-
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!
Archer and Dual Wielder Specialties: What am I missing?
- Thread starter Ahwe Yahzhe
- Start date
Transformer
Explorer
A Dex-based melee character has three options:
The advantages of two weapon fighting are:
So the advantages are pretty niche, but I'd say that collectively they are a reasonable alternative to an across the board +1 damage or +1 AC. In fact, I think this is an elegant solution for two-weapon fighting: halving all damage nips most abuses and overpowered combos in the bud, and there's no annoying massive penalty to hit with your off-hand or anything.
The problem, of course, is that using a two-hander or sword and board works for anyone, while two-weapon fighting costs you a feat. It shouldn't. There are two problems here. First, two-weapon fighting is balanced against the other options just fine by default, so making you take a feat for it gimps it. Second, you shouldn't have to use up your entire specialty on two-weapon fighting just to do it at all.
So the solution is easy: make this how two-weapon fighting works by default. Then make the first feat in the specialty something else: a one round bleed effect on a hit with both weapons, or something. Voila, two-weapon fighting looks good.
- A 2-hander (1d8 damage)
- Sword and board (1d6 damage, +1 AC)
- Two weapon fighting (1d6 damage, doubled and halved)
The advantages of two weapon fighting are:
- Consistency: your damage output is more predictable, you rarely have to deal with the frustration of missing entirely.
- Ability to kill two mooks or heavily damaged creatures with a single regular attack.
- Doubling your chances of getting at least one hit, so that you can apply a condition, all but guarantee sneak attack damage (or at least half sneak attack damage), etc.
- Flexibility: you can still attack with just one of your weapons if you like, perhaps if you think full damage will kill the target but half damage won't.
So the advantages are pretty niche, but I'd say that collectively they are a reasonable alternative to an across the board +1 damage or +1 AC. In fact, I think this is an elegant solution for two-weapon fighting: halving all damage nips most abuses and overpowered combos in the bud, and there's no annoying massive penalty to hit with your off-hand or anything.
The problem, of course, is that using a two-hander or sword and board works for anyone, while two-weapon fighting costs you a feat. It shouldn't. There are two problems here. First, two-weapon fighting is balanced against the other options just fine by default, so making you take a feat for it gimps it. Second, you shouldn't have to use up your entire specialty on two-weapon fighting just to do it at all.
So the solution is easy: make this how two-weapon fighting works by default. Then make the first feat in the specialty something else: a one round bleed effect on a hit with both weapons, or something. Voila, two-weapon fighting looks good.
I haven't got to play any of the second packet but I've played a ton of two weapon fighter/rogues and I've always found you hit more but a two handed weapon fighter using those same feats slots using power attack and cleave really outputs him in damage at least to higher levels so I really have to check this out.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
There is another thread that analyses TWF. Because it is only usable with finessable weapons, the damage output is significantly reduced compared to a sword and board or a two-handed weapon combatant (oddly, unless you are a halfling).
Rapid Shot does not suffer this problem.
Rapid Shot does not suffer this problem.
KidSnide
Adventurer
I agree. Dual weapons should let you attack multiple opponents, attack more reliably or perform certain special maneuvers. It shouldn't be a technique for increasing the average damage per round.
-KS
My suggestion would be that default TWF requires the use of Finesse weapons... whereas the first feat of Dual Wielder allows you to use Martial weapons for TWF as well. Everything is still halved as usual... you just get to use a bit stronger weapon.
As an aside
I've always disliked how a melee character has to be saddled with downgrading weapon size to pick up multiple attacks via two weapon fighting while a ranged character can keep using his normal sized bow and gain multiple attacks. This problem was there in 3rd, 4th, and DDN playtest. That said I like the two attacks half damage thing. My problem is actually with the archery specialty's 3rd level feat, Sniper. Awesome for rogues, but fairly niche and lackluster for anyone else. It should be a valid go to option for a fighter archer IMO. The fighter seems to have a lot of this going on, with archery based 1st level maneuver kinda maybe ignoring cover whereas sniper gives up a turn to do it, his defendery fighting style not meshing with the defender specialty cause you only get one reaction, and glancing blow being useless in actual play. Back to the original topic, I think the previous post that said the two-weapon fighting specialty's first level feat should just be the way two-weapon fighting works by default is the way to go.
I've always disliked how a melee character has to be saddled with downgrading weapon size to pick up multiple attacks via two weapon fighting while a ranged character can keep using his normal sized bow and gain multiple attacks. This problem was there in 3rd, 4th, and DDN playtest. That said I like the two attacks half damage thing. My problem is actually with the archery specialty's 3rd level feat, Sniper. Awesome for rogues, but fairly niche and lackluster for anyone else. It should be a valid go to option for a fighter archer IMO. The fighter seems to have a lot of this going on, with archery based 1st level maneuver kinda maybe ignoring cover whereas sniper gives up a turn to do it, his defendery fighting style not meshing with the defender specialty cause you only get one reaction, and glancing blow being useless in actual play. Back to the original topic, I think the previous post that said the two-weapon fighting specialty's first level feat should just be the way two-weapon fighting works by default is the way to go.
Transformer
Explorer
I don't like it, simply because martial weapons can't use Dex mod in place of Str mod. In my mind, two-weapon fighting should be primarily the purview of Dex-based combatants. If you make the first feat in the two-weapon specialty something that only benefits Str users, that makes TWF primarily the purview of Str-based combatants.
People have thrown around the idea of multiple feat options at any given level within a specialty. Maybe your feat could be one of two options at level 1, making TWF more appealing to Str fighters, and the other option could be something that benefits Dex-based TWFers.
Bow_Seat
First Post
Okay so here is my two cents on the TWF mechanic. This is purely math and mechanics, I don't know crap about real sword fighting.
In short:
1) crit chances don't matter for average dpr
2) similarly crit misses don't matter for average dpr
3) rounding error is at most 2 points of damage over the round (meaningful at lvl1, not at lvl20)
4) splitting attacks is meaningful only if you can
-------a) imposed a non-halvable condition
-------b) kill one of the creatures hit
5) dropping die size by 1 reduces average dpr by 2 points, not very meaningful
My suggestions include doing at least one of the following:
1) allow only stat bonuses to not be halved. This would increase dpr by a max of 5 per round
2) drop the finesse requirement. This would increase dpr by approx. 2 per round, depending on weapon choice
3) specifically round up. This woud increase dpr by a max of 2 per round
personally I think the feat is great as is, but I completely understand the feelings of people who like TWF who feel like they are paying a feat tax, and I do not think it is unreasonable to give TWF a *slight* damage catch up so that it averages out something like
Damage: S&B < TWF < THF
Defense: S&B > TWF > THF
Edit: I'm not sure on the final ruling for CS and SA, but for TWF just to be equal in damage these need to not be halved, because each will only apply on one hit. if they could apply on both then they would need to be halved, but this is not the case.
In short:
1) crit chances don't matter for average dpr
2) similarly crit misses don't matter for average dpr
3) rounding error is at most 2 points of damage over the round (meaningful at lvl1, not at lvl20)
4) splitting attacks is meaningful only if you can
-------a) imposed a non-halvable condition
-------b) kill one of the creatures hit
5) dropping die size by 1 reduces average dpr by 2 points, not very meaningful
My suggestions include doing at least one of the following:
1) allow only stat bonuses to not be halved. This would increase dpr by a max of 5 per round
2) drop the finesse requirement. This would increase dpr by approx. 2 per round, depending on weapon choice
3) specifically round up. This woud increase dpr by a max of 2 per round
personally I think the feat is great as is, but I completely understand the feelings of people who like TWF who feel like they are paying a feat tax, and I do not think it is unreasonable to give TWF a *slight* damage catch up so that it averages out something like
Damage: S&B < TWF < THF
Defense: S&B > TWF > THF
Edit: I'm not sure on the final ruling for CS and SA, but for TWF just to be equal in damage these need to not be halved, because each will only apply on one hit. if they could apply on both then they would need to be halved, but this is not the case.
Similar Threads
