A TWF suggestion

It seems like they have been struggling to find a good way to run the two-weapon fighting rules. One issue with the current setup (with the -2 penalty) is that it means sometimes even a committed TWFer should skip the second attack. That's not so much fun, and it breaks immersion a bit if you have to think about the math every time to decide how you're going to attack.

I like this approach better:

Make your main weapon attack exactly like normal. If it hits, you can make an off-hand attack against the same or another opponent. If that attack hits, it deals only your weapon dice damage. You can't use manuevers or add martial damage dice to an off-hand attack. (Or maybe you can, if it works better that way. You just want to avoid making it too breakable.)

Although it might sound too strong, it's not really. The fact that you have to hit twice to score the off-hand damage means that your average damage is nearly always below that of a 2hander. For instance, if you are hitting on a 12, a greatsword will average 6.5+bonuses on a hit, while a longsword+shortsword wielder will average about 6.1+bonuses. If you hit on a 15, the TWF base is 5.6. It does better when you are more likely to hit: they are about even if you hit on a 9, while if you hit on a 2, the TWF base goes up to 7.8.

If you did it this way, I would make it require a feat. Compared to a two-handed weapon, you gain significant flexibility for only a bit less damage (if that). But more than that, since there's no penalty to your main attack, you probably need a mechanic to keep every single-handed character from fighting this way with their shield or an unarmed attack as their off-hand weapon.
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.


Actually there are only two melee weapon styles.  Two handed, two weapon.  One and Shield is actually two weapons.
I don't think we should award an off-hand attack because the main attack hit.

I want to go back to one thread here that said that off-hand attacks always do less damage in real life.

One person told me something receintly that changed my ideas about two-weapon fighting.

This is how it would work now.

Your first attack will include all modifiers.
All attacks during your turn thereafter don't include mods.

Here is what we can expect when deciding what styles our characters will fight with.

A large weapon attacks at 1d20+mods and does 1d10+mods damage and counts as a main attack.
An off-hand weapon during the same turn attacks at 1d20+mods and does 1d8 damage as an off-hand action/attack.

A two-handed weapon attacks at 1d20+mods and does 3d6+mods damage and counts as a main + off-hand attack/action.

A large weapon attacks at 1d20+mods and does 1d10+mods damage and counts as a main attack.
A shield takes the place of an off-hand attack but we could do something with it that other people here have been suggesting. The shield could reduce damage with a "Power Die". Something like 1d4 from 1st to 5th level, 1d6 at 6th-10th, etc. It could add up to +4 to armor class.

My D&D5E JavaScript Roll Tracker http://dnd5.weebly.com/

I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.



I'd like to see the hand-free Fighter represented as well. It was a pretty awesome option in 4e - and makes for a lot of fun.
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.



I'd like to see the hand-free Fighter represented as well. It was a pretty awesome option in 4e - and makes for a lot of fun.



then don't use your other hand. Done.

only time that you should not be using your hand with a weapon is.

1. You must hold something; torch, rope, crystal ball etc

2. you hold a shield

3. your main weapon can't be grasped twohanded, i.e. dagger.

4. your arm is amputated.

5. you're in grapple.




I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.



I'd like to see the hand-free Fighter represented as well. It was a pretty awesome option in 4e - and makes for a lot of fun.



then don't use your other hand. Done.



What he means is maneuver-like options that utilize your free-hand that go beyond the Improvization Action element. For example, attacking a foe and then grabbing him (with no contest rules all in the same action) or using them as a shield or getting in an extra attack with a punch or slap. Of course, there's also so many other options one can use that just requires a bit of thinking such as attacking a guy then throwing ground glass in his eyes or an acid flask.   


only time that you should not be using your hand with a weapon is.

1. You must hold something; torch, rope, crystal ball etc

2. you hold a shield

3. your main weapon can't be grasped twohanded, i.e. dagger.

4. your arm is amputated.

5. you're in grapple.



Thats.....well very limited in thinking and probably not a very good reason not to have 1-handed style be a flavorful option for those who want a more 'duelist' style character.   

I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.


I pretty much agree, but along the same lines, I don't think it's fair to give the weapon+shield style the benefits of TWFing. How about this: TWFing works as described for anyone, but you need a feat to be able to attack with a shield. Along with that, I'd make you need a feat to make effective unarmed attacks; it is anyway a bit odd currently that a fist is as good a weapon as a dagger or club.
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.



I'd like to see the hand-free Fighter represented as well. It was a pretty awesome option in 4e - and makes for a lot of fun.



then don't use your other hand. Done.



What he means is maneuver-like options that utilize your free-hand that go beyond the Improvization Action element. For example, attacking a foe and then grabbing him (with no contest rules all in the same action) or using them as a shield or getting in an extra attack with a punch or slap. Of course, there's also so many other options one can use that just requires a bit of thinking such as attacking a guy then throwing ground glass in his eyes or an acid flask.   


only time that you should not be using your hand with a weapon is.

1. You must hold something; torch, rope, crystal ball etc

2. you hold a shield

3. your main weapon can't be grasped twohanded, i.e. dagger.

4. your arm is amputated.

5. you're in grapple.



Thats.....well very limited in thinking and probably not a very good reason not to have 1-handed style be a flavorful option for those who want a more 'duelist' style character.   





I agree (The Man in Black/The Dread Pirate Wesley).
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.


I pretty much agree, but along the same lines, I don't think it's fair to give the weapon+shield style the benefits of TWFing. How about this: TWFing works as described for anyone, but you need a feat to be able to attack with a shield. Along with that, I'd make you need a feat to make effective unarmed attacks; it is anyway a bit odd currently that a fist is as good a weapon as a dagger or club.


A feat sounds like too much.  I'd say that you could attack with your shield but that you'd lose the AC benefit of it.  Then you could have a feat that lets you attack with it but keep your AC bonus from it.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

As the greatsword is 1d12 and the shortsword is 1d6, I think TWFing should be this: Regular damage with primary hand, only dice with secondary hand.

You have a lower chance of doing no damage, but also a lower chance of doing max damage. On average, the twfer will be slightly ahead in damage, due to the differences between 1d12 and 2d6, but it's tiny.

Now, I think a starting feat should be needed, so an attack penalty without the feat should exist. Why is this? Because the ability to split your damage between two targets at first level is akin to getting a maneuver. And getting a maneuver costs a feat. 

Poe's Law is alive and well.

Now, I think a starting feat should be needed, so an attack penalty without the feat should exist. Why is this? Because the ability to split your damage between two targets at first level is akin to getting a maneuver. And getting a maneuver costs a feat. 


The ability to split damage between two foes is overrated.  Also, requiring a feat to not get the penalty is a concept tax that just punishes people who want to be TWF'ers for the sake of concept instead of mechanics.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.


Actually there are only two melee weapon styles.  Two handed, two weapon.  One and Shield is actually two weapons.



With a shield you have an AC bonus from the start, and shield bashing does little damage. With TWF you need a feat to get an AC bonus and you can expect to do more damage. Plenty of people will carry the shield just for defense, so I think it's a distinct combat style.

Two-handed: More damage, less defense
Two-weapon: More attacks, less accuracy
Weapon+shield: Less damage, more defense
Weapon+free hand: Maneuvers/grappling/etc (or arcane casting), less damage, less defense

I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.


Actually there are only two melee weapon styles.  Two handed, two weapon.  One and Shield is actually two weapons.



With a shield you have an AC bonus from the start, and shield bashing does little damage. With TWF you need a feat to get an AC bonus and you can expect to do more damage. Plenty of people will carry the shield just for defense, so I think it's a distinct combat style.

Two-handed: More damage, less defense
Two-weapon: More attacks, less accuracy
Weapon+shield: Less damage, more defense
Weapon+free hand: Maneuvers/grappling/etc (or arcane casting), less damage, less defense



You've never seen sword and shield in action, outside of JRPGs or other video games that use a shield a static bonus, then.  Because a good sword and board fighter will punch, swing and 'slash' with his shield is he needs to.  The major difference between Western style two weapon, is that shield is mostly defensive in ideal, and can also block arrows.  But it can and has been used offensively.

And for those of you who want to play one weapon users "Duelists", those only happen in the movies where the heroes and villains only fight one on one, otherwise, you will get mulched.  Even back in history, real lift duelists used shields or off hand weapons, like the Buckler or the Parrying Dagger, because when fighting multiple foes, like a gang of orcs, you might get surrounded, and when that happens, the sport fencer is screwed.

Also, the training manuals I've seen have stated that large weapons like two handed, were good for crowd controll, able to get sweeping multi-target swipes per attack.
I think it's important that all three styles (weapon + shield, two handed, two-weapon) be about equal tactically, and none require a feat to get the basic usage.



I'd like to see the hand-free Fighter represented as well. It was a pretty awesome option in 4e - and makes for a lot of fun.



then don't use your other hand. Done.



What he means is maneuver-like options that utilize your free-hand that go beyond the Improvization Action element. For example, attacking a foe and then grabbing him (with no contest rules all in the same action) or using them as a shield or getting in an extra attack with a punch or slap. Of course, there's also so many other options one can use that just requires a bit of thinking such as attacking a guy then throwing ground glass in his eyes or an acid flask.   


only time that you should not be using your hand with a weapon is.

1. You must hold something; torch, rope, crystal ball etc

2. you hold a shield

3. your main weapon can't be grasped twohanded, i.e. dagger.

4. your arm is amputated.

5. you're in grapple.



Thats.....well very limited in thinking and probably not a very good reason not to have 1-handed style be a flavorful option for those who want a more 'duelist' style character.   




It's not limited, if you're not grappling empty hand is useless. what you're going to do? block a blade with your palm?

You could catch an arrow with an empty hand but you could also deflect it with a shield or a dagger.

And when you grapple you could also hold a dagger or a hand crossbow and drop it in the moment you try to get a hold.



..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And for those of you who want to play one weapon users "Duelists", those only happen in the movies where the heroes and villains only fight one on one, otherwise, you will get mulched.  Even back in history, real lift duelists used shields or off hand weapons, like the Buckler or the Parrying Dagger, because when fighting multiple foes, like a gang of orcs, you might get surrounded, and when that happens, the sport fencer is screwed.



Are you missing the part where this is a game, and some players will want to do the kinds of things in said movies?

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />And for those of you who want to play one weapon users "Duelists", those only happen in the movies where the heroes and villains only fight one on one, otherwise, you will get mulched.  Even back in history, real lift duelists used shields or off hand weapons, like the Buckler or the Parrying Dagger, because when fighting multiple foes, like a gang of orcs, you might get surrounded, and when that happens, the sport fencer is screwed.



Are you missing the part where this is a game, and some players will want to do the kinds of things in said movies?



Then DO IT, but real fighters don't just stick to one style.  This is a problem I'm having with this particular argument, each fighting style has it's place.  But using the same style because you can is both silly and is way too anime for a game that's supposed to be Western Fantasy.

I have no problems with Anime games (my one attempt at Exalted was supposed to be that, and I've run BDSM fantasy games for years) but D&D has it's own flavour, and frankly this 'specialist' fighter is silly, and it goes counter to every fantasy source literature I've ever come across.

Hell, if anyone is supposed to be a 'specialist', it's the Wizard.  In almost all fantasy stories before D&D came, they could only do 'one' thing, whether it was diviniations, raising the dead or similar, they couldn't do it all.  Then D&D comes and all of a sudden we have mini-gods all over the place, and we take all our fighting man inspirations from what seems like Japanese sensibilities.

The ability to split damage between two foes is overrated.  Also, requiring a feat to not get the penalty is a concept tax that just punishes people who want to be TWF'ers for the sake of concept instead of mechanics.


I disagree about the value of splitting your damage. It's very valuable when fighting minion-like opponents, and even against tougher opponents, you avoid wasting damage when your first attack kills your target and you can use your second attack against a new one.

But aside from the shield/fist issue, I agree that a feat tax is undesireable.


You've never seen sword and shield in action, outside of JRPGs or other video games that use a shield a static bonus, then.  Because a good sword and board fighter will punch, swing and 'slash' with his shield is he needs to.  The major difference between Western style two weapon, is that shield is mostly defensive in ideal, and can also block arrows.  But it can and has been used offensively.


But dnd is not supposed to be especially realistic, and in as much as it is, a single roll of the die isn't supposed to represent a single swing of your weapon. I would say that the game assumes already that you are fighting as effectively as you can, including using your shield as a weapon, kicking, shoving, tripping, spitting in their eyes, and whatever else you can think of. So I am OK if we reserve the TWF mechanic to describe someone fighting with two dedicated weapons that are both lethal threats in themselves.

The ability to split damage between two foes is overrated.  Also, requiring a feat to not get the penalty is a concept tax that just punishes people who want to be TWF'ers for the sake of concept instead of mechanics.


I disagree about the value of splitting your damage. It's very valuable when fighting minion-like opponents, and even against tougher opponents, you avoid wasting damage when your first attack kills your target and you can use your second attack against a new one.



Ok, your first scenario: "when fighting minion-like opponents."

1) You have to know they are minions.  Until you one-shot one of them, this seems unlikely.  I don't reveal what creatures are minions, or even whether minions are present, and I've never had a DM do that either.
2) You have to be able to move into a position where you can reach two of them, or you have to have enough movement to move from the first to the second between attacks.  If we assume that the minons are melee combatants, and we ignore possible terrain implications, this is fairly easy.  If they are ranged attackers, or if terrain complicates movement, then not so much.

Your second scenario: "against tougher opponents, you avoid wasting damage when your first attack kills your target and you can use your second attack against a new one."

1) You are predicating your argument on the notion that you know how much damage will kill the first enemy.  IDK how common it is for DMs to tell players this information.  I don't give it out when I DM, and I've never had a DM that gave it out when I played.
2) This is the same as #2 above.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood


I have no problems with Anime games (my one attempt at Exalted was supposed to be that, and I've run BDSM fantasy games for years) but D&D has it's own flavour, and frankly this 'specialist' fighter is silly, and it goes counter to every fantasy source literature I've ever come across..




You meant BESM right ?

A BDSM fantasy game is something else entirely Innocent 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com


Ok, your first scenario: "when fighting minion-like opponents."

1) You have to know they are minions.  Until you one-shot one of them, this seems unlikely.  I don't reveal what creatures are minions, or even whether minions are present, and I've never had a DM do that either.
2) You have to be able to move into a position where you can reach two of them, or you have to have enough movement to move from the first to the second between attacks.  If we assume that the minons are melee combatants, and we ignore possible terrain implications, this is fairly easy.  If they are ranged attackers, or if terrain complicates movement, then not so much.

Your second scenario: "against tougher opponents, you avoid wasting damage when your first attack kills your target and you can use your second attack against a new one."

1) You are predicating your argument on the notion that you know how much damage will kill the first enemy.  IDK how common it is for DMs to tell players this information.  I don't give it out when I DM, and I've never had a DM that gave it out when I played.
2) This is the same as #2 above.



Guess I don't quite understand your objections. You shouldn't know that they are minions ahead of time, but you don't really need to. If you are a TWF fighter, you can kill two of them per turn. You find that out when your first attack kills one, and your second kills another.

For my second point, you find out that you can kill the first enemy when you kill him. If you're wielding one weapon, then most likely you "wasted" some of your DPR potential. If you're TWFing, you can now attack a second creature.

I guess you are thinking that you need to decide to TWF ahead of time, and you don't always know if it will be a good idea. I agree that is a complication, and I don't much like it. I think that if you want to be a TWFer, you should be able to TWF pretty much every turn. My proposed rule makes it so you can do that without worrying about penalties and without knowing what kind of opponents you are facing.


Ok, your first scenario: "when fighting minion-like opponents."

1) You have to know they are minions.  Until you one-shot one of them, this seems unlikely.  I don't reveal what creatures are minions, or even whether minions are present, and I've never had a DM do that either.
2) You have to be able to move into a position where you can reach two of them, or you have to have enough movement to move from the first to the second between attacks.  If we assume that the minons are melee combatants, and we ignore possible terrain implications, this is fairly easy.  If they are ranged attackers, or if terrain complicates movement, then not so much.

Your second scenario: "against tougher opponents, you avoid wasting damage when your first attack kills your target and you can use your second attack against a new one."

1) You are predicating your argument on the notion that you know how much damage will kill the first enemy.  IDK how common it is for DMs to tell players this information.  I don't give it out when I DM, and I've never had a DM that gave it out when I played.
2) This is the same as #2 above.



Guess I don't quite understand your objections. You shouldn't know that they are minions ahead of time, but you don't really need to. If you are a TWF fighter, you can kill two of them per turn. You find that out when your first attack kills one, and your second kills another.



Correct, but you said that you don't waste damage.  Unless you know they are minions, this isn't true.  You could still be wasting your MDD on the first one (or even your once per round damage boost if you consider 4e mechanics).  The idea of not wasting damage, in both of your points, is predicated on knowing either that the creature in question is a minion or knowing how much damage they need to take to be killed.  And, in both cases, the ability to reach more than one enemy is dependent both upon terrain and upon whether the enemies are ranged or melee attackers.

I've said it before, but I still think that the original TWF feat should be the non-feat way to TWF: that is to say one attack with each weapon, both of which do half damage.  The only potential issue that rule had was the issue of non-damage on-hit riders, and that can easily be solved by saying they can only be applied with the main hand.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I'm specifically thinking about wasting weapon damage. How you spend your MDD dice is another question; my own inclination is to say you can only spend MDDs on your main hand attack anyway, but I'm not sure whether that is best.

I didn't mind the half-damage approach, I like that better than the current version. But in the end, it's too weak to base a character on (barring rider abuse).  You could upgrade it with a feat, but to what then?
I'm specifically thinking about wasting weapon damage. How you spend your MDD dice is another question; my own inclination is to say you can only spend MDDs on your main hand attack anyway, but I'm not sure whether that is best.

I didn't mind the half-damage approach, I like that better than the current version. But in the end, it's too weak to base a character on (barring rider abuse).  You could upgrade it with a feat, but to what then?


It may or may not be too weak to base a "character build" on, but it's perfect for allowing a TWF'er "character concept" without being overpowered.  Also, please remember that when I say half damage I do not mean just half weapon damage.  I mean calculate damage as normal (with stat bonuses and all other relevent bonuses, which includes MDB but not MDD), then divide it in half.  As for an upgrade feat, I'd say it would allow on-hit riders with either or both hand weapons.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Problem is that most of the time you will lower your net damage by TWFing. Who wants to give up their shield for that? I don't want TWF to be overpowered, but it ought to be competitive.
Problem is that most of the time you will lower your net damage by TWFing. Who wants to give up their shield for that?


I haven't run the math, so you may be right.  Do you think normal damage with the mainhand and half with the off is appropriate?  It sounds a bit much for a non-feat version, but it sounds about right for TWF'ing with one feat spent on it.
I don't want TWF to be overpowered, but it ought to be competitive.


I share that sentiment completely.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Full normal plus half of just your off-hand weapon would be about right (ie, no bonuses). But I think people would find that disappointing, since the extra damage would be so low. But if you make the off-hand attack contingent on the firdt hitting, then full weapon damage (still no bonuses) would be about right.
Full normal plus half of just your off-hand weapon would be about right (ie, no bonuses). But I think people would find that disappointing, since the extra damage would be so low. But if you make the off-hand attack contingent on the firdt hitting, then full weapon damage (still no bonuses) would be about right.


Well, for the non-feat version, extra damage should be kept to a minimum.  The point of the non-feat version is strictly to enable the concept without requiring the concept tax.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Well, with my suggestion, you'd do a bit less damage on average than you would with a greatsword. You'd get the benefit of splitting your attacks when it's useful, but like I said, I probably wouldn't let you use maneuvers with the off hand. It seems reasonable to me. Not much better or worse than 2Hing or S&B
Well, with my suggestion, you'd do a bit less damage on average than you would with a greatsword. You'd get the benefit of splitting your attacks when it's useful, but like I said, I probably wouldn't let you use maneuvers with the off hand. It seems reasonable to me. Not much better or worse than 2Hing or S&B


If that's so, then it sounds good, except for the part where you said "If you did it this way, I would make it require a feat" and "But more than that, since there's no penalty to your main attack, you probably need a mechanic to keep every single-handed character from fighting this way with their shield or an unarmed attack as their off-hand weapon. "  First of all, I don't like the feat cost for entry into the world of TWF'ing (it becomes a concept tax at that point).  Also, S&B users should still have the option to use the shield as a weapon without a feat.  I'd say they could give up their shield bonus until their next turn if they wanted to use the shield as a weapon.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Yes, I no longer think the feat is a good idea. It was mainly the shield concern, because even if you lose your AC bonus when you attack, a shield would still almost certainly be better than a shortsword, since you give up just about half a point of damage for the option to keep +1 AC. Also, I don't want to keep track of how your AC is changing depending on how you attacked on your turn.

But, there is a much simpler and more obvious solution to that. A shield isn't a light weapon, so you can't off-hand it without a feat anyway. If you want to main-hand your shield and off-hand a short-sword, that's totally fine by me, even if you keep your AC bonus the whole time. Your damage potential would still be about the same as a longsword+shield.

So, current idea:
- Make your main attack as normal
- If you have a light weapon in your offhand, make a second attack with it if your main hand hits. If the offhand hits, do the weapon damage only, with no bonuses, riders, or manuevers.
- No feats required
Yes, I no longer think the feat is a good idea. It was mainly the shield concern, because even if you lose your AC bonus when you attack, a shield would still almost certainly be better than a shortsword, since you give up just about half a point of damage for the option to keep +1 AC. Also, I don't want to keep track of how your AC is changing depending on how you attacked on your turn.

But, there is a much simpler and more obvious solution to that. A shield isn't a light weapon, so you can't off-hand it without a feat anyway. If you want to main-hand your shield and off-hand a short-sword, that's totally fine by me, even if you keep your AC bonus the whole time. Your damage potential would still be about the same as a longsword+shield.

So, current idea:
- Make your main attack as normal
- If you have a light weapon in your offhand, make a second attack with it if your main hand hits. If the offhand hits, do the weapon damage only, with no bonuses, riders, or manuevers.
- No feats required


It's not that I dislike it, but it feels a little off to me and raises a few questions.
1) The main question I have is that it appears from the wording that you have to hit with your main attack to attempt your off-hand attack.  Is this so?
2) Also, would you have to make your off-hand attack against the same opponent you hit with your main attack?
3) If you don't have to hit with your main attack to make your off-hand attack, do the restrictions to the off-hand attack apply or is it resolved as a normal attack?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Yes, my suggestion is that you have to hit with your main hand attack in order to get your off hand attack. Otherwise, it would be too strong. Note that this is statistically equivalent to making your off-hand attack with disadvantage, but it works better with the advantage system this way (ie, this way you can still have adv/disadv on your off-hand attack.)

If you want a fluff explanation: you are and should be mainly focused on landing a main-hand hit. If the round goes badly and you miss, you should have no effort to spare on hitting with your off-hand. But when your main hand hits, you can take a moment to make a quick attack with your off-hand.

You can make your off-hand attack against any opponent in reach.

Other things I like: you don't have to decide or remember to TWF before your first attack, you can just roll your second attack if the first hits. It is always to your advantage to make the second attack when you can, since there are no penalties to worry about. Compared to 2Hing, TWFing becomes significantly stronger when you have advantage, and significantly weaker when you have disadvantage. This fits the flavor too me, where a TWFer is more of a finnesse fighter who seeks advantage where possible.
Yes, my suggestion is that you have to hit with your main hand attack in order to get your off hand attack. Otherwise, it would be too strong. Note that this is statistically equivalent to making your off-hand attack with disadvantage, but it works better with the advantage system this way (ie, this way you can still have adv/disadv on your off-hand attack.)


Thank you for clearing up my questions but I have to ask one more: If being independently able to attack with both weapons is too strong, and full normal and half your off-hand is too weak, do those two factors balance out when put together?

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Yes, my suggestion is that you have to hit with your main hand attack in order to get your off hand attack. Otherwise, it would be too strong. Note that this is statistically equivalent to making your off-hand attack with disadvantage, but it works better with the advantage system this way (ie, this way you can still have adv/disadv on your off-hand attack.)


Thank you for clearing up my questions but I have to ask one more: If being independently able to attack with both weapons is too strong, and full normal and half your off-hand is too weak, do those two factors balance out when put together?


Not totally sure I'm addressing your point, but this would be balanced (vs 2Hing):

- Make independent main-hand and off-hand attacks, with no penalty to either
- Your main-hand attack scores normal damage
- Your off-hand attack scores half damage, and you don't get to add any damage bonuses to it. So you just score half your weapon die.

That would work out about the same as my proposal. I don't like it as much, because it means that when your off hand (d6) weapon hits, you will do an average of less than 2 points of damage. That is not nothing in the scheme of things, but it seems pitifully low, and hardly worth the effort of the extra roll. I would rather score the full d6 less often, myself.
Yes, my suggestion is that you have to hit with your main hand attack in order to get your off hand attack. Otherwise, it would be too strong. Note that this is statistically equivalent to making your off-hand attack with disadvantage, but it works better with the advantage system this way (ie, this way you can still have adv/disadv on your off-hand attack.)


Thank you for clearing up my questions but I have to ask one more: If being independently able to attack with both weapons is too strong, and full normal and half your off-hand is too weak, do those two factors balance out when put together?


Not totally sure I'm addressing your point, but this would be balanced (vs 2Hing):

- Make independent main-hand and off-hand attacks, with no penalty to either
- Your main-hand attack scores normal damage
- Your off-hand attack scores half damage, and you don't get to add any damage bonuses to it. So you just score half your weapon die.

That would work out about the same as my proposal. I don't like it as much, because it means that when your off hand (d6) weapon hits, you will do an average of less than 2 points of damage. That is not nothing in the scheme of things, but it seems pitifully low, and hardly worth the effort of the extra roll. I would rather score the full d6 less often, myself.


If you consider it as the end-step, then yes, it's kindof bad.  But, consider it as the entry point.  Then you could have feats that lift the restriction on bonuses or on applying MDD to the off-hand.  All of it would still be halved mind-you, but half of more is more.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I think it is just a question of whether you would like to hit harder less often, or hit weakly more often. I think it would be more fun to hit harder, but either way would satisfy me in terms of game balance.
I think it is just a question of whether you would like to hit harder less often, or hit weakly more often. I think it would be more fun to hit harder, but either way would satisfy me in terms of game balance.


Yeah, I can get behind that.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I think "dual wield" should be a single weapon type. A dual wield weapon does 1d8 damage (or 1d6 for light weapons). A dual wield weapon requires two hands to use. When you attack with a dual wield weapon you may choose to make two separate attacks (against the same or different targets) but each attack only does 1/2 total damage.
I think "dual wield" should be a single weapon type. A dual wield weapon does 1d8 damage (or 1d6 for light weapons). A dual wield weapon requires two hands to use. When you attack with a dual wield weapon you may choose to make two separate attacks (against the same or different targets) but each attack only does 1/2 total damage.


So are you saying that, instead of wielding a longsword and a shortsword, you would wield an abstract "dual weapon"? And that weapon would deal 1d8 damage, or you could attack twice and deal half damage each time?

So first, that would be too abstract for me, personally. Second, it seems pretty weak compared to just using a 2H weapon and dealing 1d12 damage. I don't think that getting to split your attacks in half is really worth two steps in your damage die.


I think "dual wield" should be a single weapon type. A dual wield weapon does 1d8 damage (or 1d6 for light weapons). A dual wield weapon requires two hands to use. When you attack with a dual wield weapon you may choose to make two separate attacks (against the same or different targets) but each attack only does 1/2 total damage.


So are you saying that, instead of wielding a longsword and a shortsword, you would wield an abstract "dual weapon"? And that weapon would deal 1d8 damage, or you could attack twice and deal half damage each time?

So first, that would be too abstract for me, personally. Second, it seems pretty weak compared to just using a 2H weapon and dealing 1d12 damage. I don't think that getting to split your attacks in half is really worth two steps in your damage die.



Well, I would change the weapon system as a whole and leave it abstract so players can decide what they want to wield. 

Somethign like this:
 
Step 1: Choose Handedness
1H - d8 damage
2H - d10 damage
Dual Wield - d8 damage

Step 2: Choose Properties
Light - reduce damage 1 step
Reach - 2H only, reduce damage 1 step
Simple - requires no training to use, reduce damage 1 step 

Step 3: Choose Damage Type
Bludgeoning
Piercing
Slashing
 
I also think you are undervalueing the importance of attacking twice. Attacking twice allows you to:
*Attack multiple targets or otherwise spread out your damage
*Increase accuracy against a single target to ensure you kill low HP targets (like minions) or apply "on hit" effects such as maneuvers, poisons, etc.
*Makes targets waste their reaction on a defensive maneuver against the first attack allowing the second one to get through (try two fighters against eachother one using 2H and the other using my dual wield suggestion and you will see what I mean).
Sign In to post comments