No Penalties on Two-Weapon Fighting

[mr_odd]

Reading through my PHB on a long trip home, I discovered that there aren't really any penalties for two-weapon fighting other than they must both be light weapons (which is absolved when you take a feat) and that you do not get ability modifier damage on the bonus attack. Thoughts, reactions, etc?

[hawklost]

You also only ever get one extra attack. When you have only 1 attack, that works fine since it doubles your attacks. But when you are getting 4/5 attacks later in the game, 1 extra does not give a huge amount of bonus.

[rlc]

well, the extra attack takes up your bonus action, so you can't use it for anything else. that's not exactly a penalty, but it's something that should be kept in mind.

[Yuki Akuma]

It also costs you your bonus action, which you might otherwise have spent on something else.

I also don't see how losing your ability modifier to damage isn't a penalty...

It also requires you to hold two weapons, which, while it may sound obvious, does impact you somewhat. You can't wield a shield, for instance, or a reach weapon. And in any turn you use your bonus action for something else, you're missing out on the benefit of a shield or a better weapon due to the useless lump of metal in your left hand.

You also can't cast spells with a weapon in each hand, unless the spell has only verbal components.

[Easy_Lee]

The biggest problems with DW are that it costs your bonus action and doesn't scale. If it scaled with your number of attacks and didn't cost a bonus action, dual wield would be worthwhile. But that's about what it would take to make DW competitive for damage. As is, it's barely ahead of duelist even in ideal circumstances, and far behind GWF for damage.

A character with twf fighting style, defensive duelist and dual wielder using rapiers can do okay damage and is pretty hard to kill. But a character with defensive duelist, duelist, and shield mastery using a rapier and shield does a little less damage, is much harder to kill, and can use the bonus action to shove creatures or knock them prone. A character with duelist and polearm master can use a quarterstaff in one hand, gets extra AOOs, and gets the bonus attack from polearm master with quarterstaff.

WoTC was none too kind to dual wielders this time around. It's probably going to get houseruled a lot.

[Rezby]

It also costs you your bonus action, which you might otherwise have spent on something else.

I also don't see how losing your ability modifier to damage isn't a penalty...

It also requires you to hold two weapons, which, while it may sound obvious, does impact you somewhat. You can't wield a shield, for instance, or a reach weapon. And in any turn you use your bonus action for something else, you're missing out on the benefit of a shield or a better weapon due to the useless lump of metal in your left hand.

You also can't cast spells with a weapon in each hand, unless the spell has only verbal components.

Well, if you have the War caster feat, you can in fact, cast spells with somatic components if you are wielding weapons or shields in your hands.

Also, the whip is a one-handed reach finesse weapon. Sure, its got pitiful base 1d4 slashing damage, but then you can add on all sorts of buffs (divine strike d8 from certain clerical domains, sneak attack xd6, any of the spell buffs that have smite in their name, combat superiority dice from fighter swordsage archetype). And then do it again with another whip. So really, if you put your mind to it, can easily make a dual-wielding whip master. Or give him a shield for his second hand. Or a hand crossbow. Or whatever you want, really. 5e has got options.

[Easy_Lee]

Also, the whip is a one-handed reach finesse weapon. Sure, its got pitiful base 1d4 slashing damage, but then you can add on all sorts of buffs (divine strike d8 from certain clerical domains, sneak attack xd6, any of the spell buffs that have smite in their name, combat superiority dice from fighter swordsage archetype). And then do it again with another whip. So really, if you put your mind to it, can easily make a dual-wielding whip master.

Whips aren't light, so doing this will require the dual wielder feat. I have no idea why whips aren't light, or why lances aren't heavy, but there it is.

[TheOOB]

Reading through my PHB on a long trip home, I discovered that there aren't really any penalties for two-weapon fighting other than they must both be light weapons (which is absolved when you take a feat) and that you do not get ability modifier damage on the bonus attack. Thoughts, reactions, etc?

Your penalty is that you are wielding a one-handed weapon with no shield and on average gaining only 3.5 damage on a hit for it. It's an opportunity cost thing, by fighting with a second weapon you are losing out on either +2 AC or a nice 2d6 damage call.

Naturally for classes that don't use shields/two-handed weapons (ie rogue) this isn't much of a penalty.


Whips aren't light, so doing this will require the dual wielder feat. I have no idea why whips aren't light, or why lances aren't heavy, but there it is.

Light is a keyword that only really matters for TWF, and Heavy is one that only really matters for small characters. Wielding two whips is kind of silly which is why they are not light, and the halfling outrider character concept has been around in D&D for awhile, and a heavy lance would ruin that.

[Oscredwin]

Light is a keyword that only really matters for TWF, and Heavy is one that only really matters for small characters. Wielding two whips is kind of silly which is why they are not light, and the halfling outrider character concept has been around in D&D for awhile, and a heavy lance would ruin that.

Heavy also matters for Great Weapon Master.

[Cambrian]

Lances shouldn't be heavy-- they were always used one handed often with a shield.

And TWF isn't that bad; the damage is not optimal, but with the feat it is better defensively than using a 2-hander. It also has potential in versatility-- if each weapon is different you can round to round decide which weapon will be your primary weapon and which is the offhand.

[rlc]

the halfling outrider character concept has been around in D&D for awhile, and a heavy lance would ruin that.

i'm not sure they're too worried about a single character build being ruined or not, when there are plenty of both old and new ones that are possible with this system. i'm pretty sure the reason it's not heavy is because of the lance and shield combo. while there could definitely be heavy one-handed weapons in the future, they're not doing that quite yet.

[Rezby]

Wielding two whips is kind of silly which is why they are not light, and the halfling outrider character concept has been around in D&D for awhile, and a heavy lance would ruin that.

If they're magical, and serve different functions, it could be totally plausible.

Alternatively, a whip and a hand-crossbow. Take the crossbow expert feat, some levels in the fighter battle master archetype and you're indiana jones, using your superiority dice to disarm and trip people with your whip, and then shoot them with a bonus action. Especially with the lunging action maneuver to get you 15 ft reach. As one handed reach weapons, whips are surprisingly good. I wrote them off as worthless upon first read through, but upon thinking of it, I'm suddenly rather fond of the idea.

[AgentPaper]

Two weapon fighting is good early on, but once you start getting extra attacks it falls behind using a two-handed weapon pretty significantly, even with the feats and fighting style to support it. It's never quite worthless, but it's by no means overpowered.

[WickerNipple]

Thoughts, reactions, etc?

Yes, TWF is a borderline trap option in this edition and there's a good reason there's no penalties. If there were penalties no one would ever use it.

[Shadow]

Our group houseruled some stuff regarding two weapon fighting. The results depend on what weapons you're using.
TWFing was restricted to light weapons so that it didn't get OP. This cannot be changed without making TWF far superior to single weapon fighting. But the bonus action only allowing a single attack, which was also meant as a balancing measure, goes a little too far and makes it underpowered.
So we've gone with the following houserule(s):

When you fight with two light weapons, the bonus action granted offers one attack for each attack you would normally make while using the Attack action. All normal restrictions to TWFing apply.
So, for example, a rogue uses his action to Attack and can use his bonus action for one more attack.
A 15th level fighter uses his action to Attack three times with his main weapon, and can use his bonus action to attack three more times with his off hand weapon.

If the character has the dual wielder feat and is attacking with weapons that do not have the light property, he gains half of the bonus action attacks that the light weapon user gets, rounded down.
So that same 15th level fighter Attacks three times with his main weapon, and uses his bonus action to attack once more with his off hand weapon.

If the character has the dual wielder feat and is attacking with one weapon that has the light property and one that does not, he rounds his half bonus attacks up instead of down.
So that same 15th level fighter Attacks three times with his main weapon, and uses his bonus action to attack two more times with his off hand weapon.

Heavier weapons get less off hand attacks.
Light weapons get the most off hand attacks.
A combination of heavier and lighter weapons gets a result falling in the middle of those two.

A monk using Flurry gets one additional attack beyond what he normally gets. So at 4th level his flurry grants two attacks. At 5th level his flurry grants three attacks.
A ploearm master is treated as the off hand bludgeoning attacks not having light property, because PM is already good enough.

So this creates a situation where TWFers have the best DPR, while great weapon masters can have cleave and power attack.

[Strill]

Have you actually done any of the math to back up these changes? Because it sounds to me like you haven't.



Our group houseruled some stuff regarding two weapon fighting. The results depend on what weapons you're using.
TWFing was restricted to light weapons so that it didn't get OP. This cannot be changed without making TWF far superior to single weapon fighting.Why not? Going from light scimitars to rapiers is a whopping +1 damage per hit on average. Whoop de doo. In what world is that going to make or break balance?


But the bonus action only allowing a single attack, which was also meant as a balancing measure, goes a little too far and makes it underpowered.
So we've gone with the following houserule(s):

When you fight with two light weapons, the bonus action granted offers one attack for each attack you would normally make while using the Attack action. All normal restrictions to TWFing apply.
So, for example, a rogue uses his action to Attack and can use his bonus action for one more attack.
A 15th level fighter uses his action to Attack three times, and can use his bonus action to attack three more times.

So for the 15th level fighter, let's compare Two weapon fighting to greatweapon fighting. I'll compare GWF with and without the assumption of a bonus action attack from some feat or another.

TW: 6*(1d6 + 5) = 51
GW: 3*(2d6 + 5) + Greatweapon Fighting Style = 40
GW w/ Bonus Attack: 4*(2d6 + 5) + Greatweapon Fighting Style = 53.

But let's say that we get +3 magic weapons, along with a +1d4 from poison or some other magical bonus:

TW: 6*(1d6+5+3+1d4) = 84
GW: 3*(2d6+5+3+1d4) = 58
GW w/ Bonus Attack: 4*(2d6+5+3+1d4) = 77.33

So basically if the Greatweapon fighter is lucky enough to get a bonus attack every single turn, then *maybe* the two styles might be balanced. Otherwise things are skewed heavily in favor of TWF. With the way the Great Weapon Master feat is worded, getting that bonus action attack is hardly a sure thing.


If the character has the dual wielder feat and is attacking with weapons that do not have the light property, he gains half of the bonus action attacks that the light weapon user gets, rounded down.
So that same 15th level fighter Attacks three times, and uses his bonus action to attack once more.

If the character has the dual wielder feat and is attacking with one weapon that has the light property and one that does not, he rounds his half bonus attacks up instead of down.
So that same 15th level fighter Attacks three times, and uses his bonus action to attack two more times.

Heavier weapons get less off hand attacks.
Light weapons get the most off hand attacks.
A combination of heavier and lighter weapons gets a result falling in the middle of those two.

A monk using Flurry gets one additional attack beyond what he normally gets. So at 4th level his flurry grants two attacks. At 5th level his flurry grants three attacks.

This is complete nonsense. You obviously haven't even begun to do any math on this because it's invariably better to get more attacks.

Dual Rapiers: 4*(1d8 + 5) = 38
Rapier + Scimitar: 3*(1d8 + 5) + 2*(1d6 + 5) = 45.5
Dual Scimitars: 6*(1d6+5) = 51

These numbers become even more and more skewed towards the higher numbers of attacks as players get better magic weapons and damage boosting spells!


-----------------------------------------

IMO the simplest way to balance two-weapon fighting, is to allow characters level 11 or higher to make two attacks with their bonus action if they have the Dual Wielder feat.

Fighter:

TW: 5*(1d6 + 5) = 42.6
GW: 3*(2d6 + 5) + Greatweapon Fighting Style = 40
GW w/ Bonus Attack: 4*(2d6 + 5) + Greatweapon Fighting Style = 53.

Bam! TWF's damage is in-between the two GWF results, and with magic weapons it becomes:

TW: 5*(1d6+5+3+1d4) = 70
GW: 3*(2d6+5+3+1d4) = 58
GW w/ Bonus Attack: 4*(2d6+5+3+1d4) = 77.33

Perfect! Dead center.

[Shadow]

<snip>

TWFers get the best DPR, yes. As they should have.
Great weapon masters can have cleave and power attack, and have feats such as polearm master to boot.

All of your math seems to assume that every attack will hit, which simply isn't the case.
And no one in our group ever plays straight fighters, so it really isn't as big a change as it seems and works perfectly fine for us.

[Strill]

TWFers get the best DPR, yes. As they should have.
Great weapon masters can have cleave and power attack, and have feats such as polearm master to boot.

You can't just handwave cleave and power attack as though they're incalculable! Tell us, how do they compare? My calculations included a line for GWF plus a bonus attack. I can be sure that cleave alone is still not nearly enough.

Using Polearm Master instead would give results that are significantly worse for GWF.


And no one in our group ever plays straight fighters, so it really isn't as big a change as it seems and works perfectly fine for us.
YOU'RE the one who came on these forums advertising your houserule as balanced! Don't go backpedaling and saying "it works fine for us so we don't have to care about whether it's balanced"

[Shadow]

YOU'RE the one who came on these forums advertising your houserule as balanced! Don't go backpedaling and saying "it works fine for us so we don't have to care about whether it's balanced"

It's perfectly balanced for our table, which is all that matters.
Get over yourself.

[Easy_Lee]

It's perfectly balanced for our table, which is all that matters.
Get over yourself.

Anyone who sits down at your table will quickly see that TWF is the optimal choice. That discourages them from picking anything else, if they had a mind to be a melee attacker at all. I agree that TWF could use a boost, but I don't believe it should do more damage than GWF. The GWF fighter gave up initiative and reflex saves so he could do the most damage. When you take that away from him, that's not cool.

By the way, a warlock/elemental monk can outdps your dual wielders by casting eldritch blast and bonus action using water whip, moving his target up to 65 feet in the process. And an eldritch knight / warlock gish can eldritch blast and bonus attack a hexed target (preferably with a duelist rapier), dealing I-don't-even-know how much damage (but it's high). So it's not like you've created the strongest thing ever.

[AgentPaper]

TWFers get the best DPR, yes. As they should have.
Great weapon masters can have cleave and power attack, and have feats such as polearm master to boot.

Two-Weapon fighters also get a +1 bonus to AC, halfway towards what a shield user gets, so there's no reason to think that they need to have the best DPR. Cleave and Power Attack are simply means to get better DPR anyways, so if TWF gives better DPR even taking those into account, then there's a problem. Polearm Master is different from Great Weapon Fighting, it's a nice build itself and is better for controlling the battle, but doesn't work well with GWF since the bonus attack conflicts with the Cleave bonus attack.


All of your math seems to assume that every attack will hit, which simply isn't the case.
And no one in our group ever plays straight fighters, so it really isn't as big a change as it seems and works perfectly fine for us.

His math assumes every attack hits, but that's irrelevant since there's no difference in chance to hit for every attack. I've run the numbers taking hit chance and even critical hits into account, and they come up largely the same: TWF is better from level 1-10, and then is behind from level 11-20. Adding an extra off-hand attack at level 11 evens things out such that TWF remains slightly more DPR than GWF, without being so strong as to invalidate it, mostly due to GWF dealing more damage when it gets to cleave or use opportunity attacks.

If your modifications work for you and your group, then that's fine, but don't suggest them to others because they're really unbalancing.

[Shadow]

Anyone who sits down at your table will quickly see that TWF is the optimal choice. That discourages them from picking anything else, if they had a mind to be a melee attacker at all. I agree that TWF could use a boost, but I don't believe it should do more damage than GWF. The GWF fighter gave up initiative and reflex saves so he could do the most damage. When you take that away from him, that's not cool.
Yes, but a great weapon fighter has excellent feat support to such a degree that he should not, in fact, do more damage as well. That fact is exactly what makes TWFing so supremely inferior. It's not that it does so much less damage. It's that it does so much less damage and it has no cool tricks via feat support like great weapon fighting / polearm mastery does.
Now the players that want the cool toys don't also have the best potential damage output.


By the way, a warlock/elemental monk can outdps your dual wielders by casting eldritch blast and bonus action using water whip, moving his target up to 65 feet in the process. And an eldritch knight / warlock gish can eldritch blast and bonus attack a hexed target (preferably with a duelist rapier), dealing I-don't-even-know how much damage (but it's high). So it's not like you've created the strongest thing ever.
Exactly.

[Eslin]

Anyone who sits down at your table will quickly see that TWF is the optimal choice. That discourages them from picking anything else, if they had a mind to be a melee attacker at all. I agree that TWF could use a boost, but I don't believe it should do more damage than GWF. The GWF fighter gave up initiative and reflex saves so he could do the most damage. When you take that away from him, that's not cool.

By the way, a warlock/elemental monk can outdps your dual wielders by casting eldritch blast and bonus action using water whip, moving his target up to 65 feet in the process. And an eldritch knight / warlock gish can eldritch blast and bonus attack a hexed target (preferably with a duelist rapier), dealing I-don't-even-know how much damage (but it's high). So it's not like you've created the strongest thing ever.

Why not just go sorcerer/warlock and do two eldritch blasts a round?

[Sartharina]

Yes, but a great weapon fighter has excellent feat support to such a degree that he should not, in fact, do more damage as well. That fact is exactly what makes TWFing so supremely inferior. It's not that it does so much less damage. It's that it does so much less damage and it has no cool tricks via feat support like great weapon fighting / polearm mastery does.
Now the players that want the cool toys don't also have the best potential damage output.
You have something seriously wrong here. the feat support for GWFing (Aside from Polearm combat, which deals significantly less than Great Weapon combat) stops being 'something cool' and starts being feat taxes to not even keep up with TWFing".

Two Weapon Fighting already starts with all of Great Weapon Master's feats/cool tricks. You're already getting an extra attack (superior to a GWF's Cleave, because it's every round, not only when you drop someone) - and with your changes, you're getting even more. You're also getting superior AC. Power Attack is -5 for a chance to deal the same amount of extra damage an off-hand attack would deal.

Two Weapon Fighting, meanwhile, has a boatload of cool toys right out of the box.

A great weapon's attacks can miss just as much as a TWFer's.

[Shadow]

Two Weapon Fighting, meanwhile, has a boatload of cool toys right out of the box.

Do you mean spending your bonus action for an attack that deals 1d4, or spending a bonus action for an attack that deals 1d6?
That is the extent of TWF's "cool toys right out of the box."

You can spend a feat to get +1 AC and a potential +1 damage per hit.

Compare that to spending a feat to get +10 damage at a penalty top hit, and/or Cleave.
Or compare that to spending a feat to get the TWF benefits, plus your mod to damage on that attack (which is actually -better- than the TWF benefits) and an opportunity attack, from reach, before the enemy closes on you.

Or.... compare that to spending two feats and getting all of the above (better than TWF benefits, reach OA before they close on you, +10 potential damage and Cleave), while you can still only spend a single feat to get +1 AC and a potential +1 damage per hit.

You're out of your mind if you think they were even remotely evenly matched when feat support is factored in.

[Oscredwin]

Compare that to spending a feat to get +10 damage at a penalty top hit, and/or Cleave.
Or compare that to spending a feat to get the TWF benefits, plus your mod to damage on that attack (which is actually -better- than the TWF benefits) and an opportunity attack, from reach, before the enemy closes on you.

Or.... compare that to spending two feats and getting all of the above (better than TWF benefits, reach OA before they close on you, +10 potential damage and Cleave), while you can still only spend a single feat to get +1 AC and a potential +1 damage per hit.

You're out of your mind if you think they were even remotely evenly matched when feat support is factored in.

He did compare your TWF rule to a GWF spending a feat to do those things. Your TWF out damaged feat supported GWFing.

[Sartharina]

Do you mean spending your bonus action for an attack that deals 1d4, or spending a bonus action for an attack that deals 1d6?
That is the extent of TWF's "cool toys right out of the box."

You can spend a feat to get +1 AC and a potential +1 damage per hit.

Compare that to spending a feat to get +10 damage at a penalty top hit, and/or Cleave.
Or compare that to spending a feat to get the TWF benefits, plus your mod to damage on that attack (which is actually -better- than the TWF benefits) and an opportunity attack, from reach, before the enemy closes on you.

Or.... compare that to spending two feats and getting all of the above (better than TWF benefits, reach OA before they close on you, +10 potential damage and Cleave), while you can still only spend a single feat to get +1 AC and a potential +1 damage per hit.

You're out of your mind if you think they were even remotely evenly matched when feat support is factored in.With the two-weapon combat style, you're adding +3 to +5 with each attack thanks to Mod to Damage with that attack. You get +1 AC (Half the bonus of a shield) and +2 damage (1 for each weapon - you're rolling 2d8 base weapon damage) As soon as you get a second offhand-attack, you're outdamaging Power Attack and Polearm Master. As soon as you get the third, you're outdamaging Cleave+Power Attack.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

I think TWF is well suited towards maneuver-like attacks. Like sacrifice your bonus action to gain advantage on one attack, or get a free offhand attack when you crit.

The coolest thing you can do with two weapons right now is to throw your offhand hand axe (or w/e) to cast Lightning Arrow(?) as a Ranger.

[Shadow]

With the two-weapon combat style, you're adding +3 to +5 with each attack thanks to Mod to Damage with that attack. You get +1 AC (Half the bonus of a shield) and +2 damage (1 for each weapon - you're rolling 2d8 base weapon damage) As soon as you get a second offhand-attack, you're outdamaging Power Attack and Polearm Master. As soon as you get the third, you're outdamaging Cleave+Power Attack.

No, that never happens at our table, and I have already explained why.
You're assuming mod to damage, which assumes a fighting style, which assumes fighter or ranger. I have already explained that no one at our table ever plays straight fighter. N one is currently playing ranger either. So no mod to damage.
No fighter also means no third atack.
No mod to damage also means the second attack does not outdamage PM, it is competitive.
Even if someone at our table were playing ranger, outdamaging PM with all of its extra features isn't an issue, because as I said, having the best potential damage and the coolest toys (ala reach and extra OAs) isn't a fair deal.

I have already explained this. Read my posts before you try to break this down.
It is balanced at our table, which is all that matters.

[AgentPaper]

It is balanced at our table, which is all that matters.

This was true until you posted the rules here, thus suggesting them to others.

[Shadow]

This was true until you posted the rules here, thus suggesting them to others.

Did I ever say, "you should try this" or did I simply say "this is what we do at our table?"
That's whgat I thought.
I never suggested them to anyone. I explained what we do.

[AgentPaper]

Did I ever say, "you should try this" or did I simply say "this is what we do at our table?"
That's whgat I thought.
I never suggested them to anyone. I explained what we do.

You posted the solution your group uses to a problem in a thread specifically made to discuss possible solutions to that problem. I don't know how you could possibly think that you were doing anything other than suggesting other people should use your idea.

At any rate, your houserule only doesn't break anything because nobody uses it, apparently. If nobody ever gets more than 2 attacks, then you might as well change it to "If you dual wield using at least one light weapon, you get an extra attack with the bonus action starting at level 5". Which is almost exactly what we've suggested, only that you push the level up to 11 to smooth out the balance a bit more. The only time this is different from the rules you posted is when you play a high level fighter, which is also exactly when it starts breaking the game, so I don't know why you're so adamant about something that you don't use.

Think of it this way: Say someone made a thread about how Eldritch Knights are under-powered, so I post there saying how my group has a houserule to fix this, where arcane casters get twice as many spells per level as normal. Someone points out that this makes the Sorcerer and Wizard ridiculously OP, to which I reply, "No, that doesn't happen because nobody at our table plays a high level wizard or sorcerer, so it doesn't matter."

[mr_odd]

So, I just reread the Extra Attack class feature for Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, and Fighter. It does not say that the extra attack is a bonus action. It simply states "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." No mention of a bonus action.

Am I missing something stated elsewhere?

[Shadow]

Am I missing something stated elsewhere?

Nope.
Extra Attack allows you to attack twice (or three or four times for an approriately leveled fighter) whenever you use your action to attack.
If you have a second weapon in your other hand, you can use your bonus action to make one single attack with that weapon but you don't get your mod to damage (unless you have the fighting style from Fighter or Ranger) and both weapons must have the light property (unless you have the dual wielder feat).
So you have to do 1d6 or less +mod damage with the main weapon, and you're using your bonus action to do 1d4 or 1d6 additional damage if the bonus action attack hits. Those can both become 1d8 if you spend a feat, or you can add your mod to the secondary bonus attack if you have the style.
But you don't get an offhand attack for each regular attack. You get one single offhand attack. Period. And it comes with the stipulations you listed in the OP unless you have style/feat support.

Even if you have both the fighting style and the feat, TWFing is still only equivalent to, or worse than great weapon or polearm fighting, with a feat spent to one of them.
With both GWM and PM feats, TWFing is completely inferior to either of them, and it never gets caught up, while they potentially have reach and a host of other cool tricks and TWFing is left in the dust.
That's why people have been houseruling things in various ways. Because without houserules, TWF is a trap that uses your bonus action to do the same or less damage, and has less options to boot.
As the rules stand, the only people that should ever even consider TWFing are melee rogues, and even then they should only use their bonus action on a second attack if the first attack misses, because they have a bunch of better uses for their bonus action at level 2 and/or 3.

[AgentPaper]

Even if you have both the fighting style and the feat, TWFing is still only equivalent to, or worse than great weapon or polearm fighting, with a feat spent to one of them.
With both GWM and PM feats, TWFing is completely inferior to either of them, and it never gets caught up, while they potentially have reach and a host of other cool tricks and TWFing is left in the dust.
That's why people have been houseruling things in various ways. Because without houserules, TWF is a trap that uses your bonus action to do the same or less damage, and has less options to boot.
As the rules stand, the only people that should ever even consider TWFing are melee rogues, and even then they should only use their bonus action on a second attack if the first attack misses, because they have a bunch of better uses for their bonus action at level 2 and/or 3.

Again, you're under-selling TWF. It's not as good as it probably should be, but only specifically for level 11+ fighters. Up until then, and for classes that don't get multiple attacks, TWF deals slightly more (10-20%) damage than a GWF, unless that GWF is able to use his cleave bonus attack regularly, which is by no means always the case.

[Shadow]

Continued from before for odd:

Coinsider:
No optimization:
--Two weapon fighting: 1d6+mod + 1d6 - uses action and bonus action, needs to hit both
--Great weapon user: 2d6+mod - uses action, needs to hit once (same damage but doesn't use bonus action and only needs to hit once)
--Polearm user: 1d10+mod - uses action, needs to hit once (avg 1.5 less damage but only needs to hit once)

Mid optimization:
--Two weapon fighting with style and DW feat: 1d8+mod + 1d8+mod, uses action and bonus, needs two hits
--Great weapon fighter with GW style and GWM feat: 2d6+mod, uses action, rerolls 1s and 2s, cleave & power attack options
--Polearm user with PM feat and GW style: 1d10+mod + 1d4+mod, uses action and bonus, rerolls 1s and 2s, gets OA when opponent enters reach

High optimization:
--Two weapon fighting with style and DW feat: 1d8+mod + 1d8+mod, uses action and bonus, needs two hits (same as mid op)
--Polearm user with GW style and GWM and PM feats: 1d10+mod, uses action, rerolls 1s and 2s, gets OA when opponent enters reach, power attack option, uses bonus action for cleave (1d10+mod) or haft attack (1d4+mod), rerolls 1s and 2s on these as well

Every time you get another attack, GW users and polearm user spull even further ahead. They get the most toys and the best damage. This is not a fair deal at all. So TWFers get a houseruled boost. Since they don't get the most toys, they get better damage instead.
It becomes a choice. More damage = TWF. More options = GWF.

[Strill]

It becomes a choice. More damage = TWF. More options = GWF.

"Options"? What options? The option to do less damage? You're acting as though Great Weapon Master does something other than just improve your DPR. The choice you're presenting is:

TWF = More DPR
GWF = Less DPR


needs to hit bothWhat in the world is that supposed to mean? If hit chance is constant between the two styles, then what hits and what doesn't is irrelevant. At best it's a choice between consistency and irregularity, but it makes absolutely no difference to DPR.

[Sartharina]

Continued from before for odd:

Coinsider:
No optimization:
--Two weapon fighting: 1d6+mod + 1d6 - uses action and bonus action, needs to hit both
--Great weapon user: 2d6+mod - uses action, needs to hit once (same damage but doesn't use bonus action and only needs to hit once)
--Polearm user: 1d10+mod - uses action, needs to hit once (avg 1.5 less damage but only needs to hit once)

Mid optimization:
--Two weapon fighting with style and DW feat: 1d8+mod + 1d8+mod, uses action and bonus, needs two hits
--Great weapon fighter with GW style and GWM feat: 2d6+mod, uses action, rerolls 1s and 2s, cleave & power attack options
--Polearm user with PM feat and GW style: 1d10+mod + 1d4+mod, uses action and bonus, rerolls 1s and 2s, gets OA when opponent enters reach

High optimization:
--Two weapon fighting with style and DW feat: 1d8+mod + 1d8+mod, uses action and bonus, needs two hits (same as mid op)
--Polearm user with GW style and GWM and PM feats: 1d10+mod, uses action, rerolls 1s and 2s, gets OA when opponent enters reach, power attack option, uses bonus action for cleave (1d10+mod) or haft attack (1d4+mod)

Every time you get another attack, GW users pull even further ahead. They get the most toys and the best damage. This is not a fair deal at all. So TWFers get a houseruled boost. Since they don't get the most toys, they get better damage instead.
It becomes a choice. More damage = TWF. More options = GWF.
You say needing two hits like it's a bad thing. I see it as a 50% chance to deal half damage on a miss. Meanwhile, a Great Weapon Fighter/Polearm fighter loses a lot more if it misses once. TWFing offers less DPR, but more granularity and reliability to damage.

[Shadow]

You say needing two hits like it's a bad thing. I see it as a 50% chance to deal half damage on a miss. Meanwhile, a Great Weapon Fighter/Polearm fighter loses a lot more if it misses once. TWFing offers less DPR, but more granularity and reliability to damage.

You can't just compare the potential DPR. You have to take into account the multitude of extra stuff that a polearm or great weapon user can do (and especially if they're *both* a polearm user with the GW goodies).
That stuff is worth WAY more then a *potential* point or three. And as more attacks are granted, it is no longer even in favor of the TWFer at all.
So houserules are needed to make TWFing not a trap.
Those houserules should force the player to choose between wanting more options (gwf/pm) or more damage (twf).

[Strill]

You can't just compare the potential DPR. You have to take into account the multitude of extra stuff that a polearm or great weapon user can do (and especially if they're *both* a polearm user with the GW goodies).
That stuff is worth WAY more then a *potential* point or three. And as more attacks are granted, it is no longer even in favor of the TWFer at all.
So houserules are needed to make TWFing not a trap.
Everyone agrees that TWF needs help. We just think that your TWF rules are biased too far in favor of TWF.


Those houserules should force the player to choose between wanting more options (gwf/pm) or more damage (twf).
No, they should make the DPR from each style equal. You're acting as though those so-called "options" are incalculable. They're not. They're just damage. You do the math, come up with a number or two, and determine which one is better. There is no "options", there's just damage.

[Sartharina]

TWF provides more options through greater reliability and lower Overkill - and when feats come into it, greater base damage, more crit damage, better defense, and a stronger stat focus (DEX>STR) Strength's entire point is greater damage, and giving TWF the same damage output takes away from that.

Equalizing the DPR is a great big "**** You" to Great Weapon Fighters, and Polearm masters still fall behind due to lower damage dice.

The only class Two Weapon Fighting falls behind Great Weapon Fighting for is the Fighter, anyway - Rangers and Paladins have boosts that improve per-attack damage.

[Oscredwin]

I still maintain that TWF is great for rogues. If you meet the conditions for sneak attack and miss with your main attack, getting another shot at all those d6s is great.

[Cambrian]

Has anyone factored in that when fighting low CR creatures TWF allows you to kill more creatures in a round-- that's an often overlooked benefit.

[Strill]

The only class Two Weapon Fighting falls behind Great Weapon Fighting for is the Fighter, anyway - Rangers and Paladins have boosts that improve per-attack damage.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Hunter's Mark costs a bonus action. Paladins don't have Two Weapon Fighting Style. TWF is just as bad if not worse for Paladins and Fighters.


Has anyone factored in that when fighting low CR creatures TWF allows you to kill more creatures in a round-- that's an often overlooked benefit.

If we're playing in a modified version of the game where TWF gives two bonus attacks, then yes. Otherwise, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master provide the same benefit in this case.

[Cambrian]

If we're playing in a modified version of the game where TWF gives two bonus attacks, then yes. Otherwise, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master provide the same benefit in this case.Right, but then we're comparing those styles with a feat to one without. To match the raw number of attacks the other styles have an opportunity cost.

[Shadow]

Right, but then we're comparing those styles with a feat to one without. To match the raw number of attacks the other styles have an opportunity cost.

There's no opportunity cost. TWF doesn't require a feat, therefore anyone can do it, therefore anyone can drop the greatsword and draw two shortswords and get the TWF attacks to kill a bunch of goblins if they want to.
The great weapon fighter is only limited by whether he wants to spend a few gold on acquiring those shortswords for that situation.

[Sartharina]

There's no opportunity cost. TWF doesn't require a feat, therefore anyone can do it, therefore anyone can drop the greatsword and draw two shortswords and get the TWF attacks to kill a bunch of goblins if they want to.
The great weapon fighter is only limited by whether he wants to spend a few gold on acquiring those shortswords for that situation.But two-weapon fighting is by design not really worthwhile unless you have the Fighting Style, Sneak Attack (As a secondary chance to land it), or a source of bonus damage from attacks.

The drawback with Great Weapon Fighting is that it demands Strength investment, which provides far inferior secondary and tertiary benefits to Dexterity. The competition with Two Weapon FIghting isn't Great Weapon Fighting - it's sword+board.

[Shadow]

But two-weapon fighting is by design not really worthwhile unless you have the Fighting Style, Sneak Attack (As a secondary chance to land it), or a source of bonus damage from attacks.

The drawback with Great Weapon Fighting is that it demands Strength investment, which provides far inferior secondary and tertiary benefits to Dexterity. The competition with Two Weapon FIghting isn't Great Weapon Fighting - it's sword+board.

Oh, you mean an opportunity cost?
That's what Cambrian was trying to avoid using in his comparison, which is exactly what I did.

[Easy_Lee]

The competition with Two Weapon FIghting isn't Great Weapon Fighting - it's sword+board.

This. Duelist sword n board falls slightly behind for damage (less the higher level you get) but offers quite a lot more defense and survival. A character with duelist, defensive duelist, and shield mastery is almost never getting hit and has an extremely high reflex save with no damage on success.

[Sartharina]

This. Duelist sword n board falls slightly behind for damage (less the higher level you get) but offers quite a lot more defense and survival. A character with duelist, defensive duelist, and shield mastery is almost never getting hit and has an extremely high reflex save with no damage on success.

And significantly less damage/direct survivability due to a loss of attribute boosts.

[AgentPaper]

And significantly less damage/direct survivability due to a loss of attribute boosts.

That's only two feats, and your damage doesn't fall behind more dedicated damage-dealing fighters by as much as you might think. A human fighter can easily have 20 Dex and both of those feats by level 8, for starters.

[Shadow]

Honestly, I think one of the best ways to help (not fix, but help) TWFing is to swap the fighting style benefit of allowing mod to damage and the Dual Wielder benefit of allowing non-light weapons.
As is under the rules, anyone can use better weapons but still be ineffective, while fighters and rangers (or splashes) are the only ones that can be effective dual wielders.
With this change, anyone can be an effective dual wielder without splashing ranger or fighter, but only ranger or fighter (or splashes) can use better weapons to do it.

I think I'll talk to my group and see if they want to run the next game like that.

[AgentPaper]

Honestly, I think one of the best ways to help (not fix, but help) TWFing is to swap the fighting style benefit of allowing mod to damage and the Dual Wielder benefit of allowing non-light weapons.
That way, anyone can be an effective dual wielder without splashing ranger or fighter, but only ranger or fighter (or splashes) can use better weapons to do it.

I think I'll talk to my group and see if they want to run the next game like that.

This wouldn't really change anything. Both work out to roughly the same amount of damage, and both deal more than someone using a Greatsword or maul without the GWF fighting style, all the way to level 20. Not a ton more, mind, but it's by no means outclassed.

[Shadow]

This wouldn't really change anything. Both work out to roughly the same amount of damage, and both deal more than someone using a Greatsword or maul without the GWF fighting style, all the way to level 20. Not a ton more, mind, but it's by no means outclassed.

Here we go again, comparing one thing with support against something without support in an attempt to call it balanced.
If you're counting a feat or a style with TWF, then you need to count a feat or a style with your GWF comparison.

And they do not do the same damage at all, unless you happen to be a fighter with his multiple extra attacks.
There are ten other classes that do not get as many attacks, and for them, there is a big difference in the damage between the two.
An average of +1 per hit (twice, or maybe three times) is literally half of mod to damage (being that half of +5 is +2.5, which falls squarely in the middle of two and three).

Roughly the same? Mod to damage is exactly twice as effective than a better weapon.... unless you're a fighter.

[Vaynor]

The Red Towel: Keep the conversation civil, please.

[Demonic Spoon]

That's only two feats, and your damage doesn't fall behind more dedicated damage-dealing fighters by as much as you might think. A human fighter can easily have 20 Dex and both of those feats by level 8, for starters.


So, by picking one (variant) race, and being lucky enough to roll a 17 on one of your attributes at the start, you can potentially get 20 dex and those two feats by level 8.

That counts as "easily"?

Do you think the average case is that a player building his character will end up with 20 dex and 2 feats by level 8?

[AgentPaper]

Here we go again, comparing one thing with support against something without support in an attempt to call it balanced.
If you're counting a feat or a style with TWF, then you need to count a feat or a style with your GWF comparison.

And they do not do the same damage at all, unless you happen to be a fighter with his multiple extra attacks.
There are ten other classes that do not get as many attacks, and for them, there is a big difference in the damage between the two.
An average of +1 per hit (twice, or maybe three times) is literally half of mod to damage (being that half of +5 is +2.5, which falls squarely in the middle of two and three).

Roughly the same? Mod to damage is exactly twice as effective than a better weapon.... unless you're a fighter.

I was comparing damage with just the TWF style versus with just the TWF feat, and yes, they do roughly the same damage from level 1 to level 20, for anyone but a fighter.


At level 1, we assume a 16 in the main stat, for a +3 bonus. Two scimitars with the style bonus gives: 3.5+3+3.5+3=13 damage. Two rapiers with the feat bonus gives: 4.5+3+4.5=12 damage.

At level 4, the main stat goes to 18, and now the style version goes up to 15 damage while the feat version only goes to 13.

At level 5, both get an extra attack, and now the style version becomes 3.5+4+3.5+4+3.5+4=22.5 while the feat version is 4.5+4+4.5+4+4.5=21.5, once again only 1 point of damage apart.

At level 8, the main stat goes to 20, and now the style version goes up to 25.5 while the feat version is 23.5 damage. That's a whopping 2 points of difference in damage per round, and doesn't take into account critical hits, which close the gap even further since the feat version has bigger damage dice.


And I was comparing them to someone with the GWM feat, beacause that provides exactly zero increase to base damage per round. What it does grant, is the ability to do more damage when you're fighting hordes of weaker things. In that scenario, a great-weapon fighter does indeed win out, but only if the minions aren't so weak that both the TWF and the GWM can't drop their enemies in one hit regularly, since both of them are attacking 3 times anyways. So it's not really a huge advantage even in that case. If you consider that TWF has the advantage of +1 AC and being able to pump Dexterity instead of Strength, it becomes very much comparable, if not advantageous for the TWF.

If you still think there's a problem, I'm going to need to ask for the exact builds of the characters you're using that prove that TWF is "useless", because as of now the math simply does not agree with you no matter how I look at it. The only time TWF falls significantly behind is specifically for a level 11 or higher fighter. Outside of that, they are very even, outside of specific class features that favor one over the other, such as rogue wanting TWF for the increased chance of landing a sneak attack.


So, by picking one (variant) race, and being lucky enough to roll a 17 on one of your attributes at the start, you can potentially get 20 dex and those two feats by level 8.

That counts as "easily"?

Do you think the average case is that a player building his character will end up with 20 dex and 2 feats by level 8?

I never said anything about rolling. Fighter gets an extra ABI at level 6.

[MaxWilson]

So, by picking one (variant) race, and being lucky enough to roll a 17 on one of your attributes at the start, you can potentially get 20 dex and those two feats by level 8.

That counts as "easily"?

Do you think the average case is that a player building his character will end up with 20 dex and 2 feats by level 8?

No, but I think it could happen for 30-40% of DX fighters[1]. It's not trivial, but I can see why someone could call it "easy."

[1] 4d6 drop lowest produces at least one 17+ 30% of the time, and some people use alternate methods of rolling. Thus my 30-40% eyeball estimate.

[Demonic Spoon]

30-40% of variant human fighters.

Two-weapon fighting is not balanced around variant humans with above-average stats. They are the exception, not the rule. Yes, if you manage to max out your primary stat early, feats are going to be relatively better.

Which, I guess, brings up another question: Are we trying to determine whether TWF is balanced against other combat styles in the context of an average game with average players, or are we assuming that everyone is building their characters from the ground up to optimize combat DPR?

[AgentPaper]

30-40% of variant human fighters.

Two-weapon fighting is not balanced around variant humans with above-average stats. They are the exception, not the rule. Yes, if you manage to max out your primary stat early, feats are going to be relatively better.

Which, I guess, brings up another question: Are we trying to determine whether TWF is balanced against other combat styles in the context of an average game with average players, or are we assuming that everyone is building their characters from the ground up to optimize combat DPR?

As I mentioned, you don't need above-average stats. You start with 15 dex via point-buy, standard distribution, whatever. You get +1 from being human, and take your first feat. At level 4 and 6, you put +2 into dex for a total of 20. At level 8, you get your second feat.

[Demonic Spoon]

As I mentioned, you don't need above-average stats. You start with 15 dex via point-buy, standard distribution, whatever. You get +1 from being human, and take your first feat. At level 4 and 6, you put +2 into dex for a total of 20. At level 8, you get your second feat.

Ah, I had forgotten about fighter bonus ability increases.

[Shadow]

I was comparing damage with just the TWF style versus with just the TWF feat, and yes, they do roughly the same damage from level 1 to level 20, for anyone but a fighter.

Your problem is that you're comparing someone with the feat alone to someone with the style alone.
Anyone with the style is most likely going to have both the feat and the style, while someone with only the feat is a real possibility.

So you should be comparing someone with the style only, vs someone with the feat only, vs someone with both.
You'll clearly see that the feat only is the clear loser every single time.
That means that someone with the feat only is being significantly outclassed by anyone with the style, because they will have both.
That means that the feat should offer better damage than the style, which it currently is not.
I mean, the guy with access to the better of the two has access to both. The guy with access to only one effect has access to the worse choice.
The feat should be the better of the two. Period. It is not.

Swapping the +mod damage and non-light weapon effects between the two helps the issue, but as I said to begin with, it doesn't solve it.

[AgentPaper]

Your problem is that you're comparing someone with the feat alone to someone with the style alone.
Anyone with the style is most likely going to have both thefeat and the style, while someone with only the feat is a real possibility.

So you should be comparing someone with the stlye only, vs somone with the feat only, vs someone with both.
You'll clearly see that the feat only is the clear loser every single time.
That means that someone with the feat only is being significantly outclassed by anyone with the style, because they will have both.
That means that the feat should be offer better damage than the style, which it currently is not.

Swapping the +mod damage and non-light weapon effects between the two helps the issue, but as I said to begin with, it doesn't solve it.

I was trying to show that the +mod damage and non-light weapon effects were not as large as you seemed to be claiming, and that switching the two bonuses around wouldn't make TWF suddenly more or less viable for a non-fighter who only got one of them through the feat.

Again, I and others have shown again and again through math that TWF is viable for a wide variety of classes and levels and builds, with the only caveat being that a level 11+ fighter should get two attacks with the bonus attack. No other house rule is necessary to make TWF viable.

The only proof you've given is your wild claims of TWF being woefully underpowered across the board, which again the math does not support. At this point it's hard to take you seriously without any math or even a specific build to support your claims.

[Shadow]

No other house rule is necessary to make TWF viable.

The only proof you've given is your wild claims of TWF being woefully underpowered across the board, which again the math does not support. At this point it's hard to take you seriously without any math or even a specific build to support your claims.

To make it viable? No.
But it absolutely is most certainly outclassed competely and irrevocably because of the feat/style support that polearm users and great weapon fighters receive.
They get all the cool tricks while the TWFer get zero tricks and does less damage to boot.
That's basically the definition of underpowered. You can do all the math you like, but all of your math shows unlikely comparisons such as someone having the style but not the feat, and is therefore flawed.

Houseruling is absolutely essential to make TWFing a competitor.

[Easy_Lee]

To be fair, TWF has quite a bit less survivability and only slightly less damage than duelist with shield, assuming the duelist takes shield mastery instead of DW.

[AgentPaper]

To make it viable? No.
But it absolutely is most certainly outclassed competely and irrevocably because of the feat/style support that polearm users and great weapon fighters receive.
They get all the cool tricks while the TWFer get zero tricks and does less damage to boot.
That's basically the definition of underpowered. You can do all the math you like, but all of your math shows unlikely comparisons such as someone having the style but not the feat, and is therefore flawed.

Houseruling is absolutely essential to make TWFing a competitor.

Ok, let's compare 3 fighters, each with 1 feat:

TWF with Dual Wield feat has:
No disadvantage on Stealth from armor
Better dex saving throws
Better initiative
Better Acrobatics, Stealth, and Sleight of Hand

GWF with Great Weapon Master feat has:
Free use of bonus action.
Best damage against hordes of enemies.*
Best damage with opportunity attacks.
Slightly better damage against very low AC enemies.
Better Athletics

GWF with Polearm Master feat has:
Can attack from 10 feet away.
More chances for Opportunity Attacks.
Better Athletics

That seems like plenty of "cool tricks" for everyone to me, and as I've stated over and over, TWF does not deal "less damage to boot". All of them are roughly neck and neck for damage, with GWF being behind until it gets it's first extra attack, and TWF falling behind unless you give it the extra bonus attack at level 11. Other than that, they are all very close to each other damage-wise.

*Unless those hordes regularly go down in one hit, in which case they all get the same number of attacks and do equally well.

[Shadow]

Ok, let's compare 3 fighters, each with 1 feat:

Anyone with Dex and light armor has:
No disadvantage on Stealth from armor
Better dex saving throws
Better initiative
Better Acrobatics, Stealth, and Sleight of Hand

GWF with Great Weapon Master feat has:
Free use of bonus action.
Best damage against hordes of enemies.*
Best damage with opportunity attacks.
Slightly better damage against very low AC enemies.
Better Athletics

GWF with Polearm Master feat has:
Can attack from 10 feet away.
More chances for Opportunity Attacks.
Better Athletics

fixed it for ya

[AgentPaper]

fixed it for ya

...I don't see your point. Are you saying it's reasonable to expect a strength-focused fighter to get 20 dexterity?

[Fwiffo86]

For what its worth, I believe getting +1 AC while holding two weapons is a cool trick.

The rest.... is debatable.

[Shadow]

...I don't see your point. Are you saying it's reasonable to expect a strength-focused fighter to get 20 dexterity?

This is my point, and this is a much more valid comparison.

TWF:
action: 1d6+mod
bonus: 1d6

Greatsword:
action: 2d6+mod

Polearm:
action: 1d10+mod
special: reach

********************************************

TWF with DW feat:
action: 1d8+mod
bonus: 1d8
special: +1 AC

Greatsword with GWM feat:
action: 2d6+mod
special: (bonus): cleave 2d6+mod
Special power attack

Polearm with PM feat:
action: 1d10+mod
bonus: 1d4+mod
special: reach
special: OA when enemy enters reach

********************************************

TWF with TWF style and DW feat:
action: 1d8+mod
bonus: 1d8+mod
special: +1 AC

Greatsword with GW style and GWM feat:
action: 2d6+mod
special: (bonus): cleave 2d6+mod
special: power attack
special: reroll 1s and 2s on damage

Polearm with GW style and PM feat:
action: 1d10+mod
bonus: 1d4+mod
special: reach
special: OA when enemy enters reach
special: reroll 1s and 2s on damage for both attacks

********************************************

TWF with TWF style and DW feat:
action: 1d8+mod
bonus: 1d8+mod
special: +1 AC

Polearm with GW style, GWM feat and PM feat:
action: 1d10+mod
bonus: 1d4+mod or special: (bonus): cleave 1d10+mod
special: reach
special: OA when enemy enters reach
special: reroll 1s and 2s on damage for both attacks
special: power attack


I fail to see how anyone can state that TWF isn't absolutely and indisputably underpowered in comparison.

[AgentPaper]

This is my point, and this is a much more valid comparison.

So, your point is that TWF is inferior if you ignore the fact that it allows you to pump dexterity over strength, which gives many more benefits than just damage, and pretend that it deals much less damage even when the math says otherwise.

[Finieous]

You forgot "special: +1 AC" for DW. [ETA: ninja!] But it sounds like you really want to design a cool TWF feat or two with some special abilities, rather than just adding excessive bonus action damage.

[Shadow]

You forgot "special: +1 AC" for DW. [ETA: ninja!] But it sounds like you really want to design a cool TWF feat or two with some special abilities, rather than just adding excessive bonus action damage.

No, I don't want a bunch of cool tricks. If I wanted that, I would use a polearm.
I want dual wielding to actually be a choice worth taking.
Tricks are in play with the GW users. TWF should have superior damage, and it should eclipse it enough that the choice between the tricks and the damage actually becomes a tough decision.

That's what would make TWFing competetive.

[Finieous]

No, I don't want a bunch of cool tricks. If I wanted that, I would use a polearm.
I want dual wielding to actually be a choice worth taking.
Tricks are in play with the GW users. TWF should have superior damage, and it should eclipse it enough that the choice between the tricks and the damage actually becomes a tough decision.

That's what would make TWFing competetive.

But what you call "tricks" are just situational ways to deal more damage, so if you give TWF superior damage by default...

Oh never mind. It's brilliant!

[AgentPaper]

No, I don't want a bunch of cool tricks. If I wanted that, I would use a polearm.
I want dual wielding to actually be a choice worth taking.
Tricks are in play with the GW users. TWF should have superior damage, and it should eclipse it enough that the choice between the tricks and the damage actually becomes a tough decision.

That's what would make TWFing competetive.

TWF is already competitive, as we have pointed out again and again. The only change necessary is the extra bonus attack at level 11. With that, TWF is the best damage. The only thing that beats it is a variant human with Polearm Master from level 1, which does ~10% more damage from levels 1-10.

Great Weapon fighters get cleave and power attack. Polearm fighters get reach and a few more opportunity attacks. Two-Weapon fighters get the best damage overall and a superior stat as their main stat.

[Shadow]

TWF is already competitive, as we have pointed out again and again. The only change necessary is the extra bonus attack at level 11. With that, TWF is the best damage. The only thing that beats it is a variant human with Polearm Master from level 1, which does ~10% more damage from levels 1-10.

Great Weapon fighters get cleave and power attack. Polearm fighters get reach and a few more opportunity attacks. Two-Weapon fighters get the best damage overall and a superior stat as their main stat.


TWF with feat, style and extra attack: 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 = 28.5

GWF with style, feat and extra attack: 2d6+5 + 2d6+5 = 24
..... rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... but also has cleave and power attack, both of which raise that average even more
So nope, TWF does not do more damage.

polearm with feat, style and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... but also has reach and an OA no one else gets
So nope, TWF still doesn't do more damage.

Polearm with style, both feats and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... rerolls 1s and 2s, has reach, an OA no one else gets, cleave and power attack, all of which raise that average even more
So Way Way Way NO, TWF does not deal more damage, no matter how many times you say it does.

edit:
I didn't notice at first, but now all of a sudden you're saying that an extra attack is needed to make it the best damage.
You weren't saying that before.
You said no houserules were needed.

A secondary problem with TWF is that the style is mandatory for it to be competetive, which means only fighters and rangers can be competetive. The same is not true for a great weapon user. Without the style, their damage potential hardly changes at all.
This is broken when compared side by side.
Anyone proficient with polearms or heavy weapons can use them to their fullest. There are a number of ways beyond class proficiencies to gain a weapon prof.
The same is not true of TWFers. Only rangers and fighters can compete.
How is that balanced?
This is the reason that the DW feat should offer more damage than the TWF style.

[Easy_Lee]

Shadow's right, TWF does less damage but gains initiative, reflex, and consistency from the trade. Plus defensive duelist can be cool.

[Fwiffo86]

TWF with feat, style and extra attack: 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 = 28.5

GWF with style, feat and extra attack: 2d6+5 + 2d6+5 = 24
..... rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... but also has cleave and power attack, both of which raise that average even more
So nope, TWF does not do more damage.

polearm with feat, style and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... but also has reach and an OA no one else gets
So nope, TWF still doesn't do more damage.

Polearm with style, both feats and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... rerolls 1s and 2s, has reach, an OA no one else gets, cleave and power attack, all of which raise that average even more
So Way Way Way NO, TWF does not deal more damage, no matter how many times you say it does.

edit:
I didn't notice at first, but now all of a sudden you'rer saying that an extra attack is needed to make it the best damage.
You weren't saying that before.

This is for comparison only. I am not making a call either way on this.

GWF
-Reroll 1/2s
-Power attack
-Situational cleave

PAM
-Reach
-Additional attack (with mod damage)
-Special OA

TWF
-Additional attack (with mod damage)
-Bonus to AC
-Removes restriction on weapon choices
-Attribute (dex) mod used in more than just damage

[AgentPaper]

twf with feat, style and extra attack: 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 + 1d8+5 = 28.5

gwf with style, feat and extra attack: 2d6+5 + 2d6+5 = 24
..... Rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... But also has cleave and power attack, both of which raise that average even more
so nope, twf does not do more damage.

Polearm with feat, style and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... Rerolls 1s and 2s to raise that average a bit
..... But also has reach and an oa no one else gets
so nope, twf still doesn't do more damage.

Polearm with style, both feats and extra attack: 1d10+5 + 1d10+5 + 1d4+5 = 28.5
..... Rerolls 1s and 2s, has reach, an oa no one else gets, cleave and power attack, all of which raise that average even more
so way way way no, twf does not deal more damage, no matter how many times you say it does.

As I said, polearms deal slightly more damage early on, but only just barely, and TWF wins out after level 11 once it gets another extra attack. Here's the damage each style does from level 1-20, assuming variant human that has the relevant feat at level 1, starts with 16 in their main stat, and boosts their main stat at level 4 and 8:

LVL PLM GWF TWF AC
1 10.4 7.7 10.2 12
2 9.6 7.1 9.5 13
3 9.6 7.1 9.5 13
4 11.7 8.3 11.5 13
5 18.7 16.6 17.3 14
6 18.7 16.6 17.3 14
7 18.7 16.6 17.3 14
8 20.7 17.9 19.2 15
9 22.2 19.2 20.6 15
10 22.2 19.2 20.6 15
11 28.3 26.9 32.0 16
12 28.3 26.9 32.0 16
13 30.4 28.9 34.4 16
14 28.3 26.9 32.0 17
15 28.3 26.9 32.0 17
16 28.3 26.9 32.0 17
17 28.3 26.9 32.0 18
18 28.3 26.9 32.0 18
19 28.3 26.9 32.0 18
20 33.3 33.2 35.6 19

This takes into account hit chance versus the listed AC and critical hits.

As you can see, all of them are pretty on-par in regards to damage, leaving it to the secondary benefits of each style to decide which one is the "best", with a Great-Weapon fighter potentially getting the best damage in certain circumstances (lots of lowish HP creatures and/or low AC targets), a Polearm master has better control over the battlefield to keep enemies where he wants, and a Two-Weapon fighter is better at stealth and has the best defenses from having dexterity as a main stat.

And yes, having dexterity as a main stat is a concrete advantage for a two-weapon fighter, because neither a great-weapon fighter nor a polearm master can use anything but strength, meaning that they are forced to boost strength, a stat with few extra benefits. Yes, a str-main fighter could also boost their dexterity, but only at the cost of boosting other good stuff like constitution and wisdom.

[Shadow]

As I said, polearms deal slightly more damage early on, but only just barely, and TWF wins out after level 11 once it gets another extra attack. Here's the damage each style does from level 1-20, assuming variant human that has the relevant feat at level 1, starts with 16 in their main stat, and boosts their main stat at level 4 and 8:

This takes into account hit chance versus the listed AC and critical hits.

As you can see, all of them are pretty on-par in regards to damage, leaving it to the secondary benefits of each style to decide which one is the "best", with a Great-Weapon fighter potentially getting the best damage in certain circumstances (lots of lowish HP creatures and/or low AC targets), a Polearm master has better control over the battlefield to keep enemies where he wants, and a Two-Weapon fighter is better at stealth and has the best defenses from having dexterity as a main stat.

And yes, having dexterity as a main stat is a concrete advantage for a two-weapon fighter, because neither a great-weapon fighter nor a polearm master can use anything but strength, meaning that they are forced to boost strength, a stat with few extra benefits. Yes, a str-main fighter could also boost their dexterity, but only at the cost of boosting other good stuff like constitution and wisdom.

None of that takes into account any of the myriad of ways that polearm users and GW users raise their damage via tricks.
Your chart is misleading and flat out wrong.

And everyone here keeps assuming that TWFers will be Dex builds, but the fact of the matter is that the DW feat changes that. You can't count on it, because non-finesse weapons are viable choices in every single situation that you have all proposed.
So drop the "Dex is better" stuff, because you can't factor that in. It isn't guaranteed.
It isn't even guarateed if the TWFer never takes the feat at all.

[Easy_Lee]

None of that takes into account any of the myriad of ways that polearm users and GW users raise their damage via tricks.
Your chart is misleading and flat out wrong.

And everyone here keeps assuming that TWFers will be Dex builds, but the fact of the matter is that the DW feat changes that. You can't count on it, because non-finesse weapons are viable choices in every single situation that you have all proposed.
So drop the "Dex is better" stuff, because you can't factor that in. It isn't guaranteed.
It isn't even guarateed if the TWFer never takes the feat at all.

An optimized dual wielder will use DEX because it is the superior stat and allows better ranged options. The benefits of having DEX as the primary stat (including initiative, reflex saves, and ability to pick up DD) may make up for the extra damage and reach options offered to great weapon fighters, depending on the player's priorities.

[Fwiffo86]

None of that takes into account any of the myriad of ways that polearm users and GW users raise their damage via tricks.


Why are you so focused on damage?

[Shadow]

Why are you so focused on damage?
Maybe because that's what combat with weapons is. It's about damage, or special tricks.

Because the lack of those two things is exactly why two weapon fighting is inferior to every single other style available.
Sword and board duelists have better defenses and what is close enough to be comparable damage.
Great weapon users have more damage and more tircks to raise it even higher.
Polearm users have more damage and more tricks to raise it even higher.
Two weapon fighters have less damage and nohting special about them at all.

People have mentioned dual wielder having a better AC, but they really don't, at least not in any way that matters.

s&b duelist: 10 + 5 dex +2 studded +2 shield = 19
TWFer: 10 +5 dex +2 studded +1 DW = 18
great weapon fighter or polearm user: 10 + 8 plate = 18
The duelist is almost guaranteed to be using a rapier, and therefore qualifies for +6 once per round
The TWFer *may* qualify for that, and he may not.

People are calling out that his defenses are so much better. It just isn't true.

[AgentPaper]

Because the lack of those two things is exactly why two weapon fighting is inferior to every single other style available.
Sword and board duelists have better defenses and what is close enough to be comparable damage.
Great weapon users have more damage and more tircks to raise it even higher.
Polearm users have more damage and more tricks to raise it even higher.
Two weapon fighters have less damage and nohting special about them at all.

SnB have better defenses, but their damage is significantly less. 40% less from level 1-4, and then 20-30% less from 5-20. Their damage isn't terrible, but the difference between it and TWF is much greater than the difference between TWF, GWF, and PLM.

Great Weapon users deal less damage, not more, and can use tricks to get it higher only in specific situations.

Polearm users have very slightly more damage early on and less past level 10, in exchange for better battlefield control.


People are calling out that his defenses are so much better. It just isn't true.

Their AC is on par, but their reflex save is much better, and/or their wis save is better since they don't have to throw away points into strength

[TheDeadlyShoe]

if you want to shove or grapple, dumping STR really screws you.

(as well as any other strength ability contest or check, which can come up pretty often really!)

[Shadow]

Great Weapon users deal less damage, not more, and can use tricks to get it higher only in specific situations.

Polearm users have very slightly more damage early on and less past level 10, in exchange for better battlefield control.

These two things are only true if the TWFer has fighter or ranger levels.
So for more than 80% of the classes, this is untrue.
And let's be realistic here. Rangers are FAR better off using a bow due to spell support, so they're less likely to have the style.
Fighters are FAR better off using a polearm in concert with maneuvers, so they're less likely to have the style.
That means that your statement is usually true if, and only if, the character in question is a multiclass of one of those two.

[Strill]

if you want to shove or grapple, dumping STR really screws you.

(as well as any other strength ability contest or check, which can come up pretty often really!)

Shove and Grapple checks can be contested by Athletics OR Acrobatics checks. You aren't screwed over by not having STR.

[AgentPaper]

These two things are only true if the TWFer has fighter or ranger levels.
So for more than 80% of the classes, this is untrue.

Er, no. TWF still does more damage without the fighting style, since the GWF also loses out on a lot of damage without his style. If there's a specific class that you think changes this, where TWF should be more viable, then tell me which class and what build and I"ll run the numbers.


And let's be realistic here. Rangers are FAR better off using a bow due to spell support, so they're less likely to have the style.

What do you mean by spell support? A TWF ranger can use spells just as much as a bow ranger, and the two aren't even mutually exclusive.


Fighters are FAR better off using a polearm in concert with maneuvers, so they're less likely to have the style.

Completely false, as I've shown time and time again. Maneuvers are just as good for a TWF fighter as they are for a PLM fighter, so I don't know what your point is there.

[Strill]

What do you mean by spell support? A TWF ranger can use spells just as much as a bow ranger, and the two aren't even mutually exclusive.

He means Rangers have spells that only work with bows, or don't work with TWF. Stuff like Hunter's Mark, Swift Quiver, Conjure Volley, and Lightning Arrow.

[AgentPaper]

He means Rangers have spells that only work with bows, or don't work with TWF. Stuff like Hunter's Mark, Swift Quiver, Conjure Volley, and Lightning Arrow.

Ah, that makes more sense. Though unless they're significantly better than the rest of the Ranger's spells, that doesn't invalidate TWF, since a TWF would be free to choose other spells that help in other ways, whereas a bow ranger would need to tie up most or all of his spell slots to use those abilities regularly. And if the bow-user doesn't tie up his slots with those abilities, then well we're back to square one, and it comes down to whether you want to do more damage up close or somewhat less damage from far away.

[Strill]

Ah, that makes more sense. Though unless they're significantly better than the rest of the Ranger's spells,
They are. Swift Quiver and Hunter's Mark especially. They're also the ranger-exclusive spells.

[Fwiffo86]

Maybe because that's what combat with weapons is. It's about damage, or special tricks.

Because the lack of those two things is exactly why two weapon fighting is inferior to every single other style available.
Sword and board duelists have better defenses and what is close enough to be comparable damage.
Great weapon users have more damage and more tircks to raise it even higher.
Polearm users have more damage and more tricks to raise it even higher.
Two weapon fighters have less damage and nohting special about them at all.

People have mentioned dual wielder having a better AC, but they really don't, at least not in any way that matters.

s&b duelist: 10 + 5 dex +2 studded +2 shield = 19
TWFer: 10 +5 dex +2 studded +1 DW = 18
great weapon fighter or polearm user: 10 + 8 plate = 18
The duelist is almost guaranteed to be using a rapier, and therefore qualifies for +6 once per round
The TWFer *may* qualify for that, and he may not.

People are calling out that his defenses are so much better. It just isn't true.

TWFer: 10 +8 plate +1 DW = 19

[Finieous]

They are. Swift Quiver and Hunter's Mark especially. They're also the ranger-exclusive spells.

Hunter's mark works with any weapon attack, so in fact the TWFing ranger will get extra duty out of it. Also, vengeance paladins get the spell as well.

[MaxWilson]

Hunter's mark works with any weapon attack, so in fact the TWFing ranger will get extra duty out of it. Also, vengeance paladins get the spell as well.

And bards get any spell they want, including Find Steed and Hunter's Mark. Especially Lore Bards. Bwahahaha!

[mr_odd]

*reads all of the arguing*

What have I caused???

Anywho, so it seems to me that some think TWF is fine as it stands (you just need to go about it in a right manner) while others think that GWF or Polearm Master are significantly superior. What if we took away all comparisons, and simply placed a TWF user in combat situations?

What I'm saying is, rather than comparing the TWF user to another build or PC, let's see how the TWF user RAW does in combat situations. If he holds his own, then I think he's fine. It doesn't matter if the GWF or the Polearm Master does better, what matters is if the TWF is competent.

PS. I'm not big on over optimization. While I'm all for picking a character concept and wanting to be really good at what that character does, I don't really care about trying to get max damage or be the best of the best. This is just my personal opinion, and I state it so that the playground may understand what lies beneath my thinking.

[Strill]

Hunter's mark works with any weapon attack, so in fact the TWFing ranger will get extra duty out of it. Also, vengeance paladins get the spell as well.

It uses a bonus action to apply. It only benefits TWF users if you're fighting a small number of strong enemies.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Shove and Grapple checks can be contested by Athletics OR Acrobatics checks. You aren't screwed over by not having STR.

you can contest it but you can't do it effectively, and shove is pretty useful for fighters in particular.

[Finieous]

It uses a bonus action to apply. It only benefits TWF users if you're fighting a small number of strong enemies.

Meaning, it benefits the TWFer in all cases except when he's fighting enemies that are killed in one turn.

[JoeJ]

Instead of looking at all possible combat options, lets suppose that I have already decided my character will be a DEX-based melee combatant (she's an elf). There aren't any two-handed or polearm finesse weapons, so those styles are excluded. How does twf compare to s&b for this character?

[Easy_Lee]

Instead of looking at all possible combat options, lets suppose that I have already decided my character will be a DEX-based melee combatant (she's an elf). There aren't any two-handed or polearm finesse weapons, so those styles are excluded. How does twf compare to s&b for this character?

TWF does a little more damage than sword n board, but has less defense and can't benefit from shield master.

[Shadow]

Meaning, it benefits the TWFer in all cases except when he's fighting enemies that are killed in one turn.

Point being, there are a ton of amazing ranger spells which either only work with bows (ranged weapons) or are strictly better when used with bows (ranged weapons). This means that most rangers will indeed be ranged, making TWF a terrible option for them in comparison, which means, in turn, that rangers with the TWF style will likely be multiclass more often than not.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

actually im pretty sure most ranger spells cite 'ranged attacks' which can include thrown weapons and thus can be used with TWF fighting.

[Easy_Lee]

actually im pretty sure most ranger spells cite 'ranged attacks' which can include thrown weapons and thus can be used with TWF fighting.

True. A javelin-wielding ranger is certainly possible.

[Shadow]

True. A javelin-wielding ranger is certainly possible.

Possible? Sure.
Is anyone actually going to roll up and play a javelin-wielding ranger? Nope.
Daggers, maybe. Not likely, but maybe.
You were one of the people trying to tell me that dual wielders were going to be and/or should be dex based, remember?

[Finieous]

Point being, there are a ton of amazing ranger spells which either only work with bows (ranged weapons) or are strictly better when used with bows (ranged weapons). This means that most rangers will indeed be ranged, making TWF a terrible option for them in comparison, which means, in turn, that rangers with the TWF style will likely be multiclass more often than not.

Yes, I would expect most rangers to choose Archery for their fighting style. I also expect that all such rangers will occasionally be in melee combat, and many of them will fight with two weapons. With hunter's mark up, it's 2d6 damage with their bonus action every turn, which is a pretty good use of their bonus action. They don't need any styles or feats for this.

If I were playing a ranger, I'd certainly have my longbow and would use it as much as possible; I'd also have my two shortswords or scimitars and a shield, choosing my tools appropriately based on the combat situation and opponent. In any case, I really just wanted to correct the earlier suggestion that hunter's mark could only be used with ranged attacks. In fact, the spell works very nicely with two-weapon fighting and requires no further investment of character building resources.