-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
2 weapons vs. 2 handed weapon vs. weapon and shield
- Thread starter Sadrik
- Start date
Steely_Dan
First Post
On things like?
Other possible benefits for 2WF
Overall I agree with the designers' goal of no letting two-weapon fighting double a character's damage output. The half-damage approach does that, but feels a bit lackluster. I wonder if additional benefits that don't lead to an every-round bump in damage might make 2WF more appealing. Two options come to mind, both inspired by having two threatening weapons:
1) 2WF gives a second reaction
2) 2WF gives larger reach for Opportunity Attacks
(1) could increase damage output depending on how often OA oppotunities occur. If you want to focus on versatility rather than damage, you could still cap it at one OA - but I think that makes things too complicated. For (2), note that this is in some sense the opposite of "reach" weapons - reach weapons only have extra reach on your turn, and not for OAs. (2) would give 2WF extra reach on OAs, but not for regular attacks.
Overall I agree with the designers' goal of no letting two-weapon fighting double a character's damage output. The half-damage approach does that, but feels a bit lackluster. I wonder if additional benefits that don't lead to an every-round bump in damage might make 2WF more appealing. Two options come to mind, both inspired by having two threatening weapons:
1) 2WF gives a second reaction
2) 2WF gives larger reach for Opportunity Attacks
(1) could increase damage output depending on how often OA oppotunities occur. If you want to focus on versatility rather than damage, you could still cap it at one OA - but I think that makes things too complicated. For (2), note that this is in some sense the opposite of "reach" weapons - reach weapons only have extra reach on your turn, and not for OAs. (2) would give 2WF extra reach on OAs, but not for regular attacks.
Armor feats, social feats, ranged weapons, etc.
If there is nothing else to choose from you don't need feats at all. And the "One class one weapon" design has to die anyway.
Last edited:
Salamandyr
Adventurer
So I figured up average damage for a human character (so no increased damage die) with an 18 in their primary stat. I assumed a +7 attack bonus against an AC of 15 which seems to be pretty standard. That means an overall 65% chance to hit.
Average damage for
Dual wielder w/ 2 rapiers 2 attacks at 1d6+4/2 avg damage 4.7
Longsword & shield 1 attack at 1d8+4 avg damage 5.7
Greatsword 1d12+4 avg damage 7.1
Max damage on critical was included.
Dual wielding loses out 2 different ways. It has a smaller damage die, and because of division mechanics, the odds of rolling minimum damage are increased. The range of possible damage results is 2,3,3,4,4, or 5.
The one advantage that dual wielding has is that the odds of successfully hitting your opponent at least one time is 87.75%. But even with your higher accuracy, your average damage is still the lowest of the 3 options.
Average damage for
Dual wielder w/ 2 rapiers 2 attacks at 1d6+4/2 avg damage 4.7
Longsword & shield 1 attack at 1d8+4 avg damage 5.7
Greatsword 1d12+4 avg damage 7.1
Max damage on critical was included.
Dual wielding loses out 2 different ways. It has a smaller damage die, and because of division mechanics, the odds of rolling minimum damage are increased. The range of possible damage results is 2,3,3,4,4, or 5.
The one advantage that dual wielding has is that the odds of successfully hitting your opponent at least one time is 87.75%. But even with your higher accuracy, your average damage is still the lowest of the 3 options.
Steely_Dan
First Post
Necessary in general? No, but they are movable, small units of character build customisation. I think they were one of the better changes moving from 2e to 3e. And I believe they are popular with 3e and 4e players.
By bundling feats into Specialisations, WotC are trying to find the compromise position between players wanting to spend more time customising their character mechanically, or more time on other things.
Necessary for dual wielding? No, but the core would have to swallow up the rules in the feat description, or it would need to become a class feature for e.g. Ranger.
It's a bit of a value judgement to decide whether a popular choice that needs a small tweak to work mechanically (i.e uses up a paragraph of rules text, like dual wielding) should be a feat or in the core.
Steely_Dan
First Post
That's cool, I just want the choice: to Feat, or not to Feat?!
I still don't feel/think (experienced, etc) that 3rd or 4th got it right.
Similar Threads
