A simple fix for two-weapon fighting... maybe

[SharkForce]

So, this just occured to me. a very simple way to bring two-weapon fighting in line with other options, i think. but i haven't been able to fact check myself to make sure it's reasonable.

just add the damage dice from both weapons together, all other bonuses (magic weapon, on-hit damage from enlarge, etc) only counts once per hit. the two-weapon fighting style then subsequently crawls off into a hole somewhere and dies in a fire, because it isn't needed (and we don't want to introduce a 2d6 + 10 or 2d8 +10 weapon into the game).

so a pair of short swords would be a 2d6 + (str or dex) weapon.

the two-weapon feat would remain, and would be an average damage boost of 2 damage per hit, plus it would give +1 AC. maybe. i'd want to run it through kryx's damage calculator to get an idea of whether a 2d8 weapon would be too strong.

there are two things that this would change that i'm not sure are desirable, but it might still be for the better because they seem relatively small:

1) rogues (and others, but mostly rogues) no longer have super easy access to a bonus action attack to help land their per-turn damage, which may make races that allow you to hide (for advantage on attack rolls) more easily too important for the class.

2) this gives a damage boost to monks, and might reduce build variety because paired short swords overwhelms every other option for monks. some change would probably need to be made for monks to compensate for the loss in build variety (the small damage boost i'm not convinced is a major problem... every monk ever needing to use paired short swords to be "optimized", on the other hand, i think should go).

but if that's all the problems (or if there are only similar small problems rather than the currently quite large problem of dual wielding being awful), it would seem like a much better way to handle dual wielding.



so... tear it apart. it seems so simple, and i think it addresses a lot of the major concerns with 2-weapon fighting (particularly that the damage falls off in a huge way)... but i can't help but think that for something this simple to have never been implemented, someone *must* have tried it out and found huge problems.

[MadBear]

My guess is that the iconic twf means you're making more attacks while 2handed weapons give you more dice.

I think your way works it just have that twf feel.

[Zalabim]

I keep suggesting that this replace the current TWF style, but no one, to my knowledge, has tested it. The questions that remain to be answered would be whether to add the extra die to the off-hand as well, and whether to add the stat modifier to the off-hand through a feat.

I suppose it wouldn't even have to explicitly replace the current fighting style. Just name it something slightly different (Dual Weapon Fighting Style, maybe) and acknowledge that it tacitly replaces the style but you're still allowed to keep using the old one if you like. This way TWF changes as little as possible from core.

So if someone wants to test it out, the numbers to test are 2d6+stat main hand, 1d6 or 2d6 off-hand, and with the feat 2d8+stat main hand and 1d8 or 2d8 or 1d8+stat or 2d8+stat for the off-hand. My gut tells me not to use the combined dice for the off-hand and have the feat add the ability modifier to damage for the off-hand. So with Dual Wielder and Dual Weapon Style (name pending), you'd attack for 2d8+stat, then as a bonus action attack again for 1d8+stat, and that's mainly to improve the value of dual wielder even for characters who don't have the fighting style.

Of course dual wielding lances would break it, but no one has to tell me that.

[Lombra]

I don't like it: two weapon fighting allows you to split the damage between n+1 creatures where n is the number of attacks at your disposal, this houserule decreases versatility and reduces options. I think that it works just fine, the fighting style should be replaced with a way to get proficiency in two weapon fightin somehow though, either via feats or class proficiencies.

[Mhl7]

so a pair of short swords would be a 2d6 + (str or dex) weapon.



This just frees up the bonus action. It doesn't change the damage output. Or am I missing something?

My personal fix would be to include the offhand attack in the Attack Action, removing the need to use a Bonus Action for it. It is almost exactly equivalent to what you proposed, but you still make one extra attack, which may be relevant in some cases (rogue).

EDIT: wait a moment. I just now realized the implication of your idea: with the extra attack feature the damage increase is quite big. It is like attacking twice with the main hand and twice with the offhand. I don't like it because it becomes too similar to GWF.

[Sirdar]

I keep suggesting that this replace the current TWF style, but no one, to my knowledge, has tested it. The questions that remain to be answered would be whether to add the extra die to the off-hand as well, and whether to add the stat modifier to the off-hand through a feat.

I suppose it wouldn't even have to explicitly replace the current fighting style. Just name it something slightly different (Dual Weapon Fighting Style, maybe) and acknowledge that it tacitly replaces the style but you're still allowed to keep using the old one if you like. This way TWF changes as little as possible from core.

So if someone wants to test it out, the numbers to test are 2d6+stat main hand, 1d6 or 2d6 off-hand, and with the feat 2d8+stat main hand and 1d8 or 2d8 or 1d8+stat or 2d8+stat for the off-hand. My gut tells me not to use the combined dice for the off-hand and have the feat add the ability modifier to damage for the off-hand. So with Dual Wielder and Dual Weapon Style (name pending), you'd attack for 2d8+stat, then as a bonus action attack again for 1d8+stat, and that's mainly to improve the value of dual wielder even for characters who don't have the fighting style.

Of course dual wielding lances would break it, but no one has to tell me that.

I really appreciate what you are trying to achieve and I think it could work quite well after some calibration against other styles. It is elegante and simple, but some problems needs to be addressed. First, I don't get the bonus action attack. Isn't the bonus action attack removed by the 'new-TWF' rule you propose? For clarity, would you mind giving explicit descriptions of the following as if you were writing errata for a new PHB:


The basic rules for the 'new-TWF' (which would replace the section in p.195 in the PHB)
The rules for the 'new-TWF' fighting style (which would replace the one first described in p.72 in the PHB)
The rules for the 'new Dual Wielder Feat' compatible with the new-TWF (which would replace the one in p.165 in the PHB)

Also, how would you handle a TWF fighter with a +3 short sword in her main hand and a magical short sword that deals and extra d6 cold damage on a hit in her off-hand?

[clash]

I like the idea but I have a suggestion for how to achieve a similiar result without some of the drawbacks. Proposal:

Two-Weapon Fighting(unchanged)
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Twf style
When you engage in twf the second attack doesn't require a bonus action. Additionally, if you make more than one attack during the attack action that would qualify for twf, you may make an attack following the rules for two-weapon fighting after each attack that qualifies.

This gives the damage that you wanted while still allowing the utility of twf. So with one attack you would have 1d6 + mod for the first attack and 1d6 for twf = 2d6 + mod. Then with 2 attacks, 3 attacks etc it would increase accordingly. So a fighter with 4 attacks and twf style would get 8 attacks but only 4 would have the mod added onto it giving them roughly the same damage output as a great weapon fighter. Again monk might be where this breaks down so something might need to be changed there.

Feat stays unchanged. This will add some power by allowing 2d8 + mod like you said but 2-handers get Great weapon master which adds a lot of oomph so this would still be fine.

[Saggo]

So for clarification, 2 shortswords and Extra Attack would be Attack Action: 2d6+mod + 2d6+mod?

[clash]

If this is directed at my post then the exact attack sequence of 2 shortsword with extra attack would be 1d6 + mod + 1d6 + 1d6 + mod + 1d6 which is 4 attacks equivalent in damage to 2d6 + mod + 2d6 + mod. If this is instead directed at the OP then I will let him answer but that is how I read his post.

[SharkForce]

So for clarification, 2 shortswords and Extra Attack would be Attack Action: 2d6+mod + 2d6+mod?

that's the one i'm proposing yes. naturally, your bonus action would remain available for whatever else, since in my version you're not spending it.

i don't think it's zalabim's proposal though, since he's asking about how the offhand works, and my idea is to simply always combine them; your regular attack *is* both the main and off hand.

and the main difference it would have as compared to two-handed fighting style is in the feats. two-handed gets GWM and PM. TWF would have only the one feat, and would offer slightly more AC and a smaller damage increase than GWM and PM, but also far better consistency in that extra damage (GWM is not a good idea against enemies that are hard to hit, while TWF has no drawback so you can use it all the time) and a lower investment.

not sure how to address the "TWF should attack more often" issue. the main problem with letting someone with TWF attack twice as often is that modifiers are going to get added twice as often (even if we exclude the ability modifier, there are various other ways to boost weapon damage that will make other fighting styles fall behind in a big way if those options are used; there's a paladin spell iirc that adds +1d4 radiant damage to your party's attacks, enlarge adds +1d4 per hit, magic weapons typically add a flat bonus and many also have extra damage dice on top of that, like adding 1d6 fire or necrotic damage or something, absorb energy or whatever it's called iirc adds a die of damage to your attacks, paladins add 1d8 radiant damage to all their attacks, and there's probably some stuff i haven't even considered, not to mention the nova potential for a paladin to dump 4 smites per round or a battlemaster to dump up to 8 maneuvers without even spending action surge that doubling number of attacks will lead to...)

so i'm definitely opposed to doubling the number of attacks. it's too easy to optimize for it. that's why i wanted to just basically have a pair of short swords deal 2d6 + mod damage as if they were a single weapon.

[Saggo]

not sure how to address the "TWF should attack more often" issue. the main problem with letting someone with TWF attack twice as often is that modifiers are going to get added twice as often

Without number-crunching, that would be my immediate reaction. Additional attacks is mechanically varied from doubling the damage die (2 shortswords is identical to a great sword with this houserule). Like you pointed out, it lets you build and optimize differently. But like you also pointed out, straight doubling the attacks is a balance nightmare, so I wouldn't do that either.

My issues lie mostly with the constant fighting for bonus actions (usually trying to move Hex and Hunter's Mark) which means trying to do things that optimize TWF keeps you from TWFing, and that the mechanical variation is lost with PAM, since it synergizes extremely well with so many builds and with GWM.

[SharkForce]

Without number-crunching, that would be my immediate reaction. Additional attacks is mechanically varied from doubling the damage die (2 shortswords is identical to a great sword with this houserule). Like you pointed out, it lets you build and optimize differently. But like you also pointed out, straight doubling the attacks is a balance nightmare, so I wouldn't do that either.

My issues lie mostly with the constant fighting for bonus actions (usually trying to move Hex and Hunter's Mark) which means trying to do things that optimize TWF keeps you from TWFing, and that the mechanical variation is lost with PAM, since it synergizes extremely well with so many builds and with GWM.

identical in some ways to a greatsword, maybe.

except that it can be dex-based. and can go up to 2d8 with a feat instead of getting basically power attack. and you're probably going to be wearing light armour instead of heavy armour. and you're going to have better ranged options to pair with it (although when polearms come into the picture, i would say the GWM probably has the better melee options). and because you only invest one feat instead of two, you have more options for your ASIs.

it doesn't take up a bonus action (so it leaves a bonus action for other things), the damage scales with extra attack so that you don't fall behind, and while there isn't a ton of difference in a featless game, there is some difference, and in a game that does have feats the difference is imo quite large.

simply put, while "i want to feel like i'm making more attacks" is certainly not an invalid concern, i would feel more comfortable telling someone to imagine that when they hit for more damage it's because they used their two weapons to do so (not even necessarily by hitting twice, it could as easily be by using one weapon to push aside their opponent's parry and let their other weapon hit a more vulnerable spot) than i would be telling someone to imagine that they're actually dealing as much damage as other damage-dealing specialists.

[Saggo]

I think we might be talking past each other. My concern is this house rule makes the combat system more mechanically homogenized, regardless of how it feels, and I don't think that's the right solution.

The remark on 2 shortswords vs greatsword was about the fact that when the attack action is taken, they are essentially making the same attack. In pure combat mechanics, there's no variety. It's even more apt if you compare 2 handaxes to a greatsword, where you don't get all the benefits of being Dex based. Identical was probably too strong of a term, sure.

I do like that it has better damage scaling than current TWF and that you free up the bonus action, two of the biggest problems, and I'd be interested to see how DPR/KPR actually compares (though I'm stuck at work and I just got Mass Effect, so it probably won't be me). I don't like that you're homogenizing the melee styles, though.

I'll admit that though I enjoy and embrace descriptive combat and roleplay, I've always been biased more towards mechanics.

[Anderlith]

Call it Florentine style, restict it to weapons of the same type, i.e no battleaxe & shortsword.
For magical purposes & such treat the weapons as one. No stacking bonuses or effects. You don't find a +1 shortsword of fire & another +2 shortsword of shock, you instead find a matching pair of +2 short swords of fire. Matching pair could be the keyword meaning that the items are okay to use with Florentine.
I like your idea.

[MadBear]

I think I'll do some tinkering, but maybe the solution needs to be a bit more complicated (which I know runs counter to 5e design).

In my mind, fighting with two weapons increase volume of attacks for quality. That comes at the cost of accuracy and damage per hit.

So what if the ability allowed:

- When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second Attack.
- Anytime you would make an attack, you can choose to make an additional attack
- Every extra attack you make (above the bonus action attack) takes a -1 to hit.
- this attack uses a step down in damage dice. (d8->d6, d6->d4)

For instance, a level 5 fighter could make 3 attacks like normal (2 attacks + 1 bonus action attack), they could also make 4 attacks that all take a -1, 5 attacks at a -2, and 6 attacks at a -3.

This would mean a level 20 fighter could potentially make 10 attacks in a round on average (4 base, 1 bonus action, 5 more from this ability), but they'd take a -5 on all their to-hit rolls.

This would give the feeling of a hurricane of blades, but would work best on easy to hit guys.

[Tanarii]

Given that TWF is supposed to be an iconic style for Rogues and Rangers, and for those two classes it does exactly what it's supposed to do (buff Sneak Attack and Hunter's Mark), this is the exact opposite of a fix.

You know who doesn't need better Two Weapon Fighting, because it's not iconic for them? Level 11+ Fighters with three attacks a round.

[SharkForce]

Given that TWF is supposed to be an iconic style for Rogues and Rangers, and for those two classes it does exactly what it's supposed to do (buff Sneak Attack and Hunter's Mark), this is the exact opposite of a fix.

You know who doesn't need better Two Weapon Fighting, because it's not iconic for them? Level 11+ Fighters with three attacks a round.

TWF doesn't work well for rogues and rangers, it just works less poorly than it does for everyone else. rogues should be making use of their ability to disengage, dash, and hide on a bonus action. ranger hunter's mark requires a bonus action to cast or place on a new target. and even then, they should generally probably be making use of sharpshooter/crossbow master, not TWF, for best results. not to mention that beastmasters typically need their bonus action elsewhere as well. furthermore, for the TWF ranger, even if the bonus action conflict wasn't there, this would not exactly be a nerf. instead of 6d6+15 and requiring a specific fighting style they would do 6d6+10, and could put the fighting style into something else, *and* they would still have their bonus action... which, once again, is required *elsewhere* by a variety of ranger builds.

and while two weapon fighting might not be iconic of fighters for you, it has been the weapon style of choice for fighters in 2nd edition if they could pull it off in my gaming group (and meanwhile has not been typical for most 2nd edition thief characters i've seen, unless they were also fighters. in fact, the iconic 2nd edition thief didn't get a bonus on every attack that qualified, but rather could backstab, which explicitly mentioned a single hit, not multiple hits to guarantee that at least one of them landed). everyone remembers drizzt do'urden and his two scimitars, but did you remember that he actually started off as a wizard apprentice, then became a fighter, was probably a barbarian for a while, and only eventually after all that other stuff did he become a ranger, and apart from his early life training as a wizard he used twin scimitars for that entire time (which was typical of drow, none of whom were rangers because at the time rangers had to be good aligned... meaning all those TWF drow were fighters, pretty much).

at various times, TWF has also been iconic for a variety of other character classes... a lot of people immediately jumped to imagining it on bladesingers, for example, and there have been barbarians that emphasized it at various points in D&D history, as well as a variety of martial artist type characters. likewise, some form of TWF has been common for gladiators.

it wasn't iconic in 3.x for many of those builds because it was even less effective than usual for them, not because there was no past history of those types of characters using that fighting style. there were certainly enough people who tried to make it work, though.

[MeeposFire]

One thing I will give this is that if I am reading this correctly it does at least address one of my big concerns of TWF which is based around the bonus action part.

If fighting styles are supposed to be roughly equal to each other but one requires an extra action investiture to work then the effect itself would have to be more powerful than the others since then on the whole it would not be roughly equal. What we do know is that the end result is generally weaker than other styles and on top of that requires the bonus action to work.

This version does try something different than what I have tried before which was remove the bonus action cost and later give a second attack at level 11 if you have extra attack (the feat gave a bonus action attack among other things). I also switched the fighting style benefit with the feat with the ability to use larger weapon with TWF (so fighters are masters at using larger weapons and rogues can use a feat to get attribute bonus to their offhand damage).

[skaddix]

Cant we just make it not cost a bonus action when used again the same foe or if you score the kill against the first target.

[Malifice]

I dont think it needs changing. Historically. fighting with two weapons was rare because its not really a good thing to do in most cases.

Mecahnically it is still a good option in certain situations. Rogues, or classes that have rider effects (battlemaster dice, smites, getting your bonus d8 damage for rangers etc).

[FilthyLucre]

So, this just occured to me. a very simple way to bring two-weapon fighting in line with other options, i think. but i haven't been able to fact check myself to make sure it's reasonable.

just add the damage dice from both weapons together, all other bonuses (magic weapon, on-hit damage from enlarge, etc) only counts once per hit. the two-weapon fighting style then subsequently crawls off into a hole somewhere and dies in a fire, because it isn't needed (and we don't want to introduce a 2d6 + 10 or 2d8 +10 weapon into the game).

so a pair of short swords would be a 2d6 + (str or dex) weapon.

the two-weapon feat would remain, and would be an average damage boost of 2 damage per hit, plus it would give +1 AC. maybe. i'd want to run it through kryx's damage calculator to get an idea of whether a 2d8 weapon would be too strong.

there are two things that this would change that i'm not sure are desirable, but it might still be for the better because they seem relatively small:

1) rogues (and others, but mostly rogues) no longer have super easy access to a bonus action attack to help land their per-turn damage, which may make races that allow you to hide (for advantage on attack rolls) more easily too important for the class.

2) this gives a damage boost to monks, and might reduce build variety because paired short swords overwhelms every other option for monks. some change would probably need to be made for monks to compensate for the loss in build variety (the small damage boost i'm not convinced is a major problem... every monk ever needing to use paired short swords to be "optimized", on the other hand, i think should go).

but if that's all the problems (or if there are only similar small problems rather than the currently quite large problem of dual wielding being awful), it would seem like a much better way to handle dual wielding.



so... tear it apart. it seems so simple, and i think it addresses a lot of the major concerns with 2-weapon fighting (particularly that the damage falls off in a huge way)... but i can't help but think that for something this simple to have never been implemented, someone *must* have tried it out and found huge problems.

Even simpler: TWF style gives you another attack when you take the attack action but you must be using a weapon in both hands.

[skaddix]

I dont think it needs changing. Historically. fighting with two weapons was rare because its not really a good thing to do in most cases.

Mecahnically it is still a good option in certain situations. Rogues, or classes that have rider effects (battlemaster dice, smites, getting your bonus d8 damage for rangers etc).

Depends on the weapons its suboptimal for swords. But for knifes its not bad.

But that is really doesn't matter DnD is about maximizing the fantasy and thus TWF sucking because it sucks historically isn't really good enough defense.

The problem being most classes have better things to do with their bonus action then spend it making a weak melee attack. Thus they are immensely better off with a Board or a two hander.

[djreynolds]

Two weapon Rend

It works, and my table has played and used it extensively.

If you score a hit with both the main hand and then the off hand, you add double your proficiency bonus, goes from +4 to +12 (both have to in succession)

So for a 5th level ranger attacks his first enemy, he uses main and off hand, he gets a bonus damage which is +6.

He still has 1 more attack with his main hand to use, he could've used it first or last and it works for a hunter who has selected "escape the horde" or who has the mobile feat or feels he/she will chance the AoO to leave to attack someone else

In the case of the rogue (non-swashbuckler, non-mobile feat), well he/she is stuck there so there is still danger and a trade off

As for 11th level fighters we allow them to split up their 4 attacks (3attacks + 1 BA) into main hand/off hand and main hand/off hand

It is simple and works and there is still danger

[SharkForce]

I dont think it needs changing. Historically. fighting with two weapons was rare because its not really a good thing to do in most cases.

Mecahnically it is still a good option in certain situations. Rogues, or classes that have rider effects (battlemaster dice, smites, getting your bonus d8 damage for rangers etc).

on a battlefield, sure. elsewhere, it wasn't *that* rare. it wasn't necessarily what i would describe as common, but combat styles that involve two weapons aren't really all that uncommon once you get into situations that don't involve armies facing each other. the main gauche is a dagger that is literally named "left hand" in french because you would use it in your off hand, for example.

and even more especially when you're looking at the materials that D&D is really trying to replicate (ie not so much historical accuracy as fantasy action movie accuracy, for lack of a better way to describe it), two weapons are used reasonably often.

and again, it isn't really so much particularly good in certain cases so much as it is less bad than all the other cases. a battlemaster looking to burst should probably be using polearm mastery for rather superior damage (and extra reach) plus potential use of GWM, and even if that isn't desirable, probably does as much or more damage while spending fewer resources using a greatsword. a rogue looking for an extra attack isn't using TWF because it's good, but because it is "cheap" (as in, it doesn't require a major investment on their part to be able to use two weapons). if there were multiple similar options that didn't carry a high cost, i expect we'd see the number of TWF rogues drop dramatically. in fact, the current situation (where a rogue to be optimized almost has to use two weapons unless they're a crossbow expert) seems far less desirable than a situation where rogues can afford to use a variety of weapons without losing a massive amount of damage. even better would be the ability to use this option while still being able to use their bonus action to hide, disengage, and dash as is supposed to be an option for them (although my proposed rule wouldn't solve that either, since it really just takes away their ability to make a second attack... as i said, some sort of tweak would be needed to help out rogues, i think).

[djreynolds]

What if you allowed the rogue to be able to split his sneak attack damage between attacks

8th level rogue does what 4d6

Main hand sneak does 3d6SA,

and his off hand does 1d6SA

[McNinja]

Even simpler: TWF style gives you another attack when you take the attack action but you must be using a weapon in both hands.The problem with this (that I think the OP was trying to avoid) is that it's more powerful than a greatsword at lower levels. It evens out at 5th level, once martials get their second attack.

Going by what you're saying
Fighter 1 - One greatsword attack with 16 str is 2d6+3 damage
Monk 1 - Two Shortsword attacks with 16 Dex is (1d6+3)*2

Fighter 5 - 2 GS attacks with 18 str is (2d6+4)*2 =22
Monk 5 - 3 SS attacks with 18 dex is (1d6+4)*3 = 22.5 or (1d4+4)*3 = 19.5

TWF with rapiers would be 25.5 at 5th with two base attacks plus the 3rd TWF attack. A bit more, but not so much more as to be OP, and it also requires a feat. Barbarians would get a boost, though, let's see...

GS Fighter 6 - 18 STR (2d6 +4)*2 = 22
SS Barb 6 - 18 STR (1d6+4+2)*3 = 28.5

So a TWF Barbarian with two handaxes or shortswords would be more effective in combat on average than a GS fighter of the same level. The difference is even more pronounced at lower levels, where the GS fighter only has one attack but the barbarian still has two attacks to add both STR and Rage to their damage. It wouldn't really even out until 11th level when the fighter gets three attacks, and the barbarian could still take the Dual Wielder feat and use two longswords or battle axes. 3 GS attacks is 33 damage, 3 longsword attacks with rage is 34.5 damage. Take out the 9 rage damage it's a bit worse overall. Frenzy barbarians would get that extra 10.5 damage for giving up their bonus action for another attack, which I think works fine. If the fighter gets really salty they can just action surge for more attacks.

TBH I like this idea. I never really looked at the numbers until right now, I think most people just assumed it would be wildly OP, when it isn't too bad. Most spells or damage additions only work once a turn anyway, although Paladins could jive real nice with a third attack and improved smite.

[McNinja]

What if you allowed the rogue to be able to split his sneak attack damage between attacks

8th level rogue does what 4d6

Main hand sneak does 3d6SA,

and his off hand does 1d6SAInteresting, but it requires more bookkeeping, however minor, and is essentially the same as doing is all at once, which is simpler.

[djreynolds]

Interesting, but it requires more bookkeeping, however minor, and is essentially the same as doing is all at once, which is simpler.

Say a rogue knows that the bugbear needs only 20HP to fall over, so he say with my main hand I will use 3d6. Bugbear dies.

So now he goes off and uses his last SA die on the orc fighting his buddy

[Zalabim]

[Edit:]FWIW, the oft-suggested two-weapon rend idea does work out okay overall, but I don't like how much emphasis it puts on the off-hand bonus attack.


For clarity, would you mind giving explicit descriptions of the following as if you were writing errata for a new PHB:


The basic rules for the 'new-TWF' (which would replace the section in p.195 in the PHB)
The rules for the 'new-TWF' fighting style (which would replace the one first described in p.72 in the PHB)
The rules for the 'new Dual Wielder Feat' compatible with the new-TWF (which would replace the one in p.165 in the PHB)

Also, how would you handle a TWF fighter with a +3 short sword in her main hand and a magical short sword that deals and extra d6 cold damage on a hit in her off-hand?
1) The rules for TWF would be completely unchanged. This is the major difference compared to SharkForce's suggestion.
2) The new TWF style (or new Dual Weapon Fighting Style as I said) would be as SharkForce described, roughly, "When you use an action to make a melee weapon attack that qualifies for TWF and hit, you can add one weapon damage die from the weapon held in your other hand to that attack's damage."
3) The feat doesn't have to change either, but I think it ends up needing a fourth bullet point of "When you use your bonus action to make an attack with TWF, you do add your ability modifier as a bonus to the damage." The feat needs help to begin with.
4) Decide which weapon is used for each attack individually. Either way, each qualifying attack would deal 1d6+otherweapon's 1d6 as its weapon dice.

This is different from OP's suggestion in that it's tied to a new fighting style and not an errata for everyone. I don't want to confuse anyone.