D&D 5E Scaling the number of off-hand attacks?

[Morrus]

thin-skinned, prissy little crybabies

butthurt little babies.

I also assumed the population of this forum was furnished with a decent enough intellect that saying "in my opinion" in every bloody post might come off as rather redundant. Was I wrong?

Your smug quoting at the beginning of the post means nothing, and parading your stupidity around

I'll think nothing of eviscerating your childish nonsense publicly

Now if you want to discuss this like adults cool,

Wow. Where to even start? Were you drunk?

Here are the rules you agreed to when you joined EN World back in 2011:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/misc.php?do=showrules

As you can see, they leave no opening for insult-filled diatribes and namecalling. This behaviour is *utterly inappropriate* here; and nobody ranting about "thin-skinned, prissy little crybabies" gets to pretend to be the grown-up in this conversation.

I assume this will make you call me a naughty name, too, so I'm just gonna head that off at the pass and ask you to do it somewhere else. This type of behaviour is not welcome on EN World, no matter how "right" you think you are.

Everyone else, please do not respond to TornadoCreator; he won't be able to reply for the next week or so (or ever, if he decides not to come back).

 

[doctorhook]

On topic I would avoid giving defensive boosts to twf as then it just becomes a clunky way of being the same AC and damage as a shield user.
Just adding a second attack to rangers & fighters as part of the TWF style or as 11th level class features would be OK in my maths, assuming the GWF uses Great Weapon Master feat. As this feat is seen as being close to broken that might not be a suitable solution for everyone though.

Rogues could also get the benefit in which case you would want to add it to the lacklustre duel wielder feat though I think it should really appear at 11th class level for fighters & rangers not 11th character level.
Rogues get decent value from TWF anyway as it is essentially a reroll to try to proc their sneak attack if they miss with their main hand. They do have a lot of uses for their bonus action though so it's not overwhelmingly good - the new UA swashbuckler addresses this.

I will say that none of the maths includes magic weapons which while not mandatory are pretty common in D&D & one of those that adds +d6 damage would skew twf to being far better (well 2 of them ...)

While I agree that the math seems to show that TWF is slightly inferior to other styles, I honestly don't think that it lags behind enough to need to be revamped. Pretty sure that the players who pick it for the flavor wouldn't even notice the difference. I doubt I would, personally.

All-out TWF builds are strictly inferior to PM + GWF though, in every possible way.

After you take the Dual Wielder feat and max strength or dex, you have nowhere else to go in terms of damage feats. Whereas the savvy polearm master picks the defense style, and still beats dual wielder in terms of damage, reach, # of attacks, max possible damage at every level except 4th, and only gets better and better at 5th onward. As a fighter I would bump strength to 18 (if using point buy and min maxing) at level 4, after taking polearm master at level 1 with variant human (if allowed). Then at level 6 I would take GWM, and at level 8 max out strength.

By level 11 you have 4 attacks minimum per round, each of which is with 10 reach, and possibly one extra attack (from either OAs or crits or kills, which are then easy to follow through due to reach). Not to mention each of those 4 attacks can be at +10 damage from GWM, plus magic weapon bonuses if any.

But I agree the fault isn't with dual wielding being too weak, it's polearm master making it strictly inferior and obsolete in every way.

From the maths and the balance of opinions in this thread, I'm sorta becoming more comfortable with TWF as-written. Discussions about TWF's underpowered-ness, while technically accurate, seem to have been overblown; several posters have correctly pointed out that TWF is still pretty good, and that it's only underpowered in comparison to debatably-broken feat combos for GWF. The biggest problem seems to be that TWF still burns a bonus action on top of an action just to keep up with what GWF can do with an action, though TWF can spread damage across one more target. If any fix should be applied, level 11 seems to be the sweet spot, but an all-out extra attack at that level still overcorrects the problem.

My final suggestion for your critique: What if, at 11th level, the TWF fighting style granted an extra reaction that must be used to make an off-hand melee attack (such as an OA)? My idea here is that a TWFer can get an extra attack sometimes, probably against a different target who's trying to move past him. DPR would spike slightly in large melees, but otherwise would stay normal, and it wouldn't step on the toes of any defensive styles. Thoughts?

 

[jgsugden]

All-out TWF builds are strictly inferior to PM + GWF though, in every possible way.

Not quite true. You get more defense with the 2WF + DW for equal investment, you have a higher minimum damage (d8 versus d4 on the bonus attack (putting aside the -5/+10 potential if you get GWM), and there are a few paths open (especially in ranger and rogue multiclasses) that are not present with polearm routes that can really up commonly available DPR options. In the end, the design of combats by the DM will have a huge influence on which routes provide a more efficient character. I still believe the most efficient melee PC over the life of the character is a Ranger 5 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 11 build with 2WF. Polearm fighter is not far off, but there is a lot more versatility with the ranger build.

 

[spinozajack]

The polearm guy picks Defense for his fighting style. And by level 5, with 3 attacks at d10 + str, d10 + str, d4 + str, that is exactly the same as 3d8 + str, what the Duel Wielder would have. And the same AC too.

So Polearm master is indeed strictly superior in every way. The dual wielder needs to purchase and maintain two weapons, find two magic weapons, can't enchant both of them (magic weapon, sacred weapon) easily, and don't get an extra reaction attack when enemies approach him. Plus that extra OA is at the full 1d10 + str + 10 damage, once you get GWM.

Dual Wielder would still be strictly inferior to polearm master even if you could use GWM with it. Polearms as double weapons are superior to two single d8 weapons. Because reach. And more buff stacking from magic sources. And reach. And the fact that with reach, you can also hit more critters with the crit / kill extra attack clause of GWM than a DW could (if he could benefit from GWM, which he can't). That's also beside the point that the polearm master can hit more enemies that the dual wielder simply cannot reach, like enemies suspended from a ten foot ceiling, or standing behind another enemy or an ally for that matter.

Reach is powerful. Threatening reach is so powerful, that in 4th edition, they didn't make it available at-will, even at Epic levels. It's not only the top DPR in the game now, it's the top battlefield control choice.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think decoupling the attack from your bonus action would go a long way to helping it out. If you change it to "once per attack action", it allows a second offhand attack in an action surge round. It also lets rangers dual wield and cast their bonus action spells.

Who might get too much out of this? Rogues can use cunning action and dual wield at the same time. This is actually how we play it with my wife's thief and the character is hardly the most powerful one in the party. Monks might get too many attacks with this and flurry, so that might need a look.

While we're on the subject of dual wielding, does anyone find the +1 AC while using 2 weapons aspect of the feat a bit fiddly? Its the kind of easily forgettable situational bonus they mostly got rid of. Any ideas on what to replace it with?

 

[jgsugden]

The polearm guy picks Defense for his fighting style. And by level 5, with 3 attacks at d10 + str, d10 + str, d4 + str, that is exactly the same as 3d8 + str, what the Duel Wielder would have...

Again, not true. There is nuance.

Let's say you're fighting a bunch of enemies with 10 hp and you have a 5 strength modifier. Do you see why the pole arm and the dual wielder are not the same versus these foes? Any 2 hits kills an enemy. However, for most of the attacks referenced, there is a chance of a single shot kill. Assuming all attacks hit and ignoring criticals, the polearm master (defensive so no reroll on damage) has a 2 X 60% chance of one shotting an enemy with the blunt attack having no chance (without a crit) of felling an enemy in one blow. The dual wielder has a 3 X 50% of one shotting the enemy. In a game where DMs throw a lot of low level monsters as part of the combat, it can make a difference.

I'll agree that a pure fighter is going to be better off most of the time as a polearm fighter than as a dual weapon fighter.... but only most of the time. And neither of those builds comes close to the 2WF ranger/rogue/fighter builds if you really want an efficient killing machine.

 

[spinozajack]

The optimal thing to do in combat, aside from disrupting enemy caster concentration spells, is always to concentrate your damage on one foe until it dies. Take enemy pieces off the board to deny them their next action.

So you attack once with your d10, if not dead attack again, repeat a third time. You could choose to change up which attack you put on which enemy depending on how "peachy" you think they are getting, but unless you know the exact HP totals of your foes, it's very rare for it to matter. If you're talking about one shot kills, then the +10 damage from the GWM feat will cover that. Dual Wielder is strictly surpassed, even against lower HP enemies.

Don't forget the extra OA attack from the polearm master. That's damage the dual wielder will never get. Also the dual wielder will sometimes not even be able to reach an opponent due to limited movement rate, when someone with a polearm might. Especially when running around on the battle mat and whacking minions. Polearms kick butt in 5th ed. Way superior.

You are right that there's a rare, tiny, edge case between the time you pick up GWM and not, or when you don't use it (high AC foes), that you will default back to the lowly "dual wielder" damage. But that's a good base damage to have.

Also, don't forget, a fighter doing action surge, gets 4 timess 1d10 + 4 + 10 by level 6, plus an extra 1d4 + 4 + 10. If that kills enemy number 1, he can take a reaction to swing an extra 1d10 +4 +10 attack against his neighbour, then he can easily move around because him having reach means he doesn't need to enter melee range and thus avoid OAs. Then he uses his bonus attack to mop up. Then the next round? Enemy approaches, wham, free 1d10 attack. Then another 2 1d10 attacks, it's not hard to play a game of Go with the battlefield and use the momentum + reach to just destroy everything.

Polearm + GWM masters also get to do this kind of dance where they estimate the remaining HP of foes, attack the one they think they can kill first which is standing next to another foe, use the reaction attack against the next chump, then continue attacking that one from 10 feet away. If its turn starts and is still alive, it will probably approach you and provoke (or approach one of your allies, also possibly provoking), possibly killing it before it can attack you or them. Win.

The power and battlefield control of threatening reach and multiattacks with a super damaging attack each time, is possibly epic level in power if you're comparing it to what a 4th ed fighter could do with his at-wills. Then you can also add on maneuvers for tripping if you're a battlemaster, and double down on the beat down.

It's pretty clear that strength fighters are not underpowered in this edition. I guess they did that right. But I just think the bonus extra attack is above and beyond overkill. It's way, way too good.

 

[guachi]

I'm pretty interested in this angle you guys have here. That said, I think having an extra attack with no +stat mod is sort unnecessarily complex. Anything else we can do to round out the cost/benefit of TWF at 11th level? Give a +1 to AC? (If so, how would that stack with the Dual Wielder feat?)

The second extra attack with no bonus is a but of a hack, I'll admit. Mostly just going on average damage. Maybe give the extra bonus action attack at some level other than 11 (12, 13, 14, whatever...) and give it full attribute bonus?

Or not change anything and tell a single class fighter that TWF is a poor choice for a single class fighter. It's fine for a MC fighter, a ranger, or a rogue (or a ranger/rogue!). A fighter is so good at striking swiftly by 11th level that using two weapons is for those "other guys" and not a fighter.

 

[guachi]

I think as a DM I'd be like "OMG, I actually got a campaign full of adults with real-life issues to 11th level!!! OMG!!!"

And my fighter would be all, "Ummm... DM? Can I, like, do more damage cuz this TWF fighting style kinda sucks compared to sharpshooter/GWM boy over there."

Me: "OMG!!!! 11th level!!! This campaign is so awesome because it goes to ELEVEN!!! Get it? It's a Spinal Tap reference!"

Him: "TWF? Kinda sucks?"

 

[doctorhook]

The optimal thing to do in combat, aside from disrupting enemy caster concentration spells, is always to concentrate your damage on one foe until it dies. Take enemy pieces off the board to deny them their next action.

So you attack once with your d10, if not dead attack again, repeat a third time. You could choose to change up which attack you put on which enemy depending on how "peachy" you think they are getting, but unless you know the exact HP totals of your foes, it's very rare for it to matter. If you're talking about one shot kills, then the +10 damage from the GWM feat will cover that. Dual Wielder is strictly surpassed, even against lower HP enemies.

Don't forget the extra OA attack from the polearm master. That's damage the dual wielder will never get. Also the dual wielder will sometimes not even be able to reach an opponent due to limited movement rate, when someone with a polearm might. Especially when running around on the battle mat and whacking minions. Polearms kick butt in 5th ed. Way superior.

You are right that there's a rare, tiny, edge case between the time you pick up GWM and not, or when you don't use it (high AC foes), that you will default back to the lowly "dual wielder" damage. But that's a good base damage to have.

Also, don't forget, a fighter doing action surge, gets 4 timess 1d10 + 4 + 10 by level 6, plus an extra 1d4 + 4 + 10. If that kills enemy number 1, he can take a reaction to swing an extra 1d10 +4 +10 attack against his neighbour, then he can easily move around because him having reach means he doesn't need to enter melee range and thus avoid OAs. Then he uses his bonus attack to mop up. Then the next round? Enemy approaches, wham, free 1d10 attack. Then another 2 1d10 attacks, it's not hard to play a game of Go with the battlefield and use the momentum + reach to just destroy everything.

Polearm + GWM masters also get to do this kind of dance where they estimate the remaining HP of foes, attack the one they think they can kill first which is standing next to another foe, use the reaction attack against the next chump, then continue attacking that one from 10 feet away. If its turn starts and is still alive, it will probably approach you and provoke (or approach one of your allies, also possibly provoking), possibly killing it before it can attack you or them. Win.

The power and battlefield control of threatening reach and multiattacks with a super damaging attack each time, is possibly epic level in power if you're comparing it to what a 4th ed fighter could do with his at-wills. Then you can also add on maneuvers for tripping if you're a battlemaster, and double down on the beat down.

It's pretty clear that strength fighters are not underpowered in this edition. I guess they did that right. But I just think the bonus extra attack is above and beyond overkill. It's way, way too good.

You've convinced me that the most broken part of non-magical combat in 5E is Polearm Master, specifically the ability to OA foes as they enter your (extended) reach.

The second extra attack with no bonus is a but of a hack, I'll admit. Mostly just going on average damage. Maybe give the extra bonus action attack at some level other than 11 (12, 13, 14, whatever...) and give it full attribute bonus?

Or not change anything and tell a single class fighter that TWF is a poor choice for a single class fighter. It's fine for a MC fighter, a ranger, or a rogue (or a ranger/rogue!). A fighter is so good at striking swiftly by 11th level that using two weapons is for those "other guys" and not a fighter.

There doesn't seem to be a satisfying answer, does there?

One last try, though. Did you have a peek at my most recent suggestion? I'll quote myself, for your perusal:
[sblock=Self quote]

My final suggestion for your critique: What if, at 11th level, the TWF fighting style granted an extra reaction that must be used to make an off-hand melee attack (such as an OA)? My idea here is that a TWFer can get an extra attack sometimes, probably against a different target who's trying to move past him. DPR would spike slightly in large melees, but otherwise would stay normal, and it wouldn't step on the toes of any defensive styles. Thoughts?

[/sblock]