Two Weapon fighting sucks in D&D. The rules make it a horrible idea. Any comparison of damage shows it clearly, at least above level 5, and it is rarely worth it below level 5, even for a Rogue seeking more Sneak Attack. The main problem is that it is based on a common, easily made mistake that people have from real life and the movies:
HOLDING TWO WEAPONS DOES NOT LET YOU ATTACK MORE. It is easy to understand why people think this, we have two hands, if a weapon in one hand lets you attack, then double the weapons should let you attack more often?
Nope. Attacks are made by your brain, not your hands. Unless you are attacking a defenseless sparring dummy, you have to use your ENTIRE brain to ensure the attack hits. If you don't, you miss. (True with guns as well as melee weapons, just check out the old Mythbusters show - more hits with one weapon in two hands than one gun in each hand).
For the people that actually used two weapons, the advantage was not more attacks, but a better chance to HIT. You could attack from either side, one hand could distract while the other went in for the kill. And you could also use it for defense.
So here is my proposal for a revised two weapon fighting system that would be worthwhile. Also note, we would not have to put up with all the math figuring out which weapon style did more damage anymore.
Two Weapon Fighting Rules: (no feat, no nothing)
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon in each of your hands, you gain +1 TWF to hit with that weapon. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it, and still gain that +1 TWF to hit.
Fighting Style: Two weapon Fighting:
When you engage in two weapon fighting, you gain +2 to AC against any melee attacks made with one hand (or limb normally used for movement). This does not apply to any attacks made with a two handed weapon, or a non-movement limb such as a mouth, tail, etc.
Dual Wielder Feat:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
* If you have already made at least two attacks with your main weapon , you can make a 'surprise' attack with your other weapon at +2 TWF bonus to hit instead of the +1. Note, this tracks across multiple rounds (so at first level you can use this in your third round even without action surge).
* You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
* You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
* You can attune yourself to four magic items, as long as two of them are one handed weapons.
the Rules: the way I read it it sounds like you have to attack with both weapons to get the +1? “and attack with a light melee weapon in each of your hands”. Should it read, “when you take the Attack action and have a light melee weapon in each hand”?
the Fighting Style: seems confusing with all the qualifiers (movement limb, non-movement limb, two handed). Maybe just give +2 AC against melee attack once per turn or as a reaction or something?
the Feat: if you have extra attack it’s easy to follow as you get the “surprise” attack each turn. Without extra attack it’s bookkeeping to track it. Maybe it can be streamlined?
Here's the real solution: you play a great weapon master build, reflavor it as two swords, and call it a day.
Seriously, people. You want GWM damage and viability? Play it and say it's something else. Mechanically, you're still a melee user without a shield. Or must you abide by what's on your sheet rather than what's in your imagination?
This is fine if you want to do it, but there's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here. You point out that TWF is mechanically inferior (which I agree with), but then you say the reason is that it's not accurately reflecting real world TWF. Making mechanics more simulationist does not automatically make them better (and often makes them worse as the game and simulation parts of D&D are often pulling in opposite directions).
More, lighter hits does equate to a better chance to hit. That part TWF actually already gets right and it's much less fiddly than adding +1 and +2 bonuses here and there.
Additionally, it's not hard to envision that someone with two daggers can indeed strike more often than someone with a huge greataxe. You are not using your whole brain the whole time you're swinging a heavy weapon - after a point you are committed to the swing and the rest of you is basically just along for the ride. There's also a significant 'recovery period' before you're ready to swing again.
I've been in these threads before and the number of homebrew solutions that pop up are roughly equal to the number of people who agree that TWF is a problem. No one ever agrees on the way to fix it. Personally my biggest gripe is that TWF needs to spend its action and bonus action and even then it falls short of heavy weapons. The feat should - at a minimum - allow that TWF attack to be a part of the Attack action so you can use your BA for other stuff.
It sounds like you're one of those people who doesn't like D&D 5e but for whatever reason keeps playing D&D 5e and wants to "fix" it with "solutions" that are overly complex and indicate a general unfamiliarity and lack of understanding of the system you're attempting to "repair." I suggest you either find a different game to play or just make up your own wonderfully complicated "realistic" TTRPG system and try to get somebody to play it with you.
Personally, I think adding +1 AC for having 2 light weapons in hand (TWF) and another 1 for a total +2 for the DW. It would add at least a small perk and wedge it in closer to being between 2 handers and sword and board styles. Thematically and mechanically makes sense. Having the extra weapon grants an extra chance to deflect, even partly, a blow from a physical attack. Might be cumbersome to keep calculated, as I don't feel it should affect spell attacks, so the extra AC would have to be ignored or some such to make it work as such.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
Perhaps if you thought of the attack roll as simply the best chance you have over the six seconds of melee to get a hit in, then it would change your perspective on how combat works in D&D. Two weapons just mean that there are more chances to hit - so if the hit goes in much earlier than towards the end of the six seconds, then you are more likely to get a second successful swing/stab close enough to being another potential source of damage.
The best fix I have found is to add one attack to their attack action, basically, the bonus action attack of TWF is just absorbed into the main attack action, the bonus action is no longer required (this does not allow the player to get another attack with their bonus action now however, it is always in the attack action). So first level attack action is 2 attacks when TWF instead of 1. This frees up the bonus action to do other things as the class/player sees fit. The second fix I have allowed is removing the Light weapon property for the main hand weapon, this allows players to wield Rapier/Dagger or Longsword/Shortsword or combinations more commonly seen in high fantasy swashbuckling adventures, I find the players enjoy it more for the aesthetic and balance gameplay-wise is a Non-issue, as the DM can adjust the difficulty of any encounter as they see fit. On top of the other changes, I let the player draw both weapons at the same time. Since I am taking away from the feat by allowing the drawing/stowing of two weapons at the same time, the feat now adds TWF style for the character in its place.
The character still needs TWF style to add their damage to the off-hand attack and they still need the Feat to wield two non-light weapons, the above changes just add a bit more versatility to character design.
It is funny to hear people talk about the "realism" of fighting with two weapons when that was very rarely done historically. Shields were REALLY useful for deflecting blows and doubly could defend against missile weapons. Even samurai, who never used shields, rarely used both a katana and a wakizashi in combat. There is a lot of merit in the OP's comment that the brain can only focus on one attack at a time - that is very true. If a second weapon was used it was mostly as a parrying weapon such as the Main Gauche...and no one ever used two long weapons in combat, sorry Drizz't.
As a forever DM, I think the impetus for most people to take two weapons is simply to get in two attacks and thereby increase their combat power. I bet the answer I would get from the above posters who says they should still get their BA is that they would use their BA for a third attack. Sorry to be jaundice in my view, but that has been my experience over many years.
I say just leave the rules alone unless you see a problem. Lack of realism is not a problem in a game where one throws fireballs and fights 50-foot fire breathing dragons.
It is funny to hear people talk about the "realism" of fighting with two weapons when that was very rarely done historically. Shields were REALLY useful for deflecting blows and doubly could defend against missile weapons. Even samurai, who never used shields, rarely used both a katana and a wakizashi in combat.
In fact, they pretty much never did so because the katana was generally intended to be wielded with two hands. The wakizashi was worn as a backup weapon in case a samurai's katana was lost or broken in combat, or he found himself in close quarters where the larger sword didn't have enough room. Or if he had to commit seppuku.
The real issues with two-weapon fighting aren't about realism, they're about the fact that the different fighting styles should be equally useful but they end up not being so.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Two Weapon fighting sucks in D&D. The rules make it a horrible idea. Any comparison of damage shows it clearly, at least above level 5, and it is rarely worth it below level 5, even for a Rogue seeking more Sneak Attack. The main problem is that it is based on a common, easily made mistake that people have from real life and the movies:
HOLDING TWO WEAPONS DOES NOT LET YOU ATTACK MORE. It is easy to understand why people think this, we have two hands, if a weapon in one hand lets you attack, then double the weapons should let you attack more often?
Nope. Attacks are made by your brain, not your hands. Unless you are attacking a defenseless sparring dummy, you have to use your ENTIRE brain to ensure the attack hits. If you don't, you miss. (True with guns as well as melee weapons, just check out the old Mythbusters show - more hits with one weapon in two hands than one gun in each hand).
For the people that actually used two weapons, the advantage was not more attacks, but a better chance to HIT. You could attack from either side, one hand could distract while the other went in for the kill. And you could also use it for defense.
So here is my proposal for a revised two weapon fighting system that would be worthwhile. Also note, we would not have to put up with all the math figuring out which weapon style did more damage anymore.
Two Weapon Fighting Rules: (no feat, no nothing)
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon in each of your hands, you gain +1 TWF to hit with that weapon. If either weapon has the thrown property, you can throw the weapon, instead of making a melee attack with it, and still gain that +1 TWF to hit.
Fighting Style: Two weapon Fighting:
When you engage in two weapon fighting, you gain +2 to AC against any melee attacks made with one hand (or limb normally used for movement). This does not apply to any attacks made with a two handed weapon, or a non-movement limb such as a mouth, tail, etc.
Dual Wielder Feat:
You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:
* If you have already made at least two attacks with your main weapon , you can make a 'surprise' attack with your other weapon at +2 TWF bonus to hit instead of the +1. Note, this tracks across multiple rounds (so at first level you can use this in your third round even without action surge).
* You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one-handed melee weapons you are wielding aren't light.
* You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.
Interesting ideas. A couple things:
the Rules: the way I read it it sounds like you have to attack with both weapons to get the +1? “and attack with a light melee weapon in each of your hands”. Should it read, “when you take the Attack action and have a light melee weapon in each hand”?
the Fighting Style: seems confusing with all the qualifiers (movement limb, non-movement limb, two handed). Maybe just give +2 AC against melee attack once per turn or as a reaction or something?
the Feat: if you have extra attack it’s easy to follow as you get the “surprise” attack each turn. Without extra attack it’s bookkeeping to track it. Maybe it can be streamlined?
Overall some good ideas
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Here's the real solution: you play a great weapon master build, reflavor it as two swords, and call it a day.
Seriously, people. You want GWM damage and viability? Play it and say it's something else. Mechanically, you're still a melee user without a shield. Or must you abide by what's on your sheet rather than what's in your imagination?
This is fine if you want to do it, but there's a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here. You point out that TWF is mechanically inferior (which I agree with), but then you say the reason is that it's not accurately reflecting real world TWF. Making mechanics more simulationist does not automatically make them better (and often makes them worse as the game and simulation parts of D&D are often pulling in opposite directions).
More, lighter hits does equate to a better chance to hit. That part TWF actually already gets right and it's much less fiddly than adding +1 and +2 bonuses here and there.
Additionally, it's not hard to envision that someone with two daggers can indeed strike more often than someone with a huge greataxe. You are not using your whole brain the whole time you're swinging a heavy weapon - after a point you are committed to the swing and the rest of you is basically just along for the ride. There's also a significant 'recovery period' before you're ready to swing again.
I've been in these threads before and the number of homebrew solutions that pop up are roughly equal to the number of people who agree that TWF is a problem. No one ever agrees on the way to fix it. Personally my biggest gripe is that TWF needs to spend its action and bonus action and even then it falls short of heavy weapons. The feat should - at a minimum - allow that TWF attack to be a part of the Attack action so you can use your BA for other stuff.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It sounds like you're one of those people who doesn't like D&D 5e but for whatever reason keeps playing D&D 5e and wants to "fix" it with "solutions" that are overly complex and indicate a general unfamiliarity and lack of understanding of the system you're attempting to "repair." I suggest you either find a different game to play or just make up your own wonderfully complicated "realistic" TTRPG system and try to get somebody to play it with you.
Personally, I think adding +1 AC for having 2 light weapons in hand (TWF) and another 1 for a total +2 for the DW. It would add at least a small perk and wedge it in closer to being between 2 handers and sword and board styles. Thematically and mechanically makes sense. Having the extra weapon grants an extra chance to deflect, even partly, a blow from a physical attack. Might be cumbersome to keep calculated, as I don't feel it should affect spell attacks, so the extra AC would have to be ignored or some such to make it work as such.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I don't think that fighting with a weapon in your off-hand should grant you the same defensive bonuses as fighting with a shield.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Perhaps if you thought of the attack roll as simply the best chance you have over the six seconds of melee to get a hit in, then it would change your perspective on how combat works in D&D. Two weapons just mean that there are more chances to hit - so if the hit goes in much earlier than towards the end of the six seconds, then you are more likely to get a second successful swing/stab close enough to being another potential source of damage.
I would agree. Although it does require the investment of a feat for dual wielder
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The best fix I have found is to add one attack to their attack action, basically, the bonus action attack of TWF is just absorbed into the main attack action, the bonus action is no longer required (this does not allow the player to get another attack with their bonus action now however, it is always in the attack action). So first level attack action is 2 attacks when TWF instead of 1. This frees up the bonus action to do other things as the class/player sees fit. The second fix I have allowed is removing the Light weapon property for the main hand weapon, this allows players to wield Rapier/Dagger or Longsword/Shortsword or combinations more commonly seen in high fantasy swashbuckling adventures, I find the players enjoy it more for the aesthetic and balance gameplay-wise is a Non-issue, as the DM can adjust the difficulty of any encounter as they see fit. On top of the other changes, I let the player draw both weapons at the same time. Since I am taking away from the feat by allowing the drawing/stowing of two weapons at the same time, the feat now adds TWF style for the character in its place.
The character still needs TWF style to add their damage to the off-hand attack and they still need the Feat to wield two non-light weapons, the above changes just add a bit more versatility to character design.
I just think that even with a feat, it shouldn't be possible to match the defensive ability of the defensive style.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
It is funny to hear people talk about the "realism" of fighting with two weapons when that was very rarely done historically. Shields were REALLY useful for deflecting blows and doubly could defend against missile weapons. Even samurai, who never used shields, rarely used both a katana and a wakizashi in combat. There is a lot of merit in the OP's comment that the brain can only focus on one attack at a time - that is very true. If a second weapon was used it was mostly as a parrying weapon such as the Main Gauche...and no one ever used two long weapons in combat, sorry Drizz't.
As a forever DM, I think the impetus for most people to take two weapons is simply to get in two attacks and thereby increase their combat power. I bet the answer I would get from the above posters who says they should still get their BA is that they would use their BA for a third attack. Sorry to be jaundice in my view, but that has been my experience over many years.
I say just leave the rules alone unless you see a problem. Lack of realism is not a problem in a game where one throws fireballs and fights 50-foot fire breathing dragons.
In fact, they pretty much never did so because the katana was generally intended to be wielded with two hands. The wakizashi was worn as a backup weapon in case a samurai's katana was lost or broken in combat, or he found himself in close quarters where the larger sword didn't have enough room. Or if he had to commit seppuku.
The real issues with two-weapon fighting aren't about realism, they're about the fact that the different fighting styles should be equally useful but they end up not being so.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.