Two-Weapon Fighting Variant Rules [PEACH]

[Auramis]

Hello everyone, thanks for checking out this thread!

I've seen a lot of criticism for two-weapon fighting rules in this version of D&D, and I find the complaints for a lot of it pretty fair. Even Mike Mearls has been tweaking and playing with the rules for two-weapon fighting to make them more enjoyable, even going so far as to say he'd revamp weapons or the two-weapon system to make it more usable.

I've done a bit of tweaking myself, inspired by some of the suggestions Mike threw together and submitted to the public. Below are the new rules for two-weapon fighting, which frees it from being locked into the bonus action economy. I went with the philosophy that two-weapon fighting shouldn't be throwing out as much damage as two-handed weapon fighting, but it needs to do more damage than single-handed. Likewise, it should offer some defensive capabilities. Here's what I arrived at:


Two-Weapon Fighting
While wielding two light melee weapons, you gain a +1 to your armor class. Additionally, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you may make an additional attack with your secondary light weapon for every Extra Attack you make with your primary light weapon. The weapon damage die of the second weapon is 1d4, regardless of the type of light weapon you are using. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage bonus of this attack.

Why the 1d4?: Allowing the second attack to be made as part of the main attack itself while offering the defense opened this play style to abuse if there wasn't a balance in place to counter its raw damage. By restricting the second weapon to a 1d4 while many light weapons cap at 1d6 kept the damage output at 10 highest, which is comparable with using a versatile martial weapon or a martial reach weapon. 10 damage seemed a good number to allow for a secondary benefit while fighting. Likewise, 1d8 being the cap of a one-handed weapon and shield offered more defense at the expense of less damage. This design for two-weapon fighting seemed a fair middle-ground to take and we use it in our house.

Onto the Fighting Style!:


Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add +1 to the damage of your second weapon.


Why the nerf?: Simply put, with multiple attacks in a round now, allowing your ability modifier to go onto every attack would quickly propel this fighting style into the stars with its raw damage. +1 seemed a fair way to keep the feel of the original while allowing for the new rules to shine.

And last, the feat:


Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

• Your second weapon’s damage may now use its normal weapon damage die in place of the 1d4 Two-Weapon Fighting normally restricts it to.
• You may treat a non-light one-handed weapon as a light weapon for the purpose of Two-Weapon Fighting in one of your hands (e.g. a rapier). If you use a non-light weapon this way, your second weapon's damage is 1d4 regardless of the type of light weapon you are using.
• As a reaction, you can raise your weapons to parry an attack, granting disadvantage on a melee attack made against you.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

What's up with this?: The original feat allowed for the use of two non-light one-handed weapons to be dual-wielded, which is a cool mental image, but it's also more than a bit impractical with this new design (and honestly, I personally find the mental image of someone wielding two warhammers or longswords ridiculous given their size).

Rather than allow for larger weapons - again in part due to the multiple attacks these rules off - I simply allowed for the off-handed weapon to use its regular damage die. This way, if you wanted to wield two handaxes or short swords, you can! Your damage scales to 2d6 while still offering the extra point in armor. The great-weapon fighting feat and fighting style still offers the unf of using a bigger weapon for more damage, and I'd dare not tread over the power that using a big weapon would offer, so capping this damage around 12 seemed like the right way to go!

The second bullet-point I added as I was writing this post after remember people asking Mike about using a raprier with a dagger in the off-hand, which is an iconic weapon pairing. I didn't want to let it pass the 12 point damage cap, so I justified it by saying the second weapon's damage would remain at 1d4 to keep it in line.

Finally, with the +1 to AC already baked into the style baseline, I wanted to offer a new defensive feature. I had the mental image of someone raising their weapons to catch an opponent's strike as inspiration, thus the reaction against melee attacks. I considered making it for any weapon attacks, but the +1 to AC being active at all times seems fair enough for that, I think!
________

And there we have it! These are the rules we use in our house and I thought I'd share them with the community to see if there's anything I missed or didn't account for. Would love to hear constructive feedback.

[Bjarkmundur]

I love two weapon variant, probably because there is no right answer. Each class has a very different interaction with multiple attacks per turn. I like this apprach as a solution to freeing up a bonus action, as well as how it adda verisimilitude with the theme of "parrying dagger", which is something many rpgs overlook.
I also commend the post itself. It is thourough, yet readable. The way you let us in on your thought process is most enjoyable. :)

[sandmote]

Mauls aren't one-handed. You could use two war hammers with the published dual wielder feat, though.

Personally, I prefer to grant +1 to AC for holding a second martial weapon, even if they aren't light (so there's a benefit for fighting with a rapier and dagger, for example). I then let extra attack also apply to the bonus action attack with an off hand weapon (so two-weapon fighting actually scales).

For someone willing to have a larger overhaul, I think your system works well. The only change I would make is that the new fighting style feels a bit weak. Maybe add half your Str/Dex bonus to the second attack, if you consider the full bonus too much? You'll already be dealing less damage than with a two handed weapon (1d6+1d4 instead of 2d6), so I think you can afford a larger increase in damage from the fighting style. Particularly given the wording "when you take the Attack action," means two-weapon fighting doesn't scale with extra attacks.

[Auramis]

Particularly given the wording "when you take the Attack action," means two-weapon fighting doesn't scale with extra attacks.

I did mistake mauls for warhammers, my bad! Shall amend my post on it. I'm quoting this part in particular to clarify that I had meant for every attack you make to have the two-weapon extra attack, so if you have the Extra Attack feature multiple times, you should be able to strike with your off-hand multiple times as well. I'll clean up the wording for it!

[Auramis]

I love two weapon variant, probably because there is no right answer. Each class has a very different interaction with multiple attacks per turn. I like this apprach as a solution to freeing up a bonus action, as well as how it adda verisimilitude with the theme of "parrying dagger", which is something many rpgs overlook.
I also commend the post itself. It is thourough, yet readable. The way you let us in on your thought process is most enjoyable. :)


Thank you very much for the feedback! I appreciate it. :)

[Yakk]

Fun TWF defence rule:

"While wielding two light weapons, as a reaction you may add 1d4 to your AC against a melee attack that hits you. If it then misses, you may make an melee weapon attack with a light weapon against the triggering attacker."

Burn a reaction for +1d4 AC as a reaction your AC effectively as good as a having a shield against a small number of attacks in melee, and you get a riposte sometimes. It is worse as the number of attacks you are targeted with go up, and doesn't work against non-melee attacks.

Fun TWF offence rule:

"While wielding two light weapons and making a melee weapon attack with one of them, you may take a -5 penalty to the attack. If you do so, instead make an melee weapon attack with both weapons."

This is similar to the -5/+10 feats for two-handed weapons and bows.

Alternative offence:

"While wielding two light melee weapons and making a melee weapon attack with one of them with advantage, you may choose to attack with both light melee weapons on the same target. If you do so, you forgo rolling an extra time from advantage, and only the first attack that hits adds your attribute to damage. The attacks are still considered to be made with advantage, except for the lack of the extra attack roll."

Note that you keep advantage, you just sacrifice the double roll. Mechanically this is very similar to advantage, except (a) you get an extra weapon die when you hit with both dice, and (b) it interacts interestingly with elven accuracy.

[Auramis]

Fun TWF defence rule:

"While wielding two light weapons, as a reaction you may add 1d4 to your AC against a melee attack that hits you. If it then misses, you may make an melee weapon attack with a light weapon against the triggering attacker."

Burn a reaction for +1d4 AC as a reaction your AC effectively as good as a having a shield against a small number of attacks in melee, and you get a riposte sometimes. It is worse as the number of attacks you are targeted with go up, and doesn't work against non-melee attacks.

This might be a fun idea to look into for the feat, make the style a bit more complex. I'll field the idea at our home table.

The others I wasn't as interested in due to seeming too similar to already existing rules for other fighting styles (Great Weapon Master, simply using a bigger weapon, etc.). I will say I feel this was less feedback on my homebrew and more a presentation of your own. :tongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Mauls aren't one-handed. You could use two war hammers with the published dual wielder feat, though.

Personally, I prefer to grant +1 to AC for holding a second martial weapon, even if they aren't light (so there's a benefit for fighting with a rapier and dagger, for example). I then let extra attack also apply to the bonus action attack with an off hand weapon (so two-weapon fighting actually scales).

For someone willing to have a larger overhaul, I think your system works well. The only change I would make is that the new fighting style feels a bit weak. Maybe add half your Str/Dex bonus to the second attack, if you consider the full bonus too much? You'll already be dealing less damage than with a two handed weapon (1d6+1d4 instead of 2d6), so I think you can afford a larger increase in damage from the fighting style. Particularly given the wording "when you take the Attack action," means two-weapon fighting doesn't scale with extra attacks.

First, just want to say that the scariest Barbarian would be Shao Kahn dual wielding mauls.

Secondly...

I actually think twf was balanced around the rogue, paladin, and maybe the warlock/cleric. Basically, if you get extra damage on a hit, twf as is in the PHB is amazing because you just need to *hit* to deal your extra damage.

I don't think it needs to be updated. The fighting style... I could see that being updated, but the base rules work fine for damage (which is what WotC typically focuses on when it comes to martial options because *why* would anyone need options if they aren't playing a spellcaster). If you want to focus on twf, the feat works rather well. +1 to AC and wield better weapons, I think Defensive Duelist type reaction would have helped.

If you change up two weapon fighting's core options, you're going to make rogues and Paladin *really* love it.

[Ogrillian]

Love this, sigh if only monks could use weapons for FoB, they would be monsters with a set of punch daggers or brass knuckles (<—HINT Designers, HINT!!!) and a Fighter Dip. 😞

[sandmote]

I actually think twf was balanced around the rogue, paladin, and maybe the warlock/cleric. Basically, if you get extra damage on a hit, twf as is in the PHB is amazing because you just need to *hit* to deal your extra damage.

I don't think it needs to be updated. The fighting style... I could see that being updated, but the base rules work fine for damage (which is what WotC typically focuses on when it comes to martial options because *why* would anyone need options if they aren't playing a spellcaster). If you want to focus on twf, the feat works rather well. +1 to AC and wield better weapons, I think Defensive Duelist type reaction would have helped.

If you change up two weapon fighting's core options, you're going to make rogues and Paladin *really* love it. I'm assuming you meant warlock/ranger, considering Spiritual Weapon exists.

I agree the feat is fine, but the base system could use a buff. By default it deals equal damage to a two handed weapon, but uses your bonus action, gets interfered with by Hex/Hunter's Mark/Healing Word, and doesn't keep up past 4th level (or if you're a rogue it interferes with your bonus action disengage).

The paladin should stop really caring if they need to spread out their divine smites. In which case I think the biggest damage boost actually goes to the barbarian, who doesn't need to assign new targets for his rage bonus damage.

But I personally like the interplay between ranged/sword and board/two-handed/and twf from 1st to 4th levels more than other tiers, so that's what works best for my table.

[Fnissalot]

I would personally add a disclaimer that halves any bonus damage added to the d4 attacks to prevent Hunters mark and such becoming too good.

Also, I would change the fighting style to +1 to hit on all attacks to differentiate it a bit from duelist and great weapon fighting. It averages out similarly to your style

[Kane0]

Two-Weapon Fighting
While wielding two light melee weapons, you gain a +1 to your armor class. Additionally, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. If you have the Extra Attack feature, you may make an additional attack with your secondary light weapon for every Extra Attack you make with your primary light weapon. The weapon damage die of the second weapon is 1d4, regardless of the type of light weapon you are using. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage bonus of this attack.


Two problems with this:
Subjectively, that's a significant amount of extra rolling happening. Some people are fine with this, for others it will become annoying.
Objectively, any source of per-attack or per-hit bonuses are effectively doubled, which can quickly spiral out of control and doesn't effect all TWF users equally.

Also, entirely personal quibble but how does one parry a Purple Worm bite?

Edit: I see your stated goal is to remove the reliance on the Bonus Action. This sounds like an excellent thing to incorporate into the feat rather than the base rule (but I'm biased, because that's what I do)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm assuming you meant warlock/ranger, considering Spiritual Weapon exists.

I agree the feat is fine, but the base system could use a buff. By default it deals equal damage to a two handed weapon, but uses your bonus action, gets interfered with by Hex/Hunter's Mark/Healing Word, and doesn't keep up past 4th level (or if you're a rogue it interferes with your bonus action disengage).

The paladin should stop really caring if they need to spread out their divine smites. In which case I think the biggest damage boost actually goes to the barbarian, who doesn't need to assign new targets for his rage bonus damage.

But I personally like the interplay between ranged/sword and board/two-handed/and twf from 1st to 4th levels more than other tiers, so that's what works best for my table.

Melee clerics also get extra damage on a hit, but rangers work too.

The feat and base level ability is fine because we have so many classes that base their extra damage work around a hit.

Changing twf, even adding AC bonuses, messes with too much stuff and if you change twf you need to change the base mechanics of these classes or you're goingnto have issues.

[sandmote]

Melee clerics also get extra damage on a hit, but rangers work too. Not quite how that works:


At 8th level, you gain the ability to infuse your weapon strikes with divine energy. Once on each of your turns when you hit a creature with a weapon attack, you can cause the attack to deal an extra 1d8 radiant damage to the target. When you reach 14th level, the extra damage increases to 2d8. If they aren't spending an action on spiritual weapon or healing word anyway, it just means they make up more of their damage on an initial miss.




The feat and base level ability is fine because we have so many classes that base their extra damage work around a hit.

Changing twf, even adding AC bonuses, messes with too much stuff and if you change twf you need to change the base mechanics of these classes or you're goingnto have issues.

I think the most charitable reading of this is for me to say that every option (including having twf exactly as written in the book) has issues. The question is the number, breadth, and magnitude of such issues.

I fail to see where "rogues sometimes bother staying in reach for damage instead of disengaging," is worse. Same goes for "twf keeps up past 5th level," "Polearm Master is comparatively weaker," or "other melee clerics can better keep up with war domain."

I consider such things a fair trade for having paladins nova slightly better. If the paladin does that, I've already messed up.

[Kane0]

For your consideration:

Base rule: When holding two light weapons, bonus action attack with no stat to damage.
TWF Style: Remove light weapons restriction
Feat: (1) Add stat to damage, (2) when making Opp attacks you can attack with both weapons, (3) using TWF is part of the attack action instead of taking your bonus action
Bonus rule: Thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition

[Auramis]

Now this is what I was looking for with input! I worried about interactions among classes that I wasn't considering with these changes, and many of you have provided much needed insight.

For Rogues, I'm not particularly worried because Sneak Attack by its own text is only applicable once per turn, so the extra strikes don't really matter terribly much. The same can be said for Clerics with Divine Strike.

As for things like Hunter's Mark or Divine Smite or Rage bonus damage, I can see why those would be a source of concern. As a proposed alteration, would it be reasonable to amend the fighting style in my rules here to not apply bonus damage from class features or spells, or would a reduction in damage be better?

I'm leaning toward applying half damage on the off-hand attacks. With most classes only getting one extra attack, it ultimately levels out to the same amount of bonus damage they'd get from a single bonus attack (assuming they don't have the fighter's plethora of extra attacks).

[Kane0]

As for things like Hunter's Mark or Divine Smite or Rage bonus damage, I can see why those would be a source of concern. As a proposed alteration, would it be reasonable to amend the fighting style in my rules here to not apply bonus damage from class features or spells, or would a reduction in damage be better?

I'm leaning toward applying half damage on the off-hand attacks. With most classes only getting one extra attack, it ultimately levels out to the same amount of bonus damage they'd get from a single bonus attack (assuming they don't have the fighter's plethora of extra attacks).

You've already noted Fighters (up to four attacks plus action surge) but what about Haste? Ranger with Horde Breaker? Turning into a Marilith?

[Zhorn]

Like with any homebrew adjustments to base rules, my main concern is in it trying to do too much change to achieve its goal. The more complex your solution is, the less likely people will be inclined to use it. Likewise, the more moving parts it has and features it interacts with by design, the more unintended consequences it will bring up.

Two-Weapon Fighting falls behind, but not by that much, so it only really needs a minor adjustment to make it a competitive choice at higher levels.
These are the reasons why I believe the best houserule on Two-Weapon Fighting I've come across was just only effecting the base general rule and left the associated Feats and Fighting Style unchanged.

"At 11th Level, the bonus action attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting now grants two attacks instead of one."

It's not perfect, but it is simple to implement and easy to remember, which is why I use it in my games.

[Lord Von Becker]

Hm. I think you messed up on the math just a little. Compare two other setups which require both hands:
Longsword, shield, and Dueling style average to six-and-a-half damage per hit, and gives 2AC.
GWF and a Maul averages to eight and a third.
GWF allows a single reroll of 1s or 2s per die per attack. We can average those to get 1.5 damage, then take the difference between that and an average d6 roll of 3.5 to get 2, which is the average benefit for a die when GWF triggers.
We then then divide that by three, because of how often it triggers on a d6, and double it, because we have two d6. Final result: four thirds of a damage per hit.)That implies that in this context, 1AC is worth 11/12ths of a damage per hit. If you're only giving TWF 1AC, its' average damage should be in the 7.5 range*, whereas 1d6+1d4+1 only deals 7.

*Because it's a lot easier to hit than 7 and 5/12ths, and won't make a lot of difference - I seriously doubt the fighting styles were balanced that precisely to begin with.

Other thoughts:
- If you're eliminating the bonus action, why not combine the main and offhand attacks? It'd be much less messy.
- Breaking up the paragraphs would help readability. (Gives more visual anchors.) Cleaning the text up a bit would also help.
- I have made a fix for this myself, and I've seen at least two others. (@Zhorn's is honestly quite elegant.) Which is to say that this forum might greatly benefit from a better indexing service, or perhaps a tutorial on the available indexing options.

[Zhorn]

I have made a fix for this myself, and I've seen at least two others. (@Zhorn's is honestly quite elegant.)
I wish I could take credit, but unfortunately it was not of my creation. The originator of the idea is lost to me, as it was one of those ideas that has been referenced by someone who was referencing it from someone else, etc etc.
Its simplicity is great though, no need to change how attacks work or changes to dice or modifier interactions.

So what was your fix and that third one you referenced?

[Quizatzhaderac]

So I've never really played D&D, but I'm going to opine anyway.

I do actually know the basics of a two weapon fighting style, so maybe I'll interest someone. Not the realism is an especially important design feature, but it might give one ideas.

For first thing is that two weapon fighting is not a style, it is multiple styles. Each style has it's own advantages/ disadvantage, but for a game we'd want to reduce them to a few styles with major differences.

Also, Auramis' philosophy that two weapon styles should do more damage than one two hand is factually accurate. No sane lumberjack uses two small axes instead of one big one. The point of the second weapon is to have more options to attack and defend (in real life people have notoriously low HP).

Styles
X and shield: We're all familiar with this, one hand mostly all offense, other mostly defense. Shield might be used to push opponent down/back, or to occupy opponent's weapon during an attack.

Sword and parrying dagger: Similar to sword and shield. Smaller bulk makes it more suitable as a backup, or for off-battlefield fighting. Parrying dagger is still a lethal weapon so the opponent has to devote energy to guarding against it. Variations exist, some focused on disarming of breaking the opponents weapon.

Long and short weapon: One provides reach, and the other reaction speed. Other asymmetries were common, like straight/curved or piercing/slashing. One might be better for fencing, the other for finding chinks in armor.

Symmetric: Two weapons, mirror images of each other, both short (or light, in D&D terms). The style I learned was symmetric with two slashing weapons, arm length (from hilt to tip). Benefits include being able to attack while parrying or checking an opponents weapon, and parrying at wildly different angles. Weaknesses include reach and needing to learn ambidextrous-ness.

Specific mechanics
Continuing attack: The user strikes with a feint or check, and immediately attacks again while the defender is still reacting to the first attack. Roll attacks with only one weapon, but roll with advantage.

Two hand counter: When attacked and the enemy fails to hit you, you may make a counter attack (attack of opportunity) with whichever weapon deals less damage.

Split defense: You cannot be flanked by two attackers both using parry-able weapons.



Why the nerf?: Maybe half the ability modifier on both weapons when making off hand attacks with the feat, half with just the main hand without it?


Also, entirely personal quibble but how does one parry a Purple Worm bite?Because the purple worm has to pick an angle of attack that doesn't involve headbutting the offhand weapon, or stopping with it's throat one inch above the offhand's blade.

[Kane0]

Because the purple worm has to pick an angle of attack that doesn't involve headbutting the offhand weapon, or stopping with it's throat one inch above the offhand's blade.

You may not be acquainted with them, they’re like D&D brand Dune sandworms. Forgive me if i dont recall a creature of such size caring all that much what sort of pointy stick it’s meal was carrying in what hand :P

[Auramis]

You've already noted Fighters (up to four attacks plus action surge) but what about Haste? Ranger with Horde Breaker? Turning into a Marilith?

Horde Breaker only applies once per turn by its text. As for Haste, the damage potential damage output would still be lower than just using a 2H, I think! As for turning into a Marilith, I'm going to say that's for anyone's DM to figure out. xD

I see a lot of discussion, which is nice, but I was hoping I'd hear feedback regarding whether the off-hand attack should apply half damage from class features or not. As it is in our house rules, we're going with half damage.

I appreciate Zhorn's thought that the more complex a rule is, the less likely it is to be used. That's fairly true, though this rule isn't something I aim to spread across the D&D cosmos. Just to friends and out home table. That being said, I do like how elegant and simple that rule Zhorn shared is! Props to whoever made it.

I think this is the last post I'll be adding to this thread. I've gotten some good ideas from the crowd coming in!

[Zhorn]

I appreciate Zhorn's thought that the more complex a rule is, the less likely it is to be used. That's fairly true, though this rule isn't something I aim to spread across the D&D cosmos. Just to friends and out home table. That being said, I do like how elegant and simple that rule Zhorn shared is! Props to whoever made it.
As long as you are happy with the design you intent to use, all is good.
My comment isn't just about making rules to be used at other tables, but at your own as well. If a rule is cumbersome to implement, there's a good chance players will either forget to apply it, or start actively working around it to not have to use it. What feels simple and intuitive in your mind as the designer won't always translate to being simple and intuitive to the user.
This is just a critique of your method, not a negative criticism of the work itself. The method you choose in order to reach your aim is very wordy and is functionally a complete overhaul of the base TWF rule, the associated feat and the fighting style, and changes the attacking rule away from being consistent with all other weapon types into following a unique set of rule interactions. Overall it seems unintuitive and confusing as an outsider.
Again, if it works for your table, all is fine.