D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

[FrogReaver]

Question #1.

For a feat based game does a -5/+10 feat for TWF fix it?

 

[Fenris-77]

It would help sure, but its boring. Having that rule in two different places is already probably one too many. Its an easy fix, and just leaves the matter of TWF using the bonus attack.

 

[Laurefindel]

No, now you went ahead and forgot that I only used haste as an example of bonus action usage.

Okay, so I have to be brutally clear:

The fact TWF hogs the bonus action is a significant disadvantage.

You want that "slot" to be open for use by the myriad cool effects that become available at mid to high levels, where Haste is far from the only effect, assuming of course the DM isn't running a particularly magic-light campaign (such as perhaps AL)

Simply speaking, TWF robs you of one of the most significant crunch choices outside class builds, which makes it not only slightly inferior but much less fun.

So. Back to my assertion: No later than L11, TWF should ideally no longer hog the bonus action.

All type of BA use, or mainly the extra attack ones?

In other words, what if you could stack multiple BA as long as they were extra attacks?

 

[Fenris-77]

The bonus action is what it is, once a turn. It makes far more sense to change TWF if thats you goal since you need to change the fewest number of things.

 

[5ekyu]

Separate argument, but the fighter is the only character who would TWF that gets to choose between Str or Dex (sure, you could build a str focused ranger, but you need moderate Dex to Max medium armor so why bother)

Str gets thrown weapons (lower damage, less range, less time for weapon switching), and +1 AC from heavy Armor.
Dex gets projectile weapons (higher damage and range, but needs to actively switch between melee and range), and higher initiative.

As it stands now, it is inarguable that the fighter deals more damage at low levels (1-4) with two weapon fighting than with the other styles. My suggestion actually nerfs this. At 5th-10th level, this switches, to GWFing having a slight lead in damage over TWFing. At 11th, GWFing blows TWFing out of the water.

So, either it should be a little better (cost of bonus action), or a little worse (potential added value of Dex, which I think should be rebalanced elsewhere), but not switching between them and not vastly worse.

I disagree.

"Separate argument, but the fighter is the only character who would TWF that gets to choose between Str or Dex (sure, you could build a str focused ranger, but you need moderate Dex to Max medium armor so why bother)"

Paladin with two weapons gains sn extra attack and that gains if dex based all the usual dex gains plus an extra smite chance. His limits per turn are " hits" not like sneak which is per turn.

Barbarian-rogue combines strength and finesse quite well even using strength as the base. Iirc the rage bonus applies to both and the dnesk bonus only requires a finesse weapon, not the use of DEX in the attack.

I have seen both in play. The former focuses on nova and the second on sustained hits and sneak with advantsge on demand.

 

[Laurefindel]

The bonus action is what it is, once a turn. It makes far more sense to change TWF if thats you goal since you need to change the fewest number of things.

Agreed,

However, the point is that this can be what TWF becomes; if the principle holds true. Something like “whenever you make a melee attack as a bonus action, you can also make an attack with your offhand weapon”.

Thing is, I’m not sure if the principle does hold true, and if it would solve enough of the problem to be considered as a solution.

 

[FrogReaver]

My issue with removing the bonus action on TWF comes down to classes other than fighter.

Why not use TWF with a melee ranger if you don't have to worry about the bonus action attack competing with your hunters mark extra attack.
Why not disengage away with rogue cunning if you can attack and TWF attack with no bonus action.
Why not cast a smite spell and attack 3 times at level 5 while using divine smite on every hit.
Why not have a monk that TWF's and uses flurry of blows on the same turn.

My personal opinion is that TWF is decently balanced for everyone but fighters. As such the fix might be to make a fighter fix instead of a TWF fix. Tie something extra for TWF into the fighters 3rd and maybe 4th extra attack abilities.

 

[Fenris-77]

It doesn't have to be removed whole hog, it could easily e removed viw a feat, or two feats depending on how much you wanted to gate the ability. All the other styles require a whole build to maximize, so I don't see why TWF should be any different. Basing it on feats also helps keep the fighter more at the top of the style heap because he has the most ASIs to spend. You could even leave TWF as is and write a feat tree that layered on top.

 

[TwoSix]

Why not use TWF with a melee ranger if you don't have to worry about the bonus action attack competing with your hunters mark extra attack.
Why not disengage away with rogue cunning if you can attack and TWF attack with no bonus action.
Why not cast a smite spell and attack 3 times at level 5 while using divine smite on every hit.
Why not have a monk that TWF's and uses flurry of blows on the same turn.

Considering that only one out of four of those classes will sometimes dual-wield right now, that certainly seems like a strong argument to remove the bonus action. Especially considering that 3 of those 4 classes should really be commonly dual-wielding, at least by trope.

 

[snickersnax]

I like a change to duel wielder feat which allows opportunity attacks to be made with both weapons (ie two attacks, one with each weapon when making an opportunity attack). Then move ability to draw two weapons at the same time over to two weapon fighting.