So here’s the first part of my two-weapon fighting house rule. Note that at this stage I’m ignoring the effect of feats, will get to those later:
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
If you wield two light weapons you gain +1 AC and you can make one extra attack. All your attacks on your turn take a -4 penalty. Penalty drops to -2 if you have the Extra Attack feature, -1 if that feature gives you 2 more attacks, 0 if it gives you 3.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
You can forgo the extra attack to increase the AC bonus to +2 and ignore the attack penalty.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
I feel like dual wielding aims for flexibility, and that’s what I’m aiming at here. It’s a little more complex but lets the player feel like they have a lot of options.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
Hmm… doesn’t the +2 AC make (non magic) shields obsolete since shields get the same AC but none of the additional flexibility? It’s at the cost of a light weapon, so you’re dealing less damage than if you went longsword and shield
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
Could I ask what the reasoning behind -4 to hit with all attacks is? Seems like TWF in the past favored main hand w/ off-hand as the weaker hit, -4 seems a bit harsh to impose on main hand as well in this instance. TWF is *super* good at low levels, setting aside feats and class features. Since levels 1 – 4 are all about single attacks, it turns you into two characters.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
So it’s a light weapon + shield if you want, or an extra attack that’s only worthwhile against extremely high or low ACs? Essentially, though as I think about it might be interesting to allow choice after first attack. That opens up possibilities a lot more.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
Quickly calculated that it’s worth doing two attacks at -4 if you have >50% chance to hit with one attack. That’s not so bad given current game math, I concede. But I would go even simpler. Use your offhand for defence and get +1 AC, use it for attack and get a second chance to hit iff your first attempt misses.
— Chris Field (@chrisnightwing) October 24, 2018
It’s tricky – while things might have changed, during 5e design testers consistently hated any implementation of TWF that didn’t give +1 attack. Fun design constraint.
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
I see, in the house ruling do you allow the off-hand to have a full damage bonus or is it just the damage die as per PHB ruling? Full damage bonus
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
Does your ability mod to damage get added to all attacks or just the first? All
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
Why not treat it as one attack w/ bonus dmg for the off hand weapon?
E.g. TWF attack w/ rapier & dagger does 1d8+1d4+Dex bonus. Use the ability bonus for the primary weapon for attack & damage.
Alternatively TWF parry gives +1 AC vs melee while foregoing extra damage Tested poorly when we tried it – people like getting that extra attack
— Mike Mearls, but Spooky (@mikemearls) October 24, 2018
How would action surge effect this, and how would you mod the two weapon fighting style witch dose part of what you already did, as bonus damage? Accuracy boost?
As far as i can see, some rules are weird when play testing and can sometimes be tricky and even overused. As a Dm and a player, i prefer using two weapon fighting this way. Without any special training as is the combat style and the feat dual weilder, a character only adds his prof mod if any and not ability modifier neither to attack nor to damage of the off-hand attack. I find this ruling more balancing. And that this with the weapons scimitar 3lbs 1d6 dmg (light) and rapier 2lbs 1d8 dmg one handed seems not so well designed.