Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Rogerdodger557]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?

Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.

[The Shadowdove]

I think people have just done the math a good few times over and found that dual wielding starts off strong but loses to damage against other styles around level 10/11.

There's nothing wrong with it. It's still completely viable and should be played by people who enjoy the playstyle without caring for a bit of optimization.

[Aett_Thorn]

I think that it mainly boils down to the following:

1) Action Economy
2) Feats + Fighting style seem like they should be switched
3) Action Economy
4) Only ever get one additional attack, no matter how many main attacks you get
5) Action Economy
6) ??
7) Action Economy


There are just so many things competing for that bonus action usually, unless you're a straight up fighter, that it can be hard to justify using a single attack instead.

[Kryx]

I think people have just done the math a good few times over and found that dual wielding starts off strong but loses to damage against other styles around level 10/11.
TWF is equal at level 1-4, but falls off a cliff at level 4 when GWM and PAM occur. As a comparison TWF does about 55-75% of GWM at level 4 and later (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).

[Rogerdodger557]

TWF is equal at level 1-4, but falls off a cliff at level 4 when GWM and PAM occur. As a comparison TWF does about 55-75% of GWM at level 4 and later (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255).

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

[gameogre]

No Hate. Dual is ok it just uses bonus action and so does like EVERYTHING else so......either you would already get another attack with bonus action with another ability but with higher damage with a two hander or with a higher AC or you can't use the bonus action to attack because you are using it to do something better.

Really, there is nothing wrong with Dual Wielding. It's not a case of it's not sometimes good, it is! It's just also a case of it not being as good as it seems a lot of the time.

No worries though, if you use it and you like it, Great! More power to you man!

[Jallorn]

Well, I can tell you it's not always great for Rangers, despite the archetype of the dual wielding ranger, because they'd usually rather spend the bonus action casting or re-targeting Hunter's Mark, and as they get more spells they get a few other options as well that are pretty decent. Now there are some in-between rounds when they have a free bonus action, so it's not a bad build, but there are more efficient builds. Mainly ranged.

Really that's it. Dual wielding isn't bad, it's just generally sub-par. It requires a lot of investment to get up to snuff, and even then, it gives diminishing returns for that investment over time as you get more attacks. At the same time, the cost, a bonus action, goes up as there are more and more better things to do with the bonus action.

At lower levels there are simply better builds, like a great weapon master barbarian employing reckless attack and rage to dish out massive damage and get a bonus action attack that does way more damage, and at higher levels, there are better things to do with a bonus action most of the time (or other ways to get a bonus action attack) and that one attack is less of your damage output anyway.

If it fits the character you're playing, all power to you, I say. It isn't broken bad, it's just on a forum that mostly talks about optimization and the best numerical choice, dual-wielding is just less powerful.

And frankly, I think it should be. Dual wielding really isn't a great idea in battle, it just doesn't work out that well. In most situations, a shield would serve better than a second weapon.

[Boci]

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

Harder to compare I imagine, since they get +3 AC. TWF vs. GWF is a cleaner comparison, since its just damage (though its worth noting ofcourse that TFW also eats your bonus action).


And frankly, I think it should be. Dual wielding really isn't a great idea in battle, it just doesn't work out that well. In most situations, a shield would serve better than a second weapon.

D&D is a game about having fun, not a realistic fight simulator.

[Cap'm Bubbles]

It's not really hated, just sub-optimal.

Before everyone has multi-attack, it is actually the superior choice.
At level 5, it keeps pace with GWM (when not using -5/+10) as slightly better or slightly worse depending on class and archetype.
At level 11, you can't justify it for fighter anymore for DPR.
Once at level 11, dual wielding is only superior to GWF if you have an ability that can activate on every hit, so more hits is better than total number of hits.

This is the case for Paladin (3 smites per turn instead of 2), Battlemaster Fighter (3 maneuvers instead of 2), and a half-orc barbarian at level 13 (where a critical hit is effectively 5x number of dice rolled instead of 2).

The utility of an off-hand whip for certain spells and the Sentinel feat remain due to the weapon's reach.

[Easy_Lee]

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

On a fighter, sword and board pull ahead of TWF at 11 due to the shield. Without feats, the damage will be slightly in favor of S&B. With feats, shield master will give S&B the edge.

On rangers and barbarians, TWF is feasible, but there are better options. Rangers have too much to do with their bonus, barbarians want a big weapon because they don't get the fighting style.

On rogues, TWF is useful, but crossbow expert makes a hand crossbow better in every way.

Blade Warlocks can only have one pact weapon, and want their free hand for casting anyway if they don't have war caster. Besides that they don't get the fighting style.

Valor bards are in the same boat as warlocks.

Paladins, who might conceivably TWF for extra smites, don't get it as a fighting style option.

TWF sucks this edition.

[Rogerdodger557]

Once at level 11, dual wielding is only superior to GWF if you have an ability that can activate on every hit, so more hits is better than total number of hits.


This is why I specified I was over level 13. Since I have access to Eldritch Strike, more attacks per turn helps me, especially now that I can cast Fireball.

[WickerNipple]

I am curious as to why there is so much hate.

Hate? I don't see much dual-wield hate. Just disappointment after the early levels and the boring mediocrity of having to spend your bonus action every turn to keep up with expected damage.

[Kryx]

On a fighter, sword and board pull ahead of TWF at 11 due to the shield. Without feats, the damage will be slightly in favor of S&B. With feats, shield master will give S&B the edge.
S&B pulls ahead at 5th level by my calculations.

Let me restate that: TWF is doing less damage than Sword and Board only counting the fighter, not counting the advantage the figher gives to his allies by making the enemy prone.


TWF sucks this edition.
100% this and why (you and) I have tried to bring this up in every TWF thread.

[utopus]

I personally love the idea of TWF. The only problem is that it's badly designed in its current state, and the damage that's lost by building a TWF is simply too staggering to even consider playing

[EvilAnagram]

This is why I specified I was over level 13. Since I have access to Eldritch Strike, more attacks per turn helps me, especially now that I can cast Fireball.

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

[Boci]

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

I think what they means is that they can hit multiple creatures, then catch them all with fireball. Eldritch strike gives every creature hit disadvantage on the save, so two weapon fighting helps with that, guaranteeing an extra attack. Seem niche, but it is an advantage.

[Rogerdodger557]

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

That is what I was referring to, and when I level up whenever I action surge I get a free 30 ft teleport, allowing potentially four enemies to have disadvantage on their saving throws.

Edit: The disadvantage lasts until the end of my next turn as well. I wouldn't even have to action surge if I don't want to.

[Easy_Lee]

S&B pulls ahead at 5th level by my calculations.

Let me restate that: TWF is doing less damage than Sword and Board only counting the fighter, not counting the advantage the figher gives to his allies by making the enemy prone.

Most of my calculations are back of the envelope, so I'll defer to yours. And yes, good point about prone benefiting the rest of the party.

A few more things:

If your campaign has magical weapons, the TWF player needs twice as many as everyone else to receive the same proportional benefit. That sucks.

Another consideration: spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon only target one weapon. One more point against TWF.

Finally, reaction attacks. Since you only get one attack, players who rely on multiple attacks will deal less damage with their reaction, since it only allows one attack. That hurts fighters in general, but TWF fighters most.

[Boci]

That is what I was referring to, and when I level up whenever I action surge I get a free 30 ft teleport, allowing potentially four enemies to have disadvantage on their saving throws.

Edit: The disadvantage lasts until the end of my next turn as well. I wouldn't even have to action surge if I don't want to.

Yeah, but unless your wielding a whip, that 4 enemies enemies that have to be standing pretty close together, or you'll be eating OA to get to them, and a TWF can do the same, they only have 25% less attacks.Plus this trick, whilst neat, does spread damage out, which is a subpar strategy most of the time. Though if the spell also debuffs it may be more useful.

[Rogerdodger557]

Reading through he responses, so far, what I seem to get as a take back is that math wise, it doesn't do as much damage at later levels, and funky **** with spell casting. I wanted to clarify that

1: I have optimized my character to be an effective dual wielding eldritch knight
He is a vuman(dual wielder, +1 to STR and INT), war caster, crossbow expert, and has a belt of hill giant strength. His stat array is


STR: 21(+5)
DEX: 13(+1)
CON: 12(+1)
INT: 20(+5)
WIS: 8(-1)
CHA: 8(-1)


He also has +1 plate, and an ioun stone of protection. So I'm not worrying about getting hit that much

2:
I'm playing this character not for roll playing, but for roleplaying. You know, what D&D should be. I wanted to have fun.

And 3: There is a sword and board sorcadin, 1 light cleric, 1 life cleric, a greatsword wielding wizard(1 barb), and a dwarf moon druid. I wanted to be different.

[Rogerdodger557]

Most of my calculations are back of the envelope, so I'll defer to yours. And yes, good point about prone benefiting the rest of the party.

If your campaign has magical weapons, the TWF player needs twice as many as everyone else to receive the same proportional benefit. That sucks.

Another consideration: spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon only target one weapon. One more point against TWF.

Finally, reaction attacks. Since you only get one attack, players who rely on multiple attacks will deal less damage with their reaction, since it only allows one attack. That hurts fighters in general, but TWF fighters most.

For magic items in general, if two or more players want the same item and have the same amount of magic items, they roll for it. This is how I got both +1 weapons in Lost Mines.

I don't use elemental weapon or magic weapon. They are, quite honestly, a waste of spells known for eldritch knights(at least in my opinion).

My reaction is mainly used for either Shield or Absorb Elements. And with war caster, I would just use a cantrip. A lot easier, and at least three damage die are rolled if I hit.

[denthor]

I have to consistently roll higher on the d20 to hit. If you dice go cold the extra attack does very little if you hit.

Light off hand weapon less damage lower armor class compared two shield.

Now I do like a two handed weapon with 1 1/2 times strength damage.

[Rogerdodger557]

Yeah, but unless your wielding a whip, that 4 enemies enemies that have to be standing pretty close together, or you'll be eating OA to get to them, and a TWF can do the same, they only have 25% less attacks.Plus this trick, whilst neat, does spread damage out, which is a subpar strategy most of the time. Though if the spell also debuffs it may be more useful.

OA?

And for spells, I try and get spells that have secondary effects(frostbite and the like). Or just Fireball. 8d6 is still pretty nice.

[Boci]

Reading through he responses, so far, what I seem to get as a take back is that math wise, it doesn't do as much damage at later levels, and funky **** with spell casting. I wanted to clarify that

Pretty much this. People don't hate two weapon fighting generally, but its mechanically subpar, for fighter it generally doesn't do anything better than another fighting style, and fluff-wise some people dislike it because historically it was not as valid a fighting style as the others.

But yeah, if you like it, go for it and have fun.


OA?

Opportunity attack, for moving outside a creature's threaten range. I sometimes confuse editions.


And for spells, I try and get spells that have secondary effects(frostbite and the like). Or just Fireball. 8d6 is still pretty nice.

Frostbite isn't an area effect, so it won't be better on a two weapon fighter, and yeah, 28 fire damage is pretty good, but again, TWF isn't adding that much to the combo.

[Easy_Lee]

The issue isn't that dual wielding can't work, just that it's inferior to everything else past level 5. You may use it and like it, but that's not the point.

[Aett_Thorn]

I have to consistently roll higher on the d20 to hit. If you dice go cold the extra attack does very little if you hit.

Light off hand weapon less damage lower armor class compared two shield.

Now I do like a two handed weapon with 1 1/2 times strength damage.

Are you sure you're in the right addition? What 1.5x Str two-handed weapons?

[Rogerdodger557]

Frostbite isn't an area effect, so it won't be better on a two weapon fighter, and yeah, 28 fire damage is pretty good, but again, TWF isn't adding that much to the combo.

While it isn't a AOE spell, if were going up against a singular, powerful threat like an adult dragon(as we have), disadvantage to hit on their first attack is always useful.

[Boci]

While it isn't a AOE spell, if were going up against a singular, powerful threat like an adult dragon(as we have), disadvantage to hit on their first attack is always useful.

Right, but that's not relevant to your fighting style, any eldritch knight can do that, and against a singular, more powerful opponent, TWF is better, at least mechanically.

[Specter]

I hope those counting GWM and PAM styles are also accounting for the Dual Wielder feat, which would give you +1AC and +1 damage to all attacks. Otherwise, it's moot.

[Temperjoke]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?

Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.

"Hate" is a strong word. It's more that it's not optimal, and most of the discussion on these forums tend to center around min-maxing, where not optimal things are disliked.

[Knaight]

D&D is a game about having fun, not a realistic fight simulator.

Sometimes the fun comes from having a modicum of realism, at least in terms of clearly inferior options actually being inferior. As just one example: Everyone being just as good at fighting unarmed as with a weapon takes away all the scenarios where only one person having a weapon matters. The trope of someone held at gunpoint (with the gun replaced by a bow or crossbow), of a master swordsman rushed while they're unarmed, of an expert having to sneak around until they get their hands on a weapon and bring in brute force, all of those are gone. The same thing can apply to a lesser extent to something like dual wielding compared to more suitable battlefield weapons.

[Boci]

Sometimes the fun comes from having a modicum of realism, at least in terms of clearly inferior options actually being inferior. As just one example: Everyone being just as good at fighting unarmed as with a weapon takes away all the scenarios where only one person having a weapon matters. The trope of someone held at gunpoint (with the gun replaced by a bow or crossbow), of a master swordsman rushed while they're unarmed, of an expert having to sneak around until they get their hands on a weapon and bring in brute force, all of those are gone. The same thing can apply to a lesser extent to something like dual wielding compared to more suitable battlefield weapons.

Not really. How good you fight unarmed is relevant to any fighter, because you may find yourself without a weapon. By contrast, how well you fight with two weapons is pretty irrelevant to a character who has chosen to wield a greatsword or glaive. It's not to a lesser extent, its completely different, because you will not be in a situation where you will be fighting with two weapons, barring incredibly rare contrivances.

[Kryx]

I hope those counting GWM and PAM styles are also accounting for the Dual Wielder feat, which would give you +1AC and +1 damage to all attacks. Otherwise, it's moot.
That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

[Easy_Lee]

"Hate" is a strong word. It's more that it's not optimal, and most of the discussion on these forums tend to center around min-maxing, where not optimal things are disliked.

This is my issue. I actually quite like dual wielding. But for me, if I'm going to build a character, I want to be good at something. Not the best, just good at something.

There's no way (that I know of) to legally build a TWF character without another weapon being superior for that character. Either you need too much feat investment and it isn't worth the lost options or your damage is inferior.

[jas61292]

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

Dual Wielder is not horrible, but only because it is useful for a Str based TWF or a Dex based one that has already maxed out Dex. That said, it is on the weaker side. Add that to other weapon styles having horribly overpowered feats like GWM and PAM, and TWF seems even worse in comparison.

That said, I think one little thing that really takes viability away from TWF is that the fighting style is only available to Fighters and Rangers. TWF thrives when it gets bonus damage on its attack, something fighters mostly lack, and Rangers mainly get thorough Hunter's Mark, which competes for the bonus action. Looking just at class features, Paladins and Barbarians would probably make the best use of TWF, but the former can't pick it, and the later doesn't get fighting styles. A Paladins improved divine smite granting a full extra die to every attack is a huge boost for TWF at a level that the style fades into irrelevance on a fighter. And extra damage from a barbarian rage could potentially push its damage to the top of the heap for that class. But alas, those only work if you get your ability mod to damage, which requires a fighter or ranger dip. Not that such a thing is terrible, but it pushes back the level it becomes very effective, just to hit a level that the terribly designed feats mentioned previously get you to without any effort.

[Rogerdodger557]

"Hate" is a strong word. It's more that it's not optimal, and most of the discussion on these forums tend to center around min-maxing, where not optimal things are disliked.

I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round. I don't like that people avoid build that are not "optimal". Personally, when I make a character, I think of a concept first, and then I optimize a build for that.

tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

[Aett_Thorn]

I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round. I don't like that people avoid build that are not "optimal". Personally, when I make a character, I think of a concept first, and then I optimize a build for that.

tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

I am betting that even most people on this board who classify it as "don't touch" actually do make characters with that playstyle. However, this board really does focus on optimization to a ridiculous degree. But in real games, you probably won't find that same level of optimiztion in favor of characters that are fun.

[Boci]

I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round.

That's exactly why its considered suboptimal. When you get a lot of attacks, an extra attack isn't as valuable. Fighters get the least out of two-weapon fighting because they have so many attacks. A rogue by contrast, the best class for two-weapon fighting, gets 100% extra attacks from it. Fighter gets increasingly few as their level increases.


tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

Target audience is important here. The assumption is people are asking online for advice for mechanics, i.e. solid maths, with a good and a bad answer, because, well, why would somebody be asking for roleplaying advice when it came to fighting styles? Its subjective, and the other person isn't going to know what you like roleplaying better than you.

[Tanarii]

Because you can't TWF and use War Magic at the same time.
Dueling or Protection (ie S&B) is also somewhat sub-par in that it requires a Feat investment (War Caster), unless you have access to the SCAG cantrips.

Edit: If you mean other people are hating on your decision to TWF instead of using War Magic, that's their problem. Not yours.

[Kryx]

Dual Wielder is not horrible, but only because it is useful for a Str based TWF or a Dex based one that has already maxed out Dex.
I outlined how +2 Dex ASI is better in every factor except "you can draw two weapons" which is often and should be hand waived by GMs. A feat that is worse than an ASI is a bad feat irregardless of the overpowered nature of GWM and PAM (both are incredibly OP, but those are the competing styles). However even fixing GWM and PAM to not be incredibly OP still has TWF be very suboptimal as Dual Wielder is worse than an ASI and the myriad of other reasons mentioned in this thread (Bonus action, OAs, Magic Items, etc)

[Specter]

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

2) I'm not saying it's a great feat, but if you're accounting for efficiency you have to consider the +1AC too.

[Easy_Lee]

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

It's a bad option because other options are better. Even for a TWF character, there are quite a few feats more useful than Dual Wielder.

[GlenSmash!]

1) Assuming your DEX is maxed or you started as a V. Human, why would that matter?

Or a Strength Dual Wielder in Heavy Armor. I'm also not saying it's a good feat. It's not. Polearm Master outstrips it by miles.

[Rogerdodger557]

It's a bad option because other options are better. Even for a TWF character, there are quite a few feats more useful than Dual Wielder.

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

[Boci]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

Yeah, but that doesn't make it good. Upgrading from shortsword or scimitars to rapier or longsword gives +1 to average damage. Its important for character aesthetic, less so mechanics-wise.

[Tanarii]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.Yeah. As far as I can see, it's not really intended for Dex dual-wielding. It's intended for Str dual-wielding.

Dual-wielding rapiers doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST YOU HEAR ME! :smallamused:

[GlenSmash!]

Dual Wielder is literally the only way to dual wield non-light weapons.

But non-light weapons are just not that much better than the light ones. Rapiers only do on average 1 more point of damage per hit than shortswords/scimitars. Likewise Longswords/Warhammers/Battleaxes and Handaxes, with handaxes have the added beneft of being able to throw them.

[Easy_Lee]

But non-light weapons are just not that much better than the light ones. Rapiers only do on average 1 more point of damage per hit than shortswords/scimitars. Likewise Longswords/Warhammers/Battleaxes and Handaxes, with handaxes have the added beneft of being able to throw them.

Exactly right. And on the only class that might actually TWF effectively, a rogue, I'd take shortsword / dagger over two rapiers any day. Dealing 3 more damage per attack action, when I don't bonus action something else, doesn't compare to also having a ranged attack. Then I'd spend the feat on Alert, skulker, or something that got me more opportunity attacks.

[Rogerdodger557]

STR: 21(+5)




Yeah. As far as I can see, it's not really intended for Dex dual-wielding. It's intended for Str dual-wielding.

Dual-wielding rapiers doesn't exist. DOES NOT EXIST YOU HEAR ME! :smallamused:

I am in fact a STR based dual wielder

[MeeposFire]

The bonus action part is a major flaw that really needs to be removed. It makes it the only fighting style that does not work with a bunch of mechanics in the game whereas other styes all work fine.

One great example is in the class involved here as it is the ONLY fighting style that cannot be used at all with war magic which is one of the cool abilities of the EK. Some need feats like warcaster to make them work more efficiently (sword and board) but it does work in general with the ability TWF does not.

I use some methods to get around these issues though I am still working on the whole thing.

1. Two weapon fighting no longer requires an additional action and does not require the attack action to use though it does require that you make a weapon attack on your turn as an action for you to use it.

2. You get an object interaction for every attack you can make with an attack action and if you are drawing a weapon with it you can draw a weapon in each hand as the same object interaction.

3. Two weapon fighting style grants you the ability to use larger weapons.

4. When a character gains the extra attack ability from any class they get to add their attribute bonus to their off hand damage.

5. The dual wielder feat provides an AC bonus, an ability to make an extra attack with an off hand as a bonus action, and you can make one off hand attack with your main weapon attack on an opportunity attack (I do not allow tunnel fighter at this time).


Part one makes TWF more easy to use in the game and less annoying. Now it works with war margic and things like the new blade bard ability that makes an attack that is not an attack action.

Part 2 fixes the issue with drawing two weapons without a feat (that should not be required) and allows throwing weapon characters to actually work.

Part 3 gives the TWF style a bonus more in line with other weapon fighting styles. Allowing for larger weapons to be used grants a damage bonus of slightly more than +1 damage an attack (remember you need to include crits and an increased die size changes the crit bonus damage as well while things like dueling does not). Probably not quite as good as dueling but still in a similar realm (TWF gets an extra attack over that style so its getsan extra instance of effect) and might be better than GWF style.

Part 4 allows TWF to keep closer to other style damages ratings without spending any special resources to do so. This method also keeps rogues from getting the ability without multiclassing.

Part 5 I think creates an overall feat that is worth the ASI and allows it to compete as viable compared to other feats. The feat increases defense, grants a bonus action attack on top of the attack TWF already gives, and the last ability turns TWF from a weak style for OAs to a strong one.

[TheCrowing1432]

Bonus action is a high value action in 5E, so many class features use it that it can become crowded for use depending on your class selection.

An extra attack sounds good, and it is good if you want dudes dead, but more often then not, theres probably something else you could be doing with that bonus action instead of an offhand attack.

Then theres the fact that the damage apparently falls off when compared to other styles, but hey, im a guy who genuinely enjoys using whips and daggers, so what do I know about damage optimization.

[suplee215]

I feel like the fighting style is given to the wrong classes. It is good, but most martial classes in this edition get their power (especially late game) from multiple attacks. It also completes with other bonus action activity. The +3-5 damage early one is big, but it becomes less competitive. It doesn't scale much. The classes you want it on are those with few or no extra attacks, little to no use for bonus actions, and/or damage riders. It is given to The Fighter and The Ranger. The Revised Beastmaster Ranger actually prefer this style. It grants a 2nd attack it loses due to subclass. It does compete with Hunter's Mark, but that is not nearly as important with 1 attack as it is with 2. A class that uses two weapon fighting a lot but does not get the style is The Rogue. The 2nd chance for sneak attack is extremely good. A paladin might also make use of the style. lvl 11 adds 1d8 damage to all attacks and while they can use bonus actions to add smite spells, typically they just use spell slots on direct smiting. The barbarian will also love it due to rage damage. However, there are 2 feats that give characters something similar in Polearm Mastery and Crossbow Expert. You get a bonus action attack you can add your modifier to, along with a -5/+10 feat. So there is no reason to go out of your way to get twf unless it is for concept.

[Knaight]

Not really. How good you fight unarmed is relevant to any fighter, because you may find yourself without a weapon. By contrast, how well you fight with two weapons is pretty irrelevant to a character who has chosen to wield a greatsword or glaive. It's not to a lesser extent, its completely different, because you will not be in a situation where you will be fighting with two weapons, barring incredibly rare contrivances.

Given that we're talking about a fairly hypothetical design space here, that's not necessarily the case. D&D is conventionally focused on adventurers going around fully geared, but it's really easy for a campaign to have a few distinct areas which have different weapons associated, and for them to brush up against each other - I've run games like this, where the bulk of the game was set in a city, and most of the people would follow the conventions of the city. That meant that what fights happened tended to involve no armor, and swords with maybe a buckler or parrying dagger. Occasionally the characters would brush up against the court, and court wear was a bit different, where the only weapon allowed was a knife*. Then there was the matter of what was going on outside the city, not the least of which was a mercenary camp and a band of smugglers, with the occasional travelling knight.

Had the game been balanced such that the difference between these fully armed and armored mercenaries, and the civilians in the city, and the practically unarmed court petitioners were just stylistic the game wouldn't have worked nearly as well. All of the skullduggery involved in bringing these worlds together in an advantageous way, gone. An excellent scene involving an unarmored PC with just a sword managing to deal with two fully armed and armored guards losing all impact because the mechanics took the threat out, gone. The bidding war between the PC's merchant organization and a rival on the mercenary group after several street brawls rendered largely irrelevant because said mercenaries go from terrifying to one more city street gang, except they have to cross the walls first. Then there's the matter of how the mechanical differences emphasized the narrative differences, with all the fish out of water stuff that came with it.

The PCs did travel occasionally (again, merchant guild), and once they did the big weapons came out. In one case, how well a character fought with two weapons literally applied to a character who chose to wield a greatsword outside the walls. Point is, a more realistic simulation can help the game instead of hurting it sometimes, and while unarmed vs. armed is a really obvious case it's not the only one. The aforementioned location based weaponry, civilization clashes with technological gaps, and all sorts of things where there's a valid design in either direction depending on what the goals are. Sometimes the question of whether a character uses a bow or a plasma rifle is largely an aesthetic one and balancing those options helps create a wider range of characters. Other times it's a huge gap in effectiveness, where the stark difference in weapons highlights the disparate aspects of a setting. D&D has historically leaned mostly towards the former, but it doesn't have to**.

*With obvious exemptions for royalty, their guards, and basically whoever else the people in charge wanted to have around for an implicit threat of violence for everyone else.
**With that said: Pretending that one of these is the case while it's actually the other is just bad design, and 5e dual wielding is running a bit close to that for comfort.

[Waterdeep Merch]

TWF is bad numbers-wise beyond the first few levels on everything except the rogue and certain weird paladin builds meant for white room nova bursting. It's atrocious in games with feats. It's playable, but sub-optimal in every way. Worse, it's boring thanks to removing the potential for neat bonus action abilities.

I've been trying to come up with a system to fix TWF since the 5e starter box. The easy way to keep the damage more or less consistent is to just add an extra attack to offhand attacks at level 11, but that only keeps it barely competitive and it's still no match once you introduce feats to the mix. Even giving DW to any TWF as the fighting style and making the current fighting style core doesn't fix it.

I can't remember why right now, but I didn't like the numbers I saw when I did the following-
*Make the TWF Fighting Style part of the normal usage of dual wielding
*Make the TWF Fighting style grant DW as currently written instead
*Make the offhand attacks during the regular Attack action in addition to all of your normal attacks, so long as you didn't use any of them on a two-handed weapon
*If you have the Extra Attack feature, gain a new offhand attack at level 11

That's my work in progress, though as I said before, I don't trust the numbers I'm seeing enough to use these rules in a live game yet.

[Elminster298]

My biggest problem with two weapon fighting, in all of it's 5th Ed forms, is that it just doesn't feel like two weapon fighting! Yes, mechanically it is inferior to most other forms of physical combat in this edition but that wouldn't even bother me at all if it still felt at all like you were actually fighting with two weapons. Maybe, and this is just a ballpark idea, it doesn't feel right because you don't get enough attacks. With bounded accuracy, even a small negative "to hit" per extra attack granted(especially if the negative gets bigger with more attacks) is enough of a balance for a TWF getting up to equal attacks with both hands. If a 20 fighter had TWF he could have 8 attacks but... 4 main hand have normal "to hit" off hand has a - 1, - 2, - 4, - 8 "to hit". You could even penalize speed for any round TWF was used by - 5ft per additional attack. It would feel like actually fighting with two weapons, have serious negative effects making it a tough choice each round(as well as for character creation as a whole), but would be strong enough for pretty much every physical combat character to consider.

[GlenSmash!]

Exactly right. And on the only class that might actually TWF effectively, a rogue, I'd take shortsword / dagger over two rapiers any day. Dealing 3 more damage per attack action, when I don't bonus action something else, doesn't compare to also having a ranged attack. Then I'd spend the feat on Alert, skulker, or something that got me more opportunity attacks.

Solid. I always start my various barbarians using two handaxes. It does the same damage as a greatsword, but you can get double the damage from Rage, by applying it two each weapon, spread the damage among two targets, and throw an axe when needed. By the time feats come into play I usually got the GWM, PM, or Shield Master route.

For Shortsword/dagger, I would grab Defensive Duelist. there's just something so satisfying about flicking your sword in at the last moment to block that hit. Makes you feel lite a true swordsman.

[Tanngrisnr]

I've been lurking on these boards for a long, long time. As most of you know (and some have in fact pointed out) the conclusion to these threads is always "TWF sucks".

At my table, my players and I have been using a homebrewed rule that, as far as we care, have ended most of the complaints. As some many others have shared their fixes, I decided to share ours here. It goes as follow:



General:


When attacking with two weapons, you cannot apply your ability modifier to damage rolls. You can only attack with two weapons if you are wielding two light melee weapons.


Attack:


When you take the Attack action, you can attack with both your melee weapons.


Extra Attack:


If you have the Extra Attack class feature, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding and make one extra attack during your Attack action. You cannot make more than one extra attack, even if you have more than one instance of the Extra Attack class feature.


Fighting Style:


If you have the TWF Fighting Style, you can attack with melee wepons that lack the light property, but you still cannot dual wield heavy melee weapons. Also, you can draw two weapons as part of your attack.


Dual Wielder feat:


You gain +1AC; you can add half your ability modifier (rounded up) to damage rolls when attacking with two weapons.


TWF and Bonus Actions:


If you have a Bonus Action that allows you to make an attack, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding to make the bonus attack. You cannot make more than one attack during your Bonus Action.


TWF and Reactions:


If you get to make an attack as your Reaction, you choose one of the melee weapons you are wielding to make the attack. You cannot make more than one attack as your Reaction.


Hunter's Mark


The spell has been toned down to deal 1d12 damage once per round.

I hope this helps some of you.

[90sMusic]

When i'm playing a rogue, I usually use a bow... But if I get in melee, I often use that bonus action to disengage, hide, dash, whatever but occasionally i'll have a reason to take that extra attack.

As a rogue who only gets one attack per round, using a bonus for a second chance at sneak attack if your primary hit misses is fantastic for keeping the damage going. That's really all I use it for. In melee, I always have a dagger in the offhand, I just don't use it too often, but it definitely has it's uses.

[SharkForce]

I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round. I don't like that people avoid build that are not "optimal". Personally, when I make a character, I think of a concept first, and then I optimize a build for that.

tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

is there any particularly compelling reason that a player role-playing someone who uses two-weapon fighting needs to be mechanically worse off than if they had chosen basically any other fighting style?

[Boci]

Given that we're talking about a fairly hypothetical design space here, that's not necessarily the case. D&D is conventionally focused on adventurers going around fully geared, but it's really easy for a campaign to have a few distinct areas which have different weapons associated, and for them to brush up against each other - I've run games like this, where the bulk of the game was set in a city, and most of the people would follow the conventions of the city. That meant that what fights happened tended to involve no armor, and swords with maybe a buckler or parrying dagger. Occasionally the characters would brush up against the court, and court wear was a bit different, where the only weapon allowed was a knife*. Then there was the matter of what was going on outside the city, not the least of which was a mercenary camp and a band of smugglers, with the occasional travelling knight.

Had the game been balanced such that the difference between these fully armed and armored mercenaries, and the civilians in the city, and the practically unarmed court petitioners were just stylistic the game wouldn't have worked nearly as well. All of the skullduggery involved in bringing these worlds together in an advantageous way, gone. An excellent scene involving an unarmored PC with just a sword managing to deal with two fully armed and armored guards losing all impact because the mechanics took the threat out, gone. The bidding war between the PC's merchant organization and a rival on the mercenary group after several street brawls rendered largely irrelevant because said mercenaries go from terrifying to one more city street gang, except they have to cross the walls first. Then there's the matter of how the mechanical differences emphasized the narrative differences, with all the fish out of water stuff that came with it.

The PCs did travel occasionally (again, merchant guild), and once they did the big weapons came out. In one case, how well a character fought with two weapons literally applied to a character who chose to wield a greatsword outside the walls. Point is, a more realistic simulation can help the game instead of hurting it sometimes, and while unarmed vs. armed is a really obvious case it's not the only one. The aforementioned location based weaponry, civilization clashes with technological gaps, and all sorts of things where there's a valid design in either direction depending on what the goals are. Sometimes the question of whether a character uses a bow or a plasma rifle is largely an aesthetic one and balancing those options helps create a wider range of characters. Other times it's a huge gap in effectiveness, where the stark difference in weapons highlights the disparate aspects of a setting. D&D has historically leaned mostly towards the former, but it doesn't have to**.

*With obvious exemptions for royalty, their guards, and basically whoever else the people in charge wanted to have around for an implicit threat of violence for everyone else.
**With that said: Pretending that one of these is the case while it's actually the other is just bad design, and 5e dual wielding is running a bit close to that for comfort.

Thank you for proving my point. You had a non-standard game, in which, in one case, the rules became relevant. D&D is about having fun, which means its more important that the person who wants to wield two weapons can be competitive with the fighting styles. That will not be a niche scenario. The fact that there can be a niche scenario in which it is "cool" is a poor reason to have a popular archetype under supported.

[Knaight]

Thank you for proving my point. You had a non-standard game, in which, in one case, the rules became relevant. D&D is about having fun, which means its more important that the person who wants to wield two weapons can be competitive with the fighting styles. That will not be a niche scenario. The fact that there can be a niche scenario in which it is "cool" is a poor reason to have a popular archetype under supported.

The game was also about having fun, where the disparity in equipment contributed to the fun. That's my point, that "about having fun" doesn't actually favor one of these conclusions over the other.

[Boci]

The game was also about having fun, where the disparity in equipment contributed to the fun. That's my point, that "about having fun" doesn't actually favor one of these conclusions over the other.

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

[Cybren]

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

[Knaight]

No, it does. "Having fun" favours the conclusion of people being effectively with the fighting style you have chosen, because . The enjoyment someone gets from the game through their chosen fighting style being a valid choice outweighs what another person loses through the fighting style they did not choose being more effective than it was historically.

In that particular game much fun was had precisely because the chosen, most common fighting style was less effective than other options.

[SharkForce]

This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

it doesn't require everyone being equally effective, but it is generally facilitated by everyone being closer rather than further apart... i don't recall anyone ever saying "this character is no fun, i'm not weaker than everyone else". can't say the same for the reverse.

[thereaper]

There's no way (that I know of) to legally build a TWF character without another weapon being superior for that character. Either you need too much feat investment and it isn't worth the lost options or your damage is inferior.

I'm not sure I'd go that far. Certainly, in the vast majority of situations, there are better options. But there are a few corner cases where it makes sense. I have an idea for a Dex Valor Bard burning a hole in my back pocket that would TWF simply because it would let him get more damage than a single weapon (and slightly more than GFB, for that matter) without requiring any investment. It would require eating his bonus actions and free object interactions, of course, but turns where I'm hypothetically not willing to make those sacrifices would be what Vicious Mockery would be for.

But, yeah, if you're making any feat investments or you're a strength-based character, there are almost certainly better options.

[Boci]

In that particular game much fun was had precisely because the chosen, most common fighting style was less effective than other options.

Yes, in that particular game. I'm not saying it cannot ever be fun, just that on balance making TWF equal to the others is more fun for the kind of game D&D generally is.


This is begging the question. "Having fun requires that everyone be equal power level!" "why" "because that's fun"

I never said having fun required everyone to be equal, merely that its more fun in a game like D&D when the fighting styles are equally viable than when it isn't. Big difference.

[Rogerdodger557]

is there any particularly compelling reason that a player role-playing someone who uses two-weapon fighting needs to be mechanically worse off than if they had chosen basically any other fighting style?

Roleplaying wise, yeah there is some stuff in his backstory for using two weapons. Tabletopping? I just wanted to play differently than the other members of my party. There's a sword and board sorcadin, a great weapon wielding wizard, a mace and shield cleric, another cleric that I can't remember what they have for equipment, and a druid.

[Cybren]

Yes, in that particular game. I'm not saying it cannot ever be fun, just that on balance making TWF equal to the others is more fun for the kind of game D&D generally is.



I never said having fun required everyone to be equal, merely that its more fun in a game like D&D when the fighting styles are equally viable than when it isn't. Big difference.
you're begging the question again. You're presuming that there's one way of fun (balance) and then justifying it because you think it's more fun. Some peoples fun derives from a holistic approach to a system where there are valid use cases for every ability, which 5E pretty much has. "equally viable" is an overly meaningless metric.

[Boci]

you're begging the question again. You're presuming that there's one way of fun (balance) and then justifying it because you think it's more fun. Some peoples fun derives from a holistic approach to a system where there are valid use cases for every ability, which 5E pretty much has. "equally viable" is an overly meaningless metric.

No it isn't. People generally don't want their fighting style to be sub-optimal compared to others, as evidenced on this forum by the numerous threads asking for mechanical help when an archetype seems underwhelming, and far far less asking for help making their archetype weaker.

[Unoriginal]

Is dual wielding character really bad compared to a non-optimized character?

[Cybren]

No it isn't. People generally don't want their fighting style to be sub-optimal compared to others, as evidenced on this forum by the numerous threads asking for mechanical help when an archetype seems underwhelming, and far far less asking for help making their archetype weaker.
Which doesn't govern what is and isn't fun. This is why you're begging the question. Not everyone cares about the same things within the game as you, nor does everyone derive their fun from the same space as you. You are assuming that everyone values the same thing you do, which is common for people in general, but i've noticed it to be incredibly common on game forums.

[Boci]

Is dual wielding character really bad compared to a non-optimized character?

Define non optimized? In general, yeah, it is. Especially at level 5+. A great weapon fighter with a maul does 4d6+6 damage spread over 2 attack, rerolling 1s and 2s, with the option of of taking -5 to hit to get +10 to damage, and a bonus attack if an the attack crits. A two weapon fighter is dealing 3d8+9 damage, not rerolling 1s or 2s, and is using their bonus action. The only thing they have to show for it is +1, which isn't really worth it. The great sword fighter also gets more out of action surge comparatively, and their interruption attacks are better.


Which doesn't govern what is and isn't fun. This is why you're begging the question. Not everyone cares about the same things within the game as you, nor does everyone derive their fun from the same space as you. You are assuming that everyone values the same thing you do, which is common for people in general, but i've noticed it to be incredibly common on game forums.

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

[Diebo]

tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

I played in one group with a bard, and he took Dual Wielding and was definitely not optimized. He kept wanting to role-play what he thought a dual-wielding bard should be able to do, but wasn't able. DM: "No, you cannot make an attack with BOTH weapons and inspire someone." Or cast Healing Word. Or add your ability modified to the damage--resulting in the continually disappointing: "yes, your off-hand hits. Roll for damage. Ok, you did 3 points of damage". Or do XYZ. He regretted taking dual wielder, it is a trap feat for a bard.

I am in another group where two players are dual wielding, a beast-master ranger and a strength-based champion/assassin. Neither are optimized. The rogue uses a spear in one hand. He can only sneak attack with his other hand, and cannot use cunning action when he attacks with both weapons. I have never noticed this bothering him or the group at all. In a party of five, there is a serious lack of finesse-based magic weapons to go around (again, this doesn't seem to bother anyone).

If everyone is having fun, there really isn't a problem. For me the problem with dual wielding is that the mechanics in 5E make it compete with bonus actions, and bonus actions can be where a lot of role-playing comes from. I think the fix is to link two-weapon fighting to the attack action somehow.

[Cybren]

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

You do realize that forums are not a representative sample of all D&D players, not even like, slightly? By virtue of the platform it sorts for people that are already highly invested in the game, and further sorts for people that like to discuss the game abstractly. The average D&D player is average.

[Boci]

You do realize that forums are not a representative sample of all D&D players, not even like, slightly? By virtue of the platform it sorts for people that are already highly invested in the game, and further sorts for people that like to discuss the game abstractly. The average D&D player is average.

Okay, so what are you basing your opinions on how the game should be? Or are arguing its impossible to know whats more fun from a design perspective.

[Easy_Lee]

No, as I said, its the forum. There over 2 million posts about the various editions of D&D, and a pattern has emerge that people tend to be like their chosen fighting style to be equally viable rather worse to the others. Its not conclusive, but its more than just me on this forum.

I take issue to the word "equally" here. Players don't want to be equal anymore than people want to be equal in real life. People like to specialize. They like to be different.

Imbalance is only a huge problem when two options do the same thing, but one does it better. Great weapon fighting vs two weapon fighting is like that. Same range, same goal, but great weapons do it better. And assuming the TWF builds for defense, a shield user does that better while still having better damage.

That's the problem. It's not just that TWF deals less damage. The style has no niche.

[Boci]

I take issue to the word "equally" here. Players don't want to be equal anymore than people want to be equal in real life. People like to specialize. They like to be different.

Equal and equally viable are two different things.

[Finieous]

Reading through he responses, so far, what I seem to get as a take back is that math wise, it doesn't do as much damage at later levels, and funky **** with spell casting. I wanted to clarify that

1: I have optimized my character to be an effective dual wielding eldritch knight
He is a vuman(dual wielder, +1 to STR and INT), war caster, crossbow expert, and has a belt of hill giant strength. His stat array is


STR: 21(+5)
DEX: 13(+1)
CON: 12(+1)
INT: 20(+5)
WIS: 8(-1)
CHA: 8(-1)



So imagine that you'd taken PAM and Defense fighting style, instead of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon fighting style. Your main attacks would do 3*(1d10+5) and your bonus action attack would do 1d4+5, rather than 3*(1d8+5) and 1d8+5. Your AC would be the same (Defense offsets Dual Wielder). You'd have 10-foot reach and enemies would provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach instead of the ability to draw two weapons at the same time. You'd also have the ability to take GWM at 14, substantially scaling up your damage.

That's all it is.

[Cybren]

Okay, so what are you basing your opinions on how the game should be? Or are arguing its impossible to know whats more fun from a design perspective.

Yeah that's closer to it. I'm arguing you can't make broad declarative statements about what is Objectively Fun unless you make it a boring circular aphorism like "Fun is doing something you love".

[Easy_Lee]

Equal and equally viable are two different things.

Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Ideally, TWF should have a niche. For example, it could be better at reaction attacks. But it doesn't have one, it simply underperforms.

[Boci]

Yeah that's closer to it. I'm arguing you can't make broad declarative statements about what is Objectively Fun unless you make it a boring circular aphorism like "Fun is doing something you love".

Sure, in that case feel free to read my with "in my opinion the game should" in front.

But really I think we can do better than that. We can't be 100% sure, but we can make educated guesses. In addition the forum (and if that doesn't county because who don't post on the forum don't mind, then that means the forum wins, because other people don't mind), but we also have the genre. You are a hero. Neither is D&D particularly realistic. Longbows and heavy crossbows reload at the same speed for all character don't have extra attack, so fighters, paladins and rangers pre-level 5, and rogues forever, there's just not much variety between weapons, armour penetration isn't a thing, gone is the variuable critting from 3.5 or the weapon accuracy of 4th.

So, is it a good idea, in a hero game which isn't that realistic when it comes to representing it mideval weaponry, to then bring up realism for one fighting style to make it not as good as the others? I think that's a safe-ish no. Not conclusive, but I don't think its a case that we can't possibly ever know, both options have to be equally good.

[Rogerdodger557]

So imagine that you'd taken PAM and Defense fighting style, instead of Dual Wielder and Two-Weapon fighting style. Your main attacks would do 3*(1d10+5) and your bonus action attack would do 1d4+5, rather than 3*(1d8+5) and 1d8+5. Your AC would be the same (Defense offsets Dual Wielder). You'd have 10-foot reach and enemies would provoke opportunity attacks when they enter your reach instead of the ability to draw two weapons at the same time. You'd also have the ability to take GWM at 14, substantially scaling up your damage.

That's all it is.

Makes sense. If I had wanted to be the wall of the party, I probably would have done something like this. However, I like to save my reaction for Shield or Absorb Elements, for if/when I get hit by something, and my party's sorcadin is Oath of the Crown, so he tends to be the main focus of attacks, especially since he dipped 2 fighter(for Action Surge/fighting style), so he tends to be the tank, I'm DPS, We have a healer(Life Cleric), AoE/Healer(Light Cleric), and Control/Tank?(Abjuration Wizard), so while that is a good combo, we needed more focused attacks as a party. That is, of course, a meta game reasoning for my choice. I also just really like the visuals of a dual wielder.

[Willie the Duck]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?
Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.

Okay, others have pointed this out, but I want to reiterate it. The fact that you include the what-am-I-supposed-to-do,-apologize? part makes it look like you are confusing what people are doing. People don't hate dual wielding. They like dual wielding, as a concept. However, dual wielding, as it plays out based on the rules of the game, is mechanically underwhelming, underpowered, and generally disappointing. It makes people choose between what they want to do thematically (dual wield) and what they want to do mechanically (any other, more optimal, choice). That, at least for many people, is a design goal--if you're going to have differing fighting styles, and make characters choose between them in some relatively permanent way (such as feats and fighting style class features), then they should be relatively similar in power. About the only build in 5e which really is better off for having chosen dual wielding is a melee rogue, and that's just a rather dissatisfying selection space for such a broad thing.


I agree with that. It is a strong word. It's just that almost every post about classes with fighting styles that has TWF classifies it as don't touch, which I just don't like. Especially since fighters get the most attacks per round, it seems odd that people have a distaste for a method that increases the attacks per round. I don't like that people avoid build that are not "optimal". Personally, when I make a character, I think of a concept first, and then I optimize a build for that.

The more attacks you get per round, the less benefit having one extra attack is. It's the law of diminishing returns. If you only get one attack (say, as a rogue), then that extra attack becomes really meaningful. A 20th level fighter with four attacks--they'd much rather increase the damage of those four attacks (such as with 2-handed weapons and the associated feats) than to get even-one-more just because.


tl;dr: hate is perhaps not the best word, I wish people would care more about role-playing than roll-playing

Okay, that is both a cop-out and absolutely not fair to these theoretical people. They are talking about the mechanics of the build because that is usually the subject at hand. Again, and I really want to hear you acknowledge this point, people talk about dual wielding as suboptimal because they like the concept, and are disappointed in the mechanics presented.


Target audience is important here. The assumption is people are asking online for advice for mechanics, i.e. solid maths, with a good and a bad answer, because, well, why would somebody be asking for roleplaying advice when it came to fighting styles? Its subjective, and the other person isn't going to know what you like roleplaying better than you.

Exactly.



Reading through he responses, so far, what I seem to get as a take back is that math wise, it doesn't do as much damage at later levels, and funky **** with spell casting. I wanted to clarify that

1: I have optimized my character to be an effective dual wielding eldritch knight
He is a vuman(dual wielder, +1 to STR and INT), war caster, crossbow expert, and has a belt of hill giant strength. His stat array is


STR: 21(+5)
DEX: 13(+1)
CON: 12(+1)
INT: 20(+5)
WIS: 8(-1)
CHA: 8(-1)


He also has +1 plate, and an ioun stone of protection. So I'm not worrying about getting hit that much

2:
I'm playing this character not for roll playing, but for roleplaying. You know, what D&D should be. I wanted to have fun.

And 3: There is a sword and board sorcadin, 1 light cleric, 1 life cleric, a greatsword wielding wizard(1 barb), and a dwarf moon druid. I wanted to be different.

These are all specifics of your campaign. Why would they effect the overall opinion of dual wielding, as presented on online forums?




Roleplaying wise, yeah there is some stuff in his backstory for using two weapons. Tabletopping? I just wanted to play differently than the other members of my party. There's a sword and board sorcadin, a great weapon wielding wizard, a mace and shield cleric, another cleric that I can't remember what they have for equipment, and a druid.

And wouldn't it be a better situation for you not to be penalized mechanically for these backstory and tabletopping decisions?

[Rogerdodger557]

Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Ideally, TWF should have a niche. For example, it could be better at reaction attacks. But it doesn't have one, it simply underperforms.

the main thing that would make TWF and Dual Wielder better is if it let you make two attacks of opportunity(two weapons), but that would easily be more broken than what WotC wants/envisioned.

[Tanarii]

Define non optimized? In general, yeah, it is. Especially at level 5+. A great weapon fighter with a maul does 4d6+6 damage spread over 2 attack, rerolling 1s and 2s, with the option of of taking -5 to hit to get +10 to damage, and a bonus attack if an the attack crits. A two weapon fighter is dealing 3d8+9 damage, not rerolling 1s or 2s, and is using their bonus action. The only thing they have to show for it is +1, which isn't really worth it. The great sword fighter also gets more out of action surge comparatively, and their interruption attacks are better.He said non-optimized. You're using Feats, which is pretty much the only way you can optimizing in 5e, other than multiclassing.

So GWF Fighter is doing 4d6+6 re roll 1,2 and has their bonus action but typically nothing to do with it. TWF is doing 3d6+9 but using their bonus action. Damage is 22.6 vs 19.5. At level 11 it becomes 6d6+12 re roll 1,2 vs 4d6+16, or 36.9 vs 30. Also AC is probably 17 (Splint) for 2H vs 15 for TWF (Studded Leather). Otoh Stealth is likely -2 at disadvantage for the 2H vs +3 or +5 for the TWF.

Rangers instead are looking at, if they are willing to use Hunter's Mark and already have the mark on target so the bonus is available for TWF:
TWF 6d6+1d8+9, 34.5 damage
Archery +2 to hit (or ~+20%dpr relative to TWF), 3d8+2d6+6, 29 damage (adjusted for relative dpr) at up to 150 ft.

(Note there's a lot of assumptions. Especially the bonus action for moving hunters mark competing with TWF. But also that they have colossus slayer.)

[Boci]

He said non-optimized. You're using Feats, which is pretty much the only way you can optimizing in 5e, other than multiclassing.

So GWF Fighter is doing 4d6+6 re roll 1,2 and has their bonus action but typically nothing to do with it. TWF is doing 3d6+9 but using their bonus action. Damage is 22.6 vs 19.5. At level 11 it becomes 6d6+12 re roll 1,2 vs 4d6+16, or 36.9 vs 30. Also AC is probably 17 (Splint) for 2H vs 15 for TWF (Studded Leather). Otoh Stealth is likely -2 at disadvantage for the 2H vs +3 or +5 for the TWF.

Rangers instead are looking at, if they are willing to use Hunter's Mark and already have the mark on target so the bonus is available for TWF:
TWF 6d6+1d8+9, 34.5 damage
Archery +2 to hit (or ~+20%dpr relative to TWF), 3d8+2d6+6, 29 damage (adjusted for relative dpr) at up to 150 ft.

(Note there's a lot of assumptions. Especially the bonus action for moving hunters mark competing with TWF. But also that they have colossus slayer.)

Collossus slayer only triggers once per round, so two weapon fighting is an extra chance to trigger it, but as long as at least one attack hits, its not any better for them.

Also since the fighters aren't taking feats, they are likely increasing their stat mod to +4, unless their race isn't adding to their primary stat.

[Finieous]

Makes sense. If I had wanted to be the wall of the party, I probably would have done something like this. However, I like to save my reaction for Shield or Absorb Elements, for if/when I get hit by something, and my party's sorcadin is Oath of the Crown, so he tends to be the main focus of attacks, especially since he dipped 2 fighter(for Action Surge/fighting style), so he tends to be the tank, I'm DPS, We have a healer(Life Cleric), AoE/Healer(Light Cleric), and Control/Tank?(Abjuration Wizard), so while that is a good combo, we needed more focused attacks as a party. That is, of course, a meta game reasoning for my choice. I also just really like the visuals of a dual wielder.

The last reason is a good one -- and really the only one you need. The other reasons, not so much. I'm especially baffled by "we needed more focused attacks." You don't have to use your reaction for additional opportunity attacks; it's not like it comes up every round anyway. Even if you never use the reaction option, you still have better reach, better damage, better damage-scaling opportunities for the late tiers of play, and you give up literally nothing (mechanically speaking).

So that's why people "hate" on TWFing. The truth is, it's probably fine in a no-feats game, and therefore could be "fixed" with a damage-scaling feat of its own.

[Rogerdodger557]

These are all specifics of your campaign. Why would they effect the overall opinion of dual wielding, as presented on online forums?

I felt the need to clarify a few things(AC, stats, etc.) because of how some posters were saying that Dual Wielder wasn't nessacary for DEX-based fighters and such.



And wouldn't it be a better situation for you not to be penalized mechanically for these backstory and tabletopping decisions?

Maybe. In our campaign, we recently got ambushed by a group of cultists that had a gem that radiates an anti-magic field. While the others were trying to get the stone back in it's container, I was happy to have benefits that let me have 4 attacks per turn effectively.

[Boci]

Maybe. In our campaign, we recently got ambushed by a group of cultists that had a gem that radiates an anti-magic field. While the others were trying to get the stone back in it's container, I was happy to have benefits that let me have 4 attacks per turn effectively.

Yeah, but damage-wise 3 attacks with a great sword is better, before we even consider GWM. As has been said many times, if you find that fun, then that's all that matters, but you likely would have achieved more with a different fighting style.

[Rogerdodger557]

Okay, that is both a cop-out and absolutely not fair to these theoretical people. They are talking about the mechanics of the build because that is usually the subject at hand. Again, and I really want to hear you acknowledge this point, people talk about dual wielding as suboptimal because they like the concept, and are disappointed in the mechanics presented.


Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. The way that is written, yeah, it is a cop out. And that's on me. What my intent was that I wish people would take a concept(dual wielding eldritch knight) and optimize the concept, not just "well you could do that, but if you change a core principle of your concept(dual wielding) to something else, you do more damage." This is not to say their comments and the like are bad or invalid; it's just that from what I have seen going through the forum, people post their builds and they avoid TWF and Dual Wielder like its the plague.

[Easy_Lee]

the main thing that would make TWF and Dual Wielder better is if it let you make two attacks of opportunity(two weapons), but that would easily be more broken than what WotC wants/envisioned.

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.

[Rogerdodger557]

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.

That would more than likely work better, and still limits people to 1 reaction per round

[Tanarii]

Collossus slayer only triggers once per round, so two weapon fighting is an extra chance to trigger it, but as long as at least one attack hits, its not any better for them.Good point, and I should have used DPR instead (ie a .65 chance to hit per attack) because of that and archery's bonus to hit.


Also since the fighters aren't taking feats, they are likely increasing their stat mod to +4, unless their race isn't adding to their primary stat.My experience is in a no feat campaign, very roughly off the top of my head (ie I've never counted it up) about 1/3 of characters have +4 in their primary stat at level 4. Largely, this is because many start with only +2 in their primary stat (15 ability score).

Edit: Honestly I don't like number crunching because there are too many assumptions. But in this case, it's the core of the matter. TWF is quite noticibly sub-par for single class fighters by level 5, even unoptimized. For Rangers it isn't so bad. And obviously for Rogues it's awesome.

The real question is: should it be a comparable style for single class fighters to 2H damage output? Archetype-wise, TWF has been a rogue and ranger thing since 2e. Fighters only gained it as an archetype in 4e.

If you make an agile fighter, you're looking for the benefits of being agile, probably in combination with skills from your background, and including effective long ranged attacks. Those benefits don't necessarily need to be comparable damage output to a 2H fighter.

[Kryx]

Right, and that's what I'm talking about. Ideally, TWF should have a niche. For example, it could be better at reaction attacks. But it doesn't have one, it simply underperforms.
It does have a niche: The ability to spread out damage on multiple targets. That's great for avoiding overkill which can occur with one big attack.
I value that around the same level as I do reach: 5% less damage. Considentally that's the difference beetween PAM and GWM.

imo TWF doing 95% of GWM is the goal and in my games that is accomplished via houserules.



A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.
This counteracts with what you said before. It makes TWF a carbon copy of big weapons. That shouldn't be the goal.

TWF in a game with -5/+10 and a bonus action on PAM will need a significant boost. In games that don't use those the changes aren't big:


Two Weapon Fighting
Once on your turn, when you take the Attack action and attack with a light weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can attack with a different light weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the weapon that you’re holding in the other hand, unless that modifier is negative. You can draw or stow two light weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one.

Fighting style is fighting with larger weapons
Dual Wielder add "you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack"

By my DPR of Classes via KPR (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798) or DPR (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2025852255) the numbers are significantly improved and quite good for most classes (Ranger lags behind - all due to the 11th level ability)
It could probably use a small tweak to adjust some edge cases, but it works quite well.


Now if you want it to compete with RAW GWM and PAM (which have both been rightfully decried as OP) then you'd have to add a lot more on top of it.

[Saggo]

Good point, and I should have used DPR instead (ie a .65 chance to hit per attack) because of that and archery's bonus to hit.Just a sidebar, Colossus Slayer DPR is found the same way as Sneak Attack. Since it's always a d8, the Colossus Slayer DPR of going from 2 attacks to 3 is fairly insignificant, about .36.

[Tanarii]

Just a sidebar, Colossus Slayer DPR is found the same way as Sneak Attack. Since it's always a d8, the Colossus Slayer DPR of going from 2 attacks to 3 is fairly insignificant, about .36.
Yup. That's what I meant by I should have used DPR. It's always best practice, even when doing napkin math like I was.

[SharkForce]

Roleplaying wise, yeah there is some stuff in his backstory for using two weapons. Tabletopping? I just wanted to play differently than the other members of my party. There's a sword and board sorcadin, a great weapon wielding wizard, a mace and shield cleric, another cleric that I can't remember what they have for equipment, and a druid.

you misunderstand.

i'm not asking if there was a good reason for the player to choose to have their character use two weapons.

i'm asking if there's a good reason for the player to be punished with a mechanically weaker character for choosing to use two weapons. it was intended as a rhetorical question, because as far as i'm concerned there isn't any compelling reason why we need to have that happen. it isn't necessary for role-play that two-weapon fighting be a less effective method of doing basically everything. so, ultimately, as far as i'm concerned two-weapon fighting should be just as mechanically strong (approximately) as any other fighting style.

now, if this game emphasized hyper-realistic gameplay, then sure, we might find that two-weapon fighting should be mostly pretty rare (or, depending on how you look at it, should most often involve a regular weapon plus a shield or parrying dagger). but that's not what D&D is like, so again... why shouldn't TWF be just as good as other options in it's own way?

[Tanarii]

it was intended as a rhetorical question, because as far as i'm concerned there isn't any compelling reason why we need to have that happen. it isn't necessary for role-play that two-weapon fighting be a less effective method of doing basically everything. so, ultimately, as far as i'm concerned two-weapon fighting should be just as mechanically strong (approximately) as any other fighting style.
Is it mechanically weaker? Or is it just that the melee damage output mechanically weaker?

Is the advantage of being able to make a Dex build, ie better Dex saves and better Dex checks and better ranged attacks, worth the trade off of lower Str saves and lower Str checks and lower melee damage?

(Also, this is specifically Fighters we're talking about. And of course, how much lower the damage is depends on if certain feats are in play.)

Edit: that said, I agree it's kind of silly for Str dual-wielding to be much mechanically weaker than 2H. Unless you consider adding range 20/60 to (some of) your attacks to be worth the trade off.

[Willie the Duck]

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant. The way that is written, yeah, it is a cop out. And that's on me. What my intent was that I wish people would take a concept(dual wielding eldritch knight) and optimize the concept, not just "well you could do that, but if you change a core principle of your concept(dual wielding) to something else, you do more damage." This is not to say their comments and the like are bad or invalid; it's just that from what I have seen going through the forum, people post their builds and they avoid TWF and Dual Wielder like its the plague.

Fair enough, and thanks for responding thoughtfully rather than defensively.
However, this is mostly, IMO, a complaint about forum culture. If I, as a player, have an interesting and inventive character who is fun to play but really suboptimal (I have one now, a lizardfolk barbarian/land-druid who is raising both Dex- and Str- and uses dex- and str-based weapons and sword-and-board, THF, and dual wielding as he sees fit), it's often very challenging to discuss on a forum thread. What is there to say about them, unless I want to give their whole life-story and what I've done with them? Now what is the most optimal Nova-DPR build? That's easy to discuss, and I can pull out all sorts of math and charts and whatnots. Same with best multiclass builds, or whether I think 4 Elements Monk is as bad as people say it is. Talking about (sub-)optimal game mechanics is easy to talk about on a forum because it usually hinges on systems we all roughly agree upon.

[Finieous]

Is it mechanically weaker? Or is it just that the melee damage output mechanically weaker?

Is the advantage of being able to make a Dex build, ie better Dex saves and better Dex checks and better ranged attacks, worth the trade off of lower Str saves and lower Str checks and lower melee damage?

(Also, this is specifically Fighters we're talking about. And of course, how much lower the damage is depends on if certain feats are in play.)


But now you're just talking about Dex fighters. Why be a TWFing Dex fighter rather than a rapier-and-shield Dex fighter with Dueling fighting style? By 11th level, Dueling is giving you (6 * hit chance) while TWFing is giving you (8.5 * hit chance), assuming you've maxed your Dex. But Dueling gives you +2 AC and doesn't use your bonus action. Is ~1.5 DPR worth +2 AC and a bonus action? No. And you're not even getting the 1.5 on turns when you throw in an additional attack (opportunity attack, riposte, haste attack, etc.). It still sucks.

[Kryx]

Is it mechanically weaker?
Yes. It has been shown time and time again that TWF does less damage than even sword and board. It's horrible in comparison to RAW GWM and PAM.

The benefits of dex argument is quite flawed. Dex has it's benefits and it's quite nice, but in terms of combat Heavy armor is far superior in terms of AC.

Level 1 Heavy Armor Fighter: 16 AC (Chainmail)
Level 1 Light Armor Fighter: 15 AC (16 Dex)

Level 5 Heavy Armor Fighter: 17/18 AC (Splint/Plate)
Level 5 Light Armor Fighter: 16 AC (18 Dex)

Level 9 Heavy Armor Fighter: 18 AC (Plate)
Level 9 Light Armor Fighter: 17 AC (20 Dex)

Level 12+ Heavy Armor Fighter: 19 AC (Plate + Dual Wielder)
Level 12+ Light Armor Fighter: 18 AC (20 Dex + Dual Wielder)

Strength wins out at all tiers. AC is the tradeoff for the other benefits like ranged attacks, dex saves > str saves, initiative.

[EvilAnagram]

Yes. It has been shown time and time again that TWF does less damage than even sword and board.

Is that actually the case? For a Ranger or Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true. For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.

[Finieous]

Is that actually the case? For a Ranger or Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true. For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.

If you assume Dual Wielder, I'll assume Shield Master, and we'll factor in how often I get my four attacks with advantage. And then we'll add additional attacks (opportunity attacks, ripostes, haste attacks, etc.), and yes, the TWFer will still do less damage over the course of the adventuring day, in addition to having -1 AC, no Dex save bonus on single-target attacks, and no pseudo-Evasion. The TWFer will still be able to draw two weapons at the same time, though. Can't take that away from him. :smallbiggrin:

[Rogerdodger557]

Fair enough, and thanks for responding thoughtfully rather than defensively.
However, this is mostly, IMO, a complaint about forum culture. If I, as a player, have an interesting and inventive character who is fun to play but really suboptimal (I have one now, a lizardfolk barbarian/land-druid who is raising both Dex- and Str- and uses dex- and str-based weapons and sword-and-board, THF, and dual wielding as he sees fit), it's often very challenging to discuss on a forum thread. What is there to say about them, unless I want to give their whole life-story and what I've done with them? Now what is the most optimal Nova-DPR build? That's easy to discuss, and I can pull out all sorts of math and charts and whatnots. Same with best multiclass builds, or whether I think 4 Elements Monk is as bad as people say it is. Talking about (sub-)optimal game mechanics is easy to talk about on a forum because it usually hinges on systems we all roughly agree upon.

It's not a problem. I took my time with this response because I wanted to be thoughtful, and show that I had listened to the criticism you had given me. And you are right, the majority of posts on this forum of for optimization, not builds that are fun to play. When I initially posted, it was after reading several posts about building an optimized Eldritch Knight, and they had TWF color coded red. I haven't taken the time to calculate DPR for different builds, so I was curious as to why TWF was shunned. After reading several of the posts, I was feeling frustrated because this is a character I am passionate about, and a multitude of posts were calling the build sub-optimal. And while they may be right mathematically, I wasn't expecting it to, well, not exactly hurt, but I can't think of a better word right now. Which led to that post. And I want to thank you, for calling me out on it.

[Kryx]

Is that actually the case?
Yes. I, myself, have shown it many times.

See DPR of Classes (KPR) (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=2035285798) for example. Over 20 levels the class and fighting styles do the following percentage of an equivalent level range CR enemy:
GWM Fighter: 32%
PAM Fighter: 28%
TWF Fighter: 24%
S&B Fighter: 26%

TWF Ranger: 20.6%
S&B Ranger: 20.4%

Ranger TWF slightly edges out Ranger TWF, but that's at a huge tradeoff of AC and neither that nor the fighter D&B damage accounts for higher damage from allies vs a prone enemy.


Barbarian, I'm certain that isn't true.
Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).


For a Fighter, assuming Dual Wielding, it looks on the surface like the extra chance to hit and the extra 9.5 damage is superior to Dueling's extra 8 damage.
Herein lies the problem: napkin math. I'm not saying this to be rude, but trying to judge the math of the game based on simple formulas is quite misleading.

[mephnick]

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).



Eh, you can still reckless attack. Shields aren't all about the AC. A shield master barbarian is an absolute brute that basically can't be killed and provides advantage to all his allies. Reckless Attack just becomes more of an edge option instead of a necessary one.

[Finieous]

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).

Optimized barbarians should never be sword-and-board. My Shield Master barbarian/fighter is a freaking blast to play.

Edit: Maybe even change "optimized" to "personal-DPR-optimized." He's extremely effective in the party.

[EvilAnagram]

If you assume Dual Wielder, I'll assume Shield Master, and we'll factor in how often I get my four attacks with advantage. And then we'll add additional attacks (opportunity attacks, ripostes, haste attacks, etc.), and yes, the TWFer will still do less damage over the course of the adventuring day, in addition to having -1 AC, no Dex save bonus on single-target attacks, and no pseudo-Evasion. The TWFer will still be able to draw two weapons at the same time, though. Can't take that away from him. :smallbiggrin:

Excellent points.

I think the best fix to balance this out would be to switch out the useless feature on the feat with something along the lines of, "If you have the Extra Attack feature, you may make two attacks with your offhand attack when two-weapon fighting." It still costs a feat, it fits the overwhelming offense the style should employ, and it won't eclipse PAM or GWM as offensive styles.

[Kryx]

Optimized barbarians should never be sword-and-board. My Shield Master barbarian/fighter is a freaking blast to play.
Let me walk back my earlier statement: S&B Barbarians should never play S&B if they want to do big damage. They should optimally only do so if they have a party that can take advantage of advantage on melee attacks against prone enemies.

Otherwise the tradeoff between 28% of an enemy's HP and 17% of an enemy's HP is a horrible tradeoff for a Barbarian to make.

Though as has been mentioned several times in this thread unoptimal choices aren't necessarily unfun for every player.


Point being: S&B is a great and fun feature. RAW TWF is not a great feature and many people don't find such features fun.

[Citan]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?

Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.
At first I thought it was too late to intervene but after reading the first two pages...

The hate is a strong word, but the dislike that is expressed from many people mainly comes from the results of purely theorical, whiteroomed calculations (read: generally breaking down once you are in practical play).

"TWF is vastly inferior damage-wise to GWM"
Sure, if all attacks count. But that's the thing that makes most sheets devoid of any meaning: they don't account for chance to hit. Which is something that is extremely variable, depending on your own bonus, enemy's AC, ways to get advantage or other buffs...

"TWF is a waste because of action economy"
Well, let's see.
Barbarian?
Brings a great additional attack, and also gives some versatility when you want to Shove.
"Normal" Barbarian (no shield, no other weapon): you just have Extra Attack to work with: try to Shove with the first attack, then hit with the remaining attack.
TWF Barbarian: use the bonus action to Shove (might as well, since you don't have the related Fighting Style, and Shove doesn't require a free hand IIRC) then use your Extra Attack.
"It's useless, Barb have Reckless Attack": except that putting oneself to disadvantage is not always the wise decision. TWF gives you a viable alternative to keep your offense without risking your defense.

Fighter?
Fighter has no use for a bonus action apart from Second Wind, which is 1/short rest. Eldricht Knight does bring War Magic, but then Eldricht Strike does compel to rely on Extra Attack instead (as illustrated by someone in this thread).

Paladin?
Doesn't have the related fighting style, so damage will be subpar. But it's one extra chance to smite, and most Paladins don't have that much to do with their bonus action in the first place...
- Smite spells? You have few slots, and you want to make them last, so it's usually once per encounter.
- Vengeance has his CD as a bonus action.
- Otherwise, IIRC only at much higher level do Paladin get other things to do with bonus action.

Ranger?
"It cannot be good, Ranger has so many uses for bonus action already". Really?
Ranger class provides exactly one class feature: Hide as bonus action, on 14th level only.
Beastmaster has however many other things to do with, namely command his beast, with Hunter has 0, nothing, nada.
Then come the spells: Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices constant use of bonus action, Swift Quiver, which you get at 17th level and concerns ranged attacks only.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices regular use of bonus action, Hunter's Mark, and it...
a) Benefits strongly for getting another attack.
b) Will "take" the bonus action only once every few rounds usually unless you waste it on low resilience targets.

Rogue?
"It's obvious it's bad, Rogue has so many options already with bonus action!"
Really? Rogue also has only one chance to apply its Sneak Attack normally. With TWF, it's another full chance to hit.
Besides, Rogue has no shield proficiency in the first place, so apart from an Arcane Trickster (who would probably take Warcaster at some point anyways) or an somewhat odd Grapple-specialized character, it's not like you have anything better to do with your off-hand.

Beyond that, the Dual Wielder feat, beyond that...

Dual Wielder is not horrible, but only because it is useful for a Str based TWF or a Dex based one that has already maxed out Dex. That said, it is on the weaker side. Add that to other weapon styles having horribly overpowered feats like GWM and PAM, and TWF seems even worse in comparison.



I outlined how +2 Dex ASI is better in every factor except "you can draw two weapons" which is often and should be hand waived by GMs. A feat that is worse than an ASI is a bad feat irregardless of the overpowered nature of GWM and PAM (both are incredibly OP, but those are the competing styles). However even fixing GWM and PAM to not be incredibly OP still has TWF be very suboptimal as Dual Wielder is worse than an ASI and the myriad of other reasons mentioned in this thread (Bonus action, OAs, Magic Items, etc)
You really should pay attention to what people say: Jas gave precisely two cases where Dual Wielder provides a strong benefit).

Can enable some interesting combos, although available mainly to Fighter because very feat-consuming...

- Defensive Duelist: you took PAM with a quarterstaff because you wanted extra chance to get OA? Or you are wielding that great magic weapon because of nifty ability, but it's not a finesse one and you'd like to improve your defense? Now you can wield a rapier in the other hand, getting just one less point of AC compared to wielding a shield, and getting a defensive reaction when facing the big hitting guy.

- Shield Master (+Tavern Brawler): you took this feat partly for the improved defense, partly for a chance at Shoving as a bonus action, but found yourself having some turns devoid of bonus action? Now you get +3 AC (shield + Dual Wielder), can Shove whenever you want, or Grapple and still bash heads with good reliability.

Or just wield one good melee weapon and one good throwable weapon, so you can easily increase your actual range when attacking enemies (great for Eldricht Strike) or make a grapple/attack combo (Extra Attack: attack with a thrown weapon -enabling TWF-, use the second to grapple, then make your bonus action melee attack: great on a Battlemaster with Trip Attack -keep him prone for allies- or Disarm Attack -pick his weapon instead of grappling him and attack him with it XD).

As for people who say "TWF means you need twice as many magic weapons to stay relevant compared to other people", that is a half-full half-empty choice. Because it can also be viewed as the chance to create some nasty (mechanically) or classy (roleplaywise) combos by wielding two weapons (obviously with Dual Wielder though, since magic light weapons are not that frequent if I'm not mistaken).

But most of all, TWF is good because it gives you an extra chance at dealing damage, without the need for any class/feat investment. That is the only "style" that does so.

However, the true value of that benefit obviously depends much on your class, character role and much more importantly party composition. But that could be said of all other "styles" as well...
Like, if you have a Cleric who Blesses you, a Bard who Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon you, a Druid who Faerie Fires the enemies as a standard party, go Sharpshooter/GWM by all means XD.
But, if you are a single Fighter/Ranger with no exterior boost, TWF is usually the better choice for melee at least against higher AC (also for Ranger, another instance of Hunter's Mark).

[Spellbreaker26]

Basically, the main reason why Dual Wielding is hated is because it's a trap option - it's one that seems extremely valuable at the start of the game and certainly is for levels 1-4. However, after this point for the main martial classes it vastly decreases in power - especially if feats are in play. For Rogues it can be pretty damn handy, and somewhat for Bards. It's also probably a trap since in games other than DnD it can be extremely deadly, especially in video games, so people arrive with that expectation.

Ironically the less skilled you are in melee the more you benefit from two weapon fighter in a pinch because you have no normal extra attacks.

[Kryx]

@Citan: Please provide a scenario where a fighter can excel at his role using TWF better than he can while using GWM, PAM, or Shield Master.

Pure damage? GWM. More attack? PAM. More Utility? Pam or Shield Master. Most defense? Shield Master. Tripping? Shield Master.

[SharkForce]

At first I thought it was too late to intervene but after reading the first two pages...

The hate is a strong word, but the dislike that is expressed from many people mainly comes from the results of purely theorical, whiteroomed calculations (read: generally breaking down once you are in practical play).

"TWF is vastly inferior damage-wise to GWM"
Sure, if all attacks count. But that's the thing that makes most sheets devoid of any meaning: they don't account for chance to hit. Which is something that is extremely variable, depending on your own bonus, enemy's AC, ways to get advantage or other buffs...

this is accounted for. factoring in hit chance, TWF is the worst at dealing damage, and doesn't really offer anything else interesting to compensate.


"TWF is a waste because of action economy"
Well, let's see.
Barbarian?
Brings a great additional attack, and also gives some versatility when you want to Shove.
"Normal" Barbarian (no shield, no other weapon): you just have Extra Attack to work with: try to Shove with the first attack, then hit with the remaining attack.
TWF Barbarian: use the bonus action to Shove (might as well, since you don't have the related Fighting Style, and Shove doesn't require a free hand IIRC) then use your Extra Attack.
"It's useless, Barb have Reckless Attack": except that putting oneself to disadvantage is not always the wise decision. TWF gives you a viable alternative to keep your offense without risking your defense.
sure, and let's see what else... rage costs a bonus action, so no TWF on your first turn, and if you're just going to shove, shield gives you that plus a few other goodies. if we're ignoring feats, a two-handed weapon does more damage anyways, with no particular drawbacks.


Fighter?
Fighter has no use for a bonus action apart from Second Wind, which is 1/short rest. Eldricht Knight does bring War Magic, but then Eldricht Strike does compel to rely on Extra Attack instead (as illustrated by someone in this thread).
and feats. let's not forget feats. and sometimes racial abilities. also, TWF will still do less damage than just using a two-handed weapon or a sword & board unless the TWF has feats and the S&B doesn't.


Paladin?
Doesn't have the related fighting style, so damage will be subpar. But it's one extra chance to smite, and most Paladins don't have that much to do with their bonus action in the first place...
- Smite spells? You have few slots, and you want to make them last, so it's usually once per encounter.
- Vengeance has his CD as a bonus action.
- Otherwise, IIRC only at much higher level do Paladin get other things to do with bonus action.
you mean the smite spells that do the same damage as the smite you're saying is awesome to get another use of, plus add an extra effect? *those* smite spells?


Ranger?
"It cannot be good, Ranger has so many uses for bonus action already". Really?
Ranger class provides exactly one class feature: Hide as bonus action, on 14th level only.
Beastmaster has however many other things to do with, namely command his beast, with Hunter has 0, nothing, nada.
Then come the spells: Hunter's Mark, Ensnaring Strike, Hail of Thorns, Lightning Arrow, Swift Quiver.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices constant use of bonus action, Swift Quiver, which you get at 17th level and concerns ranged attacks only.
Of them, only one provides an ability that entices regular use of bonus action, Hunter's Mark, and it...
a) Benefits strongly for getting another attack.
b) Will "take" the bonus action only once every few rounds usually unless you waste it on low resilience targets.
who cares if hunter's mark works better with more attacks if you can't use it while making that extra attack? i mean, what exactly are you fighting that you aren't killing something fairly regularly? do you primarily fight nothing but giant bricks of HP or something? because stuff should be getting killed.


Rogue?
"It's obvious it's bad, Rogue has so many options already with bonus action!"
Really? Rogue also has only one chance to apply its Sneak Attack normally. With TWF, it's another full chance to hit.
Besides, Rogue has no shield proficiency in the first place, so apart from an Arcane Trickster (who would probably take Warcaster at some point anyways) or an somewhat odd Grapple-specialized character, it's not like you have anything better to do with your off-hand.

hiding can give advantage, which means advantage, which means the same two chances to hit. all TWF is actually adding is 1d6 (and one less average damage on the main hand), or 1d8 with a feat. that's not nothing, but it's considerably less than crossbow expert, which is also a feat, could add. that said, rogues that want to make no feat investment *are* the one build that actually benefits significantly from TWF, *if* they don't plan on using ranged combat and hiding.


Beyond that, the Dual Wielder feat, beyond that...



You really should pay attention to what people say: Jas gave precisely two cases where Dual Wielder provides a strong benefit).

Can enable some interesting combos, although available mainly to Fighter because very feat-consuming...

- Defensive Duelist: you took PAM with a quarterstaff because you wanted extra chance to get OA? Or you are wielding that great magic weapon because of nifty ability, but it's not a finesse one and you'd like to improve your defense? Now you can wield a rapier in the other hand, getting just one less point of AC compared to wielding a shield, and getting a defensive reaction when facing the big hitting guy.

- Shield Master (+Tavern Brawler): you took this feat partly for the improved defense, partly for a chance at Shoving as a bonus action, but found yourself having some turns devoid of bonus action? Now you get +3 AC (shield + Dual Wielder), can Shove whenever you want, or Grapple and still bash heads with good reliability.

Or just wield one good melee weapon and one good throwable weapon, so you can easily increase your actual range when attacking enemies (great for Eldricht Strike) or make a grapple/attack combo (Extra Attack: attack with a thrown weapon -enabling TWF-, use the second to grapple, then make your bonus action melee attack: great on a Battlemaster with Trip Attack -keep him prone for allies- or Disarm Attack -pick his weapon instead of grappling him and attack him with it XD).

As for people who say "TWF means you need twice as many magic weapons to stay relevant compared to other people", that is a half-full half-empty choice. Because it can also be viewed as the chance to create some nasty (mechanically) or classy (roleplaywise) combos by wielding two weapons (obviously with Dual Wielder though, since magic light weapons are not that frequent if I'm not mistaken).

But most of all, TWF is good because it gives you an extra chance at dealing damage, without the need for any class/feat investment. That is the only "style" that does so.

However, the true value of that benefit obviously depends much on your class, character role and much more importantly party composition. But that could be said of all other "styles" as well...
Like, if you have a Cleric who Blesses you, a Bard who Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon you, a Druid who Faerie Fires the enemies as a standard party, go Sharpshooter/GWM by all means XD.
But, if you are a single Fighter/Ranger with no exterior boost, TWF is usually the better choice for melee at least against higher AC (also for Ranger, another instance of Hunter's Mark).

- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends? also, can't help noticing that this build you've mentioned does not in fact use TWF at all. you're just carrying a second weapon.

- shield master/tavern brawler: tavern brawler requires an empty hand to use the grapple, so TWF doesn't help. shield is an improvised weapon, not one of the one-handed weapons from the table. and if you're unable to shield bash or grapple, you're probably also unable to attack with a melee weapon, so what exactly is TWF supposed to do for you? TWF feat works with weapons, which shields are not (by definition, an improvised weapon is something that is not a weapon which you are using as a weapon). and you know what would give better AC with a shield? being able to spend your fighting style on +1 AC instead of making your very rare off-hand attacks do a bit of extra damage.

- so you're talking about giving up greatly increased damage so that you can add 1d4 damage with a thrown weapon, or giving up another fighting style so you can make that 1d4 + 5, on ultra-rare occasions? this is not a powerful benefit worth giving up much of anything for.

- TWF magic weapons: there isn't really a half-full glass here. if you have some examples of something that actually allows you to combo, that would be a start. an incredibly improbable thing to actually ever happen, but at least it would be a chance.

- extra chance at dealing damage: not substantially better than just dealing more damage in the first place. using a bigger weapon will probably make you deal more damage in the first place; unless you're fighting a horde of 1 HP monsters, TWF is very unlikely to pull ahead.

TWF is almost never the better option for damage, even if you don't want to invest (the exception being a rogue, who will gain slightly more damage with TWF), except at very low levels.

it really doesn't add much of anything. and yes, a given character can want to use TWF. that doesn't make it effective, that just makes it desired. it should be BOTH of those things, when you invest properly at least. people who want to use two weapons because it's fun for them shouldn't need to give up effectiveness.

[jas61292]

With the defensive defensive bonus of the feat, you do have to make sure you are looking at both offense and defense in a comparison. If the greatweapon user is doing more damage but has lower AC, that could be a win, but only if you do as much damage as those who have equal AC, and more than those with less. Unfortunately, I do think that this doesn't work out very well in practice, as a heavy weapon user can just take the defensive fighting style and have equal AC, while still typically pulling out ahead in damage, at least on a fighter.

Really, no matter what, unless you overhaul the mechanic, it will never be a great option... on a fighter at higher levels. However, on other classes, or fighters of less than level 11, it actually is not that bad, and dual wielder is a decent feat if you are a strength based TWF user. People often claim that it falls off for a fighter at level 5, but it does still hold advantages until 11. Unless utilizing GWM (which has its own risks and is enemy dependent), a heavy weapon user must have the GWF style in order to out damage a TWF user on a normal round. As such, the TWFer who picks up Dual Wielder is either ahead in damage in those average situations, or ahead in AC. Yes the heavy weapon user doesn't use his bonus action, and thus has more options, and yes he is stronger on an Action Surge round, but in an average round of attacks, there will be something the TWF user will have an advantage on. And that is good enough for me.

Sadly, this stops being true once you get to 11.

Dex fighter is actually similar, even though the feat is not as good for them. You can't use a great weapon with Dex, and Dex is a better stat in general, so there is no need to compare with GWF users on the Dex side. However, compared to dueling with a rapier, you again only keep up until level 11, unless you do max Dex AND take the feat. And even then, in exchange for all that, your advantage on damage is still very small, and you are behind in versatility, AC (if they have a shield) and damage on an action surge round.

Long story short, yes, TWF is not good on a higher level fighter. However, I think too much focus gets put on that one class. Yeah, it may be unfortunate that fighters are not good at two weapon fighting at higher levels, but it is what it is. Other classes can do it fine, such are rogue and barbarian. It could be better, but I do think it has enough of a niche to make it not need real fixing. That said, I think if you do want to change one thing so that you see more TWF in games, then change Paladin so it can take the style. TWF on a higher level paladin is actually its a great damage option, and doesn't need any feats to function well (though they would still appreciate it if you have a free ASI).

[GlenSmash!]

- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends?

Does nobody recommend this? I love it! But that has nothing to do with TWF

[SharkForce]

Does nobody recommend this? I love it! But that has nothing to do with TWF

it's good in the right situation. problem is, there aren't a ton of encounters you would expect to face remotely frequently where you're only worried about one big attack. even high damage monsters frequently to do it with multiple attacks.

[Kryx]

With the defensive defensive bonus of the feat, you do have to make sure you are looking at both offense and defense in a comparison. If the greatweapon user is doing more damage but has lower AC
Heavy Armor has more AC, actually:


The benefits of dex argument is quite flawed. Dex has it's benefits and it's quite nice, but in terms of combat Heavy armor is far superior in terms of AC.

Level 1 Heavy Armor Fighter: 16 AC (Chainmail)
Level 1 Light Armor Fighter: 15 AC (16 Dex)

Level 5 Heavy Armor Fighter: 17/18 AC (Splint/Plate)
Level 5 Light Armor Fighter: 16 AC (18 Dex)

Level 9 Heavy Armor Fighter: 18 AC (Plate)
Level 9 Light Armor Fighter: 17 AC (20 Dex)

Level 12+ Heavy Armor Fighter: 19 AC (Plate + Dual Wielder)
Level 12+ Light Armor Fighter: 18 AC (20 Dex + Dual Wielder)

Strength wins out at all tiers. AC is the tradeoff for the other benefits like ranged attacks, dex saves > str saves, initiative.



yes, TWF is not good on a higher level fighter. However, I think too much focus gets put on that one class. Yeah, it may be unfortunate that fighters are not good at two weapon fighting at higher levels, but it is what it is. Other classes can do it fine, such are rogue and barbarian. It could be better, but I do think it has enough of a niche to make it not need real fixing.
TWF is not good starting at 4th level. That isn't higher levels.
It doesn't function well for a Barbarian where TWF does 20% of an enemy's hp while GWM does 28%. Stated differently: TWF does 70% of GWM.

Fighter and Ranger are by far the most important TWF classes who have historically been known to use TWF and are currently setup to use TWF. It doesn't work well for them either.

[jas61292]

Heavy Armor has more AC, actually.

Completely missed the point. Str based TWF with Dual Wielder had more AC than a GWF user. That is an advantage. And, as mentioned, it keeps up ahead of other styles except GWF in terms of damage until 11.

Yes, it has flaws, but it has niche use, until 11.

[Citan]

this is accounted for. factoring in hit chance, TWF is the worst at dealing damage, and doesn't really offer anything else interesting to compensate.

Yeah, in theory. Always in theory. The fact holds that, probabilities, statistics and reality are all different things.
TWF gives you CHOICE: attack the same creature, attack different, still apply something when your Extra Attack failed, etc...



sure, and let's see what else... rage costs a bonus action, so no TWF on your first turn, and if you're just going to shove, shield gives you that plus a few other goodies. if we're ignoring feats, a two-handed weapon does more damage anyways, with no particular drawbacks.

Except that with TWF you get Rage bonus on attack. And you can adapt. With Shield Master you will also get only 2 attacks and one shove. With TWF you can mix shove, attacks and even grapple as you see fit.
Also, there are many classes that get a somewhat "mandatory" bonus action use on first turn, and nobody cried about it so far: Barb, Bladesinger, Vengeance Paladin, Moon Druid, etc... So it's really a weak argument.



and feats. let's not forget feats. and sometimes racial abilities. also, TWF will still do less damage than just using a two-handed weapon or a sword & board unless the TWF has feats and the S&B doesn't.

Except that there are very many great feats any one may want, and even a Fighter with 2 extra ASI may feel a bit cramped. If you want to put aside weapon style related feats, TWF provides you competitive damage and versatility while allowing you to rack as many other feats as wanted and maxing attack stat.



you mean the smite spells that do the same damage as the smite you're saying is awesome to get another use of, plus add an extra effect? *those* smite spells?

Yeah, I mean exactly those: it gives you more choice: either you want to nova and blow all your spells, then you have a better nova, then you have nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Or you blow one smite spell to keep concentration, then you have again nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Plus TWF gets bonus damage with Improved Divine Smite, and benefit a Vengeance (Hunter's Mark) or Oathbreaker Paladin (+CHA) too. Or another Paladin could grab Hex through Magic Initiate / Warlock dip if he really wants to build on it.
Because, again, you are not supposed to use Hunter's Mark / Hex bonus action systematically. If that's the case, then it was probably overkill in the first place. It's not like you have the obligation of putting another creature under mark right after the current one dropped to 0 HP.



who cares if hunter's mark works better with more attacks if you can't use it while making that extra attack? i mean, what exactly are you fighting that you aren't killing something fairly regularly? do you primarily fight nothing but giant bricks of HP or something? because stuff should be getting killed.

Well, if you are not smart enough to put Hunter's Mark on a resilient target, that's your problem. XD
More seriously, the fact is, putting Hunter's Mark on low HP targets is stupid in the first place. Might as well better use a plain weapon attack. And there are many situations in which a resilient target will last several turns, either because you are the only one able to attack it for whatever reason, or because it's just very nimble. So technically, you shouldn't have to "move" the mark every turn (or even every two turns).



hiding can give advantage, which means advantage, which means the same two chances to hit. all TWF is actually adding is 1d6 (and one less average damage on the main hand), or 1d8 with a feat. that's not nothing, but it's considerably less than crossbow expert, which is also a feat, could add. that said, rogues that want to make no feat investment *are* the one build that actually benefits significantly from TWF, *if* they don't plan on using ranged combat and hiding.

And yet another theorycraft argument. Practice is very different: you cannot always hide. And if you cannot hide, you don't get advantage.



- defensive duelist: you mean the feat that basically nobody recommends? also, can't help noticing that this build you've mentioned does not in fact use TWF at all. you're just carrying a second weapon.

I never noticed that that feat was one that "basically nobody recommends". And honestly I would find this a very stupid advice. Defensive Duelist is a bad choice at low levels, but a +6 at higher level will make a difference more often than not. If you are not set on a proactive control build (Sentinel), it's a very worthy feat. Beyond that, you can still use it to attack you know. *such dishonesty is really saddening -shrugs-*



- shield master/tavern brawler: tavern brawler requires an empty hand to use the grapple, so TWF doesn't help. shield is an improvised weapon, not one of the one-handed weapons from the table. and if you're unable to shield bash or grapple, you're probably also unable to attack with a melee weapon, so what exactly is TWF supposed to do for you? TWF feat works with weapons, which shields are not (by definition, an improvised weapon is something that is not a weapon which you are using as a weapon). and you know what would give better AC with a shield? being able to spend your fighting style on +1 AC instead of making your very rare off-hand attacks do a bit of extra damage.

Sorry, but it totally works. Absolutely NOTHING in the Dual Wielder feat requires a "named weapon" expressely. And PHB does precises whatever to do with the improvised weapons: either define a basic stat if that weapon bears no resemblance to a named weapon, or treat it as the named weapon if it's similar enough. And Shield is wielded in one hand, so although improvised, it's still a one-handed weapon, so it qualifies. Improvised weapon is just a category used to determine how to rule any weapon that has not been specifically imagined by WoTC nor handcrafted in advance in a homebrew by the DM.




- so you're talking about giving up greatly increased damage so that you can add 1d4 damage with a thrown weapon, or giving up another fighting style so you can make that 1d4 + 5, on ultra-rare occasions? this is not a powerful benefit worth giving up much of anything for.

What "greatly increased damage"? Are you talking about cantrips? LOL.
Eldricht Strike means either you use as many attacks as it takes on one enemy to ensure a powerful debuff sticks behind (Blindness, Hold Person are the first to come to mind, but there are certainly others). Or striking several enemies before applying a nice cleaning AOE (Grease, Earth Tremor, Shatter, Fireball, Slow etc).
I won't presume I have to explain to you how much more efficient this is than just War Magic on a single target (except if that would be enough to kill it obviously).

Battlemaster's Manoeuvers means that you can ensure an enemy sticks to the ground (which is useful when you Shoved him but its turn would come soon after) and still attack him much more easily with TWF, although once you get 3rd attack it's less interesting (but that's a 11th level benefit here).

Also, you don't care about having that many attacks if you cannot pull them all off: having two weapons, one of which being a throwing one, means you can pull off an attack without engaging in melee or just actually "reaching" an enemy otherwise too far away (possibly applying a Manoeuver for a Battlemaster, or preparing a spell next turn for an Eldricht Knight) while still keeping one weapon for defense (Parry, Defensive Duelist) or offense (opportunity attack) as well as your object interaction for anything if needed. Incidentally, it's one of the way for Eldricht Knight to use War Magic without any need for Warcaster compared to a Sword & Board Eldricht Knight (unless, of course, this S&B took Tavern Brawler ;)).

For a DEX-based Fighter, you will usually end with Hand Crossbow and Sharpshooter which packs a decent range. You have in fact no reason at all to go to the fronline except if you want to take hits.
For a STR-based Fighter, having a standard mobility means that if you spent a decent part of your move to close in to an enemy and finished him off, you may find enemies around are just a bit too far away for you to reach them. Or enemies that you yourself don't want to approach because it's too dangerous, either to reach them, or to back off from them.

If you have an habit of using only thrown weapons, then you can make up one attack then draw another one to be ready for the next turn. Otherwise, you can at most make one more ranged attack with a thrown weapon, using your free interaction to draw one as part of the action. But then you are unarmed until the start of your next round.

If you were already wielding one throwable weapon, it's up to 2 attacks while keeping all advantages of wielding your main weapon.

As for what Dual Wielder brings: since you are adamant on damage optimization, you won't deny that Javelin (1d6, 30/120) makes a big improvement on daggers (1d4) or even light hammers (1d6, 20/60) won't you?

It may not make a difference often if you use it only as a last resort, but when taking this into account it gives much more leeway to position yourself efficiently, not only for your current turn, but also for the upcoming ones.



- TWF magic weapons: there isn't really a half-full glass here. if you have some examples of something that actually allows you to combo, that would be a start. an incredibly improbable thing to actually ever happen, but at least it would be a chance.

Well, for starters, you could hold several weapons that cater to different damage types (Fire/Frost weapons), or wield ones that provide different resistance (such as Staffs or Fire/Frost), or wield ones that provides bonus to spell attacks / DC (such as Staff of the Woodlands, Staff of Healing), or ones that provide special benefits against different kinds of creatures (like the Mace of Disruption). Most of these weapon are not light, so Dual Wielder is of a great benefit here.

An UA Phoenix Sorcerer with Extra Attack from whatever source could profit well from having two Flametongues as well (IIRC it gets bonus damage each time it deals fire damage).

A UA Hexblade Warlock with Hex could wield his pact weapon or any other magic weapon, have a Rod of the Pact Keeper, and with Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder still make another attack to get the extra damage from Hex and archetype benefit (IIRC it gets extra damage each time it deals damage to the marked target).

Now for a very stupid and nigh impossible combo: you could hold two Defenders and to get up +6 AC. But yes, that should never happen (or you should buy several chocolate boxes to your DM XD).




- extra chance at dealing damage: not substantially better than just dealing more damage in the first place. using a bigger weapon will probably make you deal more damage in the first place; unless you're fighting a horde of 1 HP monsters, TWF is very unlikely to pull ahead.

In theory, sure. In practice you are very glad to have an extra chance to deal at least *some* damage when the dice betrayed you times in a row.
The "probably" you use is as shallow as mine: the fact is that we are really reliant on luck in the end, so whether two-handed weapon actually fares better will get a different answer depending on many factors, first and foremost being the party around. If you have people to buff you, then going for the most reliable damage (GWM) is obviously the best. If you tend to luck out on rolls and nobody can save it for you (like a Bard), getting another chance is invaluable.



TWF is almost never the better option for damage, even if you don't want to invest (the exception being a rogue, who will gain slightly more damage with TWF), except at very low levels.

it really doesn't add much of anything. and yes, a given character can want to use TWF. that doesn't make it effective, that just makes it desired. it should be BOTH of those things, when you invest properly at least. people who want to use two weapons because it's fun for them shouldn't need to give up effectiveness.
Yes, it adds much: it adds versatility and reliability for a great deal of characters, in offense, defense and tactics.
But, as often, it requires actually trying to play its strengths (and being smart about it) to really see what it's worth.

[Kryx]

Str based TWF with Dual Wielder had more AC than a GWF user.
+1 AC is worth about ~9-10% damage, not 30%.
If you want ac you can get +2 with shield master while doing more damage than TWF.

It has no role where it excels by RAW.


it keeps up ahead of other styles except GWF in terms of damage until 11.
This is incorrect. Several cases of math have been provided that show this is not the case.

[mgshamster]

Despite the awfulness, my dual wielding champ is a ton of fun, and is close enough that I don't really notice any discrepancies.

Kryx is absolutely correct that the math shows it lacks, and I've made arguments in favor of TWF and since changed my own mind based on evidence.

But dispite all that, I have a blast with my Dual Wield fighter. And to me, that's what really matters.

It's not like PF/3.5, where it required a **** ton of feats to be a dual wielder and you still sucked ass. In this edition, you just lag a little behind in damage. If you're ok with that, it can still be fun.

The key is that you don't enter the game expecting to be a damage king - that role belongs to the GWM or pole-arm guy. Accept that, and you'll still have a blast whirling those blades.

[Citan]

+1 AC is worth about ~9-10% damage, not 30%.
If you want ac you can get +2 with shield master while doing more damage than TWF.

It has no role where it excels by RAW.


This is incorrect. Several cases of math have been provided that show this is not the case.
Well, no argue that shield provides better defense (with Shield Master) and two-handed better potential damage (with GWM, barring the potential to-hit problem) at the end of the day, between stats bumps, higher proficiency, + potential bonuses from equipment as far as direct damage and to-hit (+x weapon) or AC (+x shield) are concerned.

But it does has a role where it excels (actually two): versatility and mobility. For a STR-based warrior (or DEX-based that doesn't want to go Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert for whatever reason), it's a great boon. Because theorical maths can never take into account the multitude of parameters that you face in a concrete adventure, among which the important "actual reach" of melee weapon attacks, when considering enemy position, defense level and abilities, direct threat level (OA) and party threat level.
(I won't speak again about magic items potential, because it's too DM-dependent, and too crunchy and power-hungry to my taste in the first place).

The fact that you can be great all-around and switch tactics on the fly with only one feat (Dual Wielder) and one Fighting Style (TWF) makes it largely worthwhile.

With that said, I stand corrected on the interaction between Dual Wielder and Tavern Brawler: I was ignorant of the existence of that tweet by Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/729789771560591360?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) that clarifies RAI as forbidding TWF with improvised weapons.
That's really a shame imo, but well, what he said. ;)

However, I did forget about another use, although a somewhat niche one: using nets. ;) The fact that creature is automatically restrained on a hit makes it plain better than using a Shove in some cases, mainly because Shove is contested by either Athletics or Acrobatics check, at the choice of the creature (so it will choose the best), while attack rolls against AC are usually the fortes of martials (also since it's technically a weapon attack, it benefits from advantage, Faerie Fire, Bless and the likes).
So it's a nice alternative to Shove against low AC but high evasion targets.;)

[masterstrider]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned it, but you can get two magic weapon effects at the same time as a dual wielder.

Frostbrand/Flame Tongue + Defender would give you a better net effect as a dual wielder than a S&B or 2-hander.

Maybe the intent is that after L11, you get access to better magic items to even out any core rule imbalances. In this way the D&D designers don't have to bean count every single permutation and combination to keep the game perfectly balanced, and can let DM's make "adjustments" with unique and magic items.

MS

[SharkForce]

Yeah, in theory. Always in theory. The fact holds that, probabilities, statistics and reality are all different things.
TWF gives you CHOICE: attack the same creature, attack different, still apply something when your Extra Attack failed, etc...


Except that with TWF you get Rage bonus on attack. And you can adapt. With Shield Master you will also get only 2 attacks and one shove. With TWF you can mix shove, attacks and even grapple as you see fit.
Also, there are many classes that get a somewhat "mandatory" bonus action use on first turn, and nobody cried about it so far: Barb, Bladesinger, Vengeance Paladin, Moon Druid, etc... So it's really a weak argument.


Except that there are very many great feats any one may want, and even a Fighter with 2 extra ASI may feel a bit cramped. If you want to put aside weapon style related feats, TWF provides you competitive damage and versatility while allowing you to rack as many other feats as wanted and maxing attack stat.


Yeah, I mean exactly those: it gives you more choice: either you want to nova and blow all your spells, then you have a better nova, then you have nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Or you blow one smite spell to keep concentration, then you have again nothing good to do with your bonus action, so you might as well attack with it.
Plus TWF gets bonus damage with Improved Divine Smite, and benefit a Vengeance (Hunter's Mark) or Oathbreaker Paladin (+CHA) too. Or another Paladin could grab Hex through Magic Initiate / Warlock dip if he really wants to build on it.
Because, again, you are not supposed to use Hunter's Mark / Hex bonus action systematically. If that's the case, then it was probably overkill in the first place. It's not like you have the obligation of putting another creature under mark right after the current one dropped to 0 HP.


Well, if you are not smart enough to put Hunter's Mark on a resilient target, that's your problem. XD
More seriously, the fact is, putting Hunter's Mark on low HP targets is stupid in the first place. Might as well better use a plain weapon attack. And there are many situations in which a resilient target will last several turns, either because you are the only one able to attack it for whatever reason, or because it's just very nimble. So technically, you shouldn't have to "move" the mark every turn (or even every two turns).


And yet another theorycraft argument. Practice is very different: you cannot always hide. And if you cannot hide, you don't get advantage.


I never noticed that that feat was one that "basically nobody recommends". And honestly I would find this a very stupid advice. Defensive Duelist is a bad choice at low levels, but a +6 at higher level will make a difference more often than not. If you are not set on a proactive control build (Sentinel), it's a very worthy feat. Beyond that, you can still use it to attack you know. *such dishonesty is really saddening -shrugs-*


Sorry, but it totally works. Absolutely NOTHING in the Dual Wielder feat requires a "named weapon" expressely. And PHB does precises whatever to do with the improvised weapons: either define a basic stat if that weapon bears no resemblance to a named weapon, or treat it as the named weapon if it's similar enough. And Shield is wielded in one hand, so although improvised, it's still a one-handed weapon, so it qualifies. Improvised weapon is just a category used to determine how to rule any weapon that has not been specifically imagined by WoTC nor handcrafted in advance in a homebrew by the DM.



What "greatly increased damage"? Are you talking about cantrips? LOL.
Eldricht Strike means either you use as many attacks as it takes on one enemy to ensure a powerful debuff sticks behind (Blindness, Hold Person are the first to come to mind, but there are certainly others). Or striking several enemies before applying a nice cleaning AOE (Grease, Earth Tremor, Shatter, Fireball, Slow etc).
I won't presume I have to explain to you how much more efficient this is than just War Magic on a single target (except if that would be enough to kill it obviously).

Battlemaster's Manoeuvers means that you can ensure an enemy sticks to the ground (which is useful when you Shoved him but its turn would come soon after) and still attack him much more easily with TWF, although once you get 3rd attack it's less interesting (but that's a 11th level benefit here).

Also, you don't care about having that many attacks if you cannot pull them all off: having two weapons, one of which being a throwing one, means you can pull off an attack without engaging in melee or just actually "reaching" an enemy otherwise too far away (possibly applying a Manoeuver for a Battlemaster, or preparing a spell next turn for an Eldricht Knight) while still keeping one weapon for defense (Parry, Defensive Duelist) or offense (opportunity attack) as well as your object interaction for anything if needed. Incidentally, it's one of the way for Eldricht Knight to use War Magic without any need for Warcaster compared to a Sword & Board Eldricht Knight (unless, of course, this S&B took Tavern Brawler ;)).

For a DEX-based Fighter, you will usually end with Hand Crossbow and Sharpshooter which packs a decent range. You have in fact no reason at all to go to the fronline except if you want to take hits.
For a STR-based Fighter, having a standard mobility means that if you spent a decent part of your move to close in to an enemy and finished him off, you may find enemies around are just a bit too far away for you to reach them. Or enemies that you yourself don't want to approach because it's too dangerous, either to reach them, or to back off from them.

If you have an habit of using only thrown weapons, then you can make up one attack then draw another one to be ready for the next turn. Otherwise, you can at most make one more ranged attack with a thrown weapon, using your free interaction to draw one as part of the action. But then you are unarmed until the start of your next round.

If you were already wielding one throwable weapon, it's up to 2 attacks while keeping all advantages of wielding your main weapon.

As for what Dual Wielder brings: since you are adamant on damage optimization, you won't deny that Javelin (1d6, 30/120) makes a big improvement on daggers (1d4) or even light hammers (1d6, 20/60) won't you?

It may not make a difference often if you use it only as a last resort, but when taking this into account it gives much more leeway to position yourself efficiently, not only for your current turn, but also for the upcoming ones.


Well, for starters, you could hold several weapons that cater to different damage types (Fire/Frost weapons), or wield ones that provide different resistance (such as Staffs or Fire/Frost), or wield ones that provides bonus to spell attacks / DC (such as Staff of the Woodlands, Staff of Healing), or ones that provide special benefits against different kinds of creatures (like the Mace of Disruption). Most of these weapon are not light, so Dual Wielder is of a great benefit here.

An UA Phoenix Sorcerer with Extra Attack from whatever source could profit well from having two Flametongues as well (IIRC it gets bonus damage each time it deals fire damage).

A UA Hexblade Warlock with Hex could wield his pact weapon or any other magic weapon, have a Rod of the Pact Keeper, and with Tavern Brawler and Dual Wielder still make another attack to get the extra damage from Hex and archetype benefit (IIRC it gets extra damage each time it deals damage to the marked target).

Now for a very stupid and nigh impossible combo: you could hold two Defenders and to get up +6 AC. But yes, that should never happen (or you should buy several chocolate boxes to your DM XD).



In theory, sure. In practice you are very glad to have an extra chance to deal at least *some* damage when the dice betrayed you times in a row.
The "probably" you use is as shallow as mine: the fact is that we are really reliant on luck in the end, so whether two-handed weapon actually fares better will get a different answer depending on many factors, first and foremost being the party around. If you have people to buff you, then going for the most reliable damage (GWM) is obviously the best. If you tend to luck out on rolls and nobody can save it for you (like a Bard), getting another chance is invaluable.


Yes, it adds much: it adds versatility and reliability for a great deal of characters, in offense, defense and tactics.
But, as often, it requires actually trying to play its strengths (and being smart about it) to really see what it's worth.

- if you have some examples of where TWF is superior in actual play that aren't incredibly contrived and improbable, feel free to provide them.

- with TWF you can mix shoves and attacks (just like you can with a shield). you can't mix grapples in, because those require an empty hand, which means you can't have a weapon in the hand. as to better damage, you're not looking at much there; barbarians don't get a fighting style, so by the time you're level 5 or higher we're talking 3d6 + (2xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 4d6 + (2xstr mod) + (2xrage bonus). cancel out, and we're comparing +1d6 damage (avg 3.5) vs +rage bonus damage.it isn't until level 16 when TWF pulls a whopping half point ahead as your rage bonus is finally worth more than the extra d6 from greatsword. or, you know, eventually pulls ahead, since in the first round the greatsword does 4d6 + 8 while the TWF does 2d6 + 8, so... we're looking at 14 rounds for TWF to break even. except of course that on round 11, TWF will need to use another bonus action to rage again. also, that doesn't count the fact that brutal critical likes bigger dice more than it likes bigger modifiers.

of course, if you want to add in feats, 1:1, a glaive is doing 2d10 + 1d4 + (3xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 3d8 + (2x str bonus) + (3xrage bonus), or 2d10 + 1d4 + str (average 13.5 + str mod) vs 3d8 (average 13.5). so unless your strength modifier is +0 or negative, the polearm is doing more. lots more on any round where someone moves up to you. TWF is not good for barbarians. it isn't good with zero investment. it isn't good with 1 feat. and it gets worse with 2 feats, if you want to spend that much (which you probably should).

and no, the fact that there are other classes that also can't spend their first bonus action on TWF doesn't make TWF look better. it makes it look worse.

- with no feats, the fighter is averaging ~4.17 per d6 with a greatsword. feel free to do the math, but it isn't going to look good for the TWF fighter if no feats are spent on increasing damage.

- paladins also don't get TWF fighting style. so that improved divine smite advantage? that's +1d8 compared to the difference between doing 4d6 instead of 3d6 per round... unless of course the paladin decides to invest a fighting style in being better at fighting with a two-handed weapon, in which case THF pulls ahead again. TWF is not better at damage here, even if the paladin isn't using a bonus action to smite, or feats to improve damage.

- hunter's mark can last for a long time. by default, it lasts for hours. and you listed it as something that gets better with TWF. as to finding something resilient to use it on.... if enemies are living for so long that your hunter's mark is on the same target for a significant amount of time, your party is doing something horribly wrong. stuff dies quick in 5e. if you aren't losing your bonus action to move hunter's mark every couple of rounds at minimum, you're missing out. and again, it's a minimum 1 hour duration... casting the spell isn't a cost unless you're just not using it because you're too busy telling yourself how awesome TWF is without actually checking to see if it actually is better. which it isn't.

- building to be able to always hide is pretty much trivial for rogues. or, alternately, if it isn't, you probably have no party members, and you aren't getting sneak attack anyways. but, as acknowledged, rogues that want to make no investment in combat whatsoever is the main place where TWF looks good. or at least, where it looks best. too bad it doesn't have any other real niches where it's good.

- you can attack. but since you recommended defensive duelist for someone who was thinking of quarterstaff with polearm master... why would you use the dagger? you've already got a bonus action attack, which already adds attribute without needing a fighting style, and you'd need to further invest a feat for the ability to make a worse attack, because without dual wielder you can't even use the dagger offensively at all. and again, no the feat isn't great at higher level, because at higher level most of the time you're going to be facing a lot more than one attack, and the feat only works against one. and if you are facing a single enemy with a single attack, and that enemy is anything like a significant threat... it probably has been gaining attack bonus just as fast as you've gained proficiency bonus yourself, if not faster, making the feat not really any better at high levels than low levels. rather than investing 2 feats into this, find a better plan.

- improvised weapons are not weapons. they're things that are specifically not weapons which you are using as a weapon anyways. that doesn't make them weapons. you cannot alter reality with your desire to name a thing into something it isn't - i can go collect a bunch of sticks, hand them to a woman, and *insist* that they're flowers because i'm improvising, but that doesn't make the sticks flowers, and it doesn't make a shield a weapon. the entire improvised weapons section goes on and on about how improvised weapons are not weapons. the most generous interpretation possible might allow you to count an object that is sufficiently similar to a weapon to be actually treated as one count for dual wielding, but since the shield does not resemble any actual weapons, no dice there. you can't even treat it as a weapon, so it's just an object that you can grab in one or two hands. specifically: "in many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" (as in, normally they aren't actual weapons, and can't be treated as a weapon).

- the greatly increased damage comes from using a superior weapon in the first place. and if you cannot make melee attacks, you can use your interact with object to draw and throw a weapon anyways. or to pull out a ranged weapon and use it. no need for TWF. (incidentally, as far as war magic is concerned... you need an empty hand to cast many spells, so TWF is *definitely* not a good idea there... better to use a style that lets you keep a hand open, like using a two-handed weapon, which will do more damage anyways

TWF doesn't have a niche. it needs one. it isn't good, it's worse than every other option, and while it isn't so much worse as to be unplayable, it shouldn't be worse in the first place. it *should* be equally good, so that a person who chooses TWF for flavour reasons isn't punished mechanically.

[greenstone]

PAM Fighter: 28%
TWF Fighter: 24%

Wow. Is it really that much of a difference?

A polearm master (say a level 10 fighter with a glaive) can do 1d10+STR + 1d10+STR + 1d4+STR per round. Why is that so much higher than a dual wielder (the same fighter with two axes and the two-weapon fighting style) 1d8+str + 1d8+STR + 1d8+STR?

Is the "re-roll 1s and 2s" of the and the great weapon fighting style included in those numbers?

From personal experience, two-weapon fighting feels like you are doing something with your bonus action every single round. Great Weapon Fighting feat only gives you the bonus action every few rounds, so it feels like you've "wasted" your bonus action. Perhaps this is skewing people's opinions?

[miburo]

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.

[SharkForce]

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.

i don't think it would help the damage that much as a general thing, except it would help a lot for several of the cases where you'd think it should be best. it would benefit rogues (who would be able to combine it with cunning action), it would help rangers (who would actually be able to make use of their 1 hour or longer hunter's mark to help their damage). it would help TWF barbarians (who would no longer have it competing with activating rage in the first round, and it would especially help berserkers). it would help melee warlocks (hex). it would help slightly for fighters i think (action surge). it would give a rather substantial DPR boost to monks that use it, and i think it might be a little bit overpowered when combined with polearm mastery, however... polearm mastery could probably be "fixed" by requiring two hands for the bonus action attack so that we don't have people dual-wielding a quarterstaff + longsword to get a bonus action attack. not sure how to fix the monk problem (to be clear, the monk problem is not just the DPR increase, which may or may not be something you'd consider a problem, it's the gap that would exist between TWF monks and any other type of monk, such as a monk that uses a quarterstaff in two hands or a monk that fights unarmed). and tbh, there's probably at least one thing i haven't considered yet.

it would certainly at least give TWF a niche though (that niche being "using your bonus action for stuff other than making attacks"). iirc, kryx has done some math to check it out, and it initially didn't look too bad, but i'm not sure how extensive his testing was... there's always something you don't initially think of, after all :P

(then again, i may be thinking of another fix he tried).

[MeeposFire]

I think when I was figuring out my house rule my goal was for TWF to be ahead of sword and shield style but behind GWF by a little bit for the same number of feats. Part of the reason was that I was figuring there should be a slight premium on having more attacks because that means in many cases most buffs and other abilities get added more because of that. As a simple example hex gets better the more attacks you ahve and since in my version TWF has more attacks than anything else (it had one more attack with no feats and still one more attack with one feat) I figured that gave it a potential boost that not directly accounted for in the base numbers it should at least be kept in mind.

Not really sure how close my attempt gets there (trying to compute the value adding things to opportunity attacks is the sort of thing I do value in the analysis of somebody like Kryx since he does try to account for those things).

Personally though I think the bigger flaw in TWF is the annoying way it interacts with the action economy and how it prevents it from working with a bunch of things and many of which it should work with (why is it the only style that does not get to work with hunters mark on the first turn it is activated and every time you need to move it when the class that primarilly gets that spell is supposed to be one of the main TWF classes?) and in general it is the only style restricted in such a fashion. That makes TWF feel clunky and really hurts it use. As another example it is the only style that does not work in conjunction with war magic and is the only stye where that is true on a basic level.

[lperkins2]

So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield, most commonly you'd see it when someone wasn't expecting a fight, and the second weapon would be a dagger, used mostly for defence. That pretty well went away with the invention of the buckler, because a buckler is almost as easy to carry around as a dagger, and so much more effective for protecting you. It might be better to have another weapon in your off hand, if you think it likely that you will lose your weapon, but even then, the second weapon is heavy, and attacking with both at once is almost impossible (you can't lunge in two directions at once). The best case for holding a weapon in your off hand is if you have a pistol, which you can use when you encounter a significantly better swordsman. TWF is worse than using a shield, or than using a two handed weapon, except for some rogues, and maybe a paladin who wants to dump all his spell slots into smite, quickly. This is as it should be, since TWF just doesn't work well physically.

That said, the TWF feat or fighting style should probably have provided a bonus to AC rather than more damage.

[Boci]

So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield

This was discussed earlier, my opinion at least is in heroic fantasy game that isn't particularly realistic about its weaponry, your fighting style being viable is more important than historical realism. If you want that, another game is probably better.

[djreynolds]

The issue isn't TWF is bad... its just PAM is better for strength based combatants as is doesn't require TWF style

The issue with PAM is... really there are not many magic polearms in game... unless your DM decides otherwise

TWF is "best" with a dex build, preferably multiclassed with fighter/ranger/rogue

[SharkForce]

The issue isn't TWF is bad... its just PAM is better for strength based combatants as is doesn't require TWF style

The issue with PAM is... really there are not many magic polearms in game... unless your DM decides otherwise

TWF is "best" with a dex build, preferably multiclassed with fighter/ranger/rogue

the assumption that the DMG doesn't list many polearms in the magic section, therefore there are none, doesn't sit all that well with me. it presumes that the DMG is a comprehensive listing, or at the least a representative sample, and while that might work for some settings, it certainly isn't going to work for all settings.

i mean, if you're playing in AL, i suppose it's something to consider. or if your DM keeps things firmly on rails and doesn't use anything that isn't officially published, so you can't go exploring to find a magical polearm.

but even without polearm mastery, two-handed weapons generally look better for damage, sword & board looks better for defense, and TWF only looks better for rogues that don't want to invest in a combat style at all.

[djreynolds]

the assumption that the DMG doesn't list many polearms in the magic section, therefore there are none, doesn't sit all that well with me. it presumes that the DMG is a comprehensive listing, or at the least a representative sample, and while that might work for some settings, it certainly isn't going to work for all settings.

i mean, if you're playing in AL, i suppose it's something to consider. or if your DM keeps things firmly on rails and doesn't use anything that isn't officially published, so you can't go exploring to find a magical polearm.

but even without polearm mastery, two-handed weapons generally look better for damage, sword & board looks better for defense, and TWF only looks better for rogues that don't want to invest in a combat style at all.

Its the only drawback that I can find for PAM, I have to write something negative. The only negative for PAM is you may not possibly find a magic polearm

You don't even need war caster with PAM, you do with TWF and S&B for arcane casting

But for magic weapons it seems versatile are popular.

TWF is best for dex based PCs, who have a dash of rogue or perhaps a barbarian in a featless game

[Zalabim]

This is my issue. I actually quite like dual wielding. But for me, if I'm going to build a character, I want to be good at something. Not the best, just good at something.

There's no way (that I know of) to legally build a TWF character without another weapon being superior for that character. Either you need too much feat investment and it isn't worth the lost options or your damage is inferior.
If you're already a mounted combatant (whether you have the feat or that's just the description you'd use) taking Dual Wielder for double lances is a niche that's hard to beat.

A single attack with combined weapon die might be the ticket, up to 1D8+1D8+Attribute. At most, that would be +2 damage over a greatsword, without adding magic weapons.
It does bear highlighting that TWF is the only offensive PHB style that doesn't interact with extra attack at all. If the TWF fighting style also gave a damage bonus on each attack, it could still have the bonus action attack, but it would also work better with extra(extra) attacks, giant killer, horde breaker, whirlwind attack, and opportunity attacks in general than it does now, without being any worse with Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, or Colossus Slayer. TWF suffers from having a poor TWF fighting style and a poor TWF feat.

Barbarians should never build Sword and Board. It's the antithesis of one of the main features that makes the class strong (Reckless Attack).
It'd be an option if that barbarian happens to be mounted for an encounter. Then a lance and a shield competes with a greataxe, but there's a big opportunity cost in not choosing the Heavy weapon, too.

Ironically the less skilled you are in melee the more you benefit from two weapon fighter in a pinch because you have no normal extra attacks.
I usually phrase it as the more class features you're putting into fighting with weapons, the less you benefit from TWF.

However, I did forget about another use, although a somewhat niche one: using nets. ;) The fact that creature is automatically restrained on a hit makes it plain better than using a Shove in some cases, mainly because Shove is contested by either Athletics or Acrobatics check, at the choice of the creature (so it will choose the best), while attack rolls against AC are usually the fortes of martials (also since it's technically a weapon attack, it benefits from advantage, Faerie Fire, Bless and the likes).
So it's a nice alternative to Shove against low AC but high evasion targets.;)
I consider Nets to be combat maneuvers for Dex combatants, but it doesn't have anything to do with TWF, since they're ranged weapons. They work with Crossbow Expert though, since a net is one-handed.

Wow. Is it really that much of a difference?

A polearm master (say a level 10 fighter with a glaive) can do 1d10+STR + 1d10+STR + 1d4+STR per round. Why is that so much higher than a dual wielder (the same fighter with two axes and the two-weapon fighting style) 1d8+str + 1d8+STR + 1d8+STR?

Is the "re-roll 1s and 2s" of the and the great weapon fighting style included in those numbers?
The difference is more in the reaction attack, in this case, but the fighting style is contributing a little as well.

So, if the two-weapon fighting rule was changed so that it added a single extra offhand attack to the attack action instead of requiring a bonus action, would it become overpowered compared to sword-and-board or great weapon fighters? Keeping in mind you would still need the fighting style for ability score to offhand damage and the feat to use non-light weapons.
It would be better for rogues using cunning action, clerics using spiritual weapon, rangers using hunter's mark, barbarians using their bonus action options (rage, eagle 3, wolf 14, berserker 3), fighters using action surge and second wind to a small extent. I don't think it'd be overpowered on barbarians, but it could have a noticeable effect on weapon selection for classes that don't get extra attack, particularly if they don't get shield proficiency either, and a very negligible effect on Fighters while having a substantial effect on rangers.

The core issue here is that I don't think the designers wanted TWF to make using two simple weapons the "strongest" option for unskilled combatants without having some sort of tradeoff, and that's why it takes a bonus action. If you have no other features to speak of, two hand axes would be the same damage as a greatsword, but simpler weapon proficiency and able to be thrown. Double daggers compared to a rapier is a little similar. Then depending on the features, like divine strike or sneak attack, the option that gives more attacks would be preferred again. The issues for fighters and rangers and the rest might've cascaded from there, or come from a similar sentiment. TWF has memetic popularity, so we(the designers) don't want to also make it always the best. It's hard to balance in between all these competing goals.

[Cybren]

One of my big problems with TWF: Without the feat you can use two light weapons. With the feat you can use two one handed weapons. Other than specific magic item combos, there's no real reason to use One hander + light offhand

[Rogerdodger557]

If you're already a mounted combatant (whether you have the feat or that's just the description you'd use) taking Dual Wielder for double lances is a niche that's hard to beat.


Oh my god. I didn't even think of this. I will need to use this as soon as I can.

[jas61292]

One of my big problems with TWF: Without the feat you can use two light weapons. With the feat you can use two one handed weapons. Other than specific magic item combos, there's no real reason to use One hander + light offhand

Arguably, light + one handed is actually the best option. Yes, it comes out a bit behind in damage, but losing one point of damage per round (or two for a Dex TWF guy) is well worth it to have a thrown weapon, and thus range. Pure DPS is never as important as options.

[Cybren]

Arguably, light + one handed is actually the best option. Yes, it comes out a bit behind in damage, but losing one point of damage per round (or two for a Dex TWF guy) is well worth it to have a thrown weapon, and thus range. Pure DPS is never as important as options.

Sure, but then you get into things like "fencing daggers weren't really throwing weapons" and "that's not why it was used". The off-hand weapon being defensive is sort of represented in the Dual Wielder feats +1 AC, but I wonder what would change if you made the TWF fighting style the Defensive Duelist feat, changing the requirement to having two weapons equipped...

[Rogerdodger557]

Sure, but then you get into things like "fencing daggers weren't really throwing weapons" and "that's not why it was used". The off-hand weapon being defensive is sort of represented in the Dual Wielder feats +1 AC, but I wonder what would change if you made the TWF fighting style the Defensive Duelist feat, changing the requirement to having two weapons equipped...

Not sort of. I only get the +1 AC from the feat when I have a weapon in my off hand.

[Cybren]

Not sort of. I only get the +1 AC from the feat when I have a weapon in my off hand.

i'm saying sort of because it's a weird design that makes it passive

[N810]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

[Cybren]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

There aren't even bucklers in this edition, and in 3.5 they didn't even have buckler proficiency. That's almost as bad as how Parry and Riposte don't have any synergy in 5e.

[N810]

... yes I realize the class name is a bit of a misnomer but stay with me here,
it's not like you ever see anyone using bucklers in the olde swashbuckler movies anyway.
(think Zorro, Princess Bride, or or any move with Erol Flynn in it. )

[Easy_Lee]

... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

Not really. It might be fluffed that way, but there's no need to TWF and plenty of reason not to do it.

[Cybren]

... yes I realize the class name is a bit of a misnomer but stay with me here,
it's not like you ever see anyone using bucklers in the olde swashbuckler movies anyway.
(think Zorro, Princess Bride, or or any move with Erol Flynn in it. )

Don't get me started how "barbarian" makes no sense as a term in a world without Greek speakers!

[Citan]

- if you have some examples of where TWF is superior in actual play that aren't incredibly contrived and improbable, feel free to provide them.

- with TWF you can mix shoves and attacks (just like you can with a shield). you can't mix grapples in, because those require an empty hand, which means you can't have a weapon in the hand. as to better damage, you're not looking at much there; barbarians don't get a fighting style, so by the time you're level 5 or higher we're talking 3d6 + (2xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 4d6 + (2xstr mod) + (2xrage bonus). cancel out, and we're comparing +1d6 damage (avg 3.5) vs +rage bonus damage.it isn't until level 16 when TWF pulls a whopping half point ahead as your rage bonus is finally worth more than the extra d6 from greatsword. or, you know, eventually pulls ahead, since in the first round the greatsword does 4d6 + 8 while the TWF does 2d6 + 8, so... we're looking at 14 rounds for TWF to break even. except of course that on round 11, TWF will need to use another bonus action to rage again. also, that doesn't count the fact that brutal critical likes bigger dice more than it likes bigger modifiers.

of course, if you want to add in feats, 1:1, a glaive is doing 2d10 + 1d4 + (3xstr mod) + (3xrage bonus) vs 3d8 + (2x str bonus) + (3xrage bonus), or 2d10 + 1d4 + str (average 13.5 + str mod) vs 3d8 (average 13.5). so unless your strength modifier is +0 or negative, the polearm is doing more. lots more on any round where someone moves up to you. TWF is not good for barbarians. it isn't good with zero investment. it isn't good with 1 feat. and it gets worse with 2 feats, if you want to spend that much (which you probably should).

and no, the fact that there are other classes that also can't spend their first bonus action on TWF doesn't make TWF look better. it makes it look worse.

- with no feats, the fighter is averaging ~4.17 per d6 with a greatsword. feel free to do the math, but it isn't going to look good for the TWF fighter if no feats are spent on increasing damage.

- paladins also don't get TWF fighting style. so that improved divine smite advantage? that's +1d8 compared to the difference between doing 4d6 instead of 3d6 per round... unless of course the paladin decides to invest a fighting style in being better at fighting with a two-handed weapon, in which case THF pulls ahead again. TWF is not better at damage here, even if the paladin isn't using a bonus action to smite, or feats to improve damage.

- hunter's mark can last for a long time. by default, it lasts for hours. and you listed it as something that gets better with TWF. as to finding something resilient to use it on.... if enemies are living for so long that your hunter's mark is on the same target for a significant amount of time, your party is doing something horribly wrong. stuff dies quick in 5e. if you aren't losing your bonus action to move hunter's mark every couple of rounds at minimum, you're missing out. and again, it's a minimum 1 hour duration... casting the spell isn't a cost unless you're just not using it because you're too busy telling yourself how awesome TWF is without actually checking to see if it actually is better. which it isn't.

- building to be able to always hide is pretty much trivial for rogues. or, alternately, if it isn't, you probably have no party members, and you aren't getting sneak attack anyways. but, as acknowledged, rogues that want to make no investment in combat whatsoever is the main place where TWF looks good. or at least, where it looks best. too bad it doesn't have any other real niches where it's good.

- you can attack. but since you recommended defensive duelist for someone who was thinking of quarterstaff with polearm master... why would you use the dagger? you've already got a bonus action attack, which already adds attribute without needing a fighting style, and you'd need to further invest a feat for the ability to make a worse attack, because without dual wielder you can't even use the dagger offensively at all. and again, no the feat isn't great at higher level, because at higher level most of the time you're going to be facing a lot more than one attack, and the feat only works against one. and if you are facing a single enemy with a single attack, and that enemy is anything like a significant threat... it probably has been gaining attack bonus just as fast as you've gained proficiency bonus yourself, if not faster, making the feat not really any better at high levels than low levels. rather than investing 2 feats into this, find a better plan.

- improvised weapons are not weapons. they're things that are specifically not weapons which you are using as a weapon anyways. that doesn't make them weapons. you cannot alter reality with your desire to name a thing into something it isn't - i can go collect a bunch of sticks, hand them to a woman, and *insist* that they're flowers because i'm improvising, but that doesn't make the sticks flowers, and it doesn't make a shield a weapon. the entire improvised weapons section goes on and on about how improvised weapons are not weapons. the most generous interpretation possible might allow you to count an object that is sufficiently similar to a weapon to be actually treated as one count for dual wielding, but since the shield does not resemble any actual weapons, no dice there. you can't even treat it as a weapon, so it's just an object that you can grab in one or two hands. specifically: "in many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such" (as in, normally they aren't actual weapons, and can't be treated as a weapon).

- the greatly increased damage comes from using a superior weapon in the first place. and if you cannot make melee attacks, you can use your interact with object to draw and throw a weapon anyways. or to pull out a ranged weapon and use it. no need for TWF. (incidentally, as far as war magic is concerned... you need an empty hand to cast many spells, so TWF is *definitely* not a good idea there... better to use a style that lets you keep a hand open, like using a two-handed weapon, which will do more damage anyways

TWF doesn't have a niche. it needs one. it isn't good, it's worse than every other option, and while it isn't so much worse as to be unplayable, it shouldn't be worse in the first place. it *should* be equally good, so that a person who chooses TWF for flavour reasons isn't punished mechanically.
Look, you obviously don't even try to understand, you just want to "be right". That's why, among other thing you carefully avoid the points you have no argument against and pull some dubious hypothesis as a fact ("if creatures last so long that Hunter's Mark lasts several turns your party is doing something horribly wrong" -or you just never faced really hard encounters, or you always get an optimal party composition and tactics-, "building to be able to hide always is pretty trivial for a Rogue" -apart from a Lightfoot Halfling Arcane Trickster, this is a plain dream-).

So, then, be right by all means, even if the facts wrong you: in practice dual-wielding is far better than on paper, because paper calculations are a very poor and incomplete simulation of everything that has to be considered as a factor in any given encounter.

Just three things.

1. You CAN GRAPPLE while dual-wield: take Extra Attack action while using a thrown weapon as the first attack, now you have a free hand to Grapple as your second attack, and then make your bonus action weapon attack. Per RAW, PHB only requires you to make a melee weapon attack when you take the Attack action to enable the benefit, not keeping the melee weapon used at first the whole way. In fact, it writes black on white that you can use a thrown weapon to make a ranged attack and still enable the benefit.

2. Dual Wielder + Defensive Duelist: why would you wield only a dagger? Rapier is 1d8 and finesse, so it's 1d4 better than the bonus action provided by Polearm Master (and I'm talking about a build that starting two-weapon fighting so obviously it took the relevant style), and IF ONLY you took it (if you didn't read everything in diagonal, you would have seen that I made two different hypothesis, one with Polearm Master, one without).

3. TWF has a niche. It has several in fact:
- On a STR martial with Extra Attack, providing immediate flexibility between Shove/Grapple/Melee attack/Ranged attack while keeping armed in-between rounds. Meaning easier positioning and easier switch between defense and offense (which a two-hander just cannot do). For example when you'd like to try and harm several enemies while being able to return to a "control point" to protect your allies.
- On martials with good one-handed attack, getting a good way to restrain people without bothering with Grappling (Dual Wielder + nets).
- On a gish or caster build, stacking different magical weapons which each provide specific abilities (like a quarterstaff focus providing spells, and a weapon dealing bonus damage against fiends) or stacking abilities (like two staffs giving bonus to spell DC).
- On any class that has some nova ability, enabling higher chance or better result for that nova (Eldricht Strike, Sneak Attack, Smites).

Overall, TWF and Dual Wielder provides together the perfect middle ground between S&B and Two-handed and will thus shine in any situation where you go against very difficult to hit, or very dangerous to come close or just unreachable creatures, as well as giving you a better chance to make use of any magical weapon instead of having to make tough choices when coming across a new one that is not strictly better than your current, just different in use.

[Willie the Duck]

Its the only drawback that I can find for PAM, I have to write something negative. The only negative for PAM is you may not possibly find a magic polearm

It's putting your eggs in a specific basket. How much this matters is going to be very campaign/DM dependent. I certainly don't consider it a good way of balancing the weapons.


So, anyone stop to consider that TWF shouldn't be particularly effective? There's a reason no one really tried it on a battlefield, most commonly you'd see it when someone wasn't expecting a fight, and the second weapon would be a dagger, used mostly for defence...<etc.>

And pikes would be practically useless in the situations adventurers regularly fight, and one-handed staves are just barely plausible so long as you don't also use a shield or try to hit with both ends (via PAM), and in 3rd edition one of the best weapons was the scythe (and let's not even get into how you would wield a dire flail or spiked chain...). If we were to suddenly decide that realism was the most important concern regarding weapons, well, we've that's the complete opposite direction than the way D&D has been moving for years (well, 3e might have been the farthest spike, but OD&D/1e was much more concerned with things like specific weapon vs. specific armor/situation, and we've been moving roughly away since).


... Still waiting for some one to mention Swashbuckler,
the class is kina built around the idea of dual wielding.

It has been repeatedly mentioned that melee rogues are the primary beneficiaries of twf, so I assume this was just a little too-specific for anyone to feel they had to bother bringing up.

[Naanomi]

Best defense of TWF:

I have a player who wanted to play a drow eldritch knight who dual wielded whips... I started to explain that was totally cool but don't get upset if it doesn't hold up mechanically

Her response: 'that's ok, I already painted this cool miniature with two whips'

Who am I to argue?

[lperkins2]

This was discussed earlier, my opinion at least is in heroic fantasy game that isn't particularly realistic about its weaponry, your fighting style being viable is more important than historical realism. If you want that, another game is probably better.

This is certainly true, since D&D has always sucked on the combat realism front. The question is how far to take it, mechanically? I think most people would agree that the fighting style needs to be at least superficially plausible, or it shouldn't work well mechanically.

Part of the reason for this is that the real world informs our expectations of how things work. Obviously, the rules are simplified, and sometimes don't line up with the real world at all, but it is the general case.

When you see a peasant charging you wielding a pillow, you don't expect the pillow to have the same damage output as a greatsword, so a character whose 'fighting style' involves hitting people with pillows shouldn't expect to have the same damage output as someone using almost anything else.

Point is, TWF is far better mechanically than we should expect, and has a strong niche for anyone who needs to be able to deliver at least one successful weapon attack a round (rogue being the obvious choice; or the v2 mystic, who could use a second lethal strike with the offhand attack).

[GlenSmash!]

Wow. Is it really that much of a difference?

A polearm master (say a level 10 fighter with a glaive) can do 1d10+STR + 1d10+STR + 1d4+STR per round. Why is that so much higher than a dual wielder (the same fighter with two axes and the two-weapon fighting style) 1d8+str + 1d8+STR + 1d8+STR?

Is the "re-roll 1s and 2s" of the and the great weapon fighting style included in those numbers?

From personal experience, two-weapon fighting feels like you are doing something with your bonus action every single round. Great Weapon Fighting feat only gives you the bonus action every few rounds, so it feels like you've "wasted" your bonus action. Perhaps this is skewing people's opinions?

I'm no math wiz, but I think it's in part due to the fact that Polearm Master doesn't just give a Bonus action attack, but also a very reliable Reaction attack as well.

[Submortimer]

2:
I'm playing this character not for roll playing, but for roleplaying. You know, what D&D should be. I wanted to have fun.


Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

[Willie the Duck]

Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

Look, Anyone who pulls a "I'm role-playing, not roll-playing" probably deserves a bit of a verbal whipping, (and a bus ticket back to 1996, when that phrase was even remotely considered respect-worthy), but that was post #20 out of 151 before you. You didn't wait to read the other 131 where he repeatedly clarified his position?

[SharkForce]

Look, you obviously don't even try to understand, you just want to "be right". That's why, among other thing you carefully avoid the points you have no argument against and pull some dubious hypothesis as a fact ("if creatures last so long that Hunter's Mark lasts several turns your party is doing something horribly wrong" -or you just never faced really hard encounters, or you always get an optimal party composition and tactics-, "building to be able to hide always is pretty trivial for a Rogue" -apart from a Lightfoot Halfling Arcane Trickster, this is a plain dream-).

So, then, be right by all means, even if the facts wrong you: in practice dual-wielding is far better than on paper, because paper calculations are a very poor and incomplete simulation of everything that has to be considered as a factor in any given encounter.

Just three things.

1. You CAN GRAPPLE while dual-wield: take Extra Attack action while using a thrown weapon as the first attack, now you have a free hand to Grapple as your second attack, and then make your bonus action weapon attack. Per RAW, PHB only requires you to make a melee weapon attack when you take the Attack action to enable the benefit, not keeping the melee weapon used at first the whole way. In fact, it writes black on white that you can use a thrown weapon to make a ranged attack and still enable the benefit.

2. Dual Wielder + Defensive Duelist: why would you wield only a dagger? Rapier is 1d8 and finesse, so it's 1d4 better than the bonus action provided by Polearm Master (and I'm talking about a build that starting two-weapon fighting so obviously it took the relevant style), and IF ONLY you took it (if you didn't read everything in diagonal, you would have seen that I made two different hypothesis, one with Polearm Master, one without).

3. TWF has a niche. It has several in fact:
- On a STR martial with Extra Attack, providing immediate flexibility between Shove/Grapple/Melee attack/Ranged attack while keeping armed in-between rounds. Meaning easier positioning and easier switch between defense and offense (which a two-hander just cannot do). For example when you'd like to try and harm several enemies while being able to return to a "control point" to protect your allies.
- On martials with good one-handed attack, getting a good way to restrain people without bothering with Grappling (Dual Wielder + nets).
- On a gish or caster build, stacking different magical weapons which each provide specific abilities (like a quarterstaff focus providing spells, and a weapon dealing bonus damage against fiends) or stacking abilities (like two staffs giving bonus to spell DC).
- On any class that has some nova ability, enabling higher chance or better result for that nova (Eldricht Strike, Sneak Attack, Smites).

Overall, TWF and Dual Wielder provides together the perfect middle ground between S&B and Two-handed and will thus shine in any situation where you go against very difficult to hit, or very dangerous to come close or just unreachable creatures, as well as giving you a better chance to make use of any magical weapon instead of having to make tough choices when coming across a new one that is not strictly better than your current, just different in use.

1) so after having super-invested into dual-wielding, you are also going to invest heavily into being unable to use dual-wielding. this is not sound reasoning. the moment you start grappling is the moment you stop being able to dual-wield; if you want to be a grappler, then you don't invest in TWF, you invest in a single versatile weapon with probably the dueling or defense style. you don't invest 3 feats that work against each other.

2) so you're investing your fighting style *and* a feat to get +1 AC and +2 average damage once per round? if i just went with polearm master and a glaive, and spend fighting style on defense, i have the same AC, and equal damage (or possibly better damage later on). plus i probably get a couple of reaction attacks per fight. plus i don't have to justify to anyone how i'm using a staff in one hand and a rapier in the other, which would look stupid, so there's another bonus; fewer arguments with the DM, and i feel less ridiculous while playing the character.

3)
- the THF fighter can throw stuff with one hand while holding their main weapon in the other hand. so that really isn't exclusive to TWF.
- nets are ranged weapons. not melee. TWF requires melee weapons.
- there aren't two staffs that give bonus to DC (actually, i don't think there's even one), but if there were, you wouldn't need to fight with both of them because spell DC is only useful when casting spells (as to one for casting, one for hitting things... you do realise you can switch weapons, right?). in any event, if your argument hinges on "maybe you'll somehow obtain a very specific pair of legendary magic items, and your party will let you have all of them, and you have the attunement slots available, therefore you should build for that possibility", then i don't really feel the need to spend much time countering it. it has already countered itself.
- the thing is, there are better ways of enabling those things. the paladin could use the standard polearm mastery option to free up a fighting style, get a reaction attack (oh look, *another* chance to smite, which you just said was awesome), and do more damage (no TWF fighting style, remember?). if the AC bonus is important, pick defense style. eldritch strike and sneak attack are both better supported by crossbow expert (the fighter will get a fighting style to put elsewhere (probably into hitting more often) and is making ranged attacks, the rogue gets range and gets to add attribute damage which is basically like a free fighting style... i mean, it's the worst of the fighting styles, but it still comes free with a feat that was already good). this particular TWF niche is occupied by other things which fill the same niche, only better, with the exception of the rogue that doesn't want to invest at all. again, the fighting style shouldn't be only good for one class that is specifically not investing in fighting.


against difficult-to-hit enemies, THF just stops using power attack. their damage is basically identical to the TWF build without it. very slightly higher in most cases if they crit, though. meanwhile, they enjoy much better damage against targets that aren't hard to hit, or targets that used to be hard to hit until they made the target not as hard to hit.

against creatures you don't want to get close to, guess which weapons have reach? if that isn't enough, guess who can also throw stuff while holding their main weapon in one hand. meanwhile, in addition to being as good in these situations, they're better in every other situation.

if your party has so many legendary weapons that you literally can't use them all at once, i don't consider that a problem. you can still switch between them. or, since apparently magic items are actually pretty common in the world you're playing in, you can just trade one in for something else that you actually need, instead of having more weapons than you know what to do with. this is like worrying that as you're walking along armed with your regular long sword, you might also find a regular warhammer, and *then* how are you supposed to decide what to use?

[Submortimer]

Look, Anyone who pulls a "I'm role-playing, not roll-playing" probably deserves a bit of a verbal whipping, (and a bus ticket back to 1996, when that phrase was even remotely considered respect-worthy), but that was post #20 out of 151 before you. You didn't wait to read the other 131 where he repeatedly clarified his position?

I actually didn't notice that the thread was 5 pages long before I posted, so yeah, that was my bad.

I stand by my position, repeat clarification or not.

Edit: Also, having read through all the posts here, I'm fine leaving my post as-is. He asked a question, multiple people gave him the answer, he countered with "well people should Role-play not Roll-play", and that's never an acceptable attitude to have about this game.

[Knaight]

Woah, calm down there with the Wrongbadfun. You came in and asked why TWF gets hate, people are giving you the answer. No one hates on TWF because of thematics, they hate on it because it is MECHANICALLY INFERIOR in basically every way to GWM and Sword and Board.

Plenty of people dislike the thematics, at least in the context of it being an effective battlefield style.

[Boci]

When you see a peasant charging you wielding a pillow, you don't expect the pillow to have the same damage output as a greatsword, so a character whose 'fighting style' involves hitting people with pillows shouldn't expect to have the same damage output as someone using almost anything else.

That just, not useful. Its so exaggerated it loses any potential to contribute to the conversation other than comedic effect.


Point is, TWF is far better mechanically than we should expect, and has a strong niche for anyone who needs to be able to deliver at least one successful weapon attack a round (rogue being the obvious choice; or the v2 mystic, who could use a second lethal strike with the offhand attack).

1. I'm not entirely sure this is true, not only it is potential overestimating how much a lot of players understand mideval weaponry, but grappling a bear and other such monster really shouldn't work that well, and yet its a solid tactic. There are loads more examples.

2. If two-weapon fighting is a fighter style option, shouldn't its niche include a use for the fighter?

[Willie the Duck]

I actually didn't notice that the thread was 5 pages long before I posted, so yeah, that was my bad.

I stand by my position, repeat clarification or not.

Edit: Also, having read through all the posts here, I'm fine leaving my post as-is. He asked a question, multiple people gave him the answer, he countered with "well people should Role-play not Roll-play", and that's never an acceptable attitude to have about this game.

Okay, true. He did eat some crow about his attitude though, so I guess I thought he should credit or something.

[Citan]

1) so after having super-invested into dual-wielding, you are also going to invest heavily into being unable to use dual-wielding. this is not sound reasoning. the moment you start grappling is the moment you stop being able to dual-wield; if you want to be a grappler, then you don't invest in TWF, you invest in a single versatile weapon with probably the dueling or defense style. you don't invest 3 feats that work against each other.

2) so you're investing your fighting style *and* a feat to get +1 AC and +2 average damage once per round? if i just went with polearm master and a glaive, and spend fighting style on defense, i have the same AC, and equal damage (or possibly better damage later on). plus i probably get a couple of reaction attacks per fight. plus i don't have to justify to anyone how i'm using a staff in one hand and a rapier in the other, which would look stupid, so there's another bonus; fewer arguments with the DM, and i feel less ridiculous while playing the character.

3)
- the THF fighter can throw stuff with one hand while holding their main weapon in the other hand. so that really isn't exclusive to TWF.
- nets are ranged weapons. not melee. TWF requires melee weapons.
- there aren't two staffs that give bonus to DC (actually, i don't think there's even one), but if there were, you wouldn't need to fight with both of them because spell DC is only useful when casting spells (as to one for casting, one for hitting things... you do realise you can switch weapons, right?). in any event, if your argument hinges on "maybe you'll somehow obtain a very specific pair of legendary magic items, and your party will let you have all of them, and you have the attunement slots available, therefore you should build for that possibility", then i don't really feel the need to spend much time countering it. it has already countered itself.
- the thing is, there are better ways of enabling those things. the paladin could use the standard polearm mastery option to free up a fighting style, get a reaction attack (oh look, *another* chance to smite, which you just said was awesome), and do more damage (no TWF fighting style, remember?). if the AC bonus is important, pick defense style. eldritch strike and sneak attack are both better supported by crossbow expert (the fighter will get a fighting style to put elsewhere (probably into hitting more often) and is making ranged attacks, the rogue gets range and gets to add attribute damage which is basically like a free fighting style... i mean, it's the worst of the fighting styles, but it still comes free with a feat that was already good). this particular TWF niche is occupied by other things which fill the same niche, only better, with the exception of the rogue that doesn't want to invest at all. again, the fighting style shouldn't be only good for one class that is specifically not investing in fighting.


against difficult-to-hit enemies, THF just stops using power attack. their damage is basically identical to the TWF build without it. very slightly higher in most cases if they crit, though. meanwhile, they enjoy much better damage against targets that aren't hard to hit, or targets that used to be hard to hit until they made the target not as hard to hit.

against creatures you don't want to get close to, guess which weapons have reach? if that isn't enough, guess who can also throw stuff while holding their main weapon in one hand. meanwhile, in addition to being as good in these situations, they're better in every other situation.

if your party has so many legendary weapons that you literally can't use them all at once, i don't consider that a problem. you can still switch between them. or, since apparently magic items are actually pretty common in the world you're playing in, you can just trade one in for something else that you actually need, instead of having more weapons than you know what to do with. this is like worrying that as you're walking along armed with your regular long sword, you might also find a regular warhammer, and *then* how are you supposed to decide what to use?
1. First, I don't WANT to BE a grappler. I want to have the ABILITY to Grapple when I see fit without hampering too much my attack power. A Two-hander just can't do it. At all. Because he needs both hands to attack. A S&B could do it at the price of sheating his weapon, making him powerless as long as he grapples (because donning shield on/off takes time). A guy that always keep a hand free is obviously as good, but then he doesn't get bonus action.
TWF gives you the choice to grapple when it's a good tactical choice.
Second, what 3 feats? TWF is available to any character. One that wants decent damage will just take the Fighting Style. A hardcore optimized would also grab the Dual Wielder feat. Nothing else.

2. "Using staff and rapier, which looks stupid", well, go say that to Gandalf would you? That's the lamest argument that ever was born from your fingers, and that's a strong thing to say. To each his taste. Beyond that, no it's not just for +1 AC and +2 damage: it's to get +1 AC, +2 damage, use a better finesse weapon (many of the best magic weapons are not daggers) for attacks or just defense while still getting all the benefits of a quarterstaff (focus, potential magic, potential Polearm Master -which, incidentally, does NOT require you to make the OA with it to benefit from the second benefit, so great for any DEX build including first and foremost Arcane Trickster).

3.
- Good catch about net, wonder how I missed that.

- Bad catch about THF: per PHB, "you could draw your weapon as part of the action you use to attack". ONE free interaction. The other one requires your action. So as said, THF can only ever make one ranged attack per turn at most. S&B can do better if he goes Hoplite style, using only javelins, otherwise same problem.

- My bad about staff bonuses, I mixed up staves (which power up spell attacks) and rods (which power up spell saves). Doesn't change things though: just wielding two staffs that cover different roles is a great way to expand your efficiency (like two different resistances) or options (like one offensive staff and one healing staff), and there are many good ones that are "only" rares. Same with weapons.

- And no, you cannot switch weapons. You can use one free interaction per turn, top. Next one costs an action. You wield Weapon A. You want to wield Weapon B. Turn 1: sheathe Weapon A. Now either waste your turn drawing Weapon B, or do something directly contributing like a spell or cantrip or making an unarmed strike (lol). Turn 2: unsheathe Weapon B, use it.
For a caster that has a focus quarterstaff and a normal weapon, technically he can (AFAIK) wield both, he just won't benefit from the additional attack, the quarterstaff is just considered a plain object wielded in off-hand ("just a focus"). But many casters don't care about extra attack (or any attack at all) anyways so that's not a problem, because they often won't even wield another weapon, except a finesse one dedicated to Defensive Duelist anyways.
For martials however (or casters which have decent to good weapon attacks), that can be a problem. Confer point above.

- As for your Paladin example: remember what you said about quarterstaff and sword being "stupid"? The same could be said about quarterstaff and shield, except worse (remember all those discussion around here about being able to get bonus action from PAM while having a shield extremely weird even for a fantasy world?)? Also it pretty much nails the Paladin to a one and only single weapon: quarterstaff (if shield) or glaive/halberd (if not).
You'd like finesse because you want a tanky Paladin? No can do.
You found a very tempting Sun Blade? Too bad you now have to choose between better reaction or better damage.
Your party found a Staff of the Woodlands? Well, you'll have a hard time arguing that it's better fit on you than on your caster pal (especially Warlock or Wizard).
You are fighting flyers? Good luck throwing your halberd XD. You are suddenly reduced to one attack per turn.

- As for to-hit: of course against difficult enemies a two-handed fighter would stop using the extra risk / extra damage benefit, unless he's really stupid. That does not change the fact you can still miss. Polearm Master covers that by providing an always-on bonus action, but it's another feat to take. S&B is wasted whatever happens because he doesn't have a way to gain another weapon attack (because of -sad and stupid IMO- Crawford ruling telling by RAI Dual Wielder cannot combine with improvised weapons, even with Tavern Brawler -that's the part I find stupid, because you made effort to become as good with any object as with named weapons but anyways-).
Two-weapon fighting is an "always possible, never forced" bonus action attack that doesn't require any investment strictly speaking, although taking either the Style or the Feat at least is obviously a significant increase, and both even better.
At level 20, you have a good chance to hit even highest AC when properly optimized. But from level 1-11, when proficiency bonus is low and your attack stat grows slowly from 16 to 20, it's another matter entirely. I regularly see two players of one of my game, with optimized stats for level 4 (18 attack, +2 Archery and Sharpshooter for one ranged guy) miss attacks against 13 or 14 AC. Like, really regularly (ranged guy misses ~1/3 attacks when it should be 1/4, melee tend to miss 1/2 attacks when it should be more towards 1/3). Only thing is, my ranged guy can just cry when he missed because it's basically a wasted turn, while my melee guy connects at least its second attack most of the time. It's not just a matter of "perceived thing", but really some kind of trend we all could see. Of course it will get better once both of them gets another attack, but that doesn't change the problem. Doesn't matter if when cumulating all the rolls you made statistics and probabilities find their way back. Having yet another attack when your usual ones failed is great. As well as having another one because the previous did connect, but you got poor damage rolls and thus failed to finish off your target. :)

[SharkForce]

if you're using two weapons (one in each hand) and not fighting with them, that isn't two-weapon fighting being good.

- a THF grappler just needs to carry a backup weapon. but seriously, if you're going to plan on grappling regularly, you don't pick TWF or THF. you get yourself a single longsword. if you're not planning on grappling regularly, you don't need to go out of your way to use a subpar combat style, just carry a spare weapon and drop the one you decided not to use if it was already out. the feats where the three you suggested yourself... specifically:
- Shield Master (+Tavern Brawler): you took this feat partly for the improved defense, partly for a chance at Shoving as a bonus action, but found yourself having some turns devoid of bonus action? Now you get +3 AC (shield + Dual Wielder), can Shove whenever you want, or Grapple and still bash heads with good reliability.


so don't come complaining to me about three feats, you're the one who proposed it.

- gandalf looks ridiculous and awkward when he actually tries to use both weapons. which is pretty bad, considering this is even in a movie where they get to control everything to try their hardest to make it look cool. in any event, staff + rapier is terrible for an arcane trickster. it probably has something to do with staff not being finesse, which means that bonus action is being spent for a whopping 1d6 damage. no attribute bonus, no sneak attack. if the rogue does plan on using a feat, crossbow expert keeps one hand empty (except when you're reloading) anyways, and gets to sneak attack with either attack, from range, and has a hand free to use a spell component pouch.

- i didn't suggest the paladin go quarterstaff and shield. i said use a glaive. and since you're apparently talking about a finesse paladin, they don't need +1 AC from dual wielding, they just have it from their armour being better in the first place.

- you were getting one free ranged attack with a dagger. THF can match that. if you wish to suggest that TWF is better at throwing multiple daggers per round, i suppose i'm not going to argue with you, but if your DM isn't ignoring the silly rule that screws thrown weapons for no good reason, neither should use daggers for extended situations, they should use a bow (and yes, that is true even for the strength fighter. bounded accuracy means that bow is perfectly fine, even without a +5 dex bonus).

- if your party finds a sun blade, and nobody can use it... exchange it for something else. or use it if and when it becomes necessary (like that secondary weapon i recommended for THF characters, which the sunblade fits just fine).

- if you find a staff of the woodlands and you can't figure out if it's better for the paladin or the warlock or the wizard, let me help you: "Requires attunement by a druid". problem solved, it sucks for all of them. trade it for something else.

- fighting flyers? well, i'm sure dual-wielding a sun blade and an unattuned staff of the woodlands will help you there. here's what you really want: a bow, or something that lets you fly. either will do. obviously, the bow is easier to find. but lobbing daggers round after round isn't a solution either.

- except the statistics do matter, and it *is* a matter of perception. the THF will still be dealing more damage overall. yes, missing sucks. you can fixate on that and choose a style that works worse overall but lets you make more attacks to try and hit after you miss, or you can take the style that (might) have fewer attacks, and then just hit hard enough that it makes up for not having that extra attack. "i'm making a suboptimal choice because i like it" does not mean the suboptimal choice is not suboptimal, nor is there any compelling reason that it should be.


i have no problem with people wanting to use two weapons because it feels better, or because they think it's cool. they can choose it. but i don't think their desire to use two weapons is a compelling reason to saddle them with a mechanical penalty. there is no particular reason they shouldn't be allowed to use a pair of short swords (or whatever they prefer) *and* be just as effective as the guy who picked the higher damage fighting style of THF, who has made the same decision to not use a shield in favour of superior offense. except the THF guy actually got superior offense, while the TWF guy is struggling (and failing) to keep up with sword and board by level 5, whether feats are in play or not (again, with that one single exception of rogues that don't want to invest in feats).

[djreynolds]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

[MeeposFire]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

Not my cup of tea. That just takes my least favorite part of TWF and making it worse. I can live with less damage but do not saddle me with a messed action economy. That just removes too many fun things and prevent it from working with other features some of which should work with TWF. NOw defensive duelist is a no go as is uncanny dodge and that cost is merely an attempt to make the style try to get up to the damage values of the other styles? This is the same as the major issue with the style. If you make something that requires additional action economy it cannot just be equal to the other styles that do not require that action economy it actually needs to be better since you are asking for an additional cost over the other styles.

Personally I do not think that TWF needs to be better than the other styles so I just give it the same action economy essentially as all other styles and go from there.

[djreynolds]

Not my cup of tea. That just takes my least favorite part of TWF and making it worse. I can live with less damage but do not saddle me with a messed action economy. That just removes too many fun things and prevent it from working with other features some of which should work with TWF. NOw defensive duelist is a no go as is uncanny dodge and that cost is merely an attempt to make the style try to get up to the damage values of the other styles? This is the same as the major issue with the style. If you make something that requires additional action economy it cannot just be equal to the other styles that do not require that action economy it actually needs to be better since you are asking for an additional cost over the other styles.

Personally I do not think that TWF needs to be better than the other styles so I just give it the same action economy essentially as all other styles and go from there.

We tried it without a cost, only the two hits and players complained.

It gave players a choice to perhaps go for the kill at the expense of uncanny dodge or defensive duelist

I wonder what the designers say when asked this question of whether or not they like TWF or its just the way it is.

[Petrocorus]

That feat's terribleness is one of the main reasons TWF is bad.

GWM and PAM are both worth about twice the value of an ASI. Dual Wielder giving +1 AC and +1 damage is is identical to the +2 Dex from an ASI, but without the +1 to hit, +1 to initiative, +1 Dex save, +1 Acrobatics, +1 Sleight of Hand, +1 Stealth, etc, etc, etc. Dual Wielder is an awful feat.


Dual Wielder is not horrible, ......
That said, I think one little thing that really takes viability away from TWF is that the fighting style is only available to Fighters and Rangers. TWF thrives when..... without any effort.

I concur with this. For emphasis and summation, my problem with TWF is that, contrary to other styles FS and feats that give bonuses and options, the TWF FS and the feat only alleviates the inherent penalties of the styles. Penalties that should not exist in the first place.

I mean, the limitations on weapon size, drawing and damage may be realistic, but given the realism of the rule set as a whole and notably of other weapon feats, they are more out of place and messing up than anything.

The FS is are actually required to make it work properly, the other FS give actual bonuses. The feat's only real benefit is the bonus to AC, its other features are just to alleviates limitations. OTOH, the other feats give an extra-attack or a potential one (which is supposed to be the schtick of TWF) with lower cost and other real benefits. And the need for the FS make it even more sub-par for the Barbarian and the Paladin, who should be able to use it, and that bugs me.

As many, on both side of the argument, have pointed out, the Class that get the most out of TWF is the Rogue, a class which don't have the FS and is not really designed to use TWF. This only shows that it was badly designed.

And that's even before factoring the action economy issue.

[Dudu]

Plenty of people dislike the thematics, at least in the context of it being an effective battlefield style.
Adressing not exactly you, but whoever don't like TWF for it not being "an effective battlefield style", I'd like to add that this would not justify the fact that the game does give the option to dual wield, and yet that option sucks.

Now, on dual wielding itself:

I believe it's expensive and yet it does worse than other options. The two-hander is doing more damage, possibly way more, the sword-and-board is being a much more competent tanker. The polearm fighter is being a beast. And let's not even talk about archery.

Their core mechanics already work, the FS enhance them and the feats open up the potential greatly. Meanwhile, it seems DW FS is merely fixing the style and the feat doesn't bring anything that a mere stat bump would. So the Two Hander and the Archers are hitting nukes, the Polearm guy is hitting even more often than the dual wielder and the Sword and Board is doing his job tanking for the party while doing a respectable ammount of damage nonetheless.

And like it was said in this thread before, if magic items are part of the campaign, this will be twice more costly for the dual wielder than the rest. The Two Handed can use his +2 Great Maul for every attack, but the dual wielder would need +2 weapons for both hands.

I hope they adress this issue in a PHB2, because it does exist. It's an option clearly inferior to the others. And some people do like fancying thenselves as dual wielders.

[Citan]

if you're using two weapons (one in each hand) and not fighting with them, that isn't two-weapon fighting being good.

I've talking of javelins, you keep back talking about daggers.
Also you try to undermine my arguments by mixing all together when I evidently made several distinct hypothesis catering to different situations.
Plz first actually read what I say, then we can continue discussing.
Meanwhile I won't add anymore. ;)

[Sigreid]

I'm not sure, but it seems in IRL to wield 2 weapons would be tough to match that guy with one blade, or sword and board.

I see TWF as an improvised style, like I'm escaping from the dungeon and there are two daggers.

Perhaps its not meant to be optimal, but its not terrible

At our table we use two-weapon rend, if you hit with both weapons you can rend at the cost of your reaction for double proficiency damage

And even this has its negatives, as you have no reaction, no defensive duelist, no AoO, no shield spell

It was mainly introduced for our fighters with 3 attacks, its not bad and it works

When I did the SCA thing there was a man I knew who fought 2 maces. He was a blacksmith by trade and he won a lot of fights drummer style. He kept at you fast and hard and you basically just had no opportunity to counter attack while he beat you down like he was beating on a drum. He was pretty effective. He did have absolutely no defense other than unrelenting attack though.

[Nightcanon]

Not a 5e player, so can't comment on the mechanical aspects that others have gone into in detail.
Couple of questions though: is going for a (Str-based) TWF style really a Roleplaying decision, rather than a thematic one? Clearly it is sub-optimal, so it isn't really a minmax/'Rollplaying' issue, but unless the character has some reason for fighting with a weapon in both hands, isn't it about what you the player think is a cool character concept (which is totally fine, btw)? How a character fights can show his personality- reckless, cautious, cunning, and so on- but I'm not sure what TWF rather that S&B or 2HF says about him.
Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

[EvilAnagram]

Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

I just don't think anybody cares about Drizzt. The books aren't particularly good, so they've exhausted their staying power, and there have been two editions since the last time he was relevant. Even when they included him in a cross-media story arc, everyone pretty much ignored his role.

[Easy_Lee]

I just don't think anybody cares about Drizzt. The books aren't particularly good, so they've exhausted their staying power, and there have been two editions since the last time he was relevant. Even when they included him in a cross-media story arc, everyone pretty much ignored his role.

The Drizzt books aren't for everyone, but they're remarkably consistent. Salvatore's writing style and Drizzt's traits change very gradually. It's hard to find a series like that.

But like I said, it's not for everyone. If you like one Drizzt book, you'll like them all. Otherwise, you won't.

But Drizzt wouldn't be particularly good at combat in 5e. He wouldn't be terrible, just not good. One could probably build him as a TWF / Archery Champion Fighter with Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder, and resilient Wisdom saving throws. He'd have slightly above average defenses and below average damage, with no special tricks and no area where he excelled. His only saving grace would be the panther.

And that's the point of this thread. TWF excels in no particular area, and falls behind in damage. It's disappointing.

[djreynolds]

When I did the SCA thing there was a man I knew who fought 2 maces. He was a blacksmith by trade and he won a lot of fights drummer style. He kept at you fast and hard and you basically just had no opportunity to counter attack while he beat you down like he was beating on a drum. He was pretty effective. He did have absolutely no defense other than unrelenting attack though.

It has to be tough. I guess TWF is like boxing or any martial art... you have a favored "hand"

For instance say a boxer has a right handed cross/hook and left jab, or southpaw... right jab and left hook. Sure the may switch it up, but there are combo they train for. Left jab, right cross, maybe a left hook or upper cut, maybe a big right hook... whatever

I think you are correct, either they are coming at you with a particular combination of strikes or they are coming at your drummer style.

I can't remember that far back but didn't TWF have a dex and int pre-req in earlier additions

I could see a homebrew where so much intelligence/wisdom gave a two-weapon combatant an extra bonus action or reaction. Drizzt was smart

[imanidiot]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?

Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.

Mechanically my team is going to get more out of a shove prone from Shield Master than the piddly damage from an off hand attack.

[Rogerdodger557]

Not a 5e player, so can't comment on the mechanical aspects that others have gone into in detail.
Couple of questions though: is going for a (Str-based) TWF style really a Roleplaying decision, rather than a thematic one? Clearly it is sub-optimal, so it isn't really a minmax/'Rollplaying' issue, but unless the character has some reason for fighting with a weapon in both hands, isn't it about what you the player think is a cool character concept (which is totally fine, btw)? How a character fights can show his personality- reckless, cautious, cunning, and so on- but I'm not sure what TWF rather that S&B or 2HF says about him.
Secondly, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

In 5e as part of character creation, you have to pick a background. This will give you some starting equipment, bonus proficiencies, and a non-combat related feature that usually helps with roleplaying. There are tables that you can roll traits on, or just pick(personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws) I had picked the Outlander background, and the personality trait that I picked was that my character was raised by wolves. Because of this, his fighting style is to attack with everything he has. That's the character's motivation for it anyways. Tabletopping, it was because I thought is was a cool character concept that would be fun to play.

[GlenSmash!]

, 6 pages and no mention of That Drow Ranger? Is TWF no longer associated with renegade CG Drow in 5e?

It's more like the renegade CG Drow is no longer associated with D&D in 5e. At least not significantly so.

[Tanarii]

It's more like the renegade CG Drow is no longer associated with D&D in 5e. At least not significantly so.
Of course it isn't. That's why the Drow aren't in the PHB. Nope. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked to hear support for such a thing was included in 5e.

[GlenSmash!]

gandalf looks ridiculous and awkward when he actually tries to use both weapons. which is pretty bad,

The Gandalf of the books was wise enough to only use his staff as an spellcasting focus. His movie counterpart not so much.

[Boci]

Of course it isn't. That's why the Drow aren't in the PHB. Nope. I'd be shocked, absolutely shocked to hear support for such a thing was included in 5e.

To be fair, drow being a playable race might not have much to do with Drizz't. They are a cool race, and one of the more interesting cultures the game has spawned. In 3.5, Drow effectively got their own book, which no other race can claim (unless you count the Fiendish Codexs, but that seems to be cheating, comparing the whole demon race to one subset of the elven race).

[Cybren]

Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt, because Drow popularity as a PC race is 150% because of Drezztzlztettz

[Boci]

Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt, because Drow popularity as a PC race is 150% because of Drezztzlztettz

That seems highly unlikely. As I said, there was a whole book on drow culture, and I don't think it mentioned Drizz't once.

[Cybren]

That seems highly unlikely. As I said, there was a whole book on drow culture, and I don't think it mentioned Drizz't once.

The character predates 3.5 by over a decade. Why do you think that book exists in the first place?

[Tanarii]

Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt, because Drow popularity as a PC race is 150% because of Drezztzlztettz
I certainly assume that the first is the case. That said, they were an already popular race, as seen by the inclusion of Drow in the original UA. it's just an assumption on my part that Drizzt popularity is the reason, not general popularity. (And of course, at this point the two may be hard to seperate.) Without Mearls or JC confirmation, it'll remain speculation.

[Boci]

The character predates 3.5 by over a decade. Why do you think that book exists in the first place?

Because people were interested in drow culture? If the book existed because of Driz't, you'd expect a bit more Driz't in it, other than 100 pages + of drow culture, that isn't terrible relevant to a Driz't fan, since, its really just a foot note in his backstory.

[Cybren]

Because people were interested in drow culture? If the book existed because of Driz't, you'd expect a bit more Driz't in it, other than 100 pages + of drow culture, that isn't terrible relevant to a Driz't fan, since, its really just a foot note in his backstory.

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

[Boci]

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

Why would people be interested in drow culture because of Drizz't? He has barely anything to do with it, that's the whole point of his character.

People like drow culture because an underground, back stabbing, matriachal race that worships an insane spider demon goddess and keeps spiders as pets ism kinda cool. Plus they're an evil race, and they always have a following. I'm sure Drizz't helped gain the drow fans, but the idea that he is the only reason they're popular is ludicrous.

[Cybren]

Why would people be interested in drow culture because of Drizz't? He has barely anything to do with it, that's the whole point of his character.


Violently rejecting something still means you have everything to do with it. Defining yourself in relation against something still requires you to understand the something.


People like drow culture because an underground, back stabbing, matriachal race that worships an insane spider demon goddess and keeps spiders as pets ism kinda cool. Plus they're an evil race, and they always have a following. I'm sure Drizz't helped gain the drow fans, but the idea that he is the only reason they're popular is ludicrous.


It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

[Boci]

It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

That's simply not true. I loved the drow before I ever heard of Driz't. My friend adores them, as an NPC and PC race, and he's never heard of Driz't.

Maybe we are unique, and every one else is only interested because of Driz't. But I doubt it.

[MadBear]

this is accounted for. factoring in hit chance, TWF is the worst at dealing damage, and doesn't really offer anything else interesting to compensate.


Yeah, in theory. Always in theory. The fact holds that, probabilities, statistics and reality are all different things.
TWF gives you CHOICE: attack the same creature, attack different, still apply something when your Extra Attack failed, etc...


I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously Citan, when you make a statement like this. Just to try and show why that statement is ridiculous let me give an example. In Legend of the 5 Rings, your dice explode (you get to roll them again when you roll a 10 on a d10, and this can happen multiple times). The probability that I throw a punch that does 100 damage is extraordinarily low (.000000001%). It'd be asinine to say "that's just true in Theory. Always in theory. Fighting with your hands gives you CHOICE".

First off, using statistics is the only sure way we can reliably come to understandings of what works and doesn't work in a game. TWF gives players choice at a much costlier reduction in ability then other styles. It'd be unacceptable balancing for instance if the GWF ability stated: You get to reroll 1's and 2's for heavy weapons, but you suffer a --8 to your AC when using a heavy weapon. Similarly, having a DPS style do less damage then a S&B fighter is dumb, and it shouldn't have made it into the players handbook in its current form.

[Knaight]

I'm sorry, but it's hard to take you seriously Citan, when you make a statement like this. Just to try and show why that statement is ridiculous let me give an example. In Legend of the 5 Rings, your dice explode (you get to roll them again when you roll a 10 on a d10, and this can happen multiple times). The probability that I throw a punch that does 100 damage is extraordinarily low (.000000001%). It'd be asinine to say "that's just true in Theory. Always in theory. Fighting with your hands gives you CHOICE".

That's not comparable. The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.

The L5R comparison is more like one character getting one 20 damage attack, and one character getting one 16 damage attack. There's no additional options there, just a worse version of the same option.

[Kryx]

damage overflow
If damage overflow was a consideration we would see a difference in damage in other fighting styles or classes. Compare TWF to PAM to see that they both have the same amount of attacks (meaning same chance of damage overflow) and yet PAM does significantly more damage. Fighter does many attacks while a Barbarian does a few big ones and yet their damage values are quite comparable.

People can try to justify the reason however they please, but not a single justification presented is based on math. This justification (damage overflow) is no different in that no other fighting style or class provides a variation in expected damage based on damage overflow.

[Tanarii]

That's not comparable. The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.Another case where DPR doesn't show everything going on, and closely related to your damage overflow scenario, is the change in the 'bell curve' of damage.

If you compare 4d6+6 Greatsword (2 attacks) to 3d6+9 dual-shortswords (3 attacks), with a 60% chance to hit, they have distinctly different distribution of damage. For example & for starters, the chance that the greatsword will do 0 damage is 16%. The chance that the dual-shortswords will do 0 damage is 6.4%.

[EvilAnagram]

It's not ludicrous, it's reality. People like Drow, as a PC race, because of Drizztiitzt, which is literally the thing I've been saying this whole time

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books. Every single time WotC works him into a story I cringe because he's just not relevant to anything other than discussions of why he isn't relevant to D&D culture anymore. He's Flash Gordon. Commando Cody. Eragon. He's a character who had a moment of relevance, but lacked staying power. People who want to play a Drow now don't think about him because no one likes or cares about him.

Sure, Drow became popular because of his books, but now he is the least remembered part of those books, while there are plenty of people interested in Drow society.

[Kryx]

If you compare 4d6+6 Greatsword (2 attacks) to 3d6+9 dual-shortswords (3 attacks)
Now do that with a polearm using PAM.

[Sigreid]

you seem to be missing my point. People are interested in drow culture because of him. people want to play drow because of him. He is the reason there is any interest in drow as a PC race. That book would not have saw print if Drazlt wasn't already a popular character, regardless of his lack of prominance in the book itself (after all, it's a book about drow culture, not a book about Druzzle)

I can personally certify that lots of us thought drow were cool before there was a drizzt and we never got in to that dark elf.

[Cybren]

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books. Every single time WotC works him into a story I cringe because he's just not relevant to anything other than discussions of why he isn't relevant to D&D culture anymore. He's Flash Gordon. Commando Cody. Eragon. He's a character who had a moment of relevance, but lacked staying power. People who want to play a Drow now don't think about him because no one likes or cares about him.

Sure, Drow became popular because of his books, but now he is the least remembered part of those books, while there are plenty of people interested in Drow society.

The last sentence of this post is the only thing I've been arguing.

[Boci]

The last sentence of this post is the only thing I've been arguing.

But you said "Drow in the PHB is 110% because of Drizzt" which is talking about 5th ed.

Which is a weird claim to make, because Driz't wasn't enough to get drow into the 3.5 or 4thed players handbook. Why is he only enough now, when his popularity has largely faded?

As I said, the popularity of drow culture seems far more likely at this stage.

[Knaight]

I get that 2e grognards still think that Drizzle is a huge part of D&D culture, but I honestly don't know anyone who started playing post-3.0 who likes the character or has read the books.
I doubt this - more accurately, I doubt whether you actually know whether people who started post 3.0 have read the books. It's not like people bring up every forgettable fantasy novel they've read to everybody they meet after all, and these were distinctly mediocre drivel. Heck, I started with 3.0/3.5*, I read some Drizzt novels not knowing they were particularly D&D related entirely on the basis of my junior high library having a fantasy section that was literally one small shelf that they were on, and even at the time I knew I was reading trashy literature. It was enjoyable trashy literature at the time (my standards at 13 weren't that high), but it never led me to play or even consider playing a drow character.

*3.0 PHB, 3.5 MM and DMG.


If damage overflow was a consideration we would see a difference in damage in other fighting styles or classes. Compare TWF to PAM to see that they both have the same amount of attacks (meaning same chance of damage overflow) and yet PAM does significantly more damage. Fighter does many attacks while a Barbarian does a few big ones and yet their damage values are quite comparable.
This doesn't indicate that damage overflow isn't a consideration that should be taken into account for balance purposes, or that damage overflow isn't a case worth remembering in terms of imperfections in the DPR model. It's an indication that the designers either didn't successfully balance around it - whether because they didn't consider it, or they tried and failed, or they decided not to.

[Tanarii]

Why is he only enough now, when his popularity has largely faded?Not sure what makes you think Drizz't popularity has faded. I saw Drizz't clones regularly throughout the lifetime of 3e, 4e, and so far 5e. Only Logolas / Gimli clones are more persistently embedded IMO.

[Boci]

Not sure what makes you think Drizz't popularity has faded. I saw Drizz't clones regularly throughout the lifetime of 3e, 4e, and so far 5e. Only Logolas / Gimli clones are more persistently embedded IMO.

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?

[GlenSmash!]

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?

Indeed. We have a generation now that never heard of Drizzle but grew up watching LotR movies.

[Tanarii]

Because quite a few players being new have no idea who he is, which didn't use to be true?
Being popular didn't ever mean everyone knew who he was. And that's a ridiculously hard thing to measure anyway. Regardless of if who doesn't know about him has increased, how often he's cloned has not, in my experienced, decreased to any significant degree. OTOH I don't usually play with teens. So I may be seeing the effects of a slightly more mature crowd (25+) and something has changed in the last 5-10 years.

[Kryx]

It's an indication that the designers either didn't successfully balance around it - whether because they didn't consider it, or they tried and failed, or they decided not to.
Sure, if you want to balance around it then that's your choice. This discussion is about RAW rules and how the methods of fighting stack up and in RAW rules "damage overflow" isn't accounted for in damage output as can be seen by PAM and other factors.

[Matrix_Walker]

I have heard reference of the name dritzz but never read any of the books he's featured in.

People have always wanted to play drow for their many cool racial spells resistances and uniqueness, some obscure character has nothing to do with it.

[Boci]

Being popular didn't ever mean everyone knew who he was. And that's a ridiculously hard thing to measure anyway. Regardless of if who doesn't know about him has increased, how often he's cloned has not, in my experienced, decreased to any significant degree. OTOH I don't usually play with teens. So I may be seeing the effects of a slightly more mature crowd (25+) and something has changed in the last 5-10 years.

People coming into the game now aren't necessarily going to know about Driz't. How would they? The rule books seem almost embarrassed to name him. D&D has grown. Sure you could say the same number of people know about him now as they use to, that he's still cloned an equal amount, but I would argue that is the same as his popularity is fading when the game has expanded to 10 million players globally.

[FreddyNoNose]

I certainly assume that the first is the case. That said, they were an already popular race, as seen by the inclusion of Drow in the original UA. it's just an assumption on my part that Drizzt popularity is the reason, not general popularity. (And of course, at this point the two may be hard to seperate.) Without Mearls or JC confirmation, it'll remain speculation.

I would like to add that at the end of the module G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King in 1978 there is a section on Drow. From that, players were talking DMs into playing Drow back in 1978. This is my experience and many DMs I knew wouldn't allow it but some did. It spread from there to other published material.

So some say Drizzt caused the popularity. Perhaps that is true for their experience but it certainly isn't the origins of Drow PCs. It kind of reveals when people came into the hobby to me.

[Naanomi]

I've played a long time and I only knew Drizzt from his Baldur's Gate cameos...

[Cybren]

I would like to add that at the end of the module G3 Hall of the Fire Giant King in 1978 there is a section on Drow. From that, players were talking DMs into playing Drow back in 1978. This is my experience and many DMs I knew wouldn't allow it but some did. It spread from there to other published material.

So some say Drizzt caused the popularity. Perhaps that is true for their experience but it certainly isn't the origins of Drow PCs. It kind of reveals when people came into the hobby to me.

i'm not arguing people didn't want to play drow before draziprhas, i'm just saying that the mass popularity of drow as a common PC race is owed to him. Which it is.

[Knaight]

Sure, if you want to balance around it then that's your choice. This discussion is about RAW rules and how the methods of fighting stack up and in RAW rules "damage overflow" isn't accounted for in damage output as can be seen by PAM and other factors.
Bolding mine.

This discussion is about how the methods of fighting stack up, yes. The extent to which damage is wasted in the context of strong single attacks instead of multiple weaker attacks is part of that balance. It's not something the designers have to specifically put there, it emerges intrinsically the instant there's a HP and damage system and characters with multiple attacks show up.

[Boci]

i'm not arguing people didn't want to play drow before draziprhas, i'm just saying that the mass popularity of drow as a common PC race is owed to him. Which it is.

Actually you were also saying drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason) and that people got interested in drow culture because of him, yet they seemed interested in drow culture before he existed.

[Kryx]

This discussion is about how the methods of fighting stack up, yes. The extent to which damage is wasted in the context of strong single attacks instead of multiple weaker attacks is part of that balance.
Please provide the math comparing TWF vs PAM showing that the loss of damage for TWF is due to "damage overflow". Math has been provided many times showing that TWF does not do sufficient damage. If you're going to make claims you're going to need to provide math to back up those claims or those claims have no merit.

Here, I'll make it simple. At level 5:
TWF barbarian just using reckless attack does 7.1 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 2.5 damage for his bonus attack.
PAM barbarian just using reckless attack does 8.0 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 4.8 damage for his bonus attack and 6.0 damage if an enemy provokes an attack.
Both characters have 3 attacks, all 3 of which the PAM build is doing more damage with.

TWF fighter using no extra abilities but attacking does 5.4 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 5.4 damage for his bonus attack.
PAM fighter using no extra abilities but attacking does 6.3 damage per attack for his first attack and extra attack. He does 4.0 damage for his bonus attack and 6.3 damage if an enemy provokes an attack.
Both characters have 3 attacks, the PAM build ahead by about 1 on the normal attacks and behind by about 1.5 on the bonus attack with the option of the provoke brining things quite out of line.

The same idea rings true when taking class features and the adventuring day into account. In those metrics TWF does about 70% of GWM. Full Math (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1d-9xDdath8kX_v7Rpts9JFIJwIG3X0-dDUtfax14NT0/edit#gid=1741155585)

"Damage overflow" is just as invalid as the other excuses in this thread that have been claimed without any math provided. "Damage overflow" has no impact what so ever on the power level of TWF. TWF is not up to par with the other martial options.

[Tanarii]

(but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)Not sure why you think Drow weren't in previous editions ...

Anyway, I think the main problem here is we're all just seeing each others claims as untenable and unlikely, and our own as reasonable. Nothing new there. ;)

[Boci]

Not sure why you think Drow weren't in previous editions ...

If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

"drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)"

They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.

[Tanarii]

If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

"drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)"

They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.
And it seems weird to me to credit Drow being in 5e to anything else at all. My experience is the VAST majority of drow fans that are my age or younger are that way because of Drizzt. Whereas only very aging grognards, older than me are that way because of anything other than Drizzt. And I'm middle aged and started on BECMI/AD&D 1e at 10 years old.

[Boci]

And it seems weird to me to credit Drow being in 5e to anything else at all. My experience is the VAST majority of drow fans that are my age or younger are that way because of Drizzt. Whereas only very aging grognards, older than me are that way because of anything other than Drizzt. And I'm middle aged and started on BECMI/AD&D 1e at 10 years old.

But that contradicts what we see from WotC.

If Driz't got drow into the players handbook in 5th ed, why weren't they in the player's hand book in 3rd and 4th edition?

If Driz't is the reason people like drow, why was there a 150 page splat book about drow that didn't mention Driz't? Why are there so many discussions on the forum that mention drow but not Driz't?

This isn't two different opinions neither one better than the other, the popularity you imagine Driz't having doesn't hold up to how he's been used in D&D. You even admitted the same number of people clone him, but the game has grown, implying a decrease in his relevance to the game.

[MadBear]

That's not comparable. The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.

The L5R comparison is more like one character getting one 20 damage attack, and one character getting one 16 damage attack. There's no additional options there, just a worse version of the same option.

And I'm pointing out that just saying "It's theory" is an absolutely abysmal way to make any kind of compelling point. The L5R comparison was simply to point out that you can make any absurd case if you say another position is "just theory".

As others have already pointed out, if you are Citan want to provide any evidence that damage overflow is a common enough that you need to significantly lessen the DPR of TWF to make up for it be my guest. It's also a completely ad hoc excuse for poor design, and it clashes with other obvious examples of fighting styles. A pole arm fighter will do less damage then a GWM because they get to: Make more reliable reaction attacks, and get bonus action attacks. But the drop in DPR between them and GWM is smaller then the gap between TWF's and GWM's. In other words, there's no good reason for TWF to be as bad as it is.

That isn't to say you can't have fun using it. you can. That isn't to say you'll die horribly if you use it. you won't..... well DM dependent I guess. But for such an iconic view of a class, it should be much better then it currently is.

[Tanarii]

This isn't two different opinions neither one better than the otherI agree. Clearly mine is always better.

Seriously though, I can't believe you're actually trying to claim your opinion on the matter has some kind of factual justification to back it up. /smh

[Cybren]

If you read the part of my sentance that comes before:

"drow are a PHB race in 5th ed because of him (but he didn't get them in there in previous editions for some reason)"

They were in the edition yes, but not in the PHB. It just seems wierd to me to credit Driz't for that in 5th ed, when he was around for 3rd and 4th, yet was unable to achieve that.

3.5 didn't need them in the PHB, because it had a comprehensive way of building Monsters-As-PCs. The rules for playing Drow is in the SRD. 4E had stats for Drow-As-PCs in three different books

[Boci]

I agree. Clearly mine is always better.

Seriously though, I can't believe you're actually trying to claim your opinion on the matter has some kind of factual justification to back it up. /smh

Well, I did reference marketing trends and raised actual questions to demonstrate why I felt crediting Driz't was flawed, which tend to be considered more factual than "in my experience", which is all you offered, but hey, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter either way.


3.5 didn't need them in the PHB, because it had a comprehensive way of building Monsters-As-PCs.

So it didn't need to list high-elves or halfling in the PHB, but it did.


The rules for playing Drow is in the SRD. 4E had stats for Drow-As-PCs in three different books

And you're implying that somehow makes up for them not being in the players handbook?

[EvilAnagram]

I doubt this - more accurately, I doubt whether you actually know whether people who started post 3.0 have read the books. It's not like people bring up every forgettable fantasy novel they've read to everybody they meet after all, and these were distinctly mediocre drivel.
Actually, there's a guy at my FLGS who constantly brings up Drizzt, to the confusion of most. At one point, he referenced Drizzt and when he got no response he asked if anyone had read the books. He got twelve blank stares.

Certainly, there are post-3.0 players who've read the books, but their popularity plummeted around that time, and it has little effect on the current player base.

[Cybren]

And you're implying that somehow makes up for them not being in the players handbook?

...yes? that's implied in the sense that that's what I said

[Boci]

...yes? that's implied in the sense that that's what I said

But, it doesn't. It means drow are a significant race within D&D yes, but then Drows of the Underdark proved that half an edition ago (again, having proved it previous in an even further back edition). We already knew that.

That doesn't change the fact that they weren't in the players handbook. They could have been, effectively high elves and wood elves both were (as eldarin and elves respectively), but drow weren't. Upon release, they were in the monster manual with the other monsters.

Now in 5th edition they are in the player's handbook, and traditionally playable monsters like goblins and goliath got left out of core.

So something changed between 4th ed and 5th ed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Driz't, since as you said, he had already been around for a long time.

[bronzemountain]

I play a level 13 dual wielding eldritch knight, and I am curious as to why there is so much hate. What else was I supposed to do until I hit level 7? Apologize for wanting an extra attack early?

Also, just in general, I don't know why the hate.

Generally, TWF is fine, in the way that even 'deprecated' options in 5E are actually still quite competitive. 5E balance is sufficiently tight that, yes, some options are better than others, but the span between them isn't particularly vast.

That said, I think the problem with two-weapon fighting is the design space it's been assigned. For some reason, people (including the designers) seem to think that wielding two weapons is an offensive stratagem. And therefore, TWF is compared against great weapons, etc., and looks sad and lame.

But wielding two weapons should really be about flexibility. And the design of both the fighting style and the feat should mirror that. Benefits should revolve around not offering enemies advantage, flexibility in choosing a bit of extra defense or a bit of extra offense each round, things like that.

Then, like S&B, there would be an interesting and dramatic set of use-cases for dual-wielding beyond just 'more opportunities to stab'.

[Cybren]

But, it doesn't. It means drow are a significant race within D&D yes, but then Drows of the Underdark proved that half an edition ago (again, having proved it previous in an even further back edition). We already knew that.

That doesn't change the fact that they weren't in the players handbook. They could have been, effectively high elves and wood elves both were (as eldarin and elves respectively), but drow weren't. Upon release, they were in the monster manual with the other monsters.

Now in 5th edition they are in the player's handbook, and traditionally playable monsters like goblins and goliath got left out of core.

So something changed between 4th ed and 5th ed, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't Driz't, since as you said, he had already been around for a long time.

it's Driztltzt. Notice the difference in release schedule between 3.X/4E and 5E. 5E wanted to be as comprehensive as possible outside the gate. They knew people liked playing Drow (and a lot of people liked playing drow because of a certain book series from the early 90s).

[Boci]

it's Driztltzt. Notice the difference in release schedule between 3.X/4E and 5E. 5E wanted to be as comprehensive as possible outside the gate. They knew people liked playing Drow (and a lot of people liked playing drow because of a certain book series from the early 90s).

It's (probably) not Drizt. They added tieflings to the player's handbook for 4th ed, and drow were in the monster manual. Those two races could just as easily have been reversed. Did they forget Driz't existed for 4th ed?

Furthermore, okay, let's say Driz't is ultimately responsible for making drow popular, that may very well be possible. But 3.5's drow of the underdark proved that they were marketable of a race without him, even if he was responsible for that popularity initially, it was now self sustaining.

Crediting Drizt for drow in 5th ed is crediting Gygax for 5th ed. We wouldn't have it without him, but it sounds a bit weird now.

[Matrix_Walker]

Sounds like someone should start a new thread... talk about some obscure character has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[Knaight]

Please provide the math comparing TWF vs PAM showing that the loss of damage for TWF is due to "damage overflow". Math has been provided many times showing that TWF does not do sufficient damage. If you're going to make claims you're going to need to provide math to back up those claims or those claims have no merit.
Seeing as I never claimed that in the first place, no, I'm not providing math for it. Here's my actual claim:
1) The DPR model used for analysis is imperfect, and one of the imperfections is the way it doesn't take damage overflow into account.

That's not even slightly the same claim as:
2) The 5e designers deliberately reduced TWF to make it comparable to other options because of the way other options were weaker than they appear given the simple DPR model.

That second claim is a reasonable paraphrase of what you are saying I'm saying,


"Damage overflow" is just as invalid as the other excuses in this thread that have been claimed without any math provided. "Damage overflow" has no impact what so ever on the power level of TWF. TWF is not up to par with the other martial options.
Again, I never claimed that TWF was up to par with other martial options. I claimed that the DPR model was simplified, put forth an edge case where it demonstrably breaks down, and then used that to indicate the difference between the argument that TWF gave options and the argument that just hitting for less damage gave options.

[FreddyNoNose]

i'm not arguing people didn't want to play drow before draziprhas, i'm just saying that the mass popularity of drow as a common PC race is owed to him. Which it is.

Which I am saying is to your experience. Playing since 1974, my experience is different. People were playing Drow before that.

[staylost]

Clearly, TWF is inferior by the numbers in nearly every case.

The real probably in my mind is this: in my imagination and TWF is usually gracefully cutting their way through the battlefield with parries and slashes as they step through multiple combatants. Mechanically, 5e TWF is especially bad for this type of character since by blocking your bonus action it makes your character LESS mobile. The whole thing with TWF is that it doesn't even outperform other builds when it comes to what I imagine a quick, lithe dual weilder to be like. It doesn't do more attacks than other builds, it doesn't make my character an untouchable blur, and it doesn't let me leap quickly around the room.

The rogue is the only serious dual wielder in this edition, and even then it competes with all of the rogue bonus actions!

TWF is terrible both mechanically and, for me, in the imagination space where hero archetypes exist.

[Kryx]

Again, I never claimed that TWF was up to par with other martial options.
You claimed TWF is in its current state due to "damage overflow":


The TWF case is pointing out that some of the simplifications made when calculating DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game, with damage overflow being particularly relevant - and that the new options provided by TWF can be stronger when considering cases not well covered by the model. Looking at damage overflow again, consider a simple case where one character gets one 20 damage attack, and another character gets two 8 damage attacks. DPR is clearly higher for the first character, but the second character has significantly better odds of dropping anyone with 0-8 HP, and low but not nonexistent odds of dropping two targets with 0-8 HP in one round.

You provided no mathematical backing and still provide none. My complicated DPR/KPR and even my forum math shows that your claim has no merit as PAM does more damage with the same number of attacks. There is nothing there that can be lost in the "DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game" claim.

You've made a claim that is not supported by even the simple math of the game.

[Tanarii]

Sounds like someone should start a new thread... talk about some obscure character has nothing to do with the topic at hand.Rangers, Animal Companions, TWF, and the popularity of Drizzt are all the same topic. That's the point. :smallyuk:

(But yeah, we got pretty badly off topic.)


Here's my actual claim:
1) The DPR model used for analysis is imperfect, and one of the imperfections is the way it doesn't take damage overflow into account.Yup. Not only can DPR analysis can involve a huge amount of unspoken assumptions to arrive at the final number. But it also overlooks less tangible benefits and downsides. The upside is it's a fixed calculable value.

That appeals to a certain analytical mindset, and certainly is useful for disproving incorrect claims, like (for example) a claim that TWF holds up for Fighters after level 11. The downside is people often overly focus on it as the only thing of importance, since other factors are either incalculable or less solidly a metric of comparison.

However I think it's fair to say that comparing TWF to any other fighting style, when Feat support and multiclassing are on the table, just generally doesn't stack up well. Even considering the totality of all factors, those with easy metrics and those without. Except for Rogues. Its especially egregious for single class Fighters, who have it as an available Fighting Style.

[Petrocorus]

Hello,
I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?

[Boci]

Hello,
I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?

Damage overflow is the damage in excess of reducing someones hp to 0. If they have 5 and you hit for 11, that was 6 point of damage effectively wasted.

[Willie the Duck]

Hello,
I'm sorry, i might have misunderstood this, but what do you guys call "damage overflow"?

Boci has it right with this:


Damage overflow is the damage in excess of reducing someones hp to 0. If they have 5 and you hit for 11, that was 6 point of damage effectively wasted.

And the added context is that there is an argument that having more smaller attacks is better because they can minimize damage overflow, even if the overall damage dealt is smaller. There is a theoretical space where this is the case. Let's say there was no random rolls for hp or damage. All the enemies have 8 hp. Player A gets 2 attacks that do 7 each, for a total of 14. Player B gets 3 attacks for 4 each, for a total of 12. It takes each player 2 hits to drop an opponent. Against 3 opponents, Player A takes 3 rounds to do this, while Player B takes 2 rounds, even though his damage output is lower. The problem is that, in a lot of 5e, it is more like player A dealing 7 pts. 2x a round and Player B dealing 4 pts 3x a round against 4 opponents, each with 50 hp (those darn bags o' hp everyone keeps complaining about). So taking 8 strikes at 2/rnd or 13 strikes at 3/rnd, well it looks like the overall average damage becomes a greater factor than any loss through damage overflow.

So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.

[Easy_Lee]

The trouble with lots of smaller attacks is that TWF only gets one more attack than a great weapon, and that only some of the time due to GWM. The number of attacks equals that of PM, and PM can benefit from either Dueling or GWF to increase its damage.

In short, TWF only has that advantage in a featless game. And in that case, the smaller damage die means critical hits are considerably less impressive.

[Boci]

Boci has it right with this:



And the added context is that there is an argument that having more smaller attacks is better because they can minimize damage overflow, even if the overall damage dealt is smaller. There is a theoretical space where this is the case. Let's say there was no random rolls for hp or damage. All the enemies have 8 hp. Player A gets 2 attacks that do 7 each, for a total of 14. Player B gets 3 attacks for 4 each. It takes each player 2 hits to drop
an opponent. Against 3 opponents, Player A takes 3 rounds to do this, while Player B takes 2 rounds, even though his damage output is lower. The problem is that, in a lot of 5e, it is more like player A dealing 7 pts. 2x a round and Player B dealing 4 pts 3x a round against 4 opponents, each with 50 hp (those darn bags o' hp everyone keeps complaining about). So taking 8 strikes at 2/rnd or 13 strikes at 3/rnd, well it looks like the overall average damage becomes a greater factor than any loss through damage overflow.

So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.

Yeah, dual wielding is better against goblins and kobolds and other small beans, but after that brief window at low levels, its no longer applicable. You may overkill by more, but you'll also kill sooner. If the game had minions like in 4th ed, dual wielding might be more useful. Ironically enough, of the 3 editions I know of, 3.5, 4th and 5th, 4th ed, the ones whose mechanics most lent themselves towards giving dual weapon fighting a use, was the only one where wielding two weapons didn't give you an extra attack.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, dual wielding is better against goblins and kobolds and other small beans, but after that brief window at low levels, its no longer applicable. You may overkill by more, but you'll also kill sooner. If the game had minions like in 4th ed, dual wielding might be more useful. Ironically enough, of the 3 editions I know of, 3.5, 4th and 5th, 4th ed, the ones whose mechanics most lent themselves towards giving dual weapon fighting a use, was the only one where wielding two weapons didn't give you an extra attack.

Except it would not work because by RAW right now assuming you use feats two weapon fighting does not get more attacks than GWF so it still does not have that niche. This is on top of the action economy issues and the less damage in general.

Remember damage overflow is really only pertinent if the dealing lesser damage is a trade for an advantage in some way. Getting more attack s could have been an advantage but the problem is that it does not actually get that advantage so in fact damage overflow is superfluous currently.

In 4e wielding two weapons did not natively give you an extra attack but it did open you up potentially to powers that gave multiple attacks that required two weapons (most famously twin strike) which were very powerful. However wasting your twin strike on minions would be usually a bad idea and it would be better to use controller type attacks (AOE) or defender (though the defender fighter two weapon at will dual strike was a decent choice to use on a minion but that was due to it being unable to attack only one target).

[Dudu]

So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.
^This

A quick check at monsters and enemies stats will show those usually have lower AC and highter HP than players. So, in the end, the TWF isn't killing multiple enemies, even if those enemies were supposed to be low challenge. He is more likely hacking one enemy's HP slowly.

I'm of the opinion TWF needs a rewrite, period. It's a clearly inferior option no matter how you look at it. Basically everyone has a better use of bonus action than slashing aways for some 4 avg damage. Whatever you want to do, there is a fighting style that does it better. It's truly messed up.

[Boci]

Except it would not work because by RAW right now assuming you use feats two weapon fighting does not get more attacks than GWF so it still does not have that niche. This is on top of the action economy issues and the less damage in general.

Yes, I wasn't assuming feats at first level. Without them, the dual weapon fighter gets an extra attack, and each attack has the damage to knock a kobold.

[GlenSmash!]

The trouble with lots of smaller attacks is that TWF only gets one more attack than a great weapon, and that only some of the time due to GWM. The number of attacks equals that of PM, and PM can benefit from either Dueling or GWF to increase its damage.

In short, TWF only has that advantage in a featless game. And in that case, the smaller damage die means critical hits are considerably less impressive.

Yup, and Damage Overflow is just a side effect of triggering that bonus action from GWM you might waste some damage, but you gain a big bonus attack. Bigger than TWF and the PM bonus attack you likely would have been getting anyway.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Maybe rewrite the feat to allowing a another attack everytime you hit with main hand, so say you had extra attack, you hit once with attack action, BA hit with other weapon, extra attack, then another other weapon attack. But still limit to light weapons, and you have to land the first attack to trigger a second attack?

Not sure what kind of problems something like this would create, but other options would include
-making twf more mobile
-making twf have a better defensive option
-a different way to make twf have more attacks or cost no BA.

Realistically we all know that twfing isn't very good, but this is fantasy so it should be good as anything else if not amazing. I don't play D&D to simulate reality, I play to be as bad*** as every twfer on screen (or book Entreri>Drizzt )

[SharkForce]

Maybe rewrite the feat to allowing a another attack everytime you hit with main hand, so say you had extra attack, you hit once with attack action, BA hit with other weapon, extra attack, then another other weapon attack. But still limit to light weapons, and you have to land the first attack to trigger a second attack?

Not sure what kind of problems something like this would create, but other options would include
-making twf more mobile
-making twf have a better defensive option
-a different way to make twf have more attacks or cost no BA.

Realistically we all know that twfing isn't very good, but this is fantasy so it should be good as anything else if not amazing. I don't play D&D to simulate reality, I play to be as bad*** as every twfer on screen (or book Entreri>Drizzt )

doubling the number of attacks is a bit too much.

[Mortis_Elrod]

doubling the number of attacks is a bit too much.

Only if they hit, and it's still max d6+mod . You basically take away the defensive option, better weapons. Keep the bonus action to activate, and you have 4 attacks max for someone who lands all there attacks and has xtra attack. And without the red style it's just another weak short sword stab.

Idk but someone should run those numbers and see if that works. For a 20 level fighter it would be a lot of attacks sure but they also spend an entire turn attacking trying to hit.

Maybe if you miss once you forgo the other secondary weapon hits

Ramble ramble

[Easy_Lee]

Would like to reiterate that spells like magic weapon and elemental weapon are less effective for TWF characters. Between that, crits rewarding larger damage dice, potentially needing to use two attunement slots for weapons, drawing / stowing, and competition for bonus action, a lot ought to be changed for TWF to be competitive.

I'm tempted to suggest the simplest fix: actually fighting with two weapons at once, instead of using them separately.

Base TWF:
- You may draw / stow weapons instead of one on your turn if those weapons are light.
- When you take the attack action and are wielding two light melee weapons, you may make a single attack with their combined weapon dice. If you make multiple attacks with the attack action, you may use this feature once for each attack. Your attribute bonus to the attack and damage rolls, and other static bonuses such as from magic weapons, only apply for one of the weapons, your choice.

Fighting style: You may two weapon fight with weapons that don't have the light property.

Dual Wielder:
- When you make a reaction attack and are wielding two weapons that qualify for TWF, you may make a combined attack as per TWF
- While wielding two weapons that qualify for TWF, if you take the attack action on your turn, you may spend your bonus action to make a combined weapon attack with these weapons as per TWF.

TWF would still do less damage than a great weapon barring special situations, and would still suck at critical hits. But at least this would make it more consistent with the rest of the game, bring its damage up above sword and board at least, allow it to benefit approximately equally from magic weapon and elemental weapon, and give it some interesting options (such as poison on both weapons).

[Knaight]

You claimed TWF is in its current state due to "damage overflow":
Read that quote again. I'm not claiming that TWF is in its current state at all there, I'm pointing out a failing in the DPR model as pertains to TWF in particular (it also pertains to PAM compared to GWF).


You provided no mathematical backing and still provide none. My complicated DPR/KPR and even my forum math shows that your claim has no merit as PAM does more damage with the same number of attacks. There is nothing there that can be lost in the "DPR for comparison purposes don't necessarily hold well for an actual game" claim.

You've made a claim that is not supported by even the simple math of the game.
I provided an example where DPR breaks down, and given that the entirety of my point is that DPR is an imperfect metric that can break down in the context of number of attacks that's entirely adequate.



So Knaight's point isn't wrong on the level of "things other than statistical average DPR are important to a real-gaming analysis." That's correct and he's good to have seen beyond the white-room analysis to recognize it. However, the setup of the game, as it works, based on the opponents and how they are constructed, tends to work against the advantage of the adaptability he is espousing as the benefit that redeems dual-wielding.
I'm not espousing it as a benefit that redeems dual-wielding. I don't consider dual-wielding redeemed, and would classify it as a comparatively weak option. The entirety of my point is that the DPR model is simplified; there are specific cases where that simplification will produce an inaccurate analysis; and that because of those cases there's a major distinction to be made between the claims of the theory being imperfect due to ignoring the effect of options and the theory being imperfect and therefore the same thing but with smaller numbers is just as good.

[Kryx]

I provided an example where DPR breaks down, and given that the entirety of my point is that DPR is an imperfect metric that can break down in the context of number of attacks that's entirely adequate
And yet again you fail to address PAM having the same amount of attacks as twf which totally invalidates your whole claim. We've been going in circles for several pages now with you choosing to ignore this simple fact.
You posted several pages ago that you weren't fond of the fighting style. Stick with that opinion instead of trying to make factual claims that have no evidence.



@easy: what you propose only addresses the bonus action issue. It does not address the damage issue which is still at an unacceptable 70%.
Twf doing less on crits, opportunity attacks, etc is totally a valid differentiation that doesn't need fixing imo. Bonus action needs fixing, damage needs fixing, and possibly spells giving at least magic to overcome damage resistance. Without a fix to both bonus action and damage it isn't a fix.
The issue, in my opinion, is that PAM should not offer a bonus action attack - that is the niche of twf and by doing so TWF has no niche. Removing the bonus action from PAM and -5/+10 from GWM makes those feats equivalent to an ability score improvement, instead of the current twice the value of an ability score improvement. Removing those two, often cited as OP, benefits and making other small adjustments that I outlined earlier in the thread does wonders to fix TWF by my calculations.

[Knaight]

And yet again you fail to address PAM having the same amount of attacks as twf which totally invalidates your whole claim. We've been going in circles for several pages now with you choosing to ignore this simple fact.
You posted several pages ago that you weren't fond of the fighting style. Stick with that opinion instead of trying to make factual claims that have no evidence.

PAM having the same number of attacks as TWF is totally immaterial. PAM, TWF, GWM, sword and board, and everything else are sets of inputs put into the model. I'm talking about the limits of the model itself. My claim is like saying that the ideal gas law breaks down in high pressure conditions, plus a demonstration of where it does so. In return I keep getting "both of these particular gases are stored at high pressure, which totally invalidates your whole claim", when it does nothing of the sort. We've been going in circles because you keep assigning me claims that don't particularly resemble my actual claims.

[Kryx]

Your claim is that the model did not capture "damage overflow" and implied that it was therefore not appropriate to measure the effectiveness of twf in terms of damage. I have since shown that PAM has the exact same attack structure and does more damage so the whole argument that you brought forward is invalid.

We're going in circles because you're dancing around your own claim, not taking ownership of it.
Your argument has no mathematical backing and yet you keep saying the same "DPR isn't perfect", "damage overflow" statements without any information of substance. It's like a politician making a claim and then being unable to back it up so they dance around the issue 100 times.
DPR isn't perfect, but a difference of 70% is massive - significantly bigger than the other supported martial options. Additionally as I've now said many times PAM follows the same structure and does not have the damage issue so something is clearly wrong with TWF.

[Lolzyking]

Your claim is that the model did not capture "damage overflow" and implied that it was therefore not appropriate to measure the effectiveness of twf in terms of damage. I have since shown that PAM has the exact same attack structure and does more damage so the whole argument that you brought forward is invalid.

We're going in circles because you're dancing around your own claim, not taking ownership of it.
Your argument has no mathematical backing and yet you keep saying the same "DPR isn't perfect", "damage overflow" statements without any information of substance. It's like a politician making a claim and then being unable to back it up so they dance around the issue 100 times.
DPR isn't perfect, but a difference of 70% is massive - significantly bigger than the other supported martial options. Additionally as I've now said many times PAM follows the same structure and does not have the damage issue so something is clearly wrong with TWF.

honestly wish wizards would hire you as a in house balance tester, no one else here is even on your balance level.

[Cybren]

Your claim is that the model did not capture "damage overflow" and implied that it was therefore not appropriate to measure the effectiveness of twf in terms of damage. I have since shown that PAM has the exact same attack structure and does more damage so the whole argument that you brought forward is invalid.

We're going in circles because you're dancing around your own claim, not taking ownership of it.
Your argument has no mathematical backing and yet you keep saying the same "DPR isn't perfect", "damage overflow" statements without any information of substance. It's like a politician making a claim and then being unable to back it up so they dance around the issue 100 times.
DPR isn't perfect, but a difference of 70% is massive - significantly bigger than the other supported martial options. Additionally as I've now said many times PAM follows the same structure and does not have the damage issue so something is clearly wrong with TWF.

You seem really invested in trying to argue against something knaight never said

[Knaight]

Your claim is that the model did not capture "damage overflow" and implied that it was therefore not appropriate to measure the effectiveness of twf in terms of damage. I have since shown that PAM has the exact same attack structure and does more damage so the whole argument that you brought forward is invalid.
The implication isn't that it isn't inappropriate to measure twf in terms of damage, it's that the model is imperfect and that there is a benefit to split attacks that doesn't show up in it. That means the model consistently underestimated TWF, PAM, Extra Attack, and other similar actions.


We're going in circles because you're dancing around your own claim, not taking ownership of it.
Your argument has no mathematical backing and yet you keep saying the same "DPR isn't perfect", "damage overflow" statements without any information of substance. It's like a politician making a claim and then being unable to back it up so they dance around the issue 100 times.
DPR isn't perfect, but a difference of 70% is massive - significantly bigger than the other supported martial options. Additionally as I've now said many times PAM follows the same structure and does not have the damage issue so something is clearly wrong with TWF.
That's funny. I'd liken your series of arguments to arguing against a creationist who keeps throwing out "why are there still monkeys".

[Kryx]

the model is imperfect and that there is a benefit to split attacks that doesn't show up in it. That means the model consistently underestimated TWF, PAM, Extra Attack, and other similar actions.
What... PAM is not underestimated in the model at all. PAM does about 90-95% of GWM. PAM is totally fine in that metric. TWF, however, does 70%.
The model doesn't have a problem calculating the twf structure - it does it perfectly fine for PAM. The issue is TWF.