Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

[Yaarel]

Is there any consensus about how to fix two-weapon fighting?

 

[Mistwell]

I don't think so.

I do think it would be fair to say with your first attack in each round, you may attack a second time with an off-hand weapon. Just get rid of it requiring a bonus action.

 

[Laurefindel]

Other than it should use at least two weapons, not that I know of. Many solutions are being proposed, many work well for localized groups, none seem to satisfy a majority.

 

[Saelorn]

Not a consensus, no. We just have a wide variety of house rules.

Personally, I'm a fan of adding the damage from both weapons together, and treating that as a single attack (which scales with extra attack, no bonus action required).

 

[Xeviat]

Not a consensus, no. We just have a wide variety of house rules.

Personally, I'm a fan of adding the damage from both weapons together, and treating that as a single attack (which scales with extra attack, no bonus action required).

I'm strongly tempted to do what Saelorn suggests, then allow a bonus action for splitting between two targets.

There's no consensus. I've tried to tease one out. It's tough.

 

[FrogReaver]

Is there any consensus about how to fix two-weapon fighting?

No. Too many abilities scale to many different ways. That makes it nearly impossible to reach a consensus.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose one could grant attack actions worth of extra attacks. They benefit from bonsuses to attack but not bonuses to damage. (no bonus action required here)

 

[Dausuul]

The thing most folks seem to agree on is removing the bonus action. Not being able to use that bonus action really stings as you start gaining abilities and spells.

I'd start there and see if it does the trick. Fighters might need some extra help past level 11, but otherwise I think that could be all you need.

 

[FrogReaver]

The thing most folks seem to agree on is removing the bonus action. Not being able to use that bonus action really stings as you start gaining abilities and spells.

I'd start there and see if it does the trick. Fighters might need some extra help past level 11, but otherwise I think that could be all you need.

Removing the bonus action breaks to many other things, especially in tier 1. (at least with no other changes)

In tier 1 it makes it so
Rangers are hands down better with TWF than anything
Barbarians are hands down better with TWF than anything
Paladins are hands down better with TWF than anything (extra chacnes to hit/crit for divine smite and no loss to damage)
Fighters already favor TWF in tier 1. The change doesn't impact them
Warlocks are very strong with TWF (much better than any other weapon or eldritch blast)
Monks can TWF and bonus action flurry of blows....

Pretty much, if you have a way to get a bonus action or damage bonus it's the only style objectively good in tier 1 for just about any PC.

In tier 2 it's a lot closer (and more varied amongst the classes) In tier 3 things get wonky again...

 

[SkidAce]

I am in the minority, and am inclined to keep it as a bonus action.

I understand the drawbacks, but look at them more as tradeoffs for versatility. IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Has anyone looked at the numbers if you assume +1/+2/+3 weapons? I would think those balance things pretty closely.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm trying to remember when we've had a consensus here about anything.

 

[FrogReaver]

Has anyone looked at the numbers if you assume +1/+2/+3 weapons? I would think those balance things pretty closely.

At least for a fighter - these numbers map out pretty well - just assume a +1 weapon in tier 2. a +2 weapon in tier 3. a +3 weapon in tier 4. --- Maybe just maybe our damage numbers are all out of whack for not doing this?

checked for a TWF ranger in tier 2 and the numbers look solid for a +1 weapon. When using hunters mark, your turn 1 is lower (due to bonus action) but then you catch up on turn 2 and out pace on turn 3.

 

[Dausuul]

Removing the bonus action breaks to many other things, especially in tier 1. (at least with no other changes)

Fair point. I keep forgetting that so many folks play most of the game at tier 1 and rarely get into 2, let alone 3.

I don't think the bonus action is a good tier 1 balancing factor, though. At those levels, there are far fewer bonus actions competing for that spot; so the bonus action requirement does too little to pull back TWFing when TWFing needs to be pulled back, and it does far too much at higher levels when TWFing is - at best - just keeping pace. I'd rather focus on scaling back the raw damage output at low levels. Perhaps the Two-Weapon Fighting Style could grant half your stat bonus instead of the whole thing, and then upgrade to the full bonus at 5th level. (That still leaves barbarians, but it's not the end of the world to have one class come out ahead, especially when they can only do it twice a day.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Fair point. I keep forgetting that so many folks play most of the game at tier 1 and rarely get into 2, let alone 3.

I don't think the bonus action is a good tier 1 balancing factor, though. At those levels, there are far fewer bonus actions competing for that spot; so the bonus action requirement does too little to pull back TWFing when TWFing needs to be pulled back, and it does far too much at higher levels when TWFing is - at best - just keeping pace. I'd rather focus on scaling back the raw damage output at low levels. Perhaps the Two-Weapon Fighting Style could grant half your stat bonus instead of the whole thing, and then upgrade to the full bonus at 5th level. (That still leaves barbarians, but it's not the end of the world to have one class come out ahead, especially when they can only do it twice a day.)

The bonus action requirement is the only reason the fighter is the only class objectively better with TWF in tier 1 (besides rouges, but they are the only class it's actually good on later) - even out of the ones that get no fighting style.

 

[Yaarel]

Those are good suggestions.

@Saelorn: add the dice together as a single attack, scaling with Extra Attack, no bonus necessary.

@Xeviat: but require a bonus to split between two targets.

I would add: require a bonus if splitting into two separate attacks for any reason (such as to increase the chances for a special attack to hit).

 

[Oofta]

Since trying to get consensus on a public forum is pretty much a lost cause, I'll just throw in my 2 coppers that I think it works fine as is. Great? Best option for everyone? Perfectly balanced? No, not at all.

But the difference of a couple of points of damage per round at specific level ranges on a spreadsheet doesn't mean it needs to be modified. There is no such thing as perfect balance in a game that uses 5E's style.

 

[Xeviat]

Has anyone looked at the numbers if you assume +1/+2/+3 weapons? I would think those balance things pretty closely.

I have, sort of.

Remember, a +1 weapon has the same rarity as Gauntlets of Ogre Power (more important if your game allows item crafting or item purchasing I suppose).

A +2 weapon has the same rarity as a belt of hill giant strength (Str 21)

A +3 weapon has the same rarity as a belt of fire giant strength (Str 25) or Stone/Frost giant strength (Str 23)

So your high end Fighter with 2 +3 weapons has nearly as much gear as a fighter with a +3 greatsword and a belt of fire giant strength (though, to be fair, we'd have to pick out a weapon that has attunement ... (While looking for a weapon, I found the scimitar of speed and I'm very upset now ... hahaha ... but I can't find a good very rare weapon to give a TWFer that would especially benefit them, so lets just stick with the +3 weapon).

So, lets say our fighters are above 11th level (we're giving them two very rare items after all).

Two weapon fighter has 4 attacks at +12 to hit and 1d6+8 damage (46 potential). Greatsword fighter has 3 attacks at +13 to hit and 2d6*+9 (52) and an increased chance to hit, or 3 attacks at +14 to hit and 2d6*+10 (55).

-------------

TWFing starts out better than GWFing for a Fighter until 5th level, falls behind but is okay from 5th to 10th, and then dies at 11th. Barbarians are better off not until they can rage every fight, then it's better to. Monks have built in TWFing. Paladins are okay, especially if they can get the style, because of the way Improved Divine Smite works. Rangers who want to use Hunter's Mark do okay depending on their subclass (some subclasses fight for their bonus action). Rogues are good TWFers but it kind of ties into their Cunning Action.

Balancing TWFing would require more changes (like going in and changing how Hunter's Mark/Hex work) than many are prepared for.

Maybe 6E will get it right. Or a few of us will get off our butts and put together D&D Tactics.

 

[Xeviat]

Those are good suggestions.

@Saelorn: add the dice together as a single attack, scaling with Extra Attack, no bonus necessary.

@Xeviat: but require a bonus to split between two targets.

I would add: require a bonus if splitting into two separate attacks for any reason (such as to increase the chances for a special attack to hit).

I wouldn't want someone to split attacks and target the same person for both, if we were going this route. I really like TWFing taking the bonus action for the Rogue. I'd be warry of changing the style to remove the bonus action, because it's only a 1 level dip for the rogue. I'd have to see what a 2 level Fighter dip does compared to reducing your sneak attack by 1d6 ...

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm trying to remember when we've had a consensus here about anything.

That we can't form a consensus?