• 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?

Yaarel

Explorer
Until theres a consensus, I like the suggestion by @Saelorn to combine the dice of the two weapons as a single attack.

A bonus action can split the attacks, so as to hit separate targets.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
I'm still going with the fix I suggested in the other thread. No bonus action cost. If you use a weapon in each hand, if an attack with main hand misses, you can make a followup attack with the off hand weapon. Off hand weapon attack doesn't get mod to damage (except with fighting style).

Raises overall damage by increasing accuracy instead of the damage value. No extra hits gained, so doesn't scale out of control with smites or on-hit effects. Might be a little too good for rogues and monks in Tier 1, but I'm not losing sleep over that.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
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....

What did Warhammer do?
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
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....
I second the vote for interest in how Warhammer did it.
 

Horwath

Explorer
1. Two weapon fighting: when wielding one handed weapon in each hand that you are proficient, you have +1 to either melee attack or +1 AC.
Change at beginning of the round as free action.
With style you have both always active. Y
ou attack with either one or other weapon as normal attack action.
No bonus attacks for having two weapons.
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
True, it seems like having two weapons would give you a better chance of hitting if you take an offensive stance (feinting, attacking simultaneously, etc.) or defensive (keeping opponents at bay, parrying, etc.).

Two-Weapon Fighting
If you are wielding a weapon in each hand and one of the weapons has the Light property, you can use your bonus action to choose to gain a +2 bonus to your attack roll or a +1 bonus to your Armor Class. Your damage is equal to the greater of the two weapons. You choose which bonus to gain at the start of your turn.

Two-Weapon Fighting Style
You gain the benefits of fighting with two weapons without using your bonus action.

...or something like that. :)
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
What did Warhammer do?
I second the vote for interest in how Warhammer did it.
Ok, so warhammer is pretty different.

First of all armor doesn't prevent hits, it prevents damage (ie it gives you a bit of DR). Same thing with "con" (toughness in warhammer terms), it doesn't give you more hp, it prevents damage. Usually the strength bonus and the toughness bonus cancel each other out, but if you are tougher than your foe is strong (and/or stronger than he is tough) you have a big edge.

When you do an attack, you roll vs your weapon skill (a % roll. 30% is a low skill character, 60% would be a high skill character, 80% is astoundingly good). If you succeed, your enemy *might* get to attempt to parry the blow, which is where a second weapon comes in. To do a parry, the enemy does a weapon skill check, and if they succeed, the attack is blocked.

You don't get a free parry see, you have to take a "stance" (which has a cost, action economy wise) that gives you that parry ... UNLESS you have a shield or an off head weapon ready, in which case your parry attempt *is* free, meaning you can take a different "stance" which is more offensive, or move, or do a full attack action (if you have more than 1 attack per round).

Some "classes" also get a dodge skill which allows you to parry 1 a round *and* dodge 1 a round.

The warhammer system is much more realistic, as someone who's done sword fighting, than D&D. The problem with it is *time*.

D&D:
1: roll to hit
2: roll for damage if needed
3: apply damage

Warhammer:
1: roll to hit
2: Roll a parry if the defender has one
3: Roll for damage if needed
4: Deduce from the damage armor (if any) and toughness bonus
5: apply damage.

Lastly, I'll mention that base damage is 1d10, and a starting PC has about 10 wounds (or "hp"). A high level hero has 20. At zero hp, you stop taking hp damage and start taking critical hits, which may be bad (you are stunned!) to lethal (you are decapitated). Of and if you roll max damage, your roll to confirm the crit and then you roll damage again - and if you get a second 10, you just keep rolling. One goblin arrow can kill you.

Combat in Warhammer is dangerous and best avoided... just like real life.
 

Blue

Orcus on a bad hair day
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. I think a lot of the people are just looking at the "specialized two weapon fighter" case and ignoring the other cases.

Like adding the damage together - means that any simple weapon wielder wanting to use both hands an Attack action goes from d8 (greatclub or versatile staff) to 2d6 (two of many d6 weapons) - now equal to the very best two handed martial damage.

Everyone, please evaluate how your proposed solutions will affect the non melee-focused cases like clerics, non-valor/sword bards, etc. If it makes it a no brainer to always use two weapons, that's not a viable solution.
 

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
I agree. I think a lot of the people are just looking at the "specialized two weapon fighter" case and ignoring the other cases.

Like adding the damage together - means that any simple weapon wielder wanting to use both hands an Attack action goes from d8 (greatclub or versatile staff) to 2d6 (two of many d6 weapons) - now equal to the very best two handed martial damage.

Everyone, please evaluate how your proposed solutions will affect the non melee-focused cases like clerics, non-valor/sword bards, etc. If it makes it a no brainer to always use two weapons, that's not a viable solution.
Well, for Strength users, at least. There are no light, finesse simple weapons in core, so a Dex dual-wielder would be limited to 2d4.

That being said, that's one of the reasons I've never liked the "add the weapon's damage" together approach. It also doesn't give the feel of making more attacks (an important aspect to retain, per Mearls discussing survey responses), and it interacts oddly with weapon buffs and magic weapons.
 

Xeviat

Explorer
That being said, that's one of the reasons I've never liked the "add the weapon's damage" together approach. It also doesn't give the feel of making more attacks (an important aspect to retain, per Mearls discussing survey responses), and it interacts oddly with weapon buffs and magic weapons.

Which survey? I'd like to see those
 

Xeviat

Explorer
I would to, but he only mentioned it in a tweet when he was discussing his own house rules for two-weapon fighting a year or two ago.

Edit: Found the tweet. https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/1014222138268573696?s=12

Thanks for the google-fu. I do one hundred percent agree. I've crunched a lot of numbers and "attack as many times with your offhand, no ability bonus to offhand, no bonus action" is perfectly balanced with the fighter, but it's a power up for everyone else. The more and more I'm in this debate, I think that the fighter needs a patch for TWFing because it is fine on everyone else.

This is a design mistake to me. Oops.
 

Quartz

Explorer
The more and more I'm in this debate, I think that the fighter needs a patch for TWFing because it is fine on everyone else.
Well, the Fighter isn't actually better than any other class at - you know - fighting until level 11. It isn't even equal. And even then, at 11th level the Paladin gets a huge damage boost.
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
Well, the Fighter isn't actually better than any other class at - you know - fighting until level 11. It isn't even equal. And even then, at 11th level the Paladin gets a huge damage boost.
Which IMO is a very sad reflection on 5E...
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Well, the Fighter isn't actually better than any other class at - you know - fighting until level 11. It isn't even equal. And even then, at 11th level the Paladin gets a huge damage boost.
If feats are included I think fighters get an edge.
In a non-feat game I think you are absolutely right. Fighters are no stronger at fighting than paladins. Just different. Not worse either.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
Thanks for the google-fu. I do one hundred percent agree. I've crunched a lot of numbers and "attack as many times with your offhand, no ability bonus to offhand, no bonus action" is perfectly balanced with the fighter, but it's a power up for everyone else. The more and more I'm in this debate, I think that the fighter needs a patch for TWFing because it is fine on everyone else.

This is a design mistake to me. Oops.
I'm not as convinced as I was at the start of these conversations that it's even needed then - apart from a feat powerup to help compete with GWM and SS and even Shield Master.

There's a lot of versatility in going dex and two-weapon fighting in melee and using a longbow for ranged.
There's also the added benefits to stealth and initiative.
There's also the added benefit of many damage based saving throws being dex based which the higher dex helps against.

These things don't get factored in on raw damage numbers but they are definitely meaningful.
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
If feats are included I think fighters get an edge.
In a non-feat game I think you are absolutely right. Fighters are no stronger at fighting than paladins. Just different. Not worse either.
Really, because fighters can get more? Otherwise nothing stops a paladin from taking the same feats as a fighter.
 

FrogReaver

Adventurer
I disagree: the extra feat at level 6 (never mind level 14) isn't enough to offset all the goodies the other fighting classes get.
Those feats (for the -5/+10 feats and bonus action attack feats and str/dex) coupled with action surge and precision maneuver make him the highest damage PC till rogues can get haste with a high sneak attack pool - ie the best at fighting.
 

dnd4vr

Adventurer
Those feats (for the -5/+10 feats and bonus action attack feats and str/dex) coupled with action surge and precision maneuver make him the highest damage PC till rogues can get haste with a high sneak attack pool - ie the best at fighting.
You continually give Action Surge and other fighter features far more worth than they merit when those features are not constant. Sure, features such as Divine Smite are limited as well, but with all the slots a high level Paladin has at his disposal, it is more than what the Fighter can do.

Precision is usable at most 6 times per short/long rest, and with Action Surge at 11th level or higher you could blow through all of it in a single round. Being able to dish out the most damage for a single round does not make Fighters (in general, since you have a very specific build in mind) the best at fighting.
 

Advertisement

Top