Lets talk about Mearls' Pretty cool revised TWF houserule

[Tetrasodium]

2/6 of one of my groups is using two weapon fighting and one of them brought this to my attention as at level 11 they are falling ,much further behind the other players with cantrip & extra attack scaling. Sure TWF has a lot of great things to its credit early on, but as players gain levels to get access to extra attacks and/or useful abilities that use bonus actions that value falls down. Mike Mearls has been dabbling in a twf revision for a while now & this (https://twitter.com/SageAdviceDnD/status/1066007572803698693) seems to be the latest rough draft of it. The meat of that is:

Ignore the bonus action stuff on phb195 's Two-Weapon Fighting section... Instead, Choose one of the following when you attack:
1. Get one extra attack with off-hand, but all attacks at disadvantage
2. Add your off-hand damage die to all attacks



All in all I much prefer the new version, but Immediately it raises some not so edge case difficulties. For example:

With option one attacking with both at disadvantage, what happens if the attacker has multiple attacks (lets say a level 20 fighter's 4 attacks four for simplicity). Under the default rules, Trogdor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gz1DIIxmEE) would make 4 attacks plus a fifth that uses his bonus action that will no doubt be more exciting than the bonus actions he picked up since fighter level 2.

Is that one extra attack per attack roll, or one extra attack per round? Does Trogdor choosing to attack at disadvantage now get 8 attacks or five?
Disadvantage to all those attacks could be rather painful, does trogdor double his stat mod for the attack consisting of mainhand damage die+offhand damage die, or is the fighting style still needed for that?
What happens if Trogdor has a +3 main hand short sword & a +0 dagger offhand? does he take the higher bonus? Lower bonus? Try to average them? If he averages them, should he round up or round down per PHB7 round down unless told otherwise?
What happns if the target is immune to nonmagic attacks & Trogdor has that 1d6+3 + d4+stat single strike without disadvantage?
Do they need to be on the same target if at disadvantage?

Mike tried to answer some of these questions like this tweet (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1055927958722961408) where he says "If you have the extra attack feature. disadvantage applies only to off-hand. If that feature gives you another attack (3 total base), you no longer have disadvantage on the off hand.". That too raises uncertainty though & doesn't seem to make much sense. Now it looks like trogdor makes five attacks with none at disadvantage or perhaps makes four attacks normally that add his offhand damage die to all four putting it roughly on par with a greatsword or similar, but the how to handle +x/+y mainhand/offhand problem still exists.



My personal thoughts to start out
All TWF attacks using either of these need to be made on the same target s the mainhand attack. Anything less seems like it would create too many possible problems with abilities that grant im,mune to AoOs & debuffs to targets that get attacked.
The all attacks at disadvantage is a huge gigantic penalty that effectively makes crits impossible & doubles your chance of critfail on top of being more likely to miss. Since advantage/disadvantage is usually considered to be about the same as +/-5 & we have a bunch of feats that grabt -5 tohit +10 damage, I think that it is reasonable to give it a similar level of power in the form of being able to do it once for each attack you get and you add your ability mod to both the disadvantage mainhand attack as well as the disadvsantage offhand attack aimed at the same target. Trogdor could use his second third & fourth disadvantaged main/offhand attacks against any target he wants as long as those main & offhand attack target the same opponent?
If the main & offhand weapons have a different + value, I think that this should probably be one of the very few situations where you round up. I have a few reasons for thinking that way:
You are really only going to see +1/+0 at low levels when a +1 weapon is already a pretty awesome find
Just about every +anything magical weapon is going to require attunement & using 2/ your 3 attunement slots on them is going to be rough. Rather than just using the one with the better bonus, I think that there should be paired enchanted weapon sets meant to be used together & have given out +x dagger sets that combined use a single attunement slot in the past so think that is reasonable.
With the paired sets in place, the +x/+y problem somewhat evaporates
The most likely situations for the +x/+y problem to show up seem to be, A:getting disarmed & using a spare/improvised weapon or B: tthe "you wake up in a prison/wash up on a shore and your stuff is gone". Managing to recover one of those +x weapons but having to use a lesser or improvised offhand is already a big problem
You are using the average for both mainhand and offhand so anything like +3/+0 where the offhand gains more than +1 is going to be losing a +1 on one disadvantaged attack in order to add it to another disadvantaged attack.

Questions come up with the "add the offhand damage die to the mainhand attack" too. If the values are different, do you use the base values or average them again? Again I'm leaning towards average & round up for some lot of the same reasons plus simplicity, anything else brings up memories of 3.5's grapple flow chart (http://dnd.dracones.de/Grapple.svg)

What do you guys think? What got overlooked? What is gotten right or wrong? What unforseen difficulties are there? wtf did mike mean when he said "If you have the extra attack feature. disadvantage applies only to off-hand. If that feature gives you another attack (3 total base), you no longer have disadvantage on the off hand." Do you prefer apple pie, or the clearly superior pecan pie?

[Ganymede]

I like the simplicity of adding the off-hand damage die to all of your attacks. Excise the paragraphs and paragraphs of jargle about what attacks do or don't get advantage and just keep the above.

[Tetrasodium]

I like the simplicity of adding the off-hand damage die to all of your attacks. Excise the paragraphs and paragraphs of jargle about what attacks do or don't get advantage and just keep the above.

Absolutely yes, but it still leaves questions like. What iff the main hand and offhand have a different bonus on them & possibly others. I broke it down into bulletpoints to make the individual possible issues clearly separate.

[JakOfAllTirades]

The second option looks playable, although it's far from perfect.

The first is completely incoherent, and Mearls' "clarification" is anything but.

[Ganymede]

Absolutely yes, but it still leaves questions like. What iff the main hand and offhand have a different bonus on them & possibly others. I broke it down into bulletpoints to make the individual possible issues clearly separate.

The easy answer to all that is "it doesn't matter; you just add the damage die to your weapon attacks and that's it."

[DanyBallon]

Absolutely yes, but it still leaves questions like. What iff the main hand and offhand have a different bonus on them & possibly others. I broke it down into bulletpoints to make the individual possible issues clearly separate.

I failed my Intelligence (Investigation) check, but if I remember correctly, character in 5e are assumed to be ambidextrous, and what you main hand weapon and what is you off hand weapon is up to you. Considering this, I'd rule that you add the damage roll from the weapon you chose as off hand, as if you had hit with an off hand attack (i.e. main hand +3 short sword, off hand +0 dagger; you add only +1d4 to your damage)
Now if you need to hit a creature immune to non magical attack, and your off hand weapon is not magical, then you add nothing since it wouldn't hit, on the other hand, if you main weapon is not magical and your off hand is, roll your attack normally to see if you hit, then you'll do 0 damage from you main weapon, and add the damage from the off hand weapon.

[EggKookoo]

I like the simplicity of adding the off-hand damage die to all of your attacks. Excise the paragraphs and paragraphs of jargle about what attacks do or don't get advantage and just keep the above.

What does this do to rogues that use the bonus action as a way to try to get a sneak attack when the first attack misses?

[Ganymede]

What does this do to rogues that use the bonus action as a way to try to get a sneak attack when the first attack misses?

It frees them up to use their bonus action to dash, disengage, or hide. Pretty cool, eh?

[Tetrasodium]

What does this do to rogues that use the bonus action as a way to try to get a sneak attack when the first attack misses?



Either A: choose to roll both attacks at disadvantage before the first attackand get to make a second attack, or B: potentially miss the one attack of both damage dice & use their bonus action for Cunning action, Fast hands, magehand Ledgerdomain, eye for detail, insightful fighting, Master of tactics, sudden strike, elegant maneuver, cunning ancestor, or any other bonus action gained via feat, multiclassing, item, or spell.

[stoutstien]

I've done the off hand damage to all attacks as a fighter style and it really smooths out the game for twf PCs.
Most player go for the iconic dagger or two s swords.
Adding a half feat that allows fighting styles and boom we got our twin axe barbarian and other twf concepts.
The only thing that was kind of weird is if they take tavern brawler and dual weilding feat then try to use a shield as a improvised weapon.(
But it two feats and no more of a problem as one hand PaM.

[Naanomi]

So... wait... TWFers all will outdamage two-handed Weapon fighters in virtually all circumstances excepting GWM? And be 1AC higher if they invest a feat? How does Two-Weapon Fighting style then work?

[djreynolds]

So you are saying, I'm an 11th level fighter

I have 3 attacks

I'm using a short sword and dagger

So I get (1d6+5) + (1d4) and (1d6+5) + (1d4) and (1d6+5) + (1d4), no ability score for the off hand I'm assuming

[Tetrasodium]

So... wait... TWFers all will outdamage two-handed Weapon fighters in virtually all circumstances excepting GWM? And be 1AC higher if they invest a feat? How does Two-Weapon Fighting style then work?

How do you figure outdamage?
every attack at disadvantage with stat mod applied to both offhand & mainhand damage only wins if it hits very often even if using dual woelder & non-light weapons (ie they are a kobold/mounted combatant to always cancel the disadvantage vrs someone without advantage with a 2h).
Greatsword/Greataxe for 2d6+stat/1d12+stat vrs 2x short swordsfor 2d6+stat is pretty much a wash since the benefits of 2d6 vrs 1d12 are debatable
dual wielder feat very much wins if no GWM on 2h side since the twf could be doing 2 flails/rapiers/longswords for 2d8+stat is more than 2d6+stat/1d12+stat, add in gwm & things even out a bit more into the realm of debatable
every heavy weapon is 2h or the lance with it's special oddness that requires 2h if not mounted. so twf+gwm is effectively a nonissue.

[stoutstien]

So... wait... TWFers all will outdamage two-handed Weapon fighters in virtually all circumstances excepting GWM? And be 1AC higher if they invest a feat? How does Two-Weapon Fighting style then work?
The lack of the -hit/+damage feat is kinda a big one.
Might at least I don't x2 offhand on crits. Reasoning is it isn't actually part of the attack that crit.
So twf user has more reliable normalized damage but can't match 2hf in damage output potential.
Also the two hands fighting style needs fixed so I just make any 1 on damage rolls count as a 3.(math here is actually really fun.)

[Tetrasodium]

So you are saying, I'm an 11th level fighter

I have 3 attacks

I'm using a short sword and dagger

So I get (1d6+5) + (1d4) and (1d6+5) + (1d4) and (1d6+5) + (1d4), no ability score for the off hand I'm assuming


That's about it or you get
disadvantage tohit 1d6+5, disadvantage tohit 1d4+5, disadvantage tohit 1d6+5, disadvantage tohit 1d4+5 where you risk missing all four attacks or hoping the extra statmods make up for misses.

[Naanomi]

Two Lance 2d12 TWF eh? And god’s help you if you get a pair of weapons with some +fire damage or the like

[djreynolds]

I use Two weapon rend at my table,

1 hit with both attacks and get proficiency in damage, but costs your reaction (you can try twice the proficiency bonus, table dependent)
2 or you can kick off with your reaction and disengage, or
3 push/trip with an athletics check, as your reaction

[stoutstien]

Two Lance 2d12 TWF eh? And god’s help you if you get a pair of weapons with some +fire damage or the like

Twf lance is legal but some DM won't allow it plus magical Lance's are fairly rare.

Speaking of magical items the scimitar of speed completely takes all the benefits of twf at no cost. They can keep Shields and duelist style to make the twf PCs feel even more inadequate

[EggKookoo]

Either A: choose to roll both attacks at disadvantage before the first attackand get to make a second attack

How do you pull off a sneak attack with a disadvantaged attack roll?

[Misterwhisper]

Those ideas are stupid.

They started screwing up when they let all other ways to get bonus action attacks get a stat added to damage but twf doesn’t.

Honestly it was bad game design from the very start, then they just keep making it worse with the feats that allow bonus action attacks.

The twf fighting style should have just let you add a stat to bonus action attacks then let everything else work as just giving bonus action attacks.

PAM, CBE, revenant blade, twf,, etc all give bonus action attacks but if you want the stat bonus, you need the fighting style.

Simple fix, and makes things more balanced.

[Calen]

My table uses the "Add your off-hand damage die to all attacks" model.

Magic items or bonus's are declared as a 19/20 to attack and a hit on the 20 would negate the second dice.
Oppurtunity attacks are not allowed to use TWF.
(Con) Attack must target the same creature. (Not that anyone at my table has complained)


Players are at level 10 and we have been using this version of TWF since level 1 so I think we have a fair bit of mileage. Overall it works well. The fighter does a bit more damage than if they were using a 2 handed weapon but not enough to shame the barbarian, and for the rouge its just a little drop in the bucket of D6's that they roll anyway. The extra utility of allowing a bonus action seems fine.

[EggKookoo]

Sorry, sorry, just realized we're talking about the TWF fighting style, not simply fighting with two weapons. I'll see myself out now...

[Tetrasodium]

Sorry, sorry, just realized we're talking about the TWF fighting style, not simply fighting with two weapons. I'll see myself out now...
We are talking about both/either.


How do you pull off a sneak attack with a disadvantaged attack roll?

with the twf fighting style's "add statmod to offhand damage" being redundant under "add statmod to both and roll both at disadvantage", it would need to either get removed or provide some new functionality such as removing one of the disadvantages.. But under the two options, you are right that a rogue would never choose the roll both at disadvantage option unless they are a kobold or mounted combatat (feat) rider who can negate the disadvantage to a straight roll making it a choice between one attack with a great chance of hitting or two attacks with a moderate chance of missing unless the rogue takes 5+ levels in a class that allows them extra attacks & then gets a mainhand+stat then offhand+stat attack for each extra attack provided they can stomach or negate the disadvantage.

[Gastronomie]

I don't like the current system concerning two-weapon fighting, but I like those ideas even less.

Most of what makes two-weapon fighting redundant are feats. Adding some good feat for two-weapon fighting will be sufficient.

[Tetrasodium]

I don't like the current system concerning two-weapon fighting, but I like those ideas even less.

Most of what makes two-weapon fighting redundant are feats. Adding some good feat for two-weapon fighting will be sufficient.
Out of curiosity,& since I haven't mad up my mind after a player brought it to my attention... What do you dislike about mearls' idea to like it even less?

[ThePolarBear]

That's about it or you get
disadvantage tohit 1d6+5, disadvantage tohit 1d4+5, disadvantage tohit 1d6+5, disadvantage tohit 1d4+5 where you risk missing all four attacks or hoping the extra statmods make up for misses.


No disadvantage at all. The Fighter has access to 3 attacks due to their Extra Attack feature, and thus they get to ignore the disadvantage on all attacks.

In the end it's either 3x(1d6+1d4+5) or 3x(1d6+5) + 1x(1d4+5).

[Tetrasodium]

No disadvantage at all. The Fighter has access to 3 attacks due to their Extra Attack feature, and thus they get to ignore the disadvantage on all attacks.

In the end it's either 3x(1d6+1d4+5) or 3x(1d6+5) + 1x(1d4+5).


It's not outside the realm of possibility that one of us is reading something wrong, but it seems like he gave two options:

Option one: Just like you note where th offhand damage die is added to each mainhand attack but no other benefit or cost is applied beyond not holding something like a shiekld or 2H weapon instead of two light weapons
Option two: For each attack you get, you make a mainhand attack and an offhand attack, but the cost is that both attacks are made at disadvantage unless you have an advantage to cancel out the disadvantage into a straight roll.

[ThePolarBear]

It's not outside the realm of possibility that one of us is reading something wrong, but it seems like he gave two options:

Option one: Just like you note where th offhand damage die is added to each mainhand attack but no other benefit or cost is applied beyond not holding something like a shiekld or 2H weapon instead of two light weapons
Option two: For each attack you get, you make a mainhand attack and an offhand attack, but the cost is that both attacks are made at disadvantage unless you have an advantage to cancel out the disadvantage into a straight roll.


"Few people asked, latest version of two weapon fighting:
* Does not use bonus action, off-hand gets full damage bonus
* Choose one of the following when you attack:
1. Get one extra attack with off-hand, but all attacks at disadvantage
2. Add your off-hand damage die to all atks"

This is not a clarification, it adds upon the description of the options. (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1055927958722961408)

"If you have the extra attack feature. disadvantage applies only to off-hand. If that feature gives you another attack (3 total base), you no longer have disadvantage on the off hand."

Paraphrasing:

When you attack, you get to choose either:

1) Add the offhand weapon damage die to any and all attacks you make with the action.
2) You can attack ONCE with the offhand weapon (and can add your ability modifier to the damage of that attack) on top of all the other attacks you could already make, but you have disadvantage on all attacks. If you have the Extra Attack feature, disadvantage only applies to the off-hand attack. If Extra Attack grants you at least 2 extra attacks (for a total of 3), then you no longer have any disadvantage.

Taking into consideration the fact that it's twitter, it's not official and there was no specific wording, i would extend the reading of "when you attack" to "When you take the Attack Action", since it's what makes more sense.

I don't know how "one attack" became "each attack" for you.

[Gastronomie]

Out of curiosity,& since I haven't mad up my mind after a player brought it to my attention... What do you dislike about mearls' idea to like it even less?The problem of two-weapon fighting is that it doesn't scale.

Mearls's first idea doesn't solve the problem, it makes it even worse (it explicitly makes TWF worse with Extra Attack).

The second idea has two effects. For one it makes TWF even better at low to mid levels, but that is unnecessary. For another it makes TWF slowly get worse as other weapon options get powerful Feats (while TWF does not), or ASIs increase the bonus to each respective damage roll, meaning that once again, "TWF gets worse at higher levels".

Meaning, Mearls's idea does not, in any way, solve the current problem. It is utterly pointless to make a change that does not solve anything.

The reason I proposed creating a powerful Feat for TWF is that that can solve this problem, at least to a certain extent.

[thoroughlyS]

The problem of two-weapon fighting is that it doesn't scale.
This is the actual problem facing the currently published two-weapon fighting system. However, these proposals are an attempt to replace the current system, not fix it.

Mearls's first idea doesn't solve the problem, it makes it even worse (it explicitly makes TWF worse with Extra Attack).
The first proposal isn't unilaterally worse, it just shifts the cost. In the current system, a character with extra attack makes two attacks with the Attack action, and a third with a bonus action. Using the first proposal, the same character would get three attacks with their Attack action, but the off-hand attack has disadvantage. Furthermore, the first proposal is unilaterally superior for an 11th level fighter, who would not suffer disadvantage and retains their bonus action.
The real difference here is if you want the cost to come from action economy, or attack accuracy.

However, this proposal is seriously detrimental to the style during Tier 1, and remains a problem for two-weapon rogues unless they multiclass for extra attack.

The second idea has two effects. For one it makes TWF even better at low to mid levels, but that is unnecessary. For another it makes TWF slowly get worse as other weapon options get powerful Feats (while TWF does not), or ASIs increase the bonus to each respective damage roll, meaning that once again, "TWF gets worse at higher levels".

Meaning, Mearls's idea does not, in any way, solve the current problem. It is utterly pointless to make a change that does not solve anything.
The second proposal effectively makes all dual wielders into finesse greatsword wielders. No more, no less. You are correct that it does nothing for the lack of fighting style support. However, this does fix the other half of the problem with two-weapon fighting: the action economy.

Again, this proposal is a problem for dual wielding rogues, who would not benefit from a second attack roll, like they do in the current system.

[stoutstien]

Honestly monk has been my hang up for any solid twf fix. Rogue getting an extra 1d8 or d6 isn't a problem in my eyes

[Tetrasodium]

Honestly monk has been my hang up for any solid twf fix. Rogue getting an extra 1d8 or d6 isn't a problem in my eyes

It does not look like that should be such a problem with mearl's proposal though, what hangups do you have?.
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls o f your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage o f your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn.
They only get 1 extra attack at 5 when they don't progress to gain more like fighter/barbarian/etc. Almost everything a monk can do beyond that is going to cost ki point(s) and/or use a bonus action. Lets say one is using two short swords at level 5 for 2d6+attrib 2d6+attrib they can do a 1d6+attrib bonus action unarmed strike or spend a ki point for 1d6+attrib 1d6+attrib flurry of blows. at higher levels, when others are getting a third/fourth attack, monks are getting a larger die & it comes out similar. Things like stunning strike burn ki points

TL;DR What "hangups" do you have?

[Kane0]

It's both messy and unhelpful.
I like that has these ideas to throw around, but I also like that he is part of a team when working on these things.

[stoutstien]

It does not look like that should be such a problem with mearl's proposal though, what hangups do you have?.
You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls o f your unarmed strikes and monk weapons.
You can roll a d4 in place of the normal damage o f your unarmed strike or monk weapon. This die changes as you gain monk levels, as shown in the Martial Arts column of the Monk table.
When you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or a monk weapon on your turn, you can make one unarmed strike as a bonus action. For example, if you take the Attack action and attack with a quarterstaff, you can also make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, assuming you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn.
They only get 1 extra attack at 5 when they don't progress to gain more like fighter/barbarian/etc. Almost everything a monk can do beyond that is going to cost ki point(s) and/or use a bonus action. Lets say one is using two short swords at level 5 for 2d6+attrib 2d6+attrib they can do a 1d6+attrib bonus action unarmed strike or spend a ki point for 1d6+attrib 1d6+attrib flurry of blows. at higher levels, when others are getting a third/fourth attack, monks are getting a larger die & it comes out similar. Things like stunning strike burn ki points

TL;DR What "hangups" do you have?
I was speaking to my attempted fixed prior to him releasing this idea which I like besides it's just a tad messy.

[thoroughlyS]

Honestly monk has been my hang up for any solid twf fix. Rogue getting an extra 1d8 or d6 isn't a problem in my eyes
I think you missed the point of my previous post. I was saying rogues are negatively impacted by both of these proposed systems.

You have disadvantage if you attack with both weapons, and never lose it because rogues never gain extra attack. Having that disadvantage means that neither attack can benefit from sneak attack.
OR
You only make one attack roll, and therefore miss out on the reliability two-weapon fighting previously gave.

For monks, the first proposal is still a bad idea until 4th level, and the second effectively adds greatsword to the list of monk weapons.

[stoutstien]

I think you missed the point of my previous post. I was saying rogues are negatively impacted by both of these proposed systems.

You have disadvantage if you attack with both weapons, and never lose it because rogues never gain extra attack. Having that disadvantage means that neither attack can benefit from sneak attack.
OR
You only make one attack roll, and therefore miss out on the reliability two-weapon fighting previously gave.

For monks, the first proposal is still a bad idea until 4th level, and the second effectively adds greatsword to the list of monk weapons.
Ah yes I did miss the implications of your post.
I tead to just allow:
BaseTwf: you can make one offhand attack whenever you take the attack action.
Twf style: you can add stat mod to off hand attack. And AoO gain off hand weapon strike
Twf feat: non light weapons and if you have advantage on your off hand attack can prefrom an additional off hand attack with both attacks at disadvantage.

You can see my monk issue now but I don't think it's as bad as I think it is but none of my monk players ever grab the feat for me to see🤣

[DanyBallon]

Ah yes I did miss the implications of your post.
I tead to just allow:
BaseTwf: you can make one offhand attack whenever you take the attack action.
Twf style: you can add stat mod to off hand attack. And AoO gain off hand weapon strike
Twf feat: non light weapons and if you have advantage on your off hand attack can prefrom an additional off hand attack with both attacks at disadvantage.

You can see my monk issue now but I don't think it's as bad as I think it is but none of my monk players ever grab the feat for me to see🤣

I would more incline to rule that:

Two weapon fighting : same
Two weapon fighting style: When fighting with two weapons you may forgo making an attack with your off-hand weapon, and instead add the damage from your off-hand weapon to each of your attacks using when using the attack action.
Two weapon fighting feat: same

I feel the wording could be better, but the idea is to let the character with the fighting style to choose if he wants to have one more attack roll using a bonus action or to get higher damage output on fewer atrack rolls

[Vogie]

Since we're worried about scaling... What if we steal the mechanic from the leveled cantrips?

(You could attach the effect to a feat or the fighting style.)

Starting at level 10, your first attack has an additional damage die based on the offhand. At 15, your second attack also has an additional damage die based on the offhand.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, so what if you can add your ability mod to the off-hand attack damage but it's capped at one-half of your proficiency bonus rounded up? So you get basically +1/+2/+3 to you off-hand as you level up so long as the ability used for it would grant you that. Too weak?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Ok, so what if you can add your ability mod to the off-hand attack damage but it's capped at one-half of your proficiency bonus rounded up? So you get basically +1/+2/+3 to you off-hand as you level up so long as the ability used for it would grant you that. Too weak?
Is that in addition to current fighting style?


Since we're worried about scaling... What if we steal the mechanic from the leveled cantrips?

(You could attach the effect to a feat or the fighting style.)

Starting at level 10, your first attack has an additional damage die based on the offhand. At 15, your second attack also has an additional damage die based on the offhand.
Now that's not a bad idea...

[EggKookoo]

Is that in addition to current fighting style?

I was thinking yes. Basically go with RAW but add that bit of damage bonus.

[stoutstien]

Twf damage is lower but not by much. It's the resources spent that makes it fell bad. There are now I think 6 ways of generating ba attacks that out preform twf with less investment.

[EggKookoo]

Twf damage is lower but not by much. It's the resources spent that makes it fell bad. There are now I think 6 ways of generating ba attacks that out preform twf with less investment.

Yeah, I've mostly experienced it with rogues, who use it as a backup way to get sneak attacks in. I think that's why suggestions to skip it being an actual second attack and just adding the damage die to the main attack don't resonate with me.

So the main complaint is that it's not worth spending a bonus action on as you gain levels?

[strangebloke]

In terms of fiction, it sounds nice. "I attack with both weapons!" is pretty intuitive and works well. Like most stuff from Mike, it sounds good.

But (like most stuff from Mike) its horribly imbalanced and wonky.

Like, ok. Greatsword vs. TWF.

greatsword = 2d6+5
TWF = 2d6+5

see the problem? It's the exact same thing. There's literally no distinction there. Once you add in feats, that changes things, and it's actually a pretty interesting path there. 2d8+5 and 1 AC, or 2d6+10 but with a -5 to attack?

Another problem is magic items. How do those interact with these rules? Do you add both magical modifiers? If so, say hello to my little friend Zog, the fighter that's duel-wielding flametongues for 2d8+4d6 damage per hit, four times a round.

Also, what does the TWF style actually do here? do you get ability mod*2? YIKES!

And that's without even touching upon the nonsense that is the two attacks with disadvantage, which is just... terrible until high levels, and it would feel awful even then.

Finally, it doesn't really work with classes that are supposed to be good at TWF. Rangers, Rogues, etc.

I'm not casting shade here, I've had my own issues with my TWF 'fixes' but this doesn't seem great.

So what would you do?
Well, the problem is that TWF as a primary combat style is balanced from 1-5, suboptimal from 6-10, and bad from 11+. default TWF should be the highest damage option for dex-based characters, since it requires a bonus action, but instead it's only barely ahead of dueling from levels 5-10, and often behind dueling from level 11 onwards. I don't really see any part of what Mike is talking about here as salvageable, since he's effectively adding another weapon loadout, which should probably be called 'dual-striking' or something and would only make the problems with TWF deeper.

So you need some way to make it scale and be cool. This is what I'd do:

TWF(base): On your turn, if you make an attack with a one-handed or light weapon and you are holding a light weapon in your offhand, you can make an attack with your offhand as a bonus action. You do not add your ability modifier to this damage.
TWF(fighting style): When using TWF, you may add your ability modifier to the damage done by your offhand attack. At fifth level, you may make your offhand attack as a bonus action. At 11th level, when you are TWF and you are targeted by a melee attack, you may as a reaction parry the creature's attack, granting you +2 to AC.

[Misterwhisper]

Seriously, this is an easy fix.

1. Everything in the game, that gives you a bonus action attack gives you just the weapon damage die: TWF, PAM, GWM, CBE, ect.
2. TWF style gives you your stat bonus to the damage of any bonus action attacks you may get.

Exception is monks, whose martial arts specifically say that they get a stat to their bonus attack when using unarmed strikes or monk weapons.

Easy fix, balances things, works across the board.

[Tetrasodium]

In terms of fiction, it sounds nice. "I attack with both weapons!" is pretty intuitive and works well. Like most stuff from Mike, it sounds good.

But (like most stuff from Mike) its horribly imbalanced and wonky.

Like, ok. Greatsword vs. TWF.

greatsword = 2d6+5
TWF = 2d6+5

see the problem? It's the exact same thing. There's literally no distinction there. Once you add in feats, that changes things, and it's actually a pretty interesting path there. 2d8+5 and 1 AC, or 2d6+10 but with a -5 to attack?

Another problem is magic items. How do those interact with these rules? Do you add both magical modifiers? If so, say hello to my little friend Zog, the fighter that's duel-wielding flametongues for 2d8+4d6 damage per hit, four times a round.

Also, what does the TWF style actually do here? do you get ability mod*2? YIKES!

And that's without even touching upon the nonsense that is the two attacks with disadvantage, which is just... terrible until high levels, and it would feel awful even then.

Finally, it doesn't really work with classes that are supposed to be good at TWF. Rangers, Rogues, etc.

I'm not casting shade here, I've had my own issues with my TWF 'fixes' but this doesn't seem great.

So what would you do?
Well, the problem is that TWF as a primary combat style is balanced from 1-5, suboptimal from 6-10, and bad from 11+. default TWF should be the highest damage option for dex-based characters, since it requires a bonus action, but instead it's only barely ahead of dueling from levels 5-10, and often behind dueling from level 11 onwards. I don't really see any part of what Mike is talking about here as salvageable, since he's effectively adding another weapon loadout, which should probably be called 'dual-striking' or something and would only make the problems with TWF deeper.

So you need some way to make it scale and be cool. This is what I'd do:

TWF(base): On your turn, if you make an attack with a one-handed or light weapon and you are holding a light weapon in your offhand, you can make an attack with your offhand as a bonus action. You do not add your ability modifier to this damage.
TWF(fighting style): When using TWF, you may add your ability modifier to the damage done by your offhand attack. At fifth level, you may make your offhand attack as a bonus action. At 11th level, when you are TWF and you are targeted by a melee attack, you may as a reaction parry the creature's attack, granting you +2 to AC.


Yea, I raised as lot of those points in the OP hoping to start a discussion on that kinda stuff given that I have a player asking about it & 2/6 of my L11 PCs are two weapon fighters with only 1 of the remaining 4 even using melee, but instead got a lot of "I like it" and "I dislike it" :/

[strangebloke]

Seriously, this is an easy fix.

1. Everything in the game, that gives you a bonus action attack gives you just the weapon damage die: TWF, PAM, GWM, CBE, ect.
2. TWF style gives you your stat bonus to the damage of any bonus action attacks you may get.

Exception is monks, whose martial arts specifically say that they get a stat to their bonus attack when using unarmed strikes or monk weapons.

Easy fix, balances things, works across the board.

Not really.

The issue with TWF is that it doesn't scale at all and fall way behind other options at later levels, particularly if you don't have access to enough magical weapons.

Dueling scales with weapon attack number and by fifth level deals damage comparable to a TWF build.

GWF scales with weapon attack number and with number of weapon damage dice.

Defense scales with all other AC bonuses. Offering a larger proportional decrease to damage the higher your AC is.

Archery scales with to hit bonuses, offering a larger proportional increase to damage the higher your enemy's AC is.

In fact, the only two that don't scale at all are protection style and TWF. TWF kinda scales with things like rage, but... it's not enough.

To be clear, this is not a problem with the basic TWF rules, just with the fighting style. There are more characters who use TWF without the style than with it, thanks to all those rogues and barbarians. The feat is actually fine, although its clearly not as good as GWM or PAM or SS.

[Kane0]

Base TWF: Bonus action attack, light weapons only. Stat to damage just like every other attack.

Fighting style: Can use non-light one handed weapons

Feat: Draw/stow two weapons, can make off hand attack as part of attack action instead of as bonus action (once per turn to avoid abuse), can use both weapons for opportunity attacks (as in you attack twice)

Fixed.

[Zalabim]

Skipping to the end, here's what I've suggested for literally years. It should work acceptably well after some tweaks to wording for the exact effect you want.
First: Change none of the existing rules at all.
Second: Add a new Fighting Style to Fighters and Rangers called "Dual Weapon."
Third: Dual Weapon is the still somewhat wordy "When you make a melee weapon attack with a weapon wielded in one hand and are wielding another melee weapon in your other hand, you can add the weapon damage die of that weapon to the damage you deal if you hit."
Problem with this is that two longswords/rapiers does more damage with this fighting style than a greatsword with its fighting style. So...

(Cleaner effect, dirtier wording): Dual Weapon: When you quality to use two-weapon fighting in melee [So when you use the attack action and make a melee attack with a [normally light] melee weapon in one hand and are wielding another [normally light] melee weapon in [another/your other] hand], you can roll the weapon damage die of the other weapon and add the result to the damage you deal if you hit.
Problem with this is you have to change Dual Wielder as well or word it very specifically so that Dual Wielder lifts the light restriction from the fighting style as well. Then the only problem is Lances, and frankly, I'm ok with that if you are.

Long story short: Make it a new fighting style. Make it limited to melee use. The final (ideal) result is that TWF with this style is only slightly behind the damage of GWF with its style. It can still make a bonus action attack for some more damage and can [be using finesse weapons/be using throwable weapons] so it's slightly more flexible than the greatsword.

I could go through and explain why everyone's fix, easy or otherwise, either just doesn't work or doesn't work as well as this, but that seems like it would be a poor use of my free time, and also more rude.

I apologize for the marking of my post. I just don't know how to get people to read this.

[Kane0]

By all means, tear mine apart!

[thoroughlyS]

By all means, tear mine apart!
The biggest issue with your fix is that the actual key to solving two-weapon fighting is locked behind the feat, making it mandatory for any character wanting to use the style (which I guess makes some kind of sense considering how Great Weapon Master works...). I'm talking about making the off-hand attack a part of the Attack action, of course.

I've recently been running the numbers (over and over), and have analyzed multiple weapon set-ups. My calculations involved several conceits:

The character has a starting STR score of 16.
The character's STR score is increased at 4th and 8th levels.
Therefore, based on the Monster Statistics by Challenge Rating table (DMG p.274), the AC of expected encounters scales at the same rate as the character's attack modifier (with an exception at 9th level, which was not measured, see below)
Therefore, a character needs to roll an 8 or higher to hit (i.e. has a 65% chance to hit at all levels)
The character gains extra attacks at 5th, 11th, and 20th level (as a fighter)
Rerolling 1s and 2s on 2d6 deals an average of 8.33 damage

I compared the following weapon setups:

2d6 + STR modifier (greatsword)
1d6 + STR modifier, attacking an additional time (shorswords, two-weapon fighting style)
2d6 + STR modifier, rerolling 1s and 2s (greatsword, great weapon fighting style)
1d8 + STR modifier, attacking an additional time (longswords, two-weapons fighting style)

To summarize my findings, attacking twice was always superior from 1st to 5th level.

After 5th, things became much more comparable:

2d6 + STR ≈ 14.3 damage
1d6 + STR, extra attack ≈ 14.625 damage
2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 16.033 damage
1d8 + STR, extra attack ≈ 16.575 damage
After 11th level, the extra attack started falling behind:

2d6 + STR ≈ 23.4 damage
1d6 + STR, extra attack ≈ 22.1 damage
2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 26 damage
1d8 + STR, extra attack ≈ 24.7 damage
At 20th, 2d6 was always superior to the extra attack.

When the damage output is so close once a character has extra attack, what justification is there for two-weapon fighting costing a bonus action? Therefore, my proposed solution is a change to the core of two-weapon fighting:

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.
If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the bonus attack is made as a part of that action instead.
This change benefits almost every martial character:

barbarians can rage and attack with both weapons
berserkers and storm heralds can benefit from the style
sword and valor bards can grant inspiration and attack with both weapons
fighters can gain the same benefit from action surge regardless of style
fighters can second wind and attack with both weapons
monks can receive a pretty decent boost to at-will damage, with no cost
paladins can use a smite spell and attack with both weapons
rangers can use most of their combat spells and attack with both weapons
(beast masters still miss out, but that's because their interaction with extra attack is backwards)
rogues don't just effectively wield finesse greatswords
swashbucklers don't become obsolete
bladesingers can bladesong and attack with both weapons




Base TWF: Bonus action attack, light weapons only. Stat to damage just like every other attack.

Fighting style: Can use non-light one handed weapons
Without this change, great weapon fighting pulls ahead in terms of damage at 5th level. With this change, two-weapon fighting stays ahead. Implementing this depends on which style you think has more fringe benefits. If you think great weapon fighting is better because of things like access to reach, having a free hand, or benefiting most from one magic weapon—this change makes sense. If you think two-weapon fighting is better because of things like attacking two targets, greater chance to hit at least once, or synergizing with rage/hex/etc.—this change is unnecessary.

[ThePolarBear]

2d6 + STR modifier (greatsword)
1d6 + STR modifier, attacking an additional time (shorswords, two-weapon fighting style)
2d6 + STR modifier, rerolling 1s and 2s (greatsword, great weapon fighting style)
1d8 + STR modifier, attacking an additional time (longswords, two-weapons fighting style)


This has problems. The (greatsword) is misleading, since it should be compared to an equal status two-weapon fighting situation (TWF, no style) which is missing.
It's never possible, given the premises, to TWF with a longsword, UNLESS you are comparing a variant human with the TWF feat that allows 1d8 weapons to be used while TWF. At that point, it becomes misleading, since the GWF should be having its own feat.

In short, EVEN with the expense of a bonus action and every other possible failing of TWF, the comparison in damage might still favor the greatsword, not the other way around. It could make for another reason, not for a mitigating factor.

Not that i agree or not with the other conclusions, just pointing out a problem with this:


To summarize my findings, attacking twice was always superior from 1st to 5th level.

Edit: Forget it, i missed you were dissecting a fix. Sorry.

[Snails]

The basic problem of TWF is that there is limited game space for it to thrive. Sword&Board and THF pretty much have to exist. The first has to provide okay damage and the best defense. The second has to be the damage king (or it should not exist at all).

TWF is trying to thread the needle between the two.

Threading the needle is very hard because an extra/offhand attack mechanic tends to be strongly front loaded. Trying to go this direction makes everything more difficult.

Personally, I do not see a great problem with how things are now. Yes, TWF tends to lag at higher levels, but so what? TWF is not a historical style fighting style for skirmishes and mass battles. It was a dueling style for an unarmored individual who is fighting an unarmored individual, something that occurred in only certain times and places. We may see this style in manga and some literature, but it hardly appears even in live action movies. Who is to say TWF should be good at anything in a D&D context? I really do not know.

[Solusek]

Yeah, I've mostly experienced it with rogues, who use it as a backup way to get sneak attacks in. I think that's why suggestions to skip it being an actual second attack and just adding the damage die to the main attack don't resonate with me.


This is my first problem with Mearls changes. The dual wielding rogue is an iconic character type that is currently very well supported by the base rules of the game. No feats even needed. In fact, rogue is probably the class where dual wielding works best. These new rules may help dual wielding fighters, barbarians, and rangers, but they also severely nerf it for rogues.

[Snails]

This is my first problem with Mearls changes. The dual wielding rogue is an iconic character type that is currently very well supported by the base rules of the game. No feats even needed. In fact, rogue is probably the class where dual wielding works best. These new rules help dual wielding fighters and barbarians, but they also severely nerf it for rogues.

I concur. Rogues getting a more reliable sneak through this tactic is basically baked into the system.

Expanding on my comments in the above post, perhaps TWF is for PCs that happen to have nice damage boosts (Rogue sneak, Ranger favored enemy, etc.) and it is sucks for everyone else? That is okay.

Screwing up the Rogues for some half-baked means of helping TWF Fighters is not an auspicious approach.

[stoutstien]

The basic problem of TWF is that there is limited game space for it to thrive. Sword&Board and THF pretty much have to exist. The first has to provide okay damage and the best defense. The second has to be the damage king (or it should not exist at all).

TWF is trying to thread the needle between the two.

Threading the needle is very hard because an extra/offhand attack mechanic tends to be strongly front loaded. Trying to go this direction makes everything more difficult.

Personally, I do not see a great problem with how things are now. Yes, TWF tends to lag at higher levels, but so what? TWF is not a historical style fighting style for skirmishes and mass battles. It was a dueling style for an unarmored individual who is fighting an unarmored individual, something that occurred in only certain times and places. We may see this style in manga and some literature, but it hardly appears even in live action movies. Who is to say TWF should be good at anything in a D&D context? I really do not know.

In a game where you can transport to a different plane of existence and kill demons twf is the least of historical relevant problems 😁.
Twf has and will be a popular character flavor in dnd and I disagree that there isn't room for it in the system. Twf should be about making more weaker hits but for more reliable damage.
The twf style could have been +1 hit and + mod to off hand and it would help it along. Regardless of what changes are made I believe removing the off hand strike from the ba would allow more freedom for players to full fill a concept.

[Ganymede]

Like, ok. Greatsword vs. TWF.

greatsword = 2d6+5
TWF = 2d6+5

see the problem? It's the exact same thing. There's literally no distinction there.

That is not actually a problem. Not every cosmetic decision your PC makes needs to be differentiated with a mechanical benefit.

Outside of feats and class features, your choice of weapon is mainly thematic, and that's fine.

Remember 3e where every weapon had a fiddly bonus?

[Misterwhisper]

That is not actually a problem. Not every cosmetic decision your PC makes needs to be differentiated with a mechanical benefit.

Outside of feats and class features, your choice of weapon is mainly thematic, and that's fine.

Remember 3e where every weapon had a fiddly bonus?

Yeah, back when you could build a character and their concept around what weapon they chose and the traits of a weapon mattered.

[MaxWilson]

By all means, tear mine apart!

The only thing I see wrong with yours is that at low levels, greatswords disappear in favor of dual shortswords, because low-level fighters won't usually have a use for their bonus action, and 2d6+STR+STR > 2d6+STR.

If you move the "add bonus mod" from base to fighting style, I think your fix is fine. Would allow at my table; probably wouldn't take it as a player unless I were playing a rogue, paladin or bladesinger. I think that's a good indication that it's neither overpowered nor underpowered.

Good fix.

[Snails]

In a game where you can transport to a different plane of existence and kill demons twf is the least of historical relevant problems 😁.

If you put it that way, I would say TWF sucks because it should suck. Show me a reason it should not suck.

History provides reasons, because it informs compelling images in our art and culture.

I accept many kinds of reasons, but you have to come to the table with something compelling.



Twf has and will be a popular character flavor in dnd and I disagree that there isn't room for it in the system. Twf should be about making more weaker hits but for more reliable damage.
The twf style could have been +1 hit and + mod to off hand and it would help it along. Regardless of what changes are made I believe removing the off hand strike from the ba would allow more freedom for players to full fill a concept.

Firstly, the space that exists for TWF appears to be small, IMO. Threading the needle is hard, but perhaps not impossible.

Secondly, the reason most oldsters like TWF was because a problem with 1e/2e mechanics opened up a cheat that was trivial to exploit with very high ability scores. Gary used this cheat with the Drow, and it opened up this cheat to PCs. The Drow cheat inspired Drizzt. The rest is history.

But you cannot really build a game off of crap mechanics that made certain PCs overpowered. That is not a character subgenre that helps create a viable gaming niche.

Thirdly, at a theoretical level, I think what you wrote above makes sense. But at a practical level, I think a lot of players would say this approach sucks because they will be unhappy with DPS that significantly trails THF, reliability be damned. It is not really all that different from how things are right now, although level scaling would be smoother, which is a plus in my book. YMMV.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the TWF fighting style in the first place.

Dual-wielding has two major flaws, as far as I can tell:
1.) Both weapons needing to be light is conceptually stupid and removes the most historically relevant form of dual-wielding (rapier/dagger) from anyone without a feat for absolutely no good reason.
2.) The feat Dual Wielder is weak as hell.

Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too. Number 2 is much more of a problem, and it's because it has to compete with GWM and SS reasonably well to even stand a chance of being mathematically valid for anything but niche builds.

You also don't want it overshadowing PAM, GWM, and SS. Period. While I don't hate them as much as a lot of people, they do overtune player damage. GWM already requires sacrificing your defense, I wouldn't want dual-wielding to match it offensively on those grounds alone. And because I like unique systems, I prefer them not utilizing the exact same system of -5/+10.

So I redesigned the entire weapon dynamics via feats.
Firstly, I redefined great weapons so as to dis-include polearms, while allowing all polearms to be one-handed in exchange for using the next lowest damage dice (conceptual problems I had, again). Then, I changed all the feats to these-

Dual Wielder
Remove the +1 AC. Add an addendum about not functioning with polearms. Add:
• Whenever you hit a creature with a weapon while you are wielding two non-polearm one-handed weapons in each hand, add a cumulative +1 to your attacks against that creature. Any additions gained by this feat are lost at the beginning of your next turn.
• When you reach level 11 and have the Extra Attack class feature, you may make two offhand attacks with a bonus action instead of one.

Great Weapon Master
Replace the Great Weapon Master feat with the following-
• When you make a melee attack with a great weapon that you are proficient in, double the damage added by your Strength ability modifier.
• When you hit with a melee attack with a great weapon that you are proficient in, you may deal your Strength modifier to one additional target within reach. You may add any additional magical enhancements to your weapon attacks against this extra target, such as weapon enchantments and on-hit spell effects. The damage type(s) are the same as the weapon.

Polearm Master
Add ‘You may only make a haft strike if you are wielding a polearm in both hands’.

Sharpshooter
Replace the part about ignoring cover with:
• Treat three-quarters cover as half cover and half cover as no cover when making ranged weapon attacks.
Replace the -5 attack for +10 damage with:
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a penalty to the attack roll up to your proficiency bonus. If the attack hits, you add double the penalty you took to the attack’s damage.

Since I'm at it, I might as well show off the other weapon styles/feats I changed:
First, two new fighting styles-

Formation Fighting Style
Available to Fighters and Paladins when they can select a Fighting Style.
You may use the Help action as a free action to aid an ally in attacking a creature you have made a melee attack against with a polearm, even if the creature was not within 5 feet of you. You may only use this ability once on your turn.

Throwing Fighting Style
Available to Fighters and Rangers when they can select a Fighting Style.
You can draw a throwing weapon with the same action required to attack with it. You do not suffer disadvantage when attacking at long range with a thrown weapon.
If you throw only light weapons with an Attack action, you may throw one additional light weapon as a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the damage roll.

Next, these weapons are included-



Weapon
Cost
Damage
Weight
Properties


Simple Ranged






Boomerang
2 gp
1d4 bludgeoning
1/2 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 40/120), Special


Shuriken
1 sp
1 piercing
-
Finesse, Thrown (60/180), Special


Alchemical Ranged






Acid
25 gp
1d4 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d6 acid)


Alchemist's Fire
50 gp
1d4 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d8 fire)


Alchemist's Frost
50 gp
1d4 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d6 cold)


Ground Glass
5 sp
1d4 piercing
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 5/10), Grenade (1 foot, Special)


Holy Water
25 gp
1d4 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, Special)


Iron Bomb
100 gp
1d6 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (10 feet, 1d8 piercing + 1d6 fire), Special


Oil
1 sp
1d4 bludgeoning
1 lb.
Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, Special)


Acid
This glass bottle contains a violent acidic liquid. If a creature is hit with it, the bottle shatters and douses them with the acid.

Alchemist’s Fire
This ceramic, corked jar is filled with a paste that combusts into flames when exposed to air. When thrown at a creature, it explodes into flames.

Alchemist’s Frost
This pressurized tin holds a freezing gas that can instantly turn water to ice. The tin is designed to crunch when thrown, releasing the gas.

Boomerang
A lightweight plank of wood with a curved interior, meant to sail through the air. When thrown, if you fail to hit a target, the boomerang returns to your hand.

Ground Glass
This soft bag is filled with powdered glass. The shards can cause pain when they strike, as well as blind the creature. If a creature is hit by a bag of ground glass, they must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or be blinded until they take an action to wash out their eyes with water or a similar element.

Holy Water
These blessed waters have different effects on different creatures. To most, it is no different from regular, pure water. To members of the faith that produced it, a flask of holy water can be drank as an action to restore 2d4+2 hit points. When used as a thrown weapon, it deals 2d6 radiant damage to every fiend and undead within it's grenade range.

Iron Bomb
This metal orb is filled with gunpowder and has a wick. The bomb must have it's wick lit as a bonus action with a source of fire before throwing, else it only works as a grenade weapon if it is thrown at an open flame. Each bomb can have a different sort of wick, determined at creation but replaceable and interchangeable- they can be designed to explode immediately after being thrown, or can take upwards of five minutes.

Oil
This small jar of oil covers everything in its grenade range with a slick petrol when thrown. The terrain requires a DC 12 Acrobatics (Dexterity) ability check to move across, or they fall prone. The petrol is also flammable- until it is washed away, any open flame introduced to the petrol will cause the terrain and any creatures that are adjacent to it to become enflamed, taking 1d6 Fire damage at the beginning of every turn they are either in a fire or on fire until an action is taken to douse the flames, or they are hit with enough water or 5 points of cold damage.

Shuriken
These small, spiked metal disks are designed more for distraction than lethality, though they are excellent for delivering poison. When you use an attack to throw a shuriken, you may throw three. You cannot move or take other actions between these attacks, as they must all be made at once.

Then, these feats are changed/added-

Defensive Duelist
Remove the Dexterity 13 requirement.
Replace the finesse caveat with ‘does not work with polearms’.
Add:
• You have one additional reaction each turn. It may only be used to make an attack of opportunity so long as you are only wielding one one-handed weapon that isn’t a polearm.

Grappler
Replace the Grappler feat with the following:
• Creatures you are grappling that are your size or smaller have disadvantage on Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatic) checks made to escape your grapple.
• While you maintain your grapple on a creature, you can prevent one of their limbs from being used for anything. Choose which limb at the end of each turn in which you are maintaining a grapple.
• Creatures you are grappling have disadvantage when attacking you with any melee weapon attack that lacks the ‘Light’ property. This includes natural weapons.
• Ranged weapon attacks and spells that make an attack roll have disadvantage against you while you are grappling a creature. If an attack roll misses you this way, they hit the creature you are grappling instead if the higher roll successfully hits their AC.

Throwing Master
You are an expert at using an assortment of thrown weapons. You gain the following benefits whenever you make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon:
• Grenade weapons like alchemist’s fire and acid add your proficiency bonus to the DC’s to avoid damage.
• Nets add your proficiency bonus to the DC’s to escape them.
• If a creature is benefiting from cover that does not extend above it, you may ignore it. If the creature has total cover, you still count as blinded for the purposes of attacking it.
• Boomerang weapons always return to you when thrown.
• If you have made a thrown weapon attack against a creature since the end of your last turn and it makes a movement you can see, you may make an attack of opportunity with a thrown weapon against it as a reaction, provided that there was already a throwing weapon in your hand or you had a free hand to draw one.

Together, the idea was to make mechanically distinct fighting styles that each had their own relevant strengths that others couldn't easily supersede. So far, my table tests have been positive.

[stoutstien]

If you put it that way, I would say TWF sucks because it should suck. Show me a reason it should not suck.

History provides reasons, because it informs compelling images in our art and culture.

I accept many kinds of reasons, but you have to come to the table with something compelling.



Firstly, the space that exists for TWF appears to be small, IMO. Threading the needle is hard, but perhaps not impossible.

Secondly, the reason most oldsters like TWF was because a problem with 1e/2e mechanics opened up a cheat that was trivial to exploit with very high ability scores. Gary used this cheat with the Drow, and it opened up this cheat to PCs. The Drow cheat inspired Drizzt. The rest is history.

But you cannot really build a game off of crap mechanics that made certain PCs overpowered. That is not a character subgenre that helps create a viable gaming niche.

Thirdly, at a theoretical level, I think what you wrote above makes sense. But at a practical level, I think a lot of players would say this approach sucks because they will be unhappy with DPS that significantly trails THF, reliability be damned. It is not really all that different from how things are right now, although level scaling would be smoother, which is a plus in my book. YMMV.
Im my memory is correct it was the fact drow had a an ambidextrous feature that started the twf movement in dnd but the styles i see the most is main gauche, 2 daggers and two handaxes. I think a simple way to fix it is to add a *offhand tag to some weapons to allow a free attack.

[Snails]

Im my memory is correct it was the fact drow had a an ambidextrous feature that started the twf movement in dnd but the styles i see the most is main gauche, 2 daggers and two handaxes. I think a simple way to fix it is to add a *offhand tag to some weapons to allow a free attack.

1e had no overt limitations and no such concept of ambidexterity -- it was all implied by your Dex. There were penalties for using two weapons that were reduced by your Dex bonus. It was a huge net win if you had a Dex 16+. Whatever mechanics the Drow actually used were nearly irrelevant since their high Dex scores made this a no brainer.

2e had the concept of non-weapon proficiencies (NWP), thus things like ambidexterity existed. Drow had ambidexterity for free. PCs bought ambidexterity. Once you had the right NWPs the rules looked pretty much exactly the same as 1e. If you had Str 16+ and Dex 16+, TWF was just OP.

Ranger TWF we know today seems to be a Drizzt thing. Drizzt did it because he was a Drow with a sky high Dex, so it was a no brainer in a 1e-ish setting. There is nothing special about TWF and 1e Rangers -- they are just a Fighter subtype with extra HP and less armor. If yoru 1e Ranger is a Drow or other high Dex elf, TWF was the obvious was to go, but because of the Dex score itself and not because of your class.

[Snails]

Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too. Number 2 is much more of a problem, and it's because it has to compete with GWM and SS reasonably well to even stand a chance of being mathematically valid for anything but niche builds.

Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.

It absolutely does. There are further balancing concerns necessary to make all this work out well, mostly involving access to feats at first level. I've tried two variants of this so far- simply letting everyone grab one, and offering it at point buy in place of 3 points.

Once you include anyone that wants a two-hander style getting open access to GWM out the gate, the TWF damage superiority from allowing a larger main hand weapon disappears. Even with the new Dual Wielder feat.

[EggKookoo]

Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?
It's a numbers game. Specifically, when you compare it against other weapon styles.

There's no problems early when you don't have feats. Sans-fighting styles and assuming a basic 16 for the relevant attack stat, you get: Sword n' Board=1d8+3 (7.5 average), Greatweapon=2d6+3 (10 average), Two Shortswords=2d6+3 (10 average). With fighting styles and all prior assumptions, you get: Sword n' Board=1d8+5 (9.5 average), Greatweapon=2d6+3 with rerolls (11.177 average), Two Shortswords=2d6+6 (13 average)

You'll notice TWF is actually the best damaging style at level 1 with the relevant fighting style, and equal with great weapons without. Right here, things are fine.

Feats throw this completely out of whack, though. Sword n' Board is essentially the same, but they can have the extremely potent Shield Master feat (or even the oft-neglected Duelist if they're the rare Dex-duelist). Great weapons have the extremely powerful GWM, which early on can one-shot a lot of your problems (average of 21.177 damage, which, if lethal, nets you a second swing, too). And Dual Wielder gets the TWF fighter... +1 AC and an average 1 damage higher (14 average). Oh, and lets them not waste turns without their features online if ever surprised while they had their weapons sheathed. Which isn't nothing, but it's an extra problem TWF has that others don't in the first place.

This is ugly, of course. But it's way worse at level 5. Suddenly, without feats and assuming a basic 16 for the relevant attack stat (could be higher with a level 4 ASI, but we'll ignore this for feats in a second): Sword n' Board=2d8+12 (21 average), Greatweapon=4d6+6 with rerolls (22.344 average), Two Shortswords=3d6+9 (19.5 average)

Suddenly, TWF doesn't even meet sword n' board. While also being behind 2 AC, having drawing issues, and losing their bonus actions every turn to even make ends meet. This is bad.

Add in feats and it's way worse. Sword n' Board is essentially the same, but again, look at the utility they can grab, especially considering their innate defensive capabilities and open bonus actions. Greatweapons are suddenly outputting a possible 42.344 average damage, and 63.511 any time they kill something (which is still pretty likely). They DO have to deep six their accuracy to do it, but that's the game when you go GWM- high risk, high reward. Compare that to Dual Wielder's upgrade at this level of... 1.5 damage. Ew.

And it never gets better. You want bonus actions more and more as you gain levels and class features. Fighters, especially, have no reason to want TWF at levels 11+ because of diminishing returns on that extra bonus action attack versus their built-in three attacks per turn that could have much better fighting style boosts applied to all three instead of, at best, +5 on a single hit.

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.

[Kane0]

The only thing I see wrong with yours is that at low levels, greatswords disappear in favor of dual shortswords, because low-level fighters won't usually have a use for their bonus action, and 2d6+STR+STR > 2d6+STR.

If you move the "add bonus mod" from base to fighting style, I think your fix is fine. Would allow at my table; probably wouldn't take it as a player unless I were playing a rogue, paladin or bladesinger. I think that's a good indication that it's neither overpowered nor underpowered.

Good fix.

Yeah I've struggled with that for a while. The increase from d6 to d8 damage weapons for the style matches the scale of the bonuses of the Great Weapon and Dueling styles and I'd prefer not to lock out the +Stat to damage for classes without access to it (barbarians, rogues, paladins, etc). At the same time it doesn't fit in the feat since i'm already including a big damage/efficiency increase by freeing up your bonus action plus the circumstantial OA bonus as a niche ability.
I could leave off +stat to damage forever but that grates on me personally as the sole exception to how weapon attacks work in that manner.
For me it's the lesser of two evils to just have it work the same as every other bonus action attack and let TWF be the clear best option during Tier 1. It usually turns out to be less than 10 extra damage over an average combat anyways.



-Snip-

Thoughts to ponder, thankyou!

For the number crunchers, I did this during my drafts and testing for damage output over 3 rounds of attacks with PAM as baseline. I neglected to include monks at the time unfortunately.

https://i.imgur.com/btYij1Q.png

[Crushgrip]

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.
If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the bonus attack is made as a part of that action instead.

I really like this. What do you all think of expanding the above to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.

[Naanomi]

This would let people use 2WF for attacks of opportunity and for Booming Blade as written yes?

[Kane0]

I really like this. What do you all think of expanding this to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.

Edit: Misread. I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'

[Crushgrip]

Edit: Misread. I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'

Now that I think about it more that really does make sense. The Dual Wielder feat does feel a bit blah and adding the 'free up bonus action' really does make sense and I agree that it puts in up there with PAM and GWF. Cool, thank you for the comment!

[EggKookoo]

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.

What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.

[Kane0]

It both adds to the time your turn takes and favors sources of extra per-hit damage (like Hunter's Mark). Minor concerns, but valid ones.

Edit: Oh, and some classes like Rogues don't get any benefit.

[thoroughlyS]

As far as the viability of two-weapon fighting: it may not be historically accurate, but it definitely holds a place in many works of modern fantasy. In short, it should work thanks to the Rule of Cool. A player shouldn't be punished for wanting to use a weapon style as prevalent as dual wielding. This is the same problem that exists for throwing.




the reason most oldsters like TWF was because a problem with 1e/2e mechanics opened up a cheat that was trivial to exploit with very high ability scores. Gary used this cheat with the Drow, and it opened up this cheat to PCs. The Drow cheat inspired Drizzt. The rest is history.

But you cannot really build a game off of crap mechanics that made certain PCs overpowered. That is not a character subgenre that helps create a viable gaming niche.
As someone who's only been playing since v3.5, I wanted my first character to be a dual wielder because it just looks awesome when portrayed in various media. I couldn't care less if it used to be overpowered, because in the two editions I've played it has been the weakest option.

at a theoretical level, I think what you wrote above makes sense. But at a practical level, I think a lot of players would say this approach sucks because they will be unhappy with DPS that significantly trails THF, reliability be damned. It is not really all that different from how things are right now, although level scaling would be smoother, which is a plus in my book. YMMV.
That's only the case for filthy munchkins who prefer rollplay over roleplay!
Jokes aside, this statement does seem to focus on optimizing damage output, so as long as two-weapon fighting doesn't eclipse Great Weapon Master it shouldn't really move the needle. I agree with stoutstien that the tactical niche for two-weapon fighting should be the reliability (and potential for attacking multiple targets). My proposal (rolling the bonus attack into the Attack action after getting extra attack) wouldn't actually shift the damage curves, it would just free up bonus actions again—just like every other style.


This is my first problem with Mearls changes. The dual wielding rogue is an iconic character type that is currently very well supported by the base rules of the game. No feats even needed. In fact, rogue is probably the class where dual wielding works best. These new rules may help dual wielding fighters, barbarians, and rangers, but they also severely nerf it for rogues.
I concur. Rogues getting a more reliable sneak through this tactic is basically baked into the system.

Expanding on my comments in the above post, perhaps TWF is for PCs that happen to have nice damage boosts (Rogue sneak, Ranger favored enemy, etc.) and it is sucks for everyone else? That is okay.
I second this reasoning. Swashbuckler even exists to make two-weapon fighting more viable. Rangers actually lose ground because their best spells are all bonus actions (and beast master is written backwards).





Not every cosmetic decision your PC makes needs to be differentiated with a mechanical benefit.

Outside of feats and class features, your choice of weapon is mainly thematic, and that's fine.

Remember 3e where every weapon had a fiddly bonus?
Yeah, back when you could build a character and their concept around what weapon they chose and the traits of a weapon mattered.
Two-weapon fighting isn't a cosmetic choice, no more than sword'n'board or polearm is cosmetic. Each of the fighting styles has benefits and drawbacks. Specific weapons are cosmetic choices, so your character shouldn't be punished for wanting to wield a morningstar instead of a battleaxe or scimitars instead of shortswords.




Dual-wielding has two major flaws, as far as I can tell:
1.) Both weapons needing to be light is conceptually stupid and removes the most historically relevant form of dual-wielding (rapier/dagger) from anyone without a feat for absolutely no good reason.
The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and deal an extra 1d4 damage on opportunity attacks.






Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too.
Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.
It absolutely does. There are further balancing concerns necessary to make all this work out well, mostly involving access to feats at first level. I've tried two variants of this so far- simply letting everyone grab one, and offering it at point buy in place of 3 points.

Once you include anyone that wants a two-hander style getting open access to GWM out the gate, the TWF damage superiority from allowing a larger main hand weapon disappears. Even with the new Dual Wielder feat.
On top of that, the difference between shortswords and longswords compared to a greatsword is minute, even in Tier 1. The reason two-weapon fighting outpaces great weapon fighting at those levels is thanks to getting your modifier to damage twice.





Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?
It's a numbers game. Specifically, when you compare it against other weapon styles.

...

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.
Not only does the damage fall behind (with or without feats), it is strictly inferior in terms of action economy.




What do you all think of expanding the above to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.
I specifically exclude rogues, because it would be an unnecessary buff to them. They are the class which benefits most in the current system, and it keeps other fighting styles competitive.





I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'
Now that I think about it more that really does make sense. The Dual Wielder feat does feel a bit blah and adding the 'free up bonus action' really does make sense and I agree that it puts in up there with PAM and GWF. Cool, thank you for the comment!
That would make it a feat tax for characters using the style. And in your games, you remove that problem from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, so I don't see why you want it with Dual Wielder.





What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.
It both adds to the time your turn takes and favors sources of extra per-hit damage (like Hunter's Mark). Minor concerns, but valid ones.
Yeah, multiplicative effects like that are the mechanics which most often open up options for abuse.

[Waterdeep Merch]

What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.
Easy to figure out- each hit with a shortsword is 1d6 (average 3.5), or a rapier/longsword with the feat for 1d8 (average 4.5). I just realized I got the average damage upgrade wrong on my calculations for Dual Wielder wrong by halving things- it influences each attack by exactly 1 point going from shortswords to longswords.

Add in your ability score modifier (we'll assume a 16 again) and at level 5 with Extra Attack they're hitting for 26 average damage (30 with Dual Wielder). It's way too good if you're playing without feats (compare against greatweapons' 22.344 average), but okay if you're not (compare against GWM's 43.344-63.511 average). But at least it'll beat sword n' board in damage.

Level 11 on a fighter would be the big concern. They're getting a ridiculous 39 average damage now (45 with Dual Wielder). Non-GWM greatweapons are only hitting 33.511 average at that time (though GWM STILL outshines TWF if you've got it here. You're at 63.511-74.688 average now). GWM is basically a requirement to not make this ridiculous, and it's now outshining TWF so bad that you're still better off not using it unless you're a class that would prefer those extra attacks. More importantly, this really incentivizes rogues to go out of their way to get Extra Attack if they can (it's already good. This pushes it into 'must' territory) and it's completely broken on paladins thanks to Improved Divine Smite. A paladin is getting 42 average damage with Dual Wielder now, assuming they couldn't sweet talk the DM into letting them pick up the TWF style. That same paladin using GWM would have... 52.344-77.0111 average. Now that it's THIS close, the paladin would prefer the TWF for the better accuracy and extra chances at crits and smiting, greatly improving their DPR. Especially since getting off the bonus attack from GWM becomes less likely as enemy HP inflates at later levels. I'm terrible at calculating how hit chances change your expected DPR, but it doesn't take much to see that a 10 point damage difference is easily made up for by just not having a -25% chance to hit things. And if the paladin does convince the DM to let them get TWF (and it's silly that they can't), they're actually sitting at 48 average. Just 4 under any non-crit, non-kill GWM rounds.

Paladins really don't need the help.

EDIT:

The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and can add the dagger's damage die to the damage of opportunity attacks you make.


In general, I do agree. But at low levels, it's not that bad. Any DPR build worth their salt will be looking for ways to use their bonus action to pile on damage, and TWF is no exception. Moreover, only a few classes have a serious issue with losing their bonus actions every round to maintain a consistent level of damage.

The rogue, mainly. Eldritch Knights after they get to slash n' cast. Most of the rest, though, only need one at the start of combat to prepare any buff they're going to want (hunter's mark/rage/divine favor/etc.) and then they were probably going to want ways to attack with their bonus action anyway.

It does limits their flexibility quite a lot, though, and TWF suffers more from not having a free bonus action than the other styles since any round you can't use it to attack, you might as well not be dual-wielding at all.

[thoroughlyS]

Easy to figure out- each hit with a shortsword is 1d6 (average 3.5), or a rapier/longsword with the feat for 1d8 (average 4.5).
Your calculations are a little off, because ChrisBasken said that you didn't get your modifier to the bonus attacks. I ran the numbers again for my four test cases (again, fatoring in chance to hit):

2d6 + STR modifier
1d6 + half STR modifier, double attacks (to account for the chances of hitting with either main or off-hand)
2d6 + STR modifier, rerolling 1s and 2s
1d8 + half STR modifier, double attacks (to account for the chances of hitting with either main or off-hand)

The expected damage is actually identical for the first two cases. This makes sense, considering they basically roll the same number of damage dice, and add the same total modifiers...
The second two cases actually do deviate, in favor of the boatload of attacks (go figure...), by about 1–2 points.

If you were to add the modifier to all attacks, thing do skew heavily in favor of the boatload of attacks.

At 5th level:

2d6 + STR ≈ 14.3 damage
1d6 + STR, doubled ≈ 19.5 damage
2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 16.033 damage
1d8 + STR, doubled ≈ 22.1 damage

At 11th level:

2d6 + STR ≈ 23.4 damage
1d6 + STR, doubled ≈ 33.15 damage
2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 26 damage
1d8 + STR, doubled ≈ 37.05 damage


GWM is basically a requirement to not make this ridiculous, and it's now outshining TWF so bad that you're still better off not using it unless you're a class that would prefer those extra attacks.
The damage does really spike here, but I don't know that I necessarily agree with you. If this still costs a bonus action the damage output should be pretty significantly superior...

it's completely broken on paladins thanks to Improved Divine Smite.
And here's where that abuse I mentioned was. Adding attack riders in ANY of these cases just breaks the damage curve.





The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and can add the dagger's damage die to the damage of opportunity attacks you make.
In general, I do agree. But at low levels, it's not that bad. Any DPR build worth their salt will be looking for ways to use their bonus action to pile on damage, and TWF is no exception. Moreover, only a few classes have a serious issue with losing their bonus actions every round to maintain a consistent level of damage.

The rogue, mainly. Eldritch Knights after they get to slash n' cast. Most of the rest, though, only need one at the start of combat to prepare any buff they're going to want (hunter's mark/rage/divine favor/etc.) and then they were probably going to want ways to attack with their bonus action anyway.

It does limits their flexibility quite a lot, though, and TWF suffers more from not having a free bonus action than the other styles since any round you can't use it to attack, you might as well not be dual-wielding at all.
As an avid ranger fan, I can tell you that two-weapon fighting conflicts with a lot of the options the class has: moving hunter's mark, adding ensnaring strike, using planar warrior or slayer's prey...

And when combats usually last three rounds, missing out on the first one can feel bad.

[EggKookoo]

And here's where that abuse I mentioned was. Adding attack riders in ANY of these cases just breaks the damage curve.

Yeah, they thought of bounded accuracy but there's no bounded severity. I suppose you could have one or the other, but both would feel gimped.

[Tanarii]

Ranger TWF we know today seems to be a Drizzt thing. Drizzt did it because he was a Drow with a sky high Dex, so it was a no brainer in a 1e-ish setting. There is nothing special about TWF and 1e Rangers -- they are just a Fighter subtype with extra HP and less armor. If yoru 1e Ranger is a Drow or other high Dex elf, TWF was the obvious was to go, but because of the Dex score itself and not because of your class.
1e Drow from Unearthed Arcana onwards could TWF without penalty:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves wit’n regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hanfd.

In addition, from UA onwards Rangers were inclined towards Bow or TWF because of weapons requirements:
By the time a ranger gains a fourth weapon proficiency at 4th level, the character’s list of weapons must include:
either a bow or a light crossbow,
a dagger or a knife,
a spear or an axe, and
a sword (of any type).
TWF in 1e required the second weapon to be a dagger or handaxe, and many Rangers would be proficient in one or both of these.

In 2e, Rangers specifically got TWF skills.

Drizzt was first published in 1988. 2e was released in 1989. Given that, it's likely that Drizzt as a TWF ranger was based on 2e Rangers being in development with TWF and 1 Drow already having TWF. Not the other way around.

[stoutstien]

1e Drow from Unearthed Arcana onwards could TWF without penalty:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves wit’n regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hanfd.

In addition, from UA onwards Rangers were inclined towards Bow or TWF because of weapons requirements:
By the time a ranger gains a fourth weapon proficiency at 4th level, the character’s list of weapons must include:
either a bow or a light crossbow,
a dagger or a knife,
a spear or an axe, and
a sword (of any type).
TWF in 1e required the second weapon to be a dagger or handaxe, and many Rangers would be proficient in one or both of these.

In 2e, Rangers specifically got TWF skills.

Drizzt was first published in 1988. 2e was released in 1989. Given that, it's likely that Drizzt as a TWF ranger was based on 2e Rangers being in development with TWF and 1 Drow already having TWF. Not the other way around.
I swore 1e drow had twf built in thank you for confirming my fragments of memories.

[Snails]

I swore 1e drow had twf built in thank you for confirming my fragments of memories.

What exactly the rules were for Drow was less than clear. The Drow you would remember from 1e sources were overwhelmingly likely to be TWFers of some kind. But it is true that the Drow make a lot of sense under the UA TWF rules, so I probably conflated some of these details, like many people did.

The Drow race itself is a weird mix of bandaids and mechanical abuses: multiclass cheese + superhigh stat cheese + TWF cheese + Spell Resistance cheese + other random cheese flavors (e.g. free Dispel Magic for a race that already has so many spellcasters? WTF!).

I would guess that players were becoming too efficient in their tactics against masses of low magic grunts in G123, where a well placed Fireball or cleverly employed Invisibility was making encounters too easy. So Gary was looking to force the magicuser/clerics to adopt new tactics for a challenge, and built the Drow as the big nerf stick to prod them with.

[Snails]

As far as the viability of two-weapon fighting: it may not be historically accurate, but it definitely holds a place in many works of modern fantasy. In short, it should work thanks to the Rule of Cool. A player shouldn't be punished for wanting to use a weapon style as prevalent as dual wielding. This is the same problem that exists for throwing.

It is fair to appeal to the Rule of Cool, but it ultimately boils down to boring things like DPR. Everyone can appeal to the Rule of Cool. If we "fix" TWF, should the fact I like Sword & Board heroes in shining armor mean I should be punished with damage that falls far behind both TWF and THF? This argument cuts three ways, at the very least.

In Tier 1, TWF looks a smidgeon strong, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.
In Tier 2, TWF looks a smidgeon weak, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.

It is only at levels 9+ where multiattacks and feats and class bonuses are easy to stack strongly that TWF is having trouble keeping up. A lot of DMs are just not going to care, because they do not play those levels much. And it is possible to mitigate the issue by tossing in a powerful dagger/shortsword or two so the TWFers has some good fun with that offhand attack.

[stoutstien]

It is fair to appeal to the Rule of Cool, but it ultimately boils down to boring things like DPR. Everyone can appeal to the Rule of Cool. If we "fix" TWF, should the fact I like Sword & Board heroes in shining armor mean I should be punished with damage that falls far behind both TWF and THF? This argument cuts three ways, at the very least.

In Tier 1, TWF looks a smidgeon strong, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.
In Tier 2, TWF looks a smidgeon weak, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.

It is only at levels 9+ where multiattacks and feats and class bonuses are easy to stack strongly that TWF is having trouble keeping up. A lot of DMs are just not going to care, because they do not play those levels much. And it is possible to mitigate the issue by tossing in a powerful dagger/shortsword or two so the TWFers has some good fun with that offhand attack.
Twf falls behind behind as soon as extra attack is added, or feats, or you need your bonus action, or the fact you need twice as many magic weapons if it becomes a factor. All of it compounds into a style that is almost being punished for the sins of it's father.

[Snails]

Twf falls behind behind as soon as extra attack is added, or feats, or you need your bonus action, or the fact you need twice as many magic weapons if it becomes a factor. All of it compounds into a style that is almost being punished for the sins of it's father.

In the long run, I do see this is true, as multiple factors compound in an unfortunate way.

But I am afraid posts like this convince me to simply not care.

In the real world I see a tier 1 ranger fighting humanoids 75% of the time dishing out (1d6+5) + (1d6+5) and occasionally getting a bonus attack as a delver. In the real world I see a tier 1 rogue getting (1d6+3) + (1d6) + [2d6 sneak, quite often]. In the real world, I see a tier 1 barbarian who can almost keep up while raging (1d12+5) but it not raging nearly as often as these other PCs are pulling out their bag of damage boosting tricks.

If we cannot agree that TWF is probably a little strong in tier 1 and a little weak in tier 2, and see that piece of the picture is okayish, then I will conclude that too many TWF fans are never going to be satisfied with TWF rules that are not OP like in the Goode Olde Dayes. This is not a "problem" worth fixing.

[stoutstien]

In the long run, I do see this is true, as multiple factors compound in an unfortunate way.

But I am afraid posts like this convince me to simply not care.

In the real world I see a tier 1 ranger fighting humanoids 75% of the time dishing out (1d6+5) + (1d6+5) and occasionally getting a bonus attack as a delver. In the real world I see a tier 1 rogue getting (1d6+3) + (1d6) + [2d6 sneak, quite often]. In the real world, I see a tier 1 barbarian who can almost keep up while raging (1d12+5) but it not raging nearly as often as these other PCs are pulling out their bag of damage boosting tricks.

If we cannot agree that TWF is probably a little strong in tier 1 and a little weak in tier 2, and see that piece of the picture is okayish, then I will conclude that too many TWF fans are never going to be satisfied with TWF rules that are not OP like in the Goode Olde Dayes. This is not a "problem" worth fixing.
IMO I see the twf style and feat are backwards. Mod to offhand is the "best style" at lv 1-2 but falls to tied for last after you factor extra attack. It scales backwards. The feat is +1-2 damage and 1 ac which is almost the same as duelist now but less of swing at low lvs.

[Tetrasodium]

Looks like Mearls did a revision/improvement on it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeV5aZX1mqg&feature=youtu.be) to allow rangers and maybe barbarians the option to choose this fighting style. It wasnt clear if fighters should get it too or not. He explained why rogues don't need it baked into twf itself since they mostly use it for getting a second try at their sneak attack if they miss the first.


Whirling Blades: When you engage in two weapon fighting while wearing no or light armor, you do not expend a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the second attack. You can still gain the benefits of two weapon fighting only once during your turn




Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

[Kane0]

Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

As if they have no power over it...

[Tetrasodium]

As if they have no power over it...

Yea, they have released revisions under the guise of optional rules before. The old unearthed arcana's were basically additions & optional revisions. With new settings on the horizon they have the opportunity to make changes as part of the setting books.

Mearls & possibly the team themselves might not have the power to make revisions beyond a certain level of minor however

[Misterwhisper]

Looks like Mearls did a revision/improvement on it here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeV5aZX1mqg&feature=youtu.be) to allow rangers and maybe barbarians the option to choose this fighting style. It wasnt clear if fighters should get it too or not. He explained why rogues don't need it baked into twf itself since they mostly use it for getting a second try at their sneak attack if they miss the first.


Whirling Blades: When you engage in two weapon fighting while wearing no or light armor, you do not expend a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the second attack. You can still gain the benefits of two weapon fighting only once during your turn




Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.

This is exactly why this &($(@ should never be allowed to design crunch.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.

[stoutstien]

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.

This is exactly why this &($(@ should never be allowed to design crunch.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.

If I understand him correctly in the vid a rogue could pick up this free offhand attack with a dip into ranger which would hardly be a waste.Also fighting style as a half feat isn't a hard sell at most tables.

[Whit]

Personally I think both versions are great extremely bad. So I’m glad it’s a ruff draft. I understand it’s hard to try to take into account all the little combos that could op it but these two options are jus bad and would ruin twf bonus action.

Lets really look at the bonus action and see what’s the issue.
1. Use bonus action to take xtra attack.
2. Classes that have bonus actions. Class ability or spells etc have to choose between using the bonus action for attack, spell, or class ability. Which is fine. Because if you take away the bonus action option for twf you make the classes that have bonus action options FAR more op than those classes that do not have extra bonus attack options besides twf.
3. I’ve looked at the angles and the bottom line is if you take away the twf bonus action option, it becomes unbalanced for. In BA classes that don’t have those extra options.
4. The ruff draft versions would make twf horrible and something not used anymore. Disadvantage? Who would want it for that and thus you take away anyone wanting to use twf.
Adding off hand damage dice to your main attacks reduces the extra attack dice but runs into the fun of rolling that off hand attack. On top of that the huge amount of variable options that run into based on the weapon in the off hand. Ie. bonuses. Extra damage speed etc. special effects. Of a off hand weapon now bein* applied to the main attacks.

[Tetrasodium]

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.

This is exactly why this &($(@ should never be allowed to design crunch.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.

It's not that they "can't" use it. More that they don't get the improved version for free. Ranger & barbarian don't either, they have to choose it over some other fighting style giving it an opportunity cost. A rogue is a master at poking you in the vital bits & gets sneak attack & a host of other skills/abilities for that, they aren't weapons masters... but they can invest in becoming a weapon master with some multiclassing. There is nothing wrong with an improvement that doesn't come free or that some classes get more easily than others.

[Rowan Wolf]

On the note of rogue I think it was mentioned that the bonus action attack as an option was there to make the choice meaningful round to round. So the rogue missed fo they cunning action disengage, or try to get that second chance. As it is the swashbuckler archetype already covers disengaging while two weapon fighting with Fancy Footwork.

[Misterwhisper]

It's not that they "can't" use it. More that they don't get the improved version for free. Ranger & barbarian don't either, they have to choose it over some other fighting style giving it an opportunity cost. A rogue is a master at poking you in the vital bits & gets sneak attack & a host of other skills/abilities for that, they aren't weapons masters... but they can invest in becoming a weapon master with some multiclassing. There is nothing wrong with an improvement that doesn't come free or that some classes get more easily than others.

Yeah, that fighting style barbarians don’t have.

This is just a subtle hint that there will be a barbarian subclass with a fighting style soon, which I have a problem with.

[Tetrasodium]

Yeah, that fighting style barbarians don’t have.

This is just a subtle hint that there will be a barbarian subclass with a fighting style soon, which I have a problem with.

Alternately there could be a barbarian archetype that can be dex based instead of strength practically required.

[guachi]

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.
If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the bonus attack is made as a part of that action instead.

I've deleted a large portion of your post to focus on your rewriting of TWF. I like the change as it's simple. I'd make two changes, though. I'd rewrite the last line to say "If you have the Extra Attack feature..." and I'd consider moving this sentence to either the Fighting Style or the Feat.

But it does solve problems I have with TWF currently.

[thoroughlyS]

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
In the current state of the game, rogues are the only ones consistently using two-weapon fighting because they have a specialized use for it: a second chance at sneak attack. For all other character builds, this specialized case doesn't exist, and the style doesn't provide enough benefits in an optimized environment. These proposed changes are to increase the viability of the style for other builds—to support more concepts.

Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.
None of the proposed changes Mearls has made would impact the damage output of any class, even a barbarian. Even comparing these proposals to a PHB two-weapon fighting barbarian, the difference is in the action economy. A two-weapon barbarian using any of these changes will still have comparable damage to a great weapon barbarian.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.
Rogues got a very potent offensive boost in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide, it's called booming blade. You can pick it up as part of Magic Initiate, or even go arcane trickster if you feel like it.

Side note: I personally don't think a rogue would ever need native access to extra attack, but I could see it as part of an archetype. They would probably have to wait until 9th level to get it, which kind of sucks. There is no reason a rogue should get a fighting style, they have easy access to advantage and reliable ways to deal overwhelming damage.




I'd rewrite the last line to say "If you have the Extra Attack feature..."
That wording is taken from the rules for grappling or shoving. I try to maintain consistent verbiage with the currently existing text, to avoid corner-case issues. For example, your wording excludes Pact of the Blade warlocks.

I'd consider moving this sentence to either the Fighting Style or the Feat.
If you moved it to the fighting style, the only classes which can benefit from the change would be fighters and rangers. A player who wants their barbarian to dual wield axes would be at a mechanical disadvantage unless they took a dip.

If you moved it to the feat, builds would still be punished for using the style. My dual wielding ranger is an entire ASI behind an archer just to have their style work. It's v3.5 all over again.

The solution to the problem should be universal, so that it can fix as many builds as possible.

[strangebloke]

In the current state of the game, rogues are the only ones consistently using two-weapon fighting because they have a specialized use for it: a second chance at sneak attack. For all other character builds, this specialized case doesn't exist, and the style doesn't provide enough benefits in an optimized environment. These proposed changes are to increase the viability of the style for other builds—to support more concepts.

Barbarians use TWF as well. For barbarians in a featless game, TWF is as-good or better than GWF, unless said Barbarian is a storm herald or a berserker.

GWF DPR
1st: 2d6(sword)+3(STR)+2(rage)=12
4th: 2d6(sword)+4(STR)+2(rage)=13
5th: [2d6(sword)+4(STR)+3(rage)]*2=28
9th: [2d6(sword)+5(STR)+4(rage)]*2=32


TWF DPR
1st: 1d6(sword)+3(STR)+2(rage) + 1d6(sword) + 2(rage)=14
4th: 1d6(sword)+4(STR)+2(rage) + 1d6(sword) + 2(rage)=15
5th: [1d6(sword)+4(STR)+3(rage)]*2 + 1d6(sword) + 3(rage)=27.5
9th: [1d6(sword)+5(STR)+4(rage)]*2 + 1d6(sword) + 4(rage)=32.5

Since barbarians have no native use for the bonus action after the first turn, the main downside of TWF is removed. Since they also get rage damage on-hit, their TWF damage scales. So they're a shoe-in for using the weapon set. It's even better than the above list shows because their damage is going to be more efficiently distributed. They also get more crits, and their crits add the same amount of extra damage that a greatsword does. It's less than a greataxe, but once again you run into the problem of overflow damage.

Oh, this very naturally allows for a multiclass into rogue as well, so that's a thing.

[Whit]

I don’t see a problem with the rogue going melee fir an extra attack. That’s what swashbuckler is fir. But to give it to all rogues by taking away the bonus action component of twf attack action gives the rogue just by itself as a class to do this each turn as well.
Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a Bonus Action on each of your turns in Combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.

Any other class with twf attack action can also use any class bonus action or any spell bonus action. Each turn.

Paladin can now twf extra attack and cast any bonus action spell such as smite spells shield of faith , magic weapon , holy weapon on top of that which could be an extra 1d8 to 5d10 banish smite.

And then with that extra attacks wait fir that increased crit and now do on the easy side
2d8 weapon plus X magic weapon like flame tongue 4d6 plus 10d10 banishing smite spell bonus action plus improved diving smite lvl 11 2d8 plus basic smite which is 1d8 up to 6d8 that now becomes up to extra 12d8

Then take into account multi classing

[guachi]

That wording is taken from the rules for grappling or shoving. I try to maintain consistent verbiage with the currently existing text, to avoid corner-case issues. For example, your wording excludes Pact of the Blade warlocks.

So a Hunter Ranger with Horde Breaker who gets an extra attack when using the Attack action would get a free attack without using a bonus action from this wording?

[Whit]

As long as it meets the bonus attack action rule. Light weapons or with dueling feat

[Misterwhisper]

As long as it meets the bonus attack action rule. Light weapons or with dueling feat

Light melee weapons or non-light melee with dual wielder.

[thoroughlyS]

Barbarians use TWF as well. For barbarians in a featless game, TWF is as-good or better than GWF, unless said Barbarian is a storm herald or a berserker.

*MATH*

Since barbarians have no native use for the bonus action after the first turn, the main downside of TWF is removed. Since they also get rage damage on-hit, their TWF damage scales. So they're a shoe-in for using the weapon set. It's even better than the above list shows because their damage is going to be more efficiently distributed. They also get more crits, and their crits add the same amount of extra damage that a greatsword does. It's less than a greataxe, but once again you run into the problem of overflow damage.
Your math is a little off in a few ways, not the least of which is failing to take into account chance to hit. On top of that, your average damage is off, because rage doesn't scale at 5th level. Adjusting for chance to hit (with and without reckless attack) paints a very different picture.

At 2nd level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 7.8 damage
greataxe ≈ 7.475 damage
handaxes ≈ 9.1 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 10.53 damage
greataxe ≈ 9.1 damage
handaxes ≈ 12.285 damage

At 5th level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 16.9 damage
greataxe ≈ 16.25 damage
handaxes ≈ 15.925 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 22.815 damage
greataxe ≈ 21.938 damage
handaxes ≈ 21.499 damage

At 9th level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 19.5 damage
greataxe ≈ 18.85 damage
handaxes ≈ 19.175 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 26.325 damage
greataxe ≈ 25.448 damage
handaxes ≈ 25.886 damage

Once again we see that two-weapon fighting is superior during Tier 1 (especially considering the lack of bonus action available to a barbarian), but is superseded after gaining Extra Attack. Doubling up on rage damage brings the two styles closer than any other build, but it still does not eclipse great weapon fighting. And when the damage is that close, the real comparison shift to the niche benefits of each style. Greatswords free up a hand, handaxes allow for splitting targets, etc. I also included calculations for the greataxe, which does get eclipsed after 9th level, but that could arguably be made up for thanks to Brutal Critical.




Paladin can now twf extra attack and cast any bonus action spell such as smite spells shield of faith , magic weapon , holy weapon on top of that which could be an extra 1d8 to 5d10 banish smite.
Yes, just like every other fighting style could. You do have a point in regards to burning spell slots faster. If a paladin had their bonus action back, they could cast a smite spell and divine smite twice, where they couldn't do that before. This makes them even better in terms of raw damage output.




So a Hunter Ranger with Horde Breaker who gets an extra attack when using the Attack action would get a free attack without using a bonus action from this wording?
That is one of those corner-cases I was talking about. To be fair, the logic there is pretty shaky, because that feature doesn't mean you always get multiple attacks. It would be pretty odd if you only had to spend your bonus action sometimes. That's like the interpretation that a spellcasting focus can only be used for somatic components if the spell requires a material component.

(I'm tempted to allow it, just because rangers are supposed to be better dual wielders.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

At 2nd level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 7.8 damage
greataxe ≈ 7.475 damage
handaxes ≈ 9.1 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 10.53 damage
greataxe ≈ 9.1 damage
handaxes ≈ 12.285 damage

At 5th level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 16.9 damage
greataxe ≈ 16.25 damage
handaxes ≈ 15.925 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 22.815 damage
greataxe ≈ 21.938 damage
handaxes ≈ 21.499 damage

At 9th level, while raging:

greatsword ≈ 19.5 damage
greataxe ≈ 18.85 damage
handaxes ≈ 19.175 damage
WITH RECKLESS
greatsword ≈ 26.325 damage
greataxe ≈ 25.448 damage
handaxes ≈ 25.886 damage



Calculating any of these out to more than +- 0.5 is absolutely silly. And all of those are within 1.5 DPR of each other, so ~6%. That's well within the margin of error for these calculations.

Side note: I don't have a dog in this fight. But bad math and ignoring effect sizes is bad practice all around.

[thoroughlyS]

Calculating any of these out to more than +- 0.5 is absolutely silly. And all of those are within 1.5 DPR of each other, so ~6%. That's well within the margin of error for these calculations.

Side note: I don't have a dog in this fight. But bad math and ignoring effect sizes is bad practice all around.
Yeah, I was just copying from the excel sheet I made for the calculations. My point was that the difference in expected damage from both fighting styles was negligible after 5th level (i.e. after getting Extra Attack).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, I was just copying from the excel sheet I made for the calculations. My point was that the difference in expected damage from both fighting styles was negligible after 5th level (i.e. after getting Extra Attack).

That works. I have serious problems with theorycrafters calculating things to less than 1% differences and proclaiming "huge differences" when you'd never really see them in game.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Phew, I knew if I held out long enough the real mathematicians would show up. I hate grokking accuracy into expected DPR.

I'm more forgiving of the messy state of TWF in 5e because coming up with a good fix has been an absolute headache. I haven't seen any version that simply works without suddenly opening up an overpowered combo or becoming worthless for the very concepts that ought to love it. I'm personally a fan of TWF being the accurate DPR model, while GW is the heavy damage model and dueling is the defensive model. But I know that doesn't exactly match up to everyone's perceptions, and it enhances rogues in ways not everyone's going to like.

[Eric Diaz]

This (house ruled) 13A rule seems to solve most of the problems without changing much:

Two-Weapon Fighting
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.
In addition, whenever you attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, if your attack roll is a natural 2, you can reroll the attack to attack with a different melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand if you wish, ignoring te first roll, provided at least one of these two weapons are light.

So TWF would be even more reliable, useful even if you have four attacks (or two magical weapons), and, although the "re-roll a natural 2" isn't even a +1 bonus, I think the increased DPR would be enough to make it on par with most weapons.

... you'd still need a good feat if you want to make is as good a SS, GWM, etc.

[Whit]

Can we get back to why the (Battle Action TWF) is considered “weak” and needs revision
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.

As far as I can see the only issue can be 2 parts.
A. Two light weapons. This is a basis for every class to be able to use.
Should it be one normal weapon and one light in the off hand? If so, WHY? State your valid reason for all classes because that’s who it affects.
Should it be any non two handed weapons at start such as two long swords. If so WHY? State your valid reason for all classes because that’s who it affects.

B. You can use a (bonus action) to attack with a different light weapon you’re holding in the other hand.
Is the Bonus Action use the problem?
If so, WHY? State your valid reason for every class because that’s who it affects.

My view is simple. There is nothing wrong with it.
A. light weapons for basic use
B. Bonus action to use extra attack with other weapon. Fine.

To change A then add to the fighting style TWF under (fighter ranger). They can use one non two handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the off hand. I think that covers it.
Don’t get me wrong I want to see paladin barbarians have the fighter style TWF option too.
B. Bonus action to use. I’ve already talked about it. Either you give classes that don’t have other Bonus actions something to finally use a bonus action for and in turn restrict classes that have other bonus actions to choosing what bonus action to use. Othwise you give classes with extra bonus attack options to much OP.

Final. Leave TWF Combat Action as is.

If you want to change something. Add under Fighting style twf fighter ranger one normal weapon and one light weapon

Duel weapon can stay the same. Allowing two normal weapons and +1 to AC. Although maybe add so etching more to it.

But bottom line is TWF battle action has no issues.

[stoutstien]

Can we get back to why the (Battle Action TWF) is considered “weak” and needs revision
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.

As far as I can see the only issue can be 2 parts.
A. Two light weapons. This is a basis for every class to be able to use.
Should it be one normal weapon and one light in the off hand? If so, WHY? State your valid reason for all classes because that’s who it affects.
Should it be any non two handed weapons at start such as two long swords. If so WHY? State your valid reason for all classes because that’s who it affects.

B. You can use a (bonus action) to attack with a different light weapon you’re holding in the other hand.
Is the Bonus Action use the problem?
If so, WHY? State your valid reason for every class because that’s who it affects.

My view is simple. There is nothing wrong with it.
A. light weapons for basic use
B. Bonus action to use extra attack with other weapon. Fine.

To change A then add to the fighting style TWF under (fighter ranger). They can use one non two handed weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the off hand. I think that covers it.
Don’t get me wrong I want to see paladin barbarians have the fighter style TWF option too.
B. Bonus action to use. I’ve already talked about it. Either you give classes that don’t have other Bonus actions something to finally use a bonus action for and in turn restrict classes that have other bonus actions to choosing what bonus action to use. Othwise you give classes with extra bonus attack options to much OP.

Final. Leave TWF Combat Action as is.

If you want to change something. Add under Fighting style twf fighter ranger one normal weapon and one light weapon

Duel weapon can stay the same. Allowing two normal weapons and +1 to AC. Although maybe add so etching more to it.

But bottom line is TWF battle action has no issues.

define valid

[Whit]

Valid. Take away bonus action component for an extra attack. Does every single class and multi class benefit equally.

What is the real reason why people want to remove bonus action to get an extra attack All I see is how to change it. But no one mentions how it will affect each class.

Example I want twf combat Action to remove the bonus action because I want my rogue to be able to have two scimitars attack twice per round and still be able to use his cunning action. Thus I get a better chance at hitting for sneak attack damage every round and I can dash , disengage or hide as a bonus action.

Example paladin. I want to have 2 to 3 attacks per round based on level. And be allowed to cast my smite spells on top of the extra attack. I really want to cast my 1d8 smite with effect up to my 5d10 smite with effect as a bonus action and still get my extra attack for Twf.

All that way I have a greater chance to crit now and double my sneak attack damage or double my smite spell and use divine smite as well to double up.

[Citadel97501]

I do see a problem with the standard TWF system, the opportunity cost of a bonus action skyrockets over time. It also prevents a lot of interesting but not overpowered builds from being played.

Rogues: Never going to use TWF as currently written as their bonus actions are extremely important, and not simply for specialized sub-classes, such as AT.

Eldritch Knights: Completely unable to use the fighting style, even with Warcaster they are prevented from using any of their spells since you have to use your Action to attack before you can use your TWF attack.

Rangers: Not going to use it very often due to Hunter's Mark.

Warlock: No TWF except for maybe a bad hex blade, who still needs to take Warcaster. Even if they do try and use it, suddenly they stop being a caster as their whole turn is spent to get one extra attack.

Paladins: Not likely to use, but maybe and then its still sub-par.

Bard: Nope, for the same reasons as a Warlock but even more so.

I would go on, but I don't think its necessary.

[Citadel97501]

All that way I have a greater chance to crit now and double my sneak attack damage or double my smite spell and use divine smite as well to double up.

Nope, you can't sneak attack twice in the same turn which is why out of turn attacking rogue damage increases.

[stoutstien]

a pre xan list that need an update but is a good show of confict with twf and about every class.

Barbarian

Enter or end Rage - Barbarian level 1 Rage feature.

Make a melee weapon attack while raging - Barbarian/Path of the Berserker level 3 Frenzy feature.

Dash - Barbarian/Path of the Totem Warrior level 3 Eagle Totem Spirit feature.

Knock a Large or smaller creature prone when you hit it in melee - Barbarian/Path of the Totem Warrior level 14 Wolf Totemic Attunement feature.



Bard

Give Bardic Inspiration to a creature - Bard level 1 Bardic Inspiration feature.

Make a weapon attack if you use your action to cast a Bard spell - Bard/College of Valor level 14 Battle Magic feature.



Cleric

Command creatures charmed by your Charm Animals and Plants feature - Cleric/Nature level 17 Master of Nature feature.

Move your illusion - Cleric/Trickery level 2 Invoke Duplicity feature

Move all of your illusions - Cleric/Trickery level 17 Improved Duplicity feature

Make one weapon attack when you take the Attack action - Cleric/War level 1 War Priest feature.



Druid

Revert to your normal form - Druid level 2 Wild Shape feature.

Use Wild Shape - Druid/Circle of the Moon level 2 Combat Wild Shape feature.

Regain HP by expending a spell slot while transformed - Druid/Circle of the Moon level 2 Combat Wild Shape feature.



Fighter

Second Wind - regain 1d10+CL HP - Fighter level 1 feature.

Commander’s Strike - give a friend a free attack as a reaction - Fighter/Battle Master maneuver.

Feinting Attack - get advantage on the next attack roll - Fighter/Battle Master maneuver.

Rally - add temporary HP to a friend - Fighter/Battle Master maneuver.

Summon a bonded weapon - Fighter/Eldritch Knight level 3 Weapon Bond feature.

Weapon attack when you cast a cantrip as your action - Fighter/Eldritch Knight level 7 War Magic feature

Weapon attack when you cast a spell as your action - Fighter/Eldritch Knight level 18 Improved War Magic feature



Monk

Unarmed Strike when you use the Attack action with an unarmed strike or monk weapon - Monk level 1 Martial Arts feature.

Flurry of Blows, Dodge, Disengage, Dash - Monk level 2 Ki feature.

Teleport up to 60ft - Monk/Way of Shadow level 6 Shadow Step feature.

Water Whip - Monk/Way of the Four Elements discipline.



Paladin

Cast a Paladin spell with a casting time of 1 action - Paladin/Oath of the Ancients level 20 Elder Champion feature.

Vow of Enmity - advantage on attack rolls against one creature - Paladin/Oath of Vengeance level 3 Channel Divinity feature.



Ranger

Hide - as the action - Ranger level 14 Vanish feature.

Command your companion to Dash, Disengage, Dodge, or Help - Ranger/Beast Master level 7 Exceptional Training feature.



Rogue

Dash, Disengage, Hide - as the same action - Rogue level 2 Cuning Action feature.

Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use thieves' tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, Use an Object - Rogue/Thief level 3 Fast Hands feature.

Control a Mage Hand created by the cantrip - Rogue/Arcane Trickster level 3 Mage Hand Legerdemain feature.

Distract a target with your Mage Hand - gives you advantage on attack rolls - Rogue/Arcane Trickster level 13 Versatile Trickster feature.



Sorcerer

Convert between spell slots and sorcery points - Sorcerer level 2 Flexible Casting feature.

Cast a spell with casting time of 1 action - Sorcerer Quickened Spell metamagic.

Create or dismiss dragon wings - Sorcerer/Draconic Bloodline level 14 Dragon Wings feature.

Teleport up to 20ft - Wild Magic Surge effect.



Wizard

Make an illusory object real - Wizard/Illusion level 14 Illusory Reality feature.



Feats

Make a weapon attack or shove a creature when you use the Dash action - Charger feat.

Attack with a hand crossbow when you attack with a one-handed weapon - Crossbow Master feat.

Make a melee weapon attack when you crit or reduce a creature to 0 - Great Weapon Master feat.

Melee weapon attack with the opposite end of a weapon - Polearm Master feat.

Attempt a grapple when you hit with unarmed strike or improvised weapon - Tavern Brawler feat.



Spells with a casting time of a bonus action

Banishing Smite, Blinding Smite, Branding Smite, Compelled Duel, Divine Favor, Divine Word, Ensnaring Strike, Expeditious Retreat, Flame Blade, Grasping Vine, Hail of Thorns, Healing Word, Hex, Hunter's Mark, Lightning Arrow, Magic Weapon, Mass Healing Word, Misty Step, Sanctuary, Searing Smite, Shield of Faith, Shillelagh, Spiritual Weapon, Staggering Smite, Swift Quiver, Thunderous Smite, Wrathful Smite



Spells which allow you to do something as a bonus action

Animate Dead, Animate Objects, Create Undead, Dancing Lights, Flaming Sphere, Grasping Vine, Mordenkainen’s Sword, Spiritual Weapon, Unseen Servant - command summoned creatures or objects.

Arcane Gate - rotate the gate.

Aura of Vitality - heal one creature in range for 2d6 HP.

Bigby's Hand - move the hand or crush a grappled creature.

Compulsion - command targets to move in a direction of your choice.

Expeditious Retreat - Dash, as the action.

Flame Blade - resummon the blade if you dropped it.

Gust of Wind - change direction of the wind.

Heat Metal - cause the spell's damage again.

Hex - move the curse on another creature, if the cursed creature died.

Hunter's Mark - move the mark on another creature, if the marked creature died.

Mislead - switch between using your senses or those of your illusion.

Swift Quiver - make two attacks which use ammunition.



Other

Attack with an off-hand weapon - Two-weapon fighting.

[Tanarii]

Rogues: Never going to use TWF as currently written as their bonus actions are extremely important, and not simply for specialized sub-classes, such as AT.

Rangers: Not going to use it very often due to Hunter's Mark.Wait ... wut? :smallconfused:

[EggKookoo]

Rogues: Never going to use TWF as currently written as their bonus actions are extremely important, and not simply for specialized sub-classes, such as AT.

I've DMed a player with Rogue through 17th. His default position was to use the bonus action as a backup for his Sneak Attack in case his regular attack missed. He was fully aware of the benefits of using Dodge or whatever but it was never worth it. Part of that is he also coordinated attacks with the rest of the party and always stood next to the tank, but if I took away his backup hit he would have become a very sad panda.

[Whit]

Yeah I don’t get it. The purpose of getting rid of using a bonus action for the extra attack in twf combat action is to be able to use bonus action for bonus action spells or abilities which give those classes to much

From some of what I see your saying almost no class will use it.

So tell us which class would use twf from combat action and how it would benefit by getting rid of the bonus action component

And im a big fan of twf. I just think the fighting style under fighter ranger. Needs to be changed as well as duel wield feat

[stoutstien]

Yeah I don’t get it. The purpose of getting rid of using a bonus action for the extra attack in twf combat action is to be able to use bonus action for bonus action spells or abilities which give those classes to much

From some of what I see your saying almost no class will use it.

So tell us which class would use twf from combat action and how it would benefit by getting rid of the bonus action component

And im a big fan of twf. I just think the fighting style under fighter ranger. Needs to be changed as well as duel wield feat

so 2/3 of the game elements regarding to twf need a change. you may be right that removing offhand from Bonus action is too much of a boost but it need something. what that something needs to be isnt going to be easy to find

[thoroughlyS]

Is the Bonus Action use the problem?
If so, WHY? State your valid reason for every class because that’s who it affects.
As discussed previously, the problem with requiring a bonus action is that after gaining Extra Attack (etc.) the fighting style doesn't offer enough benefit to warrant the opportunity cost. Don't get me wrong, the style does have benefits, some of which are quite unique (like attacking multiple creatures) but it also has a host of other drawbacks outside of the bonus action cost. These trade-offs are what should be the deciding point between the fighting styles, but two-weapon fighting also has an action economy deficit.

What is the real reason why people want to remove bonus action to get an extra attack All I see is how to change it. But no one mentions how it will affect each class.
In addition to the list provided by stoutstien, I listed ways that many builds would benefit two pages ago:


barbarians can rage and attack with both weapons
berserkers and storm heralds can benefit from the style
sword and valor bards can grant inspiration and attack with both weapons
fighters can gain the same benefit from action surge regardless of style
fighters can second wind and attack with both weapons
monks can receive a pretty decent boost to at-will damage, with no cost
paladins can use a smite spell and attack with both weapons
rangers can use most of their combat spells and attack with both weapons
(beast masters still miss out, but that's because their interaction with extra attack is backwards)
rogues don't just effectively wield finesse greatswords
swashbucklers don't become obsolete
bladesingers can bladesong and attack with both weapons





All that way I have a greater chance to crit now and double my sneak attack damage or double my smite spell and use divine smite as well to double up.
Nope, you can't sneak attack twice in the same turn which is why out of turn attacking rogue damage increases.
Bolded for emphasis. Whit was saying that two-weapon fighting creates more opportunities to get a critical Sneak Attack.


Rangers: Not going to use it very often due to Hunter's Mark.
Wait ... wut? :smallconfused:
I kind of agree with that. Even though two-weapon fighting rangers are iconic, hunter's mark (etc.) incentivises using other fighting styles which don't use a bonus action. Like archery.

[Whit]

I agree. But what is the issue. If it’s using bonus action to get an extra attack I think that’s NOT the right move as stated above.

If it’s the using two light weapons what’s wrong with it.? It’s a lvl 1 two weapon options fir al classes. As martial weapons are considered more advanced.

Unless we are talking about making it easier for non Fighters. I think fighting style under fighter twf and duel weapon feat is where changes are needed

[Misterwhisper]

I agree. But what is the issue. If it’s using bonus action to get an extra attack I think that’s NOT the right move as stated above.

If it’s the using two light weapons what’s wrong with it.? It’s a lvl 1 two weapon options fir al classes. As martial weapons are considered more advanced.

Unless we are talking about making it easier for non Fighters. I think fighting style under fighter twf and duel weapon feat is where changes are needed

The fighting style is not the problem.

The feats are the problem.

PAM and CBE give you free two weapon fighting style, their normal feat bonus and gives you the ability to two weapon fight with only one weapon.

Meanwhile the dual wielder feat is usually not even as good as just putting that asi into your attack stat, especially if it is dex.

That is why I have always said take stat off the damage of all bonus action attacks, other than monk because they are a specific case, and if you want to add stat to off hand you need the fighting style.


In a game that has no feats, I have no problems with TWF.

However all official play uses feats.
Every game I have ever seen has used them unless it was the noob training game or it was set up to be low power so they banned feats.

[stoutstien]

The fighting style is not the problem.

The feats are the problem.

PAM and CBE give you free two weapon fighting style, their normal feat bonus and gives you the ability to two weapon fight with only one weapon.

Meanwhile the dual wielder feat is usually not even as good as just putting that asi into your attack stat, especially if it is dex.

That is why I have always said take stat off the damage of all bonus action attacks, other than monk because they are a specific case, and if you want to add stat to off hand you need the fighting style.


In a game that has no feats, I have no problems with TWF.

However all official play uses feats.
Every game I have ever seen has used them unless it was the noob training game or it was set up to be low power so they banned feats.
i try to avoid blanket nerfs and try to buff up weak points instead and this would still allow duelist to be ahead of TWF.

[thoroughlyS]

The fighting style is not the problem.

The feats are the problem.

...

In a game that has no feats, I have no problems with TWF.
All the math I've presented has been made with the assumption of no feats. Even with no feats, two-weapon fighting falls behind in damage and has an additional action cost.

That's why I don't think the solution should be locked behind a feat: the problem isn't the feats.

[Tanarii]

Every game I have ever seen has used them unless it was the noob training game or it was set up to be low power so they banned feats.I run a no multiclassing and no feats game because it's very much not AL and gives me the ability to run an old-school feeling game.

And yeah, in T1 and T2, TWF isn't a problem child. It gets used by Rogues, Rangers, and the occasionally Dex-fighter. The latter being Fighters who want to be good at sneaking but still want decent melee capabilities. As well as (obviously) ranged.

I've only started running T3 earlier this year, so it remains to be seen if any of those Fighters will feel seriously negatively impacted by their choice. So far no complaints though.

[Kane0]

Base TWF: Bonus action attack, light weapons only. Stat to damage just like every other attack.

Fighting style: Can use non-light one handed weapons

Feat: Draw/stow two weapons, can make off hand attack as part of attack action instead of as bonus action (once per turn to avoid abuse), can use both weapons for opportunity attacks (as in you attack twice)

Fixed.

I have changed my mind. Reverse the position of stat to damage and one handed weapons.

[Whit]

So once again based on damage and no feats. Twf action combat is not the issue. It’s the feats that are better than duel wield. So the feat should be changed.

However as pointed out by thoroughlyS. All other claseses can benefit by being able to use class bonus actions by making twf combat action free rom bonus action.

I enjoyed reading his list. However does this not just make these classes more powerful with damage output which was taken into account to some degree by cr ratings.

I’ve seen cr correct encounters just decimated by one character out of 5 because of damage output. And now we want to add more free options to damage for all classes. And maybe not really all classes. I do like the theatrics of doing more but the damage output will be to much increased for some classes

If you look up bonus action spells. I see wizard warlock Sorcerer that gets pretty much nothing so what do these 3 clase3s get compared to what other classes get. Which should be equal

[thoroughlyS]

However does this not just make these classes more powerful with damage output which was taken into account to some degree by cr ratings.

I’ve seen cr correct encounters just decimated by one character out of 5 because of damage output. And now we want to add more free options to damage for all classes. And maybe not really all classes. I do like the theatrics of doing more but the damage output will be to much increased for some classes
But that's the whole point! The damage curve for two-weapon fighting is nearly identical to that for great weapon fighting. The only time two-weapon fighting is superior is before Extra Attack, which is why my proposal is to roll two-weapon fighting into the Attack action for characters who already have Extra Attack. The classes which would receive a damage spike (e.g. Rogue) would still have to use their bonus action to do so, because they don't get Extra Attack.

Sure, there are corner cases. Every possible ruleset will have them. Swords and Valor bards can get a damage bump. Monks get an extra die of damage. Paladins could potentially nova harder. Blade warlocks can stack Hex better. But the primary martial damage curve will still be great weapon fighters. They will still deal the most damage with or without feats.

If you look up bonus action spells. I see wizard warlock Sorcerer that gets pretty much nothing so what do these 3 clase3s get compared to what other classes get. Which should be equal
Most full casters would be unaffected by my proposal. That is not a bad thing, because they already weren't hitting the great weapon damage curve. That said, Sorcadins will be able to Quicken booming blade like their contemporaries. Blade warlocks will have easier access to hex, with comparable damage to a glaive with hex. Bladesingers will be one of the few instances of a build getting a damage boost from this change.

[strangebloke]

The fighting style is not the problem.

The feats are the problem.

The feats are a problem unto themselves.

The fighting styles are also a problem. Why use a bonus action to deal the same damage that you would with GWF? TWF currently is only usable at low levels or in niche cases.

Even without feats, the only classes for whom TWF is an actively good option are the barbarian and rogue.... and the rogue would most likely prefer to use a bow if he can.

[Vogie]

The fighting style is not the problem.

The feats are the problem

That's literally the opposite of what Mike says in the video.

He is firmly in the stance of "Feats are optional" and insists the DND Beyond stats they have of people playing around kitchen tables are overwhelmingly feat-less.

The fighting style isn't the problem, although it is a solution.

To him, the real problem is two-weapon fighting's use of the bonus action in itself.

I'm not saying that the feats have problems - they totally do - but the core issue is the use of the bonus action.

I wonder... If they were building everything from the ground up, there may be some sort of variable number of actions based on the number of hands that one would have...

[Misterwhisper]

That's literally the opposite of what Mike says in the video.

He is firmly in the stance of "Feats are optional" and insists the DND Beyond stats they have of people playing around kitchen tables are overwhelmingly feat-less.

The fighting style isn't the problem, although it is a solution.

To him, the real problem is two-weapon fighting's use of the bonus action in itself.

I'm not saying that the feats have problems - they totally do - but the core issue is the use of the bonus action.

I wonder... If they were building everything from the ground up, there may be some sort of variable number of actions based on the number of hands that one would have...

Thus why I have said many times that mike mearls sucks at anything to do with crunch.

He is good with lore and creative ideas but total garbage at execution.

His idea of people playing most games with no feats it totally laughable.

I will be generous and say MAYBE 15% of games use no feats. That is being very generous.

[Vogie]

His idea of people playing most games with no feats it totally laughable.

I will be generous and say MAYBE 15% of games use no feats. That is being very generous.

You do know the plural of "anecdote" is not "Data", right?

When the people who have the actual information based off actual people's use of WotC's online tools to build and slowly update their characters over the course of a campaign draw conclusions based on that data... that means something.

You calling your generous made-up-on-spot percentage is the epitome of meaninglessness. Even if you were *absolutely* correct about *everyone* you *possibly* know, including *everyone* on this forum, it'd still pale in comparison to the amount of data that WotC has.

[Misterwhisper]

You do know the plural of "anecdote" is not "Data", right?

When the people who have the actual information based off actual people's use of WotC's online tools to build and slowly update their characters over the course of a campaign draw conclusions based on that data... that means something.

You calling your generous made-up-on-spot percentage is the epitome of meaninglessness. Even if you were *absolutely* correct about *everyone* you *possibly* know, including *everyone* on this forum, it'd still pale in comparison to the amount of data that WotC has.

The reason is that the characters made on dndbeyond could be anything. It could be dms making npcs, it could be people making characters to try things out, or they could be used in a game.

I have well over 200 characters built on dndbeyond.

Maybe 6 of them are player characters in a campaign.
The vast majority do not have feats because they are npcs who don’t need them.

But mike would interpret that as meaning that about 3 percent of the games play with feats. So his numbers mean nothing.

[strangebloke]

Thus why I have said many times that mike mearls sucks at anything to do with crunch.

He is good with lore and creative ideas but total garbage at execution.

His idea of people playing most games with no feats it totally laughable.

I will be generous and say MAYBE 15% of games use no feats. That is being very generous.

Well I say that MAYBE 15% do use feats. Whatcha say to that?

Mike has actual market data via DNDbeyond and user surveys. So I'll take his informed opinion over your wild guess.

And yeah, Mike's fix is worse than the problem. But its thematically cool. And you still haven't shown that TWF is fine if feats aren't in play. People have show repeatedly throughout this thread that after fifth level, TWF is nearly strictly worse than GWF, to the point that almost no one every picks to the TWF style, and its probably not even the best weapon loadout for the classes that do TWF. (rogues and barbarians)

[Misterwhisper]

Well I say that MAYBE 15% do use feats. Whatcha say to that?

Mike has actual market data via DNDbeyond and user surveys. So I'll take his informed opinion over your wild guess.

And yeah, Mike's fix is worse than the problem. But its thematically cool. And you still haven't shown that TWF is fine if feats aren't in play. People have show repeatedly throughout this thread that after fifth level, TWF is nearly strictly worse than GWF, to the point that almost no one every picks to the TWF style, and its probably not even the best weapon loadout for the classes that do TWF. (rogues and barbarians)

Innacurate data is not data it makes calculations worse.

There is no designation on dndbeyond on if the character built is being played by a pc or not, only that it was built.

There is also no designation on what the rules of the game being played in are.

So he has no accurate data, only his opinion, same as mine.

[Vogie]

The reason is that the characters made on dndbeyond could be anything. It could be dms making npcs, it could be people making characters to try things out, or they could be used in a game.

I have well over 200 characters built on dndbeyond.

Maybe 6 of them are player characters in a campaign.
The vast majority do not have feats because they are npcs who don’t need them.

But mike would interpret that as meaning that about 3 percent of the games play with feats. So his numbers mean nothing.

... He literally addressed that in the videos. They can tell those characters that are being played versus those just built. He specifically called out Warlocks as the class that has the largest dichotomy between built but not actively played.

Are you seriously arguing over an article of media you haven't actually consumed? Just because your numbers are worthless doesn't mean the theirs are.

EDIT: Your response to strangebloke shows that you 100% didn't watch the video when they talked all about this. If you want to spout opinions on something you won't bother to educate yourself on, please return to Facebook.


Well I say that MAYBE 15% do use feats. Whatcha say to that?

Mike has actual market data via DNDbeyond and user surveys. So I'll take his informed opinion over your wild guess.

Precisely. Those who do the user surveys were called out for being incredibly helpful.

This is precisely the same argument I heard all the time when I was big into Magic:The Gathering.

People would fawn over a return to the Kamigawa plane, because it was so loved by the commander community and connected well with Vorthos players in particular... and the head designer can easily say "I understand, but all of the our numbers say that would be a terrible business decision". Because creators make decisions based on actual information rather than the vocal minority on message boards and other tangential media.

[strangebloke]

Innacurate data is not data it makes calculations worse.

There is no designation on dndbeyond on if the character built is being played by a pc or not, only that it was built.

There is also no designation on what the rules of the game being played in are.

So he has no accurate data, only his opinion, same as mine.

You are baselessly asserting that his data is innacurate, when its the best data available and there's no reason to think that it is innacurate beyond "it isn't true at my table." Additionally, Mike has access to a lot more data than we do so even if you disagree with the DNDbeyond data, he also has user feedback reports and other avenues to look through that we don't.

Even if you were right, and his data is inaccurate, then the most that you could say would be that "We can't know." But that isn't what you said. You said that Mike is bad at crunch and is wrong about feat use.

SMH.

Either way, it doesn't matter, because if you consider TWF with or without feat use, it's not optimal, even for the classes traditionally associated with it like the ranger. Rolling the weapon attack into the main action at level five is perfectly balanced.

[Misterwhisper]

... He literally addressed that in the videos. They can tell those characters that are being played versus those just built. He specifically called out Warlocks as the class that has the largest dichotomy between built but not actively played.

Are you seriously arguing over an article of media you haven't actually consumed? Just because your numbers are worthless doesn't mean the theirs are.



Precisely. Those who do the user surveys were called out for being incredibly helpful.

This is precisely the same argument I heard all the time when I was big into Magic:The Gathering.

People would fawn over a return to the Kamigawa plane, because it was so loved by the commander community and connected well with Vorthos players in particular... and the head designer can easily say "I understand, but all of the our numbers say that would be a terrible business decision". Because creators make decisions based on actual information rather than the vocal minority on message boards and other tangential media.

They can not tell which are played and which are not, only which ones are listed as players in an active campaign organized on dndbeyond. So again, his data is wrong.

If you go and build character X on dnd beyond and then pull up the sheet when you play at home. The site does not know that. It only knows the character is built and if it is assigned to a campaign or not.

Edit: yes I will stick by saying he sucks at crunch, his crap rules writing is what killed 4e.

Many times he is corrected on sage advice by JC because gets the rules wrong in the game he helps write.

I am saying that we can’t know what players are actually using in games because his data can’t tell that. My estimate is based on talking to hundreds of groups from multiple stats not just people who actually went on a website to fill out a survey.

[Vogie]

SMH.


Same.

As a person who works in data analytics, this idea that they can't tell something because an end user can't is just... laughable.

But don't worry, he's leaning on the famed "nuh-uh" defense.

[Misterwhisper]

Same.

As a person who works in data analytics, this idea that they can't tell something because an end user can't is just... laughable.

But don't worry, he's leaning on the famed "nuh-uh" defense.

Please tell me then. If I make a character on dndbeyond, how would they know what I am using it for in my living room?

Simple, they can’t.

Every player in my group has characters made there, but they are not included under and official campaign.

I have a good membership there, I sue it mostly to make character sheets for npcs, I currently have 244 characters in my database.

Can they tell if those are PCs, npcs, or just me fiddling around to see what works together?

No.

So absolutely his data is in accurate.

He could be right, I could be right, we both could be wrong but his inaccurate data can’t tell that.

[strangebloke]

They can not tell which are played and which are not, only which ones are listed as players in an active campaign organized on dndbeyond. So again, his data is wrong.

Edit: yes I will stick by saying he sucks at crunch, his crap rules writing is what killed 4e.


Please tell me then. If I make a character on dndbeyond, how would they know what I am using it for in my living room?

Simple, they can’t.

They can.

It's not hard.

They have close, intimate access to observing how the character in DNDbeyond is being used. Someone who's just 'building' a character will set it at a level, and then basically never touch it again except to fiddle with some feats or skills or HP. Someone who's playing a character will have items listed on their sheet, will rarely if ever reassign their skills and stats, and will show up every couple of months to level up their character.

That's assuming that the user isn't updating the HP of their PC live as it takes damage from various sources.

So yeah, I'd say there's a lot they can tell from DNDbeyond. They don't share all that information because its valuable marketing info that their competitors (like Paizo) could easily capitalize on, but there's likely multiple people whose whole job is figuring out what people play in DND, and for how many levels.

And DNDbeyond isn't half of it. There's also the surveys, there's also the fact that AL characters are tracked in an official database, there's also the fact that Mike talks to more different groups of players and therefore even on the basis of anecdote has a better and more representative sample size than you.

I agree that he doesn't make the most balanced stuff. But that's also not his job, and its ridiculous to assert that he doesn't know anything about the people he's selling his products to.

[Theodoxus]

TWF is dumb as implemented, since realistically, it's not about attacking more, but being hit less.

At it's base, it should simply provide an AC bonus equal to your PB. No off-hand attack. Allow thrown weapons to use an off-hand, but not melee. Also, limit it to being usable only with light and medium armor - less for realism and more for balance, but...

Change the fighting style to allow the AC bonus to apply to heavy armor. Also, allow the use of an actual, single, off-hand attack, as well as grant heavier weapons (as current TWF feat).

Change the TWF Feat to be multi-tiered. If you don't have the TWF FS, you can make an single off-hand attack. If you have the TWF FS, your off-hand attacks can apply their attack mod to damage.

At the risk of becoming quite fiddly, I would also only grant the AC bonus to melee attacks; shields are far better at blocking arrows and presumably, fire bolts, than a scimitar or dagger.

What this change would do would put TWF into a defensive niche where it belongs. You're not hitting harder or less accurately, you're forcing others to become less accurate to hit you. Your GWM will have a much harder time wrecking face against a TWF, as it should be...

[strangebloke]

TWF is dumb as implemented, since realistically, it's not about attacking more, but being hit less.

If I was trying to make DND 5e historically accurate I'd start by getting rid of the entire system and playing a different game.

In this new game, TWF would be a strictly worse version of S&B, since thats what it was. The only reason to use a dagger instead of a shield is if you don't want to be carrying a shield around. Similarly, most of the reason to use a sword over a spear is likewise one of convenience.

To make sure that this bit of historical reality is represented in this new story, I probably need some kind of fatigue system where if you're going about town with a polearm and a towershield you get bloody tired after a bit and when you enter combat you feel a bit off and take a penalty to your max stamina.

---
*rant aside*

I try to make my tweaks as non-invasive as possible. Particularly here, since this isn't that broken. Here, I just say "if you have the Extra Attack feature, move the offhand attack to your attack action." which answers all outstanding mechanical and thematic issues.

[stoutstien]

honestly at this point i am dusting off my old multivariate statistic books to find a way to "fix" all the weapon usage, fighting styles, and feats. i can see why alot of tables don't use feats if that is the case with dnd beyond. a feat being roughly equal to a ASI is just utter crap lol. in some cases a feat is better than a classes capstone.

[Misterwhisper]

honestly at this point i am dusting off my old multivariate statistic books to find a way to "fix" all the weapon usage, fighting styles, and feats. i can see why alot of tables don't use feats if that is the case with dnd beyond. a feat being roughly equal to a ASI is just utter crap lol. in some cases a feat is better than a classes capstone.

The capstone thing is very true.

If I ever got my rogue to level 20 (game died at 14) I would not even take my 20th level in rogue.

The feat lucky is better than their level 20 capstone.

Many classes have better level 1 abilities than others level 20.

Some classes level 1 ability defines an entire playstyle but some classes level 20 is more of a “umm ok I guess I will write that down I guess”

[Whit]

Have any of you been to a dnd convention. I’ve been to 2 big ones. I play every Friday at a store with 25 people roughly up down 5 per table and a friend group every other Saturday

I have seen 50% with a feat by lvl 4 and 80% by lvl 6-8.

[Thurmas]

Two weapon fighting is inferior to it's closest parallel, 2 Handed Weapons and that's where the problem lies. Both options should be able to be comparable to each other for the length of their use, from level 1 to 20. That should be true with the rules alone without fight styles and feats, as well as with fighting styles and/or with feats. As is, two weapon fighting suffers in two regards: It does inferior damage compared to 2 handed weapons as you level without offering suitable alternatives. Additionally, it has an action economy tax in the form of the bonus action, which other fighting options don't have.

So I think you have to look at this in phases. You address each part separately; Two Weapon Fighting Rules, Fighting Style and Feat. You need to make Two Handed weapons, two weapon fighting, and sword and board all comparable to each other, though not identical. So, I'm tempted to try this in a game:

Two Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon you're holding in one hand, you can make an attack with a second light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage roll of this second attack, unless the modifier is negative. If you gain the Extra Attack feature, you can make an attack with the second weapon for each attack you have with the Extra Attack ability.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon instead of making a melee attack.


So, the net result from this is that two weapon fighting and two handed fighting have the same base potential. For example, comparing a great sword and two short swords, in any character's hands, both have the chance to do 2d6+mod for each attack they have. It also scales appropriately. At level 5 with 2 attacks, a player still gets the same damage with 2 x 2d6+mod.

Next, look at Fighting Styles. Not every class has access to fighting styles, so they should offer a nice flavorful bonus that doesn't offer something that requires you to have the fighting style to be relevant.

Two Weapon Fighting Style: When you are wielding a one handed melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.


To me, this is perfect because it represents a historical benefit of using two weapons: increasing your ability to parry. It competes with the Defense fighting style with +1 AC, but with a different requirement. Wearing armor vs Wielding two weapons. The Great Weapon Fighting style gives a slight boost to damage, as well does the Dueling style.

Lastly, the Feat.

Duel Wielder:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
- Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
- When a creature makes a melee attack against you and misses, you can use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature if it is within your reach and you are wielding a one-handed melee weapon in each hand.

While I'm not sure if this is 100% where it needs to be strength wise, as it certainly doesn't have the raw damage potential of Sharpshooter/GWM, I think it is better than it's current form. It allows the use of non-light weapons. It gives the utility of drawing two weapons in a turn. It gives an additional option to use your reaction on, similar to polearm master, that plays into the theme of two weapon fighting (You parry a blow on one weapon, counter attack with the other). Lastly, it gives a small boost to your main combat stat, allowing you to take it early on with out falling behind on ASIs. I considered doing a small boost to damage or attack bonus for the feat, but I stopped short to keep from over doing it.

I think there are certainly several things to consider when determining if this is balanced. Magic weapons have positive and negatives with this style. While it gives you the ability to double up your attacks and have two magic weapons apply bonus damage for each hit (double flame tongues?) that comes at the cost of requiring that you find two weapons vs finding a single one, as well as twice as many attunement slots. Getting past magical resistance is more difficult, but that was already true for two weapon fighting.

It does also give more attacks, but damage is spread out more over those attacks. You get more chances to crit, but you also dilute the benefits conveyed from things like Guiding Bolt, War God's Blessing or Bardic Inspiration. You can add more instances of class abilities such as Barbarian's rage, but you also gain a smaller benefit from abilities such as Brutal Critical. There are positive and negatives to everything I looked at, but I'm sure I could have missed something.

I think this makes two weapon fighting more powerful for every class and weakens it for none, without being too powerful. It is certainly an improvement to 2 weapon fighting in my opinion. My question is, is it too much?

I did consider one alternative here,which was instead of requiring two light weapons, to instead have it read: When you make an attack with a one-handed melee weapon, you may also make an attack with a second weapon in your other hand. This attack does 1d4 damage. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage. Same increase as above for extra attack. This accomplishes two things. It pairs down the damage slightly from the two 1d6/1d6 light weapons. It also makes a combo such as rapier and dagger an option. The wording of the feat would be adjusted slightly to still allow two non-light melee weapons.

[thoroughlyS]

Two weapon fighting is inferior to it's closest parallel, 2 Handed Weapons and that's where the problem lies. Both options should be able to be comparable to each other for the length of their use, from level 1 to 20. That should be true with the rules alone without fight styles and feats, as well as with fighting styles and/or with feats. As is, two weapon fighting suffers in two regards: It does inferior damage compared to 2 handed weapons as you level without offering suitable alternatives. Additionally, it has an action economy tax in the form of the bonus action, which other fighting options don't have.
Bolded for truth.

So I think you have to look at this in phases. You address each part separately; Two Weapon Fighting Rules, Fighting Style and Feat. You need to make Two Handed weapons, two weapon fighting, and sword and board all comparable to each other, though not identical.
Again, this is the method of evaluation I believe should be taken as well. I don't think there are too many posters who have argued otherwise.

Two Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon you're holding in one hand, you can make an attack with a second light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage roll of this second attack, unless the modifier is negative. If you gain the Extra Attack feature, you can make an attack with the second weapon for each attack you have with the Extra Attack ability.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon instead of making a melee attack.
This doesn't solve the action economy cost, it just exacerbates it. Now it hurts worse when you want to do anything other than making off-hand attacks (e.g. Flurry of Blows, hunter's mark, Rage, Second Wind). That is why my proposal still only has one attack, but removes the cost after Extra Attack.

(That proposal also slows down play at the table with more rolls.)

Two Weapon Fighting Style: When you are wielding a one handed melee weapon in each hand, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.
Taking your above change into account, this is a pretty good idea. The damage will fall behind great weapon fighting (thanks to the added reliability of that fighting style), but I think the AC benefit is definitely worth considering in the context of this proposal.

Duel Wielder:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
- Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
- When a creature makes a melee attack against you and misses, you can use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature if it is within your reach and you are wielding a one-handed melee weapon in each hand.
Definitely a step in the right direction. Makes the feat into more than just an inferior ASI. Again, this will slow down play at the table, especially if your AC is high enough (or you can easily generate disadvantage).




I did consider one alternative here,which was instead of requiring two light weapons, to instead have it read: When you make an attack with a one-handed melee weapon, you may also make an attack with a second weapon in your other hand. This attack does 1d4 damage. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage. Same increase as above for extra attack. This accomplishes two things. It pairs down the damage slightly from the two 1d6/1d6 light weapons. It also makes a combo such as rapier and dagger an option. The wording of the feat would be adjusted slightly to still allow two non-light melee weapons.
I still think the rapier/dagger combo should be its own fighting style.
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and deal an extra 1d4 damage on opportunity attacks.

[Whit]

A non fighter with great weapon and a fighter with great weapon have less attacks which means missing more and the twf hscubg better chance to hit. Thus. Even 1 hit over a no hit is more damage. No feats no extras just raw.

[stoutstien]

A non fighter with great weapon and a fighter with great weapon have less attacks which means missing more and the twf hscubg better chance to hit. Thus. Even 1 hit over a no hit is more damage. No feats no extras just raw.more swing also increases miss rate so it's a a logical fallacy.

[Tanarii]

Two weapon fighting is inferior to it's closest parallel, 2 Handed Weapons and that's where the problem lies. Both options should be able to be comparable to each other for the length of their use, from level 1 to 20. That should be true with the rules alone without fight styles and feats, as well as with fighting styles and/or with feats.Theres no particular reason this should be true.

It's perfectly fine as a niche fighting style that works best for certain classes or others with similar fighting styles. I.e. large amounts of one hit per turn or each hit damage bonuses.

[Whit]

more swing also increases miss rate so it's a a logical fallacy.

Non fighters. If you have a 40% chance to hit once for great weapon 2d6 and you have a 40% chance to hit with twf 2 attacks 2 short swords 1d6/1d6 you have an increase chance of hitting once out of the 2 by an extra 22%. Thus that 1d6 is better than nothing. This is without adding specials. Extra attack for free to equal out the damage difference between a single great weapon and twf may sound like a good way.
Both give up ac shield option and both get similar damage 2d6 and 1d6/1d6. And yes the twf needs to hit both times to equal the one hit of great weapon. But if both miss once twf gets that extra 1 attack for 1d6.
So the % chance of getting at least 1 hit is increased over the great weapon.

Now let’s take into check other things that will make giving up the bonus action of Twf.
I won’t add all things here but take into account the following.
Classes bonus action abilities and bonus action spells.
Examples. A twf druid now cantrips Shillelagh as a bonus action then gets two attacks. Then next round as it’s not concentration Shillelagh again on other weapon
Ranger casts hunters mark bonus action and then attacks twf
Rogue can cunning action after 2 attacks. And 2 attacks increases sneak attack taking effect.

What we need is a good group of meta players who know how to abuse the rules see how it could be played out.
I think the output of damage shall surely increase which may ruin the CR system.

We also don’t take into account feats or multi classing in the above.

[Theodoxus]

Examples. A twf druid now cantrips Shillelagh as a bonus action then gets two attacks. Then next round as it’s not concentration Shillelagh again on other weapon

SHILLELAGH
Transmutation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S, M(mistletoe, a shamrock leaf, and a club or quarterstaff)
Duration: 1 minute


The wood of a club or quarterstaff you are holding is imbued with nature's power. For the duration, you can use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for
the attack and damage rolls of melee attacks using that weapon, and the weapon's damage die becomes a d8. The weapon also becomes magical, if it isn't already. The spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.

So that doesn't work without an additional homebrew rule. Which is fine, just didn't want anyone to think this works RAW.


What we need is a good group of meta players who know how to abuse the rules see how it could be played out.
I think the output of damage shall surely increase which may ruin the CR system.

We also don’t take into account feats or multi classing in the above.

There's someone on the boards (I honestly can't recall, and don't want to give credit to the wrong person) who's very math literate and has mathed out the damage of nearly every combination of weapon, weapon style, feat and class (though I don't think multiclass - that'd be a nightmare to analyze). And I don't know if it's been maintained through additional books like Xan's and Mort's... This particular individual, when looking at numbers for the "big three" melee playstyles: S&B (dueling), GWF and TWF, suggested that simply granting a Rend effect for TWF brings the damage within parity of GWM.

I on the otherhand, think the Big Three should be significantly different from each other, rather than trying to reach parity. GWM should hands down provide the most damage, while providing the least amount of defense. Dueling should be the "switch-hitter" build, providing the best defense when used with a shield and decent damage when used two-handed (yes, this is a significant change from how the build currently is, but I think even a tiny bit of love for Versatile weapons would be nice). TWF would then be somewhere in between the two.

I'm not a math guy, so I don't know if my proposed change would bring about the effect I'm looking for, but here's how I'd change the weapon based fighting styles:

Archery, changed to +1 Hit and Damage
Dueling, changed to +1 damage die to one handed and versatile weapons when used solo.
GWM, changed to +2 damage
TWF, add a Rend when both main and offhand attacks hit equal to your attack attribute modifier.

[Whit]

My mistake on Shillelagh fir both weapons but still bonus action for one.
But I do believe there should be change. I just don’t believe taking away the bonus action component is it.
Perhaps adding ability to the second bonus attack like the fighter twf and then changing the fighter twf

[Misterwhisper]

My mistake on Shillelagh fir both weapons but still bonus action for one.
But I do believe there should be change. I just don’t believe taking away the bonus action component is it.
Perhaps adding ability to the second bonus attack like the fighter twf and then changing the fighter twf

It is not a bonus action for one, shillelagh is one bonus action that lasts a whole minute and is not concentration.

Unless something goes wonky it is one bonus action at most per combat for a magic d8 weapon that uses one of the best stats in the game and the primary stat for divine casters, for attack and damage, if you want to twf you could take Pam.

[Tanarii]

There's someone on the boards (I honestly can't recall, and don't want to give credit to the wrong person) who's very math literate and has mathed out the damage of nearly every combination of weapon, weapon style, feat and class (though I don't think multiclass - that'd be a nightmare to analyze). And I don't know if it's been maintained through additional books like Xan's and Mort's... This particular individual, when looking at numbers for the "big three" melee playstyles: S&B (dueling), GWF and TWF, suggested that simply granting a Rend effect for TWF brings the damage within parity of GWM.Kryx makes some significant surface assumptions. For example, oft-quoted damage for styles assumes GWM & somehow getting advantage. (He has full breakdown for multiple assumptions if you dig down below the surface.) IIRC he also assumes players will go to 20 ability score rapidly.

[stoutstien]

Kryx makes some significant surface assumptions. For example, oft-quoted damage for styles assumes GWM & somehow getting advantage. (He has full breakdown for multiple assumptions if you dig down below the surface.) IIRC he also assumes players will go to 20 ability score rapidly.
His prognosis is off but his diagnosis is spot-on. He points out the some feats were used to almost shore up weak points in some classes. Feats aren't needed but a barbarian with GWM or PaM is way ahead a counterpart without one of those.

[thoroughlyS]

Non fighters. If you have a 40% chance to hit once for great weapon 2d6 and you have a 40% chance to hit with twf 2 attacks 2 short swords 1d6/1d6 you have an increase chance of hitting once out of the 2 by an extra 22%.

...

And yes the twf needs to hit both times to equal the one hit of great weapon. But if both miss once twf gets that extra 1 attack for 1d6.
So the % chance of getting at least 1 hit is increased over the great weapon.
You're manipulating the data a little bit here, by only analyzing certain elements and not the whole picture. You're emphasizing the chance of dealing any damage and downplaying the lower chance of hitting both times. That's why I look at the average damage overall. At 5th level (assuming a 65%chance to hit*):


2d6 + STR twice ≈ 14.3 damage
1d6 + STR thrice ≈ 14.625 damage
2d6 + STR twice, rerolling ≈ 16.033 damage
1d8 + STR thrice ≈ 16.575 damage
*Based on the conceits listed in the quoted post.

Now, if your argument is about attack riders like sneak attack (which only need one hit) or rage damage (which benefit from multiple hits), then I would argue that two-weapon fighting also has drawbacks. (e.g. worse opportunity attacks, harder to cast spells, less benefit from guiding bolt etc.)

Rogue can cunning action after 2 attacks. And 2 attacks increases sneak attack taking effect.
This specific interaction is one reason why I want to lock it behind extra attack. Rogues already benefit from the current system. It's everyone else who misses out.

What we need is a good group of meta players who know how to abuse the rules see how it could be played out.
I think the output of damage shall surely increase which may ruin the CR system.
The biggest issue I've figured out is paladins being able to nova even harder. In the current system a paladin with extra attack (regardless of fighting style) could cast a smite spell and divine smite twice in one turn. A two-weapon fighting paladin could forgo the smite spell to divine smite thrice. With my proposal, two-weapon fighting paladins wouldn't have to choose.

(For what it's worth, in my games smite spells work exactly like divine smite and can't be stacked...)

Perhaps adding ability to the second bonus attack like the fighter twf and then changing the fighter twf
That just makes two-weapon fighting even better in Tier 1, and it still peters out after extra attack, just less so. (assuming you mean "change the fighting style to one-handed weapons").




Unless something goes wonky it is one bonus action at most per combat for a magic d8 weapon that uses one of the best stats in the game and the primary stat for divine casters, for attack and damage, if you want to twf you could take Pam.
Minor nitpick: shillelagh isn't specifically WIS-based. A pact of the tome warlock can get it on their spell list using CHA.

[Whit]

How about keeping bonus action, adding ability mod to twf as I don’t see a reason why you would not get. Your off hand is weaker?

Twf combat action. 1. So now you gain the extra stat of strength or dex from +0/+5 to the off hand attack. Still use bonus action. I’m a stickler to this as I see to much issue with getting that free attack and still being able to use another bonus action. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to have it, but I also see it as being abused and causing more issues later on. Or we can make it add proficiency and not stat to the off hand.

2. Then Change the fighters fighting style TWF (Fighter/Ranger) add proficiency to damage to off hand attack.
This gives additional to only the off hand attack. Lvl 1-4=+2. Lvl 5-8=+3. Lvl 9-12=+4 lvl 13-16 =+5. 17-20=+6.
If this is to much reduce it to 1/2 proficiency lvl round up or down.
So that would be an increase of stat + prof to the off hand danage. I say off hand just to clarify for simplicity.
So the fighter is still stuck with light weapons but gets a boost to off hand by proficiency.

A fighter martial class should be better than all other non martial classes fir twf.

Not saying this is best option but it is least intrusive to all the others especially taking away the bonus action portion.

I’ll leave the math to those better if this would work.

[thoroughlyS]

1. So now you gain the extra stat strength or dex from +0/+5. Still use bonus action. I’m a stickler to this as I see to much issue with getting that free attack and still being able to use another bonus action. Don’t get me wrong, I’d like to have it, but I also see it as being abused.
2. Change the fighters fighting style twf add proficiency to damage to off hand attack.

...

A fighter martial class should be better than all other non martial classes fir twf.
So your solution for the fighter is just more damage? And what about the ranger and swords bard, the other classes with two-weapon fighting? To be fair, this does make the second hit more viable as a bonus action usage, but it still means that the style doesn't play nice with the rest of the system.

[Whit]

The fighter combat style applies to fighter and ranger sword bard or any other class that can choose the. (twf fighting style). I edited it to clarify.
As for sword bard or other non martial classes. They don’t get a fighting style so why should they? However, the non martial classes + paladin now get to add their stat to the off hand damage 0/+5 extra damage or if we go the other route and say it’s proficiency related based on your skill achievement in levels then we can add +2/+6 instead. Or 1/2 if it’s to much as I’m not going to do all the calculations here.
It seems the core issue is non fighter classes want more out of twf combat action.
Well I’m giving a possible solution to it. Minor as it is it’s adding more to it without disrupting a lot of other things by taking Way the bonus action component.

Maybe it works. Maybe not. Just more info fir others to look at and maybe just maybe we get something good without making it OP or disrupting other parts of DnD

[stoutstien]

The fighter combat style applies to fighter and ranger. (twf fighting style). I edited it to clarify.
As for sword bard or other non martial classes. They don’t get a fighting style so why should they? However, the non martial classes + paladin now get to add their stat to the off hand damage 0/+5 extra damage or if we go the other route and say it’s proficiency related based on your skill achievement in levels then we can add +2/+6 instead. Or 1/2 if it’s to much as I’m not going to do all the calculations here.
It seems the core issue is non fighter classes want more out of twf combat action.
Well I’m giving a possible solution to it. Minor as it is it’s adding more to it without disrupting a lot of other things by taking Way the bonus action component.

Maybe it works. Maybe not. Just more info fir others to look at and maybe just maybe we get something good without making it OP or disrupting other parts of DnD
You may want to reread sword bards.
Besides that the mechanical part of the game should be unilaterally balance not just for one class. if in the future they make a barbarian with a fighting style is should work without a new rewrite

[Whit]

Ok so Bard can get it also. Doesn’t change the suggestions which is the key point.

[thoroughlyS]

It seems the core issue is non fighter classes want more out of twf combat action.
I don't think that's the issue at all. The core issue has everything to do with the martial classes for whom two-weapon fighting should be an option. Fighters and Rangers lose out the most, which is ironic because they're the only ones which have the fighting style for it. For the fighter, it doesn't pay off with Action Surge, and isn't viable for eldritch knights. For rangers, it competes with their best spells, and Beast Master is written in such a way that it doesn't function.

[Phoenix042]

Ignore the bonus action stuff on phb195 's Two-Weapon Fighting section... Instead, Choose one of the following when you attack:
1. Get one extra attack with off-hand, but all attacks at disadvantage
2. Add your off-hand damage die to all attacks
[/list]

I strongly dislike mike's first idea. It fails to meet basically any metric I have set for two-weapon fighting fixes.

I've got a very simple proposal for refining mike's second idea.

Generic Two Weapon Fighting that anyone can do:
When you attack with a light melee weapon you are holding in one hand and hit, you can add the damage die of a light melee weapon you are holding in your other hand to that attack's damage. You must be proficient with both weapons to add your proficiency modifier to the attack roll. If both weapons are finesse weapons, you can add your dexterity modifier to the damage roll in place of strength.

(Possible addition; help me decide: 'You can throw both weapons instead of making a melee attack with them. You make this attack as if with an improvised weapon unless both weapons have the "thrown" property.'

Under Interacting with an object, we now add:
When you draw or stow a light weapon, you can also draw or stow another light weapon at the same time. If you have the extra attack class feature or another feature that allows you to make multiple weapon attacks, you can draw or stow a weapon (or two light weapons) one additional time for each extra attack you can make this turn.

In the relevant classes, we now make this change:
Two weapon fighting style:
When you roll a 1 or 2 on a weapon damage die for an attack you make while two-weapon fighting, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if it is a 1 or a 2.

Finally, the feat stays basically the same, but now you'll be rolling 2d8 + mod with every attack. It still lets you draw two one-handed weapons in the time it normally takes you to draw one, and adds a +1 to AC. This makes it actually a very strong feat.


This makes two-weapon fighting mathematically comparable to GWF. The feat might need looking at though.

[Tanarii]

His prognosis is off but his diagnosis is spot-on. He points out the some feats were used to almost shore up weak points in some classes. Feats aren't needed but a barbarian with GWM or PaM is way ahead a counterpart without one of those.
I'd put it the other way around. He demonstrates that certain Feats, notably GWM and SS, and to a degree PAM, are outliers that supercharge some already powerful classes & fighting styles.

[Whit]

Can someone check my option see if it’s good or not.

[Laird]

Can someone check my option see if it’s good or not.

Honestly if you want to go the more damage route and are worried about competing bonus actions/what not just houserule...

Two Weapon Fighting
If you have two light weapons equipped you may make a bonus action attack with one of them after taking the attack action.

Two Weapon Fighting Style
Your Two Weapon Attack no longer requires a bonus action.(You cannot use a bonus action to take another if you attack in this way.)
You may draw or stow both weapons if they are light at the same time.

This makes it as powerful as adding Prof to damage would at lower levels but balances out the scaling for higher levels. It also doesn't gimp Hunter for wanting a thematic fighting style. This still seems a bit powerful for lower levels but Vhuman can take a feat and have the same thing in addition to picking where to put stats so I think I would allow this.