Help Fixing Two Weapon Fighting

[Ramshack]

I apologize if this belongs on the Homebrew thread but I have a player of mine who really wants to play a Dual Wielder. The problem is we both agree that the strongest a dual wielder will ever be is at level 1 and it only falls off compared to other fighting styles from there.

We've discussed several ways to make it more appropriate such as:

Adding the -5 atk +10dmg function to the Dual Wielding feat
or
Adding the -5atk + Weapon Damage + stat modifier to the Dual Wield feat
or
Adding Equal Number of attacks to the bonus action. Example when you gain second attack, you can now make 2 attacks with your bonus action
or
Making equal number of attacks with both hands but at disadvantage. Example when you gain second attack, you can now also make 2 attacks with your bonus action at disadvantage.

And So on.

We are looking for relatively simple and elegant fix that helps dual wielding scale with other fighting styles but we don't want to out class other styles either.

Any thoughts?

[Easy_Lee]

I agree that the TWF logic is a bit busted. Regarding weapons, the feats crossbow expert, great weapon mastery, and polearm mastery make their weapon types the overall best due to exclusivity. Here's what I would do:

I made a TWF Overhaul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul) over in the Homebrew section where I address the math problems. I'd be honored if you consider it.
Feat GWM changed to Powerful Cleave, now works with any melee weapon.
Feat Polearm Mastery changed to Melee Specialist, now works with all melee weapons (pommel strikes, etc.).
Feat crossbow expert changed to Ranged Expert, now works with all ranged weapons. Bonus attack is always a d6 (max).

[Gurka]

I apologize if this belongs on the Homebrew thread but I have a player of mine who really wants to play a Dual Wielder. The problem is we both agree that the strongest a dual wielder will ever be is at level 1 and it only falls off compared to other fighting styles from there.

We've discussed several ways to make it more appropriate such as:

Adding the -5 atk +10dmg function to the Dual Wielding feat
or
Adding the -5atk + Weapon Damage + stat modifier to the Dual Wield feat
or
Adding Equal Number of attacks to the bonus action. Example when you gain second attack, you can now make 2 attacks with your bonus action
or
Making equal number of attacks with both hands but at disadvantage. Example when you gain second attack, you can now also make 2 attacks with your bonus action at disadvantage.

And So on.

We are looking for relatively simple and elegant fix that helps dual wielding scale with other fighting styles but we don't want to out class other styles either.

Any thoughts?


My thought was that if you play a class which has the Extra attack feature, and you dual wield, once you gain that feature, you no longer sacrifice your bonus action to make an offhand attack. It's just made as part of your regular attack. Waiting for extra attack means that you don't inflate dual wielding further at level 1-4, but you do give it a moderate boost later on.

I've also considered simply making offhand attacks add your attribute bonus to damage by default, thus eliminating the need for it as a style for the martial classes.

Lastly, apply Duelist fighting style to all 1-handed weapons being wielded in a one handed fashion, so yes it would apply to main and offhand weapons while dual wielding.

The last two suggestions we haven't tried yet though, just thoughts so far.

This will increase damage output by a bit, increase versatility by a bit (reducing the action tax), and still maintain solid defense, should you take the feat. Great Weapon Master will still have more damage potential, as will Sharpshooter, but this should offer better average damage to dual wielders, I think. Well, against mid-high AC targets anyway.

[Ramshack]

I agree that the TWF logic is a bit busted. Regarding weapons, the feats crossbow expert, great weapon mastery, and polearm mastery make their weapon types the overall best due to exclusivity. Here's what I would do:

I made a TWF Overhaul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul) over in the Homebrew section where I address the math problems. I'd be honored if you consider it.
Feat GWM changed to Powerful Cleave, now works with any melee weapon.
Feat Polearm Mastery changed to Melee Specialist, now works with all melee weapons (pommel strikes, etc.).
Feat crossbow expert changed to Ranged Expert, now works with all ranged weapons. Bonus attack is always a d6 (max).


Thanks Lee you're solution seems really interesting I'll run it by the player and see if it's something he would like as well. I do miss the dual wielders in this addition lol. So i'll let you know if we decide to use it and how it works out.

[Z3ro]

My table's solution is to add a "rend" function to the dual wield feat. Basically, if you hit with both weapons, you get a bonus to damage. We do it so you basically get whatever die size you're using; if you're using two 1d8 weapons, you'd add 2d8. If you had a 1d4 and 1d8, you'd get 1d4 and 1d8. It's simple, makes TWF feel unique (rather than simply pulling in another ability from another style) and fun for the player when that offhand attack hits.

It also has the advantage that you can scale it to fit your table. Each die too much? Make them smaller, or bigger if need be. That way you can make sure you're not under or over performing. You could even make it scale monk-like: start out at 1d6, going up until it's 1d12 or something.

[Torched Forever]

While Easy Lee's fixes are pretty good, they are a little hard to understand and lose some degree of flavor representation. The two separate attacks are what makes TWF interesting even if it is sub-optimal. I'll try my hand at some fixes.

Two Weapon Fighting Rules
When you take the Attack action with a light melee weapon, you may make an equal number of attacks at disadvantage with a light melee weapon you are wielding in your other hand. However, you may not add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the attack rolls made by the offhand weapon.
This grants you a flurry of attacks that fit TWF's flavor. Not to mention the disadvantage with the offhand attack means that it will be superior at rending unarmored foes but have trouble piercing thick armor. Also, notice that you get your attribute to damage not attack with the second attacks. This actually fixes quite a few problems, 1/2 bonus from weapon enhancement but x2 bonus from Hunter's Mark and the like. One problem is that it does scale slightly better than THF(7.5% at 20th)* and THF is better at the start(2.5% at 1st)*. However, the lowered attack makes ACs relatively higher and thus weakens it a little.
1st Level Fighter Comparison (50% miss chance & no style)*
(1d6+3) x (0.5) = 3.25
(1d6+3) x (0.5*0.5) = 1.625
Total 4.875

(2d6+3) x (0.5) = 5
Total 5

*Comparisons were made without the attack penalty to better represent its balance.

Two Weapon Fighting Style
While wielding a weapon in each hand, add +1 to your attack rolls.
This is balanced against GWF's math(((3+4+5+6)/4)*(4/6))+((3.5)*(2/6)) Works to find GWF damage right?. If this style was +1 damage it would be around 15% better than GWF in terms of damage output. Attack does not quite have the same value as damage but it should be fairly even.

Dual Wielder
I'm stumped on how to balance this one. One handers have a different effect than they used to.

Hope these might help.

[djreynolds]

I agree that the TWF logic is a bit busted. Regarding weapons, the feats crossbow expert, great weapon mastery, and polearm mastery make their weapon types the overall best due to exclusivity. Here's what I would do:

I made a TWF Overhaul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul) over in the Homebrew section where I address the math problems. I'd be honored if you consider it.
Feat GWM changed to Powerful Cleave, now works with any melee weapon.
Feat Polearm Mastery changed to Melee Specialist, now works with all melee weapons (pommel strikes, etc.).
Feat crossbow expert changed to Ranged Expert, now works with all ranged weapons. Bonus attack is always a d6 (max).


That over haul is awesome. Remember two weapon rend, that would nice to add and plenty fair if you land both hits. Make it auto crit or double damage which is the same. You wouldn't being do it all the time, could make dual wielding relevant.

[Ramshack]

A lot of really interesting ideas being thrown around. I was considering something of a mash up of some of the ideas. Torched brought up a good idea of losing some of the thematics with Lee's fix. And I really thought the rend function was interesting.

What if when taking the Dual Wield Feat, you gain Two Weapon Rend. When you land both an attack through the attack action with a melee weapon and an attack with your bonus action with a melee weapon you rend the target a number of times equal to the times you hit with your attack action. Roll a die equal to your off hand weapon damage a number of times equal to the times you hit with your attack action. Rend damage cannot critical. Additionally rend damage can only be applied with one attack action and does not stack by means such as action surge.

Example 1:
An 11th level fighter Dual Wield Feat and Dual Wield Fighting Style with a 18 strength and dual wielding two rapiers. He uses his attack action and successfully hits the target with all 3 attacks and deals 3d8 +12 damage. He then uses his bonus action to attack with his off hand and successfully hits the target dealing 1d8+4. He then deals an additional 3d8 damage as rend damage.

Example 2:
An 11th level fighter Dual Wield Feat and Dual Wield Fighting Style with a 18 strength and dual wielding two rapiers. He uses his attack action and successfully hits the target with one out of 3 attacks and deals 1d8 + 4 damage. He then uses his bonus action to attack with his off hand and successfully hits the target dealing 1d8+4. He then deals an additional 1d8 damage as rend damage.

Example 3: An 11th level fighter Dual Wield Feat and Dual Wield Fighting Style with a 18 strength and dual wielding two rapiers. He uses his attack action and successfully hits the target with all 3 attacks and deals 3d8 +12 damage. He then uses his bonus action to attack with his off hand and fails to hits the target dealing no damage. He then deals no bonus damage as a result of rend.

With this function you save the thematic flair of dual wield. But have scaling damage potential.

If my math is right This function could has a higher max damage than GWF unless the GWF is Power Attacking.

[MrStabby]

Two weapon fighting is pretty bad but only in isolation. The main point about two weapon fighting is that it can be used with finesse weapons. Basically for fighting you get the choice of focus on an awesome stat (dex) and a crap fighting style or a mediocre fighting stat (str) and awesome fighting styles using things like polearms and two handed weapons.

If two weapon fighting did the damage output of great weapon fighting then you could take that have better saves (as dex is more common than Str) and better initiative not to mention a boost to your armour class as well.

[Easy_Lee]

Two weapon fighting is pretty bad but only in isolation. The main point about two weapon fighting is that it can be used with finesse weapons. Basically for fighting you get the choice of focus on an awesome stat (dex) and a crap fighting style or a mediocre fighting stat (str) and awesome fighting styles using things like polearms and two handed weapons.

If two weapon fighting did the damage output of great weapon fighting then you could take that have better saves (as dex is more common than Str) and better initiative not to mention a boost to your armour class as well.

Strength only has one skill which covers all of its applications, meaning that you can diversify your skill choice, it allows for higher amor with prof and higher low level AC, it allows for shove and grapple attempts, it gives you more weapon selection, and it affects carrying capacity. For the last time, people, strength having stronger two handed weapons is not a balance feature, nor is it needed.

[Kryx]

Giving TWF another attack from their bonus action at level 11 is the best mathematical choice that was in the old thread imo.

Also "You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."

It's what I use.

[Yagyujubei]

Here's what I think:

1. basic TWF rules, Add a second attack to your bonus action off hand strike at level 14, roll the current TWF fighting style rules into basic TWF.
2. TWF fighting style give you the benefits of the current dual wielder feat
3. +1 to hit, additionally you can sacrifice your bonus action to gain advantage on your main hand attack, or to attempt to disarm the opponent (basically disarming attack and feinting attack without the dmg die added)

disclaimer: this is in no way attempted to be perfectly balanced or anything, I just think that working it this way would make it powerful and fun to play without being insane

[CNagy]

Recently, I've been tacking on a free Shove to off-hand attacks that hit for characters 11th level or higher. It seemed to me that any sort of adding attacks tended to get out of hand in terms of damage and rider effects, so the Shove (attached to the Dual Wielder feat) felt like a good way to add a tactical option that didn't directly increase damage output.

[Easy_Lee]

Giving TWF another attack from their bonus action at level 11 is the best mathematical choice that was in the old thread imo.

Also "You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."

It's what I use.

It makes TWF stronger than other fighting styles for all non fighters, and competitive if not superior for others. Without liberal use of the GWM +10, nothing comes close to having a whole other attack complete with modifiers, bonuses, enhancement bonuses, magical bonuses, and the ability to turn that attack into a shove or grapple attempt.

[Kryx]

It makes TWF stronger than other fighting styles for all non fighters
No it doesn't. I did the math in the other thread. It's also on my DPR of Classes below. GWM is still the supreme option by a fair amount.

[Easy_Lee]

No it doesn't. I did the math in the other thread. It's also on my DPR of Classes below. GWM is still the supreme option by a fair amount.

Your math is dubious, as it doesn't take things like consistency, options, and potential effects such as elemental weapon into consideration. A full extra attack is a serious bonus. A full partial attack which cannot be made into a grapple, less serious. I too have done the math on this, and have also tested it.

[Kryx]

My math is dubious? Lol... It has been generally accepted by the community.

It's 100x better than the math you post which ignores chance to hit and many other factors.

[Gurka]

I like some of what I'm hearing too: How's this for an idea...

Duel wielding by default adds attribute damage to the bonus attack, and that bonus attack is limited to one per turn. (Lee is right, adding more additional attacks means a carrier for more additional effects, which inflates quickly).

Two Weapon Fighting Style allows the drawing/stowing of two weapons when you would normally be allowed one (as the dual wielder feat), as well as +1 attack and +1 damage.

Dual Wielder functions as current, but instead of allowing the draw/stow of multiple weapons, it instead offers Rend: Each subsequent attack which hits the same target each turn deals an additional 1D6 damage.

Seems like this should be a good balance; it certainly makes TWF more appealing, though it's still front-loaded compared to GWF. At low levels it means a net of +1 attack/damage sans Feat. Plus feat means possible net +1 attack/AC, and 1D6+1 damage. With that setup, a level 1 TWF should average somewhere in the ballpark of 13 damage, with a maximum potential of 48 (I think). GWF on the other hand is looking at an average of around 8 average and a maximum of 76. This was very quick fuzzy math though, so I'm probably off.

Personally, I'm fine with that spread... It means DW is (better early) and comparable late on average damage, while offering better defense. Still weaker against anything with a static damage reduction (like heavy armor master), which is simply a feature of heavy armor in my games, as opposed to being a feat, so especially early, you see a big difference between hitting more times for less damage and fewer times for more damage.

[Easy_Lee]

My math is dubious? Lol... It has been generally accepted by the community.

It's 100x better than the math you post which ignores chance to hit and many other factors.

This is why we can't have nice things on the forum; everyone is more interested in insulting each other than actually talking about a system. Kryx, post the math here rather than saying you "did the math," and perhaps I'll take the time to explain where your errors lie. Or better yet, let's not derail this thread any further with petty insults.

[Kryx]

You keep doing this where you insult something and then it happens in return and you play victim. It doesn't get to work like that.

Overall the community has accepted my math as being the best reprentation of general DPR that has been made.

It shows that adding an extra attack from the bonus action at 11 is not broken, at all.

[djreynolds]

Two weapon rend seems fair. With both dual wield feat and dual wield style as a requirement. You are getting plus one for defense and that is pretty good and you can twin long swords or rapier or whatever for 1d8 each. Just add two weapon rend if you hit with both on the same opponent in the same attack. Say an extra 1d6 plus ability modifier. GWF doesn't get a plus to his armor class, and he giving up 5 for plus 10.

[Easy_Lee]

Overall the community has accepted my math as being the best reprentation of general DPR that has been made.

It shows that adding an extra attack from the bonus action at 11 is not broken, at all.

That so? Must have been a poll I was unaware of, or something. I'll assume you're not just saying that with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just blowing smoke.

Now, let's talk about attacks. Consider a player who can hit once for 6, or twice for 3. Hitting twice for 3 is better, here's why:

More consistent damage
More opportunities to smite, apply effects like elemental, stunning strike, etc.
Can turn one into a grapple or shove attempt, possibly creating advantage on the other.
Can hit another target.
Can use a different weapon, possibly with a different damage type.

And so on. That's just five sample reasons of why more attacks are always better than fewer. You do not give some weapon types or fighting styles more attacks than others. This is the entire reason why barbarians and fighters are balanced; barbarians do more damage overall, but fighters get twice as many attacks to do it. I thought we had, as a community, realized this. After all, this is the main reason why crossbow expert with a hand crossbow deals the most damage in the long run, static bonuses to additional attacks trumping stronger individual attacks. Apparently, some members of the community still haven't discovered this basic principle.

Adding more attacks to one fighting style is not balanced. It has never been balanced. It never will be balanced. No amount of shoddy math is going to change that, especially not yours, because it fails to take actual play into consideration. You should consider the implications of your broad statements.

[LordVonDerp]

Overall the community has accepted my math as being the best reprentation of general DPR that has been made.

It shows that adding an extra attack from the bonus action at 11 is not broken, at all.

This is the internet so pics or it didn't happen.

[Kryx]

You're a piece of work.. In the other threads you complain that people are rude, and yet here you are being an utter jerk. You have problems, man...


A GWM Fighter does about 37% more DPR than a TWF Fighter.

Level 5:
GWM Fighter does 19 DPR. Action surge is 35.
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 14.2 DPR. Action surge is 23.6

Level 11:
GWM Fighter does 37.6 DPR. Action surge is 71.1
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 28.8 DPR. Action surge is 46.0
(stays the same until 19)

Level 20:
GWM Fighter does 49 DPR. Action surge is 93.7
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 41.3 DPR. Action surge is 68.8


If you disagree with this numbers please feel free to provide corrections or your own DPR math (actual math which includes miss chances, GMW chance, etc). All of my math is readily available on my google docs.


TWF still loses very signficiantly.

[Easy_Lee]

You're a piece of work.. In the other threads you complain that people are rude, and yet here you are being an utter jerk. You have problems, man...


A GWM Fighter does about 37% more DPR than a TWF Fighter.

Level 5:
GWM Fighter does 19 DPR. Action surge is 35.
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 14.2 DPR. Action surge is 23.6

Level 11:
GWM Fighter does 37.6 DPR. Action surge is 71.1
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 28.8 DPR. Action surge is 46.0
(stays the same until 19)

Level 20:
GWM Fighter does 49 DPR. Action surge is 93.7
Houseruled TWF Fighter does 41.3 DPR. Action surge is 68.8


If you disagree with this numbers please feel free to provide corrections or your own DPR math (actual math which includes miss chances, GMW chance, etc). All of my math is readily available on my google docs.


TWF still loses very signficiantly.

And what you've assumed:

No magic items.
No overkill.
No special tactics to take advantage of number of attacks.
Full application of GWM's +10, no increased miss likelihood taken into consideration.

On top of posting no math to support your arguments, just numbers.

What if I cast elemental weapon? What kinds of things can happen from having extra attacks? What if I shove with one to gain advantage on the others? What if I have dual wielder, does the extra AC make me more likely to actually get my attacks? What about the other feats that I can afford instead of GWM, such as sentinel, Healer or Toughness? Where do those fit in? Shield master DPR with dueling is competitive in actual play purely because of the shield shove, even though your math will fail to reflect that. There's little point arguing with you because you ignore these things. You only see your own mathematics and assume that all other points are invalid. I am a "piece of work" because I disagree with you, and you can't think of a single reason why other than to assume that I'm a bad person.

And like Lord said, pics or it didn't happen. You don't have pics, because the truth is that the only person who's accepted your math as reflective of actual play is you. Those of us who actually play the game know better than to use theoretical best-case scenario numbers.

We also know that magic items, elemental effects, and poison exist, which are just some of the reasons why you don't give certain styles more attacks. WotC knew this before they designed feats, at which point they forgot. The feats GWM, polearm mastery, and crossbow expert are the entire reason why TWF isn't competitive, since they provide a better version of its bonus. This is due to their free bonus attacks. I would have thought that people had learned from that mistake. Evidently I've given too much credit.

As I said, there's little point in arguing with you. I'm not going to derail this thread further, and instead will trust the OP to make his own judgements.

[Torched Forever]

More consistent damage
More opportunities to smite, apply effects like elemental, stunning strike, etc.
Can turn one into a grapple or shove attempt, possibly creating advantage on the other.
Can hit another target.
Can use a different weapon, possibly with a different damage type.

Adding more attacks to one fighting style is not balanced. It has never been balanced. It never will be balanced. No amount of shoddy math is going to change that, especially not yours, because it fails to take actual play into consideration. You should consider the implications of your broad statements.
While I do agree, more attacks is stronger than less, you didn't account for a few factors in favor of "1 for 6".

Higher possibility to remove a threat before it can react with a crit. (5% vs 0.25%)
Less penalty from damage reduction
More likely to trigger damage thresholds (if you use those rules)
Only needs one buff to effect all of its damage output
More to gain from abilities that grant more attacks

Anyway I'll post some math to compare THF to TWF with the extra attack at 11th.
I'll be evaluating the two at 1st, 5th, and 11th level. Assuming a 16 in their primary combat stat and even constitution.
1st Level
Fighter, TWF Style, Dual Wielder
Attack: (+5) 2+3
Damage per Attack: (7.5) 1d8+3
DPR v 13AC: (10.3) 2*((7.5*(12/20))+(13*(1/20)))
AC: 16+1
Other: Benefits from twice as many attacks and loses 1/2 damage for second wind.

Fighter, GWF Style, GWM
Attack: (+5/+0) 2+3 or 2+3-5
Damage per Attack: (11.3/21.3) 2*(((3+4+5+6)/4)*(4/6)+(3.5)*(2/6))+3
DPR v 13AC: (7.91/9.585) (11.3*(12/20))+(22.6*(1/20)) / (21.3*(7/20))+(42.6*(1/20))
AC: 16
Other: Benefits from a single attack and loses nothing for second wind.

5th Level
Fighter, TWF Style, Dual Wielder, +2 Stat, Battle Master
Attack: (+7) 3+4
Damage per Attack: (8.5/13) 1d8+4 / 2d8+4
DPR v 15AC: (17.85/27.3) 3*((8.5*(12/20))+(17*(1/20))) / 3*((13*(12/20))+(26*(1/20)))
AC: 17+1
Other: ^ but loses 1/3 damage for second wind, +66% from action surge, and 3 effects from battle master.

Fighter, GWF Style, GWM, +2 Stat, Champion
Attack: (+7/+2) 3+4 or 3+4-5
Damage per Attack: (12.3/22.3) 8.3+4
DPR v 15AC: (18.05/22.3) 2*((12.3*(11/20))+(22.6*(2/20))) / 2*((22.3*(6/20))+(44.6*(2/20)))
AC: 17
Other: ^ and +100% from action surge.

11th Level
Fighter, TWF Style, Dual Wielder, +4 Stat, Tough, Battle Master
Attack: (+9) 4+5
Damage per Attack: (9.5/14) 1d8+5 / 2d8+5
DPR v 17AC: (33.25/49) 5*((9.5*(12/20))+(19*(1/20))) / 5*((14*(12/20))+(28*(1/20)))
AC: 18+1
Other: ^ but loses 2/5 damage for second wind, 5 effects from battle master, and +60% from action surge.

Fighter, GWF Style, Defense Style, +4 Stat, Tough, Champion
Attack: (+9/+4) 4+5 or 4+5-5
Damage per Attack: (13.3/23.3) 8.3+5
DPR v 17AC: (31.92/38.445) 3*((13.3*(10/20))+(26.6*(3/20))) / 3*((23.3*(5/20))+(46.6*(3/20)))
AC: 18+1
Other: ^
So in the end, GWM has higher reliable DPR and benefits more from fighter class features. TWF has better nova thanks to battle master, but would debatebly benefit much more from taking ranger.

[Mjolnirbear]

Personally i've always preferred versatility to power.

Don't get me wrong. My bitty halfling paladin dished out 4d6+8d8 on a sleeping ogre with dual weilding and man, did that ever feel epic. I'm not opposed to that.

But i prefer tactics. Versatility. It's why i always choose casters. And to me, dual weilding is being versatile. You can attack or defend. You can push or retreat.

Dual weilding is free, in that you don't need a feat. Anyone can do it out of the box, even a caster. It's great for rider effects like smite or sneak attack. On the other hand, a bonus action can be a steep cost, especially a class with bonus-action spells or a rogue with Cunning Action.

I propose no change to two-weapon fighting. But i propose a change to the feat. I want the feat to be amazing, like a feat should be, and offer up alternatives to the others such as GWF and PAM.

Add versatility. And make thr numbers weaker.

My proposition: scrap the unloved and unlamented Defensive Duelist feat. Add it to Dual Weilder, which instead of its current text says:

* while weilding two melee weapons, at the beginning of your turn you may add +1 to your AC, or instead add +1 to weapon damage you deal. This lasts until the beginning of your next turn or until you are not weilding two melee weapons, whichever happens first
* you can two-weapon fight with weapons that don't have the Light property
* you can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when normally you can draw or stow only one.
* if you are attacked while weilding two weapons, you may use a reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack only.



I propose this as an idea that may be further refined. I cannot say it is balanced because i have no clue. It is more defensive than offensive yet offers the choice of either. None of it comes for free; at the cost of a bonus action or a reaction. It sounds as awesome as polearm master but doesnt (appear) to have the same damage potential. At the cost of damage (suck as ability bonus damage) you get versatility. And it might be worth spending a precious feat slot on it!

[ThermalSlapShot]

I agree that the TWF logic is a bit busted. Regarding weapons, the feats crossbow expert, great weapon mastery, and polearm mastery make their weapon types the overall best due to exclusivity. Here's what I would do:

I made a TWF Overhaul (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul) over in the Homebrew section where I address the math problems. I'd be honored if you consider it.
Feat GWM changed to Powerful Cleave, now works with any melee weapon.
Feat Polearm Mastery changed to Melee Specialist, now works with all melee weapons (pommel strikes, etc.).
Feat crossbow expert changed to Ranged Expert, now works with all ranged weapons. Bonus attack is always a d6 (max).


I wouldn't even make those as feats, just something you can do with a proficient weapon.

Many of the feats should just be basic rules for player characters.

[Ghost Dragon]

While Easy Lee's fixes are pretty good, they are a little hard to understand and lose some degree of flavor representation. The two separate attacks are what makes TWF interesting even if it is sub-optimal. I'll try my hand at some fixes.

Two Weapon Fighting Rules
When you take the Attack action with a light melee weapon, you may make an equal number of attacks at disadvantage with a light melee weapon you are wielding in your other hand. However, you may not add your Strength or Dexterity modifier to the attack rolls made by the offhand weapon.
This grants you a flurry of attacks that fit TWF's flavor. Not to mention the disadvantage with the offhand attack means that it will be superior at rending unarmored foes but have trouble piercing thick armor. Also, notice that you get your attribute to damage not attack with the second attacks. This actually fixes quite a few problems, 1/2 bonus from weapon enhancement but x2 bonus from Hunter's Mark and the like. One problem is that it does scale slightly better than THF(7.5% at 20th)* and THF is better at the start(2.5% at 1st)*. However, the lowered attack makes ACs relatively higher and thus weakens it a little.
1st Level Fighter Comparison (50% miss chance & no style)*
(1d6+3) x (0.5) = 3.25
(1d6+3) x (0.5*0.5) = 1.625
Total 4.875

(2d6+3) x (0.5) = 5
Total 5

*Comparisons were made without the attack penalty to better represent its balance.

Two Weapon Fighting Style
While wielding a weapon in each hand, add +1 to your attack rolls.
This is balanced against GWF's math(((3+4+5+6)/4)*(4/6))+((3.5)*(2/6)) Works to find GWF damage right?. If this style was +1 damage it would be around 15% better than GWF in terms of damage output. Attack does not quite have the same value as damage but it should be fairly even.

Dual Wielder
I'm stumped on how to balance this one. One handers have a different effect than they used to.

Hope these might help.

I like this simplicity, and using it as a base made the following, just my 2copper. Please be aware I haven't mathed this out regarding damage compared to Great Weapon Fighting or Pole Arm Master.

Two Weapon Fighting Rules
When you take the Attack action or the Extra Attack action with a light melee weapon, you may make an equal number of attacks at disadvantage with a light melee weapon you are wielding in your other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the additional attacks, 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. If you can make more than one attack per round using the Extra attack feature, you can freely draw new weapons to throw only if they have the finesse property.

Two Weapon Fighting Style
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack and you can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light, and you can freely draw any thrown weapon for additional attacks.
• Your additional two-weapon fighting attacks now take a - 5 penalty to the attack roll instead of imposing disadvantage.

What do ya'll think?

[Sigreid]

I think it's really only weak on a fighter. None of the other classes get more than one extra attack so TWF works great for Rangers and Rogues. It can work ok with barbarian if you have the feat and maybe one level of fighter for the fighting style, and on a paladin at level 11 that's extra improved smite damage. I don't personally think it needs fixing, but no pure 1-20 fighter should ever bother with it.

[Naanomi]

Even a fighter can find some use for it; it allows a battle-master to nova a bit better (though polearm master is a bit better usually), I have a soft spot for the rediculousness of two whips; or a hasted eldritch knight hoping to absolutely maximize number of attacks

[Sigreid]

Even a fighter can find some use for it; it allows a battle-master to nova a bit better (though polearm master is a bit better usually), I have a soft spot for the rediculousness of two whips; or a hasted eldritch knight hoping to absolutely maximize number of attacks

True, but my point was that as a fighter levels TWF becomes an increasingly smaller contributer to his overall damage, percentage wise.

[Easy_Lee]

True, but my point was that as a fighter levels TWF becomes an increasingly smaller contributer to his overall damage, percentage wise.

TWF is also weaker than polearm builds in virtually all cases. A polearm mastery build will do approximately the same amount of damage on a basic attack action, but also has these benefits:

Reach
Gets bonus opportunity attacks
Only needs a single weapon, meaning you:

Save an attunement slot
Don't have to find a second magical weapon for your offhand
Can do a more powerful haste attack or similar
Benefit more from effects like Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon


Those are the issues I tried to address in my homebrew.

Some say that giving TWF an extra attack after 11 is easiest. While that works on paper, I think extra attacks are too great a benefit considering all of the different options and consistency they bring.

[Shining Wrath]

An off the top of my head suggestion, AFB and no maths of any sort.

Give TWF specialists the opportunity to make reaction attacks. A common technique in fantasy (and perhaps in the real world) is to tie up main weapons with a parry, close with the foe, and deliver a blow with the off-hand weapon.

So ...

If a TWF specialist is attacked and missed by a melee attack, they may use their reaction to make an attack with their off-hand weapon.

Second off the top of my head suggestion which I suspect will be OP:

Instead of +1 to AC for dual-wield, give +DEX. Getting past the rapier and Cat's Paw on the Grey Mouser is difficult. It'd bump Ranger / Rogue AC significantly.

[Millface]

I've always liked it as a sort of defensive style, more than all out offense, or possibly a style that has different "Stances" you can take.

Offensive Stance: When you hit an opponent with a melee attack and you are wielding a melee weapon in your other hand all subsequent attacks on that opponent have advantage this round and deal +2 weapon damage.

Defensive Stance: While you are wielding a melee weapon in each hand and you are hit by a weapon attack you may use your reaction to incur a up to a -5 penalty to damage rolls to gain up to +5 to AC for the remainder of the round. This can cause the offending attack to miss.

Balanced Stance: While wielding a melee weapon in each hand you receive a +1 Bonus to AC, Attack, and Damage rolls.

Switching Stances is a Bonus Action.

In canonical fiction fighting with a heavy weapon is always described as a brutal, if sometimes eloquent, style, but Two Weapon Fighting, especially in reference to Drizzt, is shown to be versatile and have many, many different sequences and stances. This would be enough for me to take the feat simply because of the versatility you acquire.

[Once a Fool]

I would make the following changes:

Two-Weapon Fighting Style:
As-is, plus:
While wielding a dagger and any other melee weapon at the same time, you have +1 AC against melee attacks.
You can use any one-handed melee weapon that you have proficiency with in each hand while two-weapon fighting.
Whenever you draw or stow one weapon, you can do the same with a second.

Notes:

This is basically the Dual Wielder feat rolled into the fighting-style, but without the stat-boost and a much more limited AC bonus.

Giving weapon upgrades with the fighting style allows specialists to use the same kind of weapons throughout their whole careers--something all other styles already get to do. It also adds an avg. of 1 damage per hit. Frankly, the core of TWF's problem is its lack of scaling. Giving an effective +1 to all attacks changes that a little.

Finally, the AC bonus is meant to encourage sword-and-dagger style. Which, for a Dex-fighter, would be rapier and dagger.


Dual Wielding Feat:
As-is, plus:
When you hit with an attack while wielding a seperate melee weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to change the attack into a successful attack that uses both weapons to deal damage through a single hit.
When you miss with a melee weapon attack, you may use your reaction to gain advantage on the next attack you make on this turn.

Notes:

I left a lot of overlap with the new TWF, above, because the duplicated benefits should be available at any level of two-weapon investment past the base level. Note that the AC bonus from the feat stacks with the style's bonus from the dagger, which is equivalent to a damage-dealing shield (that can't be used with Shield Master). I'm okay with that, because we are talking about a style+feat. Doesn't seem to outshine Duelist+Shield Master.

Adding a bonus-attack option in a way that doesn't devalue the normal two-weapon bonus action option is important to bring the feat in line with other fighting style feats--all of which can grant bonus actions that are generally better options than using that bonus action with by-the-book two-weapon fighting. I chose to do this by giving the attacker a choice between making seperate attacks as normal (each of which may have seperate riders or extra damage from external sources) or adding an automatic bonus to damage on a single hit that can't get either of those things (although the additional weapon die does get doubled with crits--and the choice whether or not to use this option is made after the attack roll--it still can only ever add the one extra die to a crit, because the bonus action is not a seperate attack and its damage is not the result of a seperate hit). And must necessarily be dealt to the same target.

Finally, because that option is kind of circumstantial (as in, it is not always the best choice) adding a circumstantial reaction option seemed appropriate. I didn't want to step on Riposte's toes, but I wanted something similar. I wanted to play to the strengths of two-weapon fighting without actually adding more damage or more AC. In the end, I took advantage of a subtle difference that 5e has from its predecessors (that being that reactions can be used on the reacting character's turn) to add accuracy (and potential sneak attack damage) to a second attack (granted through some other means) in a turn in which at least one attack has already missed. This acts more as a course-correction than a straight DPR buff. Plus, it uses up the reaction, which is important to the feat presented below this one. Also, note that this part of the feat keeps parity with other fighting style feats, by working with any melee weapon (and the advantage can apply to any kind of attack).


And, because I also think we could use a good synergy feat that would play well with the above in much the same way that Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master play well together:

Light Weapon Master:
You are an expert at fighting with light weapons. You know how to quickly slip inside your opponent's defenses and how to quickly recover to maintain your own and you can even use light weapons to fight effectively while you are bound or tightly held.

You do not suffer disadvantage from being restrained when attacking with light weapons.
When you hit with a weapon attack using a weapon with the "light" property that you are proficient with, you can add damage to the attack equal to your proficiency bonus, as long as you did not make the attack with a penalty or disadvantage applied.
When you deal damage with a successful hit from a light weapon attack that is not a critical hit and you roll the maximum value on that weapon's damage die, you can roll 1d6 and add the result to the attack's damage.
While you are wielding a melee weapon, when you move out of the threatened reach of an enemy, you may use your reaction to prevent that enemy from attacking you until the end of the current turn.

Notes:

This feat is intended to compete with Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and Sharpshooter as a viable build option and, as those feats do, is intended to open up synergy with another feat (the improved Dual Wielder feat). I could have just gone with a -5 to hit/+10 damage structure, but there's a pretty good reason not to. This is because sneak attack can work with a lot of light weapons and melee sneak attacks can be made twice in a round. Add a huge GWM-style damage bonus to each attack and you've got a no-brainer for DPR builds.

So, the bonus (and associated penalty) is much more modest. So much so that, against particularly high ACs, this combination of feats will simply still not put out comparable damage to the classic high-DPR combos. But, this feat does stack with other damage options that are available for light weapons (with one exception) and it scales both with number of attacks and with levels, so it is an improvement; hopefully it is enough of one that light-weapon builds can hang out with the heavy-hitters. Note that this ability works with both ranged (in other words, light thrown weapons and the hand crossbow) and melee attacks, but does not stack with Sharpshooter's bonus damage and does not work if, for instance, the attacker cannot see or the defender is dodging. It will, however, work just fine for restrained characters, since the first ability of this feat prevents such attacks from suffering disadvantage from the condition.

The penultimate bullet point is just a little extra gravy for the feat, intended to put a tiny bit more oomph in the occasional attack. Specifically, one in four non-crit attacks with a d4 weapon will add an avg. 3.5 damage to their already maximized damage. That's an average of less than +1 point per attack! For d6 weapons, of course, it's only one in six. But, hey, bigger spike.

The final bullet point applies to a wide selection of weapons in order to be in line with other weapon style feats, all of which have some (usually quite circumstantial) benefit that can be used with a wider array of options. Usually that's a bonus action option, but a reaction seemed appropriate, here, because I wanted to model the quicker recovery time of lighter weapons (and because I wanted for characters who have both the upgraded Dual Wielder feat and this feat to have a meaningful resource-management decision in determining which reaction ability to use). Because I wanted to do so without just adding more damage, I figured that a very limited disengage which doesn't use an attack or bonus action (and, so, plays well with the dual-wielding rogue, for instance) would be a nice little circumstantial perk.

[TheOOB]

Honestly I have yet to see anyone use math to show that TWF is an inferior option. The only point where is is notably lacking is for a level 20 fighter, which is a very small part of of a specific build.

Average damage ratings(with 20 in attribute)

1 Attack
Duelist: 11.5
Great Weapon: 13.33
TWF: 17

2 Attacks
Duelist: 23
Great Weapon: 26.66
TWF: 25.5

3 Attacks:
Duelist: 34.5
Great Weapon: 40
TWF: 34

4 Attacks
Duelist: 46
Great Weapon: 53.32
TWF: 42.5

Note this is without feats. TWF is on par with GWF for everyone but a fighter over halfway through a 1-2 career, and what it losses in damage an action economy it makes up for in versitility(making more attacks helps you regress to mean damage easier, you're better able to take advantage of on hit effects, you can hit more foes). At 3 attacks it's less good(unless you have to hit effects, flaming weapons FTW) but not worthless by any means, and if you hit 20 fighter it's pretty bad, but lots of options are bad for people with specific builds.

Noes that with the feat you're looking at 19, 28.5, 38, and 47.5 and half the shield bonus of duelist.

So in short, if you're planning on going fighter 20, and you expect level 20 to be very relevant to your campaign, don't take TWF, but otherwise it's a viable and useful option.

Also TWF is really strong for rogues, so it's dangerous to buff it.

[Kryx]

Math has been provided in this thread and every thread. If you have not seen it then you haven't been looking.

You've provided no assumptions for your math - are you assuming everything hits? That's awful as GWM's hit chance is lower. Also how did you estimate the chance of GWM's bonus attack? I do both those in my DPR of Classes.

It is not close, at all.

[djreynolds]

TWF is fine.
1. before you had to take a negative to hit with your main hand and off hand, no more.
2. on a bonus action you can hit with your off hand
3. feats allow you +1 defense and to draw or stow weapons freely and wield any one handed weapon- meaning you can switch from off hand to two handed, very versatile.
4. And defensive duelist works as long as you have a finesse weapon. Dual scimitars are finesse weapons thus allowing this feat.
5. A shield is only +2, you get half that defense and can still attack with that weapon.
6. you can store that short-sword and put two hands on that long-sword for extra damage, and though not a heavy weapon I may allow it to use the GWM if that's what you're looking into aka, Samurai. But if the answer is no, still not bad. Keep a great sword on the back.
7. also you can throw your offhand weapon and draw another weapon, if you have it.
8. paladins at 11th level add 1d8 to all attacks.

Could this be better, yes. But if we allowed bonus attacks on every attack and not attack actions, than things would get out of hand.
Also strength is always needed to avoid disarming, it is a strength check.

I like the idea of the two weapon rend but only with light weapons, you gotta get in there close, and I'd give to the ranger only, he has to have something to make of up for his giant crab companion.

Also, a question, why does the duelist only affect the one handed weapon wielder and shield bearer. And not a two weapon fighter's main hand. Why would a battle axe wielder ever go shield-less. I mean 1d10 vs 1d8 +2, which is 3d10. I say the designers need to make duelist bonus for only one weapon fighters signifying that during the fight you will be wielding that weapon at some point with two hands or allow it for both two weapon wielder's main hand and a shield bearer.

[Kryx]

TWF is fine.
It's not "fine". It is mathematically the worst choice. It has no niche. Easy_Lee has established this pretty concisely - he had a thread on it a while ago.

[djreynolds]

It's not "fine". It is mathematically the worst choice. It has no niche. Easy_Lee has established this pretty concisely - he had a thread on it a while ago.

Well it's not getting fixed, I may as well be fine with it. I'm certainly not happy with it. Just trying to look on the bright side.

[Kryx]

Well it's not getting fixed, I may as well be fine with it. I'm certainly not happy with it. Just trying to look on the bright side.
It is unlikely to get fixed, you're right. One can either accept that or fix it themselves. Easy, myself, and others have done the later.

[Spacehamster]

Probably somebody that have already said this but have the feat make the offhand attack part of your normal attack action. Gives it versatility since you can then instead use your bonus action for smthn else then "I hits it with mah offhand stick"

[Easy_Lee]

It's not "fine". It is mathematically the worst choice. It has no niche. Easy_Lee has established this pretty concisely - he had a thread on it a while ago.

In addition to this, there's the (potential) double attunement requirement, the need for an extra magic weapon, the weaker haste attacks, less benefit from magic weapon / elemental weapon, and so on. TWF has a lot going against it. The niche is rogues who don't have crossbow expert, but there isn't much else.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I never understood the magic or "I have a weapon in off hand so I must know how to make more attacks than I typically could".

Why doesn't wielding a dagger in one hand get that bonus attack? Or a short sword? But they get it if you have two?

Unless you are trained, say TWF fighting style, you shouldn't be getting that bonus attack.*

Why is it that attacking with a dagger + short sword as a BA is legit but dager + fist is not...

I guess you could attack mainhand dagger + use object switch hands + bonus action attack off hand....

* = now if there was a feature, such as my secondary attack basic rule then things make sense. You can BA attack with any weapon bu with a damage cap... Then things make sense within the realm of the game.

[Easy_Lee]

I never understood the magic or "I have a weapon in off hand so I must know how to make more attacks than I typically could".

Why doesn't wielding a dagger in one hand get that bonus attack? Or a short sword? But they get it if you have two?

Unless you are trained, say TWF fighting style, you shouldn't be getting that bonus attack.*

Why is it that attacking with a dagger + short sword as a BA is legit but dager + fist is not...

I guess you could attack mainhand dagger + use object switch hands + bonus action attack off hand....

* = now if there was a feature, such as my secondary attack basic rule then things make sense. You can BA attack with any weapon bu with a damage cap... Then things make sense within the realm of the game.

From a practical standpoint, getting extra attacks from two weapons only makes sense if you defend with one while attacking with the other. In that case, you should also get a bonus attack when attacking with a shield.

[ThermalSlapShot]

From a practical standpoint, getting extra attacks from two weapons only makes sense if you defend with one while attacking with the other. In that case, you should also get a bonus attack when attacking with a shield.

Yup.

Though practicality and common sense isn't really something associated with weapons in D&D.

[Once a Fool]

I think a large part of the power gap between TWF and other styles is actually in the (lack of) feat support. Great weapon users have more options that add versatility (to match two-weapon users' inherent versatility), raw damage output, and lots of synergy. The versatility Dual Wielder adds is minimal (draw or stow two at a time!), it's power upgrade is minimal (+1 avg. damage), and its synergy is almost non-existent. Plus, it's power-boost and defense-boost combined are flat out inferior to a Dexterity increase.

Also, aesthetically, there's something wrong with expecting a two-weapons user to upgrade weapons mid-career, when all other styles can use what they want from level 1.

[Kryx]

Swapping the fighting style (ability to offhand dmg) with the feat (larger weapons) makes a ton of sense and fixed that issue of switching weapons.