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

[Laurefindel]

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.

Some will tell you that a barbarian already gains a lot from GWM thanks to reckless attack, let alone a frenzy berserker.

Without some bonus action restriction, you end-up with something like a berserker barbarian 5 / champion fighter 4 with Great-Weapon Master and Polearm Master for 2 regular attacks +1 frenzy attack + butt-end polearm attack + one likely cleave attack since you already rolled 4 attacks with advantage and a 19-20 crit range. Lets throw in a bonus attack from a haste spell just for and giggles. All at +10 damage each, re-rolling 1s and 2s. Even if not all attacks hit, that's a lot of potential damage, even for a 9th level character.

All of that with the objective of "fixing" TWF, which doesn't even apply here...

Admittedly, these are the two melee feats that are often cited as broken, and the character had to spend its two ASI on feats rather than on STR increase. That makes a character that only knows how to do one thing, but it does it rather well.

I'm not dismissing your proposition, it actually has a lot of merits, but it requires a broader analysis.

 

[WhosDaDungeonMaster]

I'm not dismissing your proposition, it actually has a lot of merits, but it requires a broader analysis.

Oh, I know! LOL! Any system can become broken if you throw in tons of options. That's why I've deferred this to more experienced 5E gamers.

The Barbarian in question is a Tiefling who gets to add Searing Smite (or something, I don't recall exactly what) and is doing tons of damage with his Greatsword! But, that is what he is designed to do. Like many, I think the -5/+10 option of GWM is a bit overpowered, but most boss-types have a high-enough AC that he doesn't use it then.

But to look at your example, I wouldn't allow Polearm Master off-hand attack for free, nor the GWM's. I would more likely rule the Frenzy bonus action for attack is a free attack, similar to Horde Breaker. Then, in your scenario, the character would have to choose between the off-hand attack or the cleave as his bonus action attack. And like you said, either way, the character is using a lot to get this edge while it lasts.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I don’t see why that should rule out the option of including (hypothetical) exceptions to the normal rules that apply to a rapier in the rules for the rapier.

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 light property on any weapon is irrelevant to anyone who isn’t using it for two-weapon fighting. And I would argue that the rapier entry is the part of the game that the rules for how rapiers work 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.

On this we are in agreement. We are only disagreeing over whether the exception should be included in the two weapon fighting rules, or in the rules for the weapon in question. In my opinion, it is clunky and inelegant to try to write a rule in such a way as to call out all of its own exceptions. Better to have the general rule stand on its own, and have exceptions call themselves out in the place they are most relevant. This “exceptions-based design” is pretty much the standard in D&D. We don’t call out in the general rules for Critical hits that half-orcs get to roll an extra die on them, we put that in the half orc race entry.

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

Sure, you could. That change would have certain consequences, which some DMs will find acceptable and others won’t. Personally, I don’t. I would rather allow the specific combination of rapier and dagger only than allow any combination of two finesse weapons.

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

I disagree, for the reasons I’ve given above.

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

First of all, even if we accept that that’s true in real life, I don’t consider that a good enough reason on its own for it to be so in the game. Lots of stuff in the game is “unrealistic” for balance reasons, or for design aesthetic reasons, or any number of other reasons. For me, dual-wielding mismatched weapons being strictly superior to dual-wielding paired weapons is not an acceptable outcome. Any change to dual-wielding that leads to that outcome is not an acceptable change for me.

Second of all, it’s not true in real life.

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.

Sure. But my argument is that a better solution is simply to add a new d4 weapon that can be dual-wielded with a rapier. This solution has the smallest footprint on the rest of the system. It allows exactly what is desired (dual-wielding a rapier with a d4 weapon) without any consequences that affect the rest of the system, such as making mismatched weapons objectively better than paired ones or making daggers objectively better than other simple weapons.

 

[FrogReaver]

Something can be the best mechanical solution and still not be the best aesthetic one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Something can be the best mechanical solution and still not be the best aesthetic one.

Absolutely. If one doesn’t find the main-gauche solution acceptable for any reason - mechanical, aesthetic, whatever - they don’t have to use it. It’s what I would do, for the reasons I gave above. It is simple, elegant, and has the smallest footprint. I also offered an alternate - include the special property in the dagger or the rapier instead of making up a new weapon to give it to. Slightly further-reaching consequences, but for some DMs that will be preferable. There are other options too, like totally re-writing two-weapon fighting. I personally find that to be a far less elegant solution, but if it’s how you want to do it, more power to you.

I’m not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong for not doing it the way I would do it, I’m merely objecting to the assertion that my solution is inelegant or particularly complex, or somehow not in keeping with 5e design.

 

[FrogReaver]

Absolutely. If one doesn’t find the main-gauche solution acceptable for any reason - mechanical, aesthetic, whatever - they don’t have to use it. It’s what I would do, for the reasons I gave above. It is simple, elegant, and has the smallest footprint. I also offered an alternate - include the special property in the dagger or the rapier instead of making up a new weapon to give it to. Slightly further-reaching consequences, but for some DMs that will be preferable. There are other options too, like totally re-writing two-weapon fighting. I personally find that to be a far less elegant solution, but if it’s how you want to do it, more power to you.

I’m not trying to tell anyone they’re wrong for not doing it the way I would do it, I’m merely objecting to the assertion that my solution is inelegant or particularly complex, or somehow not in keeping with 5e design.

In my opinion a solution that can cover all weapons is more elegant than a solution that just covers a single specific weapon, unless there’s a reason for the property only to affect a single particular question

 

[Charlaquin]

In my opinion a solution that can cover all weapons is more elegant than a solution that just covers a single specific weapon, unless there’s a reason for the property only to affect a single particular question

I agree. For me, the reason for it to only affect a single particular weapon is to avoid making new dual-wielding options strictly superior to dual shortswords or making daggers objectively superior to other simple weapons (its already honestly pretty strong for a simple weapon, but I want to avoid making that problem any worse).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don’t see why that should rule out the option of including (hypothetical) exceptions to the normal rules that apply to a rapier in the rules for the rapier.



The light property on any weapon is irrelevant to anyone who isn’t using it for two-weapon fighting. And I would argue that the rapier entry is the part of the game that the rules for how rapiers work is most relevant to.


On this we are in agreement. We are only disagreeing over whether the exception should be included in the two weapon fighting rules, or in the rules for the weapon in question. In my opinion, it is clunky and inelegant to try to write a rule in such a way as to call out all of its own exceptions. Better to have the general rule stand on its own, and have exceptions call themselves out in the place they are most relevant. This “exceptions-based design” is pretty much the standard in D&D. We don’t call out in the general rules for Critical hits that half-orcs get to roll an extra die on them, we put that in the half orc race entry.


Sure, you could. That change would have certain consequences, which some DMs will find acceptable and others won’t. Personally, I don’t. I would rather allow the specific combination of rapier and dagger only than allow any combination of two finesse weapons.


I disagree, for the reasons I’ve given above.


First of all, even if we accept that that’s true in real life, I don’t consider that a good enough reason on its own for it to be so in the game. Lots of stuff in the game is “unrealistic” for balance reasons, or for design aesthetic reasons, or any number of other reasons. For me, dual-wielding mismatched weapons being strictly superior to dual-wielding paired weapons is not an acceptable outcome. Any change to dual-wielding that leads to that outcome is not an acceptable change for me.

Second of all, it’s not true in real life.


Sure. But my argument is that a better solution is simply to add a new d4 weapon that can be dual-wielded with a rapier. This solution has the smallest footprint on the rest of the system. It allows exactly what is desired (dual-wielding a rapier with a d4 weapon) without any consequences that affect the rest of the system, such as making mismatched weapons objectively better than paired ones or making daggers objectively better than other simple weapons.

There are pairs of weapons that are good, but generally a longer weapon and a short one is simply better. Two rapiers isn’t just rare because it’s harder to learn, but also because it’s harder to not screw up, even when you e learned it.

Also, things like the shortsword and handax should be usable with a proper sword in dual wielding. Sure, daggers too, but not only daggers. A solution that doesn’t address that isn’t worth much.

 

[hejtmane]

My simple house rule you can make one extra attack with the off hand weapon per turn. Basically the same thing as the hunter's colossal Slayer

 

[Charlaquin]

There are pairs of weapons that are good, but generally a longer weapon and a short one is simply better. Two rapiers isn’t just rare because it’s harder to learn, but also because it’s harder to not screw up, even when you e learned it.

Yeah, rapiers are a bad weapon to twin. Like, there are examples of it, but it’s super awkward and was generally not recommended by the masters. On the other hand, twin gladii or twin eskrima sticks are examples that actually make a lick of sense.

Also, things like the shortsword and handax should be usable with a proper sword in dual wielding. Sure, daggers too, but not only daggers. A solution that doesn’t address that isn’t worth much.

That’s already possible, they’re called shortswords.