I usually play sling wielding kobolds but the ammunition requirement for slings is bs, this works as a great get around for that to use slings with a shield. Planning on making a champion kobold with a shield and as much ac as I possibly can get, might make him more dex based with shield master, protection fighting, still planning it out. Thrown weapon and ranged fighting works really well if you plan on using darts instead but I want him to be a frontliner, so juggling between slings and other weapons with the new sharpshooter sounds really fun. Up in your face but a +2 to hit by socking you in the face with a rock is always fun to work with
Love it! This is the kind of video I’ve been waiting for! Here’s a couple i thought of: Sap + opp attack to monster attacking your adjacent ally. Push enemy next to another+ cleave. Tactical Master (fighter 9) makes extra spicy combos: PAM+ Sap on 3 different enemies for super sticky tanking. PAM + sap+slow+push for kiting. Brutal strikes at Barb 9 with javelins, Slasher+weapon, and hamstring strike can deal -35 feet speed reduction before subclass is even considered.
Thanks! Glad you've enjoyed it. As I come to those features in the class analysis videos, I'll be talking about use cases exactly like that! -35 ft movement is nothing to scoff at!
A Thri-kreen could wield a two-handed polearm and two light weapons. With 3-5 masteries they could use vex, nick, and cleave or graze or push. You could get nick and Polearm Master bonus action attack and a reaction attack and cleave attack(s). Needs Extra Attack to work, because you need to attack with the polearm and a light weapon as part of the attack action. Fighter 1 / Ranger 5 / Druid for Conjure Minor Elementals at level 13. MAD though. Str > Wis > 13 Dex, 12 Con. Polearm Master, War Caster.
Nice video, it really helps to highlight stuff like this so it can be ruled on. In the 2024 DMG it does specifically say; "Rules rely on a good-faith interpretation" I think weapon juggling falls into exploit for me ^^
@@DndUnoptimized of course! that would be 2 interactions per turn... I NEVER allow more than one...AND you have to get a feat to prepare (don't know the word for un-sheath-ing a weapon, sorry) two weapons at a time, so totally exploit.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. There are so many cool tactics you can do when paired with other features or spells, I bet there will be some crazy fun combinations when we find them!
How about using the Battlemaster's Disarming Attack with a Push weapon (and better yet also having Crusher) to make the enemy drop his or her weapon (or spellcasting focus) while being pushed back. Then an ally can take the weapon, or the enemy has to run past allies to pick it up, provoking opportunity attacks along the way.
Oh yea! This has that kind of aesthetic covered in spades. I do really like that kind of character too and they feel really unique and usually quite smart with how they use their weapons.
Lol I just got another comment saying they'll never watch something by someone who calls it 5.5 so it's funny to get these side by side. I don't really care what is called, but I wish Wizards had given it a real name.
I like how many options there are for mixing and matching push, slow and prone effects. Push: weapon mastery, Crusher, Brutal Strike, Battlemaster, Charger Slow: weapon mastery, Slasher, Frost Goliath, Brutal Strike, Ray of Frost Prone: Topple, Hill Goliath, Shield Master, Trip Attack Imagine blasting an enemy away combining all three effects, and they have to use their already reduced movement to stand up from prone and either dash towards you, or more likely, away from you.
1000% yes! It would be so fun to do these kinds of things as a martial now. I think martials will be well beloved with their flexibility in this new version.
Ive been looking into this as alot of AOE effects also proc when a creature ends its turn there. If its knocked prone and doesnt have half its movement to stand or any of its movement to go anywhere, you moight be able to force it to end its turn in the AOE procing the effect again.
Push attacks, pole arms sentinel feat and spell effects like spike growth will be awesome!! also Push is on a ranged weapon heavy crossbow, so things like eldrich blast with that invocation and other spells are not your only ranged option to push things off a height or into lava and stuff.
Great descriptions and analysis! I’m excited to play a cleric/fighter multiclass. Whip/slow property should combo really nicely with spirit guardians and its reduced movement effect.
Glad to see a video about this! There are definitely some cool combos which is interesting, but I do sadly think it comes at the cost of making things overly complex and require a lot of extra time and tracking. The slog will most definitely get worse because of this. Personally I don’t really classify “swapping weapons in specific orders” as a “tactic” per se, but it does make Martials more useful in several ways that is good for their power, as well as give them more options than just dealing damage. So “tactic” we can call it with a technicality XD.
Yes, I think it will inevitably make turns longer. I think that having martials with great control options is a benefit that is probably worth it though. Likely, weapon jugglers will know the system really well so they don't make combat much longer, people not so acquainted with the tricks will likely stick to their one weapon so won't add much time either.
Meh, you can always opt out of that style of play, and I think most people will only employ those tactics very occasionally. The fighter is basically the only class with enough mastery to employ multiple combinations anyway. I but we'll see, maybe im naïve.
@@gloryrod86 It depends on what they want their playstyle to be. Most classes only get two masteries (I think the barbarian is the only one besides the fighter that eventually gets more) and you need a Nick Light weapon in one of your hands to start off the combos that get the maximum number of attacks. That limits how many other masteries you can apply. Topple/ cleave is still viable but that uses both your attacks with no way to get a BA attack.
Wish there was a simple power attack option to use in place of your mastery, maybe +2 damage. Not everyone wants to track status effects and sometimes your mastery isn’t necessary anyway.
@@ElJefeRules yea, there was one called Flex before which just scales the damage dice up for Versatile weapons but it got removed. Probably graze is the best for that kind of thing. Really friendly for beginners and powerful too.
Monk Quarterstaff Topple - I recently played in a one-shot with a Monk 5 with Weapon Master Feat. Four (4) Topple attempts per round doesn't slow things too much as long as you've got a focused player, ready when their turn comes around, knows their save DC, etc. So, yes, it does slow things, but it doesn't have to bad enough to be a problem.
Monks don't have weapon masteries naturally, but I can see them being pretty keen on doing 1 level dip to acquire them. Dual wielding monk with nick can do three attacks starting level 2. Level 3 (monk 2), they can flurry for four attacks. If they took their mastery via rogue dip, level 4 (monk 3, open hand) gives very good change on knocking enemy prone with open hand technique / shove almost guaranteeing a change to use that sneak attack. How about a str based monk with great sword? Once you reach the extra attack feature, the weapon juggling allows you draw great sword with first attack, stove it after second attack and still qualify to use your martial arts. Use those martial art / flurry attacks for shoves sets up easy targets for cleave. Pretty silly if you ask me.
Yes, fighter 1/monk x is probably going to be super common! Nick with them is likely the go to, I agree. Haha, great sword on the monk for that first attack is hilarious! Drawing it again would be tricky, but that first round would be really funny.
@@Miranda17137 Don't know if they updated it, but old wording of martial arts only allowed it to be used with monk weapons, something I as martial artist disagree with.
@@Miranda17137old unarmed strike rules specifically called out kicking and headbutts: "Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow" however that annoying martial arts feature and its weapon limitations that should never have been there gets in the way for RAW
The most experienced game designers are NOT at WotC. Jeremy Crawford has only been designing for about 20 years, and is pretty young looking (or has great skincare!). Chris Perkins too. And those are the senior and design leads, their collaborators (well, the ones who weren't sacked last Christmas) have less experience. The real old-heads are elsewhere in the industry. Places like Goodman Games and Chaosium
The weapon juggling brings an interesting tactical element that i like, but when you imagine a series of attacks in your mind it looks ridiculous hahaha
@@Naren25 If you hate juggling so much, the only thing you need is to make a large gap between a PC's main weapon and the rest of their golf bag. Yea you can juggle if you want to take advantage of other masteries, but is it worth the opportunity cost of losing a +2 to hit and damage? or what about 2d6 fire damage? Juggling isn't even that crazy early game since you only have 1 attack anyways, therefore by the time it becomes optimal you can easily stiffle it if that is your wish. It really isn't that much work for a DM.
It’s not two weapon fighting anymore. it’s attacking with the light weapon property. seemed like a necessary change to use thrown weapons like daggers appropriately.
It's possible if you lose the requirements of light weapon. But rapier and dagger is such a nice classic aesthetic that it should be a good option for sure!
When you were talking about the Nick property, it should be noted that the Soulknife can make 3 attacks at Lv.3 with just the Nick property. Only they need both hands available so no shield.
@DndUnoptimized first-off this is amazing! Literally every player I have that is confused on Weapon Mastery properties I send here! Secondly I wanted to ask if you've crunched the fighter numbers for a 5th level fighter making 5 attacks using the following Weapon Mastery properties + the Dual Wielder Feat. Attack 1, Target 1 - Halberd (cleave), Attack Action first attack Attack 2, Target 2 - Halberd (cleave), free cleave attack Attack 3, Target 1 or 2 - Scimitar (Nick), Attack Action second attack Attack 4, Target 1 or 2 - Short Sword (Vex), free Nick attack Attack 5, Target 1 or 2 - Longsword (Sap), Bonus Action extra attack from Dual Wielder Feat I'm like 99% sure that this works (again assuming your cleave attack hits and that there is a 2nd target in-range you can cleave onto!) But I was curious what your thoughts would be on this sequence?
Thanks for sharing! Yea, that mostly works except for the longsword. If you stow the halberd on attack 2, draw the scimitar and short sword on attack 3, on attack 4 you can stow, but can't draw the longsword for the final one RAW because it is part of the BA, not the attack action. You could do the 5th attack with the short sword again though. There are two main ways to reliably get 5 attacks per turn (without special subclasses or whatever). This is one of them, the other is to do PAM and get the BA attack with that instead of with DW. If you do PAM you can also get reaction attack and cleave that too to make 7 reasonably reliable attacks per round!
can’t you actually draw the Shortsword & Scimitar both on attack 3 because of Dual Wielder, stow one, and draw the Longsword after attack 4? but yea if you then factor in action surge…! 🙃🫠
@@davidnorris7039 you CAN potentially interpret the DW feat to allow you to draw one and stow one, but most interpret it that you draw two or stow two, not a mixture. So I guess it depends on your interpretation there.
Damage floor has been raised for Eldritch knight fighters if they dip evocation wizard 3 and warlock 3 (I reccommand fiend for near endless AoA renewal), because now, graze garantees weapon hits, warlock provides the best cantrip and evocation garantees cantrips to hit/deal half damage adding that on top of action surge is quite something. Making illusionist bracers (let's you cast the cantrip again as a bonus action) even better!
AoA is a really interesting one now. Probably won't work with continuous little bursts of temp HP, but if you can get a ton, like polymorph or circle of moon or power word fortify, etc., then it's fantastic.
Apparently, Shields no longer require an action to Don or Doff. It'll probably be as easy as using the free object interaction, which with Weapon juggling, doesn't use because they're part of the attack action. Even with Two-Handed Weapons, you can end your turn for a Shield. But next turn, you'll need the free object interaction to doff the shield to use the Two-handed weapon to attack. Alternately, you can improvise for d4 damage; perfect with Tavern Brawler.
It's true that the section on equipping/unequipping shields as an action is gone. I was going to make mention of that, but we don't know for sure how it works. The old rule was removed and it doesn't specify what the new rule is. Some people assume it is like equipping and unequipped weapons, others that it is a free object interaction. Weapon juggling is one thing, but shield juggling too? Geeze.
@@DndUnoptimizedI hate Shield juggling. There's no support for the idea you can draw or stow it as part of the attack action though. Only weapons can be equipped or unequipped in this way.
@@apjapki I agree. I don't think omission from the rules means it is drawn or stowed like a weapon. Shield juggling can be really annoying. I could see it being a tactical option where the fighter changes their style halfway through the combat because it is taking too much damage. That is a cool idea that I think should be possible and it would be nice if it didn't waste a turn. But I don't consider that juggling. Maybe they were hoping if it's vague that it won't be abused RAW, and DMs will be lenient if the player isn't trying to take advantage of it.
@@DndUnoptimized My house rules: You can't unequip a shield on the first turn (otherwise every character who can carry a shield should now do so regardless of loadout). You can either equip/unequip a shield on your turn or make an attack with your bonus action triggered by the light property. You can't do both. You can't equip a shield on any turn where you have already made an attack with a heavy weapon. I think this allows players to switch loadouts while shutting down most abuse cases.
At about 17:54 you talk about shoving an enemy 5 feet to move them from flanking you to being in a cleave position. Is that from the crusher feat which lets you move an enemy 5 feet? I would think a shove normally requires you to move an enemy further away from you.
@@DndUnoptimized This is a comment on Weapon juggling not masteries. Watching a character swap between multiple pole arms is legal and will look strange.
@@DndUnoptimized I love the masteries I do not like how they worded things and they encourage juggling it looks weird to me and breaks immersion, Enemies standing passively there as you unsheath attack, sheath, unsheath a different weapon attack with that one, sheath, unsheath again.
The obvious combo to me is nick throwing weapons. I see barbarians grabbing a throwing weapon mastery like light hammers and a heavy weapon mastery. At the start of combat a lv 5 barbarian can bonus action rage, reckless attack double throw light hammers with nick then swap to their heavy and move into melee for a charger or great weapon master boosted strike. This allows the barbarian to rage and get three attacks on the same turn. Or if they are already raging they should be able to throw four light hammers using nick, extra attack and bonus action attack from light weapon property. If the four light weapon nick attacks work the way I think they do then you can reckless attack to negate the disadvantage for throwing at long range. That would allow barbarians to attack from a range of 60ft with little consequence. The minimum damage on a light hammer would be pretty good too. The damage would be 1d4 + strength mod+ rage bonus or given 20 strength and six rage bonus 12 damage. If all four hit thats minimum 48 damage. If you add thrown weapon fighting style and charger into the mix the range becomes 57-69 damage a round with four attacks. The light hammer throwing options also apply to brutal strikes allowing you to forgo advantage on your next attack. If you toss two hammers at once only one loses reckless attacks advantage. Not sure if you can brutal strike more than once a turn but the extra d10 damage and special effects at range allow for a barbarian to have a lot of control and flexibility
Two weapon fighting for barbarians will probably be pretty good if you can grab the two weapon fighting style. With Nick but no Dual Wielder feat you can get 3 attacks and rage. On subsequent turns you can't do the bonus action light weapon attack (attack #4)unless you have the Dual Wielder feat. Barbarians reckless attack does work with thrown weapons, you are right. I think probably the best combo for them is two weapon fighting with scimitar and club for nick and slow masteries, then swap to a halberd for attack #2, do you second attack with a cleave, then bonus action PAM. That gives 5 attacks at level 5. And yes, you can Brutal Strike any one strength based attack on your turn as long as you are reckless attacking. I should have done that combo in the video! The only problem is that if you go GWM, you will forgo the damage from that on your nick attacks.
Champion Fighter can be really effective now with permanent Advantage and the extra Fighting Style By throwing as many Handaxes (Vex) as possible, and one Light Hammer (Nick). BUT only holding one weapon at a time with nothing in the other hand and so is able to benefit from: Dueling (+2 damage, per attack) Thrown Weapon Fighting (+2 damage, per attack) Two-Weapon Fighting (+ability mod, per turn) Species: Bugbear, Background Feat: Alert 17 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha Fighter 1 Handaxe:3d6+5 BA:Handaxe:3d6+2 Burst Damage: 21 DPR/4 rounds: 13 Fighter 5 Handaxe:3d6+6 (2)Handaxe:3d6+6 (3)Handaxe:3d6+6 (4)Handaxe:3d6+6 BA:Handaxe:3d6+2 Light_Hammer:1d4+2d6+2 Burst: 82 DPR/4: 38 Fighter 11 Handaxe:3d6+9 (2)Handaxe:3d6+9 (3)Handaxe:3d6+9 (4)Handaxe:3d6+9 (5)Handaxe:3d6+9 (6)Handaxe:3d6+9 BA:Handaxe:3d6+4 Light_Hammer:1d4+2d6+9 Burst: 142 DPR/4: 74 This is using average enemy AC per Lv/CR to work out chance to hit and also adding crit damage x crit chance BTW, these numbers are correct, I spent a long time making an excel document which calculates the Vex chances to hit, the different optimal attack patterns based on level and then making other versions to add in options like Hunter’s Mark etc. to compare: 1drv.ms/x/s!AhXS148YnKvBgepdjm0XqOawVhvtQw?e=VPJnqd
Nice! Champion Fighter is actually looking pretty decent! The extra fighting style can be quite useful. It DOES APPEAR that you can grab fighting styles as a feat too. The downside is it doesn't give a stat bump. Nice numbers work and thanks for running those!
I’m curious, do you think Paladins are better off using a Lance and Shield or Dual Wielding? Lance style is relatively dependent on your mount surviving so I imagine Dual Wielding is probably better in the long run.
Hmm that's a good question since Paladins have find steed built into their class now. I haven't looked at Paladin too much actually, but I would think that Shield and Lance would be a great combo especially since the lance is a regular polearm now. If your mount goes down you can drop the shield and just two handed it. Bonus actions are obviously important to them for smite, so PAM and DW are not very good synergy. Probably GWM, charger, and shield master with Shield and Lance would be my guess at the moment. Once they get their LVL 11 feature for extra damage on each attack maybe Nick is better then.
Wish you mentioned how to do the "Swords and board" example like you did with the rest, I know its nick usage but the exact order of operations is unclear
The wording of the Light property in particular not requiring you to be holding the other weapon is a confusing design choice. As the rules are currently worded, benefiting for both “dual wielding” and a shield is entirely possible. That said, I personally don’t think it’s intended, and clarification is needed for the light property in this regard. I like the idea of being able to hot swap weapons and use multiple masteries, but I think in practice it will be less common thanks both to complexity and magic items (why would I make a second attack with a different weapon when I have a flametongue, for instance).
I completely agree that it’s not intended. The Dual Wielder Feat is a good example of how poorly they word how things should work. I hope we get official clarification soon.
One key thing is daggers are thrown so even with the non attack options you can cycle the weapons in your hands. This allows you to even get dueling on every attack. While getting two weapon fighting.
Almost certainly the entire Nick property was written without any reference to dual wield feats even existing. If you compare the duel wield feat that gives you an extra attack + a stat + extra damage (longsword instead a dagger) with any other feat which typically might give you +2/+3 damage and a stat. It's clearly not the intent of it. The real intent is you can use a 1d8 longsword instead of a dagger (1d8 instead of 1d4 , +2 damage) with each normal attack (and that's it) . Any GM that allows the more powerful reading of it is insane as is anyone who doesn't use 2 weapon fighting in a such a game
Haha yea it might be something like that. It's a decent enough approximation for most calculations until you end up mixing weapons with and without vex.
@@DndUnoptimized honestly, I think it kinda still works. I recently did a simple dpr calculation for a ranger with a nick and a vex weapon, and I simply assumed a 50% chance of advantage for 2 of his 3 attacks. I think this method is close enough, at least for me. Maybe over time ill change it from 50% to something else, but i don't see myself doing anything more complex for vex dpr than changing the pourcentage around.
My guess is that the rules for for changing weapons in hand are intended to support thrown weapons in a way not seen in previous editions. I have a hypothesis that this could be really good in combination with two weapon fighting and/or monk. Why close with enemies when you can damage them from a distance?
Yes it definitely does seem to support throw weapons well and I like that. I think light weapon could have specified it needs to use the other hand and it would work for thrown just as well.
Suppose I'm playing an Eldritch knight, and I'm tier 1, and I want to play swoirds and board, BUT I also want to be able to cast shield with my reaction-- can I accomplish and how? thanks!
Shield still has a Somatic component so you need a free hand OR the Warcaster feat so you can ignore that requirement. You could end your turn every other round with an empty hand at level 5 by flip flopping between these two rounds 1. Attack and stow, draw and attack, attack and stow (nick). Now empty handed 2. Draw and attack, attack and stow, draw and attack (nick). Now have weapon in hand. Of course you'll be giving up your chance for OAs. Unfortunately, I think your best option is Warcaster or doing defensive Duelist feat and use that reaction parry instead of shield spell.
OK, this is the first time I understand Juggling. I still don't like it, but at least it's clear. Also, it looks like Juggling is the only way to make Sword and Board load outs for Fighter/Paladins keep up with the other versions of Martials damage wise? But they have crazy AC so I thought that was the exchange you were making. With the Juggle, they can be just as strong damage wise (or at least number of attacks wise).
Yea I'm not a big fan of it either. Especially with shields, but it is a legal way of doing TWF with a shield RAW. Unfortunately there isn't really a reason to NOT do it if it is allowed. I would stop that at my table.
I am very confused by the toppleing thing because it says you can draw OR stow a weapon as part of an attack. So, you have two weapons out, you want to attack and stow? Then when you attack again, you also draw a new weapon? Maybe you are right and that works, but it convoluted if nothing else. I had thought the new rule for weapons was there to enable throwing attacks and generally increase flexibility, which is long overdue. I am not so sure anything beyond that would be allowed at my table at least, but best of luck to you.
The idea is that you start with one weapon, attack and stow. That's one attack. Second attack you draw and attack. It seems very much supported in the rules and in their video on it. Thrown weapons is definitely well supported now and that's great. I'm not sure yet how much trouble this will cause across the game. It could be just fine or could be a huge headache to the community.
Nothing can increase the amount of damage from graze, and adding your cha mod to your hit chance ends up reducing damage from graze. I don't see any reason why it would increase the DC if topple either.
@@DndUnoptimized Thanks. The graze damage is equal to the "ability modifier you used to make the attack roll" so I was not sure whether that is STR-modifier + CHA-modifier with sacred weapon.
I see, you wondered if they would add together. RAW it doesn't seem to work that way. It's still a Str or Dex attack, but adding Cha to it. Nice thinking though
@@DndUnoptimized I think sacred weapon is the only feature where you can add another ability score to your attack roll. Thats why I got confused here. Pact of the Blade or True strike replace the STR-modifier with a different ability modifier. In this case the damage dealt with graze and the DC of topple change.
I don't agree that "it doesn't matter witch weapon have the nick property", it says: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property,", and you only get the that when: "That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon" (Taken from the Light rules text). Maybe i'm stupid, but I would say that makes it pretty clear that the weapon with the nick property needs to be the "other weapon"... I could be wrong..
As far as I know, there are 4 interpretations of the nick property. 1. Light attack must be made with the Nick weapon 2. Light attack must be made AFTER the nick weapon occurs 3. Nick weapon can be either first or second 4. Having the nick mastery means you don't need to even have a nick weapon equipped. As far as I know, there isn't an official ruling on it yet, but yea. I can see any interpretation except the last one being used.
I think I'm personally leaning towards number 3. I got some context clues reading the other weapon masterys. And all of them (except nick) reads "with this weapon". Besides, player choice is good in our roleplaying games 😅
Yup, grappling for unarmed strikes is really good, especially with the grappler feat. You can always pick up crusher feat for it too AND tavern brawler which is pretty decent for unarmed now
@@DndUnoptimized How do you understand the grappling/shoving rules? Is the saving throw behind an attack role, or is it omitting attack role? Does it goes like: Declaring unarmed attack Declaring grappling/shoving Stating Save DC Waiting for effect
Hmm I didn't know there were mixed opinions here. It seems like it's clear that it is NOT gated behind an attack. The rules say you can unarmed strike to Damage, Grapple, OR Shove. Then it has sections for each. Grapple section says they make a Str or Dex save vs your DC. Maybe I'm missing something.
As far as I can tell it works. It's whenever you hit with an attack you deal extra damage and cleave gives you a extra attack, so I don't see why it wouldn't work.
With some weapons, its sensible and not so absurd looking to equip and attack. But resheathing and pulling out another weapon is goofy and, at least for me, ruins immersion. Id not allow resheathing, but maybe dropping a weapon and equipping another. I like how cinematic that is, generally speaking. And it doesnt ruin immersion for me so much. Also id limit it to weapons that are being worn, just because im into slightly more realistic carrying. Like wearing a shield on the back, a bow or spear, and a sidesword, daggers here n there. But no greatsword resheathing, since realistically they cannot be sheathed, but held at the shoulder, and i think this is a cool look, in general. That's just how i prefer it. I can Def see pulling out a mace to bash a heavily armored opponent in the helm, then switching to sidesword. Im not sure how to keep it immersive combat while also keeping the level of power creep for martials, but I'm sure theres a homebrew. Sheathing curved swords, for instance, is more realistic and actually influenced the design, and has a bit more of a cinematic feel to it. Ie unsheathe->attack->immediate resheathe. That's not very easy with most straight blades. Also maybe homebrewing athletics to enable picking up a weapon quickly to attack? Idk just brainstorming.
I can definitely see a lot of homebrew rules to prevent weird juggling. It might not be a problem at all because most players probably won't think about it, but every table will be different. I think martials have gotten much stronger at lower levels, and they didn't really need a power boost then. I'm going over all the numbers slowly, so I guess I'll find out!
Hi! A bit unrelated to this video but Im releasing my own dnd youtube video soon and would like to mention you as well as use some of your concepts to analyze one of my own builds. Would that be ok?
@DndUnoptimized ive kind of invented my own way of measuring a builds power that i thought u might be interested in, apologies if my math seems off to you I just did a lot of my own calcs for this stuff. Check out the vid description for the doc with all the explainers. Also i would really really appreciate a shout out if you like the vid and thanks again 4 doing what u do
The rules for switching weapons is fine when you want to change from configuration to another, say going from two swords to longbow. But changing multiple times in a round, or changing and then changing back? Getouttahere.
Yes you are right if it's chainmail. If you have plate then it's 23. Maybe that's unrealistic for 5th level though. But it's just an example to show that your AC can get very high.
I'm not understand why you call the interaction between light/nick and dual wielder confusing. You get a choice: keep using light weapons and get three attacks. Or switch to a longsword and you can now switch away from your light/nick weapon since you still get your second attack (and you can't get out of using your bonus action for this, so nick isn't useful), enabling you to make two attacks without "wasting" one mastery on nick. So essentially the choice is between three d6 attacks or two attacks, where one attack is upgraded to a d8, say, plus you can now switch out nick for a better mastery. Not saying this is necessarily a good tradeoff, but I think the tradeoff is obvious and intentional and not something you should handwave away, unless you start houseruling stuff all over...
In 2014 it let you use a non-light weapon in your off hand, now it only lets you use a non - light weapon in your off hand for that BA attack. But it FEELS like it is meaning to let you do it with the light weapon property too, like in 2014. I think it'll be confusing to people.
2:38 Once per "turn" not once per "round". There's a difference? Once per turn means once when it's your turn to take an action I thought? Just like Monk's stunning strike can't happen again until the beginning of his "next turn". Both means when it's their turn again next round?
Yes, unfortunately there is a difference. Once per round means it can't happen again until your next turn. Once per turn means you can do it on everyone's turn during the round. But since you only have one reaction, you can really only do it twice in a round.
Cleave is kinda similar to War Caster + Eldritch Blast. Except in my combo here it's still single target. Having access to both would be incredibly Spellblady options. It's too bad Greatsword still doesn't have Reach (Even giant weapons, which you'd think would). My Dynasty Warriors dreams will still be left at the wayside.
I still don't get why Rogue got weapon masteries, but Monk didn't. Rogies already get Cunning Strikes for more tactical options, but have to use finesse or ranged (15 total if you include firearms). Monks can use any simple or light (16 total), so it seems unfair.
Rogues really need it and monks are so good now, so they don't really need it. Monks end up fantastic grapplers, so that's kind of their "weapon mastery" too.
Juggling weapons (as with everything) - depends on the player. A douche is going to be a douche whether through skirting of the rules, exploiting flavor or the patients of other players. Every player (including moi) will see their own logic as making the most sense. Ego will be the determining factor to whether that player is willing to compromise and functionally play with others or if they're better off playing a single player game.
True to dinner regard. I don't think you can have bad weapon juggling vs good. except maybe doing it with a shield or shield juggling. I think if you allow it then it's not over powered mechanically, it just gives tactical options at the cost of a small increase in players turns in my opinion. I can see people opposing it as an idea/aesthetic, and that's kind of where I fall. I can definitely see some fighters using weapons like that, but it surely wouldn't be the default thing people do in the world.
i do love weapon juggling if we keep it like it's a cinematic. It makes sense to slam my hammer down, put it on the ground and draw my sword and slashing the ennemy, in a same turn. If it's the "i'm using a light weapon and a shield, benefiting from Duelist, i'm hitting, put the sword back in its sheath, draw an other light weapon, benefiting from duelist AND dual weapon mastery, hitting with my bonus action/nick action" seems not fun. playing with the wording, in order to do weird mecanics, no cool moves. Meh, i'm passing on this one type of juggling
@@DndUnoptimized I'm being serious... on a thematic "rule of cool" standpoint, I would feel a lot better if everyone is able to just set up whatever weapons they want to use for the round, and that's it. Slight variant is switching from Melee to Ranged (or back), and I would want to declare that they actually have to drop the first weapon, regardless of what the rules say... Though I think that if you're using Thrown weapons, you should be able to equip those as part of the attack... even if you're a high level Fighter Action Surging for 8 attacks.
@guamae sure, makes sense. I think generally this will give more freedom so people don't have to do weird stuff when they want to swap things, but also gives room for constant use for multiple Weapon Masteries, and I have to believe that both are the intent.
This idea that "juggling must be intended" is silly and unfounded. Having two fighters coordinate their masteries, or one fighter having two weapons with different masteries (in different hands, no silly shield abuse), is what Crawford was talking about. Continuously switching between greatsword and greataxe, say, is so stupid and goofy looking no sane player will claim that is what WotC "intended" 5E combat to be reduced to. Asking players not to abuse the weak wording is the simple clean and obvious solution.
Actually asking WotC to clean up the rules is probably more reasonable. GM's shouldn't have to rule on players doing very basic things like hit people with 2 daggers. That's what the rules are for (and fighters are described in the handbook as the simple class to lpay)
That they left the rules this ambiguous is an embarassment. Going to houserule away the most ridiculous juggling on day 1. No you cannot dual wield into a two handed spear strike just by having the Dual Wielder feat. No you can't duel wield with a shield. WOTC created a schism in the player base for no real reason.
Weapon juggling is absolute nonsense. This kind of bullshit ruins the game. The only virtue of making a video about this, is pointing out how bad the rules system is.
If a player ever came to me saying that their character was weapon juggling to do two weapon fighting with a shield, I wouldn't just say no, I would seriously think about kicking that player out of my game. That's a player that only cares about themselves, and doesn't care about hurting the verisimilitude of the game if they get more powerful. Of course, if that's how you want to run your table, your fun is not wrong. BUT. Take it from a very experienced player and DM - it's a HUGE RED FLAG if a player wants to exploit wording technicalities (as opposed to intentional design technicalities) at your table. They are likely going to be a toxic player.
I think it makes TOTAL sense to make players actually use two hands to do two weapon fighting. I really have no idea why they removed that requirement....
Not a toxic player here. Just like min max and optimizing. But the new rules allow you to pull and stow a weapon as part of the action.so it is allowed. Usually I build my char to keep the party alive and not overshadow others.
You are so unimaginative. You can easily come up with a cool reason or way for weapon juggling to make sense in a game without ruining immersion. Flavor it as a double sided sword, or it's the same weapon but that character attacks so quickly they get two hits in. It's not difficult. How is weapon juggling so unbelievable in a fantasy world where you can literally kill people with insults using vicious mockery. Optimization isn't inherently toxic. The most optimized players at my table are also the most invested, while also bringing awesome story moments as well as being incredibly powerful in combat. As they should be in a high fantasy game. Like it or not, weapon juggling was intentionally put into the game and is RAW. You're 100% in the wrong. If you are so closed minded to the idea of working with a player who has a cool concept for a character that isn't breaking any of the rules of the game, then maybe you should go play a different system. Honestly, that theoretical kicked player is better off at a different table than playing at yours.
Love this, but the problem with weapon juggling is it ceases to work once you get a powerful magic weapon. So the designers basically made it so there is more complexity in the early game and less in the late game. They should have just let weapon masteries work for all weapons and let you select them on each attack like a cantrip.
That's very possible. Maybe they'll have a collection of magic items or they have a lower hit chance for a possibility of a new control. It'll probably make it even more annoying to keep track of. VTTs will make that easy though
LOL. "Stow" a maul. And "draw" a halberd. In my game, I don't pretend it's an MMO. Characters can only carry 1 oversized weapon... in their hands. Otherwise it's strapped to your horse. You all can play MMO style if you want, but we found it's a LOT more fun when the PCs have to (realistically) drop what they are holding to pull out a different weapon. Or a healer's kit. Do things your way - but I can strongly recommend equipment/storage/hand realism as being a lot more fun than essentially double-clicking lines from your inventory.
I'm totally with you on that, I think weapon juggling is dumb, but the truth is, they designed the game with that in mind now, and people will play 5.5 like this unfortunately. I DO really like that martials have options, but it feels wrong aesthetically and the rules are clunky too... Maybe a decent homebrew is just to let people use whatever Mastery property on whatever weapon they have. Then it's options without stupid juggling.
So unimaginative. This is the same game where you can kill people with an insult using vicious mockery... But swapping weapons mid combat? Oh My GoD hOw WiLl We EvEr SaVe ThE ImMeRsIoN!? It's RAW, bro. Get over yourself.
I would say that the "different" weapons being used are just the character using the hammer side of a poleaxe, then the axe side of the poleaxe for the cleave, then going back to the hammer side for the next attack, etc.
Haha, not really. I do cover optimization topics, but I try to think about optimization differently by calculating Control and durability for a character instead of just damage.
I still won't be happy until they give us back the power attacks. We have more ways to gain advantage, but no way to properly utilize it. We can't increase our damage in any significant way. And because single target damage was the only thing martials were ever good at, it's still a massive nerf. They need to make power attacks something that all martial classes can do. Put it at level 5, and don't tie it to any feat or weapon type. That way ranged weapons, heavy weapons, and one handed weapons will all stay balanced.
@@danritts2960 GWM still does add quite a bit of damage comparable to power attacks without adv. But yea I see what you mean, you wish you had all these sources of advantage when you needed it with the -5 to attack. Martials are still fantastic at single target damage. Better than they ever were, you can check out my series on the martials analyzing their damage output compared to 2014
Light weapon and Nick? It seems without doubt that those two work together. How else would Nick even work? Or are you talking about the Dual Wielder feat giving a 3rd attack on top of Nick/Light?
@@DndUnoptimized That is clearly absurd, its obvious just due to the power of the feat that dual wielding was written without any knowledge that nick even existed by a different person. Light weapon and and extra light attack is fine and with a feat a light attack and a longsword attack is fine. But getting 3 attacks out of it is absurd and no other feat comes even close to that in power
@@jons9721 GWM is still very good and does more damage as long as you don't use spells that deal extra damage on each attack. That's where 3/4 attacks from TWF is insane. But for a normal martial, TWF is a lot of damage at level 4 (not insane), but DW is comparable to GWM at mid levels and falls behind at high levels.
@@DndUnoptimized I guess it depends oh what levels you play at, most my games begin to peter out by about level 8/9. I think just as relevant is the level of complexity in these abilities. That more than anything makes me think that the authors haven't really understood the relationship between these abilities. Trust me no one is going to rely on base damage if you have 3/4 early attacks, you would be silly not to find as many silly ways to buff that as possible. I'm asking my GM how she reads this twin fighting rules as most my party are just going to use a couple of daggers even the wizard if this is allowed :)
I already hate weapon juggling as much as I hate rest casting. It's obviously not intended, and sounds so stupid when someone tries to justify using it.
Sorry friend, I don't like it either, but it APPEARS to be what they intended. I like the tactical aspect of it, but it is clunky even then. I do think it is going to be an integral part of the game moving forward whether we like it or not unfortunately. We can not allow it at our tables but unfortunately, that ends up being a nerf to martials.
I don’t think it requires any justification whatsoever. The rules, however convoluted they are, clearly allow it. It just feels like an abuse-case due to poor wording because it’s not very logical in how you can do all the swapping around so quick. But they purposefully made several changes to the rules that very clearly allow it to work. Whether they saw that as a possibility or not isn’t really important, it isn’t a technicality or an interpretation thing. I do however agree that it is kind of dumb and they just should have simplified the rules surrounding hand economy, rather than making it so complex that small wording changes could allow for this type of thing.
No one will be weapon juggling in my games. It’s a stupid concept that for me destroys verisimilitude. What warrior is going to drop or stow the perfectly good and functional weapon they have in their hand and leave themselves unarmed and exposed while they draw another weapon? And all in the space of 6 seconds! Just watch anyone sheathing a sword. It requires 2 hands, one to hold and guide the sheath and one to hold and guide the weapon. Don’t think you can just drop your weapons either! What warrior is going to discard their weapon in the middle of a battle! In my games all attacks made with the attack action in one turn will have to be made with the same weapon unless you are dual wielding. Yet another house rule to add to my list.🙄 I’m not against the principle of weapon mastery combos, but they will have to be performed by coordinating with your fellow players.
A Bard can bolster allies with magical Music and kill people with an insult using Vicious Mockery. But swapping weapons mid combat is too outlandish for you? How about using your imagination in a game about using your imagination. DnD is high fantasy. Go play Shadow dark if you want realism.
@@chrisg8989 It is exactly because I am using my imagination to picture in my mind the weapon juggling going on that makes the whole concept a joke to me. Magic can be used to explain a lot of things in the game of D&D, including giving the words a bard speaks power. This, like the loss of the encumbrance rules, seems to be in the realms of ‘just don’t think about it’. I’m sorry you don’t like the way I approach my game, but fortunately that really is something you don’t have to worry about.
I can definitely see this not being a thing that DMs want at their table. It feels kind of like an anime or something. There are some specific characters that it might work with, but for the majority it feels really weird. Maybe just open it up and let your players use multiple weapons masteries with the same weapon, then they can use the tactics without the weirdness.
I don't watch videos from people who call the game 5.5. If you can't get the name of the edition right why would I think you'd know anything about combat
This is a good video. I want to see a range one next.
Thanks! I don't know if that'll ever come out but I'll put it on the backlog.
I usually play sling wielding kobolds but the ammunition requirement for slings is bs, this works as a great get around for that to use slings with a shield. Planning on making a champion kobold with a shield and as much ac as I possibly can get, might make him more dex based with shield master, protection fighting, still planning it out. Thrown weapon and ranged fighting works really well if you plan on using darts instead but I want him to be a frontliner, so juggling between slings and other weapons with the new sharpshooter sounds really fun. Up in your face but a +2 to hit by socking you in the face with a rock is always fun to work with
Love it! This is the kind of video I’ve been waiting for!
Here’s a couple i thought of:
Sap + opp attack to monster attacking your adjacent ally.
Push enemy next to another+ cleave.
Tactical Master (fighter 9) makes extra spicy combos:
PAM+ Sap on 3 different enemies for super sticky tanking.
PAM + sap+slow+push for kiting.
Brutal strikes at Barb 9 with javelins, Slasher+weapon, and hamstring strike can deal -35 feet speed reduction before subclass is even considered.
Thanks! Glad you've enjoyed it. As I come to those features in the class analysis videos, I'll be talking about use cases exactly like that!
-35 ft movement is nothing to scoff at!
Great analysis! I'm really looking forward to seeing all the shenanigans martials can do with the new rules.
You and me both! It's been a long time coming
A Thri-kreen could wield a two-handed polearm and two light weapons. With 3-5 masteries they could use vex, nick, and cleave or graze or push. You could get nick and Polearm Master bonus action attack and a reaction attack and cleave attack(s). Needs Extra Attack to work, because you need to attack with the polearm and a light weapon as part of the attack action. Fighter 1 / Ranger 5 / Druid for Conjure Minor Elementals at level 13. MAD though. Str > Wis > 13 Dex, 12 Con. Polearm Master, War Caster.
Or maybe Fighter 1 / Paladin 5-6 / Druid and move the 13 Dex to Cha.
Oh Thri-kreen! They are juggling weapons before juggling weapons existed. Now they are just in another ball game.
Nice video, it really helps to highlight stuff like this so it can be ruled on. In the 2024 DMG it does specifically say;
"Rules rely on a good-faith interpretation" I think weapon juggling falls into exploit for me ^^
Totally fair!
@@DndUnoptimized of course! that would be 2 interactions per turn... I NEVER allow more than one...AND you have to get a feat to prepare (don't know the word for un-sheath-ing a weapon, sorry) two weapons at a time, so totally exploit.
Very good video, loved the tactics examples
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. There are so many cool tactics you can do when paired with other features or spells, I bet there will be some crazy fun combinations when we find them!
How about using the Battlemaster's Disarming Attack with a Push weapon (and better yet also having Crusher) to make the enemy drop his or her weapon (or spellcasting focus) while being pushed back. Then an ally can take the weapon, or the enemy has to run past allies to pick it up, provoking opportunity attacks along the way.
this is good content, followed
Thanks for the sub!
@@DndUnoptimizedi do kinda like the weapon draw mechanic, in name of the weapon master fantasy, who mastered 18 kinds of weapon
Oh yea! This has that kind of aesthetic covered in spades. I do really like that kind of character too and they feel really unique and usually quite smart with how they use their weapons.
@@DndUnoptimized which as your vid covers, they could be smart, the pushback cleave is almost the first thing i thought when i saw the masteries
Thank you for call it what it is. 5.5e
Lol I just got another comment saying they'll never watch something by someone who calls it 5.5 so it's funny to get these side by side.
I don't really care what is called, but I wish Wizards had given it a real name.
I like how many options there are for mixing and matching push, slow and prone effects.
Push: weapon mastery, Crusher, Brutal Strike, Battlemaster, Charger
Slow: weapon mastery, Slasher, Frost Goliath, Brutal Strike, Ray of Frost
Prone: Topple, Hill Goliath, Shield Master, Trip Attack
Imagine blasting an enemy away combining all three effects, and they have to use their already reduced movement to stand up from prone and either dash towards you, or more likely, away from you.
1000% yes! It would be so fun to do these kinds of things as a martial now. I think martials will be well beloved with their flexibility in this new version.
Ive been looking into this as alot of AOE effects also proc when a creature ends its turn there. If its knocked prone and doesnt have half its movement to stand or any of its movement to go anywhere, you moight be able to force it to end its turn in the AOE procing the effect again.
Yea that's true. It's possible now to force them to stay in the AOE. Barbarians can do 35 ft speed reduction per turn, so that's pretty fantastic.
Push attacks, pole arms sentinel feat and spell effects like spike growth will be awesome!! also Push is on a ranged weapon heavy crossbow, so things like eldrich blast with that invocation and other spells are not your only ranged option to push things off a height or into lava and stuff.
Great video as always!
@@apjapki thanks!
Great descriptions and analysis! I’m excited to play a cleric/fighter multiclass. Whip/slow property should combo really nicely with spirit guardians and its reduced movement effect.
Oh yea! That would be fantastic for sure. Nice idea
Glad to see a video about this! There are definitely some cool combos which is interesting, but I do sadly think it comes at the cost of making things overly complex and require a lot of extra time and tracking. The slog will most definitely get worse because of this.
Personally I don’t really classify “swapping weapons in specific orders” as a “tactic” per se, but it does make Martials more useful in several ways that is good for their power, as well as give them more options than just dealing damage. So “tactic” we can call it with a technicality XD.
Yes, I think it will inevitably make turns longer. I think that having martials with great control options is a benefit that is probably worth it though. Likely, weapon jugglers will know the system really well so they don't make combat much longer, people not so acquainted with the tricks will likely stick to their one weapon so won't add much time either.
Meh, you can always opt out of that style of play, and I think most people will only employ those tactics very occasionally. The fighter is basically the only class with enough mastery to employ multiple combinations anyway. I but we'll see, maybe im naïve.
@@gloryrod86 It depends on what they want their playstyle to be. Most classes only get two masteries (I think the barbarian is the only one besides the fighter that eventually gets more) and you need a Nick Light weapon in one of your hands to start off the combos that get the maximum number of attacks. That limits how many other masteries you can apply. Topple/ cleave is still viable but that uses both your attacks with no way to get a BA attack.
Wish there was a simple power attack option to use in place of your mastery, maybe +2 damage. Not everyone wants to track status effects and sometimes your mastery isn’t necessary anyway.
@@ElJefeRules yea, there was one called Flex before which just scales the damage dice up for Versatile weapons but it got removed. Probably graze is the best for that kind of thing. Really friendly for beginners and powerful too.
Monk Quarterstaff Topple - I recently played in a one-shot with a Monk 5 with Weapon Master Feat. Four (4) Topple attempts per round doesn't slow things too much as long as you've got a focused player, ready when their turn comes around, knows their save DC, etc. So, yes, it does slow things, but it doesn't have to bad enough to be a problem.
This is not the fix to martial-caster divide that i was looking for 😂 Time for rules-light systems!
Haha, that's fair. It definitely adds some complexity to martials and I don't mind it, but I can see other people not enjoying that.
Monks don't have weapon masteries naturally, but I can see them being pretty keen on doing 1 level dip to acquire them.
Dual wielding monk with nick can do three attacks starting level 2. Level 3 (monk 2), they can flurry for four attacks. If they took their mastery via rogue dip, level 4 (monk 3, open hand) gives very good change on knocking enemy prone with open hand technique / shove almost guaranteeing a change to use that sneak attack.
How about a str based monk with great sword? Once you reach the extra attack feature, the weapon juggling allows you draw great sword with first attack, stove it after second attack and still qualify to use your martial arts. Use those martial art / flurry attacks for shoves sets up easy targets for cleave. Pretty silly if you ask me.
Yes, fighter 1/monk x is probably going to be super common! Nick with them is likely the go to, I agree.
Haha, great sword on the monk for that first attack is hilarious! Drawing it again would be tricky, but that first round would be really funny.
As a DM I'd always allow a monk to use their martial arts / flurry of blows; you have feet, after all. Don't need the extra attack to stow
@@Miranda17137 Don't know if they updated it, but old wording of martial arts only allowed it to be used with monk weapons, something I as martial artist disagree with.
@@TheMoisku if you don't get to kick people in the face as a monk i don't understand why you'd even play the class :(
@@Miranda17137old unarmed strike rules specifically called out kicking and headbutts:
"Instead of using a weapon to make a melee weapon attack, you can use an unarmed strike: a punch, kick, head-butt, or similar forceful blow"
however that annoying martial arts feature and its weapon limitations that should never have been there gets in the way for RAW
We should not be surprised that the most experienced TTRPG designers in the space are really good at their jobs! Not perfect. But really, really good.
The most experienced game designers are NOT at WotC. Jeremy Crawford has only been designing for about 20 years, and is pretty young looking (or has great skincare!). Chris Perkins too. And those are the senior and design leads, their collaborators (well, the ones who weren't sacked last Christmas) have less experience.
The real old-heads are elsewhere in the industry. Places like Goodman Games and Chaosium
They literally just brought back martial at-wills from 4e lol
The weapon juggling brings an interesting tactical element that i like, but when you imagine a series of attacks in your mind it looks ridiculous hahaha
Fully agree. It might be some character fantasies but I doubt that's what most people imagine for their PC. It looks ridiculous imagining it
It could be fine tho, some animation could be pretty awesome and smooth
Yes. It's ridiculous. The continued videogamification of RPGs from big publishers
@@Naren25 but video games are cool isnt it? Ppl could rule it in a more realistic medieval way
@@Naren25 If you hate juggling so much, the only thing you need is to make a large gap between a PC's main weapon and the rest of their golf bag. Yea you can juggle if you want to take advantage of other masteries, but is it worth the opportunity cost of losing a +2 to hit and damage? or what about 2d6 fire damage?
Juggling isn't even that crazy early game since you only have 1 attack anyways, therefore by the time it becomes optimal you can easily stiffle it if that is your wish. It really isn't that much work for a DM.
I'm fine with weapon juggling between attacks but i don't think i would allow 2 weapon fighting with only one hand
Yea I feel the same way
It’s not two weapon fighting anymore. it’s attacking with the light weapon property.
seemed like a necessary change to use thrown weapons like daggers appropriately.
Dual Wielding Rapier and Dagger (Parry dagger that can and will be used for attacks)
It's possible if you lose the requirements of light weapon. But rapier and dagger is such a nice classic aesthetic that it should be a good option for sure!
When you were talking about the Nick property, it should be noted that the Soulknife can make 3 attacks at Lv.3 with just the Nick property. Only they need both hands available so no shield.
This is awesome
Yea the new masteries are great
@DndUnoptimized first-off this is amazing! Literally every player I have that is confused on Weapon Mastery properties I send here! Secondly I wanted to ask if you've crunched the fighter numbers for a 5th level fighter making 5 attacks using the following Weapon Mastery properties + the Dual Wielder Feat.
Attack 1, Target 1 - Halberd (cleave), Attack Action first attack
Attack 2, Target 2 - Halberd (cleave), free cleave attack
Attack 3, Target 1 or 2 - Scimitar (Nick), Attack Action second attack
Attack 4, Target 1 or 2 - Short Sword (Vex), free Nick attack
Attack 5, Target 1 or 2 - Longsword (Sap), Bonus Action extra attack from Dual Wielder Feat
I'm like 99% sure that this works (again assuming your cleave attack hits and that there is a 2nd target in-range you can cleave onto!) But I was curious what your thoughts would be on this sequence?
Thanks for sharing!
Yea, that mostly works except for the longsword. If you stow the halberd on attack 2, draw the scimitar and short sword on attack 3, on attack 4 you can stow, but can't draw the longsword for the final one RAW because it is part of the BA, not the attack action. You could do the 5th attack with the short sword again though. There are two main ways to reliably get 5 attacks per turn (without special subclasses or whatever). This is one of them, the other is to do PAM and get the BA attack with that instead of with DW. If you do PAM you can also get reaction attack and cleave that too to make 7 reasonably reliable attacks per round!
can’t you actually draw the Shortsword & Scimitar both on attack 3 because of Dual Wielder, stow one, and draw the Longsword after attack 4?
but yea if you then factor in action surge…! 🙃🫠
@@davidnorris7039 you CAN potentially interpret the DW feat to allow you to draw one and stow one, but most interpret it that you draw two or stow two, not a mixture. So I guess it depends on your interpretation there.
Damage floor has been raised for Eldritch knight fighters if they dip evocation wizard 3 and warlock 3 (I reccommand fiend for near endless AoA renewal), because now, graze garantees weapon hits, warlock provides the best cantrip and evocation garantees cantrips to hit/deal half damage adding that on top of action surge is quite something. Making illusionist bracers (let's you cast the cantrip again as a bonus action) even better!
AoA is a really interesting one now. Probably won't work with continuous little bursts of temp HP, but if you can get a ton, like polymorph or circle of moon or power word fortify, etc., then it's fantastic.
Apparently, Shields no longer require an action to Don or Doff. It'll probably be as easy as using the free object interaction, which with Weapon juggling, doesn't use because they're part of the attack action.
Even with Two-Handed Weapons, you can end your turn for a Shield. But next turn, you'll need the free object interaction to doff the shield to use the Two-handed weapon to attack. Alternately, you can improvise for d4 damage; perfect with Tavern Brawler.
It's true that the section on equipping/unequipping shields as an action is gone. I was going to make mention of that, but we don't know for sure how it works. The old rule was removed and it doesn't specify what the new rule is. Some people assume it is like equipping and unequipped weapons, others that it is a free object interaction.
Weapon juggling is one thing, but shield juggling too? Geeze.
@@DndUnoptimizedI hate Shield juggling. There's no support for the idea you can draw or stow it as part of the attack action though. Only weapons can be equipped or unequipped in this way.
@@apjapki I agree. I don't think omission from the rules means it is drawn or stowed like a weapon. Shield juggling can be really annoying. I could see it being a tactical option where the fighter changes their style halfway through the combat because it is taking too much damage. That is a cool idea that I think should be possible and it would be nice if it didn't waste a turn. But I don't consider that juggling. Maybe they were hoping if it's vague that it won't be abused RAW, and DMs will be lenient if the player isn't trying to take advantage of it.
@@DndUnoptimized My house rules:
You can't unequip a shield on the first turn (otherwise every character who can carry a shield should now do so regardless of loadout).
You can either equip/unequip a shield on your turn or make an attack with your bonus action triggered by the light property. You can't do both.
You can't equip a shield on any turn where you have already made an attack with a heavy weapon.
I think this allows players to switch loadouts while shutting down most abuse cases.
@apjapki sounds reasonable!
At about 17:54 you talk about shoving an enemy 5 feet to move them from flanking you to being in a cleave position. Is that from the crusher feat which lets you move an enemy 5 feet? I would think a shove normally requires you to move an enemy further away from you.
Yes that's correct, I'm talking about the crusher feat which lets you move them in any direction. Sorry about the confusing wording
@@DndUnoptimized No worries, it's a great video (among your best)! I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a change in the rules.
Thanks I appreciate it! And thanks for watching
board and sword wld prob feel better if there was a few types of shields like
spiked, buckler, tower, and kite
with mastery treatment
That would be pretty cool!
Juggling Glaive and Halberd
should look interesting.
Hmm why glaive? It's Graze, so doesn't pair too well with Halberd's Cleave.
@@DndUnoptimized This is a comment on Weapon juggling not masteries. Watching a character swap between multiple pole arms is legal and will look strange.
@marcducorsky8736 ah gotcha! Indeed that act of switching from one polearm to another will look quite silly.
@@marcducorsky8736Add pikes, greatswords and Mauls to the mix.
@@DndUnoptimized I love the masteries I do not like how they worded things and they encourage juggling it looks weird to me and breaks immersion, Enemies standing passively there as you unsheath attack, sheath, unsheath a different weapon attack with that one, sheath, unsheath again.
I think weapon juggling and double weapons are pretty great - I love doing loads of damage!
6:42
So you can use one hand to throw you knives at enemies as a bonus action.
Yea, the one handed knife rail gun!
The obvious combo to me is nick throwing weapons. I see barbarians grabbing a throwing weapon mastery like light hammers and a heavy weapon mastery. At the start of combat a lv 5 barbarian can bonus action rage, reckless attack double throw light hammers with nick then swap to their heavy and move into melee for a charger or great weapon master boosted strike. This allows the barbarian to rage and get three attacks on the same turn.
Or if they are already raging they should be able to throw four light hammers using nick, extra attack and bonus action attack from light weapon property. If the four light weapon nick attacks work the way I think they do then you can reckless attack to negate the disadvantage for throwing at long range. That would allow barbarians to attack from a range of 60ft with little consequence.
The minimum damage on a light hammer would be pretty good too. The damage would be 1d4 + strength mod+ rage bonus or given 20 strength and six rage bonus 12 damage. If all four hit thats minimum 48 damage. If you add thrown weapon fighting style and charger into the mix the range becomes 57-69 damage a round with four attacks. The light hammer throwing options also apply to brutal strikes allowing you to forgo advantage on your next attack. If you toss two hammers at once only one loses reckless attacks advantage. Not sure if you can brutal strike more than once a turn but the extra d10 damage and special effects at range allow for a barbarian to have a lot of control and flexibility
Two weapon fighting for barbarians will probably be pretty good if you can grab the two weapon fighting style. With Nick but no Dual Wielder feat you can get 3 attacks and rage. On subsequent turns you can't do the bonus action light weapon attack (attack #4)unless you have the Dual Wielder feat.
Barbarians reckless attack does work with thrown weapons, you are right. I think probably the best combo for them is two weapon fighting with scimitar and club for nick and slow masteries, then swap to a halberd for attack #2, do you second attack with a cleave, then bonus action PAM. That gives 5 attacks at level 5. And yes, you can Brutal Strike any one strength based attack on your turn as long as you are reckless attacking.
I should have done that combo in the video!
The only problem is that if you go GWM, you will forgo the damage from that on your nick attacks.
Champion Fighter can be really effective now with permanent Advantage and the extra Fighting Style
By throwing as many Handaxes (Vex) as possible, and one Light Hammer (Nick). BUT only holding one weapon at a time with nothing in the other hand and so is able to benefit from:
Dueling (+2 damage, per attack)
Thrown Weapon Fighting (+2 damage, per attack)
Two-Weapon Fighting (+ability mod, per turn)
Species: Bugbear, Background Feat: Alert
17 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 8 Int, 10 Wis, 8 Cha
Fighter 1
Handaxe:3d6+5 BA:Handaxe:3d6+2
Burst Damage: 21
DPR/4 rounds: 13
Fighter 5
Handaxe:3d6+6 (2)Handaxe:3d6+6 (3)Handaxe:3d6+6 (4)Handaxe:3d6+6 BA:Handaxe:3d6+2 Light_Hammer:1d4+2d6+2
Burst: 82
DPR/4: 38
Fighter 11
Handaxe:3d6+9 (2)Handaxe:3d6+9 (3)Handaxe:3d6+9 (4)Handaxe:3d6+9 (5)Handaxe:3d6+9 (6)Handaxe:3d6+9 BA:Handaxe:3d6+4 Light_Hammer:1d4+2d6+9
Burst: 142
DPR/4: 74
This is using average enemy AC per Lv/CR to work out chance to hit and also adding crit damage x crit chance
BTW, these numbers are correct, I spent a long time making an excel document which calculates the Vex chances to hit, the different optimal attack patterns based on level and then making other versions to add in options like Hunter’s Mark etc. to compare: 1drv.ms/x/s!AhXS148YnKvBgepdjm0XqOawVhvtQw?e=VPJnqd
Nice! Champion Fighter is actually looking pretty decent! The extra fighting style can be quite useful. It DOES APPEAR that you can grab fighting styles as a feat too. The downside is it doesn't give a stat bump.
Nice numbers work and thanks for running those!
why not use a shield for the AC?
I’m curious, do you think Paladins are better off using a Lance and Shield or Dual Wielding? Lance style is relatively dependent on your mount surviving so I imagine Dual Wielding is probably better in the long run.
Hmm that's a good question since Paladins have find steed built into their class now. I haven't looked at Paladin too much actually, but I would think that Shield and Lance would be a great combo especially since the lance is a regular polearm now. If your mount goes down you can drop the shield and just two handed it. Bonus actions are obviously important to them for smite, so PAM and DW are not very good synergy. Probably GWM, charger, and shield master with Shield and Lance would be my guess at the moment.
Once they get their LVL 11 feature for extra damage on each attack maybe Nick is better then.
Wish you mentioned how to do the "Swords and board" example like you did with the rest, I know its nick usage but the exact order of operations is unclear
The wording of the Light property in particular not requiring you to be holding the other weapon is a confusing design choice. As the rules are currently worded, benefiting for both “dual wielding” and a shield is entirely possible. That said, I personally don’t think it’s intended, and clarification is needed for the light property in this regard.
I like the idea of being able to hot swap weapons and use multiple masteries, but I think in practice it will be less common thanks both to complexity and magic items (why would I make a second attack with a different weapon when I have a flametongue, for instance).
Definitely true, magic items might make swapping less desirable!
I completely agree that it’s not intended. The Dual Wielder Feat is a good example of how poorly they word how things should work. I hope we get official clarification soon.
One key thing is daggers are thrown so even with the non attack options you can cycle the weapons in your hands. This allows you to even get dueling on every attack. While getting two weapon fighting.
Great point!
Now THERE's some shenanigans! Delightful. We now have a reason to throw weapons.
By their definition, those two should be incompatible
Yea I definitely wouldn't allow that at my tables, but I've seen several people do that in builds. As written it seems possible.
Almost certainly the entire Nick property was written without any reference to dual wield feats even existing. If you compare the duel wield feat that gives you an extra attack + a stat + extra damage (longsword instead a dagger) with any other feat which typically might give you +2/+3 damage and a stat. It's clearly not the intent of it.
The real intent is you can use a 1d8 longsword instead of a dagger (1d8 instead of 1d4 , +2 damage) with each normal attack (and that's it) . Any GM that allows the more powerful reading of it is insane as is anyone who doesn't use 2 weapon fighting in a such a game
Im lazy so for vex i just consider that you have advantage 50% of the time. Its close enough in my experience
Haha yea it might be something like that. It's a decent enough approximation for most calculations until you end up mixing weapons with and without vex.
@@DndUnoptimized honestly, I think it kinda still works. I recently did a simple dpr calculation for a ranger with a nick and a vex weapon, and I simply assumed a 50% chance of advantage for 2 of his 3 attacks. I think this method is close enough, at least for me.
Maybe over time ill change it from 50% to something else, but i don't see myself doing anything more complex for vex dpr than changing the pourcentage around.
My guess is that the rules for for changing weapons in hand are intended to support thrown weapons in a way not seen in previous editions. I have a hypothesis that this could be really good in combination with two weapon fighting and/or monk. Why close with enemies when you can damage them from a distance?
Yes it definitely does seem to support throw weapons well and I like that. I think light weapon could have specified it needs to use the other hand and it would work for thrown just as well.
Suppose I'm playing an Eldritch knight, and I'm tier 1, and I want to play swoirds and board, BUT I also want to be able to cast shield with my reaction-- can I accomplish and how? thanks!
Shield still has a Somatic component so you need a free hand OR the Warcaster feat so you can ignore that requirement.
You could end your turn every other round with an empty hand at level 5 by flip flopping between these two rounds
1. Attack and stow, draw and attack, attack and stow (nick). Now empty handed
2. Draw and attack, attack and stow, draw and attack (nick). Now have weapon in hand.
Of course you'll be giving up your chance for OAs.
Unfortunately, I think your best option is Warcaster or doing defensive Duelist feat and use that reaction parry instead of shield spell.
OK, this is the first time I understand Juggling. I still don't like it, but at least it's clear.
Also, it looks like Juggling is the only way to make Sword and Board load outs for Fighter/Paladins keep up with the other versions of Martials damage wise? But they have crazy AC so I thought that was the exchange you were making. With the Juggle, they can be just as strong damage wise (or at least number of attacks wise).
Yea I'm not a big fan of it either. Especially with shields, but it is a legal way of doing TWF with a shield RAW. Unfortunately there isn't really a reason to NOT do it if it is allowed. I would stop that at my table.
I am very confused by the toppleing thing because it says you can draw OR stow a weapon as part of an attack. So, you have two weapons out, you want to attack and stow? Then when you attack again, you also draw a new weapon? Maybe you are right and that works, but it convoluted if nothing else.
I had thought the new rule for weapons was there to enable throwing attacks and generally increase flexibility, which is long overdue. I am not so sure anything beyond that would be allowed at my table at least, but best of luck to you.
The idea is that you start with one weapon, attack and stow. That's one attack. Second attack you draw and attack. It seems very much supported in the rules and in their video on it.
Thrown weapons is definitely well supported now and that's great. I'm not sure yet how much trouble this will cause across the game. It could be just fine or could be a huge headache to the community.
Does sacred weapon from the oath of devotion paladin increase the damage of graze and the dc of topple?
Nothing can increase the amount of damage from graze, and adding your cha mod to your hit chance ends up reducing damage from graze. I don't see any reason why it would increase the DC if topple either.
@@DndUnoptimized Thanks. The graze damage is equal to the "ability modifier you used to make the attack roll" so I was not sure whether that is STR-modifier + CHA-modifier with sacred weapon.
I see, you wondered if they would add together. RAW it doesn't seem to work that way. It's still a Str or Dex attack, but adding Cha to it. Nice thinking though
@@DndUnoptimized I think sacred weapon is the only feature where you can add another ability score to your attack roll. Thats why I got confused here. Pact of the Blade or True strike replace the STR-modifier with a different ability modifier. In this case the damage dealt with graze and the DC of topple change.
I don't agree that "it doesn't matter witch weapon have the nick property", it says: "When you make the extra attack of the Light property,", and you only get the that when: "That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon" (Taken from the Light rules text). Maybe i'm stupid, but I would say that makes it pretty clear that the weapon with the nick property needs to be the "other weapon"... I could be wrong..
As far as I know, there are 4 interpretations of the nick property.
1. Light attack must be made with the Nick weapon
2. Light attack must be made AFTER the nick weapon occurs
3. Nick weapon can be either first or second
4. Having the nick mastery means you don't need to even have a nick weapon equipped.
As far as I know, there isn't an official ruling on it yet, but yea. I can see any interpretation except the last one being used.
I think I'm personally leaning towards number 3. I got some context clues reading the other weapon masterys. And all of them (except nick) reads "with this weapon". Besides, player choice is good in our roleplaying games 😅
What about WM for Unarmed Strikes? Sounds like the unarmed fighting style fighter gets short shrifted...
Unarmed have grappling instead
Yup, grappling for unarmed strikes is really good, especially with the grappler feat. You can always pick up crusher feat for it too AND tavern brawler which is pretty decent for unarmed now
@@DndUnoptimized How do you understand the grappling/shoving rules? Is the saving throw behind an attack role, or is it omitting attack role?
Does it goes like:
Declaring unarmed attack
Declaring grappling/shoving
Stating Save DC
Waiting for effect
Hmm I didn't know there were mixed opinions here. It seems like it's clear that it is NOT gated behind an attack. The rules say you can unarmed strike to Damage, Grapple, OR Shove. Then it has sections for each. Grapple section says they make a Str or Dex save vs your DC.
Maybe I'm missing something.
@@DndUnoptimized Thanks! Other YTers was talking about deciding after the attack roll, but I am happy to know that it is not the case.
I don't think cleave adds things like Hunter's Mark. It was changed to add extra force damage it no longer increases your weapon damage.
As far as I can tell it works. It's whenever you hit with an attack you deal extra damage and cleave gives you a extra attack, so I don't see why it wouldn't work.
With some weapons, its sensible and not so absurd looking to equip and attack. But resheathing and pulling out another weapon is goofy and, at least for me, ruins immersion. Id not allow resheathing, but maybe dropping a weapon and equipping another. I like how cinematic that is, generally speaking. And it doesnt ruin immersion for me so much. Also id limit it to weapons that are being worn, just because im into slightly more realistic carrying. Like wearing a shield on the back, a bow or spear, and a sidesword, daggers here n there. But no greatsword resheathing, since realistically they cannot be sheathed, but held at the shoulder, and i think this is a cool look, in general. That's just how i prefer it. I can Def see pulling out a mace to bash a heavily armored opponent in the helm, then switching to sidesword. Im not sure how to keep it immersive combat while also keeping the level of power creep for martials, but I'm sure theres a homebrew. Sheathing curved swords, for instance, is more realistic and actually influenced the design, and has a bit more of a cinematic feel to it. Ie unsheathe->attack->immediate resheathe. That's not very easy with most straight blades. Also maybe homebrewing athletics to enable picking up a weapon quickly to attack? Idk just brainstorming.
I can definitely see a lot of homebrew rules to prevent weird juggling. It might not be a problem at all because most players probably won't think about it, but every table will be different.
I think martials have gotten much stronger at lower levels, and they didn't really need a power boost then. I'm going over all the numbers slowly, so I guess I'll find out!
Hi! A bit unrelated to this video but Im releasing my own dnd youtube video soon and would like to mention you as well as use some of your concepts to analyze one of my own builds. Would that be ok?
Yea of course! Feel free to use anything I've done. And let me know when it's up and I'll come subscribe!
And best of luck! Message me if you ever need anything
@@DndUnoptimized ua-cam.com/video/5rZihiDLH1g/v-deo.htmlsi=m-SQIfIYx899x2GA
@DndUnoptimized ive kind of invented my own way of measuring a builds power that i thought u might be interested in, apologies if my math seems off to you I just did a lot of my own calcs for this stuff. Check out the vid description for the doc with all the explainers. Also i would really really appreciate a shout out if you like the vid and thanks again 4 doing what u do
The rules for switching weapons is fine when you want to change from configuration to another, say going from two swords to longbow.
But changing multiple times in a round, or changing and then changing back? Getouttahere.
I didn't understand your AC calculation at the end 16(chain mail )+2 shield = 18 + 3 defensive duelist (level 5 prof = 3) = 21 AC!!!
Yes you are right if it's chainmail. If you have plate then it's 23. Maybe that's unrealistic for 5th level though. But it's just an example to show that your AC can get very high.
I'm not understand why you call the interaction between light/nick and dual wielder confusing. You get a choice: keep using light weapons and get three attacks. Or switch to a longsword and you can now switch away from your light/nick weapon since you still get your second attack (and you can't get out of using your bonus action for this, so nick isn't useful), enabling you to make two attacks without "wasting" one mastery on nick.
So essentially the choice is between three d6 attacks or two attacks, where one attack is upgraded to a d8, say, plus you can now switch out nick for a better mastery.
Not saying this is necessarily a good tradeoff, but I think the tradeoff is obvious and intentional and not something you should handwave away, unless you start houseruling stuff all over...
In 2014 it let you use a non-light weapon in your off hand, now it only lets you use a non - light weapon in your off hand for that BA attack. But it FEELS like it is meaning to let you do it with the light weapon property too, like in 2014. I think it'll be confusing to people.
2:38 Once per "turn" not once per "round". There's a difference? Once per turn means once when it's your turn to take an action I thought? Just like Monk's stunning strike can't happen again until the beginning of his "next turn". Both means when it's their turn again next round?
Yes, unfortunately there is a difference. Once per round means it can't happen again until your next turn. Once per turn means you can do it on everyone's turn during the round. But since you only have one reaction, you can really only do it twice in a round.
I would go centaur + charger + push and get + 1d8 to each attack
Definitely a lot of potential in that kind of thing! Nice thinking
Cleave is kinda similar to War Caster + Eldritch Blast. Except in my combo here it's still single target. Having access to both would be incredibly Spellblady options. It's too bad Greatsword still doesn't have Reach (Even giant weapons, which you'd think would). My Dynasty Warriors dreams will still be left at the wayside.
Yea true! Cleaving as an OA with multiple attacks vs EB as an OA with multiple attacks.
I still don't get why Rogue got weapon masteries, but Monk didn't. Rogies already get Cunning Strikes for more tactical options, but have to use finesse or ranged (15 total if you include firearms). Monks can use any simple or light (16 total), so it seems unfair.
Rogues really need it and monks are so good now, so they don't really need it. Monks end up fantastic grapplers, so that's kind of their "weapon mastery" too.
Juggling weapons (as with everything) - depends on the player.
A douche is going to be a douche whether through skirting of the rules, exploiting flavor or the patients of other players.
Every player (including moi) will see their own logic as making the most sense. Ego will be the determining factor to whether that player is willing to compromise and functionally play with others or if they're better off playing a single player game.
True to dinner regard. I don't think you can have bad weapon juggling vs good. except maybe doing it with a shield or shield juggling. I think if you allow it then it's not over powered mechanically, it just gives tactical options at the cost of a small increase in players turns in my opinion.
I can see people opposing it as an idea/aesthetic, and that's kind of where I fall. I can definitely see some fighters using weapons like that, but it surely wouldn't be the default thing people do in the world.
i do love weapon juggling if we keep it like it's a cinematic. It makes sense to slam my hammer down, put it on the ground and draw my sword and slashing the ennemy, in a same turn. If it's the "i'm using a light weapon and a shield, benefiting from Duelist, i'm hitting, put the sword back in its sheath, draw an other light weapon, benefiting from duelist AND dual weapon mastery, hitting with my bonus action/nick action" seems not fun. playing with the wording, in order to do weird mecanics, no cool moves. Meh, i'm passing on this one type of juggling
Yes, I fully agree with this
I really dislike the Idea of Juggling...
Aragorn never had to sheath Andúril so he could take out a hammer to knock someone prone....
Lol I can't tell if you are serious or not, but I do agree that weapon juggling aesthetically is not what most people want in their character.
@@DndUnoptimized I'm being serious... on a thematic "rule of cool" standpoint, I would feel a lot better if everyone is able to just set up whatever weapons they want to use for the round, and that's it. Slight variant is switching from Melee to Ranged (or back), and I would want to declare that they actually have to drop the first weapon, regardless of what the rules say...
Though I think that if you're using Thrown weapons, you should be able to equip those as part of the attack... even if you're a high level Fighter Action Surging for 8 attacks.
@guamae sure, makes sense. I think generally this will give more freedom so people don't have to do weird stuff when they want to swap things, but also gives room for constant use for multiple Weapon Masteries, and I have to believe that both are the intent.
This idea that "juggling must be intended" is silly and unfounded. Having two fighters coordinate their masteries, or one fighter having two weapons with different masteries (in different hands, no silly shield abuse), is what Crawford was talking about.
Continuously switching between greatsword and greataxe, say, is so stupid and goofy looking no sane player will claim that is what WotC "intended" 5E combat to be reduced to.
Asking players not to abuse the weak wording is the simple clean and obvious solution.
Seems like most people agree it is intended, but a lot of people disagree on how it should be used.
Actually asking WotC to clean up the rules is probably more reasonable. GM's shouldn't have to rule on players doing very basic things like hit people with 2 daggers. That's what the rules are for (and fighters are described in the handbook as the simple class to lpay)
That they left the rules this ambiguous is an embarassment.
Going to houserule away the most ridiculous juggling on day 1. No you cannot dual wield into a two handed spear strike just by having the Dual Wielder feat. No you can't duel wield with a shield.
WOTC created a schism in the player base for no real reason.
"Weapon juggling" will thankfully be house ruled away.
That's fine. A lot of people don't like the idea of it.
Weapon juggling is absolute nonsense.
This kind of bullshit ruins the game.
The only virtue of making a video about this, is pointing out how bad the rules system is.
If a player ever came to me saying that their character was weapon juggling to do two weapon fighting with a shield, I wouldn't just say no, I would seriously think about kicking that player out of my game. That's a player that only cares about themselves, and doesn't care about hurting the verisimilitude of the game if they get more powerful. Of course, if that's how you want to run your table, your fun is not wrong. BUT. Take it from a very experienced player and DM - it's a HUGE RED FLAG if a player wants to exploit wording technicalities (as opposed to intentional design technicalities) at your table. They are likely going to be a toxic player.
I think it makes TOTAL sense to make players actually use two hands to do two weapon fighting. I really have no idea why they removed that requirement....
Not a toxic player here. Just like min max and optimizing. But the new rules allow you to pull and stow a weapon as part of the action.so it is allowed.
Usually I build my char to keep the party alive and not overshadow others.
You are so unimaginative.
You can easily come up with a cool reason or way for weapon juggling to make sense in a game without ruining immersion. Flavor it as a double sided sword, or it's the same weapon but that character attacks so quickly they get two hits in. It's not difficult.
How is weapon juggling so unbelievable in a fantasy world where you can literally kill people with insults using vicious mockery.
Optimization isn't inherently toxic. The most optimized players at my table are also the most invested, while also bringing awesome story moments as well as being incredibly powerful in combat. As they should be in a high fantasy game.
Like it or not, weapon juggling was intentionally put into the game and is RAW.
You're 100% in the wrong.
If you are so closed minded to the idea of working with a player who has a cool concept for a character that isn't breaking any of the rules of the game, then maybe you should go play a different system.
Honestly, that theoretical kicked player is better off at a different table than playing at yours.
This is such an extreme and overblown reaction
I'd swap to a system that doesn't allow ridiculous options. And also kick the player
Love this, but the problem with weapon juggling is it ceases to work once you get a powerful magic weapon. So the designers basically made it so there is more complexity in the early game and less in the late game. They should have just let weapon masteries work for all weapons and let you select them on each attack like a cantrip.
That's very possible. Maybe they'll have a collection of magic items or they have a lower hit chance for a possibility of a new control. It'll probably make it even more annoying to keep track of. VTTs will make that easy though
LOL. "Stow" a maul. And "draw" a halberd.
In my game, I don't pretend it's an MMO. Characters can only carry 1 oversized weapon... in their hands. Otherwise it's strapped to your horse.
You all can play MMO style if you want, but we found it's a LOT more fun when the PCs have to (realistically) drop what they are holding to pull out a different weapon. Or a healer's kit.
Do things your way - but I can strongly recommend equipment/storage/hand realism as being a lot more fun than essentially double-clicking lines from your inventory.
I'm totally with you on that, I think weapon juggling is dumb, but the truth is, they designed the game with that in mind now, and people will play 5.5 like this unfortunately. I DO really like that martials have options, but it feels wrong aesthetically and the rules are clunky too...
Maybe a decent homebrew is just to let people use whatever Mastery property on whatever weapon they have. Then it's options without stupid juggling.
So unimaginative.
This is the same game where you can kill people with an insult using vicious mockery...
But swapping weapons mid combat?
Oh My GoD hOw WiLl We EvEr SaVe ThE ImMeRsIoN!?
It's RAW, bro. Get over yourself.
I would say that the "different" weapons being used are just the character using the hammer side of a poleaxe, then the axe side of the poleaxe for the cleave, then going back to the hammer side for the next attack, etc.
Is the channel name supposed to be satire?
Haha, not really. I do cover optimization topics, but I try to think about optimization differently by calculating Control and durability for a character instead of just damage.
I still won't be happy until they give us back the power attacks. We have more ways to gain advantage, but no way to properly utilize it. We can't increase our damage in any significant way. And because single target damage was the only thing martials were ever good at, it's still a massive nerf. They need to make power attacks something that all martial classes can do. Put it at level 5, and don't tie it to any feat or weapon type. That way ranged weapons, heavy weapons, and one handed weapons will all stay balanced.
@@danritts2960 GWM still does add quite a bit of damage comparable to power attacks without adv. But yea I see what you mean, you wish you had all these sources of advantage when you needed it with the -5 to attack.
Martials are still fantastic at single target damage. Better than they ever were, you can check out my series on the martials analyzing their damage output compared to 2014
I think your clutching at straws, a DM that allows your to do you light weapon and nick combo is an idiot (personal opinion).
Light weapon and Nick? It seems without doubt that those two work together. How else would Nick even work? Or are you talking about the Dual Wielder feat giving a 3rd attack on top of Nick/Light?
@@DndUnoptimized That is clearly absurd, its obvious just due to the power of the feat that dual wielding was written without any knowledge that nick even existed by a different person. Light weapon and and extra light attack is fine and with a feat a light attack and a longsword attack is fine. But getting 3 attacks out of it is absurd and no other feat comes even close to that in power
@@jons9721 GWM is still very good and does more damage as long as you don't use spells that deal extra damage on each attack. That's where 3/4 attacks from TWF is insane.
But for a normal martial, TWF is a lot of damage at level 4 (not insane), but DW is comparable to GWM at mid levels and falls behind at high levels.
@@DndUnoptimized I guess it depends oh what levels you play at, most my games begin to peter out by about level 8/9. I think just as relevant is the level of complexity in these abilities. That more than anything makes me think that the authors haven't really understood the relationship between these abilities.
Trust me no one is going to rely on base damage if you have 3/4 early attacks, you would be silly not to find as many silly ways to buff that as possible.
I'm asking my GM how she reads this twin fighting rules as most my party are just going to use a couple of daggers even the wizard if this is allowed :)
I already hate weapon juggling as much as I hate rest casting.
It's obviously not intended, and sounds so stupid when someone tries to justify using it.
Sorry friend, I don't like it either, but it APPEARS to be what they intended. I like the tactical aspect of it, but it is clunky even then. I do think it is going to be an integral part of the game moving forward whether we like it or not unfortunately. We can not allow it at our tables but unfortunately, that ends up being a nerf to martials.
Good thing I get to decide if that works in my games or not.
It's definitely one of the first homebrew rules I will implement. 😁
I don’t think it requires any justification whatsoever. The rules, however convoluted they are, clearly allow it. It just feels like an abuse-case due to poor wording because it’s not very logical in how you can do all the swapping around so quick. But they purposefully made several changes to the rules that very clearly allow it to work. Whether they saw that as a possibility or not isn’t really important, it isn’t a technicality or an interpretation thing. I do however agree that it is kind of dumb and they just should have simplified the rules surrounding hand economy, rather than making it so complex that small wording changes could allow for this type of thing.
No one will be weapon juggling in my games. It’s a stupid concept that for me destroys verisimilitude. What warrior is going to drop or stow the perfectly good and functional weapon they have in their hand and leave themselves unarmed and exposed while they draw another weapon? And all in the space of 6 seconds! Just watch anyone sheathing a sword. It requires 2 hands, one to hold and guide the sheath and one to hold and guide the weapon. Don’t think you can just drop your weapons either! What warrior is going to discard their weapon in the middle of a battle!
In my games all attacks made with the attack action in one turn will have to be made with the same weapon unless you are dual wielding. Yet another house rule to add to my list.🙄
I’m not against the principle of weapon mastery combos, but they will have to be performed by coordinating with your fellow players.
A Bard can bolster allies with magical Music and kill people with an insult using Vicious Mockery.
But swapping weapons mid combat is too outlandish for you?
How about using your imagination in a game about using your imagination.
DnD is high fantasy. Go play Shadow dark if you want realism.
@@chrisg8989 It is exactly because I am using my imagination to picture in my mind the weapon juggling going on that makes the whole concept a joke to me. Magic can be used to explain a lot of things in the game of D&D, including giving the words a bard speaks power. This, like the loss of the encumbrance rules, seems to be in the realms of ‘just don’t think about it’.
I’m sorry you don’t like the way I approach my game, but fortunately that really is something you don’t have to worry about.
I can definitely see this not being a thing that DMs want at their table. It feels kind of like an anime or something. There are some specific characters that it might work with, but for the majority it feels really weird.
Maybe just open it up and let your players use multiple weapons masteries with the same weapon, then they can use the tactics without the weirdness.
@@DndUnoptimized don’t fighters get this ability at higher levels anyway?
Somewhat, but it's not all Masteries, just 3.
I don't watch videos from people who call the game 5.5. If you can't get the name of the edition right why would I think you'd know anything about combat
What name do you prefer? Fifth edition 2024/5 ruleset? I really wish they gave it real game so the community didn't have to guess like this.
I dislike when people refer to it as the 2024 version. It feels more natural to say 5.5 since having had 3.5 since 2003.
this comment gotta b satire LMAOOOO LIKE NO WAY UR FR 😂😂😂😂😂
@@DndUnoptimized I like "5.24". Feels very appropriate to how much they really changed and also the year they changed it.