D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

jaelis · Jun 2, 2019

5ekyu said:
So, now to be clear, to you the problem with TWF is how bad it us for the non-fighter classes- the ones with only one or two attacks per attack action?

My concerns are:
- low level fighters and rangers
- high level fighters
- classes that don't get TWF style

I'd like to address all those issues.

To my way of thinking, for rogue, psladin and the others who get yo add in a big extra DMG on z hit or less but noticable extra dsmage on every hit the extra attack free bonus action thing is enough of a benefit especially once you add in the other bonus factors you get for free in many cases (SAD with dex, thrown for some, concealability, etc).

It is true that paladin etc get better at level 11+ where the extra damage kicks in. But a lot of play happens at levels 5-10. (And just to say, even at level 11, the GWF pally can do 35.7 per round, while TWF does 34. I don't have a problem with that, just pointing out that TWF doesn't pull ahead to make up for levels 5-10.)

Rogues I think are good as is, except that I think the TWF style makes it too advantageous to multiclass.

5ekyu · Jun 2, 2019

jaelis said:
My concerns are:
- low level fighters and rangers
- high level fighters
- classes that don't get TWF style

I'd like to address all those issues.

It is true that paladin etc get better at level 11+ where the extra damage kicks in. But a lot of play happens at levels 5-10. (And just to say, even at level 11, the GWF pally can do 35.7 per round, while TWF does 34. I don't have a problem with that, just pointing out that TWF doesn't pull ahead to make up for levels 5-10.)

Rogues I think are good as is, except that I think the TWF style makes it too advantageous to multiclass.

Are you including smite in those pally numbers? If so, how much? An extra attack per round from TWF can for a pally deliver like up to 6d8 extra smite damage alone. Cannot do it forever of course.

But again you have a lot of opposing examples there - class by class differences.

Classes that dont get the fighting style yet still are choosing between say 2h weapons and two light weapons have festures generally built in to make differences meaningful. Whether its smite or sneak or marks, the "need a hit" matters and emphasizes the extra roll of the two lights.

Class by class tier by tier the relative gains of trade- offs between "extra swing" and "bigger base dice on a hit" varies a lot.

Thus I keep coming back to either class specific changes (if actually needed) or just wiping out the meaningful difference (extra swing) by turning it to different damage dice.

But a global change thst foesnt tske class difference into account is likely just swapping where the top is.

jaelis · Jun 2, 2019

Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though.

5ekyu · Jun 2, 2019

jaelis said:
Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though.

See, here we go, "if you value nova damage"...

Blinders are funny things.

Does nova damage matter at all, even enough to be counted?

I would think "yeah".

But if the point we are trying to make is that TWF pally needs help, maybe then we decide "nah, not really."

Would you be ok then if the change to TWF pally was "we adjust the base dsmage up to match base pally eith GWF but you lose smite?" I mean, if smite arent eith counting then losing thrm is not worth fussing over, right?

This is where blinders come into play, the smaller and smaller you drive down the focus, the more isolated the case, "let's look at DPR figuring only a few pieces and see if they are equal" the less reliable your redults snd analysis is - especially in a game where you are not choosing individual elements but packages/bundles.

DND_Reborn · Jun 2, 2019

Our table has been playing with TWF granting an additional attack with a second weapon without the cost of the bonus action for months. It works well IMO as the Fighter/Rogue with short sword and handaxe is dealing comparable damage to the duelist Fighter/Barbarian. The only downside is the rogue's use of Cunning Action often when he gets to TWF, but it has hardly been game breaking.

So I can tell you from actually game play so far it hasn't been a problem at all. We even still have TWF-style added ability modifier to second weapon attack. Works fine.

jaelis · Jun 2, 2019

5ekyu said:
Does nova damage matter at all, even enough to be counted?

I would think "yeah".

I think, "nah." Offer me a sword that does +10 damage once per day vs one that does +1 damage 10 times per day, and I'll take the the +1 version.

Tony Vargas · Jun 2, 2019

Xeviat said:
Two-Weapon Fighting has long been my favorite fighting style in D&D.

For values of 'favorite' implying 'broken,' 'problematic,' and/or 'nerfed.'

Multiple attacks have proven problematic in every ed of D&D, when you apply static bonuses to each hit, and can focus them all on a single target. 4e tried to solve that by excluding the stat mod to damage from both attacks in at-will multi-attack powers. 5e, from the off-hand in TWF, just dailing it down from the 1/2 in 3.5, obviously.

IMHO, the comparatively obscure "D&D" Gamma World hit upon not one, but two better solutions.

1) Using a weapon in each hand is treated as mechanically identical to using a weapon with both hands. It used a free-form system of weapon definition, so it was pretty much heavy or light, one or two handed.

2) A dual attack adds damage modifiers once whether it hits with either or both attacks. If both attacks hit, it does 2d + mods. If it hits once (whether a hit & miss vs 1 target, or separate hits on two, it does 1d + mods. This was found in a single attack power, in the last supplement, but was elegant in its simplicity and robust handling of the different uses of multiple attacks.

Oofta · Jun 2, 2019

jaelis said:
Like BM maneuvers, I don't buy that limited resources like smites are a good balancing point, because you are generally just moving damage around: if you smite this turn, you don't get to smite sometime later. But it is true that if you value nova damage, TWF is better for the paladin and BM fighter. Doesn't much help the barbarian, cleric or bard though.

I have considered the TWF paladin option myself simply for the additional nova damage. Smite twice on the same round (or three times if hasted)? Could be fun against the BBEG. I don't really care if it "balances out", but when my vengeance paladin wants to he could get VENGEANCE!!!

So that would work for me. On the other hand, simply allowing two weapon fighting style for a paladin (or other classes) would also balance it out for me.

Shiroiken · Jun 2, 2019

For fighters, not taking feats into consideration, two weapon fighting is better until level 5 since both fighting styles give a bonus to damage, but you have more flexability against multiple opponents. At level 5 it suffers a drop off of a potential 1d6 per round (2d6+2d6 vs. 1d6+1d6+1d6), so it starts to fall behind. At level 11 it falls another 1d6 behind, and at the highest levels yet another. This is a bit of an issue for those that player to the higher tiers.

For Barbarians you only have the level 5 drop off, and having the extra attack is useful when making Reckless Attacks. Still an issue, but not quite as bad as the fighter.

For Paladins, two weapon fighting would be great if they got the fighting style (extra opportunities to smite), but they don't so it suffers greatly in the damage output. It's not an issue, since you're already accepting less damage output to improve smite opportunities (nova and/or critical hits).

For Rangers, two weapon fighting gives an extra attempt at hitting with Hunters Mark (assuming you didn't use the BA to cast or move it) and some of their various + Damage abilities. The loss at higher levels is minimal, but still an issue.

The easily solution I've found is to add a weapon trait to several 1d4 damage weapons: "Offhand - you can use this weapon with any other one handed weapon to perform the two weapon fighting bonus action." With 1d8 (main hand) and 1d4 (off hand), the drop off is much less with multiple attacks, and the damage curve flattens out more. It would still be a slight issue at levels 11+, but not enough to worry about IMO (you still have more flexibility).

Xaelvaen · Jun 2, 2019

We simply made it so that when you have the Style, and the Feat (associated to two-weapon fighting, obviously), then your bonus action attack scales with your Extra Attack class feature. For our table, the balance works fine - an 'extra chance to hit' is also an extra chance to miss, and so forth. Didn't see a need to over-complicate.