I'm struggling with this one issue right now, and I'm really having a hard time with it. I really want to like 5E, but this is the kind of problem that really turned me off to 4E (which, likewise, limited the weapons with which rogues could sneak attack). If this has already been addressed somewhere, feel free to point it out to me, but I did look before I posted this.
Rogues start with proficiency using longswords. Rogues also start with a sneak attack power. However, rogues can't use their sneak attack with longswords - or with any non-finesse simple weapons (e.g., clubs, greatclubs, maces, quarterstaves). What is the rationale for giving rogues this range of weapon options and then giving them a power that doesn't work with some of their allowable weapons?
(And please, don't tell me that I'm free to houserule this away. That only works if I'm the DM.... And if there's an actual reason for doing it this way, then a houserule would be potentially game-breaking.)
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
aljergensen wrote:
Goober4473 wrote:
Overpromises wrote:
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
I understand why the change to the system was made, but I too prefer the rogue to be able to sneak attack with any weapon with which they are proficient. For instance, one of my favorite characters to play in 3rd edition was human fighter/rogue for the insane skills and feats and my setup was always a greatsword (I like rolling multiple dice, plus I have some casino dice for just such a purpose, and in 4th edition I tend to run a maul) and sticking with the "tank." It's a really fun character to roleplay as well because you're capable of being very sneaky and you wield a giant weapon, so when you appear out of nowhere and start waving around a greatsword beacause you can, shanking people in the spine, people tend to react exactly the way they are supposed to; very afraid. It's a great, intimidating kind of character to play, and while I like the idea of using sneak attack with such a character, I'm currently sufficing to play a Fighter Spy who wields a greatsword and ninjas about with great weapon fighting as my pretend sneak attack, then of course I'll eventually get extra attack, and that'll be better, but still, I'd really enjoy multiclassing to rogue and getting actual sneak attack.
Rules-wise though I think a feat sounds prohibitive, but compared to 3rd where I was effectively spending levels to get that ability (I tended to split levels equally because skill mastery was stupid broken), I think a feat isn't so prohibitive considering. However, In order to accomplish the same greatsword/sneak-attack combo available to anyone of 2nd level, no additional feats required, you'd still have to pick up a level of a class that had greatsword proficiency in order to take advantage of a feat that might allow using SA with weapons outside of the current SA requirements, so in total you're spending 2 levels and a feat (1 rogue, 1 other, 1 feat) to achieve a combination readily available upon achieving second level in a previous edition.
Further, while it sounds broken to allow someone to pick up sneak attack on any weapon they're proficient with, assuming a 20 level cap (as of yet that's all there are rules for) the fighter can never achieve their 3rd extra attack, and so they're in effect giving up (assuming greatsword again) 2d6(rr1&2)+str+enhancement to get an additional d6 per turn (since there are no indications as to being able to gain additional reactions, this results in a total +2d6 to attacks that hit, per round, assuming they get an at-op, and hit with it), so unless they invest a minimum of 5 levels of rogue, they're actually losing damage to gain flavor (3d6 SA at lv 5 rogue, 2x round for 6d6 total if they're lucky), except at low levels where from what I've read lethality is high (meh), where they're getting an extra d6, maybe twice a round. I don't see this as particularly game-breaking, even if you ruled that greatweapon fighting would allow re-rolls of the sneak attack dice (which, RAW, I think you would, but even as a player I wouldn't complain if you couldn't because I'm still getting sneak attack, and that's perfect for my spy archtype).
Thematically I think it's appropriate, realistically I think it's appropriate (you're at minimum 2nd level, so you have experience to help you notice when to exploit openings, you have the training to properly use the weapon, it's not unrealistic to assume that you would know when to best hamstring someone or strike them as they think to run past you quickly before you can heft your giant weapon around), and as far as game math is concerned, I don't find the combination particularly over-powering.
Considering the lack of additional options to flavor your character's combat style I think that SA with proficient weapons is completely appropriate. This allows for much more character customization, lets players feel as though they've found something "powerful" to use, but really isn't all that great (y'know, 1/turn limit and all) considering the mid and end game, and is just downright cool.
Please note: I don't expect any of this to sway anyone, I'm just throwing my two cents in, and I have not considered combinations of other class abilities tied in to gaining x levels of any particular class, only the relevant combat features.
TLDR: SA on GWfighter with GSword loses damage until 5 level investment in rogue is made, plus SA with GSword is cool and RPy.
I have to admit that I thought it was ridiculous. Upon further consideration, I see that the present concept seems more aligned with a precision based strike. While it's nice to fantasize about a greatsword or longsword being used in an overtly precise manner, it is not really compatible with the historical application of the weapon.
The longsword and greatsword, by name, were nearly the same weapon. What we consider a greatsword in D&D was known as a "true two-hander" that didn't really show up until the renaissance. In combat, the application of the weapon was intended to be precise, but not in the way that you would imagine an assassin's stealthy cut would be against a tiny artery. The most precise striking that was taught in manuals was the eye-strike – and many combatants died in this manner.
The rules seem to drag me towards a more "realistic" adventure system, where the 4th Edition seemed to enjoin with the idea of a comic adventure, MMORPG, or anime fantasy, and 3.5 was a great mixture of every genre I could imagine. When I say "realistic" I do not mean something that could literally walk into this planet and be accepted by the world as normal. I mean something where physics and human limitations are expected; the limit to a 20 in any score is a return to the maximum functionality of a humanoid in any condition.
I avoid speaking on mechanical balance wherever I can because I do not play an RPG because it is balanced. I play it because the rules make me feel like I could walk out of my living room and live/die by the rules of the game if magically transported to the adventure world. I hypothesize that there will be feats or builds to allow all weapons to be used for this, but even then it is a stretch for my imagination. A larger concern of mine is that the two-weapon fighter cannot wield a Rapier and Dagger in as much equality as a dual shortsword fighter would (Meaning Rapier/Dagger cannot get 2 attacks per turn). Granted, this is a turn towards a recognition of the Florentine style of combat, where you wielded two of the same weapons - typically light weapons - such as handaxes.
All in all, it will be interesting to see how it is presented with subclasses and feats.
See, now I just want body shot targetting again.
/dream
Valid points, Joe.
(My personal thoughts) : Why the rules were put in place for ranged or finesse weapons?
Shinanigans with sneak attack cantrips for extra scaling damage. Discussions of glaive rogues being better than shortsword rogues. Leave room for a brutal scoundral subclass.
Was it in "The Gamers" that a rogue used an arbalest for a backstab/sneak attack?
BatFett wrote:
People who want to sneak attack with greatswords are the problem with D&D today and everything I loathe in a player.
ivstin wrote:
akaddk wrote:
joe.bonar wrote:
akaddk wrote:
LupusRegalis wrote:
Adding the longsword to the rogue's list of weapon proficiencies is a trap in my opinion. You get the option to use an item that doesn't allow you to use your most basic class feature; it's a trap. It might be a relatively obvious trap, but it's still a trap.
It also breaks immersion and makes players stop and scratch their heads. If a player stops and scratches their head in puzzlement; it's generally not a good thing. It's not the end of the world, but it's not good. I feel the same way about giving the Dex based elf proficiency in the Str based long sword. It makes you stop and wonder why...
Why? The appeal to traditions. No other reasons really can think of. Its prolly why its thrown in even if it doesn't mechanically sync well with the race/class.
A simple footnote saying that it "count as a finesse weapon for you" would have went a long way to fix it though.
RCanine, I disagree with you but I can respect your opinion. I just happen to feel that the Rules have to justify themselves, otherwise they're simple 'game constructs' and serve no purpose, IMO.
That the Rules for this edition use You know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction is just another way of expressing one of the many ways to gain a sneak attack. Surprise, precision or 'subtle strike', it all comes down to hitting your foe when he's unprepared. To me, that can be done with any weapon, with the right circumstances and training. Hell, I could make an argument that using Subtle in this manner actually includes both Surprise and Precision in it's meaning. There are so many situations where someone can attempt to backstab, blind-side, cold-**** or ambush someone that restricting it as is currently done, just makes no sense. Weapons aren't the key to that, Circumstance and Ability are. Otherwise, it's just game mechanics meant to enforce a niche trait, and I weed those out whenever I can.
And I agree, Proficiency and Subtlety are not the same things, and I didn't allude otherwise. I was simply implying that Proficiency was the gateway, and a character needed to have it to take advantage of an opportunity to Sneak Attack. A type of Pre-requisite, if you will.
BTW, I totally get what you mean by Bagpipes being Unsubtle, in general. I have heard some very old Dirges played on the pipes however, that are both slow and subtle in quality, and more powerful for it. Very different from the complex, fast-paced music many like Albannach and Blood of Cu Chulainn use in most of their albums.
As to Akaddk,
You're obviously living in your own little fantasy world there, or are suffering from Revisionist History. Look at Gygax and Arneson, who even after collabarating, had entirely different Houserules and definitions of how the game should be played. It's been like this since the beginning of the game. Everyone, everyone, changes the game to suit them better, and they've been doing so since D&D was introduced. No one's corrupted the game, you just don't agree with how others interpret things. That's your problem, not theirs.
Just a quick note. On the halfling pre-gen that comes with the D&D Starter Set the mechanics of Sneak Attack says the following: "Once per turn, when you hit a creature with a Dexterity based attack..."
I wonder if that is better wording than, "the attack has to be with a finesse or ranged weapon"? Of course that's just something printed on a pre-gen, but it seems worded a lot clearer that way.
As far as the longsword goes, so what if you can't Sneak Attack with it? Imagine a rogue with a longsword in one hand an a dagger in the other: attack with the sword for your action, then as a bonus action attack with the dagger and get Sneak Attack. Sure you won't get your Stength bonus to the dagger attack but that doesn't impact Sneak Attack damage anyway, and you did get your Strength bonus with the longsword attack. That seems like a cool rogue to me.
Trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct and has been removed from this thread.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
abanathie wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
RCanine wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Interesting that the bard proficiencies are the same as the rogue's. They may have just decided this is a thematic group of weapons to give to characters of this sort.
I don't know how often they do this kind of thing, but I'd still really love it if someone from the design or development team could post a quick (or, better yet, lengthy and extensive) comment explaining the thinking behind this issue. This new edition very consciously looked backwards at previous editions, choosing what to keep from 4E and what to revive from previous editions, so I would be surprised if this was not a conscious choice on the part of the development team.
As I was reading the thread, some comments stood out. Like these two, in back-to-back posts:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Baring the possibility of a typo, I still don't see the problem with the longsword. From a role-playing point of view it seems like the type of weapon used by people that don't rely on magic (rogues, fighters, etc) and is commonly available. Sure it may not allow for the rogue's most basic class feature (Sneak Attack) but only from a mechanical optimization stand point. Maybe a rogue doesn't want to look like a rogue ("He's only carrying daggers and a rapier! Look out for sneak attack!").
Everything doesn't have to be mechanically optimal in order for it to be thematically appropriate. For example, an archer-style fighter would be proficient in both crossbows and longbows (which makes sense), but most people would choose the longbow to take advantage of the extra attacks at higher level. The crossbow can't take advantage of multiple attacks but it still "feels" like something a fighter would know how to use effectively. Likewise the longsword can't take advantage of sneak attack but it still "feels" like the kind of weapon a rogue would know how to use.
Game mechanics-wise, the long sword is a versatile weapon and the rapier is a finesse weapon, implying that the longsword is somewhat heavier or bulkier than a rapier. However, they do the same damage in one hand. There is almost no effective difference between wielding a rapier and longsword in one hand, aside from the advantanges granted by the rapier's finesse quality (and the different damage types). One possible reason to limit sneak attacks with the longsword is because it is in fact versatile, which would allow a rogue to sneak attack with a two-handed weapon, which may be mechanically too advantageous or at least thematially strange.
Rogues (or thieves) having longsword proficiency is just part of D&D at this point, similar to the way that wizards have had clubs, staves, darts, and daggers since AD&D. How many wizards use a club as their primary weapon? They're still able to do so, though. I did throw lots of darts at people in 2nd edition.
Mike Mearls made a tweet earlier this week to the effect of "any weapon with d6 damage or lower should be ok for sneak attacks when considering game balance." Rapier and certain ranged weapons (longbow) may be special exceptions to allow for slightly stronger attacks.
As an aside:
I know the longsword in D&D is (and has been) a slashing weapon, but historically, I think most straight swords with a tapered tip, especially the longer ones, were more for stabbing and possibly bludgeoning people, as I don't think the lengths of the blades were often sharpened.
2Chlorobutanal wrote:
Maybe if we change the name Sneak Attack to "Precise Strike" or Finesse Weapon Strike.
It's interesting how conversations get hung up on the semantic rather than syntactic.
At least we aren't getting hung up on the pragmatic semiological aspects.
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
It's also quite possible that they know there is a TWF feat going in that allows you to have a non finessable weapon, and gave the rogue more than one option to use as that weapon.
Well, as 2chloro pointed out, the great weapon fighting style would seem to apply to sneak attack dice. That would get pretty strong pretty fast, so I think its a very practical reason to keep SA restricted to one-handed, non-versatile weapons.
I'm fine with it the way it is. I don't want to get into situations where the 'best' weapon for a theif is a great axe. I don't want another weapon using class where halflings are the 'wrong' choice for race.
RenoGM wrote:
It's just not that broken, because even when assuming 20 character levels, in order to potentially come out ahead on damage dice per round (not counting static modifiers) you have to invest 3 levels in rogue, losing you a fighter attack (for -2d6+str) to gain the potential for 4d6+0, but only guaranteeing 2d6+0 per round, but losing out on static bonuses on those dice, so again, I reiterate, it's not about abusing mechanics, it's about adding style to a character in a system which (as of right now) has limited options.
Ok, sure, on one attack at low levels you can get 3d6+str (two if you're lucky) which can, if attacking a player, probably kill them when they are dying, otherwise, is not much extra damage considering a 2nd level fighter (vs the 1fighter/1rogue) can simply get a whole extra attack, with static bonuses, so we're comparing, potentially, 6d6+2xstr vs 6d6+3xsstr. Yes, the rogue has to hit less, and yes the fighter can only action surge once per short rest, but I don't really see this as that big of a deal. Mid to end game you're really not breaking the game unless you go mostly rogue, but then a pure rogue is going to have better sneak attack and will be able to get Stroke of Luck because if you were able to SA with any proficient weapon, you'd only need to invest one level in fighter and pick up a stupid amount of bonuses... I'm thinking for fighter it's not so great, but for rogue, GWF is pretty broken...
Man... now I'm torn.
(I'm leaving the rest of my post up as explanation of how I got to my current position [which is that I don't think it should be allowed because a rogue primary build would get stupid good bonuses from a single level of fighter] in case it is useful to anyone else... I feel kind of dumb for not even thinking of how it would affect a rogue primary character mechanically...)
Yes, rogue X/fighter 1 is the potential issue. You'd get GWA, the proficiencies, and hey, second wind never hurts 
It's likely that Paladin 1 or ranger 1 would have the same issue.
jaelis wrote:
Cleric 1 doesn't give Great Weapon Fighting though, that is the potentially unbalanced effect.
(Turns out Paladin 1 doesn't either, but Paladin 2 does.)
I'll just point out that in the playtest sneak attack allowed any weapon, but scaled to 7d6 at level 20. In D&D Basic, it restricts it to lower damage weapons but scales tp 10d6 at level 20. It scales faster now, but you can't use any weapon you want. It's not like Rogues didn't get anything out of the trade.
jaelis wrote:
Valheru_Blade wrote:
Sorry for jumping in late on this thread but.... With a Rogue using sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient with. Feat. WP Great Sword = Can now Sneack behind a target and do Sneak attack damage?
My take and Long Sword is Sneak attack is only if you have advantage over target.. What happens to character damage dealing when the rogue looses advantage? Use a more damageing weapon...
<<<<Rolls stealth to hide>>>>>
jaelis wrote:
Daedalus1969 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
You will most likely be able use 1 non-light weapon when two-weapon fighting with the Dual Welder feat like in the playtest as the feat made it into the PHB as shown in a recent Legends & Lore
Plaguescarred wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
No only Warrior and Rogue can TWF in AD&D sorry.
2E PHB Attacking With Two Weapons: A tricky fighting style available only to warriors and rogues is that of fighting with two weapons simultaneously.
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I'm not saying it's a good rule or that house ruling fixes it, no need for Oberoni. I'm just confirming what the rule is for 5e... you did put a question mark.
Personally, I'd say that if two short swords are balanced, then so is rapier+dagger. I guess they didn't provide for that because they thought it would get too complicated.
abanathie wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
Ah you see, you're missing the big picture... TWF weakening at high levels is what keeps the Dex fighter in check
I don't know if that is really true, but I do think it kind of works. For equal DPR, you'd be an idiot not to play a Dex based fighter IMO.
But that is all a separate question from rogues... they get a lot of benefit from TWF (two chances to land SA) but at a significant cost (bonus action). That sounds fair to me.
What would a Rogue be doing using a longsword, anyway? Use a rapier, it lets you attack with DEX and deals the same damage die. And lets you Sneak Attack.
Anyway, I think it's a good idea for a Rogue to keep an off-hand weapon when the situation is favorable to make that attack versus Dash/Disengage/Hide, giving him that option. He certainly doesn't lose anything from doing so.
For the Fighter, however ... yeah, definitely a trap.
Amusingly, TWF is probably most effective in the hands of the Paladin, War Cleric and Valor Bard. Paladin due to Improved Divine Smite and all his buff spells that add their damage to all hits. War Cleric gets most of the Paladin's key buff spells as Domain spells, and the Valor Bard can poach Paladin buffs via Magical Secrets.
Polaris wrote:
jaelis wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
What is the bonus action for fighters you're worried about? There is second wind, but that isn't so often.
jaelis wrote:
jaelis wrote:
Case in point:
TWF Fighter (Champion) Lv. 11, 2 shortswords or scimitars, +9 (DEX 5, Prof 4) vs. AC 16
4 * (.6 (3.5 + 5) + .1 (7 + 5)) = 25.2
Duelist Fighter (Champion) Lv. 11, rapier, +9 (DEX 5, Prof 4) vs. AC 16
3 * (.6 (4.5 + 7) + .1 (9 + 7)) = 25.5
My point is that the TWF fighter gets better init, better dex saves, stealth, and cheap armor. If you want DPR go THF, thats not what TWF is about.
If battlemaster uses a lot of bonus actions, that will be unfortunate IMO.
jaelis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Funny but given the choice between one attack of 2d6+mod and two attack of d8+d6+mod (and before all class abilities the 'mod' number is the same), I'd take the first over the second. Why? Because there are a ton of things (well maybe less than a ton but a lot of good choices) that I will want to use my bonus action for and I can do that with the 2d6+mod option and I can't with the TWF option and eventually that difference is decisive. That's my take and I'm sticking to it 
Edit PS: Furthermore if you calculate the DPR over levels, outside of the lowest levels, even d8+d6 eventually loses out over other fighting styles (in DPR anyway) which is a big reason I'm not buying the balance argument.
-Polaris
moes1980 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
And I have no idea why it quoted Polaris several times...
jaelis wrote:
GladiusLegis wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Plaguescarred wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
moes1980 wrote:
How do the numbers not support it? If we just look at the base of it, no feats or class features, being able to dual wield with a regular weapon beats out great weapon if your damage dice are d6+d8 compaired to 1d6 for each.. Yes, you have to hit both times to get both dice, but this balances out with the great weapon which is an all or nothing each round. The d6/d6 TWF does half damage but attacks twice as much compaired to the great sword so it's basically the same until you bump one of those dice up to a D8. Now, it gets all kinds of confusing with class features feats, etc. but all else equal, bumping the d6 to a d8 makes that a better option than great weapon fighting. I agree that it's not a game breaker, and many wouldn't have noticed it, but it is what it is.
Personally, I don't care if you can dual wield with a medium weapon off the bat. But it seems clear that it does add more balance to the game, even if it's only a bit. It might also be worth considering that even if it's just a one point difference, that means the feat is roughly a one point boost in damage, plus probably a one point boost in AC (going off last playtest doc). This balances it against the option of picking an ability score boost, which might give a plus one to hit and damage, or plus one to hit and damage and plus one con. That means that in bounded accuracy a plus one might be a bigger deal than it was in previous editions. After all, the profecency bonus only improves by 4 points over 20 levels so it might be more important than we realize to sit on top if these bonuses to prevent power creep.
Polaris wrote:
I think you should be able to sneak attack with any one-handed weapon or a ranged weapon. I would also stipulate that you cannot sneak attack while two weapon fighting since only one attack per round could benefit from a sneak attack I don't see how you could only have enough precision for one attack but not the off hand. That seems to be the case for rogues since they never get multiple attack like fighters do. It also preserves the fighter's edge in attacks. The rogue is not trying to overwhelm his foe with a flury. He is waiting to pounce and make that single attack count.
moes1980 wrote:
Polaris wrote:
durntaur wrote:
Polaris wrote:
I am not sure if this is a hold over from 4th edition thinking, but I have to point out that not ALL options a class has have to coincide nicely with the features of that class. Why does the rogue have a longsword proficiency?
Other than the potential use with the two weapon fighting feat and a finesse weapon in the off hand, it provides them with options that may crop up in the future.
Caught by the city guard and brought to the jails? After you pick that lock, you can lift the longsword off the sleeping guard and be servicable with it until you can get your hands on something more fit to your talents
Your rapier is doing nothing to that undead? That +1 longsword you just found might do the trick for that fight
Got knocked unconcious and the enemy kicked away your daggers when you fell prone? The archer fighter's backup longsword can work in a pinch until you can get your own weapons back.
One of things I am most happy about with this edition is a return to not everything boiling down to just optimal mathematic constructs.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Seems hard for me to fathom that anyone would feel 5e was restricting TWF more than 4e did. In 4e you couldn't benefit from two weapons at all without a feat or a power. In 5e, anyone can quite effectively. And if you compare the 4e to the 5e feat, the 5e feat gives everything the 4e feat did, and more. (Assuming it comes out something like the playtest version.)
Even if you compare to 3e where yes, anyone could fight with rapier and dagger, it was a terrible option without the feat. At least in 5e any character can be effective with TWF without any extra investment, and at the cost of the feat, you are way better off than any previous version.
The +1 bonus to damage simulates the fact that you are not really taking a single attack in a round. The single attack roll is an approximation of dodging parrying back and forth. After all, rounds take place over the course of 6 seconds. You watch two people fence and tell me they only swing their weapon to attack once every 6 seconds, they are constantly tapping swords looking for a good opening.
The +1 bonus to damage simulates an additional minor 'slice' with the offhand weapon when an opening presents itself. Thus, thematically, Polaris is correct.
This is also why the monk's "Flurry of Blows" isn't a separate attack mechanically, but bonus damage or other effect that 'just happens' when you land a hit. Thematically it's a separate attack or series of attacks.
Plaguescarred wrote:
Additional static damage is not the same as making an attack with your main hand & off hand during an action, which is what TWF is. Very few powers (mainly ranger and fighter) out of thousands could let you attack with both as a standard action and not all 4E characters could use them, just a few classes could. (or high level half-elf via Twin Strike)
shivafang wrote:
jaelis wrote:
shivafang wrote:
I think you're shifting the goal post here, we're discussing what the ability does and not the name. Comparing the ability to TWF of all prior edition to the 4E feat of the same name is is desingenious IMO as the Two-Weapon Fighting feat doesn't actually let you do two-weapon fighting at all (as in multiattack) in addition, 1E/2E ability are not even called the same so that doesn't make any sense to argue on name instead of effect....
Also, If use feat Polaris point becomes completly null, since using the 5E feat Dual Welder let you fight with a 1H weapon and a dagger, which was the base of its complaint as you couldn't do in the first place.
I was big into Rules Q&A on 4E section too and often the question of attacking with two weapons during same action was being asked (or TWF), and the answer always was you can't unless a power (i.e Twin Strike) specifically let you do so (which not all characters can do)
Two-Weapon Fighting
Prerequisite: Dex 13
Benefit: While holding a melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls with your main weapon.
I am doing no such thing. Even if you didn't have the feat, you could always hold a normal one handed weapon in one hand and a 'light' weapon in the other, even in 4e and for some characters there was even a reason to do it regardless of specific powers {see Hexblade for one and rhythm daggers}. Yes in 4e TWF was more restricted than any other edition, but it was the SAME for all characters. I also think it's not kosher to compare the 4e feat to the 5e one (that hasn't even been officially published) because the 4e feat doesn't cost attribute increases and was a RAW option for all 4e games, while the 5e feat does cost attribute increases and won't be allowed at all 5e tables.
The point being is that the restriction about using a normal one-handed weapon while dual wielding is simply not supported by DND history, the fantasy fiction on which DND is based, or even by actual history. Any fool can (and too often did) pick up a normal sized sword (longsword or in Rennessiance Italy...rapier) and a dagger (or hachet/hand-axe) in the off-hand. That same was true in DND until now.
-Polaris
A halfling wizard could fight with a longsword in one hand and a morning star in the other while wearing full plate without getting any feats. Anyone can weild two weapons.
Of course he would only get one melee attack (he could pick the weapon) since he does not meet the requirments for using his bonus action to take an attack with his 'off hand' weapon. He would also not get his proficiency bonus on his attack rolls since he is not proficient with either weapon, and he would attack at disadvantage because he is not proficient in his armor (and he can't cast spells).
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Sure anyone can hold the two weapons but they won't get the benefit from them. In 4e, anyone could put a parrying dagger or rhythm blade in their off-hand and benefit from it. Likewise ANYONE could TWF with a normal weapon. Now as 4e defined that style of fighting, you had to take a feat to 'twf' at all, but any character could do it and could do it with a normal sized weapon.
My criticism of 5e in this regard is that the rules are both too lenient and too restrictive at once. It's too lenient in that actually fully attacking with two weapons at once is hard. In fact it's very hard [something all prior editions recognized in one form or another]. However, it's too hard in that the primary hand should be able to hold a normal one-handed weapon. Not only does it match DND from prior editions, but it also matches both the fiction on which DND is based as well as historic sword styles.
There is no reason why you should not be able to use TWF as defined in 5e and not have a normal (non-light) weapon in your primary hand. It doesn't unbalance the game (I've shown this), and it's not consistant (dare I say) with the spirit of DND.
-Polaris
Polaris wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I too think 5E has good and open TWF rules as well. To resume; (correct me if i miss anything)
1E: Any character can, but can only use dagger/handaxe in offhand with stiff penalties (-4/-2; reduced by DEX Reflex adjustment)
2E: Onle Warrior and Rogue character can but must use a small weapon in offhand with stiff penalties (-4/-2; reduced by DEX Reflex adjustment)
3E: Any character can with any weapons 1H weapon but has stiff penalties (-6/-10; using light weapon in the offhand reduce penalty by 2)
4E: Only character classes having access to powers letting you multiattack can, usually using an offhand weapon in offhand
5E: Any character can but must use light weapons in main hand/offhand.
Polaris wrote:
So what Polaris is saying is that this is the first time that a character who could TWF at all was restricted in his choice of main hand weapon.
Yes. I agree.
I don't find that to be particularly troublesome, myself. I do think rapier+dagger should work. I don't think rapier+shortsword should work without the feat. All just IMO.
But that's the rub isn't it? In 3e and 4e, you could say "take the feat" because all tables and DMs could reasonably be expected to allow feats and all characters had them at first level. [It may or may not be a good idea, but feats were standard and available].
That's not true anymore which IMHO completely takes away the 'but you can take the feat' argument. Those feats won't always be there to be taken since by the rules not all DMs will (or have to) allow them. That's setting aside the +2 attribute opportunity cost for said feat even if they are.....
-Polaris
Plaguescarred wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
Polaris wrote:
kanageddaamen wrote:
Personally i would have preferred if TWF was restricted to d4 weapons (which means giving the light property to less weapon) but otherwise leave the main hand to allow any 1H weapon (usually 1d8)
So it'd be 1d8/1d4 vs 1d6/1d6 basically.
Then allow a feat to dual wield another 1H weapon, so Drizzt can continue to shine!
Plaguescarred wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Polaris wrote:
Without doing the math, I'm going to just eyeball things and say that I think dual wielding d6 weapons (non-feated 5e TWF) with no attack roll penalty is better than trying to use a d8 + d4 or d8 + d8 even with the legacy edition versions of TWF.
Maybe it doesn't seem as cool as dual wielding those bastard swords using the rules from Complete Fighter, but without any feats or features offsetting the penalties of TWF (including the reflex adj.), I think dual short swords (with no attack penalty) is probably the best baseline incarnation of TWF as far as actual combat effectiveness.
Anyone who wants to recreate the style of a big weapon + small weapon will most likely be perfectly able to do so for the cost of one feat.
Come on folks! The point here is that you cannot TWF a d8 weapon without, possibly, a feat. That's balanced and easy to understand.
Having read through 75 new posts, and many examples of how D&D used to work, I can only surmise that there at many Ghost in the Machine as far as the 5e rules are concerned…
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Polaris wrote:
E-Tallitnics wrote:
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
5th Edition has replaced the attack penalties or feat necessity with a weapon property limitation; so what? How does that make it any different than any other edition; which changed the way TWF fighting worked, in ralation to the previous editions.
House rule it, if you don't like it.
Polaris wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Easy houserule.
If you want to TWF without following the normal restrictions, you can, but then you lose your proficiency bonus for any attacks, because you are not using the weapons as you were trained to use them. The feat obviously negates this penalty because it represents the fact that you specifically trained in this combat style.
Karnos wrote:
MrHotter wrote:
Brom_Blackforge wrote:
There will eventually be an Eladrin/High Elf feat that makes longsword a finesse weapon.
Eric888 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
RCanine wrote: