Attack with offhand only once per turn?

[yutikohyla]

Hello, new here and didn't see this posted elsewhere (though I admit I did not read the entire sticky as it is quite long). When you fight with two weapons, the PHB states you may make an attack with your offhand as a bonus action. This implies that even if you have multiple attack you may only use your offhand for one of them. Is this correct?

If it is, would you as a DM allow the offhand to be used for each extra attack that you have? This style of fighting seems pretty tame compared to what it used to be if not.

[Justin Sane]

That is correct. TWF uses a Bonus Action, of which you only have one per turn.

As for multiple attacks... I'd have to do some math. Gut feeling says it's probably okay, if you don't add the ability bonus to damage on the additional attacks.

[FadeAssassin]

I think as far as how you picture your character fighting, it doensn't matter. It makes the most sense for a dual weilding fighter to use both.

If you are going to have a weapon in both hands, you're going to use both more then just once if possible. For most people it's not a problem since they use the same type of weapon in both hands, i.e. shortswords in both. It would only need to be specified if the charry was using either:

1 Magical W and 1 Mundane W
OR
2 Different weapons (Scimitar and S. Sword for example.)

[jaydubs]

Hello, new here and didn't see this posted elsewhere (though I admit I did not read the entire sticky as it is quite long). When you fight with two weapons, the PHB states you may make an attack with your offhand as a bonus action. This implies that even if you have multiple attack you may only use your offhand for one of them. Is this correct?

Yes. Two weapon fighting gets you 1 attack with your offhand, as a bonus action.


If it is, would you as a DM allow the offhand to be used for each extra attack that you have?

No. If I understand correctly, dual wield is somewhat behind the other styles once you get past early levels. But intuitively, I suspect letting it outright double the number of attacks would overcompensate, to the point of making it too powerful. Maybe someone will come in with some math and prove me wrong though.


This style of fighting seems pretty tame compared to what it used to be if not.

5e is a new system. It's really much more enjoyable if you don't expect it to work like previous editions. To that end, I don't accept how things used to be as a rationale for how things should be in 5e.

[silveralen]

If you only add the ability bonus on the first offhand attack each round (even that is only with the fighting style obviously) it seems reasonable.

Might be a bit absurd otherwise.

[yutikohyla]

Yes. Two weapon fighting gets you 1 attack with your offhand, as a bonus action.



No. If I understand correctly, dual wield is somewhat behind the other styles once you get past early levels. But intuitively, I suspect letting it outright double the number of attacks would overcompensate, to the point of making it too powerful. Maybe someone will come in with some math and prove me wrong though.



5e is a new system. It's really much more enjoyable if you don't expect it to work like previous editions. To that end, I don't accept how things used to be as a rationale for how things should be in 5e.


I figured that it might be a bit too good for every attack. It was just a thought. I never used how it used to be as a rationale for how things should be. I merely stated that it used to be that way, and seems to be less powerful in comparison. Not that it should be that way because it used to be that way. It makes sense to me from a flavor standpoint. If a character uses two weapons often enough it stands to reason they would develop a style of fighting in which they attack with both weapons each time.

I was never trying to get anyone riled up. Merely a question that my DM and I were talking about so I thought I'd ask the playground.

[jaydubs]

I figured that it might be a bit too good for every attack. It was just a thought. I never used how it used to be as a rationale for how things should be. I merely stated that it used to be that way, and seems to be less powerful in comparison. Not that it should be that way because it used to be that way.

I was never trying to get anyone riled up. Merely a question that my DM and I were talking about so I thought I'd ask the playground.

Sorry if that seemed too snippy. It was not my intention. It's just a point of view I've seen unusually often in 5e discussions.


It makes sense to me from a flavor standpoint. If a character uses two weapons often enough it stands to reason they would develop a style of fighting in which they attack with both weapons each time.

There, we'll just have to agree to disagree. At least from what I know about real world weapon techniques (admittedly incomplete), using two weapons doesn't double your effective offense. (There's a reason it was a much rarer style of fighting.) And while I'm happy enough to break from IRL limitations in a setting where people can wave their hands and produce fireballs, TWF as it stands doesn't feel counterintuitive to me. So I'll defer to the math and balance considerations.

[FadeAssassin]

From a cinematic standpoint there is no problem with a higher level fighter taking their extra-attacks with an off-hand weapon: honestly it makes more sense. If they didn't, drop the weapon and pick up a damn shield

Mechanically though You may have a difficult time if you onlyhave 1 magic weapon or are using two wepons of different kinds

[Nagalipton]

As far as alternating which weapons swing when, consider the following:

A level 20 fighter gets 4 standard attacks right? We'll use this as the example character, though any duel weilder with more than 1 standard attack can work.

Each attack may be used with either weapon. Just for kicks lets say someone has the duel weilding feat that allows non light weapons to be used. Our fighter has a longsword and a handaxe (for emergency throwing fun times).

TWF allows a bonus action attack with the weapon in the other hand, but the bonus action can trigger at any point during a player's turn unless specifically stated otherwise (I don't have the page number, but its in the PH). This means you can fit the bonus hit anytime after the initial hit. It could be the 2nd strike, or the 3rd, or the 5th. That being said the normal hits can be either weapon. So our fighter could go, Sword, Axe, Sword, Sword Sword OR Sword, Axe, Sword, Axe, Sword, OR Sword, Axe, Sword, Sword, Axe, or any combination. Its really up to the player.

This rarely matters, but when it matters it can make some fun situations especially with multiple monsters with unknown weaknesses.

[Todasmile]

Yeah, dual-wielding doesn't have any particular mechanical benefits. I suppose if you're playing without feats, it's one of the few ways to get a bonus action attack, but that's about it. Dual Wielder is a pretty bad feat, honestly. (Seriously, it gives +1 AC, +1 average damage, and an ability that you should have already had in the first place. Compare that to every other similar feat.)

The fighting style bonus is really strong early game, but later on it just sort of peters out - on a Fighter, the +2 bonus from Dueling and the rerolling and sheer power from GWM completely outdamage the extra bonus attack, and they can still use their bonus actions.

I don't know how I'd fix it. Maybe just not require a bonus action for the extra attack, or make the bonus action better.

[Kerrin]

One way I've toyed around with this is at level 6 you get a second off hand attack, at level 12 a third, and at level 18 a fourth.

Haven't put a lot of time play testing this a lot, but what I wanted to achieve is something that "scales" with level so as to make the feat useful over the lifetime of a character.

[Townopolis]

Alright. First, I'm going to lift some math Ashrym did in another thread for champion DPR. Note that this is just base DPR using the Champion fighter and 1 feat.


GWF (Champion, great weapon fighting style, greatsword (8.33), great weapon master, no magic weapon, 40% accuracy):

Main attack
15% critical damage = 2d6+2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 4.75
25% normal damage = 2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 5.83
60% nada

10.58*4 attacks = 42.32 damage

Bonus attack (47.80% chance from multiple critical opportunities)
15% critical damage = 2d6+2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 4.75
25% normal damage = 2d6+5+10 reroll 1 or 2 = 5.83
60% nada

Bonus = 5.06 damage
Total = 47.38 average DPR
Some notes: this is against an AC 19 opponent, since that is a common AC at top levels. Also, the 8.33 DPR listed for greatsword is after applying great weapon fighting style rerolls.

And now, let's look at what happens if you replace the current two-weapon fighting style (add your stat bonus to the offhand weapon's damage) with one that lets the benefits of Extra Attack apply when using your bonus action to attack with your offhand.

TWF (Champion, two-weapon fighting style, longsword (4.5) + longsword (4.5), dual wielder, no magic weapons, 65% accuracy):

Main attack
15% critical damage = 1d8+1d8+5 = 2.1
50% normal damage = 1d8+5 = 4.75
35% nada

6.85*4 attacks = 27.4 damage

Bonus attack
15% critical damage = 1d8+1d8 = 1.35
50% normal damage = 1d8 = 2.25
35% nada

3.6*4 attacks = 14.4 damage
Total = 41.8 average DPR

Notes: both builds include a feat, the TWF fighter gets +1 AC from his. Also, TWF allows the second fighter to spread and/or ration his attacks more in instances where that matters. OTOH, the GWF only uses his bonus action for attacking 47.8% of the time compared to the TWF needing to use it 100% of the time for these numbers.

Most importantly, while I hope these numbers prove helpful, this is just one comparison.

[MeeposFire]

Be careful when you balance two weapon fighting with the fighter class. Its ability to make more attacks than anybody else skews the numbers even more towards non-two weapon fighting. Everybody keeps using those numbers rather than using the more common numbers for most classes that do not get those extra two attacks.

How much of a deficiency is it for non-fighters to two weapon fight compared to other options? Consider that classes like barb with rage damage and paladins with their 11th level feature actually get a nice boost from extra attacks. Of course bonus action attacks that are not two weapon attacks devalue the ability especially if they are easy to get/use (polearm master).

I think it would be best to evaluate two weapon fighting on most fighting classes (with less attacks) and then evaluate what you would need to do to make it viable specifically for the fighter and his particular issues.

[Todasmile]

Be careful when you balance two weapon fighting with the fighter class. Its ability to make more attacks than anybody else skews the numbers even more towards non-two weapon fighting. Everybody keeps using those numbers rather than using the more common numbers for most classes that do not get those extra two attacks.

How much of a deficiency is it for non-fighters to two weapon fight compared to other options? Consider that classes like barb with rage damage and paladins with their 11th level feature actually get a nice boost from extra attacks. Of course bonus action attacks that are not two weapon attacks devalue the ability especially if they are easy to get/use (polearm master).

I think it would be best to evaluate two weapon fighting on most fighting classes (with less attacks) and then evaluate what you would need to do to make it viable specifically for the fighter and his particular issues.

I specifically mentioned Fighter because they actually get the Fighting Style required to make it worth using two weapons. The other is Ranger, and I guess you could use it decently on them, but it still pales in comparison to Archery or Dueling, neither of which require your bonus action to deal better damage.

Barbarian doesn't like it because no +strength to damage on the bonus action hit, which makes it an incredibly small bonus. I guess it's a decent option solely thanks to Rage but, again, if you can get a bonus attack anywhere else, you're better off with that. With Feats, you want to be using a two-handed weapon for the great synergy it has with Reckless Attack, and without them, Frenzy's one of those few bonus action attacks available.

Paladin could, I guess, get another Smite off per turn, which is pretty good if they want to burst someone down fast. More hits also means more crits, which means even more smite damage.

I don't think it's particularly a bad choice, but I don't think it's much more than middling on anyone. The Paladin burst case is the best one I can think of. Maybe Ranger, for Hunter's Mark synergy.

[Eslin]

I specifically mentioned Fighter because they actually get the Fighting Style required to make it worth using two weapons. The other is Ranger, and I guess you could use it decently on them, but it still pales in comparison to Archery or Dueling, neither of which require your bonus action to deal better damage.

Barbarian doesn't like it because no +strength to damage on the bonus action hit, which makes it an incredibly small bonus. I guess it's a decent option solely thanks to Rage but, again, if you can get a bonus attack anywhere else, you're better off with that. With Feats, you want to be using a two-handed weapon for the great synergy it has with Reckless Attack, and without them, Frenzy's one of those few bonus action attacks available.

Paladin could, I guess, get another Smite off per turn, which is pretty good if they want to burst someone down fast. More hits also means more crits, which means even more smite damage.

I don't think it's particularly a bad choice, but I don't think it's much more than middling on anyone. The Paladin burst case is the best one I can think of. Maybe Ranger, for Hunter's Mark synergy.

Dex paladin, grab a level or two in fighter for the dex to damage. Four attacks is nice, and at level 11 that's another 4d8 damage.

The whole thing has a weakness of requiring double the amount of magic weapons though.

11 levels of fighter would get you 6 attacks - find a source of bonus damage somewhere and you're getting a great multiplier.

[Townopolis]

The math posted above is replacing the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, not the feat. The fighting style is only available to fighters and rangers that I know of, so balancing any changes to the fighting style on the fighter is half the job done and you just have to finish by making sure ranger is balanced as well (okay, and anyone for whom a fighter dip is worthwhile).

It should be borne in mind that rogues already prefer TWF to other styles for maximizing DPR due to the fact that Sneak Attack applies to the first hit, and TWF is the best way for rogues to increase their chance to hit at least once per round.

[Knaight]

If it is, would you as a DM allow the offhand to be used for each extra attack that you have? This style of fighting seems pretty tame compared to what it used to be if not.

This seems really excessive. With that said, I do think it would be reasonable to boost the effectiveness of the offhand attack so that it gets to the point of a normal attack (maybe once 2 attacks are standard), and then to let any combination of attacks to be used, totaling one more than would otherwise be there. Say a character would normally have 3 attacks, and is wielding an ax and a mace. Now they have four, and they could use two of each, three of one or one of the other, or even four of one, modeling using the other weapon as a defensive implement to open attack options.

[Todasmile]

This seems really excessive. With that said, I do think it would be reasonable to boost the effectiveness of the offhand attack so that it gets to the point of a normal attack (maybe once 2 attacks are standard), and then to let any combination of attacks to be used, totaling one more than would otherwise be there. Say a character would normally have 3 attacks, and is wielding an ax and a mace. Now they have four, and they could use two of each, three of one or one of the other, or even four of one, modeling using the other weapon as a defensive implement to open attack options.

Are you suggesting adding the offhand attack to the Attack action? Because I think that's really the best option. It leaves the bonus action open, which is already a heck of a lot better, but it also means that you don't have to make the offhand attack after everything else, making some niche strategies viable. None that I can think of right this instant, but I'm sure they're out there.

I'd also rework the Dual Wielder feat a little. Honestly, it could use some work. Getting to draw and stow two weapons is barely a benefit - I'd either make drawing and stowing completely free, or I'd change it into something else entirely.

[Alucard2099]

would you as a DM allow the offhand to be used for each extra attack that you have? This style of fighting seems pretty tame compared to what it used to be if not.

I personally would make it so the extra attacks you get at 5th level do not have an off hand attack. It just seems like thinks could get messy if you allow it. Too many people making the "meta knight" option with a stupid amount of attacks.

[Balor777]

In my opinion TWF is not bad at all.
Short reason:You just have to find a second magic weapon.
Long reason:
Pick half orc and 1 level fighter on every character
you would like to have the edge.
With 2 weapons you immidiately have 10% to crit on
1st level and 15% at 5 level.Combine that with half orc crit damage extra die and you WILL deal good amounts of damage.
You want more?Take 1 level of barbarian for rage wich gives you another 2 damage to your off hand and main hand(its like 16 lvl rage +4 damage if both attacks hit).
If you want to take if further 2nd lvl barbarian lets you attack recklessly.Thats 20% to crit till 5 level and super 30% for 3d8 at each hand + 5 from 17 str half orc.
You will need the feat if you choose to attack reclessly because that +1 to AC counters the extra danger from this ability.Altho youll probably attack reclessly while on Rage for that 50% damage reduction from physical damage.
If you get a second magic weapon things get very very nice.

[Easy_Lee]

As far as alternating which weapons swing when, consider the following:

A level 20 fighter gets 4 standard attacks right? We'll use this as the example character, though any duel weilder with more than 1 standard attack can work.

Each attack may be used with either weapon. Just for kicks lets say someone has the duel weilding feat that allows non light weapons to be used. Our fighter has a longsword and a handaxe (for emergency throwing fun times).

TWF allows a bonus action attack with the weapon in the other hand, but the bonus action can trigger at any point during a player's turn unless specifically stated otherwise (I don't have the page number, but its in the PH). This means you can fit the bonus hit anytime after the initial hit. It could be the 2nd strike, or the 3rd, or the 5th. That being said the normal hits can be either weapon. So our fighter could go, Sword, Axe, Sword, Sword Sword OR Sword, Axe, Sword, Axe, Sword, OR Sword, Axe, Sword, Sword, Axe, or any combination. Its really up to the player.

This rarely matters, but when it matters it can make some fun situations especially with multiple monsters with unknown weaknesses.

This is how TWF works as I understand it, and it's an important distinction. If you have two weapons with two different magical enchantments, it could be very beneficial to be able to swing the one you want to. The TWF bonus attack is just one extra attack that round that's presumably made at the same time or with close to the same momentum as another attack. That would explain why it has to use the other weapon and why it doesn't normally include attribute damage. Maybe it's a scissor-attack, or maybe you just did a gay little spin and hit someone with a weakened blow.

[Fwiffo86]

Be careful when you balance two weapon fighting with the fighter class. Its ability to make more attacks than anybody else skews the numbers even more towards non-two weapon fighting. Everybody keeps using those numbers rather than using the more common numbers for most classes that do not get those extra two attacks.

How much of a deficiency is it for non-fighters to two weapon fight compared to other options? Consider that classes like barb with rage damage and paladins with their 11th level feature actually get a nice boost from extra attacks. Of course bonus action attacks that are not two weapon attacks devalue the ability especially if they are easy to get/use (polearm master).

I think it would be best to evaluate two weapon fighting on most fighting classes (with less attacks) and then evaluate what you would need to do to make it viable specifically for the fighter and his particular issues.

This. Consider the rogue. Straight up increase to armor, due to light armor and lack of shield. (any bonus helps) and while I don't have the time to figure the math, it give the rogue another chance to drop 10d6 sneak attack damage. The offhand lacking any ability modifier to damage seems pointless when you look at it that way. The same for Paladin smiting capability.

I agree with the poster above. We need to stop considering TWF as a martial only comparison. It is much more useful to other classes than to fighters or barbarians.

[Louro]

Add in Poisoner's kit proficiency. The off hand bonus attack is one more chance to poison your enemy, tho you expend double amount of poison there.

IRL TWF is useless as hell, and I think the only style which proved efficient was the parrying dagger one, but this is D&D so I wouldn't mind to allow a dual wielder to use either weapon combo to fulfill his attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

IRL TWF is useless as hell, and I think the only style which proved efficient was the parrying dagger one, but this is D&D so I wouldn't mind to allow a dual wielder to use either weapon combo to fulfill his attacks.

Only TWF as it's typically presented in fantasy is useless, and then only dubiously so.

Two pistols is certainly a thing, and you get twice as many shots before reloading that way. Some people can reliably aim both, too.

Bucklers were often basically used like weapons. Getting punched with a hunk of metal is no joke, and the combination presents advantages over using two of the same weapon.

Stick fighting with two sticks is common enough, fighters just switch up which is attacking and which defending on the fly. That same principle can be applied to any paired weapon set.

And of course we have the katar and scissors katar combo from India. There's also the dual hook-sword combo from China, which had advantages over just one sword. Really, Europe is the only place where you saw very little dual wielding, probably due to the popularity and usefulness of shields and spears combined with how expensive a good weapon would be.

Sword and shield is generally more useful, but then heavy armor basically negated the need to carry shields. It would be perfectly reasonable to wear field plate and carry a sword and mace so you could swing whichever was more effective against your opponent's armor. And in the middle of a skirmish, you would want to have them both out at once, especially if you could handle the ambidextrous nature. Would a weapon like a poleax be more useful? Probably. But dual wielding is not really useless.

[Gnomes2169]

If you wanted to let the TWF style scale, then I recommend letting it make a second offhand attack the first time you get the extra attack option (or the only time as it is for most classes). I mathed it out with the fighting style and without a while back, and it generally keeps up with the other fighting styles if you add just the one extra hit into the mix. It ended up with about these results for a the martial classes (assuming all hits, ignoring crits):

Fighter:

-TWF style vs GWF style vs Dielist style: 8d6+30 (58) vs 8d6+20, reroll 1's and 2's (53.4) vs 4d8+28 (48)
-TWF no style vs GWF no style vs Duelist no style: 8d6+20 (48) vs 8d6+20 (48) vs 4d8+20 (40)

Barbarians:

TWF rage vs GWF rage: 4d6+22 (36) vs 4d6+18 (32)
TWF no rage vs GWF no rage: 4d6+10 (24) vs 4d6+10 (24)

Monk:

You want to flurry that forever, TWF style won't add your ability bonus. Martial arts out-damages it by 1.5 points if everything hits.

Paladin:

TWF no style (can't get it normally) vs GWF style vs Duelist style: 4d6+10+4d8 (42) vs 4d6+10+2d8 reroll 1's and 2's (35.6) vs 4d8+14 (32)

The improved smite ability is the biggest part of this. Before level 11, twf will be behind gwf and about equal with Duelist (24 vs 26.6 vs 23). Sure some more nova potential is there, but the GWF will have more sustained.

Ranger:

Yeah... Not comparing other things. It will clearly out-damage duelist, and Archery's accuracy boost is the biggest advantage (which is why I haven't been including it).

If feats get added in, GWF becomes the damage king again (simply add in Polearm master and a halbeard and it rockets to the top, or add in a GWM and laugh and laugh...) and Duelist becomes an incredibly powerful defensive option to make up for the lack of damage (and can add in the shield master feat to use their bonus action).

[Titanium Dragon]

Honestly, I don't think it really needs much adjustment; as pointed out earlier in the thread, you can deal very nearly as much damage and there are other benefits to it which compensate somewhat for the lost offensive output. With the feat, you're getting an AC bonus while having nearly as high of damage output as someone who is doing other things. And it is worth remembering that, with the rogue, it is very useful as a means of ensuring that you hit with something and thus get that all-important sneak-attack damage (and you don't even need to use the feat with the rogue to make it worthwhile).

[Easy_Lee]

Honestly, I don't think it really needs much adjustment; as pointed out earlier in the thread, you can deal very nearly as much damage and there are other benefits to it which compensate somewhat for the lost offensive output. With the feat, you're getting an AC bonus while having nearly as high of damage output as someone who is doing other things. And it is worth remembering that, with the rogue, it is very useful as a means of ensuring that you hit with something and thus get that all-important sneak-attack damage (and you don't even need to use the feat with the rogue to make it worthwhile).

Only trouble is that dual wield compares unfavorably to dueling as a fighter. Dueling damage is actually higher past 11, unless the dual wielder picks up the dual wielder feat and pulls marginally ahead. Even then, the dueling character can pick up shield mastery and be overall much more effective than the dueling player. Both could potentially benefit from the defensive duelist feat equally, if DEX-based.

However, if strength-based, the dueling player can use a quarterstaff 1h and get bonus attacks that add attribute + 2 for dueling using the polearm mastery feat. This particular combination keeps pace with feat'd two weapon fighting all the way up, has 1 higher AC, and gets more opportunity attacks.

The competition for TWF fighter builds is not GWF, but dueling. It's just such a good fighting style, beaten only by archery. If one wanted to add one more offhand attack after 11 for TWF, then it would deal better damage than dueling.

[TheOOB]

Only trouble is that dual wield compares unfavorably to dueling as a fighter. Dueling damage is actually higher past 11, unless the dual wielder picks up the dual wielder feat and pulls marginally ahead. Even then, the dueling character can pick up shield mastery and be overall much more effective than the dueling player. Both could potentially benefit from the defensive duelist feat equally, if DEX-based.

However, if strength-based, the dueling player can use a quarterstaff 1h and get bonus attacks that add attribute + 2 for dueling using the polearm mastery feat. This particular combination keeps pace with feat'd two weapon fighting all the way up, has 1 higher AC, and gets more opportunity attacks.

The competition for TWF fighter builds is not GWF, but dueling. It's just such a good fighting style, beaten only by archery. If one wanted to add one more offhand attack after 11 for TWF, then it would deal better damage than dueling.

Math time!

Assuming 20 strength

Duelist Average Damage(longsword):

1 Attack: 11.5 damage
2 Attacks: 23 damage
3 Attacks: 34.5 damage
4 Attacks: 46 damage

And +2 AC(for shield)

Two-Weapon Fighting Average Damage(shortswords)

1 Attack: 17 damage
2 Attacks: 25.5 damage
3 Attacks: 34 damage
4 Attacks: 42.5 damage

Two-Weapon Fighting Average Damage(Longswords w/feat)

1 Attack: 19 damage
2 Attacks: 28.5 damage
3 Attacks: 38 damage
4 Attacks: 47.5 damage

And +1 AC(from feat).

Two-Weapon fighting is a Superior fighting style damage wise with one or two attacks, which is good for rangers or multiclass fighters, but Duelist is clearly superior at high levels.

If you spend the feat on it TWF is stronger than duelist damage wise or all 4 attacks, and you lose only 1 ac, but you did spend a feat, which may be worth it. Duelist is probabally better at 4 attacks, but only a single class fighter ever gets that, so not very relevant in 99% of cases.

[Easy_Lee]

Math time!

What about the math for dueling + polearm mastery + quarterstaff vs TWF + Dual Wielder?

Qstaff: Two one-handed quarterstaff attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 strength
2(1d6+4+2)+(1d4+4+2)=27.5

Dual Wield: Two rapier attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 dexterity
3(1d8+4)=25.5

The quarterstaff user also gets one higher AC (or a free hand), additional attacks of opportunity, and needs only one relatively cheap and easily replaceable weapon to pull it off. Since polearm mastery specifically lists quarterstaff, since it doesn't specify two-handed, and since dueling works with all one-handed attacks, the above math is RAW. Dueling is actually better than TWF in every single way when used with a quarterstaff and polearm mastery.

[Fwiffo86]

What about the math for dueling + polearm mastery + quarterstaff vs TWF + Dual Wielder?

Qstaff: Two one-handed quarterstaff attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 strength
2(1d6+4+2)+(1d4+4+2)=27.5

Dual Wield: Two rapier attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 dexterity
3(1d8+4)=25.5

The quarterstaff user also gets one higher AC (or a free hand), additional attacks of opportunity, and needs only one relatively cheap and easily replaceable weapon to pull it off. Since polearm mastery specifically lists quarterstaff, since it doesn't specify two-handed, and since dueling works with all one-handed attacks, the above math is RAW. Dueling is actually better than TWF in every single way when used with a quarterstaff and polearm mastery.

Excellent maths!

However, while 2 points of damage can be an improvement and is comparatively, I personally don't consider it a wide enough gulf to consider it better/superior given the nature of dice rolling. If it were 3 times that (6) or more, then yes, it would be clearly superior. But that is just my opinion. I felt like sharing. :P

[Todasmile]

What about the math for dueling + polearm mastery + quarterstaff vs TWF + Dual Wielder?

Qstaff: Two one-handed quarterstaff attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 strength
2(1d6+4+2)+(1d4+4+2)=27.5

Dual Wield: Two rapier attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 dexterity
3(1d8+4)=25.5

The quarterstaff user also gets one higher AC (or a free hand), additional attacks of opportunity, and needs only one relatively cheap and easily replaceable weapon to pull it off. Since polearm mastery specifically lists quarterstaff, since it doesn't specify two-handed, and since dueling works with all one-handed attacks, the above math is RAW. Dueling is actually better than TWF in every single way when used with a quarterstaff and polearm mastery.

Dueling + Shield Master + Any weapon also probably beats TWF + Dual Wielder on average in damage, and has way better defensive benefits than either Polearm Master OR Dual Wielder.

[Easy_Lee]

Excellent maths!

However, while 2 points of damage can be an improvement and is comparatively, I personally don't consider it a wide enough gulf to consider it better/superior given the nature of dice rolling. If it were 3 times that (6) or more, then yes, it would be clearly superior. But that is just my opinion. I felt like sharing. :P

Take magic initiate - shillelagh for an extra one damage per attack, not counting the bonus. The gap widens with every additional attack you can get, to a maximum of 5 attacks for fighter 17 with haste + 1 bonus. Let's assume someone rolls up a level 17 eldritch knight with magic initiate for shillelagh (concentration not required), polearm mastery, casts haste on self, and is using dueling with a quarterstaff. Let's compare that to a 17th level hasted dual-wielder. We'll give both an attribute bonus of 5.

Qstaff: 5 attacks 1d8+2, one bonus 1d4+2
5(1d8+2+5)+(1d4+2+5) = 67 average DPR, assuming all hit

TWF: 5 attacks 1d8, one bonus 1d8
6(1d8+5) = 57 average DPR, assuming all hit

(67-57)/57 = 17.5% increased DPR

Notably, the duelist's DPR is still higher without the bonus attack (57.5 vs 57). That means that a DEX duelist with shield mastery and a rapier still does better damage than the dual wielder, while being considerably harder to kill and having more options in combat.

[Ashrym]

Take magic initiate - shillelagh for an extra one damage per attack, not counting the bonus. The gap widens with every additional attack you can get, to a maximum of 5 attacks for fighter 17 with haste + 1 bonus. Let's assume someone rolls up a level 17 eldritch knight with magic initiate for shillelagh (concentration not required), polearm mastery, casts haste on self, and is using dueling with a quarterstaff. Let's compare that to a 17th level hasted dual-wielder. We'll give both an attribute bonus of 5.

Qstaff: 5 attacks 1d8+2, one bonus 1d4+2
5(1d8+2+5)+(1d4+2+5) = 67 average DPR, assuming all hit

TWF: 5 attacks 1d8, one bonus 1d8
6(1d8+5) = 57 average DPR, assuming all hit

(67-57)/57 = 17.5% increased DPR

Notably, the duelist's DPR is still higher without the bonus attack (57.5 vs 57). That means that a DEX duelist with shield mastery and a rapier still does better damage than the dual wielder, while being considerably harder to kill and having more options in combat.

A PC cannot dual-wield quarterstaves. They don't possess the "light" weapon quality. Even with the feat it's one quarterstaff plus one light weapon, and that does no good because the second weapon and polearm mastery both require the bonus action for the attack. The PC could take the bonus attack from pole arm mastery with a quarterstaff or the second hand weapon but not both; a character only has 1 bonus action on his or her turn.

A 20th level fighter does get 6 total attacks. Standard attack action plus 3 extra attack features plus 1 bonus action plus the hasted action. What's nice about it is that this can all be done one handed with a shield while using a quarterstaff because it's a one-handed weapon. TWF has the same number of attacks but without the shield, and the second weapon will be a d6 weapon. A feat changes the main weapon into a d8 weapon for the TWF fighter, otherwise it would also be a d6 weapon because of the light melee weapon requirement.


Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, dueling fighting style, polearm master, staff and shield, shillelagh poached with a feat, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d8+d8+2+5 = 0.8
65% Standard Damage: d8+2+5 = 7.48
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d4+d4+2+5 = 0.6
65% Standard Damage: d4+2+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 48.18


Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, two-weapon fighting style, dual wielder, long sword and short sword, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d8+d8+5 = 0.7
65% Standard Damage: d8+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d6+d6+5 = 0.6
65% Standard Damage: d6+5 = 5.53
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 40.53


The real difference in the case is the bonus damage from the fighting style. The shillelagh and shield combo costs one more feat and has higher AC from the shield than the bonus the TWF has. If we adjust to have the same number of feats spent and give up shillelagh it looks like this:

Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, dueling fighting style, polearm master, staff and shield, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d6+d6+2+5 = 0.7
65% Standard Damage: d6+2+5 = 6.83
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d4+d4+2+5 = 0.6
65% Standard Damage: d4+2+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 44.43


I doubt I would spend the additional feat on shillelagh if I've already spent 2 on STR and 1 on pole arm master, but possibly.


Hope that helps :)

[Easy_Lee]

A PC cannot dual-wield quarterstaves. They don't possess the "light" weapon quality. Even with the feat it's one quarterstaff plus one light weapon, and that does no good because the second weapon and polearm mastery both require the bonus action for the attack. The PC could take the bonus attack from pole arm mastery with a quarterstaff or the second hand weapon but not both; a character only has 1 bonus action on his or her turn.

First off, what part of my post said anything about dual wielding quarterstaves? The bonus attack was from polearm mastery. Secondly, you can dual wield quarterstaves if you have the dual wielder feat. It allows you to dual wield non-light weapons, resulting in an average damage gain of +1 per attack.

[Rummy]

What about the math for dueling + polearm mastery + quarterstaff vs TWF + Dual Wielder?

Qstaff: Two one-handed quarterstaff attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 strength
2(1d6+4+2)+(1d4+4+2)=27.5

Dual Wield: Two rapier attacks, one bonus at 5, assume 18 dexterity
3(1d8+4)=25.5

The quarterstaff user also gets one higher AC (or a free hand), additional attacks of opportunity, and needs only one relatively cheap and easily replaceable weapon to pull it off. Since polearm mastery specifically lists quarterstaff, since it doesn't specify two-handed, and since dueling works with all one-handed attacks, the above math is RAW. Dueling is actually better than TWF in every single way when used with a quarterstaff and polearm mastery.

The whole one handed quarter staff attacking twice while using a shield cheese makes me wanna barf.

[Eslin]

The whole one handed quarter staff attacking twice while using a shield cheese makes me wanna barf.

In what way is that cheese?

Polearm master gives an extra attack with three weapons, one of which is the quarterstaff.

The quarterstaff is a one handed weapon, so naturally in the other hand you wield a shield.

So you can have a quarterstaff in one hand and a shield in the other and make an extra attack as a bonus action.


There, laid out very simply for you. The rules clearly state you can do it, it's clearly intended that you do it, doing it does not break anything, how is it cheese?

[Ashrym]

First off, what part of my post said anything about dual wielding quarterstaves? The bonus attack was from polearm mastery. Secondly, you can dual wield quarterstaves if you have the dual wielder feat. It allows you to dual wield non-light weapons, resulting in an average damage gain of +1 per attack.

I got it from your 5 attacks plus a bonus attack at 17th level. A 17th level fighter doesn't have that many attacks. Looking back, I see that I read "dueling" as "dual wielding" but the number of attacks you have listed threw me off. How did you come to that total?

Checking the feat again, I see that you are correct and I had misread it. Here is my updated math.


Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, dueling fighting style, polearm master, staff and shield, shillelagh poached with a feat, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d8+d8+2+5 = 0.8
65% Standard Damage: d8+2+5 = 7.48
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d4+d4+2+5 = 0.6
65% Standard Damage: d4+2+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 48.18


Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, two-weapon fighting style, dual wielder, long swords, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d8+d8+5 = 0.7
65% Standard Damage: d8+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d8+d8+5 = 0.7
65% Standard Damage: d8+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 41.28


After dropping shillelagh:

Fighter 20, 20 STR, vs AC 18, dueling fighting style, polearm master, staff and shield, self hasted)

5 Main Attacks, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d6+d6+2+5 = 0.7
65% Standard Damage: d6+2+5 = 6.83
30% Nada

Bonus Attack, 70% accuracy

5% Critical Chance: d4+d4+2+5 = 0.6
65% Standard Damage: d4+2+5 = 6.18
30% Nada

Total Average Damage: 44.43

[Easy_Lee]

The whole one handed quarter staff attacking twice while using a shield cheese makes me wanna barf.

In all honesty, the fact that polearm master and crossbow expert are the only weapon feats which allow a bonus attack is the real problem. If there were similar feats for other weapon types, and if TWF dealt more damage (it probably should), then nobody would have a problem. Right now, the game mechanics are imbalanced in favor of polearms and hand crossbows in the same way as dragon sorcerers are all but forced to specialize in fire.

[Fwiffo86]

In all honesty, the fact that polearm master and crossbow expert are the only weapon feats which allow a bonus attack is the real problem. If there were similar feats for other weapon types, and if TWF dealt more damage (it probably should), then nobody would have a problem. Right now, the game mechanics are imbalanced in favor of polearms and hand crossbows in the same way as dragon sorcerers are all but forced to specialize in fire.

Why do you feel that TWF needs to deal more damage? IMO the only character that really doesn't benefit from TWF is the 4 attack fighter. Most classes have 1-2 attacks unless specifically built for it. TWF sacs damage for the ability to attack multiple targets. Its a speed style, not a brute force style.

I am referencing the feat/general ability, NOT the fighting style as defined by Fighters and Rangers in this post.

[Easy_Lee]

Why do you feel that TWF needs to deal more damage? IMO the only character that really doesn't benefit from TWF is the 4 attack fighter. Most classes have 1-2 attacks unless specifically built for it. TWF sacs damage for the ability to attack multiple targets. Its a speed style, not a brute force style.

I am referencing the feat/general ability, NOT the fighting style as defined by Fighters and Rangers in this post.

I feel it should do more damage specifically in the hands of fighters to make it competitive with dueling. An extra offhand attack after 11 is my preferred change. It's fine for everyone else.

[Rummy]

In what way is that cheese?

Polearm master gives an extra attack with three weapons, one of which is the quarterstaff.

The quarterstaff is a one handed weapon, so naturally in the other hand you wield a shield.

So you can have a quarterstaff in one hand and a shield in the other and make an extra attack as a bonus action.


There, laid out very simply for you. The rules clearly state you can do it, it's clearly intended that you do it, doing it does not break anything, how is it cheese?

It is cheese because it is mechanically superior but utterly ridiculous. The extra attrack is meant to be the butt of the Polearm. Taking a quarter staff with one hand and smacking with both sides is silly. Where would the momentum come from? There is a reason people disn't wield shields and quarterstaves back in the day. The fact that it is mechanically superior to using a sword and shield is clearly a dumb mistake.

[Easy_Lee]

It is cheese because it is mechanically superior but utterly ridiculous. The extra attrack is meant to be the butt of the Polearm. Taking a quarter staff with one hand and smacking with both sides is silly. Where would the momentum come from? There is a reason people disn't wield shields and quarterstaves back in the day. The fact that it is mechanically superior to using a sword and shield is clearly a dumb mistake.

This is the second time I've had to post this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvGrJ3EzA0A

[Fwiffo86]

This is the second time I've had to post this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvGrJ3EzA0A

Nice video.

Doesn't demonstrate attempting to use a "quarterstaff" to KILL something. Nominally injure, sure. Non life threatening, no more than getting beat up. Not, the kind of damage someone would use to kill their target.

[Easy_Lee]

Nice video.

Doesn't demonstrate attempting to use a "quarterstaff" to KILL something. Nominally injure, sure. Non life threatening, no more than getting beat up. Not, the kind of damage someone would use to kill their target.

Being that it's a friendly competition, and those are light-weight sticks, what would you expect?

[Fwiffo86]

Being that it's a friendly competition, and those are light-weight sticks, what would you expect?

True enough. But I don't feel it supports your argument. It isn't the right weapon (by your own admission of light-weight sticks), and they aren't generating the sort of power you need to inflict proper harm. If you have a different video that demonstrates this, I would love to see it. I have extreme doubt as to being able to use a quarterstaff one handed to attack with both ends and inflict any sort of proper harm to a target.

[Easy_Lee]

True enough. But I don't feel it supports your argument. It isn't the right weapon (by your own admission of light-weight sticks), and they aren't generating the sort of power you need to inflict proper harm. If you have a different video that demonstrates this, I would love to see it. I have extreme doubt as to being able to use a quarterstaff one handed to attack with both ends and inflict any sort of proper harm to a target.

As you might guess, there's no stick-fighting competition where you're going to see that because it's a different kind of strike. Swinging a stick doesn't have to be all that lethal, though it can certainly knock someone for a loop and set up a killing strike. If you just wanted individually dangerous strikes, you'd poke with it. A thrust can be done with either end, either hand, and at any time with little windup. In other words, just think of it as a blunt spear.

It actually works better with the D&D hp-as-an-abstraction idea. You're not killing the target with every hit, you're weakening their defenses until you can land a killing strike. You can see that in stick fighting when they manage to knock each other down.

[Fwiffo86]

As you might guess, there's no stick-fighting competition where you're going to see that because it's a different kind of strike. Swinging a stick doesn't have to be all that lethal, though it can certainly knock someone for a loop and set up a killing strike. If you just wanted individually dangerous strikes, you'd poke with it. A thrust can be done with either end, either hand, and at any time with little windup. In other words, just think of it as a blunt spear.

It actually works better with the D&D hp-as-an-abstraction idea. You're not killing the target with every hit, you're weakening their defenses until you can land a killing strike. You can see that in stick fighting when they manage to knock each other down.

Fair enough.

[Gnomes2169]

Nice video.

Doesn't demonstrate attempting to use a "quarterstaff" to KILL something. Nominally injure, sure. Non life threatening, no more than getting beat up. Not, the kind of damage someone would use to kill their target.

I don't think 1d4+str damage is all that lethal unless you are a kobold, goblin or commoner... All of whom are made of wet tissue paper, and have their pressure points basically illuminated by a big, flashing "hit me here to kill me" sign. :smalltongue:

[Easy_Lee]

I don't think 1d4+str damage is all that lethal unless you are a kobold, goblin or commoner... All of whom are made of wet tissue paper, and have their pressure points basically illuminated by a big, flashing "hit me here to kill me" sign. :smalltongue:

Besides the fact that a jab from a staff, possibly a knobbed, metal one, can fracture or break bones no matter if it's a backhand or overhand thrust.

[Rummy]

Fair enough.

I disagree. Look at the damage of a long sword or battle axe... That is 1d8 + str from a very lethal weapon. Look at the damage a short sword does. Are we saying that the back end of a one handed quarterstaff is as effective as a dagger or the punch/kick from a monk? That is just crazy. Other people point out that you can hurt people using a quarterstaff in one hand... I agree, but that is the main attack. There is no way to generate sufficient force with both ends using only one arm.

Regardless, it is stupid to make shield and sword mechanically inferior to shield and long sword or battle axe. Very poor game design. The Polearm Master feat should have specified that it only is usable when wielding weapons with two hands. Also, it should have stated that the bonus action attack does not have reach.

[Easy_Lee]

I disagree. I think the game should be this other way instead.

Regardless of how you feel, the mechanics here are pretty clear. If WoTC agrees with you then maybe it will be errata'd in the future.

Regardless, I can tell you with absolute certainty that a solid metal or hard wood staff is more damaging than anyone's hands in the real world. If you want to come back and say "yeah but D&D monks are special", then I say that maybe 5e D&D quarterstaves are special, too.

[Rummy]

Regardless of how you feel, the mechanics here are pretty clear. If WoTC agrees with you then maybe it will be errata'd in the future.

Regardless, I can tell you with absolute certainty that a solid metal or hard wood staff is more damaging than anyone's hands in the real world. If you want to come back and say "yeah but D&D monks are special", then I say that maybe 5e D&D quarterstaves are special, too.

Wow. Thanks for the editing job. I never once tried to claim that it is not RAW. I said it was cheese. Then I explained that it is a result of poor editing.

As for the back of staff, the hardness is not too relevant. Force is the issue. Blunt weapons need force to be effective. Kick/punch... Easy to get sufficient force. One handed quarter staff attacking with both ends in rapid succession... Not so much.

[Easy_Lee]

Wow. Thanks for the editing job. I never once tried to claim that it is not RAW. I said it was cheese. Then I explained that it is a result of poor editing.

As for the back of staff, the hardness is not too relevant. Force is the issue. Blunt weapons need force to be effective. Kick/punch... Easy to get sufficient force. One handed quarter staff attacking with both ends in rapid succession... Not so much.

It's not a result of poor editting, it's a result of several people (including WoTC's editors) disagreeing with you. Your opinions are neither fact nor correct, they're just opinions.

And the weight of a blow has a LOT more to it than force. We also have to consider surface area, speed, and hardness. A long-handled weapon like a Quarterstaff has far more leverage (thus speed), higher density and hardness, and a smaller surface area than a fist (since you'll most likely strike with the tip or corner of the tip of able).

If that's too complicated, let me try an anology. Which do you think would hypothetically hurt more, someone hitting you with their fist or someone hitting you with a baseball bat?


http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131103010122/zombie/images/8/83/Baseball_bat.jpg
The ****ing baseball bat

[Dizlag]

To reply to the OP about having multiple attacks and using your bonus action for one of them, I think you're missing just a little. You don't replace one of your multiple attacks with an off-hand attack Bonus Action. You'll take your multiple attacks with your main-hand weapon applying ability modifier damage as your Action and you use your Bonus Action to make one off-hand attack without ability modifier damage.

So, if you have two attacks as a 5th level fighter and are wielding a shortsword in your main-hand and a dagger in your off-hand with an 18 DEX, you'll make two attacks with your shortsword at 1d6+4 as your Action. You can then make a two-weapon attack as a Bonus Action with your dagger at 1d4. So, you actually get 3 attacks total not 2 as I think you might have meant.

You asked if I as a DM would allow the number of off-hand attacks scale with the multiple attacks. No I wouldn't. However, after reading some of the posts here, I might be talked into letting you intermix your attacks, effectively combining the Action and Bonus Action. I would require you to specify what is the off-hand attack though. So, the other combinations than the above example I gave would be dagger (1d4), shortsword (1d6+4), shortsword (1d6+4) OR shortsword (1d6+4), dagger (1d4), shortsword (1d6+4). This second case could be used when your first attack might not have dropped one guy in front of you but he's teettering (1 HP) and you take him out with your dagger saving the second shortsword attack for the second guy in front of you, for example.

Just my 2 cp.

Dizlag

[Rummy]

It's not a result of poor editting, it's a result of several people (including WoTC's editors) disagreeing with you. Your opinions are neither fact nor correct, they're just opinions.

And the weight of a blow has a LOT more to it than force. We also have to consider surface area, speed, and hardness. A long-handled weapon like a Quarterstaff has far more leverage (thus speed), higher density and hardness, and a smaller surface area than a fist (since you'll most likely strike with the tip or corner of the tip of able).

If that's too complicated, let me try an anology. Which do you think would hypothetically hurt more, someone hitting you with their fist or someone hitting you with a baseball bat?


http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20131103010122/zombie/images/8/83/Baseball_bat.jpg
The ****ing baseball bat


The point I am trying to make is that a quarterstaff is not a baseball bat. Funny, the picture you posted basically makes my point. Baseball bats are dangerous because you can swing them fast and they are hard and somewhat heavy. Look at how he is holding it... With two hands! Bats are much deadlier when swung with two hands, but they can be wielded effectively with one hand. Quarterstaves are much more unwieldy because they are five to six feet long. Also, the weight is distributed evenly, so you have to do more work to make it hurt than a bat or mace that is weighted at the hurty end.

[Justin Sane]

The point I am trying to make is that a quarterstaff is not a baseball bat. Funny, the picture you posted basically makes my point. Baseball bats are dangerous because you can swing them fast and they are hard and somewhat heavy. Look at how he is holding it... With two hands! Bats are much deadlier when swung with two hands, but they can be wielded effectively with one hand. Quarterstaves are much more unwieldy because they are five to six feet long. Also, the weight is distributed evenly, so you have to do more work to make it hurt than a bat or mace that is weighted at the hurty end.IRL, maybe, but in 5e quarterstaves are one-handed versatile weapons. Much like your baseball bat.

[Rummy]

IRL, maybe, but in 5e quarterstaves are one-handed versatile weapons. Much like your baseball bat.

True. 5e does some weird stuff with quarterstaves. I don't really have too much of an issue with with one handed quarterstaff usage, assuming one can brace it along the arm or back to get leverage. It is attacking from both ends one handed via Polearm Master that is silly. To do that you would need to hold it in the center, which just kills your ability to get any leverage. Remember, you can't help with your other hand because it is holding a shield.

[Easy_Lee]

True. 5e does some weird stuff with quarterstaves. I don't really have too much of an issue with with one handed quarterstaff usage, assuming one can brace it along the arm or back to get leverage. It is attacking from both ends one handed via Polearm Master that is silly. To do that you would need to hold it in the center, which just kills your ability to get any leverage. Remember, you can't help with your other hand because it is holding a shield.

I really don't feel like we're thinking about the same kind of quarterstaff.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110518024343/forgottenrealms/images/f/f9/EA-IronshodQuarterstaff.jpg

I also really don't think we're talking about the same kind of offhand attack. If you were holding a dagger with a backwards grip, so the point was facing down, which of the following would you do:

Slash with it like you're in an Anime
Stab with it, a downward thrust

Assuming option B, what makes you think you can't do that with a quarterstaff immediately after swinging it?

[Rummy]

I really don't feel like we're thinking about the same kind of quarterstaff.
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110518024343/forgottenrealms/images/f/f9/EA-IronshodQuarterstaff.jpg

I also really don't think we're talking about the same kind of offhand attack. If you were holding a dagger with a backwards grip, so the point was facing down, which of the following would you do:

Slash with it like you're in an Anime
Stab with it, a downward thrust

Assuming option B, what makes you think you can't do that with a quarterstaff immediately after swinging it?

Because a dagger is an easy to wield weapon whereas a quarterstaff is unwieldy and very difficult to use with only one hand. I suggest you actually try it.

[Easy_Lee]

Because a dagger is an easy to wield weapon whereas a quarterstaff is unwieldy and very difficult to use with only one hand. I suggest you actually try it.

I suggest you not make assumptions about other posters. Know what's worse, though? Making assumptions about what's possible in a fantasy elf game whose basic physics don't even match our own. Falling speed is linear, gods manifest as tangible entities, one can visit other planes, and magic exists; all ideas you have about what's possible and what isn't are moot. The rules outrule you, Rummy.

And that's besides the fact that you just called a quarterstaff unwieldy. A staff is a basic, simple weapon that any peasant can use, both in this world and in D&D. In the real world, it's easier to hit someone with a stick than it is to stab them, because you have longer reach. I don't suggest you try either sometime.

I'm not going to participate in further derailment of this thread with another pointless multi-page quarterstaff debate. Quarterstaves are good this edition. Deal. With. It.

[Rummy]

I suggest you not make assumptions about other posters. Know what's worse, though? Making assumptions about what's possible in a fantasy elf game whose basic physics don't even match our own. Falling speed is linear, gods manifest as tangible entities, one can visit other planes, and magic exists; all ideas you have about what's possible and what isn't are moot. The rules outrule you, Rummy.

And that's besides the fact that you just called a quarterstaff unwieldy. A staff is a basic, simple weapon that any peasant can use, both in this world and in D&D. In the real world, it's easier to hit someone with a stick than it is to stab them, because you have longer reach. I don't suggest you try either sometime.

I'm not going to participate in further derailment of this thread with another pointless multi-page quarterstaff debate. Quarterstaves are good this edition. Deal. With. It.

But I thought derailing threads was your thing.

[Eslin]

Because a dagger is an easy to wield weapon whereas a quarterstaff is unwieldy and very difficult to use with only one hand. I suggest you actually try it.
No it isn't. According to the rules they're both simple one handed weapons, they are identical in difficulty. I don't need to try it, just as I don't need to try attacking several times with a heavy crossbow in the course of a few seconds to know that the rules allow it despite it being physically improbable in real life.


But I thought derailing threads was your thing.
What purpose did saying that serve?

[Knaight]

And that's besides the fact that you just called a quarterstaff unwieldy. A staff is a basic, simple weapon that any peasant can use, both in this world and in D&D. In the real world, it's easier to hit someone with a stick than it is to stab them, because you have longer reach. I don't suggest you try either sometime.

In the real world, it's generally used in two hands. The real world also frequently had peasants who were fairly adept with a lot of weapons associated with professional military forces, and it's often during those periods and those areas that people who could actually use a staff fairly effectively against other armed opponents were at all common. On top of that, with pole weapons of any sort stabs frequently represented the longest reach attacks, due to the usability of lunges.

I actually spar with pole arms primarily, I've done some amount with two handed swords, some sword and shield, some ax and shield, some mace and shield, even a bit of archery and a lot of slinging. Two handed pole arms are consistently my favorite. As a spear guy, I'm going to call just about any pole arm designed for two hands unwieldy if you try to use it in one. How unwieldy varies, and fairly few would really classify as unusable, with a staff being one of the ones that is actually easiest to use in one hand when it's meant for two. Still, unwieldy fits.

[Justin Sane]

As a spear guyYes, but are you a Spear Master? Because with the feat, you do become one.

[Yagyujubei]

Hello, new here and didn't see this posted elsewhere (though I admit I did not read the entire sticky as it is quite long). When you fight with two weapons, the PHB states you may make an attack with your offhand as a bonus action. This implies that even if you have multiple attack you may only use your offhand for one of them. Is this correct?

If it is, would you as a DM allow the offhand to be used for each extra attack that you have? This style of fighting seems pretty tame compared to what it used to be if not.

as far as your bonus action to get an extra attack, yeah you only get the one.

as for your actual multiple attacks from your attack action, if you're wielding two weapons you can use either for any of the attacks. there's nothing that states your full attack action must be completed with one weapon/hand

I would however required the player to call which hand/weapon he is using for each strike in advance of the rolls. for instance they would to say: "ok I'm attacking this guy twice with my left hand and twice with my right." and then roll to see hits.

Likewise, you can declare a different target for each attack if you wish as well. 5E is very fluid in this way since you can move between attacks and hit different enemies, they aren't mutually exclusive.

[Ashrym]

In the real world, it's generally used in two hands.

That's because of training similar to the approach monks use in game by allowing STR or DEX plus the higher damage from versatile.

The basic weapon is intended for one handed use in D&D as listed.


...with a staff being one of the ones that is actually easiest to use in one hand when it's meant for two. Still, unwieldy fits.

It's intended for one handed or two handed use with no exceptional training. It's traditionally also been a one handed weapon on D&D.

One handed and a shield means less damage and no bonus attack. Special training grants that bonus attack braced with another part of the body.

The mechanics are straight forward for a game system.

[GiantOctopodes]

FWIW, when I initially read the OP, I thought the question was whether or not the additional attacks from multiple attacks can be replaced with attacks from the offhand, so, with 3 attacks for example, going (Main) (Offhand) (Main) then bonus (Offhand). There certainly is nothing in the rules precluding that, and since either weapon can be considered your "main" or "offhand" freely, since they either both have to be light or neither has to be light (depending on feats), if there is one more mechanically advantageous all of your main attacks could be with it, so certainly there is no reason why you would prevent a player from swapping one of those attacks for the non-advantageous weapon.

I will point out that there is also nothing in the rules preventing a Barbarian or Fighter from "dual wielding" with non-light weapons without any feats, and attacking with their multiple attacks with one attack from each weapon, they just don't get the bonus attack granted by two weapon fighting, and it will never be mechanically superior to (as an example) wielding a single weapon and a shield, so certainly there is no reason to prevent them from doing so or to try to invent restrictions against it.

Reading through, people instead interpreted it as asking if you would grant multiple bonus action attacks when the player has multiple base weapon attacks, one per normal attack? With poison that gets out of control in a hurry, so I certainly would never allow it in my game, and if allowed in a game I played in, I would find it difficult to resist absolutely pouring on the damage (pun intended, sorry) so I would certainly caution against that.