• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.
  • The RSS feed for the news page has changed. Use this link. The old one displays the forums, not the news.

Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

Esker

Explorer
I am glad to see you revised your answer, because I got 171.5 (roughly), only 1 point away from perfect potential IIRC. I remember someone saying the math was hard... guess not LOL. ;)
I'd be curious to know whether you used the same method I did, or came up with something equivalent but simpler. The way I set it up:

Divide attack rolls into three bins: outside the precision triggering range, inside the range with dice available, and inside the range with dice used up. Then assuming 69 attacks per day (20 rounds x 3 attacks/round + 3 action surges), divided in thirds between short rests, calculate the total damage for each possible distribution of 23 rolls into bins, and average, weighted by the probability of that allocation (the allocation is determined by the total number of rolls in the triggering range, which has a binomial distribution).
 

Horwath

Explorer
Two weapon fighting:

When you make attack with your mainhand onehanded weapon as a part of your Action, you can make one attack with offhand weapon as a Bonus action.
Off hand weapon must be light. You add only half(round down) ability modifier to that attack.


Two weapon fighting style: off hand weapon can be any one handed weapon and you add full ability modifier to weapon damage roll.


Dual wielder feat removed.


New feats added:

Martial training:
you gain +1 to str, dex or con score, to a max of 20.
You gain proficiency in one weapon.
You gain one fighting style of your choice. It cannot be a fighting style you already have.


Improved two weapon fighting(as suggested): requirement, Extra attack feature, Two weapon fighting style.
+1 to str, dex or con to max of 20
You can make 2 attacks with your off hand weapon as a Bonus action.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
I'd be curious to know whether you used the same method I did, or came up with something equivalent but simpler. The way I set it up:

Divide attack rolls into three bins: outside the precision triggering range, inside the range with dice available, and inside the range with dice used up. Then assuming 69 attacks per day (20 rounds x 3 attacks/round + 3 action surges), divided in thirds between short rests, calculate the total damage for each possible distribution of 23 rolls into bins, and average, weighted by the probability of that allocation (the allocation is determined by the total number of rolls in the triggering range, which has a binomial distribution).
I used combinatorics and probability distributions. Yeah, you have to break it up into cases. I just assumed the 60 attacks with expected rolls of 3 1's, 3 2's, 3 3's, etc. up to 3 20's. Thus the 15 rolls of 3's through 7's will use up the 15 superiority dice. The 1's automiss, of course, and the 2's aren't needed to be considered because with only 15 dice, there are none left to even attempt to improve them out of 60 rolls.

Then I ran a 1,000,000 trial sample to verify the numbers and I got the 171.5 (or so).


Two weapon fighting:

When you make attack with your mainhand onehanded weapon as a part of your Action, you can make one attack with offhand weapon as a Bonus action.
Off hand weapon must be light. You add only half(round down) ability modifier to that attack.

Two weapon fighting style: off hand weapon can be any one handed weapon and you add full ability modifier to weapon damage roll.

Dual wielder feat removed.

New feats added:

Martial training:
you gain +1 to str, dex or con score, to a max of 20.
You gain proficiency in one weapon.
You gain one fighting style of your choice. It cannot be a fighting style you already have.

Improved two weapon fighting(as suggested): requirement, Extra attack feature, Two weapon fighting style.
+1 to str, dex or con to max of 20
You can make 2 attacks with your off hand weapon as a Bonus action.
You DARE try to get this thread back on track! Shame, shame, shame... j/k ;)

I like the Martial Training idea. It would work well for the Wizard who wants to learn a single weapon, but a stat, and learn to use the weapon with some style (pun intended). I am not sold on Imp TWF simply because I don't like requirements like that in 5E.
 

Esker

Explorer
I used combinatorics and probability distributions. Yeah, you have to break it up into cases. I just assumed the 60 attacks with expected rolls of 3 1's, 3 2's, 3 3's, etc. up to 3 20's. Thus the 15 rolls of 3's through 7's will use up the 15 superiority dice. The 1's automiss, of course, and the 2's aren't needed to be considered because with only 15 dice, there are none left to even attempt to improve them out of 60 rolls.

Then I ran a 1,000,000 trial sample to verify the numbers and I got the 171.5 (or so).
Interesting, so it's not quite the same, since you're using the average distribution of rolls. I actually find that if you don't use a die when you roll a natural 2, your extra damage goes down to 152; the reason being that you're now more likely to have fewer opportunities than 15 to use them (and more likely to miss when you don't).
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Interesting, so it's not quite the same, since you're using the average distribution of rolls. I actually find that if you don't use a die when you roll a natural 2, your extra damage goes down to 152; the reason being that you're now more likely to have fewer opportunities than 15 to use them (and more likely to miss when you don't).
Hmm... Why would you think there are fewer opportunities to use them? For all 15 are used on the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in each set of 20 rolls (5 misses out of the 7 in each set). If you can use it on a natural 2 to make it a hit, you would also use it on a 3 through 7 for the same impact.

Regardless, I think both our respective methods show in this scenario, Precision attack is vastly superior to increasing damage output than the maneuvers that simply add 5.5 avg damage on the hits.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I wouldn't want to patch TWFing with a feat. After all of the talk lately, the 11+ Fighter is the one who really needs the TWFing help. While I would love to get rid of the bonus action, that would imbalance the Rogue and Monk.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
I wouldn't want to patch TWFing with a feat. After all of the talk lately, the 11+ Fighter is the one who really needs the TWFing help. While I would love to get rid of the bonus action, that would imbalance the Rogue and Monk.
It would make them stronger; I don't know if it would make them too strong. Although I'm coming from the standpoint that I don't consider the PHB baseline to be super balanced anyway.
 

Esker

Explorer
Hmm... Why would you think there are fewer opportunities to use them? For all 15 are used on the 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in each set of 20 rolls (5 misses out of the 7 in each set). If you can use it on a natural 2 to make it a hit, you would also use it on a 3 through 7 for the same impact.
Because there won't always be 15 in that range; sometimes there will be more and sometimes fewer. If there are more, you're worse off on average than the case you examined, since any rolls after the 5th in that range automatically miss. If there are fewer, you're a bit better off, since the shortfall are more likely to be hits than nat 2s and 1s, but it's not a guarantee. The two cases (>= 15 and <= 15) don't balance out exactly; on average the outcomes that aren't exactly 15 are a bit worse than the outcomes that are exactly 15.

The same is true if you use your dice on 2s, but two things differ. The downside is that on rolls when you use a die, you're hitting a bit less often on average than if you held back on a 2. But the upside is that on the rolls when you don't use a die, you've removed 2 from the set of possibilities that miss, so you are hitting more often then. It turns out that the effect of the latter outweighs the effect of the former, and so you're better off spending a die if you roll a 2.

Regardless, I think both our respective methods show in this scenario, Precision attack is vastly superior to increasing damage output than the maneuvers that simply add 5.5 avg damage on the hits.
Yes, as it should be, since its only effect is to add damage to an attack (from zero to possibly not zero), whereas the other maneuvers have other effects. Sometimes those other effects will be worth more than the additional damage you get from precision attack. Take lunging attack, for example. In a vacuum it looks bad, since you have to spend the die before you know you hit, and so you only have a chance of adding even the 5.5 damage to that attack. But why would you use lunging attack if you don't need it? The times when you would consider using lunging attack are likely times when your movement isn't enough to close with the enemy (you could use it defensively too, to allow you to move back away after attacking without taking an AoO, but we can't assign a damage value to that). In that case, the difference isn't attack for regular damage vs attack for extra damage; the difference is not be able to attack at all vs attack for extra damage, so the lunge is buying you (dph + 5.5) * to_hit in that circumstance, which could easily be worth more to your daily damage than saving the die for a future precision attack.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
It would make them stronger; I don't know if it would make them too strong. Although I'm coming from the standpoint that I don't consider the PHB baseline to be super balanced anyway.
PHB baseline is definitely not balanced. In another discussion elsewhere, we identified Hex/Hunter's mark and other per hit effects to potentially get in the way of rebalancing efforts. You can rebalance the Fighter perfectly and then have a Ranger or Bladelock come in and mess it up; also, balanced fighter can break the monk, and at least one way of balancing the fighter makes TWFing the option for high level Barbarians.
 

CleverNickName

Adventurer
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.
I guess my gaming group is in the minority also. None of us has complained about it being "broken" or needing adjustment, not even the TWF ranger or the Hexblade. Nothing to fix, as far as we are concerned.
 

dnd4vr

Explorer
Because there won't always be 15 in that range; sometimes there will be more and sometimes fewer. If there are more, you're worse off on average than the case you examined, since any rolls after the 5th in that range automatically miss. If there are fewer, you're a bit better off, since the shortfall are more likely to be hits than nat 2s and 1s, but it's not a guarantee. The two cases (>= 15 and <= 15) don't balance out exactly; on average the outcomes that aren't exactly 15 are a bit worse than the outcomes that are exactly 15.

The same is true if you use your dice on 2s, but two things differ. The downside is that on rolls when you use a die, you're hitting a bit less often on average than if you held back on a 2. But the upside is that on the rolls when you don't use a die, you've removed 2 from the set of possibilities that miss, so you are hitting more often then. It turns out that the effect of the latter outweighs the effect of the former, and so you're better off spending a die if you roll a 2.
Sure, that makes sense. When you don't happen to roll 15 misses, say only 10 in the day, the five other dice can't be used for precision attack, and don't factor in at that point. On the other side, if you have more than 21 misses, say 25, then those extra 4 misses also can't benefit because all 15 have already been used. It's interesting that this only changes the outcome by a point or less. Of course, when all 15 dice aren't needed for precision attack, they will contribute to damage through other maneuvers, adding to the overall expected damage.

Anyway, it was fun. :)
 

Esker

Explorer
Sure, that makes sense. When you don't happen to roll 15 misses, say only 10 in the day, the five other dice can't be used for precision attack, and don't factor in at that point. On the other side, if you have more than 21 misses, say 25, then those extra 4 misses also can't benefit because all 15 have already been used. It's interesting that this only changes the outcome by a point or less. Of course, when all 15 dice aren't needed for precision attack, they will contribute to damage through other maneuvers, adding to the overall expected damage.

Anyway, it was fun. :)
It’s a really small difference at this AC in particular because the below 15 near-misses cases do partially compensate for the above 15 near-misses cases, just not fully. If you have dice leftover it usually means you've hit more often than expected (unless you just had an excess of nat 1s and 2s), so you're doing more damage than when you use all your dice. Basically you're trading an 80% chance to hit for an 86% chance to hit if you move a roll from the 3-7 range to outside that range. At higher ACs though, it will flip, and you'll be hitting more often when you use a die than when you don't.

As for other maneuvers, yeah, you could further boost your damage by using dice on those if you pick your spots well, but you also never know when your next roll might need precision attack. So factoring in other maneuvers could either increase or decrease your damage, depending on how and when you use them.

In any case, yes, it was fun!
 

Paul Farquhar

Adventurer
I guess my gaming group is in the minority also. None of us has complained about it being "broken" or needing adjustment, not even the TWF ranger or the Hexblade. Nothing to fix, as far as we are concerned.
I suspect the "minority" is actually an overwhelming majority.

As with most things on the internet, it's a small number of people making a lot of noise that create an illusion that a lot of people think the same way.
 
[FONT=&quot]Rules (Two-Weapon Fighting) - When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fighting style (Two-Weapon Fighting) - When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Feat (Dual Wielder) - You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:[/FONT]

  • You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
  • You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one- handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
  • You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
 

Mycroft

Explorer
As you can't use the classic rapier and dagger without a feat (and then you might as well go for 2 rapiers), and feats are optional, it would be nice if the Two-Weapon Fighting style also gave you something like:

"You can use two-weapon fighting as long as one of the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding is light."
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
While two-weapon fighting starts strong there is little future in choosing the build.

This means the two feats Dual Wielder and Defensive Duelist are even weaker than you'd think. Not only do they provide questionable benefit (compared to, say, Greatweapon Fighting), but they also lock you into a fighting style that, by the time you've taken the feats, have lost most of its steam.

For this reason, I basically smushed them together - giving the benefit of both for the price of one feat, not two.
 

Zardnaar

Explorer
I allow a ranger archetype from EN5ider and a fighter one from Midgard Heroes Player book.

A big problem are various phb feats so I also allow a 3pp small arms master that lets you stack strength and Dex with light weapons and grants a +1 str or Dex boost.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
While two-weapon fighting starts strong there is little future in choosing the build.

This means the two feats Dual Wielder and Defensive Duelist are even weaker than you'd think. Not only do they provide questionable benefit (compared to, say, Greatweapon Fighting), but they also lock you into a fighting style that, by the time you've taken the feats, have lost most of its steam.

For this reason, I basically smushed them together - giving the benefit of both for the price of one feat, not two.
Change Defensive Duelist from finesse weapon to one light weapon, and it would give a mechanical reason to go d8/d6 instead of d8/d8, which I think is an aesthetic worth promoting.
 

Laurefindel

Explorer
Change Defensive Duelist from finesse weapon to one light weapon, and it would give a mechanical reason to go d8/d6 instead of d8/d8, which I think is an aesthetic worth promoting.
... and would enable defensive duelist with dual handaxe wielding, which I think would be kind of cool.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
... and would enable defensive duelist with dual handaxe wielding, which I think would be kind of cool.
Off-hand hand axe is definitely the sort of thing I'd like to see supported by rules changes. Leaving it as finesse just gives Dex another exclusive option, which it doesn't need.
 

Advertisement

Top