D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Idea

[Chris_Nightwing]

The probability distribution of two attacks is fundamentally different than that of a single attack.
In [MENTION=63962]Blackbrrd[/MENTION] 's suggestion, it looks like the two options will deal the same damage output, but more reliably. However, when the probability of hitting with the greatsword is X, the probability of dealing the same damage with two weapons is X^2. You also have twice the chance of dealing half the damage. In total, you deal more average damage.
That might be fine, but it is always worth thinking about the numbers in play. If we must have two attacks for two-weapon fighting, then I would find a sweet spot that means a single hit is a bit less than half the damage of a two-handed weapon, and two hits would do more than a two-handed weapon.

 

[kerleth]

But as has been pointed out before, that does not account for the stacking power of +2 to damage spells, +1 to damage feat/class feature, which will exist. Having two attacks with no limitations on adding the damage of both of them together against a single target is what caused the problems in previous additions. The problem with 3E two-weapon fighting was you either had to spend feats to make it equal to a two-handed fighting without spending feats, or break it completely in half and make the existence of two-handed fighting useless since it can't at all compete. I have seen similar complaints about two-weapon powers in 4th edition (though to a lesser extent). There has to be a method used that doesn't turn two-weapon fighting into a "worthless or broken" mechanic versus two-handed. And single attack scenarios only work if it still "feels" like two attacks. The simplest approaches just don't work.

TEdit: That was in reference to the last post on the previous page, not the one immediately preceding mine.

 

[Blackbrrd]

The probability distribution of two attacks is fundamentally different than that of a single attack.
In @Blackbrrd 's suggestion, it looks like the two options will deal the same damage output, but more reliably. However, when the probability of hitting with the greatsword is X, the probability of dealing the same damage with two weapons is X^2. You also have twice the chance of dealing half the damage. In total, you deal more average damage.

My emphasis: you are wrong, the average damage will be exactly the same, see below:

My original post:

A very simple suggestion: the off-hand attack doesn't get bonus damage, both weapons have to do 1d6 damage or less. Damage wise it should do exactly the same as THF, but with less fluctuations.

Typical example:
Greatsword: 2d6 +4str +1magic
2xShortsword 1d6 +4str +1 magic, +1d6

Let's say you hit 50% of the time, the average damage per round is then:
Greatsword: 12*50% = 6
2xShortsword: 8.5*50% + 3.5*50% = 4.25+1.75 = 6

For 25%chance to hit
Greatsword: 12*25% = 3
2xShortsword: 8.5*25% + 3.5*25% = 2.125+0.875 = 3

For 100% chance to hit
Greatsword: 12*100% = 12
2xShortsword: 8.5*100% + 3.5*100% = 8.5+3.5 = 12

 

[Blackbrrd]

But as has been pointed out before, that does not account for the stacking power of +2 to damage spells, +1 to damage feat/class feature, which will exist. Having two attacks with no limitations on adding the damage of both of them together against a single target is what caused the problems in previous additions. The problem with 3E two-weapon fighting was you either had to spend feats to make it equal to a two-handed fighting without spending feats, or break it completely in half and make the existence of two-handed fighting useless since it can't at all compete. I have seen similar complaints about two-weapon powers in 4th edition (though to a lesser extent). There has to be a method used that doesn't turn two-weapon fighting into a "worthless or broken" mechanic versus two-handed. And single attack scenarios only work if it still "feels" like two attacks. The simplest approaches just don't work.

TEdit: That was in reference to the last post on the previous page, not the one immediately preceding mine.

If you are refering to my post, you are ignoring the rule about the second weapon not getting any bonus damage. Maybe I should have written it clearer, for instance: The secondary weapon NEVER gets bonus damage in any form. Not from spells, magic items or anything.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My emphasis: you are wrong

Ah, I agree - I misunderstood your premise. My only problem with your proposal is that your offhand weapon may as well remain mundane, since its magic bonus will never apply to your damage. Switching 1d12 to 2d6 is sound, but what would you do with 1d10 damage weapons?

 

[kerleth]

That would make a huge difference blackbrrd. I interpereted it as it just doesn't gain the bonus from your ability score. How would that interact with expertise? If you miss with your main weapon but hit with the off-hand, can you use deadly strike? If you miss with your off-hand can you use glancing blow? Also, how does that affect the "coolness" value of getting a pair of magical weapons?

Edit: Another question. Fighting with a longsword in one hand a dagger or shortsword in the other is fairly common in "the fiction". How would your system interact with that?

 

[Blackbrrd]

So many questions!

Two-handed 1d10 damage weapons? Well, they would do less damage. Regarding the magic weapons - well, you will have to keep the to-hit bonus up to par with your main weapon or get a lower chance to hit.

If you want to keep it "balanced" compared to THF you shouldn't be able to get extra dice from maneuvers like deadly strike and glancing blow. Mechanically you could then just as well have used THF, but for some characters it just makes more sense (style wise) to use two shortswords. For instance for Rogues.

Regarding your Longsword+Shortsword I don't think that was used very often, while Longsword/Rapier + Dagger/Main-Gauche probably happened a bit more. The damage difference you get by allowing it is minor and as noted above you do need two magical weapons to keep the to-hit bonus up to par.

 

[nightwalker450]

How about some calculations where you only get to make the second attack if the first one hits...

That might be one way to do some balancing.

 

[Blackbrrd]

Revised suggestion:
If you hit with your primary attack, add the damage dice of your secondary weapon to the damage roll. Your off-hand weapon has to be small (max 1d4) or none of the weapons can do more than 1d6 damage.

Typical example:
Greatsword: 2d6 +4str +1magic
Longsword+Dagger: 1d8 +4str +1 magic, +1d4
Shortsword+Shortsword: 1d6 +4str +1 magic, +1d6

Typical example when attacking with prayer (+1damage)
Greatsword: 2d6 +4str +1magic +1prayer
Longsword+Dagger: 1d8 +4str +1 magic +1prayer, +1d4
Shortsword+Shortsword: 1d6 +4str +1 magic +1prayer, +1d6

This gets rid of the extra to-hit dice roll, and makes it a bit more intuitive about when you can use the assorted maneuvers and how to handle bonus damage. It does make twf very similar to thf, so it's basically a purely stylistic choice. Still works well for Rogues though.

 

[kerleth]

That might work for balancing, but it is not satisfying to me. If I'm gonna have two attacks, I don't want the other one to only hit when the first one hits. If I have to settle for that, I'd rather go for the simplicity of one attack with a bonus.

Blackbrrd. If it's just a "flavor" thing, and not also it's own mechanical niche, I wouldn't be happy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with your original method the average damage per round might be the same as a heavy weapon, but the damage on any given round is much more likely to be close to the middle, and not as swingy as the single two-hander. That would give it it's own niche, so I'd be satisfied. Another question. When you figure in the increased chance for critical hits and the bonus damage in the current playtest, would it bring two-weapon fighting ahead of two-handed?

One more thing. I think the damage you have for the greatsword is off. You have it listed as 2d6, but the actual statistic is 1d12. That would mean
Greatsword at 50% accuracy equals 5.75 damage.
Putting it ever so slightly behind. Combining that with increased frequency of bonus damage from criticals would increase this a little further. I'm guessing about 1/2 a point in favor of two-weapon fighting for both the .25 discrepancy and the crits together. This isn't game breaking, but it is worth noting.