House Rule to make Two-Weapon Fighting worthwhile?

[Arkhios]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

[hymer]

Someone did some extensive calculations and graphs of DPR for various classes, weapons and styles, and IIRC suggested adding in something at around level 8, where if you hit with both hands in a round, you deal an extra d8 damage or something. And that would be enough to keep two-weapon fighting competitive.

Maybe someone more involved with that whole thing can remember?

[Ninja_Prawn]

Someone did some extensive calculations and graphs of DPR for various classes, weapons and styles, and IIRC suggested adding in something at around level 8, where if you hit with both hands in a round, you deal an extra d8 damage or something. And that would be enough to keep two-weapon fighting competitive.

Maybe someone more involved with that whole thing can remember?

I didn't get involved in that; it's not really my scene. I seem to remember some people suggesting that the two weapon fighting style and dual wielder feat be swapped. Some have also said "allow opportunity attacks to use both hands". Make of that what you will.

[Markoff Chainey]

I personally think that the most reliable fix is to add another attack at Level 11 when using the bonus action to attack with the offhand weapon.

With "most reliable" I do mean that it is not very likely that this fix will mess with any other abilities that might come in later additions. - Because your text indicates to me that you want to change the way TWF works, and I think that even if you could come up with some solution, it is highly likely that some later addition introduces some abilities that make it broken.

My recommendation is to look into the DPS graphs from Kryx and do some before rule change / rule change analysis as he did... you find it here as a google document (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=508652177)

[Arkhios]

I personally think that the most reliable fix is to add another attack at Level 11 when using the bonus action to attack with the offhand weapon.

With "most reliable" I do mean that it is not very likely that this fix will mess with any other abilities that might come in later additions. - Because your text indicates to me that you want to change the way TWF works, and I think that even if you could come up with some solution, it is highly likely that some later addition introduces some abilities that make it broken.

My recommendation is to look into the DPS graphs from Kryx and do some before rule change / rule change analysis as he did... you find it here as a google document (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=508652177)

That's ... surely an extensive analysis there. Whoa! I may be bored right now, but not THAT bored to dig into that much graphs. :D (no offense intended at anybody)

But, I'm honestly open to any kinds of suggestions. Changing how the ability works, or swapping feat&fighting style with each other, or something else entirely.

One thing I had in mind was somewhat precedent from how Sneak Attack functions:
"Once each turn, while wielding two (light) melee weapons, when you hit at least once with Attack action, you can make one additional attack."

This would free up the Bonus Action, but wouldn't add any more attacks due to Two-Weapon Fighting, as you could make it only once per turn. If I'm right, you can't make Sneak Attack twice on your turn, even with Action Surge, so this might work. I think? Furthermore, this wouldn't cause the fighting style nor the feat to not function as they do right now.

[McNinja]

I am definitely for swapping the feat and the fighting style - although both should be available to all classes.

what about swapping the off-hand attack from bonus action to your reaction? Although that would mess with AoO.

[Citan]

Hi OP :)

My personal fix (if I deemed it necessary) would probably be one of the following.
1) Taking the "+1 AC" from Dual-Wielder feat and make it standard. In exchange, add to the feat the fact that you can either Parry (+DEX modifier) or Riposte as a reaction.

2) Tell that while you're dual-wielding you can...
a) During your turn, forego one attack to get advantage on the next attack (you use one of your weapon attacks as a feint). As long as such an attack hit, you keep the advantage for the next one.
b) Make one attack as a bonus action when Dodging (while one arm is "en garde", the other is still ready to strike).
c) For any attack, choose to make it at disadvantage to use both weapons at once, meaning that, if you hit, you deal damage from both weapons (like you try a strike by crossing weapons).

3) Keep everything as is BUT allow you to try 2 attacks at once on a reaction.

Didn't give great thought about balancing though, it's more like ideas thrown. :)

[PeteNutButter]

Simple change in the spirit of the style:

When you take the bonus action to attack with your offhand you can make one attack for every attack you made with your main hand that turn.

DWing is about a swirling harrassment or a flurry of attacks, hacking, slashing, or beating and it means you just need more attacks. For balance well as long as you land all attacks and you have the feats and lets say your 11 fighter 3 ranger, and you have a mark on them you are only dealing d8+1d6+5 per hit, max 8 hits, maybe 10 if your hasted...
That's 130 damage.

It would make the player FEEL like a TWF imo. If you are concerned that's too strong, just make it one extra attack once they get the extra attack feature.

Only issue is what this does to the poor monks...

[Joe the Rat]

Where is it that you find it breaking down - when or for whom does it need fixed?

That is the question that should drive your approach. Are we looking at fixing TWF in general (applies to straight-class wizards as well as fighters), TWF for martials (balancing the extra attack against the smaller/fewer dice, fighting style may apply), or TWF add-ons for specific classes (added benefit for rogues or blade warlocks, balancing against the 3rd & 4th attacks for fighters, etc).

For the most part, I'm finding it "good enough." The fighting style gives you an extra serving of stat to damage, you are less spikey in your damage (an extra shot to hit for more consistent over turn damage, the ability to split damage over multiple targets rather than overrun the hp total), and for rogues and insane bladelocks, it's extra dip for extra damage (a second shot for sneak attack where the first missed, two servings of Hex). The other place you see benefits is the whole Dex-focused option, but that's another argument.

Where I'm seeing the big breakdown is for Fighter iteratives, and feat support (Great Weapon Master vs. Dual Wielding). On a fighter, TWF + Dual Wielder keeps you on course (within a few points) of a straight Great Weapon fighter (thanks mainly to that extra +stat to damage), but when GWM comes in, that potential bonus attack throws everything off again (and that's leaving the -5/+10 out of the equation). GWM vs Dual wielder impacts pretty much everyone.

So I would look at adding to the Fighting Style, adding to Dual Wielder, or adding another Feat.

Citan's trade your off-hand attack for advantage looks good, but good lord does that do a number for rogues, as that can grant sneak attack damage where it is otherwise unavailable. Weigh that in as free option vs. bonus action option. If you add it to Feat or Style, that may be sufficient cost for a free effect.

I like the free extra attack idea, but I'd be inclined to have it require a successful hit with both a regular and the bonus action attack, and as part of the Feat. I think that may alleviate some of the pain with the GWM cleave effect. Note that with "a" regular attack, iterative attack classes have multiple opportunities to get the first half. If you make it "a successful hit with two attacks," it makes it easier to reach. I will also point out that as a freebie, with a Ranger with this feature plus Horde Breaker can get five attacks when rolling hot.

Making the +1 AC an inherent feature of the style (Citan is a font of ideas today) is a benefit to desperate wizards everywhere, and makes the calculus for everyone a matter of finding your spot between two-handed weapon fighting and going sword and board.

[Grod_The_Giant]

An alternate approach to the storm-of-swords bit: an offhand weapon in real life was often used more for parrying than for attacking, as I understand it. Why not allow (through feat or fighting style) a dual-wielder to use their reaction to parry? Make an opposed attack roll, and if it's higher than your opponent's you don't get hit.

[choryukami]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

What I did in my homebrew campaign is like this: if you hit an opponent with both your main hand and offhand weapon, each time you hit with your main hand it applies a 'rend' effect, adding your ability modifier to damage. This doesn't remove the bonus action but it starts out being on par with GWM and SS without the -5 but costing a bonus action. At later levels with more attacks it is not nearly as strong. But still scales.

[MaxWilson]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

House rule would be: when you use your bonus action for off-hand attacks, you get half as many attacks with your off hand (rounded up) as you get with your main hand.

In essence, 11th level fighters get two offhand attacks. That's all two-weapon fighting needs to be competitive.

[CaptAl]

House rule would be: when you use your bonus action for off-hand attacks, you get half as many attacks with your off hand (rounded up) as you get with your main hand.

In essence, 11th level fighters get two offhand attacks. That's all two-weapon fighting needs to be competitive.

That's exactly what I was thinking myself. Bake a +1 to AC into the style with the enhanced bonus attack and it's good IMO.

[Foxhound438]

a real-life benefit to fighting with 2 weapons is that it's harder to block both attacks at once. I'd say add to 2wfs "you get a +2 to attack rolls with the bonus action attack if any of your initial attacks missed", or something to that effect.

[Arkhios]

Where is it that you find it breaking down - when or for whom does it need fixed?

That is the question that should drive your approach. Are we looking at fixing TWF in general (applies to straight-class wizards as well as fighters), TWF for martials (balancing the extra attack against the smaller/fewer dice, fighting style may apply), or TWF add-ons for specific classes (added benefit for rogues or blade warlocks, balancing against the 3rd & 4th attacks for fighters, etc).

For the most part, I'm finding it "good enough." The fighting style gives you an extra serving of stat to damage, you are less spikey in your damage (an extra shot to hit for more consistent over turn damage, the ability to split damage over multiple targets rather than overrun the hp total), and for rogues and insane bladelocks, it's extra dip for extra damage (a second shot for sneak attack where the first missed, two servings of Hex). The other place you see benefits is the whole Dex-focused option, but that's another argument.

Where I'm seeing the big breakdown is for Fighter iteratives, and feat support (Great Weapon Master vs. Dual Wielding). On a fighter, TWF + Dual Wielder keeps you on course (within a few points) of a straight Great Weapon fighter (thanks mainly to that extra +stat to damage), but when GWM comes in, that potential bonus attack throws everything off again (and that's leaving the -5/+10 out of the equation). GWM vs Dual wielder impacts pretty much everyone.

So I would look at adding to the Fighting Style, adding to Dual Wielder, or adding another Feat.

Citan's trade your off-hand attack for advantage looks good, but good lord does that do a number for rogues, as that can grant sneak attack damage where it is otherwise unavailable. Weigh that in as free option vs. bonus action option. If you add it to Feat or Style, that may be sufficient cost for a free effect.

I like the free extra attack idea, but I'd be inclined to have it require a successful hit with both a regular and the bonus action attack, and as part of the Feat. I think that may alleviate some of the pain with the GWM cleave effect. Note that with "a" regular attack, iterative attack classes have multiple opportunities to get the first half. If you make it "a successful hit with two attacks," it makes it easier to reach. I will also point out that as a freebie, with a Ranger with this feature plus Horde Breaker can get five attacks when rolling hot.

Making the +1 AC an inherent feature of the style (Citan is a font of ideas today) is a benefit to desperate wizards everywhere, and makes the calculus for everyone a matter of finding your spot between two-handed weapon fighting and going sword and board.

I'm concerned about the balance towards 2-handed melee and even ranged combat, sans fighting styles or feats (thus, I'm speaking about a "technique" quite on purpose).

Neither a 2-handed melee weapon (such as greatsword) or a ranged weapon (such as bow) are equally taxing for the added properties. Two-weapon fighting is not comparable with the other techniques; none other requires a bonus action to be used, that's the issue. Why is it worse? I can understand that without a special training (Fighting Style) or experience (Feat) you can only wield light weapons and you can't add ability modifier to off-hand damage. But that I can't understand why do I have to use a bonus action for that off-hand attack. What makes the fighting technique so "bad" that it must be punished while the other's don't?

[Icewraith]

If you hit an opponent with both a main-hand and an off-hand weapon in a round (regardless of whether or not you use a bonus action to make an additional attack with your off-hand), until the start of your next turn all your successful attacks against that opponent after the first successful attack gain a bonus weapon damage die equal to the smaller of the weapons you wield.

[mer.c]

House rule would be: when you use your bonus action for off-hand attacks, you get half as many attacks with your off hand (rounded up) as you get with your main hand.

In essence, 11th level fighters get two offhand attacks. That's all two-weapon fighting needs to be competitive.

I'd be inclined to spell it out differently: As part of their 11th level multiattack ability, fighters get the ability to make two offhand attacks if the make two (or more) mainhand attacks. That way you're only applying the new wording to the one specific case where it will show up, and everyone else who's dual-wielding doesn't even encounter the rule. A new player on Ranger, for instance, might read the half-rounded-up wording and wonder at what level they start making 2 offhand attacks. It wouldn't be the end of the world, but it would introduce a little extra hassle.

Of course since it's a houserule and not printed in the PHB or anything it's kind of (OK, entirely) a moot point. But you know.

[Talamare]

TWF is fine, it's GWM that is OP

[Vogonjeltz]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

Two-weapon fighting is just fine if you only ever have one attack (Rogue, anyone under level 5), or if you have something that activates off a hit (Battlemaster using maneuvers) and thus benefits from extra attempts to attack. It also has the situational advantage of allowing you to split your damage.

[Laserlight]

An alternate approach to the storm-of-swords bit: an offhand weapon in real life was often used more for parrying than for attacking, as I understand it. Why not allow (through feat or fighting style) a dual-wielder to use their reaction to parry? Make an opposed attack roll, and if it's higher than your opponent's you don't get hit.

I used to fence with two rapiers, or with main gauche, cloak, etc in the left hand. Offhand weapon is indeed usually for defense, although it's always a threat as well. I'd be inclined (after about 10 seconds thought) to give +1 to melee AC and maybe use your reaction to parry or attack. That way you have to choose whether you're being aggressive or not.

[Citan]

For the most part, I'm finding it "good enough." The fighting style gives you an extra serving of stat to damage, you are less spikey in your damage (an extra shot to hit for more consistent over turn damage, the ability to split damage over multiple targets rather than overrun the hp total), and for rogues and insane bladelocks, it's extra dip for extra damage (a second shot for sneak attack where the first missed, two servings of Hex). The other place you see benefits is the whole Dex-focused option, but that's another argument.

Citan's trade your off-hand attack for advantage looks good, but good lord does that do a number for rogues, as that can grant sneak attack damage where it is otherwise unavailable. Weigh that in as free option vs. bonus action option. If you add it to Feat or Style, that may be sufficient cost for a free effect.

Making the +1 AC an inherent feature of the style (Citan is a font of ideas today) is a benefit to desperate wizards everywhere, and makes the calculus for everyone a matter of finding your spot between two-handed weapon fighting and going sword and board.
Thanks. :) To be honest I worked a bit on my 60 pages homebrew class today XD so my brain is cabled the right way today. ^^

I didn't understand your point about "forego one attack for advantage on the next". Were you telling that it was great or bad for Rogues?
My idea behind this was more so for any class having at least 3 attacks a round (Extra Attack + bonus action), as an alternative to the Shield Master shove option, with the added versatility of choosing how to dispatch your attacks between action and bonus action.
For the Rogue, it's indeed a way to enable Sneak attack more easily, but I don't think it's OP considering that...
a) Rogues also have many other ways to get advantage, by themselves or allies;
b) a pure dual-wielding Rogue is still betting everything on a single attack. It's basically a complement, for a solo duelist, to the swashbuckler archetype bonus. :)

With that said, I think we all agree that it could be a nice Feat benefit, while the +1AC is fused in the Fighting Style instead. :)

[Arkhios]

TWF is fine, it's GWM that is OP

The problem here is not about any feats, it's about the core of how fighting with two weapons works.

When compared to two-handed melee weapons, fighting with two weapons is taxing, while the damage output is about as equal with it.
e.g.; not taking into account any feats and regardless of class:
Greataxe, greatsword, etc. (2d6/1d12+ability)
two handaxes, shortswords etc. (1d6+1d6+ability)
Both are equal in damage, but attacking with two-handed melee weapon requires only one Attack action, while attacking also with an off-hand weapon takes up Bonus Action to make same amount of damage (target or targets irrelevant). I don't think that's really fair.

About ranged weapons in comparison. The sheer fact that you gan attack from a long range is a great utility in itself. Melee combatants are at greater risk, and might want to use their bonus actions for something else entirely, and eventually might end up never attacking with their off-hand, thus making the use of those weapons pretty pointless. It's ruining the fantasy of such fighting.

[Malifice]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

It doesnt really need it. Its a viable option for rogues, paladins (smite nova), battlemasters (manouver nova) and OK for barbarians.

You can get better DPR from polearm master or GWM for sure, but then you have to figure in the opportunity cost of the feats.

[bid]

Greataxe, greatsword, etc. (2d6/1d12+ability)
two handaxes, shortswords etc. (1d6+1d6+ability)
Both are equal in damage, but attacking with two-handed melee weapon requires only one Attack action, while attacking also with an off-hand weapon takes up Bonus Action to make same amount of damage (target or targets irrelevant). I don't think that's really fair.
Dex is already the god stat in 5e, no need to pile more on it. I see no reason an archer should match the melee damage of a Str build. I'd rather give it more utility like +1AC.

Now the real problem is killing GWM/SS or finding something of equivalent value for TWF. If it wasn't for those, TWF would be competitive.

[Malifice]

Dex is already the god stat in 5e, no need to pile more on it. I see no reason an archer should match the melee damage of a Str build. I'd rather give it more utility like +1AC.

Now the real problem is killing GWM/SS or finding something of equivalent value for TWF. If it wasn't for those, TWF would be competitive.

When youre applying rider effects (including extra damage dice) to your attacks, having more attacks is better than one big one.

TWF on its own is pretty meh (which I dont mind from a simulationist position - traditionally using two weapons at the same time was a corner case that was avoided by soliders and warriors historically).

It does get competitive on a few select classes and builds.

[Xalyz]

One silly idea that I had was to combine the two dice into one roll. For example, two short swords would deal 2d6. This would actually work quite well because it makes the feat worth it, maybe even a bit overpowered.

[Arkhios]

Dex is already the god stat in 5e, no need to pile more on it. I see no reason an archer should match the melee damage of a Str build. I'd rather give it more utility like +1AC.

Now the real problem is killing GWM/SS or finding something of equivalent value for TWF. If it wasn't for those, TWF would be competitive.

Sorry, but how did that quote have anything to do with wanting anything more for archers?

I was talking about melee weapons. By far, archery is absolutely fine as it is.

[Talamare]

The problem here is not about any feats, it's about the core of how fighting with two weapons works.

When compared to two-handed melee weapons, fighting with two weapons is taxing, while the damage output is about as equal with it.
e.g.; not taking into account any feats and regardless of class:
Greataxe, greatsword, etc. (2d6/1d12+ability)
two handaxes, shortswords etc. (1d6+1d6+ability)
Both are equal in damage, but attacking with two-handed melee weapon requires only one Attack action, while attacking also with an off-hand weapon takes up Bonus Action to make same amount of damage (target or targets irrelevant). I don't think that's really fair.

About ranged weapons in comparison. The sheer fact that you gan attack from a long range is a great utility in itself. Melee combatants are at greater risk, and might want to use their bonus actions for something else entirely, and eventually might end up never attacking with their off-hand, thus making the use of those weapons pretty pointless. It's ruining the fantasy of such fighting.

The problem with not taking account anything is there are a lot of factors to it. If lets say for example there was a Feat that existed that said While Dual Wielding, your attacks deal +100 damage. Then you make a thread saying "not taking anything into account, Dual Wielding is underpowered".

So if we take into account, 1 Fighting Style on both. As well as you have 2 Attacks from Class.
Fair comparison on both sides

Great Weapon gets...
2d6 / 1d12 +Ability damage x2
Reroll 1/2s


Dual Wield gets...
1d6 +Ability damage x3


Moving on... That put's... Assuming Max Attribute of 5
DW at 25.5
GW at 26.6 / 24.64

As you can see DW is technically on par with GW
However, Great Weapon Master feat is VASTLY more powerful than Dual Wielder
As well as Crits are VASTLY more powerful on a GW, ESPECIALLY if he has GWM

[Arkhios]

The problem with not taking account anything is there are a lot of factors to it. If lets say for example there was a Feat that existed that said While Dual Wielding, your attacks deal +100 damage. Then you make a thread saying "not taking anything into account, Dual Wielding is underpowered"

As you can see DW is technically on par with GW
However, Great Weapon Master feat is VASTLY more powerful than Dual Wielder
As well as Crits are VASTLY more powerful on a GW, ESPECIALLY if he has GWM

You keep twisting my words and disregard what I've said from the beginning:

To accomplish the same damage with DW, you have to use Bonus Action.
GW requires only Attack action.

Why should we treat "Attack action+Bonus Action" as equal with "Attack action" when it clearly isn't?
I'm aware that the damage is balanced. It's the means to accomplish that damage which isn't.

Feats have NOTHING to do with this very core function that EVERYONE, feats or without, can use.
Besides, there is this misunderstanding that every DM allows feats in the first place.

I'm trying to figure out a solution that applies to fighting with two weapons in general.

[Arkhios]

People have given a number of good ideas indeed.

My favorites at this point would be:
Simply by wielding an off-hand weapon, one might get +1 to (melee?) AC, by default. I'm aware it takes one benefit away from the feat, but perhaps the feat could allow Parry as a Reaction instead of the bonus to AC?

A fighter with Two-Weapon Fighting style (or maybe even without it?) could indeed be able to make another off-hand attack at 11th level.

Another favorite (though I'm a bit biased to say it, as it's my own idea) is:
Shift the additional attack from bonus action to the actual Attack action, with a requirement, and a condition: You must be wielding two light weapons to get one additional attack, but only once per turn. I believe this wouldn't hurt none of the features that add up for the technique: not the Feat nor the Style. Both would still function as written. Neither would this shift the balance in regards to two-handed weapons.

[Joe the Rat]

I'm concerned about the balance towards 2-handed melee and even ranged combat, sans fighting styles or feats (thus, I'm speaking about a "technique" quite on purpose).

Neither a 2-handed melee weapon (such as greatsword) or a ranged weapon (such as bow) are equally taxing for the added properties. Two-weapon fighting is not comparable with the other techniques; none other requires a bonus action to be used, that's the issue. Why is it worse? I can understand that without a special training (Fighting Style) or experience (Feat) you can only wield light weapons and you can't add ability modifier to off-hand damage. But that I can't understand why do I have to use a bonus action for that off-hand attack. What makes the fighting technique so "bad" that it must be punished while the other's don't?
Here are a couple of thoughts.
Bonus Actions:
1) You don't have a Bonus Action. You get Bonus Actions from features, or spells, or situations (having two weapons), of which you can use one in a turn. Sans styles, sans feats, what's giving you a Bonus action? Where would a two-hander or a sword&board, or an archer be getting bonus actions? Straight up fighting, there's nothing there. It's once you dig into class features, and feats, you start finding sources. Rogue is the Baronet of Bonus Actions, and two-weapon attack is but another option. Sneak Attack is where they do their damage; the second blade is insurance on a missed attempt, which you can skip for a "get out of melee free" card if you succeed. They don't get a two-handed melee sneak attack. Caster-meleers have some bonus action spells and spell commands, Fighters will once a combat (maybe) Second Wind... which puts the weight of fixing in the arena of fighting styles.

2) Two weapon fighting - or any double tool use - is tricky. Even ignoring handedness issues, you're dividing your focus. It takes practice, which suggests that training - class abilities and feats - is where most of the upgrades should go. Make the Feat stronger. Make the fighting style stronger. Make what you get from the granted bonus action dependent on class features (extra attack). Taking the bonus action prevents you from focusing on doing a third thing while attempting to use two weapons. If you think that a well-trained dual-wielding Ranger or Cleric should be able to cast spells while dual-wielding, or Rogues should stab-stab-disengage, Having the off-hand attack as part of the Attack action sounds like a good Feat feature for Dual Wielder.

The role of Two Weapons
Looking at melee, what is the role of Two Weapon Fighting? Currently, Two-handed/Great Weapon is about big damage (and feats for more big damage). Sword and Board trades that damage output for defense (with fighting styles to boost either aspect). Archery/Ranged is Flexible Defense, with support to increase accuracy AND damage... AND defense (Sharpshooter: Killing you from 5 turns away).

Maybe Two-Weapon shouldn't try to be Big Weapon. As it sits, baseline twf trades damage and defense for extra attacks. The fighting style helps the latter (more stat to damage), the feat helps both (bigger weapon die, AC bonus). It sits awkwardly between the two melee forms. But perhaps we should find a different role. Maybe this should be the melee 'attack bonus' style (which it sort of does). Maybe this should be the pack tactic counter style (reaction to disadvantage incoming attacks; adjacent allies do not gain advantage). Maybe this should be the ultra-damage-spike style (increased crit range; land one crit, roll crit damage for both weapons). Take your vision of what Two-Weapon should do, and build to that. Or build more than one (through class/feat options), with that flexibility as the key feature of two weapon.


Thanks. :) To be honest I worked a bit on my 60 pages homebrew class today XD so my brain is cabled the right way today. ^^

I didn't understand your point about "forego one attack for advantage on the next". Were you telling that it was great or bad for Rogues?I meant it is good for rogues. If you don't have an adjacent ally, don't have the drop on a target, or if you're a swashbuckler facing 2 to 1, you could still get sneak attack damage by trading your off hand attack for advantage. That can be a handy trick.

[bid]

I was talking about melee weapons. By far, archery is absolutely fine as it is.
Indeed it is.

Archers going melee should not do as much damage as Str build just because they use TWF.

[greenstone]

Neither a 2-handed melee weapon (such as greatsword) or a ranged weapon (such as bow) are equally taxing for the added properties. Two-weapon fighting is not comparable with the other techniques; none other requires a bonus action to be used, that's the issue.

Think of it not as "none other requires a bonus action"; but as "non other gives you a bonus action".

For example, what Bonus Action does a greatsword-wielding fighter get? A longbow-wielding fighter? Or perhaps a better question is, what Bonus Action do those two fighters get which can do damage?

A bow-wielding Rogue only gets one chance per turn to do Sneak Attack damage. A dual-dagger Rogue gets two.

I don't think two-weapon fighting needs adjusting either way. But (and this is important!)... its your game, not mine. As loing as everyone's having fun, go for it!

[Icewraith]

I think two-weapon fighting should have the goal of hitting the opponent with both weapons every round, bonus action or no.

So, a source of bonus damage that activates once the opponent has been hit with both weapons makes sense to me. The only trick is you don't want to worry about retroactive damage. So, "when you wield a weapon in your main hand and off hand and make a successful attack roll against an opponent with each weapon, each hit (including the second hit, but not the first hit) deals an extra 1d6 damage until the start of your next turn".

Originally I was going to have it scale with weapon dice, but 1d8 got pretty ridiculous. 1d6 might even be a bit strong, with the DW feat it leaves PAM (but not GWM or PAM+GWM on low AC targets) in the dust pretty handily with +1 ac (but not reach or the easier way to trigger OAs) at level 5.

Keeping track for the entire round means it can trigger off reactions.

Note that the smaller weapon dice mean that TWF needs to use its bonus action and land both attacks to deal damage similar to a greatsword using the attack action, even at level one. TWF should deal somewhat more damage than the greatsword if it lands both attacks to compensate for the smaller damage die when it only lands one attack.

[MaxWilson]

Two-weapon fighting is just fine if you only ever have one attack (Rogue, anyone under level 5), or if you have something that activates off a hit (Battlemaster using maneuvers) and thus benefits from extra attempts to attack. It also has the situational advantage of allowing you to split your damage.

It's also worth noting that damage isn't the only thing you can get from an offhand attack. The DMG has a variant rule for Disarm, for example, and you could use your offhand attack to attempt to Disarm the enemy. (It's a contest of attack roll vs. Athletics, with advantage/disadvantage for size and whether the enemy weapon is two-handed or not.) If you get lucky you might be able to Disarm a Orcus so the wizard's familiar can snatch up his wand and fly away. That's a worthwhile use of a bonus action.


For example, what Bonus Action does a greatsword-wielding fighter get? A longbow-wielding fighter? Or perhaps a better question is, what Bonus Action do those two fighters get which can do damage?

The Greatsword-wielding fighter may want to spend his bonus action on Overrun (from the DMG, Athletics contest to move through an enemy's space; costs an action or bonus action, your choice). The Longbow-wielding fighter may (if Eldritch Knight) want to use his bonus action on Expeditious Retreat to hold the range open so he can attack unopposed.

Neither of those adds to damage but they still compete for the bonus action resource.

The EK could also spend his bonus action to control a Flaming Sphere for extra damage.

[djreynolds]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

We do two-weapon rend
if you hit with both weapons you can rend for extra damage that is double your proficiency score.
Or you can kick-off and gain the disengage action from that opponent only
or kick-in and contest your athletics vs thier athletic/acrobatics, you end pushing them up to 15ft if you win

[Talamare]

You keep twisting my words and disregard what I've said from the beginning:

To accomplish the same damage with DW, you have to use Bonus Action.
GW requires only Attack action.

Why should we treat "Attack action+Bonus Action" as equal with "Attack action" when it clearly isn't?
I'm aware that the damage is balanced. It's the means to accomplish that damage which isn't.

Feats have NOTHING to do with this very core function that EVERYONE, feats or without, can use.
Besides, there is this misunderstanding that every DM allows feats in the first place.

I'm trying to figure out a solution that applies to fighting with two weapons in general.
I'm not twisting your words, but we are definitely not understanding each other.
Using your Bonus Action to make another attack is a GOOD thing...
The problem is that GW scales better with more Attacks than DW

[McNinja]

definitely not understanding

Using your Bonus Action to make another attack is a GOOD thing...
This is the problem. It is not a good thing. You're using up two actions to do the damage a barbarian with a greataxe can do with one action.

[Arkhios]

I'm not twisting your words, but we are definitely not understanding each other.
Using your Bonus Action to make another attack is a GOOD thing...
The problem is that GW scales better with more Attacks than DW

Using two actions instead of one action to accomplish same results isn't good.
2-handed weapons aren't the problem. It's simple and effective way to deal damage and really doesn't need a nerf. It's DW that needs a boost.

Especially when a character gets more attacks.
1st level fighter has 1 attack:
Greatsword potential: 2d6+(Str x 1)
Shortswords potential: 2d6+(Str x 1)

5th level fighter has 2 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 4d6+(Str x 2)
Shortswords potential: 3d6+(Str x 2), lacking 1d6 from dice.

11th level fighter has 3 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 6d6+(Str x 3)
Shortswords potential: 4d6+(Str x 3), lacking 2d6 from dice.

17th level fighter has 4 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 8d6+(Str x 4)
Shortswords potential: 5d6+(Str x 4), lacking 3d6 from dice.

also, it's worthwhile to note that you only get one bonus action each turn, ever.

Edit: Sure, a fighter could take the fighting style and add 1-5 damage each turn, regardless of how many attacks you have. It obviously starts as good, but begins to matter less soon.

Honestly, *how* is two actions instead of one "good", when your potential lags behind like that?

What I'm looking for here is to figure out a way to bring that dual wielding potential even with 2-handers. Or at least closer than now.

[Talamare]

Using two actions instead of one action to accomplish same results isn't good.
2-handed weapons aren't the problem. It's simple and effective way to deal damage and really doesn't need a nerf. It's DW that needs a boost.

Especially when a character gets more attacks.
1st level fighter has 1 attack:
Greatsword potential: 2d6+(Str x 1)
Shortswords potential: 2d6+(Str x 1)

5th level fighter has 2 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 4d6+(Str x 2)
Shortswords potential: 3d6+(Str x 2), lacking 1d6 from dice.

11th level fighter has 3 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 6d6+(Str x 3)
Shortswords potential: 4d6+(Str x 3), lacking 2d6 from dice.

17th level fighter has 4 attacks:
Greatsword potential: 8d6+(Str x 4)
Shortswords potential: 5d6+(Str x 4), lacking 3d6 from dice.

also, it's worthwhile to note that you only get one bonus action each turn, ever.

Edit: Sure, a fighter could take the fighting style and add 1-5 damage each turn, regardless of how many attacks you have. It obviously starts as good, but begins to matter less soon.

Honestly, *how* is two actions instead of one "good", when your potential lags behind like that?

What I'm looking for here is to figure out a way to bring that dual wielding potential even with 2-handers. Or at least closer than now.

You literally, went out and explained what I said?
Again................
.......................
........................

Using your Bonus Action to make another attack is a GOOD thing...
The problem is that GW scales better with more Attacks than DW
Why do you think GW users LOVE Polearm? They get nearly the exact same scaling as a standard 2H weapon AND get a bonus action attack!

[Arkhios]

You literally, went out and explained what I said?
Again................
.......................
........................

Using your Bonus Action to make another attack is a GOOD thing...
The problem is that GW scales better with more Attacks than DW
Why do you think GW users LOVE Polearm? They get nearly the exact same scaling as a standard 2H weapon AND get a bonus action attack!

Dude! Chill! You're killing that keyboard with the forum rage you keep going on about..

Don't you understand that Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master are, first of all, TWO, and let me drive this home, SEPARATE FEATS? A standard fighter without ANY ACCESS TO FEATS (which are, after all, an optional rule) wielding a 2-handed weapon is still better than dual wielder fighter, WITHOUT those damnable feats that are so precious to you.
Secondly, 5th edition feats are meant to be much more powerful than before (thus, the lack of them, and the frequency you can get them). I repeat: I'm not concerned about the feats like GWM or PAM. I know really well that they are powerful. But, I don't see why should they get downgraded. Instead, if the discussion was supposed to be about feats (which wasn't my intention), I'd much rather see Dual Wielder get some serious boost, if anything.

However, I am *trying* to discuss this from the perspective of "no. feats. available", which leaves us with only the most core abilities that come explicitly from classes, races, or general combat rules. A fact you seem to be blind about.

Yes, I get it. From your point of view the GW (great weapon... what, exactly?) is the problem. Let's try this your way. What would you suggest doing about it, in a way that benefits two weapon fighting? Change how much damage each individual heavy weapon deals? Or maybe remove them altogether? Why is it that those weapons are the problem, instead of, you know, fighting with two weapons which is so bad an option that people simply ignore it because "it sucks"?
To me, if anything needs fixing, it's two-weapon fighting, not 2-handed weapons.

[Theodoxus]

Outside of the fact that fighter get styles that directly boost TWF, it seems that it's a trap option for them.

(This is going to sound tangential, but I swear it will circle back...)

in 3.5, a common complaint was that WotC had only playtested certain classes a very specific way, allowing for the more... creative types out there to break them. Wizards were supposed to be Evokers; Clerics were Heal Bots, etc. When played that way (boring and unimaginative) there were [close to] zero issues with class balance. But when thunk out of the box (even just the lip of said box), people ran into problems and the stupid ranking system developed and people fawned all over TreantMonk and similar.

Now, apparently, the same problem arises in 5E - only it's about weapon styles. It's very obvious that classes who obtain higher rates of attack - and especially the fighter - benefit from THF more than TWF and in fact, TWF is in essence, a trap option. Conversely, single attack classes gain more benefit from TWF, doubling their chances to deal specialized damage. In fact, one could argue that a single weapon attack is a trap option for them, up to and including not using hand crossbows with the XBX feat (when one starts digging into feats).

So, while I agree the discussion on how to homebrew changes to TWF (or even GW) is noble, and necessary, it appears to go directly against the playstyle that WotC envisions for the class and weapon interactions.

[Tanarii]

The problem isn't two-weapon fighting, it's extra attack. Specifically, that 2H weapons gain far more absolute gain from it than 1H weapons, due to have a larger die to be doubled.

Solution is simple: Nerf the damage of 2H weapons on every attack after the first one in a round. Incidentally fixes PAM and GWM while you're at it. (Not the -5/+10 portion, just the extra attack part.)

[Ruslan]

The problem here is not about any feats, it's about the core of how fighting with two weapons works.

When compared to two-handed melee weapons, fighting with two weapons is taxing, while the damage output is about as equal with it.
e.g.; not taking into account any feats and regardless of class:
Greataxe, greatsword, etc. (2d6/1d12+ability)
two handaxes, shortswords etc. (1d6+1d6+ability)
Both are equal in damage, but attacking with two-handed melee weapon requires only one Attack action, while attacking also with an off-hand weapon takes up Bonus Action to make same amount of damage (target or targets irrelevant). I don't think that's really fair.On the other hand, attacking with a two-handed melee weapon allows you to kill no more than one Kobold per round, while attacking with two weapons doubles your KKR (Kobold Kill Ratio)

[Talamare]

Dude! Chill! You're killing that keyboard with the forum rage you keep going on about..

Don't you understand that Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master are, first of all, TWO, and let me drive this home, SEPARATE FEATS? A standard fighter without ANY ACCESS TO FEATS (which are, after all, an optional rule) wielding a 2-handed weapon is still better than dual wielder fighter, WITHOUT those damnable feats that are so precious to you.
Secondly, 5th edition feats are meant to be much more powerful than before (thus, the lack of them, and the frequency you can get them). I repeat: I'm not concerned about the feats like GWM or PAM. I know really well that they are powerful. But, I don't see why should they get downgraded. Instead, if the discussion was supposed to be about feats (which wasn't my intention), I'd much rather see Dual Wielder get some serious boost, if anything.

However, I am *trying* to discuss this from the perspective of "no. feats. available", which leaves us with only the most core abilities that come explicitly from classes, races, or general combat rules. A fact you seem to be blind about.

Yes, I get it. From your point of view the GW (great weapon... what, exactly?) is the problem. Let's try this your way. What would you suggest doing about it, in a way that benefits two weapon fighting? Change how much damage each individual heavy weapon deals? Or maybe remove them altogether? Why is it that those weapons are the problem, instead of, you know, fighting with two weapons which is so bad an option that people simply ignore it because "it sucks"?
To me, if anything needs fixing, it's two-weapon fighting, not 2-handed weapons.

I'm using "GW" to mean Great Weapon, which means Any 2hander, not GWM the Feat.
Why do you keep implying that GW is the problem, I'm repeatedly saying it SCALES better...

Both style are equal with 1 Attack
With 2 attacks GW is a little better
With 3 attacks GW is better by a larger margin
With 4 attacks GW brutally murders DW and pretends it doesn't even exist
With 5 attacks GW buries DW in a grave then sets the grave on fire

Again, it SCALES better (I'm honestly not sure how many times I need to repeat this)
Buff the way DW scales with more attacks...

[djreynolds]

The issue with two-weapon fighting is, IMO, is suits a rogue obviously. Or an archer caught in melee. You just need to find extra damage sources, a paladin with improved divine smite makes good choice. Go strength based with twin short swords, add in some 1d8 radiant damage and even hunter's mark for vengeance. But until level 11, he's fighting sword and board.

Try out two-weapon rend. Its not bad and not OP. The damage is nice. Double your proficiency score if you hit with both main and off hand for damage that isn't rolled either, that's nice. Goes up to +12 in the end and scales. And easy to implement and manage. Too powerful, then to acquire it you need the style and feat.

[Tanarii]

Again, it SCALES better (I'm honestly not sure how many times I need to repeat this)
Buff the way DW scales with more attacks...I agree 2H scales better than 1H. IMO that means you should nerf 2H damage on extra attacks, not buff TWF. Because the same problem inherent in TWF vs 2H also applies to 1H vs 2H.

[Sitri]

I remember reading somewhere the suggestion that if someone hits with both weapons, add proficiency bonus as rend damage. I implemented this in a new game and it everyone seems ok with it so far.

[McNinja]

Another issue with two weapon fighting is how it interacts with the barbarian Frenzy feature. Both twf and Frenzy allow you only one attack using your bonus action, so even if you have both you can only ever have one bonus action attack. I houser used it so that frenzy grants you one *extra* attack as a bonus action, and if you have twf that means 4 attacks at 5th level. That's pretty balanced, especially since frenzy gives you a level of exhaustion anyway.

[MeeposFire]

I agree 2H scales better than 1H. IMO that means you should nerf 2H damage on extra attacks, not buff TWF. Because the same problem inherent in TWF vs 2H also applies to 1H vs 2H.

Wait wouldn't most people say that is intended? If Two handed weapons do not scale better than a one handed weapon (due to each hit dealing more damage than a single handed weapon) then why would you use one? You might as well just always go one handed and use a shield.

From what I can see mot people are happy with one handed and two handed weapon damage. The only one people complain about at times is two weapon. To me if there is a problem it is with two weapon fighting then.

For instance due to the fact it uses a bonus action to get the extra attack in two weapon fighting will always get less of a benefit from haste style wise. One handed will get another instance of dueling damage and otherwise will get just as much damage as a two weapon fighter except two weapon fighting was supposed to be the higher damage option.

If at any point a character needs to use a bonus action (such as second wind) all characters except two weapon users do not lose the potency of their general style (shields can still be used, two handed still deals more damage etc) but two weapon users lose out on their style completely for that round. They are the only style affected.

Opportunity attacks are also affected in this way. One weapon fighters are as good or better than two weapon fighters in this regard.


I also happen to think that the damage for one handed and two handed users in general works out pretty well so if you think two weapon fighting isn't good enough I do think you have to look at changing two weapon fighting rather than changing everything else (by the by that is also a LOT easier to do than the other way around).


I have not done the math but if you make the off hand attack part of the attack action (including opportuntiy attacks) and made the fighting style let you use any one handed weapon in both hands then that might be good enough. In that case opportunity attacks are fixed, as is haste (change the wording in haste to allow the off hand attack to go with it), bonus action abilities do not hurt it, and the scaling in extra damage falls pretty close to what dueling offers (+1 damage on average with more on criticals compared to duelings static +2 per hit).

I think something like that makes two weapon fighting a much better offensive option. Two handed wielders would still have some high damage options such as their great weapon feat and better criticals but two weapon fighting would be competitive.

[Tanarii]

Wait wouldn't most people say that is intended? If Two handed weapons do not scale better than a one handed weapon (due to each hit dealing more damage than a single handed weapon) then why would you use one? You might as well just always go one handed and use a shield.I didn't mean nerf 2H weapons so far that they are no more powerful than 1H weapons.

Regardless, I thought about it some more, and yeah, 1H and 2H do scale properly, under the assumption that those styles are intended to double the kill rate when you double your attack speed.

The real question becomes, is TWF style intended at ALL for classes dependent on Extra Attack for the DPR. Or is it really intended for classes dependent on bonus damage per attack for the DPR, and those with massive damage but you have to hit at least once to apply it? In other words Rangers, Rogues, and Warlocks.

[MeeposFire]

I didn't mean nerf 2H weapons so far that they are no more powerful than 1H weapons.

Regardless, I thought about it some more, and yeah, 1H and 2H do scale properly, under the assumption that those styles are intended to double the kill rate when you double your attack speed.

The real question becomes, is TWF style intended at ALL for classes dependent on Extra Attack for the DPR. Or is it really intended for classes dependent on bonus damage per attack for the DPR, and those with massive damage but you have to hit at least once to apply it? In other words Rangers, Rogues, and Warlocks.

Right now two weapon fighting looks like it is best used by characters that get bonus damage per every hit (high level bladelocks, paladins, rangers with hunters mark, and barbarians for instance) or for a character that gets a HUGE amount of damage on a hit once a round and you want to ensure that it hits (rogue). If all you are talking about is one extra dice of damage it probably is not worth it to two weapon fight just for that. Rogues want it because if they miss thier one attack it hurts a lot and they do not get extra attack to compensate (if they did two weapon fighting would lose a lot of its draw if rogues attacked twice naturally).

Sadly for the first group it is fairly easy for two handed characters to acquire a bonus action attack which gives you most or all of the benefit of two weapon fighting.

[Tanarii]

(high level bladelocksNote that any level bladelock is okay with basic TWF, because of Hex. Greatsword vs TWF Shortsword (both with 2 attacks on MH) is 6d6+2*Stat vs 6d6+2*Stat. So they are on par even after they get their psuedo-Extra Attack at level 5. Except, y'know, for potentially not being proficient with their off-hand shortsword. ;)

Non-blade warlocks are 2d4+2d6+Stat (Daggers) vs 1d8+1d6+Stat (Spear) vs 1d10+1d6+Cha (EB), so they like it even more. Except, y'know, for Eldritch Blast being superior after level 5. ;)

[MeeposFire]

Note that any level bladelock is okay with basic TWF, because of Hex. Greatsword vs TWF Shortsword (both with 2 attacks on MH) is 6d6+2*Stat vs 6d6+2*Stat. So they are on par even after they get their psuedo-Extra Attack at level 5. Except, y'know, for potentially not being proficient with their off-hand shortsword. ;)

Non-blade warlocks are 2d4+2d6+Stat (Daggers) vs 1d8+1d6+Stat (Spear) vs 1d10+1d6+Cha (EB), so they like it even more. Except, y'know, for Eldritch Blast being superior after level 5. ;)

Lol two weapon fighting is good at the lowest level you won't find arguments with that. However note that at higher levels two weapon fighting loses out even for bladelocks who probably want to use a polearm of some sort. Take polearm mastery and you can get your bonus action attack and deal more damage overall using the halberd.


Now in a feat less game you could make the case for two weapon fighting for a number of classes like the blade lock since then two weapon fighting loses a LOT of its potential.

[Giant2005]

Personally, I think you are going about this all wrong.
TWF is actually perfectly okay in most circumstances as most classes increase their DPR per swing (Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger via Hunter's Mark) and when doing so, TWF remains as powerful as it ever was.
The problem is a Fighter-exclusive issue due to thier damage progression coming from more attacks rather than more damage per attack. With that in mind, you are better off making changes to the Fighter rather than the Fighting style. Give the Fighter an extra ability around level 11 that improves their fighting styles (in the case of TWF, give them a second swing for their bonus action) and call it a day.

[Zalabim]

Note that any level bladelock is okay with basic TWF, because of Hex. Greatsword vs TWF Shortsword (both with 2 attacks on MH) is 6d6+2*Stat vs 6d6+2*Stat. So they are on par even after they get their psuedo-Extra Attack at level 5. Except, y'know, for potentially not being proficient with their off-hand shortsword. ;)

Non-blade warlocks are 2d4+2d6+Stat (Daggers) vs 1d8+1d6+Stat (Spear) vs 1d10+1d6+Cha (EB), so they like it even more. Except, y'know, for Eldritch Blast being superior after level 5. ;)

Two problems you overlooked are that in addition to not being proficient with an off-hand shortsword, the bladelock at high levels only gets their bonus damage with their pact weapon. The second is that Hex already uses a bonus action, precluding the use of TWF part of the time.


Personally, I think you are going about this all wrong.
TWF is actually perfectly okay in most circumstances as most classes increase their DPR per swing (Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger via Hunter's Mark) and when doing so, TWF remains as powerful as it ever was.
The problem is a Fighter-exclusive issue due to thier damage progression coming from more attacks rather than more damage per attack. With that in mind, you are better off making changes to the Fighter rather than the Fighting style. Give the Fighter an extra ability around level 11 that improves their fighting styles (in the case of TWF, give them a second swing for their bonus action) and call it a day.

Greater Weapon Specialization? It would be nice to have one more feature around the indomitable levels, though they generally don't need more damage (TWF excluded).

I don't actually think this covers the problem well enough, since Rangers also run into the action type TWF issues a lot with Hunter's Mark, and other spells, and the whole Beastmaster subpath. Any solution also needs to consider Dual Wielder, which is currently so much worse than Polearm Master that Quarterstaff and Shield gets more AC and more damage (always with fighting style; only when making a bonus attack without a fighting style) without ever counting extra OAs.

[Tanarii]

However note that at higher levels two weapon fighting loses out even for bladelocks who probably want to use a polearm of some sort. Take polearm mastery and you can get your bonus action attack and deal more damage overall using the halberd. bringing up Polearm mastery is like saying 'nuke them from orbit' or breaking godwins law. It's a given its always superior. There's no point in pointing it out, and you have to operate under the assumption that any sane DM will ban it, and that any AL melee build will include it.


Two problems you overlooked are that in addition to not being proficient with an off-hand shortsword, the bladelock at high levels only gets their bonus damage with their pact weapon. The second is that Hex already uses a bonus action, precluding the use of TWF part of the time.Fair points. In fact, Hunter's Mark really suffers from that second point, and it's supposed to be designed to work with TWF.

[mephnick]

It seems pretty dumb that a bladelock can't summon a pair of weapons with his pact ability. They still follow all the limitations of real weapons.

I think that's a pretty easy change.

[EvanescentHero]

It seems pretty dumb that a bladelock can't summon a pair of weapons with his pact ability. They still follow all the limitations of real weapons.

I think that's a pretty easy change.

I allowed this for one of my players, and it was fine.

[Regulas]

Gosh I'm horrible:

My opinion is that Two-Weapon Fighting not being worthwhile is exactly how it should be. It's one of those things like leather armour that irks me because it's just not a real thing. In real life TWF is basically sword and board where you have a really crappy board. (of course it's also silly that a greatsword is better then a longsword since there's no downside to using big weapons).


That being said to stay with D&D's crazy mindset for TWF the best fix would seem to just be to make it not take a bonus actions.

[Arkhios]

Gosh I'm horrible:

My opinion is that Two-Weapon Fighting not being worthwhile is exactly how it should be. It's one of those things like leather armour that irks me because it's just not a real thing. In real life TWF is basically sword and board where you have a really crappy board. (of course it's also silly that a greatsword is better then a longsword since there's no downside to using big weapons).


That being said to stay with D&D's crazy mindset for TWF the best fix would seem to just be to make it not take a bonus actions.

Haha, yeah, I can agree that from realistic point of view two-weapon fighting shouldn't be effective. However, from various literature perspectives two-weapon fighting seems to be almost or at least as effective as two-handed combat, and therefore, mechanically it seems rather underwheming option to do.

[Kane0]

Regular TWF:
- Light weapons only. Non light weapons suffer disadvantage to hit.
- Bonus action for off hand attack
- Attack is at full bonus to hit and damage (its a regular hit, no special changes)

Fighting style:
- Can use any one handed weapons at no penalty when two weapon fighting
- +1 AC when two weapon fighting

Feat:
- Second off hand attack with bonus action
- when hit by a melee attack can use reaction to reduce damage taken by off hand weapon die

Probably a touch powerful, but maybe barbarians and monks would have a reason to TWF now. Thatd be fun to see.

[bid]

Regular TWF:
- Light weapons only. Non light weapons suffer disadvantage to hit.
- Bonus action for off hand attack
- Attack is at full bonus to hit and damage (its a regular hit, no special changes).
Aaand a twf wizard does more damage than a raging mace barbarian. (2d6+6 vs 2d6+5)

[Kane0]

That part only changes giving stat to damage stock. If thats all you need to make a dual wielding wizard, go with my blessing.

[bid]

That part only changes giving stat to damage stock. If thats all you need to make a dual wielding wizard, go with my blessing.
I think you missed the absurdity of making TWF better than anything else and calling it worthwhile.

[Kane0]

How so? I havn't run any math on it, its not my strong suit.

[djreynolds]

I think Mr Easy_Lee proposed two weapon rend, it works we use it. It scales well. Must hit with both weapons, double proficiency score. Doesn't become OP at all. It scales with level. 2H still better damage, but its something. I also added the ability to kick off or shove. It works and has been tested. Try it out. Having the ability to disengage or shove, will allow guys to be strength or dex based as well.

Two rapier can do 20 at 4th level, with feat and style. Versus a great sword with GWM doing possibly 22. The extra attack at 5th means the 2H can 44 and the two weapon could do 30. Not including ability modifiers here.

And easy to keep track of. Most important. You miss you do not get it.

[Arkhios]

I think Mr Easy_Lee proposed two weapon rend, it works we use it. It scales well. Must hit with both weapons, double proficiency score. Doesn't become OP at all. It scales with level. 2H still better damage, but its something. I also added the ability to kick off or shove. It works and has been tested. Try it out. Having the ability to disengage or shove, will allow guys to be strength or dex based as well.

Two rapier can do 20 at 4th level, with feat and style. Versus a great sword with GWM doing possibly 22. The extra attack at 5th means the 2H can 44 and the two weapon could do 30. Not including ability modifiers here.

And easy to keep track of. Most important. You miss you do not get it.

That does indeed seem a good addition, and it doesn't mess with the mechanics too much.

[djreynolds]

That does indeed seem a good addition, and it doesn't mess with the mechanics too much.

Mr Lee has some good stuff in the guides somewhere.

[Petrocorus]

Does someone has tried to do the math and see if simply allowing the second hand attack as part of the Attack Action would be overpowered?



Haha, yeah, I can agree that from realistic point of view two-weapon fighting shouldn't be effective. However, from various literature perspectives two-weapon fighting seems to be almost or at least as effective as two-handed combat, and therefore, mechanically it seems rather underwheming option to do.

Actually, two-weapon fighting was not that uncommon historically. Indeed, as other have pointed out, the second weapon was generally used for parry. And THF was not that common, greatswords were indeed potentially powerful but they require greater strength and were more tiresome. There are reasons if in actuality, SnB was the most common fighting style by large, which the game does not really represent.

[MeeposFire]

Does someone has tried to do the math and see if simply allowing the second hand attack as part of the Attack Action would be overpowered?




Actually, two-weapon fighting was not that uncommon historically. Indeed, as other have pointed out, the second weapon was generally used for parry. And THF was not that common, greatswords were indeed potentially powerful but they require greater strength and were more tiresome. There are reasons if in actuality, SnB was the most common fighting style by large, which the game does not really represent.

THF not common you are forgetting all the weapons that are used in two hands such as many spears and polearms which were far from uncommon. OF the three two weapons at once were the least common (unless you count using your shield as your off hand weapon but I don't think we are counting that).

[Petrocorus]

THF not common you are forgetting all the weapons that are used in two hands such as many spears and polearms which were far from uncommon. OF the three two weapons at once were the least common (unless you count using your shield as your off hand weapon but I don't think we are counting that).

My bad, i didn't phrased it well enough. When speaking of THF, i was referring to two-handed non-reach weapon like greatsword, greataxe or maul. Polearms and spears, obviously, were very, very common. I'm not sure but spears-and-shield and polearms (pike / halberd) were probably the most common styles among infantry.

[Belac93]

I would use exactly the same, but the fighting style gives you +1 AC as long as you are holding your off-hand weapon, and also, as long as at least 1 of the weapon you are holding is a dagger, you can hold any other weapon in your main hand. (this gives you the ability to do sword and dagger fighting).

[bid]

I would use exactly the same, but the fighting style gives you +1 AC as long as you are holding your off-hand weapon, and also, as long as at least 1 of the weapon you are holding is a dagger, you can hold any other weapon in your main hand. (this gives you the ability to do sword and dagger fighting).
That's pretty nice.

Lets see how rapier + dagger style compares:
- duel + shield: -1 AC for +0.5 damage.
- defense + shield: -2 AC for +2.5 damage.
- defense + mace: same AC, same damage.
- gwf + mace: +1 AC for 1.33 damage.
Very good balance.

I think giving a free offhand attack with every extra attack would keep the balance. Once a rogue has 2 attacks, there's no need to impose bonus action for a 3rd attack.

[Scuronotte]

As it's been pointed out so often, Two-Weapon Fighting blatantly sucks as a technique when compared to the others. And as I understand, it's mainly due to the dependancy on Bonus Action.

How would you house rule two-weapon fighting to make it a more compelling option, while still on-par with other techniques?

PS. if your "house rule" is to scrap the whole technique, do not bother to answer the topic, thank you.

Created a feat that is restricted for 2-weapon fighting style rangers & fighters of minimum 8th level. Off hand attack becomes part of attack action. As well as AC +2 (we also changed the dual Weilder feat)

[Talamare]

One very boring way to fix it would be to...

Get rid of the 2nd attack completely
Get rid of the larger weapons completely (so you're always dealing d6 or less)
Get rid of the additional Mod damage

When you make an attack, while TWF, you add both weapon die together.

So if you're wielding a 2x 1d6, you deal 2d6+Mod
If you're using Scimitar and Dagger, you deal 1d6+1d4+Mod
etc

Now you're instantly scaling

[Kryx]

Sorry I'm super late to this thread. I don't post here as much as I used to. You've all seen the math I worked on a while ago posted on the first page of this thread.

Based on that I do the following:

TWF base rules

Add the ability modifier to both attacks. (balanced by other inherent weapon properties I use).
"You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."
If you have the Extra Attack Class Feature at level 11 when you attack with TWF and hit an opponent with a main hand and offhand melee weapon the targets takes additional equal to your proficiency bonus

TWF Fighting Style

You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Dual Wielder gives +1 AC (can combine with the ability modifier if you don't use inherent weapon properties or half feats)

My houserules (https://docs.google.com/document/d/112evwX4-QFfkLlAEq8UDKLREazWlCpvAg6Ek_16752A).

This makes them equivalent to other main damage roles.

[Arkhios]

Sorry I'm super late to this thread. I don't post here as much as I used to. You've all seen the math I worked on a while ago posted on the first page of this thread.

Based on that I do the following:

TWF base rules

Add the ability modifier to both attacks. (balanced by other inherent weapon properties I use).
"You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one."
If you have the Extra Attack Class Feature at level 11 when you attack with TWF and hit an opponent with a main hand and offhand melee weapon the targets takes additional equal to your proficiency bonus

TWF Fighting Style

You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Dual Wielder gives +1 AC (can combine with the ability modifier if you don't use inherent weapon properties or half feats)

My houserules (https://docs.google.com/document/d/112evwX4-QFfkLlAEq8UDKLREazWlCpvAg6Ek_16752A).

This makes them equivalent to other main damage roles.

While all this seems somewhat balanced, I couldn't help but wonder if Dual Wielder feat would lose quite a bit of oomph when many of its benefits are transferred to the Fighting Style and/or base TWF rules? I mean, if I read this right, all you would gain from Dual Wielder with this house rule would be that +1 to AC. Nothing else? Couldn't you at least allow them to use a reaction to parry or something (maybe roll the off-hand weapon die and reduce that much from damage or attack roll, or the like). Also, I see no problem with being able to wield only light weapons without the feat.

If, however, Dual Wielder only benefits for increased AC (by mere +1), it's not even a half-feat. It's way below that.

[Kryx]

+1 AC is a huge benefit - the same is given for medium armor mastery (plus no disadvantage on stealth).

It is quite mechanically comparable with the other half feats I split up. The other parts of Dual Wielder where just taxes on dual wielding.

The parry concept already exists in the rogue's uncanny dodge to use a reaction to take half damage. I would not recommend usurping that ability or buffing TWF with it while using the changes I made (you could use it in place of some perhaps, but I wouldn't necessarily think that balanced).

[Arkhios]

+1 AC is a huge benefit - the same is given for medium armor mastery (plus no disadvantage on stealth).

It is quite mechanically comparable with the other half feats I split up. The other parts of Dual Wielder where just taxes on dual wielding.

The parry concept already exists in the rogue's uncanny dodge to use a reaction to take half damage. I would not recommend usurping that ability or buffing TWF with it while using the changes I made (you could use it in place of some perhaps, but I wouldn't necessarily think that balanced).

Hmm, I suppose you're right about the parrying and +1 AC being huge. Still, only +1 to AC when wielding two weapons seems a bit too little from a feat. I'd rather have it give something little extra in addition. Something of a "ribbon" value, or maybe slightly more.

[Tanarii]

My bad, i didn't phrased it well enough. When speaking of THF, i was referring to two-handed non-reach weapon like greatsword, greataxe or maul. Polearms and spears, obviously, were very, very common. I'm not sure but spears-and-shield and polearms (pike / halberd) were probably the most common styles among infantry.Historical fighting styles, other than possibly ones specific to one-on-one duels, aren't particularly relevant to D&D. Adventurers don't fight anything like military units.

[Talamare]

One very boring way to fix it would be to...

Get rid of the 2nd attack completely
Get rid of the larger weapons completely (so you're always dealing d6 or less)
Get rid of the additional Mod damage

When you make an attack, while TWF, you add both weapon die together.

So if you're wielding a 2x 1d6, you deal 2d6+Mod
If you're using Scimitar and Dagger, you deal 1d6+1d4+Mod
etc

Now you're instantly scaling

Expanding on this

TWF base rules - You may wield 2 weapons at the same time, when you do and make an Attack you swing with both weapons. Your damage is equal to Both weapon die + Modifier. You may only dual wield SIMPLE LIGHT Weapons, Even if you are proficient with Martial Weapons. You may draw and/or stow both weapons when you make an attack (according to those rules).

Fighting Style TWF - If you are proficient in Martial Weapons, you may TWF with Light Martial Weapons.
Feat TWF - While TWF you gain +1 AC || When you use the Attack action to make an attack. You may use your bonus action to make an attack, you do not add your modifier to this attack.

Weapons Fix
Simple Light
Club - 1d6

Simple Light Finesse
Dagger/Sickle - 1d4

Simple Light Thrown
Light Hammer - 1d4

Martial Light
Scimitar - 1d8

Martial Light Finesse
Shortsword - 1d6

Martial Light Thrown
Handaxe - 1d6