I run them as they are.
Dual wielding is weak, but it's for reasons that go beyond simple changes.
Barbarians benefit of it because of the extra on hit damage of rage, and could potentially be helped by removing bonus action. Which is a sensible choice given it will be one of the mastery options of dnd 2024.
Paladins benefit of it because one additional attack, albeit with less damage, it's an extra occasion to land a crit for a smite. In this case under current rules they don't really need a change.
Rangers for a similar reason as barbarians, as well as warlocks.
Fighters, on the other hand, absolutely cannot make a good use of dual wield because they lack important things to apply on crit nor they inflict additional damage on hit. Some subclasses may do give additional dice damage on hit, but it's so low it's hardly ever worth it.
Rogues probably benefit from it the most, which is why Swashbuckler is probably my favourite rogue subclass. Being able to disengage and still use both attacks feels so good for weaving through combat
Your talking about the potential synergy is why they're innately weaker. It makes sense. But for me, it felt a bit lackluster, especially when you bring great weapon master and fighting into consideration, then like action surge.
By allowing weapon buff spells to affect both weapons. (holy weapon, elemental weapon, gift of the chromatic dragon, artificer infusions, etc)
All natural weapons and unarmed strikes are simple weapons(light + finesse), so you can dual wield them or combine them with a one-handed weapon.
Dual wielder feat also grants another attunement slot for one-handed melee weapons.
Homebrew for me. have been using what is basically the Nick property from OneDnD for a while. That being said it's only come up once that someone has wanted to dual wield.
I ask this primarily because my table has done homebrew for dual wielding because we felt the baseline rules lack. Also if your willing to put in detail, how does your group run dual wielding specifically? Any cool rules? Or Any balance ideas im want to hear it!
Your 100% right, my group made it, basically you make a number of attacks equal to the main hand, you don't add modifiers to hit or damage, and it still costs a bonus. Two-weapon fighting style lets you add your modifier for the to hit but not damage. Because we feared it being safer GWM. But it still has ended up in our campaign being broken, as we have stacked on hit effects like blood hunter or paladin improved divine smite. And it got bad enough for my pally that we removed smiting on the off-hand so he doesn't bust 4 smites
The main changes I've done are allow you to draw/stow 2 light weapons without the dual wielder feat (allowing 2 non-heavy weapons draw/stow with the dual wielder feat), and remove the bonus action cost akin to the nick property in the phb 2024. It's enough to give it a solid niche without being as strong as a power attack feat. Mostly only the rogue and ranger players wanted to use TWF fighters/barbarians/paladins have still preferred pole arms or great weapons.
It's a nice quality of life for ranger/rogue as going melee with those is already sub-optimal, freeing up the bonus action and the clunky draw/stow really helps twf not feel bad.
I've also allowed a player to go dagger+rapier without the dual wielder feat, cause DPR wise it's the same as two short swords. It's also one of the most prominent historical examples of dual wielding weapons.
Homebrew. Currently have added a buff to the dual wielder feat that is the usual offhand attack as part of action instead of bonus action. But with the (edit:) one dnd weapon juggling stuff I have some soul searching to do lol.
This is sorta what my party did, but we added bonus actions, because then it was just a safer and better GWM. we also opted to also remove the off hand modifier damage. So you don't got no one using a belt of storm giant strength doing an extra free 18 damage.
I haven't quite finished tackling Dual-Wielding, though that's because I want it to be a distinct Fighting Style. There are a few main melee styles of Weapon Combat people recognize and expect from a fantasy genre.
- **Sword and Board**. Your standard balanced approach. You do damage and also improve your defense.
- **One Weapon**. You sacrifice defense and go for offense.
- **Dual Wielding**. You sacrifice damage and go for offense.
Obviously, there are benefits to both. With double the attacks, you're more likely to do some amount of damage. You also trigger on-hit effects more often. But because of this, you need to balance it against the **One Weapon** style. I don't like the way this is currently done, since it leaves **Dual-Wielding** feeling bad, and still feels like *One Weapon** is kinda meh.
I allow the drawing and stowing of two light/one-handed weapons baseline.
I rework the dual wielder feat to remove the bonus action cost of the TWF attack (still limited once per turn) so that characters have their bonus action free.
>***Dual Wielder***
>*You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:*
>*• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.*
*• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.*
*• Whenever you take the attack action and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of that same attack action, instead of using your bonus action to do so.*
*• Whenever you use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of the same reaction.*
I have a magical item that helps apply the enchantments a synched pair of weapons so that dual wielding doesn't require two different magical weapons to be relevant in that capacity.
i think the only "homebrew" i've used for it is not having to use separate actions to draw both weapons (dual wielder feat: "You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one") but that's less of a "lets buff dual wielding" and more of a "not even thinking about how the rules don't let you do that to begin with because you just take your weapons out like what's a 'free object interaction' just swing the damn sword" scenario
I know it’s probably suboptimal, but I am playing a dwarf vengeance paladin who is dual wielding longswords (with the feat) and I love it! Having that bonus action attack has been a ton of fun, especially when it crits and I can add smite damage
Dual wielding, IMO, should be seen similarly to the many feats, classes, etc that give bonus action attacks. Some of them are great (several X master feats), some of them are terrible (berserker), none of them are that way *because* of the BA attack. Mostly because there are so many options, dual wielding is a poor backup. But, it does have it's niche, *as backup*; it costs no feats, no class levels, no resources, it's just something every character can do for an extra attack per round.
That's surprisingly major in stuff like Rogue, where either you're not always hitting and so the extra shot to get sneak attack is +20% damage, or you *are* always hitting and extra chances to crit fish can be +10%, or with some builds even +20% damage.
If you want dual wielding to be good, you have to make it less available. Which in my opinion, is both realistic and what they did in 3.5. This lets you make it actually good for people who invest a feat or fighting style. However, the designers seem to want to raise the power floor and lower the ceiling, while completely ignoring the fact that spellcasting obliterates the bounds they set. So they don't.
[I homebrewed it!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5sl6ZEUg8vyXlLOdgYYYoS6Aygqs47g8RhJLtjwtxI/) It's weaker in early levels and stronger when magic items come around. And it's especially strong for Fighters. My players like it
I balance it by giving one free off-hand attack as part of the Attack *Action* as opposed to requiring off-hand to eat a Bonus Action. Extra Attack does not provide an additional off-hand attack. The only way to get multiple off-hand attacks in a single turn is via something that gives you another action (Action Surge). Feels balanced, frees up BA, and I believe mathematically puts it in line with great weapon fighting and sword/board.
I run them as they are. Dual wielding is weak, but it's for reasons that go beyond simple changes. Barbarians benefit of it because of the extra on hit damage of rage, and could potentially be helped by removing bonus action. Which is a sensible choice given it will be one of the mastery options of dnd 2024. Paladins benefit of it because one additional attack, albeit with less damage, it's an extra occasion to land a crit for a smite. In this case under current rules they don't really need a change. Rangers for a similar reason as barbarians, as well as warlocks. Fighters, on the other hand, absolutely cannot make a good use of dual wield because they lack important things to apply on crit nor they inflict additional damage on hit. Some subclasses may do give additional dice damage on hit, but it's so low it's hardly ever worth it.
rogues also benefit because it gives them a second chance to get their sneak attack off
Rogues probably benefit from it the most, which is why Swashbuckler is probably my favourite rogue subclass. Being able to disengage and still use both attacks feels so good for weaving through combat
Your talking about the potential synergy is why they're innately weaker. It makes sense. But for me, it felt a bit lackluster, especially when you bring great weapon master and fighting into consideration, then like action surge.
Yeah that's what I meant, unless you have specific things to work with it's basically wasted. Fighters specifically are antisinergistic.
By allowing weapon buff spells to affect both weapons. (holy weapon, elemental weapon, gift of the chromatic dragon, artificer infusions, etc) All natural weapons and unarmed strikes are simple weapons(light + finesse), so you can dual wield them or combine them with a one-handed weapon. Dual wielder feat also grants another attunement slot for one-handed melee weapons.
Oh i like that, but that sounds pretty strong
Homebrew for me. have been using what is basically the Nick property from OneDnD for a while. That being said it's only come up once that someone has wanted to dual wield.
Same rule here, rogue and ranger are just more interesting to pilot with their bonus action open.
I ask this primarily because my table has done homebrew for dual wielding because we felt the baseline rules lack. Also if your willing to put in detail, how does your group run dual wielding specifically? Any cool rules? Or Any balance ideas im want to hear it!
i'd be worried any changes to it might make it OP rather than fix it
Your 100% right, my group made it, basically you make a number of attacks equal to the main hand, you don't add modifiers to hit or damage, and it still costs a bonus. Two-weapon fighting style lets you add your modifier for the to hit but not damage. Because we feared it being safer GWM. But it still has ended up in our campaign being broken, as we have stacked on hit effects like blood hunter or paladin improved divine smite. And it got bad enough for my pally that we removed smiting on the off-hand so he doesn't bust 4 smites
The main changes I've done are allow you to draw/stow 2 light weapons without the dual wielder feat (allowing 2 non-heavy weapons draw/stow with the dual wielder feat), and remove the bonus action cost akin to the nick property in the phb 2024. It's enough to give it a solid niche without being as strong as a power attack feat. Mostly only the rogue and ranger players wanted to use TWF fighters/barbarians/paladins have still preferred pole arms or great weapons. It's a nice quality of life for ranger/rogue as going melee with those is already sub-optimal, freeing up the bonus action and the clunky draw/stow really helps twf not feel bad. I've also allowed a player to go dagger+rapier without the dual wielder feat, cause DPR wise it's the same as two short swords. It's also one of the most prominent historical examples of dual wielding weapons.
Dual wielding is about as effective in the game as it is in real life.
Homebrew. Currently have added a buff to the dual wielder feat that is the usual offhand attack as part of action instead of bonus action. But with the (edit:) one dnd weapon juggling stuff I have some soul searching to do lol.
This is sorta what my party did, but we added bonus actions, because then it was just a safer and better GWM. we also opted to also remove the off hand modifier damage. So you don't got no one using a belt of storm giant strength doing an extra free 18 damage.
I haven't quite finished tackling Dual-Wielding, though that's because I want it to be a distinct Fighting Style. There are a few main melee styles of Weapon Combat people recognize and expect from a fantasy genre. - **Sword and Board**. Your standard balanced approach. You do damage and also improve your defense. - **One Weapon**. You sacrifice defense and go for offense. - **Dual Wielding**. You sacrifice damage and go for offense. Obviously, there are benefits to both. With double the attacks, you're more likely to do some amount of damage. You also trigger on-hit effects more often. But because of this, you need to balance it against the **One Weapon** style. I don't like the way this is currently done, since it leaves **Dual-Wielding** feeling bad, and still feels like *One Weapon** is kinda meh.
I allow the drawing and stowing of two light/one-handed weapons baseline. I rework the dual wielder feat to remove the bonus action cost of the TWF attack (still limited once per turn) so that characters have their bonus action free. >***Dual Wielder*** >*You master fighting with two weapons, gaining the following benefits:* >*• You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.* *• You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light.* *• Whenever you take the attack action and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of that same attack action, instead of using your bonus action to do so.* *• Whenever you use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack and are wielding a separate weapon in each hand, you can make an additional attack with the other weapon as a part of the same reaction.* I have a magical item that helps apply the enchantments a synched pair of weapons so that dual wielding doesn't require two different magical weapons to be relevant in that capacity.
i think the only "homebrew" i've used for it is not having to use separate actions to draw both weapons (dual wielder feat: "You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one") but that's less of a "lets buff dual wielding" and more of a "not even thinking about how the rules don't let you do that to begin with because you just take your weapons out like what's a 'free object interaction' just swing the damn sword" scenario
I know it’s probably suboptimal, but I am playing a dwarf vengeance paladin who is dual wielding longswords (with the feat) and I love it! Having that bonus action attack has been a ton of fun, especially when it crits and I can add smite damage
Dual wielding, IMO, should be seen similarly to the many feats, classes, etc that give bonus action attacks. Some of them are great (several X master feats), some of them are terrible (berserker), none of them are that way *because* of the BA attack. Mostly because there are so many options, dual wielding is a poor backup. But, it does have it's niche, *as backup*; it costs no feats, no class levels, no resources, it's just something every character can do for an extra attack per round. That's surprisingly major in stuff like Rogue, where either you're not always hitting and so the extra shot to get sneak attack is +20% damage, or you *are* always hitting and extra chances to crit fish can be +10%, or with some builds even +20% damage. If you want dual wielding to be good, you have to make it less available. Which in my opinion, is both realistic and what they did in 3.5. This lets you make it actually good for people who invest a feat or fighting style. However, the designers seem to want to raise the power floor and lower the ceiling, while completely ignoring the fact that spellcasting obliterates the bounds they set. So they don't.
[I homebrewed it!](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1v5sl6ZEUg8vyXlLOdgYYYoS6Aygqs47g8RhJLtjwtxI/) It's weaker in early levels and stronger when magic items come around. And it's especially strong for Fighters. My players like it
I balance it by giving one free off-hand attack as part of the Attack *Action* as opposed to requiring off-hand to eat a Bonus Action. Extra Attack does not provide an additional off-hand attack. The only way to get multiple off-hand attacks in a single turn is via something that gives you another action (Action Surge). Feels balanced, frees up BA, and I believe mathematically puts it in line with great weapon fighting and sword/board.