D&D 5E Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

Fanaelialae · Jun 28, 2019

I remove the need for the bonus action for characters with the two weapon fighting style.

I want it to cost a bonus action for rogues, because having a second chance to land a sneak attack is well worth the opportunity cost of not being able to use cunning action.

But for warriors who want to dual wield, the opportunity cost is generally too high, IMO, which is why I apply it to the fighting style. (A rogue who dips to get the fighting style pays their opportunity cost in a delayed sneak attack progression.)

I'm not so sure about the idea of combining the damage. With the Dual Wielder feat you essentially deal better than two handed weapon damage (2d8). If they can somehow add bonus damage on top of that (dual wielding flametongues) the damage could get completely out of control. I suppose that you could just avoid giving out more than one flametongue in a campaign, but IIRC there are spells that add elemental damage dice to your weapons. It seems like it has the potential for abuse (though I suppose if your players aren't the sort to do such a thing, you're fine).

Yaarel · Jun 28, 2019

Xeviat said:
I wouldn't want someone to split attacks and target the same person for both, if we were going this route. I really like TWFing taking the bonus action for the Rogue. I'd be warry of changing the style to remove the bonus action, because it's only a 1 level dip for the rogue. I'd have to see what a 2 level Fighter dip does compared to reducing your sneak attack by 1d6 ...

Nothing would change for the Rogue.

The Rogue likes two separate attacks to make Sneak Attack more reliable. Splitting up the attacks this way would continue to cost a bonus action.

By contrast, the Fighter would benefit by leaving it as a single attack, and just adding the dice together, so that it iterates with Extra Attacks.

DND_Reborn · Jun 28, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
That we can't form a consensus?

Haven't we formed a consensus that we can't form a consensus then?

Our rule:

TWF: cost bonus action but you add ability score modifier to the attack (you don't need the twf style for this).

TWF style: removes the bonus action requirement from TWF.

phantomK9 · Jun 28, 2019

dnd4vr said:
Our rule:

TWF: cost bonus action but you add ability score modifier to the attack (you don't need the twf style for this).

TWF style: removes the bonus action requirement from TWF.

I think I'm going to use this as well.
I had originally thought of just allowing anyone two use two-weapon fighting and basically get an additional attack with the off-hand without requiring a bonus action. But I like the trade off of needing the fighting style to basically do it better and its interaction with the Rogue's sneak attack. Forcing the Rogue to Fighter 2 dip to get it reduces the sneak attack die by one level (as they get one per 2 levels) which roughly makes it all balance out.

Xeviat · Jun 28, 2019

phantomK9 said:
I think I'm going to use this as well.
I had originally thought of just allowing anyone two use two-weapon fighting and basically get an additional attack with the off-hand without requiring a bonus action. But I like the trade off of needing the fighting style to basically do it better and its interaction with the Rogue's sneak attack. Forcing the Rogue to Fighter 2 dip to get it reduces the sneak attack die by one level (as they get one per 2 levels) which roughly makes it all balance out.

This helps the fighter up until 11th level. Then, all perceivable benefits of TWFing go out the window. Now, the fighter is the one who suffers the most here, so perhaps they just need a patch in extra attack.

Taking away the bonus action might be make a 1 or 2 level fighter dip too tempting for a Monk, though.

Satyrn · Jun 28, 2019

Yaarel said:
Is there any consensus about how to fix two-weapon fighting?

I don't even agree that it needs fixing. I've played a fighter who did it, and it was fine.

And then there's a ranger in my megadungeon campaign dual-wielding pistols and he's loving it. And that's despite the fact that he also has a rifle that gives him an extra attack as a bonus action.

Xeviat · Jun 28, 2019

Satyrn said:
I don't even agree that it needs fixing. I've played a fighter who did it, and it was fine.

And then there's a ranger in my megadungeon campaign dual-wielding pistols and he's loving it. And that's despite the fact that he also has a rifle that gives him an extra attack as a bonus action.

I'm never arguing against cool. But when duelist with a longsword and shield out damages a TWFer with two shorts words, I find that the rules aren't supporting the character. You might have thought the fighter was fine, but giving something extra would have been more fine.

Toledo · Jun 28, 2019

Dausuul said:
Fair point. I keep forgetting that so many folks play most of the game at tier 1 and rarely get into 2, let alone 3.

In two years of playing almost every week for 5 hours a pop, I estimate I've played Tier 1 40% of the time, Tier 2 55% of the time, and Tier 3 5% of the time. In one campaign, I've just reached Level 12. It is amazing to be so high.

TWF has been pretty amazing for the Rogues and Rangers I see use it. I wouldn't change anything with it.

FrogReaver · Jun 28, 2019

Yaarel said:
Nothing would change for the Rogue.

The Rogue likes two separate attacks to make Sneak Attack more reliable. Splitting up the attacks this way would continue to cost a bonus action.

By contrast, the Fighter would benefit by leaving it as a single attack, and just adding the dice together, so that it iterates with Extra Attacks.

Mechanically this works well. I'm not quite sure how to wrap my head around why some characters mechanically TWF differently than others. Great mechanical solution - but totally not fiction driven - which makes it feel a bit less elegant.

jgsugden · Jun 28, 2019

There is not a concensus that there is a problem with it as it is.

I think that the questions on what needs to be done to balance it depend highly upon other house rules, optional rules, and other decisions that are campaign specific. It also depends on the yardstick by which you measure it - if there are no great weapon fighters in the group, it is probably not worth altering. If there is a GWM PC who can get advantage easily and has a source of attacks with a bonus action, it looks weak in comparison.

In my games, I decided to allow a PC using two weapons to make a free attack with the off hand the first time they make an attack with their 'primary' weapon on a turn rather than making it a bonus action. This includes attacks on another creature's turn due to an OA, etc... It was overpowered in some ways, but it didn't break the game.