Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8261614" data-attributes="member: 82106">Every edition has had issues with TWF type styles. It is just difficult to handle. ANY time you add actions to a character it is likely to be a non-linear increase in their combat power.I'd note that 4e tried to handle it by having a default rule under which you just got a small damage bonus, and to even get that you had to take a feat (you could consider it equivalent to proficiency). You could get a defensive bonus that offset losing your shield for another feat. The 'small weapon restriction' was also there. Rangers got TWF as a built-in style and a power that let them explicitly multi-attack. This was supposed to just give them their striker 'hits hard' character, but players soon discovered they could optimize this whole thing because every other damage/attack amplifier was 2x better if it was coupled with a Twin Strike. Eventually they had to add restricted versions of this ability to other classes (they were at least restricted enough not to become THE optimum). Suffice it to say it was a design misstep in 4e. 5e's way of handling it seems to be reasonably good, my TWF Battlemaster is a lawnmower, but he's not really BETTER than other builds at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8261614, member: 82106"] Every edition has had issues with TWF type styles. It is just difficult to handle. ANY time you add actions to a character it is likely to be a non-linear increase in their combat power. I'd note that 4e tried to handle it by having a default rule under which you just got a small damage bonus, and to even get that you had to take a feat (you could consider it equivalent to proficiency). You could get a defensive bonus that offset losing your shield for another feat. The 'small weapon restriction' was also there. Rangers got TWF as a built-in style and a power that let them explicitly multi-attack. This was supposed to just give them their striker 'hits hard' character, but players soon discovered they could optimize this whole thing because every other damage/attack amplifier was 2x better if it was coupled with a Twin Strike. Eventually they had to add restricted versions of this ability to other classes (they were at least restricted enough not to become THE optimum). Suffice it to say it was a design misstep in 4e. 5e's way of handling it seems to be reasonably good, my TWF Battlemaster is a lawnmower, but he's not really BETTER than other builds at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification