Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[CapnZapp]

Doing slightly less damage should be the price of archery's increased tactical versatility, so IMO it's not a problem if the hand crossbow ranger has a slightly harder time shifting his Hunter's Mark than the TWF ranger does. Ranged combat shouldn't dominate utterly​.

It would also help if the Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert feats were just taken out back and shot.

Sharpshooter contains three parts:
* no long range. This is perhaps not as balance breaking as immersiveness breaking. I see no point in having this effect. The only redeeming factor is that disadvantage can already be gamed, since by simply granting yourself advantage from a single source, you negate all sources of disadvantage. Abusing such an artificial effect of the otherwise laudably simple ad/disad rules is not really a good argument for keeping this, however.
* ignore cover. This lays a heavy hand over tactical movement. The only redeeming factor is that cover is already a non-issue (because the way you can move, attack and then move again enables the peekaboo shooting style). Abusing such an artificial effect of the otherwise laudably simple movement rules is not really a good argument for keeping this, however.
* the -5+10 mechanism is the most broken part of any feat, and giving it to the already supercharged ranged combat style is a mistake on so many layers I don't know where to begin.

Crossbow Expert also contains three parts:
* ignoring crossbow loading (aka making crossbows into bows) is a mere trifle from the game balance point of view, but it essentially ignores what a crossbow really is.
* being in melee does not shut down your ranged attacks (i.e. the "Legolas effect"). This is very bad for game balance, since being able to inconvenience archers by waving pointy sticks in their face has always been one of the biggest checks on ranged supremacy. I argue this unprecedented change is an extremely ill-advised step for D&D to take.
* getting the two-weapon bonus action WITH full Dex damage bonus is just the cherry on top. If the feat said "attack with a onehanded melee weapon" this would have made the feat into a cool atmospheric niche option, but nooo... it says "attack with a weapon" - which obviously means that you'll use the same hand crossbow for all attacks.

I have written about this situation before.

My advice is the same:

The easiest and simplest fix is to simply remove both feats in their entirety.

(That does not mean I'm opposed to having feats named "Sharpshooter" or "Crossbow Expert", only that we'll need to find other content to fill them with)

 

[CapnZapp]

Just combine the weapon damage dice together into one attack, with tweaks to ensure it isn't objectively better than wielding a two-handed weapon.

No fuss, no muss.

That is really the only solution that guarantees equality.

That is, if two-weapon style mean that you would make both your main and off hand attacks as one "attack", you would deal your 1d6+Dex plus your off-hand 1d6 at identical times the greatweapon fighter deals his 2d6+Str.

In other words 2d6+Dex vs 2d6+Str. Identical. Both equally open to bonus attack optimizing.

Of course, since you actually make two attack rolls, this would make TWF strictly superior, and it would make the feat and the fighting style inappropriate. But it would make a start.

Not saying this is such a good idea it's worth pursuing. Just saying it's the only real fix to the imbalance.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

<snipped for space>
Cheers,
Zapp

It seems like you think you are telling me something I didn't know, but you aren't. You are, however, using sentence structure that seems very condescending.

 

[CapnZapp]

It seems like you think you are telling me something I didn't know, but you aren't.

Hmm. Why did you allude to the initial poster wanting the style to become "more powerful" if you already knew he could simply be looking to bringing the style up to par?

And why did you phrase your reply in such a way it can be read as suggesting the OP is barking up the wrong tree? You did say "If you feel that fighting with two weapons isn't offensively powerful enough, despite" and then you add three circumstances that all pale into insignificance compared to the real reason, that you now are saying you knew all about?

In short, Aaron, if you knew the answer already, why did you post your initial question?

Wait, don't answer that. Why? Because this isn't about you or me. So just drop it, okay?

If you really want to help the OP, please give him or her your own thoughts about two-weapon fighting and the solution he proposes.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Why did you allude to the initial poster wanting the style to become "more powerful" if you already knew he could simply be looking to bringing the style up to par?

I have no idea why you think there is some meaningful difference between "more powerful" and "bringing the style up to par" - increasing the power of it is increasing the power of it, reason regardless.

And why did you phrase your reply in such a way it can be read as suggesting the OP is barking up the wrong tree?

I did no such thing.

You did say "If you feel that fighting with two weapons isn't offensively powerful enough, despite" and then you add three circumstances that all pale into insignificance compared to the real reason, that you now are saying you knew all about?

I was saying that two-weapon fighting has advantages that aren't "deal damage", and saying "despite" because that's the simplest way to phrase what I was saying; if you want more power even though there are other advantages besides raw power.

In short, Aaron, if you knew the answer already, why did you post your initial question?

I didn't ask a question.

Wait, don't answer that. Why? Because this isn't about you or me. So just drop it, okay?

Drop what? You responded to me.

If you really want to help the OP, please give him or her your own thoughts about two-weapon fighting and the solution he proposes.

Are you accusing me of having done anything but provide my thoughts in a helpful manner? Because I am very confused if that is the case.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry Aaron I'm just not interested in arguing with you.

I have posted plentifully about my stance on the Two Weapon Fighting issue. That'll do.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Hm.

Taking the two-weapon fighting style is a given for the two-weapon user.

It's actually not a given. I've got a Paladin with Defense style who normally fights sword-and-shield, but would dual wield daggers if necessary to nova more smite damage in a scenario where nova damage is critical.

It's not just peasants to whom the baseline TWF rules are relevant. It's anyone who isn't specialized in it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Just combine the weapon damage dice together into one attack, with tweaks to ensure it isn't objectively better than wielding a two-handed weapon.

No fuss, no muss.

It will be tough to tweak it in such a way that dual-wielded lances aren't objectively better than a two-handed weapon, since even a single lance is already as good as every two-handed weapon except greatsword.

 

[Corwin]

I think the intent is that at Fighter 11, you attack three times with your main weapon and once with your off-hand weapon, not three and three.

Forgive me if I misunderstood what you were saying by "it only goes up from there."

Huh?

An 11th level fighter using two weapons normally makes 4 attacks: 3 base +1 off-hand. With Action Surge, the OP wants him to repeat this total by giving him a second off-hand attack. So 8 attacks combined. Without the propoed house rule it is normally 7 attacks: 3 base doubled, +1 off-hand. So the OP's claim that, "the fighter loses half his damage," is not correct. He is losing only an eighth. As I said above. And again, it was never "half". The most he ever loses a third, from levels 1-4 when he has only one base attack. Like I said, and it only goes up from there. I hope that clarifies what I've been saying.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying. I misunderstood your point.