Is anyone else annoyed by how two-weapon fighting is handled in 5e?

[GM_3826]

OK, so dual wielding was rather rare in real life, generally impractical. When it DID happen, however, it was with one longer blade and one shorter blade. D&D 3.5 takes this into account by reducing the penalty if the OFF HAND weapon that you are using is light. D&D 5e, however, requires that BOTH weapons are light, or else you cannot attack with the off-hand weapon in the same turn. Even if the off hand weapon was generally used defensively, it still makes historically accurate styles, such as rapier or dagger or katana and wakizashi, impossible to mimic unless you allow feats and take Variant Human.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Yeah. It's a ~1pt damage / main hand attack difference as-is, so small enough I feel like they should have been able to work around it. If that one point really is the difference between balance and unhinged mechanics, then they could have just made daggers & other 1d4 weapons the only "light" weapons, I think.

It's a minor annoyance, but one I do feel highly justified in having.

[Dachimotsu]

OK, so dual wielding was rather rare in real life, generally impractical.

Thank Gygax this doesn't take place in real life, then. :P


D&D 5e, however, requires that BOTH weapons are light, or else you cannot attack with the off-hand weapon in the same turn. Even if the off hand weapon was generally used defensively, it still makes historically accurate styles, such as rapier or dagger or katana and wakizashi, impossible to mimic unless you allow feats and take Variant Human.

Dual-wielding, in real life or fantasy, generally requires special training. Hence, the feat.

Personally, I find that two-weapon fighting is kind of over-powered, since you can do it at all without feats and without any meaningful penalty.

[Spellbreaker26]

The thing about dual wielding is that it's supposed to be more of a defensive style - you parry with the dagger and attack with the longer weapon. Ideally it would work similar to a shield, perhaps with no bonus against ranged attacks but with a better AC defense against melee attacks, so say +3 AC instead of +2.

[GM_3826]

The thing about dual wielding is that it's supposed to be more of a defensive style - you parry with the dagger and attack with the longer weapon. Ideally it would work similar to a shield, perhaps with no bonus against ranged attacks but with a better AC defense against melee attacks, so say +3 AC instead of +2.

Yes. In fact, I outright noted that in the first post.

I still do not understand why using a rapier or dagger together, or a longsword and scimitar together (since that's what the DMG recommends take the place of the katana and wakizashi) should be impossible unless your DM allows feats. This is not the only problem with two weapon fighting, it's just the most notable, especially as two weapon fighting is rather underpowered, as it stands.

[Spellbreaker26]

I still do not understand why using a rapier or dagger together, or a longsword and scimitar together (since that's what the DMG recommends take the place of the katana and wakizashi) should be impossible unless your DM allows feats. This is not the only problem with two weapon fighting, it's just the most notable, especially as two weapon fighting is rather underpowered, as it stands.

I haven't yet met a DM who disallows feats; but yes, that would make two weapon fighting less good for most martial classes. Others, like rogues, can do quite well however.

[Citan]

Yes. In fact, I outright noted that in the first post.

I still do not understand why using a rapier or dagger together, or a longsword and scimitar together (since that's what the DMG recommends take the place of the katana and wakizashi) should be impossible unless your DM allows feats. This is not the only problem with two weapon fighting, it's just the most notable, especially as two weapon fighting is rather underpowered, as it stands.

I think it is connected to the first point: in 5e, everyone can dual-wield weapons. So they had to put some limitations, including the fact you don't add your modifier to off-hand.

Honestly, as a DM I would certainly agree that a player who wants to dual-wield but is no interested in the feat alter the Fighting Style, so that instead of adding your mod, you can dual-wield with one light and one non-light.

Beyond that, how they made the rules means perfect sense to me.

If they had instead made a "special proficiency" just for this, then I would have indeed expected a different balance.
And please let's not reopen the Pandora's Box of the supposed "underwhelming power" of TWF.
Because when you realize all the ways it can be combined with features and spells, you can see that it is really fine as is.

[GM_3826]

...Basically, I can perfectly understand why the rules might be this way, but feel like you could probably do something else while having it be equally simple. Modifying the Two-Weapon Fighting style to allow for this kind of thing makes sense.

[Joe the Rat]

One of the casualties of simplicity.
If the fighting style allowed one non-light weapon, long-and-short would be covered - and still requires a bit of special training (one of the fighting style classes) to pull off. Is adding that to two-weapon (+stat to off hand) over-powering the style? Does it undersell the feat? You could make this an either-or: either statmod to damage on your off-hand, OR you can use a non-light weapon in one hand. I wouldn't do it as a separate style - it would be completely negated by the Dual Wielding. It'd be no kookier than the UA styles (mariner, close quarters shooter, tunnel fighter).

d8-and-d4 combinations more or less balance out with the normal light option (d6-and-d6) until Extra Attack comes into play.

[BRC]

Here's how I would do it.

By default, you can TWF with a one-handed weapon in your main hand, and a light weapon in your off hand.

With the Two Weapon Fighting feat, You EITHER
1) Wield two one-handed weapons
2) Wield a one-handed weapon in your main hand, and a light weapon in your off hand, receiving the +1 bonus to AC if you do so (As your lighter off-hand weapon can be used defensively)
or
3) wield two light weapons, gaining a +1 bonus to attack with your main hand weapon and a +1 bonus to AC.


Plus the ability to draw or stow two weapons simultaneously, which is actually a pretty big deal in many situations.

[Tanarii]

I still do not understand why using a rapier or dagger together, or a longsword and scimitar together (since that's what the DMG recommends take the place of the katana and wakizashi) should be impossible unless your DM allows feats. This is not the only problem with two weapon fighting, it's just the most notable, especially as two weapon fighting is rather underpowered, as it stands.
It's not impossible. Any character can use them together. You can even attack with them both in the same round if you have Extra attack. You just can't attack with one of them as a bonus action.

[MinotaurWarrior]

It's not impossible. Any character can use them together. You can even attack with them both in the same round if you have Extra attack. You just can't attack with one of them as a bonus action.

Wait, really?

[BRC]

Wait, really?
Yeah, I don't think it says anywhere that each attack from an attack action needs to be made with the same weapon. It's just very rare that you find yourself in a situation where you would want to use different weapons.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I don't think it says anywhere that each attack from an attack action needs to be made with the same weapon. It's just very rare that you find yourself in a situation where you would want to use different weapons.Most common use of it I see is either melee attack followed by throwing a different weapon (ie dagger), or vice versa.

Edit: In other words, I agree it's pretty rare for 2 melee weapons to be used that way, barring something specific being wanted in terms of using two magical weapons. But it's possible, so if it's thematic for your character, no particular reason not to do it.

[Ravinsild]

Thank Gygax this doesn't take place in real life, then. :P



Dual-wielding, in real life or fantasy, generally requires special training. Hence, the feat.

Personally, I find that two-weapon fighting is kind of over-powered, since you can do it at all without feats and without any meaningful penalty.

The penalty is in your action economy. It fights for Fighter's Second Wind, certain spells like Hex and Hunter's Mark, the Goblin Racial ability, the Rogue's Cunning Action and many other options. So if you need some "setup" like casting Hunter's Mark or need some healing or to disengage or hide being a Rogue or Goblin, you don't get your extra damage.

So the trade-off is worse damage (1d6 Shortsword + Heal/Hide/Disengage/Spell) versus consistently more (Greatsword 2d6) and less competition for your bonus action.

That's what I think the penalty is anyway - is that not enough?

[GM_3826]

Yeah, I don't think it says anywhere that each attack from an attack action needs to be made with the same weapon. It's just very rare that you find yourself in a situation where you would want to use different weapons.

Huh. OK, then.

[RedGeomancer]

I agree with OP that it should be easier to mimic historical examples of TWF. The classic example is Miyamoto Musashi, who was an expert with the katana, then developed niten (two-sword) style using katana and wakizashi. (Sometimes, apparently, katana and bokken, or wooden practice sword. He was also known to fight duels with bokken, or in one case with an oar.) So IRL the individual skill progression is longsword→longsword + dagger or shortsword, in 5e the skill progression is 2 shortswords→2 longswords. Seems silly.

That said it's absolutely right to point out that anyone can dual wield without the benefit of the ability modifier. This is actually better than older versions of the game, where dual wielding (without feats or other mitigating factors) imposed a penalty to the attack roll of both the primary and secondary weapon. This is in line with 5e move towards carrot/no carrot rather than carrot/stick.


I haven't yet met a DM who disallows feats; but yes, that would make two weapon fighting less good for most martial classes. Others, like rogues, can do quite well however.

I don't allow feats.

[Tanarii]

I don't allow feats.Yeah. No feats, no multiclassing. Doesn't stop me from filling up 4-5 sessions a week with players.

[IShouldntBehere]

I'm sure it annoys lots of people, that's the sort of point lots of folks care about. It doesn't really bother me since my points of inspiration come far more from video games and TV shows where dual-wielding far more often in the vein of the sort of ninja/assassin type character with two daggers than anything else.

To be honest I've always find the historical stuff to look a bit stiff and goofy looking. Probably because it's more concerned with dealing with practical realities of the human body an physics than it is looking cool. The asymmetry just rubs me the wrong way I guess.

I think everyone likes different parts of their game to be more grounded and other parts less so. A quick patch might to be allow non-light weapons to be used in the main hand, but with reduced damage if you're really concerned with keeping technical balance.

[BigONotation]

I am going to break the rule an describe my homebrew:

Anyone can draw two Light weapons as part of their movement.
The Fighting Style gives you non-Light weapons and offhand mod damage.
Fighters who dual wield get an extra offhand attack at 11th.
The feat removes the Bonus Action cost of the offhand and when you hit with an Opportunity Attack, you roll damage for both weapons.

[Dren Nas]

Since attacking with the offhand requires your bonus action, I think it's a little under powered. Especially if you're running a class that needs its bonus actions to maximize your damage/utility.

[Calibus]

My homebrew for twf is that I allow 1 extra attack without prof bonus unless you get the dual weapons master feat

[Sigreid]

The thing about dual wielding is that it's supposed to be more of a defensive style - you parry with the dagger and attack with the longer weapon. Ideally it would work similar to a shield, perhaps with no bonus against ranged attacks but with a better AC defense against melee attacks, so say +3 AC instead of +2.

I'm not sure this is true. Years ago when I was in the SCA there was a fighter who used 2 heavy maces. He was a real life blacksmith. His entire defense was that he struck so rapidly and with such precision and force that it was really difficult to muster for a counter attack. In a real fight with weapons, he would have been terrifying.

[LordFluffy]

Personally, I find that two-weapon fighting is kind of over-powered, since you can do it at all without feats and without any meaningful penalty.
I used to train in Kali/Escrima. I think I was training with paired sticks in my first or second lesson. It takes practice, but it's not "go train on the mountain with the masters until you can snatch the pebbles from their hands" kind of practice.

Personally, I don't mind that anyone can do it because I think it was far too feat intensive in other versions. My only complaint is that I think it shouldn't be dealt with as a distinct second attack but rather as a bonus to your main attack; the focus in 5E is too narrow really.

That said, I think with the number of issues that such a measure would potentially present (second targets, one melee and one thrown, etc) I think they found a reasonable, if not always elegant, compromise.