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

[doctorhook]

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.

For both of your reference, in case you missed it, [MENTION=6785802]guachi[/MENTION] and [MENTION=12032]brehobit[/MENTION] had some fancy maths going on around pages 2 and 3 of this thread.

Both of you commented about fighting styles and feats, and I think that's turning out to be the real can of worms here; the connections between all these things are convoluted enough that it's difficult to try to fix one problem without creating new ones. I'd love it if 5E had a broader base of basic (read: available to everybody) actions tightly integrated into the combat engine (à la 4E), but rebuilding 5E combat from the ground up is more than I'm personally willing to commit to.

I mentioned giving TWFers a bonus reaction/one additional OA per round, and I still like that idea, even if it's a bit situational and fiddly. I also really like [MENTION=31506]ehren37[/MENTION]'s idea of moving the off-hand attack onto the Attack action (instead of a bonus action), but I'm wondering where to place it: basic TWF attack, TWF fighting style, or the DW feat? I'm leaning towards changing the fighting style to fit the bit about [off-hand as part of the Attack action] and stashing the extra reaction/OA in the DW feat, then finally abandoning this madness.

 

[spinozajack]

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.

Polearm master would still be strictly superior to Dual Wielder even in the absence of GWM AND the OA reaction attack, because of the free attack with ability modifier. That gives you 3 attacks at level 5 with reach.

Reach > no reach.

Once you hit level 11, it's also higher base damage too, since you have 3 d10 attacks and one d4, instead of 4 d8 attacks. (34 vs 32 max damage from the weapon alone).

I personally love the OA component, that's good enough on its own. I would make GWM not work with reach weapons, plus remove the free attack. That would balance it with both dual wielder and leave greatswords and greataxes their niche for high damage at close range. Maybe let the reach weapon go up one damage die to make up for losing both GWM and the bonus attack, make it a little juicier. Threatening reach is still very powerful. Very, very powerful. Even without the +10 to damage and the extra attack latched on. I have no idea why they did that. Polearms are 5th edition's spiked chains, mechanically.

Mike Mearls even asked people on twitter, when he was finishing up the PHB and looking for min max exploits, what to avoid, and several people told him to avoid repeating the spiked chain debacle for three editions in a row (the 4e spiked chain was seriously overpowered, 2d4 light weapon with reach that's twin strikable? insane. all the best feats were for light weapons in that edition). I guess he totally ignored that warning and ploughed it out anyway. Maybe this is Gygax's revenge, since he loved polearms so much.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Maybe this is Gygax's revenge, since he loved polearms so much.

I wish I could both laugh at and XP a post, but I can't. Touche sir.

 

[guachi]

A quick summary of my post-with-numbers is that not even counting the -5/+10 part of GWM feat, it still beats up on dual wielding feat at level 11, especially for a Champion, because of the extra attack on a crit/zeroing an enemy. 45% of the time or so you are getting an extra bonus attack. 45%!

Damage increase over no feat:
TWF - 4.0
dual wield - 5.2 (assuming Champion and 1/4 rounds you bring opponent to 0)
GWF - 6.0

Onto new stuff:
Taking polearm mastery and GWF (but not GWM. It's less useful as you already get a bonus action attack) the damage looks like this.
Without mastery - 33.9 which puts it .1 below TWF, and therefore last behind duelist (34.5) and GWF with a two-handed sword (40.0)
With mastery - 41.4 and now it's in second place behind two-handed sword (46.0) and ahead of duelist (39.7) and TWF (38.0)

Personally, I'm inclined to remove the -5/+10 portion of the GWM feat and either replace it with +1 to STR/DEX (which still makes it a monster feat), replace it with nothing, or replace it with something I haven't thought of yet.

I'd still hesitate to give a full damage extra bonus attack to TWF. Five attacks are just better than three or four. Less chance overkill AND you do more total damage.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you.

Okay, so no TWF boosting.

How about replacing -5/+10 with -5/+5?

And what about Polearm Mastery? Unless I'm mistaken you didn't say anything about possible downgradements for PM?

 

[doctorhook]

How about replacing -5/+10 with -5/+5?

I'd been considering this too, for both GWM and Sharpshooter. The power attack idea seems too popular to remove, but +10 damage is too much in a system where advantage is easy to get and roughly negates the entire penalty (-5) of using power attack. +5 would even the score.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd been considering this too, for both GWM and Sharpshooter. The power attack idea seems too popular to remove, but +10 damage is too much in a system where advantage is easy to get and roughly negates the entire penalty (-5) of using power attack. +5 would even the score.

Isn't it a good thing if it "negates the entire penalty"? If the Power Attack option doesn't come out at least slightly ahead of not using the Power Attack, no one will ever use it, and the feat option might as well not exist. -5/+5 is of very marginal utility. If you don't like -5/+10, just ban the feat or make it a half-feat with +1 Str/Dex instead of the -5/+10 option.

If you do ban GWM/Sharpshooter's -5/+10, be aware that it will have repercussions for game balance: fighters and barbarians will be weaker relative to paladins, wizards, and clerics.

 

[CapnZapp]

Isn't it a good thing if it "negates the entire penalty"? If the Power Attack option doesn't come out at least slightly ahead of not using the Power Attack, no one will ever use it, and the feat option might as well not exist. -5/+5 is of very marginal utility. If you don't like -5/+10, just ban the feat or make it a half-feat with +1 Str/Dex instead of the -5/+10 option.

If you do ban GWM/Sharpshooter's -5/+10, be aware that it will have repercussions for game balance: fighters and barbarians will be weaker relative to paladins, wizards, and clerics.

Whoa there, now we're discussing in circles.

First off, are you in agreement that -5/+10 is too much?
Why would then -5/+5 be too little and never used?
I have a hard time seeing how the number 10 can be completely over the top and too good on one hand, if the number 5 is completely worthless at the same time. (And even if you're right, wouldn't there be a happy medium in there somewhere, such as with -5/+7 or -5/+8...??)

The true value of the feat is that it lets you increase your damage output like no other feat. There simply is no other way to get that extra damage. Sure, you might miss, but average damage isn't everything - damage on a hit is also a coveted parameter.

In short, why would I ever want to ban the feat or make it into a half-feat?!? The only thing wrong with it is the number "10" and how it appears to be slightly too high. Removing the number entirely (instead of tweaking it) seems to me to throw out the baby with the bathwater...

And those "repercussions" for game balance? Aren't that exactly what we hope to achieve by toning down GWM?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Whoa there, now we're discussing in circles.

First off, are you in agreement that -5/+10 is too much?
Why would then -5/+5 be too little and never used?
I have a hard time seeing how the number 10 can be completely over the top and too good on one hand, if the number 5 is completely worthless at the same time. (And even if you're right, wouldn't there be a happy medium in there somewhere, such as with -5/+7 or -5/+8...??)

The true value of the feat is that it lets you increase your damage output like no other feat. There simply is no other way to get that extra damage. Sure, you might miss, but average damage isn't everything - damage on a hit is also a coveted parameter.

In short, why would I ever want to ban the feat or make it into a half-feat?!? The only thing wrong with it is the number "10" and how it appears to be slightly too high. Removing the number entirely (instead of tweaking it) seems to me to throw out the baby with the bathwater...

And those "repercussions" for game balance? Aren't that exactly what we hope to achieve by toning down GWM?

Two points:

No, I don't think GWM and SS are broken. I've never seen anyone take them who isn't a fighter, ranger, barbarian, or paladin, and the paladin isn't even good at exploiting the feat. If SS/GWM was broken you'd expect Rogues, monks, and clerics to take it too.

Second, I was responding to the idea of nerfing it until the bonus damage stops "completely negating" the to-hit penalty, wherever that point may be for your games' mix of monster ACs. If you're just trying to limit the DPR boost instead of eliminate it then yeah, you could tinker with the numbers to accomplish that goal. Of course.

RE: repercussions, I sometimes see the exact same people complaining sharpshooter and "caster dominance," so no, I don't get the impression that nerfing fighters is an intended goal. If it is then fine, ban away.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2

 

[guachi]

The broken part about GWM and SS is they are easily better than any other martial damage dealing feat out there. About the only thing that's close that I can think of is a Sentinel using melee rogue who can somehow frequently get opportunities to use Sentinel to trigger a second sneak attack.