D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

TwoSix · Jun 8, 2019

Quartz said:
You're forgetting that that 1d4+16 is at -5 to hit. And for one-handed weapons, Shield Master is the feat you want: bash your opponent, and if it falls, you and your mates make all your attacks with Advantage.

Didn’t forget, simply not worth mentioning something everyone knows. Your base attack chance would have to be at a sub 50% chance for the eDPR to be close to even.

What the best damage builds are is a solved problem, it’s not really up for debate. The better question is does the dual-wielding style provide some utility that isn’t obvious, and I haven’t seen that demonstrated yet.

CapnZapp · Jun 8, 2019

TwoSix said:
To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter.

Sure. Absolutely.

The design challenge is to achieve mechanical distinction while maintaining this lofty goal
a) without feats
b) with a feat
c) with, say, Haste

CapnZapp · Jun 8, 2019

Quartz said:
I disagree. You are getting a guaranteed extra chance to do extra damage.

Not sure what you mean. Yes of course TWF is good.

That does not mean it should be "unupgradeable".

That is, once you get your hands on a magical effect that utilizes the bonus action, the current implementation of TWF loses its steam.

I hope we agree this is less than ideal. Not a huge deal breaker, but enough to validate having this conversation, no?

5ekyu · Jun 9, 2019

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]
"To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter."

I would from a design perspective take issue with the champion fighter bring described as a neutral use case for an all classes feature.

Fighter is the one class that effectively scales its tier-3 and tier-4 damage by means of direct extra attacks.
Fighter is the one class that represents several of its level gains in feats - and success to certain feats often features in these moarDPR discussions.
Fighter is also one of a minority few that get fighting styles.
Fighter is also at least arguably a class built around sustained "non-nova" output so, some of the "one more swing" potential is muffled by that as well.

Those make using the fighter as the baseline for balancing changes to the two-weapon-fighting feature *not* at all by a long shot a neutral choice.

Seems to me that unless these "fixes" only apply to extra attacks scsling, hinging the analysis to fighters is a shakey foundation.

Sword of Spirit · Jun 9, 2019

One problem I always have with TWF fixes that work for anyone is that I think 2d6+mod is too good to have no requirements or drawbacks. Longswords are then mostly limited to supplementing shield usage, and everyone else dual-wields. I’m already unhappy with the lack of any feat to incentivize single-wielding a longsword without a shield (you know, like they do in movies all the time because it looks cool). I do understand how it can be undesirable that a dedicated dual-wielding fighter falls behind, but I think it’s perhaps the fighter class who could be the one to get the fix to that through an alternate fighting style, rather than a general rules change.

5ekyu · Jun 9, 2019

[MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION]
""To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter."

Another point for Mr, my ideal "fix" would be to not drive for identical or close enough to not matter outputs gor radically different choices. Instead my preference would be for radically different choices to produce radically different outcomes.

Outside of white rooms now, there are significant differences in builds based around TWF and gwf for instance. The consolidation under dex is likely one of the bigger ones when rsnge gets into play too.

But, for me, as z for instance of how my mind eorld, instead of trying to find ways for dagger-dagger to duplicate the hard hitting but lower odds of a hit outputs for maulers, I would rather see them get options yo evdn furb increase the better chances of getting hits.

So maybe you get an option for that off- hand dagger bonus action to give you advantage on your stack sction strikes.

So, maybe, you get a feat that lets you lower damage on a hit by flat amount but improve your attack roll by a proportional amount.

Let them be not just different flavors of how the same damage is delivered but actually different tools that excel at different challenges.

Tony Vargas · Jun 9, 2019

Sword of Spirit said:
. I’m already unhappy with the lack of any feat to incentivize single-wielding a longsword without a shield (you know, like they do in movies all the time because it looks cool).

They've had attempts at that going back to the 2e Complete Fighters' Handbook.

And, IIRC, they almost had one in 5e, but then ruled it worked with S&B?

But, as far as it goes, the basic idea of TWF & GWF doing moar damage, is that they take both hands, so no shield...

Xeviat · Jun 9, 2019

Sword of Spirit said:
I’m already unhappy with the lack of any feat to incentivize single-wielding a longsword without a shield (you know, like they do in movies all the time because it looks cool).

Possibly related to this, I've tested before letting a single melee onehanded weapon character get a to hit bonus (representing the better control from not coordinating a shield and the different stance) to feel nice and be fair. Interestingly enough, Pillars of Eternity does this.

FrogReaver · Jun 9, 2019

CapnZapp said:
Sure. Absolutely.

The design challenge is to achieve mechanical distinction while maintaining this lofty goal
a) without feats
b) with a feat
c) with, say, Haste

A) Assuming magic weapons the values actually are very close. (Also some pc's like the ranger arguably do better with TWF than with great weapons or sword and shield. There's also the added benefit of the TWF pc giving up less to attempt to knock an enemy prone.)

b) add a -5/+10 feat for TWF (or get fancy and do a -3/+6 one)

c) Haste is balanced within 1d6 damage and the class differences for haste vastly outpace the weapon difference between a greatsword and a ss. I'm not worried about TWF and haste.

Keep in mind TWF is also based on dex while other melee fighting styles are typically based on strength. That in itself tends to be an advantage.

Xeviat · Jun 9, 2019

FrogReaver said:
Keep in mind TWF is also based on dex while other melee fighting styles are typically based on strength. That in itself tends to be an advantage.

This is a holdover fallacy from 3E. Nothing in TWFing requires Dex. Since the weapons need to be light, Dex is an option, and it is why I think TWFing should be the high damage option for Dex warriors, but someone with high Str can use TWFing just the same as someone with high Dex.

Unless the feat does, but I hate the feat.