D&D 5E Improving Two-Weapon Fighting

[FrogReaver]

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.

Rangers, rogues and paladins all can dual wield just fine. I've used every one of those characters or seen them played in my games. Monks pretty much never dual wield because martials arts, however you don't want monks to turn into always dual wielders either.

Removing the bonus action basically makes all those classes listed above be no brainer dual wielders in a featless game. With feats polearm mastery is a little better for some but does cost a feat so it's a wash. GWM would be offset with my propose by a -5/+10 feat for TWF

 

[Xeviat]

I suppose I've been considering a lot of other changes that would alleviate a lot of FrogReaver's issues, but they bring up some good points. Taking away the bonus action would require addressing a few other things, like smite and hunters mark/hex/other per hit effects. I'd be perfectly happy with smite costing a bonus action so it can't be novaed and so it can't stack with smite spells. Id also be fine if Hunter's Mark and He we're a once per round damage buff, but did more damage the higher level slot you used (which would favor more attacks, for more chances to land it).

In a perfect world, the fighting styles would be equivalent with each other. If we were rebuilding from the ground up, I'd be okay with TWFing not dealing equal damage to great weapons if it had something else substantial. Being able to split damage 50/50 isn't good enough; single target to multitarget damage isn't a full 50 reduction, spreading damage needs to be better. It shouldn't use a bonus action because the other styles don't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

. Being able to split damage 50/50 isn't good enough; single target to multitarget damage isn't a full 50 reduction, spreading damage needs to be better.

That's why I like damage die plus mods for a single hit, combined damage dice + non-stacking mods when both weapons hit.

That is add a stat mod once, a magic weapon bonus once (the higher of the two if both are magical), etc.

That way you're not magnifying static mods in a problematic way, and you do better than 1/2 damage when splitting attacks.

It shouldn't use a bonus action because the other styles don't.

It does seem intuitive, though.

 

[Xeviat]

It does seem intuitive, though.

What do you mean?

 

[FrogReaver]

Could something that allows a TWF to attack with his offhand anytime he misses with his mainhand work? It seems thematic and provides a mechanic that scales based on number of attacks. The DPR increase would be between 1 and 2 for most chances ho hit.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's not about the choice of what to use while TWF. It's about dex being the default option for TWF but dex not being an option for GWF.

I'm okay with that.

Remember that in 2E and 3E you always added Strength to damage.

In fact 5E removed or lessened maybe nine different limitations on Dex, which is definitely way too many.

I really go find the old post where I enumerated the long long list of things WotC did to appease the demand for svelte lithe action heroes with no need for brawn, despite D&D not being a kung-fu movie...

 

[CapnZapp]

Having that rule in two different places is already probably one too many.

The -5/+10 mechanism is definitely two too many already. Meaning the game is better off removing it entirely, both from GWF and CE.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This.

 

[Fenris-77]

Could something that allows a TWF to attack with his offhand anytime he misses with his mainhand work? It seems thematic and provides a mechanic that scales based on number of attacks. The DPR increase would be between 1 and 2 for most chances ho hit.

I think that could work well, especially if the option to use your BA with the offhand was retained. Another option is to also/or base it hits providing extra attacks - lots of monsters have mechanics were they get an extra attack, usually with effect, if they hit their base attacks. That feels a little more exploding dice, but that might not be a bad thing. Either (or both!) might be useful tools.

 

[TwoSix]

Rangers, rogues and paladins all can dual wield just fine. I've used every one of those characters or seen them played in my games. Monks pretty much never dual wield because martials arts, however you don't want monks to turn into always dual wielders either.

Removing the bonus action basically makes all those classes listed above be no brainer dual wielders in a featless game. With feats polearm mastery is a little better for some but does cost a feat so it's a wash. GWM would be offset with my propose by a -5/+10 feat for TWF

For the test case "When you take the Attack action using a light melee weapon in each hand, you gain one free attack with the off-hand weapon that does not gain ability modifier to damage", I think it would push rogues and monks into dual-wielding for a featless game, yes. I'm personally OK with that.

Rangers and paladins would probably dual-wield for tier 1, but tier 2 would make heavy weapons equivalent again. An 11+ vengeance paladin would favor dual-wielding if hunter's mark is up, but heavy weapons are still better if there's any sort of attack grant or opportunity attack.

Change the Dual-wielder feat from a +1 AC to a -X/+2X damage rider (I'd lean towards -3/+6, since -5/+10 might be too much with the extra attack) to go along with the bonus action removal, and I think it's in a pretty good place. I'd have to run some numbers to check.