Community

The Recent Ranger blog post got me thinking about TWF, and its place in previous editions and possible future use.

For the sake of this post,  when I talk about TWF im talking only about the basic normal run of the mill TWF.  That is using a normal one handed weapon in your primary hand, and a small/lighter weapon in your off hand ( for instance daggers, parry dagger, nets, hand axes, and shortswords).    I am NOT talking about TWF with two longswords, or similiar weapons.

In 3.5, TWF was considered so powerful that it reguired the expenditure of a feat to be remotely useful, and even then there still where negatives involved.    The fact that it cost you feat (unless you played a ranger), made it a subpar choice compared to the other two foundamental styles of combat.   Sword and board and two handed weapon fighting both require no extra training (no expenditures of feats) to use, making them that much better of a choice then TWF.

Granted Im basing the following on previous edition knowledge, but in a world where casters can cast wishes, resurrections, miracles, and every other 8th and 9th level spell.  Doing so as part of thier class abilities only, spending zero extra character creation assets.   It seems pretty funny that melee types have to spend extra (feats or other character creation resources) to be able to just TWF with out a penalty.  Again, Im talking about basic run of the mill TWF.....  basic one handed weapon and a lighter/smaller weapon in the off hand.

I also dont by the argument that its impossible to TWF, or that it takes some level of insane master level training to be possible.   Wielding a one handed weapon with a shield in a combat situation isnt exactly easy either.   Wielding a two hander and still being able to defend yourself reasonably well enough, cant be easy either.  In a realm of supernatural creatures and beings of godlike might,  fighting with two weapons isnt that insane.     

All melee classes (barbarians, fighters, rangers, paladins, rogues, monks, and even bards)  should be able to use all three of the basic combat styles, without penalty.   Melee is what they do,  you dont ask casters to spend other character creation resources (feats, themes, etc..) to cast high level spells. So why should melee types have too.   


Lastily,  lets keep all mention of the "Drow" out of this post.   He serves no purpose and adds nothing to the discussion.  

Well, it somewhat depends. What exactly do you mean by "basic two-weapon fighting"?

Is this like 3.5, where wielding that second weapon gives you a second attack?

Or is it like 4E, where you can wield two weapons at once all you want, you still only get one attack?


Yes, I think melee characters should be able to wield two weapons at once without getting some kind of penalty, especially if you're attacking with only one weapon at a time any ways.

But getting an extra attack just because you have a second weapon in your hand is a little unbalanced, because if you can make the second attack without any penalties, then why would you ever want to wield just one weapon?

So how about this solution: you can wield two weapons without penalty, but you can only attack with one at a time. If you want  to do anything more complicated than that, you have to take a "Dual-Wielder" theme, or pick up the TWF feats from the theme if you're not playing with themes.

I've believed for a long time two weapon fighting should be a proficiency, not a feat sink.

With the Themes are Feats thing. TWF should be a theme. It alters how your character works, and the theme supports making twf taking. If you want a TWF fighter, you take the TWF theme.

However with the move away from penalties TWF without the feat to allow it could be disadvantage on the attacks pus -2 die steps for damage. With the first feat no disadvantage, next feat steps up the damage a die, and last step steps it up to full damage, and master TWF steps up the damage dice even further.

It's a thought.

Jun 12, 2012 -- 4:01PM, Divergence wrote:

Jun 12, 2012 -- 3:53PM, Zeldafan42 wrote:

Well, it somewhat depends. What exactly do you mean by "basic two-weapon fighting"?

Is this like 3.5, where wielding that second weapon gives you a second attack?

Or is it like 4E, where you can wield two weapons at once all you want, you still only get one attack?


Yes, I think melee characters should be able to wield two weapons at once without getting some kind of penalty, especially if you're attacking with only one weapon at a time any ways.

But getting an extra attack just because you have a second weapon in your hand is a little unbalanced, because if you can make the second attack without any penalties, then why would you ever want to wield just one weapon?

So how about this solution: you can wield two weapons without penalty, but you can only attack with one at a time. If you want  to do anything more complicated than that, you have to take a "Dual-Wielder" theme, or pick up the TWF feats from the theme if you're not playing with themes.

I never played 4E, so all my information is from earlier editions.

Again, Im comparing fighter styles  to high level magic of casters....  and the fact it costs melee types limited character creation assets and casters can break down the laws of physics for free.  Melee characters need all the edge they can get.

I cant think of any reason you would want to wield one weapon and nothing in your other hand to begin with though.... your off hand is always going to be used for something.

Of course fighting with two weapons is going to be superior to fighting with one weapon only.  But really,  who fights with just one weapon and nothing else now?  

Either you take a two hander for the extra damage....  or you take a one hander and a shield.    I cant remember any character in the last few years just using a one handed weapon in primary hand,   and nothing in his off hand.    

Torches in your off hand ends up being a great off handed weapon.   And fighting with a torch in one hand and a sword in the other is something thats very very DnD to me.... hands down iconic.  

Look at it this way:

Two-handed weapons do sightly more damage than one-handed weapons, at the cost of not being able to use a shield. 
Using a one-handed weapon with a shield improves your AC, at the cost of not doing as much damage as a two-handed weapon.
And wielding a one handed-weapon and leaving your other hand open....well, it potentially gives you greater versatility, but it's really not going to be a choice unless your character is built around the concept.

So how do we balance two-weapon fighting with that?
If the two-weapon warrior just gets an extra attack with his off hand weapon, that's extra damage, just like the two-handed weapon. Except.....it's potentially a lot more damage than what the two-hander will ever give you. So why would you ever want to wield a two-handed weapon? And for some people, the extra damage is far preferable to the relatively minor boost to AC you get from a shield. After all, if something is dead it can't hurt you, so why would you ever want to go sword-and-board?

Being able to make two attacks in a single turn with no penalties is unbaanced. Simple as that.

And your argument about melee versus casters? Yes....high-level casters can cast powerful spells. This is because they are high-level! They don't get the ability to do the really powerful stuff for free at first level. But under your idea, melee characters should be given access to a really powerful ability for free at first level.


I don't want to see casters that are ridiculously superior to melee characters.....but the solution to that isn't to give melee characters access to overpowered abilities at first level for free.