|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
What are these awesome bonus actions that you are consistently losing your offhand attack to? [...]
Shove is useful in a few narrow cases when you find yourself on a ledge.
When people keep alluding to these bonus actions that other classes "need," what are they talking about? It's not bonus actions that other classes "need," but bonus actions that all/some classes "have." E.g., Drinking potions, shove (many fights involve ledges), Hide, possibly special weapon attacks, and then class-specific abilities. These - including the benefits of increased MH/2H damage, the freed up Fighting Style and Feat/ASI, and/or the higher AC from using a shield - are often better options than speccing into dual wielding and using that BA for an off-hand attack. However, one thing that I haven't seen mentioned (admittedly I've only skimmed this thread) is that in BG3, you can BA off-hand attack without making the MH attack (I think). This change by itself makes dual wielding more powerful than in 5e RAW. And as others have said, the plethora of magic weapons also makes dual wielding more powerful than 5e RAW.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
Can you refute my points with counterpoints that aren't just assertions saying you're right and I'm wrong? This pretty much sums it up. I'm not going to debate every single line of text in a long post with a counterargument to everything just to "win" in a thread. Many of your arguments you use to try to shut down a poster don't hold water. "Shove isn't OP because Pushing Attack is better" - you compare a universal Bonus Action with a specific class ability that has limited uses. Or "drinking potions isn't needed because you can have a Cleric in the party" - completely irrelevant what another character can do to influence the fight, otherwise you have to consider the Wizard as well who can fireball the entire encounter so you don't have to make any BA decisions. Going over every detail with neverending arguments like these isn't appealing. I was trying to get a discussion going on a fighting style that is considered inferior in 5e by the D&D community, which was further made less appealing by Larian's new homebrew Bonus Actions of which I mentioned 3 examples. I hope that could happen without degenerating into "you're completely wrong, I proved it!".
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Jan 2022
|
I have no idea where I lost so many people, as I didn't even say anything bad about BG3 here. This has been a major issue for all of 5e, so by adaption, the flaw will come up here as well. Many issues will become a lot more apparent at higher level, as more classes gain their bonus action class features or spells that take up bonus actions.
You can build around dual wielding, especially with a class that doesn't get BAs, and especially if you multiclass, but most of the time other Feats or Fighting Styles will scale better. Im not talking in terms of the game currently, Im speaking from my 5e experience. Another factor is that some fights won't last long enough to get to those BAs.
One thing to offset this, that I will give Larian, is the extra BAs you can get, which can very much help a dual wield build, but could also lead to them becoming broken. A demonstration will be a dual wielding Ranger/Rogue. At level 7, 3 Rogue/4 Ranger, you can set up a BA Hunters mark then attack with two rapiers for 2d8+3d6+Prof+Dex. Next turn, 3d8+5d6+Dex+Prof. This can become hilarious if Vengeance Paladin gets in as they can Channel Divin bonus action to get advantage on all attacks and get hunters mark. So lets replace ranger with vengeance paladin in the example.
Turn 2, with lvl 3 rogue,lvl 5 Paladin. You can do 4d8 (rapiers) + 6d6 (sneak attack plus hunters mark) + 8d8 (smites). All at Advantage.
Now this all seems really good, but notice how its all optimized planning. Most people will not multiclass their first time around. So they must decide between a feat that takes up a bonus action (which their class may take up later) or a +2 to an ability score, or better feat. Also, most battles will end before that dual wielding BA will become available if they do not have two BAs. Its just simple action economy which will lead to Dual Wielding being a bad to ok choice, or if optimized, completely broken.
Last edited by DraigoZarovich; 22/02/22 04:49 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
Here's some math. All damage-per-round calculations done assuming 70% to hit, except for cases where a feat is chosen instead of an ASI (65%), or when using GWM (40%). MH=Main Hand, Off-H = Off-Hand, 2H = Two-Handing. Level 2 fighter options: -TWF Fighting Style with two shortswords ------ 1d6+3 MH, 1d6+3 Off-H, AC 16 (Chain Mail) - DPR 70% hit = 9.1 -Dueling Fighting Style with longsword+shield:- 1d8+5 MH, AC 18 - DPR = 6.7 -Defense Fighting Style with longsword+shield: 1d8+3 MH, AC 19 - DPR = 5.3 -Defense Fighting Style with greatsword: ------- 2d6+3 2H, AC 17 - DPR = 7 -Dueling Fighting Style with greatsword: ------- 2d6+5 2H, AC 16 - DPR = 8.4 In future analysis I'll be assuming all non-dual wielders take the Dueling FS for simplicity Verdict: Dual wielders do more DPR at the cost of AC. Relatively balanced. Roughly 1 less AC -> 1.1 more damage per round. HOWEVER, this requires them to use their BA. So other fighters can shove/potion/etc for free while Dual Wielders will sacrifice 4.5 DPR to do so. Level 4 fighter options: -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 9.75 (only 65% to hit) -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH, AC 18 - DPR = 7.4 -Greatsworder who increased Str+2: ---------- 2d6+6 MH, AC 16 - DPR = 9.1 -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 8.4 (plus occasional extra damage from BA attack; let's say 20% of the time you can make an extra attack -> extra 1.4 DPR) Verdict: The Dual Wielder is comparable to the Sword&Boarder, but has more AC than the GWM fighter, and has both more AC and DPR compared to the non GWM-greatsworder. Dual Wielder > Greatsworder. However, again, dual wielders must sacrifice their off-h attack (losing 4.9 DPR) to use a different BA, where other fighters get a free BA most turns. Level 5 fighters with Extra Attack: -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH x2, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 14.6 (only 65% to hit) -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH x2, AC 18 - DPR = 14.7 -Greatsworder who increased Str+2: ---------- 2d6+6 MH x2, AC 16 - DPR = 18.2 -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH x2 at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 16.8 (extra damage 30% of the time because with 2 attacks you're more likely to kill an enemy -> extra 2.1 DPR) Verdict: In every single case, dual wielders do less DPR. Either they do ~similar DPR but have 1 less AC, or in exchange for 1 more AC than greatsword wielders, they do ~4-5 less DPR (instead of the ~1 DPR per AC in previous levels). So now Dual Wielders do less total damage AND must sacrifice even more DPR to use a different bonus action - drink a potion, shove, hide, etc. This ^ trend only gets worse at level 11 when fighters get their third attack. *This analysis does not include magic items, doing this with a rogue (sneak attack changes things significantly) or other classes, dipping, hunter's mark, the effects of frequent Advantage or Disadvantage, and possibly more.
Last edited by mrfuji3; 22/02/22 05:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Jan 2022
|
Here's some math. All damage-per-round calculations done assuming 70% to hit, except for cases where a feat is chosen instead of an ASI (65%), or when using GWM (40%). MH=Main Hand, Off-H = Off-Hand, 2H = Two-Handing. Level 2 fighter options: -TWF Fighting Style with two shortswords ------ 1d6+3 MH, 1d6+3 Off-H, AC 16 (Chain Mail) - DPR 70% hit = 9.1 -Dueling Fighting Style with longsword+shield:- 1d8+5 MH, AC 18 - DPR = 6.7 -Defense Fighting Style with longsword+shield: 1d8+3 MH, AC 19 - DPR = 5.3 -Defense Fighting Style with greatsword: ------- 2d6+3 2H, AC 17 - DPR = 7 -Dueling Fighting Style with greatsword: ------- 2d6+5 2H, AC 16 - DPR = 8.4 In future analysis I'll be assuming all non-dual wielders take the Dueling FS for simplicity Verdict: Dual wielders do more DPR at the cost of AC. Relatively balanced. Roughly 1 less AC -> 1.1 more damage per round. HOWEVER, this requires them to use their BA. So other fighters can shove/potion/etc for free while Dual Wielders will sacrifice 4.5 DPR to do so. Level 4 fighter options: -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 9.75 (only 65% to hit) -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH, AC 18 - DPR = 7.4 -Greatsworder who increased Str+2: ---------- 2d6+6 MH, AC 16 - DPR = 9.1 -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 8.4 (plus occasional extra damage from BA attack; let's say 20% of the time you can make an extra attack -> extra 1.4 DPR) Verdict: The Dual Wielder is comparable to the Sword&Boarder, but has more AC than the GWM fighter, and has both more AC and DPR compared to the non GWM-greatsworder. Dual Wielder > Greatsworder. However, again, dual wielders must sacrifice their off-h attack (losing 4.9 DPR) to use a different BA, where other fighters get a free BA most turns. Level 5 fighters with Extra Attack: -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH x2, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 14.6 (only 65% to hit) -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH x2, AC 18 - DPR = 14.7 -Greatsworder who increased Str+2: ---------- 2d6+6 MH x2, AC 16 - DPR = 18.2 -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH x2 at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 16.8 (extra damage 30% of the time because with 2 attacks you're more likely to kill an enemy -> extra 2.1 DPR) Verdict: In every single case, dual wielders do less DPR. Either they do ~similar DPR but have 1 less AC, or in exchange for 1 more AC than greatsword wielders, they do ~4-5 less DPR (instead of the ~1 DPR per AC in previous levels). So now Dual Wielders do less total damage AND must sacrifice even more DPR to use a different bonus action - drink a potion, shove, hide, etc. This ^ trend only gets worse at level 11 when fighters get their third attack. *This analysis does not include magic items, doing this with a rogue (sneak attack changes things significantly) or other classes, dipping, hunter's mark, the effects of frequent Advantage or Disadvantage, and possibly more. Awesome calculations. The basic take away from all of this should be, yes, you can optimize dual wielding, but you have to truly plan around it and can't really just do it on a whim.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
Thanks for the math!
I wonder if dual wielding would be better if you would separate it from Bonus Action entirely. Give a free off-hand attack but also a -2 attack penalty for both hands, like in previous editions. I think that would be much easier to balance than if items give you extra attacks and more fun since then you wouldn't have to trade the off-hand attack for other Bonus Actions. Since Larian homebrew seems to be going for players always using that Bonus Action for something, it would probably work a lot better in the grand scheme of things.
I would also experiment with giving an extra off-hand attack with extra attack and see if that -2 would be enough to keep it in check. The power builds would be a big problem though.
Last edited by 1varangian; 22/02/22 06:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Jan 2022
|
Thanks for the math!
I wonder if dual wielding would be better if you would separate it from Bonus Action entirely. Give a free off-hand attack but also a -2 attack penalty for both hands, like in previous editions. I think that would be much easier to balance than if items give you extra attacks and more fun since then you wouldn't have to trade the off-hand attack for other Bonus Actions. Since Larian homebrew seems to be going for players always using that Bonus Action for something, it would probably work a lot better in the grand scheme of things.
I would also experiment with giving an extra off-hand attack with extra attack and see if that -2 would be enough to keep it in check. The power builds would be a big problem though. +1. I think this would be a fine balance to make it fun and also not break it entirely.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
I wonder if dual wielding would be better if you would separate it from Bonus Action entirely. Give a free off-hand attack but also a -2 attack penalty for both hands, like in previous editions.
I would also experiment with giving an extra off-hand attack with extra attack and see if that -2 would be enough to keep it in check. The power builds would be a big problem though. Oh boy you're going to make me do more math to measure the effects on DPR of this -2 to-hit, aren't you? :P Leve 4 Fighters in this new "-2 to hit dual wielding" system -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH, AC 18 - DPR = 7.4 (70% to hit) -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 8.4 (+1.4) -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 8.25 (only 55% to hit, but no BA cost) -NO Dual Wielder Feat with two shortswords: 1d6+4 MH, 1d6+4 Off-H, AC 16 - DPR = 9 (only 60% to hit, no BA cost)
We still see that 1 less AC converts to ~1 DPR. But now Dual Wielders have a free bonus action! Perfectly BalancedLeve 5 Fighters in this new "-2 to hit dual wielding" system -Sword and Board who increased Str+2: ------ 1d8+6 MH x2, AC 18 - DPR = 14.7 -Greatsworder who took and uses GWM: ----- 2d6+14 MH x2 at a -5 to-hit, AC 16 - DPR = 16.8 (+2.1) -Dual Wielder Feat with two longswords: ---- 1d8+3 MH x2, 1d8+3 Off-H, AC 17 - DPR = 12.4 (only 55% to hit, no BA cost) -NO Dual Wielder Feat with two shortswords: 1d6+4 MH x2, 1d6+4 Off-H, AC 16 - DPR = 13.5 (only 60% to hit, no BA cost)
-Longsword Dual Wielder + extra off-hand att: 1d8+3 MH x2, 1d8+3 Off-H x2, AC 17 - DPR = 16.5 (only 55% to hit, no BA cost) -Shortsword Dual Wielder+ extra off-hand att: 1d6+4 MH x2, 1d6+4 Off-H x2, AC 16 - DPR = 18 (only 60% to hit, no BA cost)
Sword&Boarder deals more DPR and has higher AC than the Dual Wielder, regardless of whether the feat is taken or STR is increased. To recover the "1 less AC converts to ~1 DPR" trend, both variations of the dual wielder need +3-5 DPR (or +2 AC) for levels 5-10. Your solution to give the extra off-hand attack works ~perfectly. I presume that 5e turned this free off-hand attack into a bonus action for the same reason as most of its design decisions - to simplify things especially combat. They didn't want numerical penalties to rolls, and ^ also limits the # of actions someone can take in a turn. But as I oft repeat, since BG3 is a videogame that automatically performs all calculations, it can and should add back in some complexity.
Last edited by mrfuji3; 22/02/22 08:52 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Aug 2014
|
Thanks for that mrfuji. Larian can do the rest of the math, they get paid for it. :P It seems dual wielding would sit rather nicely between two handed weapons and sword&board. And getting to use a Bonus Action like other fighting styles do seems only fair and balanced. I hope the next edition of D&D will bring a bit more complexity back and fix this among other things. I mean if people could handle 3.5e, they can handle 5.5e being slightly more complex than 5e where it can improve the game. And work better as a video game.
Last edited by 1varangian; 22/02/22 09:13 PM.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
Not a TT player so my only experience with 5e is playing video games (Solasta and BG3) and reading the rules.
About the berzerker, he's definitely very powerfull. Not sure why but the bonus action attack seems to also have an advantage if you use the reckless attack first. I guess it's not how it works in 5e but if I remember well, I always have the same %to hit in BG3. On top of that as Niara's said, there's no exhaustion or trade off to his rage. TBH as implemented now the other subclasses looks suboptimal and aren't very appealing to me (except for a very relative "fun" - jumping down on ennemies may be fun a few times but I won't ever build a character arround that).
About the other classes... I don't really see a problem with dual wielding. It may be a little bit less powerfull as mrfuji's calculation shows but I don't think it's a problem. There's something between totally overpowered and totally suboptimal mechanics. I think dualwielding is more or less in the middle and I could definitely choose to create a dual wielder fighter, ranger or rogue because I like it and because you can create a good build even if not "the best" (probably not a barbarian because it really looks suboptimal).
I'm definitely with 1varangian about overpowered mechanics but I don't think the dualwielding mechanic is a problem itself.
|
|
|
|
apprentice
|
apprentice
Joined: Jan 2022
|
Not a TT player so my only experience with 5e is playing video games (Solasta and BG3) and reading the rules.
About the berzerker, he's definitely very powerfull. Not sure why but the bonus action attack seems to also have an advantage if you use the reckless attack first. I guess it's not how it works in 5e but if I remember well, I always have the same %to hit in BG3. On top of that as Niara's said, there's no exhaustion or trade off to his rage. TBH as implemented now the other subclasses looks suboptimal and aren't very appealing to me (except for a very relative "fun" - jumping down on ennemies may be fun a few times but I won't ever build a character arround that).
About the other classes... I don't really see a problem with dual wielding. It may be a little bit less powerfull as mrfuji's calculation shows but I don't think it's a problem. There's something between totally overpowered and totally suboptimal mechanics. I think dualwielding is more or less in the middle and I could definitely choose to create a dual wielder fighter, ranger or rogue because I like it and because you can create a good build even if not "the best" (probably not a barbarian because it really looks suboptimal).
I'm definitely with 1varangian about overpowered mechanics but I don't think the dualwielding mechanic is a problem itself. If you want an optimal build, you can scroll up to my major post. I do hope that Larian uses those new calculations, as I know I will be implementing them at my table.
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Not sure why but the bonus action attack seems to also have an advantage if you use the reckless attack first. I guess it's not how it works in 5e but if I remember well, I always have the same %to hit in BG3. Just a quick clarification: Yes, Reckless Attack gives you advantage on *All* attacks you make on your turn using strength (So if you use a finesse weapon you must use your strength modifier anyway to benefit from it); if using reckless attack first is giving advantage to all subsequent attacks you make on your turn, then that is actually correct. Giving *everyone* advantage against you in return is a substantial cost. It may be worth checking that opportunity attacks you take on your turn also benefit from reckless, if you've made a reckless attack, but that opportunity attacks you make outside of your turn do not. I'm too cynical at this point to have faith that they've gotten that correct, but it's worth checking.
|
|
|
|
|