I want to make a Dex based Ranger with this Feat but . . .
I noticed by RAW you can use Two Rapiers? (Well that seems stupid!!)
By the rules I could choose to use two Long Swords correct?
But then I would loose the Finesse feature and need to rely on str instead of dex.
Is this how you read it? Any like the wording here? is there a way to keep the dex concept and still get the d8? or do we have to wait for Elven Thinblades? 
Wish I had more time to type here. please give me your thoughts on this topic.
If you want to attack using Dex and Two-Weapon Fight using a d8 weapon, you're pretty much limited to Rapiers right now.
If the aesthetic of two rapiers bothers you, I'd recommend describing them as whatever kind of sword or weapon you want, as long as they follow all the rules for a rapier there should be no conflict with the written rules. Note that, aside from possibly a basket hilt guard, I don't see a huge difference between a "fat" rapier and a "thin" D&D or fantasy "longsword."
Yep Dual wielder means you don't have to use light weapons (which cap at D6 damage) so you can duel wield two rapiers or longswords or battle axes or warhammers. Hell a mix of the two if you want to keep your weapon
I think anyone who has picked both a real longsword and a rapier would argue that duel-wielding either is fairly stupid. But this is a fantasy game and Gygax had some choice words about people who whine about lack of realism
http://community.wizards.com/content/blog/4023721
Dual-wielding 3 1/2 foot long swords is now a iconic fantasy troupe.
As it is, if you want to keep the Dexterity focus and finesse quality then you are restricted to rapiers for D8 damage.
But you could always use the stats of a rapier and describe it as something else, and give it a cool new name like the stabbinators or Widowslayers.
*Edit: SNAP!*
Offensively dual wielding is a pretty unrealistic trope in general outside of specific martial arts.
Nivek_Loneshadow wrote:
Illithidbix wrote:
If you go for style, you can always fortfeit one rapier and get a short sword for the second hand, since dueling with two weapons are with a long blade for mainly offense and a lighter, short blade to deflect the opponent's blade for defense. Might work out better for magic weapons, too, since there are some real cool short swords (like the Luck Blade) out there. ;)
Illithidbix wrote:
In response to those of you who doubt dual-wielding:
[shrug] I can duel quite well with a rapier in each hand. Done it more times than I can count. I prefer rapier and dagger, because the long-dead Italian whose book I study prefers it. But "case of rapier" is relatively easy to master and specifically covered in historical treatises on the use of the sword.
Dual-wielding two medieval arming swords* is more difficult. You need a good bit of strength to pull it off, because the cuts you use with arming swords require a completely different technique than case of rapier. But I've done it, I know people who do it and do it well (a heck of a lot better than me! :D ). It's not even so hard that I'd think it necessary to burn a feat to do it. It's integral to good swordsmanship.
Dual-wielding is one of those areas where the designers neither tried it themselves nor investigated the real possibilities. They thought about it, which is good, but their logic, while sound, is trumped by tangible reality. 
* Gawd, I hate the term "longsword." A real "longsword" is what D&D used to call a "bastard sword" and what D&D calls a "longsword" is really an "arming sword."
As Gungolphus points out, "Case of Rapiers" was a genuine thing, although I've heard it suggested that its primary advantage was that it confused other people, rather than that it was a particularly effective fighting style in and of itself.
Gungolphus wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
You're right. It was a mistake of me to equate realism and balance. It's hard for me to keep out of my mind stuff like that. I'll try to make a point of that in future.
I always find it so incredibly weird that people focus on the "realism" of something in a game where you can transform into a bear, turn invisible, or have a god answer your prayers directly. If somebody thinks it's fun to have their character run around with a sword in each hand, or a hammer or an axe, or whatever, trying to play the "realism" card is just plain silly in a game that has little to no realism to begin with.
Jell_Moo wrote:
Gungolphus wrote:
Dual wielding quarterstaffs is a bit questionable... as would, in different ways, dual wielding whips. Both would take some cinematic wuxia-style combat I guess.
Back to real swordplay: my son does Kendo and for many of the people who use two swords I would be more apt to call the second sword a shield by game mechanics; as it serves a defensive purpose and they are not attempting to attack any more than normal.
I suspect that part of the issue here is one of secondary game mechanics.
In historical combat arts, the way you fight with two weapons is to attack with one and do something else with the other, but in historical combat arts, you're fighting an opponent who can be reliably killed or incapacitatied with a single solid blow.
Dual-wielding in RPGs works a lot more like (and I acknowledge that I am going to lose all my credibility for using this analogy) combat in a rubber-swords LARP. LARP dual-wielders do tend to use their two weapons to attack fast, because LARPs tend to use hit-points based combat systems, so the best way to win a fight is to hit an opponent repeatedly.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
I find it incredibly unlikely that you find it difficult to imagine wielding a quarterstaff in one hand..... Martial artists do it all the time, and so do a lot of children who pick up a 4-6ft stick and swing it one-handed (spinning and twirling it to generate inertia and momentum).
I find it extremely plausable for someone to perform similar actions with two quarterstaffs, although instead of alternating its trajectory across the front of the persons body in alternating X-shaped patterns, they would most likely perform such actions with only one of their quarterstaffs (keeping the second one in a readied position for a quick strike), or spin both quarterstaffs at their side.
The former situation is most likely, and is consistent with the TWF rules - with the "readied" quarterstaff only being used when taking a bonus action attack, while their "primary" quarterstaff is kept in constant motion, and benefits from Extra Attacks (if any).
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Jell_Moo wrote:
Seraphex wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Flail does exist withing the game. Martial melee, d8 bludgeoning. Nunchaku are probably closer to clubs though.
I must admit, I have trouble visualising fighters being able to dual-wield quarterstaves as well. Possibly because when peoiple talk about martial arts doing it, they are either talking about techniques which simply endf with one hand on the staff or flashy display spinning. I just look at those display spins and imagine how a simple block will end up with the staff dead in the hand, with the opponent unlikely to allow you the time or distance to build up momentum and start spinning again.
Kalani wrote:
Great read guys, I'm loving the conversation on real vs D&D and how you guys view the weapons. The only thing I have to add is that I get a good giggle when people don't like the Monk class because they don't think it's realistic to punch out a dragon.
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Captain_Kobold wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
To be fair, that often is dealt with by magic (there's a reason that Bags of Holding are such a staple).
Although maybe I'm just very old-school, but PCs in my games do tend to have beasts of burden for exactly that reason.
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Thoughts_My_Aim wrote:
Kalani wrote: