Simple twf fix

[stoutstien]

So I've been toying with ways to fix twf without too much rule changes. I didn't want to buff it at low lv bc it really strong 1-4 so I figured the feat is where the money is.
Base rules changes- you can draw/stow two weapons as part of your attack.(really makes no sense to me to not allow this. Also help chucking players )
Fighting style change- can now use non light weapons while dual wielding.(flipping this allows str users to get to it faster and lowers the spike of Dex users at low lvs).
Feat- add stat mod to off hand.
If you target the same target with off hand attack you do a extra damage die with off hand.
If you target a different target you gain advantage on the off hand attack.(I tried the idea of auto crit but it seems simple to just add extra die. Not quite as powerful as gwm or SS but is a solid buff to the style).

[Callak_Remier]

I'll be honest I think TWF is fine as is

It's an option it's not always better to use both attacks. It gives the game more strategic importance. Will the rogue ATK with both weapons declaring an all in to finish an enemy or will they hit with one weapon and retreat

I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem with it

[stoutstien]

I'll be honest I think TWF is fine as is

It's an option it's not always better to use both attacks. It gives the game more strategic importance. Will the rogue ATK with both weapons declaring an all in to finish an enemy or will they hit with one weapon and retreat

I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem with it

Mostly it falls well behind in damage, eats up action economy, and has a higher "cost" feat wise.
Rogue's flow chart wouldn't change with any changes too dual wielding.

It punished an iconic player options (regardless of historical or realistic backing) due to fear of follow suit of previous editions by over shadowing other styles.

[Dalebert]

I'll be honest I think TWF is fine as is...
<snip>
I'm not sure why everyone seems to have a problem with it

I also think it's fine. Maybe I've just missed them until recently but I don't recall everyone having a problem with it.

[Thundersteel]

So, here's a thought: What if we didn't consider dual-wielding in terms of action economy?
From a simulationist point of view, the benefit of fighting with two swords isn't generally that you can hit the other guy twice as much (traditionally, you really only need to hit someone with a sword once to really ruin their day) - but rather that the second sword can be used to attack from a greater variety of angles and feints and such.

What if, say, carrying a second weapon - regardless of whether it's identical to your first - just adds to your attack rolls, the way that carrying a shield adds to your armor class?

We could map out "off-hand positions" as such:
-Weapon and Shield: +2 AC (current RAW)
-Two Weapons: +2 on attack rolls
-Two handed weapon: higher damage (also current RAW)
-Off-hand free: nothing, or +1 to AC and attack each, or some other option I'm not seeing right now

Under such a system, the bonus action attack might become the special perk of the two-weapon fighting style.

[Kane0]

What I do:

Base TWF Rule:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. You can only attack with your off hand weapon once per turn.

Fighting Style:
You can fight with two melee weapons even if they are not light

Feat:
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same creature
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack using your off hand as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can still only attack with your off hand weapon once per turn.
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

[stoutstien]

What I do:

Base TWF Rule:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. You can only attack with your off hand weapon once per turn.

Fighting Style:
You can fight with two melee weapons even if they are not light

Feat:
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same creature
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack using your off hand as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. You can still only attack with your off hand weapon once per turn.
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

How does this work with monks? do they get an additional attack?

[Kane0]

Monks get no special treatment, just like those with PAM or other sources of a bonus action attack.
To free up your bonus action you need the feat, and that interacts with TWF only, not other bonus action attacks.

Edit: if you were to take the feat you could dual wield and still make use of martial arts for a net additional attack, if your DM ruled your unarmed attack to be possible with no free hands.

[CTurbo]

I think it's ok as is except for the fact that it lacks the feat support that the other offensive fighting styles get, and PAM is possibly too strong which overshadows it quite a bit.

So again I think the feat support is where TWF starts to fall behind.

Dual Wielding really isn't that bad. It gives you a full always on 1AC no questions asked as long as you use two weapons, and basically +1 damage per hand.

Polearm Master gives you a reliable bonus action attack that you can use anytime while also getting to add stat mod damage to it, AND a conditional reaction attack. The best part is it can be combined with GWM too, and it makes the best use of Sentinel.

Great Weapon Master gives you a conditional bonus action attack while also letting you add a considerable amount of damage to each hit while taking a moderate deduction to your hit. Well the numbers have shown this to be a very huge gain in damage when combined with Advantage which is really easy to come by in 5e.

Shield Master gives you a bonus action shove, and two different defense buffs.



So Duel Wielder comes out pretty weak when compared to those 3. It lets you use bigger weapons, but it doesn't let you DO anything. The others give you new things to do, and PAM gives you both a bonus attack AND a reaction attack.

I do think at some point the TWF needs to be able to make another attack with the off-hand. So if I'm a level 20 fighter holding 2 axes, I can attack you 4 times with my main hand, but only once with my offhand? Doesn't make sense. I know letting them attack 4 times which each hand is OP, but they at least need a second offhand attack. Maybe Dual Wielder should allow that at some point.


I really like the flavor of TWF and I'm always looking for ways to improve it to at least keep it on par with the others.

In game experiences...

I let a TWF Ranger get a second offhand attack at level 11 as long as he used light weapons and it didn't seem to break anything. Yes he was getting 4 full attacks each round using both his action and bonus action, but still. (he did take Duel Wielder I just subbed the larger weapons part)

I let a TWF Fighter get a offhand Riposte when attacked and missed. He could use it a number of times equal to his Wis mod per short rest. So basically 3 times per short rest he got a Battle Master maneuver minus the actual superiority die.

[Arkhios]

I'm playing a character that dual wields, and I have no problem with it either. Dual Wielder is a great feat to have for anyone doing that primarily, and while it would be nice to have the fighting style (I'm a paladin so no dice without multiclassing), getting the ability modifier on damage rolls with off-hand would be only a nice bonus.

Note: I'm not biased because of divine smites, I use them only when I crit, and that's not often.

[sophontteks]

So, here's a thought: What if we didn't consider dual-wielding in terms of action economy?
From a simulationist point of view, the benefit of fighting with two swords isn't generally that you can hit the other guy twice as much (traditionally, you really only need to hit someone with a sword once to really ruin their day) - but rather that the second sword can be used to attack from a greater variety of angles and feints and such.

What if, say, carrying a second weapon - regardless of whether it's identical to your first - just adds to your attack rolls, the way that carrying a shield adds to your armor class?

We could map out "off-hand positions" as such:
-Weapon and Shield: +2 AC (current RAW)
-Two Weapons: +2 on attack rolls
-Two handed weapon: higher damage (also current RAW)
-Off-hand free: nothing, or +1 to AC and attack each, or some other option I'm not seeing right now

Under such a system, the bonus action attack might become the special perk of the two-weapon fighting style.

Well to be fair most enthusiasts argue that there isn't any advantage to using two weapons at all. Its a pure fantasy fighting style.

[Blood of Gaea]

Well to be fair most enthusiasts argue that there isn't any advantage to using two weapons at all. Its a pure fantasy fighting style.
It has some use in dueling, namely that either hand can be the defense or offense at any given time. You still rarely attack with both weapons. It's not something you'd see on a battlefield much as a shield or a longer two-handed weapon is much better for group fighting.

[Theodoxus]

Well to be fair most enthusiasts argue that there isn't any advantage to using two weapons at all. Its a pure fantasy fighting style.

Yeah, those darn Florentines and their silly fantasy existence...

[mephnick]

I just allow two attacks for the bonus action at level 11 if your class has Extra Attack.

[loki_ragnarock]

The only thing I've done to change two weapon fighting in the game I'm running is take duel wielder and add that the bonus attack from the offhand weapon is part of the attack action rather than a bonus action.

I mean, it costs a feat to solve the action economy problem, but it made dual wielding rangers more comparable to their archery compatriots. It costs a feat, but it gave rogues a chance to swing twice and then dash. It costs a feat, but it means fighters can use their off hand weapon twice when action surging.

It seems to work okay, but I may have unwittingly broken the game. I'm not playing with optimizers looking to exploit anything, so I'm probably okay.

[strangebloke]

I just allow two attacks for the bonus action at level 11 if your class has Extra Attack.

Isn't the place where twf falls behind much earlier though? Like level 5?

I favor making the fighting style not require a bonus action for the attack if you have the extra attack feature.

It makes this less awkward for rangers and barbarians and hexblades, without boosting things too much for rogues.

[LtPowers]

It costs a feat, but it gave rogues a chance to swing twice and then dash.

The Mobility feat already allows that, so it seems reasonable. Though it might devalue Mobility and the Swashbuckler's main feature.


Powers &8^]

[djreynolds]

For me TWF rend is the easiest, hit with both and add your proficiency bonus in damage.

You could also treat the off hand weapon as "defender" weapon. Giving up your proficiency bonus to attack with your off hand but adding to your AC. Similar to defensive duelist.

Or add that proficiency bonus to the main hand attack to simulate feinting with your off hand.

These are easy fixes, try them out

[sophontteks]

Yeah, those darn Florentines and their silly fantasy existence...
Pretty much yeah. It didn't exist on the battlefield. More appropriately dual wielding was very common, but the offhand weapon of choice was the shield. The idea of grabbing a second weapon in order to attack more is completely fantasy.

[Citan]

Mostly it falls well behind in damage, eats up action economy, and has a higher "cost" feat wise.
Rogue's flow chart wouldn't change with any changes too dual wielding.

It punished an iconic player options (regardless of historical or realistic backing) due to fear of follow suit of previous editions by over shadowing other styles.
Hi.

Soo, first, disclaimer: I'm sorry but the base assumption on which you built the whole thread is wrong.
Dual-wielding is perfectly fine as is. Confer the current neighbour thread "proof that dual wielder feat is worse than an ASI" or the previous threads in which I explained several times why it's fine.

It does not fall damage-wise unless you start taking feats into account, and even then it only falls against Sharpshooter because that one is arguably the top of top and only fails to satisfy when some enemy manages to close into melee reach, which should overall not happen often considering the extreme range of longbows (basically you're not shining only if/when fighting in enclosed and tight spaces, in which case dual-wielding is better than ranged weapons).
But a dual-wielder is totally competitive with every melee build *overall*, even GWM ones, because of things like "opportunity cost of making a melee weapon attack" (reach, move distance, risk of OA) and "chance to hit".

Now, certainly, in a party that has...
- someone that can make you really resilient against damage (Cleric, Druid) unless you are already (read: Barbarian, defense-oriented Paladin / EK)
- AND someone that can buff your to-hit (same plus any debuff providing advantage to opposing force) unless you are good enough already (namely self-Bless or features like Sacred Weapon)..
- AND you a) either want to stick in the middle of enemies to get OAs as often as possible anwyays or b) have a sustainable use of bonus action per spell/class feature that stays relevant in any kind of situation...
The strategic advantages of dual-wielding are severely reduced.

In all other cases, it's largely good enough as it is *mechanically*. Even though it will certainly feel clunky notably with item interaction rules.


So I've been toying with ways to fix twf without too much rule changes. I didn't want to buff it at low lv bc it really strong 1-4 so I figured the feat is where the money is.
Base rules changes- you can draw/stow two weapons as part of your attack.(really makes no sense to me to not allow this. Also help chucking players )
Fighting style change- can now use non light weapons while dual wielding.(flipping this allows str users to get to it faster and lowers the spike of Dex users at low lvs).
Feat- add stat mod to off hand.
If you target the same target with off hand attack you do a extra damage die with off hand.
If you target a different target you gain advantage on the off hand attack.(I tried the idea of auto crit but it seems simple to just add extra die. Not quite as powerful as gwm or SS but is a solid buff to the style).
There is no real interest to your flip imo.
The main interest of dual-wielding is in general the flexibility to adapt it provides. For STR characters in particular, the fact it allows several thrown weapons attacks.
Giving the ability to wield non-light immediately would make a big difference between Fighters / Rangers and all other classes as a result.

And since games don't necessarily allow multiclass and/or feats, this would create a discrepancy that could be lived negatively by players.

While the +mod to damage is really an accessory because at high level, it won't change much the number of rounds required to drop a creature.
That's why it's perfectly suited as a Fighting Style.

The only real change needed to take care of the clunky feeling is this really: "throwable weapons are considered ammunition when used to make ranged weapon attacks" (-> drawing one is considered part of the attack).
Problem solved, overkill even: it will make it *much* more powerful actually, up to having dedicated throwing Fighter builds trumping all other STR ones.

Now, IF you still want to push dual-wielding to incite more players to use it, while keeping power in check... From RAW:

Basic: give everyone the +1 AC while wielding two weapons (note: just this may even be too powerful because it bars two-handers, but at least you're sure people will keep a dagger near off-hand at all times).

FS: push the "ability to draw/stow 2 weapons at once" from feat into Fighting Style (and be clear -contrarily to original text- that it also allows "one draw + one swap" as long as made with different hands).

DW: players that take the feat...
- get ability to wield all one-handed weapons and get "dual-wielding feature" with it.
- can draw and stow with only one hand.
- can draw throwables "as part of the attack".
And get a special feature such as
- "when wielding only light weapons: choice for their turn to get "sacrifice ability to crit to get +5 on attack rolls" (representing a flurry of feints to make lighter attacks but be sure to hit).
- "when wielding only light finesse weapons: once in your turn, when take Attack action, decide of malus of -2 to attacks in that turn, but can make one additional attack against same creature.
- Or a simple bonus like another +1 AC, imposed disadvantage on OA from enemies you hit, speed boost, or other thing among the line.

(Basically you concentrate the most important changes in the feat to a) make it more attractive and b) keep potential powercreep in check because it's still a feat that competes with many other great ones).

[stoutstien]

Hi.

Soo, first, disclaimer: I'm sorry but the base assumption on which you built the whole thread is wrong.
Dual-wielding is perfectly fine as is. Confer the current neighbour thread "proof that dual wielder feat is worse than an ASI" or the previous threads in which I explained several times why it's fine.

It does not fall damage-wise unless you start taking feats into account, and even then it only falls against Sharpshooter because that one is arguably the top of top and only fails to satisfy when some enemy manages to close into melee reach, which should overall not happen often considering the extreme range of longbows (basically you're not shining only if/when fighting in enclosed and tight spaces, in which case dual-wielding is better than ranged weapons).
But a dual-wielder is totally competitive with every melee build *overall*, even GWM ones, because of things like "opportunity cost of making a melee weapon attack" (reach, move distance, risk of OA) and "chance to hit".

Now, certainly, in a party that has...
- someone that can make you really resilient against damage (Cleric, Druid) unless you are already (read: Barbarian, defense-oriented Paladin / EK)
- AND someone that can buff your to-hit (same plus any debuff providing advantage to opposing force) unless you are good enough already (namely self-Bless or features like Sacred Weapon)..
- AND you a) either want to stick in the middle of enemies to get OAs as often as possible anwyays or b) have a sustainable use of bonus action per spell/class feature that stays relevant in any kind of situation...
The strategic advantages of dual-wielding are severely reduced.

In all other cases, it's largely good enough as it is *mechanically*. Even though it will certainly feel clunky notably with item interaction rules.


There is no real interest to your flip imo.
The main interest of dual-wielding is in general the flexibility to adapt it provides. For STR characters in particular, the fact it allows several thrown weapons attacks.
Giving the ability to wield non-light immediately would make a big difference between Fighters / Rangers and all other classes as a result.

And since games don't necessarily allow multiclass and/or feats, this would create a discrepancy that could be lived negatively by players.

While the +mod to damage is really an accessory because at high level, it won't change much the number of rounds required to drop a creature.
That's why it's perfectly suited as a Fighting Style.

The only real change needed to take care of the clunky feeling is this really: "throwable weapons are considered ammunition when used to make ranged weapon attacks" (-> drawing one is considered part of the attack).
Problem solved, overkill even: it will make it *much* more powerful actually, up to having dedicated throwing Fighter builds trumping all other STR ones.

Now, IF you still want to push dual-wielding to incite more players to use it, while keeping power in check... From RAW:

Basic: give everyone the +1 AC while wielding two weapons (note: just this may even be too powerful because it bars two-handers, but at least you're sure people will keep a dagger near off-hand at all times).

I guess I see it differently. I don't think twf needs a buff damage wise, it needs a nitch reason to want to use it. I weigh using up bonus action for a single attack as a hefty cost compared to a shield user getting a ba shove for adv to all attacks( yes I know they say you can't do it before your attack now but raw and Rai I'd say it's fair to shove then attack) or pole arm master matching potintial damage plus an easy trigger reactions attack.
My goal in the end is to make twf have a reason to do it past style or rp reasons.

I agree I should have left style alone and focus on the feat.
What if it was:
-+1 ac and +1hit while dw.
-Can use non light weapons. Which is what a +2 damage increase on average? More important it just allows more weapon options.
-Attack of opportunity trigger an attack from both weapons.
I hate static bonuses but I feel having half the ac of shield users and half the hit of archers makes the feat more Powerful but not in the same tier as SS or GWM

[Citan]

I guess I see it differently. I don't think twf needs a buff damage wise, it needs a nitch reason to want to use it. I weigh using up bonus action for a single attack as a hefty cost compared to a shield user getting a ba shove for adv to all attacks( yes I know they say you can't do it before your attack now but raw and Rai I'd say it's fair to shove then attack) or pole arm master matching potintial damage plus an easy trigger reactions attack.
My goal in the end is to make twf have a reason to do it past style or rp reasons.

I agree I should have left style alone and focus on the feat.
What if it was:
-+1 ac and +1hit while dw.
-Can use non light weapons. Which is what a +2 damage increase on average? More important it just allows more weapon options.
-Attack of opportunity trigger an attack from both weapons.
I hate static bonuses but I feel having half the ac of shield users and half the hit of archers makes the feat more Powerful but not in the same tier as SS or GWM
Oh, ok.

So, if I understand you correctly, your gripe with current system is that with dual-wielding using up always bonus action, it loses interest when people have access to feats that give "bonus action uses" with other weapons?

So you're trying to keep it competitive in the "feated environment" ?
Because I think we both agree that sword&board or polarm user don't get any use of bonus action without the feat (barring class features obviously).
Then I guess it's all about boosting Dual Wielder benefits.

About your ideas.
+1 AC and +1 to hit: perfectly fine imo.
Use non-light weapons: already the case. *maybe* otherwie your could try a "all light (or even all one-handed, non heavy) weapons deal 1d8 damage" thingy. Not sure about how much power that would bring really? My guess would be "mostly on par with RAW, just easier managemnet for player" (unless using Roll20 pretty sure that kind of rule would create a mess with pretermined items).
- "Extra Attack on OA". This I like very much. Only problem I could see would be for players wielding one whip (reach) and rapier (normal) for example, so you'd need to precise something like "provided target is in reach for both weapons". Apart from that? Yeah, it would make it significantly powerful but at the cost of putting oneself at risk, so I think it's an acceptable buff.

[R.Shackleford]

I also think it's fine. Maybe I've just missed them until recently but I don't recall everyone having a problem with it.

When 5e came out, there was a hate train for it.

I think it's mostly just wonky. Not just the action economy but what weapons you can initially TWF with... I mean, a dagger + rapier needs a feat... That's what twf is to many people!

The main reason it needs a fix is because many people aren't happy with it.

I would say to remove it as a base option and then consolidate all those extra attack feats into the fighting style, dual wielding feat, and specific class features like Sneak Attack.

This way not everyone is running off the same rules unless they take the same option.