Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[ClaytonCross]

First let me say... thankyou... thank you for writing something with that actually outlines point and counter points. Weather we Agree or Disagree and indifferent to if we can come to some common ground, Your post is awesome, on topic, and make me think. So tired of "THIS SUCKS!" posts that have no point and no actual argument or a reply that actually has no direct reference to the comments of the posts they are replying to it in a way that shows know they actually read the post.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with this statement. Yes, there are certain class abilities that make use of reactions for defense. A rogue has Uncanny Dodge, certain bard colleges can use reactions for Bardic Inspiration, those with the Protection Fighting Style have a reaction, and magic users have Counterspell and Hellish Rebuke. There may be a couple of others, but the number of options competing for the reaction is far smaller than the number of options competing for bonus actions.

First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not.

Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list:
(Barbarians) Berserker: Retaliation, Ancestral Guardian: Spirit Shield, Storm Herald: Raging Storm
(Bard) Glamour: Mantle of Inspiration, Lore:Cutting words, Swords: Mobile Flourish, Valor:Combat inspiration, Whispers: Mantle of Whispers
(Cleric) Grave: Sentinel at Death’s Door, Light: Warding Flare, Nature: Dampen Elements, Tempest: Wrath of the Storm, War: War God’s Blessing
(Druid) Shepheard: Spirit Totem Hawk
(Fighter) Battle Master: Parry & Riposte, Cavalier: Warding Maneuver & Vigilant Defender, Purple Knight: Inspiring Surge, Samurai: Strength before Death
(Monk) ALL: Deflect Missiles & Slow Fall, Shadow: Opportunist, Drunken Master: Tipsy Sway, Sun Soul: Sun Shield
(Paladin) Redemption: Rebuke the Violent & Aura of the Guardian, Crown: Relentless Avenger and Soul of Vengeance
(Ranger) Gloom: Shadowy Dodge, Horizon: Spectral Defense, Hunter: Giant Killer/Stand Against the Tide/Uncanny Dodge, Monster Slayer: Magic-User’s Nemesis & Slayer’s Counter
(Rogue) ALL: Uncanny dodge (you mentioned), Arcane Trickster: Spell Thief, Master Mind: Misdirection, Scout: Skirmisher
(Sorcerer) Storm: Storm’s Fury, Wild:Storm’s Fury

So... I got here and stopped without grabbing the warlock and wizard which I know (am playing a warlock right now) have some more and Also, the Protection Fighting style (you mentioned) alone covers all Fighters, Rangers, and Paladins. Casters also get shield which is big one as most casters have low AC, while casters two-weapon fighting is not that common, that's also why I don't want to do anything to discourage them further. … So why did I stop?... well I have been reading these abilities while looking them up and realized their is a better argument for using reactions than the "competing for the reaction is far smaller". So I am going to argue with myself in your favor like a crazy person and see if it convinces me your right for a tangent reason.

Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade. The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked. Tanking/aid abilities are not as likely to lean to two-weapon fighting because a shield provides better defense for tanking and support abilities are usually characters who avoid max damage so both cases are not likely to use two-weapon fighting for reasons of the build not deficiencies in TWF. This removes options 1-3 which is the vast majority from mattering when considering reactions.

The number 4 crowd control is a little different and really the only sticking point here. Does Two-weapon fighting warrant an additional cost over other fighting styles and if so does that warrant the lose of crowd control abilities the biggest by far being opportunity attacks which are as useful for their ability to deter enemies from running away as they are the damage. Feats like sentinel make enemies want to target you and punish them if they don't, pole arm and great weapon master both use them solely for increased damage. You have taken me from against using reactions to on the fence because I have no doubt that players are willing to pay it I am still not sure they should have too, since other fighting styles take feats for this at greater effect, but this is the very premise of two-weapon fighting style.

And I do think there needs to be some kind of action investment for TWF. Rolling it into the attack action seems too light, since you are doing something additional. If you allow it for free, then I could see an argument for just letting someone wielding a one-handed weapon getting an extra attack. In my opinion, there needs to be some kind of investment to make the additional attack. However, I also find the bonus action seems too costly. I feel like the reaction is a good middle ground. Especially since reactions can already be used for Opportunity Attacks, demonstrating a precedent for them to be used offensively.

So I think their is a cost of taking weapons that do less damage or lower defense. The extra attack is also a potential for more damage I know, which why I am suggesting advantage which means keeping the increase to hit of attacking twice while restricting the damage to one hit. It has the same critical chance of rolling two attacks as well until you get extra attack which is where two weapon fighting usually dies anyway. So I pretty much agree with everything you said, I just don't know that the reaction cost is the fix. I also limited the bonuses versus a single target, which will be fairly common and controllable because that prevents them from being tank builds (who would be better with shields with his in mind) and separates them from great weapon master which will do a lot more damage vs low AC high hit point opponents. It also stands out against Pole-arm master because polearm master will get two rolls to attack but also two damage rolls and works when fighting multiple enemies... So where do you see then need for the reaction cost here? What advantage does this have that warrants the extra cost? If your keeping the standard two-weapon fighting and changing it to reaction it makes more since because its better than pole arm master without it and pole arm master has the cost of a feat.

Additionally, I think you might be confounding the fighting style with what is already freely available to everyone. My goal with this change is not to encourage fighters to take the Two Weapon Fighting Style. You are correct that no other fighting style requires an additional action investment, but no other way of wielding weapons also allows or calls for an additional attack over what one might normally be entitled to.

But isn't that what sets two weapon fighting apart? Its multiple smaller hits instead of one larger more powerful hit. Which then falls apart when a character gets "extra action"... so after level 5 why would you weaken your self for 3 light hits when you could do 2 powerful hits? The off set of hits and damage dice doesn't really hold up when classes start getting all the other ways to do more attacks with their main hand weapon regardless. That's why it seems like advantage demonstrates the increase to hit of multiple strikes but doesn't be come the king of damage since its a matter of feinting to get the strike. Reliability with lower damage. I added the +2 AC vs a single melee target in part because of Mearl's intent and design but also because the same feinting weapons also force a bit of defensive posture from the enemy consistently keeping on their toes to figure out where the "real" attack is coming from. This lets this fighting style stand further away from pole-arm master and extra attack and gives it a unique nature as a being really good one on one but never wanting to be in the middle of the fight. So your not going to be fighting where the sword and shield, great weapon fighters, and pole-arm masters are meeting the enemy line head on. Which doesn't just suite rogues but Rangers, Fighters, even hex blades that are using lower armor and dex to pick off enemies on the edges one at a time.

As for your proposed change, I suppose it could work. However, I find it too unwieldy and complicated, and makes use of free actions, which to my knowledge are not found in 5e. Everything is either clearly defined in terms of its action type, or is considered a part of one of those action types.

Really that's what I did too, my mistake is using the term "free action". Though Advantage vs a single melee enemy is not that unwieldy. Also, its only really about 5% my idea I just put other ideas together from a few people. My wording is surely unwieldy though as concise is against my nature... how about....

Two-weapon Fighting
"Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage."

I like the extra but its not really two-weapon fighting.. perhaps making its own rule is better..

One-handed Fencing
"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage."

They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better?

I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care.

 

[ClaytonCross]

At the risk of cross-posting...

Meh, there's a good idea here, but I don't like the execution. I'd simplify it to:

-If you wield two light weapons you may choose to either make one extra attack or increase your AC bonus by +2 each turn.

I appreciate the input but its not that much more simplified and it completely nullified the need for a shield, since the +2 AC bonus defends against arrows, firebolt, and multiple enemies only providing you with another option when you feel like taking an extra attack. Why you would pick shield other than style? Also, the image of blocking arrows with a sword hurts my brain in some undefinable way despite being a fantasy game.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Calling my reply snarky is okay. Calling it "blind hate" is... maybe a tad much, eh?

That's fair but the difference between the two is in inflection which doesn't pass in text so its hard to know the difference based on your post alone.

It's simple really. MMearls don't get to both eat and have his cake. Stand by your rules or don't.

What? Can you try that again I really don't understand what your saying.

The post is about Mike Mearl's re-write attempt #1. I posted stating my problems with it and why, then I took the point of his idea and attempted to fix it. So "my idea" is an adjustment of his idea and not mine from scratch. I have also adjusted my idea based on feed back from others. Standing by "my idea" is no a thing because this is conversation of development and opinion brought up for discussion. Mike Mearls also may not have ever written or liked the original rule since he is part of a team and does not get final say.

So... again... your comment doesn't make any since. This thread is about homebrew so if your saying we should only go by rules as written in the book and not relating it to the homebrew conversation in any way... your in the wrong thread... a conversation on "why you should always follow rules as written" is off topic.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I am not a fan in general of the various ways two-weapon fighting can be done in 5E, so I am interested to see the final results of this experiment. And also like Mearls, I am not a big fan of the whole "bonus action" thing in 5E.

One of my beefs with the way the rule is written is the +2 bonus to AC. I am fine with that if one of the weapons being used is one that is designed for defensive purposes, such as a Main Gauche or other parrying daggers. But if neither weapon has this function, I would prefer the AC bonus was not allowed. But I know they are going for simpler rules with 5E, so things that specific or niche will have to be relegated to being a house rule.

On a side note, my favorite dual-wielding character was one I had way back in the 80's in 1st Ed AD&D. He was an Elven Fighter/Magic-user who fought with a longsword and spiked buckler. The AD&D version of the buckler was one that strapped to the forearm, so that hand was still free for spellcasting. Sure, back in that version of the rules, there were some serious penalties to hit when using two weapons while you were low level, but it was still fun.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Ok to lead off - I think your last graph with its reference liking my post to hate speech and blind venting with its questioning my fitness to post (obliquely) is essentially a personal attack.

If it came across that way I apologize. Seriously, that was/is not my intent. I really feel like that post was out of character for you since your largely at least on point. I recently had someone on another thread end up homeless an suicidal and I was in my first clumsy attempt to stretch out a olive branch for an offline conversation if you need to get something off your chest that's distracting you. Because that has actually happened to me recently on another forum and I trying to reach out to a fellow man actual concern and compassion. This was not a sarcastic attack, though I understand that is more common here and I can in hind sight see how it could be read that way. As I have never reached out before perhaps a private message would have been a better way to do that, so again I apologize it was a matter of my inexperience on trying to keep an ear out. I realize I have looked away more than have I offered a hand and I feel that is a change I should make in myself.

Now for your points...

First graph you reference the only rogues revision. But in the post I responded to you saifpd in fact not revision "These changes for TWF are NOT for rogues but a change for characters that actually fight with their weapons instead of using them to deliver a special ability like backstab. "

-If you had meant only rogues only backstab perhaps you should not have included the reference to the broader cases - effect deliverers.

On the second - as you state, these changes are not for rogues but for others. Leveling the TWF for non-rogues and still leaving it as go-to for rogues is **not leveling** as much as it's making it the one stop for top.

I am sure you can see and know that one form of leveling is for different choices to be best when paired with different choices and worse with others. Right now in 5e the great axe and rogue is an example that's a worse. At the same time TWF and rogue is pretty good.

I don't understand the confusion here since I called out backstab directly and it does effect other classes that use hits to deliver special abilities. However, most other classes don't use two-weapon fighting because their ability doesn't scale or they have another way to get a second attack for delivery. That said, this goes back to my point about attacking my writing not my point. I could be wrong but if I didn't mention other classes also use attacks for delivery I would be inaccurate and having called out backstab specifically and you even quoted me saying "These changes for TWF are NOT for rogues" which is me clarifying that in response to Pauln6. Pauln6 wanted to say it would make rogues never fight with one weapon I expanded it does really impact them much since they would get two rolls for two attacks or advantage then Pauln6 change to how rogues needed a one handed buff but rogues have to fight with light weapons to get backstab which are generally finesse so to two-handed makes since. In the end that's a rogue issue and is off topic from the two-weapon fighting style if the complaint is "rogue don't fight well one handed". We were talking about homebrew two-weapon fighting in reference to Mike Mearl's first attempt. So what you didn't read the posts between me an Pauln6 took everything out of context and then blamed me for being unclear!?!? WOW.

Over on the fighter side, some see TWF as the worse in that pair of options - greataxe or twf build.

That creates a leveling - each has a place they do better and a place they do worse.

But you apparently want to "level" the TWF for the fighter vs twf & greataxe.

Well, that's great but at the same time you need to also provide "leveling" for the greataxe rogue new rules **or** you are not really leveling anything, just creating an imbalance.

Rogues problem fighting one handed is based on rogue class design. Its not a TWF issue and has nothing to do with this thread. When you level a scale you add to one side at a time. If your saying the next thread is the one weapon rogue.. sure no problem. But saying "you didn't write everything at once so nothing works!!" is simply not true ever how any rule book is done. You make a draft, you find issues, you fix issues one at a time. If the one handed rogue greataxe rogue is build you should start a thread for concept building it.

The key is this - balance is not gained by looking at one side in isolation for something this complex.

Sure but even in a complex inclusive balancing you balance one part at time. Your stuck on the rogue but you have not once said what's wrong with my compiled design or suggested a fix for such a problem. You need to balance with inclusion but you still have to isolate each section to workshop it then compare it to how it fits in the in inclusive overview. So how does my build through off the inclusive game? Not by saying Greataxe rogues are broken because those are broken with the current rule and my rule has ZERO effect on that. You need to separate Greataxe Rogue fixes, work shop them, then see if the solution you find disturbs balance in other aspects in the inclusive view. … This is again an attack on change itself not on anything I have posted with actual points. You only arguing general methodology over and over as you have done on other threads, without in intent or relation to the current thread of discution.

So, if you want to provide some comprehensive set of changes to "level" rogue and fighter and paladin and ranger across all weapon style combat sets - by all means do. It likely has to start with them all getting martial proficiencies and shields - so that none require feats or MC fo get even access to certain styles and combos.

5e obviously was not built with that type of "leveling" or sameness in mind.

Leveling two sub options vs each other happens. leveling two classes vs each other happens. But their is a degree of specialization that is also considered. Your jumping off topic to argue this topic is deflection because you have not actually said what issue you have with this suggested house rule. Your avoiding it like the plague dancing around grand generalizations which aren't even true. They do balance classes but some measurements are harder than others so its not perfect but play testing is don't specifically to try. They also emphasizes unique roles and allow a level imbalance if it provides identity. Nothing about my change to two-weapon fighting does anything but attempt to bring balance closer in power to other fighting styles and provide and imbalance to a specific roll that defines it to grant it identity it is currently lacking. As it is two-weapon fighting is under powered and highly duplicated with monk martial arts and pole arm master which are simply better. The changes I made with the help of others makes them close enough to each other to make it a consideration to be picked and different enough to highlight specific style of play. That's really the best you can hope for ever. Is it the perfect? No, is it done? I don't think so. Its a process and people keep adding adjustments for improvement.

But as long as your leveling only applies one way to one set for one class (primarily) and leaves the unleveled cases for others, it's pretty much built on a foundation of sand as far as it bring a valid approach toward balance or leveling.

lmao. So what your saying the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement?

But the system as currently built takes a more diverse approach, leaving some combos better for some classes and others for others.

That is a true statement but it has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting not being well design with room for improvement. Its odd that your deflecting the subject of the thread and returning to the same everything has to be balanced to balance and at all the current system is imperfectly balanced perfection.

… All you have really said in this whole post is that you don't like change or the consideration of change. So again I don't understand why you bother to read house rules or post to threads about them... it seems like a great waste of your time and energy...

 

[clearstream]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls?ref_...9586421761&ref_url=https://www.sageadvice.eu/

Mike Mearls on Twitter:
"So here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule. Note that at this stage I’m ignoring the effect of feats, will get to those later:
If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack. All your attacks on your turn take a -4 penalty. Penalty drops to -2 if you have the Extra Attack feature, -1 if that feature gives you 2 more attacks, 0 if it gives you 3.
You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty.
I feel like dual wielding aims for flexibility, and that’s what I’m aiming at here. It’s a little more complex but lets the player feel like they have a lot of options.
It’s at the cost of a light weapon, so you’re dealing less damage than if you went longsword and shield.
TWF is *super* good at low levels, setting aside feats and class features. Since levels 1 - 4 are all about single attacks, it turns you into two characters.
...I think about it might be interesting to allow choice after first attack. That opens up possibilities a lot more."

What do you guys think?

At first glance is over-complicated. My version slightly modifies the feat to

"The first two-weapon fighting attack you make each turn, with the melee weapon in your other hand, doesn't require a bonus action."

Rest is as RAW. Idea is to be better for one-attack classes, especially Rogue who need their bonus for other things.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I am not a fan in general of the various ways two-weapon fighting can be done in 5E, so I am interested to see the final results of this experiment. And also like Mearls, I am not a big fan of the whole "bonus action" thing in 5E.

One of my beefs with the way the rule is written is the +2 bonus to AC. I am fine with that if one of the weapons being used is one that is designed for defensive purposes, such as a Main Gauche or other parrying daggers. But if neither weapon has this function, I would prefer the AC bonus was not allowed. But I know they are going for simpler rules with 5E, so things that specific or niche will have to be relegated to being a house rule.

On a side note, my favorite dual-wielding character was one I had way back in the 80's in 1st Ed AD&D. He was an Elven Fighter/Magic-user who fought with a longsword and spiked buckler. The AD&D version of the buckler was one that strapped to the forearm, so that hand was still free for spellcasting. Sure, back in that version of the rules, there were some serious penalties to hit when using two weapons while you were low level, but it was still fun.

I had a similar complaint about the AC bonus. I am not against a defensive bonus for melee because you can Perry stab with ether weapon or both at the same time but the idea of an AC bonus against arrows means what? They are blocking arrows with their swords like medieval fantasy jedi? Mechanically its superior to a shield at the same +2AC with an option for an extra when its connivant. I recommend, making the +2AC bonus in melee vs a single opponent that way it allows for your parrying dagger or slimily using one short sword to Perry while the other attack or feigns to force the enemy to with draw. But an archer just shoots them.

I understand your 1st edition AD&D dual-wielding love, I had a similar love with my 3.5 Ranger with a -2 main hand. -4 offhand penalty if I remember correctly. It started at -6 -8 I believe but I had a feat and a fighting style that reduced it by 2 each twice I believe. I did something like 6 attacks in a turn. Its been almost 20 years now so I don't remember exactly but it was my favorite in of my older characters. I tried building it in 5th edition and the Iconic duel bladed ranger just doesn't work as it is. First because the Rangers are heavily geared to be archers in this edition then secondly because between the lack of scaling in hunter's mark and extra attack. I seems like all the melee abilities for rangers are geared toward on hit so they are better off taking a single weapon. Even then, the 5th level Steel Wind Strike spell is the most functional ability to fight as a melee ranger and you don't get it until level 17. Which is a little sad because wizards get it at level 9 meaning that short extra attack you can watch your wizard out swordsman you for 8 slower progression high levels.

So this character is what pulls my interest in making two-weapon fighting more functional. Though I would also be happy with a Ranger duel wielding focused subclass.

 

[ClaytonCross]

At first glance is over-complicated. My version slightly modifies the feat to

"The first two-weapon fighting attack you make each turn, with the melee weapon in your other hand, doesn't require a bonus action."

Rest is as RAW. Idea is to be better for one-attack classes, especially Rogue who need their bonus for other things.

Not sure about the wording but implication of "The first" to me is that your extra attack class like fighter and ranger could use the bonus action for the second attack correct?

If so … that's actually not bad at all. It opens it up at level 5 a bit so its not forgotten extending the life and it means all the classes that use it can benefit in some way.

I might recommend a change of wording for clarity...

"When you take the attack action while you have a light weapon in each hand you make one attack with the offhand and you may use a bonus action you may make second off hand attack if you can make more than one standard attack with your action."

 

[clearstream]

Not sure about the wording but implication of "The first" to me is that your extra attack class like fighter and ranger could use the bonus action for the second attack correct?

If so … that's actually not bad at all. It opens it up at level 5 a bit so its not forgotten extending the life and it means all the classes that use it can benefit in some way.

That's right! The wording is intended to allow using a bonus action for a second attack. At first I tried removing the bonus action cost altogether, but that is broken by high-level fighters. This way it is decent for single-attack classes like Rogue, and scales somewhat for multi-attack classes. For Rogues, keeping the bonus free for Cunning Action is significant, and although the off-hand damage isn't big, the extra roll to apply Sneak Attack boosts it.

 

[Pauln6]

I thought you could choose which hand is your main hand anyway? The only limitations are you must attack with both weapons and which hand you use for your bonus action attack is dictated by the limitations on dual wielding.

Would it be better to alow the off-hand attack to be rolled into the attack action at level 5 and the extra off hand attack as a bonus action when 3 attacks kick in or would this mean that fighter rogues make better rogues than rogues?

Or allow two bonus action off hand attacks at level 5 but the second one is made with disadvantage then when three attacks kick in, allow the first off hand attack to be rolled into the attack action.

This stops multiclass rogues getting a fourth shot at sneak attack but still scales twf.