D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Style seems ... bad

[Tony Vargas]

Let's also consider that we're only looking at this in the context of the fighter. As soon as you start looking at the ranger--who doesn't get three or four attacks--it changes the whole equation.

If the fighter has a class feature for TWFing, it should be a viable feature compared to the alternatives. If the fighter "wasn't meant to TWF," if TWFing was included for the Ranger or rogue or whatever, then the fighter feature should go.

 

[TwoSix]

So, part of the idea here could be that TWFing is there to balance the DEX fighter, who would otherwise gain too much relative to the STR fighter due to his investment in das uberstat, eventually getting him to DEX 20. By the time he's prettymuch guaranteed that 20 DEX, the GWF is ahead on damage.

It actually reminds me of a 4e build, the Dex-based slayer. It leaves a little damage on melee attacks on the table to be a lot more versatile of a switch-hitter.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If the fighter has a class feature for TWFing, it should be a viable feature compared to the alternatives. If the fighter "wasn't meant to TWF," if TWFing was included for the Ranger or rogue or whatever, then the fighter feature should go.

It is viable for the fighter. It just may not be optimal for the fighter. Not everything can be. As I said above, I don't really see the difference between TWF fighter and duelist fighter as significant. It's not as though you can't build a TWF fighter who's extremely effective.

The fact that it's a better choice for the ranger doesn't mean it's a horrible one for the fighter.

 

[The Black Ranger]

I think people posting numbers and analysis of DPR as if it is the only factor that matter really miss the point of what an RPG is. I have never seen a campaign that rolling the highest damage matters.

I've also found that the DPR calculations never actually happen that way in games.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It actually reminds me of a 4e build, the Dex-based slayer. It leaves a little damage on melee attacks on the table to be a lot more versatile of a switch-hitter.

Worth mentioning, you can't effectively two-hand with any finesse weapon, so two-weapon fighting is the best damage out put you can get if you also want to be good at archery.

 

[Dausuul]

There's no guarantee campaigns are going to fold in the double-digit levels. In past editions, that was very often the case, but those editions didn't work so well at high level. If 5e does a better job at extending the 'sweet spot,' like 4e did, then it'll likely see more high-level play. They do seem to be /trying/ to address some perennial problems with high level play, like LFQW.

In my experience, campaigns fold not because of mechanical issues but just because they run out of steam. Story arcs wrap up, the DM burns out, the players want to try something different, old people leave the group, new people join. If a campaign starts in the low single digits, I find it has a good chance of dying a natural death around level 10-12, regardless of edition.

This is by no means universal, of course. Some campaigns are amazingly long-lived; there are folks on these boards who have been playing the same campaign for 20+ years, which boggles my mind. But my own anecdotal experience suggests it's the exception rather than the rule, and I have a vague recollection that WotC did some kind of market research that backed that up.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Couple thoughts. First, is this guy right?

The battlemaster subclass will have a bunch of maneuvers that you can trigger on a hit to do a chunk of extra damage along with a rider effect (trip, disarm, taunt, etc). TWF gives you a much higher chance to actually hit and apply that maneuver. Probably not going to give you a superior DPR, since you have limited maneuvers, but you're more likely to hit when it counts, which can make a BIG difference if you're, say, taunting a bad guy off the mage or tripping a scout who would run for reinforcements.

Second, what if the twf feature gave you another extra at some point?

 

[Juriel]

Couple thoughts. First, is this guy right?

Conditional yes, as that's how Battle Master worked before.

Of course, his little tricks were too few between rests, and so weak that if they kept to the same level for the final product, it won't save TWF or Battle Master.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

TWF is Kewl but otherwise silly. (And really hard to do.)

I'm glad they're not incentivising it even more than they already are.

 

[Dausuul]

Couple thoughts. First, is this guy right?

Sorta, kinda, not really. I mean, he's correct as far as that goes, but by the time you get to level 11+ (which is where TWF starts struggling) the benefit is insignificant. You're already getting three attacks a round. That's plenty of chances to hit and use your maneuvers. You don't get much of anything from adding a fourth.

Second, what if the twf feature gave you another extra at some point?

Another attack at level 11 would put the TWF a bit ahead of the other two; 42.5 DPR versus the great weapon fighter's 40.

I'd suggest waiting until we see the final version of the Dual Wielder feat. I've been leaving it out of my calculations because if the TWF is using a feat, then the other fighters get one too, and that's too many unknowns. But based on the last public playtest version, +1 damage on the main weapon and +1 AC are not to be sneezed at.