D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

TwoSix · Jun 18, 2019

Hawk Diesel said:
Actually, I think the normal two weapon fighting rules should remain the same. For example, it should be a meaningful choice for a rogue to pick between the extra attack, or disengaging. The benefit of making the fighting style specifically grant the benefits above is that it ALSO allows for a bonus action for normal two weapon fighting, but does not require it for a fighter to benefit. So a fighter can do both.

That makes sense, but it also locks the scaling aspect behind a level 1 dip into fighter or 2 level dip into ranger, which is something I personally would like to avoid. I like the idea that a barbarian or valor bard or cleric or monk could choose to use BA free dual-wielding without a dip. Ideally, I'd like to see Two-Weapon Fighting Style give a bonus of around 1.5*N damage (N=number of attacks), which is similar in scale to Great Weapon Fighting and Dueling.

Edit: I'll be honest, I'm also pretty OK with giving classes that probably want to dual-wield but have superior bonus actions (i.e. monk and rogue) a bit of a boost. It's not like their damage is out of control at any level.

Hawk Diesel said:
The last part of the original feat always seemed bad. For me at least, it doesn't make sense to penalize a player that wants to dual wield by making them use an additional action to take out one additional weapon and delay their effectiveness in combat by a round unless they have this feat. Two weapon fighting isn't so powerful that it requires such a nerf to be balanced against a single weapon. Especially since there is never any question about being able to whip out a shield and sword in the same round with an object interaction. At least, not in any of the games I've ever been a part of.

Donning or doffing a shield requires an action. Usually it's irrelevant, as you'll usually be carrying it around with you, but it's definitely something I enforce as a DM in surprise situations. I actually had an earlier version of Dual Wielder that let you treat a shield as a weapon for object interaction to make swapping between S&B and dual-wield more practical.

Hawk Diesel · Jun 18, 2019

TwoSix said:
That makes sense, but it also locks the scaling aspect behind a level 1 dip into fighter or 2 level dip into ranger, which is something I personally would like to avoid. I like the idea that a barbarian or valor bard or cleric or monk could choose to use BA free dual-wielding without a dip. Ideally, I'd like to see Two-Weapon Fighting Style give a bonus of around 1.5*N damage (N=number of attacks), which is similar in scale to Great Weapon Fighting and Dueling.

Edit: I'll be honest, I'm also pretty OK with giving classes that probably want to dual-wield but have superior bonus actions (i.e. monk and rogue) a bit of a boost. It's not like their damage is out of control at any level.

I suppose that's fair, but there are two classes that would benefit so greatly from TWF that there is no reason they wouldn't do it. The Paladin and the Rouge. For me, the mechanics around sneak attack and smite really make me uncomfortable redesigning general two weapon fighting rules, since there would be little reason not to engage in two weapon fighting. Personally, if a player wants access to that style of fighting, I am comfortable with a level dip for it. They are called fighters for a reason, so it makes sense to me that this should be a unique fighter ability.

Besides, if you have a Barbarian with access to these two weapon fighting rules, with Reckless Attack they would essentially have triple or quadruple advantage. That seems excessive to me.

TwoSix said:
Donning or doffing a shield requires an action. Usually it's irrelevant, as you'll usually be carrying it around with you, but it's definitely something I enforce as a DM in surprise situations. I actually had an earlier version of Dual Wielder that let you treat a shield as a weapon for object interaction to make swapping between S&B and dual-wield more practical.

I've never played in a game where that was enforced, nor do I usually enforce it except in very rare situations. Not saying it isn't important, since I'm sure there are tables that feel it is. But the difference between pulling one weapon versus two seems too neglible to try and penalize a player without the feat. This is especially true for games where feats are not used, because then there are no mechanical ways to pull two weapons simultaneously.

TwoSix · Jun 18, 2019

Hawk Diesel said:
I suppose that's fair, but there are two classes that would benefit so greatly from TWF that there is no reason they wouldn't do it. The Paladin and the Rouge. For me, the mechanics around sneak attack and smite really make me uncomfortable redesigning general two weapon fighting rules, since there would be little reason not to engage in two weapon fighting. Personally, if a player wants access to that style of fighting, I am comfortable with a level dip for it. They are called fighters for a reason, so it makes sense to me that this should be a unique fighter ability.

It is admittedly strong for a paladin or rogue due to the accuracy bonuses. There are certainly good reason to gate it behind a fighting style or a feat. Fighting style is just my personal last option, if I'm going to gate it, I'd rather gate it with a feat.

Hawk Diesel said:
Besides, if you have a Barbarian with access to these two weapon fighting rules, with Reckless Attack they would essentially have triple or quadruple advantage. That seems excessive to me.

They do have a lot of accuracy, true. But the eDPR gains are minimal without something to scale that accuracy, which requires something like GWM or equivalent.

Just to math it out quick, assume a 5th level barbarian with a greatsword versus one with 2 longswords using the followup rule for my proposed feat. Let's assume 18 Str, so a +7 attack versus AC 18 (50% hit chance, or 75% hit chance with advantage).

With Reckless Attack, greatsword is 2 attacks * 0.75 hit chance * 2d6+4 (11 average) damage, or 16.5 eDPR.
With Reckless Attack, 2 longsword is 2 attacks * [0.75 hit chance * 1d8+4 (8.5 average) damage + 0.25 (chance first attack misses) * 0.75 * 1d8 (4.5 average damage) ] = 14.4 eDPR.

It takes a lot of damage to make that gain in accuracy matter.

Hawk Diesel said:
I've never played in a game where that was enforced, nor do I usually enforce it except in very rare situations. Not saying it isn't important, since I'm sure there are tables that feel it is. But the difference between pulling one weapon versus two seems too neglible to try and penalize a player without the feat. This is especially true for games where feats are not used, because then there are no mechanical ways to pull two weapons simultaneously.

I mean, if you're arguing for a general house rule that allows two weapons to be pulled in one weapon interaction, I'm all for it. But if I'm putting up a house ruled feat for public consumption, I want to start with a RAW base.

Quartz · Jun 21, 2019

Has anyone run the maths on how the Sharpshooter feat affects TWF? Both TWF and SS work with thrown weapons. That ninja throwing star may only do a base of 1d3 damage but the total damage would be 1d3 + stat + 10.

Xeviat · Jun 21, 2019

Quartz said:
Has anyone run the maths on how the Sharpshooter feat affects TWF? Both TWF and SS work with thrown weapons. That ninja throwing star may only do a base of 1d3 damage but the total damage would be 1d3 + stat + 10.

It would be about the same as crossbow expert and sharpshooter.

TwoSix · Jun 21, 2019

Quartz said:
Has anyone run the maths on how the Sharpshooter feat affects TWF? Both TWF and SS work with thrown weapons. That ninja throwing star may only do a base of 1d3 damage but the total damage would be 1d3 + stat + 10.

Unfortunately, SS doesn't work with throwing weapons by RAW. (Although it would be great if it did!)

The -5/+10 portion of the feat requires an attack with a ranged weapon; two-weapon fighting requires a light melee weapon. The thrown property lets you make ranged attacks, it doesn't make the weapon count as a ranged weapon.

You can certainly rule otherwise (I personally disagree with several of Crawford's rulings), and it would certainly vault throwing weapons into the upper echelon of fighting styles.

Quartz · Jun 21, 2019

Xeviat said:
It would be about the same as crossbow expert and sharpshooter.

Except that requires an extra feat.

Xeviat · Jun 22, 2019

Quartz said:
Except that requires an extra feat.

It would still work out to the same. Since it doesn't require an extra feat, it could be a reasonable thing for a TWFer to add to their repertoire if they can afford the feats. Way better for a non-rogue, though, I think.

Mr. Spade · Oct 9, 2019

This has been a major issue for myself and many others. How to keep it balanced and still make it feel like a viable option. I feel like I may have found a fair solution.

Keep existing RAW, however adding this to the two weapon fighting style description:

"When fighting with two one handed weapons you may choose to add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to your damage or AC. You make this choice at the start of your turn and it lasts until the start of your next turn. The bonus to damage only applies to your attack actions, not your bonus action or reaction attacks.

Only the primary weapon of the attack will be considered for any enchantment bonus.

Optional: the offhand weapon bonus may be used if using for defense. "

This gives a +1 bonus to damage per attack or AC at early levels up to a +3 at higher levels.

My reasoning behind this feels like a natural relationship between your two weapons, and how you use them in a real situation. Your secondary weapon is used more to help guide your primary weapon to a better strike, whether you are using it to open up a hole in the opponent's defense to sink your blade in deeper or just creating a smaller wound to distract from the greater strike coming.
If you decide to go defense your offhand becomes a versatile shield that you become better at utilizing as you progress.

As you level it does surpass dueling in damage, yet still should be well under a great weapon fighter. Defensively it may surpass a shield eventually, but it will not grant the benefits of shield mastery.

This will free up your bonus action to be used for better choices without sacrificing your combat effectiveness.

As a person who has actually trained at two weapon fighting I understand that you rarely actually get a full strike with both weapons but instead you spend a majority of your strikes utilizing that second weapon to either open up a hole for your primary strike or deflecting incoming blows.

Let me know what you think.

Bardic Dave · Oct 9, 2019

Mr. Spade said:
This has been a major issue for myself and many others. How to keep it balanced and still make it feel like a viable option. I feel like I may have found a fair solution.

Keep existing RAW, however adding this to the two weapon fighting style description:

"When fighting with two one handed weapons you may choose to add half your proficiency bonus, rounded down, to your damage or AC. You make this choice at the start of your turn and it lasts until the start of your next turn. The bonus to damage only applies to your attack actions, not your bonus action or reaction attacks.

Only the primary weapon of the attack will be considered for any enchantment bonus.

Optional: the offhand weapon bonus may be used if using for defense. "

This gives a +1 bonus to damage per attack or AC at early levels up to a +3 at higher levels.

My reasoning behind this feels like a natural relationship between your two weapons, and how you use them in a real situation. Your secondary weapon is used more to help guide your primary weapon to a better strike, whether you are using it to open up a hole in the opponent's defense to sink your blade in deeper or just creating a smaller wound to distract from the greater strike coming.
If you decide to go defense your offhand becomes a versatile shield that you become better at utilizing as you progress.

As you level it does surpass dueling in damage, yet still should be well under a great weapon fighter. Defensively it may surpass a shield eventually, but it will not grant the benefits of shield mastery.

This will free up your bonus action to be used for better choices without sacrificing your combat effectiveness.

As a person who has actually trained at two weapon fighting I understand that you rarely actually get a full strike with both weapons but instead you spend a majority of your strikes utilizing that second weapon to either open up a hole for your primary strike or deflecting incoming blows.

Let me know what you think.