D&D 5E Am I the only one that likes two weapon fighting as is?

[calprinicus]

I see a lot of people who rant on two weapon fighting (TWF). I have playtested this since it was an options or next and am quite happy with the rules as they stand.

The current iteration is to use one action to roll 2 attacks that both deal half damage. This in practice is a good balance. I'm dealing the same damage as a one weapon teammate. However I'm more versitile being able to hit multiple targets.

I was never a fan of TWF in previous iterations (3.5) of DnD because you needed to climb a large feat tree before you felt competent holding two weapons. The fact TWF is a featless option out of the gate , that feels good is pretty awesome and a big improvement IMHO.

For some reason people want TWF to be more powerful than single weapon fighting yet not be over powered. This is always a weird idea to me. They want both weapons to deal normal damage, but when you take minuses to attack rolls they complain more than reducing damage.

My only issue is that the same isn't applied to other offhand weapons. I think the shield is in this category. I feel like wielding shield and sword is just as hard as two swords. With sword and board The weilder has to maneuver both arms with the same awareness as a two weapon fighter. I'm not suggesting to lower the shields stats or lower attacks while wielding a shield. But instead make an option for maybe solo shield fighting were the shield can be a bit more powerful and shield bash is a viable option.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

You're actually talking about the previous playtest rule and with that you aren't doing as much damage, even including deadly strike, when compared to a 2HW or even a 1HW, unless you are including your ability modifier or hitting on a 4+.

I want TWF to be a combat style that's available right out of the gate too. I always reiterate though that if you want it to be represented by two separate attacks, you cannot balance the damage completely, you have to have reduced average damage in exchange for a better chance to get your deadly strike or sneak attack damage. Even this is questionable to balance as these values become greater.

As for the sword and shield, you don't have to move the shield with as much precision as a weapon. If you just hold it up you'll absorb some wild swings without any effort. You're also using your whole arm to move it, not your arm and wrist.

 

[Jester David]

The old TWF had problems in that it was a feat that allowed you to increase your minimum damage (by increasing you chances of hitting) but decreasing your maximum damage (as you halve then round down). Neat but not really great for a feat.
An easy fix would have been adding a bonus to damage if both attacks hit. A rend effect.

The current TWF is super unpopular because we're only seeing the effects on untrained characters. We don't know what a fighter or rogued trained in TWF will look like now

 

[Stormonu]

Hmm. I haven't looked over the packet myself, but I'd wonder if it could be set up as a sort of CS dice situation. The base rule would be to grant a penalty to the attack roll, but deal normal damage with each OR you can choose to half the damage of the weapon and attack at no penalty. Fighters (and perhaps rogues) could expend CS dice instead of halving the weapon damage.

A little more complicated, but then it works for both camps and builds in effects for those that want to specialize in TWF.

<EDIT> This would also allow for some hybrid attacks. You could do both weapon attacks at a to hit penalty and deal full damage, do the primary weapon at a penalty to do full damage and the off-hand weapon at no penalty to hit to do half damage or do both weapons at no penalty to hit but deal half damage each.

 

[nightwalker450]

I'm a big fan of the previous one (sans feat cost). The only thing that needs to be clarified is that you don't half sneak attack/deadly strike damage with it.

Then for non-fighter/rogues it might not have as high of damage, but it would still be more consistent damage. And for fighter/rogue it gives you more of a chance to use your expertise dice.

I'm not a big fan of the disadvantage thing, because there's going to be a big problem if advantage/disadvantage is overused. Eventually you'll get to a point where you constantly have disadvantage and advantage and thus you should just remove the rule because neither will ever affect anything.

 

[kerleth]

I was a big fan of the previous one as well. I figured tweak the language and drop the feat and you'd be good. After a lot of discussion I realized it just didn't work for many people. Myself, I don't want two-weapon fighting to deal more damage than two-handed. I'd like it to have it's own niche, like increased accuracy. But I think it is an absolute must that it not be reduced to a single attack roll. I just know of and have played with too many people that would hate that, no matter how logical and balanced.