Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[MechaTarrasque]

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.

He did say that feats would be addressed later-"Note that at this stage I’m ignoring the effect of feats, will get to those later"

 

[77IM]

I don't under stand the point of "If the second attack misses, you don't get to attack again with the first weapon."

Yeah, I didn't word that very well at all. I'm just trying to prevent infinite attacks -- a rules-lawyer will look at the first sentence of my proposal and the words "any time" and try to claim that you can just keep alternating hands until you hit.

 

[toucanbuzz]

I'm not adverse to D&D having a series of basic, core rules and "optional, advanced" rules such as Disarming, Tumbling, and whatever this proposal to TWF is as it really sounds a lot like 3rd edition, and the whole point of 5th was, in large part, to get away from the rules bloat and numbers minutia of 3rd.

Personally, the simplicity of TWF works as-is and if it needed to be better, I'd simply tweak the existing Dual Wielder Feat.

Analysis

So a -4 to hit virtually assures I'll never use TWF for an extra attack before 5th level unless I've got some serious Advantage attacks going on (assuming an average +6 to hit at levels 1-3, when down to a +2, doubtful I'd ever use this except against soft-skinned AC12 beasts (even then a 50/50 proposition). I have a feeling people would then want more exceptions to those penalties than waiting for Extra Attack, which is awfully reminiscent of a certain chart in 3rd edition.

Till then, my extra weapon is just as good as a Shield, even though I have no idea how hiding behind my dagger can be better than hiding behind a shield when arrows start raining down. Shields get downgraded in that there's a lot more benefit from having an extra weapon in hand that can be used against soft targets as needed (the tradeoff being going from a d8 to a d6 weapon).

Realistically, two-weapon fighting isn't as good as a shield. Against one melee opponent, sure, the other weapon can be used to block, but it does nothing against ranged weapons, and multiple opponents gets to be a problem. So maybe the AC bonus, if any is to be given for free, doesn't apply against ranged attacks or only applies to one attacker.

Leery on tweaks. The tradeoff for TWF has always been more damage for less AC and a sacrifice (in the past to accuracy, in the present to a Bonus action), unless you've got a special class feature going on. Great for rogues, more chances to tag a sneak attack hit, great for enchanted weapons that rely on effects instead of raw damage.

 

[GMMichael]

If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack. 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.
You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty.

I'm on board with the defensive part, since my dual wielding rule is near identical:
"If you bear a second weapon or a dual weapon in hand, you can use either weapon to add +2 to your (AC)."

I'm not adverse to D&D having a series of basic, core rules and "optional, advanced" rules such as Disarming, Tumbling, and whatever this proposal to TWF is as it really sounds a lot like 3rd edition, and the whole point of 5th was, in large part, to get away from the rules bloat and numbers minutia of 3rd.

"Advanced D&D 5e" makes a lot of sense as the next series of books, but then all pretense of not being 3rd Edition Revised sort of falls away.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Way too fiddly. I'm sticking with my rule: if you have the feat, or the fighting style, the extra attack no longer requires a bonus action, and is instead part of the attack action.
This easily fixes a lot of my issues with dual wielding:
Rogues can dual wield and use cunning action.
Fighters get 2 off hand attacks when they action surge as opposed to 1 currently.
Classic dual wielding Rangers can cast spells and dual wield.
Hasted characters can dual wield and take their extra haste attack.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

Aye. I fully enjoyed my dual wielding gnome battlemaster without feats. Oh, he had a feat, but it was Magic Initatiate so I could get some cantrips to, uh, be more like an eldritch knight.

 

[Yunru]

I just have dual wielding adding an attack at disadvantage... as does the Monster Manual (see: Goblin Boss).

 

[Henry]

I can't say I'm a fan of this rule, as (a) it is very fiddly compared to the simplicity of the original rule, (b) it seems to penalize PCs at the worst time to penalize them -- when they are low level, and removes the penalty at higher.

 

[Pauln6]

I'm not really feeling any of these fixes, although admittedly our dual wielder is a fighter rogue with two magical swords who chooses between cunning action and the second attack. Not every PC can take advantage of every potential benefit of dual wielding but then why make it a no brainer? Inflicting slightly less damage for more options seems reasonable to me.

Someone homebrew tweaked the feats to make it easier to give even more versatility to the two-weapon style by merging Defensive Duelist and Dual Wielder:

Prerequisite: Dexterity 13 or higher
You master several fighting techniques, gaining the following benefits while you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no shield:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC provided you hold a light weapon.
• When another creature hits you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction to add your proficiency bonus to your AC for that attack, potentially causing the attack to miss you.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
• You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

I think I prefer this to Mearls' fix. It panders to multiple light weapon styles plus parrying styles but many of the benefits don't stack.

Maybe a tweak to two weapon fighting could be that if you gain the extra attack class feature, you can add half your ability modifier to offhand damage or gain an extra +1 damage to both attacks if you have the two weapon fighting style?

 

[plisnithus8]

Mearls says this is his house rule, but it seems like he’s sharing it more as a way to get feedback than as s glimpse inside his game.