Community

Jan 27, 2013 -- 3:41PM, BlackPearl wrote:

In the D&D next manual it states: "Dual Wielding: When you wield two weapons at the same time, you can attack using both of them using a single action, provided that one of them is a light weapon. You take a -2 Penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon's damage dice to determine its damage, you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

I interpret the ruling that you have a -2 to to both attack rolls, and you only add your ablility mod to a single heavy weapon or a light weapon, if wielding two light weapons.

I understand needing to clarify this sentence, but doesn't the "," after "You take a -2 Penalty to both attack rolls," separate the intent of the rule?  (I'm asking, I'm not an editor).

I don't think the Dual Wielding Feat does anything but let you use 2 Medium weapons and treat the 2nd medium weapon just like it was a light weapon, or you don't get to add ability mod to one of the weapon's damage die. 

I think your new wording of the rule is excellent and a big improvement.

Jan 27, 2013 -- 4:05PM, BlackPearl wrote:

Jan 27, 2013 -- 3:54PM, chuck80 wrote:

You always take the -2 on both attacks, wether you use 2 light weapons or one light and one medium.

If you weild a medium and a light weapon, the light one does not have your strength bonus 
if you weild 2 light weapon, one of them does not add your strength bonus. In that case, you get to choose which one.

The dual weild feat allows you to use 2 medium weapons (you still need to choose which one gets the strength bonus and which doesn't)

I personally believe you're right on the medium and light weapon, the light one does not have the strenght bonus. And the choosing of the light weapon strength modifier.

I disagree on the "you take -2 on both attacks regardless." because if both weapons are light, 1 of them is not limited by both the strength modifier and attack roll. Because they are conjoined sentences.

However, the fact that the rule states that "only one is limited in this way" implies that only damage limitation is being discussed. The -2 is a penalty to the attack, not a limitation on the weapon.

EDIT: Plus, the sentances are conjoined at the semi-colon, so the second "sentance" or thought is separating the combined thought of the first "sentance" of the conjoined sentances. Therefore the backward reference should be interpretated as referring to the last, or most recent, "sentance" of the conjoined sentances.

Jan 27, 2013 -- 4:05PM, BlackPearl wrote:

If the section read: "You take a -2 Penalty to both attack rolls. You use only the light weapon's damage dice to determine its damage, you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)." Then that would be correct. The way its written right now means that if you wield 2 light weapons, you get to choose which 1 is not limited by: "You take a -2 Penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon's damage dice to determine its damage, you add no bonuses to it."

I also disagree on the dual wielding 2 medium weapons. There is no light weapon, therefore there is no light weapon to suffer the "no bonus str." condition, therefore, both weapons will get the +str bonus.

I agree that this rule's wording is open to interpretation (too many interpretations). I believe the spirit of the rule both: applies the damage limitation to the off-hand weapon and  assumes/implies the light weapon (when using one non-light weapon and one light weapon) is always the off-hand weapon.

EDIT: Also, don't forget that the rule states "no bonuses" to damage; meaning any Ability Score bonus, Feat bonus, Magic bonus, etc.