PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next TWF Changes with certain homebrewed built-in assumptions.



dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-02, 09:02 AM
EDIT: I jumped the gun a bit and would like to change the goal of this post so I've rewritten the OP.

I have a few design goals that I'm trying to achieve with changes to the system. These goals include the following:


Do away with the -5/+10 of Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master without devaluing them as feats or overvaluing other options like PAM.
Make TWF competitive while not overvaluing Dexterity.
Eliminate the concept of fighting with two large weapons like longswords, or even rapiers. One large weapon and one small weapon is fine.
Represent the concept of dual wielding as being good for defence and opening up attack opportunities but not better than sword & board.
Make the base TWF use ability damage on the off-hand without a fighting style.
Make the TWF style & Dual Wielder feats balanced and worthwhile.


I'm mainly trying to do this because all elements I'm trying to eliminate I really don't like and all the elements I'm trying to incorporate are what I like. It's really no more complex or meaningful than that.

Kryx
2016-10-02, 11:32 AM
Requiring a feat to have a playstyle be possible shouldn't be a thing. Much of that concept existed in PF, but it was largely done away with in 5e.

Eyeballing the math:
Trading 1 attack for advantage (3rd bullet point for Dual Wielder) will result in negative DPR in nearly all cases. For a rogue they might as well have attacked with both as the result would be the same.
TWF still does the same (poor) damage.
GWM is still powerful.
PAM is by far the best option now and makes TWF not worth taking as PAM has a bonus attack from a feat as well and produces much higher damage
Sharpshooter: -5/+10 is gone, but you've kept the parts that ignore cover. Still a must have for every ranged character. Opinion: The cover rules are one of the few things holding together ranged and melee balancing. Removing them with a feat is too much imo.

Overall the base TWF math hasn't changed (besides -5/+10). TWF is still significantly behind, but now it costs a feat. GWM is nerfed, but PAM is still awesome.

dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-02, 02:17 PM
Requiring a feat to have a playstyle be possible shouldn't be a thing.
Well... if a class doesn't have armour, it requires a feat to get proficiency in it. But I guess you're right. Maybe I should've addressed this thread differently and simply stated my goals instead of already positing a "solution". In fact, I think I'll change the OP to reflect that.

Kryx
2016-10-02, 06:38 PM
Represent the concept of dual wielding as being good for defence and opening up attack opportunities but not better than sword & board.
This goal seems to conflict with your other design goals. TWF doing less damage than S&B while providing less AC and less utility (no prone or push) is never going to be desirable.

IMO TWF is a style that focuses on multiple attacks to reach similar damage thresholds that GWM or PAM can reach (a bit lower to account for Dex > Str).

To have it be utility focused the utility better be worth the loss of damage in comparison to the other options available.

dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-02, 06:57 PM
TWF doing less damage than S&B while providing less AC and less utility (no prone or push) is never going to be desirable.

Is it, though?

Firstly, I never said less damage than S&B, I said alternatives that don't make it superior to S&B. TWF in history was about giving a defensive option that wasn't as cumbersome to carry around as a shield (also why bucklers were so popular) and about using the OH weapon to create attack opportunities with the MH, like imbalancing an opponent with a parry, etc. But I don't want S&B to suddenly become the bastard step-child that nobody loves, so TWF can't be superior to it.

TWF also means more chances of doing crits and more chances to hit and deliver on-hit effects and extra damage. For the rogue, for instance, TWF is primarily about getting an extra chance to do SA so that delivering SA is more reliable. A nova from a Battlemaster with TWF can be utterly devastating. Even the champion can get a benefit out of it, although their issues are something to be dealt with elsewhere.

Then there's the matter of having magical weapons. TWF with a frostbrand and flame tongue, for instance, or if you like effects, how about a vorpal and nine-lives stealer?

So I don't know if it's really all that bad to have a design goal that delivers alternative options that aren't better than S&B, just different.

Kryx
2016-10-02, 07:20 PM
Perhaps I misinterpreted

Represent the concept of dual wielding as being good for defence and opening up attack opportunities but not better than sword & board.
I read that as less damage than S&B, but perhaps you meant something else.



A nova from a Battlemaster with TWF can be utterly devastating.
A nova from a TWF would be faaaaar less damage than a nova from either GWM or PAM based on the rules you originally presented.

For example (Fighter):
Level 5:
TWF: 20 DPR
S&B: 20 DPR
PAM: 24 DPR

Level 11:
TWF: 32 DPR
S&B: 35 DPR
PAM: 39 DPR

Your houserules make TWF worse than those numbers.


If your vision of TWF is basically S&B, but different. You'll have to present changes that accomplish this as the ones you originally presented did not meet this goal - TWF was just worse than RAW.

TWF requiring 2 magical weapons is a negative, not a positive. Crits being more common is nice, but barely makes any dent in the DPR difference.

dropbear8mybaby
2016-10-02, 07:37 PM
A nova from a TWF would be faaaaar less damage than a nova from either GWM or PAM based on the rules you originally presented.

Is this assuming no changes to either GWM or PAM?

Kryx
2016-10-03, 06:50 AM
Your originally proposed alterations had no impact on PAM.

The numbers I presented above did not include GWM. Here are those same levels with GWM (doesn't have your crit rule, or your "all TWF requires a feat" rule):

Level 5:
TWF: 20 DPR
S&B: 20 DPR
PAM: 24 DPR
GWM (no -5/+10): 23 DPR
GWM (-5/+10): 27 DPR

Level 11:
TWF: 32 DPR
S&B: 35 DPR
PAM: 39 DPR
GWM (no -5/+10): 39 DPR
GWM (-5/+10): 43 DPR


My alterations remove the bonus action from PAM, remove -5/+10 from GWM, give TWF an extra attack at 11 and that's pretty equivalent in balance.