It looks like most of the difference in DPR comes from the Reaction attack.
It's the combination of both a BA attack and increased chance of a Reaction attack. Remove either one and you're back to a very close match.
I never did really understand the bonus action attack for polearm mastery. It doesn't make much sense in the case of most polearms. Or rather, there is no reason you should be able to do it with a halberd, but you can't pommel strike with a sword. I think opening up all kinds of actual combat techniques could be cool if done well (very simple and balanced). But just sprinkling them around here and there is strange.
If anything, the bonus action attack with the butt of a hafted weapon makes more sense on a staff. One of the weapons that could use a good fighting style/feat, but also one they removed it from. Shrug.
Honestly I don't think every type of weapon fighting should really have the same damage potential. Two weapon fighting in DnD is already silly enough. There is no real reason it should compete with every other weapon type. Except for player fantasy. People want to play with a style of weapon in mind. And optimization kind of ruins that.
I personally think it's okay that two weapon fighting underperforms in damage compared to polearms. Let the classes with martial weapons do more. But to keep players happy and avoid the boring pits of optimization sameness, there has to be some balance. I just think they should do it differently. Let polearms keep the Reaction attack. That's very fitting for bracing for a charge. Give two weapon fighters something defensive instead for the trade off.
I don't know, I'd change all of the fighting types if it was me doing it, but they would only be guaranteed to suit my own desire for more realism, minimalist rules, and asymmetrical power.
Why is the baseline assumption for an Opportunity Attack set to 25%?
And why does Polearm Master increase the odds from 25% to 75%?
Forgive me, but these seem arbitrary. There's no reasoning given.
25% is pretty arbitrary and might be low, but it doesn't seem absurd, I don't see that many opportunity attacks. Increasing it to 75% is for the triggered attack on approaching the PAM user.
I personally think it's okay that two weapon fighting underperforms in damage compared to polearms. Let the classes with martial weapons do more. But to keep players happy and avoid the boring pits of optimization sameness, there has to be some balance. I just think they should do it differently. Let polearms keep the Reaction attack. That's very fitting for bracing for a charge. Give two weapon fighters something defensive instead for the trade off.
Defensive actually makes sense, but the trouble is how to do it in a way that isn't just competing with weapon + shield instead; people have this weird idea that two weapons means twice the damage like you can somehow fight effectively with both weapons simultaneously, but that's not how actual two-weapon fighting works. Most two-weapon based fighting styles historically use one weapon to block and one to strike, but with training you can switch which is which to suddenly strike from your blocking side, and a few other tricks.
On this basis it makes sense for Dual Wielder to grant the +1 AC, but what else can be done for the base two weapons? Maybe advantage on one attack to represent being able to feint more easily? That would make it probably the go-to option on Rogues (pretty much guaranteed sneak attack) but it would be compensating for the loss of the extra attack, though in its current playtest form two-weapons is probably going to become the go-to for Rogues anyway (since it no longer competes with Cunning Action to Disengage etc.). But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Why is the baseline assumption for an Opportunity Attack set to 25%?
And why does Polearm Master increase the odds from 25% to 75%?
Forgive me, but these seem arbitrary. There's no reasoning given.
25% is pretty arbitrary and might be low, but it doesn't seem absurd, I don't see that many opportunity attacks. Increasing it to 75% is for the triggered attack on approaching the PAM user.
I understand the assumption that the feat could increase the odds of an OA by creating more opportunities. That tracks. The thing is...that's a trick you can pull once, if you're lucky, during a fight. Because you wouldn't intentionally hold back your advance and wait for an enemy to close the gap, thus hitting them with your OA. Not if you can take the extra five feet and hit them three times. The feat is deceptive, in nature, by letting enemies think they can safely move around someone when they really can't. Spread across a typical three-round battle, that's maybe just one more attack.
And both numbers still seem to be pulled from thin air.
I understand the assumption that the feat could increase the odds of an OA by creating more opportunities. That tracks. The thing is...that's a trick you can pull once, if you're lucky, during a fight. Because you wouldn't intentionally hold back your advance and wait for an enemy to close the gap, thus hitting them with your OA. Not if you can take the extra five feet and hit them three times. The feat is deceptive, in nature, by letting enemies think they can safely move around someone when they really can't. Spread across a typical three-round battle, that's maybe just one more attack.
You don't need to close to 5 feet to get the bonus action attack if it's a reach weapon, the attack is still being made using that weapon, so it has the reach property as well, though it's all kinds of poorly worded. On DDB it only has 5 foot reach because the action isn't tied to the weapon so it just uses the lowest common denominator (spears only have a 5 foot reach). This means with a reach weapon you can safely attack at 10 feet and just move away to try to force the enemy to come to you.
There are also a few other ways to do this even if the enemy closes to 5 feet instead, like the Swarmkeeper Ranger I mentioned who can shove themselves 5 feet on their turn, you could also do the same with the Mobile feat or similar features on some classes.
The real challenge is whether the enemy will actually follow you or not, as they don't need to if they have other targets. Your DM may also have intelligent enemies specifically avoid going for the target that's clearly ready to get in a free stab. It is still one of the easier reaction attacks to trigger; not sure if I'd put it on 75% personally, but depending upon build, how you play it, how your DM runs enemies and how your allies help to ensure you are the nearest target, you can set up the conditions for it to trigger most rounds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I understand the assumption that the feat could increase the odds of an OA by creating more opportunities. That tracks. The thing is...that's a trick you can pull once, if you're lucky, during a fight. Because you wouldn't intentionally hold back your advance and wait for an enemy to close the gap, thus hitting them with your OA. Not if you can take the extra five feet and hit them three times. The feat is deceptive, in nature, by letting enemies think they can safely move around someone when they really can't. Spread across a typical three-round battle, that's maybe just one more attack.
You don't need to close to 5 feet to get the bonus action attack if it's a reach weapon, the attack is still being made using that weapon, so it has the reach property as well, though it's all kinds of poorly worded. On DDB it only has 5 foot reach because the action isn't tied to the weapon so it just uses the lowest common denominator (spears only have a 5 foot reach). This means with a reach weapon you can safely attack at 10 feet and just move away to try to force the enemy to come to you.
There are also a few other ways to do this even if the enemy closes to 5 feet instead, like the Swarmkeeper Ranger I mentioned who can shove themselves 5 feet on their turn, you could also do the same with the Mobile feat or similar features on some classes.
The real challenge is whether the enemy will actually follow you or not, as they don't need to if they have other targets. Your DM may also have intelligent enemies specifically avoid going for the target that's clearly ready to get in a free stab. It is still one of the easier reaction attacks to trigger; not sure if I'd put it on 75% personally, but depending upon build, how you play it, how your DM runs enemies and how your allies help to ensure you are the nearest target, you can set up the conditions for it to trigger most rounds.
I didn't say they had to be within 5 feet to strike. Nobody, except for a Bugbear, is hitting someone on their turn from 15 feet away. For anyone else, if they're 40 feet away, and you have a speed of 30 with a reach weapon, you're not hitting them if you only move 25.
If the 75% chance of getting a reaction attack is based on being able to kite enemies 75% of the time, turn after turn, then wow. I can't wrap my head around anything with that little regard for self-preservation. I simply cannot buy into the idea that it can trigger on most rounds. Not unless the DM is constantly throwing you a bone with dumb enemies. And, honestly, as a player, I might actually feel bad. They're like lambs to the slaughter.
Yeah, this is why I said it's very dependant on the DM and table. The Reaction attack is the best part of the feat from the standpoint of making it unique and fitting for the weapon type. But it's really depends on the main antagonists in the campaign. Intelligent monsters should avoid running headfirst into a pike.
If the 75% chance of getting a reaction attack is based on being able to kite enemies 75% of the time, turn after turn, then wow. I can't wrap my head around anything with that little regard for self-preservation. I simply cannot buy into the idea that it can trigger on most rounds. Not unless the DM is constantly throwing you a bone with dumb enemies. And, honestly, as a player, I might actually feel bad. They're like lambs to the slaughter.
If you're the only target that that enemy can reasonably reach then they don't have a choice; for most creatures in the game taking extra damage is usually going to be better than wasting a turn doing nothing themselves, even if it means getting to someone else on a later turn (most fights in D&D are short enough that the "sacrifice a turn now for a better turn later" math rarely pans out in practice).
Plus there are a whole bunch of things you and your allies can do to enable "infinite" kiting. On my Ranger I like to use thorn whip when I can't quite reach an enemy, plus it's a good time to engage hunter's mark and it lets me pull them away from an ally, probably using gathered swarm for extra distance, and I can position myself so they have no choice but to trigger my reaction. It gets even easier when your allies help out. An enemy doesn't need to be "dumb" to be outmanoeuvred, especially when it's a very simple thing to do.
I didn't give the 75% figure, but I'd say it's hands down one of the most reliable reaction attacks in the game. It's the same reason why the Tasha's Cauldron Brace is such a good manoeuvre on Battle Masters.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I personally think it's okay that two weapon fighting underperforms in damage compared to polearms. Let the classes with martial weapons do more. But to keep players happy and avoid the boring pits of optimization sameness, there has to be some balance. I just think they should do it differently. Let polearms keep the Reaction attack. That's very fitting for bracing for a charge. Give two weapon fighters something defensive instead for the trade off.
Defensive actually makes sense, but the trouble is how to do it in a way that isn't just competing with weapon + shield instead; people have this weird idea that two weapons means twice the damage like you can somehow fight effectively with both weapons simultaneously, but that's not how actual two-weapon fighting works. Most two-weapon based fighting styles historically use one weapon to block and one to strike, but with training you can switch which is which to suddenly strike from your blocking side, and a few other tricks.
On this basis it makes sense for Dual Wielder to grant the +1 AC, but what else can be done for the base two weapons? Maybe advantage on one attack to represent being able to feint more easily? That would make it probably the go-to option on Rogues (pretty much guaranteed sneak attack) but it would be compensating for the loss of the extra attack, though in its current playtest form two-weapons is probably going to become the go-to for Rogues anyway (since it no longer competes with Cunning Action to Disengage etc.). But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
Yeah with the current wespon rules we've been given in these UAs, two weapon fighting is the best option for rogues and rangers any time they aren't using a ranged weapon. Any way to increase your odds of getting sneak attack is huge. And two rolls to hit is always better than one with advantage for anyone. Two attacks with advantage is even better.
I don't know how they could write two weapon fighting to be both realistic and balanced for the players that need it to feel equal. Using another weapon in the off hand was rarely seen in battles. You're usually better off with a shield. People would use them in duels. And they would carry an extra dagger for defense in those times when walking through town with a shield on your back would be silly. The off hand weapon is meant to be a backup for a shield. It's primarily defensive. I could see a dagger giving you +1 AC and some other situational bonus. Like a chance to disarm the enemy with your attack, or a bonus to hit.
Like you say, making two attacks equally well with two longer weapons is mostly the stuff of fantasy. The only somewhat realistic answer I could see would be something similar to a barbarian's reckless attack. You can attack with both of them (or one with advantage) but only by giving your opponent advantage on attacks against you. The only way you can use both weapons offensively at the same time is to leave yourself more vulnerable.
Like you say, making two attacks equally well with two longer weapons is mostly the stuff of fantasy. The only somewhat realistic answer I could see would be something similar to a barbarian's reckless attack. You can attack with both of them (or one with advantage) but only by giving your opponent advantage on attacks against you. The only way you can use both weapons offensively at the same time is to leave yourself more vulnerable.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
How do you define intelligent? I think if a pack of wolves sees that happen to one member, it might give the rest pause.
Right. That's kind of my point. There's so much interpretation for the DM to do. And they then have to balance their own judgement calls with the concern that it could look like they are 'targeting' the polearm player by taking away their chance to use their abilities. Intelligent monsters will avoid them. They will go around them or attack from a range. But that might make the player feel the same way a wizard would if every pack of wolves had one that could Counterspell.
Now, it's not a huge deal. I imagine most games will run just fine. Sometimes the feat will be real good, other times the monsters will avoid it. But some games will have it never used at all. And others will have it factoring into 75+% of attacks.
I guess the only monsters I would say wouldn't ever be 'intelligent' enough to avoid it would be very rare. Only things like zombies and oozes. Like you said, even an animal is going to recognize the danger after one of them is hit. Most animals understand to avoid anything they see as an extension of a human if they can see the person is ready to fight. If you wave a long stick at any animal, it knows to stay back or try to go around.
Polearms work against charges only when there is nowhere else to go. That's why armies used them in giant units of tightly packed soldiers. And why people didn't typically go to the market with them, unlike swords.
The only time you see them use by small groups of people, or solo, is in the case of guards. Sometimes that's just ceremonial. But they can also find use for them because they have a different purpose. A couple guards pointing halberds at you is great crowd control. Specifically because they make people stay away. And if the guards have to fall back into a narrow doorway, then you have nowhere else to go around them.
So I can see some adventures finding use for a polearm in a dungeon, where the halls can be narrow. They would be good there in certain situations. But without a bunch of friends using the same weapons, they aren't going to do much in an open field or street. They will rightfully be avoided by anyone who has the option. Even that has its benefits for controlling the battlefield. It's just not going to be doing damage most of the time. It's the threat of the damage that makes it valuable.
All that is to say, for my games, I wouldn't calculate the damage itself very highly into DPR.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
One person's "cool" is another person's silly, though in this case I think the issue is really what should the baseline be.
I doubt many people will have a problem with the two-weapon fighting style + Dual Wielder letting you dial it up a few notches into something more "heroic", but what should two-weapon fighting in OneD&D actually do mechanically?
If it enables any character at any time to just pick up two weapons and fight more effectively with no real penalty (and a bunch of per-hit synergies) then it begs the question of why would anybody choose any other option? There's also just the general question of what does it do that makes it properly unique (as there are plenty of other features in 5e that let you make an extra attack, so two-weapon fighting isn't really that special).
The proposed changes in OneD&D improve it, but they also make it a lot more exploitable, so it's a good time to question whether it being a free extra attack is the best way to handle it. While realism doesn't need to be the primary factor, it's also reasonable to consider as it makes it more believable rather than inviting the question of "shouldn't it be easier to wield one weapon than it is to wield two?". On that basis I like the Reckless Attack style drawback idea if it's going to remain as one extra attack, as there should be some cost to doing it other than no free hand (which on many classes doesn't matter in the slightest).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
One person's "cool" is another person's silly, though in this case I think the issue is really what should the baseline be.
I doubt many people will have a problem with the two-weapon fighting style + Dual Wielder letting you dial it up a few notches into something more "heroic", but what should two-weapon fighting in OneD&D actually do mechanically?
It should be competitive with (but not superior to) two-handed weapon builds. Which is a problem currently, because it winds up strictly better in tier 1 but doesn't scale well.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
One person's "cool" is another person's silly, though in this case I think the issue is really what should the baseline be.
I doubt many people will have a problem with the two-weapon fighting style + Dual Wielder letting you dial it up a few notches into something more "heroic", but what should two-weapon fighting in OneD&D actually do mechanically?
If it enables any character at any time to just pick up two weapons and fight more effectively with no real penalty (and a bunch of per-hit synergies) then it begs the question of why would anybody choose any other option? There's also just the general question of what does it do that makes it properly unique (as there are plenty of other features in 5e that let you make an extra attack, so two-weapon fighting isn't really that special).
The proposed changes in OneD&D improve it, but they also make it a lot more exploitable, so it's a good time to question whether it being a free extra attack is the best way to handle it. While realism doesn't need to be the primary factor, it's also reasonable to consider as it makes it more believable rather than inviting the question of "shouldn't it be easier to wield one weapon than it is to wield two?". On that basis I like the Reckless Attack style drawback idea if it's going to remain as one extra attack, as there should be some cost to doing it other than no free hand (which on many classes doesn't matter in the slightest).
Yet there is a whole part of the discussion that talks about PAM and how much better it is than Two Weapon Fighting. Exactly which one is being exploitive? Any ability that synergizes with two weapon fighting would also synergize with PAM attacks. So where is the issue? What are you attempting to balance Two Weapon Fighting against?
Like you say, making two attacks equally well with two longer weapons is mostly the stuff of fantasy. The only somewhat realistic answer I could see would be something similar to a barbarian's reckless attack. You can attack with both of them (or one with advantage) but only by giving your opponent advantage on attacks against you. The only way you can use both weapons offensively at the same time is to leave yourself more vulnerable.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
Of course, many people feel that way. Which is why I've recognized that fact many times in any discussion like this (including in the paragraph just before the one you quoted). People like the fantasy of swinging two swords. They also think it should be equally as good as any other fighting style. They want it to feel fair. That's why I always say that the rules have to present every option as being equal, no matter how little it makes sense. And that's why I look for answers that achieve that balance in the most reasonable way possible
I, as a player, do not care if all fighting styles are equal. I do not need them to all do the same damage. I do not need them to all work equally well in every situation. I understand why different fighting styles were used by different people in different places and time periods for different situations. I, as a player, prefer historical accuracy over 'looking cool.' I personally think you can have a little realism in martial combat and it still be cool.
But I, as a DM, care immensely what fantasies my players have. I want them to be able to do all the cool stuff they imagine. I want them to be able to fight with any combination of weapon styles, and feel just as useful as their companions. So I will defend even the (historically) silliest rules if they are well written and achieve that balance for my players. I have no problem with two weapon fighting being just as good an option as a sword and shield, even in situations it shouldn't be. It can even do as much DPR as a greatword if that's what people need to feel good.
I also think some realism helps ground a game in a good way. And that some fighting styles can be equally useful without just all doing the same damage. And that they can get more creative with the ways they balance the fantasies.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
One person's "cool" is another person's silly, though in this case I think the issue is really what should the baseline be.
I doubt many people will have a problem with the two-weapon fighting style + Dual Wielder letting you dial it up a few notches into something more "heroic", but what should two-weapon fighting in OneD&D actually do mechanically?
If it enables any character at any time to just pick up two weapons and fight more effectively with no real penalty (and a bunch of per-hit synergies) then it begs the question of why would anybody choose any other option? There's also just the general question of what does it do that makes it properly unique (as there are plenty of other features in 5e that let you make an extra attack, so two-weapon fighting isn't really that special).
The proposed changes in OneD&D improve it, but they also make it a lot more exploitable, so it's a good time to question whether it being a free extra attack is the best way to handle it. While realism doesn't need to be the primary factor, it's also reasonable to consider as it makes it more believable rather than inviting the question of "shouldn't it be easier to wield one weapon than it is to wield two?". On that basis I like the Reckless Attack style drawback idea if it's going to remain as one extra attack, as there should be some cost to doing it other than no free hand (which on many classes doesn't matter in the slightest).
Yet there is a whole part of the discussion that talks about PAM and how much better it is than Two Weapon Fighting. Exactly which one is being exploitive? Any ability that synergizes with two weapon fighting would also synergize with PAM attacks. So where is the issue? What are you attempting to balance Two Weapon Fighting against?
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm kind of lost at this point haha.
The statement was made that PAM far outperforms two weapon fighting in potential damage.
I said I don't mind if two weapon fighting doesn't do as much damage. PAM is for Martials. I thinks it's fine if they do more DPR. But because people want all the fighting styles to be balanced, two weapon style needs something other than damage. It needs some other, more interesting feature.
Haravikk said maybe give two weapon style users advantage on an attack instead of an additional attack. But then expressed concern that it might make it too appealing to rogues because it's guaranteed sneak attack. Then added that two weapon fighting was already kind of the best option for rogues.
I agreed.
We then went on to try to think of other cool features for two weapon fighting that were a little more realistic, but offered something that makes it still viable compared to other fighting styles for balance, that wasn't just more attacks.
I never did really understand the bonus action attack for polearm mastery. It doesn't make much sense in the case of most polearms. Or rather, there is no reason you should be able to do it with a halberd, but you can't pommel strike with a sword. I think opening up all kinds of actual combat techniques could be cool if done well (very simple and balanced). But just sprinkling them around here and there is strange.
If anything, the bonus action attack with the butt of a hafted weapon makes more sense on a staff. One of the weapons that could use a good fighting style/feat, but also one they removed it from. Shrug.
Honestly I don't think every type of weapon fighting should really have the same damage potential. Two weapon fighting in DnD is already silly enough. There is no real reason it should compete with every other weapon type. Except for player fantasy. People want to play with a style of weapon in mind. And optimization kind of ruins that.
I personally think it's okay that two weapon fighting underperforms in damage compared to polearms. Let the classes with martial weapons do more. But to keep players happy and avoid the boring pits of optimization sameness, there has to be some balance. I just think they should do it differently. Let polearms keep the Reaction attack. That's very fitting for bracing for a charge. Give two weapon fighters something defensive instead for the trade off.
I don't know, I'd change all of the fighting types if it was me doing it, but they would only be guaranteed to suit my own desire for more realism, minimalist rules, and asymmetrical power.
Two questions:
Forgive me, but these seem arbitrary. There's no reasoning given.
25% is pretty arbitrary and might be low, but it doesn't seem absurd, I don't see that many opportunity attacks. Increasing it to 75% is for the triggered attack on approaching the PAM user.
Defensive actually makes sense, but the trouble is how to do it in a way that isn't just competing with weapon + shield instead; people have this weird idea that two weapons means twice the damage like you can somehow fight effectively with both weapons simultaneously, but that's not how actual two-weapon fighting works. Most two-weapon based fighting styles historically use one weapon to block and one to strike, but with training you can switch which is which to suddenly strike from your blocking side, and a few other tricks.
On this basis it makes sense for Dual Wielder to grant the +1 AC, but what else can be done for the base two weapons? Maybe advantage on one attack to represent being able to feint more easily? That would make it probably the go-to option on Rogues (pretty much guaranteed sneak attack) but it would be compensating for the loss of the extra attack, though in its current playtest form two-weapons is probably going to become the go-to for Rogues anyway (since it no longer competes with Cunning Action to Disengage etc.). But that's one of the oddities we've always had with Rogue in that there has never been a good reason to have only one weapon, as it's always been better to have a backup for a second chance at getting sneak attack if the first one missed; probably something that needs to be fixed on Rogue though.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I understand the assumption that the feat could increase the odds of an OA by creating more opportunities. That tracks. The thing is...that's a trick you can pull once, if you're lucky, during a fight. Because you wouldn't intentionally hold back your advance and wait for an enemy to close the gap, thus hitting them with your OA. Not if you can take the extra five feet and hit them three times. The feat is deceptive, in nature, by letting enemies think they can safely move around someone when they really can't. Spread across a typical three-round battle, that's maybe just one more attack.
And both numbers still seem to be pulled from thin air.
You don't need to close to 5 feet to get the bonus action attack if it's a reach weapon, the attack is still being made using that weapon, so it has the reach property as well, though it's all kinds of poorly worded. On DDB it only has 5 foot reach because the action isn't tied to the weapon so it just uses the lowest common denominator (spears only have a 5 foot reach). This means with a reach weapon you can safely attack at 10 feet and just move away to try to force the enemy to come to you.
There are also a few other ways to do this even if the enemy closes to 5 feet instead, like the Swarmkeeper Ranger I mentioned who can shove themselves 5 feet on their turn, you could also do the same with the Mobile feat or similar features on some classes.
The real challenge is whether the enemy will actually follow you or not, as they don't need to if they have other targets. Your DM may also have intelligent enemies specifically avoid going for the target that's clearly ready to get in a free stab. It is still one of the easier reaction attacks to trigger; not sure if I'd put it on 75% personally, but depending upon build, how you play it, how your DM runs enemies and how your allies help to ensure you are the nearest target, you can set up the conditions for it to trigger most rounds.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I didn't say they had to be within 5 feet to strike. Nobody, except for a Bugbear, is hitting someone on their turn from 15 feet away. For anyone else, if they're 40 feet away, and you have a speed of 30 with a reach weapon, you're not hitting them if you only move 25.
If the 75% chance of getting a reaction attack is based on being able to kite enemies 75% of the time, turn after turn, then wow. I can't wrap my head around anything with that little regard for self-preservation. I simply cannot buy into the idea that it can trigger on most rounds. Not unless the DM is constantly throwing you a bone with dumb enemies. And, honestly, as a player, I might actually feel bad. They're like lambs to the slaughter.
Yeah, this is why I said it's very dependant on the DM and table. The Reaction attack is the best part of the feat from the standpoint of making it unique and fitting for the weapon type. But it's really depends on the main antagonists in the campaign. Intelligent monsters should avoid running headfirst into a pike.
How do you define intelligent? I think if a pack of wolves sees that happen to one member, it might give the rest pause.
If you're the only target that that enemy can reasonably reach then they don't have a choice; for most creatures in the game taking extra damage is usually going to be better than wasting a turn doing nothing themselves, even if it means getting to someone else on a later turn (most fights in D&D are short enough that the "sacrifice a turn now for a better turn later" math rarely pans out in practice).
Plus there are a whole bunch of things you and your allies can do to enable "infinite" kiting. On my Ranger I like to use thorn whip when I can't quite reach an enemy, plus it's a good time to engage hunter's mark and it lets me pull them away from an ally, probably using gathered swarm for extra distance, and I can position myself so they have no choice but to trigger my reaction. It gets even easier when your allies help out. An enemy doesn't need to be "dumb" to be outmanoeuvred, especially when it's a very simple thing to do.
I didn't give the 75% figure, but I'd say it's hands down one of the most reliable reaction attacks in the game. It's the same reason why the Tasha's Cauldron Brace is such a good manoeuvre on Battle Masters.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yeah with the current wespon rules we've been given in these UAs, two weapon fighting is the best option for rogues and rangers any time they aren't using a ranged weapon. Any way to increase your odds of getting sneak attack is huge. And two rolls to hit is always better than one with advantage for anyone. Two attacks with advantage is even better.
I don't know how they could write two weapon fighting to be both realistic and balanced for the players that need it to feel equal. Using another weapon in the off hand was rarely seen in battles. You're usually better off with a shield. People would use them in duels. And they would carry an extra dagger for defense in those times when walking through town with a shield on your back would be silly. The off hand weapon is meant to be a backup for a shield. It's primarily defensive. I could see a dagger giving you +1 AC and some other situational bonus. Like a chance to disarm the enemy with your attack, or a bonus to hit.
Like you say, making two attacks equally well with two longer weapons is mostly the stuff of fantasy. The only somewhat realistic answer I could see would be something similar to a barbarian's reckless attack. You can attack with both of them (or one with advantage) but only by giving your opponent advantage on attacks against you. The only way you can use both weapons offensively at the same time is to leave yourself more vulnerable.
Very few people care about historical accuracy or realism. People want to look cool in a fantasy game where we fight dragons without being ineffective due to poorly written/balanced rules.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Right. That's kind of my point. There's so much interpretation for the DM to do. And they then have to balance their own judgement calls with the concern that it could look like they are 'targeting' the polearm player by taking away their chance to use their abilities. Intelligent monsters will avoid them. They will go around them or attack from a range. But that might make the player feel the same way a wizard would if every pack of wolves had one that could Counterspell.
Now, it's not a huge deal. I imagine most games will run just fine. Sometimes the feat will be real good, other times the monsters will avoid it. But some games will have it never used at all. And others will have it factoring into 75+% of attacks.
I guess the only monsters I would say wouldn't ever be 'intelligent' enough to avoid it would be very rare. Only things like zombies and oozes. Like you said, even an animal is going to recognize the danger after one of them is hit. Most animals understand to avoid anything they see as an extension of a human if they can see the person is ready to fight. If you wave a long stick at any animal, it knows to stay back or try to go around.
Polearms work against charges only when there is nowhere else to go. That's why armies used them in giant units of tightly packed soldiers. And why people didn't typically go to the market with them, unlike swords.
The only time you see them use by small groups of people, or solo, is in the case of guards. Sometimes that's just ceremonial. But they can also find use for them because they have a different purpose. A couple guards pointing halberds at you is great crowd control. Specifically because they make people stay away. And if the guards have to fall back into a narrow doorway, then you have nowhere else to go around them.
So I can see some adventures finding use for a polearm in a dungeon, where the halls can be narrow. They would be good there in certain situations. But without a bunch of friends using the same weapons, they aren't going to do much in an open field or street. They will rightfully be avoided by anyone who has the option. Even that has its benefits for controlling the battlefield. It's just not going to be doing damage most of the time. It's the threat of the damage that makes it valuable.
All that is to say, for my games, I wouldn't calculate the damage itself very highly into DPR.
One person's "cool" is another person's silly, though in this case I think the issue is really what should the baseline be.
I doubt many people will have a problem with the two-weapon fighting style + Dual Wielder letting you dial it up a few notches into something more "heroic", but what should two-weapon fighting in OneD&D actually do mechanically?
If it enables any character at any time to just pick up two weapons and fight more effectively with no real penalty (and a bunch of per-hit synergies) then it begs the question of why would anybody choose any other option? There's also just the general question of what does it do that makes it properly unique (as there are plenty of other features in 5e that let you make an extra attack, so two-weapon fighting isn't really that special).
The proposed changes in OneD&D improve it, but they also make it a lot more exploitable, so it's a good time to question whether it being a free extra attack is the best way to handle it. While realism doesn't need to be the primary factor, it's also reasonable to consider as it makes it more believable rather than inviting the question of "shouldn't it be easier to wield one weapon than it is to wield two?". On that basis I like the Reckless Attack style drawback idea if it's going to remain as one extra attack, as there should be some cost to doing it other than no free hand (which on many classes doesn't matter in the slightest).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It should be competitive with (but not superior to) two-handed weapon builds. Which is a problem currently, because it winds up strictly better in tier 1 but doesn't scale well.
Yet there is a whole part of the discussion that talks about PAM and how much better it is than Two Weapon Fighting. Exactly which one is being exploitive? Any ability that synergizes with two weapon fighting would also synergize with PAM attacks. So where is the issue? What are you attempting to balance Two Weapon Fighting against?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Of course, many people feel that way. Which is why I've recognized that fact many times in any discussion like this (including in the paragraph just before the one you quoted). People like the fantasy of swinging two swords. They also think it should be equally as good as any other fighting style. They want it to feel fair. That's why I always say that the rules have to present every option as being equal, no matter how little it makes sense. And that's why I look for answers that achieve that balance in the most reasonable way possible
I, as a player, do not care if all fighting styles are equal. I do not need them to all do the same damage. I do not need them to all work equally well in every situation. I understand why different fighting styles were used by different people in different places and time periods for different situations. I, as a player, prefer historical accuracy over 'looking cool.' I personally think you can have a little realism in martial combat and it still be cool.
But I, as a DM, care immensely what fantasies my players have. I want them to be able to do all the cool stuff they imagine. I want them to be able to fight with any combination of weapon styles, and feel just as useful as their companions. So I will defend even the (historically) silliest rules if they are well written and achieve that balance for my players. I have no problem with two weapon fighting being just as good an option as a sword and shield, even in situations it shouldn't be. It can even do as much DPR as a greatword if that's what people need to feel good.
I also think some realism helps ground a game in a good way. And that some fighting styles can be equally useful without just all doing the same damage. And that they can get more creative with the ways they balance the fantasies.
Haravikk and I were specifically talking about two weapon fighting being the best option for rogues, who can't use polearms. And how we might prefer the fighting style to be different in general. I added in rangers too. While the advantages aren't as clear as they are for rogues, rangers can't get the Great Weapon fighting style except as a feat at 4th level, so it's not as obvious a choice to have a polearm fighting ranger. I should have probably not complicated the discussion. But mostly there are just multiple conversations happening at the same time and wires are getting crossed.
Ok, so what are the exploits? Rogues can't take Fighting Styles or use Shields. As far as I can tell, the reason it is the best option for Rogues is that they have no other options.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm kind of lost at this point haha.
The statement was made that PAM far outperforms two weapon fighting in potential damage.
I said I don't mind if two weapon fighting doesn't do as much damage. PAM is for Martials. I thinks it's fine if they do more DPR. But because people want all the fighting styles to be balanced, two weapon style needs something other than damage. It needs some other, more interesting feature.
Haravikk said maybe give two weapon style users advantage on an attack instead of an additional attack. But then expressed concern that it might make it too appealing to rogues because it's guaranteed sneak attack. Then added that two weapon fighting was already kind of the best option for rogues.
I agreed.
We then went on to try to think of other cool features for two weapon fighting that were a little more realistic, but offered something that makes it still viable compared to other fighting styles for balance, that wasn't just more attacks.
That's all I think of that we were taking about.