Two Weapon Fighting Questions

[Grizlock]

1. Is there any reason to take Dual Wielder (besides cool factor) before maxing dex on a dex based TWF build? It's a one damage average difference between long sword and scimitar as well as a +1 ac bonus. Adding two dex would add this, as well as +1 to attack, initiative, dex save, and skills.
2. If you fought with scimitar and dagger, could you throw the dagger or melee attack + drop the dagger at the end of every turn to free up a hand for casting shield as a reaction? Seems reasonable to carry 5 or so daggers so you would always be able to draw one as your free weapon draw action. This would avoid having to take war caster. You'd be losing out on a point of damage on your offhand, but could make up for it with an extra 2 points into dex.

[PeteNutButter]

1. Variant Human

2. Yes you can do that.

[Coffee_Dragon]

1. Is there any reason to take Dual Wielder (besides cool factor) before maxing dex on a dex based TWF build? It's a one damage average difference between long sword and scimitar as well as a +1 ac bonus. Adding two dex would add this, as well as +1 to attack, initiative, dex save, and skills.

Maybe special cases like having a non-light magic weapon you really want to use. Otherwise no, as you already realized. Most of DW is gravy adding up to a tolerable but nonessential feat.


2. If you fought with scimitar and dagger, could you throw the dagger or melee attack + drop the dagger at the end of every turn to free up a hand for casting shield as a reaction? Seems reasonable to carry 5 or so daggers so you would always be able to draw one as your free weapon draw action. This would avoid having to take war caster. You'd be losing out on a point of damage on your offhand, but could make up for it with an extra 2 points into dex.

As a DM, I'd ask what is the in-game reason for this bizarre behaviour of rhythmically dropping daggers. The world is not turn-based.

[Specter]

1. Is there any reason to take Dual Wielder (besides cool factor) before maxing dex on a dex based TWF build? It's a one damage average difference between long sword and scimitar as well as a +1 ac bonus. Adding two dex would add this, as well as +1 to attack, initiative, dex save, and skills.
2. If you fought with scimitar and dagger, could you throw the dagger or melee attack + drop the dagger at the end of every turn to free up a hand for casting shield as a reaction? Seems reasonable to carry 5 or so daggers so you would always be able to draw one as your free weapon draw action. This would avoid having to take war caster. You'd be losing out on a point of damage on your offhand, but could make up for it with an extra 2 points into dex.

1. It's kind of a draw, because you can still draw 2 weapons at the same time (pun intended).
2. Sure. It's one op. attack per dude, anyway, so it hardly matters.

[Plaguescarred]

1. No good reason the benefit is minimal
2. Yes you can.

[Mandragola]

For a strength-based character, I think the feat is at least competitive with raising strength at 4th. Less so for dex-based, since that also gets you ac.

Weapon versatility is also a big deal. Since you want two magical weapons, it stands to reason that you want the biggest choice possible. If you go with strength and the ability to use non-light weapons you'll find that a lot easier than just holding out for short swords and scimitars.

And finally, being able to draw two weapons really helps. Someone in a party I DMed for had a human battlemaster fighter with the feat. He'd go around with nothing in his hands. He had the option of throwing a couple of handaxes or if the enemy came up close he could pull out two longswords.

[NecessaryWeevil]

As a DM, I'd ask what is the in-game reason for this bizarre behaviour of rhythmically dropping daggers. The world is not turn-based.

Isn't it though? The character has discovered that if he draws a dagger and attacks, by dropping the dagger he'll have a free hand to cast Shield if necessary. The player is roleplaying someone who fights in a way he's discovered is effective, because he doesn't want to die. I'm not sure it should be the player's job to come up with fluff to conceal the fact that we are using rules as a skeleton for our collaborative storytelling.

[odigity]

No one has written a two-weapon fighting guide yet, but there's some commentary on two-weapon fighting in some class guides (probably all Fighter and Ranger guides, and most Rogue guides):

Guides, Tables, and other useful tools for 5E D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491)

[Coffee_Dragon]

The character has discovered that if he draws a dagger and attacks, by dropping the dagger he'll have a free hand to cast Shield if necessary.

He shouldn't have. Because the world is not turn-based, and in the narrative attacks don't come on a schedule.


I'm not sure it should be the player's job to come up with fluff to conceal the fact that we are using rules as a skeleton for our collaborative storytelling.

That's not what I would hope for them to do. I would expect them to agree that the rules are there to facilitate the narrative, to agree that mechanical advantages are not reason enough to introduce absurdities in the narrative, and to refrain from doing so. If not, I'd suggest we stop playing an RPG and play a board game instead.

[bid]

He shouldn't have. Because the world is not turn-based, and in the narrative attacks don't come on a schedule.
Because if it wasn't turn-based, he'd drop the dagger at the moment he needs to cast shield.

[Toofey]

So I'm considering at my table allowing people who take 2 weapon style to take a 2nd attack when they gain additional attack and letting people who have that and Dual Wielder take a third attack when they gain that.

Is this crazy talk? A lot of people seem to willfully read that the 2 weapon style already allows multiple attacks by their off hand, but this seems not RAI.

[bid]

So I'm considering at my table allowing people who take 2 weapon style to take a 2nd attack when they gain additional attack and letting people who have that and Dual Wielder take a third attack when they gain that.

Is this crazy talk? A lot of people seem to willfully read that the 2 weapon style already allows multiple attacks by their off hand, but this seems not RAI.
It's truly excessive:
- mace = 2d6+5 * 2 = 24
- short = 1d6+5 * 4 = 34 (or +40% damage)

Making it a feat might be better:
- mace + GWM = 2d6+15 * 2 = 44 (28.974 at hit 9+, including bonus attack)
- short + feat = 1d6+5 * 4 = 34 (28.9 at hit 4+)

At level 5, that's AC12 targets, so it's still stronger than GWM. Against AC18, TWF is around +10% DPR. And fighter's 3rd attack would increase the difference.

[odigity]

Good thread started a couple weeks ago with a discussion of TWF's balance, and homebrew suggestions for improving it:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?502085-Making-TWF-worthwhile

[NecessaryWeevil]

I would expect them to agree that the rules are there to facilitate the narrative, to agree that mechanical advantages are not reason enough to introduce absurdities in the narrative, and to refrain from doing so. If not, I'd suggest we stop playing an RPG and play a board game instead.

I can get behind that in principle, although any simulation of reality will have its own absurdities. I guess each group has to decide at what point the absurdities become intolerable.

[Toofey]

What if it were just the 2nd attack with the offhand for the dual wield, and make 2 weapon style a pre-requisite for dual wield (to increase the overall cost of the 2nd attack)

Also what do you think about people using two weapon style dividing up their basic attacks between their weapons. So if I had a fighter with 2 powerful weapons (for arguments sake) and got 3 attacks a round they could choose 2 with one hand 1 with the other, without spending the bonus action. I don't see anything forbidding this in the rules. thoughts?

[CaptainSarathai]

2. If you fought with scimitar and dagger, could you throw the dagger or melee attack + drop the dagger at the end of every turn to free up a hand for casting shield as a reaction? Seems reasonable to carry 5 or so daggers so you would always be able to draw one as your free weapon draw action. This would avoid having to take war caster. You'd be losing out on a point of damage on your offhand, but could make up for it with an extra 2 points into dex.
As stated, you can. However, unless you want to be able to throw the dagger, you would be better off using a Quarterstaff and the PoleArm Master feat. A level in Monk makes Quarterstaff a Dex weapon, even when used versatile for a D8. Because of the stupidity that is the butt-end strike, polearms and quarterstaves are essentially dual-weapons and therefore the bonus action attack benefits from your Ability Bonus.
You also wouldn't need Warcaster at all because
1) you can take your hand off a 2 hand weapon, or just use the staff as a 1-hand weapon
2) you can use an Arcane Focus: Staff, as a quarterstaff in combat.


Also what do you think about people using two weapon style dividing up their basic attacks between their weapons. So if I had a fighter with 2 powerful weapons (for arguments sake) and got 3 attacks a round they could choose 2 with one hand 1 with the other, without spending the bonus action. I don't see anything forbidding this in the rules. thoughts?
You can already do this. You can split attacks between any weapon you are holding, or could draw. Mike Mearls said in a tweet that drawing and attacking are a single action, so really, a Fighter with 4 attacks could:
Attack with a Heavy Crossbow, drop it
Draw, attack with a Warhammer, drop it
Draw, attack with a Shortsword
Draw, attack with a Dagger
(bonus action) Throw the Dagger

All without taking Dual Wielder (can only draw 1 weapon per attack though, which is why the last attack had to be with the offhand dagger).
Mearls ultimately conceded that this is entirely up to DM concession, so if you take such a game-ist approach, ymmv

[Coffee_Dragon]

Mike Mearls said in a tweet that drawing and attacking are a single action, so really, a Fighter with 4 attacks could:
Attack with a Heavy Crossbow, drop it
Draw, attack with a Warhammer, drop it
Draw, attack with a Shortsword
Draw, attack with a Dagger

This is not really correct. Drawing and attacking can be done in tandem, but you have only one free object interaction with which to do so.

[BW022]

1. Is there any reason to take Dual Wielder (besides cool factor) before maxing dex on a dex based TWF build? It's a one damage average difference between long sword and scimitar as well as a +1 ac bonus. Adding two dex would add this, as well as +1 to attack, initiative, dex save, and skills.
2. If you fought with scimitar and dagger, could you throw the dagger or melee attack + drop the dagger at the end of every turn to free up a hand for casting shield as a reaction? Seems reasonable to carry 5 or so daggers so you would always be able to draw one as your free weapon draw action. This would avoid having to take war caster. You'd be losing out on a point of damage on your offhand, but could make up for it with an extra 2 points into dex.

Sure...

1. You already have a 20 dexterity.

2. You have a magical non-light weapon. Rapier or such. You have a non-light magical weapon which has other effects -- flaming or something.

3. You throw weapons. (You only get one free interact with an object action per turn, so this prevents you from drawing and firing repeatedly).

4. You cast spells. This may save you from having to take war caster.

5. You do a lot of things requiring hands. You need to clear your hands to free hands to open doors, climb, swim, ride, thieves tools / open locks, etc. and get both weapons back into your hands.

6. You switch weapons a lot. Say to a ranged/melee (bow or crossbow to melee), or you have different types of weapons (silver, bludgeoning, magical, etc.)

7. You have a 20 dexterity and it is one of the few ways to obtain a higher AC.

8. You are wearing medium armor. This is AC 17 or 18 (with medium armor mastery). Some melee rangers might consider this. If so... increasing dexterity past 14 (or 16) won't help AC, while this feat might.

9. You are wearing heavy armor. Rarer on dex-builds, but fine in low-level survivability. A dex-based fighter, cleric (nature, life, war, tempest, etc.) with an 16 or 18 dexterity still might decide to wear platemail (AC 18) vs. studded leather (15 or 16) and take the movement penalty (depending upon your strength). Such builds typically don't have stealth so the +2 dex may not add any AC.

11. You have a reasonable strength and wish to use a non-finesse weapon which is more appropriate (#2). If you have a 14 strength, a +2 might be ok of an off-hand attack using a non-finesse weapon (say a staff, sword, or something anyway).

12. You have a non-dex-based attack. Say shillelagh, magic stone, etc. You aren't planning on having a high dexterity.

13. You plan on using your bonus action a lot. Rogue's disengage, ranger's casting/moving hunter's mark. I.e. you aren't TWF that much, and may be going the bulk of your damage via single attacks anyway. Certain bonus action spells which stack/combine with attacks.

14. You are getting multiple attacks without the TWF. Fighter, TWF ranger, dexterity bladelock, etc.

15. You have unusual weapons. Whip for reach, for example.


Should most builds take the feat over +2 dexterity... no. Most TWF tend to be rogues and rangers and the extra dexterity helps on attacks, damage, saves, skills, and AC. The dual wielder feat typically only helps on AC, and damage. However, for other classes... depending on the build... the feat might be better.

[Ruslan]

As a DM, I'd ask what is the in-game reason for this bizarre behaviour of rhythmically dropping daggers. The world is not turn-based."I lunge, then go into a defensive stance. Lunge, defend. Lunge, defend. That's what they taught me a Master Verdanius' Gish School." What? I've seen worse stretches.

[Toofey]

We're getting off topic, but if the world were actually turn based, don't you think people would notice and adjust accordingly?

[Coffee_Dragon]

"I lunge, then go into a defensive stance. Lunge, defend. Lunge, defend. That's what they taught me a Master Verdanius' Gish School." What? I've seen worse stretches.

And that's meant to include flavour representation of the dropped daggers?


We're getting off topic, but if the world were actually turn based, don't you think people would notice and adjust accordingly?

You'd have something like Erfworld perhaps. But that's not how people tend to imagine their game worlds, right? The rules abstraction is meant to bend around the world, not the other way around.

[Toofey]

I go back and forth, I feel like people would notice a lot of that stuff, but I digress (maybe we can start a new thread about that)

What do you think of Making DWF feat require 2 weapons style and add to it that the character gets a 2nd off hand attack (but not more than that) either when the fighter gets to 2 or 3 attacks?

[Tanarii]

Because if it wasn't turn-based, he'd drop the dagger at the moment he needs to cast shield.
That's one of the best house-rules I've heard in a while. If you want to cast a reaction spell, and you need to drop something in a hand to do it, no problem. Go for it.

Of course, it'd probably be best paired with a house-rule to make picking up your weapon a little harder, at least in some circumstances. Like ... you provoke OAs if you do it. Which IMO isn't a bad house-rule in and of itself anyway.

[Ruslan]

That's one of the best house-rules I've heard in a while. If you want to cast a reaction spell, and you need to drop something in a hand to do it, no problem. Go for it.

Of course, it'd probably be best paired with a house-rule to make picking up your weapon a little harder, at least in some circumstances. Like ... you provoke OAs if you do it. Which IMO isn't a bad house-rule in and of itself anyway.

Or your opponent can kick it away with a free Object Interaction. Whatever works.

[Zalabim]

Because if it wasn't turn-based, he'd drop the dagger at the moment he needs to cast shield.

Yeah. You beat me to this. Just drop the dagger when you actually cast the spell. Then draw a new one and laugh about any house-rules to punish picking up a dropped weapon.