D&D 5E Two-weapon fighting and combinations

[1of3]

Having looked through the package, I have found some effects of TWF, I'd like to share.

- The whip is good off-hand weapon. It doesn't receive an ability bonus in the first place.

- Monks can use their fists for two weapon fighting, since they are considered light weapons.

- TWF works well with the Ranger's Slayer of the Colossus. Unlike Sneak Attack or Rage it is not restricted to once per turn.

Have you found other combinations?

 

[nightwalker450]

If you use a light weapon (or take Dual Wield), than you have no reason not to hit people with your shield as well every round, and it's probably better damage wise to do so.

-- Related to this, it costs 2 gp to remove the spikes from your shield.
Standard Shield is 10gp, and is not listed in weapons anymore (before it was 1d4 bludgeoning)
Spiked Shield is 8gp, light, and a 1d6 piercing weapon, with the same AC bonus (+2)

 

[keterys]

If you use a light weapon (or take Dual Wield), than you have no reason not to hit people with your shield as well every round, and it's probably better damage wise to do so.

That's probably an actual system mistake.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yeah, spiked shields are very broken right now.

I do like the new TWF system. It makes quarterstaffs cool again.

 

[cmbarona]

I currently play a Rogue and I see no reason to NOT use two weapons. Maybe my math is off, but it sure seems that way. And something about that doesn't sit right with me.

 

[1of3]

You're math is probably correct. Two short swords (average 7 dam) are actually better than a great sword (average 6.5 dam). Larger weapon dice are more interesting with critical hits, but that's it. I'm OK with Rogues using two weapons. All melee rogues I have seen in 3.x used two weapons, so I'm accustomed.

 

[cmbarona]

It shatters my immersion, though. I imagine a Rogue as a nimble combat who needs that other hand for the tricks they want to pull in combat, like swinging from that rope, poisoning that weapon, tossing down a smoke grenade, etc. But using a single rapier (instead of a single d8 short sword, thanks to Halfling Weapon Training removal :-() makes it seem like I'm not living up to my potential. Using two weapons just because the system makes it more effective reeks of min/maxing, and I don't like that.

I'll admit I don't have as much of a problem imagining using a dagger as an off-hand weapon, though. I just can't yet put my finger on exactly why.

 

[Schmoe]

It shatters my immersion, though. I imagine a Rogue as a nimble combat who needs that other hand for the tricks they want to pull in combat, like swinging from that rope, poisoning that weapon, tossing down a smoke grenade, etc. But using a single rapier (instead of a single d8 short sword, thanks to Halfling Weapon Training removal :-() makes it seem like I'm not living up to my potential. Using two weapons just because the system makes it more effective reeks of min/maxing, and I don't like that.

I'll admit I don't have as much of a problem imagining using a dagger as an off-hand weapon, though. I just can't yet put my finger on exactly why.

I always felt that fighting with two weapons should give bonuses to defense (parrying blows) and making your attacks more accurate (catch them off-guard and riposte). It seems both strange and hard to balance for two-weapon fighting to double your number of attacks. Still, there is an inherent advantage to having something in your other hand, whether it is the defense of a shield, the damage and reach of a two-handed weapon, or the offense of another weapon. If you're not going to use one of those, you need to plan to make good use of your free hand with maneuvers and things, and accept that your raw combat potential won't be as great.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Doesn't the greatsword guy benefit more from his high W when using Deadly Strike? For this reason, I plan on playing my barbarian this week who uses the Dual Wield feat with a Bastard Sword and a spiked shield. And regardless of whether they change the rules of the spiked shield in a future packet, I can always adapt the character to use whatever rules they have then. I was hoping Dual Wield would allow two large weapons, but even then, a longsword/bastard sword / battleax + spiked shield is currently the best combo in the game. If they "fix" this combo, I'll just use two bastard swords, or a longsword and batteax, or whatever I happen to find on the dungeon floor. I'm glad there is no weapon specialization or weapon type bonuses in DDN. Axes got the shaft (especially compared to light blades) in terms of support in 4e, I want them to be a viable weapon type again. It was more than a little ridiculous the amount of love they showered on light blades in 4e, actually.

My level 1 human barb has 18 AC, wearing just his clothes, his sword and a shield. Sure, he's a grunter, but who cares? It's for organized play. I'd be happy with spiked shields provide +1 AC instead of +2, if you use them to attack. I always wanted to play my paladin | ranger hybrid in 4e with a longsword + fighting shield combo, but it was too subpar in too many ways (esp since there was no +2 -> +6 versions of the same shield. design fail)

 

[cmbarona]

I always felt that fighting with two weapons should give bonuses to defense (parrying blows) and making your attacks more accurate (catch them off-guard and riposte). It seems both strange and hard to balance for two-weapon fighting to double your number of attacks. Still, there is an inherent advantage to having something in your other hand, whether it is the defense of a shield, the damage and reach of a two-handed weapon, or the offense of another weapon. If you're not going to use one of those, you need to plan to make good use of your free hand with maneuvers and things, and accept that your raw combat potential won't be as great.

Generally agreed, although don't discount that a free hand can grasp and a weapon cannot. I'll admit that's really hard to translate into a d20 combat system, though.