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

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

And those are already possible. Twinning any of the weapons that aren't already usuable for TWF without a feat is just less good than using them with a smaller weapon or shield.

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

No, shortswords are not a "proper sword". I refuse to believe that you don't know that I'm referring to longer weapons like the classic viking sword and the classic cruciform "knight's sword". Type XI, XIII, etc are not shortswords, and even the Type X is a stretch.

The rapier makes a fine sword of any kind that is longer than a shortsword, but still primarily one-handed, without half-swording or pommel-grip. It should be usuable in dual wielding with a small axe, long knife, short sword, etc.

 

[Laurefindel]

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

I considered that for a while, and it does shine in its simplicity. My only issue with that is that there would be no reasons *not to* TWF. Why fight with a rapier and the other hand tucked behind your back instead of two short swords? Why should the rogue only attack with one dagger?

The gamist in me feels that there’s something wrong if one avenue is plainly more advantageous, baring special abilitie or training, than default. Or perhaps it’s the simulationist in me that is missing a « open hand » fighting style. Or perhaps I’m overthinking all of this way too much... yeah, probably that.

 

[Charlaquin]

And those are already possible.

Yes, and I don’t want those options to be invalidated by making the strictly better combination of [d8 weapon] and [d6 weapon] usable at no opportunity cost.

Twinning any of the weapons that aren't already usuable for TWF without a feat is just less good than using them with a smaller weapon or shield.

Ok?

No, shortswords are not a "proper sword". I refuse to believe that you don't know that I'm referring to longer weapons like the classic viking sword and the classic cruciform "knight's sword". Type XI, XIII, etc are not shortswords, and even the Type X is a stretch.

A shortsword is just a d6 light finesse weapon that deals slashing damage. Describe it as whatever kind of sword you like, I promise the simulation police won’t arrest you for it.

The rapier makes a fine sword of any kind that is longer than a shortsword, but still primarily one-handed, without half-swording or pommel-grip. It should be usuable in dual wielding with a small axe, long knife, short sword, etc.

As long as that doesn’t invalidate wielding two d6 weapons, fine. If your “sword” does d8 and your “long knife” does d4, fine. If it’s d8 and d6, you should be paying an opportunity cost for that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes, and I don’t want those options to be invalidated by making the strictly better combination of [d8 weapon] and [d6 weapon] usable at no opportunity cost.

then they need a boost.

A shortsword is just a d6 light finesse weapon that deals slashing damage. Describe it as whatever kind of sword you like, I promise the simulation police won’t arrest you for it.

If there were no rapier and longsword, sure. Here are, so the short sword is definately not both short spathas AND type xiii swords. I’m not a simulationist, but those three sword are in the game for a reason. They represent 3 broad types of swords.

As long as that doesn’t invalidate wielding two d6 weapons, fine. If your “sword” does d8 and your “long knife” does d4, fine. If it’s d8 and d6, you should be paying an opportunity cost for that.

No. The mechanics needs to serve the story. Dual wielders with a spear or type x sword or arming sword and a small axe shouldn’t require a feat while a rapier and dagger doesn’t. If that means making daggers have a special bonus when dual wielding, fine. If it also means that using two light weapons together gets a special boost, fine.

Maybe it means that the TWF fighting style opens up some combinations while the feat opens it all the way up to any one handed weapons.

Any solutions that address one weapon combo, but not any of the others that would reasonably be more common than that combo, are bad solutions.

There is also no good reason for handaxe and arming sword to be a rare combination, without having to pretend that short swords and rapiers and longswords are all just interchangeable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I considered that for a while, and it does shine in its simplicity. My only issue with that is that there would be no reasons *not to* TWF. Why fight with a rapier and the other hand tucked behind your back instead of two short swords? Why should the rogue only attack with one dagger?

The gamist in me feels that there’s something wrong if one avenue is plainly more advantageous, baring special abilitie or training, than default. Or perhaps it’s the simulationist in me that is missing a « open hand » fighting style. Or perhaps I’m overthinking all of this way too much... yeah, probably that.

I think the duelist style aught to have a bonus to grappling, or there aught to be a fighting style that supports grappling with a hand free. Realistically, it should include longswords and greatswords and staves, etc, but I think it’s fine if we ignore that.

 

[Charlaquin]

then they need a boost.

Only if you make d8s dual wieldable with d6s at no opportunity cost. If your house rule causes problems that you need more house rules to fix, it’s not an elegant houserule.

If there were no rapier and longsword, sure. Here are, so the short sword is definately not both short spathas AND type xiii swords.

Those are just names.

I’m not a simulationist, but those three sword are in the game for a reason.

Yeah, to provide a light finesse sword, a nonlight finesse sword, and a versatile sword.

They represent 3 broad types of swords.

Sure, if you want them to.

No. The mechanics needs to serve the story. Dual wielders with a spear or type x sword or arming sword and a small axe shouldn’t require a feat while a rapier and dagger doesn’t.

Ok, so make a d4 small axe that can be dual wielded with those weapons. That solves your problem without creating balance issues that you need more house rules to fix.

If that means making daggers have a special bonus when dual wielding, fine. If it also means that using two light weapons together gets a special boost, fine.

Maybe it means that the TWF fighting style opens up some combinations while the feat opens it all the way up to any one handed weapons.

Again, seems like a much more unwieldy solution to me.

Any solutions that address one weapon combo, but not any of the others that would reasonably be more common than that combo, are bad solutions.

...Why?

There is also no good reason for handaxe and arming sword to be a rare combination, without having to pretend that short swords and rapiers and longswords are all just interchangeable.

They’re not interchangeable, they have different mechanics. Use the weapon with the mechanics you need, and describe it the way you want. Or make a new item with the stats you need it to have that “represents” the weapon you want it to. Much better than having to house rule to fix the balance issues your house rule caused in the name of versimillitude.

 

[Horwath]

I just merged off-hand attack into Attack action with main hand.

Worked out great.

Does not punish classes that have some bonus action core features.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I considered that for a while, and it does shine in its simplicity. My only issue with that is that there would be no reasons *not to* TWF. Why fight with a rapier and the other hand tucked behind your back instead of two short swords? Why should the rogue only attack with one dagger?

The gamist in me feels that there’s something wrong if one avenue is plainly more advantageous, baring special abilitie or training, than default. Or perhaps it’s the simulationist in me that is missing a « open hand » fighting style. Or perhaps I’m overthinking all of this way too much... yeah, probably that.

I enforce hand use pretty rigorously: if you have two weapons in your hands, then you aren't doing anything else with those hands that round. Especially if you're a rogue, having a free hand is recommended for any climbing, rope-swinging, pocket-picking, or tossing of caltrops in which you might wish to engage.

But I also know a lot of groups find this level of attention to who has what in which hand and when to be overbearing. This is very much in YMMV territory.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

then they need a boost.

Eh. I'm with you on the difference between swords, but [MENTION=15729]Charlequin[/MENTION] is right that allowing a d8 and a d6 together, cost free, is not a great idea. Yes, arming sword plus handaxe was doable, but it certainly wasn't a common historical fighting style. It doesn't strike me as crazy to require a combat style or feat to pull it off.

Parrying Fighting Style: If you are wielding a one-handed weapon in your main hand, even if it's not light, you can wield a light weapon in your off hand. You get a +1 bonus to AC when wielding two weapons this way, or +2 if the weapon in your off hand is a dagger.

 

[Coroc]

For the sake of at least some realism leave the offhand as a bonus action aa it is. IRL fighting with two weapons neither makes you quicker nor allows to attack more often. Would you try it, in fact you would be slower , because you would have to change stance each time you switch between the two weapons.

The bonus action rule is a good compromise between realism and munchkinism.