Making dual wield more viable simple fix.

[Spacehamster]

Hey playground!

As a lover of dual wielding I feel a bit stumped this edition as its only really viable at early levels so here is a fix that should not break anything but make dw more comparable.

First off keep it as it is from the start but we are going to give a slight boost to the dw feat this is after all only if you want to focus on this style not to boost it at early levels where it's pretty good anyways. :) the change will be this: "your offhand strike becomes part of your attack action and no longer requires you to use a bonus action" simple and elegant if you ask me?

[pwykersotz]

Have you done any math to compare the new damage output potential and see if it's balanced? Also, why do you not like the current model?

[Spacehamster]

Have you done any math to compare the new damage output potential and see if it's balanced? Also, why do you not like the current model?

From thinking about it it could increase paladin nova a bit but also increase resource spending so that is a trade situation, fighters would get 1 more attack from action surge but that is one more attack with a smaller damage die compared to two handed so should not make a big difference + it's a limited resource so mor the most part it's the same dmg as before. And I don't like it cause it burns a bonus action, attacking should only burn your normal attack action imo.

[ChubbyRain]

Random fun note... The damage a PC can do, with any class, is already enough to keep up with the game!

Sure twf may not keep up with great weapon fighting or dueling but that isn't to say twf will hold you back.

Besides, the paladin definitely doesn't need a damage boost. If you are twf with a paladin you have twice the chance to pull off a smite and potentially can pull off a smite on both attacks. Smite is when you hit, not 1/round or anything like that.

Besides twf doesn't even make sense. Just because you are holding a second weapon you are somehow faster at attacking? Twf needs to die a horrible death and become a defensive fighting style.

[Spacehamster]

Random fun note... The damage a PC can do, with any class, is already enough to keep up with the game!

Sure twf may not keep up with great weapon fighting or dueling but that isn't to say twf will hold you back.

Besides, the paladin definitely doesn't need a damage boost. If you are twf with a paladin you have twice the chance to pull off a smite and potentially can pull off a smite on both attacks. Smite is when you hit, not 1/round or anything like that.

Besides twf doesn't even make sense. Just because you are holding a second weapon you are somehow faster at attacking? Twf needs to die a horrible death and become a defensive fighting style.

Well this would be for ppl that likes 2weapon fighting not for negative nancies. :) shoo shoo! Sword and shield fighting is for defensive. :) and if they pull of an extra smite they loose an extra spell slot and run out of gas quicker so that is a moot point.

[ChubbyRain]

Well this would be for ppl that likes 2weapon fighting not for negative nancies. :) shoo shoo! Sword and shield fighting is for defensive. :) and if they pull of an extra smite they loose an extra spell slot and run out of gas quicker so that is a moot point.

Running out of gas? That's your counter argument? The normal paladin eventually will be doing as an action 2d8+str modifier (1d8 is radiant) + 1d8 + str modifier

3d8+10 as an action is not bad. Add in twf bonus action (took the feat since they dont get twf style) and that becomes 5d8 + 10.

The same level cantrips will usually do 4dX+Mod. Nothing or very little is immune to radiant damage.

Now when they really need to kill that boss, that 5d8+10 is added to two level 5 smites. (1+spell level)d8 radiant rage.

6d8+10+12d8 damage.

18d8+10 = 91 damage

Next round is 16d8+10 = 82 damage

Third round is 15d8+10 = 77 damage

Saving the smites for the boss, the Paladin in three rounds will do an average of 250 damage, by them self. Just think of what happens if they crit! All damage dice are rolled twice, even smite damage dice. Get a well timed hold person/monster and that initial average 91 damage becomes 182...

Also the smites aren't wasted. They run of a hit so no worries there. The paladin certainly doesn't need a damage upgrade and neither does anyone else in the game. The game was made so everyone does enough damage to get by creatures they should with damage alone.

Some fringe cases allows them to burst damage, but that doesn't means others are held back, the others are just par for the course while things like the paladin are shooting below par.

[Giant2005]

From thinking about it it could increase paladin nova a bit but also increase resource spending so that is a trade situation, fighters would get 1 more attack from action surge but that is one more attack with a smaller damage die compared to two handed so should not make a big difference + it's a limited resource so mor the most part it's the same dmg as before. And I don't like it cause it burns a bonus action, attacking should only burn your normal attack action imo.

The other issue you will have is Gandalf style Sword and Staff dual wielders. With Polearm Mastery they would get both the Polearm Mastery bonus action as well as an extra attack form dual-wielding.

[Wolfsraine]

Running out of gas? That's your counter argument? The normal paladin eventually will be doing as an action 2d8+str modifier (1d8 is radiant) + 1d8 + str modifier

3d8+10 as an action is not bad. Add in twf bonus action (took the feat since they dont get twf style) and that becomes 5d8 + 10.

The same level cantrips will usually do 4dX+Mod. Nothing or very little is immune to radiant damage.

Now when they really need to kill that boss, that 5d8+10 is added to two level 5 smites. (1+spell level)d8 radiant rage.

6d8+10+12d8 damage.

18d8+10 = 91 damage

Next round is 16d8+10 = 82 damage

Third round is 15d8+10 = 77 damage

Saving the smites for the boss, the Paladin in three rounds will do an average of 250 damage, by them self. Just think of what happens if they crit! All damage dice are rolled twice, even smite damage dice. Get a well timed hold person/monster and that initial average 91 damage becomes 182...

Also the smites aren't wasted. They run of a hit so no worries there. The paladin certainly doesn't need a damage upgrade and neither does anyone else in the game. The game was made so everyone does enough damage to get by creatures they should with damage alone.

Some fringe cases allows them to burst damage, but that doesn't means others are held back, the others are just par for the course while things like the paladin are shooting below par.

I don't understand how you are breaking down these damage dice.

Dual wielding paladin with the supposed change, with 2 long swords: 1d8 + 5, 1d8 + 5, 1d8 offhand attack. That's 3d8+10, factor in improved divine smite and it becomes 6d8 + 10
Greatsword wielding paladin, with the power attack feat or w/e it's called, afb atm: 2d6 + 15, 2d6 +15, add in improved divine smite and its 4d6 + 2d8 + 30. (This still feels stronger, someone do the math)

Anyway, I don't see an issue with making TWF a bit stronger, as it stands it falls behind everything else.

Edit: Nvm, I see what you are including in the damage. Adjusted to reflect that.

[Symphony]

Dual wielding is only underpowered for a high level Fighter, and even then probably only at level 20. It just seems bad because the only other class that gets the two-weapon fighting style is Ranger, which has lackluster damage output in general.

A Fighter in particular has little use for their bonus action, but assuming the Fighter takes the Dual Wielder feat, from levels 11-19, the offhand attack adds an average 9.5ish to damage output on a normal round, versus the 6 damage from Dueling. Dueling does allow you a shield and a different feat and scales with Action Surge, which are the main benefits.

The problems are: A) Polearm Master is a better feat than Dual Wielder and does better damage (this is even better with the ridiculous quarterstaff/shield/dueling setup); B) two-weapon fighting is much worse without the fighting style (which only two classes get).

Only a Dex-based fighter or ranger would even consider Dual Wielder over Polearm Master, but for a Ranger it isn't a terrible choice for melee (3d8 + 15 + 3d6 ~= 39), but the offhand attack does compete with Hunter's Mark moving.

[Ralanr]

This is probably a fluff reason, but I never saw paladins as the kind of people who would dual wield. Dual wielding implies you either care little about your defense or you focus on just your defense in general. Shields can be used to protect others better than another weapon and polearms can keep people at bay.

Why not make it so you can attack with both weapons at the same time, but it eats up any extra attacks you would otherwise have? This makes it powerful from 1-5, but then makes it more of a dangerous option afterwards.

I'm probably looking at this wrong (I'm not crunching numbers)

[Easy_Lee]

I agree that this would be a reasonable fix. There's not a single class for whom crossbow expert, polearm mastery, or dueling isn't arguably a stronger choice, even if we add the dual wielder feat.

Dueling on a fighter is the biggest offender:
Fighter 11 DW: 4(1d6+5) = 34
Fighter 11 Dueling: 3(1d8+5+2) = 34.5
Fighter 20 DW: 5(1d6+5) = 42.5
Fighter 20 Dueling: 3(1d8+5+2) = 46

While the dual wielder could increase his damage with the dual wielder feat, the duelist could use polearm mastery with a quarterstaff for even better damage.

Fighter 20 DW Dual Wielder: 5(1d8+5) = 47.5
Fighter 20 Dueling Polearm Mastery Quarterstaff: 4(1d6+5+2)+(1d4+5+2)=51.5

Even for the other classes which only get extra attack 1 and don't get a fighting style:
Dual wield: 3(1d6)+10 = 20.5
Dueling: 2(1d8+5) = 19

Considering that the dual wielder gave up his bonus action, that's way too close.

And of course, if you have other things you wish to do with your bonus action, then dual wield becomes less potent. Not all classes and builds have an abundant selection of bonus actions, so this is only a problem for some.

Barbarians and rogues are probably the best users of dual wield, though rogues are better off with crossbow expert and barbarians are better off with polearm mastery. The real trouble with dual wield is that it's never the optimal setup. Making it just an extra attack, without requiring bonus, would be a good start.

This would still be a problem for fighters. Some say fighters using dual wield should have a second extra attack from DW starting at 11. While that does put dual wield ahead of dueling, it also puts dual wield ahead of great weapons. Dual wield really shouldn't surpass great weapon damage, especially considering that the great weapon fighter can't hit as many targets.

In conclusion, I'd be fine with this change.

[Mara]

The main benefit of duel wielding for non-rogues is that ability to attack with two magic weapons.

*Rogues get two chances to land their one sneak attack.

[Psikerlord]

Paladin smite should probably cost a bonus action, actually. Not sure why it doesn't. The nova is just too high once you have multiple attacks.

[Ralanr]

Hey playground!

As a lover of dual wielding I feel a bit stumped this edition as its only really viable at early levels so here is a fix that should not break anything but make dw more comparable.

First off keep it as it is from the start but we are going to give a slight boost to the dw feat this is after all only if you want to focus on this style not to boost it at early levels where it's pretty good anyways. :) the change will be this: "your offhand strike becomes part of your attack action and no longer requires you to use a bonus action" simple and elegant if you ask me?

So would this mean that if you used two longswords you would roll 2d8 during your attack action?

[MeeposFire]

Paladin smite should probably cost a bonus action, actually. Not sure why it doesn't. The nova is just too high once you have multiple attacks.

Then it would compete with the smite line of spells. Smite damage can be very nasty but it is also very expensive for you to use. You do not have that many spell slots in a day so you can nova hard but if you do you will be diminished for any further fights and it is unlikely that the party will stop to let you refresh that often.

[Strill]

(This still feels stronger, someone do the math)
1dx rolls x/2+0.5 on average.

TWF:
6d8 + 10 = 37

Greatsword + Power Attack
4d6 + 2d8 + 30 + Great Weapon Fighting Style = 16.67+10.5+30 = 57.17

This is meaningless though, because it doesn't account for the reduced accuracy.

Greatsword with no Power Attack
4d6 + 2d8 + 10 + Great Weapon Fighting Style = 16.67+10.5+10 = 37.17

Which comes out exactly the same as this updated TWF style. I like it. Looks perfect.


So would this mean that if you used two longswords you would roll 2d8 during your attack action?

No, OP means that TWF is no longer a bonus action, but is integrated into the Attack action. You get one additional attack during your Attack action, which uses your offhand, and no does not get ability mod to damage.

[Morty]

I think the primary problem is that when there are only three variables you can work with - to-hit, damage and AC - it becomes difficult to balance combat styles while keeping them varied.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Seems alright as a fix to add a bit to the DW feat to remove the bonus action requirement. I would specifically add it to the feat though, to reward the player who wants to specialize in TWF.

Also , I might consider giving the Fighter an extra offhand at high level. Something like 17 or 20. Time for maths:

GWF: 4* (2d6+5): expected value is 4*(2*3.5+5)= 48
TWF w/o feat: 6* (1d6+5): expected value is 6*(3.5+5)= 51 (With 5 attacks is 42.5)
TWF w/ feat: 6* (1d8+5): expected value is 6*(4.5+5)= 57 (With 5 attacks is 47.5)

Hmm. While I'm not including the effects of the great weapon fighting style or mastery, TWF damage seems too high with 6 attacks, given the targeting flexibility over GWF. I'm surprised at how close it is with just the feat. Maybe it would be balanced in play, given GW style and the feat's possible bonus attack.

If my maths are correct, then GW style gives us a damage die that looks like (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6=4.17, so it becomes

GWF expected value is 4*(2*4.17+5)= 53.36, and then 66.7 total with the bonus attack from GW Master.

Near-Parity in total damage seems wrong, given that TWF gets bonus AC, is STR/DEX agnostic, can hit more targets, reliably gets the extra attacks and I would think generally wastes less damage from over-killing targets.

[Easy_Lee]

@GWJ I came to roughly the same conclusion. Since TWF can hit one additional target, and its higher number of attacks are also more reliable, I don't think fighters need the second extra TWF attack. Great weapons should have the highest damage, in my opinion, since they represent total commitment to hitting things at the expense of all else (initiating grapples, initiative, higher AC, etc).

That said, I do think that making the extra attack not require a bonus action would be a good change. And if I were going to enhance the dual wielder feat, I would allow those who take it to make an attack with both weapons in place of a reaction attack. I feel like that would bring it more in line with feats like polearm mastery.

[Ralanr]

That said, I do think that making the extra attack not require a bonus action would be a good change. And if I were going to enhance the dual wielder feat, I would allow those who take it to make an attack with both weapons in place of a reaction attack. I feel like that would bring it more in line with feats like polearm mastery.

That seems like a reasonable sacrifice. Hit with both weapons now, give enemies a free disengage from you if they leave your threatened space.

I'm trying to think of what classes would best use two-weapon fighting as it already is. The only thing Barbarians use their bonus action for is rage activation, so if you're playing well (Rage can become difficult to keep, but sacrifices help. Throwing your weapon at the enemy is still an option after all (Not good or viable. But possible) you only have to worry about not hitting with both weapons on your first turn. Sadly since barbs get no fighting styles their off hand weapon does not apply modifier. I'm not sure if rage damage is a suitable substitute for that.

Rogues I think should use their cunning action a lot. Dodge is very useful if you're stuck in combat and disengage is great to get out of combat.

Fighters...AFB at the moment, but I think they have the most abilities that use a bonus action built into their class (I'm probably wrong.)

No idea on paladins

And I think ranger fighting styles get a choice between archery and two weapon fighting only (AFB).

I'm honestly not a big fan of the fighting style class features. I'm fine with weapon feats, but the fighting styles bug me.

[Fwiffo86]

Rogues I think should use their cunning action a lot. Dodge is very useful if you're stuck in combat and disengage is great to get out of combat.


If you are referencing using cunning action to dodge, it does not work that way. You can dash, disengage, use an item, or hide with your default cunning action. The burglar (my opinion the superior rogue) gets to pop locks and traps with their cunning action.

[Ralanr]

If you are referencing using cunning action to dodge, it does not work that way. You can dash, disengage, use an item, or hide with your default cunning action. The burglar (my opinion the superior rogue) gets to pop locks and traps with their cunning action.

My mistake.

I can still see disengage being useful in and out of combat. Run out, run back in, stab, run out. Not good if you're alone, but if the enemy is preoccupied...then there is no need to run away I guess.

I'm not thinking clearly on this.

[Submortimer]

I think the primary problem is that when there are only three variables you can work with - to-hit, damage and AC - it becomes difficult to balance combat styles while keeping them varied.

This right here. Currently, you have three different styles:

- Dueling, which favors Defense (Using a shield)
- Great Weapon fighting, which favors Offense (Big freaking weapons)
- TWF, Which is somewhere in between.

The problem comes when you balance the most effective options, and you see that one just clearly falls behind in multiple catagories. The offender here is Polearm master working with a quarterstaff one handed. I don't even want to get into why this is dumb, but RAW it works, and it breaks this balance.

Best Non-PM cheese options:

20 fighter with:
- Dueling: Full plate, Shield, Longsword/Battleaxe - AC 20, 4 x 1d8+5+2 (46 damage Avg)
- TWF (With dual Wield): Full plate, 2 longswords/battleaxes - AC 19, 5 x 1d8 +5 (47.5 damage avg)
- GWF: Full plate, Greatsword - AC 18, 4x 2d6+5 (48 damage Avg)

With PM
- Dueling: Full Plate, Quarterstaff, Shield - AC 20, 4 x 1d6+5+2 + 1d4+5+2 (51.5 damage avg)

At that point, not taking GWM into account, the PM/staff/shield/dueling combo beats out everything else, in every category. Without it, it's all fairly balanced across the board, with the exception that the TWF has to give up his bonus action. This is a pretty clear sign that the Dueling fighting style should allow you to make your "Off hand attack" as a part of the attack action, and give them the option to use their bonus action to attack again. It would bump up their damage a small bit, yes, but now they'd be on an even keel BEFORE giving up their bonus action. It also enhances the "Spread" a bit, as the best available damage output would change


With change
- Dueling (with PM): Full Plate, Quarterstaff, Shield - AC 20, 4 x 1d6+5+2 + 1d4+5+2 (51.5 damage avg)
- TWF (with dual wield): Full Plate, 2x longswords/battleaxes - AC 19, 6 x 1d8+5 (Avg 57 damage)
- GWF (with GWM): Full Plate, Greatsword - AC 18, 5 x 2d6+5 (Avg 60 damage)

The GWF would fall behind when not using the -5/+10 ability, but has the highest possible damage (Highest risk vs. reward). The TWF would reliably deal decent damage and would be a touch harder to hit than the GWF, and the Quarterstaff/Shield Cheesemonster has the best AC out of the bunch, but does the least amount of damage.

This would be a point where I would gladly pimp my idea for a shield bash feat. instead of the Staff/Shield Cheese, let a guy burn a bonus action to bash with his shield for 1d6+str, no dueling included. This would raise his overall damage to 54.5 9If using sword with his board), which fits right in line with the numbers above; Naturally, only do this when you use this change.

[Ralanr]

Looking at this shield and quarterstaff combo, all I can say is...what? Why? Why should this work the way it does!

[Psikerlord]

Then it would compete with the smite line of spells. Smite damage can be very nasty but it is also very expensive for you to use. You do not have that many spell slots in a day so you can nova hard but if you do you will be diminished for any further fights and it is unlikely that the party will stop to let you refresh that often.

that's a good thing if the bonus action is competing for other uses. It creates meaningful choice rather than just "Pile on everything now!" approach.

[charcoalninja]

Looking at this shield and quarterstaff combo, all I can say is...what? Why? Why should this work the way it does!

Flavor it as a spear and everything's gravy. (spears should work this way)

[Ralanr]

Flavor it as a spear and everything's gravy. (spears should work this way)

That is completely fair actually. Though it seems really weird why the regular 1d6 piercing spear on the weapons list isn't listed for the actual feat. It says polearm master but leaves out one of the most important and iconic weapons of history. Where is the sense there? :smallconfused:

Wait...almost fell into the trap of trying to make sense/applying real world logic (or just falling into the trap again) to these things.

Anybody got a list of all RAW abilities/restrictions that gain the bonus action?

[Strill]

- GWF: Full plate, Greatsword - AC 18, 4x 2d6+5 (48 damage Avg)Your math is off. You forgot to account for Great Weapon Fighting Style, which increases the average damage to 53.3.




With change
- Dueling (with PM): Full Plate, Quarterstaff, Shield - AC 20, 4 x 1d6+5+2 + 1d4+5+2 (51.5 damage avg)
- TWF (with dual wield): Full Plate, 2x longswords/battleaxes - AC 19, 6 x 1d8+5 (Avg 57 damage)
- GWF (with GWM): Full Plate, Greatsword - AC 18, 5 x 2d6+5 (Avg 60 damage)
Again, the GWF math is off. That should come out to 66.67 average damage.

[Easy_Lee]

Again, the GWF math is off. That should come out to 66.67 average damage.

Assumptions:

The fighter took great weapon fighting
The fighter took great weapon mastery
The fighter does not have any bonus crit or magic items
Great weapon fighting, on average, adds about 1.33 damage to a greatsword swing (which I'll assume includes crits). See here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average).
All attacks hit.

The damage formula at 20 for four attacks with a greatsword, assuming he'll use the bonus if he gets it, is as follows:
[Four plus the odds of getting the bonus attack] times [one attack's worth of damage plus the chance of a crit times crit damage]
(4+(1-(0.95^4)))*(8.33+5+0.05*(8.33))

The average damage of a greatsword fighter at 20 should be 57.5. If he were a half-orc, it would increase to 58.27. And if he were a half-orc champion, it would increase to 67.64.

As a general rule, if your homebrew allows a regular character to even approach 67.64 DPR sustained, it's probably way too strong.

[Strill]

The average damage of a greatsword fighter at 20 should be 57.5. If he were a half-orc, it would increase to 58.27. And if he were a half-orc champion, it would increase to 67.64.
I calculate 70.88 for a Half-orc champion.

(4+(1-(0.85^4)))*(8.33+5+0.15*(8.33*2)) = 70.88



As a general rule, if your homebrew allows a regular character to even approach 67.64 DPR sustained, it's probably way too strong.Why? There's ways to do better than that even without homebrew.

Vengeance Paladin with GWF, GWM, Polearm Master, and Hunter's Mark.

Each primary hit deals 1d10 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 5, adjusted for Great Weapon Fighting Style, is 15.71+5.

Polearm Master bonus attacks deal 1d4+1d8+1d6+5 = 3+5.25+4.167+5 = 12.417 + 5

The formula is:

(2+(1-(0.95^4)))*(17.75+5+0.05*(17.75)) + (0.95^4) * (12.417+5+.05*(12.417)) = 66.35

For a half-orc, it goes up to 67.2 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%2B%281-%280.95%5E4%29%29%29*%2817.75%2B5%2B0.05*%2817.75% 2B6.3%29%29+%2B+%280.95%5E4%29+*+%2812.417%2B5%2B. 05*%2812.417%2B5.25%29%29)

With 3 levels of champion fighter as well as Half-orc, it goes up to 71.55 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%2B%281-%280.9%5E4%29%29%29*%2817.75%2B5%2B0.1*%2817.75%2B 6.3%29%29+%2B+%280.9%5E4%29+*+%2812.417%2B5%2B.1*% 2812.417%2B5.25%29%29)

And of course none of that takes into account the reaction-attacks from Polearm Master, bumping your DPR much higher. You can also take 3 levels of Ranger for Horde Breaker, bumping your DPR even further, although that's not quite "sustained" damage.

[Easy_Lee]

I calculate 70.88 for a Half-orc champion.

(4+(1-(0.85^4)))*(8.33+5+0.15*(8.33*2)) = 70.88


Why? There's ways to do better than that even without homebrew.

Vengeance Paladin with GWF, GWM, Polearm Master, and Hunter's Mark.

Each primary hit deals 1d10 + 1d8 + 1d6 + 5, adjusted for Great Weapon Fighting Style, is 15.71+5.

Polearm Master bonus attacks deal 1d4+1d8+1d6+5 = 3+5.25+4.167+5 = 12.417 + 5

The formula is:

(2+(1-(0.95^4)))*(17.75+5+0.05*(17.75)) + (0.95^4) * (12.417+5+.05*(12.417)) = 66.35

For a half-orc, it goes up to 67.2 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%2B%281-%280.95%5E4%29%29%29*%2817.75%2B5%2B0.05*%2817.75% 2B6.3%29%29+%2B+%280.95%5E4%29+*+%2812.417%2B5%2B. 05*%2812.417%2B5.25%29%29)

With 3 levels of champion fighter as well as Half-orc, it goes up to 71.55 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%282%2B%281-%280.9%5E4%29%29%29*%2817.75%2B5%2B0.1*%2817.75%2B 6.3%29%29+%2B+%280.9%5E4%29+*+%2812.417%2B5%2B.1*% 2812.417%2B5.25%29%29)

And of course none of that takes into account the reaction-attacks from Polearm Master. You can also take 3 levels of Ranger for Horde Breaker, bumping your DPR much higher, although that's not quite "sustained" damage.

Spells, such as hunter's mark, are not sustained DPR. They must be concentrated upon, and have limited duration. Even a level 5 hex, which can be maintained all day, isn't maintained by default. Many things could cause you to need to break concentration.

Polearm mastery may indeed let one tweak the numbers a bit, as would using a greataxe. If I got the formula slightly wrong, oh well, it was close enough. I did that in 5 minutes. That said, if one is beating or even approaching the fighter's sustained DPR as a non-fighter, then something has gone wrong.

Your build with the vengeance paladin is one way to get a bit better, but not by much, and gives up so much and requires such setup to hit those numbers that I really don't care one way or the other. It's obviously not a build WoTC intended, since it's so convoluted. And even that build doesn't do much better at all, proving my point.

You don't beat the champion's sustained DPR, and if you do then you don't beat it by very much. That's not a statement of fact, but a design philosophy. If the fighter isn't putting out the most sustained damage each round, then something has gone wrong design-wise with whatever is beating him. This is literally the fighter's one area of advantage, so he should be the best at it in all cases.

[Strill]

Polearm mastery may indeed let one tweak the numbers a bit, as would using a greataxe. If I got the formula slightly wrong, oh well, it was close enough. I did that in 5 minutes. That said, if one is beating or even approaching the fighter's sustained DPR as a non-fighter, then something has gone wrong. You obviously haven't looked at the DPR threads (http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4108666) much then. Fighters are on the low-end of the best DPR builds.


Your build with the vengeance paladin is one way to get a bit better, but not by much, and gives up so much and requires such setup to hit those numbers that I really don't care one way or the other. It's obviously not a build WoTC intended, since it's so convoluted. And even that build doesn't do much better at all, proving my point.The number I quoted is only the unconditional DPR. If you get a reaction attack from Polearm Master, and an extra attack from horde breaker each turn, your DPR goes up to 117.7.


You don't beat the champion's sustained DPR, and if you do then you don't beat it by very much. That's not a statement of fact, but a design philosophy. If the fighter isn't putting out the most sustained damage each round, then something has gone wrong design-wise with whatever is beating him. This is literally the fighter's one area of advantage, so he should be the best at it in all cases.

No, something has gone very wrong with the fighter. That's why I've said in many threads that I think Battlemaster and Eldritch Knight need buffs. Champion is just too far gone for me to bother with.

[Easy_Lee]

You obviously haven't looked at the DPR threads (http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4108666) much then. Fighters are on the low-end of the best DPR builds.

Just taking a basic look at those builds, they completely missed quite a few things. For example, they have champion fighter listed at far lower than we've already shown. For another, I didn't see valor bards with swift quiver, eldritch blast, and two levels of warlock on there anywhere. And finally, I see your polearm mastery fighter and raise you a polearm mastery warlock turning reaction attacks into eldritch blasts, intended or not.

Like I said, something has gone wrong with classes that consistently beat the fighter, particularly the champion fighter, by much, because none of the base options do. Barbarians arguably can, but that requires frenzy for one, and for two that class is almost as damage-focused as the fighter so that's excusable.

Everything one comes up with that actually beats a champion fighter is going to be some complex multiclass feat-abuse bullcrap that one's DM may not allow. Like I said, it's not a factual statement but a general design philosophy that WoTC has upheld for the most part. So don't trump the champion with your homebrews and houserules, because that goes against basic 5e design.

Not going to argue on this anymore because I've stated my opinions, and they're probably not changing on this subject anytime soon. And this is hardly on-topic, anyway.

[Kryx]

And of course none of that takes into account the reaction-attacks from Polearm Master, bumping your DPR much higher. You can also take 3 levels of Ranger for Horde Breaker, bumping your DPR even further, although that's not quite "sustained" damage.
I'm trying to understand your stance and am missing it. Are you saying that TWF should keep the bonus action and not make it a part of the 1st attack action as is suggested here?

The maths you posted don't seem to show the TWF values.
I'd like to come to some kind of informed conclusion. I agree that Rangers can spike due to class features.

I think it's important to compare a GWF Fighter vs a TWF Fighter and a Dueling Ranger vs a Archery Ranger vs a TWF Ranger.

From the math that I've seen here and elsewhere TWF falls a bit behind.

[Strill]

I'm trying to understand your stance and am missing it. Are you saying that TWF should keep the bonus action and not make it a part of the 1st attack action as is suggested here?

The maths you posted don't seem to show the TWF values.
I'd like to come to some kind of informed conclusion. I agree that Rangers can spike due to class features.

I think it's important to compare a GWF Fighter vs a TWF Fighter and a Dueling Ranger vs a Archery Ranger vs a TWF Ranger.

From the math that I've seen here and elsewhere TWF falls a bit behind.

The post you quoted was to demonstrate that multiclass Paladins, for example, can greatly exceed the DPR of a fighter, which ideally they should not be able to do, because Paladins already have many powerful class features apart from damage, and the primary benefit of being a fighter is DPR.

The math I showed only included Great weapons, because Easy_Lee's calculations were otherwise correct. I was only correcting some mistakes with the Great Weapon calculations.

I think that this thread's suggestion is a great idea. TWF falls behind because it uses a bonus action, its fighting style does not scale with extra attacks, and it has no powerful feats associated with it, unlike shields and two-handed weapons. This houserule is a great start, but TWF still needs a feat comparable to Greatweapon Master, Polearm Master, or Shield Master.

[Submortimer]

Your math is off. You forgot to account for Great Weapon Fighting Style, which increases the average damage to 53.3.

Again, the GWF math is off. That should come out to 66.67 average damage.

TBH, I wasn't sure how to factor that into average damage. in any case, my breakdown still holds up.

[Submortimer]

Assumptions:

The fighter took great weapon fighting
The fighter took great weapon mastery
The fighter does not have any bonus crit or magic items
Great weapon fighting, on average, adds about 1.33 damage to a greatsword swing (which I'll assume includes crits). See here (http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/47172/how-much-damage-does-great-weapon-fighting-add-on-average).
All attacks hit.

The damage formula at 20 for four attacks with a greatsword, assuming he'll use the bonus if he gets it, is as follows:
[Four plus the odds of getting the bonus attack] times [one attack's worth of damage plus the chance of a crit times crit damage]
(4+(1-(0.95^4)))*(8.33+5+0.05*(8.33))

The average damage of a greatsword fighter at 20 should be 57.5. If he were a half-orc, it would increase to 58.27. And if he were a half-orc champion, it would increase to 67.64.

As a general rule, if your homebrew allows a regular character to even approach 67.64 DPR sustained, it's probably way too strong.


One assumption that I left in there for that set of number s was getting the most possible attacks, which meant the GWF gets an additional attack from GWM. This was strictly looking at the best possible damage. I realise now that it's still lower, since i was taking into account that one would be a crit.

[Submortimer]

The post you quoted was to demonstrate that multiclass Paladins, for example, can greatly exceed the DPR of a fighter, which ideally they should not be able to do, because Paladins already have many powerful class features apart from damage, and the primary benefit of being a fighter is DPR.

The math I showed only included Great weapons, because Easy_Lee's calculations were otherwise correct. I was only correcting some mistakes with the Great Weapon calculations.

I think that this thread's suggestion is a great idea. TWF falls behind because it uses a bonus action, its fighting style does not scale with extra attacks, and it has no powerful feats associated with it, unlike shields and two-handed weapons. This houserule is a great start, but TWF still needs a feat comparable to Greatweapon Master, Polearm Master, or Shield Master.

So, if we were make this change, TWF would be that feat.

Normal:
- TWF requires a bonus action.
- May only be done with light weapons.
- does not add stat bonus

Proposed change
- If you take TWF style, you get the extra attack as part of your normal attacks, and you add your stat modifer to damage.
- If you have the TWF style AND take the Feat, you can use your bonus action to make ANOTHER TWF attack.

That would bring TWF in line with the other feats of this type. Less utility than PM or SM, more damage than either, but with more utility and not as much damage as GWM.

[Easy_Lee]

One assumption that I left in there for that set of number s was getting the most possible attacks, which meant the GWF gets an additional attack from GWM. This was strictly looking at the best possible damage. I realise now that it's still lower, since i was taking into account that one would be a crit.

Having advantage or playing a champion can increase the likelihood, but yeah it's actually quite small for most fighters. When you're level 5 or even 11, you're failing to get the bonus attack pretty frequently. That's one of the reasons why polearm mastery is such a potent feat for most fighters, even champions.

If we can balance our TWF against that, making it do less damage than GWF but more than Dueling in most cases, then I think that would be ideal. And, again, I do think not requiring a bonus attack is a good first step.

[Ralanr]

So what about other martial classes? You guys seem to use the champion fighter in a lot of your calculations for DPR, but what about Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, and Monks? What about the Paladin? The class that the OP brought up?

[Easy_Lee]

So what about other martial classes? You guys seem to use the champion fighter in a lot of your calculations for DPR, but what about Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, and Monks? What about the Paladin? The class that the OP brought up?

We've been using the fighter as a base example just because it's easy and the stats are in the free PDF. However, changing dual wield to be part of the attack action rather than a bonus is something that would affect all dual wielding players equally.

For the same reason, I suspect that the first thing to look at would be the dual wielder feat. If I were going to houserule it, that's where I would start.

[ZenBear]

I know this thread is pretty much dead, but rather than start a new one for this simple question I figured it wouldn't hurt to add it here.

Would allowing all characters who want to dual wield use one normal weapon in their main hand and one light in the off-hand be too OP or bring DW back in line with other styles? It bugs me that the traditional longsword/short sword or dagger combo is never viable. I know it makes the feat even less worthwhile, but that could be fixed perhaps.

[Easy_Lee]

I know this thread is pretty much dead, but rather than start a new one for this simple question I figured it wouldn't hurt to add it here.

Would allowing all characters who want to dual wield use one normal weapon in their main hand and one light in the off-hand be too OP or bring DW back in line with other styles? It bugs me that the traditional longsword/short sword or dagger combo is never viable. I know it makes the feat even less worthwhile, but that could be fixed perhaps.

Since it's only a difference of one damage, that doesn't seem too inordinate to me, but it certainly devalues the feat.

I suspect that the trouble the designers had with dual wield is that it's strong at early levels. Until 11, it's hard to match the potential DPR of a dual wield fighter build without feats.

The real problem is that not only is base dual wield no more effective than the feats polearm mastery or crossbow expert, it's actually worse. And dueling builds keep up with its damage way too closely, considering that the dueling build keeps its bonus action.

It's likely that dual wield would need a complete overhaul to work completely properly, without being imbalanced. That said, I have a simple solution: Make the fighting style allow the bonus strike to instead function like extra attack, so that one retains their bonus action, but not until one acquires extra attack.

This way, dual wield would be a viable build choice. Rogues would still have to multiclass five levels into fighter for their extra attacks, since they would otherwise have to choose when to use the bonus action to attack and when to use it for cunning action. Classes who already get extra attack could benefit from dipping for a fighting style, gaining the ability to use their bonus action for other purposes. That way, dual wield would actually be better than the bonus attacks granted by feats and related, and would be usable with those bonus action attacks.

This could still open up abuse with polearm mastery and versatile quarterstaves. WotC kind of screwed the pooch on that one. But if you want to make dual wield more viable, this is a simple fix.

You could also add another feat that does this and something else, perhaps +1 DEX or STR, so that it's not just something everyone can get.

[HoarsHalberd]

We've been using the fighter as a base example just because it's easy and the stats are in the free PDF. However, changing dual wield to be part of the attack action rather than a bonus is something that would affect all dual wielding players equally.

For the same reason, I suspect that the first thing to look at would be the dual wielder feat. If I were going to houserule it, that's where I would start.

Actually it benefits fighters and rogues a lot more. By moving it to the Attack action, the off hand attack will become subject to surge. It also benefits the rogue more as it allows them to use their bonus action to disengage and retreat should they desire.

[Ralanr]

Actually it benefits fighters and rogues a lot more. By moving it to the Attack action, the off hand attack will become subject to surge. It also benefits the rogue more as it allows them to use their bonus action to disengage and retreat should they desire.

And frenzy for barbarians...god if it wasn't for how exhaustion worked in 5e I might be playing a barbarian right now.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually it benefits fighters and rogues a lot more. By moving it to the Attack action, the off hand attack will become subject to surge. It also benefits the rogue more as it allows them to use their bonus action to disengage and retreat should they desire.

Which is why I like my revised suggestion better: make it part of the dual wield fighting style, but only if one has the extra attack feature.

[dev6500]

If people think that this homebrew option is too strong. You could instead add a line to twfing such that once a character gets the extra attack feature, they can take an additional attack when they use their bonus action for two weapon fighting.

This way, a two weapon fighting fighter could get 6 attacks instead of 5 or a twfing ranger could get 4 attacks instead of 3.

The difference between this idea and space hamster's is that it is slightly weaker. Putting the two weapon fighting bonus attack into the attack action attacks means it benefits from action surge, a monk can combine twfing and flurry of blows or their regular bonus action unarmed strike, and you get the extra attack even on rounds you would otherwise use your bonus action. There are already abilities(monk flurry and swift quiver) that add 2 attacks on a bonus action so there is precedent.

[dev6500]

For another, I didn't see valor bards with swift quiver, eldritch blast, and two levels of warlock on there anywhere.


Somebody remembers my idea! boo-yah!

[Person_Man]

Dual wielding is only underpowered for a high level Fighter, and even then probably only at level 20. It just seems bad because the only other class that gets the two-weapon fighting style is Ranger, which has lackluster damage output in general.

Minor quibble: Ranger actually has some of the best level 2-6ish at-will-ish damage in the game. Fighting Style + Hunter's Mark + Hoarde Slayer or Companion (assuming it can Multiattack or Pounce) + Extra Attack. It's not until level 11ish that the Fighter/Paladin/Rogue/Warlock/Barbarian catch up. (Although they typically have better burst damage, from Action Surge/Smite/etc).

[HoarsHalberd]

If people think that this homebrew option is too strong. You could instead add a line to twfing such that once a character gets the extra attack feature, they can take an additional attack when they use their bonus action for two weapon fighting.

This way, a two weapon fighting fighter could get 6 attacks instead of 5 or a twfing ranger could get 4 attacks instead of 3.

The difference between this idea and space hamster's is that it is slightly weaker. Putting the two weapon fighting bonus attack into the attack action attacks means it benefits from action surge, a monk can combine twfing and flurry of blows or their regular bonus action unarmed strike, and you get the extra attack even on rounds you would otherwise use your bonus action. There are already abilities(monk flurry and swift quiver) that add 2 attacks on a bonus action so there is precedent.

Doing this increases their damage per round too much. 6*(d8+5+0.05(d8)) = 58.5 4.185((2d6+GWF)+5+0.05(2d6+GWF)) = 57.5
Given the ability to spread out the damage and reduce the likelihood of overkill TWF should not have higher at will damage than GWF and 1 AC is comparable to -5/+10.

Where this gets really broken is a Paladin12+/Fighter2+ 4*(2d8+5+0.05(2d8)) = 57.5 Giving them approximal base damage per round to a level 20 GWF and an insane nova and +2AC (I'd recommend Pally 17, Champion 3 for crit fishing. Oath of Vengeance or Oathbreaker.)

Taking into account all class features without spells.

20 Champion gives 65.13 4.478(GWF2d6+5+0.15(GWF2d6))
vs
Champion 3/Oathbreaker 17 4(2d8+10+0.1(2d8)) = 79.6

Full Nova:
126.9 for the champion.

Action surge for Pally:
119.4

Action surge + 1 first level spell slot:
129.3

Tending towards insanity as more spell slots are used and higher level slots are used.

[Easy_Lee]

Right. The trouble with the current system is that adding another attack, even just one, throws the system out of whack because there are so few attacks to begin with.

The system can be finessed. Removing the requirement that the extra attack be a bonus action, if a character meets certain requirements, is a favored solution of mine. This allows rangers and multiclassed rogues to benefit quite a bit from two weapon fighting, whereas they currently have overall better options.

Another possibility would be allowing some sort partial extra attack after a given level. Perhaps allowing the bonus attack to swing both weapons, but only adding attribute one time, would be balanced (and would work well with the current dual wield features).

[archaeo]

snipping a lot of math

Ok, so from all of that, I gather that the real difference in average damage between theoretically optimized GWF and DW fighters is a handful of HP? While I gather that everybody in this thread sees a need for changing this, is the difference really so great as to render dual wielding a huge mistake? Is this really noticeable in play? Am I just super dense for not getting it?

Furthermore, what happens when the dual wielder has two magic weapons? What happens when both magic weapons have riders/interesting effects that can be triggered?

[Easy_Lee]

Ok, so from all of that, I gather that the real difference in average damage between theoretically optimized GWF and DW fighters is a handful of HP? While I gather that everybody in this thread sees a need for changing this, is the difference really so great as to render dual wielding a huge mistake? Is this really noticeable in play? Am I just super dense for not getting it?

Furthermore, what happens when the dual wielder has two magic weapons? What happens when both magic weapons have riders/interesting effects that can be triggered?

Magic weapons can tip the balance slightly in favor of whoever gets the most attacks. Dual wield gets more attacks on a typical round than a non-polearm great weapon user. That said, bigger weapons often have better enchantments, and you only need one.

But the bigger problem with dual wield is that everyone who gets it has better options. Polearm mastery and crossbow expert both allow for comparable, if not superior, damage to a dual wielder with the fighting style. Even dueling keeps up for the most part, and the quarterstaff dueling polearm mastery build rears its ugly head and out damages all of them with its effective 1d10 attacks and 1d8 bonus.

Meanwhile, the dual wielder feat allows twin 1d8 weapons, which only excels in damage if one also has the TWF style. Even then, dueling, archery, and GWF style will all push their weapons ahead very soon.

To briefly cover the reasons why dual wield is weak, one must see all of those classes who might dual wield and why they have better options:

Rogue and ranger - better off with crossbow expert
Fighter and barbarian - better off with a polearm or great weapon due to their class features
Valor bard, Cleric, and favored soul - generally have better things to do with their bonus action, would rather have a shield
Paladin - doesn't get the fighting style, better off with a polearm or great weapon anyway
Monk - Fists will outpace the damage pretty quick, quarterstaff in two hands + martial arts bonus is better until then

The only conceivable reasons to dual wield are:


If one is a fighter who wants to use DEX and wants the defensive duelist feat and wants to do a little more damage than a DEX shield build would do and wants to be Drizzt-like
If one is trying to maximize low-level damage output without a feat


It doesn't take much to make dual wield viable, and it is very easy to make it too good with the wrong change due to the low number of attacks players make this generation.

[dev6500]

Champion vs oathbreaker isn't really a valid comparison since oathbreaker's get smite,charisma to damage, and are a known powerful archetype as where Champion is considered a weaker class .

GWF fighters can get 5 attacks at 20 vs the 6 a twf fighter can get with my previously mentioned idea.
If we look at a lvl 20 half orc champion fighter w/ 20 str , a +3 glaive, great weapon fighting, superior critical, savage attacker, sentinel, polearm master, great weapon master, and magic initiate(hex) has 1 ability raise from levels left over.
They get
12.615 per attack against 20 ac without hex/ savage attacker.
13.539 vs 20 ac without hex but with savage attacker on one of their attacks a round.
17.688 with savage attacker benefit and hex
16.365 w/o savage attacker but with hex
Best scenario, hasted, get an OA, and crit/kill enemy = 7 attacks
with savage attacker benefit and hex
dpr = 116 vs 20 ac enemy

Same scenario as before but w/o haste (6 attacks)
dpr = 99.5

Without haste, without reaction attack, with GWM bonus action attack or with reaction attack but without GWF bonus attack (5 attacks)
dpr = 83
With action surge, bonus action attack from GWF, and reaction(10 attacks) w/0 hex:
dpr = 127.074
With action surge, bonus action attack from GWF, and reaction attack(10 attacks) with hex up(unrealistic except against boss enemy where this nova damage number will be important)
dpr = 180

So champion dpr can get pretty good. Compare this to a twf champion using my idea from before and you get 2 extra attacks on a bonus action after 5th level instead of 1. At level 20, that's 1 more attack than a Great weapon fighter. That attack's weapon damage averages 4.5 vs 6.3 for glaive or 8.32 for greatsword. Over 5 attacks, that is 9 damage more for glaive or 17.5 damage more for greatsword which is very close to the damage a single extra attack with a 1 handed weapon provides.

Also if a twf'er has to use their bonus action to get their 2 additional attacks, then abilities like hex and hunter's mark will become more limited since re applying as a bonus action limits your ability to attack. Looks good to me.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Ok, so from all of that, I gather that the real difference in average damage between theoretically optimized GWF and DW fighters is a handful of HP? While I gather that everybody in this thread sees a need for changing this, is the difference really so great as to render dual wielding a huge mistake? Is this really noticeable in play?

The problem isn't how TWF compares to GWF in terms of damage (to a point), but more so how it compares to dualing style or to the crossbow/polearm feats.

Generally, the issue is that only main-hand attacks scale at all in many classes, while the off-hand attack remains nearly fixed in effectiveness from levels 1 to 20. Also, unlike the other fighting styles, it offers no advantages to other modes of attacking, such as opportunity attacks, and eats part of your action economy.

[Easy_Lee]

The problem isn't how TWF compares to GWF in terms of damage (to a point), but more so how it compares to dualing style or to the crossbow/polearm feats.

Generally, the issue is that only main-hand attacks scale at all in many classes, while the off-hand attack remains nearly fixed in effectiveness from levels 1 to 20. Also, unlike the other fighting styles, it offers no advantages to other modes of attacking, such as opportunity attacks, and eats part of your action economy.

This is a very good point. Dual wield does not currently have a niche or anything it does better than other styles. Striking with both weapons on an opportunity attack, having the bonus attack not require spending one's bonus action, or having extra weaker attacks are all options that could give TWF an interesting niche.

[Broken Twin]

Given the suggestions here, I think I'll be proposing the following houserule for my group.

TWF Style: Removes the Bonus Action cost for making an offhand attack. No attribute bonus on damage.

TWF Feat: Add the attribute bonus here, keep everything else the same.

Considering: Modifying the baseline TWF to require an non-versatile weapon in the primary hand instead of a light weapon. Thoughts?

[archaeo]

But the bigger problem with dual wield is that everyone who gets it has better options...

Apologies if I'm still just being dense, but does this continue to hold true if you don't use the most liberal reading of how quarterstaff works, or if you assume that most players are choosing weapons and fighting styles based on character rather than mechanics? I mean, you're essentially saying "TWF is no good when you compare it to the absolute best damage you can eke out of a class by picking the optimal feats and fighting styles, as well as a permissive DM."

It seems to me like a few of your damage calculations depend on friendly DMs, though I tend to agree with how you read the feats.


It doesn't take much to make dual wield viable, and it is very easy to make it too good with the wrong change due to the low number of attacks players make this generation.

Isn't there a fairly wide margin between "viable" and "optimal"? TWF doesn't completely wreck your damage, it just lowers your average by a handful of points. It also, you know, gives you two swings and two attack rolls, which isn't nothing.


Generally, the issue is that only main-hand attacks scale at all in many classes, while the off-hand attack remains nearly fixed in effectiveness from levels 1 to 20. Also, unlike the other fighting styles, it offers no advantages to other modes of attacking, such as opportunity attacks, and eats part of your action economy.


This is a very good point. Dual wield does not currently have a niche or anything it does better than other styles. Striking with both weapons on an opportunity attack, having the bonus attack not require spending one's bonus action, or having extra weaker attacks are all options that could give TWF an interesting niche.

However, as I think this thread shows, handing out these buffs almost inevitably causes TWF to become purely optimal. At some point, you're just trading one optimal build for another. TWF already gives you a free bonus attack just for holding another weapon, and when you pair it with the inevitable feat, you get a cute package of bonuses that allow for a fair bit of melee flexibility.

Not to rain on anybody's parade, of course. If people want to buff TWF, go for it. I do wonder, however, whether or not this is a problem that seems far bigger in forum threads than it does at the table.

[Broken Twin]

Honestly, I don't think it's underpowered. If it is, it's not enough to really worry all that much about outside PVP tournaments.

I'm just really not fond of TWF eating up the one bonus action you get when there's consistently much better things you could be spending that action on.

Granted, I'm ALSO not fond of the feat letting you swing around two full sized swords with no reduction in accuracy, but that's a fantasy trope I've just learned to live with.

[dev6500]

However, as I think this thread shows, handing out these buffs almost inevitably causes TWF to become purely optimal. At some point, you're just trading one optimal build for another. TWF already gives you a free bonus attack just for holding another weapon, and when you pair it with the inevitable feat, you get a cute package of bonuses that allow for a fair bit of melee flexibility.

Not to rain on anybody's parade, of course. If people want to buff TWF, go for it. I do wonder, however, whether or not this is a problem that seems far bigger in forum threads than it does at the table.

Main problem I see with two weapon fighting is that other feats, spells, and class abilities allow you to get additional attacks as a bonus action and these other paths often save you the trouble needing 2 magical weapons instead of 1 and these other options often do more damage per attack. So if twf'ing can't get you a higher number of attacks or at least equal damage per attack compared to other attack methods then there is a slight problem.

I wouldn't say that two weapon fighting is terribly weaker. Its probably only 10 or so dpr at most. Per weapon attack you fall behind by 2 or so dpr.

[Easy_Lee]

The polearm mastery bit is just the strongest thing to use with dueling. Even without that feat, the damage is comparable for dueling builds.

Let's say we have a rogue who dual wields, and takes the feat for dual wielder. A rogue who takes the feat for crossbow expert instead will do more damage, while also being able to maintain range if he wants. The dual wielder could multiclass for the TWF style, but so could the crossbow expert multiclass for archery, yielding more consistent hits and ultimately better damage.

That's the issue. The TWF style makes dual wield comparable in damage to other options, slightly stronger at early levels, while offering nothing unique. The feat is strictly inferior to other weapon feat options, since those combine all the benefits of dual wielding (bonus attack), the TWF style (bonus adds attribute), and a unique benefit. TWF doesn't have a unique benefit; it's just damage. One needs both the feat and the fighting style to pull ahead with dual wield damage, while anyone with the feat and fighting style for a different weapon will do more damage than the dual wielder.

The only time dual wield is a useful long term solution is if feats are not allowed. That doesn't mean that feats are bad, it means that dual wield is too weak. And many of us agree that the lack of options or any special advantage (like other fighting styles and weapon feats have) is what makes dual wield weak.

Dual wield doesn't need to be optimal. What it needs is for equal investmenr and optimization for a dual wielder to have advantages and disadvantages over a different weapon user with the same number of feats and fighting styles.

That said, at least dual wielding is in a better place than versatile weaponry (other than the quarterstaff trick, which doesn't use the versatile property).

[Fwiffo86]

Our 20 burglar rogue uses a dagger in one hand, and a wand of fireballs in the other.

Sneak attack

Cunning action: Fireball.

[Easy_Lee]

Our 20 burglar rogue uses a dagger in one hand, and a wand of fireballs in the other.

Sneak attack

Cunning action: Fireball.

Not technically supposed to work since the "use an item" action and "cast a spell from an item" action are different for some reason, but sounds fun.

[archaeo]

TWF doesn't have a unique benefit; it's just damage.

I mean, damage is a pretty nice thing to have in a game where you're a bundle of numbers trying to wear down another bundle of numbers, after all.


Dual wield doesn't need to be optimal. What it needs is for equal investmenr and optimization for a dual wielder to have advantages and disadvantages over a different weapon user with the same number of feats and fighting styles.

That said, at least dual wielding is in a better place than versatile weaponry (other than the quarterstaff trick, which doesn't use the versatile property).

Well, there's the thing. Does it need to be strictly "equal" to be viable? Is it really a bug, when the game makes it totally reasonable to do basically whatever you want (it's probably a lot harder to make a seriously bad PC than just an average one), but it has some clever rules interactions to reward players who enjoy such things?

In other words, a player that picks TWF because it sounds cool and a player who takes Polearm Mastery, shields, Dualist, etc., those two players can be in the same party and I imagine, given the d20 RNG and the endless possibilities created by a human DM, it all washes out. Your mileage may vary!

[Easy_Lee]

I mean, damage is a pretty nice thing to have in a game where you're a bundle of numbers trying to wear down another bundle of numbers, after all.



Well, there's the thing. Does it need to be strictly "equal" to be viable? Is it really a bug, when the game makes it totally reasonable to do basically whatever you want (it's probably a lot harder to make a seriously bad PC than just an average one), but it has some clever rules interactions to reward players who enjoy such things?

In other words, a player that picks TWF because it sounds cool and a player who takes Polearm Mastery, shields, Dualist, etc., those two players can be in the same party and I imagine, given the d20 RNG and the endless possibilities created by a human DM, it all washes out. Your mileage may vary!

Actually, my main issue isn't the damage (though it's lower than it should be) so much as the fact that dual wield has no unique benefit. Polearms get extra opportunity attacks, crossbows have range and remove the melee penalty for ranged attacks, and great weapons get bonus attacks when they crit or kill someone, on top of doing great damage to begin with. Dual wield doesn't have something like that. It's just kind of boring in that regard.

Being able to strike with both weapons on opportunity attacks, being able to get the extra attack without spending your bonus, these are some of the things I might consider to give dual wield more of an interesting playstyle.

[MeeposFire]

Not technically supposed to work since the "use an item" action and "cast a spell from an item" action are different for some reason, but sounds fun.

Stupid DMG ruining our fun. Granted I think they made a rash decision right there. Yes it could be nasty but it is also very costly for a rogue to use this strategy.

1. YOu need to find a wand.

2. YOu need to get it over your caster friends.

3. You need to attune to it (this is very costly as there are lots of items that could be more beneficial out there especially as you level).

4. You only get so many charges a day or you lose it and the more you use the less you will have for the next day.

5. Limited spell options that really work well for you. You likely will only be able to afford to attune to one wand at a time so you probably want a generally useful one rather than a niche one. For instance the wand of fireball is hard to use with a rogue. If you are a melee rogue it can be difficult to use it without hitting yourself or your allies (evasion helps of course) and even if you are not your most common way of getting SA is to have an ally in melee range of the target which means he is possibly in fireball range. Other spells that are easier to target will probably be less effective to have.


It certainly would be a very powerful option but I think it has enough drawbacks that it could be allowed without the inelegant solution that they went with (which I think eliminates other interesting combos that I think would have been allowed if they were not so worried about this combo).

[Easy_Lee]

It certainly would be a very powerful option but I think it has enough drawbacks that it could be allowed without the inelegant solution that they went with (which I think eliminates other interesting combos that I think would have been allowed if they were not so worried about this combo).

I'd allow it. This really should have been one of the biggest draws of the thief class. As is, thieves catch flack for not being able to do as much damage as an assassin or cast spells like an arcane trickster. One has to be creative to find good ways to play a thief.

[MeeposFire]

I'd allow it. This really should have been one of the biggest draws of the thief class. As is, thieves catch flack for not being able to do as much damage as an assassin or cast spells like an arcane trickster. One has to be creative to find good ways to play a thief.

It was seriously the biggest draw for me to play a thief.

The next one was getting to use med kits as an effective healer but I hate the feat cost (I think med kits should just do that on their own and perhaps use a medicine roll to make it fair) and you have to buy ton of kits and if you had a magic kit that worked more than once now you can't use it like the normal kits. Unfortunate.

[archaeo]

Actually, my main issue isn't the damage (though it's lower than it should be) so much as the fact that dual wield has no unique benefit. Polearms get extra opportunity attacks, crossbows have range and remove the melee penalty for ranged attacks, and great weapons get bonus attacks when they crit or kill someone, on top of doing great damage to begin with. Dual wield doesn't have something like that. It's just kind of boring in that regard.

Being able to strike with both weapons on opportunity attacks, being able to get the extra attack without spending your bonus, these are some of the things I might consider to give dual wield more of an interesting playstyle.

I suspect Mearls & Co. just thought "having two weapons" was the unique benefit. But I do see your point.

[HoarsHalberd]

Two weapons is a downside more than an upside. How often will you get two great enchanted weapons?

[archaeo]

Two weapons is a downside more than an upside. How often will you get two great enchanted weapons?

I mean, if I was DMing, I would be super cheerful to hand out matched pairs of weapons for my dual wielders. TWF's presence on the list of fighting styles suggests to me that it's a valid and common martial art, after all.

It's probably less likely if you're rolling on the random treasure tables, but it really depends on the campaign and the table.

[MeeposFire]

Two weapons is a downside more than an upside. How often will you get two great enchanted weapons?

Well raritywise a magic weapon is just as rare as a shield of equal power so it would be about as rare as a standard duelist.

NOw if you are going completely random on the loot then it becomes slightly less likely because TWF only works with certain weapons even more so if you go dex based rather than str based.

A number of DMs tailor the weapon drops to their characters favored weapons but not all do so your mileage may vary.

[Morty]

The polearm mastery bit is just the strongest thing to use with dueling. Even without that feat, the damage is comparable for dueling builds.

Let's say we have a rogue who dual wields, and takes the feat for dual wielder. A rogue who takes the feat for crossbow expert instead will do more damage, while also being able to maintain range if he wants. The dual wielder could multiclass for the TWF style, but so could the crossbow expert multiclass for archery, yielding more consistent hits and ultimately better damage.

That's the issue. The TWF style makes dual wield comparable in damage to other options, slightly stronger at early levels, while offering nothing unique. The feat is strictly inferior to other weapon feat options, since those combine all the benefits of dual wielding (bonus attack), the TWF style (bonus adds attribute), and a unique benefit. TWF doesn't have a unique benefit; it's just damage. One needs both the feat and the fighting style to pull ahead with dual wield damage, while anyone with the feat and fighting style for a different weapon will do more damage than the dual wielder.

The only time dual wield is a useful long term solution is if feats are not allowed. That doesn't mean that feats are bad, it means that dual wield is too weak. And many of us agree that the lack of options or any special advantage (like other fighting styles and weapon feats have) is what makes dual wield weak.

Dual wield doesn't need to be optimal. What it needs is for equal investmenr and optimization for a dual wielder to have advantages and disadvantages over a different weapon user with the same number of feats and fighting styles.

That said, at least dual wielding is in a better place than versatile weaponry (other than the quarterstaff trick, which doesn't use the versatile property).

It brings us right back to the combat system not giving us much to work with. There's damage and defence, basically. Damage is covered by two-handers and duelling, and AC is covered by shields and the defender style. What does that leave for two-weapon fighting?

[HoarsHalberd]

Well raritywise a magic weapon is just as rare as a shield of equal power so it would be about as rare as a standard duelist.

NOw if you are going completely random on the loot then it becomes slightly less likely because TWF only works with certain weapons even more so if you go dex based rather than str based.

A number of DMs tailor the weapon drops to their characters favored weapons but not all do so your mileage may vary.

Yes, but a duellist doesn't need a rare shield to outdo a TWF user. Magic shields are just gravy.

Level 11 duelling gives you (D8+7)*3 = 34.5 +1 AC+Bonus Action+mini Evasion+improved dex saves. (better in my view than 3.5 DPR)
Level 11 TWF gives you (D8+5)*4= 38

Level 20 duelling gives you (d8+7)*4 = 46 + above
Level 20 TWF gives you (d8+5)*5 =47.5 (1.5 DPR definitely isn't worth the trade.)

[archaeo]

It brings us right back to the combat system not giving us much to work with. There's damage and defence, basically. Damage is covered by two-handers and duelling, and AC is covered by shields and the defender style. What does that leave for two-weapon fighting?

Well, it's a trade-off, isn't it? You can certainly add more complicated mechanics on top of what 5e has, and I have little doubt that WotC will eventually get around to putting out some material to support that kind of gameplay. In exchange, though, you slow things down, whether it's during play or during character creation.

[MeeposFire]

Yes, but a duellist doesn't need a rare shield to outdo a TWF user. Magic shields are just gravy.

Level 11 duelling gives you (D8+7)*3 = 34.5 +1 AC+Bonus Action+mini Evasion+improved dex saves. (better in my view than 3.5 DPR)
Level 11 TWF gives you (D8+5)*4= 38

Level 20 duelling gives you (d8+7)*4 = 46 + above
Level 20 TWF gives you (d8+5)*5 =47.5 (1.5 DPR definitely isn't worth the trade.)

A shield user that does not get a magic shield will eventually be an unhappy shield user assuming you find a reasonable number of magic items.

Relatively speaking finding two magic weapons is not that bad. NOw getting two unique weapons would not be likely but on the other hand those weapons usually require attunement which makes using two of your three spots on weapons expensive.

I think in most games this is just not that big of an issue. This is noticeably different than 3e and 4e where magic weapons were much more expensive than using a shield so going TWF meant giving up other magic items to use which is where we really see this idea of TWF being more expensive than other fighting styles seems to come from most.

[HoarsHalberd]

A shield user that does not get a magic shield will eventually be an unhappy shield user assuming you find a reasonable number of magic items.

Relatively speaking finding two magic weapons is not that bad. NOw getting two unique weapons would not be likely but on the other hand those weapons usually require attunement which makes using two of your three spots on weapons expensive.

I think in most games this is just not that big of an issue. This is noticeably different than 3e and 4e where magic weapons were much more expensive than using a shield so going TWF meant giving up other magic items to use which is where we really see this idea of TWF being more expensive than other fighting styles seems to come from most.

A magic shield user increases the power gap. If both builds get +3 weapons, the TWF goes up by +3 damage but is still only slightly ahead (4.5 damage at 20), whereas the dueller gets a +1 shield he is now 2AC ahead and +3 ahead on dex saves. Which grows as you gain more powerful shields.

[Easy_Lee]

Another problem with dual wielding is that spells like magic weapon, elemental weapon, and so on don't benefit dual wield as much as other styles. You only need one polearm, great weapon, one-handed weapon, or hand crossbow (depending on DM interpretation) to use the other styles, meaning that you can benefit from these spells more than a dual wielder who has to make at least one of his attacks with a different weapon.

[MeeposFire]

A magic shield user increases the power gap. If both builds get +3 weapons, the TWF goes up by +3 damage but is still only slightly ahead (4.5 damage at 20), whereas the dueller gets a +1 shield he is now 2AC ahead and +3 ahead on dex saves. Which grows as you gain more powerful shields.

What does that have to do with anything? We are currently talking about the likelihood of getting a magic weapon versus finding a magic shield. In your example the TWF fighter should also likely have a +1 weapon for his off hand since the other found a +1 shield.

Whether the shield is the better option is a different discussion of which I was currently not arguing.

[HoarsHalberd]

What does that have to do with anything? We are currently talking about the likelihood of getting a magic weapon versus finding a magic shield. In your example the TWF fighter should also likely have a +1 weapon for his off hand since the other found a +1 shield.

Whether the shield is the better option is a different discussion of which I was currently not arguing.

My example includes the TWF getting two +3 weapons vs a duelling getting one +3 weapon. Which gives TWF a whopping great +4.5 DPR over duelling at level 20. (On action surge rounds duelling pulls ahead, and without any magical weapons, haste is enough to let duelling pull ahead in DPR) My point was that even if they get their requisite magical weapons they still aren't as all around good as duelling, and generally my DMs will give us some loot and let us decide amongst ourselves who gets what.

EDIT: Also you raised a point I didn't even think of, with items that require attunement one can only ever use 3 at a time, and using two in order to be able to use all attacks with them disadvantages you further vs a duelling user, who has two slots open for unique wondrous items/armour.

[Ralanr]

My example includes the TWF getting two +3 weapons vs a duelling getting one +3 weapon. Which gives TWF a whopping great +4.5 DPR over duelling at level 20. (On action surge rounds duelling pulls ahead, and without any magical weapons, haste is enough to let duelling pull ahead in DPR) My point was that even if they get their requisite magical weapons they still aren't as all around good as duelling, and generally my DMs will give us some loot and let us decide amongst ourselves who gets what.

EDIT: Also you raised a point I didn't even think of, with items that require attunement one can only ever use 3 at a time, and using two in order to be able to use all attacks with them disadvantages you further vs a duelling user, who has two slots open for unique wondrous items/armour.

So either the magic weapon for dual wielding needs to count as a single attunement weapon (which could be fluffable and make sense if they're meant to be used in two separate hands). Or just have one slot for another attunement item.

I don't really see that much of a drawback to be honest. If anything it's another sacrifice of going with it if it improved.

[Easy_Lee]

So either the magic weapon for dual wielding needs to count as a single attunement weapon (which could be fluffable and make sense if they're meant to be used in two separate hands). Or just have one slot for another attunement item.

I don't really see that much of a drawback to be honest. If anything it's another sacrifice of going with it if it improved.

The drawback is that the dueling player has higher AC, retains his bonus action, and can benefit from having a magical shield as well. I'm all for twinned magic weapons benefiting dual wielding, but there really ought to be some unique benefit to the TWF style and dual wielder feat.

[Kryx]

there really ought to be some unique benefit to the TWF style and dual wielder feat.
Twf already has a unique role. It does more damage with flat damage mods nd it can target more creatures to spread out it's damage.
(Target more than gwf and dueling. same as polearm).

It just needs some parts like drawing both weapons, removal of the bonus action, and magic weapon attunement and its fully workable.

[Ralanr]

Twf already has a unique role. It does more damage with flat damage mods nd it can target more creatures to spread out it's damage.
(Target more than gwf and dueling. same as polearm).

It just needs some parts like drawing both weapons, removal of the bonus action, and magic weapon attunement and its fully workable.

The feat already allows drawing and storage of two items.

[Kryx]

The feat already allows drawing and storage of two items.
I know it does. I'm inclined to have that be freely available to anyone using twf. But that's my own homebrew.

[D-naras]

What if the dual-wield feat also grants +1 Dex or Str? That way, the opportunity cost is less than any other combat feat. Its not like it's a great feat on its own. I firmly believe that 2 out of 3 of its abilities are taxes that make no sense. Only paired light weapons and 1 action to draw your second weapon? That's way too much IMO. I could see 1 light + 1 non-light as well as drawing 2 weapons an a non-action by default.

[Strill]

I mean, damage is a pretty nice thing to have in a game where you're a bundle of numbers trying to wear down another bundle of numbers, after all.



Well, there's the thing. Does it need to be strictly "equal" to be viable? Is it really a bug, when the game makes it totally reasonable to do basically whatever you want (it's probably a lot harder to make a seriously bad PC than just an average one), but it has some clever rules interactions to reward players who enjoy such things?

In other words, a player that picks TWF because it sounds cool and a player who takes Polearm Mastery, shields, Dualist, etc., those two players can be in the same party and I imagine, given the d20 RNG and the endless possibilities created by a human DM, it all washes out. Your mileage may vary!You're arguing that we should accept a broken system because settling for mediocrity is always an option. Screw that.

[Xetheral]

What about giving Dual Wielder a Two-Weapon-Rend effect? So, if you hit the same target with a main hand attack and a bonus action off-hand attack on the same turn, the second attack deals an additional, say, 1d10 damage. That gives 2-weapon fighting a cooler feat, and extra spikiness to differentiate it from other, more-consistent styles.

[Gwendol]

That's what I would like to see from a TWF feat in this edition. It can be a display of skill at causing the target to expose itself, thus allowing for extra damage.

[archaeo]

You're arguing that we should accept a broken system because settling for mediocrity is always an option. Screw that.

I'm only "arguing" that 5e can afford to have imprecise balance, so long as it maintains a pretty high floor for PC competence while keeping the optimization ceiling low. In other words, even if you take the "underpowered" dual wielding path, you're not going to be lagging all that far behind the hyper-optimized shield-and-staff cheese that's been discussed lately. Players who enjoy optimization will be satisfied that they're getting a real benefit for their trouble; players who don't will continue to do perfectly respectable and useful damage.

Either way, I think the problems would have to be a lot more serious for me to call 5e "mediocre" or "broken," especially when a) the good stuff is pure D&D gold and b) the problematic stuff is trivially fixed when it comes up.

[Morty]

Well, it's a trade-off, isn't it? You can certainly add more complicated mechanics on top of what 5e has, and I have little doubt that WotC will eventually get around to putting out some material to support that kind of gameplay. In exchange, though, you slow things down, whether it's during play or during character creation.

Sure, and part of the trade-off is that certain combat styles are going to be either identical, or strictly superior/inferior. You get what you pay for, as it were.

[squiggit]

Sure, and part of the trade-off is that certain combat styles are going to be either identical, or strictly superior/inferior. You get what you pay for, as it were.

Between the two I'd rather see them go for the former. Least then you can fluff whatever you want.