Xeviat
Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Hello everyone! I'm going to start out by saying that I'm aware the game isn't entirely about combat, and combat isn't entirely about damage. But, I'm of the belief that, all other things being equal, damage should be equal, or at least reasonably close to being equal.
D&D is about options. An option isn't truly an option if it is grossly more powerful than, or grossly weaker than, the other options. Either it's a trap, or it becomes a must have.
One place where D&D shines is in the options of what fighting style you're choosing for your character. You can choose weapon or spell, and that dictates your class choices to a degree. Within spells, you have a plethora of spells to chose from, even among the lowly cantrips that will be your bread and butter. Within weapons, you get two choices: You choose which weapon you want specifically, and you also chose which style you're going to follow.
Are you going to wield a one-handed weapon and a shield? Are you going to wield a two-handed weapon? Are you going to go for ranged? Thrown? Two light weapons? But one style is left out: one-handed weapon, empty off-hand.
Yes, yes, no one would do this out on the battlefield; either you used a two-handed weapon or you used a shield (or one of the rare two-weapon styles). I don't care about reality. I care about genre emulation and believability. I'd like to see fighters and rogues run around with a single weapon and an empty off-hand. The empty hand has value. You can grab people, you can climb and fight, and you can easily access your potions. But, you take a huge power hit to have an empty off-hand.
To make matters worse, lets talk about the Rogue. Because of the way Sneak Attack works, the Rogue heavily favors TWFing. The amount of damage you give up not two-weapon fighting (or not going for Crossbow Expert's bonus action attack) is ludicrous. How much damage do you give up? Well, lets see. Here's a damage estimation using an Assassin Rogue, rapier vs two shortswords. I have assumed that the rogue gets to attack with surprise half the time. I am assuming 3 round combats, and 6 combats per day. I'm assuming a 65% hit chance. At 20th level, I'm ignoring Stroke of Luck on attacks, because I can't figure out how to work it into my excel sheet (what's the chance of the rogue missing at least once over 3 rounds ...).
(Deleted the numbers, the formatting wasn't working)
So the rapier wielder averages out to 78.5% behind the dual shortsword wielder in damage. This is such a drop that I cannot imagine playing a rogue without using two weapons. Yes, the rapier wielder has access to their Cunning Action every round, but the two-weapon rogue only loses a tiny bit of damage if they forgo their second attack if the first attack hits; the second attack is just sneak attack insurance
So, what could having an empty off-hand do for you? Well, you can put a shield in it and get +2 AC; giving up the damage of a two-handed weapon for some AC is a perfect trade off. What if having an empty off-hand gave you +2 to hit?
The Archery style already gives +2 to hit, so it's a concept that's already in the game. Pillars of Eternity gives an accuracy boost for using a single one-handed weapon. And simple reason (not practical experience, mind you) says that the main-hand forward stance of fencing gives you more control than the main-hand back stance of using a shield. That sounds good.
So, that's balanced on the fighter; the fighter is choosing +2 AC or +2 to hit. It broadens out the styles too:
Single Weapon, Shield: Extra AC
Single Weapon, Empty: Extra Accuracy
Two-Handed Weapon: Extra Damage
Two Light Weapons: Extra Attacks
Sounds like choices to me.
So what does this do to the rogue? I entered the attack bonus, and the rapier rogue's damage went up. But it didn't go up enough. Then I changed sneak attack's damage die to match the weapon's damage die, and boom, I was sold.
(chart deleted)
This leaves the rapier wielder at 89.8% of the damage of the dual shortsword wielder. They're still behind, but not significantly so. They're going to also have an easier time hitting high AC foes. Having a solitary, higher damage attack might help them drop a foe earlier, while the dual shortsword rogue has more consistent damage.
Since sneak attack still has a finesse weapon requirement, you won't run into rogues sneak attacking with greatswords (I crunched the numbers, it deals 115% more damage than the shortswords). A 1d10 finesse two-hander (non-heavy) would actually be fine, dealing 93% the damage that two shortswords deal ... well, I just sold myself on the 1d8 finesse, versatile (1d10) katana. Oops.
D&D is about options. An option isn't truly an option if it is grossly more powerful than, or grossly weaker than, the other options. Either it's a trap, or it becomes a must have.
One place where D&D shines is in the options of what fighting style you're choosing for your character. You can choose weapon or spell, and that dictates your class choices to a degree. Within spells, you have a plethora of spells to chose from, even among the lowly cantrips that will be your bread and butter. Within weapons, you get two choices: You choose which weapon you want specifically, and you also chose which style you're going to follow.
Are you going to wield a one-handed weapon and a shield? Are you going to wield a two-handed weapon? Are you going to go for ranged? Thrown? Two light weapons? But one style is left out: one-handed weapon, empty off-hand.
Yes, yes, no one would do this out on the battlefield; either you used a two-handed weapon or you used a shield (or one of the rare two-weapon styles). I don't care about reality. I care about genre emulation and believability. I'd like to see fighters and rogues run around with a single weapon and an empty off-hand. The empty hand has value. You can grab people, you can climb and fight, and you can easily access your potions. But, you take a huge power hit to have an empty off-hand.
To make matters worse, lets talk about the Rogue. Because of the way Sneak Attack works, the Rogue heavily favors TWFing. The amount of damage you give up not two-weapon fighting (or not going for Crossbow Expert's bonus action attack) is ludicrous. How much damage do you give up? Well, lets see. Here's a damage estimation using an Assassin Rogue, rapier vs two shortswords. I have assumed that the rogue gets to attack with surprise half the time. I am assuming 3 round combats, and 6 combats per day. I'm assuming a 65% hit chance. At 20th level, I'm ignoring Stroke of Luck on attacks, because I can't figure out how to work it into my excel sheet (what's the chance of the rogue missing at least once over 3 rounds ...).
(Deleted the numbers, the formatting wasn't working)
So the rapier wielder averages out to 78.5% behind the dual shortsword wielder in damage. This is such a drop that I cannot imagine playing a rogue without using two weapons. Yes, the rapier wielder has access to their Cunning Action every round, but the two-weapon rogue only loses a tiny bit of damage if they forgo their second attack if the first attack hits; the second attack is just sneak attack insurance
So, what could having an empty off-hand do for you? Well, you can put a shield in it and get +2 AC; giving up the damage of a two-handed weapon for some AC is a perfect trade off. What if having an empty off-hand gave you +2 to hit?
The Archery style already gives +2 to hit, so it's a concept that's already in the game. Pillars of Eternity gives an accuracy boost for using a single one-handed weapon. And simple reason (not practical experience, mind you) says that the main-hand forward stance of fencing gives you more control than the main-hand back stance of using a shield. That sounds good.
So, that's balanced on the fighter; the fighter is choosing +2 AC or +2 to hit. It broadens out the styles too:
Single Weapon, Shield: Extra AC
Single Weapon, Empty: Extra Accuracy
Two-Handed Weapon: Extra Damage
Two Light Weapons: Extra Attacks
Sounds like choices to me.
So what does this do to the rogue? I entered the attack bonus, and the rapier rogue's damage went up. But it didn't go up enough. Then I changed sneak attack's damage die to match the weapon's damage die, and boom, I was sold.
(chart deleted)
This leaves the rapier wielder at 89.8% of the damage of the dual shortsword wielder. They're still behind, but not significantly so. They're going to also have an easier time hitting high AC foes. Having a solitary, higher damage attack might help them drop a foe earlier, while the dual shortsword rogue has more consistent damage.
Since sneak attack still has a finesse weapon requirement, you won't run into rogues sneak attacking with greatswords (I crunched the numbers, it deals 115% more damage than the shortswords). A 1d10 finesse two-hander (non-heavy) would actually be fine, dealing 93% the damage that two shortswords deal ... well, I just sold myself on the 1d8 finesse, versatile (1d10) katana. Oops.
Last edited:
