Two-Weapon Fighting, and the fixing thereof, critiques and discussion welcome

[AdAstra]

Note: This may be better suited to the Homebrew forum, not sure, so if a mod wants to move it there that's cool

So, people have talked about all the problems with two-weapon fighting in 5th edition, from my understanding, it's pretty well established that it starts off very strong, but is out-scaled as characters get extra attacks, uses a potentially valuable bonus action, and has pretty much the worst feat support out of any style. It's good for rogues, and can be made to work for paladins, but twf is not one of their fighting styles, requiring either multiclassing or houserules.

Now all those threads are pretty old, and quite a ways before I started posting in this forum, so if anyone has any good fixes they've found or made, feel free to show them off here! I've brainstormed a few potential solutions, but I'm not completely satisfied with any of them, so any suggestions would be appreciated.

Goals: Reduce TWF's early-game power, while allowing it to scale properly in relation to other styles. Ideally, there should also be decent feat support, and I'd like to keep the "bonus action to make one attack" thing for a variety of reasons.

Add the following to the Two-Weapon Fighting Section:

As your martial capabilities improve, the strength of your Offhand attacks does as well. When you use Two-Weapon Fighting to attack with a light melee weapon as a bonus action (from now on referred to as an Offhand attack), you deal additional damage equal to the weapon's damage die multiplied by the number of extra attacks the Extra Attack feature gives you. (so with a handaxe and Extra Attack, your bonus-action attack would deal 2d6, 3d6 with Extra Attack (2), etc.)

The reasoning here is to allow the bonus action attack to scale along perfectly with extra attacks, while avoiding weird interactions that could be caused by allowing you to make more than one attack as a bonus action (namely, Paladins' improved divine smite and things like hex or hunter's mark).

Paladins also have access to the two-weapon fighting style
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

While wielding a weapon in each hand, at least one of which is light, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and may use Two-Weapon Fighting to make an Offhand attack (note that all other rules for Offhand Attacks still apply)
(representing the defensive benefits of using two weapons. This in total works out to essentially +1 to damage and +1 to AC)

Note: the text in parentheses would not be in the final version, it's just clarifying some things in case the intent isn't clear

Mathwise: With the scaling, +1 AC, one non-light weapon version of the fighting style, your damage is identical to a single weapon that does 1d8+1d6+Mod at the cost of your bonus action, even as you gain extra attacks. This works out to -0.33 to damage and +1AC over GWF, which taking into account the ability to use dex, marginally better ranged capability, and bonus action cost seems about fair. It's worse than PAM with defense, but PAM is an extra feat that's already extremely strong early on, so I find that acceptable.

EDITS: Some formatting
Removed the possibility of getting +2 AC. Produces too much overlap with shields and is probably a tad too strong
Re-added +2 AC bonus possibility. Probably should wait for more feedback before just removing it (removed again)
Did a big rework, now FS allows one non-light weapon
Cut out sections relating to outdated versions
Cleaned up text slightly to reduce length
Moved Extra Attack scaling to new section.
Allowed Paladins to take the style
Reworded Fighting Style


Coming (hopefully very) Soon: Dual Wielder Revised!
Note: the following is probably not remotely balanced, it's more of a example of the concept

Goal: What we're looking for is to be doing more damage to multiple targets, and/or provide defense from such. With that in mind, maybe something like:

You have mastered fighting with multiple weapons, a potent asset when outnumbered, and can using the weakness of one to strike at all.

When you use a bonus action to make an Offhand Attack, you may instead make an Offhand attack against any number of creatures within 5 ft. of you.

When you take an opportunity attack, you may instead make an Offhand Attack against any number of creatures within 5 ft. of you, including the creature that provoked an opportunity attack.
(ideally, this should not work with Polearm Master, as you need to use a light weapon for your Offhand attack, and PAM is only supposed to let you make an opportunity attack with the actual polearm.

Comments: Either of these encourage a TWF character to get into the thick of it and allows you to do things like clear off weak mooks as you carve away at their boss, or finish off enemies near death to focus on fresh targets. You can hurl your self into a crowd of enemies, deal consistent damage to everyone in melee range, and punish all of them if one tries to escape. I kinda worry a little about how effective this is with crits (maybe on a champion with elven accuracy? Hell, maybe it would make the champion more competitive)

Mathwise: I really have no idea how to evaluate this one. Calculations would be much appreciated. Obviously (at least with two or more extra attacks) this gives opportunity attacks more bite, and one monster running away from you can deal damage to all of them. Aside from that it's hard to tell how. It's way less useful to someone who doesn't have extra attacks.

EDIT: added ability mod to damage as a possibility (now removed, was kinda boring)
Added offhand damage AOE
Reworded reaction AOE to not interact with cavalier or PAM
Allowed special attack to crit
Just had it so you can make an offhand attack against everything. Much simpler

Same as before, critiques and suggestions appreciated, though do note that the revised feat is far more conceptual in nature than the revised fighting style

Overall Edits: Moved offhand scaling to separate section.
Cut out lots of chaff from certain text
Bolded actual changes for clarity.

NOTE As this is a work in progress, edits will be very frequent, chances are if you read it one day it will be notably different the next. I'll try to keep track of all edits though.

[AdAstra]

(probably not necessary, but reserved just in case)

Okay, this is probably a good place to put some of the pressing or frequently-proposed problems, and some summaries of responses or acknowledgements.

1. TWF isn't under/overpowered: Okay, so definitely in many cases it really isn't, but it has some notable troublespots (Tier 1 it's blatantly too strong) and major issues that make it an unattractive option for many classes. I can put detailed math here if enough people request it.
EDIT: also, as kinda mentioned in the thread, if you allow variant human, then Polearm Master allows you to beat TWF at its own game right out of the gate. So even in terms of Tier 1 strength it can be beaten. Once you get to the point where feats are being taken, or when you do everything possible to optimize, TWF really just can't win. It doesn't need to, but overall its power is just so all over the place it's hard to say it's balanced properly.

2. This solution is overcomplicated: Yeah it's way too verbose. I'm not happy with the wording and still very uncertain on the mechanics (though I'm pretty set on the scaling-offhand-attack thing). Not really sure how to reword the first part, and not really sure what exactly is good for the second part, but so far there hasn't really been anything I've seen that solves as many of the issues (as I see them) with TWF as this.

suplee215 brought up that a big problem is that many classes that could benefit a lot from TWF don't actually get the fighting style. Paladins honestly should get it, especially considering how Polearm Master allows similar shenanigans with smite and IDS. Barbarians and rogues don't really get a FS in the first place, and not having one definitely fits with the idea of a barbarian. Rogues on the other hand really don't need the boost to damage in Tier 1, they already get a ton out of TWF even without the FS, so giving it them one should probably be reserved for a higher level, if at all.

[MeeposFire]

In my games I have worked with these changes


When you draw a weapon you can draw two as the same object interaction so long as both are drawn at the same time.

No longer needs a bonus action. You can make that off hand attack when ever you make an attack using an action on your turn.


You automatically gain attribute to damage on the off hand attack when you gain the extra attack feature (or similar).

Fighting style allows you to wield non-light weapons with two weapon fighting.

The two weapon fighting feat gives the following benefits

1. +1 AC
2. If you take the attack action on you turn you can make an additional attack with the off hand weapon as a bonus action.
3. When you make an opportunity attack you can make an attack with your off hand weapon in addition to the standard opportunity attack.

[Dork_Forge]

I'm not really familiar with the fighting style being under powered to be honest, can you help me understand how it doesn't scale out? Adding 4-5 mod damage to your bonus action attack is solid and the feat allows for a sizing up of damage die, better mechanical support for drawing and a bonus to AC. For Extra Attack the whole purpose TWF is to give an additional attack, which it fulfills still. I can't think of a class that would be melee centric that would have a consistent use bonus action that would interfere with it and any BA that are acquired can just be weighed up as do I need/want to do X this turn? If not the stick with the norm of TWF.

[Jerrykhor]

I can't think of a class that would be melee centric that would have a consistent use bonus action that would interfere with it and any BA that are acquired can just be weighed up as do I need/want to do X this turn? If not the stick with the norm of TWF.

Hexblade warlock comes to mind, so many uses for bonus action besides Hex/Hexblade Curse.

Rangers with Hunters Mark.

Paladin with Smite spells, and Vow of Amnity/Hunters Mark (Oath of Vengeance)

Berserker Barbarian's Frenzy straight up does not work with TWF.

And many more, you don't have to look very hard. This is not even counting certain magic items that require bonus action to activate (like Flametongue).

My personal experience with TWF was with the UA Mystic Soul Knife. I had so many uses for bonus action that i was practically just attacking with main hand only.

[Bjarkmundur]

I say remove the Two-Weapon Fighting style completely. It adds power early game and gives no scaling, so it works against us on both accounts. You could instead add general scaling to the rules of Two-Weapon Fighting, regardless of who's using it:


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. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. At 5th level, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of your bonus attack. PHB, p195
Then tweak Duelist to give its bonus damage to your main-hand weapon. Now you have scaling and a choice of going 'parrying dagger' with Defensive Fihting Style or 'more damage' with Duelist Fighting Style.

You don't have to worry about drawing, due to the "Use an Object" rules:

Use an Object
You normally interact with an object while doing something else, such as when you draw a sword as part of an attack...PHB, p193"
Summary: Instead of making up an entire new rules set and options, just add one line to the general rules of TWF, and remove a couple of words from a fighting style. This is much cleaner, and arrives at the same conclusion.

To see how clean this solution is, you can write it up like this:

Duelist: Now applies to all single-handed weapons wielded in main hand, works with shielld or two-weapon fighting
Two-Weapon Fighting general rule: Now adds ability modifier to damage of your off-hand attack at 5th level.

[DevilMcam]

My take at it would be to just remove Two weapon fighint as a whole and go for a more "abstract" weapon system.

We already use HPs and AC as abstracts systems, why not do the same with weapons ?

here is my suggestion :
any simple weapon is 1D8, Two handed + 1 free property
martial weapon are 1D10 two handed + 1 free property

You can add as many properties as you want by downgrading dice size.

Properties :
- Heavy : Increase dice size by one
- ranged : 100/300 range, uses dex (or whatever I haven't doublechecked the number on that)
- Versatile : can be used with only 1 hand by downgrading dice size.
- thrown (verstile weapons only) : can be thrown at a 20/60 range
- finesse : can use dex, a weapon that is both versatile and finesse weapon can only be used with 1 hand
- reach : 10ft reach
- loading (ranged weapons only) : increase damage dice by 2

a pair of shortswords is a martial two handed finesse weapon. for example.

Fighting styles becomes :
Defense (unchanged)
Offense : change weapon dice : D12=> 2D6, D10 => D4+D6, D8=> 2D4, and reroll 1 and 2s
Protection (unchaned)
archery (unchanged)

feats like PAM and GWM need a bit of tweaking that I'll expand later if you are interested.
To not break melee rogue you need to give them the "dagger in the back feature",

"dagger in the back" : when you miss with a melee attack that would qualify for sneak attack, you can as a bonus action make a melee attack that deal 1D4 + STR or DEX piercing damage.

[Bjarkmundur]

*snip*

This is the 5e forums, which means we are looking at a fix for the masses: Clean, simple and effective. Your suggestion does look interesting, but it's not really minimal. Overhauling entire aspects of the game isn't really in the spirit of this forum :/

[DevilMcam]

if you want a 1 line version of it :

Treat dual wielding shrotswords as using a finesse greatsword, most of the things are fine that way

[Bjarkmundur]

if you want a 1 line version of it :

Treat dual wielding shortswords as using a greatsword, most of the things are fine that way

It works fine, but it doesn't line up with the design goal of two-weapon fighting. In any FRPG, you pick two weapon fighting because you want to percieve and display your character as a fast-attacker, being able to land multiple quick attacks in the time it takes most characters to make one big attack. It's important when redisigning a feature to keep the feeling of the feature intact.

[DevilMcam]

yeah, but the attack action is not "I swing my sword" and extra attack is not "Now I can swing twice"

even with a greatsword a single attack is a lot of jab stabs swing feints, and eventually one connects.

The fantaisy trope of two weapons fighting isn't actually very accurate, more weapons usually doesn't means more attacks

[Bjarkmundur]

The fantasy trope of two weapons fighting isn't actually very accurate, more weapons usually doesn't means more attacks

This is actually quite true. I just recently had to explain to my entire group that "hit points" are not "life points". How every attack is an attempted lethal strike, and only through the use of hit points do you manage to turn them into glancing blows. I was met with disbelief until I pointed out that no man, fantasy or otherwise, can take 5 arrows in the chest and just shrug it if with an hour of rest. xD

[AdAstra]

I'm not really familiar with the fighting style being under powered to be honest, can you help me understand how it doesn't scale out? Adding 4-5 mod damage to your bonus action attack is solid and the feat allows for a sizing up of damage die, better mechanical support for drawing and a bonus to AC. For Extra Attack the whole purpose TWF is to give an additional attack, which it fulfills still. I can't think of a class that would be melee centric that would have a consistent use bonus action that would interfere with it and any BA that are acquired can just be weighed up as do I need/want to do X this turn? If not the stick with the norm of TWF.
Okay, to summarize, the Extra Attack feature doesn't improve your offhand attack at all, only your main-hand, which is by itself is obviously weaker than attacks from a Duelist longsword or GWF greatsword. It does start off very strong, but even after the first Extra Attack it starts to taper off. For fighters, even three attacks makes it objectively worse
Mathwise, assuming +3 strength or dex:
(1d6+3)x2 averages out to 13
1d8+3+2 averages 9.5
2d6 rerolled +3 averages 11.33
So advantage clearly to TWF at first, not to mention the benefits of having more granular attacks to reduce overkill. An ASI to your attack stat pushes these numbers to 15, 10.5, and 12.33, again TWF still rules. However, extra attack changes things:
(1d6+4)x3 averages 22.5
(1d8+4+2)x2 averages 21
(2d6RR+4)x2 averages 24.67
GWF pulls solidly ahead, and Dueling is nipping at TWF's heels, while also having +2 AC. This gap only widens as characters get more attacks.
EDIT: A second ASI would push these numbers to 25.5, 23, and 26.67. Slightly better for TWF, but not really enough to change the conclusion. It's hardly bad with one Extra Attack, arguably being the most balanced at that point, but it's still slightly subpar imo, and at every other point it's either too strong or too weak.

In terms of feats, Dual Wielder in practice is actually slightly less impactful than an ASI to Dex (+1 average damage per attack, and +1 AC, but NOT +1 to hit). When compared to GWM, which is powerful enough that many take it instead of an ASI, it's really not that significant

I say remove the Two-Weapon Fighting style completely. It adds power early game and gives no scaling, so it works against us on both accounts. You could instead add general scaling to the rules of Two-Weapon Fighting, regardless of who's using it:


Then tweak Duelist to give its bonus damage to your main-hand weapon. Now you have scaling and a choice of going 'parrying dagger' with Defensive Fihting Style or 'more damage' with Duelist Fighting Style.

You don't have to worry about drawing, due to the "Use an Object" rules:

Summary: Instead of making up an entire new rules set and options, just add one line to the general rules of TWF, and remove a couple of words from a fighting style. This is much cleaner, and arrives at the same conclusion.

To see how clean this solution is, you can write it up like this:

Duelist: Now applies to all single-handed weapons wielded in main hand, works with shielld or two-weapon fighting
Two-Weapon Fighting general rule: Now adds ability modifier to damage of your off-hand attack at 5th level.


The object interaction rules do not work like that. Wish they did, but they don't. You can interact with (draw) one weapon for free, but the second one would take your action. The "same action" statement is used as an example of your ONE free object interaction on your turn. The intent is also clear since Dual Wielder gives the explicit benefit of drawing or stowing two weapons for free on your turn, which would be completely unnecessary if you could do that anyway.
The problem with scaling TWF based on level is that it affects even classes that don't have extra attacks, and it for Fighters, it just delays the scaling issue until later. Rogues don't particularly need another reason to use TWF, it's already very good for them.
Using Dueling that way is probably a decent solution, but it's also a little boring, doesn't solve the scaling issue by itself, and effectively turns it into two fighting styles in one. Not necessarily a bad thing, but not ideal.

[suplee215]

My biggest issue is it just doesn't feel like the right classes get access to it. If paladins, barbarians (non bersekers), rogues, and even oddballs like Bladesingers and Pact of the Blade warlocks got access to two weapon fighting they'll use it in a heart beat. It will be a less feat heavy (and therefore better for MAD) way to get an extra attack for their extra damage bonus (Improved Divine Smite, Rage, adding modifiers). The ROgue will love TWF just because they often use a second attack anyways to secure sneak attack in case of miss. As it stands the two/three classes with access to it (Fighter, Ranger, Sword Bard) are ill suited. A Fighter's main focus of damage is extra attacks which outclass the damage bonus of +5 in higher levels (at best TWF adds +5 to your damage and starting at level 11 a fighter can add +6 thanks to Duelist style and still have a bonus action). Ranger's Hunter Mark and other ways to use bonus action are required to make the class function. I don't see anything wrong with Sword Bard for it but it is still lack luster. I think the Revised Ranger with the added damage to favored enemy will make Ranger enjoy the style a lot more. But the main issue is just the classes who get it don't need it. And while those classes can always multiclass, you could just as easily take Polearm Master on most of those classes instead for the same exact thing.

[AdAstra]

if you want a 1 line version of it :

Treat dual wielding shrotswords as using a finesse greatsword, most of the things are fine that way

I'd considered this a long time ago, but I really don't consider it an ideal solution. If anything, weapon combat in 5e is lacking in variety (though I'm fine with the amount it has), and this would collapse that mechanical range even further. Also, thematically, the second weapon adding damage to the first one isn't really that much more realistic, since having a shortsword in one hand doesn't give the other shortsword more killing power behind it. I guess it could model a more aggressive series of blows in totality, but the image doesn't come across very well. Plus, it pretty much makes greatswords pointless, and doesn't do anything to explain how it works with thrown weapons.

[ChiefBigFeather]

In many cases TWF is not nearly as broken as people make it out to be. Hunters Mark for example scales really well with the extra attack. Sure, it eats your bonus action in horde fights, but GWM overkills more often in horde fights.

TWF allows for dex fighting, which is a significant advantage in itself. Higher Initiative potentially allows for a whole round of extra damage in combat. And that damage is dealt in the most important round of combat (an important detail people overvaluing the paladin tend to miss btw).

TWF only starts to fall off when the third attack at level 11 comes into play. Given the example of a Gloomstalker Ranger going for max dex and Elven Accuracy (approximate equivalent of an optimized GWM human Gloomstalker) he is only ~10-15% behind in damage by level 11, far from game breaking.

Magic items tend to favor the GWM though, depending on how many items you hand out that provide additional static bonuses.

Fighters are probably further behind when doing TWF, as they do not have access to static damage bonuses on top of their extra attack (like Hunter's Mark). Two handed weapons also tend to scale better with maneuvers. But I consider Fighters too boring to do the math.

[Yunru]

I drop the "no modifier" part (which also eliminates a source of confusion for newbies), and make the Fighting Style merge it into the Attack action instead of a BA.

[AdAstra]

In many cases TWF is not nearly as broken as people make it out to be. Hunters Mark for example scales really well with the extra attack. Sure, it eats your bonus action in horde fights, but GWM overkills more often in horde fights.

TWF allows for dex fighting, which is a significant advantage in itself. Higher Initiative potentially allows for a whole round of extra damage in combat. And that damage is dealt in the most important round of combat (an important detail people overvaluing the paladin tend to miss btw).

TWF only starts to fall off when the third attack at level 11 comes into play. Given the example of a Gloomstalker Ranger going for max dex and Elven Accuracy (approximate equivalent of an optimized GWM human Gloomstalker) he is only ~10-15% behind in damage by level 11, far from game breaking.

Magic items tend to favor the GWM though, depending on how many items you hand out that provide additional static bonuses.

Fighters are probably further behind when doing TWF, as they do not have access to static damage bonuses on top of their extra attack (like Hunter's Mark). Two handed weapons also tend to scale better with maneuvers. But I consider Fighters too boring to do the math.

The ability to use dex as opposed to strength is a good point. However, I think that the use of a bonus action, which can be in high demand, somewhat offsets that. It probably should be about equal or weaker than GWF.
One major thing is that Polearm Master with spear-and-shield is notably superior to TWF with Dual Wielder even for characters with only one or two attacks. It does everything TWF does, only slightly better and with a reaction attack added on top. Again, since that takes strength rather than dex it's not too much of a problem, but the niche of TWF is rather small indeed.
As for rangers, what TWF is competing with isn't really GWM, but Archery and Sharpshooter, at which point you have to get into things like average damage vs a given AC to really get a good read. It probably does decently, but needing that first round bonus action (and one every time you kill a target) gives me the feeling you'll be losing out on damage when you need it most: as soon as possible, as you said.

[AdAstra]

I drop the "no modifier" part (which also eliminates a source of confusion for newbies), and make the Fighting Style merge it into the Attack action instead of a BA.

This solves the problem of using bonus actions, but (in addition to the fact that I don't think that needs to change) it fails to address the issue of scaling, and makes it even more powerful in Tier 1 and for rogues, almost the opposite of one of my goals here.

I know I've mostly just been disagreeing with everyone here, but I would like to say that I'm loving the engagement! You're all putting down valuable stuff here.

[Raxxius]

While I know 5e goes for simplicity, I feel that twf is an oddball because it's competition with 2 handed fighting, and while people might just be thinking 'no problem, 2 handers for strength, two weapons for Dex, it's opposite to reality, where high strength is needed. There's a reason that the nagatana is the weapon of choice for female samurai.

I'd be looking at giving twf a shield bonus for melee, with the option for a damage bonus instead, essentially merge dueling style with defence style for melee only.

[AdAstra]

While I know 5e goes for simplicity, I feel that twf is an oddball because it's competition with 2 handed fighting, and while people might just be thinking 'no problem, 2 handers for strength, two weapons for Dex, it's opposite to reality, where high strength is needed. There's a reason that the nagatana is the weapon of choice for female samurai.

I'd be looking at giving twf a shield bonus for melee, with the option for a damage bonus instead, essentially merge dueling style with defence style for melee only.

I mean, this was pretty similar to my proposal for TWF FS to give +2 AC. And the other option (using non-light weapons) is a damage bonus instead.

[Yunru]

This solves the problem of using bonus actions, but (in addition to the fact that I don't think that needs to change) it fails to address the issue of scaling, and makes it even more powerful in Tier 1 and for rogues, almost the opposite of one of my goals here.

I'd argue that if it failed at everything else, it succeeded at addressing scaling, simply because as you advance in level you get more and more uses for your bonus action, so not requiring it to TWF is more and more valuable.

[DevilMcam]

If TWF grant the same bonus as a shield, then a shield become irelevant, so that would not really fix the issue.

I agree with AdAstra : the problem is when you compare it to PAM.
There is almost no situation where defense + PAM is not superior to TWFS+ TWF. and the "you get to use dex" part don't really matter most of the time because having STR let you shove and use Plate armor

[AdAstra]

I'd argue that if it failed at everything else, it succeeded at addressing scaling, simply because as you advance in level you get more and more uses for your bonus action, so not requiring it to TWF is more and more valuable.

I guess you could argue that the value of the style itself scales, but that kinda has more to do with eliminating a weakness than providing a strength, not that it needs more strength in Tier 1 as it is. Plus, I think the TWF attack requiring a bonus action is a valuable "gate" of sorts to reduce the amount of other features it interacts with. As it is, even if your changes made it balanced past lvl 5, your changes make it incredibly strong before that, even moreso than it already was. Ex: TWF fighter could action surge to get 4 1d6+3 attacks at lvl 2. a lvl 3 TWF hunter ranger could use hunter's mark to make two 2d6+3 attacks per turn, three with horde slayer.

[AdAstra]

My take at it would be to just remove Two weapon fighint as a whole and go for a more "abstract" weapon system.

We already use HPs and AC as abstracts systems, why not do the same with weapons ?

here is my suggestion :
any simple weapon is 1D8, Two handed + 1 free property
martial weapon are 1D10 two handed + 1 free property

You can add as many properties as you want by downgrading dice size.

Properties :
- Heavy : Increase dice size by one
- ranged : 100/300 range, uses dex (or whatever I haven't doublechecked the number on that)
- Versatile : can be used with only 1 hand by downgrading dice size.
- thrown (verstile weapons only) : can be thrown at a 20/60 range
- finesse : can use dex, a weapon that is both versatile and finesse weapon can only be used with 1 hand
- reach : 10ft reach
- loading (ranged weapons only) : increase damage dice by 2

a pair of shortswords is a martial two handed finesse weapon. for example.

Fighting styles becomes :
Defense (unchanged)
Offense : change weapon dice : D12=> 2D6, D10 => D4+D6, D8=> 2D4, and reroll 1 and 2s
Protection (unchaned)
archery (unchanged)

feats like PAM and GWM need a bit of tweaking that I'll expand later if you are interested.
To not break melee rogue you need to give them the "dagger in the back feature",

"dagger in the back" : when you miss with a melee attack that would qualify for sneak attack, you can as a bonus action make a melee attack that deal 1D4 + STR or DEX piercing damage.

I didn't really give this a good look at first, sorry. While it's interesting, this is a revamp of 5e's weapon system in its entirety, not really a change to TWF specifically. I would prefer changing as little about the rest of the game as possible, and changing basically everything falls way outside the scope of my intentions.

[Yunru]

Well the other option we tried was making the fighting style only add half your modifier (rounded up), but allowing you to take the Attack action rather than just making a single attack.

[Bjarkmundur]

I feel like fighting styles are also the culprit here.
You can tell because we are not trying to fix TWF, we're trying to fix the fighting style. TWF is a general rule, and class features should come as an afterthought. I think the goal should be to NOT have TWF dependant on a fighting style, and work from there. +2 damage is all you should really expect from a fighting style, some added utility or a small stat bonus. It should not be a tax or an opportunity cost. I'd love to be able to have 3 different characters at my table, all two-weapon fighting, and all have different fighting styles, and performing quite similarly. One has more defense, one has more damage, and one can throw knives with stunning accuracy.

The means of manipulating the scaling of TWF are the following:

Allow/disallow non-light weapons
Alter the bonus damage scaling
Alter the action economy
Have TWF work differently "When you use your Extra Attack feature"


Using these variables, we can make multiple very good versions of TWF, that pretty much do the same thing, but with different mechanics.

[suplee215]

What the style really needs is a better feat support to compete at higher levels when it sinks. Before level 11 the style is more than effective. I wonder if it's too broken but I thought of a feat that adds your proficiency bonus to damage if you are duel weilding two melee weapons. Perhaps make it only on the extra bonus action attack. Perhaps not. At lvl 20 in fighter with action surgery itll be an extra 54 damage which sounds like a lot but then great weapon fighter does an extra 80, 90 with pole arm master and bigger dice.

[AdAstra]

What the style really needs is a better feat support to compete at higher levels when it sinks. Before level 11 the style is more than effective. I wonder if it's too broken but I thought of a feat that adds your proficiency bonus to damage if you are duel weilding two melee weapons. Perhaps make it only on the extra bonus action attack. Perhaps not. At lvl 20 in fighter with action surgery itll be an extra 54 damage which sounds like a lot but then great weapon fighter does an extra 80, 90 with pole arm master and bigger dice.

Well look at that, guess this posted just as I was typing out the shiny new crappy rough draft of my Revised Dual Wielder feat! Feel free to check it out everyone, and as usual, I'm glad to hear people's thoughts and existing solutions!

[Frozenstep]

Here's the idea I had a while back.

TWF style: When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make while engaging in two-weapon fighting, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2.

Dual wielder feat: Same +1 AC, same draw/stow two weapons, same can dual wield non-light weapons. New feature: On your turn, you may use your bonus action to use paired weapon attacks until the end of your turn.

When you are using paired weapon attacks, when you take the Attack option with a light melee weapon your are holding in one hand, you may add the damage dice of a light melee weapon you are holding in your other hand. If you make the attack with strength, the melee weapons do not need to be light. No other on-hit effects, from the weapon or other features, are applied.

Notes: This is basically strictly for fighters, especially during action surge. For everyone else, this is strictly worse, by design. The problem is if you don't have things consume a bonus action, they become very easy pick-ups that increase the damage of classes you didn't mean to touch (monks...).

[stoutstien]

An easy fix is to switch the feat and the fighting style around.
This reduces the spike in tier one because going from D6 to D8 is worth ~1 more damage per hit and the +1 AC will put it right in-between THF and duelist as far as defense.

Add the stat mod with a feat then either make it a half feat or personally I add a ablity to trade advantage on the bonus action attack for two attacks without advantage.

It just barely pulls ahead of the duelist + shield master combo.

[AdAstra]

An easy fix is to switch the feat and the fighting style around.
This reduces the spike in tier one because going from D6 to D8 is worth ~1 more damage per hit and the +1 AC will put it right in-between THF and duelist as far as defense.

Add the stat mod with a feat then either make it a half feat or personally I add a ablity to trade advantage on the bonus action attack for two attacks without advantage.

It just barely pulls ahead of the duelist + shield master combo.

This is pretty much what the version of my TWF that allows two non-light weapons does. The problem with allowing that in addition to +1 AC, is that while using non-light weapons gives +1 damage per hit, your bonus action attacks means your per-round damage is increased by 2, not 1. So before extra attacks come in, TWF is effectively giving you a +2 to damage, and a +1 to AC at the same time, which is pretty out of line, and arguably even better than the as-written TWF fighting style

[bid]

Two-Weapon Fighting general rule: Now adds ability modifier to damage of your off-hand attack at 5th level.
Character level?
OTOH, following cantrips is not that big a boost.


And anyway, TWF is a rogue thing. Outside of that class it's not that useful.

[stoutstien]

This is pretty much what the version of my TWF that allows two non-light weapons does. The problem with allowing that in addition to +1 AC, is that while using non-light weapons gives +1 damage per hit, your bonus action attacks means your per-round damage is increased by 2, not 1. So before extra attacks come in, TWF is effectively giving you a +2 to damage, and a +1 to AC at the same time, which is pretty out of line, and arguably even better than the as-written TWF fighting style
Depends, duelist is practically + 2 damage per hit and + 2 AC and still has bonus action free.

And this is excluding one hand Pam crap.

[Damon_Tor]

Replacing the normal rules for two-weapon fighting:

"While you wield light weapons in both of your hands and attack with either weapon, you can make one attack with each weapon. These attacks have disadvantage."

Replacing the Two-Weapon Fighting Style:

"While two weapon fighting, only one of your two attacks gets disadvantage. You choose which."

This weakens the tactic at early levels where it overperforms, but makes it more viable later, where it will stack with multiple attacks.

[drkillbydeath87]

I'm probably in the minority here but I've always felt the TWF scaling better with on-hit damage abilities (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Rage, etc.) was a feature rather than a bug. By default it should deal less damage than using a 2-handed weapon, but using something like this it has niche situations where it could theoretically pull ahead. Problem being, most of those effects require bonus actions and it simply takes too long for TWF to catch up with where

I really don't think there's a way around abolishing the 'bonus action' cost to balancing TWF simply because that makes the expected damage of TWF per round to swing wildly whether or not you have a more valuable bonus action to perform this turn that no other style has to put up with. This is a big factor in how Dueling typically ends up coming close to, if not surpassing TWF.

Of course, I see one immediate issue if the bonus action requirement was removed: Level 1 Monks would get a MH, OH and Unarmed strike, with at least 2 of those adding their Dex Mod in damage. Depending on if/when they gain the ability mod to their OH attack this could pose a problem.

Although if that were to be removed, the problem with the TWF style would arise that if it actually goes off, it blows GWF's reroll out of the water. Shifting that damage mod to a feat for a relatively free 1d6+3-5 damage may not reach the overpowered heights of GWM, but it's up there with the likes of PAM and CBE. (Although admitedly without things like the range, still somewhat inferior. The only possible change would be TWF not eating the bonus action?)

The only other feat fix I could see being in the league of these would be something that allows you to attack twice with your offhand instead of once, with the Extra Attack as a prereq, so you wouldn't be able to take that feat until at the earliest level 8, or 6 for Fighters.

Probably the easiest fix in this regard is swap the effects of the Dual Wielder feat and the TWF fighting style as stoutstein said. That makes the feat the important part and the fighting style almost negligible, much like GWM and GWF. I don't think that solution is sufficient by itself though. (I'm also not a huge fan of the +1 AC for Dual Wielding, if you want to go defense, get a shield. Honestly I'd sort of prefer to drop the Light weapon restriction by default, but that would cause TWF to even outdo 2handers at early levels which is probably not great.) I also really Bjark's idea of having Dueling apply to main-hand attacks when dual-wielding, as this would allow the off-hand attack to survive being a bonus action without severly penalizing the character for not using their OH attack.

[AdAstra]

Depends, duelist is practically + 2 damage per hit and + 2 AC and still has bonus action free.

And this is excluding one hand Pam crap.
Okay, this is just conflating the benefits of the shield with the benefits of the fighting style itself. With this solution, a TWF character gives up 1 AC and their bonus action in exchange for about 2.5 extra damage per round (when compared to S&B with dueling). This, when compared with GWF, which gives up 2 AC in exchange for 1.83 damage per round, is pretty obviously superior unless you have a clear use for your bonus action, which is rare in Tier 1 and includes things like hunter’s mark, which get amplified effect from having multiple attacks to balance it out. I pointed this out in my revisions. Just allowing non- light weapons increases damage by 0.67 over gwf, which I along with allowing dex I think is enough to justify the bonus action use in Tier 1

Early game PAM with shield and duelist is bonkers, yeah, I’ve played it. But we should probably set our balance point near the average rather than the very highest end of the range


I'm probably in the minority here but I've always felt the TWF scaling better with on-hit damage abilities (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Rage, etc.) was a feature rather than a bug. By default it should deal less damage than using a 2-handed weapon, but using something like this it has niche situations where it could theoretically pull ahead. Problem being, most of those effects require bonus actions and it simply takes too long for TWF to catch up with where

I really don't think there's a way around abolishing the 'bonus action' cost to balancing TWF simply because that makes the expected damage of TWF per round to swing wildly whether or not you have a more valuable bonus action to perform this turn that no other style has to put up with. This is a big factor in how Dueling typically ends up coming close to, if not surpassing TWF.

Of course, I see one immediate issue if the bonus action requirement was removed: Level 1 Monks would get a MH, OH and Unarmed strike, with at least 2 of those adding their Dex Mod in damage. Depending on if/when they gain the ability mod to their OH attack this could pose a problem.

Although if that were to be removed, the problem with the TWF style would arise that if it actually goes off, it blows GWF's reroll out of the water. Shifting that damage mod to a feat for a relatively free 1d6+3-5 damage may not reach the overpowered heights of GWM, but it's up there with the likes of PAM and CBE. (Although admitedly without things like the range, still somewhat inferior. The only possible change would be TWF not eating the bonus action?)

The only other feat fix I could see being in the league of these would be something that allows you to attack twice with your offhand instead of once, with the Extra Attack as a prereq, so you wouldn't be able to take that feat until at the earliest level 8, or 6 for Fighters.

Probably the easiest fix in this regard is swap the effects of the Dual Wielder feat and the TWF fighting style as stoutstein said. That makes the feat the important part and the fighting style almost negligible, much like GWM and GWF. I don't think that solution is sufficient by itself though. (I'm also not a huge fan of the +1 AC for Dual Wielding, if you want to go defense, get a shield. Honestly I'd sort of prefer to drop the Light weapon restriction by default, but that would cause TWF to even outdo 2handers at early levels which is probably not great.) I also really Bjark's idea of having Dueling apply to main-hand attacks when dual-wielding, as this would allow the off-hand attack to survive being a bonus action without severly penalizing the character for not using their OH attack.

Yeah, that’s pretty much why I decided that removing the BA requirement was a bad idea early on. Making the mainhand stronger definitely helps with reducing the pain of losing bonus action attacks, but scaling the offhand is also the only convenient way of ensuring TWF keeps up, as far as I can tell.

[stoutstien]

I'm probably in the minority here but I've always felt the TWF scaling better with on-hit damage abilities (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Rage, etc.) was a feature rather than a bug. By default it should deal less damage than using a 2-handed weapon, but using something like this it has niche situations where it could theoretically pull ahead. Problem being, most of those effects require bonus actions and it simply takes too long for TWF to catch up with where

I really don't think there's a way around abolishing the 'bonus action' cost to balancing TWF simply because that makes the expected damage of TWF per round to swing wildly whether or not you have a more valuable bonus action to perform this turn that no other style has to put up with. This is a big factor in how Dueling typically ends up coming close to, if not surpassing TWF.

Of course, I see one immediate issue if the bonus action requirement was removed: Level 1 Monks would get a MH, OH and Unarmed strike, with at least 2 of those adding their Dex Mod in damage. Depending on if/when they gain the ability mod to their OH attack this could pose a problem.

Although if that were to be removed, the problem with the TWF style would arise that if it actually goes off, it blows GWF's reroll out of the water. Shifting that damage mod to a feat for a relatively free 1d6+3-5 damage may not reach the overpowered heights of GWM, but it's up there with the likes of PAM and CBE. (Although admitedly without things like the range, still somewhat inferior. The only possible change would be TWF not eating the bonus action?)

The only other feat fix I could see being in the league of these would be something that allows you to attack twice with your offhand instead of once, with the Extra Attack as a prereq, so you wouldn't be able to take that feat until at the earliest level 8, or 6 for Fighters.

Probably the easiest fix in this regard is swap the effects of the Dual Wielder feat and the TWF fighting style as stoutstein said. That makes the feat the important part and the fighting style almost negligible, much like GWM and GWF. I don't think that solution is sufficient by itself though. (I'm also not a huge fan of the +1 AC for Dual Wielding, if you want to go defense, get a shield. Honestly I'd sort of prefer to drop the Light weapon restriction by default, but that would cause TWF to even outdo 2handers at early levels which is probably not great.) I also really Bjark's idea of having Dueling apply to main-hand attacks when dual-wielding, as this would allow the off-hand attack to survive being a bonus action without severly penalizing the character for not using their OH attack.

you brought up just about every promblem that I've ran into with trying to rebalance twf as a whole.

- Can't remove it from bonus action without a pile of new issues
-on hit bonus damage helps but most fights don't last long enough for it catch up.

On the topic of twf and defense, I know DND is not a simulation but sword and Dagger was a defensive style. The more material between you and something pokey is always better and daggers allow more variations of critical measure or range where you can poke holes in people.
So +1 AC vs the 2 with a shield isn't far of the mark.

If it wasn't so wordy I'd say you get +1 AC as long as your one of your weapons remain light while twf. Trading ~1 damage for 1 AC .

[Waterdeep Merch]

I've had a couple attempts at fixes myself, since I adore dual-wielding and wish it worked better. Rather than repeat them again, here's another thought that crossed my mind-

What if you simply added the weapon damage on top of any attacks you make? And the fighting style simply let you ignore restrictions on the main hand, not the offhand?

Then let Dual Wielder allow them to make one additional attack with their off-hand weapon that adds their ability score for damage. Keep the +1 AC and double draw ability.

My aim is to let them nearly compete with two-handed styles but always be slightly behind while still outpacing any sword 'n board forms and any polearm build that doesn't eat up 2+ feats (should outdo PAM, but shouldn't outdo PAM/GWM/Sentinel). And while I will always wish paladins had access to TWF, I think these changes alone make it a valuable asset even if they still don't.

My biggest worry then becomes rogues. But only because Dual Wielder clearly overshadows every other option for any melee-focused rogue, in the same way that any damage-focused barbarian simply must take GWM or any archer must take SS.

[AdAstra]

I've had a couple attempts at fixes myself, since I adore dual-wielding and wish it worked better. Rather than repeat them again, here's another thought that crossed my mind-

What if you simply added the weapon damage on top of any attacks you make? And the fighting style simply let you ignore restrictions on the main hand, not the offhand?

Then let Dual Wielder allow them to make one additional attack with their off-hand weapon that adds their ability score for damage. Keep the +1 AC and double draw ability.

My aim is to let them nearly compete with two-handed styles but always be slightly behind while still outpacing any sword 'n board forms and any polearm build that doesn't eat up 2+ feats (should outdo PAM, but shouldn't outdo PAM/GWM/Sentinel). And while I will always wish paladins had access to TWF, I think these changes alone make it a valuable asset even if they still don't.

My biggest worry then becomes rogues. But only because Dual Wielder clearly overshadows every other option for any melee-focused rogue, in the same way that any damage-focused barbarian simply must take GWM or any archer must take SS.

Asymmetrical weapons sounds like a good way to do it, at the very least rapier and dagger.

For the feat, a raw power boost sounds kinda boring. Should probably be something interesting, ideally fitting with the idea of using two weapons. Probably a multi-target attack of some kind, and maybe a defensive reaction that works better against more enemies, either a straight ac boost or like giving disadvantage to everyone after the first attacker

[Waterdeep Merch]

Asymmetrical weapons sounds like a good way to do it, at the very least rapier and dagger.

For the feat, a raw power boost sounds kinda boring. Should probably be something interesting, ideally fitting with the idea of using two weapons. Probably a multi-target attack of some kind, and maybe a defensive reaction that works better against more enemies, either a straight ac boost or like giving disadvantage to everyone after the first attacker

It might not be out of the question to only allow a bonus action attack against a different target than you chose for at least one of your attacks, sort of like the caveat on twin metamagic. This would help make it less of an absolute no-brainer for a rogue while still making it worthwhile, at least.

Allowing them to use their offhand weapon damage with AoO's is another neat perk that should totally be on the feat.

[AdAstra]

It might not be out of the question to only allow a bonus action attack against a different target than you chose for at least one of your attacks, sort of like the caveat on twin metamagic. This would help make it less of an absolute no-brainer for a rogue while still making it worthwhile, at least.

Allowing them to use their offhand weapon damage with AoO's is another neat perk that should totally be on the feat.

I don't mind allowing the base TWF fighting style to focus down targets. Forcing it into a multitarget playstyle from the getgo is more restrictive than most fighting styles (except Protection, but how many people choose that?). For the feat however, definitely. That should produce the desired effect of making it useful (providing multitarget damage that the rogue frequently lacks) while not making it blatantly better than everything else, since they can't even get a fighting style without multiclassing.

Opportunity-Attack based stuff sounds cool. Area damage to reduce the pressure from swarms, strong AoOs to make them pay for trying to run away.

Okay, have some changes in mind. Can't thank you all enough for the feedback and suggestions.

[D-naras]

My solution is to just allow characters to use two-weapon fighting plus one more ability that requires a bonus action at the same time at level 5. The rogue can attack with their action, and if they dual wield, they can take a bonus action to make an off-hand attack plus use cunning action. The timing on the bonus action and off-hand isn't strict; you can use your action to make 2 attacks with your main hand and your bonus action to Hex and then make an off-hand attack (provided you have the ability to cast with both hands occupied).

[Dork_Forge]

Hexblade warlock comes to mind, so many uses for bonus action besides Hex/Hexblade Curse.

Rangers with Hunters Mark.

Paladin with Smite spells, and Vow of Amnity/Hunters Mark (Oath of Vengeance)

Berserker Barbarian's Frenzy straight up does not work with TWF.

And many more, you don't have to look very hard. This is not even counting certain magic items that require bonus action to activate (like Flametongue).

My personal experience with TWF was with the UA Mystic Soul Knife. I had so many uses for bonus action that i was practically just attacking with main hand only.

All of those options are not consistent, they set up a buff on the first round of combat. For Hex and Hunter's Mark in an encounter where you'd have to move it around, you're trading your 3rd attack (die+mod) for 2d6.

Any magic item that requires a BA to activate is activated once that I can think of (like Flame Tongue).

A TWF Paladin just wouldn't use Smite spells, instead they'd use another attack with another opportunity for Divine Smite or cast the spell immediately before entering combat and just keep concentration on it until they hit.

The Berzerker is literally a subclass built around giving you a BA attack at a very heavy penalty.

Warlocks have little to do with a bonus action in general that doesn't require slots, and as they are Warlocks, they wouldn't be doing that every round. A celestial warlock would be the biggest exception to this.

[ChiefBigFeather]

The ability to use dex as opposed to strength is a good point. However, I think that the use of a bonus action, which can be in high demand, somewhat offsets that. It probably should be about equal or weaker than GWF.
One major thing is that Polearm Master with spear-and-shield is notably superior to TWF with Dual Wielder even for characters with only one or two attacks. It does everything TWF does, only slightly better and with a reaction attack added on top. Again, since that takes strength rather than dex it's not too much of a problem, but the niche of TWF is rather small indeed.

I only compared TWF vs GWM using the comprehensive DPR calculator and challenge rating appropriate AC as per the DMG (with more assumptions explained in my previous post). If you have access to Hunter's Mark, I do not see TWF inferior from levels 1-10. Any buff to TWF would probably make it superior or even OP.



As for rangers, what TWF is competing with isn't really GWM, but Archery and Sharpshooter, at which point you have to get into things like average damage vs a given AC to really get a good read. It probably does decently, but needing that first round bonus action (and one every time you kill a target) gives me the feeling you'll be losing out on damage when you need it most: as soon as possible, as you said.
Well, a Sharpshooter has a different party role. The other damage dealing melee fighter type uses a greatsword. I did calculate the average damage vs challenge rating appropriate AC and calculated Stalker's Flurry by hand. My conclusion is this: TWF only falls behind after level 11, at which point I will just hand out a cool off-hand magic weapon.

This is the math I posted in the comments section of one of Treantmonk's vids (using the comprehensive DPR calculator):

I started doing some math regarding TWF. Do you think it is fair to compare it to a GWM Ranger? GWM eats bonus actions too, so it has some poor synergies with Hunter's Mark as well. It feels a little like pitting TWF against another suboptimal choice, creating a straw man argument.

This is what I tried so far: The TWF Ranger is a 17 dex, 14 con, 14 wis Woodelf Gloomstalker, the GWM is a 16 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 12 wis Human Gloomstalker. The Woodelf will pick Elven Accuracy at 4.

At level 5:
On the first round, the GWM will do 37.7 damage without advantage, 52.8 with. The TWF Gloomstalker will do 24.9 w/o and 39.6 with advantage. So a good 13 damage less. On consecutive rounds where bonus actions are available, I counted 22,5 damage for TWF vs 22,1 Damage for GWM. Both are calculated against CR appropriate AC. With Advantage, the GWM Ranger will do 33 average damage per round, while the TWF Ranger will do a surprising 34.6 If you have to use the bonus action to change targets, the damge of the TWF Ranger shrinks to 15/23.1 while the GWM can do 22.7/31.4. So a good 7 damage difference. So the bonus action does hurt, especially in horde fights where you need to change Hunters Mark more often. But the TWF will win initiative more often, that may compensate for the first turn damage loss.

Some preliminary observations regarding Hunter's Flurry at level 11:
Since Elven Accuracy gives so much accuracy, Hunter's Flurry only amounts to 1.5 extra damage with advantage to the TWF. Without it provides about 5.4. The GWM Ranger gets 10.6 and 13.4 damage out of it, significantly more! This means a TWF Ranger can do 29.9 damage without advantage, 39 with. The GWM Ranger will do 35.8 and 49.6 average damage (assuming CR appropriate AC of 17), even if both use their bonus action. So the GWM Ranger pulls ahead quite significantly when Hunter's Flurry becomes available, especially with advantage. But until then, I think TWF can hold up it's own. The lost damage on turn 1 is outweighed by the better initiative in my opinion. The TWF is much better vs high AC while the GWM is much better vs low AC. Magic weapons will probably favor the GWM. The GWM will loose some damage to overkill.

Enjoy! Take it with a grain of salt, I was a little rushed when doing this.

[AdAstra]

I only compared TWF vs GWM using the comprehensive DPR calculator and challenge rating appropriate AC as per the DMG (with more assumptions explained in my previous post). If you have access to Hunter's Mark, I do not see TWF inferior from levels 1-10. Any buff to TWF would probably make it superior or even OP.


Well, a Sharpshooter has a different party role. The other damage dealing melee fighter type uses a greatsword. I did calculate the average damage vs challenge rating appropriate AC and calculated Stalker's Flurry by hand. My conclusion is this: TWF only falls behind after level 11, at which point I will just hand out a cool off-hand magic weapon.

This is the math I posted in the comments section of one of Treantmonk's vids (using the comprehensive DPR calculator):

I started doing some math regarding TWF. Do you think it is fair to compare it to a GWM Ranger? GWM eats bonus actions too, so it has some poor synergies with Hunter's Mark as well. It feels a little like pitting TWF against another suboptimal choice, creating a straw man argument.

This is what I tried so far: The TWF Ranger is a 17 dex, 14 con, 14 wis Woodelf Gloomstalker, the GWM is a 16 str, 14 dex, 14 con, 12 wis Human Gloomstalker. The Woodelf will pick Elven Accuracy at 4.

At level 5:
On the first round, the GWM will do 37.7 damage without advantage, 52.8 with. The TWF Gloomstalker will do 24.9 w/o and 39.6 with advantage. So a good 13 damage less. On consecutive rounds where bonus actions are available, I counted 22,5 damage for TWF vs 22,1 Damage for GWM. Both are calculated against CR appropriate AC. With Advantage, the GWM Ranger will do 33 average damage per round, while the TWF Ranger will do a surprising 34.6 If you have to use the bonus action to change targets, the damge of the TWF Ranger shrinks to 15/23.1 while the GWM can do 22.7/31.4. So a good 7 damage difference. So the bonus action does hurt, especially in horde fights where you need to change Hunters Mark more often. But the TWF will win initiative more often, that may compensate for the first turn damage loss.

Some preliminary observations regarding Hunter's Flurry at level 11:
Since Elven Accuracy gives so much accuracy, Hunter's Flurry only amounts to 1.5 extra damage with advantage to the TWF. Without it provides about 5.4. The GWM Ranger gets 10.6 and 13.4 damage out of it, significantly more! This means a TWF Ranger can do 29.9 damage without advantage, 39 with. The GWM Ranger will do 35.8 and 49.6 average damage (assuming CR appropriate AC of 17), even if both use their bonus action. So the GWM Ranger pulls ahead quite significantly when Hunter's Flurry becomes available, especially with advantage. But until then, I think TWF can hold up it's own. The lost damage on turn 1 is outweighed by the better initiative in my opinion. The TWF is much better vs high AC while the GWM is much better vs low AC. Magic weapons will probably favor the GWM. The GWM will loose some damage to overkill.

Enjoy! Take it with a grain of salt, I was a little rushed when doing this.


Thanks for the math, I am not a spreadsheets person at all, so stuff like this can be quite helpful.
I'm going to assume that the calculator includes only using GWM when it's optimal, but does it take into account the additional attacks that can be generated by GWM? I know it's pretty comprehensive, but I'm not familiar with the software. Also, does the GWF have DM fiat for the associated fighting style, since rangers don't normally have access to it? Because without GWF, the style is notably less effective.
Gloomstalker seems like it might benefit GWM due to its first-round abilities amplifying the advantages of not using a bonus action, but I wonder if other subclasses may be even more suitable. Just looking at it conceptually:
Beastmasters: TWF is out automatically, since the beast attack doesn't actually trigger it. Houseruled to allow twf, that style's probably in a good spot due to the PCs' attacks not being as critical.
Hunters: GWF benefits more from getting more attacks, and Hunter offers horde-breaker for clearing mooks and giant slayer for piling on the single-target
Horizon Walkers: AFB, but should probably benefit the TWF in the long run (it has a pseudo hunter's mark, right) against a really big target. But those first two rounds to apply both effects are gonna belong to the GWM. One round of less effectiveness is acceptable, two means you've probably spent the first third of the combat at two-thirds capacity, that's gonna hurt.

OK I have to go do a thing, but I have more that I'll talk about later hopefully.

[bid]

Also, does the GWF have DM fiat for the associated fighting style, since rangers don't normally have access to it? Because without GWF, the style is notably less effective.
GWF adds at best 4/3 damage (with 2d6 weapons). Compare to the average 2d6+15 ~ 22 damage.

That's 2 DPR over the base 33 DPR, I wouldn't call that "notable".


BTW: damage is what you roll after a single hit, DPR accounts for misses and multiple attack rolls.

[Mjolnirbear]

These are my changes:

Two-weapon fighting: keep ability mod damage.
Two-Weapon Fighting Style: draw two weapons, can use non-light weapons
Dual Wielding Feat: your extra attack from TWF no longer requires a bonus action. When a melee attack within range misses you, you may attack them once as a reaction.

I don't mind the tier one boost so much. It's very strong but all my players get feats at level one and have a 33 point buy budget, so my changes in T1 simply mean a random goblin is gonna be dead sooner and less likely to kill you at lvl 1.

All of these abilities have switched from feat to fighting style to TWF house rule and back.

[Bjarkmundur]

Can someone go over all of these suggestions and give a meaningful breakdown. Which solution manages to fix which problem? I'm most concerned about the general rule, since it affects everybody, right at level 1. Fighting styles and Feats are easily tweaked, but the base needs to be rock solid.
A) Fix two weapon fighting at levels 1-4
B) Gives two weapon fighting the appropriate bump with extra attack

[stoutstien]

Can someone go over all of these suggestions and give a meaningful breakdown. Which solution manages to fix which problem? I'm most concerned about the general rule, since it affects everybody, right at level 1. Fighting styles and Feats are easily tweaked, but the base needs to be rock solid.
A) Fix two weapon fighting at levels 1-4
B) Gives two weapon fighting the appropriate bump with extra attack

The question is what is your end goal of where you want it to sit in comparison to the other styles.
Most people think the general rules are fine other than drawing/stowing 2 weapons as one free action.

[AdAstra]

GWF adds at best 4/3 damage (with 2d6 weapons). Compare to the average 2d6+15 ~ 22 damage.

That's 2 DPR over the base 33 DPR, I wouldn't call that "notable".


BTW: damage is what you roll after a single hit, DPR accounts for misses and multiple attack rolls.

I mostly end up using theoretical DPR since I’m doing most of the math in my head, so it’s a lot easier, plus whenever the hit chance is the same the proportion remains the same.

Yeah, if you’re using the +10 all the time then the 1.33 is only a little more than 5% (1/17 I think). But when an enemy’s AC is too high to efficiently use it, or you need consistency more than damage, GWF adds 11.11%, which I consider notable, at least compared to +1 AC. The proportion is marginally higher before you max out your attack stat (a little less than 1/15th and like 12% at +4) which won’t happen until lvl 8, or for non-variant humans, 12 (technically you could max str at 8, but then you wouldn’t have gwm until 12). Then, if your DM allows gwf to work with added dice like hunter’s mark, it adds a little more.

[bid]

But when an enemy’s AC is too high to efficiently use it, or you need consistency more than damage, GWF adds 11.11%, which I consider notable, at least compared to +1 AC.
Yeah, I think I'm too spoiled by dueling's 20%.:smallbiggrin:

[AdAstra]

Yeah, I think I'm too spoiled by dueling's 20%.:smallbiggrin:

Yeah, dueling definitely offers more average damage, both numerically and in proportion to base damage. GWM manages to rule despite this though, and one could argue that the security (in thatthe greater number of dice rolled coupled with the fighting style causes damage to trend heavily towards the average, and low rolls are very rare) of gwf is another form of power. After all, the odds of rolling a “3” (1+ 2 for dueling) are much higher for that fighting style than rolling a 3 or less for a gwf greatsword (1/8 vs 1/81 I think?)

[Kane0]

What i'm currently using:

Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a one handed weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. This attack does not add your ability modifier to the damage roll.
Note: Thrown weapons can be drawn freely like ammunition
Note: You can TWF with natural weapons

Fighting Style:
You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks

Feat:
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same creature
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack using your off hand as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. This extra attack can only be taken once per turn, and you cannot then use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

I've run numbers on it too if you're interested

[AdAstra]

What i'm currently using:

Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action while wielding a one handed weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. This attack does not add your ability modifier to the damage roll.
Note: Thrown weapons can be drawn freely like ammunition
Note: You can TWF with natural weapons

Fighting Style:
You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks

Feat:
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same creature
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack using your off hand as part of the Attack action instead of as a Bonus Action. This extra attack can only be taken once per turn, and you cannot then use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one

I've run numbers on it too if you're interested



The math would be interesting, but this seems to just up TWF's early-game power (effectively +2 to damage) while doing little to address the issue of scaling except for having it start out even stronger. Similar with the feat.

Several people have pointed out that in Tier 2 TWF holds its own and maintains a niche. I think that's more or less accurate, I'm just really not a fan of how strong it is in Tier 1 and how it's essentially a trap option if you're a fighter past level 10.
I don't really like the complexity of my solution, but I do like that it perfectly scales to keep up with extra attacks while being less bonkers at low level, and maintaining mechanical distinction. Fixes what are in my mind the two main problems while breaking as little as possible. Don't want to just toot my own horn here, so if you have a problem with it beyond the already-noted complexity (though any suggestions on how to make the style or wording less verbose are welcome), I really would like critique

[Bjarkmundur]

Reread your first post, just making sure I got it right. So these are the rule changes you made:

General Rule:
Extra Attack feature now reads: Your bonus attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting deals 1[W] extra damage.

Fighting Style:
Reduces the requirement of Two-Weapon Fighting from two light weapons to one light weapon and one one-handed weapon, and grants +1 bonus AC when wielding a separate weapon in each hand.

[AdAstra]

Reread your first post, just making sure I got it right. So these are the rule changes you made:

General Rule:
Extra Attack feature now reads: Your bonus attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting deals 1[W] extra damage.

Fighting Style:
Reduces the requirement of Two-Weapon Fighting from two light weapons to one light weapon and one one-handed weapon, and grants +1 bonus AC when wielding a separate weapon in each hand.

Yeah that's pretty much a way more straightforward version of it (though I didn't think of folding the offhand scaling into the extra attack feature...). A lot of the wordiness is wanting to ensure the meaning is clear (probably failed) while being exact and avoiding unwanted interactions. It needs to be cut down a lot. Might have something in mind too.

[Sigreid]

If I were going to modify it I would probably add an additional bonus attack at level 11 and 20.

[Zhorn]

If I were going to modify it I would probably add an additional bonus attack at level 11 and 20.

This is the general approach I've taken in my current game. At level 11, TWF gets an additional attack in the bonus action.
It's not a perfect solution, but it is simple to remember.

I table ruled a few other abilities to get the same benefit
Monk get it for martial arts since they'd be doing it anyway with that change, and flurry of blows also goes up by 1 so it has a reason to be used.
Berserker barbarian frenzy going up by 1 also felt right, that exhaustion level can feel a bit harsh, and even with their bonus attack they were falling behind zealot who doesn't have the same penalty.

There are more complex fixes that achieve a 'closer' balance, but I'm more in favour of simplicity.

[Kane0]

Aha, here we are!


https://i.imgur.com/VD3b59g.png


TWF has always been good in tier 1, any form of bonus action attack is.
Finding an elegant fix for too much damage at low level as well as too little at high level is a challenge to say the least. Generally speaking from what I've seen you can pick two of those three.

[Skylivedk]

I run:
Fighting style: allows non-light weapons for two


General: if you have the Extra Attack feature, you attack twice with the BA after level 8 (could also be included in feat)


Feat: add ability mod to offhand. +1 to hit. Fast draw

[Bjarkmundur]

Of all the amazing things classes can do with TWF (sneak attack, snipe, hunter's Mark, divine Smite) doesn't it leave the Fighter pretty far behind? I mean, action surge does NOT synergize at all with TWF. Seeing how Paladins don't get the option of a TWF fighting style, shouldn't we try to tailor it specifically to bump up the Fighter?

I think removing the bonus action requirement does the job quite well. What other classes have access to the fighting style?

Two-Weapon Fighting Style (fighter only): Once per round you can use two-weapon fighting as a part of the attack action, without using your bonus action.

This way it buffs only the Fighter, and works with action surge and extra attack.

[ChiefBigFeather]

Thanks for the math, I am not a spreadsheets person at all, so stuff like this can be quite helpful.
I'm going to assume that the calculator includes only using GWM when it's optimal, but does it take into account the additional attacks that can be generated by GWM? I know it's pretty comprehensive, but I'm not familiar with the software. Also, does the GWF have DM fiat for the associated fighting style, since rangers don't normally have access to it? Because without GWF, the style is notably less effective.
Gloomstalker seems like it might benefit GWM due to its first-round abilities amplifying the advantages of not using a bonus action, but I wonder if other subclasses may be even more suitable. Just looking at it conceptually:
Beastmasters: TWF is out automatically, since the beast attack doesn't actually trigger it. Houseruled to allow twf, that style's probably in a good spot due to the PCs' attacks not being as critical.
Hunters: GWF benefits more from getting more attacks, and Hunter offers horde-breaker for clearing mooks and giant slayer for piling on the single-target
Horizon Walkers: AFB, but should probably benefit the TWF in the long run (it has a pseudo hunter's mark, right) against a really big target. But those first two rounds to apply both effects are gonna belong to the GWM. One round of less effectiveness is acceptable, two means you've probably spent the first third of the combat at two-thirds capacity, that's gonna hurt.

OK I have to go do a thing, but I have more that I'll talk about later hopefully.
The spreadsheet takes bonus attacks from GWM into account. Those require a bonus action too though.

GWF does not change much, it is by far the weakest bonus from a fighting style.

What I did not consider: it is probably better to take the extra attack after a kill and switch Hunter‘s Mark on the following round.

But I still think TWF is competitive overall until level 11. Most people are just not bothered to do the math.

[Kane0]

Of all the amazing things classes can do with TWF (sneak attack, snipe, hunter's Mark, divine Smite) doesn't it leave the Fighter pretty far behind? I mean, action surge does NOT synergize at all with TWF. Seeing how Paladins don't get the option of a TWF fighting style, shouldn't we try to tailor it specifically to bump up the Fighter?

I think removing the bonus action requirement does the job quite well. What other classes have access to the fighting style?

Two-Weapon Fighting Style (fighter only): Once per round you can use two-weapon fighting as a part of the attack action, without using your bonus action.

This way it buffs only the Fighter, and works with action surge and extra attack.

I would argue that Barbarians and Rogues have just as much claim to TWF as fighters and rangers do, and that it should be pretty universal an option. Introducing class-specific styles can lead to problems, for example when Mearls tried exactly that with a Ranger only TWF style ironically enough. Same sort of problem with tying additional TWF benefits to Extra Attack as it leaves out the Rogue and some others.
Removing the BA requirement I think is an excellent option for TWF to differentiate it, but best kept to the feat rather than the fighting style. Feats are where BA attacks like CBE and PAM come into play, as well as being both optional and accessible to all classes. If you wanted to be liberal with your benefits you could apply the extra attack whenever you take the attack action rather than say once per turn, which would work with Action Surge but also potentially with Haste and other sources of extra actions/attacks (and potentially other forms of bonus action attack) depending on your wording.

Also, Fighters don't typically have much to do with their bonus action compared to other classes.

[AdAstra]

The spreadsheet takes bonus attacks from GWM into account. Those require a bonus action too though.

GWF does not change much, it is by far the weakest bonus from a fighting style.

What I did not consider: it is probably better to take the extra attack after a kill and switch Hunter‘s Mark on the following round.

But I still think TWF is competitive overall until level 11. Most people are just not bothered to do the math.

You're certainly right that rangers can make TWF work well before level 11, you've proven as much. As I've said before, TWF is at its least problematic in Tier 2 (levels 5-10), but outside of that it's usually broken in some way or another. Now that's not the worst, since Tier 2 seems to be the most played area of the game, but I feel as if a fighting style being (a little) too strong for the first 4 levels and too weak for the last 10 is a pretty significant problem for a 20-level game, even if most players will only run into the early-game issues.

Plus, using the ranger may not be the best move to determine the overall balance. It may be a fighting style for the class, but rangers usually have a wide variety of on-hit effects that incentivize making as many attacks as possible. It's similar to how rogues and paladins (paladins only if they can get the FS, without it it's still pretty bad) also do better with it. Rogues benefit a lot from another chance to sneak attack (note for Kane), especially when they only get one attack by default. Paladins can keep TWF competitive past level 11 through Improved Divine Smite, though the use of the bonus action is a major tradeoff. But barbarians, fighters, and monks still have issues. Barbarians don't have a fighting style and need bonus actions to rage and activate certain subclass abilities. Monks lack the FS and have tons of great uses for their bonus actions already, including attacks. Fighters get the style, but lack any real way of scaling the damage up, and their extra feats make the lack of good feat support for TWF come up earlier.

Feel free to see it differently, but I find it sufficiently worthwhile to fix TWF for the early game, and for one of the two classes that get the fighting style in the late game. Plus it's an interesting exercise for other changes one might want to make, and I wasn't here to participate in all the older threads about it.

(New changes incoming. Moved Extra Attack-based scaling away from fighting style to provide that particular fix to more classes.)

[Kane0]

You're certainly right that rangers can make TWF work well before level 11, you've proven as much. As I've said before, TWF is at its least problematic in Tier 2 (levels 5-10), but outside of that it's usually broken in some way or another. Now that's not the worst, since Tier 2 seems to be the most played area of the game, but I feel as if a fighting style being (a little) too strong for the first 4 levels and too weak for the last 10 is a pretty significant problem for a 20-level game, even if most players will only run into the early-game issues.

What exactly is gamebreaking about Tier 1 TWF specifically? There are a handful of ways to get extra attacks and each one is equally dramatic (with appropriate limitations/drawbacks for the most part).



Rogues benefit a lot from another chance to sneak attack (note for Kane), especially when they only get one attack by default.

Rogues don't get a FS and have a big demand for their Bonus Action already, plus even if you assume 100% sneak attacks they still aren't outperforming other classes in damage output.



But barbarians, fighters, and monks still have issues. Barbarians don't have a fighting style and need bonus actions to rage and activate certain subclass abilities. Monks lack the FS and have tons of great uses for their bonus actions already, including attacks. Fighters get the style, but lack any real way of scaling the damage up, and their extra feats make the lack of good feat support for TWF come up earlier.

Monks could probably use some sort of +damage effect in tier 3-4, aside from their monk die scaling they don't really get anything after extra attack.
Fighters have very good damage output and have very little competition for their BA, other (better) feats are more the problem.



Feel free to see it differently, but I find it sufficiently worthwhile to fix TWF for the early game, and for one of the two classes that get the fighting style in the late game. Plus it's an interesting exercise for other changes one might want to make, and I wasn't here to participate in all the older threads about it.

What makes you think Ranger or Fighter damage output is lacking in tiers 3-4?

[AdAstra]

What exactly is gamebreaking about Tier 1 TWF specifically? There are a handful of ways to get extra attacks and each one is equally dramatic (with appropriate limitations/drawbacks for the most part).


Rogues don't get a FS and have a big demand for their Bonus Action already, plus even if you assume 100% sneak attacks they still aren't outperforming other classes in damage output.


Monks could probably use some sort of +damage effect in tier 3-4, aside from their monk die scaling they don't really get anything after extra attack.
Fighters have very good damage output and have very little competition for their BA, other (better) feats are more the problem.


What makes you think Ranger or Fighter damage output is lacking in tiers 3-4?

1. Not gamebreaking, just on the more powerful side. VHuman PAM beats it, but PAM beats everything in that tier, beats TWF by somewhat less than other styles, and takes a feat. If you feel the fighting style is fine as-is, then you can easily add the extra-attack scaling method with no other changes. Doubt it'll break anything.

2. Yes rogues have plenty of other things to do with their bonus action so TWF isn't always the best choice, but for raw damage it's their best option, other than BB/GFB, so I consider it a viable option for them already. They won't outperform other classes even with this change, but as you said they never did in the first place (though rogues are pretty damn powerful, if lacking staying power, in tier 1, especially with TWF.)

3. Agree. Other than Ki point scaling finally getting to the point where they can really splurge, monks have issues with damage output later on. At least they get some cool toys at levels 14 and 18. However, Monk balance is outside the purview of these changes, what with TWF not really interacting well with its abilities at all (though the added scaling I added does make it a less terrible choice, maybe even optimal at high levels (doing 2d10 should be higher than an unarmed strike).

4. IIRC, Rangers are considered pretty subpar as a whole in Tier 3 and 4 (though I actually feel that Beastmaster does rather well, but they can't really use TWF anyway). The Hunter's Volley is definitely better than the melee version, at least.
Fighters don't lack power in general, TWF fighters lack it, since only their mainhand attacks scale, and they have the weakest mainhand of any fighting style.
Gotta check my numbers, but I'm pretty sure even with Dual Wielder they fall behind or just barely ahead of Shield-users in damage, while losing out on a bonus action for things like shield bash or second wind

EDIT: Turns out it does come out ahead with Dual Wielder! That's good, but it's still beaten slightly by a featless GWF. With the feat it's just screwed, since in most fights a GWM fighter should get a bonus action attack every other round at least, nevermind the -5/+10. Then there's the fact that Action Surge doesn't work nearly as well as with styles with stronger main attacks, and the non-damaging, but still useful, effects of Shield Master (especially if your DM allows the shove to come before the attacks).

[Kane0]

I actually prefer letting you go from light weapons to one handed weapons for the style as it matches the general 'small improvement' feel of other styles but that comes with its own issues, namely stat-to-damage messing up the numbers if applied universally and the counterintuitive items like barbarians never getting to dual wield battleaxes.

With pretty much no other incentive you're looking at rogues using their bonus action for 1d4 or 1d6 damage. Seeing as Rogues will typically be looking for any source of advantage they can get to land their sneak attack plus other bonuses they could be enjoying like Haste, that's a pretty poor use of a bonus action with all their available options. If they don't get the style (I reckon at least one rogue subclass should but I digress) at least make the base + feat worthwhile for them.

Monk level 9 perhaps. Something like 'When you take the attack action you can choose to spend 1 Ki point to add your Martial Arts die as extra damage to any attack with a monk weapon until the end of your turn.' Maybe with a caveat of not being able to Stunning Strike when you power up your damage in this way. Or even tack it on to Ki-Empowered strikes as a secondary function.

Oh yes, Rangers are a whole topic unto themselves. Where would you like to start :smallamused:
Indeed they do, but fighters also have the least competition for that bonus action. Feats are of course the exception but feats that grant bonus actions don't play well with TWF anyways, so it comes back to making the TWF feat comparable to those

Unrelated; one thing I do for TWF that many miss is that I don't restrict it to melee weapons. Hand crossbows are light. Allowing all thrown weapons to be drawn like ammo by default also frees up the 'draw two weapons as interaction instead of one' bullet for something more exciting and less playing-catch-up.

[AdAstra]

I actually prefer letting you go from light weapons to one handed weapons for the style as it matches the general 'small improvement' feel of other styles but that comes with its own issues, namely stat-to-damage messing up the numbers if applied universally and the counterintuitive items like barbarians never getting to dual wield battleaxes.

With pretty much no other incentive you're looking at rogues using their bonus action for 1d4 or 1d6 damage. Seeing as Rogues will typically be looking for any source of advantage they can get to land their sneak attack plus other bonuses they could be enjoying like Haste, that's a pretty poor use of a bonus action with all their available options. If they don't get the style (I reckon at least one rogue subclass should but I digress) at least make the base + feat worthwhile for them.

Monk level 9 perhaps. Something like 'When you take the attack action you can choose to spend 1 Ki point to add your Martial Arts die as extra damage to any attack with a monk weapon until the end of your turn.' Maybe with a caveat of not being able to Stunning Strike when you power up your damage in this way. Or even tack it on to Ki-Empowered strikes as a secondary function.

Oh yes, Rangers are a whole topic unto themselves. Where would you like to start :smallamused:
Indeed they do, but fighters also have the least competition for that bonus action. Feats are of course the exception but feats that grant bonus actions don't play well with TWF anyways, so it comes back to making the TWF feat comparable to those

Unrelated; one thing I do for TWF that many miss is that I don't restrict it to melee weapons. Hand crossbows are light. Allowing all thrown weapons to be drawn like ammo by default also frees up the 'draw two weapons as interaction instead of one' bullet for something more exciting and less playing-catch-up.

Yeah, two non-light weapons is alright, but I like having the light weapons be a factor, too. I find them in many ways more interesting than the others. Allowing one non-light weapon and one light (as others have suggested and I've now used) allows for tons of different useful combinations, including the historically-accurate rapier-and-dagger, or weirder things like whip and handaxe.
In regards to Barbarians, nothing's stopping them from using two handaxes and reflavoring them as larger. Allows them to do a crazy double-axe throw too!

I mean, my improvement doesn't change the fact that TWF gives rogues another chance to get sneak attack. That's a big deal, and is no different than before. Single-classed rogues are exactly where they were originally, no nerfs or buffs at all.
My revised Dual Wielder isn't as good for them as for other classes, but I'm not really sure how to make it better without using sneak attack, which would be OP as hell.

For monks, that seems a tad strong, Martial Arts die-based smite is as far as I would take it, though I would make it unlimited or maybe once-per-attack unlike the Kensei ability.

Ironically though, as ChiefBigFeather pretty conclusively showed, TWF is arguably at its best for rangers in Tier 1 and 2. So of all classes, it's the ranger that actually can make TWF work well, at least until Tier 3

Fighters may not have too many other bonus actions, but they also lack anything like hunter's mark which is necessary to keep TWF's damage at an acceptable level. Even with Dual Wielder, it just doesn't do quite as much damage as GWF without GWM. Literally 0.167 less assuming all attacks hit but don't crit, but the to-hit bonus should be the same, GWF should do more on crits if anything, and that's still giving out Dual Wielder without giving out GWM.
Dual Wielder is garbage, but I think I'm liking my fixed version's concept, just not sure on the math

The drawing-throwing-weapons-as-part-of-an-attack thing is funny, because that's how every DM I've played with has handled it, and I think it's sensible. Makes javelins (which we've also allowed to get the Dueling Bonus) actually a worthwhile competitor in ranged damage.

[ChiefBigFeather]

I personally like that the TWF Ranger in my upcoming game won't come into conflict with the Rogue on weapons. But that's a minor detail.

Looking at the Ranger for an example makes sense in my opinion, as the Ranger is probably the class that can make the most out of TWF. Depending on the campaign, a Ranger's abilities and spells can be very valuable, so I'm hesitant to rate it below other melee classes, especially the Gloomstalker.

Since we are talking houserules, you are probably the DM. If you are the DM, you can just improve things by handing out cool offhand magic weapons right around the time TWF starts to fall off.

[stoutstien]

Something I've toyed with but haven't done any real math on is a twf style that allows non light weapons and both weapon dice added to AOO or just advantage on AOO.

[AdAstra]

I personally like that the TWF Ranger in my upcoming game won't come into conflict with the Rogue on weapons. But that's a minor detail.

Looking at the Ranger for an example makes sense in my opinion, as the Ranger is probably the class that can make the most out of TWF. Depending on the campaign, a Ranger's abilities and spells can be very valuable, so I'm hesitant to rate it below other melee classes, especially the Gloomstalker.

Since we are talking houserules, you are probably the DM. If you are the DM, you can just improve things by handing out cool offhand magic weapons right around the time TWF starts to fall off.

Eh, this is more of a thought exercise than anything, as well as dipping my toe in the water regarding houserules and such. I can certainly adopt this if it ever comes up, but even as a forever-player maybe-DM (yes, of all the problems to have, it's not having a chance to DM, though that may change soon) player, I've rarely seen TWF, maybe once or twice at most. I don't even play with optimizers, it just never got picked until recently, and I was the one to suggest it to our rogue as an ideal choice!

The problem with using the ranger to compare is that as you said, it's at the high, probably highest, end of the range. This will likely tell us if a change makes something overpowered or reigns it back, but will tell us very little about how other classes do with it, especially due to the ranger not really having as many alternative styles (PAM and GWM are suboptimal due to MADness, archery isn't really comparable, as you said). Out of weapon-using classes, the order of effectiveness imo seems to be (from least to most):
Monk<Barbarian<Paladin(RAW)<Fighter<Rogue<Paladin(with FS)<Ranger
It's strong on the Ranger, moderately strong on a houseruled Paladin, has a high opportunity cost on the Rogue but is a fully viable option, mediocre on a fighter (still starts strong though), basically useless on a barbarian, and worse than useless on a monk.

I find half the weapon-reliant classes (Hexblades also have major problems with it, but hexblades are screwed up for way more significant reasons) not being able to effectively use the fighting style, and another that only does so with houserules or multiclassing, is enough of a problem to work on solutions.

I kinda wish to get more feedback on the actual effectiveness of my houserules, though people have contributed a lot to them already. Like, giving paladins TWF by itself makes them work. Changes to the fighting style tones down the early-game power a tad and turns TWF into a sort of "compromise" style between damage and defense, as well as adding to weapon variety. Extra Attack scaling makes it better for Fighters and seemingly usable on Monks and Barbarians. Revised Dual wielder seems marginally less awful, and arguably the most interesting part to me. None of this seems to make it OP for classes that already do well with it. But that's just my reading, and I need more eyes on it, which is a big part of why I made this thread. Does it break anything, to what degree does it improve things in each tier, suggestions on specific wording, etc? I think at least the scaling and fighting style is more or less done, what about the feat? I have done literally no math on that whatsoever and I have no idea how to properly balance that one. (do be sure to reread things though, it's been changed like at least a dozen times)

[Segev]

In my 2nd level party in Tomb of Annihilation, the TWF-using ranger is not nearly as effective a combatant as the Monk. Flurry of Blows, and even just the bonus-action unarmed strike that doesn't cost ki, easily keeps up with and potentially surpasses the TWF fighting style. This is, obviously, anecdotal, but I wanted to chime in this bit of counter-evidence to the claim that it's too strong at level 1-5.

[Sindeloke]

If you want a really radical fix, I've got a three-part overhaul for you:

1) There are only two armors: light (12+dex) and heavy (14+dex). The difference between scale and chain is cosmetic.
2) No melee weapon ever adds Dexterity to damage, under any circumstances. "Finesse" is removed as a property.
3) A light weapon can be drawn as part of making an attack, without spending your free object interaction. When you make an attack with it, you can choose to add Dexterity to the attack roll in place of Strength. If you do, you do not add any modifier, positive or negative, to the damage roll, but you may immediately make another attack with a light weapon that also uses Dexterity and adds no modifier to the damage roll. Having anything in your hands that isn't light prevents this.

Effectively, this allows you to substitute a die roll for a damage modifier if your modifier is bad; where a Str character is rolling 1d6+4 on his shortsword, you're essentially doing 1d6+3.5. Your baseline damage will be lower, but if you have a feature like hunter's mark or barbarian rage you can make up the difference or even exceed it, and a rogue still gets that second chance to land a sneak attack. As a side benefit you can do the one-weapon rapier swashbuckler with the same rules, since you could use any light weapon for the second attack (including the one that made the first attack).

The big issue with TWF is that it doesn't have a niche, really. Sword&board grants crowd control and defense. Great weapon grants high damage through increasing # of attacks and adding universally available high damage bonuses to each attack. TWF... grants moderate damage through increasing # of attacks and adding class-limited moderate damage bonuses to each attack. It's got no reason to exist, nothing to do, it's just kind of inferior to anything. You could give it something purely mechanical (make it the antimagic style? the mobility style?) that fills an unoccupied niche but might be a little random and unjustified flavor-wise. You can do what the game does now, and kind of split the difference (some defense but not as good as S&B, some damage but not as good as PAM/GWM), which is balanced-ish but not really a useful niche and totally without fluff or flavor. You can just buff damage to match PAM/GWM and make the difference 100% cosmetic. Or you can change the mechanics to give it a niche that makes sense, but which might require significant secondary changes. We picked that last one, and made it "the way to do damage when you have high Dex/low Str", but that only made sense because we were already altering the balance of Dexterity and Strength. Any response is valid, you just need to know what you're looking for in a houserule first in order to decide.

[AdAstra]

In my 2nd level party in Tomb of Annihilation, the TWF-using ranger is not nearly as effective a combatant as the Monk. Flurry of Blows, and even just the bonus-action unarmed strike that doesn't cost ki, easily keeps up with and potentially surpasses the TWF fighting style. This is, obviously, anecdotal, but I wanted to chime in this bit of counter-evidence to the claim that it's too strong at level 1-5.
This definitely seems like it should be a perception/dice-variance issue if we're not taking into account ki or spells, just straight weapon damage. If the two have the same Dex, the ranger's dealing 1d6+3 twice, while the Monk is dealing 1d8+3 (if they're two-handing a 1/4 staff for their main attack) and 1d4+3, which should average exactly the same. Any kind of bonus action attack tends to do good damage in early levels, which explains why Monk is able to get the same numbers. Plus, when it comes to things like fighting styles, I prefer to compare them to other options that specific class gets.

If you want a really radical fix, I've got a three-part overhaul for you:

1) There are only two armors: light (12+dex) and heavy (14+dex). The difference between scale and chain is cosmetic.
2) No melee weapon ever adds Dexterity to damage, under any circumstances. "Finesse" is removed as a property.
3) A light weapon can be drawn as part of making an attack, without spending your free object interaction. When you make an attack with it, you can choose to add Dexterity to the attack roll in place of Strength. If you do, you do not add any modifier, positive or negative, to the damage roll, but you may immediately make another attack with a light weapon that also uses Dexterity and adds no modifier to the damage roll. Having anything in your hands that isn't light prevents this.

Effectively, this allows you to substitute a die roll for a damage modifier if your modifier is bad; where a Str character is rolling 1d6+4 on his shortsword, you're essentially doing 1d6+3.5. Your baseline damage will be lower, but if you have a feature like hunter's mark or barbarian rage you can make up the difference or even exceed it, and a rogue still gets that second chance to land a sneak attack. As a side benefit you can do the one-weapon rapier swashbuckler with the same rules, since you could use any light weapon for the second attack (including the one that made the first attack).

The big issue with TWF is that it doesn't have a niche, really. Sword&board grants crowd control and defense. Great weapon grants high damage through increasing # of attacks and adding universally available high damage bonuses to each attack. TWF... grants moderate damage through increasing # of attacks and adding class-limited moderate damage bonuses to each attack. It's got no reason to exist, nothing to do, it's just kind of inferior to anything. You could give it something purely mechanical (make it the antimagic style? the mobility style?) that fills an unoccupied niche but might be a little random and unjustified flavor-wise. You can do what the game does now, and kind of split the difference (some defense but not as good as S&B, some damage but not as good as PAM/GWM), which is balanced-ish but not really a useful niche and totally without fluff or flavor. You can just buff damage to match PAM/GWM and make the difference 100% cosmetic. Or you can change the mechanics to give it a niche that makes sense, but which might require significant secondary changes. We picked that last one, and made it "the way to do damage when you have high Dex/low Str", but that only made sense because we were already altering the balance of Dexterity and Strength. Any response is valid, you just need to know what you're looking for in a houserule first in order to decide.


I already pretty much know what I'm looking for. If the OP isn't sufficiently clear, I want to tone down TWF a little in Tier 1, make it a viable style for more classes, keep or slightly improve its balance in Tier 2, and keep it viable for at least a few classes beyond that point. All this while minimizing the necessary changes. (as it is I think my solution; adding a paragraph to the TWF section, replacing the fighting style, and redoing the feat are at the limit of the changes I want to make for this purpose)

The unique niche-thing is an important point, but I think compromising between S&B and GWF in damage and defense, and being able to effectively utilize a staggering number of different weapons and combinations thereof, is a sufficient niche, and something I think is accomplished by the revised fighting style. The revised feat seems like it adds interesting abilities at least, but numerically it's on shaky ground, so I want to put a little focus on that too.

[Segev]

This definitely seems like it should be a perception/dice-variance issue if we're not taking into account ki or spells, just straight weapon damage. If the two have the same Dex, the ranger's dealing 1d6+3 twice, while the Monk is dealing 1d8+3 (if they're two-handing a 1/4 staff for their main attack) and 1d4+3, which should average exactly the same. Any kind of bonus action attack tends to do good damage in early levels, which explains why Monk is able to get the same numbers. Plus, when it comes to things like fighting styles, I prefer to compare them to other options that specific class gets.

My point was that they do come out about the same. So I am not seeing it as too strong in Tier 1.

[AdAstra]

My point was that they do come out about the same. So I am not seeing it as too strong in Tier 1.

The problem is that every bonus action attack is really powerful in Tier 1. While that's not a big problem for the Monk, I'm fine with a class as a whole being like that, I just prefer that the power within a particular class stays a little more consistent. Hell, bonus action attacks in general may need to be toned down in Tier 1, but most of the really problematic ones (PAM, looking at you) can be defanged a lot just by not letting people take them with vHuman at lvl 1.

Another thing is that if I want to improve TWF's scaling, I need to compensate for that. After all, if it starts out even a little too strong, and scales just as well as everything else, then it'll just stay strong, which I don't think is good for what is a very rare style in real life. I don't dislike fantastical (not entirely, but pretty damn rare, and near-nonexistent in warfare) styles, but I definitely don't want to push characters into them

Preliminary analysis: You did make me consider just adding scaling without changing the fighting style. At level 5 TWF with just scaling would give a damage output of 26, boosted to 29 with a +5 dex, so actually not too strong. I kinda want to keep my FS changes because I like the idea of having a hundred weapon combos to choose from, but just adding the scaling shouldn't break anything , so that's good to know!

EDIT: If you end up doing this, however, I would recommend changing Dual Wielder. With scaling, standard TWF FS, and standard Dual Wielder (perhaps acquired with vHuman), TWF is putting out 30 damage (33 with a +5) damage per round. That may actually be enough to beat out GWM in many circumstances, and make rangers significantly more powerful in Tier 2, perhaps too much so.

[Segev]

I don't think I'll be altering anything regarding TWF in the game I'm running. It should go into Tier 2, maybe really early Tier 3, if I understand the scaling right. (ToA goes from 1-11, in theory.) I'll see how the ranger in my party does as the levels increase. (I am allowing feats.)

[Skylivedk]

@OP
Are you trying to balance for a game with feats or without it?

Cause I don't really see the issue with twf being too strong on low levels. Without feats, you do same damage as a greatsword while consuming a Bonus Action.

With feats, by the books you currently have (maybe) the worst fighting feat in the game. It's basically only good for ranger and rogue as far as I can see.

I never really got the AC part either, but it makes sense if gated by light weapon usage.

AoE damage, I'm not too sure. Maybe something cool would be to allow free disarm/trip attempts when scoring a crit? (And two attacks with the BA after level eight) it would give twf a much more distinctive feel. Repositioning the enemy when you hit with both attacks could also be an approach

[AdAstra]

I don't think I'll be altering anything regarding TWF in the game I'm running. It should go into Tier 2, maybe really early Tier 3, if I understand the scaling right. (ToA goes from 1-11, in theory.) I'll see how the ranger in my party does as the levels increase. (I am allowing feats.)
You certainly don’t have to, this thread was never really meant to convince people that TWF was completely awful and needs to be changed or anything. A TWF ranger should feel just fine, perhaps even very strong, throughout that whole level range.

@OP
Are you trying to balance for a game with feats or without it?

Cause I don't really see the issue with twf being too strong on low levels. Without feats, you do same damage as a greatsword while consuming a Bonus Action.

With feats, by the books you currently have (maybe) the worst fighting feat in the game. It's basically only good for ranger and rogue as far as I can see.

I never really got the AC part either, but it makes sense if gated by light weapon usage.

AoE damage, I'm not too sure. Maybe something cool would be to allow free disarm/trip attempts when scoring a crit? (And two attacks with the BA after level eight) it would give twf a much more distinctive feel. Repositioning the enemy when you hit with both attacks could also be an approach
Balance with feats. GWM and Sharpshooter probably need some tweaks too, but since they’re at the very high end I’m fine if Twf is somewhat weaker.

As it is, with the RAW fighting style, twf does two 2d6+6 total damage for a level one fighter, that is a good bit higher than gwf’s 2d6(reroll 1 or 2)+3. Nothing gamebreaking, only 1.67 average damage. but also not really where I want it either

And yes, the feat is garbage (though at lvl 1 it’s pretty nice, actually beating out a PAM with defense including fighting style) That’s one of the things I’m looking to fix.

The AC buff kinda represents one of the (rather few) advantages of fighting with two weapons in real life, namely being able to parry and strike at the same time ( not as great as a shield though, which fits with +1 AC) Also, the style needed a little more than getting one non-light weapon, and just giving them another would reduce variety.

What exactly is wrong with melee AOE? I feel it adds a unique capability to TWF, one that fits with one of the other real-world benefits of such styles, namely being able to (most likely rather poorly in real life) fight off multiple opponents. Disarms might be neat, but trips and forced movement makes it too much like shield master, and doesn’t feel uniquely twf-like, just generally duelist-oriented.

Adding more bonus-action attacks was something I thought of a while before this thread. It would be a good solution, were it not for various on-hit effects many characters can apply. Namely hunter’s mark and improved divine smite. Scaling the offhand attack’s power alongside normal extra attacks is the most I’m willing to deal with.

[Kane0]

Balance with feats. GWM and Sharpshooter probably need some tweaks too, but since they’re at the very high end I’m fine if Twf is somewhat weaker.
And yes, the feat is garbage (though at lvl 1 it’s pretty nice, actually beating out a PAM with defense including fighting style) That’s one of the things I’m looking to fix.

Then that is where I suggest you start rather than the base or fighting style. The feat would be an excellent place to put a bullet point to cover scaling.



The AC buff kinda represents one of the (rather few) advantages of fighting with two weapons in real life, namely being able to parry and strike at the same time ( not as great as a shield though, which fits with +1 AC) Also, the style needed a little more than getting one non-light weapon, and just giving them another would reduce variety.

This breaks my verisimilitude. I can see a big sheet of metal between you and the monster of the week being helpful, an extra sharp stick not so much. Also AC is covered elsewhere by shields.
Getting swings in at extra opponents or more chances at an opening (read: opportunity attack) make a lot more sense to me, and aren't as well covered by other rules already.



Adding more bonus-action attacks was something I thought of a while before this thread. It would be a good solution, were it not for various on-hit effects many characters can apply. Namely hunter’s mark and improved divine smite. Scaling the offhand attack’s power alongside normal extra attacks is the most I’m willing to deal with.

Very similar thought and discussion I had with someone else on this very topic actually. If you're interested. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew)

[AdAstra]

Then that is where I suggest you start rather than the base or fighting style. The feat would be an excellent place to put a bullet point to cover scaling.


This breaks my verisimilitude. I can see a big sheet of metal between you and the monster of the week being helpful, an extra sharp stick not so much. Also AC is covered elsewhere by shields.
Getting swings in at extra opponents or more chances at an opening (read: opportunity attack) make a lot more sense to me, and aren't as well covered by other rules already.


Very similar thought and discussion I had with someone else on this very topic actually. If you're interested. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew)

Eh, why though? I see no reason to restrict scaling to only those who take the feat, plus no feats that I'm aware of scale like that, except defensive duelist, which is based on proficiency bonus rather than extra attack

You can block attacks with a sharp stick. Rapier and parrying dagger was a well-known dueling style where the dagger was used to, well, parry. If anything, attacking more is the less realistic option of the two, as attacking with both weapons at once requires that you square your body with the target, slightly reducing your reach and increasing your frontal profile. If using a weapon to block another weapon (or claw, etc.) breaks your verisimilitude (and yet Dual Wielder doesn't? unless I'm mistaken and it does for you), that's fine, but I'm not sure that's going to be a very common problem for most players.

The first thing is effectively what my feat allows you to do. I just didn't have it as a generic "attack every target around you" because I felt this would be faster to use in play (just one attack roll and compare ACs). The revised feat does affect opportunity attacks, it's just that rather than your method, which makes them stronger against the same target (though mine would also do that if you had enough scaling for your offhand attack), mine allows you to deal damage to everyone in reach. This could effectively be seen as being given multiple opportunity attacks, and really allows a TWF character to be "sticky", even against many foes, since all will be punished if one tries to escape, grievously so for swashbuckler rogues. Maybe too much so, but I worded it so that you couldn't use it with sentinel. (sorry if you were just saying it was good, I couldn't really tell)

Read the thread you linked. Good stuff! I found Pagnabros' response to be especially pertinent to my particular goals. One critical thing I've always tried to keep in mind when designing houserules is avoiding any kind of cascade effects. I want to make as few changes as possible (though Dual Wielder needs to be replaced for sure), but I felt that the fighting style needed to be tuned down a touch to prevent the scaling from being too strong on top of it. If any of these rules do break things, let me know! I do my best, but chances are something's fallen through the cracks.

I fully understand TWF isn't really broken, but I do wish to make its power more consistent with other options and vary less throughout the level range.

[Kane0]

Eh, why though? I see no reason to restrict scaling to only those who take the feat, plus no feats that I'm aware of scale like that, except defensive duelist, which is based on proficiency bonus rather than extra attack

Scaling as part of base: Direct buff, especially in Tier 1/2 which you have stated you don't want
Scaling as part of Style: too strong, only 2 classes gain access
Scaling as part of Feat: everybody can get it, appropriate opportunity cost



You can block attacks with a sharp stick. Rapier and parrying dagger was a well-known dueling style where the dagger was used to, well, parry. If anything, attacking more is the less realistic option of the two, as attacking with both weapons at once requires that you square your body with the target, slightly reducing your reach and increasing your frontal profile. If using a weapon to block another weapon (or claw, etc.) breaks your verisimilitude (and yet Dual Wielder doesn't? unless I'm mistaken and it does for you), that's fine, but I'm not sure that's going to be a very common problem for most players.

Sorry, my point was that using real life when talking mechanics is going down the rabbit hole. Best to avoid that.



The first thing is effectively what my feat allows you to do. I just didn't have it as a generic "attack every target around you" because I felt this would be faster to use in play (just one attack roll and compare ACs). The revised feat does affect opportunity attacks, it's just that rather than your method, which makes them stronger against the same target (though mine would also do that if you had enough scaling for your offhand attack), mine allows you to deal damage to everyone in reach. This could effectively be seen as being given multiple opportunity attacks, and really allows a TWF character to be "sticky", even against many foes, since all will be punished if one tries to escape, grievously so for swashbuckler rogues. Maybe too much so, but I worded it so that you couldn't use it with sentinel. (sorry if you were just saying it was good, I couldn't really tell)

Yes I was saying it's a fine idea. You may want to have a look at the hunter ranger's multiattack for an idea on how to word it.



Read the thread you linked. Good stuff! I found Pagnabros' response to be especially pertinent to my particular goals. One critical thing I've always tried to keep in mind when designing houserules is avoiding any kind of cascade effects. I want to make as few changes as possible (though Dual Wielder needs to be replaced for sure), but I felt that the fighting style needed to be tuned down a touch to prevent the scaling from being too strong on top of it. If any of these rules do break things, let me know! I do my best, but chances are something's fallen through the cracks.

Don't worry, you get a better handle of things as time goes by and you build system mastery. Mistakes and miscalculations are part of that. I tell you what though, 5e makes it a hell of a lot easier than 3.5, far fewer moving parts to keep track of.

Addressing your proposed rules though:
I don't really think that adding extra damage is necessary. One attack as a bonus action is fine at level 1 and level 20. In this case the difference between level 1 and level 20 is the number of things you could be using your Bonus Action for and thus competition with that bonus action attack. Other styles don't have that particular problem, which makes them more appealing.
Paladins getting the style is cool, I do that too and doesn't break anything. Dont forget Valor Bards, not sure what they do and dont get off the top of my head.
The style itself is very, very busy. They typically do one simple, small thing. +1 AC or allowing one handed weapons that aren't light is all that's required here. I kill two birds with one stone by allowing thrown weapons to be drawn for free, many of which are light and thus works with TWF.
The feat is wordy for what it wants to achieve: Your off hand and opportunity attacks target everything within five feet of you. Let it stack with Sentinel and whatnot, the player is spending two feats to do it just like they would for PAM + Sentinel lockdown. Then you can look at a secondary bullet point or a ribbon, potentially to help with the action economy or what-have-you.



I fully understand TWF isn't really broken, but I do wish to make its power more consistent with other options and vary less throughout the level range.

I don't get it. Scaling would directly make it vary more, as well as increase it's raw power. TWF is consistent with other options, it's problem is that when you allow feats you allow other styles to get the same benefits of TWF without paying the same opportunity costs.

[AdAstra]

Scaling as part of base: Direct buff, especially in Tier 1/2 which you have stated you don't want
Scaling as part of Style: too strong, only 2 classes gain access
Scaling as part of Feat: everybody can get it, appropriate opportunity cost


Sorry, my point was that using real life when talking mechanics is going down the rabbit hole. Best to avoid that.


Yes I was saying it's a fine idea. You may want to have a look at the hunter ranger's multiattack for an idea on how to word it.


Don't worry, you get a better handle of things as time goes by and you build system mastery. Mistakes and miscalculations are part of that. I tell you what though, 5e makes it a hell of a lot easier than 3.5, far fewer moving parts to keep track of.

Addressing your proposed rules though:
I don't really think that adding extra damage is necessary. One attack as a bonus action is fine at level 1 and level 20. In this case the difference between level 1 and level 20 is the number of things you could be using your Bonus Action for and thus competition with that bonus action attack. Other styles don't have that particular problem, which makes them more appealing.
Paladins getting the style is cool, I do that too and doesn't break anything. Dont forget Valor Bards, not sure what they do and dont get off the top of my head.
The style itself is very, very busy. They typically do one simple, small thing. +1 AC or allowing one handed weapons that aren't light is all that's required here. I kill two birds with one stone by allowing thrown weapons to be drawn for free, many of which are light and thus works with TWF.
The feat is wordy for what it wants to achieve: Your off hand and opportunity attacks target everything within five feet of you. Let it stack with Sentinel and whatnot, the player is spending two feats to do it just like they would for PAM + Sentinel lockdown. Then you can look at a secondary bullet point or a ribbon, potentially to help with the action economy or what-have-you.


I don't get it. Scaling would directly make it vary more, as well as increase it's raw power. TWF is consistent with other options, it's problem is that when you allow feats you allow other styles to get the same benefits of TWF without paying the same opportunity costs.

Why would the scaling that I'm using be a buff in Tier 1? It does literally nothing until you get Extra Attack?
Yeah I moved the scaling away from the fighting style to make it less busy and restrict it less. It may not be an optimal choice for Barbarians and Monks (except maybe at 17th), but it's better than before, maybe even usable.

Well, mechanics-wise, +1 AC and (effectively) +1 to damage makes it a compromise between defense and offense. That, combined with allowing a staggering number of weapon combinations and the slightly greater "granularity" of damage (from having it split up among more attacks, which is not specific to my houserule), is intended to give a feeling of versatility to TWF.

For fighters at least, one attack as a bonus action is very much not enough at level 20. Even Polearm Master is only really viable (at that level specifically, it's fine elsewhere) due to comboing amazingly with GWM and Sentinel.
Valor Bards don't get any fighting style, but since the scaling's based on Extra Attack, they do get a small boost from it at lvl 6.

I don't like how big the fighting style is now, but the other options are not great to me for thematic and mechanical reasons. +1 AC isn't enough and is kinda boring, +2 creates too much overlap with shields and may be too strong. Two non-light weapons eliminates the diversity of options I love in both the original style and my version.
It's balanced, but it means TWF characters are essentially just choosing whether they want finesse (in which case they get only rapiers), their damage type (which rarely comes up), and maybe longer reach (javelins and whips) if they want to be optimal. (whips might be optimal for a TWF rogue that multiclasses, but I really do not want to incentivise people to dual-wield whips, it's really just dumb to me)

Okay, yeah, reading over Sentinel again, it's probably not too bad to let it stack with DWR. And the way it is now, it might not be able to stack with the intent of PAM (since you need to use the light weapon for the attack to be an AOE). Even if it did, I'm not sure it would be too powerful anyway, so I'll probably change it.

You're probably right about the aoe attack thing. The extra chances to sneak attack and smite are probably fine, and it avoids weird interactions, like effectively multiplying sneak attack and smite, that I would have to patch. The extra time to roll separate attacks is probably acceptable. Though ironically, this might make it worse for rogues, since as is I think my version technically does allow a sneak attack AOE, even if it's not supposed to.

TWF is absolutely not consistent with other options by level. Without the feat, it's stronger (though hardly broken) than other styles in Tier 1. For a level 5 Fighter (again without the feat), it does less damage than GWF, and not much more than Dueling, at the cost of a bonus action (and 2 AC when compared to Dueling). It's relative power level varies significantly as you level, which is what I meant.

The way the scaling works (assuming you use my version of the fighting style), when you get your first Extra Attack, your damage goes up by 1d8+4 (extra attack)+1d6 (TWF scaling). This is a lot closer to the 2d6rr+4 that GWF offers at the same time (only 0.67 points less). With the base method you'd get a paltry 1d6+4

[opaopajr]

Let me preface that I think the 5e equipment table is goofy. I understand some of the metagame reasons for certain gear, to keep some consistency. But overall think it's slapdash and too "gamey."

e.g. Blowguns are actually very fast weapons (hard to hunt small mammals & small birds {globally present in most human cultures even!} with a slow loading ranged weapon). Quarterstaff should be dropped down a die (1d4 reg, 1d6 versatile) so as to not completely overshadow Clubs (and I am deliberately ignoring PAM feat shenanigans). Darts are the lightest weapon in the game, but do not have Light trait keyword... on and on. :smalltongue:

But one of the big historical losses for me is 'Epeé and Stiletto', and 'Trident and Net'. Even some Monk 'Dart and Kung Fu' is sorely missed.

:smallmad: At a minimum I want One Non-Light Weapon added to Fighter's TWF Style.

:smallyuk: I'd also want Ranged Weapons with Thrown trait should be added to the General Rule. (Though it might be easier to just errata Dart and Net as melee weapons...)

[AdAstra]

Let me preface that I think the 5e equipment table is goofy. I understand some of the metagame reasons for certain gear, to keep some consistency. But overall think it's slapdash and too "gamey."

e.g. Blowguns are actually very fast weapons (hard to hunt small mammals & small birds {globally present in most human cultures even!} with a slow loading ranged weapon). Quarterstaff should be dropped down a die (1d4 reg, 1d6 versatile) so as to not completely overshadow Clubs (and I am deliberately ignoring PAM feat shenanigans). Darts are the lightest weapon in the game, but do not have Light trait keyword... on and on. :smalltongue:

But one of the big historical losses for me is 'Epeé and Stiletto', and 'Trident and Net'. Even some Monk 'Dart and Kung Fu' is sorely missed.

:smallmad: At a minimum I want One Non-Light Weapon added to Fighter's TWF Style.

:smallyuk: I'd also want Ranged Weapons with Thrown trait should be added to the General Rule. (Though it might be easier to just errata Dart and Net as melee weapons...)

Well, loading speed really has nothing to do with projectile speed or accuracy, so it’s not really a big deal. Most small game (ravens/generic small birds, rats, etc.) has only one hp, so damage is also a comparative non-issue. Imo the biggest problem is that they’re martial weapons, which is a completely unnecessary restriction.
Darts probably don’t have the light property because it only has effects on melee weapons (except for the hand xbow, but it doesn’t do anything so I’m not sure why)

Strictly speaking, you can wield a shortsword and dagger, which is pretty damn close (lightweight stabbing weapon and throwable stabbing weapon). Monks can get close by using daggers, since those do count as monk weapons and are functionally the same as darts for most purposes.

Well lucky you! My houserule does just that, along with a small defensive bonus.(unless you already knew that, in which case, thanks!)

If darts were a melee weapon, they’d be even more identical to daggers than they already were, and nets were almost certainly made ranged weapons on purpose, to make sure that (combined with their short range) you would have disadvantage by default when using them. Thrown ranged weapons could definitely use a clarification, though.

This is a bit of a diversion, but I felt that these comments needed to be responded to.