Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[Xeviat]

It will be tough to tweak it in such a way that dual-wielded lances aren't objectively better than a two-handed weapon, since even a single lance is already as good as every two-handed weapon except greatsword.

Lances aren't light.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Sorry Aaron I'm just not interested in arguing with you.

Hitting the post button on the post that began an argument with me, rather than the cancel button, was a strange way to show that.

But yeah, I also didn't even realize there was an "argument" here. Looked more to me like you misunderstood what I said and I cleared it up for you. *shrug*

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Lances aren't light.

Yes. Therefore, what? It's not like that stops people from dual-wielding them; at least in theorycraft, which is where TWF problems seem to occur most frequently. (In actual play it's not much of an issue, judging by the nature of the complaints. This could be because it doesn't start seriously falling behind until you get Extra Attack 2, and most people don't play that far.)

Are you saying that you think Ganymede wants to revise the rules in such a way that they don't break unless you take the Dual Wielder feat? If so, you're asking for the same kind of grief GWM gets, where people will tell you that the Dual Wielding feat is "broken." As amusing as that would be, I doubt it's the end state Ganymede was going for when he made his proposal.

 

[Xeviat]

That is really the only solution that guarantees equality.

That is, if two-weapon style mean that you would make both your main and off hand attacks as one "attack", you would deal your 1d6+Dex plus your off-hand 1d6 at identical times the greatweapon fighter deals his 2d6+Str.

In other words 2d6+Dex vs 2d6+Str. Identical. Both equally open to bonus attack optimizing.

Of course, since you actually make two attack rolls, this would make TWF strictly superior, and it would make the feat and the fighting style inappropriate. But it would make a start.

Not saying this is such a good idea it's worth pursuing. Just saying it's the only real fix to the imbalance.

This is actually what I was saying earlier.

Base without style:
Greatsword: 2d6+Str; advantage, bigger crits; disadvantage, bigger chance to do 0 damage.
Dual Shortswords: 1d6+Dex+1d6; advantage, less chance to deal 0 damage; disavantage, less chance to deal full damage.

Then, the style allows one handed weapons. Rogues don't use this, without multiclassing, so it separates the rogue and fighter/ranger twfers.

With style becomes:
Greatsword: 2d6*(8.33)+Str
Rapiers: 1d8+Dex+1d8 (9+Dex)

So slightly ahead. But they still have a weaker OA, and weaker haste. It kind of highlights how Great Weapon Fighting offers a lower damage increase (+1.33) over duelist (+2).

Dual lances would only technically work on horseback. I don't like the lance rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Satyrn]

Reason: where did that pronoun even come from?

 

[Lord Twig]

I was saying that two-weapon fighting has advantages that aren't "deal damage", and saying "despite" because that's the simplest way to phrase what I was saying; if you want more power even though there are other advantages besides raw power.

I'm curious what the advantages to two-weapon fighting are that aren't damage. The only one that jumps out at me is that you can split your attacks between two targets, which the two-handed fighter can't do. Also maybe that you can use Dex as your main stat?

But there are negatives...

The two-handed fighter only needs one magic weapon.
Opportunity attacks are only made with one weapon.
Haste only gives one extra attack.
You need a feat to draw both weapons at the same time.

Ultimately it does come down to power and the damage done. If you use a two-handed weapon your damage increases over the one-handed weapon fighter even if they take the Dueling fighting style. But the one-handed fighter has a higher AC. Meanwhile the two-weapon fighter does about the same or less damage than the one-handed weapon fighter, but has the lower AC of a two-handed fighter. It is literally the worst of both worlds. Again, unless there are advantages that I am missing somewhere.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm curious what the advantages to two-weapon fighting are that aren't damage. The only one that jumps out at me is that you can split your attacks between two targets, which the two-handed fighter can't do. Also maybe that you can use Dex as your main stat?

There are also the ones I mentioned in my initial post in the thread.

But there are negatives...

As there should be. Choices aren't choices if there aren't pros and cons to all of the options meant to be chosen from.

Ultimately it does come down to power and the damage done. If you use a two-handed weapon your damage increases over the one-handed weapon fighter even if they take the Dueling fighting style. But the one-handed fighter has a higher AC. Meanwhile the two-weapon fighter does about the same or less damage than the one-handed weapon fighter, but has the lower AC of a two-handed fighter. It is literally the worst of both worlds. Again, unless there are advantages that I am missing somewhere.

A two-handed weapon has the best damage output (usually - particular two-weapon builds can deal some potent amounts of damage that while not beating out a two-hander can at least remain competitive enough), a one-handed weapon and a shield has the best defense, and the two-weapon user splits the difference with damage and defense potential of the other two and picks up some versatility that, in some people's view, makes up the difference.

There is also a factor of dealing the "worst" damage not being much to be concerned about because you are still dealing enough damage (because if the game set the "enough" threshold at actually being optimize for dealing damage, I don't think there would be so many folks decrying the monsters in the books as "too easy.").

 

[Ganymede81]

Of course, since you actually make two attack rolls, this would make TWF strictly superior, and it would make the feat and the fighting style inappropriate. But it would make a start.

Not saying this is such a good idea it's worth pursuing. Just saying it's the only real fix to the imbalance.

To clarify, there is only one attack roll, not two. You simply combine the two damage dice together on a successful hit.

If you attack with a dagger in each hand, you roll once to hit as normal and do 2d4+mod to damage.

It will be tough to tweak it in such a way that dual-wielded lances aren't objectively better than a two-handed weapon, since even a single lance is already as good as every two-handed weapon except greatsword.

How is adding "You can benefit from only one lance at a time" tough? It is a literal copy-paste from the shield rules. This isn't even a problem that spawns from my proposal, anyways; The Dual Wielding feat already lets characters fight with a lance in each hand.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To clarify, there is only one attack roll, not two. You simply combine the two damage dice together on a successful hit.

If you attack with a dagger in each hand, you roll once to hit as normal and do 2d4+mod to damage.

How is adding "You can benefit from only one lance at a time" tough? It is a literal copy-paste from the shield rules. This isn't even a problem that spawns from my proposal, anyways; The Dual Wielding feat already lets characters fight with a lance in each hand.

Your proposal would make the Dual Wielding feat much stronger. Four to eight 2d12 attacks per round is a lot more attractive than five to nine 1d12 attacks per round; and you'd still get the AC benefits from Dual Wielder.

As an aside, dual-wielding lances is completely ridiculous.

 

[CapnZapp]

As an aside, dual-wielding lances is completely ridiculous.

As an aside, irony translates poorly to the internet

It will be tough to tweak it in such a way that dual-wielded lances aren't objectively better than a two-handed weapon, since even a single lance is already as good as every two-handed weapon except greatsword.

Sorry, but while I suspected you wrote this tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek, you probably have realized by now you could have added a smiley for clarity