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

[Ancalagon]

I'm trying to remember when we've had a consensus here about anything.

There seems to be a consensus that this post is funny

 

[Zardnaar]

Needs more Gnome Warlord Paladin's (LG only) dual wielding rapiers.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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

The current rule on Two-Weapon Fighting (PHB p195) is this:

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. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus 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.

Throw that out and replace it with:

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Next, throw out the weapon drawing rule that restricts you to one drawn weapon, and replace it with, "A character can freely draw any number of readily accessible weapons, within reason." I'm sorry, but drawing a dagger from a belt or bandoleer is not more complicated than drawing an arrow. Sheathing weapons is still limited to one free per turn.

Finally, change the Dual Wielder feat to:

Choose any three benefits:

• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light. Shields and improvised weapons cannot benefit from this feature.
• You gain the benefits of the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style. You gain no benefit if you already have this fighting style.
• If you have the Extra Attack feature or a similar feature and have a proficiency bonus of +4 or higher, you may make two attacks with your second weapon instead of only one. (You may select this feature when you select this feat even if your proficiency bonus is less than +4. It will provide no benefit until your proficiency bonus is +4 or higher.)

 

[Paul Farquhar]

There seems to be a consensus that this post is funny

Nope, it is so blatantly obvious that no consensus can exist that the joke is not funny. The original post is the joke.

 

[FrogReaver]

That party everyone was Dex based or trained in stealth. One or two may have had 14 Dex.

It's not hard to beat npc passive perception.

It is for a whole party. If even 1 roll is low out of 4-5 players you fail.

 

[Fenris-77]

It is for a whole party. If even 1 roll is low out of 4-5 players you fail.

This is why I think party rolls with the worst mod rolling works better, since you can help that guy. I only require multiple stealth rolls when the party has splt up. Not that you said differently.

 

[SkidAce]

It is for a whole party. If even 1 roll is low out of 4-5 players you fail.

I think if you are using group checks, all you need are more success than failures.

 

[Oofta]

Needs more Gnome Warlord Paladin's (LG only) dual wielding rapiers.

 

[Ancalagon]

It is for a whole party. If even 1 roll is low out of 4-5 players you fail.

Use group checks, it's a great feature of 5e. Making everyone make a stealth check individually is almost always guaranteeing failure.

 

[Ancalagon]

This is why I think party rolls with the worst mod rolling works better, since you can help that guy. I only require multiple stealth rolls when the party has splt up. Not that you said differently.

If you want to house rule that way this is fine, but the group check is more generous than that - everyone checks using their own check, and if half the party succeeds, the party succeeds.