I've got a player who really wants to build a character with two weapons, but the rules for two-weapon fighting just don't make it easy, especially on classes that have bonus actions you also want to use. So it got me to thinking about how else I could run two-weapon fighting.

One idea I've had is to simply ditch the bonus action attack, and replace it with something like the following:

Two-weapon Fighting

If you make an attack with a light weapon while holding another light weapon in your other hand, you will receive a +1 +2 bonus to the attack roll as you use your other weapon to feint or otherwise create an opening against your opponent. If you have the "two-weapon fighting" fighting style, you also receive a +1 +2 bonus to the weapon's damage roll.

Basically the idea is to keep the number of attacks rolled the same, while representing the character having two weapons in a different way (that actually scales with number of attacks).

In essence you're trading damage for consistency (by hitting slightly more often), while retaining some of the benefits of having two weapons (can wield two different light weapons for two different damage types, or even two different magic weapons at higher levels). I'm hoping it's reasonably balanced against the bonus AC you could be getting from a shield, or having a hand free for casting etc.

This would mean that anyone can dual wield effectively, no matter how bonus action bound their class is. It also matters less what the second weapon actually is if you don't mind focusing on the primary weapon. So a Hexblade for example could dual wield for a bonus on their hex weapon attacks using a spare dagger, which they can put away when they need to cast etc.

I was also thinking that it would make sense to have the same rule apply to unarmed strikes if a creature has both hands free? This would give monks a meaningful difference between punching and using a quarterstaff (though the latter could still be improved by gaining a magic quarterstaff), as well as being able to use two-weapon fighting at all since they're such a bonus action dependent class.

This hasn't had any playtesting yet, as none of my current campaigns has anyone dual wielding, but it seems like a decent compromise for running it. So I'm curious what people think of the idea in terms of balance?

So as I understand it, this is restricting characters to light weapons and giving them +1 to attack (and damage with a feat) instead of an extra attack?

I guess I need to know the assumptions here. Do you feel TWF is too strong as is? Because this would actually result in less damage. In my experience, TWF needs a boost to compete, not a nerf.

More importantly, I wouldn't like how this feels. I want to make more attacks. That's why I chose TWF in the first place. If that's going to be abstracted away, I'll just use a greatsword and Defensive style and reflavor the whole shebang while being more effective.

I think a much simpler solution for your particular problem would be to allow the extra attack as part of the attack action, similar to how the Path of the Beast barbarian's claws work. This could be granted through Two-Weapon Fighting Style, the Dual Wielder feat, a different "Light Weapon Mastery" feat, or it could be a property on a set of magic weapons they find

Quote from scatterbraind>>

I guess I need to know the assumptions here. Do you feel TWF is too strong as is? Because this would actually result in less damage. In my experience, TWF needs a boost to compete, not a nerf.

Actually my aim is to remove the extra attack that functions differently; it makes things more complicated if you don't have (or don't have access to) the fighting style, and having the extra attack makes things more complicated when you eliminate the requirement for the bonus action as it only makes it harder to balance. If you simply allow a character with two weapons to make an extra attack without the bonus action, then that's just straight up better than two-handed even if it doesn't add the ability score, but not adding that is part of what I'd like to eliminate.

I do think I massively miscalculated the bonus though, +1 is too weak, +2 to brings it closer to two handed in terms of damage output, at which point the trade off is more hits over time (so still better if you have anything that triggers on hits like hunter's mark or Sneak Attack etc.) at the cost of an occupied hand. Though the damage is best when the target is harder to hit, whereas two-handed is superior against easier to hit targets (as the higher base damage begins to tell when the chance to hit is already above 50%).

Rolling an extra attack has never mattered to me, especially when it becomes only a 50% bonus at 5th-level compared with 4th-level (when it was 100%); you're fighting with two weapons, just as an unarmed character isn't fighting with only one fist (especially if they can apply the same bonus as I say 😉). Plus real two weapon fighting isn't about having twice as many weapons to attack with, in practice most two weapon styles are about attacking with one and blocking with the other, the potential advantage is the ability to create an opening.

The only tricky areas for me are what to do about characters who want to wield only a single one-handed weapon for whatever reason, as they'd be simply worse for any character that can't use the empty hand for anything, for example, a Swashbuckler using a rapier because it fits the theme. But that may be a problem with the game in general not having more things for non-casters to do with a spare hand, as two weapons is already superior for a Rogue (gives you an optional second chance if you miss, because Sneak Attack is where you actually do your damage).