Mike Mearls: so here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule

[Quartz]

You don't make comparisons between fighting styles using simple weapons, because every class that has a fighting style also uses martial weapons.

That means you compare using greatsword/maul, greataxe (if die size is a concern), glaive/halberd (if using PAM), longsword/battleaxe/warhammer (for sword and board), rapier (for finesse) or shortsword (if light). The other weapons exist for simulationist concerns or niche use cases, and aren't really useful in a balance discussion.

Well, if you substitute shortsword for spear, then you must grant my argument. But I disagree about niche uses. The spear was the standard weapon from the peasant to the noble. And you are not using a polearm or longsword in a confined space - they need room in which to be wielded. But if you run the numbers for a d8 weapon like the battleaxe, the duellist doesn't do that much better - 0.65 damage per attack - which still makes the dual wielder presented in the OP overpowered. Drop the +1 AC bonus and it's just about okay. Or mandate the use of the Bonus Action.

 

[Valetudo]

MM homebrew is trash. This is way worse than core and if you add fighting styles and feats it just is bad design. Maybe he should try the pathfinder playtest if he wants a over designed game.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, if you substitute shortsword for spear, then you must grant my argument. But I disagree about niche uses. The spear was the standard weapon from the peasant to the noble. And you are not using a polearm or longsword in a confined space - they need room in which to be wielded. But if you run the numbers for a d8 weapon like the battleaxe, the duellist doesn't do that much better - 0.65 damage per attack - which still makes the dual wielder presented in the OP overpowered. Drop the +1 AC bonus and it's just about okay. Or mandate the use of the Bonus Action.

Do you actually make your players not use their common weapons because the room is too small? I mean, takes all types....but ouch.

And how is it overpowered again? I'm not seeing the numbers to support that. Same 65% hit chance as before:

5th level sword and board (duelist style): 0.65 * 2 * 10.5 (1d8+6) = 13.7 average damage, and +2 to AC thanks to shield.
5th level greatsword (GWF style): 0.65 * 2 * 12.33 (2d6+4, reroll 1s and 2s) = 16.0 damage, no AC bonus.
5th level dual wielder (no style, yet): 0.55 * 3 * 7.5 (1d6+4) = 12.4 average damage, and +1 AC bonus.
5th level sword and board (defensive style): 0.65 * 2 * 8.5 (1d8+4) = 11.1 average damage, and +3 to AC thanks to shield.

I'll be honest, that looks pretty darn nice to me. Defensive also has the capability to go dual wield, and drop +1 AC for another 1.3 average damage (plus magic/class bonuses for 3 attacks instead of 2), or use a 2 hander for even higher damage. It's a very versatile style, since it stacks with everything.

Give dual-wielding an OK style (boring suggestion would be +1 damage with light weapons, which would bring the damage up to 14.0), and I think there's some real balance here.

 

[Pauln6]

I think crunching damage numbers on 'paper' misleading. It's hard to quantify how that AC bonus and extra utility can be of benefit.

Could the feat not be tweaked to remove the bonus action as an option? Change it to +1 AC when you use your bonus action to parry instead?

 

[Mistwell]

But if you run the numbers for a d8 weapon like the battleaxe, the duellist doesn't do that much better - 0.65 damage per attack - which still makes the dual wielder presented in the OP overpowered.

I am not seeing the math you are seeing. Could you please spell that whole thing out? Doesn't look at all overpowered to me, when you compare to the d8 weapon and shield, or two handed weapon user.

 

[lkj]

Mearls actually updated it today to something simpler:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1055927779336761344

"Few people asked, latest version of two weapon fighting:
* Does not use bonus action, off-hand gets full damage bonus
* Choose one of the following when you attack:
1. Get one extra attack with off-hand, but all attacks at disadvantage
2. Add your off-hand damage die to all atks"

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1055927958722961408

"If you have the extra attack feature. disadvantage applies only to off-hand. If that feature gives you another attack (3 total base), you no longer have disadvantage on the off hand."

Light weapons restriction still applies. He hasn't gotten to figuring out how dual wielding works yet. He dropped the AC bonus for now because he thought it was getting a little too complex.

AD

 

[Yunru]

Honestly, I've always gone with (and on reading the Goblin Boss) so does the Monster Manual) a simple extra attack at disadvantage.

 

[WaterRabbit]

I don't see this as a good change as TWF style without feats has the highest ave. Damage per Round (aDPR). If you look at the different fighting styles {Archery, Dueling, GWF, TWF} they are in that order for aDPR.

At level 1 assuming an AC of 13, accounting for criticals, and assuming a point buy that maximizes to hit and damage you have [Longbow 6.0, Longsword 6.65, Greatsword 7.29, Dual Shortswords 9.10] aDPR respectively.

Using the appropriate feat {Sharpshooter, GWM, TWF} the aDRP goes to [Longbow 9.63, Longsword 6.65, Greatsword 9.19, Dual Longsword/Rapiers 10.50]. Note: A dueling style doesn't really have a feat that give more damage except for Savage Attacker, which takes the average on a d8 to 6.25.

At every bracket above 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th the damage for Archery and Dual Wielder are at the top.

Because of this, I personally don't see a need to modify the rules for TWF. Also, trying to modify the rules for TWF without looking at both fighting styles and feats at the same time is pointless.

I suppose a heavy crossbow with both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert can do more damage at 12th level. At that level you have Sharpshooter L-bow doing 28.28 aDPR and Shaprshooter Heavy X-bow Crossbow Expert doing 29.73 aDPR. A TWF Dual Wielder [d8] would be doing less at 26.60 aDPR. A GWM greatsword does 25.78 aDRP so falls to 4th in the ranking.

But the Dual Wielder also get the +1 AC on top of all of this. The disadvantage of giving up the bonus action is more of an inconvenience than a real problem.

 

[Yunru]

I don't see this as a good change as TWF style without feats has the highest ave. Damage per Round (aDPR). If you look at the different fighting styles {Archery, Dueling, GWF, TWF} they are in that order for aDPR.

At level 1 assuming an AC of 13, accounting for criticals, and assuming a point buy that maximizes to hit and damage you have [Longbow 6.0, Longsword 6.65, Greatsword 7.29, Dual Shortswords 9.10] aDPR respectively.

Using the appropriate feat {Sharpshooter, GWM, TWF} the aDRP goes to [Longbow 9.63, Longsword 6.65, Greatsword 9.19, Dual Longsword/Rapiers 10.50]. Note: A dueling style doesn't really have a feat that give more damage except for Savage Attacker, which is fairly trivial for a d8 weapon.

At every bracket above 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th the damage for Archery and Dual Wielder are at the top.

That is some dodgy ass maths.
A TWF at 1st level does 13 average damage, while a GWF does 11(.3333333) average damage, with both having the same accuracy. That's a lot narrower window than your unexplained maths.
At 5th level, a TWF does 22.5 average damage, while a GWF does 22(.6666666) average damage, disproving your claim that Dual Wielder damage is at the top.

I could go on, because those are really the founding points of your post.

EDIT: Accounting for crits, at 1st level TWF does 13.35, while a GWF does 11.75. At 5th level TWF does 23.025 while GWF does 25.5.

 

[WaterRabbit]

That is some dodgy ass maths.
A TWF at 1st level does 13 average damage, while a GWF does 11(.3333333) average damage, with both having the same accuracy. That's a lot narrower window than your unexplained maths.
At 5th level, a TWF does 22.5 average damage, while a GWF does 22(.6666666) average damage, disproving your claim that Dual Wielder damage is at the top.

I could go on, because those are really the founding points of your post.

EDIT: Accounting for crits, at 1st level TWF does 13.35, while a GWF does 11.75. At 5th level TWF does 23.025 while GWF does 25.5.

You need to check your math.

Formula: = %tohit*ave.dmg +%crit*ave.dmg*2 for single weapon
Formula: = %tohit*ave.dmg + %tohit*ave.dmg + %crit*ave.dmg*2 + %crit*ave.dmg*2

So GWF = 60%*(7.42+3) + 5%*(7.42+3)*2 = 6.25 + 1.04 = 7.29 / attack
So TWF = 60%*(3.5+3) +60%*(3.5+3) + 5%*(3.5+3)*2 + 5%*(3.5+3)*2 = 7.8 +1.3 = 9.10 / attack

You math seems to be off to me.