D&D (2024) Ranger 2024 is a bigger joke than Ranger 2014:

[Chaosmancer]

I mean sure, but I'd argue PCs that start as relative "commoners" are pretty normal?

People claim that, but realistically.... no, they really really are not "commoners"

• Your average wizard is tougher than a commoner.
• If you were to use point-buy comparisons, a commoner would have a point-but pool of 12 pts, compared to a PCs 27
• Skills are something commoners don't start with, but each skill represents a professional level capability. Even the least skilled PCs start with 4 skills. Add in armor and weapon proficiency, and most PCs would be elites.
• Most PCs have high wealth. The absolute CHEAPEST 2014 background and class combo (Monk Hermit) will have an average of 24.5 gold. That is a month's expenses for a modest lifestyle like a soldier. A poor person would be able to survive for about four months on that. One of the richest 1st level PC build (Acoylte Cleric) would have 191 gold, which for the average priest in a modest life style is over half a year's expenses.

I mean, the simple fact of the matter is a 1st level fighter can trivially fight off two common guards, and possibly a third.

Even 1st level PCs are more like displaced semi-elites or specialists, rather than commoners.

 

[Rocker26a]

People claim that, but realistically.... no, they really really are not "commoners"

"Relative commoners" in terms of knowledge and access, at the baseline. Mechanically it doesn't shake out that way, but they don't usually have much to draw on at the very start of a game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Compared to how 3.0/3.5 was penalizing anyone who used Two-Weapon Fighting without the feats, being at Disadvantage for fighting with your primary hand and your offhand isn't much of a penalty. Yes, you are put into the position of having to use the lower attack roll whenever you make an attack with either hand. But depending on the AC of your opponent, you can still hit something even with Disadvantage.

And compared to how 5e isn't penalizing your ability to hit at all... it is a pretty hefty penalty. I don't see how "but other editions gave bigger penalties" makes giving one here better, or why it helps your case that 5e "nerfed" the fighting style for you to point out that older editions had harsher penalties.

Okay. When I made my initial comment, I was focusing only on how Two-Weapon Fighting worked in 5e. Compared to 3e, Two-Weapon Fighting in 5e is a lot easier. It doesn't require feats to use.

So, when you said this.

If I was playing a Fighter with the Two-Weapon Fighting style, I would like it if they could do more offhand attacks with their bonus action as they leveled up. Anyone know why 5e nerfed this fighting style by giving more attacks to your primary hand and only one attack to your offhand?

You were focusing on how compared to 3e Two-Weapon Fighting is a lot easier and doesn't require feats, hence why it is nerfed? That sounds like a Buff to me, not a nerf.

When I started playing 5e three years ago, I decided to play a Dragonborn Fighter who had the Two-Weapon Fighting style. And to me, it initially looked okay. My character could make two attacks, one primary and one offhand. When my character gained Extra Attack, TWF was still okay in my book because he could make 3 attacks, two primary and one offhand. I wasn't even bothered by Action Surge because I was using the extra action from this feature to make breath weapon attacks. He would breathe on his opponent or opponents and then use TWF. However, as he approached 11th level, I didn't like the idea of him making three primary attacks and only one offhand attack. The number of attacks he could do with both hands looked rather lopsided to me at that level. So, I went looking around for a homebrewed feat that would fix this problem.

Today, I like how Level Up approaches TWF. If you are a Fighter in Level Up and you get Extra Attack at 5th level, you can use your Bonus Action to make two attacks with your offhand weapon. Fighters in Level Up have only two Extra Attacks, one at 5th level and one at 11th level. The Extra Attack at 20th Level was dropped in favor of a better capstone ability. So, an 11th-level Fighter with TWF can make up to five attacks, 3 primary and 2 offhand.

Sure, everyone would like to have fighter's making more attacks. But, I note your issue wasn't that TWF was nerfed, or that you weren't having fun with it... but that by level 11 you felt the number of attacks was "lopsided". Personally, as a DM I would have shrugged and been perfectly fine with you making two attacks with each weapon. That would have fixed your problem with it being lopsided.

Instead, you found a way to make 4 attacks at level 5 and 5 attacks at level 11... you 5e didn't nerf things compared to previous editions, you found a sizeable buff in a different game. Those two things are quite different.

 

[Chaosmancer]

"Relative commoners" in terms of knowledge and access, at the baseline. Mechanically it doesn't shake out that way, but they don't usually have much to draw on at the very start of a game.

Right, they don't have much knowledge or access in the early game... because people treat them like they would just be random commoners off the street. Even when one of them is a scion of a noble house, the other is a well-connected scholar, and the third a decorate war veteran.

Hence why I consistently push back on the perspective that PCs should be commoners, because... they really shouldn't always be treated that way.

 

[Rocker26a]

they really shouldn't always be treated that way.

Not always of course, I'm just kinda thinking about the median. Your average PC can't wander into the room next door to the one they started the campaign in, and summon a Fiend for a quick pact. Or hop on over to their artificer buddy's workshop, and procure a repeating firearm at a mate's rates. That sorta thing.
If they can do one of those things/something similar, that's likely the main thing they've got going for them.

 

[Scott Christian]

Have you role-played a martial with this fighting style?

I did. Eight levels of fighter, four levels of barbarian, and four levels of cleric. The multi-class pieces were purely for RP story reasons, but I can tell you the eight levels of fighter (Champion), with the class ability Two-Weapon Fighting and the feat Dual Wielder (AC bump and longswords) worked well together. Stack that with Improved Critical, Orcish Fury, and Savage Attack and he was solid. And don't even get me started on the Tough feat he took along with Totem of the Bear. By 13th level, it took almost 300 points of damage to drop him in a rage and he attacked three times a round with magical longswords, one that dealt an extra d10 poison. He did fine.

The comparisons will always come along, and they existed at our table. Could he out damage the paladin? No. Unless we had two or three or four encounters, then all of a sudden he dealt more. It is a game of give-and-take. I was fine with it. He might have been one of the strongest characters I've ever made. (Except those last four levels of cleric, which did nothing to enhance his power, but RP wise, it was very necessary.)

 

[WanderingMystic]

Dual welding only used to fall off if you are a fighter of 11th level or higher. Now with the cleave property I think that those will definitely outpace your dual welder.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Not always of course, I'm just kinda thinking about the median. Your average PC can't wander into the room next door to the one they started the campaign in, and summon a Fiend for a quick pact. Or hop on over to their artificer buddy's workshop, and procure a repeating firearm at a mate's rates. That sorta thing.
If they can do one of those things/something similar, that's likely the main thing they've got going for them.

My 20th level champion fighter can't really go into a room and summon a fiend either. So your argument isn't making a lot of sense.

 

[ECMO3]

Right, hence the whole "5e isn't a nerf" part. Because WITHOUT taking multiple feats, everyone can do it far easier. I don't particularly see "we could do it with large penalties that we could then spend resources getting rid of" as a superior version.

5E TWF is far superior to the original 1978 TWF. It is certainly not a nerf from a historical perspective.

The original TWF from memory was a hand axe or dagger only in the off hand, 1 attack only with it and only as part of your declared melee attack (actions were not a thing). You got a -2 to hit with the main hand and a -4 to hit with the off hand. This penalty reduced by 1 point for each point of dexterity above 14. So with an 18 you were at 0/0. Also there was no weapon finesse, so you were using your strength for all melee attack and damage bonuses, so you had to have a Unicord with a high strength and high dexterity to do this well.

In the 1980s Drow PCs (and only Drow PCs) got the hand axe or dagger only requirement waived and got no penalties. This made Female Drow Clerics wielding two flails the best martial melee build up until level 6.

That is the baseline for Two Weapon Fighting. I could have a few details wrong because it was from memory, but 5E is a pretty big buff compared to where we were.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Dual welding only used to fall off if you are a fighter of 11th level or higher. Now with the cleave property I think that those will definitely outpace your dual welder.

Eh, the only reason that happens is because of Feat support.

The best two fighter builds were Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter and Polearm Master + Great Weapon Master, because in both cases you got a bonus action attack (raising you to 4 or 5 attacks) and a +10 to damage. Meanwhile, in 2014, the best a dual-wielder could do is a bonus action attack with a slightly larger weapon giving a +1 to their damage. Strip that away...

11th level Greatsword fighter, no feats or masteries, --> 6d6+15 --> 36
11th level Shortsword Fighter, no feats or masteries, --> 4d6+20 --> 34

And it is REALLY close. Problem is, that there is a feat to increase the Greatsword damage, on top of the charger feat which can be used by all fighters, or you could go polearm and get those two feats plus Polearm mastery... and the Dual-Wielding fighter just doesn't have anything comparable, other than getting Charger like the other fighters.

This isn't to say they don't have good builds, I'm sure charger+mobile+Resilient Wis makes for a fine fighter, but you just are never going to be dealing as much damage as the fighter with three feats dedicated to improving their damage. And now that Sharpshooter seems to no longer increase damage, it is going to be the Polearm master with the highest damage output most of the time.