Mearls House Rule: Two-Weapon Fighting

[5ekyu]

If it came across that way I apologize. Seriously, that was/is not my intent. I really feel like that post was out of character for you since your largely at least on point. I recently had someone on another thread end up homeless an suicidal and I was in my first clumsy attempt to stretch out a olive branch for an offline conversation if you need to get something off your chest that's distracting you. Because that has actually happened to me recently on another forum and I trying to reach out to a fellow man actual concern and compassion. This was not a sarcastic attack, though I understand that is more common here and I can in hind sight see how it could be read that way. As I have never reached out before perhaps a private message would have been a better way to do that, so again I apologize it was a matter of my inexperience on trying to keep an ear out. I realize I have looked away more than have I offered a hand and I feel that is a change I should make in myself.



I don't understand the confusion here since I called out backstab directly and it does effect other classes that use hits to deliver special abilities. However, most other classes don't use two-weapon fighting because their ability doesn't scale or they have another way to get a second attack for delivery. That said, this goes back to my point about attacking my writing not my point. I could be wrong but if I didn't mention other classes also use attacks for delivery I would be inaccurate and having called out backstab specifically and you even quoted me saying "These changes for TWF are NOT for rogues" which is me clarifying that in response to Pauln6. Pauln6 wanted to say it would make rogues never fight with one weapon I expanded it does really impact them much since they would get two rolls for two attacks or advantage then Pauln6 change to how rogues needed a one handed buff but rogues have to fight with light weapons to get backstab which are generally finesse so to two-handed makes since. In the end that's a rogue issue and is off topic from the two-weapon fighting style if the complaint is "rogue don't fight well one handed". We were talking about homebrew two-weapon fighting in reference to Mike Mearl's first attempt. So what you didn't read the posts between me an Pauln6 took everything out of context and then blamed me for being unclear!?!? WOW.



Rogues problem fighting one handed is based on rogue class design. Its not a TWF issue and has nothing to do with this thread. When you level a scale you add to one side at a time. If your saying the next thread is the one weapon rogue.. sure no problem. But saying "you didn't write everything at once so nothing works!!" is simply not true ever how any rule book is done. You make a draft, you find issues, you fix issues one at a time. If the one handed rogue greataxe rogue is build you should start a thread for concept building it.



Sure but even in a complex inclusive balancing you balance one part at time. Your stuck on the rogue but you have not once said what's wrong with my compiled design or suggested a fix for such a problem. You need to balance with inclusion but you still have to isolate each section to workshop it then compare it to how it fits in the in inclusive overview. So how does my build through off the inclusive game? Not by saying Greataxe rogues are broken because those are broken with the current rule and my rule has ZERO effect on that. You need to separate Greataxe Rogue fixes, work shop them, then see if the solution you find disturbs balance in other aspects in the inclusive view. … This is again an attack on change itself not on anything I have posted with actual points. You only arguing general methodology over and over as you have done on other threads, without in intent or relation to the current thread of discution.



Leveling two sub options vs each other happens. leveling two classes vs each other happens. But their is a degree of specialization that is also considered. Your jumping off topic to argue this topic is deflection because you have not actually said what issue you have with this suggested house rule. Your avoiding it like the plague dancing around grand generalizations which aren't even true. They do balance classes but some measurements are harder than others so its not perfect but play testing is don't specifically to try. They also emphasizes unique roles and allow a level imbalance if it provides identity. Nothing about my change to two-weapon fighting does anything but attempt to bring balance closer in power to other fighting styles and provide and imbalance to a specific roll that defines it to grant it identity it is currently lacking. As it is two-weapon fighting is under powered and highly duplicated with monk martial arts and pole arm master which are simply better. The changes I made with the help of others makes them close enough to each other to make it a consideration to be picked and different enough to highlight specific style of play. That's really the best you can hope for ever. Is it the perfect? No, is it done? I don't think so. Its a process and people keep adding adjustments for improvement.



lmao. So what your saying the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement?



That is a true statement but it has nothing to do with two-weapon fighting not being well design with room for improvement. Its odd that your deflecting the subject of the thread and returning to the same everything has to be balanced to balance and at all the current system is imperfectly balanced perfection.

… All you have really said in this whole post is that you don't like change or the consideration of change. So again I don't understand why you bother to read house rules or post to threads about them... it seems like a great waste of your time and energy...

Ok so, seemingly needing to state the obvious - the jump from someone not liking your house rule or your approach to get to a house rule "balance" or your very definition of balance (or "leveling if you prefer that term for some reason) is not the same as have said one is "against all change" or that one feels "the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement" and all that kind of conclusion jumping serves is to try and phrase dismissively the comments or reasoning of those who disagree with you.

As for balancing classes - yes they certainly do - but they do not take that to include balancing each set of weapons and how those weapons work between the classes to make these packages all equal - even within one class. So, this notion as a support for an argument is faulty - given the way 5e is built - its built for CHARACTER BALANCE assuming reasonably skilled choices - not at the micro-choice level.

As a matter of fact, it has even been stated out-right that 5e balance was *not* built to balance single characters in some one-on-one output context but as a group play.

At the character level, 5e is not a point buy micro-element system. It is a "build characrer as package of sacks" system where class, race, background and even equipment are all "sacks". They did not build it so that every combo of "sacks" was equally profitable... but so that there were good combos for most any of the sacks.

So, are their combos where fighting with weapon in each hand is good - yup. is one of those a high strength single class fighter - probably not. Is that a "problem" - only if you think its vital that that combo of sacks not be included in the many "not good combos". But if you want to establish this as anything more than a preference - you need to show why not having that one combo in the "good combo list" is more objective than not having high strength greateaxe single class rogue as a combo of sacks in the "good list."

here are my problems with fighting with weapons in each hand in 5e.

1 - The biggest issue is the name- they use the exact same name for both the general mechanics of fighting with two weapons and for the fighting style that boosts that particular type of combat. That makes discussing TWF a pain because at any one time someone can switch gears and claim they were referring to the fighter-class style and not the core rule. (For this post i will use FTW for fighting with two weapons - the basic rules under making an attack) and TWF for the specific "style" and of course DW for the feat.

2 - The fighter fighting styles come in two very distinct flavors which create problems. Several (GWF, SS, Dueling) apply to "attacks" and so they scale directly as attacks increase. others do not - they provide either static benefits or they provide "reactions" required gains or otherwise limited to once per turn type of gains. TWF is one of the latter.
2a Why is this a problem? The ones that scale tend to be seen to perform for output better than the ones that dont. As tiers climb the gains from the first tier benefits seem to become less significant for the latter non-scaling choices. A simple example - protection - at first tier it allows you to spend you reaction to disadvantage *an* enemy attack and that may well be the enemy full offense for the round - often the case in fact - or at least a lot of it. At higher tiers when enemy fighters now move to three or four attacks - now that disad vs one strike is rather trivial in many cases. Meanwhile the scaling ones gain more umphh with every new attacks gained.

3 For some, The utility of feats like the 5/10s and lack of an equivalent for FTW in the DW is another imbalance of output. (Setting aside the whole question of "output" being the consideration for balance when you are talking fighting packages that use different ability scores and thus have different outside gains for the moment) we again see a perception of imbalance not from the FTW rules but from another thing that adjusts/adds-onto other options but not FTW. Again not a sign that FTW needs changing but that maybe the itch that needs scratching is here - feats.

4 Because the fighter's "thing" at the core of its output gains as it scales is "number of attacks goes up" this amplifies both of these issues - and drives hom where the core output difference lies - not with the FTW section under attacks but in the fighter class and the styles and feats that add "scaling gains" in some cases but not in others.

Consider the following - what if TWF style read "A bonus action with fighting with two weapons gives you an extra attack with the "other weapon" for each attack made - not just one attack as normal."

this leaves FTW as is for all those cases where it tends to be Ok or good now - but deals directly with the scaling.

Similar changes to protector, defense etc could increase their "gains" as tou scale as well - perhaps by linking their "scaling" to attacks spent.

Thats an example of a targeted change to the area in question that wouldn't get into rogue at all, wouldn't really affect clerics or druids or wizards.

All this said - it still remains to be open for question whether balancing/leveling a fighter's TWF style on output alone vs the other styles on output alone is actually more balanced for the game - since in other cases and in other ways the choices involve more than just output - dex vs str and how they apply to melee and ranged. its possible and even likely that if one got "level" output between FTW/TWF and GWF, archery and dueling that you wind up de facto retiring the latter due to the other benefits of DEX making the new "leveled" FTW/TWF the better choice for the overall character performance package.

thats the problem with trying to isolate and level a part in a sack in a "bundles of sacks" system where trade-offs are factored into the DNA.

All of which probably leads some to think i am just against any change or that i hate blue puppies...

meh

 

[clearstream]

I thought you could choose which hand is your main hand anyway? The only limitations are you must attack with both weapons and which hand you use for your bonus action attack is dictated by the limitations on dual wielding.

Whichever hand is your "off-hand", that's the one referred to. The distinction per RAW being that it won't add your ability modifier to damage.

Would it be better to alow the off-hand attack to be rolled into the attack action at level 5 and the extra off hand attack as a bonus action when 3 attacks kick in or would this mean that fighter rogues make better rogues than rogues?

Or allow two bonus action off hand attacks at level 5 but the second one is made with disadvantage then when three attacks kick in, allow the first off hand attack to be rolled into the attack action.

This stops multiclass rogues getting a fourth shot at sneak attack but still scales twf.

Fighters get plenty of attacks, I think. At level 5, using my version, they'd make four attacks - Attack, Extra Attack, Dual Wielder free attack, Dual Wielder bonus action attack.

By 5th level a straight ASI on DEX would give +1 initiative, +1 attack/damage (finesse), +1 AC and +1 to some useful skills (stealth!) Adjusted Dual Wielder gives +1 AC, +1 damage (weapons don't have to be light), and one or two additional attacks. The player therefore trades off initiative and skills for a decent bit more damage (capped at two attacks that omit your damage modifier).

You're right it could be worded better. A simpler version would just say it doesn't need your bonus action - so capped at one attack - a more complicated version would make it clearer somehow that you can take two attacks.

 

[ClaytonCross]

Ok so, seemingly needing to state the obvious - the jump from someone not liking your house rule or your approach to get to a house rule "balance" or your very definition of balance (or "leveling if you prefer that term for some reason) is not the same as have said one is "against all change" or that one feels "the game is perfectly balance down and you would change nothing even though my the addition of its creators something are not perfect and their is room for improvement" and all that kind of conclusion jumping serves is to try and phrase dismissively the comments or reasoning of those who disagree with you.

As for balancing classes - yes they certainly do - but they do not take that to include balancing each set of weapons and how those weapons work between the classes to make these packages all equal - even within one class. So, this notion as a support for an argument is faulty - given the way 5e is built - its built for CHARACTER BALANCE assuming reasonably skilled choices - not at the micro-choice level.

As a matter of fact, it has even been stated out-right that 5e balance was *not* built to balance single characters in some one-on-one output context but as a group play.

At the character level, 5e is not a point buy micro-element system. It is a "build characrer as package of sacks" system where class, race, background and even equipment are all "sacks". They did not build it so that every combo of "sacks" was equally profitable... but so that there were good combos for most any of the sacks.

So, are their combos where fighting with weapon in each hand is good - yup. is one of those a high strength single class fighter - probably not. Is that a "problem" - only if you think its vital that that combo of sacks not be included in the many "not good combos". But if you want to establish this as anything more than a preference - you need to show why not having that one combo in the "good combo list" is more objective than not having high strength greateaxe single class rogue as a combo of sacks in the "good list."

here are my problems with fighting with weapons in each hand in 5e.

1 - The biggest issue is the name- they use the exact same name for both the general mechanics of fighting with two weapons and for the fighting style that boosts that particular type of combat. That makes discussing TWF a pain because at any one time someone can switch gears and claim they were referring to the fighter-class style and not the core rule. (For this post i will use FTW for fighting with two weapons - the basic rules under making an attack) and TWF for the specific "style" and of course DW for the feat.

2 - The fighter fighting styles come in two very distinct flavors which create problems. Several (GWF, SS, Dueling) apply to "attacks" and so they scale directly as attacks increase. others do not - they provide either static benefits or they provide "reactions" required gains or otherwise limited to once per turn type of gains. TWF is one of the latter.
2a Why is this a problem? The ones that scale tend to be seen to perform for output better than the ones that dont. As tiers climb the gains from the first tier benefits seem to become less significant for the latter non-scaling choices. A simple example - protection - at first tier it allows you to spend you reaction to disadvantage *an* enemy attack and that may well be the enemy full offense for the round - often the case in fact - or at least a lot of it. At higher tiers when enemy fighters now move to three or four attacks - now that disad vs one strike is rather trivial in many cases. Meanwhile the scaling ones gain more umphh with every new attacks gained.

3 For some, The utility of feats like the 5/10s and lack of an equivalent for FTW in the DW is another imbalance of output. (Setting aside the whole question of "output" being the consideration for balance when you are talking fighting packages that use different ability scores and thus have different outside gains for the moment) we again see a perception of imbalance not from the FTW rules but from another thing that adjusts/adds-onto other options but not FTW. Again not a sign that FTW needs changing but that maybe the itch that needs scratching is here - feats.

4 Because the fighter's "thing" at the core of its output gains as it scales is "number of attacks goes up" this amplifies both of these issues - and drives hom where the core output difference lies - not with the FTW section under attacks but in the fighter class and the styles and feats that add "scaling gains" in some cases but not in others.

Consider the following - what if TWF style read "A bonus action with fighting with two weapons gives you an extra attack with the "other weapon" for each attack made - not just one attack as normal."

this leaves FTW as is for all those cases where it tends to be Ok or good now - but deals directly with the scaling.

Similar changes to protector, defense etc could increase their "gains" as tou scale as well - perhaps by linking their "scaling" to attacks spent.

Thats an example of a targeted change to the area in question that wouldn't get into rogue at all, wouldn't really affect clerics or druids or wizards.

All this said - it still remains to be open for question whether balancing/leveling a fighter's TWF style on output alone vs the other styles on output alone is actually more balanced for the game - since in other cases and in other ways the choices involve more than just output - dex vs str and how they apply to melee and ranged. its possible and even likely that if one got "level" output between FTW/TWF and GWF, archery and dueling that you wind up de facto retiring the latter due to the other benefits of DEX making the new "leveled" FTW/TWF the better choice for the overall character performance package.

thats the problem with trying to isolate and level a part in a sack in a "bundles of sacks" system where trade-offs are factored into the DNA.

All of which probably leads some to think i am just against any change or that i hate blue puppies...

meh

You know I am not a concise person and after reading this I can appreciate your attempt to clarify. I also like that there is actual content here that is on topic. So thank you for this reply. From my perspective its a huge step up from your other posts and actually contributes.

I also think your saying there is basically A LOT of unknowns and believe it or not I hear you. However your answer to having any ideas is comes down to "its too complicated to try" and I get that your saying is super complicated. However, I find it better to try fail and adjust than complain and do nothing. I also understanding your saying you can't make a change without considering everything, however you can as a starting point because every journey has a first step. You come up with an idea, you try it, you see where it fails you adjust and you try again. I am not suggesting its right on the first time. I adjusted M Mearls and explained why, and mine has been adjusted at least 3 times. Your saying that fighting styles were not adjusted separately from the classes. I am saying they had to be or they would not exist, but I don't doubt they changed several times due to testing vs changes with the classes.

I do agree that some parts perhaps would be better off as high level feat, that's good input. In fact I was talking to a friend today and he suggested that the +2AC vs melee in 5ft might be better of as an adjustment to the duel wielder feat replacing its AC bonus instead of the base two-weapon fighting. That is not a bad idea and it requires more investment

I also agree that unlimited off hand attacks is a bad idea. One is too week, two is ok, more only benefits fighters who have their own mechanic. A limiting cost is not a bad idea.

Having heard these and other recommendations I think clearstream might be on a better path than mine.

"When you take the attack action while you have a light weapon in each hand you make one attack with the offhand and you may use a bonus action you may make second off hand attack if you can make more than one standard attack with your action."

But as Hawk Diesel said (and I agree) the bonus action requirement is part of the problem, sure rogues are happy with not needing a bonus action but what about ranger? So changing it again to..

"When you take the attack action while you have a light weapon in each hand you make one attack with the offhand and you may use your reaction you may make second off hand attack if you can make more than one standard attack with your action."

And a you and my friend pointed out the AC bonus can be adjusted on the duel wielder feat.

Two-weapon Fighting
"When you take the attack action while you are wielding a separate light melee weapon in each hand may you make one attack with the offhand and you may use your reaction to make second off hand attack if you have and additional attack."

Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:

- You gain +2 bonus to AC vs melee attacks while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand in melee with only one opponent.
- While you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can forfeit your off hand attacks to feint giving you advantage on attacks this round.
- You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
- You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

One-handed Fencing
"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage. This attack can not benefit from the Martial Arts class feature."

Good for rogues, rangers, and fighters but does not allow fighters to take more than two off hand attacks.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

First, let me say without a doubt reaction as a cost is WAY better than a bonus action. my question is then is a reaction to costly compared to other fighting styles and your saying its limited use means its not.

Here is "a couple of others" you didn't list:

Indeed, a reaction is much better compared to a bonus action. And I appreciate you pointing out many of the abilities that use reactions. However, what you did here proves that reactions might have more competition in their use in certain builds. I would argue as a whole though, that bonus actions are still more utilized, especially for those classes that are most likely to explore a build involving two weapon fighting.

-Every barbarian needs a bonus action to rage.
-Every bard needs a bonus action to use bardic inspiration.
-Every fighting needs a bonus action for second wind.
-Every rogue needs a bonus action for cunning action
-Every ranger needs a bonus action for Hunter's Mark
-Every warlock needs a bonus action for Hex
-Every monk needs a bonus action to use most of their Ki point abilities

I am not going to consider clerics, sorcerers, or wizards, since they are not really meant to go into melee. The one exception might be a Bladesinger Wizard, and they require a bonus action to enter into their bladesong.

So yes, there are multiple things competing for reactions. But almost every class has a core class ability (without going into archetype) that requires a bonus action.

Here is the Tangent reason. Yes there are quite a few reaction abilities competing especially when you consider opportunity attacks which are the biggest, however what are they for? They are 1. Defense, 2. Offense, 3. Tanking/Aid, 4.Control and pretty much in that order. So if your going two weapon fighting you have forgone the divisive shield for offense and while my design mediates that under a specific set of variables, the choice means in most cases defense is a willful lose and will be an excepted trade.

This assumes the character is proficient with shields. Not all characters are. Additionally, not all characters are proficient with suitable 2-handed weapons to have that option for increasing their offense.

I also see us as having different design goals. You seem to be seeking a way to increase how TWF works in comparison to other fighting styles. I don't think it needs an increase in power. I think it works as intended. Rather, my goal is to open up Two Weapon Fighting to a wider group so that players don't feel so constrained by the bonus action requirement that they don't consider taking it. For many classes, there is a lot of competition for that bonus action. In my experience, player want to dual wield not because it increases their offense so much as because it is cool as hell! Walking around with two weapons is a statement. But these players also don't want to be punished for trying to do something cool, such as having to make a suboptimal use of their bonus action.

Additionally, as I said before, my design goals are based on my experience at the game table. And for my group, reactions are the most seldom used and seldom remembered type of action. My hope is that allowing this as a route for two weapon fighting will get the players thinking more about reactions and helping them to keep track of them.

The second is offense, and from a broad view your going to take a controllable attack over reaction controlled by the enemies actions unless its extremely powerful then your likely not taking two-weapon fighting style since pretty much all combat options are related a subclass, having a few subclass not favoring two-weapon fighting is not really an indication of bad TWF design, it more likely just a combination you will not see picked.

Sorry, but I am having some trouble understanding what you are trying to say. But for me, reactions already have precedent for being used offensively via Opportunity Attacks. After that, it is nothing but another type of action (Action, Bonus Action, Move Action, Object Interaction, and Reaction). How a reaction is typically used doesn't matter so much as if it seems appropriate for the design goal. And for me, it seems appropriate.

Two-weapon Fighting
"Fighting with two light weapons only one opponent in melee within 5ft, you gain +2 AC vs Melee attacks only and you make your standard attacks with advantage. When you make a hit you may choose which weapon does the damage."

This is too good. First, it gets around one of the trade-offs of two weapon fighting, and that is the choice between additional weapon or shield. No one would ever choose a shield if they can do this, especially for those classes that do not have proficiency with shields. Second, advantage on all attacks is way too much. Third, it negates the biggest boon of wielding two weapons, which is being able to deal different damage types and benefit from enchantments in both weapons.

One-handed Fencing
"Once per turn, if you are fighting with one light weapon and nothing in the other hand vs a single opponent in melee within 5ft you may attempt to make an additional unarmed strike before the standard attack as part of the attack action. If the unarmed strike is successful make your melee weapon attack at advantage."

They are basically the same but less wordy and appropriately separated. Better?

Not really. Two Weapon Fighting is not about getting advantage. It's about being able to make that attack with the off-hand weapon. I also still think it is a bit complicated for 5e, since you are requiring a succssful attack and then that gives you advantage. It still feels unwieldy.

I think over all we are one step to the left or right of each other. We might not come to mutual agreement on the resolution but I think we a can see the other view. It seems to me that the BIGGEST issue is for sure the use of the bonus action as a cost for two-weapon fighting. My second concern is that it doesn't seem to separate itself from Pole-arm master enough or hold up to the other fighting styles in one on one comparison... unless your a rogue who just wants access to attacks all the other melee classes though if they hit on the first strike they don't care.

I don't expect to ever completely agree with anyone here, since we are all operating based upon our own unique gaming experience and reasons for playing. Rather, I use the forums as a sounding board where others help me see my blindspots when it comes to my own homebrew or house rules. Helps me see how things can be abused and used in ways I could never have considered without the feedback.

 

[Satyrn]

Sure that is possible with any build. For context though in order for balance to even matter you need to be in a campaign where that leans more to strategic combat than just story telling. Am I wrong in saying you have been pretty vocal about the importance of story over all? I mean you might be in jest but …

If I've ever been vocal about the importance of story - though I think you're thinking of someone else - it was definitely in jest, because I really don't care much about story, and find the game far more fun when the story is essentially a thin excuse to delve into a dungeon.

But I have been a proponent of not needing my options you be carefully balanced. As long as each option is in the ballpark, it's good enough. The math that people have been doing seems to say that if GWF with its feats is a homerun, TWF with it's feats looks like a triple. Even without is feats, it feels like a double to me, and I'm happy.

(The traps, in this metaphor, would be taking feats and still just hitting a single)


. . . I've kinda lost the thread of what I'm saying, so uh . . . Go Dodgers!

 

[Satyrn]

So, like, I just learned that the Dodgers lost the World Series last night.

 

[Pauln6]

Mearls is trying to 'fix' ftw without feats but yeah, the simplest fix would be for the dual wielder feat to grant characters with more than one attack more than one bonus action attack.

I've already decided to use houseruled feats to abolish the -5/+10 feats so maybe the rules as they are are fine.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I've already decided to use houseruled feats to abolish the -5/+10 feats so maybe the rules as they are are fine.

I personally like these feats. I understand the issue with them, but I don't thing the trade-off of accuracy for damage need disappear. I house ruled that these feats subtract your proficiency bonus to attack and add double that bonus to damage. This limits the actual damage bonus until you reach the higher levels, when game play and balance begin to break down anyway.

Alternatively, you could subtract half proficiency bonus (round up) and deal additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus. This further limits the damage bonus while continue to level gating the maximum damage bonus achievable.

 

[ClaytonCross]

If I've ever been vocal about the importance of story - though I think you're thinking of someone else - it was definitely in jest, because I really don't care much about story, and find the game far more fun when the story is essentially a thin excuse to delve into a dungeon.

But I have been a proponent of not needing my options you be carefully balanced. As long as each option is in the ballpark, it's good enough. The math that people have been doing seems to say that if GWF with its feats is a homerun, TWF with it's feats looks like a triple. Even without is feats, it feels like a double to me, and I'm happy.

(The traps, in this metaphor, would be taking feats and still just hitting a single)


. . . I've kinda lost the thread of what I'm saying, so uh . . . Go Dodgers!

I think … if I may … you stand at least close to 5ekyu's thoughts which took a while to get to in a couple of walls of text (which is not unlike me, in that) but if I can attempt to summarize (and 5ekyu can correct me if I am off) but amounts to "these changes touch a lot of other things, changing them is risky business, a lot of work has been done already to get it where it its, perfect balanced its not a requirement 5th edition nor is it too broken to use, so generally its better to leave well enough alone"

None of which is wrong. However, as a point of thread in which the conversation is to homebrew an imbalanced feature that is often under used and considered substandard in campaign settings that tend to like the balance of the razors edge of life and death optimization is more of a requirement than player choice... this style is not selected by anyone but rogues who do it at the lose of bonus actions abilities which are key to the class.

- If your in a "heroic" campaign where you GM usually keeps the enemies killable a no fight is life and death.

- If your in a campaign and you know that no matter how hard it gets your GM will not let your character die.

- If your in a heavy story campaign where combat is not important.

- If your party is overpowered as a whole and able to off set a character who is weaker in combat for style.

Then this thread is largely irrelevant. That's true. However if those are not true and your fighting for your life in campaign combat pulling your group down and stressed in action economy feeling the lose of your bonus action abilities to keep up with your party... you are in the right place. I could be wrong but I do feel like even when that is not the case players fearing it might be pull away from two-weapon fighting which is why I don't really see non-rogue two weapon fight in games since 5e.

That's just my experience.

So removing the bonus action and giving it an "identity role" mechanically to make it more appealing for Rangers, Fighters, and perhaps even Monks that would have used them previous editions seems like a reasonable goal.

M.Mearls was trying to eliminate the bonus action and give it identify by making it more flexible. I think the latest shift to making the first off hand strike part of taking the attack action and the possible use of the reaction for ether a second attack with the offhand or a +2AC vs single Melee enemy would make it unique in that only shields protect from ranged and multiple enemies, Two handed weapons usually of set the damage of one extra 1d8 damage dice. Feats and extra fighting style are a moving target.

 

[Satyrn]

. . . However, as a point of thread in which the conversation is to homebrew an imbalanced feature that is often under used . . .

I don't want to interfere with that. I've actually been doing the same thing in this topic's mirror thread.

Really, the only thing I intended to say with my original reply was that you were exaggerating when you said TWF was never used except by rogues. And you said it so many times in one post!