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 LIVE! 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: 7515139" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>First let me say... thankyou... thank you for writing something with that actually outlines point and counter points. Weather we Agree or Disagree and indifferent to if we can come to some common ground, Your post is awesome, on topic, and make me think. So tired of "THIS SUCKS!" posts that have no point and no actual argument or a reply that actually has no direct reference to the comments of the posts they are replying to it in a way that shows know they actually read the post. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not.</p><p></p><p>Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list:</p><p>(<strong>Barbarians</strong>) Berserker: Retaliation, Ancestral Guardian: Spirit Shield, Storm Herald: Raging Storm</p><p>(<strong>Bard</strong>) Glamour: Mantle of Inspiration, Lore:Cutting words, Swords: Mobile Flourish, Valor:Combat inspiration, Whispers: Mantle of Whispers</p><p>(<strong>Cleric</strong>) Grave: Sentinel at Death’s Door, Light: Warding Flare, Nature: Dampen Elements, Tempest: Wrath of the Storm, War: War God’s Blessing</p><p>(<strong>Druid</strong>) Shepheard: Spirit Totem Hawk</p><p>(<strong>Fighter</strong>) Battle Master: Parry & Riposte, Cavalier: Warding Maneuver & Vigilant Defender, Purple Knight: Inspiring Surge, Samurai: Strength before Death</p><p>(<strong>Monk</strong>) ALL: Deflect Missiles & Slow Fall, Shadow: Opportunist, Drunken Master: Tipsy Sway, Sun Soul: Sun Shield</p><p>(<strong>Paladin</strong>) Redemption: Rebuke the Violent & Aura of the Guardian, Crown: Relentless Avenger and Soul of Vengeance</p><p>(<strong>Ranger</strong>) Gloom: Shadowy Dodge, Horizon: Spectral Defense, Hunter: Giant Killer/Stand Against the Tide/Uncanny Dodge, Monster Slayer: Magic-User’s Nemesis & Slayer’s Counter</p><p>(<strong>Rogue</strong>) ALL: Uncanny dodge (you mentioned), Arcane Trickster: Spell Thief, Master Mind: Misdirection, Scout: Skirmisher</p><p>(<strong>Sorcerer</strong>) Storm: Storm’s Fury, Wild:Storm’s Fury</p><p></p><p>So... I got here and stopped without grabbing the warlock and wizard which I know (am playing a warlock right now) have some more and Also, the Protection Fighting style (you mentioned) alone covers all Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Casters also get <strong>shield</strong> which is big one as most casters have low AC, while casters two-weapon fighting is not that common, that's also why I don't want to do anything to discourage them further. … <strong>So why did I stop?</strong>... well I have been reading these abilities while looking them up and realized <strong>their is a better argument for using reactions</strong> than the "competing for the reaction is far smaller". So I am going to argue with myself in your favor like a crazy person and see if it convinces me your right for a tangent reason.</p><p></p><p>Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade. The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked. Tanking/aid abilities are not as likely to lean to two-weapon fighting because a shield provides better defense for tanking and support abilities are usually characters who avoid max damage so both cases are not likely to use two-weapon fighting for reasons of the build not deficiencies in TWF. This removes options 1-3 which is the vast majority from mattering when considering reactions.</p><p></p><p>The number 4 crowd control is a little different and really the only sticking point here. Does Two-weapon fighting warrant an additional cost over other fighting styles and if so does that warrant the lose of crowd control abilities the biggest by far being opportunity attacks which are as useful for their ability to deter enemies from running away as they are the damage. Feats like sentinel make enemies want to target you and punish them if they don't, pole arm and great weapon master both use them solely for increased damage. You have taken me from against using reactions to on the fence because I have no doubt that players are willing to pay it I am still not sure they should have too, since other fighting styles take feats for this at greater effect, but this is the very premise of two-weapon fighting style. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So I think their is a cost of taking weapons that do less damage or lower defense. The extra attack is also a potential for more damage I know, which why I am suggesting advantage which means keeping the increase to hit of attacking twice while restricting the damage to one hit. It has the same critical chance of rolling two attacks as well until you get extra attack which is where two weapon fighting usually dies anyway. So I pretty much agree with everything you said, I just don't know that the reaction cost is the fix. I also limited the bonuses versus a single target, which will be fairly common and controllable because that prevents them from being tank builds (who would be better with shields with his in mind) and separates them from great weapon master which will do a lot more damage vs low AC high hit point opponents. It also stands out against Pole-arm master because polearm master will get two rolls to attack but also two damage rolls and works when fighting multiple enemies... So where do you see then need for the reaction cost here? What advantage does this have that warrants the extra cost? If your keeping the standard two-weapon fighting and changing it to reaction it makes more since because its better than pole arm master without it and pole arm master has the cost of a feat.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But isn't that what sets two weapon fighting apart? Its multiple smaller hits instead of one larger more powerful hit. Which then falls apart when a character gets "extra action"... so after level 5 why would you weaken your self for 3 light hits when you could do 2 powerful hits? The off set of hits and damage dice doesn't really hold up when classes start getting all the other ways to do more attacks with their main hand weapon regardless. That's why it seems like advantage demonstrates the increase to hit of multiple strikes but doesn't be come the king of damage since its a matter of feinting to get the strike. Reliability with lower damage. I added the +2 AC vs a single melee target in part because of Mearl's intent and design but also because the same feinting weapons also force a bit of defensive posture from the enemy consistently keeping on their toes to figure out where the "real" attack is coming from. This lets this fighting style stand further away from pole-arm master and extra attack and gives it a unique nature as a being really good one on one but never wanting to be in the middle of the fight. So your not going to be fighting where the sword and shield, great weapon fighters, and pole-arm masters are meeting the enemy line head on. Which doesn't just suite rogues but Rangers, Fighters, even hex blades that are using lower armor and dex to pick off enemies on the edges one at a time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Really that's what I did too, my mistake is using the term "free action". Though Advantage vs a single melee enemy is not <strong>that</strong> unwieldy. Also, its only really about 5% my idea I just put other ideas together from a few people. My wording is surely unwieldy though as concise is against my nature... how about....</p><p></p><p><strong>Two-weapon Fighting</strong></p><p><strong>"Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, 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> </p><p></p><p>I like the extra but its not really two-weapon fighting.. perhaps making its own rule is better..</p><p></p><p>One-handed Fencing </p><p>"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage."</p><p></p><p>They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better?</p><p></p><p>I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7515139, member: 6880599"] First let me say... thankyou... thank you for writing something with that actually outlines point and counter points. Weather we Agree or Disagree and indifferent to if we can come to some common ground, Your post is awesome, on topic, and make me think. So tired of "THIS SUCKS!" posts that have no point and no actual argument or a reply that actually has no direct reference to the comments of the posts they are replying to it in a way that shows know they actually read the post. First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not. Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list: ([B]Barbarians[/B]) Berserker: Retaliation, Ancestral Guardian: Spirit Shield, Storm Herald: Raging Storm ([B]Bard[/B]) Glamour: Mantle of Inspiration, Lore:Cutting words, Swords: Mobile Flourish, Valor:Combat inspiration, Whispers: Mantle of Whispers ([B]Cleric[/B]) Grave: Sentinel at Death’s Door, Light: Warding Flare, Nature: Dampen Elements, Tempest: Wrath of the Storm, War: War God’s Blessing ([B]Druid[/B]) Shepheard: Spirit Totem Hawk ([B]Fighter[/B]) Battle Master: Parry & Riposte, Cavalier: Warding Maneuver & Vigilant Defender, Purple Knight: Inspiring Surge, Samurai: Strength before Death ([B]Monk[/B]) ALL: Deflect Missiles & Slow Fall, Shadow: Opportunist, Drunken Master: Tipsy Sway, Sun Soul: Sun Shield ([B]Paladin[/B]) Redemption: Rebuke the Violent & Aura of the Guardian, Crown: Relentless Avenger and Soul of Vengeance ([B]Ranger[/B]) Gloom: Shadowy Dodge, Horizon: Spectral Defense, Hunter: Giant Killer/Stand Against the Tide/Uncanny Dodge, Monster Slayer: Magic-User’s Nemesis & Slayer’s Counter ([B]Rogue[/B]) ALL: Uncanny dodge (you mentioned), Arcane Trickster: Spell Thief, Master Mind: Misdirection, Scout: Skirmisher ([B]Sorcerer[/B]) Storm: Storm’s Fury, Wild:Storm’s Fury So... I got here and stopped without grabbing the warlock and wizard which I know (am playing a warlock right now) have some more and Also, the Protection Fighting style (you mentioned) alone covers all Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Casters also get [B]shield[/B] which is big one as most casters have low AC, while casters two-weapon fighting is not that common, that's also why I don't want to do anything to discourage them further. … [B]So why did I stop?[/B]... well I have been reading these abilities while looking them up and realized [B]their is a better argument for using reactions[/B] than the "competing for the reaction is far smaller". So I am going to argue with myself in your favor like a crazy person and see if it convinces me your right for a tangent reason. Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade. The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked. Tanking/aid abilities are not as likely to lean to two-weapon fighting because a shield provides better defense for tanking and support abilities are usually characters who avoid max damage so both cases are not likely to use two-weapon fighting for reasons of the build not deficiencies in TWF. This removes options 1-3 which is the vast majority from mattering when considering reactions. The number 4 crowd control is a little different and really the only sticking point here. Does Two-weapon fighting warrant an additional cost over other fighting styles and if so does that warrant the lose of crowd control abilities the biggest by far being opportunity attacks which are as useful for their ability to deter enemies from running away as they are the damage. Feats like sentinel make enemies want to target you and punish them if they don't, pole arm and great weapon master both use them solely for increased damage. You have taken me from against using reactions to on the fence because I have no doubt that players are willing to pay it I am still not sure they should have too, since other fighting styles take feats for this at greater effect, but this is the very premise of two-weapon fighting style. So I think their is a cost of taking weapons that do less damage or lower defense. The extra attack is also a potential for more damage I know, which why I am suggesting advantage which means keeping the increase to hit of attacking twice while restricting the damage to one hit. It has the same critical chance of rolling two attacks as well until you get extra attack which is where two weapon fighting usually dies anyway. So I pretty much agree with everything you said, I just don't know that the reaction cost is the fix. I also limited the bonuses versus a single target, which will be fairly common and controllable because that prevents them from being tank builds (who would be better with shields with his in mind) and separates them from great weapon master which will do a lot more damage vs low AC high hit point opponents. It also stands out against Pole-arm master because polearm master will get two rolls to attack but also two damage rolls and works when fighting multiple enemies... So where do you see then need for the reaction cost here? What advantage does this have that warrants the extra cost? If your keeping the standard two-weapon fighting and changing it to reaction it makes more since because its better than pole arm master without it and pole arm master has the cost of a feat. But isn't that what sets two weapon fighting apart? Its multiple smaller hits instead of one larger more powerful hit. Which then falls apart when a character gets "extra action"... so after level 5 why would you weaken your self for 3 light hits when you could do 2 powerful hits? The off set of hits and damage dice doesn't really hold up when classes start getting all the other ways to do more attacks with their main hand weapon regardless. That's why it seems like advantage demonstrates the increase to hit of multiple strikes but doesn't be come the king of damage since its a matter of feinting to get the strike. Reliability with lower damage. I added the +2 AC vs a single melee target in part because of Mearl's intent and design but also because the same feinting weapons also force a bit of defensive posture from the enemy consistently keeping on their toes to figure out where the "real" attack is coming from. This lets this fighting style stand further away from pole-arm master and extra attack and gives it a unique nature as a being really good one on one but never wanting to be in the middle of the fight. So your not going to be fighting where the sword and shield, great weapon fighters, and pole-arm masters are meeting the enemy line head on. Which doesn't just suite rogues but Rangers, Fighters, even hex blades that are using lower armor and dex to pick off enemies on the edges one at a time. Really that's what I did too, my mistake is using the term "free action". Though Advantage vs a single melee enemy is not [B]that[/B] unwieldy. Also, its only really about 5% my idea I just put other ideas together from a few people. My wording is surely unwieldy though as concise is against my nature... how about.... [B]Two-weapon Fighting "Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, 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] I like the extra but its not really two-weapon fighting.. perhaps making its own rule is better.. One-handed Fencing "Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage." They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better? I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
Top