WordWavr #41 2/6 🌊
🟢 97%
🟢 100%
https://wordwavr.app/

There are three things in the rules that I’m aware of that talk about fighting with two weapons:

1. There is a subsection in the basic rules called Two-Weapon Fighting. These are the base rules for anyone using two weapons (BA attack without ability modifier, must use light weapons)
2. There is also a fighting style called Two-Weapon Fighting available to fighters and a couple of specific subclasses (Swashbuckler has that option, I think). This fighting style allows you to add your ability modifier to the off-hand attack.
3. There is a feat called Dual Wielding (Player’s Handbook) that grants additional bonuses: the weapons don’t have to be light, a +1 AC bonus, and you’re able to draw or stow both weapons at once.

To be fair, the official D&D rules call it “Two-Weapon Fighting”. Not sure if it’s to avoid this confusion.

Identical weapons are what I typically picture in that scenario, but it makes sense mechanically to allow different types (especially with a rapier/dagger combo being a thing in a lot of fantasy, and probably historically? I dunno).

Yes, I’m aware what the rules say. And those rules specify that an unarmed attack is one option when doing a melee attack. And there are other rules that specify when you can make a melee attack. OPs post was noting the weirdness of D&D, in that there are some things that aren’t explicitly specified in the rules. Specifically, whether using two fists counts as dual-wielding (RAW, it doesn’t).

According to the rules, characters can make a melee attack when performing the Attack action (plus in a number of other cases). Most of the time, the Attack action involves one or more attacks with a weapon (martial classes get more than one starting at level 5).

So any weapon attack can be substituted as an unarmed attack. A character wielding a greataxe who can normally make two attacks with the Attack action could substitute one or both of those attacks with kicks, elbows, or for flavor, releasing the weapon with one hand and bitchslapping their opponent.

The question isn’t whether someone wielding other weapons can make an unarmed attack, it’s a question of when. More specifically, when can a character use a bonus action to make an unarmed attack.

The rules also contain information about dual-wielding weapons:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

OP’s post calls out that fighting bare-fisted would not qualify as two-weapon fighting, and thus RAW a character fighting unarmed could not use a Bonus Action to make an additional attack (despite “wielding” two fists).

My point was that, as a GM, I would rule that fighting unarmed, or fighting with a single one-handed weapon and not having a shield, would qualify as being able to make an additional attack with a bonus action per the two weapon fighting rules.

But per the rules, landing an unarmed attack in this scenario would result in a maximum of one (1) point of damage, as the Str modifier would not be added to the damage (unless the character had some other benefit that improved it, such as a class feature or feat). So there’s no reason to not allow it, as it’s a pretty weak option.

As far as I remember the rules, unarmed strike damage is 1 + Str modifier (i.e., a 1d1 damage die). And anyone untrained in unarmed strikes (not monk, not having the Tavern Brawler feat or similar) couldn’t add their prof bonus to the attack roll. This makes it significantly weaker than a proper dual wielding build or something like PAM, where the attacker typically gets a proper damage die and prof bonus. Which is why it doesn’t seem like a big deal to allow it.

Unarmed strikes can be done for flavor with kicks, elbows, etc. But mechanically I’d allow it as a proper bonus action if the character were wielding a single weapon without a shield. Anyone can describe anything however they want for flavor, I’m just talking about balancing the action economy.

In BG3, you have to multiclass into rogue for the off-hand attack. But yeah, I think it would let you “dual wield” with a single light weapon.

I can’t imagine too many scenarios where allowing someone who is wielding a one-handed (or versatile) weapon and nothing in the off hand to have a bonus action unarmed strike to be game-breaking. Seems like an easy call to me.

It’s cute when people think Google cares about scams. They’ll let any number of scams through as long as they get their cut.

In one sense, nothing is “free of politics”. Should your tennis club allow black people to join? There was a day and age when allowing them to join would have been considered a bold political statement. The rules and decisions your tennis club make are inherently political, whether you think of them that way or not.

That being said, more specific to software licenses, the question is whether we should be using verbage that restricts FOSS from being used for unethical purposes (such as military weaponry). There are cases to be made for and against that, and so far, it would seem most FOSS licenses tend toward a less restrictive policy.

So the “political” question in software licenses is: does it make sense to add restrictions in an attempt to promote societal well-being, or do we stick with the “free”-er approach? Both have political and societal ramifications.

This is a reasonable take, though I don’t feel the same way.

OoT felt like an open world game at a time when those largely didn’t exist (some did, but not really on console). The gameplay was still somewhat linear, but it felt like there was a lot of freedom compared to a lot of other games at the time. As a kid, I spent hours just exploring. I’m guessing this has something to do with its popularity at the time.

OoT in 2K at 200fps is great for the nostalgia kick!

I always preferred 8 and 9 over 7. For some reason, the characters in 7 never held my interest as much as in other games, and the gameplay was pretty basic for an RPG of that age.

The fetch quests were particularly disappointing for me, given the history of Elder Scrolls games (cough cough Morrowind cough). I didn’t mind the combat system (being able to equip anything in either hand was an improvement over previous games), but much of it did feel the same.

Sounds like someone was butthurt because they didn’t get to play as Oddjob…

Fucking Oddjob.

It was very pretty, and the soundtrack deserved the praise it received. Nothing too innovative about the gameplay though, and the story was good but typical for this genre.

That being said, I did enjoy it a lot. But that gameplay style is one of my favorites, so the visuals and music were just perks.

Bob Dylan was loved for his song writing. People didn’t love his voice or his playing, but they loved hearing him in spite of his voice because his songs meant so much.

The most popular versions of his songs were often recorded by other folk groups.

They’re among us. You never know who might be a bot. Even… you!

None. You can just use a car.

Regular circuits: “What’s that? You want to hack me together with a breadboard from 1963 and a hodgepodge of old telecom wire and misc parts? Sure, sounds great!”

DSP circuits: “Being more than 2mm from the IC makes me feel icky :(”

Not specifically with a DE15 (for that I’d just chop up an old VGA cable), but I work with a lot of proprietary connectors. Some of the connectors are scarce, and sometimes we just wire them manually if the work isn’t too extensive.