The OP was basically a comparison of TWF vs other fighting styles, and while the damage is comparable, the TWF fighter sacrifices defense, and uses his bonus action while other styles don't. The other classes are irrelevant in this discussion.
Now we come to the gist of the conversation: In many ways, fighting this way sucks according to the rules of 5e. Without the Dual Wielder Feat, you cannot use weapons other than light this way at all, and remember that Feats are an optional rule and some DMs don’t allow them. The other drawback is that you need a Fighting Style (which many classes don’t have) in order to do this and gain the stat modifiers for the off-hand weapon. Multiclassing is also optional and so the idea of simply taking a 1-level ‘dip’ into the Fighter class in order to gain the Fighting Style may not be an option either. This means that only TWO classes get access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style and that’s Fighters and Rangers.
So…I can’t do the classic two-dagger rogue Assassin? Sure you can…but the second dagger will have no stat modifiers for damage. What about the Paladin? He gets Fighting Styles, doesn’t he? Yes, he does…but RAW he doesn’t have access to Two-Weapon Fighting. And now we begin to see the crux of the problem. Two-weapon fighting, as written, is something that sort of falls between the cracks of 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Have you actually looked at the rogue's damage output at every tier of play? What about the barbarian, fighter, paladin, and ranger?
What, exactly, is unfair about sword and board vs TWF? The damage is comparable throughout all of Tier 2. Certain spells allow it to deal more damage. It specifically falls off for fighters because they get more than 2 attacks, but it remains competitive for everyone else. And a fighter who chooses it will still have a leg up on every other martial class because they have more attacks than anyone else.
You're argument can be reduced to a rather narrow niche. It's only a seemingly bad choice when compared to other possible fighters. And that mostly comes down to a lack of flexibility. For everyone else, it's awesome.
The OP was basically a comparison of TWF vs other fighting styles, and while the damage is comparable, the TWF fighter sacrifices defense, and uses his bonus action while other styles don't. The other classes are irrelevant in this discussion.
I'm not convinced that's true. Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters. If we "fix" it for fighters, what do they have that keeps this from being imbalanced for everyone?
Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters.
Why would you say that? I wouldn't.
I say that because it's true. Or, at least, it can be. It's a "for the sake of argument" position.
A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will out put the most of these builds. And with a shield they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration.
A rogue gets a second chance at pulling off their Sneak Attack, and they don't care about +5 DPR when the lion's share of their DPR comes from a pool of d6s. (It's also all-or-nothing, so there's greater risk-reward.) The swashbuckler archetype can also withdraw from up to two targets at once without provoking an Opportunity Attack.
And it's already competitive (within 1 DPR) for barbarians starting at 9th level, though it takes a round to start because their first Bonus Action is spent flying into a rage. If they acquire the fighting style and/or Dual Wielder, it's flat out better than wielding any heavy weapon.
Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters.
Why would you say that? I wouldn't.
I say that because it's true. Or, at least, it can be. It's a "for the sake of argument" position.
A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will out put the most of these builds. And with a shield they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration.
A rogue gets a second chance at pulling off their Sneak Attack, and they don't care about +5 DPR when the lion's share of their DPR comes from a pool of d6s. (It's also all-or-nothing, so there's greater risk-reward.) The swashbuckler archetype can also withdraw from up to two targets at once without provoking an Opportunity Attack.
And it's already competitive (within 1 DPR) for barbarians starting at 9th level, though it takes a round to start because their first Bonus Action is spent flying into a rage. If they acquire the fighting style and/or Dual Wielder, it's flat out better than wielding any heavy weapon.
This is why I used a very specific pair for my comparison. D&D is all about the numbers and with just one small tweak you can completely change everything. I compared a fighter doing X damage to another fighter doing Y damage and the primary complaint was that the X damage was larger AND that same character had the option for a higher AC.
Before you compare a Ranger to a Paladin for anything you need to establish some sort of baseline. What weapon are they using? Are one or both using a shield? Most Paladins wear heavier armor so how does that affect the numbers? It doesn't matter if one character is doing more damage if they're paying for that in some other way. The Ranger does more damage than the Paladin. Okay...so what? If the Ranger is doing Studded Leather and Dex 20 that's an AC of 17. The Paladin in Heavy Armor and Shield is a 20 or more. Let's assume they both have the same Con so they have the same HP. So the Ranger does more damage and the Paladin lasts longer due to higher AC.
That's called balance. Why do you think Wizards have crap AC (mostly), terrible HP, and FIREBALLS? Barbs have mediocre AC on a good day but then they have Resistance to damage to balance it out. They also can gain Advantage whenever they want which is probably why they only get 2 Attacks.
Where you want to start is comparing a Ranger with Duelist with a Ranger with TWF.
If our cleric had to choose a fighting style, she'd probably take one that stacks on top of her current abilities rather than diluting them. If she took TWF, she'd lose two points of AC and she'd have to decide between the second attack and her Bonus Action spells. Adding two points to her damage with Dueling would seem like the no-brainer choice.
If our cleric had to choose a fighting style, she'd probably take one that stacks on top of her current abilities rather than diluting them. If she took TWF, she'd lose two points of AC and she'd have to decide between the second attack and her Bonus Action spells. Adding two points to her damage with Dueling would seem like the no-brainer choice.
And this is why these decisions have to be made on a case by case basis. My Cleric uses a Greatsword (MC Paladin with GWM) so I would take Defense instead. Every character is different. This is why when comparing raw numbers you HAVE to keep the parameters narrow otherwise one small change blows it all out of the water.
Imagine having a party with three characters, all with GWM or Sharpshooter. You can do all kinds of math on their damage output, chances to hit, etc. Now add a Cleric who casts Bless on them every fight. Totally changes things.
Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters.
Why would you say that? I wouldn't.
I say that because it's true. Or, at least, it can be. It's a "for the sake of argument" position.
A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will out put the most of these builds. And with a shield they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration.
A rogue gets a second chance at pulling off their Sneak Attack, and they don't care about +5 DPR when the lion's share of their DPR comes from a pool of d6s. (It's also all-or-nothing, so there's greater risk-reward.) The swashbuckler archetype can also withdraw from up to two targets at once without provoking an Opportunity Attack.
And it's already competitive (within 1 DPR) for barbarians starting at 9th level, though it takes a round to start because their first Bonus Action is spent flying into a rage. If they acquire the fighting style and/or Dual Wielder, it's flat out better than wielding any heavy weapon.
This is why I used a very specific pair for my comparison. D&D is all about the numbers and with just one small tweak you can completely change everything. I compared a fighter doing X damage to another fighter doing Y damage and the primary complaint was that the X damage was larger AND that same character had the option for a higher AC.
Before you compare a Ranger to a Paladin for anything you need to establish some sort of baseline. What weapon are they using? Are one or both using a shield? Most Paladins wear heavier armor so how does that affect the numbers? It doesn't matter if one character is doing more damage if they're paying for that in some other way. The Ranger does more damage than the Paladin. Okay...so what? If the Ranger is doing Studded Leather and Dex 20 that's an AC of 17. The Paladin in Heavy Armor and Shield is a 20 or more. Let's assume they both have the same Con so they have the same HP. So the Ranger does more damage and the Paladin lasts longer due to higher AC.
That's called balance. Why do you think Wizards have crap AC (mostly), terrible HP, and FIREBALLS? Barbs have mediocre AC on a good day but then they have Resistance to damage to balance it out. They also can gain Advantage whenever they want which is probably why they only get 2 Attacks.
Where you want to start is comparing a Ranger with Duelist with a Ranger with TWF.
Are you trying to say "baseline" should be different for every class? Because it looks like you are, and I just cannot agree with that position. Classes, and the characters that use them, do not exist in a vacuum. They're not all intended to be balanced 1:1 against one another, but they all must share the same space. Their primary goal is to emulate a specific fantasy. Whether they live up to that is another matter entirely.
When you said you wanted to fix dual wielding, you implied by your choice of title alone that you find it lacking across the board. Not just with Fighters, but with everyone. It doesn't matter if they're a core class like Barbarian, Ranger, or Rogue, or a subclass like the College of Swords. And now you want to leave them all out of the conversation, as if they don't matter?
Your "very specific pair" isn't even a snapshot of the "problem" you claim two-weapon fighting has. Don't get me wrong, it could very well have a problem. Mike Mearls is on record years ago saying they shouldn't have tied it to the Bonus Action. He even toyed with alternate methods in his Happy Fun Hour. (Unfortunately, those videos were all taken down.) But remember what I said about theorycrafting and faulty premises? You're handicapping your own argument.
Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters.
Why would you say that? I wouldn't.
I say that because it's true. Or, at least, it can be. It's a "for the sake of argument" position.
A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will out put the most of these builds. And with a shield they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration.
A rogue gets a second chance at pulling off their Sneak Attack, and they don't care about +5 DPR when the lion's share of their DPR comes from a pool of d6s. (It's also all-or-nothing, so there's greater risk-reward.) The swashbuckler archetype can also withdraw from up to two targets at once without provoking an Opportunity Attack.
And it's already competitive (within 1 DPR) for barbarians starting at 9th level, though it takes a round to start because their first Bonus Action is spent flying into a rage. If they acquire the fighting style and/or Dual Wielder, it's flat out better than wielding any heavy weapon.
This is why I used a very specific pair for my comparison. D&D is all about the numbers and with just one small tweak you can completely change everything. I compared a fighter doing X damage to another fighter doing Y damage and the primary complaint was that the X damage was larger AND that same character had the option for a higher AC.
Before you compare a Ranger to a Paladin for anything you need to establish some sort of baseline. What weapon are they using? Are one or both using a shield? Most Paladins wear heavier armor so how does that affect the numbers? It doesn't matter if one character is doing more damage if they're paying for that in some other way. The Ranger does more damage than the Paladin. Okay...so what? If the Ranger is doing Studded Leather and Dex 20 that's an AC of 17. The Paladin in Heavy Armor and Shield is a 20 or more. Let's assume they both have the same Con so they have the same HP. So the Ranger does more damage and the Paladin lasts longer due to higher AC.
That's called balance. Why do you think Wizards have crap AC (mostly), terrible HP, and FIREBALLS? Barbs have mediocre AC on a good day but then they have Resistance to damage to balance it out. They also can gain Advantage whenever they want which is probably why they only get 2 Attacks.
Where you want to start is comparing a Ranger with Duelist with a Ranger with TWF.
Are you trying to say "baseline" should be different for every class? Because it looks like you are, and I just cannot agree with that position. Classes, and the characters that use them, do not exist in a vacuum. They're not all intended to be balanced 1:1 against one another, but they all must share the same space. Their primary goal is to emulate a specific fantasy. Whether they live up to that is another matter entirely.
When you said you wanted to fix dual wielding, you implied by your choice of title alone that you find it lacking across the board. Not just with Fighters, but with everyone. It doesn't matter if they're a core class like Barbarian, Ranger, or Rogue, or a subclass like the College of Swords. And now you want to leave them all out of the conversation, as if they don't matter?
Your "very specific pair" isn't even a snapshot of the "problem" you claim two-weapon fighting has. Don't get me wrong, it could very well have a problem. Mike Mearls is on record years ago saying they shouldn't have tied it to the Bonus Action. He even toyed with alternate methods in his Happy Fun Hour. (Unfortunately, those videos were all taken down.) But remember what I said about theorycrafting and faulty premises? You're handicapping your own argument.
You can't ignore the forest for the trees.
Your baseline doesn't have to be different for every class but since the different classes weigh different traits unevenly making anything consistent across multiple classes is insanely complex and a lot of it is purely subjective.
Example: Comparing AC across classes is relatively simple because it's the same system to generate the number for everyone. Sure, you have stuff like Mage Armor and the Shield spell but those are more outliers than core concerns. If my Fighter has 16 AC and your Ranger has 17 AC then they're close with the Ranger having a slight advantage. This is easy for all of us to arrive at and agree on (I hope). Now try it with Barbarians. A Barb with a 16 Con, 14 Dex, and no shield using Unarmored Defense has an AC of 15 barring any outside buffs. Period, full stop. So numbers to numbers the Barb has a worse AC than either the Fighter or the Ranger I just mentioned and that's bad, right? Not necessarily because they also get Resistance. What subclass do they take? Are they Resistant to everything but Psychic damage or are they more vulnerable? What if the campaign they're in is run by a DM that doesn't use as many magic attacks as the next guy? Normal Resistance is going to be much more effective then, right?
The farther you go from your basic point, the harder it is to take in ALL the data and the easier it is to render one or more arguments moot. You said it yourself...'the classes aren't meant to be compared 1:1 but they do share the same space.' This is why we have SO many different builds. I mentioned (using your example) a Ranger with TWF doing more damage than a Paladin (I added heavy armor and shield). The Ranger does more damage but the Paladin has much higher AC. Which one is more important to YOU? It's subjective and that's why I strongly feel that unless you have two relatively simple comparisons there are going to be too many variables to do more than create two or more sides arguing with each other.
I'm still waiting for anyone to explain in clear language why changing TWF is a bad thing. Let's run down a few points:
Rogues don't need it because the damage buff would be minuscule compared to their Sneak Attack. I don't see any reason why the fact that the Rogue DOESN'T need something should be evidence that anyone else doesn't. Wizards don't NEED heavy armor but they can get it if they want it. So what? If the Rogue gets to add the damage buff to their off-hand attack that's a buff of 5 points max. Compared to their top-end Sneak Attack bonus of 10D6 this is chicken feed. Besides, the Rogue has a LOT more that they can do with their Bonus Action so if they do take it for an attack then they're likely giving up their Dash or their Disengage or whatever. Risk versus reward.
Barbs using TWF would do more damage than with GWM and a big weapon. Gee, the idea that someone might make a Barbarian using a build OTHER THAN GWM and a big weapon sounds like a good one to me, considering how popular that build is, but let's look at it:
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with a big weapon and +3 Str mod: 1 attack, +5 to hit, and +3 damage once. I'll use the great ax since it's popular and say 6.5 average damage so +5 to hit and 9.5 damage. Rage Bonus is +2 so 11.5 damage.
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with TWF with no changes RAW: 2 attacks at +5 to hit twice and one at +3 damage and one with straight damage. TWF means Light weapons so 1 attack at D6+3 and one at D6 (because the Rage buff only counts for Str-based weapons). That works out to 6.5+3.5 or 10 on average. Now, what if we change TWF so we can use non-Light weapons? Add 1 point of damage per attack and we get...now let's not always see the same hands...12 that's right. So with one of the changes I suggested the difference between the two is one-half of one point. Oh, by the way, the Big Ax Guy pulls ahead slightly thanks to the fact that 5% of the time he adds 1D12 for the Crit and the TWF Guy adds 1D6. The TWF guy also can't take GWM for the burst damage bonus.
I'm not seeing a problem yet.
"A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will output the most of these builds. And with a shield, they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration."
Thank you for making my point for me here. "The Ranger with TWF is already outputting more damage than a Paladin or Ranger with Dueling." And the Paladin and the Ranger have their off-hand free to use a shield which results in a higher AC. How is that not fair? Don't forget that the Duelists can also use Hunter's Mark. "That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will output the most of these builds. And with a shield, they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration." And, again, you just made my point. The guy using TWF is going to do more damage, but be easier to hit. His BA is tied up every round. This is BALANCED OUT by the Paladin with the higher AC (by a fair margin) or the Duelist Ranger with the higher AC and, as a result, fewer issues with Concentration. The Fighter is going to have twice as many attacks as the Ranger and on and on and on.
This is already wandering WAY off course and now you want to bring in the subclasses? Okay...I'm not doing anything this afternoon:
The Vengeance Paladin can get Advantage on EVERY Attack on their target for a minute. I'm pretty sure the TWF Ranger will miss at least once in a while. And remember...one of the drawbacks of Hunter's Mark is that every miss is MORE damage lost.
The Conquest Paladin can make their target Frightened for a minute. That's Disadvantage on attack rolls IIRC.
Oath of Devotion can give their weapon a buff equal to their Cha modifier so up to +5 to hit. Granted, that's not the same as damage, but if my to-hit bonus means that I hit while you're missing that has to be factored in, right?
While you're concentrating on Hunter's Mark the Paladin might be casting Bless for a big bonus to hit, or Heroism for free Temp HP every turn. Sure, you do more damage but if you both start at the same HP and the Pally has both a higher AC AND Temp HP then you might be faceplanted while he's still up and doing damage.
THIS is why a conversation outside of pure numbers, apples to apples, is pointless. We can both literally grow old and die before we manage to work out all the possible permutations involved here. And there is no way that I know of to objectively weigh the non-numerical pros and cons. You say that TWF on a Ranger combines with Hunter's Mark does more damage than a Duelist Ranger using Hunter's Mark and you're right. But you might think that the additional damage is the most important unit of measure where I might think that getting hit 10% less and thus making fewer Concentration checks and staying on my feet longer balances it out. Now which of us is right?
If you want me to say that changing TWF won't make some specific combinations more powerful then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it will. But is the change any more unbalancing than 'I'm going to take a 2-level dip in Warlock so I can cast Darkness and see through it so I'm always at Advantage and the enemy is always at Disadvantage'? Some combinations are ALREADY more powerful but I don't see anyone saying 'you can't do that because this other build is too powerful.'
Are you REALLY worried that we'll suddenly see a mass exodus toward TWF Rangers using Hunter's Mark all the time? If that's your sticking point then I'm sorry...I got nothing for that.
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with TWF with no changes RAW: 2 attacks at +5 to hit twice and one at +3 damage and one with straight damage. TWF means Light weapons so 1 attack at D6+3 and one at D6 (because the Rage buff only counts for Str-based weapons).
Errr, am I missing something? Since when are Light weapons not STR-based?
Even Finesse weapons give you the option of STR or DEX
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with TWF with no changes RAW: 2 attacks at +5 to hit twice and one at +3 damage and one with straight damage. TWF means Light weapons so 1 attack at D6+3 and one at D6 (because the Rage buff only counts for Str-based weapons).
Errr, am I missing something? Since when are Light weapons not STR-based?
Even Finesse weapons give you the option of STR or DEX
If you want apples-to-apples comparisons of numbers, fine, let's try 1-weapon Rogue vs 2-weapon Rogue.
Amy wields one weapon, a rapier (1d8). Barbara wields 2 shortswords (2d6). Carol wields a shortsword (1d6) and a dagger (1d4). Deborah wields 2 daggers (2d4). Let's see how they compare at Levels 1 & 5 with regular TWF since they don't get a fighting style:
I'm assuming that these Rogues will all be getting Sneak Attack from having an ally next to the target, in order to avoid the question of Advantage. Why include Deborah with her 2 daggers? Because she could throw them and stay out of melee, thus avoiding the need for Disengage. I also included Carol with both flavors of light weapons to give options for either melee or ranged attacks. I also bolded the attack that got Sneak Attack separately to account for only making 1 attack and using the bonus action for something else.
If you mainly want to compare the Rogues that can get/stay away from melee while making all the attacks they can, that's Amy & Deborah. Note that Deborah is very slightly ahead in total damage dealt.
But as Rogues don't get shield proficiency anyway, they aren't giving up AC by lacking one, so why not wield a second weapon like Barbara or Carol? Nobody said they have to make the second attack if the first one hit, so they can always Disengage, and still have dealt competitive amounts of damage; but if they missed and hit with the second attack, they could still do at least as much damage as Deborah with her single dagger attack.
Either way, my point is that a Rogue very much benefits from wielding two weapons, even without a fighting style, even without a feat. If they decide to take a feat like Fighting Initiate to get a fighting style for a little extra damage (note that level 5 Duelist-style Amy does 21 damage compared to level 5 TWF-style Deborah's 17 + 6.5 = 23.5), or Dual Wielder to wield rapier + anything else and get +1 AC, it's just icing on the cake.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Since the argument was about Fighting Styles, I think you missed the point. You're also leaving out the opportunity cost of not having their Bonus Action because they are attacking with it. And choosing a class that doesn't have Shield proficiency as your example is another wrinkle.
Since the argument was about Fighting Styles, I think you missed the point. You're also leaving out the opportunity cost of not having their Bonus Action because they are attacking with it. And choosing a class that doesn't have Shield proficiency as your example is another wrinkle.
Apples to apples, remember? We're not comparing with other classes. And again, the Rogue throwing 2 daggers avoids the opportunity costpotential pitfalls of getting into melee.
THIS is why a conversation outside of pure numbers, apples to apples, is pointless. We can both literally grow old and die before we manage to work out all the possible permutations involved here. And there is no way that I know of to objectively weigh the non-numerical pros and cons. You say that TWF on a Ranger combines with Hunter's Mark does more damage than a Duelist Ranger using Hunter's Mark and you're right. But you might think that the additional damage is the most important unit of measure where I might think that getting hit 10% less and thus making fewer Concentration checks and staying on my feet longer balances it out. Now which of us is right?
If you want me to say that changing TWF won't make some specific combinations more powerful then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it will. But is the change any more unbalancing than 'I'm going to take a 2-level dip in Warlock so I can cast Darkness and see through it so I'm always at Advantage and the enemy is always at Disadvantage'? Some combinations are ALREADY more powerful but I don't see anyone saying 'you can't do that because this other build is too powerful.'
Are you REALLY worried that we'll suddenly see a mass exodus toward TWF Rangers using Hunter's Mark all the time? If that's your sticking point then I'm sorry...I got nothing for that.
It would be a lot easier to have a conversation with far shorter posts that got immediately to the point.
This thread has lasted for three pages, and you still haven't said what the problem is. Should Two-Weapon Fighting deal an amount of damage halfway between Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting? Should it deal the same amount as Great Weapon Fighting? Should the Bonus Action just not be used?
Have you looked at the many, many "fixes" that the community, including professionals, has floated around the web these past few years yet never agreed upon?
I'm all for tackling problems; they're fun little exercises. This is pulling teeth.
THIS is why a conversation outside of pure numbers, apples to apples, is pointless. We can both literally grow old and die before we manage to work out all the possible permutations involved here. And there is no way that I know of to objectively weigh the non-numerical pros and cons. You say that TWF on a Ranger combines with Hunter's Mark does more damage than a Duelist Ranger using Hunter's Mark and you're right. But you might think that the additional damage is the most important unit of measure where I might think that getting hit 10% less and thus making fewer Concentration checks and staying on my feet longer balances it out. Now which of us is right?
If you want me to say that changing TWF won't make some specific combinations more powerful then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it will. But is the change any more unbalancing than 'I'm going to take a 2-level dip in Warlock so I can cast Darkness and see through it so I'm always at Advantage and the enemy is always at Disadvantage'? Some combinations are ALREADY more powerful but I don't see anyone saying 'you can't do that because this other build is too powerful.'
Are you REALLY worried that we'll suddenly see a mass exodus toward TWF Rangers using Hunter's Mark all the time? If that's your sticking point then I'm sorry...I got nothing for that.
It would be a lot easier to have a conversation with far shorter posts that got immediately to the point.
This thread has lasted for three pages, and you still haven't said what the problem is. Should Two-Weapon Fighting deal an amount of damage halfway between Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting? Should it deal the same amount as Great Weapon Fighting? Should the Bonus Action just not be used?
Have you looked at the many, many "fixes" that the community, including professionals, has floated around the web these past few years yet never agreed upon?
I'm all for tackling problems; they're fun little exercises. This is pulling teeth.
Hey, I framed what I saw as an issue and outline four possible ways to fix it in my original post. It was everyone ELSE that decided to drag in everything from GWM to how many weapons a Ranger can use. I went so far as to put in a cut point so the people like yourself that can do the math could skip it. Not my fault reading comprehension is diminishing in this country.
There is a disparity between what many characters, mainly Fighters, do for damage between Duelist and TWF. The Duelist Fighter (and some others as we've discussed) enjoys both more damage AND the possibility of an easy +2 AC. If you don't see this as a problem worth discussing then why are you here?
I NEVER brought GWF into my OP (which apparently nobody read). GWF is a completely different topic. PLEASE stop trying to drag in every other detail under the sun.
The disparity between the Duelist and TWF fighting styles is unfair. I don' believe in nerfing stuff so we leave Duelist alone and fix TWF. Period.
As for your other comment...no, I haven't been trolling thousands of other posts and threads looking at what others, including 'experts' have said about it. It's interesting to me though that if it isn't a problem, why are so many people trying to fix it? Seems like it might be worth consideration...
I have not failed 10,000 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 10,000 ways will not work. When I have eliminated the ways that will not work, I will find the way that will work. -Thomas Edison, speaking about inventing the Incandescent Lamp
You presented four possible solutions without stating your goal. You're still not stating your goal. Your "fixes" don't fix anything because you don't even know what you want; just what you don't want. That's not how you solve a problem. You need an end result in mind. Saying, "this doesn't deal enough damage for me," isn't good enough.
Everyone tinkers with the rules for their home games because everyone finds something they don't like. The only place you won't find that is in AL. For crying out loud, there are people who want to nerf prepared spellcasters by going back to pure Vancian spell preparation; assigning spells to specific spell slots. It's not all about power fantasy. It's about the experience they want to deliver.
You are, self-admittedly, ignorant and incurious of what's out there. And that's an actual problem for you that goes beyond just D&D. There might be a solution out there that works for you. At the very least, you can find all the things that others have tried and, if you don't like them, cross them off your list. You have at your fingertips a ludicrous amount of information to draw from, and you won't even consider it. You're actually dismissive of professional designers who do this for a living. You mock them by calling them "experts" (that's how you do it, by the way) when they have actual expertise in the field.
Yes, Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. I'm not saying any of them have a perfect solution for you or anyone else. Tastes differ from person to person. That said, they are a resource that could be used.
You're not clever because you think you're on to something. If anything, you're late to the party. People have been complaining about some aspect or other of the game since 2014. You call the disparity, particularly in regard to Fighters, "unfair". Okay, how is it unfair? I'm not saying it is or isn't. I want you to articulate why you think it's unfair, why you think fairness is important, and what you think fairness would look like.
And you don't owe me or anyone else explanations. But we can't really offer meaningful feedback or assistance if we don't understand the issue. And that's on you to effectively communicate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From the OP:
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I took the TWF fighting Style, and my DM gave me Dual-Wielder as a freebie.
I'm not convinced that's true. Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters. If we "fix" it for fighters, what do they have that keeps this from being imbalanced for everyone?
Let's say TWF is already better than Dueling for non-fighters.
Why would you say that? I wouldn't.
I say that because it's true. Or, at least, it can be. It's a "for the sake of argument" position.
This is why I used a very specific pair for my comparison. D&D is all about the numbers and with just one small tweak you can completely change everything. I compared a fighter doing X damage to another fighter doing Y damage and the primary complaint was that the X damage was larger AND that same character had the option for a higher AC.
Before you compare a Ranger to a Paladin for anything you need to establish some sort of baseline. What weapon are they using? Are one or both using a shield? Most Paladins wear heavier armor so how does that affect the numbers? It doesn't matter if one character is doing more damage if they're paying for that in some other way. The Ranger does more damage than the Paladin. Okay...so what? If the Ranger is doing Studded Leather and Dex 20 that's an AC of 17. The Paladin in Heavy Armor and Shield is a 20 or more. Let's assume they both have the same Con so they have the same HP. So the Ranger does more damage and the Paladin lasts longer due to higher AC.
That's called balance. Why do you think Wizards have crap AC (mostly), terrible HP, and FIREBALLS? Barbs have mediocre AC on a good day but then they have Resistance to damage to balance it out. They also can gain Advantage whenever they want which is probably why they only get 2 Attacks.
Where you want to start is comparing a Ranger with Duelist with a Ranger with TWF.
If our cleric had to choose a fighting style, she'd probably take one that stacks on top of her current abilities rather than diluting them. If she took TWF, she'd lose two points of AC and she'd have to decide between the second attack and her Bonus Action spells. Adding two points to her damage with Dueling would seem like the no-brainer choice.
And this is why these decisions have to be made on a case by case basis. My Cleric uses a Greatsword (MC Paladin with GWM) so I would take Defense instead. Every character is different. This is why when comparing raw numbers you HAVE to keep the parameters narrow otherwise one small change blows it all out of the water.
Imagine having a party with three characters, all with GWM or Sharpshooter. You can do all kinds of math on their damage output, chances to hit, etc. Now add a Cleric who casts Bless on them every fight. Totally changes things.
Are you trying to say "baseline" should be different for every class? Because it looks like you are, and I just cannot agree with that position. Classes, and the characters that use them, do not exist in a vacuum. They're not all intended to be balanced 1:1 against one another, but they all must share the same space. Their primary goal is to emulate a specific fantasy. Whether they live up to that is another matter entirely.
When you said you wanted to fix dual wielding, you implied by your choice of title alone that you find it lacking across the board. Not just with Fighters, but with everyone. It doesn't matter if they're a core class like Barbarian, Ranger, or Rogue, or a subclass like the College of Swords. And now you want to leave them all out of the conversation, as if they don't matter?
Your "very specific pair" isn't even a snapshot of the "problem" you claim two-weapon fighting has. Don't get me wrong, it could very well have a problem. Mike Mearls is on record years ago saying they shouldn't have tied it to the Bonus Action. He even toyed with alternate methods in his Happy Fun Hour. (Unfortunately, those videos were all taken down.) But remember what I said about theorycrafting and faulty premises? You're handicapping your own argument.
You can't ignore the forest for the trees.
I was just comparing between TWF and Dueling, but if all choices were available, the Cleric would probably take Defense as well.
Your baseline doesn't have to be different for every class but since the different classes weigh different traits unevenly making anything consistent across multiple classes is insanely complex and a lot of it is purely subjective.
Example: Comparing AC across classes is relatively simple because it's the same system to generate the number for everyone. Sure, you have stuff like Mage Armor and the Shield spell but those are more outliers than core concerns. If my Fighter has 16 AC and your Ranger has 17 AC then they're close with the Ranger having a slight advantage. This is easy for all of us to arrive at and agree on (I hope). Now try it with Barbarians. A Barb with a 16 Con, 14 Dex, and no shield using Unarmored Defense has an AC of 15 barring any outside buffs. Period, full stop. So numbers to numbers the Barb has a worse AC than either the Fighter or the Ranger I just mentioned and that's bad, right? Not necessarily because they also get Resistance. What subclass do they take? Are they Resistant to everything but Psychic damage or are they more vulnerable? What if the campaign they're in is run by a DM that doesn't use as many magic attacks as the next guy? Normal Resistance is going to be much more effective then, right?
The farther you go from your basic point, the harder it is to take in ALL the data and the easier it is to render one or more arguments moot. You said it yourself...'the classes aren't meant to be compared 1:1 but they do share the same space.' This is why we have SO many different builds. I mentioned (using your example) a Ranger with TWF doing more damage than a Paladin (I added heavy armor and shield). The Ranger does more damage but the Paladin has much higher AC. Which one is more important to YOU? It's subjective and that's why I strongly feel that unless you have two relatively simple comparisons there are going to be too many variables to do more than create two or more sides arguing with each other.
I'm still waiting for anyone to explain in clear language why changing TWF is a bad thing. Let's run down a few points:
Rogues don't need it because the damage buff would be minuscule compared to their Sneak Attack. I don't see any reason why the fact that the Rogue DOESN'T need something should be evidence that anyone else doesn't. Wizards don't NEED heavy armor but they can get it if they want it. So what? If the Rogue gets to add the damage buff to their off-hand attack that's a buff of 5 points max. Compared to their top-end Sneak Attack bonus of 10D6 this is chicken feed. Besides, the Rogue has a LOT more that they can do with their Bonus Action so if they do take it for an attack then they're likely giving up their Dash or their Disengage or whatever. Risk versus reward.
Barbs using TWF would do more damage than with GWM and a big weapon. Gee, the idea that someone might make a Barbarian using a build OTHER THAN GWM and a big weapon sounds like a good one to me, considering how popular that build is, but let's look at it:
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with a big weapon and +3 Str mod: 1 attack, +5 to hit, and +3 damage once. I'll use the great ax since it's popular and say 6.5 average damage so +5 to hit and 9.5 damage. Rage Bonus is +2 so 11.5 damage.
Barbarian lvl 1-4 with TWF with no changes RAW: 2 attacks at +5 to hit twice and one at +3 damage and one with straight damage. TWF means Light weapons so 1 attack at D6+3 and one at D6 (because the Rage buff only counts for Str-based weapons). That works out to 6.5+3.5 or 10 on average. Now, what if we change TWF so we can use non-Light weapons? Add 1 point of damage per attack and we get...now let's not always see the same hands...12 that's right. So with one of the changes I suggested the difference between the two is one-half of one point. Oh, by the way, the Big Ax Guy pulls ahead slightly thanks to the fact that 5% of the time he adds 1D12 for the Crit and the TWF Guy adds 1D6. The TWF guy also can't take GWM for the burst damage bonus.
I'm not seeing a problem yet.
"A ranger with TWF is already outputting more DPR than a paladin or ranger with Dueling. And they can make use of hunter's mark to pull off considerably more sustained DPR over an encounter with minimal spell slot investment. The Dueling paladin must spend spell slots every turn just to keep up. Otherwise, they can't overcome the DPR without a great weapon. That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will output the most of these builds. And with a shield, they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration."
Thank you for making my point for me here. "The Ranger with TWF is already outputting more damage than a Paladin or Ranger with Dueling." And the Paladin and the Ranger have their off-hand free to use a shield which results in a higher AC. How is that not fair? Don't forget that the Duelists can also use Hunter's Mark. "That said, a ranger who specializes in Dueling and uses hunter's mark will output the most of these builds. And with a shield, they lessen the likelihood of being hit with an attack and forcing a saving throw to maintain concentration." And, again, you just made my point. The guy using TWF is going to do more damage, but be easier to hit. His BA is tied up every round. This is BALANCED OUT by the Paladin with the higher AC (by a fair margin) or the Duelist Ranger with the higher AC and, as a result, fewer issues with Concentration. The Fighter is going to have twice as many attacks as the Ranger and on and on and on.
This is already wandering WAY off course and now you want to bring in the subclasses? Okay...I'm not doing anything this afternoon:
The Vengeance Paladin can get Advantage on EVERY Attack on their target for a minute. I'm pretty sure the TWF Ranger will miss at least once in a while. And remember...one of the drawbacks of Hunter's Mark is that every miss is MORE damage lost.
The Conquest Paladin can make their target Frightened for a minute. That's Disadvantage on attack rolls IIRC.
Oath of Devotion can give their weapon a buff equal to their Cha modifier so up to +5 to hit. Granted, that's not the same as damage, but if my to-hit bonus means that I hit while you're missing that has to be factored in, right?
While you're concentrating on Hunter's Mark the Paladin might be casting Bless for a big bonus to hit, or Heroism for free Temp HP every turn. Sure, you do more damage but if you both start at the same HP and the Pally has both a higher AC AND Temp HP then you might be faceplanted while he's still up and doing damage.
THIS is why a conversation outside of pure numbers, apples to apples, is pointless. We can both literally grow old and die before we manage to work out all the possible permutations involved here. And there is no way that I know of to objectively weigh the non-numerical pros and cons. You say that TWF on a Ranger combines with Hunter's Mark does more damage than a Duelist Ranger using Hunter's Mark and you're right. But you might think that the additional damage is the most important unit of measure where I might think that getting hit 10% less and thus making fewer Concentration checks and staying on my feet longer balances it out. Now which of us is right?
If you want me to say that changing TWF won't make some specific combinations more powerful then I'm sorry to disappoint you but it will. But is the change any more unbalancing than 'I'm going to take a 2-level dip in Warlock so I can cast Darkness and see through it so I'm always at Advantage and the enemy is always at Disadvantage'? Some combinations are ALREADY more powerful but I don't see anyone saying 'you can't do that because this other build is too powerful.'
Are you REALLY worried that we'll suddenly see a mass exodus toward TWF Rangers using Hunter's Mark all the time? If that's your sticking point then I'm sorry...I got nothing for that.
Errr, am I missing something? Since when are Light weapons not STR-based?
Even Finesse weapons give you the option of STR or DEX
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I stand corrected.
If you want apples-to-apples comparisons of numbers, fine, let's try 1-weapon Rogue vs 2-weapon Rogue.
Amy wields one weapon, a rapier (1d8). Barbara wields 2 shortswords (2d6). Carol wields a shortsword (1d6) and a dagger (1d4). Deborah wields 2 daggers (2d4). Let's see how they compare at Levels 1 & 5 with regular TWF since they don't get a fighting style:
Level 1 (+3 Dex, +5 To-Hit, 1d6 Sneak Attack)
Level 5 (+4 Dex, +7 To-Hit, 3d6 Sneak Attack)
I'm assuming that these Rogues will all be getting Sneak Attack from having an ally next to the target, in order to avoid the question of Advantage. Why include Deborah with her 2 daggers? Because she could throw them and stay out of melee, thus avoiding the need for Disengage. I also included Carol with both flavors of light weapons to give options for either melee or ranged attacks. I also bolded the attack that got Sneak Attack separately to account for only making 1 attack and using the bonus action for something else.
If you mainly want to compare the Rogues that can get/stay away from melee while making all the attacks they can, that's Amy & Deborah. Note that Deborah is very slightly ahead in total damage dealt.
But as Rogues don't get shield proficiency anyway, they aren't giving up AC by lacking one, so why not wield a second weapon like Barbara or Carol? Nobody said they have to make the second attack if the first one hit, so they can always Disengage, and still have dealt competitive amounts of damage; but if they missed and hit with the second attack, they could still do at least as much damage as Deborah with her single dagger attack.
Either way, my point is that a Rogue very much benefits from wielding two weapons, even without a fighting style, even without a feat. If they decide to take a feat like Fighting Initiate to get a fighting style for a little extra damage (note that level 5 Duelist-style Amy does 21 damage compared to level 5 TWF-style Deborah's 17 + 6.5 = 23.5), or Dual Wielder to wield rapier + anything else and get +1 AC, it's just icing on the cake.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
Since the argument was about Fighting Styles, I think you missed the point. You're also leaving out the opportunity cost of not having their Bonus Action because they are attacking with it. And choosing a class that doesn't have Shield proficiency as your example is another wrinkle.
Apples to apples, remember? We're not comparing with other classes. And again, the Rogue throwing 2 daggers avoids the
opportunity costpotential pitfalls of getting into melee.Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
You might want to look up the definition of opportunity cost.
It would be a lot easier to have a conversation with far shorter posts that got immediately to the point.
This thread has lasted for three pages, and you still haven't said what the problem is. Should Two-Weapon Fighting deal an amount of damage halfway between Dueling and Great Weapon Fighting? Should it deal the same amount as Great Weapon Fighting? Should the Bonus Action just not be used?
Have you looked at the many, many "fixes" that the community, including professionals, has floated around the web these past few years yet never agreed upon?
I'm all for tackling problems; they're fun little exercises. This is pulling teeth.
Hey, I framed what I saw as an issue and outline four possible ways to fix it in my original post. It was everyone ELSE that decided to drag in everything from GWM to how many weapons a Ranger can use. I went so far as to put in a cut point so the people like yourself that can do the math could skip it. Not my fault reading comprehension is diminishing in this country.
There is a disparity between what many characters, mainly Fighters, do for damage between Duelist and TWF. The Duelist Fighter (and some others as we've discussed) enjoys both more damage AND the possibility of an easy +2 AC. If you don't see this as a problem worth discussing then why are you here?
I NEVER brought GWF into my OP (which apparently nobody read). GWF is a completely different topic. PLEASE stop trying to drag in every other detail under the sun.
The disparity between the Duelist and TWF fighting styles is unfair. I don' believe in nerfing stuff so we leave Duelist alone and fix TWF. Period.
As for your other comment...no, I haven't been trolling thousands of other posts and threads looking at what others, including 'experts' have said about it. It's interesting to me though that if it isn't a problem, why are so many people trying to fix it? Seems like it might be worth consideration...
You presented four possible solutions without stating your goal. You're still not stating your goal. Your "fixes" don't fix anything because you don't even know what you want; just what you don't want. That's not how you solve a problem. You need an end result in mind. Saying, "this doesn't deal enough damage for me," isn't good enough.
Everyone tinkers with the rules for their home games because everyone finds something they don't like. The only place you won't find that is in AL. For crying out loud, there are people who want to nerf prepared spellcasters by going back to pure Vancian spell preparation; assigning spells to specific spell slots. It's not all about power fantasy. It's about the experience they want to deliver.
You are, self-admittedly, ignorant and incurious of what's out there. And that's an actual problem for you that goes beyond just D&D. There might be a solution out there that works for you. At the very least, you can find all the things that others have tried and, if you don't like them, cross them off your list. You have at your fingertips a ludicrous amount of information to draw from, and you won't even consider it. You're actually dismissive of professional designers who do this for a living. You mock them by calling them "experts" (that's how you do it, by the way) when they have actual expertise in the field.
Yes, Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. I'm not saying any of them have a perfect solution for you or anyone else. Tastes differ from person to person. That said, they are a resource that could be used.
You're not clever because you think you're on to something. If anything, you're late to the party. People have been complaining about some aspect or other of the game since 2014. You call the disparity, particularly in regard to Fighters, "unfair". Okay, how is it unfair? I'm not saying it is or isn't. I want you to articulate why you think it's unfair, why you think fairness is important, and what you think fairness would look like.
And you don't owe me or anyone else explanations. But we can't really offer meaningful feedback or assistance if we don't understand the issue. And that's on you to effectively communicate.