D&D 5E Tweak to TWF rules

[TheCosmicKid]

I've been thinking about the two-weapon fighting rules a bit. They're simple and they work, but they have a couple of minor balance issues. Nothing you haven't heard before: using a bonus action to get an extra attack is good at lower levels, but is overshadowed by the raw damage of a two-handed weapon once the warrior classes start getting extra attacks. Plus you have to use your bonus action, which makes rogues and berserkers sad.

So here's an alternative for discussion:

• When make an attack, whether it's a main attack, extra attack, opportunity attack, or anything else, if you're wielding two weapons, you can make an attack roll with each weapon. However, only the attack with the higher roll can hit or deal damage -- the other one was a feint.
• As normal, if you hit with your off-hand weapon, don't add your ability modifier to damage unless you have the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style.
• When you have advantage, since two-weapon fighting already resembles advantage, don't roll any more dice. Instead, both attacks are allowed to hit. When you have disadvantage, only the lower attack roll is allowed to hit.

It frees up the bonus action, it scales with extra attacks, and I think it gives two-weapon fighting a more defined niche: draw a heavy weapon when you want massive damage, but draw two light weapons when you want reliable damage.

 

[Ganymede81]

When fighting with a weapon in each hand, roll both damage dice together on a successful hit, adding your relevant modifier once as normal.

Problem solved.

 

[LapBandit]

When fighting with a weapon in each hand, roll both damage dice together on a successful hit, adding your relevant modifier once as normal.

Problem solved.

I'd be okay with this being part of the Fighting Style.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

…is overshadowed by the raw damage of a two-handed weapon once the warrior classes start getting extra attacks.

Why do you see this is as a problem?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

When fighting with a weapon in each hand, roll both damage dice together on a successful hit, adding your relevant modifier once as normal.

Problem solved.

I don't want two shortswords to just do exactly the same thing as a greatsword. If you're fine with that approach, great, but I'd prefer the decision of which weapons to use to have some mechanical significance. Like I said above, give the two-weapon style a niche.

Why do you see this is as a problem?

Eh? It is generally, although I'll grant not universally, acknowledged that having a balanced game is desirable. When two alternative character options are mechanically imbalanced against each other, that puts players who might prefer the weaker option in an uncomfortable position of choosing between what they want to do and what the math says is the correct thing to do.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

When two alternative character options are mechanically imbalanced against each other, that puts players who might prefer the weaker option in an uncomfortable position of choosing between what they want to do and what the math says is the correct thing to do.

Using a two-handed weapon is the greatest damage. Using a shield and a one-handed weapon is the greatest defense. Using two-weapons at the same time is the middle path between the two - you don't have the defense a shield would give you, nor the damage a two-handed weapon would get you, but you have an improved chance of doing more than 0 damage and two opportunities to benefit from special bonuses like damage type vulnerability, buff spells, or magical weapons.

It would be imbalanced if fighting with two weapons also matched the damage of a two-handed weapon, or the defense of using a shield, because there are other benefits.

 

[Ganymede81]

I don't want two shortswords to just do exactly the same thing as a greatsword. If you're fine with that approach, great, but I'd prefer the decision of which weapons to use to have some mechanical significance. Like I said above, give the two-weapon style a niche.

Dramatic mechanical differences between weapons really isn't D&D anymore, at least not in 5th Edition.

Outside of specialized feats and some questionable design choices, weapons are largely a matter of flavor. There is very little that differentiates most weapons anyways; a warrior's choice in using a morning star in lieu of a warpick, and vice versa, is just thematic.

In my view, weapon choices should be more focused on facilitating character concepts than offering new rule conceits.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Dramatic mechanical differences between weapons really isn't D&D anymore, at least not in 5th Edition.

Outside of specialized feats and some questionable design choices, weapons are largely a matter of flavor. There is very little that differentiates most weapons anyways; a warrior's choice in using a morning star in lieu of a warpick, and vice versa, is just thematic.

In my view, weapon choices should be more focused on facilitating character concepts than offering new rule conceits.

It's a matter of taste. I can't really dispute your view. But I don't like it that way. At a bare minimum, if you're fighting with two weapons, you should be rolling two d20s somehow.

 

[the Jester]

I think you're vastly underestimating how useful, effective, and downright cool it is to be able to divide your damage between two targets (assuming you hit twice), especially when fighting a mass of enemies.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you're vastly underestimating how useful, effective, and downright cool it is to be able to divide your damage between two targets (assuming you hit twice), especially when fighting a mass of enemies.

Starting at level 5, the heavy weapon fighter can do the same thing. By level 11, the heavy weapon fighter is ahead in damage and only barely behind in chances to hit. Also, unless each hit is a kill, spreading damage with ablative hp is not a very good choice, tactically speaking, so it being useful and effective is in question. Cool, I'll grant you.