As I said before, this isn't about optimization, because D&D isn't an MMO and you're not going to get kicked from the raid for dealing less than the absolute max damage possible. Plus your math doesn't account for additional critical hit opportunities, and you did the math wrong for a Rune Knight. They get 1 extra d6 per round, they don't cast Enlarge.
Fair point, I got Rune Knight's Giant's Might mixed up. I just remembered Rune Knight could increase in size and thought it was Enlarge they used. Running the numbers actually had me a bit excited about a Greatsword Rune Knight. Alas, it is not that. The difference would however cause the two-hander to come up even stronger in the scenario. However on critical hits, that's a 5% chance of occurrence that on a TWF grants +1d6 (and if you're real lucky the +1d6 from Giant's Might). The Greatsword has the same chance but does it naturally on their +2d6 damage die - that's neutral on level 1-4 (1 attack for two-hander and 2 for TWF) favoring the two-hander the more attacks we gain.
Regarding not caring for optimization I think Pantagruel have the right sentiment response.
For me it's mostly about balance between choices and not shoehorning a rather common fantasy trope into some really sub-optimal positions and class choices. You could say that a knife thrower is not well supported in 5e either and I would agree. However it is not as common a fantasy trope as a dual wielder. As for balance being important for choice: If I said a rules change would allow a Paladin to Divine Smite without expending the spell slot, just merely it being available - then I imagine... first you'll cry OP and then most people would say it would ruin choice because it would make Paladin insanely strong by acquiring high level spell slots and blasting them away freely for massive damage - it is not balanced. Maintaining effective balance is a means to provide meaningful choices. TWF is already attempted to be balanced against other combat styles, otherwise why are there restrictions on weapon properties and an action cost associated with it?
Additionally if you don't really care about optimization, why do you care if the bonus action cost of TWF was removed? (In the suggestions I've made this only appears from level 5 where two-hander combat styles closes the damage gap - removing the actual balance need for an action cost for TWF).
As I said before, this isn't about optimization, because D&D isn't an MMO and you're not going to get kicked from the raid for dealing less than the absolute max damage possible.
This argument should really be used less, and/or used properly, because it's not an argument for 2WF being UP (or OP, or anything else), it's an argument for not caring whether it's UP. That's a legitimate argument... but it's not the same argument.
My initial argument was that there isn't truly that much competition for the BA slot on Fighters and Rangers, which was then segued into a stats based argument. I'm pointing out that stats are not relevant to my initial point.
TBF, my argument was with ArnIttheBest who responded to my post about the different subclasses for Fighter and Ranger and whether they used their Bonus Action or if they had reasons to avoid TWF, where they argued that some of the subclasses doesn't make sense to use with TWF or that the Bonus Action wasn't as integral to their rotation.
However I believe I pointed out that of the subclasses that naturally have access to the TW fighting style, many of them doesn't make sense to go TWF - like Fighter - Arcane Archer, or they have other reasons to avoid the combat style if they want to get the most out of their class features, some of these is due to the bonus action cost - like Ranger Beastmaster/Drakewarden. That leaves a rather small number of subclasses that doesn't have any issues with the combat style. Freeing up the bonus action - at least eventually - would help make the combat style more accessible to more subclass choices - I don't see how that is not a win for choice.
The big problem with trying to compare two weapon fighting with great weapon fighting is that almost all two weapon fighters are dex primary, and there aren't any two-handed finesse weapons. It's very unlikely for a ranger to do more damage with a rapier than with two shortswords, though a fighter might.
I'm not sure I follow. Also I assume you're talking about the combat styles and not the fighting styles? Is it truly a problem that TWF can go either STR or DEX and GWF can only go STR to improve their damage? Both Fighter and Ranger are proficient with martial weapons, so they are not limited by their class.
I don't get why you bring up a Ranger with a rapier when discussing GWF vs TWF. If you really want, you can put a Greatsword on a Ranger - they wont have access to the GW fighting style, but again the bonus is not that significant. A Ranger with a Rapier-Duelist is mostly falling behind a TWF Ranger, but they also have the option to pick up a shield - so it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
I believe that TWF Fighters are not predisposed to either going STR or DEX. Actually they are more likely to go for Heavy armor and then focus STR. The Ranger doesn't have proficiency in Heavy armor, so they naturally go DEX to pad their AC. Many light weapons that go with TWF already have the finesse property, so there's not really a cost associated by going that route. I believe that is all there is to it. If Rangers had proficiency in Heavy armor, then TWF Ranger going STR would be perfectly viable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fair point, I got Rune Knight's Giant's Might mixed up. I just remembered Rune Knight could increase in size and thought it was Enlarge they used. Running the numbers actually had me a bit excited about a Greatsword Rune Knight. Alas, it is not that. The difference would however cause the two-hander to come up even stronger in the scenario.
However on critical hits, that's a 5% chance of occurrence that on a TWF grants +1d6 (and if you're real lucky the +1d6 from Giant's Might). The Greatsword has the same chance but does it naturally on their +2d6 damage die - that's neutral on level 1-4 (1 attack for two-hander and 2 for TWF) favoring the two-hander the more attacks we gain.
Regarding not caring for optimization I think Pantagruel have the right sentiment response.
For me it's mostly about balance between choices and not shoehorning a rather common fantasy trope into some really sub-optimal positions and class choices. You could say that a knife thrower is not well supported in 5e either and I would agree. However it is not as common a fantasy trope as a dual wielder.
As for balance being important for choice: If I said a rules change would allow a Paladin to Divine Smite without expending the spell slot, just merely it being available - then I imagine... first you'll cry OP and then most people would say it would ruin choice because it would make Paladin insanely strong by acquiring high level spell slots and blasting them away freely for massive damage - it is not balanced. Maintaining effective balance is a means to provide meaningful choices.
TWF is already attempted to be balanced against other combat styles, otherwise why are there restrictions on weapon properties and an action cost associated with it?
Additionally if you don't really care about optimization, why do you care if the bonus action cost of TWF was removed? (In the suggestions I've made this only appears from level 5 where two-hander combat styles closes the damage gap - removing the actual balance need for an action cost for TWF).
TBF, my argument was with ArnIttheBest who responded to my post about the different subclasses for Fighter and Ranger and whether they used their Bonus Action or if they had reasons to avoid TWF, where they argued that some of the subclasses doesn't make sense to use with TWF or that the Bonus Action wasn't as integral to their rotation.
However I believe I pointed out that of the subclasses that naturally have access to the TW fighting style, many of them doesn't make sense to go TWF - like Fighter - Arcane Archer, or they have other reasons to avoid the combat style if they want to get the most out of their class features, some of these is due to the bonus action cost - like Ranger Beastmaster/Drakewarden. That leaves a rather small number of subclasses that doesn't have any issues with the combat style. Freeing up the bonus action - at least eventually - would help make the combat style more accessible to more subclass choices - I don't see how that is not a win for choice.
I'm not sure I follow. Also I assume you're talking about the combat styles and not the fighting styles? Is it truly a problem that TWF can go either STR or DEX and GWF can only go STR to improve their damage? Both Fighter and Ranger are proficient with martial weapons, so they are not limited by their class.
I don't get why you bring up a Ranger with a rapier when discussing GWF vs TWF. If you really want, you can put a Greatsword on a Ranger - they wont have access to the GW fighting style, but again the bonus is not that significant. A Ranger with a Rapier-Duelist is mostly falling behind a TWF Ranger, but they also have the option to pick up a shield - so it is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
I believe that TWF Fighters are not predisposed to either going STR or DEX. Actually they are more likely to go for Heavy armor and then focus STR. The Ranger doesn't have proficiency in Heavy armor, so they naturally go DEX to pad their AC. Many light weapons that go with TWF already have the finesse property, so there's not really a cost associated by going that route. I believe that is all there is to it. If Rangers had proficiency in Heavy armor, then TWF Ranger going STR would be perfectly viable.