How Does TWF Look Without PAE/XBE?

[Hytheter]

Second, PAM is a great way to get a bonus action attack, which is what you're after with a TWF build. However, with PAM you're limited to a Quarterstaff, which you'll generally use single handedly to be able to use a shield, and the bonus action attack only does 1d4+mod damage. TWF with the feat and fighting style can do 3d8+mod*3, which is a far cry better then 2d6+1d4+Mod*3.

You're forgetting duelling style, which adds +2 damage to every staff attack. So it's 2d6+1d4+6 (15.5) which is indeed better than 3d8 (13.5). With better AC and an easy reaction attack to boot.

[NaughtyTiger]

-The competition for Fighting style is higher on the S+B, which has Dueling, Defense and Protection to choose from.

I am confused by this line, why wouldn't TWF guy also think about Defense?

[Dork_Forge]

I am confused by this line, why wouldn't TWF guy also think about Defense?

They certainly could, but if you're going TWF and have access to the style how likely are you to turn down the primary boost to your whole schtick? Going S+B then all three styles are a valid choice depending what you're looking for, but if you're going for TWF then you're likely looking for the extra damage or meaningful attack and without Rage or Sneak Attack to factor in, forgoing the style is questionable at best as a build choice if that's what you want to play.

[Alucard89]

TWF would be good if it didn't require Fighting Style to work. It should be deafult if you use 2x light weapons. You only get "no ability bonus to damage" if you try to use non-light weapon in one hand and it would require a feat to use 2x non-light weapons.

However right now to use TWF you need to dip into class that has Fighting Style, so Ranger or Fighter. Plus feat if I want to use 2x longswords or rapiers for example. So at thiks point PAM just gives way more without need to dip anything.

TWF as PAM is great for classes with raiders on their attacks, so Rogues or Paladins. More attacks- more opportunity to land raider or to Nova harder (3x Smites vs 2x Smites). It also gives more critical chance so TWF and PAM works great with Elven Accuracy and advantage.

However, PAM not only gives extra attack, but it covers quarterstaffs, spears, glaives and halberds at the same time. And it gives you extra reaction attack. Which means that in scenario where you can get in (10 feet) attack, attack, attack and move back - on enemy turn you also have reaction attack. So PAM actually gives 1,5 extra attacks up to 2 in perfect scenario (like with Hexblades due to them mostly ignoring OAs).

But even if we remove PAM from game - TWF requires just too much investment. It's just badly badly designed.

[NaughtyTiger]

They certainly could, but if you're going TWF and have access to the style how likely are you to turn down the primary boost to your whole schtick? Going S+B then all three styles are a valid choice depending what you're looking for, but if you're going for TWF then you're likely looking for the extra damage or meaningful attack and without Rage or Sneak Attack to factor in, forgoing the style is questionable at best as a build choice if that's what you want to play.

so it is reasonable for S+B to forego 4-6 damage per round for +1 AC (defender instead of dueling)
but it is unreasonable for TWF to forego 3-4 damage per round for +1AC (defender instead of twf)

my point is really that defender is not a good choice for twf nor s+b

but this isn't fair of me.
this was just one nitpick out of your whole argument. and really i was just asking why you made the statement, which you did succinctly.

this on the other hand

Having your bonus action available is meaningless unless there was real competition for it to begin with, as I've already gone over in this thread, that's not really the case for a lot/most Fighters.

of the 8 official fighter archetypes, 3 have bonus actions most every turn, 3 should use them 6 times/long rest.
of the 5 official ranger archetypes, all have bonus actions most every turn
of the 1 official bard archetype with twf, it has bonus actions most every turn. once per battle

[Amechra]

of the 1 official bard archetype with twf, it has bonus actions most every turn.

I'm not entirely sure that's the case - Swords Bards are going to be spending their Inspiration dice on flourishes, so they're less likely to have enough uses to also spam them as a bonus action.

Of course, they also have the other problem where they can't use their flourishes with a bonus action attack, meaning that they can't do the Rogue Thing where they get an extra chance to trigger their bonus damage.

[NaughtyTiger]

I'm not entirely sure that's the case - Swords Bards are going to be spending their Inspiration dice on flourishes, so they're less likely to have enough uses to also spam them as a bonus action.

Of course, they also have the other problem where they can't use their flourishes with a bonus action attack, meaning that they can't do the Rogue Thing where they get an extra chance to trigger their bonus damage.

Typical battle is 3-4 rounds.
At 3-4 usages per short rest, one inspiration per battle would still go to the guy with GWM to ensure that crucial hit

(valor bards usually share instead of helping themselves, swords would likely do the same if they have a free bonus action).

I was considering healing word specifically because in my experience every bard casts it at least per battle.

but yeah, that is the weakest case.

[Spiritchaser]

Echo Knight: I don't know anything about Echo Knights and I assume I'm better off for it.

I’d really suggest giving them a chance. Yes, they are, in my opinion, the strongest fighters, but the certainly don’t exceed what other classes can do, or really blow other fighters out of the water in a broken way.

More importantly, they are (also in my opinion) by far the most interesting fighters. Strange, super mobile, great with sentinel for playing chess master. They don’t play like most fighters but they’re capable and fun

They’re even better if you add in 3 levels of ancestral guardian... seriously it’s worth a look.

But as mentioned earlier, your echo dies relentlessly, so your bonus action is spoken for quite often. I’d have a hard time thinking of a worse martial character for TWF than an echo knight.

[Man_Over_Game]

I’d really suggest givomg them a chance. Yes, they are, in my opinion, the strongest fighters, but the certainly don’t exceed what other classes can do, or really blow other fighters out of the water in a broken way.

More importantly, they are (also in my opinion) by far the most interesting fighters. Strange, super mobile, great with sentinel for playing chess master. They don’t play like most fighters but they’re capable and fun

I think if I ever wanted to play a Fighter, It'd have to be the Echo Knight. Regardless of whether or not it's powerful, the fact that you have decisions, and that your decisions matter, makes a really big deal against pretty much any of the other Fighter options. Even the Battlemaster is pretty straightforward compared to most other builds with any caster levels.

I'd like the Eldritch Knight, too, if it didn't have so many design flaws (who thought giving Evocation to an Attack Action class would be a smart idea?).

[Doug Lampert]

First part of any TWF fix IMAO, KILL the idea that it takes two light weapons!

Seriously, the historical uses of TWF were mostly sword and dagger or something similar. The off hand weapon needs to be light, the main weapon can be any one handed weapon.

IMAO that is non-negotiable. It's fundamental to what the style is emulating that it works with longsword + short sword (in D&D terms).

The rest of this is optional:

Second part, you can draw a one handed weapon and light weapon as a single object interaction. (Also, a thrown weapon can be drawn as part of the attack with that weapon.)

Third part, remove the restriction on dueling to when only wielding one weapon, and replace it with a +2 to damage with your primary weapon when it is one you could wield in one hand.

Fourth part, without a style or feat, when wielding two weapons or weapon and empty hand you get a +1 to AC, and don't attack with the second weapon unless your attack roll is a critical, in which case, you can replace the reroll of your primary weapon's damage die with a roll of your secondary weapon's damage (including stat bonus). If you have an empty hand, you may grapple using this as a substitute for off-hand damage on a critical.

Fifth part, eliminate the TWF style. 3 & 4 make it redundant.

Sixth part, the TWF feat gives the following:
1) When making an attack with the primary weapon, the secondary weapon may also attack as a free action. But these attacks may not both hit the same foe. (Note: On a miss you can attempt to hit the same foe with your secondary.) If this option is used, secondary weapon damage may not be used in place of weapon dice on a critical hit.

2) The AC bonus for a secondary weapon increases to +2.

3) Any foe you hit with a weapon attack on a round, may not make any opportunity attack on you during that round.

[OldTrees1]

First part of any TWF fix IMAO, KILL the idea that it takes two light weapons!

Seriously, the historical uses of TWF were mostly sword and dagger or something similar. The off hand weapon needs to be light, the main weapon can be any one handed weapon.

Careful there, historical uses of two weapons were not TWF. The offhand dagger was a defensive tool (like a shield), not primarily an offensive tool (like in TWF). In fiction TWF is already divorced from historical accuracy or realism. In fiction TWF typically is about multiple fast offensive tools (despite the IRL drawbacks of reducing your reach and then reducing it again).

However I hear you about making it less restrictive. You could have TWF give more attacks to 2 daggers and fewer to 2 greatswords. That would allow your vision of longsword + shortsword, the knife fight vision of 2 daggers, and the strange 2 greatswords vision that occasionally appears.

Although I notice your parts 2-5 remove the extra attack and make TWF very similar to S&B.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Even in fantasy, I'm not sure two-weapon fighting is necessarily two light weapons. Sword-and-dagger, rapier-and-dagger and blade-and-whip are all reasonably common. The goal of two-weapon fighting in D&D isn't historical accuracy, but flashy swashbuckling.

[NaughtyTiger]

this is a lot of complexity added.

Third part, remove the restriction on dueling to when only wielding one weapon, and replace it with a +2 to damage with your primary weapon when it is one you could wield in one hand.

GWF was weak before... weaker now.

Fourth part, without a style or feat, when wielding two weapons or weapon and empty hand you get a +1 to AC, and don't attack with the second weapon unless your attack roll is a critical, in which case, you can replace the reroll of your primary weapon's damage die with a roll of your secondary weapon's damage (including stat bonus). If you have an empty hand, you may grapple using this as a substitute for off-hand damage on a critical.

so everyone has a base 11 AC and shields are only +1
and the ability to give up main attack crit damage for offhand damage or a chance to grapple
chance grapple on opportunity attack instead of a crit

Sixth part, the TWF feat gives the following:
1) When making an attack with the primary weapon, the secondary weapon may also attack as a free action. But these attacks may not both hit the same foe. (Note: On a miss you can attempt to hit the same foe with your secondary.) If this option is used, secondary weapon damage may not be used in place of weapon dice on a critical hit.

2) The AC bonus for a secondary weapon increases to +2.

3) Any foe you hit with a weapon attack on a round, may not make any opportunity attack on you during that round.

the feat gives you
more AC than a shield (+3 vs +2)
2-3 extra attacks without cost of bonus action
gives free disengage
grapple on opportunity attack

did i miss anything


in my experience, doing anything with the dagger in my offhand is challenging. expecting a commoner or wizard to successfully swing 2 weapons in combat is a gift, let alone use it to parry attacks

[da newt]

IMO the DW feat should be changed so that it grants a +1 to AC (no change) but removes the BA attack with the off hand, and replaces it with a free off hand attack for every attack, while keeping the light weapon restriction.

As a result, the feat would allow a lvl 11 fighter to attack 6x every turn, but only with light weapons. I haven't done the math, but I think this would allow the DW feat to compete with GWM in terms of DPR, and it's a simple change.

Thoughts?

[Dork_Forge]

so it is reasonable for S+B to forego 4-6 damage per round for +1 AC (defender instead of dueling)
but it is unreasonable for TWF to forego 3-4 damage per round for +1AC (defender instead of twf)

my point is really that defender is not a good choice for twf nor s+b

but this isn't fair of me.
this was just one nitpick out of your whole argument. and really i was just asking why you made the statement, which you did succinctly.

Eh, it's about the build, if your goal is to tank then the +1 AC is a good option.

this on the other hand

I was specifically only talking about Fighters, but sure I'll address the Ranger and Bard too.

of the 8 official fighter archetypes, 3 have bonus actions most every turn, 3 should use them 6 times/long rest.

This is a fairly empty statement without saying what subclasses you're referring to, at a push I see two that have them most turns and that's including a level 7+ EK that is primarily casting cantrips. This is turning into a bit of a maths problem though, you account for 6 out of 8 total, but two just straight up have no additional use (Champion and PDK) and one of them is specifically an Archer so irrelevant (though their BA feature also comes in at 7th level and if they go into melee they have more incentive to TWF since they won't have Dueling or TWFing). So it looks like you're saying a BattleMaster should be using them 6 times a day? The maneuvers that use a bonus aren't even some of the most popular/powerful and if you think of a bonus action as a cost then Commander's Strike is expensive (one of your own attacks, a bonus and a superiority die).

Overall I'd like clarity on your view of the Fighters becuase I'm just not seeing it.

of the 5 official ranger archetypes, all have bonus actions most every turn

They all have incentive to use Hunter's Mark, but no they don't all have bonuses to take most every turn:

None of the Hunter's abilties interact with a bonus action

Beast Master only has a bonus action command if their beast doesn't attack that round

None of the Gloom Stalker's abilities interact with bonus actions

Horizon Walker gets Planar Warrior

Monster Slayer basically gets a subclass based Hunter's Mark, increased use sure, most turns not really unless they keep marking mooks that don't last more than a turn.

So out of 5 subclasses, 1 Ranger has a use every turn, 1 has somewhat increased usage and realistically the rest are just casting Hunter's Mark.

of the 1 official bard archetype with twf, it has bonus actions most every turn. once per battle

I'm confused why you say most every turn once per battle, so what I say may be based in not understanding whay you're saying.

You're talking about the Sword's Bard, who won't be inspiring people for the most part as you play a Swords Bard to get into melee and do cool stuff, if you wanted to be a martial Bard that inspires people a lot, you'd play a Valor Bard. I see you also talk about Healing Word, if the Bard needs to cast that every combat, then that shows either a problem with encounter difficulty or the competency of the party (resource management, tactics etc.). Unless you're playing a high difficulty/deadly game, or engage in proactive healing (which seems out of Vogue with a lot of folk on here and something Healing Word isn't particularly good at stock anyway), Healing Word should be an occasional cast at best.

[NaughtyTiger]

IMO the DW feat should be changed so that it grants a +1 to AC (no change) but removes the BA attack with the off hand, and replaces it with a free off hand attack for every attack, while keeping the light weapon restriction.

As a result, the feat would allow a lvl 11 fighter to attack 6x every turn, but only with light weapons. I haven't done the math, but I think this would allow the DW feat to compete with GWM in terms of DPR, and it's a simple change.

Thoughts?

6*(d6+3) =39 damage +1AC (twf + your feat)
3*(d8+3) =22.5 damage +1AC(twf + TWF)
2*(d8+4+2) =21 damage + 2AC (dueling + ASI)
2(d10+3) +1d4+3 =22.5 damage + 0AC (PA)
2(d10+13)*0.6 =20 damage +0AC (GWM)

[NaughtyTiger]

details below, but the point is that if combat is 3-4 rounds, and you spend 1-2 rounds not TWFing, that should be accounted for

This is a fairly empty statement without saying what subclasses you're referring to, at a push I see two that have them most turns and that's including a level 7+ EK that is primarily casting cantrips. This is turning into a bit of a maths problem though, you account for 6 out of 8 total, but two just straight up have no additional use (Champion and PDK) and one of them is specifically an Archer so irrelevant (though their BA feature also comes in at 7th level and if they go into melee they have more incentive to TWF since they won't have Dueling or TWFing). So it looks like you're saying a BattleMaster should be using them 6 times a day? The maneuvers that use a bonus aren't even some of the most popular/powerful and if you think of a bonus action as a cost then Commander's Strike is expensive (one of your own attacks, a bonus and a superiority die).

Overall I'd like clarity on your view of the Fighters becuase I'm just not seeing it.

you saw it pretty well:

echo knight every round
ek 2 rounds of 3
archer - fair point on twf not applicable, but even in melee, the archer won't twf cuz she has to drop her bow, draw 2 blades...
bm - commanders strike is expensive, but damn strong in a team ... our DM used it with paladin or rogue in most battles.

[used on the rogue that's 1d8 + 3d6 + 1d8 + 4 damage vs 1d6+4 offhand attack]

samurai - bonus action ability 3-4 times /long rest
everyone should use 2nd wind and action surge per short rest

They all have incentive to use Hunter's Mark, but no they don't all have bonuses to take most every turn:
... realistically the rest are just casting Hunter's Mark.

casting and moving hunter's mark.
that's 2 out of 4 bonus actions per combat.
beyond that a tier 1 ranger has 4 bonus action spells to choose from.

I'm confused why you say most every turn once per battle, so what I say may be based in not understanding whay you're saying.

i used strikethrough to note that I edited most turns to once per battle.

You're talking about the Sword's Bard, who won't be inspiring people for the most part as you play a Swords Bard to get into melee and do cool stuff, if you wanted to be a martial Bard that inspires people a lot, you'd play a Valor Bard.

i disagree. inspiration in combat is useful for everyone in a team. see note about commander's strike above.

I see you also talk about Healing Word, if the Bard needs to cast that every combat, then that shows either a problem with encounter difficulty or the competency of the party (resource management, tactics etc.). Unless you're playing a high difficulty/deadly game, or engage in proactive healing (which seems out of Vogue with a lot of folk on here and something Healing Word isn't particularly good at stock anyway), Healing Word should be an occasional cast at best.

This is a disagreement in either tactics or DM style.
Perhaps that you don't worry about having anyone drop in combat shows a problem with encounter difficulty.
I based my statement on experience at multiple AL tables over 3 years.

[Hytheter]

GWF was weak before... weaker now.

Honestly, it should just be GWF that gives +2 damage. If they're saying bonus dice dont get rereolls because that "slows the game down" then why reroll at all? Just give a nice simple boost to damage that doesn't pose annoying rules questions or slow down the game or work inconsistently between weapons or produce dumb results like longswords are better in one hand than two. And you know, one that's actually worth the damn trouble.

I could probably stand to redo all the styles.

GWF is +2 damage. Maybe even +3. It's the big hits style. (boring parts of GWM altered. Maybe the cleave could be the styles main attraction...),

Duelling? It's +1 to damage, +1 AC. Defense is rolled in. A balanced approach. (Shield Master definitely shoves first.)

Archery now just ignores cover. That seems to be what the style is meant to compensate for (+2 to hit vs +2 AC from cover; note that creatures are supposed to provide cover, so this isnt a corner case thing) so let's just do it. Maybe a +1 so it's not nothing on open targets but without making archery obviously the best. It already gets the benefit of being dex and at range. (Sharpshooter needs changes obviously)

TWF (wait, that's what this thread is about!) does mod damage by default and the style removes the bonus action restriction. It's the many hits style, obviously. (Dual Wielder becomes COOL)

I could also see me ditchning PAM and making the reaction attack into a new polearm style. Kind of defensive. (Re-implement double weapons as a form of TWF so we don't lose quarterstaff beatdowns, but now they are two-handed as they should be.)

Fighting styles are untapped potential tbh. I might not be going far enough.

[Amechra]

6*(d6+3) =39 damage +1AC
3*(d8+4+2) =31.5 damage + 2AC (ASI)
2(d10+3) +1d4+3 =22.5 damage + 0AC (PA)
2(d10+13)*0.6 =20 damage +0AC (GWM)

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from?

1) This is an 11th-level Fighter, so they should have a Strength/Dexterity of 20. They've had three ASIs to work with at this point.

So, assuming we're attacking AC 16 (which gives us a to-hit chance of 70%) the numbers would look more like...

TWF: 6 x (1d6+5) x 0.7 → ~35.7 damage, ~46.4 w/ advantage, +1 AC.
vs. 4 x (1d8+5) x 0.7 → ~26.6 damage, ~34.6 w/ advantage, +1 AC.
S+B: 3 x (1d8+7) x 0.7 → ~24.2 damage, ~31.4 w/ advantage, +2 AC.
PAE: (3 x (1d10 + 5, reroll 1s and 2s) + (1d4 + 5, reroll 1s and 2s)) x 0.7 → ~29.3 damage, ~38.1 w/ advantage, +0 AC.
GWM: 3 x (2d6 + 15, reroll 1s and 2s) x 0.45 → ~31.5 damage, ~48.8 w/ advantage, +0 AC.

da_newt, I think that change, while simple, might be a little too aggressive.

[Sception]

2 points of AC is a lot of AC on a melee build. Any melee combat method that involves giving up a shield for more damage needs to do *a lot* more damage to be worth the trade. And since +2 good at any level due to bounded accuracy, but damage has to keep up with ever increading HP as enemies level, that bonus damage needs to scale at least somewhat to still be worth the trade later on.

Two weapon fighting doesn't really deliver here, regardless of what feats are or aren't available to other weapon styles. It doesn't offer a lot more damage, and since that damage is tied to a duscrete binus action attack, it diesn't scale with extra attack features or haste spells.

In a game with no feats or multiclassing, I'd only consider two weapon fighting in a class without access to shields, and even then I'd probably stick to ranged weapons with those classes instead.

It arguably has a place on rogues, for a second chance to land sneak attack in games without feats or multiclassing. But that's about it.

Maybe it it came with +1 ac by default? Iunno.

[da newt]

6*(d6+3) =39 damage +1AC (twf + your feat)
3*(d8+3) =22.5 damage +1AC(twf + TWF)
2*(d8+4+2) =21 damage + 2AC (dueling + ASI)
2(d10+3) +1d4+3 =22.5 damage + 0AC (PA)
2(d10+13)*0.6 =20 damage +0AC (GWM)

If the fighter only has 2 attacks (like the all the other examples above - lvl 5-10) then my DW feat proposal would yield 4*(d6+3) = 26 if all hit.

2handed PAM would expect frequent OpAtt.
PAM w. staff/spear and shield is better than ST based S&B (both with dueling or defensive)
GWM would use a d12/2d6 weapon.
And then there is PAM + GWM ...

Amercra - you may be right. I was thinking about making it equal to SS/XBE and PAM/GWM builds ... and only fighters get the 3x/4x attack, so I was mostly thinking for 2x attack classes (barb, pali, ranger, etc).

[Tanarii]

If your concept is a fighter with TWF, you've already missed the point.

[Amechra]

Something I literally just remembered (and I feel dumb for forgetting) - not every class has shield proficiency. I bet you that, if you made TWF give you +1 AC by default, you'd see a bunch of Rogues running around with an off-hand dagger. An extra sneak attack chance and +1 AC? That's just gravy.

[NaughtyTiger]

If the fighter only has 2 attacks (like the all the other examples above - lvl 5-10) then my DW feat proposal would yield 4*(d6+3) = 26 if all hit.

gah. i am sloppy as heck. i switched from 3 to 2 attacks mid typing...
i am gonna give up on numbers for a while... back to angrily denouncing good ideas.
thanks.

[Doug Lampert]

this is a lot of complexity added.


GWF was weak before... weaker now.



so everyone has a base 11 AC and shields are only +1
and the ability to give up main attack crit damage for offhand damage or a chance to grapple
chance grapple on opportunity attack instead of a crit

No. People fighting empty hand get that, most people will still have a two handed weapon or shield or focus in their off hand.

And how are you grappling on an opportunity attack? You need a critical for that rule to apply, it's right there in the proposed rule.

the feat gives you
more AC than a shield (+3 vs +2)
2-3 extra attacks without cost of bonus action
gives free disengage
grapple on opportunity attack

did i miss anything

Just the text of the proposed rules. It's +2 AC, I can't see where you are getting +3 from since it increases the bonus from +1 to +2.

A number of extra attacks equal to your number of normal attacks, assuming that there is a second foe adjacent or that your are engaged in flurry of misses.

You can't grapple at all from the feat, because the FEAT does not state that grapple can be used in place of weapon dice. That's a bonus for empty hand on an attack THAT CRITICALS and it replaces the extra weapon damage for the critical hit. That's the only spot it's mentioned.

in my experience, doing anything with the dagger in my offhand is challenging. expecting a commoner or wizard to successfully swing 2 weapons in combat is a gift, let alone use it to parry attacks

That's nice, what can a commoner or wizard do other than get +1 to AC for having the weapon, which is weaker than he'd get from having a shield, his only other benefit comes if he takes the feat or that he may do trivially more damage on a critical hit.

[NaughtyTiger]

without a style or feat, when wielding two weapons or weapon and empty hand you get a +1 to AC, and don't attack with the second weapon unless your attack roll is a critical, in which case, you can replace the reroll of your primary weapon's damage die with a roll of your secondary weapon's damage (including stat bonus). If you have an empty hand, you may grapple using this as a substitute for off-hand damage on a critical.

holding 2 weapons gives you: +1 AC, on crit you can add offhand damage die instead of additional main damage die.
holding 1 weapon/free hand gives you: +1 AC, on crit you can make a grapple attack instead of additional main damage die.
this applies to reaction or bonus action attacks, including OA.

Not clear how this works with reach (basically on the whip)
Not clear why you would use offhand weapon damage instead (main weapon is usually the bigger die)
Not clear how this encourages TWF (single weapon is better option)
Not clear if offhand attack as bonus action is allowed.
Anyone carrying 1 weapon gets a plus +1AC.
Compared to weapon/free hand, carrying a shield is only +1 and costs you a critical hit grapple

the TWF feat gives the following:
1) When making an attack with the primary weapon, the secondary weapon may also attack as a free action. But these attacks may not both hit the same foe. (Note: On a miss you can attempt to hit the same foe with your secondary.) If this option is used, secondary weapon damage may not be used in place of weapon dice on a critical hit.

2) The AC bonus for a secondary weapon increases to +2.

3) Any foe you hit with a weapon attack on a round, may not make any opportunity attack on you during that round.

holding 2 weapons gives you: +3 AC over no weapon.
holding 1 weapon/free hand gives you: +3 AC over no weapon
Any successful weapon attack (as action, reaction, or bonus action) you get a free attack (or on crit add offhand weapon dice or on crit get a free grapple.)
Any successful weapon attack gives free disengage.

Do I have it right now? If not, then please restate your changes in whole to clarify where i have it wrong.

That's nice, what can a commoner or wizard do other than get +1 to AC for having the weapon, which is weaker than he'd get from having a shield, his only other benefit comes if he takes the feat or that he may do trivially more damage on a critical hit.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

[OldTrees1]

Do I have it right now? If not, then please restate your changes in whole to clarify where i have it wrong.

If holding 2 weapons (or one weapon and one free hand) is +1AC and the feat increases it to +2AC (when holding 2 weapons), then it is only +2AC. The same as a shield. Basically the feat is +1AC, but worded as increasing the +1AC to a +2AC.

Sword & Fist? +1 AC
Sword & Dagger? +1 AC OR +2 AC with the feat
Sword & Board? +2 AC

[NaughtyTiger]

If holding 2 weapons (or one weapon and one free hand) is +1AC and the feat increases it to +2AC (when holding 2 weapons), then it is only +2AC. The same as a shield. Basically the feat is +1AC, but worded as increasing the +1AC to a +2AC.

ah! I was reading it as modifications to the existing TWF feat. He is creating a whole new TWF feat.

[Kane0]

Poorly. Even if you take out PAM/CBE TWF still struggles when compared against other forms of BA attack such as GWM, Flurry, Swift Quiver, Frenzy, War Cleric, War Magic, Spiritual Weapon...

What makes TWF useful is that its barrier to entry is so low, the only cost is opportunity cost. But in return for that TWF requires investment to gain parity to other options, specifically the Fighting Style (which only two classes can get) and feat (which could be used on immproving virtually anything else about your character rather than playing catch-up).

And when you weigh up the cost to benefit you also have to factor in uses for your BA that aren't attacks such as Cunning Action, Bardic Inspiration, Second Wind, Command Animal Companion, Quicken Spell, Tavern Brawler Grapple, Shield Master Shove, any number of BA spells, etc

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, it should just be GWF that gives +2 damage.

I've always liked the idea of rerolling a single die and keeping the higher of the two.

If I remember correctly, this has the distinct benefit of putting the 1d12 higher than the 2d6, leading to more diversity.