Removing the Bonus Action from Two-Weapon Fighting

[FormerlyHemlock]

As an aside, irony translates poorly to the internet

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

I was speaking in earnest, not ironically.

 

[Savevsdeath]

The problem is that the Rogue no longer has a meaningful choice. They should always use two-weapon fighting.

If you want to improve it I would just allow all characters to add their ability bonus to every attack. I don't like how fiddly that rule is anyway.

Then change the Fighting Style to allow for non-light weapons and dump the feat which is just a tax anyway.

The problem with this is that it becomes mechanically pointless to be a TWF specialist, because anyone can do it with no effort. So if you did all this and dropped the feat. TWF'ers would NEED something to show that they're are the BEST at fighting with two melee weapons.

 

[Pauln6]

I would say don't do it. Higher damage only matters until the monster reaches zero hit points. Great against a big bad, slightly less optimal against multiple low hp monsters. That is exactly as it should be. Some people claim that any player would be stupid not to play a rogue without dual wielding. The bonus action economy is the one thing mitigating against that.

One of our players was worried that his sword and board barbarian/fighter damage was low compared to other PCs (flaming greatsword paladin and long sword/short sword rogue). When we added up the damage, taking account only of the damage actually necessary to take a monster to zero, the only character that was low was the trickery cleric (although judicious use of firestorm put him at the top during one encounter).

Generally speaking, the rules look very well balanced, despite what the numbers on the dice might suggest. No build outshines in every scenario. Giving rogues an extra bonus action to increase incidence of sneak attack could tip that balance or at the very least, give the impression that they are outshining other PCs.

Alternatively, monitor the damage output that matters across an adventure (not just one fight as different styles favour different tactics). Your caster damage should be generally lower with high occasional spikes, but everybody else should be in roughly the same ball park.

 

[Ganymede81]

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

Yeah, it is. That's why I proposed stopping it with the incredibly simple rule addition: "You can benefit from only one lance at a time." Hell, I would implement that rule in my games even if I left the dual-wielding rules untouched.

I stress... it is the Player's Handbook that lets people dual wield lances, not anything that I've proposed.

 

[CapnZapp]

I was speaking in earnest, not ironically.

Sorry what?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Sorry what?

I'm saying that no, there wasn't a missing smiley.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, it is. That's why I proposed stopping it with the incredibly simple rule addition: "You can benefit from only one lance at a time." Hell, I would implement that rule in my games even if I left the dual-wielding rules untouched.

I stress... it is the Player's Handbook that lets people dual wield lances, not anything that I've proposed.

If you're going to rewrite the lance rules, you might as well rewrite them properly. Increase the damage on a charge; make the lance a once-per-round weapon, like the net, or even a single-use weapon if you like the broken-lance trope.

But that's another topic.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm saying that no, there wasn't a missing smiley.

Could you please stop with the minimal responses. You know what I'm getting at.

Why do you suggest dual lances without any visible irony if you find that ridiculous?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Could you please stop with the minimal responses. You know what I'm getting at.

Actually, CapnZapp, your mind is a complete mystery to me. I rarely know what you're getting at, but I know that you tend to berate me whenever I fail to read it or fail to meet your expectations. The reason behind your doing that are also murky to me.

In this particular case, you're berating me for responding to your (minimal, unclear) question "Sorry what?" with a brief restatement of what I said previously. I guessed what you were asking; apparently I guessed wrong; beats me why you're irritated with me and not with yourself over it.

Why do you suggest dual lances without any visible irony if you find that ridiculous?

I don't even understand the question. Are we using different definitions of "irony" here? To me, "irony" suggests a tension between meanings, e.g. between denotation and connotation; sarcasm is a form of irony because what you say is the opposite of what you mean.

I didn't "suggest" the use of dual lances. I, with my designer's hat on, pointed out an implication of a proposed rules tweak. It would further incentivize player behavior in a direction that I consider ridiculous. Dual lances is not a common configuration in 5E today, but it happens (at least in forum posts; no one at my table has tried it), and the proposed rules tweak would make it more attractive, perhaps even more common. This is one reason to be wary of the proposed rules tweak.

There's no irony in that.

 

[Lord Twig]

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

Ok, here is your first post, numbered for convenience:

I think it is important to consider why you are making this change.

(1)If you feel that fighting with two weapons isn't offensively powerful enough, (2)despite the added versatility of being able to use two different weapons and (3)make melee or ranged attacks in the same round, (4)as well as getting two opportunities to hit and apply special effects like sneak attack, (5)and getting two chances to score a critical hit - then this rule change might be suitable as it (6)makes fighting with two weapons more powerful.

If you are thinking of a different reason for the change, then my thoughts depend upon that reason.

1. No, I don't feel that fighting with two weapons is enough, but I assume you didn't actually intend that as a reason. So moving on!

2. I don't see a lot of benefit in being able to use two different weapons. Maybe different damage types? Like slashing and piercing? But then you are more likely for one of your weapons to be resisted, so that kinda balances out. And again, needing two weapons means needing two magic weapons instead of just one. And you are limited to only 3 attuned items. Sure it's only a problem for higher level characters, but it is still there.

3. Again, a minor boost. You can only draw one weapon during your turn. (Unless you get the Dueling Feat, but that's a Feat. If we add that we have to add the possible bonus attack from Great Weapon Master.) My greatsword Eldritch Knight Fighter commonly carries a javelin that he throws before switching to his greatsword. He then moves and attacks thanks to Extra Attack. If he needs a ranged attack again he releases the greatsword with one hand, summons the javelin back to his hand (a bonus action with Weapon Bond), throws it, then grabs his sword again. Or he could just draw a new javeling to throw and he wouldn't even need to use the bonus action. So maybe a slight advantage from levels 1 to 4?

4. Of course the Rogue already gets two opportunities to get his Sneak Attack with two-weapon fighting, and my proposed rule doesn't change that. It just means he still has his bonus action for a Dash, Disengage or whatever. That said I have since decided, mostly for this exact reason (and Martial Arts), to put the removal of the bonus action into the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. If a Rogue or Monk wants to dip Fighter for the style, and delay all of their actual class abilities by a level, so be it.

5. Two chances to get a critical hit for half the benefit is breaking even. I definitely don't see this as an advantage.

6. Slightly more powerful, yes. It doesn't actually increase the damage done by two-weapon fighting at all, it just removes the times when you would do less damage because you needed your bonus action for something else.

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.

But the pros should equal the cons. I don't see that being the case. 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. All this for the debatable advantages listed above.

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.

What two-weapon builds? I'm being completely honest here. If there is a two-weapon build that significantly improves the damage output I haven't seen it (putting aside Rogues that get an obvious advantage of an extra chance to land a Sneak Attack). And how does the two-weapon user split the difference on damage and defense? He does less damage and is tied for the worst defense. Are we talking about the Dual Wielder feat?

Let's talk about the Dual Wielder feat. It adds one extra point of average damage on a hit and +1 AC. Still not sure the extra damage actually surpasses the Dueling Fighter, but you can at least get close. The +1 AC is nice. Oh, and you can now be ready to fight with your preferred style in one round instead of two like everyone else. Yay?

But then the others get Feats too. The two-handed Fighter gets Great Weapon Master, which give him an extra attack if he drops a foe and the -5 attack, +10 damage that is huge against low AC monsters. Commonly considered one of the top broken Feats.

Meanwhile the sword and board Fighter gets Shield Master giving him a bonus action Shove, which can improve his damage by giving him Advantage, and an Evasion effect which increases his defense even more.

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.").

Certainly a two-weapon Fighter isn't a waste of space, but if you choose to go with two-weapons you probably envision yourself as focusing on offense. I know I do. So it is a little disheartening to find out that the defensive sword and board Fighter is actually better at offense that you are, even if only slightly. And then is significantly better if you both need to use a bonus action.

I will say that I am very glad I posted this question. I loved the suggestion to move the bonus action removal to the fighting style, and further analysts is convincing me that I should probably do even more to boost the damage of two-weapon fighting to put it just a little ahead of dueling with a one-handed weapon. Not sure what to do with that yet though.

Edit: Looked at the damage again. I think I can just go with the bonus action removal and allow two-weapon fighters to get the extra attack whenever they use an Attack Action. From 1st through 4th the two-weapon user has a definite advantage. After everyone gets Extra attack they are still slightly ahead of the single weapon fighter. I do allow Feats and the Dual Wielder Feat should be enough to push them ahead when they get Extra Attack 2. So yeah. Get rid of the required bonus action with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and things look much better.