Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[Bitbrain]

GFB and Booming blade all day long? Nice. hahahaha

He chose Ray of Frost and Firebolt instead, so no. I was rather surprised myself, until he explained that he wanted to use his offensive magic only for ranged attacks.

Also, he recently found an electrified handax that deals an extra +1d6 lightning damage on a hit, and he's happy with it.

 

[André Soares]

He chose Ray of Frost and Firebolt instead, so no. I was rather surprised myself, until he explained that he wanted to use his offensive magic only for ranged attacks.

Also, he recently found an electrified handax that deals an extra +1d6 lightning damage on a hit, and he's happy with it.

Nothing is too bad that can't be fixed by a magic item I always say. ahahha

But interesting build, I'd do the oposite, using a bow for ranged and melee magic, because of the bonus attacks, but hey if it works it works!

 

[Pauln6]

Giving +2 AC is too good. Should be +1 if you parry and +2 if you parry with the feat.

 

[Li Shenron]

Honestly, I wouldn't use this house rule. In my opinion, it is too complicated.

In my opinion, the official rules for Two-weapon fighting in 5e are perfect, and I say that as the DM of a no-feats game with a player that is a Lvl 5 dual-wielding Eldritch Knight Fighter.

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.

 

[Bacon Bits]

OP's link just takes me to twitter. Here's a direct link to the thread:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1054975769586421761

Way too complicated and I don't quite see what he's aiming for. +1 attack is still worth about +2 damage, so -4 to all attacks basically makes TWF simply unusable.

He's later got this tweet, with what looks completely different:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1055138434321342469

He also clarifies that his rule includes damage bonus to off-hand weapons:

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1054979957846409221

It's easier to see what he's aiming at, but it just feels like added complexity for complexity's sake.

My house rules for two weapon fighting just remove the bonus action cost from the off hand weapon. Frankly, the cost of having to use two weapons is already pretty high. The loss of damage bonus on the off hand and restriction on weapon sizes is already a pretty significant penalty. Yes, there are ways to get over those drawbacks, but that represents additional investment from the player.

 

[SubDude]

It's easier to see what he's aiming at, but it just feels like added complexity for complexity's sake.

My house rules for two weapon fighting just remove the bonus action cost from the off hand weapon. Frankly, the cost of having to use two weapons is already pretty high. The loss of damage bonus on the off hand and restriction on weapon sizes is already a pretty significant penalty. Yes, there are ways to get over those drawbacks, but that represents additional investment from the player.

He basically said exactly that. "Add complexity 'til it breaks. Cut back 'til it works." Seems like a dumb reason to fiddle with something that works pretty well.

I do like your house rule, however. The BA cost really hurts my rogue.

 

[cbwjm]

Do people really think his rule is complex? Seems pretty straight forward to me and provides a bit of choice for the dual wielding weapon warrior.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

The biggest complaint that I've seen is the drop-off of damage at level 5 due to Extra Attack. I solved that by adding the Off-Hand weapon trait to several 1d4 damage weapons that allows them to be used with any one-handed weapon for two-weapon fighting (such as sword & dagger). The damage runs about the same (it's actually a flatter curve than 2d6), and using a 1d8 weapon for the extra attack feature keeps it competitive without the need for a feat.

I don't mind adding some complexity, but the benefit needs to be much higher than the complexity adds. In Mearls case, I don't think it is, but YMMV.

 

[Leatherhead]

Do people really think his rule is complex?

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.

Heck, we could make it even simpler than that:

• When wielding two weapons, you may use your Bonus Action to gain advantage on all weapon attacks that you make this turn. Alternatively, as a Bonus Action, you can take the Dodge Action.

But the second one is probably too simple: It treads on the toes of several class features.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

Heck, we could make it even simpler than that:

• When wielding two weapons, you may use your Bonus Action to gain advantage on all weapon attacks that you make this turn. Alternatively, as a Bonus Action, you can take the Dodge Action.

But the second one is probably too simple: It treads on the toes of several class features.

Except it isn't done away with since we have feats that adjust attack rolls with a - to gain a + to damage. Maybe I just set the bar a little higher when it comes to calling something complex because his rule seems pretty simple.

I do like your second version. In general I don't worry too much about treading on toes of different classes.