D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Idea

[Chris_Nightwing]

The solution to two weapon fighting is simple.

TWF - two attacks
Sword and shield - increase shield bonus from +1 to +5
Two-handed weapons - Double damage of one-handed weapons.

There, everything balances. Sword and Shield guys are defensive fighters, two-weapon fighters are whirling dervishes, and two handed guys are slayers.

No feats required, yet it does everything you want it to.

No, I assure you that +5 AC is insanely unbalanced. Double damage (including double ability modifier) on 2HW vs. single damage on two attacks for TWF is still not balanced: to deal equal damage with TWF you have to hit with both attacks, the probability of which is the square of the probability of hitting with one attack.

But... it should be strictly worse. I actually expected it to be worse than that.

TWF allows you to take out twice the "minions."

TWF allows you to inflict twice the conditions (poisoned, magic effects, etc).

TWF gives you versatility (slashing and bludgeoning, melee and ranged)

Minus 0.5 damage, or even 1 or 1.5 damage, in a round seems worth it to me for the versatility. And if you don't want to attack twice, don't.

Sounds good to me.

I just hope there is a clarification of sneak attack-like maneuvers applying to only one of the attacks and not being halved.

It's not just -0.5 damage, it's -1 AC too, compared to S&B. You'll frankly struggle to kill minions with (1d6+3)/2. Conditions don't generally stack. It's not worth it.

 

[ferratus]

Ferratus: that may hold balanced for early levels, but I'm curious what happens when you throw a pair of magic weapons on a TWF fighter.

Less of a problem than counting on a mediocre strength bonus.

Current system: 1d8+4/1d8+4 or 1d12+6.

My system: 1d8+4/1d8+4 or 2d8+8.

Add some magic... let's say some flaming weapons.

1d8+1d6+4/1d8+1d6+4 vs. 2d8+2d6+8.

Still seems to work for me. Should hold up that the Two-handed fighter only hits half as often no matter what the +x bonus is too.

 

[ferratus]

No, I assure you that +5 AC is insanely unbalanced. Double damage (including double ability modifier) on 2HW vs. single damage on two attacks for TWF is still not balanced: to deal equal damage with TWF you have to hit with both attacks, the probability of which is the square of the probability of hitting with one attack.

Explain how the the +5 is unbalanced. Sure you are more survivable, but you are doing half the damage of the other guys, so you are taking more hits. Not realistic of course, since having a shield is much better than using two weapons in real combat (unless you are wearing your shield in the form of gothic plate).

Also I think your probability calculation is wrong, to the point of the gambler's fallacy. You always have the same probability of rolling a winning hit, you are not selecting from a sample that doesn't have replacement.

In other words, you should think of the two-weapon fighter as simply having twice as many attacks with the same probability to hit as the two-handed fighter.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's how I'd do TWF:

Allow two weapons to do two attack rolls for full damage.

Then, you can also have two-handed weapons that deal double damage.

And one-handed weapons that deal normal damage, but can be paired with a shield to reduce your own damage.

What you loose on accuracy for TWF you can gain in damage because something that happens "on a hit" happens possibly twice for you.

The solution to two weapon fighting is simple.

TWF - two attacks
Sword and shield - increase shield bonus from +1 to +5
Two-handed weapons - Double damage of one-handed weapons.

There, everything balances. Sword and Shield guys are defensive fighters, two-weapon fighters are whirling dervishes, and two handed guys are slayers.

No feats required, yet it does everything you want it to.

Yeah, this!

Only, maybe instead of +5 AC, you cut damage a bit. Like DR 5 or something.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Explain how the the +5 is unbalanced. Sure you are more survivable, but you are doing half the damage of the other guys, so you are taking more hits. Not realistic of course, since having a shield is much better than using two weapons in real combat (unless you are wearing your shield in the form of gothic plate).

Also I think your probability calculation is wrong, to the point of the gambler's fallacy. You always have the same probability of rolling a winning hit, you are not selecting from a sample that doesn't have replacement.

In other words, you should think of the two-weapon fighter as simply having twice as many twice as many attacks with the same probability to hit as the two-handed fighter.

Being incredibly generous to the monsters, let's say they hit you 50% of the time normally. +5 AC reduces that hit rate to 25%, you take half damage on average. So you do half damage to ONE creature, but take half damage from EVERY creature. In a real situation, you would just be bypassed for juicier targets of course, so be a completely ineffective combatant.

My calculation on the proposed half-damage for TWF is correct, I assure you. If you have a probability of hitting X, then you can either miss twice p=(1-x)^2, hit with one weapon and not the other 2x(1-x) or hit with both (x^2). I multiply these values by the average damage (halved of course) for each situation and those are the numbers.

 

[ferratus]

Being incredibly generous to the monsters, let's say they hit you 50% of the time normally. +5 AC reduces that hit rate to 25%, you take half damage on average. So you do half damage to ONE creature, but take half damage from EVERY creature. In a real situation, you would just be bypassed for juicier targets of course, so be a completely ineffective combatant.

Sure, but most of the time he is only facing 1 or 2 opponents at a time. Also, just because he is good at surviving, doesn't mean he is good at ending the fight. This is pretty much what the sword and board fighter does now btw, being hard to hit in exchange for not doing as much damage. The only difference is that the benefit it out of whack. A very minor bonus to being hit in exchange for twice as many attacks? How is that fair?

My calculation on the proposed half-damage for TWF is correct, I assure you. If you have a probability of hitting X, then you can either miss twice p=(1-x)^2, hit with one weapon and not the other 2x(1-x) or hit with both (x^2). I multiply these values by the average damage (halved of course) for each situation and those are the numbers.

Grr... Give me time to get home and dust off my old statistics homework. I'll respond properly tomorrow. I am pretty sure this is wrong because there is only H or M, not HH, HM, MH, or MM. Even if the latter is the case though, it is still 43-44% hit vs. 25% on rolls requiring 16 or higher, and 75% chance vs. 50% chance on rolls of 10 or higher. Since most rolls require 16 or higher to hit on monsters that matter, the model still holds up reasonably well.

 

[Prism]

I am wondering how the double chance to hit with TWF influences the damage numbers when you include the expertise dice. One of the reasons a low level 4e ranger was so good was the increased chance of quarry damage - before static damage took over at mid levels. Surely the fact that the TWF fighter and rogue have double the chance of hitting is worth something

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Sure, but most of the time he is only facing 1 or 2 opponents at a time. Also, just because he is good at surviving, doesn't mean he is good at ending the fight. This is pretty much what the sword and board fighter does now btw, being hard to hit in exchange for not doing as much damage. The only difference is that the benefit it out of whack. A very minor bonus to being hit in exchange for twice as many attacks? How is that fair?

Yes, but each roll of the die is independent. That is where you are making the mistake. No matter how many times you roll the die, it is still a matter of H or M, not HH, HM, MH or MM. By rolling twice, you simply have twice as many opportunities to hit or to miss.

I don't think TWF should grant two attacks - you've created a false premise in which that is true, and 2HW also have considerably increased damage, hence +5 AC looks reasonable, and again that's only if monsters hit on 11+, which they don't and won't.

The independence is taken into account. If you roll twice, you can HH, HM, MH or MM. I will detail an example if it helps:

You hit on a 16+, ie: you have a 0.25 chance of hitting.
With a 2HW you hit 0.25 times per attack, times by 6.5 (1d12) + 3 (str) = 9.5 average damage, which totals 2.375 damage per round.
With TWF you hit twice 0.25*0.25 = 0.0625 times per 2attacks, times by 3.5 (1d6) + 4.5 (1d8) + 3 (str) + 3 (str) = 14 average damage, totalling 0.875
You hit once with the 1d8 weapon but not the 1d6 weapon 0.25*0.75 = 0.1875 times per 2attacks, times by 4.5 (1d8) + 3 (str) = 7.5 average damage, totalling 1.40625
Other way round is same P, 6.5 average damage for 1.21875
With, of course, a 0.75*0.75 = 0.5625 chance of missing both times for 0
Add those up and you get 3.5 average damage per round.
Now if you halve that, you get 1.75. Less than a 2HW. If you don't, it's more.

Edit: I see you want to check yourself, that's fine, I am just a guy on the internet, but I do have a few years training in statistical methods.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I am wondering how the double chance to hit with TWF influences the damage numbers when you include the expertise dice. One of the reasons a low level 4e ranger was so good was the increased chance of quarry damage - before static damage took over at mid levels. Surely the fact that the TWF fighter and rogue have double the chance of hitting is worth something

This might be the case. I'll take the example I just posted, and say that if you hit at least once you deal an extra 1d6 damage (or 3.5 average).

2HW goes up by 0.25*3.5 = 0.875 for a total of 3.25
TWF goes up by (0.1875+0.1875+0.0625)*3.5 = 1.53125 for a total of 3.71875

So yes, this is effective, at least for a +3 strength bonus and 16+ needed to hit.

I would still much rather avoid extra attacks wherever possible.

 

[kerleth]

I'm assuming that the majority of two-weapon warriors will be using some sort of expertise system like the rogue and fighter. Thus they will be adding in half their experitise dice to damage as well, which makes it much more believable that they will kill a minion / finish off a weakened enemy. That said, perhaps it would be best to take a step back and look at the problem from a new angle.

I think the root problem is the definitive split between one attack vs. two attacks.
People who dislike two attacks seems to have two main premises.
1) It is historically the cause of balance issues.
2) Too many attacks makes an individual turn take too long.

People who want two attacks seem to also have two main points.
1) It just "seems" right to them, and is supported by the methodology of 3E and 4E. (I can't speak personally to older editions than that).
2) It helps two-weapon fighting feel distinct from other fighting styles in an easily perceivable way. "Cool, I get two attacks!"

I have played in systems where you got only one attack. There were any number of players who simply did not like it. As long as the fighting style has it's own niche and makes sense when I imagine the scene, I personally don't really care. However, the best possible solution seems to be create a system where you can take two attacks without creating balance issues or slowing the game down.


Let's look at the main ways to differentiate combat styles
OFFENSE
Offense can be seperated into three main groups.
Accuracy
Damage
Versatility (types of damage, melee or ranged, number of targets, etc.)
DEFENSE
Evasion/AC/ chance to not get hit by a particular attack.
Damage Reduction/Defense/ taking less damage per attack hit.
Versatility (what types of attacks you can defend against, avoiding special manuevers, etc.)
OTHER
This would encompass things like manueverability, blending of offense and defense, etc.

The simplest answers have been tried before and don't satisfy enough people. So let's think outside the box some. What are peoples ideas that
1) Satisfy the "Two attacks is just twice as awesome!" crowd and
2) Don't cause balance or game speed issues.

I remember playing one gaming system where wielding two weapons allowed you to add all the special properties of each weapon to your attack and increased your accuracy. It used a 2d6 system for attack rolls and let you reroll one of the dice. The weapon groups each also had special abilities that made them seem very different. Even though you only got one attack it really made fighting with two weapons that seemed like a unique and that you were actively using both weapons. Could this work in Next?

Any other suggestions?