D&D 5E Tweak to TWF rules

[discosoc]

Starting at level 5, the heavy weapon fighter can do the same thing. By level 11, the heavy weapon fighter is ahead in damage and only barely behind in chances to hit. Also, unless each hit is a kill, spreading damage with ablative hp is not a very good choice, tactically speaking, so it being useful and effective is in question. Cool, I'll grant you.

Spreading damage can help force concentration checks.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Spreading damage isn't necessarily the same as splitting damage. Just sayin'...

 

[the Jester]

Starting at level 5, the heavy weapon fighter can do the same thing. By level 11, the heavy weapon fighter is ahead in damage and only barely behind in chances to hit. Also, unless each hit is a kill, spreading damage with ablative hp is not a very good choice, tactically speaking, so it being useful and effective is in question. Cool, I'll grant you.

Sure, when he gets a second attack; but meanwhile, the TWF guy is hitting (and possibly dropping) three enemies to the GWF's two.

And don't overlook things like the potential from poison damage (per hit), smites (for a paladin), more chances to land a sneak attack (for a rogue), etc, etc.

I don't think there's a problem with TWF unless, arguably, you're in a game where there are no encounters with hordes of mooks. But then, I also don't have a problem with TWF being inferior, as it is a fairly unrealistic fighting style. With a few exceptions (e.g. rapier and main-gauche), it's pretty ahistorical, and for good reason- a shield is almost always a superior "second weapon". I totally recognize that this is a playstyle thing, though.

 

[feartheminotaur]

Using a bonus action to get an extra attack is good at lower levels, but is overshadowed by the raw damage of a two-handed weapon once the warrior classes start getting extra attacks.

I'm not sure I track this assumption. TWF is just a free bonus attack - one with your Mod if you take the Fighting Style. How is that overshadowed? It's an extra attack that doesn't take a feat (like Polearm Master) and is something the two-handed weapon user doesn't get. Part of the give and take result of a player choosing between their options. Nothing imbalanced, unless you just want to rule every attack does the same damage, because otherwise the math would always say the correct thing to do is wield a 2d6 weapon.

In any case, your proposed rule sounds fine on the first two points. The last one I don't like since you actively strip off the mechanical benefit of advantage and the penalty of disadvantage. It basically negates both entirely.

Yes, allowing both to hit is great, but you greatly diminish the chance of either attack hitting, which should be the reward for Advantage not a lower percentage chance to do 1W+Mod damage.

You also remove any benefit an enemy gets for granting Disadvantage. Yeah, only one, the lower one, hits, but the probability of that lower roll hitting is the same as it is w/o Disadvantage, so...Disadvantage does nothing to affect the roll. There actually is no disadvantage at all - the DPR is the same as the normal attack outlined in #1.

If you need to roll a 10, you have a 55% chance on each roll. If you have a roll, two rolls, or 200 rolls with Advantage, you have 80% chance on each. If you have disadvantage, you have a 30% chance on each rolls. The third rule change does nothing to affect the individual to hit probability - which is what A/D is for - but instead allows the "to hits" to do more damage (by adding the 1W+Mod) w/ Advantage, and has no discernible penalty for Disadvantage.

The last one actually does more to dissuade, mathematically, a player from taking TWF than any of the current rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure, when he gets a second attack; but meanwhile, the TWF guy is hitting (and possibly dropping) three enemies to the GWF's two.

And don't overlook things like the potential from poison damage (per hit), smites (for a paladin), more chances to land a sneak attack (for a rogue), etc, etc.

I don't think there's a problem with TWF unless, arguably, you're in a game where there are no encounters with hordes of mooks. But then, I also don't have a problem with TWF being inferior, as it is a fairly unrealistic fighting style. With a few exceptions (e.g. rapier and main-gauche), it's pretty ahistorical, and for good reason- a shield is almost always a superior "second weapon". I totally recognize that this is a playstyle thing, though.

We must play different games where d6+stat is enough to drop an enemy at 5th level. Sometimes it is, like when I flood kobolds at the players, but often it's just a love tap with most CR1+ creatures having far more than 13 hitpoints (assuming you managed a 20 stat).

And, yes, it changes somewhat if you have riders, but there aren't that many and the benefit of the second attack is mostly gone by 11th level -- it just washes out (I get 4 attacks when I use my bonus action vs 3 and can use my bonus for something else).

TWF is more for rogues, to double up their chance to land sneak attack (provided you're not using the more ubiquitous ranged builds) or ranger to add on mark damage. For fighters, heavy weapons quickly outpace TWF.

 

[Xeviat]

I'd like it for each fighting style to be different. High defense (weapon+shield), high damage (thf), multiple attacks (twf) are pretty nice differences. The question is who do you want to be good with each style? Since the Fighter gets all of the styles, there's a part of me which wants them to be balanced with the Fighter in mind; I'd rather make TWFing work with the Fighter and then tweak other options so that other classes don't overshadow it. Right now, TWFing only feels like it makes automatic sense with the Rogue (and it's built into the Monk); both of these classes have other things to use their Bonus action for, so there's competition.

First, lets assume a baseline 16 Stat plus proficiency (+5 to hit) against the base AC from the DMG monster table (13); these scale relatively evenly in the low levels, maintaining a pretty flat 65% chance to hit (at high levels, AC scales a little extra, but that's made up for with magic weapons; I'm going to assume a +1 enhancement bonus at 12, 16, and 19).

Level 1; 16 Str, +5 to hit vs 13 AC
GWF: 2d6*+3 (gwfing; avg 11.33): 7.8 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+5 (duelist; avg 9.5): 6.4 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+3 and +5 1d6+3 (twfing; avg 6.5x2): 8.8 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing ahead by +1)

Okay, so TWFing starts out a good deal ahead of GWFing, but it costs a bonus action. The fighter can use that bonus action for second wind, and they don't get an extra bonus action if they use action surge once they hit 2nd level.

Level 4: Stat 18
GWF: 2d6*+4 (gwfing; avg 12.33): 8.4 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+6 (duelist; avg 10.5): 7.1 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+4 and +6 1d6+4 (twfing; avg 7.5x2): 10.1 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing pulls further ahead to +1.7)

Level 5: Stat 18 still, Extra Attack x1
GWF: 2d6*+4 x2 (gwfing; avg 12.33x2): 16.8 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+6 x2 (duelist; avg 10.5x2): 14.2 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+4 x3 (twfing; avg 7.5x3): 15.2 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing falls behind to -1.6; needs +1d4 to get nearly even)

Level 8: Stat 20
GWF: 2d6*+5 x2 (gwfing; avg 13.33x2): 18.2 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+7 x2 (duelist; avg 11.5x2): 15.4 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+5 x3 (twfing; avg 8.5x3): 17.1 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing closes the gap, still -1.1; needs +1d2 to be basically even)

Level 11: Stat 20, Extra Attack x2
GWF: 2d6*+5 x3 (gwfing; avg 13.33x3): 27.3 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+7 x3 (duelist; avg 11.5x3): 23.1 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+5 x4 (twfing; avg 8.5x4): 22.8 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing falls behind even Sword+Shield; -4.5; needs nearly +2d6 to be even)

At level 11, TWFing falls behind everything. This gap could be closed by having Extra Attack x2 grant an extra offhand attack as well. But, this wouldn't balance against additive damage, like +1d6 elemental weapons.

Level 12: Stat 20, Extra Attack x2, +1 weapons
GWF: 2d6*+6 x3 (gwfing; avg 14.33x3): 29.2 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+8 x3 (duelist; avg 12.5x3): 25.1 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+6 x4 (twfing; avg 9.5x4): 25.3 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing rises a bit ahead of shield, but still -3.9; needs about +2d4 to be even)

Level 16: Stat 20, Extra Attack x2, +2 weapons
GWF: 2d6*+7 x3 (gwfing; avg 15.33x3): 31.1 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+9 x3 (duelist; avg 13.5x3): 27 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+7 x4 (twfing; avg 10.5x4): 28 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing behind -3.1, it moved up a smidge; needs about +2d4 to be even)

Level 19: Stat 20, Extra Attack x2, +3 weapons
GWF: 2d6*+8 x3 (gwfing; avg 16.33x3): 33.1 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+10 x3 (duelist; avg 14.5x3): 29 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+8 x4 (twfing; avg 11.5x4): 30.6 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing behind -2.5; needs about +1d6 to be even)

Level 20: Stat 20, Extra Attack x3, +3 weapons
GWF: 2d6*+8 x4 (gwfing; avg 16.33x4): 44.1 dpr, baseline
Shield: 1d8+10 x4 (duelist; avg 14.5x4): 38.7 dpr, +2 AC
TWF: 1d6+8 x5 (twfing; avg 11.5x5): 38.25 dpr, lost bonus action (TWFing behind -5.85; needs about +3d4 to be even)

I realize that I'm unsure if monster AC scales faster than player attack past 11th level (I know for certain that monster attack outscales player AC, unless you're a monk or possibly barbarian), so the numbers for level 12 here may be different. At 65% chance to hit, +1d6 damage from an elemental weapon or other bonus adds up to +2.45 per attack. I added a "needs X" to each of the TWFing to bring it up to par with GWFing.

I don't think TWFing should be doing more damage than GWFing. I think TWFing's advantages (an extra attack roll, lower chance to do 0 damage) is enough of a bonus for using the bonus action. TWFing's advantages do get smaller for the fighter starting at level 5 with their extra attacks, especially with the fighter and their x2 and x3 extra attacks.

Magic weapons do benefit TWFing, but the TWFer does require two magic weapons. If they get two magic weapons, then the GWFer gets a magic weapon and maybe a belt of giant strength (which will push them even higher), and the shield user gets a magic weapon and a magic shield (pushing their AC even higher). This is why I don't think magic weapons balance TWFing. Sneak attack balances TWFing. Hunters Mark/Hex/Rage/Divine Favor/Elemental Weapon and all the other ways of adding dice to attacks can balance weapons, but I show just how much extra damage is needed.

The Fighter is the worst case scenario, because they get 3 and 4 attacks.

I hope this shows that TWFing isn't "too" far behind. It starts out noticably ahead. It falls behind if magic weapons aren't utilized. It can be close to even if enough effects are stacked, but it would take a lot to make it pull ahead. It's really that bonus action cost that hurts it; maybe that can go away once someone has "Extra Attack", since +50% attacks is worth a lot less mathematically than +100% attacks (not to mention +33% attacks and +25% attacks).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I think you're vastly underestimating how useful, effective, and downright cool it is to be able to divide your damage between two targets (assuming you hit twice), especially when fighting a mass of enemies.

I'm with @Ovinomancer on this one. In a game where you regularly get one-hit kills, being able to split your damage into smaller, faster attacks can be very handy. Starcraft springs to mind here. But D&D is not that game.

I'm not sure I track this assumption. TWF is just a free bonus attack - one with your Mod if you take the Fighting Style. How is that overshadowed? It's an extra attack that doesn't take a feat (like Polearm Master) and is something the two-handed weapon user doesn't get. Part of the give and take result of a player choosing between their options. Nothing imbalanced, unless you just want to rule every attack does the same damage, because otherwise the math would always say the correct thing to do is wield a 2d6 weapon.

A 5th-level fighter with two shortswords has an expected DPR of 3d6 times the probability of hitting. A 5th-level fighter with a greatsword has an expected DPR of 4d6 times the probability of hitting and still has a bonus action to play with. And the gap only widens once the fighter gets its third and fourth attack. So the math does say the correct thing to do is wield a 2d6 weapon.

In any case, your proposed rule sounds fine on the first two points. The last one I don't like since you actively strip off the mechanical benefit of advantage and the penalty of disadvantage. It basically negates both entirely.

Yes, allowing both to hit is great, but you greatly diminish the chance of either attack hitting, which should be the reward for Advantage not a lower percentage chance to do 1W+Mod damage.

You also remove any benefit an enemy gets for granting Disadvantage. Yeah, only one, the lower one, hits, but the probability of that lower roll hitting is the same as it is w/o Disadvantage, so...Disadvantage does nothing to affect the roll. There actually is no disadvantage at all - the DPR is the same as the normal attack outlined in #1.

I'm afraid your math is not correct. If you've got a 50% chance to hit on a single weapon attack, then your DPR on a regular two-weapon attack is the average of your two weapons' damage expressions times 3/4, your DPR with advantage is the average times 1/2 twice (i.e., 1), and your DPR with disadvantage is the average times 1/4. Disadvantage is actually more painful than it is with a single weapon -- you lose two-thirds of your DPR rather than half.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I moved the extra attack from a bonus action to just being part of the attack action if you have the feat or the fighting style. This lets rangers dual wield and cast at the same time, and fighters effectively get 2 offhand attacks when they action surge. Simple and non-fiddly. The rest I can fix by throwing the TWF guy an extra +1 on his magic weapons or whatever over the GWF guy.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I moved the extra attack from a bonus action to just being part of the attack action if you have the feat or the fighting style.

Just curious, are you saying those without the feat or fighting style still use a bonus action as normal? And if so, can a character who does have the feat or fighting style still use a bonus action to make yet another off-hand attack?

 

[the Jester]

A 5th-level fighter with two shortswords has an expected DPR of 3d6 times the probability of hitting. A 5th-level fighter with a greatsword has an expected DPR of 4d6 times the probability of hitting and still has a bonus action to play with. And the gap only widens once the fighter gets its third and fourth attack. So the math does say the correct thing to do is wield a 2d6 weapon.

Well, don't forget to add your ability bonus. Assuming you have the TWF fighting style, you're looking at (assuming +4 from your stat) 3d6+12 (average 22) vs. 4d6+8 (average 22). Though things like the enemy's AC affect how much of that will actually land, of course.