Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xeviat" data-source="post: 7613850" data-attributes="member: 57494">Two-Weapon Fighting has long been my favorite fighting style in D&D. I read "Legacy" at too young of an age. I lamented when Baldur's Gate didn't let me use TWFing and cheered when BG2 added it in. I watched with sadness when I started running 3E and the TWFing ranger in the group was constantly out damaged by the party Barbarian. I cut my teeth on D&D damage statistics in an effort to rebalance TWFing in 3E, and had my own house rules that produced a few fun TWFing characters (I got to see it in action on a Barbarian, Fighter, and that original Ranger at higher levels).4E baked TWFing into class powers, but it worked (the feat was terrible, though).And then we get to 5E. At low levels, the Fighter performs well with TWFing, but it falls to the wayside at 5th level and just goes downhill after that. The Rogue does very well with it, gaining an extra shot at landing a sneak attack; the Rogue also has a really interesting trade-off between using a bonus action for an extra attack or using it for Cunning Action. The Ranger can get some mileage out of it if they're careful with their use of Hunter's Mark, but this is a lot harder to test for. Barbarians ... they don't do well with it.The fact that the style is weak on Barbarians and Fighters upsets me. I wish it was decent. I wish it was on par with using a Two-Handed Weapon, possibly a little weaker because of it's ability to split damage. But using spells as a guideline, attacking 2 creatures instead of 1 should be about a 2/3rds reduction in damage, not a 1/2 reduction in damage, so I'm not sure splitting damage is as big of a deal as people treat it.So, I've set out to "fix" TWFing. I think my changes put it in a good place for the Fighter but it will probably require some changes to things like Hunter's Mark.First, I'd like to point out that a greatsword's 2d6+Str is equal to two shortsword's 1d6+Stat +1d6+0, no matter how many extra attacks the character gets. And, a fighter with GWFing's 2d6*+Str (8.33+stat) is reasonably close to two longsword's 1d8+Stat +1d8 (9+stat), and the +2 damage bonus there is equal to Duelist's damage bonus.What I suggest is have TWFing not require a bonus action AND have it give off-hand attacks equal to main hand attacks, but the style wouldn't grant stat bonus to off-hand damage. The style would instead allow the wielding of non-light weapons (and the feat would need to be changed). This would allow it to improve with Extra Attack, and it would work with a Fighter's Action surge. The ability to wield two magic weapons to stack a little extra damage may be moot since the GWFer could just as easily be using gauntlets of ogre power or a belt of giant strength to up their damage too.I think this is balanced for the Fighter, but what would it do to the rest of the classes? Would I find all Rogues using TWFing and never see a single rapier wielder (I've thought to buff sneak attack dice to match weapon damage dice, so a rapier wielder would deal more damage while the twfer has higher chance of landing sneak attack)? Would it push the Ranger's damage too high to get an extra hit of Hunter's Mark at 5th level and higher (and make it easier for them to cast Hunter's Mark and other spells in the middle of combat)?What would break if I took away TWFing's bonus action requirement and changed the TWFing Fighting Style to "You can make off-hand attacks even if both weapons are not light" (rather than it adding stat bonus to damage)?An addition after doing some new math:After testing the Ranger with and without hunter's mark, with and without the bonus action, and with my initial TWFing suggestion, my rules flatten out the damage difference between Duelist and TWFing. On a single classed fighter, this would be even across the board (barring weird interactions with subclasses, but I'm not seeing them).My rules would make TWFing the optimal choice while a barbarian is raging (which means all the time at higher levels). The monk's martial arts would need to be rewritten. I'd also need to decide what I want to happen to the Rogue. I could partially avoid some of that by making the removal of the bonus action part of the style as well, but these classes could pick that up with a 1 level fighter dip (not sure that would be the best for all of them, though).Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification