Lets talk about Mearls' Pretty cool revised TWF houserule

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's an interesting thought experiment, but I'm not sure there was anything wrong with the TWF fighting style in the first place.

Dual-wielding has two major flaws, as far as I can tell:
1.) Both weapons needing to be light is conceptually stupid and removes the most historically relevant form of dual-wielding (rapier/dagger) from anyone without a feat for absolutely no good reason.
2.) The feat Dual Wielder is weak as hell.

Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too. Number 2 is much more of a problem, and it's because it has to compete with GWM and SS reasonably well to even stand a chance of being mathematically valid for anything but niche builds.

You also don't want it overshadowing PAM, GWM, and SS. Period. While I don't hate them as much as a lot of people, they do overtune player damage. GWM already requires sacrificing your defense, I wouldn't want dual-wielding to match it offensively on those grounds alone. And because I like unique systems, I prefer them not utilizing the exact same system of -5/+10.

So I redesigned the entire weapon dynamics via feats.

Spoiler: Homebrew Weapon Feat Changes

Show

Firstly, I redefined great weapons so as to dis-include polearms, while allowing all polearms to be one-handed in exchange for using the next lowest damage dice (conceptual problems I had, again). Then, I changed all the feats to these-

Dual Wielder
Remove the +1 AC. Add an addendum about not functioning with polearms. Add:
• Whenever you hit a creature with a weapon while you are wielding two non-polearm one-handed weapons in each hand, add a cumulative +1 to your attacks against that creature. Any additions gained by this feat are lost at the beginning of your next turn.
• When you reach level 11 and have the Extra Attack class feature, you may make two offhand attacks with a bonus action instead of one.

Great Weapon Master
Replace the Great Weapon Master feat with the following-
• When you make a melee attack with a great weapon that you are proficient in, double the damage added by your Strength ability modifier.
• When you hit with a melee attack with a great weapon that you are proficient in, you may deal your Strength modifier to one additional target within reach. You may add any additional magical enhancements to your weapon attacks against this extra target, such as weapon enchantments and on-hit spell effects. The damage type(s) are the same as the weapon.

Polearm Master
Add ‘You may only make a haft strike if you are wielding a polearm in both hands’.

Sharpshooter
Replace the part about ignoring cover with:
• Treat three-quarters cover as half cover and half cover as no cover when making ranged weapon attacks.
Replace the -5 attack for +10 damage with:
• Before you make an attack with a ranged weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a penalty to the attack roll up to your proficiency bonus. If the attack hits, you add double the penalty you took to the attack’s damage.

Since I'm at it, I might as well show off the other weapon styles/feats I changed:

Spoiler: Getting Further Offtopic- Message Me Directly If You Want to Discuss Them

Show

First, two new fighting styles-

Formation Fighting Style
Available to Fighters and Paladins when they can select a Fighting Style.
You may use the Help action as a free action to aid an ally in attacking a creature you have made a melee attack against with a polearm, even if the creature was not within 5 feet of you. You may only use this ability once on your turn.

Throwing Fighting Style
Available to Fighters and Rangers when they can select a Fighting Style.
You can draw a throwing weapon with the same action required to attack with it. You do not suffer disadvantage when attacking at long range with a thrown weapon.
If you throw only light weapons with an Attack action, you may throw one additional light weapon as a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the damage roll.

Next, these weapons are included-

Weapon	Cost	Damage	Weight	Properties
Simple Ranged
Boomerang	2 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	1/2 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 40/120), Special
Shuriken	1 sp	1 piercing	-	Finesse, Thrown (60/180), Special
Alchemical Ranged
Acid	25 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d6 acid)
Alchemist's Fire	50 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d8 fire)
Alchemist's Frost	50 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, 1d6 cold)
Ground Glass	5 sp	1d4 piercing	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 5/10), Grenade (1 foot, Special)
Holy Water	25 gp	1d4 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, Special)
Iron Bomb	100 gp	1d6 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (10 feet, 1d8 piercing + 1d6 fire), Special
Oil	1 sp	1d4 bludgeoning	1 lb.	Finesse, Thrown (range 10/20), Grenade (5 feet, Special)

Acid
This glass bottle contains a violent acidic liquid. If a creature is hit with it, the bottle shatters and douses them with the acid.

Alchemist’s Fire
This ceramic, corked jar is filled with a paste that combusts into flames when exposed to air. When thrown at a creature, it explodes into flames.

Alchemist’s Frost
This pressurized tin holds a freezing gas that can instantly turn water to ice. The tin is designed to crunch when thrown, releasing the gas.

Boomerang
A lightweight plank of wood with a curved interior, meant to sail through the air. When thrown, if you fail to hit a target, the boomerang returns to your hand.

Ground Glass
This soft bag is filled with powdered glass. The shards can cause pain when they strike, as well as blind the creature. If a creature is hit by a bag of ground glass, they must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or be blinded until they take an action to wash out their eyes with water or a similar element.

Holy Water
These blessed waters have different effects on different creatures. To most, it is no different from regular, pure water. To members of the faith that produced it, a flask of holy water can be drank as an action to restore 2d4+2 hit points. When used as a thrown weapon, it deals 2d6 radiant damage to every fiend and undead within it's grenade range.

Iron Bomb
This metal orb is filled with gunpowder and has a wick. The bomb must have it's wick lit as a bonus action with a source of fire before throwing, else it only works as a grenade weapon if it is thrown at an open flame. Each bomb can have a different sort of wick, determined at creation but replaceable and interchangeable- they can be designed to explode immediately after being thrown, or can take upwards of five minutes.

Oil
This small jar of oil covers everything in its grenade range with a slick petrol when thrown. The terrain requires a DC 12 Acrobatics (Dexterity) ability check to move across, or they fall prone. The petrol is also flammable- until it is washed away, any open flame introduced to the petrol will cause the terrain and any creatures that are adjacent to it to become enflamed, taking 1d6 Fire damage at the beginning of every turn they are either in a fire or on fire until an action is taken to douse the flames, or they are hit with enough water or 5 points of cold damage.

Shuriken
These small, spiked metal disks are designed more for distraction than lethality, though they are excellent for delivering poison. When you use an attack to throw a shuriken, you may throw three. You cannot move or take other actions between these attacks, as they must all be made at once.

Then, these feats are changed/added-

Defensive Duelist
Remove the Dexterity 13 requirement.
Replace the finesse caveat with ‘does not work with polearms’.
Add:
• You have one additional reaction each turn. It may only be used to make an attack of opportunity so long as you are only wielding one one-handed weapon that isn’t a polearm.

Grappler
Replace the Grappler feat with the following:
• Creatures you are grappling that are your size or smaller have disadvantage on Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatic) checks made to escape your grapple.
• While you maintain your grapple on a creature, you can prevent one of their limbs from being used for anything. Choose which limb at the end of each turn in which you are maintaining a grapple.
• Creatures you are grappling have disadvantage when attacking you with any melee weapon attack that lacks the ‘Light’ property. This includes natural weapons.
• Ranged weapon attacks and spells that make an attack roll have disadvantage against you while you are grappling a creature. If an attack roll misses you this way, they hit the creature you are grappling instead if the higher roll successfully hits their AC.

Throwing Master
You are an expert at using an assortment of thrown weapons. You gain the following benefits whenever you make a ranged attack with a thrown weapon:
• Grenade weapons like alchemist’s fire and acid add your proficiency bonus to the DC’s to avoid damage.
• Nets add your proficiency bonus to the DC’s to escape them.
• If a creature is benefiting from cover that does not extend above it, you may ignore it. If the creature has total cover, you still count as blinded for the purposes of attacking it.
• Boomerang weapons always return to you when thrown.
• If you have made a thrown weapon attack against a creature since the end of your last turn and it makes a movement you can see, you may make an attack of opportunity with a thrown weapon against it as a reaction, provided that there was already a throwing weapon in your hand or you had a free hand to draw one.

Together, the idea was to make mechanically distinct fighting styles that each had their own relevant strengths that others couldn't easily supersede. So far, my table tests have been positive.

[stoutstien]

If you put it that way, I would say TWF sucks because it should suck. Show me a reason it should not suck.

History provides reasons, because it informs compelling images in our art and culture.

I accept many kinds of reasons, but you have to come to the table with something compelling.



Firstly, the space that exists for TWF appears to be small, IMO. Threading the needle is hard, but perhaps not impossible.

Secondly, the reason most oldsters like TWF was because a problem with 1e/2e mechanics opened up a cheat that was trivial to exploit with very high ability scores. Gary used this cheat with the Drow, and it opened up this cheat to PCs. The Drow cheat inspired Drizzt. The rest is history.

But you cannot really build a game off of crap mechanics that made certain PCs overpowered. That is not a character subgenre that helps create a viable gaming niche.

Thirdly, at a theoretical level, I think what you wrote above makes sense. But at a practical level, I think a lot of players would say this approach sucks because they will be unhappy with DPS that significantly trails THF, reliability be damned. It is not really all that different from how things are right now, although level scaling would be smoother, which is a plus in my book. YMMV.

Im my memory is correct it was the fact drow had a an ambidextrous feature that started the twf movement in dnd but the styles i see the most is main gauche, 2 daggers and two handaxes. I think a simple way to fix it is to add a *offhand tag to some weapons to allow a free attack.

[Snails]

Im my memory is correct it was the fact drow had a an ambidextrous feature that started the twf movement in dnd but the styles i see the most is main gauche, 2 daggers and two handaxes. I think a simple way to fix it is to add a *offhand tag to some weapons to allow a free attack.

1e had no overt limitations and no such concept of ambidexterity -- it was all implied by your Dex. There were penalties for using two weapons that were reduced by your Dex bonus. It was a huge net win if you had a Dex 16+. Whatever mechanics the Drow actually used were nearly irrelevant since their high Dex scores made this a no brainer.

2e had the concept of non-weapon proficiencies (NWP), thus things like ambidexterity existed. Drow had ambidexterity for free. PCs bought ambidexterity. Once you had the right NWPs the rules looked pretty much exactly the same as 1e. If you had Str 16+ and Dex 16+, TWF was just OP.

Ranger TWF we know today seems to be a Drizzt thing. Drizzt did it because he was a Drow with a sky high Dex, so it was a no brainer in a 1e-ish setting. There is nothing special about TWF and 1e Rangers -- they are just a Fighter subtype with extra HP and less armor. If yoru 1e Ranger is a Drow or other high Dex elf, TWF was the obvious was to go, but because of the Dex score itself and not because of your class.

[Snails]

Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too. Number 2 is much more of a problem, and it's because it has to compete with GWM and SS reasonably well to even stand a chance of being mathematically valid for anything but niche builds.

Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.

It absolutely does. There are further balancing concerns necessary to make all this work out well, mostly involving access to feats at first level. I've tried two variants of this so far- simply letting everyone grab one, and offering it at point buy in place of 3 points.

Once you include anyone that wants a two-hander style getting open access to GWM out the gate, the TWF damage superiority from allowing a larger main hand weapon disappears. Even with the new Dual Wielder feat.

[EggKookoo]

Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?

It's a numbers game. Specifically, when you compare it against other weapon styles.

There's no problems early when you don't have feats. Sans-fighting styles and assuming a basic 16 for the relevant attack stat, you get: Sword n' Board=1d8+3 (7.5 average), Greatweapon=2d6+3 (10 average), Two Shortswords=2d6+3 (10 average). With fighting styles and all prior assumptions, you get: Sword n' Board=1d8+5 (9.5 average), Greatweapon=2d6+3 with rerolls (11.177 average), Two Shortswords=2d6+6 (13 average)

You'll notice TWF is actually the best damaging style at level 1 with the relevant fighting style, and equal with great weapons without. Right here, things are fine.

Feats throw this completely out of whack, though. Sword n' Board is essentially the same, but they can have the extremely potent Shield Master feat (or even the oft-neglected Duelist if they're the rare Dex-duelist). Great weapons have the extremely powerful GWM, which early on can one-shot a lot of your problems (average of 21.177 damage, which, if lethal, nets you a second swing, too). And Dual Wielder gets the TWF fighter... +1 AC and an average 1 damage higher (14 average). Oh, and lets them not waste turns without their features online if ever surprised while they had their weapons sheathed. Which isn't nothing, but it's an extra problem TWF has that others don't in the first place.

This is ugly, of course. But it's way worse at level 5. Suddenly, without feats and assuming a basic 16 for the relevant attack stat (could be higher with a level 4 ASI, but we'll ignore this for feats in a second): Sword n' Board=2d8+12 (21 average), Greatweapon=4d6+6 with rerolls (22.344 average), Two Shortswords=3d6+9 (19.5 average)

Suddenly, TWF doesn't even meet sword n' board. While also being behind 2 AC, having drawing issues, and losing their bonus actions every turn to even make ends meet. This is bad.

Add in feats and it's way worse. Sword n' Board is essentially the same, but again, look at the utility they can grab, especially considering their innate defensive capabilities and open bonus actions. Greatweapons are suddenly outputting a possible 42.344 average damage, and 63.511 any time they kill something (which is still pretty likely). They DO have to deep six their accuracy to do it, but that's the game when you go GWM- high risk, high reward. Compare that to Dual Wielder's upgrade at this level of... 1.5 damage. Ew.

And it never gets better. You want bonus actions more and more as you gain levels and class features. Fighters, especially, have no reason to want TWF at levels 11+ because of diminishing returns on that extra bonus action attack versus their built-in three attacks per turn that could have much better fighting style boosts applied to all three instead of, at best, +5 on a single hit.

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.

[Kane0]

The only thing I see wrong with yours is that at low levels, greatswords disappear in favor of dual shortswords, because low-level fighters won't usually have a use for their bonus action, and 2d6+STR+STR > 2d6+STR.

If you move the "add bonus mod" from base to fighting style, I think your fix is fine. Would allow at my table; probably wouldn't take it as a player unless I were playing a rogue, paladin or bladesinger. I think that's a good indication that it's neither overpowered nor underpowered.

Good fix.

Yeah I've struggled with that for a while. The increase from d6 to d8 damage weapons for the style matches the scale of the bonuses of the Great Weapon and Dueling styles and I'd prefer not to lock out the +Stat to damage for classes without access to it (barbarians, rogues, paladins, etc). At the same time it doesn't fit in the feat since i'm already including a big damage/efficiency increase by freeing up your bonus action plus the circumstantial OA bonus as a niche ability.
I could leave off +stat to damage forever but that grates on me personally as the sole exception to how weapon attacks work in that manner.
For me it's the lesser of two evils to just have it work the same as every other bonus action attack and let TWF be the clear best option during Tier 1. It usually turns out to be less than 10 extra damage over an average combat anyways.

-Snip-

Thoughts to ponder, thankyou!

For the number crunchers, I did this during my drafts and testing for damage output over 3 rounds of attacks with PAM as baseline. I neglected to include monks at the time unfortunately.

Spoiler: Tables and numbers

Show

[Crushgrip]

When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. 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, instead of making a melee attack with it.
If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the bonus attack is made as a part of that action instead.

I really like this. What do you all think of expanding the above to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.

[Naanomi]

This would let people use 2WF for attacks of opportunity and for Booming Blade as written yes?

[Kane0]

I really like this. What do you all think of expanding this to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.

Edit: Misread. I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'

[Crushgrip]

Edit: Misread. I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'

Now that I think about it more that really does make sense. The Dual Wielder feat does feel a bit blah and adding the 'free up bonus action' really does make sense and I agree that it puts in up there with PAM and GWF. Cool, thank you for the comment!

[EggKookoo]

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.

What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.

[Kane0]

It both adds to the time your turn takes and favors sources of extra per-hit damage (like Hunter's Mark). Minor concerns, but valid ones.

Edit: Oh, and some classes like Rogues don't get any benefit.

[thoroughlyS]

As far as the viability of two-weapon fighting: it may not be historically accurate, but it definitely holds a place in many works of modern fantasy. In short, it should work thanks to the Rule of Cool. A player shouldn't be punished for wanting to use a weapon style as prevalent as dual wielding. This is the same problem that exists for throwing.

the reason most oldsters like TWF was because a problem with 1e/2e mechanics opened up a cheat that was trivial to exploit with very high ability scores. Gary used this cheat with the Drow, and it opened up this cheat to PCs. The Drow cheat inspired Drizzt. The rest is history.

But you cannot really build a game off of crap mechanics that made certain PCs overpowered. That is not a character subgenre that helps create a viable gaming niche.

As someone who's only been playing since v3.5, I wanted my first character to be a dual wielder because it just looks awesome when portrayed in various media. I couldn't care less if it used to be overpowered, because in the two editions I've played it has been the weakest option.

at a theoretical level, I think what you wrote above makes sense. But at a practical level, I think a lot of players would say this approach sucks because they will be unhappy with DPS that significantly trails THF, reliability be damned. It is not really all that different from how things are right now, although level scaling would be smoother, which is a plus in my book. YMMV.

That's only the case for filthy munchkins who prefer rollplay over roleplay!
Jokes aside, this statement does seem to focus on optimizing damage output, so as long as two-weapon fighting doesn't eclipse Great Weapon Master it shouldn't really move the needle. I agree with stoutstien that the tactical niche for two-weapon fighting should be the reliability (and potential for attacking multiple targets). My proposal (rolling the bonus attack into the Attack action after getting extra attack) wouldn't actually shift the damage curves, it would just free up bonus actions again—just like every other style.

This is my first problem with Mearls changes. The dual wielding rogue is an iconic character type that is currently very well supported by the base rules of the game. No feats even needed. In fact, rogue is probably the class where dual wielding works best. These new rules may help dual wielding fighters, barbarians, and rangers, but they also severely nerf it for rogues.

I concur. Rogues getting a more reliable sneak through this tactic is basically baked into the system.

Expanding on my comments in the above post, perhaps TWF is for PCs that happen to have nice damage boosts (Rogue sneak, Ranger favored enemy, etc.) and it is sucks for everyone else? That is okay.

I second this reasoning. Swashbuckler even exists to make two-weapon fighting more viable. Rangers actually lose ground because their best spells are all bonus actions (and beast master is written backwards).

Not every cosmetic decision your PC makes needs to be differentiated with a mechanical benefit.

Outside of feats and class features, your choice of weapon is mainly thematic, and that's fine.

Remember 3e where every weapon had a fiddly bonus?

Yeah, back when you could build a character and their concept around what weapon they chose and the traits of a weapon mattered.

Two-weapon fighting isn't a cosmetic choice, no more than sword'n'board or polearm is cosmetic. Each of the fighting styles has benefits and drawbacks. Specific weapons are cosmetic choices, so your character shouldn't be punished for wanting to wield a morningstar instead of a battleaxe or scimitars instead of shortswords.

Dual-wielding has two major flaws, as far as I can tell:
1.) Both weapons needing to be light is conceptually stupid and removes the most historically relevant form of dual-wielding (rapier/dagger) from anyone without a feat for absolutely no good reason.

The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and deal an extra 1d4 damage on opportunity attacks.

Number 1 can be modified quickly and easily. It's more about the concept, really, though it's a slight damage buff, too.

Doesn't a damage boost here frontload TWF versus THF?

Maybe it smoothes out over the long haul, but the small weapon limitation seems to be about toning down the frontloading.

It absolutely does. There are further balancing concerns necessary to make all this work out well, mostly involving access to feats at first level. I've tried two variants of this so far- simply letting everyone grab one, and offering it at point buy in place of 3 points.

Once you include anyone that wants a two-hander style getting open access to GWM out the gate, the TWF damage superiority from allowing a larger main hand weapon disappears. Even with the new Dual Wielder feat.

On top of that, the difference between shortswords and longswords compared to a greatsword is minute, even in Tier 1. The reason two-weapon fighting outpaces great weapon fighting at those levels is thanks to getting your modifier to damage twice.

Sorry for being dense. Can someone summarize the issue with TWF? Is it mainly with the fighting style or is it with wielding a second weapon in general?

It's a numbers game. Specifically, when you compare it against other weapon styles.

...

So there's the problem- TWF is fine early. It's still good on rogues forever because they want extra chances to land a sneak attack, and paladins/clerics with Improved Divine Smite or a domain that adds +d8 to weapon damage can find some use for it. I want to say barbarians can do okay with it if feats are banned, but the moment they aren't, GWM eclipses the style entirely.

And it's just about strictly inferior on everyone else. Even rangers. And that's weird.

Not only does the damage fall behind (with or without feats), it is strictly inferior in terms of action economy.

What do you all think of expanding the above to include this language:

"If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action or have the Uncanny Dodge class feature, the bonus attack is made as a part of that attack action instead."

This would allow for rogues to have to use a bonus action for levels 1 - 4 and allow for rogues to get 2 attacks per attack action at levels 5+ and their off-hand would not have the ability score modifier to damage.

I specifically exclude rogues, because it would be an unnecessary buff to them. They are the class which benefits most in the current system, and it keeps other fighting styles competitive.

I prefer to tie the 'free up bonus action' to the feat, matching the calibre of benefit that PAM and GWF gives you without adding extra complexity of the base concept of 'have a second weapon, get another attack'

Now that I think about it more that really does make sense. The Dual Wielder feat does feel a bit blah and adding the 'free up bonus action' really does make sense and I agree that it puts in up there with PAM and GWF. Cool, thank you for the comment!

That would make it a feat tax for characters using the style. And in your games, you remove that problem from Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter, so I don't see why you want it with Dual Wielder.

What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.

It both adds to the time your turn takes and favors sources of extra per-hit damage (like Hunter's Mark). Minor concerns, but valid ones.

Yeah, multiplicative effects like that are the mechanics which most often open up options for abuse.

[Waterdeep Merch]

What would happen if the ability to hit using your bonus action scaled with the number of hits you can make with your action? So you get extra attack, you hit twice with your action (main hand), and you get to hit twice with your bonus action (off hand). You still don't get to add your mod to the off hand damage.

Easy to figure out- each hit with a shortsword is 1d6 (average 3.5), or a rapier/longsword with the feat for 1d8 (average 4.5). I just realized I got the average damage upgrade wrong on my calculations for Dual Wielder wrong by halving things- it influences each attack by exactly 1 point going from shortswords to longswords.

Add in your ability score modifier (we'll assume a 16 again) and at level 5 with Extra Attack they're hitting for 26 average damage (30 with Dual Wielder). It's way too good if you're playing without feats (compare against greatweapons' 22.344 average), but okay if you're not (compare against GWM's 43.344-63.511 average). But at least it'll beat sword n' board in damage.

Level 11 on a fighter would be the big concern. They're getting a ridiculous 39 average damage now (45 with Dual Wielder). Non-GWM greatweapons are only hitting 33.511 average at that time (though GWM STILL outshines TWF if you've got it here. You're at 63.511-74.688 average now). GWM is basically a requirement to not make this ridiculous, and it's now outshining TWF so bad that you're still better off not using it unless you're a class that would prefer those extra attacks. More importantly, this really incentivizes rogues to go out of their way to get Extra Attack if they can (it's already good. This pushes it into 'must' territory) and it's completely broken on paladins thanks to Improved Divine Smite. A paladin is getting 42 average damage with Dual Wielder now, assuming they couldn't sweet talk the DM into letting them pick up the TWF style. That same paladin using GWM would have... 52.344-77.0111 average. Now that it's THIS close, the paladin would prefer the TWF for the better accuracy and extra chances at crits and smiting, greatly improving their DPR. Especially since getting off the bonus attack from GWM becomes less likely as enemy HP inflates at later levels. I'm terrible at calculating how hit chances change your expected DPR, but it doesn't take much to see that a 10 point damage difference is easily made up for by just not having a -25% chance to hit things. And if the paladin does convince the DM to let them get TWF (and it's silly that they can't), they're actually sitting at 48 average. Just 4 under any non-crit, non-kill GWM rounds.

Paladins really don't need the help.

EDIT:

The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and can add the dagger's damage die to the damage of opportunity attacks you make.

In general, I do agree. But at low levels, it's not that bad. Any DPR build worth their salt will be looking for ways to use their bonus action to pile on damage, and TWF is no exception. Moreover, only a few classes have a serious issue with losing their bonus actions every round to maintain a consistent level of damage.

The rogue, mainly. Eldritch Knights after they get to slash n' cast. Most of the rest, though, only need one at the start of combat to prepare any buff they're going to want (hunter's mark/rage/divine favor/etc.) and then they were probably going to want ways to attack with their bonus action anyway.

It does limits their flexibility quite a lot, though, and TWF suffers more from not having a free bonus action than the other styles since any round you can't use it to attack, you might as well not be dual-wielding at all.

[thoroughlyS]

Easy to figure out- each hit with a shortsword is 1d6 (average 3.5), or a rapier/longsword with the feat for 1d8 (average 4.5).

Your calculations are a little off, because ChrisBasken said that you didn't get your modifier to the bonus attacks. I ran the numbers again for my four test cases (again, fatoring in chance to hit):

• 2d6 + STR modifier
• 1d6 + half STR modifier, double attacks (to account for the chances of hitting with either main or off-hand)
• 2d6 + STR modifier, rerolling 1s and 2s
• 1d8 + half STR modifier, double attacks (to account for the chances of hitting with either main or off-hand)

The expected damage is actually identical for the first two cases. This makes sense, considering they basically roll the same number of damage dice, and add the same total modifiers...
The second two cases actually do deviate, in favor of the boatload of attacks (go figure...), by about 1–2 points.

If you were to add the modifier to all attacks, thing do skew heavily in favor of the boatload of attacks.

At 5th level:

• 2d6 + STR ≈ 14.3 damage
• 1d6 + STR, doubled ≈ 19.5 damage
• 2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 16.033 damage
• 1d8 + STR, doubled ≈ 22.1 damage

At 11th level:

• 2d6 + STR ≈ 23.4 damage
• 1d6 + STR, doubled ≈ 33.15 damage
• 2d6 + STR, rerolling ≈ 26 damage
• 1d8 + STR, doubled ≈ 37.05 damage

GWM is basically a requirement to not make this ridiculous, and it's now outshining TWF so bad that you're still better off not using it unless you're a class that would prefer those extra attacks.

The damage does really spike here, but I don't know that I necessarily agree with you. If this still costs a bonus action the damage output should be pretty significantly superior...

it's completely broken on paladins thanks to Improved Divine Smite.

And here's where that abuse I mentioned was. Adding attack riders in ANY of these cases just breaks the damage curve.

The major flaw facing two-weapon fighting is the additional cost relative to all other fighting styles, with few benefits. It has other minor flaws, such as the two you've listed, but everything else pales in comparison to that.

I think your first issue fails to realize why rapier and dagger was a popular dueling combination. The dagger was primarily used for parrying. This could be fixed by adding in a new fighting style:
Main-Gauche
When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and a dagger in the other, you gain a +1 bonus to AC and can add the dagger's damage die to the damage of opportunity attacks you make.

In general, I do agree. But at low levels, it's not that bad. Any DPR build worth their salt will be looking for ways to use their bonus action to pile on damage, and TWF is no exception. Moreover, only a few classes have a serious issue with losing their bonus actions every round to maintain a consistent level of damage.

The rogue, mainly. Eldritch Knights after they get to slash n' cast. Most of the rest, though, only need one at the start of combat to prepare any buff they're going to want (hunter's mark/rage/divine favor/etc.) and then they were probably going to want ways to attack with their bonus action anyway.

It does limits their flexibility quite a lot, though, and TWF suffers more from not having a free bonus action than the other styles since any round you can't use it to attack, you might as well not be dual-wielding at all.

As an avid ranger fan, I can tell you that two-weapon fighting conflicts with a lot of the options the class has: moving hunter's mark, adding ensnaring strike, using planar warrior or slayer's prey...

And when combats usually last three rounds, missing out on the first one can feel bad.

[EggKookoo]

And here's where that abuse I mentioned was. Adding attack riders in ANY of these cases just breaks the damage curve.

Yeah, they thought of bounded accuracy but there's no bounded severity. I suppose you could have one or the other, but both would feel gimped.

[Tanarii]

Ranger TWF we know today seems to be a Drizzt thing. Drizzt did it because he was a Drow with a sky high Dex, so it was a no brainer in a 1e-ish setting. There is nothing special about TWF and 1e Rangers -- they are just a Fighter subtype with extra HP and less armor. If yoru 1e Ranger is a Drow or other high Dex elf, TWF was the obvious was to go, but because of the Dex score itself and not because of your class.

1e Drow from Unearthed Arcana onwards could TWF without penalty:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves wit’n regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hanfd.

In addition, from UA onwards Rangers were inclined towards Bow or TWF because of weapons requirements:
By the time a ranger gains a fourth weapon proficiency at 4th level, the character’s list of weapons must include:
either a bow or a light crossbow,
a dagger or a knife,
a spear or an axe, and
a sword (of any type).
TWF in 1e required the second weapon to be a dagger or handaxe, and many Rangers would be proficient in one or both of these.

In 2e, Rangers specifically got TWF skills.

Drizzt was first published in 1988. 2e was released in 1989. Given that, it's likely that Drizzt as a TWF ranger was based on 2e Rangers being in development with TWF and 1 Drow already having TWF. Not the other way around.

[stoutstien]

1e Drow from Unearthed Arcana onwards could TWF without penalty:
Dark elves do not gain the combat bonuses of the surface elves wit’n regard to sword and bow, but may fight with two weapons withoout penalty, provided each weapon may be easily wielded in one hanfd.

In addition, from UA onwards Rangers were inclined towards Bow or TWF because of weapons requirements:
By the time a ranger gains a fourth weapon proficiency at 4th level, the character’s list of weapons must include:
either a bow or a light crossbow,
a dagger or a knife,
a spear or an axe, and
a sword (of any type).
TWF in 1e required the second weapon to be a dagger or handaxe, and many Rangers would be proficient in one or both of these.

In 2e, Rangers specifically got TWF skills.

Drizzt was first published in 1988. 2e was released in 1989. Given that, it's likely that Drizzt as a TWF ranger was based on 2e Rangers being in development with TWF and 1 Drow already having TWF. Not the other way around.

I swore 1e drow had twf built in thank you for confirming my fragments of memories.

[Snails]

I swore 1e drow had twf built in thank you for confirming my fragments of memories.

What exactly the rules were for Drow was less than clear. The Drow you would remember from 1e sources were overwhelmingly likely to be TWFers of some kind. But it is true that the Drow make a lot of sense under the UA TWF rules, so I probably conflated some of these details, like many people did.

The Drow race itself is a weird mix of bandaids and mechanical abuses: multiclass cheese + superhigh stat cheese + TWF cheese + Spell Resistance cheese + other random cheese flavors (e.g. free Dispel Magic for a race that already has so many spellcasters? WTF!).

I would guess that players were becoming too efficient in their tactics against masses of low magic grunts in G123, where a well placed Fireball or cleverly employed Invisibility was making encounters too easy. So Gary was looking to force the magicuser/clerics to adopt new tactics for a challenge, and built the Drow as the big nerf stick to prod them with.

[Snails]

As far as the viability of two-weapon fighting: it may not be historically accurate, but it definitely holds a place in many works of modern fantasy. In short, it should work thanks to the Rule of Cool. A player shouldn't be punished for wanting to use a weapon style as prevalent as dual wielding. This is the same problem that exists for throwing.

It is fair to appeal to the Rule of Cool, but it ultimately boils down to boring things like DPR. Everyone can appeal to the Rule of Cool. If we "fix" TWF, should the fact I like Sword & Board heroes in shining armor mean I should be punished with damage that falls far behind both TWF and THF? This argument cuts three ways, at the very least.

In Tier 1, TWF looks a smidgeon strong, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.
In Tier 2, TWF looks a smidgeon weak, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.

It is only at levels 9+ where multiattacks and feats and class bonuses are easy to stack strongly that TWF is having trouble keeping up. A lot of DMs are just not going to care, because they do not play those levels much. And it is possible to mitigate the issue by tossing in a powerful dagger/shortsword or two so the TWFers has some good fun with that offhand attack.

[stoutstien]

It is fair to appeal to the Rule of Cool, but it ultimately boils down to boring things like DPR. Everyone can appeal to the Rule of Cool. If we "fix" TWF, should the fact I like Sword & Board heroes in shining armor mean I should be punished with damage that falls far behind both TWF and THF? This argument cuts three ways, at the very least.

In Tier 1, TWF looks a smidgeon strong, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.
In Tier 2, TWF looks a smidgeon weak, but not enough for me to really care about fixing it. No problem there.

It is only at levels 9+ where multiattacks and feats and class bonuses are easy to stack strongly that TWF is having trouble keeping up. A lot of DMs are just not going to care, because they do not play those levels much. And it is possible to mitigate the issue by tossing in a powerful dagger/shortsword or two so the TWFers has some good fun with that offhand attack.

Twf falls behind behind as soon as extra attack is added, or feats, or you need your bonus action, or the fact you need twice as many magic weapons if it becomes a factor. All of it compounds into a style that is almost being punished for the sins of it's father.

[Snails]

Twf falls behind behind as soon as extra attack is added, or feats, or you need your bonus action, or the fact you need twice as many magic weapons if it becomes a factor. All of it compounds into a style that is almost being punished for the sins of it's father.

In the long run, I do see this is true, as multiple factors compound in an unfortunate way.

But I am afraid posts like this convince me to simply not care.

In the real world I see a tier 1 ranger fighting humanoids 75% of the time dishing out (1d6+5) + (1d6+5) and occasionally getting a bonus attack as a delver. In the real world I see a tier 1 rogue getting (1d6+3) + (1d6) + [2d6 sneak, quite often]. In the real world, I see a tier 1 barbarian who can almost keep up while raging (1d12+5) but it not raging nearly as often as these other PCs are pulling out their bag of damage boosting tricks.

If we cannot agree that TWF is probably a little strong in tier 1 and a little weak in tier 2, and see that piece of the picture is okayish, then I will conclude that too many TWF fans are never going to be satisfied with TWF rules that are not OP like in the Goode Olde Dayes. This is not a "problem" worth fixing.

[stoutstien]

In the long run, I do see this is true, as multiple factors compound in an unfortunate way.

But I am afraid posts like this convince me to simply not care.

In the real world I see a tier 1 ranger fighting humanoids 75% of the time dishing out (1d6+5) + (1d6+5) and occasionally getting a bonus attack as a delver. In the real world I see a tier 1 rogue getting (1d6+3) + (1d6) + [2d6 sneak, quite often]. In the real world, I see a tier 1 barbarian who can almost keep up while raging (1d12+5) but it not raging nearly as often as these other PCs are pulling out their bag of damage boosting tricks.

If we cannot agree that TWF is probably a little strong in tier 1 and a little weak in tier 2, and see that piece of the picture is okayish, then I will conclude that too many TWF fans are never going to be satisfied with TWF rules that are not OP like in the Goode Olde Dayes. This is not a "problem" worth fixing.

IMO I see the twf style and feat are backwards. Mod to offhand is the "best style" at lv 1-2 but falls to tied for last after you factor extra attack. It scales backwards. The feat is +1-2 damage and 1 ac which is almost the same as duelist now but less of swing at low lvs.

[Tetrasodium]

Looks like Mearls did a revision/improvement on it here to allow rangers and maybe barbarians the option to choose this fighting style. It wasnt clear if fighters should get it too or not. He explained why rogues don't need it baked into twf itself since they mostly use it for getting a second try at their sneak attack if they miss the first.

• Whirling Blades: When you engage in two weapon fighting while wearing no or light armor, you do not expend a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the second attack. You can still gain the benefits of two weapon fighting only once during your turn

Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

[Kane0]

Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

As if they have no power over it...

[Tetrasodium]

As if they have no power over it...

Yea, they have released revisions under the guise of optional rules before. The old unearthed arcana's were basically additions & optional revisions. With new settings on the horizon they have the opportunity to make changes as part of the setting books.

Mearls & possibly the team themselves might not have the power to make revisions beyond a certain level of minor however

[Misterwhisper]

Looks like Mearls did a revision/improvement on it here to allow rangers and maybe barbarians the option to choose this fighting style. It wasnt clear if fighters should get it too or not. He explained why rogues don't need it baked into twf itself since they mostly use it for getting a second try at their sneak attack if they miss the first.

• Whirling Blades: When you engage in two weapon fighting while wearing no or light armor, you do not expend a bonus action and add your ability modifier to the second attack. You can still gain the benefits of two weapon fighting only once during your turn

Mearls also talked about if he were to do 5e again, twf would be more of a reverse of how versatile works that lowers the die if dual wielded.

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.

This is exactly why this &($(@ should never be allowed to design crunch.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.

[stoutstien]

Wait, so his justification of not letting rogues use it is because they use it to get extra chances at sneak attack?

So his plan to fix twf, which is only ever used consistently by rogues is specifically designed so rogues can’t use it???
Yet, barbarians, yeah let’s give them more damage.

This is exactly why this &($(@ should never be allowed to design crunch.

Between blade singers, blades bards, and probably soon to be barbarians at what point does a freaking rogue get an offensive focused ability, still no way to get a second attack without multi passing, still no fighting style.

If I understand him correctly in the vid a rogue could pick up this free offhand attack with a dip into ranger which would hardly be a waste.Also fighting style as a half feat isn't a hard sell at most tables.