D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

Two-Six: High levels offer increasingly better options for your Bonus Action. Any fighting style that hogs it just to keep up is inherently worse off.

That is, relying on a fighting style whose enabling feat claims your BA is bad, but relying on a fighting style that claims it already from the start is worse. Especially if you're a class whose core features require it.

The only real solution is to remove the BA from twfing, from Hunter's Mark, the lot.

Otherwise the inescapable conclusion is that only fighters with greatweapons can unlock the full potential of the game: getting the best base damage, the best feat AND still have their BA for the eventual magic weapon or spell.

I guess I'm repeating myself, but that's only because I couldn't see where you adress this.

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
Are you really seeing a shortage of strength characters in your games?

IME, the overwhelming majority of characters are built on a story concept, not on an analysis of CharOp forum consensus about making the most powerfully SAD character possible for average DPR wiith the fewest possible weaknesses.

Most Dex characters don't have as high AC as the plate guy, and people who want to play a beefcake who weilds a huge hammer just...do that. Including in the games I've run that were set in Kung Fu movie style settings.

First off, if you seriously intend to dismiss balanced rules design with "players just choose anyway" then we are done and I have nothing to tell you.

Still here? Good.

Then my answer is: the ONLY strength characters I see, are the ones using two-handed weapons.

This is not so much a balance concern as an aesthetic one.

I don't think the benefits of Dex in 5E should be taken for granted. I believe it is very instructive to look at just how far 5E has deviated from previous editions (read 3E) when it comes to Strength vs Dexterity.

I really need to find that old thread now...

doctorbadwolf · Jun 15, 2019

CapnZapp said:
First off, if you seriously intend to dismiss balanced rules design with "players just choose anyway" then we are done and I have nothing to tell you.

Still here? Good.

Then my answer is: the ONLY strength characters I see, are the ones using two-handed weapons.

This is not so much a balance concern as an aesthetic one.

I don't think the benefits of Dex in 5E should be taken for granted. I believe it is very instructive to look at just how far 5E has deviated from previous editions (read 3E) when it comes to Strength vs Dexterity.

I really need to find that old thread now...

That’s odd. I’ve seen plenty of strength sword and board characters, and a handful of dual wielders.

My point is that if players are generally choosing something in spite of a forum goer perception that it is “weak”, it is probably actually pretty balanced. We here are much more sensitive to the fine power level differences than the vast majority of players.

The game doesn't need to be so balanced that there is never a power level difference between two choices. It just needs to be balanced enough that no general option is so bad that no one wants it, and those who choose it end up regretting it. And there are only a couple things in the game that bad, like certain basically worthless feats.

Strength is fine in 5e, not because “balance doesn’t matter”, but because for the purposes of any game that isn’t a performance tuned game of CharOp High System Mastery, it is balanced.

FrogReaver · Jun 15, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Two-Six: High levels offer increasingly better options for your Bonus Action. Any fighting style that hogs it just to keep up is inherently worse off.

That is, relying on a fighting style whose enabling feat claims your BA is bad, but relying on a fighting style that claims it already from the start is worse. Especially if you're a class whose core features require it.

The only real solution is to remove the BA from twfing, from Hunter's Mark, the lot.

Otherwise the inescapable conclusion is that only fighters with greatweapons can unlock the full potential of the game: getting the best base damage, the best feat AND still have their BA for the eventual magic weapon or spell.

I guess I'm repeating myself, but that's only because I couldn't see where you adress this.

The issue you seem to be overlooking is that most of the bonus action abilities that scale damage scale by number of attacks. Both Hunter's mark and GWM/SS do.

So if you keep the extra attack but remove the bonus action cost:

1. Classes like rangers start never looking at Great weapons or sword and shield again because TWF is better.
2. It also becomes problematic to add in a -5/+10 feat to balance TWF with GWM/SS because TWF already has an inherent extra attack included and retains his bonus action to cast a useful buff (even if that buff is just hex/hunter's mark, or as currently written he could use spears and stack Polearm Master's bonus action attack on top of his free off hand attack).

IMO, Removing the bonus action makes TWF much harder to balance. To fix the bad balance created by removing the bonus action requires a huge change to other rules or a ton of explicit exclusions in it's new text about exactly what bonus actions can be used with it.

FrogReaver · Jun 15, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
That’s odd. I’ve seen plenty of strength sword and board characters, and a handful of dual wielders.

My point is that if players are generally choosing something in spite of a forum goer perception that it is “weak”, it is probably actually pretty balanced. We here are much more sensitive to the fine power level differences than the vast majority of players.

The game doesn't need to be so balanced that there is never a power level difference between two choices. It just needs to be balanced enough that no general option is so bad that no one wants it, and those who choose it end up regretting it. And there are only a couple things in the game that bad, like certain basically worthless feats.

Strength is fine in 5e, not because “balance doesn’t matter”, but because for the purposes of any game that isn’t a performance tuned game of CharOp High System Mastery, it is balanced.

I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again.

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

doctorbadwolf said:
The game doesn't need to be so balanced that there is never a power level difference between two choices. It just needs to be balanced enough that no general option is so bad that no one wants it, and those who choose it end up regretting it. And there are only a couple things in the game that bad, like certain basically worthless feats.

Then I gotta ask you why you are even in this discussion?

You can't seriously be here only to tell us a little imbalance is nothing to worry about?

This entire thread is based on the premise dual wielding is just not good enough and needs an upgrade.

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

FrogReaver said:
The issue you seem to be overlooking

I'm not overlooking anything. I am just defining where the design work of this thread must end up at to be truly satisfactory.

I'm basically trying to save y'all some time and effort, so you don't end up with a solution that still sells TWFers short when it comes to high-end powers by committing the bonus action earlier than for the GWFer.

CapnZapp · Jun 15, 2019

It is saying something when you look at the Ranger and see how it requires the bonus action for no less than TWO archetypal abilities (dual wielding and Hunter's Mark).

Never mind keeping it for use by a nice feat... or a magic item...

doctorbadwolf · Jun 15, 2019

FrogReaver said:
I'll tell you what, your next game, allow a 2d6 dex based great weapon and a cool 1d8 dex based one handed weapon (call it a katana or something) and see how many fighters choose strength ever again.

I mean one of those is the Rapier. I still get longsword, Battleaxe, and even shortsword wielders who could be using a rapier. As for a 2d6 option, IME no great weapon fighters are gonna switch to a dex based build, because I’ve tested that with a d8 reach finesse weapon, as well as a versatile d6 version of the whip (spiked chain), and no one went from wanting to play a tough beefcake to a lithe acrobat to grab them. I would see more people who would already make dex builds doing so with more damage. But those guys only ever play dex characters regardless of edition.

CapnZapp said:
Then I gotta ask you why you are even in this discussion?

You can't seriously be here only to tell us a little imbalance is nothing to worry about?

This entire thread is based on the premise dual wielding is just not good enough and needs an upgrade.

The two are separate topics. TWF is disappointing for a lot of people. I’d love to see an elegant fix. It sees less use than it should, judging by people who would like to dual wield, but feel too underwhelmed by it to choose it, including players that aren’t into CharOp.

At the same time, separately from that, dex and strength are fine. Dex has more good options, but the strength options are still quite good and see plenty of play.

If a thing is *only* imbalanced from a CharOp perspective, and still doesn’t break the game in a CharOp game, it isn’t a problem.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 15, 2019

CapnZapp said:
It is saying something when you look at the Ranger and see how it requires the bonus action for no less than TWO archetypal abilities (dual wielding and Hunter's Mark).

Never mind keeping it for use by a nice feat... or a magic item... 浪

Hunter’s Mark isn’t being used every round. Choosing which ability to use in a round is a good part of the game. Some rounds, you sacrifice a bonus attack in order to move Hunter’s Mark to a new target.

What feats even even interfere with TWF that aren’t focused on a different fighting style? You’re not PAM Dual Wielding, generally, and you’re never combining it wth Shield Master or Crossbow Expert. If you do PAM dual wield with spears, great! But like, you’re not losing anything.

Theres nothing wrong with not not being able to do a thing every single round. This is not why TWF is lacking. It’s lacking because the fighting style feels like it “fixes” a rule created in order to give it something to do, and the feat provides significantly less benefit than plenty of other feats. Making it not require a bonus action might be a good feat concept, because that’s a hefty boost for many builds, but it isn’t required to fix TWF.