Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[TwoSix]

Yes. Dynamic + and - to attack rolls is something we were supposed to have gotten rid of by now.

Here is a way to make this idea simpler:

• When wielding two weapons, you may use your Bonus Action to add the damage dice of your second weapon to all weapon attacks that you make this turn. Alternatively, as A Bonus action, you can add +2 to your AC until the start of your next turn.

You're missing a fairly major point that Mearls raised on Twitter, though. Any dual-wielding rule that DIDN'T give an extra attack tested extremely poorly. So he's testing a house rule with a fairly large constraint on possible designs; that any rule for two weapon fighting has to give an additional attack.

 

[Leatherhead]

You're missing a fairly major point that Mearls raised on Twitter, though. Any dual-wielding rule that DIDN'T give an extra attack tested extremely poorly. So he's testing a house rule with a fairly large constraint on possible designs; that any rule for two weapon fighting has to give an additional attack.

And I'm giving feedback that messing with the math on attacks to such a degree is even less desirable than granting an extra attack. Remember, "testing poorly" does not mean the majority of people hated it, only that it couldn't reach the threshold of approval (which is something like 70%)

Though I do appreciate the fact that he finally dropped the "Turn your Bonus Action into an Attack" mechanic.

 

[TwoSix]

And I'm giving feedback that messing with the math on attacks to such a degree is even less desirable than granting an extra attack. Remember, "testing poorly" does not mean the majority of people hated it, only that it couldn't reach the threshold of approval (which is something like 70%)

Though I do appreciate the fact that he finally dropped the "Turn your Bonus Action into an Attack" mechanic.

I guess the difference is that I enjoy mechanics that impact the math. "-X to attack to roll extra dice" is a pretty fun mechanic, to me. As is "-X to attack for bonus effect", like Sharpshooter. "-4 to attack for +1 AC and an extra attack when you attack" seems pretty straightforward to me.

Now, granted, I think the Extra Attack system as a whole isn't great, which means my perspective on these decisions is sort of skewed. But that's why they crowdsource these decisions rather than just doing what one person thinks best.

 

[ClaytonCross]

"If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack."

- Having another sword is not helping you with arrows... it should be "you gain +1 AC against melee attacks"

- As written you could have Dagger and a short sword and you can attack twice with the short sword... it should be "you gain you can make one extra attack with the off hand weapon."

"All your attacks on your turn take a -4 penalty. Penalty drops to -2 if you have the Extra Attack feature, -1 if that feature gives you 2 more attacks, 0 if it gives you 3."

A -4 for rogues with two weapons from 1-20 is horrible. Duel wielding melee, Sorcerers and warlocks.. gone. (before you say they don't exist, I am playing a Duel welding Sorcerer using shadow blade in the off hand in one campaign and a Duel Wielding Hexblade Bladelock in another) Discouraging interesting "sub optimal" unique flavor builds by taking them from "sbu optimal" and pushing them into "completely ineffective" should be discouraged as stifling player creativity and forcing optimization. You might as well make it a static leveling system if that's your goal.

At most: Your off hand attack is -2 to hit, the Penalty Drops to 0 if you have the Extra Attack Feature.

The damage is already limited bye finesse weapon selection in both hands their is not reason do limit it more by reducing the off hand attack and if you don't use the off hand attack the penalty is automatically ignored.

"You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty."

Should only effect melee and should be implicit imply instead of implicit deny. It should say something like "you gain +2 AC against melee attacks but you may reduce the bonus to +1 AC in order to make an off hand attack as part of your attack action with a -2 to hit or without penalty if you have a the Extra Attack feature"

"I feel like dual wielding aims for flexibility, and that’s what I’m aiming at here. It’s a little more complex but lets the player feel like they have a lot of options."

Not really. If your taking two weapons your plan is to attack for damage not tank, so your going to use the attack every time you can. If you kill the only enemy in range with the first strike you don't need it so you take you the extra AC because its free.

"It’s at the cost of a light weapon, so you’re dealing less damage than if you went longsword and shield."

Not true. Two daggers are 2d4, two short swords are 2d6, and two rapiers are 2d8 and one Long sword used one handed is 1d8 so the two weapons is equal or higher in every combination. You didn't take two swords to do less damage, you took two swords to do more damage at the cost of defense primarily against ranged attacks.

"TWF is *super* good at low levels, setting aside feats and class features. Since levels 1 - 4 are all about single attacks, it turns you into two characters."

Sure but it sucks after level 5+ when you can just hit with a greats sword 2 or more times with the same hit for more damage. The advantage to fighting with two swords is more attacks coming from more directions making it harder to defend because its easier to over whelm your opponent while staying versatile in your defense if melee. Its not helpful in ranged defense at all. The problem with the current design of two weapon fighting is that it does not reflect the nature of the task as to a degree that matters when compared to great number of ways to used your reaction or bonus action to make another attack with a more powerful weapon like sentinel, great weapon master, polearm master (Glaive 1d10 quarter staff +1d4 with reach), opportunity attacks, extra attack, and a long list of class/subclass features.

You want two-weapon fighting to be more used and represent the style more? You need to recognize what your doing and how the fighting style achieves it!!

You fight with two swords to do more damage.
To do this you attack multiple times switching which is your melee shield and which is your weapon to make it harder for the enemy to defend and take advantage of the enemies defensives while maintaining yours engaging their melee weapon.

How about:

"Fighting with two light weapons you are able to effectively attack and defend in melee switching roles between the two weapons. As a result when you are fighting only one opponent in melee, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage" (Note you don't get a bonus action or extra off hand attack because your using both weapons at all times for feigns and guards, but your effective strikes are which ever hand has access to an opening), advantage reflecting both blades in action similar to and under the same premise as flanking rules if you use them.)

Instead of giving additional attacks for strikes, you give advantage on your normal attacks "one dice for each weapon" representing the difficulty of know which weapon to attack with and being bombarded with feigns that are not for damage but do draw defenses and weapons away to clear the attack. It also stops being useful when your fighting more than on enemy and can't really do that. It creates a special niche for duel wielding as a dangerous one on one fighting style, but does not make it as defensive as "sword and board" or damaging as two handed weapons. Its your "to hit" option. That makes it unique and useful while being appropriate to the reality of the fighting style and useful no matter the class. I also means you don't always have to hit with your main hand or only once with your off hand since that's not how two-weapon fighting works. That makes picking your weapons more interesting since you could have a shadowblade in one hand and a Poisoned rapier in the other giving the player a choice of what hits means that second hand could hit more than once when that would be better in the fight... just like having two openings with the off hand and none with the main in real fight.

 

[77IM]

WELL if we're brainstorming, how about this.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you have a light weapon in each hand, then any time you attack with one weapon and miss, you can attack with the other weapon. If the second attack misses, you don't get to attack again with the first weapon.​

BAM. Simple to implement, useful for rogues (more chances to sneak attack), scales with Extra Attack, etc. (SPOILER: It's pretty much the same as advantage, but better because it stacks with it -- the downside is the smaller damage die.)

Dual-Wielder feat can still do what it does now. Two-Weapon Fighting Style... that, I'm not so sure about.

 

[ClaytonCross]

WELL if we're brainstorming, how about this.

TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
If you have a light weapon in each hand, then any time you attack with one weapon and miss, you can attack with the other weapon. If the second attack misses, you don't get to attack again with the first weapon.​

BAM. Simple to implement, useful for rogues (more chances to sneak attack), scales with Extra Attack, etc. (SPOILER: It's pretty much the same as advantage, but better because it stacks with it -- the downside is the smaller damage die.)

Dual-Wielder feat can still do what it does now. Two-Weapon Fighting Style... that, I'm not so sure about.

Yours vs mine.... hmm...

Two-weapon fighting
Fighting with two light weapons you are able to effectively attack and defend in melee switching roles between the two weapons. As a result when you are fighting only one opponent in melee, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage"

- Both are pretty simple
- Both have the idea of attacking with both weapons at the same time
- Both make the off-hand weapon actually useful and significant more than just 1 attack (Dagger of Venom and Rapier etc.)
- Both allow the possibly of increasing damage to a point of usefulness by increasing opportunity to hit
- I also can don't see any need to change the two-weapon fighting style or Dual-Wielder feat for either design

So at first glance they are both an improvement over the current version and Mearl's version with that alone, at least in my opinion for what ever that is worth.

- Yours does not recognize the melee deficiency (which might not be all that important but in actual usage vs melee opponents is not inferior to a sword and shield.)

- Yours does not recognize the limitations of this style vs multiple opponents. The lower AC could represent the inability to use the shorter weapons as shields to maintain your defense against longer weapons or sword and shield while facing two enemies dividing the weapons so that they are only defense or offense against each opponent.

- Mine requires you to keep track of a second AC for melee which is perhaps something else for players to track. (its not supper hard though and giving disadvantage attackers fighting melee alone would also remove rogues sneak attack... which might not be a bad niche... possibly a better salutation but it may be too strong against things like Great weapon Master because disadvantage is almost a +5AC)

- It does not stack with advantage from other sources (I am not sure this is a bad thing. my design does not give advantage all the time so many times it will still be useful to get it from other sources. The only real problem I see here is that it gives rogue easy access to backstab when fighting alone but I am not really opposed to that either.)

- Perhaps the one true flaw with mine over yours is Rangers. They would only get two attacks with advantage and that means the weak melee "Hunter's mark builds" are not improved by the change where yours would provide up to 4 and would make a difference. I do think this could be help with a ranger specific fix, rule, or spell.

I think they are pretty close but I tend to like mine better because I like the "duelist" niche it creates a little better and I don't under stand the point of "If the second attack misses, you don't get to attack again with the first weapon." unless you just don't like fighters but I WANT fighters to use this just to mix up the Archer, Sword and Shield, Great weapon Master, Polearm Master builds with another viable option and it really makes it too risky for them to want to use. Maybe you get 10 attack maybe you get 2. With mine the still only get 5 attacks but they are more likely to hit with them in melee against one opponent which is controllable.

 

[S'mon]

are we in 3.X again????

Maybe Mike is pitching for a job with the Pathfinder 2e final design?

 

[CubicsRube]

My thoughts exactly.

Sometimes he seems like someone who's never pkayed the game and is already trying to "fix" it.

First off, what's wrong with twf as it is? It's never been over or underpowered in any game I've seen in play.

Secondly, what on earth is going on with the weird multiattack penalties? As andra soares alluded to, this is trying to fit a 3.x shaped peg in a 5e hole. Fiddly and ungainly.

If i was to houserule twf, this is certainly not how I'd do it.

 

[CubicsRube]

I am fine with the standard rules, but I think that possibly a common reason for dissatisfaction is the required bonus action which is seen in competition with other abilities.

But I definitely think that the more complex the worse. If there will ever be such thing as a "perfect Two-weapon fighting rules", they will be surprisingly simple.

Honestly the absolute easiest solution to this would just allow a person using two weapons to have 1 extra attack a round. No different really to how it works now and just removes the bonus action requirement.

I personally don't think it needs to be more complicated than that.

 

[CubicsRube]

Are we presupposing the absence of feats?

I envisage two weapon fighting to be quite offensive and really no more beneficial for defence than wielding a large weapon like a long sword for example (getting inside a long weapons reach is not an aspect that d&d represents in mechanical terms).

If I were to run two weapon fighting and great weapon fighting without feats i would simply change the following:

Two Weapon Fighting
- when you use the attack action on your turn, you can make one extra attack with your off hand weapon, provided it is light
- You may use your ability modifier to damage on all attacks

Heavy weapon fighting:
- You may add DOUBLE your strength modifier when you hit with an attack with a heavy weapon.

These up damage somewhat, but no more signifcantly than high level spells start ramping up damage.

Two weapon fighting becomes strong at the start, but also noting that without feats you can only ever use light weapons, this bith mitigates the attacks vs heavier weapons but also puts it as a viable fighting strategy, particularly for rogues to get a second chance at sneak attack.

Heavy weapons gain a boost to damage mostly to put thwm in a space of "hitting less often, but hitting hard" vs two weapon fighting.