D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

[FrogReaver]

Suppose there was a -5/+10 feat for dual wielding. Then Dual wielding would basically be equal to polearm mastery + GWF. If you want to fix dual wielding I think you need a feat like that.

Now if you are playing in a featless game then TWF has some overlooked utility once you reach extra attack. You can start using the first attack in your sequence to attempt to prone an enemy and still make 2 attacks. You lose a lot less trying this than a PC that only has 2 attacks and no bonus action attacks. I'm don't think it makes up the full difference but it very well could at times.

 

[CapnZapp]

Last time I checked, even with these changes you still can't use GWM or SS with two-weapon fighting, so the balance concerns are pretty moot.

I mean, you can already do one extra attack with two-weapon fighting, and that doesn't break anything. For pretty much every class (everyone other than 11+ fighters), this suggested rule would give you one more extra attack over the current rule, and free up a bonus action. It probably pushes two-weapon fighting to be the best option for classes with large per-attack damage bonuses, like rangers, warlocks, and maybe barbarians. Even with 3 or 4 attacks, fighters are still going to favor great weapons and archery.

My only concern is that the suggested rule would interact weirdly with martial arts for monks, so that might need to be looked at.

Not sure which suggested rule you're thinking of here.

The biggest problem with TWF from a game optimization standpoint is how it monopolizes the bonus action.

A fair chunk of minmaxing as you level out of the low levels is putting the bonus action to good use. For everybody except level 11+ fighters that takes you from 2 to 3 attacks; a whopping 50% potential you can't afford not to exploit.

Any real solution to TWF must imo have that in mind.

In other words, TWF must no later than level 11 no longer hog your bonus action.

That's the minimum bar that needs to be cleared, or TWF must be boosted sufficiently to take reasonable min-maxing into account. (However, this latter approach is less fun - who wants the game to make your build decisions for you?)

Obviously it would be preferable if TWF could be redesigned (in a balanced way) to *never* require the bonus action.

 

[Xeviat]

I understand this doesn’t factor in the maths whatsoever, but rolling one die for damage without bonuses feels... unsatisfying. Especially at high level. So yes, the high-level fighter would make 4 off-hand attacks, but they would all feel rather weak. It’s only a perception issue, but somehow i can’t get over it.

Magic weapons would still apply a bonus. I'm just leaving off the +3-+5 from Str/Dex.

 

[TwoSix]

Not sure which suggested rule you're thinking of here.

The biggest problem with TWF from a game optimization standpoint is how it monopolizes the bonus action.

A fair chunk of minmaxing as you level out of the low levels is putting the bonus action to good use. For everybody except level 11+ fighters that takes you from 2 to 3 attacks; a whopping 50% potential you can't afford not to exploit.

Any real solution to TWF must imo have that in mind.

In other words, TWF must no later than level 11 no longer hog your bonus action.

That's the minimum bar that needs to be cleared, or TWF must be boosted sufficiently to take reasonable min-maxing into account. (However, this latter approach is less fun - who wants the game to make your build decisions for you?)

Obviously it would be preferable if TWF could be redesigned (in a balanced way) to *never* require the bonus action.

I was riffing off the OP's suggestion, which was to give one off-hand attack with no stat modifier for each main hand attack, with no BA cost.

To me, the ideal outcome is that great weapon fighting and two-weapon fighting are roughly equivalent (within 10% damage) for a neutral use case, like champion fighter. I think it's OK to have some subclasses that favor either great weapon or two weapon, as long as the amount of possible builds isn't heavily tilted towards only one. Ideally, the choice of weapon type would be primarily driven by aesthetics, with each option being favored situationally.

I think with the above rule there are enough subclasses that would favor two-weapon fighting that it could be considered viable, although I think for the fighter case that archery and great weapons (and their empowering feats) would still be stronger.

 

[Quartz]

The biggest problem with TWF from a game optimization standpoint is how it monopolizes the bonus action.

I disagree. You are getting a guaranteed extra chance to do extra damage.

To take a completely different perspective...

How about dropping the extra attack entirely? So with TWF you simply have a weapon in each hand and you can choose which one does the damage. No extra damage, no extra attacks, but the power of choice. So you can have a slashing weapon in one hand and a piercing weapon in the other.

 

[Xeviat]

I disagree. You are getting a guaranteed extra chance to do extra damage.

To take a completely different perspective...

How about dropping the extra attack entirely? So with TWF you simply have a weapon in each hand and you can choose which one does the damage. No extra damage, no extra attacks, but the power of choice. So you can have a slashing weapon in one hand and a piercing weapon in the other.

This has very minimal benefit over just switching weapons. Also, skeletons are the only creature with any benefit for using one damage type over the other, are they not?

 

[Quartz]

This has very minimal benefit over just switching weapons. Also, skeletons are the only creature with any benefit for using one damage type over the other, are they not?

There are many creatures with Resistance to various damage types. And consider the case where one weapon is magical and the other non-magical: some creatures only have Resistance to non-magical damage of a particular type. I don't have the Monster Manual to hand.

 

[TwoSix]

How about dropping the extra attack entirely? So with TWF you simply have a weapon in each hand and you can choose which one does the damage. No extra damage, no extra attacks, but the power of choice. So you can have a slashing weapon in one hand and a piercing weapon in the other.

Mike Mearls said in a tweet last year that the majority of playtesters preferred that dual-wielding give extra attacks; rules that simply combined damage expressions into a single attack rule didn't "feel" like dual-wielding.

Fundamentally, bonus actions are valuable when they're utilized correctly, a mid-level GWM/PAM barbarian's bonus action of 1d4+16 or a SS/XBE fighter's bonus action of 1d6+14 just don't compare to a short sword attack of 1d6+4. Ideally, we need a feat that adds the -X/+2X mechanic to one-handed weapons.

 

[Quartz]

Fundamentally, bonus actions are valuable when they're utilized correctly, a mid-level GWM/PAM barbarian's bonus action of 1d4+16 or a SS/XBE fighter's bonus action of 1d6+14 just don't compare to a short sword attack of 1d6+4. Ideally, we need a feat that adds the -X/+2X mechanic to one-handed weapons.

You're forgetting that that 1d4+16 is at -5 to hit. And for one-handed weapons, Shield Master is the feat you want: bash your opponent, and if it falls, you and your mates make all your attacks with Advantage.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

How about dropping the extra attack entirely? So with TWF you simply have a weapon in each hand and you can choose which one does the damage. No extra damage, no extra attacks, but the power of choice. So you can have a slashing weapon in one hand and a piercing weapon in the other.

You can already do this anyway, without needing to invoke any TWF rules.

Mike Mearls said in a tweet last year that the majority of playtesters preferred that dual-wielding give extra attacks; rules that simply combined damage expressions into a single attack rule didn't "feel" like dual-wielding.

Fundamentally, bonus actions are valuable when they're utilized correctly, a mid-level GWM/PAM barbarian's bonus action of 1d4+16 or a SS/XBE fighter's bonus action of 1d6+14 just don't compare to a short sword attack of 1d6+4. Ideally, we need a feat that adds the -X/+2X mechanic to one-handed weapons.

You could do things a little differently than that. Perhaps a feat that does:

If your 'main-hand' attack misses, your 'off-hand' attack is performed with advantage.
If your 'main-hand' attack hits your 'off-hand' attack adds your proficiency bonus to damage.