Two Weapon Fighting: Why does it need to use a bonus action?

[Lokishade]

I know that for balance reasons, TWF should use a bonus action for the second attack. After all, an extra attack is huge at early levels.

But everyone seems to agree that investing in this type of play feels underwhelming, especially compared to other options. You only ever get one extra attack and you never get a second bonus action. And to add insult to injury, there are two melee feats that let you perform an extra attack for a bonus action (Great Weapon Master under certain circumstances and Polearm Master with the right weapon) and both of them even add more options to the mix.

The fix I propose would be in the Two Weapon Fighting style. What if, instead of adding the stat bonus to the damage of the off-hand attack, it allowed you to just perform that extra attack as part of the Attack action for free?

That way, it would be reserved to the Fighter and the Ranger and it would free up their options in combat. They wouldn't feel penalized anymore for investing in this fighting style. The TWF Eldritch Knight could use Expeditious retreat for mobility in combat and still have his extra attack, but most importantly, the Ranger could shuffle his Hunter's Mark in peace.

It wouldn't synergize with GWM, because you can't dual wield two-handed heavy weapons. Maybe a clause should be added for the quarterstaff and the spear in the PAM feat so that dual wielding spears wouldn't work (I mean, those are cumbersome weapons to dual wield, right?), but apart from that, I don't see how this change would jumble up the system too much.

So, what do you think? Should those who invest in Two Weapon Fighting get their extra attack for free while everyone else has to spend a bonus action?

[MrStabby]

I think the big, big upside to two weapon fighting is that it works with finesse weapons.

Dexterity is such a powerful stat in 5th edition that anything that synergises with using dexterity is very powerful.

There is a trade-off characters need to make. Move to strength but get some really great feat support or stick with dex and be stronger in a beter stat.



I think if you were to look to balance this then you could buff the style but I would suggest the buff to be of the form "if you make your attack using your strength modifier then...". That would let you bring it more in line with other styles and would still maintain the crucial element of meaningful choice rather than just a "good" option and a better option.

[Keltest]

Ive considered it a few times. The classes who would benefit from it most are those like bards and rogues, who might want to be hitting things with metal sticks a bunch but certainly have better uses for their bonus actions than a single strike.

[mistajames]

The mantra that "Dexterity is such a powerful stat" is kind of misleading.

Dexterity adds to:

Damage (Ranged and Melee)
To-Hit (Ranged and Melee)
Armor Class
Initiative
3 skills (Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth)


We need to be holistic though. Strength adds more melee damage, because Strength weapons do more damage than Dex weapons, and because key feats only work with Strength weapons. Many classes that can't really effectively use Strength for damage (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) generally don't use Dex either, so we're really just comparing Dex- and Str-based warriors.

Strength adds more AC than Dexterity does, because heavy armor has strength requirements, and because Strength-based armor has ACs that are generally higher than is attainable via Dexterity. You generally use Dex defensively because you can't use heavier armor. A warrior in full plate and 15+ Strength has an 18 AC. The same warrior in Half-Plate and a 14+ Dex has a 17 AC. The same warrior with a 20 Dex and Studded Leather has a 17 AC. 16 Dex (reasonable for L1-L3) and Studded Leather lands you with a 15 AC. Because of how the math works, each additional point of AC is better than the last, so heavy armor appears to be significantly better than Light, especially early on.

Dex's strength really comes down to Initiative (which is always really good, and IMO consistently undervalued by the devs) and the fact that Dexterity skills are better than Strength skills. Well, IMO Stealth is probably better than Athletics, but Athletics seems to come up more than Acrobatics/Sleight of Hand, but maybe that's just me. The rest of the power of Dexterity comes from Dexterity-based ranged weapons, largely off the back of the fact that the Archery combat style is far better than either Dueling or GWF, but also because of access to key feats (CBE/SS).

Given that the power of Dex really comes from ranged Dex weapons, I don't think that adding an extra attack with your attack action will "break" 2WF style, particularly if it doesn't normally add your primary stat.

[MrStabby]

The mantra that "Dexterity is such a powerful stat" is kind of misleading.

Dexterity adds to:

Damage (Ranged and Melee)
To-Hit (Ranged and Melee)
Armor Class
Initiative
3 skills (Acrobatics, Sleight of Hand, Stealth)


We need to be holistic though. Strength adds more melee damage, because Strength weapons do more damage than Dex weapons, and because key feats only work with Strength weapons. Many classes that can't really effectively use Strength for damage (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock, etc.) generally don't use Dex either, so we're really just comparing Dex- and Str-based warriors.

Strength adds more AC than Dexterity does, because heavy armor has strength requirements, and because Strength-based armor has ACs that are generally higher than is attainable via Dexterity. You generally use Dex defensively because you can't use heavier armor. A warrior in full plate and 15+ Strength has an 18 AC. The same warrior in Half-Plate and a 14+ Dex has a 17 AC. The same warrior with a 20 Dex and Studded Leather has a 17 AC. 16 Dex (reasonable for L1-L3) and Studded Leather lands you with a 15 AC. Because of how the math works, each additional point of AC is better than the last, so heavy armor appears to be significantly better than Light, especially early on.

Dex's strength really comes down to Initiative (which is always really good, and IMO consistently undervalued by the devs) and the fact that Dexterity skills are better than Strength skills. Well, IMO Stealth is probably better than Athletics, but Athletics seems to come up more than Acrobatics/Sleight of Hand, but maybe that's just me. The rest of the power of Dexterity comes from Dexterity-based ranged weapons, largely off the back of the fact that the Archery combat style is far better than either Dueling or GWF, but also because of access to key feats (CBE/SS).

Given that the power of Dex really comes from ranged Dex weapons, I don't think that adding an extra attack with your attack action will "break" 2WF style, particularly if it doesn't normally add your primary stat.

You missed saves. I think dexterity saves tend to crop up more than strength saves.

Also whilst you mention stealth, you don't mention the degree to which high dex is better when you also factor in disadvantage from heavy armour.

Furthermore, you assume that the PC is proficient in heavy armour - for many characters it would cost another feat to get up to heavy armour. And money - high dex is free AC, armour you have to pay for. Not such an issue at high levels but it becomes controversial if you are assuming that a party can get everyone into full plate at level 6.

[Kane0]

The fix I propose would be in the Two Weapon Fighting style. What if, instead of adding the stat bonus to the damage of the off-hand attack, it allowed you to just perform that extra attack as part of the Attack action for free?


Doesnt help barbarians, paladins, rogues, etc. put it on the feat instead.

[Asisreo1]

Ive considered it a few times. The classes who would benefit from it most are those like bards and rogues, who might want to be hitting things with metal sticks a bunch but certainly have better uses for their bonus actions than a single strike.
You can't really compare hiding and disengaging better than an attack. Especially if they missed the first one while they could have sneak attack'd them.

Bards might have better uses for their BA if they want to expend a resource, but most bards do not want to do so too frivolous.

[thoroughlyS]

The fix I propose would be in the Two Weapon Fighting style. What if, instead of adding the stat bonus to the damage of the off-hand attack, it allowed you to just perform that extra attack as part of the Attack action for free?
Doesnt help barbarians, paladins, rogues, etc. put it on the feat instead.
Tie it to Extra Attack instead, because that's when the style loses ground. Rogues don't need the free extra chance to sneak attack in a turn.

[Gale]

The problem with this rule is that the game system wasn't balanced around it. There are many things you can do as a bonus action that were obviously intended to not work with TWF but now suddenly do. Keep in mind, a character can pick up the Two-Weapon Fighting style from Fighting Intiate or multiclassing, so it's not just limited to Fighters and Rangers.

You could now do the following as a bonus action in addition to having a free attack per round:

Martial Arts, bonus action unarmed strike
Flurry of Blows
Tentacle of the Deeps
PAM, bonus action attack; if you have Dual Wielder. (But you already addressed this.)
War Priest, bonus action weapon attack

Personally, I don't think any of these options break the game but they are a considerable power bump. If you have players who are looking to abuse this new rule then it might cause headaches for you. Additional attacks can be stronger than they appear if you have a damage buff to add to them. (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Divine Favor, Spirit Shroud, etc.)

However, my group does use a very similar house rule where Dual Wielder makes the bonus action a free action and I think it works fine. It makes the feat competitive with PAM and CBE while still allowing other classes to get some use out of it. It hasn't been an issue, but that's because my friends and I are mature enough not to abuse it. You just have to read the table.

[Kane0]

That part is easy:
“If you TWF using your action you cannot use your Bonus Action to make additional attacks on the same turn”

[Gale]

That part is easy:
“If you TWF using your action you cannot use your Bonus Action to make additional attacks on the same turn”

That's... actually really smart. I think I'm going to add that to my group's house rules now, thanks. ♥

[Nidgit]

How it should be:

Everyone: Can make one off-hand attack as a bonus action, no ability modifier added to damage.

TWF Fighting Style: Instead make one off-hand attack for free as part of Attack action, still no ability mod to damage.

Dual-Wielder Feat: No longer requires Light property for TWF, adds ability mod to the damage.

[LudicSavant]

We need to be holistic though. Strength adds more melee damage, because Strength weapons do more damage than Dex weapons, and because key feats only work with Strength weapons.

In the interest of being holistic, I'd add a few more variables to consider.

There are some powerful key feats that don't work with Strength-based weapons, like Elven Accuracy.

Also, there are factors that indirectly boost damage. Initiative is a big one here (because first turn advantage in 5e is huge). Stealth counts too (since being Hidden confers Advantage, even if it's just on the first attack of a combat. But of course the big prize is if you can secure prebuffs via scouting, or get Surprise, or have a bonus action Hide). Whereas Strength can offer shoving/grappling and associated combos.


Strength adds more AC than Dexterity does, because heavy armor has strength requirements, and because Strength-based armor has ACs that are generally higher than is attainable via Dexterity.

It's worth noting that it's not quite as simple and straightforward as "if heavy armor, you have +1 AC."

Heavy armor provides an AC bonus of up to 1 AC, and only at certain points in your progression (ex: at level 1, Medium Scale provides 16 AC for 50gp, Heavy Chain provides 16 AC for 75gp. ex2: Half-Plate + Cloak of Resistance or any other Uncommon +1 AC item is cheaper and more protective than Full Plate, in any game where Uncommon magic items are available and you haven't capped attunement yet. ex3: For 20 Dex builds, Mage Armor will put you at the same AC as mundane full plate, and the later you are in your progression the more likely a slot for this is cheaply available).

In other words, heavy armor's AC advantage has a limited uptime. How limited it is will vary based on campaign, of course.


You generally use Dex defensively because you can't use heavier armor.

I see optimizers opting to use Dex instead of Str on classes with heavy armor proficiency (like Fighter, Paladin, etc) rather frequently, myself. Got a Dexadin as our primary tank in one of our games right now, in fact.


A warrior in full plate and 15+ Strength has an 18 AC. The same warrior in Half-Plate and a 14+ Dex has a 17 AC. The same warrior with a 20 Dex and Studded Leather has a 17 AC.

In the interest of being holistic:

The warrior in half-plate also has better saves, initiative, stealth, extra stats (due to investing 14 instead of 15) and 750 extra GP in their pocket. The warrior in 20 Dex and Studded Leather has 1455 extra GP in their pocket (enough for 3 or more Uncommon items in any campaign where such things are available) and can potentially just ask someone to cast Mage Armor on them to match mundane plate.

[BigRedJedi]

Everyone: 2 light weapons, add offhand damage to your main hand (e.g. 2 shortswords is 2d6+Ability damage)

Fighting Style: Draw/stow 2 weapons with one interaction, if you use the Attack action on your turn, make bonus action attack with just one weapon's damage + ability mod

Feat: +1 AC, no restriction on weapon type in each hand


Yes, that means two longswords is 2d8+mod with feat, but it can't use GWM, so it still is behind great weapons. It is slightly better than PAM for the bonus action usage, but this is a wash with loss of reach/no GWM.

Alternate version of Fighting Style: remove draw/stow both weapons with one interaction, add +1 AC, bonus attack with one weapon+mod

Alternate version of Feat: remove +1 AC, gain +1 Str or Dex, draw/stow two weapons with one interaction, no restriction on weapon type

[rlc]

I mean, this is the same exact fix that everybody seems to come up with. I’m pretty sure there’s another thread about this on the first or second page of the forum.

[Kane0]

That's... actually really smart. I think I'm going to add that to my group's house rules now, thanks. ♥
By all means, I keep my copy of it here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?555697-Houserules-and-homebrew)

Long story short
Base Rule: Thrown weapons can be drawn freely like ammunition
Base TWF: When you take the Attack action while wielding a light weapon in each hand, you can use a bonus action to make one attack with the weapon that you are holding in your off hand. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.
TWF Style: You can use two-weapon fighting even when the weapons you are wielding are not light
Dual Wielder Feat:
- You can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off hand attacks
- You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn.
- While wielding a different weapon in each hand, if you make an opportunity attack you can also make an attack using your off hand against the same target


I mean, this is the same exact fix that everybody seems to come up with. I’m pretty sure there’s another thread about this on the first or second page of the forum.
Yeah (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?625244-Buffing-2-Weapon-Fighting)

To be fair, it's probably because it's been discussed quite a few times before and it's one of the few fixes the majority of people can agree on. The mechanics have been crunched and it turns out well for all involved (yes even Rogues).

[Lokishade]

That part is easy:
“If you TWF using your action you cannot use your Bonus Action to make additional attacks on the same turn”

Why didn't I think of that? :P

My main idea was to enhance TWF in a way that makes it more satisfying to those who invest in it. I believe that for those specialists, it shouldn't clog that precious bonus action while not disrupting the balance of the game too much.

Thank you for the feedback, you came all came up with interesting points.

[MrCharlie]

The problem with this rule is that the game system wasn't balanced around it. There are many things you can do as a bonus action that were obviously intended to not work with TWF but now suddenly do. Keep in mind, a character can pick up the Two-Weapon Fighting style from Fighting Intiate or multiclassing, so it's not just limited to Fighters and Rangers.

You could now do the following as a bonus action in addition to having a free attack per round:

Martial Arts, bonus action unarmed strike
Flurry of Blows
Tentacle of the Deeps
PAM, bonus action attack; if you have Dual Wielder. (But you already addressed this.)
War Priest, bonus action weapon attack

Personally, I don't think any of these options break the game but they are a considerable power bump. If you have players who are looking to abuse this new rule then it might cause headaches for you. Additional attacks can be stronger than they appear if you have a damage buff to add to them. (Hex, Hunter's Mark, Divine Favor, Spirit Shroud, etc.)

However, my group does use a very similar house rule where Dual Wielder makes the bonus action a free action and I think it works fine. It makes the feat competitive with PAM and CBE while still allowing other classes to get some use out of it. It hasn't been an issue, but that's because my friends and I are mature enough not to abuse it. You just have to read the table.
By and large all of the things that suddenly work with dual wielding help boost non-optimal classes. Except war priest, but cleric weaponry is a party trick outside of tier 1 anyway. Point being, it's helping in the right direction. The only weird part is monk, whom can suddenly attack four times in tier 1.

Of course, as others have pointed out, removing the ability to bonus action attack in the same turn fixes this. It also helps place TWF where it is kinduve supposed to be for a couple classes, like ranger-namely, it makes it in any way usable with their spells or other abilities.

There are lots of fixes that go in different directions for TWF, and which one is ideal depends on what you want out of the fix and the table meta.

[stoutstien]

That part is easy:
“If you TWF using your action you cannot use your Bonus Action to make additional attacks on the same turn”

What about features that provide extra attacks on a bonus action by proxy like beast master or battle smith?

[Kane0]

Personally i’d let those work, same with things like flaming sphere.

[stoutstien]

Personally i’d let those work, same with things like flaming sphere.
I didn't think it would be a bother but making sure it was considered. IMO I feel like the bonus action should have be more universally reserved for non-damaging features. Alas, the bitter mercy of a simplified action economy

[Kane0]

I didn't think it would be a bother but making sure it was considered. IMO I feel like the bonus action should have be more universally reserved for non-damaging features. Alas, the bitter mercy of a simplified action economy

A fine rule of thumb position to take but it does become a bit of a grey area. Is hunter’s mark in that category? Smite spell? Moving a dot spell? Entering rage?

[stoutstien]

A fine rule of thumb position to take but it does become a bit of a grey area. Is hunter’s mark in that category? Smite spell? Moving a dot spell? Entering rage?
HM, rage, and smite spell should all be moved to the 'on hit' category. So rage for example could be activated as part of making an attack or being attacked.

Which DoT effect did you have in mind?

[Keltest]

HM, rage, and smite spell should all be moved to the 'on hit' category. So rage for example could be activated as part of making an attack or being attacked.

Which DoT effect did you have in mind?

I can think of several cleric spells off hand that work like that. And speaking of hands, Bigby's hand works that way as well. Basically anything that isnt just "you set them on fire directly" really, whether it be to actually activate the damage or relocate the effect.

[Zaltman]

When a fighter starts getting multiple attacks, then as proposed they would also get multiple off hand attacks. Isn’t that where things start to break down? 4 attacks at 5th level instead of 3 with BTB rules. 6 attacks instead 4 at 11th.

[clearstream]

Doesnt help barbarians, paladins, rogues, etc. put it on the feat instead.
My homebrew version of Dual Wielder does exactly that

Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits—
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand;
• 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 two-weapon fighting attack you make with the melee weapon in your other hand, doesn’t require a bonus action.

One reason I put it on a feat is that prior to Tasha's were it on TWF then some classes that I think it would be okay on don't get access to it. Post-Tasha's, that is no longer a concern although it would perhaps suck to have to spend the ASI that you could have put into Dual Wielder into Fighting Initiate instead. On balance, I feel drawn to keeping it on Dual Wielder.

[DwarfFighter]

And to add insult to injury, there are two melee feats that let you perform an extra attack for a bonus action (Great Weapon Master under certain circumstances and Polearm Master with the right weapon) and both of them even add more options to the mix.


These are all feats, obviously, and "best use" require the use of two hands to wield the weapons, or the weapon and a shield.

Polearm Master gives you an bonus attack for 1d4+mod, bludgeoning. You get Reach if you sacrifice the use of a shield to use a pike or a glance. Use a spear, and you can leave your off hand empty to carry a torch or do other stuff.

Great Weapon Master is unreliable. The bonus attack triggers once every 20 attacks, and up to once per enemy present, limited to one per round, and AoS wasted when o more targets are within reach, which is certain to happen when you finish the last enemy in the encounter. However, the damage is usually 1d10+mod or better, with the same damage type.

Dual Wielder requires a feat and is usually used to wield two "proper" weapon, typically 1d8+0. You can mix and match damage types.

I feel Polearm Master wins out here overall. If the player is dedicated to a spear and shield combo, he has good AC and can stay in the fight longer to make the moderate damage output start counting.

I feel Dual Wielder wins out over Great Weapon Master on being reliable (vs. unreliable). And you also have the flexibility of using two different weapons that may each be suited for different targets in the encounter.

The only reason not to appreciate the bonus attack from Two Weapon Fighting is if you have different bonus action option that is always better. In that case, well. Maybe Two Weapon Fighting isn't for you?

[DwarfFighter]

• The two-weapon fighting attack you make with the melee weapon in your other hand, doesn’t require a bonus action.


This seems a fair house rule for encouraging TWF.

I figure I'd like to require that the off-hand weapon be Light in order to get the bonus attack as a "free" action, but I can see how that kinda conflicts with the feat's core purpose of enabling TWF with non-light weapons...

[stoutstien]

I can think of several cleric spells off hand that work like that. And speaking of hands, Bigby's hand works that way as well. Basically anything that isnt just "you set them on fire directly" really, whether it be to actually activate the damage or relocate the effect.

SW and crown of stars is the only one that stands out to me. Which is okay as long as they don't homogenized the spell lists too much (too late).

Concentration is a pretty big controlling factor with spell that require bonus action to repeat damage.

[Lokishade]

We all agree that the Monk should be the only one able to perform 3 attacks in a single turn during tier 1 and that freeing up the bonus action through the Two Weapon Fighting style (or the Dual-Wielder feat) should in no way synergize with PAM and Martial Arts.

Apart from that, I'm perfectly okay with the bonus action doing damage through spells. That's the point, making it so that you can dual-wield without feeling penalized about it. If the Eldritch Knight can't move his flaming sphere and attack with the second weapon he just drew, there is something wrong that needs to be adressed.

It's all about removing the needless penalties of TWF. Just look at it. You have to invest your fighting style, buy a second weapon and forego using a shield or a powerful weapon backed by juicy feats. Plus, Dual-Wielding does so much to bring all this on the level that it is almost mandatory.

Freeing up the bonus action seems fair, considering how committed you can be to TWF. Also, from a game design perspective, I feel like there should be a significant difference between dedicated specialists and casuals.

[Asisreo1]

I think a type of flaw is that ANY character should feel free to effectively Dual Wield compared to other options when some classes are actually pushed away from the very options we claim are better.

A rogue cannot use two-handed weapon effectively since they're usually locked under martial proficiency and strength-based attacks. So a two-handed rogue is hurting himself, even though he theoretically isn't prohibited from this playstyle.

Likewise, a dual-wielding fighter is misallocating his strengths, at least past tier 3, unless under specific circumstances.

I also request an explanation on how dual-wielding is bad on a barbarian outside of maybe a berserker who is okay using their exhaustion on roughly half or more of all fights they're in. If anyone can explain how dual-wielding is bad in that case, I'm willing to listen.

And I'm well aware BA is used to activate rage, if it is being activated that combat. I'm sure the rage damage more than makes up for the single missed d6.

[Kane0]

I also request an explanation on how dual-wielding is bad on a barbarian outside of maybe a berserker who is okay using their exhaustion on roughly half or more of all fights they're in. If anyone can explain how dual-wielding is bad in that case, I'm willing to listen.

And I'm well aware BA is used to activate rage, if it is being activated that combat. I'm sure the rage damage more than makes up for the single missed d6.

- Barbarians don't get the fighting style so can't add stat to damage without MCing or taking the feat for a style.
- Entering Rage costs your Bonus Action so you can't also TWF that turn
- Both Berserker and Battlerager gain Bonus Action attacks that directly compete with TWF
- Beast Barbarian has a better TWF directly built into its claw option. Ironically this accomplishes exactly what is proposed, not needing the Bonus Action to TWF
- The Storm Barbarian's Aura requires a Bonus Action to use
- The Elk and Eagle Totem Barbarian gain uses for their Bonus Action also
- 3 out of 8 effects on the Wild Barbarian table use your Bonus Action
- Zealot Barbarian's level 10 Zealous Presence uses your Bonus Action
- TWF foregoes your ability to use a shield (and the Shield Master feat which goes well with Barbarian)
- Barbarians get great mileage out of PAM and GWM, both of which offer Bonus Action attacks that compete directly with TWF

Again. It's not BAD. It's MEDIOCRE. There are better alternatives but using TWF won't render your character/build unusable.

[Asisreo1]

- Barbarians don't get the fighting style so can't add stat to damage without MCing or taking the feat for a style.
- Entering Rage costs your Bonus Action so you can't also TWF that turn
- Both Berserker and Battlerager gain Bonus Action attacks that directly compete with TWF
- Beast Barbarian has a better TWF directly built into its claw option. Ironically this accomplishes exactly what is proposed, not needing the Bonus Action to TWF
- The Storm Barbarian's Aura requires a Bonus Action to use
- The Elk and Eagle Totem Barbarian gain uses for their Bonus Action also
- 3 out of 8 effects on the Wild Barbarian table use your Bonus Action
- Zealot Barbarian's level 10 Zealous Presence uses your Bonus Action
- TWF foregoes your ability to use a shield (and the Shield Master feat which goes well with Barbarian)
- Barbarians get great mileage out of PAM and GWM, both of which offer Bonus Action attacks that compete directly with TWF

Again. It's not BAD. It's MEDIOCRE. There are better alternatives but using TWF won't render your character/build unusable.
Alot of what you said are one-time use effects. You don't need to rage every turn or activate any aura-like effects every turn.

I don't see how its unoptimal to just use your BA as you would and make BA attacks every other turn.

You also don't need the fighting style to benefit from TWF.

What it sounds like, to me, is that TWF is really good for nonfighters, but people still want more from it.

Rogues get more sneak attack opportunities while Rangers get more out of their hunter's mark/favored foe.

When people say there's "bonus action competition." Not really. Not anymore than there's action competition for a Wizard to cast Hypnotic Pattern then Fireball. Its a choice that adds versatility to a character or a combo setup that only is bad if you never make it to round 2.

[Lokishade]

Doesnt help barbarians, paladins, rogues, etc. put it on the feat instead.

The idea was less about helping a class in particular and more in the line of making the Two Weapon Fighing style, a class feature, worth your while.

In my mind, it makes sense that it benefits only the Fighter and the Ranger. They are, after all, combat specialists, master of arms. Them getting an edge over everyone in that specific department enhances the fantasy they represent.

[Kane0]

The idea was less about helping a class in particular and more in the line of making the Two Weapon Fighing style, a class feature, worth your while.

In my mind, it makes sense that it benefits only the Fighter and the Ranger. They are, after all, combat specialists, master of arms. Them getting an edge over everyone in that specific department enhances the fantasy they represent.

That sounds like you have conflicted yourself there sorry. You don't want to benefit a certain class, but only 2 out of 12 classes (and one subclass) natively gain access to the benefit you describe.

What about a rogue with two knives, or a barbarian with two axes, or a paladin with two maces? Are those all those less relevant fantasy than a swords bard with two swords?

If you want to distinguish yourself as a master of fighting with two weapons that's exactly what feats are for (Great Weapon Master, Shield Master, Polearm Master). Those are class agnostic (well I suppose except fighters and rogues who get more ASIs).

Edit: and I agree the style sucks. It's 2-5 extra damage once per turn, that's pretty poor compared to other style options. That's why I swap it with the weapon-size bullet in the feat, so it becomes +1-2 damage per attack which feels much more in line with other styles.

[Warlush]

Couldn't agree more. I house rule that anyone with TWF style doesn't use a bonus action. Anybody else yes it does. I mean they trained for the style, they should get more than just +5 extra dpr at the cost of a BA.