• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

Consensus about two-weapon fighting?

Bacon Bits

Explorer
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.)
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
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.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
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.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Use group checks, it's a great feature of 5e. Making everyone make a stealth check individually is almost always guaranteeing failure.
Yea. I've no idea why 5e didn't use group checks to determine surprise, but they didn't. Read the example in the PHB. Everyone rolls individually..
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
I agree, but not how 5e stealth rules are written :(
This is why I treat the rules more as a series of suggestions. I'm not letting the rules lock me into something I think is stupid. That's probably the main benefit of forums like this one, to see how other GMs manage their big book of homebrew.

That said, I also tend to run campaigns that are either stealth intensive or not and characters are generate to match. In the former case I handle things a little differently. For a non-stealth heavy game the party roll is my fall back mechanic.

I do not use party rolls for surprise though. If you made a character designed to most often go first and generally not be surprised I'm not to wreck that by rolling a party roll, and I don't tend to differentiate there based on campaign feels. That's the same reason I don't use group stealth checks in a stealth heavy campaign but I do in other campaigns. When everyone has rolled up a ninja they can be that, but in a more normal party I'd rather roll group checks and allow the one or two stealth capable characters to help the party succeed (or they run out ahead all stealthy-like, whichever).
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
This is why I treat the rules more as a series of suggestions. I'm not letting the rules lock me into something I think is stupid. That's probably the main benefit of forums like this one, to see how other GMs manage their big book of homebrew.

That said, I also tend to run campaigns that are either stealth intensive or not and characters are generate to match. In the former case I handle things a little differently. For a non-stealth heavy game the party roll is my fall back mechanic.

I do not use party rolls for surprise though. If you made a character designed to most often go first and generally not be surprised I'm not to wreck that by rolling a party roll, and I don't tend to differentiate there based on campaign feels. That's the same reason I don't use group stealth checks in a stealth heavy campaign but I do in other campaigns. When everyone has rolled up a ninja they can be that, but in a more normal party I'd rather roll group checks and allow the one or two stealth capable characters to help the party succeed (or they run out ahead all stealthy-like, whichever).
Right but this thread is about TWF fixes for the rules. Assuming a bunch of houserules - which are perfectly acceptable - doesn't really help reach any kind of consensus on the subject of TWF.
 

Fenris-77

Explorer
Well, to be fair the last thread was about actual fixes while this one is ostensibly about consensus regarding the nature of the fix. Nor were we specifically, you or I, talking about TWF just now, but stealth and surprise. I'll put my hand up to acknowledge a yellow card for off-topic play, will you?:D
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Well, to be fair the last thread was about actual fixes while this one is ostensibly about consensus regarding the nature of the fix. Nor were we specifically, you or I, talking about TWF just now, but stealth and surprise. I'll put my hand up to acknowledge a yellow card for off-topic play, will you?:D
The whole discussion of surprise is related to TWF. I wasn't the one that brought surprise up. Someone else did.

So what I'm saying is that we can't truly evaluate TWF without accounting for surprise and we can't account for surprise by evaluating it's likelihood to occur based on house rules that make it easier to achieve.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
Getting back to two weapon fighting

The thing that bothers me is that the D&D idea of two weapon fighting (an extra weapon = an extra attack, although perhaps at a penalty to hit, depending on the edition) is NOT how two weapon fighting works in the real world.

The main goal of having two weapons was to have more options, more range (a long blade for more distant work, a shorter one for closed in range) and for defense (parry with one blade, strike with the other). It wasn't to attack twice as fast. Warhammer 2nd ed, for its imperfection, had a much more realistic take on two weapon fighting than D&D....
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
This is why I treat the rules more as a series of suggestions. I'm not letting the rules lock me into something I think is stupid. That's probably the main benefit of forums like this one, to see how other GMs manage their big book of homebrew.

That said, I also tend to run campaigns that are either stealth intensive or not and characters are generate to match. In the former case I handle things a little differently. For a non-stealth heavy game the party roll is my fall back mechanic.

I do not use party rolls for surprise though. If you made a character designed to most often go first and generally not be surprised I'm not to wreck that by rolling a party roll, and I don't tend to differentiate there based on campaign feels. That's the same reason I don't use group stealth checks in a stealth heavy campaign but I do in other campaigns. When everyone has rolled up a ninja they can be that, but in a more normal party I'd rather roll group checks and allow the one or two stealth capable characters to help the party succeed (or they run out ahead all stealthy-like, whichever).
The thing that is very nice about the group check is that they are more accomodating of varied party composition. I remember this 3.X game we had an archer (dex fighter essentially), a fighter-rogue, a ranger-rogue, a very high dex mage, a bard and... me, the clucky low dex armored cleric. So everyone BUT one character was moderately (or very) sneaky. So I would have to stay behind, or the group couldn't sneak around (or maybe use a silent spell I suppose). The group check means it's "ok" to have a low stealth character, it doesn't ruin it for the whole party.

It also means that there is a benefit to being moderately stealthy, because those "somewhat stealthy" characters can really help the group pass a check.
 

Advertisement

Top