Major Two-Weapon Fighting Nerf

"Two‐Weapon Fighting: When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them, provided at least one of them is a light weapon. Make two separate attacks, one for each weapon, with disadvantage on each attack roll. You cannot have advantage on either attack, and you do not add the relevant ability modifier (usually Strength) to either attack’s damage."

Uh, yeah, totally unusable...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What is the equivalent penalty to the attack roll that disadvantage provides?
 
If it was simply -3 to each attack and no bonus to damage would that work?


 


What is the equivalent penalty to the attack roll that disadvantage provides?
 
If it was simply -3 to each attack and no bonus to damage would that work?


 



Disadvantage averages at about -5 penalty, but depends on the required roll (i.e., the required roll after all other modifiers like attack bonus and such are applied).




































































































































Required RollSuccess RateWith DisadvantageModifier
205%0.25%-0.95
1910%1%-1.8
1815%2.25%-2.55
1720%4%-3.2
1625%6.25%-3.75
1530%9%-4.2
1435%12.25%-4.55
1340%16%-4.8
1245%20.25%-4.95
1150%25%-5
1055%30.25%-4.95
960%36%-4.8
865%42.25%-4.55
770%49%-4.2
675%56.25%-3.75
580%64%-3.2
485%72.25%-2.55
390%81%-1.8
295%90.25%-0.95
1100%100%0

D&D Next - Basic and Expert Editions

I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.

Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.


Here's a mockup of the Basic Set I created.



(CLICK HERE TO VIEW LARGER IMAGE)
  

Basic Set

This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).

The Basic boxed set contains:

Quick Start Rules
A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms.

Player's Handbook
(Softcover, 125 pages)
Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level.

Dungeon Master's Guide

(Softcover, 125 pages)
Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.

Monster Manual
(Softcover, 100 pages)
Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D. 

Introductory Adventure
(Keep on the Borderlands)
An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.

Also includes: 

Character Sheets
Reference Sheets
Set of Dice


Expert Set

A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:

Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.)
Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.)
Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)


Expansions

These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.) 

Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book)
Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book)
Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book)
The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)





A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage

A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points

In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...

What are hit points?
The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.

So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then?
It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.

But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target?
Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.

Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact?
Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.

If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent?
Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.

Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack?
It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.

What about poison and other types of non-combat damage?
Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.

If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages?
Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.

What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points?
If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.

Why are monsters killed immediately and not players?
Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.

What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage?
If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).

Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded?
See below.
 

Damage and Dying

Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.

  1. Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly. 
  2. Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
  3. If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
  4. Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.

Unharmed: 1 hp or more
Wounded: 0 hp or less
Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level)
Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)

Wounded
When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.

Incapacitated
Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).

If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.

If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.

Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.

Dead
Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.

What is the equivalent penalty to the attack roll that disadvantage provides?
 
If it was simply -3 to each attack and no bonus to damage would that work?


 



Disadvantage basically cuts your hit chance in half. If you have a 60% chance of hitting, with disadvantage you will hit 36% of the time. So say you have a racially boosted longsword+shortsword, your average damage without disadvantage/penalty is 6 per round. With disadvantage it's 3.6 per round. With -3 to hit, it's 4.5 damage per round.


On the other hand, just using the longsword and taking your strength bonus to damage, assuming a moderate bonus of +3, you are averaging 5.1 damage per round.

So basically, two weapon fighting is currently cutting your damage by 30%. With your suggestion it's only a 12% penalty.

Other options, just using disadvantage and keeping your bonus damage, you get 5.76 average damage. Dropping bonus damage from just the offhand gives you 4.68 average damage.
Geee, they took a feat that had marginal benefits and so-so mechanics and made it......worse. Not only does this completely stink for Fighters but its even worse for Rogues who now can NEVER apply SA damage with it. So its a feat that's completely useless to the two classes that had the most potential to use it. Awesome design guys!!! :facepalm:
It's definitely... odd.

Danny

at least what I remember from the 3 eds, two weapon fighting always started out poor, and then got better with feat support.

Easy feat add-ins are "Drop disadvantage on 1 attack or wield two non-light, one handed weapons" "Drop disadvantage on both attacks or keep disadvantage on off hand with non light weapon" "wield two  one handed weapons of any size you can and add in relevant attribute mod to damage"

That's two weapon fighting, greater, and greatest.  You could have that by level 6.  Smatter in Two weapon defense and call it a day.


Note: removing disadvantage might make the level 6 fighter extra attack need to read that you can only make 1 extra attack, even with two weapons.

Or

you just state that fighting with two weapons gives you advantage on the attack with the main hand  keep the no attribute damage thing, because honestly, you are getting free advanage on every attack.  (sneak attack no longer fires off advantage, so no big deal there) 
Go back to 2nd ed dual wielding or even 3rd ed and suck up a -2 on both attacks. One of the weapons used has to be a finesse weapon.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Ok people keep in mind that with the full-attack action revealed as a bad idea the devs have to do something to keep two-weapon use from getting out of hand. That said this seems like a little too much.

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thing yet, so is this a feat or just a combat option?

I kind of like the way they had it for the last package.  It was a tactical choice when fighting low hit point creatures.   It also gave an attacker a greater chance to hit one attacker and do 1/2 damage, which could be used against high AC foes.  


A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

theres a distinct lack of extra damage/attack options so twf is unbalenced in the current rules unless it is limited in some way. Maybe blow a feat, off hand weapon has to be a finesse weapon and attacks are made at disadvantage with it. They can't really balance it ATM.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

What is the equivalent penalty to the attack roll that disadvantage provides?
 
If it was simply -3 to each attack and no bonus to damage would that work?


 



Disadvantage is half the chance to hit. So if you had a 60% chance, you now have a 30% and another 30% chance to hit. You were likely to hit once by combined you have about a 51% chance to hit once with one of the two. So yeah totally inferior to just making a single attack, plus you don't get any ability mod to the attack...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Geee, they took a feat that had marginal benefits and so-so mechanics and made it......worse. Not only does this completely stink for Fighters but its even worse for Rogues who now can NEVER apply SA damage with it. So its a feat that's completely useless to the two classes that had the most potential to use it. Awesome design guys!!! :facepalm:



Its not a feat, its the standard rules for anyone attacking with two weapons...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Right ok, then this isn't a huge problem.

I'm fine with sword and board being the default best melee option, but once you start charging feats things need to line up a bit better.

 
Its not a feat, its the standard rules for anyone attacking with two weapons...

Yea, this would of been nice info in the first post, totally made me go digging all through the specialty packet. Lawl.

TOTALLY different story now that I know this is just some rules and not the specialty. I guess they pulled back on the TWF Specialty for now? In fact, I think it's cool that they added in some rules for TWF for if you're untrained. Not a great idea to do it, but you can still give it a shot. I'm going to assume that, unless too many people complained about that TWF, they'll keep that two attack thing. I hope they keep that, I loved that thing.

They could at least make the default option not stink.

Needs to be fixed; how about:

Two-Weapon Fighting: If you hold a one-handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other, you gain +1d6-3 damage when you make an attack with either weapon. You can wield two melee weapons or two ranged weapons in this way, but not a melee weapon and a ranged weapon together.

No extra attacks, no special tricks, no disadvantage... just a neglible +0.5 DPR and mediocre increase in damage randomness. Rolling two dice kinda makes you feel like you're attacking with two weapons. Boring, I know, but at least it's not terrible!
Right ok, then this isn't a huge problem.

I'm fine with sword and board being the default best melee option, but once you start charging feats things need to line up a bit better.

 



I'm not. Dual-wielding (or some people might refer to Florentine style) is a historical way to fight. And one might argue sword and board being the best style as dual-wield offers you two direct and different angles for attack that a sword and shield migt not be able to intercept.


Its not a feat, its the standard rules for anyone attacking with two weapons...

Yea, this would of been nice info in the first post, totally made me go digging all through the specialty packet. Lawl.

TOTALLY different story now that I know this is just some rules and not the specialty. I guess they pulled back on the TWF Specialty for now? In fact, I think it's cool that they added in some rules for TWF for if you're untrained. Not a great idea to do it, but you can still give it a shot. I'm going to assume that, unless too many people complained about that TWF, they'll keep that two attack thing. I hope they keep that, I loved that thing.




Yea, my apologies. I didn't know  that these are the "basic" rules for TWF that anyone off the street can attempt and that they pulled TWF feats off of the list. Still, I'm not thrilled with this almost no-option. The penalties are just too great for anyone to take this option seriously, even in extreme cases.

How about, instead of Disadvantage on both attacks we change it so that the disadvantage is imposed onto the off-hand attack. Damage from Ability modifiers is halved (or negated)?

I'm setting aside balance concerns because this is an untrained option.  Conceptually, I'm fine with the idea of dropping ability bonuses because it makes TWF more attractive for low-Str characters and other weapons more attractive for stronger characters, which seems right to me.  But the disadvantage thing means rolling four dice at once, which is a bit much.
Really what they had in the previous packet for two-weapon fighting should have been the default for everyone. Half damage from both attacks, add sneak attack and other damage modifiers to only the first attack.

Then feats and maneuvers could improve it.

As it stands now you're better off throwing your two weapons down and fist fighting...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
If they left it the way it is, but had a feat that made it no longer cause disadvantage (possibly another benefit or two to make it a worthwhile feat), would that take care of some of the problems?
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
If they left it the way it is, but had a feat that made it no longer cause disadvantage (possibly another benefit or two to make it a worthwhile feat), would that take care of some of the problems?



No, using two-weapons should not be inferior to both the sword and board and the two-handed styles. It should deal around the same damage and have a situational advantage, just like using sword and board gives a higher AC and two-handed fighting gives a slight damage bonus, two-weapon fighting should give a slightly better chance to hit a target (two normal attack that deal half damage)...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
If they left it the way it is, but had a feat that made it no longer cause disadvantage (possibly another benefit or two to make it a worthwhile feat), would that take care of some of the problems?



No, using two-weapons should not be inferior to both the sword and board and the two-handed styles. It should deal around the same damage and have a situational advantage, just like using sword and board gives a higher AC and two-handed fighting gives a slight damage bonus, two-weapon fighting should give a slightly better chance to hit a target (two normal attack that deal half damage)...Smile



heh, as much as I complained about how crappy TWF was before the newest update (I see TWF as a pure choice for improved DPR) I'd take that version in a second over this. Basically how they had TWF previously SHOULD'VE been the way any untrained person in that style would benefit from wielding two light weapons. A Feat should've allowed CS or SA damage to remain at full-power (not halved) and perhaps the use of a 1-handed weapon in the main hand. Improved TWF feat (probably gained at 6th level) should've removed the halved condition altogether and allowed for a 1-handed weapon in the off-hand. Greater TWF feat (gained at 9th or later level) should grant a 3rd attack (with Disadvantage) against a foe previously attacked with either of the two previous attacks.

That's how I would've handled it anyways.
What do you mean remain at full power?
What do you mean remain at full power?



Each weapon deals full damage...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
What is the equivalent penalty to the attack roll that disadvantage provides?
 
If it was simply -3 to each attack and no bonus to damage would that work?


 

























































































































NumberPercent
Success   Given First Die
10190.633333
15130.433333
2030.1
Success   Given Advantage
10220.733333
15150.5
2040.133333
Success   Given Disadvantage
10100.333333
1560.2
20
To explain my chart. If you have a +0 to hit, then you will hit a AC of 10 only 30% of the time, an AC of 15 only 20% of the time, and an AC above 17 0% of the time (chart only shows 20, but in the excel sheet I went back and looked and at 17 there was no hits. Obviously these percentages go up as your + to hit goes up. If you have a plus five to hit then you will hit a AC of 20 only twenty percent of the time. This makes two weapon fighting unsuable. You will virtually never actually hit with disadvantage or if you do manage a hit, you will do so soo little of the time that you should have just used one weapon.


I basically made 30 rolls and actually did the test, which is why my numbers may differ slightly from the guys who did the statistical number crunching.
I've never understood why a fairly well known style of fighting automatically starts at a disadvantage.

Assume a person is just holding a 1h sword and nothing else. That's the baseline.

Add a shield, you get defense.
OR
Use 2 hands, you get more damage.
OR
Use 2 weapons, you get versatility. You have the choice of building towards parry/counter combat or 2 weapon flurry attacks.


Does anyone here see a problem with that mechanically?
I've never understood why a fairly well known style of fighting automatically starts at a disadvantage.

Assume a person is just holding a 1h sword and nothing else. That's the baseline.

Add a shield, you get defense.
OR
Use 2 hands, you get more damage.
OR
Use 2 weapons, you get versatility. You have the choice of building towards parry/counter combat or 2 weapon flurry attacks.


Does anyone here see a problem with that mechanically?



Nope, sounds good to me, though I'd go with slightly better accuracy...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
No, using two-weapons should not be inferior to both the sword and board and the two-handed styles. It should deal around the same damage and have a situational advantage, just like using sword and board gives a higher AC and two-handed fighting gives a slight damage bonus, two-weapon fighting should give a slightly better chance to hit a target (two normal attack that deal half damage)...


Or it could do more damage but make the character easier to hit. One idea I've been thinking about is using just the main weapon for attacks on your turn but if an attacker misses you with an attack, you can immediately respond with a strike from your off hand weapon. If you give the TWF a -1 or -2 penalty to AC, this gives the character a real identity and a clear cost/benefit for this style that is more fun than simply messing around with the math. In essence he has a harder time dodging and deflecting attacks, but if his opponent misses he can make him pay.
No, using two-weapons should not be inferior to both the sword and board and the two-handed styles. It should deal around the same damage and have a situational advantage, just like using sword and board gives a higher AC and two-handed fighting gives a slight damage bonus, two-weapon fighting should give a slightly better chance to hit a target (two normal attack that deal half damage)...


Or it could do more damage but make the character easier to hit. One idea I've been thinking about is using just the main weapon for attacks on your turn but if an attacker misses you with an attack, you can immediately respond with a strike from your off hand weapon. If you give the TWF a -1 or -2 penalty to AC, this gives the character a real identity and a clear cost/benefit for this style that is more fun than simply messing around with the math. In essence he has a harder time dodging and deflecting attacks, but if his opponent misses he can make him pay.



That doesn't make sense, why would you have less AC than the guy with just one weapon? wouldn't you be more of a threat?

How about you get a riposte attack with disadvantage if your last target attacks anyone but you?Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Yeah this looks very overnerfed. It wasn't even good before, but now it's even more awful.

I could see if at least you got your ability score bonus to the damage and it benefited from advantage, it might be situationally good against stuff with low AC. The fact that you take a damage penalty as well as having terrible accuracy means two weapon fighting is just a waste of time.

That doesn't make sense, why would you have less AC than the guy with just one weapon? wouldn't you be more of a threat?

I don't see how a player's threat level affects his AC. Anyway, I don't know how much sense it makes because I don't know how effective actual two weapon fighting is.

How about you get a riposte attack with disadvantage if your last target attacks anyone but you?

Basically what I'm going for is that a TWF gets to use both weapons regularly and those attacks aren't totally nerfed. I also really don't want to have to do extra math. This proposal is in the ballpark.

That doesn't make sense, why would you have less AC than the guy with just one weapon? wouldn't you be more of a threat?

I don't see how a player's threat level affects his AC. Anyway, I don't know how much sense it makes because I don't know how effective actual two weapon fighting is.

How about you get a riposte attack with disadvantage if your last target attacks anyone but you?

Basically what I'm going for is that a TWF gets to use both weapons regularly and those attacks aren't totally nerfed. I also really don't want to have to do extra math. This proposal is in the ballpark.



Well since there is an entire medieval style based on it and weapons invented specifically for the off hand (parry dagger) I'd have to say that it was very effective.

Here's a link talking about it
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
But it doesn't clarify if my idea of balancing extra full attacks with decreased AC makes sense. I'm fine with it but I'm interested in what others think.
But it doesn't clarify if my idea of balancing extra full attacks with decreased AC makes sense. I'm fine with it but I'm interested in what others think.



It does actually. You are parrying attacks with your off-hand weapon on real life. So really your AC should go up or stay the same, not go down.

In fact give a nerfed version of parry to two weapon fighters and that would solve the problem.

"You may parry melee attacks against you. When an attack hits you, negate 1 point of damage from the attack as a reaction."
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
But it doesn't clarify if my idea of balancing extra full attacks with decreased AC makes sense. I'm fine with it but I'm interested in what others think.



It does actually. You are parrying attacks with your off-hand weapon on real life. So really your AC should go up or stay the same, not go down.

In fact give a nerfed version of parry to two weapon fighters and that would solve the problem.

"You may parry melee attacks against you. When an attack hits you, negate 1 point of damage from the attack as a reaction."

If you were to do that, you would want to add a feat or feature that lets the parry amount scale to a stat.
So basically, if you are going to fight with two weapons, you should always do it when intoxicated.  1d6 free damage soak is still in.

And if you ever find yourself with combat disadvantage, you should throw in a second attack with a spike gauntlet or something. 

Unintended consequences of the lack of penalty stacking.
Really what they had in the previous packet for two-weapon fighting should have been the default for everyone. Half damage from both attacks, add sneak attack and other damage modifiers to only the first attack.

Then feats and maneuvers could improve it.


I'm inclined to agree. The previous version was perfect as the entry-level version of TWF, and let feats and maneuvers improve it.
What do you mean remain at full power?



Meaning that with the last playtest packet, TWF halved ALL damage from each attack which included any Expertise Die added in. In my proposal, the TWF feat would allow you to keep the actual roll for Expertise Die instead of halving that too.
I think Two-Weapon Fighting is a high-risk high-reward fighting style. It needs to be simple and be better (in DPR) than the sword and shield style (You are -1 in AC). Why not something like this?

2 options, fight carefully or fight agressive:

Option 1 (carefully)
2 attacks, each half damage (first version).
-> Now this is better because crits make more damage

Option 2 (agressive)
2 attacks, each full damage, (STR or DEX only added to main hand attack) and attacks made to you have advantage until the start of your next turn.
-> If you use this at the start of the fights, is too risky, and encourages teamplay (defend the striker etc). If you use this when the fight is near over, doesnt have high impact and speeds up the fight. Scales well.

Maybe needs a little adjustement and testing, but TWF is something like this in my mind.
Sapphire - Swormage Dragon Guardian - Dont touch my allies build. Swordmage / Sigil Carver / Draconic incarnation The Holy Slayer - A Striker - Defender Fighter | Cleric / Barbarian - Paragon of Victory WEREBEAR BATTLEMIND: You wont go where you want. - A Battlemind (Druid) / Unbound Nomad / Topaz Crusader
I think there will be a mental disconnect for new players when they are told that fighting with two weapons is at a disadvantage.     

This is a case of a mechanic (that everyone loves) being over used.  

With that said, mechanically, I'd rather not have to divide damage in half either.     Rolling more dice is fine and it's easy for the players (some people really like rolling lots of dice), but I'm not convinced that the math really works all that well.

The problem I see with the disadvantage mechanic for TWF is that at some point more feats will be added to the game that elminate TWF disadvantage.     At the moment TWF is just a fighting option that's open to everyone, which means specialists will most likely be much more proficient.   I suspect that most TWF characters won't actually be using the default mechanic in practice.    I just hope we don't trap feats in 5e.  

The designers need to stop thinking in a gamist way and focus more on the simulationist aspect of the 4 fighting styles (weapon and shield, single weapon, two weapons, two handed).    I mean what is the real advantage of using two weapons in combat?  Is each style really equal?