Cool, thanks.Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron. I'm not sure of its balance, since I only glanced at it briefly (my guess is its probably a little too good).
Meh, there's a good idea here, but I don't like the execution. I'd simplify it toMike Mearls discusses his two-weapon fighting house rule here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/10/25/mike-mearls-so-heres-the-first-part-of-my-two-weapon-fighting-house-rule/.
-So here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule. Note that at this stage I’m ignoring the effect of feats, will get to those later:
-If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack. All your attacks on your turn take a -4 penalty. Penalty drops to -2 if you have the Extra Attack feature, -1 if that feature gives you 2 more attacks, 0 if it gives you 3.
-You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty.
I'd consider dropping the AC bonus down to 1, because otherwise I don't see a reason for players to use a shield.Meh, there's a good idea here, but I don't like the execution. I'd simplify it to
-If you wield two light weapons you may choose to either make one extra attack or increase your AC bonus by +2 each turn.
I'm not seeing how my modification to Azzy's idea weakens the feat any more than his original does.This is probably ok for a game without feats. But with feats, it reduces the strength of the dual wielder feat.
I wound up deciding on pretty much the same thing. I'm not sure I'd allow an attack with the shield even with the Dual Wielder feat, except if a player really wanted to make that work I'd probably give in.Edit: Actually, this whole thing also get me thinking about that other thread using a shield as an improvised weapon. I am now thinking that allowing it to be used improvised and off-handed is too good. I think one would need the Shield Master feat to use a shield with proficiency as a weapon, and Dual Wielder since a shield should not be considered a light weapon. This helps ensure some kind of trade-off / balance between choosing a shield or a weapon for the off-hand.
I agree that it is frustrating when playing a fighter. But to be fair, it's not the only style that does not benefit from action surge. The Protection and Defense Styles do not benefit from Action Surge. So I'm not sure that is necessarily a problem, unless we are changing the design goal so that all fighting styles have some benefit when action surging.Yeah, scrapping the bonus action requirement might have solved my only complaint about Two Weapon Fighting.
From my experience with a fighter, the only thing I didn't like about two weapon fighting was that it didn't play nice with Action Surge. That is, the benefits of Great Weapon fighting, Archery and Duelist styles all get used during that extra action, but TWF doesn't because it needs a second bonus action.
(Although really my preferred fix for that is top have Action Surge simply grant another turn)
I kinda view Protection and Defense as a separate group. The "stackables." Like, once I take TWF, Archery, Duelist or GWF, I'm not gonna take another of those 4. Once I have one of them, the next one I take is gonna be a stackable.I agree that it is frustrating when playing a fighter. But to be fair, it's not the only style that does not benefit from action surge. The Protection and Defense Styles do not benefit from Action Surge. So I'm not sure that is necessarily a problem, unless we are changing the design goal so that all fighting styles have some benefit when action surging.
This does make Action Surge an even more powerful ability than it already is, and creates even more potential desire to dip fighter. Not necessarily a problem per se, but something to consider.*Plus, the occasional debates here about what is allowed during a surge make me want to simplify it down to "It's another turn, just do whatever you normally do on a turn."
I get nervous about allowing another bonus action as part of action surge because of possible multiclass stacking. That's why I think making an exception for a bonus action weapon attack would be safer. You could even throw a bone to multiclass fighter types to give them something at level 5 if one if their classes already has the feature.I kinda view Protection and Defense as a separate group. The "stackables." Like, once I take TWF, Archery, Duelist or GWF, I'm not gonna take another of those 4. Once I have one of them, the next one I take is gonna be a stackable.
So I'd like those 4 to be roughly comparable. Since the only place I've found they aren't is when action surging, I'd adjust the surge.* (Others have problems with the feats, and I think they should change the feats instead of the styles)
*Plus, the occasional debates here about what is allowed during a surge make me want to simplify it down to "It's another turn, just do whatever you normally do on a turn."
So none of the above was helpful in making your point. I rebuilt my spreadsheet and graphed the data. I think we are mostly in agreement here.Wrong. When you factor it into your maths, it becomes a maths problem. [Data Entry problem is more precise.]
Wrong. Weapon I guess, sounds like you confused Greatsword and Greataxe. [As I stated, so just redundant and repetitive.]
Wrong. Since we need to compare it to TWF damage, not just it's own damage without the -5/+10.
Wrong, an Action Surging Archer applies the +2 seven times. An Action Surging GWF applies his feature 6 to 7 times. An Action Surging Duelist applies his feature 6 times. An action surging TWF applies his feature... once.
[So I finally caught onto what you were on about here as I was already considering Dual Wielder vs GWM/SS. Dual Wielder applies the bonus 7 times (d8 vs d6), so yes without DW TWF FS gives its feature only once. Still not sure how you are getting 7 attacks with an Archer or GWF. Multi-attack gives two additional attacks at 11th level. Action Surge gives an additional action, so 6 attacks total plus the Bonus Action. I only see the Samurai Rapid Strike feature allowing that -- but that would also apply to TWF.
Wrong. You only included high numbers, rather than "exceeding 75%".
Wrong. Three years of maths. I didn't spend three years learning how to perform exactly one operation. [*mathematics, though it is possible you spent three years repeating the same course.]
Wrong. I need a life.
Wrong. We're doing more than one operation, therefore we are doing maths.
Wrong. I could do that by the middle of primary school. [Sure]
Wrong. I am all of the chill.
Wrong. It is about many different games.
Wrong. And I wouldn't make an entire post just to invest more into it.
Wrong. That is what's happening.
Wrong. Which I shall prove when I get around to doing the -5/+10 for GWF.
Wrong. It definitely seems to need a boost given how often that comes up.
Sorry, that tends to happen when I make a post just to use "Wrong" every lineSo none of the above was helpful in making your point.
The general problem is that the -5/+10 feats are too good compared to other feats, but weapon using classes become less powerful as a group in their absence, compared to casters.It seems like the debate cycles back to the -/+ feats being overpowered rather than dual wielder being under powered.