D&D 5E Scaling the number of off-hand attacks?

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I do like the extra reaction. It might also add some "oomf" to the defensive duelist feat, which also feels a bit sub par.

 

[Pickles JG]

You've convinced me that the most broken part of non-magical combat in 5E is Polearm Master, specifically the ability to OA foes as they enter your (extended) reach.

There doesn't seem to be a satisfying answer, does there?

One last try, though. Did you have a peek at my most recent suggestion? I'll quote myself, for your perusal:
[sblock=Self quote][/sblock]

I think it's polearm master plus great weapon master, two very strong feats that combine muliplicatively. Each is probably OK as a capstone to a style but the fact they work together pushes the combo way over.

I do not like the reaction thing. It's the sort of house rule i make then end up reversing. Reactions do not seem to be inshort enough supply for it to come up often so it's marginal at best and will get forgotten making it even worse.

I like the idea of making the extra attack part of the attack action which frees up the bonus actions. I am not sure this does much though- some ranger spells can get cast and action surge gets better once a rest?

I think given TWFs only a real issue at 11th when it's bad not just mediocre I would be inclined to patch it as and when it became actually relevant, if mycampaign hit 11th and a PC was a fighter or ranger who wanted to duel wield. You don't need to set a rule precedent either you could just hand out a magic item (or 2) that make it better in this one case.

 

[redrick]

Just a thought -- what if you attached the attack scaling to the dual wielded feat a la power attack?

Flurry of Blades
Any time you perform a melee attack as part of an attack action on your turn, you may make an additional off-hand attack. Both attacks will be made at -5 to hit.

This would average out to a little less damage than power attack, but with the benefit of splitting up the attacks to avoid overkill. (Assuming you have TWF fighting style, that is.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Could I ask for the reason why a second off hand attack at fighter level 11 (using your bonus attack to make two, not one, off hand attacks) would be overpowered?

Thanks

 

[redrick]

Could I ask for the reason why a second off hand attack at fighter level 11 (using your bonus attack to make two, not one, off hand attacks) would be overpowered?

Thanks

There have been earlier threads that crunch the math, but I'm on my phone so I can't bring up the posts easily.

If I remember correctly, giving the 11th level TWF fighter 5 attacks vs the 3 attacks of the GWF fighter slightly edges out the average damage of the GWF fighter. Why is this a problem? Because, leaving damage off the table, the dex fighter has a lot of advantages over the str fighter. Better dex saves, lots of useful skills, no stealth penalties from heavy armor, ability to switch up and use a bow to great effect, better initiative, etc. the str fighter can carry more (if using variant encumbrance where that matters) and is better at resisting grapples and pushes. And probably leads the dex fighter by a point in AC due to heavy armor -- unless the dex fighter takes dual wielding and gets that 1 point AC bonus.

So, if the melee dex fighter is equal to the melee str fighter in damage, the str fighter loses its one edge.

Some people don't care about that, of course. Personally, I'd rather find a way to throw the TWF fighter a bone at higher levels without equalizing the damage.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Just a thought -- what if you attached the attack scaling to the dual wielded feat a la power attack?

Flurry of Blades
Any time you perform a melee attack as part of an attack action on your turn, you may make an additional off-hand attack. Both attacks will be made at -5 to hit.

This would average out to a little less damage than power attack, but with the benefit of splitting up the attacks to avoid overkill. (Assuming you have TWF fighting style, that is.)

That is very strong. Potentially much stronger than power attack, especially for paladins but also for anyone with high damage from Enlarge/Crusader's Mantle/magic weapons/etc. Melee is weak enough that I would allow a player to take this awesome feat, knowing full well how strong it will be, but be aware that it will have ramifications. It works for Dex fighters and sword-and-shield guys and halflings, unlike GWM. You could potentially even stack it with Power Attack against enemies with low AC.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[CapnZapp]

There have been earlier threads that crunch the math, but I'm on my phone so I can't bring up the posts easily.

If I remember correctly, giving the 11th level TWF fighter 5 attacks vs the 3 attacks of the GWF fighter slightly edges out the average damage of the GWF fighter. Why is this a problem? Because, leaving damage off the table, the dex fighter has a lot of advantages over the str fighter. Better dex saves, lots of useful skills, no stealth penalties from heavy armor, ability to switch up and use a bow to great effect, better initiative, etc. the str fighter can carry more (if using variant encumbrance where that matters) and is better at resisting grapples and pushes. And probably leads the dex fighter by a point in AC due to heavy armor -- unless the dex fighter takes dual wielding and gets that 1 point AC bonus.

So, if the melee dex fighter is equal to the melee str fighter in damage, the str fighter loses its one edge.

Some people don't care about that, of course. Personally, I'd rather find a way to throw the TWF fighter a bone at higher levels without equalizing the damage.

I'd like to see those calculations

Especially since I thought GWF absolutely crushed TWF - giving TWF 5 attacks instead of 4 is "only" +25%, and I thought GWF led TWF by more than that.

Do note that GWF is much better in practice than in the white room. I have found that in practice that -5 penalty is not nearly as problematic as it first seems. Monsters have generally low AC. It's not hard to get Advantage or other bonuses. Considerations that benefit the GWF:er much more than the fighter attacking without -5/+10. Meaning that I am interested to see if those calculation take, say, advantage into account. (Not doing that and subsequently declaring GWF not much better than TWF is not a very rewarding basis for discussion, IMO)

Also, does this discussion involve Polearm Master? Or perhaps it doesn't have to, if GWF is always better than PM? But then what about the GWF+PM case? I would have thought TWF didn't stand a candle to that combo, despite - obviously - TWF being able to link up with a feat of its own...

I do agree the STR fighter needs an edge vs the DEX fighter. That I suggest adding something to TWF is based on the perception that the things DEX give (better AC, better initiative, better Dex-saves etc) wasn't quite enough to match the humongous damage from TWF....

Thanks,

 

[redrick]

That is very strong. Potentially much stronger than power attack, especially for paladins but also for anyone with high damage from Enlarge/Crusader's Mantle/magic weapons/etc. Melee is weak enough that I would allow a player to take this awesome feat, knowing full well how strong it will be, but be aware that it will have ramifications. It works for Dex fighters and sword-and-shield guys and halflings, unlike GWM. You could potentially even stack it with Power Attack against enemies with low AC.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

Not sure how it works for sword and shield guys. You'd need to be wielding a weapon in your off hand. Typing this out on the train, so I didn't necessarily type it out to be loophole proof, more just intention.

Personally, if I tried this, it would be instead of the ability to dual-wield non-light weapons. Maybe allow a non-light and a light weapon with the thrown property in the offhand. (Allowing rapier+dagger, battle axe+handaxe).

And can you power attack with non-two handed weapons? Don't have my phb on me.

As for features granting bonuses to attack above and beyond TWF bonus, yeah, that could blow this up. Hunters mark type stuff.

Anyhow, not saying it's a good idea, just a thought, since one of the problems with the dual wielder feat is that it's not that sexy, unless you want to dual-wield battle axes, which I'm not that into.

 

[redrick]

I'd like to see those calculations

Especially since I thought GWF absolutely crushed TWF - giving TWF 5 attacks instead of 4 is "only" +25%, and I thought GWF led TWF by more than that.

Do note that GWF is much better in practice than in the white room. I have found that in practice that -5 penalty is not nearly as problematic as it first seems. Monsters have generally low AC. It's not hard to get Advantage or other bonuses. Considerations that benefit the GWF:er much more than the fighter attacking without -5/+10. Meaning that I am interested to see if those calculation take, say, advantage into account. (Not doing that and subsequently declaring GWF not much better than TWF is not a very rewarding basis for discussion, IMO)

Also, does this discussion involve Polearm Master? Or perhaps it doesn't have to, if GWF is always better than PM? But then what about the GWF+PM case? I would have thought TWF didn't stand a candle to that combo, despite - obviously - TWF being able to link up with a feat of its own...

I do agree the STR fighter needs an edge vs the DEX fighter. That I suggest adding something to TWF is based on the perception that the things DEX give (better AC, better initiative, better Dex-saves etc) wasn't quite enough to match the humongous damage from TWF....

Thanks,

I was addressing non-feated. When comparing TWF to GWF, I think we need to separate comparing the feats from comparing the fighting styles. Because if the problem is with the feats, the solution should be in the feats. Personally, while I don't find the dual wielder feat useless, I do find it lame.

As for the -5 and advantage, I hear you, though I think this "advantage is everywhere" must vary by table. The GWF fighter at my table is not getting advantage all the time, and he fights lots of guys in armor.

Anyway, sorry I can't link the calculations for you! Maybe once I get home. Inter-city traveling at the moment.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My bad on shield users, I overlooked the "offhand only" aspect.

I do think it's a really neat approach. It's not easy to abuse, I was just calling out some potential ways to abuse it, but they all take investment. Even with this feat in play, TWF would not be a no-brainer. My big worry would be that non-PM GWM might be obsolete.

One of my beefs with 5E is that I think rich combat options like this Rapid Strike of yours, and power attack, etc., should be available in the base combat system and not hidden behind a feat gate. In AD&D these things were just combat options. In 5E, if you open power attack up to everyone you have to rewrite GWM. Oh well.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2