I think you may be missing the point. Two-Weapon Fighting is balanced against other fighting styles across all classes. They do this by leaning on the action economy i.e. it costs the bonus action but gives an additional attack. Where as two handed weapons do more damage, weapon sheild give +2 AC etc. A ranger's features and abilities are going to lean on the same action economy; which implies a choice has to be made. In this context, you are right to point out that two-weapon fighting is not necessarily the optimum choice.. but I believe the rules as intended were such, that there should never be an option that is categorically better. Which I think is where you are heading
My suggestion, and something I offer in my games, is this houserule:
two-weapon fighting - fighting style (additional)
You can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon regardless of what you do as an action as long as you are holding two weapons during that action. You still get the bonus to damage normally given by this fighting style.
This might clean it up without unbalancing everything. it is more or less in line with the monk option (tasha's) pi fueled strike, if you are looking for precedent.
Another thing that several ranger subclasses have is this "Choose one or the other. OR! Choose one and THEN the other." kind of action economy. All two weapon fighting ranger have it, horizon walker and monster slayer have it, and beast masters (both PHB and Tasha's) have it. For example:
At level 10 a champion fighter, two weapon fighting with short swords, does 25.5 ((1d6 + 5)*3) damage per turn. A hunter ranger with the same, plus colossus slayer, does 30 ((1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d8) damage per turn (All WITHOUT expending any spell slots or requiring concentration, by the way. That is BIG!). The champion has action surge! So big damage maybe once every one or two fights. I look at damage over 3, 4, or 5 rounds, because many classes and/or subclasses don't do spikey nova damage, they do sustained damage over time. And rangers have damage over time calculation benefits. When you get to the boss fight, the hunter ranger (any ranger really) can do kind of do a two turn setup combo for big single target damage using hunter's mark. Turn one, use the bonus action to set hunter's mark for 28.5 ((1d6 + 1d6 + 5)*2 + 1d8). That's just a point and a half less than vanilla two weapon fighting. On turn two the hunter does 40.5 ((1d6 + 1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d8)! So lets say three rounds of combat. The champion, using action surge does a total of 93.5 damage over three rounds. The hunter, setting up hunter's mark and hitting with it on turn one and hitting with it on turns two and three is doing 109.5 damage over three rounds. Now lots can happen here. The campion might crit, the champion might not have an action surge available, the hunter might lose concentration, the hunter's mark target might die or need to be moved, but the point is think of the two weapon fighting ranger as setting up a "jab, jab, uppercut" combo when you need to hit hard.
The math, abilities, and subclass choices can be fiddled with however you want, but the point is rangers have a lot of these two turn setup combos in their class and subclass abilities as well as some of their spells. Looking at damage done over 3, 4, or 5 rounds provides a clearer image of what a character can do compared to others.
I personally always do ranged and have no problem, my current character at level 10 would do 1d8+5d6+15 (AIM for advantage) + 1d8+1d6+5, so that's what avg 150 over three rounds and he doesn't risk being hit as often, but hey if people want to dual wield go for it.
Yeah. Multiclass rangers are crazy. People love talking about the strength/charisma classes multiclass options, but the dexterity/wisdom multiclass options are insane.
And you nailed it on the head. All of the damage output, hit points, and AC of their fellow martials, but with a crazy increased survivability due to range and cover.
Also keep in mind that in the first round you could wield your main weapon (a long sword typically) 2 handed and get a D10 instead of a D8 to help boost your damage while you cast hunters mark. So you get a better damage in red one and can start dual wielding in end 2. Yes if you have other spells/B.A. features you want then it starts later but not every ranger subclass or ranger multiclass has that.
It's worth noting that two-weapon fighting rangers have a bit of an edge over ranged fighting rangers. A few, actually. There are drawbacks, of corse, but these are fighting styles after all, and are meant to be "give and take".
1. Rangers have a d10 hit die. Archer rangers more or less don't contribute to the party's hit point pool as a resource in combat. Two-weapon fighting rangers do contribute! Granted, so do other types of melee rangers, but I'll get to that in just a moment.
2. Opportunity attacks. I know most optimizers don't like to throw in AoO for calculations, but I think that is a mistake and should be factored in in some way as it does make a difference, possibly a very big difference, in damage output and especially when committing yourself to a style, weapon(s), and a feat(s) that make better or worse use of AoO. Any melee based ranger should add some kind of calculation for AoO during a combat. Personally I find a focused, tactically minded player can set up for a AoO every 3 to 5 rounds of combat. Ranged rangers get none of that! Some subclasses do better at this than others. Hunter ranger's colossus slayer level 3 ability can trigger once per turn, not just on the ranger's turn, so as a subclass, hunter's make "better" melee rangers than most in that regard.
3. Spell slot resources. Two weapon fighting rangers using no spell slots (let's say level 5 with a +4 modifier is (1d6 + 4)*3 for 22.5 average damage) can deal more damage than an archer ranger using no spell slots (same stuff for (1d8 + 4)*2 for 17 average damage).
4. Using hunter's mark helps rangers deal bigger single target damage, so too do ranger subclasses, ALL ranger subclasses (even the PHB beast master). The two weapon fighting ranger is already well adept at taking out mooks and mobs using no spell slots, but they can use hunter's mark for a BBEG fight if they use positioning and tactics to keep up their concentration for even just a round or two. It does have a bit of a setup, but it is very powerful when it works. To do this, use a bonus action for HM and make two attacks as normal (we are still talking about level 5 here). With shortswords you are doing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*2 for 22 average damage, which is only 0.5 less damage than not using HM. Then, for each turn after that (and on any AoO against the marked target) you are dealing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*3 for 33 average damage! So let's look at those averages over a 3 round combat. With no spell slot: 67.5. With a spell slot used: 88. That is a total of 20.5 damage from a single level 1 spell slot. Granted, it takes a situation and a setup to work, but it works, and rewards mindful players.
5. For feats, archers again are going to do higher single target damage than other combat feats for rangers, but they still lack everything else, hit point pool, opportunity attacks, etc. The duel wielder feat seems underpowered when compared with only single target damage output, and it is using only damage on your turn. But this feat does many things above and beyond just straight damage. It allows you to use bigger damage die weapons. That's pretty good. A couple more points of damage. I think the most important tactical choice here is to go with a whip! You can take a d8 sword or axe in your main hand, but take a whip and use it in your off hand, as this does a couple of things tactically. First you can attack without being in an enemy's reach, which is great for mobility. Second, you can still make attacks with advantage against prone targets, something archers can't do, (I'm looking at you beast masters). They can shove a target from father away and still not be in their reach. But most of all, you now have a situation where enemies proc opportunity attacks from you at both 5' and 10' distances. So unlike both other types of melee weapon users, you have many more tactical tools for positioning and AoO.
It's worth noting that two-weapon fighting rangers have a bit of an edge over ranged fighting rangers. A few, actually. There are drawbacks, of corse, but these are fighting styles after all, and are meant to be "give and take".
1. Rangers have a d10 hit die. Archer rangers more or less don't contribute to the party's hit point pool as a resource in combat. Two-weapon fighting rangers do contribute! Granted, so do other types of melee rangers, but I'll get to that in just a moment.
2. Opportunity attacks. I know most optimizers don't like to throw in AoO for calculations, but I think that is a mistake and should be factored in in some way as it does make a difference, possibly a very big difference, in damage output and especially when committing yourself to a style, weapon(s), and a feat(s) that make better or worse use of AoO. Any melee based ranger should add some kind of calculation for AoO during a combat. Personally I find a focused, tactically minded player can set up for a AoO every 3 to 5 rounds of combat. Ranged rangers get none of that! Some subclasses do better at this than others. Hunter ranger's colossus slayer level 3 ability can trigger once per turn, not just on the ranger's turn, so as a subclass, hunter's make "better" melee rangers than most in that regard.
3. Spell slot resources. Two weapon fighting rangers using no spell slots (let's say level 5 with a +4 modifier is (1d6 + 4)*3 for 22.5 average damage) can deal more damage than an archer ranger using no spell slots (same stuff for (1d8 + 4)*2 for 17 average damage).
4. Using hunter's mark helps rangers deal bigger single target damage, so too do ranger subclasses, ALL ranger subclasses (even the PHB beast master). The two weapon fighting ranger is already well adept at taking out mooks and mobs using no spell slots, but they can use hunter's mark for a BBEG fight if they use positioning and tactics to keep up their concentration for even just a round or two. It does have a bit of a setup, but it is very powerful when it works. To do this, use a bonus action for HM and make two attacks as normal (we are still talking about level 5 here). With shortswords you are doing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*2 for 22 average damage, which is only 0.5 less damage than not using HM. Then, for each turn after that (and on any AoO against the marked target) you are dealing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*3 for 33 average damage! So let's look at those averages over a 3 round combat. With no spell slot: 67.5. With a spell slot used: 88. That is a total of 20.5 damage from a single level 1 spell slot. Granted, it takes a situation and a setup to work, but it works, and rewards mindful players.
5. For feats, archers again are going to do higher single target damage than other combat feats for rangers, but they still lack everything else, hit point pool, opportunity attacks, etc. The duel wielder feat seems underpowered when compared with only single target damage output, and it is using only damage on your turn. But this feat does many things above and beyond just straight damage. It allows you to use bigger damage die weapons. That's pretty good. A couple more points of damage. I think the most important tactical choice here is to go with a whip! You can take a d8 sword or axe in your main hand, but take a whip and use it in your off hand, as this does a couple of things tactically. First you can attack without being in an enemy's reach, which is great for mobility. Second, you can still make attacks with advantage against prone targets, something archers can't do, (I'm looking at you beast masters). They can shove a target from father away and still not be in their reach. But most of all, you now have a situation where enemies proc opportunity attacks from you at both 5' and 10' distances. So unlike both other types of melee weapon users, you have many more tactical tools for positioning and AoO.
I forgot to mention two more things about the duel wielder feat.
1. Your AC goes up a bit. So now you have all of these tactical and damage options available to you in addition to an AC that is even-steven with your non shield wielding fighter and paladin counterparts, and surpasses your non shield wielding rogue, monk, and barbarian counterparts.
2. You can move more weapons, draw and stow, on your turn. So for even more options in your toolkit, keep some daggers on your belt to throw in a pinch for even greater range and tactical options when needed. You can sheath a sword, draw a dagger, and throw a dagger all with no action. Or you could throw 3 daggers on one turn.
All of these things combined makes it a potent combination of tactical options, and even great damage output.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think you may be missing the point. Two-Weapon Fighting is balanced against other fighting styles across all classes. They do this by leaning on the action economy i.e. it costs the bonus action but gives an additional attack. Where as two handed weapons do more damage, weapon sheild give +2 AC etc. A ranger's features and abilities are going to lean on the same action economy; which implies a choice has to be made. In this context, you are right to point out that two-weapon fighting is not necessarily the optimum choice.. but I believe the rules as intended were such, that there should never be an option that is categorically better. Which I think is where you are heading
My suggestion, and something I offer in my games, is this houserule:
two-weapon fighting - fighting style (additional)
You can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon regardless of what you do as an action as long as you are holding two weapons during that action. You still get the bonus to damage normally given by this fighting style.
This might clean it up without unbalancing everything. it is more or less in line with the monk option (tasha's) pi fueled strike, if you are looking for precedent.
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Another thing that several ranger subclasses have is this "Choose one or the other. OR! Choose one and THEN the other." kind of action economy. All two weapon fighting ranger have it, horizon walker and monster slayer have it, and beast masters (both PHB and Tasha's) have it. For example:
At level 10 a champion fighter, two weapon fighting with short swords, does 25.5 ((1d6 + 5)*3) damage per turn. A hunter ranger with the same, plus colossus slayer, does 30 ((1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d8) damage per turn (All WITHOUT expending any spell slots or requiring concentration, by the way. That is BIG!). The champion has action surge! So big damage maybe once every one or two fights. I look at damage over 3, 4, or 5 rounds, because many classes and/or subclasses don't do spikey nova damage, they do sustained damage over time. And rangers have damage over time calculation benefits. When you get to the boss fight, the hunter ranger (any ranger really) can do kind of do a two turn setup combo for big single target damage using hunter's mark. Turn one, use the bonus action to set hunter's mark for 28.5 ((1d6 + 1d6 + 5)*2 + 1d8). That's just a point and a half less than vanilla two weapon fighting. On turn two the hunter does 40.5 ((1d6 + 1d6 + 5)*3 + 1d8)! So lets say three rounds of combat. The champion, using action surge does a total of 93.5 damage over three rounds. The hunter, setting up hunter's mark and hitting with it on turn one and hitting with it on turns two and three is doing 109.5 damage over three rounds. Now lots can happen here. The campion might crit, the champion might not have an action surge available, the hunter might lose concentration, the hunter's mark target might die or need to be moved, but the point is think of the two weapon fighting ranger as setting up a "jab, jab, uppercut" combo when you need to hit hard.
The math, abilities, and subclass choices can be fiddled with however you want, but the point is rangers have a lot of these two turn setup combos in their class and subclass abilities as well as some of their spells. Looking at damage done over 3, 4, or 5 rounds provides a clearer image of what a character can do compared to others.
I personally always do ranged and have no problem, my current character at level 10 would do 1d8+5d6+15 (AIM for advantage) + 1d8+1d6+5, so that's what avg 150 over three rounds and he doesn't risk being hit as often, but hey if people want to dual wield go for it.
Yeah. Multiclass rangers are crazy. People love talking about the strength/charisma classes multiclass options, but the dexterity/wisdom multiclass options are insane.
And you nailed it on the head. All of the damage output, hit points, and AC of their fellow martials, but with a crazy increased survivability due to range and cover.
Also keep in mind that in the first round you could wield your main weapon (a long sword typically) 2 handed and get a D10 instead of a D8 to help boost your damage while you cast hunters mark. So you get a better damage in red one and can start dual wielding in end 2. Yes if you have other spells/B.A. features you want then it starts later but not every ranger subclass or ranger multiclass has that.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
It's worth noting that two-weapon fighting rangers have a bit of an edge over ranged fighting rangers. A few, actually. There are drawbacks, of corse, but these are fighting styles after all, and are meant to be "give and take".
1. Rangers have a d10 hit die. Archer rangers more or less don't contribute to the party's hit point pool as a resource in combat. Two-weapon fighting rangers do contribute! Granted, so do other types of melee rangers, but I'll get to that in just a moment.
2. Opportunity attacks. I know most optimizers don't like to throw in AoO for calculations, but I think that is a mistake and should be factored in in some way as it does make a difference, possibly a very big difference, in damage output and especially when committing yourself to a style, weapon(s), and a feat(s) that make better or worse use of AoO. Any melee based ranger should add some kind of calculation for AoO during a combat. Personally I find a focused, tactically minded player can set up for a AoO every 3 to 5 rounds of combat. Ranged rangers get none of that! Some subclasses do better at this than others. Hunter ranger's colossus slayer level 3 ability can trigger once per turn, not just on the ranger's turn, so as a subclass, hunter's make "better" melee rangers than most in that regard.
3. Spell slot resources. Two weapon fighting rangers using no spell slots (let's say level 5 with a +4 modifier is (1d6 + 4)*3 for 22.5 average damage) can deal more damage than an archer ranger using no spell slots (same stuff for (1d8 + 4)*2 for 17 average damage).
4. Using hunter's mark helps rangers deal bigger single target damage, so too do ranger subclasses, ALL ranger subclasses (even the PHB beast master). The two weapon fighting ranger is already well adept at taking out mooks and mobs using no spell slots, but they can use hunter's mark for a BBEG fight if they use positioning and tactics to keep up their concentration for even just a round or two. It does have a bit of a setup, but it is very powerful when it works. To do this, use a bonus action for HM and make two attacks as normal (we are still talking about level 5 here). With shortswords you are doing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*2 for 22 average damage, which is only 0.5 less damage than not using HM. Then, for each turn after that (and on any AoO against the marked target) you are dealing (1d6 + 1d6 + 4)*3 for 33 average damage! So let's look at those averages over a 3 round combat. With no spell slot: 67.5. With a spell slot used: 88. That is a total of 20.5 damage from a single level 1 spell slot. Granted, it takes a situation and a setup to work, but it works, and rewards mindful players.
5. For feats, archers again are going to do higher single target damage than other combat feats for rangers, but they still lack everything else, hit point pool, opportunity attacks, etc. The duel wielder feat seems underpowered when compared with only single target damage output, and it is using only damage on your turn. But this feat does many things above and beyond just straight damage. It allows you to use bigger damage die weapons. That's pretty good. A couple more points of damage. I think the most important tactical choice here is to go with a whip! You can take a d8 sword or axe in your main hand, but take a whip and use it in your off hand, as this does a couple of things tactically. First you can attack without being in an enemy's reach, which is great for mobility. Second, you can still make attacks with advantage against prone targets, something archers can't do, (I'm looking at you beast masters). They can shove a target from father away and still not be in their reach. But most of all, you now have a situation where enemies proc opportunity attacks from you at both 5' and 10' distances. So unlike both other types of melee weapon users, you have many more tactical tools for positioning and AoO.
I forgot to mention two more things about the duel wielder feat.
1. Your AC goes up a bit. So now you have all of these tactical and damage options available to you in addition to an AC that is even-steven with your non shield wielding fighter and paladin counterparts, and surpasses your non shield wielding rogue, monk, and barbarian counterparts.
2. You can move more weapons, draw and stow, on your turn. So for even more options in your toolkit, keep some daggers on your belt to throw in a pinch for even greater range and tactical options when needed. You can sheath a sword, draw a dagger, and throw a dagger all with no action. Or you could throw 3 daggers on one turn.
All of these things combined makes it a potent combination of tactical options, and even great damage output.