Homebrew: Two-Weapon Fighting

[Celen Joad]

I have recently typed up my Gaming Group's homebrew Two-Weapon Fighting rules onto the D&D Wiki. We came up with the rule on the fly, as we wanted to use both weapons at once, such as in 3.5 edition.

I was hoping for some outside observers' thoughts on the rule:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Two_Weapon_Fighting_%284e_Variant_Rule%29

Quick Reference:

You need the Two Weapon Fighting Feat before you can use Two Weapon Fighting.
You may use Two-Weapon Fighting as a basic melee attack.
You must choose either your Main Hand or Off Hand Weapon to use with powers that call for a weapon.
You have a -2 Penalty to Attack Rolls when fighting with two weapons.
You have a penalty to your AC equal to half your Off Hand's weapon's weight in lbs.
Damage dealt by your Off Hand weapon is downgraded a size class.
You cannot use the Polearm or Staff weapon groups in your Main Hand.
You cannot use the Mace, Polearm or Staff weapon groups in your Off Hand unless they are Versatile or Off-Hand. You cannot use Heavy Blade weapons in your Off-Hand in any circumstance.

[Reluctance]

"Half the weapon's weight in pounds" is a very clunky construction. Encumbrance is sequestered from the rest of the rules, this sounds "realism" based over balance-based. Especially when you consider that most of the benefit of multiattacking comes from static mods, and go for a simple 1lb. dagger.

There are already rules for attacking with two weapons at the same time. Twin Strike and similar powers. Which, FYI, are crazy good. I can't quite tell if -2 to hit in exchange for Str bonus to damage is worth it over TS. I do know that it's better than most striker At-Wills.

[NecroRebel]

Downgrading the size class of a weapon is a very clunky way of going about it, and will usually be only -1 damage anyway. Why not just give it a -1 damage penalty? It works out to the same thing, without using a rule that's practically nonexistent in 4e.

If the penalty to attack is just when making your two-weapon basic melee attack (which should probably be melee basic attack for consistency with other basic attacks' names), why not build it into the actual power instead of your variant rule? The same is true of the requirement to have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat.

As Reluctance says, the rule for the off-hand AC penalty is badly-done. Choosing a good median value is going to be better; probably -4. Design philosophy for 4e is such that permanent penalties shouldn't be given out, however, so actually giving one is out of place in the system.

Overall, this is a poorly-executed fix for a problem that doesn't exist; you can fight with two weapons at the same time perfectly well using the Ranger or Fighter classes or the half-elf race.

[Celen Joad]

I agree on all points; it was hardly the perfect system, or even a good system at any point. The problem arose from the fact that our group wanted Two-Weapon fighting, and they wanted it 'Like 3.5e'. Naturally, this throws a metaphorical wrench into the 4e Game Mechanics.

Having since taken over as the DM of our group, I've been looking over our old DM's homebrew; throwing away what was unneccesary and keeping what was good.

Suffice to say; I've thrown away more than I've kept. Considering that he made this up on the spot to satate our Power Gamer, I'm not suprised it's as clunky as it is.

That's why I put it onto the D&D wiki, in an attempt to clean out its bugs. Should I give up on it, or is it salvageable?

[Reluctance]

This is only slightly less brainfarty than your idea, but allowing a -4 to hit (-2 for Off-Hand weapons) to allow the second weapon's |w| and magic bonus to apply on a MBA might work if what they really want is 3.5 nostalgia. The key point being that they can't double up on attack rolls and damage mods. It's another boost for chargers, but I don't know that players who want 3.5 nostalgia will have kept up on all the ways to stack abilities and make charging good.

If they want it because they know that multiple attacks are just that good, there really isn't much you can do. Then again, if they really knew how to break the game, they'd stop asking and instead play rangers. Hope that the "it's kinda like Power Attack" option is enough of a distraction.

[Ashdate]

I echo what most have said here. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; too many things have changed in between the versions.

If you must shoe-horn it in, I recommend doing what NecroRebel suggested and making it a power. Use the Fighter's "Dual Strike" or the Ranger's "Twin Strike" as a base, but lower it in power such that their versions are superior. Follow the normal rules for two-weapon fighting as per the PHB (i.e. that the weapon in your main hand must be one-handed, and the weapon in your off-hand must be light) For example:


Two-Weapon Strike (at will)
Requires two melee weapons
Attack: strength versus AC - 2 (main weapon and off-hand), two attacks
Hit: 3 damage per attack (increase to 1[W] + 3 damage at level 21).

And don't make it usable as a melee-basic attack (using two-weapons at once for opportunity attacks and charging, to my recollection, was never a thing in 3.5 without some sacrifice). If they complain that it's "too weak", point out how the actual "dual strike" power is considered the most powerful at-will ability in the game!

[Tegu8788]

Two-Weapon Strike (at will)
Requires two melee weapons
Attack: strength - 2 versus AC (main weapon and off-hand), two attacks
Hit: 3 damage per attack (increase to 1[W] + 3 damage at level 21).

And don't make it usable as a melee-basic attack (using two-weapons at once for opportunity attacks and charging, to my recollection, was never a thing in 3.5 without some sacrifice). If they complain that it's "too weak", point out how the actual "dual strike" power is considered the most powerful at-will ability in the game!

I think that's what you meant. Otherwise, it's even more powerful.

[Celen Joad]

It's another boost for chargers, but I don't know that players who want 3.5 nostalgia will have kept up on all the ways to stack abilities and make charging good. If they want it because they know that multiple attacks are just that good, there really isn't much you can do.

Luckily our Power Gamer is also not much of a rules buff. But yes, they prefer to keep to what they know, and we're a pretty relaxed group. No one's trying to min-max here. (Heck, even P.G just goes for the most damage stated, doesn't even think up strategy.)


I echo what most have said here. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole; too many things have changed in between the versions.

If they complain that it's "too weak", point out how the actual "dual strike" power is considered the most powerful at-will ability in the game!

Players; it's a love-hate relationship. :smallamused:

Of the suggestions here, they do seem better than our old one. I'll introduce it next session and see how they react.

Otherwise I'll just tell them to deal with it. :smalltongue:

[TheKoalaNxtDoor]

What class is the person wanting to use two weapons? Because their are already plenty of classes that have two-weapon builds. Barbarian, fighter & rangers do it, rogues can use a dagger+handcrossbow combo (gets awesome if your a drow) and i'm pretty sure that there's an essentials character that does it as well. The scout, beleive?