A two-weapon fighting Ranger is absolutely viable.
I actually feel like this is the "intended" route if that's a thing in 5e.... But I could be off.
Just seems like they encourage twf in ranger.
There is a downside. The Ranger can be very bonus action heavy, competing with your (bonus action) attack. And combined with feat options, and the ability to reach out and touch someone all over the battle field - a ranged build is superior mechanically.
But the question was are melee Rangers viable. Not only are they viable, they are effective if buit right. It's just not the optimal choice
That is interesting Optimus. What is the interaction with action surge if you decide to incorporate TWF into the attack action?
Good question: I just let them have one additional off hand attack per round. So you could do your two attack actions and one of which you can use your off hand attack. That's just my thing though... To be honest it wouldn't be too crszy to allow once per attack action
That is interesting Optimus. What is the interaction with action surge if you decide to incorporate TWF into the attack action?
Good question: I just let them have one additional off hand attack per round. So you could do your two attack actions and one of which you can use your off hand attack. That's just my thing though... To be honest it wouldn't be too crszy to allow once per attack action
Makes sense. Other features work like that too (like sneak attack).
This feels like the tip of an iceberg towards eliminating Bonus Action attacks entirely, which I think would be a nice streamlining of rules and a minor buff to players. Why is Bladesinger so much better at melee than Eldritch Knight? Why is the Beast Barbarian better with his claws than the Frenzy Barbarian is? Many classes are treated somewhat arbitrarily with whether they get handed a bonus action attack vs. an extra attack, and the main function of bonus actions attacks is stopping players from using other non-attack abilities and spells that compete with the action. I think there’s plenty of fun Bonus Actions out there without crowding the field with Attacks too, and in my experience explaining the difference between Extra Attack and a Bonus Action attack to new players is a major stumbling block.
That is interesting Optimus. What is the interaction with action surge if you decide to incorporate TWF into the attack action?
Good question: I just let them have one additional off hand attack per round. So you could do your two attack actions and one of which you can use your off hand attack. That's just my thing though... To be honest it wouldn't be too crszy to allow once per attack action
That's what I figured. I'd handle it as a once per turn thing too. Just curious to see if you allowed it to get more powerful. Thanks for the info. I'm definitely thinking about using this rule.
After doing some math and comparing to GWM, I think folding TWF into Attack probably deserves a feat cost. For my own campaigns, I've made an alternate Dual Wielder feat that grants just this benefit and the draw/stow upgrade. I may eventually add back one of the other benefits of DW, but just this as is with Hex/Hunter's Mark/Rage is looking pretty potent. There's still a casting issue, but at least on your turn you can stow/cast/draw.
I do not think you can stow then cast then draw again in the same turn.... But you can start with one weapon, cast, then draw a second.
Also Hunters Mark is Verbal only so there's not an interaction there.
If you are getting the same numbers with two weapon fighting and great weapon Master..... You are doing something funny with the math.
Did you mean great weapon fighting?
Hex does have VSM components and they included that in their discussion, so maybe that was the interaction. I concur with the current reading that stowing and drawing in the same turn, but they're already homebrewing a different version of the feat so that isn't a big difference, especially since it sounds as if they are eliminating the light property requirement removal and the +1 AC in favor of giving the offhand attack to Attack.
Depending on whether that is the case for each attack or just once per turn, you could certainly put a case in for TWF being comparable to GWM, particularly if the fighting style isn't being required for the static damage. The damage potential might not be the same, but the -5 for the power attack does lower the expected damage. To basically get advantage on each attack but be able to apply the damage for each hit and have that benefit from damage is quite powerful. That's part of the reason that Horde breaker's extra attack is only valid when another creature is within 5 ft of the original target and within range (similar to death Cleric's reaper). It only looks weak because we think of all the times that it won't be available and choose Colossus slayer because it's more predictable and it stacks on the single target. Remove the targeting requirements and that's powerful.
TWFS is already better than GWFS early and can continue to be better for a while depending on ASI application, particularly on builds that don't regularly use their bonus action for anything else. GWFS adds less than 2 pts of average damage per hit and doesn't pull ahead until after the third hit assuming 1s or 2s were rolled. It's easy enough to max the attack stat by 8th level. GWM or PAM can potentially add the third hit at 5 (with extra attack on top of the bonus action), but it comes at the expense of bumping the attack stat. Vhuman can get either at 1 or both at 4 and get the extra attack at 5, but would still be suffering from the attack stat being lower. Fighters make the most use of GWFS since they get extra ASIs to compliment/speed up feat acquisition and because they can get the 3rd hit baseline at 11th.
Still, there are enough assumptions built into what I'm thinking that they were doing that I don't blame you for being skeptical. It would be interesting to see exactly what wording they are using for the homebrew Dual Wielder.
Back on topic, dual wielding is definitely viable. It can even be superior in tier 1. I rolled a half-orc barbarian (with GWM starting at 4th) and I switched between sword & board and TWF until 3rd or 4th level. I would occasionally bring out the greataxe during that time, but it was usually just for roleplay purposes and not because it was superior. I stopped the sword & board at third level but continued to use the TWF or increased attack accuracy and more consistent damage. Once I got GWM, I stayed with the greataxe until I picked up Hew so that I could take advantage of the power attack and switched between the greataxe and Hew depending on whether I needed better accuracy or wanted the power attack.
For Rangers, GWFS isn't an option. Looking at what the max values are for each fighting style, it's easy to assume that TWF is the superior choice because it can add 5 damage to the off hand attack. Dueling only adds 4 damage once extra attack kicks in an maybe 6 for something like Horde Breaker. Archery doesn't add any damage to an attack, and new players can easily overlook the efficacy of a 10% increase to hit rate. Defense doesn't sound super sexy, but I usually prefer it to GWFS theoretically. Part of the problem is that you can take fewer hits with either dueling or archery because of being able to wield a shield or being at a distance.
A possible solution could be adding an additional attack to the bonus attack similar to Flurry of Blows instead of the flat damage for the fighting style. That would give an average of 5 on daggers, 7 on shortswords and other d6s, and 9 on d8s with dual wielder, plus whatever bonus comes from the weapons. The flat damage is stronger for consistent damage but the risk reward would benefit the second attack for the fighting style. Barbarians would like it because of the extra rage damage and might actually consider dual wielding at that point, especially with Reckless attacks giving increased crit rates. GWM would still likely be the fall back largely because it would take the same number of feats for the barbarian to get dual wielder and the fighting style as PAM and GWM and it's easier to get one magic weapon than two.
Rangers might be more willing to make that jump when they'd get to add Hunter's Mark to 3 attacks before 5th and 4 after, with certain subclasses getting an occasional 5th attack. That would help mitigate some of the concern over concentration, since a dead creature can't attack, and getting the extra attack might be more incentive to not always feel the need to get hunters mark running on each target.
Ah, I forgot I reworded the draw/stow thing a little as well to make it less restrictive.
My math certainly wasn't exhaustive, but here's what I looked at to get ballparks:
Assuming level 11 Fighters with +5 STR and +1 weapons. With +4 prof bonus, they have a base +10 to hit. Great sword guy took GWM and GWF, Longsword guy took TWF (feat and style) as written.
Greatsword Fighter does 2d6+16 per hit, 73 avg with GWF if all 3 hit. Against AC 13, he's got a 65% chance to hit for 47.5 avg, 18 AC brings this down to 29.2 avg.
Longsword Fighter does 1d8+6 per hit, avg 42 if all 4 hit. With a 25% higher chance to hit, avg against AC 13 is 37.8, AC 18 is 27.3.
Adding Hunter's Mark to both, numbers are pretty close depending on AC: vs AC 13 (54.3 vs 50.4) and vs AC 18 (33.4 vs 37.4).
Also, I consider GWM a very good feat. I don't want to surpass it, I just want to make TWF competitive enough that it doesn't feel like a trap. I may end up adding the +1 AC back to my custom feat, but I don't think removing the Light requirement is necessary. I'm also not crazy about letting everyone use this right off the bat without any investment, i.e. a dual wielding rogue.
Obviously this doesn't factor in the crit benefit of GWM, and GWM benefits more from advantage, but I'm also allowing the TWF attack with both actions when Action Surge is used.
edit: changed math a bit to reflect current TWF feat in conjunction with a blanket houserule to add the additional attack to the Attack action.
edit: updated again, fixed an error and included GWF
Ah, I forgot I reworded the draw/stow thing a little as well to make it less restrictive.
My math certainly wasn't exhaustive, but here's what I looked at to get ballparks:
Assuming level 11 Fighters with +5 STR and +1 weapons. With +4 prof bonus, they have a base +10 to hit. Great sword guy took GWM, Longsword guy took TWF as written.
Greatsword Fighter does 2d6+16 per hit, 69 avg if all 3 hit. Against AC 13, he's got a 65% chance to hit for 44.9 avg, 18 AC brings this down to 27.6 avg.
Longsword Fighter does 1d8+7 per hit, avg 46 if all 4 hit. With a 25% higher chance to hit, avg against AC 13 is 41.4, AC 18 is 29.9.
Adding Hunter's Mark to both, TWF comes out ahead: vs AC 13 (51.7 vs 54) and vs AC 18 (31.8 vs 39).
Also, I consider GWM a very good feat. I don't want to surpass it, I just want to make TWF competitive enough that it doesn't feel like a trap. I may end up adding the +1 AC back to my custom feat, but I don't think removing the Light requirement is necessary. I'm also not crazy about letting everyone use this right off the bat without any investment, i.e. a dual wielding rogue.
Obviously this doesn't factor in the crit benefit of GWM or GWF, and GWM benefits more from advantage, but I'm also allowing the TWF attack with both actions when Action Surge is used.
edit: changed math a bit to reflect current TWF feat in conjunction with a blanket houserule to add the additional attack to the Attack action.
So once per attack action not once per turn. Interesting. That's ballpark of what I was expecting from my reading. It's enough of a difference that damage optimizers will not change. It's also not factoring in the bonus attack possibilities for GWM on a crit/kill or the bonus attack from PAM [which wasn't considered but might as well just be part of the leveling experience at level 4 (Choose one of the following feats at level 4: GWM or PAM) for many great weapon enthusiasts]. Competitive, but not overtaking. I do think that the +1 AC would still be worthwhile on the feat.
Yeah, I think a deeper dive is warranted when I have some time to sit down and do it (or if someone else wants to!). I do think GWM is still pulling ahead when all factors are considered.
I wonder what the impact would be to allow TWF to have an extra hit on a crit/kill as well.
Yeah I have several of the same thoughts as well....Great weapon fighting for a ranger is generally not a typical option for sure as STR ranger is harder to pull off. I have done it (See previous post with Bugbear Greatsword Ranger build!) but it usually means having a lower WIS which is ok depending on what spells you will use.
My homebrew TWF style is:
Once per turn you get your off-hand attack as part of an attack action. Starting at 5th level you may add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.
It has worked for me as the ranger players who pick melee have another option other than dueling which is kind of the default pick now.
My real issue with it is that its not GWF or even GWM I compare it to....but Archery builds.
So much already has you lean into archery with the ranger and the Archery Style and Sharpshooter work so well together its hard to keep up with the damage that puts out.
The "Optimizer" build is actually CBE and Sharpshooter and completely ignoring Hunter's Mark but thats going pretty far down the ol rabbit hole.
Yeah, I think a deeper dive is warranted when I have some time to sit down and do it (or if someone else wants to!). I do think GWM is still pulling ahead when all factors are considered.
I wonder what the impact would be to allow TWF to have an extra hit on a crit/kill as well.
Interesting. Change TWF from a bonus action to: As part of the attack action, you may make an attack with a different weapon that is held in each hand. The feat could add the bonus action attack straight from GWM as it already works for one hand weapons. I suppose that you would have a lot of kill poaching between GWM and that TWF feat trying to get the extra attack. It might give Champion some more juice with the competition as a way to get that extra attack more frequently. It would honestly be better for the TWF build to clean up the kills as there would be less Overkill damage, though that would be offset somewhat by the loss of damage from the GWM.
You could also roll that into my previous idea for two attacks instead of attack mod. It would leave the fighting style as is instead of changing it to an extra attack and then state that the extra attack with the off hand could become two on a crit or kill by the attacks with the main hand. You'd have to clean up the language to not include main/offhand terminology and possibly state that the last attacks would be the ones attached to the "offhand" to prevent the extra bonus attack from being made with the same weapon that made the kill or got the crit (if that's a concern), but it could be interesting.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is a downside. The Ranger can be very bonus action heavy, competing with your (bonus action) attack. And combined with feat options, and the ability to reach out and touch someone all over the battle field - a ranged build is superior mechanically.
But the question was are melee Rangers viable. Not only are they viable, they are effective if buit right. It's just not the optimal choice
I homebrew the TWF attack to be part of the attack action. Makes two weapon fighting better for Rangers and Barbs.
It's what Mike Mearls had suggested for a "fix"
Interesting idea. I might consider that.
That is interesting Optimus. What is the interaction with action surge if you decide to incorporate TWF into the attack action?
Good question: I just let them have one additional off hand attack per round. So you could do your two attack actions and one of which you can use your off hand attack. That's just my thing though... To be honest it wouldn't be too crszy to allow once per attack action
Makes sense. Other features work like that too (like sneak attack).
This feels like the tip of an iceberg towards eliminating Bonus Action attacks entirely, which I think would be a nice streamlining of rules and a minor buff to players. Why is Bladesinger so much better at melee than Eldritch Knight? Why is the Beast Barbarian better with his claws than the Frenzy Barbarian is? Many classes are treated somewhat arbitrarily with whether they get handed a bonus action attack vs. an extra attack, and the main function of bonus actions attacks is stopping players from using other non-attack abilities and spells that compete with the action. I think there’s plenty of fun Bonus Actions out there without crowding the field with Attacks too, and in my experience explaining the difference between Extra Attack and a Bonus Action attack to new players is a major stumbling block.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's what I figured. I'd handle it as a once per turn thing too. Just curious to see if you allowed it to get more powerful. Thanks for the info. I'm definitely thinking about using this rule.
After doing some math and comparing to GWM, I think folding TWF into Attack probably deserves a feat cost. For my own campaigns, I've made an alternate Dual Wielder feat that grants just this benefit and the draw/stow upgrade. I may eventually add back one of the other benefits of DW, but just this as is with Hex/Hunter's Mark/Rage is looking pretty potent. There's still a casting issue, but at least on your turn you can stow/cast/draw.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I do not think you can stow then cast then draw again in the same turn.... But you can start with one weapon, cast, then draw a second.
Also Hunters Mark is Verbal only so there's not an interaction there.
If you are getting the same numbers with two weapon fighting and great weapon Master..... You are doing something funny with the math.
Did you mean great weapon fighting?
Hex does have VSM components and they included that in their discussion, so maybe that was the interaction. I concur with the current reading that stowing and drawing in the same turn, but they're already homebrewing a different version of the feat so that isn't a big difference, especially since it sounds as if they are eliminating the light property requirement removal and the +1 AC in favor of giving the offhand attack to Attack.
Depending on whether that is the case for each attack or just once per turn, you could certainly put a case in for TWF being comparable to GWM, particularly if the fighting style isn't being required for the static damage. The damage potential might not be the same, but the -5 for the power attack does lower the expected damage. To basically get advantage on each attack but be able to apply the damage for each hit and have that benefit from damage is quite powerful. That's part of the reason that Horde breaker's extra attack is only valid when another creature is within 5 ft of the original target and within range (similar to death Cleric's reaper). It only looks weak because we think of all the times that it won't be available and choose Colossus slayer because it's more predictable and it stacks on the single target. Remove the targeting requirements and that's powerful.
TWFS is already better than GWFS early and can continue to be better for a while depending on ASI application, particularly on builds that don't regularly use their bonus action for anything else. GWFS adds less than 2 pts of average damage per hit and doesn't pull ahead until after the third hit assuming 1s or 2s were rolled. It's easy enough to max the attack stat by 8th level. GWM or PAM can potentially add the third hit at 5 (with extra attack on top of the bonus action), but it comes at the expense of bumping the attack stat. Vhuman can get either at 1 or both at 4 and get the extra attack at 5, but would still be suffering from the attack stat being lower. Fighters make the most use of GWFS since they get extra ASIs to compliment/speed up feat acquisition and because they can get the 3rd hit baseline at 11th.
Still, there are enough assumptions built into what I'm thinking that they were doing that I don't blame you for being skeptical. It would be interesting to see exactly what wording they are using for the homebrew Dual Wielder.
Back on topic, dual wielding is definitely viable. It can even be superior in tier 1. I rolled a half-orc barbarian (with GWM starting at 4th) and I switched between sword & board and TWF until 3rd or 4th level. I would occasionally bring out the greataxe during that time, but it was usually just for roleplay purposes and not because it was superior. I stopped the sword & board at third level but continued to use the TWF or increased attack accuracy and more consistent damage. Once I got GWM, I stayed with the greataxe until I picked up Hew so that I could take advantage of the power attack and switched between the greataxe and Hew depending on whether I needed better accuracy or wanted the power attack.
For Rangers, GWFS isn't an option. Looking at what the max values are for each fighting style, it's easy to assume that TWF is the superior choice because it can add 5 damage to the off hand attack. Dueling only adds 4 damage once extra attack kicks in an maybe 6 for something like Horde Breaker. Archery doesn't add any damage to an attack, and new players can easily overlook the efficacy of a 10% increase to hit rate. Defense doesn't sound super sexy, but I usually prefer it to GWFS theoretically. Part of the problem is that you can take fewer hits with either dueling or archery because of being able to wield a shield or being at a distance.
A possible solution could be adding an additional attack to the bonus attack similar to Flurry of Blows instead of the flat damage for the fighting style. That would give an average of 5 on daggers, 7 on shortswords and other d6s, and 9 on d8s with dual wielder, plus whatever bonus comes from the weapons. The flat damage is stronger for consistent damage but the risk reward would benefit the second attack for the fighting style. Barbarians would like it because of the extra rage damage and might actually consider dual wielding at that point, especially with Reckless attacks giving increased crit rates. GWM would still likely be the fall back largely because it would take the same number of feats for the barbarian to get dual wielder and the fighting style as PAM and GWM and it's easier to get one magic weapon than two.
Rangers might be more willing to make that jump when they'd get to add Hunter's Mark to 3 attacks before 5th and 4 after, with certain subclasses getting an occasional 5th attack. That would help mitigate some of the concern over concentration, since a dead creature can't attack, and getting the extra attack might be more incentive to not always feel the need to get hunters mark running on each target.
Ah, I forgot I reworded the draw/stow thing a little as well to make it less restrictive.
My math certainly wasn't exhaustive, but here's what I looked at to get ballparks:
Assuming level 11 Fighters with +5 STR and +1 weapons. With +4 prof bonus, they have a base +10 to hit. Great sword guy took GWM and GWF, Longsword guy took TWF (feat and style) as written.
Greatsword Fighter does 2d6+16 per hit, 73 avg with GWF if all 3 hit. Against AC 13, he's got a 65% chance to hit for 47.5 avg, 18 AC brings this down to 29.2 avg.
Longsword Fighter does 1d8+6 per hit, avg 42 if all 4 hit. With a 25% higher chance to hit, avg against AC 13 is 37.8, AC 18 is 27.3.
Adding Hunter's Mark to both, numbers are pretty close depending on AC: vs AC 13 (54.3 vs 50.4) and vs AC 18 (33.4 vs 37.4).
Also, I consider GWM a very good feat. I don't want to surpass it, I just want to make TWF competitive enough that it doesn't feel like a trap. I may end up adding the +1 AC back to my custom feat, but I don't think removing the Light requirement is necessary. I'm also not crazy about letting everyone use this right off the bat without any investment, i.e. a dual wielding rogue.
Obviously this doesn't factor in the crit benefit of GWM, and GWM benefits more from advantage, but I'm also allowing the TWF attack with both actions when Action Surge is used.
edit: changed math a bit to reflect current TWF feat in conjunction with a blanket houserule to add the additional attack to the Attack action.
edit: updated again, fixed an error and included GWF
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
So once per attack action not once per turn. Interesting. That's ballpark of what I was expecting from my reading. It's enough of a difference that damage optimizers will not change. It's also not factoring in the bonus attack possibilities for GWM on a crit/kill or the bonus attack from PAM [which wasn't considered but might as well just be part of the leveling experience at level 4 (Choose one of the following feats at level 4: GWM or PAM) for many great weapon enthusiasts]. Competitive, but not overtaking. I do think that the +1 AC would still be worthwhile on the feat.
Yeah, I think a deeper dive is warranted when I have some time to sit down and do it (or if someone else wants to!). I do think GWM is still pulling ahead when all factors are considered.
I wonder what the impact would be to allow TWF to have an extra hit on a crit/kill as well.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Yeah I have several of the same thoughts as well....Great weapon fighting for a ranger is generally not a typical option for sure as STR ranger is harder to pull off. I have done it (See previous post with Bugbear Greatsword Ranger build!) but it usually means having a lower WIS which is ok depending on what spells you will use.
My homebrew TWF style is:
Once per turn you get your off-hand attack as part of an attack action. Starting at 5th level you may add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.
It has worked for me as the ranger players who pick melee have another option other than dueling which is kind of the default pick now.
My real issue with it is that its not GWF or even GWM I compare it to....but Archery builds.
So much already has you lean into archery with the ranger and the Archery Style and Sharpshooter work so well together its hard to keep up with the damage that puts out.
The "Optimizer" build is actually CBE and Sharpshooter and completely ignoring Hunter's Mark but thats going pretty far down the ol rabbit hole.
Interesting. Change TWF from a bonus action to: As part of the attack action, you may make an attack with a different weapon that is held in each hand. The feat could add the bonus action attack straight from GWM as it already works for one hand weapons. I suppose that you would have a lot of kill poaching between GWM and that TWF feat trying to get the extra attack. It might give Champion some more juice with the competition as a way to get that extra attack more frequently. It would honestly be better for the TWF build to clean up the kills as there would be less Overkill damage, though that would be offset somewhat by the loss of damage from the GWM.
You could also roll that into my previous idea for two attacks instead of attack mod. It would leave the fighting style as is instead of changing it to an extra attack and then state that the extra attack with the off hand could become two on a crit or kill by the attacks with the main hand. You'd have to clean up the language to not include main/offhand terminology and possibly state that the last attacks would be the ones attached to the "offhand" to prevent the extra bonus attack from being made with the same weapon that made the kill or got the crit (if that's a concern), but it could be interesting.