A TWF revision?

Possible direction for TWF feat is to make it better for fighting groups.

TWF feat. The idea would be to let it add mod damage to enemies you attack with your off hand that wasn't your primary target.

I agree that works well too, but I feel like it gives too many attacks now, hate to feel like it is clogging up the game.

I feel like 1-2 extra attacks is the sweet spot I like.

jaelis said:

I agree that works well too, but I feel like it gives too many attacks now, hate to feel like it is clogging up the game.

I feel like 1-2 extra attacks is the sweet spot I like.

Click to expand...

Most characters would at most get to make 2 bonus action attacks at most this way. The fighter is the only outlier and for 99% of the game he would be capped at 3 or lower.

jaelis said:

That is certainly defensible. It lacks the feel of actual TWFing because you can't split your attacks, but maybe I should just give up on that.

Click to expand...

Saelorn said:

Yeah, that's the trade-off for reduced complexity. If there's one major downside, it's that it is a little too similar to just swinging a greatsword.

Click to expand...

I think that being able to split attack is the primary defining feature of 2WF. Without it, it becomes almost a cosmetic difference, except in corner cases (e.g. two magic weapons with different effects). But that unique feature is lost as soon as you would get Extra Attacks, at which point you can have at least 2 different targets per round no matter the choice of weapon.

Saelorn said:

- Rogues don't benefit disproportionately. They actually miss out on getting two chances to sneak attack, but they benefit from keeping their bonus action to Dash or Disengage.

Click to expand...

Uhm... isn't sneak attack limited to once per turn?

FrogReaver said:

I think you need to keep the bonus action to make hunter's mark and such spells not only be good with two-weapon fighting. Otherwise getting an extra attack you can always add hunter's mark to is really strong.

Click to expand...

Anyway, I don't see much problems with Hex or Hunter's Mark. The bonus action is required only at the beginning to cast the spell (and it could have been a whole action, so I'd rather see the bonus action as something to be happy about rather than a limitation) and when changing to a different target. Most of the times this happens when the previous target becomes innocuous (dead, incapacitated, runaway etc.). It becomes action-costly when fighting lots of small enemies, but that just means these spells work better against few large enemies. I still think these spells are very strong.

I'd be more worried about Cunning Action... not all Rogues use this on a regular basis, but certainly some of them use it all the time, and it actually feels somewhat appropriate thematically for a Rogue to combine high mobility with 2WF because both of them represent being fast. So this is the only case when I'd be tempted to flat-out rule that you can do both things in the same turn i.e. use Cunning Action and get an attack with the off-hand weapon.

---

With a bit more courage, it would be possible also to just house rule that the off-hand weapon attack of 2WF doesn't require a bonus action at all, and it's instead part of the same attack actions. That would be a very simple house rules.

How could this break the game in favor of 2WFers? Let me see what kind of things the 2WFer could do with that bonus action, if she doesn't need to use it for the off-hand attack [this is not a complete list]:

- enter/end a Rage (Barbarian)
- get an extra attack (Berserker, War Cleric)
- use Bardic Inspiration (Bard)
- use Wildshape or heal during it (Moon Druid)
- use Second Wind (Fighter)
- activate some maneuvers (Battlemaster)
- get one or more extra attacks (Monk)
- Disengage or Dash (Rogue, Monk, some Totem Warriors)
- Hide (Rogue, Ranger)
- Dodge (Monk)
- make some ability checks or use an object (Thief)
- converting spell slots (Sorcerer)
- control a pet (Beastmaster)
- cast or control some spells (many classes)

Most of these aren't going to be done much more often than once per combat or they actually have another cost (slot, ki or another limited resource) so I wouldn't worry about them being overpowered if used together with 2WF.

I would probably however rule against those which grant yet another extra attack.

For those houserules who just move the 2nd attack to the attack Action thereby granting an "extra" Bonus Action i would only allow a dagger as offhand weapon, which also does not get + damage due to atttribute.

Remember that some of the classes who might use twf frequently are rogue or ranger, their Bonus Action is really needed for dash/hide , hunters mark etc. They are computed around having these abilities, so i like RAW in this case, but i also find the merge-two-weapons-into-1- for-damage-rule intriguing.

Li Shenron said:

I think that being able to split attack is the primary defining feature of 2WF. Without it, it becomes almost a cosmetic difference, except in corner cases (e.g. two magic weapons with different effects).

Click to expand...

Practically speaking, based purely on my own experience, I would say that the opposite is true. Splitting attacks is a corner-case scenario that rarely comes up, because monsters in this edition have grossly inflated HP totals, so you're much more likely to make all of your attacks against the same target regardless. Most of the time, regardless of your level, a basic orc won't even die from a critical hit when you're dual-wielding.

Li Shenron said:

Uhm... isn't sneak attack limited to once per turn?

Click to expand...

Yes, which is why you want two chances to land it. Dual-wielding, for a rogue, is a lot like giving yourself Advantage on every attack roll; you roll two dice to hit, and if either is successful, then you pretty much do all of the damage you were going to deal this turn. Reducing that to a single attack roll means you're much more likely to whiff entirely.

jaelis said:

Here's how I would estimate the damage, with the appropriate fighting style
Level 1 (18 stat):
2H = 12.3 (7 base + 4 state + 1.3 GWS)
TWF = 15 (7 base + 4 stat + 4 TWFS)

Level 5 (20 stat):
2H = 26.7
TWF = 25.5

Level 11:
2H = 40
TWF = 34

Level 20:
2H = 53.3
TWF = 42.5

I'd expect TWF to lag a bit further at higher levels, because of the need for two magic weapons.

If you think that being able to use Dex is a big enough benefit to make up for this, then that's fine, but wouldn't that mean you think TWF is horribly overpowered in levels 1-4, and overpowered in 5-10?

That said, my damage numbers do float a bit higher than the 2Her, which isn't really what I want.

Click to expand...

+2.7 damage per round is not what I call horribly overpowered.

The thing that bothers me about two weapon fighting is that it shouldn't provide extra attacks. That isn't why it was done in the real world.

Ancalagon said:

The thing that bothers me about two weapon fighting is that it shouldn't provide extra attacks. That isn't why it was done in the real world.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Do you know whether the main reason to do it is offensive or defensive? That could give us some idea how to implement a mechanic for it.

One very straightforward idea is to make dual wielding into the offensive variant of holding a shield, i.e. it gives you +2 to all attack rolls. For example, with two shortswords you get one attack at +2 to hit, but a hit only does 1d6+STR/DEX damage. This would still mean you hit more attacks than with one weapon, you just don't roll more dice.

The fighting style could then allow you to add both damage dice to the damage roll, i.e. two shortswords would deal 2d6+STR/DEX. This allows dual-wielding fighters to keep up with GWF without surpassing it, you just trade some damage for extra accuracy.

Finally, the feat could give the ability to split each attack against two individual targets: instead of attacking one target for 2d6+STR/DEX, you attack two targets for 1d6+STR/DEX each: a significant boost in damage, at the cost of having to spread it over more targets.

This is just theorycraft so I don't know how well it would work in practice, but now I definitely want to try it out some time.

dregntael said:

Interesting. Do you know whether the main reason to do it is offensive or defensive? That could give us some idea how to implement a mechanic for it.

One very straightforward idea is to make dual wielding into the offensive variant of holding a shield, i.e. it gives you +2 to all attack rolls. For example, with two shortswords you get one attack at +2 to hit, but a hit only does 1d6+STR/DEX damage. This would still mean you hit more attacks than with one weapon, you just don't roll more dice.

The fighting style could then allow you to add both damage dice to the damage roll, i.e. two shortswords would deal 2d6+STR/DEX. This allows dual-wielding fighters to keep up with GWF without surpassing it, you just trade some damage for extra accuracy.

Finally, the feat could give the ability to split each attack against two individual targets: instead of attacking one target for 2d6+STR/DEX, you attack two targets for 1d6+STR/DEX each: a significant boost in damage, at the cost of having to spread it over more targets.

This is just theorycraft so I don't know how well it would work in practice, but now I definitely want to try it out some time.

Click to expand...

Two fold: defense (parry a blow with your main gauche while you strike back) and range. If you get very close to the opponent, your sword is of limited use (you could do a pommel strike I suppose) but stabbing with the dagger becomes very viable.

There are very few styles in the world where two swords of the same length were used, and when they were , they tended to be short or short ish in length. I will admit that my knowledge of the eastern styles is incomplete so take this with a grain of salt.