I'm not one to insist that all of my builds be optimized to the max but it bothers me that Fighters that use heavy weapons and Great Weapon Master have WAY more options than the guy with two weapons. GWM characters can use some form of polearm, couple it with Polearm Master, and now they have a juggernaut who at lvl 4 can dish out +10 damage per hit, take a second attack with their Bonus Action AND get all of that with Advantage if they're Barbarians using Reckless Attack. Great Ax wielders are almost as well off except for the additional attack but many of those are Barbs and they often get a Bonus Action attack anyway thanks to GWM (through reducing a target to 0 HP or landing a Crit).
Meanwhile, the guy with Dual Wield and the 2-weapon fighting style gets an extra attack for 1D8 + Str or Dex modifier. Oh...yay...
I firmly believe that characters with twin melee or thrown weapons need a second Feat to bring them up to par (or close to it) with the Heavy Weapon/GWM crowd.
I'm trying the Dual Wield Master Feat out in my next campaign but I wanted to see how the rest of the community felt about it.
Dual Wield Master: Prerequisite: A character must have the Dual Wield Feat before taking Dual Wield Master.
A character with Dual Wield Master gains an additional +1 AC when wielding a melee weapon in each hand. When they take the Attack Action, they may make one additional Attack with either weapon. Dual Wield Masters may ready up to three weapons in a single turn as long as those weapons all have the Thrown property.
That's it. With this new Feat characters with a melee weapon in their off-hand can now make an additional Attack which (with the Str or Dex modifier) brings them much closer to the heavy weapon/GWM crowd. It doesn't add anything to missile weapons since it specifies melee weapons so the Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter crowd don't gain yet another boost (that they don't need IMHO). Throwing weapon characters (when coupled with the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style) are more viable as well.
There's three problems here and I don't think this solution addresses any of them particularly well:
TWF sucks for high level fighters
Dual Wielder is an underpowered feat (arguably worse than taking an ASI if your DEX isn't already maxed.)
GWM and Polearm Master are overpowered
The first is better addressed by tweaking how Extra Attack works. The second is better addressed by tweaking that feat directly. The third is better addressed by nerfing those feats. Adding a second feat that has a pre-requisite on the previous feat goes against the game's design philosophy and still requires dual wielders to invest 2 ASIs to approximate the power level of 1 of the overpowered alternatives. Not a very enticing proposition.
There's three problems here and I don't think this solution addresses any of them particularly well:
TWF sucks for high level fighters
Dual Wielder is an underpowered feat (arguably worse than taking an ASI if your DEX isn't already maxed.)
GWM and Polearm Master are overpowered
The first is better addressed by tweaking how Extra Attack works. The second is better addressed by tweaking that feat directly. The third is better addressed by nerfing those feats. Adding a second feat that has a pre-requisite on the previous feat goes against the game's design philosophy and still requires dual wielders to invest 2 ASIs to approximate the power level of 1 of the overpowered alternatives. Not a very enticing proposition.
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is one of the stronger Fighter or Ranger combos regardless of subclass (and as always some are better than others). PAM and GWM also synergize well regardless of which martial class you're using. I didn't think that using the 'two synergizing Feats' thing was bad since the other combos do the same.
It's usually the combination of the two Feats (or a single Feat with a character benefit like Reckless Attack from Barbs) that makes them OP IMHO. I'd rather try to create one homebrew Feat to fix several problems than do a wholesale slash and burn on the rules.
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
My point is those feats are game-breakingly good, to the point that for TWF to be equally compelling you'd also have to make it game-breakingly good.
Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is one of the stronger Fighter or Ranger combos regardless of subclass (and as always some are better than others). PAM and GWM also synergize well regardless of which martial class you're using. I didn't think that using the 'two synergizing Feats' thing was bad since the other combos do the same.
To be clear, I wasn't saying it's bad for two feats to synergize, it's the feat chain you're doing (feat X has feat Y as its pre-requisite) that the game's designers wanted to avoid. And either way, Dual Wielder is still so underpowered that it's going to remain dead weight for 2-4 levels until you can get the second feat to bring the combo online. Meanwhile Barbarian doesn't need a second feat to abuse GWM.
It's usually the combination of the two Feats (or a single Feat with a character benefit like Reckless Attack from Barbs) that makes them OP IMHO.
I agree 100% that the combination of the feats is far more problematic than the feats individually, but I'd argue they're still overpowered on their own, especially GWM. It lets you convert excess accuracy into damage, which effectively raises character's damage cap in a way that's not easily matched by any other abilities in the game. Polearm Master on its own mainly breaks tier 1 of the game, but it tends to break things when you start stacking per-attack effects.
I'd rather try to create one homebrew Feat to fix several problems than do a wholesale slash and burn on the rules.
In my experience game design problems require targeted solutions. Otherwise you fail to address the problem adequately or the solution introduces problems of its own. Case in point, if I'm running a game with no feats (which is a valid choice), TWF is still going to suck for fighters past 10th level.
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
My point is those feats are game-breakingly good, to the point that for TWF to be equally compelling you'd also have to make it game-breakingly good.
Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is one of the stronger Fighter or Ranger combos regardless of subclass (and as always some are better than others). PAM and GWM also synergize well regardless of which martial class you're using. I didn't think that using the 'two synergizing Feats' thing was bad since the other combos do the same.
To be clear, I wasn't saying it's bad for two feats to synergize, it's the feat chain you're doing (feat X has feat Y as its pre-requisite) that the game's designers wanted to avoid. And either way, Dual Wielder is still so underpowered that it's going to remain dead weight for 2-4 levels until you can get the second feat to bring the combo online. Meanwhile Barbarian doesn't need a second feat to abuse GWM.
It's usually the combination of the two Feats (or a single Feat with a character benefit like Reckless Attack from Barbs) that makes them OP IMHO.
I agree 100% that the combination of the feats is far more problematic than the feats individually, but I'd argue they're still overpowered on their own, especially GWM. It lets you convert excess accuracy into damage, which effectively raises character's damage cap in a way that's not easily matched by any other abilities in the game. Polearm Master on its own mainly breaks tier 1 of the game, but it tends to break things when you start stacking per-attack effects.
I'd rather try to create one homebrew Feat to fix several problems than do a wholesale slash and burn on the rules.
In my experience game design problems require targeted solutions. Otherwise you fail to address the problem adequately or the solution introduces problems of its own. Case in point, if I'm running a game with no feats (which is a valid choice), TWF is still going to suck for fighters past 10th level.
I disagree and please bear with me while I run the math:
A Fighter with 20 Str wielding a great ax at level 11 and no Feats but with the Great Weapon Fighting style will average 6.5 x 3 (Attacks) + 15 damage or 34.5 damage. You can round that to about 36 or so because of being able to reroll 1s and 2s from the fighting style.
A Fighter with 20 Dex wielding 2 Scimitars or Short Swords at level 11 and no Feats with the 2-Weapon fighting style will average 3.5 x 4 (Attacks) + 20 damage or 34 damage. Both characters will benefit from magic weapons but even there it starts to fall apart for the bigger weapon. A +1 weapon for the first character adds +1 to hit and a cumulative +3 damage. A pair of +1 weapons for the second characters grant +1 to hit and a cumulative +4 damage. Any sort of additional bonus added per attack only benefits the second guy MORE because of the additional Attack (looking at YOU Hunter's Mark!).
In addition to all of this, the second character benefits from the higher Dex with a higher AC, a higher Initiative, higher Dex Saves, etc. As you can see, without the Feats everything actually works out pretty evenly. Different multiclasses would benefit more or less but we're way out in the weeds if we want to go there.
Two Weapon Fighting falls off hard in damage output because it just doesn't scale. Level 1 or level 20, you still only attack with that offhand weapon once. Its mainly an action economy issue.
Adding scaling additional bonus action attacks to two weapon fighting is one of the easiest solutions. I can't decide if it would be broken to follow the fighter's extra attack scheme for that, or spread it out a bit more.
I would also consider rolling the Defensive Duelist feat into the Dual Wielder Feat, rather than trying to homebrew a whole other feat on top. Both feats feel like they need a little something extra, so putting them together works well, especially since reaction attacks by the dual wielder are less important.
Similarly, combining the dueling fighting style into two weapon fighting to give a +2 to damage might make it more worthwhile and still be a simple change.
During the development, Designers talked about the “feat tax” of old feats like Weapon Focus in 3.5, and that they wouldn’t be using static modifiers for damage and to hit bonuses because it skews players decision making towards limiting build diversity. Then, they released PHB with two HUGE static damage modifier feats, for heavy weapons or ranged weapons, apparently believing they’re not feat tax because not everyone wants to use a heavy weapon or bow…
It’s true they aren’t the only way to build a viable fighter, but they’re definitely the best way to deal damage with one, and if skews player decision making. And it’s almost impossible to imagine playing a heavy weapon user or archer that DOESNT take those feats any 12. If they deleted both feats in an errata, that would be better for the game than adding more.
Dual Wielder is a GREAT feat, mitigating four shortcomings of the style (lower AC from no shield; limited weapon selection; ability score applicability; difficulty drawing both weapons). It’s an example of GOOD feat design in 5E, Shield Expert too, GWM and Sharpshooter just skew expectations and decision making away from those styles.
I disagree and please bear with me while I run the math: A Fighter with 20 Str wielding a great ax at level 11 and no Feats but with the Great Weapon Fighting style will average 6.5 x 3 (Attacks) + 15 damage or 34.5 damage. You can round that to about 36 or so because of being able to reroll 1s and 2s from the fighting style. A Fighter with 20 Dex wielding 2 Scimitars or Short Swords at level 11 and no Feats with the 2-Weapon fighting style will average 3.5 x 4 (Attacks) + 20 damage or 34 damage. Both characters will benefit from magic weapons but even there it starts to fall apart for the bigger weapon. A +1 weapon for the first character adds +1 to hit and a cumulative +3 damage. A pair of +1 weapons for the second characters grant +1 to hit and a cumulative +4 damage. Any sort of additional bonus added per attack only benefits the second guy MORE because of the additional Attack (looking at YOU Hunter's Mark!).
The great axe averages 37. But a greatsword would average 40, which is already a big lead over the TWF's 34. And the greatsword user still has their bonus action, only needs 1 magic weapon to bypass resistances, gets the full benefit of any weapon buffs Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon, benefits more Haste and Action Surge, and make considerably stronger opportunity attacks. The TWF user makes a bigger personal investment to still come out behind and make worse use of the group's magic.
In addition to all of this, the second character benefits from the higher Dex with a higher AC, a higher Initiative, higher Dex Saves, etc. As you can see, without the Feats everything actually works out pretty evenly.
Initiative and DEX saves, sure. And I don't want to downplay the benefit of those. The AC is a non-issue for fighters since they can invest in armor. However if DEX is what you value, Dueling is also going to close the gap on TWF as you get more attacks and gets +2 AC without any feat investment. A rapier user with max DEX making 3 attacks is going to average 34.5 damage on all 3 attacks thanks to that +2 bonus from Dueling.
Two Weapon Fighting falls off hard in damage output because it just doesn't scale. Level 1 or level 20, you still only attack with that offhand weapon once. Its mainly an action economy issue.
Bingo. Not just the core mechanic, but the Fighting Style too.
If you just tweak Extra Attack to give you an extra 1d4 damage on melee attacks while wielding two TWF-compatible weapons and the enemy's within reach of both (to handle weird things like whips), the problem goes away. You come out slightly ahead of 2H users if you use the bonus action, slightly ahead of Dueling users if you don't, and your opportunity attacks get better too, all without bogging the game down with extra attack rolls. And if you're inclined to house rule the Dual Wielder feat, you can ditch the silly "your weapons don't have to be light" point and just bump the extra damage to 1d6. Easy.
Dual Wielder is a GREAT feat, mitigating four shortcomings of the style (lower AC from no shield; limited weapon selection; ability score applicability; difficulty drawing both weapons).
The problem is the increased weapon selection encourages downright silly things (dual rapiers?), only adds +1 damage, and the difficulty of drawing both weapons was a stupid decision that shouldn't have required a feat to overcome. For a DEX user +1 DEX modifier also adds +1 AC and +1 damage per attack but also increases your attack roll, initiative, DEX save, and ability checks. You need to have maxed out DEX for the feat to be worth it, and by that point TWF already sucks.
I completely agree with C_C here. A good feat does not need "fixed" to out-do feats that absolutely are feat taxes on martial characters and are bad for the game. Throwing a fireball at 5th level should feel amazing. It just doesn't when you have a GWM/sharpshooter martial character in your party unless you are hitting a whole bunch of monsters that all have only a few HP.
Two Weapon Fighting falls off hard in damage output because it just doesn't scale. Level 1 or level 20, you still only attack with that offhand weapon once. Its mainly an action economy issue.
Adding scaling additional bonus action attacks to two weapon fighting is one of the easiest solutions. I can't decide if it would be broken to follow the fighter's extra attack scheme for that, or spread it out a bit more.
I would also consider rolling the Defensive Duelist feat into the Dual Wielder Feat, rather than trying to homebrew a whole other feat on top. Both feats feel like they need a little something extra, so putting them together works well, especially since reaction attacks by the dual wielder are less important.
Similarly, combining the dueling fighting style into two weapon fighting to give a +2 to damage might make it more worthwhile and still be a simple change.
I concur. My thought was to try and fix one problem but if a slight alteration can fix several problems I'm all for that.
I didn't want to mess with the Bonus Action mechanic which is why I simply added an additional Attack with either weapon. I was afraid allowing a second Attack from a Bonus Action would set a bad trend. Plus, if the additional Attack stems from the Attack Action it benefits from Action Surge as well.
I completely agree with C_C here. A good feat does not need "fixed" to out-do feats that absolutely are feat taxes on martial characters and are bad for the game. Throwing a fireball at 5th level should feel amazing. It just doesn't when you have a GWM/sharpshooter martial character in your party unless you are hitting a whole bunch of monsters that all have only a few HP.
I knew that the game had a balance problem (and the developers can claim that balance isn't necessary all they want...they're wrong) when I started seeing the relative damage output in my first 5e game a few years ago. The Barb ran in, did his three attacks (post-level 5 and PAM), declared GWM on all of them, added Reckless Attack, and proceeded to inflict about 70 points of damage on the BBEG. Then the Fighter did his three Sharpshooter attacks with his Longbow and did nearly 50 to the same target. The Wizard dropped 20 on the BBEG with Chain Lightning (the target made his Save for half damage) and then proceeded to do a total of nearly a hundred points on three evil minions who were unfortunate enough to miss their Saves.
Then my Rogue did 30 points with my Sneak Attack. I was a bit stunned. I had to make sure that I had some sort of special circumstance to get MY big attack off but the rest were like 'Oh no...we do this almost every turn!'
I see this as a problem. I've seen this in all sorts of games down through the years. There will always be min-maxers just like there will always be players who worry more about the roleplay or the style than the damage. The problem is when the two groups meet. If the whole party is optimized for damage then the DM can plan for that. If the whole party is just along for fun then he can plan for that too. But drop one optimized character or two into a party of 'just for fun' and that's where the issues begin IMHO.
I don't want any single type of build or style to be so OP that a majority of the players flock to it. I also don't like nerfing something that's been around for half a dozen years because many players (and DMs) might just ignore it because it's too big of a change.
I'd rather bring the sub-par up to parity than nerf the top of the heap.
I disagree and please bear with me while I run the math: A Fighter with 20 Str wielding a great ax at level 11 and no Feats but with the Great Weapon Fighting style will average 6.5 x 3 (Attacks) + 15 damage or 34.5 damage. You can round that to about 36 or so because of being able to reroll 1s and 2s from the fighting style. A Fighter with 20 Dex wielding 2 Scimitars or Short Swords at level 11 and no Feats with the 2-Weapon fighting style will average 3.5 x 4 (Attacks) + 20 damage or 34 damage. Both characters will benefit from magic weapons but even there it starts to fall apart for the bigger weapon. A +1 weapon for the first character adds +1 to hit and a cumulative +3 damage. A pair of +1 weapons for the second characters grant +1 to hit and a cumulative +4 damage. Any sort of additional bonus added per attack only benefits the second guy MORE because of the additional Attack (looking at YOU Hunter's Mark!).
The great axe averages 37. But a greatsword would average 40, which is already a big lead over the TWF's 34. And the greatsword user still has their bonus action, only needs 1 magic weapon to bypass resistances, gets the full benefit of any weapon buffs Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon, benefits more Haste and Action Surge, and make considerably stronger opportunity attacks. The TWF user makes a bigger personal investment to still come out behind and make worse use of the group's magic.
In addition to all of this, the second character benefits from the higher Dex with a higher AC, a higher Initiative, higher Dex Saves, etc. As you can see, without the Feats everything actually works out pretty evenly.
Initiative and DEX saves, sure. And I don't want to downplay the benefit of those. The AC is a non-issue for fighters since they can invest in armor. However if DEX is what you value, Dueling is also going to close the gap on TWF as you get more attacks and gets +2 AC without any feat investment. A rapier user with max DEX making 3 attacks is going to average 34.5 damage on all 3 attacks thanks to that +2 bonus from Dueling.
Two Weapon Fighting falls off hard in damage output because it just doesn't scale. Level 1 or level 20, you still only attack with that offhand weapon once. Its mainly an action economy issue.
Bingo. Not just the core mechanic, but the Fighting Style too.
If you just tweak Extra Attack to give you an extra 1d4 damage on melee attacks while wielding two TWF-compatible weapons and the enemy's within reach of both (to handle weird things like whips), the problem goes away. You come out slightly ahead of 2H users if you use the bonus action, slightly ahead of Dueling users if you don't, and your opportunity attacks get better too, all without bogging the game down with extra attack rolls. And if you're inclined to house rule the Dual Wielder feat, you can ditch the silly "your weapons don't have to be light" point and just bump the extra damage to 1d6. Easy.
Dual Wielder is a GREAT feat, mitigating four shortcomings of the style (lower AC from no shield; limited weapon selection; ability score applicability; difficulty drawing both weapons).
The problem is the increased weapon selection encourages downright silly things (dual rapiers?), only adds +1 damage, and the difficulty of drawing both weapons was a stupid decision that shouldn't have required a feat to overcome. For a DEX user +1 DEX modifier also adds +1 AC and +1 damage per attack but also increases your attack roll, initiative, DEX save, and ability checks. You need to have maxed out DEX for the feat to be worth it, and by that point TWF already sucks.
1) I don't consider 40 to be that great of a leap over 34. However, I will concede the point of the Greatsword. Many people don't like the GS over the BA because of the various 'roll an additional damage die for a Crit' favors the weapon with the bigger damage die.
2) Yes, the heavy weapon wielder gains more from Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon (a 3rd level spell and a 6th level spell respectively). However, the TWF gains more from Hunter's Mark (a 2nd level spell), Crusader's Mantle (a 3rd level spell), as well as Reckless Attack for Barbs and Fighting Spirit for Fighters. IMHO this is a wash.
1) I don't consider 40 to be that great of a leap over 34.
You don't think it's a problem for a 2H weapon user to deal 18% more damage than the guy that's spending an additional bonus action and has to invest in an additional magic weapon? The 2H user is basically getting a whole round of the TWF guy's damage for free every 5-6 turns. And I'm not even factoring in opportunity attacks, which obviously favor the 2H user.
However, I will concede the point of the Greatsword. Many people don't like the GS over the BA because of the various 'roll an additional damage die for a Crit' favors the weapon with the bigger damage die.
It actually doesn't, because the greatsword gives you more damage on non-crit attacks than you'll be able to get back through crits. A greataxe with GWFS averages 7.33 damage, greatsword averages 8.33, so there's a 1 point damage loss for every greataxe attack. Even if you're under permanent advantage to raise your crit rate to 10%, you're only getting one crit out of every 10 attacks, and the extra 1d12 only adds 6.5 damage. (I know there's ways to double down on this concept with multiclassing and Champion; it's still not practical.)
2) Yes, the heavy weapon wielder gains more from Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon (a 3rd level spell and a 6th level spell respectively). However, the TWF gains more from Hunter's Mark (a 2nd level spell), Crusader's Mantle (a 3rd level spell), as well as Reckless Attack for Barbs and Fighting Spirit for Fighters. IMHO this is a wash.
If you're a Ranger, Hunter's Mark is nice, but it still comes with the problem of costing your bonus TWF attack (the main thing TWF gives you) every time you cast it or move it, while also putting you in harm's way and increased risk of losing the spell compared to an archery ranger. Add to that the fact that the archery ranger's going to have +2 to hit and they're going to get a hit in where the TWF user would've missed about 10% of the time...and it's not so clear the TWF build has a major advantage. Either way it's not exactly relevant to fighters, which are the class where TWF suffers the most in the long run.
Crusader's Mantle lets TWF users add 1 extra d4 per round relative to a 2H weapon user (remember, the 2H weapon user can also use Crusader's Mantle.) That's nowhere near enough to compensate for the gap that forms as the guy that deals 13 damage per hit keeps getting more attacks.
Weapon damage dice are largely irrelevent a greatsword is only 3.5 more damage per hit than a dagger. A bonus action giving that 2.5, and 5 Dex/Str, almost wholly meets the greatsword for a non-fighter that only has one or two GS attacks, and using a d8 weapon instead closes the gap entirely. that’s fine. Add on other effects which may provide damage per hit more than once per round Hunters Mark, Hex, Magic weapon bonus damage, etc, and TWF is just as strong as 2H fighting….
…Until GWM comes along and blows the math out of the water. It’s really JUST a GWM issue, not an overall weapon style problem. If GWM was just a style feat that gave its other cleave feature and something like… I dunno, a temp AC debuff on an enemy hit by a strike? Or even just had it’s flat damage buff be a special action attack that couldn’t be used multiple times with Extra Attack? Balance would flow.
The new crusher/slasher feats are what GWM and Shapshooter should have been from Day 1. Fun meaningful thematic boosts to weapon styles that ARENT just DPR boosts (piercer is a failure in that respect, should have been a debuff instead of a self bonus).
Weapon damage dice are largely irrelevent a greatsword is only 3.5 more damage per hit than a dagger. A bonus action giving that 2.5, and 5 Dex/Str, almost wholly meets the greatsword for a non-fighter that only has one or two GS attacks, and using a d8 weapon instead closes the gap entirely. that’s fine. Add on other effects which may provide damage per hit more than once per round Hunters Mark, Hex, Magic weapon bonus damage, etc, and TWF is just as strong as 2H fighting….
Sorry, but no. Once you add both Fighting Styles and Extra Attack into the mix, this simply isn't true. Just hitting 5th level is enough for GWF fighters to pull ahead of TWF fighters without having to spend a bonus action, independent of feats. It only gets worse from there.
The new crusher/slasher feats are what GWM and Shapshooter should have been from Day 1. Fun meaningful thematic boosts to weapon styles that ARENT just DPR boosts (piercer is a failure in that respect, should have been a debuff instead of a self bonus).
This is something we can both agree on. The Player's Handbook feats tend to be either too weak to give up an ASI for, or way too strong.
Anyway, I suggest adding an equivalent to the -5/+10 option of GWM to the base feat. Something like:
Before you make a melee attack while wielding 2 melee weapons that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add the damage of the second weapon to the attack's damage.
I don't see a clear rundown of the math presented so far, so here's a quick 'n dirty rundown:
GW fighting style takes 2d6 from an average 7 to an average 8.25ish. So essentially, it's +1 damage per swing. TWF style provides you a d6+ability score bonus action, or even a d8 later with a feat, but we'll call it 3.5+3 for now at level 1.
Level 1 Greatsword user deals 8.25+3 (11) damage per turn. Level 1 TWF shortsword user deals 3.5+3, 3.5+3 (13 ) per turn. About the same.
With Extra Attack (1) at 5 and conventional ability score progression choices, that goes up to a 8.25+4, 8.25+4 (24.5) damage per turn. The TWF guy is doing 3.5+4, 3.5+4, 3.5+4 (22.5) per turn. About the same.
We're talking fighters, so both now have 20 in their attack score at level 6. Greatsword is now doing 26.5 per turn, TWF guy is doing 25.5. About the same.
At level 8, Greatsword guy takes GWM, while TWF guy takes Dual Wielder
+10 damage, -25% to hit (-25% damage is easy enough way to approximate). That's 8.25+5+10, 8.25+5+10, -25%, 34.75 damage per turn.
d8's instead of d6's, 4.5+5, 4.5+5, 4.5+5 is 28.5 per turn. Greatsword guy is doing meaningfully more damage... but also has -1 AC, its a tradeoff.
At level 11, greatsword guy starts to take off, picking up another adjusted 17.5 swing, while the TWF guy only picks up a 9.5 swing. If greatsword guy becomes PAM halberd guy instead, that gap widens further (despite the smaller weapon damage dice, since those don't really matter anyway).
So for Fighters? Yeah, GWM is broken. For Barbarians or Paladins or Rangers that don't get Extra Attack (2)? Nah, that 6-ish damage gap isn't much (and in fact is only a 3 or 4ish gap for a Barbarian, since they get an additional instance of Rage damage from using TWF).
There is no large discrepancy between 2H weapons and TWF. Only a GWM-caused issued with the Fighter class in particular. Limiting GWM bonus damage to once per turn, or rebuilding the feat from the ground up, would probably 100% bring 2H and TWF in line with one another.
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
My point is those feats are game-breakingly good, to the point that for TWF to be equally compelling you'd also have to make it game-breakingly good.
Never seen a fighter/melee character "break" the game. Can they deal good numbers of damage? Sure. But, that's not going to break a game. Meanwhile the spellcasters are warping reality and entirely skipping past adventures, challenges, travel, etc, "breaking" the game is their default position.
Anywho, two weapon fighting is indeed subpar compared to two-handed weapon options. The DPR for the same investment is just not ever going to keep up. GWM feat is almost entirely responsible for that, and PAM is only slightly responsible.
Honestly, imo, the fact you have to use a light weapon for TWF by default is where i have an issue with the whole thing. if someone wants to try to fight with two longswords they just should be able to. That's a Action + Bonus action to deal 2d8+mod vs just an action to do 2d6+mod with greatsword. So a bonus action for maybe 2 extra damage? Sounds fine.
Then the dual wielder feat could do something else, something more useful. maybe a Parry reaction option or something unique and flavorful that makes this fighting style functionally different in some way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
My point is those feats are game-breakingly good, to the point that for TWF to be equally compelling you'd also have to make it game-breakingly good.
Never seen a fighter/melee character "break" the game. Can they deal good numbers of damage? Sure. But, that's not going to break a game. Meanwhile the spellcasters are warping reality and entirely skipping past adventures, challenges, travel, etc, "breaking" the game is their default position.
Anywho, two weapon fighting is indeed subpar compared to two-handed weapon options. The DPR for the same investment is just not ever going to keep up. GWM feat is almost entirely responsible for that, and PAM is only slightly responsible.
Honestly, imo, the fact you have to use a light weapon for TWF by default is where i have an issue with the whole thing. if someone wants to try to fight with two longswords they just should be able to. That's a Action + Bonus action to deal 2d8+mod vs just an action to do 2d6+mod with greatsword. So a bonus action for maybe 2 extra damage? Sounds fine.
Then the dual wielder feat could do something else, something more useful. maybe a Parry reaction option or something unique and flavorful that makes this fighting style functionally different in some way.
A couple of ideas were suggested above like incorporating Defensive Duelist into it somehow, or perhaps the Duelist Fighting Style for the flat +2 damage.
I'm open to suggestions and I've already seen some good ones. If I really wanted to crunch some numbers I'd add in the benefits from the AC as well because IMHO the 2-weapon fighter doesn't have to do the same damage as the heavy weapon fighter as long as the difference is made up in other ways. I don't want every Fighter or Barb to be identical, I just want some more options that don't suck by comparison.
Its beyond a "quick fix", but in my opinion, there should only be three fighting styles: Aggression (+1 damage on hits), Accuracy (+1 to hit on attacks), and Defensive (+1 AC). Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger should have access to these same three styles. GWM should have been its first bullet only (the cleave effect), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a 2H or Heavy melee weapon. Dual Wielder should have been its second two bullets (light weapon restriction removed, additional object interactions), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a separate 1H weapon in each hand (note: the ability to add ability score damage on the off-hand attack vanishes entirely from 5E with the elimination of TWF style, to better distinguish what those special TWF attacks are). Sharpshooter should have been its first two bullets, and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a ranged weapon. Shield Master keeps its second two bullets (the defensive features, not the problematic shove), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a donned shield.
That's it. Easy peasy, and suddenly the imbalance between these styles vanishes, as they all become capable of benefiting from accuracy, damage, or defense alike.
I'm not one to insist that all of my builds be optimized to the max but it bothers me that Fighters that use heavy weapons and Great Weapon Master have WAY more options than the guy with two weapons. GWM characters can use some form of polearm, couple it with Polearm Master, and now they have a juggernaut who at lvl 4 can dish out +10 damage per hit, take a second attack with their Bonus Action AND get all of that with Advantage if they're Barbarians using Reckless Attack. Great Ax wielders are almost as well off except for the additional attack but many of those are Barbs and they often get a Bonus Action attack anyway thanks to GWM (through reducing a target to 0 HP or landing a Crit).
Meanwhile, the guy with Dual Wield and the 2-weapon fighting style gets an extra attack for 1D8 + Str or Dex modifier. Oh...yay...
I firmly believe that characters with twin melee or thrown weapons need a second Feat to bring them up to par (or close to it) with the Heavy Weapon/GWM crowd.
I'm trying the Dual Wield Master Feat out in my next campaign but I wanted to see how the rest of the community felt about it.
Dual Wield Master: Prerequisite: A character must have the Dual Wield Feat before taking Dual Wield Master.
A character with Dual Wield Master gains an additional +1 AC when wielding a melee weapon in each hand. When they take the Attack Action, they may make one additional Attack with either weapon. Dual Wield Masters may ready up to three weapons in a single turn as long as those weapons all have the Thrown property.
That's it. With this new Feat characters with a melee weapon in their off-hand can now make an additional Attack which (with the Str or Dex modifier) brings them much closer to the heavy weapon/GWM crowd. It doesn't add anything to missile weapons since it specifies melee weapons so the Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter crowd don't gain yet another boost (that they don't need IMHO). Throwing weapon characters (when coupled with the Thrown Weapon Fighting Style) are more viable as well.
What does everyone think?
There's three problems here and I don't think this solution addresses any of them particularly well:
The first is better addressed by tweaking how Extra Attack works. The second is better addressed by tweaking that feat directly. The third is better addressed by nerfing those feats. Adding a second feat that has a pre-requisite on the previous feat goes against the game's design philosophy and still requires dual wielders to invest 2 ASIs to approximate the power level of 1 of the overpowered alternatives. Not a very enticing proposition.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
My thought was to bring the damage for dual wielders up close to but not surpassing that of GWM and PAM characters since having Dual Wield Master grants +2 AC which other heavy weapon characters don't get.
Crossbow Expert/Sharpshooter is one of the stronger Fighter or Ranger combos regardless of subclass (and as always some are better than others). PAM and GWM also synergize well regardless of which martial class you're using. I didn't think that using the 'two synergizing Feats' thing was bad since the other combos do the same.
It's usually the combination of the two Feats (or a single Feat with a character benefit like Reckless Attack from Barbs) that makes them OP IMHO. I'd rather try to create one homebrew Feat to fix several problems than do a wholesale slash and burn on the rules.
My point is those feats are game-breakingly good, to the point that for TWF to be equally compelling you'd also have to make it game-breakingly good.
To be clear, I wasn't saying it's bad for two feats to synergize, it's the feat chain you're doing (feat X has feat Y as its pre-requisite) that the game's designers wanted to avoid. And either way, Dual Wielder is still so underpowered that it's going to remain dead weight for 2-4 levels until you can get the second feat to bring the combo online. Meanwhile Barbarian doesn't need a second feat to abuse GWM.
I agree 100% that the combination of the feats is far more problematic than the feats individually, but I'd argue they're still overpowered on their own, especially GWM. It lets you convert excess accuracy into damage, which effectively raises character's damage cap in a way that's not easily matched by any other abilities in the game. Polearm Master on its own mainly breaks tier 1 of the game, but it tends to break things when you start stacking per-attack effects.
In my experience game design problems require targeted solutions. Otherwise you fail to address the problem adequately or the solution introduces problems of its own. Case in point, if I'm running a game with no feats (which is a valid choice), TWF is still going to suck for fighters past 10th level.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I disagree and please bear with me while I run the math:
A Fighter with 20 Str wielding a great ax at level 11 and no Feats but with the Great Weapon Fighting style will average 6.5 x 3 (Attacks) + 15 damage or 34.5 damage. You can round that to about 36 or so because of being able to reroll 1s and 2s from the fighting style.
A Fighter with 20 Dex wielding 2 Scimitars or Short Swords at level 11 and no Feats with the 2-Weapon fighting style will average 3.5 x 4 (Attacks) + 20 damage or 34 damage. Both characters will benefit from magic weapons but even there it starts to fall apart for the bigger weapon. A +1 weapon for the first character adds +1 to hit and a cumulative +3 damage. A pair of +1 weapons for the second characters grant +1 to hit and a cumulative +4 damage. Any sort of additional bonus added per attack only benefits the second guy MORE because of the additional Attack (looking at YOU Hunter's Mark!).
In addition to all of this, the second character benefits from the higher Dex with a higher AC, a higher Initiative, higher Dex Saves, etc. As you can see, without the Feats everything actually works out pretty evenly. Different multiclasses would benefit more or less but we're way out in the weeds if we want to go there.
It is an interesting proposition.
Two Weapon Fighting falls off hard in damage output because it just doesn't scale. Level 1 or level 20, you still only attack with that offhand weapon once. Its mainly an action economy issue.
Adding scaling additional bonus action attacks to two weapon fighting is one of the easiest solutions. I can't decide if it would be broken to follow the fighter's extra attack scheme for that, or spread it out a bit more.
I would also consider rolling the Defensive Duelist feat into the Dual Wielder Feat, rather than trying to homebrew a whole other feat on top. Both feats feel like they need a little something extra, so putting them together works well, especially since reaction attacks by the dual wielder are less important.
Similarly, combining the dueling fighting style into two weapon fighting to give a +2 to damage might make it more worthwhile and still be a simple change.
During the development, Designers talked about the “feat tax” of old feats like Weapon Focus in 3.5, and that they wouldn’t be using static modifiers for damage and to hit bonuses because it skews players decision making towards limiting build diversity. Then, they released PHB with two HUGE static damage modifier feats, for heavy weapons or ranged weapons, apparently believing they’re not feat tax because not everyone wants to use a heavy weapon or bow…
It’s true they aren’t the only way to build a viable fighter, but they’re definitely the best way to deal damage with one, and if skews player decision making. And it’s almost impossible to imagine playing a heavy weapon user or archer that DOESNT take those feats any 12. If they deleted both feats in an errata, that would be better for the game than adding more.
Dual Wielder is a GREAT feat, mitigating four shortcomings of the style (lower AC from no shield; limited weapon selection; ability score applicability; difficulty drawing both weapons). It’s an example of GOOD feat design in 5E, Shield Expert too, GWM and Sharpshooter just skew expectations and decision making away from those styles.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The great axe averages 37. But a greatsword would average 40, which is already a big lead over the TWF's 34. And the greatsword user still has their bonus action, only needs 1 magic weapon to bypass resistances, gets the full benefit of any weapon buffs Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon, benefits more Haste and Action Surge, and make considerably stronger opportunity attacks. The TWF user makes a bigger personal investment to still come out behind and make worse use of the group's magic.
Initiative and DEX saves, sure. And I don't want to downplay the benefit of those. The AC is a non-issue for fighters since they can invest in armor. However if DEX is what you value, Dueling is also going to close the gap on TWF as you get more attacks and gets +2 AC without any feat investment. A rapier user with max DEX making 3 attacks is going to average 34.5 damage on all 3 attacks thanks to that +2 bonus from Dueling.
Bingo. Not just the core mechanic, but the Fighting Style too.
If you just tweak Extra Attack to give you an extra 1d4 damage on melee attacks while wielding two TWF-compatible weapons and the enemy's within reach of both (to handle weird things like whips), the problem goes away. You come out slightly ahead of 2H users if you use the bonus action, slightly ahead of Dueling users if you don't, and your opportunity attacks get better too, all without bogging the game down with extra attack rolls. And if you're inclined to house rule the Dual Wielder feat, you can ditch the silly "your weapons don't have to be light" point and just bump the extra damage to 1d6. Easy.
The problem is the increased weapon selection encourages downright silly things (dual rapiers?), only adds +1 damage, and the difficulty of drawing both weapons was a stupid decision that shouldn't have required a feat to overcome. For a DEX user +1 DEX modifier also adds +1 AC and +1 damage per attack but also increases your attack roll, initiative, DEX save, and ability checks. You need to have maxed out DEX for the feat to be worth it, and by that point TWF already sucks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I completely agree with C_C here. A good feat does not need "fixed" to out-do feats that absolutely are feat taxes on martial characters and are bad for the game. Throwing a fireball at 5th level should feel amazing. It just doesn't when you have a GWM/sharpshooter martial character in your party unless you are hitting a whole bunch of monsters that all have only a few HP.
I concur. My thought was to try and fix one problem but if a slight alteration can fix several problems I'm all for that.
I didn't want to mess with the Bonus Action mechanic which is why I simply added an additional Attack with either weapon. I was afraid allowing a second Attack from a Bonus Action would set a bad trend. Plus, if the additional Attack stems from the Attack Action it benefits from Action Surge as well.
I like your ideas though.
I knew that the game had a balance problem (and the developers can claim that balance isn't necessary all they want...they're wrong) when I started seeing the relative damage output in my first 5e game a few years ago. The Barb ran in, did his three attacks (post-level 5 and PAM), declared GWM on all of them, added Reckless Attack, and proceeded to inflict about 70 points of damage on the BBEG. Then the Fighter did his three Sharpshooter attacks with his Longbow and did nearly 50 to the same target. The Wizard dropped 20 on the BBEG with Chain Lightning (the target made his Save for half damage) and then proceeded to do a total of nearly a hundred points on three evil minions who were unfortunate enough to miss their Saves.
Then my Rogue did 30 points with my Sneak Attack. I was a bit stunned. I had to make sure that I had some sort of special circumstance to get MY big attack off but the rest were like 'Oh no...we do this almost every turn!'
I see this as a problem. I've seen this in all sorts of games down through the years. There will always be min-maxers just like there will always be players who worry more about the roleplay or the style than the damage. The problem is when the two groups meet. If the whole party is optimized for damage then the DM can plan for that. If the whole party is just along for fun then he can plan for that too. But drop one optimized character or two into a party of 'just for fun' and that's where the issues begin IMHO.
I don't want any single type of build or style to be so OP that a majority of the players flock to it. I also don't like nerfing something that's been around for half a dozen years because many players (and DMs) might just ignore it because it's too big of a change.
I'd rather bring the sub-par up to parity than nerf the top of the heap.
1) I don't consider 40 to be that great of a leap over 34. However, I will concede the point of the Greatsword. Many people don't like the GS over the BA because of the various 'roll an additional damage die for a Crit' favors the weapon with the bigger damage die.
2) Yes, the heavy weapon wielder gains more from Elemental Weapon or Holy Weapon (a 3rd level spell and a 6th level spell respectively). However, the TWF gains more from Hunter's Mark (a 2nd level spell), Crusader's Mantle (a 3rd level spell), as well as Reckless Attack for Barbs and Fighting Spirit for Fighters. IMHO this is a wash.
You don't think it's a problem for a 2H weapon user to deal 18% more damage than the guy that's spending an additional bonus action and has to invest in an additional magic weapon? The 2H user is basically getting a whole round of the TWF guy's damage for free every 5-6 turns. And I'm not even factoring in opportunity attacks, which obviously favor the 2H user.
It actually doesn't, because the greatsword gives you more damage on non-crit attacks than you'll be able to get back through crits. A greataxe with GWFS averages 7.33 damage, greatsword averages 8.33, so there's a 1 point damage loss for every greataxe attack. Even if you're under permanent advantage to raise your crit rate to 10%, you're only getting one crit out of every 10 attacks, and the extra 1d12 only adds 6.5 damage. (I know there's ways to double down on this concept with multiclassing and Champion; it's still not practical.)
If you're a Ranger, Hunter's Mark is nice, but it still comes with the problem of costing your bonus TWF attack (the main thing TWF gives you) every time you cast it or move it, while also putting you in harm's way and increased risk of losing the spell compared to an archery ranger. Add to that the fact that the archery ranger's going to have +2 to hit and they're going to get a hit in where the TWF user would've missed about 10% of the time...and it's not so clear the TWF build has a major advantage. Either way it's not exactly relevant to fighters, which are the class where TWF suffers the most in the long run.
Crusader's Mantle lets TWF users add 1 extra d4 per round relative to a 2H weapon user (remember, the 2H weapon user can also use Crusader's Mantle.) That's nowhere near enough to compensate for the gap that forms as the guy that deals 13 damage per hit keeps getting more attacks.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Weapon damage dice are largely irrelevent a greatsword is only 3.5 more damage per hit than a dagger. A bonus action giving that 2.5, and 5 Dex/Str, almost wholly meets the greatsword for a non-fighter that only has one or two GS attacks, and using a d8 weapon instead closes the gap entirely. that’s fine. Add on other effects which may provide damage per hit more than once per round Hunters Mark, Hex, Magic weapon bonus damage, etc, and TWF is just as strong as 2H fighting….
…Until GWM comes along and blows the math out of the water. It’s really JUST a GWM issue, not an overall weapon style problem. If GWM was just a style feat that gave its other cleave feature and something like… I dunno, a temp AC debuff on an enemy hit by a strike? Or even just had it’s flat damage buff be a special action attack that couldn’t be used multiple times with Extra Attack? Balance would flow.
The new crusher/slasher feats are what GWM and Shapshooter should have been from Day 1. Fun meaningful thematic boosts to weapon styles that ARENT just DPR boosts (piercer is a failure in that respect, should have been a debuff instead of a self bonus).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Sorry, but no. Once you add both Fighting Styles and Extra Attack into the mix, this simply isn't true. Just hitting 5th level is enough for GWF fighters to pull ahead of TWF fighters without having to spend a bonus action, independent of feats. It only gets worse from there.
This is something we can both agree on. The Player's Handbook feats tend to be either too weak to give up an ASI for, or way too strong.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
This really belongs in the homebrew forum.
Anyway, I suggest adding an equivalent to the -5/+10 option of GWM to the base feat. Something like:
I don't see a clear rundown of the math presented so far, so here's a quick 'n dirty rundown:
So for Fighters? Yeah, GWM is broken. For Barbarians or Paladins or Rangers that don't get Extra Attack (2)? Nah, that 6-ish damage gap isn't much (and in fact is only a 3 or 4ish gap for a Barbarian, since they get an additional instance of Rage damage from using TWF).
There is no large discrepancy between 2H weapons and TWF. Only a GWM-caused issued with the Fighter class in particular. Limiting GWM bonus damage to once per turn, or rebuilding the feat from the ground up, would probably 100% bring 2H and TWF in line with one another.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Never seen a fighter/melee character "break" the game. Can they deal good numbers of damage? Sure. But, that's not going to break a game. Meanwhile the spellcasters are warping reality and entirely skipping past adventures, challenges, travel, etc, "breaking" the game is their default position.
Anywho, two weapon fighting is indeed subpar compared to two-handed weapon options. The DPR for the same investment is just not ever going to keep up. GWM feat is almost entirely responsible for that, and PAM is only slightly responsible.
Honestly, imo, the fact you have to use a light weapon for TWF by default is where i have an issue with the whole thing. if someone wants to try to fight with two longswords they just should be able to. That's a Action + Bonus action to deal 2d8+mod vs just an action to do 2d6+mod with greatsword. So a bonus action for maybe 2 extra damage? Sounds fine.
Then the dual wielder feat could do something else, something more useful. maybe a Parry reaction option or something unique and flavorful that makes this fighting style functionally different in some way.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A couple of ideas were suggested above like incorporating Defensive Duelist into it somehow, or perhaps the Duelist Fighting Style for the flat +2 damage.
I'm open to suggestions and I've already seen some good ones. If I really wanted to crunch some numbers I'd add in the benefits from the AC as well because IMHO the 2-weapon fighter doesn't have to do the same damage as the heavy weapon fighter as long as the difference is made up in other ways. I don't want every Fighter or Barb to be identical, I just want some more options that don't suck by comparison.
Its beyond a "quick fix", but in my opinion, there should only be three fighting styles: Aggression (+1 damage on hits), Accuracy (+1 to hit on attacks), and Defensive (+1 AC). Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger should have access to these same three styles. GWM should have been its first bullet only (the cleave effect), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a 2H or Heavy melee weapon. Dual Wielder should have been its second two bullets (light weapon restriction removed, additional object interactions), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a separate 1H weapon in each hand (note: the ability to add ability score damage on the off-hand attack vanishes entirely from 5E with the elimination of TWF style, to better distinguish what those special TWF attacks are). Sharpshooter should have been its first two bullets, and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a ranged weapon. Shield Master keeps its second two bullets (the defensive features, not the problematic shove), and a choice of an additional fighting style that applies when wielding a donned shield.
That's it. Easy peasy, and suddenly the imbalance between these styles vanishes, as they all become capable of benefiting from accuracy, damage, or defense alike.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.