Two-Weapon Fighting

[Bjarkmundur]

Has anyone come up with a perfect way to get Two Weapon Fighting in line with using a two handed weapon?

I've been looking at this for a few days, and I'm at loss on how to analyse the two choices.

If we assume no Feats or Multiclassing, doesn't it make sense that each style should arrive at pretty much the same place, but each with its own strengths and weaknesses?

I get that two weapon fighting is stronger with rage and sneak attack and other on-hit effects, but big weapons get their own strong cases too, right?

I don't mean to look at it in a vacuum, but one action to deal 2d6+mod damage is still 2d6+mod damage, whether its in one attack roll or two. Am I wrong?

Why is it that the second attack costs a bonus action, instead of it being a part of the attack action?

[MrStabby]

Two weapon fighting is less bad than I originally thought.

Mainly because you can use dexterity with it. Dexterity is an awesome stat - the tradeoff is you get less feat support than with strength attacks.


That said, it is a bit niche. Really you want a class/build that doesn't need bonus actions too much, isn't too fussed about a shield, and has some way of adding to damage.

Barbarians who can tank return damage and rage for extra hurt are good (especially small races who cant easily wield the big weapons), dexterity paladins with mobile to offset lack of shield (or goblin paladins).

Extra attack without requiring a feat is good for those melee classes that can be a bit MAD... by which I mean paladin, valor bard.


Some of it depends what levels you are playing at. I used to think it was terrible, now I think it is kind of OK.

[Unoriginal]

Two weapon fighting is pretty handy for builds that benefits from getting more attacks. Like non-multiclass Rogues, who otherwise have only one attack ever. Getting more opportunities to land their Sneak Attack is a great use of a bonus action, even for a class that as a lot of good uses for their bonus actions.

[Scripten]

I'm running a dex-Battlemaster/Rogue multiclass that utilizes two-weapon fighting. It's not the most effective build ever, but he's pretty solid at delivering consistent DPS along with some melee support.

[Bjarkmundur]

What about integrating it into the attack action? Where does that completely fall apart?

[stoutstien]

What I've ended up with

Two weapon fighting base rule changes- you can draw or stow two weapons as a free action

Two weapon fighting style - you no longer need to use light weapons while two weapon fighting and gain +1 AC while you have a one hand weapon in each hand.

Two weapon master (feat) - you add your stat modifier to the bonus action weapon attack. Also of you have advantage on this attack you can forgo it to make an additional attack with the same weapon.

All this bring twf damage up to between one hand and two handed potential. Same with AC. Also it softens the low lv power of twf so it less spikey.

If you where going to try to remove the twf attack off of the bonus action it would mean a rewrite of a lot of rules. Look at how it would work with PaM alone.

[Bjarkmundur]

We assumed no Feats, but I can see what you're getting at, just not sure how to apply it.

[Unoriginal]

What about integrating it into the attack action? Where does that completely fall apart?

It completely fall aparts because of Extra Attacks already existing.

Just having a weapon in each hand shouldn't give you Extra Attack for free at level 1.

Not to mention how it nerfs the Monk's Martial Arts feature badly.

[DevilMcam]

With one attack both are competitive (and TWF even pulls ahead if you have the fighting style) if we only talk about damage.

the problem is when you start getting extra attack, (assuming a +4 to apropriate attribute)

then the Heavey weapon user get to hit for 4D6+8 : average 22
while the dual wielder ongly get to hit 3D6+8 (+12 with fighting style) average 18 (22 with FS).
Sword and board get to hit for 2D8 +8 (+12 with FS) average 17 (21).

So dual wielding make you lose on you bonus action and either a fighting style or a shield to remain competitive on damage dealt.
And you get almost 0 utility from it.

Why is it a bonus action : if it wheren't you'd see a lot of Hex+ dualwield shenanigans thn the bonus actions bit prevent from happening

You could change dual wield to :
when you hit with a weapon you hold in one hand you can roll the damage from a weapon you hold in your other hand and add it to the damage done.
But then dual wielding become strictly better that Heavy weapon fighting (no feats assumed) because you can do it with dex and small races without penalty, and you only need simple weapon proficiency (handaxes with strength) or shortswords (dex) to do it

[Dalebert]

Mainly because you can use dexterity with it. Dexterity is an awesome stat - the tradeoff is you get less feat support than with strength attacks.


This deserves emphasis. Dex is on the whole a better return on investment than str. Str is a more offense-focused stat. Dex is more defense-focused but can still be useful for a lot of offense. If it was AS good as str for offense though, that would lead to much imbalance.

Ppl love heavy armor but it's useless against fireballs, for instance, and ruins stealth, just for starters.

[stoutstien]

We assumed no Feats, but I can see what you're getting at, just not sure how to apply it.

If we just approach the base rules + fighting style my fix still works with the least rule changes
RAW without feats a player wishing to use twf cannot take out two weapons as a free action. So simply allowing a single free item interaction to apply to two weapons is an easy fix.
Now fighting styles was a pain. In tier one twf is too strong but as you level it falls behind. So I wanted to tame it down and buff it at the same time.

Twf as written grants attack mod to off hand vs mine which allows basically an extra ~1 damage per weapon attack and +1 AC. So now the damage boost is fixed like the other styles and the AC always has good scaling potential.
In a game with no feats this will keep twf up to snuff

[DevilMcam]

+1 AC is already a fighting style, so your new TWF would be strictly stronger than that

[Bjarkmundur]

then the Heavey weapon user get to hit for 4D6+8 : average 22
while the dual wielder ongly get to hit 3D6+8 (+12 with fighting style) average 18 (22 with FS).
Sword and board get to hit for 2D8 +8 (+12 with FS) average 17 (21).

Why is it a bonus action: if it wheren't you'd see a lot of Hex+ dualwield shenanigans thn the bonus actions bit prevent from happening

Heavy Weapon, One Action: 2d6+4 and 2d6+4 = 22 avg (26 with FS)
TWF, Both Actions: 1d6+4 and 1d6+4 and 1d6 = 18.5 avg (22.5 with FS)

Right now the reasons for not allowing TWF with one action are

Hex would apply damage to the offhand attack
It's SAD damage and defense
You can't unsheath both weapons anyways
Monks would cry


It feels like you are telling me the side effects of rules, rather than the reasons for why they were created :/

I don't think the developers thought to themselves "ah, in many moons we will create a class called Hexblade that could abuse this rule"

Would restricting it to "you can't use two weapon fighting while wearing heavy armor" fix the DEX issue?

[Shuruke]

As someone whose played multiple twf characters (going on my 6th soon)
I rather enjoy it and dont think it needs a buff.

Mainly because
If your a finesse two weapon fighter with a.s.I you increase offense , defense, and skills

Most of the time I use two weapon fighting for things such as
Champion fighter
Dual wielding short swords and putting 1 level in warlock for a once per short rest hex
This leaves a.s.I open for something like inspiring leader or etc.
Against bosses or tanks you start with hex and attack
Then next turn draw second weapon and action surge plus two weapon fighting.

I've also liked dual wield longsword barbarian but that takes dual wielder feat and only gets rage bonus on off hand unless u dip some fighter or etc.


For me I have never felt like I was falling behind for two weapon fighting

And it always feels nice to habe a extra attack

[DevilMcam]

I wonder if :
• Dual wealding. You can use a bonus action on your turn to make your melees attack with two weapons deadly. When you do so, any target you hit with a melee weapon you are holding in one hand, you can add the damage dice of a melee weapon you are holding in the other hand, provided that both weapon have the light property. You retain this benefit until the end of the current turn.

would be balanced.
Feats remain unchanged and TWFstyle becomes the same as heavy weapon fighting style.

what would that wording break? Dex fighters, rogue?

[stoutstien]

+1 AC is already a fighting style, so your new TWF would be strictly stronger than that
Not really. Defense has no conditions other than wearing armor while both duelist and my twf change can have an AC increase but it is limited by weapon being used.
Defense still wins if you want to switch weapons alot

[Frozenstep]

I wonder if :
• Dual wealding. You can use a bonus action on your turn to make your melees attack with two weapons deadly. When you do so, any target you hit with a melee weapon you are holding in one hand, you can add the damage dice of a melee weapon you are holding in the other hand, provided that both weapon have the light property. You retain this benefit until the end of the current turn.

would be balanced.
Feats remain unchanged and TWFstyle becomes the same as heavy weapon fighting style.

what would that wording break? Dex fighters, rogue?

Melee rogue wouldn't like losing their ability to try another attack if they miss their first one.

As for fighter...you're basically using a greatsword but with dex, which is powerful. However, your opportunity attacks are weaker, you can't just take a hand off your weapon to use a potion or grapple, and you're always using up your bonus action.

The real problem is once magical items come into effect. What happens if you use a +3 weapon in your main hand for the accuracy, and then get to add the damage from a flametongue on the offhand?

[Man_Over_Game]

Has anyone come up with a perfect way to get Two Weapon Fighting in line with using a two handed weapon?

I've been looking at this for a few days, and I'm at loss on how to analyse the two choices.

If we assume no Feats or Multiclassing, doesn't it make sense that each style should arrive at pretty much the same place, but each with its own strengths and weaknesses?

I get that two weapon fighting is stronger with rage and sneak attack and other on-hit effects, but big weapons get their own strong cases too, right?

I don't mean to look at it in a vacuum, but one action to deal 2d6+mod damage is still 2d6+mod damage, whether its in one attack roll or two. Am I wrong?

Why is it that the second attack costs a bonus action, instead of it being a part of the attack action?

Mostly because Dexterity is more valuable than Strength. Since you can pull out a bow and attack with perfect skill, then swap to your two weapons, there won't be a circumstance where you won't be able to make an attack.

The furthest a Strength-based character could attack is about 30 feet with a thrown weapon. As long as the fight starts further than 30 feet, that's an attack that the TWF is able to get off that the Strength user won't.

For example, say you have 2 characters, no Fighting Style, no Feats, just a +3 modifier. They start away from the enemy group, and will engage on turn 2.

Turn 1:
Strength: No attack this turn
Dexterity: Makes a Longbow attack, for 1d8+3 damage (7.5 total)

Turn 2:
Strength: Makes a Greatsword attack, for 2d6+3 damage (10 total)
Dexterity: Makes a TWF Shortsword combo, for 2d6+3 damage (17.5 total)

If the TWF chooses not to use their Bonus Action, they do 3.5 less damage than the Strength combatant for the round. The TWF would have to not use their Bonus Action for 2 rounds in order for the Strength combatant to catch up.

Assuming a 4 round combat with the first round being a ranged skirmish, the TWF needs to use his Bonus Action only once throughout the entire fight to keep up with the Greatsword wielder. If he uses it more than once, he is now ahead of the Greatsword wielder.

[Bjarkmundur]

Ah, I get it.

If TWF were as good as heavy weapon fighting there would be no reason to play a Strength based character. There has to be a gap between the styles, due to Dexterity's usefulness and versatility. It's a primary save, it's stealth, it's initiative, and it allows for ranged attacks.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah, I get it.

If TWF were as good as heavy weapon fighting there would be no reason to play a Strength based character. There has to be a gap between the styles, due to Dexterity's usefulness and versatility. It's a primary save, it's stealth, it's initiative, and it allows for ranged attacks.

Probably to make sure that there was a universal way of using Bonus Actions. Otherwise, Fighters would have virtually no reason to use it. I guess you could have made both weapons do the same damage, with the Strength version using a Bonus Action for more damage, but that seems a lot less fluid.

[Bjarkmundur]

So wait, if I'm not a barbarian or using 2d6 weapons, shouldn't I always use dex?

I have an EK using a Longsword, I could just as well use a Rapier, remove all my points from STR, and gain a plethora of benefits :0

[Man_Over_Game]

So wait, if I'm not a barbarian or using 2d6 weapons, shouldn't I always use dex?

I have an EK using a Longsword, I could just as well use a Rapier, remove all my points from STR, and gain a plethora of benefits :0

A lot of people have that mentality. However, Strength builds:


Require less investment for AC.
Use a skill that sees more use in combat (Athletics).
Has less multiclass requirements (Rangers and Monks require Wisdom)
Is used for encumbrance rules (can carry more gear).
Has more magical items.


Good rule of thumb that I've seen is, Dexterity is good if you can afford to max out your physical stat (or get close, to like 18). If you only ever plan on getting a 16 in your physical stat, Strength is better.

Or, put in another way, Strength is better for multiclassing, Dexterity is better for a single class.

[stoutstien]

So wait, if I'm not a barbarian or using 2d6 weapons, shouldn't I always use dex?

I have an EK using a Longsword, I could just as well use a Rapier, remove all my points from STR, and gain a plethora of benefits :0
That's a good thought exercise count the number of magic weapons available that use str vs Dex.You can see why strength had a leg up in some regards.
Then you run into the scimitar of speed which should have never been printed.

[MrStabby]

Ah, I get it.

If TWF were as good as heavy weapon fighting there would be no reason to play a Strength based character. There has to be a gap between the styles, due to Dexterity's usefulness and versatility. It's a primary save, it's stealth, it's initiative, and it allows for ranged attacks.

This is the bulk of it.

[greenstone]

...to get Two Weapon Fighting in line with using a two handed weapon?

Why do you feel there is a need to do this?

[Frozenstep]

Why do you feel there is a need to do this?

Probably because it's a popular choice of weapons in media (despite being impractical in real life, but that shouldn't be a concern), and it being a weak choice in DnD puts people who want to play as such a character in a position where playing the concept they find cool comes with a mechanical penalty. While you can't support every concept and make every build viable, something as simple as being a character that uses two melee weapons being universally weak outside of rogue is a little disappointing.

[stoutstien]

I do think matching 2hd is a bit much. Personally I like 2wf to out damage one hand but stay behind 2hd and reverse as far as defense is concerned.

[Frozenstep]

I do think matching 2hd is a bit much. Personally I like 2wf to out damage one hand but stay behind 2hd and reverse as far as defense is concerned.

If you're responding to the quote about making TWF in line with 2-handed, I'm pretty sure that means "just as viable, perhaps for different reasons". If TWF filled some gap between sword and board and 2-handed, that'd be pretty great.

[Bjarkmundur]

If you're responding to the quote about making TWF in line with 2-handed, I'm pretty sure that means "just as viable, perhaps for different reasons". If TWF filled some gap between sword and board and 2-handed, that'd be pretty great.

That's actually an interesting train of thought.
Do you think TWF should give a +1 AC when using a "parrying Dagger"?

[MrStabby]

That's actually an interesting train of thought.
Do you think TWF should give a +1 AC when using a "parrying Dagger"?

+1 AC against melee attacks only?

Not the most broken thing, but I think two weapon fighting is close to fine.

[Kane0]

Its mechanically fine, but becomes odd when you consider fighting things that are NOT dudes using regular dude weapons and armor.
Dragons, for example.

[stoutstien]

+1 AC against melee attacks only?

Not the most broken thing, but I think two weapon fighting is close to fine.

Twf with sword/dagger was popular for a lot of reasons in history but the big one was that it provided more defense. A dagger can block incoming blows faster and frees up your rapier/side sword for returning the favor.

Twf doesn't need that big of a buff but Compared to duelist that can be within ~1 damage per turn, have +2 AC, have a freed up bonus action, more dangerous AOO, and magic effects that boost weapon damage/ attack only effect one weapon is say Twf need some help

[Willie the Duck]

Why is it that the second attack costs a bonus action, instead of it being a part of the attack action?


It feels like you are telling me the side effects of rules, rather than the reasons for why they were created :/
I don't think the developers thought to themselves "ah, in many moons we will create a class called Hexblade that could abuse this rule"

I'm going to focus on this part of the discussion. :smallbiggrin:

The exact why-we-ended-up-where-we-are is unfortunately extremely hard to ferret out. The one thing the designers seem to shy away from most strongly is specific 'why'd you decide to...' questions. I know I have a lot of questions about one handed quarterstaves and shields I'd like to get in line if we can ever find a dev in an oversharing mood. :smalltongue:

It seems likely to me that the designers had specific ideas in their heads about who they thought would want to use 2wf, and then designed around that. Rangers and rogues are the usual key demographic for 2wf. I think the designers thought that people who would play rogues and rangers (as opposed to perhaps a fighter or barbarian) would be the kind or person that wanted a martial character, but still wanted to make a bunch of tactical decisions (ones where you weighed the tradeoffs of various potential choices). Rangers get some notable bonus action-using spells*, and rogues get cunning action***. Thus we have a setup where Rangers and Rogues are both making hard decisions on whether to use their bonus actions for various activities (and getting fairly high reward for having chosen correctly).
*including Hunter's Mark, a spell which synergizes well with 2wf, minus competing for bonus actions
**whether these preceded the bonus-action-2wf concept, I cannot know

Obviously I can't know if that is the reason, but it is a compelling reason, and would explain why 2wf seems to be good for classes like rogues and rangers (and hex-casting bladelocks), but underbalanced in the hands of, say, a Champion Fighter or Cleric.