Help with math around dual wielding two-handed weapons

[Madeiner]

Hi there.
I'm creating a World of Warcraft campaign for 5e.
I want each race to feel very unique and have particular traits.
I am considering giving big races (orcs or tauren, or both) the ability of dual wielding two-handed weapons, or at least wield a two handed weapon in one hand.

Would it create a big impact in practice? I am fine with giving a nice boost, but i don't want it to become problematic.
Can anyone maybe help with some math here?

[Kryx]

Increasing the damage of a one handed weapon would increase the following:

1st
S&B Fighter Longsword 7 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 8 DPR
TWF Fighter Shortswords 9 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 14 DPR

5th
S&B Fighter Longsword 21 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 25 DPR
TWF Fighter Shortswords 21 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 30 DPR

11th
S&B Fighter Longsword 27 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 42 DPR
TWF Fighter Longswords 33 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 42 DPR

17th
S&B Fighter Longsword 41 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 47 DPR
TWF Fighter Longswords 37 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 46 DPR


At 11 that's a 55% damage increase for S&B and a 27% damage increase for TWF.


I wouldn't recommend doing so.

[Jarlhen]

Also, there is a D&D Warcraft game. Might be worth looking at it to see if they've sorted it out? It's 3.5e I think.

[Arkhios]

Hi there.
I'm creating a World of Warcraft campaign for 5e.
I want each race to feel very unique and have particular traits.
I am considering giving big races (orcs or tauren, or both) the ability of dual wielding two-handed weapons, or at least wield a two handed weapon in one hand.

Would it create a big impact in practice? I am fine with giving a nice boost, but i don't want it to become problematic.
Can anyone maybe help with some math here?

On a related matter, I did somewhat same with a houserule that certain relatively large races (such as goliath and minotaur) could wield two-handed weapons as "versatile" in a way; when a two-handed weapon is held in one hand they would use one step lower damage die.
2d6 / 1d12 would become 1d10
1d10 would become 1d8
1d8 would become 1d6
etc.

[Madeiner]

Increasing the damage of a one handed weapon would increase the following:

1st
S&B Fighter Longsword 7 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 8 DPR
TWF Fighter Shortswords 9 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 14 DPR

5th
S&B Fighter Longsword 21 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 25 DPR
TWF Fighter Shortswords 21 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 30 DPR

11th
S&B Fighter Longsword 27 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 42 DPR
TWF Fighter Longswords 33 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 42 DPR

17th
S&B Fighter Longsword 41 DPR
S&B Fighter Greatsword 47 DPR
TWF Fighter Longswords 37 DPR
TWF Fighter Greatswords 46 DPR


At 11 that's a 55% damage increase for S&B and a 27% damage increase for TWF.


I wouldn't recommend doing so.

Thanks :)
I was hoping for your answer.
27% is acceptable for what i want to do, but 55% is not. I will think of something else :)


On a related matter, I did somewhat same with a houserule that certain relatively large races (such as goliath and minotaur) could wield two-handed weapons as "versatile" in a way; when a two-handed weapon is held in one hand they would use one step lower damage die.
2d6 / 1d12 would become 1d10
1d10 would become 1d8
1d8 would become 1d6
etc.

Also interesting. I'll try and see what happens :)

[Kryx]

On a related matter, I did somewhat same with a houserule that certain relatively large races (such as goliath and minotaur) could wield two-handed weapons as "versatile" in a way; when a two-handed weapon is held in one hand they would use one step lower damage die.
2d6 / 1d12 would become 1d10
1d10 would become 1d8
1d8 would become 1d6
etc.
This is a decent idea. I'd let them wield versatile weapons in 1 hand. Slight boost, but probably around 1/2 or 1/3 of the previous difference I put up for greatsword.

So I'd expect it to be in the 10-20% DPR increase range over longsword 1 handed

[krugaan]

GWM plus shield master is the win in this scenario, lol.

[Kryx]

GWM plus shield master is the win in this scenario, lol.
The versatile option suggested would prevent that.

[Arkhios]

GWM plus shield master is the win in this scenario, lol.

Technically, yes. But if a DM were to allow such drastic changes in how weapons function in his game, he could just as well forbid that combo.

[krugaan]

The versatile option suggested would prevent that.

Not much benefit... +1 damage. The flavor, though!

[Kryx]

Not much benefit... +1 damage. The flavor, though!
+1 damage is a huge benefit for a racial feature. On the edge of broken when compared to other racial options. 10-20% more DPR is significant.

[krugaan]

+1 damage is a huge benefit for a racial feature. On the edge of broken when compared to other racial options. 10-20% more DPR is significant.

ah, well, probably, when stacked along with the additional +1 from strength. I'm assuming there's some kind of penalty for being so large?

[Laserlight]

ah, well, probably, when stacked along with the additional +1 from strength. I'm assuming there's some kind of penalty for being so large?

Back when I played WoW, we concluded that Tauren rogues had a major Stealth bonus, because no one ever saw them. So you could nerf their Stealth.

[Easy_Lee]

+1 damage is indeed a large boost; enough to discourage any other race choice for applicable builds. However, so is flight. Picking any race besides aarakocra for certain classes, especially monk, can already feel like a penalty if they are allowed and aren't nerfed.

Just to put things in perspective, a fighter with the dual wielder feat can technically acquire a mount and technically wield two lances at 1d12 each and is technically able to command his mount to disengage every round so he can get to the proper range, or just swap one lance for a longsword. This would technically be better than two-weapon fighting with 1d10s. Technically.

The most important factor is that both the DM and players are okay with what's going on.

[Lollerabe]

maybe don't make it a racial but a feat ? I guess you are trying to emulate Titans grip? Some one actually home brewed a feat for that, might even have been called Titans grip.

But yeah it's a really strong racial even the 1d10 modified version.

[Kryx]

+1 damage is indeed a large boost; enough to discourage any other race choice for applicable builds. However, so is flight. Picking any race besides aarakocra for certain classes, especially monk, can already feel like a penalty if they are allowed and aren't nerfed.
This is the largest factor for balancing options imo. If an item is so good that a character would be foolish not to take it then you're limiting options more than providing new ones.

This is the reason I don't run Aarakocra as RAW. It dwarfs every other option for many builds.

[Easy_Lee]

This is the largest factor for balancing options imo. If an item is so good that a character would be foolish not to take it then you're limiting options more than providing new ones.

This is the reason I don't run Aarakocra as RAW. It dwarfs every other option for many builds.

Agreed, and I don't much like the aarakocra to begin with. PCs shouldn't be playing birds. I might have designed a race with extreme jumps and slow fall, but flight is too much.

It's part of a problem which often pops up in games with separate races. Certain race features are better than others for certain roles. In EverQuest, ogres made the best warriors due to high strength and stamina and their frontal stun immunity. In world of warcraft, humans made the best warriors and rogues due to mace and sword specialization. And in 4th edition, I hear elves were pretty broken due to their racial +1.

Racial boons should be situational. If a boon has wide and frequent application, I would consider revising it.

[Zalabim]

Using the two-handed versatile damage one handed (+1 average damage per hit) is pretty close in average value to the extra damage die on crits for half-orc barbarians and champions (using a greataxe or lance). To compare it to something that's already official.

It's more widely applicable, but doesn't apply to the highest damage existing options. It should probably be in a package with other features that are not as strong as the rest of the half-orc's set.

[Kryx]

.05*4 to 6 isn't anything close. That averages 0.3 damage per attack.

[Lollerabe]

I guess you could allow taurens and whoever to be able to wield non light weapons in each hand without a feat. So give them 1/3 of the dualwielder feat as a racial, it would help archive the flavor you are looking for without it being way to strong.

The problem would be that those races would be a lot better for TWF concepts than other races as Kryx and Lee has mentioned.

I'd stick to making it a feat called Titans grip that allows them to wield heavy weapons in 1 hand but bump down the die as Arkhios suggested, maybe add another feature or two to the feat, or make it a half feat.

I haven't played wow since I was a teenager but iirc Titans grip was a high lvl fury warrior feature available to all races, not a racial.

[Arkhios]

I'd stick to making it a feat called Titans grip that allows them to wield heavy weapons in 1 hand but bump down the die as Arkhios suggested, maybe add another feature or two to the feat, or make it a half feat.

I haven't played wow since I was a teenager but iirc Titans grip was a high lvl fury warrior feature available to all races, not a racial.

Admittedly I still play WoW (Apparently, the player can leave WoW, but WoW won't leave the player!), and I can concur that it used to be somewhere around level 60 talent once. Now it seems to have been dropped down to 10th level as a Fury Spec specific passive ability.

However, I'd second your suggestion as making it a feat instead of a racial ability. I guess it would work well just as a half-feat.

[Zalabim]

.05*4 to 6 isn't anything close. That averages 0.3 damage per attack.

Fortunately, that isn't anything close to a model of a half orc barbarian or champion with a greataxe or lance.

.0975*6.5 or .1*6.5 or .15*7.33~ is close. That averages .63375 to 1.1 per attack.

The extra 1 damage per hit is going to be 1*(hit chance+crit chance), so it'll range from ~.6 to 1.2, depending on enemy AC and attacker's chance to score a critical.

[Kryx]

Missed the increased crit chance.
Barbarian Greataxe = .0975*6.5 = .63375 per attack. 2 attacks = 1.2 DPR per round
Barbarian TWF = .0975*3.5 = .34125 per attack. 3 attacks = 1 DPR per round.

Proposed +1 damage per attack
Barbarian Greataxe = .88*1 = .88 per attack. 2 attacks = 1.76 DPR per round
Barbarian TWF = .88*1 = .88 per attack. 3 attacks = 2.64 DPR per round.

Lets ignore champion because no1 should play one.

The full math for 2 handed was included above comparing the whole builds. Doing +1 damage would be about 30-50% as much of an increase as those numbers. Per attack math leaves a lot out of the picture.

[Zalabim]

I have to ask myself if I want the last post I make before my weekend to be related to WoW, but it would be a waste to leave it at this point.


This is a decent idea. I'd let them wield versatile weapons in 1 hand. Slight boost, but probably around 1/2 or 1/3 of the previous difference I put up for greatsword.


Missed the increased crit chance.
Barbarian Greataxe = .0975*6.5 = .63375 per attack. 2 attacks = 1.2 DPR per round
Barbarian TWF = .0975*3.5 = .34125 per attack. 3 attacks = 1 DPR per round.

Proposed +1 damage per attack
Barbarian Greataxe = .88*1 = .88 per attack. 2 attacks = 1.76 DPR per round
Barbarian TWF = .88*1 = .88 per attack. 3 attacks = 2.64 DPR per round.

The proposal, your proposal, was to use versatile weapon damage with one hand. So the Greataxe is no change, and the TWF only changes if you also take Dual Wielder. Then it would be 1.31625 for the half orc and 2.925 (and more when you get brutal criticals) for the versatile, because you forgot to add the crit chance, even though I just said it should be included.


Lets ignore champion because no1 should play one.

Let's ignore half your post while we focus on barbarians with the dual wielder feat. This is what makes people stop talking to you.


The full math for 2 handed was included above comparing the whole builds. Doing +1 damage would be about 30-50% as much of an increase as those numbers.

The full math for two handed comparing the two builds was way off base. I can only guess you were combining shield master's shove for advantage and great weapon master's power attack to get a 15 DPR difference for SnB at level 11. That wouldn't work for versatile weapons, so it's not a useful reference point.


So I'd expect it to be in the 10-20% DPR increase range over longsword 1 handed

Quoting this out of order, but that's what I would expect too. Going from 9.5+ to 10.5+ could be expected to be a 10.5% or less increase. At the extreme low border, going from 7.5+ to 8.5+ would be a 13.33~% increase. So 10-20% is a close enough direct answer.


Per attack math leaves a lot out of the picture.

This was supposed to be ironic, right?

--------------

For the OP: Versatile as one-handed is a powerful ability, better than Half-Orc's brutal criticals where it's useful, so you'd have to be careful if you don't want to create an overwhelmingly favored race for using one-handed weapons. The full powerful build (two-handed in one hand) ability might still be too strong on a race with no Str bonus, if that'd even be thematically appropriate. Something like a Tauren with +Con, +Wis, Powerful Build of some kind, and some nature-themed ribbons. A gentle giant.

[Easy_Lee]

Two-handed weapons in one hand is too powerful for a race feature. There's really no way around that. It might make sense as a fighter or barbarian feature, at high levels perhaps, but not as a base race feature.

[Kryx]

Wow, that's a counter point to the several people lately who have thanked me for my contributions to this forum.

I gave correct numbers for 2 handed weapons (which can use GWM or shield master). Those numbers are 100% correct.
Regarding +1 damage: I'm not going to spend more time perfecting the math for a system I wouldn't recommend. Nor would I suggest balancing such a system around an archetype that people recommend not using do to its boring playstyle.

Comparing individual attacks is not a great measurement of effectiveness as those attacks can be modified in many ways (fighter trip, S&B prone, babarian advantage, etc).

I am sorry you have taken my post to be rude and have responded in kind.

[RickAllison]

How about we make a feat sequence, since it is such a powerful option.

First, we include a feat that give the Powerful Build feature. I wouldn't normally want to do this, but it is an easy way to ensure that while the Tauren/goliaths are more suited to it, it isn't a true race-Locked option.

A second feat (first for races with Powerful Build) then allows for the use of a two-handed weapon in one hand, maybe with a penalty to accuracy or a downgraded damage die, and possibly the inability to use GWM with it.

Then, TWF with the weapons is just the Dual-Wielding feat. It takes a lot to make the combat style available, but it does increase power significantly.

[Arkhios]

How about we make a feat sequence, since it is such a powerful option.

How about sticking to the core design philosophy: "no more feat chains", as stated by the designers on numerous occasions during and after the initial D&D Next playtest and final release?

Pardon me if that sounded rude, but in all honesty, making a feat chained from and to another is just against the key characteristics of feats in 5th edition.

[Easy_Lee]

How about sticking to the core design philosophy: "no more feat chains", as stated by the designers on numerous occasions during and after the initial D&D Next playtest and final release?

Pardon me if that sounded rude, but in all honesty, making a feat chained from and to another is just against the key characteristics of feats in 5th edition.

I agree with this sentiment. My personal preference would be for a DM to, upon deciding one of his players should TWF with 2h weapons, just make an attunement item for it. That way, it's in the DM's hands, and the other players can get cool items as well. Preferably as rewards at the end of a long dungeon.

Edit: always forget I can't casually curse, here.

[RickAllison]

I agree with this sentiment. My personal preference would be for a DM to, upon deciding one of his players should TWF with 2h weapons, just make an attunement item for it. That way, it's in the DM's hands, and the other players can get cool items as well. Preferably as rewards at the end of a long dungeon.

Edit: always forget I can't casually curse, here.

There are already feat chains if you want specific styles of combat. If one wants to be a (optimized) handcrossbowman in melee, he needs Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. Think of te synergy of GWM and PM! Every part of that chain was an independent chunk that could just be combined to create a very specific and unorthodox style. The first feat only existed so it wasn't race-locked and could be taken on its own, the second just had a prerequisite that is no more against design philosophy than Svirnefblin Magic, and the third was already part of the PHB.

[Arkhios]

There are already feat chains if you want specific styles of combat. If one wants to be a (optimized) handcrossbowman in melee, he needs Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert. Think of te synergy of GWM and PM! Every part of that chain was an independent chunk that could just be combined to create a very specific and unorthodox style. The first feat only existed so it wasn't race-locked and could be taken on its own, the second just had a prerequisite that is no more against design philosophy than Svirnefblin Magic, and the third was already part of the PHB.

Except that none of those feats require another to function properly. That's the whole point of non-chained feats: They are complete packages on their own right. To further design a feat that is somewhat keyed to, for example, Dual Wielder would be against the design philosophy. However, if such a feat would work on its own without a need to have another feat, then it would be fine.

That "there are already feat chains" is in your heads. It's not a predetermined fact from the game designers.

[Lollerabe]

Not that it matters and I'm AFB but: dosent gwm by raw require not only a heavy weapon but also that you wield it with both hands ? Pretty sure allowing SB'ing and TWF'ing with heavy weapons wouldn't work with gwm by raw. The fact that it dosent work with weapons wielded versatile is pretty dumb but hey.

And yeah def don't do a feat chain, PAM and gwm can have synergy. They are by no means required to be paired, each work fine without the other.

Don't do feat chains.

[Easy_Lee]

Not that it matters and I'm AFB but: dosent gwm by raw require not only a heavy weapon but also that you wield it with both hands ? Pretty sure allowing SB'ing and TWF'ing with heavy weapons wouldn't work with gwm by raw. The fact that it dosent work with weapons wielded versatile is pretty dumb but hey.

It requires you are wielding a weapon with two hands and that it has the two-handed or versatile property.

[Grod_The_Giant]

+1 damage is a huge benefit for a racial feature. On the edge of broken when compared to other racial options. 10-20% more DPR is significant.
Um, no. +1 damage is roughly meaningless unless you're judging literally everything in the game solely by white-room DPS. There are races that get flight at level 1, and you're calling half a Strength bump broken?

[Easy_Lee]

Um, no. +1 damage is roughly meaningless unless you're judging literally everything in the game solely by white-room DPS. There are races that get flight at level 1, and you're calling half a Strength bump broken?

I agree with him that it's broken because there's no way to make up that difference. Most race features boil down to stats and abilities that can be gotten by other means. Even the aarakocra flight, which we all know is a bit broken, can be replicated via spells and abilities, or the correct mount. But if X race is the only race which can TWF with great weapons, and doing so represents a +1 or more increase in damage, then yes, that's broken.

[RickAllison]

Except that none of those feats require another to function properly. That's the whole point of non-chained feats: They are complete packages on their own right. To further design a feat that is somewhat keyed to, for example, Dual Wielder would be against the design philosophy. However, if such a feat would work on its own without a need to have another feat, then it would be fine.

That "there are already feat chains" is in your heads. It's not a predetermined fact from the game designers.

But they are feat chains in the way that I was describing them in the context of the post. If those aren't feat chains, then what I proposed is not either. They are a series of independent feats that can be combined to achieve heavy TWF (Powerful Build which is only necessary so non-Goliath races can take it, the proposed Titan's Grip with PB as a prerequisite, and Dual-Wielding) or S&B (Powerful Build and Titan's Grip). The only thing that could be considered a feat chain in the way you are decrying is if they do not have PB as a racial feature, but that is just so we don't run into the issue of races precluding this style.

Basically, either the PHB already uses feat chains in the way I'm describing (in which case, the point is moot), or my proposed idea is not a feat chain either (in which case the point is moot).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I agree with him that it's broken because there's no way to make up that difference. Most race features boil down to stats and abilities that can be gotten by other means. Even the aarakocra flight, which we all know is a bit broken, can be replicated via spells and abilities, or the correct mount. But if X race is the only race which can TWF with great weapons, and doing so represents a +1 or more increase in damage, then yes, that's broken.
So "unique" equals "broken?" That's your argument?

[Easy_Lee]

So "unique" equals "broken?" That's your argument?

If a feature is unique, in all the game, to only one race, if that feature is widely applicable, and that feature therefore makes that race the best choice for a given path, then yes, that's broken.

Aarakocra are broken. However, at least aarakocra flight can be replicated via spells and other features. The proposed Titan grip cannot, and thus is even more broken.

As a fighter feature, or even an archetype feature, I wouldn't have a huge problem. Because then, anyone could take it. But forcing people who would play a certain way to pick a certain race (edit: or be inferior for most tasks) is broken.

[R.Shackleford]

Also, there is a D&D Warcraft game. Might be worth looking at it to see if they've sorted it out? It's 3.5e I think.

No no, 3e is Diablo, 4e is Warcraft!

:p

[JackPhoenix]

No math, but my version of tauren from a campaign writeup presented to players for a game that never started in the end:

UA minotaur, replace ASI with +2 Str, +1 Wis, replace Labyrinthine Recall and Sea Reaver with Goliath's Powerful Build and proficiency in Nature (or Survival)

As bonus: Ogre: EEPC Goliath, replace proficiency in Athletics with proficiency in Intimidate. Mountainborn can be replaced with adaptation to warm climates, depending on the origin

Troll: +2 Dex, +1 Con, Darkvision, Survival proficiency, Relentless Endurance (as Half-Orc), Savage Attack (as Half-Orc, except with throwing weapons), Fast Healing (regains double HD on Long Rest, when spending HD to regain HP, you can roll twice and take higher number)