FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Yes.
D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting
Yes.
Xeviat
Hero
For my change, the number of rounds don't matter. In the core rules, you'd be going from needing your BA for hunters mark towards not needing it.
Mind you, I did also choose a build that favors TWFing, and the single weapon Wielder is going to have a slightly better opportunity attack (I consider that fair trade for the TWFer having a better ability to split damage.
Xeviat
Hero
But this damage is required for the Fighter and Ranger's damage to equal the Rogue's in the beginning. The rogue with two weapons deals 3d6+Dex, and the fighter deals (1d6+3)*2 in core (13.5 vs 13).
Monster AC
X*0.65 = 100*0.75
X*0.65 = 75
X = 115
Player AC (+5 to hit vs 15, 55% chance to hit)
X*0.55 = 100*0.65
X = 118
So in a strict pvp situation, nonshield users should deal 15 to 20 more damage than shield users.
Should that be the goal benchmark, and just accept that TWFing is op at low levels? I'd rather balance it across the board, balancing it's difference between two weapons and sword and shield.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I meant by current rules.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
You'll never balance anything looking at level 1 as the goal. You don't want level 1 to out of whack. But you don't want your analysis to default to those levels or you are missing a lot of context.
PVP should never be the test.
Xeviat
Hero
By current rules, it will slowly approach the "no ba required" entry, but never quite reach it. An infinite series. LOL.
Well, then, if we pretend that Duelist and GWFing are balanced now, Fighter gets:
1d8+7 vs 2d6*+5
11.5 vs 13.33
2d8+5 (my twfing) is 14.
So a 16% increase. Mine is a 22% increase on the Fighter.
I'll see if I can get the ranger there. It might require testing a few ranger subclasses because some heavily favor single higher damage (gloom stalker, horizon walker, hunter with giant slayer or horde breaker). It might require changing how Hunter's Mark functions.
CapnZapp
Legend
I agree something that's just poor doesn't break the game since you just ignore it.
But having limited options can still be a problem, even though you seem to dismiss it.
Twfing is simply not good enough. At higher levels it is an outright trap for the optimal-minded player in an options-full game.
CapnZapp
Legend
You are way too aggressive about this.
I am pointing out the high-level implications you need to be aware of if you are working on a solution.
Does that mean you must obey me like a slave? Certainly not.
It means that if you, in your best opinion, conclude you must compromise from these points, then you are free to do so.
But then you need to compensate for the lost power, flexibility or potential!
For example, locking down the bonus action already from level 1, as the original devs did, mean twfing should be and remain better than gwfing throughout.
Why? Since you're already locked into your maximum potential. Then, if the GWFer finds a use for his bonus action it's okay if he catches up, and possibly even overtakes you.
But the core design where even though you've spent your bonus action maximizing card at first level you start to lose steam already at level five? Worse, that comparison includes your BA but excludes the GWFer's?
No, if nothing about twfing was changed it should remain better than gwfing at level 5 and level 11 (if ever so slightly). It needs to, because it has far fewer options for maximation than the GWF.
Then, you can accept that when and if the other styles run past you for finding a great use for their BA (such as finding a magical item that lets you do something cool with your BA), because that's not a given.
Your choice is safe and not a gamble so you can accept never wearing the DPS crown once the results of other styles gambling are in. On the other hand, having to sacrifice your entire TWF schtick if you're the one finding that great BA is a cost in itself.
So in short, as long as you *consciously* deviate from what's needed for optimal charbuild that's okay. That would still be a large improvement over the naive and shortsighted implementation of the rulebook.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
That makes sense in a theoretical context. But what BA currently exists in 5e that is better than a weapon attack with a -X/+X rider attached? (Specifically, for any class not a full caster?) The only optimized high level build in 5e that doesn't use it is a sorlock using Quicken.
My takeaway is a little different. The primary factor that keeps heavy weapons and archery above any other fighting style is that they have access to the key -5/+10 mechanic. This roughly doubles base damage per attack, and is easily mitigated by commonly available accuracy bonuses (advantage, especially.) Give every common fighting style access to this mechanic (as is the primary goal of my proposed feat in post 159), and the differences are small enough that class and subclass features become key in deciding which path to pursue (as well as aesthetic preference based on character concept, which is always important to prioritize!)
I'd be perfectly happy to run some numbers of suggested Tier 3-4 builds that have high-leverage bonus actions, looking at 3-5 round fight times specifically. I admit most of my examinations have been based on Tier 2 setups of 2 attacks and 1 BA per turn.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You may have missed it, in the course of debating multiple people, but I already agreed with you about TWF. My disagreement was about Dex and strength.
You also seem seem to have misunderstood the particulars of what I was saying, so I’ll try one more time. Strength isn’t so far behind Dex that a significant # of players just don’t make Strength characters. OTOH, TWF does get left behind by non-optimizers, because it both is and feels less powerful for most characters. The only invested TWFER in my games is actually a Strength Paladin with a 10 Dex! She wanted the Fighting Style so I let her take it, but she’d be more powerful if she’d taken Defensive.
Similar Threads
