Two-Weapon Fighting Tweak

[Vadskye]

This would replace the normal Two-Weapon Fighting rules (p. 160 of the PHB):

If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can attack with both weapons at once when you attack. If you hit on the attack roll, you deal damage with both of your weapons independently. Precision-based damage, such as sneak attack damage, is only dealt once. Damage reduction only applies once against the damage dealt by both weapons. You can only critical with your main hand; your off-hand weapon's critical threat range is ignored.

Fighting in this way is very hard, however, and you suffer a -6 penalty to your attack roll. You can reduce these penalties in two ways:

• If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalty is reduced by 2. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)
• The Two-Weapon Fighting Feat and the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feats each reduce this penalty by 2.

TL;DR: You use the same attack roll for both weapons instead of rolling twice.

Design notes:

Spoiler

Show

I want to change this rule for two reasons. First, extra attacks take a lot of time, particularly at mid to high levels. I want to streamline my game so the ranger doesn't take twice as long to attack as the fighter or barbarian (and therefore hog twice the spotlight). Second, two weapon fighting is just plain weird mechanically. It's generally a bad choice for everyone, with the exception of rogues, for whom it is a godsend. It is a very immobile fighting style, since you lose so much damage by moving, which doesn't fit the classic archetype of the mobile, dexterous two-weapon fighter.

This change streamlines the two-weapon fighter, gives them more appropriate rewards for being hasted, and doesn't penalize them nearly as much for moving. It is simple; it does not change any fundamental mechanics, except for getting rid of the Greater Two-Weapon Fighting feat (which may be added back in if I can think of an appropriate bonus.) Finally, I admit that rogues (and other precision-damage characters) suffer somewhat with the new feat. However, my intention is to improve them in a way that does not punish them for choosing to use a single weapon rather than two.

Thoughts?

[Kane0]

I don't see too much of a problem with this. Simplifies attacking too.

[bobthe6th]

seems ok... I like that you made DR apply only once... that does help a lot.

and I feel for the ranger... I made a build once using master thrower... 8+ attacks per round at level 6.

[Vadskye]

Good to see that I'm not totally off my rocker - thanks!

and I feel for the ranger... I made a build once using master thrower... 8+ attacks per round at level 6.

Haha, I did something similar too. I used Did you use some combination of rapid shot, two weapon fighting, and double toss? I tried that going into a Tomb of Horrors game. He didn't fare well against the DR 10/- gargoyle...

[bobthe6th]

rapid shot, twf, double toss. then swashbuckler for added damage.

two with one blow made it freaking hilarious... dropped two ogres in one round with throwing knives.

[Eldan]

My question with this fix is: it's still significantly worse than THF, but before it had, at least, advantages for some builds.

Let's compare:

1 short sword and one long sword: 1d6+1d8+1.5xSTR damage.
1 greatsword: 2d6+1.5xSTR damage.

Advantage: TWF, 1 damage on average. However, TWF costs a feat, you could get EWP: fullblade for that, and deal more damage.


Other Differences:
Until you can take ITWF, you still take a penalty to attack roll. More feat advantage for THF.
The greatsword and longsword can power attack, the short sword can't. Adavantage: Greatsword
The greatsword deals 2d6+1.5 str extra damage on a crit, the TWF swords deal 1d8+str extra damage on a crit. Advantage: greatsword.
For double the money cost, you could have two enchanted weapons. Sort of an advantage, but until you can actually afford it, the THF fighter can enchant all his weapons for half the price.

Basically: I see no reason for anyone to take this. Even a rogue could take martial weapon proficiency instead, if they were so hungry for a bit of bonus damage.

[Vadskye]

My question with this fix is: it's still significantly worse than THF, but before it had, at least, advantages for some builds.

Let's compare:

1 short sword and one long sword: 1d6+1d8+1.5xSTR damage.
1 greatsword: 2d6+1.5xSTR damage.

Advantage: TWF, 1 damage on average. However, TWF costs a feat, you could get EWP: fullblade for that, and deal more damage.


Other Differences:
Until you can take ITWF, you still take a penalty to attack roll. More feat advantage for THF.
The greatsword and longsword can power attack, the short sword can't. Adavantage: Greatsword
The greatsword deals 2d6+1.5 str extra damage on a crit, the TWF swords deal 1d8+str extra damage on a crit. Advantage: greatsword.
For double the money cost, you could have two enchanted weapons. Sort of an advantage, but until you can actually afford it, the THF fighter can enchant all his weapons for half the price.

Basically: I see no reason for anyone to take this. Even a rogue could take martial weapon proficiency instead, if they were so hungry for a bit of bonus damage.

The new TWF still double-counts damage from effects like specialization, favored enemy, etc., just like the old one did; that's an advantage it. A fighter with Weapon Specialization deals 2d6 + 2 + 1.5xSTR damage, while the same fighter two-weapon fighting with short swords deals 2d6 + 4 + 1.5xSTR damage. The only change I made, I think, is that precision damage no longer gets double-counted with two weapons. That allows me, as a rogue, to make actual decisions about what fighting style to use rather than bowing to the superiority of TWF.

Now, your broader point is still true. Do I think this is better damage than a two-handed weapon in the abstract? No. But it is better than it used to be, right? If nothing else for than that it no longer double-dips on DR. I think if you take out the feat cost, the two are similar, which means rangers might actually want to two weapon fight if they've got the free feats anyway. And because it double-counts damage, it still has usefulness in builds that have a lot of bonus damage that doesn't come from Strength.

And that's exactly what I want: niche usefulness. I don't want TWF to be generically equal to THF for the same reason that I don't want to the half-orc to give as many racial bonuses as a human. Two-weapon fighting is hard, dagnabit, and not very common historically. To preserve the continuity of a "normal" D&D fantasy environment, TWF should be rarer than sword and board or two-handed fighting. Making it only better in niche situations, and applying a feat tax (though two feats is more reasonable than three feats), ensures this - while still making it accessible to PCs who want it.