Offhand attack as a free action

[Schopy]

Hi!

Dual wielding seems to be unpopular from an optimizers viewpoint. How broken - if at all - would it be, if a dual wielding hero could attack with his offhand weapon as a free action instead of a bonus action? Maybe as an additional effect for the Dual Wielder feat?

I like to ask those questions not necessarily because i would use these houserules in an actual game, but to maybe better understand why certain design decision were made the way they were implemented. ☺

Thanks for your insights!

[Millface]

From a realistic standpoint with the feat it makes sense.

If you actually know how to fight with two weapons, your offhand attack is often a part of your main attack, not some separate entity altogether.

As to whether it would break things? Most of the time no, I don't think so. But could it be broken? Probably.

5e is the least breakable edition of the game yet and players still found damn near every possible way to break it, even though those ways are few. If they didn't put it in there and haven't changed the rule by now then I'm guessing they foresaw something within another of their systems that this would break. If your table doesn't look for stuff like that then do it, but if it's put to the community they'll find whatever ways there are.

[Kane0]

Thats what I do, amongst other TWF changes i make.
Works pretty well for my group.

[Keravath]

Interesting.

So you allow all rogues to double the chance of landing their sneak attack for free and still use the bonus action to dash, disengage or hide?

Does the offhand attack include an attack with a hand crossbow? It is still two weapon fighting ... just not both melee weapons.

Do monks get to use their martial arts attacks for free too ... they are just attacking with a fist ... or do they have to pick up a shortsword to get the free off hand attack?

Can a bard get two attacks and cast a bonus action spell? (warcaster might be required?)

Does this give any character who doesn't have a shield an extra attack with the off-hand? Even punching? How about throwing a dagger?

Is it likely game breaking to allow it? Probably not. However, it may change quite a number of interactions and it could be very beneficial to certain character classes .. particularly the rogue/shadow monk and others that have a use for the bonus action that would have been needed for the attack originally.

[Kane0]

Sounds like a fair use of a feat then.

[stoutstien]

Honestly the only way I see to fix duel whielding would start from the beginning. It needs to out damage single weapon(which it doesn't) but not out preform 2hd weapons.
So say we move the off hand attack of the bonus action, who really is effected? It only seems monks would have to be reworked(yes it is a minor buff to rogues but eh giving them a tad more surviablity isn't a bad thing.) So flurry of blows
Would have to be reworked to work off ba.

[MaxWilson]

Hi!

Dual wielding seems to be unpopular from an optimizers viewpoint. How broken - if at all - would it be, if a dual wielding hero could attack with his offhand weapon as a free action instead of a bonus action? Maybe as an additional effect for the Dual Wielder feat?

I wouldn't make it part of the base rules but as part of Dual Wielder it seems fine. It gives melee rogues a reason to be in melee instead of plinking way from range with advantage. Melee needs all the help it can get in 5E so I'm okay with that.

[clash]

Ya what I have done is allow the off hand attack for free then adjusted monks so their offhand also doesnt take a bonus action, however flurry of blows only adds one extra attack for ba instead of 2. It works fine.

[Eric Diaz]

I think it would make TWF too strong.

My favorite rule to "fix" TWF in 5e is from 13a: If your attack roll is a natural 2, you can re-roll the attack [to attack with the OTHER weapon] but must use the reroll.

This is good for rogues, good for fighters with their many attacks, etc.

And makes a lot of sense in "real life" (well, kinda of): you don't attack with both weapons at the same time every attack, you only use it when you get a opportunity/opening.

You can still attack with your bonus action as usual.

[Derpaligtr]

The more I think about it, the more I think twf is fine as is

It's niche, yes, but with how some classes get extra damage on a hit... Changing it messes with too much.

Rogues and Paladins work just fine w/current twf rules. Their abilities are based off a hit so TWF really gives them some bice options.

Fighter may lack in direct damage but they still get decent options that don't fall behind the game (other players maybe, but not the game all that much).

Some classes just wasn't made to be two weapon fighters, just like some wasn't made to be ranged characters (well, without a lot of jumping through hoops).

Most games don't get all that much into higher mid levels or high level so the white room experiements at those levels don't really matter to a majority of players.

Would I like twf to work 1 - 20? Sure. But I'm not going to lose sleep on it when there are other issues with 5e that shpuld be addressed that effects more players.

[SirGraystone]

As it is now a rogue have the choice of staying in the fight using his bonus action to strike with the offhand for more damage or use the bonus action to disengage to move out of range to be safe.

Well you have to pick damage or safety, it's balanced as is.

If you have a warrior you have to pick a 2h weapon for more damage or a shield for protection, you don't get to use a greataxe with one hand still use a shield.

[Derpaligtr]

As it is now a rogue have the choice of staying in the fight using his bonus action to strike with the offhand for more damage or use the bonus action to disengage to move out of range to be safe.

Well you have to pick damage or safety, it's balanced as is.

If you have a warrior you have to pick a 2h weapon for more damage or a shield for protection, you don't get to use a greataxe with one hand still use a shield.

Speaking optimally, Rogues should always be using two daggers if they want to deal sneak attack while wading into "melee". Twf with thrown daggers is an option. Don-t get within 5' unless you have to or they force your hand.

[DrowPiratRobrts]

I think the only way this becomes really game-breaking is if the user has some great magic weapons. Obviously they could still dual wield them RAW, but they would still have to pay the cost of both actions to do it. Outside of that, I'd probably consider it as a DM.

[Mortis_Elrod]

as long as it follows the same rules as it dead, (just taking away the action cost) i think it be fine. Until someone shows the math that says otherwise i wouldn't say its broken. It would be good probably great though.

[LeMooseImperium]

Hm.
There is the obvious thing: it's Extra Attack at 1st level for any human.

[clash]

Not really. It doesn't add the modifier without the fighting style and the weapons don't do optional damage as it is. Still weaker than say sharpshooter or pam as far as level 1 feats go