"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."
Character 1 does more damage but gets hit more often because he has a lower AC.
Character 2 does less damage but gets hit less often because he has a higher AC.
I've stated this as the cornerstone of my point several times. I can't make it any clearer. If you don't THINK this is a problem, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
"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."
Character 1 does more damage but gets hit more often because he has a lower AC.
Character 2 does less damage but gets hit less often because he has a higher AC.
I've stated this as the cornerstone of my point several times. I can't make it any clearer. If you don't THINK this is a problem, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
That's already how they work, or can work, albeit at the cost of a Bonus Action for two-weapon fighting. Not all duelists can use shields, such as the College of Swords bard. Fighters, as a class, throw the math off because they get a third and fourth attack, which is more than anyone else. They are the exception which proves the general rule.
At most, the Dueling style adds +8 damage at 20th level. That's actually only slightly less than a Bonus Action attack of 1d6 + 5, which averages to 8.5. The difference comes down to the size of the other weapon die. If you just made it so only one of the weapon's needed to be light, they'd be more or less even; barring the AC difference. But in practice, for the other classes that don't acquire a third and fourth attack, Dueling only adds +4. And 2d8 + 14 averages to 23 while 3d6+15 averages to 25.5. So, for literally everyone but fighters, that's +2.5 damage versus potentially +2 AC. And that seems fair on it's face. But one of those needs a Bonus Action and the other does not. We could divorce it from the Bonus Action, but that makes keeping track of Two-Weapon Fighting (the style) harder. Right now, we associate the change in Ability modifier to damage with the Bonus Action. Remove that and we risk confusing people. This might necessitate a change in the style, but to what?
You're still not thinking this through, which is why you thought it was a good idea to insult everyone's reading comprehension on the previous page. You still haven't come up with a specific goal, even after being repeatedly poked for one, which is why you give us vagueness like, well, the quoted post above. You want more damage, but how much more damage? How much damage is too much damage? Does the action economy factor in at all?
Cornerstones are supposed to be the foundation of your work. It's like making a thesis statement. Everything builds up from it. And this is the best you can come up with? "I want more"?
P.S.
And, just so we don't leave everyone else out, let's look at Great Weapon Fighting. Two greatsword or maul attacks is 4d6+10+2.67 for an average of 26.67 damage. So that's more than Two-Weapon Fighting, but is also requires Strength (which is largely inferior to Dexterity) and doesn't require a Bonus Action. Similarly, a greataxe would be 2d12+10+1.67 for an average of 24.67; which is still more than Dueling and is really more of a barbarian/half-orc thing on account of Critical Hits. And a glaive or halberd is 2d10+10+1.6 for an average of 22.6; which deals the least damage but also comes with the most reach.
Granted, all those numbers are for only two attacks with Extra Attack. Remove feats and spells from the equation and everyone is within 4.07 DPR of each other. That's negligible; only 15% less than the highest mean. And Two Weapon Fighting comes in at second place. The issue, if there is one, is the Bonus Action. Focus your attention there.
So TWF deals about the same damage as Duelist, but sacrifices a Bonus Action and suffers a -2 to AC. That doesn’t sound fair.
Not disagreeing with you, but not for the same reason. Not every duelist can use a shield, so saying they suffer -2 AC is disingenuous. That said, it's more than a little nuts that this effectively middle-of-the-pack option requires a Bonus Action when none of it's supposed peers do.
Anyone who can take a fighting style without having to take it as a feat is eligible to use a shield, so it’s not disingenuous. For the purpose of comparison, it doesn’t matter whether they actually use one or not.
Anyone who can take a fighting style without having to take it as a feat is eligible to use a shield, so it’s not disingenuous. For the purpose of comparison, it doesn’t matter whether they actually use one or not.
If by "eligible" you mean "technically, anyone can use a weapon or armor without proficiency" then yes, that's true. However, that's not what I was alluding to. The bard's College of Swords has them learn a Fighting Style (either Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting) without granting proficiency with a shield; though it does grant proficiency with medium armor.
Ok, so you found one exception. Congratulations. If you have to use that to deny the argument, your argument is very weak. Warrior types who can get Duelist get the benefit of Shield proficiency.
TWF deals about the same damage as Duelist, but sacrifices a Bonus Action and suffers a -2 to AC. That doesn’t sound fair.
Ok, so you found one exception. Congratulations. If you have to use that to deny the argument, your argument is very weak. Warrior types who can get Duelist get the benefit of Shield proficiency.
TWF deals about the same damage as Duelist, but sacrifices a Bonus Action and suffers a -2 to AC. That doesn’t sound fair.
The one exception? Hardly. Fighting with a shield is always optional. If we're removing feats from the equation, and they're an optional rule so we certainly can, an Eldritch Knight who prioritizes Dexterity over Strength is going to favor a finesse weapon in one hand and leave their other one empty so they can cast their spells. For that matter, so would a ranger in melee who wants to cast something like absorb elements or conjure barrage.
And, at this point, you're picking a fight you don't need to be. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Bonus Action requirement is unfair. You're the one who wants to fight over an optional piece of armor that can actually hinder a character's performance.
I'm inclined to think we're talking past one another. Having said that, I actually care about making accurate statements. If you have a point, you're not making it.
This will be my last post on the subject. After which, I'm muting this thread. I just don't want to deal with the notifications, anymore.
If a paladin with the Dueling style has a warhammer and shield equipped and wants to cast cure wounds, they need a free hand to do so. Now, a shield takes a whole action to remove, to doff. That's impractical in combat; especially since their shield likely has their holy symbol on it. But they can stow their weapon and then draw it again on their next turn. It means not taking an Opportunity Attack, unless it's an Unarmed Strike, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. So a paladin has a good reason to fight with a shield. The mechanics reinforce a specific fantasy archetype: the knight in shining armor.
The fighter is a far more flexible class, by design. It doesn't lean on any specific archetype because every culture produces fighters. It needs to be everything for everyone. With the Dueling style, a fighter will probably favor a shield; but not always. If they need a free hand, such as the Eldritch Knight attempting to cast a spell, then something has to give. They get less out of having a shield than their divinely empowered brothers-from-other-mothers because the shield doesn't aid in spellcasting. And they have access to spells, like absorb elements that make having a weapon out more desirable. That said, it is fairly niche. It requires a specific Martial Archetype and prioritizes Dexterity over Strength, but most would prefer to fight with a shield. Just not this spellcaster.
Now, the entire ranger class fits into the aforementioned niche. If there is a spell they wish to cast that requires a free hand, or interaction with a component pouch or druidic focus, then having a shield means stowing their weapon. And depending on their chosen spells, that's less than desirable. Or they might carry a second weapon, instead of a shield, which they can sheath and still remain armed. Whether they prefer Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting is of no consequence to me. The same general train of thought applies to any melee ranger as it does to a melee Eldritch Knight. They can use a shield, but would probably forgo one; at least for a time. If feats are on the table, then War Caster becomes attractive right quick. But there will be at least one, possible two, levels where this kind of juggling will be something they have to deal with. Unless, of course, they limit their choice of character race to Variant Human or some Custom Lineage. And, quite frankly, I find that both boring and stifling.
And there is an entire bard subclass, the College of Swords, that literally lacks proficiency a shield. If they try to use one, they forfeit their ability to cast spells. So if they elect to take the Dueling style, they won't be using a shield at all.
So when I say it's a faulty assumption to declare that Two-Weapon Fighting means suffering a -2 AC penalty when compared to Dueling, I unequivocally mean it. Because the facts simply do not support that assumption. An entire class, and two subclasses, likely wouldn't even bother. And this entire discussion, this analysis, has really made me think about this design in a way I hadn't before. As in I just didn't think about it and previously took it for granted. And while I'll admit it's not perfect and certain seems "unfair" on it's face, I'm not convinced Two-Weapon Fighting is. Your chosen Fighting Style, whatever it is, is gravy. It doesn't establish the "baseline" for damage. It can't; because not all styles improve your ability to deal damage. Rather, the "baseline" is whatever your Attack action does. And even then, the fighter is an exception because it grants more attacks than any other class is capable of.
Have a good night. Enjoy sorting the rest of this out amongst yourselves.
I make an addition to the Dual Wielder feat that merges your TWF attack into the Attack action. While not strictly raising your damage ceiling, it gives you back your bonus action which may be used for damage or utility.
Eating your bonus action is the worst part of TWF in my experience. Especially for classes like Ranger or Rogue which have multiple class/subclass-defining BA features, TWF just isn't worth giving those up. And the whole point is that you can make a flurry of blows in the same amount of time someone else could swing a huge axe.
This is kinda what I used to do. Now if I was DMing a lot more under 5e...I would take away the two weapons fighting style, meaning off-hand weapons always use your modifiers like all other weapon attacks. I would then replace Two Weapon Fighting with the Dual Wielding Feat for all classes that get that options, and also for the Fighting Initiate feat...then make the Dual Wielding feat provide the two reaction options you just mentioned, but you can only select one reaction as normal though.
This keeps things very simple and very clean and only adds a touch of extra damage, plus the reaction is also not always there, for instance if a Rogue was to use Uncanny Dodge etc.
The rules for casting spells are poor at this point to say the least and makes spellcasting unnecessary complicated for gish-characters. A spellcaster can perform a somatic gesture while holding a shield and a Sword if the sword is his spellcasting-focus and this focus is used as an additional comoponent for the spell. But he can't perform only gestures if he just holds a sword? Unless he has taken a feat of course, that he would only pick to play his character as intended. Sure the advantage on concentration-checks is nice but just icing on the cake in this case because you mainly need it to compensate bad rulings. In my opinion this is poor gamedesign and players don't have to take this feat if all they want to do is cast a spell while holding a weapon and a shield or two weapons. funfact: raw you technically can drop your weapon (no action) cast a spell and pick the weapon up as a free action. That will solve the problem during your turn, but not for casting reaction spells.
Now, the entire ranger class fits into the aforementioned niche. If there is a spell they wish to cast that requires a free hand, or interaction with a component pouch or [Tooltip Not Found], then having a shield means stowing their weapon. And depending on their chosen spells, that's less than desirable. Or they might carry a second weapon, instead of a shield, which they can sheath and still remain armed. Whether they prefer Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting is of no consequence to me.
If the ranger uses duelist instead of twf, he can carry a shield and take the warcaster feat at level 4 to solve the problem. If he don't want to take the warcaster feat he can stow his weapon and has an advantage of +2 armor against incoming attacks while the dualwielder will have a sword in his hand IF he get the chance of an attack of opportunity in which case he even can't cast a reaction spell anymore making the sheath utter useless. I probably won't sheath a weapon for a reaction of which i'm not sure if i need it. Especially not in a combat situation. Think about this from a narrative standpoint. Nobody would sheath a weapon or doff a shield in the middle of combat.
Nonetheless all these comparrisons are not helful at all. Because these are to much variables to consider for a clear evaluation. As far as everyone commited already the main issue of twf is the use of your Bonus-action for your bonus-damage. This means that this "additional" attack competes with other bonus actions, here are the most common ones for characters that could consider fighting with two weapons:
Healing word
Bardic inspiration
hunter's mark
rage (Barbarians are very rare twf, because they lack the fighting style and GWF is far too efficient with GWM)
second wind
misty step
attackspell like hail of thorns
commanding your pet
And here are some options that are available for other fighting styles through feats:
Shield master shove
misty step
Hex
GWM-Attack
PAM-Attack
Telecinetic shove
A lot of adventurers will find other good uses for their BA over the course of the campaign. This automatically leads to the fact that the overall damage-boost of twf is far less then the numbers may show. In my current campaign, i have a School of Blades bard and she rarely uses her twf, because she casts a spell and therefor can't use her bonus action attack or she needs to cast a healing word or bardic inspiration or Misty step. So the bard is a particularly good example of showing how bad TWF actually is. I have experienced it as tremendously underperforming for that particular character and she would be way better with the dueling fighting style. On Top of that it's actually quite silly that raw a twf can't attack with both weapons in the first round of combat, because he/she can only draw one of them es part of the attack action. I really don't like the rules for twf, that are presented in the PHB.
So at the topic, how to fix it: There are plenty of ways how to fix bad rules in the coregame. As posted here already there are different solutions that go in different directions. If you are the dm, listen to your player and adjust the rules according to their fantasies. If you're the player talk to you dm and figure out how you can bring your character to the table.
"Nonetheless all these comparisons are not helpful at all. Because these are too many variables to consider for a clear evaluation." This was one of my main arguments in the beginning when the conversation started to get dragged all over the place.
Truth be told, if Jounichi's last post had been his first one, I would have dropped the whole thing right there because it brought a whole slew of things that I hadn't considered because I haven't played every class in 5e. I still feel strongly that if this is a topic that has been touched on by people who make games for a living then there must be a topic worth addressing, however, I also admit that what I thought was a simple topic is actually more complicated than I thought.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
"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."
Character 1 does more damage but gets hit more often because he has a lower AC.
Character 2 does less damage but gets hit less often because he has a higher AC.
I've stated this as the cornerstone of my point several times. I can't make it any clearer. If you don't THINK this is a problem, then that's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
That's already how they work, or can work, albeit at the cost of a Bonus Action for two-weapon fighting. Not all duelists can use shields, such as the College of Swords bard. Fighters, as a class, throw the math off because they get a third and fourth attack, which is more than anyone else. They are the exception which proves the general rule.
At most, the Dueling style adds +8 damage at 20th level. That's actually only slightly less than a Bonus Action attack of 1d6 + 5, which averages to 8.5. The difference comes down to the size of the other weapon die. If you just made it so only one of the weapon's needed to be light, they'd be more or less even; barring the AC difference. But in practice, for the other classes that don't acquire a third and fourth attack, Dueling only adds +4. And 2d8 + 14 averages to 23 while 3d6+15 averages to 25.5. So, for literally everyone but fighters, that's +2.5 damage versus potentially +2 AC. And that seems fair on it's face. But one of those needs a Bonus Action and the other does not. We could divorce it from the Bonus Action, but that makes keeping track of Two-Weapon Fighting (the style) harder. Right now, we associate the change in Ability modifier to damage with the Bonus Action. Remove that and we risk confusing people. This might necessitate a change in the style, but to what?
You're still not thinking this through, which is why you thought it was a good idea to insult everyone's reading comprehension on the previous page. You still haven't come up with a specific goal, even after being repeatedly poked for one, which is why you give us vagueness like, well, the quoted post above. You want more damage, but how much more damage? How much damage is too much damage? Does the action economy factor in at all?
Cornerstones are supposed to be the foundation of your work. It's like making a thesis statement. Everything builds up from it. And this is the best you can come up with? "I want more"?
P.S.
And, just so we don't leave everyone else out, let's look at Great Weapon Fighting. Two greatsword or maul attacks is 4d6+10+2.67 for an average of 26.67 damage. So that's more than Two-Weapon Fighting, but is also requires Strength (which is largely inferior to Dexterity) and doesn't require a Bonus Action. Similarly, a greataxe would be 2d12+10+1.67 for an average of 24.67; which is still more than Dueling and is really more of a barbarian/half-orc thing on account of Critical Hits. And a glaive or halberd is 2d10+10+1.6 for an average of 22.6; which deals the least damage but also comes with the most reach.
Granted, all those numbers are for only two attacks with Extra Attack. Remove feats and spells from the equation and everyone is within 4.07 DPR of each other. That's negligible; only 15% less than the highest mean. And Two Weapon Fighting comes in at second place. The issue, if there is one, is the Bonus Action. Focus your attention there.
So TWF deals about the same damage as Duelist, but sacrifices a Bonus Action and suffers a -2 to AC. That doesn’t sound fair.
Not disagreeing with you, but not for the same reason. Not every duelist can use a shield, so saying they suffer -2 AC is disingenuous. That said, it's more than a little nuts that this effectively middle-of-the-pack option requires a Bonus Action when none of it's supposed peers do.
Anyone who can take a fighting style without having to take it as a feat is eligible to use a shield, so it’s not disingenuous. For the purpose of comparison, it doesn’t matter whether they actually use one or not.
If by "eligible" you mean "technically, anyone can use a weapon or armor without proficiency" then yes, that's true. However, that's not what I was alluding to. The bard's College of Swords has them learn a Fighting Style (either Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting) without granting proficiency with a shield; though it does grant proficiency with medium armor.
Ok, so you found one exception. Congratulations. If you have to use that to deny the argument, your argument is very weak. Warrior types who can get Duelist get the benefit of Shield proficiency.
TWF deals about the same damage as Duelist, but sacrifices a Bonus Action and suffers a -2 to AC. That doesn’t sound fair.
The one exception? Hardly. Fighting with a shield is always optional. If we're removing feats from the equation, and they're an optional rule so we certainly can, an Eldritch Knight who prioritizes Dexterity over Strength is going to favor a finesse weapon in one hand and leave their other one empty so they can cast their spells. For that matter, so would a ranger in melee who wants to cast something like absorb elements or conjure barrage.
And, at this point, you're picking a fight you don't need to be. I'm not disagreeing with you that the Bonus Action requirement is unfair. You're the one who wants to fight over an optional piece of armor that can actually hinder a character's performance.
Boy have you missed the point. Oh well.
I'm inclined to think we're talking past one another. Having said that, I actually care about making accurate statements. If you have a point, you're not making it.
This will be my last post on the subject. After which, I'm muting this thread. I just don't want to deal with the notifications, anymore.
If a paladin with the Dueling style has a warhammer and shield equipped and wants to cast cure wounds, they need a free hand to do so. Now, a shield takes a whole action to remove, to doff. That's impractical in combat; especially since their shield likely has their holy symbol on it. But they can stow their weapon and then draw it again on their next turn. It means not taking an Opportunity Attack, unless it's an Unarmed Strike, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. So a paladin has a good reason to fight with a shield. The mechanics reinforce a specific fantasy archetype: the knight in shining armor.
The fighter is a far more flexible class, by design. It doesn't lean on any specific archetype because every culture produces fighters. It needs to be everything for everyone. With the Dueling style, a fighter will probably favor a shield; but not always. If they need a free hand, such as the Eldritch Knight attempting to cast a spell, then something has to give. They get less out of having a shield than their divinely empowered brothers-from-other-mothers because the shield doesn't aid in spellcasting. And they have access to spells, like absorb elements that make having a weapon out more desirable. That said, it is fairly niche. It requires a specific Martial Archetype and prioritizes Dexterity over Strength, but most would prefer to fight with a shield. Just not this spellcaster.
Now, the entire ranger class fits into the aforementioned niche. If there is a spell they wish to cast that requires a free hand, or interaction with a component pouch or druidic focus, then having a shield means stowing their weapon. And depending on their chosen spells, that's less than desirable. Or they might carry a second weapon, instead of a shield, which they can sheath and still remain armed. Whether they prefer Dueling or Two-Weapon Fighting is of no consequence to me. The same general train of thought applies to any melee ranger as it does to a melee Eldritch Knight. They can use a shield, but would probably forgo one; at least for a time. If feats are on the table, then War Caster becomes attractive right quick. But there will be at least one, possible two, levels where this kind of juggling will be something they have to deal with. Unless, of course, they limit their choice of character race to Variant Human or some Custom Lineage. And, quite frankly, I find that both boring and stifling.
And there is an entire bard subclass, the College of Swords, that literally lacks proficiency a shield. If they try to use one, they forfeit their ability to cast spells. So if they elect to take the Dueling style, they won't be using a shield at all.
So when I say it's a faulty assumption to declare that Two-Weapon Fighting means suffering a -2 AC penalty when compared to Dueling, I unequivocally mean it. Because the facts simply do not support that assumption. An entire class, and two subclasses, likely wouldn't even bother. And this entire discussion, this analysis, has really made me think about this design in a way I hadn't before. As in I just didn't think about it and previously took it for granted. And while I'll admit it's not perfect and certain seems "unfair" on it's face, I'm not convinced Two-Weapon Fighting is. Your chosen Fighting Style, whatever it is, is gravy. It doesn't establish the "baseline" for damage. It can't; because not all styles improve your ability to deal damage. Rather, the "baseline" is whatever your Attack action does. And even then, the fighter is an exception because it grants more attacks than any other class is capable of.
Have a good night. Enjoy sorting the rest of this out amongst yourselves.
This is kinda what I used to do. Now if I was DMing a lot more under 5e...I would take away the two weapons fighting style, meaning off-hand weapons always use your modifiers like all other weapon attacks. I would then replace Two Weapon Fighting with the Dual Wielding Feat for all classes that get that options, and also for the Fighting Initiate feat...then make the Dual Wielding feat provide the two reaction options you just mentioned, but you can only select one reaction as normal though.
This keeps things very simple and very clean and only adds a touch of extra damage, plus the reaction is also not always there, for instance if a Rogue was to use Uncanny Dodge etc.
The rules for casting spells are poor at this point to say the least and makes spellcasting unnecessary complicated for gish-characters. A spellcaster can perform a somatic gesture while holding a shield and a Sword if the sword is his spellcasting-focus and this focus is used as an additional comoponent for the spell. But he can't perform only gestures if he just holds a sword? Unless he has taken a feat of course, that he would only pick to play his character as intended. Sure the advantage on concentration-checks is nice but just icing on the cake in this case because you mainly need it to compensate bad rulings. In my opinion this is poor gamedesign and players don't have to take this feat if all they want to do is cast a spell while holding a weapon and a shield or two weapons.
funfact: raw you technically can drop your weapon (no action) cast a spell and pick the weapon up as a free action. That will solve the problem during your turn, but not for casting reaction spells.
If the ranger uses duelist instead of twf, he can carry a shield and take the warcaster feat at level 4 to solve the problem. If he don't want to take the warcaster feat he can stow his weapon and has an advantage of +2 armor against incoming attacks while the dualwielder will have a sword in his hand IF he get the chance of an attack of opportunity in which case he even can't cast a reaction spell anymore making the sheath utter useless. I probably won't sheath a weapon for a reaction of which i'm not sure if i need it. Especially not in a combat situation. Think about this from a narrative standpoint. Nobody would sheath a weapon or doff a shield in the middle of combat.
Nonetheless all these comparrisons are not helful at all. Because these are to much variables to consider for a clear evaluation. As far as everyone commited already the main issue of twf is the use of your Bonus-action for your bonus-damage. This means that this "additional" attack competes with other bonus actions, here are the most common ones for characters that could consider fighting with two weapons:
And here are some options that are available for other fighting styles through feats:
A lot of adventurers will find other good uses for their BA over the course of the campaign. This automatically leads to the fact that the overall damage-boost of twf is far less then the numbers may show. In my current campaign, i have a School of Blades bard and she rarely uses her twf, because she casts a spell and therefor can't use her bonus action attack or she needs to cast a healing word or bardic inspiration or Misty step.
So the bard is a particularly good example of showing how bad TWF actually is. I have experienced it as tremendously underperforming for that particular character and she would be way better with the dueling fighting style.
On Top of that it's actually quite silly that raw a twf can't attack with both weapons in the first round of combat, because he/she can only draw one of them es part of the attack action. I really don't like the rules for twf, that are presented in the PHB.
So at the topic, how to fix it: There are plenty of ways how to fix bad rules in the coregame. As posted here already there are different solutions that go in different directions. If you are the dm, listen to your player and adjust the rules according to their fantasies. If you're the player talk to you dm and figure out how you can bring your character to the table.
Thanks for the support.
"Nonetheless all these comparisons are not helpful at all. Because these are too many variables to consider for a clear evaluation." This was one of my main arguments in the beginning when the conversation started to get dragged all over the place.
Truth be told, if Jounichi's last post had been his first one, I would have dropped the whole thing right there because it brought a whole slew of things that I hadn't considered because I haven't played every class in 5e. I still feel strongly that if this is a topic that has been touched on by people who make games for a living then there must be a topic worth addressing, however, I also admit that what I thought was a simple topic is actually more complicated than I thought.