TWF With a 1D8 and a Light 1D4

[Easy_Lee]

Historical TWF, when it occurred, usually involved one shorter weapon and one longer weapon. It seems weird that such iconic styles as Rapier + Dagger require a feat, and are sub-optimal even then. Many have brought this up before.

I'm considering this house rule: When wielding a dagger, sickle, light hammer, or club in one hand (note: light 1d4 weapons), your other weapon does not need to be light to qualify for TWF.

The only potential problem I can see with this is that the player will deal an average of 1 extra damage for regular attacks and reaction attacks. Fighters can deal up to four extra damage in a round, via +1 on four regular attacks and a reaction in exchange for -1 on the bonus, using TWF at level 20 with this rule. This makes rapier + dagger, or longsword + club (torch), etc., slightly superior to double scimitars, handaxes, or short swords.

However, I don't think this makes a large enough difference to be much of a problem. It also opens up many interesting combos, like whip + sickle or battleaxe + club, without requiring a feat.

Thoughts? Concerns?

[Kryx]

The only potential problem I can see with this is that the player will deal an average of 1 extra damage for regular attacks and reaction attacks. Fighters can deal up to four extra damage in a round, via +1 on four regular attacks and a reaction in exchange for -1 on the bonus, using TWF at level 20 with this rule. This makes rapier + dagger, or longsword + club (torch), etc., slightly superior to double scimitars, handaxes, or short swords.
This is the only concern.

For a fighter that's about .65*(4-1) = 1.95 DPR. (ignoring reactions) That's 5% more damage at 17 or 4.6% at level 20 for a Fighter.

It irks me that this option is mechanically better than two light weapons

But good news: Fighter should be wielding large weapons if you've swapped the feat and the fighting style as several people recommend. For rogue it's only the reaction that is biger, so nothing to worry about. For other classes with extra attack and without the fighting style it's .65 DPR. Nothing to worry about imo.

[Easy_Lee]

Indeed, I use the same house rules as you for TWF. Thanks for the break-down.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Wait, you swap the feat and the fighting style? Wouldn't that be a bit overpowered for the style and weak on the feat?

[Easy_Lee]

Wait, you swap the feat and the fighting style? Wouldn't that be a bit overpowered for the style and weak on the feat?

I use attribute to damage on the bonus and double draw as part of base TWF, large weapons come with the fighting style, and the feat is a half feat.

[Fighting_Ferret]

Ok, so everyone can draw 2 weapons and get the ability damage on their bonus attack.
The style lets you use larger weapons,
The feat grants a +1 to AC and I'm guessing +1 to Str or Dex?

Is that correct?

[Kryx]

Wait, you swap the feat and the fighting style? Wouldn't that be a bit overpowered for the style and weak on the feat?
At early levels(1-5) the swap is weaker. Until 11 it's probably equivalent. After that the fighting style is stronger, correct.

[gfishfunk]

I was going to homebrew a separate fighting style for this, personally, but as math-i-ness demonstrates, its not a huge deal to simply allow it as you indicate.

[Sindeloke]

Historical TWF uses the off-hand primarily defensively - it's good for stabbing if someone gets inside your reach, but mostly it's there to discourage that and give you a second chance to knock away an incoming enemy stab. If you want to model it really simply, just add a +1 shield bonus to parrying daggers, sais, sickles, clubs, etc in a round when they aren't being used to attack. With the additional +1 from the feat you basically get a half-pound shield that you can draw and equip as quickly as blinking, or hide and stab someone with when they take your main weapon, putting you on basically even footing with S&B.

This doesn't do much for rogues attempting to get off a second sneak attack attempt, but they still have Cunning Action to spend their bonus on, and if the aesthetic of many quick attacks with multiple weapons appeals to them, they didn't want dagger+rapier anyway, they wanted shortsword+shortsword from the start.

[Cybren]

I've been thinking of expanding the weapons table by adding a handful of properties. I won't remove the base weapons, but I'd add modified ones like "parrying daggers" that lose thrown and gain "Defensive: when you take the dodge action, or use your reaction to gain a bonus to armor class, you receive an additional +1 to AC for the duration of that effect", specifically because I saw the same hole in the rules. I have yet to playtest anything, however

[djreynolds]

Historical TWF, when it occurred, usually involved one shorter weapon and one longer weapon. It seems weird that such iconic styles as Rapier + Dagger require a feat, and are sub-optimal even then. Many have brought this up before.

I'm considering this house rule: When wielding a dagger, sickle, light hammer, or club in one hand (note: light 1d4 weapons), your other weapon does not need to be light to qualify for TWF.

The only potential problem I can see with this is that the player will deal an average of 1 extra damage for regular attacks and reaction attacks. Fighters can deal up to four extra damage in a round, via +1 on four regular attacks and a reaction in exchange for -1 on the bonus, using TWF at level 20 with this rule. This makes rapier + dagger, or longsword + club (torch), etc., slightly superior to double scimitars, handaxes, or short swords.

However, I don't think this makes a large enough difference to be much of a problem. It also opens up many interesting combos, like whip + sickle or battleaxe + club, without requiring a feat.

Thoughts? Concerns?

Its not bad, how about a choice of actions?

[Easy_Lee]

Its not bad, how about a choice of actions?

Like what? Sounds like something that could come through a custom feat, perhaps.

[djreynolds]

Like what? Sounds like something that could come through a custom feat, perhaps.

I like defensive duelist and that's already there.

I mean you can, AFB, use that bonus attack with the dagger to either disarm as a contest, or strike, or toss the dagger.

I see something of style and coolness.

If you take the attack action, you can use your bonus attack action and use sleight of hand vs perception to gain advantage on your main hand attacks, like a martial true strike

Or use sleight of hand vs perception to gain disadvantage vs that attacker for the rest of his turn. Better than taking the dodge action