View Full Version : D&D 3.x Other TWF double weapon houserule

2014-11-28, 04:11 PM
I'm working on an outline for a dwarf-centric campaign, and I want to include some iconic dwarf weapons. Trouble is, the dwarven urgrosh looks cool but doesn't get much love. It's a double weapon wielded in two hands, but if it's used as a double weapon then it is only a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. TWF generally gets a bad rap around these boards, but I thought here's a place we could give it a boost.

My proposed house rule would be something like "A double weapon wielded in two hands counts as a two-handed weapon for applying strength bonuses to damage and for power attack damage bonuses, but counts as a one-handed plus a light weapon for purposes of two weapon fighting penalties."

Is this too good? It still leaves the problem of improving each end of the double weapon separately, but makes high damage output more possible. Should only the primary end of a double weapon benefit from being wielded in two hands, and the secondary end be treated as one-handed?

I haven't dabbled much in home rules, so help me understand what makes this modification good or bad, or what could make it better.

2014-11-28, 05:10 PM
I'm not sure such a houserule is even needed at all. If one side of the weapon is considered a one handed weapon, you can already effectively shift your hand positions to wield that side two handedly, thus gaining such benefits and since shifting your hands on your weapon doesn't really count as an action, they'd still be able to spread their hands again to use the other side of the weapon as well.

Also, what do you mean TWF gets a bad rap? I know I'm a bit new here but I've not really seen or thought such, especially when a rogue with sneak attack is doing it.

2014-11-28, 05:37 PM
Well, there is this line from the SRD and PHB: "The character can also choose to use a double weapon two handed, attacking with only one end of it." So if you shift your hands for a power attack you don't get to use both ends (normally). Interpreting the rule your way is how it should be, but I'm pretty sure its not RAW legal.

TWF is usually claimed to be sub-optimal (of course there are exceptions to everything), because you take a penalty on attacks for only one extra attack, you can't multiply damage from power attack, and you have to invest twice as much in your weapons. That one extra attack doesn't help you as much as if you were stacking damage from power attack, leap attack, shock trooper, etc.

2014-11-28, 07:15 PM
I suppose not as far as RAW goes but it's not really too far off to say a player can choose to use it as logically makes sense at least.

As for TWF, I guess it makes sense when Rogues are likely the only one's benefiting from the extra attacks compared to the two handed power attack spam or sword and shield tank builds.

2014-11-29, 12:58 AM
I tend to differentiate between TWF and double-weapon fighting

Double Weapon Fighting
Requirements: Tumble 2 or Perform (dance) 2 or Balance 2.
Benefits: DWF is not the same as TWF.
You gain a single extra attack with your weapon’s back side, taking a -5 to your attack roll.
This attack (as well as your regular iterative attacks) counts as made by a 2-H weapon for all intent and purpose (increased Str-bonus, PA etc).
A 20th level fighter, thus has the following attack bonuses (not including modifiers): +20/+15/+10/+5 / +15.

This makes more sense to me.

2014-11-29, 09:49 AM
Nonsi, I like that solution. Will probably nab it for the roguelike :D

2014-11-29, 11:07 AM
Nonsi, I like that solution. Will probably nab it for the roguelike :D

It's from my codex.
Take whatever you find useful.