Two-Weapon Fighting

[Trillium]

Could anyone please explain, how two-weapon fighting works in D&D Next? Also, there's much unclear with weapon drawing in combat.

While I understand the basic "you need two light weapons, yadda-yadda-yadda, or one light with the feat", some questions still arise:

1) My barbarian has a shortsword (light) in one hand, and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other. Sure, I can make two melee attacks. Can I slash in melee with the sword and throw the axe?
2) My barbarian has a hand axe (light, thrown) in each hand - can I throw both on the same turn, without Thrown-Weapon Master feat?
3) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a hand axe (light, thrown) in one hand. Can I slash with one attack and throw with the second?
4) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a hand axe (light, thrown) in one hand. Can I throw the axe with 1st attack, draw another axe as a part of attack action, and slash with the second attack?
4a) If yes, can I throw it with second attack instead?
5) I have a longsword (non-light) in one hand and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other hand, with no dual-wield feat. Can I attack with longsword on turn 1 and with the axe on turn 2 instead?
6) Say, I gain 2nd attack. I have a longsword (non-light) in one hand and a hand axe (light, thrown) in the other hand, with no dual-wield feat. Can use one attack to his with sword, and another with axe?
6a) If yes, can I throw the axe instead?
7) Say, my bard wield two hand crossbows (light) - can I shoot them both the same turn?
8) My bard wields a hand crossbow (light) and a dagger (light, thrown). Can I shoot the crossbow and stab with dagger the same turn?
8a) If yes, can I throw the dagger instead?
9) What penalty would you impose for trying to throw a non-thrown weapon (like greatsword)? I thought of no proficiency bonus and disadvantage, but that seems kinda weak.

[TheLoneCleric]

I'd have to sit down later and re-read the feat, but I gather with out it you are limited to one weapon per turn whatever hand you wield it in. I don't think Next worries about handiness.

[Joe the Rat]

Yeah, unless you are using TWF for an extra attack, it doesn't matter what you have. You can be swinging two battle-axes, so long as you only use one per attack action. I don't think there's any limit to switching between attack 'ranges' between extra attacks.

On the others: I don't have the packet on hand, but if the feats don't explicitly provide mixed-range or double-toss, or is explicitly stated as being for melee attacks, I'd be inclined to allow shoot-n-stab or stab-n-toss for 'normal' two-weapon fighting.

[TheLoneCleric]

Ya. That's my take on it. Two daggers is fine to stab/toss.

A crossbow would take switching your attack on the next action to account for aiming and firing.

[Lokiare]

I personally wish they would simplify it by saying you can make any number of attacks per round with any weapons you have held with disadvantage if you are not wielding two light weapons with a cumulative -2 to the attack roll for every attack made to all the attacks.

[momogila]

I personally wish they would simplify it by saying you can make any number of attacks per round with any weapons you have held with disadvantage if you are not wielding two light weapons with a cumulative -2 to the attack roll for every attack made to all the attacks.

thanks for info

[Person_Man]

I really hope that meaningful Two-Weapon Fighting options don't get segregated into a Ranger Archetype. It severely limits their design options, and doesn't make much sense from a fluff perspective. (Why can't a Fighter or a Rogue use Two-Weapon Fighting tricks?)

[Joe the Rat]

I really hope that meaningful Two-Weapon Fighting options don't get segregated into a Ranger Archetype. It severely limits their design options, and doesn't make much sense from a fluff perspective. (Why can't a Fighter or a Rogue use Two-Weapon Fighting tricks?)

It's pretty much fair game for anyone. two light weapons, no strength bonus on your off hand, anyone can go with it.

As a class feature, two-weapon "fighting style" is available for Rangers and Fighters. Really, all this style does is let you apply your strength/dex damage bonus to both weapons. It's doable without. The cool kid tricks (AC bonus, medium-and-light weapon fighting) is available via Feat.

[Warskull]

Normally: You may only dual wield with two light weapons. Whenever you attack you gain an extra attack from the second weapon. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage from the second weapon. Anyone can do this. Your wizard can dual wield darts.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style: You may now add your ability modifier to the second weapon. This is available to ranger, paladin, and fighter.

Dual Wielder fear: Now only one weapon needs to be light. You gain +1AC when using two weapons. Anyone can take this and it also gives you martial proficiency for light weapons.

Two-weapon fighting does not care how you attack. You can throw an axe with one hand and melee with the other, throw with both hands, melee with both, or fire two hand crossbows in an attack.

[cfalcon]

So if a rogue wants to dual wield he just gets that sort of as extra damage, and if he takes the feat he gets to wield a bigger weapon in the main hand and gets +1 AC.

Are there reasons such as sneak attack to stack on to each attack?

Are real world weapons styles such as "a case of rapiers" (two one-handed weapons in 3.X lingo) supported at all?

Is there an emphasis on weapon specific feats and tricks? Aka, can you model Musashi Miyamoto or if you were to try would you have trivially taken a terrible path?


When I googled this there was some statement about a recentish rules change giving a rogue a reason to have a rapier in one hand and no weapon in another. Is there a benefit to having an open hand, versus having a shield or a weapon?


And partially unrelated, are bucklers still strapped to the arm like in previous versions, or are they like historical bucklers and grasped in the fist?

[Joe the Rat]

And partially unrelated, are bucklers still strapped to the arm like in previous versions, or are they like historical bucklers and grasped in the fist?

The playtest material is rather vague on shields altogether, but if I were to hazard a guess, it's buckled on to keep your hand free. That doesn't mean you can't decide your game has held bucklers.

What I want to know is if they decide to class buckler as a light weapon for shield masters, for when you absolutely, positively have to punch someone in the face while stabbing them.

[1of3]

So if a rogue wants to dual wield he just gets that sort of as extra damage, and if he takes the feat he gets to wield a bigger weapon in the main hand and gets +1 AC.

Yes. Although you might choose to attack another creature with your off hand weapon or use the attack to apply your Sneak Attack, if you missed the first one.

Are real world weapons styles such as "a case of rapiers" (two one-handed weapons in 3.X lingo) supported at all?

As was mentioned, yes. Take that feat.

[obryn]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

[da_chicken]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

Eh. It could be implemented as adding the the offhand weapon damage to the main hand attack. The problem then is you'd get main hand +5 scimitars with off-hand weapons like +1 flaming shock frost caustic daggers. Since weapons are balanced against needing to roll a to-hit die to strike with them, it works out better to make players attack with them as well.

[cfalcon]

As was mentioned, yes. Take that feat.

My example ("a case of rapiers") is, under 3.5 at least, two "one handed" weapons- neither is light. Are rapiers light weapons in 5th?

Is it possible to dual wield weapons if neither one is light?

[huttj509]

Am I the only one who thinks it's weird you get an extra attack for having a second weapon?

Never seemed right to me.

You're not the only one, but more realistic fighting styles such as adding a bonus to defense or bonus to hit, without adding extra attacks, have not gone over well in the past. A lot can depend on how you view combat (does each twitch of a weapon require a separate attack roll, or is the attack(s) each round simplifying/encompassing a series of maneuvers, feints, attacks, and successful attacks over the course of 6 seconds?).

[Lokiare]

The best way is to treat them as a single attack splitting the damage between the two attacks. That way you can't stack super powered buffs on each attack. This would solve the 'rangers in 4E are way overpowered' problem. So you make two attacks each with the same bonuses to attack (it would be equal to the bonuses from a regular attack), but split all effects on the two attacks in half. If you deal 1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage with one weapon and 1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage, you would deal ((1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage) / 2) + (1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage) / 2) damage with each weapon. Works out great. If everything is halved on the damage end, then nothing can be added to it to make it broken that couldn't be added to a normal attack.

[Envyus]

The best way is to treat them as a single attack splitting the damage between the two attacks. That way you can't stack super powered buffs on each attack. This would solve the 'rangers in 4E are way overpowered' problem. So you make two attacks each with the same bonuses to attack (it would be equal to the bonuses from a regular attack), but split all effects on the two attacks in half. If you deal 1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage with one weapon and 1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage, you would deal ((1d10 + 5 + 1d6 fire damage) / 2) + (1d6 + 5 + 1d4 ice damage) / 2) damage with each weapon. Works out great. If everything is halved on the damage end, then nothing can be added to it to make it broken that couldn't be added to a normal attack.

I think you missed the point.

[Lokiare]

I think you missed the point.

Care to elaborate?

Another solution would be to allow players to make as many attacks as they want up to their dex modifier. Then for each extra attack they make in a round, have a cumulative -2 penalty to all the attack rolls. The other option is to tell them they can make one extra attack and then just give them a non-negatable disadvantage roll to it. I like the other idea better though. You could finagle a crit fisher that misses a lot build out of that one. You would miss most of the time, but about 1/4th of the time you would not only hit, but crit. That would be an interesting build. -10 to attack, with a 18.549375% chance to crit on any given round.

[da_chicken]

Care to elaborate?

You fixed the wrong bit. You normalized damage without removing the number of attacks which is what the poster thought was undesirable about TWF.

[Envyus]

18.549375%

Just say 18% or if your picky 18.5%

Anyway guy above me made my point.

[Lokiare]

I did the math, which is why that 18 had a bunch of numbers next to it.

The extra attacks are desirable, its why most people take two-weapon fighting. Normalizing the damage keeps players from stacking bonuses onto the multiple attacks, which makes the only thing desirable about two-weapon fighting to be a slightly higher chance of a crit. Basically it fixes the outcome of having multiple attacks. I'm looking at the end result, they are looking at one of the causes.

[da_chicken]

The extra attacks are desirable, its why most people take two-weapon fighting.

Except everybody since obryn has been talking about TWF alternatives that don't involve extra attacks. You're still talking about using extra attacks to model how TWF works.

Normalizing the damage keeps players from stacking bonuses onto the multiple attacks, which makes the only thing desirable about two-weapon fighting to be a slightly higher chance of a crit. Basically it fixes the outcome of having multiple attacks. I'm looking at the end result, they are looking at one of the causes.

No, you decided that Twin Strike's damage scaling problem was the problem people had with TWF, without considering the fact that the extra attack rolls are the problem that people might have.

Look, an attack roll in most editions of D&D is supposed to represent a few seconds of combat, not merely a single sword thrust. It's an abstraction for an atomic attempt to overcome the defenses of an opponent. Iterative attacks, for editions that have them, represent additional skill in battle not additional sword swings. If we accept that that is the case, then why does holding two weapons mean you get two attempts to do that? It's still just one attempt to overcome defenses. You're not any more skilled just because you have a dagger in your off hand. And why are all your attacks one main hand, one off hand? Don't some off-hand weapons like sword breakers and main gauche work mostly defensively? What makes a main gauche worse than a [historic] buckler? Shouldn't using a +3 longsword with a +2 dagger give you, I don't know, +damage to your main hand and +AC? Why does it give you an extra attack and not some other mechanic?

The attack abstraction also breaks down with respect to ranged weapons and ammunition, too. Even if you assume ammunition is similarly abstracted, it still makes things like Rapid Shot or Twin Strike pretty odd.

[Envyus]

I did the math, which is why that 18 had a bunch of numbers next to it.

And I am saying that was pointless and 18.5 would have been fine and gotten the point across.

[D-naras]

Legend of the Five Rings has two-weapon fighting only give AC. The only way to get extra attacks for holding a second weapon is either to be max level in a particular shool and hit twice with your main hand weapon. Also there is something like a feat, available to really high level characters that makes it easier to try to get an extra attack (though all character can theorically attempt to make an extra attack. This feat just makes it easier) with your off hand.

I think that it's a player expectation artifact. The average player that wields a second weapon will expect to get an extra attack. If he holds a shield, he will want extra AC, not an extra attack. I don't think there is an elegant way to make your off-hand weapon provide both additional protection and offense in DnD. It's either an attack, or extra AC and DnD players are trained to expect getting the extra attack, not the more appropriate AC bonus.

In my system, wielding a second weapon grants you what is effectively a second reaction per turn (using Next terms) that can either be used to take a swing with your off-hand with disadvantage or grant disadvantage to someone attacking you.

[Lokiare]

13th Age lets you reroll an attack if you roll under the escalation die (basically a cumulative +1 every round after the first of combat for the players) instead of getting extra attacks.

[Astovidas]

i have some other questions about TWF, which arose during your discussion;

1. Are there NO disadvantages to TWF except you don't have the ability Bonus?

Normally: You may only dual wield with two light weapons. Whenever you attack you gain an extra attack from the second weapon. You do not add your ability modifier to the damage from the second weapon. Anyone can do this. Your wizard can dual wield darts.

So, if my ability Bonus is 0 or 1 it's just like a free attack..? i don't need to skill anything or take feats..? it's just as easy as picking up a second weapon and "bam", you can now dual wield..?

2. as a Rogue; can you double Sneak attack when you have two weapons? and can you sneak attack one guy twice or even sneak attack 2 guys in one round (but each one, only once..)?

Although you might choose to attack another creature with your off hand weapon or use the attack to apply your Sneak Attack, if you missed the first one.

EDIT: uh, my bad... i just saw this sentence in the rules: "You can use this feature only once per turn." that's why you said; you can sneak attack "if you missed the first one." sorry..

I Know my quotes kind of answer my questions, but i think this is so strange to me, that i want to be really sure.. especially since in 2e you had like a -4 and -2 on your attack rolls if dual wielding..

Lastly a bit unrelated;
If you throw a Dagger; do you add Str. or Dex.?
a Dagger is a finesse weapon. so you can chose between Str or Dex. but when thrown you always apply Str? do you apply it to your to-hit-roll and your damage roll?
i mean Damage roll is reasonable, since you can throw it harder or something.. but why do i hit better with more str? (imagine the tiny Hobbit rogue, sitting in the shadows and waiting for the perfect opportunity and the Half-Orc Barbarian, storming in through the front door. Both are throwing a dagger at someone; who has the better chance to hit...?)

[Lokiare]

i have some other questions about TWF, which arose during your discussion;

1. Are there NO disadvantages to TWF except you don't have the ability Bonus?

So, if my ability Bonus is 0 or 1 it's just like a free attack..? i don't need to skill anything or take feats..? it's just as easy as picking up a second weapon and "bam", you can now dual wield..?

Welcome to the funky math of 5E :), Hope you like it, its going to be the final edition of D&D.

2. as a Rogue; can you double Sneak attack when you have two weapons? and can you sneak attack one guy twice or even sneak attack 2 guys in one round (but each one, only once..)?

Depends on how they worded it. It is likely possible to sneak attack multiple times based on the poor wording in the packet, but that poor wording evokes a particular old school feel right? right? because I sure can't figure out why they would do that kind of thing all over 5E.

EDIT: uh, my bad... i just saw this sentence in the rules: "You can use this feature only once per turn." that's why you said; you can sneak attack "if you missed the first one." sorry..

Yep, looks like you can only do it once on your turn, but you can sneak attack on your opportunity attacks or if you manage to get an off turn attack using your reaction. Yep, more funky rules.

I Know my quotes kind of answer my questions, but i think this is so strange to me, that i want to be really sure.. especially since in 2e you had like a -4 and -2 on your attack rolls if dual wielding..

Lastly a bit unrelated;
If you throw a Dagger; do you add Str. or Dex.?
a Dagger is a finesse weapon. so you can chose between Str or Dex. but when thrown you always apply Str? do you apply it to your to-hit-roll and your damage roll?
i mean Damage roll is reasonable, since you can throw it harder or something.. but why do i hit better with more str? (imagine the tiny Hobbit rogue, sitting in the shadows and waiting for the perfect opportunity and the Half-Orc Barbarian, storming in through the front door. Both are throwing a dagger at someone; who has the better chance to hit...?)

[Sartharina]

I actually like the simplified style of two-weapon fighting and the lack of feat taxes. However, I really miss the "Weapon Master" feat from earlier playtests, which allowed you to reroll damage (Making it very useful on high damage-die weapons), and think it should come back somewhere - perhaps as a rule for using weapons in two hands.

But that's a tangent. Honestly, I prefered when Two-Weapon fighting permitted using two full-sized weapons. Sure, it's not realistic - but that's why it's worth a feat. Being able to use a full-size and light weapon at once should be a specialization option available at first level. As it is, it's assumed every character proficient in combat knows the basics of all fighting styles, whether it's sword+board, florentine two-weapon fighting, or heavy weapon usage.

[Knaight]

You're not the only one, but more realistic fighting styles such as adding a bonus to defense or bonus to hit, without adding extra attacks, have not gone over well in the past. A lot can depend on how you view combat (does each twitch of a weapon require a separate attack roll, or is the attack(s) each round simplifying/encompassing a series of maneuvers, feints, attacks, and successful attacks over the course of 6 seconds?).

There's a case to be made for getting extra attacks, just because you've got better options regarding blocking while attacking. That said, shields should also grant extra attacks by that logic (which I'm fine with, as that holds up pretty well to my experience), as should reach weapons while at reach (and again, I'm fine with that, particularly with something like a spear where going on the aggressive while you are the only one in reach to attack is just standard).

I'd still favor something like a variable bonus to combat maneuvers depending on the specifics of the weapon combination, plus a bit of defense. A parrying dagger in the off hand might only give the ability to stab someone in a grapple, or even create an opportunity attack where there otherwise wouldn't be one for grappling. An axe might give you a shield hook option that gives you a bonus against enemies with a shield (or, as an active attack, negates shield bonus for a round). So on and so forth.