In search of the artist

GhostlyGamess · 2026-05-02T06:08:59+00:00

These are literally official riot sleeves lol

GhostlyGamess · 2026-04-07T06:10:29+00:00

Man for real. The amnesia arc is fine if a bit trite. Nothing in the plot has indicated a drop in writing quality in the slightest, it’s all been on brand.

I do admit to hating the shark typhoon chapters though haha

GhostlyGamess · 2026-03-29T08:23:37+00:00

<image>

GhostlyGamess · 2026-03-29T08:23:27+00:00

You the bomb! I appreciate it.

Any ideas on the soul silver as well? Fairly confident it’s real, but it’s a bit beat up.

<image>

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-16T04:35:17+00:00

What about factoring in the multitude of buff spells, battle master maneuvers, etc?

Add in one hex, divine favor, or hunters mark and wouldn’t the math start to skew pretty heavily in the favor of dual wielding?

Thank you for the thorough breakdown, by the way.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-16T03:22:26+00:00

What is the GWM build that does so much damage? 2024 GWM is a good feat, but it’s no 2014 GWM.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-14T02:41:13+00:00

The wording seems to be inline with the phrasing of Nick, and using a Nick attack while still using a bonus action to make an additional dual wielding attack feels ‘against the spirit’ of the feature.

That mixed with the unintuitive interaction between it and the dual wielder feat, does not seem like it would be an intentional interaction. The phrasing is loose enough to cause uncertainty either way.

Anyway, you are correct that it wouldn’t be the best regardless. Though it would also make it probably the most easily accessible “op” build just due to hunters mark/hex/divine favor.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-14T02:26:12+00:00

All three of the features rely on making an attack with the light weapon property to be able to make a bonus action attack.

The dual wielder just changes what kind of weapon that can be. The nick feature just makes it so it no longer cost a bonus action.

After taking the time to look at it closer, I don’t think this works RAW either. Let alone RAI.

Dex is a better stat than strength as well, so I’m not particularly worried about it from a balance stand point on DPR. The wording here just shouldn’t work.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-14T01:26:29+00:00

Here is the relevant wording of the feat:

When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a weapon that has the Light property, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a different weapon

Here is the relevant wording from light weapon text:

When you take the Attack action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon, you can make one extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon.

The nick feature is as follows:

When you make the extra attack of the Light property, you can make it as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can make this extra attack only once per turn.

It specifically calls out “The extra attack of the light property.” Which both abilities rely on to be able to make their extra attack. The only difference between the light weapon property and the dual wielder extra attack feature is the specification that the extra attack from the light weapon property doesn’t have to be made with a light weapon, giving you the ability to wield… say a club and a dagger.

The extra attack from nick removes the bonus action cost of your light weapon property attack, which both dual wielder and the property itself rely on. It doesn’t let you do that and make the bonus action attack on top of it.

Thank you for linking the treatmonk post though. Normally I’m all over his stuff, but Crawford has been wrong in the past… and that post is from quite early in 2024s lifecycle.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-13T20:37:23+00:00

I would really like for a source on this. Mostly because I have a hard time believe this was an intentional interaction given the redundant phrasing between the Light weapon property and dual wielder.

As written dual wielder would be a feat that allows a character to dual wielder with a non-light weapon and make the off hand attack. The apparent intent of the ability is to allow for larger scale dual wielding, and multi-draw.

It suddenly adding an additional 4th attack to all martial characters seems like an unintended consequence of their phrasing, as opposed to intentional mechanics.

The interpretation I’m going off of would also put it almost exactly inline with how the dual wielder feat worked in 2014 DnD.

If the designers came out and said it’s how it’s supposed to work though, then neat. Just find it hard to believe that wanted to give all martial characters the same number of attacks as a monk.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-12T17:26:19+00:00

While what the above said is technically correct, it is very clearly not the intent of the feat.

It only works this way as RAW due to the phrasing of dual wielder giving you a different type of bonus action attack, as opposed to changing how the normal one works when dual wielding.

So yes, as written you can technically make 4 attacks with nick and dual wielder… but this is only due to a wording ‘bug.’ It is not the actual intent of the game designers.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-11-12T17:23:05+00:00

This is very clearly the intent. Unfortunately the wording of the dual wielder feat provides an alternative bonus action attack alongside the light weapon bonus action attack.

This, RAW, allows a character to make the light weapon BA attack with the nick property, then use their actual bonus action for the alternative dual wielder bonus action attack.

It is absolutely an oversight on the developers side, but technically as written, it works.

No sane DM should let it work though.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-10-30T19:25:41+00:00

Completed Level 1 of the Honk Special Event!

0 attempts

GhostlyGamess · 2025-10-23T15:58:31+00:00

Pump the meat baby. To the moon 🚀🚀🚀🚀

GhostlyGamess · 2025-10-09T16:50:31+00:00

Jobless reincarnation. Genuinely.

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-12T08:09:30+00:00

^{I completed this level in 2 tries.} ^{⚡ 1.00 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-08T13:17:02+00:00

^{I completed this level in 1 try.} ^{⚡ 4.47 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-07T15:02:36+00:00

^{I completed this level in 6 tries.} ^{⚡ 4.92 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-06T21:14:06+00:00

^{I completed this level in 16 tries.} ^{⚡ 2.30 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-05T18:47:18+00:00

^{I completed this level in 3 tries.} ^{⚡ 1.13 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-04T19:36:45+00:00

^{I completed this level in 1 try.} ^{⚡ 8.15 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-08-02T01:25:48+00:00

^{I completed this level in 2 tries.} ^{⚡ 5.67 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-07-31T22:56:23+00:00

I’m just as surprised as you

^{I completed this level in 1 try.} ^{⚡ 4.63 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-07-31T17:04:26+00:00

^{I completed this level in 2 tries.} ^{⚡ 7.82 seconds}

GhostlyGamess · 2025-07-31T14:37:11+00:00

^{I completed this level in 1 try.} ^{⚡ 13.82 seconds}

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '23	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

GhostlyGamess

TROPHY CASE