D&D 5E Two-Weapon Fighting Idea

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Yet another proposal. You can attack with each weapon once and roll damage normally, but you give up your reaction this turn if that happens and only apply expertise bonuses to one attack. does it look too powerfull?

Not too powerful, but too fiddly. Going that route, I'd prefer just allowing two normal attacks, but would have to introduce a "light weapon" list and insist that (at a minimum) the off-hand weapon be a light weapon (dagger, hand axe, short sword, mace), and the light weapon gets no damage bonus from STR.

I don't think TWF should be all things to all people. It can't have improved to hit, improved damage, improved defense, and multi-target capability, at least without penalty, or it becomes strictly better than the other options. Rather than add penalties, which get cumbersome, I'd rather just remove some of the flexibility.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I was thinking of making TWF a combat action that anyone could do, like defensive fighting or grabbing. However, there is a price for it - it puts you off balance and more vulnerable to attack. I was thinking of the following:

"If you are wielding two light weapons, as an action you may make two attacks. Until the beginning of your next turn, you grant advantage on attacks against you."

A possible maneuver could be to spend expertise dice to negate the granted advantage, I'm thinking once per die spent.

 

[Gorgoroth]

..

Let's remember how Pathfinder and 3.x did it, poorly. You need to take a whole whackload of feats (especially in Pathfinder), and thus wait a whole bunch of levels, to even catch up to the THF guy with the greatsword. I played a raging barbarian in PF and tried to min-max his beast claws, and it was a huge waste of time and effort. But it came close to the THF, damage wise.

The thing I liked about natural weapons is that full str bonus to both main and off-hand attacks, even if the damage die was 1/2 (1d6 vs 2d6).

TWF should give *some* benefit, even if that benefit is not worth the tradeoff for those unspecialized. In real battles fighters would always have either a shield in his offhand or use both hands to attack. Those who used two weapons COULD be using two arming swords (what D&D calls longswords, but really "longsword" is a synonym two-handed swords in real swords texts and circles)

It makes no sense that an iconic thing in D&D would be mathematically inferior, both damage-wise AND defense-wise to both S&B AND THF. Always-on disadvantage is waaaay too high a price for dual-wielding, especially if you don't get your ability modifier as well, AND have to use light weapons in your offhand.

I hope they fix this for the next packet, because I'm so utterly disappointed in these rules. If they wanted us to focus on testing damage and so on with the usual fighting styles, take out dual wielding entirely until another playtest and do it properly.

This one paragraph they sent out is an insult...I know some of you will think it's immature and nerd-ragey of me to speak in such terms...but really, how much time are we spending on their new rules and they give us this...this...garbage. It's like they aren't even trying. Complete failure. Even worse. It's offensive to me to even consider playtesting this kludge.

 

[ren1999]

Two weapon fighting should be reserved for higher level characters and monsters.
This is because it is basically 2 actions per turn which many on this forum vehemently oppose.

 

[kerleth]

So upon further thought I have an idea that may satisfy both camps. Firstly, if two –weapon fighting can be used by anyone it must be balanced against Heavy Weapons and Sword and Board. If it requires a specialty, then it need only be balanced against either of those combat styles with their own specialty giving them a power boost. That gives us a little more wiggle room.

Basically, make two attacks. If both of those attacks hit the same creature, add the weapons rolled damage together, and then add in all your modifiers to that total. Otherwise, each attack deals damage normally. That would result in dealing about 1.5 more damage when both weapons hit the same creature than a two-hander BUT requires a specialty to use.

RULES TEXT
When you are wielding two-weapons and at least one of them is a light weapon, you may use an action to make an attack with each weapon. These attack rolls are made with disadvantage (but see the two-weapon fighting specialty on page XX). If both attacks hit the same creature roll both of the weapons’ base damage die and add the results. If either weapon is masterwork or has an enhancement bonus add the higher bonus. Then add your strength modifier (or dexterity if wielding two finesse weapons) and any other bonuses or penalties to your damage. If both weapons score a critical hit, roll the bonus damage only once. The damage type of this attack is all damage types of both weapons. If both weapons do not strike the same creature, each weapon deals damage normally.
END RULES TEXT

Two-weapon Fighting Specialty
1st level feat
Twin Strike
You have learned how to synchronize your attacks to make deadly, accurate strikes against a single enemy.
Benefit: You no longer suffer disadvantage when attacking the same creature with two weapons.

3rd level feat
Dervish
You have learned how to split your attention between multiple enemies, attacking one with each weapon.
Requirement: Twin Strike Feat
Benefit: You no longer suffer disadvantage when attacking two different creatures with your weapons.

6th level feat
Two-Weapon Defense
You have learned to use your weapons to strike and parry in tandem, alternating between offense and defense.
Benefit: Whenever you are wielding two weapons you gain a +1 bonus to AC.
9th level feat
???????????????????????

So this seems fairly easy to understand. It might take two read throughs of the paragraph because the language is supposed to be rules lawyer proof, but the concept is easily grokkable. It makes two attacks, but keeps the escalating power of static bonuses from coming into play. If it’s too weak the 1st and 3rd level feats could be rolled into one. If it’s too strong we could reduce the damage die of each weapon one step when making the attacks. If possible I’d like to get an opinion from a staunch “one attacker” and a staunch “two attacker”.

 

[Zustiur]

As I mentioned briefly in the Level-Up Rewards thread, I'd prefer to see the three styles on equal footing.

Sword and shield gives you defensive superiority
Two handed weapons give you increased damage on a hit
Two weapon fighting gives you more consistent (reliable) damage

This would be achieved through:
Sword and shield: Bonus to AC from the shield.
Two Handed: Bigger dice size
Two weapon: roll both attack dice and both damage dice. (Your attack dice must be tied to your damage dice. Declare before-hand, use different coloured dice, whatever) Which ever result is better is the result you keep.
e.g. both attacks hit, one does 3 damage, the other 6. Your result is 6 damage.
One attack hits (3 damage), one misses (6 damage). Your result is 3 damage.
One attack hits (6 damage), one misses (3 damage). Your result is 6 damage.

Hopefully this would balance out without the need for modifiers or penalties. I'm not sure though as I haven't had the time to check stats on it. The idea is that the two weapon fighter is going to do some damage more of the time, while the two-hander does more damage some of the time. I wonder if picking the best damage is too effective though, in which case it may be 'average of the two damage rolls' or even 'lower of the two damage rolls'.


For the record, yes I have considered the 'attack two different creatures' argument, and I don't like it. If an attack roll already represents multiple swings of your sword, I see no reason why someone with two swords is better able to split their attention than someone swinging one sword. I'm no martial artist, but the Mythbusters episode on dual-wielding pistols makes me feel that I am right on this particular point. Having two weapons doesn't allow you to make twice as many attacks and retain your accuracy. Either you miss more, or you slow down and attack as if you had one weapon.

If we don't want to model that using 3e's hefty attack penalties, I'm in favour of dropping the extra attack altogether.

From a fluff point of view -
Reg the fighter is using a sword and shield. He's fighting 3 orcs. In the space of 6 seconds he's using both sword and shield to fend off attacks from all the orcs, as well as threatening the orcs with damage by 'attacking' them. But he can only really focus on one, and it is that one he has a real chance of damaging. The chance of damaging others only happens if one of them leaves a serious opening.

Mara the fighter is using two swords. She's fighting 3 orcs. In the space of 6 seconds she's using both swords to fend off attacks from all the orcs, as well as threatening the orcs with damage by 'attacking' them. But she can only really focus on one, and it is that one he has a real chance of damaging. The chance of damaging others only happens if one of them leaves a serious opening.

What I'm saying is that you can't split your attention to attack two people without opening yourself up to serious injury. In both examples, one person is doing all that they can to kill orcs, while simultaneously protecting themselves. They are both 'attacking' or 'threatening' all 3 orcs, and this is represented in game by opportunity attacks (or whatever you want to call them in future), but in any given round they can only 'hit' one orc. [Remembering also that a hit does not necessarily result in physical damage and that a 'miss' doesn't mean your weapon failed to connect with your target]

Another way to model that would be - yes, you can make two attacks, but doing so reduces your AC (rather than your attack modifier). I don't like this option, I merely list it for the sake of completeness.

 

[kerleth]

Each style should definitely have it's own niche. None should be just better. The question is, should one of them REQUIRE a specialty to use.

From my (admittedly limited) experience, wielding two smaller weapons simultaneously is more difficult than wielding one. Also, requiring a specialty gives you more wiggle room, since you can balance it versus a "specialist" in any of the other styles.

For the record I agree with the idea that multiple weapons shouldn't "realistically" allow you to split your attention better. I think that it does make a certain amount of "game" sense and provides another direction to build around.

Your idea is similar to something I had considered suggesting. Roll attack and damage for each. Take the higher of the two attack rolls and the higher of the two damage rolls. The problem I saw was someone saying "so I never actually HIT with both weapons. Ever? That's lame." Now I know that with the abstract nature of attack rolls and hit points it makes sense. HOWEVER, this is a game, not a debate. The goal is to make a system that satisfies as many people as possible, not prove a point. (No antagonism intended, I've just noticed this sort of thing happens in general in these threads). If your idea is balanced and satisfies both camps, it would certainly be simpler.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sure, they can go in specialties. Someone who wants to make a big deal out of their weapon choice should get the benefit. Some wizard using a staff shouldn't get x2 damage just because she's using a staff which happens to be a two-handed weapon. She can take a specialty and do that, I guess. Or she can dual-wield wands. Or wield a wand and a shield. Or whatever.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Even though everyone can now attampt 2WF, why was there still not a Specialty to make it s good option for someone to specialise in it? (Such as, removal of Disadvantage at least? We might go with this simple adjustment for the Dual-Weapon specialist from last packet). I can't believe they just removed the Specialty b/c they made the basic move available to anyone.

No... I think they removed the Specialty because they knew no one would playtest the BASE RULE by itself. Anyone who wanted to dual-wield would take the Specialty as a matter of course.

They probably wanted to find out if their current base rule for TWF is good, useful, or popular. The only way to know that is to force people to playtest the base rule that way. That means not including any Speciality to eliminate the penalties that have been incorporated.

You can't build a pretty house without first confirming that the foundation is sound.

 

[Blackbrrd]

A very simple suggestion: the off-hand attack doesn't get bonus damage, both weapons have to do 1d6 damage or less. Damage wise it should do exactly the same as THF, but with less fluctuations.

Typical example:
Greatsword: 2d6 +4str +1magic
2xShortsword 1d6 +4str +1 magic, +1d6