TWF rules in general

[Z3ro]

So, over in the dual wielding crossbow thread, an interprutation of the TWF rules came up, and i wanted to see how many people are planning on ruling this way.

Essentially, it boils down to thus: do the TWF rules apply in any context where you are wielding two weapons?

Now obviously, if you have, say, two short swords, the rules apply. But there are currently three corner case where you can fight with two different weapons: specifically, crossbow expert, polearm master (sort of), and the monk's bonus attack.

The biggest relevant issue to me would be do you get your stat modifier on damage, but other issues (like the crossbow expert discussion) make it important to understand if TWF is a specific action, or a general rule whenever a character wields two weapons.

My reaction, at this point, is that it's a specific action, and the cases listed are complete and seperate from it, but I'm curious what others think.

[Symphony]

The rule specifies light melee weapons. My opinion is that the TWF rules apply only in this case unless otherwise noted (as in the Dual Wielder feat).

[Stan]

It also mentions if either weapon can be thrown, that can done instead. You could take that to mean either or both - "either" is vague. I'm not sure if that's RAI but I'd allow it as it gives another playable style and I don't think it's going to be overpowered.

At first I thought, "Wow, anyone can twf without feats now." and thought it would become almost normal. But the fact that takes up the bonus action means that it will have some utility but will be nigh useless for many builds.

[Mr.Moron]

Essentially, it boils down to thus: do the TWF rules apply in any context where you are wielding two weapons?

No. They apply to one (and exactly one) situation. 2x light melee weapons.

I think they may be useful as guidelines for making sensible interpretations and rulings in other situations. As always sensible interpretations and rulings taking precedence over RAW.

[Xetheral]

Due to their structure and wording, I'm of the opinion that the rules on page 195 simply outline the trigger conditions ("take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon held in one hand") necessary to gain a specific bonus action attack subject to certain restrictions ("attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand") and limitations ("You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.")

Thus, I interpret these rules to only apply when a character is trying to take advantage of the specific bonus action detailed therein. All other abilities that allow one to take a bonus action attack are unaffected, regardless of how many weapons they involve.

[Shadow]

The TWF rules explain exactly when you are allowed to attack with two different weapons on the same turn in such a manner as to gain a bonus action attack with the secondary weapon only.

My interpretations of your specific questions:

Monk: The Martial Arts bonus action attack specifically has to be an unarmed strike. As a class feature of an unarmed fighter, and not specifically using TWF (as unarmed strikes can be made with any part of the body) this attack deals normal unarmed strike damage, Mod included (just like any other unarmed strike, and just like flurry of blows).

Polearm Master: The feat lets you use the haft as if it were a secondary light (1d4) bludgeoning weapon for the purposes of TWF, and therefore does not get Mod to damage (also dismissing the main end from needing to be light for the purposes of TWFing).

Crossbow Expert: The feat was designed competely for use with the TWF rules, and must be used with a melee weapon, and does not gain Dex to damage unless you have the Two Weapon Fighting style (also dismissing the main hand from needing to be light for the purposes of TWFing).

The Monk's unarmed strike via Martial Arts is the only exception to the TWF rules regarding Mod to damage, except where specifically noted elsewhere.

[Xetheral]

The TWF rules explain exactly when you are allowed to attack with two different weapons on the same turn in such a manner as to gain a bonus action attack with the secondary weapon only.

Shadow, we disagree, but I'd like to better understand your opinion. Could you please clarify something for me about your interpretation? Would you apply the same rules to the War Priest bonus action attack if the cleric elected to use a separate weapon for the bonus action attack?


Polearm Master: The feat lets you use the haft as if it were a secondary light (1d4) bludgeoning weapon for the purposes of TWF, and therefore does not get Mod to damage.

I'm not sure how this follows from your interpretation. Is there something in the wording of Polearm Master that makes you think one should treat the haft as a separate weapon?

[Rummy]

Didn't the devs specify that Str mod applies for Polearm Master?

[Shadow]

Shadow, we disagree, but I'd like to better understand your opinion. Could you please clarify something for me about your interpretation? Would you apply the same rules to the War Priest bonus action attack if the cleric elected to use a separate weapon for the bonus action attack?
In that case, the War Priest gets his full damage, Mod and all.
The difference is that TWFing is something that can be done, every single round, in order to gain an extra attack above and beyond what anyone else can at that level. So they created rules to balance that extra outgoing damage so as not to make TWFing OP.
The War Priest, on the other hand, is drawing from a pool of limited uses per day. I don't care which weapon he uses, he gets full damage with it.


I'm not sure how this follows from your interpretation. Is there something in the wording of Polearm Master that makes you think one should treat the haft as a separate weapon?
I merely mentioned that as a reference to the TWFing rules.
To also apply Mod to damage on the bonus attack makes this feat head and shoulders, far and away, amazingly better than TWFing. Allowing Mod to damage on PM basically means the feat is worth both (a) a fighting style class feature, and (b) a benefit of the DW feat, while also offering a free attack whenever any creature without reach enters melee with you (and many/most that do), and it does it all with a reach weapon in 2/3rds of the cases (or more likely 99% of cases unless you *really* want some flavor with a quarterstaff).

You are TWFing, you're just using each end of the polearm as a separate weapon.
Allowing Mod to the damage of the bonus attack makes the feat OP, and completely invalidates TWF altogether, as every single person alive can swing a quarterstaff with proficiency.

edit:
Interestingly enough, a multiclass Fighter 1 or Ranger 2 (two weapon fighter) / Paladin (great weapon fighter) will make for a frakkin BEAST of a Polearm Master (in the vein of what people think PM should be to begin with, but I disagree).
So Fighter 1 or Ranger 2 tossed in, and Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert become, to me, what some people think it is by default (although in the case of XbX, only partially).

[Xetheral]

In that case, the War Priest gets his full damage, Mod and all.

Thanks for clarifying!


You are TWFing, you're just using each end of the polearm as a separate weapon.

Based on your explanation, would it be fair to say that balance concerns are the primary factor in your interpretation that Polearm Master should be considered as a modification to the rules on page 195 for two-weapon fighting bonus attack actions?

Incidentally, I tend to agree that Polearm Master outclasses most other feats, but I consider that simply a balancing error, rather than a reason to expand my interpretation of the limited scope of page 195.

[Shadow]

Based on your explanation, would it be fair to say that balance concerns are the primary factor in your interpretation that Polearm Master should be considered as a modification to the rules on page 195 for two-weapon fighting bonus attack actions?

Incidentally, I tend to agree that Polearm Master outclasses most other feats, but I consider that simply a balancing error, rather than a reason to expand my interpretation of the limited scope of page 195.

Absolutely balancing issues are the main concern, and tying things like this in with rules that it simply makes perfect sense to tie them in with solves that problem in a sensible way. Almost as if it was actually RAI, which it almost certainly was. :smallwink:

"Make rulings, not rules."
That's something that Mearls has stated many times about 5e.
That means that RAI and DM interpretation are, in this edition, more important than tiny inconsistencies, loopholes, and exploits within the RAW.

[Person_Man]

The general rule is pretty clear.

"When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it." This allows you to deal 1d6 + Str or Dex mod on the first attack, and 1d6 on the second, which not coincidentally, is exactly the same result as using a heavy weapon which deals 2d6 + Str mod, although TWF has the benefit of being two separate rolls, which makes it more likely that you can trigger Sneak Attack or similar abilities, whereas using a heavy weapon has the benefit of not consuming your Bonus Action.

Then there are a number of Feats and class abilities which modify the base rule, and the specifics of those rules beat the general rule.

The Two-Weapon Fighting Style class ability: "When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack." Pretty clear. You can add your Str or Dex mod to damage for the second (Bonus Action) attack, which is normally not allowed. So it adds a maximum of +5 damage per round.

Duel Wielder Feat: "You can use two-weapon fighting even when one of the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light." Again, pretty clear. You can use a lance (1d12, but you have to be mounted), rapier (1d8, finesse), or other similar weapons that deal 1d8 or less damage for your base attacks, in place of the normal light (1d6, light) weapon. So it adds an average of +3 damage per base attack (if using a lance) or an average of +1 damage per base attack if using any other weapon. The Feat also grants +1 AC when wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, and you can draw or stow two one-handed weapon instead of one as a free action.

Crossbow Expert Feat functions similarly Two Weapon Fighting with the Duel Weider Feat, in that you can attack with a one handed weapon and then use your Bonus Action to make an attack with a loaded hand crossbow you are holding. It does not specifically reference Two Weapon Fighting (which would require a light weapon), so by default the crossbow attack should apply your Dex bonus to its damage. So it adds an average of +3 damage per base attack (if using a lance) AND +6 damage for your bonus action attack (hand crossbow plus Dex, assuming max of +5 from 20 Dex), or an average of +1 per base attack and +6 for your bonus action attack. Though its worth mentioning that this obviously would not also benefit from the Two-Weapon Fighting Style class ability (which specifically calls out TWF) and the other benefits of the Crossbow Expert Feat basically just make the crossbow not suck. However, its sloppy writing on the part of the authors to not say whether or not you should apply your Dex bonus to damage.

Polearm Master Feat functions similarly to Crossbow Expert, in that you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon, which deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage. Again, this Feat does not reference Two Weapon Fighting (which would require a light weapon, ie, not a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff). So my ruling would be that the bonus action attack would include your Str damage. So again, this Feat basically bypasses the need for the Two-Weapon Fighting Style class ability. Though the overall bonus to damage is a bit of a wash, depending on the number of attacks you get, because you're forgoing the use of a heavy (2d6 or 1d12) weapon to use it. The other benefit of the Feat, gaining an Opportunity Attack when a creature enters your threatened area, is much better. But again, its sloppy writing that they didn't specify one way or the other on gaining your Str bonus. Also, the pike is not including in the list of weapons that you can make a bonus action attack with, even though it is included in the list of weapons you get an opportunity attack with when an enemy enters your threatened area. So its doubly sloppy.

[MeeposFire]

I think the designers made a mistake by thinking everybody would understand that only TWF bonus attacks and all other attacks made with a bonus action (regardless of the number of weapons or attacks) such as flurry/ martial arts, hand crossbow, or polearm master do get the attribute to damage. It is easy to get confused that since TWF is a bonus action attack that all bonus action attacks follow its rules even though they don't.

[Shadow]

I understand that viewpoint, but I disagree.
I think the players are the ones making the mistake, by attempting to treat the ruleset as if it were 3.x or 4e, where every single situation imaginable had a specific rule associated with it, and all you had to do was look on page 279 or whatever and there it is.

The game was designed specifically with the intention of not bogging down play with specific rules about every little thing.
As such, there will be places where a common sense and/or balance ruling (or judgement call) will need to be made.
It's not a failing in my eyes, but a huge step in the right direction.
If we would simply come to terms with that fact, then many of these RAW/RAI discussions become obsolete.

Although I will admit that even then I wouldn't stop bringing my opinion to those threads, or only the people that I feel are trying to game the system will have a voice.

[Vowtz]

Polearm Master Feat functions similarly to Crossbow Expert, in that you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon, which deals 1d4 bludgeoning damage. Again, this Feat does not reference Two Weapon Fighting (which would require a light weapon, ie, not a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff). So my ruling would be that the bonus action attack would include your Str damage. S
Yes, Mike meyers, the lead designer (I hate him) confirmed this on a tweet.

A colection of such information can be accessed on

https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com

Edit: it was not meyers, JCrawford is the one who said you add your mod to damage.

[Shadow]

Use:
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/great-master/
instead. This is the one spoken of.

And even then, it has been stated by Chris Tulach that:
"Unless it appears in official documentation (like a FAQ or the Player's Guide), a ruling on general D&D rules (as opposed to Adventurers League specific rules) from someone in the administration is just a guideline from another DM."

And my ruling on Mod to damage for PM is that JCrawford's ruling as a DM makes the feat OP.

[Dark Tira]

Use:
https://thesageadvice.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/great-master/
instead. This is the one spoken of.

And even then, it has been stated by Chris Tulach that:
"Unless it appears in official documentation (like a FAQ or the Player's Guide), a ruling on general D&D rules (as opposed to Adventurers League specific rules) from someone in the administration is just a guideline from another DM."

And my ruling on Mod to damage for PM is that JCrawford's ruling as a DM makes the feat OP.

You keep missing the bolded part whenever you pull out this quote. The general rule is that you add ability mod to damage to weapon attacks. The TWF fighting rules are an exception to the general rule in that if you meet the specific requirements you can get a bonus attack that does not include ability mod to damage. Unless anything references the TWF rules they use the general rule. To clarify, the only bonus attack that does not get ability mod to damage is the one granted by using TWF, any other bonus attack gained by another way gets ability mod to damage unless it's specified otherwise.

[EvilAnagram]

It's really unclear in the rules, though I would say the feats are probably linked to TWF. It may be that I'm wrong, but there's certainly no cause for vitriol over this. Vague writing leads to different interpretations. Deal with it.

[emeraldstreak]

It's really unclear in the rules, though I would say the feats are probably linked to TWF. It may be that I'm wrong, but there's certainly no cause for vitriol over this. Vague writing leads to different interpretations. Deal with it.

On my table, I've always been able to overrule even the best written 3.5 or 4 rules. Next is no different and I don't need Mike to tell me I can do it.

What I need Mike to tell me is how he'd rule these questions in his own campaigns.

[DrLemniscate]

If either Crossbow Expert or Polearm Master were designed to work using the TWF rules, they would reference it like Dual Wielder does.

Why would they just assume players would know how to apply those feats?

Weapon attacks add your damage modifier. Two-Weapon Fighting is the exception, not the norm.