TWF style with Dual Wielder feat vs Two-Handed Weapon fighting

[Maus91]

Whenever I look into two weapon fighting for a martial class character it seems after a bit of explanation people always say to just use a two handed weapon instead because it generally does more damage. As I'm looking at it though, and as people rightfully point out, Two Weapon Fighting's main shortcomings are:

1-Can only use light weapons that only deal 1d6 damage, plus any bonus
2-The bonus action attack (often referred to as the 'off-hand attack') does not add any bonus to its damage when it hits

As far as that goes, TWF does seem weaker than going with a two-handed weapon (1d12/2d6 damage plus bonus), especially if your class gives you an extra attack when leveling higher and possibly getting a good martial feat (e.g. Great Weapon Master). I understand how that is probably better, BUT no one ever seems to consider TWF with a Fighter who has the Two Weapon Fighting style, that eliminates problem #2 above, AND the Dual Wielder feat that eliminates problem #1. Now, you still can't use heavy weapons, but you can use weapons that hit with a d8. So, if you had both those features to counter the disadvantages of TWF, is fighting with a two-handed weapon still better? If so, is it a lot better, or just a bit. I really enjoy my current Dual Wielder barbarian, and even if I'm not doing optimal damage everytime, I am having a lot of fun role playing his battles with a rapier in one hand and a warhammer in the other, hitting (possibly) 3 times a turn.

If anyone has the numbers on this, please let me know. Thanks.

[Aeriox]

The problem with a dual wielding fighter is that regardless of the amount of extra attacks you get, you still only get one bonus action attack. At level 11, for example, a fighter with a great sword would be doing 3*(2d6 + 5 + about 1 for the fighting style) which equals 39. A dual wielder would do 3*(1d6+5) + 1d6 + 5 which is 34. This gap increases with the respective feats. Furthermore, twf takes a bonus action, and while some fighters don’t have a use for theirs, a lot of other classes that would like to do.
I’ve actually been meaning to post a dual wielding fix I made to try to fix damage and take out the bonus action usage.

[kobo1d]

Whenever I look into two weapon fighting for a martial class character it seems after a bit of explanation people always say to just use a two handed weapon instead because it generally does more damage. As I'm looking at it though, and as people rightfully point out, Two Weapon Fighting's main shortcomings are:

1-Can only use light weapons that only deal 1d6 damage, plus any bonus
2-The bonus action attack (often referred to as the 'off-hand attack') does not add any bonus to its damage when it hits

As far as that goes, TWF does seem weaker than going with a two-handed weapon (1d12/2d6 damage plus bonus), especially if your class gives you an extra attack when leveling higher and possibly getting a good martial feat (e.g. Great Weapon Master). I understand how that is probably better, BUT no one ever seems to consider TWF with a Fighter who has the Two Weapon Fighting style, that eliminates problem #2 above, AND the Dual Wielder feat that eliminates problem #1. Now, you still can't use heavy weapons, but you can use weapons that hit with a d8. So, if you had both those features to counter the disadvantages of TWF, is fighting with a two-handed weapon still better? If so, is it a lot better, or just a bit. I really enjoy my current Dual Wielder barbarian, and even if I'm not doing optimal damage everytime, I am having a lot of fun role playing his battles with a rapier in one hand and a warhammer in the other, hitting (possibly) 3 times a turn.

If anyone has the numbers on this, please let me know. Thanks.

This is so not worth worrying about for an existing character. If you really enjoy two weapon, keep playing it, and for a future character, try out two-handed.

Two handed really is much better though. #1 Great Weapon Master -5/+10 heavily skews the damage math in its favor. #2 If you have any other Bonus Actions to spam from class or feats, that's where TWF really falls off, you either give up half your damage for the turn or never use those features, where great weapon can do full damage and use them.

[pdegan2814]

I just started playing a Goliath Fighter who will be going Rune Knight at Level 3(we just hit Lvl 2), and I decided to make him a dual-wielder. I did try and be a super-nerd and math it all out, though I was pretty sure I wasn't going to change my mind. Trying to factor in to-hit percentage and Great Weapon Master made me go cross-eyed, but if you don't factor those in then TWF keeps up reasonably well. I think using a Polearm and getting the bonus attack from Polearm Master still does a little better, and both benefit from the Rune Knight's "Giant Might" ability which adds a d6 to each attack.

I honestly don't have the energy to do look up all the numbers I ran, but the executive summary is that Polearms with the Polearm Master feat probably do the best, and all Heavy weapons have a chance to do better if you take Great Weapon Master and have enough tricks/tactics to get Advantage frequently. Two-Weapon Fighting should make your damage output a bit lower, not so much that you'll feel like you're significantly behind. And you'll be fairly consistent since you have the extra attack and both weapons probably do the same damage. And if you can get damage bonuses to each attack with magic weapons, spells, effects etc. they'll benefit you more than other Fighters.

So if TWF fits your character's aesthetic, go for it. Unless you play with a group of min-maxers who only care about raw damage output, you'll be fine :)

[Man_Over_Game]

This is so not worth worrying about for an existing character. If you really enjoy two weapon, keep playing it, and for a future character, try out two-handed.

Two handed really is much better though. #1 Great Weapon Master -5/+10 heavily skews the damage math in its favor. #2 If you have any other Bonus Actions to spam from class or feats, that's where TWF really falls off, you either give up half your damage for the turn or never use those features, where great weapon can do full damage and use them.

And their's spells (which are very awkward with two weapons). And there's the fact that the two-handed doesn't need a Fighting Style to stay relevant, so it gets a +1 AC boost. And there's the difference in Opportunity Attack power.

You can have a guy hold a weapon in two hands and still have him do other things. But someone specializing in TWF is pretty limited to being the "Dual Wield" guy, due to the level of investment needed and other options sacrificed. You can't, for example, be a Horizon Walker with two weapons.

[Dork_Forge]

And their's spells (which are very awkward with two weapons). And there's the fact that the two-handed doesn't need a Fighting Style to stay relevant, so it gets a +1 AC boost. And there's the difference in Opportunity Attack power.

You can have a guy hold a weapon in two hands and still have him do other things. But someone specializing in TWF is pretty limited to being the "Dual Wield" guy, due to the level of investment needed and other options sacrificed. You can't, for example, be a Horizon Walker with two weapons.

Rangers as a whole don't make particularly good two handers though, it spreads their stats too thin to try and grab any supplementary feats and they don't have Great Weapon Fighting.

For the topic as a whole, you probably won't come close to optimised GWM damage, but you by default have the option of splitting your damage up against more enemies and despite some claims, you'll never actually suck at damage doing TWF, or even be lack luster.

[Man_Over_Game]

Rangers as a whole don't make particularly good two handers though, it spreads their stats too thin to try and grab any supplementary feats and they don't have Great Weapon Fighting.

For the topic as a whole, you probably won't come close to optimised GWM damage, but you by default have the option of splitting your damage up against more enemies and despite some claims, you'll never actually suck at damage doing TWF, or even be lack luster.

On that note, Bards still get Shatter. You don't need to deal that much damage to be relevant. But at the same time, you have to consider what you're gaining vs. what you could have gained.


Consider that a 1-handed weapon with the Duelist feat would deal roughly 20 damage per round and get +2 AC from wielding a shield. Without a feat, TWF with the Fighting Style deals about 24 damage but also costs a Bonus Action.

On top of that, almost every martial in the game has a fairly common use for Bonus Actions, whether that's something like Samurai's Fighting Spirit, Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, Rogue's Dash, Barbarian's Rage, and that's before counting Rangers. Paladins are the best candidate, since nobody ever uses the Smite Spells...and they don't even get the TWF Fighting Style!


Why lose out on so much versatility just to be rewarded with something that makes you "never suck at damage"?

I'd be cool with it not being as good at damage, as it doesn't really have to be. My problem is that it's still more expensive just to be below the best, and only slightly above mediocre (like losing 2 AC and a BA for +4 DPR).

[Dork_Forge]

On that note, Bards still get Shatter. You don't need to deal that much damage to be relevant. But at the same time, you have to consider what you're gaining vs. what you could have gained.


Bards do get Shatter... I wasn't (and OP wasn't I don't think) talking about Bards but sure, you're also comparing a 2nd level spell to something they can do all day every day.


Consider that a 1-handed weapon with the Duelist feat would deal roughly 20 damage per round and get +2 AC from wielding a shield. Without a feat, TWF with the Fighting Style deals about 24 damage but also costs a Bonus Action.

I find myself saying... so? If you've got a regular use of your bonus action that you're missing out on, then you're not a good candidate in general for TWF, otherwise there's nothing stopping you switching between TWF and whatever else as ayou need/want.


On top of that, almost every martial in the game has a fairly common use for Bonus Actions, whether that's something like Samurai's Fighting Spirit, Battlemaster's Commander's Strike, Rogue's Dash, Barbarian's Rage, and that's before counting Rangers. Paladins are the best candidate, since nobody ever uses the Smite Spells...and they don't even get the TWF Fighting Style!

This argument is thin on the ground, Fighting Spirit is 3/long rest, Commander's Strike is not only niche but also a pretty terrible maneuver a lot of the time (if a bonus action is expensive to you, then a bonus, attack and Superiority Die should be insane right?), Rage is once per fight, a Rogue can Cunning Action or TWF pretty fluidly (and the Swashbuckler excels at it) and most of the time even Rangers aren't going to be an issue (TWF is going to be worth over two rounds of Hunter's Mark, unless it's a single big bad, it won't be worth burning a slot on it). Whilst Paladin's don't get the style, they do get Divine Favor and always stand to benefit from more chances to Smite.


Why lose out on so much versatility just to be rewarded with something that makes you "never suck at damage"?

You aren't really missing out on anything though, choose to TWF as it fits you and holding a second weapon is still more flexible than wearing a shield. As for why? Because it's fun and fits a lot of people's character concept? My point was that despite nay-sayers, no it isn't bad damage or even meh damage and has it's own benefits.

Edit: saw you edited after I started replying:


I'd be cool with it not being as good at damage, as it doesn't really have to be. My problem is that it's still more expensive just to be below the best, and only slightly above mediocre (like losing 2 AC and a BA for +4 DPR).

In your mind the character is 'losing 2AC' and that isn't a cost, that's an alternate style and has plenty of it's own cost (it takes an action to don/doff a shield, that incredibly less flexible than TWF). If +4 DPR is only slightly above mediocre, then I'm really curious what the threshold for acceptable or good is (besides entirely arbitrary that is), bottom line is it is more damage and has significantly less of a chance of overkill vs other options. I'm not sure why a Fighting Style is expensive though, if you have a specific way of fighitng in mind it's a clear choice between being better at it or +1 AC.

Also worth bearing in mind it's just the best damage option available for Dex based martials period, who can't benefit from PAM or GWM etc.

[Kane0]

TWF is... fine. It’s okay. Its a BA attack that has zero investment requirement, and so carries drawbacks that are made up for with fighting style and feat as opposed to other styles that give bonuses for the same.
The problem arises when A: your start building competition for the use of your bonus action and B: other sources of bonus action attacks come along to compare to, such as PAM and GWF.

[Warlush]

I am having a lot of fun role playing his battles with a rapier in one hand and a warhammer in the other, hitting (possibly) 3 times a turn.

This is literally the only thing that matters.

[CheddarChampion]

Bards do get Shatter... I wasn't (and OP wasn't I don't think) talking about Bards but sure, you're also comparing a 2nd level spell to something they can do all day every day.

I find myself saying... so? If you've got a regular use of your bonus action that you're missing out on, then you're not a good candidate in general for TWF, otherwise there's nothing stopping you switching between TWF and whatever else as ayou need/want.

This argument is thin on the ground, Fighting Spirit is 3/long rest, Commander's Strike is not only niche but also a pretty terrible maneuver a lot of the time (if a bonus action is expensive to you, then a bonus, attack and Superiority Die should be insane right?), Rage is once per fight, a Rogue can Cunning Action or TWF pretty fluidly (and the Swashbuckler excels at it) and most of the time even Rangers aren't going to be an issue (TWF is going to be worth over two rounds of Hunter's Mark, unless it's a single big bad, it won't be worth burning a slot on it). Whilst Paladin's don't get the style, they do get Divine Favor and always stand to benefit from more chances to Smite.

You aren't really missing out on anything though, choose to TWF as it fits you and holding a second weapon is still more flexible than wearing a shield. As for why? Because it's fun and fits a lot of people's character concept? My point was that despite nay-sayers, no it isn't bad damage or even meh damage and has it's own benefits.

Edit: saw you edited after I started replying:

In your mind the character is 'losing 2AC' and that isn't a cost, that's an alternate style and has plenty of it's own cost (it takes an action to don/doff a shield, that incredibly less flexible than TWF). If +4 DPR is only slightly above mediocre, then I'm really curious what the threshold for acceptable or good is (besides entirely arbitrary that is), bottom line is it is more damage and has significantly less of a chance of overkill vs other options. I'm not sure why a Fighting Style is expensive though, if you have a specific way of fighitng in mind it's a clear choice between being better at it or +1 AC.

Also worth bearing in mind it's just the best damage option available for Dex based martials period, who can't benefit from PAM or GWM etc.

Bards have a reputation as not-damage-dealers. They get shatter though, so they still don't 'suck' at damage.

Sometimes classes/subclasses get cool/effective abilities that use a bonus action.
You can still use these if you went for TWF, yes, but since you give up your main thing that turn... they aren't as useful compared to dueling/GWF.
To some people that's a deal breaker. Having to choose between your main thing and something extra vs getting a different fighting style and using both.

Divine Favor eats your bonus action. With the standard 3 round fight (and all hits) you get 4d4 (10) or 6d4 (15) if you keep concentration, compared to 1d6+2d8 (12.5) if you TWF and smite with the spell slot instead.

How exactly is TWF more flexible than one weapon + a shield?
Is it because if you only have one weapon available or can only draw one weapon then it is better? No.
Is it because if you need to tank it is better? No.
Is it because it is more compatible with abilities you can use and still attack on your turn? Most of the time no. Other times marginally but you use a resource to deal just a little better DPR (Hunter's Mark, Divine Favor).
Is it because if you a magic weapon it is a better boost? No, you need two.
Is it because if you need a free hand it is better? Nope. You lose 2 damage per attack you'd normally make.
Is it because if you are fighting a horde of enemies that have 1 HP and you need as many attacks as possible? Okay, sure. IF your enemies are killed by dealing 1d6+STR/DEX damage then yes. Supposing we're not talking about Dueling + PAM + Spear + Shield.
TWF isn't more flexible at all.

Oh wait, you meant because it takes an action to equip a shield. But... there's no issue with holding your shield while adventuring.
Holding a weapon has social implications but people are usually fine with you holding a shield. In my experience anyway.
Oh, and you need to use your action to equip your second weapon if you don't have the Dual Wielder feat!

For a level 1 dueling style fighter with a mod of +3, we have 1d8+3+2 (9.5) vs 2 x (1d6+3) 13.5. At this level (and through level 4) TWF dishes out the most damage.
At level 5 these numbers change to 21 vs 21.5, 23 vs 24.5 at level 6 (or 8 if you're a ranger).
At level 11 we're talking 34.5 vs 34, or 34.5 + a feat vs 38 if you have Dual Wielder.
At level 20 we're talking 46 + a feat vs 47.5.
All this ignores reaction attacks by the way. Dueling style gets 3 or 2 damage extra on those.
Your DPR advantage goes down as you level up. Even if it stayed the same, 4 DPR gets less impressive at high levels while 2 AC is always a 10% worse chance enemies have to hit you.

To demonstrate:
You get +4 DPR or 10% of Goblin arrows miss you when they would have otherwise.
You get +0.5 DPR or 10% of Ghoul claws "^".
You get +1.5 DPR or 10% of Centaur pike attacks "^".
You get +0.5/+2.5 DPR or 10% of Ettin club swings "^".
You get +1.5 DPR or 10% of Wyvern tail stings "^".

Lastly: Dex-based martials can get Sharpshooter. So it's not "The best damage option available for Dex based martials period."

I wish TWF were better and I houserule it to not use a bonus action in games I run.
I get the impression that you like TWF. I'd like it to be good too, but looking at a RAW slugfest... it doesn't measure up after level 5.

[Corran]

@CheddarChampion: About the flexibility of twf compared to s&b, twf makes it easier to switch to a ranged weapon. I really wish there was a fighting style which would allow you to (un)equip your shield at a lesser cost than using your action for it just because of that.

[Man_Over_Game]

Sorry about the confusion with bringing up Bards. I only brought them up because they have the lowest and fewest damage options of any class, yet that's not a reason to play it.

It's almost impossible to be irrelevant in combat, so saying that something's damage is "acceptable", as a form of praise, is pretty empty.

[Dork_Forge]

Bards have a reputation as not-damage-dealers. They get shatter though, so they still don't 'suck' at damage.

Sorry about the confusion with bringing up Bards. I only brought them up because they have the lowest and fewest damage options of any class, yet that's not a reason to play it.

It's almost impossible to be irrelevant in combat, so saying that something's damage is "acceptable", as a form of praise, is pretty empty.

We'll disagree here, TWF is largely written off as bad, not average or mediocre, as bad and that just isn't the reality of it. So when it always comes down to damage numbers, saying actually no it isn't bad, it's competitive with everything but the overtuned SS/GWM is not empty praise.


Sometimes classes/subclasses get cool/effective abilities that use a bonus action.
You can still use these if you went for TWF, yes, but since you give up your main thing that turn... they aren't as useful compared to dueling/GWF.
To some people that's a deal breaker. Having to choose between your main thing and something extra vs getting a different fighting style and using both.

I can understand this and that's not a problem with TWF, that is an issue with people making conflicting build decisions. Though I also don't think that the bonus action competition is anywhere near as strong as it's reported when TWF comes up, I've never really seen the same amount of criticism leveraged at PAM, when it's still a BA attack but with the added investment of a feat for entry.



Divine Favor eats your bonus action. With the standard 3 round fight (and all hits) you get 4d4 (10) or 6d4 (15) if you keep concentration, compared to 1d6+2d8 (12.5) if you TWF and smite with the spell slot instead.

Yes it does eat your bonus action, it requires players to actually judge when it's worth it to use it. I'm not entirely sure where your numbers are coming from, assuming a 3 round combat with one bonus dropped for the cast then all hits should be 5d4 pre Extra Attack and 8d4 post Extra Attack. Of course a precast drops another d4, though will not be a reliable thing. The biggest thing about Divine Favor (imo) is that it's potentially a lot more mileage out of a half caster's spell slot and less likely to over or underkill. You spend that slot on Divine Smite and roll poor on the die? Then it is what it is, at least with Divine Favor you have the chance to keep going with it. Again it's situational and the player needs to judge the combat.


How exactly is TWF more flexible than one weapon + a shield?
Is it because if you only have one weapon available or can only draw one weapon then it is better? No. Are you really proposing only having one weapon available as a factor here when 10 of 13 classes can start with multiple TWF compatible weapons?
Is it because if you need to tank it is better? No.
Is it because it is more compatible with abilities you can use and still attack on your turn? Most of the time no. Other times marginally but you use a resource to deal just a little better DPR (Hunter's Mark, Divine Favor). That really depends on the ability and just because the increase in damage isn't large doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile, especially with things like Hunter's Mark that last an hour. Then of course there's abilties that need a hit to trigger, like Sneak, or that you get to use more the more you hit like Smites and Maneuvers.
Is it because if you a magic weapon it is a better boost? No, you need two. You do not need two magic weapons unless you're fighting something that is actually immune to nonmagical damage, it is however potentially a boon since you have the option of leveraging multiple magic weapons if available.
Is it because if you need a free hand it is better? Nope. You lose 2 damage per attack you'd normally make.Yes. More on this later.
Is it because if you are fighting a horde of enemies that have 1 HP and you need as many attacks as possible? Okay, sure. IF your enemies are killed by dealing 1d6+STR/DEX damage then yes. You say 1HP to talk down about TWF, the average is 8.5 assuming a maxed stat. Even without a maxed stat the hp of a Goblin is 7. Supposing we're not talking about Dueling + PAM + Spear + Shield. PAM is great, you're sinking a feat and style to get there, but I guess cost only matters for TWF right?
TWF isn't more flexible at all.

Oh wait, you meant because it takes an action to equip a shield. But... there's no issue with holding your shield while adventuring.
Holding a weapon has social implications but people are usually fine with you holding a shield. In my experience anyway.
Oh, and you need to use your action to equip your second weapon if you don't have the Dual Wielder feat!

I've addressed this in part in the quote itself. Otherwise this partially looks like a playstyle issue because neither in my experience or opinion is assuming a shield is always donned reasonable. If you're actively adventuring sure, though if there's even a sniff of trouble wouldn't everyone have weapons and foci drawn anyway? Oh but it's a social issue! So wearing a large and cumbersome shield on your arm isn't an issue going inside buildings? In busy streets? Drawing a weapon is a negative connotation but wearing a shield in anticipation of trouble is a-okay? Hell if you actually think about it walking around a civilised city in armor at all will draw looks if not actually be illegal without special permissions. If you play in and run games where using a shield is handwaved then great, I hope you have fun with it, but it costs an action for a reason and by just having it always on you're ignoring a potential cost of it.

So my point is this, it is quicker to draw a weapon than it is to don a shield. You seem to think that the reasonable thing to do on round one of being caught unarmed is to do nothing but draw your weapons (assuming no DW). Personally I think that's nonsense, you'd attack for the same damage a sword and boarder that took Defense would, then draw your second weapon next turn. Whereas a sword and boarder will likely just spend the combat without the AC they're accustomed to.

It's flexibility comes down to speed, suddenly need to grapple someone? TWF is better. Suddenly need to switch to a ranged weapon? TWF is better. It's more flexible because the cost to move in and out of it is lower and more realistic than dealing with a shield.


For a level 1 dueling style fighter with a mod of +3, we have 1d8+3+2 (9.5) vs 2 x (1d6+3) 13.5. At this level (and through level 4) TWF dishes out the most damage.
At level 5 these numbers change to 21 vs 21.5, 23 vs 24.5 at level 6 (or 8 if you're a ranger).
At level 11 we're talking 34.5 vs 34, or 34.5 + a feat vs 38 if you have Dual Wielder.
At level 20 we're talking 46 + a feat vs 47.5.
All this ignores reaction attacks by the way. Dueling style gets 3 or 2 damage extra on those.
Your DPR advantage goes down as you level up. Even if it stayed the same, 4 DPR gets less impressive at high levels while 2 AC is always a 10% worse chance enemies have to hit you.

To demonstrate:
You get +4 DPR or 10% of Goblin arrows miss you when they would have otherwise.
You get +0.5 DPR or 10% of Ghoul claws "^".
You get +1.5 DPR or 10% of Centaur pike attacks "^".
You get +0.5/+2.5 DPR or 10% of Ettin club swings "^".
You get +1.5 DPR or 10% of Wyvern tail stings "^".

So... thank you for demonstrating that it's higher damage I guess? This relies on assuming that someone took TWF under the desire to do the most damage possible, which would be the wrong choice a lot of the time outside of tier 1.


Lastly: Dex-based martials can get Sharpshooter. So it's not "The best damage option available for Dex based martials period."

I should have clarified melee.


I wish TWF were better and I houserule it to not use a bonus action in games I run.
I get the impression that you like TWF. I'd like it to be good too, but looking at a RAW slugfest... it doesn't measure up after level 5.

I do like it but I also like Dueling and have played far more characters with Dueling than I have with TWF. My issue is that it gets so heavily slated on here when it frankly doesn't deserve it. It always comes down to damage, you're either doing less damage or you're doing more and it's not good enough because +2AC! And I think that stems from a faulty premise of assuming that people optimising for TWF are doing so to achieve damage, instead I see it as being a flexible style that allows you to hit as many people as possible without needing a feat and so reducing overkill. Heck, if you take the feat it puts TWF as a solid middle ground between AC and damage, but that doesn't really get mentioned either.

I've played multiple TWFer and ran for far more, and not once have I seen those players be dissatisfied or do noticeably less damage than someone else. If you want the most possible damage then you choose something else, if you want the most AC you strap on a shield. You pick TWF (from a mechanical standpoint, not just your concept) for what it's good at (Tier 1 damage whilst still being very competitive later on, flexibility, lowering the chance of overkill and being better at dealing with crowds), not to try and achieve those other things just to complain if you fail at it.

It's not a bad style, it's not even just a meh style, it's good at what it's actually meant to do and people pointing to AC or, let's face it, overtuned feats isn't TWFing's problem, it's the wider game's problem.

[Eldariel]

TWF is subpar for no reason. The more attacks you get the worse it gets comparatively. As the bonus action attack is also accessible through two style feats that are good anyways (PAM and XBE) there's really no niche for TWF. TWF needs to tie the bonus attack to your attack action on some level to remain useful and even then it's mostly there to proc your on-hits more so good mostly for Rangers/Warlocks/Wizards with Tenser's or similar. If this edition had combat style progression, TWF could remain competitive but as it stands, it's very hard to find good use for it and even if you do, you still run into practical issues of having to find two magical weapons eventually which is easier said than done.

Of course, it's not unplayable but it's strictly worse than the competition. Which is kinda dumb since it has no auxiliary benefits like Great Weapon Fighting (reach) or Dueling (shield) or archery (range). It's just a pure damage style and it isn't even the best at dealing pure damage. So it has no niche.

[Dork_Forge]

TWF is subpar for no reason. The more attacks you get the worse it gets comparatively. As the bonus action attack is also accessible through two style feats that are good anyways (PAM and XBE) there's really no niche for TWF. TWF needs to tie the bonus attack to your attack action on some level to remain useful and even then it's mostly there to proc your on-hits more so good mostly for Rangers/Warlocks/Wizards with Tenser's or similar. If this edition had combat style progression, TWF could remain competitive but as it stands, it's very hard to find good use for it and even if you do, you still run into practical issues of having to find two magical weapons eventually which is easier said than done.

Of course, it's not unplayable but it's strictly worse than the competition. Which is kinda dumb since it has no auxiliary benefits like Great Weapon Fighting (reach) or Dueling (shield) or archery (range). It's just a pure damage style and it isn't even the best at dealing pure damage. So it has no niche.

What's the par and how is TWF below it exactly?

Why are we comparing feats to something that doesn't require feats, or even a fighting style to be accessible?

I've never understood the argument that the more attacks you have the worse TWF is, an additional attack is an additional attack and the only one that gives a damn about that argument is the Fighter anyway (and even then only in tier 3).

The magic weapon problem is not as much of a problem as people seem to think it is, it's more a nice to have than a necessity.

Reach is not an auxillary benefit of Great Weapons, it's an auxillary benefit of the Pike, Glaive and Whip. The niche of TWF is dealing with crowds better than the competition. It stays on top of Sword and board Dueling so if this is a question of damage then I'm not seeing it. If the answer is but a shield gives you +2 AC then it's a more overall view that usually just looks at TWF as nothing but trying to do as much damage as possible.

[Eldariel]

What's the par and how is TWF below it exactly?

Why are we comparing feats to something that doesn't require feats, or even a fighting style to be accessible?

I've never understood the argument that the more attacks you have the worse TWF is, an additional attack is an additional attack and the only one that gives a damn about that argument is the Fighter anyway (and even then only in tier 3).

The magic weapon problem is not as much of a problem as people seem to think it is, it's more a nice to have than a necessity.

Reach is not an auxillary benefit of Great Weapons, it's an auxillary benefit of the Pike, Glaive and Whip. The niche of TWF is dealing with crowds better than the competition. It stays on top of Sword and board Dueling so if this is a question of damage then I'm not seeing it. If the answer is but a shield gives you +2 AC then it's a more overall view that usually just looks at TWF as nothing but trying to do as much damage as possible.

Because TWF is just about dealing damage and it's not even particularly better at it than PAM. GWF has the only reach weapons ergo reach is a feature of GWF. We are comparing feats because nobody sane plays without feats and thus everyone gets their fighting style feat and thus it's the base level and therefore the only relevant level of comparison.

TWF is worse at dealing with crowds than PAM with reach or Sentinel. That's definitely not its niche. It's not better at dealing damage either. Overtuned or not, those feats exist and therefore they're the baseline everything needs to be compared to and unfortunately TWF just doesn't measure up.


And on top of S&B? Spear/Staff & Board with PAM and Dueling quite quickly overtakes TWF while also getting potentially higher AC bonuses thanks to having access to magic shields (while Dual Wielder is stuck with two weapons) and getting to apply all primary weapon bonuses to all attacks. And having the bonus reaction attack too. PAM may or may not be overtuned but it's the game as it is so if we ignore it, we're just ignoring the game which makes any comparisons without it invalid.


Like Extra Attack Dueling Staff & Board vs. TWF Dual Wielder:
1d6 + 6 (average 9,5)
1d6 + 6 (average 9,5)
1d4 + 6 (average 8,5)

+2 AC

vs.
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)

+1 AC

It goes without saving that PAM does more damage while having higher AC and the reaction attack on top of it. PAM does a total of 2 points more damage per attack run (crits even it out a bit but not meaningfully) while having better AC bonuses. It's beyond obvious that TWF is undertuned.

[Dork_Forge]

Because TWF is just about dealing damage and it's not even particularly better at it than PAM. GWF has the only reach weapons ergo reach is a feature of GWF. We are comparing feats because nobody sane plays without feats and thus everyone gets their fighting style feat and thus it's the base level and therefore the only relevant level of comparison.

TWF is worse at dealing with crowds than PAM with reach or Sentinel. That's definitely not its niche. It's not better at dealing damage either. Overtuned or not, those feats exist and therefore they're the baseline everything needs to be compared to and unfortunately TWF just doesn't measure up.

It is better than sword and board unless you take a feat... that isn't a bad place to be in and even then it's about damage split into many attacks, hence the better at crowds thing I said.

No, GWF does not have the only reach weapons, I even mentioned the whip in my reply to you. Do you know what you can do with DW? That's right DW whips if you really want reach.

So...why can't a TWF make use of Sentinel? Or is it just a feat that's commonly mentioned alongside PAM/GWM so you're just associating it? I'm not entirely sure about that PAM with reach claim, but are we meant to ignore that your example relies on two feats? Are we just hoping for high rolls or resigning ourselves to only ever playing variant humans?

Feats exist and are commonly allowed, that doesn't mean they make sense for every build, especially if you want to be something other than Human and you're not playing a Figher. ASIs are so thin on the ground in 5e that it's not as simple as just saying but you can take PAM and Sentinel and GWM etc. a lot of those builds are stalling stat progression for those feats.

I'm also confused why those feats existing makes them the baseline? You can have a baseline with those feats above it, that's the kind of the definition of overtuned.

Do you honestly think that this perceived problem with TWF is so bad? Especially in the levels that most play actually happens at?

Edit: saw your edit so why not


And on top of S&B? Spear/Staff & Board with PAM and Dueling quite quickly overtakes TWF while also getting potentially higher AC bonuses thanks to having access to magic shields (while Dual Wielder is stuck with two weapons) and getting to apply all primary weapon bonuses to all attacks. And having the bonus reaction attack too. PAM may or may not be overtuned but it's the game as it is so if we ignore it, we're just ignoring the game which makes any comparisons without it invalid.

So two magic weapons is a problem but we can safely assume +x shields now? I'll remind you that one of the weapons a DW can have is a Defender sword, arguing about magic item support isn't really helping, especially since PAM on a shield build is so horribly limited. You can acknowledge it's existence without assuming that everything has to meet or beat it to actually be worth a damn and oh yeah, it's a feat, so... that's a relevant cost isn't it?


Like Extra Attack Dueling Staff & Board vs. TWF Dual Wielder:
1d6 + 6 (average 9,5)
1d6 + 6 (average 9,5)
1d4 + 6 (average 8,5)

+2 AC

vs.
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)
1d8 + 4 (average 8,5)

+1 AC

It goes without saving that PAM does more damage while having higher AC and the reaction attack on top of it. PAM does a total of 2 points more damage per attack run (crits even it out a bit but not meaningfully) while having better AC bonuses. It's beyond obvious that TWF is undertuned.

...You're not taking about TWF now you're comparing PAM to DW, that isn't the same thing and again you're using something you seem to have admitted is overtuned as the baseline, to call DW undertuned. That makes no sense.

And what about before the feats come online? Or Extra Attack does? If you value AC why aren't you taking Defense? What if you don't take DW and instead just pump your stats or take a race that gives more interesting abilities (including straight up more damage)?

[Eldariel]

It is better than sword and board unless you take a feat... that isn't a bad place to be in and even then it's about damage split into many attacks, hence the better at crowds thing I said.

No, GWF does not have the only reach weapons, I even mentioned the whip in my reply to you. Do you know what you can do with DW? That's right DW whips if you really want reach.

So...why can't a TWF make use of Sentinel? Or is it just a feat that's commonly mentioned alongside PAM/GWM so you're just associating it? I'm not entirely sure about that PAM with reach claim, but are we meant to ignore that your example relies on two feats? Are we just hoping for high rolls or resigning ourselves to only ever playing variant humans?

Feats exist and are commonly allowed, that doesn't mean they make sense for every build, especially if you want to be something other than Human and you're not playing a Figher. ASIs are so thin on the ground in 5e that it's not as simple as just saying but you can take PAM and Sentinel and GWM etc. a lot of those builds are stalling stat progression for those feats.

I'm also confused why those feats existing makes them the baseline? You can have a baseline with those feats above it, that's the kind of the definition of overtuned.

Do you honestly think that this perceived problem with TWF is so bad? Especially in the levels that most play actually happens at?

I'm more confused about why you're so deadset against balance that you don't want to boost the underpowered fighting styles, instead trying to argue circles trying to make them look equal. Do you really hate equal options that much? Why would you rather play a poorly balanced game than a well balanced one where every option has an upside?

It just doesn't make sense to me. What do you stand to gain out of (people) believing that the game as printed is better balanced than a better balanced version?

[Kane0]

We are comparing feats because nobody sane plays without feats and thus everyone gets their fighting style feat and thus it's the base level and therefore the only relevant level of comparison.


A better argument might be ‘there exists both fighting styles and feats specific to each style, and so are directly comparable’

[Dork_Forge]

I'm more confused about why you're so deadset against balance that you don't want to boost the underpowered fighting styles, instead trying to argue circles trying to make them look equal. Do you really hate equal options that much? Why would you rather play a poorly balanced game than a well balanced one where every option has an upside?

It just doesn't make sense to me. What do you stand to gain out of (people) believing that the game as printed is better balanced than a better balanced version?

Please do not put words in my mouth, I did not at any point indicate that I dislike balance. What you're advocating is balance through power creep.

I am making my position clear because I do not believe the negativity put against the style and my experience does not show it either. I believe that this is partially out of misunderstanding what TWF is meant to be good for and try to express that.

Accussing me of hating equal options and game balance is neither helpful to the discussion nor actual fact. Just because you think that something is balanced doesn't make it so and inflating TWF doesn't inherently benefit the game. I am not a RAW advocate, I'm running two games right now where I have altered RAW to better suit the game and what I perceive as balance.

[Eldariel]

Please do not put words in my mouth, I did not at any point indicate that I dislike balance. What you're advocating is balance through power creep.

I am making my position clear because I do not believe the negativity put against the style and my experience does not show it either. I believe that this is partially out of misunderstanding what TWF is meant to be good for and try to express that.

Accussing me of hating equal options and game balance is neither helpful to the discussion nor actual fact. Just because you think that something is balanced doesn't make it so and inflating TWF doesn't inherently benefit the game. I am not a RAW advocate, I'm running two games right now where I have altered RAW to better suit the game and what I perceive as balance.

Yet the numbers don't lie. PAM Dueling plain does both, more damage and has more AC while also having the reaction attack on top of it. So...why shouldn't Dual Wielder be buffed to match?

[Dork_Forge]

Yet the numbers don't lie. PAM Dueling plain does both, more damage and has more AC while also having the reaction attack on top of it. So...why shouldn't Dual Wielder be buffed to match?

Because power creep..? I'd sooner have a clause in PAM that require the weapon be wielded in both hands (like it should be) to cut out shield and PAM cheese (yes it works, but the feat explicitly says you strike with the other end of the weapon, how realistic is that?). I also think that if all style feat combos deal comparable damage, then what's the point of them? There needs to be compromises to each to actually make it interesting.

[Warlush]

I'll also add that the OP is playing a Barbarian. They aren't gonna get 3 attacks at level 11 or 4 at level 20. They also don't get access to any fighting style.

So stop comparing Dueling with TWF. We all know that PAM+spear+Dueling fighting style make bigger numbers on paper than TWF.

Once again, this PC doesn't have a fighting style, and simply wanted to compare the damage of that build vs. a heavy weapon. They got their answer. It's not as good but it's good enough to be effective.

But on the subject of TWF vs using a two handed weapon.

You can't use a Glaive, Pike, Halbert or whatever with DEX. However a TWF can use DEX, and therefore quite capable with ranged weapons. So they can be more flexible than most PAM builds.

Also if using your bonus action is a deal breaker, it's a deal breaker. It doesn't make any sense that EVERYONE complains about TWF using your bonus action, but NOBODY complains that PAM uses your bonus action.

[Eldariel]

Because power creep..? I'd sooner have a clause in PAM that require the weapon be wielded in both hands (like it should be) to cut out shield and PAM cheese (yes it works, but the feat explicitly says you strike with the other end of the weapon, how realistic is that?). I also think that if all style feat combos deal comparable damage, then what's the point of them? There needs to be compromises to each to actually make it interesting.

How is it power creep to make a new option equal to pre-existing options? Power creep would mean one-upping the overall power level of the system, which this is incapable of doing.

The different styles already have different specialisations, except for TWF. Therefore we need to think one up for TWF as well. TWF makes sense as the counterhitter type (historically the second weapon was mostly for counter attacking and for disarming and such) or the on-hit "apply on-hit effects" type (since in-game mechanics generally give TWF more attacks than other styles) but as it stands it doesn't work for either. For the first, give reaction counter attacks or some such, for the latter just give more attacks at low individual damage.

One additional option is of course just making it more reliable but less damaging; i.e. lots of attacks so you reliably get some hits but each individual at such low damage that e.g. THF still outdamages it on average but TWF makes up for that in reliability. All of these are interesting options.


Also if using your bonus action is a deal breaker, it's a deal breaker. It doesn't make any sense that EVERYONE complains about TWF using your bonus action, but NOBODY complains that PAM uses your bonus action.

Apples and oranges. In PAM it's an option you get instead of other uses of your bonus action: you're still getting your attacks at PAM bonuses without it as well as the reaction attack. In TWF you literally have to spend your bonus action if you want any advantage out of your feat and fighting style. Dueling PAM works great even if you use your Bonus Action on Cunning Action or Bardic Inspiration or Shield Master or whatever; you still get two fine attacks at decent damage bonuses and the reaction attack for enemy entering your reach. TWF DW OTOH literally doesn't do anything until you burn your Bonus Action.

If DW e.g. combined the TWF extra attack to your attack action, that'd be fairly balanced. You already have to put a lot of resources into TWF so it wouldn't be trivially better than anything else. Hell, maintain the TWF Bonus Action option on top of it. This way it'd be a "flurry of hits" kind of deal where TWF gets you a lot of relatively light hits making it great for when you have on-hit damage bonuses like Hex or Hunter's Mark or Horizon Walker or Tenser's Transformation. OTOH you're much better off punching through hard targets' defenses with THF and the most balanced one is still Dueling or Defense plus one-hander. Right now, one is strictly better than the other which is nothing but poor design.

[Dork_Forge]

How is it power creep to make a new option equal to pre-existing options? Power creep would mean one-upping the overall power level of the system, which this is incapable of doing.

You seem to have accepted that the feats you are defaulting to are overtuned. They stand out amongst the other feats in the game, they are not the average power level of feats in the game overall. So by introducing or 'fixing' something to meet that, you are causing power creep.


The different styles already have different specialisations, except for TWF. Therefore we need to think one up for TWF as well. TWF makes sense as the counterhitter type (historically the second weapon was mostly for counter attacking and for disarming and such) or the on-hit "apply on-hit effects" type (since in-game mechanics generally give TWF more attacks than other styles) but as it stands it doesn't work for either. For the first, give reaction counter attacks or some such, for the latter just give more attacks at low individual damage.


But... they don't really, the things you think are specialisation are actually just player choices that fall within the other 'styles' to some extent. Reach, as we have already covered, is not an inherent property of GWF as the whip exists and only half of the great weapons actually have it. If the player values damage then they'll usually go for the Greatsword or Maul, which have the same 5ft reach as everything else.

Then there's the shield, are you calling wearing a shield a style or Dueling (a literal fighting style)? Using a shield isn't inherent to Dueling, in fact the only style that explicitly uses the shield is Protection. The same goes for Dueling, that +2AC isn't inherent to the style and there's plenty of reasons why a player may wish to not wear a shield (concept, grappling, casting etc.).

You (and I think a lot of folks around here) are taking some of the more well known build choices as the default for what those things mean, the reality is that what you're talking about isn't actually well defined or niche, TWF however is. It's good at handling multiple opponents without needing a feat that locks you into a certain type of weapon and can make some people feel down right cheesey (the feat explicitly calls out spinning the weapon around and using the butt for the bonus attack, hence the lower damage die. How much sense does that make with a staff/spear and a shield?).



One additional option is of course just making it more reliable but less damaging; i.e. lots of attacks so you reliably get some hits but each individual at such low damage that e.g. THF still outdamages it on average but TWF makes up for that in reliability. All of these are interesting options.

Personally not only does that not seem interesting it seems absolutley ripe for abuse.




Apples and oranges. In PAM it's an option you get instead of other uses of your bonus action: you're still getting your attacks at PAM bonuses without it as well as the reaction attack. In TWF you literally have to spend your bonus action if you want any advantage out of your feat and fighting style. Dueling PAM works great even if you use your Bonus Action on Cunning Action or Bardic Inspiration or Shield Master or whatever; you still get two fine attacks at decent damage bonuses and the reaction attack for enemy entering your reach. TWF DW OTOH literally doesn't do anything until you burn your Bonus Action.

No, it's not apples and oranges, they're both bonus action attacks. If the cost of a bonus action matters it should apply to both, especially since the other benefit of PAM is largely outside of the control of the player. You're conflating Dueling and PAM and treating them like the same thing, this does nothing but highlight the overtuning of PAM in comparison to DW. You can quite happily TWF without taking DW.


If DW e.g. combined the TWF extra attack to your attack action, that'd be fairly balanced. You already have to put a lot of resources into TWF so it wouldn't be trivially better than anything else. Hell, maintain the TWF Bonus Action option on top of it. This way it'd be a "flurry of hits" kind of deal where TWF gets you a lot of relatively light hits making it great for when you have on-hit damage bonuses like Hex or Hunter's Mark or Horizon Walker or Tenser's Transformation. OTOH you're much better off punching through hard targets' defenses with THF and the most balanced one is still Dueling or Defense plus one-hander. Right now, one is strictly better than the other which is nothing but poor design.

Folding the attack into the attack action doesn't seem balanced to me at all and again, ripe for abuse (suddenly first round damage for Hexblade dips, Hunter's Mark etc. jumps up) and leads to weirdness like a Wizard getting two weapon attacks with their action and a bonus still free for casting. And what about that PAM feat you like so much? What stopping stacking this version of TWF with DW and PAM for even more attacks?

If you look at the actual styles then your perceived gap vanishes, after all TWF stays ahead of Dueling for damage at all points unless you're a Fighter, which is the exception and still draws value from more attacks.

[Ertwin]

Does the math favour dual wielding if the fighter is the UA Brute?

[Kane0]

Does the math favour dual wielding if the fighter is the UA Brute?
Fighters generally have a free BA to use more than other classes, but Brute damage bonus would apply to any BA attack equally whether that be GWM, PAM, CBE(?), etc

Edit: playing featless or changing those BA attack action feats would by proxy make TWF more lucrative however

[Valmark]

Does the math favour dual wielding if the fighter is the UA Brute?

Yes.

At level 11 (since earlier the damage was already in favor of TWF) a Dueling Brute Fighter with, say, 20 in attack stat (likely by then) is dealing an average of 45 damage with all attacks hitting.

A TWF is dealing 48 average damage.

At 20th the first is dealing 68 average.
The second, the TWF one, is dealing 70 average damage.

Though this does not include feats, which are inevitably pushing math in favor of Dueling (unless you don't take feats that increase your damage I guess).

I guess it should be relevant that if you have 16 or less as an attack stat TWF deals equal or lower damage then Dueling at 20th level, with 14 or less it's dealing equal damage at 11th already. But if you have a stat that low melee damage probably isn't your focus.

(THF is higher in any case, but that's the whole point of two-handed weapons).

EDIT: This also doesn't consider criticals.

[Eldariel]

No, it's not apples and oranges, they're both bonus action attacks. If the cost of a bonus action matters it should apply to both, especially since the other benefit of PAM is largely outside of the control of the player. You're conflating Dueling and PAM and treating them like the same thing, this does nothing but highlight the overtuning of PAM in comparison to DW. You can quite happily TWF without taking DW.

Rather buff than nerf. It's more fun for everyone. Plus non-casters could use all the help they can get; if they can at least be decent at dealing damage they have slightly more of an excuse to exist than if they suck at that too.


Folding the attack into the attack action doesn't seem balanced to me at all and again, ripe for abuse (suddenly first round damage for Hexblade dips, Hunter's Mark etc. jumps up) and leads to weirdness like a Wizard getting two weapon attacks with their action and a bonus still free for casting. And what about that PAM feat you like so much? What stopping stacking this version of TWF with DW and PAM for even more attacks?

PAM can't grant you more attacks than this version of TWF; you already get the bonus action attack from TWF so PAM wouldn't do much aside from the reaction attack which seems more than fair. Hexblade Dip is its own issue. And the others are as intended; those abilities don't break if you get more applications of them, on the contrary, they just give you auxiliary means of dealing decent damage without needing Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master.

So balanced to the level the game actually operates on but of course, if your players don't pick feats for their warriors...it actually doesn't matter 'cause this takes a feat too. It's simply balancing feat vs. the other feats. And if this makes Wizard too good comparatively to warrior classes at fighting, that's just a factor of the warrior classes getting too little fighting enhancing stuff (though it's worth noting that without the fighting style, two of the attacks you get are pretty mediocre and Wizard doesn't get fighting style).


If you look at the actual styles then your perceived gap vanishes, after all TWF stays ahead of Dueling for damage at all points unless you're a Fighter, which is the exception and still draws value from more attacks.

But that's not the whole story in the game. Feats are a part of it and the bigger part as they carry a larger power budget so those need to be balanced too. Nay, it's more important that those be balanced since they are the carrier of character power.

[Rowan Wolf]

Two weapon fighting on martial classes with extra attack could be improved by removing the bonus action cost for a first offhand strike after extra attack is obtain, while still allowing them to spend the bonus action for an additional off hand attack.

Maybe an additional feat for some sort of rend for damage based on hits in a turn (and weapon dice to keep dual wielder a good investment) for focus fire, and maybe some sort of defensive aspect when spreading the attacks out perhaps?

[Eldariel]

Two weapon fighting on martial classes with extra attack could be improved by removing the bonus action cost for a first offhand strike after extra attack is obtain, while still allowing them to spend the bonus action for an additional off hand attack.

Maybe an additional feat for some sort of rend for damage based on hits in a turn (and weapon dice to keep dual wielder a good investment) for focus fire, and maybe some sort of defensive aspect when spreading the attacks out perhaps?

Rend is a cool idea. Honestly, the big problem is that this system has too little for fighting style. There should be "improved fighting style" and "greater fighting style" or something where you unlock additional style abilities such as Rend or Counterstab/Counterdisarm/Lock-enemy-weapon. As it stands there's only the basic Fighting Style and then the Style Feat and that's it. You can have your full fighting style development on level 1 if you're a Vuman.

[Kane0]

Two weapon fighting on martial classes with extra attack could be improved by removing the bonus action cost for a first offhand strike after extra attack is obtain, while still allowing them to spend the bonus action for an additional off hand attack.

Maybe an additional feat for some sort of rend for damage based on hits in a turn (and weapon dice to keep dual wielder a good investment) for focus fire, and maybe some sort of defensive aspect when spreading the attacks out perhaps?

If i had to make one simple change for TWF i would make the feat grant the extra attack as part of the attack action instead of a bonus action in place of the +1 AC.

Makes it a lot more competitive with the other top tier weapon style feats without much changing lower levels and featless games where TWF is already a solid to good deal.

Edit: given the chance i would also swap around the stat to damage and larger weapons between style and feat respectively

[langal]

If i had to make one simple change for TWF i would make the feat grant the extra attack as part of the attack action instead of a bonus action in place of the +1 AC.

Makes it a lot more competitive with the other top tier weapon style feats without much changing lower levels and featless games where TWF is already a solid to good deal.

Edit: given the chance i would also swap around the stat to damage and larger weapons between style and feat respectively

Might open things up for some cheesy pole arm master combo to get 2 additional attacks.

[Eldariel]

Might open things up for some cheesy pole arm master combo to get 2 additional attacks.

All PAM attacks take a bonus action or a reaction. This wouldn't affect that as TWF already has a bonus action attack in addition to the additional main action attack (though PAM would still open up that reaction attack).

[Kane0]

No he’s right, taking both PAM and Dual Wielder could let you dual wield quarterstaves for an extra attack.

Given that its a double feat combo, its probably just as bad as PAM + Sentinel so meh, not bad for a quick n dirty.

[Eldariel]

No he’s right, taking both PAM and Dual Wielder could let you dual wield quarterstaves for an extra attack.

Given that its a double feat combo, its probably just as bad as PAM + Sentinel so meh, not bad for a quick n dirty.

I fail to see how.

Dual Wielder says:
- When you wield two weapons, you get an extra attack with the off-hand weapon as a part of the attack action.

- Additionally you can use Bonus Action to attack with your off-hand weapon.


Polearm Master just replicates the second part of Dual Wielder. Though if it's really a problem you can just write it into the feat that "doesn't work this way".

[Kane0]

I fail to see how.

Dual Wielder says:
- When you wield two weapons, you get an extra attack with the off-hand weapon as a part of the attack action.

- Additionally you can use Bonus Action to attack with your off-hand weapon.


Polearm Master just replicates the second part of Dual Wielder. Though if it's really a problem you can just write it into the feat that "doesn't work this way".

In my idea i said instead of, there would be no additional two weapon attack as a bonus action if you choose to do it with your attack action.

[Eldariel]

In my idea i said instead of, there would be no additional two weapon attack as a bonus action if you choose to do it with your attack action.

Mhm. Well, that's also fair enough. I don't think getting two off-hand attacks would really break anything. We can quickly run the numbers of e.g. a level 10 THF Great Weapon Fighting + PAM Fighter vs. a TWF Dual Wielder + PAM Fighter (could make Dual Wielder require Extra Attack btw; that would solve the Wizard hitting thrice thingy). I guess the only reasonable frame of comparison is Battlemaster since it's the only Fighter subclass that makes good use of Great Weapon Master without using bonus action. That makes the math a bit hard but let's do what we can


+9 at 1d6+5
+9 at 1d6+5
+9 at 1d6+5
+9 at 1d6+5


vs.

+4 at 1d10+5+10
+4 at 1d10+5+10
+4 at 1d4+5+10


For the purposes of this comparison we'll only be using Precision Attack and Trip Attack with the following heuristic.

So we can set the heuristic:
- If we hit, we use Trip Attack maneuver for d10 extra damage and DC 18 Str/Dex-save vs. Advantage on all subsequent attacks.
- If we miss by 4 or less, we use Precision Attack to try and turn it into a hit unless we had Advantage (in which case we conserve maneuvers as we have a reasonable chance of hitting anyways).
- If we miss by 5 or more, it's not worth the effort and we accept the miss.


Target AC, well, average AC for CR 10 monsters is 16,5 so let's call it 17. The median higher of Dex/Str save for CR10 is +4 (not using average since there are skewy outliers with like +0 and +11).


So, TWF:
Attack 1: 5% 60% hit, 5% 70% hit 5% 80% hit, 5% 90% hit, 5% 100% hit with Precision Attack + 65% hit = 85% total hit rate, 5% crit for 1d6+5+1d10 for 65% Advantage
Attack 2: 85%*65% = 55,25% advantage: 87,75% hit, 9,75% crit for 1d6+5+1d10 for 65% Advantage; otherwise same as attack 1
Attack 3: (1-44,75%*44,75% = 79,975%) advantage
Attack 4: (1-44,75%*44,75%*44,75% = 91%) advantage

THF (Glaive):
Attack 1: 40% hit + Precision Attack = 60% hit, 5% crit for 1d10+15+1d10 for 65% Advantage
Attack 2: 60%*65% = 39% Advantage: 64% hit, 9,75% crit for 1d10+15+1d10; otherwise same as attack 1
Attack 3: (1-61%^2 = 62%) Advantage


Total TWF damage:
Attack 1: ,80 * 3,5+5,5+5 + ,05 * 7+11+5 = 12,35 average damage
Attack 2: ,5525% for ,80 * 3,5+5,5+5 + ,0975 * 7+11+5 = 13,4425 average damage, 44,75% for 12,35 average damage = 12,95360625 average damage
Attack 3: 79,975% for 13,4425 average damage, 20,025% for 12,35 average damage = 13,2237
Attack 4: 91% for 13,4425 average damage, 9% for 12,35 average damage = 13,344175

Total: 51,87148125 average damage, spending on average a bit over 4 maneuvers on average.


Total THF damage:
Attack 1: ,55*26 + ,05*37 = 17,45 average damage
Attack 2: 39% for ,5489*26 + 0,0975*37 = 17,8789 average damage, 61% for 17,45 average damage = 17,617271
Attack 3: 62% for 17,8789 average damage, 38% for 17,45 average damage = 17,537129

Total: 52,6044 average damage spending on average a bit over 3 maneuvers.


Which seems just fair to me; they burst about as hard though TWF is more reliable about inflicting condition (almost 95% to leave the target prone) while THF is a bit more resource efficient (does the same damage with 1 maneuver less spent on average), leaving the comparison mostly down to the unquantifiables (teammate damage, benefits of enemy repositionining limitations, etc.).

Of course it's worth noting that THF doesn't have a fighting style but we can just peg it with like Defense or whatever that doesn't influence this math. Great Weapon Fighting is largely poor enough that it's not worth picking up anyways. Archery would of course wipe the floor with both.

EDIT: Of course you could argue that the extra attack would give extra value out of Hex but to that I say:
- Hex takes a bonus action to apply and thus you lose the second extra attack on the first turn
- Hex only does +1d6 bonus damage which really isn't that big in the grand scheme of things so it wouldn't sway things overtly much in the first place

So let them. That really isn't gonna break anything. It's gonna make Horizon Walker a bit stronger though.

EDIT#2: Worth noting that this is also 1 level before Extra Attack 2 buffs THF heavily while being far less impactful for TWF. I specifically picked a level that's largely class agnostic so that Extra Attack is in but no class specific buffs are. Battlemaster should largely mirror other sources of attack and hit bonuses but it's special in that you can use your bonus action for attacks meaning it's actually TWF friendly and on a class with Fighting Style (Barbarian THFs great but lacks Fighting Style for TWF for instance).

[langal]

A level 4 human variant could get 3 attacks per round. 4 attacks at lvl 5. Wouldn't feel right. Thats supposed to be the monk's thing (who has to use ki). Just make the the PAM bonus attack require two hands.

[Eldariel]

A level 4 human variant could get 3 attacks per round. 4 attacks at lvl 5. Wouldn't feel right. Thats supposed to be the monk's thing (who has to use ki). Just make the the PAM bonus attack require two hands.

Monk is also a deficient class with its own problems that should be fixed separately instead of shackling other warriors to not outperform the Monk.

[loki_ragnarock]

Because TWF is just about dealing damage and it's not even particularly better at it than PAM.
I see this mentioned alot, but it really does fail to take into account that none of the published adventures has a magical pole-arm available. (To my knowledge, which might be dated.)

Facing orcs, sure, your glaive-guisarme will pave a path of destruction.

Facing demons, hey, you've got the joy of doing half damage, whereupon the guy that can use whatever is to hand is likely to surpass.

The guy with PAM has built himself into a niche that's really hard to break out of and is actively unsupported in published modules. Zoom out a little bit, and suddenly PAM can look like a real turd of an option. Sure, if you're DM is nice and running something with your specific character in mind you might find a mystical glaive-guisarme, but that's leaving it up to the DM to support it. It feels like an homage to Gygax, the prime preacher of polearms; endless varieties of polearm that - upon taking proficiency - turn out to have very little support in the form of magic items.



TWF carves you a much wider niche.

So... look at the progression of two weapon fighter vs a pole-arm bro, and zoom out from damage a bit.

The TWF person does pretty dang well in tier one, literally doubling their number of attacks per round. Generally they'll keep up with or exceed damage even from great weapons by virtue of being able to add their static bonus twice, courtesy of the relevant fighting style. But factoring significantly greater accuracy (what more attacks gets ya) and critical rate (what more attacks gets ya) puts them comfortably ahead of the fella with the great axe. For levels 1-3, the fella with TWF has a clear advantage over the person with a glaive-guisarme on a raw damage front. But also from an efficacy front; at first level, the creatures you're fighting will typically go down with one hit and TWF has twice the available hits to make things go down. By second level, the big hits of the great weapons might be enough to down a typical foe. By third, neither will be dropping things with one hit, and having a second blow puts and greater raw damage output places the TWF ahead.
In that space of 1-3, TWF is the king of kings, the champion of champions, and you'll feel like a combat whiz.
(Exceptions exist, of course, in the War Cleric (for 1-3) and the Berserker (for 3). But they also stand accused of falling off past tier one, interestingly, and neither can go all day.)

And then comes the end of the road for unmatched damage output; level 4, where feats happen. The glaive-guisarme guy grabs at polearm master and steps past the guy with TWF in terms of raw damage. The great axe guy picks up great weapon master and steps past the guy with TWF in terms of raw damage. The guy with TWF takes Dual Wielder and passes them in AC. The guy with a shield takes shield master and get's their own bonus action ability and extra survivability. But how niche have they made themselves in the process?
The shield guy is probably the least niche; he can use 10 of the 11 simple melee weapons, 12 of the 18 martial melee weapons, one of the simple ranged weapons, one of the martial ranged weapons, and any shields that they party might come across. Bully for him, with 22 of 29 melee weapons.
The TWF guy is only a little more niche, being able to use everything the shield guy can use, minus the shields, or 22 of the 29 melee weapons.
The Great Weapon Master guy exists in a more particular niche. He can use 0 of the 11 simple melee weapons with both clauses of the feat, and 6 of the 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 6 of 29 weapons. That's pretty narrow, indeed. But at least one of the bullet points is melee weapon agnostic, so it's not a total loss if they are forced through circumstance to use something else.
The Polearm Master guy has his options spelled out by the feat. For both clauses of the feat, he can use 1 simple weapon of 11 (2 with errata), and 2 of 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 3 (4 with errata) out of 29 melee weapons total. That's one narrow niche. The second bullet point adds an additional martial weapon... but it's not one you'd want to use, really. Still, a max of 5 of 29 weapons for any potential benefit from the feat is a very, very narrow niche to find oneself in.

So x and board and TWF personas can use 75% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency.
The Great Weapon Master can use 20% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency, and 100% at partial efficiency.
The Polearm Master can use about 10% of all possible melee weapons at full efficiency, almost 14% with full efficiency with errata, 17% at partial efficiency. Anything other than that 17% is a wasted feat.

So TWF ain’t so bad. There’s a complicated argument for being more compatible with ranged weapons, but dropping strength to focus on dex limits the usable melee weapons considerably, even as it opens up significant capacity for reaching out and touching someone. A little of this, a little of that, but smooth switch hitting is one of the places it can excel where the others simply can’t.
Even so, lets look at what you get at level 4.
The Weapon and Board (WB)guy pulls ahead on survivability, but the offensive option is something that the two weapon fighting guy could do all along. Only the two weapon fighting guy maybe still does it better at this level. TWF: Attack action, sack attack to shove, bonus action to attack with advantage. WB (Ideally): Attack action declared, bonus action to shove, attack with advantage. WB (playing with Crawford): Attack action declared, attack, shove as a bonus action after.
TWF comes out ahead in the case of a bad, bad, so bad, why is it so bad, nobody knows why it’s so bad, but we can all admit that it’s a bad DM ruling. Best case for WB is that they can now do something offensively that the TWF guy has been able to do all along.

For GWM guy, he’s gained the ability to sometimes make a bonus action attack in general (Yeah!) and the ability to more effectively miss hobgoblins at the cost of just murderlizing ogres... when using one of six heavy weapons.

For the PAM guy, he’s gained the ability to always make a bonus action attack (HUZZAH!) and make easy reaction attacks (HURRAH) under a highly narrow set of 4 weapons.

The next dungeon they find a magic dagger. WB, TWF, and GWM all can use it to overcome the damage resistance of the quasits that are in the dungeon, though the GWM will grumble about it and probably just power attack with a greatsword to make up the difference because that feels good. The PAM guy, though? He’s simply out of luck. He’ll probably remain effective clearing out the quasits per turn (between the two types of extra attack he’s getting via his feat), but he’s going to feels bad man, always doing half damage… and in this regard, he’s always going to feel bad in an unmodified published adventure. (Although, the errata for spears might have opened up some options.) The GWM guy likewise is going to feel like that pretty often. But the TWF and WB guys can just pick up most of whatever’s there without worrying about something resisting half; the boon of a wider niche is that more useful stuff can fall in it.

So level 4 means the TWF guy has to give up his status as the be all end all of melee damage, but he’s still well placed to be generally effective where his more specialized compatriots… aren’t. The feat doesn’t give him as much of a jump, but till now he was far enough ahead that he doesn’t need as much of a step up, frankly. His feat makes his niche almost as broad as the WB guy; it doesn’t need any deepening at this point because from 1-3 it was the deepest niche and fairly narrow. It remains as deep as it was, just now much broader.

Level 5. Rut Row.
Now suddenly everybody starts getting all kinds of extra attacks. The TWF guy finds his niche considerably more shallow; the benefits aren’t a doubling of attack power, but only an increase of 50%. What a blow to the old ego that must be. Suddenly the GWM and the PAM guys are sprinting ahead, and the WB guy can net an attack at advantage even when playing with Crawford. Their whole world changes as everyone else starts… matching where they were from levels 1-4, and they lose their state of total dominance to become merely generally effective.
Thankfully, their feat broadened their niche just before it became shallower.

And this post has gotten away from me. No time to edit or examine how much further they fall behind over the further levels. But they do pretty darned well in tier one.

[Eldariel]

I see this mentioned alot, but it really does fail to take into account that none of the published adventures has a magical pole-arm available. (To my knowledge, which might be dated.)

Facing orcs, sure, your glaive-guisarme will pave a path of destruction.

Facing demons, hey, you've got the joy of doing half damage, whereupon the guy that can use whatever is to hand is likely to surpass.

The guy with PAM has built himself into a niche that's really hard to break out of and is actively unsupported in published modules. Zoom out a little bit, and suddenly PAM can look like a real turd of an option. Sure, if you're DM is nice and running something with your specific character in mind you might find a mystical glaive-guisarme, but that's leaving it up to the DM to support it. It feels like an homage to Gygax, the prime preacher of polearms; endless varieties of polearm that - upon taking proficiency - turn out to have very little support in the form of magic items.



TWF carves you a much wider niche.

So... look at the progression of two weapon fighter vs a pole-arm bro, and zoom out from damage a bit.

The TWF person does pretty dang well in tier one, literally doubling their number of attacks per round. Generally they'll keep up with or exceed damage even from great weapons by virtue of being able to add their static bonus twice, courtesy of the relevant fighting style. But factoring significantly greater accuracy (what more attacks gets ya) and critical rate (what more attacks gets ya) puts them comfortably ahead of the fella with the great axe. For levels 1-3, the fella with TWF has a clear advantage over the person with a glaive-guisarme on a raw damage front. But also from an efficacy front; at first level, the creatures you're fighting will typically go down with one hit and TWF has twice the available hits to make things go down. By second level, the big hits of the great weapons might be enough to down a typical foe. By third, neither will be dropping things with one hit, and having a second blow puts and greater raw damage output places the TWF ahead.
In that space of 1-3, TWF is the king of kings, the champion of champions, and you'll feel like a combat whiz.
(Exceptions exist, of course, in the War Cleric (for 1-3) and the Berserker (for 3). But they also stand accused of falling off past tier one, interestingly, and neither can go all day.)

And then comes the end of the road for unmatched damage output; level 4, where feats happen. The glaive-guisarme guy grabs at polearm master and steps past the guy with TWF in terms of raw damage. The great axe guy picks up great weapon master and steps past the guy with TWF in terms of raw damage. The guy with TWF takes Dual Wielder and passes them in AC. The guy with a shield takes shield master and get's their own bonus action ability and extra survivability. But how niche have they made themselves in the process?
The shield guy is probably the least niche; he can use 10 of the 11 simple melee weapons, 12 of the 18 martial melee weapons, one of the simple ranged weapons, one of the martial ranged weapons, and any shields that they party might come across. Bully for him, with 22 of 29 melee weapons.
The TWF guy is only a little more niche, being able to use everything the shield guy can use, minus the shields, or 22 of the 29 melee weapons.
The Great Weapon Master guy exists in a more particular niche. He can use 0 of the 11 simple melee weapons with both clauses of the feat, and 6 of the 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 6 of 29 weapons. That's pretty narrow, indeed. But at least one of the bullet points is melee weapon agnostic, so it's not a total loss if they are forced through circumstance to use something else.
The Polearm Master guy has his options spelled out by the feat. For both clauses of the feat, he can use 1 simple weapon of 11 (2 with errata), and 2 of 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 3 (4 with errata) out of 29 melee weapons total. That's one narrow niche. The second bullet point adds an additional martial weapon... but it's not one you'd want to use, really. Still, a max of 5 of 29 weapons for any potential benefit from the feat is a very, very narrow niche to find oneself in.

So x and board and TWF personas can use 75% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency.
The Great Weapon Master can use 20% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency, and 100% at partial efficiency.
The Polearm Master can use about 10% of all possible melee weapons at full efficiency, almost 14% with full efficiency with errata, 17% at partial efficiency. Anything other than that 17% is a wasted feat.

So TWF ain’t so bad. There’s a complicated argument for being more compatible with ranged weapons, but dropping strength to focus on dex limits the usable melee weapons considerably, even as it opens up significant capacity for reaching out and touching someone. A little of this, a little of that, but smooth switch hitting is one of the places it can excel where the others simply can’t.
Even so, lets look at what you get at level 4.
The Weapon and Board (WB)guy pulls ahead on survivability, but the offensive option is something that the two weapon fighting guy could do all along. Only the two weapon fighting guy maybe still does it better at this level. TWF: Attack action, sack attack to shove, bonus action to attack with advantage. WB (Ideally): Attack action declared, bonus action to shove, attack with advantage. WB (playing with Crawford): Attack action declared, attack, shove as a bonus action after.
TWF comes out ahead in the case of a bad, bad, so bad, why is it so bad, nobody knows why it’s so bad, but we can all admit that it’s a bad DM ruling. Best case for WB is that they can now do something offensively that the TWF guy has been able to do all along.

For GWM guy, he’s gained the ability to sometimes make a bonus action attack in general (Yeah!) and the ability to more effectively miss hobgoblins at the cost of just murderlizing ogres... when using one of six heavy weapons.

For the PAM guy, he’s gained the ability to always make a bonus action attack (HUZZAH!) and make easy reaction attacks (HURRAH) under a highly narrow set of 4 weapons.

The next dungeon they find a magic dagger. WB, TWF, and GWM all can use it to overcome the damage resistance of the quasits that are in the dungeon, though the GWM will grumble about it and probably just power attack with a greatsword to make up the difference because that feels good. The PAM guy, though? He’s simply out of luck. He’ll probably remain effective clearing out the quasits per turn (between the two types of extra attack he’s getting via his feat), but he’s going to feels bad man, always doing half damage… and in this regard, he’s always going to feel bad in an unmodified published adventure. (Although, the errata for spears might have opened up some options.) The GWM guy likewise is going to feel like that pretty often. But the TWF and WB guys can just pick up most of whatever’s there without worrying about something resisting half; the boon of a wider niche is that more useful stuff can fall in it.

So level 4 means the TWF guy has to give up his status as the be all end all of melee damage, but he’s still well placed to be generally effective where his more specialized compatriots… aren’t. The feat doesn’t give him as much of a jump, but till now he was far enough ahead that he doesn’t need as much of a step up, frankly. His feat makes his niche almost as broad as the WB guy; it doesn’t need any deepening at this point because from 1-3 it was the deepest niche and fairly narrow. It remains as deep as it was, just now much broader.

Level 5. Rut Row.
Now suddenly everybody starts getting all kinds of extra attacks. The TWF guy finds his niche considerably more shallow; the benefits aren’t a doubling of attack power, but only an increase of 50%. What a blow to the old ego that must be. Suddenly the GWM and the PAM guys are sprinting ahead, and the WB guy can net an attack at advantage even when playing with Crawford. Their whole world changes as everyone else starts… matching where they were from levels 1-4, and they lose their state of total dominance to become merely generally effective.
Thankfully, their feat broadened their niche just before it became shallower.

And this post has gotten away from me. No time to edit or examine how much further they fall behind over the further levels. But they do pretty darned well in tier one.

There are plenty of magical polearms. They are mostly Quarterstaves though but that's hardly an issue. Worst case scenario sees you take Shillelagh with a 1 level dip or a feat to get your magical Quarterstaff. This is really the easiest style for fixing this issue.

[Valmark]

But factoring significantly greater accuracy (what more attacks gets ya) and critical rate (what more attacks gets ya) puts them comfortably ahead of the fella with the great axe.

The shield guy is probably the least niche; he can use 10 of the 11 simple melee weapons, 12 of the 18 martial melee weapons, one of the simple ranged weapons, one of the martial ranged weapons, and any shields that they party might come across. Bully for him, with 22 of 29 melee weapons.
The TWF guy is only a little more niche, being able to use everything the shield guy can use, minus the shields, or 22 of the 29 melee weapons.
The Great Weapon Master guy exists in a more particular niche. He can use 0 of the 11 simple melee weapons with both clauses of the feat, and 6 of the 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 6 of 29 weapons. That's pretty narrow, indeed. But at least one of the bullet points is melee weapon agnostic, so it's not a total loss if they are forced through circumstance to use something else.
The Polearm Master guy has his options spelled out by the feat. For both clauses of the feat, he can use 1 simple weapon of 11 (2 with errata), and 2 of 18 martial melee weapons, for a total of 3 (4 with errata) out of 29 melee weapons total. That's one narrow niche. The second bullet point adds an additional martial weapon... but it's not one you'd want to use, really. Still, a max of 5 of 29 weapons for any potential benefit from the feat is a very, very narrow niche to find oneself in.
So x and board and TWF personas can use 75% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency.
The Great Weapon Master can use 20% of all possible melee weapons they come across at full efficiency, and 100% at partial efficiency.
The Polearm Master can use about 10% of all possible melee weapons at full efficiency, almost 14% with full efficiency with errata, 17% at partial efficiency. Anything other than that 17% is a wasted feat.

So TWF ain’t so bad. There’s a complicated argument for being more compatible with ranged weapons, but dropping strength to focus on dex limits the usable melee weapons considerably, even as it opens up significant capacity for reaching out and touching someone. A little of this, a little of that, but smooth switch hitting is one of the places it can excel where the others simply can’t.


Very small note- crit-wise, a great weapon either pulls ahead then twin weapon fighting or reduces the gap. Assuming 16 attack stat:

- Average damage from TWF is 13
- Average damage from THWF with 2d6 weapon is 12
- Average damage from THWF with 1d12 weapon is 10.5

- TWF critting goes to 20
- THWF critting with 2d6 goes to 21
- THWF critting with 1d12 goes to 18

Obviously the gap either reduces further or goes more in favor of THWF with more attacks and feats.

Honestly, while the availability of weapons thing is true, I've never had a problem with finding weapons regardless of what character I had. And there's just as many if not more DMs that make their own adventures with items suited to the party, at least in my experience.

EDIT: I think the average damage for two-handed weapons should be higher- but it's kind of hard to gauge correctly how much bonus to damage rerolling 1s and 2s give, so I slapped an arbitrary +1 for die rolled. I know it's terribly effective when I use it, and I use it a lot.

[Waazraath]

Because power creep..? I'd sooner have a clause in PAM that require the weapon be wielded in both hands (like it should be) to cut out shield and PAM cheese (yes it works, but the feat explicitly says you strike with the other end of the weapon, how realistic is that?). I also think that if all style feat combos deal comparable damage, then what's the point of them? There needs to be compromises to each to actually make it interesting.

It's even worse: making an attack with e.g. a glaive against a character 10 ft away with the end of the weapon (which definitely is within the RAW) assumes you are holding the glaive at the sharp end (either that, or having a rediculous long pole). PAM is 5e's spiked chain. I never saw it in play, hope I never will.

Further: games without feats are fine, and dex is a stronger stat than str in some respects; fighting with 2 scimitars, besides nice fluff, also allows you a +5 on initiative compared to str builds, and +5 on a common save vs an uncommon one. That's not te be underestimated, even when this extra damage you do and lesser damage you take don't fit easily in the models used to calculate dpr.

[Eldariel]

It's even worse: making an attack with e.g. a glaive against a character 10 ft away with the end of the weapon (which definitely is within the RAW) assumes you are holding the glaive at the sharp end (either that, or having a rediculous long pole). PAM is 5e's spiked chain. I never saw it in play, hope I never will.

Further: games without feats are fine, and dex is a stronger stat than str in some respects; fighting with 2 scimitars, besides nice fluff, also allows you a +5 on initiative compared to str builds, and +5 on a common save vs an uncommon one. That's not te be underestimated, even when this extra damage you do and lesser damage you take don't fit easily in the models used to calculate dpr.

So buff the feat. If this is about featless vs. feats, restrict the balancing to feated games. For melee specifically, there's a lot to be said for Athletics and heavy armor so Str isn't that much worse than Dex in any case.

[Waazraath]

So buff the feat. If this is about featless vs. feats, restrict the balancing to feated games. For melee specifically, there's a lot to be said for Athletics and heavy armor so Str isn't that much worse than Dex in any case.

Buff what feat? I only mentioned PAM, and my point isn't that it's weak (it certainly isn't) it is that the fluff is lame. There's no buffing that away, and I don't think WotC will. As for featless, without PAM 2wf doesn't have the 'is obviously better' option in the field, and there it is fine imo (though your right that dex isn't that much stronger than str, it is a little, which compensates for 2wf being a little bit weaker at first sight).

[Eldariel]

Buff what feat? I only mentioned PAM, and my point isn't that it's weak (it certainly isn't) it is that the fluff is lame. There's no buffing that away, and I don't think WotC will. As for featless, without PAM 2wf doesn't have the 'is obviously better' option in the field, and there it is fine imo (though your right that dex isn't that much stronger than str, it is a little, which compensates for 2wf being a little bit weaker at first sight).
Dual Wielder. If feats are the issue, put them on the same plane of power.

[Waazraath]

Dual Wielder. If feats are the issue, put them on the same plane of power.

Meh. Wouldn't unbalance anything if it was a little stronger, but I don't see much reason. I see Dork_Forge's point that its weird balance wise to raise all feats to the level of those of which there are many complaints that they are too strong. Honestly, in 5e 2wf has its niche, it's can be optimal in a rare few builds, and if not it's not that bad that you suffer or become inadequate if you take it in stead of something else because you like the fluff.

[Satori01]

PAM and XGE builds only do more DPR when coupled with the -5/+10 feats.

Build a Rend Two Weapon Fighting feat, allow an immediate action-less attack with the "offhand" weapon upon a kill or crit..(limit one per turn), and give a -5/+10 option when wielding two weapons. Suddenly no one plays PAM builds anymore.

1d4 + modifier dmg + Duelist PAM fighter does higher base damage on a hit from the +2 from Duelist, but has less capability of doing more MAX damage then a person with the TWF Feat.

In the current state of D&D a combo of TWF feat and Defensive Duelist can equate to higher AC then a PAM spear and shield Duelist build.

PAM sans Reach is a bit of a waste, imho, but seems like some favor it.

The upcoming Tasha's Grab-bag is going to alter much of the assumptions that are proffered as of now. Having access to two separate types of weapons given the U/A feats previewed is going to allow interesting TWF combos, in conjunction with the new feats.

[Valmark]

PAM and XGE builds only do more DPR when coupled with the -5/+10 feats.

1d4 + modifier dmg + Duelist PAM fighter does higher base damage on a hit from the +2 from Duelist, but has less capability of doing more MAX damage then a person with the TWF Feat.

In the current state of D&D a combo of TWF feat and Defensive Duelist can equate to higher AC then a PAM spear and shield Duelist build.


Uh... No. Regardless of the polearm you have an higher average damage as long as you take one of the damage-oriented fighting styles.

I'm also unsure how TWF is dealing max damage more often.

And the higher AC is on a single attack in the round.

[Satori01]

I'm also unsure how TWF is dealing max damage more often.

And the higher AC is on a single attack in the round.

TWF isn't doing MAX damage more often, it has a higher damage ceiling then PAM.

1d4 +7 from a PAM Bonus Action attack by a 20 STR character with the Duelist fighting style is an average damage of 9, with a damage ceiling of 11.

1d8+5 from a Bonus Action off hand attack from a 20 Stat character with Two Weapon Fighting Style and Dual Wielder feat, results in average damage total of 9, with a damage ceiling 13.

The Dual Wielder has a +1 AC from the feat, and is thus only one point of AC behind the PAM/Spear/Shield/Duelist build.

Defensive Duelist then surpasses the PAM Shield Spear character for AC, for yes, a single attack. Blocking damage, even if it is just once a turn, translates into living longer then a character that does not block the damage.

Without the -5/+10 damage feats, where is this vaunted DPR superiority of PAM or XBE B/A attacks?

The Lucky trait of a Halfling functions off of the number of dice rolls attempted. A Halfling Dual Wielder, TWF Style character gets a noticeable statistical bump from the interactions.

Just play with LudicSavants calculator, to confirm.

[Eldariel]

TWF isn't doing MAX damage more often, it has a higher damage ceiling then PAM.

1d4 +7 from a PAM Bonus Action attack by a 20 STR character with the Duelist fighting style is an average damage of 9, with a damage ceiling of 11.

1d8+5 from a Bonus Action off hand attack from a 20 Stat character with Two Weapon Fighting Style and Dual Wielder feat, results in average damage total of 9, with a damage ceiling 13.

The Dual Wielder has a +1 AC from the feat, and is thus only one point of AC behind the PAM/Spear/Shield/Duelist build.

Defensive Duelist then surpasses the PAM Shield Spear character for AC, for yes, a single attack. Blocking damage, even if it is just once a turn, translates into living longer then a character that does not block the damage.

Without the -5/+10 damage feats, where is this vaunted DPR superiority of PAM or XBE B/A attacks?

The Lucky trait of a Halfling functions off of the number of dice rolls attempted. A Halfling Dual Wielder, TWF Style character gets a noticeable statistical bump from the interactions.

Just play with LudicSavants calculator, to confirm.

Duelist PAM wins out in damage though not of course by as much. It still averages more even without the Reaction attack - I did the math few pages back and it's basically just more damage and more AC at no downsides. Damage ceiling is a meaningless concept; average damage is where it's at. Halfling's Lucky only works on d20 so that doesn't matter there.

[Valmark]

TWF isn't doing MAX damage more often, it has a higher damage ceiling then PAM.

1d4 +7 from a PAM Bonus Action attack by a 20 STR character with the Duelist fighting style is an average damage of 9, with a damage ceiling of 11.

1d8+5 from a Bonus Action off hand attack from a 20 Stat character with Two Weapon Fighting Style and Dual Wielder feat, results in average damage total of 9, with a damage ceiling 13.

The Dual Wielder has a +1 AC from the feat, and is thus only one point of AC behind the PAM/Spear/Shield/Duelist build.

Defensive Duelist then surpasses the PAM Shield Spear character for AC, for yes, a single attack. Blocking damage, even if it is just once a turn, translates into living longer then a character that does not block the damage.

Without the -5/+10 damage feats, where is this vaunted DPR superiority of PAM or XBE B/A attacks?

The Lucky trait of a Halfling functions off of the number of dice rolls attempted. A Halfling Dual Wielder, TWF Style character gets a noticeable statistical bump from the interactions.

Just play with LudicSavants calculator, to confirm.

Uh, alright, yeah it has an higher maximum damage- as much as it matters when compared to average.

It's blocking damage once a round and... Well, the one with a usually higher AC will be blocking more attacks in general unless you're receiving one or two attacks only. Also don't forget that a spear/shield character has only 1 more AC if it doesn't have heavy armor. Otherwise it's 2 more.

A PAM user (one-handed) is dealing 3 less average damage without Duelist, 1 more average damage with it.

A PAM user (two-handed) is dealing 1 less average damage without rerolling 1s and 2s, 1 more with the Style.

The halfling with a polearm gets the same bonus that the dual wielder gets.

Who was saying that Crossbow Expert deals more average damage?

EDIT: I'm ignoring the lance, since that requires you to be mounted to be used well (beyond having to wield it with two hands on foot, you can more or less ignore the disadvantage within 5 feet on a mount, but on foot that is pretty bad)

[Corran]

Without the -5/+10 damage feats, where is this vaunted DPR superiority of PAM or XBE B/A attacks?
You forgot the PAM's reaction attack, which will occur every few rounds, though I'd agree that without combining it with GWM and/or sentinel makes twf look better. And I think that's the problem. You cannot build up twf like you can do with PAM or xbow expert, unless you are taking several rogue levels. That's why twf is bad (and yeah, PAM on its own is just as bad, if not worse, since you dont need to spend a -weak- feat to use twf), it has no significant synergies apart from having lots of sneak attack dice (I'd consider needing two magic weapons instead of one another drawback too, but I wont put that much emphasis on that cause it definitely depends on how often the GM is giving out magic weapons).

[Valmark]

You forgot the PAM's reaction attack, which will occur every few rounds, though I'd agree that without combining it with GWM and/or sentinel makes twf look better. And I think that's the problem. You cannot build up twf like you can do with PAM or xbow expert, unless you are taking several rogue levels. That's why twf is bad (and yeah, PAM on its own is just as bad, if not worse, since you dont need to spend a -weak- feat to use twf), it has no significant synergies apart from having lots of sneak attack dice (I'd consider needing two magic weapons instead of one another drawback too, but I wont put that much emphasis on that cause it definitely depends on how often the GM is giving out magic weapons).

...PAM on its own makes you deal more damage then twf even ignoring the potential reaction attack, all while giving you the possibility of having more AC with a shield or reach with the two-handed polearms, how can it be worst? It doesn't do much all in all, true, but it does it well.

And... I really wouldn't say you have better chances of triggering Sneak Attack with twf. Sure, you have a second attack to trigger it, but rogues also have Cunning Action that depends on their bonus action.

[Satori01]

One could theoretically use the DW feat with a spear and PAM feat and the Sentinel feat.

The only piece missing for a Dual Wielder is missing is the -5/+10 component.

[Satori01]

...PAM on its own makes you deal more damage then twf even ignoring the potential reaction attack,

How is the Polearm Feat dealing more damage, without considering the Reaction/Attack?
D10+5= 10 1d4+5= 7 /17 DPR for a glaive.
D8+5= 9 1d8+5=9 /18 DPR for twin rapiers.

[Valmark]

How is the Polearm Feat dealing more damage, without considering the Reaction/Attack?
D10+5= 10 1d4+5= 7 /17 DPR for a glaive.
D8+5= 9 1d8+5=9 /18 DPR for twin rapiers.

With two d8 weapons the damage is 4.5+4.5+5+5=19 damage.

With the d10 weapon (and the d4 bonus attack) you're dealing an average of 6.5+3.5+5+5=20 damage.
You are forgetting to factor in rerolling 1s and 2s with the fighting style, that pushes the average for each die up (I'll admit that +1 on each die is arbitrary- it should maybe be less on the d4 and definitely more on the d10. I am not going to correctly calculate how much does damage increase with rerolls).

For the sake of it, with a spear and shield the damage is 3.5+2.5+5+5+2+2=20. Both ways to fight with a polearm deal the same damage at level 4 and slightly more then twf, then the gap increases by more with a second attack (and if you're playing a fighter they'll increase by even more).

The difference is admittedly very low, but you can't say TWF is dealing more damage, regardless of the reaction attack.

[Corran]

...PAM on its own makes you deal more damage then twf even ignoring the potential reaction attack, all while giving you the possibility of having more AC with a shield or reach with the two-handed polearms, how can it be worst?
I didn't say it's worse (I meant it makes twf look better compared to how we usually think about it). Though in an indirect comparison it could be better if you have better things to spend your ASI's on compared to PAM or DW, but at the same time that bonus action attack is still worth having (eg rogues and maybe some paladins).

What I am trying to say is something else. Consider two things about twf. Its current ability, as in how it looks without any feat investment. And then consider its potential ability, as in how you can build on it by taking feats. To fix twf you need to adress both. And where is it lacking the most? In its potential ability. PAM is not a super feat on its own, and we would be talking completely differently about PAM today if there were not feats like sentinel and GWM in play. TWF needs similar support, as DW and defensive duelist do not justify investing in that style. Does the base style needs some fixing? I'd say yes, but that alone wouldn't solve the issue.



And... I really wouldn't say you have better chances of triggering Sneak Attack with twf. Sure, you have a second attack to trigger it, but rogues also have Cunning Action that depends on their bonus action.
And if for some reason you find that your character really needs to keep these bonus action available for dash/hide/disengage, then dont pick it. But I dont imagine that will often be the case.




How is the Polearm Feat dealing more damage, without considering the Reaction/Attack?
D10+5= 10 1d4+5= 7 /17 DPR for a glaive.
D8+5= 9 1d8+5=9 /18 DPR for twin rapiers.
You are not thinking of extra attack(s).

[x3n0n]

I'll admit that +1 on each die is arbitrary- it should maybe be less on the d4 and definitely more on the d10. I am not going to correctly calculate how much does damage increase with rerolls.

This is how I figure GWF math:

d6: 2/3 of the time, it's 3 or greater with no reroll, avg 9/2; the other 1/3 of the time are rerolls, averaging 7/2; total is 2/3*9/2 + 1/3*7/2, which is 25/6, or 4 and 1/6. A gain of 2/3 per die on avg.
d4: half don't reroll, avg 7/2; other half reroll, avg 5/2. Total avg 3, gaining 1/2 per die.

It slowly approaches an average gain of 1 per die as the die gets larger: d8 gains 3/4, d10 gains 4/5, d12 gains 5/6, etc.

The intuition is that you're less and less likely to be stuck with a 1 or 2 on the reroll if the die is large.

[Valmark]

I didn't say it's worse (I meant it makes twf look better compared to how we usually think about it). Though in an indirect comparison it could be better if you have better things to spend your ASI's on compared to PAM or DW, but at the same time that bonus action attack is still worth having (eg rogues and maybe some paladins).

What I am trying to say is something else. Consider two things about twf. Its current ability, as in how it looks without any feat investment. And then consider its potential ability, as in how you can build on it by taking feats. To fix twf you need to adress both. And where is it lacking the most? In its potential ability. PAM is not a super feat on its own, and we would be talking completely differently about PAM today if there were not feats like sentinel and GWM in play. TWF needs similar support, as DW and defensive duelist do not justify investing in that style. Does the base style needs some fixing? I'd say yes, but that alone wouldn't solve the issue.


And if for some reason you find that your character really needs to keep these bonus action available for dash/hide/disengage, then dont pick it. But I dont imagine that will often be the case.




You are not thinking of extra attack(s).
Uh alright, yeah that makes sense.

As for the rogues... Maybe a difference in experience? I see CA getting used a lot by rogues, a bit less by Duelists with their built-in Disengage.

(Also no, damage pulls ahead by level 4, with extra attacks you just widen the gap).

This is how I figure GWF math:

d6: 2/3 of the time, it's 3 or greater with no reroll, avg 9/2; the other 1/3 of the time are rerolls, averaging 7/2; total is 2/3*9/2 + 1/3*7/2, which is 25/6, or 4 and 1/6. A gain of 2/3 per die on avg.
d4: half don't reroll, avg 7/2; other half reroll, avg 5/2. Total avg 3, gaining 1/2 per die.

It slowly approaches an average gain of 1 per die as the die gets larger: d8 gains 3/4, d10 gains 4/5, d12 gains 5/6, etc.

The intuition is that you're less and less likely to be stuck with a 1 or 2 on the reroll if the die is large.

With this math a d10 weapon isn't that superior, but it still is (to be fair I think the increase is higher, since when using it on a 2d6 weapon I hardly ever roll under 8 total on the dice, but I'm not going to try and prove that).

[x3n0n]

With this math a d10 weapon isn't that superior, but it still is (to be fair I think the increase is higher, since when using it on a 2d6 weapon I hardly ever roll under 8 total on the dice, but I'm not going to try and prove that).

I think your intuition is pretty good here. Each d6 is going to be 3 or greater 8/9 of the time, so it's very unusual to roll less than 6. 2d6 is the optimal PHB GWF weapon: it gains 4/3 on average (vs non-GWF), and skews heavily away from low numbers.

d10 doesn't gain anywhere near as much as 2d6, but 0.8 additional damage per roll and very few low numbers (24/25 or 96% results of 3 or greater) is still a substantial improvement.

[Satori01]

More attacks generally equates to more chances to have a critical hit.
A d4 butt end Crit from PAM is the very model of: Underwhelming
How does that scale well?

Features like Lucky or GWF give on a chance to significantly change a bad outcome.


The difference between the DPR of both styles, excepting -5/+10 feats...isn't very much. When Tasha's Cauldron comes out in November, we might see some TWF feats, that alter the status quo.

The problem with putting all of one's eggs in one basket, is that unless one is playing in a game where you have substantial control over what loot you receive...reality doesn't always cleave to your build.

Personally I am reluctant to take GWM at 1st level. If you find a Flame Tongue Longsword...you might not be using the part of the feat reserved to Heavy Weapons.

[Kane0]

Personally I am reluctant to take GWM at 1st level. If you find a Flame Tongue Longsword...you might not be using the part of the feat reserved to Heavy Weapons.

Yeah but at least you can still hold it in two hands and get a BA attack if crit or you drop someone I suppose.

[Valmark]

More attacks generally equates to more chances to have a critical hit.
A d4 butt end Crit from PAM is the very model of: Underwhelming
How does that scale well?

The difference between the DPR of both styles, excepting -5/+10 feats...isn't very much. When Tasha's Cauldron comes out in November, we might see some TWF feats, that alter the status quo.

The problem with putting all of one's eggs in one basket, is that unless one is playing in a game where you have substantial control over what loot you receive...reality doesn't always cleave to your build.

Indeed, on crits with a one-handed polearm TWF is better (2 more damage) while becoming even worst compared a two-handed polearm (a crit on the d10 makes up for the deficit on the d4).

And yeah, the difference in damage isn't much, but you can't say TWF is better at damage (which is what I initially replied to). Especially when we consider that I've been ignoring the reaction attack (so half feat). TWF is generally better at levels 1-3, then remains good enough but generally worst by a rather small margin at 4th, then extra attack rolls in and you deal with more evident differences (I think it's still good enough, but when you compare it you can see the difference much more clearly).

[Eldariel]

More attacks generally equates to more chances to have a critical hit.
A d4 butt end Crit from PAM is the very model of: Underwhelming
How does that scale well?

Dueling PAM wins out without the reaction attack, and wins with a landslide with the reaction attack (so same investment: fighting style and feat and one is way better in every way). 1d4+7 = 1d8+5, 1d6/1d8+7 > 1d8+5 while also having +2 AC instead of +1. Crit isn't sufficient to even it out.


As for GWF math, you simply even out the two first dice so for example a d10 GWF:

(5,5 + 5,5 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 + 8 + 9 + 10) / 10 = 6,3 (vs. normal 5,5) average damage so a gain of 0,8. It's really quite simple. Amounts to a bit under +1 on a single die and +1-+1,222... on two dice (max gains on 2d4 weapons; 2d4 > 2,5/2,5/3/4 x2 for 0,5 per die or +1 total - on a 2d6 weapon, 3,5+3,5+3+4+5+6 = 4,166667 so a gain of 0,66666 or 1,2222222 for two dice).

[CheddarChampion]

My method for GWF math is damage boost = (X-2)/X.
d4: (4-2)/4 = 2/4 = 0.5
d6: 4/6
Etc.

The equation doesn't demonstrate how the rerolls work but it does show the results.

[Maus91]

OP here. Thanks everyone for replying to this! I kind of got lost with the numbers in a few posts, and it seems like there is, of course, not a definite consensus, and just wanted to take a minute to comment a bit more.

First, yes, my current character is a TWF Barbarian with the DW feat, and after getting into the ins and outs of TWF I was interested in possibly trying TWF style Fighter in the future, so my question was really hypothetical. My current Barbarian character may not do the most damage, but he still does a lot of damage and he is just a blast to play. He is a firbolg and he doesn't even always like to strike first. For instance, in my last session we came across a giant coral snake and my guy successfully grappled him and was kind of sad when the cleric lopped its head off. Later we came across a group of giant ferrets and my barb talked one of them into running away while the other party members killed the rest.

Additionally, there is a pretty skilled Paladin in my party who has the PAM feat. In one round this paladin will do about +6 melee damage, over whatever my barb does, which is significant, but not obscenely so. With the luck of the dice I seem to hit a bit more consistently, so in a battle, the difference between melee damage is even smaller, with my barb even doing more melee damage than the paladin in two separate battles . . . except the paladin always ends up doing a lot more damage overall when you add in his divine smites. But you know what? I'm ok with that.

I just started to multiclass into Rogue which will get me a bit more damage with the sneak attacks, but I really wanted to do it for better movement options. I know those will take up my bonus action depriving me of my off-hand attack, but again, I'm ok with that. So far we've come across a few locks that we've wanted to open and my guy is not quite practiced enough with his thieves' tools, so when he fails with those, he just smashes the lock and that works too. I love my sneaky, muscley firbolg.

[MeeposFire]

People get way too invested in arguing about what is just a few points of damage per round difference between the fighting styles. The biggest problem IMO with TWF is that you cannot use it along with anything that uses a bonus action while all other fighting styles can. So when you start raging, casting a bonus action spell, use fight spirit/second wind, or worse yet if you are an EK and you use warmagic you cannot utilize your fighting style. Yes other styles will lose out on using things based on a bonus action in those situations but with those other fighting styles they still get to at least use their basic fighting style. A 2 handed weapon user still gets to fight using their two handed weapon in those situations, the duelist still gets to use their abilities, the archer still gets to fire arrows, but the two weapon warrior will be stuck being a worse duelist and be unable to utilize their style at all and that is neither fun nor fair.

Because of how TWF requires a bonus action to get anything (unlike the others where you can get ADDITIONAL potential benefits from a bonus action but without it you still get a benefit from your normal usage) it does not interact very well with many other things in the game many of which it probably should work with thematically. It is the only fighting style so limited and that is why IMO it really needs a fix.

That being said from a pure numbers perspective it is fine. It may overall be slightly behind but it is in teh ball park and that is fine for how the game works. The numbers to me are far less of a problem than the action economy problems.

[Eldariel]

There's a definite consensus in that in the "full" game weapon damage goes pretty much as follows:
Crossbow Archery
Great Weapon Polearm
Archery Non-Crossbow
Great Weapon Non-Polearm
Dueling Polearm
Two-Weapon Fighting
Dueling Other
Other


That's just math so there's no need to discuss it. Two-Weapon Fighting just isn't good mathematically. Now what people do with that information differs. Some people claim that the difference is small enough that they don't mind. Some people simply play the superior options. Some people don't really care one way or another. Some people just buff TWF and are done with it. Any of those is a reasonable call: it's all a matter of how much equality you want out of the different options. TWF is worse but not that much worse outside Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master, which pretty much wipe the floor with everything else in the game (especially Sharpshooter since Archery fighting style is so good).

[Satori01]

If you are having fun and still finding a way to contribute, then don't worry about DPR. A firbolg Barbarian playing the scout and taking point will be plenty useful.

Even if you don't get your STR modifier to the offhand weapon, you still will get the Rage bonus damage and potentially Sneak Attack damage if you have the right offhand weapon.

[Waazraath]

That's just math so there's no need to discuss it.

If only it was that simple. It's never 'just math' in these discussions, it's 'just math on the things that are obvious and easy to calculate and on things where there is more or less consensus but that skips on some (or a lot) of the (numeric!) things that are not easy to calculate in model'. For example: glaive with PAM and defensive style vs 2wf with 2wf style and the 2wf feat. To get to a real assessment, you don't just calculate "dpr", but need to control for the dex build often having more rounds in combat (due to starting first), the dex build staying longer above 0hp due to higher dex save, the PAM build staying longer alive due to higher AC. Damn: we already need to calculate stuff which we simply cannot do, because the frequency of area affect damage (against which a higher dex save is good) and creatures against which those extra AC points are good differ per game. And that's even disregarding something like the availability of magic items: how the DM handles those is highly influencial for the potential of each build.

Conclusion: there are far too many relevant variables in DnD to make firm statements on 'what the math proves', lots of which we cannot quantify in a meaningful way. Especially, because you rightfully state, the differences aren't all that big to begin with. It doesn't take that much then to tip the scales the other way.

So yes, of course we can calculate "highest DPR disregarding a lot of things", but we shoud be accurate about what that means. That doesn't even mean "highest damage in a real game", let alone that it is the "best" style.

[Eldariel]

If only it was that simple. It's never 'just math' in these discussions, it's 'just math on the things that are obvious and easy to calculate and on things where there is more or less consensus but that skips on some (or a lot) of the (numeric!) things that are not easy to calculate in model'. For example: glaive with PAM and defensive style vs 2wf with 2wf style and the 2wf feat. To get to a real assessment, you don't just calculate "dpr", but need to control for the dex build often having more rounds in combat (due to starting first), the dex build staying longer above 0hp due to higher dex save, the PAM build staying longer alive due to higher AC. Damn: we already need to calculate stuff which we simply cannot do, because the frequency of area affect damage (against which a higher dex save is good) and creatures against which those extra AC points are good differ per game. And that's even disregarding something like the availability of magic items: how the DM handles those is highly influencial for the potential of each build.

Conclusion: there are far too many relevant variables in DnD to make firm statements on 'what the math proves', lots of which we cannot quantify in a meaningful way. Especially, because you rightfully state, the differences aren't all that big to begin with. It doesn't take that much then to tip the scales the other way.

So yes, of course we can calculate "highest DPR disregarding a lot of things", but we shoud be accurate about what that means. That doesn't even mean "highest damage in a real game", let alone that it is the "best" style.

We can easily calculate the highest DPR in general and against a given enemy as well as the highest survivability. Of course save priority begins changing with enemy frequency but ultimately if you kill it faster, it's gonna do less of its thing which is generally a good thing for you. The low'n'gritty damage comparison is fairly trivial and TWF lags behind; it's as simple as that with no redeeming qualities. It's no use trying to muddy the waters as the math checks out. We can do more exact calculations for any given encounter but with a sufficient number of encounters the unquantifiables will begin to even out and you'll come closer and closer to the average result.

Of course, as I pointed out earlier, once we have the big feats in play, the difference isn't small. Str PAM/GWM just does ridiculously more damage than any other melee fighting style and SS XBE archery even more than that. If your primary contribution is damage, you should play one or the other, unless you're a Gish with access to Shadow Blade or similar. If you have other contributions, that's a different matter but warrior types rarely do.