Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[ClaytonCross]

I don't want to interfere with that. I've actually been doing the same thing in this topic's mirror thread.

Really, the only thing I intended to say with my original reply was that you were exaggerating when you said TWF was never used except by rogues. And you said it so many times in one post!

That maybe true in among all players but that is the actual reality of games I have played in, so from my actual experience that is not an exaggeration. I have no doubt different tables play with different experiences, which I hope is clear why I can easily see that and have no doubt those tables exist.

 

[Pauln6]

That maybe true in among all players but that is the actual reality of games I have played in, so from my actual experience that is not an exaggeration. I have no doubt different tables play with different experiences, which I hope is clear why I can easily see that and have no doubt those tables exist.

My players expressed reservations about damage dealt by martial classes so I monitored the figures for a few weeks. What I found is that if you only include damage that counts ( i.e. ignore excess damage wasted because the opponent only had a few hp left) you might find that all that extra great weapon damage on paper is wasted in reality.

I found that top damage dealer varied based on whether the opponents were mobs, brutes or bosses, magic resistance etc. In short, no one class dominates every scenario. Although clerics tended to be at the lower end of damage dealing, they do great at damage mitigation and battlefield control.

I'm sure if a similar comparison was done of great weapon fighting and two weapon fighting, the gap will not be as wide as on paper as high damage single target attacks are more often wasting a chunk of damage compared to someone who can switch targets.

 

[ClaytonCross]

My players expressed reservations about damage dealt by martial classes so I monitored the figures for a few weeks. What I found is that if you only include damage that counts ( i.e. ignore excess damage wasted because the opponent only had a few hp left) you might find that all that extra great weapon damage on paper is wasted in reality.

I found that top damage dealer varied based on whether the opponents were mobs, brutes or bosses, magic resistance etc. In short, no one class dominates every scenario. Although clerics tended to be at the lower end of damage dealing, they do great at damage mitigation and battlefield control.

I'm sure if a similar comparison was done of great weapon fighting and two weapon fighting, the gap will not be as wide as on paper as high damage single target attacks are more often wasting a chunk of damage compared to someone who can switch targets.

That said, I have a decent warlock with Agonizing Blast + Hex + Rod of the pact keeper II and miss all the time and roll a lot of ones for damage so end up being generally very low on damage not because the build is bad but because I am consistently unlucky with my roles. So while I recognize the actual result and paper result my differ greatly, to me the paper result is a good metric for enticing players into trying different things or scaring them away from something because you can't measure luck until after the character is in play.

I am not disagreeing with you. I am just saying, we do what we can. Their is no such thing as perfection in a random number game but their can be recognition that something is not used because on paper its is weaker and lacks identity. When a player says something like "ya I kind of wanted to go two-handed for the cool factor, but I think I would have better damage with a two-handed weapon or better AC with a shield. I will likely go with one of them not to hold the group back once we figure out what the group needs" … then the reply "Well you never know how the dice will role" does really do much to change their mind or relieve their fear. The paper is usually a stronger argument and really "more hits" is not really unique mechanically to all the other ways to get more hits. So I understand the though possess behind M. Mearl's attempt and do think the removal of a bonus action and some identity chance would not be in any way a bad thing. The question if "is it needed?" will always be per table metric that we can't really quantify. If I ran the same test at my table for the same number of hours am 100% sure that we would have different numbers entirely... what those numbers would be or if they would even be comparable at my on table if I did it a second time... that I can't say. I have not idea. I am also not sure that without the resources of hundreds of tables I could gather meaningful date or that if I did, it would still be meaningful at my table. Again, we do what we can with what we know and have.

 

[Pauln6]

As a DM, it's not hard to keep track of damage dealt that matters. The gap will vary but it's generally closer than you expect.

 

[WaterRabbit]

My players expressed reservations about damage dealt by martial classes so I monitored the figures for a few weeks. What I found is that if you only include damage that counts ( i.e. ignore excess damage wasted because the opponent only had a few hp left) you might find that all that extra great weapon damage on paper is wasted in reality.

GWM mitigates much of this wasted damage because it includes "cleave" as part of it feat.

I also saw that someone up thread house ruled GWM/SS to be (-Proficiency Bonus)/+(Double Proficiency Bonus) which means there is never any reason not to use these feats -- it makes them both even more powerful, in part because it reduces the amount of wasted damage.

 

[Pauln6]

GWM mitigates much of this wasted damage because it includes "cleave" as part of it feat.

I also saw that someone up thread house ruled GWM/SS to be (-Proficiency Bonus)/+(Double Proficiency Bonus) which means there is never any reason not to use these feats -- it makes them both even more powerful, in part because it reduces the amount of wasted damage.

Yes, the version I fancied the tweaked homebrew GWM that involved you choosing disadvantage (if you don't already have it) to add proficiency bonus to damage. While Cleave was split into a separate half feat for +1Str, and allowing an extra attack as a bonus action if you crit a target within 30' or reduce it to 0hp. It steers cleave to be more optimal for high strength single weapon builds while still allowing other weapons to benefit.

There were various other tweaks to other 'problematic' feats. Sharpshooter increases range by a distance equal to the short range. And grants advantage if you spend your bonus action to aim - possibly a boon to ranged rogues who no longer need to Stealth to get sneak attack.

Overall, might thought they were quite thoughtful changes, trying to equalise the feats.