D&D 5E Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

[DND_Reborn]

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]

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]

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.

 

[jamesweingarten]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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.