Taking another look at dual wielding

[Greywander]

I think we can all agree that dual wielding is pretty meh. I mean, it's functional, you can certainly use it, but it just ends up being less appealing in most cases where you could be using a shield or a two-handed weapon instead. There have been numerous attempts to find a homebrew solution to make two weapon fighting more appealing, but often they either go too far and make it too strong, or they make it way too complicated.

Let's start by examining what the other options bring to the table. As a base, we'll start with a generic character wielding a 1d8 one-handed weapon. Adding a shield on to that gives +2 AC, which is actually pretty nice. Switching to a two-handed weapon gets us either a 1d10 weapon with reach or a 1d12 or 2d6 weapon without reach. In other words, +1 average damage with reach, or just +2 average damage.

Where dual wielding fits in is by offering versatility, allowing a character to switch between offense and defense. Dual wielding also requires more skill, represented by using a bonus action. We also have to consider the fighting style (available to fighters and rangers, but not to rogues) and the feat.

Traditionally, two weapon fighting would use a longer weapon in the main hand and a shorter weapon in the off hand. 5e makes no distinction between main hand and off hand, but we can still distinguish between a main weapon and off weapon. Only the off weapon needs to be light, while the main weapon does not. If both weapons are light, you can use either one as the main weapon (i.e. the weapon you will attack with). So, formally, we can present this new option as follows:

Two-Weapon Fighting
While you are wielding two melee weapons, you can use your second weapon with the following special bonus actions. To do so, that weapon must have the light property, and you cannot make attacks with that weapon on the same turn using the Attack action. If both of your weapons are light, you can choose which one to attack with and which one to use for the bonus action. If the weapon is magical, such as a weapon +1, add that bonus to any rolls made.

Beat Attack. You use your second weapon to knock your opponent's weapon or shield out of the way, or otherwise break their guard and create an opening for you to attack. Roll the damage die of the second weapon and add the result to the next attack roll you make on your turn.
Parry. You adopt a defensive posture, using your second weapon to defend yourself against melee attacks. Until the start of your next turn, if you are hit by a melee attack you may use your reaction to roll the damage die of your second weapon and add the result to your AC against that attack.

Pretty simple and to the point. Might be stronger than a shield or two-handed weapon under the right conditions, but it's costing you your bonus action and/or reaction, so that's probably fair. Especially useful for rogues to help them land that Sneak Attack.

Fighting Style
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you may choose to enhance a missed attack roll with a beat attack after making the roll. In addition, when you use your bonus action to parry, you gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn that can only be used to parry once. This allows you to parry a second time or use a different reaction in addition to parrying.

This is designed especially to benefit those with Extra Attack, but the extra parry is also helpful for frontliners fending off multiple opponents.

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

You gain +1 AC while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally only be able to draw or stow one.
When you use your bonus action to parry and another creature misses you with an attack, you may use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature using your other weapon (not the weapon you parried with). This can be part of the same reaction you use to parry that attack, and can be used with the extra reaction giving by the Two-Weapon Fighting style.

This is useful for everyone who wants to dual wield, but is especially useful for rogues who want to gamble at getting an off-turn Sneak Attack in. Note that without the fighting style, they have to choose between a beat attack or a parry, and even if they parry there's still the chance it won't be enough to turn a hit into a miss. Note: Reworded it slightly so that any missed attack can be used. Otherwise rogues might want to only have modest AC so that they'd get hit at first then turn that hit into a miss. This way they can boost their AC as high as they like and actually increase their odds of a reaction attack.

Thoughts on this? Is it simple, straightforward, and elegant enough? Or is it still too clunky? Too strong, too weak?

[stoutstien]

A tad strong and wordy/clunky.

Where did you want twf to end up as far as damage and defense compared to duelist and thw?

[Zhorn]

looks very clunky in execution :smallconfused:

[strangebloke]

Not a fan. Situational +1 to AC/attack is not good design, and it isn't good to have someone that specializes in things like removing shields because that's way too niche. It also doesn't solve the biggest problem with TWF, that it doesn't scale with extra attack the way that most of the good fighting styles do and competes with things like hunter's mark.

I will say that I appreciate what you're trying to do here, making TWF more historically realistic, where the whole point is to create openings rather than attack more times but this doesn't really feel like a slick solution.

My fix is:
TWF: as normal
Fighting Style: "If you gain the extra attack feature, the extra attack granted by TWF can be taken without using a bonus action."

This makes it keep ahead of duelist and keep even with GWF which I think is what you should shoot for.

[Randomthom]

The simplest & most elegant fix for TWF I've seen is the one that just adds an extra damage dice to off-hand attacks for every extra attack you have so a fighter with tw fighting style dual-wielding short swords at level 11 gets 3 main-hand attacks and 1 off-hand attack that deals 3d6+str/dex mod.

It keeps the maths a lot closer between the fighting styles (2H still slightly better but less extreme).

[Zhorn]

The simplest & most elegant fix for TWF I've seen is the one that just adds an extra damage dice to off-hand attacks for every extra attack you have so a fighter with tw fighting style dual-wielding short swords at level 11 gets 3 main-hand attacks and 1 off-hand attack that deals 3d6+str/dex mod.

It keeps the maths a lot closer between the fighting styles (2H still slightly better but less extreme).

I'm more fond of
"At 11th Level, the bonus action attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting now grants two attacks instead of one."
It's less extreme, not favouring one class over another, as the case is with the fix you provide, eventually getting to a stage where the Bonus Action attack for fighters will become a 4d8+Mod nuke each round.

Still i think the version you provide is simple in execution, which should be the primary goal of any homebrew fix people try to implement.

[KorvinStarmast]

@Zhorn: I like that one also.

[Frozenstep]

The ability to go offense/defense with TWF is interesting, but I don't think you should use the weapon's damage die. What happens if I'm using a flame tongue short sword? If you don't use the weapon's damage die, then you could hold a dagger in your offhand without penalty, which would be a good thing (rapier + parrying dagger is cool).

This change also means there's no reason to be a strength dual wielder, which is a slight miss I think.

[Fnissalot]

The main problem with dual-wielding i see, is the large power increase before level five (mostly due to spells like hex/hunter's mark and the fighting style) and how much it falls of in higher levels.

I have juggled with either just adding the second weapon's damage die to each attack (Still light, so limits to 2d6 + str/dex) (WotC tested this and it was great number-wise but it felt bad) or alternatively, if an attack misses by 2 or less, you hit with your off-hand weapon instead (In regards to having its own flavour, it is making dual wielding a more consistent melee style compared to GW having high spikes of damage and S+B being safe)(this might need to be slightly improved).

[CheddarChampion]

Here's my take on potential changes:

To dual wield, you use your bonus action to add both damage dice together for each attack you make. The weapons you use must be light. If one or both weapons grant a bonus to damage or attack rolls, use the higher of the two if they are flat bonuses. If such bonuses are granted based on die/dice rolls, they stack with other dice based bonuses and flat bonuses.

(2 shortswords = 2d6+mods. 2 daggers = 2d4+mods. 1 shortsword + 1 dagger = 1d6+1d4+mods. Attacking with a +2 weapon and a flametongue thus grants +2 to attack and +2d6+2 to damage. Two flametongues: +4d6 damage. As always, the DM should take into account how much of a boost a magic weapon will grant the character.)

The two weapon fighting style removes the need to use a bonus action.

The dual wielder feat stays the same.

A fighter with the style but not the feat only gets the damage of a greatsword but can use Dex and might stack magic weapon bonuses. The feat adds +2 damage per hit and +1 AC.

[Vorpalchicken]

The only change I would make is allowing rapiers and daggers together. TWF should not be the dominant fighting style. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Cringes and Dragons. TWF doesn't need a boost.

[Fnissalot]

The only change I would make is allowing rapiers and daggers together. TWF should not be the dominant fighting style. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Cringes and Dragons. TWF doesn't need a boost.

I would argue it needs a nerf at levels 1-4 and a small buff at earliest around 11.

[Damon_Tor]

My current houserules are as follows:


Two Weapon Fighting: While wielding two one-handed light weapons, whenever you would make an attack with either weapon you can attack with two of those weapons instead. If you do, both attack rolls are made with disadvantage. (Note: this replaces the default rule that allows a bonus action attack)

Fighting Style- Two-Weapon Fighting: While using Two Weapon Fighting, one of the two attacks is made without disadvantage. You decide which.

Feat- Dual Wielder:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
While using two-weapon fighting you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the first attack. If that attack hits, the second attack gains a +10 bonus to its damage roll.


I tend to get pushback on these when I post them here, mostly from people who feel like taking disadvantage isn't worth the extra attacks. Mathematically, they're wrong. The design goal I had when I came up with these changes was for two-weapon fighting to outperform a two-handed weapon in terms of damage, especially versus a low AC target. Against high AC targets a two hander should remain superior, and if you do the math these changes do reflect that. I've simulated the DPR of several different classes with these changes and I'm pleased with the results.

The fact that this system does not require a bonus action means that classes which do use bonus actions can now benefit from two-weapon fighting. Most importantly in my mind: monks. It always struck me as particularly egregious that monks weren't able to make much use of fighting with two weapons, but this system allows for and encourages it.

It's also worth noting that there are other houserules at my table regarding the way obscuration works which make it more difficult to benefit from the "advantage+disadvantage" situation using a fog cloud and similar spells as a melee character: the effects of obscuration are reduced by 1 degree while within 5 feet of a creature unless more than one source of obscuration are combined. So even inside a fog cloud, when you get within 5 feet of a creature you are only lightly obscured instead of heavily obscured unless something else is also creating an obscured condition. This makes the tactic still viable for dual-wielders who throw their weapons and to a limited degree to whip users.

[stoutstien]

I would argue it needs a nerf at levels 1-4 and a small buff at earliest around 11.

Yeah I think it's both to much at first then falls off later. It presented an interesting puzzle.

My changes:

Base rules - you can draw 2 one hand weapons as part of the same item interaction.

Fighting style change - while two weapon fighting you no longer need to use light weapons (~1 damage an attack) and you gain +1 AC as long as you are wielding a one hand weaponin each hand.
* This reduces the spike at low levels but allows more weapon combos and a defense boost.

The feat is now-
-You add your ability modifier to the off hand attack(s)
-When you make an attack of opportunity while wielding two one hand weapons, you can add both your weapons damage die to the attack.
-If you have advantage on the bonus action attack you can instead immediately make two attacks without advantage.

* Is this as good as SS or GWM? Probably not but it has a nice feel of taking advantage of an opening in a foes defense to get in an extra attack.

[strangebloke]

The only change I would make is allowing rapiers and daggers together. TWF should not be the dominant fighting style. It's Dungeons and Dragons, not Cringes and Dragons. TWF doesn't need a boost.
I'm sorry that these silly kids with their two weapons are getting all up in your very serious elf games.

If its in the game as an option it should be generally viable and strong in a niche. That's the balance all options should strive for.

I would argue it needs a nerf at levels 1-4 and a small buff at earliest around 11.

I disagree with both your premises. It can be proved mathematically that TWF is barely better than dueling for DPR after level five despite missing out on two AC and requiring a bonus action. If TWF is going to use a bonus action and keep both hands occupied, it should at least deal as much damage as GWF before feats are considered. With that in mind:

Levels 1-4

TWF: (1d6 + 3) * 2 = 13
GWF: (2d6+3+1.4) = 11.4
S&B: (1d8 + 3 + 2) = 9.5


So levels 1-4 favor TWF, but not immensely so, and having +2 AC is really good at that level anyway.

At level five:

TWF: (1d6 + 4) * 3 = 22.5
GWF: (2d6+4+1.4) * 2 = 24.8
S&B: (1d8 + 4 + 2) * 2 = 21


Now TWF barely deals more than S&B. That seems questionable at best. And obviously things just get worse from there. Fighters get a third attack, Hunters get Volley/Whirlwind, etc. etc.

TBH in a featless game I would just say that Dueling needs a nerf. But in a game with feats I would say that TWF needs a buff.

[UnderwaterAir]

Add this to Dual Wielder feat.
-While dual wielding, and if you have the extra attack class feature, you can attack one extra time.

So dual wielding gets one attack more at level 5 and beyond.
That fits it into flurry monks at no resource cost but eats up an ASI/vhuman feat and it's specific to dual wielding only.
This also lets it use bonus actions and not just cut off multiple avenues of play.

How does this work out in terms of balance and damage output?

=========

I think, if it ends up being more damage than SB but slightly less than the potential damage of 2handed weapons, then it's where it belongs.
Less ac than shield.
Less damage than 2handed.

The way it is now, it's just not enough damage to deem it worthwhile over a shield, and doesn't come close enough to the damage output of 2handed tactics so it's best to just not dual wield if you're min/maxing.

[Kane0]

Where dual wielding fits in is by offering versatility, allowing a character to switch between offense and defense. Dual wielding also requires more skill, represented by using a bonus action.

I'd like to question these two statements. TWF requires two hands on weapon just like GWF, so you're not getting the benefit of versatility in the sense that you can use a hand for something else. In fact it's the other way around since you can temporarily release one hand from a two-handed weapon in order to interact with things.
'More skill' is disconnected from the mechanical balance concern of the bonus action, I don't think we should conflate the two.



Two-Weapon Fighting
While you are wielding two melee weapons, you can use your second weapon with the following special bonus actions. To do so, that weapon must have the light property, and you cannot make attacks with that weapon on the same turn using the Attack action. If both of your weapons are light, you can choose which one to attack with and which one to use for the bonus action. If the weapon is magical, such as a weapon +1, add that bonus to any rolls made.

Beat Attack. You use your second weapon to knock your opponent's weapon or shield out of the way, or otherwise break their guard and create an opening for you to attack. Roll the damage die of the second weapon and add the result to the next attack roll you make on your turn.
Parry. You adopt a defensive posture, using your second weapon to defend yourself against melee attacks. Until the start of your next turn, if you are hit by a melee attack you may use your reaction to roll the damage die of your second weapon and add the result to your AC against that attack.


This is very complicated for 5e. I do support the base rule limiting you to a light weapon in your off-hand, but I think we can work with the original bonus action attack. It's the most accessible form of BA attack and has the lowest opportunity cost but when other, better options come along it falters and that's what we can look into. The primary competition is PAM, GWM, CBE and similar so we can equate feat to BA attack in terms of balancing here (balance of those feats notwithstanding), and thinking of Rogues and many other classes that have other uses for their BA besides attacking and that might want to TWF what about we use this as our chance to lift that BA restriction?
Also (and this is just a personal pet peeve) consider the fact that many, many combats in D&D feature fighting things that are not dudes, such as dragons. They don't have things like weapons and shields to knock out of the away and it can break immersion to parry a bite that can (literally, mechanically), swallow you whole.



Fighting Style
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you may choose to enhance a missed attack roll with a beat attack after making the roll. In addition, when you use your bonus action to parry, you gain an additional reaction until the start of your next turn that can only be used to parry once. This allows you to parry a second time or use a different reaction in addition to parrying.

Fighting styles do one thing each, and that thing is usually pretty cut and dry. This is more complex than it needs to be.
Might I recommend: Your off hand no longer needs to be light. This translates to a +1-2 damage boost like what you see for Dueling and GWF without unfairly favoring those that do get styles over those that don't.



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

You gain +1 AC while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally only be able to draw or stow one.
When you use your bonus action to parry and another creature misses you with an attack, you may use your reaction to make one melee attack against that creature using your other weapon (not the weapon you parried with). This can be part of the same reaction you use to parry that attack, and can be used with the extra reaction giving by the Two-Weapon Fighting style.

This is useful for everyone who wants to dual wield, but is especially useful for rogues who want to gamble at getting an off-turn Sneak Attack in. Note that without the fighting style, they have to choose between a beat attack or a parry, and even if they parry there's still the chance it won't be enough to turn a hit into a miss. Note: Reworded it slightly so that any missed attack can be used. Otherwise rogues might want to only have modest AC so that they'd get hit at first then turn that hit into a miss. This way they can boost their AC as high as they like and actually increase their odds of a reaction attack.

+1 AC is just half a shield, and immediately makes one think 'why not just use a shield then?'. Don't we want TWF to carve its own niche?
I would argue that drawing multiple weapons can and should be done elsewhere rather than a feat, and even more so this feat specifically. It's a waste of a bullet, potentially a long wait and something that the base rules should have handled like 'Thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition'
See above regarding parrying, but I can see TWF grabbing a niche with reactions. How about when you make an Opp attack you can use both weapons, or also make an off hand attack at another target within reach?

So to summarize:
Base rule: Light weapon in off hand, bonus action attack (no stat to damage)
Base rule: Thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition (this is a two-stones-with-one-bird)
Style: Remove light weapon restriction (move stat to damage to the feat)
Feat: (1) Stat to damage, (2) TWF with Opp attacks, (3) TWF as part of the attack action rather than using your bonus action (we have carved a unique niche!)

[Floogal]

My biggest issue with two-weapon fighting is that it pretty much just amounts to doing more damage with your attack action, which is two-handed weapon's niche. Also, it consumes your bonus action, which clashes with many class's main features.

So how about this: twf is somewhat defensive in that it makes it dangerous to attack you.


Main rule:
If you are holding a light melee weapon, but didn't attack with that weapon or using that hand on your last turn, you can spend your reaction to attack with that weapon immediately after you are attacked in melee. This attack must be against the attacker, and resolves after any effects of the attack take place.

Fighting style:
The reaction attack now takes place before triggering attack resolves. This may end up neutralizing the offending attack (such as the attacker hitting zero HP).

Feat:
- the reaction attack no longer needs to be with a light weapon
- you gain a second reaction that can only be used to perform a two-weapon fighting attack, and you can't use both reactions on the same attack
- your unarmed strikes can be used for two-weapon fighting