Chris_Nightwing
First Post
Compared to what exactly for the other fighting styles? You are slightly obsessed with handing out actions..
D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Idea
Compared to what exactly for the other fighting styles? You are slightly obsessed with handing out actions..
Renn, how about comparing your idea to how you would handle 2-handed and sword and board. Also, would it take feats, or does this come as default rules?
Chris, I understand the point about "it's just extra damage". But if I'm rolling two attack rolls, and my damage on any given round is "averager" as blackbbrd put it, then it "feels" different to me. The second attack also gives a design hook for a specialty to build around to help differentiate it from a two-handed specialty. By splitting attacks between two creatures, as 1 example. The problem with starting out with lower damage but getting more rider is that it is the essence of the "sucky or just better" option. I'm trying to think of an option that would satisfy a "two-attacker" in play while being as balanced as a one attack option. Your idea for bonus damage plus a glancing blow effect would work. Some people just want to roll two attack rolls, though.
Pertaining to the feats. Everyone seems to think Weapon Supremacy is too powerful. (I assume that is the one you are refering to Chris, even though you said "the first one" your comment seems to refer to it.) That's fine, I just came up with it off the top of my head. That's also why I put a level requirement on it, but it is still probably too good. I'll make a note in the post about it probably needing nerfed.
Chris, I understand the point about "it's just extra damage". But if I'm rolling two attack rolls, and my damage on any given round is "averager" as blackbbrd put it, then it "feels" different to me. The second attack also gives a design hook for a specialty to build around to help differentiate it from a two-handed specialty. By splitting attacks between two creatures, as 1 example. The problem with starting out with lower damage but getting more rider is that it is the essence of the "sucky or just better" option. I'm trying to think of an option that would satisfy a "two-attacker" in play while being as balanced as a one attack option. Your idea for bonus damage plus a glancing blow effect would work. Some people just want to roll two attack rolls, though.
Pertaining to the feats. Everyone seems to think Weapon Supremacy is too powerful. (I assume that is the one you are refering to Chris, even though you said "the first one" your comment seems to refer to it.) That's fine, I just came up with it off the top of my head. That's also why I put a level requirement on it, but it is still probably too good. I'll make a note in the post about it probably needing nerfed.
nightwalker450
First Post
I'd say a feat tree for two weapon fighting should not be about numbers or extra attack actions, but other actions that actually do something. TWF should be engaging, not passive bonuses.
Feat that allows you to not make your second attack in order to get a bonus to your defenses. This allows you to go between offense/defensive, besides if a shield is only +1 AC (too low IMO) TWF shouldn't get shield and extra attack at the same time.
Shift 5 feet after each attack. Perhaps this looks more grid than ToM, but this means a TWF is better at cutting through a crowd than others are. It symbolizes more that you are moving while you are fighting.
Better attacks against an enemy that missed you since your previous turn. A shield might cover more area, but a weapon is more mobile so you can turn their weapon allowing yourself an opening.
Some way to feint with one weapon in order to make your next attack better. Isn't this the real reason to have two weapons, so you can attack with either hand, and they don't know which is the true attack?
-- This way the developers only need a good core TWF that is balanced against two-handers and sword and board (and can I mention that we need a tree that doesn't feel the need to have his hands full all the time) that anyone can use feat free. Then the feats bring more flavor to the style, rather than just applying bonuses/countering penalties... I hate countering penalties.
Feat that allows you to not make your second attack in order to get a bonus to your defenses. This allows you to go between offense/defensive, besides if a shield is only +1 AC (too low IMO) TWF shouldn't get shield and extra attack at the same time.
Shift 5 feet after each attack. Perhaps this looks more grid than ToM, but this means a TWF is better at cutting through a crowd than others are. It symbolizes more that you are moving while you are fighting.
Better attacks against an enemy that missed you since your previous turn. A shield might cover more area, but a weapon is more mobile so you can turn their weapon allowing yourself an opening.
Some way to feint with one weapon in order to make your next attack better. Isn't this the real reason to have two weapons, so you can attack with either hand, and they don't know which is the true attack?
-- This way the developers only need a good core TWF that is balanced against two-handers and sword and board (and can I mention that we need a tree that doesn't feel the need to have his hands full all the time) that anyone can use feat free. Then the feats bring more flavor to the style, rather than just applying bonuses/countering penalties... I hate countering penalties.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
Here it is page 7 and I'll throw my opinion into the mix. The current iteration of the Two Weapon fighting rules would fine if they got rid of the automatic disadvantage. Two weapons doing d8 & d6 (or in some races cases d8 & d8) only averages a little better than d8 + attribute bonus, and gives a little flexibility over d12 heavy weapon and attribute bonus. So it's a nice compromise...as long as you're not also saddled with disadvantage. That's the thing that makes it terrible.
So what you'd have is something that broadly reflects reality, while not being too powerful. How does it reflect reality? Well, in a fight, if you don't have a shield, or heavy weapon requiring two hands, it's usually a good idea to do something with that other hand, like pull out a knife, or punch and grapple, or something. Some combatants might even choose to use two matching lighter weapons, like two rapiers, short swords, or scimitars. The rules as written (with my change above) make both those actions entirely possible. From a power perspective, well, I think that's covered in the first paragraph.
Even with removing disadvantage from the core mechanic, it still leaves 2wpn fighting weak enough that we could build a specialty around improving it, without making it overshadow other fighting styles. If we require a specialty in order to remove the disadvantage, then that means 2 weapon fighting is too weak to be usable by anyone except those who are specialized in it, which in my opinion would be terrible.
So what you'd have is something that broadly reflects reality, while not being too powerful. How does it reflect reality? Well, in a fight, if you don't have a shield, or heavy weapon requiring two hands, it's usually a good idea to do something with that other hand, like pull out a knife, or punch and grapple, or something. Some combatants might even choose to use two matching lighter weapons, like two rapiers, short swords, or scimitars. The rules as written (with my change above) make both those actions entirely possible. From a power perspective, well, I think that's covered in the first paragraph.
Even with removing disadvantage from the core mechanic, it still leaves 2wpn fighting weak enough that we could build a specialty around improving it, without making it overshadow other fighting styles. If we require a specialty in order to remove the disadvantage, then that means 2 weapon fighting is too weak to be usable by anyone except those who are specialized in it, which in my opinion would be terrible.
Salamandyr, I don't think that would work. I don't have the current version in front of me, but I think that it would still fall into the old trap of doubling the power of bonuses and making other fighting styles weak in comparison. And if it's so weak that you can't add up enough bonuses to do that, than it isn't really a good option without a specialty or something of that sort to make it work. Then that specialty would have to have more "oomph" than a 2-handed specialty would to compensate. And once you do boost the power, you run into the previously mentioned problem again.
Nightwalker, I like your thoughts on the subject. The first ffeat in my specialty does what you are asking for, allowing you to move between attacks. I think your other suggestions are excellent ideas for the remainder of the specialty.
Nightwalker, I like your thoughts on the subject. The first ffeat in my specialty does what you are asking for, allowing you to move between attacks. I think your other suggestions are excellent ideas for the remainder of the specialty.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I get that you definitely want two attacks, and would like a more consistent, if lower damage output. The trouble comes with any riders, any special abilities that let you add damage if you hit: they make being able to hit more often much more powerful. Even if you design default TWF so that the damage is less than any other style, as soon as the deadly strike or sneak attack damage become high enough, it's a no brainer to take two attacks instead of one. You have to either overload one of the attacks, as we've discussed here, or halve the ability score bonus to damage and halve rider damage on a single hit (allow full rider damage on two hits):
2H: 50% hit, 2d6+3 damage (16 Str), 1d6 DS: (7+3+3.5)*0.5 = 6.75
TWF: 2x50% hit, 1d6+1.5 damage (16 Str), 1d6/2 DS: (3.5+1.5)*0.5 + (3.5+1.5)*0.5 + 1.75*0.5 (1 hit DS) + 3.5*0.25 (2 hit DS) = 6.75 except for rounding errors, but that's the sacrifice you make.
Actually, I think that the system suggested by Blackbrrd and then develeoped further works just fine, myself. Any criticisms from other posters were about the specialty feats, or from you. I believe you said that you could live with it, but you would still prefer a single attack method, to paraphrase. I'm going to explain it to a couple of people I know who like two attacks and see what they think.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
Better. I could live with that.
I finally ran stats on my system (roll both attacks, use the better result).
Note that the 'better of d8 & d6' option does more reliable damage when you're fighting high AC, but does less damage than two handed when you're fighting low AC. Against 'par' AC, where you need roughly 10 to hit, they do the same damage. That sounds balanced to me.
If you add in 3 from str and 2 from magical bonus...
The reason this looks the same but with 5 added to the score is because that's exactly what happens. If you're only ever using the greater result, and never getting the benefit of both dice, it means you're also never getting to add your str and other bonuses twice etc.
The only error I can spot in the above table is leaving out 1.5*str for a two handed weapon. If you include that, two handed weapons are almost automatically going to be better than using dual wield with this system. I considered adding this back in, but then I went searching through my 2e PHB and could not locate that rule. Seems like a 3e-ism. Remember also that in 2&3, a two handed sword was d10, not d12. Considering both of those points, I see no problem with leaving the 1.5 str out when trying to evaluate the three attack systems.
If this system is chosen, there is no need to have feats or specialties to balance out two weapon fighting.
Also, if the 'attacking two targets in the same round' thing is a real selling point, you can rule it as follows:
Nominate one target for your primary attack, and a second target for your secondary attack. Which ever set of dice ends up doing the most damage, that is the only damage you apply this round.
None of the three options (S+B, 2hand, 2weapon) is clearly better than the other in all situations. The two non-shield options are balanced against each other without any attack modifiers, and without any feat cost. How much AC a shield gives would need to be balanced, but doing so can happen without having to alter the other two options. They are in effect, discrete.
p.s. the numbers look even better if two handed weapons use a d10 and don't use 1.5 * str
Code:
Hits on A d8 d12 Better result of d8&d6
1 4.5 6.5 5.2
2 4.3 6.2 5.1
3 4.1 5.9 5.0
4 3.8 5.5 4.8
5 3.6 5.2 4.6
6 3.4 4.9 4.4
7 3.2 4.6 4.2
8 2.9 4.2 4.0
9 2.7 3.9 3.8
10 2.5 3.6 3.6
11 2.3 3.3 3.3
12 2.0 2.9 3.0
13 1.8 2.6 2.8
14 1.6 2.3 2.5
15 1.4 2.0 2.2
16 1.1 1.6 1.8
17 0.9 1.3 1.5
18 0.7 1.0 1.1
19 0.5 0.7 0.8
20 0.2 0.3 0.4If you add in 3 from str and 2 from magical bonus...
Code:
Hits on A d8 d12 Better result
1 9.5 11.5 10.2
2 9.3 11.2 10.1
3 9.1 10.9 10.0
4 8.8 10.5 9.8
5 8.6 10.2 9.6
6 8.4 9.9 9.4
7 8.2 9.6 9.2
8 7.9 9.2 9.0
9 7.7 8.9 8.8
10 7.5 8.6 8.6
11 7.3 8.3 8.3
12 7.0 7.9 8.0
13 6.8 7.6 7.8
14 6.6 7.3 7.5
15 6.4 7.0 7.2
16 6.1 6.6 6.8
17 5.9 6.3 6.5
18 5.7 6.0 6.1
19 5.5 5.7 5.8
20 5.2 5.3 5.4The only error I can spot in the above table is leaving out 1.5*str for a two handed weapon. If you include that, two handed weapons are almost automatically going to be better than using dual wield with this system. I considered adding this back in, but then I went searching through my 2e PHB and could not locate that rule. Seems like a 3e-ism. Remember also that in 2&3, a two handed sword was d10, not d12. Considering both of those points, I see no problem with leaving the 1.5 str out when trying to evaluate the three attack systems.
If this system is chosen, there is no need to have feats or specialties to balance out two weapon fighting.
Also, if the 'attacking two targets in the same round' thing is a real selling point, you can rule it as follows:
Nominate one target for your primary attack, and a second target for your secondary attack. Which ever set of dice ends up doing the most damage, that is the only damage you apply this round.
None of the three options (S+B, 2hand, 2weapon) is clearly better than the other in all situations. The two non-shield options are balanced against each other without any attack modifiers, and without any feat cost. How much AC a shield gives would need to be balanced, but doing so can happen without having to alter the other two options. They are in effect, discrete.
p.s. the numbers look even better if two handed weapons use a d10 and don't use 1.5 * str
Last edited:
Zustiur, I could definitely deal with your proposal. I asked someone that I play with in real life what they thought, and they made the "eeewww, it smells icky" face. I think some people just won't be happy unless they sometimes get to add the damage of two attacks together. Although conceptually I agree with you, I think the method must satisfy those people as well. I asked the same person and someone else about the method I had proposed and they said it sounded pretty good to them. Of course, they could very well be biased since they actually know me. 
