Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[AaronOfBarbaria]

But the pros should equal the cons. I don't see that being the case.

If everyone agreed that the cons were too bad, or the pros were too good, then there would be an issue - but general experience on this forum and with face-to-face gamers suggests to me that there are mixed opinions on how the pros and cons stack up, which shows that they are likely pretty well balanced since "worth it or not" is at least partly subjective.

It has been shown that two-weapon fighting actually does less damage than a sword and board Fighter and has the same AC as a two-handed Fighter.

That doesn't match my experience.

What two-weapon builds? I'm being completely honest here.

The two-weapon fighting champion fighter I play in a buddies game does more damage than the great weapon master fighter a buddy of mine plays in my game. I've also seen a theoretical build mixing 3 levels of champion fighter with numerous levels of barbarian, the dual wielder feat, and being a half-orc that could put out some pretty high DPR.

...if you choose to go with two-weapons you probably envision yourself as focusing on offense. I know I do.

That's a matter of expectations not matching intent. Not much that can be done about that, though I agree it is disheartening when what you want something to do isn't what it is intended to do. I've been there with other systems.

I have to ask though, if you envision using two weapons as meaning focusing on offense, what do you envision using a two-handed weapon as meaning? Is it just the case that you envision both as being offense-focused, rather than thinking along the lines of "This one (a big weapon) is for focusing on offense, so that one (two weapons) must be for something else."?

 

[Lord Twig]

I went and figured out the average damage for Fighters at levels 1, 5 and 11. Stat bonus is +3 at 1, +4 at 5 and +5 at 11.


One-handed Fighter with Dueling and a d8 weapon. Two-handed Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting and a greatsword. Two Weapon Fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting and two shortswords.

Note that my proposed rule (which I moved into the Two Weapon Fighter style), doesn't actually change the regular damage of the two-weapon Fighter at all, it does increase his damage when he uses Action Surge.


1st level
1h weapon: ~9.5 damage, ~19 damage with AS
2h weapon: ~11.33 damage, ~22.66 damage with AS
2 weapons: ~13 damage, ~26 damage with AS
At levels 1 through 4 the two-weapon Fighter is dominate, no doubt.


5th level
1h weapon: ~21 damage, ~42 damage with AS
2h weapon: ~24.66 damage, ~49.33 damage with AS
2 weapons: ~22.5 damage, ~45 damage with AS
Here the two-handed Fighter takes off and doesn't look back. This is probably where the bulk of the game is going to be played. The two weapon Fighter is only slightly better than the one-handed Fighter.


11th level
1h weapon: ~34.5 damage, ~69 damage with AS
2h weapon: ~40 damage, ~80 damage with AS
2 weapons: ~34 damage, ~68 damage with AS
The two-handed Fighter pulls even farther ahead and the one-handed weapon Fighter actually catches up and surpasses the two-weapon Fighter.

Allowing for the Feats of Shield Master, Great Weapon Master and Dual Wielder (which I do) actually fixes things pretty well. It gives a good defensive boost and a minor offensive boost to the one-handed (sword and board) Fighter, a big offensive boost to the two-handed Fighter, and a good offensive boost and minor defensive boost to the two-weapon Fighter. Which puts the two-weapon Fighter slightly ahead of the one-handed Fighter in offense and slightly ahead of the two-handed Fighter in defense.

 

[Lord Twig]

If everyone agreed that the cons were too bad, or the pros were too good, then there would be an issue - but general experience on this forum and with face-to-face gamers suggests to me that there are mixed opinions on how the pros and cons stack up, which shows that they are likely pretty well balanced since "worth it or not" is at least partly subjective.

I'll agree that it is subjective.

That doesn't match my experience.

And looking at the numbers again (as I did in my last post) it does look a lot better for the two-weapon Fighter, especially at level 1 through 4. Except when he uses his bonus action for something else (and which my proposed rule addresses), which is something the other two styles don't have to deal with.

The two-weapon fighting champion fighter I play in a buddies game does more damage than the great weapon master fighter a buddy of mine plays in my game. I've also seen a theoretical build mixing 3 levels of champion fighter with numerous levels of barbarian, the dual wielder feat, and being a half-orc that could put out some pretty high DPR.

As I have discovered, you are absolutely correct at lower levels, but it falls behind at higher levels. I can also see a Barbarian mix doing well as the increased stat bonus would be enhanced by the extra attack. The feat also helps a lot, as I mentioned above. All of these facts convinced me that the damage level is fine and I shouldn't mess with it. I am just removing the conflict of the bonus action so the two-weapon wielder's damage is not reduced.

That's a matter of expectations not matching intent. Not much that can be done about that, though I agree it is disheartening when what you want something to do isn't what it is intended to do. I've been there with other systems.

Well, I don't think you can know the designer's intent any better than I can. But I would be surprised if they intended a sword and board fighter to be better at offense than a two-weapon fighter.

I have to ask though, if you envision using two weapons as meaning focusing on offense, what do you envision using a two-handed weapon as meaning? Is it just the case that you envision both as being offense-focused, rather than thinking along the lines of "This one (a big weapon) is for focusing on offense, so that one (two weapons) must be for something else."?

They both seem like offensive styles to me. The two-handed style is (to me) focused on big hits for massive damage. Two weapons suggests lots of attacks where the damage adds up.

I am perfectly okay with the two-handed weapon doing more damage, that seems to be what it is all about. And really using two weapons seems to be mostly about damage as well. The only thing that isn't offensive is the +1 AC in the Feat, which really isn't much.

What seems the most out of place, looking at the numbers, is the clearly superior damage that two weapon fighting does at levels 1 through 4. I would prefer that it fall between the other two and remain there while scaling up with them. Instead we have a system where it starts great, then slowly becomes the worst of the three as everyone gets better at what they do.

If everyone takes their assigned Feat at level 6 it smooths things out a bit and works pretty well. However, if a Variant Human grabs the Dual Wielder Feat at level 1 it becomes even more unbalanced at lower levels.

Edit: Added the 'un' in unbalanced. That typo completely changed the meaning of that sentence. Oops.

 

[Vulf]

I favor an increase in the potency of the Bonus action rather than removing it from two-weapon fighting.

"Characters that take Two-Weapon fighting style increase the damage that their bonus action attacks do by 1W at level 8."

So a typical Fighter or Ranger at level 8 using handaxes or scimitars would make two 1d6 attacks, and then as a bonus action, a single 2d6 attack with his other weapon. (or 2d4 if using daggers, 2d8 if using longswords, etc)

This is a simple increase in damage of the Bonus Action without increasing damage from other sources such as Hunter's Mark, Hex, or other + damage-per-hit modifiers. Does not increase the time devoted to making attacks on a turn, and it makes sacrificing that bonus action damage to use a Cunning action, Second Wind, or spell more meaningful.

The extra damage dice comes in at the same level that Clerics get theirs and right before half-casters get their 3rd level spells.

 

[Horwath]

Standard: attack with main hand and off hand weapon as an action. No modifier to offhand damage. Light weapons only. Can equip both weapons with one free object interaction. Extra attack feature gives same number of offhand attacks.

Style: modifier to offhand damage.

Feat: +1 AC, can use non light weapons, one extra AoO with off hand weapon.

 

[LapBandit]

The two-weapon fighting champion fighter I play in a buddies game does more damage than the great weapon master fighter a buddy of mine plays in my game.

Can you explain further how you are doing this?

I have to ask though, if you envision using two weapons as meaning focusing on offense, what do you envision using a two-handed weapon as meaning? Is it just the case that you envision both as being offense-focused, rather than thinking along the lines of "This one (a big weapon) is for focusing on offense, so that one (two weapons) must be for something else."?

Both are offensively-focused fighting styles, it's just that one style's associated feat is disproportionately more powerful. The simple fix is to have the feat Dual Wielder be about 3/4 power of Great Weapon Master instead of 1/3.

As a DM, I want to reward characters willing to risk it all vs the dragon in melee.

 

[Lord Twig]

@shintashi Sorry, I don't see it. I am not changing the way the entire bonus action system works. I like what WotC has done with it honestly. I am just changing the second hand attack* provided by two weapon fighting so it doesn't require one. All other bonus actions are unchanged. I think you are way overstating the impact.

@Vulf Now you are actually increasing the damage done by two weapon fighting. If you look back through this thread I considered that as well, but decided it was not needed. And your change makes it even more costly to use the bonus action for something other than the second hand attack. The whole intention of my rule was to make it the same as fighting with any other weapon style.

@Horwath That is indeed what I initially proposed. I have since been convinced that it would be better to move it to the Two Weapon Fighter style so you actually have to focus on two weapons to be really good at it.

* There is no 'off-hand attack' in 5e, but you have to make the extra attack granted by two weapon fighting with your second weapon. I didn't want to call it an 'extra attack' because that is a class feature. So finally I decided that it might be best to just call it a second hand attack.

Note: Regarding the Lance. It is a two-handed weapon when you are not mounted (it's in the rules), so you can't dual wield them. If you are mounted you need at least one hand to hold onto your mount or you will go flying off as soon as you hit someone with your lance. Unless you seriously strap yourself in I guess. But by that point you can almost count on your horse getting cut from under you so that it rolls over on you. So yeah, good luck with that.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Can you explain further how you are doing this?

There are some minor differences in overall build; he has a higher Strength (20, to my 16), uses a maul where I use a mix of weapons that usually starts with throwing at least one hand axe and usually setting things up so that in rounds when I use my bonus action for something besides attacking with a second weapon I am making my attacks with a battle axe wielded two-handed.

But primarily, what results in my character doing more damage than his character does are the dice (I'm luckier than he is), and the parties in which our characters operate (my character is frequently getting advantage or other offensive buffs from party members, while his doesn't have reliable means of granting advantage and the buffs they use are primarily defensive in nature).

The simple fix is to have the feat Dual Wielder be about 3/4 power of Great Weapon Master instead of 1/3.

In my experience, because great weapon master's benefits are reliant upon circumstances outside the player's control and dual wielder's benefits are reliant upon circumstances within the player's control, the two feats are much more equal than that - and if one has to be described as being more powerful than the other, it'd be the dual wielder feat with the lead.

As a DM, I want to reward characters willing to risk it all vs the dragon in melee.

That's a nice non-sequitur.

 

[Xeviat]

Standard: attack with main hand and off hand weapon as an action. No modifier to offhand damage. Light weapons only. Can equip both weapons with one free object interaction. Extra attack feature gives same number of offhand attacks.

Style: modifier to offhand damage.

Feat: +1 AC, can use non light weapons, one extra AoO with off hand weapon.

That makes the style too potent. It works out to a +Stat Mod to damage per base attack, when duelist is +2 and GWFing is +1.33. Your standard is perfect, though, as two shortswords balance against a greatsword exactly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Corwin]

Your standard is perfect, though, as two shortswords balance against a greatsword exactly.

I wouldn't say "exactly". There are a few considerations that distinguish the two styles that exactly matching damage doesn't account for. The ability to split up damage helps mitigate wasted/overkill damage. Using two magic weapons is probably going to prove better than one. And of course, getting more chances to land riders like smite or sneak attack is a real thing (heck, our dual shortsword wielding dex paladin novas like a PBS special!). Things like that have value and so should not be ignored or overlooked IMO.