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.
Ugh... I posted this in the other thread meaning to post it in this one. It's a little disorienting having two such similar conversation threads here. Anyways, here is what I posted in the other one.
***
So seeing this conversation has got me to thinking about Two-Weapon Fighting. I know it is a common house rule to allow for the extra attack as part of the attack action, and I've vacillated back and forth about that. But as I said, this thread got me thinking. What if we changed TWF into the following:
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a reaction to make an additional attack with your off-hand. This additional attack must be with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding, an unarmed strike, or a natural weapon. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.
Ways this changes current Two-Weapon Fighting
-Allows more wide use of the reaction. In my gaming experience, reactions are seldom used except by Polearm Masters, Sentinels, or specific kinds of magic users. This widens their use.
-Opens the door to unarmed strikes or natural attacks with TWF. Seems silly that 5e makes a distinction between these attack modalities, but apparently it does. This also means it is a tactic monsters can easily use against the party, even if they don't have melee weapons per se.
-Reduces the competition for bonus action abilities such as Cunning Action, Hex/Hunter’s Mark, Flurry of Blows, ect
-Opens the door for a different kind of Duelist. Now, if you choose not to wield a shield, you can make an unarmed strike and add your duelist damage to it. Or a Champion fighter that takes duelist and TWF, and can add the STR mod and damage bonus to his unarmed strike (especially useful if feats are not in use). I think that is kind of interesting.
-Increases the number of attacks a monk can make. A low-level monk can now make 3 attacks with their martial arts ability, or four with Flurry of Blows. This increases to 5 attacks by level 5. Not sure if this is good or bad.
Ok I've been following the thread and I suppose my question is, if twf doesn't take up a bonus action, would there ever be any reason to play a rogue with a single weapon?
As it stands, I'm fine with there being ways to improve the utility of the style but I'm not sure if I like making a traditional iconic build obsolete in the process.
Tell me when these become official, and are published in a WotC hardback. Until then, not interested.
yes, ranged weapons generally hand crossbow with crossbow expert. Also, generally speaking the melee weapon they actually use matters very little to a rogue other than finesse since the majority of their damage comes from back stab not the actual weapon. As it is right now Rogues are the only class I have ever actually seen use TWF because it gives them a second chance to trigger back stab that they don't actually already get and it doesn't matter if it sucks as long as they hit once on their turn. If they trigger on the first hit they simply use the bonus action for cunning action instead. So why would a rogue use a single weapon now unless its ranged?
As far as I can see this change does not effect rogue hardly at all. It would have a much larger impact on melee classes with fighting styles & extra attack with which I also include monks with martial arts.
Yep. I think single weapon rogues need an extra benefit more than dual wielders need extra benefits. Twf not the most damaging option if you crunch the numbers on paper but it comes with other multiple benefits, including more versatility, splitting attacks, extra opportunities for a critical, extra chances for sneak damage, extra opportunities for combat manoeuvres, magical effects etc.
I suppose -4 to a rogue's attacks with two weapons would be a big disincentive for a rogue to dual wield but I never really thought rogues needed that sort of 'help'. I suppose it would help a melee Rogue who can see in the dark to gain advantage every round against an opponent who can't see in the dark... Or a halfling the opportunity to withdraw to hide behind an ally every round? These sound pretty lame and mechanical to me.
I'm not seeing anything to inspire me to incorporate this house rule so far...