TWF- One handed and light

[Magic Myrmidon]

So I noticed TWF can only be done with two light weapons in this edition. I know there's the TWF feat that allows you to use 2 one handed weapons, but from what I've read (and in my opinion), a slight increase in die type is hardly worth a feat.

Anyway, would it be crazy to allow people to use a one-handed weapon like a rapier or longsword in one hand, and a light weapon like a dagger in the offhand for TWF? That's kind of how it was in 3.5, not that I'm trying to make 5e a 3.5 clone. I just feel like that's unnecessarily restrictive.

[Lonely Tylenol]

It would result in 1 extra damage, on average, per successful attack per round (not counting the extra attack you get from two-weapon fighting).

That's pretty much it.

You can decide for yourself if this breaks two-weapon fighting.

[Shadow]

On one hand, I find it stupid that anyone can take a feat to get approximately one more damage per weapon, but only rangers and fighters can actually dual wield effectively.
On the other hand, I understand why they gave stat damage to the offhand attack for the style, because feats are optional, and they wanted dual wielding to actually work within the core without any feats needed.

Our group swapped the two.
Stat to damage with the feat, and better weapons with the style.
This way, anyone can dual wield effectively, but only rangers and fighters can use better weapons to do so.

[Demonic Spoon]

On one hand, I find it stupid that anyone can take a feat to get approximately one more damage per weapon, but only rangers and fighters can actually dual wield effectively.
On the other hand, I understand why they gave stat damage to the offhand attack for the style, because feats are optional, and they wanted dual wielding to actually work within the core without any feats needed.

Our group swapped the two.
Stat to damage with the feat, and better weapons with the style.
This way, anyone can dual wield effectively, but only rangers and fighters can use better weapons to do so.

This isn't actually true.

Barbarians get to add their rage bonus damage to the extra attack, which makes dual wielding pretty good on them.

Rogues get a lot of mileage out of TWF because it gives them an extra opportunity to apply sneak attack in a round

I haven't tested it, but it seems like a defense style paladin with TWF could work (extra attacks to trigger smite with), especially with that spell whose name escapes me right now that adds +Damage per hit.


That said, thematically I find the idea that the martial training of rangers/fighters letting you wield bigger weapons than a rogue pretty appealing. That would mean that the feat offers +1 AC, +ability mod to damage, and the item interaction thing, though, which seems like it would quickly become mandatory.

[Shadow]

That said, thematically I find the idea that the martial training of rangers/fighters letting you wield bigger weapons than a rogue pretty appealing. That would mean that the feat offers +1 AC, +ability mod to damage, and the item interaction thing, though, which seems like it would quickly become mandatory.

Assuming feats are allowed, it was pretty much as close to mandatory as you can get if you were planning on dual wielding anyway, so I consider that a moot point.
And if you're going to psuedo-mandate something (like finding a way to get stat mod to damage on your offhand) a feat is a better choice than a multiclass IMHO.
So yeah, we swapped them and have been very happy with it, both mechanically and thematically.
It is my belief that this is what would have been the core rules if feats weren't optional. By making feats optional, they were forced to give stat mod to damage on the style.

[Demonic Spoon]

Assuming feats are allowed, it was pretty much as close to mandatory as you can get if you were planning on dual wielding anyway, so I consider that a moot point.
And if you're going to psuedo-mandate something (like finding a way to get stat mod to damage on your offhand) a feat is a better choice than a multiclass IMHO.
So yeah, we swapped them and have been very happy with it, both mechanically and thematically.
It is my belief that this is what would have been the core rules if feats weren't optional. By making feats optional, they were forced to give stat mod to damage on the style.

I don't see how it's mandatory - the feat is +1 damage/hit average and +1 AC (plus the item interaction). Cool, but better than +2 STR/DEX? Especially if you're DEX-based and +2 DEX = +1 to hit/+1 AC/+1 damage anyway?

Getting stat to damage on your offhand isn't mandatory. As I've mentioned, both barbarian and rogue, classes that don't get fighting style, have compelling reasons to go with TWF, and I believe you could even make it work on Paladin.

[Once a Fool]

I've seen this houserule proposed for dual wielding:

Instead of effectively limiting it to two d6 weapons (without a feat), limit it to a combined 12 of finesse weaponry (so, two d6s OR a d8 + a d4. This allows (at level 1) for that rapier + dagger combination that the RAW make sub-optimal and feat-dependent.

Mechanically, it isn't even important that they be finesse weapons.

[Alucard2099]

So I noticed TWF can only be done with two light weapons in this edition. I know there's the TWF feat that allows you to use 2 one handed weapons, but from what I've read (and in my opinion), a slight increase in die type is hardly worth a feat.

Anyway, would it be crazy to allow people to use a one-handed weapon like a rapier or longsword in one hand, and a light weapon like a dagger in the offhand for TWF? That's kind of how it was in 3.5, not that I'm trying to make 5e a 3.5 clone. I just feel like that's unnecessarily restrictive.

You would need the TWF fighting style from fighter, let's say.

[Magic Myrmidon]

It would result in 1 extra damage, on average, per successful attack per round (not counting the extra attack you get from two-weapon fighting).

That's pretty much it.

You can decide for yourself if this breaks two-weapon fighting.

That's pretty much what I thought. Thanks.

Interesting idea, Shadow. I kinda like that. It is somewhat mandatory at that point, but TWF have always had a much more severe feat tax. Sadly.

Honestly, I'm just tired of how DnD (and most RPGs) handle weaponry. I like being able to freely choose weapons for my character without worrying about being suboptimal or paying feat taxes, so it's rare that I can use, say, claws without investing a lot of resources.