Mike Mearls: so here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule

[epithet]

Not so sure. It takes an action to equip a shield so not so easy to switch and the house rule gives +1 AC Even with the off hand attack. Seems to me the dual wielder is winning big time, albeit not at low levels.

Do rogues still need bonus action second attack if this house rule favours those with multi attacks?

No, that's the advantage apparently. You could take your offhand attack and still have your bonus action.

 

[Pauln6]

No, that's the advantage apparently. You could take your offhand attack and still have your bonus action.

But only with an attack penalty? Not a great advantage, but situational useful I suppose. Plus at least people, might start playing rogues who don't dual wield.

 

[TwoSix]

Hmmm...ignoring any feats and fighting styles, since they would have to be modified.

Assuming +5 to hit, against a 13 AC. That's pretty baseline for low levels. So a 65% hit chance, unmodified.

Greatsword attack: 6.5 average damage. (0.65 * 10 average damage [2d6+3])

Two short sword attack: 5.85 average damage. (0.45 * 2 * 6.5 average damage [1d6+3])

Dual-wielder gets a slightly lower average damage, but a +1 to AC, and better damage scaling as AC drops and/or bonuses kick in (sneak attack, hunter's mark, bless, advantage, etc.).

At 5th level, 2nd attack (3rd attack for dual wielding) kicks in:

Assuming +7 to attack, against a 15 AC. Probably slightly high for the AC, but it leaves us with a 65% hit chance yet again.

Greatsword attack: 14.3 average damage. (0.65 * 2 * 11 average damage [2d6+4])

Two short sword attack: 12.4 average damage. (0.55 * 3 * 7.5 average damage [1d6+4])

Again, slight lead for the greatsword attacker, but the +1 AC and scaling advantages still make dual-wielding comparable.

The actual balance will be determined by how the fighting styles get modified, and whether any modified dual-wielder feat will have the scaling of a SS/GWM feat, but this is a pretty solid modification.

 

[Quartz]

IMHO it's a smidge too powerful as you don't use the Bonus Action. (TLDR: I think we need to drop the +1 AC bonus.)

Look how it fares against the classic spear & shield:

Assuming +5 to hit, and a 1d6 weapon (spear) and the duellist fighting style (for a total of +5), you get 0.65 * 8.5 or 5.525 damage - just slightly worse but the shield-bearer gets +1 AC.

Assuming +5 to hit and the defensive fighting style (+1 AC) you get 0.65 * 6.5 or 4.225 damage. Clearly worse.

At 5th level with a +6 attack (+3 proficiency, +3 stat) against a 14 AC the duellist does 0.65 * (2 * 8.5) or 11.05 damage. The dual wielder does 10.7 damage and still gets +1 AC.

At 11th level with a +7 attack (+3 stat +4 proficiency) against AC 15 the duellist does 0.65 * (3 * 8.5) or 16.575 damage whereas the dual-wielder does 0.6 * (4 * 6.5) or 15.6 damage.

Let's take our capstone fighter. The duellist does 0.65 * (4 * 8.5) or 22.1 damage. The dual wielder does 0.65 * (5 * 6.5) or 21.125 damage - a smidge better. The poor defensive fighter does a meagre 16.9 damage.

I've ignored criticals and adds from magic - these all tilt the calculations towards the dual-wielder.

Basically, the damage is comparable to a duellist but way outpaces the defensive style while giving the same +1 AC bonus.

TLDR: I think we need to drop the +1 AC bonus.

 

[Mistwell]

IMHO it's a smidge too powerful as you don't use the Bonus Action. (TLDR: I think we need to drop the +1 AC bonus.)

Look how it fares against the classic spear & shield:

Let's stop there.

Spear is one of the worst weapons in the game. I like the spear because of the classicness of it from literature and mythology, but in terms of D&D it's a terrible representative of how weapons work. You might consider a longsword or warhammer instead.

 

[Quartz]

Spear is one of the worst weapons in the game. I like the spear because of the classicness of it from literature and mythology, but in terms of D&D it's a terrible representative of how weapons work.

I disagree: I chose it because it's standard. I could have used the shortsword instead - the Roman spatha or gladius - or the Arab scimitar. All are 1d6 weapons.

Actually, I should have used the dagger as it's a weapon a PC is likely to be able to carry around town, when unarmoured. That tilts things even more in the favour of the dual wielder.

 

[TwoSix]

I disagree: I chose it because it's standard. I could have used the shortsword instead - the Roman spatha or gladius - or the Arab scimitar. All are 1d6 weapons.

Actually, I should have used the dagger as it's a weapon a PC is likely to be able to carry around town, when unarmoured. That tilts things even more in the favour of the dual wielder.

You don't make comparisons between fighting styles using simple weapons, because every class that has a fighting style also uses martial weapons.

That means you compare using greatsword/maul, greataxe (if die size is a concern), glaive/halberd (if using PAM), longsword/battleaxe/warhammer (for sword and board), rapier (for finesse) or shortsword (if light). The other weapons exist for simulationist concerns or niche use cases, and aren't really useful in a balance discussion.

Now, your comparison does raise the point that this house rule does give an attack option to simple weapon users that's comparable to a good fighting style, which is something worth thinking about.

 

[Charlaquin]

Eew. This is worse than the current TWF rules in basically every way possible.

 

[Mistwell]

I disagree: I chose it because it's standard. I could have used the shortsword instead - the Roman spatha or gladius - or the Arab scimitar. All are 1d6 weapons.

It's martial melee weapon users we're discussing. Not simple weapon users. We have a good amount of data on weapons used with shields, and they're longsword, warhammer, and battleaxe. Spear and Dagger didn't even rank I seem to recall. Shortsword only ranks for actual two weapon fighting PCs, not those who use a shield. I seem to recall this is data from DnD Beyond? We also know modern WOTC adventures tend to favor the three weapons I mentioned, and racial proficiency tend to favor those three weapons as well.

So no. If you want to compare a representative example of how weapons are used on average in this game, spear and dagger are not the comparison. Longsword, warhammer, and battleaxe. That's your comparison, if you're looking for an honest assessment of how this would work with your typical game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Spears basically good for monks. Magical and 3pp resources can make the weaker weapons competitive.

Spears are often good for throwing as well so giving up +1 damage for extra attacks can be decent.