Dual Wielding. Is this overpowered or does it sound fair?

[RipTide]

I'm not a fan of the current dual wielding rules and haven't been able to find a fix that i like. Right now it just seems like there is no good reason to go for dual wielding over 2 handed or sword and board. So I got this idea for a small change that could make a huge difference.

What if you didn't need to take the attack action to get the bonus offhand attack? So you can take any action on your turn (help, dodge, disengage, no spell casting though because that's the eldritch knights schtick) and still get your bonus attack. Right now 2 handed = more damage, Sword and Board = more defense and with this Dual wielding = more options.

The big concern I have is stepping on the toes of rogues cunning action with the ability to attack and disengage.

So what do you guys think, is this fair or OP?

***edit***
What do you mean i spelled dual duel everywhere.

[RSP]

Just to clarify, are suggesting the fighting style changes, the feat changes, or that the rule in general changes?

If the latter, you've essentially answered your own question and have given everyone (a better version of) Cunning Action: a 2nd level Rogue can (Disengage, Hide, or Dash), and attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Anyone else can (Disengage, Hide, Dash, Dodge, Help, or Cast a Spell) and Attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Even excluding Cast a Spell, you still allow any character the ability to Dodge and attack every round.

I also don't think you've planned for shinanagins: a Great Sword wielder can hold the great sword in 1 hand, draw a dagger, attack using Bonus Action, then Dodge or whatever. A sword and boarder can say their shield is on their main hand and their sword is in their off hand, dodge every round while still attacking, probably a few more tricks would come up if you played this.

[Ziegander]

Just to clarify, are suggesting the fighting style changes, the feat changes, or that the rule in general changes?

If the latter, you've essentially answered your own question and have given everyone (a better version of) Cunning Action: a 2nd level Rogue can (Disengage, Hide, or Dash), and attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Anyone else can (Disengage, Hide, Dash, Dodge, Help, or Cast a Spell) and Attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Even excluding Cast a Spell, you still allow any character the ability to Dodge and attack every round.

I also don't think you've planned for shinanagins: a Great Sword wielder can hold the great sword in 1 hand, draw a dagger, attack using Bonus Action, then Dodge or whatever. A sword and boarder can say their shield is on their main hand and their sword is in their off hand, dodge every round while still attacking, probably a few more tricks would come up if you played this.

It wouldn't work like that. To qualify for fighting with two weapons, I imagine both would still need to be light, one-handed weapons, so, no, you can't hold your greatsword in one hand, pull out a dagger, use your bonus action attack, then Dodge.

Also, I assume any bonus action attack would still be made without adding an ability modifier to damage if you didn't have the Fighting Style.

That said, it's proooooobably still too strong of a change to the general rule, but I could see it making the Dual-Wielder feat actually worthwhile.

[RipTide]

fair enough about the shenanigans, but assume that most DM's would play it RAI rather than RAW. Plus without investing in the duel wielder feat the 2 handed thing doesn't work (cant duel wield non light weapons and there are no light 2 handed weapons) and a shield is not considered a weapon so that doesn't work either.

And as far as cunning action i wouldn't say its a better version of cunning action. Rogue still has the advantage of being able to combine actions (disengage and hide, dodge and help whatever you want). rogue also gets sneak attack with no extra effort making their 1 attack by default stronger than anybody else's attacks. Also adding multi class to the rogue they could get 2 or 3 attacks and dodge where this would only ever be 1 (this admittedly is a flimsy argument though).

Though you are still right, it probably is too good to add as a standard thing, so probably add it as part of the Feat.

[ad_hoc]

Just so you know:

Dual = two
Duel = a formal combat between 2 people

If you want it to be better I think the simplest way is to have the Fighting Style include non-light weapons.

That keeps Rogues the same.

A similar solution would be to improve the feat.

[Foxhound438]

dual wielding is actually decent for things that want to get a bonus action attack without needing to spend an ASI on a feat, or things that don't want to be locked into str builds for using PAM. It's pretty decent on things that get per-hit damage boosts, like rangers and (ironically) paladins. It's a bit harder to justify on a pally for most of your career since the big thing that helps dual wielding for them is all the way up there at 11th level, and it's hard to MC for the fighting style if you are trying a dex build.

Think something like kobold paladin; he can either dual wield shortswords, or go s+b with a rapier. With dueling style, the rapier is about on par with the shortswords until IDS comes in, where ss's deal notably better damage.

[90sMusic]

I don't think two-weapon fighting needs to be changed really.

Rogue for example can use two shortswords that deal 1d6 each. That is 2d6 together, which is the same as the big greatsword wielding fighter.

Two-weapon fighting isn't really meant to be exactly equal to using large weapons as far as damage output. A fighter using two weapons is at a disadvantage past level 5 and that is fine. Two-weapon fighting serves different purposes and helps different classes.

For rogues, who only ever get a single attack, it is their do-or-die whether they hit or not and missing that one attack is devastating. Two-weapon fighting as a rogue gives you a second chance to land a hit and get that sneak attack damage done, which is the real source of your damage output. So for a rogue, two weapon fighting is superior to anything else because it doubles your chance of sneak attacking which is where all your real damage comes from.

As a ranger, you can specialize in two-weapon fighting and get to add your ability score to the offhand strike which helps a lot, and the extra attack gives you another hit of hunter's mark on top of that.

Also, as someone else said, you're kind of screwing rogues over by giving everyone else the equivalent of cunning action if you allow them to get this attack in on top of disengaging, dashing, whatever. It may be cunning action-lite, but still. two-weapon fighting already serves a purpose and it is valuable for rangers and rogues.

Those rules shouldn't be dinked with. It already serves a purpose famously and as a rogue or ranger, i'd much rather use two weapons than a two-hander or sword and board. It's fine as-is. It's like the tradeoff between weapons that deal 1d12 damage vs 2d6 damage, that disparity is there for a reason. A 2d6 gives you on average more damage, but the 1d12 can give you potentially more through barbarian and/or half-orc brutal criticals.

[MinotaurWarrior]

As a ranger, you can specialize in two-weapon fighting and get to add your ability score to the offhand strike which helps a lot, and the extra attack gives you another hit of hunter's mark on top of that

And favored enemy damage. At level 6, that's a bigger deal than the mark.

[Spacehamster]

Just let it add 2 attacks with your bonus action at character level 11 if you got a class that has extra attack feature if you have the feat. and if you got both dual wield style and dueling style
let it apply to dual wielding and there you go, 1 more attack than other bonus action attacking styles but still about equal damage as -5/+10 builds.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm not a fan of the current duel wielding rules and haven't been able to find a fix that i like. Right now it just seems like there is no good reason to go for duel wielding over 2 handed or sword and board. So I got this idea for a small change that could make a huge difference.

What if you didn't need to take the attack action to get the bonus offhand attack? So you can take any action on your turn (help, dodge, disengage, no spell casting though because that's the eldritch knights schtick) and still get your bonus attack. Right now 2 handed = more damage, Sword and Board = more defense and with this Duel wielding = more options.

The big concern I have is stepping on the toes of rogues cunning action with the ability to attack and disengage.

So what do you guys think, is this fair or OP?

Here are a few reasons to dual-wield:

1) More attack attempts (important for crit-fishing or when landing a hit at all is more important as with sneak attack)
2) No other form of extra attack (i.e. Rogue)
3) Less vulnerable to being disarmed (requires at least two attempts instead of one).

Other thing to keep in mind, a bonus action attack not reliant on any attack is actually a 3rd level archetype feature and a feature of the Scimitar of Speed, so that's an incredibly valuable ability.

That you describe it as making a huge difference speaks for itself.

That being the case: Yes, the change sounds overpowered.

[Tauguy628]

What if the bonus attack no longer required your bonus action (limited to 1/round). This would allow rouges to dual wield+cunning action, but would not let fighters and rangers steal rouge's ability.

[CaptainSarathai]

My question is: what are you using as a baseline comparison?
You're saying that dual-wielding "isn't any good" - compared to what?

2H Weapon?
You get more single-target damage, and no AC boost. You have access to GWM and/or PAM, but I think those feats are more at fault than the generic weapon option.
This makes sense, thematically; you're bashing someone with a gigantic axe. For sheer "I swing twice, how much damage?" I think the 2h weapons should win out every time.

Sword'n'Board?
Less damage, more AC. There's also no way to gain attacks over your normal allowance - no PAM, no GWM kills/crits.
Again, sensible thematically; you've got a shield to hide behind, you're obviously more interested in defense and staying alive. Barbarians (class) more more recognized for having big weapons or "going Krueger" with a pair of weapons - civilized, intelligent warriors use a shield.

Pair of Weapons:
They deal better "crowd" damage by laying on more attacks. They also have a strong edge for smashing people with fancy "+Dam per Hit" abilities, Crit Fish, and so on.
Unlike the 2H build, they can get a little bit of an aC bump via Feat, representing parrying.
Unlike the pure-defense Sword'n'board builds, the dual-wielders still get a little boosted damage.
--

The only issue with dual-wielding is that you are giving up opportunities.

Your Bonus Action
Granted, most of the time, having a use for your Bonus Action is fairly situational, so using it for an attack isn't usually bad.
PAM also has the same problem, to be honest.
I think that in terms of the meta, it's fair. Not all classes have access to 2H weapons or shields, but other classes are more loathe to give up their Bonus Action.
If you wanted to fix it, just roll the Bonus attack into the regular Attack Action.

Your Free Hand
This is kind of a problem(?) Casters are really the ones who need the free hand, but to be fair, few casters want to be in melee enough to focus on optimizing weapon attacks. The ones who do, have their own reasons for being poor Dual-wielders
1) Paladin. They have a Str requirement, and access to Duellist, Protection, Defense, and GWF but not TWF. They also have a Str requirement which all but rules out using rapiers. Improved Smite comes too late to be a real selling point.
2) Warlock. Needs a free hand, and can only summon a single pact weapon. Life Drinker only applies to the Pact Weapon, so added attacks from a secondary source are less useful.
3ish) Rogue. Not necessarily a spell caster, but only gets Sneak Attack once per turn, regardless of number of attacks. Is otherwise a great candidate for dual-wielding, but it seems like it's just a lack of "better" options.
If you want to fix this, ummm... I suppose you could rule that it's possible to use at least a dagger as an Arcane Focus.
--

Personally, the only fix that I have applied and found effective, is to switch the TWF and Dual Wielder style/feat.
I make TW Style grant the ability to carry non-light weapons.
I set Dual Wielder to grant +Stat to damage. This makes the better ability more accessible to everyone, and it makes sense that the more physical classes should have the skill/strength required to handle bulkier weapons. It brings the damage well into a worthwhile range.

[Toofey]

Why are people thinking this allows anyone a cunning action? As I read the rules you get a cunning action which gives you the option of doing XYZ with your bonus action. I don't see how this add's those as bonus action options to the fighter.

[Kane0]

My group houserules that if you hit with both primary and secondary weapon you deal bonus damage equal to your Prof bonus. Not a huge leap in power, but nice.

[Gryndle]

The way we do it at our table is this: if you are wielding two weapons, both of which have to be light unless you the Dual Wielder feat, then when you take the attack action you get your normal number of attacks with your main hand, PLUS 1 attack with your off-hand weapon. you don't have to take a bonus action to make that off-hand attack.

in order to add your ability mod to the off-hand attack you still need the two-weapon fighting style.

I am sure there is some way of abusing it. but my table is generally mature enough not to pull too much cheesy crap.

[CaptainSarathai]

Why are people thinking this allows anyone a cunning action? As I read the rules you get a cunning action which gives you the option of doing XYZ with your bonus action. I don't see how this add's those as bonus action options to the fighter.

It doesn't add them.

But consider, right now, the Rogue is the only class that can do this:
Action + Bonus = 1 Attack(Action), Disengage (Bonus)

Now, if you make the Offhand Bonus Attack independent of an Attack Action, you get this:

Action + Bonus = 1 Attack (Bonus), Disengage (Action)

[Regulas]

What should be done is getting rid of the extra attack altogether with different advantages. Why? Because wielding multiple weapons doesn't let you attack any more often then one.

It should offer AC or some kind of defensive advantage, and two-weapon fighting instead should give an attack bonus.

[Talamare]

I don't think two-weapon fighting needs to be changed really.

Rogue for example can use two shortswords that deal 1d6 each. That is 2d6 together, which is the same as the big greatsword wielding fighter.

Two-weapon fighting isn't really meant to be exactly equal to using large weapons as far as damage output. A fighter using two weapons is at a disadvantage past level 5 and that is fine. Two-weapon fighting serves different purposes and helps different classes.

Then you reach level 5...

Not to mention, GWM

[BigONotation]

Here is my homebrew for my table:

Anyone can draw or stow two weapons as part of their movement.

The Two-Weapon fighting style gives the ability to dual wield non-Light weapons and adds modifier to offhand.

Dual Wielder feat:
+1 STR or DEX
Removes the Bonus Action cost of the offhand attack.
You roll both weapons damage dice when you hit with an Opportunity Attack.

[90sMusic]

Then you reach level 5...

Not to mention, GWM

Not seeing your point.

Rogues don't get extra attacks but they don't need them, sneak attack is their source of damage.
At level 5, your sneak attack does 3d6 + 2d6 because both mainhand + offhand. Still trumps 2 swings of 2d6.

And as a ranger you get lots of extra damage bonuses per hit from various sources as well.

Point still stands: two-weapon fighting is already fine the way it is. It isn't meant to be an interchangeable fighting style that is equal in all aspects as every other fighting style, it serves a niche which I already outlined and it does it well. For a rogue, it's the superior style of fighting.

[Talamare]

Not seeing your point.

Rogues don't get extra attacks but they don't need them, sneak attack is their source of damage.
At level 5, your sneak attack does 3d6 + 2d6 because both mainhand + offhand. Still trumps 2 swings of 2d6.

And as a ranger you get lots of extra damage bonuses per hit from various sources as well.

Point still stands: two-weapon fighting is already fine the way it is. It isn't meant to be an interchangeable fighting style that is equal in all aspects as every other fighting style, it serves a niche which I already outlined and it does it well. For a rogue, it's the superior style of fighting.

Rogues aren't the only ones who can dual wield. I admit that Dual Wield is currently fine for Rogues because Sneak Attack is amazing.

It's basically trash for everyone else

[Toofey]

It doesn't add them.

But consider, right now, the Rogue is the only class that can do this:
Action + Bonus = 1 Attack(Action), Disengage (Bonus)

Now, if you make the Offhand Bonus Attack independent of an Attack Action, you get this:

Action + Bonus = 1 Attack (Bonus), Disengage (Action)

I was reading it as the additional attack doesn't require the bonus action, I see what you're saying.

[Asmotherion]

I beleive it's good as it is. I mean, you can profit by taking the feat for +1 AC, Two-Weapon Fighting makes it one of the best At-Will damage Sources in the game... And, still, even without all that, you can always profit from it if you have nothing better to do with your action. 2 attacks is always better than one after all, right? Also grands some sort of Pseudo-Advantage, as you are more probable to hit the foe with at least one of your 2 attacks. With the feat, and 2 weapon fighting (access to it is only a matter of a 2 level dip, and if you want a character that can effectivelly dual wield, 2 levels is not that big of an investment), you are effectivelly negotiating 1 AC for 1 more attack. In 5e 1 AC is not trivial matter, but the same goes for an extra attack, where you can apply bonuses, extra damage sources (hex for example), etc etc. Overall I think it's totally balanced around the fact that:

A) Basically doubles the number of attacks you can make, wile:
B) Still needs a bit of investment to be exceptional.

Two-Handed does not always out-dammage Dual Wielding. Actually, a Dual Wielding Hex Fighter outdamages most builds in at-will dammage.

[djreynolds]

I'm not a fan of the current dual wielding rules and haven't been able to find a fix that i like. Right now it just seems like there is no good reason to go for dual wielding over 2 handed or sword and board. So I got this idea for a small change that could make a huge difference.

What if you didn't need to take the attack action to get the bonus offhand attack? So you can take any action on your turn (help, dodge, disengage, no spell casting though because that's the eldritch knights schtick) and still get your bonus attack. Right now 2 handed = more damage, Sword and Board = more defense and with this Dual wielding = more options.

The big concern I have is stepping on the toes of rogues cunning action with the ability to attack and disengage.

So what do you guys think, is this fair or OP?

***edit***
What do you mean i spelled dual duel everywhere.

This ain't bad, but it costs a monk a KI point to attack and take the dodge action, though I do like the idea.

I have been trying stuff out for awhile now, I have used a two-weapon rend in the past... you hit with your off hand and main hand and get proficiency bonus added or even doubled.. 3.5 epic stuff

Another idea I have been toying with.... as reaction you may make an off hand attack during your opponent's turn if they attack you.

Like the riposte maneuver, but "free". But this is for someone who has TWF and the duel wielder feat... I know many hate feat trees... but its something. And you could even limit it to 3x's a rest

[Citan]

I'm not a fan of the current dual wielding rules and haven't been able to find a fix that i like. Right now it just seems like there is no good reason to go for dual wielding over 2 handed or sword and board. So I got this idea for a small change that could make a huge difference.

What if you didn't need to take the attack action to get the bonus offhand attack? So you can take any action on your turn (help, dodge, disengage, no spell casting though because that's the eldritch knights schtick) and still get your bonus attack. Right now 2 handed = more damage, Sword and Board = more defense and with this Dual wielding = more options.

The big concern I have is stepping on the toes of rogues cunning action with the ability to attack and disengage.

So what do you guys think, is this fair or OP?

***edit***
What do you mean i spelled dual duel everywhere.
Hi!
My answer will be the same as just below.

Just to clarify, are suggesting the fighting style changes, the feat changes, or that the rule in general changes?

If the latter, you've essentially answered your own question and have given everyone (a better version of) Cunning Action: a 2nd level Rogue can (Disengage, Hide, or Dash), and attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Anyone else can (Disengage, Hide, Dash, Dodge, Help, or Cast a Spell) and Attack on a turn using their Action and Bonus Action.

Even excluding Cast a Spell, you still allow any character the ability to Dodge and attack every round.

I also don't think you've planned for shinanagins: a Great Sword wielder can hold the great sword in 1 hand, draw a dagger, attack using Bonus Action, then Dodge or whatever. A sword and boarder can say their shield is on their main hand and their sword is in their off hand, dodge every round while still attacking, probably a few more tricks would come up if you played this.
Even without shenanigans, it is essentially too powerful in the case you make it a modification of the basic rule for two-weapon fighting.
It also feels fairly incoherent in my view: I see the intended representation as allowing you to make an extra attack with a bonus action because you would alternate strikes from each arm (although, by RAW, you could indeed make all strikes with the same arm).
In terms of time, it is admitted that a bonus action is something done much quicker than something done with an action.
Why would someone, simply because he just grabbed another weapon in the other hand, be now able to make that quick an attack? Either he was able in the first place or not.
>>> For me it is very logical that bonus action attack is tied to Attack as a base rule. However, allowing a "free" (not tied to Attack) bonus action attack as a 6+ class feature or adding it to the Feat benefits (if no Human Variant) would be fine by me (changing the Fighting Style would still make it too powerful as soon as multiclassing is allowed. Without multiclassing it would be fine, since neither Paladins nor Rogues get it and they would be the only ones for which this could be too big a benefit with Smite/Sneak Attack).

[djreynolds]

My free riposte... is a rip off of the battlemaster.

I like the direction of the idea, but patient defense of the monk costs something, to attack and dodge.

I like the two weapon rend, I have used it for my players and its not bad. Easy math, anyone can do it. I prefer double proficiency in damage on a hit with both main hand and off hand.

[Spacehamster]

Idea, when getting a reaction attack when dual wielding you attack with both weapons.

[djreynolds]

You could try brainstorming something like whirlwind but on a smaller level, when you take the attack action you may make an offhand attack with your bonus action and reaction. As there is real cost to this as there are some powerful reaction abilities out there.

I think TWF gets bad rap because PAM is almost easier to do, you don't even need TWF style for it and you still get a BA with strength modifier

But some of the numbers show TWF isn't that terrible if you take out GWM of the picture, which is a feat that is powerful... hence the two weapon rend, the only fix I have found that closes the gap

A ranger gets horde breaker and they and the warlock seem the best going the TWF just cause of hex and hunter's mark..... as do Bladesingers at 14th, and paladins actually become a viable TWF with a quick dip of fighter once level 11 is reached, but then PAM is a far cheaper choice and works with GWM and I see many warlocks going in that direction as well

This debate has gone on forever in other threads... because it is "now" such a classical D&D theme, fighting with two weapons, mainly because of novels

And SageAdvice isn't concerned with minmaxing... so I think nothing will ever get done. I was hoping for a two weapon style samurai... didn't get that either.

[Spacehamster]

You could try brainstorming something like whirlwind but on a smaller level, when you take the attack action you may make an offhand attack with your bonus action and reaction. As there is real cost to this as there are some powerful reaction abilities out there.

I think TWF gets bad rap because PAM is almost easier to do, you don't even need TWF style for it and you still get a BA with strength modifier

But some of the numbers show TWF isn't that terrible if you take out GWM of the picture, which is a feat that is powerful... hence the two weapon rend, the only fix I have found that closes the gap

A ranger gets horde breaker and they and the warlock seem the best going the TWF just cause of hex and hunter's mark..... as do Bladesingers at 14th, and paladins actually become a viable TWF with a quick dip of fighter once level 11 is reached, but then PAM is a far cheaper choice and works with GWM and I see many warlocks going in that direction as well

This debate has gone on forever in other threads... because it is "now" such a classical D&D theme, fighting with two weapons, mainly because of novels

And SageAdvice isn't concerned with minmaxing... so I think nothing will ever get done. I was hoping for a two weapon style samurai... didn't get that either.

What about this? Reaktion attack hits with both weapons and if you have both dueling and two weapon style you add half the dmg bonus from dueling to both main and offhand weapon?

[djreynolds]

What about this? Reaktion attack hits with both weapons and if you have both dueling and two weapon style you add half the dmg bonus from dueling to both main and offhand weapon?

I personally like it, but others will complain of feat trees.

[Spacehamster]

I personally like it, but others will complain of feat trees.

I like it cause it requires commitment, lets you be good at dual wielding if you really go for it. :) either need multiclassing for both styles or champion 10, if I made this build I would probably build it as 11 champion, 5 hunter ranger, 3 assassin, both styles plus 1ac style, 3 attacks + bonus attack + potential horde breaker + sneak attack + chance on auto crits.

[gfishfunk]

Regarding the OP's proposal: sounds good to me. The ways that it could be abused do not seem huge. You still need a light weapon in each hand without a feat. I don't think it is terribly needed, though.

Two-Weapon fighting is good (as is) for rogues and rangers straight up, and pretty good for barbarians.
- Rogues get two chances to activate sneak attack. Missing an attack is a huge miss for a rogue, whereas other classes, a miss just works into the law of averages. Missing with a first attack and hitting with a bonus attack is a big damage increase for rogues.
- Rangers get extra damage on both attacks.

PAM and GWM make it less desirable.