Thread by @AlexandraErin

Going to do some game design thinking outloud in this space, about variant rules for D&D 5E, as I do from time to time.

5E handles the idea of "dual wielding" in a pretty simplified fashion. It completely abstracts away consideration of handedness (right handed, left handed) and has no rules for what hand a weapon is equipped in...

And has a rule called "Two Weapon Fighting" that says if you use the Attack action to melee attack with a light weapon, you can use your bonus action to melee attack with a different light weapon you also have equipped.

The attack made with your bonus action in this case does not benefit from additional damage from your ability score (Strength or Dexterity) the way attacks normally do.

This is a specific rule; there's no general rule that says an attack made as a bonus action doesn't get the extra damage, nor one that says an attack made "from your off hand" doesn't.

(The rules don't recognize handedness, again.)

You can get various feats and features for your character that remove some of the drawbacks (letting you use larger weapons, giving back the bonus damge) if you really focus on it, but otherwise, anyone can take advantage of these rules.

In real life, the actual advantage of having a sword in each hand is pretty marginal. Otherwise, everybody would fight that way. It's not an automatic ticket to Double Damage City. The rules try to reflect this, limiting it to the lower end of the damage scale...

...and making it so the second attack has diminishing returns over the first. Dedicated warrior types tend to get both an automatic extra attack and more options for using their bonus action to attack, without the drawbacks, as they level.

You never (and I mean never) get a chance to use more than one bonus action in a round in 5E, too, so having two weapons doesn't just flat out give you +1 attack per round. If you've got two bonus action attack abilities, you're using one or the other.

So the net result here is that dual wielding is a viable but not overwhelming fighting style. Overall, the balance is good. It satisfies the "But I should be able to do this!" impulse a lot of players have without being broken.

That's the preamble.

Here's the thing that struck me: what happens to the balance if we take the rule and make it one step more abstract? If you have a light weapon equipped, you can make a melee attack with it as a bonus action.

Keep the damage reduction, but remove the requirement that you make an attack with another, different, light weapon from it.

In other words, instead of having a separate rule called "Two Weapon Fighting" that refers to the light property on a weapon, make it the effect of the light property, that you can make a quick swing as a bonus action, without your damage modifier.

First effect: you can now dual wield a light weapon and a non-light weapon that can be wielded in one hand. Hit with long sword, then hit with short sword. Dual wielding gets a slight damage buff (about one extra point of damage per round).

Second effect: it makes the Dueling fighting style much more powerful. Dueling gives +2 to damage when you hit with a melee weapon in one hand, and have no weapon in the other.

....just realized in my dual wielding example, you could wield a long sword and a rapier, which is a bit more aesthetically bewildering. But also do no more damage than if you dual wielded rapiers, which was already possible.

So dual wielding does not actually mechanically change, from a min-max stand point. Two rapiers is still the gold standard, off the top of my head.

Anyway, DUELING with a rapier is now vastly superior to DUAL WIELDING with a rapier. Because now both attacks with the rapier get +2 damage. And you can optionally have a shield for +2 AC, with no drawback.

And if you do not tie the bonus action attack to the attack action... it gives Wizards and the like a reason to choose dagger over staff, even though dagger has lower base damage. They can still stab in turns in which they cast. Hmm. Are Wizards still proficient in whip?

Anyway. The existence of the rapier, a light weapon doing 1d8 damage, skews the considerations here a bit, but I'm kind of the opinion that the rapier is overpowered...

...in that it exists as a weapon doing extra damage that in previous editions had trade-offs that this edition is too simplified to accurately model.

A rapier would not actually be a superior weapon in a pitched battle where people are using great big axes and heavy swords and mauls and such. It's a "laboratory conditions" weapon, precise and deadly in precise situations.

So if we nerf the rapier to 1d6 or just merge it with other small blades into "dueling sword" then some weirdness disappears.

Though the advantage of using rapier and duelist or dual wielding vs. havign a big ol' sword goes down as the number of attacks per round goes up, since you only get one bonus action attack.

Oh, my mistake! That's what I get for working from memory when I'm hopped up on NyQuil. Dual wielding rapiers is such common cheese I forgot it takes a feat.

Okay. So, leave rapiers alone.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Cybren/status/1154528595320221697

Being able to leave rapiers out of the calculations makes this much more straightforward.

Dual wielding gets the slight buff I mentioned. Duelist is now giving you a choice of 1d8 or two attacks for 1d6 each.

Overall effect on the game is that everyone has more opportunities to make a physical melee attack, so while some classes/builds benefit more, it's somewhat distributed.

Characters that make a lot of hay out of bonus action attacks (Berserker Barbarians in a Frenzy, Monks) have their value slightly intruded as they can't gain damage output from this change.

But overall, I think it's a way to simplify the rules while adding a bit of depth to combat and also bringing more action movie flavor.

Bear in mind it's not going to be as simple as "everyone with a dagger gets a free attack" - Wizards will still want to avoid being trapped in melee, Rogues will still be using their bonus action for maneuvering around the battlefield some rounds, etc.

Of course, this change leaves you with the question of "why would anybody ever use two short swords, then?" since they get the same benefit with one.

You could answer this with a shrug, as there's still a benefit to dual wielding if you're mixing weapons, or you can give a +1 to AC for wielding two light melee weapons in different hands.

Anyway. Just a musing.