Another "let's fix Two-Weapon Fighting" thread

[Segev]

Since this got posted in another thread, I figured it might be better to continue the discussion in its own:


Not trying to turn this another "let's fix two-weapon fighting" thread, but we've gone this far. How is this?

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):
When you take the Attack action to attack with a 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 second 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.

Allows for rapier/dagger, longsword/short sword (a 2e favorite), without a feat investment. Yes, you also gain a potential +1 DPR. Not broken in my opinion.

Two-Weapon Fighting (fighting style):
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, the second attack can now be made as a part of the same attack action and you can add your ability modifier to the damage.

So a Fighter who action surges simply gets double their attacks like everyone else and bonus actions are now open for other things.

Dual Wielder (feat):
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

You can use a bonus action to gain a bonus to AC equal to half of your proficiency bonus 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 and can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
When wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand and are struck by a weapon attack in melee, you can use a reaction to make an attack roll against the attackers roll. If the roll succeeds, the attack instead misses, and if it also meets or exceeds the creature's AC, you can deal damage to it as if you had hit it with a weapon attack.


I like the scaling AC (as a defensive stance), but it should cost something. Also liked the parry/counter reaction. Not sure if this is too wordy or not, but trying to make it as brief and concise as possible, keep it to melee, and add a disclaimer that you can attack them (maybe you opt not to for some reason).

--

And just to round it out...

Polearm Master (feat):
You can keep your enemies at bay with reach weapons. You gain the following benefits:

When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, quarterstaff, or spear with two hands, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon; this attack uses the same ability modifier as the primary attack. The weapon's damage die for this attack is a d4, and the attack deals bludgeoning damage.
While you are wielding a glaive, halberd, pike, quarterstaff, or spear, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter your reach.


Okay, so no dual spear/quarterstaff cheese, although you can still use two-weapon fighting with them as normal, if that is your thing.

My own proposal for fixing TWF is to make the base form of it about spreading your damage to multiple enemies, and use the fighter class to make it more well-rounded.

Fighting With a Weapon in Each hand
If you make an attack on your turn with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you may make another attack with another light weapon in your other hand against a different creature.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style
Cut the Dual Wielder feat entirely and paste its mechanics over this fighting style.

New Battle Master Maneuver: Two-Weapon Rend
When fighting with two weapons and making the attack with the second weapon, you can spend a Superiority Die to direct the attack at the same creature. If you do and the attack hits, add the superiority die to the damage roll.

[verbatim]

with the existing rules, Tasha's may have finally given TWF a chance to shine via the Bladesinger being able to combine the updated SCAG cantrips with

Turn 1: Cast Shadow Blade as a bonus action. Attack with Shadow Blade and use BB/GFB with Short Sword.


Bladesinger Extra Attack specific wording: Starting at 6th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn. Moreover, you can cast one of your cantrips in place of one of those attacks.

TWF specific wording: 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.


Turn 2:

attack with Shadow Blade and cast BB/GFB using your shortsword as the material component (Tasha's requires the weapon to be worth at least 1sp, and whether or not that applies to Shadow Blade is ambiguous). Since you have taken the **Attack Action** (and made two attacks), per the wording of Bladesinger's Extra Attack, you are able to make an attack with a different melee weapon than the one you were holding in your hand relative to either of the two attacks you just made.

Assuming the DM doesn't pull their hair out and everything hit's that comes out to 2d6 + 5*DEX piercing damage, 6d8 psychic damage, and 2 castings of BB/GFB over two turns.

[Kane0]

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):
When you take the Attack action to attack with a 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 second 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.

Allows for rapier/dagger, longsword/short sword (a 2e favorite), without a feat investment. Yes, you also gain a potential +1 DPR. Not broken in my opinion.

Seems fine to me, though I would raise Darts as a potential outlier.



Two-Weapon Fighting (fighting style):
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, the second attack can now be made as a part of the same attack action and you can add your ability modifier to the damage.

So a Fighter who action surges simply gets double their attacks like everyone else and bonus actions are now open for other things.

I can see two flaws here:
- Only Fighters, Rangers and Swords Bards get native access to the TWF fighting style. Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues and others are left out
- Adding stat to damage is still only +3 to +5 damage per round unless you get the attack action multiple times (Action Surge and Haste). Compare this to the +2 damage per attack with Dueling, +2 to Hit per attack with Archery or +1 to AC for every time anyone rolls an attack against you with Defence.



Dual Wielder (feat):
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

You can use a bonus action to gain a bonus to AC equal to half of your proficiency bonus 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 and can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
When wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand and are struck by a weapon attack in melee, you can use a reaction to make an attack roll against the attackers roll. If the roll succeeds, the attack instead misses, and if it also meets or exceeds the creature's AC, you can deal damage to it as if you had hit it with a weapon attack.


I like the scaling AC (as a defensive stance), but it should cost something. Also liked the parry/counter reaction. Not sure if this is too wordy or not, but trying to make it as brief and concise as possible, keep it to melee, and add a disclaimer that you can attack them (maybe you opt not to for some reason).

- Why should it cost something? Specifically your Bonus Action, which you specifically free up with the fighting style? Sounds like you are re-adding the problem you have just solved, cluttering up uses for your Bonus Action that a character wants to avoid.
- The second bullet I think is a better fit for the style as it applies an average +1 damage per-attack. You could easily swap it around.
- I like the reaction part, I think TWF could really find a niche with a reaction ability. However instead of rolling an attack against an attack to negate the attack and deal damage (which partially doubles up in purpose to the AC boost from the same feat) how about attacks you make with your reaction (like opportunity attacks) allow you to attack with both weapons you are holding.



Fighting With a Weapon in Each hand
If you make an attack on your turn with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you may make another attack with another light weapon in your other hand against a different creature.

This as a replacement for the PHB rules is interesting. Instead of the stat to damage clause you are forced to spread out your attacks between targets, which is something not normally encouraged with the way HP works (you're at 1+ and fight just fine or at <1 and out of the fight).
I like it, it's desirable as a free method of getting a bonus action attack but still leaves room for other options like CBE/PAM and neither of them (so clearly) outshine the other. Would you replace the feat with something else entirely?



Two-Weapon Fighting Style
Cut the Dual Wielder feat entirely and paste its mechanics over this fighting style.

That would be very likely be too far, given that you're increasing both AC and damage output to match two other styles put together. Just allowing non-light weapons should do fine I think, plus free drawing if that isn't already included elsewhere.



New Battle Master Maneuver: Two-Weapon Rend
When fighting with two weapons and making the attack with the second weapon, you can spend a Superiority Die to direct the attack at the same creature. If you do and the attack hits, add the superiority die to the damage roll.

Certainly fits as a maneuver, but I'm not sure I would ever really take and use it.

[DM7581]

Seems fine to me, though I would raise Darts as a potential outlier.

Darts? Didn't think about that. They are ranged and not melee weapons, neither the core wording or this does anything to or for darts.



I can see two flaws here:
- Only Fighters, Rangers and Swords Bards get native access to the TWF fighting style. Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues and others are left out
- Adding stat to damage is still only +3 to +5 damage per round unless you get the attack action multiple times (Action Surge and Haste). Compare this to the +2 damage per attack with Dueling, +2 to Hit per attack with Archery or +1 to AC for every time anyone rolls an attack against you with Defence.

Well, barbarians never had native access to the fighting style, so unfortunately would not see any benefits, but neither would they in the core ruling. Actually, no, with my wording they can at least wield a d8 primary weapon, but yeah, the bonus action for the attack sticks.



- Why should it cost something? Specifically your Bonus Action, which you specifically free up with the fighting style? Sounds like you are re-adding the problem you have just solved, cluttering up uses for your Bonus Action that a character wants to avoid.

Well, assume someone without the fighting style (similar to core), yes, the TWFing problem isn't solved, but they now have an added option, plus the reaction is very nice to have. Maybe we don't need TWFing to have a -5/+10 equivalent, but instead let it be the round-by-round style of making choices: offense or defense. At least, that would be the intent of the feat. And the cost is because we are giving more than just a +1 for free. If it was just a scaling AC bonus, the question then becomes whether its too strong a buff.



- The second bullet I think is a better fit for the style as it applies an average +1 damage per-attack. You could easily swap it around.
- I like the reaction part, I think TWF could really find a niche with a reaction ability. However instead of rolling an attack against an attack to negate the attack and deal damage (which partially doubles up in purpose to the AC boost from the same feat) how about attacks you make with your reaction (like opportunity attacks) allow you to attack with both weapons you are holding.

Second bullet is core. Third isn't even mine, but I agree that there is an opportunity for a cool reaction niche with this style.



This as a replacement for the PHB rules is interesting. Instead of the stat to damage clause you are forced to spread out your attacks between targets, which is something not normally encouraged with the way HP works (you're at 1+ and fight just fine or at <1 and out of the fight).
I like it, it's desirable as a free method of getting a bonus action attack but still leaves room for other options like CBE/PAM and neither of them (so clearly) outshine the other. Would you replace the feat with something else entirely?

That would be very likely be too far, given that you're increasing both AC and damage output to match two other styles put together. Just allowing non-light weapons should do fine I think, plus free drawing if that isn't already included elsewhere.

Certainly fits as a maneuver, but I'm not sure I would ever really take and use it.

Not crazy about forcing attacks against different targets. Limits you against that solo/boss-type.

[Segev]

This as a replacement for the PHB rules is interesting. Instead of the stat to damage clause you are forced to spread out your attacks between targets, which is something not normally encouraged with the way HP works (you're at 1+ and fight just fine or at <1 and out of the fight).
I like it, it's desirable as a free method of getting a bonus action attack but still leaves room for other options like CBE/PAM and neither of them (so clearly) outshine the other.As I have it written right now, it's a bit stronger than that: it doesn't use your bonus action and isn't limited to 1/round. It essentially doubles your attacks by letting you attack two different creatures with every "single" attack action. It won't help your damage spike against a single creature, but it will help you threaten more of them. Against larger numbers of smaller critters, it means less wasted damage.


Would you replace the feat with something else entirely?Not sure. You have a point below about just moving it to replace the TWF fighting style as being too much.



That would be very likely be too far, given that you're increasing both AC and damage output to match two other styles put together. Just allowing non-light weapons should do fine I think, plus free drawing if that isn't already included elsewhere.The free-drawing should probably be built into the base rules. "You need an extra action to ready yourself for a fight" isn't very cinematic nor satisfying, and it doesn't really serve to balance anything. Maybe just change the weapon-drawing rules to be that you can draw up to one weapon per hand when using object interactions to draw weapons. Not sure if a "don't be deliberately silly" clause about the weapons needing to actually be wielded in the hand that drew them is necessary or not.

For the fighting style, it may be sufficient to just make that the "one handed weapons; they don't need to be light" benefit.

I know that the feat currently gives the drawing ability and a +1 AC, so just the upgrade to the type of weapon is not sufficient for a feat, but I'm tempted to just drop the feat anyway and leave it accessible via the feat to take a fighting style. It's a weaker feat, but it's also just not really necessary with the change, I don't think.


Certainly fits as a maneuver, but I'm not sure I would ever really take and use it.Why not? What's it missing?


Not crazy about forcing attacks against different targets. Limits you against that solo/boss-type.
It does limit you there, yes. That's sort-of the point. It makes its niche "better spread of damage" rather than just "more damage." By making the native ability stronger, it doesn't even take special investment to be competitive with sword and board or two-handed weapons; it just fills a different niche. In fact, you could switch between dual-wielding and a two-handed weapon as needs demand.

[Greywander]

attack with Shadow Blade and cast BB/GFB using your shortsword as the material component (Tasha's requires the weapon to be worth at least 1sp, and whether or not that applies to Shadow Blade is ambiguous).
I don't like Tasha's attempted fix, and still consider the SCAG versions as valid myself. If you really wanted to fix BB/GFB, then remove the material component entirely (make it V only), and have the spell target a weapon you are holding or a natural weapon (I like having the option to use natural weapons, it adds value to them even if they're worse than normal weapons), range is either self or touch (probably self). This entirely sidesteps the issue of "well what if you replace the material component with a spell focus, hur hur" while still allowing it to work with things like Shadow Blade. It also prevents twinning, if that's something you care about.

As for TWF, one thing I'll say to be aware of is that generally the feat should be tailored more toward a rogue and the fighting style more toward a fighter. Making the fighting style particularly useful to rogues is a bit silly, since rogues don't get fighting styles. With this in mind, an example of a decent fighting style would be one that lets you make two offhand attacks as a BA if you have Extra Attack; this is something that is completely useless to rogues but benefits any class that gets fighting styles (because they all get Extra Attack). An example of a decent feat trait would be folding the offhand attack into the Attack action, which is useful for rogues because it frees up their BA for Cunning Action.

[DM7581]

Has anyone proposed:

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):
You can only add your ability modifier to damage of the second attack if it is made using a bonus action.

Allows for rolling the second attack into the attack action, but at the expense of ability damage. Otherwise, you need to burn that bonus action.

Two-Weapon Fighting (style):
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add a +1 to hit or to damage on each attack, but must decide which before making the attack roll.

Options, options. This splits the difference between Archery and Dueling, without being slightly better and giving both benefits. It will scale nicely in damage, but give the option for accuracy in lieu of that damage, when it might be needed against a high AC enemy.

Dual Wielder (feat):
Weapons do not have to be light (unchanged) and you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack even if that attack is not made using a bonus action.
(Point about drawing/stowing unchanged)
(I still like the scaling AC bonus, but it requiring your bonus action)

So those who don't get the fighting style can still dual wield well enough. I'm looking more at Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues, and even Monks here. The feat and base style do not tie up your bonus action anymore than Shield Master or Polearm Master due (though all have optional bonus action benefits), but in all cases, it is a worthwhile tradeoff.

I can see a Ranger using HM, when he has his bonus action freed for it, using the AC bonus (though not so much a BM unless he subs the beast attack for his, which he might do for the added defense). Same for a Rogue (no disengage), or a Monk (no extra unarmed strike), etc. Especially useful for a Fighter who doesn't have too much going on in the way of bonus actions.

[Kane0]

Has anyone proposed:

Two-Weapon Fighting (rule):
You can only add your ability modifier to damage of the second attack if it is made using a bonus action.

Allows for rolling the second attack into the attack action, but at the expense of ability damage. Otherwise, you need to burn that bonus action.

Pro: Can match greatsword damage output using two shortswords (allows for Dex instead of Str)
Con: Need to roll to hit twice to match said damage output
Pro: Multiple attacks means you can spread them around more
Con: You still have issues drawing two weapons in one turn
Pro: You can exceed normal damage output by getting that second stat to damage with your bonus action
Con: Any other Bonus Action you get is probably going to be better than that stat to damage.

This has potential, but I would have to run numbers before I can say for certain how much I like it.



Two-Weapon Fighting (style):
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add a +1 to hit or to damage on each attack, but must decide which before making the attack roll.

Options, options. This splits the difference between Archery and Dueling, without being slightly better and giving both benefits. It will scale nicely in damage, but give the option for accuracy in lieu of that damage, when it might be needed against a high AC enemy.

I would say 99.99% of the time taking the +1 to hit would be favourable over the +1 damage. Going for damage instead of to-hit would only really make sense if you are both very confident in your ability to hit AND every point of damage matters (best example I can think of is a a damage sponge giant or golem).

Perhaps if it was +1 to hit with TWF, and every successive hit gives you a stacking +1 damage for that turn?
That way you have an incentive to maximise the number of attacks you make, especially to make up for the loss of stat-to-damage by not using bonus action above. If you're a hasted TWF Samurai that goes nuclear with action surge and advantage you could rake in a dozen hits or more on your turn.



Dual Wielder (feat):
Weapons do not have to be light (unchanged) and you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack even if that attack is not made using a bonus action.
(Point about drawing/stowing unchanged)
(I still like the scaling AC bonus, but it requiring your bonus action)

So those who don't get the fighting style can still dual wield well enough. I'm looking more at Barbarians, Paladins, Rogues, and even Monks here. The feat and base style do not tie up your bonus action anymore than Shield Master or Polearm Master due (though all have optional bonus action benefits), but in all cases, it is a worthwhile tradeoff.

I can see a Ranger using HM, when he has his bonus action freed for it, using the AC bonus (though not so much a BM unless he subs the beast attack for his, which he might do for the added defense). Same for a Rogue (no disengage), or a Monk (no extra unarmed strike), etc. Especially useful for a Fighter who doesn't have too much going on in the way of bonus actions.


I would argue that the larger weapons are an ideal thing to put in the Fighting Style space, it's about +1-2 damage per attack and that sits nicely alongside Dueling, GWF, Archery, etc. It is also a fine thing to leave behind for other classes; Barbarians can still TWF handaxes, Rogues knives/shortswords, Paladins hammers, monks sickles (kamas) and so on.

Adding stat to damage as part of attack action is a good fit for the feat.

I still don't like the AC needing your BA. TWF is inherently heavy on your BA usage, plus anything else you may get from Race, Class and other feats. A passive is functional and boring but I like the reaction idea, just tweaked for playability and so it doesn't compete with similar options (eg defensive duelist).

Waiting until you get the feat in order to draw two weapons at once still sucks for player experience and serves no gameplay function. I've never seen another DM actually uphold the rule unless a player wanted to do something like swap from their melee to a ranged weapon, fire it and then swap back to their melee to attack another enemy in the same turn.

[Throne12]

So this is just my thoughts but. When we see examples of historical use of two weapons it wasn't for extra damage. It was for parrying or for a sneak attack. So why not make two weapon fighting. Too the way rogues play it. So if you are welding a weapon in your off hand and you missed an attack you can make another attack with your off hand weapon. Or if your hit with a attack you can roll your off hand weapon die and subtract what you rolled from the damage you take.

[Kane0]

They also weren't used against dragons and blobs of jelly, so careful with how accurately you choose to portray it's use :smallwink:

[DarknessEternal]

There is no issue with two weapon fighting if you get rid of Polearm Master, a feat of which there are substantial problems.

[CheddarChampion]

Personally I like:
Fighting with two weapons: when you are holding more than one light melee weapon and take the attack action, you may spend a bonus action to make an additional attack with one of those weapons.

Two weapon fighting style: when fighting with two weapons, you no longer need to spend a bonus action to gain an additional attack. You may draw two weapons whenever you would normally draw one.

Dual wielder feat: when fighting with two weapons, the weapons don't need to have the light quality. When you are holding at least two weapons you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

Essentially, twf adds your str/dex modifier even without the style. The style lets you drop the bonus action requirement and lets you draw two weapons. The feat loses the double-draw but otherwise stays the same (and lets you use a wider range of weapons, should you find a magic rapier/longsword and wish to use it).

[stoutstien]

There is no issue with two weapon fighting if you get rid of Polearm Master, a feat of which there are substantial problems.

You would also have to get rid of CBE which in some ways worse at making twf look bad when feats are involved.

[thoroughlyS]

I recommend dropping the bonus action cost for the off-hand attack once a character gains Extra Attack (or Thirsting Blade). Prior to that point, two-weapon fighting is actually a competitive option, because it deals the most damage (disregarding feats), and has the best consistency. After Extra Attack, it falls into line with other styles, so that is where the additional cost is unwarranted. I usually bake this directly into the rules for two-weapon fighting, as opposed to locking it behind a fighting style or feat. This way it helps every martial character except rogues, for whom the style is instead used to improve the chance of sneak attacking in much the same way that having advantage does.

[Segev]

My suggestion is to remove the bonus action requirement from the get-go, apply full stat mod to both attacks, but require the off-hand (or "second," or however it's worded) attack to be directed to a different creature.

This makes it theoretically potentially on par with bigger weapon styles, but requires the damage be spread around. More efficient against groups where overkill is wasted, less effective with bigger enemies. Let the fighting style permit one-handed weapons to make it an even more solid style, but still not quite as single-target effective as heavy/two-handed weapons or even duelist, and I think it is competitive and maintains its own niche.

Heck, with no need to invest for the light weapons to work out, a warrior could swap between big two-handed weapons and two light weapons as he saw fit based on the situation.

[thoroughlyS]

Sorry, I guess I was replying to the person you quoted.

As for your changes, I like the first point.



Two-Weapon Fighting Style
Cut the Dual Wielder feat entirely and paste its mechanics over this fighting style.
That would be very likely be too far, given that you're increasing both AC and damage output to match two other styles put together. Just allowing non-light weapons should do fine I think, plus free drawing if that isn't already included elsewhere.
I agree with Kane0's assessment here. It kind of overshadows Defense. What if it was one-handed weapons and you could add your off-hand damage die to opportunity attacks?

The maneuver seems bad? Just not really worth it. Most maneuvers make the attack do something besides just damage, and in this case it just makes you ignore the intended playstyle for your weapon.

[Segev]

Sorry, I guess I was replying to the person you quoted.

As for your changes, I like the first point.


I agree with Kane0's assessment here. It kind of overshadows Defense. What if it was one-handed weapons and you could add your off-hand damage die to opportunity attacks?

The maneuver seems bad? Just not really worth it. Most maneuvers make the attack do something besides just damage, and in this case it just makes you ignore the intended playstyle for your weapon.

Yeah, I agree with Kane0, as well, on just copying the feat to the fighting style. I think making the "draw your weapons together" thing just a general thing you can do (a single object interaction, perhaps, for both, without needing to invest any build resources), dropping the +1 AC, and just letting it expand from light to one-handed weapons is probably good enough for a fighting style. It's about +2 damage overall, same as Duelist. (d6s going to d8s are about 1 damage, and you're doing it with up to two weapons)

The maneuver does two things: a little more damage, and allows you to focus your damage. Yes, it's "ignoring" your style's schtick. It's basically taking you from having to switch to a greatsword when fighting one big monster to still being able to use your normal weapon pair.

I'd thought about putting that ability just on the fighting style, but as noted, it undermines the schtick I've defined for the style in this design; I find this okay if you're spending a resource to do so each time (the superiority die), but not so much for just saying, "and if you really do do a lot of TWF, you can ignore that it's about spreading around the damage."


One thing that bugs me still is making this a good Ranger style, in some sense that makes Ranger a more go-to class for it than Fighter.

Maybe Rangers get the style at level 1, and a second style at level 2? But that seems like too much.

[Mjolnirbear]

My personal changes have been the following:

1) General TWF rules: as current, save that at 5th level you gain ability bonus damage to the extra attack. Reasoning: This is where TWF stops being awesome and starts lagging
2) TWF style: Draw both weapons instead of one; you may use non-light weapons Reasoning: it seems a logical extention to receiving extra training in this style. Bear in mind in my houserules all classes that get fighting styles have access to all the fighter's fighting styles
3) Duel-Weilding: completely redone. a) When you are TWF, your off-hand attack no longer requires a bonus action. b) When an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you may immediately attack that enemy as a reaction if it is within range. Reasoning: Removing the bonus action is only needed if your class uses bonus actions a lot; for those classes, the option to remove the bonus action is probably worthwhile as a feat. Also, getting a free attack makes it a damage option and suits the historic flavour of the fighting style, and is also feat-worthy even if you don't need to remove the bonus action. It can be flavoured as a parry, riposte, or taking advantage of a sudden opening.


I'd be curious to see what you-all think of it. Honestly, very few of my players like the 2-weapon fighting thing so I haven't been able to extensively text it and the feedback would be invaluable.

[Kane0]

My personal changes have been the following:

1) General TWF rules: as current, save that at 5th level you gain ability bonus damage to the extra attack. Reasoning: This is where TWF stops being awesome and starts lagging
2) TWF style: Draw both weapons instead of one; you may use non-light weapons Reasoning: it seems a logical extention to receiving extra training in this style. Bear in mind in my houserules all classes that get fighting styles have access to all the fighter's fighting styles
3) Duel-Weilding: completely redone. a) When you are TWF, your off-hand attack no longer requires a bonus action. b) When an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you may immediately attack that enemy as a reaction if it is within range. Reasoning: Removing the bonus action is only needed if your class uses bonus actions a lot; for those classes, the option to remove the bonus action is probably worthwhile as a feat. Also, getting a free attack makes it a damage option and suits the historic flavour of the fighting style, and is also feat-worthy even if you don't need to remove the bonus action. It can be flavoured as a parry, riposte, or taking advantage of a sudden opening.


I'd be curious to see what you-all think of it. Honestly, very few of my players like the 2-weapon fighting thing so I haven't been able to extensively text it and the feedback would be invaluable.

This is very close to what I use and thus approve :smallamused:

[x3n0n]

My personal changes have been the following:

1) General TWF rules: as current, save that at 5th level you gain ability bonus damage to the extra attack. Reasoning: This is where TWF stops being awesome and starts lagging
2) TWF style: Draw both weapons instead of one; you may use non-light weapons Reasoning: it seems a logical extention to receiving extra training in this style. Bear in mind in my houserules all classes that get fighting styles have access to all the fighter's fighting styles
3) Duel-Weilding: completely redone. a) When you are TWF, your off-hand attack no longer requires a bonus action. b) When an enemy misses you with a melee attack, you may immediately attack that enemy as a reaction if it is within range. Reasoning: Removing the bonus action is only needed if your class uses bonus actions a lot; for those classes, the option to remove the bonus action is probably worthwhile as a feat. Also, getting a free attack makes it a damage option and suits the historic flavour of the fighting style, and is also feat-worthy even if you don't need to remove the bonus action. It can be flavoured as a parry, riposte, or taking advantage of a sudden opening.


I'd be curious to see what you-all think of it. Honestly, very few of my players like the 2-weapon fighting thing so I haven't been able to extensively text it and the feedback would be invaluable.

I think the base rule change is not far off the mark power-wise, but I have a couple of reservations:
* It makes base Monk relatively even worse in tier 2 (always-on BA attack with damage bonus is one of "their things" in this tier).
* The aesthetics of a base game rule that changes at a single tier transition are weird.

The TWF style makes a lot of sense to me. Digging it.

The new feat brings up some rules questions:
* Can a dual-wielding Monk get 4 useful attacks every turn at level 5? Attack action: shortsword, shortsword, dagger; BA Martial Arts unarmed strike (kick/headbutt/elbow)?
* Would you keep exactly the same RAW conditions for the off-hand attack? (Thinking about things like replacing an attack with a shove/grapple.)

I like how these options are noticeably different from everything in the game now. (RAW Dual Wielder is kind of like a weird spear&shield PAM with d8 weapons.)

[Mjolnirbear]

I think the base rule change is not far off the mark power-wise, but I have a couple of reservations:
* It makes base Monk relatively even worse in tier 2 (always-on BA attack with damage bonus is one of "their things" in this tier).
* The aesthetics of a base game rule that changes at a single tier transition are weird.

The TWF style makes a lot of sense to me. Digging it.

The new feat brings up some rules questions:
* Can a dual-wielding Monk get 4 useful attacks every turn at level 5? Attack action: shortsword, shortsword, dagger; BA Martial Arts unarmed strike (kick/headbutt/elbow)?
* Would you keep exactly the same RAW conditions for the off-hand attack? (Thinking about things like replacing an attack with a shove/grapple.)

I like how these options are noticeably different from everything in the game now. (RAW Dual Wielder is kind of like a weird spear&shield PAM with d8 weapons.)

Yes, the tier change is wonky, but there's not much design space to work with here. I could stuff it into the feat, make it something only serious dual weilders would take. And eventually monks will have better 'off-hand' attacks once the Martial Arts die increases.

If said monk took the feat, then yeah, they could, but they could also spend a Ki to do that without the feat. It'd be one of the feats a monk could get serious use out of, and there aren't that many of those.

AS for the RAW questions... you were always able to use an unarmed strike instead of a weapon, and I see no reason why you couldn't kick-shove someone away nor do a leg sweep and trip them even with both hands full. I'm not overly concerned about your off-hand attack being instead used to grapple or shove something, because it's still an attack. Grapple would be more of a sell simply because grapple generally requires a free hand, but I suppose you could pull some Black Widow stuff and leg-lock someone. In many ways Grapple and Shove are far weaker uses of an attack (because Dead is a superior contition to Grappled) and my players don't use most of the expanded unarmed combat I already wrote up, so unless something comes up I'd probably allow it.

[DarknessEternal]

You would also have to get rid of CBE which in some ways worse at making twf look bad when feats are involved.

For Crossbow Expert, you really have to only change that the bonus action attack has to come from a hand crossbow you're holding in a different hand, which is the clear intent.

[Zhorn]

For Crossbow Expert, you really have to only change that the bonus action attack has to come from a hand crossbow you're holding in a different hand, which is the clear intent.
Sage Advice Compendium would disagree on that assertion
https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf

Does Crossbow Expert let you fire a hand crossbow and then fire it again as a bonus action?
It does! Take a look at the feat’s third benefit. It says you can attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action when you use the Attack action to attack with a one-handed weapon. A hand crossbow is a one-handed weapon, so it can, indeed, be used for both attacks, assuming you have a hand free to load the hand crossbow between the two attacks.

[stoutstien]

For Crossbow Expert, you really have to only change that the bonus action attack has to come from a hand crossbow you're holding in a different hand, which is the clear intent.
Even if that was true using darts and a hand crossbow works around that limitation and still stacks with SS with a very small damage decrease.

[Zalabim]

There is no issue with two weapon fighting if you get rid of Polearm Master, a feat of which there are substantial problems.

There is an issue with the existing two weapon fighting even down in the simple base features of the fighter class. So you also have to get rid of dueling fighting style, fighters over level 10, and two-handed weapons.

____________
I know I miss a lot of these pointless threads, but I do try to share around the right answer from time to time. It's not the end-all, but here's how it starts.

Twin Weapon Fighting Style: When you hit with a melee weapon attack while holding the same type (i.e. scimitar, short sword, dagger) of light melee weapon in each hand, roll an additional one of the weapon's damage die and add the value to the damage you deal.

[Tanarii]

Quick fix for TWF: if a PC wields two weapons, they get +1 AC and +1 damage. Done.

There are a fair number of RPGs that do this kind of thing, and IMX it's better than this fetish D&D has with giving extra attacks.

[stoutstien]

Quick fix for TWF: if a PC wields two weapons, they get +1 AC and +1 damage. Done.

There are a fair number of RPGs that do this kind of thing, and IMX it's better than this fetish D&D has with giving extra attacks.

If that is the style replacement might be better to switch +1 damage for +1 hit so it isn't just a worse duelist.

The basic concept is interesting of moving away from Extra attacks with two weapon fighting.

[Dienekes]

If that is the style replacement might be better to switch +1 damage for +1 hit so it isn't just a worse duelist.

The basic concept is interesting of moving away from Extra attacks with two weapon fighting.

Eh? +1 to AC and +1 damage is already arguably better than Duelists only +2 to damage. And it is definitely better than Defense. Giving it +1 to AC and +1 to attack would blow Duelists +2 to damage out of the water.

But I think he's just referring to what you do if you have two weapons naturally. No BA attack. No increased damage to offhand with Fighting Style. You choose to wield two weapons you have the same attacks as before, but now you have a +1 AC and +1 to damage with your primary weapon attack. Making it essentially the half-way point between sword and board and two-handed fighting.

Not the worst idea I've heard. Don't really know how to make a Fighting Style for it, but then I'm more or less of the opinion that Fighting Styles are pretty poorly designed and should be reworked anyway.

Would probably need to make a note that your primary weapon can be any one-handed weapon to make the math work. But on the whole, I do like that it gets rid of Bonus Action Attacks which, as I've played more of 5e I really think was a mistake, not just for TWF, but in general.

[Tanarii]

If that is the style replacement might be better to switch +1 damage for +1 hit so it isn't just a worse duelist.
Details may need work. :smallamused:

[DM7581]

I think the designers have stressed that us (players) increasingly prefer the extra attack roll associated with TWFing.

Here is another go:

Rule:
Roll second attack into attack action, but you do not add your proficiency bonus to either attack.
If you get the Extra Attack (2) feature (Fighter 11 feature, not just 11th level with the base Extra Attack feature), you can make an additional attack with the second weapon as a bonus action.

Why?

Removes bonus action tax. Check.

Second point, in editions past, TWFing incurred a penalty. In 5e, penalties suck, but lack of proficiency works. Essentially, no one is natively proficient with TWFing, BUT you do get your damage bonus to each attack (more damage potential, less accuracy). This will heavily discourage TWFing (without the style) without making it too clunky a penalty mechanic.

Also helps Fighters level 11+ keep up with damage by virtue of more available attacks.
F11: 5 attacks, 8 with action surge
F20: 6 attacks, 10 with action surge

Style:
You can add your proficiency bonus to both attacks rolls when engaging in TWFing.

Why?

There, now we are proficient in TWFing. We have both accuracy and damage. This is very strong (as core), levels 1-4, but more balanced levels 5+ (instead of almost strictly worse than other styles) since the bonus action is freed up.

Feat:
Scaling bonus to AC (with or without the use of a bonus action...) equal to half your prof bonus.
Weapons do not have to be light.
Weapons can be drawn as a part of same attack action.
Reaction to counterattack if melee attack within range misses.

Why?

Since bonus action has been freed up, I LIKE the BA tax on a potential (17+ level) +3 to AC, but not everyone agrees. Maybe settle on a static +2, leave at +1, or give the scaling bonus as a passive perk.

Second two points remain per core.

Last one removes the parry feature (steps on toes of defensive duelist), but on a miss, you can swing back. This allows for both this feat and defensive duelest to potentially negate a hit without a counter, or simply to counter an attack that already misses, without one doing the same as the other, but neither does both so are both useful in their own way.

On the subject of feats, with Tasha's you can now pick up a fighting style with a feat, so there is that for those who do not want to dip fighter.

--

Overall, that counter might help with overall damage, and no other style has that option, so even if DPR is somewhat lacking, this makes up a bit in flavor. I like the bonus action tax on the scaling AC bonus. It gives that 11+ level fighter something to think about (another attack or an AC bonus), as well as other dual wielders (rogues, rangers) who might have something worthwhile to use with that BA, but if they don't, they get the benefit of the AC, with that counter reaction always there.

Consider a ranger with HM up on round 2 against a giant/dragon with a ton of HP. He likely will not need to use a bonus action to select a new HM target (a lot of HP), so this is where that bonus action AC bonus comes into play and is fitting.

For the rogue, its a decision on stay up front with more defense, or duck back (disengage). Both potentially reduce damage, but at least the option is there.

Yes, rogues eventually get uncanny dodge (but that triggers on a hit, not a miss), so this fits, and rangers don't get much in reactions (absorb elements?), plus the aforementioned potential stacking with the defensive duelist feat is available for both as well as a dex-based fighter.

For barbarians, in all cases, they would be less accurate than if wielding a heavy weapon (unless they pick up the fighting style), but have more ability modifier/rage damage potential due to the greater number of possible hits. A fair trade I think.

The bonus action (or not) AC boost is nice if not raging... but that sort of goes without saying (all offense, no defense). Lastly, the berserker has a counter attack reaction that triggers on a hit, so it will stack nicely with the feat, giving him essentially a counter every round he is targeted, hit or miss.

Didn't think much of paladins, but similar to rangers in most regards. Did not consider much of monks aside what has already been discussed.

Thoughts here?

[stoutstien]

Eh? +1 to AC and +1 damage is already arguably better than Duelists only +2 to damage. And it is definitely better than Defense. Giving it +1 to AC and +1 to attack would blow Duelists +2 to damage out of the water.

But I think he's just referring to what you do if you have two weapons naturally. No BA attack. No increased damage to offhand with Fighting Style. You choose to wield two weapons you have the same attacks as before, but now you have a +1 AC and +1 to damage with your primary weapon attack. Making it essentially the half-way point between sword and board and two-handed fighting.

Not the worst idea I've heard. Don't really know how to make a Fighting Style for it, but then I'm more or less of the opinion that Fighting Styles are pretty poorly designed and should be reworked anyway.

Would probably need to make a note that your primary weapon can be any one-handed weapon to make the math work. But on the whole, I do like that it gets rid of Bonus Action Attacks which, as I've played more of 5e I really think was a mistake, not just for TWF, but in general.

There's only a single occurrence where a player has access to the fighting styles and not shield proficiency so duelist is practically +2 damage/+2 AC and defense is +3 AC.
As far as defense feeling lacking compared to this change it should be noted that the bonus from defense is almost impossible to remove where disarming a single weapon isn't that difficult at all. In the same vein twf would be useful for players who wanted defensive styled character but not wearing armor so it has a niche there as well.

I would probably say +1 AC while twf as a base rule and the style would add +1 hit and damage making it a halfway point between all the other styles. I don't like specific weapon feats like two weapon fighting or polar Master but to keep the pattern going I would say AOO at advantage and allow AOO if a target moves 5ft or more while within your reach.

[Segev]

Tanarii's idea of just being a bonus to damage and defense is one of the better ones in the sense that it keeps it from trying to compete with two-handed weapon styles simply on basal damage.

A key thing in design is that horizontal design will make for richer gaming than vertical design. What I mean by that is that more options shouldn't be different ways to do exactly the same thing, at least not if they're fundamental options. (Later things in trees might do the same things as later things in other trees as they grow and merge together or cover overlapping design space, but you don't want to have two options both be "the way to do more damage," for example.)

A problem TWF faces is that it either obviously outperforms all other damage dealing methods, or it underperforms them. Matching it exactly enough to balance it without losing what makes it unique in feel is very, very hard, and is an unstable equilibrium even if achieved; it is disrupted the moment new rules supporting it or any other "more damage" style are written.

Sword and Board (which is really what dueling is in 5e, even though dueling supports an empty hand) competes with heavy weapons (the two-handed fighting style) by being more defensive. Yes, the dueling STYLE gives more damage, but that damage merely makes the trade-off less painful while keeping the reward for the shield's AC boost. Great Weapon Style (the one for two-handed weapons) is a way of taking the "more damage" of the weapons and making it more satisfying by reducing how often you wind up with a disappointing roll. It is still a "more damage" style.

Two-weapon fighting, as written, is a "more damage" style, but it's only a little better than dueling for that "more damage" and it always costs your bonus action to use, and it also requires (absent a feat) the lowest-damage weapons be your base tools, so it underperforms a couple times over in the "more damage" department. It has a slight niche in that it permits the rogue an extra shot at landing his sneak attack damage, giving him pseudo-double-advantage, but even that feels a bit underwhelming if he lands his first hit. Plus, it's competing with his Cunning Action, so he is really just gaining a faux Cunning Action option of attacking again for less damage to try to land his sneak attack, sacrificing hiding or disengaging or dashing to do it.

The reason I propose letting it be a full-on doubling of your attacks as long as you use light weapons, working with every attack you get and adding your full stat mod as damage to both, but splitting it between multiple enemies is that it becomes a "more damage, but you can't focus it" technique. Unsupported, it's a good option for any front-liner to pull out when he's facing a horde of mooks, and low damage is all he needs so his big boosts would be wasted. Supported, it makes for a fighter who can mostly keep up even against single strong enemies, even if the duelist and especially the great weapon fighter will hit harder, and he is able to distribute damage between stronger enemies who aren't mere mooks but aren't singletons, either.

It plays into versatility, opening up options and a rewarding fighting style without directly competing with great weapon fighting for "who can do the most damage?" contests. Great weapons will be best against large-hp foes, but have more wasted actions with mooks. TWF will be more efficient against mooks, but will not be as effective against greater singular foes.

When you start mixing in Slasher or Crusher and similar debuffs, TWF becomes even more interesting as a martial crowd control option. (It actually can be used that way even now, but it's not as effective and hardly something you'd devote a feat to building towards in that regard without devoting a lot more to it, first.)

[Zhorn]

Building off that, there's also the depth of change being targeted when trying to 'fix' TWF.
What I mean is what amount of change do you go into and for what depth of the build you are comparing to.
For example; fixing baseline TWF shouldn't be compared and balanced around the attack/damage potential of builds using multiple feats (GWM+PAM being the common comparison used).

From that perspective, the baseline fix for TWF I think should mimic either the Hunter Ranger's Horde Breaker or Beast Barbarian's Claws, with that single additional attack being melded into the same Attack Action rather than a Bonus Action such as suggested in the OP (I personally favour the Claws model over Horde Breaker, but they are in the same vein). Keep all other aspects of the baseline TWF the same, requirements to trigger are unchanged, and lack of +mod to damage on that additional attack. Retaining access to Bonus Action usage for other features, be it from classes, subclasses, or feats will go long way in closing the gap between the other weapon fighting choices in terms of value, since TWF as it currently exists is incompatible with builds/features that require bonus actions.
Doubling the number of attacks at this design level or pairing it up with Extra Attack I feel is a step too far. In other similar threads I've agreed that TWF is behind other fighting choices, but I've disagreed on the extent. Adding in too many attacks too readily is a bit of an over correction, but the general direction of an additional weapon attack or two gets desired results.

Fighting Style I think is fine as is. It is short and simple, which I think is the ideal design level for a fighting style to exist in. Though with the above change (and something I'll get into next) I'd probably want a slight reword from
"you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack"
to
"you can add your ability modifier to the damage of your off-hand attacks"
such 'main-hand / off-hand' language would also need to be woven into the baseline TWF rule though.

Feats is where the more complex adjustments should come into play. That being said, the small change to baseline TWF opening up Bonus Actions would cover most of what's needed. Here's where the comparison to PAM comes into play, but as Segev has pointed out with vertical and horizontal design we don't want to just copy the same thing 1-for-1. So rather than slapping on an additional Bonus Action Attack here, put in a improved reaction feature as an additional bullet point;
While wielding a one-handed melee weapon in each hand, when you make an opportunity attack with your main-hand weapon you may follow it up with off-hand attack against the same target.
wording would need adjusting of course to indicate that this would follow the same +mod restrictions as TWF.

Finally, I like the general flavour of a TWF Battle Master maneuver as Segev suggested with Two-Weapon Rend, though I'd be more inclined to do a variant on Quick Toss as a method of limited Bonus Action attacks.
Off-Hand Rend (sorry Segev, I was stumped for a name)
"While wielding a one-handed melee weapon in each hand, you can expend one superiority die and use a bonus action on your turn to make an additional off-hand attack. If that attack hits, add the superiority die to the weapon's damage roll."

so... same thread topic again next month?

[Kane0]

so... same thread topic again next month?

Of course, see you then!

[Frogreaver]

Since this got posted in another thread, I figured it might be better to continue the discussion in its own:



My own proposal for fixing TWF is to make the base form of it about spreading your damage to multiple enemies, and use the fighter class to make it more well-rounded.

Fighting With a Weapon in Each hand
If you make an attack on your turn with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you may make another attack with another light weapon in your other hand against a different creature.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style
Cut the Dual Wielder feat entirely and paste its mechanics over this fighting style.

New Battle Master Maneuver: Two-Weapon Rend
When fighting with two weapons and making the attack with the second weapon, you can spend a Superiority Die to direct the attack at the same creature. If you do and the attack hits, add the superiority die to the damage roll.

I would contend that TWF cannot be fixed - at least not without changing or modifying many abilities players actually like. (Think hex, polearm master with spears, GWM, SS).

TWF functions fine in a featless game.

[Segev]

I would contend that TWF cannot be fixed - at least not without changing or modifying many abilities players actually like. (Think hex, polearm master with spears, GWM, SS).

TWF functions fine in a featless game.

I dispute that it functions fine in a featless game, actually. It's still more awkward than great weapon fighting, and barely comparable in damage. And it falls behind fast as extra attacks come online. 2d6+8 is better than 2d6+4, certainly, but is the extra +4 worth the bonus action? (I'll assume the extra chance to miss and the extra chance to hit balance out.) 3d6+12 (average 22.5) for an attack, extra attack, and bonus action is going to be competing with 4d6+8 (average 22) for just the attack and extra attack by level 5. And that's with the TWF fighting style, alone - I'm talking about comparing the TWF fighter wielding two light weapons vs. the same character giving up on that for a greatsword. A great weapon stylist will actually push the damage on the 4d6+8 higher with his ability to re-roll 1s and 2s, and would also push it a bit higher on the 2d6+4 for the same reason. (I don't want to put the effort in right now to try to get the math right for calculating how much GW style boosts average damage.) But given that it's a .5 average damage difference (assuming the need for an bonus action attack to hit / extra chance to hit on a bonus action attack balance out, which may be a bad assumption) for the TW stylist to use his chosen style vs. a greatsword, I imagine great weapon style boosts average damage by more than that .5.

As-is, the TW stylist can attack one more creature per round if he wants to divide his damage, but it's not quite the same.

Ignoring fighter styles, the other classes that might benefit are Barbarian (who gets extra rage damage on the off-hand attack...but is probably losing out more since he can't rage and twf in the same round) and the rogue (who really might value that extra shot at hitting the once per round he needs to land sneak attack).

When and if a fighter gets to level 11, the TWF stylist will almost never use his chosen style anymore, because three attacks per round with a greatsword is just flat superior.



Thus, my proposal's design goal of changing the purpose of TWF.

By making it actively double your attacks, but forcing you to split them between multiple foes, it removes the need to prune the damage the extra attack does by restricting the stat mod from it. The damage reduction comes from the light weapon requirement (and the one-handed requirement if you get the fighting style only boosts it to slightly below Duelist damage, not to compete with any other high-damage style). The rogue still gets his extra shot at landing sneak attack (though not necessarily against the one foe he wants it on).

In fact, I'm going to refine my proposal with an idea writing this out gave me, and some of what's been discussed in this thread:

Fighting With a Weapon in Each hand
When drawing or stowing weapons, as long as both weapons are light, you can draw one in each hand. It does not take separate actions to do so for each weapon. If you make an attack on your turn with a light weapon wielded in one hand, you may make another attack with another light weapon in your other hand against a different creature.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style
You may use the rules for drawing, stowing, and fighting with a weapon in each hand as long as both weapons are one-handed or light.

Dual Wielder Feat
You gain a +1 bonus to AC when wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
When fighting with a weapon in each hand, if you miss a target with an attack on your turn, you may direct the attack you are allowed with the other hand at the same target, instead of having to choose a different one.
Once before the start of your next turn after using your reaction to make an opportunity attack while fighting with a weapon in each hand, you may use the weapon in your other hand to make an additional opportunity attack if a second creature provokes one from you.

New Maneuver: Two-Weapon Rend
When fighting with a weapon in each hand, you may spend a Superiority Die after hitting a creature with an attack. Until the end of the turn, you may direct attacks from both weapons you are wielding at that creature. Each time you hit it with both weapons, roll the Superiority Die and add the result to your damage. Despite the name, this maneuver can be used with any weapon, not merely slashing ones.

[stoutstien]

TWF fighting function as a whole just fine in featless games due to the limited ways gain BA attacks. Even then the style is bad so PCs are better served with defense, interception, or throwing style. *Throw weapon style is an interesting loophole to the whole problem*
Just as well due to the best twf classes not gaining access without multi-classing anyways.

[Segev]

TWF fighting function as a whole just fine in featless games due to the limited ways gain BA attacks. Even then the style is bad so PCs are better served with defense, interception, or throwing style. *Throw weapon style is an interesting loophole to the whole problem*
Just as well due to the best twf classes not gaining access without multi-classing anyways.

Again, I disagree. It sort-of works in tier 1, if you pick up the style. But it's directly competing with two-handed/heavy weapon fighting, as all it does is "more damage." There are a couple things it has going for it - the extra chance to land a controlled selection of a once-per-round high damage spike (like the rogue's sneak attack), and the slightly smoother damage output from round to round - but by tier 2, it's fallen behind without the fighting style, and even that has fighting with one two-handed weapon be just about as good for the guy with two-weapon style as actually fighting with a weapon in each hand.

So, no, it's not functioning just fine in a featless game. It's always more expensive than alternatives, both in build resources and action economy, and gives relatively little in return. Rogues and Barbarians are about the only ones who can make decent use of it, and even they struggle to do so. (Rogues have Cunning Action competing for the bonus action attack, so TWF really just lets them have "an extra, weaker attack" as a Cunning Action, provided they're wielding light weapons. Barbarians get to add their rage damage bonus, so they're almost as good as fighters with the fighting style at using it, but they still are behind on damage output in round one due to needing their bonus action to rage.)

[stoutstien]

Again, I disagree. It sort-of works in tier 1, if you pick up the style. But it's directly competing with two-handed/heavy weapon fighting, as all it does is "more damage." There are a couple things it has going for it - the extra chance to land a controlled selection of a once-per-round high damage spike (like the rogue's sneak attack), and the slightly smoother damage output from round to round - but by tier 2, it's fallen behind without the fighting style, and even that has fighting with one two-handed weapon be just about as good for the guy with two-weapon style as actually fighting with a weapon in each hand.

So, no, it's not functioning just fine in a featless game. It's always more expensive than alternatives, both in build resources and action economy, and gives relatively little in return. Rogues and Barbarians are about the only ones who can make decent use of it, and even they struggle to do so. (Rogues have Cunning Action competing for the bonus action attack, so TWF really just lets them have "an extra, weaker attack" as a Cunning Action, provided they're wielding light weapons. Barbarians get to add their rage damage bonus, so they're almost as good as fighters with the fighting style at using it, but they still are behind on damage output in round one due to needing their bonus action to rage.)

It's behind but in featless games we are talking about a pretty small gap compared to feat active games.

It's still a good boost in damage with zero investment which leads to the real issue. The more you invest in the style the worse it gets. Even the FS giving a noticable boost early on is a bad once the bonus action attack makes up less and less of the total picture. It's Why defense is the real twf style unless they want a dagger tosser.

[Kane0]

Segev makes good points, so I'll try to incorporate that into a suggestion:

Base Rule: Can draw weapons with the Thrown quality freely like you can with ammunition

Base TWF: Same as stock, with the option of attacking a different target as part of the attack action instead of using your bonus action (this should probably be worded to work even if you have extra attack and switch targets using it). If you make the extra attack using the attack action you can't also make a weapon attack using your bonus action on the same turn (saves us from attack-stacking shenanigans).

Fighting Style: You can TWF with one-handed weapons and not just Light ones, and can draw a pair of one-handed weapons using the same item interaction

Feat: (1) You add stat to damage, (2) when using TWF you gain +1 AC and (3) When you make a weapon attack using your reaction you can also attack with your other weapon

BM Maneuver: Roll a Sup die when attacking with your off hand weapon, your attack targets two enemies within your reach, adding the die result to the damage roll. So like Sweeping Attack, but good.

[Segev]

It's behind but in featless games we are talking about a pretty small gap compared to feat active games.

It's still a good boost in damage with zero investment which leads to the real issue. The more you invest in the style the worse it gets. Even the FS giving a noticable boost early on is a bad once the bonus action attack makes up less and less of the total picture. It's Why defense is the real twf style unless they want a dagger tosser.

With no investment, it's not even a boost in damage, except in extremely narrow circumstances that still feel a bit uninspiring.

A d6 light weapon (as much as I think it's possible to get) in each hand, with no special investment in the style, will get you a net of 2d6+[stat mod] for your attack and a bonus action.

A greatsword will get you 2d6+stat mod for your attack action. This leaves your bonus action free for other things if you have anything you can do with that.

A rogue arguably still gets something extra out of this from the extra chance to land sneak attack, so can get 2d6+dexmod damage + sneak attack if he spends his bonus action on it. This competes with his Cunning Action, but is at least something, even if a little unsatisfying.

So, no, it's not a good damage boost. It's just a damage boost in return for a bonus action that almost keeps up with a greatsword, and requires special features to make any better than just wielding a greatsword. And even then keeps falling behind as extra attacks come online. (Admittedly, rogues don't get that, but even then they still probably have better things to do with their bonus action as they get higher level.)

And even if all of this sounds to you like it's worth having around as-is for the fall-back, sometimes-a-rogue-likes-it nature, it fails to satisfy - as you said - those who would like to really make it their style. They can't invest in it and actually get good with it.

Hence proposed changes.

[DarknessEternal]

With no investment,

Fortunately, investments do exist. And there are enough of them for TWF to outdamage nearly everything else.

If you're mad that TWF doesn't outdamage Polearm Master, you're looking at the wrong problem.

[Zhorn]

Fortunately, investments do exist. And there are enough of them for TWF to outdamage nearly everything else.

If you're mad that TWF doesn't outdamage Polearm Master, you're looking at the wrong problem.

Could you supply some examples? I am legitimately interested in the math.

[Segev]

Fortunately, investments do exist. And there are enough of them for TWF to outdamage nearly everything else.

If you're mad that TWF doesn't outdamage Polearm Master, you're looking at the wrong problem.

I spelled out the comparison I thought was most fair, to the most damaging style I could think of. Can you outline how TWF outdamages it? Especially once extra attacks start coming online? I never once mentioned polearm master during my analysis, and the claim was made that TWF was good even without investment. Further, that it actually got worse when investment was considered.

If you'll note, the proposal I am pushing doesn't actually make it out-damage things against single targets; you must split it between two. And against each one, it underperforms Duelist, damage-wise.

[DarknessEternal]

The minimum damage on TWF is 6 (without a magic weapon). Duelist needs 3 attacks just to equal that, so level 11 minimum. You probably have a garbage longsword +1 to use in your offhand by now, but let's pretend you don't.

The maximum on TWF is 13 (d8+5, let's ignore critical even though those only make TWF do even more damage since Duelist gets nothing from criticals). Duelist needs 7 attacks to outdamage that, so action surge at level 20.

Is that really the argument you're putting forth?

[Kane0]

The minimum damage on TWF is 6 (without a magic weapon). Duelist needs 3 attacks just to equal that, so level 11 minimum. You probably have a garbage longsword +1 to use in your offhand by now, but let's pretend you don't.

The maximum on TWF is 13 (d8+5, let's ignore critical even though those only make TWF do even more damage since Duelist gets nothing from criticals). Duelist needs 7 attacks to outdamage that, so action surge at level 20.

Is that really the argument you're putting forth?

Eh? Could you spell that out for me please? Like what class/level, what stats, what weapons and what feats/styles?

[Segev]

The minimum damage on TWF is 6 (without a magic weapon). Duelist needs 3 attacks just to equal that, so level 11 minimum. You probably have a garbage longsword +1 to use in your offhand by now, but let's pretend you don't.

The maximum on TWF is 13 (d8+5, let's ignore critical even though those only make TWF do even more damage since Duelist gets nothing from criticals). Duelist needs 7 attacks to outdamage that, so action surge at level 20.

Is that really the argument you're putting forth?


Eh? Could you spell that out for me please? Like what class/level, what stats, what weapons and what feats/styles?

Yeah, duelist can be throwing around d8+7 when TWF is throwing around 2d6+10. That's tier 1. Duelist is doing this without expending its bonus action (meaning it's free for something else, depending on features), and is also going to have 2 more AC than the TWF guy. My assumptions here are fighting styles only, no feats.

At tier 2, the duelist, without further investment, goes up to 2d8+14. The TWF guy can invest a feat to go up to 3d8+15. He's still ahead of the duelist, but the duelist is still an AC point ahead of him, and possibly two AC points ahead if he put more into his Dexterity. (You've got +5 in his damage stat, which is a bit odd, now that I think about it, since 18 should be the most anybody is likely to have in tier 1. Meaning the duelist, free to invest the ASI into his preferred stat to bring it to 20, could be at 2d8+14 vs 3d8+12. That's average damage 23 vs. average damage 25.5. Duelist is ahead 2 AC; dual wielder is ahead 2.5 average damage per round. Dual wielder still is burning bonus actions on attacks. Note that this is assuming 100% hit rates, too.)

But duelist is the wrong one to compare to for extra damage. For that, you want two-handed fighting/great weapon fighting.

With great weapon fighting, you have the same AC as TWF at tier 1. Maybe a little lower, since great weapons don't use dex, but even so. The damage output is comparable in tier 1, but the great weapon fighter doesn't have to use a bonus action. And he actually rolls better than the TWFer, due to re-rolling 1s and 2s on his damage dice. If they both have +4 to their damage stat, the TWFer has 2d6+8 while the GWMaster has 2d6+4, but the GWMaster also is rerolling 1s and 2s. The average damage is 15 for the TWFer and 12.33333 for the GWMaster in tier 1. TWF is using a bonus action to get to 15, otherwise it's only 7.5. GWMaster has bonus actions free for other things (though admittedly few things to use them on).

TWF is the high damage option in tier 1, by this analysis.

In tier 2, the GWMaster's average damage goes up to 27.66666, while the TWFer's goes up to 25.5. If the TWFer invests a feat instead of investing in his damage stat, his damage actually doesn't improve further (the 3d8 vs. 3d6 is still a +3 shift in average damage), but his AC goes up by 1. Either way, it's already falling behind, and still has to expend a bonus action while the GWMaster does not.


AT BEST, then, the TWF style is highest damage in tier 1.


And I still don't know what you're trying to say, because you seem to be holding that up as a reason why my proposal is bad, when I don't see the argument connecting. My proposal actually reduces single-target TWF damage, unless you're a battle master with a specific maneuver I added in. It does, however, increase total damage output considerably as long as you spread it around rather than focusing on one target.

[Dienekes]

So I have some suppositions about martial combat in 5e.

1) because of how barebones the basic system is, there are really only two levers to pull: AC and damage. Mind you damage can take many forms: damage dice, static modifiers, accuracy, crit range, damage rerolls, etc. but all of it can be simplified down to just how much damage you can do each round with pretty easy formulas.

2) bonus action attacks were a mistake. Not just for TWF but in general. If your classes stated goal is to deal damage, getting an extra attack is almost always the correct choice in optimization. This makes the martial classes focus on getting these bonus action attacks, which limits what they are trying to do on their turn. And makes it difficult to do the actually interesting other actions you can take. Like handing your pet as a Ranger, hiding and dashing about as a Rogue, and even classes that don’t have much to do with their bonus action they probably should’ve been given something.

3) in a perfect system the weapon styles should be equivalently useful with the same level of optimization. A two-weapon fighter should be competitive with the archer, the sword and board, and two-hander with no fighting style, with a fighting style, and with a feat. I’d actually also generally add thrower and einhander in the mix as well. But this thread is mostly about TWF.

All of this leads to very little wiggle room especially if we want to keep 5es streamlined (in my opinion over streamlined) nature.

A part of me thinks fixing all this would require a rather large scale rewrite of the rules. At the very least all the Fighting Styles and feats. Which I’m not exactly opposed to doing. But it might be a bit much for this thread.

As to the options on the table.

Starting the basic TWF without a style being just +1 to damage and +1 to AC has a real elegance to it. But fails at the fighting style level without a rewrite there.

Having the second weapon always attack a second target is interesting. But oh I do not want to be there when the Fighter is making 16 attacks in a single round. Which may be more a problem with the Fighter than anything else but is still there.

[Segev]

So I have some suppositions about martial combat in 5e.

1) because of how barebones the basic system is, there are really only two levers to pull: AC and damage. Mind you damage can take many forms: damage dice, static modifiers, accuracy, crit range, damage rerolls, etc. but all of it can be simplified down to just how much damage you can do each round with pretty easy formulas.

2) bonus action attacks were a mistake. Not just for TWF but in general. If your classes stated goal is to deal damage, getting an extra attack is almost always the correct choice in optimization. This makes the martial classes focus on getting these bonus action attacks, which limits what they are trying to do on their turn. And makes it difficult to do the actually interesting other actions you can take. Like handing your pet as a Ranger, hiding and dashing about as a Rogue, and even classes that don’t have much to do with their bonus action they probably should’ve been given something.

3) in a perfect system the weapon styles should be equivalently useful with the same level of optimization. A two-weapon fighter should be competitive with the archer, the sword and board, and two-hander with no fighting style, with a fighting style, and with a feat. I’d actually also generally add thrower and einhander in the mix as well. But this thread is mostly about TWF.

All of this leads to very little wiggle room especially if we want to keep 5es streamlined (in my opinion over streamlined) nature.

A part of me thinks fixing all this would require a rather large scale rewrite of the rules. At the very least all the Fighting Styles and feats. Which I’m not exactly opposed to doing. But it might be a bit much for this thread.

As to the options on the table.

Starting the basic TWF without a style being just +1 to damage and +1 to AC has a real elegance to it. But fails at the fighting style level without a rewrite there.

Having the second weapon always attack a second target is interesting. But oh I do not want to be there when the Fighter is making 16 attacks in a single round. Which may be more a problem with the Fighter than anything else but is still there.
I disagree with your point 2, somewhat strenuously. The only issue with a bonus action attack is that some classes don't have anything else to do with the bonus action.

You are right about having relatively few knobs to twiddle. Base rules for martial combat give us AC, hp, accuracy, damage, and push/grapple. I will say accuracy is not JUST "more damage" even if it mostly contributes there, because it can make a difference in how you play if you are relying on more chances to hit or relying on greater chance to hit with fewer attacks.

The trouble TWF has as it stands right now is that the other fighting styles have their own niches: Duelist is actually a defensive style that has some "catch up" on damage; Archery gives greater accuracy and is ranged; thrown actually is a "patch" style that fixes a flaw with the way the rules for throwing weapons interacted with the rules for object interactions (that does a bit of "catch up" damage); unarmed fighting is "more damage" but also plays into grappling in a way nothing else successfully does; GWM is a true Big Damage style...and TWF is just "big damage," too. It feels like a "flaw fixer" style, which is disappointing as a player, and while it looks on paper like it actually gives more than GWM does to "more damage," in reality it only puts it a little ahead in tier 1.

The design goal I'm pushing here is to change what TWF is focused on. Multi-target, rather than "bigger damage." In terms of pure hp-dealt, it actually is bigger than GWM, but it won't overshadow GWM because GWM is the giant-slayer, while TWF becomes the horde-breaker. (To borrow Ranger terms.)

One thing I remain dissatisfied with is that nothing about this works particularly well for Rangers, and Rangers generally have TWF as one of their iconic styles.

[Frogreaver]

I disagree with your point 2, somewhat strenuously. The only issue with a bonus action attack is that some classes don't have anything else to do with the bonus action.

You are right about having relatively few knobs to twiddle. Base rules for martial combat give us AC, hp, accuracy, damage, and push/grapple. I will say accuracy is not JUST "more damage" even if it mostly contributes there, because it can make a difference in how you play if you are relying on more chances to hit or relying on greater chance to hit with fewer attacks.

The trouble TWF has as it stands right now is that the other fighting styles have their own niches: Duelist is actually a defensive style that has some "catch up" on damage; Archery gives greater accuracy and is ranged; thrown actually is a "patch" style that fixes a flaw with the way the rules for throwing weapons interacted with the rules for object interactions (that does a bit of "catch up" damage); unarmed fighting is "more damage" but also plays into grappling in a way nothing else successfully does; GWM is a true Big Damage style...and TWF is just "big damage," too. It feels like a "flaw fixer" style, which is disappointing as a player, and while it looks on paper like it actually gives more than GWM does to "more damage," in reality it only puts it a little ahead in tier 1.

The design goal I'm pushing here is to change what TWF is focused on. Multi-target, rather than "bigger damage." In terms of pure hp-dealt, it actually is bigger than GWM, but it won't overshadow GWM because GWM is the giant-slayer, while TWF becomes the horde-breaker. (To borrow Ranger terms.)

One thing I remain dissatisfied with is that nothing about this works particularly well for Rangers, and Rangers generally have TWF as one of their iconic styles.

Horde breaker concept doesn’t work.
1. Casters do it exponentially better.
2. Generally it’s vastly more effective to focus down your target than split that damage amongst others.
3. There’s no guarantee 2 enemies get close enough for you to attack both.

[Segev]

Horde breaker concept doesn’t work. "Horde breaker" is overstating it, yes.

1. Casters do it exponentially better. They also do single-target damage exponentially better.

2. Generally it’s vastly more effective to focus down your target than split that damage amongst others. Yes, if that's an option. And if all TWF does is compete for "more damage" with GWM, then only one of them can be "the best damage," so you'll get only one of them. By making TWF about dealing with multiple foes, it changes the niche.

3. There’s no guarantee 2 enemies get close enough for you to attack both.So what? There's no guarantee they'll cluster up for a burning hands or fireball, either.

One thing splitting up your damage does is keep you a relevant threat to more creatures, making you less easily "dealt with" by a single foe engaging you while the others ignore you for the squishies. The latest version of the Dual Wielder feat I proposed even gives an extra OA against a separate foe, which further enhances the style. Couple that at 8th level (or 4th, with V. Human) with Sentinel for a bit more lock-down potential.

[Frogreaver]

"Horde breaker" is overstating it, yes.
They also do single-target damage exponentially better.
Yes, if that's an option. And if all TWF does is compete for "more damage" with GWM, then only one of them can be "the best damage," so you'll get only one of them. By making TWF about dealing with multiple foes, it changes the niche.
So what? There's no guarantee they'll cluster up for a burning hands or fireball, either.

One thing splitting up your damage does is keep you a relevant threat to more creatures, making you less easily "dealt with" by a single foe engaging you while the others ignore you for the squishies. The latest version of the Dual Wielder feat I proposed even gives an extra OA against a separate foe, which further enhances the style. Couple that at 8th level (or 4th, with V. Human) with Sentinel for a bit more lock-down potential.

Those are very unpersuasive counterpoints.

Face it. Making TWF around a seriously flawed concept -multi target melee- (when accounting for the rest of the rules interactions) is only going to make TWF worse.

Ask yourself who is goin go to be interested in playing your version? I have and I can’t think of anyone.

[stoutstien]

Generally the bonus action damage isn't the reason for the attack being worth the cost. It's all about riders like smite, BM dice, sneak attack, and on hot effects like warding mark. The twf attack could deal 1 damage and still have a niche in featless games for anyone who want to burn down targets via rider spam.

[Segev]

Those are very unpersuasive counterpoints.

Face it. Making TWF around a seriously flawed concept -multi target melee- (when accounting for the rest of the rules interactions) is only going to make TWF worse.

Ask yourself who is goin go to be interested in playing your version? I have and I can’t think of anyone.

I would. Others have commented positively in this thread on the broad concept, if not the precise execution.

"I think it sounds bad and thus your arguments are unpersuasive," isn't actually countering my points. It is just saying "nuh uh!"

And while your opinion on what is fun is valid as a datum, it is still just opinion.

Why do you think getting double the attacks for no extra action cost would be seen negatively, even if you had to split the attacks between at least two foes?

[Frogreaver]

Generally the bonus action damage isn't the reason for the attack being worth the cost. It's all about riders like smite, BM dice, sneak attack, and on hot effects like warding mark. The twf attack could deal 1 damage and still have a niche in featless games for anyone who want to burn down targets via rider spam.

There are also some often ignored benefits of going TWF.

Str based TWF benefits:
1. You can attempt to shove an enemy prone and still make 2 attacks at level 5.
2. You can sheathe one weapon and attempt to grapple a foe to prevent him from going to your allies.
3. Lower Overkill damage actually increases your efficiency against multiple enemies as you will waste less damage in killing an enemy.

Dex based:
1. Higher initiative
2. Higher stealth
3. Ability to effectively use a bow
4. Lower Overkill damage actually increases your efficiency against multiple enemies as you will waste less damage in killing an enemy


I would. Others have commented positively in this thread on the broad concept, if not the precise execution.

"I think it sounds bad and thus your arguments are unpersuasive," isn't actually countering my points. It is just saying "nuh uh!"

And while your opinion on what is fun is valid as a datum, it is still just opinion.

Why do you think getting double the attacks for no extra action cost would be seen negatively, even if you had to split the attacks between at least two foes?

1. This is the big one. There is to much uncertainty around how often you will be within melee of 2 enemies. Could be a lot or could be rarely ever. Meaning anytime that isn’t regularly happening your character is crap.

2. Some of the most synergistic buffs to damage for a TWF fail to function on any of the extra attacks. Think Hex/Hunters Mark.

[stoutstien]

To be fair I don't like the state of TWF and I have modified it for my games including the featless ones I run. I think it's clunky and doesn't fulfill the player's concept when they think of a PC that utilizes two weapons.
Balance wise it's ok until Ba attacks become a dime a dozen and -/+ effects are included.

[DarknessEternal]

But duelist is the wrong one to compare to for extra damage.

Then why did you claim it?



it underperforms Duelist, damage-wise.


You're constantly moving the goal-post on you argument. That's why you can't be taken seriously.

[Segev]

Then why did you claim it?



You're constantly moving the goal-post on you argument. That's why you can't be taken seriously.

My modification underperforms Duelist, damage-wise, against a single target. My apologies for being unclear.

[x3n0n]

Generally the bonus action damage isn't the reason for the attack being worth the cost. It's all about riders like smite, BM dice, sneak attack, and on hot effects like warding mark. The twf attack could deal 1 damage and still have a niche in featless games for anyone who want to burn down targets via rider spam.

Here to agree. TWF (the wielding method) serves a purpose in the game: to add an option where *any* character can choose to get an extra attack on their turn, usually because they really want to deliver some "rider". (Sometimes that "rider" is unconsciousness or death, if the target has very few remaining HP.)

The RAW TWF Fighting Style rewards this decision very effectively in tier 1, and very poorly in tier 2 and beyond (on the classes that have access to the style).


I'm coming around more to the position that having a TWF Fighting Style is just the wrong concept. We have 3 melee "wielding methods" (lowercase fighting style):
* two-handed weapons: offense via small number of large attacks
* shield and one-handed weapon: increased defense, with small number of "medium" attacks
* two one-handed weapons: offense via large number of "small" attacks



The uppercase Fighting Styles that affect melee interact with the wielding methods:
* Defense: increases defense across styles
* GWF: increase offense for every attack with a two-handed weapon
* Dueling: increase offense for every attack with a single one-handed weapon
* RAW TWF: increase offense *only* for the optional attack with the off-handed weapon (which is clearly inferior to the other two)

What if we replaced all 3 of those melee attack PHB uppercase Fighting Styles with one: increase offense?

Offense: +2 damage on every melee weapon attack. Compared to PHB styles:
* vs Dueling: unchanged
* vs GWF: Offense is slightly better than GWF, even on 2d6/2d4 weapons (expected +1.67 per attack for 2d6, which is the best case)
* vs RAW TWF FS: In tier 1, close (2 attacks each get +2 vs a +3/+4 bonus to a single attack); in tier 2+, better (+6 for 3 attacks vs at most +5 on the off-hand attack).

The fluff to distinguish them was rather meh in the first place, IMO.


Edit to add:
Once you do this, TWF becomes a *reasonable* baseline for martial bonus action damage; Polearm Master should be nerfed to match.
Note I haven't mentioned ranged attacks or Fighting Styles.

Edited to add more:
Clearly Crossbow Expert should get the same nerf as PAM.
Other features that give *temporary* access to a bonus action attack probably don't need to be nerfed.

[Frogreaver]

To be fair I don't like the state of TWF and I have modified it for my games including the featless ones I run. I think it's clunky and doesn't fulfill the player's concept when they think of a PC that utilizes two weapons.
Balance wise it's ok until Ba attacks become a dime a dozen and -/+ effects are included.

In featless games the only martial class I can think of that TWF sucks on is a tier 3+ fighter - and that is commonly mitigated by strong magic weapons.

While juggling bonus actions can be annoying the math for the bonus action attack and bonus action juggling is still pretty tight.

Like look at a hunters mark ranger. With duelist in tier 2 he does 1d8+1d6+7 *2 = 30*(chance to hit) DPR every round.

With TWF he does
2d6+5 *2 = 24 on round 1 and hunters mark moving rounds.
On other rounds he does 2d6+5 *3 = 36

If your casting and moving hunters mark 50% of the time your damage is identical to the duelist version. Even with juggling bonus actions and no magic weapons I feel good about the TWF ranger with hunters mark keeping up in damage with the duelist.

It only takes a 60% use rate of the bonus action attack while juggling hunters mark to come out equal to a great weapon style great sword using ranger (*note rangers donÂ’t normally have access to GWF style)

The issue imo is more that it’s annoying to have to juggle bonus actions than that doing so doesn’t balance out.

I think the real outlier here is a fighter as he scales too much with number of attacks as is. Meaning the value of a lower damage bonus action attack gets diminished on him compared to other characters that have ways of boosting the damage of their attacks instead of the number/accuracy of them.

So to fix TWF give the fighter a few innate advantages to using that style?

[Kane0]

What if we replaced all 3 of those melee attack PHB uppercase Fighting Styles with one: increase offense?

Offense: +2 damage on every melee weapon attack.

Tasha’s sidekick Warrior does that.

[x3n0n]

Tasha’s sidekick Warrior does that.

I thought that one was much stronger.

Just went and looked: "Attacker. The sidekick gains a +2 bonus to all attack rolls."

Archery for all attacks seems much much better than Dueling for all attacks.

[Segev]

This still just sounds like, "TWF > GWM," even from those arguing that it keeps up or exceeds. This does not address the problem that you'll always go for whichever does more damage, because in the end that's all they do. Using the other one is foolish, making it a trap option.

There's no trade-off; one is just better than the other. Because they're both "more damage" options.

[Morty]

Quick fix for TWF: if a PC wields two weapons, they get +1 AC and +1 damage. Done.

There are a fair number of RPGs that do this kind of thing, and IMX it's better than this fetish D&D has with giving extra attacks.

I'm honestly kind of inclined to agree. Not necessarily about this solution exactly, but I feel as though giving TWF more attacks is a dead end. It's really hard to balance it in a way that's neither too good nor too saddled with hoop-jumping to be worth it. Of course, I don't know what it could get instead in a way that'd make it distinct from using a two-handed weapon, since 5E doesn't exactly give us much to work with.

[x3n0n]

This still just sounds like, "TWF > GWM," even from those arguing that it keeps up or exceeds. This does not address the problem that you'll always go for whichever does more damage, because in the end that's all they do. Using the other one is foolish, making it a trap option.

There's no trade-off; one is just better than the other. Because they're both "more damage" options.

For an uppercase Fighting Style, I think that's appropriate. Choose one that gives you better defense or better damage, and it works across all wielding methods.

For the 3 melee wielding methods (big weapons, shields, two-weapons), I think the tradeoff is still there and somewhat meaningful, but we can make it better.
"Two-weapons" encourages selection of any effect that benefits from lots of hits (damage, but also debuffs); selecting builds like this *has an opportunity cost*. I actually think this half of the equation is almost working as designed.
"Big weapons", on the other hand, has nothing to recommend it except damage. I think this is an easier place to add more incentives. The GWM feat is already one (and it has its own opportunity costs). I think we should have more GWM-like effects that can only proc with big weapons. Imagine, for example, that you could have a GWM-like risky strike, but instead of doing +10, it did something like Open Hand Technique (Prone or 15' "shove" or deny reactions).

[stoutstien]

If we are comparing TWF and GWF styles strait up TWF is a higher return of damage once your attack stat is 4 or above unless we are talking about fighters with action surge and/or 3+ attacks per action. GWM is ~.8 to 1.33 per attack, weapon depending, so it takes a lot of attacks to match the flat value twf provides.

Both are crap styles.

[Frogreaver]

This still just sounds like, "TWF > GWM," even from those arguing that it keeps up or exceeds. This does not address the problem that you'll always go for whichever does more damage, because in the end that's all they do. Using the other one is foolish, making it a trap option.

There's no trade-off; one is just better than the other. Because they're both "more damage" options.

That’s where uncertainty comes in. As long as they are close enough and have a few situational strengths then you will see both used as it becomes nearly impossible to predict before a campaign which situations will arise more.

The reasons you don’t see TWF much right now is because of 1) crap feats and 2) maintaining concentration being much more punishing for melee than when using a bow.

2) basically pushes rangers towards being archers while 1) Pushes Fighters/Barbarians/Paladins with their extra feats towards SS/PAM/GWM feats.

I should note I have used a TWF paladin without style and a TWF Barbarian/Rogue and a TWF swashbuckler in featless/feat limited games.

I tend to avoid TWF Fighters as the possibility of getting high level and being stuck with that style annoys me - but in practice I don’t think it ever would have been a problem.

I will say that not being able to draw both weapons on turn 1 is usually not a huge deal as with many builds you would be using that bonus action to rage or cast hunters mark on turn 1.

There’s also some gamist ways to get around the restriction, like Always keeping 1 weapon in your hand when out of combat

[Segev]

Let's examine three fighting styles as written in the PHB
We'll assume the standard PC array of stats for each of them.
All three will start with 17 strength, because while I could analyze dex vs. str fighter, the str fighter will start with chainmail for 16 AC, and there's no advantage to dex fighting in terms of AC access (or at least wasn't as far as I went in analyzing it, so I could be wrong, but this makes it simpler).
All three have the same chance to hit. I will assume 100% hit rate because the dpr calculation ratio between them stays the same when they all have the same to-hit chance.

Note: these damage calculations assume the fight starts with the warrior ready. IF he's ambushed or otherwise doesn't have his weapons in hand, the TWFighter will be down damage in his first round for levels 1-3.

The duelist gets 1 attack/round for 1d8+5 (9.5 average) dpr. He has 18 AC.
The GWMaster gets 1 attack/round on which he can reroll 1s and 2s on damage dice once each, for 2d6+3 (11.33333 average) dpr. He has 16 AC.
The TWFighter gets 2 attacks/round (using his bonus action for one of them) for 2d6+6 (13 average) dpr. He has 16 AC. But, in round 1, unless he starts the fight weapons in hand, he only gets 7.5 average damage (1 attack).

At level 2, the fighter gets action surge. (I will restrict myself to fighters for now because this will already be a lengthy post.) Once per short rest, he can take a full extra action.
The duelist gets 2 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 19 average damage.
The GWMaster gets 2 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 22.66666 average damage.
The TWFighter gets 3 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 20.5 average damage. If he action surges round 1 but didn't have his weapons drawn yet, this is just 13 average damage, making him have a steady 13 dpr.

At level 2, the sword-and-board duelist still has the highest AC and the lowest damage. When action surging, though, the duelist closes the gap a little, and the GWMaster exceeds the TWFighter.

Not a lot changes until level 4, now. The TWFighter can either take +2 Strength, a +1 Strength half-feat, or Dual Wielder. The other two almost certainly are taking either +2 Strength or (even more likely) a +1 Strength half-feat.

The duelist gets the least benefit, improving only by +1 damage per round (+2 in the round of an action surge), for 10.5 / 21 (action surge) damage per round.
The GWMaster now does 14 dpr, 24.66666 on an action surge.
The TWFighter gets the most benefit, adding +2 dpr, +3 in the round of an action surge: 15 dpr, 23.5 on an action surge. He also gets +1 to AC, for a 17, if he takes Dual Wielder. One behind the duelist and one ahead of the GWMaster.

Looking pretty good for TWFighting, here! If he takes the Dual Wielder feat, he loses the round 1 awkwardness of having only one half-strength attack rather than his expected two, and his AC improves, and his damage improves just as much as if he'd boosted his Strength thanks to going up to dual-wielding rapiers or longswords. If he doesn't take Dual Wielder, he still boosts his damage by 2 (3 on action surge rounds) and hopefully gets something else out of it, since he has that awkwardness still when he draws only one weapon on round one.

But then we get to level 5, when Extra Attack lands.

The duelist now is doing 2d8+12 (21 average) dpr, and 4d8+12 (42 average) damage when he action surges.
The GWMaster is now doing 4d6+8 with rerolling 1s and 2s on damage (yielding 24.66666 average) dpr, and 48.6666666 average damage when he action surges.
The TWFighter is doing 3d8+9 (22.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+15 (38.5 average) damage when he action surges. (Remember, he's paid an ASI for those d8s, so he's a str mod behind.)

So by level 5, the TWFighter is a little ahead of the duelist in damage and a little behind in AC, while being a little bit more behind the GWMaster in damage (and a little ahead in AC). But when they action surge, the TWFighter falls significantly behind.

Level 6 sees another ASI for a fighter, which is going to be +1 across the board to every attack's damage as all three will boost Strength.

The duelist goes up to 2d8+14 (23 average) dpr, 46 average on an action surge.
The GWMaster goes up to 4d6+10 (26.666666 average) dpr, and 52.666666 average damage on an action surge.
The TWFighter goes up to 3d8+12 (25.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+16 (38.5 average) damage on an action surge.

By level 6, then, the TWFighter catches up a bit thanks to the extra attack making it +3 rather than +2 to dpr, though it remains far behind on Action Surge damage.

At level 8, another ASI comes in. Interestingly, this works largely to the TWFighter's favor in this comparison, because the other two are already maxed out and can't get higher, while the TWFighter can go from +4 to +5 in its strength stat mod (or can take Dual Wielder for the same impact to its damage).

The TWFighter goes up to 3d8+15 (28.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+25 (47.5 average) damage on an action surge.

This brings it up to out-doing the Duelist in damage by almost an entire d8's worth of average damage per round. It's even ahead of the GWMaster for dpr, though action surge shows the GWMaster ahead.

Then the fighter hits level 11 and gains its third attack.

The duelist now does 3d8+21 (34.5) dpr, and 69 on an action surge.
The GWMaster now does 6d6+15, rerolling 1s and 2s, for an average 40 dpr, 80 on an action surge.
The TWFighter is at 4d8+20, for an average 38 dpr, and 76 on an action surge.

The TWFighter for being only one AC behind the duelist is actually doing much better damage, and staying competitive with the GWMaster.



This is actually looking really quite competitive. It even is almost as defensible as the duelist if it takes the Dual Wielder feat.

Without that feat, it has some of its opening rounds take a hit of 1/2 its damage before level 5, and 1/3 its damage after level 5. And its AC is lower. But by level 8, there's no reason why it shouldn't have the Dual Wielder feat, since it'll have maxed out its strength by level 6.

In all cases, it is dependent on having its bonus action dedicated to attacking, making at least the Eldritch Knight a poor choice for a TWFighter (since War Magic will let him mix in cantrips and still get off a melee attack, and the other two have bigger, better single attacks).

But for most fighter builds, up through level 10, it looks like TWFighter is actually superior to Duelist (only one AC behind, often significantly better damage). The Duelist and GWMaster might have Crusher or Slasher or even Athlete, giving more options, but that still leaves the TWFighter quite competitive.

Without feats, just ASIs, it still compares very favorably to duelist for anything other than Eldritch Knight, as long as you don't mind that a portion of the time, your opening round will be at half or 2/3 damage due to having to draw your weapons one at a time.

Oh, probably don't want to do TWFighter with an Echo Knight, either. (I can't think of other archetypes off the top of my head that use the bonus action regularly.)



So I do see where people who say it's fine, or that the real problem is Pole Arm Master, are coming from. In fact, I can almost see argument that TWFighter is too good, especially with the Dual Wielder feat, since it's only an AC behind Duelist and vastly out-damages it. There's the consideration of magic shields, but if you've got a magic shield AND magic armor AND a magic weapon, the TWFighter likely has magic armor and two magic weapons, and will be still coming out ahead. (The GWMaster shines most in this part of the analysis because he "only" needs a magic armor suit and a single magic weapon, a whole magic item fewer!)

I do think it's too close to Duelist, overshadowing it in a lot of ways, and the payment for this being the awkwardness of needing your bonus action for an attack is kind-of edging into Grod's Law territory, balancing something by making it awkward to use.

Further, I don't think Duelist is particularly under-powered. Personally, the trade-off of defense for offense looks about right between Duelist and GWMaster to me (though I'm open to people disagreeing and discussing why). So TWFighter is edging into too strong, if we assume the bonus action attack is not "really" a cost due to build choices. Maybe it's good that you take TWFighter only with certain subclasses?

I still think the awkwardness and the required investment to get it to "feel natural" (i.e., not have weird restrictions you wouldn't naturally expect, like no stat mod to damage and inability to draw both weapons at once) is undesirable. Making it try to carve a middle ground in damage and defense between Duelist and GWMaster also seems like, while a balance they hit if it weren't for PAM, is also too fragile and perhaps not hit quite where it should have been.

Thus, I stand by my suggested change to it: make it an entirely different focus of how to fight, and a perfectly viable backup fighting style even without investment.

[Kane0]

For what it's worth, I've also done some number running and can say I'm still happy with them:
Note I don't give TWF the +1 AC with the Dual Wielder feat, rather allowing Opp attacks to use both weapons instead.

https://i.imgur.com/DPUkVBj.jpg

EDIT: Updated with Segev's idea
Base: for every attack you make, make another against a different target (d6 weapon, stat to damage)
Style: d8 weapons
Feat: none

[x3n0n]

Thus, I stand by my suggested change to it: make it an entirely different focus of how to fight, and a perfectly viable backup fighting style even without investment.

I think my primary struggle is that your suggested rule change is a *nerf* to most of the *existing* characters that are using RAW/PHB TWF.

That is, TWF rewards effects that deal damage per hit, and several of those effects in turn reward hitting the same target over and over.
(Think TWF Ranger and Hunter's Mark.)

The mechanics of using it as a "backup" are also strange. I'm surrounded by bad guys, so I spend an action to drop my shield so I can get out a second weapon so I'm not wasting my bonus action?

[Frogreaver]

Let's examine three fighting styles as written in the PHB
We'll assume the standard PC array of stats for each of them.
All three will start with 17 strength, because while I could analyze dex vs. str fighter, the str fighter will start with chainmail for 16 AC, and there's no advantage to dex fighting in terms of AC access (or at least wasn't as far as I went in analyzing it, so I could be wrong, but this makes it simpler).
All three have the same chance to hit. I will assume 100% hit rate because the dpr calculation ratio between them stays the same when they all have the same to-hit chance.

Note: these damage calculations assume the fight starts with the warrior ready. IF he's ambushed or otherwise doesn't have his weapons in hand, the TWFighter will be down damage in his first round for levels 1-3.

The duelist gets 1 attack/round for 1d8+5 (9.5 average) dpr. He has 18 AC.
The GWMaster gets 1 attack/round on which he can reroll 1s and 2s on damage dice once each, for 2d6+3 (11.33333 average) dpr. He has 16 AC.
The TWFighter gets 2 attacks/round (using his bonus action for one of them) for 2d6+6 (13 average) dpr. He has 16 AC. But, in round 1, unless he starts the fight weapons in hand, he only gets 7.5 average damage (1 attack).

At level 2, the fighter gets action surge. (I will restrict myself to fighters for now because this will already be a lengthy post.) Once per short rest, he can take a full extra action.
The duelist gets 2 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 19 average damage.
The GWMaster gets 2 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 22.66666 average damage.
The TWFighter gets 3 attacks on the round in which he action surges, for 20.5 average damage. If he action surges round 1 but didn't have his weapons drawn yet, this is just 13 average damage, making him have a steady 13 dpr.

At level 2, the sword-and-board duelist still has the highest AC and the lowest damage. When action surging, though, the duelist closes the gap a little, and the GWMaster exceeds the TWFighter.

Not a lot changes until level 4, now. The TWFighter can either take +2 Strength, a +1 Strength half-feat, or Dual Wielder. The other two almost certainly are taking either +2 Strength or (even more likely) a +1 Strength half-feat.

The duelist gets the least benefit, improving only by +1 damage per round (+2 in the round of an action surge), for 10.5 / 21 (action surge) damage per round.
The GWMaster now does 14 dpr, 24.66666 on an action surge.
The TWFighter gets the most benefit, adding +2 dpr, +3 in the round of an action surge: 15 dpr, 23.5 on an action surge. He also gets +1 to AC, for a 17, if he takes Dual Wielder. One behind the duelist and one ahead of the GWMaster.

Looking pretty good for TWFighting, here! If he takes the Dual Wielder feat, he loses the round 1 awkwardness of having only one half-strength attack rather than his expected two, and his AC improves, and his damage improves just as much as if he'd boosted his Strength thanks to going up to dual-wielding rapiers or longswords. If he doesn't take Dual Wielder, he still boosts his damage by 2 (3 on action surge rounds) and hopefully gets something else out of it, since he has that awkwardness still when he draws only one weapon on round one.

But then we get to level 5, when Extra Attack lands.

The duelist now is doing 2d8+12 (21 average) dpr, and 4d8+12 (42 average) damage when he action surges.
The GWMaster is now doing 4d6+8 with rerolling 1s and 2s on damage (yielding 24.66666 average) dpr, and 48.6666666 average damage when he action surges.
The TWFighter is doing 3d8+9 (22.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+15 (38.5 average) damage when he action surges. (Remember, he's paid an ASI for those d8s, so he's a str mod behind.)

So by level 5, the TWFighter is a little ahead of the duelist in damage and a little behind in AC, while being a little bit more behind the GWMaster in damage (and a little ahead in AC). But when they action surge, the TWFighter falls significantly behind.

Level 6 sees another ASI for a fighter, which is going to be +1 across the board to every attack's damage as all three will boost Strength.

The duelist goes up to 2d8+14 (23 average) dpr, 46 average on an action surge.
The GWMaster goes up to 4d6+10 (26.666666 average) dpr, and 52.666666 average damage on an action surge.
The TWFighter goes up to 3d8+12 (25.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+16 (38.5 average) damage on an action surge.

By level 6, then, the TWFighter catches up a bit thanks to the extra attack making it +3 rather than +2 to dpr, though it remains far behind on Action Surge damage.

At level 8, another ASI comes in. Interestingly, this works largely to the TWFighter's favor in this comparison, because the other two are already maxed out and can't get higher, while the TWFighter can go from +4 to +5 in its strength stat mod (or can take Dual Wielder for the same impact to its damage).

The TWFighter goes up to 3d8+15 (28.5 average) dpr, and 5d8+25 (47.5 average) damage on an action surge.

This brings it up to out-doing the Duelist in damage by almost an entire d8's worth of average damage per round. It's even ahead of the GWMaster for dpr, though action surge shows the GWMaster ahead.

Then the fighter hits level 11 and gains its third attack.

The duelist now does 3d8+21 (34.5) dpr, and 69 on an action surge.
The GWMaster now does 6d6+15, rerolling 1s and 2s, for an average 40 dpr, 80 on an action surge.
The TWFighter is at 4d8+20, for an average 38 dpr, and 76 on an action surge.

The TWFighter for being only one AC behind the duelist is actually doing much better damage, and staying competitive with the GWMaster.



This is actually looking really quite competitive. It even is almost as defensible as the duelist if it takes the Dual Wielder feat.

Without that feat, it has some of its opening rounds take a hit of 1/2 its damage before level 5, and 1/3 its damage after level 5. And its AC is lower. But by level 8, there's no reason why it shouldn't have the Dual Wielder feat, since it'll have maxed out its strength by level 6.

In all cases, it is dependent on having its bonus action dedicated to attacking, making at least the Eldritch Knight a poor choice for a TWFighter (since War Magic will let him mix in cantrips and still get off a melee attack, and the other two have bigger, better single attacks).

But for most fighter builds, up through level 10, it looks like TWFighter is actually superior to Duelist (only one AC behind, often significantly better damage). The Duelist and GWMaster might have Crusher or Slasher or even Athlete, giving more options, but that still leaves the TWFighter quite competitive.

Without feats, just ASIs, it still compares very favorably to duelist for anything other than Eldritch Knight, as long as you don't mind that a portion of the time, your opening round will be at half or 2/3 damage due to having to draw your weapons one at a time.

Oh, probably don't want to do TWFighter with an Echo Knight, either. (I can't think of other archetypes off the top of my head that use the bonus action regularly.)



So I do see where people who say it's fine, or that the real problem is Pole Arm Master, are coming from. In fact, I can almost see argument that TWFighter is too good, especially with the Dual Wielder feat, since it's only an AC behind Duelist and vastly out-damages it. There's the consideration of magic shields, but if you've got a magic shield AND magic armor AND a magic weapon, the TWFighter likely has magic armor and two magic weapons, and will be still coming out ahead. (The GWMaster shines most in this part of the analysis because he "only" needs a magic armor suit and a single magic weapon, a whole magic item fewer!)

I do think it's too close to Duelist, overshadowing it in a lot of ways, and the payment for this being the awkwardness of needing your bonus action for an attack is kind-of edging into Grod's Law territory, balancing something by making it awkward to use.

Further, I don't think Duelist is particularly under-powered. Personally, the trade-off of defense for offense looks about right between Duelist and GWMaster to me (though I'm open to people disagreeing and discussing why). So TWFighter is edging into too strong, if we assume the bonus action attack is not "really" a cost due to build choices. Maybe it's good that you take TWFighter only with certain subclasses?

I still think the awkwardness and the required investment to get it to "feel natural" (i.e., not have weird restrictions you wouldn't naturally expect, like no stat mod to damage and inability to draw both weapons at once) is undesirable. Making it try to carve a middle ground in damage and defense between Duelist and GWMaster also seems like, while a balance they hit if it weren't for PAM, is also too fragile and perhaps not hit quite where it should have been.

Thus, I stand by my suggested change to it: make it an entirely different focus of how to fight, and a perfectly viable backup fighting style even without investment.

I think you’ll find that Fighters make the worst TWF as very few abilities they get scale better with more lower damage attacks. Battlemaster dice scale a little better with more attacks (more chances to crit and using trip attack with a greater percentage of remaining attacks is more effective)

I can agree with tweaking TWF Fighters. But IMO the other classes don’t really need it modified.

[Segev]

I think you’ll find that Fighters make the worst TWF as very few abilities they get scale better with more lower damage attacks. Battlemaster dice scale a little better with more attacks (more chances to crit and using trip attack with a greater percentage of remaining attacks is more effective)

I can agree with tweaking TWF Fighters. But IMO the other classes don’t really need it modified.

I'm too lazy right now to do intense calculations, but it looks like Kane0 has, so I'll look that over. My instinct is to suggest that Barbarians might get the most out of fighting with a weapon in each hand, assuming they're of a subclass that doesn't have something better to do with the bonus action. The rage damage applies to the off-hand hit even without the fighting style. (It seems to me likely that a TWF barbarian is well-served by 3 levels of Champion fighter, because the 19-20 crit range goes nicely with barbarian bonuses to crits, but again, I haven't done intensive math on this.)

It both gladdens me that hunter's mark does synergize nicely with two-weapon fighting, and annoys me that it once again becomes a "must-take" item on the Ranger rather than being a genuine option. The UA version of Favored Foe was probably the right way to go, given just how central the spell seems to be to expected Ranger performance.

This is one area, admittedly, my proposed change actually makes things worse: hunter's mark is one-target, and forcibly splitting targets makes that less useful. Either the spell needs changing, or Rangers need a new spell for TWFighting, or something else needs to be done with the Ranger if it's to be a go-to class for TWFighting. (3.5 just flat-out gave it the feat and let it bypass prereqs.)

[Zalabim]

Without the feat, Light weapons either can be thrown (handaxes), can be used with your choice of strength or dexterity (shortswords/scimitars), or both (daggers). With the feat, one-handed weapons enable you to either get +1 AC compared to a GWF, or use your choice of strength or dexterity, (or both if you use heavy armor anyway).


Let's examine three fighting styles as written in the PHB
We'll assume the standard PC array of stats for each of them.
All three will start with 17 strength, because while I could analyze dex vs. str fighter, the str fighter will start with chainmail for 16 AC, and there's no advantage to dex fighting in terms of AC access (or at least wasn't as far as I went in analyzing it, so I could be wrong, but this makes it simpler).
All three have the same chance to hit. I will assume 100% hit rate because the dpr calculation ratio between them stays the same when they all have the same to-hit chance.
They no longer have the same to-hit chance if the TWF is taking Dual Wielder at level 4 and the others are raising their strength bonus. This throws off the entire rest of your analysis.

The comparison I usually do is something like comparing across a number of rounds of combat. For example, assuming you don't use Second Wind during combat, and your PCs start with a +3 bonus from strength, then for 8 rounds of total combat before a short rest, Action Surge at level 2 means the TWF makes up to 17 attacks for [6.5] 1d6+3 each (110.5), the Duelist makes up to 9 attacks for [9.5] 1d8+5 each (85.5), and the GWF makes up to 9 attacks for [11.33~] 2d6+3 each (102).

At level 5, this is TWF 26 attacks for [7.5] 1d6+4 each (195), Duelist 18 attacks for [10.5] 1d8+6 each (189), GWF 18 attacks for [12.33~] 2d6+4 (222).

At level 6, ASIs cap strength and it's TWF 221, Duelist 207, and GWF 240.

At level 8 they can all take a feat, Dual Wielder vs. Sentinel vs. Polearm Master vs. Great Weapon Master vs. Shield Master vs. Slasher/Piercer/Crusher vs. Heavy Armor Master and so on.

At level 11, TWF makes 35 attacks for [9.5] 1d8+5 (332.5) with Dual Wielder, Duelist makes 27 attacks [11.5] 1d8+7 (310.5) with nothing, and GWF makes 27 attacks [13.33~] 2d6+5 (360) with also nothing. That's alright if the bonus action never matters and dual wielder was given for free.

All assuming the fighter subclass has no features that favor one style or the other, not considering differences in critical hit damage (which leans towards GWF), the TWF never uses second wind mid-battle and does have their weapons ready at the start of battle. In fact, tactical/gamist play means that all three kinds of warrior can start with throwable weapons handy, but only the TWF suffers if they have to actually throw them. I.E. GWF starts with two handaxes. If enemy is not in melee range, throw, TWF throw, draw, throw. Next round, can draw greatsword and fight normally. If enemy is in melee range, drop/throw handaxes on approach, draw greatsword and fight normally. Duelist can do similar with javelins.

[Segev]

They no longer have the same to-hit chance if the TWF is taking Dual Wielder at level 4 and the others are raising their strength bonus. This throws off the entire rest of your analysis.

Ah, good point. And I'm pretty sure the analysis breaks down in such a way that a shift of hitting on a 15 vs a 16 is not the same impact on damage as hitting on a 10 vs and 11. (I could be wrong, though; it's late and I am too lazy to do the statistics right now.)

[Kane0]

Sorry for the delay lads, Segev's numbers plugged in

https://i.imgur.com/DPUkVBj.jpg


I'll leave the value judgement based on the jump in damage shared between multiple targets to others, but two things concern me:
- That's a lot of attack rolls, which some tables may dislike
- There is a massive variance due to per-hit damage bonuses (Rage, Hunter's Mark, IDS, etc)

[Segev]

Sorry for the delay lads, Segev's numbers plugged in

https://i.imgur.com/DPUkVBj.jpg


I'll leave the value judgement based on the jump in damage shared between multiple targets to others, but two things concern me:
- That's a lot of attack rolls, which some tables may dislike
- There is a massive variance due to per-hit damage bonuses (Rage, Hunter's Mark, IDS, etc)

A suggestion: for when it's split between two targets, halve the listed damage and note "to two separate targets?" It might make quick-studying easier.

Thanks for the hard work; that is an impressive array that I will need to study a bit for the various classes and builds.

[Kane0]

In a sense damage is damage but yes a fair rule of thumb would be half that number split between two targets.

Oh it wasnt explicily mentioned but when a box says ‘X + Y attacks’ that is referring to action and bonus action respectively.

Edit: oh and of course I didn’t include subclasses, racial feats, etc. that would probably be more detrimental than helpful in this case.

[Zhorn]

While I like the overall direction you've proposed with this, Segev, I think you've got just a bit to complicated in you execution in search of a more unique identity for the fighting style.
Damage is damage, but the requirement of the hits to be against different targets just carries too much of its own issues rather than just fixing the core problem of TWF falling behind.

Rather than pushing for the new identity, why not just lean into what it already has?

The comparison being comparing Firebolt to Eldritch Blast. Both are the same number of d10's, but Eldritch Blast (even without Invocations) is favoured for the reliability to deal some in a round compared to Firebolt's all-or-nothing of a single big hit.

Applying the same principle to GWF vs TWF, how many hits will TWF need to close the gap to GWF? Considering class rider effects that also get added on top, I don't think the number needs to be that many overall.

Like with the discussions on the Beast Barbarian a short while back on mixing TWF+claws compared against PAM+GWM, get just 1 more hit in goes a long way into closing the gap in damage, and with the more attacks being made, the higher the likelihood of getting some of them to hit increases, giving more hits a higher value than big hits on high AC targets, while big hits retain greater value on low AC targets.

As I've said earlier in this thread, you suggestion to move TWF's attack off the Bonus Action I think is the biggest step into fixing this, as that alone allows other classes with Bonus Actions to use TWF without ignoring their own class features. Examples; War Priests and Berserker Barbarians already getting low level Bonus Action attacks in their subclasses, and having decent riders that add to each weapon attack in forms of Divine Strikes and Rage Damage, both prime candidates for TWF if they can get past the Bonus Action conflict.

[Tanarii]

This still just sounds like, "TWF > GWM," even from those arguing that it keeps up or exceeds. This does not address the problem that you'll always go for whichever does more damage, because in the end that's all they do. Using the other one is foolish, making it a trap option.
This is true if comparing Str vs Str. Generally speaking that means a Fighter specifically, which is where most complaints come about.

If comparing Str vs Dex, it's not an even playing field. Because those stats affect different things, not just damage. There's no particular reason Dex-based character should be boosted up to Str-based damage (or AC for that matter). They need to be compared to the other options within Dex builds. For example, I'd expect them to straight out-damage an archer build for rangers and fighters because it requires melee range (or for archery and Magic to unfeasible to use in melee range), or significantly boost rogue damage because that bonus action can be used for defense. But in those cases to still lag behind in AC and damage, because of the stealth and initiative and other ability checks value for Dex, which isn't as extreme as some folks like to make out, but does exist to a degree.

But what shouldn't be happening is any argument that TWF Dexadins or Dexbarians or Dexighters need twf fixed, in comparison to Str 2Handers. Even the argument that TWF should be heavily tweaked because it doesn't work very well for Str fighters is marginal. They aren't the core intended audience, so to speak. For them, if they are seriously behind the damage curve as a Str TWFer and otherwise equal, you just apply the tweaks directly to Dual Wielder, since that feat is primarily there to support their fighting style, not Dex TWFers.

[Theodoxus]

It seems to me, these kinds of threads always miss the most important aspect before even starting: What is the purpose of the various fighting styles?

If you're not coming in, defining what you think the fighting styles should be, then you're going to get a bazillion replies with everyone else's assumption of what you're meaning.

Case in point, to me, TWF, IMO, should be about defense. Yeah, an off-hand dagger shouldn't give as much protection as a shield. But since we also don't have Shield Bash as a thing outside of a specific feat, it should also do some damage. But a lot of people here seem to think that each fighting style should provide close to the same amount of damage (regardless of attack bonuses), else why not just pick the biggest weapon that does the most damage and ignore everything else?

Baseline PHB the various style provide different benefits, each having a place in combat; not all useful at the same time. TWF specifically allows for more attacks. Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket with a massive maul or greatsword attack, it gives you more chances at smaller hits. If Fighting Styles were a little more forgiving, you could have both GWM and TWF, and be able to switch between the two depending if you're facing a meatbag (GWM) or a horde of goblins (TWF). Archery allows you to stay safely out of melee range (which is pushed in the Fighter class as giving you light armor and no shield if you pick Longbow as your weapon of choice. Sure, you can be like the ubercool Gondorian archers in their plate armor, but that takes investiture to go that route.

However, FS's don't work that way (outside of multi-classing, going deep into Champion, or now with feat investiture thanks to Tasha's). So the question remains: What do YOU see the different fighting styles and the feat support for them, doing for combat? WotC very obviously, doesn't think they should be close to the same output. But Segev appears to think they should.

I'd rather go in the direction of making each fighting style uniquely different, rather than trying to drag them towards homogeny in output. In that respect, TWF doesn't need a damage boost, it needs a unique mechanic. Something like Defensive Duelist as baseline. Talk about a feat that shouldn't exist!

[Tanarii]

Baseline PHB the various style provide different benefits, each having a place in combat; not all useful at the same time. TWF specifically allows for more attacks. Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket with a massive maul or greatsword attack, it gives you more chances at smaller hits.
This same point often gets ignores in Eldritch Blast vs Firebolt debates. Some people value average damage, others an all or nothering single chance to do high damage.

Of course, that's distorted by Agonizing Blast and Hex, which are so commonly assumed in discussions of EB. Just as various factors distort TWF debates, such as Str-based 3 attack fighters.

[Dienekes]

It seems to me, these kinds of threads always miss the most important aspect before even starting: What is the purpose of the various fighting styles?

If you're not coming in, defining what you think the fighting styles should be, then you're going to get a bazillion replies with everyone else's assumption of what you're meaning.

Case in point, to me, TWF, IMO, should be about defense. Yeah, an off-hand dagger shouldn't give as much protection as a shield. But since we also don't have Shield Bash as a thing outside of a specific feat, it should also do some damage. But a lot of people here seem to think that each fighting style should provide close to the same amount of damage (regardless of attack bonuses), else why not just pick the biggest weapon that does the most damage and ignore everything else?

Baseline PHB the various style provide different benefits, each having a place in combat; not all useful at the same time. TWF specifically allows for more attacks. Instead of putting all your eggs in one basket with a massive maul or greatsword attack, it gives you more chances at smaller hits. If Fighting Styles were a little more forgiving, you could have both GWM and TWF, and be able to switch between the two depending if you're facing a meatbag (GWM) or a horde of goblins (TWF). Archery allows you to stay safely out of melee range (which is pushed in the Fighter class as giving you light armor and no shield if you pick Longbow as your weapon of choice. Sure, you can be like the ubercool Gondorian archers in their plate armor, but that takes investiture to go that route.

However, FS's don't work that way (outside of multi-classing, going deep into Champion, or now with feat investiture thanks to Tasha's). So the question remains: What do YOU see the different fighting styles and the feat support for them, doing for combat? WotC very obviously, doesn't think they should be close to the same output. But Segev appears to think they should.

I'd rather go in the direction of making each fighting style uniquely different, rather than trying to drag them towards homogeny in output. In that respect, TWF doesn't need a damage boost, it needs a unique mechanic. Something like Defensive Duelist as baseline. Talk about a feat that shouldn't exist!

This was addressed a little bit. But mostly with the understanding that there's not many levers to fiddle with when it comes to things to do in the base game of 5e melee combat. Just looking at the Fighting Style, having a + modifier to damage in one attack is just damage. Rerolling 1s and 2s is just damage. Getting a +2 to damage is very obviously just damage. Getting +2 to your attack is pretty much just damage though Segev and I disagree on that.

The issue of providing new cool mechanics as a baseline was that the game was purposefully designed around martial combat not having cool new mechanics as a baseline in the basic version of the game. Remember, Feats were initially presented as a Variant Rule. Picking a martial character in 5e meant that you were supposed to only be thinking about where to stand and who to whack. With additional details added in classes, most of the ones with really unique features involved having magic stapled on top to provided the adequate depth of play. With the Battlemaster Fighter being the one bone thrown to those who wanted something more.

Now, I personally think this was a dumb decision, Fighting Styles at the very least should have been about adding more options in play. The 5e sales figures certainly disagree with that so I doubt that basic idea of martial over simplicity will change any time soon.

Should there have been a Parry mechanic in the game as a base feature a la Defensive Duelist? I'd personally find that more interesting. But it goes against what the design of 5e was supposed to be.

So this brings about the question of is it worth tinkering with the system to fit it into a way you like. Knowing that what you're tinkering with goes directly against the design goals of the game. Or is it better to find a system more fitting what you want out of it? Because there are a lot of games that do martial combat better than 5e. That's not exactly a high bar to jump for.

[Frogreaver]

While I like the overall direction you've proposed with this, Segev, I think you've got just a bit to complicated in you execution in search of a more unique identity for the fighting style.
Damage is damage, but the requirement of the hits to be against different targets just carries too much of its own issues rather than just fixing the core problem of TWF falling behind.

100% agree


As I've said earlier in this thread, you suggestion to move TWF's attack off the Bonus Action I think is the biggest step into fixing this, as that alone allows other classes with Bonus Actions to use TWF without ignoring their own class features. Examples; War Priests and Berserker Barbarians already getting low level Bonus Action attacks in their subclasses, and having decent riders that add to each weapon attack in forms of Divine Strikes and Rage Damage, both prime candidates for TWF if they can get past the Bonus Action conflict.

That "fix" ends up breaking balance for many other builds:
Rangers. TWF becomes the best melee build for them.
Monks gain an extra attack - Free TWF attack along with Martial Arts/Flurry of blows bonus action attack.

The "fix" doesn't really help TWF Fighters compete in damage with GWF's in tier 3 and 4.

The "fix" doesn't solve the feats problem in feat based game pushing other styles ahead.

The "fix" unbalances more things in a featless game than it balances.

If you want a fix that doesn't interfere with certain class features then spell out that you can use TWF and other specified bonus actions in the same round. For example, while TWF you can use Second Wind, Samauri's Fighting Spirit, Beserker's Frenzy, etc. This allows for fine tuning the balance. Yes - it's against the design of 5e, but 5e's design parameters restricts an actual solution to the problem without a full fledged rewrite of nearly the entire game.


This same point often gets ignores in Eldritch Blast vs Firebolt debates. Some people value average damage, others an all or nothering single chance to do high damage.

Of course, that's distorted by Agonizing Blast and Hex, which are so commonly assumed in discussions of EB. Just as various factors distort TWF debates, such as Str-based 3 attack fighters.

Well, even in the comparison without invocations or Hex or damage types EB is still better than firebolt. There is an added efficiency due to less overkill damage being dealt by the version that does 1d10 with 4 attacks vs 4d10 with 1 attack - even though the average DPR is exactly the same. What this means is that over the course of an adventure EB doing 4 1d10 attacks will cause more damage to monster hp than firebolt doing 1 4d10 attack.

[Theodoxus]

Well, even in the comparison without invocations or Hex or damage types EB is still better than firebolt. There is an added efficiency due to less overkill damage being dealt by the version that does 1d10 with 4 attacks vs 4d10 with 1 attack - even though the average DPR is exactly the same. What this means is that over the course of an adventure EB doing 4 1d10 attacks will cause more damage to monster hp than firebolt doing 1 4d10 attack.

Yes, but depending on the game, and very much, the actual fight, one will be better than the other.

I'd much rather have fire bolt if I'm dealing with giant zombies. Against an abysmal AC, 4d10 is going to hit more often than 1d10x4. Just law of averages means you're going to roll a 1 at some point. Rolling more often is going to raise that chance.

Against 5 HP goblins, yeah, give me that 1d10x4; they'll have a much higher AC, so I'll hit less often, but when I do hit, I'll probably (and definitely, if I have AB) kill one on a hit. The extra 17ish points of damage from a fire bolt hit does nothing.

Fortunately, while warlocks don't get fire bolt natively (outside of Tomelocks, as an option) they do get chill touch, which accomplishes pretty much the same thing - so they can choose the better spell depending on the circumstances (or Toll the Dead if they want a save instead of an attack) - or, as I do with my tomelocks, grab Sacred Flame (Dex), Toll the Dead (Wis), Frostbite (Con) and EB/CT (AC) to cover all the bases.

Which of course, harkens back to my original point. The different styles of combat (TWF, THF, S&B, Archery) should all do different things, not try to become homogenized to deal the same amount of damage - or really even close to the same.

If anything, Archery and THF should be comparable. Generally heavy weapons dealing a lot of single target damage. Archery lets you do it at a distance, so that level of safety should be taken into account (and I think it has, with a d10 Heavy Xbow max damage vs 2d6 for a greatsword).

TWF and S&B should likewise be comparable, with TWF granting slightly more offense in lieu of slightly less defense. And for the most part, they do - I think they should move a little further apart from each other (and I think Dueling specifically moves them closer together).

Throwing is much more contentious - I don't see it having a place in this particular game (and don't give me the Starship Troopers quote - not only was it silly there, it's far sillier in this game where everyone is armed to the gills and magic is a thing).

[Frogreaver]

Yes, but depending on the game, and very much, the actual fight, one will be better than the other.

In terms of how much hp damage they deal and apply that's not true. A statement can be made about volatility and when it is good or bad and that would apply here. A statement could be made about a given mid fight scenario and which is better. But if we are talking campaign level then EB is simply better.


I'd much rather have fire bolt if I'm dealing with giant zombies. Against an abysmal AC, 4d10 is going to hit more often than 1d10x4. Just law of averages means you're going to roll a 1 at some point. Rolling more often is going to raise that chance.

1. They will hit with the same frequency
2. The law of averages would dictate that on average both builds would kill a single enemy of that type in the same number of rounds. *Provided the enemy doesn't have too low of hp.


Against 5 HP goblins, yeah, give me that 1d10x4; they'll have a much higher AC, so I'll hit less often, but when I do hit, I'll probably (and definitely, if I have AB) kill one on a hit. The extra 17ish points of damage from a fire bolt hit does nothing.

It's not just against 5 hp goblins. The overkill effect occurs in any multi-enemy fight where you deal a killing blow. Now some of those encounters the effect will have no impact, but others it's the difference in getting to make an attack against another enemy because you still have more attacks remaining and the fewer attack higher damage build doesn't.

[Kane0]

Thinking over Segev's concept, I think it's overtuned.
You're trading the [stat to damage] and the [bonus action] restrictions for the [split attacks] one, but you're also adding an attack for every attack you get which is unusual and scales wonky based on class choice.

So if we want to keep going in this direction I think it needs to be reigned in a bit, retaining some limiting factors on action economy and raw damage output without investment into the style. Since the feat space wasn't being used we can move some of the 'power budget' there.

Perhaps something like:
Base Rule: When you take the attack action when wielding two light weapons you get one extra attack against another target
Style: Can use one-handed weapons
Feat: With TWF gain +1 AC, can attack the same target and can attack with both weapons when making opp attacks

Personally I'd scrap the +1 AC but people seem to be invested in the 'TWF is sorta defensive' concept.

Edit: Even this might be too strong, since you're basically still doubling your attacks before level 5 for free. I'm still inclined to keep the BA cost by default and remove it with the feat (not the style, happens too soon and only benefits 2 classes).

[Theodoxus]

Ok, so if I were to build TWF as it is generally portrayed, I'd go:

Base: Whenever you're wielding two light weapons, you gain a bonus to AC equal to 1/3 your proficiency bonus (round up)
FS: You can wield one-handed weapons without penalty. You can also forgo the AC bonus granted by TWF until the start of your next round, and add an extra attack with your off-hand weapon.
Feat: You can make a bonus attack with your off-hand weapon when two-weapon fighting. This does not reduce the AC provided by TWF in and of itself, and you don't add the damage bonus from your attribute modifier.

This gives rangers a 3rd attack - kind of a micro "reckless" by lowering their AC but granting an attack that doesn't eat their bonus action. Fighters would have 5 (or 10 with Action Surge). Anyone else that picked Fighting Initiate would have 2, 3 (or 4 as a monk) attacks, depending.

The feat grants them a 4th attack, but uses their bonus action to do so - but in the spirit of bonus actions, is so quick it doesn't force the loss of their AC (though if they used the extra attack from the FS, the AC would be lowered).

All in all, you're not getting any more AC than using a shield (and that doesn't kick in until 9th level). You sacrifice that AC to make an extra attack, and the feat adds the bonus action back.

This I feel captures what I'd want from TWF without making it a 'must have' nor overshadowing either the defensive (a shield and the Defense FS are better) or offensive (GWM is still king with feat support) styles.

ETA: Oh, and I'd change Defensive Duelist to work more the Deflect Arrows, roll a die (probably weapon die) and maybe add class level? to reduce damage by that amount as a reaction. If that's too useful, not sure as it does step on Goliath toes, maybe limit it to x number/long rest? (PB, 3 (like Lucky)? something).

[KyleG]

Part of the issue remains people's opinion on what twf is. For me there are three standout images.
1. The dual weilding swordsman, think leo from tmnt. Light weapons but used offensively.
2. The swashbuckler. With cutlass and dagger in hand. In this case the offhand is more defensive or perhaps opportunistic.
3. escrima sticks or even sai which ive always felt (probably wrongly) is all about numerous quick assaults to overwhelm the enemy.

What doesn't spring to mind is someone wielding two big longswords which is what the current wording seems set on achieving.

I don't have any fresh answers but im curious if there are other twf tactics, and if so that would suggest that we are all on a different page of this book.

[Theodoxus]

Part of the issue remains people's opinion on what twf is. For me there are three standout images.

What doesn't spring to mind is someone wielding two big longswords which is what the current wording seems set on achieving..

Blademaster from the old Dark Ages of Camelot MMORPG did exactly this. It even had a mystical 3rd blade it could summon; think spiritual weapon that floated near the character and attacked on its own.

Another classic example is the Barbarian from Diablo II, dual-wielding greatswords. That's a bit more extreme, but I'm sure it impacts what people are wanting out of TWF.

[KyleG]

I get that some of those are out there especially in this age of anime. But they don't invoke that same fantasy feel to me. It would be interesting to see a poll on people's vision of this skill.

[Kane0]

Dwarves with paired battleaxe and warhammer spring to mind, especially since neither are rarely depicted accurately in D&D when it comes to the proportions of the axe/hammer head.

Edit: larger humanoids like orcs with their rather silly double axe weapon i recall too.

I definitely lean on the offensive rather than defensive side.

[xyianth]

Everyone is going to lean differently depending on whether they are inspired by some fantasy story (where more often than not TWFing is an offensive option) or by real-world history. (where it is nearly always defensive in nature)

Maybe the answer then is to split both bents into separate ways to invest into TWF. Right now, the TWF style is purely offensive in nature. The Dual Wielder feat however, is almost purely defensive in nature. What if we added a new TWF fighting style that was also defensive and a new feat that was mostly offensive? Then you could invest in one direction or the other, (or both I guess) depending on what you as a player are trying to achieve by TWFing.

If this is the route here is my baseline suggestion:

base TWF rules: (no fighting style, no feats)

light weapon required in offhand
bonus action attack
draw both weapons
two weapon fighting style: (offensive fs)

add ability mod to damage
when taking the attack action you can make an additional off-hand attack against a different creature for each main-hand attack you make
parrying stance fighting style: (defensive fs)

as a bonus action, make an attack roll with your off-hand weapon, you can choose to use this roll result as your AC until the start of your next turn
dual weapon wielder feat: (offensive feat)

remove light weapon restriction
when making an opportunity attack with your main-hand weapon, you can also make an off-hand attack against the same target
you can make one additional off-hand attack whenever you take the attack action
sudden riposte feat: (defensive feat)

whenever a melee attack misses you, you can use your reaction to parry and riposte the attack. when you do, the creature you parried provokes opportunity attacks from your allies. you can make an opportunity attack as part of this reaction.
you have advantage on attack rolls made as a bonus action using your off-hand
I'll place the same disclaimer I did in the other thread: I know from personal experience that my homebrew tends to start out overtuned, this is probably no exception. This is just meant to foster ideas. I'm also sure the names and wording could be improved.

The idea here is to allow a character to specialize in TWF however they envision that style.