Two-weapon fighting houserule [dead and buried]

[Arkhios]

Okay, this is a dead-beaten horse, and I feel already sorry for the poor sod, BUT, I just came up with an idea I just had to ask what people would think about it:

When wielding a different one-handed light (melee) weapon in both hands, and take the Attack Action, you can choose to make the first attack roll with Advantage one additional time before determining if the attack hits. If both rolls would hit the target, you add the weapon damage rolls together from both weapons for the hit. If the other roll is a critical hit, multiply the dice for both weapons.

(WIP: note, that I intentionally dropped the reliance for bonus action, which I find to be the biggest gripe of Two-Weapon Fighting, or at least bigger than being able to attack only one additional time per turn with your secondary weapon).

EDIT: Apparently this is worse than current rule, so I guess I'll just forget this. Let us all have "fun" with the inane bonus action as before. (grumble grumble opinions opinions)

[InvisibleBison]

This would allow a TWF rogue to essentially always get sneak attack

For characters who intend to wield light weapons anyway, this is a better version of Extra Attack, available at first level to any class.

Under this rule you can't TWF with a rapier and dagger, which seems like a pretty odd thing to exclude.

On the whole, I'm not a fan.

[Arkhios]

This would allow a TWF rogue to essentially always get sneak attack

For characters who intend to wield light weapons anyway, this is a better version of Extra Attack, available at first level to any class.

Under this rule you can't TWF with a rapier and dagger, which seems like a pretty odd thing to exclude.

On the whole, I'm not a fan.

Fair points regarding sneak attack and extra attack, and enough to put this back on the drawing board. Perhaps the wording needs to change to differentiate it from being Advantage, per sé.

Do note, that you can't dual wield rapier and dagger even with the normal rules, unless you have the Dual Wielder feat, so I didn't exclude anything that wasn't excluded already. Also, this would still remain the general rule, and fighting style and feats would continue to affect it as before. My intent was not to merge the fighting style, the Dual Wielder feat, and/or the general rule, because that would be broken as well in a certain way.

[Lunali]

This would allow a TWF rogue to essentially always get sneak attack

This doesn't make it any more likely that they'll get sneak attack than before. It just no longer costs a bonus action for the second attack and now they have an increased chance to crit with their sneak attack.

[Arkhios]

This doesn't make it any more likely that they'll get sneak attack than before. It just no longer costs a bonus action for the second attack and now they have an increased chance to crit with their sneak attack.

To be fair, it kinda does make it more likely. Giving everyone that easy a way to get Advantage is a bit too much, and warrants to be looked upon again (and I did, check the OP)

[Boci]

This doesn't make it any more likely that they'll get sneak attack than before. It just no longer costs a bonus action for the second attack and now they have an increased chance to crit with their sneak attack.

It does because they get advantage on the attacks. Its basically Swashbuckler+ ability, since now they can also get sneak attack when fighting two adjacent enemies alone. Now that might not be a bad thing balance wise, but it certainly does mean Sneak Attack should likely become "Once per turn, a rogue may add xd6 to the damage roll of a weapon with the finesse or ranged property".

[da newt]

IMO if a PC chooses to wield a light weapon in both hands (in lieu of a shield or 2 handed weapon) when they take the attack action with their primary hand, they should be able to make ONE additional offhand attack too (no ability modifier damage added) with no opportunity cost. Then the FS and FEAT can still be applied to improve 2WF.

Sure it gives Rogues a 2nd chance to hit which helps them quite a bit, but a chance to add +1d6 dam per turn is not going to make martials as powerful as full casters or anything.

Your hands are full, you need 2x magic weapons, there if a FS and FEAT cost if you want to be good at it, it's still worse than staff & shield w/ PAM and dueling FS or sword and board w/ DEF FS and HAM or XXXXX ...

[Damon_Tor]

I kind of went the opposite route at my table:
1. When wielding two light weapons, whenever you attack with one you may attack with the other. Both attacks are made with disadvantage. This replaces the current rules for two-weapon fighting and light weapons. (There is no more bonus action attack with an offhand weapon. Each attack made as a part of any action or reaction can benefit from this ability. Each attack recovers the normal damage from the relevant ability score.)
2. The two-weapon fighting style now removes disadvantage from one of your two attacks (you choose which)
3. The dual wielder feat no longer provides a +1 bonus to AC. Instead it permits you to feint with one weapon to increase the damage of the other: you can take a -5 penalty to the attack roll of one of your weapons to gain a +10 bonus to damage with the other. It still allows you to dual-wield non-light weapons.

I've been using these rules for years and they meet my goals perfectly. The result of these changes is that two-weapon fighting is the premier method for fight low AC opponents, while heavy weapons are preferable to fighting opponents is heavy armor. Both forms are comparable at mid AC.

I always get pushback on these houserules on this forum: the penalty of disadvantage isn't worth the added damage from the ability mod or the extra attacks. But I've done the math (and broken it down in other threads) and they're objectively incorrect, especially at higher tiers of play. The only class that really doesn't benefit from these changes is the rogue (though I've added a Houseruled cunning action attack that replicates the old two-weapon fighting system for them to compensate)

[Arkhios]

Your hands are full, you need 2x magic weapons, there if a FS and FEAT cost if you want to be good at it, it's still worse than staff & shield w/ PAM and dueling FS or sword and board w/ DEF FS and HAM or XXXXX ...

...I can't help but think this seems like some sort of incomprehensible ranting code to someone not familiar with all the acronyms. Might want to (learn to) speak plainly, for not everyone understands what the heck was all that about! :smallbiggrin:

Aaaanyway, since you brought it up, staff&shield with Polearm Master shouldn't work (I know, RAW it kind of does, but to be honest, in my honest opinion it should not). I wish they fix that in the next iteration of PHB.

[Kane0]

Its a great way of securing hits each turn before Extra Attack, with no cost other than both hands being full. The bonus damage if both rolls hit is a bonus.
It still doesnt help with drawing two weapons at a time.
There still isnt anything to seriously compete with PAM/GWM.

What I do is:
- Stock TWF rule as per the PHB, except you can TWF with unarmed/natural attacks too
- The fighting style allows non-light weapons instead of stat to the offhand attack
- Weapons with the Thrown property can be drawn freely like ammunition (two birds with one stone for both TWF and throwing characters)
- The Dual Wielder feat is completely reworked

Dual Wielder:
- Stat to damage for the offhand attack
- Attack with both weapons when making opportunity attacks
- Can TWF as part of attack action instead of bomus action (but you cant then also use your bonus action for a weapon attack that turn)
- Your melee attacks deny enemies advantage on their melee attacks against you until the start of your next turn

[da newt]

Sorry, acronyms can be a mess without context (this is nothing - join the military of you really want to immerse yourself in acronym/jargon purgatory).

"IMO (In My Opinion) if a PC (Player Character) chooses to wield a light weapon in both hands (in lieu of a shield or 2 handed weapon) when they take the attack action with their primary hand, they should be able to make ONE additional offhand attack too (no ability modifier damage added) with no opportunity cost. Then the FS (Fighting Style) and FEAT can still be applied to improve 2WF (2 Weapon Fighting).

Sure it gives Rogues a 2nd chance to hit which helps them quite a bit, but a chance to add +1d6 damage per turn is not going to make martials as powerful as full casters or anything.

Your hands are full, you need 2x (twice as many) magic weapons, there is a FS (Fighting Style) and FEAT cost if you want to be good at it, it's still worse than staff & shield w/ PAM (Pole Arm Master) and dueling FS (Fighting Style) or sword and board (sword and shield) w/ DEF (Defensive) FS (Fighting Style) and HAM (Heavy Armor Master) or XXXXX (what ever) ..."

[Witty Username]

Oh hey, killing time because my tooth broke and need to take the day off work to visit the dentist later.

This looks similar to how Five Torches Deep does Two-weapon fighting, they give advantage to the damage roll rather than the attack. This seems like this is mostly a better version of that, as damage is more likely, I think resolving this as two attacks isn't all that different though, it mostly makes crits more consistent as you crit with one you get the extra damage on the second attack if it hits.

I don't see any glaring issues for play, TWF is pretty in line for things without the fighting style, and with a fighting style you should be better than guys without one without the Bonus Action tax, with it is just kinda clunky.

I have been trying it out for rogue recently (BG 3 is fun, BTW) do to the recommendations from people to make sneak attack more consistent with the second weapon, and it just feels gross, no cunning action, damage is kinda bad unless you need that second try and you need to get in there to even try. It not costing a bonus action would make this so much smoother.

Outside of that, it still hits weird for a lot of classes, since bonus actions and such aren't exactly difficult to come by.

[LibraryOgre]

A different way to write it would be

"When TWF, if your first attack roll results in a failure, you may make a second attack roll, but must take the second result."

It's a little different than a halfling's Lucky (which is most checks, but only on a 1), but it also is explicitly not advantage.

(My personal preference is "Roll damage for both weapons and take the better of them", but that is me).

[PhoenixPhyre]

One big downside for this is that you can't split your attacks between targets. So if I kill the thing on the first attack, or if I have Mobile and want to attack to get the free disengage, I've blown all my attacks and TWF does nothing for me

I'm in the boat of just "it doesn't take your bonus action, but is limited to 1 per Attack action and you have to use both weapons to use all the attacks."

[Boci]

(My personal preference is "Roll damage for both weapons and take the better of them", but that is me).

Is that any good though? If you're duel wielding, its probably a 1d6 weapon. Isn't rolling twice and picking the best kinda weak?

[DarknessEternal]

This is worse than existing TWF.

[Arkhios]

This is worse than existing TWF.

Noted (and ouch, that was harsh ...but fair).

[OldTrees1]

If you want to remove the bonus action:

When wielding a different one-handed light (melee) weapon in both hands, and take the Attack Action, if you hit include the weapon damage dice from each weapon.

Dual wielding with daggers/shortswords? You are now attacking with a two-handed 2d4/2d6 light finesse weapon.

Downsides:

2 shortswords look like a greatsword. It might not feel like "death by a hundred cuts" anymore.
The Two-Weapon Fighting Fighting Style no longer applies and would be retooled.
Things get messy with magic weapons. 2 +1 Shortswords are marginally better than a +1 Greatsword but worse than a +2 Greatsword. However 2 Flaming (+1d6 fire) Shortswords are better than a Flaming Greatsword.
Rogues will often opt for the old rules since they prioritize hitting once over what they hit with.

[Psyren]

EDIT: Apparently this is worse than current rule, so I guess I'll just forget this. Let us all have "fun" with the inane bonus action as before. (grumble grumble opinions opinions)

Won't the upcoming Nick property allow TWF builds to free up their bonus action?