D&D 5E Is the Rogue the only reason TWFing needs a Bonus Action?

[CapnZapp]

But you don't design the game for minmaxers. You do the opposite. You design for the new and casual player. That's the baseline. That's what you use when discussing the design.

My point is that you're kidding yourself if you don't recognize the value of reliably having/getting/using a bonus action each round.

Design can focus on the basics, sure, and newbies should definitely not consider this their primary worry when first playing the game.

But continuing the charade that is "you don't have a bonus action unless you do" even when talking with seasoned forumists, like in this thread, is not productive.

Of course a player should eventually start looking for uses for their bonus action and reaction. Responding "but you don't have it" is entirely... a smokescreen.

 

[Xeviat]

It is so easy to just say that, when you dual wield, attack normally but add your weapon damage dice together to a max of 2d6.

There. Problem solved. No complication. No stress.

What I've actually been playing with is combine damage dice OR attack two targets. So a fighter with TWFing would be 2d6+3 against one target or 1d6+3 against multiple targets. Being able to split is still an advantage over GWFing, though, so even that might still need a bonus action to balance it.

The advantage is this would allow it to scale with Extra Attack just fine. It's less intuitive, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ganymede81]

What I've actually been playing with is combine damage dice OR attack two targets. So a fighter with TWFing would be 2d6+3 against one target or 1d6+3 against multiple targets. Being able to split is still an advantage over GWFing, though, so even that might still need a bonus action to balance it.

The advantage is this would allow it to scale with Extra Attack just fine. It's less intuitive, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd prefer things like cleaving, splitting attacks, and other bonus action shenanigans reserved to class features.

 

[Xeviat]

I'd prefer things like cleaving, splitting attacks, and other bonus action shenanigans reserved to class features.

But it already exists with TWFing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ganymede81]

But it already exists with TWFing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell me about it. *sigh*

 

[Xeviat]

I wish each class or subclass got a bonus action ability. I think that would balance with multiclassing better, with having to choose what you're going to do from round to round. We're almost there now, but so many of the abilities are limited use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hejtmane]

For two weapon i house rule that you can make 1 attack once per turn with the offhand. Just like the ranger colossal Slayer and it has made twf a non trap option now

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

 

[schnee]

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking about removing bonus actions entirely. My only beef with bonus actions is the word "bonus" and the weird "you don't normally have a bonus action unless some ability gives you one and then you only get 1 per round" wording. Just having a minor action would have been simpler.

I'm talking about removing the bonus action from TWFing alone. With a few other tweaks, TWFing could be as strong as GWFing, just spread out over more attacks. But sneak attack and the hex/hunters mark type damage modifiers could then make TWFing too good. I just want the Fighting Style options to be more of a choice for more characters.

One idea:

How about giving the TWF 'bonus action' removal as a class feature to the ones that need it and don't have problematic combo potential?

Maybe you could prevent munchkin stacking by making it happen at a high enough level that it can't be grabbed by a short dip. IIRC, TWF is pretty good early, but falls off in damage sharply after level 10.

 

[Xeviat]

One idea:

How about giving the TWF 'bonus action' removal as a class feature to the ones that need it and don't have problematic combo potential?

Maybe you could prevent munchkin stacking by making it happen at a high enough level that it can't be grabbed by a short dip. IIRC, TWF is pretty good early, but falls off in damage sharply after level 10.

Giving it at Fighter 11 wouldn't be too bad.

Fighter 8 is (1d6+5)x3 (25.5) with dual short swords, (1d8+7)x2 (23) with longsword and Duelist, and (2d6*+5)x2 (26.66) with greatsword and GWFing. TWFing has an easier time of stacking magic weapons here too, where the greatsword wielder may have a tough time getting a belt of giant strength to similarly push them further. But when you start at 13 vs 11.66, it feels bad to fall behind.

Simply buffing Fighter 11 would be fine. Changing to add more extra attacks at the first Extra Attack would break rangers and Warlocks too easily.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk