What Would You Want From TWF, Ideally?

[mer.c]

The number of new Ranger options screw with TWF Rangers has stirred that old pot of TWF in 5e. I'm working on a pretty comprehensive but somewhat rules-light martial style overhaul, but I wanted to get some weigh-in from the community.

Personally, I have a couple of issues with TWF taken as a whole. The following excludes some outliers like Rogues, who get inordinate value out of their "offhand" attack as sneak-attack insurance.

1) The action economy is a real killer.
This is probably my #1 gripe. Using your bonus action just to execute your normal, vanilla attack style feels mechanically off, it heavily and needlessly limits some builds.

2) Its balance across classes/levels/features is really off.
It's great for classes with only one attack since it doubles their number of attacks, whereas actual Martials get less benefit as it's a 50% increase at best. The TWF style is an inordinate power spike, which kind of balances this out, but it's still not in a good spot IMO. And the Dual-Wielder feat is… lacking, to say the least, compared to the competition (or often even compared to an ASI).

3) Generally, it's just undertuned compared to alternatives.
Even with the action economy tax, a TWF specialist generally can't compete with the overall value of SS or the pure damage of GWM/PAM. However, this is both a matter of those feats being overtuned and Dual-Wielder being undertuned. (Here's some math on comparative martial style DPR (https://imgur.com/a/rYrZ3) at various to-hit breakpoints. I'm not certain the math is 100% spot-on but it should be pretty close.)
My ideal system would be one that's very simple/straightforward, plays differently than GWM/PAM (as in, feels different and excels in different circumstances), puts up competitive damage with comparative investment, has more even balance across levels/classes/features, and doesn't handicap its action economy just to make use of the fundamental element of its style. Giving Martials the ability to make more than just one additional attack would be nice, too, if it were balanced around. But that's just me.

(This is just spitballed; balance is probably way off):


The base TWF rule becomes: "When you make an attack as part of the Attack with a light melee weapon you are holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack this turn with another light weapon held in your other hand. You have a -2 penalty to hit with this additional attack." Keep the language about thrown weapons and not adding your ASM unless it's negative. Featureless TWF should now scale reasonably well with multiple attacks vs. single attack.
Instead of the TWF fighting style giving the ASM to TWF attack have it remove the light weapons restriction and grant the ability to double-draw weapons. TWF style is now more in line with other fighting styles numerically, and eases the logistical burden.
Change the Dual-Wielder feat to add the ASM to the offhand attack and remove the -2 hit penalty. Dual-Wielder is now hopefully always a good investment. (This + ASI is probably still not going to compete with GWM + PAM, but that's another issue IMO.)
Give Rogues a bonus action to make both of these attacks without penalty so that their primary style is unhindered.
As I said, the balance is probably way off; this is just a spitballed idea to give a sample of one way to do a few simple changes that address my concerns.
So, question to the community: What would you, ideally, like to see from TWF as a style? Either from the angle of "I'd like to see this as a houserule/homebrew," or "If I could go back in time and change the PHB, I'd do XYZ." What are your gripes with the system as it stands? How would you change it? What's worked for you in the past? What hasn't worked at all? Or would you leave everything just as it is?

[JPicasso]

Our solution was to keep TWF the same, and nerf the alternatives. This way, there is not a tax for not taking the alternatives. (so we reasoned)

GWF, take away the +10 damage and replace with 2d8. Damage rolls should be random anyway.

PAM we didn't do anything here, b/c nobody took it. It didn't fit with anyone's character so far.

SS remove the -5/+10 entirely. (We may add a -3/+1d6, but that guy hasn't played in a while)

Whatever you decide, keep it simple. (my advice)

Our current TWF is a champion with dual short swords and is using the style only. Having a great time, although both of his short swords are doing magical fire damage also... so there's that.

[Dudewithknives]

We kept it very simple:

Base TWF: Make an attack with a light or one handed weapon, you can make another attack with a light weapon in your other hand. This way you can actually fight with rapier/shortsword which is iconic of TWF, you may only apply your stat bonus to one of the attacks. There is really no such thing as an off hand really so no reason to say no stat to that hand. It is like Sneak Attack, you can do it to any attack, but only once per turn.

TWF Style: Stat to both attacks, can draw both weapons when you could normally draw one.

Dual Wielder feat:

1. Can wield 2 weapons as long as they are one handed.
2. +1 to AC if you have 2 weapons out at once
3. You can make an extra reaction attack each round, but only 1 per target. Essentially you get to make a reaction attack with each hand independently.

This was the biggest issue, because I had never actually seen anyone take it.

[Fishybugs]

GWF, take away the +10 damage and replace with 2d8. Damage rolls should be random anyway.


Do you find you're dealing a significant amount more damage? Crit damage, RAW, would be a lot higher, Especially with Champions critting on 19s and 20s.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd want the ability to TWF with Longsword/dagger or Rapier/Dagger by default. Currently you can't do it without taking the feat, and if you wave the feat you can do more damage going Longsword/Longsword or Rapier/Rapier.

I'd also want a better boost to damage through a feat to keep comparable to PM and GWM. I'm no expert at balance, but being able to make 2 offhand attacks with a bonus action instead of just one might work. It would be a slight bump for high level fighters, but more helpful at low levels. Give rogues one more chance to get a sneak attack in on a round so helpful but situational. It would be a bigger boost for Rangers with Hunters Mark up.

[The_Jette]

A simple fix for the Ranger and TWF is to simply not require a bonus action from the Ranger in order to get that off-hand attack as a bonus to their Fighting Style, but not add it to the general Fighting Style. That way, the Ranger gets a small, but useful, bonus while using TWF that other classes don't get, and it isn't as amazing for other classes, since they don't get the bonus.

This does have a slight possibility of making Ranger a dip class so that people can get the improved Fighting Style. But, it's the simplest fix that I can think of.

[Legendairy]

The only issue with adding attacks is the TWF is swingy. We had a homebrew feat that let you add an off hand for every normal attack as part of the attack action(at first) and as a bonus action as it seemed a bit powerful. The Higgs we saw was possible more damage but in reality the more rolls he more the player missed (yes this is at our table and I know not a valid comparison) he could burst the 200+ damage at level 20 but more often then not he did about the same damage as the PAM/GWF, and didn’t really do as much as the CBE/SS.

I like more attacks to me as it “feels” right to me and we let the ability mod stick for both. The only power creepiness we saw was magical weapons that add dice damage. This was also a single classed champion fighter half orc so with multiclass results would vary exponentially.

[Potato_Priest]

A (in my opinion) cool and flavorful ability to add on to the dual wielder feat would be immunity to flanking if your table uses it*, representing movie-style fighting 2 people at once from both sides.

*Yes I know it messes with bounded accuracy, but some folks use it anyway.

[Theodoxus]

A simple fix for the Ranger and TWF is to simply not require a bonus action from the Ranger in order to get that off-hand attack as a bonus to their Fighting Style, but not add it to the general Fighting Style. That way, the Ranger gets a small, but useful, bonus while using TWF that other classes don't get, and it isn't as amazing for other classes, since they don't get the bonus.

This does have a slight possibility of making Ranger a dip class so that people can get the improved Fighting Style. But, it's the simplest fix that I can think of.

This would make Horde Breaker so good, only the most unoptimized thinking player would take anything other than Hunter. It would put the Ranger on par with a 20th level fighter, at 5th. I don't think TWF is so broken as to boost it 15 levels worth in another class.

And I think this illustrates the problem - a bit like the Revised Ranger in itself. The correction; removing the extra attack from Ranger so that the revised Beastmaster doesn't run roughshod over the action economy - is a huge revamp. Powerwise, it makes sense, but comparing the two base classes, it actually changes Ranger's niche in the zeitgeist of D&D.

Any changes to TWF can't just have a baseline change - too many classes have too many different uses for the ability. Rogues use TWF for added sneak chances (or if taking XBX, then a ranged attack following a stab in melee). Ranger use TWF for added defense as well as added damage. Barbarians use TWF for increasing crit chances as well as more damage with rage bonuses. Fighters (champs) use it for crit fishing and defense. So each of these (and others) should be considered for how you boost TWF.

A rapier/dagger auto-combo disproportionately helps rogues. A dice boost disproportionately helps crit fishing. A static boost (the Rend idea proposed in previous TWF fix threads) is the least likely to create issues, but is kinda inelegant for what the OP is looking for.

Now, if you want to address TWF in the context of each individual class (as The_Jett proposed above for Ranger) that's another possibility. but it would probably need to be done like unarmored defense was... if you let Rangers have Horde Breaking with TWF, you don't want Rogues to have it. If you give Rogues +1d6 dice on a dual hit, you don't want Champions or Barbarians to have it... So, you get a TWF bonus depending on the first class you pick, but multiclassing becomes messy (stupid optional rule...)

TL;DR: make sure whatever method you end up going with doesn't have unforeseen consequences in boosting a niche build.

[PeteNutButter]

The simplest solution is to remove the bonus action tax IF you have the fighting style. Instead of making the offhand attack as a bonus action, make it "...as part of the attack action."

This outright fixes it for rangers who optimally are going to be using something like hunter's mark to boost damage per hit, to capitalize on the increased number of attacks. If a ranger can both cast/move hunter's mark and make two attacks at level 2 they are putting out 2d6+3 damage twice. Which is double what a greatsword fighter would be doing. With the current rules, in practice the ranger can only really manage to do that about 1/3rd of the time. The other times he is moving the hunter's mark so doesn't get an offhand attack. It continues to scale well and will be comparable to any other fighting style on the ranger throughout his career.

Rogues on the other hand get a buff from this but would require Multiclassing to pick up the FS so it's not all that bad.

Monks will tempted to multiclass to pick up the fighting style, so it might need some reexamination to preclude flurry and the bonus action attack when TWF. Five attacks by level 6 seems a bit much.

Fighters still suck the most at this. Their high number of attacks makes adding another less beneficial. At level 12 they'd be putting out 1d8+5 times 4 instead of 2d6+5 times 3. That's 38 to 36. It only gets bad for the TWFer when GWM is thrown on, so clearly either that needs tweaked or TWF needs a better feat. Fighters in general lack the crowded bonus actions that rangers and other classes might have, so they may need to multiclass to make much use out of this.

Barbarians who dip a level in fighter actually can now TWF the turn they rage and do all sorts of cool things like be a TWF berserker. That's just awesome!

[Easy_Lee]

Remove the bonus action requirement for TWF, then rename GWM to "Power Cleave" and let it apply to any melee weapon (same as Sharpshooter applies to any ranged weapon). This makes TWF competitive and opens up a variety of build possibilities.

[Tanarii]

Honestly? I want it to be a completely ineffective fighting style, unless the offhand weapon is very light and primarily for parrying, or the warrior is crazy skilled and has invested a lot of time in training (represented by either mid to high level class features or mulitple Feat investment). I dislike that all it takes is a bonus action and you get a passable off-hand attack. That should take a level 5 class feature or a feat, just to get it off the ground as possible at all.

But I don't think it'd be a good idea for them to do that in a modern edition of D&D. :smallwink:

[Dudewithknives]

Remove the bonus action requirement for TWF, then rename GWM to "Power Cleave" and let it apply to any melee weapon (same as Sharpshooter applies to any ranged weapon). This makes TWF competitive and opens up a variety of build possibilities.

I can agree with that other than GWM should require you to use str on the attack. if someone is dual wielding daggers, GWM/Power Cleave would make no sense.

Alternately, make a -5/+10 feat for one handed weapons/light weapons.

ex.

Precision strike:

You know exactly when and where to strike your enemy for the most damaging effect.

When wielding a melee weapon in 1 hand you may take -5 to hit to gain +10 to damage.
If the weapon has the thrown property you may use this while making a ranged attack with the weapon.
You gain advantage on any slight of hand checks to hide the weapon on your person, or checks made to resist being disarmed.

I think also that Versatile weapon users need some love.

Where is the fighting style for a versatile weapon user, or a feat for them?

[Easy_Lee]

I can agree with that other than GWM should require you to use str on the attack. if someone is dual wielding daggers, GWM/Power Cleave would make no sense.

Alternately, make a -5/+10 feat for one handed weapons/light weapons.

ex.

Precision strike:

You know exactly when and where to strike your enemy for the most damaging effect.

When wielding a melee weapon in 1 hand you may take -5 to hit to gain +10 to damage.
If the weapon has the thrown property you may use this while making a ranged attack with the weapon.
You gain advantage on any slight of hand checks to hide the weapon on your person, or checks made to resist being disarmed.

I think also that Versatile weapon users need some love.

Where is the fighting style for a versatile weapon user, or a feat for them?

The Cleave part of GWM already applies to any melee weapon. It's one of those odd things that most people don't catch. "On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one..."

[Hrugner]

The easiest fix is to give two weapon fighting a weapon stat block. Give two weapon fighting 2d4 damage, the damage type of either weapon, and finesse; it should also count as a monk weapon. In order to avoid a flat boost to all one handed weapon fighters, we're going to make unarmed and improvised weapons the only unavailable options for two weapon fighting. At this point we could simply give it access to GWM and call it a day.

But, in order to keep it so that we aren't just making another way to be a great weapon master, we'll use a different feat.
The feat should:
- allow unarmed attacks and improvised weapons to count as weapons for two weapon fighting.
- grant a bonus action that grants advantage on the next attack you make that doesn't already have advantage.
- grant a free object interaction for equipping a hand weapon whenever they have a free hand.
- grant light cover against anyone threatened by the two weapon fighter if the two weapon fighter is aware of the attack.

[Dudewithknives]

The Cleave part of GWM already applies to any melee weapon. It's one of those odd things that most people don't catch. "On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one..."

I know, I did not say anything about what type of weapon used, only that it should require strength based roll, kind of like the barbarian damage bonus.

[Easy_Lee]

I know, I did not say anything about what type of weapon used, only that it should require strength based roll, kind of like the barbarian damage bonus.

So you'd not only limit dexterity to specific finesse weapons, but also limit its feat support?

[Dudewithknives]

So you'd not only limit dexterity to specific finesse weapons, but also limit its feat support?

That is why I gave an example of a new feat to go with the idea of using GWM for heavy/str weapons.

SS = bows and crossbow
GWM = heavy/2handers
PAM = polearms
and
The Precise Strike one I showed for people with 1 hand/finesse/light and or thrown

I also do not agree with some weapons getting to use both PAM and GWM at the same time, but no real way around that.

[robbie374]

Ignoring feats, fighting with two weapons is perfectly balanced before Extra Attack. After Extra Attack, it falls behind because the bonus action doesn't scaling. The simplest solution, which avoids extra crit chances or any other issues with rolling more times, is to make it all part of the same attack action, no bonus actions, no extra actions, only one roll:
Two-Weapon FightingWhen you take the Attack action and attack one target with two light melee weapons you are holding, roll the attack once. If the attack hits, add the damage dice for both weapons. You only add your ability modifier to the damage once.
You may attack two different targets. Attack the first as with a single weapon and use a bonus action to attack the second target with the other weapon. You may only add your ability modifier to the damage of one of these two attacks.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

[Easy_Lee]

Ignoring feats, fighting with two weapons is perfectly balanced before Extra Attack. After Extra Attack, it falls behind because the bonus action doesn't scaling. The simplest solution, which avoids extra crit chances or any other issues with rolling more times, is to make it all part of the same attack action, no bonus actions, no extra actions, only one roll:
Two-Weapon FightingWhen you take the Attack action and attack one target with two light melee weapons you are holding, roll the attack once. If the attack hits, add the damage dice for both weapons. You only add your ability modifier to the damage once.
You may attack two different targets. Attack the first as with a single weapon and use a bonus action to attack the second target with the other weapon. You may only add your ability modifier to the damage of one of these two attacks.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

I've suggested a form of the latter before. The trouble: it does not fix the GWM / Sharpshooter situation. If you allow GWM to work with TWF, then TWF becomes better than GWM for damage, especially considering you could use two magic weapons with different +dice damage buffs.

[Legendairy]

I've suggested a form of the latter before. The trouble: it does not fix the GWM / Sharpshooter situation. If you allow GWM to work with TWF, then TWF becomes better than GWM for damage, especially considering you could use two magic weapons with different +dice damage buffs.

The only issue I have personally (we have a feat that does pretty much exactly this, because its the only solution we could find too) is that it doesn't "feel" right to me. I trained with tonfas, bwakas, and escrima sticks and always used two, in sparring matches (Do not have a lot of experience with guys swinging real great swords at me) I could hit them multiple times before they could hack and swing, these were actually trained people too. (nor am I saying i "won" every match) I just (again personally) don't like the -/+ system for TWF it seemed to be pretty precise and deliberate in my striking.

[JPicasso]

Do you find you're dealing a significant amount more damage? Crit damage, RAW, would be a lot higher, Especially with Champions critting on 19s and 20s.

We replace the straight 10 with a roll that is 2-16 points. Average is 9. It can be better, some hits are worse. But it keeps in line with the damage rolls are never a straight number. We like it.

Our champion doesn't use GWF, so hard to say about the crits.

[Tanarii]

Ignoring feats, fighting with two weapons is perfectly balanced before Extra Attack. After Extra Attack, it falls behind because the bonus action doesn't scaling. The simplest solution, which avoids extra crit chances or any other issues with rolling more times, is to make it all part of the same attack action, no bonus actions, no extra actions, only one roll:
Two-Weapon FightingWhen you take the Attack action and attack one target with two light melee weapons you are holding, roll the attack once. If the attack hits, add the damage dice for both weapons. You only add your ability modifier to the damage once.
You may attack two different targets. Attack the first as with a single weapon and use a bonus action to attack the second target with the other weapon. You may only add your ability modifier to the damage of one of these two attacks.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
So you're making TWF functionally identical to attacking with a 2H great weapon, in the majority of cases? 2d6 vs 2d6?

One factor to consider here making TWF with finesse/light weapons just as good as 2H, it removes some of the incentive to use Str instead of Dex. That is currently a balancing factor. If you don't care about that, then this certainly 'fixes' the damage side of things in a way that doesn't screw up all sorts of other things.

[Eric Diaz]

It is not that hard to fix. Some alternatives:

* When you hit, roll damage for both weapons, pick the best. BA still gives you an extra attack with one weapon, probably no ability mod.

OR

* If you miss an attack (with attack action), you get an extra attack with the other weapon (no BA, can't move between attacks).

But anything that doesn't require your BA will work.

What I, PERSONALLY, would like to see?

- Sword + main-gauche being more effective (or equal, at least) than one lance or quarterstaff in each hand.
- A viable TWF fighter (but TBH I think sword and board should bem more effective anyway, so, maybe I don't want that - just a little boost in damage would be okay).

EDIT: BTW, the feat is really bad, too. If everyone gets a feat to be better with a great weapon, shield, or polearm, why not TWF?

[Talamare]

I got this

When you make a melee attack with your attack action, you may spend your bonus action to immediately make an attack using your offhand weapon. If you have the extra attack feature, each attack with your main hand weapon when using the attack action may be followed with an offhand attack. Attacks with your offhand weapon does not use your ability score modifier for damage. You must use 2 Light Weapons to be able to TWF.

Feats
Dual Wielder
- +1 AC Bonus while using separate weapons in each hand.
- Draw & Stow additional item
- OPT If both attacks hit an enemy, you deal an additional 5 damage

Titan Wielder
- May Dual Wield without using Light Weapons
- May suffer a -2 penalty to deal an additional 2 damage with your attack.



Edit
Maybe...
You may use your bonus action to begin 'Fury Striking' this turn. This turn each time you make a melee attack with your main hand weapon, you make immediately make an attack with your offhand weapon. Attacks with your offhand weapon does not use your ability score modifier for damage. You must use 2 Light Weapons to be able to Fury Strike.

[D-naras]

I would fix the action economy issue using this rule:

Two weapon fighting
When you make an Attack Action and you are holding 2 light weapons in each hand, you can, at any point during your turn, make an additional attack with the weapon you wield in your other hand as a bonus action or as part of any other bonus action that doesn't involve an attack or casting a spell. You don't add your ability modifier to that weapon attack's damage roll.

It's a straight buff to rogue, but what can you do? At least, it fixes rangers who are drowning in bonus actions for their additional damage, incentivizes barbarians to 2wf and fighters can swing and use second wind for a heroic come back.

[Sjappo]

What would I want to see? I would like to see a kind of rock-paper-sissors setup with TWF, THW en S&B.

The two weapon fighter should be good against multiple low HP low AC foes. So, decent hit bonus, decent damage per hit, lots of attacks.

The two handed fighter should be good against single high HP high AC foes, So, good hit bonus, good damage per hit, one attack.

The sword and fighter should be in between in hit bonus and damage per hit and have a low number of attacks.

Overall maximum damage should be the same for THW and TWF and lower for S&B.

Ideally the TWF should overcome multiple weaker opponents with easy while getting murdered by one powerful opponent. The THW should have the reverse. Getting murdered by the weaker foes and slaying the single boss with ease. The S&B should be able to survive both but take a long(er) time to win.

I've no idea how to implement it though.

[Talamare]

What would I want to see? I would like to see a kind of rock-paper-sissors setup with TWF, THW en S&B.

The two weapon fighter should be good against multiple low HP low AC foes. So, decent hit bonus, decent damage per hit, lots of attacks.

The two handed fighter should be good against single high HP high AC foes, So, good hit bonus, good damage per hit, one attack.

The sword and fighter should be in between in hit bonus and damage per hit and have a low number of attacks.

Overall maximum damage should be the same for THW and TWF and lower for S&B.

Ideally the TWF should overcome multiple weaker opponents with easy while getting murdered by one powerful opponent. The THW should have the reverse. Getting murdered by the weaker foes and slaying the single boss with ease. The S&B should be able to survive both but take a long(er) time to win.

I've no idea how to implement it though.

It always bothers me in this game that

Accuracy = Good Against Armor and Good Against Evasion

So, I would want to see 2 Handers being especially effective against Armor, but poor against Evasion
while 1 Handers would be especially effective against Evasion, but poor against Armor

but, that's basically impossible

So, the best we can hope for is
TWF = Lots of attacks, Low Damage... Good against Weaker Foes
2H = Huge Attacks, Huge Damage, Low Accuracy... Good against BIG BOSSES! Bad against dodgy Bosses
1H = Medium Attack, Medium Damage, Medium Accuracy... Balanced, but technically good high AC

As far as DPR goes, if we didn't take into consider Class Abilities
2H should be the highest, since they have no defensive tools
While TWF does get +1 AC from Dual Wielding
and of course, Shield is +2 AC

[TheUser]

1. Remove bonus action requirement for TWF but limit the free attack to once per turn. This makes it usable with opportunity attacks if you have a caveat that states that it must be against the same target of your opportunity attack. TWF being a bonus action tax is unacceptable from a design perspective as it makes it entirely incompatible with too many classes.

2. Adding attribute bonus to damage is baseline.

3. Two-Weapon Fighting Style (from fighter and ranger class features) would instead allow for dual wielding non-light weapons and remove the limit of once per turn making it once per attack (making it it compatible with Extra Attack as well as Hunter Ranger's abilities like Whirlwind). This is because Two Weapon Fightying Style is the only fighting style which doesn't improve when PC gets extra attack; now it does.

3. The feat would instead provide Two-weapon Rend feature where-in if you land both attacks on one target you deal bonus damage equal to proficiency bonus which is doubled when both attacks are made at advantage. Instead of sacrificing accuracy you would just be reliant on landing two attacks to do bonus damage.

This makes TWF do competitive damage, but it also means that the maximum damage is gated by needing advantage. Sharpshooter is still competitive because it can be done at range and GWF is competitive because it does more damage when you don't have advantage and also outperforms TWF in early levels.

[Laurefindel]

Simply removing the Bonus Action part would go a long way...

In addition to the "both weapons must have the light quality" stipulation, I'd like to add a "if main weapon is not light, off-hand weapon must be a dagger" clause (thus allowing rapier/main-gauche).

[Dudewithknives]

Simply removing the Bonus Action part would go a long way...

In addition to the "both weapons must have the light quality" stipulation, I'd like to add a "if main weapon is not light, off-hand weapon must be a dagger" clause (thus allowing rapier/main-gauche).

I would not say specify dagger, I would just say, one of the weapons must be light.

Also, there is no such thing as off hand in 5e, there is just one hand and the other hand.

[Easy_Lee]

I would not say specify dagger, I would just say, one of the weapons must be light.

Also, there is no such thing as off hand in 5e, there is just one hand and the other hand.

It's even more general than that. If by some method you obtain three or more hands, TWF still works as intended. It would be theoretically valid for a four-armed fighter to swing a greatsword with two hands, extra attack with a short sword, then TWF bonus attack with another short sword.

[robbie374]

So you're making TWF functionally identical to attacking with a 2H great weapon, in the majority of cases? 2d6 vs 2d6?

One factor to consider here making TWF with finesse/light weapons just as good as 2H, it removes some of the incentive to use Str instead of Dex. That is currently a balancing factor. If you don't care about that, then this certainly 'fixes' the damage side of things in a way that doesn't screw up all sorts of other things.

It does raise that Str/Dex question, but I think fixing TWF is a very small piece of that pie. That issue should be addressed head-on in another way.

[Laurefindel]

I would not say specify dagger, I would just say, one of the weapons must be light.

Also, there is no such thing as off hand in 5e, there is just one hand and the other hand.

Yes, I know there is no off-hand in 5e, but its shorter than saying "the-other-one-handed-weapon-that-is-used-to-attack-with-your-bonus-action" (should the bonus action clause remains).

The idea was to permit either...

a) light weapon / light weapon (typically 1d6/1d6) combo

or

b) 1-handed weapon / dagger (typically 1d8/1d4) combo

... in order to keep roughly the same DPR at low levels.

[robbie374]

I've suggested a form of the latter before. The trouble: it does not fix the GWM / Sharpshooter situation. If you allow GWM to work with TWF, then TWF becomes better than GWM for damage, especially considering you could use two magic weapons with different +dice damage buffs.

The multiple magical weapons issue is worth considering: it becomes an issue of how many the DM makes available. However, this could be used as a balancing point against not getting GWM/SS.

GWM simply working with TWF would keep damage consistent unless attacking two separate enemies.

But the big point here is that GWM and SS are unbalanced. Dropping their -5/+10 features to once per round fixes all of the problems: not OP, balanced against Duel Wielder, not comboing if opened to TWF, etc.

Summary:
Fixing TWF is in removing the bonus action and making it a part of the initial attack.
Fixing GWM/SS is making it once per turn. Now everybody is happy.

Here's another crack at it:

Two-Weapon Fighting

You may use together two light melee weapons you are holding to make a single attack. You may try to hit one target with both weapons or a different target with each.
Against each target's AC, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the roll hits, roll the appropriate damage die or dice.
You only add your ability modifier and other modifiers to the damage once. If targeting two creatures, each hit benefits from half of the total modifier. If the modifier is odd, round one half up and the other half down.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.


Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting

When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage twice.