Another Two Weapon Fighting Fix Idea

[Effortlessdepth]

Hello all, new to forum here. Like many before me, I would like to take a stab (pun intended) at fixing TWF.
I understand that the creators of 5e did their best to balance things, and I understand why they made the offhand attack cost a bonus action. But that does not help the fact that it really puts a hurtin' on classes that want to dual wield and do other stuff at the same time, and that is an imbalance itself, plain and simple. Gotta love imperfect and simplistic math taking a stab at real life situations!
So here goes, and please tell me what is imbalanced about this new (as far as I know) proposed fix, and I will be keeping the language simple here....

Baseline TWF:
Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage

TWF Style:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage

DW Feat:

Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage

I am on the fence about adding the AC bonus to the DW feat. I've thought about leaving it at +1, I've thought about removing it altogether, and I've thought about adding a "spend bonus action and lose offhand attack, but gain +1 AC for the remainder of your turn"

I'm open to feedback, and I would like to know if this could be a viable fix (in other words it does a minimal amount of imbalancing? Because some is probably unavoidable?)

Thank you all for your time

[Kane0]

Base rule is good. Make sure you allow at least some weapons to be drawn freely, i personally like enabling this for thrown weapons)

Style is odd, half stat doesnt really have a precedent. Allowing bigger weapons is typically one die size increase in damage which compares well to the damage boosts of dueling and GWF.

Feat is good, i like it. Perhaps add in a secondary benefit, such as being able to use both weapons for opportunity attacks. I dont like the AC boost option, makes me think ‘why wouldnt I just use a shield’ and sometimes ‘okay so how does a knife in my left hand help me stop a dragon from swallowing me whole?’

[Jerrykhor]

I presume the dual wielder +1AC comes from those X-shape parry of overhead attacks that we often see in popular media.

[Mr Adventurer]

I kind of feel like it shouldn't be both a feat and a fighting style, but I guess you have to make allowance for games that don't use feats. I therefore wonder if the fighting style can just do everything the feat does.

I'd like to think about something like:

Baseline: off-hand weapon must be Light. Main hand weapon does not have to be light. Ability score is added to offhand damage. One extra attack as a bonus action when taking the Attack action.

Feat: off-hand weapon does not have to be light. Draw or stow two weapons with the same action. One extra attack as a bonus action when taking the Attack action. +1 Dex or Str.

Fighting style: off-hand weapon does not have to be light. Draw or stow two weapons with the same action. Once per round, when making a melee weapon attack and wielding two weapons, you can make an extra attack with a weapon in your off-hand (no separate action requirement).

[Onos]

DW Feat:

Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage

I am on the fence about adding the AC bonus to the DW feat. I've thought about leaving it at +1, I've thought about removing it altogether, and I've thought about adding a "spend bonus action and lose offhand attack, but gain +1 AC for the remainder of your turn"


How about "as a bonus action, gain +1 to attack rolls made with your current two weapons until the start of your next turn" instead of the AC bonus?

Or alternatively (but possibly kind of overpowered) "as a bonus action, forgoe your ability score bonus to damage and gain advantage on your Attack action this turn."

[HiveStriker]

Hello all, new to forum here. Like many before me, I would like to take a stab (pun intended) at fixing TWF.
I understand that the creators of 5e did their best to balance things, and I understand why they made the offhand attack cost a bonus action. But that does not help the fact that it really puts a hurtin' on classes that want to dual wield and do other stuff at the same time, and that is an imbalance itself, plain and simple. Gotta love imperfect and simplistic math taking a stab at real life situations!
So here goes, and please tell me what is imbalanced about this new (as far as I know) proposed fix, and I will be keeping the language simple here....

Baseline TWF:
Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage

TWF Style:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage

DW Feat:

Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage

I am on the fence about adding the AC bonus to the DW feat. I've thought about leaving it at +1, I've thought about removing it altogether, and I've thought about adding a "spend bonus action and lose offhand attack, but gain +1 AC for the remainder of your turn"

I'm open to feedback, and I would like to know if this could be a viable fix (in other words it does a minimal amount of imbalancing? Because some is probably unavoidable?)

Thank you all for your time
Hi!

To be honest, I don't think there is any need for a "fix" for TWF.
One of the big advantages of it is the ability to wield throwable weapons so you can adjust what you do every turn.

The one thing that I *may* houserule would be to bring the "draw or sheathe two weapons at once with free interaction" benefit from feat into FS, and make "draw weapon as part of attack" part of the feat for those dedicated enough, so they can freely enjoy a mix of melee and ranged attacks without being limited by the drawing limitation that I find not always on point (I understand it for a sheathed sword for example, but for javelins I see no reason to require a separate interaction as long as you have a quiver of it on your back).

If you really want a sensible buff, I'd simply add an alternative benefit of TWF: instead of using bonus action to attack, you use bonus action to gain a +2 to AC.

[Zhorn]

Baseline TWF:
Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage

TWF Style:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage

DW Feat:

Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage

As written here; the feat completely negates the fighting style. If a player is wanting to have a TWF build, they are better off NOT taking the TWF fighting style, picking any of the others in its place, as they will take the feat at some point, and end up with a class feature that does absolutely nothing for them.

The key benefit of the existing RAW forms of the baseline, fighting style, and feat is they all compliment each other and build up a mutual framework. Homogenising all the features to have different flavours of the same effect means the strongest one is the only one that matters.

A core design aspect in this edition is the mechanics of each feature or feat has a distinct identity, so when combining them into a build each is still serving a functions
TWF (baseline) supplies the bonus action attack (albeit with the no +modifier to attack damage and light weapon restriction)
TWF Fighting Style provides +modifier to attack damage
Dual Wielder provides a defensive boost and removes the light weapon restriction
the later of the two make the former better, not replacing it

[47Ace]

I am surprised that people dislike the +1 to ac from the twf feat. Realistically it is the simplist benifit of having a second wepon in you other hand. You end up using it as a makeshift shield. With regards to dragon bites you now have two pointy things that is doesn't want pricking it (you can damage it so a wepon pricking must be felt) which makes it harder for it to get a good bite in.

Attacking twice with no extra training makes no sense. In real life attacking is a full body motion and a wepon in a second hand doesn't magicly make you body move faster. In game it makes no sense that a commoner gets to do something that takes 5 levels of fighter to do just because they have a second wepon.

My proposal would be.

Base
You can carry to one handed wepons if you do you get a +1 bonus to AC.

This makes more sense and supports rapier and dagger one of the most common types of fighting with 2 wepons.


Fighting style:
If you have a one handed wepon in each hand and a melee attack against you from someone in you reach misses you can use you reaction to make an attack against them dealing your str or sex mod in damage if you hit.

This is a common use of two wepons in combat where you block with one and attached with the other. I felt a full attack was too strong and making it ability instead of dice let's you fluff blocking with rapier and stabbing with dagger without nerfing yourself.

Feat whirlwind attack
When you take the attack action to attack with a one handed wepon you can take a -5 penalty on the attack to get another attack with a -5 penalty with a wepon you are holding in a different hand.

Modeled off of GWM and SS 1d8 + 5 averages 9.5 so the bonus is comparable. Also, trying to attack more often should be more difficult even if you have enough training and practice to not trip and fall down well trying. Hunters mark, hex, rage damage or, IDS could make this a bit strong. One possible solution would be one extra attack with only one attack or extract attack and a second extra attack for fighters at level 11. Thought that may be a bit week. An explicit limit on hunters mark or hex may make sense but that feels like it wouldn't go over well with rangers.

[Expected]

How about having dual-wielding get an additional attack, using the off-hand, as a part of the same Attack action and have the number of attacks scale off of Extra Attack? For example, if you have the feat at level 1, you get to attack and then attack again if you have weapons in each hand that have the light property while keeping your Bonus Action. At level 5 Fighter, you can attack+off-hand attack and attack+off-hand attack. Of course, the off-hand would not get a modifier bonus to damage unless you take a Fighting Style, and a new feat could be a requirement for doing so? It would incentivize taking Two-weapon Fighting and Dual Wielding in addition to the new feat and honestly, it may be on par with GWM+PAM. If this is too powerful, then it could be a bonus action to activate the ability to do so since it would be available.

[DarknessEternal]

Why should it be any better than it already is?

[47Ace]

How about having dual-wielding get an additional attack, using the off-hand, as a part of the same Attack action and have the number of attacks scale off of Extra Attack? Of course, the off-hand would not get a modifier bonus to damage unless you take a Fighting Style, and a new feat could be a requirement for doing so? It would incentivize taking Two-weapon Fighting and Dual Wielding in addition to the new feat and honestly, it may be on par with GWM+PAM.

The generic problem with handing out loads free attacks is that warlocks, rangers, barbarians and, Palidins all have abilities the add extra damage to attacks. There is a reason PAM is so strong on a Palidins and you want to up that. This is why I had an accuracy penalty in my version and the extra attacks were exclusive to the feat.

[Expected]

Why should it be any better than it already is?
Because it's not good. Dual-wielding is sub-par and any martial using it is knowingly/unknowingly lowering their potential DPR. As I mentioned in the previous post, PAM+GWM is the optimized standard for martials and a fix could potentially make DW viable.

Think about it, how many martials have you seen choose DW over heavy, two-handed weapons? In my experience, not many. And even then, they may not be concerned about damage. S&B is better than DW because you at least get an AC bonus.


The generic problem with handing out loads free attacks is that warlocks, rangers, barbarians and, Palidins all have abilities the add extra damage to attacks. There is a reason PAM is so strong on a Palidins and you want to up that. This is why I had an accuracy penalty in my version and the extra attacks were exclusive to the feat.
My suggestion only allows weapons capable of being dual-wielded to take an additional attack as part of the Attack action, and even then, a feat is required. The wording can include that only weapons that have the finesse property (similar to the heavy property and GWM) meaning that PAM+GWM builds do not get it.

[DarknessEternal]

How many soldiers throughout history choose to use two melee weapons at a time vs those who choose a shield, a big weapon, or a ranged weapon?

Dual wielding is appropriately bad.

DND doesn’t protect you from bad decisions.

[Kane0]

Why should it be any better than it already is?

The base rule is actually fine (it's a free bonus action attack at the cost of your stat to damage and some weapon restrictions, fair trade) it's the style and feat that are lacklustre. Both the style and feat shore up the deficiencies in the style rather than actually giving you bonuses like other styles get.



How many soldiers throughout history choose to use two melee weapons at a time vs those who choose a shield, a big weapon, or a ranged weapon?

Dual wielding is appropriately bad.

DND doesn’t protect you from bad decisions.
That isn't a fair argument, D&D isn't supposed to be historically accurate. If it was meant to be a poor choice, why bother putting in time, effort and book space to making it seem like one, or an option at all?

[47Ace]

My suggestion only allows weapons capable of being dual-wielded to take an additional attack as part of the Attack action, and even then, a feat is required. Meaning my beloved PAM+GWM builds do not get it.


OK I misses the feat part. But I still feel that the extra attacks (2-3 instead of 1) plus hunters mark, hex, rage damage, IDS is a bit strong. Though to be honest my main concern is that TWF may become optimal for palidins and barbarians as I like those classes (particularly Palidin) and don't like TWF. Though I would like to be able to do rapier and dagger for when I am wondering around the city.

[Expected]

OK I misses the feat part. But I still feel that the extra attacks (2-3 instead of 1) plus hunters mark, hex, rage damage, IDS is a bit strong. Though to be honest my main concern is that TWF may become optimal for palidins and barbarians as I like those classes (particularly Palidin) and don't like TWF. Though I would like to be able to do rapier and dagger for when I am wondering around the city.
True, however to have IDS you cannot have the Fighter's 3rd attack, as both are level 11 features, which balances itself out. I personally don't think it will as Paladins benefit more from GWM+PAM and Sorcadins from S&B as they are ASI-starved. It also doesn't interact negatively with CBX/SS Fighters. Also, by activating the proposed feat as a Bonus Action (let's call it Dual-wielding Mastery or Two-weapon Mastery) to allow the attacks, it directly competes with casting Hex/Hunter's Mark and moving it--both require Bonus Actions. It can be flavored as taking an offensive stance allowing your body weight to be equally distributed in preparation for the following strikes.

Also, keep in mind that the additional attacks that are proposed as a part of this fix, are still subject to bounded accuracy which further keeps their DPR in check (for the same reason why -5 atk, +10 dmg attacks are risky).

DW as it is now, is weak and poorly synergizes with the feats and Fighting Styles available to it. If it is not fixed, it will remain being the least chosen style.

[Composer99]

How many soldiers throughout history choose to use two melee weapons at a time vs those who choose a shield, a big weapon, or a ranged weapon?

Dual wielding is appropriately bad.

DND doesn’t protect you from bad decisions.

In a game with dragons, wizards throwing around fireballs, clerics raising people from death with a few diamonds, and other impossibly ahistorical phenomena, what quality does the fighting style of wielding two weapons at once possess that is so terrible that it must conform to your impression of what is historical?

And, at any rate, this is a thread about a house rule for those who wish two-weapon fighting to be a more viable fighting style in games with feats. It is not agitating for WotC to change the style in the published rules. What possesses you to complain about a house rule that you will never be forced to implement in a game you are running?

[HiveStriker]

Because it's not good. Dual-wielding is sub-par and any martial using it is knowingly/unknowingly lowering their potential DPR. As I mentioned in the previous post, PAM+GWM is the optimized standard for martials and a fix could potentially make DW viable.

Think about it, how many martials have you seen choose DW over heavy, two-handed weapons? In my experience, not many. And even then, they may not be concerned about damage. S&B is better than DW because you at least get an AC bonus.


My suggestion only allows weapons capable of being dual-wielded to take an additional attack as part of the Attack action, and even then, a feat is required. The wording can include that only weapons that have the finesse property (similar to the heavy property and GWM) meaning that PAM+GWM builds do not get it.

Wrong, it's very good for non-DEX chars primarily.
It just optimizes your DPR in different situations, and in a different way, providing means to attack when pure melee cry and overall ending in generating more attacks than just the bonus action one.
You just have to actually try and use it to its fullest in actual context, not theorycraft. :)

How many soldiers throughout history choose to use two melee weapons at a time vs those who choose a shield, a big weapon, or a ranged weapon?

Dual wielding is appropriately bad.

DND doesn’t protect you from bad decisions.
That parallel is inappropriate. Soldiers didn't usually pick two melee weapons because it was not worth it: in army, you face all kind of threats, but in particular...
- Another weapon is useless against arrows, whereras shield (contrarily to 5e mechanics) could actually block them (not 100% of the time of course, heavily depends on respective materials, speed and angle).
- When in dense crowd of enemies you cannot defend against multiple attacks coming from all around because you don't actually perceive everyone precisely so your only chance to live is kill as quickly as possible the guy before you and hope someone has your back.

However, using a very small weapon like a dagger off-hand is actually something not *that* rare among thugs, because one on one is slightly easier to set up and in that situation, provided your habile enough, you can get an advantage from parrying with one weapon and still having the ability to strike a deadly blow with the other.

[bid]

TWF Style:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage
You know, this opens up the sword and dagger fluff and is a nice idea. It just doesn't fluff out for barbarian or rogues who don't get a style, which is a shame.

I'd rather give AC to offhand than the half-damage.

[47Ace]

True, however to have IDS you cannot have the Fighter's 3rd attack, which balances itself out. I personally don't think it will as Paladins benefit more from GWM+PAM and Sorcadins from S&B as they are ASI-starved. Also, by activating the proposed feat as a Bonus Action (let's call it Dual-wielding Mastery or Two-weapon Mastery) it directly competes with casting Hex/Hunter's Mark and moving it--both require Bonus Actions.

DW as it is now, is weak and poorly synergizes with the feats and Fighting Styles available to it. If it is not fixed, it will remain being the least chosen style.

I didn't realize that the bonus action would still be required that helps it. Just to check does the fighting style still give ability mod? What happen if I have two weapons and no feat still just one bonus action attack? If both those assumptions are the case then it is not bad but I would still rather it included an accuracy penalty even if just a little one (-2) to put it more in live with GWM and SS as the damage is now comparable.

I would change my feat proposal to:
Feat whirlwind attack
When you take the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon you can spend a bonus action take a -5 penalty on all of the attacks to get another attack for each attack with a weapon you are holding in a different hand.

[Expected]

Wrong, it's very good for non-DEX chars primarily.
It just optimizes your DPR in different situations, and in a different way, providing means to attack when pure melee cry and overall ending in generating more attacks than just the bonus action one.
You just have to actually try and use it to its fullest in actual context, not theorycraft. :)
It is true that I have not personally played a dual-wielding martial, and this is purely theorycrafting. I want to use DW, but it's hard to rationalize the loss in DPR or AC.


I didn't realize that the bonus action would still be required that helps it. Just to check does the fighting style still give ability mod? What happen if I have two weapons and no feat still just one bonus action attack? If both those assumptions are the case then it is not bad but I would still rather it included an accuracy penalty even if just a little one (-2) to put it more in live with GWM and SS as the damage is now comparable.

I would change my feat proposal to:
Feat whirlwind attack
When you take the attack action to attack with a one handed weapon you can spend a bonus action take a -5 penalty on all of the attacks to get another attack for each attack with a weapon you are holding in a different hand.Fighting Style: Two-weapon Fighting allows you to add your modifier to the off-hand attack. In your hypothetical situation, if you were to hit with both attacks, you'd get your normal bonuses for the main hand and only the damage die for the off-hand. The attack roll itself is how the DPR is kept in line with GWM+PAM. More attacks means more possibilities to miss, especially against high AC enemies.

[Effortlessdepth]

Thank you everyone for your replies, there is a lot to think about. Some of what you all said are things I meant to include but didn't mention because it was very late and I was tired. I will respond later this evening

[47Ace]

[FONT=Verdana] The attack roll itself is how the DPR is kept in line with GWM+PAM. More attacks means more possibilities to miss, especially against high AC enemies.

OK this I disagree with. Unless it is both attack must hit or they both miss the number of attacks the damage is spread over has no effect on the average amount of damage. I would certainly argue that more attacks for the same average damage is a plus as it is lower odds of missing and more consistent. If there was an ability that let me cut my damage for each attack in half and gave me twice as many attack rolls (that wasn't laden with TWF baggage) I would possibly pay a feat (more likely if it is a half feat) and definitely pay a fighting style for it.

[QUOTE=HiveStriker]
However, using a very small weapon like a dagger off-hand is actually something not *that* rare among thugs, because one on one is slightly easier to set up and in that situation, provided your habile enough, you can get an advantage from parrying with one weapon and still having the ability to strike a deadly blow with the other.
[\QUOTE]

Yes but the current system does a poor job of representing rapier and dagger requiring a feat to even do it and get anything representing the daggers parrying ability. It also doesn't really represent parrying and riposting. That is what I focused on representing in my proposed change.

[Yunru]

Wrong, it's very good for non-DEX chars primarily.
It just optimizes your DPR in different situations, and in a different way, providing means to attack when pure melee cry and overall ending in generating more attacks than just the bonus action one.
You just have to actually try and use it to its fullest in actual context, not theorycraft. :)


That's a whole lot of words with a whole lack of evidence.

Now I know the few niches where TWF can hold its ground, but you provide none of them.

[Jerrykhor]

That's a whole lot of words with a whole lack of evidence.

Now I know the few niches where TWF can hold its ground, but you provide none of them.

The people who think TWF is good are the same people who think Champion Fighter is good, i.e. they don't know what they're talking about. They try to sound smart, but all they do is deny facts and numbers in the face.

They like to use the whole 'theory vs practice' argument. Like, 'I roll lots of 19s in practice, therefore Champion is great.'

[Expected]

The people who think TWF is good are the same people who think Champion Fighter is good, i.e. they don't know what they're talking about. They try to sound smart, but all they do is deny facts and numbers in the face.

They like to use the whole 'theory vs practice' argument. Like, 'I roll lots of 19s in practice, therefore Champion is great.'
To be fair, I am a min-maxer yet I thought Half-Orc Champion wielding a greataxe was good when I first started playing, but now I know better. It might just be because people notice when they do crit but not the opportunity cost of what it took for them to do so.

[djreynolds]

What I have used in the past is two weapon rend

When you hit with both weapons you may use your reaction to either, this requires dual wielder feat

1. add your proficiency in damage
2. use an athletic check to shove the opponent
3. kick off and disengage

This has a cost, you lose your reaction. (dangerous for a rogue who cannot now use uncanny dodge)
The extra damage isn't as high a GWM or SS, but without the -5 to hit the damage is more dependable
You have 3 options
And it costs a feat just like GWM, SS, or PAM

For some tables we have doubled the damage from proficiency, but I usually reserve this specifically for an 11th level fighter and up.

Two rend works well at my table

[HiveStriker]

That's a whole lot of words with a whole lack of evidence.

Now I know the few niches where TWF can hold its ground, but you provide none of them.


The people who think TWF is good are the same people who think Champion Fighter is good, i.e. they don't know what they're talking about. They try to sound smart, but all they do is deny facts and numbers in the face.

They like to use the whole 'theory vs practice' argument. Like, 'I roll lots of 19s in practice, therefore Champion is great.'
You're sad people to read.

I know how TWF is good for, but I'm fed up trying to explain things to people who usually don't even want to try.
Plus there are many threads on this forum where you can find detailed views no TWF benefits. I don't like reinventing the wheel.

Anyone interested can simply use the search engine.
Also, nice take on "constructive discussion" by basically making ad hominem attacks and prejudgements on people you don't know about (which are hilariously wrong -by the way, I don't like Champion Fighter but that's irrelevant-)

@Expected :


It is true that I have not personally played a dual-wielding martial, and this is purely theorycrafting. I want to use DW, but it's hard to rationalize the loss in DPR or AC.

Thing is...
Whenever you can reach an enemy in melee,
AND provided you get related feats to your weapon
AND you don't care about accessories like freeing a hand to grapple/cast (latter only a problem for shield)
AND you don't feel that enemy being life-threatening
AND you want to specialize your character in pure DPR...
(AND barring the case of magic weapons...)

Either the S&b (AC) or Heavy (DPR) will be better, partially because of feats, partially because many spells are tailored around single-weapon buff.
In most other situations, TWF will be better, if you're a STR character with Extra Attack.
It's just not tailored for tanking (= frontliner that moves rarely and let enemies come up and gang up) but rather for kiting/adapting tactic every single turn (middleliner) (unless very specific build that's probably not worth the effort except for fun).

That may be the main reason why it doesn't feel appealing to you, or it may be that you feel from experience most of your fights are in places so tights that there is no really space to kite. :)

You could sum it up as "a STR warrior getting benefits of both STR-specific tactics (Grapple/Shove) and weapon versatility (provided you grab the feat ^^) and DEX-specific tactics (= attacking from range to completely deny threat, at least melee ones)...
At the cost of having a much lesser effective range in the latter aspect than a pure DEX (Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter is unbeatable ^^) (investing in Sharpshooter is nice and can be worth, but 120 feet still pales compared to 400). Which is also why I say it's principally good for STR characters. I see little reasons for pure DEX martials to not pick both feats, or at least Sharpshooter and stay at range (which implies that very rarely would enemies manage to reach you).
Unless of course you invest in feats. But that's the beauty of TWF: you don't have to invest anything to benefit from most of it. Grab the Fighting Style only if you think you'll mainly use bonus action on attacks. Grab the feat only if you like the versatility enough to make it your prime thing.

[Yunru]

You're sad people to read.

Also, nice take on "constructive discussion" by basically making ad hominem attacks and prejudgements on people you don't know about

The irony.
FYI "you've provided no evidence" isn't an ad hominem, although I acknowledge that you might not of been referring to me.

[stoutstien]

The biggest issue with TWF is there isn't any consensus on where it needs to sit in relation to the other styles. Can't fix it without a end goal.

[Effortlessdepth]

Still working on a long reply, I will finish up soon. Thanks again everyone for the input, it has helped. I will share my fix later

[Zhorn]

@Effortlessdepth, for when you do get back to working on your fix, the two factors to keep in mind for whatever direction you want to take your homebrew rules in are:
Pay attention to where the fix is meant to effect vs what it is effecting
Keep it clear and simple to understand and implement

These are the who parts that trip people up the most, especially on the TWF "issue".
They see a disparity in the numbers one area, and in applying their fix throw it out in another.
Likewise, they introduce needless complexity that confuses their players and instead of encouraging engagement in the system, drives those players away to pick features that avoid using the homebrew rulings.

With TWF, the "issue" that pops up is it does not keep up at with other martial builds in tiers 3 and 4. That's important to remember; tiers 3 and 4.
Tier 1 it is actually quite good, having another attack before Extra Attack rolls in at level 5.
Tier 2 it starts to drop behind, but not drastically , and unless you have a lot of combat rounds (long fights, or many encounters), the difference in damage won't hold that big an impact.

To this I've found the easiest fix for TWF is a simple tweak to the baseline

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

With the fighting style and associated feat left unchanged from their RAW forms.
The damage is once again competing in those upper tiers of play, the value spent on the Bonus Action investment is rather solid with two attacks over one, the lower tiers are not messed with, and the rule adjustment is simple and easy to remember.

I can't remember where I read about this fix first, but of all the different fixes to TWF I've seen, I've yet to come across something as elegant.

[Expected]

My solution:
I suggest implementing a feat (let's call it Two-Weapon Mastery) that reads: While wielding two weapons, each with the light property, you can use your bonus action to enter a balanced stance for the remainder of your turn. If you take the attack action on that turn, you can make an additional weapon attack, using the off-hand weapon, for each attack as part of that action.

In addition:

The Dual Wielder feat will allow the light property requirement to be ignored, thus allowing a combination of any two melee weapons that lack the heavy, two-handed property.
Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting will allow the damage modifier to be added to each additional off-hand attack.

How does this affect combat?
This provides martial classes with a competitive use for their bonus action (besides Polearm Master and Shield Master), discourages Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark abuse as it competes for the bonus action, doesn't affect low levels until level 5, scales with Extra Attack, strengthens dual-wielding Dex builds that would otherwise go ranged and take CBX+SS+FS: Archery, and provides an incentive to take both feats (Dual Wielder, and the new proposed feat, Two-Weapon Mastery) as well as the Fighting Style: TWF. All of the aforementioned options come at an opportunity cost. It has similar build taxes as GWM+PAM+Sentinel builds with the exception of one being a feature as opposed to a feat (Fighting Style: Two-weapon Fighting vs Sentinel).

[Zhorn]

If you refer to my previous posts, this is something close to what I was suggesting.
Less so. Scaling with extra attack blows the damage potential up too much too fast.
That's 4 attacks at level 5 without a resource limit, 6 attacks for a fighter at level 11, and 8 attacks for a pure fighter at level 20. Multiclass or magic initiate for additional on-hit damage like Hex... this is broken.

Next the wording could be cut down as there's a whole lot of needless fluff in there about expanding the attack action, but you're using the bonus action to get those extra attacks anyway. Why not just leave them on the bonus action and ignore the 'stance' aspect all together. Unless you're intentionally trying to get some crazy action surge shenanigans.

TWF is behind other combat styles at higher levels, but not so far as to need that big of a buff.

[Expected]

Less so. Scaling with extra attack blows the damage potential up too much too fast.
That's 4 attacks at level 5 without a resource limit, 6 attacks for a fighter at level 11, and 8 attacks for a pure fighter at level 20. Multiclass or magic initiate for additional on-hit damage like Hex... this is broken.

Next the wording could be cut down as there's a whole lot of needless fluff in there about expanding the attack action, but you're using the bonus action to get those extra attacks anyway. Why not just leave them on the bonus action and ignore the 'stance' aspect all together. Unless you're intentionally trying to get some crazy action surge shenanigans.

TWF is behind other combat styles at higher levels, but not so far as to need that big of a buff.
I respectfully disagree. Two-weapon fighting, as it is, is very weak and I see no reason to build for it compared to GWM+PAM+Sentinel Polearms or sword & shield. The -5 to attack can be easily mitigated using class features that grant advantage or even variant rules (flanking).

And maybe my suggestion is to big of a buff. Let's refine it then. Constructive criticism is how ideas are shaped.

[bid]

"At 11th Level, the bonus action attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting now grants two attacks instead of one."
That might be ok for fighter, whose whole shtick is more attacks. But that's a force multiplier for ranger/HM or any other extra attack class. Dipping fighter 1 to get an extra 1d6+5 is too easy.

This bears repeating, but the style is good enough. It's the feat that... needs help.


BTW... If you effect a change, you will affect combat. But you can't effect combat.

[Effortlessdepth]

I’ll try to just fire off on everything you guys said, but this will be a long one because let’s face it, Two Weapon Fighting is comlicated:

Yes this rule change is for our game with feats, so it will be tailored with that in mind. We have a small group that will have a barbarian and an inquisitive3/battle master17 who both want to dual wield. And they aren’t afraid of complex rules, that’s for sure.

I practice swordsmanship in RL, so +1 AC does make sense to me, but I was on the fence about it I guess because I didn’t want the feat to have so many bonuses to it, but it might be unavoidable and or not really a problem now that I think about it. While dual wielding did exist historically, it was definitely more common to have a smaller and lighter offhand weapon, or two light and smaller/medium weapons (polynesian and filipino weapon arts), while dual wielding two full sized weapons was very rare (some chinese and japanese systems). I believe it takes a lot of skill to wield two full sized weapons in RL, and in many situations it would actually NOT be preferable NO MATTER the skill of the wielder, but this is a fantasy game so that can be suspended for the sake of fun, which I am perfectly fine with (I like an intelligent blend of historical accuracy and fantasy). I also believe that with some scabbard management/placement almost anyone can draw two weapons (2 lights, or a light and a full size) in one action without too much problem (sheathing them all fast-like is a whole other story). Plus the folks who do know how to fight with two full size weapons are extremely trained to begin with, and you better believe they will have prepared, and know how to draw both at the same time if they are going to try wielding them. The idea of adding advantage on attack rolls instead of ability bonus is interesting, but I’m not sure.

Also, because it was 3am when I wrote this, I forgot to mention ideas I already had for the feat… gotta love insomnia ;) So allow me to write the re-write as I meant to write it in the beginning, with the addition of things I’ve thought of from reading your replies:

Baseline TWF: At the beginning of your turn you choose which hand is your offhand. Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage.

TWF Style: At the beginning of your turn you choose which hand is your offhand. Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage, and you may add +1 AC as a bonus action IN PLACE of attacking with the offhand.

DW Feat: At the beginning of your turn you choose which hand is your offhand. Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage. +1 AC when Dual Wielding. If you do not have TWF Style: you retain only half ability modifier damage for offhand, one weapon must still be light, and you may only add +1 AC as a bonus action in place of the offhand attack. (However, offhand attack still DOES NOT cost a bonus action, even without TWF Style.)

That gives folks a reason to take TWF Style, allows rogues to shuck and jive if they spend the feat, and still gives Barbarians a reason to take the feat without dipping a fighter level for the style.

As far as how this works with Extra Attacks, I would imagine that it shouldn’t allow more offhand attacks. Your Extra Attack that you attain at each of the respective levels should apply to your main hand, essentially meaning that you will only ever attack once with your offhand. I haven’t crunched the numbers, but if the attacks double that sounds like it would be way too much damage, not even counting Hunter’s Mark and Hex. As far as opportunity attacks, I would stand by just one weapon (roll a d4 for a random pick between your two weapons?) to dish out the opportunity attack, which is in line with historical combat in this case.

And as far as Hunter’s Mark and Hex, as far as our game goes we could institute a rule like, “Hunter’s Mark and Hex only apply to Main Hand attacks” or something to that effect. The point of this rule for us is to make Two Weapon fighting deal more damage than Dueling, but less than GWF, and make it more defensive the GWF but less than Dueling, while at the same time making it versatile. Another goal is to give melee rogues a reason to choose TWF. I think that’s it, though I may have forgotten something. Keep in mind we don’t mind complex rules.

[bid]

Baseline TWF: At the beginning of your turn you choose which hand is your offhand. Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage.
RAW, with extra attack, you can hit left, hit right, and then BA-hit whichever hand you want.

Why weaken it?

[HiveStriker]

I’ll try to just fire off on everything you guys said, but this will be a long one because let’s face it, Two Weapon Fighting is comlicated:

Yes this rule change is for our game with feats, so it will be tailored with that in mind. We have a small group that will have a barbarian and an inquisitive3/battle master17 who both want to dual wield. And they aren’t afraid of complex rules, that’s for sure.

I practice swordsmanship in RL, so +1 AC does make sense to me, but I was on the fence about it I guess because I didn’t want the feat to have so many bonuses to it, but it might be unavoidable and or not really a problem now that I think about it. While dual wielding did exist historically, it was definitely more common to have a smaller and lighter offhand weapon, or two light and smaller/medium weapons (polynesian and filipino weapon arts), while dual wielding two full sized weapons was very rare (some chinese and japanese systems). I believe it takes a lot of skill to wield two full sized weapons in RL, and in many situations it would actually NOT be preferable NO MATTER the skill of the wielder, but this is a fantasy game so that can be suspended for the sake of fun, which I am perfectly fine with (I like an intelligent blend of historical accuracy and fantasy). I also believe that with some scabbard management/placement almost anyone can draw two weapons (2 lights, or a light and a full size) in one action without too much problem (sheathing them all fast-like is a whole other story). Plus the folks who do know how to fight with two full size weapons are extremely trained to begin with, and you better believe they will have prepared, and know how to draw both at the same time if they are going to try wielding them. The idea of adding advantage on attack rolls instead of ability bonus is interesting, but I’m not sure.

I fully agree with this, and I understand why you would like to translate it into mechanics, but to be honest your updated version still feels a bit complicated.

I mean, in truth, it's simple enough, and I think any player with decent experience would be fine with it. But for newcomers, it's seemingly much more complex than other FS.
You can keep it mostly as is though, it's all about wording.

Drop the "choose off-hand": unless there is a very interesting use-case I fail to see, it's part of the perceived complexity (giving the feeling there is a decision to make each turn even if in practice it would not).

FS: When you wield two one-handed weapons with the light property and use the two-weapon fighting feature, you can apply your attack modifier to the damage roll.
Additionally, if you are instead using a non-light melee weapon in one hand and a light one another, you can use a bonus action to give yourself a +1 to AC.*

Feat: You can now dual-wield any melee weapon lacking the heavy and two-handed property, and provided you have the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, the "light property" requirement is lifted.**

* This allows players to clearly identify a feature with a specific combination. It also gives some meaning to choice of weapons. And it's not that big a deal if a player needs to change mid-fight imo. Like defining two sub-styles if you wil. ^^
** I feel the second part is required to ensure people understand what you had in mind.

Also, from my experience, the main problem of TWF is draw/sheathe economy. Some significant buff to RAW feat while being largely balanced would be: whenever you decide to make a weapon attack using a light melee weapon that has the throw property, you can draw it as part of the attack.
You can now enjoy hurling axes away without pesking against artificial drawing limitations.
(Honestly even just saying "you can draw any melee weapon that can be thrown as part of the attack" would be far from overpowered, but I feel that would make too much of a gap compared to regular characters).


@Effortlessdepth, for when you do get back to working on your fix, the two factors to keep in mind for whatever direction you want to take your homebrew rules in are:
Pay attention to where the fix is meant to effect vs what it is effecting
Keep it clear and simple to understand and implement

These are the who parts that trip people up the most, especially on the TWF "issue".
They see a disparity in the numbers one area, and in applying their fix throw it out in another.
Likewise, they introduce needless complexity that confuses their players and instead of encouraging engagement in the system, drives those players away to pick features that avoid using the homebrew rulings.

With TWF, the "issue" that pops up is it does not keep up at with other martial builds in tiers 3 and 4. That's important to remember; tiers 3 and 4.
Tier 1 it is actually quite good, having another attack before Extra Attack rolls in at level 5.
Tier 2 it starts to drop behind, but not drastically , and unless you have a lot of combat rounds (long fights, or many encounters), the difference in damage won't hold that big an impact.

I'd tend to agree with this, although I'd say it's really only in last tier you can start feeling a difference in efficiency unless (sometimes even if) you also invested in Dual Wielder (and possibly Sharpshooter).

Reasons being that at that time, most creatures which require some thought process to overcome have abiltiies with effective reach of at least 15 feet, and often more in the range of 30, as well as improved mobility and detection. So while you still have much better effective defense than two-handed/shield users in many situations, the number of situations where you end your turn still under threat (and thus now are missing the +1 or +2 AC from other builds) rise in number.
There is also the matter of covers and line of sights which high CR enemies are expected (imo) to exploit more often to force enemies to come closer.
And the huge scaling of HP now makes the difference in DPR be felt between the one that stills had 1d6 (or 1d8) with feats, and those who built around Sharpshooter or GWM with a reliable enough source of advantage (or bonus to hit) to be able to apply the high risk high damage.

Although, this is said before taking magic weapons as loot. Because that's a huge YMMV obviously, but it can make you be glad you stuck with that FS. ^^
It also allows some peculiar builds, provided your class has enough ASIs for that (read: Fighter or very lucky attribute rolls).
Final note: I don't see any problem as TWF falling off late damage-wise, considering how much it brought on the way. ^^

[Effortlessdepth]

HiveStriker:

I actually didn’t want any mechanics for the drawing of weapons, I was thinking of just allowing the drawing and stowing of two weapons without having the DW feat or the Style or anything. I didn’t say that though, so that’s your not your fault. I just wanted to explain my reasoning on that. Drawing any weapon and attacking as one action sounds like an elegant way to take care of that, possibly. I also chose to include “choose which weapon is off hand” in the case of fighters with Extra Attack who and/or magical weapons, who use a smaller weapon in one hand, so they can get their d8 – d8 – d6 attacks straight.

Also, having the proficiency modifier to damage instead of half (rounded up) ability modifier is interesting, though it might not be as realistic? Probably wouldn’t matter much either way.

And as far as the bonus action not having to being used for offhand attacks, I know a lot of people think that’s imbalancing so I thought it would be a good compromise by making them choose a feat for it – and making it so that if they choose the feat and not the TWF Style, they won’t get the full effect, thus making it fairer.

And as far as the language, I will definitely clean it up so it’s “bookable” so to speak. Just trying to use extra words here for clarity amongst fellows ;)

So before I take a real swing (pun intended) at writing a bookable set of dual wielding rules, I would like to see how you all would write it in light of my needs and intentions in this game, if you don’t mind!

[Kane0]

Base rule: thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition
Base rule: Bonus action to attack with off hand weapon. Weapons must be light, no stat to damage

Fighting style: weapons no longer need to be light

Feat: stat to damage, offhand attack is made as part of attack action instead of as bonus action, you can attack with both weapons during opportunity attacks.


Doesnt screw over classes without the style but also gives incentive to get it while being equal to other styles

Feat becomes appropriately desirable compared to PAM, CBE, GWM, etc

Doesnt favor classes with a greater or fewer number of attacks or sources of bonus damage

Doesnt overly buff tier 1-2 where it isnt needed

[Effortlessdepth]

Bid: "RAW, with extra attack, you can hit left, hit right, and then BA-hit whichever hand you want.

Why weaken it? "

Because using a bonus attack for it really puts a hurting on melee rogues if they want to shuck and jive, and barbarians too. I think they should be able to attack a bit more if they wield two weapons, but not too much... which is why I am trying to institute the gradual increase in available damage, and altering and essentially "halving" the TWF style, and puting a feat wall in front of freeing the bonus action from needing to be used. I feel like dual wielding weapons should be the balance between GWF and Dueling/S&B

[bid]

Because using a bonus attack for it really puts a hurting on melee rogues if they want to shuck and jive, and barbarians too. I think they should be able to attack a bit more if they wield two weapons, but not too much... which is why I am trying to institute the gradual increase in available damage, and altering and essentially "halving" the TWF style
Rogues don't get access to fighting styles. Nor barbarians.

[Effortlessdepth]

Rogues don't get access to fighting styles. Nor barbarians.

Sorry, I was talking about rogue multiclassers and barbarians who take the feat

[djreynolds]

I have tried a TWF fixes for a long time.

I have tried to justify the pros of TWF, such as magical weapon availability, to hex, to facing high HP opponents

And I would hate to see you wrack your brain over it.

Two weapon rend comes from 3.5 epic levels

The concept works and the damage, while not huge, is enough. The math is easy and there is a cost in your reaction, which for some is not often used.

The reality is PAM is basically TWF, your slashing or stabbing with pointy end and then hitting with the butt end.

Two weapon rend works at my table, and you have a choice of three boons. extra damage, a shove, or a disengage. And its easy to implement on top of RAW. And you have something for different styles of play.

The damage will never compare with GWM, but if you double the proficiency bonus damage (at 5th level it would be 6) it is greater than 2 strike from a S&B with duelist (4) and if you just give proficiency damage as the bonus its 3 at 5th level and it keeps you even with a S&B duelist

Its really the only fix I have found playing with AL members who come to play at my table who are very RAW, and those AL players have liked it

[Effortlessdepth]

For the purposes of our table, we will enable anyone to draw and sheathe two weapons at a time (anything truly imbalancing about that?)

Alright here we go:

Baseline TWF:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, BOTH weapons must be light, no ability modifier for damage.

TWF Style:

Offhand attack costs a bonus action, ONE weapon must be light, HALF (rounded down) ability modifier for damage, and you may add +1 AC as a bonus action IN PLACE of attacking with the offhand. Opportunity attacks only made by the main hand (is this imbalanced in your opinion?).

DW Feat:

Offhand attack DOES NOT cost a bonus action, NEITHER weapon needs to be light, FULL ability modifier for damage. +1 AC when Dual Wielding. If you do not have TWF Style: you retain only half ability modifier damage for offhand, one weapon must still be light, and you may only add +1 AC as a bonus action -- however, offhand attack still DOES NOT cost a bonus action, even without TWF Style. Opportunity attacks are made with both weapons, unless you did not take the TWF Style, in which case they are only made by the main hand (is this imbalanced in your opinion?).

Extra Attacks only count for the main hand, and Hex and Hunter's mark only count for the main hand (any other damage-die-on-attack abilities I missed?).

Anything else you feel I missed? Just trying to make sure this works for our table. Your time and replies are appreciated

[Zhorn]

Personally I think it looks like a mess, but I've still seen worse. If this is the direction you want to take this for your table, who am I to judge.
Anyway, lets see what we can do about cleaning up the language, making it 'bookable' as you call it. I'll try to be as consistent to your given design in quote boxes, and have any suggestions outside of them.

Two-Weapon Fighting (baseline); assuming this is just the RAW version without changes.


Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
If there's any part of it you are intentionally deviating from, we can trim it out, or add in what would be missing for your version.


Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
You can engage in two-weapon fighting while only one of your weapons has the light property, and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls.
As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.
The opportunity attack restriction seems clumsy to have in the fighting style, and would make more sense to be part of your baseline rule. Otherwise it reads as you are able to opportunity attack with either weapon at baseline, but the fighting style restricts you from doing that.
Also, the main hand text should be defined better; such as "When you engage in two-weapon fighting, your main hand weapon does not require to have the light property". As it phrased currently, the non-light weapon could be either, and the main hand weapon is undefined UNTIL an opportunity attack occurs.


Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
Your offhand attack is no longer a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
You can add your ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon.
If you have the Fighting Style feature and have chosen Two-Weapon Fighting; you attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack.
Like I've said in an earlier post, so much of this feat negate the need for the Fighting Style, but with the opportunity attack components you've added in an incentive to now pick up both, so the fighting style is no longer superfluous.. Still, it is messy design to contain direct references to class features within a given feat's text. It becomes less of 'these two things synergize well together' and becomes 'this feature is partially locked and requires a specific class feature to become enabled'.


Extra Attacks only count for the main hand, and Hex and Hunter's mark only count for the main hand (any other damage-die-on-attack abilities I missed?).
Not sure where you intended to put this one in. This whole thing is already overly-complicated.

[Effortlessdepth]

Zhorn

First off let me say that I appreciate the trimming and streamlining of my rules, it was what I was seeking because it definitely did need to be cleaned up. However, in the process you missed a few things. One, this is just for our table and I have already said that these folks who want to play don’t care if it’s complicated, they want Two Weapon Fighting to be fair and balanced from their own view and these rules and aiming at satisfying them and myself, and it is the only rule in the system they have a problem with. With that in mind, direct references to class features within a given feat's text is not only not messy design in our case, but necessary, because that is how I am making sure the feat does not negate the need for the fighting style. Allow me to explain.

If someone (in our table’s case a pure barbarian) who doesn’t receive, and won’t dip to get a Fighting Style wants to Two Weapon Fight, they can take the DW Feat and get rid of the need to spend a bonus action thus making it a viable option alongside raging and such, but will still only get half (rounded down) ability modifier for the offhand, the need to use a light weapon in the offhand, and the need to spend their bonus action to shore up their defense for +1 AC. This keeps the TWF Style relevant in my opinion because it essentially gives the Style and the Feat both a half of your ability modifier, and to make that work I had to make a reference to the style in the feat description.

You are right about the opportunity attacks however. And for our purposes, any character may draw and stow two one handed weapons as if they were one weapon. Ease of use.

As far as the rule for Hex and Hunter’s mark I had not decided where to put that, and though it would be more professional to change those specific spells themselves, for our purposes, since Two Weapon Fighting is the only qualm my players have with the system, I just thought I would stick it there. My intention with the change was of course to mitigate abuse, but since we don’t have a Warlock or Ranger, I mentioned it here so people wouldn’t get too zoned in on it on this thread. So with all that in mind, and using your much needed editing and streamlining:

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.

Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, your main hand weapon does is not required to have the light property and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls. As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn. When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.

Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
• Your offhand attack no longer requires a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
• You can add your ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon, unless you do not possess Two Weapon Fighting Style, in which case you gain only half (rounded down) your ability modifier to damage.
• If you have the Fighting Style feature and have chosen Two-Weapon Fighting; you attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack. Otherwise you may only make opportunity attacks with your main hand.

[Effortlessdepth]

Forgot to add to DW Feat:
You gain +1 AC while dual wielding. If you do not have the Two Weapon Fighting Style, as a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

[stoutstien]

I think TWF I general is a common project for all that enjoy homebrewing.
Took me quite a few attempts to get it where i wanted it

Base rules:
-You can draw any number of weapons as long you have a free hand to hold it.

-Any weapon with the thrown property can be drawn as part of the same attack.

TWF- stays the same.

Fighting style- +1 AC while wielding a melee weapon In each hamd and weapons no longer need to be light to engage in two weapon Fighting.

Two weapon master -feat- add your ablity modifier to your bonus action attack.
Once per turn, If you have advantage on an attack made while two weapon fighting, you can forgo Advantage to immediately make two attacks with that weapon.


Weapon master- feat- +1 str or Dex
Pick one fighting style. Can't take the same style twice regardless of source.

This puts twf right between duelist and two-handed both in damage and defense.

[HiveStriker]

HiveStriker:

I actually didn’t want any mechanics for the drawing of weapons, I was thinking of just allowing the drawing and stowing of two weapons without having the DW feat or the Style or anything. I didn’t say that though, so that’s your not your fault. I just wanted to explain my reasoning on that. Drawing any weapon and attacking as one action sounds like an elegant way to take care of that, possibly. I also chose to include “choose which weapon is off hand” in the case of fighters with Extra Attack who and/or magical weapons, who use a smaller weapon in one hand, so they can get their d8 – d8 – d6 attacks straight.

Also, having the proficiency modifier to damage instead of half (rounded up) ability modifier is interesting, though it might not be as realistic? Probably wouldn’t matter much either way.

And as far as the bonus action not having to being used for offhand attacks, I know a lot of people think that’s imbalancing so I thought it would be a good compromise by making them choose a feat for it – and making it so that if they choose the feat and not the TWF Style, they won’t get the full effect, thus making it fairer.

And as far as the language, I will definitely clean it up so it’s “bookable” so to speak. Just trying to use extra words here for clarity amongst fellows ;)

So before I take a real swing (pun intended) at writing a bookable set of dual wielding rules, I would like to see how you all would write it in light of my needs and intentions in this game, if you don’t mind!
No worries. :)

I'm not sure I understood everything you wanted. Could you plz confirm for me and others before we throw our hat into the ring?
Your objectives are...
1. Putting out of mind the whole drawing/sheathing "problem" that may arise in RAW.
2. Allowing player to choose which he should consider off-hand even when mixing light and non-light
3. Making the FS and feat more valuable for players (especially those craving DPR) while also trying to represent something "realistic"
4. But avoid PHB situation where players "need" to pick the feat if they want to use anything other than two light weapons.

Am I getting that right?

On the 2nd point, from my understanding, even in RAW you can choose to make all Extra Attacks with the same weapon, so as long as you allow a mix of light and non-light to enable bonus action weapon attack I'm not sure to get what I'm missing.
Per RAW, you can perfectly already wield two weapons and use both of them on an Extra Attack. It's just that without the feat you don't qualify for bonus action attack.


Base rule: thrown weapons can be drawn like ammunition
Base rule: Bonus action to attack with off hand weapon. Weapons must be light, no stat to damage

Fighting style: weapons no longer need to be light

Feat: stat to damage, offhand attack is made as part of attack action instead of as bonus action, you can attack with both weapons during opportunity attacks.


Doesnt screw over classes without the style but also gives incentive to get it while being equal to other styles

Feat becomes appropriately desirable compared to PAM, CBE, GWM, etc

Doesnt favor classes with a greater or fewer number of attacks or sources of bonus damage

Doesnt overly buff tier 1-2 where it isnt needed
Catching up latest posts so didn't read latest other suggestions yet, but as far as improving TWF in damage goes, I think this one has the best approach. I'd just stack a +1 AC on either FS or feat.

And it addresses the main problem from my experience with TWF (at least on Fighters ^^), which is draw economy when you really need to switch full ranged (instead of mixing one/two throws with regular melee attacks).

[47Ace]

I think TWF I general is a common project for all that enjoy homebrewing.
Took me quite a few attempts to get it where i wanted it

Base rules:
-You can draw any number of weapons as long you have a free hand to hold it.

-Any weapon with the thrown property can be drawn as part of the same attack.

TWF- stays the same.

Fighting style- +1 AC while wielding a melee weapon In each hamd and weapons no longer need to be light to engage in two weapon Fighting.

Two weapon master -feat- add your ablity modifier to your bonus action attack.
Once per turn, If you have advantage on an attack made while two weapon fighting, you can forgo Advantage to immediately make two attacks with that weapon.


Weapon master- feat- +1 str or Dex
Pick one fighting style. Can't take the same style twice regardless of source.

This puts twf right between duelist and two-handed both in damage and defense.

OK I like that it may not satisfy my dislike of the bonus action attack being free but overall it looks good and would probably be more widely appealing then anything I would prefer. Well done, I may use this even if the OP finds something that suits them better.

[stoutstien]

OK I like that it may not satisfy my dislike of the bonus action attack being free but overall it looks good and would probably be more widely appealing then anything I would prefer. Well done, I may use this even if the OP finds something that suits them better.

I tried to move it off the bonus action but there are so many cases where TWF becomes too powerful.

-Barbarian is a ton of fun with it. Going ham with hand axes and getting constant advantage has their damage sitting right behind GWM but with more consistency.

[Kane0]

Catching up latest posts so didn't read latest other suggestions yet, but as far as improving TWF in damage goes, I think this one has the best approach. I'd just stack a +1 AC on either FS or feat.

And it addresses the main problem from my experience with TWF (at least on Fighters ^^), which is draw economy when you really need to switch full ranged (instead of mixing one/two throws with regular melee attacks).

Why thankyou, it did take me a few iterations (and years of play) to arrive at.

@Effortlessdepth, one key issue remains: the style provides no benefit when the feat comes into play, which overrides all its aspects.

[Effortlessdepth]

Well I just had a whole response typed and my power blinked, so here we go again.

I’m pretty sure I was clear in previous posts what I’m going for. We have a small tight knit table, which among others, includes a barbarian and a rogue fighter that really want to dual wield weapons. Barbarian wants to rage and dual wield, and the rogue fighter wants to use cunning action and dual wield without having to spend his bonus action. Myself and the rogue have actual experience in swordsmanship and spar regularly, have a respect for realism, but also a respect for the fantasy of the game. No one at this table is afraid of complexity in the rules, especially since this is the only rule we are tinkering with and that we take dual wielding more seriously than the average gamer. That being said, we are also playing with feats and WANT to play with feats, so taking them is not a problem. I was actually trying to make sure that the Feat and the Style are both equally important, allowing the barbarian to skip the style and get the feat but still be fairly effective. The rogue fighter will obviously take both, and neither of these players likes the bonus action requirement for offhand attacking (and to make sure it’s not really overpowered, I made it part of the feat), and so I am trying to get everyone’s opinion on my rule propositions for our game, and enlist your aid in foreseeing problems in the future as far as balance for our game.

As far as confirming what I want, I will say it all again:

We are chucking the whole sheathing/drawing problem with RAW.

I’m pretty sure someone already said that choosing which hand is your offhand before each turn was pointless, therefore I removed it from the new set of rules I propositioned, as you can see above.

I think I’ve done a decent job keeping the new rules as realistic as is necessary.

And if you read the Style and Feat closely, you can see that although the Feat relieves the need to spend the bonus action for offhand attacking, it only gives you half your ability modifier, and only relieves one light weapon. The Style gies you the other half of those things. This keeps the Feat decent for the barbarian, but also keeps the Style relevant too, and for the full dual wielding package you need both. The Feat does not negate the need for the Style, as far as I can tell. Please tell me if you disagree and why, that is why I am posting this thread.

The players do not need to pick the Feat to relieve the need for two light weapons.

I’m pretty sure too, that the effect of the rules I’ve come up with keeps the DPS of dual wielding in between GWF and S&B, and keeps it in the middle as far as AC bonuses. I haven’t crunched the numbers because I am not THAT good at math, but I am pretty sure that with this setup, two weapon fighting doesn’t become too overpowered. Again, read my updated rules above closely and if you see a way (or can number crunch better than I can intuit/estimate it) please tell me why and how, because I do not want that to happen. Hope this clears everything up, and again I appreciate everyone’s time.

[Effortlessdepth]

Ok I see a problem here. I apologize: I am writing my responses in Word before I post them here because my power has been blinking a lot over the past few days. On my Word document I had the whole DW Feat written out, but somehow forgot to add part of the first benefit of the DW Feat when I posted here:

"You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon must be light."

Sorry for the double posting, and the mistake everyone.

[Kane0]

Ah i see what you mean now. Instead of saying ‘full’ ability modifier for the feat, you should say ‘other half’

[Effortlessdepth]

Yes! Thank you :) Once again, language needs to be trimmed I see.

[Zhorn]

Ok, taking another crack at trying to word what you're communicating.


Base Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
When you make an opportunity attacks, you may only attack using your main hand weapon.


Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
You can engage in two-weapon fighting while only your off-hand weapons has the light property, and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls.
As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

Leaving the line about opportunity attack in the base rule and cut it out of the fighting style. Specific beats general, so unless there's a specific change being enacted, there's no need to repeat that part.


Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You can engage in two-weapon fighting while only your off-hand weapons has the light property
Your offhand attack is no longer a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
Your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls.
As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.
If you have the Fighting Style feature and have chosen Two-Weapon Fighting you additionally gain the following benefits;
You can use two-weapon fighting even when both the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
You attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack.
You add your full ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon instead of just half.
The +1 bonus to AC no longer requires a bonus action and is now active so long as you are wielding a weapon in each hand.

This is honestly just way too long with too much going on

[Rebonack]

My enduring issue with Two-Weapon Fighting is that it is direct competition with heavy weapon fighting for the 'deal lots of damage' niche. Problem is, it is more feat intensive while deal similar (or less) damage. Solution here seems simple enough to me.

Let two handed weapons be the big damage dealing things. They're good at that. Everything is fine.

Instead?

Let two weapon fighting actually be what it actually was. A primarily defensive style.

While holding a light weapon in your off-hand you get +1 to your AC. This doesn't stack with wielding a Shield. If a creature misses you with a melee attack while dual wielding you may use your Reaction to make an offhand attack against them (no ability bonus damage).

The fighting style adds ability damage to the Reaction attack.

The Feat bumps the AC bonus up to +2, lets you use a non-light weapon in the off-hand, and gives the option to make an offhand Bonus Action attack.

This does several things.

1) TWF is now more in line with its actual historical use. Parrying attacks and occasionally stabbing someone when a good opening arises.
2) Gives Rogues a really great reason to maybe want to go melee. Right now there is no mechanical reason not to just grab a short bow and stay as far away as possible at all times. Stealth Archery domination should stay in Skyrim.
3) The feat is now actually pretty great. Plus 2 AC is a MUCH bigger deal than plus one. Adding the bonus action attack via the feat fits nicely with how other combat feats operate.

At the end of the day GWF is still going to be better (for a Fighter) when it comes to dealing damage. But TWF will be more competitive. For a Rogue they now have an actually compelling choice between ranged (low risk lower reward) and melee (high risk higher reward).

[Effortlessdepth]

Zhorn:

I appreciate you trimming again, but I was going to do it myself this time. Sorry I didn’t say that, it was late and I was going to tackle it this morning. And I’m not trying to nitpick here, but even after removing my redundant opportunity attack wording you added more wording and in the end your version was only 1 word less than mine (though it may have been clearer or more more “bookable” as I say). In any case I will leave the opportunity attack bit out of the fighting style because you are right, it is unnecessary. Thank you for your time!

And as far as the feat being too long and with too much going on, once again our table really doesn’t mind. In fact the rule fix is actually pretty simple, it just takes a lot of wording to explain, which is sometimes required to implement a simple rule within a complex system -- like DnD. I will also say that in practice, these rules don’t slow down gameplay. We’re not rolling a dozen times just for one attack or anything, it really is pretty simple. It’s just an odd implementation that folks are not used to seeing I suppose. And no one has to implement any of this, because it’s not an actual proposed fix, it’s just for our game. I am by no means suggesting that others use this fix.

Rebonack:

One thing before I start here, this is a rule for OUR TABLE.

I have tried to make sure that the Two Weapon Fighting in our game is represented, as far as DPS goes, in between GWF and S&B. If that is not the case, please tell me how. I do not believe it should do more damage than GWF, nor do I believe it should have more defensive qualities than S&B: it should be somewhere in the middle. Also, the way I have structured the fighting style and the feat, it is NOT feat intensive, it is no more feat intensive than GWF. And as far as two weapon fighting being primarily defensive historically, that is only partially true. The most prevalent case for this is holding a parrying dagger in the offhand, but that is only one fighting style, and from European systems like Italian, English, German and Scottish. Asian systems are a different story, especially Polynesian fighting systems. In those systems it still retains defensive properties, but is brought to a whole other level in terms of offense. It was definitely designed to have some defensive properties AND more offensive qualities, including being able to threaten multiple attackers, and that is why in those systems the offhand weapon is sometimes full size or at least the same size as the main hand weapon. Less protection than a shield from multiple attackers, but the ability to THREATEN multiple attackers, to a certain extent. That is why I don’t believe the AC bonus should be more than +1, and why I implemented an “active at all times” rule to the players who take both the style and feat, because it takes a lot of skill and training to be able to use two weapons offensively while still retaining -- at all times – the full defensive possibilities of having a second weapon in hand. Besides, wouldn’t making it +2 for the DW feat compete too much with the Dueling fighting style? Maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. But in any case as far as realism goes, a weapon of any size will never block and provide cover and protection equal to or better than a shield.

I do like your idea about using it as a reaction, but in our case we are using feats from the Fighter Folio, and there is a feat in there that creates the same mechanic. And I firmly agree that rogues need to feel like they have a reason to enter melee, and that was one of the biggest goals I had, hence the direction I took in removing the need to spend bonus actions just to even use the offhand. Which, by the way, a person with actual dual wielding skills will most certainly be able to Dash or Disengage while still utilizing the offhand. It’s not like they would somehow be rooted to the spot if they ever want to use their offhand, that’s where proper hip and waist movement come in.

With this rule set I have (with everyone’s help, and thank you!) created, I feel like TWF is firmly in the middle between GWF and S&B as far as DPS and AC bonuses, represents realism fairly well while still inserting within a fantasy world, isn’t any more feat intensive than the other styles, provides versatility which is what I was going for, frees up action economy for fun shenanigans for our barb and rogue fighter, doesn’t slow down the game as far as rolling, keeps both the style and the feat relevant in themselves, all at the expensive of needing to read and understand some extra wording. I will also point out that the Ritual Caster feat has a pretty long description, and so what if it does? We are not afraid of one overly long rule at our table, thought I can understand people's apprehension if I were trying to posit this as a proposed fix for the community or something.

[Effortlessdepth]

Edit, I meant to say Indonesian Fighting systems, not polynesian.

[bid]

You know you can edit your own posts, right?
{Scrubbed}

[Zhorn]

bid beat me to it, he's a quick one :smallwink:

the edit post button is on the lower right of your posts, left of the "reply with quote"


Zhorn:

I appreciate you trimming again, but I was going to do it myself this time. Sorry I didn’t say that, it was late and I was going to tackle it this morning. And I’m not trying to nitpick here, but even after removing my redundant opportunity attack wording you added more wording and in the end your version was only 1 word less than mine (though it may have been clearer or more more “bookable” as I say).
Most of the added stuff was to try and accommodate the additional details you've been communicating in the subsequent posts, and trying to get the legalese precise enough to have a clear implementation without any of the "wait, what now?" wording that pops up in initial drafts.

I don't expect you to default to the worded version I've supplied, and I'm actually looking forward to reading you own version once you hammer it out. This was just as much a personal exercise for me, trying to figure out how to word it in a way that conforms to the design intent you were sharing and try to deliver on your request
So before I take a real swing (pun intended) at writing a bookable set of dual wielding rules, I would like to see how you all would write it in light of my needs and intentions in this game, if you don’t mind!First attempt missed a whole lot, so I just wanted to take another crack at it.

[Jarlhen]

I just homebrewed DW for a new campaign we're starting. I don't mind adding a bit more complexity. Traditionally I had always wanted DW to be on par with GWM for damage. Mike Mearls pointing out that for him DW was about versatility made me think on it differently. Here's what I came up with:

Dual Wielding
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the
following benefits:
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when
• you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
• The Dual Wield master is one who values flexibility. As such you may chose to take one of three stances at the beginning of your turn. The effects of the chosen stance remains in place until the start of your next turn.
Defensive - You forego offense in favor of defense. By taking a -2 penalty to hit on each of your attacks you gain +2 to AC.
Offense - You throw caution to the wind and leap into the fray. Each of your attacks do your proficiency modifier in bonus damage. You also suffer -2 modifier to your AC.
Balanced - You gain +1 AC and your off-hand attack can be made as part of your regular attack action rather than your bonus action.

[HiveStriker]

The stance idea is nice.
It's something I discovered in 4E and was actually frustrated to not see implemented in general in 5e.
Maybe your version is a tad powerful, or not. My brain is all melty right now cannot do any proper maths.
Like the general idea anyways. :)

[Chaosticket]

Can Two-Weapon fighting be fixed?

I dont think so because you would make it broken. Fundamentally Two-Weapon Fighting is just some "cool" style, because actually allowing you to make double the amounts of attacks.

a Fighter would reach "snowball of death" if you altered Two-Weapon Fighting because they can uniquely unlock a Third and Fourth attack as part of a regular attack chain AND then they also have Action Surge. Fix Two-Weapon Fighting and a Fighter would get 16 attacks per turn.

Putting special ryles on your off-hand weapon doesnt fundamentally change that Two-Weapon fighting needs to be capped. If you could keep the cap EXCEPT dont take the Bonus Action too then maybe.

How can you really balance it? Maybe a high level Feat that makes all Off-hand weapons to equal all your Extra Attacks?

[Effortlessdepth]

Sorry about the edit I figured there was an option but like I said I’ve been using Word to type out my responses because of power issues. Sorry for the double post too, but I’ve been so focused on getting my point across and understood that I figured I’d just do it by hand, since we are dealing with something inherently complicated in the fantasy world AND real life and it seems we have fast replies on this thread.

Zhorn:

I like the way you worded it, and will probably keep most if not all of it. Thank you for your time, and everyone else as well.

Jarlhen:

I thought about implementing a stance feature very similar to yours but couldn’t find a way to keep it from being overpowered, like HiveStriker said. Maybe it’s not overpowered though, someone could number crunch.

Chaosticket:

Two weapon fighting will always have attempted fixes in homebrew, because yes it is seen as cool, but the popularity of drizzt-like dual wielders and musashi type characters is starting to wane these days, and I have a feeling the folks who created 5e chose not to prioritize it, hence the easy method of just making it a bonus attack. Balancing it any other way with their chosen support/system structure for the rest of the rules would have been complicated, which is why my fix and other’s fixes –if they have any realism-- are usually complicated. Plus, as I mentioned above, two weapon fighting is actually very complicated in real life, hence the lack of commonality compared to other fighting systems around the world.

But as far as fighters reaching “snowball of death” status, my fix does not allow doubling attacks. A dual wielder will only ever have one offhand attack no matter what level; in other words, the main hand is the only one that gains Extra Attacks, when they are unlocked. I have seen a few fixes suggest that, but it is overpowered and not the only way to fix it. And the only way to avoid that problem is to include some complexity in the rules.

Also I should probably make sure my players understand that they cannot take yet another attack with their bonus action, since it’s not included in my rules. But they might get confused reading the players handbooks and think they can have their two weapons, two attacks, plus have another attack or two somehow with their bonus action. Definitely not. Not sure if I made that clear or not, but it should be obvious.

On another note, all of this has reminded me of another thing, I think I remember why I initially wanted the fix to include players choosing which hand is the offhand before they start their turn! As HiveStriker said, he wasn’t sure if there was an interesting use-case, but I think there is. Reason being, if you have two magical weapons that both have different effects, and you face a creature that is weak to one of those effects, you are going to want to have the weapon that targets that weakness be the main hand, since that is the hand that gets the Extra Attacks. I wonder how this could be implemented…. Spend a bonus action or reaction to switch weapons on your turn? Or just simply choose which one is your main hand? Plus in my opinion and within the context of our table, I feel like you would need both my Style and my Feat (or at least one of those) to be able to simply choose which is the main hand without switching weapons, since that would require absolute ambidexterity. But implementing something like that might even be a little too much wording for even me….

[Effortlessdepth]

Okay, here is my attempted final draft:


Baseline Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.

Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, your main hand weapon is not required to have the light property and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls. As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• Your offhand attack no longer requires a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon must be light.
• You can add your ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon way only add half (rounded down) of your ability modifier to damage.
• If you have chosen the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, you attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack.
• You gain +1 AC while dual wielding. If you do not have the Two Weapon Fighting Style, as a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

[Expected]

Okay, here is my attempted final draft:


Baseline Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.

Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, your main hand weapon is not required to have the light property and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls. As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• Your offhand attack no longer requires a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon must be light.
• You can add your ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon way only add half (rounded down) of your ability modifier to damage.
• If you have chosen the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, you attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack.
• You gain +1 AC while dual wielding. If you do not have the Two Weapon Fighting Style, as a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

For the Dual Wielder feat, you are encouraging Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark abuse by including each off-hand attack into the attack action but not accounting for the bonus action. If I were a player at your table, I'd take Hex (multiclassing into Hexblade Warlock or MI: Warlock) and break combat.

[suplee215]

Honesty I think the issue with Two Weapon Fighting in the books is that the classes that would most benefit from it don't get it (Paladin, Barbarian). The way it is written in the books make it amazing for classes that don't have too many uses for their bonus action but also deal extra damage on each hit. That said, I have attempted to homebrew a feat I think would help it DPS wise. The key to it is adding proficiency to each hit while dual wielding (and I tried a few other benefits in there). This keeps the bonus below GWF but sword and board and makes it not pathetic on a fighter. It also keeps it relatively balance for early levels where TWF already shines.

[Kane0]

Something that may or may not be useful to you, I did the math for my TWF changes (which are similar) and got this:

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

[Chaosticket]

Simplest fix I can suggest is to remove all the existing penalties and special rules for Two-weapon Fighting.

Replace with this:
#1 Extra Attack applies to off-hand weapons.
#2 Damage Modifiers from all effects cut in half while using Two Weapons, rounding down.
#3 Light weapon restriction remains.

=================
The basic flaw with Dual-Wielding in every edition is the requirements, so even if you do manage to get them all ready, youve spent so much for something like +50% over One-Handed weapons, which require no feats.

In 3.5 the Two-handed weapons were so much better because you didnt need to take a half dozen feats. Pathfinder carried that over, but Power Attack was more balanced so two-handed weapons only got a +50% damage bonus, not 100% and that Off-Hand weapons gained 50%(or 100% with a feat) Power Attack.
---------------------------------------
Right now Dual-Wielding requires of a Bonus Action, requires a Fighting Style only available to Fighters and Rangers, and isnt compatible with Extra Attacks, So its still only effective level 1-4.

#1 Great Weapon Mastery, You can trade -5 to hit for +10 to damage. Its basically 5e Power Attack but ONLY for Heavy weapons.

#2 Polearm Mastery feat allows a second attack as a bonus action and that has full damage bonus. a Polearm does less damage than greatsword but does allow extra attacks as Opportunity attacks because of its Reach.

#3 Sentinel is yet another feat for this combo. Hit someone with an opportunity attack(a reaction) and you knock their movement to 0. Hit them each turn and they cant move.

So combine those things together and make 4 attacks with a Polearm at level 6 Human Fighter, each with +10 damage. Pretty clear that the developers are favoring "big weapons" over dual-wielding. Maybe theyre not Drizzt fanboys?

Dual-Wielding is for characters with high Dexterity. That allows you to have high Armor Class, Initiative, and better skills. That is a big reason why I talk about balance.

[Effortlessdepth]

Expected:

I mentioned in an earlier comment that I could easily tweak Hexblade’s Curse and Hunter’s Mark without issue, sorry I didn’t repeat it again. In my opinion, it should be obvious that if I wanted my own fix to work, then I would have to tweak both of those abilities/spells. Plus we don’t have warlocks or rangers in our group anyway. Once again, since it’s probably too hard for everyone to keep rereading the whole thread before they comment, I will remind everyone that this fix is just for our table.

Suplee215:

“Honesty I think the issue with Two Weapon Fighting in the books is that the classes that would most benefit from it don't get it (Paladin, Barbarian). The way it is written in the books make it amazing for classes that don't have too many uses for their bonus action but also deal extra damage on each hit. ”

I agree wholeheartedly, and overall it seems like the developers didn’t want to deal with it. My fix is aimed at fixing that for our group.

KaneO:

I wish I knew how to do that, it would be interesting to see the numbers for my fix.

Chaosticket:

Just want to point out that at least with my proposed fix for our table, the feat and requirement amount for Two Weapon Fighting is the same as the other styles. Also, thinking of Expected’s comment about Hexblade’s Curse and Hunter’s Mark, I also have a house rule at our table that includes a feat called:

Fighting Style Training: You adopt a particular style of fighting as your specialty. You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again. You must choose from the list of Fighting Styles available to the Fighter class. You may not adopt more than one Fighting Style unless you are a Champion archetype of the Fighter class. In order to learn your chosen style you must find an individual who is also trained in that style who is willing to teach you.

I feel like this is a decent way to allow other classes to get fighting styles. Feat walls can be good in my opinion. I also agree with your comment about the creators not being a fan of dual wielding. I think they are trying to phase it out, and it’s easy to see why. With so many R.A. Salvatore books I think folks just got sick of it all. I don’t know…. it doesn’t bother me, I read the books as a kid up to Charon’s Claw I think, and it definitely had a huge effect on me from my formative years and on into my 20’s, and to this day it was the biggest motivator for me to start training in real swordsmanship and start a company making weighted wooden swords and other martial art weapons. That being said, the way sword fighting is portrayed in those books – with regards to the general weapon fighting, but even more so the dual wielding – is unrealistic in certain ways. I wanted my fix to be at least somewhat realistic to RL, since myself and other members of our table train swordsmanship together. This is part of the reason why my fix for dual wielding here is so convoluted, because we all have a better grasp of how it really works in real combat.

[Kane0]

I wish I knew how to do that, it would be interesting to see the numbers for my fix.


Well getting the parameters right was the hard part (what levels you're looking at, applying ASIs, whether or not to account for subclass, how many rounds to look at, etc) but the basic formula was:
((A)x(X+Y+Z))+((B)x(X+Y+Z))

A: Number of action attacks
B: Number of bonus action attacks
X: Average weapon damage
Y: Stat bonus
Z: Average 'other' per-hit bonuses (Fighting Style, Hunter's Mark, Barbarian Rage, etc)

The more different options you can account for the better for comparing, but it gets complicated quickly.



I feel like this is a decent way to allow other classes to get fighting styles. Feat walls can be good in my opinion. I also agree with your comment about the creators not being a fan of dual wielding. I think they are trying to phase it out, and it’s easy to see why. With so many R.A. Salvatore books I think folks just got sick of it all. I don’t know…. it doesn’t bother me, I read the books as a kid up to Charon’s Claw I think, and it definitely had a huge effect on me from my formative years and on into my 20’s, and to this day it was the biggest motivator for me to start training in real swordsmanship and start a company making weighted wooden swords and other martial art weapons. That being said, the way sword fighting is portrayed in those books – with regards to the general weapon fighting, but even more so the dual wielding – is unrealistic in certain ways. I wanted my fix to be at least somewhat realistic to RL, since myself and other members of our table train swordsmanship together. This is part of the reason why my fix for dual wielding here is so convoluted, because we all have a better grasp of how it really works in real combat.

This may be hard for you to do but from a dev & design point of view sometimes you have to leave reality behind. The mechanics, and more importantly the math, don't really care about it. Your experience is great for informing the fluff and by extension the mechanics, but that experience on its own doesn't really contribute to making it more or less functional.

[Chaosticket]

Tweaking the damage of everything hurts everyone. Its just 1 issue, that Two-Weapon Fighting doesnt work with Extra Attacks. If it did, then things might be fine.

Ranger is the Quintessential Dual-Wielder and Archer, but its generally bad because its always weaker than a Fighter in raw effectiveness. It balances that with minor spells and bonus skills. "jack of all trades, master of none"

Right Now the Ranger is excellent at level 1 and 2, but doesnt really grow in combat. Its supposed to be Strider, not Conan. If anything it does that beautifully. Too bad that is mechanically bad. You roleplay your tracking skills, not have a Class Feature that says youre a tracker.

[HiveStriker]

Okay, here is my attempted final draft:


Baseline Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. When you make an opportunity attack, you may do so only with your main hand weapon.

Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, your main hand weapon is not required to have the light property and your bonus action attacks get to add half their ability modifier (rounded down) to damage rolls. As a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

Feat: Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• Your offhand attack no longer requires a bonus action to use and is instead added to the number of attacks you can make when taking the Attack Action.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon must be light.
• You can add your ability modifier to attacks made with your off-hand weapon. If you do not possess the Two Weapon Fighting Style, the offhand weapon way only add half (rounded down) of your ability modifier to damage.
• If you have chosen the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, you attack once with each of your main-hand and off-hand weapons when making an opportunity attack.
• You gain +1 AC while dual wielding. If you do not have the Two Weapon Fighting Style, as a bonus action you can use your off-hand weapon defensively, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the start of your next turn.

I think that for what your initial goal was, this is close to the best you can achieve.
About your "Baseline dual-wielding though", at this point, just use the PHB, it achieves the same effect but everyone knows the wording (yes, with PHB you can also throw weapons, and you did say you put away all draw/sheathe requirements).



Right now Dual-Wielding requires of a Bonus Action, requires a Fighting Style only available to Fighters and Rangers, and isnt compatible with Extra Attacks, So its still only effective level 1-4.

#1 Great Weapon Mastery, You can trade -5 to hit for +10 to damage. Its basically 5e Power Attack but ONLY for Heavy weapons.

#2 Polearm Mastery feat allows a second attack as a bonus action and that has full damage bonus. a Polearm does less damage than greatsword but does allow extra attacks as Opportunity attacks because of its Reach.

#3 Sentinel is yet another feat for this combo. Hit someone with an opportunity attack(a reaction) and you knock their movement to 0. Hit them each turn and they cant move.

So combine those things together and make 4 attacks with a Polearm at level 6 Human Fighter, each with +10 damage. Pretty clear that the developers are favoring "big weapons" over dual-wielding. Maybe theyre not Drizzt fanboys?

Dual-Wielding is for characters with high Dexterity. That allows you to have high Armor Class, Initiative, and better skills. That is a big reason why I talk about balance.
I'm sorry but most of those points are completely off mark.

First, you never *need* Fighting Style. It's just a worthy investment when you don't have enough alternative uses of your bonus action or you simply want to use dual-wielding as much as possible for whatever reason.
Second, it's perfectly compatible with Extra Attack. In fact, it's the style that allows you to get advantage (at least try) with a bonus action, except in a "reversed" fashion: with dual-wielding, you can use first weapon attack of Attack on Shove and still get the same number of weapon attacks as usual.
NO FEAT REQUIRED. NO FIGHTING STYLE REQUIRED.
It's also the way of fighting that allows you to get an effective reach of 20, or even 30, of melee weapons, with the only limitation being draw/sheathe one. So if you really use throwing very regularly, it may make the feat become a requirement of sorts which feels a bit annoying, but since feat brings other benefits it's fine overall, except if you're a pure Fighter.

As for your 1, it makes you heavily dependant on being in actual melee reach. As you progress in game, enemies learn how to keep distance, and more have ranged abilities to go with. Furthermore, the improving AC makes it more difficult to use the +10 reliably unless you get advantage. There are many ways to do that indeed, and maybe you can count on a party member to do it, or maybe you're a Barbarian. In most other cases, you'll have to "sacrifice" a weapon attack to Shove or a bonus action to get advantage, so the actual damage is less than one could think.

As for your 2, it's too imprecise to be valid: Polearm Mastery's bonus action attack is only 1d4, whereas Dual Wielder would allow 1d8 weapon. So if you take only feat, Polearm Mastery is only a few points better, and if you pick the FS, TWF is plain better.
As far as getting more opportunity attacks, it's not because of its reach, but because it allows to get OA on "enter reach" in addition to "exit reach". That's a good feature, but how much it makes a difference is very variable from one player to another because of many factors.
If you really want to try and enable OA, you will need to get close to enemies anyways. 5 feet of difference is significant at low levels, but past level 10 it won't. Between enemies that won't care that much about a single OA because they are resilient AND have multiple attacks to unleash on you, those who have at least 10 feet reach on their own melee weapon attacks (or more) and those who have effects that may cripple you, both the "OA on enter" and "10 feet reach" will be far less effective to keep enemies at bay. Provided you want them too!
Which brings to next point.

Sentinel is a feat you like because you want to aggro enemies. Once they know you cripple their speed, if that is threatening their ability to act, they WILL avoid you as much as possible. So you will be the one to chase them into melee, not the opposite. Voiding the second bullet point of a PAM feat.

Lastly, dual-wielding is for STR characters PRIMARILY. Dex characters have *no real reason* to invest into dual-wielding unless they want to really stay into melee whatever happens for some reason. Otherwise, it's best to get Crossbow Expert and keep melee (throwable) weapon ready to draw for OA. And switch to a bow for real ranged fighting.
In addition to that, most DEX-based classes have many uses for their bonus action anyways (Monks have better attack + all other things, Rogues have Cunning Action, Rangers could focus on using their many bonus action spells).
I'm not saying it's bad either for a DEX character to invest into that style. I did and had heaps of fun because I happened to want a mainly melee character so I priorized Sentinel. But it's not the optimal way usually.

As for STR classes...
Barbarians, in several archetypes, have bonus action of their own. Worst case, you'll have enough DEX to invest into Rogue which is a sound idea in the first place because you want mobility to reach melee.
Paladins can use regular two-weapon fighting because they want a smite to connect, and later they get Improved Divine Smite, to "occupy bonus action space" whenever they are not using either a spell or an archetype feature (like Vengeance).
I do regret that Paladins don't have Two-Weapon Fighting Style available, because I don't see any justification beyond arbitrary fluff to that. Or maybe it was for balance, but I don't think it was really necessary. But hey, Paladin is still such a strong and fun class that it doesn't really matter.

[Chaosticket]

The point was that those Feats would work well by themselves and great in combination, but not with Two-Weapon fighting.
Two-Weapon fighting has little support.

There are plenty of situations you list. My point is that they are special situations. Every character has some situational ability, but its outside that "golden zone" where things are tested.

I just read about someone talking about the Monk's Stunning ability in another thread, and my thought was what happens when that fails, the enemy is immune, or you just dont have the power stored up?

[Effortlessdepth]

KaneO: “This may be hard for you to do but from a dev & design point of view sometimes you have to leave reality behind. The mechanics, and more importantly the math, don't really care about it. Your experience is great for informing the fluff and by extension the mechanics, but that experience on its own doesn't really contribute to making it more or less functional.”

In reply to this, as I said in previous posts on this thread, taking real life situations (especially combat situations which are extremely complicated to begin with) and attempting to translate them into a fantasy world with simplistic math is already an exercise in futility. Life is infinitely more complicated than any kind of simplistic math could hope to simulate, and so I am absolutely okay with leaving reality behind to a great extent. However, for the sake of fun and fellowship we do want to try to simulate fighting in a fantasy world with a modicum of realism. And because of the actual experience of myself and members of our group with real two weapon fighting, I am beholden to attempt a fix that is a little more realistically represented. You are right, the math doesn’t care because it is simply a tool, but the mechanics, they DO care, if only a little, and only if you can marry the math to the reality in a successful, compromised manner. It will only every be flawed though, but there are degrees and gradients to that level of flawed. We are seeking a slightly less flawed rule set for Two Weapon Fighting.

So no, experience on it’s own is not enough to make this fix more functional; it requires a compromise between the math and reality, which is what I have attempted. And because experience on it’s own isn’t enough, and because I knew that I didn’t on my own have all the math skills necessary to fully marry the math and realism, I turned to this forum for help to get as close to a solution as the mechanics will allow.

With everyone’s help and constructive criticism, I feel that I have come as close as I can to a fix that will work for our table. Do I feel like this is a fix worth of the rest of the community to take on? Or the WotC should change it to? Not really. But I have finally proposed it to our group today and everyone digs it so it works for us. Once again, thanks for everyone’s help.

A few last things just to be clear, and in case anyone is curious:

I will be chucking the draw/stow actions, as I’ve said.

I very well might just keep the PHB baseline rules for Two Weapon Fighting, it depends on whether mine are longer in words than the PHB set.

I also instituted the following changes to help mitigate abuse:

“The effect of the above changes to the Two Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder Feat throws off the balance of a couple other skills possessed by other classes, opening up avenues for abuse. Fortunately it is easy to fix and mitigate these flaws:

Monks’ Martial Arts Class Feature: If a monk takes the Dual Wielder feat as described above, they may no longer utilize their bonus action for an attack. Allowing it would allow the Monk to make far too many attacks, breaking realism and imbalancing DPS values in the game.

The spell Hunter’s Mark allows extra damage for successful attacks now only applies to attacks with the main hand weapon.

The Hexblade Warlock’s ability, Hexblade’s Curse: All bonuses to attack and damage rolls apply only to the main hand. “


That is all, I hope I didn't forget anything again.

[HiveStriker]

The point was that those Feats would work well by themselves and great in combination, but not with Two-Weapon fighting.
Two-Weapon fighting has little support.

There are plenty of situations you list. My point is that they are special situations. Every character has some situational ability, but its outside that "golden zone" where things are tested.

I just read about someone talking about the Monk's Stunning ability in another thread, and my thought was what happens when that fails, the enemy is immune, or you just dont have the power stored up?
I'm not sure I get your interrrogation to be honest.

I'll try to rephrase in a more concise way and hope that helps convey my point.

1) I think "basic" dual-wielding is fine as is because it provides a level of versatility that allows most classes (at least martial) to "fill up" their bonus action in many kind of situation where their "native" bonus action (if any) are unavailable or lesser options.

2) I think the Fighting Style is enough for all martials that either simply feel dual-wielding comes up often enough to make it worth, and/or don't want to lock themselves into a specific weapon, whatever reason behind (being sure you can use whatever magic weapon you find, still hesitating between front-line/mid-line). It's a bit sad that some of the classes that would benefit the most from it (Rogue for consistent Shove and Sneak, Paladin to Shove and still get two "full attacks" with potential smite) cannot get it barring multiclass, but I guess designers did maths and decided balance was better as is (plus those classes have many uses for bonus action anyways so I'm not sure they'd fit the initial assertion ^^).

3) I don't see how dual-wielding would be incompatible with Sentinel which is imo far better feat than PAM when you want to apply some crowd control.
And if you pick Dual Wielder, you can perfectly adapt to situation any given round, drawing a whip to get some distance while being able to get OA in 10 feet reach, or keeping a magic staff in one hand for spells in case of need while bashing mundanely with a sword in another, or throwing a javelin so you free a hand to grab and use an object, Grapple or cast a spell... Then fallback hurling several Javelins while you fallback, or simply switching weapons because you face an enemy that has a resistance to (only) one kind of physical damage (sadly very rare, a big missed chance imo here). Or even throw what you had in hand to still make some attacks while you go pick up that magic lance your unconcious friend dropped. ^^

So, as I said above, in ideal melee conditions (low risk of hurting counterattack, enemy already in range, high chance of hitting), yeah, nothing can best GWM in raw damage, and PAM has a hidden burst with potential OA on "entry".
In practice, the actual difference in damage over time varies upon so many different things that one exterior observer would have trouble deciding which was the best.

[Chaosticket]

Variety is great, but how many +1-3 weapons does your Dungeon Master give out?

How many weapons is your DM putting in the game to be losing them by tossing them around?

Youre argument relying on a lot of generosity that you have this big selection of weapons. Or if youre in an area where nothing is resistant to non-magic.

Same argument I keep hearing, the Golden Zone where nothing bad happens. Yours is extra bizarre as youre relying on a contradiction, that your have lots of weapons, but then if you do you wouldnt need them because youre in the Zone.

[HiveStriker]

Variety is great, but how many +1-3 weapons does your Dungeon Master give out?

How many weapons is your DM putting in the game to be losing them by tossing them around?

Youre argument relying on a lot of generosity that you have this big selection of weapons. Or if youre in an area where nothing is resistant to non-magic.

Same argument I keep hearing, the Golden Zone where nothing bad happens. Yours is extra bizarre as youre relying on a contradiction, that your have lots of weapons, but then if you do you wouldnt need them because youre in the Zone.
You know weapons can be picked up after a fight right?
That you can pick up and use weapons/ammunitions of people you slayed right?
That several class features or rituals can allow weapon crafting right?
That, supposedly at least, PC are supposed to get rich quickly enough to allow much waste of mundane equipment right?

Besides, in any given encounter, the "highest average" I've seen for a dual-wielder was a dozen weapons thrown because they messed up tactics, usually it's about 5-7 per fights as they switch from melee to mid range or help finish off an enemy while going to tank another. If you really spend every single turn using all attacks to throw weapons around, then maybe you didn't pick the right class for your playstyle and would have been better as a straight DEX Crossbow Expert. XD

Also, I happen to play in very low-magic settings (for a D&d universe anyways), and I rarely hand out magical equipment myself when DMing. It's fine with my players because most of them don't like magic *that* much anyways, and they prefer creative/utility items in the first place (like classic Bag of Holding).
That's what makes some magics like Magic Weapon great, as well as many class features such as Kensei's "auto-magical" or Eldricht Knight / Warlock's pact weapons (or even, for EK, the simple fact it can completely switch to elemental damage if really he has to way to override physical resistance).
There is usually one full caster and one half caster among crew. The only magic items I tend to be "generous" about is Ring of Spell Storing, because actual utility of those is up to party wits. And it encourage teamwork and role distribution.

Finally, rarely will you encounter a party of ALL physically resistant creatures, except if a) DM knows party can handle it one way or another b) party really screwed up something on adventure planning because they actually have nothing prevalent and they earned this c) DM is a nasty, "play against players" one in which case might as well end campaign as soon as possible to find another DM.

[Warlush]

I love how many threads there are about fixing TWF.

Just take away the bonus action cost.

When you attack using blah blah blah, you can make one additional attack with your off hand.

That way, everybody gets a bonus action, It's not WAY better or WAY worse than any of the other fighting styles.

Jesus Christ.

[stoutstien]

I love how many threads there are about fixing TWF.

Just take away the bonus action cost.

When you attack using blah blah blah, you can make one additional attack with your off hand.

That way, everybody gets a bonus action, It's not WAY better or WAY worse than any of the other fighting styles.

Jesus Christ.

If you remove the offhand attack from the bonus action it becomes the strongest style in a lot of cases. Not even talking about one hand PaM+ two weapon problems or monks gaining a free attack.

[Expected]

I love how many threads there are about fixing TWF.

Just take away the bonus action cost.

When you attack using blah blah blah, you can make one additional attack with your off hand.

That way, everybody gets a bonus action, It's not WAY better or WAY worse than any of the other fighting styles.

Jesus Christ.


If you remove the offhand attack from the bonus action it becomes the strongest style in a lot of cases. Not even talking about one hand PaM+ two weapon problems or monks gaining a free attack.

And the potential for abuse via Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark.

[Effortlessdepth]

I love how many threads there are about fixing TWF.

Just take away the bonus action cost.

When you attack using blah blah blah, you can make one additional attack with your off hand.

That way, everybody gets a bonus action, It's not WAY better or WAY worse than any of the other fighting styles.

Jesus Christ.


If I was trying to propose a fix to the community, this is what I would do, plus the tweaks to hex, smote, hunters Mark, and monk martial arts. So I feel ya.

But for our table things were different, as posted above in the rest of the thread, and our group has experience with swordsmanship in RL so that's why the fix proposed here is so convoluted. Because the creators and developers didn't construct the game with TWF in mind, most fixes do end up needing to be complicated in order to please all parties.

[Kane0]

I love how many threads there are about fixing TWF.

Just take away the bonus action cost.

When you attack using blah blah blah, you can make one additional attack with your off hand.

That way, everybody gets a bonus action, It's not WAY better or WAY worse than any of the other fighting styles.

Jesus Christ.

I admire your naiveté.

[Chaosticket]

My assertion hasn't changed. Make Two Weapon Fighting work with Extra attacks and stop using a Bonus Action.

Apply that to every character.

[Warlush]

My assertion hasn't changed. Make Two Weapon Fighting work with Extra attacks and stop using a Bonus Action.

Apply that to every character.

Yeah see I'm not the only one who'd rather play a game and have fun than have a circle jerk about rules.

[Expected]

My assertion hasn't changed. Make Two Weapon Fighting work with Extra attacks and stop using a Bonus Action.

Apply that to every character.
The Bonus Action does have to have competition for use otherwise it will break action economy. Not requiring a Bonus Action to make Two-Weapon Fighting work with Extra Attacks increases the DPR by too much because of the synergy between the amount of attacks and Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark. I support fixing TWF, but making it stronger than, instead of equal to, GWM+PAM is just going to pigeon-hole martials into taking it just like they are currently pigeon-holed into using polearms.


Yeah see I'm not the only one who'd rather play a game and have fun than have a circle jerk about rules.
It may be fun for you, but what about the other players at the table?

[Warlush]

And the potential for abuse via Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark.

I think abuse is a little strong. Getting your off hand attack in the first round along with EITHER hexblades curse or hex/hunters mark is a handful of damage. If your table is constantly trying to abuse mechanics then your DM is probably already giving the monsters you face max HP.

[Chaosticket]

That's the point. If you're always holding back Dual Wielding then it won't really be balanced.

Much of the talk in this thread hasnt been fixing, but limiting. That just makes other styles better as a general rule.

The Bonus Action is minor at first but crippling later as every characters gains extra abilities that use a Bonus Action.

The incompatbility with Extra Attacks is also major. By level 5 the offhand has changed from +100% attacks to +50%.

A Fighter gets up to 4 attacks without requiring a Bonus Action. 8 with Action Surge, but you're capped at 1 off-hand. So now offhand weapon is +25% or less.

[Expected]

I think abuse is a little strong. Getting your off hand attack in the first round along with EITHER hexblades curse or hex/hunters mark is a handful of damage. If your table is constantly trying to abuse mechanics then your DM is probably already giving the monsters you face max HP.
I respectfully disagree. Alone, it is fine, but when an optimized level 11 (or 20) TWF Fighter can make 6 (or 8) attacks at no resource cost while taking MI: Warlock for Hex (or in the case of the 11 Fighter, dipping Hexblade for HC) the DPR can exceed the existing optimal builds. That's not even considering Action Surge! Granted that they won't all be hits, but it has better accuracy than -5 atk, +5 dmg that SS/GWM gets. The idea is to achieve balance; not make one style stronger than the other in a never-ending cycle of power creep. I want TWF to be strong, but it needs to be implemented correctly.

And I am referring to a potential fix for the actual rules and not just OP's homebrewed game--if it's good enough to be published, then it's good enough for any homebrew.

[Kane0]

The Bonus Action does have to have competition for use otherwise it will break action economy. Not requiring a Bonus Action to make Two-Weapon Fighting work with Extra Attacks increases the DPR by too much because of the synergy between the amount of attacks and Hex/Hexblade's Curse/Hunter's Mark. I support fixing TWF, but making it stronger than, instead of equal to, GWM+PAM is just going to pigeon-hole martials into taking it just like they are currently pigeon-holed into using polearms.


I've run numbers (spoilered above) and freeing up the bonus action doesn't seem to cause that sort of catastrophic imbalance with sources of per-hit damage like Rage and Hunter's Mark.
Although I did not run numbers for also granting more than one attack from TWF

[Expected]

I've run numbers (spoilered above) and freeing up the bonus action doesn't seem to cause that sort of catastrophic imbalance with sources of per-hit damage like Rage and Hunter's Mark.
Although I did not run numbers for also granting more than one attack from TWF
I haven't done the math on the effect of added on-hit damage so it's purely speculation on my part, but the numbers won't lie. If not having TWF take the use of a BA means that it is on par or even a slightly better than SS/GWM, then I fully support it. I'd love to build something besides polearm builds. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will not only admit it, but also fully change my opinion.

[Warlush]

I respectfully disagree. Alone, it is fine, but when an optimized level 11 (or 20) TWF Fighter can make 6 (or 8) attacks at no resource cost while taking MI: Warlock for Hex (or in the case of the 11 Fighter, dipping Hexblade for HC) the DPR can exceed the existing optimal builds. That's not even considering Action Surge! Granted that they won't all be hits, but it has better accuracy than -5 atk, +5 dmg that SS/GWM gets. The idea is to achieve balance; not make one style stronger than the other in a never-ending cycle of power creep. I want TWF to be strong, but it needs to be implemented correctly.

And I am referring to a potential fix for the actual rules and not just OP's homebrewed game--if it's good enough to be published, then it's good enough for any homebrew.

It's still just one more attack.

[Kane0]

I haven't done the math on the effect of added on-hit damage so it's purely speculation on my part, but the numbers won't lie. If not having TWF take the use of a BA means that it is on par or even a slightly better than SS/GWM, then I fully support it. I'd love to build something besides polearm builds. If I am wrong, then I am wrong and will not only admit it, but also fully change my opinion.

And kudos to your open stance on the matter. My numbers were based on different rule changes to the OP but along very similar lines:

Base rule: as per PHB (bonus action attack, no stat, light weapons only)
Style: non-light weapons (so your average TWF weapons would go from d6s to d8s, an average +1 damage per hit close to the benefits of other fighting styles)
Feat: add stat to damage and remove bonus action requirement for using the off hand attack

Pre-level 5 things are mostly the same, any form of extra attack outshines pretty much everything but after Extra Attack and a chance to get the feat comes online things even out rather nicely. There are outliers of course (like an action-surging fighter using MI to get Hunter's Mark) but those involve extra opportunity cost and resource use not accounted for.

[bid]

when an optimized level 11 (or 20) TWF Fighter can make 6 (or 8) attacks at no resource cost while taking MI: Warlock for Hex (or in the case of the 11 Fighter, dipping Hexblade for HC) the DPR can exceed the existing optimal builds.
8 (or 10).

And I'm not sure it's that bad, because a mace user can also action surge with hex for 6 * (2d6+5+1d6) = 93 (101 with gwf). Not that far from 8 * (1d6+5+1d6) = 96 (86 without twf style).

[Theodoxus]

Not necessarily at OP, but what if, instead of trying to make TWF a DPS decider, make it a defensive one instead.

Keep everything as in the PHB but add: "When hit with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to roll the damage die of your offhand attack and subtract that roll from the to-hit, potentially turning the hit into a miss."

The Fighting Style adds your attacking modifier to the reduction; the feat allows you access to higher die types. It's still max 1d8+5 baring magic weapons.

Yeah, it competes with the rogues Uncanny Dodge. So what. Would you rather take half damage, or potentially none?

If that's OP in your opinion, allow the reaction when only using a dagger in the offhand. It's like 1/turn super bane. But it's definitely evoking the feel of defensive Florentine fighting.