Results 211 to 240 of 286
-
2017-07-24, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:
"drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)"
They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that."It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-24, 06:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
And it seems weird to me to credit Drow being in 5e to anything else at all. My experience is the VAST majority of drow fans that are my age or younger are that way because of Drizzt. Whereas only very aging grognards, older than me are that way because of anything other than Drizzt. And I'm middle aged and started on BECMI/AD&D 1e at 10 years old.
-
2017-07-24, 06:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
But that contradicts what we see from WotC.
If Driz't got drow into the players handbook in 5th ed, why weren't they in the player's hand book in 3rd and 4th edition?
If Driz't is the reason people like drow, why was there a 150 page splat book about drow that didn't mention Driz't? Why are there so many discussions on the forum that mention drow but not Driz't?
This isn't two different opinions neither one better than the other, the popularity you imagine Driz't having doesn't hold up to how he's been used in D&D. You even admitted the same number of people clone him, but the game has grown, implying a decrease in his relevance to the game.Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:01 PM.
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-24, 07:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
- Location
- Seattle
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
And I'm pointing out that just saying "It's theory" is an absolutely abysmal way to make any kind of compelling point. The L5R comparison was simply to point out that you can make any absurd case if you say another position is "just theory".
As others have already pointed out, if you are Citan want to provide any evidence that damage overflow is a common enough that you need to significantly lessen the DPR of TWF to make up for it be my guest. It's also a completely ad hoc excuse for poor design, and it clashes with other obvious examples of fighting styles. A pole arm fighter will do less damage then a GWM because they get to: Make more reliable reaction attacks, and get bonus action attacks. But the drop in DPR between them and GWM is smaller then the gap between TWF's and GWM's. In other words, there's no good reason for TWF to be as bad as it is.
That isn't to say you can't have fun using it. you can. That isn't to say you'll die horribly if you use it. you won't..... well DM dependent I guess. But for such an iconic view of a class, it should be much better then it currently is.
-
2017-07-24, 07:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
-
2017-07-24, 07:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
-
2017-07-24, 07:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Well, I did reference marketing trends and raised actual questions to demonstrate why I felt crediting Driz't was flawed, which tend to be considered more factual than "in my experience", which is all you offered, but hey, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter either way.
So it didn't need to list high-elves or halfling in the PHB, but it did.
And you're implying that somehow makes up for them not being in the players handbook?Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:11 PM.
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-24, 07:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
- Location
- United States
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Actually, there's a guy at my FLGS who constantly brings up Drizzt, to the confusion of most. At one point, he referenced Drizzt and when he got no response he asked if anyone had read the books. He got twelve blank stares.
Certainly, there are post-3.0 players who've read the books, but their popularity plummeted around that time, and it has little effect on the current player base.5e Bard's Guide
5e Fighter's Guide
5e Paladin's Guide
5e Ranger's Guide
5e Sorcerer's Guide
5e Warlock's Guide
Magic Items
Avatar by Honest Tiefling
-
2017-07-24, 07:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
-
2017-07-24, 07:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
But, it doesn't. It means drow are a significant race within D&D yes, but then Drows of the Underdark proved that half an edition ago (again, having proved it previous in an even further back edition). We already knew that.
That doesn't change the fact that they weren't in the players handbook. They could have been, effectively high elves and wood elves both were (as eldarin and elves respectively), but drow weren't. Upon release, they were in the monster manual with the other monsters.
Now in 5th edition they are in the player's handbook, and traditionally playable monsters like goblins and goliath got left out of core.
So something changed between 4th ed and 5th ed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Driz't, since as you said, he had already been around for a long time.Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 07:48 PM.
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-24, 07:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2004
- Location
- Maryland, USA
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Generally, TWF is fine, in the way that even 'deprecated' options in 5E are actually still quite competitive. 5E balance is sufficiently tight that, yes, some options are better than others, but the span between them isn't particularly vast.
That said, I think the problem with two-weapon fighting is the design space it's been assigned. For some reason, people (including the designers) seem to think that wielding two weapons is an offensive stratagem. And therefore, TWF is compared against great weapons, etc., and looks sad and lame.
But wielding two weapons should really be about flexibility. And the design of both the fighting style and the feat should mirror that. Benefits should revolve around not offering enemies advantage, flexibility in choosing a bit of extra defense or a bit of extra offense each round, things like that.
Then, like S&B, there would be an interesting and dramatic set of use-cases for dual-wielding beyond just 'more opportunities to stab'.He was born with a gift of laughter and the sense that the world was mad --Rafael Sabatini
-
2017-07-24, 08:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
-
2017-07-24, 08:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
It's (probably) not Drizt. They added tieflings to the player's handbook for 4th ed, and drow were in the monster manual. Those two races could just as easily have been reversed. Did they forget Driz't existed for 4th ed?
Furthermore, okay, let's say Driz't is ultimately responsible for making drow popular, that may very well be possible. But 3.5's drow of the underdark proved that they were marketable of a race without him, even if he was responsible for that popularity initially, it was now self sustaining.
Crediting Drizt for drow in 5th ed is crediting Gygax for 5th ed. We wouldn't have it without him, but it sounds a bit weird now.Last edited by Boci; 2017-07-24 at 08:11 PM.
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-24, 08:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Sounds like someone should start a new thread... talk about some obscure character has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
-
2017-07-24, 11:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Seeing as I never claimed that in the first place, no, I'm not providing math for it. Here's my actual claim:
1) The DPR model used for analysis is imperfect, and one of the imperfections is the way it doesn't take damage overflow into account.
That's not even slightly the same claim as:
2) The 5e designers deliberately reduced TWF to make it comparable to other options because of the way other options were weaker than they appear given the simple DPR model.
That second claim is a reasonable paraphrase of what you are saying I'm saying,
Again, I never claimed that TWF was up to par with other martial options. I claimed that the DPR model was simplified, put forth an edge case where it demonstrably breaks down, and then used that to indicate the difference between the argument that TWF gave options and the argument that just hitting for less damage gave options.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2017-07-24, 11:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2016
- Location
- SoCal
- Gender
-
2017-07-24, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2017
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Clearly, TWF is inferior by the numbers in nearly every case.
The real probably in my mind is this: in my imagination and TWF is usually gracefully cutting their way through the battlefield with parries and slashes as they step through multiple combatants. Mechanically, 5e TWF is especially bad for this type of character since by blocking your bonus action it makes your character LESS mobile. The whole thing with TWF is that it doesn't even outperform other builds when it comes to what I imagine a quick, lithe dual weilder to be like. It doesn't do more attacks than other builds, it doesn't make my character an untouchable blur, and it doesn't let me leap quickly around the room.
The rogue is the only serious dual wielder in this edition, and even then it competes with all of the rogue bonus actions!
TWF is terrible both mechanically and, for me, in the imagination space where hero archetypes exist.
-
2017-07-25, 04:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
You claimed TWF is in its current state due to "damage overflow":
You provided no mathematical backing and still provide none. My complicated DPR/KPR and even my forum math shows that your claim has no merit as PAM does more damage with the same number of attacks. There is nothing there that can be lost in the "DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game" claim.
You've made a claim that is not supported by even the simple math of the game.Last edited by Kryx; 2017-07-25 at 07:00 AM.
-
2017-07-25, 09:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Rangers, Animal Companions, TWF, and the popularity of Drizzt are all the same topic. That's the point.
(But yeah, we got pretty badly off topic.)
Yup. Not only can DPR analysis can involve a huge amount of unspoken assumptions to arrive at the final number. But it also overlooks less tangible benefits and downsides. The upside is it's a fixed calculable value.
That appeals to a certain analytical mindset, and certainly is useful for disproving incorrect claims, like (for example) a claim that TWF holds up for Fighters after level 11. The downside is people often overly focus on it as the only thing of importance, since other factors are either incalculable or less solidly a metric of comparison.
However I think it's fair to say that comparing TWF to any other fighting style, when Feat support and multiclassing are on the table, just generally doesn't stack up well. Even considering the totality of all factors, those with easy metrics and those without. Except for Rogues. Its especially egregious for single class Fighters, who have it as an available Fighting Style.
-
2017-07-25, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- France
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Hello,
I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?Que tous les anciens dieux et les nouveaux protègent la France.
Resistance Data in MM, Volo's, MToF. -- -- Petrocorus's 3.5 Paladin Builds List. -- -- French vs. EnglishOriginally Posted by King Louis XIII in The Musketeers
-
2017-07-25, 11:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-25, 11:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Boci has it right with this:
And the added context is that there is an argument that having more smaller attacks is better because they can minimize damage overflow, even if the overall damage dealt is smaller. There is a theoretical space where this is the case. Let's say there was no random rolls for hp or damage. All the enemies have 8 hp. Player A gets 2 attacks that do 7 each, for a total of 14. Player B gets 3 attacks for 4 each, for a total of 12. It takes each player 2 hits to drop an opponent. Against 3 opponents, Player A takes 3 rounds to do this, while Player B takes 2 rounds, even though his damage output is lower. The problem is that, in a lot of 5e, it is more like player A dealing 7 pts. 2x a round and Player B dealing 4 pts 3x a round against 4 opponents, each with 50 hp (those darn bags o' hp everyone keeps complaining about). So taking 8 strikes at 2/rnd or 13 strikes at 3/rnd, well it looks like the overall average damage becomes a greater factor than any loss through damage overflow.
So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.Last edited by Willie the Duck; 2017-07-25 at 01:33 PM. Reason: just formatting
-
2017-07-25, 12:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2014
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
The trouble with lots of smaller attacks is that TWF only gets one more attack than a great weapon, and that only some of the time due to GWM. The number of attacks equals that of PM, and PM can benefit from either Dueling or GWF to increase its damage.
In short, TWF only has that advantage in a featless game. And in that case, the smaller damage die means critical hits are considerably less impressive.Last edited by Easy_Lee; 2017-07-25 at 12:04 PM.
-
2017-07-25, 12:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Yeah, dual wielding is better against goblins and kobolds and other small beans, but after that brief window at low levels, its no longer applicable. You may overkill by more, but you'll also kill sooner. If the game had minions like in 4th ed, dual wielding might be more useful. Ironically enough, of the 3 editions I know of, 3.5, 4th and 5th, 4th ed, the ones whose mechanics most lent themselves towards giving dual weapon fighting a use, was the only one where wielding two weapons didn't give you an extra attack.
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-25, 12:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Euphonistan
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Except it would not work because by RAW right now assuming you use feats two weapon fighting does not get more attacks than GWF so it still does not have that niche. This is on top of the action economy issues and the less damage in general.
Remember damage overflow is really only pertinent if the dealing lesser damage is a trade for an advantage in some way. Getting more attack s could have been an advantage but the problem is that it does not actually get that advantage so in fact damage overflow is superfluous currently.
In 4e wielding two weapons did not natively give you an extra attack but it did open you up potentially to powers that gave multiple attacks that required two weapons (most famously twin strike) which were very powerful. However wasting your twin strike on minions would be usually a bad idea and it would be better to use controller type attacks (AOE) or defender (though the defender fighter two weapon at will dual strike was a decent choice to use on a minion but that was due to it being unable to attack only one target).A vestige for me "Pyro火gnus Friend of Meepo" by Zaydos.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...5&postcount=26
-
2017-07-25, 12:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Porto Alegre, Brazil
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
^This
A quick check at monsters and enemies stats will show those usually have lower AC and highter HP than players. So, in the end, the TWF isn't killing multiple enemies, even if those enemies were supposed to be low challenge. He is more likely hacking one enemy's HP slowly.
I'm of the opinion TWF needs a rewrite, period. It's a clearly inferior option no matter how you look at it. Basically everyone has a better use of bonus action than slashing aways for some 4 avg damage. Whatever you want to do, there is a fighting style that does it better. It's truly messed up.Spoiler: Current CharactersNicollo Corleone - The Scoundrel Malconvoker
Dante Levasseur - The Crimsom Inquisitor (avatar) and his Lumi cohort, Eveline Dawn now being followed by an old acquaintance, Aurora, the voice of Barachiel.
Minaerva - The Wild Caller from Rokiri Island.
Requiem Macabre Doc
-
2017-07-25, 12:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2017-07-25, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2015
- Location
- Vinland
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
-
2017-07-25, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2016
- Gender
Re: Why all the hate on dual wielding?
Maybe rewrite the feat to allowing a another attack everytime you hit with main hand, so say you had extra attack, you hit once with attack action, BA hit with other weapon, extra attack, then another other weapon attack. But still limit to light weapons, and you have to land the first attack to trigger a second attack?
Not sure what kind of problems something like this would create, but other options would include
-making twf more mobile
-making twf have a better defensive option
-a different way to make twf have more attacks or cost no BA.
Realistically we all know that twfing isn't very good, but this is fantasy so it should be good as anything else if not amazing. I don't play D&D to simulate reality, I play to be as bad*** as every twfer on screen (or book Entreri>Drizzt )
-
2017-07-25, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014