TWF Sucks: So can we make it good? (No Houserules)

[Vaz]

So, if TWF is so bad, how do we make it as good as it can be? The earlier the better, I think.


Define "good".

One way to make it as good as it can be is to add +10,000 to attack and damage to every TWF attack.

You are really going to need to define "good".
Possibly by not using houserules?
Keep this kind of suggestion to yourself. Non Houserules.

[mephnick]

I believe TWF competes decently until around level 8, upon which adding a second attack to the Bonus Action puts it back in line with everything else. I'm sure someone's got the math somewhere.

[Lombra]

What's so bad about twf exactly?

Before extra attack is double damage
After extra attack is 50% more damage
Rogues love two chances at hitting

I don't know, seems fine.

[Kane0]

It's mostly because of competition for use of the bonus action and no comparable -5/+10 option.
I removed the latter entirely because it irks me, the former can be corrected by either build or homebrew/houserule. Adding an extra attack later on or tacking on extra damage seems popular, as is tweaking the fighting style and/or feat to make it more accessible or appealing.

Edit: Oh, and two weapon fighting is the only style that has so many 'ifs' and 'buts', like not adding stat to damage, needing a bonus action, light weapons only, draw one at a time. The build options available remove those penalties rather than give you boosts, which further sours the taste.

[Unoriginal]

Personaly I'm fine with it, but if the issue for you is that there is too much competition for the bonus action, why not just say "it is part of the Attack action" or "it is a free action"?

[denthor]

I personally do not like the math involved

[JellyPooga]

What's so bad about twf exactly?

Before extra attack is double damage

Greatsword deals 2d6. Before Extra Attack, TWF deals the same damage with two successful attacks rather than one. Less if not successful. After Extra Attack, TWF deals 75% damage if all attacks hit (Greatsword: 4d6 vs.TWF: 3d6).


Rogues love two chances at hitting

But are really the only ones who do. Yes, there are some other abilities or spells that benefit multiple attacks (e.g. Hunters Mark), but these require specific builds to really make them competetive. Add to that the fact that there's very good feat support for non-TWF (i.e. GWM and PAM) and crud for TWF (+1 AC and +1 Damage? Why didn't I take +2 Dex instead, again? Oh, that's right, so I can draw two weapons at once. Woo :smallannoyed:). Add to that that you need two magic weapons instead of one, if you want to benefit from, well, having a magic weapon.

It's lots of little things that all add up to TWF sucking, but suck it does and perhaps should.

[LordEntrails]

Define "good".

One way to make it as good as it can be is to add +10,000 to attack and damage to every TWF attack.

You are really going to need to define "good".

[Jacquerel]

It's slightly worse than competing options, I think the exaggeration of anything that's not quite the best option to be something that "sucks" is pretty harmful towards providing useful criticism or discussion though.

[Harrysonford]

So here’s the thing: every fighting style has its own pros and cons. I hear multiple complaints in this thread.
1) if you want more damage, use great weapons or magic.
2) TWF gives you an extra chance to hit, even if the damage isn’t as good later on, but that’s the point: you can use one great weapon and do more damage, or use a shield to boost your armor, or you can use two weapons to increase your chance of hitting, even if each hit does less damage. It’s all about which thing you prioritize more.
3) another thing I hear is that people like TWF for the style, but they can’t optimize it well. And that’s the other thing: you have to choose between optimization or style a lot.

[Vaz]

So. There are lots of comments of how okay and not bad it is. Would anyone like to step forward and help with a suggestion? Considering that is the point.

Also, Harryson Ford, if the goal of TWF is to hit something, but do less damage, why not take GWF/M and deal more damage? What 'on hit' effects are there for me to apply that make TWF worth it?

[Morty]

I mean, what can Two Weapon Fighting do that's not done by another style? Two-handed weapons deal damage, shields get you AC, ranged weapons get you more accuracy and let you stay at range, and a single weapon... I guess it's the damage option for a dexterity-user. So what should make TWF stand out?

[JellyPooga]

2) TWF gives you an extra chance to hit

The problem here is that another chance to hit is also another chance to miss. When the pay-off is "break even", why gamble in the first place if the cost of failure is "do less"? In order for the gamble to actually have a benefit, you need to invest in either a Fighting Style or Feat and even then, the pay-off isn't that great without yet further investment down a fairly narrow track.

[MeeposFire]

One of my big problems is that it is the only stye that has issues working with all sorts of things in the game due to its use of the bonus action and a trigger. For me that has to be fixed. This is what I am using so far.

1. You have one object interaction per attack that you would get from using the attack action. In addition you can draw or stow two weapons with one object interaction so long as both are drawn or stowed at the same time. This fixes part of the action economy and fixes throwing weapons

2. You get to make an off hand attack when ever you use an action on your turn to make a weapon attack (note not just the attack action). This fixes the basic action economy and allows TWF to work with everything that all other styles work with.

3. You get your attribute to damage bonus with your off hand weapon when you get extra attack.

4. TWF style allows you to wield two one handed weapons.

5. TWF feat gives you three benefits which include an AC bonus, the ability to make an offhand attack as a bonus action when using the attack action, and the ability to make an offhand attack when you make an attack of opportunity.


So far this fixes a number of problems that annoy me (action economy problems) while keeping things fairly close to other styles that spend one feat. One can make a fair claim that GWF is better when spending two feats that it can do but I think that is fair since they are spending two feats. I think it is close enough when compared to GWF with one feat (assuming TWF is taking the new TWF feat) and is potentially better depending on extra effects on a hit that you can get.

[Nidgit]

TWF is best when it's adding additional damage with each hit, like Hunter's Mark, Sneak Attack, divine damage, etc. It would make the most sense to me to add to that.

Something for the feat like "When you attack as a bonus action and deal additional damage because of an effect, add one damage dice to that additional damage." It's rather wordy but the intent is to add 1d6 to HM or SA and the like.

[Harrysonford]

So. There are lots of comments of how okay and not bad it is. Would anyone like to step forward and help with a suggestion? Considering that is the point.

Also, Harryson Ford, if the goal of TWF is to hit something, but do less damage, why not take GWF/M and deal more damage? What 'on hit' effects are there for me to apply that make TWF worth it?

I literally told you… it’s less gambling, you’re more likely to do damage, vs no damage, it just might not be as much. And as for you asking for improving it, I also mentioned that…
It doesn’t need to be improved

[Kane0]

I'm partial to "When you attack and hit a target with both your main and off hand weapons on your turn, add your proficiency bonus as extra damage". Not spectacular, but a nice incentive.

[Harrysonford]

The problem here is that another chance to hit is also another chance to miss. When the pay-off is "break even", why gamble in the first place if the cost of failure is "do less"? In order for the gamble to actually have a benefit, you need to invest in either a Fighting Style or Feat and even then, the pay-off isn't that great without yet further investment down a fairly narrow track.

The entire point of TWF is that instead of doing more damage when you roll well and nothing if you roll poorly, you do some damage more likely, creating a middle range on the gambling spectrum

[Vaz]

I literally told you… it’s less gambling, you’re more likely to do damage, vs no damage, it just might not be as much. And as for you asking for improving it, I also mentioned that…
It doesn’t need to be improved

Whuch makes little sense. It has to be a viable option up against something else, which does the same thing better.

If I can hit you 20 times a round and deal 1 damage each hit, but can alternatively hit you less and deal
21+ damage, I'm doing more with less hits.

So what is there to improve the attractiveness of TWF versus other options? If your only contribution is to say that hitting more but doing less damage vs something hitting less but doing much more damage, then you can probably save yourself the effort, or better, put your money where your mouth is, a d provide a build that capitalises on TWF abilities more than any other build.

[MadBear]

1. Don't allow -5/+10 feat
2. When you attain the extra attack feature, remove the bonus action requirement.

done.

[Vaz]

1. Don't allow -5/+10 feat
2. When you attain the extra attack feature, remove the bonus action requirement.

done.

To reiterate. All things are on the table, apart from houserules or homebrews.

[StoicLeaf]

I wouldn't call TWF bad, it's just .. kinda there.
Damage wise, it ranks between sword&board (requires the feat, though) and swinging a 2-hander.

The "problem" is is that it's kinda mediocre from a gameplay perspective.
The TWF feat is required to make it happen and the feat itself only allows me to draw both my weapons at the same time (beyond the stats). There are no other gimmicks to it.

Meanwhile, the S&B user probably took the shield master feat and is knocking mooks off their feet, the 2-hander user took GWM and is adding +10 damage to each hit.

Thematically, I can't think of a mechanic that would make TWF interesting.
If a player of mine really wanted to make it work, I'd give them a magic item that allowed them to freely cast hunter's mark/hex so that they weren't hampered by getting the spell up and running.

[MeeposFire]

Personally I think people make too big a deal about the damage and not enough about the real problem which is the action economy.

Think about it why is it that so many basic things do not work with TWF and do you think that thematically it should be so.

For instance rage requires a bonus action. While other weapon styles may miss a bonus ability only TWF cannot use its basic premise on a turn that they rage.

A paladin that casts a smite spell cannot use TWF on the same turn but every other style can be done just fine.

A bladesinger uses booming blade and has two swords but cannot use the second weapon to make a normal attack with the booming blade attack because the trigger does not work.


Is TWF so good that it should not work with these? Most would say that TWF is weaker than most other styles so that cannot be it. Any time you do any of these sort of actions you may as well not play as a TWF character because you cannot use it and that is the only style where this happens.

[Harrysonford]

Whuch makes little sense. It has to be a viable option up against something else, which does the same thing better.

If I can hit you 20 times a round and deal 1 damage each hit, but can alternatively hit you less and deal
21+ damage, I'm doing more with less hits.

So what is there to improve the attractiveness of TWF versus other options? If your only contribution is to say that hitting more but doing less damage vs something hitting less but doing much more damage, then you can probably save yourself the effort, or better, put your money where your mouth is, a d provide a build that capitalises on TWF abilities more than any other build.

B… I just told you…
Like I said, TWF is not about damage, GWF is. TWF is for more consistent hits. Like I said (twice…) you can’t have everything in one fighting style, GWF is for damage, TWF is for more consistent hits

[Rhaegar14]

B… I just told you…
Like I said, TWF is not about damage, GWF is. TWF is for more consistent hits. Like I said (twice…) you can’t have everything in one fighting style, GWF is for damage, TWF is for more consistent hits

I think the point Vaz is not successfully communicating though is what is the actual VALUE of more hits if your average damage per round ends up lower than the GWF style? I can think of one or two corner cases (rogues, enemy casters, drowning in magic weapons with flat damage bonuses) but nothing really universal.

I think MeeposFire is right about the more fundamental problem of TWF. It particularly offends me that the Ranger, which is supposed to be THE best class for two weapon fighters, has so many spells and features competing with their off-hand attack for their bonus action.

[Lombra]

What about: "Two Weapon Fighting: when you take the attack action and are wielding one light weapon in each hand, you can make one additional weapon attack as part of the same action, which doesn't add your ability modifier to the damage roll."

This wording should stack with extra attack and doesn't interfere with bonus actions at all, if the problem is the fighting style or the feat, then I'm afraid it could becone a little complex.

[Vaz]

B… I just told you…
Like I said, TWF is not about damage, GWF is. TWF is for more consistent hits. Like I said (twice…) you can’t have everything in one fighting style, GWF is for damage, TWF is for more consistent hits

Which do what exactly. Hitting only does damage. But hitting lesses shtick is to deal more damage, so what is there to make htting more more effective. What benefits are there to actually hitting more when the only effect is to deal less damage.

It doesn't take an idiot to work out extra attacks meaj extra attacks, as that is literally the concept of extra attacks. The question is what is the result of those attacks?

**** all is the answer you're telling me. So unless you're u have a way of turning that single additional attack into smething more effective, you're SoL.

But is there a built that categorically makes use of that additional attack that can't be otherwise fulfilled by PAM, or GWM? And can it reach equivalency with a build thst can use 2H weapons to deal extra bonus action attacks?

Try again. Repeat yourself if you wanna but saying extra attack gives you extra chance to hit is only gonna waste your own time.

[Harrysonford]

Which do what exactly. Hitting only does damage. But hitting lesses shtick is to deal more damage, so what is there to make htting more more effective. What benefits are there to actually hitting more when the only effect is to deal less damage.

It doesn't take an idiot to work out extra attacks meaj extra attacks, as that is literally the concept of extra attacks. The question is what is the result of those attacks?

**** all is the answer you're telling me. So unless you're u have a way of turning that single additional attack into smething more effective, you're SoL.

But is there a built that categorically makes use of that additional attack that can't be otherwise fulfilled by PAM, or GWM? And can it reach equivalency with a build thst can use 2H weapons to deal extra bonus action attacks?

Try again. Repeat yourself if you wanna but saying extra attack gives you extra chance to hit is only gonna waste your own time.

First of all, you need to read my posts. I told you, TWF is not for damage. I also told you that you can’t have style and optimization together.
You asked for help, and now you’re being disrespectful to the people trying to help you. If you take the time to actually read the comments, I promise that you will find what you’ve been looking for, and what I’ve told you 3 times now :smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

[JoyfulJester]

I would like to suggest a fighter warlock build. Hexblade warlock 3 or 4 for the ASI, pact of the blade. The rest can be warrior battle master for the supperiority dice. That gives you extra damage and precision strike, trip attack to give you advantage on subsequent attacks and versatility in other maneuvers. Pick up dual wield feat so you can dual wield non light weapons. Use a longsword, flail, Warhammer, something with d8 dice. The cherry on top is the hexblade curse adds proficiency damage on each attack and crits on 19-20.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

First of all, you need to read my posts. I told you, TWF is not for damage. I also told you that you can’t have style and optimization together.
You asked for help, and now you’re being disrespectful to the people trying to help you. If you take the time to actually read the comments, I promise that you will find what you’ve been looking for, and what I’ve told you 3 times now :smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

“You can’t have style and optimization together” is exactly as helpful as “git gud.” You’re being very condescending.

If an option is objectively inferior than others it shouldn’t exist or should be retooled into something worth taking. Otherwise we call it a trap.

Here’s an idea: Extra Attack stacks, but only for TWF. Or remove the bonus action requirement once you get EA if the potential damage would get too nutty

[bid]

To reiterate. All things are on the table, apart from houserules or homebrews.
So... RAW only?

That doesn't leave much room to improve.

[JNAProductions]

First of all, you need to read my posts. I told you, TWF is not for damage. I also told you that you can’t have style and optimization together.
You asked for help, and now you’re being disrespectful to the people trying to help you. If you take the time to actually read the comments, I promise that you will find what you’ve been looking for, and what I’ve told you 3 times now :smallsmile::smallsmile::smallsmile:

Except not really. First off, Sir Bearington (the bear summoning druid who shapechanges into a bear) is pretty dang powerful, as well as stylish as all hell. And second off, with just resources you're guaranteed to get (so no Magic Items that add +2d6 damage per hit, or anything like that) it doesn't matter that you're going to get more hits with TWF, because your ultimate damage is less, and that's the POINT of hitting.

Now, there is a relatively common situation TWF is useful-many small enemies. If you're facing goblins with 6 HP apiece, then TWF lets you (at level 5) kill three a turn, as compared to GWF's two a turn. (Unless they have GWM, in which case they can kill three anyway. But hey, at least Sword and Board can only ever kill two a round!)

[Kane0]

Okay on further thought:

Before taking into account feats (which are optional), lets look at some of the peculiarities of TWF:
Bonus action to use off-hand: Seems fair to get an extra attack, at least before the Extra Attack feature at any rate.
Light Weapons only: Odd restriction for a difference of 1-2 damage. Remove it.
No stat to damage: Nothing else has this restriction, and it serves no purpose. Remove it.
Drawing one weapon at a time: Real big PITA and also affects throwing weapons. Add 'You can draw two of the same weapon using your object interaction'

This opens up the fighting style to actually provide a bonus rather than mitigate a restriction. I suggest 'When making an opportunity attack you can also make an off hand attack at the same target' to give TWF its own niche.

Next comes the problem of post level 5 when extra attack comes online. I suggest that when you get access to extra attack the off hand attack moves from a separate bonus action to part of the attack action, though this might be too much of a boost for some, especially given the competition for bonus actions of most classes (yes, even rogues).

Finally comes the problem of the feats. I don't like the -5/+10 so I remove them entirely, but not everyone likes to go down that path. The +1 AC of the feat is nice, but its really giving half a shield so not amazing. Here might be a good place to work in some (potentially conditional) source of another attack and/or more damage to even out the numbers with other weapon style feats like GWM, PAM, Sharpshooter and Shield Master.

[MrStabby]

TWF is not bad. It supports Dex as an attack stat, which is a great stat to have strong. The competition is really with ranged attacks - so possibly good if you are a dex based character looking to do damage in confines spaces.

[JNAProductions]

TWF is not bad. It supports Dex as an attack stat, which is a great stat to have strong. The competition is really with ranged attacks - so possibly good if you are a dex based character looking to do damage in confines spaces.

Sword and Board. Especially with Dueling, damage is similar to TWF, but AC is 2 greater, which is a big deal.

[Asmotherion]

The most problematic thing with Two Weapon Fighting is that it sells itself false of what it really is.

When I first saw it (fresh of 3.5, and with a High Optimiser-or-Die perspective), and because of not fully understanding the mechanics, I thought "hey, this is the only FS worth taking. It effectivelly doubles your attacks per round, and scales by level".

Obviously, I was wrong. I didn't realise that then. But it still gives you an early extra attack, which is very significant is most games, and you do keep it for the whole game. It's just not as good compared to some of the other choices, and seems overshadowed by the fact that it's "feat chain" sucks, wile Archery gets to gain all the best benefits of TWF and GWF through feats (an extra attack with a crossbow, no dissadvantage when in melee and the -5/+10 from GWF, all of wich use Dex, thus less MADness, more SADness).

I do accept that Archery's bonus to Attack is universally better; That said, my experiance tells me that Archery is generally a non-favored choice in a Fantasy Game, were you usually either prefear to go Melee, or, if you go ranged, most people prefear to play casters, so giving a small advantage to using a Bow and Keeping track of Arrows was a good Design Choice IMO to give a boost to people who wanted to dedicate themselves to it. After all, a Dedicated Caster out of spell slots can fire Cantrips all day long, but a Dedicated Archer out of Arrows/Bolts must shift to melee were he'll probably be less effective.

Great Weapon Fighter, as an FS, in my personal oppinion sucks; before judging me, hear me out. I find it situational, and when a group plays with averages, it accounds to nothing (usual in online play, to save time and effort from screen sharing). It's feat's first part is also very situational: How often do you score a critical/kill something, and have someone else within reach? I've seen players go through games and never actually seeing this benefit, and even forgetting to use it when it actually comes up, before it's been so long since they got it. The second benefit is the real one: -5/+10, the proverbial "power attack", is really good, especially on a fighter who can get some net dammage boost out of this, on top of his attacks. That said, the -5 to the attack roll hurts you a lot more than it does the Archer, who can afford it a lot more easily with his passive +2 to all Ranged Attack Rolls.

Dueling: A solid choice if you don't want to dedicate yourself into a single thing, and want to be using a Shield. Very good for Gishes and prety much anyone who is not going to be a dedicated martial Character rather than a Martial Dip who happens to get an FS.

Protection: A solid choice for RP reasons, when we get the occasional couple playing D&D. Other than that, mechanics wise, this really is not optimal.

[Eric Diaz]

No house rules?

How can we MAKE it good without 'em?

Let us see; I did some analysis recently (no math):

http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2017/12/d-5e-fighting-styles-comparison.html

---
Attacking twice per round deals decent damage at lower levels, but it becomes increasingly less useful as you get more attacks as a fighter, and it doesn't work well with an action surge.

If you get magic weapons, you also need one magic weapon for each hand... and each might require attunement. Same thing with the Magic Weapon spell.

This style is a bit better for rogues and rangers... but it uses your bonus action. Thing is, rangers and rogues often have better things to do with their bonus actions. On the other hand, rogues get a second chance of landing a sneak attack (and rangers their Hunter's Mark, Colossus slayer etc.), making this style more useful.

The Dual Wielder feat is also very underwhelming. +1 AC is nice, and using a rapier in each hand - as ridiculous as I think this looks - gives you a +1 damage boost per attack, but you still lose your bonus action, and it doesn't help you land that sneak attack. Of course, if you had picked the dueling style you'd have the same +2 damage boost and a +2 AC boost, without using a feat.

Or - guess what - you could just pick +2 Dexterity instead of the feat! The AC bonus would be the same, the damage boost would be equal (+1 per attack on average), you'd get +1 to hit and better initiative, saves and skills!

I guess you can use the feat if you're have Dexterity 20, want to throw weapons, or have Strength instead of Dexterity... but it all pales in comparison to the other feats mentioned here.

Of course, this is not a bad choice for rogues, and in my opinion rogues work well enough even with these downsides. Notice that rogues do not get fighting styles (in this case, it means they don't get their ability bonus to the damage of the second attack) but using one weapon in each hand works for them anyway.

In any case, it still bothers me that holding a quarterstaff or lance in each hand is a viable tactic in 5e, while sword and main-gauche is not, but mechanically the only issue is using your bonus action.

The worst thing, I think, is that this style doesn't stack with anything; your AC is probably too low to make the defense style useful; you cannot boost your damage with dueling, or use powerful feats like Polearm Master, etc. - and the dual wielder feat is near useless is most circumstances.

In short, TWF is a bad choice for fighters; not good enough for rangers (but they are being revised anyway); and decent for rogues, even though ranged combat is usually a better choice.

To be 100% honest I kinda LIKE that this style is suboptimal, because I think in real life there would be little reason to use this over sword and board under most circumstances. But TWF has enough D&D tradition and fans to deserve a bit more love in 5e.
---

So, basically, TWF might be useful if you get no extra attacks and want to spend NO feats in melee. Otherwise, there is probably a better option out there (ranged, sword and board, etc). Also, rogues are okay with TWF, and a better TWF would probably not be enough to fix the ranger for people who agree it is broken.

[Dudewithknives]

It is not that TWF is bad, it is that all the other options that give a bonus action attack are so much better.

TWF: bonus action attack but also limits your main and off hand to be light, and does not give a stat bonus to the damage. Only real feat synergy is dual wielder which is not good at all unless you already have a 20 dex, and two weapon fighting which gives you something they get for free.

Crossbow Expert: bonus action attack, gives stat bonus, only requires one weapon, is ranged, ignores disadvantage and allows shartshooter, synergizes with archery style.

Polearm master: bonus action attack, gives stat bonus to damage, only requires one weapon, main weapon probably triggers a reaction attack, synergizes with great weapon master and great weapon fighter.

Monk martial arts or flurry: completely free, adds stat bonus to damage, can be done with hands full, will eventually be a very good die on damage, can flurry for two attacks, may have added bonus depending on subclass.

Battlerager: bonus action attack that adds a stat bonus to damage, does not off up your hands so can still wield whatever other things you want.

Feel free to add more I missed.

Simple as this, even with the fihting style and a feat TWF is costing you a bonus action for at best an extra d8 +stat damage. Everyone else gets similar and much better additions for less investment.

Without house ruling, it will always be inferior, especially to something like crossbow expert.

[LordEntrails]

Whuch makes little sense. It has to be a viable option up against something else, which does the same thing better.

If I can hit you 20 times a round and deal 1 damage each hit, but can alternatively hit you less and deal
21+ damage, I'm doing more with less hits.

So what is there to improve the attractiveness of TWF versus other options? If your only contribution is to say that hitting more but doing less damage vs something hitting less but doing much more damage, then you can probably save yourself the effort, or better, put your money where your mouth is, a d provide a build that capitalises on TWF abilities more than any other build.
You don't get the point. With TWF, your average damage per round is more consistent, more stable, more dependable. You're damage curve is stronger in the middle and not as flat and unpredictable as one weapon.

Yes, in ten thousand rolls one weapon outperforms two, but in 5 or ten rounds, TWF is more reliable.

[JNAProductions]

You don't get the point. With TWF, your average damage per round is more consistent, more stable, more dependable. You're damage curve is stronger in the middle and not as flat and unpredictable as one weapon.

Yes, in ten thousand rolls one weapon outperforms two, but in 5 or ten rounds, TWF is more reliable.

Okay. The issue is, GWF, say, is reliable ENOUGH. It's not better after 10,000 rounds-it's better after 3.

[bid]

Okay. The issue is, GWF, say, is reliable ENOUGH. It's not better after 10,000 rounds-it's better after 3.
See?

That's how you shut down a valid argument: with a valid counter-argument. It works much better than ad hominem and other fallacies.

Thank you for bringing facts, JNA.


And that's still not the full truth.

At level 1, 2-weapon fighting is clearly ahead:
- gwf = 2d6+4/3+3 ~ 11.33
- twf = 2*(1d6+3) ~ 13
- duel = 1d8+5 ~ 9.5

At level 5, 2-weapon fighting is as bad as SnB without the AC:
- gwf = 2*(2d6+4/3+3) ~ 22.67
- twf = 3*(1d6+3) ~ 19.5
- duel = 2*(1d8+5) ~ 19


So, TWF needs some help after level 5 and mostly in the form of a good feat. But you can't get that from RAW alone and will need some house rule, if only by adding that missing feat.


I'm pretty sure always having advantage on the BA attack (when you have extra attack) is enough to fix the non-feat difference.

[Toofey]

I used a two weapon fighting fighter/mage in 2e so I've thought about this as well. I have three proposals for rectifying this.

1. The style allows the off hand attack to be taken as part of the attack option, allowing the user to take any bonus action that does not require a free hand. Pros/cons: very strong at low levels, very good for MC characters. / Not a meaningful improvement for most single class fighters.

2. Also grant the related feat with the fighting style. Pros/Cons: there are no real Pros to this, it remains underwhelming. maybe in a cinematic/epic campaign you would combine this with another modification.

3. Grant an additional offhand attack when the fighter gains their third normal attack. Pros/cons: Fits the damage scaling, still very effective for a rogue dip but not the home run solution 1 is for a fighter dip/ No real benefit to fighter dips, but that's not a very big con.

[Kane0]

Hmm. I know the OP said no 'brew, but I been thinking.

Can anyone point out any egregious problems with the math I may have missed with this?

Two Weapon Fighting: If you have a weapon in each hand you can use your bonus action to make an attack with your off hand weapon. You cannot use a weapon with the versatile or two-handed property in your off hand. If you gain the Extra Attack feature you make your extra off hand attack as part of the attack action instead of as a bonus action.

Object interaction: You can draw two one handed weapons or any number of thrown weapons using your interaction

Fighting Style: When you use your reaction to make an attack with a melee weapon you can also make an attack with your off hand weapon if you are holding one

Feat:
+1 Dexterity
- You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate weapon in each hand
- If you hit a creature with both your primary and off hand weapons on your turn you deal additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus

Funny note, under these changes a melee + ranged weapon combo is totally usable, though you'll need xbow mastery for the fighting style bonus without incurring disadvantage.

[Wheaton's Whelp]

I do tend to enjoy the cinematic nature of the TWF style, and while I agree that within the damage and action economy realms it can be underwhelming/restrictive, overall the mechanics don't seem to need buffing. I find the style has synergy with some (not all, sure) classes/subclasses, is often great for mobile builds, and that the action economy isn't all that wonky depending on class/subclass. Further arguments below for your reading pleasure.

1. Drawing/Stowing 1 weapon per turn: While this does inhibit some classes for the first round, for many the bonus action is used for other first round fun (Rage, Hunter's Mark/Hex, etc.) so the momentary lapse of holding two-weapons is minimally restrictive. I have also found many GM's like the dramatic tone unsheathing two blades has and willingly allow characters to draw both.

2. Bonus Action: I tend to like options. This style allows the option to use the Bonus Action to whack at something for a 2nd or more time. Sure there are some classes/subclasses where the bonus action is too valuable to waste in this way, but for the others this is a nice option.

3. Has some awesome combos: As others have stated the draw is more frequent, if less powerful, hits. So let's make those hits do other things. Tack on the Mobile feat to bypass frontline defenses without AoO's and use the extra attack(s) on the squishier casters/ranged attackers (Swashbucklers get this feat free!). Combine with Mage Slayer and suddenly you become a concentration breaking machine. Damage combo with per hit effects like Hunter's Mark/Hex/Rage Damage.

4. No Damage Modifier: Does very slightly reduce damage, but the +3-+5 per round isn't going to break a build. The TWF fighting style does add this modifier, but taking Defensive (If available) and the Dual Wielder feat adds +2 to AC, gives a slight bump to damage (d6 to d8), and adds to the first round utility for classes/subclasses restricted by only being able to draw 1 weapon at a time.

5. Blade dancing/flurry of swords is just cool: No real argument here, as this is a statement of fact...

[Easy_Lee]

To reiterate. All things are on the table, apart from houserules or homebrews.

If Revised Ranger is allowed, the revised Beast Conclave Ranger does not gain extra attack. Oddly, this makes it the ideal TWF user since TWF doubles his attacks per round. When combined with a beast, the two of you can make 3-5 attacks per round by level 5, and it should usually get its reaction so the average will be four. That's nothing to sneeze at.

You can make a somewhat interesting character using Xanathar's: elf samurai 6 / warlock. Warlock is there to grant shadow blade which does scaling damage and counters as a light, finesse weapon. As a result, you can make a TWF character who can provide advantage to his own attacks, uses Elven Accuracy to roll 3d20 for advantage, and makes three or more attacks per round, two of which are with a 2d8+ shadow blade starting at level 9. Note that a Valor or Swords Bard could do something similar. A pure warlock can't make as much use of it (go figure) since blade pact warlocks can only extra attack with their pact weapon.

[suplee215]

The problem I see is with the classes who get it more than not. Paladins, Rogues, even blade pact warlocks (with a ruling of more than 1 blade pact) will love it. The usefulness of bonus actions on a ranger (this changes for revised ranger beast conclave) and superiority of dueling at lvl 11 and above on fighters make it just too weak. I have yet to play a Blade Bard with it but I see it having it's pros compared to dueling.

[Vorpalchicken]

Keeping TWF as a rarely useful choice (such as for swashbucklers) keeps the fighting style unusual and exotic. There's a reason why two weapon fighting saw limited use historically.

I prefer it the way it is- as a stylistic choice rather than a power gamer choice.

[MadBear]

Since twf only offer an additional attack, to make it worthwhile we need to stack modifiers on it to make up for the loss.

My best guess at doing this would be something like BM fighter 4/Barbarian X.

The fighter gets you:

- twf style
- Dual wielder at 4
- Martial Dice that can be used to help add damage on a hit a few times per short rest
- action surge

The barbarian gets you:
- advantage to make sure you're more likely to hit
- bonus damage to each hit while raging.

It's not ideal, but at level 9, the barbarian can at least nova really well and when he's is swinging 5 times during that turn he'd do: 5d8 + 20 (strength) + 10 (rage bonus) + 4d8 (all the superiority dice).

This still has issues:
-rage is a bonus action so you're always a turn late in getting your first use of twf
- you're not getting as much out of your crits
- no shield so AC is a bit lower
- Had to waste a feat on dual wielder which is a crappy feat

Still, to make twf worth it without homebrew, you need to find a way to get riders on the attacks. Ranger sounds good at first, but most of their spells use your bonus actions, so it's not practical. A rogue is always wise to use it to get their sneak attack in, but it's not good on its own. Paladins can only add riders with their smites (bonus actions, unless it's the generic version), and even then they don't have the resources to do it reliably. Fighters don't get riders so, their out.

So yeah, pretty sure that's about as good as you'll get it without homebrew.

[ad_hoc]

It is not that TWF is bad, it is that all the other options that give a bonus action attack are so much better.


Yeah.

I think the real answer is to play in a game without feats.

[Ganymede]

With both wielding a great weapon and wielding a weapon in each hand, you are committing both hands to inflicting melee damage. As such, both options should be on par with each other when it comes to damage, but they really aren't. The advantages of wielding a weapon in each hand come from niche class interactions, and not from the expenditure of both hands for offense.

With that in mind, I'd propose eliminating the current bonus action framework and simply letting a dual wielder combine the weapon damage dice together into each individual attack. It is quick and dirty, but largely results in parity.

The main downsides with this change would be requiring a tweak to the matching Fighting Style to make it compatible, and the side effect of letting finesse fighting do more damage.

[Citan]

Here we go again: another thread that where someone posts a very personal, biaised opinion "TWF sucks" and gets surprised that people actually disagree with the premise.

So, for all those people for who TWF sucks because all you think is about in-the-void damage: no, it doesn't.

First, having an extra chance in melee makes a big difference for many characters against high AC targets, which are often the most dangerous targets: Paladins, Rogues, Rangers, now Hexblade Warlocks.

Second, something most people seem to forget, TWF works with thrown weapons...
- When your GWM Barbarian pal just stops 15 feet away because he's out of speed, you are fine, because your actual reach is 20 feet (although you won't have enough "draw" to get 3 attacks every turn if you didn't invest in feat so there is a limitation, but for occasional need works fine)..
- When your S&B Fighter friend, even with his high AC, hesitates to close in because he knows his opponent has a very potent attack and he's afraid of the OA, you are fine, confer previous point.
- When your Rogue pal who is with bow gets hit&run with no chance at counter-attack, you Rogue can still get a off-turn chance to deal damage with OA unless you started previous turn without any weapon in hand.
- When your S&B Paladin pal needed to invest into Shield Master to get the option to Shove and still get his full Attack in his turn, you have been able to do (mostly, barring the lesser damage problem) this since day one.
- When your S&B pal needs to invest into Warcaster because he finds difficult to micro-manage sheathing/unsheathing/throwing and drawing his weapon to balance weapons attacks / magic / off-turn OAs, you are fine: it's easy for you to get a free hand when you want, for how long you want. Worst case, drop one of your weapon, you still have the other for OA / weapon cantrips / applying smite/ranger spell.

Third, I don't see how it's supposed to be a problem that it eats into bonus action competition. Boohoo, tough luck, you have to choose: well, surprise, even with TWF, many classes have hard competition already: Rogue has Cunning Action, Monk has same and more, Paladins and Rangers have disabling spells, Clerics/Wizards/Sorcerers have repeatable spells...
TWF is a "free for everyone" bonus action: BONUS action, as in "tricks that you usually learn to get thanks to a class feature that makes you so cool and better in one particular thing".
If it's useful to you, then perfect. If not because you have so much to do already with bonus action, then don't sweat it: so be it.

TWF is supposed to be subpar in terms of damage unless you invest into it, because you are buying versatility instead. And fighting with two weapons has been proven very unrealistic already in previous threads for those asking. So it's perfectly acceptable that you need a Fighting Style and possibly a feat to make the most of it.

If you want to really get damage with TWF, just pick Hexblade Warlock 1, Fighter 1 and you are set basically (going Bladesinger/Warlock for Haste and extra damage, or Paladin for big smites, or Fighter for big number of attacks, or Mystic because DM allows you to play broken things). :)

Only if you want to really "optimize TWF's built-in versatility" up to an overkill, borderline stupid point does it become a really taxing technic (Fighter for Style and CON and Warlock for Hex -or plain Ranger 2-, Dual Wielder to wield javelins, Sharpshooter for 120 feet effective range, Thief Rogue if you are a high level Fighter with 3-4 attacks).

Also, I don't get OP's demand: if no homebrew is allowed, how are we supposed to "improve" TWF? Only thing I see is swapping benefits of feat and style as many people suggested in older threads, but I'm not sure this will satisfy people either.

The only thing I can think of, otherwise, is going as far as removing the whole "light" requirement so that many interesting become available without dip/feat investment, like...
- Having a dagger as a quarterstaff caster, with which getting occasional thrown attack or a way to use Defensive Duelist -for those without Shield-.
- Allowing someone to play ancient Hoplites with javelins (although throwing problem is still a thing). :)
- Allowing someone to play ultimate basher with dual shields (although improvised weapons have their own lot of limitations by RAW).
But imo, might as well rather advise such a player to be a variant human, or give a free feat to every player at character creation (barring maybe the GWM/Sharp).

[ad_hoc]

The only thing I can think of, otherwise, is going as far as removing the whole "light" requirement so that many interesting become available without dip/feat investment, like...

My houserule is to remove the 'light' rule for strength attacks but keep it for dexterity.

This allows the iconic dual wielding barbarian while keeping the iconic rapier/small weapon rogue. The idea of a dual rapier wielder is just wrong to me.

In the end it is just 1 more damage for strength types. The main thing is that it fits the concept/style of a character with high strength.

Allow all characters to draw 2 weapons as an object interaction.

Remove the Dual Wielder feat.

[Malifice]

Which do what exactly. Hitting only does damage. But hitting lesses shtick is to deal more damage, so what is there to make htting more more effective. What benefits are there to actually hitting more when the only effect is to deal less damage.

To make it work you want rider effects on your attacks.

Sup dice, Hex, Hunters mark, magic weapons, smites, improved divine smite, poison, and so forth.

It still remains great on Rogues (2 chances to land sneak attack).

[Quoxis]

There are classes that need to hit when they can, regardless of what weapon damage they deal. A higher level rogue doesn't care whether they use a rapier for 1d8 or a dagger for 1d4 damage, because the main damage dealing feature is sneak attack for multiple d6.
If the rogue misses once with a single weapon, they can disengage and sulk in the corner about how useless they are.
With a second rapier/dagger/whatever they essentially double the chance of doing their xd6 damage. Same goes for paladins with divine smite - even more so, as they can use two or more smites per round. The nova potential is 50% higher for a dualwielding paladin - and that's the thing most people are after when they decide to play one, as far as i know.

Of course the -5/+10 feats give you more consistently high damage, which is definitely better for barbarians, fighters and the likes, but i do see the appeal of a dual wielder - the fighting style isn't half as bad as you guys say.

[Spacehamster]

Have the style make the bonus attack part of your action instead and at character level 11 you get to do two attacks with your offhand as part of your attack action instead if your class have the extra attack feature.

[Daphne]

I removed the bonus action cost, granted a second attack with the off hand for 11th level Fighters and I let PCs with TWF to draw 2 weapons in the same time.


I think the real answer is to play in a game without feats.
This is the answer to a lot of questions.


My houserule is to remove the 'light' rule for strength attacks but keep it for dexterity.
I like this, Strength should always be the damage stat.

[Lonely Tylenol]

To make it work you want rider effects on your attacks.

Sup dice, Hex, Hunters mark, magic weapons, smites, improved divine smite, poison, and so forth.

It still remains great on Rogues (2 chances to land sneak attack).

Absolutely this, and I’m glad I read to the end of the thread to see this response before just adding it to the pile.

So instead, I’ll do a quick DPR breakdown:

The original premise of the argument that TWF sucks is that, well, two light weapons hit for a combined 2d6+3 at level 1, which is exactly the same as one great sword hit, but needs to hit twice to happen (so less reliable damage). The premise of the counter-argument is that the unique value of TWF is that you get more unique opportunities to hit, which means whatever damage you do is more reliable. The latter premise is true if there are attack riders.

Presuppose a level 3 character, for which all weapons are the same, somehow, and who doesn’t have both GWM and reliable advantage (for without advantage, GWM reaches parity with non-GWM attacks). That character makes one attack routine with a greatsword and one with two short swords. The damage for both, with all hits, is 2d6+3, average damage 10.

For the greatsword: if we assume a 65% chance to hit, the character’s average DPR is about 6.5; they will do about 10 damage 65% of the time, and 0 damage the remaining 35%.

For the two shortswords: if we assume a 65% chance to hit, and that the order of attacks matters (first attack uses attribute and second doesn’t), then the character’s average DPR is 6.5; they will do 10 damage ~42% of the time, 6.5 damage 23% of the time, 3.5 damage 23% of the time, and 0 damage the remaining 12% of the time. Average damage is still exactly 6.5, but skewed towards the mid range; you are more likely to do a nonzero amount of damage, and less likely to do all of your damage. (We will ignore that average damage will be slightly higher for a rapier user. It’s not significant for the argument.)

Now, let’s make this same character a Rogue 3 (2d6 Sneak Attack), and presuppose that the character has some special ability that lets them finesse with a greatsword, while being Rogue 3. The character still does 2d6+3 with the greatsword and a combined 2d6+3 damage with two shortsword hits, but now, once per turn, that character adds 2d6 damage to the hit.

For the greatsword: the character’s average DPR is 11.05; the character will do 17 damage 65% of the time, and 0 damage 35% of the time.

For the two shortswords: the character’s average DPR is 12.66; the character will do 17 damage 42% of the time, 13.5 damage 23% of the time, 10.5 damage 23% of the time, and 0 damage 12% of the time.

The chance to do the full 17 damage is lower, but because so much of the damage output was loaded into getting just one hit, any hit, the much greater (~23%) chance of hitting skews the damage to above average. This case is true for any “on next hit” abilities, such as all smites (Divine Smite, Eldritch Smite, and the few smite smells), superiority dice, and, of course, Sneak Attack.

Now, let’s pretend the character is, say, a Hexblade 3. Who TWFs because reasons. They apply Hexblade’s Curse and the Hex spell to their target, and begin an attack routine.

For the greatsword: the character’s average DPR is 10.075; they will do 15.5 damage 65% of the time, and 0 damage 35% of the time.

For the shortswords: the character’s average DPR is 13.65; they will do 21 damage 42% of the time, 12 damage 23% of the time, 9 damage 23% of the time, and 0 damage 12% of the time.

In this case, both the average DPR and max damage of the TWF Hexblade is higher. The reason is that the attack riders are per each hit, so the damage of riders scales multiplicatively with the number of attacks. Where, without the riders, you could add the two smaller attacks to get one big attack (just like 2/3 + 1/3 = 1), with the riders, your two smaller attacks make up less of the total damage, and the riders take over (just like how [2/3 + 1/2] + [1/3 + 1/2] > [1 + 1/2], even though [1 + 1/2] is bigger than either of the two numbers alone). This is true for all “on all hits” abilities, such as the spells Hex, Hunter’s Mark, stuff like Magic Weapon/Elemental Weapon, the Hexblade’s Curse ability, Hunter’s Horde Breaker ability, and Barbarian’s Rage damage.

Now, there are obviously issues with this in actual play with feats involved. Riders benefit TWF, but the most valuable class-independent riders (the -5/+10 feats Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter) are specifically not accessable to any TWF-accessible weapons, while the GWM/SS-accessible weapons have bonus action attack access (for GWM, Polearm Master; for SS, Crossbow Master), which severely undercuts the importance of having an unconditional bonus action attack. The TWF style does not have two feats to compete with the -5/+10 feat combos that make those better, so it does eventually fall behind. However, the math makes it evidently clear how on-hit riders generally favor multiple attacks, and TWF has the lowest barrier to entry for attacking twice (where PAM requires you use your feat, TWF only requires you use your own two hands), which makes it good for those classes that use attack riders (Rogues, melee Rangers, and Hexblades), but don’t have great alternatives to TWF (as Paladin often does).

[Waffle_Iron]

I like this, Strength should always be the damage stat.

At a table I played at recently, the houserule for melee weapons was:
Piercing: dex to hit, dex to damage
Slashing: dex to hit, str to damage
Bludgeoning: str to hit, str to damage

finesse allowed you the option for dex/dex and two handed allowed you to choose str/str.
I'm not sure I'm sold, and I haven't adopted it at my table, but it did make versatile weapons more interesting.

[Laurefindel]

To reiterate. All things are on the table, apart from houserules or homebrews.

Not sure I understand; We cannot "make" TWF into anything else than what it is without suggestions that would break RaW (i.e. remove the bonus action requirement), which by definition, are houserules.

Are you asking only for RaW builds that benefit TWF?

[Twizzly513]

I went over this with my group a while back.
A mundane greatsword does 2d6 without a bonus action required with an average of 7. A shortsword does 1d6 (average 3.5). Use it twice for double that to 7 and uses your bonus action. With a two-weapon fighting style, you add your modifier twice, whatever that is, making TWF only better by doing a little more damage as well as hitting more often for damage.
Imagine you have the best category of vanilla magic weapons, the best dual-wielding one too. A +3 shortsword, which has an average of 6.5 now.
A +3 greatsword has an average of 10. Two +3 shortswords have an average of 13 and also takes up your bonus action, and you also get to add your modifier twice if you have the fighting style, adding additional damage.
This is why dual-wielding two swords is mechanically balanced.
Granted TWF does not have a good feat and it should probably be buffed, but you also could dual-wield higher damage dice with each hand, leading to even higher averages. A lot of TWF's appeal comes from the fighting style, though.
I think the main problem is with classes that use their bonus actions often, like paladin. You couldn't really have a dual-wielding paladin.

[Vaz]

Not sure I understand; We cannot "make" TWF into anything else than what it is without suggestions that would break RaW (i.e. remove the bonus action requirement), which by definition, are houserules.

Are you asking only for RaW builds that benefit TWF?
Ye, otherwise I'd have asked for Homebrew.

You can make a build with TWF, so come make one.

For all those who are saying TWF is good, I've not seen anything other than saying it's good to ensure that Sneak Attack lands, which is the same for any class to ensure Stunning Strike can trigger, or Smite etc triggers from it. So come one, come all, prove how good TWF is.

Can you Make a decent build for TWF? Otherwise, you know the OP would have stated 'can i have some homebrew ideas because TWF sucks'.

[Mjolnirbear]

Two-weapon fighting:
- When you attack with a weapon in one hand, you can attack with a light weapon in your off hand as a bonus action (rapier/main gauche)

TW FS:
- when Two-weapon fighting, your off-hand attack doesn't cost a bonus action (rangers get some love)

DW Feat:
- while two-weapon fighting, when an enemy attacks you with a melee attack and misses, you can use your reaction to attack them
- while two-weapon fighting and both weapons are light weapons, gain +1 AC

[The_Jette]

As a first level v human fighter, you can take the TWF style, and Dual Wielder feat, carrying around two rapiers to get two attacks at 1d8+Dex Mod per attack. The guy two handing a greatsword does 2d6+str mod once per turn. So, you're a little higher in damage if both hit (with 16 for both in Dex/Str respectively, the avg dmg is 15 twf vs 13 two handed). Now, you have only one chance to get that hit in with the greatsword, so if you miss, you get nothing. You have two chances to hit with the twf, so if you miss with one, you might hit with the next. Call that a pro or a con. It is what it is. Now, if you don't take the feat, you have to have a light weapon in your off hand. That reduces the damage by an avg of 1 or 2, which still keeps up in dmg and gives the benefit of possibly doing some damage if one hit misses, and the drawback of needing to hit twice to get full damage.

Now, that's at first level. At 5th level fighter, when you get extra attack, you're looking at a possible 3d8 + 3x mod vs 4d6 + 2x mod. Assuming both increased their modifier we now have avg's of 25/26 and 22. So, if you hit all three times you still have a slightly higher avg, because you get to add your dex mod 3 times versus only twice. That doesn't seem terrible. You have a higher chance to hit at all, because you're hitting multiple times, but are slightly less likely to connect with all your hits. So, higher chance to do any damage, but lower chance of doing max damage. Now this is just for a fighter. If you don't take the fighting style (so, if you're a dual wielding rogue) then the numbers are a little different. But, with twf you still have a chance of doing your sneak attack damage, because you are hitting multiple times. And, with the feat, you get that +1 to AC when dual wielding, which makes the inability to use a shield a little less terrible; and, is a blessing to Rogues who can't use shields to begin with.

That's just my two cp, though. I don't think TWF sucks. I think it's just about average. It isn't the greatest, most OP style out there. But, it isn't terrible, either.

[Wheaton's Whelp]

Pretty sure Vaz is trolling, but hey I'll indulge.

Your original statement is "TWF sucks, can we make it good?" Within this format, a perfectly viable response is to question the credibility of the initial statement of "TWF sucks." Many within this forum have done this, either through damage calculations or by explaining scenarios outside of damage where having the option of an additional attack is beneficial. By doing so your question of "can we make it good?" can be answered by saying it's already pretty good.

You've already personally listed Rogue, Monk, and Paladin as classes which can see a benefit. Considering Rage/Hex/Hunter's Mark it is easy to add Barbarian, Warlock/Hexblade, and Rangers to this list. An optimized build then would be to select one or more of the following, and maybe add the TWF fighting style or Dual Wielder feat. Some off the top of my head:

Barbarian 5+/Rogue X: Rage Damage per hit and consistent Sneak Attack damage with relentless attacks, tough to kill with Rage and Uncanny dodge reactions.
Ranger(Gloom Stalker) X: Extra attack on first round mitigates the attack lost due to casting Hunter's Mark, and with the later skill that let's the Gloom Stalker take an additional attack should one miss is great. Amazing team utility with Pass without Trace and what can effective be seen as invisibility in dark lighting.
Paladin/Hexblade Paladins/Soradins/Paladin Bladesinger: More attacks/slots for the smites with some caster utility.
Rogue X: Without multiclassing they don't get an extra attack, so the chance to get one additional strike can be vital. For Swashbuckler, extra attacks work well with their mobility.

Unless there is some reason only the optimized of the optimized is seen as "good," all these and more will experience a bonus if they decide to use two weapon fighting. When working as a team, generally few care if the half-orc to their left has done more damage with their person-sized greatsword; rather, remember this is a cooperative game where even the least optimized characters can have their moments to shine.

[Dudewithknives]

As a first level v human fighter, you can take the TWF style, and Dual Wielder feat, carrying around two rapiers to get two attacks at 1d8+Dex Mod per attack. The guy two handing a greatsword does 2d6+str mod once per turn. So, you're a little higher in damage if both hit (with 16 for both in Dex/Str respectively, the avg dmg is 15 twf vs 13 two handed). Now, you have only one chance to get that hit in with the greatsword, so if you miss, you get nothing. You have two chances to hit with the twf, so if you miss with one, you might hit with the next. Call that a pro or a con. It is what it is. Now, if you don't take the feat, you have to have a light weapon in your off hand. That reduces the damage by an avg of 1 or 2, which still keeps up in dmg and gives the benefit of possibly doing some damage if one hit misses, and the drawback of needing to hit twice to get full damage.

Now, that's at first level. At 5th level fighter, when you get extra attack, you're looking at a possible 3d8 + 3x mod vs 4d6 + 2x mod. Assuming both increased their modifier we now have avg's of 25/26 and 22. So, if you hit all three times you still have a slightly higher avg, because you get to add your dex mod 3 times versus only twice. That doesn't seem terrible. You have a higher chance to hit at all, because you're hitting multiple times, but are slightly less likely to connect with all your hits. So, higher chance to do any damage, but lower chance of doing max damage. Now this is just for a fighter. If you don't take the fighting style (so, if you're a dual wielding rogue) then the numbers are a little different. But, with twf you still have a chance of doing your sneak attack damage, because you are hitting multiple times. And, with the feat, you get that +1 to AC when dual wielding, which makes the inability to use a shield a little less terrible; and, is a blessing to Rogues who can't use shields to begin with.

That's just my two cp, though. I don't think TWF sucks. I think it's just about average. It isn't the greatest, most OP style out there. But, it isn't terrible, either.

The difference here is that you used a feat to get that good with TWF, and had a fighting style to get there.

The two hand using fighter could have just taken Polearm Master and gotten the bonus attack, and the stat bonus, and a reaction attack, all for cheaper, and just still has a fighting style that could go GWF and get a damage reroll, or just go with +1 AC for fighting style and get the same bonus that the TWF did.

The only use for TWF are:

1. On a rogue, because they just care about getting that hit in and their weapon damage die does not mean much. TWF is ok. However, they would be better off getting Crossbow Expert and doing the exact same thing but from range, and getting a stat bonus to both attacks, and can do it in melee.

2. A class that adds damage per hit might want it: Hex, Hunter's Mark, ect, but a warlock does not get a fighting style so it is just 1d6. Unless they are act of the blade and taking their invocations, by level 5 they do better with just using eldritch blast. If they are blade pact they could just take PAM or CE same as anyone else and get the same thing. Ranger does get extra attack, fighting style and get's hunter's mark so they might can squeeze a few extra points out of it, but they can just take PAM/CE and get the same if not better and use a better fighting style.

3. Paladin's who want to smite all the time, (Sorcadins), might take it, but they do not get the fighting style. So back again, PAM is just plain better.

As long as it takes a fighting style to add a stat, a feat to use anything but a D6 for damage, and uses your bonus action for the chance for more damage TWF will always be worse than just taking 1 feat that gets all of those for less investment, and more bonuses.

[Easy_Lee]

Unless there is some reason only the optimized of the optimized is seen as "good," all these and more will experience a bonus if they decide to use two weapon fighting. When working as a team, generally few care if the half-orc to their left has done more damage with their person-sized greatsword; rather, remember this is a cooperative game where even the least optimized characters can have their moments to shine.

This is only true if everyone in the group excels in different areas. We can imagine situations where that is not the case. For example, if I play a GWM barbarian and my teammate plays a strength-based TWF Champion Fighter, we might have a problem. I'm going to do a lot more damage than him, and there's little a fighter can do that a barbarian can't do.

It isn't a matter of optimization at that point. Rather, the problem is that one player is far better than the other at the same role, and the characters otherwise are not much different.

The DM might be able to resolve this with correct application of magic items. Or, maybe not. The players themselves might find ways to work together and resolve this. Or, maybe not. The best thing would be for one of these players to pick a different character. But that doesn't always happen.

I don't think it's the biggest problem in the world, but it's certainly frustrating.

[Dudewithknives]

This is only true if everyone in the group excels in different areas. We can imagine situations where that is not the case. For example, if I play a GWM barbarian and my teammate plays a strength-based TWF Champion Fighter, we might have a problem. I'm going to do a lot more damage than him, and there's little a fighter can do that a barbarian can't do.

It isn't a matter of optimization at that point. Rather, the problem is that one player is far better than the other at the same role, and the characters otherwise are not much different.

The DM might be able to resolve this with correct application of magic items. Or, maybe not. The players themselves might find ways to work together and resolve this. Or, maybe not. The best thing would be for one of these players to pick a different character. But that doesn't always happen.

I don't think it's the biggest problem in the world, but it's certainly frustrating.

Nightmare flashbacks to play a straight class Warlock in a game with a SorLock...

[Easy_Lee]

Nightmare flashbacks to play a straight class Warlock in a game with a SorLock...

Warlocks don't have to be DPR-focused. There are many things a warlock can do that don't involve dealing DPR at all. And DPR is the main area of expertise for a sorlock.

Fighters and barbarians, on the other hand...

[rbstr]

TWF has a clear advantage with per-hit damage adding as many have said. It's also good for say, trying to break caster concentration.
It also give you more reliable damage. That's clearly also advantageous for once-per-turn damage adding like sneak attack or even divine strike.
Without feats or anything TWF with the style actually does pretty well against great weapons on two-attack classes even at mid/high level: 2x(2d6+5) for 24 (~26.X with the style) vs 3x(1d6+5) for 25.5?

Anyway, for a decent TWF build I'm thinking a strength-based Ranger. Gloom Stalker or Hunter. I think Gloom is neat since you'll get the extra attack in the first round and that's when you need to use a bonus action on casting a spell instead of TWF. Works well with the damage-per hit stuff.
Max Strength and take the dual wielder feat.
So you use Hunter's Mark until 13th level.
Then you can start to use Guardian of Nature (which is why I went with strength).
3x(1d8+1d6+5) for 39avg. at advantage and you can re-roll a miss.

A three level dip in assassin or swashbuckler could be pretty neat in there too. Potential for big surprises or very consistent sneak attack damage.

[The_Jette]

The difference here is that you used a feat to get that good with TWF, and had a fighting style to get there.

The two hand using fighter could have just taken Polearm Master and gotten the bonus attack, and the stat bonus, and a reaction attack, all for cheaper, and just still has a fighting style that could go GWF and get a damage reroll, or just go with +1 AC for fighting style and get the same bonus that the TWF did.

The only use for TWF are:

1. On a rogue, because they just care about getting that hit in and their weapon damage die does not mean much. TWF is ok. However, they would be better off getting Crossbow Expert and doing the exact same thing but from range, and getting a stat bonus to both attacks, and can do it in melee.

2. A class that adds damage per hit might want it: Hex, Hunter's Mark, ect, but a warlock does not get a fighting style so it is just 1d6. Unless they are act of the blade and taking their invocations, by level 5 they do better with just using eldritch blast. If they are blade pact they could just take PAM or CE same as anyone else and get the same thing. Ranger does get extra attack, fighting style and get's hunter's mark so they might can squeeze a few extra points out of it, but they can just take PAM/CE and get the same if not better and use a better fighting style.

3. Paladin's who want to smite all the time, (Sorcadins), might take it, but they do not get the fighting style. So back again, PAM is just plain better.

As long as it takes a fighting style to add a stat, a feat to use anything but a D6 for damage, and uses your bonus action for the chance for more damage TWF will always be worse than just taking 1 feat that gets all of those for less investment, and more bonuses.

Your argument that it takes a feat to be good is a bit strained, since PAM also takes a feat. Plus, the bonuses from Dual Wielder are a bonus to AC, the ability to use a non-light one handed weapon, and the ability to draw both weapons instead of just one. PAM restricts you to an extra d4. I'd rather have an extra d8 and +1 to AC, personally. You don't like TWF. That much is obvious. But, there's nothing inherently bad about it. It just doesn't work with your preferred playstyle. Also, point of interest, PAM uses your bonus action for a chance for more damage, just a smaller amount. So, it doesn't have any benefits above TWF in that respect.

[JNAProductions]

Your argument that it takes a feat to be good is a bit strained, since PAM also takes a feat. Plus, the bonuses from Dual Wielder are a bonus to AC, the ability to use a non-light one handed weapon, and the ability to draw both weapons instead of just one. PAM restricts you to an extra d4. I'd rather have an extra d8 and +1 to AC, personally. You don't like TWF. That much is obvious. But, there's nothing inherently bad about it. It just doesn't work with your preferred playstyle. Also, point of interest, PAM uses your bonus action for a chance for more damage, just a smaller amount. So, it doesn't have any benefits above TWF in that respect.

You can use a Shield with PAM, for +1 AC over Dual Wielder.

[Theodoxus]

Greatsword deals 2d6. Before Extra Attack, TWF deals the same damage with two successful attacks rather than one. Less if not successful. After Extra Attack, TWF deals 75% damage if all attacks hit (Greatsword: 4d6 vs.TWF: 3d6).

Wait, why do these arguments always devolve into this?

TWF has the benefit of more chances to hit - Greatswords are awesome for dealing damage... unless you miss.

If you're attacking a meat bag with low AC like an ogre or giant, then sure, Greatswords and GWM are gonna end the encounter faster, which is a 'good thing' for players. But if you're attacking high AC low HP opponents, then all that extra damage doesn't do squat, as there's no carry over (other than the bonus attack from GWM as a cleave). I'd rather have three attacks that have a decent chance to take out three weaker opponents.

Now, ideally, I'd really like to be able to do both, but that requires mutliclassing, or going high levels in Champion...

[The_Jette]

You can use a Shield with PAM, for +1 AC over Dual Wielder.

Then, it's just my game table. Because, I have a pretty lenient DM, but he would never allow someone to attack to the other side of a polearm while wielding it one handed. The whole reason you're supposed to be able to do that is because you're supposed to be using it two-handed.

[Mjolnirbear]

Then, it's just my game table. Because, I have a pretty lenient DM, but he would never allow someone to attack to the other side of a polearm while wielding it one handed. The whole reason you're supposed to be able to do that is because you're supposed to be using it two-handed.

I agree, but JNA is pointing out the RAW.

[JellyPooga]

Wait, why do these arguments always devolve into this?

I suspect it comes down to the "more chances to hit" vs. "more chances to miss" opinion.

I can see the argument for not overblowing TWF to shadow other fighting styles because its inherent versatility (i.e. being able to spread the damage or focus it, plus technically being able to mix it up with regards to damage types more easily and having an easier time of going from ranged to melee) is a benefit in and of itself. When you're looking at the numbers though...TWF generally just doesn't add up. It's a way to spend a lot of effort on getting comparatively mediocre results in white-room scenarios, when GWM, PAM and Sharpshooter (random derail; why do the former two Feats get abbreviated, but the latter rarely does?) have demonstrable improvements to those juicy big numbers.

[rbstr]

I suspect it comes down to the "more chances to hit" vs. "more chances to miss" opinion.

So it comes down to nonsense?

Seems about right.

[ad_hoc]

You can use a Shield with PAM, for +1 AC over Dual Wielder.

The weakness of PAM is that magical polearms are very rare. I suppose quarterstaffs are probably going to be slightly more common.

It is entirely probable, and probably likely that a party will go an entire campaign without finding one.

In that case the PAM user will need to have some other plans when fighting the myriad of creatures with resistance to non-magical weapons.

[Theodoxus]

Off topic to the OPs request, but Zman's weapon fixes, where he creates a new category called "offhand" helps. It allows you to use an offhand weapon (specific ones with the Offhand category) with a non-light main hand- without resorting to a feat... so rogues can go Rapier/Dagger right off the bat, if they so choose. It does boost DPR a little, for those who feel it's important.

[Easy_Lee]

If I can put a cap on this, the issues with TWF are not limited to damage. Playing in a featless game does nothing to resolve the other TWF issues.

Magic Weapon and Elemental Weapon can only target one weapon. If you have magical weapons, you need two in order to TWF as effectively. A TWF character gains less benefit from Haste than a great weapon user, duelist, or even archer (bonus to-hit). You can't cast bonus action spells or use other bonus action abilities at the same time as TWF. You make more attacks sometimes, but those individual attacks don't hit as hard as any other style. Your reaction attacks don't hit as hard.

All of the above hinder TWF even before we consider shield master, polearm master, Sharpshooter, or GWM. Except on very specific, niche builds, TWF is always a suboptimal choice, indisputably.

Whether we should care that its a suboptimal choice is a value judgment. But what I will say is that you would care if someone else in YOUR GROUP was better than you in every way. That's something to think about when choosing a character.

[KorvinStarmast]

When you're looking at the numbers though...TWF generally just doesn't add up. Before level 5 it's fine for martials. However, any comparison depends a little on base armor class (Higher AC actually points slightly toward TWF) but as levels go up and number of attacks go up on a Fighter, TWF's loses its shine. I think Kryx has a table somewhere that shows the sensitivity to AC that the comparison relies on.

[JellyPooga]

So it comes down to nonsense?

Seems about right.

Yeah, pretty much :smallbiggrin:

[MaverickOrig]

Thematically TWF should provide a bonus to using two weapons against a single target. So I give you my recommended homebrew:

Two weapon fighting (homebrew by MaverickOrig):
If during your turn you HIT a creature with a melee weapon, you may use your bonus action to attack the same creature again with ADVANTAGE using a different weapon in your off hand as a bonus action.

Basically, injuring a creature grants you an opportunity to follow through with a more deadly and likely follow up blow. This combos with sneak attack and other critical hit related class features that double damage dice.

I specifically avoid limiting the off hand to light. Some fighters may use a short sword and follow up with a huge Warhammer. They duel with the sword/dagger and take advantage of the opportunity.

[Theodoxus]

If you have magical weapons, you need two in order to TWF as effectively.

I never understood this mentality either. "Oh shoot, I just found a magic short sword. Guess I'll stop using TWF and go sword and board, only got the one magic weapon!"

You have a magic weapon? Wicked! Now you can figure out if you want to use it in your main hand for a better chance to hit, or in your off-hand for a little more damage... Afterall 1d6+1 is better than 1d6!

Or, even better, now you don't have to worry about Magical Weapon or Elemental Weapon only affecting one! you got your magic sword, AND elemental weapon! Squee!

I still stand my contention that 1d6 is better than 0d6. If you miss with a greatsword, but your buddy gets two attacks and only hits with his offhand, he's still out DPRing you, isn't he...

[Vaz]

I never understood this mentality either. "Oh shoot, I just found a magic short sword. Guess I'll stop using TWF and go sword and board, only got the one magic weapon!"

You have a magic weapon? Wicked! Now you can figure out if you want to use it in your main hand for a better chance to hit, or in your off-hand for a little more damage... Afterall 1d6+1 is better than 1d6!

Or, even better, now you don't have to worry about Magical Weapon or Elemental Weapon only affecting one! you got your magic sword, AND elemental weapon! Squee!

I still stand my contention that 1d6 is better than 0d6. If you miss with a greatsword, but your buddy gets two attacks and only hits with his offhand, he's still out DPRing you, isn't he...

Great Weapon Master? Full benefit
Sword Board? Full damage potential, or full protection detail
Einhander: Full damage potential
TWF: half damage potential

3+1 is 4 Quick maths

Also, why would people think I'm trolling? Make a build put you gd money where your noise hole is.

[Kane0]

Well Swashbuckler Rogue was like built for TWF wasn't it? Maybe throw in a Hexblade dip for CHA SADness, proficiencies and hexes for on-hit damage bonuses and you're golden.
Maybe a bit of ranger too, they get a fighting style, on-hit damage boosts and extra attack.

Hexblade 2 / Ranger 5 / Rogue 13 sounds like a reasonable build to start with. You still break even with 5 ASIs too.

[LudicSavant]

It should be noted that TWF's problems are not just raw damage from its standard attack routine. It's that it takes up your bonus action (a bit of mechanical clunkiness that makes it largely incompatible with many character types) and requires two weapons rather than one to get the full benefit of a magic or buffed weapon. It also tends to not be accounted for with attack-based abilities and maneuvers.

From a game design perspective, I feel that one of the major roots of the issue with TWF is that it doesn't really fill its own unique niche quite like the reach/great weapon/sword and board trinity does... while there are a few situational differences, for most intents and purposes it competes rather directly for GWF's niche (doing more damage at the cost of defense), and thus comes down to a simple calculation of "for your build, which does more damage? GWF or TWF?" Since one will generally be clearly superior for any given build, many players will feel like they're being punished mechanically for flavor choices if their concept involves using the other type of weapon.

[rbstr]

Great Weapon Master? Full benefit
Sword Board? Full damage potential, or full protection detail
Einhander: Full damage potential
TWF: half damage potential

3+1 is 4 Quick maths

Misrepresentation maths?
A +X weapon in the main hand gives the same absolute amount of benefit regardless of twf or single-weapon.
Giving a TWF ranger a +2 short sword and a sword/board ranger a +2 rapier is the same amount of added damage.
If resistance to non-magic damage is involved the TWF is still doing over 5/6ths their maximum with a non +X weapon in the offhand.

[djreynolds]

If you play by the "obvious" rules, finesse and versatile weapons are more prominent.

Right? Luck sword, vorpal, battle axes and scimitars, etc. Spears maces etc

Magic initiate isn't has no pre requirements

Also, especially with human prodigy, any of the main hand attacks can used to disarm or shove

And as with, a certain someone, your off hand could have a weapon with defensive perks..... called..... cough.... twinkle

[Easy_Lee]

I still stand my contention that 1d6 is better than 0d6. If you miss with a greatsword, but your buddy gets two attacks and only hits with his offhand, he's still out DPRing you, isn't he...

If, and that's only at level 1. By level 5, assuming they both took a feat at 4, the greatsword is (2D6+3)*2, potentially +10 on each hit if he uses the -5/+10, and potentially adding another 2D6+3 if he crits or kills a foe. The TWF character is 3D8+9, period. 20-60 damage vs 22.5. And it only gets worse the higher level you go.

We can think up tricky builds that might use TWF effectively (semi-optimally), but we shouldn't have to do that for such an iconic thing.

And again, none of this matters if you don't care about optimization. The trouble is that a lot of us do want to be effective, and it's no fun when another party member outperforms you in every way.

[danpit2991]

i see lots of maths and it makes my poor head hurt... the easiest "fix" and the one employed at my table is the off hand attack is combined with your normal attack action (and no lame dual rapiers) leaving the bonus action free so when you take the attack action you get one attack with your main hand and one with your off hand. yes when you get extra attacks it becomes a bit much but so far it has not caused any real problems i mean at level 20 that is only 8D6 or 8D8 with the feat not including bonus and crit and when you compare that with the damage output from spells at that level its comparative. and my DM has already said if it gets too crazy he will nerf it somehow, probably only allow the off hand attack once or twice a turn or something

[Dudewithknives]

i see lots of maths and it makes my poor head hurt... the easiest "fix" and the one employed at my table is the off hand attack is combined with your normal attack action (and no lame dual rapiers) leaving the bonus action free so when you take the attack action you get one attack with your main hand and one with your off hand. yes when you get extra attacks it becomes a bit much but so far it has not caused any real problems i mean at level 20 that is only 8D6 or 8D8 with the feat not including bonus and crit and when you compare that with the damage output from spells at that level its comparative. and my DM has already said if it gets too crazy he will nerf it somehow, probably only allow the off hand attack once or twice a turn or something

That makes no sense. If you just say they hands add together then what does the fighting style actually do?

Also, this completely reverses the point of the style. The point is to make more attacks, with that there is absolutely no difference between a pair of shortswords and one greatsword other than you do the same damage but don't get a free hand to cast with, don't get to use GWM, don't get to use great weapon fighting, and depending on if you want 1d10 instead of 2d6 can't use polearm master.

That is a horrible fix.

[Mister_Squinty]

Coming into this late, and I haven't mentally digested all the previous points, so I apologize if this has been covered.

For the fighting style, if we want it to compare to the others, in addition to cancelling the off-hand penalty and the single object interaction penalty, would a +1 to hit (half of Archery style) be inappropriate?

And regarding the Feat, it seems that allowing the off-hand to become part of the Attack action instead of the bonus action jibes well with the power/versatility level of other Feats. Given that the fighter is sacrificing the protection of a shield and the burst damage of GWF/Sharpshooter, it doesn't feel, to me at least, unbalancing.

Flame away. :smallsmile:

[Galactkaktus]

The problem with TWF is that the fighting style is not an option for the clases that whould actually dual wield Rogues for more consistant sneak attack and maybe Paladins for more nova. The only times i take TWF is if i multiclass as a fighter/rogue.

[bid]

Also, why would people think I'm trolling? Make a build put you gd money where your noise hole is.
You know, if you hadn't kept it vague for a dozen of reply... you might have had a chance of convincing me otherwise.


I mean, how hard is it to clearly state "make a build where TWF is not penalized" instead of noping all misguided answers.

Because purposeful misdirection is a tool's tool.

[Vaz]

Check the OP. Quite clear. 'No houserules'.

[Kane0]

Hexblade 2 / Gloom Stalker Ranger 5 / Swashbuckler Rogue 13
Put your ASIs into Cha, Dual Wielder amd Mobility. Lucky and Resilient are also handy, as is Elven accuracy if you choose to be an elf or half elf.

Dread ambusher gives you an extra attack round 1 which helps counteract the one you miss out on for turning on hex/hunter’s mark or using cunning action to get into position, as well as more speed that stacks with mobility. More attacks means more chances to break enemy concentration after all.
Umbral sight goes lovely wih rogue expertise in stealth if thats your fancy or expertise can be used in conjunction with beguiling tongue and/or mask of many faces to really put your cha skills to use if you’re not interested in putting all your invocations into EB as a backup option.

Plus theres always full fighter plus elven accuracy with finesse weapons for the pure blender route, but i find that a little narrow with long stretches between drinks.

Edit: actually with the mobile feat swashbuckler might not be the best choice. Try scout instead.

[Zalabim]

I'm partial to "When you attack and hit a target with both your main and off hand weapons on your turn, add your proficiency bonus as extra damage". Not spectacular, but a nice incentive.
I don't like this fix, because it places a ton of importance on the bonus action attack, and on attacking only a single enemy. My preference to make changes to/add new fighting style and/or feats, since that addresses the style where there's a problem. Changing anything about TWF is difficult because it interacts with all sorts of classes and combat styles in different ways. Strength characters can use it in melee or ranged, with handaxes. Dexterity characters can use it too. Simple weapon users can use it, and martial weapon users can use it better with dexterity. Rogues use it without extra attack. Fighters are supposed to use it somehow and have little competition for the bonus action. Rangers are definitely supposed to use it sometimes and have tons of competition for the bonus action. Rogues actually can benefit it in a low-cost way, other than the cost of the bonus action.

The way I look at it, TWF is fine for characters with no FS and no feats dedicated to combat, and gets worse the more features you have dedicated to fighting with weapons. It seems backwards. It seems like it should be a style primarily useful to those who've trained sufficiently to wield a weapon in either hand with equal ease (according to the surviving manuals anyway.) So, anyway, the functionality I'd use to fix it would be the "add the dice together for your weapon damage" version. That way the style scales with extra attack and it makes the ability to use larger weapons from Dual Wielder look more valuable and it can also be limited to melee attacks only to not change how it works for ranged combat. Still, it's tough to put the style exactly where it fits best when there's so many different ways it can be used.

To reiterate. All things are on the table, apart from houserules or homebrews.
Everything is on the table except everything is off the table. More or less seriously, the best case I know for a fighter using TWF is the half-orc champion mounted combatant dual wielder with lances. Bring spare horses. Bribe your wizard for Phantom Steed services. Buddy up with an amazing creature to be your mount. When your party wizard shapechanges into a dragon, you jump on top, parry all the attacks that threaten his concentration, give him advantage on some saving throws, and gain advantage on all attacks against anything smaller than your dragon. Pose for metal album covers in your spare time.

Sword and Board. Especially with Dueling, damage is similar to TWF, but AC is 2 greater, which is a big deal.
If your Dex character puts on a shield, you lose quick access to the vaunted "better ranged options" that people are so fond of citing.

[Laurefindel]

Check the OP. Quite clear. 'No houserules'.

To be fair Vaz, the title of your thread "TWF sucks; can we make it good?" suggests that you're looking for suggestions how to deviate from RaW (to make TWF good). Without changing RaW, we can't make TWF into anything else than what it is already.

Also, it wasn't immediately clear whether suggestions on how to change RaW = houserules when you say "everything is on the table".

So yes, your OP was clear about no houserules/homebrew, but in apparent contradiction with your title, which explains the abundance of houserule suggestions in the thread.

[edit] made a (yet another) thread for TWF houserule suggestions here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?545188-Houseruling-TWF)to de-clutter Vaz's

[Citan]

To be fair Vaz, the title of your thread "TWF sucks; can we make it good?" suggests that you're looking for suggestions how to deviate from RaW (to make TWF good). Without changing RaW, we can't make TWF into anything else than what it is already.

Also, it wasn't immediately clear whether suggestions on how to change RaW = houserules when you say "everything is on the table".

So yes, your OP was clear about no houserules/homebrew, but in apparent contradiction with your title, which explains the abundance of houserule suggestions in the thread.
+1000, both title and post could really use some tone down...

Anyways, since Vaz seems to actually want some build ideas...

(Just in case though, my houserule suggestions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20453480&postcount=7))
Reminders about efficiently using dual-wield (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22288433&postcount=4)
A more general and extensive input (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22302245&postcount=4)
Thug Tank thread in which I made several suggestions, one of which being a dual-wielder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?539361-Thug-Tank-Build&highlight=TWF)
Bladesinger multiclass build in which I made a suggestion with variants (one of my favorites ^^) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22327970&postcount=20)
Post in a thread pertaining a "versatile Fighter" with several suggestions (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22314937&postcount=38)



And to finish: detailed (although quite incomplete) view on benefits of TWF on some classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22215256&postcount=111).

Enjoy! :smallwink:
("hey, thanks for shoring up my lazyness and searching forum threads for me" You're welcome ;)).

[Easy_Lee]

TWF on a Bladesinger is honestly a decent idea. If you have the stats for it, Elven Accuracy on a Bladesinger with two levels of Paladin can lay down some wicked smites. If you have the stats for it.

That said, you can do an arguably better version of the same thing on a Hexadin.

[Dudewithknives]

How about I sum it up like this:

In a game that allows feats TWF will almost always be inferior to either PAM if str based or CBX if Dex based. With 1 exception and a possible of 1 more if you want thematics.

In a game with no feats it will be MUCH better because it is not they styles that makes the others better it is the feats.

By class:

Bard: Can use TWF for flourish or extra attack from valor. However, they could do the exact same thing with a hand crossbow and get better.

Barbarian: Rage bonus has to be STR based, so PAM is by far better. Dex barbarians are crappy and just doing it for resistance so who cares.

Cleric: Most get shillelagh, so PAM, of the rest just about all of them are going to be str based so PAM, if for some reason they are dex based, they do not get a style anyway and will use a shield.

Druid: No 2nd attack, no fighting style, and gets free shillelagh, and wild shape, nobody is going to be dual wielding.

Fighter: Dex based will use CBE, or go rapier shield, or just used a longbow. Can't double bonus attack even on a round of Action Surge so that doesn't help.

Monk: Already gets a free bonus action attack and no fighting style, and needs more stats than anyone so the DW feat is pointless.

Paladin: Paladins want more attacks to smite more, but no TWF style to pick, all of them that want the extra attack go PAM.

Ranger: This might can do it for thematics. Tends to like dex, gets the fighting style, and has hunter's mark. Can feasibly make it work for thematic reasons... other than CBE is 100% better once you get a feat. Same damage, ranged and melee, leaves a hand free, has a MUCH better fighting style, and only needs one weapon.

Rogue: Rogues love an extra chance to hit something, but they also have a built in use of their bonus action every round. They also do not get a fighting style so why bother, just get CBE and get 2 attacks instead of 1, can do it at ranged, leave a hand free, gets a stat automatically, ect... see where this is going?

Sorcerer: Full caster with no fighting style, no extra attack, and no real reason to ever be in melee at all. If they get in melee it will be with BB/GFB not TWF.

Warlock: Everyone but pact of blade will be using BB/GFB, people who take pact of blade only get bonuses with their pact weapon so if they want the bonus attack it will be with CBE/PAM, not TWF.

Wizard: 90% of the time will never be in melee anyway, and will act like the sorcerer, the exception being Bladesingers.

Bladesingers do not get a fighting style, can't use 2 hands for an attack, can't wear anything but light armor, can't use a shield, and later get to add another stat to specifically melee attacks.
This means that they can't use a heavy weapon, but still want that extra attack once they hit 14th.
They could take CBX, but they are not proficient with hand crossbows.
They also do not get the option of using a weapon as their focus either.
They have 2 choices really: A) Use a single 1 handed weapon and save a feat, B) Spend a feat on Warcaster to cast with a weapon in each hand.

It is POSSIBLE to make a fairly good TWF Bladesinger, if your game uses feats, which 99% of them do.

Otherwise, it is just a thematic choice that at the absolute best might can pull even with other options at specific levels but is not mechanically better.

[danpit2991]

That makes no sense. If you just say they hands add together then what does the fighting style actually do?

Also, this completely reverses the point of the style. The point is to make more attacks, with that there is absolutely no difference between a pair of shortswords and one greatsword other than you do the same damage but don't get a free hand to cast with, don't get to use GWM, don't get to use great weapon fighting, and depending on if you want 1d10 instead of 2d6 can't use polearm master.

That is a horrible fix.


i apologize if i wasn't clear enough in my post. what i meant was each time you take the attack action you attack with each weapon so 2 separate attack rolls this leaves the bonus action open. also in my game last night the dm ruled that both attacks must be on the same target unless you use the bonus action so i can either make 2 attack rolls against 1 target or attack target A then use bonus action to attack target B so in actuality you are effectively doubling the attack rolls made that's why he said at higher levels he might nerf the number of off hand attacks per round

so it is like this Great weapon 1 attack for 1d10 or 2d6 vs TWF 2 attacks for 1d6 each or 1d6/1d8 is that more clear? i have trouble explaining things in text it isnt as complicated in practice as it seems here

[PeteNutButter]

How about I sum it up like this:

In a game that allows feats TWF will almost always be inferior to either PAM if str based or CBX if Dex based. With 1 exception and a possible of 1 more if you want thematics.

In a game with no feats it will be MUCH better because it is not they styles that makes the others better it is the feats.

By class:

Bard: Can use TWF for flourish or extra attack from valor. However, they could do the exact same thing with a hand crossbow and get better.

Barbarian: Rage bonus has to be STR based, so PAM is by far better. Dex barbarians are crappy and just doing it for resistance so who cares.

Cleric: Most get shillelagh, so PAM, of the rest just about all of them are going to be str based so PAM, if for some reason they are dex based, they do not get a style anyway and will use a shield.

Druid: No 2nd attack, no fighting style, and gets free shillelagh, and wild shape, nobody is going to be dual wielding.

Fighter: Dex based will use CBE, or go rapier shield, or just used a longbow. Can't double bonus attack even on a round of Action Surge so that doesn't help.

Monk: Already gets a free bonus action attack and no fighting style, and needs more stats than anyone so the DW feat is pointless.

Paladin: Paladins want more attacks to smite more, but no TWF style to pick, all of them that want the extra attack go PAM.

Ranger: This might can do it for thematics. Tends to like dex, gets the fighting style, and has hunter's mark. Can feasibly make it work for thematic reasons... other than CBE is 100% better once you get a feat. Same damage, ranged and melee, leaves a hand free, has a MUCH better fighting style, and only needs one weapon.

Rogue: Rogues love an extra chance to hit something, but they also have a built in use of their bonus action every round. They also do not get a fighting style so why bother, just get CBE and get 2 attacks instead of 1, can do it at ranged, leave a hand free, gets a stat automatically, ect... see where this is going?

Sorcerer: Full caster with no fighting style, no extra attack, and no real reason to ever be in melee at all. If they get in melee it will be with BB/GFB not TWF.

Warlock: Everyone but pact of blade will be using BB/GFB, people who take pact of blade only get bonuses with their pact weapon so if they want the bonus attack it will be with CBE/PAM, not TWF.

Wizard: 90% of the time will never be in melee anyway, and will act like the sorcerer, the exception being Bladesingers.

Bladesingers do not get a fighting style, can't use 2 hands for an attack, can't wear anything but light armor, can't use a shield, and later get to add another stat to specifically melee attacks.
This means that they can't use a heavy weapon, but still want that extra attack once they hit 14th.
They could take CBX, but they are not proficient with hand crossbows.
They also do not get the option of using a weapon as their focus either.
They have 2 choices really: A) Use a single 1 handed weapon and save a feat, B) Spend a feat on Warcaster to cast with a weapon in each hand.

It is POSSIBLE to make a fairly good TWF Bladesinger, if your game uses feats, which 99% of them do.

Otherwise, it is just a thematic choice that at the absolute best might can pull even with other options at specific levels but is not mechanically better.

This pretty much sums it up. Dex builds that don't want to use CBE are the only ones that want TWF. That means Bladesingers, Blade Bards, and some rogues.

I think CBE is worse than TWF on a blade bard. The flourishes benefit melee characters more, as ranged ones won't need AC as much. Additionally they actually DO get the FS, and don't have access to archery FS. The real advantage to TWF over CBE is the weapon choice. Most campaigns you'll come across some magic short swords or some such, but magic crossbows are few and far between.

Both bladesingers and blade bards don't necessarily need the feat tax for warcaster as they can always drop 1 weapon and still be able to OA and cast shield.

[Dudewithknives]

This pretty much sums it up. Dex builds that don't want to use CBE are the only ones that want TWF. That means Bladesingers, Blade Bards, and some rogues.

I think CBE is worse than TWF on a blade bard. The flourishes benefit melee characters more, as ranged ones won't need AC as much. Additionally they actually DO get the FS, and don't have access to archery FS. The real advantage to TWF over CBE is the weapon choice. Most campaigns you'll come across some magic short swords or some such, but magic crossbows are few and far between.

Both bladesingers and blade bards don't necessarily need the feat tax for warcaster as they can always drop 1 weapon and still be able to OA and cast shield.

If the Dual Wielder feat was as good of a feat as: PAM, GWM, CBX, SS, and Shield Master, it would really help.

In a game with no feats, dual wielding can work for many classes, in a game with them every fighting style but TWF gets one of the best feats in the game and TWF gets the one that is pointless until you max dex anyway.

Simply: Don't fix TWF, just make Dual Wielder as good as other style specific feats.

[mephnick]

Simply: Don't fix TWF, just make Dual Wielder as good as other style specific feats.

Yeah, I think this is the main problem. Dual Wielder is a horrible feat going up against Sharpshooter, Xbow Expert, GWM, Shield Master, PAM and, to a lesser degree, Defensive Duelist.

Make Dual Wielder attractive and you help TWF a lot.

[Crusher]

The problem with TWF is that the fighting style is not an option for the clases that whould actually dual wield Rogues for more consistant sneak attack and maybe Paladins for more nova. The only times i take TWF is if i multiclass as a fighter/rogue.

I'm playing a DEX-based Sorcadin in a campaign right now who uses TWF to increase his possible smites/round (he's never going to get to Paladin 5). Having the fighting style would have been nice, but Defensive has worked out quite nicely so far so I don't really have any complaints.

Plus, he's at a point where they're fighting a lot of stuff that's either immune or at least resistant to non-magic weapons and his off-hand weapon is non-magical (and its a whip, so finding a magic one wouldn't be trivial, plus its just a 1d4 weapon anyway) so using it purely as a vehicle for delivering smites that does virtually no damage on its own has been fine. If he had the fighting style, it might do actual damage and thus he'd need to find a magical one.

[furby076]

Without reading 4 pages, here is my suggestion.

Twf works as normal, utilizing bonus action. The player, at their discretion, can sacrifice their move action to change bonus action to free action. The player can use the offhand attack, but is so consumed with the extra effort, does not have time to move around. The character is committed to the fight

[Dudewithknives]

Without reading 4 pages, here is my suggestion.

Twf works as normal, utilizing bonus action. The player, at their discretion, can sacrifice their move action to change bonus action to free action. The player can use the offhand attack, but is so consumed with the extra effort, does not have time to move around. The character is committed to the fight

There is no move action in 5e, and the idea of trading movement for bonuses is not a precedent that should get started.

[Danielqueue1]

lets make a proper situation shall we?
level 5 (where everyone says 2 weapon fighting starts to suck.)

base both go variant human and get the feat at level 1.
stat bonus +4
to hit bonus +7

character 1; ranger, two weapon fighting style dual wielder feat.

character 2; fighter, defense fighting style (same AC) great weapon master feat

target 16 AC

character 1

3 attacks with rapiers (or other weapons if you were STR based fighter or some such)

average damage 15.97/round including criticals.
odds of dealing no damage 6.4%

character 2
2 attacks with greatsword

average damage 13.9/round including criticals
odds of dealing no damage 16%

2 attacks with great weapon master

average damage 15.4/round including criticals
odds of dealing no damage 42.25%

that 42% miss rate against some dude who's got starting gear chainmail on is going to suck. let alone if he's got a shield

***same target now with a shield***
TWF
avg 13.43/round no damage 12.5%
Greatsword
avg 11.7/round no damage 25%
GWM
avg 11.2/round no damage 56.25%

WOW! now that the target has the armor class of a level 1 S&B fighter GWM is mathematically WORSE than twf by multiple metrics.

but it gets better.

lets say the ranger cast hunters mark and the other character was a barbarian instead of a fighter thus gaining a rage bonus to his damage. both used their bonus actions on a previous turn.

TARGET AC 16
TWF
avg 22.8/round no damage 6.4%
Greatsword
avg 16.3/round no damage 16%
GWM
avg 16.8/round no damage 42.25%


Target AC 18
TWF
avg 19.2/round no damage 12.5%
Greatsword
avg 13.7/round no damage 25%
GWM
avg 12.2/round no damage 56.25%


that's right at level 5 with a +7 to hit, a two weapon fighter will deal more damage on average to a character in chainmail and a shield (level 1 fighter gear) than a raging barbarian using a greatsword and GWM. and notably more if they cast hunter's mark first.

a great deal of these "calculations" that people do in the forums assume that chance to hit doesn't matter, only how much damage each hit deals. against lower AC foes, GWM crushes. against decently outfitted foes, TWF outpaces it quickly and when you have things like hunters mark, hex, colossus slayer, Divine smite, battlemaster maneuvers, sneak attack, etc that trigger bonus damage on a hit, hitting more often means you can use those bonuses far more reliably. A two weapon fighter wanting to make a goading attack against an enemy has a notably higher chance of being able to force a creature to make a saving throw for each chance that fighter has to hit.


AC 16
TWF (http://anydice.com/program/dff6)
GS (http://anydice.com/program/dff7)
GWM (http://anydice.com/program/dff8)
AC 18
TWF (http://anydice.com/program/dffb)
GS (http://anydice.com/program/dffa)
GWM (http://anydice.com/program/dff9)



note if I made any errors in my programming, feel free to point them out.

[Citan]

There is no move action in 5e, and the idea of trading movement for bonuses is not a precedent that should get started.
Why not?
Although there is no "move action" there are several effects that do affect a character's ability to speed, either as a blunt buff (Longstrider/Haste/Monk feature) /debuff (Slow/prone/restrained) or as a trade-off, or as a requirement to trigger features (thinking some Barb's Totem path for example or the -nobody-ever-chooses-me-because-Im-too-niche Charger feat).

So there are already many mechanicals precedent tying an "affect manner in which you move" to an effect of any kind.

I guess you are afraid that following furby076's suggestion would open a Pandora's box, but I fail to see what kind. Could you elaborate plz? :)

[Dudewithknives]

Why not?
Although there is no "move action" there are several effects that do affect a character's ability to speed, either as a blunt buff (Longstrider/Haste/Monk feature) /debuff (Slow/prone/restrained) or as a trade-off, or as a requirement to trigger features (thinking some Barb's Totem path for example or the -nobody-ever-chooses-me-because-Im-too-niche Charger feat).

So there are already many mechanicals precedent tying an "affect manner in which you move" to an effect of any kind.

I guess you are afraid that following furby076's suggestion would open a Pandora's box, but I fail to see what kind. Could you elaborate plz? :)

If you open the do of people trading movement for more offense it is just going to lead combat more like 3.5 again where it will be players at either turrets or wood chippers.

5e has made combat much more mobile, this would completely kill that.

[Citan]

If you open the do of people trading movement for more offense it is just going to lead combat more like 3.5 again where it will be players at either turrets or wood chippers.

5e has made combat much more mobile, this would completely kill that.
Hmm I get what you mean, but I'd argue that as long as you "start" from the current rules to just add options, you have little chance of derailing the whole train.
But I fully recognize lacking hindsight on that, having never played 3.5 so no idea of how bad that were and how hard it would be to shape 5e into a similar state. :=)

lets make a proper situation shall we?
level 5 (where everyone says 2 weapon fighting starts to suck.)

base both go variant human and get the feat at level 1.
stat bonus +4
to hit bonus +7

character 1; ranger, two weapon fighting style dual wielder feat.

character 2; fighter, defense fighting style (same AC) great weapon master feat

target 16 AC

character 1

3 attacks with rapiers (or other weapons if you were STR based fighter or some such)

average damage 15.97/round including criticals.
odds of dealing no damage 6.4%

character 2
2 attacks with greatsword

average damage 13.9/round including criticals
odds of dealing no damage 16%

2 attacks with great weapon master

average damage 15.4/round including criticals
odds of dealing no damage 42.25%

that 42% miss rate against some dude who's got starting gear chainmail on is going to suck. let alone if he's got a shield

***same target now with a shield***
TWF
avg 13.43/round no damage 12.5%
Greatsword
avg 11.7/round no damage 25%
GWM
avg 11.2/round no damage 56.25%

WOW! now that the target has the armor class of a level 1 S&B fighter GWM is mathematically WORSE than twf by multiple metrics.

but it gets better.

lets say the ranger cast hunters mark and the other character was a barbarian instead of a fighter thus gaining a rage bonus to his damage. both used their bonus actions on a previous turn.

TARGET AC 16
TWF
avg 22.8/round no damage 6.4%
Greatsword
avg 16.3/round no damage 16%
GWM
avg 16.8/round no damage 42.25%


Target AC 18
TWF
avg 19.2/round no damage 12.5%
Greatsword
avg 13.7/round no damage 25%
GWM
avg 12.2/round no damage 56.25%


that's right at level 5 with a +7 to hit, a two weapon fighter will deal more damage on average to a character in chainmail and a shield (level 1 fighter gear) than a raging barbarian using a greatsword and GWM. and notably more if they cast hunter's mark first.

a great deal of these "calculations" that people do in the forums assume that chance to hit doesn't matter, only how much damage each hit deals. against lower AC foes, GWM crushes. against decently outfitted foes, TWF outpaces it quickly and when you have things like hunters mark, hex, colossus slayer, Divine smite, battlemaster maneuvers, sneak attack, etc that trigger bonus damage on a hit, hitting more often means you can use those bonuses far more reliably. A two weapon fighter wanting to make a goading attack against an enemy has a notably higher chance of being able to force a creature to make a saving throw for each chance that fighter has to hit.


AC 16
TWF (http://anydice.com/program/dff6)
GS (http://anydice.com/program/dff7)
GWM (http://anydice.com/program/dff8)
AC 18
TWF (http://anydice.com/program/dffb)
GS (http://anydice.com/program/dffa)
GWM (http://anydice.com/program/dff9)



note if I made any errors in my programming, feel free to point them out.
Thanks for the detailed illustration by the way.
And you didn't even evoke the numerous cases in which chances of dealing no damage at all for GWM or S&B would be even higher because the impossibility to make melee attacks force them to switch to throwable weapons, with the limitation that come with -only one attack for S&B, only two for GWM if he drops the weapon and use daggers.
Nor did you point out the associated risks of having to always engage into melee when in context of numerous enemies around, or hazards requiring checks or jumps to be avoided (eats into speed), or risks of being hit by OA... (Although most of these problems to be honest can be easily resolved with a nice caster pal buffing you with Haste / Fly ;)).
But hey... Some discussions are lost causes because people won't accept to reason and stick in the comfort of a few carefully crafted contexts... XD Now that I'm deep over my head with work, I made my peace with that. ^^

[Glorthindel]

Absolutely this, and I’m glad I read to the end of the thread to see this response before just adding it to the pile.

So instead, I’ll do a quick DPR breakdown:

...

Now, there are obviously issues with this in actual play with feats involved. Riders benefit TWF, but the most valuable class-independent riders (the -5/+10 feats Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter) are specifically not accessable to any TWF-accessible weapons, while the GWM/SS-accessible weapons have bonus action attack access (for GWM, Polearm Master; for SS, Crossbow Master), which severely undercuts the importance of having an unconditional bonus action attack. The TWF style does not have two feats to compete with the -5/+10 feat combos that make those better, so it does eventually fall behind. However, the math makes it evidently clear how on-hit riders generally favor multiple attacks, and TWF has the lowest barrier to entry for attacking twice (where PAM requires you use your feat, TWF only requires you use your own two hands), which makes it good for those classes that use attack riders (Rogues, melee Rangers, and Hexblades), but don’t have great alternatives to TWF (as Paladin often does).

Although I agree in principle that TWF appears to come out ahead once we start looking at "on hit" riders, it also falls down where those riders are themselves applied by Bonus Actions - Hex and Hunters Mark both require the Bonus Action to cast, and again to re-apply to a new target. In a straight tank-and-spank against a big mass of hp monster, this isn't a problem, since that is only costing them one Bonus Action at the start of the fight, but against multiple monsters, the TWF ends up losing his second attack almost as much as he gets to use it, having to use it to re-apply his Hex/HM on to the next target constantly.

[rbstr]

A great deal of these "calculations" that people do in the forums assume that chance to hit doesn't matter, only how much damage each hit deals.
This is the ultimate "problem" of TWF. While it's not the flat out best it's certainly not as deficient as many like to claim, using GWM numbers as evidence.


Although I agree in principle that TWF appears to come out ahead once we start looking at "on hit" riders, it also falls down where those riders are themselves applied by Bonus Actions - Hex and Hunters Mark both require the Bonus Action to cast, and again to re-apply to a new target. In a straight tank-and-spank against a big mass of hp monster, this isn't a problem, since that is only costing them one Bonus Action at the start of the fight, but against multiple monsters, the TWF ends up losing his second attack almost as much as he gets to use it, having to use it to re-apply his Hex/HM on to the next target constantly.

And then they probably shouldn't be using Hex or Hunter's mark anyway. This is another odd comparison artifact around here. You don't have to cast the dang spell when it's not useful. If something is likely to die in one round the off hand attack with the fighting style is usually as good or better than Hex or Mark damage.
Or, since you're a caster with Hex or Hunters Mark, you might have an AOE spell that's flat out way better.

[Easy_Lee]

Here's another build: Eldritch Knight with TWF using Shadow Blade. Once you have access to it, you can deal considerable damage using this spell with TWF. Depending on the campaign, this might deal better damage than a Shield Master.

Generally speaking, though, SM with the new Expertise feat in Athletics is going to do better due to persistent advantage against anything smaller than huge. An EK could even pick up Enlarge / Reduce to shove even bigger targets prone.

[GlenSmash!]

My favorite ways to get the most out of TWF:

Rogue: This one's obvious. If you miss with your main hand attack you have another chance to land a Sneak Attack.

Dex Melee Ranger: More attacks means more Hunter's mark Damage

Dex Paladin: One more chance to land a crit and do crit smite damage

[Jormengand]

Nothing is more emblematic of threads on this forum than people who, when asked not to use houserules, spend three pages giving responses involving houserules. Thank god you didn't get responses for Pathfinder.

On "More chances to hit:" Usually irrelevant. The minimum, maximum and average damage of two short swords is 0, 12 and 7 times your chance to hit, and the same is true of one greatsword. Sometimes, such as when fighting a creature with exactly 7 hit points, the greatsword attack is actually better because the greatsword is both more likely to hit with both dice (say you have a 50% chance to hit: in order to kill the enemy in one attack, you would need to hit with BOTH short swords, a 25% chance, and then roll a 7 or more for damage, but with the greatsword you only need a 50% chance, followed by a 7 or more). Of course, if they only have 1 hit point, the consistent mediocrity really is better, but as pointed out the damage tends to fall off.

On "TWF is not for damage": Attacks do nothing but damage, in the usual course of events. If TWF isn't for damage, it isn't for doing its own job, which may be the problem in fact.

[Toofey]

OH NOES PEOPLE POSTED WHAT THEY WANTED TO IN A FORUM. TRAVESTY!!!!

Seriously though, the OP question makes no sense if they're asking for a non-houserule thing to change about the rules. So people addressed the illogical question in a way that made sense to them. Also didn't originally say no 'Homebrew'? I thought it said Homebrew when I answered and I figured OP wasn't looking for homebrew classes etc to fix it with.

[Kane0]

Oooh could we twin Shadow Blade to dual wield them? That'd be cool.

[Easy_Lee]

Oooh could we twin Shadow Blade to dual wield them? That'd be cool.

Not by the RAW, unfortunately, since it specifies that spells with a range of "self" are not valid. Twin has far too many bullcrap gamey restrictions.

As a DM, I would allow it. It's far from broken.

[Eric Diaz]

My favorite ways to get the most out of TWF:

Rogue: This one's obvious. If you miss with your main hand attack you have another chance to land a Sneak Attack.

Agreed. Crossbow expert might be better, but TWF works too.


Dex Melee Ranger: More attacks means more Hunter's mark Damage

Agreed. HOWEVER, it is easier to maintain concentration from a distance, and if fighting multiple small creature you might be forced to use BA to change hunter's mark around, but, mostly, I see how it can be beneficial, specially if you cannot take feats.


Dex Paladin: One more chance to land a crit and do crit smite damage

I don't think it is a good choice. Spell slots are limited enough that it doesn't seem like a huge advantage. At level 5 attack twice with greatsword (16.6 dmg plus mods IIRC) beats 3x shortsword (10.5 dmg plus mods) by more than 1d8 per round. Even improved smite doesn't make up for the difference unless my math is off.

It is also bad for Sacred Weapon, Magic Weapon, etc. It may be useful for some other paladin build but I can't think of anything right now.

[Provo]

It may not be standard for 5e, but I like to play with minion rules. One benefit (out of many) is that TWF is more in line with other fighting styles. The GWF paladin may do more damage to the stronger characters, but the TWF character is better against hordes.

[lperkins2]

It may not be standard for 5e, but I like to play with minion rules. One benefit (out of many) is that TWF is more in line with other fighting styles. The GWF paladin may do more damage to the stronger characters, but the TWF character is better against hordes.

Only by a fraction. The GWM character gets a BA attack *with their main weapon + str mod* when they crit or kill someone. If you are using hordes of low HP monsters, the GWM character will get lots of BA attacks, assuming they have nothing more important to do with their BA. The only drawback is if they miss with their main attack (and after level 5, second attack), they miss out on the BA attack.

[bid]

I don't think it is a good choice. Spell slots are limited enough that it doesn't seem like a huge advantage. At level 5 attack twice with greatsword (16.6 dmg plus mods IIRC) beats 3x shortsword (10.5 dmg plus mods) by more than 1d8 per round. Even improved smite doesn't make up for the difference unless my math is off.
With IDS it's quite close:
- greatsword = 2d6+4/3+5+1d8 * 2 ~ 35.67
- shortsword = 1d6+5+1d8 * 2 + 1d6+1d8 ~ 34

And since you can't get twf from paladin to beat greatsword, you have +1 AC from defense style.


But yeah. Even if TWF moves crit from 1 in 10 to 1 in 7 turns, it's still too rare to be more than a bonus.

[GlenSmash!]

I don't think it is a good choice. Spell slots are limited enough that it doesn't seem like a huge advantage. At level 5 attack twice with greatsword (16.6 dmg plus mods IIRC) beats 3x shortsword (10.5 dmg plus mods) by more than 1d8 per round. Even improved smite doesn't make up for the difference unless my math is off.

It is also bad for Sacred Weapon, Magic Weapon, etc. It may be useful for some other paladin build but I can't think of anything right now.

Oh you absolutely lose out on average damage, but I wasn't talking about that.

This is for the paladin that wants to expend Smites slots on crits and crits alone. So it really is literally only one more chance to crit.

It's definitely not optimized and much easier to do going strength based with PM.

[furby076]

There is no move action in 5e, and the idea of trading movement for bonuses is not a precedent that should get started.

The very notion of house rules breaks your idea of "not a precedent that should get started". This player wanted alternative ideas, and this is an idea.

[Dudewithknives]

The very notion of house rules breaks your idea of "not a precedent that should get started". This player wanted alternative ideas, and this is an idea.

No, this is starting a mechanic that is not even in 5e at all.

[MadBear]

The more I think about it, the more I think that a dual wielding barbarian who takes 3 levels of fighter is probably ideal for getting the most out of twf.

Benefits:
- reckless attack and twf mean more chances at landing a critical
- Increased range for crit means more overall crits
- Unlike Frenzied barbarian there will be no exhaustion
- Unlike PAM barbarian, the d8 will do more overall damage then a d4
- Unlike Pam barbarian, the +1 AC will help reduce damage
- Unlike smites or hunters mark, the resource for bonus damage is easier to get and maintain (in my experience anyway).
- 3 attacks that crit on a 19 with advantage means you have about a 27% chance per round of critting (I think I did the math right there), which makes all crits deal an extra 3d8 damage on top of the crit.

As a bonus, the image of a barbarian wielding 2 axes as he chops down his foes is pretty iconic.

[Kane0]

I call that the Black Whirlwind build

[Citan]

The more I think about it, the more I think that a dual wielding barbarian who takes 3 levels of fighter is probably ideal for getting the most out of twf.

Benefits:
- reckless attack and twf mean more chances at landing a critical
- Increased range for crit means more overall crits
- Unlike Frenzied barbarian there will be no exhaustion
- Unlike PAM barbarian, the d8 will do more overall damage then a d4
- Unlike Pam barbarian, the +1 AC will help reduce damage
- Unlike smites or hunters mark, the resource for bonus damage is easier to get and maintain (in my experience anyway).
- 3 attacks that crit on a 19 with advantage means you have about a 27% chance per round of critting (I think I did the math right there), which makes all crits deal an extra 3d8 damage on top of the crit.

As a bonus, the image of a barbarian wielding 2 axes as he chops down his foes is pretty iconic.
I totally agree with you overall (although imo people take PAM at least half-reason for the expanded OA, which is an exclusive benefit of it) but most of what you describe comes from just the first level of Fighter with Fighting Style and Dual Wielder feat you'd take later...
I guess you were implying going up to 3 levels of Fighter for Champion archetype?

[Laereth]

The more I think about it, the more I think that a dual wielding barbarian who takes 3 levels of fighter is probably ideal for getting the most out of twf.

Benefits:
- reckless attack and twf mean more chances at landing a critical
- Increased range for crit means more overall crits
- Unlike Frenzied barbarian there will be no exhaustion
- Unlike PAM barbarian, the d8 will do more overall damage then a d4
- Unlike Pam barbarian, the +1 AC will help reduce damage
- Unlike smites or hunters mark, the resource for bonus damage is easier to get and maintain (in my experience anyway).
- 3 attacks that crit on a 19 with advantage means you have about a 27% chance per round of critting (I think I did the math right there), which makes all crits deal an extra 3d8 damage on top of the crit.

As a bonus, the image of a barbarian wielding 2 axes as he chops down his foes is pretty iconic.

I'm playing a Dwarf Barbarian in AL this season, dual wielding a hammer and a axe. I am not dead set if my Fighter subclass will be Champion (more crits !) or Battlemaster (neat tricks !).

All in all it feels pretty sweet as I dish out good damage, however the bonus action requirement is a bit of a pickle on the first turn when I rage and can't make the off-hand attack. That would be my only complaint towards the Dual Wielding Barbarian.