Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7514105" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>"If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack."</p><p></p><p>- Having another sword is not helping you with arrows... it should be "you gain +1 AC against melee attacks"</p><p></p><p>- 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."</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>At most: Your off hand attack is -2 to hit, the Penalty Drops to 0 if you have the Extra Attack Feature.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty."</p><p></p><p>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"</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"It’s at the cost of a light weapon, so you’re dealing less damage than if you went longsword and shield."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>great number of ways</strong> 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 <strong>reach</strong>), opportunity attacks, extra attack, and a long list of class/subclass features.</p><p></p><p>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!!</p><p></p><p>You fight with two swords to do more damage. </p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>How about:</p><p></p><p><strong>"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"</strong> (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.)</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7514105, member: 6880599"] "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 [B]great number of ways[/B] 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 [B]reach[/B]), 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: [B]"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"[/B] (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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
Top