Two Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot

I don't like the way they have done TWF and Rapid Shot in the new Playtest packet.

With an odd number for max damage with a weapon 1d6+3 for example, and rounding down it will end up hurting TWF in the long run, and the loss of a Shield still hurts.

I would like to see martial multiple attacks up close be the counter of long range magic area bursts. So I am guessing this is a possible solution to "at-will" versus "daily" abiltiies. So a wizard burning hands does full damage as a daily, and the martial character does half with 2WF; but they can do it every round. But in general I do not like it. There has to be a better solution.
Well, this makes TWF not twice as powerful as one weapon.  It's still useful due to being able to split up your attack between multiple targets - helpful for dealing with swarms of foes.  The halving doesn't bother me as much due to the following:

1d6+2: 3-8, or two hits of 1-4 for an average of 5.5 damage versus 5.
1d6+3: 4-9, or two hits of 2-4 for an average of 6.5 damage versus 6.

The final number being odd or even doesn't make a difference.  In exchange, you get to hedge your bets - the odds of doing zero damage have been cut down drastically, so if you're trying to hit relatively weak targets it's a great option.

And two-weapon defense lets you do this in addition to having the same AC boost as a shield.

Not bad for two Feats.  I wonder what the third will be.
I really hate what they did too. Half-damage is just so meh to me that it'll never be a promising choice for my group (if we even get into DDN). I would much rather have it just grant a scaling bonus to damage with two attacks or perhaps JUST give someone two attacks for 1 action and keep things the same. The way it's written has actually no real benefits aside from dealing pitiful damage to two targets, something Cleave can do and that's not even a feat. A feat should be an investment for your character, not a penalized "power".  
The problem is two weapon fighting takes a double hit. You're restricted to weaker finesse weapons AND have halved damage.

So where with a nice two hander you're looking at 1d12+4 (average 10.5), with a pair of light weapons, you have spent a feat to deal (2d6+8)/2  (average 7.5). Or even comparing to another finesse weapon user, 1d6+4 (average: 7.5), ie you spent a feat and didn't gain even a single point of damage bonus. At that point why not just make two weapon fighting something you can do by default without wasting a feat? The only real difference I see is two weapon fighting will be weighted more towards the average, due to having two attacks and more dice in general being rolled. So you're less likely to see minimum or max damage, but will frequently see numbers more in the middle. Still a difference of preference in playstyle than worth spending a feat on.


As an aside, I don't see anything in particular stating that two weapon fighting actually requires two weapons. It indicates "while wielding a finesse weapon in each hand". I would argue that someone holding a two handed finesse weapon in both hands has a finesse weapon in each hand. While using the quarterstaff as a double weapon has precedent and makes sense, two weapon fighting with a single katana or a spiked chain seems kind of funny.
Drizzt just took a hit with its TWF Tongue Out

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I wonder if the "extra damage" from sneak attack and combat superiority also gets halved.  If not, TWF is awesome, because it gives you two chances to get your extra damage shot in.  (or two chances to get your push/knock down/etc in)

Halflings are also going in 1d8/1d8 with short swords, and you can add a reach weapon in with whip.

I think Staff and spiked chain should get double weapon status of some kind. 
I wonder if the "extra damage" from sneak attack and combat superiority also gets halved.  If not, TWF is awesome, because it gives you two chances to get your extra damage shot in.  (or two chances to get your push/knock down/etc in) 



This is what I was wondering about.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Well, this makes TWF not twice as powerful as one weapon.  It's still useful due to being able to split up your attack between multiple targets - helpful for dealing with swarms of foes.  The halving doesn't bother me as much due to the following:

1d6+2: 3-8, or two hits of 1-4 for an average of 5.5 damage versus 5.
1d6+3: 4-9, or two hits of 2-4 for an average of 6.5 damage versus 6.

The final number being odd or even doesn't make a difference.  In exchange, you get to hedge your bets - the odds of doing zero damage have been cut down drastically, so if you're trying to hit relatively weak targets it's a great option.

And two-weapon defense lets you do this in addition to having the same AC boost as a shield.

Not bad for two Feats.  I wonder what the third will be.



Rounding down does affect you in the long run.

Assume a 16 Dex with two Short Swords vs a 15 AC.

60% chance to hit. Average damage would be: (round((3.5+3)/2))*.6=1.8 + 1.8 + 3.5 (Deadly Strike) or 7.1 average damage

Assume a 16 Str with Long Sword vs 15 AC

60% chance to hit. Average damage would be: (4.5+3)*.6=4.5+3.5 (Deadly Strike) or 8 average damage. Plus the benefit of a shield.

Or Heavy Weapon with 16 Str vs 15 AC
60% chance to hit. Average damage would be: (6.5+3)*.6= 5.7+3.5 (Deadly Strike) or 9.2 average damage. Same AC as dual-wielder.

With regard to the argument of hitting multiple foes, I always find you burn down one at a time, instead of dividing up your damage.

Also think about crits:

TWF with short sword and +3 bonus: 9/2=4.5 rounded down to 4. Odds of both critting, aren't good.

Heavy Weapon: 15 damage. No contest.

I wonder if the "extra damage" from sneak attack and combat superiority also gets halved.  If not, TWF is awesome, because it gives you two chances to get your extra damage shot in.  (or two chances to get your push/knock down/etc in)

Halflings are also going in 1d8/1d8 with short swords, and you can add a reach weapon in with whip.

I think Staff and spiked chain should get double weapon status of some kind. 



Great point, but why should TWF be only great for Rogues?

And staff with chain seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Average DPR does not change, but your chance of overkill goes down dramatically.  It has its place, and when you're not doing mathematical calculations on attacking blocks of tofu it will make a difference.

If you compare this to the rest of the specialty feats, it's quite in line with the rest of them.  Yes, it's vastly reduced power than ye olde TWF/Twin Strike, but that's likely intentional.

In order to get them buffed, you'd have to push for a buff to all specialties.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Just ditch the "finessable" requirement.
I just checked the Rogue entry, and it specifically says sneak attack applies only once per round. Similarly, Combat Superiority is apply once per round, so you'd have to split it up between attacks.  

Then, reading the two weapon fighting feat, it says it divides all damage dealt by 2, not just weapon damage, or ability mod damage, or anything else that could be construed as being specific so as to exclude other bonus damage sources. 

So no, two weapon fighting sucks just as much for the Fighter or Rogue as it does for anyone else. No benefit to be seen anywhere. 
Just ditch the "finessable" requirement.


I'd be curious to see if Rangers get a class feature that lets them treat bigger weapons as finesse weapons...
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Average DPR does not change, but your chance of overkill goes down dramatically.  It has its place, and when you're not doing mathematical calculations on attacking blocks of tofu it will make a difference.

If you compare this to the rest of the specialty feats, it's quite in line with the rest of them.  Yes, it's vastly reduced power than ye olde TWF/Twin Strike, but that's likely intentional.

In order to get them buffed, you'd have to push for a buff to all specialties.



I already pointed out other specialties that are better by virtue of giving options that actually matter. The only time two weapon fighting really matters is if you're fighting something that half your damage kills. And really, is it worth blowing a feat to be marginally better at killing things that die to half a hit anyway? Much less a full theme. 

It makes no real difference in play, as opposed to other specialties that open up options that actually matter. 
Just ditch the "finessable" requirement.


I'd be curious to see if Rangers get a class feature that lets them treat bigger weapons as finesse weapons...

I dunno.
I'm running through the new packet, and making note of all sorts of things that just seem completely goddamn arbitrary, for no obvious reason than to cripple some-damn-thing to the point of being a non-option.  It's almost as if they want to make system mastery easy (by, you know, making some things as obviously terrible as possible), rather than even try to rid the game of system mastery.

Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.
Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




We'd have to see some of the magic items or poisons. Because sure if they do things like add status effects, it could be potentially useful, if they do things like +1d6 fire damage, then that would get halved as well and you're wasting more resources for still no gain.
Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




the "assumed not to be present" magic items and rediculously overpriced poisons?
Hey... someone who likes doing math...

Would making an exception for TWF and having it round up make it more viable? 
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Average DPR does not change, but your chance of overkill goes down dramatically.  It has its place, and when you're not doing mathematical calculations on attacking blocks of tofu it will make a difference.

If you compare this to the rest of the specialty feats, it's quite in line with the rest of them.  Yes, it's vastly reduced power than ye olde TWF/Twin Strike, but that's likely intentional.

In order to get them buffed, you'd have to push for a buff to all specialties.

I am all for pushing for a buff to DDN Feats in general.

Hey... someone who likes doing math...

Would making an exception for TWF and having it round up make it more viable? 



It would make it a marginal gain, but not a whole lot of one. 

I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming. Average damage with TWF is actually higher than average damage without. The reason is because your average damage should not only take into account your average damage roll, but also your statistical chance of hitting. Two rolls is double the chance of scoring a critical hit. Additionally, with two rolls you can still deal damage if you miss with a single roll. I do, however, agree that bonus damage dice dealt through a class ability should not be halved. 

Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




except it makes riders being cut in half...is completly oposite of what double attacks are suppose to be good for (double dipping bonus damage)
Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




the "assumed not to be present" magic items and rediculously overpriced poisons?



I don't get the mindset that everything must be immediately useful at full potential from level 1.  Just a couple days ago people were telling me how 'wealth doesnt matter', and now poisons are 'ridiculously overpriced'?  (Not to say that you said both yourself, Jonathan).  As for the 'assumed not to be present'...yes.  They're not -assumed- to be present.  But if you have two, and each has a status effect, and you have two-handed fighting, or if you can afford poisons and have two handed fighting...then its no longer useless.  That's -all- I was saying.

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




except it makes riders being cut in half...is completly oposite of what double attacks are suppose to be good for (double dipping bonus damage)



And you know that...how?  How does one 'half' paralysis, for instance?

'Supposed' to be good for?  'Double dipping bonus damage'?  Could you -possibly- get any less immersed?  I mean...if you tried?

"Lightning...it flashes bright, then fades away.  It can't protect, it can only destroy."

Hey... someone who likes doing math...

Would making an exception for TWF and having it round up make it more viable? 



It would make it a marginal gain, but not a whole lot of one. 



Cool, thanks. A bit too tired to crunch numbers, at the moment.


I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming. Average damage with TWF is actually higher than average damage without. The reason is because your average damage should not only take into account your average damage roll, but also your statistical chance of hitting. Two rolls is double the chance of scoring a critical hit. Additionally, with two rolls you can still deal damage if you miss with a single roll. I do, however, agree that bonus damage dice dealt through a class ability should not be halved. 




I think it provides a way to normalize damage output, which is what I think you're pointing out. Man... we're gonna' give WotC so much feedback on how to make their game this time around. Esp. that rider damage being halfed thing. But, I might houserule the roundup math. It makes TWF less lame in my mind. Actually... if it had both of those things, I could see it as a good choice w/out breaking things.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls


And you know that...how?  How does one 'half' paralysis, for instance?

'Supposed' to be good for?  'Double dipping bonus damage'?  Could you -possibly- get any less immersed?  I mean...if you tried?




Poisons will probably only apply on the first hit anyway, worst case scenario on first attack, meaning you spend the poison when you miss,  all the damage ofcourse, will be halved because of how TWF and Rapid Shot works.

About my lenguage about metagaming concepts sounded too uninmersive...

Because i have the capacity to separate metagaming mechanics, concepts and rules from in-game representation of those mechanics inside my head,  all the players i play with separate metagaming from in-game, those kind of gaming concepts don't affect the way we RP.

I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming. Average damage with TWF is actually higher than average damage without. The reason is because your average damage should not only take into account your average damage roll, but also your statistical chance of hitting. Two rolls is double the chance of scoring a critical hit.




This is false. It averages out exactly the same.

Basically your hit table looks like this, given an 18 dex character with a 1d8 weapon (1d6 bumped with racial) and +7 to hit vs a AC13 target:

5%-Crit (6 damage)
70%-Hit (4.25 damage)
25%-Miss (0 damage)

Average: 3.275 per attack. Averages 6.55 over two attacks.

vs 

5%-Crit (12 damage)
70%-Hit(8.5 damage)
25%-Miss (0 damage)

Average: 6.55 per attack



You could go through the trouble of calculating the probabilities of a 2 crits, a crit + a hit, a crit + a miss, a hit+ a hit, and 2 misses, but it just boils down to it being a bell curve. You are exceedingly unlikely to see two crits in one round, and are fairly likely to see either a hit and a miss, or two hits. Your average damage per two attacks however remains identical with that of the single weapon user, you are just heavily weighted towards the average due to a bell curve rather than having more linear probabilities. 

Simply choosing to operate on a bell curve rather than the normal scale while maintaining the exact same average shouldn't cost a feat. I mean you already are going to have to pay for two weapons to support it.   The fact that as written you will cut your combat superiority or sneak attack dice in half, thereby actually losing you damage just makes this feat a total waste of the space it was written in.
Isn't it more like this:

0.25% - 2 Crits (12 damage) - 0.03
7% - 1 Crit and 1 Hit (10.25 damage) - 0.7175
2.5% - 1 Crit and 1 Miss (6 damage) - 0.15
49% - 2 Hits (8.5 damage) - 4.165
35% - 1 Hit and 1 Miss (4.25 damage) - 1.4875
6.25% - 2 Misses (0 damage)

Average: 6.55 over two attacks.

Yes, it averages out the same, but you will deal no damage significantly less often, which might feel great for some players. I'll have to compare it to any other damage boosting 1st level feats, though.

As for requiring finessable weapons, I'd remove that. Rapid Shot doesn't require you to use smaller ranged weapons.

I'd make it so 2 attacks on one target didn't deal more damage to that target, but I'd allow 1 attack against 2 targets to deal only slightly less than normal damage. It would be like a lesser area attack at that point. Splitting damage between multiple targets for the same total damage is bad, as it takes longer to take them both out and then they can deal more damage to you.

Vs. two targets, a character attacking 1 at a time should suffer a similar number of retalitory attacks as someone attacking both with split attacks.

Lets say it takes 2 hits to down each enemy. If you focus fire, a combat could go like this (assuming all hits and player wins innitiative, for simplicity):

Round 1) Hit one, take 2 attacks
Round 2) Hit one (it dies), take 1 attack
Round 3) Hit two, take 1 attack
Round 4) Hit two (it dies)

You have suffered 4 attacks. Splitting your attacks for 1/2 damage each looks like this:

Round 1) Hit both, take 2 attacks
Round 2) Hit both, take 2 attacks
Round 3) Hit both, take 2 attacks
Round 4) Hit both (they die)

Just looking at this, you'd actually want both to die in round 3; then you'd only take 4 hits. Instead of dealing 1/2 damage, then, dealing 2/3rds damage is closer to what we'd want, but only to split targets. Multitarget powers dealt 25% less damage when used by monsters in 4E; that would work out in this case as well (9 damage over 3 attacks instead of 8 damage over 2 attacks, assuming an average hit is 4 damage in this case and an 8 hp monster).

Poe's Law is alive and well.

I'm not happy that throwing hammers and handaxes can't work with TWF.
Here's a simple, easy, and obvious fix:



  • Eliminate 2WF as a feat.  The half-damage penalty makes it not worth the cost of a feat.

  • Fighting with two weapons is just something anybody can do.  The half-damage penalty makes it something that may be useful to have available, but not something worth doing all the time.

  • Remove the 'finessable' restriction.  It's not doing much of anything when the difference between a katana and a longsword is that one is finessible but the other is not, both at 1d8 slashing.  (plus, double-wielding whips probably isn't physically possible, but perfectly allowed by TWF)

  • Move TWD to a 1st-level feat.

  • Add a (weakened) variant on Two Weapon Rend (or something else) as the 3rd-level feat.


I don't think the same needs to be done to Rapid Shot.  The ability to half-attack twice at range seems far more useful than the gimpy TWF rules.



I'm not happy that throwing hammers and handaxes can't work with TWF.

But they do work with Rapid Shot, then at level 3 you can snipe with them.
Well, this makes TWF not twice as powerful as one weapon.  It's still useful due to being able to split up your attack between multiple targets - helpful for dealing with swarms of foes.  The halving doesn't bother me as much due to the following:

1d6+2: 3-8, or two hits of 1-4 for an average of 5.5 damage versus 5.
1d6+3: 4-9, or two hits of 2-4 for an average of 6.5 damage versus 6.

The final number being odd or even doesn't make a difference.  In exchange, you get to hedge your bets - the odds of doing zero damage have been cut down drastically, so if you're trying to hit relatively weak targets it's a great option.

And two-weapon defense lets you do this in addition to having the same AC boost as a shield.

Not bad for two Feats.  I wonder what the third will be.




I do wish that they'd instead made it not add your abillity mod, just because that's less fun sucking than doing half damage. it's all in my head, of course, but still... :P
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Unless I'm mistaken, none of the other 1st level feats add damage. So TWFing not adding to damage is fine. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

I think I'd agree that damage should be rounded up but beyond that I like it.  It gives a solid base to build on.  TWF was so silly overpowered that this is a good way to reign it in.  I think they mentioned that there would be a speciality that might improve two-weapon fighting and that will probably include using non-finesse weapons.  I hope that players don't have to spend masses of feats to bump it up to what they want it to be but given that double attackers have been so used to dominating the damage stakes, the fact that a lot of people are now moaning should come as no surprise and might be an indication that they're on the right track.
Yep, two-weapon fighting is garbage. Being restricted to finesse weapons and dealing half damage is adouble-whammy. It's especially bad for rogues because it cuts your sneak attack damage in half.



Yes...but gives you the opportunity for 2 riders via magic items and/or poisons.




the "assumed not to be present" magic items and rediculously overpriced poisons?



Seriously. I'm really annoyed that that's my first couple houserules. I'm not even going to try to play the playtest material under those rules.

The system shouldn't tell me how rare magic items should be. It should give me options so my group can discuss what type of campaign we want to play this time.

I'm not happy that throwing hammers and handaxes can't work with TWF.



Seriously. Handaxes should be finesse weapons, though. It should be one handed or double weapons, maybe with a restriction that your off hand weapon be within certain parameters. The way it is now, it just doesn't work.


Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
Drizzt just took a hit with its TWF Tongue Out



Unless they make TWF special for Rangers, Drizzt can no longer dual wield Scimitars.  Which to me is the dumbest thing ever.  (And I HATE the Drizzle.) 
It should be one handed or double weapons

Seems obvious to me
maybe with a restriction that your off hand weapon be within certain parameters.

This no longer serves a purpose, with TWF damage flatly halved.

It should be one handed or double weapons

Seems obvious to me
maybe with a restriction that your off hand weapon be within certain parameters.

This no longer serves a purpose, with TWF damage flatly halved.




I was thinking in terms of realism, rather than balance, with that part.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
It's a construct, mostly stemming from main gauche styles.