Talk:Multi-Weapon Fighting (5e Variant Rule)

This entry is based on discussions around my table as we play the game, and is updated as we find new ways to deal with issues we have with the core rules. True to that nature, I have included a summarized quote of my players' (And somewhat my) response to the default rule prior to explaining the variant. I can only imagine my very last comment will likely be removed when someone takes offense by it...--Kydo (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2014 (MDT)

I read over your entry here and I really like how you've worked out some of this; how does it work with Duel Wield and Two Weapon Fighting? I just DM'd my first 5e game a little while ago and can see how this house rule might have really changed things. The part I have some issue with though is the use of this at low levels (being a house rule I see how it can be employed after a certain level). In my game (level 1 game to see how it all plays) a few Characters wandered off on their own, as they had a tendency to do in the 4e game, and met some 'Crawling Claws'. If this rule was in effect they could have easily beaten the encounter since each had multiple targets. As it was, one almost died, the other two needed to work fast to make it to the ranger to help out, taking some extra dmg as they did this bringing them precariously close to death themselves. When the rest of the group barged in (it was 6 Char group so the encounter was built for that), they had to think fast to keep the first three from being over run; thus spreading out the encounter into smaller groups allowing the other characters to really do their thing and give the 'ranged' ranger the space to work; plus the Cleric ran out of healing. I honestly believe this is a good house rule, but I think it's better suited for higher levels where the changes the DM will need to make to keep the players from just mowing through everything works out better. Plus, most awesome fantasy characters didn't start out swinging two of anything. That's the mark of the Awesome Hero, or Devastating Villain when they step out and unsheathe two blades. But, like I said, I really like this idea, and will try to incorporate it into my game, probably around level 5. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravenwng (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

It certainly impacts the action economy, that's for sure. It makes that bonus attack more readily available for more characters, if used in a purely mechanical sense. My approach was to have the rule in place, and just not say anything specific about it until it came into play. PC: "Wait, can I swing this weapon too?" DM: "Let me see your strength? ...Yeah, I'd say you can. Just note it down." As for early level... Eh? If you're going to run a house rule, you need to anticipate its effects when you design the campaign, and design it for the characters and their resultant abilities. I wouldn't recommend running any house rules, unless they're really minor, in a premade campaign, like HoTDQ, and I don't think the framework of the AL would even vaguely allow it. --Kydo (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2014 (MST)

I...don't understand why you would want to add so many extra rules when the default method does the same with less. Two Weapon fighting is fine, as is. The penalty to the off hand weapon damage can represent a character that isn't yet a 'master' of the fighting style. The Dual Wielder feat then allows you to use any one handed melee weapon after a character 'trains' for it. Since all Heavy weapons are also Two-Handed, the default mechanics don't interfere, and you're players can happily wield dual Rapiers or Battle Axes after taking the feat. If feats aren't used, the DM then should come up with a method to allow a character to learn the feat anyways, since the base mechanics are built around feats and thus won't break the game.

When I look at this variant, I just see extra mechanics and math that just redundant and really isn't necessary. --Dorgrim (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2015 (MDT)

Keep in mind that when this was written, the errata did not yet exist- the RAW at the time implied weapons and the attacks they make are the same thing. The main objective was to approach multi-weapon fighting in a more abstract manner. I was trying to make dual-wielding something that was assumed automatically of all weapons, limited only by character ability, and make multi-weapon fighting scale with the number of arms you have. For example, say I create a 4 armed race, and that race makes a light 2-handed weapon. Now what do you do when the players decide to start swinging two of those around? Or how about a 2-handed light weapon and two daggers? Never fear, we have an abstracted version of the rule! It even applies to improvised weapons! I'm not sure what math you're referring to; it uses your ability modifier, which should already be recorded on your charsheet. If you can compare values, you can run this rule. Your method does nothing about extra-armed creatures still only getting one bonus attack. It also doesn't allow for a character to already be able to dual-wield unusual weapons at chargen in a featless game. I appreciate it though- it's an approach I wouldn't think of in a million years. (I've always hated feats.) Kinda makes me wonder what else I could cannibalize feats to make... I'd like to record it. Would you like me to add it to this page as an alternative approach to the subject? Or you could do that yourself if you'd like? Or we could go make another page? --Kydo (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2015 (MDT)