D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

[FrogReaver]

This is a holdover fallacy from 3E. Nothing in TWFing requires Dex. Since the weapons need to be light, Dex is an option, and it is why I think TWFing should be the high damage option for Dex warriors, but someone with high Str can use TWFing just the same as someone with high Dex.

Unless the feat does, but I hate the feat.

Not a holdover at all. I didn't play 3e. I don't like 3e. The point was that dex is the superior stat to str. The precise degree is debatable... but the stat itself is better. That fact needs at least acknowledged in any debate about improving TWF.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not worried about TWF and haste.

No, now you went ahead and forgot that I only used haste as an example of bonus action usage.

Okay, so I have to be brutally clear:

The fact TWF hogs the bonus action is a significant disadvantage.

You want that "slot" to be open for use by the myriad cool effects that become available at mid to high levels, where Haste is far from the only effect, assuming of course the DM isn't running a particularly magic-light campaign (such as perhaps AL)

Simply speaking, TWF robs you of one of the most significant crunch choices outside class builds, which makes it not only slightly inferior but much less fun.

So. Back to my assertion: No later than L11, TWF should ideally no longer hog the bonus action.

 

[5ekyu]

This is a holdover fallacy from 3E. Nothing in TWFing requires Dex. Since the weapons need to be light, Dex is an option, and it is why I think TWFing should be the high damage option for Dex warriors, but someone with high Str can use TWFing just the same as someone with high Dex.

Unless the feat does, but I hate the feat.

While, yes, someone *can* use str-based for twf (I myself love a double dagger barb-rogue combo) if the strength based and dex based TWF produced comparable damage and that was competitive or close enough to the dxmsge output from heavy elee weapon builds - then itsxsetup the rex option as overall superior because you get mostly the same output * plus * the perceived advantages dex gives over strength in the bigger picture.

More common saves.
Initiative
AC boost
Ranged weapon bonus for the longercrsnge weapons
More skills that default to dex
Basically, dex-based builds have z much greater SAD thsn the strength ones.

It's part of why my focus with teo weapon builds is not keyed to creating near enough equality to the heavy melee builds in just the DPR metric. Instead I want it to be a different tool for different tasks - hitting harder to hit targets and more reliable at getting hits.

Effectively what I would love to see is a case where as we lay out the combats seen in frequency etc we can end up plausibly with say...let's give one possible division...

A third of the times (easier to hit) the heavy weapons with -5/+10 are the better options
A third of the time (more difficult to hit targets) where two-wespons are the better options.
A third of the time where its basically a toss up and tactical or circumstantial choices csn dhift you either way.

It can shift a bit if needed, 40-30-30 for instance if the SAD showed it needed. But the principle of different tools for different circumstances applies.

 

[CapnZapp]

PS. I for one do not dispute the supremacy of Dex. (Just about the only reason to use Strength is to use a heavy weapon)

Last time I checked (years ago) I believe I counted to nine ways restrictions on Dex combat and range and mobility had been lifted or voided (from 3E to 5E).

To this day, I maintain it was (at least) one bridge too many.

 

[TwoSix]

Sure. Absolutely.

The design challenge is to achieve mechanical distinction while maintaining this lofty goal
a) without feats
b) with a feat
c) with, say, Haste

Absolutely. I'd also like to hit those aspects while also keeping the fighting style as a small scaling bonus, like Dueling and GWF are, and not make the usage dependent on the fighting style. Barbarians should certainly be viable dual-wielders without a Fighter dip.

 

[Xeviat]

Not a holdover at all. I didn't play 3e. I don't like 3e. The point was that dex is the superior stat to str. The precise degree is debatable... but the stat itself is better. That fact needs at least acknowledged in any debate about improving TWF.

Separate argument, but the fighter is the only character who would TWF that gets to choose between Str or Dex (sure, you could build a str focused ranger, but you need moderate Dex to Max medium armor so why bother)

Str gets thrown weapons (lower damage, less range, less time for weapon switching), and +1 AC from heavy Armor.
Dex gets projectile weapons (higher damage and range, but needs to actively switch between melee and range), and higher initiative.

As it stands now, it is inarguable that the fighter deals more damage at low levels (1-4) with two weapon fighting than with the other styles. My suggestion actually nerfs this. At 5th-10th level, this switches, to GWFing having a slight lead in damage over TWFing. At 11th, GWFing blows TWFing out of the water.

So, either it should be a little better (cost of bonus action), or a little worse (potential added value of Dex, which I think should be rebalanced elsewhere), but not switching between them and not vastly worse.

 

[FrogReaver]

Separate argument, but the fighter is the only character who would TWF that gets to choose between Str or Dex (sure, you could build a str focused ranger, but you need moderate Dex to Max medium armor so why bother)

Str gets thrown weapons (lower damage, less range, less time for weapon switching), and +1 AC from heavy Armor.
Dex gets projectile weapons (higher damage and range, but needs to actively switch between melee and range), and higher initiative.

As it stands now, it is inarguable that the fighter deals more damage at low levels (1-4) with two weapon fighting than with the other styles. My suggestion actually nerfs this. At 5th-10th level, this switches, to GWFing having a slight lead in damage over TWFing. At 11th, GWFing blows TWFing out of the water.

So, either it should be a little better (cost of bonus action), or a little worse (potential added value of Dex, which I think should be rebalanced elsewhere), but not switching between them and not vastly worse.

It's not about the choice of what to use while TWF. It's about dex being the default option for TWF but dex not being an option for GWF.

 

[cbwjm]

The only time I can recall using two weapon fighting was on a strength based ranger or strength based fighter. Dexterity is most definitely not the default for two weapon fighting, it's just one of the options.

 

[FrogReaver]

The only time I can recall using two weapon fighting was on a strength based ranger or strength based fighter. Dexterity is most definitely not the default for two weapon fighting, it's just one of the options.

You can use whatever you want. Though that doesn't mean you didn't pick the mechanically inferior choice.

You see it's choices like that which make TWF impossible to balance perfectly. So you either must assume the dex version or the str version when doing the balancing. If we balanced for the str version then the dex version would be far better than GWF. So the answer is to balance for the dex version.

 

[Fenris-77]

TWF might be more interesting if the difference was more than just damage dice. Damage dice is usesful but boring. Something in a rule that allows combo hits for added effect would be cool. Maybe even not just for TWF but for, say, any weapon not heavy, so sword and board fighters at higher level could getbin on the fun. I don't know what combos would like look like but something where sequential hits did fun stuff would be very cool.