D&D 5E (2014) Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

[5ekyu]

Level 11+ fighter?

Yes, it is possible the 11+ level fighter needs improvement, but not TWF.

 

[CapnZapp]

Saying "I don't think TWF is so poor it needs improvement" is fine.

Saying "since you get to use your bonus action with TWF, it's actually fine" is, on the other hand complete nonsense of course.

If TWF can only match other styles by using up the bonus action, it is trivial to conclude it is actually far worse than those other styles.

After all, finding a good use for your bonus action is perhaps the minmaxers first priority in 5E, so you should assume it gets used frequently.

At level 11, what TWF really needs, is that the extra attack becomes a free action instead of a bonus action, freeing up the bonus action to enable the character to go on the same hunt for "best use of bonus action" as everybody else.

(The suggestion to make the bonus action yield two off-hand attack instead of one is along the same lines and not too shabby, if simpler and more constrictive)

 

[jaelis]

Yes, it is possible the 11+ level fighter needs improvement, but not TWF.

Here's what get's me. I agree that, with the fighting styles, the level 5-10 GWF and TWF fighters are balanced OK. But from 1-4 the TWF is considerably better, and from 11+ the GWF is better. So you could say, fix 11+ separately, and you don't care about 1-4 because it's over quickly.

As for other classes: paladins, war/tempest clerics, valor bards and barbarians don't get the TWF style, which means TWF is no good at all past level 5. Rogues don't get TWF style, but want it so bad they are kind of handicapped if they don't dip into fighter for it. Monks can't really use TWF at all, which means they are handicapped if they don't use a staff or spear until their martial arts damage gets good enough. Rangers I think probably work the best, since they spend the most time in the configuration where TWF is reasonably balanced.

That's why I think a more fundamental fix is better than a class-specific tweak.

 

[Quartz]

Level 11+ fighter?

The TWF still gets a guaranteed extra attack with the opportunity of added effects.

BTW if you assume a 20 stat at 11th level the Duellist is doing 3d8 + 6 + 15 for an average of 34.5 damage and the TWF fighter is doing an average of 4d6 +20 or 34 damage.

No, TWF does not need tweaking.

 

[Quartz]

Saying "since you get to use your bonus action with TWF, it's actually fine" is, on the other hand complete nonsense of course.

If TWF can only match other styles by using up the bonus action, it is trivial to conclude it is actually far worse than those other styles.

I completely disagree. It's a trade-off. TWF trades your BA for extra damage, just as Duellist trades damage for AC. You don't have to use that Bonus Action for an attack, but unlike all other fighting styles it's there if you want it. Unlike all other fighting styles the TWF PC always has a Bonus Attack.

BTW take a look at a Fighter / Paladin with TWF and Improved Divine Smite and a 20 stat: base damage of 3d6 + 15 + 3d8 or 40 damage verses a Duellist Paladin of 2d8 + 10 + 2d8 or 28 damage. That's a difference of 12!

And let's not forget the Fighter's Action Surge. Under this proposed change the TWF fighter gets further extra attacks; currently the bonus attack is part of the Bonus Action and therefore not subject to Action Surge.

 

[jaelis]

The TWF still gets a guaranteed extra attack with the opportunity of added effects.


BTW if you assume a 20 stat at 11th level the Duellist is doing 3d8 + 6 + 15 for an average of 34.5 damage and the TWF fighter is doing an average of 4d6 +20 or 34 damage.

No, TWF does not need tweaking.

So you feel that the +2 AC from the shield is fairly balanced by the opportunity to have added effects? (Like what?)

 

[Blue]

For "normal" usage, this isn't a bad fix. But there are so many way to increase damage per attack that this rule could be easily abused, just like in 3.5.

This is the type of solution I'd put in place with a specific table and "if you abuse it, it's going away".

 

[Oofta]

The difference in damage potential is minimal as others have pointed out, the other aspect is the +1 to AC from dual wielder and the flexibility it gives. My wife's swashbuckler thinks it's great that she can not only get two chances at sneak attack but also avoid attacks from two opponents when moving away even if the second opponent doesn't take a lot of damage.

Is it as good as a barbarian with GWM? Depends on the campaign and how you crunch the numbers. I admit I had some really cheesy/semi-broken PCs in previous editions that used two weapon fighting. My own 5E dual wielder felt powerful but not overpowered. Would he have kept up with a barbarian? Probably not, but most builds can't especially depending on the campaign. Can the barbarian rage every round because you only do a handful of fights between resting? Did you allow people to roll for stats until they had extremely high numbers in their core stats? Are you always facing opponents with low AC that never attack with damage other than weapons? Well, it's not surprising that the barbarian dominates combat.

Feel free to tweak things for your own preferences, making that easier is a feature of 5E not a bug. But I don't think you can have a game with the style of 5E that perfectly balances all builds, there are just too many variables.

Last, but not least, the rules don't always have to cater to the power gamer. The difference in damage from some of these builds largely require a lot of assumptions and even then only result in relatively minor power differences that are heavily dependent on campaign and style.

 

[5ekyu]

Here's what get's me. I agree that, with the fighting styles, the level 5-10 GWF and TWF fighters are balanced OK. But from 1-4 the TWF is considerably better, and from 11+ the GWF is better. So you could say, fix 11+ separately, and you don't care about 1-4 because it's over quickly.

As for other classes: paladins, war/tempest clerics, valor bards and barbarians don't get the TWF style, which means TWF is no good at all past level 5. Rogues don't get TWF style, but want it so bad they are kind of handicapped if they don't dip into fighter for it. Monks can't really use TWF at all, which means they are handicapped if they don't use a staff or spear until their martial arts damage gets good enough. Rangers I think probably work the best, since they spend the most time in the configuration where TWF is reasonably balanced.

That's why I think a more fundamental fix is better than a class-specific tweak.

So, now to be clear, to you the problem with TWF is how bad it us for the non-fighter classes- the ones with only one or two attacks per attack action?

Interesting, often it is portrayed as problematic when compared to the three or four attacks fighter.

To my way of thinking, for rogue, psladin and the others who get yo add in a big extra DMG on z hit or less but noticable extra dsmage on every hit the extra attack free bonus action thing is enough of a benefit especially once you add in the other bonus factors you get for free in many cases (SAD with dex, thrown for some, concealability, etc).

As for not wanting class specific "fixes" - since TWF (action, not style) is free to all but every class has differences in how they can impact damage vs number of hits, I myself cannot see anyway for a global change to not be class specific and have a hope of doing anything other than shuffling around what the top best option is based on whatever white room spread sheet one uses.

For my money, if you want homogeneous output, you need more homogeneous system. They could have done that, they chose to have actual differences and meaningful choices.

One "simple option " - change the 2dx two-hznded weapons to 1d... so instead of 2d6 the great sword does 1d12 (more sames). Then have shortsword snd dagge be d6+d4 on a hit. Apply ability bonus once, period. Apply one weapon's magic period. Treat it as one hit period. Now the only difference at the core is the roll of the dice (oh and one can be thrown, one can be easily concealed but that doesnt vount in white rooms.)

But, my bet us that eont be enough for those wanting to get both core dsmage yo match and have fighting with two weapons be the more reliable too.

But

 

[Quartz]

So you feel that the +2 AC from the shield is fairly balanced by the opportunity to have added effects? (Like what?)

Like Sneak Attack, Battlemaster maneuvers, additional damage from magic weapons, smites, greater distribution of damage ...