D&D 5E GWF vs. TWF Fighting styles
- Thread starter Sezarious
- Start date
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
I think the -2 to hit may work to balance on the other classes as well. The penalty to hit will lessen the boost from Hunter's Mark (+3.5 per hit) and from improved divine smite (+4.5 per hit). They also only get extra attack once, so we're only talking about 1 extra attack. It also balances twfing and gwfing at the low levels, where twfing is ahead.
Ranger (Hunter's Mark) would be:
Duelist: 1d8+7+1d6 (15), x2: 30, x 0.65 = 19.5
Twfing: 1d6+5+1d6 (12), x4: 48, x 0.55 = 26.4, a gain of 7 but the duelist has +2 AC. Colossus slayer skews this, but I'm in bed on my phone and I don't want to figure out chance of at least one hit on 4 attacks at 55% to hit right now ...
Paladin (11th level)
GWFer: 8.33+5+1d8 (17.83) x2 = 35.7; x0.65 = 23.2
Twfing (takes Defensive): 1d6+5+1d8 (13) and 1d6+1d8 (8) x2= 42; x0.55 = 23.1 (and has +1 AC); twfer has more chances to proc smite, but also has lower chance to hit each hit. Since total number of smiles is still limited, they'd have a higher nova potential. Also, their damage would go up if they dipped fighter 1 for twfing.
So, not a perfect fix, but not as bad as it could be.
I'm just spitballing here.
Ranger (Hunter's Mark) would be:
Duelist: 1d8+7+1d6 (15), x2: 30, x 0.65 = 19.5
Twfing: 1d6+5+1d6 (12), x4: 48, x 0.55 = 26.4, a gain of 7 but the duelist has +2 AC. Colossus slayer skews this, but I'm in bed on my phone and I don't want to figure out chance of at least one hit on 4 attacks at 55% to hit right now ...
Paladin (11th level)
GWFer: 8.33+5+1d8 (17.83) x2 = 35.7; x0.65 = 23.2
Twfing (takes Defensive): 1d6+5+1d8 (13) and 1d6+1d8 (8) x2= 42; x0.55 = 23.1 (and has +1 AC); twfer has more chances to proc smite, but also has lower chance to hit each hit. Since total number of smiles is still limited, they'd have a higher nova potential. Also, their damage would go up if they dipped fighter 1 for twfing.
So, not a perfect fix, but not as bad as it could be.
I'm just spitballing here.
Kryx
Explorer
There seems to be a lack of understanding of the current situation...
I would highly advise you to look at my math. Every class is bad at TWF because TWF is bad. Making TWF worse is not a fix.
Giving a Fighter 4x offhand doesn't help a 28 DPR Ranger compete with.. anything. It doesn't do anything to help a 47 DPR TWF Barbarian compete with a 58 DPR GWM Barbarian. Nor help a 42 DPR TWF OoV Paladin compete with a 46 DPR GWM Paladin (though, that is the most balanced one out of them all).
Giving -2 to hit would hurt all of those classes. Your math is not accurate if -2 appears to be a good fix to an already very underpowered option.
I would highly advise you to look at my math. Every class is bad at TWF because TWF is bad. Making TWF worse is not a fix.
Giving a Fighter 4x offhand doesn't help a 28 DPR Ranger compete with.. anything. It doesn't do anything to help a 47 DPR TWF Barbarian compete with a 58 DPR GWM Barbarian. Nor help a 42 DPR TWF OoV Paladin compete with a 46 DPR GWM Paladin (though, that is the most balanced one out of them all).
Giving -2 to hit would hurt all of those classes. Your math is not accurate if -2 appears to be a good fix to an already very underpowered option.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Since I don't want to mess about too much with the rules, I have decided on the following stop-gap measure*.
Don't hand out any plussed greatweapons or polearms.
That is, all plussed weapons are +1 longswords and +2 handaxes and the like.
This goes a looong way to mitigate the edge given by the feats, all without changing a single rule.
*) I call it a stop-gap measure since I obviously hope WotC will address this issue eventually (even if years from now).
Don't hand out any plussed greatweapons or polearms.
That is, all plussed weapons are +1 longswords and +2 handaxes and the like.
This goes a looong way to mitigate the edge given by the feats, all without changing a single rule.
*) I call it a stop-gap measure since I obviously hope WotC will address this issue eventually (even if years from now).
Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
The -2 to hit is in conjunction with having offhand attack number equal main hand attack number. Not one or the other. I feel like you aren't listening to me or looking at the numbers I'm posting.
I know twfing is bad currently. I'd like to see a balanced way to have the number of offhand attacks equal the number of mainhand attacks because making multiple attacks is twfing's thing. Of course it would require looking at a lot of things, but I'm willing to do that.
I know twfing is bad currently. I'd like to see a balanced way to have the number of offhand attacks equal the number of mainhand attacks because making multiple attacks is twfing's thing. Of course it would require looking at a lot of things, but I'm willing to do that.
Kryx
Explorer
Same for you not looking at my DPR calculations which have much more built into them
Forum math is inconsequential. It ignores far too much. Crit chance, trip chance, smite damage, rage, reckless swings, etc, etc, etc. It serves no purpose as it is so very inaccurate.
That out of the way:
What you've basically suggested is give 4 attacks to non-fighter classes. That is the same balance as giving a second bonus attack, but starts at 5 instead of 11. It's similar in numbers to the Rend choice I presented.. Definitely not worth giving -2 to hit for.
I tested this by giving +2 item at 11 and +3 at 20 and it would indeed balance Fighter TWF vs GWM. Not sure about the other classes.
CapnZapp
Legend
The "beauty" of this solution is that you can adapt to the specific characters in your particular group, in the way any given rule cannot.
Meaning that if "not sure about the other classes" imply a concern TWF becomes "too good" compared to GWF when you limit the calculations to within a single non-fighter class (say Barb or Ranger), then you simply lift your "embargo" on +1 greataxes and problem solved.
And yes, I do tell the players what to expect. Meaning I hint that they are much more likely to find a +1 one-handed weapon than a two-handed weapon or polearm, and that it's fine to take this into account when creating characters. (This is no stranger than a group of players wanting to cover all the main bases: "we should have a swordnboarder or we won't be able to utilize a found magical shield" and so on)
Besides, it's not as if the the player choosing Polearm Master or Sharpshooter is hosed by never somehow finding that perfect weapon. Not considering his or her clear edge on damage. I mean, the player might well still feel disappointed, but I don't feel obliged to cater to the possible entitlement such a player might feel about finding an item that adds +1, +2 or +3 to damage that already is best in class.
Kryx
Explorer
I would not find that solution beautiful. Magic Items shouldn't be a fix to the system - they create a lot of issues. You're giving some players magic items and others not to balance the system. That can create a lot of issues amongst players. You're also assuming that you'll give the TWF the necessary items at the breakpoints required and that someone else won't want the item.
Instead just give an inherent half proficiency to hit and damage to TWF users if you want to not touch TWF. That would be the same math without the complications of expecting a GM to dish out magic items to keep up with math (hello 4e) and without any player issues.
Prioritizing certain weapons for magic items inherently hurts unique classes like Monk, Druid, Polearm wielders, etc. It would inherently force players to stick to traditional fighting styles or be less powerful. I would not find that to be a feature.
Last edited:
CapnZapp
Legend
Oh, an official rules edit that permanently fixes the imbalances would be far preferred, I agree.
But since that is years away (if it comes at all), I am proposing a fix that you can implement here and now - and the best part is: it involves no houserules!
In contrast, any given rules solution would be contested by others - yours included. It is far from simple to add a houserule without inviting controversy.
Finally, there is nothing about my proposal that hurts "unique classes". Nothing whatsoever - per definition. If you think otherwise, you simply haven't read my suggestion properly
(The only "hurt" that happens, happens to the specific individuals you as the DM have identified as getting a wee bit too much damage out of their build. So if you Kryx have a Monk in your party and you feel he or she would be "hurt" without a magical plus to damage, then give him or her some. )
But since that is years away (if it comes at all), I am proposing a fix that you can implement here and now - and the best part is: it involves no houserules!
In contrast, any given rules solution would be contested by others - yours included. It is far from simple to add a houserule without inviting controversy.
Finally, there is nothing about my proposal that hurts "unique classes". Nothing whatsoever - per definition. If you think otherwise, you simply haven't read my suggestion properly
(The only "hurt" that happens, happens to the specific individuals you as the DM have identified as getting a wee bit too much damage out of their build. So if you Kryx have a Monk in your party and you feel he or she would be "hurt" without a magical plus to damage, then give him or her some.
)
Kryx
Explorer
A GM selectively giving certain magic items only to certain classes at certain breakpoints is significantly worse than a houserule due to the reasons mentioned above.
I've read your suggestion - you suggest offering more "standard" weapons than anything else. And yet you haven't addressed any issues with handing out magic items like I brought up.
Though truthfully that system isn't even worth considering imo. I'm glad the magical treadmill died in 4e.
I think I've stayed too long in this thread though. Out~
Last edited:
