World's Simplest TWF Fix

[Amechra]

Change the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting to the following:

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light 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.

This boils down to "delete the first instance of 'light' and the second instance of 'melee'". It has the following benefits:

1. There is now a mechanical reason to do the whole rapier+dagger or rapier+crossbow thing, which is nice.
2. The fact that hand crossbows have the Light property is now actually relevant. Yay.
3. The mechanical niche for Versatile weapons is more likely to come up because you don't need to take a feat for it.

To go into a little detail on that last one... the big advantage for Versatile weapons is that they give dual wielders with bonus action buffs a pity damage boost on the round where they're "setting up". Getting to make attacks for 1d10 damage on the turn when you Rage/cast Shadow Blade¹/transfer your Hunter's Mark feels better than making those same attacks for 1d6 damage. The problem is that this niche little benefit is gated behind Dual Wielder, which is lame.

Now, we could go further and buff the Dual Wielder feat (since this kinda-sorta eats one of the bullet points)... but that's scope creep, and I don't much feel like doing it that right now.

¹ I will admit that one of my pet characters is a Bladelock who off-hands a Shadow Blade.

[Yakk]

So the core of TWF was that a 2HS is 2d6, while 2 short swords is ... also 2d6.

Your design makes a Rapier+SS be 1d8+1d6, more damage dice than a 2HS.

(In both cases, you apply the damage bonus from attribute once.)

Fighting styles are on top of this. The choices are GWF, Dueling and TWF.

TWF style in T1 is +3-4 damage, eventually hitting +5 and stops scaling.
GWF is +1.33 damage per swing on a 2HS. It honestly sucks; in T1 it is abysmal.
Dueling is +2 damage per swing.
Archery is +2 to hit, which is easily the best of all of them by far.

TWF baseline is 2d6+Stat in T1 (10-11), then 3d6+2stat (18.5-20.5) in T2, and requires a bonus action. Fighting style adds +3-4 T1, +4-5 T2.
GWF baseline is 2d6+Stat in T1 (10-11), then 4d6+2stat (22-24) in T2. Fighting style adds +1.33 T1, +2.67 T2.
Dueling baseline is 1d8+Stat in T1 (7.5-8.5), then 2d8+2stat (17-19) in T2. Fighting Style adds +2 T1, +4 T2.

Optimized, Dueling with PAM+Spear upgrades to 2d6+1d4+3 stat in T2, or 30.5 and uses bonus action (and +2 AC)
TWF with Dual Wielder is 3d8+3stat in T2, 28.5 and uses bonus action (and +1 AC)
GWF with PAM is 2d10+1d4+3stat in T2, 29.975 and uses bonus action

...

So your changes make 2HW inferior to dual wielding at level 1 without any special abilities. When it was already as good or better with typical special abilities. And then doesn't really address scaling issues.

Also, it encourages mis-matched weapons. There is a certain elegance to "all of your hits deal the same damage" I would prefer to be optimal.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So the core of TWF was that a 2HS is 2d6, while 2 short swords is ... also 2d6.

Your design makes a Rapier+SS be 1d8+1d6, more damage dice than a 2HS.

(In both cases, you apply the damage bonus from attribute once.)

Fighting styles are on top of this. The choices are GWF, Dueling and TWF.

TWF style in T1 is +3-4 damage, eventually hitting +5 and stops scaling.
GWF is +1.33 damage per swing on a 2HS. It honestly sucks; in T1 it is abysmal.
Dueling is +2 damage per swing.
Archery is +2 to hit, which is easily the best of all of them by far.

TWF baseline is 2d6+Stat in T1 (10-11), then 3d6+2stat (18.5-20.5) in T2, and requires a bonus action. Fighting style adds +3-4 T1, +4-5 T2.
GWF baseline is 2d6+Stat in T1 (10-11), then 4d6+2stat (22-24) in T2. Fighting style adds +1.33 T1, +2.67 T2.
Dueling baseline is 1d8+Stat in T1 (7.5-8.5), then 2d8+2stat (17-19) in T2. Fighting Style adds +2 T1, +4 T2.

Optimized, Dueling with PAM+Spear upgrades to 2d6+1d4+3 stat in T2, or 30.5 and uses bonus action (and +2 AC)
TWF with Dual Wielder is 3d8+3stat in T2, 28.5 and uses bonus action (and +1 AC)
GWF with PAM is 2d10+1d4+3stat in T2, 29.975 and uses bonus action

...

So your changes make 2HW inferior to dual wielding at level 1 without any special abilities. When it was already as good or better with typical special abilities. And then doesn't really address scaling issues.

Also, it encourages mis-matched weapons. There is a certain elegance to "all of your hits deal the same damage" I would prefer to be optimal.

Yeah. Things that buff TWF at low levels but don't really change the poor scaling are kinda back to front.

TWF is great at low levels. More reliable than a big weapon, for the same damage, with little competition for bonus actions. At higher levels, more attacks (ie a bigger contribution from static bonuses) starts to run away with things--you only ever get one off-hand attack (because it takes a bonus action). So for rogues (who have competition for bonus actions but only one attack and no access to big weapons), TWF stays pretty good (better than a bow unless you can reliably hide, and even then it's only a push).

An easier change would be to say that when you take the bonus action to TWF, you get one attack for every Attack action attack and then adjust the fighting style. So a fighter 20 would get 4x(2d6+5) = 8d6 + 20 with a greatsword and 8x(1d6) + 4x5 = 8d6 + 20 with dual short swords, plus fighting styles (GWF adds about 1.33/hit or about 5.33 over 4 attacks max, so adding your modifier once would be roughly equivalent).

And archery style either needs to be completely reworked or SS needs completely reworked (I prefer the latter).

[Yakk]

I do like the fact that it makes the Light hand crossbow a usable feature, however.

But rather than "offhand must be light", I'd go with "either both are light, or offhand is a dagger". That allows rapier/dagger, dual short swords, or short sword/hand xbow options. All classic.

Now, 1d8 main 1d4 off is slightly better than 1d6 main and off, but only very slightly. (because if you skip the bonus action, your 1d8 main deals a bit more damage).

...

The TWF style is also great, because is simplifies the life of the TWF character; adding +attribute to damage in both cases. I'll take this as a baseline.

Also, in T1, Styled TWF should compete with Styled GWF. The TWF does 2d6+stat*2 damage for an action+bonus action; the baseline GWF does 2d6+stat + any style effect, no bonus action cost. The +1.33 damage from GWF style on a greatsword is pretty obviously worse than the +3-4 damage from TWF.

+3ish damage would be fair on a greatsword or greataxe. One trick I've looked at is "odd numbers become the max value of the die". This makes 1d6 be an average of 5 damage (!), so 2d6 is 10 average, which is +3 damage per swing. 1d12 becomes 0.5 12 + 0.5 1d6*2 = 9.5 damage, also +3.

You lose the ability to spread damage out and reliability, and gain your bonus action back. Fair trade I think.

Also, "no that isn't a 1, it is a 12" is awesome.

...

At T2 with extra attack we run into problems. The style-less great weapon fighter deals 4d6+stat*2 damage (call stat = 5, so 24). If we have the above GWF style, it becomes 30 damage on average (29 if greataxe).

The style-less TWF does 3d6+stat*2, or 20.5. With TWF style it becomes 3d6+stat*3 or 25.5. If we add an extra tap from extra attack, this becomes 4d6+stat*4 or 34 damage, a bit more than GWF; this is because on the double-attack, the +attribute to offhand scales, while the die manipulation of the main hand does not.

We could break symmetry? That sort of sucks; being able to roll all of your attacks at once is very useful for fast gameplay.

[Amechra]

Eh, I'm of the opinion that Two-Weapon Fighting falling behind is pretty specifically a Fighter thing, and should be solved (if you are so inclined) by fiddling with the Fighter instead.

The core goal of this is to make the TWF rules less annoying for classes that like doing things other than dual-wielding with their bonus actions. Like, TWFing as a Barbarian is actually completely viable, it's just that currently it requires you to spend a turn smacking people with a hand-axe while you're firing up your Rage, so a lot of people avoid doing it.

As for the damage thing... look, dealing 1 extra damage on average in exchange for your bonus action is basically irrelevant (especially since monsters literally have dozens of hit-points). The point about this being a bit slower to roll out is something to think about, though.

EDIT: Also, if you want the TWF and GWF styles to be comparable... you're going to have to buff GWF, even if you're just using vanilla TWF. It's really not that great.

[Rynjin]

So the core of TWF was that a 2HS is 2d6, while 2 short swords is ... also 2d6.

Your design makes a Rapier+SS be 1d8+1d6, more damage dice than a 2HS.

Dealing 1-2 additional damage at the cost of only gaining that damage on a second successful attack roll is more than balanced; it still leaves TWFing as somewhat weaker mathematically.

[JNAProductions]

Dealing 1-2 additional damage at the cost of only gaining that damage on a second successful attack roll is more than balanced; it still leaves TWFing as somewhat weaker mathematically.

No? Not unless you consistently have a bonus to one attack, but not the other.

It’s less likely to achieve max damage, but more consistently deals some.

[Yakk]

Yes, an attack for 1d8+3 and another for 1d6 is stronger than a single attack for 2d6+3 for a bunch of reasons.

1. Your damage variance goes down. So your damage is more reliable.
2. You can split damage if you choose to; so if you drop a foe with the first attack, the excess damage isn't wasted.

The real cost is the bonus action and the commitment of a hand; The argument that Rapier+SS requires a bonus action, while a 2HW doesn't, and that Rapier+SS requires holding 2 weapons or you get item juggling problems, while with a 2HW you can get a free hand almost whenever you want.

The chance of a 10+ damage blow is nearly identical (~40% for 2HS, ~37% for R+SS), and the chance of 0 damage is much higher on the 2HS (35%) vs R+SS (like 12%). Average damage on 2HS is 6.9, average on R+SS is 7.6, about 10% higher.

It won't break the bank either way, really, but R+SS is better damage. And I sort of like the elegance that the two fighting styles matched up.

2HS also requires strength, while R+SS works with dex or str.

[Damon_Tor]

Here's the simplest "TWF" fix I can think of:

• Remove the current rules for Two-Weapon fighting
• Replace the text of the "Light" Weapon property with the following text: "While you aren't using a shield, you can make one weapon attack using this weapon as a bonus action on your turn. Do not add your attribute modifier to the damage dealt by this weapon when used this way."
• Remove the fighting style "Two-Weapon Fighting"
• Add the fighting style "Light-Weapon Fighting". This fighting Style reads "When you attack with a light weapon as a bonus action, you can add your attribute bonus to the damage roll."
• Replace the second bullet point in the Feat "Dual Wielder" with the following text: "You can treat any weapon as if it had the "light" property while wielding it in one hand."

This removes any fiddly bits about what's in the other hand, or whether or not you make the attack action and with what. A caster could use a light weapon bonus attack while casting a spell with their action, for example. For actual dual-wielders this wouldn't change much except that it would allow rapier+shortsword from day 1 and it would make your action somewhat more flexible (you could dodge or dash and still get a hit in).

[Yakk]

I mean, one short sword would be able to "two weapon fight" alone by that rule.

Ideally the "rapier + empty offhand" would be different than "rapier + dagger" and "rapier + short sword".

It makes a longsword based "light weapon fighter" better; they get 1d10 main attacks and 1d8 bonus attack.

Also, light-weapon-fighting stacks and competes with duelist. A single short sword with duelist at level 1 is 1d6+5/1d6+2 = 2d6+7, more damage than light weapon fighting (2d6+6), and it doesn't get better at higher levels (3d6+14 vs 3d6+12 at level 5); duelist is a better style for the light weapon fighter. Even Rapier+SS with LWF is 4.5+3.5+6 = 14, while just SS + Duelist is 2d6+3+4 = 14, matching with duelist.

...

Two Weapon Fighting
If you have a light weapon in both hands, or a one handed weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, when hit you can expend a reaction to attempt to defend. Make an attack roll using a light weapon you are wielding.

If your attack beats their roll, the attacker may choose to miss and nullify it. If they do not, your attack becomes a critical hit.

If your attack is a critical hit, the triggering attack simply misses.

...

Maybe too complex. Certainly actually.

[Rynjin]

No? Not unless you consistently have a bonus to one attack, but not the other.

It’s less likely to achieve max damage, but more consistently deals some.

So, you're correct that it's "less likely to hit max, but more likely to deal some", but that's not what I was disputing. But I'll run the math here, see if I'm wrong.

Because I'm lazy I'll use the 5e DPR calculator instead of doing it myself. Assume an attack bonus of +6 (+4 stat, +2 Proficiency) at 1st level. Assume a damage bonus of +4 (+4 stat). You're swinging against AC 14.

Greatsword has a DPR of 7.5.

TWFing (longsword + shortsword) has a DPR of 5.75 (main swing) plus a potential, additional 2.45 DPR, achieved 65% of the time; or 8.2 average DPR.

So the TWFing DPR is a bit higher, but very minimally, at the cost of an entire extra action. This, again, seems more than balanced to me, though I was wrong on the numbers. I forgot about 5e inherently removing a lot of the advantages of 2H combat (higher Str bonus to damage, static mods multiplied on a crit).

[Damon_Tor]

I mean, one short sword would be able to "two weapon fight" alone by that rule.

That's a feature, not a bug. But you get the best results by dual-wielding because your main weapon doesn't need to be light, so yes you can use a shortsword and a bare hand for 1d6+1d6+Dex, or you can use a shortsword and a rapier for 1d6+1d8+Dex.

[Yakk]

That's a feature, not a bug. But you get the best results by dual-wielding because your main weapon doesn't need to be light, so yes you can use a shortsword and a bare hand for 1d6+1d6+Dex, or you can use a shortsword and a rapier for 1d6+1d8+Dex.

Sure; it was a strange situation. So I highlighted it.

And then I went through and explained the bug caused by the feature. That Duelist + Short Sword and no Shield is a superior fighting technique to Light Weapon Fighter + Rapier + Short Sword, rendering TWF obsolete.

And your Dual Wielder feat ... makes using 2 weapons less useful! Which is a strangely named feat. It makes a Longsword + no shield deal maximal damage: you can two-hand it for your attack action, then drop a hand and bonus action attack (for 2d10+1d8+3stat).

At 20 strength this is 30.5 damage output (if everything hits). The shortsword+duelist is 3d6+21 or 31.5, still more, and 1 less feat.

[Amechra]

Honestly, a lot of the complaints seem to be about two-handed weapons not being good enough, rather than rapier+short sword being too stronk.

Heck, someone S+Bing a longsword with the Dueling style already deals the same average damage as a great-axe, and gives you +2 AC on top of that. That implies that the Great Weapon style should be at least as good as +2 AC.

[Damon_Tor]

Sure; it was a strange situation. So I highlighted it.

And then I went through and explained the bug caused by the feature. That Duelist + Short Sword and no Shield is a superior fighting technique to Light Weapon Fighter + Rapier + Short Sword, rendering TWF obsolete.

Is it? Duelist with a short sword and 16 dex is 2d6+7 at level 1. Light weapon fighter with a rapier and short sword is 1d8+1d6+6. Effectively identical. Then every time you get a dex up light weapon fighter pulls ahead by +1, and when you get extra attack it gets a relative -1 again. Sure duelist+free hand pulls ahead by 1 damage at level 20, but like... Meh?

And your Dual Wielder feat ... makes using 2 weapons less useful! Which is a strangely named feat. It makes a Longsword + no shield deal maximal damage: you can two-hand it for your attack action, then drop a hand and bonus action attack (for 2d10+1d8+3stat).

At the cost of -1 AC, which is the "dual weapon" benefit the feat provides. Is 2 extra damage dealt on your turn worth 1 AC?

At 20 strength this is 30.5 damage output (if everything hits). The shortsword+duelist is 3d6+21 or 31.5, still more, and 1 less feat.

Dual rapiers on a 6th level fighter with these modified rules and 20 dex would be 3d8+15 on a given turn, 29.5 average damage. With a longsword with grip switching it's 2d10+1d8+15, so 31.5 (but -1 relative AC). Shieldless dueling no-feat short sword with a free hand would be 3d6+16 or 26.5: you seem to be including both fighting styles, which isn't impossible but apples to apples please. Applying dueling on top of light weapon fighter does get you 3d6+21, which is 31.5 like you said, but they're out a feat just like the other guy and just like the longsword grip-switcher has -1 ac relative to the guy who is dual wielding properly. Seems really pretty balanced to me in all cases.

[Greywander]

There's a few things you could do to improve things. Rework PAM and CE to no longer give a BA attack. Bake certain fighting styles or feats into all characters, e.g. free Protection style for sword'n'board. Changes like these give greater identity to specific loadouts, making them feel different from one another. (Edit: the fact that 2H and TWF are being compared tells me they aren't really different, just two ways of dealing damage and nothing more.)

For TWF, my feeling is that since SnB already covers defense, and 2H covers offense, TWF should be versatile. Maybe TWF can switch between offense and defense, but can't do either as well as 2H or SnB. Or maybe it takes a third option and does something that isn't either.

[Kane0]

Dead-simple TWF changes:

1. Thrown weapons can be drawn freely like ammunition
2. You can TWF with light weapons, natural weapons and unarmed strikes
3. Swap around the second bullet point of the Dual Wielder feat with the benefit of the TWF Fighting Style
4. Change the third bullet point of the Dual Wielder feat to 'You can use two-weapon fighting as part of the attack action instead of using a bonus action. If you do so you cannot also use your Bonus Action to make a weapon attack on the same turn'

Bonus changes I make are swapping the boring +1 AC of the feat for something more interesting like denying enemies you attack advantage to hit against you and/or being able to make Opp Attacks with both weapons.


1. Important for drawing your second weapon, and many light weapons also feature the thrown property. This is also two-birds-with-one-stone for helping weapon throwers
2. Very straightforward, allows TWF with hand crossbows and unarmed attacks that are otherwise blocked by strange wording
3. Going up a die size adds 1-2 average damage per hit which is much closer to Dueling style, rather than 3-5 once per turn assuming you use your BA and hit with that attack specifically. Also better reflects the differences between classes that get native style access vs those that don't (Fighter & Ranger vs Barbarian & Rogue).
4. This is the crux of the matter, an answer to other weapon style feats that compete on the BA attack front. This puts TWF with feat support back on par with its counterparts.

[KyleG]

There's a few things you could do to improve things. Rework PAM and CE to no longer give a BA attack. Bake certain fighting styles or feats into all characters, e.g. free Protection style for sword'n'board. Changes like these give greater identity to specific loadouts, making them feel different from one another. (Edit: the fact that 2H and TWF are being compared tells me they aren't really different, just two ways of dealing damage and nothing more.)

For TWF, my feeling is that since SnB already covers defense, and 2H covers offense, TWF should be versatile. Maybe TWF can switch between offense and defense, but can't do either as well as 2H or SnB. Or maybe it takes a third option and does something that isn't either.

This. So much. Each of the types of fighting should feel different. 2wf-sword and dagger, 2wf-2 light swords, 2wf- sword and crossbow, gwf, snb, ranged crossbow, ranged bow, Polearm fighter.

Somewhere along the way they focused to much on weapons instead of how players would use them.