Two Weapon Fighting (yeah, I know...)

[Charlaquin]

The rules for TWF should be contained in the combat section, and in the abilities that center on fighting with two weapons, not in the descriptions of special weapon traits.

Why? The ability to use a lance one-handed while mounted isn’t contained in the mounted combat section. Rather than cludging exceptions to the way two-weapon fighting normally works into the two-weapon fighting rules themselves, why not include the exception in the specific rules for the exceptional case?

I'm sure we could word the rule to allow daggers without adding noticeable complication or breaking simple weapons.

The rule already allows daggers, we’re trying to get it to allow rapiers, and balancing that by restricting them to being used with daggers. Seems to me like the simplest solution would just be to make that part of the rules for rapiers. Alternatively, you could make it part of the rules for daggers, but personally I feel like daggers are more than good enough already.

Honestly, TWF needs a boost, so allowing any light weapon in the offhand, regardless of main hand,

That wouldn’t break the game, but it would make using paired weapons strictly inferior to using mismatched ones, which in my opinion is an undesirable consequence.

or just specifying in the rule that rapiers are the exception, rather than daggers,

In the TWF rules? That feels really inelegant. In the special properties for rapiers? That is literally one of the things I suggested.

the game won't break if it also gives a +1 AC or Attack when your second attack is with a dagger. Shortsword is higher damage, dagger is either better defense or more accurate.

Err... Sure, I guess? I thought we were discussing the best way to allow dual-wieldingbwith a d8 weapon in one hand and d4 in the other.

 

[Stalker0]

I feel like we are focusing on word smithing at this point but I think the OP knows what they want, and I think it’s a fine change. Just explain it to the players, we don’t need to get the language just right

 

[Guest 6801328]

I feel like we are focusing on word smithing at this point but I think the OP knows what they want, and I think it’s a fine change. Just explain it to the players, we don’t need to get the language just right

I think you're missing the point of internet forums...

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Boldly going where everyone and their dog has gone before, I'd like your opinion on a modification of the two-weapon fighting rules I'm cautiously exploring. Here it goes:

[sblock=original post]
Fighting With Two Weapons
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. To make an attack as a bonus action this way, both weapons used for these attacks must be light, or one of them must be a dagger. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.

Conversely, when you use your bonus action to make a attack with a weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make another attack against the same creature with the weapon you are holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of this additional attack, unless that modifier is negative.

If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.


There are two elements in this rule change:
"both light or one is a dagger" allows for rapier/dagger right of the bat without much increase in the average damage compared to a d6/d6 combo, and not just a pointlessly inferior combo to rapier/rapier.

The second part attempts to make TWF compatible with other sources of attacks as bonus action (like scimitar of speed, frenzy rage, extra attack from GWM etc) without completely removing the competition with other bonus actions.
[/sblock]

Take two.

Let forget about the "or must be a dagger" part for a moment to keep things clear.

Two-Weapon Fighting
When you're fighting with a weapon that you're holding in one hand and a different weapon in your other hand, the following rules apply:

- When you use a bonus action to make an attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

- If you take the Attack action while holding a melee weapon that you're holding in one hand but do not possess the ability to make an attack with it as a bonus action, you can use your bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand.

- In either case, you don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack made with the weapon held in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative.

- If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.

Here's the reasoning behind all of this:

I'm cool with the fact that there should be an opportunity cost to use TWF in combat. The way I see it, making an additional attack with an "offhand weapon" should be yet another option of bonus action among all that are available to a character. For that reason, I'm hesitant to remove the "as a bonus action" part of TWF.

BUT, some of these options are already "make an additional attack as a bonus action", and it is in these situations that I feel that TWF doesn't feel as satisfying as other combat style. The dueling fighting style - and the advantage of wearing a shield - applies when attacks are made as a BA. The great weapon fighting style - and the advantage of having bigger damage dice - applies when attacks are made as a BA. The archery fighting style - and the advantage of being at range - applies when attacks are made as a BA. Even the defense and protection fighting styles are fully effective when attacks are made as a bonus action.

However, the benefits of the two-weapon fighting style - and of the TWF as a combat technique as a whole - becomes moot in the case of attacks made as a BA because you'd need another bonus action to take advantage of it.

Hence the "free" offhand attack when an melee weapon attack is made as a bonus action.

Question for RaW enthusiasts here: How "when you use your bonus action to make an attack with a weapon you are holding in one hand" applies to the monk's martial arts unarmed strikes? The goal is definitively not to give monks yet another attack...

I think the same can be accomplished with a simple “once per turn” for the bonus attack. Less words, same result, no confusion about getting multiple bonus attacks.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why? The ability to use a lance one-handed while mounted isn’t contained in the mounted combat section. Rather than cludging exceptions to the way two-weapon fighting normally works into the two-weapon fighting rules themselves, why not include the exception in the specific rules for the exceptional case?

The lance’s primary purpose is that rule. The rapier’s primary purpose isn’t to be used in dual wielding.

The rule already allows daggers, we’re trying to get it to allow rapiers, and balancing that by restricting them to being used with daggers. Seems to me like the simplest solution would just be to make that part of the rules for rapiers. Alternatively, you could make it part of the rules for daggers, but personally I feel like daggers are more than good enough already.

Yes, I know what the rule allows and what the point of the thread is. TWF with a rapier is irrelevant to any rapier user that ain’t TWF, so the rule should be in the part of the game it is most relevant to. The rules for TWF need to establish either the rapier specifically, or the dagger specifically, as breaking the normal rule restriction. If we want daggers to work with flails, fine, call out the dagger. If we want rapiers to be viable TWF options without a feat, specify that rapiers can be used even tho they aren’t light.

Or just open up basic TWF to any light or finesse weapon, or combine light and finesse into one trait. Whatever.

That wouldn’t break the game, but it would make using paired weapons strictly inferior to using mismatched ones, which in my opinion is an undesirable consequence.


In the TWF rules? That feels really inelegant. In the special properties for rapiers? That is literally one of the things I suggested.

it isn’t inelegant at all. It is the opposite of that.

Err... Sure, I guess? I thought we were discussing the best way to allow dual-wieldingbwith a d8 weapon in one hand and d4 in the other.

“Mismatched” weapons is a superior form to matching weapons.

And we’ve been discussing rather a broad range of components of TWF in this thread. That specific point was in repsonse to worries that certain wordings would make daggers too good, or otherwise make them never a good choice to go with a rapier.

A solution for that, would be to open up TWF, and give some manner of boost to using a dagger as one or both weapons.

 

[FrogReaver]

Two Weapon Fighting: You must either be holding a weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other or a light weapon in one hand and a light weapon in the other. When you attack with a weapon in one hand you can use a bonus action to attack with a weapon in your other hand. When you make a bonus action attack using a different feature you can also attack with the weapon in your other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack granted by this feature, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it.


That's how I would change TWF rule in order to do what you desire. I don't have any issues with the change.

What was wrong with this suggestion?

 

[Laurefindel]

What was wrong with this suggestion?

I like that. I must have missed it. Conveys the intent. It just needs to specify « attack with melee weapon » to avoid monk martial arts and crossbow expert shenanigans.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Since the option of TWF is available to everyone (it isn't a feature or feat), I don't mind that doing it requires the character's bonus action. However, I understand your issue with it since so many other features and such give extra attacks as bonus actions as well. But, if it already hasn't been pointed out, I ask you to consider that most of these other options which cost a bonus action have other benefits in addition to granting an additional attack.

What I personally might consider is augmenting Two Weapon Fighting Style for fighters or the Dual Wielder feat. You could alter either of these to allow the off-hand attack for "free", instead of having it use up the bonus action for the character.

It is difficult sometimes. I had a player in my last session with his Frenzied Barbarian wanting to use his Great Weapon Master as well when his target went to 0 HP. He was disappointed when I explained since they are both bonus actions, he can't use both in a single turn. GWM as also further disappointing when I told him that if a target went to 0 HP and he used the bonus action to attack another, and it went to 0 HP, he couldn't continue his attacks due to the feat since his single bonus action had already been used.

I guess you just have to work it as best as you see fit. There are features that allow additional attacks without using a bonus action (such as Horde Breaker), so I don't see a problem ruling instead that other features, feats, etc. might allow additional attacks without using a bonus action.

 

[Laurefindel]

Since the option of TWF is available to everyone (it isn't a feature or feat), I don't mind that doing it requires the character's bonus action. (snip) There are features that allow additional attacks without using a bonus action (such as Horde Breaker), so I don't see a problem ruling instead that other features, feats, etc. might allow additional attacks without using a bonus action.

Ok, so don't fix TWF to be compatible with bonus action attacks; fix bonus action attacks to be compatible with TWF.

Yes I thought about that. Frenzy barbarian not being compatible with GWM's "cleave" ability was a concern of mine; I wish those would stack. I was just afraid that removing the bonus action requirement on Fenzy and GWM might have a broader reach and therefore more chances of unforeseen consequences.

The berserker would definitively become a bit more enticing despite its drawbacks, but I'm hesitant to make GWM better than it already is (but it would make it more interesting for non-heavy weapons).

I would also need to make a better study of the sources of weapon attacks as bonus action. If those two are the main culprits, it would be easier to simply remove the BA requirement from them.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

Ok, so don't fix TWF to be compatible with bonus action attacks; fix bonus action attacks to be compatible with TWF.

Yes I thought about that. Frenzy barbarian not being compatible with GWM's "cleave" ability was a concern of mine; I wish those would stack. I was just afraid that removing the bonus action requirement on Fenzy and GWM might have a broader reach and therefore more chances of unforeseen consequences.

The berserker would definitively become a bit more enticing despite its drawbacks, but I'm hesitant to make GWM better than it already is (but it would make it more interesting for non-heavy weapons).

I would also need to make a better study of the sources of weapon attacks as bonus action. If those two are the main culprits, it would be easier to simply remove the BA requirement from them.

Well, like I said, anyone can TWF: a rogue, monk, etc. For me, Two Weapon Fighting and Dual Wielder improve TWF, so it seems reasonable either one could also make it so the off-hand attack isn't a bonus action.

As far as GWF is concerned, I allowed my player to use it once per turn. It is useful that way, but not repeatable. Since the Frenzy feature results in one level of Exhaustion, it has a decent drawback, even allowing the two to work in concert. You could either remove the bonus action requirement from GWF or from Frenzy, either seems acceptable IMO.

I've only been playing for a couple months, so others can probably advise you better as far as the study of the weapon attacks.