D&D 5E GWF vs. TWF Fighting styles

[Kryx]

I'm not trying to win an argument. I'm trying to clarify TWF's situation. You have muddied the waters. My only intention is to clarify the math.

The situation is the same as it was pages ago:
1-3 TWF is ok.
4+ TWF is decent, but not great if you allow feats
11+ TWF is not good.
If feats are allowed from 1 Polearm wins by a lot.

Again, if you want to only consider things that only happen 100% of the time then I'd challenge you to find the few things in the books that have no chance to hit/save that are not based on spells. I can't think of any that exist.
Point being: If you want to ignore anything beyond straight damage or damage*chance to hit you can, but that isn't what 5e is balanced on and it isn't relevant to the discussion of balance.

Cleave is easily calculable. Only slightly harder than chance to hit or chance to crit. Luckily they gave us the DMG which has page 274 to help.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

you're adorable <3

So am I to take it, by your 'cutsie' reply, that you disagree with me? (or is this some kind of internet pick up line... if so... it's working... *wink wink* ).

Seriously though, in my experience of DM'ing one "GWF" Goliath Barbarian (Rage, of course), vs. the generally two-weapon fighting Bard (yes, BARD), GWF didn't upset anything. He was a beast at dealing damage...when he could. That said, there was a LOT of game play in which he couldn't (such as when, oh, there wasn't any combat). But even when there was combat...he did damage, but he most definitely didn't "overshadow" others in the group as far as the "grand scheme of things" was concerned, including the 2WF 'bard' (who, btw, didn't even *have* 2WF...but fought that way for character reasons).

Does GWF have better "DPS" than a 2WF guy? Sure, I guess...as long as we are making absurd assumptions. Like, "I will always hit my opponent and will never get disarmed or be in a position where I can't swing my massive weapon". Alas (or, thankfully!) an RPG session usually has a LOT more going on. I believe the original question/post had something about the "grand scheme of things". So, in this regard, no. GWF is not "unbalanced" against 2WF as far as my experience goes (and, as I said, same character, about a year of play, every weekend).

I'm guessing your experience is different? Or are you just spouting off numbers and statistical data without any regard for how an "actual game session and campaign" plays out? If so...perhaps rephrasing your original question to not include "grand scheme" might be in order, because otherwise your conclusions of "balance" is going to be for naught.

As a final note, we've (my group and I) have found that 5e plays out a lot like 1e AD&D does; everyone seems to have a "thing" they are good at, but nobody is good at everything. PC classes compliment others better than they compliment themselves. For example, it was much better for the Cleric to cast Protection from Evil on the barbarian when they fought a huge, multi-tenticled swamp 'god'. She could have cast it on herself, but the barbarian was the big 'damage dealer'. That was his job. It was his "thing". Him surviving longer was better for everyone...even if it meant the cleric went down a few rounds later. Teamwork prevailed, and that's what we are finding. Taking GWF gives you a good "big damage" focus...but you're giving up other things (different Feats or Ability score improvements). Taking 2WF would give you more opportunity to hit, which would make a difference if your weapon has something that is based on connecting with the enemy rather than dealing lots of damage (ex; poison, or some magic effect that triggers on a hit of 5 or more over your opponents AC, etc). It's all a trade off, and balanced...in the grand scheme of things.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[CapnZapp]

1-3 TWF is ok.
4+ TWF is decent, but not great if you allow feats
11+ TWF is not good.

This is the part where I agree.

Then I would to (re-) add the important bit where I remind y'all that if there is no fighter with GWF/SS or PM in the party, TWF is still quite okay.

It is only if you're actively upstaged a certain game choice can be bad. The fact you deal X instead of X+Y points of damage is in itself not a big deal; it's if your buddy do X+Y points right next to you, there in the actual dungeon, that you doing X is any problem at all.

 

[Xeviat]

It is only if you're actively upstaged a certain game choice can be bad. The fact you deal X instead of X+Y points of damage is in itself not a big deal; it's if your buddy do X+Y points right next to you, there in the actual dungeon, that you doing X is any problem at all.

This is a good point. I will point out, though, that I've shown it doesn't take someone with feats to upstage twfing. A two handed weapon warrior will out shine the fighter using two weapons starting at 5th level. The twfers could be doing more damage with a long sword, shield, and duelist at a point, and is nearly even from 5th to 10th; at least then, there's the trade off for splitting attacks.

The balance for twfing on the fighter is bad. Rangers and rogues do great with it (so great that I would never consider a rapier/empty offhand rogue without my house rules).

 

[Kryx]

Then I would to (re-) add the important bit where I remind y'all that if there is no fighter with GWF/SS or PM in the party, TWF is still quite okay.

It doesn't need GWM or Polearm to feel inferior. In comparison to a Battle Master TWF Fighter:
Monk does similar DPR, but stuns and scales to more defensive.
S&B Fighter does similar DPR and has more AC.
S&B Paladin has more DPR, has lay on hands, and more AC.
Rogue has similar DPR, but brings skills to the table. Also could go assassin for more DPR or AT for spells.
Fighter Longbow/Heavy Crossbow has similar DPR from range.
Fighter Hand Crossbow has better DPR from range.

Similar = within 2 DPR of 26 at 10.

All of those options offer more to a group than TWF.

The situation is much worse for Ranger 11+. They have the lowest DPR I've calculated besides cantrips and moon druid.

Though as I've said TWF can compete with rend or second bonus attack.

 

[Kryx]

The balance for twfing on the fighter is bad. Rangers and rogues do great with it (so great that I would never consider a rapier/empty offhand rogue without my house rules).

I found the ranger to be the lowest melee DPR. Hunter's Mark taking a bonus action makes it compete with the offhand. I need to reexamine if that should be removed, but it'll likely just buff hand crossbow too much.

What houserules due you use for rapier? I wish 1 handed had a fighting style. S&B stole dueling.

 

[Xeviat]

I found the ranger to be the lowest melee DPR. Hunter's Mark taking a bonus action makes it compete with the offhand. I need to reexamine if that should be removed, but it'll likely just buff hand crossbow too much.

What houserules due you use for rapier? I wish 1 handed had a fighting style. S&B stole dueling.

I give a +2 attack bonus for having an empty offhand and I up sneak attack dice to match weapon dice.

Since you can't sneak attack with nonfinessable weapons, no worry about d12 sneaks. But, I ran the numbers and it still works out comparable.

Twfing simply boosts sneak attack a lot.

Concerning the ranger, I'm not seeing how you're getting such low damage numbers. Are you assuming constant hunter's Mark after a point? Are you factoring in colossus slayer? I once had a thread trying to come up with a single target option to add to hunter rangers multiattack, but o one had suggestions. Also, were you looking at giant badger animal companion getting two multiattacks and the ranger using long sword and duelist for post 11? Both get Hunter's Mark at 15th.

 

[Kryx]

Ranger has fine DPR until 11 due to 2 attacks, collosus slayer, and hex. I haven't bothered with beast master, though badger is not a good option after the errata.

The problem is 11+. Volley and whirlwind are trash. Volleyball has to hit 4 enemies to do more than normal DPR. More for hand crossbows I'm sure. A twf ranger gains 4 DPR from 5 to 20.

Hunters Mark is quite campaign dependent. It becomes better if you fight solos, but that isnt recommended. My assumption is you need to cast/switch targets half the rounds. That has been pretty typical in my games - creatures don't last longer than 2 rounds with hunters mark. Though even if you assume 80% (cast first round in the 5 round average) the DPR doesn't go up by more than 5-10%.

 

[Xeviat]

I personally ignore the no multiattack errata, as that is part of the damage incorporated in their CR. The giant poisonous snake and centipede hangs huge damages, 17.5 base for the snake (damage on successful save poison on bite, huge attack bonus too).

What's your suggested alternative for multiattack for a single target flurry? I've thought of damage on miss, a rend, or just a third attack.

I think volley and whirlwind need to be attacks, not actions.

 

[Kryx]

Agreed on the errata - it's part of the CR!

I haven't worked out an alternative to volley/whirlwind. I use rend for twf so I don't think I'd use it here. I debated adding a 3rd attack, but I think that may have been too much. I forget.
One option is to move the capstone to 11. If that applied to everything instead of only favored enemies it could be a decent option - I'd have to check.

Volley as an attack would be too much I think. Ranger would become pseudo aoe caster with no limits. Maybe burn spell slots for it.