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

FrogReaver · Jun 28, 2019

Quartz said:
No, I'm not. They all apply equally to all fighting styles.

They all favor Great Weapons over TWF.

FrogReaver · Jun 28, 2019

Quartz said:
In particular Action Surge is once per short rest so really doesn't count.

1. Action surge is very significant because Damage distribution matters. Being able to do alot more than the TWF on turn 1 means he's playing catchup the rest of the fight. Roughly half the fights you are in you will have action surge. That factor alone is typically as important (if not moreso) than a few points of at-will DPR.

ad_hoc · Jun 28, 2019

OP is begging the question.

There isn't a consensus that it is broken.

While I think it could have been designed a little better I think it is fine. Not worth the headache of house rules imo.

Fenris-77 · Jun 29, 2019

This feel very much like the most recent thread on the same subject, with the same people making the the same intelligent points and failing to come to that much ballyhoo'd consensus thing.

I think there is something very close to consensus that TWF needs work in a general sense (i.e. in a full game rules lvl 1-20 sense). And it does, in that sense. Depending on the specifics of campaign, tier and feat use, not everyone experiences some of the issues brought up.

And around we go, wheeeeeee!!!

the Jester · Jun 29, 2019

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

There isn't even consensus that it needs fixing.

Giltonio_Santos · Jun 29, 2019

Add a +3 shortsword of wounding to the first treasure hoard they find. You've fixed it!

DND_Reborn · Jun 29, 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.

Cool, I hope it works out for your table. We like it very much and fine it makes a lot of sense. If you think about it, let me know what your table thinks and how it works for you.

doctorbadwolf · Jun 29, 2019

SkidAce said:
I am in the minority, and am inclined to keep it as a bonus action.

I understand the drawbacks, but look at them more as tradeoffs for versatility. IMO.

I agree. And one of the biggest arguments for dropping the bonus action requirement I’ve seen is to open up more magic item and high level spell use.

Magic items shouldn't determine general character mechanics.

High level spells should only do so for spellcasters whose class gains access to those spells.

If a ranger has to pick between making a third attack and putting Hunters Mark on a new target in a given round, that’s absolutely fine.