Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

Fanaelialae

Adventurer
I remove the need for the bonus action for characters with the two weapon fighting style.

I want it to cost a bonus action for rogues, because having a second chance to land a sneak attack is well worth the opportunity cost of not being able to use cunning action.

But for warriors who want to dual wield, the opportunity cost is generally too high, IMO, which is why I apply it to the fighting style. (A rogue who dips to get the fighting style pays their opportunity cost in a delayed sneak attack progression.)

I'm not so sure about the idea of combining the damage. With the Dual Wielder feat you essentially deal better than two handed weapon damage (2d8). If they can somehow add bonus damage on top of that (dual wielding flametongues) the damage could get completely out of control. I suppose that you could just avoid giving out more than one flametongue in a campaign, but IIRC there are spells that add elemental damage dice to your weapons. It seems like it has the potential for abuse (though I suppose if your players aren't the sort to do such a thing, you're fine).
 

Yaarel

Adventurer
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 ...
Nothing would change for the Rogue.

The Rogue likes two separate attacks to make Sneak Attack more reliable. Splitting up the attacks this way would continue to cost a bonus action.

By contrast, the Fighter would benefit by leaving it as a single attack, and just adding the dice together, so that it iterates with Extra Attacks.
 

dnd4vr

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
That we can't form a consensus?
Haven't we formed a consensus that we can't form a consensus then? ;)

Our rule:

TWF: cost bonus action but you add ability score modifier to the attack (you don't need the twf style for this).

TWF style: removes the bonus action requirement from TWF.
 

phantomK9

Explorer
Our rule:

TWF: cost bonus action but you add ability score modifier to the attack (you don't need the twf style for this).

TWF style: removes the bonus action requirement from TWF.
I think I'm going to use this as well.
I had originally thought of just allowing anyone two use two-weapon fighting and basically get an additional attack with the off-hand without requiring a bonus action. But I like the trade off of needing the fighting style to basically do it better and its interaction with the Rogue's sneak attack. Forcing the Rogue to Fighter 2 dip to get it reduces the sneak attack die by one level (as they get one per 2 levels) which roughly makes it all balance out.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I think I'm going to use this as well.
I had originally thought of just allowing anyone two use two-weapon fighting and basically get an additional attack with the off-hand without requiring a bonus action. But I like the trade off of needing the fighting style to basically do it better and its interaction with the Rogue's sneak attack. Forcing the Rogue to Fighter 2 dip to get it reduces the sneak attack die by one level (as they get one per 2 levels) which roughly makes it all balance out.

This helps the fighter up until 11th level. Then, all perceivable benefits of TWFing go out the window. Now, the fighter is the one who suffers the most here, so perhaps they just need a patch in extra attack.

Taking away the bonus action might be make a 1 or 2 level fighter dip too tempting for a Monk, though.
 

Satyrn

Visitor
Is there any consensus about how to fix two-weapon fighting?
I don't even agree that it needs fixing. I've played a fighter who did it, and it was fine.

And then there's a ranger in my megadungeon campaign dual-wielding pistols and he's loving it. And that's despite the fact that he also has a rifle that gives him an extra attack as a bonus action.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I don't even agree that it needs fixing. I've played a fighter who did it, and it was fine.

And then there's a ranger in my megadungeon campaign dual-wielding pistols and he's loving it. And that's despite the fact that he also has a rifle that gives him an extra attack as a bonus action.

I'm never arguing against cool. But when duelist with a longsword and shield out damages a TWFer with two shorts words, I find that the rules aren't supporting the character. You might have thought the fighter was fine, but giving something extra would have been more fine.
 

Toledo

Explorer
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.
In two years of playing almost every week for 5 hours a pop, I estimate I've played Tier 1 40% of the time, Tier 2 55% of the time, and Tier 3 5% of the time. In one campaign, I've just reached Level 12. It is amazing to be so high.

TWF has been pretty amazing for the Rogues and Rangers I see use it. I wouldn't change anything with it.
 
Nothing would change for the Rogue.

The Rogue likes two separate attacks to make Sneak Attack more reliable. Splitting up the attacks this way would continue to cost a bonus action.

By contrast, the Fighter would benefit by leaving it as a single attack, and just adding the dice together, so that it iterates with Extra Attacks.
Mechanically this works well. I'm not quite sure how to wrap my head around why some characters mechanically TWF differently than others. Great mechanical solution - but totally not fiction driven - which makes it feel a bit less elegant.
 

jgsugden

Adventurer
There is not a concensus that there is a problem with it as it is.

I think that the questions on what needs to be done to balance it depend highly upon other house rules, optional rules, and other decisions that are campaign specific. It also depends on the yardstick by which you measure it - if there are no great weapon fighters in the group, it is probably not worth altering. If there is a GWM PC who can get advantage easily and has a source of attacks with a bonus action, it looks weak in comparison.

In my games, I decided to allow a PC using two weapons to make a free attack with the off hand the first time they make an attack with their 'primary' weapon on a turn rather than making it a bonus action. This includes attacks on another creature's turn due to an OA, etc... It was overpowered in some ways, but it didn't break the game.
 
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
That's fine but not really the point I'm getting at. You are looking at balancing around expected magic items. I'm saying what if the balance point has already been around having a +1/+2/+3 weapon in tiers 2/3/4 and that's what makes us look at TWF as sucking. The numbers actually map out very well if you factor in basic magic weapon bonuses in those tiers.




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).
No, according to my theory they would both have +2 magic weapons. The TWF would do 1d6+7 with 4 attacks and the GWF would do 2d6+7 with 3 attacks. They would have the same chance to hit. Damage would be identical at 42 (the GWF would have a +1 ac bonus in comparison).


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.
Not if you factor in +1/+2/+3 magic weapons

Paladins are okay, especially if they can get the style, because of the way Improved Divine Smite works.
Paladins are fine with it even without the style - it's simply a way to increase NOVA potential at the expense of slightly lower daily damage (until you hit level 11 and gain divine smite)

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.
Seriously take a look at all the classes with a +1/+2/+3 and get back to me. Throw out all magic item assumptions. Just look and see if the fighting styles are balanced on a per class basis at that point. You'll be surprised how close it is.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I'm never arguing against cool. But when duelist with a longsword and shield out damages a TWFer with two shorts words, I find that the rules aren't supporting the character. You might have thought the fighter was fine, but giving something extra would have been more fine.
At higher levels, why are they using short swords? Unless of course you don't use feats in your game. It also depends on a lot of things. Levels, items, multiple opponents, play style all factor into it. Comparing characters on a spreadsheet, especially when most games (according to various sources) never get above level 10 is kind of pointless.

Of course if maximizing your calculated DPR is what makes the game fun for you, more power to you.
 

Quartz

Adventurer
Is there any consensus about how to fix two-weapon fighting?
TWF is fine and balanced in a game without both feats and multiclassing. It only needs fixing in a game with feats or multiclassing or both.

I too have no issue with TWF using the bonus action.
 
TWF is fine and balanced in a game without both feats and multiclassing. It only needs fixing in a game with feats or multiclassing or both.

I too have no issue with TWF using the bonus action.
Mostly yes. It's fine in a game without feats and multiclassing for every class except a high level fighter. It greatly falls behind for him (unless you factor in +1/+2/+3 magic weapons in tiers 2/3/4). At that point it comes out pretty even.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Concerning the fighter with a belt of giant strength two handed vs not, why assume the dual wielder has two +3 weapons? While I haven't done the math a PC with a pair of +1 swords and the equivalent belt of giant strength is probably going be in the same ballpark if not better.
 
Concerning the fighter with a belt of giant strength two handed vs not, why assume the dual wielder has two +3 weapons? While I haven't done the math a PC with a pair of +1 swords and the equivalent belt of giant strength is probably going be in the same ballpark if not better.
Because everyone having +3 weapons tier 4 makes TWF roughly balanced with Great weapons (without feats).
 
At higher levels, why are they using short swords? Unless of course you don't use feats in your game. It also depends on a lot of things. Levels, items, multiple opponents, play style all factor into it. Comparing characters on a spreadsheet, especially when most games (according to various sources) never get above level 10 is kind of pointless.

Of course if maximizing your calculated DPR is what makes the game fun for you, more power to you.
Generally the dual wielder feat is bad. Generally if your TWF it's better to go dex. Generally rapiers are not cool and no one likes dual wielding rapiers.
 

Quartz

Adventurer
Mostly yes. It's fine in a game without feats and multiclassing for every class except a high level fighter. It greatly falls behind for him (unless you factor in +1/+2/+3 magic weapons in tiers 2/3/4). At that point it comes out pretty even.
I disagree: Assuming a 16 stat and no feats, TWF is hugely ahead in DPR in tier 1, just ahead of Duellst in tier 2, and just behind in tier 3. It's only truly behind at level 20 when the fighter gets a fourth main attack. For 19 levels, TWF is just fine.
 
I disagree: Assuming a 16 stat and no feats, TWF is hugely ahead in DPR in tier 1, just ahead of Duellst in tier 2, and just behind in tier 3. It's only truly behind at level 20 when the fighter gets a fourth main attack. For 19 levels, TWF is just fine.
No - you are forgetting about action surge, 2nd wind, precision attack, OA's etc. -- All of which favor the GWF
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top