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="Hawk Diesel" data-source="post: 7515268" data-attributes="member: 59848"><p>Indeed, a reaction is much better compared to a bonus action. And I appreciate you pointing out many of the abilities that use reactions. However, what you did here proves that reactions might have more competition in their use in certain builds. I would argue as a whole though, that bonus actions are still more utilized, especially for those classes that are most likely to explore a build involving two weapon fighting.</p><p></p><p>-Every barbarian needs a bonus action to rage.</p><p>-Every bard needs a bonus action to use bardic inspiration.</p><p>-Every fighting needs a bonus action for second wind.</p><p>-Every rogue needs a bonus action for cunning action</p><p>-Every ranger needs a bonus action for Hunter's Mark</p><p>-Every warlock needs a bonus action for Hex</p><p>-Every monk needs a bonus action to use most of their Ki point abilities</p><p></p><p>I am not going to consider clerics, sorcerers, or wizards, since they are not really meant to go into melee. The one exception might be a Bladesinger Wizard, and they require a bonus action to enter into their bladesong.</p><p></p><p>So yes, there are multiple things competing for reactions. But almost every class has a core class ability (without going into archetype) that requires a bonus action. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This assumes the character is proficient with shields. Not all characters are. Additionally, not all characters are proficient with suitable 2-handed weapons to have that option for increasing their offense.</p><p></p><p>I also see us as having different design goals. You seem to be seeking a way to increase how TWF works in comparison to other fighting styles. I don't think it needs an increase in power. I think it works as intended. Rather, my goal is to open up Two Weapon Fighting to a wider group so that players don't feel so constrained by the bonus action requirement that they don't consider taking it. For many classes, there is a lot of competition for that bonus action. In my experience, player want to dual wield not because it increases their offense so much as <em>because it is cool as hell!</em> Walking around with two weapons is a statement. But these players also don't want to be punished for trying to do something cool, such as having to make a suboptimal use of their bonus action.</p><p></p><p>Additionally, as I said before, my design goals are based on my experience at the game table. And for my group, reactions are the most seldom used and seldom remembered type of action. My hope is that allowing this as a route for two weapon fighting will get the players thinking more about reactions and helping them to keep track of them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sorry, but I am having some trouble understanding what you are trying to say. But for me, reactions already have precedent for being used offensively via Opportunity Attacks. After that, it is nothing but another type of action (Action, Bonus Action, Move Action, Object Interaction, and Reaction). How a reaction is typically used doesn't matter so much as if it <em>seems</em> appropriate for the design goal. And for me, it seems appropriate.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>This is too good. First, it gets around one of the trade-offs of two weapon fighting, and that is the choice between additional weapon or shield. No one would ever choose a shield if they can do this, especially for those classes that do not have proficiency with shields. Second, advantage on all attacks is way too much. Third, it negates the biggest boon of wielding two weapons, which is being able to deal different damage types and benefit from enchantments in both weapons. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not really. Two Weapon Fighting is not about getting advantage. It's about being able to make that attack with the off-hand weapon. I also still think it is a bit complicated for 5e, since you are requiring a succssful attack and then that gives you advantage. It still feels unwieldy.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't expect to ever completely agree with anyone here, since we are all operating based upon our own unique gaming experience and reasons for playing. Rather, I use the forums as a sounding board where others help me see my blindspots when it comes to my own homebrew or house rules. Helps me see how things can be abused and used in ways I could never have considered without the feedback.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hawk Diesel, post: 7515268, member: 59848"] Indeed, a reaction is much better compared to a bonus action. And I appreciate you pointing out many of the abilities that use reactions. However, what you did here proves that reactions might have more competition in their use in certain builds. I would argue as a whole though, that bonus actions are still more utilized, especially for those classes that are most likely to explore a build involving two weapon fighting. -Every barbarian needs a bonus action to rage. -Every bard needs a bonus action to use bardic inspiration. -Every fighting needs a bonus action for second wind. -Every rogue needs a bonus action for cunning action -Every ranger needs a bonus action for Hunter's Mark -Every warlock needs a bonus action for Hex -Every monk needs a bonus action to use most of their Ki point abilities I am not going to consider clerics, sorcerers, or wizards, since they are not really meant to go into melee. The one exception might be a Bladesinger Wizard, and they require a bonus action to enter into their bladesong. So yes, there are multiple things competing for reactions. But almost every class has a core class ability (without going into archetype) that requires a bonus action. This assumes the character is proficient with shields. Not all characters are. Additionally, not all characters are proficient with suitable 2-handed weapons to have that option for increasing their offense. I also see us as having different design goals. You seem to be seeking a way to increase how TWF works in comparison to other fighting styles. I don't think it needs an increase in power. I think it works as intended. Rather, my goal is to open up Two Weapon Fighting to a wider group so that players don't feel so constrained by the bonus action requirement that they don't consider taking it. For many classes, there is a lot of competition for that bonus action. In my experience, player want to dual wield not because it increases their offense so much as [I]because it is cool as hell![/I] Walking around with two weapons is a statement. But these players also don't want to be punished for trying to do something cool, such as having to make a suboptimal use of their bonus action. Additionally, as I said before, my design goals are based on my experience at the game table. And for my group, reactions are the most seldom used and seldom remembered type of action. My hope is that allowing this as a route for two weapon fighting will get the players thinking more about reactions and helping them to keep track of them. Sorry, but I am having some trouble understanding what you are trying to say. But for me, reactions already have precedent for being used offensively via Opportunity Attacks. After that, it is nothing but another type of action (Action, Bonus Action, Move Action, Object Interaction, and Reaction). How a reaction is typically used doesn't matter so much as if it [I]seems[/I] appropriate for the design goal. And for me, it seems appropriate. This is too good. First, it gets around one of the trade-offs of two weapon fighting, and that is the choice between additional weapon or shield. No one would ever choose a shield if they can do this, especially for those classes that do not have proficiency with shields. Second, advantage on all attacks is way too much. Third, it negates the biggest boon of wielding two weapons, which is being able to deal different damage types and benefit from enchantments in both weapons. Not really. Two Weapon Fighting is not about getting advantage. It's about being able to make that attack with the off-hand weapon. I also still think it is a bit complicated for 5e, since you are requiring a succssful attack and then that gives you advantage. It still feels unwieldy. I don't expect to ever completely agree with anyone here, since we are all operating based upon our own unique gaming experience and reasons for playing. Rather, I use the forums as a sounding board where others help me see my blindspots when it comes to my own homebrew or house rules. Helps me see how things can be abused and used in ways I could never have considered without the feedback. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting
Top