How to improve two weapon fighting? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Max_LeVille

2020-01-08, 12:45 PM

1. Two-Weapon fighting: When wielding a light melee weapon in each hand, you may make an additional attack roll as part of the Attack action with your off hand. However, do not add your ability modifier to the damage roll of the off-hand attack, unless the modifier is negative. If either weapon you are wielding have the thrown property, you can throw the weapon instead of making a melee weapon attack. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you may make as many off-hand attacks as you have extra attacks.

Change 1 brings dual wielding up to the level of two-handed weapons, with additional attack rolls (more chances to roll hits, crits, or misses) that hopefully wouldn't slow down combat too much; in most cases it's only an extra 2 dice rolled.

2. Two-weapon Fighting Style: As a Bonus Action, you may make an additional attack with your off-hand weapon if you took the Attack Action. You can add your ability modifier to the damage roll of this attack.

Change 2 gives you one more chance to crit-fish, and does much more damage than the other fighting styles at the cost of action economy (and falls off as the other fighting styles get more attacks from class features).

3. Dual Wielder Feat:
-You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
-You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
-You can draw or sheathe one-handed weapons as part of your attacks during combat.

Change 3 keeps dual wielding competitive with other feats, but balances offense and defense. It also allows for real thrown weapon builds with the wording change to the last bullet.

4. Interacting with Objects Around You sidebar: Add bullet "Draw or sheathe two light melee weapons", and change "draw or sheathe a sword" to "draw or sheathe one weapon that doesn't have the light property".

Change 4 makes it explicitly possible to use two-weapon fighting out of the gate.

BigRedJedi

2020-01-08, 12:48 PM

TWF Basic: Must be light weapons in both hands, add the offhand weapon die to damage of mainhand. May draw/stow 2 light weapons as single item interaction.

TWF Style: Add +1 damage and +1 AC while dual wielding.

TWF Feat: Remove Light restriction on weapons, add after taking the Attack action, can make bonus action attack with offhand weapon (adding ability modifier as normal attack). Draw/stow 2 weapons of any type as one item interaction.

Have run three players (Rogue, Ranger, Fighter) with TWF using this and they have all been very happy. Feels effective but not 'too' strong.

diplomancer

2020-01-08, 12:53 PM

I feel that is the problem an occasional 5 or so damage isn't worth giving up 2 ac. Certainly not unplayable but not a reasonable choice.

5 or so damage... unless you are a Rogue who missed your first attack, or a Ranger or Pact of the Blade Warlock who adds 1d6 damage if already concentrating on Hunter's Mark/Hex, or a Paladin who adds 1d8 damage from level 11, and can smite if necessary (and most probably WILL smite on a crit).

djreynolds

2020-01-08, 12:58 PM

Two weapon rend.

Basically if you hit with main hand and off hand.

You can add your proficiency bonus in damage or double. Tables decision.

It is the easiest thing to do. Easy to implement. Simple. 5E.

I have used this over multiple campaigns and players no complaints.

The damage adds up as you can imagine how much GWM and SS miss.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 01:31 PM

5 or so damage... unless you are a Rogue who missed your first attack, or a Ranger or Pact of the Blade Warlock who adds 1d6 damage if already concentrating on Hunter's Mark/Hex, or a Paladin who adds 1d8 damage from level 11, and can smite if necessary (and most probably WILL smite on a crit).

Rogue is an obvious exception and I was more referring to a statement that someone is using it without any real investment.
Though with ranger, warlock, and paladin a Polearm is just better.

diplomancer

2020-01-08, 01:40 PM

Rogue is an obvious exception and I was more referring to a statement that someone is using it without any real investment.
Though with ranger, warlock, and paladin a Polearm is just better.

As long as you are str based (or cha based in the case of warlock), and the DM tends to tailor magic items to the players. The strength ranger, in particular, though a flavorful choice, is not optimal at all.

Danielqueue1

2020-01-08, 01:42 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e.

No. It's just on forums. You know the places where people assume their attacks always hit, everyone wants to take a feat instead of an ASI, all variant options are allowed, everyone is magically at the exact level where their point is best, and people who actually do the math are often ignored.

Dual wielding doesn't inherently suck, it's just the classes that benefit from it most don't have access to the fighting style. Paladins get an extra chance to smite, rogues get an extra chance to sneak attack if they miss their 1 attack per round, barbarians get an extra attack to apply their rage damage to and if they are a subclass with rider affects on hits they get an extra chance to apply it. (Can be important against high AC enemies when reckless attack would be too dangerous)

(2d6+7)×2 ~28 (greatsword barbarian with max strength and no feats)
vs
(1d6+7)×3 ~31.5 (dual wielding shortsword barbarian who somehow got the fighting style)
puting 2 weapon fighting on a raging barbarian will out-damage the same barbarian using a greatsword.

The problem isn't dual wielding itself. It is that the people who would benefit the most from the fighting style have to multiclass to get it.

Only reason dual wielding ranger struggles is that hunters mark and offhand attack both require the bonus action, otherwise it would consistently out-pace everyone that isn't combat-optimized.

stoutstien

2020-01-08, 01:53 PM

No. It's just on forums. You know the places where people assume their attacks always hit, everyone wants to take a feat instead of an ASI, all variant options are allowed, everyone is magically at the exact level where their point is best, and people who actually do the math are often ignored.

Dual wielding doesn't inherently suck, it's just the classes that benefit from it most don't have access to the fighting style. Paladins get an extra chance to smite, rogues get an extra chance to sneak attack if they miss their 1 attack per round, barbarians get an extra attack to apply their rage damage to and if they are a subclass with rider affects on hits they get an extra chance to apply it. (Can be important against high AC enemies when reckless attack would be too dangerous)

(2d6+7)×2 ~28 (greatsword barbarian with max strength and no feats)
vs
(1d6+7)×3 ~31.5 (dual wielding shortsword barbarian who somehow got the fighting style)
puting 2 weapon fighting on a raging barbarian will out-damage the same barbarian using a greatsword.

The problem isn't dual wielding itself. It is that the people who would benefit the most from the fighting style have to multiclass to get it.

Only reason dual wielding ranger struggles is that hunters mark and offhand attack both require the bonus action, otherwise it would consistently out-pace everyone that isn't combat-optimized.

-a ranger using duelist beats TWF even without PaM cheese. a lot of the rangers spells a subclass features are dependent on a bonus action
-you forgot to factor the round one loss of the bonus action attack for the barbarian due to rage. it will take 3 or more rounds for them to catch up the great sword counterpart.

the only time it out paces the other options is prior to level 5 when extra attack comes online and that is still only in a game without feats.

malachi

2020-01-08, 01:54 PM

What about some combination of the following to get added to the feat?
A) Creatures that move within your reach provoke opportunity attacks (instead of simply when they leave your reach).
B) You gain an additional reaction each round that can only be used to make an opportunity attack. You may only make one opportunity attack a turn (to prevent you from just smacking one guy twice for moving one square), and if you make two opportunity attacks in a round, they must be with different weapons.

This way, when you compare different melee options with feat + style, you get (with max stat and 2 attacks):
- TWF: 3x (1d8+stat), 2 OAs and +1 AC. Total = 18.5 - 30.9 dmg with a 65% hit chance (24.7 with only 1 OA trigger).
- PAM: 2x (1d10+stat) + (1d4+stat), 1 OA and reach. Total = 19.9 - 27.2 dmg with a 65% hit chance (or 24.2 - 34.1 w/ GWM and BA trigger).
- PAM spear+shield: 2x (1d8+stat+2) + (1d4+stat+2), 1 OA and +2 AC. Total = 21.1 - 28.6 dmg with a 65% hit chance.
- GWF greataxe: 2x (1d12+stat) plus 1 OA and potential BA attack. Total = 17.0 - 25.6 dmg with a 65% hit chance (includes GWM), or 34.5 with the BA attack for crit/kill (includes GWM and OA).

This gives a scenario where TWF has the highest damage (multiple enemies who trigger the OAs) while still keeping it distinct in function from GWM and/or PAM.

Edit: Added that the additional reaction can only be used to make OAs, since Teaguethebean noticed that was missing here.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 02:02 PM

No. It's just on forums. You know the places where people assume their attacks always hit, everyone wants to take a feat instead of an ASI, all variant options are allowed, everyone is magically at the exact level where their point is best, and people who actually do the math are often ignored.

I disagree but simply leaving it at I disagree wouldn't be a reasonable way to break down the problem.

Dual wielding doesn't inherently suck, it's just the classes that benefit from it most don't have access to the fighting style. Paladins get an extra chance to smite, rogues get an extra chance to sneak attack if they miss their 1 attack per round, barbarians get an extra attack to apply their rage damage to and if they are a subclass with rider affects on hits they get an extra chance to apply it. (Can be important against high AC enemies when reckless attack would be too dangerous)

Rogues are an exception that everyone can agree on. A swashbuckler makes great use of two weapons because the weapon dice hardly matters and it doubles your chances keeping it permanently viable.
Paladins would rather use Polearm master as would Barbarians.

(2d6+7)×2 ~28 (greatsword barbarian with max strength and no feats)
vs
(1d6+7)×3 ~31.5 (dual wielding shortsword barbarian who somehow got the fighting style)
puting 2 weapon fighting on a raging barbarian will out-damage the same barbarian using a greatsword.

Key words are who got the style somehow and featless.Also you are ignoring the chance for landing a crit as with crits the greatsword users damage raises 1.372 and the scimitar raises 1.029 leaving it hardly better. Additionally a glaive with Polearm master becomes a far better option allowing GWM and deals more damage even without it. And you are spending a bonus action to do about 3 more damage per turn regardless. Also this ignore the loss of damage turn one from using the rage.

Only reason dual wielding ranger struggles is that hunters mark and offhand attack both require the bonus action, otherwise it would consistently out-pace everyone that isn't combat-optimized.
Yes but alas it does meaning it doesn't.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 02:07 PM

You gain an additional reaction each round that can be used to make an opportunity attack. You may only make one opportunity attack a turn (to prevent you from just smacking one guy twice for moving one square), and if you make two opportunity attacks in a round, they must be with different weapons.

What about instead we made it so there opportunity attacks were two strikes on the same enemy. It could help shore up there shortcomings with a sizable boost to opportunity attacks.
Also I would avoid giving multiple reactions because that would lead to vastly broken combos for Counterspellers and would generally not enhance most builds we are trying to help.

stoutstien

2020-01-08, 02:22 PM

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 02:40 PM

I did try the two weapon strike AAO but found them to be too inconsistent.

That makes sense glad someone could provide some insight.

malachi

2020-01-08, 02:45 PM

What about instead we made it so there opportunity attacks were two strikes on the same enemy. It could help shore up there shortcomings with a sizable boost to opportunity attacks.
Also I would avoid giving multiple reactions because that would lead to vastly broken combos for Counterspellers and would generally not enhance most builds we are trying to help.

I read your first point as replacing (B) from my post with the TWF feat giving two attacks for the OA (and not as adding that on to my existing suggestion, which would be a lot :smalleek: ). Your suggestion increases the average damage done per turn without affecting the overall damage dealt (only 1 trigger required to hit my listed max, instead of 2) while also keeping the damage more focused, which are all good points from an optimization point of view.
My original thought was to change the feel of TWF (and the niches where it's most useful) from the other damage types by allowing it to hit multiple enemies with OAs, but your idea is one I've seen tossed around every now and then. Additionally, it allows, for instance, a Rogue to use Uncanny Dodge and still make a single OA.

For your second point: good catch. I edited my above post to indicate that the 2nd reaction can ONLY be used for OAs. No countering two spells in a single round, or using Uncanny Dodge twice in a round, or using both Counterspell and Uncanny Dodge in the same round, etc.

I did try the two weapon strike AAO but found them to be too inconsistent.

I played around with just allowing the offhand attack to key of the reaction to free up the bonus action but it made rogues and to a lesser extent monks jump too far up.

What made 2x attacks on a single OA inconsistent? That the characters only seemed to do good damage if they were getting OAs, but they were too weak otherwise?

Grognerd

2020-01-08, 02:49 PM

The off hand attack only requires a bonus action if you lack the extra attack feature, otherwise it can be done as part of the attack action.

This was my fix, except I didn't even require the extra attack feature. Just modified it so that TWF the off-hand attack was part of the first weapon attack, and they still had their bonus action for other purposes.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 02:56 PM

This was my fix, except I didn't even require the extra attack feature. Just modified it so that TWF the off-hand attack was part of the first weapon attack, and they still had their bonus action for other purposes.

Main reason I add the requirement is because rogues don't need more incentive to use two weapons. Additionally the off hand attack is very strong at tier 1 making the bonus action cost feel fair, but by tier 2 it falls behind.

stoutstien

2020-01-08, 02:59 PM

Main reason I add the requirement is because rogues don't need more incentive to use two weapons. Additionally the off hand attack is very strong at tier 1 making the bonus action cost feel fair, but by tier 2 it falls behind.

To add to this, it further buffs two weapon fighting in tier one where it arguably too strong and it has strange interaction with monks, PaM, and other forms of bonus action attacks.

JNAProductions

2020-01-08, 03:02 PM

No. It's just on forums. You know the places where people assume their attacks always hit, everyone wants to take a feat instead of an ASI, all variant options are allowed, everyone is magically at the exact level where their point is best, and people who actually do the math are often ignored.

Dual wielding doesn't inherently suck, it's just the classes that benefit from it most don't have access to the fighting style. Paladins get an extra chance to smite, rogues get an extra chance to sneak attack if they miss their 1 attack per round, barbarians get an extra attack to apply their rage damage to and if they are a subclass with rider affects on hits they get an extra chance to apply it. (Can be important against high AC enemies when reckless attack would be too dangerous)

(2d6+7)×2 ~28 (greatsword barbarian with max strength and no feats)
vs
(1d6+7)×3 ~31.5 (dual wielding shortsword barbarian who somehow got the fighting style)
puting 2 weapon fighting on a raging barbarian will out-damage the same barbarian using a greatsword.

The problem isn't dual wielding itself. It is that the people who would benefit the most from the fighting style have to multiclass to get it.

Only reason dual wielding ranger struggles is that hunters mark and offhand attack both require the bonus action, otherwise it would consistently out-pace everyone that isn't combat-optimized.

How does your Barbarian get the Fighting Style?

A more realistic scenario is as follows, with hit chance being ignored because it's equal for them.

Round 1
Two attacks at 2d6+7, for 28 damage
Two attacks at 1d6+7, for 21 damage

Round 2
Two attacks at 2d6+7, for 28 damage
Three attacks at 1d6+7, for 31.5

Round 3
Two attacks at 2d6+7, for 28 damage
Three attacks at 1d6+7, for 31.5

And then combat is probably over, or at least the fight is decided.

So, total damage is:

84 for Greatsword/Maul
84 for Dual-Wielding

Huh. Odd coincidence. Neat.

But, this does assume a Fighting Style, which Barbarians do NOT natively have access to. If you take that out, it drops the damage of TWF by 10, for 74.

Zhorn

2020-01-08, 03:14 PM

Added to the baseline rule:
"At 11th level, a character using Two-Weapon Fighting can attack twice as a bonus action instead of once"

All other factors are left as per RAW (Fighting Style, Feats, attack and damage rolls).
Simple change that doesn't require a massive overhaul of rules, doesn't alter early game where TWF is strong, only mid and late game where it is arguably falling behind the other weapon combats.

JNAProductions

2020-01-08, 03:31 PM

Expected

2020-01-08, 03:55 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e. So. How would you fix it? or on that note, if it need to be totally redone, how would you do it?

There was a thread about this a few months ago found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?603122-Another-Two-Weapon-Fighting-Fix-Idea).

Here's what I suggested to improve two-weapon fighting and to make it viable compared to s&b and polearm builds:

My solution:
I suggest implementing a feat (let's call it Two-Weapon Mastery) that reads: While wielding two weapons, each with the light property, you can use your bonus action to enter a balanced stance for the remainder of your turn. If you take the attack action on that turn, you can make an additional weapon attack, using the off-hand weapon, for each attack as part of that action.

In addition:

The Dual Wielder feat will allow the light property requirement to be ignored, thus allowing a combination of any two melee weapons that lack the heavy, two-handed property.
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting will allow the damage modifier to be added to each additional off-hand attack.

How does this affect combat?
This provides martial classes with a competitive use for their bonus action (besides Polearm Master and Shield Master), discourages Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark abuse as it competes for the bonus action, doesn't affect low levels until level 5, scales with Extra Attack, strengthens dual-wielding Dex builds that would otherwise go ranged and take CBX+SS+FS: Archery, and provides an incentive to take both feats (Dual Wielder, and the new proposed feat, Two-Weapon Mastery) as well as the Fighting Style: TWF. All of the aforementioned options come at an opportunity cost. It has similar build taxes as GWM+PAM+Sentinel builds with the exception of one being a feature as opposed to a feat (Fighting Style: Two-weapon Fighting vs Sentinel).

Danielqueue1

2020-01-08, 05:35 PM

-a ranger using duelist beats TWF even without PaM cheese. a lot of the rangers spells a subclass features are dependent on a bonus action
-you forgot to factor the round one loss of the bonus action attack for the barbarian due to rage. it will take 3 or more rounds for them to catch up the great sword counterpart.

the only time it out paces the other options is prior to level 5 when extra attack comes online and that is still only in a game without feats.

If people read my post, they would notice that I did specify that there is a problem. Just that the problem isn't two weapon fighting itself, but who gets it.

Lets look at level 5 with 16 strength initially
Barbarian (raging)
PAM (1d10+5) ×2 ~21 if both hit first round and an aditional 7.5 each following round.

ASI (with fighting style) (1d6+6) x2 ~ 19 if both hit first round with additional 6.5 each followoling round. Thus catching up after round 2 and out matching it every round after. And a +1 to hit meaning you are hitting more often.

Subclassles fighter
PAM (1d10+3)x2+1d4+3 ~22.5
ASI (1d6+4)×3~22.5
Uh oh looks like somebody forgot you lose out on stats when you take a feat. and you get +1 to hit and can choose to focus dex if you want. PAM gets you easier reactions, but every attack you ever make for the next 4 levels will be with 1 less to hit. People make it sound like twf is useless when in reality, most of the game it will only be a few points behind. And if you are a battlemaster, stats affect not only attack and damage, but also save DCs.

ASI with dueling instead, (1d8+6)×2 ~21 if you have something to do with your bonus action this could be better, (like rangers)

The problem with 2 weapon fighting is that the only people who get the fighting style are the people who benefit from it the least.

Kane0

2020-01-08, 05:42 PM

Base Rule:
Weapons with the Thrown properly can be drawn freely like ammunition.

Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.

TWF Fighting Style:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the weapons you are wielding are not light

Dual Wielder Feat:
- You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks
- You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn.
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same target

Segev

2020-01-08, 05:51 PM

I feel that is the problem an occasional 5 or so damage isn't worth giving up 2 ac. Certainly not unplayable but not a reasonable choice.

All of my PCs manage to have ACs in the mid to high teens anyway, and I hit them fairly rarely with monsters that appear in the adventure I'm running (Tomb of Annihilation), regardless of CR (assuming they're not hitting more than 2x above their level, anyway). They're level 4.

This includes the ranger who prefers to dual-wield when in melee. (He's got the Archery fighting style, and uses that preferentially unless they need a backup front liner.)

redwizard007

2020-01-08, 06:04 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e. So. How would you fix it? or on that note, if it need to be totally redone, how would you do it?

I think you meant, a few people on the internet agree dual wielding isn't overpowered yet...

It's fine as is. Allowing a second item interaction would be ideal, but I've never had a player have an issue with it at a table.

drkillbydeath87

2020-01-08, 06:20 PM

These were some ideas I had kicking around since the last time this topic came up.

Two Weapon Fighting: (No style/Feat)

Whenever you make an attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the offhand attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw that weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style:

You can use two-weapon fighting even when the onehanded melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Dual Wielder Feat:

You can use a bonus action to concentrate on making powerful strikes with your offhand weapon, allowing you to add your ability modifiers to any attacks made with your offhand weapon.

It gets around the problem of Two Weapon Fighting being completely unusable in a situation where your bonus action was otherwise occupied, but having the feat occupy the Bonus Action was important to avoid stacking with the likes of PAM, Martial Arts, Crossbow Expert, etc. Obviously the feat is very strong, but considering it's competing with the likes of GWM that's to be expected.

I'm still not particularly happy with the Style, but included it as the style because the original Dual Wielder feat was too weak to be worth a feat, but not that far out of line with Great Weapon Fighter or Duelist, and I couldn't think of anywhere else an effect like that might go.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 08:19 PM

I think you meant, a few people on the internet agree dual wielding isn't overpowered yet...

It's fine as is. Allowing a second item interaction would be ideal, but I've never had a player have an issue with it at a table.
No I don't think that is what he meant. He meant mathematically dual weilding is worse and is asking how we would recommend making it as strong as other styles of combat. No more no less.

redwizard007

2020-01-08, 08:22 PM

No I don't think that is what he meant. He meant mathematically dual weilding is worse and is asking how we would recommend making it as strong as other styles of combat. No more no less.

And yet the suggested "fixes" have been stronger than existing options...

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 08:30 PM

And yet the suggested "fixes" have been stronger than existing options...

Were they? Which one would you say is too much I suggested allowing the off hand attack as part of the main action when taking the attack action. Without feats, a +4 modifier, and the appropriate fighting style the scimitar deals 22.5, and the greatsword user deals 24.66 repeating therefore with no optimization it is nearly equal. The guy who suggested allowing everyone the second attack I feel was making a poor decision as at lv1 a greatsword user does 11.33 repeating, while a dual weilder would do 13 while getting to use dex and giving rogues an unnecessary buff.

redwizard007

2020-01-08, 08:56 PM

Were they? Which one would you say is too much I suggested allowing the off hand attack as part of the main action when taking the attack action. Without feats, a +4 modifier, and the appropriate fighting style the scimitar deals 22.5, and the greatsword user deals 24.66 repeating therefore with no optimization it is nearly equal. The guy who suggested allowing everyone the second attack I feel was making a poor decision as at lv1 a greatsword user does 11.33 repeating, while a dual weilder would do 13 while getting to use dex and giving rogues an unnecessary buff.

Which? Jeez, I'd have to get on an actual PC to get all the quotes. From memory:

Making the extra attack not require a bonus action is too much. That would remove the only real limit on dual wielding. It also opens a new can of worms regarding action surge, multi-attack, and various spell interactions. Mostly, how many times a turn can it activate? Does it work with AoOs?

Removing the limit on item interactions would be tolerable if it didn't make machine-gun-spear-chucking a thing.

Stuff like that.

It doesn't look like you guys are trying to balance the fighting styles. It looks like you are trying to balance this particular style against another specific style that has had multiple feats stacked on top of it. Your baseline assumptions are wrong and thus your arguments and solutions are wrong. IMO, at least. Having said that, play how you want at your tables. I'm not hear to rain on your parade, just to point out that "everyone" doesn't agree with your premise.

And why isn't this in Homebrew?

Damon_Tor

2020-01-08, 08:59 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e. So. How would you fix it? or on that note, if it need to be totally redone, how would you do it?

From an older thread on the topic. Note that the rules presented below overwrite the rules as they exist now: dual wielding does not give a bonus action attack nor does an attack with an offhand weapon exclude a statmod from damage.

My current houserules are as follows:

Two Weapon Fighting: While wielding two one-handed light weapons, whenever you would make an attack with either weapon you can attack with two of those weapons instead. If you do, both attack rolls are made with disadvantage. (Note: this replaces the default rule that allows a bonus action attack)

Fighting Style- Two-Weapon Fighting: While using Two Weapon Fighting, one of the two attacks is made without disadvantage. You decide which.

Feat- Dual Wielder:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
While using two-weapon fighting you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the first attack. If that attack hits, the second attack gains a +10 bonus to its damage roll.

I tend to get pushback on these when I post them here, mostly from people who feel like taking disadvantage isn't worth the extra attacks. Mathematically, they're wrong. The design goal I had when I came up with these changes was for two-weapon fighting to outperform a two-handed weapon in terms of damage, especially versus a low AC target. Against high AC targets a two hander should remain superior, and if you do the math these changes do reflect that. I've simulated the DPR of several different classes with these changes and I'm pleased with the results.

The fact that this system does not require a bonus action means that classes which do use bonus actions can now benefit from two-weapon fighting. Most importantly in my mind: monks. It always struck me as particularly egregious that monks weren't able to make much use of fighting with two weapons, but this system allows for and encourages it.

It's also worth noting that there are other houserules at my table regarding the way obscuration works which make it more difficult to benefit from the "advantage+disadvantage" situation using a fog cloud and similar spells as a melee character: the effects of obscuration are reduced by 1 degree while within 5 feet of a creature unless more than one source of obscuration are combined. So even inside a fog cloud, when you get within 5 feet of a creature you are only lightly obscured instead of heavily obscured unless something else is also creating an obscured condition. This makes the tactic still viable for dual-wielders who throw their weapons and to a limited degree to whip users.

Kane0

2020-01-08, 09:05 PM

-Snip-

I don't know about the others, but I did my homework.

https://i.imgur.com/NSVZIsS.png

CTurbo

2020-01-08, 09:53 PM

I have always loved the flavor of TWF, and I don't think that TWF in itself is a problem in 5e. I think the PROBLEM is feat support and that other feats easily overpower. Dual Wielder is not THAT bad of a feat until you compare it to Polearm Master which is generally regarded as one of the strongest feats. It provides a reliable Bonus Action attack that automatically gets to add the Str mod, but then it also adds a conditional Reaction attack. Then Revenant Blade came along and made things even worse by allowing a +1 to Str/Dex.

So I think the best way to improve TWF in 5e is to get it more/better feat support. For starters, Dual Wielder needs to be improved a bit to bring it closer to par with the aforementioned feats. The simplest fix would be to just turn it into a half feat by allowing a +1 to Str/Dex.

I think there should be a second more powerful feat that possibly even requires the prerequisite of Dual Wielder be taken first and perhaps even have to have the Extra Attack feature to qualify.

Ultimately TWF needs to have as many off hand attacks as they get with their main hand. Yes that means a 20 level TWF would rattle off 8 attacks per round, but this would require 2 feats to optimize this.

Let's compare this to the current GWM with 2 attacks assuming 20 attack modifier and best case scenario weapon

2d6+5+10 x2 = 44 DPR
1d8+5 x4 = 38 DPR

GWM has a +6 DPR advantage but is less reliable to land each attack so I would consider this about even, but then the GWM has a chance each turn to make a 3rd 2d6+5+10 attack as a Bonus Action making it STILL clearly superior to TWF, but it's so much closer. Start throwing in things like Hunter's Mark, Hex, Rage bonus damage, etc, and TWF starts to gain back some ground on GWM because the more attacks you can make with those the better.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 10:25 PM

Which? Jeez, I'd have to get on an actual PC to get all the quotes. From memory:

Making the extra attack not require a bonus action is too much. That would remove the only real limit on dual wielding. It also opens a new can of worms regarding action surge, multi-attack, and various spell interactions. Mostly, how many times a turn can it activate? Does it work with AoOs?

Removing the limit on item interactions would be tolerable if it didn't make machine-gun-spear-chucking a thing.

Stuff like that.

True but that is why we are sharing our ideas so those that don't work can be replaced with far more fair ones.

It doesn't look like you guys are trying to balance the fighting styles. It looks like you are trying to balance this particular style against another specific style that has had multiple feats stacked on top of it. Your baseline assumptions are wrong and thus your arguments and solutions are wrong. IMO, at least. Having said that, play how you want at your tables. I'm not hear to rain on your parade, just to point out that "everyone" doesn't agree with your premise.

And why isn't this in Homebrew?

How are we comparing it to builds with feats tacked on I have been working off of an assumption of just a pure fighter taking the correct style. But feats also shouldn't be left out of the conversation because of how much two weapon fighting falls behind once feats come into play.

Dork_Forge

2020-01-08, 10:36 PM

How are we comparing it to builds with feats tacked on I have been working off of an assumption of just a pure fighter taking the correct style. But feats also shouldn't be left out of the conversation because of how much two weapon fighting falls behind once feats come into play.

Wait, i thought this was the normal thread where it's how it falls behind SS/GWM etc.

If you're not counting those things then how does TWF get such a bad rep? An additional attempt to get off an ability (Smite, Maneuvers, Hex, Hunters Mark,Sneak etc.) and do a potential 8.5 additional damage?

It's not as much as a spear and shield PAM with Duelist, but if you strip away the PAM the TWF is better damage by far.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 10:47 PM

It's not as much as a spear and shield PAM with Duelist, but if you strip away the PAM the TWF is better damage by far.

But at lv5 a fighter per say witha greatsword deals 4d6(reroll 1s)+8 while a shortsword user does 3d6+12 in total 24.66 repeating against 23.5 while very close a loss of 1.11 repeating damage seems negligible you are spending your bonus action to be worse. And even more a thing such as hex or Hunters Mark isn't immediately better as you miss out on you bonus action losing you 7.5 damage taking three more turns to finally be ahead of the greatsword user casting hex while spending your bonus action every turn. This makes the shortsword user unable to use other bonus action spells and abilities.
On sneak attack of course it is fine on a rogue. A paladin is more questionable unless you wanted to smite 3 times, until improved Divine smite comes into play but by then PaM or a Shield are already better options.

N7Paladin

2020-01-08, 11:09 PM

I want to make two weapon fighting overpowered.

That is really what is mostly being said here.

Every character I've played, save for my first and my newest one have all been dual-wielding. I have never felt lacking or being less optimized than other fighting styles (except for anything under the Wizard class). I actively choose a slightly lower AC by not picking up a shield, in order to have more damage output--it's a good balance, you wanna be more defensive? Choose a shield get a higher AC. Wanna go more on the offensive? Great! Grab that second weapon and deal more damage.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-08, 11:28 PM

Choose a shield get a higher AC. Wanna go more on the offensive? Great! Grab that second weapon and deal more damage.

Which is the goal but mathematically it is just a worse option then a greatsword which is a shame. I want a scimitar wielding whirlwind of death but that just isn't what we get sadly.

Kane0

2020-01-08, 11:32 PM

I want to make two weapon fighting overpowered.

That is really what is mostly being said here.

I don't recall stating as such.

I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions!

Dork_Forge

2020-01-08, 11:39 PM

But at lv5 a fighter per say witha greatsword deals 4d6(reroll 1s)+8 while a shortsword user does 3d6+12 in total 24.66 repeating against 23.5 while very close a loss of 1.11 repeating damage seems negligible you are spending your bonus action to be worse.

And even more a thing such as hex or Hunters Mark isn't immediately better as you miss out on you bonus action losing you 7.5 damage taking three more turns to finally be ahead of the greatsword user casting hex while spending your bonus action every turn.

This makes the shortsword user unable to use other bonus action spells and abilities.

On sneak attack of course it is fine on a rogue. A paladin is more questionable unless you wanted to smite 3 times, until improved Divine smite comes into play but by then PaM or a Shield are already better options.

I split your post up to make it easier to go bit by bit on a phone, I hope that makes sense!

1.11 damage behind seems pretty negligible, especially when the TWF has more reliable damage (from the mod rather than dice) whilst having the flexibility of hitting another/ a third target.

I'm guessing this is a multiclass or something to get Hex and GWF? You still retain more reliable damage and the flexibility, other than that all I really have to say to that point is it isn't really going to come up much except maybe on a Vengeance Paladin (which HM contends with CD and a slot that could be a smite anyway). If you get it through MI then you can only do it once a day anyway and MC to do it has its own issues.

Not unable, they have the choice to use their BA on an attack or something else. Unless you can suggest features that would regularly come up outside the first round of combat I'm not really seeing an issue here.

We are comparing to no feat builds, but seeing as you chose a Paladin you'd have to drop an ASI (or be bottlenecked into V Human) to pull that off whilst maxing your attack stat. Why is a shield a better option? Going great weapon also ties you into Str (except in edge cases like HB and BS), but TWF leaves you with the option of Str OR Dex. Seeing how many things are tied to Dex (especially initiative and saves) TWF brings a potential advantage unavailable to most great weapon users. You can do that sword and board and get better AC, but lower damage.

And in regard to the reply to N7Paladin, the numbers you provided don't really seem like a big enough gulf to dismiss TWF as that whirlwind of death. Arguably the chance to hit more people fits that better.

Teaguethebean

2020-01-09, 12:12 AM

1.11 damage behind seems pretty negligible, especially when the TWF has more reliable damage (from the mod rather than dice) whilst having the flexibility of hitting another/ a third target.

But is it really worth a bonus action while missing out on damage?

I'm guessing this is a multiclass or something to get Hex and GWF? You still retain more reliable damage and the flexibility, other than that all I really have to say to that point is it isn't really going to come up much except maybe on a Vengeance Paladin (which HM contends with CD and a slot that could be a smite anyway). If you get it through MI then you can only do it once a day anyway and MC to do it has its own issues.

Rather irrelevant as when hex comes into play you lose out on twf style which is a bigger hit.

Not unable, they have the choice to use their BA on an attack or something else. Unless you can suggest features that would regularly come up outside the first round of combat I'm not really seeing an issue here.

I would enjoy to use misty step, second wind if a fighter, or recast a spell if I lose concentration.

but TWF leaves you with the option of Str OR Dex. Seeing how many things are tied to Dex (especially initiative and saves) TWF brings a potential advantage unavailable to most great weapon users. You can do that sword and board and get better AC, but lower damage.

This is a good point as dex is much better for the sake of everything else but I feel a bonus action should grant more than not quite keeping up in the damage department.

Dork_Forge

2020-01-09, 12:50 AM

But is it really worth a bonus action while missing out on damage?

Rather irrelevant as when hex comes into play you lose out on twf style which is a bigger hit.

I would enjoy to use misty step, second wind if a fighter, or recast a spell if I lose concentration.

This is a good point as dex is much better for the sake of everything else but I feel a bonus action should grant more than not quite keeping up in the damage department.

The cost of a bonus action is irrelevant if you're not using it for anything else. Why is it missing out on damage by not quite keeping up with great weapons anyway? The difference isn't much and it's more flexible. Each have their benefits with the gap between not being big enough to really make one worth more than the other (outside of fest builds which again, have their own costs).

Hunters Mark fills the same role as Hex combat wise and is the example I used on the Paladin.

Okay, what bonus actions are you reliably using every/most turns that TWF interferes with? If you need to cast a spell or use a bonus feature it's likely going to be infrequent. When it does come up you can just choose to not attack that round (or push forward and just try and kill whatever it is faster). An every now and then use of a bonus action isn't much of an argument against the style, costs and balances as with every choice.

It grants flexibility and more reliable damage (with the style), what more do you want from something you need to invest nothing in to do at its base form?

CheddarChampion

2020-01-09, 01:15 AM

Sorinth

2020-01-09, 01:50 AM

Kane0

2020-01-09, 02:18 AM

I'm late to the party but here's what I came up with:

TWF Normal: use a bonus action to add the damage dice of both weapons together when making attacks this round. Can draw a second weapon when using the bonus action. Requires light weapons.
TWF Style: removes the bonus action cost and allows the second weapon to be drawn anytime the first is.
TWF Feat: light weapon property not required, +1 AC when dual wielding.

So base is 2d6+mod, yes bonus action,
style alone is 2d6+mod, no bonus action,
feat alone is 2d8+mod, +1 AC, yes bonus action,
style+feat is 2d8+mod, +1 AC, no bonus action.

Thoughts?

Yeah looks good, although I would swap around the 'light weapon property not required' and 'removes bonus action cost'. The style also allowing a second weapon bring drawn seems to be a double up on the normal TWF rule (unless you mean for non-light weapons specifically)

redwizard007

2020-01-09, 07:25 AM

Lupine

2020-01-09, 08:11 AM

clip.

That is true, but a large part of that depended on cultural developments, and the time it takes to train to use two weapons at once.

Edit: Just did some research, and there are numerous instances of dual weapon use in history, though they are rare. It certainly was not a common European style, but there are many martian arts styles around the world that use two weapons.
There was also a Native American tribe that used a tomahawk and dagger style.

stoutstien

2020-01-09, 08:19 AM

Another interesting con, from a fluff standpoint, is that 2 weapon fighting was the only style not used in real warfare. Archery, S&B, and two handers all have real world examples. Dual wielding was purely for dueling. Of course, Machiavelli never mentioned liberal use of fireballs or hordes of undead in subjugating a rival state either. So, meh.

Not entirely accurate. Well it's true you wouldn't see it in open combat on a large field with formations and whatnot once you start looking into combat that happened within structures the concept of the Parry dagger/ off hand / two weapon is represented throughout history.

It was so prevalent that in some Scottish keeps the spiral staircases are counterclockwise to force the shorter weapon to be on the inside.

Willie the Duck

2020-01-09, 08:41 AM

"I want to make two weapon fighting overpowered."

That is really what is mostly being said here.

You could say this, or you could respectfully recognize that other people have come to a different conclusion that you regarding the relative power level of various options and are choosing to address a problem (that you think does not exist) genuinely for the reasons they stated, and not some disingenuous attempt to create an OP situation.

Another interesting con, from a fluff standpoint, is that 2 weapon fighting was the only style not used in real warfare. Archery, S&B, and two handers all have real world examples. Dual wielding was purely for dueling. Of course, Machiavelli never mentioned liberal use of fireballs or hordes of undead in subjugating a rival state either. So, meh.

A lot of IRL combat doesn't work like it does in D&D -- shields are a lot more protective than D&D suggests, two handed weapons are a lot more specific-purpose equipment, formations of individuals using identical kit are an insurmountable tactical advantage, etc. D&D tried doing more of that stuff back in the TSR-era of the game, and it was promptly ignored by huge swaths of the player base. For good reason, for the most part -- people usually want to play heroes, not members of a military squad (also, of course, as you mention, fireballs and undead).

Grognerd

2020-01-09, 11:25 AM

Main reason I add the requirement is because rogues don't need more incentive to use two weapons. Additionally the off hand attack is very strong at tier 1 making the bonus action cost feel fair, but by tier 2 it falls behind.

It took me a minute to understand what your concern was regarding rogues, since my solution doesn't affect rogues in the slightest. Then I finally realized that I left out an important piece of information! I left two-weapon fighting (base) completely alone. My modification was for the two-weapon fighting style that warriors can select.

malachi

2020-01-09, 01:59 PM

I never really understood the desire to make dual wielding do the same damage as two-handed weapons. If it did equivalent damage it would for the most part make two-handed weapons pointless except for PAM+Sentinal builds.

It would make more sense to have it do something more unique. If people want to be to be a whirlwind of death then having something related to movement/opportunity attacks would make more sense then increasing damage.

What about some combination of the following to get added to the feat?
A) Creatures that move within your reach provoke opportunity attacks (instead of simply when they leave your reach).
B) You gain an additional reaction each round that can only be used to make an opportunity attack. You may only make one opportunity attack a turn (to prevent you from just smacking one guy twice for moving one square), and if you make two opportunity attacks in a round, they must be with different weapons.

And, since people are wanting to compare Feat vs No feat, here are some numbers at level 5 (note that this does ignore crit chance and damage):

+3 mod, 60% hit chance, feat, fighting style:
-- TWF (RAW): 13.5 (18.0 w/ OA)
-- TWF (my change): 13.5 (22.5 w/ 2 OAs)
-- Dueling + Shield + PAM: 14.7 (19.8 w/ OA)
-- Halberd + PAM: 15.7 (21.9 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe + GWM: 14.2 (21.4 w/ OA or crit or kill) (28.5 w/ OA and crit/kill)
-- Longbow+Sharpshooter: 15.8
-- Hand crossbow + XBE: 13.7

+4 mod, 65% hit chance, fighting style, but no feat
-- TWF: 14.6 (19.5 w/ OA)
-- Sword + Shield: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA)
-- Halberd: 13.4 (20.1 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe: 14.7 (22.1 w/ OA)
-- Longbow: 12.8

Best choices w/ Fighting Style:
++ 15.8 dmg from range (Longbow+Sharpshooter)
++ 15.7 - 21.9 dmg in melee (Halberd + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might make this better than the longbow.
++ 14.7 - 19.8 dmg in melee and +2 AC (Spear + Shield + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might make this better than the longbow.
++ 14.2 - 21.4 - 28.5 dmg in melee (Greataxe + GWM), sometimes uses BA. Moderate chance of OA/crit/kill, likely makes this better damage than the following options, despite the raw numbers.
++ 13.5 - 18.0 - 22.5 dmg in melee and +1 AC (TWF, my version of feat), uses BA. High chance of 1-2 OAs put this tentatively around here, but it is highly variable on tactics.
++ 14.7 - 22.1 dmg in melee (Greataxe, +2 STR), no BA used.
++ 14.6 - 19.5 dmg in melee (TWF, +2 STR/DEX), uses BA. [probably gets AC 16 for DEX in Studded Leather / Breastplate, or AC 17 in Splint mail for STR]

+3 mod, 60% hit chance, feat, no fighting style:
-- TWF (RAW): 11.7 (16.2 w/ OA)
-- TWF (my change): 11.7 (20.7 w/ 2 OAs)
-- Spear + Shield + PAM: 11.1 (15.0 w/ OA)
-- Halberd + PAM: 15.7 (21.9 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe + GWM: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA or crit or kill) (27.3 w/ OA and crit/kill)
-- Longbow+Sharpshooter: 12.3
-- Hand crossbow + XBE: 12.4

+4 mod, 65% hit chance, no fighting style, no feat:
-- TWF (RAW): 12.0 (16.9 w/ OA)
-- Sword+Shield: 11.1 (16.6 w/ OA)
-- Halberd: 12.4 (18.5 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA)
-- Longbow: 11.1

Best choices w/o Fighting Style:
++ 15.7 - 21.9 dmg in melee (Halberd + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA
++ 13.7 - 20.5 - 27.3 in melee (Greataxe + GWM), sometimes uses BA. Moderate chance of OA/crit/kill.
++ 11.7 - 16.2 - 20.7 in melee, +1 AC (TWF, my version of feat), uses BA. High chance of 1-2 OAs put this tentatively around here.
++ 13.7 - 20.5 in melee (Greataxe, +2 STR), BA is always free. [Strangely, Feat and no-feat have very similar numbers. I double-checked, and this isn't because I ran the wrong calculations.]
++ 12.4 dmg at range (Hand crossbow + XBE), BA used.
++ 12.3 dmg at range (Longbow + Sharpshooter), BA is always free. Longest range.
++ 12.0 - 16.9 dmg in melee (TWF, no feat), BA used.
++ 11.7 - 16.2 dmg in melee, +1 AC [except for Light Armor + Dex] (TWF, feat), BA used.
++ 11.1 - 16.6 dmg in melee, +2 AC (Sword+Shield, +2 STR), BA is always free.
++ 11.1 - 15.0 dmg in melee, +2 AC (Spear+Shield+PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might put this on par with Greataxe, but that depends on DM and party tactics.

Some interesting notes:
- RAW, the Dual Wielder feat is worse than +2 DEX/STR in terms of damage, but gets +1 AC for medium/heavy armor wearers compared to +2 DEX/STR. [AC 16 in Studded Leather, 17 in Breastplate, 18 in Splint]. This is the same regardless of whether the character has the fighting style or not.
- My version of the feat up TWF damage in certain situations, but keeps the damage
- My version of the feat increases damage by changing the number of triggers of OAs (making it slightly outpace PAM if both OAs trigger, but still fall behind GWM if both the BA and OA triggers), which puts it in the "comparable damage, but under different situations" - which I think is what most people want, right?

Sorinth

2020-01-09, 06:03 PM

And, since people are wanting to compare Feat vs No feat, here are some numbers at level 5 (note that this does ignore crit chance and damage):

+3 mod, 60% hit chance, feat, fighting style:
-- TWF (RAW): 13.5 (18.0 w/ OA)
-- TWF (my change): 13.5 (22.5 w/ 2 OAs)
-- Dueling + Shield + PAM: 14.7 (19.8 w/ OA)
-- Halberd + PAM: 15.7 (21.9 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe + GWM: 14.2 (21.4 w/ OA or crit or kill) (28.5 w/ OA and crit/kill)
-- Longbow+Sharpshooter: 15.8
-- Hand crossbow + XBE: 13.7

+4 mod, 65% hit chance, fighting style, but no feat
-- TWF: 14.6 (19.5 w/ OA)
-- Sword + Shield: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA)
-- Halberd: 13.4 (20.1 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe: 14.7 (22.1 w/ OA)
-- Longbow: 12.8

Best choices w/ Fighting Style:
++ 15.8 dmg from range (Longbow+Sharpshooter)
++ 15.7 - 21.9 dmg in melee (Halberd + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might make this better than the longbow.
++ 14.7 - 19.8 dmg in melee and +2 AC (Spear + Shield + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might make this better than the longbow.
++ 14.2 - 21.4 - 28.5 dmg in melee (Greataxe + GWM), sometimes uses BA. Moderate chance of OA/crit/kill, likely makes this better damage than the following options, despite the raw numbers.
++ 13.5 - 18.0 - 22.5 dmg in melee and +1 AC (TWF, my version of feat), uses BA. High chance of 1-2 OAs put this tentatively around here, but it is highly variable on tactics.
++ 14.7 - 22.1 dmg in melee (Greataxe, +2 STR), no BA used.
++ 14.6 - 19.5 dmg in melee (TWF, +2 STR/DEX), uses BA. [probably gets AC 16 for DEX in Studded Leather / Breastplate, or AC 17 in Splint mail for STR]

+3 mod, 60% hit chance, feat, no fighting style:
-- TWF (RAW): 11.7 (16.2 w/ OA)
-- TWF (my change): 11.7 (20.7 w/ 2 OAs)
-- Spear + Shield + PAM: 11.1 (15.0 w/ OA)
-- Halberd + PAM: 15.7 (21.9 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe + GWM: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA or crit or kill) (27.3 w/ OA and crit/kill)
-- Longbow+Sharpshooter: 12.3
-- Hand crossbow + XBE: 12.4

+4 mod, 65% hit chance, no fighting style, no feat:
-- TWF (RAW): 12.0 (16.9 w/ OA)
-- Sword+Shield: 11.1 (16.6 w/ OA)
-- Halberd: 12.4 (18.5 w/ OA)
-- Greataxe: 13.7 (20.5 w/ OA)
-- Longbow: 11.1

Best choices w/o Fighting Style:
++ 15.7 - 21.9 dmg in melee (Halberd + PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA
++ 13.7 - 20.5 - 27.3 in melee (Greataxe + GWM), sometimes uses BA. Moderate chance of OA/crit/kill.
++ 11.7 - 16.2 - 20.7 in melee, +1 AC (TWF, my version of feat), uses BA. High chance of 1-2 OAs put this tentatively around here.
++ 13.7 - 20.5 in melee (Greataxe, +2 STR), BA is always free. [Strangely, Feat and no-feat have very similar numbers. I double-checked, and this isn't because I ran the wrong calculations.]
++ 12.4 dmg at range (Hand crossbow + XBE), BA used.
++ 12.3 dmg at range (Longbow + Sharpshooter), BA is always free. Longest range.
++ 12.0 - 16.9 dmg in melee (TWF, no feat), BA used.
++ 11.7 - 16.2 dmg in melee, +1 AC [except for Light Armor + Dex] (TWF, feat), BA used.
++ 11.1 - 16.6 dmg in melee, +2 AC (Sword+Shield, +2 STR), BA is always free.
++ 11.1 - 15.0 dmg in melee, +2 AC (Spear+Shield+PAM), uses BA. High chance of OA might put this on par with Greataxe, but that depends on DM and party tactics.

Some interesting notes:
- RAW, the Dual Wielder feat is worse than +2 DEX/STR in terms of damage, but gets +1 AC for medium/heavy armor wearers compared to +2 DEX/STR. [AC 16 in Studded Leather, 17 in Breastplate, 18 in Splint]. This is the same regardless of whether the character has the fighting style or not.
- My version of the feat up TWF damage in certain situations, but keeps the damage
- My version of the feat increases damage by changing the number of triggers of OAs (making it slightly outpace PAM if both OAs trigger, but still fall behind GWM if both the BA and OA triggers), which puts it in the "comparable damage, but under different situations" - which I think is what most people want, right?

I'm not sure the OAs would be generated often enough even with your changes to really make a difference, but overall I think you are on the right track as doing something like what you proposed gives TWF a different feel, you will play the TWF character differently as you will be trying to find ways to generate those OAs.

Lupine

2020-01-09, 06:20 PM

I'm not sure the OAs would be generated often enough even with your changes to really make a difference, but overall I think you are on the right track as doing something like what you proposed gives TWF a different feel, you will play the TWF character differently as you will be trying to find ways to generate those OAs.

If nothing else, doing TWF with that style would encourage players to through themselves thick of battle. Dual wielders would have to be very, very aggressive, if for no other reason then to match the DPR of their two handed allies.

redwizard007

2020-01-09, 06:55 PM

Kane0

2020-01-09, 07:35 PM

In the spirit of cooperation, what about giving dualwielders a +1 to their attacks with both weapons? It boosts the style, is a significant buff considering bounded accuracy, and reflects the versatility of having multiple angles of attack.

Where would you fit that in? TWF is a solid contender at early levels, it's after mid tier 2 or so where the cracks really start to show.

redwizard007

2020-01-09, 09:05 PM

Where would you fit that in? TWF is a solid contender at early levels, it's after mid tier 2 or so where the cracks really start to show.

By a quick scan of the first two pages I count 1 comment that proposes a mid tier adjustment, and even that was immediately followed by a good counter point. There may have been something in the walls of math, but I dont agree that ANY adjustment needs made, so I'm sure as hell not getting into dissecting that. Most of the posts seem focused on adding more attacks in some form (which TWF already does,) or increasing AC (which seems odd.) Increasing ones to-hit chance seems like a nice mechanic that isn't already done by another melee style.

Kane0

2020-01-09, 09:24 PM

Most of the posts seem focused on adding more attacks in some form (which TWF already does,) or increasing AC (which seems odd.) Increasing ones to-hit chance seems like a nice mechanic that isn't already done by another melee style.

I've always thought Versatile would be cool for accuracy (especially compared to THF for damage output).

Perhaps TWF could find a niche in OAs or splashing damage out around multiple targets, those seem like potential areas to expand into.

stoutstien

2020-01-09, 09:31 PM

By a quick scan of the first two pages I count 1 comment that proposes a mid tier adjustment, and even that was immediately followed by a good counter point. There may have been something in the walls of math, but I dont agree that ANY adjustment needs made, so I'm sure as hell not getting into dissecting that. Most of the posts seem focused on adding more attacks in some form (which TWF already does,) or increasing AC (which seems odd.) Increasing ones to-hit chance seems like a nice mechanic that isn't already done by another melee style.

Why does twf having a AC feature seem odd? Mechanically as long as it falls in-between sword and shield and two handed it should be fine.
As far as narratively, having two points facing towards someone does reduce openings.

Yakk

2020-01-09, 09:39 PM

Level 20. 20 stat. +3 weapons or Flametongues. Fighters.
GWM+Polearm on the left. TWF+DW on the right.
Enemy AC is 18. Enemy runs up and 3 rounds of combat. Action surge is a go. Subclass ignored.

2H does +9 vs AC for 1d10+18 damage, or 23.5*12/20+5.5/20 =
14.4 per swing
full action is 57.6 damage.

2H butt is 1d4+18, or 20.5*12/20+2.5/20=12.4

TW does +11 vs AC for 1d8+2d6+5, or 16.5*14/20+10.5/20 = 12.1 per swing
Full action is 48.3 damage

2H gets 3 bonus 1 reaction 4 actions for 57.6*4+14.4+12.4*3 = 282 dmage
TW gets 3 bonus 4 actions for 48.3*4+12.4*3=230.4 damage

282/230.4 is a 22.4% edge for 2H, or 50-odd damage/3 rounds

The TW build has 19 swings and 0.95 crits. It could close the gap with 4 swings or 3.7 damage per hit or 3.2 points of accuracy or 52 damage per crit or some combination.

TW build is dex-friendly, TH is not.

TW needs 2 rare weapons to pull this off; TH 1 very rare.

With advantage, TH damage goes up by roughly 40%; TW by 30%.

Ignoring GWM and missing and using the same weapon enchants, 2H has 4 more damage per action and 2 less per bonus action and has the reaction swing.

Flametongue is -3 accuracy for +4 damage compared with a +3 weapon, a crappy -5/+10. A +1 Flametongue would be -2 accuracy for +5 damage, and close about half of the gap.

Toofey

2020-01-09, 09:43 PM

I keep thinkin about making it so that if you take 2 weapon fighting or dual wield you can attune a paired set of weapons as a single attunement, but I've yet to have any players interested in dual wielding.

Kane0

2020-01-09, 09:47 PM

-Snip-

I might just be burned out from work today or could just be having a dumb moment, what was the conclusion here sorry?

Yakk

2020-01-09, 10:54 PM

I might just be burned out from work today or could just be having a dumb moment, what was the conclusion here sorry?

Mainly it was just a drscription of the gap and how large it is at 20, and how much it would take to close it.

Gap: 22%, more with advantage.

1 swing per action zeros the gap. As does 1d6 damage/swing, +3 to hit. 1 swing/bonus action closes 3/4 of the gap.

I have been playing with a rule that grant TWF a 2nd attack if you use a different bonus action attack. Then scimitar of speed + flametongue would close about half of the gap.

A TWF flurry feat, that lets you make a alt-hand attack when a bonus action attack hits and grants +1 to hit, would also close half of the gap.

A TW riposte, letting you attack back as a reaction when using 2 weapons, could close part of the gap.

The PAM+GWM rewuires 2 feats and strength; a TWF build requires 1 feat and permits dex. Is that worth the 20% damage buff? Well, +3-+4 initiative is 0.15-0.2 actions roughly (assume combat ends on a random initiative count), and 0.15-0.2 actions is 0.6-0.8 swings on a fighter; so not offensively. Defensively, dex is meh for AC at 20. Str belts exist, dex do not (stick a legendary 29 str on that TH build and it blows the TW out of the water). So I'm unpersuaded that Str based sucks compared to Dex at 20.

---

How big should the gap be? At L1-4 featless, TW is 13 vs 10 TH. With PAM it gets 15 TW vs 14 TH (plus reaction for PAM). At 5 it is 22.5 vs 22.5 (plus reaction for PAM).

Once you have 3 ASIs and some proficiency or advantage, PAM+2str+GWM starts blowing TW+20 stat out of the water and never looks back.

Maybe the problem is the lack of 2nd feat to boost TW style; in that case the above gaps (3 accuracy, 1d6 damage, 4 swings/4 actions) at 20 give the upper bound to how big it should be.

The gaps at low leves put an upper bound on how big the 2nd feat can be to not make low levels dumb.

Feats that would close 50%-75% of the gap at 20:

1. A feat that lets you riposte as a reaction while TWF.
2. A feat that lets you take a -5 penalty to hit to attack with weapons in bith hands
3. A feat that grants a follow up attack while TWF, but only on bonus actions where that bonus action hit
4. A -3/+6 damage feat

1 and 4 could be 1 H weapon feats that just happen to work with TWF.

Like, Reply with Steel: When missed by a melee attack, as a reaction you can move up half your speed and make a melee attack on the triggering creature with a 1 handed weapon.

That would boost TWF/S+B without being TWF specific.

redwizard007

2020-01-10, 12:00 AM

Mainly it was just a drscription of the gap and how large it is at 20, and how much it would take to close it.

Gap: 22%, more with advantage.

1 swing per action zeros the gap. As does 1d6 damage/swing, +3 to hit. 1 swing/bonus action closes 3/4 of the gap.

I have been playing with a rule that grant TWF a 2nd attack if you use a different bonus action attack. Then scimitar of speed + flametongue would close about half of the gap.

A TWF flurry feat, that lets you make a alt-hand attack when a bonus action attack hits and grants +1 to hit, would also close half of the gap.

A TW riposte, letting you attack back as a reaction when using 2 weapons, could close part of the gap.

The PAM+GWM rewuires 2 feats and strength; a TWF build requires 1 feat and permits dex. Is that worth the 20% damage buff? Well, +3-+4 initiative is 0.15-0.2 actions roughly (assume combat ends on a random initiative count), and 0.15-0.2 actions is 0.6-0.8 swings on a fighter; so not offensively. Defensively, dex is meh for AC at 20. Str belts exist, dex do not (stick a legendary 29 str on that TH build and it blows the TW out of the water). So I'm unpersuaded that Str based sucks compared to Dex at 20.

---

How big should the gap be? At L1-4 featless, TW is 13 vs 10 TH. With PAM it gets 15 TW vs 14 TH (plus reaction for PAM). At 5 it is 22.5 vs 22.5 (plus reaction for PAM).

Once you have 3 ASIs and some proficiency or advantage, PAM+2str+GWM starts blowing TW+20 stat out of the water and never looks back.

Maybe the problem is the lack of 2nd feat to boost TW style; in that case the above gaps (3 accuracy, 1d6 damage, 4 swings/4 actions) at 20 give the upper bound to how big it should be.

The gaps at low leves put an upper bound on how big the 2nd feat can be to not make low levels dumb.

Feats that would close 50%-75% of the gap at 20:

1. A feat that lets you riposte as a reaction while TWF.
2. A feat that lets you take a -5 penalty to hit to attack with weapons in bith hands
3. A feat that grants a follow up attack while TWF, but only on bonus actions where that bonus action hit
4. A -3/+6 damage feat

1 and 4 could be 1 H weapon feats that just happen to work with TWF.

Like, Reply with Steel: When missed by a melee attack, as a reaction you can move up half your speed and make a melee attack on the triggering creature with a 1 handed weapon.

That would boost TWF/S+B without being TWF specific.

If we are looking at feats as a solution then something that could work with other fighting styles has some real appeal.

And to answer a previous reply to my last comment (sorry, I cant remember from whom) while TWF adding to AC makes sense, it is something already done by other styles. Why duplicate when you can originate?

AdAstra

2020-01-10, 03:35 AM

I did some work on this subject a while back. You can refer to the homebrew in my signature to find the thread.

To summarize, my primary element was to scale the bonus action attack with Extra Attack. Your off-hand attack does an additional damage die for every Extra Attack you have. I also changed the TWF style to make it less powerful at low levels, and offered a new version of the Dual Wielder feat that I think does pretty well to make the style feel unique. This helps the style not be outpaced by other ones, while not having it be overpowered on classes like Rogue or Paladin (due to Improved Divine Smite). I also let Paladins get the fighting style, because frankly there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be able to have it.

I think my version could use some updates, but the core principle of scaling the bonus action attack is definitely sound.

FinnS

2020-03-03, 10:22 PM

No need to be over complicated here. House rule I established with my group was to simply add the following to the Dual Wield Feat.

“Additionally, a character choosing this feat with the Extra Attack feature can immediately follow any successful weapon strike with a free secondary attack with a weapon held in their off hand against the same target. This can only happen once per FULL attack option,
*Note* Monks employing their Martial Arts as their attack option do not gain this feature. Instead, a Monk who chooses this feat that has the Extra Attack feature is no longer required to spend Ki to activate Flurry of Blows”

Simple!
And yes the wording is specific to FULL attack option. Meaning it would work again during an Action Surge but not on the attack gained from being Hasted or while making an Attack of Opportunity for example.
It still doesn’t catch the Great Weapon feat but at least it makes the gap more reasonable and you’re still getting a +1 AC and still have the option per normal of using your Bonus action to make an off hand attack.

KorvinStarmast

2020-03-04, 01:58 PM

Add half of proficiency bonus to damage (rounded down) for dual wielding. (the feat)

Leave everything else alone.

Kane0

2020-03-04, 04:02 PM

No need to be over complicated here. House rule I established with my group was to simply add the following to the Dual Wield Feat.

“Additionally, a character choosing this feat with the Extra Attack feature can immediately follow any successful weapon strike with a free secondary attack with a weapon held in their off hand against the same target. This can only happen once per FULL attack option,
*Note* Monks employing their Martial Arts as their attack option do not gain this feature. Instead, a Monk who chooses this feat that has the Extra Attack feature is no longer required to spend Ki to activate Flurry of Blows”

Simple!

That doesnt read all that simple. How about:

“You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the Attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn”

greenstone

2020-03-04, 08:12 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e.
I don't agree, neither do any of the players in my Tuesday game.

What problem are you trying to solve?

Teaguethebean

2020-03-04, 09:24 PM

I don't agree, neither do any of the players in my Tuesday game.

What problem are you trying to solve?

what level are you in the Tuesday game. As duel wielding grows weaker in higher levels.

ad_hoc

2020-03-04, 09:48 PM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e. So. How would you fix it? or on that note, if it need to be totally redone, how would you do it?

I don't. It's fine.

A couple feats are overpowered.

It's not that everything except a couple feats are underpowered.

Trustypeaches

2020-03-04, 10:19 PM

I just let players reflavor other weapons to be 2 weapons.

A greatsword could be two short swords, a rapier could be two daggers (for the rogue), etc.

Much easier than trying to fix two-weapon fighting.

FinnS

2020-03-05, 12:29 AM

That doesnt read all that simple. How about:

“You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the Attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn”

Not simple? Have you seen some of the convoluted suggestions and proposed rule changes? This is as simple as you can get when making changes to a core mechanic.

This quite simply covers all the bases.
Allows Dual wielding to scale with Extra Attack...check! (Your fix above does not do that in the slightest)
Monk's can't abuse it...check! (Again, your way does not stop Monk's from abusing it)
Covers how it works or doesn't work with Action Surge, Attacks of Opportunity and Hasted attacks...check!

Those are all the issues you HAVE TO deal with when trying to change Dual-wielding.

Oh and just as a side note...almost since the beginning of 5E, my group has played with the Great Weapon Fighting and Marksman feats to scale with your proficiency bonus, not a flat -5/+10. You can trade your prof bonus for double it in damage. Takes the absurdity out of those feats at low levels while actually making it even a little better at very high levels.

Kane0

2020-03-05, 01:55 AM

Not simple? Have you seen some of the convoluted suggestions and proposed rule changes? This is as simple as you can get when making changes to a core mechanic.

This quite simply covers all the bases.
Allows Dual wielding to scale with Extra Attack...check! (Your fix above does not do that in the slightest)
Monk's can't abuse it...check! (Again, your way does not stop Monk's from abusing it)
Covers how it works or doesn't work with Action Surge, Attacks of Opportunity and Hasted attacks...check!

Those are all the issues you HAVE TO deal with when trying to change Dual-wielding.

Yes, i’ve been here since page one, and quite a few TWF threads prior.

Extra attack was considered and i carefully decided against keying off of it, because of those that want TWF but dont get it like rogue or those getting the feat at level 4 before extra attack at level 5.
Monks cant abuse it because if you use TWF as part of the attack action you cant make an attack using a bonus action, such as with martial arts or flurry of blows.
It works with the attack action, just like extra attack. If it isnt the attack action (eg an OA) nothing changes, action surge allows you to take another attack action; haste allows an extra action that you can explicitly only use to make one attack; pretty cut and dry to me.

And i’ve run the numbers too, go back a few posts and see.

Edit: oh, and this one adds no extra attacks overall, so no problems between classes that get per-hit damage benefits (barb, pally, ranger) with those that dont (fighter, rogue)

Mongobear

2020-03-05, 02:29 AM

Just... don't use it.

Take Revenant Blade instead, and use the Double Scimitar.

It is better in literally every possible way.

(Except Featless games, I guess. But those are a drag anyways.)

FinnS

2020-03-05, 02:44 AM

Yes, i’ve been here since page one, and quite a few TWF threads prior.

Extra attack was considered and i carefully decided against keying off of it, because of those that want TWF but dont get it like rogue or those getting the feat at level 4 before extra attack at level 5.
Monks cant abuse it because if you use TWF as part of the attack action you cant make an attack using a bonus action, such as with martial arts or flurry of blows.
It works with the attack action, just like extra attack. If it isnt the attack action (eg an OA) nothing changes, action surge allows you to take another attack action; haste allows an extra action that you can explicitly only use to make one attack; pretty cut and dry to me.

And i’ve run the numbers too, go back a few posts and see.

Edit: oh, and this one adds no extra attacks overall, so no problems between classes that get per-hit damage benefits (barb, pally, ranger) with those that dont (fighter, rogue)

But the whole point of improving Dual Wielding is to also bring its' damage up without it scaling out of control and nothing you are proposing does that. In fact, you're handcuffing it even more by taking the ability to take yet another attack with your bonus action completely off the table. You are literally no further ahead and thus have failed to improve upon the lack of damage scaling. Furthermore, how do you justify it when taking GWF does the exact opposite and actually opens up your bonus action for an attack if you crit or kill something?

Sorry, all your suggestion does is free up a now restrictive bonus action.

Again, my way is clean and easy addressing ALL the issues while keeping containment and after playing this game for over 35 years now from the basic box sets through 1e-5e, my solution is as good as it gets from all angles involved and unless you have some math to show me different, we're done here.

FinnS

2020-03-05, 02:58 AM

Just... don't use it.

Take Revenant Blade instead, and use the Double Scimitar.

It is better in literally every possible way.

(Except Featless games, I guess. But those are a drag anyways.)

How is it better? Because you get the +1 to Str or Dex choice along with the +1 AC?
It's still only 2d4 main with another 1d4 as a bonus action.
How is that better than using 2 rapiers/longswords? 3d4 (7.5 damage average), 2d8 (9 damage average)

Are you thinking the Two-handed property changes something? All that does is qualify it for the Great Weapon style that the Fighter and Pally can choose. You need the Heavy property to make use of the Great Weapon Feat's "power attack" option.

Kane0

2020-03-05, 03:08 AM

But the whole point of improving Dual Wielding is to also bring its' damage up without it scaling out of control and nothing you are proposing does that. In fact, you're handcuffing it even more by taking the ability to take yet another attack with your bonus action completely off the table. You are literally no further ahead and thus have failed to improve upon the lack of damage scaling. Furthermore, how do you justify it when taking GWF does the exact opposite and actually opens up your bonus action for an attack if you crit or kill something?

Sorry, all your suggestion does is free up a now restrictive bonus action.

Again, my way is clean and easy addressing ALL the issues while keeping containment and after playing this game for over 35 years now from the basic box sets through 1e-5e, my solution is as good as it gets from all angles involved and unless you have some math to show me different, we're done here.

Base Rule:
Weapons with the Thrown properly can be drawn freely like ammunition.

Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.

TWF Fighting Style:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the weapons you are wielding are not light

Dual Wielder Feat:
- You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks
- You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn.
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same target

I don't know about the others, but I did my homework.

https://i.imgur.com/NSVZIsS.png

TWF doesnt really face a damage problem, the big problems it faces are it locks up your BA which gets more and more competition as you level up and with the arrangement of Fighting styles some classes that thematically might really want TWF like Barbs and Rogues have very little incentive to do so.
As a minor third, where other styles get better with build investment for TWF you’re mostly removing restrictions, but that is arguably okay because those restrictions are payment for having access to an extra attack with zero investment.

If you have the option to free up your BA without losing your offhand attack suddenly you can rage, you can cast hunters mark or some other BA spell, you can second wind, you can cunning action, you can step of the wind, you’re free to do your fancy race or class things without sacrificing your normal attack routine. It frees up your options and doesnt give you better damage output than the dedicated damage output style.

And I dont justify great weapon master, I nerf it.

FinnS

2020-03-05, 03:48 AM

TWF doesnt really face a damage problem, the big problems it faces are it locks up your BA which gets more and more competition as you level up and with the arrangement of Fighting styles some classes that thematically might really want TWF like Barbs and Rogues have very little incentive to do so.
As a minor third, where other styles get better with build investment for TWF you’re mostly removing restrictions, but that is arguably okay because those restrictions are payment for having access to an extra attack with zero investment.

If you have the option to free up your BA without losing your offhand attack suddenly you can rage, you can cast hunters mark or some other BA spell, you can second wind, you can cunning action, you can step of the wind, you’re free to do your fancy race or class things without sacrificing your normal attack routine. It frees up your options and doesnt give you better damage output than the dedicated damage output style.

And I dont justify great weapon master, I nerf it.

Nice math...one problem....no GWF or Sharpshooter math which btw, just happens to be the whole point of this discussion, how those feats are vastly superior damage-wise for their respective styles than the TWF feat is to its style.

And why are your damage value's for the 2handers at 5.5 when they should be 6.5 (1d12) or 7(2d6)?

All this math you presented is simply the base damages which again, is not what this discussion is about.

it doesn't even look like your math is right though. For example, line 23 in column C by your figures (5.5 weapon damage +1 damage +4 stat damage) x12 attacks should be 126 not 117. What it should actually be though is (7 weapon damage+1 damage+4 stat damage)x12 attacks for 144
And by comparison if one were to factor in GWF feat to this same line....(7 weapon damage+1 damage+4 stat damage+10 GWF) x12 attacks is 264! heh

Ok all that aside, I'll bite, what exactly do you do to nerf the GWF and SS feats?
Then show me the math for it compared to dual wielding. Try using the correct weapon value's this time though if you don't mind if you want any of it to be taken seriously.

Kane0

2020-03-05, 04:05 AM

Nice math...one problem....no GWF or Sharpshooter math which btw, just happens to be the whole point of this discussion, how those feats are vastly superior damage-wise for their respective styles than the TWF feat is to its style.

And why are your damage value's for the 2handers at 5.5 when they should be 6.5 (1d12) or 7(2d6)?

All this math you presented is simply the base damages which again, is not what this discussion is about.

it doesn't even look like your math is right though. For example, line 23 in column C by your figures (5.5 weapon damage +1 damage +4 stat damage) x12 attacks should be 126 not 117. What it should actually be though is (7 weapon damage+1 damage+4 stat damage)x12 attacks for 144
And by comparison if one were to factor in GWF feat to this same line....(7 weapon damage+1 damage+4 stat damage+10 GWF) x12 attacks is 264! heh

Ok all that aside, I'll bite, what exactly do you do to nerf the GWF and SS feats?
Then show me the math for it compared to dual wielding. Try using the correct weapon value's this time though if you don't mind if you want any of it to be taken seriously.

I didnt factor GWM/SS because i didnt factor accuracy, and because others hve already fleshed out that discussion far better than myself.

Its 5.5 because the weapon used is a Glaive for use with PAM, a more consistent comparison point to TWF in terms of bonus action attacks.

C23 is 117 because you have 9x (5.5+1+4) + 3x (2.5+1+4) by using a Glaive with the THF style and PAM feat, not a greatsword with the GWM feat.

You may also note that each style gets one feat for direct comparison, even the fighter and rogue with extra ASIs. Giving zweihander both PAM and GWM would skew results even accounting for accuracy and not all other styles have two applicable feats in the same manner.

Great Weapon Mastery:
- When you make an attack with a weapon held in both hands that you are proficient in, you can choose to forego adding your proficiency bonus to the attack roll to instead add double your proficiency bonus to the damage roll
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee weapon wielded in both hands, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action

Sharpshooter:
+1 Dexterity
- Your ranged weapon attacks treat 3/4 cover as 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover as no cover
- You double the short range of any ranged weapon attacks you make

These feat changes above are subject to change though as I have yet to build up enough of a playtest sample to be completely happy with them.

Edit: But we may be getting offtrack here sorry. All I originally intended to say was that your addition to the feat is solid and workable but perhaps a bit too verbose and restrictive.

Additionally, a character choosing this feat with the Extra Attack feature can immediately follow any successful weapon strike with a free secondary attack with a weapon held in their off hand against the same target. This can only happen once per FULL attack option,
*Note* Monks employing their Martial Arts as their attack option do not gain this feature. Instead, a Monk who chooses this feat that has the Extra Attack feature is no longer required to spend Ki to activate Flurry of Blows”

Simple!

This isnt functionally as simple as it first appears because:
- its only usable with the attack action
- its only usable with extra attack
- Its only usable after a hit (depending on wording, after every hit?)
- its only usable against the same target
- it has a specific interaction for monks

I agree with the concept, allow a (or in my case the) offhand attack with the attack action. Its just that you have added more conditions/exceptions than I did.

FinnS

2020-03-05, 04:31 AM

I didnt factor GWM/SS because i didnt factor accuracy, and because others hve already fleshed out that discussion far better than myself.

Its 5.5 because the weapon used is a Glaive for use with PAM, a more consistent comparison point to TWF in terms of bonus action attacks.

C23 is 117 because you have 9x (5.5+1+4) + 3x (2.5+1+4) by using a Glaive with the THF style and PAM feat, not a greatsword with the GWM feat.

You may also note that each style gets one feat for direct comparison, even the fighter and rogue with extra ASIs. Giving zweihander both PAM and GWM would skew results even accounting for accuracy and not all other styles have two applicable feats in the same manner.

Great Weapon Mastery:
- When you make an attack with a weapon held in both hands that you are proficient in, you can choose to forego adding your proficiency bonus to the attack roll to instead add double your proficiency bonus to the damage roll
- On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with a melee weapon wielded in both hands, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action

Sharpshooter:
+1 Dexterity
- Your ranged weapon attacks treat 3/4 cover as 1/2 cover, and 1/2 cover as no cover
- You double the short range of any ranged weapon attacks you make

These feat changes above are subject to change though as I have yet to build up enough of a playtest sample to be completely happy with them.

Ok you do the same with GWF that I have done with it since 5e was released. That said, it still greatly outscales TWF by a country mile.

What you did to SS is just way too harsh though. Pretty much made it useless. SS was already behind GWM because of the absence of the possible bonus attack. With your changes, it's buried beyond recovery. Anyone wanting to play a ranged attacker would be better off taking 2 levels of Warlock with the Agonizing Blast invo and Spell Sniper feat.

I will let you in on a secret though that I have gained from decades of this game...completely nerfing something into the ground just to make something else feel better never works, like ever.

All you have done here is pushed the GWF feat even further into being the only way to do high damage as a Martial character. Good luck with that or I should say good luck to your poor players. Maybe one day when you look around at your players and realise they are all either GWF fighters/pally's/barbs, full casters or full sneak rogues with nothing else, you might see it.

Kane0

2020-03-05, 04:38 AM

I feel like you’re making a lot of assumptions and judgements, but thats cool man I wish you the best in your games.

ShikomeKidoMi

2020-03-05, 05:22 AM

I feel that is the problem an occasional 5 or so damage isn't worth giving up 2 ac. Certainly not unplayable but not a reasonable choice.

Only 1 Ac if you have the Two Weapon Fighting feat. In fact, I see a lot of posts here solely comparing damage and ignoring the advantages of A) Reach for polearms vs B)+1 AC for Two Weapon Fighting (although, actually, you can get Reach and +1 AC if you happen to be using two whips, I feel like that's not going to be the most common scenario).

Plus, of course, the ability to use Two Weapon Fighting with Finesse weapons.

stoutstien

2020-03-05, 09:46 AM

Only 1 Ac if you have the Two Weapon Fighting feat. In fact, I see a lot of posts here solely comparing damage and ignoring the advantages of A) Reach for polearms vs B)+1 AC for Two Weapon Fighting (although, actually, you can get Reach and +1 AC if you happen to be using two whips, I feel like that's not going to be the most common scenario).

Plus, of course, the ability to use Two Weapon Fighting with Finesse weapons.

Objectively +2 Dex is better than the duel wielder feat if you are using finesse weapons. It grants +1 AC, attack, and damage plus all the the other goodies that come with improving a stat vs the feat which gives you +1 damage and +1 AC.

For str based TWF the feat might be better than +2 str but only if you already have enough str to wear the best armor.

IMO this is the biggest part of the hang up of twf other than the bonus action conflicts.

Teaguethebean

2020-03-05, 09:56 AM

Extra attack was considered and i carefully decided against keying off of it, because of those that want TWF but dont get it like rogue or those getting the feat at level 4 before extra attack at level 5.

I wouldn't reccomend leaving off extra attack as rogues are good using twf as is. All they care about is a second chance to land the sneak attack.

Segev

2020-03-05, 10:00 AM

It's possible that I'm being too lenient on item interaction rules, and that's what's making the difference, but the ranger in my ToA game dual wields short swords in melee, but is an Archer Fighting Stylist. He uses his bow in early rounds of combat (being a dwarf, his movement isn't great), and when enemies get to him, he puts it away and gets out his short swords. His primary use for his bonus action other than the off-hand attack is hunter's mark, which he uses in most combats. He has never seemed to feel like his off-hand weapon was too weak a choice, and has only occasionally been disappointed to have to choose between moving hunter's mark and making that off-hand attack. And that d6 of damage may not sound like much without the strength modifier, but it definitely adds up. Even when it's the only one that hit that round (which is rare).

Amechra

2020-03-05, 11:15 AM

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-05, 12:50 PM

So... what if we lowered the river instead of raising the bridge?

Polearm Expert
• You don't add your ability score to damage with the bonus action attack unless you have the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style.

Great Weapon Master
• Whenever you attack a creature with a Heavy weapon and miss, the creature you attacked takes Psychic damage equal to the ability score you used for the attack. [Replaces the -5/+10 damage trade.]

---

I'm not sure what to do with Sharpshooter - I kinda want to do an "aim as a bonus action" ability, but I dunno how I'd want to handle that. Bonus damage would conflict with Kensei/Rangers, while just giving advantage to the attack roll is lame.

Preferably not:

Nerfing is a fairly bad solution. Players have an expectation that content that they use is valid, and nerfing those abilities implies that they were "cheating" this entire time. It'd also mean that you're punishing a group of players for a problem with another group of players. It'd be like taking away your son's toy because your daughter's toy was more flimsy and broke, in an attempt at fairness.

Additionally, Dual Wielding has a number of inherent problems, including:

Bonus Action requirement is expensive, and naturally hinders the classes that'd be Dual Wielding the most (Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians)
Dual Wielding has natural problems with throwing weapons, cutting down on the number of throwing weapon builds.
It doesn't scale well later on. Simply using a two-handed weapon with no feats past level 5 is enough to compare to Dual Wielding.

A perfect solution is one where the classic Dual Wielding tropes (Ranger, in particular) is incentivized for using it, rather than punished (considering many of the best Ranger spells and features require a Bonus Action), without making something like Hex or Hunter's Mark a guaranteed pick, but still having those spells provide some sort of synergy with Dual Wielding (as would make sense).

For example, changing it to require no Bonus Action, not apply your to-hit bonus on the TWF attack, change the TWF style to add your modifier to-hit instead of to your damage, change the feat to add your modifier to your damage while still removing the Light requirement.

This'd mean that the only difference between a full TWF character with default rules, and one with these changed rules, is that the new version gets to keep their Bonus Action.

I guess it could mean that Monks would be able to have the chance for an extra 1d4 at early levels, but they'd have a decent chance of missing, and it'd encourage more multiclassing (which Monks sorely need).

Mongobear

2020-03-05, 01:59 PM

How is it better? Because you get the +1 to Str or Dex choice along with the +1 AC?
It's still only 2d4 main with another 1d4 as a bonus action.
How is that better than using 2 rapiers/longswords? 3d4 (7.5 damage average), 2d8 (9 damage average)

Are you thinking the Two-handed property changes something? All that does is qualify it for the Great Weapon style that the Fighter and Pally can choose. You need the Heavy property to make use of the Great Weapon Feat's "power attack" option.

Including the text for the Feat and the weapon for easy double checking.

Revenant blade
Prerequisite: Elf

Increase your Dexterity or Strength score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
While wielding a double-bladed weapon with two hands, the weapon has the finesse trait for your attacks with it, and you gain +1 AC.
On your turn, when you use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the blade at the opposite end of the weapon, the weapon’s damage die for this attack increases to 2d4, instead of 1d4.

And the Double Scimitar:

2d4 damage, Special and Two-Handed

Special. If you attack with a double-bladed scimitar as part of the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action immediately after to make a melee attack with it. This attack deals 1d4 slashing damage on a hit, instead of 2d4.

1) Single Feat, no style requirements. This is already a benefit over TWFing, which has an almost mandatory requirement of the TWFing Style. Dual Wielder is arguable, the main benefit being the AC and drawing of both at once, bigger weapons is meh, an average of +1 damage per hit.

2) Synergizes with Great Weapon Style, rerolling any 1s or 2s on 2d4 ups the damage a good bit, especially with Crits. (Same argument as Great Sword/Maul vs Great Axe)

3) FINESSE TWO HANDER This is unique to the Feat + Weapon combo, no class has a way to wield a 2-hander without Strength (besides HexLocks but theyre OP anyways). A rogue can use these together extremely well, as it doesnt turn off Sneak Attack.

4) No goofy requirements to turn it on. its a single weapon, it doesnt require you to be holding two weapons in each hand, its base damage is stronger, its just better.

Amechra

2020-03-05, 02:07 PM

Preferably not:

Nerfing is a fairly bad solution. Players have an expectation that content that they use is valid, and nerfing those abilities implies that they were "cheating" this entire time. It'd also mean that you're punishing a group of players for a problem with another group of players. It'd be like taking away your son's toy because your daughter's toy was more flimsy and broke, in an attempt at fairness.

I'll be blunt - I feel that those particular feats and options were a mistake. Maybe I shouldn't have shown favoritism in the first place by giving my son a Switch and my daughter a stick.

That being said, I figured out a more sensible nerf - polearms that currently have the Heavy property... don't. So you don't have a random group of melee weapons that get buffed by two feats.

Additionally, Dual Wielding has a number of inherent problems, including:

Bonus Action requirement is expensive, and naturally hinders the classes that'd be Dual Wielding the most (Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, Barbarians)
Dual Wielding has natural problems with throwing weapons, cutting down on the number of throwing weapon builds.
It doesn't scale well later on. Simply using a two-handed weapon with no feats past level 5 is enough to compare to Dual Wielding.

Let's be honest here - you'd need to rework a lot of things for throwing weapon builds to be viable. Don't throw dual wielding under the bus just because throwing weapons are an edge case.

As for scaling, the Fighter is really the only class that has fighting styles scale after the start of Tier 2. If you're a class that just gets the one extra attack at 5th, the fighting styles (other than PAM+GWM) actually end up being pretty even. Heck, if anything I'd argue that the Fighter is up there with the Monk on the whole "doesn't actually care about two-weapon fighting" thing.

I do, however, agree with the bonus action complaint. I think the best answer there would be to do the Fey Wanderer thing, and let the classes that should be good at two-weapon fighting make offhand weapon attacks as part of their bonus actions. Just toss in a note on the Barbarian that they can make an offhand melee weapon attack when they spend a bonus action to enter Rage, and the Barbarian's all set.

A perfect solution is one where the classic Dual Wielding tropes (Ranger, in particular) is incentivized for using it, rather than punished (considering many of the best Ranger spells and features require a Bonus Action), without making something like Hex or Hunter's Mark a guaranteed pick, but still having those spells provide some sort of synergy with Dual Wielding (as would make sense).

Yeah, sure, I accept this. Hence why I suggested doing the Fey Wanderer thing and letting them make attacks as part of their bonus action buffs.

For example, changing it to require no Bonus Action, not apply your to-hit bonus on the TWF attack, change the TWF style to add your modifier to-hit instead of to your damage, change the feat to add your modifier to your damage while still removing the Light requirement.

This'd mean that the only difference between a full TWF character with default rules, and one with these changed rules, is that the new version gets to keep their Bonus Action.

This, however, I'm giving the stink-eye. It's incredibly inelegant (having some attacks add your ability score to damage and some that don't is bad enough already). On top of that, having a -2 to -6 penalty to your to-hit is so incredibly massive that dual-wielding essentially becomes completely useless without taking the fighting style. It also has worrying possibilities when combined with other sources of bonus-action attacks - Crossbow Expert comes to mind.

I guess it could mean that Monks would be able to have the chance for an extra 1d4 at early levels, but they'd have a decent chance of missing, and it'd encourage more multiclassing (which Monks sorely need).

Monks don't need multiclass support - Monks need feat support, more than anything else (they're the only class that doesn't have a feat that can buff their damage). Also, this would push Monks really heavily towards dual wielding, which I guess would be different from the current "use a staff or spear until you hit 11th level and it stops mattering", at the very least...

Honestly, if you want to boost the Barbarian and the Monk? Give them a few Fighting Styles to pick from at 1st level. Unarmored Defense is basically just a proficiency anyway, so it shouldn't be taking up one of the two 1st level class feature slots.

Man_Over_Game

2020-03-05, 02:42 PM

This, however, I'm giving the stink-eye. It's incredibly inelegant (having some attacks add your ability score to damage and some that don't is bad enough already). On top of that, having a -2 to -6 penalty to your to-hit is so incredibly massive that dual-wielding essentially becomes completely useless without taking the fighting style. It also has worrying possibilities when combined with other sources of bonus-action attacks - Crossbow Expert comes to mind.

The to-hit "penalty" would only apply for your off-hand attack, and otherwise wouldn't have any other cost.

So you could attack with a 1d8 weapon and hold a shield, or hold two 1d6 weapons and have your second attack be slightly less accurate. That modifier contributes maybe 20% difference in hit-chance. 2% less of a 1d6 weapon is about 2.8 damage. Accounting for the +1 difference from the other guy using a 1d8 weapon in their main hand, your choices are:

Use a 1d8 weapon and Shield, for +2 AC.
Use two light weapons, for +1.8 damage.

That second part also has the added benefit of being used for on-hit effects, and doesn't take as much time as a Shield (which takes a full action to equip).

Crossbow Expert is also pretty hard to exploit, considering your off-hand needs to be free to load it. I guess technically you could throw a knife or something in the middle of your barrage, but I'd probably consider that more of a weakness in the Crossbow Expert feat than anything.

I do agree with you on those combat feats, but that doesn't mean that everyone would. Fighters don't have much going for them beyond combat feats, and screwing with those is bound to make a lot of people upset.

Quietus

2020-03-05, 06:48 PM

“Additionally, a character choosing this feat with the Extra Attack feature can immediately follow any successful weapon strike with a free secondary attack with a weapon held in their off hand against the same target. This can only happen once per FULL attack option,
*Note* Monks employing their Martial Arts as their attack option do not gain this feature. Instead, a Monk who chooses this feat that has the Extra Attack feature is no longer required to spend Ki to activate Flurry of Blows”

I was going to suggest something like this, but go further - remember, a character has spent one of their precious few fears on this. That's already an expenditure. I would leave the feat as it is, but add the following :

"When you take the attack action, you may make a single attack with your off - hand weapon in addition to your normal attack and any attacks granted by the Extra Attack feature. This attack does not add your ability modifier to damage, unless you have the Two Weapon Fighting style.

You may not use your bonus action for anything involving an attack roll or requiring a saving throw on a turn you attack with your off hand, and if you have already used your bonus action for such, you may not attack with your off hand this turn. "

Definitely needs to be cleaned up for language, as I'm suffering from insomnia and that felt repetitive, but I think the idea is clear.

Yakk

2020-03-06, 09:42 AM

Me, I'd start with Duelist:
* You gain a +2 bonus to damage when making a weapon attack with a weapon held in one hand.
* You can draw a weapon as part of an action made to attack with it.

This replaces the two-weapon fighting style now. It also replaces the thrown weapon fighting style.

+2 per tap matches the two-weapon fighting style unless you have a 20 attribute and only 1 attack with your main hand. So this is pretty much a solid upgrade. The free draw both matches the name "duelist", makes it work well with TWF and with thrown.

Then boost Dual Wielder to be on-par with GWM:

Dual Wielder
* You gain a +1 bonus to AC when holding a different weapon in each hand.
* When you make a two-weapon fighting triggered attack, you can add your attribute bonus to damage.
* You can use any one-handed weapon while doing two-weapon fighting.
* When you hit a target with an attack as part of the attack action with advantage, you can use one lower attack roll to attempt to hit the same target with a weapon in your other hand.

Point 2 makes the math easier.

Point 3 and 1 are there for legacy reasons.

Point 4 is the damage boost. If you have a 50% chance of hitting, it turns advantage from a 1.5x damage increase to a 2.0x damage increase.

Lets compare 2x flaming long sword at level 20 to a flaming greatsword with GWF against AC 18 (Plate).

1d8+2d6+7 (18.5) vs 4d6+5 (+~3 from rerolls) (25)

+11 to hit vs AC 18 is hit on a 7+. So 70% chance to hit, or 1.4 * 18.5 = 25.9 per attack in the attack action for longswords.

0.1 crits for +1.15 damage for 27.05.

GWF on the GS for 35 per hit. Hit on a 12+ with advantage is 70% hit chance for 24.4125 per attack.

0.0975 crits for +1.365 damage for 25.7775.

Bonus action is free for DW for 91% chance to hit 10% crit for 17.985 damage
For GWF, bonus action requires a crit or a drop, for 24.4125 damage.

On a level 20 fighter action surging that is 234.385 DW vs 219.888 2H.

Without advantage, DW does 121.725 and 2H does 143.4.

Without advantage, the 2H wins. With advantage, the DW wins. Extended crits help 2H more than DW.

Rangers love DW feat because it gives more taps and frees up their bonus action. "You can hit with both dice" doesn't consume much table time compared to advantage if your weapons are the same.

It doesn't help Rogues as much as it looks, because their chance to land at least one attack remains the same.

Monks can use it if they want.

It makes whirling barbarians fun; they can reckless attack and get attacks with both weapons. That is similar synergy to GWF barbarians.

Paladins might go for it in order to land more smites, but it has a very small impact on the number of crits/round. So crit-fishing paladins don't get much from it.

I think I worded it to work with elven accuracy; you get to use both of the higher dice in your 3d20 basically.

HiveStriker

2020-03-12, 07:31 AM

So, everyone agrees, dual wielding sucks in 5e. So. How would you fix it? or on that note, if it need to be totally redone, how would you do it?
Nope, not everyone agrees. At all.

Dual-wielding is great as is in 5e. It's the "I want to specialize in dual-wielding mainly" part that is frowned upon. But honestly the only homebrew I ever needed was...
1. On Fighting Style: "when you decide on a ranged attack with a throwable weapon, you can draw it as part of the attack".
2. On feat: clarify that the "draw or sheath 2 at same time" can be mixed (you draw one weapon while sheathing another).

That was the only thing my and others ever needed in my games and essentially for Fighters or niche Hunter Rangers.

Besides that, we experimented a lot of ideas, which for most of them are simple ones that several people already posted in this or other threads, such as trading an attack for extra damage, getting another attack while losing accuracy, allowing Archery to affect thrown weapons, allowing Rage bonus on thrown weapon attacks*, using an attack as a feint to generate advantage**).

But they were just that: experimentations, for fun and refreshing experience.
Not something without which players would feel "underpowered".

One of the small nitpicks one could have before with dual-wielding was that weapon buffing spells cannot be twinned so if you didn't have either another way to "auto-magic" or enough magic weapons in world you could feel arbitrarily restricted...
But since they paved the way with that one weapon that can be split, you can just "copy/paste" while adapting when a player wants it.

* This I feel could legitimately be argued as a needed change: after all, you do use arm strength to throw weapons, even finesse ones, so on the assumption that while Raging you get bonus damage because you push your power beyond normal, why wouldn't it affect the energy provided to a throw?

** That last one is actually an "attack replacement" I allow everyone to use if my players want it, like Taunt or Disarm, it's decided on session 0 whether to include them or not.

Lupine

2020-03-12, 10:57 AM

Nope, not everyone agrees. At all.

As has become very evident.

Yakk

2020-03-12, 12:52 PM

Nope, not everyone agrees. At all.

Dual-wielding is great as is in 5e. It's the "I want to specialize in dual-wielding mainly" part that is frowned upon. But honestly the only homebrew I ever needed was...
1. On Fighting Style: "when you decide on a ranged attack with a throwable weapon, you can draw it as part of the attack".
2. On feat: clarify that the "draw or sheath 2 at same time" can be mixed (you draw one weapon while sheathing another).

That was the only thing my and others ever needed in my games and essentially for Fighters or niche Hunter Rangers.

Besides that, we experimented a lot of ideas, which for most of them are simple ones that several people already posted in this or other threads, such as trading an attack for extra damage, getting another attack while losing accuracy, allowing Archery to affect thrown weapons, allowing Rage bonus on thrown weapon attacks*, using an attack as a feint to generate advantage**).

But they were just that: experimentations, for fun and refreshing experience.
Not something without which players would feel "underpowered".

One of the small nitpicks one could have before with dual-wielding was that weapon buffing spells cannot be twinned so if you didn't have either another way to "auto-magic" or enough magic weapons in world you could feel arbitrarily restricted...
But since they paved the way with that one weapon that can be split, you can just "copy/paste" while adapting when a player wants it.

* This I feel could legitimately be argued as a needed change: after all, you do use arm strength to throw weapons, even finesse ones, so on the assumption that while Raging you get bonus damage because you push your power beyond normal, why wouldn't it affect the energy provided to a throw?

** That last one is actually an "attack replacement" I allow everyone to use if my players want it, like Taunt or Disarm, it's decided on session 0 whether to include them or not.
Have you compared a Crossbow Expert Sharpshooter to a double-longsword/rapier fighter?

At level 11, with two +1 items (crossbow expert takes a hand crossbow and an endless quiver +1, TWF takes two +1 swords). Both have 20 in attack stat. 2 H character gets a single flametongue

XBow: 4 attacks at +13 @ 1d6+7, or 4 attacks at +8 @ 1d6+17
TWF: 4 attacks at +11 @ 1d8+6
1H: 3 attacks at +11 @ 1d8+8
2H: 3 attacks at +10 @ 4d6+5

Against someone with 18 AC:
TWF deals 4*(.7*10.5 + .05 * 4.5) or 30.3 DPR, or 4*(.91*10.5 + .1 * 4.5) = 40.0 DPR with advantage
XBow build deals 4*(.55 * 20.5 + .05 * 3.5) or 45.8 DPR, or 4*(.80 * 20.5 + .10 * 3.5) = 67 DPR with advantage
1H deals 3*(.7 * 12.5 + .05 * 4.5) or 26.9 DPR. If they successfully shove, 3*(.91 * 12.5 + .1 * 4.5) = 35.5 DPR
2H deals 3*(.65 * 20.3 + .05 * 14) or 41.7 DPR, or 3*(.64 * 30.3 + .10 * 14) = 62.4 DPR with advantage
PAM+GWF deals 3*(.65 * 18.3 + .05 * 13.3) + 1*(.65 * 14.5 + .05 * 9.5) or 47.6 DPR, or 3*(.64 * 28.3 + .1 * 13.3) + 1*(.64 * 24.5 + .1 * 9.5) = 75.0 DPR witha dvantage

1H/TWF is within 20% of each other.

2H/XBow/PAM is within 20% of each other

I could try double flaming TWF:

TFW deals 4*(.65*16.5 + .05 * 11.5) or 45.2 DPR, or 4*(.88*16.5 + .1 * 11.5) = 62.7 DPR

that brings it in line with xbow.