing quite a few differences between them

Well yeah, they're not identical. He's responding to your post that:


PAM and TWF are comparable to DBS

They are comparable inasmuch as they give an attack with a bonus action. I'm not comfortable using PAM as a comparison for the DBS - they do different things conceptually, and PAM is usually part of a combo with GWM/Sentinel/Tunnel fighter. Two weapon fighting is directly comparable to the DBS though. You're right to point out that other weapons are finessable at level 1, which has been something I've pointed to from the beginning as a symptom of the DBS being poorly designed.

As to proficiency, you and I have had this conversation in a different thread. Suffice to say, if you want to use the DBS, you're either taking a class with martial weapon proficiency for the Great Weapon Fighting style, or you're an elf with modified proficiencies, or both.


Yes they look at feedback, but when your argument points at strict raw for the "overpowered" claim while ignoring a great many strict RAW features of the "weaker" stuff has going for it you devalue that feedback. When that already devalued feedback insists on judging all features of DBS or DVS+revenant blade together by simply lumping them on a scale & comparing it to the same merits of the other side rather than calling out specific bits that are problematic, it further devalues that feedback into practical irrelevance.

I think people have done a very good job pointing directly at the specific bit that's problematic. The bonus action offhand attack shouldn't get ability modifiers to damage. The issue with finesse is a bit more thorny.

[CBAnaesthesia]

are they equivalent? every one of the PAM weapons has reach or is a simple weapon.
I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were comparable, which is still a problem because one requires a feat and one doesn't.

listing a bunch of finesse weapons, and incorrectly listing a bunch of non-finesse weapons as finesse
Yeah, other finesse weapons exist that don't require a feat. They're also way weaker than the DBS, none of them inherently give a bonus attack with +stat, and you need a feat just to draw two of those weapons at once. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.



snip, "Strict RAW, you're overlooking RAW of other items so your critique isn't specific enough"
Please point out what specific RAW issues I'm overlooking, then, for your critique.



Edit: An offhand weapon can be dropped/sheathed/etc in order to hold a shield or I dunno.... a common wonderous item that grants resistance to 1 or two damage types with no attune requirements (wgte 114 orb of shielding)....
You're not guaranteed to get any specific magic item so the orb of shielding is irrelevant. A shield also takes a full action to put on, so if you do that in combat, you could also just drop your DBS, draw a sword as your Object Interaction, and put on your shield as your Action. It's not any easier to do with dual-wielding than it would be when using the DBS. In fact, since you can just let go of the DBS with one hand to do things like cast a spell (per the PHB errata), instead of having to drop/sheath it, then draw it again on your next turn, like you would with dual-wielding, you could say that the DBS is actually more flexible in this sense than TWF.

[NaughtyTiger]

A club handaxe, light hammer, & sickle are all light finesse simple weapons.


none of those are finesse weapons.

[kenGarff]

Is it better to run with this weapon: dex builds or str builds?
I’m going to assume for dex builds you need that feat. I apologize for my ignorance.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Is it better to run with this weapon: dex builds or str builds?
I’m going to assume for dex builds you need that feat. I apologize for my ignorance.

Yes, for Dex builds you need the feat, which means you need to be an elf. For pre-4 characters it's better for a Str character for that reason.

[kenGarff]

Yes, for Dex builds you need the feat, which means you need to be an elf. For pre-4 characters it's better for a Str character for that reason.

Oh ok. So would you say after that, it’s pretty much equal between str and dex builds?

Also how good would this be for something like a vengeance paladin str or dex build (I’m gohbg to assume str is better for vengeance also)

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Oh ok. So would you say after that, it’s pretty much equal between str and dex builds?

Also how good would this be for something like a vengeance paladin str or dex build (I’m gohbg to assume str is better for vengeance also)

Pretty much equal except that Dex is better than Str and GWM, which is Str exclusive, is still better than this. I think it'd be pretty solid for a paladin after level 11, when you get +damage on all your attacks. Prior to that it's still good assuming you'd prefer to make bonus action attacks than have a shield. So if you're going for a Dex Pal, carry another weapon until you get to 4, then switch to the DBS, I guess. The GWF fighting style will raise your average damage quite a bit.

As a vengeance paladin, I'd probably prefer to go for a GWM build with Elven Accuracy for triple advantage. That's the most powerful build of the bunch.

[CBAnaesthesia]

Oh ok. So would you say after that, it’s pretty much equal between str and dex builds?

Also how good would this be for something like a vengeance paladin str or dex build (I’m gohbg to assume str is better for vengeance also)
Well Dex is a better stat overall - it gives you ranged options, a better saving throw, initiative, almost-equal AC with no associated cost, and a lot more skills, so in that sense it is better to go with a Dex build if you're already planning to take the feat regardless.
Paladin is fine as Str or Dex, if you're not planning to take PAM and/or GWM, and not planning to multiclass, Dex is just as good.

[Vorpalchicken]

I'm kinda repeating myself, but I just want to reiterate that with the feat I feel it's in line power-wise with strength (that include feats ) builds (but not quite dual wielder, but we knew that was on the weak side)
My problem is only with the weapon alone, pre-feat choice where it completely outmodes two weapon fighting and possibly also every other melee weapon choice.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm kinda repeating myself, but I just want to reiterate that with the feat I feel it's in line power-wise with strength (that include feats ) builds (but not quite dual wielder, but we knew that was on the weak side)
My problem is only with the weapon alone, pre-feat choice where it completely outmodes two weapon fighting and possibly also every other melee weapon choice.

It also switches what it's good for. It's a Str weapon until 4, when it becomes a Dex weapon. It should be a finesse weapon natively.

[CBAnaesthesia]

I'm kinda repeating myself, but I just want to reiterate that with the feat I feel it's in line power-wise with strength (that include feats ) builds (but not quite dual wielder, but we knew that was on the weak side)
My problem is only with the weapon alone, pre-feat choice where it completely outmodes two weapon fighting and possibly also every other melee weapon choice.

For Str builds I agree with you, but the feat allowing finesse with the DBS automatically makes it the best Dex melee weapon, which I don't agree with.

[Tetrasodium]

I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they were comparable, which is still a problem because one requires a feat and one doesn't.

Yeah, other finesse weapons exist that don't require a feat. They're also way weaker than the DBS, none of them inherently give a bonus attack with +stat, and you need a feat just to draw two of those weapons at once. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.


Please point out what specific RAW issues I'm overlooking, then, for your critique.


You're not guaranteed to get any specific magic item so the orb of shielding is irrelevant. A shield also takes a full action to put on, so if you do that in combat, you could also just drop your DBS, draw a sword as your Object Interaction, and put on your shield as your Action. It's not any easier to do with dual-wielding than it would be when using the DBS. In fact, since you can just let go of the DBS with one hand to do things like cast a spell (per the PHB errata), instead of having to drop/sheath it, then draw it again on your next turn, like you would with dual-wielding, you could say that the DBS is actually more flexible in this sense than TWF.


You are ignoring the benefits of every other option (easier access for many classes/reach/relevant feat benefits, etc). I covered a bunch of them. While it is certainly true that "you are not guaranteed to get any specific magic item", it is critical to remember that eberron is not faerun and both the dbs along with those orbs of shielding are located in Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron. Manifest zones are something that happens naturally in many parts of the world,those common no attunement needed items are things you should be able to buy or order in a store just as you would a shield, potion of healing, or any other common item... I point you to wgte 41

While magic is widespread, the scope of magic is limited. Low-level spells are a part of everyday life, but high-level magic remains remarkable.
Common Magic. Cantrips and 1st level spells are commonplace. Magewrights, wandslingers, and dragonmarked heirs can all produce these sorts of effects, and you’ll see the impact of this magic as part of everyday life. Common magic items can be found in any community and purchased in any major city, provided you can find a shop or dragonmarked enclave that deals in what you’re looking for. Common magic items generally range in price from 50–100 gp.
It goes on from there to talk about uncommon, rare, very rare, & legendary. Unless you are suggesting that 50-100gp is something beyond the reach of a normal PC within a few levels.

[CBAnaesthesia]

You are ignoring the benefits of every other option (easier access for many classes/reach/relevant feat benefits, etc). I covered a bunch of them.
I'm not ignoring those, I covered them too. I mentioned reach in my last reply to you, and I feel like I'm a broken record regarding other feat benefits - for PAM or TWF, you are required to take a feat, whereas the DBS does not. Yes, you get other benefits, but you are making much more of an investment than someone who just picks up a DBS (and in terms of feats, TWF gives you fewer benefits than Revenant Blade).
I've been saying that ad nauseum.
As for "easier access for many classes," any class that can only use a dagger (or only simple weapons) is unlikely to be relying primarily on weapons, period. Any class that can't access martial weapons would almost certainly not consider PAM anyway (either they're a class that doesn't use weapons much, or they're a rogue who wants to use Sneak Attack . The only place where this would possibly be relevant would be for a Rogue who's going to take Revenant Blade, who would need to take a level 1 Fighter dip, I guess. It's very common for a Rogue to dip Fighter, but I acknowledge this is a cost I hadn't mentioned.

Of course, this is all moot if you pick Valenar Elf as your race, since they automatically get DBS proficiency (p.73).

Magic items
Yeah, but again, TWF or PAM have exactly the same limitation for using a shield or an orb (except for PAM allowing you to use a quarterstaff, but also consider again, this requires a feat and the DBS does not).

[Tetrasodium]

I'm not ignoring those, I covered them too. I mentioned reach in my last reply to you, and I feel like I'm a broken record regarding other feat benefits - for PAM or TWF, you are required to take a feat, whereas the DBS does not. Yes, you get other benefits, but you are making much more of an investment than someone who just picks up a DBS (and in terms of feats, TWF gives you fewer benefits than Revenant Blade).
I've been saying that ad nauseum.
As for "easier access for many classes," any class that can only use a dagger (or only simple weapons) is unlikely to be relying primarily on weapons, period. Any class that can't access martial weapons would almost certainly not consider PAM anyway (either they're a class that doesn't use weapons much, or they're a rogue who wants to use Sneak Attack . The only place where this would possibly be relevant would be for a Rogue who's going to take Revenant Blade, who would need to take a level 1 Fighter dip, I guess. It's very common for a Rogue to dip Fighter, but I acknowledge this is a cost I hadn't mentioned.

Of course, this is all moot if you pick Valenar Elf as your race, since they automatically get DBS proficiency (p.73).

Yeah, but again, TWF or PAM have exactly the same limitation for using a shield or an orb (except for PAM allowing you to use a quarterstaff, but also consider again, this requires a feat and the DBS does not).


no you did not mention benefits of things like reach, the ability to throw a dagger,being able to hold a common magic item like an orb of shielding in off hand etc etc you dismissed them outright because admitting that they are factors to consider makes your argument harder to present as the simple night & day objective "better" you want to present.
You tried to dismiss the benefit of being able to do things like hold an orb of shielding by applying faerun's standards for magic item availability & when shown the actual availability from the wgte that contains both dbs & the orbs you mysteriously dropped the subject.
you haven't mentioned that cost or any other cost because admitting them takes the clear "objectively better in every way" argument you keep trying to pass off & makes it more of the murky debatable realm others have pointed out exists. Yes an elf could avoid the band of Valenar elves riding them down better than some other race, you seem to think that makes it a no cost choice... except for the fact that the elves of eberron (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0MOtw4hSIg) are not viewed in the same light as the elves of faerun/grehawk/other setting where corellon was involved in actually creating elves. In a lot of ways, being am elf can be a bad thing & in mechanical terms will often shift npc dispositions towards you in a negative way on top of your own ancestral baggage dragging you around.

[CBAnaesthesia]

no you did not mention benefits of things like reach, the ability to throw a dagger,being able to hold a common magic item like an orb of shielding in off hand etc etc you dismissed them outright because admitting that they are factors to consider makes your argument harder to present as the simple night & day objective "better" you want to present.
You tried to dismiss the benefit of being able to do things like hold an orb of shielding by applying faerun's standards for magic item availability & when shown the actual availability from the wgte that contains both dbs & the orbs you mysteriously dropped the subject.
you haven't mentioned that cost or any other cost because admitting them takes the clear "objectively better in every way" argument you keep trying to pass off & makes it more of the murky debatable realm others have pointed out exists. Yes an elf could avoid the band of Valenar elves riding them down better than some other race, you seem to think that makes it a no cost choice... except for the fact that the elves of eberron (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0MOtw4hSIg) are not viewed in the same light as the elves of faerun/grehawk/other setting where corellon was involved in actually creating elves. In a lot of ways, being am elf can be a very bad thing & in mechanical terms will shift npc dispositions towards you in a negative way on top of your own ancestral baggage dragging you around.
I'm not trying to dismiss anything, I have addressed these things in literally every reply to you.
Reach: You need a feat to get a bonus attack with reach, you don't need a feat to get a bonus attack with the DBS. A feat is a very big cost. It is a much bigger cost than "no feat." I have said this in every reply to you, if that doesn't count as "mentioning," then I don't know what to tell you.
Throwing a dagger: You can hold a 2-handed weapon in one hand when you're not attacking (PHB errata), so you could draw and throw a dagger as one of your attacks while holding a DBS anyway. Regardless, a dagger is much weaker than the DBS in every context unless you're 20 feet out of reach, and I'm clearly saying that the DBS is a better option for melee fighters, not ranged fighters. Regardless, the DBS does not preclude daggers as a ranged option in any way.
I didn't "mysteriously drop the subject" of the orb, and I didn't ignore the cost of using it - I said that if you do get one, TWF and PAM have the same limitation as DBS regarding holding an off-hand item. But sure, fine, let's assume you can get one - it doesn't change the fact that DBS is not unique in this limitation.
Throwing a dagger as mentioned doesn't apply here of course because you're not holding a dagger, you're drawing and throwing it. However, both of these factors are irrelevant when comparing the DBS to PAM or TWF, because these limitations apply equally to all of these weapons.
As for the video, the discussion here is about combat mechanics related to the DBS. The other factors which may come up in a campaign due to anti-elf racism or anything, however interesting they may be, are outside the goalposts here.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm not trying to dismiss anything, I have addressed these things in literally every reply to you.
Reach: You need a feat to get a bonus attack with reach, you don't need a feat to get a bonus attack with the DBS. A feat is a very big cost. It is a much bigger cost than "no feat." I have said this in every reply to you, if that doesn't count as "mentioning," then I don't know what to tell you.
Throwing a dagger: You can hold a 2-handed weapon in one hand when you're not attacking (PHB errata), so you could draw and throw a dagger as one of your attacks while holding a DBS anyway. Regardless, a dagger is much weaker than the DBS in every context unless you're 20 feet out of reach, and I'm clearly saying that the DBS is a better option for melee fighters, not ranged fighters. Regardless, the DBS does not preclude daggers as a ranged option in any way.
I didn't "mysteriously drop the subject" of the orb, and I didn't ignore the cost of using it - I said that if you do get one, TWF and PAM have the same limitation as DBS regarding holding an off-hand item. But sure, fine, let's assume you can get one - it doesn't change the fact that DBS is not unique in this limitation.
Throwing a dagger as mentioned doesn't apply here of course because you're not holding a dagger, you're drawing and throwing it. However, both of these factors are irrelevant when comparing the DBS to PAM or TWF, because these limitations apply equally to all of these weapons.
As for the video, the discussion here is about combat mechanics related to the DBS. The other factors which may come up in a campaign due to anti-elf racism or anything, however interesting they may be, are outside the goalposts here.

all of those reach weapons on phb149 are reach weapons as long as you are proficient in them. In fact, they are reach weapons even if you are not and not adding your proficiency bonus as a result. The dagger does not require a feat to be thrown, you don't need a feat to carry an orb of shiewlding you buy for ~50-100gp. You want to compare the good parts of weapon (the DBS) to a very specific feated similar portion of other weapons while ignoring the fact that those other weapons also have benefits of their own that do not require a feat. Yes indeed a dagger is weaker than a dbs as long as you can get within 5 feet of your target, but just like when you evaded the fact that reach weapons have reach out of the box & jumped straight to the bonus action second attack from PAM where you grudgingly admitted that attack has reach.... you want to ignore that the dagger & every other option has benefits of its own.

As to you whining about the video, the mechanics of the weapon are explicitly tied to the world & talk about things like elves hunting you down/forcing you to prove your worth, you can't ignore that just because it's just as inconvenient as the reach of theweapons PAM works with even if you don't have PAM. Well the DBS does not have reach, does not work with PAM, & an not do either no matter what feat you take. The weapons that work with PAM are either simple (quarterstaff) or have reach even if you don't have PAM You can't ignore the unfeated benefits of other options just because PAM has the feated benefit of some weapons that still have other benefits they had even before the feat & in addition to that one part of the feat. PAM does not just give you a d4 bonus action attack, it gives you the extremely powerful ability to make AoO's when an opponent enters your threat range while wielding a weapon that is almost certainly a reach weapon You want to ignore those components of PAM & the weapons PAM works with

[CBAnaesthesia]

all of those reach weapons on phb149 are reach weapons as long as you are proficient in them. In fact, they are reach weapons even if you are not and not adding your proficiency bonus as a result.
Yes, but they don't get an extra attack without the feat which is very obviously what I meant. A third attack is more of an advantage than reach.


The dagger does not require a feat to be thrown,
It also doesn't even require you to put down your DBS to be thrown, like I said. It's irrelevant to how good the DBS is.

you don't need a feat to carry an orb of shiewlding you buy for ~50-100gp.
No, but you can't carry an orb of shielding with a polearm or when wielding two weapons. All of the relevant comparisons are to PAM and TWF because that is obviously where DBS is competing - and it is strictly better than TWF, with or without the feat, and it is comparable to PAM without taking the feat. S&B or Sword & Orb competes with PAM, DBS, and TWF equally, so the relevant question, like I said, is in comparing PAM, DBS, and TWF, because they are all competing for the same niche.


You want to compare the good parts of weapon (the DBS) to a very specific feated similar portion of other weapons while ignoring the fact that those other weapons also have benefits of their own that do not require a feat. Yes indeed a dagger is weaker than a dbs as long as you can get within 5 feet of your target, but just like when you evaded the fact that reach weapons have reach out of the box & jumped straight to the bonus action second attack from PAM where you grudgingly admitted that attack has reach.... you want to ignore that the dagger & every other option has benefits of its own.
Yes, they have their own benefits. Those benefits are not as powerful as an extra attack (especially when, like I said, the DBS doesn't even preclude you from throwing daggers), and to imply that they are is just disingenuous.


As to you whining about the video, the mechanics of the weapon are explicitly tied to the world & talk about things like elves hunting you down/forcing you to prove your worth,
I'm not "whining" about the video, I'm saying that, in a given combat, those non-combat mechanics are not one bit relevant. Those mechanics might start more fights with your character, but when you're in a fight they are irrelevant. The DBS doesn't work any differently whether the elves are hunting you down or not, it just means that at some point you might have another few fights. Like I said, these are not strictly combat mechanics, so they're not relevant.


you can't ignore that ..You can't ignore the unfeated benefits of other options just because PAM has the feated benefit of some weapons that still have other benefits they had even before the feat & in addition to that one part of the feat. PAM does not just give you a d4 bonus action attack, it gives you the extremely powerful ability to make AoO's when an opponent enters your threat range while wielding a weapon that is almost certainly a reach weapon You want to ignore those components of PAM & the weapons PAM works with
Yes, PAM has more benefits than the DBS because like I said, it requires a feat, and a feat is a significant investment. I'm not ignoring anything else, I explained it all in this post and I've explained it in previous posts.
I've said everything in this post already in previous posts, so if you want to actually read what I've written instead of just accusing me of "ignoring" everything that I actually addressed, feel free, but I'm not going to keep wasting my time repeating myself.

[Galactkaktus]

Seems like Dbs is very good extremly good for elves starting at level 4 the combination of having 17 starting dex and getting pam really creates a power spike at level 4.

For str builds no feat
It's two handed so a shield is a no go.
Dmg wise it's probably the best option if we use pointbuy as our messuring unit you can at most get a +3 modifier to str
Greatsword/Maul 2d6+3 gives 10 avg dpr
2 handaxes 2d6+3 gives 10 avg dpr with the added benefit of having the thrown feature
Dbs 3d4+6 gives 10.5 avg dpr
13.5/10=1,05
So it's a 35% damage boost

Dex build no feat ...
I don't forsee this being an issue

So with no feats it's a significant boost for str builds.

For str builds 1 feat
PAM d10+d4+6 gives 14 avg dpr with a very consistent Aoo with the minor benifit of reach
Gwm requires knowledge of hit chance to compare.
Dbs 4d4+6 gives 16 avg dpr
16/14=14,3%
So here Dbs gives 14% dpr in exchange for less reliable Aoo and reach seems like the kind of choices i find fun.

For dex builds 1 feat assuming you used the one extra dex to bump your dex to 18. I am expecting this to be where Dbs really shines. Only real competition is twf if you want to do as much dmg as possible in a dex melee build.
Dbs 4d4+8=18
Twf 2d8+3=12
Well that is a 50% dmg increase quite significant. It's abit larger since i didn't really take into account the extra accuracy you get from having a higher dex modifier. But if we take the dmgs suggested stats for monsters of certain cr it's basically always 65% if you always take your asi to increase your attack stat so it whould roughly be 0,65/0,6=1,083333 which makes the total dmg advantage 1,5*1,08333=1,625. A boost of 62.5% dmg really makes the other options abit silly in comparisson

And to compare the dex and str builds without
18/16=1,125 With estimated accuracy taken into consideration 1,125*1,0833=1,22
18/14=1,286 With estimated accuracy taken into consideration 1,286*1,0833=1,39
A 12,5%(22% with estimated accuracy) dmg advantage compared to the str build is quite good but from this point the difference will shrink and eventually dissapear(once the str build gets 20 str)
A 28,6%(39% with estimated accuracy) dmg advantage is really big you need to be able to get alot of Aoo with pam to keep up. It will become better once you reach 20 str but at tier 2 Dbs seems better than Pam.

[Legendairy]

For str builds no feat
It's two handed so a shield is a no go.
Dmg wise it's probably the best option if we use pointbuy as our messuring unit you can at most get a +3 modifier to str
Greatsword/Maul 2d6+3 gives 10 avg dpr
2 handaxes 2d6+3 gives 10 avg dpr with the added benefit of having the thrown feature
Dbs 3d4+6 gives 10.5 avg dpr
13.5/10=1,05
So it's a 35% damage boost

For str builds 1 feat
PAM d10+d4+6 gives 14 avg dpr with a very consistent Aoo with the minor benifit of reach
Gwm requires knowledge of hit chance to compare.
Dbs 4d4+6 gives 16 avg dpr
16/14=14,3%
So here Dbs gives 14% dpr in exchange for less reliable Aoo and reach seems like the kind of choices i find fun.

For dex builds 1 feat assuming you used the one extra dex to bump your dex to 18. I am expecting this to be where Dbs really shines. Only real competition is twf if you want to do as much dmg as possible in a dex melee build.
Dbs 4d4+8=18
Twf 2d8+3=12
Well that is a 50% dmg increase quite significant. It's abit larger since i didn't really take into account the extra accuracy you get from having a higher dex modifier. But if we take the dmgs suggested stats for monsters of certain cr it's basically always 65% if you always take your asi to increase your attack stat so it whould roughly be 0,65/0,6=1,083333 which makes the total dmg advantage 1,5*1,08333=1,625. A boost of 62.5% dmg really makes the other options abit silly in comparisson

And to compare the dex and str builds without
18/16=1,125 With estimated accuracy taken into consideration 1,125*1,0833=1,22
18/14=1,286 With estimated accuracy taken into consideration 1,286*1,0833=1,39
A 12,5%(22% with estimated accuracy) dmg advantage compared to the str build is quite good but from this point the difference will shrink and eventually dissapear(once the str build gets 20 str)
A 28,6%(39% with estimated accuracy) dmg advantage is really big you need to be able to get alot of Aoo with pam to keep up. It will become better once you reach 20 str but at tier 2 Dbs seems better than Pam.

I could be wrong here (probably am) but aren’t average damages half the dice max? If so these numbers seem off by 1-2 points 4d4+6 average would be 14?
2d8+3=11 and so on so all the numbers may be off a bit?

[Gryndle]

I could be wrong here (probably am) but aren’t average damages half the dice max? If so these numbers seem off by 1-2 points 4d4+6 average would be 14?
2d8+3=11 and so on so all the numbers may be off a bit?

for most dice average damage actually comes out to 1/2 + 0.5. it is the sum of the face values divided by number of faces. Example average for a d4 is 2.5 (1+2+3+4=10 divided by 4= 2.5) so average for 2d4 is 5. etc

[Legendairy]

Ahh ok, my mistake then, I just use it the way it’s in the MM and in the books, never bothered with the actual math involved.

[kenGarff]

For Vegeance paladin, how are these in terms of damage? Would #1 and #3 still be greater than all else?

1) STR build: GWM, greatsword
2) STR build: GWM, PAM, polearm
3) STR build: PAM, polearm
4) STR build: DBS, PAM
5) STR build: DBS
6) DEX build: DBS, PAM, RB
7) DEX build: DBS, RB

I’m guessing from highest to lowest it’d be 1>2>6>7>4>3>5

[CBAnaesthesia]

For Vegeance paladin, how are these in terms of damage? Would #1 and #3 still be greater than all else?

1) STR build: GWM, greatsword
2) STR build: GWM, PAM, polearm
3) STR build: PAM, polearm
4) STR build: DBS, PAM
5) STR build: DBS
6) DEX build: DBS, PAM, RB

I’m guessing from highest to lowest it’d be 1>2>6>4>3>5

DBS doesn't work with PAM. You already get the bonus attack, though.
Highest to lowest would be (ignoring the -5 from GWM for quick maths, and removing PAM from the DBS options)
2>1>6>3>4=5
Keep in mind, though, option 3 only does 1 DPR more than 4 or 5.
Also, as a Paladin, more chances to land smites are valuable. Option 1 only gives you 2 chances to smite, all other options (including 6) gives you 3 chances, so option 6 will give you better nova than option 1. 1 is only better when you're out of smites. The difference even after you're out of smiting slots also narrows after you get Improved Smite - 3 attacks means you get 3d8 bonus damage per round, 2 attacks means you get 2d8 bonus damage per round.

[kenGarff]

DBS doesn't work with PAM. You already get the bonus attack, though.
Highest to lowest would be (ignoring the -5 from GWM for quick maths, and removing PAM from the DBS options)
2>1>6>3>4=5
Keep in mind, though, option 3 only does 1 DPR more than 4 or 5.
Also, as a Paladin, more chances to land smites are valuable. Option 1 only gives you 2 chances to smite, all other options (including 6) gives you 3 chances, so option 6 will give you better nova than option 1. 1 is only better when you're out of smites. The difference even after you're out of smiting slots also narrows after you get Improved Smite - 3 attacks means you get 3d8 bonus damage per round, 2 attacks means you get 2d8 bonus damage per round.

Oh that’s cool. How about DEX build with DBS and RB? How would it fit into that? Would it deal higher damage than potentially any of the str builds? Maybe just below build 6?

[CBAnaesthesia]

Oh that’s cool. How about DEX build with DBS and RB? How would it fit into that? Would it deal higher damage than potentially any of the str builds? Maybe just below build 6?

I took PAM out of the DBS options you proposed, so 6 in my ranking is just DBS+RB.

[kenGarff]

I took PAM out of the DBS options you proposed, so 6 in my ranking is just DBS+RB.

Oh sorry. I guess dex paladin with dbs and RB is huge since it’s comparable to best str builds but doesn’t require two feats. BTW you can only be full elf and not half elf for the DBS right?

Vengeance paladin +DBS+RB+Elven accuracy seems so freaking strong. Maybe this will make vengeance even more popular lol.

[NaughtyTiger]

it is critical to remember that eberron is not faerun

Does the Wayfinders Guide explicitly say these options cannot be used in Faerun campaign?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Oh sorry. I guess dex paladin with dbs and RB is huge since it’s comparable to best str builds but doesn’t require two feats. BTW you can only be full elf and not half elf for the DBS right?

Vengeance paladin +DBS+RB+Elven accuracy seems so freaking strong. Maybe this will make vengeance even more popular lol. Unless the polearm str variant would be able to use Elven accuracy better somehow due to some mechanics I don’t know (I wouldn’t be surprised since I just don’t know enough lol)

Yes, full elf only.

I don't think there's any way DBS compares to any build with GWM in damage. GWM + advantage or triple advantage with Elven Accuracy is really good because it helps cancel out that -5. If you're not taking GWM, then the DBS + Great Weapon Fighting style, with or without Revenant Blade, is your best damage option. Doesn't matter whether it's Dex or Str, except that Dex > Str generally.

[Galactkaktus]

For Vegeance paladin, how are these in terms of damage? Would #1 and #3 still be greater than all else?

1) STR build: GWM, greatsword
2) STR build: GWM, PAM, polearm
3) STR build: PAM, polearm
4) STR build: DBS, PAM
5) STR build: DBS
6) DEX build: DBS, PAM, RB
7) DEX build: DBS, RB

I’m guessing from highest to lowest it’d be 1>2>6>7>4>3>5

There are somethings to consider if you don't have a feat for some reason(lv1-3 and not variant human for instance) DBS will be the most damaging non magical weapon. Once you get GWF at level 2 the damage relative power difference of the GS and the DBS will narrow abit since they get the same amount of extra average damage added DBS will also have the benefit of having greater nova potential since you can double divine smite so in terms of damage DBS wins at level 2. But if you use bonus action spells like compelled duel or the differenst smite spells GS is the better option for damage(more on that for level 3).

At level 3 the best way to get maximum dpr would be to start the battle with a GS Use wow of enmity(bonus action so GS is stronger on this particular turn) Attack and then use your free item interaction to sheathe the GS. On your second turn you should use your free item interaction to draw the DBS and go to town with both your bonus action attack and your regular attack. What this means is that if you face an opponent that you don't wanna do -5/+10 on for whatever reason the DBS will probably perform better so sticking exclusivly to a GS is never the optimal call there should always be places were a weapon switch to the DBS just is the best thing to do.

[Tetrasodium]

For Vegeance paladin, how are these in terms of damage? Would #1 and #3 still be greater than all else?

1) STR build: GWM, greatsword
2) STR build: GWM, PAM, polearm
3) STR build: PAM, polearm
4) STR build: DBS, PAM
5) STR build: DBS
6) DEX build: DBS, PAM, RB
7) DEX build: DBS, RB

I’m guessing from highest to lowest it’d be 1>2>6>7>4>3>5

They are both solid options. DBS gives you the second attack without needing to take the feat, but also lacks reach making it less effective when paired with sentinel. Since it is not a heavy weapon, you can't pair it with the -5+10 GWM feat's perk since that requires you to attack with a heavy weapon. Being two handed, it does work with GWF & being 2d4/2d4 it works wonderful with the GWF fighting style.. In short, it allows you to invest in other areas and still be competitive.


Does the Wayfinders Guide explicitly say these options cannot be used in Faerun campaign?


While the PHB and many of the other core books are very heavily build for faerun explicitly, so much so that WGtE needed to include this section

Corellon and Lolth The elves of Eberron weren’t created by the gods you may know from other settings. In Eberron, the Sulat Giants created the drow as a weapon to fight the rebellious elves:
there is a lingering enmity between drow and elf, but it’s not driven by the influence of Lolth. Meanwhile, the elves revere their ancestors—many of whom still linger and guide them—as opposed to distant gods.

This is an opportunity to explore these traditional races in a new light. However, if you want to incorporate Corellon and Lolth, there’s a few ways to do it. One possibility is that Eberron was created as a copy of the distant realms of the multiverse, hidden away to prevent the gods from influencing it. As such, while the drow of Eberron have no knowledge of Lolth, if she found her way through the Ring of Siberys and into Eberron, she might be able to poison their hearts and turn them to her service.

Alternately, you could present both Corellon and Lolth as legendary champions from the past. Corellon could be one of the great heroes and patron ancestors of the Valenar, or one of the leaders of the Undying Court; while Lolth could be the legendary first commander of the drow, whose spirit lingers and hungers for revenge.

Ultimately, it’s a question of the story you want to tell. Do you want to preserve the unique cultures of Eberron? Incorporate Corellon and Lolth into those cultures organically? Or explore the idea of these powers just discovering Eberron and awakening hidden memories in the blood of elf and drow?
no, faerun should not be considered in regards to a weapon specific to the vaelenar elves of eberron any more than some hypothetical no magic campaign should be considered when thinking about warforged or dragonmarked races. If a GM running games in faerun wants to import this bit of eberron into their game, they can decide what & how to factor in the risks of carrying one given the realities of theirNotEberron world. Perhaps if mtof acknowledged that eberron's elves were not made by corellon & had no ties to lolth or salvatore, that sidebar might have contained advice on faerunizing those risks. Perhaps if instead of a full page about humans in different regions of forgotten realms or gobs about lolth & drizzt in the phb there was some stuff acknowledging that eberron is different from what is being presented... once again, perhaps that sidebar could have been about faerunizing it too.

The word faerun does not occur on any of the 170+ pages. The words forgotten realms only occur in the copyright. The material is wholely devoted to eberron as it should be. The in setting drawbacks are important to the weapon, just like someone trying to eberronize faerun content, someone wanting to faerunize eberron content needs to make some choices on what to shift over & how to shift it.... Unlike eberronizing faerun content, farunizing eberron content shouldbe easier since everything fits logically without needing to read 30 years of novels from salvatore & such.

There is also the fact that the "better" people keep going on about for thew dbs is pretty minimal & tradeoffs are things tat need to be considered as shown in answers people have given to kenGarff's question about the paladin.

[kenGarff]

Yes, full elf only.

I don't think there's any way DBS compares to any build with GWM in damage. GWM + advantage or triple advantage with Elven Accuracy is really good because it helps cancel out that -5. If you're not taking GWM, then the DBS + Great Weapon Fighting style, with or without Revenant Blade, is your best damage option. Doesn't matter whether it's Dex or Str, except that Dex > Str generally.

Which would use GWM and Elven accuracy? Since dex builds are the ones that benefit from Elven accuracy and not str builds while DBS doesn’t benefit from GWM or PAM, which build/weapon of vengeance would be the highest damage dealer with GWM abd Elven accuracy as you said?

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Which would use GWM and Elven accuracy? Since dex builds are the ones that benefit from Elven accuracy and not str builds while DBS doesn’t benefit from GWM or PAM, which build/weapon of vengeance would be the highest damage dealer with GWM abd Elven accuracy as you said?

If you want a Dex build, DBS is your highest-damage option on a paladin. If you want a Str build, any heavy weapon + GWM will be better.

Edit: lol i'm a dumb. This portion is still true though

[kenGarff]

If you have a reliable source of advantage, like the Vengeance feature, Elven Accuracy is good even on a Str character. You can put the attribute portion wherever it's most useful, since it can go to Dex, Wis, Int or Cha, and triple advantage makes it more likely that you'll connect with your less accurate, more damaging swings.

If you want a Dex build, DBS is your highest-damage option on a paladin. If you want a Str build, any heavy weapon + GWM will be better.

ok. I’m still not sure how you’d benefit from Elven accuracy with str. Thanks. I guess for vengeance, STR with GWM is still the way to go over all this DBS stuff

[NaughtyTiger]

Elven Accuracy is good even on a Str character.

Elven accuracy - 2nd bullet "Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, you can reroll one of the dice once."
doesn't apply to Str based attacks.

[Mister_Squinty]

I haven't seen it in the thread, but has anyone considered a Barb/Rogue combo with this thing?

From what I can tell, with the Feat, a Barb can Reckless Attack for advantage, and because the DBS is now Finesse, get sneak attack damage. That seems at least on par with the other options offered. Throw in GWF for giggles and things get scary.

[Mister_Squinty]

Elven accuracy - 2nd bullet "Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, you can reroll one of the dice once."
doesn't apply to Str based attacks.

I'm still waiting for my CON based attack... every other stat gets one.

[GlenSmash!]

Elven Accuracy is good even on a Str character.

How so? On the off chance that you are attacking with Dex, Int, Wis, or Cha?

[JoeJ]

Does the Wayfinders Guide explicitly say these options cannot be used in Faerun campaign?

Can anything at all in the Wayfinder's Guide be used in AL? (For non-AL campaigns set in Faerun it would make no sense for the guide to say what can or can't be used; that's the DM's decision.)

[kenGarff]

It really does look like vengeance with RB and Elven accuracy using the DBS is potentially better than any STR build with GWM (and PAM if polearm)

What are the subclasses that benefit the most from DBS? All rogues abd rangers equally?

[Daphne]

Can anything at all in the Wayfinder's Guide be used in AL? (For non-AL campaigns set in Faerun it would make no sense for the guide to say what can or can't be used; that's the DM's decision.)

Next AL season will be on Eberron (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/exploratory-commencement)

[JoeJ]

Next AL season will be on Eberron (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/exploratory-commencement)

Interesting. So I guess questions about what (if anything) can be brought to Faerun will all be answered.

[MaxWilson]

I haven't seen it in the thread, but has anyone considered a Barb/Rogue combo with this thing?

From what I can tell, with the Feat, a Barb can Reckless Attack for advantage, and because the DBS is now Finesse, get sneak attack damage. That seems at least on par with the other options offered. Throw in GWF for giggles and things get scary.

Barb/Rogues (a.k.a. Tarzan) have always been good. You could already Reckless Attack with a rapier. Adding Rage damage and Sneak Attack makes DBS less significant, not more. For a Tarzan, Revenant Blade competes with all the usual feats in this space. It's worth considering but there's an opportunity cost as usual.

Personally, I'd rather play a Tarzan with Defensive Duelist and a penchant for grappling/proning enemies, then stabbing them repeatedly with a rapier (which is also used to compensate for the lack of a shield, via Defensive Duelist). A two-handed weapon like DBS just doesn't work well for a grappler, and besides I don't have a feat to spare.

[Mister_Squinty]

Barb/Rogues (a.k.a. Tarzan) have always been good. You could already Reckless Attack with a rapier. Adding Rage damage and Sneak Attack makes DBS less significant, not more. For a Tarzan, Revenant Blade competes with all the usual feats in this space. It's worth considering but there's an opportunity cost as usual.

Personally, I'd rather play a Tarzan with Defensive Duelist and a penchant for grappling/proning enemies, then stabbing them repeatedly with a rapier (which is also used to compensate for the lack of a shield, via Defensive Duelist). A two-handed weapon like DBS just doesn't work well for a grappler, and besides I don't have a feat to spare.

I agree the Rapier always worked, but now there's a third attack for extra GWM/Rage damage (2d4+~16?), and the third chance to land SA. Dropping folks prone is fun, but I don't know if it's worth a third GWM attack every round.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Elven accuracy - 2nd bullet "Whenever you have advantage on an attack roll using Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma, you can reroll one of the dice once."
doesn't apply to Str based attacks.

I always forget that. Damnit. Dumb mistake.

[leogobsin]

I'm still waiting for my CON based attack... every other stat gets one.

Produce Flame on a Fire Genasi (and possibly some other Genasi racial spells, can't recall off the top of my head).

[GlenSmash!]

I agree the Rapier always worked, but now there's a third attack for extra GWM/Rage damage (2d4+~16?), and the third chance to land SA. Dropping folks prone is fun, but I don't know if it's worth a third GWM attack every round.

GWM keys off of the Heavy property which DMS doesn't have.

So this definitely won't give a third GWM attack every round.

[MaxWilson]

I agree the Rapier always worked, but now there's a third attack for extra GWM/Rage damage (2d4+~16?), and the third chance to land SA. Dropping folks prone is fun, but I don't know if it's worth a third GWM attack every round.

You can't use GWM with Double Bladed Scimitars because they aren't heavy. Without GWM, your Sneak Attack is a large proportion of your damage, so the marginal value of a third attack is lower, perhaps lower than the defensive benefits of grapple + prone. It's complicated, but they both look like viable options to me. I just prefer the grapple + prone version because it speaks to exactly why I'd be playing a Tarzan in the first place.

The point is, DBS is not a dominant option.

[Mister_Squinty]

GWM keys off of the Heavy property which DMS doesn't have.

So this definitely won't give a third GWM attack every round.

There's the part I overlooked. So until they come up with a heavy version of the DBS... probably the Urgosh again.

Thanks for getting me straight on that.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm still waiting for my CON based attack... every other stat gets one.

Play fire genasi, then.

[Arkhios]

Interesting. So I guess questions about what (if anything) can be brought to Faerun will all be answered.

One thing that comes to mind, is that you probably won't be able to play your Faerun AL characters in Eberron AL, which would be a good thing (even in a local vacuum since AL is all but dead around here).

[Tetrasodium]

I'm still waiting for my CON based attack... every other stat gets one.

Aberrant dragonmark feat keys are off con for good reasons

[Ignimortis]

I love how people complain about +10 damage per turn in the best circumstances (i.e. you spent a feat on it and have +5 ability mod) and Warforged getting full plate at level 1 being "terrifying power creep". If those miniscule numbers can actually break something, I think that the problem isn't the numbers.

Besides, as someone correctly noted, Eberron was always higher-power than the rest of settings.

[JackPhoenix]

Besides, as someone correctly noted, Eberron was always higher-power than the rest of settings.

It was not. Eberron has always been lower-power than FR and similar. Wide magic, not high magic.

[Ignimortis]

It was not. Eberron has always been lower-power than FR and similar. Wide magic, not high magic.

I wouldn't call FR high-power. It's not a high-power setting if some canon NPC can just come around and thwack you over the head for trying to do something, and FR was always the worst in that regard. Same with town guard - I do recall FR having town guard captains that have double digit levels. Not even the largest towns.

Meanwhile, there are very few high-level NPCs in Eberron...which means that if you get to the higher level yourself, you're much closer to being a dominant player in the setting if you want to. Or an army of one, etc.

[JackPhoenix]

I wouldn't call FR high-power. It's not a high-power setting if some canon NPC can just come around and thwack you over the head for trying to do something, and FR was always the worst in that regard. Same with town guard - I do recall FR having town guard captains that have double digit levels. Not even the largest towns.

Meanwhile, there are very few high-level NPCs in Eberron...which means that if you get to the higher level yourself, you're much closer to being a dominant player in the setting if you want to. Or an army of one, etc.

Ton of high-level NPCs running around is exactly why FR is high-power compared to Eberron.

[Sception]

I wish the damage was lower, but the weapon finesse by default, with the feat improving the damage instead of making it finesse. This is the signature weapon of an elven group, one that's supposed to be weird and awkward to use for outsiders not familiar with it. It seems odd to me that dexy elf builds would be worse than str based human, half orc, or dragonborn builds at using the weapon until they get to level four - or forever even, in games that don't use feats.

[Arkhios]

As Keith himself said in an interview (and wrote in WGtE), Eberron's magic is "wide", not high. Meaning that low level magic is common in everyday life, while high-level magic exists mostly in legends only. Essentially, Eberron represents what the world would look like if arcane magic had replaced technology and magic items had replaced technological items in terms of Industrial Revolution in real world.

[Galactkaktus]

I wish the damage was lower, but the weapon finesse by default, with the feat improving the damage instead of making it finesse. This is the signature weapon of an elven group, one that's supposed to be weird and awkward to use for outsiders not familiar with it. It seems odd to me that dexy elf builds would be worse than str based human, half orc, or dragonborn builds at using the weapon until they get to level four - or forever even, in games that don't use feats.

Isn't that illustrated by them being proficent in the weapon? Humans, Half orcs or dragonborns aren't.

[kenGarff]

It would have been so cool if this worked for bladesinger :(

[Raif]

It would have been so cool if this worked for bladesinger :(

Using this in an upcoming 1-20 campaign with a Bladesinger - will let you know how it goes. DM is handwaving the 2 handed restriction when Bladesong is up for this weapon only for me since he believes (and I agree) RP wise that it wold make sense to use this weapon as a Bladesinger.

Pretty stoked, it's a nice power increase, makes me think twice about using shadowblade till muuuuch higher level.

[kenGarff]

Using this in an upcoming 1-20 campaign with a Bladesinger - will let you know how it goes. DM is handwaving the 2 handed restriction when Bladesong is up for this weapon only for me since he believes (and I agree) RP wise that it wold make sense to use this weapon as a Bladesinger.

Pretty stoked, it's a nice power increase, makes me think twice about using shadowblade till muuuuch higher level.

That’s awesome! My DM already said no lol. I also think it would have been awesome for something like Eldritch Knight to be very good and synergetic with DBS but I was told by other people it is not due to competition for bonus action. Though at higher levels, EK will primarily want to extra attack with melee and forgo cantrips so maybe at that point this weapon will be amazon with as EK simply uses defensive and utility spells and then just melee attacks like 8 times lol. I can only imagine how cool EK would look with DBS and dancing and slashing amazon as he buffs himself magically!

Edit: anyways let me know how it goes! I’m trying to see what subclasses and classes other than rogues and rangers would benefit the most with this weapon!

[Sception]

Isn't that illustrated by them being proficent in the weapon? Humans, Half orcs or dragonborns aren't.

Its a martial weapon. Most any character that would want to use it will be proficient, anyway.

[hwem]

That’s awesome! My DM already said no lol. I also think it would have been awesome for something like Eldritch Knight to be very good and synergetic with DBS but I was told by other people it is not due to competition for bonus action. Though at higher levels, EK will primarily want to extra attack with melee and forgo cantrips so maybe at that point this weapon will be amazon with as EK simply uses defensive and utility spells and then just melee attacks like 8 times lol. I can only imagine how cool EK would look with DBS and dancing and slashing amazon as he buffs himself magically!

Edit: anyways let me know how it goes! I’m trying to see what subclasses and classes other than rogues and rangers would benefit the most with this weapon!

I would have assumed pretty much all fighters including EK would have loved to get this weapon and feat for their dex characters. I’m sure my gloom stalker will love it!

I also would have thought fighter, rogues, and rangers were really the only ones that would like this A LOT. I don’t think classes like Paladins really change much with the double scimitar...

[GlenSmash!]

I would have assumed pretty much all fighters including EK would have loved to get this weapon and feat for their dex characters. I’m sure my gloom stalker will love it!

I also would have thought fighter, rogues, and rangers were really the only ones that would like this A LOT. I don’t think classes like Paladins really change much with the double scimitar...

The big draw for Paladins is getting the bonus action attack without a feat (or dual wielding) That's another chance to potentially crit, and unload some double smite dice on something.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

The big draw for Paladins is getting the bonus action attack without a feat (or dual wielding) That's another chance to potentially crit, and unload some double smite dice on something.

And an additional swing with +1d8 damage at level 11.

[hwem]

Doesn’t it clash with quite a few oaths’ bonus actions features? Which oaths in particular can use this double scimitar “optimally”?

[Galactkaktus]

Its a martial weapon. Most any character that would want to use it will be proficient, anyway.

I can see clerics using it and it's extremly good for rogue elves once they have the feat. In both of those cases the proficency will be very relevant.