Making TWF worthwhile [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-29, 01:11 AM

What are you trying to fix? Usually, my issue from 2WF being worthless, stems from it not keeping up with the GWM and PAM feats for damage. Without those feats in play, consider:
2A w/ Great Sword, 18 Str = 4D6+8 or 22dam
2A w/ Short Swords, 18 Str = 3D6+8 or 18.5 dam
2A w/ Halberd, 18 Str, PAM = 2D10+D4+12 = 25.5dam

So here's my fix at the table:

Feat: Great Weapon Master - remove the -5/+10 ability. The Bonus attack only triggers if you are wielding a 2hand weapon.
(we also modify Sharp Shooter)

Feat: Polearm Master - the Bonus 1D4 attack does not add the Ability Score to damage

Style: 2 Weapon Fighting - gains the 'Dual Wielder' feat.

Off Hand Attacks: add the attack attribute to the damage roll (Dex or Strength) but this damage cannot be further improved by spells or abilities such as Smite, Sneak Attack, Life Drinker, Rage, Hex or Hunter's Mark.

Now the damage is roughly equal across all fighting styles, with Sword&Board and Duellist lagging slightly behind (but getting AC or the free hand for spells etc)

2A w/ Great Sword, Str18 = 22dam
2A w/ Shortswords, Str18 = 22.5 dam
2A w/ Halberd, PAM Str18 = 21.5 dam

>> Great Weapons have the edge on damage with Great Weapon Fighter and/or as you gain attack, they still get the awesome Cleave skill with Master, and do HUGE damage on crits.
>> PAM still does solid damage, bigger criticals, and has the advantage of granting reach and getting the OS triggers. It also stacks with GWF/GWM, and gets better with more attacks.
>> 2WF does solid damage and is the optimal choice for anyone who is NOT a Fighter. Among Fighters, the ability to switch up to bigger weapons keeps it competitive with other styles.

For anyone wondering, we switch SS to a +1/-1 "called shot" mechanic. Before rolling, you can declare a penalty to your Attack Roll in order to gain that number as a bonus to your Damage Roll. In our campaign it also removes the Disadvantage imposed for "called shots" (ie: aiming for the leg to disable a messenger, or shooting a weapon out of someone's hand)

Quintessence

2016-09-29, 01:22 AM

I feel the biggest problem with TWF is the fact that it uses a bonus action, which is a very precious resource...

lunaticfringe

2016-09-29, 01:59 AM

I think it's designed to make Light Weapons more appealing in the base game. A light weapon can't deal more then d6 according to design teams rules. A Rapier, a Flail, a Warhammer, & a Shortsword all weigh the same. Only the Shortsword is light. It also makes Dex more viable and Melee Rogues/Bards less MAD\Complicated

The usefulness of it further increases if don't use the Optional Feat Rules. As CaptainSarathai pointed out.

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-29, 03:04 AM

I feel the biggest problem with TWF is the fact that it uses a bonus action, which is a very precious resource...
What else do you want that bonus action for? I don't think it's fair to let a Sorcerer with Warcaster get an extra attack with his offhand and then still get to Quicken a spell as his bonus. Or a Rogue to get 3A and then Cunning away.

Doing lots of attacks is the Fighter's schtick. He doesn't get any fancy Bonus actions unless he chooses them from BM or EK. Everyone else gets a special, class-specific option for their bonus action. Otherwise, there's no reason for them NOT to go with TWF (except that they're usually casters and need Warcaster and/or Dual Wielder to work around components and Arcane Foci)

Basically, if you want to get the most out of TWF, go with a Fighter or Barbarian. Otherwise, leave the stabby-stabbing to the fighters and wait for your chance to make them jealous with your special bonus-action abilities.

Really, from my practical experience at the table, aside from a few "easy-ban" feats and combos, 5e does a really good job at keeping class options and damage very levelled out. You might not be able to make a melee attack for a ton of damage, but you usually have other options to keep your At-Will output right there in the sweet-spot or do enough on a "spike" to average out over an encounter. They've even managed to fix the Ranger.

Giant2005

2016-09-29, 03:15 AM

TWF is already very worthwhile and can do some hefty damage with the right build (even more-so if you are using Unearthed Arcana or other homebrew classes).
The problem is that TWF's only use is getting a bonus action attack, which is something that can be easily and reliably accomplished via Polearm Mastery or Crossbow Expert. Without those feats being around to do the same thing but better, TWF is fine. In my opinion, you are better off fixing those two feats (which are already stronger than other feats) than trying to fix one of the things that their existence breaks.

dropbear8mybaby

2016-09-29, 03:22 AM

The problem is that TWF's only use is getting a bonus action attack, which is something that can be easily and reliably accomplished via Polearm Mastery or Crossbow Expert. Without those feats being around to do the same thing but better, TWF is fine. In my opinion, you are better off fixing those two feats (which are already stronger than other feats) than trying to fix one of the things that their existence breaks.

So TWF is fine except for the rules...

Giant2005

2016-09-29, 03:24 AM

So TWF is fine except for the rules...

Or you could just take my statement at face value "TWF is fine, Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are broken".

Quintessence

2016-09-29, 03:28 AM

What else do you want that bonus action for? I don't think it's fair to let a Sorcerer with Warcaster get an extra attack with his offhand and then still get to Quicken a spell as his bonus. Or a Rogue to get 3A and then Cunning away.

Doing lots of attacks is the Fighter's schtick. He doesn't get any fancy Bonus actions unless he chooses them from BM or EK. Everyone else gets a special, class-specific option for their bonus action. Otherwise, there's no reason for them NOT to go with TWF (except that they're usually casters and need Warcaster and/or Dual Wielder to work around components and Arcane Foci)

Basically, if you want to get the most out of TWF, go with a Fighter or Barbarian. Otherwise, leave the stabby-stabbing to the fighters and wait for your chance to make them jealous with your special bonus-action abilities.

Really, from my practical experience at the table, aside from a few "easy-ban" feats and combos, 5e does a really good job at keeping class options and damage very levelled out. You might not be able to make a melee attack for a ton of damage, but you usually have other options to keep your At-Will output right there in the sweet-spot or do enough on a "spike" to average out over an encounter. They've even managed to fix the Ranger.

Except a Sorcerer could just use a greatsword and get the same damage results...? Your logic against it doesn't make any sense and by going TWF you are literally just gimping yourself because your bonus action will be tied up just so that you even remotely have a chance at dealing the same damage as a greatsword user who doesn't have GWM. You can also only draw one weapon at a time so you need to have your weapons always at the ready or it is another feat tax.

Firechanter

2016-09-29, 03:50 AM

Well, TWF probably ain't bad for the New Ranger, actually pretty good vs Favoured Enemies. Compared to THF, you get 3d6+12+12=34,5 vs 4d6+8+8=30
so, 15% difference, not too shabby.

The conflict for the Bonus Action does remain a problem, though. Rangers want it for Hunter's Mark and for Dash.

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-29, 04:00 AM

Except a Sorcerer could just use a greatsword and get the same damage results...? Your logic against it doesn't make any sense and by going TWF you are literally just gimping yourself because your bonus action will be tied up just so that you even remotely have a chance at dealing the same damage as a greatsword user who doesn't have GWM. You can also only draw one weapon at a time so you need to have your weapons always at the ready or it is another feat tax.
See? This is what I'm talking about. Why the heck does a Sorcerer want to use a Greatsword? Even with Str20 he's not doing as much damage as he could with Cha20 spells. He's not even proficient, and what is he doing for AC and Hit Points to let him survive getting close enough to whack people with his giant gimp-knife?

Consider what a Paladin could do with 2WF and Imrpoved Smite. Grab the Dual Wielder feat and you can draw 2 swords, now he's throwing 6D8+2*AS, and he can do that with his Dex because Rapiers are Finesse, and he's doing more damage that way than with a single Heavy weapon.
Likewise for a BladeLock with Hex up.
Even using D6 Shortswords for a whole -1 average damage, they're doing plenty of damage.

:: Any class with the ability to stack extra damage per hit from an outside source like Hex or Smite can make use of it.

:: The bonus action attack is also an extra shot at a critical.

:: Having more attacks with less damage is going to give better average damage than stacking bigger damage onto fewer hits.

What do you want me to tell you? I really don't see what you're complaining about. Sure, if you are a Fighter and want to do as much melee damage as possible, per optimization, then heavy weapons are the way to go.
But if you aren't proficient with huge weapons, or you need Light for sneak attack, you get bonus damage per hit from an outside source like Hex, or you just like the RP nature of a 2-weapon fighting style 2WF doesn't do THAT MUCH less damage by comparison

And yes, I know that we're glossing over PAM and GWM. But those feats are known issues, and honestly, along with SharpShooter need to be either banned at the table, reworked (like I did in my first post here) or else you just have to live with the fact that halberds and 2 feats with overshadow literally every single other melee option.

Besides, melee damage isn't the end of the world anyway. In the first session of my current game, our Vuman Fighter with a Greatsword and GWM didn't kill anything because he didn't have a ranged weapon, and we killed or chased off everything we faced, before he got close enough to swing. In the last session, he got to cleave a goblin in half with some crazy damage roll, and then everyone forgot, because on my turn my creepy Warlock drove the boss monster crazy, and made it literally laugh itself to death.

Lollerabe

2016-09-29, 04:42 AM

If you have to nerf every other damage option to make TWF worthwhile then you haven't fixed anything, you just made a bunch of classes weaker.

OP here you go: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497098-Need-some-help-with-our-homebrew-TWF-fix

The thread discusses the exact same issue and I personally feel that I arrive at a good balance spot for TWF (with a lot a help). So check that out :)

Spiritchaser

2016-09-29, 05:45 AM

A while ago, buried in one of the previous threads on this, someone (I apologise for not being able to credit this to the inventor) suggested that with TWF, a successful hit would add a +1 to hit for subsequent attacks that turn.

I cannot recall if the original proposal limited the buffing strike to the offhand or not, but I would start that way for safety. Certainly it was my impression that additional bonuses from subsequent hits were not intended to stack

I have not tried this in my campaign yet but I will be toying with it there next play session. I'll see how it goes.

dropbear8mybaby

2016-09-29, 06:47 AM

Kryx

2016-09-29, 09:41 AM

If you want a spreadsheet which attempts to calculate DPR based on weapons and classes check DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).

Even in my houserules where -5/+10 doesn't exist and PAM doesn't get a bonus action TWF is still far behind. I add a second attack from the bonus action at 11th level and that solves a lot of issues.

I also swap the fighting style (+ability mod on offhand) with the feat (bigger weapons) as that allows rogues to benefit from the feat and fighters to wield bigger weapons which makes more sense imo. But this isn't as necessary for balance.

Specter

2016-09-29, 10:31 AM

It's very easy. Add this to the Fighting Style:

Two-Weapon Fighting: When you reach 11th level, you can make two attacks instead of one with your offhand weapon.

TWF is one of the best fighting styles early on. This makes it great at further levels too.

Gwendol

2016-09-29, 10:48 AM

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-09-29, 01:49 PM

The big issue for TWF to me is action economy, options, and competing in a mixed party. If you compare the TWF feat to the other weapon-based feats (and, apparently, no other quality combat feats), and conclude that every other weapon-based feat is overpowered, you might be missing a more obvious explanation.

I buff TWF not by adding more attacks to the routine but by adding flexibility. First, the two weapon fighting style adds both the +ability damage and weapon size feature from the TWF feat. The TWF feat then removes the bonus action cost of using the off hand attack. This is a big issue for likely TWF-users like Rangers and Rogues, who have several other important uses for that bonus action. A Mobile/TWF rogue actually being able to both TWF and dash or hide every turn is significant. TWFers never become DPR kings, but likely TWFers remain competitive while actually being able to pull off a skirmisher role.

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-29, 04:30 PM

I nerf down GWM, PAM, and SS at my table not to make TWF better, but because those 3 feats are generally assumed to be problematic already.
Martial characters are at the top of the DPR heap. When every DPR build requires taking the same 2 feats, those feats are overwhelming. The Casters can't keep up, because they can't capitalize on those feats. Thats a problem. It stifles the options which other classes have.
If TWF doesn't hold up to those feats, you have two options; fix TWF and add yet another powerful martial option, or fix the offending feats and flatten the power curve across all classes.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2016-09-29, 05:13 PM

Of course casters can't keep up in single target DPR*. That's literally the one thing martials have on casters. If casters can't at least keep up with a nerfed martial something very strange is happening.

*Technically speaking, Necromancers can blow everyone away in DPR.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-29, 06:30 PM

I've been wondering how it could be done or even if it should be done. At the moment, it seems so lackluster and trumped by better options but that may just be a perception bias on my part.

If it is considered underpowered, what would be a good solution to fix it?

I've been thinking that maybe allowing multiple attacks for the off-hand would be OK. For instance, extending the Extra Attack facility to OH weapons. So if you have Extra Attack with one weapon, maybe making it so that you can also do it with the OH weapon. Or if that's too powerful, delaying it by like five levels so that it has a staggered effect, i.e. You get Extra Attack at 5th-level and at 10th-level it also applies to the OH weapon.

Thoughts?

Something to keep in mind, not every class benefits equally from TWF, or is even suited to it, even though in theory all are capable of it.

i.e. Classes with competing bonus actions might want to TWF sometimes but not all the time.

Example: Rogue benefits from another opportunity to get a sneak attack off, in case the first attack misses.

Classes with multiple attacks and access to Two-Handed Weapons are likely to derive more benefit from simply attacking multiple times with the two-handed weapon (i.e. 2d6+5 x 2 > 1d6+5 x 2 + 1d6)

Only two classes have the TWF Fighting Style, Fighter and Ranger, which provides a damage bonus competitive with that of the other fighting styles bonuses.

Classes with effects that occur off a hit, but which do not require a bonus action, are also likely to see additional benefit from TWF over using sword and board or a THF weapon. This of course includes possible upgrades from magic weapons.

So, narrowly drawn, the best choices for TWF likely are:

1) Rogue (derives extra chance to get that sneak attack off each round)
2) Champion Fighter (no bonus action, extra crit chance, extra ASI for dueling feat, has access to TWF Fighting Style to maximize bonus damage)
3) Hunter Ranger (additional chance of Colossus Slayer/Foe Slayer, Hunter's Mark synergy, Has TWF Fighting Style)

Hunters look like the best possible choice, gaining ability mod to damage, having bonus damage for each hit from hunter's mark, and having the additional opportunity to ensure colossus slayer and foe slayer damage happens.

TWF is already very worthwhile and can do some hefty damage with the right build (even more-so if you are using Unearthed Arcana or other homebrew classes).
The problem is that TWF's only use is getting a bonus action attack, which is something that can be easily and reliably accomplished via Polearm Mastery or Crossbow Expert. Without those feats being around to do the same thing but better, TWF is fine. In my opinion, you are better off fixing those two feats (which are already stronger than other feats) than trying to fix one of the things that their existence breaks.

Let's examine that idea.

Crossbow Expert vs Polearm Mastery vs Dual Wielder

Crossbow Expert is +1d6+dex mod damage, or 3.5 + modifier (if any). This is inexplicable, at best you're spending a feat to not deal any damage beyond what would have been dealt already using TWF.

Polearm Mastery -> Glaive, Halberd, Quarterstaff
Glaive and Halberd are identical: Heavy, Reach, Two-Handed, 1d10
Quarterstaff is 1d6 or 1d8 two-handed

Small creatures can't use the glaive/halberd properly because heavy, quarterstaff is a downgrade.

So the only use-case that could plausibly compete is medium-sized strength users wielding a Glaive or Halberd.

Ranger:
1d10+5 x 2 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
vs
1d8+5 x 3 = 28.5

Identical damage output, except the dual-wielder has +1 AC and the Glaive/Halberd user has reach and a reaction attack against someone entering their reach. The polearm mastery benefits are less beneficial to the Hunter as they probably have a reaction they'd prefer to use by level 14.

Although a Champion probably could benefit, they'd be better off taking GWM instead, because it's a better damage-oriented feat.

Except a Sorcerer could just use a greatsword and get the same damage results...?

No strength focus, no proficiency, no they could not.

TWF is one of the best fighting styles early on. This makes it great at further levels too.

It's competitive all the way through, the GWM feat is what really tilts things for that style in a flashy way.

Giant2005

2016-09-29, 07:01 PM

Let's examine that idea.

Crossbow Expert vs Polearm Mastery vs Dual Wielder

Crossbow Expert is +1d6+dex mod damage, or 3.5 + modifier (if any). This is inexplicable, at best you're spending a feat to not deal any damage beyond what would have been dealt already using TWF.

Polearm Mastery -> Glaive, Halberd, Quarterstaff
Glaive and Halberd are identical: Heavy, Reach, Two-Handed, 1d10
Quarterstaff is 1d6 or 1d8 two-handed

Small creatures can't use the glaive/halberd properly because heavy, quarterstaff is a downgrade.

So the only use-case that could plausibly compete is medium-sized strength users wielding a Glaive or Halberd.

Ranger:
1d10+5 x 2 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
vs
1d8+5 x 3 = 28.5

Identical damage output, except the dual-wielder has +1 AC and the Glaive/Halberd user has reach and a reaction attack against someone entering their reach. The polearm mastery benefits are less beneficial to the Hunter as they probably have a reaction they'd prefer to use by level 14.

Although a Champion probably could benefit, they'd be better off taking GWM instead, because it's a better damage-oriented feat.

You are missing a lot of the important details.
A Dual-Wielder with their feat and fighting style has three attacks of 1d8+X and +1 AC. A PAM using a Staff, dueling and Shield is 2(1d6+2+X)+1d4+2+X and +2 AC. The crossbow guy gets a significant +2 to his attack rolls, the Glaive/Halberd guy gets +1 to their AC from the Defense Fighting Style (Because GWF sucks) which means according to you their damage is identical, yet they have Reach and a reaction attack over the dual wielder. The Glaive/Halberd guy as well as the Crossbow guy also have the significant benefits of having access to GWF and SS.
TWF just doesn't compete with any of that.

Vogonjeltz

2016-09-29, 07:09 PM

You are missing a lot of the important details.
A Dual-Wielder with their feat and fighting style has three attacks of 1d8+X and +1 AC. A PAM using a Staff, dueling and Shield is 2(1d6+2+X)+1d4+2+X and +2 AC. The crossbow guy gets a significant +2 to his attack rolls, the Glaive/Halberd guy gets +1 to their AC from the Defense Fighting Style (Because GWF sucks) which means according to you their damage is identical, yet they have Reach and a reaction attack over the dual wielder. The Glaive/Halberd guy as well as the Crossbow guy also have the significant benefits of having access to GWF and SS.
TWF just doesn't compete with any of that.

Crossbow guy also can't do that every round because they have to have a free hand to even reload; pole arms reaction is redundant with the reaction the hunter already gets.

Access requires a second ASI at which point we are eating into the stats of a Ranger or the other possible feats of a fighter (for Mage slayer or sentinel, alert, HAM, etcetera.)

At which point we are no longer comparing the feats in question (Crossbow Expert, Polarm Mastery, or Dual wielding) but instead other fears and class abilities.

LordoftheMilk

2016-09-29, 09:20 PM

Dual Wielder: You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding are not light.
• You can draw or stow two one handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
• Once on each of your turns when wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand and you miss with an attack, you can make another attack.

This does not deal witht the -5/+10 issue, which I consider separate.

Thoughts?

MeeposFire

2016-09-30, 12:02 AM

I ended up making TWF as just part of the attacking action on your turn. So if you use an attack action and have two weapons to use you get your main hand attacks and get your one off hand attack as part of your attack action.

I also made object interactions equal to your number of attacks on an attack action and you can draw both your main hand and off hand as part of the same object interaction (if you draw both at the same time of course). This helps throwing weapons and two weapon fighting.

TWF style gives you the ability to wield larger weapons. This lets it boost damage along with attack increases. In addition this is a benefit more geared to classes that actually want to use bigger weapons rather than classes that would be happy wielding a short sword or scimitar.

he feat gives you three bonuses. AC bonus, ability mod to off hand damage, and the ability to make an additional off hand attack as a bonus action. This feat is designed to be competitive with the other big name weapon feats (in my game I have no problem with the big damage feats so I am happy to let TWF have one too).

I like the no action idea better because TWF is the only style that is screwed over by about everything and going this route allows it to at least be as usable as any other style. Now a rogue can use both swords and use his cunning action (swashbucklers can use his bonus action for a second off hand attack and still move away).

I had debated having two weapon fighting even work on things like opportunity attacks but decided in the end I wanted to be sure THF had a special niche at all times even without a feat so no extra attack on opportunity attacks (well unless you get it on your turn I guess).

Giant2005

2016-09-30, 01:23 AM

Crossbow guy also can't do that every round because they have to have a free hand to even reload; pole arms reaction is redundant with the reaction the hunter already gets.

Access requires a second ASI at which point we are eating into the stats of a Ranger or the other possible feats of a fighter (for Mage slayer or sentinel, alert, HAM, etcetera.)

At which point we are no longer comparing the feats in question (Crossbow Expert, Polarm Mastery, or Dual wielding) but instead other fears and class abilities.

Crossbow Master doesn't just give a bonus action attack, it also removes the loading quality of crossbows so it can be fired multiple times.
PAM's reaction is far from redundant even on a high level Hunter - those reactions have different triggers and when one doesn't trigger, the other can prove its use. Either way, one subclass having a viable alternative at high levels hardly renders the feat obsolete - it just renders the feat less useful for one subclass out of dozens.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Access", but I am assuming you are referring to SS and GWM. If so, fair point. Although, I wasn't mentioning them as a necessity - just as an added potential bonus. Without including them, the quarterstaff guy does more damage and has a higher AC, the glaive/halberd guy has reach and a reaction attack, and the crossbow guy has much better accuracy at the expense of slightly lower damage.
The only one that could be considered to be anything less than superior to TWF is the crossbow guy, but realistically it will be a very rare situation when the paltry difference in damage is better than the accuracy increase.

Either way, none of the above really matters. What matters is that dual-wielding's purpose (other than looking cool) is getting more function out of on-hit proc damage from the likes of Rage, Hunter's Mark/Hex, Bestow Curse, Improved Divine Smite, and now the new Favored Enemy (if using homebrew). Those feats are taking that niche and giving it to literally every other fighting style (SnB gets it via PAM, heavy weapon users get it via PAM, and ranged weapon users get it via CBE). As long as those feats are taking dual-wielding's niche, then dual-wielding isn't going to shine as much as it should.

Lollerabe

2016-09-30, 01:39 AM

djreynolds

2016-09-30, 02:01 AM

If you are fighting say orcs, maybe you will fight TWF or a big sword, but if you fight hobgoblins you may want a shield.

Its not terrible if your main things is light weight dex fighting or if you can grab a level of fighter to help along. Hunter's mark, divine favor works on all the strikes, the former versus a specific opponent.

Its nice for a rogue to have an extra chance to land that SA if they miss with their first strike.

But yes feats like polearm master, GWM, SS, CE and even shield master make it less viable... but if you have some magic like divine favor or magic swords it gets better.

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-30, 02:39 AM

But yes feats like polearm master, GWM, SS, CE and even shield master make it less viable... but if you have some magic like divine favor or magic swords it gets better.

As long as those feats are taking dual-wielding's niche, then dual-wielding isn't going to shine as much as it should.

This does not deal witht the -5/+10 issue, which I consider separate.

This is what I've been saying since I posted here - "fixing" TWF is unnecessary. It does perfectly average damage once you cut those Feats out of the game. I even showed this in my first post.
If you make 2WF better, then Duelling will suck even harder. The gap between shields and non-shields will be huge, all for +2ac.

Right now, anyone who can, takes a Heavy Weapon. It's like there's no choice. If you want competitive damage: heavy weapon and feats.

And I'm fine with heavy weapons doing more damage. They have bigger criticals, bigger single-attack damage, and Great Weapon Style is a solid boost (+1.5 damage average, on a Greatsword; on par with Duelling, but with a bigger dice). That's FINE.
I'm also fine with Fighters and assorted Martials having higher single-target melee DPR. It's their role, and with Rage or Extra Attack(3x) nobody is going to dispute that. (Although, I wouldn't mind a return to the glass-cannon nature of Strikers from 4e, with high damage and low AC/HP. Mega-damage Tanks are crazy strong)

My problem is that GWM/PAM or SS have become "feat taxes" for optimization. The gap is noticeably wide, even so much so that a multi-attack class with something like Hex on each hit can't deal as much melee damage as that same class with one of the offending feats but not having the damage boost up.

Changing the offending feats keeps the "spirit" of the game and the weapons and play-styles, but it removes the heavy-handed punishment for not taking a halberd. I'd rather not see players punished for choosing to RP a dual-wielder over "just another Orc with a Polearm"

Access requires a second ASI at which point we are eating into the stats of a Ranger or the other possible feats of a fighter (for Mage slayer or sentinel, alert, HAM, etcetera.)

Math has been done elsewhere to prove that the -5/+10 damage is worth two ASIs in the attack stat. Compound that with the fact that Fighters have no problem getting several stats up into the 20s thanks to their skewed number of ASIs.
Bounded Accuracy and the higher occurrence of Magic Weapons means that trading a +1 to your Attack stat isn't nearly as harmful as it was in the past. And unless you're also trying to optimize something based on a non-attack stat, there's little reason not to buff up your melee. Plenty of casters can effectively dump their spellcasting ability and still gain bonuses from their spells - heck, look at Bearbarian/Bladelocks whose entire strategy is to pop Armor of Agathys and then Rage. Or Eldritch Knights who can dump Int. and then just cast Buff spells on themselves, or Paladins skimping Charisma and just using their slots to Smite as often as possible.

But the fact that those casters can go that route (heavy melee + class spell buffs) and still be forced into going GWM/PAM to stay competitive is just sad.

djreynolds

2016-09-30, 02:46 AM

Its okay, its not perfect, but I use it with many builds because it is cool. Hello, that's the point.

And also, SS and GWM, sometimes that -5 hurts. I have missed many shots and took many javelins because the opponents survived because I missed them by using SS, even with bless.

The dice rule the game, roll bad and you will die.

TWF gives you an extra chance to hit.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 04:32 AM

TWF is one of the best fighting styles early on. This makes it great at further levels too.
From levels 1-4 it's on par with GWM. From 5+ it falls behind to 75-80%. Fixing level 11 is nice, but level 5-10 has problems too.
That said, I didn't fix 5-10 either, perhaps I should take another look..

Kryx, will you update the spreadsheet with the new ranger? Essentially adding the new favored enemy/gfe damage, and the new beastmaster (and different fighting styles)?
New ranger's favored enemy is very conditional damage and doesn't really apply to DPR unless they are fighting their favored enemy consistently.
I can add the beastmaster though.

The TWF feat then removes the bonus action cost of using the off hand attack. This is a big issue for likely TWF-users like Rangers and Rogues, who have several other important uses for that bonus action. A Mobile/TWF rogue actually being able to both TWF and dash or hide every turn is significant.
While it is true that a bonus action benefits a rogue and ranger it does nothing to help a Barbarian, Fighter, Bladelock, Cleric, Paladin, etc.

Ranger is better addressed by dealing with its hunters mark separately. Rogue is plenty fine as is - TWF is already it's best option besides dual hand crossbows.

Lollerabe

2016-09-30, 05:01 AM

Blue Lantern

2016-09-30, 05:22 AM

While it is true that a bonus action benefits a rogue and ranger it does nothing to help a Barbarian, Fighter, Bladelock, Cleric, Paladin, etc.

Ranger is better addressed by dealing with its hunters mark separately. Rogue is plenty fine as is - TWF is already it's best option besides dual hand crossbows.

It would benefit Bladelock as much as rangers for the Hex management and bonus action spells.

It would benefit Clerics, Paladins, Bards, and even Druids by giving the chance to use a bonus action spell or spell effect with a full TWF attack, (X smite spell, Spiritual weapon, call lightning, etc)

It would also benefit Berserk for the extra bonus action attack.

Is mostly only the Fighter that gets nothing by that change.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 05:48 AM

That's the reason I really like Zmans idea of granting an additional OH attack at lvl 8 for extra attack classes. It seems (IMO) to hit a sweet spot, TWF by raw is fine from lvl 1-5 as mentioned, by after that it's a downwards curve. Level 8 is a level many games will play but level 11 seems rather late - I like it.
Ya, ZMan and I agree on the extra offhand attack. From looking at the numbers now 11 is too late. The problem of moving it earlier is that the damage goes from 80% of GWM to 110% of GWM so ideally we'd find a sweet spot in the middle (around 95%)

It would benefit Bladelock as much as rangers for the Hex management and bonus action spells.
True, same condition as Ranger. Though I've argued on other threads that the problem is with Hex and Hunter's mark, not TWF. The same problem exists for PAM and Hex or GWM and Hex. TWF needs a boost, sure, but a fix shouldn't mechanically incentivize a certain fighting style for Warlocks.

It would benefit Clerics, Paladins, Bards, and even Druids by giving the chance to use a bonus action spell or spell effect with a full TWF attack, (X smite spell, Spiritual weapon, call lightning, etc)
Those edge cases wouldn't fix TWF for those classes. TWF Paladin with his smite spells is still way behind a GWM Paladin.

It would also benefit Berserk for the extra bonus action attack.
Berserker has it's own problems where it is worthless on GWM and PAM. This should be addressed on that feature imo.

Is mostly only the Fighter that gets nothing by that change.
Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues are the most common TWFers in D&D so fighter is a big deal.

Sneak Dog

2016-09-30, 08:16 AM

Math has been done elsewhere to prove that the -5/+10 damage is worth two ASIs in the attack stat. Compound that with the fact that Fighters have no problem getting several stats up into the 20s thanks to their skewed number of ASIs.

Did some math comparing a +1 to hit and damage to the -5/+10. I assumed 16 strength pre-ASI and a 2d6 weapon with no extra damage sources.

As long as you're fighting enemies that require around an 9 on your die without taking the -5/+10, it's about equal to taking a +1 to your attack and damage.

If you add the great weapon fighting style, bumping your average weapon damage up from 7 to 8.33, the breakpoint is roughly 8 to-hit pre-ASI.

The thing is that the feat grants another great benefit, in exchange for you not getting better at any skills related to that stat.
For strength that would be 2 extra feet of long jump, 1 athletics and potentially 1 intimidate.

In conclusion, I do agree GWM is too strong for a feat. I'd say it's mostly due to strength as an ability score not being too great. For fighters it's even better, as it allows them to gain damage from their ASI/feat even at 20 strength, while also not synergizing with their extra attacks, unlike paladins where it conflicts with their level 11 feature.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-30, 01:19 PM

TWF is perfectly fine. Damage output is within par range for someone using GWF. Someone with GWF normally takes GWM, but TWF will take Dual Weilder. That ups your damage to 3d8+(Str*3). Someone with GWM is also getting a -5 to attack rolls where the TWF person is not, so your accuracy is higher. They also get +1 to armor so they are harder to hit. So it's more a choice of:

GWF+GWM= higher spike damage
TWF+DW= consistant damage with higher defense

MeeposFire

2016-09-30, 02:28 PM

I personally prefer (and highly recommend) that you add a second offhand attack at lvl 8 or 11 for classes with the extra attack feature, rather than removing the BA cost.

I did some napkin math on TWF which didn't require a BA, and the damage spike is way to big for my taste, plus it really messes with action economy.

Adding a second OH attack makes TWF viable on classes where it was otherwise trash (barbs, palas, fighters, and to a lesser degree Rangers) plus it gets a niche - the fightstyle with most attacks.

Switching the fightstyle and dualwielder feat also helps making it attractive, to specialize in for barbs and rogue and palas.

Where is the extra damage spike coming from with the version of no action off hand attack comes from that you used? With mine (not considering feats since it changes a lot for both right now) the damage is the same as before but you can actually take advantage of some bonus action abilities that you could not before (or at least not very well).

Yakk

2016-09-30, 02:30 PM

Make Dual Weider more different than it is.

* If you hit with an attack with your main-hand weapon while TWF, you can make an attack with your offhand weapon.
** If this extra attack is on the same target as the main-hand weapon hit that triggered it, it suffers a -5 penalty to hit
** If this extra attack is on a different target, it has no penalty

* If someone exactly hits your AC, you can make an attack with your off-hand weapon as a reaction. If this attack hits, the triggering attack misses.

This reflects a defensive bonus (that triggers rarely, but is very similar to having a +1 AC bonus) and an offensive bonus that works better when you have advantage and when you are fighting more than one foe.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 02:36 PM

TWF is perfectly fine.
A large number of people have provided math that disagrees with your statement.

Also, Strength has the advantage with AC due to heavy armor giving more AC far earlier than light armor. Even at max level light armor is behind by 1 until the dual wielding feat is taken. Dex is not ahead for AC.

MeeposFire

2016-09-30, 02:39 PM

Yea light AC is one behind heavy armor of the same type unless you somehow get access to a book that boosts dex or similar that allows you to get to 22 dex or higher. Then it is equal or better though counting on getting one or more of those things is not something I would count on happening.

Icewraith

2016-09-30, 03:19 PM

TWF is a featless way for a Rogue to get a shot at landing a Sneak Attack if their Attack Action attack misses. Use your free interact for the round to draw an off-hand dagger and take another stab at it (Cunning Action doesn't work since it already uses your Bonus Action).

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-30, 04:04 PM

Nothing stops you from wearing heavy armor and using TWF. You can also use STR for TWF instead of DEX.

Lower AC enemies won't have much difference on frequency of hits, but higher AC ones will. If you never encounter high AC enemies GWM is better on damage sure. But if you do run into high AC enemies you'll be missing most of the time or deal about the same or less than the DW guy because you don't use the -5/+10 and the DW guy will also have +1ac over you since you can both wear heavy armor if desired.

Lvl 5, +4 STR +3 Proficiency.

GWF and TWF same chance to hit, damage isn't far apart.

GWF (4d6+8) average of 22
TWF (3d6+12) average of 22.5

With GWM and DW applied

GWM (4d6+8+20) average 43
DW (3d8+12) average 25.5

Looks like GWM would be better BUT it has 25% higher chance to miss and that can plummet your damage.

Enemy AC of 18
DW needs rolls of 11+ hit (50% hit chance)
GWM has to roll 16+ to hit (25% hit chance)

Both are effective in their own ways. GWF/GWM can do better on low AC guys like many beasts and abberations, and TWF/DW works better on high AC guys like humanoids with armor/shields or dragons.

At lvl 20 just on stats alone this still goes. magic items can help a bit but there will still be the gap. With STR 20(+5) and Proficiency +6

An Ancient Black Dragon has AC of 22
GWF/GWM has to roll 16+ still
TWF/DW has to roll 11+ still

Pick your poison, Games I've played always have more high AC guys than lower. (Swear the DM has almost every enemy humanoid in heavy armor with a shield)

Kryx

2016-09-30, 05:13 PM

Lvl 5, +4 STR +3 Proficiency.

GWF (4d6+8) average of 22
TWF (3d6+12) average of 22.5

GWF: 2d6 rerolling 1 and 2 once is 8.33. 8.33+8.33+4+4 = 24.66
TWF: 1d6+4 * 3 = 22.5, that's correct

With GWM and DW applied
GWM (4d6+8+20) average 43
DW (3d8+12) average 25.5
Comparing without hit chance is really biting you in the butt here. Damage is still messed up as a result of GWF damage calculation

Enemy AC of 18
Well here is a problem - the average AC of enemies CR 2 to CR 8 (assuming you fight within that range at level 5) is 14.4. If you just took CR 5 enemies it's 15.2. Neither of which is 18 AC.

Calculating it out only 22% of CR 5 enemies have 18 AC or higher so this is a pretty biased choice.

An Ancient Black Dragon has AC of 22
Again you've made a rather biased choice to focus on GWM's weakness (high AC).

Games I've played always have more high AC guys than lower. (Swear the DM has almost every enemy humanoid in heavy armor with a shield)
Sounds like your DM is purposefully using high AC enemies to avoid how OP -5/+10 is.

GWM is definitely vulnerable to high AC, but against average enemies within 3 challenge of the player's level a Fighter TWF does about 80% of what a Fighter GWM does. (as always see DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255))
Barbarians and OoV Paladins are even better at overcoming the -5/+10 due to advantage.

At 5th level my calculations for a fighter:
TWF at 20.8 DPR
GWM (-5/+10) at 28.5 DPR
GWM (no -5/+110) at 24.3 DPR.

Even without -5/+10 TWF is behind. If I get rid of -5/+10 then TWF is still 87.3% of GWM. Still struggles.

LordoftheMilk

2016-09-30, 06:03 PM

The problem with increasing the number of attacks on the offhand is twofold:
- Maximum DPR is increased beyond core rules balance levels (you double the attacks of a paladin for example instead of doing 1.5 times);
- Classes that dont get extra attack suddenly get MORE attacks from their offhand than mainhand.

The solution is very unsatisfactory.

Adding a reroll solves these issues and gives TWF a simple different edge that cannot be duplicated by another fighting style, increasing average DPR while not affecting max dmg.

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-30, 06:21 PM

At 5th level my calculations for a fighter:
TWF at 20.8 DPR
GWM (-5/+10) at 28.5 DPR
GWM (no -5/+110) at 24.3 DPR.

Even without -5/+10 TWF is behind. If I get rid of -5/+10 then TWF is still 87.3% of GWM. Still struggles.

I'm assuming that your calculating the bonus strike on Crits then, to get that damage? Or is that the difference on Fighting Styles?
I think that Great Weapon Fighter is a rather poorly planned style - it heavily rewards Greatsword over the other heavies, and makes Polearm Master incredibly strong. I'd say that just rerolling 1 Damage Die would be enough.

The more we dig at this, the more I think we're assembling a laundry list of things which need amended or houseruled.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 06:22 PM

- Maximum DPR is increased beyond core rules balance levels (you double the attacks of a paladin for example instead of doing 1.5 times);
TWF is still doing less than GWM.
For example Fighter at level 11:
TWF (+5 ability, still keep bigger damage die from dual wielder) still is doing 32 DPR
GWF (+5 ability, without GWM) is doing 35 DPR

- Classes that dont get extra attack suddenly get MORE attacks from their offhand than mainhand.
The extra bonus action attack should only apply to classes with Extra Attack.

Adding a reroll solves these issues
Please provide complete math over an adventuring day that shows that. By my numbers it's not even close to fixing the issue

I think that Great Weapon Fighter is a rather poorly planned style - it heavily rewards Greatsword over the other heavies, and makes Polearm Master incredibly strong. I'd say that just rerolling 1 Damage Die would be enough.
GWF is by far the least impactful fighting style by RAW. It needs no nerfs.

It adds about 7% DPR for most builds while TWF adds between 10-15%, dueling adds ~15-20%, archery adds ~22%. Defensive adds about 11% more durability.
See Fighting Styles (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=582756521).

LordoftheMilk

2016-09-30, 06:33 PM

TWF is still doing less than GWM.
For example Fighter at level 11:
TWF (+5 ability, still keep bigger damage die from dual wielder) still is doing 32 DPR
GWF (+5 ability, without GWM) is doing 35 DPR

.

You didn't understand my proposition. I am not suggesting a reroll of the damage die. I am suggesting a new attack if one of your attacks fail (see my post on the previous page).

I am well aware of your gripe with GWM. Personally I think the issue is GWM as written and not TWF.

If you nerf the -5/+10, then the reroll on TWF is actually very interesting.

And you give the Rogue a real reason to go melee as opposed to just sitting back and shooting his bow + hide.

I see you are asking me for an excel spreadsheet comparing the different variations. It really isnt necessary, and I have run the numbers through so many variants through class/magic item/build possibility that its only relevant when done completely thoroughly. But you can run the numbers on your build selections yourself, and for all the classes that actually rely on TWF for style (ranger, rogue some barbs), the reroll gives them a real edge vs S&B and THF. The thing is, some builds should be better with TWF and some better with THF damage wise. If you don't have a benefit damage ability per attack, RAI is that THF would be better, thats good for the game imho.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 06:57 PM

You didn't understand my proposition. I am not suggesting a reroll of the damage die. I am suggesting a new attack if one of your attacks fail (see my post on the previous page).
In DPR terms this would not make up the gap. Effectively you're adding .35*.65*DAMAGE. The damage would have to average 13 to make up the gap. The damage averages 8.5.

If you nerf the -5/+10, then the reroll on TWF is actually very interesting.
As I showed above TWF is behind by a lot even without -5/+10.

And you give the Rogue a real reason to go melee as opposed to just sitting back and shooting his bow + hide.
Rogue needs no help. His damage is perfectly fine.

I see you are asking me for an excel spreadsheet comparing the different variations.
You're making mathematical claims without any math. Of course I'm sceptical when I have numbers that say otherwise.

its only relevant when done completely thoroughly.
Agreed! Forum math has little value as it ignores so many factors.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-30, 07:10 PM

GWF: 2d6 rerolling 1 and 2 once is 8.33. 8.33+8.33+4+4 = 24.66
TWF: 1d6+4 * 3 = 22.5, that's correct

Comparing without hit chance is really biting you in the butt here. Damage is still messed up as a result of GWF damage calculation

Well here is a problem - the average AC of enemies CR 2 to CR 8 (assuming you fight within that range at level 5) is 14.4. If you just took CR 5 enemies it's 15.2. Neither of which is 18 AC.

Calculating it out only 22% of CR 5 enemies have 18 AC or higher so this is a pretty biased choice.

Again you've made a rather biased choice to focus on GWM's weakness (high AC).

Sounds like your DM is purposefully using high AC enemies to avoid how OP -5/+10 is.

GWM is definitely vulnerable to high AC, but against average enemies within 3 challenge of the player's level a Fighter TWF does about 80% of what a Fighter GWM does. (as always see DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255))
Barbarians and OoV Paladins are even better at overcoming the -5/+10 due to advantage.

At 5th level my calculations for a fighter:
TWF at 20.8 DPR
GWM (-5/+10) at 28.5 DPR
GWM (no -5/+110) at 24.3 DPR.

Even without -5/+10 TWF is behind. If I get rid of -5/+10 then TWF is still 87.3% of GWM. Still struggles.

The reroll of 1s and 2s once doesn't change the average. Up the chance of getting a higher number? Yes. Up the average? No, because you can still roll a 1 on that reroll and have to use it so you lowest remains a 1, not changing the average.

I'm also not biased against either. Like I said, they both work well in certain areas and are weaker in others. GWF/GWM can hit very hard. It also has higher miss chance. TWF/DW deals consistant damage, not spiking super high, but can hit more reliably.
Both have a big Pro and Con that pretty much even them out unless both hit every single time every single turn. This only happens with lower AC mobs, which I even said GWM will deal more damage in. Go after the hobgoblin and it will even out as TWF does the slow and steady and GWF spikes hard in-between misses and it evens out damage. TWF's +1 to AC is a reasonable trade for the lower damage cap. It takes more hits to drop a guy, but is also a little for the guy to hit them back. GWF hits them really hard, but is slightly easier to hit as well.

You can encounter an AC of 18 at level 1. Hobgoblins are CR 1/2 (Swear this has to be wrong. Couple of these guys wreck a group with their special ability) and have AC 18. Any humanoid with at least chainmail and a shield as 18+ AC so any time you come across an enemy army or guards you can run into it. Or even bandits on the road.

If you don't come across humanoids, yeah you'll face lower AC for a long time. Like I said, it depends on what you go against but neither is Oh My Gurrd So OP *foams at mouth*. They both work well and work really well to make a character with everything else the same be very different.

LordoftheMilk

2016-09-30, 07:11 PM

In DPR terms this would not make up the gap. Effectively you're adding .35*.65*DAMAGE. The damage would have to average 13 to make up the gap. The damage averages 8.5..

Without a class feature that adds damage per attack, you are right. That is the point. With Hunter's mark, Barb's rage damage or attacks depending on their ability to hit for added damage (sneak attack) the average damage gap is closed.

Rogue needs no help. His damage is perfectly fine...

That is your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.

My opinion is that a Rogue should have combat feat options that are worthwhile for him to take if he so chooses. Right now in the optional core rules feats section, only Martial adept helps him land sneak attacks better.

You're making mathematical claims without any math. Of course I'm sceptical when I have numbers that say otherwise..

Even in your build paradigm, I can just take your math to prove my point. Your premise is what I disagree with, not your math. Your premise is that a TWF Fighter should do as much damage as a THF fighter, even if his weapon does not add damage per attack. My premise is that TWF should only equal or outdamage THF with a special feature/magic item/spell that actually increases damage per attack.

Rysto

2016-09-30, 07:12 PM

The reroll of 1s and 2s once doesn't change the average. Up the chance of getting a higher number? Yes. Up the average? No, because you can still roll a 1 on that reroll and have to use it so you lowest remains a 1, not changing the average.

It changes the expected value of a dice roll, which is the important value when calculating DPR, The expected value of a random event is often informally referred to as the average. I don't know what definition of "average" you're using but it's non-standard and not relevant to DPR.

Kryx

2016-09-30, 07:15 PM

The reroll of 1s and 2s once doesn't change the average. Up the chance of getting a higher number? Yes. Up the average? No, because you can still roll a 1 on that reroll and have to use it so you lowest remains a 1, not changing the average.
Yes it does.
2d6 = 1,2,3,4,5,6. = 3.5*2 = 7
reroll = 3.5,3.5,3,4,5,6 = 4.1666*2 = 8.3333

This is well established math in the 5e community.

You can encounter an AC of 18 at level 1.
It is possible, but incredibly unlikely. 22% at 5th level and much much less at 1st level. You're suggesting balance based on unlikely scenarios while I'm suggesting balance that is based on the average.

They both work well and work really well to make a character with everything else the same be very different.
No, they don't. As I posted above GWM still is significantly better than TWF even without -5/+10.

If you're going to continue to make claims please provide the math to back them up. So far the math you have provided is inaccurate and lacking a full adventuring day perspective.

That is your opinion. Thanks for sharing it.
It's an opinion based on math. Once again: DPR of Classes (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255). A TWF rogue and a Hand Crossbow rogue both do good martial DPR - similar to Ranger and Paladin (they're right in between)

My opinion is that a Rogue should have combat feat options that are worthwhile for him to take if he so chooses. Right now in the optional core rules feats section, only Martial adept helps him land sneak attacks better.
Feat options would be great for all classes, but that's not really the topic at hand as we're discussing the core balance of TWF. Fixing Dual Wielding doesn't fix TWF - it definitely would help, but GWF > TWF even without feats.

Your premise is that a TWF Fighter should do as much damage as a THF fighter, even if his weapon does not add damage per attack. My premise is that TWF should only equal or outdamage THF with a special feature/magic item/spell that actually increases damage per attack.
Yup, I think that a damage based build should be quite equivalent to all the other damage based builds (GWM, PAM, etc). As it stands TWF does less damage than S&B.
In the TWF case I presume a TWF build does 95% of a GWM build. By RAW it's a pitiful 75%.

If we compare Str vs Str then the ability to take a feat for +1 AC and the ability to split damage easier has to make up for 75% of GWM damage. More than likely TWF will go Dex as it has more benefits which will make AC a negative factor, not positive.

CursedRhubarb

2016-09-30, 07:52 PM

2d6 = 1,2,3,4,5,6. = 3.5*2 = 7
reroll = 3.5,3.5,3,4,5,6 = 4.1666*2 = 8.3333

This is well established math in the 5e community.

Unless you are using some weird dice you can not roll a 3.5.
So if you roll a 1 or 2 and reroll you still wind up with a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. If you get a 1 or 2 on that reroll you don't just keep rolling until you get a 3 or higher. Heck, you could roll a 2 and reroll only to get a 1 you have to use. The possible numbers for your reroll would remain 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 unless you use something other than a standard d6. If yours have sides of 3, 3.5, 3.5, 4, 5, 6 you may want to take them back.

Saggo

2016-09-30, 08:18 PM

Unless you are using some weird dice you can not roll a 3.5.
So if you roll a 1 or 2 and reroll you still wind up with a 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. If you get a 1 or 2 on that reroll you don't just keep rolling until you get a 3 or higher. Heck, you could roll a 2 and reroll only to get a 1 you have to use. The possible numbers for your reroll would remain 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 unless you use something other than a standard d6. If yours have sides of 3, 3.5, 3.5, 4, 5, 6 you may want to take them back.

While you're correct that the expected result will be from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}, you've completely ignored that averages, or more correctly the statistical mean value, also accounts for the probability of getting those numbers.

Each face of a d6 has a 1/6 chance of appearing, when rolled once. 1*(1/6) + 2*(1/6) + 3*(1/6) + 4*(1/6) + 5*(1/6) + 6*(1/6) = 3.5

Thus 3.5 is the statistical average damage a d6 will create.

But if you allow rerolls, the probability of getting a 1 or 2 is reduced. You will only get a resulting 1 if you roll a 1 (1/6 chance) and then another 1 (again 1/6 chance) or roll a 2 and then 1 with the same chances. That means rolling a 1 has a probability of (1/6)*(1/6) = 2/36 or ~5.5%. Same for rolling a 2.

Rolling a 3-6 is now 1/6 normal side and rolling a 1 or 2 and then rolling a 3-6 which also has 2/36 chance, for 8/36 or ~22.2%.

Your statistical mean is now 1*(2/36) + 2*(2/36) + 3*(8/36) + 4*(8/36) + 5*(8/36) + 6*(8/36) = 4.17.

A d6 with rerolling 1s and 2s has an statistical average damage of 4.17.

Or, which simplifies to (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6.

It is as he said established math, stow the sarcasm.

captainbananas

2016-09-30, 08:19 PM

captainbananas

2016-09-30, 08:21 PM

While you're correct that the expected result will be from the set {1,2,3,4,5,6}, you've completely ignored that averages, or more correctly the statistical mean value, also accounts for the probability of getting those numbers.

Each face of a d6 has a 1/6 chance of appearing, when rolled once. 1*(1/6) + 2*(1/6) + 3*(1/6) + 4*(1/6) + 5*(1/6) + 6*(1/6) = 3.5

Thus 3.5 is the statistical average damage a d6 will create.

But if you allow rerolls, the probability of getting a 1 or 2 is reduced. You will only get a resulting 1 if you roll a 1 (1/6 chance) and then another 1 (again 1/6 chance) or roll a 2 and then 1 with the same chances. That means rolling a 1 has a probability of (1/6)*(1/6) = 2/36 or ~5.5%. Same for rolling a 2.

Rolling a 3-6 is now 1/6 normal side and rolling a 1 or 2 and then rolling a 3-5 which also has 2/36 chance, for 8/36 or ~22.2%.

Your statistical mean is now 1*(2/36) + 2*(2/36) + 3*(8/36) + 4*(8/36) + 5*(8/36) + 6*(8/36) = 4.17.

A d6 with rerolling 1s and 2s has an statistical average damage of 4.17.

Or, which simplifies to (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6.

It is as he said established math, stow the sarcasm.

or Saggo could do it for him!

CaptainSarathai

2016-09-30, 09:18 PM

So, the math at its most basic:
Assuming you hit on a 10+ and have a +5 to your stat and including crits:
D6+Dam = 9.1/attack
2D6+Dam = 12.95/attack
So that's a 30% increase in damage just because of how the attack damage works.

Throw in that bonus attack, at Lvl1 and you're getting a 1% increase in damage over the 2hander.
That's ignoring all applicable feats and fighting styles. But that's the crux of your issue - that 1% steadily decreases as you start adding attacks:
2A+Bonus = 22.3
2A 2HW = 25.9
Now it's 13% behind.

3A+Bonus = 31.4
3A 2HW = 38.85
Now it's 19% behind

4A+Bonus = 40.5
4A 2HW = 51.8
Now it's 21% behind

If we want to set the damage as "equal" (again: ignoring applicable feats) then we would need to roughly double weapon damage, before adding Abilities or the Bonus attack. So I suggest:
When armed with a weapon in each hand, you may use your Bonus Action to make a full attack with your off-hand. These bonus attacks do not add your Ability to damage, nor can they be augmented or Improved by features or spells such as Rage, Hex, or Life Drinker, and they cannot be used to "trigger" features such as Sneak Attack or Divine Smite

Now, a character equipped with a pair of Short Swords does identical damage to a character equipped with a Greatsword, regardless of how many base attacks they have - so long as they're willing to sacrifice their Bonus Action to do it.

I would switch 'Dual Wielder' and 'Two Weapon Fighting'. Dual-Wielder with the bigger dice is closer to the effect of GWF. Getting your Ability to off-hand damage is much more powerful by comparison, once you're getting extra attacks. However, it does actually stack up to GWM, with a sort of "-0/+5" effect on damage. It also applies a rather effective "nerf" to PAM, which only gets 1 extra attack.

Giant2005

2016-09-30, 09:37 PM

If you homebrew TWF into being comparable to GWF without the influence of on-hit effects, then the minute you take a class with on-hit effects, TWF becomes superior to GWF and you have the opposite problem.
You guys are comparing optimized great weapon users to un-optimized dual wielders. Of course dual wielders are going to look like crap. If I compared an optimized dual wielder to an unoptimized great weapon fighter, then the great weapon fighter will look like crap.

If you want them to be comparable, compare them at their respective peaks or valleys against reasonable target ACs. If one side is coming up short in either of those comparisons, then you should consider whether or not the difference is great enough to warrant fixing it.

EDIT: I took the liberty of throwing something together.

Target: BBEG with 22 AC

Variant Human (Dual Wielder feat) Paladin (Oathbreaker) 12, new Ranger (Hunter 8)
Point Buy Stats: Str: 16 Dex: 13 Con: 10 Int: 9 Wis: 13 Cha: 14
Stats after ASIs: Str: 20 Dex: 13 Con: 10 Int: 9 Wis: 13 Cha: 20

First Round: Hunter's Mark the target, attack twice with a 1d8 weapon.
Damage: (0.45(2(2d8+1d6+5+5)))+(0.05(2(4d8+2d6+5+5)))+(0.2 5*1d8) = 24.875
Damage vs FE: (0.45(2(2d8+1d6+5+5+4)))+(0.05(2(4d8+2d6+5+5+4)))+ (0.25*1d8) = 28.875

Second Round: Attack three times with dual 1d8 weapons.
Damage: (0.45(3(2d8+1d6+5+5)))+(0.05(3(4d8+2d6+5+5)))+(0.8 75*1d8) = 39.5625
Damage vs FE: (0.45(3(2d8+1d6+5+5+4)))+(0.05(3(4d8+2d6+5+5+4)))+ (0.875*1d8) = 45.5625

Third Round: Attack three times with dual 1d8 weapons.
Damage: (0.45(2(2d8+1d6+5+5)))+(0.05(2(4d8+2d6+5+5)))+(0.8 75*1d8) = 39.5625
Damage vs FE: (0.45(3(2d8+1d6+5+5+4)))+(0.05(3(4d8+2d6+5+5+4)))+ (0.875*1d8) = 45.5625

Average DPR over 3-round test: 34.67
Average DPR over 3-round test vs FE: 40

Half-Orc Barbarian (Berserker) 20 with GWM
Point Buy Stats: Str: 16 Dex: 14 Con: 16 Int: 8 Wis: 12 Cha: 8
Stats after ASIs and Capstone: Str: 24 Dex: 16 Con: 24 Int: 8 Wis: 12 Cha: 8

First Round: Rage and Frenzy, Reckless Attack twice with a 1d12 weapon.
Damage w/o GWM: (0.7975(2(1d12+7+4)))+(0.0975(2(5d12+7+4) = 36.395
Damage w GWM: (0.51(2(1d12+7+4+10)))+(0.0975(2(5d12+7+4+10))) = 38.4825

Second Round: Reckless Attack three times with a 1d12 weapon.
Damage w GWM (Ignoring the w/o GWM condition as the first round proved GWM is the superior choice): (0.51(3(1d12+7+4+10)))+(0.0975(3(5d12+7+4+10))) = 57.72375

Third Round: Reckless Attack three times with a 1d12 weapon.

Damage w GWM: (0.51(3(1d12+7+4+10)))+(0.0975(3(5d12+7+4+10))) = 57.72375
Average DPR over 3-round test w GWM: 51.31

And that test really didn't go the way I thought it would. In hindsight, the Berserker was a really poor choice of test subject due to both the bonus action attack invalidating TWF's advantage, and the Barbarian's ridiculous accuracy (which in itself has nothing to do with the merits of either fighting style).
From a pure damage perspective (miss chance removed completely), the calculations look much more reasonable:

DW Damage: (0.95(3(2d8+1d6+5+5)))+(0.05(3(4d8+2d6+5+5)))+1d8 = 73.875
DW vs FE Damage: (0.95(3(2d8+1d6+5+5+4)))+(0.05(3(4d8+2d6+5+5+4)))+ 1d8 = 85.875
GW Damage: (0.9025(3(1d12+7+4)))+(0.0975(3(5d12+7+4))) = 60.105
GW with GWM Damage: (0.9025(3(1d12+7+4+10)))+(0.0975(3(5d12+7+4+10))) = 90.105

Also worth mentioning is that I used a 3 round test because that is what the DMG uses. A longer test would have made Bestow Curse a beneficial choice for the dual-wilder and changed the numbers somewhat.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-01, 12:43 AM

Crossbow Master doesn't just give a bonus action attack, it also removes the loading quality of crossbows so it can be fired multiple times.

Which does not matter as both hands are, necessarily, occupied so the user can not reload the hand crossbow.

PAM's reaction is far from redundant even on a high level Hunter - those reactions have different triggers and when one doesn't trigger, the other can prove its use. Either way, one subclass having a viable alternative at high levels hardly renders the feat obsolete - it just renders the feat less useful for one subclass out of dozens.

Given that the enemy would be approaching I find it implausible that the other trigger options would not fire immediately after. This doesn't even cover the possibility that one is playing a spell-less ranger which have access to maneuvers that function off reaction, iirc.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Access", but I am assuming you are referring to SS and GWM. If so, fair point. Although, I wasn't mentioning them as a necessity - just as an added potential bonus. Without including them, the quarterstaff guy does more damage and has a higher AC, the glaive/halberd guy has reach and a reaction attack, and the crossbow guy has much better accuracy at the expense of slightly lower damage.
The only one that could be considered to be anything less than superior to TWF is the crossbow guy, but realistically it will be a very rare situation when the paltry difference in damage is better than the accuracy increase.

Either way, none of the above really matters. What matters is that dual-wielding's purpose (other than looking cool) is getting more function out of on-hit proc damage from the likes of Rage, Hunter's Mark/Hex, Bestow Curse, Improved Divine Smite, and now the new Favored Enemy (if using homebrew). Those feats are taking that niche and giving it to literally every other fighting style (SnB gets it via PAM, heavy weapon users get it via PAM, and ranged weapon users get it via CBE). As long as those feats are taking dual-wielding's niche, then dual-wielding isn't going to shine as much as it should.

The crossbow user can't draw two weapons at once either, they lack that ability which is only granted by Dual Wielder.

You are correct the Quarterstaff PAM Dueling Fighting Style Ranger with a Shield will deal 2 more damage on average.

However, they will also be locked into using a Quarterstaff, which means they can't use Dexterity as their attack modifier, and they only can apply one damage type (bludgeoning). Preselecting one specific weapon also locks them out of a large slew of magical weapons which could come into play as most every listed kind of magic item in the DMG preselects to a specific type of weapon (i.e. Any Sword).

Math has been done elsewhere to prove that the -5/+10 damage is worth two ASIs in the attack stat.

If you would care to provide some actual math side by side comparison (not a link) I'd be more interested in looking at that rather than just taking your word that it totally happened that one time...for real...honest.

MeeposFire

2016-10-01, 01:06 AM

Wait why would a hand crossbow user have both hands being used? They only need one crossbow to use their bonus action attack and that leaves their other hand open for reloading.

Giant2005

2016-10-01, 03:01 AM

Which does not matter as both hands are, necessarily, occupied so the user can not reload the hand crossbow.
What Meepos said - Crossbow guy doesn't dual-wield. He uses a Crossbow with an empty hand for reloading.

If you would care to provide some actual math side by side comparison (not a link) I'd be more interested in looking at that rather than just taking your word that it totally happened that one time...for real...honest.
Just look what I posted above for the Barbarian. During that first round, a GWM Barb inflicts 38.4825 damage while the non GWM Barb inflicts 36.395. You don't really need to bother doing any more math to see pretty clearly that an extra +1 to attack and damage rolls on both attacks would easily push the non-GWM Barb ahead in DPR (Although he is already capped in Strength, so he shouldn't actually be able to do that). That test already had the bonus action in use too, so GWM's secondary benefit is irrelevant in that case (not that it matters since it seems that you guys were only discussing the +10/-5 aspect).

Lollerabe

2016-10-01, 04:42 AM

dropbear8mybaby

2016-10-01, 05:00 AM

It annoys me that I have to be a condescending douche about this topic, but it annoys me even more that we have to rehash this topic every third week with the same lackluster math and the same lackluster arguments. You either accept that TWF is bad and fix it, or accept that TWF is bad and do nothing cause no one at your table actually cares - either is fine.

I'm kinda regretting starting it to be honest. I was tired and posted without checking so my bad.

After reading through the responses I have to say that I'm now torn as to what to do. On the one hand, I agree that it would probably boost Dexterity even further to the detriment of Strength, and that this is a bad thing. On the other, I also know that TWF is a very popular trope so I want to fix it for my players. And it's complicated further by wanting it to be balanced and reasonable, because it seems there's no real way to satisfy all possible requirements to do so.

I definitely agree that doing away with the bonus action part is a bad idea. That's far too important a part of the balance to simply be ignored. I haven't weighed in on the math side because me not math good.

Part of me also really doesn't like the idea of non-light weapons being used, primarily because it grates against my sense of verisimilitude with the real world. From my limited understanding of history, wielding two weapons was generally only done with a small off-hand for the purposes of defence and opening up attack opportunities, not for swinging two longswords around as a whirling dervish of death.

So I don't know. What's the answer here?

Lollerabe

2016-10-01, 05:25 AM

Sorry I snapped a bit, I'm not mad at you for starting the thread - just tired of having to establish the same fundamental premis every time.

The thread I linked is still the best solution I've found myself. It adds a niche for TWF, it boosts TWF damage by what I consider a fair margin.

I also added that you can TWF with a 1d8 weapon plus a dagger/light hammer without any fightstyle/feat requirement as I - like you, find it strange that the most realistic TWF form can't be done without the dualwielder feat, and when you got the feat it's straight up worse than using two d8 weapons.

TWFing two shorts words is 2d6 = 7 avg damg, a longsword + dagger is 1d8 + 1d4 = 7 avg damg. So it dosent break anything (it does buff a rogues alpha strike by 1 point of damage but hey) plus it allows for a wider range of weapon choices, which again allows players like me to TWF a battleaxe and a light hammer :)

Regarding breaking immersion - one of my friends practiced mideaveal fecing for a while and he told me there was a huge dude who dualwielded longswords. It was however a feat almost never seen before as longswords (IRL) are pretty big and clumsy to wield in one hand.

Giant2005

2016-10-01, 06:00 AM

TWF does NOT deal equal damage to any other fightstyle by raw, it has no niche and almost any class can do more damage with the same 'niche' by spending an ASI on xbow master and/or PAM.

It annoys me that I have to be a condescending douche about this topic

You have come to the same conclusion as those you are being a condescending douche towards. Therefore you are not only choosing to be a condescending douche unnecessarily, you are doing it in spite of logic.

Kryx

2016-10-01, 08:29 AM

MeeposFire

2016-10-01, 01:14 PM

I'm slightly confused by the thread at this point, are we just blatantly ignoring well established and throughly tested math?

TWF does NOT deal equal damage to any other fightstyle by raw, it has no niche and almost any class can do more damage with the same 'niche' by spending an ASI on xbow master and/or PAM.

If you wanna engage in a debate regarding mechanical balance, at least provide some math that backs up your statement.

@Mepoos (sorry my iPad has a beef with the quote function) removing the BA spikes damage by a huge margin for rangers/bladelocks and to a lesser degree barbs. If we take a level 1 Vhuman 16 dex ranger with the dualwielder feat as an example - by raw he sees a target, uses his BA to apply hunters mark then attacks, he then deals 1d8 + 1d6 + 3 damage = 11 avg damg. Same scenario where the OH attack isn't a BA, he sees the target spends his BA on hunters mark and proceeds to attack twice and deals 1d8 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 1d6 + 6 = 22 avg damage so that's a 100% damage boost from jumpstreet.

While the above scenario might seem extreme (which it really isn't) the point still stands. Removing the BA enables Bladelocks/Rangers/OOV palas/Barbs to both reapply hex/HM or rage and have a full attack - that spikes damage in a huge way.

I understand the idea of removing the BA cost though, it was my first solution when I started playing 5e, but the ramifications are huge, the BA trade for damage is an important part of 5Es action economy.

And for those saying TWF + dualwielder is fine as is - level 6 fighter 18 strength, one took TWF + DW the other Defense + PAM both have 19 ac. TWF dude attacks for 3d8 + 12 = 25, 5 Ave damg, PAM dude attacks for 2d10 + 1d4 + 12 = 25,5 avg damg BUT he also has reach AND a strong reaction filler that enhances his damg even more (and he dosent need two magic weapons, his divine favor/sacred weapon/elemental weapon / magic weapon buff applies to all attacks) the PAM fighter is hands down better in every single way. Why are some of you trying to dispute this ? TWF by raw sucks, stop trying to come to its defense for some weird reason - the math has been done 745645 times and it hasen't changed.

It annoys me that I have to be a condescending douche about this topic, but it annoys me even more that we have to rehash this topic every third week with the same lackluster math and the same lackluster arguments. You either accept that TWF is bad and fix it, or accept that TWF is bad and do nothing cause no one at your table actually cares - either is fine.

Thank you for the explanation.

From what I am seeing your objection is based on math that is already true in the basic game on round 2+. After that first round in a standard game the ranger and warlock get their hex and mark damage with two weapons the only difference that I am seeing is that you don't like that they get damage on turn one instead of turn two (and of course this happens again whenever they meet a new target). To me having those classes get their perks on their first turn using this style, just like every other style, is a perk not a problem. I don't think it makes any sense that a class like the ranger which in D&D is famously (though of course not required) a two weapon user actually has many of his abilities work poorly with it compared to other styles.

And I am not sure why you are surprised that damage went up 100% over the original. That is how much of a damage increase you always get from two weapon fighting at pre 5th level and if you have the fighting style (assuming you are using the same weapon in each hand of course) because you are going from one attack to two and they deal identical damage. If I use your example with no hunters mark you get an average of 7.5 damage per attack (by the way I am assuming you actually meant a level 2 ranger as a level does not have the fighting style or any spells to cast hunters mark) and so if you use two weapon fighting it goes up to 15 which is a 100% increase in RAW two weapon fighting damage (which is why two weapon fighting works at low levels as that is when it is a great increase).

Even in the current raw the damage you say is too high already exists just not on turn one but every round after that until a target dies. For me I just don't feel that a one round bump in damage is worth ditching an idea which would allow characters to be able to not lose their fighting style any time they want to use one of their many class abilities based on bonus actions when no other fighting style has to deal with that especially on classes that are supposedly built with two weapon fighting firmly in mind.

Sigreid

2016-10-01, 01:19 PM

I think this thread is solving a problem that doesn't really exist. IMO the only people that TWF isn't a viable option for is the high level fighter with 3-4 attacks per round. Basically, only the single class fighter finds it less and less useful as they level up.

Lollerabe

2016-10-01, 01:35 PM

MeeposFire

2016-10-01, 02:15 PM

It's not just for the fighter TWF sucks - read the thread and check the math, it's for every class besides rogue.

Mepoos it's not just round 1, reapplying hex/HM is a BA too and that happens a lot, removing that ups the damage by a lot.

TWF isn't a 100% increase by raw, well yeah compared to wielding a single shortsword and nothing else but why do that anyway.

I also think the removal of the BA is super broken on rogues, as mentioned the BA for damage trade is a pretty important combat balance aspect of 5E.

Hell clerics would also be way to strong with that buff, spiritual weapon and the full benefit of TWF ? Sounds way to strong.

Of course it ups the damage that would be the point of the endeavor. I know hex and the like is a bonus action and is one of the reasons why I want TWF to not be a bonus action. You only have those abilities so long and they cost your concentration so they had better be good and it does not seem right that it works great with every other fighting style except the supposed most iconic style in the game for the ranger. That is a bug not a feature.

I compared it that way because that is exactly what you did. If you are at low levels and you have only one attack and you TWF using the same weapon in the other hand with the fighting style it is always a 100% boost (unless of course you have something that only applies to one attack or the like but we are comparing a case where that is not true). It does not matter if you have the feat and are using rapiers or without the feat and use short swords the same thing happens. The only way that does not happen is if you start comparing two different attacks but we have not done that so far.

On a rogue what it ends up doing is making them more reliable. Most of what a rogue does is based on one hit. A second successful attack is only worth between 2.5-4.5 damage (rogues do not get attribute to damage naturally) which is not a bonus that breaks the game. What it does do is make them far more reliable in applying their sneak attack damage as compared to before and lets your typical rogue play more like the swashbuckler while the swashbuckler gets in my system the ability to use their bonus action on making an additional attack that other rogues generally may not be willing to do since they probably want to use disengage.

As for the cleric they are fairly MAD already and trying to make them able to utilize TWF effectively would put a damper on their casting. Spending an ASI or two on boosting your melee potential (str and TWF feats) would mean your wisdom would be down which affects spiritual weapon and all your other spells. It could certainly make them better with their at will damage in melee but there would be a cost to their casting (or their TWF would suffer you typically have to choose one) which quite frankly is generally more powerful . In addition like many major spell casters many spells are concentration (not spiritual weapon of course but many others) which means they would much rather not get hit and so shields have a lot of utility for them. Opportunity costs are big especially with a class like the cleric.

Lollerabe

2016-10-01, 02:23 PM

All fair points - at the end of the day if it works for you and your table then that's great of course. I personally don't like the approach and prefer a second OH attack, but hey to each their own.

MeeposFire

2016-10-01, 02:36 PM

All fair points - at the end of the day if it works for you and your table then that's great of course. I personally don't like the approach and prefer a second OH attack, but hey to each their own.

I agree with that for sure. For instance if you are like Kryx and his group you don't like the damage boost from the -5/+10 feats then yea this certainly would not be for you. If you are in the groups I see where I am that sort of damage is desired and so this variant may be more appropriate.

I for one might be still reliving my issues from 3e where getting constantly screwed out of using your TWF skills happens all the time by just doing basic things your class should be doing (like say moving 10 feet grrr) and so losing my TWF skills every time I want to use some basic class abilities really bug me.

I am still tweaking it anyway (if I don't mind making it "clunky" I could keep it as a bonus action at low levels when TWF is really strong and make it no action later when it gets weaker and thus cover this time period where other fighting styles do not have the number of attacks to get ahead yet) as I for one am also not all that happy with the great weapon fighting style either as it does not actually boost max damage (it just increases the average) unlike every other offensive style where it improves both. I also don't like how it is the only style that can potentially lower your damage (re roll a 2 and get a 1).

Lollerabe

2016-10-01, 03:52 PM

Oh regarding -5/+10 me and Kryx couldn't disagree more than we are, we have argued over that many a times. I just don't think the BA removal is the right way since I don't think that's the core of the problem, I believe the core problem is pitiful damage which a second OH attack removes. I also changed the fightstyle etc but that's in the thread I linked.

I think both Zman and Kryx did the math on the removal of the BA for TWF and both came to the same conclusion as me (more likely I came to the same conclusion as them) that it wasent the way to go about it.

If you have tried your way in action and it worked out fine then that's great, personally I've realized that 5e is tricky to balance due to how action economy and bounded accuracy works.

Kryx

2016-10-01, 05:34 PM

BA removal is definitely not the fix. It doesn't add any value for many of the classes that struggle with TWF. Both ZMan and I considered it.

Also on -5/+10 I'd rather not dive into it again as we've discussed it a hundreds times before, but real quick: the damage is an issue as you'd have to correct every class to fit the higher damage (and trying to compete with Barbarian and OoV Paladin who has easy access to advantage). But it's also a trap issue as it's not good against higher AC which most GMs will employ for boss fights.

But TWF: The flavor of TWF is a bunch of attacks. By RAW it has just as many as PAM, but with less damage. I recommend getting rid of the bonus action on PAM, but the reason I mention this is because TWF's niche is multiple attacks. Adding a 2nd bonus action attack at 11th level plays to that niche while also making it a competitive option (expected amount in line with GWM, PAM, S&B).

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-01, 09:39 PM

Wait why would a hand crossbow user have both hands being used? They only need one crossbow to use their bonus action attack and that leaves their other hand open for reloading.

The bonus action precludes this. It requires that the hand crossbow be loaded already, but it also requires an attack by a one handed weapon. If the hand crossbow were the one handed weapon it would now be unloaded, and therefore ineligible for the bonus action.

What Meepos said - Crossbow guy doesn't dual-wield. He uses a Crossbow with an empty hand for reloading.

Just look what I posted above for the Barbarian. During that first round, a GWM Barb inflicts 38.4825 damage while the non GWM Barb inflicts 36.395. You don't really need to bother doing any more math to see pretty clearly that an extra +1 to attack and damage rolls on both attacks would easily push the non-GWM Barb ahead in DPR (Although he is already capped in Strength, so he shouldn't actually be able to do that). That test already had the bonus action in use too, so GWM's secondary benefit is irrelevant in that case (not that it matters since it seems that you guys were only discussing the +10/-5 aspect).

As mentioned above, empty handing would not allow the bonus action to occur ever.

Secondly, if the goal is to demonstrate that GWM is worth two ASI then the comparison necessarily must be between a character with 4 fewer stat points in their strength. I.e. Str 16 with GWM vs Str 20 (or 18 to simulate 1 ASI)

gwm only provides a net gain when the loss from -5 hits is less than bonus damage on remaining hits.

Of course since the alternative would be one additional hit and every hit would deal 1 more damage, the value bar is a bit higher.

The tipping point for a greatsword (without taking into account class features) at level 1 would be AC 13 and AC 14; at AC 14+ the ASI is simply better.

MeeposFire

2016-10-01, 09:50 PM

The bonus action precludes this. It requires that the hand crossbow be loaded already, but it also requires an attack by a one handed weapon. If the hand crossbow were the one handed weapon it would now be unloaded, and therefore ineligible for the bonus action.

As mentioned above, empty handing would not allow the bonus action to occur ever.

Secondly, if the goal is to demonstrate that GWM is worth two ASI then the comparison necessarily must be between a character with 4 fewer stat points in their strength. I.e. Str 16 with GWM vs Str 20 (or 18 to simulate 1 ASI)

gwm only provides a net gain when the loss from -5 hits is less than bonus damage on remaining hits.

Of course since the alternative would be one additional hit and every hit would deal 1 more damage, the value bar is a bit higher.

The tipping point for a greatsword (without taking into account class features) at level 1 would be AC 13 and AC 14; at AC 14+ the ASI is simply better.

The ability requires you to have the crossbow loaded before you use the bonus action, which frankly is obvious since you cannot fire an unloaded crossbow. That being said the ability does not say that the bonus action must come immediately after the attack action like the monk ability does and so you have time to reload the crossbow before using your bonus action to fire again. Remember it no longer requires any action to load that crossbow now that you have the feat. Remember we have precedence in things like shield master and other abilities that use a bonus action based off of a trigger.

Vogonjeltz

2016-10-01, 09:53 PM

The ability requires you to have the crossbow loaded before you use the bonus action, which frankly is obvious since you cannot fire an unloaded crossbow. That being said the ability does not say that the bonus action must come immediately after the attack action like the monk ability does and so you have time to reload the crossbow before using your bonus action to fire again. Remember it no longer requires any action to load that crossbow now that you have the feat. Remember we have precedence in things like shield master and other abilities that use a bonus action based off of a trigger.

If it's no loaded when the attack with a one handed weapon occurs then no bonus action exists, those are the requirements.

Saggo

2016-10-02, 12:18 AM

If it's no loaded when the attack with a one handed weapon occurs then no bonus action exists, those are the requirements.

That's not actually true. It's not an explicit requirement in the book, it only needs be loaded at the time of the bonus action attack. The intent is also clear:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/12/crossbow-expert-bonus-action/
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/04/crossbow-expert/

By both the book and Sage Advice, you can use just one hand crossbow.

odigity

2016-10-02, 12:54 AM

A light weapon can't deal more then d6 according to design teams rules.

The design team had rules? Are these published somewhere? I've always wished for an inside look at the design theory used to produce the final result.

Sorry I snapped a bit

I enjoy a good snapping when justified, especially if it's well-articulated and/or funny.

djreynolds

2016-10-02, 02:42 AM

If you are an 11th level fighter, heck I'll give an extra off hand attack for 3 main and 2 off hand.

Its that easy to do.

If not, I use two weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you get a bonus rend which is double your proficiency bonus, up to +12 damage. It works and has been thoroughly play tested at my table.

Otherwise, 11 levels of fighter nets you an extra off hand attack and at 20th you'd get 3. Good enough.

Hunter's mark, hex, and divine favor and improved divine smite are also good avenues to look at.

Zalabim

2016-10-02, 07:35 AM

GWM is definitely vulnerable to high AC, but against average enemies within 3 challenge of the player's level a Fighter TWF does about 80% of what a Fighter GWM does.

Is that your band for the rolling average on the monster stats? Because I was wondering what basis you used to determine that.

For example, a level 5 PC (500-750 XP medium encounter, 3500 XP per adventure day) fighting a CR 3 monster (700 XP) is pretty similar to a level 20 PC (5700-8500 XP medium encounter, 40000 XP per adventure day) fighting a CR 12 (8400 XP) or CR 11 (7200 XP).

Basically, the acceptable band of monsters widens as PCs level. It's a fraction/multiplier. On the extreme ends, a party of 6 level 20's could go against a swarm of 16 CR 11's, or a solo CR 26, as a medium encounter, or a party of 3 level 20's would see 16 CR 9's, or a solo CR 20, as a medium encounter.

The DMG also says to take special notice that a higher CR opponent could just wreck your party, compared to equal and lower CR enemies.

Kryx

2016-10-02, 08:05 AM

Firstly, you're correct that the difference between level and challenge would rise as level rise.

But for the average it doesn't matter:
The problem with using a wider band of enemy challenge is that there are fewer and fewer enemies the higher you go up in challenge so the less accurate it becomes.
For example there are 44 challenge 5 monsters, but only 10 challenge 10. So this weights the values toward the lower end unless you just took the average for each challenge and then averaged those, but that has its own problems.

Even if I took just the average of AC per CR and took the average AC of enemies from CR 1/2 to CR 10 the average AC changes from 14.4 to 14.7. Basically negligible.

To calculate the value of -5/+10 you'd have to do much more complex analysis: Calculate the DPR against each AC, figure out how many monsters in your range have each AC, and then weighted averaged them to get a true DPR. In the end I expect I'd arrive at a number very very similar to the ones I currently have.

Zalabim

2016-10-02, 09:43 AM

It's not about the result, but the process. The process you're using has basically no resemblance to real table play or the suggestions in the book, so why use it? What you have is an average value for an opponent that is average CR 10(CR7-13, for example) rather than an average value for the average opponent fought at PC level 10 (CR 1/2-11, for example). Of course it's close enough for government work. I actually expected that considering a broader sample of CRs would result in a lower average AC though.

Anyway, if you fight both CR 10s and CR 5s at level 10, you're certainly fighting more CR 5s than CR10s because of the difference in their XP values, so it's not automatically a problem for there to be more CR 5s than CR 10s in the book. The scope of the difference does look like a problem, since 44/10 is a greater disparity than 5900/1800, even before accounting for the multiplier for larger encounter sizes, but the exact ratio is going to be extremely table-dependent anyway. You could weight the values based on the number of that CR that would make up an encounter instead, as another example.

I think that the small number of examples in the book at all makes getting an average less useful even before that point. The MM has only 8 CR 10s, and only 3 different ACs between them. Using your rolling average might help with that, and it's been good information to have consolidated to figure out common monster saving throw bonuses, for example. If you want to know how useful fireball or banishment is, you have a better idea of your common target (low CR vs high CR), so a target-based average is more appropriate.

I would lay out each total, and its appearance frequency, separately to give a more complete picture for anyone that's interested in understanding where GWM shines and by how much. That's just how I choose to operate though. I don't find much use in a single number that attempts to consolidate all those variables into one line. I don't expect you to change it. You do you, as they say.

I know this is a bit of a derailment, but I'm sure we can swing two different discussions in a thread about TWF. Topical humor makes this on-topic, right?

Kryx

2016-10-02, 10:06 AM

It's not about the result, but the process. The process you're using has basically no resemblance to real table play or the suggestions in the book, so why use it??
I'm going to have to stop you right there. Please see DMG 274 for the expected AC values. My numbers align very closely to those values.

I've encountered this "your spreadsheet isn't perfect" mindset before so let's make it simple:
Make your own spreadsheet for whatever you desire so we can compare. Or produce a spreadsheet that can give me an average AC for an enemy fought by a 5th level character. Assuming your results are more accurate I'm more than happy to use it. The monsters are all here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=14309157) so you have all the data.

I've encountered too many people that were unwilling to do the math themselves, but loved to complain. Ain't nobody for time for that.

Personally I don't care about -5/+10 beyond forum discussions as it doesn't exist in my games, but if I can make it more accurate then I will. As I outlined above I'm confident that the method I outlined above (damage against each AC distributed by percentage) will result in very similar numbers to what I have now.

For the TWF discussion -5/+10 doesn't matter as TWF is still far behind.