Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 HermanTheWize May 22, 2015 6:51:52	Just curious on peoples stance on the oh so fun debate of two-weapon vs two-handed weapon fighting.   Does anyone think two-weapon should get a boost? If yes, how would you do this?       I personally think they should get a upgrade. In my homebrew class, Elemental Champion, I think I've made the balance tip towards evenly matched. I give the option at 5 to either do more damage on hit, or an extra attack. This shortens the damage output gap considerably, if the 2-handed weapon fighter takes a second attack, while the 2 weapon fighter takes the bonus damage.(With a very very slight avg of 1 damage more for the 2 weapon fighter, because their second attack takes a bonus action.)     Not saying way is the way to do it, I just didn't want the decsion what fighting style you took being based off optimization, but RP.I was wondering what peoples thoughts are and how they would fix it(If they wanted to).
#2 Dark_Kain May 22, 2015 7:06:25	From an hypothetical point of view I would like for two weapon fighting to be a fighting style based on some sort of advantage to parries and disarm, not a style to increase your attacks per round.   But since this is D&D and Drizzt is the go-to example, i suppose that yes, as a damage based fighting style it is lacking. I think the +stat damage on the secondary weapon should be added to the feat and the combat style option should be a (different) extra bonus on top of that,
(Reply to #2) HermanTheWize	Dark_Kain wrote:
#4 mellored May 22, 2015 7:27:59	Dex has a lot of secondary advantages over Str.   Also, more small attacks is better then 1 big attack.  You get a boost when fighting low HP monsters.
(Reply to #4) HermanTheWize	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #2) HermanTheWize	Dark_Kain wrote:
#7 mellored May 22, 2015 7:36:48	HermanTheWize wrote:
(Reply to #7) HermanTheWize	mellored wrote:
#9 Finieous May 22, 2015 7:52:14	Realistically, two-weapon fighting shouldn't be particularly effective in combat (as opposed to a dueling art). You give up balance, leverage, power and control. You can't effectively attack with both weapons at once, so one would typically be used for offense and one for defense.   In the game, assuming you want to support it as a viable option, it should do slightly less damage on average than two-handed fighting, since it allows you to more efficiently distribute damage and increases your chances of landing a hit on a turn for the purposes of damage adders. Frankly, if they tweak it just enough (as with swashbuckler) that it is a top-shelf option for rogues but not for frontline fighters, that's probably a good place to be.
#10 mellored May 22, 2015 7:52:50	HermanTheWize wrote:
(Reply to #3) Dark_Kain	HermanTheWize wrote:
(Reply to #9) HermanTheWize	Finieous wrote:
(Reply to #10) HermanTheWize	mellored wrote:
#14 mellored May 22, 2015 8:09:11	Yea.  If i was going to make a houserule for TWF, it would be that it doesn't take a bonus action.     Of course, that effects the balance of rogues.  So.... no easy solution.
#15 HermanTheWize May 22, 2015 8:22:25	How I would change two-weapon fighting. Your attack with your second weapon is during your main action. When you get an extra attack at level 5 you can choose what weapon you get that second attack with full modifier. For fighters at level 11 with a third attack, you must attack with the weapon you haven't attacked twice with. For fighters at 20 you can now choose which weapon again.   This still keeps 2-handed weapon users ahead damage wise, but pulls versatility into the equation for two-weapon users.   The two weapon fighting style adds an extra 3 to 5 average damage a turn, and you are not able to use your bonus action, if we assume 16 starting stat and 20 max stat.   While two-handed weapon fighting style adds an extra .666 daamge per attack, not including smites and other on hit damage bonuses.
(Reply to #14) HermanTheWize	mellored wrote:
#17 Slit518 May 22, 2015 8:22:31	With two weapon fighting, if I am using two longswords (once I become proficient enough), if my Strength is 16, would it not be 1d8+3 and 1d8+3?  Instead of a two-handed weapon that is 1d12+3 or 2d6+3?  And even if the off-hand doesn't get the Strength bonus, isn't 2d8+3 better in terms of damage?  Though I get your point.  A warrior with a two-handed sword can do 4 attacks of 1d12+3 vs a warrior with two longswords who can get a 5 attacks of 1d8+3.
#18 HermanTheWize May 22, 2015 8:23:10	I think post # 15 is a reasonable change, but how badly, or possibly not that badly, would it effect rogue balance.(Due to cunning action)
(Reply to #17) HermanTheWize	Slit518 wrote:
#20 mellored May 22, 2015 8:32:29	Slit518 wrote:
#21 Havenward May 22, 2015 9:39:52	My first instinct is that two weapon fighting should not be equivilent to 2 handed weapon fighting in damage.  This is namely because Dexterity is so powerful as a stat and strength is such a comparatively week stat.   Dexterity save are more useful against much more dangerous spells than Strength saves.  Dexterity contributes to armor class while strength does not.  Dexterity increases Initiative, while Strength does not, and Dexterity is used in a multitude of skills while strength is only used in one.  Strength is used in the much ignored carrying capacity and for damage.  While none of this matters to a rogue or ranger who are designed to ignore strength and who are meant to be good at a variety of skills, I don't see why a fighter would build strength if he could get the exact same damage from dex builds while getting all the defensive advantages that dex provides.   Of course I plan to go back to phb over the next couple hours and explore those instincts.   If you want to even up damage at later levels, you could explore a feat that grants extra bonus actions for two weapon fighting (that can only be used on twh) or including more on hit effects.  I personally feel that two weapon fighting will naturally get stronger.  D&D editions have a habit of adding extra damage per hit effects as they publish new books.
#22 Varisthenes May 22, 2015 9:50:03	Feats aside, I think they're fairly comparable.   GWF is awesome though and DW, not so much.
#23 Captain_Kobold May 22, 2015 10:06:25	Maybe we should be looking at the supporting feats and class abilities, rather than the base styles?
(Reply to #23) Macv12	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#25 Havenward May 22, 2015 10:26:07	Captain_Kobold wrote:
#26 mellored May 22, 2015 10:30:22	Dual Wielder: *You can use non-light weapons to TWF *You can draw or stow 2 weapons each turn. *TWF does not take a bonus action, but can only be done once per turn.
(Reply to #26) AaronOfBarbaria	mellored wrote:
#28 Varisthenes May 22, 2015 11:01:02	Generally speaking, Quarterstaff Duelist with Polearm Mastery > TWF with TW Style and DW feat.   The main utility I saw out of TWF with my rogue was having different magical daggers in each hand.  Which isn't a bad advantage but it would be nice to have some fun feat support.   Maybe Duelist and DW feat could be rolled into one.
#29 Havenward May 22, 2015 11:41:50	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#30 Havenward May 22, 2015 12:06:19	with late game has anyine taken into account on hit effects like enlarge and magic items like defender?
(Reply to #29) AaronOfBarbaria	Havenward wrote:
(Reply to #3) crimfan07	HermanTheWize wrote:
#33 Havenward May 22, 2015 13:23:38	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#34 Slit518 May 22, 2015 13:30:00	I thought Dexterity only did bonus damage on ranged weapons, it does bonus damage on finess weapons as well?
#35 Havenward May 22, 2015 13:38:00	Slit518 wrote:
#36 Ironxxx May 22, 2015 13:50:15	TWF should allow for more versatility, the attacks are a dizzying array of acrobatic and precise maneuvers using skill to deflect and distract. Perhaps the Feat could also allow the TWFighter one attack every round at Advantage and if this Advantaged attack hits he or she can bestow a Disadvantage on one attack against them over the next round. This simulates superior skill dominating a lesser combatant as long as the pressure is maintained.   Another option is to merge the Defensive Duelist feat with the TWF feat, or perhaps the non stat increasing parts of Mobile, Athlete or even Charger or Martial Adept.   I think in a discussion of TWF vs GWF and their natual use in game its important to talk about the fighting styles, the natural feat progression of each style and the one handed fighting style too. The Dueling style causes just a one hander and shield approach a similar damage output overall to TWF due to +2 on every hit, it perhaps even surpasses it as the Shield Bonus (from the feat) action can be used to gain advantage through Shove>Prone causing more attacks to hit, let alone the weighty defensive bonuses. I think TWF needs bringing up to par with this also.
#37 Horwath May 22, 2015 14:34:57	New feat;   Improved dual wield; reuires: dual wielder, extra attack feature.   when you take attack action with your main hand weapon, you can make 2 attacks with your offhand weapon in the same action. you gain aditional reaction per round but only for attack of oportunity with your offhand weapon.       this gives your bonus action back to be used with something else and is usable now with fighters action surge.   yes it's a feat tax, but twoweapon fighting was though to learn and required much time and practice( read feats.)
#38 Xeviat-DM May 22, 2015 15:13:11	Hi everyone! It's not unbalanced. As long as you're using magic weapons, TWFing (with the Two Weapon Fighting Style) is comparable to GWFing (with the Great Weapon Fighting) style. Getting that extra ability modifier in and magic enhancement in really helps it along. I already ran the numbers: http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4211166   Level 1 GWF average damage 11.3 (2d6+3, reroll 1 and 2) TWF average damage 13 (1d6+3 x2)   Level 4 (Str or Dex increased to 18) GWF average damage 12.3 TWF average damage 15   Level 5 (Extra Attack) GWF average damage 24.7 (+1 weapon is 26.7) TWF average damage 22.5 (+1 weapons are 25.5)   Level 8 (or 6 for fighter; Str or Dex 20) GWF average damage 26.7 (+1 weapon is 28.7) TWF average damage 25.5 (+1 weapons is 28.5); Dual Weapon feat adds +3 damage.   Level 11 (Fighter Extra Attack) GWF average damage 40 (+1, 43; +2, 46) TWF average damage 34 (+1, 38; +2, 42); Dual Weapon feat adds +4 damage.   Level 20 (Fighter Extra Attack) GWF average damage 53.3 (+1, 57.3; +2, 61.3; +3, 65.3) TWF average damage 42.5 (+1, 47.5; +2, 52.5; +3, 57.5); DW feat adds +5 damage.   If you factor to hit and crits in, the GWFer gains +1% more damage than the TWFer, so it's rather moot.   Since you CAN choose Dex instead of Str for TWFing, a Dex build will get higher Dex saves, Dex skills, Initiative, and Ranged attack bonus (longbow for 1d8, or handaxes for 1d6), while a Str TWFer gets higher Str saves, AC (plate vs. leather and Dex 20), Str skills, Carrying Capacity, and Thrown attack bonus (handaxes, 1d6).   Heck, here's a quick analysis of longbow vs. handaxe ...   Level 20 Longbow average damage 38 (+1, 42; +2, 46; +3, 50) TWFing Handaxe average damage 42.5 (+1, 47; +2, 52; +3, 57)   So, both TWFers, Str or Dex, should really be using the handaxes UNLESS they need the range (range could let you get a lot more attacks off if the situation warrented it, but that's hardly normal combat). If the TWFer picks up the DW feat, they could throw javelins fora bit more range, but not much on the short end.   Now, I do agree that MOST characters probably shouldn't have to spend their bonus action on TWFing. It isn't until the Fighter's 3rd attack that TWFing falls behind GWFing; before that, it's ahead (even at 5 with +1 weapons). The rogue gains too much from TWFing, though, so any boost would have to be addressed.   Here's how the other classes look with it:   Barbarian: If they don't multiclass for TWFing or GWFing, at level 1 they're looking at standard something like 2d6+3 vs. 1d6+1d6+3, which is even. Rage pushes TWFing over the top. When they get their extra attack at level 5, they're looking at 4d6+8 (22) vs. 3d6+8 (18.5), so it falls behind normal, but with rage it jumps to 26 vs 24.5, which is closer. Brutal Critical favors GWFing (if you're using a 1d12 weapon; I'm not sure how brutal critical works with a 2d6 weapon). At level 20, you're looking at 4d6+14 (28) vs. 3d6+14 (24.5), with rage 36 vs. 36.5, with a brutal critical edge for GWFing.   Bards of Valor probably don't want to fight with two weapons. They have nothing to gain.   Clerics could do decently. Divine Strike would benefit from getting more attacks, but they'd lose out on bonus action spell casting. Still, as an extra option, trading +2 AC or two-hander damage might be beneficial.   Druids deal the same damage with two weapons as a two-hander: 1d8+Str/Dex or 1d4+1d4+Str/Dex, so no benefit until magic weapons and a loss of a bonus action.   Monks always fight with two weapons, with Martial Arts or Flurry; but they can do it with  two-hander or with their larger unarmed dice.   Paladin's don't get TWFing, but they do get GWFing, so a two-hander with GWFing will be ahead on damage, but a TWFing paladin could pick Defense style and they'd be harder to compare. At 11th level, though, things get weird because of Improved Divine Smite (and I'm not super familiar with paladin spells and if they benefit TWFing):   Paladin 11th+ level GWFing average damage (2d6*+5+1d8)x2 is 35.66 (+1, 37.66; +2, 39.66; +3, 41.66) Paladin 11th+ level fighting with two weapons average damage (1d6+5+1d8)x2 + (1d6+1d8) is 34 (+1, 37; +2, 40; +3, 43), and gets +1 AC.   Rangers don't get GWFing, so TWFing is their go to damage booster. Dueling is 1d8+5 (9.5) vs. 2d6+6 (13) at first level, but the difference in AC make them difficult to compare. Hunter's Mark also favors TWFing, but it costs a bonus action on the first round. Several other ranger abilities use bonus actions, but colossus slayer gets more millage out of TWFing, giant killer is better with a big weapon, and horde breaker is better with a big weapon. Whirlwind attack favors a bigger weapon. Beast Masters probably want to use two-weapons.   Rogues get a lot out of TWFing.   Sorcerers don't use weapons.   A Warlock of the Blade "might" get some milage out of TWFing. Lifedrinker wouldn't work, since they can't manifest 2 pact weapons, but stacking magic weapon bonuses and Hex hits is good.   Bladelock with Lifedrinker and Thirsting Blade and hex active and Cha 20 and Str or Dex 20 (tough to get, yes) Two-handed weapon (2d6+5+5+1d6)x2 average damage is 41 (+1, 43; +2, 45; +3, 47) Two Weapons (1d6+5+5+1d6)x2 and (1d6+1d6) is 41 (+1, 44; +2, 47; +3, 50)   They lose out on bonus action spells and aren't gaining too much damage.   A wizard doesn't use weapons.   ---------------------   Even though TWFing requires the bonus action, I think it's reasonably balanced against other styles. A TWFer can spread their damage better, and doesn't waist as much damage as a GWFer. Taking away the bonus action cost wouldn't really affect a Fighter, but it would add quite a bit to the Rogue and to the gishes. I'm surprised to say this, but I think things are fine as they are.
(Reply to #37) Xeviat-DM	Horwath wrote:
#40 Havenward May 22, 2015 16:34:27	Xeviat-DM wrote:
#41 Havenward May 22, 2015 16:40:49	Also, Where did you get that DW feet ats extra damage?
#42 mellored May 22, 2015 17:23:09	Havenward wrote:
(Reply to #39) AaronOfBarbaria	Xeviat-DM wrote:
(Reply to #41) Xeviat-DM	Havenward wrote:
(Reply to #43) Xeviat-DM	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#46 arnwolf666 May 22, 2015 21:02:08	You might build a system where 2handed damage is weapon damage plus twice your strength modifier and two-weapon fighting does full ability modifier with both weapons and you get the same amount of attacks with an off hand as the main hand. The max weapon damage for any 2 weapon fighting will always be 1d6.   Thus an 11tth level fighter with two-weapon style will do 6 attacks at 6d6 +6 times ability score modifier and a great sword fighter will have 3 attacks doing 6d6 + 6 times ability score modifier.   The shield fighting style would then suck and when they two-weapon fighter started getting magical weapons he would really outdamage the two-handed fighter. Plus all the uses for dexterity would make everyone want two-weapon style.   I think I will just leave things the way they are.
#47 FrogReaver May 23, 2015 1:11:08	HermanTheWize wrote:
#48 Weedeater May 23, 2015 3:02:38	I didn't read through this whole thread. Sorry.   I don't think dual wielder is as bad as the rap it gets. In a vacuum in which a great weapon master having greatsword wielding fighter can wail on a giant block of HP, sure, he'll do more damage than a fighter dual wielding with a feat. Even if all their stats are maxed out.   But in reality it just doesn't play out like that. Dual wielding does less damage per strike, but you get to do more with them, wield two Magic weapons, apply an extra bonus damage from whatever source, hunters mark, agonizing blade, hex, smite, improved smite, superiority die, rage damage, magic weapon, elemental weapon, poison, etc etc. whatever. You can hit more creatures.   When a fighter gets four attacks sure the effectiveness falls off a little. But not really. That attack is still there. The gap just changes a bit. But even then I don't think dual wielding is bad.   What I DO wish is that Wizards had made it so dual wielding let you take a -5 to hit to wrap your extra attack into your attack action, freeing up your bonus action, otherwise letting you take it with no hit penalty as a bonus action. That would of been swanky. Anyone else ever think that thought? Let it free up the bonus action like great weapon master and sharpshooter add damage?   No? Well whatever. I still think dual wielding is just worse in a theoretical vacuum. But in play it's not like it totally sucks or even vaguely sucks.   And yes. Great weapon master and sharp shooter get to throw some +10s on there. Maybe if dual wielding (with feat) could do a second bonus attack (so two attacks in one bonus attack) if the last one was at -5? idk. But then it's not even really broken to me. More like ppolearm master is just too powerful compared to other weapon feats. And maybe crossbow expert idk.
#49 cowleymen May 23, 2015 7:23:08	Finieous wrote:
#50 Undrhil May 23, 2015 10:35:34	Wouldn't the two-weapon fighting fighting style fighter have the ability to deal 3d6+3x stat per turn?  You would get your stat bonus to all three damage rolls, correct?  Just making sure cause I saw someone post that it would be 3d6+2x stat.
#51 mellored May 23, 2015 11:53:21	I think i liked the playtest version best.   attack twice as much for 1d6 + 1/2 dex.
#52 Captain_Kobold May 24, 2015 2:51:09	cowleymen wrote:
#53 Captain_Kobold May 24, 2015 2:53:25	Undrhil wrote:
#54 Kentus May 24, 2015 5:13:36	Two-weapon fighting is mostly about versatility. You can switch between weapons more easily, it synergies with thrown weapons (move, attack with melee, [move again,] drop weapons, draw new ones and throw them at the enemy you couldn't reach and pick up your weapons next turn) and you get your AC-bonus faster as with a shield (item interaction vs. action).   I personally added another TWF-feat and we currently test it. Seems to work out fine enough, so far.
#55 Xeviat-DM May 24, 2015 11:16:18	I could imagine redoing great weapon fighting to make it grow like two-weapon fighting if you wanted to alter things. Rather than reroll 1s and 2s (which favor 2d6 weapons over 1d12 weapons), maybe it could be Str 1 and 1/2 like it was in 3E. This is nearly equal to GWFing with a great sword at Str 16 (reroll 1s and 2s averages 11.33, Str 1.5 is 11), but at Str 18 it will overtake (12.33 vs 13) and more at Str 20 (13.33 vs 14), but it's not terribly more. Rerolls are fun, though, but again, I'm sorry for the d12.   Just how does fighting with two weapons affect the rogue?
#56 Captain_Kobold May 24, 2015 23:33:58	I'm not that good at the number-crunching compared to some of the experts here.   How would a feat for two-weapon fightingthat did something like this affect the comparison:   If your bonus attack from two-weapon fighting hits, your subsequent attacks against the same opponent this turn roll an extra weapon damage dice.    (So, if you're using shortsword and dagger for example, you make your bonus action attack first (presumably with your dagger). If that hits, your rapier attacks all deal 2d8 + bonuses rather than 1d8 + bonuses. ) This would scale with multiple attacks and action surges, without getting too insane I hope.   Would that be too powerful? Not do enough?
(Reply to #47) HermanTheWize	FrogReaver wrote:
#58 Mazzy May 26, 2015 11:23:32	HermanTheWize wrote:
#59 Zardnaar May 26, 2015 15:14:42	Strength dual wield is not very good. The style is fine in the basic game and dex based melee is better. Add feats though and things become harder. The reason is because of the great weapon master feat and polearm master.
#60 Qzoo May 29, 2015 18:42:17	I think TWF is fine the way it is.   Consider the advantages of wielding two magical weapons instead of only one.  I'd say that is a big advantage.
(Reply to #57) FrogReaver	HermanTheWize wrote:
#62 Zardnaar May 29, 2015 19:43:43	Qzoo wrote:
#63 mellored May 29, 2015 20:45:41	2 magic weapons means 2 attunements, meaning less for elsewhere. overall i'd considet that a negitive. thiugh flamebrand/frosttoung would be pretty cool