What are the benefits of Two Weapon Fighting?

[fatbaby]

I have a lvl 6 half-elf ranger that I created with fairly no knowledge of D&D. I took 2 weapon fighting as my fighting style because I thought it would be the most "badass". Since then I have become much more knowledgeable and now DM 2 campaigns. However, as far as I can tell it has been largely unhelpful. I mean, rangers don't get 2 attacks until like 5th level, and even then it would be more efficient to use a big weapon twice, right? So if anyone can, please enlighten me. :)

[djreynolds]

I have a lvl 6 half-elf ranger that I created with fairly no knowledge of D&D. I took 2 weapon fighting as my fighting style because I thought it would be the most "badass". Since then I have become much more knowledgeable and now DM 2 campaigns. However, as far as I can tell it has been largely unhelpful. I mean, rangers don't get 2 attacks until like 5th level, and even then it would be more efficient to use a big weapon twice, right? So if anyone can, please enlighten me. :)

If you are attacking the same enemy you get hunter's mark on all strikes. So 3 at level 6th.

You get a guaranteed bonus attack just for having two light weapons.

A paladin at 11th level gets improved divine smite, an extra 1d8 on every melee attack, so they are a viable TWF.

If you are a rogue and miss with your first strike, you get an off hand strike to land that sneak attack.

Maybe you'll get 2 magic swords.

A strength based barbarian can get his rage bonus on every strike.

Its not bad, but its not great. But for a dex based melee combatant, or archer caught in melee its not bad.

Many rangers are dex based, so you are using finesse weapons. Also as a ranger fighting say with a scimitar and dagger, you can throw that dagger and use conjure barrage before wade into melee and draw out another dagger.

[Sigreid]

Don't forget with TWF you can add your dex or str bonus to each weapons attacks. Really, the only melee fighter where it really starts to loose out is a high level fighter. And that's just because with his extra attacks it makes a smaller percentage of his damage output and he can leverage a larger damage die more times.

[bid]

Big weapon means strength. Most ranger will boost Dex for bow use.

TWF style vs GWF style before extra attack:
- 2x (1d6+3) = 13
- 1x (2d6+4/3+3) = 11.3

TWF style vs GWF style after extra attack:
- 3x (1d6+4) = 22.5
- 2x (2d6+4/3+4) = 24.67


What make Str better is the great weapon master feat.

[fatbaby]

Thanks for the responses guys :)

I should clarify I am not talking about the feat Two Weapon fighting, but instead the Fighting style Two weapon fighting. Also, because I was unfamiliar with D&D, I built my ranger as "Aragorn/Strider". Has a long sword, can swing it twice, or could use Two weapon fighting to attack twice with a smaller weapon. I could see 2 enchanted weapons, but otherwise it would be better to hit with a long sword twice rather than 2 daggers. I'm just trying to understand this more fully.

[djreynolds]

Thanks for the responses guys :)

I should clarify I am not talking about the feat Two Weapon fighting, but instead the Fighting style Two weapon fighting. Also, because I was unfamiliar with D&D, I built my ranger as "Aragorn/Strider". Has a long sword, can swing it twice, or could use Two weapon fighting to attack twice with a smaller weapon. I could see 2 enchanted weapons, but otherwise it would be better to hit with a long sword twice rather than 2 daggers. I'm just trying to understand this more fully.

Are you strength based or dex based?

Strength based rangers are great. And you fight TWF with both and add your ability modifier, which is guaranteed damage.

two weapon fighting means if you fight with two light weapons, such as scimitars, short swords, dagger, hand axes you get an off hand attack as a bonus action attack but no ability modifier. The style gives you your ability modifier on your off hand. So max dex or strength, and assuming you hit for those 3 attacks you get a minimum of 15 points of damage. And you can throw that off hand weapon if it is a hand axe or dagger. DM dependent you could throw the hand axe for conjure barrage ( assuming you have it casted already, last 1 minute) and then move in and swing away twice with your main hand

I like TWF for ranger because you have potent spells later on like conjure barrage or conjure volley that can used with an arrow or thrown weapon. I think you get conjure barrage at 3rd level spell at 9th level, it is a very good spell for a melee ranger's opening barrage.

You could grab the duel wielder feat and fight with 2 long swords, and bonus action long sword, and with the quick draw sheathe a sword and throw a dagger. And +1 AC.

Yes longswords are 1d8, or 1d10 when using both hands, but the TWF gives your ability modifier on all 3 attacks if duel wield two short swords. 1d6+1d6+BA 1d6

Conjure barrage is action spell that lasts for 1 minute on concentration. So say you fight with a scimitar and dagger. At any point you can use that spell as long as you do not lose concentration.

Are you strength based or dex based?

If I were to play Aragorn, I would begin as fighter (1-3 levels) and grab heavy armor and the duelist style, but great weapon fighting style also works with two handed versatile weapons, reroll 1s and 2s

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Two Weapon Fighting is pretty lackluster in 5e, unfortunately. I never see anybody use it.

[Arkhios]

If I were to play Aragorn, I would begin as fighter (1-3 levels) and grab heavy armor and the duelist style, but great weapon fighting style also works with two handed versatile weapons, reroll 1s and 2s

Actually, Aragorn's end-story armor in the movies was more like a Half-Plate (it's got plated parts, yes, but aside from breastplate and shoulder pads, the rest of it is more flexible material, such as chain).

Since Aragorn is human (more human than a half-elf at least), we could go with Variant Human, pick Medium Armor Master and still go with Dueling, ending up with equal end AC with half-plate compared with Plate, if Aragorn had or improved his dexterity to 16.

[hymer]

I have a lvl 6 half-elf ranger that I created with fairly no knowledge of D&D. I took 2 weapon fighting as my fighting style because I thought it would be the most "badass". Since then I have become much more knowledgeable and now DM 2 campaigns. However, as far as I can tell it has been largely unhelpful. I mean, rangers don't get 2 attacks until like 5th level, and even then it would be more efficient to use a big weapon twice, right? So if anyone can, please enlighten me. :)

For the ranger it's pretty simple, really. If you want a melee ranger, you've got three options for fighting styles. Of these, Two-weapon Fighting is the one that deals the most damage levels 1-4 easily, barring feats. It actually stays in contention longer than you might think. 1d6+4/1d6+4/1d6+4 is 22.5 on average, while 2d6+4/2d6+4 is 22. And if you have hunter's mark up, that half point difference goes up to 4.
2d6+4 could be bettered with a feat (Polearm Master), and then you'd be looking at 1d10+3/1d10+3/1d4+3 for 22.5, and an easier time getting Opportunity Attacks. Even with this very strong feat, two-handed fighting is not miles ahead of two-weapon fighting, and the two-weapon fighter may have better skill totals on stuff you may want, like Stealth. Dex is the better all-round stat between str and dex.

[Mandragola]

Thanks for the responses guys :)

I should clarify I am not talking about the feat Two Weapon fighting, but instead the Fighting style Two weapon fighting. Also, because I was unfamiliar with D&D, I built my ranger as "Aragorn/Strider". Has a long sword, can swing it twice, or could use Two weapon fighting to attack twice with a smaller weapon. I could see 2 enchanted weapons, but otherwise it would be better to hit with a long sword twice rather than 2 daggers. I'm just trying to understand this more fully.

From what I can tell, it looks to me that you have missed the actual point of two-weapon fighting, which is that you get to attack with your second weapon once as a bonus action, right from level 1. So it's not a question of attacking twice with a longsword vs twice with two different shortswords - it's two longsword attacks vs three shortsword attacks.

I DMed for a guy who had a variant human fighter with the dual wielder feat and two longswords. It was certainly an effective character all the way through our game. He went with battlemaster and he was able to do all sorts of useful manouevres to things. Very good damage as well. At first level he simply did twice the damage of anyone else.

[JellyPooga]

From what I can tell, it looks to me that you have missed the actual point of two-weapon fighting, which is that you get to attack with your second weapon once as a bonus action, right from level 1. So it's not a question of attacking twice with a longsword vs twice with two different shortswords - it's two longsword attacks vs three shortsword attacks.

I DMed for a guy who had a variant human fighter with the dual wielder feat and two longswords. It was certainly an effective character all the way through our game. He went with battlemaster and he was able to do all sorts of useful manouevres to things. Very good damage as well. At first level he simply did twice the damage of anyone else.

The problem is that after level 4, TWF loses its lustre. At level 4, most characters are picking up feats like Sharpshooter, GWM or PM, none of which TWF benefit from and which bring other fighting styles up to par or beyond the potential of TWF. At level 5, Extra Attack with GWM far outstrips anything your single Bonus Action attack for (even with Dual Wielder) 1d8+(stat) damage. Add in Hunters Mark and you're still only looking at an average of 8+(stat) additional damage for your bonus action which will never improve for the rest of your career. When the cost is lower base weapon damage, lost opportunity to take a different Fighting Style, probably a Feat and the fact that you need two magic weapons to really keep pace, it's just not worth it.

TWF starts off great at level one, but the fact that it doesn't really scale at all after that makes it a poor choice. You can jump through hoops to try and make it worth while by adding extra damage through Hunters Mark, Divine Smites and the rest, but you really have to go some to make that single extra attack keep up with a much simpler two-handed or sword&board style.

[Mandragola]

This is largely true. The main problem for me with two-weapon fighting is that it keys off your bonus action. There are lots of other things you want to do with your bonus action, especially as you level up. Rangers have to move it all the time, for instance. It's annoying that the archetypal dual-wielding class isn't better suited to it.

I do actually think dual wielding is a reasonable option for battle master fighters though. It's excellent for the first few levels, and not bad after that.

I've played a v human with GWM from level 1 and seen this other guy's dual wielder. I honestly do think both work well. My GWM guy sometimes gets a second hit if he dropped a target, but the dual wielder guy would always get it. GWM can be fluffed and it's always very annoying when people kill steal from you! dual wielding is always on.

Polearm mastery may appear strictly better if you want a second attack, and that's quite hard to argue with. Or you could just play a monk and gain a lot of versatility. But I've never seen a magic polearm drop and magic simple weapons are pretty rare too (though a monk stops needing them anyway). I've seen a hell of a lot of longswords, warhammers and the like though, and a dual wielder can use everything.

On the whole though I can't say I regret going with GWM myself.

[Specter]

The less bonus actions you have, the better it is. For ranger it can be bad sometimes because hunter's mark and ensnaring strike stop you from attacking with the off-hand.

As someone said, it starts as one of the best fighting styles, and progresses into the worst.

[Tanarii]

For Rangers, who are by default generally Dex based, and without access to Feats: it does the most damage, because of TWF style bonus and Hunters Mark.

With access to Feats Archery becomes a superior option at higher levels. Archery Style, Sharpshooter, and Crossbow expert means Heavy Crossbow for d10+Dex at +2 to hit, with no disadvantage for close combat or long range, no cover bonuses for the enemy, and an option for -5/+10 which is typically an overall damage increase for the majority of targets.

Note that even so TWF can still out damage archery depending on the exact AC of the target making the -5/+10 option less useful or Horde Breaker not being usable (or chosen as an option).

[Saggo]

For Rangers, who are by default generally Dex based, and without access to Feats: it does the most damage, because of TWF style bonus and Hunters Mark.

Not necessarily. Before Extra Attack, it's by far superior. But after level 5, no Feats, it still largely depends on how often you cast and move Hunter's Mark. You need go 3-4 rounds on a single target with Hunter's Mark for TWF to be definitively better. If you move Hunters Mark on the 4th round or sooner, longbows pull ahead again. Archery fighting style is enough to keep longbows competitive.

[Tanarii]

Even with Extra attack, even without hunters Mark, TWF will generally better that 2H. It's when you add 3 attacks (ie Fighters at 11) or GWM/PAM that 2H becomes superior.

Ranger with Greatsword with Extra Attack = 4d6+10
Ranger with TWF with extra Attack & TWF FS = 3d6+15
TWF is equal or superior in 5 of out 6 attacks.

Edit:Since you get extra attack at level 5, it'd be fair to assume Dex 18 vs Str 18. So TWF is equal or better on 4 out of 6 rounds in that case.

[Zman]

Even with Extra attack, even without hunters Mark, TWF will generally better that 2H. It's when you add 3 attacks (ie Fighters at 11) or GWM/PAM that 2H becomes superior.

Ranger with Greatsword with Extra Attack = 4d6+10
Ranger with TWF with extra Attack & TWF FS = 3d6+15
TWF is equal or superior in 5 of out 6 attacks.

That is only a very small small advantage and comes at th Bonus Action opportunity cost. If you look at Horde Breaker you have An advantage for the Greatsword.

Also, if you give TWF, you have to give the only applicable style to the Greatsword, Defense.

So, the Greatsword Ranger has +1 AC, better at Hordebreaker and Whirlwind, and only gives up a minute amount of damage. Hunter's Mark is better damage for TWF, but comes at the bonus action opportunity cost.

I wouldn't call that a clear win for TWF at all.

[Tanarii]

Oaky, I'm sold on the counter argument that it's balanced.

I mean, I use a Greatsword wielding Ranger Beastmaster with Sentinel myself. You wouldn't believe how much grief I get from know-it-all AL optimizer so about that.

[Zman]

Oaky, I'm sold on the counter argument that it's balanced.

I mean, I use a Greatsword wielding Ranger Beastmaster with Sentinel myself. You wouldn't believe how much grief I get from know-it-all AL optimizer so about that.

Actually, I'd call it a win for the Greatsword on a Str based build.

[Tanarii]

Actually, I'd call it a win for the Greatsword on a Str based build.
Yah it works pretty well. It's too bad things that trigger of the Attack Action don't work for Beastmaster Rangers. Otherwise S&B Shieldmaster builds and TWF builds would be at least viable for them.

Edit: I think it's more being a Beastmaster ranger at all that gets up people's back so often. And I should have said "optimizer" in air quotes. ;)

[Mandragola]

The trouble for rangers is that there's nothing they do best. Any way you build a ranger, it seems like someone else can do the same job better. So if you're going to hit things with a greatsword, you may as well be a vengeance paladin with smites as well as hunter's mark. If you're going dual wield or archer you might as well be a fighter. Rogues and monks are at least as sneaky.

I think you have to accept that a ranger's role isn't to excel as a damage dealer. You're there to scout and track things, not just to kill them. You also do very respectable damage, have a bunch of useful spells and skills, and you're fairly difficult to kill.

[Tanarii]

The trouble for rangers is that there's nothing they do best. Any way you build a ranger, it seems like someone else can do the same job better. So if you're going to hit things with a greatsword, you may as well be a vengeance paladin with smites as well as hunter's mark. If you're going dual wield or archer you might as well be a fighter. Rogues and monks are at least as sneaky.
Rangers are a blend of Fighter or Rogue, plus some Druid spells, plus some custom combat spells, plus some of their own goodies. Extra attack & HPs like a fighter, medium armor if they want to go Str, situational expertise in up to 5 Int/Wis skills (more if they get racial Skills), situational tracking, 1/2 caster, plus path goodies.

If you want to be super specialized, they aren't the best at any one thing. If you only play Combat as Sport or Dungeon Delving, they're not the best. But if you play Combat as war with (at least some) Wilderness adventuring, they do just fine. They're all-rounders. Similar to the Bard but with a different focus.

[mephnick]

I think you have to accept that a ranger's role isn't to excel as a damage dealer. You're there to scout and track things, not just to kill them. You also do very respectable damage, have a bunch of useful spells and skills, and you're fairly difficult to kill.

Pretty much it. They're solid but rely on GM play style to shine. The ranger in my game which features extensive overland travel, random encounters etc is easily the most valuable member of the team outside of combat and holds his own inside it. But I can already see high level spells coming soon which will diminish his role greatly.

[Zman]

Rangers are actually competent damage dealers.m sure,mhey siffer from TWF being poor by default but Horde Breaker and Collossus Slayer are solid damage buffs. Volley is amazing, but Whirlwind is what really suffers, IMO it should allow the ranger to move drawing AoOs as normal to get additional targets and it could be a super solid melee AoE.

[BW022]

I have a lvl 6 half-elf ranger ...
I mean, rangers don't get 2 attacks until like 5th level, and even then it would be more efficient to use a big weapon twice, right?
So if anyone can, please enlighten me. :)

Benefits of TWF over heavier weapons...

1. You get an additional attack using your bonus action.

2. You have a much higher chance of hitting at least once. (Favors those with damage bonuses such as hex, hunters mark, sneak attack, poison, certain magical bonuses, etc.)

3. You have a much higher chance of hitting when it is more important to hit than damage -- against spell casters (concentration checks), against a bridge rope, against a nearly dead target about to cast a powerful spell next round, etc.

4. You have a change of hitting multiple times. (Favors those with added effects such as hex, hunters mark, repeated magical bonuses, etc.)

5. It is easier to deal with creatures with resistances (i.e. more hits allows you to tell quicker that something is resistant to say slashing, and a you can have both a slashing and bludgeoning weapons at hand and you can swap two weapons in a round, with the feat if needed)

6. You can free a hand without completely disarming yourself. (Useful for climbing, ropes, opening doors, accessing potions, spell casting, carrying a torch, etc. while still having a weapon at hand for opportunity attacks).

7. You are much harder to disarm.

8. A number of feats still add damage, AC, and other effects.

9. You can have two magical weapons in hand -- sometimes they have affects.

10. You have the option of throwing weapons and moving attacking throwing. Most large weapons have no ranged option and those which do... means you are completely weaponless.

11. You can spread damage out more evenly. If one creature is nearly dead, you get to do about half to him and half to another vs. going all the damage against one.

12. It is a useful way of adding damage to a dexterity build. Most heavy weapons builds require strength.

[djreynolds]

This got outta hand didn't it.

I like two weapon fighting because it is cool, as long as it fits your concept do it.

Is dueling that big of a style for a ranger? I don't know.

Is TWF that big of a style, its okay.

When I've played a ranger, I will always choose archery style anyhow, even strength based... because it is there when I need it, and it becomes a strong option.

For Aragorn I would use the duelist style, keeping his hunting dagger on his hip or boot so you can fling it when you want to cast conjure barrage.

I would ask the DM if you could make some offhand attack with your fist like he does often and just combine the tavern brawler/grappler feat together.

[fatbaby]

This got outta hand didn't it.

Yea, it did. But I'm glad :) I believe that someone stated that I missed the point of Two Weapon fighting style, because Two Weapon fighting style grants an attack as an action and an attack as a bonus action from the start. You are correct. I am fairly new to D&D and my DM at the time was only familiar with 2e rules and we basically learned 5e together. I also thought that I could attack with two weapons as long as 1 of them was "light". So I have been dual wielding a long sword and a scimitar of speed. So given that at level 6 with 2 weapon fighting style I get 2 attacks in the action and 1 as a bonus action, my scimitar of speed gives me that anyway. I am actually the current DM for the campaign that Eldryn (my character) is involved in and I don't normally play him lol, so I didn't really read into the specifics of some of his abilities once I took over as DM. Looking back at my character, I actually built him dex based (+3), but have been using him str based (+2). Again, didn't know the rules of the game as well as I do now, and had no idea on how to optimize a character so I just put a lot of my points in strength and dexterity b/c I wanted to fight and not fall down lol. So a lesson has been learned, LEARN THE RULES, but in the end, he is still a fun character to play (When I get to play, that is)

Thanks again everybody for your input. I'm glad to see I got a little bit of every type of GitP involved.

[Draco4472]

I suppose it allows a better chance to hit at the cost of less damage. 'Better chance' in this case being the odds of failing twice in two attack rolls versus succeeding once/twice on two attack rolls.

It's main effect is making your PC look more badass then usual though, with the exception of Drow PC's as they are dubbed 'Drizzt clones' and thus considered unoriginal and shunned for it.

[djreynolds]

Hail of thorns is a 1st level spell for a ranger easily cast with a hand axe or dagger. Rangers have potent spells at their disposal.

And the beauty of 5E and bounded accuracy is that you can do as you please.

There is nothing wrong with playing a barbarian with a 16 in strength and a 20 in dex and using a greatsword, its only a difference of 2 on a roll. Maybe you're an elven barbarian and you use a great axe.

For me, IMO, I'm taking the best weapon available for the job or because it is cool, I'm not worried about optimization.

So if your ranger has a higher dex than strength, but you want to use a longsword two handed with strength, awesome. Do it.

In our party we have a dex based barbarian fighting with a spear and shield and he has like a 12 in strength, and he hasn't missed much, so much depends on the roll of the dice.

[gkathellar]

Similar to the Bard but with a different focus definitively worse at both their own schtick, and everything else.

I fixed this typo you had.

[Christian]

Not necessarily. Before Extra Attack, it's by far superior. But after level 5, no Feats, it still largely depends on how often you cast and move Hunter's Mark. You need go 3-4 rounds on a single target with Hunter's Mark for TWF to be definitively better. If you move Hunters Mark on the 4th round or sooner, longbows pull ahead again. Archery fighting style is enough to keep longbows competitive.

Also depends on how often cover comes into play. If the battlefields often have cover available, and the enemies are often smart enough to use it, that will reduce the relative effectiveness of the archery style in a feat-free game.

[Tanarii]

Also depends on how often cover comes into play. If the battlefields often have cover available, and the enemies are often smart enough to use it, that will reduce the relative effectiveness of the archery style in a feat-free game.I find it balances out the mobility, and more important the lack of danger. Ranged attackers are overwhelmingly powerful if they have room to kite and there is a lack of power. Cover and close quarters are the appropriate counter.

That's a good thing. It means the party needs to be varied to cover their weaknesses.