Level Up (A5E) Is the A5e version of Two-Weapon Fighting better than the original?

[mrianmerry]

I agree that letting them be the same is probably the best fit here - the intention is allowing for extra strikes from your rapid movement, after all, but at that point, it will become 2 points of exertion for 1 extra attack; hardly a good trade, even if you can lower it to 1 exertion with Maneuver Specialization, as you suggested. (Although if the +2 damage applies to all attacks made as part of the maneuever, then there are grounds for still desiring it as a Two-Weapon Fighter; that could be +12 damage, which is not an insignificant amount.)

 

[lichmaster]

I think this Combat Manoeuvre makes more sense for combatants NOT using TWF.

The way I read it is that you only make 1 weapon attack with the bonus action, and if this hits you can use the reaction, spend the exertion, and make another attack. This comes at the cost of the exertion for the manoeuvre + the exertion cost for the reaction, and the reaction itself, and in total you get 5 attacks tops (3 with the action, 1 with the bonus action and 1 with the reaction). Even in the case could make 2 attacks with the bonus action, you still get only 1 additional attack for 4 exertion AND a reaction. Also, you'd spend the initial cost of the manoeuvre to make the 2 attacks with the bonus action, which normally cost you nothing.

I'd rather use this manoeuvre with a greatsword!

 

[Corinnguard]

I think this Combat Manoeuvre makes more sense for combatants NOT using TWF.

The way I read it is that you only make 1 weapon attack with the bonus action, and if this hits you can use the reaction, spend the exertion, and make another attack. This comes at the cost of the exertion for the manoeuvre + the exertion cost for the reaction, and the reaction itself, and in total you get 5 attacks tops (3 with the action, 1 with the bonus action and 1 with the reaction). Even in the case could make 2 attacks with the bonus action, you still get only 1 additional attack for 4 exertion AND a reaction. Also, you'd spend the initial cost of the manoeuvre to make the 2 attacks with the bonus action, which normally cost you nothing.

I'd rather use this manoeuvre with a greatsword!

It's why I suggested tying Rapid Strike with the Maneuver Specialization feature at 11th level. If it works reducing the cost of the maneuver when it's first executed and when you react, the total cost is reduced down to 2.

As for the number of attacks, an 11th level Fighter making 5 attacks with two weapons is still pretty impressive, with or without the maneuver. I wish there was a combat tradition for Two-Weapon fighters.

 

[lichmaster]

It's why I suggested tying Rapid Strike with the Maneuver Specialization feature at 11th level. If it works reducing the cost of the maneuver when it's first executed and when you react, the total cost is reduced down to 2.

As for the number of attacks, an 11th level Fighter making 5 attacks with two weapons is still pretty impressive, with or without the maneuver. I wish there was a combat tradition for Two-Weapon fighters.

I think if you have TWF you already have plenty of attacks, sacrificing exertion for having one more is probably not a great deal.
All combat traditions that give maneuvers with effects that proc on every attack are particularly good for TWF combatants, stances in particular because they last all day (unless you activate another stance).
So if you have Strike the Crack Stance and you just roll a crit on 19-20, you have a 41% chance of critting at least once each turn!

 

[VicWeave]

I was wondering about the bonus action part. On the one hand, when you gain Extra Attack (1) at 5th level you can use your bonus action to make two attacks with your offhand weapon with Two-Weapon Fighting. Then there is what you said about Rapid Strike allowing you to use a bonus action to make one attack and a reaction for one more. An 11th level Fighter who is using this maneuver with just a single weapon would make three attack actions, use a bonus action to make another attack, and then use their reaction to make their fifth attack (assuming once again they landed a hit before then).

Was this maneuver (and others like it) written up with just a single weapon in mind? curious It's hard to say at the moment. I am of the opinion that the bonus action for this maneuver and the bonus action for Two-Weapon Fighting could be the same.

There is nothing to wonder about or interpret. They are two separate bonus actions that do not interact in anyway, and you cannot use one bonus action to take two separate bonus actions.

 

[Corinnguard]

There is nothing to wonder about or interpret. They are two separate bonus actions that do not interact in anyway, and you cannot use one bonus action to take two separate bonus actions.

Okay. I know from reading the SRD for 5e that you get one bonus action on your turn, so if you have more than bonus action available to you, you have to choose which bonus action to use. An O5e Barbarian with Two-Weapon Fighting and Rage can't use both at the same time because both require a bonus action. You can only use the bonus action to Rage or to make an attack with your offhand weapon.

But what happens if the two bonus actions give you the same thing, an attack with your offhand weapon? Is it still a choice of one bonus action over the other? The bonus action to Rage and the bonus action to make an offhand attack are two completely things, so it's understandable that you can only do one and not both. Raging and make an attack with an offhand weapon might be a little OP. It might be the same with the maneuver and Two-Weapon Fighting's bonus action feature.

At any rate, it falls to the Narrator to interpret and decide. I am game either way.

 

[VicWeave]

They don’t do the same thing, and it doesn’t matter if two bonus actions have similar or even identical effects regardless. They are still two different bonus actions. They certainly don’t stack effects. The ability granting a bonus action tells you want it does, and that’s all it does unless something else explicitly modifies it. There is no ambiguity in how bonus actions work.

Edit: Continuing to use Barbarian as an example, a berserker doesn’t get to use their frenzy bonus action attack and a two-weapon fighting attack just because they both let you make an attack as a bonus action.

A game runner can make whatever house rules they want, that’s not relevant to how the rules in the book work.