Dual wielding tweak

[Spacehamster]

Ok so this does not really buff dual wielding but at the same time makes it a bit more useful, remove the fighting style and bake it into the dual wielder feat, making the feat pretty good and opening up dual wielding as an option for classes like barb and paladin if they feel so inclined. :)

Thoughts on this slight tweak?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Seems fine to me. I never really like "you must have x class to enter" mechanics

[Sir cryosin]

At are table we got a house rule were you can spend a 20 days traing to learn a fighting style

[Easy_Lee]

Endless threads on TWF led a few of us to develop some specific house rules on TWF:

TWF bonus attack is now part of the attack action, rather than consuming your bonus. This allows several classes and archetypes who have much better things to do with their bonus to also use TWF.
Mod to extra attack damage part of base TWF.
Draw / stow two weapons part of base TWF.
Fighting style gives ability to ignore the light property for TWF.
Feat adds +1AC and +1 Strength or Dexterity.

[Kryx]

TWF bonus attack is now part of the attack action, rather than consuming your bonus. This allows several classes and archetypes who have much better things to do with their bonus to also use TWF.
Mod to extra attack damage part of base TWF.
Draw / stow two weapons part of base TWF.
Fighting style gives ability to ignore the light property for TWF.
Feat adds +1AC and +1 Strength or Dexterity.

I do all of these except the first. I really really tried to make it work, but in the math a rogue TWF is even more superior to a rapier rogue. It's not a huge loss, but it's there. A rogue also often has to choose between more damage + potential sneak attack vs his cunning action. I'm not sure that tradeoff is worth it.


Ranger TWF vs Fighter GWM:
RAW: 78%
RAW w/o bonus on twf: 83%
Houserules: 95%
Houserules w/o bonus on twf: 103%

Bladelock TWF vs Bladelock GWM:
RAW: 91%
RAW w/o bonus on twf: 95%
Houserules: 96%
Houserules w/o bonus on twf: 103%

Taking away the bonus cost would cause more damage as hex/hunter's mark is never a competing factor. I really want to, but the numbers don't quite add up.

[Easy_Lee]

That's fair. The only other thing I'd conceived of, long ago, is a sort of double attack for TWF. Once per round, add your weapons' damage die together and make a single double attack, adding your mod to the combined damage roll. It was mostly balanced, but I had to add this attack a second time for fighters after 11.

Edit: I believe I actually specified once per turn (double attack on reactions) and added this to the dual wielder feat. That was just one cool niche for TWF, since most other fighting styles have specific niche uses.

[Kryx]

That's fair. The only other thing I'd conceived of, long ago, is a sort of double attack for TWF. Once per round, add your weapons' damage die together and make a single double attack, adding your mod to the combined damage roll. It was mostly balanced, but I had to add this attack a second time for fighters after 11.
To fix the math in addition to the cost to get there I add this:

If you have the Extra Attack Class Feature at level 11 you can make two attacks instead of one with the different light weapon that you’re holding in the other hand.

So it boosts the appropriate classes (not rogue or things like wizard). That's in my numbers.


I just did the DPR for a rapier and it's about 80-83% of TWF by RAW and about 70-76% in houserules. Not sure this is a thing we should care about though - any smart rogue will TWF.

[Easy_Lee]

Yep, that works.

[X3r4ph]

We give out Dual Wielder for free to anyone dumb enough to chose this sucky fighting technique. Me.

Our group consists of:

Half-orc 11th Monster Hunter - Dual Wielder
Drow 2nd Undying Light/ 9th Ancients - Sword and Board
Vhuman Champion 3/ Fiend Sword Warlock 3/ Paladin 5 - PAM
Vhuman 11th Bearbarian - GWM

We faced 4 trolls last game session. Fairly straight forward. We fought for about 7 rounds. Damage was this:

Dual Wielder - 150 (spend all maneuvers on extra damage, had many crits)
PAM smiter - 100 (didn't get any crits, so didn't smite)
Sword and Board - 80 (this guy never tries to do anything optimal)
GWM - 250 (wasn't his best run, only one crit)

My experience with Dual Wielder is .. it doesn't matter because GWM on a Bearbarian is broken as hell. :) We are on the verge of banning all feats now because they are horribly unbalanced.

[Kryx]

My experience with Dual Wielder is .. it doesn't matter because GWM on a Bearbarian is broken as hell. :) We are on the verge of banning all feats now because they are horribly unbalanced.
Likely the issue you raise is -5/+10. Many replace that.

But even with it a GWM wouldn't do 250 vs TWF's 150 unless the TWF is using a bad class or playing poorly. I don't know the Monster Hunter class.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255

RAW:

Level 11:
Barb GWM does 40 DPR
Barb TWF does 26 DPR
Fighter TWF does 33 DPR
Ranger Hunter TWF does 28 DPR
Rogue TWF does 28 DPR
Paladin OoV TWF does 36 DPR
Bladelock does 29 DPR (at 12 w/ lifedrinker)


So GWM does amazing damage - especially with -5/+10 (which I'd encourage you to remove). If you boosted TWF as suggested in this thread those numbers would all go up a fair amount. Probably 20-25% which makes up a lot of the difference, but -5/+10 is still crazy.

[X3r4ph]

I hear you Kryx. I have shown them your numbers. But you can only lead the horse to the water. I am tired of fighting for balance every game we run. So now I advocate complete removal of feats.

The Monster Hunter is from the Gothic Heroes UA. It's basically a Battlemaster.

[Kryx]

I hear you Kryx. I have shown them your numbers. But you can only lead the horse to the water. I am tired of fighting for balance every game we run.
This is why I became a GM.

I can't go back now! :D

[X3r4ph]

This is why I became a GM.

I can't go back now! :D

We circulate as DM's. So, as normally things are DM fiat... we have group fiat. Or, as it is better known, bureaucracy.

[D.U.P.A.]

I think dual wielding is fine as is, although some classes benefit more than others, especially those with less attacks. Fighters generally are not the best choice for it, especially at later levels, but single attack classes with extra damage benefit massively from it, like rogues, clerics, even paladins, to some degree also rangers and warlocks with their mark. It is a style that is superior to single attacks at very first levels because of low hp monsters, but gradually single attack styles catch up.

[R.Shackleford]

My groups have been playing with "Quick Strike" rules for a while now and things are fine. There is no more dual wielding rules.

***
Quick Strike
After using the Weapon Attack Action you may use a bonus action to make a quick strike with it.

You may an attack with the weapon, this attack deals 1d4+Modifier damage.

***

We change the name of this every so often when we think of something better. Also, sometimes we allow crits on this mechanic and other times we don't... Just depends on the DM.

Yeah it makes Polearm Master less powerful but a feat shouldn't take precedence over core rules.


Edit

Quick Strike works with any weapon. You can draw a thrown weapon like a dagger as part of this.

[Sir cryosin]

Have ya'll though of making a feat like GWM but for 2wf


If you are attacking with a weapon in both hands when you make a attack you can take a -5 to the attack roll but you must declare you're taking it before the results of the diec is confirm if it hit add a +5 to the damage. You can do this to all attacks you make a turn.
If you roll a critical hit you double all the damge from this feat after all the hits are added up.


I know this might be op but the ideal is to give it more damage to get it near the GWM. The doubling the damage I thought it would be cooler then giveing them the same savage attack GWM give.

[R.Shackleford]

Have ya'll though of making a feat like GWM but for 2wf


If you are attacking with a weapon in both hands when you make a attack you can take a -5 to the attack roll but you must declare you're taking it before the results of the diec is confirm if it hit add a +5 to the damage. You can do this to all attacks you make a turn.
If you roll a critical hit you double all the damge from this feat after all the hits are added up.


I know this might be op but the ideal is to give it more damage to get it near the GWM. The doubling the damage I thought it would be cooler then giveing them the same savage attack GWM give.

If you need a feat to fix a core rule... You should fix the core rule instead of making a band aid.

[Kryx]

If you need a feat to fix a core rule... You should fix the core rule instead of making a band aid.
and -5/+5 is an awful option that should never be used.

[Sir cryosin]

If you need a feat to fix a core rule... You should fix the core rule instead of making a band aid.

It's not to fix anything there isn't anything wrong with 2wf. It's gust to put more damage to get it a little closer to a character with GWM.

[R.Shackleford]

It's not to fix anything there isn't anything wrong with 2wf. It's gust to put more damage to get it a little closer to a character with GWM.

First off you are adding things that the game specifically wants to avoid even if they did add in the -5/+10.

Secondly -5/+5 =/= -5/+10 . You are taking a total of -10 on attack rolls to get +10 damage over two attacks.

Thirdly what is borked to maximum borked is the core rules. You are adding a feat to make TWF/DW worth it. Adding a feat to fix the core rules is a band aid and should never be done.

[Sir cryosin]

First off you are adding things that the game specifically wants to avoid even if they did add in the -5/+10.

Secondly -5/+5 =/= -5/+10 . You are taking a total of -10 on attack rolls to get +10 damage over two attacks.

Thirdly what is borked to maximum borked is the core rules. You are adding a feat to make TWF/DW worth it. Adding a feat to fix the core rules is a band aid and should never be done.

Again it has nothing to do with the core rules it's a feat to compete with another feat aka GWM. I see no problem with 2wf with out a feat compared to gwf or s&b. I believe that someone 2wf and gwf doing more bamage then a s&b person. Then a person with gwf should be doing more damage the 2wf person. Someone 2wf should have a little more ac then gwf. But letter less damage. 2wf should have a letter less ac but a little more damage then a s&b. If you take away the feats I think it fine the way it is. Yes it takes a bones action but that a trade off you have to make. Your make decisions to everything you make in the character there's trade-off for everything. So stop trying to power gaming and saying it trash. Have any of ya'll played a 2wf character. I have played a 2wf ranger with a barbarian and battlemaster fighter polearms and gwf and I was keeping up and some times out damaging them. And yes I had hunters mark up as much as I could and switching it around to.

[Kryx]

Again it has nothing to do with the core rules
TWF is awful against even a plain greatsword. Feats are part of it, but not the whole problem.

[Sir cryosin]

TWF is awful against even a plain greatsword. Feats are part of it, but not the whole problem.

How how is the awful please enlighten me good sir.

[Easy_Lee]

Base TWF, without mod to bonus attack, does max 2d6+mod damage for an action plus bonus action. That's the same damage as a greatsword does for just the cost of one's action. IMO, this tells the whole story.

[Sir cryosin]

Base TWF, without mod to bonus attack, does max 2d6+mod damage for an action plus bonus action. That's the same damage as a greatsword does for just the cost of one's action. IMO, this tells the whole story.

With a base your getting you mod twice. The two classes that have the fighting style work with the fighting style pretty well. If you are a champion that's a extra chance to get a crit and what else are you using your ba for. If your a battle master you have a second chance to use a different maneuver. For the ranger it get trick but you can play a little more fluent then you would think. Why don't all of ya'll that are complaining go out and make a 2wf character and just play it then come back and tell me. That it is just trash.

[Easy_Lee]

With a base your getting you mod twice. The two classes that have the fighting style work with the fighting style pretty well. If you are a champion that's a extra chance to get a crit and what else are you using your ba for. If your a battle master you have a second chance to use a different maneuver. For the ranger it get trick but you can play a little more fluent then you would think. Why don't all of ya'll that are complaining go out and make a 2wf character and just play it then come back and tell me. That it is just trash.

Only true of classes who have a fighting style. And all of those classes can take dueling instead, and have shield prof. Tell me, which would you rather:

6.5 (D8+2) + Mod average damage on normal attacks, +2AC, retain bonus action.
3.5 (D6) + Mod average damage on normal attacks, one extra attack which costs your bonus.

Note that the damage gets even closer when extra attack is added. Note also that crossbow expert and polearm mastery provide an equivalent bonus attack, and that rogues are far better off taking crossbow expert. Note also that the one remaining class who might dual wield, blade pact warlocks as per life drinker applying to bonus attacks, not only have many uses for their bonus but also can't due to the limitation that they may only have one pact weapon.

The resolution is pretty clear. Dual wield is an inferior option. Worst of all from my PoV, it has no niche. Great weapons do great damage, polearm have reach, bows have range. DW has no niche.

[R.Shackleford]

The resolution is pretty clear. Dual wield is an inferior option. Worst of all from my PoV, it has no niche. Great weapons do great damage, polearm have reach, bows have range. DW has no niche.

Well, they have a niche, it is a role-playing niche, but a niche all the same.

Which is sad as there is a lot you could do with DW.

When you hit with off hand you deal weapon damage and may apply [maneuver] at a DC of 8 + Str or Dex modifier with Strength or Dextery saves to defend.

[X3r4ph]

Here is an update. In response to my all my complaining, an suggestion to ban all feats, my group has finally decided that it was time to houserule 5e. So far, this is what we have agreed upon.

The power attack of GWM and SS has become once per turn. Both feats have a 4th level prerequisite.
Dual Wielder is a free feat.
Short rest is now 10 minutes.
Long rest doesn't heal you to maximum hp.
Barbarian doesn't get resistance. He gets his proficiency bonus as damage reduction instead.
Lucky is banned.

Still working on:
Heavy Armor Master feat doesn't scale well.
Vhuman being the best choice most of the time.
A proper fix to TWF.

So, in the end I got what I wanted. House rules for everyone! :D

I wonder if the barbarian fix is better or worse.

[Spacehamster]

Also thought up this one, with style baked into the feat I would allow duelist +2 damage apply while dual wielding aswell, that would put it slightly closer to -5/+10 silliness. :)

[gfishfunk]

Slight tweaks:

- When you take an attack of opportunity, you can also attack with your off hand weapon.
- In order to activate the bonus action, you do not need to have used the attack action. You can activate it with any action.

[Rysto]

Mod on offhand is a feat.

It's a fighting style, not a feat. Still, it kind of sucks that it needs a fighting style just to not be useless.

[Sir cryosin]

Only true of classes who have a fighting style. And all of those classes can take dueling instead, and have shield prof. Tell me, which would you rather:

6.5 (D8+2) + Mod average damage on normal attacks, +2AC, retain bonus action.
3.5 (D6) + Mod average damage on normal attacks, one extra attack which costs your bonus.

Note that the damage gets even closer when extra attack is added. Note also that crossbow expert and polearm mastery provide an equivalent bonus attack, and that rogues are far better off taking crossbow expert. Note also that the one remaining class who might dual wield, blade pact warlocks as per life drinker applying to bonus attacks, not only have many uses for their bonus but also can't due to the limitation that they may only have one pact weapon.

The resolution is pretty clear. Dual wield is an inferior option. Worst of all from my PoV, it has no niche. Great weapons do great damage, polearm have reach, bows have range. DW has no niche.

There you go turning to feat to achieve something similar what is more powerful. The game was design without feats that's why some of the Feats are powerful and for that reason there a optional rule. With out feats 2wf is just find were it's at.

[Easy_Lee]

There you go turning to feat to achieve something similar what is more powerful. The game was design without feats that's why some of the Feats are powerful and for that reason there a optional rule. With out feats 2wf is just find were it's at.

You addressed one small part of my post, which only truly applies to the rogue class, given that all of the others who might use two weapons have superior options on dueling or great weapon fighting.

Edit: and does anyone still ascribe to the whole "game was designed without feats" argument? Anyone? ANYONE? Who are you? It's a non-argument. Most games allow feats.

[Sir cryosin]

Mod on offhand is a feat.

Many people like myself switch the feat and the fighting style, but that's not RAW.


And the feat is pretty poor. A feat for 60% x 3-5 per round is not great. Assuming 5 ability gives about 3 DPR. GWM on the other hand gives WAAAAY more than that.

It's the fighting style that give you the mod to the ba attack not the feat. The feat gives you 1ac draw and store at the same time and using none light weapons.

[Kryx]

It's the fighting style that give you the mod to the ba attack not the feat. The feat gives you 1ac draw and store at the same time and using none light weapons.
Ya, I reversed the RAW and the common houserule in my head. My mistake.

[R.Shackleford]

You addressed one small part of my post, which only truly applies to the rogue class, given that all of the others who might use two weapons have superior options on dueling or great weapon fighting.

Edit: and does anyone still ascribe to the whole "game was designed without feats" argument? Anyone? ANYONE? Who are you? It's a non-argument. Most games allow feats.

Yes and without Multiclassing.

Which is why when you add those two things in things get weird.

It is almost like they had someone work on MC and Feats who didn't have a lot of info on the base rules and just did their own thing.

Feats are very tacked on and out of place.*
Edit

Though some look like bandaid fixes.

[Easy_Lee]

To be fair, mutliclassing seems relatively balanced. There have been a few examples, the biggest being warlock invocations based on overall level instead of class level, where mutliclassing needed a tweak. As is, the most powerful combos people bring up a lot are Fighter / Warlock (particularly war magic + EB) and paladin / sorcerer. And neither of those is all that bad.

Getting back on topic, TWF sucks by Raw. Like has been said, add mod to bonus attack and draw/stow two to the base ability, make the fighting style allow one to ignore the light property, and either make dual wielder a half feat or add the ability to strike with both weapons on reaction attacks.

[Sir cryosin]

To be fair, mutliclassing seems relatively balanced. There have been a few examples, the biggest being warlock invocations based on overall level instead of class level, where mutliclassing needed a tweak. As is, the most powerful combos people bring up a lot are Fighter / Warlock (particularly war magic + EB) and paladin / sorcerer. And neither of those is all that bad.

Getting back on topic, TWF sucks by Raw. Like has been said, add mod to bonus attack and draw/stow two to the base ability, make the fighting style allow one to ignore the light property, and either make dual wielder a half feat or add the ability to strike with both weapons on reaction attacks.

First of all warlock lvs has never been base off of character lv but off of warlock lv. And if anyone say we'll there was a miss print in books but was fix with errata and newer prints but I got my phb befor the errata and it clearly say warlock lv.

[Sir cryosin]

Yes and without Multiclassing.

Which is why when you add those two things in things get weird.

It is almost like they had someone work on MC and Feats who didn't have a lot of info on the base rules and just did their own thing.

Feats are very tacked on and out of place.*
Edit

Though some look like bandaid fixes.

Multiclassing is another optional rule things are not ment to work like perfect.

[Easy_Lee]

First of all warlock lvs has never been base off of character lv but off of warlock lv. And if anyone say we'll there was a miss print in books but was fix with errata and newer prints but I got my phb befor the errata and it clearly say warlock lv.

You need to use commas. And the printed PHB lists the prerequisites for invocations as "Xth level." This was errata'd, but led to some silly fighter 11 / pact warlock 9 builds in the past.

And again, you're only replying to part of my post. Forrest for the trees?

Back in dual wielding, anyone who thinks it's balanced as-is, just do the math yourself and consider the lost bonus action.

[ZX6Rob]

First of all warlock lvs has never been base off of character lv but off of warlock lv. And if anyone say we'll there was a miss print in books but was fix with errata and newer prints but I got my phb befor the errata and it clearly say warlock lv.

Well, the Warlock invocations are all but spelled out to require a specific level in the Warlock class in order to be taken, so that much is true, yeah. The bigger problem with the Warlock multi-classing isn't the invocations, so much as it is with the Warlock-only Eldritch Blast cantrip scaling with character level, not Warlock class level. This creates some weirdness, because it means that Fighter/Warlock mixes with Eldritch Blast and the War Magic feat get to push out some pretty over-the-top attack-per-round numbers, since a single casting of the cantrip can end up getting you multiple blasts.


Multiclassing is another optional rule things are not ment to work like perfect.

No, and in a game as complex and multilayered as D&D (or any tabletop game, really), you're right, there are always going to be things that sort of stick out. Some burrs in the wood, as it were. That being said, there's nothing wrong with individual DMs and tables working out some way to smooth down those rough spots, is there?

I just had this conversation with a couple people in my group. Purely from a theoretical standpoint -- none of the things we were debating were actually occurring or likely to occur in our actual game. We got to talking about some of the stuff that's mentioned here in the forum a lot, specifically the interaction between Great Weapon Mastery, Polearm Master, and a raging Barbarian with Reckless Attack. I took the position that while it's fine for certain classes or combinations of feat/class/race to provide advantages in certain situations (such as melee damage in combat, out-of-combat utility, and so forth), it's ultimately detrimental to the game as a whole to have a single option or set of options become clearly superior to all others or to otherwise act as a complete outlier. Therefore, I advocated for introducing a couple of small changes to one or two feats, one or two abilities, in order to bring the outlying ability or combination of abilities within an acceptable deviation from the mean.

However, my friend -- a skilled and talented DM in his own right -- said that, even if someone is far outside the norm for a certain path or area of the game, that's ultimately fine. He contends that a person who set out from the outset to exceed in a specific task should be rewarded for their efforts in doing so, and that it is the DM's job to adjust the game as needed to deal with that player's abilities. To an extent, I agreed with this. Using the example of the PAM/GWM Barbarian, I said that, should the party composition be fairly typical of old-school D&D (melee fighter and defender, skilled expert and explorer, clerical leader, and arcane artillery platform), it really isn't an issue. The Rogue, for example, may feel like she should be throwing up bigger numbers with her sneak attacks, but has many different areas besides combat in which the DM can make her feel as though she is a skilled and equal contributor. The blasty wizard won't have the single-target damage that the GreatPoleBarian can push out, but will feel awesome after fireballing a clump of mooks. So, I, for the most part, agreed -- in that situation, there's less of an issue nor a reason to houserule -- I can usually alter the structure of encounters so that the party feels engaged, though I said that there may still be enough of a leap in damage output that I have difficulty balancing the encounter between the party members.

But, I said, suppose we had the same party composition as our last game. During our last adventure, the party consisted of a Wizard, a Bard, a Cleric, a Fighter, and a Barbarian. Since both our Fighter and Barbarian were fairly new players, their respective builds were very similar -- both were great-weapon fighters who focused on melee damage, though the Fighter also pushed for a decent AC with her full-plate. Because they both were within a stone's throw of each other, their overall damage output was close enough that each one would occasionally shine due to simple variance in the dice. This worked out well, because they had similar ideas for a character build, and enjoyed playing together immensely. Neither one consistently outperformed the other, so they both felt like they were contributing to the group equally.

Then, assuming all else the same, let's instead suppose that the player of the Barbarian had a great deal of system mastery. She instead came to the table with the highest-possible DPR build as vetted by the internet, all RAW legal and capable of pushing 30+ damage per round OVER what her friend is doing. Well, I contended, because the variance between the two is so high, despite their characters appearing superficially similar, I now have a bit of a situation on my hands. I will have to scale the melee encounters to deal with this enormous increase in damage that the Barbarian is capable of producing. I will have to have another, similar enough creature for the Fighter to tackle, but I can't have it last as long or have as many hit points because she can't put up the numbers. I have to somehow make our Fighter feel like she's as epic as the Barbarian, despite the fact that she's going to see that the numbers just don't add up between the two of them. Now, I have an issue that is more difficult to solve in-game, and a player who is coming to me after the game saying, "I don't feel like I'm doing very much, Barbie the Barbarian is crushing everything and I'm just cleaning up after her."

It's an enormously difficult position to be in as a DM, especially with a newer player, because it's likely that the reason the more experienced player is excelling is due to experience and system mastery. So, what can you do to help? After all, if your players aren't enjoying themselves, there's an onus of responsibility on you as the DM to address their concerns, at least to a point. You can offer to help rebuild the new player's character, carefully selecting new abilities and feats to get their mechanical abilities and numbers up to par, but this may result in something extremely unfamiliar to the new player, or perhaps just more complicated than they wanted to run. Or, it may end up not fitting in with the flavor and story the player has envisioned for their character. A great swordsman suddenly being rebuilt to use a pike is more than a bit jarring. You can talk to the other player and ask them to rebuild their character to be less-intense so as to more greatly conform to the baseline, but then you're depriving a skilled player of the fun that comes from applying their experience to the game. You can crunch the numbers yourself and introduce house-rules after the fact, leaning on your authority as a game master to bring your game to heel, but this feels draconian and inevitably rubs the players the wrong way -- it feels like an unsatisfying if necessary compromise even if there's been plenty of talk with the players to begin with.

So, ultimately, I posited that these kind of theory-crafting discussions, in which we examine the outliers and the edge cases that lead to significant numeric deviations from the game's established baseline (or discussions in which we attempt to establish that baseline in the first place!) are ultimately good for the game. A simple, small change may be all that's needed at the beginning of a campaign to prevent all the difficulties and issues I stated above. And, the best part about that is that, if those resultant house rules are explained and debated at the beginning of a campaign, there's far less chance that someone feels slighted or short-changed than if something has to change mid-campaign. If I can manage to avoid a game-derailing argument by slightly changing a feat or a class ability, I consider that a win as a DM.

And that's why discussions like this -- discussions where we attempt to probe the system and see if there is perhaps a simple, one-line fix to a problem that clearly does exist at some significant fraction of game tables, else why would we be talking about it -- are ultimately a good thing. In fact, there's nearly no downside, save for the forum frequenter's fatigue at seeing some of the same things crop up again and again; if the results of the discussion are inapplicable to your game (perhaps you don't ever have competing melee builds on your teams, or perhaps everyone at the table thinks two-weapon fighting is dumb), then you simply don't use them. If you do have a similar problem, then you may stumble upon a ready-made solution.

As such, I would contend that simply stating that things may be broken, that's the way they are, no need to discuss it further, is not only unproductive, but harmful to the continued development of the game and the hobby we all enjoy. Criticism by itself is sometimes of dubious value, but criticism -- valid and well-constructed criticism with arguments moored in fact and analysis -- is the first step to improvement. After all, you must uncover something's flaws before you can begin to work on fixing them.

Your mileage, as always, may vary.

[R.Shackleford]

Multiclassing is another optional rule things are not ment to work like perfect.

But thing are meant to work well and with as little messiness as possible.

5e was sold as "fiddly-lite" but we didn't really get that.

There are tons of ways to do MC, the way they did it could work but they didn't seem to plan it out before they threw in the MC rules.

This sort of MC rules are rather, well, lazy.

A fixed MC feat system would have worked great if they put the time and effort into it. Especially since feats are class based.

[Petrocorus]

Here is an update. In response to my all my complaining, an suggestion to ban all feats, my group has finally decided that it was time to houserule 5e. So far, this is what we have agreed upon.

Still working on:
Heavy Armor Master feat doesn't scale well.

I was thinking about that. I'm wondering if 1 + proficiency bonus would do. You get - 3 damages at 1st level and - 7 damages at high level.



Vhuman being the best choice most of the time.

For the next campaign, i'm considering giving a bonus feat to everybody at first level, banning Vhuman and giving a bonus skill to Shuman.



A proper fix to TWF.



Also thought up this one, with style baked into the feat I would allow duelist +2 damage apply while dual wielding aswell, that would put it slightly closer to -5/+10 silliness. :)
I like the proposition to give the ability mod to damage as part of the basic style, AFAIK, it's the only weapon bonus attack in the game which don't get the ability mod to damage.

Then we could use the idea of the fighting style allowing to ignore the light property or allowing the the Duelling FS to wwork while TWF. This would indeed mitigate the advantage of GWM in DPR, without having to ban/ tweak it.