Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaylos" data-source="post: 6357316" data-attributes="member: 6778092">We had a long thread discussing Two-Weapon fighting and whether or not it was worth using as a fighter.  After carefully looking at the TWF, you could see the damage advantage at lower levels that got progressively worse as you leveled until it was even worse than a shield wearing duelist at level 20 in the basic rules.  Of course we didn't have the PHB at the time and there was the argument that the Battlemaster Archetype would heavily favor the TWF because of the maneuver riders.After finally getting the PHB on Friday and reviewing the Battlemaster Archetype, I do not see it.  It does some at levels 1-5 because the extra attack gives much more reliability in landing an on hit maneuver when you want it to.  Much like DPR though, this advantage diminishes as you level until at level 20 it is negligible in terms of landing an on hit maneuver between the styles.  Add in that only 8 of the 16 maneuvers are on hit and you are limited from 4-6 between rests, and Battlemaster is definitely not the savior of the TWF.Well, how do you fix the DPR disadvantage at least then?  My first idea was to allow multiple attacks with the bonus attack without the ability modifier.  Throw in the ability for low level TWFs to use one or both non-light weapons immediately.  The nice thing with this was that it tied the two heavy weapon TWF's base DPR to exactly 5% more than the Greatword/Maul GWF from level 1 to 20.  It lowered the damage advantage at low levels and scaled it linearly.  Example: Level 20 4 Main Hand attacks 4(1d8+5) + 4 Off-hand Bonus attacks (4d8) = 56 compared to GWF 4(2d6+5 reroll=13.33) = 53.33This creates some real problems though.  For one, having to do 8 attacks rolls, 12 on an action surge is a lot.  It just seems excessive.  Also how do these attacks get divied up?  It feels immersion breaking to allow a fighter to use all of his bonus attacks on one monster and the move and use hit action attacks on another.  Too gamey.  It also minimizes the attractiveness of the feat.  Finally what about other classes that have the TW fighting style such as Barbarians and Rangers.  Now we would need to rework them as well and that could lead to unintended consequences.So I gave it a lot of thought, and I think I have a more elegant solution that reduces the rolls, does not affect other classes, limits gaming the use of the xtra attacks, and accomplishes nearly the same DPR rebalance VS GWFs.Add these sentences to the Fighter (only) Two Weapon Fighting Style:At level 11, when you Two Weapon Fighting to gain a bonus action attack , you can attack a second time without ability modifiers on the third attack of your attack action.At level 20, when you Two Weapon Fighting to gain a bonus action attack, add your ability modifier to your second bonus attack and it can be used with your 3rd or 4th attack of your attack action.Examples:No changes level 1-10 Level 11 - 2 Main Hand attacks (2d8+10) + 1 Bonus Attack (1d8+5) + 1 Main Hand Attack (1d8+5) + 1 Bonus Attack (1d8) = 42.5 (40 for the GWF)Level 20 - 2 Main Hand attacks (2d8+10) + 1 Bonus Attack (1d8+5) + 2 Main Hand Attack (2d8+10) + 1 Bonus Attack (1d8+5) = 57 (53.33 for the GWF)Said plainly, you gain two attacks on your bonus action attack at level 11, just the second doesn't have the modifier and is limited to when you can use it in the attack action chain.  At level 20, you gain ability modifier to damage and a little flexibility to when you use it in the chain.  This solution does not address low levels, but also changes nothing to the other classes.  The feat is still as attractive.  There is only one extra attack roll.  And the base damage DPR comes out slightly ahead of the GWF.  For Champion GWFs, their bonuses from crit damage symmetry with their feat would still put them ahead of TWFs overall, but not by nearly as much.  This is just my thought on it and felt others may have found this idea useful.  So feel free to disagree that this is even necessary or even point out unintended consequences I may not have considered.</blockquote>

Verification