Community

Simply make it a maneuver at a higher level.

So, instead of making it work, just punt?

Well I don't think there is a good way to do twf that will satisfy everyone

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:09AM, NightsLastHero wrote:

Well I don't think there is a good way to do twf that will satisfy everyone

That seems like a rather poor reason to do a version of two-weapon fighting that will satisfy almost no one.

Playtest2's version should be the default 'untrained' option, with a chain of feats making it progressively better.
Investing three or four feats for potiential double damage isn't beyond reason, so long as it doesn't degenerate in the trap option (the trapiest of traps!) it was in 3E.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:19AM, Qmark wrote:

(the trapiest of traps!) it was in 3E.

Well, now, I wouldn't say that.  Two weapon fighting was most certainly high on the trap list, but I dare argue that the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack chain was trappier than that.  If only slightly.

Once you start down the TWF path, forever will it dominate your feats.
Every extra attack meant another TWF feat to get that extra extra attack, all the while demanding any stat increase go straight to dex.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:35AM, Qmark wrote:

Once you start down the TWF path, forever will it dominate your feats.
Every extra attack meant another TWF feat to get that extra extra attack, all the while demanding any stat increase go straight to dex.

Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.  The Spring Attack tree is just a complete waste of three feats.  The trapiness is strong in that tree.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:48AM, LadyBlackwell wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:35AM, Qmark wrote:

Once you start down the TWF path, forever will it dominate your feats.
Every extra attack meant another TWF feat to get that extra extra attack, all the while demanding any stat increase go straight to dex.

Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.  The Spring Attack tree is just a complete waste of three feats.  The trapiness is strong in that tree.

I liked High Sword, Low Axe (Complete Warrior) as you got a free trip attempt with every successful dual-attacks made. But I agree with the premise that the answer for TWF has already been made. It was a Feat in the second Packet that should be removed as a Feat and just made for anyone wanting to wield two-weapons.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:19AM, Qmark wrote:

Playtest2's version should be the default 'untrained' option, with a chain of feats making it progressively better.
Investing three or four feats for potiential double damage isn't beyond reason, so long as it doesn't degenerate in the trap option (the trapiest of traps!) it was in 3E.

problemo uno.  Feet traps stink

I feel there is certainly a way to make two-weapon fighting work, because it just comes down to math.

You have two base options:

1) Make two-weapon fighting available to everyone, with no cost.  In this case, it shouldn't be any better or worse than picking a different option, such as a two-handed weapon.

2) Make two-weapon fighting require a cost, such as a feat.  In this case, it should be better than other options, because you don't need a feat to use a two-handed weapon.

I like 1.  I don't see any real reason why fighting with two weapons would require a cost.

So now we just have to make it balanced.

A 1st level character could have a 17 Strength (if non-human) or an 18 Strength (if human).  To start, I will look at humans (because they also don't have the added complexity of weapon training).

So a human (Str 18) will do 1d12+4 damage with a two-handed weapon.
For two weapons, I would say that the off-hand weapon needs to be light (1d6 damage or less).  I'll get to the iconic "Two Longswords" in a bit.  So our human could have a longsword in one hand (1d8+4) and a shortsword in the other (1d6+4).  Clearly better than the two-handed weapon.  Not only do you get two chances to hit, but you have the potential for a lot more damage if you hit twice.

So now, the way I see it, there are two main choices:
1) Make two-weapon fighting simply add damage to your attack.
2) Make two-weapon fighting actually give you a second attack.

In the case of 2, I think two-weapon fighting should deal less damage total than what you can do with a two-handed weapon.  This is because two-weapon fighting will have two advantages already: you can attack two targets, and you have twice the chance to hit a single target and inflict at least some amount of damage (and twice the chance for a critical hit).

So, while I think many people won't like this, I would vote for 1.  Make two-weapon fighting simply add to your damage.  It could be something like this: if you have a weapon in your off-hand (which must be light, dealing no more than 1d6 damage), you deal more damage with your primary weapon.  Increase the damage of your weapon by 2 steps.  So, effectively, you are using a two-handed weapon (in terms of damage output). 

There are certainly some issues to work out (off the top of my head: shields), but I think I like this sort of method better than trying to figure out how much less damage you should deal when attacking with two weapons.  Especially because it seems that when you reduce the damage, people complain.  But I guess people would complain about this too, because it seems that there are just some people who want two-weapon fighting to just give you two normal attacks.

Now hold on, i admit that while the current version is certainly not to my liking (even as an untrained baseline), packet 2's first feat is too much for a baseline. It wasn't spectacular but anyone wielding a light weapon was better off dual wielding making it a no brainer option should one remove the feat cost.
 

I imagine right now they're wondering if it should remain a speciality or become a build of martial classes. Much like necromancers. I think they're wondering if it works as a school/domain option or speciality. 

There's some internal debates going on at the moment and it would be really nice if they let us in on it. TWF and necromancy should be a Legends & Lore article. Give us both sides and the pros and cons then let people vote. Make it a special survey topic as well. 

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:21AM, rampant wrote:

Now hold on, i admit that while the current version is certainly not to my liking (even as an untrained baseline), packet 2's first feat is too much for a baseline. It wasn't spectacular but anyone wielding a light weapon was better off dual wielding making it a no brainer option should one remove the feat cost.
 

The 2nd Packet's option was decent but only marginally so and only in certain situations. A Sword and Shield is the baseline that you get a slightly better bonus to AC and options for your shield (like Guardian). From the base line you get bigger damage boost from using a Two-Handed weapon (the DPR route) but at the cost of defense. By taking TWF your not getting the versatility of a shield (until a certin level via TWD*) nor the damage increase one gets with a 2-handed style. You get versatility in attacking two separate targets but with lower damage or attempting to land an effect by increasing the change to hit your target (via two separate attacks). It seems to me that the trade off of TWF is the ability to kill more lower HP monsters in 1 turn and better impose effects at the cost of Shield versatility, AC, and Damage.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:20AM, Arithezoo wrote:

... There are certainly some issues to work out (off the top of my head: shields)

I would suggest working in a defence mechanism along with the second weapon. On the player's turn, he can decide if the second weapon will be a boost to AC or a boost to damage. If AC, he can parry one incoming attack. If damage, roll the damage die for the second weapon without attribute bonus and add it to the single attack (rather than making two attacks).

I'm not totally solid on this suggestion, since I've seen a LOT of two-weapons fighting (as I'm married to a master of the art), and there's a lot more that could happen there, especially if some Maneuvers take it into account. But sometimes playability has to compromise with realism to get somewhere that's neither overpowered nor totally lame.

Here is my House Rule:

Two-weapon Fighting

When you wield two one-handed melee weapons at the same time, you gain a +1 bonus to AC. You can make can attack with both weapons as part of the same action but with disadvantage on the off-hand weapon. Attacking with both weapons negates the bonus granted to AC for that round.

--

I just grant Shields cover against missile weapons, after all that is predominately why they were used irl. This concept was used in 2nd Edition.

You know instead of making the shield an inherently inferior option what if we set it up so that the three styles have distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to each other?

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:35AM, Qmark wrote:

Once you start down the TWF path, forever will it dominate your feats. .

There-in lies the darkside eh?

The real question is: What do you expect TWF to do?

Do you want a 2nd attack? How often? If so, damage should be adjusted relative to the frequency of use. If you get 2 attacks all the time, probably they should be half damage (advantage is 2 targets and/or 2 chances to Crit).

Do you want a damage boost? If so, just treat TWF as fighting with a 2H weapon. Flat damage boost vs 2 separate attacks.

Do you want awesome fighting style action? Then your off-hand weapon should determine what happens when you TWF. For example, if you have an off-hand flail, you might get an free disarm or trip check as part of your attack action. If an axe, you might get to ignore resistance on your attack.

So, as a community, what do we want? To look cool? To do cool things? To attack twice sometimes? All times?  What?

Once we answer that, we can approach a solution. So far, I think we've been yelling "Not it!" Let's examine what "it" is.

I kinda like the fighting style bit.

I like the fighting-style idea mentioned. Using the offhand weapon for different things depending on what it is.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:34AM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:20AM, Arithezoo wrote:

... There are certainly some issues to work out (off the top of my head: shields)

I would suggest working in a defence mechanism along with the second weapon. On the player's turn, he can decide if the second weapon will be a boost to AC or a boost to damage. If AC, he can parry one incoming attack. If damage, roll the damage die for the second weapon without attribute bonus and add it to the single attack (rather than making two attacks).

I'm not totally solid on this suggestion, since I've seen a LOT of two-weapons fighting (as I'm married to a master of the art), and there's a lot more that could happen there, especially if some Maneuvers take it into account. But sometimes playability has to compromise with realism to get somewhere that's neither overpowered nor totally lame.

Heh heh your idea is exactly what I thought of for the shield, but I felt it makes it stronger than a two-handed weapon.  This could be fixed by boosting the damage for two-handed weapons.
So two-handed weapon gives you greatest damage, while two-weapons (or weapon/shield) gives you versatility between offense and defense.  Perhaps you could even make weapon/shield more on the defensive side if you wanted.

I totally agree with your last point: "sometimes playability has to compromise with realism to get somewhere that's neither overpowered nor totally lame."  The game doesn't need to be a perfect model for reality, nor should it even try to be a perfect model.  At the end of the day, what it needs is to make sure that there are different options and that none of them are traps.  So as long as two-handed weapon, two-weapons, and weapon/shield are all roughly balanced, it will be a good system.  If one choice is much better or worse than another choice, there is a problem.

I'm I the only one who liked two attacks at 1/2 damage? I think it doesn't even need to be a feat if you use light weapons. The feat can allow you to use 1 handed weapons and get a +1 shield bonus to AC while dual wielding.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 8:57AM, Arithezoo wrote:

... At the end of the day, what it needs is to make sure that there are different options and that none of them are traps.  So as long as two-handed weapon, two-weapons, and weapon/shield are all roughly balanced, it will be a good system.  If one choice is much better or worse than another choice, there is a problem.

Totally agree. Two weapons is a very versatile style, so THW should be focused on offense (damage), weapon/shield should be focused on defence (better AC), and TW hits the midpoint between them. Therefore ...

Nov 7, 2012 -- 8:41AM, bawylie wrote:

The real question is: What do you expect TWF to do? Do you want a 2nd attack? How often? If so, damage should be adjusted relative to the frequency of use. If you get 2 attacks all the time, probably they should be half damage (advantage is 2 targets and/or 2 chances to Crit). Do you want a damage boost? If so, just treat TWF as fighting with a 2H weapon. Flat damage boost vs 2 separate attacks. Do you want awesome fighting style action? Then your off-hand weapon should determine what happens when you TWF. For example, if you have an off-hand flail, you might get an free disarm or trip check as part of your attack action. If an axe, you might get to ignore resistance on your attack. So, as a community, what do we want? To look cool? To do cool things? To attack twice sometimes? All times? What? Once we answer that, we can approach a solution. So far, I think we've been yelling "Not it!" Let's examine what "it" is.

I'd go for fighting style due to its versatility.

If you do go with the TWF awesome fighting style, you have to ensure that the off-hand weapon benefit is roughly equal to +1 AC or around 3-5 damage.

Got to be roughly balanced with other styles.

Essentially, using a 2-handed weapon is = to TWF for extra damage. And using sword & board is using TWF for extra AC. Therefore all off-hand benefits should be roughly equal to these benchmarks.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 7:20AM, Arithezoo wrote:

I feel there is certainly a way to make two-weapon fighting work, because it just comes down to math.

You have two base options:

1) Make two-weapon fighting available to everyone, with no cost.  In this case, it shouldn't be any better or worse than picking a different option, such as a two-handed weapon.

2) Make two-weapon fighting require a cost, such as a feat.  In this case, it should be better than other options, because you don't need a feat to use a two-handed weapon.

I like 1.  I don't see any real reason why fighting with two weapons would require a cost.

So now we just have to make it balanced.

I agree.

I like the packet 2 feat as default though.  1/2 damage * 2 attacks for everyone.

@mellored

That's fine, but I don't think it should cost a feat. The feat ought to offer some improvements to that baseline.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:15AM, bawylie wrote:

@mellored That's fine, but I don't think it should cost a feat. The feat ought to offer some improvements to that baseline.

That's what i ment.

2 attacks @ 1/2 damage as baseline.  Feats can expand on it, like +1 AC and you can act like you have a shield.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:01AM, Lawolf wrote:

I'm I the only one who liked two attacks at 1/2 damage? I think it doesn't even need to be a feat if you use light weapons. The feat can allow you to use 1 handed weapons and get a +1 shield bonus to AC while dual wielding.

I liked it too. The Packet2 TWF had its issues, but worked fine. I think that you mentioned some some nice aditions, but I'd like an option to be able to use two one-handed weapons (like, 2 scimitars, or two twin longswords). Maybe they could come up with a series of feats specific for TWF. I'm not talking about a chain of feats (this would be terrible!), but several different feats to suit different preferences. Maybe an entire specialty could fit this, or a fighting style.

 

Nov 7, 2012 -- 8:18AM, rampant wrote:

You know instead of making the shield an inherently inferior option what if we set it up so that the three styles have distinct advantages and disadvantages compared to each other?

There already are distinct advantages and disadvantages that are amongst the styles.

• Sword and Shield:

-Advantages: Bonus to AC. Able to protect adjacent allies. Cover (is that an official rule for them?).
-Disadvantages: DPR is low compared to 2-handed style. 

• Two-Handed Style:

-Advantages: Bonus to damage
-Disadvantages: Lower AC than Sword/Shield

• Two-Weapon Fighting:

-Advantages: Ability to attack two separate targets in 1-turn. Better percentage to trigger effects.
-Disadvantages: Lower AC than Sword/Shield (assuming no Two-Weapon Defense), lower DPR than 2-handed style. Limited Weapons (light only).  

Nov 7, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Diffan wrote:

• Two-Weapon Fighting:

-Advantages: Ability to attack two separate targets in 1-turn. Better percentage to trigger effects.
-Disadvantages: Lower AC than Sword/Shield (assuming no Two-Weapon Defense), lower DPR than 2-handed style. Limited Weapons (light only).  

Ability, yes. Likelihood, no. In melee, most dual-wield people (IRL) will attack often with the primary weapon and use the second weapon for defence against multiple opponents for the most part, and only occasionally target a second opponent with an attack only if the opportunity really presents itself. I think the base mechanics shouldn't take "two separate targets" as a commonality.

I'm sure someone has already posted this somewhere, but I did some number crunching. In case there is someone out there that isn't sure that two-weapon fighting (as presented in packet 3) is a horrible choice, I present the following math (Assume starting with 18 str, hit on a roll of 6, crit on a 20):

 

d12 Two-Hander (Fighter)
	hit	crit	hit + CS	crit + CS	DPR	DPR w/CS
Level 1	10.5	23.00	13.00	27.00	8.50	10.45
Level 5	10.5	30.00	17.50	42.00	8.85	14.35
Level 6 (2 attacks)	10.5	30.00	17.50	42.00	17.70	24.75
Level 10 (2 attacks)	11.5	38.00	28.00	68.00	19.90	36.69

d6 Two-Weapon (Fighter - Current)
	hit	crit	hit + CS	crit + CS	DPR	DPR w/CS
Level 1	3.5	13.00	6.00	17.00	3.99	6.01
Level 5	3.5	20.00	10.50	32.00	4.02	9.71
Level 6 (2 attacks)	3.5	20.00	10.50	32.00	8.04	14.83
Level 10 (2 attacks)	3.5	27.00	20.00	57.00	8.11	24.14

Where I included Combat Superiority, I assumed you spent all your dice, and you spent them as efficiently as possible (on a crit if any of your swings crit, on a hit otherwise). Also interesting to note, using my assumptions a two-hander will connect 75% of the time with one attack. After you pick up your second attack, you will connect at least once roughly 94% of the time. For a dual-wielder it starts at about 81% and jumps to about 96%.

Anyway, in summary, we are all correct. Dual-wielding, as presented is horrible. You do significantly less damage at every level (even less than a sword and board, actually), you lose the extra protection added by a shield, and you only have a marginally better hit rate. After level 6, even that virtually dissappears.

Basically, something needs to change.

Just for comparison here is same fighter using the dual-wielding rules from the 2nd packet:

d6 Two-Weapon (Fighter - 2nd packet)
	hit	crit	hit + CS	crit + CS	DPR	DPR w/CS
Level 1	3.75	8.50	6.25	12.50	6.10	8.59
Level 5	3.75	12.00	10.75	24.00	6.45	13.50
Level 6 (2 attacks)	3.75	12.00	10.75	24.00	12.90	20.80
Level 10 (2 attacks)	4.25	16.00	20.75	46.00	15.10	34.04

Here I am assuming that all damage is halved except damage from CS dice. Note that it is still a little behind the two-hander. It stays behind because the extra damage from a crit (6d6 at level 10) is still getting halved, slightly more than offsetting the advantage of critting more often.

That last option seems like the most balanced one we have seen so far, but it still isn't perfect. It is important to note that the numbers for my dual-wielding calculations are going to be a hair low because I assumed 2 x d6 weapons to make the math a little easier. I also think that is more realistic because it will mostly be high-dex warriors that choose to dual-wield. That said, if you were really trying to max damage you could use one d8 weapon and one d6 weapon.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 11:47AM, SteeleButterfly wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 11:34AM, Diffan wrote:

• Two-Weapon Fighting:

-Advantages: Ability to attack two separate targets in 1-turn. Better percentage to trigger effects.
-Disadvantages: Lower AC than Sword/Shield (assuming no Two-Weapon Defense), lower DPR than 2-handed style. Limited Weapons (light only).  

Ability, yes. Likelihood, no. In melee, most dual-wield people (IRL) will attack often with the primary weapon and use the second weapon for defence against multiple opponents for the most part, and only occasionally target a second opponent with an attack only if the opportunity really presents itself. I think the base mechanics shouldn't take "two separate targets" as a commonality.

You'd be absolutely correct, if D&D were attempting to simulate realism. But it doesn't and a majority (I'm guessing) are going to assume that wielding two-weapons means two attacks. In previous ediotns, this often meant higher DPR. In 5E, it's not the case and TWF should be comparable to the baseline of Sword and Board. TWF has beneits in situations and drawbacks in others, which I think is a good thing without out feats being taken into consideration.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:05PM, Teancum wrote:

I'm sure someone has already posted this somewhere, but I did some number crunching.

That last option seems like the most balanced one we have seen so far, but it still isn't perfect. It is important to note that the numbers for my dual-wielding calculations are going to be a hair low because I assumed 2 x d6 weapons to make the math a little easier. I also think that is more realistic because it will mostly be high-dex warriors that choose to dual-wield. That said, if you were really trying to max damage you could use one d8 weapon and one d6 weapon.

We don't actually want 2 weapon to do more damage then 2 handed.

It should be like diffan said.  2-weapon gives you more chances to trigger other things, and reduces overkill (2 dead kobolds > 1 really dead kobold).

I don't want it to do more damage either... but it seems like it should be comparable to the damage you get by using a 2-hander. That is the trade off for giving up a shield.

In my mind a 2-hander does more damage by hitting harder, 2-weapon does more damage by hitting more often. You could argue that even if it does the same damage (using a 1-hander as the baseline) that would be ok because you can attack two-creatures. I would be ok with that. I'm not ok with it being a universally worse choice, however. Right now it does less damage than a 1-hander... by a pretty wide margin at mid to high levels.

You do have the choice to spread the tiny bit of damage you do between two creatures though... 

Nov 7, 2012 -- 1:33PM, Teancum wrote:

I don't want it to do more damage either... but it seems like it should be comparable to the damage you get by using a 2-hander. That is the trade off for giving up a shield.

In my mind a 2-hander does more damage by hitting harder, 2-weapon does more damage by hitting more often. You could argue that even if it does the same damage (using a 1-hander as the baseline) that would be ok because you can attack two-creatures. I would be ok with that. I'm not ok with it being a universally worse choice, however. Right now it does less damage than a 1-hander... by a pretty wide margin at mid to high levels.

You do have the choice to spread the tiny bit of damage you do between two creatures though... 

I agree that now is bad.  I was talking about the packet 2 numbers.

Actually i think you should half the CS dice too.  Attacking 2 target's is a pretty big advantage all by itself, and you can always attack 1-handed if the situation warrents.  Or heck, item swaping is free, so just carry a 2-hander for when it's needed.

Right now TWF is just terrible altogether, lol. I don't think anyone would take that option other than the "Cool" factor. When the playtest packet #2 came out our gripes were that, for a feat, we became comparable to others without a feat. Other complaints aside (the requirement of light weapons, all damage halved, etc.) I think that TWF should be just slightly behind Two-handed style becuase TWF offers more versatilty. Halving all damage except expertise die (dumb name, BTW. Change it back to Combat Superiority WotC) seems like a decent fit that's just behind 2-handed style.

I have to say that if they do start making options for making TWF better than baseline, they need to do the same for shield users and 2-handed style as well. I'd like to see some maneuvers or feats that allow a shield user to throw his shield, trip people with his shield, and other Captain America stunts (without DM fiat, please) as well as 2-handed giving buffs to Bull Rush or Knocking back people or giving weapons "Brutal*" effect. 




*FYI: Brutal was a weapon property that had a number associated with it. Whenever the player  rolled for damage and that number came up (or was below the target number) the player could roll again until he rolled something higher. So in DDN, there might be a feat that allows a 2-handed style character to give his weapon Brutal 1 (rerolling all 1's on damage) or something like that.  

I ran the numbers with the CS dice halved... it brings it back down to about the level of packet 3. Not really a good option.

It is interesting to note that the damage came out almost exactly the same if you do 'no modifiers' instead of 'half damage.'  I think I might like that better. There could then be a feat that allows to you add half of your modifier to damage, or something similar. Anyway, just a thought.

For a baseline it seems to me that either 'attack once with each weapon, if you hit you do half damage (CS dice are not halved in this way)' or 'attack one with each weapon, if you hit you do weapon damage with no modifiers' would be pretty balanced.

I like some of the ideas here, but I think to a degree, everyone has forgotten about a few things. First I am sure that you guys are thinking of primarily fighters and rangers when you talk about making a balanced TWF system. Well you left one out. The monk (or even just a simple unarmed brawler fighter. How would you figure in unarmed TWF that the monk has done in the past (although he was actually doing unarmed multi-weapon fighting, but that's technicalities really) and still make it balanced. Keep in mind that unless they give the monk a similar treatment as they did in 3.X, having scaling unarmed damage (I doubt it) his damage will be naturally low. 

Also there are more than 3 fighting styles. Everyone here has assumed full hands for fighting while fighting in melee. Sword and board. Two-handed great-weapons. Two Weapon Fighting. What about what I refer to as Dueling? That is a single weapon in one hand and nothing in the off hand. Or what I refer to as Swashbuckling?  That is a single weapon with a light ranged weapon (throwing dagger, hand crossbow, powder pistol etc) in the off hand? I think all of these should be available as possible 'fighting styles' that are balanced as equal options.

I dont mind two-weapon fighting being generic to all classes, but I do not like the disadvantage portion (too many dice rolls). It would be better to keep it at half damage for all classes. The benefit for the rogue and fighter is the ability to use CS dice on either attack.

Or they could allow martial classes to do full damage on the first attack, but limit the second attack damage to the current CS dice value or weapon, whichever is lowest. The monk could be distinguished by raising the CS value for unarmed attacks.  

Nov 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, Phantymwolf wrote:

I like some of the ideas here, but I think to a degree, everyone has forgotten about a few things. First I am sure that you guys are thinking of primarily fighters and rangers when you talk about making a balanced TWF system. Well you left one out. The monk (or even just a simple unarmed brawler fighter. How would you figure in unarmed TWF that the monk has done in the past (although he was actually doing unarmed multi-weapon fighting, but that's technicalities really) and still make it balanced. Keep in mind that unless they give the monk a similar treatment as they did in 3.X, having scaling unarmed damage (I doubt it) his damage will be naturally low. 

That would probably fall under some Monk rules that supercede or work with TWF. The easiest way would be to allow Unarmed Monks treat their weapons as higher than normal (1d6 or 1d8) and light weapons for purposes related to weapons. But to be honest I have no idea how they're going to treat the Monk with D&D:Next. He could get Ki points, Expertise Die, Psionic features, etc based on how different each addition has approached the class.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, Phantymwolf wrote:

Also there are more than 3 fighting styles. Everyone here has assumed full hands for fighting while fighting in melee. Sword and board. Two-handed great-weapons. Two Weapon Fighting. What about what I refer to as Dueling? That is a single weapon in one hand and nothing in the off hand. Or what I refer to as Swashbuckling?  That is a single weapon with a light ranged weapon (throwing dagger, hand crossbow, powder pistol etc) in the off hand? I think all of these should be available as possible 'fighting styles' that are balanced as equal options.

I'm not really sure how they'll treat Single-use weapon users (Duelists, Swashbucklers, etc). In 4E such characters usually went with the Grappler-style fighter, using a person as a shield or throwing them to the ground or grabbing and pulling them into clusters for their friends to beat on. Additionally there is a lot of versatility that comes with a free hand which can hold a single-hand ranged weapon, flask of acid, throwing dagger, lantern/torch, fist full of dirt or flour, your cloak to be used as a shield or bluff your opponent, bag full of marbles or caltrops, a black egg, or thermal nuclear detonator. A lot of this would be much harder or impossible to pull off while wielding two weapons, a shield, or a two-handed weapons AND attack in the same turn.  

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:18PM, Diffan wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, Phantymwolf wrote:

I like some of the ideas here, but I think to a degree, everyone has forgotten about a few things. First I am sure that you guys are thinking of primarily fighters and rangers when you talk about making a balanced TWF system. Well you left one out. The monk (or even just a simple unarmed brawler fighter. How would you figure in unarmed TWF that the monk has done in the past (although he was actually doing unarmed multi-weapon fighting, but that's technicalities really) and still make it balanced. Keep in mind that unless they give the monk a similar treatment as they did in 3.X, having scaling unarmed damage (I doubt it) his damage will be naturally low. 

That would probably fall under some Monk rules that supercede or work with TWF. The easiest way would be to allow Unarmed Monks treat their weapons as higher than normal (1d6 or 1d8) and light weapons for purposes related to weapons. But to be honest I have no idea how they're going to treat the Monk with D&D:Next. He could get Ki points, Expertise Die, Psionic features, etc based on how different each addition has approached the class.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 6:17PM, Phantymwolf wrote:

Also there are more than 3 fighting styles. Everyone here has assumed full hands for fighting while fighting in melee. Sword and board. Two-handed great-weapons. Two Weapon Fighting. What about what I refer to as Dueling? That is a single weapon in one hand and nothing in the off hand. Or what I refer to as Swashbuckling?  That is a single weapon with a light ranged weapon (throwing dagger, hand crossbow, powder pistol etc) in the off hand? I think all of these should be available as possible 'fighting styles' that are balanced as equal options.

I'm not really sure how they'll treat Single-use weapon users (Duelists, Swashbucklers, etc). In 4E such characters usually went with the Grappler-style fighter, using a person as a shield or throwing them to the ground or grabbing and pulling them into clusters for their friends to beat on. Additionally there is a lot of versatility that comes with a free hand which can hold a single-hand ranged weapon, flask of acid, throwing dagger, lantern/torch, fist full of dirt or flour, your cloak to be used as a shield or bluff your opponent, bag full of marbles or caltrops, a black egg, or thermal nuclear detonator. A lot of this would be much harder or impossible to pull off while wielding two weapons, a shield, or a two-handed weapons AND attack in the same turn.  

I think a problem is that Two-weapon fighting is available for Rogues.

So then it has to be less good than sword and board or big 2 handed weapon, because if it's not then every Rogue will take it at no oppotunity cost. That is the Fighter is giving up either +1 AC or 2 points of average damage whilst the Rogue isn't.

This is also the problem with the Katana at present, as a Rogue can't use a shield anyway it is "just better" for them to use one rather than a short sword or rapier.

This could be solved by having a two weapon fighting feat that Fighters get for free, as they do shields and two handed martial weapons, so that they can be equivalent.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:19AM, Qmark wrote:

so long as it doesn't degenerate in the trap option (the trapiest of traps!) it was in 3E.

Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).

I still think that two-weapon fighting should do less total damage (if you hit twice) than a single hit from a heavy two-handed weapon.  As others have said, two-weapon fighting gives you the advantage of two chances to hit and the ability to attack two separate foes.

If people are worried about how this interacts with class proficiencies (such as the fact that rogues can't use heavy weapons, so using two weapons might seem like an obvious choice), just include two-weapon fighting capability within each class.

For example (and, as usual for me, this is off the top of my head):

Fighters can use any one-handed weapon in their off hand.  So a fighter could use two long swords.
Rogues can use any light weapon in their off hand.  So a rogue could use two short swords, or a rapier and dagger.

On the other hand, you can also use the design ethos I call, "Don't sweat the small stuff."  I thought of this in response to an above post that brought up the fact that a rogue has no reason to not use a katana, because it is better than a rapier or short sword.
Is this an issue?  I say no.  The difference is an average of 1 point of damage per attack.  We aren't talking ground breaking numbers here.  So those who are most interested in eeking every last bit of damage out of their character can use a katana, and those who care more about flavor can pick any weapon with the knowledge that they won't be doing much less damage anyway.

I was perfectly happy with the last "iteration" TWF.

For those who haven't seen it yet, TWF is addressed in this week's Q%A.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:48AM, LadyBlackwell wrote:

Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.

Nov 8, 2012 -- 5:25AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).

A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats.  You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 6:22PM, Qmark wrote:

Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).

A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats.  You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.

Heh I described CuCulaines Chariot Feat as a riding lawnmower.. heck its buildable as one maneuver.  Till the beginning of your next turn you do CS dice damage to all adjacent targets (animate or not) its a berserk move and can work while moving and hurts friends and enemies. Now how much should it cost. 

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:01AM, Lawolf wrote:

I'm I the only one who liked two attacks at 1/2 damage? I think it doesn't even need to be a feat if you use light weapons. The feat can allow you to use 1 handed weapons and get a +1 shield bonus to AC while dual wielding.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:17AM, mellored wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:15AM, bawylie wrote:

@mellored That's fine, but I don't think it should cost a feat. The feat ought to offer some improvements to that baseline.

That's what i ment.

2 attacks @ 1/2 damage as baseline.  Feats can expand on it, like +1 AC and you can act like you have a shield.

Agreed.  I liked it as well, as long as it wasn't a feat.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 6:22PM, Qmark wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 12:48AM, LadyBlackwell wrote:

Hey, now to be fair, at least soem of those TWF feats aren't completely, 100% worthless, just mostly worthless.

Nov 8, 2012 -- 5:25AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

Not at all, I tweaked out one of my player's barbarian/ranger focusing on TWF (all the Feats), total food processor (sick damage output per round).

A trap option doesn't necessarily have to be a bad option.
Going into TWF in 3.x will eat up all of your feats.  You'll come out of it a walking lawnmower, but it's still a trap.

That's the thing, if you wanted to be a high burst hitter as a Fighter, you picked a two handed weapon (usually a great sword) and had a select chain of feats to go through.  Power Attack and every single weapon + to hit and damage booster feat you could find.  Being the two handed Whack-A-Mole took as many feats as the Bionic Lawnmower Two Weapon Fighter, it's just that baseline the - 2 to hit was the penalty everyone looked at.

Every single Fighter trick build required and still requires a hyper focus into a single weapon/style set up.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 11:06PM, CVB wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:01AM, Lawolf wrote:

I'm I the only one who liked two attacks at 1/2 damage? I think it doesn't even need to be a feat if you use light weapons. The feat can allow you to use 1 handed weapons and get a +1 shield bonus to AC while dual wielding.

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:17AM, mellored wrote:

Nov 7, 2012 -- 9:15AM, bawylie wrote:

@mellored That's fine, but I don't think it should cost a feat. The feat ought to offer some improvements to that baseline.

That's what i ment.

2 attacks @ 1/2 damage as baseline.  Feats can expand on it, like +1 AC and you can act like you have a shield.

Agreed.  I liked it as well, as long as it wasn't a feat.

Double-agreed?
The 1/2 damage version - though with the feat cost removed - was totally acceptable.


On the topic of TWF, I've asked in another thread, but... do the playtest rules even describe what a "light weapon" is?  I can't even find the term used outside of the Two-Weapon Fighting entry.

Nov 9, 2012 -- 11:15PM, CVB wrote:

That's the thing, if you wanted to be a high burst hitter as a Fighter, you picked a two handed weapon (usually a great sword) and had a select chain of feats to go through.  Power Attack and every single weapon + to hit and damage booster feat you could find.  Being the two handed Whack-A-Mole took as many feats as the Bionic Lawnmower Two Weapon Fighter, it's just that baseline the - 2 to hit was the penalty everyone looked at.

Every single Fighter trick build required and still requires a hyper focus into a single weapon/style set up.

True in that edition. Every "style", from archer to reach attacher to THW warrior, required a hyper focus.

What about solving the problem with weapon sets instead of feats?

I.E. instead of "one handed weapons" and "two handed weapons," you have "one handed weapons," "two handed weapons," and "dual weapons."

This allows you to balance several things:

• dual wielding at the baseline are just as effective as other weapons

• dual wielding costs the same amount in gold and opportunity (you don't have to worry about one of your weapons falling far behind)

• eliminates risk of potentially overpowering combos by combining weapon characteristics

• dual wielding feats can be balanced against other weapon feats without concern for how they interact with every single weapon in the game

• dual wielding attacks can be balanced based on the baseline effectiveness of a specific set of weapons