PDA

View Full Version : Change to two weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat.



Spacehamster
2015-05-17, 08:58 AM
Here is my suggestion to make dw good:

Style change: add ability bonus to damage to offhand attacks and your offhand attack becomes part of the attack action instead of a bonus action.

Feat change: as before but adding: as a bonus action you can make an additional attack with your offhand weapon.

Thoughts?

Xuldarinar
2015-05-17, 03:42 PM
Well... I think you lack clarity to start. First off, just so we are all on the same page, which game and version are we talking? Second, forgive my ignorance, but is duel-wielding bad?

Wartex1
2015-05-17, 04:07 PM
Well... I think you lack clarity to start. First off, just so we are all on the same page, which game and version are we talking? Second, forgive my ignorance, but is duel-wielding bad?

He's referring to 5E. In that, Two-Weapon Fighting isn't bad, but is considered relatively underpowered compared to sword-n-board and two-handed.

Normally, with two-weapon fighting, you make any attacks you have with your main hand weapon, and then as your bonus action, which is the equivalent of a swift action, you may make an additional attack with your off-hand weapon that doesn't use your ability modifier to the damage roll. With the dual-wielding fighting style feature from the Fighter or Ranger, you get to add your ability modifier to the off-hand damage roll. With the Dual Wielder feat, you get to draw both weapons as opposed to one as part of your movement, a +1 to AC while using two weapons, and can use two non-light weapons (Shortsword is a d6 light weapon, Longsword is a d8 non-light weapon).

Mechanically, its still valid, but just not a good enough damage boost (at higher levels anyways) to compensate for a lack of a shield (which can be used for the amazing Shieldmaster feat) and is weaker than using a two-handed weapon with the Great Weapon Fighting feat (which can double damage output per swing). With magic items, it gets even worse, since you have to use two magical weapons in order to get the same relative damage output, and the further increased AC from a magical shield is much more valuable than the slightly boosted damage.

In addition, its outclassed by the Crossbow Expert feat, which allows you to wield a hand crossbow with any one-handed melee weapon, which outdamages two-weapon fighting and doesn't need a fighting style.

Ziegander
2015-05-17, 08:30 PM
I would keep everything as-is, except add the following two options to the Dual-Wielder feat:


When you use your reaction to make an opportunity attack you may make one attack with a weapon in your main hand and a second attack with a different weapon held in your other hand.
When fighting with two weapons, if you use the Attack action on your turn and your bonus action to make an additional attack with a second weapon, you deal an extra 10 damage with your bonus action attack if you had also hit with at least one of the attacks you made with the weapon held in your main hand.

Would that make TWF more worthwhile in 5e in comparison with Great Weapon Fighting? Or would it be too much? To me, it seems fine.

Wartex1
2015-05-17, 08:48 PM
That would make it keep up on a quick glance, though it would scale differently with magic weapons.

Calculations as a fighter (Using STR/DEX of 20 and a +5 Prof bonus against an AC of 15):

8d6 (GS) + 20 (STR) + 40 (GWF) x .5 (To Hit) = 44 + whatever bonus from Fighting Style and GWF extra hits (I don't know how to calculate that effectively)

5d8 (Longswords) + 25 (DEX) + 10 (DW) x .75 (To Hit) = 43.125 along with +1 AC

That might actually be a bit too strong. A dual-wielder was never really that much weaker, it's just that the feat was a trap and was generally less effective than actually upping DEX by 2.

Ranger stuff:

2d8 (Longbow) + 10 (DEX) + 20 (Sharpshooter) x .6 (To Hit + Archery) = 23.4 (30.4 with Hunter's Mark)

3d8 (Longsword) + 15 (DEX) + 10 (DW) x .75 (To Hit) = 28.875 (39.375 with Hunter's Mark)

That's a significant step up in terms of damage, plus it gets the AC boost. However, the Longbow has a range advantage and ignores cover with Sharpshooter in addition to having better class abilities associated with it. Ultimately, this may be more fair.

Ziegander
2015-05-17, 10:09 PM
That would make it keep up on a quick glance, though it would scale differently with magic weapons.

Calculations as a fighter (Using STR/DEX of 20 and a +5 Prof bonus against an AC of 15):

8d6 (GS) + 20 (STR) + 40 (GWF) x .5 (To Hit) = 44 + whatever bonus from Fighting Style and GWF extra hits (I don't know how to calculate that effectively)

5d8 (Longswords) + 25 (DEX) + 10 (DW) x .75 (To Hit) = 43.125 along with +1 AC

That might actually be a bit too strong. A dual-wielder was never really that much weaker, it's just that the feat was a trap and was generally less effective than actually upping DEX by 2.

True. Plus considering magic weapons, it probably should get slightly nerfed. So, let's say reduce the extra damage from 10 to 5. Seems reasonable, eh?


8d6 (GS) + 20 (STR) + 40 (GWF) x .5 (To Hit) = 44 + whatever bonus from Fighting Style and GWF extra hits (I don't know how to calculate that effectively)

The Fighting Style effectively makes every 2d6 damage 8.33 rather than 7, so that adds 5.32 to your damage considerations, not considering extra attacks from dropping a foe. If we are modest and say that one in 8 of your attacks does drop a foe to 0 hit points (12.5%), then that's another 23.33 x .125, so a final average output of 52.236 vs 43.125 and an additional +1 to AC. If we drop the "rend" damage from +10 to +5, then it's a comparison of 38.125, +1 AC vs 52.236, which does seem reasonable, especially since two attuned magic weapons can close that gap very quickly.