Two weapon fighting: D&D 5e
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 лип 2024
- If you like what I do and would consider supporting this channel through Patreon:
/ treantmonkstemple
If you would like to know how I calculate damage or how baseline damage is determined, I go through it in this video:
• How To Calculate Avera...
Timestamps:
0:00 Intro
3:21 TWF rules, feats and fighting styles
7:02 Comparing TWF to other styles
10:26 Comparing Feat options
13:44 Giving up your bonus action
15:43 Why TWF is bad
17:00 Fixing TWF
23:00 Checking the math
Join my discord:
/ discord
Follow me on Twitter:
/ chrishonkala - Ігри
![ОРБАН приехал к ПУТИНУ и "отчитался" о поездке в Киев 😁 [Пародия]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_0ukDovOWq8/mqdefault.jpg)
Wonderful breakdown. This is a topic I've been thinking about lately as well. I think your solution is mechanically well thought out, and completely agree with the proposed solution of not requiring two-weapon fighting to use the bonus action. However, I do think it's worth iterating on TWF design, and I think making extra attacks should be more seriously considered over a flat-damage bonus. You are completely right about the balance problems caused by simply granting TWF additional attacks in the context of D&D 5e, but I think part of the "power fantasy" or "fun" of TWF for many players is the idea that such characters will get to roll lots of additional attacks. Too many extra attacks can definitely bog down play, but so do high-level spells. This is probably one of those things which requires a bigger edition-level revision / shift to fully address though.
Wisdom 20
I definitely agree that spells can bog down play, even some lower level ones (This is largely bad design where some are save if you start your turn in an effect, others if you end your turn in the effect, some if you enter the effect, others not - so you constantly end up looking it up). There might be ways to streamline more attacks. Maybe the damage is a flat number or something, have to think on that.
Maybe as part of the TWF feat or fighting style, once you gain the Extra Attack feature you can do a Bonus Action offhand swing in addition to the free offhand swing with Attack action (for a total of two offhand swings, if you use your Bonus Action). 4 attacks at level 5 would be pretty powerful but it's situational/competes for your Bonus Action, and if it requires the investment of a Fight Style and/or Feat, that doesn't seem too unreasonable.
Would love to see to colab build off like the one with colby
Would go as far as shifting the damage rider of +bonus@level off to (at least) the two weapon fighting style rather than the feat. This circumvents the feat tax and boosts TWF damage on classes that can get a fighting style, whether they use light or larger weapons. If you like doing more attacks with TWF, then you'd want to grant an extra attack (though probably not more) as part of the attack action IF you can make multiple attacks. This would boost TWF on classes or features that grant multiple attacks per action but do not necessarily get the Extra Attack feature, eg Thirsting Blade. In any case Treantmonk is right to seek to alleviate the sheathe/draw bottleneck, whether that be all weapons as your object interaction, or (keeping dual-wielder feat unchanged) allowing one to draw/stow an extra weapon as a bonus action.
For the additional damage, i would have worded it "When using two weapon fighting with your attack action, the damage you inflict with your weapons are increased by half your proficiency bonus rounded down." This is more in line with how they've been wording things as of late. it does make it come on line a bit earlier, but not much (9 and 17 respectfully) but i'm not sure this is all that big a deal.
This was a video that would have REALLY benefitted from some graphs or charts comparing the various builds, options, and versions. Listening to someone rattle off comparative numbers at various different levels over and over again is really hard to hold in your head and think about. The beauty of UA-cam is that it's a visual medium.
Right? Nobody should be reading off numbers for five minutes without visuals to go with them. Who can follow that?
Makes sense when you call it out but I honestly didn't even think about it. Though I also listen to these in my car like a podcast and often don't look at the screen anyway.
Good point
Agreed, like the action surge mentioned early on. Once per short or long rest. In an adventuring day, what , it’s twice , they get 2 extra attack but the TWF gets that 13 dmg to 11 dam per attack round for 10-15 attacks in a day,. I tend to like these build trees with the colors for best being blue and all but not every thing has to be about optimized damage output to enjoy playing dnd with your friends.
The dungeon coach has made a similar video to this a couple of months back and that video has visual graphs to show how two weapon fighting compares to two handed weapons dmg wise
Fixing the feat with +damage doesn't make as much sense as a + to hit. When I'm waving two swords around, each slice is still a normal sword slice. However, my opponent needs to split their attention at two sharp weapons, making it easier to find openings in their defense. Thus, I'd suggest a +to hit
I never thought of this but it makes a lot of sense!
But you also have to coordinate two weapons, which is harder. But I guess the feat does explicitly say "you've mastered two weapon fighting" so my point is moot.
The feat would then be +1to hit +1 to damage and +1 to ac. I like that.
@@theeye8276 but then it's still not worth taking until you've maxed dex, which is the problem with it now
Perhaps it would be best to give a bonus when you successfully hit with both weapons not a per weapon basis. This would be more thematic of a dual weapon creating more damage with more hits. Death by a Thousand cuts.
Some good suggestions. I would remove the requirement for the main hand weapon to be light. No reason a PC couldn't fight with Longsword and dagger or Battleaxe and throwing hammer. If a PC wants to sacrifice using a shield or heavy weapon for 1d4 or 1d6 damage I say Merry Christmas.
One of the changes I've made is that you can TWF if both weapons are light or the off hand weapon is a light d4 weapon. This allows rapier and dagger. Or rapier and whip. Longsword and club etc. The damage output overall is the same.
This is a good idea, although it does make it far less likely you'll see dual wielding of light weapons ever again. Assuming +4 ASI by 5th level and appropriate fighting styles, two-handed strikes reach an average min-to-max weapon combo of 17-24 with d8 to 2d6, and TWF weapons in this case would be at average min-max of 19.5-24.5, so I do think you'd still want to require the use of a bonus action and not grant any additional attacks. 28.5-39GWF and 29-36TWF at fighter(11).
@@cusillo6976 But if you using polearm master and/or great weapon master feats, the GWF is far superior in damage. PLUS, better AoO, better use magical weapons, can cast shield/absorb elements/ counterspell without any issue, can get free hand for something very easily, more flexibility in fighting style choice, more range for halberd or glaive, and more damage whenever using bonus action for something else of which there's an enormous amount of very good things competing for the bonus action.
@@SpiderWaffle those are feats. You fix feats against feats, not fighting style against feats. But yes it ultimately wouldn't be enough
@@cusillo6976 ah ic, just comparing the styles. Gwf is bad, since it's increasing damage almost half as much as dualing, which isn't considered great, maybe average. And archery is considered the best because of sharp shooter feat. At some point you can't just compare things without considering everything else because they affect each other.
That is spot on, well done and spot on with my thoughts. Being a seasoned HEMA practitioner, I will agree that two weapon fighting was not common (on the battlefield), but I have found there is much more to it. Rapier and a parry dagger, or sidesword or even a shorter sidesword was used within historical treatises (also note that the differences between a rapier and a sidesword can be unnoticable based on design at times...but that is along history lesson heh). Over the past three years I have taken a deep dive into Dual Wielding OUTSIDE of just a weapon with a parry dagger, and I am surprised, outside of the battlefield, that it was practiced more than I thought. It is now my secondary focus within my Fencing; also historically, if you were proficient using two full sized weapons, you would be considered highly skilled and I think that fits EXACTLY with our high fantasy wishes for dual wielding...no?
100% this.
sword and dagger is quite a challenge to fight against, since the dagger is not just a shield, but can also cut. one of the deadliest techniques you can do with the combination is to control the blade of the opponent with your own blade, then move beyond their distance of control, and stab. and due to the speed of the dagger, it is nearly impossible to block against. so your best defence against this is to maintain your distance well. for duels, or small fights where you fight no more than 3 people and can control the flow, i would say sword and dagger is absolute king. as for dual wielding two longswords... well, i have tried it, and i don't see there being any real advantages to this. the longer second blade blocks your other blades arc of movement, it doesn't give you an advantage at close range.
dual wielding sword and axe on the other hand do pose some interesting tricks. again you can control your opponents blade with your blade, and use the axe to open the opponents shield, or even hit around the shield. depending on how aggressive or defensive you want to be.
"...two weapon fighting was not common (on the battlefield)..."
That, my friend, depends on where you draw the line on what is, and is not, a weapon. One could easily make the case that a shield is as much a weapon as a sword is, able to do many of the same duties as other off-hand weapons in many of the same ways.
Loved this topic and your variants are always the best. No ones understands how 5e mechanics actually play at the table better than you!
Much appreciated!
@@TreantmonksTemple Here 's my version of two-weapon fighting:
Two-Weapon Fighting:
•When you take the Attack action while wielding two weapons and make an attack with your main weapon, you can make one additional attack with your offhand weapon if that weapon has the light property. However, these extra attacks made with your offhand weapon don’t gain damage bonuses of any kind.
Two-Weapon Style:
•While wielding two melee weapons, you can use weapons that don't have the light property to make offhand weapon attacks.
•When you take the Attack action while wielding two melee weapons and make at least one attack with each weapon, you can move up to 10 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity unless you’re wearing medium or heavy armor.
Dual Wielder:
•You can use an object interaction to draw or sheathe two melee weapons.
•While wielding two melee weapons, you gain a +1 bonus to your Armor Class.
•When you take the Attack action while wielding two melee weapons, you can use a bonus action to make one additional attack with your main weapon.
I maintain that Archery Style + Sharpshooter is still somewhat better than my version of two-weapon fighting. What do you think?
@@TreantmonksTemple I think your solution may be Brocken if you consider the paladin my separate thread covers this.
great video!
maybe he got better? idk, his tanking video was essentially: DND MUST BE LIKE AN MMO
Main reason for 2 weapon fighting, for me, anyway, is for rogues in regard to getting two shots to land sneak attack instead of the one shot. Then again... You could do crossbow expert and accomplish the same action economy, possibly enhanced with sharpshooter. TWF is not optimal, to be sure.
Even then, Steady Aim makes a second attack redundant in many cases.
2 attacks per OpAttack be too much, how about a middle ground where the OpAttack is with advantage? This is by the logic that it's just harder to avoid two weapons and has great synergy with rogues as they use Steady aim on their turn and still get advantage off their turn.
However, I just don't find reaction attacks come up that often unless sentinel is used as almost every creature knows that they will provoke if they try to run away without disengaging so they never try to flee without disengaging.
@@Treblaine perhaps changing it up so that they CAN'T disengage without provoking BUT you can OpAtk at disadvantage. They lose some defensive measures against your 2wf skills but you also lose some potential on your attack bc they're trying to carefully withdraw from you.
This is a much more elegant fix than a lot of the ones I've tried to implement, although I had settled on adjusting TWF to not use the bonus action, I couldn't figure out how to boost the damage with the feat without going overboard. I am going to implement these rules but with one minor adjustment because I feel a lot of the light d6 weapons deserve a chance to shine. Instead of the dual wielder feat lifting the restriction on light weapons, it will just start as a +1 and increase to a +2 at level 5, +3 at 11, and +4 at 20. Obviously this skews it a bit more toward the fixed modifiers but that's fine by me, thanks for the great suggestion!
Yeah, I like this even better... someone swinging around two full sized longswords or battle axes just looks silly... better to be more deadly with Scimitars, Short Swords, or Daggers...
The homebrew I use in my games is that the 2 weapon fighting feat adds an extra offhand attack as part of the attack action or OA. Meaning you keeping the option of using a bonus action for attack, but you get an additional attack as part of your attack action or opportunity attack so you don’t have to fully lose your bonus action for just 1 basic attack. Not fully as strong as great weapon master but it keeps up
Does that mean 3 attacks at level 1 if you start with a feat? (2 for the feat and then “keeping the option of using a bonus action for attack”)
@@mattf5935 how is that any worse than great weapon master at 1st level? Even if it’s mildly strong for first level it balances out soon after. Besides, without 2 weapon fighting style it’s just an extra d6/d8 if you hit
This makes sense to me. And truthfully “ rules / math / modifiers “ wise seems as if it could be the simplest fix. Just straight up ( optional on the attack action ) Allow them to make an additional offhand attack towards even just the same target. Of course, via the per attack action command.
It preserves the ever so important bonus action and I don’t believe becomes game breaking..
Midway during the extensive listing of bonus actions I found myself exclaiming aloud, "Chris! Stop, he's already dead!" Excellent analysis and suggestions for a good balanced fix.
“Oh damn so this is one of the biggest issue with monks huh their atrocious bonus economy I wonder if Treat will menti-“
“Martial arts, or any other endless crappy monks stuff”
💀💀💀
But for reals I love this type of videos that basically answer other problems, like the one I watched with the funny Kobold saying that most monsters in the game don’t really have much ranged options, answering my question on why I only used Deflect Missile 3 times in a 1 year campaign 😭
Always love hearing about your variants, that’s why I absolutely love you revised feats and plan to used them in upcoming campaigns, ESPECIALLY for fighting with versatile weapons using the versatility, hope to see some content on that too! (Big lover of one handed specialist feat)
The +3 from the feat should be at lvl 17 imo
I was thinking this too, just having it follow Cantrip Damage...
it seems like it's 20 because that's when Fighters get their 4th Attack... but I think that's weird too....
I like the changes you’ve suggested. My plan would be to give the dual wielder feat when you select 2 weapon fighting style. It’s fairly straight forward and I don’t think over powering.
I could see the Light weapon part, but including the AC bonus too would make it strictly better than Defense as a fighting style.
@@samwildstein2092 Not really strictly better, because you have to be wielding two weapons to gain the AC bonus. So Defense would be more versatile as it could be used with sword and board, a two handed weapon etc. as it's often used currently. Still it's probably better to just remove the AC bump, I agree.
@@samwildstein2092 Very reasonable.
These are good, practical fixes. I do something similar with my games for the interactions, but I hadn't decided yet on the dual-wielder feat. I play a blood hunter in a friend's game that focuses on dual-wielding and the extra damage does help him to keep up, but It's always 3-d chess trying to figure out what I'm going to do with my bonus action, or when to stow weapons.
One thing that I had been considering is a rewording in any class that had natural access to a fighting style. When dual-wielding appropriate weapons, they would be able to cast any spell that they gained access to through that class progression with their hands full (of weapons only). I often described a character simply holding both weapons in one hand momentarily, but I think it makes sense mechanically and thematically. If you have access to a fighting style and spells in your class, those spells are most likely going to be simple and familiar enough to be used in a combat situation.
That is the nice thing about D&D. You don't have to be fettered with the design philosophy, or lack thereof, of its makers. If you see a problem, you can fix it at home.
At first I thought these adjustments were undertuned, but the end of the video convinced me these were the right fixes. Definitely implementing these in my games.
Honestly, I'd drop the bonus action part of two weapon fighting and just have it be an additional attack you can make with a light weapon in your off hand after attacking with your main hand during the attack action. Rules would still apply for the off hand where you don't add your damage mod to your off hand attack unless you have the fighting style. Then you take the Duel Wielder feat for extra carnage.
I've also removed the bonus damage in both great weapon and sharp shoot for a 1 in stat, and added a new feat anyone can take Devastating Attack: "Whenever you make an attack roll, you can reduce your hit chance by your Proficiency bonus, and if you hit, increase the damage by double the amount reduced." Now monks can do this, Eldritch blast, duel wielder and so on. And those other 2 feats being half feats make them still worth taking.
That's actually a pretty neat way to break things up. Plenty of people prefer accuracy over power, even when the math work in favor of doing the power attack, but would have to spend the full feat for the other benefits they provided (especially Sharpshooter). ...So, is the gambling bullet point only feat also a half feat? Or do you consider the versatility of being able to apply to any type of attack roll full feat worthy?
If only you didn't need to take Crossbow Expert or Gunner to do the adjacent ranged attacks with spells, but at least the option of Gunner now is a half feat. Admittedly, Close Quarters Shooter from UA was a bit too good to be true compared to the power level of other Fighting Styles, though taking it with with a full feat wouldn't be.
@@Shalakor as for making it a half feat, that’s up to you as a dm, gauge your players reaction, if it’s positive, leave it, if it’s negative, give them the small insensitive.
Wouldn’t be a bit busted for Monks with Focused Aim?
@@cattiston374 I’d say see if that becomes the case, my experience it’s fine.
One thing I didn't see mentioned in this video is the value of having a free hand in combat. It's hard to put a numerical rating 'how valuable it is to have opposable thumbs for interacting with the environment' is, but it's come up enough times when I play melee characters that I consider that as a factor just as surely as 'how much damage do I want to do'. I've played a Bladesinger and a College of Blades Bard, and I can't tell you how many times I needed a spare hand to do basic things like holding a door shut or climbing a ladder or carrying an escort or even just swimming from my rowboat to board a merchant ship.
And if you actually want to cast spells? Unless you're lucky enough to have staves or holy symbols as one of your magical focuses: Forget about it. Even Warcaster only helps you out so much. So bards, rangers, and artificers who aren't personally holding a weapon with the Enhanced Weapon Imbuement? Sorry, suckers.
I use this in my homebrew campaign.
TWO -WEAPON FIGHTING
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can make a bonus attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. Additionally, if you have the Extra Attack class feature, you can use a bonus action to make one additional bonus attack with that same weapon. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attacks, 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.
I had removed the bonus action cost at my table. I like everything else you added too. Great take on the situation.
I liked the idea very much, one of my fellows in our gaming group had tried to go the path of Drizzt with his ranger character, but he had to choose archery style and ss feat for being relevant. I will show this video to our DM and player group.
This was really helpful! Great insight into the mechanics. I may as well try this
Of all the fixes I have seen for two weapon fighting, I think this is the best.
Great breakdown. Well put, and solid fix. Will play test soon.
The issue with fighting against dual wielder in real life is that they are harder to defend against due to the number of attacks they can make. I'm thinking to add a hb on the dual wielder feat which reads "Starting at 5th level, If you are dual wielding and you miss a weapon attack, you can make one melee weapon attack again with the other weapon. You can use this feature once per round. Starting at 11th level, you can do this twice and thrice at 17th level."
So even a samurai fighter which uses their bonus action can benefit with the use of this feat.
In my limited experience doing fencing with a few european weapons, I find that dual wielding is not done to get more attacks in. You use one weapon to control the opponent's, while being able to make an attack with the other. It's all about leverage and openings.
@@Interrobang212 Depends on the style. I'm definitely no expert, but over many years I have dabbled in many different arts (armed and unarmed) I have personally noticed more Eurocentric styles seem to favor more controlling or defensive off hand techniques (not all, but most). Then, In arts like Krabi Krabong, double stick in FMA, Double Broadsword/saber in Chinese arts favor more strikes to overwhelm the opponents defenses - force them to defend one weapon while the other follows just behind or even at a different angle, and if they defend successfully, immediately repeating with opposite weapon leading to not give a chance to counter - only downside is it does leave you vulnerable if that flow is interrupted or countered. Then you have things like Sword Y Daga arts in FMA that tend to mix it up a lot -the long weapon sometimes used to control and defend while the dagger strikes or Dagger controlling and sword striking, or even using more offensive over-whelming techniques.
I think dual wielder feat should be part of two weaponing fighting style. If the d8 weapons are too strong for lower levels because it's restricted behind a feat, then have it come online at level 4 in the TWF class. Like this
"**TWF text** When the character has reached a ASI in this class, they can wield weapons without the light tag" You know, but in correct dnd lingo.
Also attacking a bunch of times is the aesethic of TWF. Idk about balance but one extra attack with your bonus action just doesn't capture that, especially when it's restricted behind so many walls. I bet that TWFighters would gladly take a nerf in damage for more attacks. I would
I feel like having a light weapon when two-weapon fighting should remain as the default, keeping the feat buy-in, since that's the more common fantasy and reality outside of exceptional adventurer types of people that take it to the full sized weapons in each hand level. Basic combat rules should 't be changing as you level up, since they're not something you're writing on your character sheet. The fighting style and base rules for two weapons should still only require the off attack to be with a light weapon, though. Essentially, the off hand attack is in trade off for not using a shield, so only the additional attack should explicitly require the light weapon.
My base "**TWF text**" to address making the second weapon more impactful would be:
Once per turn, when you make an Attack with a melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can make an additional Attack with a different melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand as part of the same action. This additional attack must be made using a weapon with the Light property and you don’t add your ability modifier to the additional Attack's damage, 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. An additional Attack with your second weapon as part of a reaction triggered by a specific target, such as an Attack of Opportunity, must be made against the same target.
While I'm at it, the Two-Weapon Fighting fighting style should read:
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the additional attack. You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
And the Dual Wielder feat is a bit tougher, but maybe something like this:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
While engaging in two-weapon fighting, you can make an additional attack with a weapon in your other hand up to twice per turn instead of only once. This second additional attack must be paired with a separate attack from the first, but that attack can be a part of the same action or a different action.
This way of doing it explicitly ties the attacks with your two weapons into each other, and thanks to being able to take a Fighting Style via a feat now, tying the better draw/stow action economy to the Fighting style instead of a feat makes way more sense and saves classes that care less about the non-light weapons the hassle of going for Duel Weider if they're only doing it because action economy as written is important to the DM (since something like a Rogue isn't getting Extra Attack, Action Surge, or something like Gloom Stalker Ranger's Dread Ambusher feature to work off of the new bullet point I added to Duel Wielder, it's still something they can safely pass up and focus maxing Dex, while a Fighter or Ranger might actually be well off delaying ASI for it now, even before getting Extra Attack). Allowing more than one weapon interaction for free in a turn actually steps on the toes of multiple other styles and feats, so this is a better fix if focusing only on two-weapon fighting. Just one more attack with the feat mostly just puts it on par with the other major weapon feats (though, you could technically still stack Polearm Master with one-handed quarterstaff or spear, but you're giving up the reach of other polearms and damage die size in the trade-off, making it roughly equivalent to stacking Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master), and is not that much slower on gameplay. The second weapon only ever being used once per round made duel wielding feel like an afterthought even when completely building your character around it.
P.S. On the note of too many attacks bogging down combat, something I've found to be way worse for that is the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Players needing to roll all their weapon damage dice, look them over, decide to reroll them, and then need to recalculate the total damage, and for so little of an average impact made, is just asinine (especially if you're using a virtual tabletop or dice bot, since then you have to subtract the 1s and 2s you rerolled from the total before adding the new results). So much room for the choice to reroll to delay things way more than one or two additional full attack rolls without that mess.
So... just make Great Weapon Fighting advantage on two-handed weapon damage dice rolls. No hesitation choosing to do it, and the result is easy to arrive at. The extra damage is the only thing the style does, so increasing its power a bit is no big issue and it's more fair across all die types (d8, d10, d12, and 2d6).
Amazing breakdown and those are very needed fixes.
Wish people like Jeremy Crawford took this to heart and made an errata.
Dude holy shit... I Just found your channel like a month ago, then this week I was looking into dual wielding and you upload this! Amazing timing, liked already
We created a new feat at our table. "Cleave: -2 to attack penalty, +5 to damage with single handed weapons. If you kill a creature, you get to make one additional attack (once per round)." Left everything else the same and the math worked out nicely for single and TWF. No need to rewrite the edition. Should you not want to do that, you could just have the offhand attack be one additional attack when performing the attack action, however, this also means the math will slip behind the two handed combatants, and requires more fiddling with bonus action damage bonuses like Hex/Hunters Mark, etc. The real culprit is GWM and SS. Not having a one-handed equivalent, exacerbates the issue. Adding the above feat really helps balance the situation nicely.
Have you considered the optional rule for cleaving (DMG pg 272) it simplifies things as it doesn't increase damage potential but prevents "waste" of damage that comes from overkilling 0HP enemies and doesn't require extra rolls. You get ONE attack roll against multiple adjacent enemies who probably have the same AC.
@@Treblaine yes we did. However, the actual imbalance issue in damage scaling was the GWM and SS feats, since they push the damage numbers far higher. Coming up with an equivalent feat solved the problem fairly quickly. Alternative approach was to ban those two feats but the majority preferred to include because apparently hitting hard is fun LOL.
@@georgegorgievski8564 Cleave shouldn't work with the overwhelming majority of ranged attacks for obvious reasons, you could only "cleave" with in extremely rare circumstance of a ranged attack like a heavy crossbow shooting through a conga line of zombies that are decomposing (little resistance).
Yeah, that's not "RAW" but 5e isn't a physics simulator rules set, the DM has to help maintain the suspension of disbelief by making the attacks work remotely imaginable.
I'd still rather have GWM in the game as there are a lot of really cool enemies in the game who just have absurdly deep health pools, to the point that the game becomes a boring chore hacking through their health without GWM or ShSh.
Adventure League rules allows players to "roll first, decide attack options later", this is great as it both speeds things up, and gives greater significance to each roll, the roll is no longer about just reaching their AC but exceeding their AC by 5 to get the +10 damage. GWM also supercharges crits by granting (on top of extra damage die) a bonus action attack.
I find crits to be fairly underwhelming, only another 1d12 damage every 20 attacks is just not such a big deal.
I like the idea of the dual feat letting you swing both weapons with any attack, and treating it as one instance of damage.
It improves opportunity attacks, lets you roll more damage dice without making twice as many attacks, and doesn't stack flat bonuses.
I also think it serves the fantasy of swinging two weapons at once better than adding a flat bonus.
Would that not just make the feat read "you do 2d8 + ability modifier damage" instead of "2d6 + str?" Or are we getting ability modifier damage twice?
I like this in theory but it's definitely worse for Rogues specifically. If they're only making one attack using both weapons then they don't have the extra chance to pull off a Sneak Attack.
My solution was to to allow the attacker to re-roll damage if your wielding a second weapon. So one weapon and shield, basic weapon attacks. Two weapons, attack with primary hand, and can re-roll damage dice due to second weapon.
This puts the duel wielder on par with the GW and sword/shield, eliminates the need for an extra magic weapon, although you could have two and swap depending on opponent. It eliminates the OP attack issue as it brings up the damage. And it sill is a massive boost to a rogue, like having a second chance at sneak was.
So far its worked well as an alternate duel wield.
I have to agree completely. It’s sad because a hero plunging into battle with two weapons drawn is just so cool. They should have made it just as powerful in its own way as fighting with a great weapon.
The IRL swordsmen who did use it effectively said it was not about getting in more attacks but making it easier to attack as their opponents has to avoid two weapons rather than one. One option for two weapon fighting is to have one attack with advantage rather than 2 attacks without.
Another benefit would be to allow a creature to use a one-handed ranged weapon within 5ft of an enemy as the threat of a melee weapon gives them the cover to "shoot from the hip".
I think you are spot on with your analysis on dual wielding but with one thing you need to keep in mind. Hit probability. I ran a spreadsheet with 10 rounds of strikes, simple 10 to hit, and the total damage of the 10 rounds, Long sword/Dagger vs Great Sword, went to the dual wielder the majority of runs.
Technically in RAW... You can strike with your Great Sword (versatile version) then strike with your other Great Sword (thrown version) by using Extra Attack (Eldritch Knight).
Only when you want to strike with the Great Swords as a Bonus Action. First, the Bonus Action attack must not be from your weapon/unarmed strike using the Main Attack Action. Then, those limitations apply.
But not really... Since you can drop both Great Swords for an Unarmed Bonus Action Attack.
Mechanically speaking... You can dual wield and even perform that Bonus Action without following the rules and limitation... In RAW.
My DM is the literal Book so most DMs may say otherwise.
This is so funny, I spent HOURS on end last night trying to build out a dual wielding fighter and figuring out the numbers, what better between dual wield and GWM or PAM, but those are so common and sort of meta. Now you come out with a video a couple hours later lmao this is amazing. Oh and btw, my name is also Chris and my favorite class is also Wizard. Thank you for your content brotha from anotha mutha 😉
My Homebrew for TWF:
- You can engage in TWF so long as one of the weapons you wield are light. Both do not need to be light.
- If you wield a one-handed weapon in each and you are proficient in using both, the damage dice of both weapons apply to the damage of any weapon attack you make during your action. For instance, if you are proficiently wielding 2 scimitars and you use your Action to either take the Attack Action or cast Booming Blade, the damage of any weapon attacks made as part of those actions would deal 2d6+ability modifier on a hit, instead of 1d6+ability modifier.
Additionally, you would still be able to make a Bonus Action attack after taking the Attack Action, but it would not apply both damage dice. However, you are allowed to use either weapon for this bonus attack.
- If you know the two-weapon fighting style, you would be able to add your ability modifier to your Bonus Action attacks. Alternatively, you could use your Bonus Action to give yourself an additional +1 bonus to your AC for 1 round, so long as you wield 2 one-handed weapons. This alternative is only available if you know the two-weapon fighting style.
- Other homebrew rules I use allow you to use your free interactions a number of times on your turn equal to 1 + half your profiviency bonus (rounded up). So the double drawing issue isn't a problem. The double drawing benefit of the Dual Wielder feat is then replaced be the following: You gain a +1 bonus to the attack rolls of one-handed weapon attacks you make while you are wielding a one-handed weapon in each hand.
TLDR: My goal with these homebrews is not to make TWF comparable in damage to other fighting styles. As it is designed, Dueling is defensive and is therefor the weakest damage-wise, and Great weapon fighting is unwieldy (illustrated through the -5 attack/+10 damage effect of GWM) and is therefor the strongest damage-wise. TWF is intended to be the inbetween. So the homebrews stated above are designed to actually bring TWF to the middle of the damage spectrum, all the while giving it some added versatility.
I think another thing can be added to the feat, “If you’ve got a magic weapon in each hand who’s effects are triggered by a bonus action you can trigger both as part of the same bonus action”
I generally agree. But If the feat gives +1 to AC you need to account for that and not just look at the raw damage, because the dual wielder is sacrificing damage for some defense.
With the existence of feats like PAM, or telekinetic, or anything that provides a consistent use of your bonus action that doesn't clog your hand or eat your concentration, the viability of TWF goes way down.
I haven't watched the meat of the video yet so idk if he covers it, but I don't see the +1 AC part of Dual Wielder as being noteworthy. If you go Two-Handed weapons with a fighter you don't need any fighting style to make it function. So you most likely pick defense and get a +1 to AC (at least before Tasha's came out). If you go with Two Weapon Fighting on a fighter you need to pay the tax of the Two Weapon Fighting fighting style in order to make it function properly. The +1 AC section of Dual Wielder is simply a tax refund and shouldn't be considered in terms of its strength.
You can accomplish the same benefit by taking Defense for +1 AC and using PAM.
The dual wielder feat, assuming you are attacking with dex, gives you less damage and the same ac bonus as just increasing you're dex by 2. It gives the same +1 to damage per attack, the same +1 to ac, but also gives a +1 to hit, skills, initiative, etc. which the feat does not. The only time the feat is worth taking, at least as a dex dual wielder, is after you have maxed out dex. For non dex dual wielders, the feat is a little more worth it as increasing their attacking ability score doesn't give the ac and initiative bonuses, but still grants more damage from the greater accuracy as well all the other benefits of increasing that score.
Using a quarterstaff or spear and a shield with PAM grants +1 AC over using the dual wielding feat with only a small reduction in damage die as a result, which can be further counteracted by taking the dueling fighting style to actually deal more damage on average than a dual wielder since you don't need to spend your fighting style on two-weapon fighting. Alternatively, you could take the defense fighting style for even more AC.
Or, if you want to use dex instead, you could take revenant blade and use the double scimitar from Eberron. Basically all of the benefits of two-weapon fighting on a weapon that combos well with the great weapon fighting style and the feat to grant the same benefits you'd get from dual wielder is also a half-feat. All while being a single weapon so you get the full benefits from magic weapons, weapon enhancing spells, being able to draw it as an interaction without the feat, and being able to let go of it with one hand in order to cast spells with somatic components
This is pretty clean and I can't argue with those numbers. Makes 'completing' the weapons system more doable (feat for sword and board or 1 handed duelling) and tackling weapon diversity feats somehow (fate of polearm and shield master or completing the set).
Top Notch, two weapon fighting has always been lack luster. I like that you make it on par and will be saving this video for reference.
*tosses a log on the fires of sacrifice to the mighty algorithm*
Also a great addition would be to attack with both weapons on opportunity attacks.
I absolutely love this.
I had a ranger in my game, who was using two weapon fighting . The player sadly left the campaign at low level due to scheduling issues. But I had started to try to come up with a way to make two weapon fighting actually work through the levels. I had some ideas that probably would have worked with some number tweeking, but they were all so bloody complicated.
This is so simple, elegant, easily implicated. I'm impressed, and thankful, and so will the next two weapon user in my games.
Footnote: It was not a Drizzt clone, but a Dwarven war pig breeder on the hunt for bigger, stronger pigs to crossbreed with her livestock, ultimately hoping to find and capture the fabled demon pig. What could possibly go wrong.
I loved the video as i have been discussing the topic with lots of differents groups and friend. Personally i came up with 2 simple modifications really similar to yours:
1. I changed the item interaction as your proposed
2. I added a bullet point to the relative feat which has basically the same idea of yours. The attack doesn't take up your bonus action but is now an extra attack in your attack action (don't works with multiattack but works with action surge).
It's a smaller buff then the one you did, but i feel like with your solution a two weapon fighting ranger or fighter can get REALLY scary al low level, having it my way you'll have at least to invest a feat getting more or less on par with other fighting style solution, both in damage and in investment required.
You mentioned rapier and main gauche as being an example of real world two weapon fighting. I have to say that rapiers were one of the few weapons that we have plenty of documentation that they were used in pairs. There were treatises that specified how one could use paired, full size rapiers. In fact we have rapiers that were made in matching sets for exactly that purpose
Pretty well thought out.
I will note that the proposed fix is a substantial buff to monk and melee rogue. But knowing your opinion on those two classes, I imagine you're not too worried about the balance implications.
It's a buff to any dex melee class, for strength it's just another option
Rogue kinda needed it so 2 weapon fighting was more competitive with booming blade
I have been waiting for this!
Thanks mate.
My alternate fix:
When you take the Attack action while holding a light melee weapon in one hand, you can use a bonus action to take the Attack action with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of any of the bonus attacks, 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.
You can do eight attacks in a turn, but only having one bonus action per turn tones down Action Surge to twelve attacks, not sixteen.
I'd add a parry reaction for weapon attacks as an additional bonus, where they are using the off hand weapon to parry. Could come in the same time as the 2nd attack for an extra thing to do in the oppositions turn and give it a little flavour as a duelist.
That's a battle master maneuver and a feat already, though.
I liked everything except the +1 +2 +3. I think that modifiers like this tend to get a bit confusing and difficult to track for players.
It just ends up being half the proficiency bonus, rounded down, if that's easier.
Maybe just the +2 to damage would do well.
*laughs in 2e math, then cries in 2e math*....lol
@@PsykotikDragon these kids nowadays don't know about THAC0
@@LikeTheBirb right?! LOL
I was recently reading through Five Torches Deep, and I really like how they handle two weapon fighting-- for the attack, you roll damage for both weapons, and use the higher roll.
This works! I love playing a dual wielding character (for flavour) but never do as - well as you said - its broken - and not in a good way. This fix works. It makes the option playable and thus adds the flavour back to roll playing! Thanks, might just have to add this rule to my table!
I actually love this and will be importing these rules to my games.
Dual Wielder Feat:
All normal benefits.
Also, pick one of two options (player choice):
1) Your off-hand weapon now acts as a spell focus. This allows for casting spells while using 2 separate one-handed weapons. If you cast a spell while dual wielding, it must be the first action you take in a turn. Reduce your total movement this turn in half.
2) If you take this Feat and also have Two-Weapon Fighting Style; when using the Attack Action, you gain a free off-hand attack. You may do this a # of times per Short Rest = Your Proficiency Bonus. This must be done as the first action you take on your turn. You may only move 5ft this turn.
You may take this Feat twice, to gain both benefits.
Numbers on the screen when you are discussing the comparison between the fixed TWFighter and GWFighter would be very helpful. That was a lot of numbers
The one saving grace for Dual Wielder is that you could go from 0 or 1 magical weapon to using 2; of course that's less relevant if you have the type of DM to purposely include Light weapons for you. One source of confusion that I often see is how Unarmed Fighting Style interacts with these rules; there is an underlying assumption that your fist is a light weapon however using your bonus action for another unarmed strike is explicitly written into the Monk's Martial Arts feature.
They officially retconned that unarmed strikes, while it is true you make weapon attacks to use them, do not count as weapons themselves, and thus removed them from the weapons table in future printings (and it is said that including unarmed strikes in the table was a mistake as a holdover from an earlier version of 5E while it was in development). Which, while it sounds kinda dumb on the surface, it makes sense as they are not objects and you can't hold your own fist in the same hand that made it (and holding someone else's arm in your hand and attacking with it would be an improvised weapon). Additionally, an unarmed strike need not be with a fist or require a free hand, so not interacting with two-weapon fighting at all is fair, since you basically always have the option to kick, elbow, or headbutt something.
At my table, I made the following changes...
1. It's part of the attack action.
2. It does scale with extra attack
3. You don't add your proficiency bonus to hit on either attack.
The math works out pretty similarly to GWM. Also, since you miss more frequently, you're not spending much more time rolling damage, so it doesn't bog down the game.
You're essentially trading a mandatory feat for a mandatory magic item.
I had been thinking about this the past couple of days and I'm glad I found this video. The solution I had thought of was similar for Dual Wielder; add the damage dice of the other weapon to the attacks taken with the attack action. A little extra power than what you suggested, but I didn't free up the bonus action. I did some math comparing it to a modified GWM feat that only allowed for the power attacks on attacks made specifically with the attack action (no OAs or BA attack boosting) and just with those changes it felt surprisingly satisfying. GWM still had a comfortable lead on DPR up to about 15-16 AC, and with advantage it was doing better up to about 19 AC. It was nice because GWM had the edge when advantage or low AC enemies were plentiful, but DW/TWF was much more consistent without advantage or against high AC enemies. Its nice to see when people come up with similar solutions because it just reinforces the point of how obvious the problem is. Here's hoping 2024's "next evolution" does something to improve it officially.
I have found Dual wielding is easily fixed. Add to the Dual Wielder feat the following: when you use a Bonus Action to attack with your off-hand weapon, you can make a number of attacks equal to half your proficiency bonus rounded up. Now, a Bonus Action will be worth 1-3 offhand attacks depending on level, (1 attack levels 1-4, 2 attacks levels 5-12, and 3 attacks levels 13 and up) getting more powerful as you advance, and can't be abused by Action Surge. This feature cannot be used with any weapons that don't include the Light property.
This will allow our PC to wield two weapons, up to a d8 dmg in the main hand, and a d6 dmg in the off-hand. You can still choose to wield two d8 dmg weapons if you want for some reason, you just wouldn't be able to get the extra attacks based on your proficiency bonus, only the single extra attack normally granted by two weapon fighting.
Appreciate the video! I chose to make it so that the fighting style makes the single extra attack a part of the attack action, rather than changing the base design, keeping it out of the hands of non-martial characters unless they specialize. I would like my rogues to still have to make a choice if they didn’t specialize for it. Also, instead of the bonus damage on the feat that you added, I opted to allow players to swing with both weapons on opportunity attacks.
I was thinking the same. Non-martial classes should still need the bonus action to make an offhand attack.
As a DM (during 3rd edition) i always held the D&D rulebook as JUST A GUIDE, when i used to play i altered a lot of things to suit mine and my players' needs [ and not always to the players' advantage ;) ], because many times there were 'rules' that as presented were unsatisfying, bad, and sometimes generally ridiculous once you thought them out and/or actually use them in-game. IMO to be a 'good' DM you should always be on the lookout for rules you feel arent 'good' and be prepared to improvise or adapt; if you arent a DM, then talk to him/her; if they are 'inflexible' in the face of an obviously bad rule (or set) then you should find another DM.
I usually remain strict and creative with the rules... But... Not all rules make logical sense. (Ex) why are weapons and shields different when I stow/sheath both? And why does Weapon Bond not work with Dual Wielder since their both the same, mechanically.
Either way... Dual Wielding rules are broken in a bad way. It only affects the Bonus Action and the "light" requirement is invoked for that Bonus Action.
So... Dual wielding two non light weapons, is valid in RAW.
(Also... This is the reason why Flavor Text and Rules should never be mixed. Too many interpretation that waste time. Especially in regard to Light Weapons since the only location that "Light" is considered. Is with that specific Bonus Action. Of which, Dual Wielding rules can be ignored or subverted by other mechanics.)
I got the pitch perfect fix, with a homebrew item: *Twin swords* - martial weapon, two-handed, heavy, special 2d6 - Special: treat the twin swords as if they were just one weapon to any mechanical mean, including drawing and stowing away
Alternative *Pretender* - equipment: if you're holding a long sword, at any moment you can draw or stow away the Pretender and treat the long sword as if you were wielding it with two hands with the versatile property
This would 100% fix two weapon fighting and make it viable for martial classes
1: swap around the 'draw/stow 2' and 'larger weapons' to the fighting style and 'stat to damage' to the feat
2: for the feat, add new bullet that moves the extra attack out of your bonus action and into the attack action (add caveat that you then cant use your BA for another weapon attack from something else)
3: for the feat, take away the +1 AC and instead any creature you attack cannot benefit from advantage on melee attacks against you until start of your next turn
4: for the feat, add new bullet that lets you make opportunity attacks with both weapons
Honestly one of my main takeaways from this is that Fighters having four attacks is one of the things holding us back from just doing "you get two attacks per attack if you use TWF." Thats not something that can be easily fixed, as its pretty core to the Fighter class itself, but I think it would make fixing TWF a lot easier if you didn't have to think about the possibility of 16 attacks in one turn (granted I would probably allow this just because its funny, and spells can bog down the game a lot more than a bunch of attacks can).
The way I plan on running TWF in my campaigns is either
A) When you take the attack action and meet the TWF requirements, you roll one attack, and on a hit roll both damage die, adding your modifier once, plus any magical damage bonuses. Any magical/class on-hit bonuses come from your main hand weapon (whichever you designate). I.E. if you had a +2 longsword in your main hand, and a +1 warhammer in your offhand (assuming Feat), you would add +2 to your attack roll, (could also be changed to you add half your offhand's attack bonus rounded down (min 1) so you at least get some benefit out of it, but thats more math)
Or
B) When you take the attack action and meet the TWF requirements, your attacks deal bonus damage based on the maximum possible damage from your offhand weapon divided by 2, plus your damage modifier (Ex. You attack with a longsword and a warhammer, longsword is mainhand, assuming 16 STR. You hit, so you would deal 1d8 + 3 + 8/2 + 3, which gives you a damage range of 11-18).
These methods are fairly similar. I haven't done any number crunching so I can't give average dpr or anything like that, but just from basic analysis they have a relatively similar ceiling, but B has a higher floor.
Amazing breakdown 🙌 definitely implementing this! Now I know why I never took it lol
Thank you as usual, papa Treantmonk
Great video. I had a homebrew rule for twf, but I'm definitely replacing it with this :)
One homebrew idea once suggested to me is with the two weapon fighting style was loose the bonus action requirement for an offhand attack. Instead, make one attack roll if attacking with two weapons, if it hits roll the damage die for both weapons applying the ability bonus once. Changing also the dual wielder feat to read: if a two weapon attack the attack misses a player can roll a second time and with a hit then roll damage for the offhand weapon adding the ability modifier. This makes two light weapons equal to a great sword with the feat granting a chance for compensating for a miss with an opportunity for a smaller amount of damage to make up for GWM damage. I'm not math skilled enough to evaluate the mathematical efficacy but in (anecdotal) practice neither the great weapon nor the dual wielding persons I've run for have ever felt one was way better.
I had a similar idea in terms of damage as you suggested. Mine would be to add the ability to add your proficiency bonus to the damage of one hit per hand per turn.
I usually do the free attack, but i overall improved the dual wielder tho.
Prerequisites: Proficiency with at least one light weapon and 4th level.
- +1 to STR or DEX
-if the guy doesn't have the TWF he gains it, if he already have it, he may add half of his prof on damage rolls while holding both weapons.
- +1 AC while holding both weapons.
- the offhand attacks scales with the extra attack feature.
- you can use weapons that are not not light but that lacks the heavy property;
- you can draw or sheathe a number of weapons equal to your proficiency bonus.
-when you do a AoO you may do 2 attacks instead of one.
As usual, I find the analysis is spot on, but I differ in the solution. I'm currently testing this alternate rule (I have a feat in testing as well to deal with action economy to prevent it from being too good in tier 1 in addition to the Zephyr ranger subclass that is focused on dual wielding):
When you take the attack Action with a one-handed weapon held in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different weapon, provided the following criteria are met:
• Both weapons are one-handed weapons.
• One weapon must have the light property and weigh less than the other weapon, or both weapons must have the light property.
• Neither weapon can have the heavy or versatile property.
• Neither weapon can weight more than 3 lbs.
You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon. If the weapon is ranged and has the ammunition property, you can’t reload it thus turn even if you have a feature that normally allows this.
This allows for more baseline options (e.g. rapier + dagger). I do feel that dual wielding should have its damage and efficiency bumps from feats as that's closer to the standard. I'm still debating on when and in what format to get my "core expansion" content public (a collection of optional rules, features, and feats), but have a different update I'm focused on this month and am still in early testing on some components (plus I'd prefer not to have a loose document floating around forever on GM Binder).
Great video, love your fix for it.
My table noticed the same problem years ago and came to a lot of the same conclusions. But instead of a flat damage bonus you can only get by taking a feat, we said that you can make the free off hand attack as part of the attack action and if you have the extra attack feature you can then use your bonus action for one more attack with the offhand weapon (Then 2 more with EA 2, and 3 more with EA 3). That way you never get up to numbers like 16 attacks with action surge but you don’t fall behind the greatsword & halberd gang either
Instead of attacking one more time, I'd rather add a bonus to each attack. As in, each attack from the attack action is made with two weapons instead of one. The bonus could be the mean damage of the weapon without adding attribute modifiers, or slightly less, like mean damage minus one. The way to balance this would be requiring the feat or fighting style to engage in this mechanic, otherwise the second weapon would be useless.
My fix would be like this:
First of all, disable the TWF mechanic on base characters.
Next, change the feat:
Two Weapon Fighting Mastery: You have mastered the technique to fight with two weapons at the same time. If you have a one-handed weapon in each of your hands, every time you make a weapon attack, you can choose to add the mean damage minus one of your second weapon to the damage of the attack, or double your attribute modifier for the attack roll.
If any of the weapons you have equipped have additional on-hit effects, choose of those effects to activate.
Finally, the fighting style:
Two Weapon Fighting: If you have a one handed weapon on each of your hands, you can make an additional weapon attack with your off-hand weapon using your bonus action. You don't add your attribute modifier for the damage of this attack.
Love the suggested changes, as always. RAW, I've seen some Bladesingers that use a Shortsword with Booming Blade and a Shadow Blade in their off hand for their second attack and bonus action attack. But outside of that and a melee Rogue trying to make sure that sneak attack damage sticks, TWF feels like you're dual wielding Monks.
Can confirm; wizard is, strangely enough, the best dual wielder in the game! It’s still a fine low-level option for everyone, though.
Improved Two Weapon Fighting:
Once per turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a weapon with the light property that you are holding in one hand, you can make an additional attack with a weapon with the light property that you are holding in your other hand as part of the same action. You do not add any modifiers to the damage of the additional attack.
If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon instead of making a melee attack with it.
Great and informative video … thanks !
I forget where I First heard the advice to give the bonus action back, I think it was dungeon coach, but I love it.
I think there are a few important issues you may have glossed over.
For starters, there are subclasses that benefit greatly from two weapon fighting. In particular Swashbuckler Rogue, Ancestral Guadian Barbarian and most paladins rely on landing as many attacks as possible and doing less damage is an afterthought. Some classes such as fighter are not suited for two weapon fighting at all.
Secondly, fighting with a light weapon such as a handaxe gives you the option to make a melee or ranged attack with your action and your bonus action which makes you more versatile. This is a big deal for non magical classes that often can't do anything useful on their turns.
Thirdly, two weapon fighting opens the possibility that you can defeat an enemy with you first attack and go on to fight another enemy with your second attack. It also increases the chances of finishing off enemies you know are 2-3 HP away from death before their next turn arrives.
I decided to play an Ancestral Guadian Barbarian recently because my party desperately needed a tank and these features I've outlined really helped me achieve that goal. I don't know the maths of how likely you are to kill an enemy with the 3-9 damage of your first attack but in my experience of 8 sessions I had two different ocassions where I killed an enemy with each of the two attacks. As a barbarian the ability to throw a handaxe 20 ft is extremely useful to maintain the rage status. Note that, if you wanted to throw a javelin instead you would only be allowed to throw one javelin in your turn unless you were already holding a javelin at the end of your last turn and draw a second one this turn.
I've found that telling the DM that I have one handaxe ready while marching or sneaking allows me to have two weapons drawn in most combats. In the rare case I don't I just draw a heavy weapon instead and if I threw both axes last turn I'll draw a two handed heavy weapon which in itself makes for a very dramatic and exciting image.
I never got to try the dual wielding feat but it felt quite underwhelming to read. I'd be interested in some kind of buff but whatever it is I think more damage wouldn't be an interesting incentive.
This variant to two-weapon fighting allows the claws beast barbarian to really output some damage when optimized.
Level 5: Variant Human: Dual Wielder
3 attacks at 1d6+STR(4)+2+1
1 attack at 1d6+2+1
= 38 before accuracy
Haven't finished the video yet but wanted to share what I do at my table for this problem. For starters, I tie both weapons when two weapon fighting into the attack action. This frees up the players bonus action and allows it to stack with opportunity attack and action surge. However, since this is clearly op, to balance them out, I remove their profiency bonus from the attack roll of both weapons. Now they have twice as many attacks but have a 10-30% lower chance to hit each strike.
Further to better balance two weapon fighting with great weapons, I alter the great weapon mastery and sharpshooter feats to remove proficiency bonus to do double proficiency bonus in damage.
Finally, to keep the game speed from slowing down, I tell my players to roll 2 d20s at once or 4 in case of advantage (have them declare which 2 d20s belong to which weapons in that case before the roll).
While technically this means two weapon fighting deals more damage than great weapon fighting, it has the added negative that they cannot choose to be more accurate like great weapon master can do, so they are less likely to land hits on high ac bosses.
It's interesting to see some similar thoughts on some solutions and such. Very interesting solutions
My personal change was to keep it as is by default (with the exception that you can draw/stow two weapons by default.)
I change the dual wielder feat to this. It has worked out well so far in my games
Dual Wielder
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.
• Whenever you take the attack action and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of that same attack action, instead of using your bonus action to do so.
• Whenever you use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of the same reaction.
the homebrew i have is this Two weapon fighting, ability modifier on bonus attack, can draw or stow 2 weapons at once
I also turned Dual wilder into a half feat and added in a new feat.
Dual wielder Defensive
+1 to dexterity or strength
+1 to AC when wielding two weapons
can wield 2 non light weapons, one in each hand.
Dual wielder Offensive
+1 to dexterity or strength
+1 to attack rolls when wielding 2 melee weapons.
can use the higher die on weapons with the versatile property even when wielded with 1 hand.
I like these suggestions. I like to allow a non-light weapon to be wielded in the main hand by default since the most prominent example of historical dual-wielding was the rapier and dagger style anyway. This does water down the dual wielding feat a little bit more, but since we're really just talking an extra point of damage on average anyway, it's hardly going to break the game.
Off the top of my head, this is how id fix it ( for now, defiantly gonna go into more depth ). Like you said in the video, the extra attack from dual wielding is no longer a bonus action but it does stack with extra attack, just independently.
*If you use a flanking rule, dual wielding negates the bonuses attackers would normally get against you.
(When it's your turn and you use the attack action or trigger an attack of opportunity)
Can attack twice (+ any extra attacks) and/or when you get attacked on your turn you can spend an extra attack to counter the counter attack and parry it on a successful attack ( and dealing damage ).
(ONCE, when its not your turn and you did ready an action)
All attackers roll disadvantage equal to the amount of attacks you have available and you can make counter attacks against them, equal to the number of attacks you have available.
So basically it's like a highly mobile style with moderate damage versus straightforward high damage or defense.
I like your fix, it makes sense and lifts dual wielders in a place, where it should be.
Especially Beast Barbarian Longtooth Shifter would make fantastic build like this - even though it would need 2 rounds to activate both abilities:
lvl 5 - 5 attack. 2 with weapon, 2 with claw and 1 with teeth, OMG that would be impressive at the table!
4x 1d6+6, 1x 1d6+2, all with advantage! Wow, count me in! ;-)
Another great option would be Minotaur - Hit enemy 3+ times with axes and then push him away for disengage! This home-brew would bring so many interesting options to the table!
As a forever DM who only gets to play occasionally, I tend to stick with my original Aragorn-like ranger. I've always loved the idea of fighting with longsword and dagger, and your video breaks down this problem and a sound solution very well. Bravo!
So, I've been spending my time trying to fix this dual wielding thing a bit and I came up with the following ideas. Haven't crunched the numbers to the extreme, but for the most part it seems to work well.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you make an 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. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus Attack, unless that modifier is negative. (Yes, I've kept the bonus action).
Two-Weapon Fighting Style:
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack, and each time you successfully attack someone, you gain +1 toHit and +1 to the damage rolls of your weapon attacks for the rest of your turn. This can stack a number of times equal to your proficiency modifier.
Dual Wielder Feat:
You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
While wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand:
*Whenever you miss with a main-hand attack, you can do an extra off-hand attack for free.
*You gain +1 AC for each Light Weapon you have equipped. (this is to allow a reason to still use light weapons or mix them up)
So the point is that we maintain the weirdly interesting but eventually useless extra attack of two-weapon fighting, but we also allow for attacks to gain momentum so that they scale better with the Extra Attack feature AND we also emphasise the fantasy of multiple attacks by allowing players to attack again when they miss, which doesn't translate into extreme damage caps or into 12 attacks per turn on a high level Fighter. The potential damage output is still not equal to the potential damage output of Great swords with feats, but two-weapon fighting is much more precise and potentially more defensive as well. Dual Weapons are the reliable choice, Two-Handed Weapons are the "reckless" choice, and Sword and Board is the safe/protective choice.
---
Ignore those below unless you are a geek.
---
I should mention that in this particular homebrew I've also buffed most melee weapons, and added a bonus action ability that is related to the weapon's properties (something like a semi-useless weapon mastery that uses a bonus action). The point of those are to ensure that you always have something to spend your bonus action on, and in the case of two-handed VS two-weapon fighting, they help bridge the damage gap of the early levels a bit. Examples of those:
1)Flex (what it does in "OneDnD" but I've also increased the damage of VERSATILE weapons when carried with two handed so it's more impactful - though still useless)
2)Nick (you can do a bonus attack against a target you just missed with an attack, only used with LIGHT weapons)
3)Brace (you roll damage dice twice and keep the higher ones on next attack. Only used with HEAVY Weapons)
4)Flourish (you attempt a "fake attack" and if you succeed you gain advantage on your next attack and the enemy has disadvantage on Dex and Str saves. Only usable with FINESSE weapons)
5)Bash (bonus action push with a SHIELD - taken from the Feat which now just gives advantage to Bash)
6)Pommel (1d4 + Str attack with the back of a REACH weapon, but only usable in melee range. It's just there to give you some extra damage when you are not utilising the weapon's range. Stolen from the Feat, no idea what I should give to the feat).
5:38 I will totally play the rules lawyer here. The rule states the "things you can do in tandem with your movement AND action". The key word there being "and", as I interpret this the player is allowed to to draw both weapons during the same turn as long as the player moves as well. With proper position this is doable. If the rule had stated "or" instead, then the restriction would be that the player can only draw 1 weapon during their turn.
My homebrew suggestions would be:
Remove the bonus action requirement, make only the second weapon require the light property, and tie it to the Attack action so that Extra Attack doesn't let you swing with both weapons on every attack.
The TWF fighting style allows you to add your modifier to the light weapon attack. You could also allow it to add a second attack with the light weapon to Opportunity Attacks.
The Dual Wielder feat gives you the +1 AC and removes the light property requirement from the second weapon. You can then go -5 to hit/+10 damage on the second attack and/or allow the addition of your ability modifier to the second attack if you don't already do so.
I don't know what the math looks like on any of this.
Historical accuracy: greatest swrdsman in history was Myamoto Musashi, he fought with two longswords (katana).
Being the greatest swordsman in history is not the same as being the greatest Samurai in history
I feel like on of the cleanest ways to solve the two weapon fighting issue is to steal a note from an old unique item in Path of Exile called Wings of Entropy.
It's a two handed unique weapon, that consist of two weapons connected with a chain at the hilts, and makes you count as dual wielding.
Thinking of "two weapon fighting" as simply a flavor option for two handed fighting and treating the two weapons working in unison not as individual attacks but as a combined attack dealing 2d6+MOD on a hit. This way, an opportunity attack with dual daggers will attack with both daggers, though only one hit roll is made for both of them together.
The stats conveniently match up with the stats of a greatsword, and if someone want's to invest into dual wielding to allow them to dual wield wield rapiers, well that's a feat investment to upgrade your attack from 2d6+MOD to 2d8+MOD, which is really only a +2 damage modifier on average and feels perfectly ok considering you are giving up an ASI to get that.
Possible suggestion towards a fix for two-weapon fighting.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you may choose to add the damage dice of a light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand to the attack.
You don't add your ability modifier to the damage dice of the second light weapon, unless that modifier is negative.
If either weapon has the thrown property and you choose not to add the damage from the second weapon, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it. As a bonus action, if you chose not to add the damage dice of the second weapon to the attack, you can make an additional weapon attack to throw the second weapon if it has the thrown property.
Two-Weapon Fighting Style
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage dice of the second weapon.
Dual Wielder:
No changes.
With the changes and +3 mod:
[(3.5 × 2) + 3]
Two Shortswords = 10
TWFS Shortswords = 13
Dual Wielder:
[(4.5 × 2) + 3]
Two Longswords = 12
TWFS Longswords = 15
Benefits of using this:
1. Two-weapon fighting also carries well with Extra Attack with this change.
2. It also cleans up the number of attack rolls being made, and won't bog down combat.
3. It frees up the bonus action for the style, unless you plan to throw the second weapon.
I really liked it. And your homebrew rules. Instead of adding the +1, +2, and +3 at various levels, it seems like it'd be simpler to just add your proficiency modifier to damage dealt. I haven't run the numbers to see if you could do this to all weapons or just your offhand one, but using something that already increases at levels, like proficiency bonus, seems like the way to go.
Looking at it myself, two weapon fighting should probably give you something like “When you are wielding two weapons in each hand you can make a bonus action attack that attacks a number of times equal to the amount of attacks done as the attack action this turn” that way your attacks gets doubled and the DPR doubling expectation is likely given.
I made a system to fix two weapon fighting a little while ago that is very similar.
--interaction: draw/stow weapon(s)
--two weapon fighting style: Bonus action 1 offhand attack, and 1 additional if you have the extra attack feature (or equivalent). also add mod as usual
--Dual Wielder feat: non light weapons, +1 ac, attacking with an offhand weapon does not require a bonus action, and instead occurs automatically as part of your attack action.
this way we have lvl 5 scaling, but doesn't stack fighter's additional extra attacks.
plus feat investment to free up your bonus action. I like what treantmonk did, but I try to avoid +1,+2,+3 static mods
I think the dual wielder feat should add the same ability as GWM when it comes to killing or critting. So it would be like, whenever you score a critical hit against a creature or reduce a creature to 0 hit points while wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can make an additional melee attack as a bonus action. You could even make it two melee attacks, maybe with the restriction that they both have to be against the same target. On that note, maybe the feat or perhaps the fighting style should make it so that whenever you make a weapon attack as a reaction while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand, you can make two attacks instead of one-- again, both against the same creature. A sort of simultaneous double slash attack you see in fantasy quite a lot.
I really wish they would add just one line to the great weapon master feat.
"Before you make a melee attack with a one handed weapon or unarmed strike that you are proficient with that doesn't have the light or finesse properties, you can choose to take a -2 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +4 to the attack's damage."
I think this would really help Sword and Board fighters. They would still benefit from the other feature of the feat when they drop a creature or roll a critical. I really want this with Shield Master or on a Monk.
I did a thing in my most recent campaign where I played a Blood Hunter that used TWF. I worked out a way with my DM that I could keep the Crimson Rite ability on both weapons even when they weren't physically in my hand, but were on my person. This made it so I could make my 2 attacks at lvl 2, but instead of damage on both hits being a 1d6 + 1d4 + 2x Dex Mod on a Scimitar and a Dagger it was 1d6 + 3d4 + 2x Dex Mod while only having to take the damage from the Hemocraft die once at the beginning of the adventuring day instead of at the beginning of every combat. It made it so I was able to dish out really good damage for the early game. Character only got to lvl 4 or 5 so I didn't get to see it through. Also I was unaware of the "can't pull both weapons without the Dual Wielder Feat"
Wow, this is great! This is officially my new house rule for duel wielding.
1:20 Rangers had two-weapon fighting and animal followers before Drizzt was introduced. He got those things because he was specifically a ranger, under the rules from 1e's Unearthed Arcana. The reason rangers had two weapon fighting there was to imitate Strider the Ranger from The Fellowship of the Rings.