A small change to Two Weapon Fighting & Sneak Attack Damage

[fishdad]

There are several threads showing that two weapon fighting does not have the best damage per round. So with that assumption, I have a thought about how two weapon fighting and sneak attack damage could be changed. We know that you can only apply sneak attack damage on one attack per turn. Which seems realistic. Once you jab someone in the kidney they will probably not let you do it again. What if you made a dexterity check (or strength whatever stat you are attacking with) that determines subsequent sneak attack damage.

For example: 3rd level rogue/2nd level fighter duel wielding short swords, action surges for 3 attacks. 1st attack sneak attack damages applies as normal. 2nd attack you hit but need to roll a Dex save DC of 15 to see if you apply sneak attack. 3rd attack you hit again DC is now 16.

Basically every hit increases the DC for subsequent sneak attack damage.

If all goes well the damage is something like 9d6 + (12) = to about 48ish damage. (Assuming +4 damage from ability) Not really that overpowered. Since you blew your action surge and bonus action. And you had to make a lot of hits and DC's.

A little complicated, I know, but seems realistic and may balance the damage per round disparity that 2-weapon fighting faces.

What do you think?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Considering a single round of combat is intended to be 6 seconds of actual fighting, it does kind of make sense that you could sneak attack someone with each strike. I'd be pretty surprised if I was getting shanked three or four times when I've already got this hulking mad barbarian trying to cleave me in two.

I can understand why you'd think it would be more realistic that it would be more difficult to get in those vital hits, but it's easy to forget that combat takes mere moments.

edit: I seem to have misunderstood what you wrote, the idea seems good actually. It adds a feeling like they have to work at not being caught unaware.

[Specter]

This adds needless complication to the rogue's turns, and makes their damage even higher than it already is. I would never use it, but to each his own.

[MeeposFire]

Your answer does not actually solve the problem you brought up.

First sneak attack is the one area where TWF actually works. The second attack does great things for your expected damage per round because it greatly increases your chances of getting that sneak attack to happen. SO you are boosting the one area of TWF that does not need a boost as this actually works fine.

More importantly this idea does nothing to fix the actual problem which is TWF with most warrior type classes where the style has no real niche over other styles and requires an additional action cost to boot. For a straight fighter how does this fix TWF? That is where TWF kind of fails not with rogues and sneak attack. If you feel general TWF needs a fix then you have to make a fix that applies to general TWF not to just sneak attack (which again is the one area that does NOT need the fix).

[fishdad]

Couple thoughts:
Not trying to fix two-weapon fighting - the damage per round is lower so combat wise it is not optimized but it has style points and may fit into a character concept which is really what the game is about. If I was going to fix it, it would have extra attacks at later levels much like 3.5 did but 5e doesn't really work the same way so I will leave it alone.

I disagree that sneak attack with two weapon fighting is even. It helps but still not really worth it.

Using my previous example with rules as written: 3 rogue/2 fighter, duel wielding, short swords, +4 dex, action surge attacks 3 time, 1 has sneak attack damage. Essentially 5d6 + 12 about 36 damage.

A 5th level fighter can action surge for 4 attacks all with a bigger weapon and throw in nifty feats and styles for more damage (GWF) and you still have your bonus action. Even if just a longsword and dueling fighting style the damage is 4d8 + 20 about 40 damage.

My alteration gives you a CHANCE to beat Great Weapon Fighter and the Sword and Board style, but not making it overpowered. Thus making it more attractive to optimizer's.

Really I think the game is really balanced overall but somethings just don't measure up so I was trying to even them out.

Thanks for input

[MeeposFire]

Couple thoughts:
Not trying to fix two-weapon fighting - the damage per round is lower so combat wise it is not optimized but it has style points and may fit into a character concept which is really what the game is about. If I was going to fix it, it would have extra attacks at later levels much like 3.5 did but 5e doesn't really work the same way so I will leave it alone.

I disagree that sneak attack with two weapon fighting is even. It helps but still not really worth it.

Using my previous example with rules as written: 3 rogue/2 fighter, duel wielding, short swords, +4 dex, action surge attacks 3 time, 1 has sneak attack damage. Essentially 5d6 + 12 about 36 damage.

A 5th level fighter can action surge for 4 attacks all with a bigger weapon and throw in nifty feats and styles for more damage (GWF) and you still have your bonus action. Even if just a longsword and dueling fighting style the damage is 4d8 + 20 about 40 damage.

My alteration gives you a CHANCE to beat Great Weapon Fighter and the Sword and Board style, but not making it overpowered. Thus making it more attractive to optimizer's.

Really I think the game is really balanced overall but somethings just don't measure up so I was trying to even them out.

Thanks for input

Well you are comparing some pretty bad examples. First you are comparing a single classed fighter versus a multiclass one at a time when the multiclass fighter is at a BIG disadvantage. Did you realize that the TWF fighter due to your multiclassing has the same number of attacks as the single class fighter when not action surge? In other words you have put the TWF behind right at the start since he does not have extra attack which means the sneak attack is being used to compensate for not having extra attack. Further you give the great weapon fighter a feat and also do not factor in accuracy which is a huge deal as that -5 to hit does make a big difference especailly if you can't grant yourself advantage on the attack roll.

Also you math is off 5d6+12 is an average of 29.5 and 4d8+20v is 38 but note that the difference is less when you are not using action surge (and this will be important later). Typically your SA guy will be dealing 4d6+8 for 22 damage while your long sword fighter will be dealing 2d8+10 which is 19 so the two weapon guy will be ahead except the 1/short rest you use action surge. Heck if we went with a level 5 TWF he would be dealing 5d8+20 or 42.5 (with a feat) or 5d6+25 which is also 42.5 (if you went for an extra ASI instead).

That is a big reason your vision is being skewed and it is a reason why two weapon fighting has problems but you are ignoring it. Action surge gives you an extra action which benefits the fighter more (they get two extra attacks while your multiclass only gets one) and on top of that the real issue is that a TWF gets no benefit from action surge since they do not get a bonus action to use it again.


Sneak attack is not the issue. DO the math on a single class rogue between using SA with and without two weapon fighting. The difference is significant. Multiclassing will confuse the issue because when you do that you make the SA worth less and once you get extra attack then the big bonus you get from TWF with sneak attack is also diminished.

What you are actually showing here is not that sneak attack is the problem but that things like action surge do not work with TWF which can certainly be seen as a problem for TWF that needs to be fixed for something like the fighter.