Question: Two weapon fighting

[Desteplo]

I feel like everyone is fussing over two weapon fighting all the time. Action economy and all that

Is there a problem with this? I feel like this is too simple to have been overlooked. But I also don't see a problem other than fighters actually benefiting from action surge and TWF

TWF:
Once per attack action you can make an extra attack with a second weapon without adding your ability bonus

TWF style: add your ability bonus to that extra attack

[suplee215]

I feel like everyone is fussing over two weapon fighting all the time. Action economy and all that

Is there a problem with this? I feel like this is too simple to have been overlooked. But I also don't see a problem other than fighters actually benefiting from action surge and TWF

TWF:
Once per attack action you can make an extra attack with a second weapon without adding your ability bonus

TWF style: add your ability bonus to that extra attack

The problem with it is rogues now can spam a second attack without a problem, as can other classes but the main problem is the rogue. mainly what the style needs is a feat that gives it an attack bonus better than +1 and it'll be fine.

[BW022]

The problem with it is rogues now can spam a second attack without a problem, as can other classes but the main problem is the rogue. mainly what the style needs is a feat that gives it an attack bonus better than +1 and it'll be fine.

It also has big issues on rangers and warlocks with hunter's mark and hex, other spells which deal additional damage per attack. It would also have serious implications with feats and other abilities which allow bonus action attacks. Imagine a low-level human with polearm mastery -- wielding a quarter staff in one hand and a shortsword in another. Now, starting with three attacks, plus a likely opportunity attack when the opponent closes. Add hex (warlock/1) or hunter's mark (ranger/2) and suddenly you have folks doing 5d6+1d4+3 potentially in the one round at 1st/2nd level. You are also waiting through endless dice rolling.

Multiple attacks in 5E are big. This is why it is limited to specific classes and 5th or 6th-level. It keeps things competitive for the martial classes. Current TWF rules limit the number of attacks you can get by making you choose between the extra attack or some other class action. TWF is already a good deal. It is an extra chance of hitting, doesn't require any feat or training to use, etc. It's cost is part of the deal.

However, if you really want to remove the bonus action requirement... then I would recommend going back to 3.5... TWF allows an additional attack as part of the attack action. However, TWF requires the TWF feat. Anyone doing so without training does so with disadvantage on all attacks. Fighters and rangers taking the TWF combat style gain the benefits of the TWF feat. TWF feat allows TWF without penalty when the off-hand weapon is light.

[Gryndle]

I feel like everyone is fussing over two weapon fighting all the time. Action economy and all that

Is there a problem with this? I feel like this is too simple to have been overlooked. But I also don't see a problem other than fighters actually benefiting from action surge and TWF

TWF:
Once per attack action you can make an extra attack with a second weapon without adding your ability bonus

TWF style: add your ability bonus to that extra attack

That is exactly how we do it at our table

[Talionis]

The other problem with two weapon fighting is for weapon throwers who cannot draw enough weapons. The existing Dual wealder feat isn't really on par with PAM, GWM, etc.

I think most tables handwave drawing throwing weapons but it's an issue.

I agree dual wealding early is a little imbalanced but it evens itself out by fifth or sixth level. Actually it starts to regress especially since not a lot of feat support.

[Easy_Lee]

WotC wrote themselves into a corner with the idea that TWF means more attacks. As above, if TWF gets the most attacks then it becomes the superior option for several classes. Even barbarians would go TWF for extra rage damage.

Holding two weapons ought not mean extra attacks. It doesn't even make realistic sense, as you can only put your body behind one swing at a time without losing power. The real purpose of TWF, historically, was to defend and attack at the same time. With that in mind, actually using both weapons when attacking would make more sense and fix the whole issue.

[MadBear]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I could have sword I saw some math somewhere that proposed a fix for TWF that basically used "rend".

It was something like: When you hit with 2 or more weapon attacks in a turn, you add your proficiency bonus to damage (or maybe X2 proficiency bonus to damage) as your able to rend your victim. This would mean that at most you're adding +2 to +6 (or +4 to + 12). Either way, it benefits people who already get multiple attacks proportionately more then it helps someone with one deadly attack (rogues).

I'm not sure how the math holds up, but I thought it was a simple elegant solution.

[Kane0]

Yeah our table pretty much uses the rend option:

Default TWF adds stat to damage
Fighting style allows one handed weapons in either hand
Feat adds proficiency bonus to damage when you hit a target with main and off hand on your turn

[Easy_Lee]

Here's another option:

Base TWF: when wielding two light one-handed weapons, can use their combined weapon dice when making an attack. Still counts as one attack, don't combine attack or damage bonuses.

Fighting style: TWF with any one-handed weapon (effectively +2 damage / attack).

Feat: +1 AC, bonus action attack.

This makes dual shortswords mechanically identical to greatswords un-feated, results in the same number of attacks for everyone, creates some interesting combinations with TWF, and makes TWF competitive with great weapons for damage (until they start using the GWM bonus damage).