Is there a discussion somewhere regarding how the new two-handed fighting works (to date)?
From what I understand, as long as you are holding two light weapons, you can attack twice (once with each weapon) with your attack action. That seems clear enough. That still leaves you a bonus action. This is great for a bonus spell (if you have a free hand) etc. Can you use this bonus action (iOLD two-weapon fighting rules) to get a third attack in? Have the OLD rules been completely replaced in the new test rules. I just don;t see it clearly defined anywhere.
everything is still in the play test. so, I would say it has not been currently replaced. As best as we can tell though there is no third attack until later.
Holding two light weapons gives you one action free attack with the second. with extra attack and two light weapons it seems to allow for 3 attacks.
That's a good catch, Nexus6. I think the intent was for this to replace the old rule, so you could not use your bonus action to attack. But it really should be clarified.
The new two weapon fighting feat, and dual welding feat are still terrible.
Ho wow I can do the same damage as anyone ells using a great sword 2d6 + str.All of this with no add benefit not even after taking two feats.
You could take a different fighting stile to buff ranged weapon damage and then take light crossbow expert, there a form of dual welding that doesn't suck.
But wait you get your bonus action to do what?
If you're a fighter nothing, if you're a barbarian rage, monk with no ki points nothing, but you take light crossbow expert and you get a bonus attack even great weapon master gives you a bonus attack when the enemy drops to 0 or you crit. Light crossbow expert also gives you additional attacks with you extra attack. And dual wilder dose not.
Oh, by the way enjoy not being able to get the benefit of fighting with two weapons until your second turn because obviously even though you can open a door and draw your weapon at the same time you can't draw two weapons at the same time till you get to level 4 and get the benefits of quickdraw with the dual welder feat.
So, what is there to talk about with a bad feat that is still bad. Oh, and I forgot to mention that you also don't get any AC bonus.
{p.s. It is possible to have a 20 in one key stat by level 3 so if you are a rough, or monk the +1 to str is pointless}
Now we can still use the bonus action yah no if you compare this to the original great weapon master feat that gave you +10 then no this is still trash. They had to eliminate feat combos that the community loved and make everything worse to make trash look good instead of making dual wielding better.
That's a good catch, Nexus6. I think the intent was for this to replace the old rule, so you could not use your bonus action to attack. But it really should be clarified.
Yah, but it is still worse than the light crossbow except that will let you make way more attack or am I reading it wrong.
everything is still in the play test. so, I would say it has not been currently replaced. As best as we can tell though there is no third attack until later.
Holding two light weapons gives you one action free attack with the second. with extra attack and two light weapons it seems to allow for 3 attacks.
Yes, I believe you are reading it right this means you are do less damage on average then someone using a great sword. Versatel weapons are also trash now what are they doing to the warrior classes why make them even weaker than casters?
For this UA, the two weapon fighting feature is essentially gone, that is the two-weapon fighting bonus action, you can still benefit from two weapons with the new light weapon feature. Yes this does less damage than a great sword but that is kind of missing the point, there are two classes that benefit greatly from the changes, those being Ranger and Rogue. Rogues traditionally only have a single attack per round, this means if they miss their own attack, they do nothing and they do not get to use their sneak attack, with two weapons they could make a second attack which greatly increases sneak attack such as:
This is assuming a standard attack vs. AC giving a 65% chance to hit and taking sneak attack on the first attack that lands. (the * 0.7 is combining chance to hit and chance to crit)
For ranger, Hunter's mark boosts the 1d6 to 2d6 on their attacks. While this would also boost a great sword from 2d6 to 3d6, you actually do more damage with the dual short swords, from level 5 on wards (no point calculating lower, short swords win EASILY before extra attack)
Yeah, GWF makes things really really messy. this is assuming attribute scores of +5, greatsword would drop to ~21.77 DPR vs shortsword ~22.5 for +4, or ~20.47 vs. ~20.55 for +3 respectively, assuming the chance to hit on attack is a constant 65%. Similarly Magic weapons would benefit the shortsword more than greatsword. Notably ranger doesn't actually get access to GWF at level 2 anyway, so this comparison is kind of moot for them, but even if they did, TWF would be the superior choice.
For this UA, the two weapon fighting feature is essentially gone, that is the two-weapon fighting bonus action, you can still benefit from two weapons with the new light weapon feature. Yes this does less damage than a great sword but that is kind of missing the point, there are two classes that benefit greatly from the changes, those being Ranger and Rogue. Rogues traditionally only have a single attack per round, this means if they miss their own attack, they do nothing and they do not get to use their sneak attack, with two weapons they could make a second attack which greatly increases sneak attack such as:
This is assuming a standard attack vs. AC giving a 65% chance to hit and taking sneak attack on the first attack that lands. (the * 0.7 is combining chance to hit and chance to crit)
For ranger, Hunter's mark boosts the 1d6 to 2d6 on their attacks. While this would also boost a great sword from 2d6 to 3d6, you actually do more damage with the dual short swords, from level 5 on wards (no point calculating lower, short swords win EASILY before extra attack)
Yeah, GWF makes things really really messy. this is assuming attribute scores of +5, greatsword would drop to ~21.77 DPR vs shortsword ~22.5 for +4, or ~20.47 vs. ~20.55 for +3 respectively, assuming the chance to hit on attack is a constant 65%. Similarly Magic weapons would benefit the shortsword more than greatsword. Notably ranger doesn't actually get access to GWF at level 2 anyway, so this comparison is kind of moot for them, but even if they did, TWF would be the superior choice.
Yes, but it gets worse when you compare it to the previous version, and we have already seen wizards revert back to the old crit rules so they might do the same with GWM feat or GWF.
A -5 in accuracy for +10 damage is not comparable to the current two weapon fighting feat but it is comparable to the light crossbow feat.
Plus, if we compare 5e rouge you could just play variant human with the mobility feat and carry two weapons to get a similar effect to the new rules because you would get the free disengage so if you had the benefits of haste or mobility there is no benefit that this rule change makes.
Plus, the old rules allowed you to have two d8 weapons and now at best you can only have 1d8 weapon and a d6 weapon. Plus, you can't say rouges are benefiting when they can't use sneak attack damage outside of their turn they can't even use a delayed action to benefit from sneak attack.
Plus, how do rangers benefit any more from this then light crossbow expert with a +2 to all attack rolls. Yes, I now the two-weapon fighting style gives a plus 6 to your 2d6 damage where a great sword would be a plus 3 to your 2d6 weapon plus a reroll on 1s or 2s or you could have the benefit of a plus 3 d12 reach weapon or a long bow plus 3 d8. Or a light crossbow and a shield level 1-3 to be replaced with two light crossbows at level 4 that has +2 to attack rolls.
The issue is that there issue not is that GWM is worse than light crossbow master to the point no one wants to take it this is not good design they should have balance around the original GWM feat in 5e and made everything better.
The only reason people took polearm master was for the stun ability that would work with sentinel now that you don't have that why take it doesn't really benefit from the great weappon master feat now either bad design compared to 5e that actually provide synergy and benefits.
The last issue is the befit doesn't help rouges unless they take a feat and is not beneficial to warriors, so we have a major design flaw hear. Even the base rule change is no different then for rangers that could use great swords. It gets worse when you compare 5e to one dnd this is why it is so bad.
'Lastly this change just makes Warriors even worse than casters in 0ne dnd then in 5e.
Yes, but it gets worse when you compare it to the previous version, and we have already seen wizards revert back to the old crit rules so they might do the same with GWM feat or GWF.
A -5 in accuracy for +10 damage is not comparable to the current two weapon fighting feat but it is comparable to the light crossbow feat.
Plus, if we compare 5e rouge you could just play variant human with the mobility feat and carry two weapons to get a similar effect to the new rules because you would get the free disengage so if you had the benefits of haste or mobility there is no benefit that this rule change makes.
Plus, the old rules allowed you to have two d8 weapons and now at best you can only have 1d8 weapon and a d6 weapon. Plus, you can't say rouges are benefiting when they can't use sneak attack damage outside of their turn they can't even use a delayed action to benefit from sneak attack.
Plus, how do rangers benefit any more from this then light crossbow expert with a +2 to all attack rolls. Yes, I now the two-weapon fighting style gives a plus 6 to your 2d6 damage where a great sword would be a plus 3 to your 2d6 weapon plus a reroll on 1s or 2s or you could have the benefit of a plus 3 d12 reach weapon or a long bow plus 3 d8. Or a light crossbow and a shield level 1-3 to be replaced with two light crossbows at level 4 that has +2 to attack rolls.
The issue is that there issue not is that GWM is worse than light crossbow master to the point no one wants to take it this is not good design they should have balance around the original GWM feat in 5e and made everything better.
The only reason people took polearm master was for the stun ability that would work with sentinel now that you don't have that why take it doesn't really benefit from the great weappon master feat now either bad design compared to 5e that actually provide synergy and benefits.
The last issue is the befit doesn't help rouges unless they take a feat and is not beneficial to warriors, so we have a major design flaw hear. Even the base rule change is no different then for rangers that could use great swords. It gets worse when you compare 5e to one dnd this is why it is so bad.
'Lastly this change just makes Warriors even worse than casters in 0ne dnd then in 5e.
We are looking at the UA tho, this primarily is a UA forum... given it's literally called Unearthed Arcana.
Paladin's would take Polearm Master because the Bonus Action attack is another chance at crit smiting, in 5E spear was added to the list of weapons PAM could be used with, so you could literally have a shield for casting spells and a spear for the extra critical chance possibility, it was not solely for the sentinel match up.
Neither of the classes I mentioned the change being for had access to GWF without using a feat and in this UA, Rogue doesn't get any access at all, but that being said, TWF would still have been a superior choice for both classes given how sneak attack and hunter's mark works since the additional damage they get from them still beat out the other options. Admittedly partly for rangers going this way, Dual Wielder use to be better, GWM actually wasn't all that great anyway, but I'll show that more below.
Taking a feat for mobile is a cost in and of itself, second, the benefit of mobile will not be as efficient. Say the enemy (1, 2 & 3) move into the following pattern with walls (W) and your Ally (A) looks as such:
W 1 2 3
W A
In this pattern, you can sneak attack 1 or 2 but not 3. However mobile here could only be done if you only attack three, if you attack 2, 3 can still get an OA, if you attack 1, both 2 and 3 can get an OA, so in all ways it is an inferior version of what is in the UA.
in the UA, crossbow expert also lost it's bonus action attack, depending on how you look at the ammo property, you can either wield two or not, if you say yes, then that again is still the light property coming into play.
The issue with the -5 +10 is that it get weaker as you get progressively stronger. It looks good at level 1 but terrible at level 20. Using a greatsword since it does the best DPR.
Normal attack at level 1: ~7 (2d6) * 0.7 + 3 (STR) *0.65 = ~6.85
To be fair, Sharpshooter has the same issue, but sharpshooter as you also mentioned combines with Archery Fighting Style and that +2 attack adds a lot of damage, meanwhile GWM doesn't get good synergy from GWF, GWF works better the higher your chance to hit while GWM lowers your chance to hit. Crossbow Expert then has synergy with both Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter. But if we just compare a 1d6 hand crossbow to GWM, how well does it do actually, ignoring the synergy potential.
GWM let's be generous and say you have a 12.5% chance of activating that additional attack per attack, and you have extra attack at level 5 with a +3 modifier.
Add on to this that Crossbow Expert does have those synergy while GWM does not, GWM is actually a rather weak feat, that by level 20, you're only really benefiting from a higher chance to get a bonus action attack while crossbow expert always gets an additional bonus action attack. Then add on to this the random nature of GWM, compared to the more reliable and consistent nature of Crossbow Expert... GWM is a feat which just gets weaker the stronger you get while crossbow expert is a feat that gets stronger the stronger you get... So GWM wins initially on total damage but loses out in the longer term on that and loses out in reliability and the actual amount of damage the feature actually adds for those weapons.
I don't think we should be comparing the UA to 5e too much. It's okay if things change as long as the changes work within the context of the new rules. We should be looking at how they fare as options compared to each other. There is text at the beginning of this UA saying that new weapon options are coming (probably with the Warrior group) and revised spells (probably in the Mages and Priests groups). There might be something like a repeating hand crossbow that means you don't need a hand to load the ammunition. Or that part might get fixed with the wording of the loading and ammunition rules. It's worth mentioning to them in case it is an oversight. But concerning rule balance we should look within the document itself.
No one wants there to be only one viable way to build a character. The 5e feats have some that everyone takes and some that saw no use almost anywhere. That's not much fun. It's honestly a good thing they are changing Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, and Sentinel. The questions now are are they viable options at all? Do they fulfill a fantasy and a role? Are they roughly comparable to each other? So that there are no clear winners or junk choices. Personally I do think some are good concepts, but a lot miss the mark in execution.
If you are thinking about fighting with weapons, what are the fantasies we think of, in the broadest sense of theme?
A shield and a single hand weapon
Two hand weapons
A single fast weapon like a fencer
A big two handed weapon
A polearm
A shield and spear
Thrown weapons
A bow or crossbow
A pair of hand crossbows (this one doesn't have much historical precedent at all, either in reality or media. But I guess it does represent a kind of fantasy gunslinger. And previous DnD rules made it optimal for some classes, so it's a fantasy now either way)
A mounted lance
A mounted archer
A mounted shield and hand weapon
A staff
Unarmed fighting
There might be more that someone could point out. But what I would like to see is options for any player to create a character with any of these styles and feel like they've made a good choice. They don't have to all do the same damage. They really shouldn't. But they should at least have other benefits that make them feel good, both in theme and mechanically.
If we step away from Fighting Styles and Feats, we can look at just the basic weapon rules to see where everyone starts. The only limits are what weapons are available to your class. That's a good thing, because it helps with balance and is the start of giving martials some distinction.
The biggest, strongest weapons do 1d12 or 2d6 damage. They are heavy and take two hands to use.
For every restriction that is removed, or benefit given, the damage is reduced a die level. Polearms have Reach, so they do 1d10. Crossbows have range, so they do too. Longbows have better range and you can shoot them more than once a turn. So they get reduced again to 1d8. Finesse weapons get to be used with Dexterity, an ability with more benefits than Strength, so they get reduced a level in damage. Some classes can't use martial weapons, so they get their damage reduced again. This is the general design concept they use through basically the whole list of weapons.
If everyone could only use one weapon, this alone works pretty well. But that's not the fantasy. So they had to add more rules.
Strongdude the Fighter uses a Greatsword for 2d6 + Str damage.
Hidey the Rogue can't, because he's not a fighter. He gets shortswords, doing 1d6 + Dex damage. But he wants to use two of them. It's cool looking, and he has a free hand anyway.
We can't just let him get two attacks at 1d6 + Dex each. That's better than Strongdude now! The max damage is higher, and more consistent with two chances to hit. Okay so now we have to restrict him. Maybe the off hand doesn't add Dex. Okay that fixes the damage discrepancy. But Strongdude is a fighter! They shouldn't be equal. He should be better at basic fighting than a rogue. Okay, so we make the off hand attack use the rogue's bonus action. Rogues love bonus actions. This one hurts. They feel fair now.
That's how we got what we had in 5e. But it wasn't satisfying. Those bonus actions really did hurt. Even more so with the Ranger, the class that they kind of told everyone likes to use two weapons, then made all their best abilities need that bonus action. Whoops.
Okay, so now the extra weapon attack is free, but still can't add Dex That's good, and easy to use. It makes balancing everything else easier too. But now we're also back where we started. Strongdude does 2d6+3 damage. Hidey does 2d6+3 damage. And more consistently. Crap.
So now the fix is either changing the way the big weapons work, or making up for it with Fighting Styles and Feats that only Warriors (and gish classes) can get. Those have to really work well. The question is, do they?
A new player looks at the weapon list and sees a few broad options.
I can use a two handed weapon and do big damage.
I can use a shield and raise my defense.
I can use two small weapons and do big damage while looking cool. As long as I don't need that free hand for magic.
Or I can use one sword, a staff, a dagger, or my fists, and just... suck I guess.
For these fantasies to work, they don't need to do the same damage, they just need to mean something. I have no idea why Polearm Master means you can quickly twirl a Halberd to attack with the butt of the weapon, but not a staff. I guess you can forget your fantasy of creating Little John or Jackie Chan. Staffs are for wizards to hold while they do other things.
When it comes to the light cross bow ammo free hand thing is probably going to get added to the loading property or something so when the feat says it ignores the "loading property" it can ignore that.
When it comes to the light cross bow ammo free hand thing is probably going to get added to the loading property or something so when the feat says it ignores the "loading property" it can ignore that.
I think you're right. It would make sense for the part about loading ammunition to be in the loading rules. And it resolves the issue people have.
(Even if it still doesn't make sense how you reload a crossbow in each hand mid combat... The mental image of holding one under your armpit or between your knees while you load the other is pretty funny. Repeating crossbows would be much more in line with the fantasy of looking cool.)
WARNING: Professional Sword-Fighting Nerd Rant Ahead!
The primary benefit of using a second weapon in REALITY is the benefit it provides to defense. Effectively, holding a secondary weapon is primarily useful because it improves your ability to attack without fully exposing yourself to counterstrikes. Or, alternatively, to defend while you counter-attack. If you're curious why people didn't always just carry shields, it's because shields are heavy, bulky, and cumbersome. You are much less mobile when carrying a shield, especially a large shield. In other words, they're a pain in the ass except when you're at war.
So, light weapons should be able to provide a bonus to AC if you opt to use them defensively. And something like "Defensive Duelist" feat (adding your proficiency bonus to AC) should probably be the first tier of two-weapon fighting.
By contrast, Sword & Shield style should greatly improve your defense. It could either add that proficiency bonus *in addition to* the shield bonus or replace it.
Two-handed Weapons should probably do more damage, and/or provide greater reach. Proficiency in the style gives you area effect control in a battle field - they tend to be very hard to get past.
Just a few thoughts. And yes, this would make shields VERY good for those proficient with them. They should be.
WARNING: Professional Sword-Fighting Nerd Rant Ahead!
The primary benefit of using a second weapon in REALITY is the benefit it provides to defense. Effectively, holding a secondary weapon is primarily useful because it improves your ability to attack without fully exposing yourself to counterstrikes. Or, alternatively, to defend while you counter-attack. If you're curious why people didn't always just carry shields, it's because shields are heavy, bulky, and cumbersome. You are much less mobile when carrying a shield, especially a large shield. In other words, they're a pain in the ass except when you're at war.
So, light weapons should be able to provide a bonus to AC if you opt to use them defensively. And something like "Defensive Duelist" feat (adding your proficiency bonus to AC) should probably be the first tier of two-weapon fighting.
By contrast, Sword & Shield style should greatly improve your defense. It could either add that proficiency bonus *in addition to* the shield bonus or replace it.
Two-handed Weapons should probably do more damage, and/or provide greater reach. Proficiency in the style gives you area effect control in a battle field - they tend to be very hard to get past.
Just a few thoughts. And yes, this would make shields VERY good for those proficient with them. They should be.
Yes, I agree this that makes sense two handed weapons deal more damage because your using two hands and +10 is equal two your average damage with a one-handed weapon.
This is why great weapon master made sense in 5e and the new one doesn't.
I also agree two weapon fighting should give more ac. There are also a lot of options with shields and versatile weapons but there are no feats to reflect that versatility. I do like light crossbow master so why dose two weapon fighting, and two-handed weapon fighting has to suck in comparison.
Light crossbow expert is equal to the original great weapon fighter and did anyone ever take Sentelle without polar master no because it sucked, and we all knew it was trash except when combined with polearm master great job wtc you broke something that didn't need to be fixed.
The old rules got completely replaced with the new rules and yes you get a bonus action but no it is still trash just wait till level 4 and dual weald two crossbows with crossbow expert the feat that works similar to how two weapon fighting should. I hope the revert great weapon master feat and sniper feat.
This was my fix please give me some feedback.
First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn.
A new player looks at the weapon list and sees a few broad options.
I can use a two handed weapon and do big damage.
I can use a shield and raise my defense.
I can use two small weapons and do big damage while looking cool. As long as I don't need that free hand for magic.
Or I can use one sword, a staff, a dagger, or my fists, and just... suck I guess.
For these fantasies to work, they don't need to do the same damage, they just need to mean something. I have no idea why Polearm Master means you can quickly twirl a Halberd to attack with the butt of the weapon, but not a staff. I guess you can forget your fantasy of creating Little John or Jackie Chan. Staffs are for wizards to hold while they do other things.
I couldn't agree more this is why I hope we get into the monk, fighter, and barbarian next and not casters, so we get these weapon mechanics worked on now and not later.
How can we know if the new feats are any good if we don't know what fighter can do with them.
Also I would like some cool fantasy fighting moves to use in or out of combat, so I feel the fantasy because fighters don't get spells.
A new player looks at the weapon list and sees a few broad options.
I can use a two handed weapon and do big damage.
I can use a shield and raise my defense.
I can use two small weapons and do big damage while looking cool. As long as I don't need that free hand for magic.
Or I can use one sword, a staff, a dagger, or my fists, and just... suck I guess.
For these fantasies to work, they don't need to do the same damage, they just need to mean something. I have no idea why Polearm Master means you can quickly twirl a Halberd to attack with the butt of the weapon, but not a staff. I guess you can forget your fantasy of creating Little John or Jackie Chan. Staffs are for wizards to hold while they do other things.
I couldn't agree more this is why I hope we get into the monk, fighter, and barbarian next and not casters, so we get these weapon mechanics worked on now and not later.
How can we know if the new feats are any good if we don't know what fighter can do with them.
Also I would like some cool fantasy fighting moves to use in or out of combat, so I feel the fantasy because fighters don't get spells.
I hope the opposite. We need spells and spell rules hammered out before we can even start to judge the power levels of martials. Start with the martials and watch the martial caster divide get even wider somehow.
I'll toss my historical combat nerd hat in on fighting with staves as well. Most people, by default, will fight with a staff as a half-staff. They grab it in the middle and try to bonk people with both ends. It's reasonably effective, but you give up the reach benefit.
True quarterstaff fighting involves shifting your grip to the butt-end, giving you the benefit of reach. A proficient wielder can switch back and forth between faster (lower damage) close range attacks and higher-damage (but slower), reach strikes. So the staff-fighting feat should allow you to use a quarter staff as a two-handed reach weapon (higher damage) OR as a close range faster attack weapon. Just not sure what the stats should look like when the damage dice distinction is so paltry.
I'll toss my historical combat nerd hat in on fighting with staves as well. Most people, by default, will fight with a staff as a half-staff. They grab it in the middle and try to bonk people with both ends. It's reasonably effective, but you give up the reach benefit.
True quarterstaff fighting involves shifting your grip to the butt-end, giving you the benefit of reach. A proficient wielder can switch back and forth between faster (lower damage) close range attacks and higher-damage (but slower), reach strikes. So the staff-fighting feat should allow you to use a quarter staff as a two-handed reach weapon (higher damage) OR as a close range faster attack weapon. Just not sure what the stats should look like when the damage dice distinction is so paltry.
That's pretty interesting. They have said we can expect new weapons and rules going forward. I could see that style of staff fighting being pretty easy to adapt with familiar rules. Maybe give it the option to switch between having Versatile (d8) and Reach, or count as using two weapons with the additional attack. Both require using both hands. That's not a big stretch from where it currently is.
I did want to also add that we have playtested levels 1-4 so far and the rules for two weapon fighting are really solid. Maybe too good, until other options at reveled. Without taking up a bonus action, it's hard to pass up. And the fighting style is on par with others. The Dual Wielder feat is the only one that's a little disappointing. I don't think I'd be against adding the +1 AC back and leaving it at that. I really don't want anything much more complicated.
Is there a discussion somewhere regarding how the new two-handed fighting works (to date)?
From what I understand, as long as you are holding two light weapons, you can attack twice (once with each weapon) with your attack action. That seems clear enough. That still leaves you a bonus action. This is great for a bonus spell (if you have a free hand) etc. Can you use this bonus action (iOLD two-weapon fighting rules) to get a third attack in? Have the OLD rules been completely replaced in the new test rules. I just don;t see it clearly defined anywhere.
everything is still in the play test. so, I would say it has not been currently replaced. As best as we can tell though there is no third attack until later.
Holding two light weapons gives you one action free attack with the second. with extra attack and two light weapons it seems to allow for 3 attacks.
That's a good catch, Nexus6. I think the intent was for this to replace the old rule, so you could not use your bonus action to attack. But it really should be clarified.
The new two weapon fighting feat, and dual welding feat are still terrible.
Ho wow I can do the same damage as anyone ells using a great sword 2d6 + str. All of this with no add benefit not even after taking two feats.
You could take a different fighting stile to buff ranged weapon damage and then take light crossbow expert, there a form of dual welding that doesn't suck.
But wait you get your bonus action to do what?
If you're a fighter nothing, if you're a barbarian rage, monk with no ki points nothing, but you take light crossbow expert and you get a bonus attack even great weapon master gives you a bonus attack when the enemy drops to 0 or you crit. Light crossbow expert also gives you additional attacks with you extra attack. And dual wilder dose not.
Oh, by the way enjoy not being able to get the benefit of fighting with two weapons until your second turn because obviously even though you can open a door and draw your weapon at the same time you can't draw two weapons at the same time till you get to level 4 and get the benefits of quickdraw with the dual welder feat.
So, what is there to talk about with a bad feat that is still bad. Oh, and I forgot to mention that you also don't get any AC bonus.
{p.s. It is possible to have a 20 in one key stat by level 3 so if you are a rough, or monk the +1 to str is pointless}
Now we can still use the bonus action yah no if you compare this to the original great weapon master feat that gave you +10 then no this is still trash. They had to eliminate feat combos that the community loved and make everything worse to make trash look good instead of making dual wielding better.
Yah, but it is still worse than the light crossbow except that will let you make way more attack or am I reading it wrong.
Yes, I believe you are reading it right this means you are do less damage on average then someone using a great sword. Versatel weapons are also trash now what are they doing to the warrior classes why make them even weaker than casters?
For this UA, the two weapon fighting feature is essentially gone, that is the two-weapon fighting bonus action, you can still benefit from two weapons with the new light weapon feature. Yes this does less damage than a great sword but that is kind of missing the point, there are two classes that benefit greatly from the changes, those being Ranger and Rogue. Rogues traditionally only have a single attack per round, this means if they miss their own attack, they do nothing and they do not get to use their sneak attack, with two weapons they could make a second attack which greatly increases sneak attack such as:
1 attack: (Xd6 + Weapon Damage Die) * 0.7 + dex * 0.65
2 attacks: (weapon damage die * 0.7 + dex * 0.65) * 2 + Xd6 * 0.8775 + Xd6 * 0.0675
This is assuming a standard attack vs. AC giving a 65% chance to hit and taking sneak attack on the first attack that lands. (the * 0.7 is combining chance to hit and chance to crit)
For ranger, Hunter's mark boosts the 1d6 to 2d6 on their attacks. While this would also boost a great sword from 2d6 to 3d6, you actually do more damage with the dual short swords, from level 5 on wards (no point calculating lower, short swords win EASILY before extra attack)
Great sword + hunter's mark + GWF, 2 attacks: (((((2d4 + 4) / 3) * 2 + (2d6 / 3) + STR + 1d6) * 0.65 + ((((3d4 + 4) / 3) * 2 + (2d6 / 3)) + 1d6) * 0.05) * 2 = ~23.07 (round up)
Shortsword + hunter's mark + TWF, 3 attacks: ((2d6 + DEX) * 0.65 + 2d6 * 0.05) * 3 = ~24.45
Yeah, GWF makes things really really messy. this is assuming attribute scores of +5, greatsword would drop to ~21.77 DPR vs shortsword ~22.5 for +4, or ~20.47 vs. ~20.55 for +3 respectively, assuming the chance to hit on attack is a constant 65%. Similarly Magic weapons would benefit the shortsword more than greatsword. Notably ranger doesn't actually get access to GWF at level 2 anyway, so this comparison is kind of moot for them, but even if they did, TWF would be the superior choice.
Yes, but it gets worse when you compare it to the previous version, and we have already seen wizards revert back to the old crit rules so they might do the same with GWM feat or GWF.
A -5 in accuracy for +10 damage is not comparable to the current two weapon fighting feat but it is comparable to the light crossbow feat.
Plus, if we compare 5e rouge you could just play variant human with the mobility feat and carry two weapons to get a similar effect to the new rules because you would get the free disengage so if you had the benefits of haste or mobility there is no benefit that this rule change makes.
Plus, the old rules allowed you to have two d8 weapons and now at best you can only have 1d8 weapon and a d6 weapon. Plus, you can't say rouges are benefiting when they can't use sneak attack damage outside of their turn they can't even use a delayed action to benefit from sneak attack.
Plus, how do rangers benefit any more from this then light crossbow expert with a +2 to all attack rolls. Yes, I now the two-weapon fighting style gives a plus 6 to your 2d6 damage where a great sword would be a plus 3 to your 2d6 weapon plus a reroll on 1s or 2s or you could have the benefit of a plus 3 d12 reach weapon or a long bow plus 3 d8. Or a light crossbow and a shield level 1-3 to be replaced with two light crossbows at level 4 that has +2 to attack rolls.
The issue is that there issue not is that GWM is worse than light crossbow master to the point no one wants to take it this is not good design they should have balance around the original GWM feat in 5e and made everything better.
The only reason people took polearm master was for the stun ability that would work with sentinel now that you don't have that why take it doesn't really benefit from the great weappon master feat now either bad design compared to 5e that actually provide synergy and benefits.
The last issue is the befit doesn't help rouges unless they take a feat and is not beneficial to warriors, so we have a major design flaw hear. Even the base rule change is no different then for rangers that could use great swords. It gets worse when you compare 5e to one dnd this is why it is so bad.
'Lastly this change just makes Warriors even worse than casters in 0ne dnd then in 5e.
We are looking at the UA tho, this primarily is a UA forum... given it's literally called Unearthed Arcana.
Paladin's would take Polearm Master because the Bonus Action attack is another chance at crit smiting, in 5E spear was added to the list of weapons PAM could be used with, so you could literally have a shield for casting spells and a spear for the extra critical chance possibility, it was not solely for the sentinel match up.
Neither of the classes I mentioned the change being for had access to GWF without using a feat and in this UA, Rogue doesn't get any access at all, but that being said, TWF would still have been a superior choice for both classes given how sneak attack and hunter's mark works since the additional damage they get from them still beat out the other options. Admittedly partly for rangers going this way, Dual Wielder use to be better, GWM actually wasn't all that great anyway, but I'll show that more below.
Taking a feat for mobile is a cost in and of itself, second, the benefit of mobile will not be as efficient. Say the enemy (1, 2 & 3) move into the following pattern with walls (W) and your Ally (A) looks as such:
W 1 2 3
W A
In this pattern, you can sneak attack 1 or 2 but not 3. However mobile here could only be done if you only attack three, if you attack 2, 3 can still get an OA, if you attack 1, both 2 and 3 can get an OA, so in all ways it is an inferior version of what is in the UA.
in the UA, crossbow expert also lost it's bonus action attack, depending on how you look at the ammo property, you can either wield two or not, if you say yes, then that again is still the light property coming into play.
The issue with the -5 +10 is that it get weaker as you get progressively stronger. It looks good at level 1 but terrible at level 20. Using a greatsword since it does the best DPR.
Normal attack at level 1: ~7 (2d6) * 0.7 + 3 (STR) *0.65 = ~6.85
GWM at level 1: ~7 (2d6) * 0.45 + 13 (STR + +10) * 0.4 = ~8.35
normal attack at level 20: ~7 (2d6) * 0.7 + 8 (STR + +3 weapon) *.65 = ~10.1
GWM attack at level 20: ~7 (2d6) * 0.45 + 18 (STR + +3 weapon + +10) * 0.65 = ~10.35
To be fair, Sharpshooter has the same issue, but sharpshooter as you also mentioned combines with Archery Fighting Style and that +2 attack adds a lot of damage, meanwhile GWM doesn't get good synergy from GWF, GWF works better the higher your chance to hit while GWM lowers your chance to hit. Crossbow Expert then has synergy with both Archery fighting style and Sharpshooter. But if we just compare a 1d6 hand crossbow to GWM, how well does it do actually, ignoring the synergy potential.
GWM let's be generous and say you have a 12.5% chance of activating that additional attack per attack, and you have extra attack at level 5 with a +3 modifier.
Normal greatsword attacks: ~6.85 * 2 + ~6.85 * ~0.1559 = ~14.77
GWM greatsword attacks: ~8.35 * 2 + ~8.35 * 0.0975 = 17.51
normal hand crossbow attack: 3.5(1d6) * 0.7 + 3 * 0.65 = ~4.4
Crossbow Expert hand crossbow attacks: ~4.4 * 3 = ~13.2
Crossbow Expert is needed to make hand crossbows even viable at this point.
how well does it scale tho
GWM greatsword attacks at 20: ~10.35 * 2 + ~10.35 * 0.0975 = ~21.71
Crossbow Expert hand crossbow attacks at 20: (3.5(1d6) * 0.7 + 8 (DEX + +3 weapon) * 0.65) * 3 = ~22.95
Add on to this that Crossbow Expert does have those synergy while GWM does not, GWM is actually a rather weak feat, that by level 20, you're only really benefiting from a higher chance to get a bonus action attack while crossbow expert always gets an additional bonus action attack. Then add on to this the random nature of GWM, compared to the more reliable and consistent nature of Crossbow Expert... GWM is a feat which just gets weaker the stronger you get while crossbow expert is a feat that gets stronger the stronger you get... So GWM wins initially on total damage but loses out in the longer term on that and loses out in reliability and the actual amount of damage the feature actually adds for those weapons.
I don't think we should be comparing the UA to 5e too much. It's okay if things change as long as the changes work within the context of the new rules. We should be looking at how they fare as options compared to each other. There is text at the beginning of this UA saying that new weapon options are coming (probably with the Warrior group) and revised spells (probably in the Mages and Priests groups). There might be something like a repeating hand crossbow that means you don't need a hand to load the ammunition. Or that part might get fixed with the wording of the loading and ammunition rules. It's worth mentioning to them in case it is an oversight. But concerning rule balance we should look within the document itself.
No one wants there to be only one viable way to build a character. The 5e feats have some that everyone takes and some that saw no use almost anywhere. That's not much fun. It's honestly a good thing they are changing Sharpshooter, GWM, PAM, and Sentinel. The questions now are are they viable options at all? Do they fulfill a fantasy and a role? Are they roughly comparable to each other? So that there are no clear winners or junk choices. Personally I do think some are good concepts, but a lot miss the mark in execution.
If you are thinking about fighting with weapons, what are the fantasies we think of, in the broadest sense of theme?
A shield and a single hand weapon
Two hand weapons
A single fast weapon like a fencer
A big two handed weapon
A polearm
A shield and spear
Thrown weapons
A bow or crossbow
A pair of hand crossbows (this one doesn't have much historical precedent at all, either in reality or media. But I guess it does represent a kind of fantasy gunslinger. And previous DnD rules made it optimal for some classes, so it's a fantasy now either way)
A mounted lance
A mounted archer
A mounted shield and hand weapon
A staff
Unarmed fighting
There might be more that someone could point out. But what I would like to see is options for any player to create a character with any of these styles and feel like they've made a good choice. They don't have to all do the same damage. They really shouldn't. But they should at least have other benefits that make them feel good, both in theme and mechanically.
If we step away from Fighting Styles and Feats, we can look at just the basic weapon rules to see where everyone starts. The only limits are what weapons are available to your class. That's a good thing, because it helps with balance and is the start of giving martials some distinction.
The biggest, strongest weapons do 1d12 or 2d6 damage. They are heavy and take two hands to use.
For every restriction that is removed, or benefit given, the damage is reduced a die level. Polearms have Reach, so they do 1d10. Crossbows have range, so they do too. Longbows have better range and you can shoot them more than once a turn. So they get reduced again to 1d8. Finesse weapons get to be used with Dexterity, an ability with more benefits than Strength, so they get reduced a level in damage. Some classes can't use martial weapons, so they get their damage reduced again. This is the general design concept they use through basically the whole list of weapons.
If everyone could only use one weapon, this alone works pretty well. But that's not the fantasy. So they had to add more rules.
Strongdude the Fighter uses a Greatsword for 2d6 + Str damage.
Hidey the Rogue can't, because he's not a fighter. He gets shortswords, doing 1d6 + Dex damage. But he wants to use two of them. It's cool looking, and he has a free hand anyway.
We can't just let him get two attacks at 1d6 + Dex each. That's better than Strongdude now! The max damage is higher, and more consistent with two chances to hit. Okay so now we have to restrict him. Maybe the off hand doesn't add Dex. Okay that fixes the damage discrepancy. But Strongdude is a fighter! They shouldn't be equal. He should be better at basic fighting than a rogue. Okay, so we make the off hand attack use the rogue's bonus action. Rogues love bonus actions. This one hurts. They feel fair now.
That's how we got what we had in 5e. But it wasn't satisfying. Those bonus actions really did hurt. Even more so with the Ranger, the class that they kind of told everyone likes to use two weapons, then made all their best abilities need that bonus action. Whoops.
Okay, so now the extra weapon attack is free, but still can't add Dex That's good, and easy to use. It makes balancing everything else easier too. But now we're also back where we started. Strongdude does 2d6+3 damage. Hidey does 2d6+3 damage. And more consistently. Crap.
So now the fix is either changing the way the big weapons work, or making up for it with Fighting Styles and Feats that only Warriors (and gish classes) can get. Those have to really work well. The question is, do they?
A new player looks at the weapon list and sees a few broad options.
I can use a two handed weapon and do big damage.
I can use a shield and raise my defense.
I can use two small weapons and do big damage while looking cool. As long as I don't need that free hand for magic.
Or I can use one sword, a staff, a dagger, or my fists, and just... suck I guess.
For these fantasies to work, they don't need to do the same damage, they just need to mean something. I have no idea why Polearm Master means you can quickly twirl a Halberd to attack with the butt of the weapon, but not a staff. I guess you can forget your fantasy of creating Little John or Jackie Chan. Staffs are for wizards to hold while they do other things.
When it comes to the light cross bow ammo free hand thing is probably going to get added to the loading property or something so when the feat says it ignores the "loading property" it can ignore that.
I think you're right. It would make sense for the part about loading ammunition to be in the loading rules. And it resolves the issue people have.
(Even if it still doesn't make sense how you reload a crossbow in each hand mid combat... The mental image of holding one under your armpit or between your knees while you load the other is pretty funny. Repeating crossbows would be much more in line with the fantasy of looking cool.)
WARNING: Professional Sword-Fighting Nerd Rant Ahead!
The primary benefit of using a second weapon in REALITY is the benefit it provides to defense. Effectively, holding a secondary weapon is primarily useful because it improves your ability to attack without fully exposing yourself to counterstrikes. Or, alternatively, to defend while you counter-attack. If you're curious why people didn't always just carry shields, it's because shields are heavy, bulky, and cumbersome. You are much less mobile when carrying a shield, especially a large shield. In other words, they're a pain in the ass except when you're at war.
So, light weapons should be able to provide a bonus to AC if you opt to use them defensively. And something like "Defensive Duelist" feat (adding your proficiency bonus to AC) should probably be the first tier of two-weapon fighting.
By contrast, Sword & Shield style should greatly improve your defense. It could either add that proficiency bonus *in addition to* the shield bonus or replace it.
Two-handed Weapons should probably do more damage, and/or provide greater reach. Proficiency in the style gives you area effect control in a battle field - they tend to be very hard to get past.
Just a few thoughts. And yes, this would make shields VERY good for those proficient with them. They should be.
Yes, I agree this that makes sense two handed weapons deal more damage because your using two hands and +10 is equal two your average damage with a one-handed weapon.
This is why great weapon master made sense in 5e and the new one doesn't.
I also agree two weapon fighting should give more ac. There are also a lot of options with shields and versatile weapons but there are no feats to reflect that versatility. I do like light crossbow master so why dose two weapon fighting, and two-handed weapon fighting has to suck in comparison.
Light crossbow expert is equal to the original great weapon fighter and did anyone ever take Sentelle without polar master no because it sucked, and we all knew it was trash except when combined with polearm master great job wtc you broke something that didn't need to be fixed.
The old rules got completely replaced with the new rules and yes you get a bonus action but no it is still trash just wait till level 4 and dual weald two crossbows with crossbow expert the feat that works similar to how two weapon fighting should. I hope the revert great weapon master feat and sniper feat.
This was my fix please give me some feedback.
First rule change:
When welding two weapons one that have the light you can make an additional attack with the light weapon in your off had when you take the attack action on your turn. This additional attack does not get the benefits of your damage modifiers. You can draw and stow both weapons at the same time. While wielding two weapons you can add +1 to your Ac. If any weapons have the thrown property, you can through them. The additional attack can be made against any enemy in range and does not need to be the same target as your first attack.
Three feats
Two Weapon fighting
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons
level 1 background feat. You dedication to fighting with two weapons has giving you greater skill then others at using two weapons. You can wield weapons that do not have the light property so long as they do not require to hands (unless they have the versatile property) one of the two weapons that you wield must be light and you can add your bonus damage to your additional attack. You may also make an additional attack whenever you take the extra attack action or attack of opportunity.
Dual Wielder
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, level 4
+1 to Strength/dex,
You can now us dual wield any two weapons that are not two-handed weapons (unless they have the versatile property). Your additional attacks do not trigger effects of the enemy for being attacked or taking damage. in addition, you gain two fighting tactics guarding blade and blitzing barrage.
Guarding Blade
As a bonus action you can gain choose to lose the benefit of the additional attack to gain an additional +3 to your ac till the start of your next turn and the ability to make a free attack against any enemy that makes an attack agent an ally that is within range of your weapon (only once till your next turn) and When hit or missed by a melee weapon attack from an attacker within 5ft of you, you can use your reaction to immediately make one melee weapon attack against the attacker.
Blitzing Barrage
As a bonus action you gain -1 to AC and the following benefits +2 on all attack made on your turn +2 to attack role for each missed attack, additional attack, or extra attack till your next turn and -1 to crit chance (if you miss three attacks your next attack would crit on a 20-17 if you would usually on crit on a 20). When you crit or deal damage to a single enemy with both of your weapons on your turn you can make another additional attack agents an enemy within range.
Perfected Two Weapon fighting
+1 to strength, dex, or con.
requirement must be proficient with martial weapons, Dual Wielder feat, Two Weapon fighting feat, level 8
If you hit and enemy with both of your weapons you get the one following benefit based on the weapon damage after a failed save of 8 plus your proficiency plus your dex/strength. You can only apply one effect against a single enemy till your next turn. When you use Garding blade you gain additional uses equal to your proficiency when defending your allies and Blitzing Barrage now give all of your additional attacks advantage if they did not already have advantage.
Slashing (make single additional attack combining the damage dice of the two weapons)
Bludgeoning (knock the enemy prone) movement speed is reduced by half regardless of save.
Piercing (make single additional attack) till your next turn all attack and spell save are increased by half of the damage of the additional attack to the target.
any disrupting blow - enemy loses concentration and one of their attacks on their turn if they lack multi attack or extra attack then they cannot take the attack action on their nest turn.
I couldn't agree more this is why I hope we get into the monk, fighter, and barbarian next and not casters, so we get these weapon mechanics worked on now and not later.
How can we know if the new feats are any good if we don't know what fighter can do with them.
Also I would like some cool fantasy fighting moves to use in or out of combat, so I feel the fantasy because fighters don't get spells.
I hope the opposite. We need spells and spell rules hammered out before we can even start to judge the power levels of martials. Start with the martials and watch the martial caster divide get even wider somehow.
I'll toss my historical combat nerd hat in on fighting with staves as well. Most people, by default, will fight with a staff as a half-staff. They grab it in the middle and try to bonk people with both ends. It's reasonably effective, but you give up the reach benefit.
True quarterstaff fighting involves shifting your grip to the butt-end, giving you the benefit of reach. A proficient wielder can switch back and forth between faster (lower damage) close range attacks and higher-damage (but slower), reach strikes. So the staff-fighting feat should allow you to use a quarter staff as a two-handed reach weapon (higher damage) OR as a close range faster attack weapon. Just not sure what the stats should look like when the damage dice distinction is so paltry.
That's pretty interesting. They have said we can expect new weapons and rules going forward. I could see that style of staff fighting being pretty easy to adapt with familiar rules. Maybe give it the option to switch between having Versatile (d8) and Reach, or count as using two weapons with the additional attack. Both require using both hands. That's not a big stretch from where it currently is.
I did want to also add that we have playtested levels 1-4 so far and the rules for two weapon fighting are really solid. Maybe too good, until other options at reveled. Without taking up a bonus action, it's hard to pass up. And the fighting style is on par with others. The Dual Wielder feat is the only one that's a little disappointing. I don't think I'd be against adding the +1 AC back and leaving it at that. I really don't want anything much more complicated.