Two Weapon Fighting (yeah, I know...)

[Charlaquin]

I feel like creating a "main gauche" weapon distinct from the "dagger" would be clunky and not very 5E. I'd rather just give the dagger an "extra-light" property which allows a weapon to be used for off-hand attacks even if the main-hand weapon isn't light.

Sure, you could do it that way. The only reason I didn’t is that the dagger already does a LOT for a simple weapon.

 

[FrogReaver]

Boldly going where everyone and their dog has gone before, I'd like your opinion on a modification of the two-weapon fighting rules I'm cautiously exploring. Here it goes:

Fighting With Two Weapons
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. To make an attack as a bonus action this way, both weapons used for these attacks must be light, or one of them must be a dagger. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Conversely, when you use your bonus action to make a attack with a weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make another attack against the same creature with the weapon you are holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional 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.


There are two elements in this rule change:
"both light or one is a dagger" allows for rapier/dagger right of the bat without much increase in the average damage compared to a d6/d6 combo, and not just a pointlessly inferior combo to rapier/rapier.

The second part attempts to make TWF compatible with other sources of attacks as bonus action (like scimitar of speed, frenzy rage, extra attack from GWM etc) without completely removing the competition with other bonus actions.

Question for RaW enthusiasts here: How "when you use your bonus action to make an attack with a weapon you are holding in one hand" applies to the monk's martial arts unarmed strikes? The goal is definitively not to give monks yet another attack...

Two Weapon Fighting: You must either be holding a weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other or a light weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other. When you attack with a weapon in one hand you can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon in your other hand. When you make a bonus action attack using a different feature you can also attack with the weapon in your other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack granted by this feature, 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.


That's how I would change TWF rule in order to do what you desire. I don't have any issues with the change.

 

[Laurefindel]

Is that intended?

No, so « melee weapon » needs to be repeated in the second paragraph as well.

 

[Stalker0]

In this example, is there a strong need to keep the bonus action for the off hand attack? If your intention is to allow it to merge with other bonus action attacks....than just remove the bonus action requirement.


Off-Hand Attack
An off-hand attack is an extra attack that occurs during the attack action, no more than once per round To use it, you must wield two light weapons, or a weapon and a dagger. Whichever weapon you chose for your normal attacks, you must use the other weapon for the off-hand attack. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this attack.

Conversely, when you use your bonus action to make a attack with a weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make another attack against the same creature with the weapon you are holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional attack, unless that modifier is negative.

 

[Laurefindel]

The intention is that the extra attack granted by TWF should still competes with most uses of a Bonus Action, such as a rogue’s Cunning Action or the monk’s extra martial arts attack, or casting a spell as a bonus action, or attacking / redirecting a spell as a Bonus Action (like spiritual weapon).

The intention was to add an extra attack (with offhand weapon) to situations that already grant an extra attack (with main weapon) as a bonus action.

 

[Beowulf]

Maybe:

"When you wield a non-heavy melee weapon you may also wield a dagger in your offhand. Whenever you do damage with your weapon, roll additional damage for the dagger."

It doesn't consume a bonus action at all, and (basically) makes it equivalent to a 2H weapon.

Feats and class abilities could build from there.

Oh, wait, it also needs this:

"And if you have a rapier in your main hand, maybe you should go play 7th Sea instead?"

 

[Laurefindel]

"And if you have a rapier in your main hand, maybe you should go play 7th Sea instead?"

ha! Good one!

For what it's worth, I consider the rapier as a early model of cut-and-thrust sword; not like a fencing foil or musketeer's rapier. In one game I played, rapiers were renamed "swords" and two-handed swords were renamed "longswords". the PHB's longsword was simply dropped. I you wanted a versatile weapon, you took a battleaxe or *gasp* a morningstar! But I digress...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If your goal is to allow dual-wielders to make a... Let's call it a follow-up attack, rather than an off-hand attack... Any time they make a... Let's call it an opening attack... whether the attack is made with a standard or bonus action, why even keep the requirement that you make the attack as part of the Attack action in the first paragraph? Why not just, "Once per turn, when you make an attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack, unless that modifier is negative."?

As for being able to dual-wield rapier and dagger... Why not just make that a property of the rapier instead of trying to kludge it into the two-weapon fighting rules? Or better yet, make a Main Gauche weapon. Martial, 1d4 Piercing, light, finesse, special*

*once per turn when you make an attack with a rapier you're wielding in one hand, you can make an attack with a main gauche you're wielding in your other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack, unless that modifier is negative.

I feel like creating a "main gauche" weapon distinct from the "dagger" would be clunky and not very 5E. I'd rather just give the dagger an "extra-light" property which allows a weapon to be used for off-hand attacks even if the main-hand weapon isn't light.

Seems like the simplest thing here is to only require that the off hand weapon be light, and neither weapon be versatile, or simply call out that daggers can be used in two weapon fighting even if the other weapon isn't light.

 

[Laurefindel]

Take two. [updated in the OP]

Let forget about the "or must be a dagger" part for a moment to keep things clear.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you're fighting with a weapon that you're holding in one hand and a different weapon in your other hand, the following rules apply:

- When you use a bonus action to make an attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

- If you take the Attack action while holding a melee weapon that you're holding in one hand but do not possess the ability to make an attack with it as a bonus action, you can use your bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

- In either case, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack made with the weapon held in the other hand, 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.

Here's the reasoning behind all of this:

I'm cool with the fact that there should be an opportunity cost to use TWF in combat. The way I see it, making an additional attack with an "offhand weapon" should be yet another option of bonus action among all that are available to a character. For that reason, I'm hesitant to remove the "as a bonus action" part of TWF.

BUT, some of these options are already "make an additional attack as a bonus action", and it is in these situations that I feel that TWF doesn't feel as satisfying as other combat style. The dueling fighting style - and the advantage of wearing a shield - applies when attacks are made as a BA. The great weapon fighting style - and the advantage of having bigger damage dice - applies when attacks are made as a BA. The archery fighting style - and the advantage of being at range - applies when attacks are made as a BA. Even the defense and protection fighting styles are fully effective when attacks are made as a bonus action.

However, the benefits of the two-weapon fighting style - and of the TWF as a combat technique as a whole - becomes moot in the case of attacks made as a BA because you'd need another bonus action to take advantage of it.

Hence the "free" offhand attack when an melee weapon attack is made as a bonus action.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seems like the simplest thing here is to only require that the off hand weapon be light, and neither weapon be versatile, or simply call out that daggers can be used in two weapon fighting even if the other weapon isn't light.

I agree that it is the simplest solution, but I’m of the opinion that the simplest solution is only the best solution if it isn’t worse than more complex solutions. Allowing dual-wielding with only one light weapon and one non-versatile weapon opens up the possibility of rapier and dagger, yes, but it equally opens up rapier and shortsword, which is strictly better than either rapier and dagger or dual shortsword. Heck, it’s strictly better than greatsword until you get extra attack. Adding the ability to be dual-wielded with a non-light weapon to the dagger is a better solution, but it also makes the dagger the objective best simple weapon, even more so than it already is. That may or may not be an acceptable consequence to you, YMMV. Personally, I would rather attach the ability to the rapier or make up a new weapon to attach it to.

In other words, Occam’s razor tells us that, all other things being equal, the simplest solution is the preferable solution. All other things are not equal in this case.