Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[Fralex]

You're comparing a fighter with TWFing Style to a fighter without an offensive style. Test it against a 2d6*+4 attack, or a 1d8+6 attack with +2 to AC.

Aww, but I already did math today... >:
Fiiinnnnee
Assuming fighter 1 has dueling and a d8 weapon:
1 weapon: ~21 damage, ~42 damage in an AS
2 weapons: ~22.5 damage, ~37.5 damage in an AS

And then at level 11 it becomes:
1 weapon: ~31.5 damage, ~63 damage in an AS
2 weapons: ~30 damage, ~52.5 damage in an AS

huh. Guess the AS is a fair bit better in that second comparison. I'm still not sure if I'd really notice a difference in-game, though? I'm not usually keeping track of my relative DPR in the middle of a fight. Is this something people have had significant problems with in actual play?

If I were to change anything, I think I'd simply give Action Surge an extra Bonus Action. That would bump the TWF's damage up to 45 and 60, respectively, and then even numerically there's hardly a difference.

 

[Ganymede81]

Just combine the weapon damage dice together into one attack, with tweaks to ensure it isn't objectively better than wielding a two-handed weapon.

No fuss, no muss.

 

[Lord Twig]

Aww, but I already did math today... >:
Fiiinnnnee
Assuming fighter 1 has dueling and a d8 weapon:
1 weapon: ~21 damage, ~42 damage in an AS
2 weapons: ~22.5 damage, ~37.5 damage in an AS

And then at level 11 it becomes:
1 weapon: ~31.5 damage, ~63 damage in an AS
2 weapons: ~30 damage, ~52.5 damage in an AS

huh. Guess the AS is a fair bit better in that second comparison. I'm still not sure if I'd really notice a difference in-game, though? I'm not usually keeping track of my relative DPR in the middle of a fight. Is this something people have had significant problems with in actual play?

If I were to change anything, I think I'd simply give Action Surge an extra Bonus Action. That would bump the TWF's damage up to 45 and 60, respectively, and then even numerically there's hardly a difference.

So your math has shown that a Fighter wielding a longsword and shield out damages a Fighter using two weapons, doesn't lose any attacks when he uses a bonus action (like Second Wind) and get's +2 to his AC.

Lets look at a Fighter using a greatsword and the Great Weapon Fighting style...
5th level
2h weapon: ~24.66 damage, ~49.33 damage in an AS

11th level
2h weapon: ~37 damage, ~74 damage in an AS

Obviously there is a problem with two weapon fighting.

 

[Xeviat]

So your math has shown that a Fighter wielding a longsword and shield out damages a Fighter using two weapons, doesn't lose any attacks when he uses a bonus action (like Second Wind) and get's +2 to his AC.

Lets look at a Fighter using a greatsword and the Great Weapon Fighting style...
5th level
2h weapon: ~24.66 damage, ~49.33 damage in an AS

11th level
2h weapon: ~37 damage, ~74 damage in an AS

Obviously there is a problem with two weapon fighting.

I'm on my phone. I can't like this post. So consider this XP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LapBandit]

Base = offhand gets stat mod
Style = non-Light
Feat= (prereq:style) Bonus action removed, you make opportunity attacks with both hands
Edit: does not work with martial Arts

 

[CapnZapp]

I think it is important to consider why you are making this change.

If you feel that fighting with two weapons isn't offensively powerful enough, despite the added versatility of being able to use two different weapons and make melee or ranged attacks in the same round, as well as getting two opportunities to hit and apply special effects like sneak attack, and getting two chances to score a critical hit - then this rule change might be suitable as it makes fighting with two weapons more powerful.

If you are thinking of a different reason for the change, then my thoughts depend upon that reason.

As several posters have clarified, it is because bonus action conflicts make two-weapon fighting a substandard choice for the optimally minded player.

The path to dealing lots of damage (arguably the fundamental part of being a martial character in the first place) is to utilize all your actions all the time, including a bonus action and (for the heavy duty minmaxer) the reaction.

This means that your baseline damage should, nay needs to, come about without taking either of those two.

If you use any other fighting style (greatweapon etc) you leave your bonus action open for being used for extra damage. This is the first step to an optimized character, that is, a character that can be as well rounded and as well characterized as any other; it just deals more damage, and is therefore better at its job.

Now, two weapon fighters need to use their bonus action each round to simply reach their baseline damage. Hence two weapon fighting style does not allow optimization to the same degree.

Which is exactly what the proposed change fixes.

(That does not necessarily mean the change is balanced or that I endorse it. The above is merely explaining why somebody would want to make the change)

Cheers,
Zapp

PS. This is also why the Barbarian Berserker is a poor choice (in games with Greatweapon Master feats), the exhaustion notwithstanding: again you have a basic build reliant on a resource best spared for optimized build choices.

In short: assuming every character build is equal, choose one that isn't based upon bonus actions. Because that lets you climb above those choices by using the bonus action.

 

[CapnZapp]

With the generally low AC scores adding attacks can really change how combats unfold, and how much of a challagne some monsters are.

Sure, but what does this have to do with the proposed change?

 

[CapnZapp]

I would allow that as a perk of the two-weapon fighting style, but I wouldn't make it part of the basic rules for a simple reason: fighting with two weapons is hard. It should take some training to coordinate two weapons well. Making it cost a bonus action, and do less damage, is a reasonable way of modeling that.

Give a normal peasant two shortswords and you'll probably find that he's not feinting high with one while he attacks in the low line with the other--he's basically just holding one while he attacks with the other.

Hm.

Taking the two-weapon fighting style is a given for the two-weapon user.

So that would actually change nothing (commoners with two swords aside).

Perhaps a better idea is to put the change on the feat (which could need a bump anyway)? Dual-Wielder, that is.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is that the Rogue no longer has a meaningful choice. They should always use two-weapon fighting.

If that means melee rogues have an advantage over ranged rogues, I'm all for it.

If there's a feat that needs removing, that feat is Crossbow Expert: if you want to talk about not having meaningful choices, enter the Rogue with hand crossbow, Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats:

Not only do you get to make an extra attack with your bonus action just like a two weapon fighter, you get to do it at 120 ft range with no penalties.

Furthermore the CE feat comes with the Dual-Wielder feat baked in. And here's the real kicker: it comes with the Two-weapon fighting style baked in too, so unlike every other fighter, you get to enjoy the benefits of two weapon styles simultaneously (you obviously pick the Archery style as your formal choice). That's just frakked up.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, I'm confused here.

Still, it doesn't look like much of a difference.

That is because you are comparing single-weapon style with two-weapon style. Try comparing greatweapon style with two-weapon style next time.