Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[LapBandit]

...

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.

Okay so because of anecdotal circumstance, your PC does more damage. Given the nature of the discussion being mechanics and not circumstance, I imagine we should concentrate on it?

Regarding GWM vs Dual Wielder, I am frankly bewildered to determine how the same fighter with GWM and a two hander or Dual Wielder and two longswords is in the same ballpark once 5th level comes around? GWM has the possiblity of doing an additional +30 damage per round, how do they compare?

 

[Corwin]

GWM has the possiblity of doing an additional +30 damage per round, how do they compare?

That +30 damage means nothing to the two-longswords guy since he has multiple chances to kill his targets outright swinging those two vorpal swords...

 

[CapnZapp]

To all:

I see some confusion about how good TWF really is that is based on which level you are discussing.

Yes, TWF is really strong when martial characters have only one attack, so that your bonus attack represents an +100% increase (levels 1-4).

And it's at the very least passable when martial characters have two attacks, so that your bonus attack represents a +50% increase (levels 5-10). But remember, as you level up, getting to use that bonus action even if you didn't choose TWF is getting easier and easier, which is a relative power drop for you (you can't use those tricks, since your bonus action is already spoken for).

It is when martial characters have three attacks, and your bonus attack represents only a +33 increase, the framework really starts to fall apart. At this time, you really would be better off stop using two weapons. If you chose the TWF fighting style and the dual wield feat, sucks to be you, since you can't change those selections.

So please; any discussion on how to replace/improve TWF needs to agree on the following basic assumptions:

* "I'm playing a fighter" (because if you're not playing a fighter, you will never experience the problem; the cost of taking TWF)
* "Not doing as well as another fighter is important to me" (because if there's no other fighter in the party, you cannot experience the problem; the relatively weak part of TWF, or how you become outmatched by your ally
* "Our campaign will at the very least take us to the teen levels" (if the campaign ends at level 5, TWF is overpowered and this discussion is wholly irrelevant. Even if it is planned to end at level 13, there is arguably not a huge problem, since the time spent being relatively weak on levels 11 and 12 is small compared to the time spent being equal or even better than your peers on levels 1 through 10.)

If all three of those aren't true for your campaign and your party and your potential TWF player, there is arguably no problem.

So let's assume they are as we continue. Thank you

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Okay so because of anecdotal circumstance, your PC does more damage. Given the nature of the discussion being mechanics and not circumstance, I imagine we should concentrate on it?

The mechanics do not exist in-game without circumstance, so it is helpful to remember the impact of said circumstances.

Regarding GWM vs Dual Wielder, I am frankly bewildered to determine how the same fighter with GWM and a two hander or Dual Wielder and two longswords is in the same ballpark once 5th level comes around? GWM has the possiblity of doing an additional +30 damage per round, how do they compare?

How they compare is that possibility of higher damage is offset by a higher chance of dealing no damage at all. Sure, that gamble seems like it's clearly worth the risk - but it has to so that anyone ever takes the risk.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

Sure, there's some differences. The rogue would be buffed by removing the bonus action requirement. Paladins don't get the style, so I'm not too concerned; I want to limit smite to once per round, so that sways my opinion. Avoiding overkill is a nice advantage, but the power chance to do max damage probably counters that.

I'm inclined to leave the bonus action requirement to pay for some of those side benefits, but have action surge give a bonus action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pauln6]

I'm inclined to leave the bonus action requirement to pay for some of those side benefits, but have action surge give a bonus action.

I think this sounds like a sensible compromise to start with. It's a short rest ability, so not over-powering. Fighter-rogues can get a bit more mileage out of it beyond pure damage.

I kept track of damage dealt that actually counted and damage taken by the characters for two adventures. It turned out that the player who was concerned about dishing less damage was on par with the others AND took less damage due to barbarian resistance. If we'd gone with a gut feeling we might have upped his damage and essentially given him an unfair advantage.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well if we just went by gut instinct then apparently two weapon fighting is fine. But the math says something very different.

So far I have just looked at the Fighter, but now I want to look at the Ranger, which is the only other class that gets the Two Weapon Fighter fighting style...

The Ranger doesn't get Great Weapon Fighting, but they do get Dueling, so other than that they are the same as the Fighter at 1st and 5th level. At 11th level the Hunter would get Whirlwind Attack (assuming a melee two weapon Ranger here). The Beast Master just has his pet getting more attacks, so I'll just focus on the Hunter.

The other "ability" is Hunter's Mark. And I really question considering it as a primary Ranger ability since it isn't even included in the OGL rules. But it's all we got, so I'll go with it.

1st level
1h weapon: ~9.5 damage
2 weapons: ~13 damage

1st level, casting Hunter's Mark
1h weapon: ~13 damage
2 weapons: ~10 damage

1st level, with Hunter's Mark up
1h weapon: ~13 damage
2 weapons: ~20 damage
I'm sure this has been covered elsewhere before, but the two weapon Ranger takes a hit in damage when he casts Hunter's Mark, and he doesn't make it up until the 2nd round on the same target.

5th level
1h weapon: ~21 damage
2 weapons: ~22.5 damage

5th level, casting Hunter's Mark
1h weapon: ~28 damage
2 weapons: ~22 damage

5th level, with Hunter's Mark up
1h weapon: ~28 damage
2 weapons: ~33 damage
Here at least the two weapon fighter doesn't lose damage when he casts the spell, so he starts getting the extra damage on the second round, but it takes till the 3rd round on the same target before he surpasses the 1h weapon user.

11th level, Whirlwind Attack (I'm going to be generous and give them 3 targets)
1h weapon: ~34.5 damage
2 weapons: ~25.5 damage

11th level, Whirlwind Attack, casting Hunter's Mark
1h weapon: ~38 damage
2 weapons: ~29 damage

11th level, Whirlwind Attack, with Hunter's Mark up
1h weapon: ~38 damage
2 weapons: ~29 damage
Hunter's Mark really isn't very useful for Whirlwind Attack. Only one target takes the bonus damage. And it sucks for the two weapon user as all of their attacks are with a light weapon and doesn't benefit from the Duelist +2 damage bonus. So the more targets, the further behind they get.

Before anyone starts going into how the two weapon Ranger can start pouring the damage on after the 2nd round of combat, consider the odds that his opponent will even still be standing after 2 rounds, let alone 3.

There is also the consideration of the Concentration save. Every time the Ranger takes damage there is approximately a 35% chance that he will lose the spell (assuming a +2 Con bonus vs. a DC 10 save). There is actually a pretty good chance that the Ranger will lose the spell after the first round of combat. He will then have used a 1st level spell slot so that he could do less damage for 1 round. Yay?

And every time he has to change targets, he actually reduces the amount of damage he is dealing. So yeah, I'm still okay with my house rule.

 

[Pauln6]

Don't be too blinded by pure mathematics. Run a playtest where you tot up the damage inflicted up to the point where the monster hits zero hit points and THEN do the mathematics. Player tactics and synergies will make a difference in practice that you won't see on paper. You also need to compare big bad monsters versus multiple lower hit point grunts as you would expect great weapons to be more effective against giants and TWF more effective against a horde of orcs.

I do think it's wise to compare class with the same class rather than comparing across classes.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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).

Not trying to be completely snarky, but why did you bring up this character who gets buffs compared to another guy who has terrible luck as if it was relevant when discussing implementing mechanics? Poor tactics, DM favoritism, bad player luck - these really arent things to primarily consider whether a house rule is balanced.

To the OP, I've moved the extra offhand attack to the "Attack" action for those who take either the feat OR the fighting style, and its been a much needed boost for dual wielding. It's helped boost melee rangers and rogues compared to their ranged counterparts. Action surge fighters get their second offhand attack like they should. Additionally I'd probably give a fighter a 2nd offhand attack when they reach 17th level or whenever you get your 4th attack. Beyond that, its nothing that cant be fixed by throwing an extra +1 or whatever on the dual wielder's weapons.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Not trying to be completely snarky, but why did you bring up this character who gets buffs compared to another guy who has terrible luck as if it was relevant when discussing implementing mechanics? Poor tactics, DM favoritism, bad player luck - these really arent things to primarily consider whether a house rule is balanced.

The math that suggests a house-rule might be called for often forgets to account for some variables - such as luck with dice, the DM's choices and how they affect things (like how my choice to have a lot of hobgoblins (literally armies) in one campaign has made the average AC the players need to hit considerably higher than if I'd chosen zombies instead), and not just what the rest of the party is playing but how they are playing it.

Basically, I bring up actually playing because it and the math don't always (or even necessarily often) match up - and it's the actually playing part that people want to have work.