Need some help with our homebrew TWF fix

[Lollerabe]

So at our table we've decided to make TWF a viable option and since we play with all feats allowed (GWM,PAM,SS,CE) it has to be viable compared to those options. The current raw TWF is just strictly inferior to PAM as most of you know.

So these are 'our' changes so far, we've been inspired by many of you guys.

Two weapon fighting basic(base rule): as is but with 'if you got the extra attack feature, you can make 2 attacks with your offhand weapon at lvl 11'

Two weapon fightstyle (fighting style): you don't have to use light weapons when two weapon fighting and you gain a +1 to AC when you have a weapon in each hand.

Two weapon master (feat):
You can add your ability modifier to your offhand attack(s).
You can draw or stow two weapons instead of one.
When you hit with both an attack and a offhand attack you deal your proficiency bonus as additional damage. You can only deal this damage once per round. (I'll refer to this as rend)

So the basic idea is making TWF viable and available to more classes.

By adding a second attack at lvl 11 we've made sure it scales with extra attacks etc and dosent get completely outshined by PAM/CE. Classes who don't get extra attack won't be able to use this feature so no abuse there.

By switching the fightstyle and feat, we've made TWF available for barbs rogues and Paladins - which we feel it should be. Fighters and rangers are still better at it though (or can be) so dipping for the fightstyle is still a thing, though not a nessicity to make your handaxe dual wielding barb concept come true.

By adding the 'rend' feature and the aforementioned ability mod to offhand we've tried to make sure that in order to be a great dual wielder, you have to invest a feat in it - just like with all other weapon styles.

So these are our problems: is this balanced? My main concern right now is that at lvl 11+ with the feat and the fightstyle, the dual wielder is always better than a PAM user.
However if we remove the rend effect from the feat, TWF is as it always was pre lvl 11 which again makes it an inferior PAM.
I guess we could remove the additional attack at lvl 11, but I'm not sure that the rend is enough to make two weapon fighting viable.
I also feel that having acces to the most attacks in the game should be TWFs niche.

Anyway I'd love some input here, I know we've had many TWF issue threads before but I would greatly appreciate your help.

[Specter]

If I were a Ranger with this, I'd have Hunter's Mark up everytime and begging for someone to cast Crusader's Mantle so I could deal bazillions of damage.

Anyway, I think TWF is already good for rangers. I just hate the Dual Wielder feat, which would benefit from your rend idea, but that's it. For fighters, maybe give them the lvl11 feature.

[Rysto]

I think this is far too powerful on a Paladin. TWF is already almost competitive with PAM on a Paladin if you take one level of fighter for the TWF fighting style. Ignoring chance to hit, a Paladin 20 with PAM does 46.35 DPR and the TWF Fighter 1/Paladin 19 does 42 DPR.

With your rule, I get about 60 DPR for a Paladin 20 (the math gets a little fuzzy because the rend feature means that your to-hit chance needs to be factored into the equation). The Paladin gets a massive damage boost at level 11: it goes from 30 DPR at level 10 to almost 59 DPR at level 11. This is due to Improved Divine Smite adding significant damage to each attack along with the extra off-hand attack coming online.

It may be sufficient to only give the extra off-hand attack to the Fighter? That drops the Paladin DPR at level 20 all the way down to 45 DPR. Now TWF offers slightly better defence from the +1 AC, slightly worse DPR than PAM and less battlefield utility (no AoO when entering reach). That may be a decent trade-off.

I'd be interested in seeing if similar findings are seen on other classes. The Fighter I suspect is okay because the fighter doesn't ever get additional per-hit damage, so adding another attack isn't game-breaking.

[Zman]

In my Tweaks I made a couple modifications to TWF.

At 8th level, if a character has Extra Attack they may make a second attack with their offhand weapon. Picked 8th instead of 11th as it became a mini Tier where many characters get a 20 in their Primary stat or a Feat, and it prevents an outsized boost in damage at 11th level for some classes like Paladin or even Fighter.

I added a Feat that allowed +1 Str or Dex and pick. A fighting style for characters to pick up TWF for offhand weapon damage.

Here is a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12uWo8yF3vr75KRyryeaWNbU4d0XgOYvIoYocu0NMM1o) with the relevant math, of the core game and my Houserules, see link in signature for my Houserules. The spreadsheet isn't quite done yet but usable for this and doesn't include most limited expendable resources like action surges, or superiority dice, or Smites, etc, but shows the baselines pretty good.

Damage is reasonable, though Paladin gets more out of it and get a boost in damage if they heavily invest in it with a Feat, and are willing to suffer through some lower levels without top tier damage. Haven't done Ranger yet, but expect it to receive a good boost, but still be reasonable as the bonus action opportunity cost will mitigate the spiked hunters Mark damage.


Now, your changes.

2nd attack at 11th: Good, given the damage outputs I recommend 8th level.

TWF Fighting Style: Slightly too good, better than Defense and offers a solid damage boost.

Two Weapon Master: Offhand Damage is fine. Double draw is fine. Rend damage,mactually too good and the damage boost is not needed.

[Lollerabe]

@ Rysto I can't see how RAW TWF can ever be viable on a pala compared to PAM. With 2 lvl 5 palas with 16 str one went PAM the other dual wielder we are looking at:

2d10+1d4 + 9 = 22,5 avg damg for the PAM paladin

3d8 + 6 = 19,5 for the dual wielder

However that's without accounting for the reaction attack from PAM, which in my experience happen often and we are also disregarding the fact that the PAM pala has reach the entire time. IDS dosent change that baseline.

If the TWF then invests in a fighter lvl for TWF fightstyle the damage becomes 22,5 for both parties, but again not accounting for the reaction PAM attack. Plus the TWF pala just delayed all progression with one level and took the possibly worst 1 lvl dip there is, it grants a fightstyle and a 1d10 + second wind, however it disables you from ever reaching your capstone - so a horrid trade IMO.

@zman hmm I'll look into this, the rend feature was to make sure at barbs and rogues investing in TWF got a nice boon as well.

Maybe the fightstyle should be non light weapons and a +1 to hit? Then it's a half version of duelist and archery and dosent step on defense.

Thanks for the replies guys and keep em coming :)

[Zman]

@ Rysto I can't see how RAW TWF can ever be viable on a pala compared to PAM. With 2 lvl 5 palas with 16 str one went PAM the other dual wielder we are looking at:

2d10+1d4 + 9 = 22,5 avg damg for the PAM paladin

3d8 + 6 = 19,5 for the dual wielder

However that's without accounting for the reaction attack from PAM, which in my experience happen often and we are also disregarding the fact that the PAM pala has reach the entire time. IDS dosent change that baseline.

If the TWF then invests in a fighter lvl for TWF fightstyle the damage becomes 22,5 for both parties, but again not accounting for the reaction PAM attack. Plus the TWF pala just delayed all progression with one level and took the possibly worst 1 lvl dip there is, it grants a fightstyle and a 1d10 + second wind, however it disables you from ever reaching your capstone - so a horrid trade IMO.

@zman hmm I'll look into this, the rend feature was to make sure at barbs and rogues investing in TWF got a nice boon as well.

Maybe the fightstyle should be non light weapons and a +1 to hit? Then it's a half version of duelist and archery and dosent step on defense.

Thanks for the replies guys and keep em coming :)

Barbs get a great boost out of it, with four attacks and a rage damage increase and Reckless Attack they deal lots of damage especially with Duel Wielder. I haven't plugged it into my spreadsheet yet, but my naptkin math makes it look super solid. Rogues already have an advantage with TWF, it changes their chance of sneak from 65% i.e. All or none to 88% needing to miss twice. Rogues have build in TWF benefit.

That would work, essentially +1 Damage and +1 to hit should be ok. Still probably better than Dueling or GWF, but it is closer. Maybe make it Mainhand damage isn't light, that is +1 Damage per main attack and a better to hit with all, that probably is close to the sweet spot balance wise.

[Rysto]

@ Rysto I can't see how RAW TWF can ever be viable on a pala compared to PAM. With 2 lvl 5 palas with 16 str one went PAM the other dual wielder we are looking at:

2d10+1d4 + 9 = 22,5 avg damg for the PAM paladin

3d8 + 6 = 19,5 for the dual wielder

However that's without accounting for the reaction attack from PAM, which in my experience happen often and we are also disregarding the fact that the PAM pala has reach the entire time. IDS dosent change that baseline.

Well, my numbers show that it never closes that gap, but a few points of damage is a lot less noticeable when you can dish out 40+ rather than around 20.

I'm not opposed to making TWF stronger, but on the Paladin a 43% boost to damage is way too much.

[Easy_Lee]

Base TWF: mod to offhand, can draw or stow two.

Fighting style: oversized weapons (adds +1 damage per attack), if you gain the extra attack feature at 11 you may make two bonus attacks.

Feat: +1 AC, can make a mainhand and an offhand attack against the same target on reactions.

This makes it competitive for fighters and rogues. Something is needed for melee rangers, perhaps combined weapon die on whirlwind attack.

[Lollerabe]

Thanks guys your suggestions are helpful. Aight so current rend is out, I think I like fight style being nonlight and +1 hit, it may be a bit on the strong side but hey fight styles should IMO.

Adding extra offhand on lvl 8 is a really cool idea, makes the 'twf is a poormans PAM' gap close faster.

Feat would then be double draw, add mod to offhand and double strike on reactions as lee suggested - sounds okay no ?

[Easy_Lee]

Thanks guys your suggestions are helpful. Aight so current rend is out, I think I like fight style being nonlight and +1 hit, it may be a bit on the strong side but hey fight styles should IMO.

Adding extra offhand on lvl 8 is a really cool idea, makes the 'twf is a poormans PAM' gap close faster.

Feat would then be double draw, add mod to offhand and double strike on reactions as lee suggested - sounds okay no ?

I use mod to offhand as part of the base rules, personally. A fighting style shouldn't need a feat to be competitive.

[Lollerabe]

That's a very fair point, hmm well problem becomes the feat then. I honestly would wish for it not to grant ac.

Bear with me but how about - draw double, and instead of double strike on OAs the following: when you hit with both a mainhand and an offhand attack you may immediately attack the target with a weapon attack using your reaction. I know the wording sucks but hey.
The point would be to make the feat attractive enough to spend an ASI on, and it follows the other weapons feats buildup - a passive part, and a trigger that opens a damage option based on you action economy. Come to think of it maybe it should be the old rend but with the reaction requirement, that way it ain't just a completely free passive damage boost.

[Zman]

I use mod to offhand as part of the base rules, personally. A fighting style shouldn't need a feat to be competitive.

It does make two weapon fighting awfully strong at low levels and by far the strongest style, which is ironically where it is most balanced stock dealing the same damage as a Greatsword. By adding the second attack at 8th or 11th level it it keeps up damage wise. Giving it +Mod by default makes it quite strong at low levels and with the extra attack late game one of the strongest fighting type without a feat. Now, if you are playing unmodified PAM or GWM or Sharpshooter this is just fine, if those feats are toned down TWF can get a bit out of hand especially for a class like Paladin where it becomes the strongest fighting style without a feat even when compared to the feats.

[Easy_Lee]

It does make two weapon fighting awfully strong at low levels and by far the strongest style, which is ironically where it is most balanced stock dealing the same damage as a Greatsword. By adding the second attack at 8th or 11th level it it keeps up damage wise. Giving it +Mod by default makes it quite strong at low levels and with the extra attack late game one of the strongest fighting type without a feat. Now, if you are playing unmodified PAM or GWM or Sharpshooter this is just fine, if those feats are toned down TWF can get a bit out of hand especially for a class like Paladin where it becomes the strongest fighting style without a feat even when compared to the feats.

Paladins don't get TWF as a fighting style option. I'd be more concerned about hunter rangers getting three attacks at level 3 with horde breaker, which they already can do.

[Lollerabe]

Zmans point was my main concern as well, if you add mod as a default it's crazy strong early and then there's next to no reason to for a feat for it. Great weapons and ranged weapons and polearms get strong through an investment in a feat.

I think I'll keep the mod tied to the feat - it gives palas barbs and rogues the option to be viable TWFers without giving it all for free.

Think the feat will be something alike:

Double draw
Mod to offhand
Something something option when you hit with both weapons but tied to a reaction.

That and add extra BA attack to the base either at 8 or 11

Fightstyle will still be plus hit and non light one handed weapons available for TWF

[Easy_Lee]

That and add extra BA attack to the base either at 8 or 11

Will this apply to all classes, or just fighters. Having an extra attack under TWF compared with other options will make TWF the best for barbarians, paladins, and rangers, regardless of whether each gets the fighting style.

If the TWF feat grants the full bonus attack, just like other weapon feats, that's probably fine. However, I think only fighters should get the second bonus attack at 11. Barbarians and paladins should be fine, as they both have other reasons to prefer different weapons and would benefit from a bonus attack according to their features anyway. However, Rangers need something to make TWF competitive, especially given whirlwind attack and beast companions.

I recommend: a TWF ranger can make an attack with both weapons when commanding the beast to attack at 11, or may used combined weapon die for the damage on whirlwind attack, depending on the archetype chosen.

[Lollerabe]

Well every class with the extra attack feature, otherwise TWF stays mute on barbs n palas compared to PAM

[Zman]

Paladins don't get TWF as a fighting style option. I'd be more concerned about hunter rangers getting three attacks at level 3 with horde breaker, which they already can do.

Nowhere did I say or imply they got the TWF Figthing Style, but you were giving it to them the effect as default fighting with two weapons and when that is combined with an additional attack at either 8th or 11th Paladins are extremely strong and it becomes the best way a Paladin can fight by 11th level. Without the automatic +Mod damage it is good and competitive. Essentially with the changes I proposed above fighting with two weapons with either TWF and or Dual Wielder becomes the highest damage dealing option, but prior to 11th level the Paladin suffers. Under my tweaks they have the option to pick up TWF Fighting Style via a feat, even so fighting with two weapons is not as competitive of a damage option till later levels where it really takes off. The spreadsheet I linked earlier has a good amount of this mathed out.

Why is Horde Breaker a problem? A fraction of the time, 30%, 50%, maybe 70% of the time the Ranger will get an additional attack. It is good, but heavily conditional. If multiple enemies are standing side by side within range of the Ranger it isn't a problem, and if it triggers it gives the Ranger a nice boost.

[Easy_Lee]

Well every class with the extra attack feature, otherwise TWF stays mute on barbs n palas compared to PAM

PAM stays mute on those classes too, though. The reason TWF falls behind for fighters is because they make up to four attacks, such that even dueling pulls a little ahead.

For Rangers, TWF is only invalid due to their archetype features preventing the ranger from making full use of TWF.

For barbarians, they can dual wield, but need a larger damage die for their crits. And for paladins, they don't get the TWF style, but they do get GWF, and so are better off using a polearm if they can afford the feat.

[Lollerabe]

PAM isn't bad at all on palas, better than GWM is, on barbs yeah GWM beats PAM but they both beat TWF.

See my problem is that TWF deals LESS damg than PAM and PAM offers a reaction slot filler and reach. The last thing should come with a price tag - I know 'it does, it's only a d10 weapon not a d12/2d6' but even with that PAM comes out on top as the best choice for many a build, palas included (safe for maybe OOV).

Sorry so far this post came of as me being condescending, i know we all agree that TWF should be buffed and have a niche.

In my perfect world it should deals less damage than GWM but more than PAM.

[energyscholar]

Why change TWF at all? It's usually a slightly sub-optimal choice but ... so what? After all, it wasn't used very much historically, either. Why do you feel the need to enhance this particular fighting style?

One reminder: TWF is most useful to DEX builds. DEX is already the 'everything' stat, where STR is only important for powerful weapon attacks. So enhancing TWF further decreases the importance of STR. Is that your intent or just an unintended consequence of your proposed house rule?

Perhaps just leave well enough alone ...

[Zman]

Why change TWF at all? It's usually a slightly sub-optimal choice but ... so what? After all, it wasn't used very much historically, either. Why do you feel the need to enhance this particular fighting style?

One reminder: TWF is most useful to DEX builds. DEX is already the 'everything' stat, where STR is only important for powerful weapon attacks. So enhancing TWF further decreases the importance of STR. Is that your intent or just an unintended consequence of your proposed house rule?

Perhaps just leave well enough alone ...

It isn't slightly suboptimal, it is downright bad beyond early levels outside of a rogue. Why balance it? Because it is extremely poorly balanced.

[Lollerabe]

Because players shouldn't be punished for wanting to play a certain way, in this case a classic rpg fightstyle.

Flails almost weren't used historically speaking either, actually some historians discuss if it were used at all, however it's a cool weapon that many players including myself like.

TWF is beyond bad by raw except as Zman mentioned on rogues, I want it not to be. With inspiration from Zmans tweak (extra OH attack at lvl 8) I think I have found a way to make it viable, different, not op and have a niche - so thanks guys your input did a lot for me :)

[djreynolds]

I use two-weapon rend and it works and is tested.

If you hit with your main hand and off hand you get a choice of three things:

1. you may rend, add double your proficiency bonus in damage

2. you may attempt to shove,

3. you may kick off, and disengage we ended up scrubbing this because it cheated out those who had taken the mobile feat and our rogue was abusing this to the tune of an extra 10 damage every round

Must have the two weapon fighting style and duel weapon style we scrubbed this also because of feat trees


Also you may interweave your strikes, so you can hit main hand, hit off hand and shove and strike main hand again if you have the extra attack feature, or strike main and off hand and disengage and move to strike someone else if you have the extra attack feature.

[Lollerabe]

Looks promising, I thinks it's from you I got the rend idea to begin with. Currently no one at our table uses twf so it's not a problem right now. I think we'll try the extra offhand attack to begin with, simply because it adds what I think should've been twf's niche to begin with - the most amount of attacks. With the extra attack given at lvl 8 if you have the extra attack feature any rend feature might be overkill as Zman pointed out. Besides with the feat giving mod to offhand it's already a good boost for twf rogues

[djreynolds]

I got the rend originally from Epic players handbook as it was a ranger feat. Then I thought of hey if stabbed someone perhaps I could kick off or push also.

I could see I guy stabbing someone and he is locked with his opponent and watching his face as he twists the blades, much cooler than great weapon fighting.

[Cybren]

My problem with TWF: there's never really a point where someone has a reason to use a sword + dagger, or similar one handed + light weapon, despite that being for the most part the most common form it came in historically.