D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Style seems ... bad

[Tony Vargas]

Why shouldn't it be viable when a relatively simple solution exists. Multiple Bonus attacks without ability modifiers alone pretty much brings it into line, and also doesn't let it get so far ahead levels 1 through 5.

The simplest solution I ever saw to the TWFing conundrum was in the last Gamma World. The weapon list was very generic, just "light one-handed, light two-handed, heavy one-handed, etc...'

If you wanted to use a weapon in each hand, it had the same stats as a weapon that required both hands, because, really, you were doing the same thing - occupying both hands with wielding a weapon, so no shield.


From a completely different angle, I find the way they're boosting the fighter's DPR this time around interesting. In 2e (and later 1e), the fighter was just about broken in terms of DPR. Double-specialization applied to a bow or a matched pair of weapons, and the static bonuses from STR, spec, and any magic weapon(s) were multiplied by the large number of attacks (specialization started at 3/2, and TWFing could be interpreted as doubling that, like archery with it's RoF of 2 to start, so, 3 att/round at 1st level, which bumped to 4 at 7th and 5 at 13th).

What's the 5e fighter get? 4 attacks by 20th, and a 5th w/TWFing? In the same ballpark. All he needs is a juicy static damage bonus from 'specialization' or something, and he's back to 2e cuisinart-of-doom levels.

At the same time, casters also harken back to their most-broken days - 3.x, when they could cheese up untouchable save DCs (among other things). It's also not as bad, they can only get up to a 19 DC against non-proficient saves in the -1 to +5 range, but they can do that with every spell, not just their highest level ones.

Well, that's one way to 'balance' 'em.

 

[Uller]

I agree with the analysis that TWF is much more interesting/useful for character concepts outside of the standard tanky fighter. Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Wizard, etc. That it keeps pace with other options thru level 10 (and really not too far behind even behind that) makes it viable.

This weekend I happened to make a TWF to replace our "Noble" (R.I.P.) in the starter set adventure. I chose to go with the Human (Variant) rules and took the Dual Wielder feat...+1 AC and can use a rapier/shortsword combo...probably eventually he'll also take the Fencing Master feat.

 

[Kaylos]

The simplest solution I ever saw to the TWFing conundrum was in the last Gamma World. The weapon list was very generic, just "light one-handed, light two-handed, heavy one-handed, etc...'

If you wanted to use a weapon in each hand, it had the same stats as a weapon that required both hands, because, really, you were doing the same thing - occupying both hands with wielding a weapon, so no shield.


From a completely different angle, I find the way they're boosting the fighter's DPR this time around interesting. In 2e (and later 1e), the fighter was just about broken in terms of DPR. Double-specialization applied to a bow or a matched pair of weapons, and the static bonuses from STR, spec, and any magic weapon(s) were multiplied by the large number of attacks (specialization started at 3/2, and TWFing could be interpreted as doubling that, like archery with it's RoF of 2 to start, so, 3 att/round at 1st level, which bumped to 4 at 7th and 5 at 13th).

What's the 5e fighter get? 4 attacks by 20th, and a 5th w/TWFing? In the same ballpark. All he needs is a juicy static damage bonus from 'specialization' or something, and he's back to 2e cuisinart-of-doom levels.

At the same time, casters also harken back to their most-broken days - 3.x, when they could cheese up untouchable save DCs (among other things). It's also not as bad, they can only get up to a 19 DC against non-proficient saves in the -1 to +5 range, but they can do that with every spell, not just their highest level ones.

Well, that's one way to 'balance' 'em.

Isn't the idea that there really aren't many static bonuses to damage though? You may get four attacks, but each individual attack doesn't do a ton of damage. That is why I like the idea of allowing extra attacks with the off-hand, but without any static bonuses to damage (not even magic). It keeps it linearly in line with the other weapon styles.

As for nasty single attack damage, I was playing around with the leaked alpha Great Weapon Master combined with the Champion sub-class, and it made Great Weapons pretty insane. An extra attack on top of crit damage at 15% chance per attack. 2.25% chance for a double crit with a great weapon could potentially do 58 damage with a single attack. All I could think of was how broken it seemed, not counting if the extra attack crit could produce another, as RAW did not limit it. Hope it reads nothing like that on release. Running the numbers, it pushed Greatsword/Maul damage per attack average to 16.77 when accounting for crit, but it was the spikes that would be crazy.

 

[Kaylos]

I agree with the analysis that TWF is much more interesting/useful for character concepts outside of the standard tanky fighter. Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Wizard, etc. That it keeps pace with other options thru level 10 (and really not too far behind even behind that) makes it viable.

This weekend I happened to make a TWF to replace our "Noble" (R.I.P.) in the starter set adventure. I chose to go with the Human (Variant) rules and took the Dual Wielder feat...+1 AC and can use a rapier/shortsword combo...probably eventually he'll also take the Fencing Master feat.

Part of the problem is those are the leaked alpha feats. We might expect them to stay close to the same, but until Friday, we won't know for sure.

 

[ren1999]

It's fine (certainly not superior) at low levels, but once you start gaining extra attacks as a fighter, it quickly becomes terrible in comparison with Great Weapon.

All you get is one extra attack with ability mod added to damage, and you have to use light weapons in both hands. That's pretty awful!

At level 20, with 20 Str (or possibly Dex)...

TW: Five attacks for 1d6+5 each
GW: Four attacks for 2d6+5 each, rerolling 1s and 2s

Both have 15% crit chance, which makes it even worse.

What am I missing?

I think there are too many GW attacks allowed.
But balancing the two styles should not cost a feat unless both styles cost feats.
Why balance? Because 20th level fighters of equal power should both do the same damage.

TW does 5d6+5 (or add extra damage with no Feat tax, turn the d6 to a d8)
GW does 8d6+5 (take away 1 attack) 6d6+5

It makes more sense to take away an attack from GW.

The TW GW system that the designers decided on is the right direction. They just need to tweak it at higher levels a bit.

In summary, 2 light weapons doing 2d6.
1 heavy weapon used with 2 hands doing 1d12.
A good idea.

 

[Kaylos]

When you drop a creature or score a critical hit, can take an extra attack as a bonus action, and -5 attack for +10 damage

From the other thread. Means a Champion GWF would have approximately a 15%, 27%, 38%, 47% or 54%, (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 attacks based on level and if an opportunity attack used) chance of gaining a bonus action attack. Not as bad as the leaked alpha since you could only do it once per turn. Still would push the spread against the TWF even farther though, even if the Dual Wielder feat allows two longswords.

 

[Stalker0]

What's interesting is that TWF is superior to GWF for the first four levels....and depending on many people's games that might be half the campaign.

So is TWF actually overpowered?

 

[Psikerlord#]

TWF is perfectly fine, it SHOULD do less damage than GWF, coz you get all the dex based advantages that the GWF wont tend to get, eg better initiative, better dex saves, stealth, etc... If TWF also did the best average damage, it would be OP/broken.

 

[Juriel]

TWF is perfectly fine, it SHOULD do less damage than GWF, coz you get all the dex based advantages that the GWF wont tend to get, eg better initiative, better dex saves, stealth, etc... If TWF also did the best average damage, it would be OP/broken.

Duelist gets all those benefits as well, and basically does as much damage as TWF (until surpassing it).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Isn't the idea that there really aren't many static bonuses to damage though?

It's the idea. I won't say WotC has a great record when it comes to sticking to ideas like that for more than a year or two at a time, though.

You may get four attacks, but each individual attack doesn't do a ton of damage. That is why I like the idea of allowing extra attacks with the off-hand, but without any static bonuses to damage (not even magic). It keeps it linearly in line with the other weapon styles.

That sounds pretty good. No bonuses, just dice. Of course, it'll suck a little when you hit /just/ with the off-hand, dice-only weapon, but I guess it's better than nothing.

BTW, that also has the advantage of reducing the 'need' for two magic weapons, since the second one will be of lesser benefit when you lose it's damage bonus.