D&D 5E CoS removed bonus action to two weapon fighting on attack my thoughts.

[jaelis]

I think that ranger/rogue isn't particularly optimal to take advantage of that, compared to a pure rogue. For a straight rogue, the advantage of TWF is that it gives you two chances to land your sneak attack. But it conflicts with cunning action which typically makes it harder to get your SA conditions. So your rule for a pure rogue would be quite advantageous. Doesn't mean it is "broken," rogues aren't typically considered at the top end of the power spread anyway.

But I wouldn't generalize too much from your character's experience. The point is that if you want to decide whether a rule is "broken" for the game overall, you have to actually try to break it... I suspect a quarterstaff PM/TWF character would be the best test case here.

It sounds like the rule is working fine for your characters at your table, which means it is a good idea for you. I just wouldn't suggest wholesale adoption by the community without more of a stress test

 

[jayoungr]

What I am not sure of...
Is Mei not OP because most of my important fights are above the 6 rounds mark?
Is Mei not OP because there are no Hand X-bow in Barovia so she has to be careful with her amunitions?
Is Mei not OP because she did not take the archer style, barring her from the +2 to hit? (but there she'd lose her 3rd shot...)

What are your thoughts?

Another possibility--and I don't know which, if any of these choices is the correct one:

Is Mei not OP because she is a multiclassed character?

 

[Helldritch]

I don't think that the fact that Mei is multiclassed is weakening her. On the contrary. Only the two weapon style (and not feats) remove the bonus action requirement. This means that unless a rogue takes a level in fighter or 2 levels in ranger or paladin; the rogue won't have access to a free attack and the rogue will have to use his bonus action to actualy make that off hand attack.

Mei started up as a ranger and she quickly took two rogue levels for the sneak attack bonus. It does make her versatile but still...
The more I play with this group the more I am concerned that in the hands of an optimizer this could mean a lot of trouble. I can imagine taking a single level of fighter to get archer fighting style, offsetting the drawback of not having the +2 to hit. Yet it would mean a lot of classes in a single character and it could weakened her in the high end of her adventuring career. Time will tell...

 

[jaelis]

I don't think that the fact that Mei is multiclassed is weakening her. On the contrary. Only the two weapon style (and not feats) remove the bonus action requirement.

I missed that in your explanation, sorry. That does help, though I still think stacking TWF with other bonus action attacks is the bigger issue.

 

[CapnZapp]

I would like to point out that RAW you cannot dual wield hand crossbows because they are not melee weapons. The PHB states "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."

Dual hand x-bows aren't particularly overpowered, since the Crossbow Expert feat effectively lets you dual-wield with a single hand x-bow rules as written.

That is, Crossbow Expert is broken and bad in many ways; but the specific act of allowing a character to dual wield hand x-bows is
a) not (more) broken
b) cool as hell
c) should have been allowed by the rules already!

 

[CapnZapp]

I know that dual wielding isn't supposed to be with hand x-bow. It was part of a character concept we thought could be cool (and it is). My only worry was that it might get too powerful. So far it is not the case but as I have stated, my main concern is if it is only because of how I run my games that it is not OP or if everything is working as planned...

Dual wielding is in itself not the broken thing.

(Yes, it is very strong for levels 1-4 for obvious reasons, but calms down thereafter).

What is broken as frak is the "free" dual wield feat, the "built-in" two-weapon fighting style (you get to add Dex to the bonus action attack), and frankly everything else about Crossbow Expert.

Just the atomic notion to take a dual short sword wielder and replace that with dual hand crossbows do not break the game. It gives a little bit of range, that's all. Without the feat(s), the disadvantages (short range, is disadvantaged by monsters running into melee) balance up things nicely, enough to say the change (ignoring ammunition loading and free-hand issues) is a "rule of cool" that's good enough.

Just don't let the character take Sharpshooter (among other things it essentially negates the important restriction of 30 ft range). Or Crossbow Expert (a feat that would make the game strictly better if deleted in its every detail).

 

[Lord Twig]

I use a similar house rule:

Two Weapon Fighting Style
In addition to its normal benefit, add:
Attacking with a second weapon does not require a bonus action when you use the attack action. You may draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

So you have to take the Two Weapon Fighting Style to gain the extra attack without the bonus action. I also put in the draw and stow two light weapons just because it is annoying to draw one weapon one round and the second one the next round. I just want to keep the game moving and allow the player who wants to fight with two weapons to actually fight with two weapons.

In addition I allow all feats except for Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter. Because I am a generous DM that allows some of the optional feats into the game.

Anyone that attempts to use a longsword and quarterstaff with Two Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder and Polearm Master feats will get a look of scorn until they stop being such a disgusting munchkin.

 

[jaelis]

In addition I allow all feats except for Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter. Because I am a generous DM that allows some of the optional feats into the game.

Anyone that attempts to use a longsword and quarterstaff with Two Weapon Fighting Style and the Dual Wielder and Polearm Master feats will get a look of scorn until they stop being such a disgusting munchkin.

Well that works ... but what about monk X/fighter 1, with two short swords, do they get a free TWF attack on top of martial arts/flurry?

Perhaps a general purpose solution is to say if you use TWF with the fighting style, you simply can't use your bonus action to make another attack. Though you'd have to decide if shoves and grapples counted for that.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well that works ... but what about monk X/fighter 1, with two short swords, do they get a free TWF attack on top of martial arts/flurry?

Perhaps a general purpose solution is to say if you use TWF with the fighting style, you simply can't use your bonus action to make another attack. Though you'd have to decide if shoves and grapples counted for that.

I could do that, but I think if the player wants to give up a level of Monk for the extra 1d6+(3-5) damage per round I will just let him do it. Just like I would let the Two Weapon Fighting Style, Dual Wielder, Polearm Master get his extra 1d4+(3-5) damage. If they want to put that much resources into getting an extra attack, go for it.

 

[jaelis]

Well, but you said you wouldn't let the TWF PM idea work due to your death stare

So you're OK with it working for monk, what about barbarian berserker frenzy?

And the TB/SM build using his shield as a TWF weapon and still getting his free shove?

I guess the point is: are you playing that it is cool to just combine the TWF attack with whatever other bonus action attacks you can come up with? Or are you really restricting the bonus action to non-attacking things like cunning action etc.

Because if you just let TWF stack up then I think some of the highest DPR characters in the game will get better.