The eternal Dual wielding discussion

[Danielqueue1]

So this has been hashed back and forth hundreds of times, many insist two weapon fighting sucks. Others point out it is not as bad as people are saying.

The general arguments boil down to
•appeal to many (argumentum ad populum)
•comparing an entire build dedicated to a style to the other side having no investment. (The arguments have gone both ways)
•comparing one side with a feat to the other side without.
•Forgetting that taking a feat means you don't get an ASI and comparing one build with a feat and one without while they both somehow have the same stats.
•comparing what some consider cheese builds to non-cheese builds. (They never compare cheese build to cheese build...)

•honest and good comparisons that you have to make it to the second or third page of the thread to find.

From reading many of the threads the conclusion I have come to is thus,

•PAM is strong and can take advantage of many of the same things two weapon fighting can.
*Also that I will homebrew it so that to use polearm master you have to have both hands on the weapon (I'm looking at you onehandquarterstaffduelingfightingstylevarianthuma npolearmmasterwithashieldintheotherhand)

•double scimitar is silly and it is right to consign it to the "setting specific" category.

•dual wielder feat is terrible.

Lets compare ♤dual wielder feat to ◇+2dex on a dex based build.♧+2str on a strength two weapon fighting build.

♤You gain a +1 bonus to AC while you are wielding a separate melee weapon in each hand.
◇you gain +1 to AC while wearing light armor.
♧you can already probably wear good armor if you are strength based. You just need to afford it. So feat is nice here.

♤You can use two-weapon fighting even when the one handed melee weapons you are wielding aren’t light. This will generally improve a d6 weapon to a d8 weapon for an average of +1 to base damage and Crits
◇♧ guaranteed +1 to damage and +1 to hit resulting in a higher average damage from stats than a feat.

♤You can draw or stow two one-handed weapons when you would normally be able to draw or stow only one. a nice convenience.

◇♧+1 to avoid being grappled
♧+1 to grapple and get out of grapples
◇♧+1 to associated saving throws
♧+30 to carrying capacity.

Unless your DM is handing out lots of magical one handed d8 weapons and not a lot of magical one handed d6 weapons, taking an ASI is generally better than the feat.

-Cheese exception- dual wielding lances while mounted can be potent.

It has been consistantly shown that in featless games, two weapon fighting can keep up with other fighting styles for most of the game on characters that aren't swapping hunter's mark targets every round or so. It has also been shown that once feats get added to the mix that balance disappears the moment someone says the word Pole-Arm Master. I feel that if Dual wielding had a better feat, the different weapon arrangements would be a more interesting choice.

What say the playground?
What changes would you make to the Dual wielder feat? (Not fighting style thats for another thread)
Should PAM require both hands on the weapon?
What if Dual wielder was a half feat with +1 STR or Dex?

[stoutstien]

Mechanically the issue with TWF is it scales backwards. The more you invest the less the return.
Outside of that oddity it isn't nearly as bad as people make it out to be.

[Dork_Forge]

There's nothing wrong per se with Dual Wielder, PAM is just overtuned as a feat so I'm normally inclined to say nothing, maybe nerf PAM a little. In light of Tasha's I might say make DW a half feat bumping either Str or Dex, since half feats of significant power seem to be like weeds now. As for PAM, yes it should definitely require you to have two hands on the weapon. For people that like the shield+PAM cheese, the mental image of spinning your spear, staff whatever 180 to attack with the other side is pretty ridiculous.

Quick note: The none light weapons of DW isn't just about getting a +1 on average damage, it's about broadening your options, particularly when picking up magic loot, just look at how prevalent magic longswords are both in the DMG and modules.

On the mundane side of things, it allows you to twf with whips, letting you effectively skirmish becuase you're using reach and just generally expanding your threat range.

[sayaijin]

I made my thread around the same time!

I'm considering making TWF unavailable without a feat (meaning no one can bonus action attack without a feat no matter whether it's XBE or PAM) and then buffing it in meaningful ways.

[Danielqueue1]

(1)There's nothing wrong per se with Dual Wielder, PAM is just overtuned as a feat so I'm normally inclined to say nothing, maybe nerf PAM a little. In light of Tasha's I might say make DW a half feat bumping either Str or Dex, since half feats of significant power seem to be like weeds now. As for PAM, yes it should definitely require you to have two hands on the weapon. For people that like the shield+PAM cheese, the mental image of spinning your spear, staff whatever 180 to attack with the other side is pretty ridiculous.

(2)Quick note: The none light weapons of DW isn't just about getting a +1 on average damage, it's about broadening your options, particularly when picking up magic loot, just look at how prevalent magic longswords are both in the DMG and modules.

(3)On the mundane side of things, it allows you to twf with whips, letting you effectively skirmish becuase you're using reach and just generally expanding your threat range.

(1) would doing both be too much? Or do you think it should be one or the other?

(2) Flame-tongue, frostbrand, dragonslayer, etc are all "any sword" I don't know about the modules, but dmg seems rather agnostic.

(3) i totally thought whips were light weapons. Heh, but it being a d4 weapon, people will still say, just use polearm master.

[Dork_Forge]

(1) would doing both be too much? Or do you think it should be one or the other?

(2) Flame-tongue, frostbrand, dragonslayer, etc are all "any sword" I don't know about the modules, but dmg seems rather agnostic.

(3) i totally thought whips were light weapons. Heh, but it being a d4 weapon, people will still say, just use polearm master.

1) I think bumping DW and 'nerfing' PAM by requiring two hands would work well together, cuts a lot of cheese whilst leaving it a very strong feat.

2)I think in modules things usually turn up in the form of a longsword

3)Different needs, you choose a whip because you want Reach, not damage and staffs and spears aren't reach weapons

[Martin Greywolf]

double scimitar is silly and it is right to consign it to the "setting specific" category

Frankly, anyone who says this read something for three seconds on the internet, doesn't really understand the subjet matter, and wants to seem knowledgable, or to detest Drizzt.

Drizzt aside, here's a fun fact: any reasonable one handed weapon can be dual wielded. Doesn't matter if it's

https://www.enworld.org/attachments/p112-jpg.66497/
https://sleech.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/meyer_rapier_dagger.png

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/127-53_large.jpg

https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/d/d9/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-c.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-c.png
https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/f/f1/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-d.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-d.png
See that club on the ground? Text reveals our club guy started with two and chucked one at the opponent, then drew a dagger

https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/5/5c/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-b.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-b.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Mydbtj-masangssanggeom.png

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/359-21_large.jpg

The question of is this a good idea is a pretty complex one, and it boils down to sometimes. If you can't have a large shield or a polearm, it's arguably better (depends a lot on protectiveness of hilt) and definitely equal to one handed weapon and a buckler. It was probably done decently often enough historically, if you lost your shield and there were weapons lying around - or you just drew a dagger. Anything is better than a single arming sword, really.

The reason why you see a dagger most often is that, well, as a fighty person, you need that dagger anyway, for all sorts of situations, and it's easier to carry a sword and a dagger rather than two swords and a dagger.

[Tvtyrant]

The Dual Wielder feat is good on a couple builds AFAIK. The simplest is Strength Rogue/Barbarian. Light weapon and versatile one using Dual Wielder, reckless attack normally until you get SA in and then use power attack on the rest of the attacks that turn.

[Yakmala]

I'd say with the release of Tasha's, an argument can be made in favor of taking Dual Wielding when playing a Beast Barbarian.


Being able to get in three attacks by level three and four attacks by level five when using claws is nice.
As claws are listed as a simple weapon but not a light weapon, you need Dual Wielding to get the extra attack via your Bonus Action.
Because PAM requires ALL attacks to be with the polearm in order to take the bonus action attack, claws cannot be combined with PAM.
The high number of attacks via dual wielding claws lends itself well to multi-classing to "double the damage" via Hex, Hunter's Mark or Symbiotic Entity.
Three claws + a grapple is also a very nice option.

[Gignere]

Dual wielder feat is also nice for a Bladesinger but they have so many ASI needs as well as the feat tax of res constitution and alert it’s hard to fit in Dual Wielder.

The +1 to AC would be great for a BS once they max dex.

I think adding +1 strength or dex to the feat would definitely make it more desirable.

[da newt]

I answered in the other thread (TWF vs PAM), but my comments probably fit this thread better.

"I'd change the question:
How would you go about changing DW Feat to match the PAM Feat?
* Add the Op Att upon entering range trigger to DW Feat.
* Change DW Feat to allow it to be used w/ GWM.

I think that would balance it.
Same # of attacks, minor differences like Spear and Shield is more AC but less damage, DW is mid AC and damage, Glaive is more damage less AC plus reach ...

I'd leave the fighting styles as is (2WF, Dueling, Def, GWF), and keep the Feat costs.


* But this would most likely make a new balance issue w/ Sword and Board being under powered."

[Dork_Forge]

Frankly, anyone who says this read something for three seconds on the internet, doesn't really understand the subjet matter, and wants to seem knowledgable, or to detest Drizzt.

Drizzt aside, here's a fun fact: any reasonable one handed weapon can be dual wielded. Doesn't matter if it's

https://www.enworld.org/attachments/p112-jpg.66497/
https://sleech.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/meyer_rapier_dagger.png

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/127-53_large.jpg

https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/d/d9/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-c.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-c.png
https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/f/f1/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-d.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-d.png
See that club on the ground? Text reveals our club guy started with two and chucked one at the opponent, then drew a dagger

https://www.wiktenauer.com/images/thumb/5/5c/Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-b.png/400px-Pisani-Dossi_MS_15a-b.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Mydbtj-masangssanggeom.png

http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/cache/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/359-21_large.jpg

The question of is this a good idea is a pretty complex one, and it boils down to sometimes. If you can't have a large shield or a polearm, it's arguably better (depends a lot on protectiveness of hilt) and definitely equal to one handed weapon and a buckler. It was probably done decently often enough historically, if you lost your shield and there were weapons lying around - or you just drew a dagger. Anything is better than a single arming sword, really.

The reason why you see a dagger most often is that, well, as a fighty person, you need that dagger anyway, for all sorts of situations, and it's easier to carry a sword and a dagger rather than two swords and a dagger.

Double scimitar in this context doesn't mean wielding a scimitar in each hand, it's a specific weapon from the Eberron setting, that is a shaft with a scimitar shaped blade on each end of it. This weapon is particularly powerful and has a weapon specific feat that makes it even better.



I'd say with the release of Tasha's, an argument can be made in favor of taking Dual Wielding when playing a Beast Barbarian.


Being able to get in three attacks by level three and four attacks by level five when using claws is nice.
As claws are listed as a simple weapon but not a light weapon, you need Dual Wielding to get the extra attack via your Bonus Action.
Because PAM requires ALL attacks to be with the polearm in order to take the bonus action attack, claws cannot be combined with PAM.
The high number of attacks via dual wielding claws lends itself well to multi-classing to "double the damage" via Hex, Hunter's Mark or Symbiotic Entity.
Three claws + a grapple is also a very nice option.



Dual Wielder is also nice on a Guardian Armorer.

[loki_ragnarock]

Keep it unique, yo.

I generally think that Dual Wielder could use a boost, but I'm also pretty fond of keeping thematic elements. None of the *I am a specialized in a specific fighting style* are half feats, unless one has been introduced recently. Sharpshooter and GWM rewards with imprecise but devastating attacks. PAM perversely rewards with an abundance of attacks. GWM does too, just conditionally. They all add something.

The Dual wielder feat is about mitigating the weaknesses of the fighting style already. Can't use a shield? Here's an AC bonus. Can't interact with more than one weapon? Now you can interact with two. Can only use light weapons? Now you can use anything one handed.

If that's not quite enough, then I'd lean into that theme just a little harder with a small change and a big addition.

Addition:
Make it so the bonus action attack... no longer takes a bonus action, and simply occurs as part of the attack action.
This makes two weapon fighting useful for anyone (rangers, rogues, monks, war clerics) that have access to a bunch of bonus actions, eliminating a serious roadblock for those classes (and others) by freeing up an often overstressed resource.

Change:
You may use your interact with object action to interact with any number of weapons in a round.
This makes it so that you can, you know, throw weapons without having to introduce another fighting style. I guess the boats sailed on that one, but it more effectively eliminates a constraint while opening up a playstyle. Where the other is great for people who have a reason to use their bonus action, this one is more useful for melee oriented characters (Fighters, Paladins) who are more limited by mobility. If you can't quite reach them, you can still pelt them.

Thus ends my TED Talk.

[sithlordnergal]

So, I'm going to be honest. I mostly agree with your analysis about Dual Wielding with one exception. PAM doesn't really cause any problems when it comes to Dual Wielding. PAM is not, and has never been, one of the reasons Dual Wielding is considered a poor investment. What PAM does do is show where Dual Wielding fails, because its an easy point of comparison. Nothing about Dual Wielding would change if PAM didn't exist, it would still be considered a poor optimization choice.

Now, the OP of this thread did a fine job of comparing taking an ASI to taking the Dual Wielder feat, but its more than just the Dual Wielder feat. The issue with Dual Wielding is two fold. First, in order for Dual Wielding to be competitive with any of the other fighting styles, you NEED to have that Fighting Style. Second, that Fighting Style is only available to two classes, and they're the two classes that need it the least.

Now before I go into analysis, lets make some basic assumptions. First, we are playing in a featless game, where Dual Wielding supposedly shines the brightest. Second, we have a +5 modifier in our primary attack stat, since we have no feats this is pretty easy to assume. Third, we will not take any other Fighting Styles into account outside of Two-Weapon Fighting, mostly because if I did I'd need to expand my analysis further to account for them and I don't wanna do that math. Fourth, we will assume all attacks hit and will not take critical hits into account, again because it keeps the math simple. That having been said, here's how Dual Wielding stacks up in each Tier:

---Tier 1---


Without the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average of 12 points of damage when both attacks hit, you have a max damage of 17, and a min damage of 7.
With the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average damage of 17, with a max damage of 22 and a min damage of 12.
Using a Greatsword you deal an average damage of 12 points of damage when both attacks hit, you have a max damage of 17, and a min damage of 7.
Using a Longsword and Shield you deal an average damage of 9.5, have a max damage 13 and a min damage of 6.
Using a Longbow you deal an average damage of 9.5, have a max damage 13 and a min damage of 6.



Dual Wielding in Tier 1 actually takes the edge in every case. Even if you lack the Fighting Style, you're dealing the same amount of damage as someone with a Greatsword, and if you have the Fighting Style you end up dealing a fair bit more damage. You'll also be doing significantly more damage then someone with a Longbow or someone with a sword and shield, but both of those have some advantages you lack. The Sword and Board has a higher AC than you, making them harder to hit, and the Longbow user has a far greater range than you and can stay out of a target's reach in combat. All in all, not only is Dual Wielding optimized in Tier 1, but it is the best option for high consistent damage in Tier 1 if you have the Fighting Style.


---Tier 2---


Without the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average of 20.5 damage, with a max damage of 28 and a min damage of 13.
With the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average damage of 25.5, with a max damage of 33 and a min damage of 18
Using a Greatsword you deal an average damage of 24, with a max damage of 34 and a min damage of 14
Using a Longsword and Shield you deal an average damage of 19, with a max damage of 26 and a min damage of 12.
Using a Longbow you deal an average damage of 19, with a max damage of 26 and a min damage of 12.



And here's where Dual Wielding starts to fall off. Even with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, you're only dealing about 1.5 more average damage than a person swinging a Greatsword. Without the Fighting Style you're barely doing more damage than the guy with the Longbow, or the guy with a sword and shield. You're basically giving up +2 to AC or having the ability to stay out of melee combat in exchange for 1.5 more damage.


---Tier 3 and Onward---

So, the damage calculations from Tier 2 remain the same all the way up to Tier 4, unless you're playing a pure Fighter. The reason for this should be pretty obvious, Fighters are the only class that get to make more Extra Attacks in a Round.


A fighter with the TWF Fighting Style and 3 attacks will do an average of 34 damage, has a min damage of 24, and a max damage of 44.
A Fighter without the TWF Fighting Style and 3 attacks will do an average of 29 damage, has a min damage of 19, and a max damage of 39
A fighter with a Greatsword and 3 attacks will do an average damage of 36.5 damage, has a min damage of 21, and a max damage of 51
A fighter using a Longsword or Longbow with 3 attacks will do an average damage of 28.5, has a min damage of 18, and a max damage of 39



In Tier 3, a Fighter that Dual Wields will start to lag behind the Greatsword user, even if they have the Fighting Style to support it. This remains true in Tier 4 when the Fighter has 4 attacks instead of just three. As a result, any advantages it had back in Tier 1 are well and truly gone, and you end up with the same detriments of someone wielding a Greatsword, basically less AC, without the benefits of more damage. Now, the detriments are still small since we're only talking about a 2.4 difference in average damage and -2 AC, but those issues are still there. And without the Fighting Style? Well, you're better off just snagging a Longsword and Shield or a Longbow since that does damage on par with you, but with the added benefit of being at range or having higher AC.

Either way, you really, really need that Fighting Style in order to keep up with someone using a Greatsword, even if that person wielding a Greatsword doesn't have the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Without it, you're dealing damage more on par with a Sword and Board build. Heck, looking at the numbers, a Sword and Board build will do about the same amount of damage with the Dueling Fighting style as someone using Two Weapon Fighting without that fighting style.



Which brings us into the next big issue. The only two classes that have access to the Two Weapon Fighting style are the Ranger and Fighter, but neither of those classes are built towards Two-Weapon Fighting. We've already seen what happens with a Fighter that has Two-Weapon Fighting. They're able to just barely do more damage than a Fighter with a Greatsword in Tier 2, but as soon as they get three attacks or more the Greatsword wielder will do more damage. Meanwhile, the Ranger only ever has two attacks, so its basically using the same damage values as Tier 2, but now you have to take spells into account. There are no less than 5 Ranger only spells that buff Ranged attacks in the Players Handbook. Compare that the the 0 spells that help buff Two-Weapon Fighting that the Ranger has access to, and you can sort of see how Rangers are subtly pushed towards using Ranged weapons instead of Dual Wielding. And these spells aren't nothing, they're excellent spells that are generally suggested for any Bard or Ranger that wants to make use of a Longbow.

Meanwhile the martial classes that would benefit the greatest from Two-Weapon Fighting, like the Paladin and Barbarian, don't have access to those Fighting Styles. As a result you get to make the following choice:

A) Do I Dual Wield without the Fighting Style in order to potentially get a third Smite/Rage bonus damage, but do less damage on average?

B) Do I use a Greatsword, which deals damage equivalent to a Dual Wielder with the Fighting Style?

or

C) Do I go Sword and Board with Dueling to get more AC and STILL do damage equivalent to what Dual Wielding can do without the Fighting Style?

Most of the time you're gonna go with B or C, because Dual Wielding without the fighting style means you have the detriments of using a Greatsword, less AC, without the benefits of doing more damage. And to top it off, you always need to keep one weapon drawn at all times, or else you won't be able to make that Bonus Action attack during the first round of combat, which puts you further behind damage wise, AND you need two weapons to boot to pull it off. So as soon as resistances start becoming more and more common, you'll need to find an extra, Light magical weapon or part of your damage gets halved.


Now fortunately, the Dual Wielder feat actually does fix most of those issues on its own, without having to make any changes to it. A Fighter with Dual Wielder and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style that uses two Longswords will consistently do more damage in all Tiers then a Fighter that just uses a Greatsword. They also end up with a slightly higher AC then a Fighter with a Greatsword. However, now we're allowing Feats, and if we allow Feats then we have to take Great Weapon Master and Shaprshooter into account. Yes, the -5 penalty can hurt, but its not enough of a detriment to off-put the +10 damage.


Which finally brings us to PAM, specifically the part about PAM where you can get a Bonus Action attack while still holding a Shield. See, being able to use a Quarterstaff or Spear in one hand and deal an extra 1d4 damage while wearing a Shield isn't actually all that broken. Yes, it will deal an average damage on par with a Greatsword in Tier 2, at an average damage of 24.5. However, keep in mind, you just spent a feat to deal damage equal to someone using a Greatsword with 0 investment, which is less than someone Dual Wielding a pair of Light Weapons when they have the Fighting Style. Yes, you do get the advantage of +2 AC, but that's all you really get if you use a Quarterstaff or Spear.

If you put someone with PAM against someone with the Dual Wielder feat AND the Fighting Style, there'd be no question who's more effective in a fight. That Dual Wielder is gonna blast the PAM person into oblivion. So, why do we compare PAM and Dual Wielding so much if Dual Wielder is better than PAM when you apply the Fighting Style? Simple, the classes that need a Bonus Action attack, and would benefit the greatest from Dual Wielding, can't use the Two Weapon Fighting Style, which in turn makes Dual Wielding strictly worse than PAM because you're doing less damage without the AC. Meanwhile the two classes that do get the Two Weapon Fighting Style end up doing better if they ignore Two-Weapon Fighting, with or without feats.


TL;DR: If you want to fix Two-Weapon Fighting, the first step isn't to nerf PAM or buff the Duel Wielder feat. The first step is to give Paladins and Barbarians access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, because those are the two classes that can make the most use out of Dual Wielding. Because without the proper Fighting Style, Dual Wielding is strictly worse than using a Greatsword or using a Sword and Shield.


EDIT: On the topic of spells. I mentioned earlier that Ranger has a bunch of spells suited for attacking with a bow. The Paladin actually has a ton of spells suited for making melee attacks. Literally everything in the Paladin's kit would make them the PERFECT candidate for Dual Wielding, only they don't get to have the Fighting Style. Meaning without the Dual Wielder feat, they're doing about the same damage as someone using a Sword and Shield with the Dueling Fighting Style. With the Dual Wielder feat and a d8 weapon, they deal damage on par with a Greatsword user with no investment...but as we've already seen, PAM ends up dealing the same amount of damage with the added benefit of having +2 to AC. Literally, all you need to do is give the Paladin and Barbarian access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, and suddenly Dual Wielding becomes a major power house for them both. Because unlike Rangers and Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians only get two attacks and have spells/abilities that work really, really well with hitting things in melee.

[Dork_Forge]

So, I'm going to be honest. I mostly agree with your analysis about Dual Wielding with one exception. PAM doesn't really cause any problems when it comes to Dual Wielding. PAM is not, and has never been, one of the reasons Dual Wielding is considered a poor investment. What PAM does do is show where Dual Wielding fails, because its an easy point of comparison. Nothing about Dual Wielding would change if PAM didn't exist, it would still be considered a poor optimization choice.

Now, the OP of this thread did a fine job of comparing taking an ASI to taking the Dual Wielder feat, but its more than just the Dual Wielder feat. The issue with Dual Wielding is two fold. First, in order for Dual Wielding to be competitive with any of the other fighting styles, you NEED to have that Fighting Style. Second, that Fighting Style is only available to two classes, and they're the two classes that need it the least.

Now before I go into analysis, lets make some basic assumptions. First, we are playing in a featless game, where Dual Wielding supposedly shines the brightest. Second, we have a +5 modifier in our primary attack stat, since we have no feats this is pretty easy to assume. Third, we will not take any other Fighting Styles into account outside of Two-Weapon Fighting, mostly because if I did I'd need to expand my analysis further to account for them and I don't wanna do that math. Fourth, we will assume all attacks hit and will not take critical hits into account, again because it keeps the math simple. That having been said, here's how Dual Wielding stacks up in each Tier:

---Tier 1---


Without the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average of 12 points of damage when both attacks hit, you have a max damage of 17, and a min damage of 7.
With the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average damage of 17, with a max damage of 22 and a min damage of 12.
Using a Greatsword you deal an average damage of 12 points of damage when both attacks hit, you have a max damage of 17, and a min damage of 7.
Using a Longsword and Shield you deal an average damage of 9.5, have a max damage 13 and a min damage of 6.
Using a Longbow you deal an average damage of 9.5, have a max damage 13 and a min damage of 6.



Dual Wielding in Tier 1 actually takes the edge in every case. Even if you lack the Fighting Style, you're dealing the same amount of damage as someone with a Greatsword, and if you have the Fighting Style you end up dealing a fair bit more damage. You'll also be doing significantly more damage then someone with a Longbow or someone with a sword and shield, but both of those have some advantages you lack. The Sword and Board has a higher AC than you, making them harder to hit, and the Longbow user has a far greater range than you and can stay out of a target's reach in combat. All in all, not only is Dual Wielding optimized in Tier 1, but it is the best option for high consistent damage in Tier 1 if you have the Fighting Style.


---Tier 2---


Without the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average of 20.5 damage, with a max damage of 28 and a min damage of 13.
With the TWF Fighting Style you deal an average damage of 25.5, with a max damage of 33 and a min damage of 18
Using a Greatsword you deal an average damage of 24, with a max damage of 34 and a min damage of 14
Using a Longsword and Shield you deal an average damage of 19, with a max damage of 26 and a min damage of 12.
Using a Longbow you deal an average damage of 19, with a max damage of 26 and a min damage of 12.



And here's where Dual Wielding starts to fall off. Even with the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, you're only dealing about 1.5 more average damage than a person swinging a Greatsword. Without the Fighting Style you're barely doing more damage than the guy with the Longbow, or the guy with a sword and shield. You're basically giving up +2 to AC or having the ability to stay out of melee combat in exchange for 1.5 more damage.


---Tier 3 and Onward---

So, the damage calculations from Tier 2 remain the same all the way up to Tier 4, unless you're playing a pure Fighter. The reason for this should be pretty obvious, Fighters are the only class that get to make more Extra Attacks in a Round.


A fighter with the TWF Fighting Style and 3 attacks will do an average of 34 damage, has a min damage of 24, and a max damage of 44.
A Fighter without the TWF Fighting Style and 3 attacks will do an average of 29 damage, has a min damage of 19, and a max damage of 39
A fighter with a Greatsword and 3 attacks will do an average damage of 36.5 damage, has a min damage of 21, and a max damage of 51
A fighter using a Longsword or Longbow with 3 attacks will do an average damage of 28.5, has a min damage of 18, and a max damage of 39



In Tier 3, a Fighter that Dual Wields will start to lag behind the Greatsword user, even if they have the Fighting Style to support it. This remains true in Tier 4 when the Fighter has 4 attacks instead of just three. As a result, any advantages it had back in Tier 1 are well and truly gone, and you end up with the same detriments of someone wielding a Greatsword, basically less AC, without the benefits of more damage. Now, the detriments are still small since we're only talking about a 2.4 difference in average damage and -2 AC, but those issues are still there. And without the Fighting Style? Well, you're better off just snagging a Longsword and Shield or a Longbow since that does damage on par with you, but with the added benefit of being at range or having higher AC.

Either way, you really, really need that Fighting Style in order to keep up with someone using a Greatsword, even if that person wielding a Greatsword doesn't have the Great Weapon Fighting Style. Without it, you're dealing damage more on par with a Sword and Board build. Heck, looking at the numbers, a Sword and Board build will do about the same amount of damage with the Dueling Fighting style as someone using Two Weapon Fighting without that fighting style.



Which brings us into the next big issue. The only two classes that have access to the Two Weapon Fighting style are the Ranger and Fighter, but neither of those classes are built towards Two-Weapon Fighting. We've already seen what happens with a Fighter that has Two-Weapon Fighting. They're able to just barely do more damage than a Fighter with a Greatsword in Tier 2, but as soon as they get three attacks or more the Greatsword wielder will do more damage. Meanwhile, the Ranger only ever has two attacks, so its basically using the same damage values as Tier 2, but now you have to take spells into account. There are no less than 5 Ranger only spells that buff Ranged attacks in the Players Handbook. Compare that the the 0 spells that help buff Two-Weapon Fighting that the Ranger has access to, and you can sort of see how Rangers are subtly pushed towards using Ranged weapons instead of Dual Wielding. And these spells aren't nothing, they're excellent spells that are generally suggested for any Bard or Ranger that wants to make use of a Longbow.

Meanwhile the martial classes that would benefit the greatest from Two-Weapon Fighting, like the Paladin and Barbarian, don't have access to those Fighting Styles. As a result you get to make the following choice:

A) Do I Dual Wield without the Fighting Style in order to potentially get a third Smite/Rage bonus damage, but do less damage on average?

B) Do I use a Greatsword, which deals damage equivalent to a Dual Wielder with the Fighting Style?

or

C) Do I go Sword and Board with Dueling to get more AC and STILL do damage equivalent to what Dual Wielding can do without the Fighting Style?

Most of the time you're gonna go with B or C, because Dual Wielding without the fighting style means you have the detriments of using a Greatsword, less AC, without the benefits of doing more damage. And to top it off, you always need to keep one weapon drawn at all times, or else you won't be able to make that Bonus Action attack during the first round of combat, which puts you further behind damage wise, AND you need two weapons to boot to pull it off. So as soon as resistances start becoming more and more common, you'll need to find an extra, Light magical weapon or part of your damage gets halved.


Now fortunately, the Dual Wielder feat actually does fix most of those issues on its own, without having to make any changes to it. A Fighter with Dual Wielder and the Two-Weapon Fighting Style that uses two Longswords will consistently do more damage in all Tiers then a Fighter that just uses a Greatsword. They also end up with a slightly higher AC then a Fighter with a Greatsword. However, now we're allowing Feats, and if we allow Feats then we have to take Great Weapon Master and Shaprshooter into account. Yes, the -5 penalty can hurt, but its not enough of a detriment to off-put the +10 damage.


Which finally brings us to PAM, specifically the part about PAM where you can get a Bonus Action attack while still holding a Shield. See, being able to use a Quarterstaff or Spear in one hand and deal an extra 1d4 damage while wearing a Shield isn't actually all that broken. Yes, it will deal an average damage on par with a Greatsword in Tier 2, at an average damage of 24.5. However, keep in mind, you just spent a feat to deal damage equal to someone using a Greatsword with 0 investment, which is less than someone Dual Wielding a pair of Light Weapons when they have the Fighting Style. Yes, you do get the advantage of +2 AC, but that's all you really get if you use a Quarterstaff or Spear.

If you put someone with PAM against someone with the Dual Wielder feat AND the Fighting Style, there'd be no question who's more effective in a fight. That Dual Wielder is gonna blast the PAM person into oblivion. So, why do we compare PAM and Dual Wielding so much if Dual Wielder is better than PAM when you apply the Fighting Style? Simple, the classes that need a Bonus Action attack, and would benefit the greatest from Dual Wielding, can't use the Two Weapon Fighting Style, which in turn makes Dual Wielding strictly worse than PAM because you're doing less damage without the AC. Meanwhile the two classes that do get the Two Weapon Fighting Style end up doing better if they ignore Two-Weapon Fighting, with or without feats.


TL;DR: If you want to fix Two-Weapon Fighting, the first step isn't to nerf PAM or buff the Duel Wielder feat. The first step is to give Paladins and Barbarians access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, because those are the two classes that can make the most use out of Dual Wielding. Because without the proper Fighting Style, Dual Wielding is strictly worse than using a Greatsword or using a Sword and Shield.


EDIT: On the topic of spells. I mentioned earlier that Ranger has a bunch of spells suited for attacking with a bow. The Paladin actually has a ton of spells suited for making melee attacks. Literally everything in the Paladin's kit would make them the PERFECT candidate for Dual Wielding, only they don't get to have the Fighting Style. Meaning without the Dual Wielder feat, they're doing about the same damage as someone using a Sword and Shield with the Dueling Fighting Style. With the Dual Wielder feat and a d8 weapon, they deal damage on par with a Greatsword user with no investment...but as we've already seen, PAM ends up dealing the same amount of damage with the added benefit of having +2 to AC. Literally, all you need to do is give the Paladin and Barbarian access to the Two-Weapon Fighting Style, and suddenly Dual Wielding becomes a major power house for them both. Because unlike Rangers and Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians only get two attacks and have spells/abilities that work really, really well with hitting things in melee.

A good but flawed analysis since you don't ever touch on one of the niches of dual wielding, you get to target the most creatures. This leads to less overkill than the Greatsword user experiences and leads to high leveraging of per attack benefits. (You also mention two attacks in tier 1 for Greatsword users that I'm assuming is an error)

A Barbarian and Paladin getting the style would be nice, and they can get the style with a dip or feat, though without it they make excellent use of the method of fighting. Arguably making those classes invest more to get the style isn't inherently a bad thing, since they're already good with two weapons without it, they would be disproportionately good at it with the style. In Tier 3 a Paladin can ignore other methods and leverage an additional d8 from Improved Divine Smite, at all levels they can leverage Divine Favor (after a round of set up). Rogues will always benefit from another chance to get Sneak off, or just any damage bump period. I have a Barbarian/Rogue MC in one of my games and he has used dual wielding to great effect without the style or feat.

Something else to consider, the Greatsword user is locked to Str outside of a couple fringe exceptions, TWF allows for Dex fighting, which allows you to max a far more powerful stat. Higher initiative count means on average you'll get more turns in before the combat is over and then there's the flood of other Dex benefits, including the ability to effectively switch between range and melee without compromising your accuracy.

The fact that a Greatsword inherently hits harder isn't a bad thing, if anything it's a feature not a bug. The strength of something doesn't have to be how hard you can hit something in a turn.

[loki_ragnarock]

This leads to less overkill than the Greatsword user experiences

This argument is mitigated by GWM, which turns an overkill into a new bonus attack; it shores up that disadvantage ably.

[Dork_Forge]

This argument is mitigated by GWM, which turns an overkill into a new bonus attack; it shores up that disadvantage ably.

That's dependent on the feat and you not using your bonus action before that point, that's not really the same as comparing being built into the nature of the 'style'

[Vogie]

I don't know - I think the main problem is there's no benefit to having multiple damage TYPES. Sure, late game you could have a +3 in one hand and a flametongue dagger (or whatever) in the other, but the rest of the game there's no benefit to it.

If there was a benefit of doing something like Slashing followed by Bludgeoning, or whatever... suddenly, there'd be a real reason to dual wield. Even if the benefit was "do damage with 2 different weapons", et cetera.

If there was some sort of potential benefits of "comboing" different weapon combinations, there'd really be a reason to do it. Right now, there's just "multiple ranged attacks with Strength" via thrown weapons.

Some ideas:

The first attack(s) empower the bonus action attack in some way. This could be as simple as granting it advantage, or having it impose disadvantage on the target.
The light offhand weapons can gain some sort of added bonus. A dagger could grapple the target, a handaxe could disarm, et cetera, but only when used as a bonus action.
Having an offhand weapon removes the ability to be flanked by just two targets, and/or allow them to 'feint' with the offhand weapon, giving their "main" attack advantage.
Allowing DW to ready their offhand weapon, giving them alternative reaction options and/or additional reactions.

[Arkhios]

To me, this whole arguing over mechanical power potential is inane.

You don't play to win D&D (meaning, D&D isn't a competition between PC's — not even between Players and/or DM), therefore your mechanical outcome potential is largely irrelevant.

[stoutstien]

To me, this whole arguing over mechanical power potential is inane.

You don't play to win D&D (meaning, D&D isn't a competition between PC's — not even between Players and/or DM), therefore your mechanical outcome potential is largely irrelevant.

Mostly the issue with it all is that not only does TWF steady get worse as more options are added, it feels bad simultaneously.

[Danielqueue1]

Frankly, anyone who says this read something for three seconds on the internet, doesn't really understand the subjet matter, and wants to seem knowledgable, or to detest Drizzt.



Anyone who says this read something for three seconds on the internet, doesn't really understand the subject matter and wants to seem knowledgable.

"The double-bladed scimitar is the signature weapon of Valenar elves. A haft of fine wood supports a long, curving blade on either end. Forged with techniques honed over centuries, these blades are strong, sharp, and remarkably light."

I wasn't talking about holding two scimitars I was talking about the double scimitar. You should really double check before you call someone out on not doing their research.

[CapnWildefyr]

A few points that I think get forgotten or glossed over a lot:
1. Polearms require space. You cant get a second attack in tight quarters. Try it in your house or apartment with an 8 ft piece of pvc pipe in a hallway.

2. The magic in modules can be changed, and sometimes should be changed, by the DM, so what is handed out in modules shouldn't be an argument either way.

Also, It might be reasonable for a DM to sometimes require a polearm user to yield ground. This is not a rule in the book, and we all see fights differently, but if you get inside some polearm's reach, they can't work. House rule, yes, but sensible. I guess what is needed is a way to determine if your opponent gets in too close, and a penalty if he does.

These considerations would make two weapons fighting more balanced.

[Unoriginal]

Question:

Would you consider dual wielding worthwhile if the bonus action attack benefited from the Extra Attack feature?

As in, a lvl 5 Fighter would get 2 attacks from the Attack action, and 2 attacks from the bonus action with the second weapon, while the Rogue gets 1 attack from the attack action and 1 from the bonus action from lvl 1 to 20.

[Danielqueue1]

Here's an example of an unbalanced argument again. You tell A) they can't have the fighting style, then give it freely to option C)

"A) Do I Dual Wield without the Fighting Style in order to potentially get a third Smite/Rage bonus damage, but do less damage on average?

B) Do I use a Greatsword, which deals damage equivalent to a Dual Wielder with the Fighting Style?

or

C) Do I go Sword and Board with Dueling to get more AC and STILL do damage equivalent to what Dual Wielding can do without the Fighting Style?"

The options you listed don't actually show even situations, it should be closer to,

A) dual wield without the style to get another chance to proc rage damage, zealot damage, divine smite, improved divine smite, choice to use another battlemaster maneuver, bonus damage from another spell or effect, one more attack that might crit and be worthwhile to use warlock smite, or any other effect that increases your damage or adds riders to attacks that hit.

A') get the fighting style and still do similar damage to someone weilding a greatsword even when none of the above apply.

B) use a greatsword which is convenient, deals good damage, and lets me choose to take the +1 AC style or get the more consistent damage from GWF

C) use sword and Board and choose between even more AC, or get dueling to make the damage comparable with fighting style to what dual wielding can do without its fighting style.

Remember, the fighting style is only a 1 level dip away

[Segev]

Polearms require space. You cant get a second attack in tight quarters. Try it in your house or apartment with an 8 ft piece of pvc pipe in a hallway.The rules don't cover this, and thus it is valid for a player to complain that the DM is nerfing his build if the DM tries to enforce this regularly. 5e does have a lot of abstraction. Earlier editions - especially 2e and before - made a big deal out of some of this, with specific weapons being useless in tight quarters, complete with precise space requirements!


Also, It might be reasonable for a DM to sometimes require a polearm user to yield ground. This is not a rule in the book, and we all see fights differently, but if you get inside some polearm's reach, they can't work. House rule, yes, but sensible. I guess what is needed is a way to determine if your opponent gets in too close, and a penalty if he does.Again, abstracted out of most weapons, though anything with Reach gives you Disadvantage to attack things that are adjacent to you. This is how the game models that. If your polearm lacks Reach, its actual reach is abstracted away, as is the need to keep from letting people inside it.


These considerations would make two weapons fighting more balanced.Not sure I agree. There was a very good (if, as someone else noted, mildly flawed) analysis earlier in this thread, and it's pretty clear that PAM isn't making TWF bad. It's just a good highlight of TWF's problems.



It does kind-of pain me to see the analysis note that Rangers are no good at two-weapon fighting. The reason they have it as a fighting style option is that dual-wielding was one of their shticks in earlier editions (yes, Drizz't is a primary contributor to that image). Of note, though, the practically-signature spell of the Ranger, hunter's mark, deals its extra d6 of damage on EVERY weapon attack the Ranger makes on the target, so TWF actually adds that d6 each time (unlike a rogue's sneak attack, which is once per round at most). Giving them more spells that do something useful on a bonus action attack might be a good exercise. Now, having to spend a bonus action to cast move hunter's mark means not getting the extra attack on the first round you pick out a new target, so...that's a bit disappointing. Maybe something that lets them transfer hunter's mark as part of making the off-hand bonus-action attack?

Barbarians, ironically, are pretty decent with TWF. If you're not a Berserker using Frenzy, you still get a bonus action extra attack, and your Rage bonus to damage applies! (Remember: you have to be using strength to hit and damage to get the rage bonus; you do NOT have to be using a non-light weapon or a non-finesse weapon. You can even stack Rage damage and Sneak attack with the right weapon choice and using your Strength to determine bonus to attack/damage.)


One big thing left out of the analysis is the complicated math surrounding whether having your damage spread out over multiple attacks is a boon or a bane. In theory, having more attacks means fewer chances to miss, but each attack doing somewhat less damage means that you need more to hit to keep up. I think, though, the advantage here goes slightly to those fighting high-AC foes, because they will do damage more smoothly over time rather than relying on spikes.

Interestingly, a Champion Fighter comes out a little ahead, here, because his higher crit range means that more attacks make for more chances to crit. And with his damage being behind, but not super-behind, a greatsword wielder's, the TWF Champion catches up a bit with more frequent crits on his single weapon.



What if the TWF feat were just rolled into the TWF Fighting Style, and you picked up the Fighting Style with the Fighting Initiate feat if you can't get it from your class? Would it be overpowered as a fighting style that gave all the benefits of the feat plus adding your stat bonus to damage on the off-hand attack?

[Danielqueue1]

Oh and I am liking the ideas people are posting for adjustments.

[Darc_Vader]

Again, abstracted out of most weapons, though anything with Reach gives you Disadvantage to attack things that are adjacent to you. This is how the game models that. If your polearm lacks Reach, its actual reach is abstracted away, as is the need to keep from letting people inside it.

Isn’t that specifically a limitation of the Lance, not all reach weapons?

[Gignere]

Isn’t that specifically a limitation of the Lance, not all reach weapons?

Yeah reach weapons in 5e generally can hit at both 5 ft and 10 ft without any penalties.

[Danielqueue1]

I would like to counter point the people who are saying Pole-arm master doesn't make two weapon fighting bad.

You are technically correct.
But missing a key point.

One of the big draws of two weapon fighting in general is the ability to get a consistent bonus action attack. This can be usefull against High AC foes to get more consistent damage, and to more frequently proc "on-hit" effects. PAM gives this same benefit and an additional reaction option that also benefits from the same effects. Also PAM adds stat to damage on the bonus action attack something it takes a fighting style to get elsewhere. (Something the slightly flawed analysis got wrong)
So a paladin or barbarian who wants to have more attacks to proc rage damage or smites can chose to do so without stat, dip fighter for the style, or take polearm master and get bonus action attack with stat in a bundle with other powerful and flavorful abilities.
And the paladin gets a fighting style they can do something else with.

Two weapon fighting is good, PAM steps on its toes taking one of its major draws and handing it out. The fact that RAW it can be cheesed to let you sword and board, dueling style, with the bonus action attack, with stat makes it go from stepping on toes to rubbing it in one's face.

Also reach weapons do not get disadvantage at short range.

"Reach
This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you Attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for Opportunity Attacks with it."

Yes Two weapon fighting is still good, I just wish it didn't have to work so hard to to keep up with a feat at what it is good at.

[Segev]

I stand corrected on reach weapons and close-in attacks.


That said, I'm curious about the bolded part of my last post: If the two-weapon fighting style gave the Dual-Wielder Feat as well as its current benefit, would it be too good? Would it be just right? Still not as good as taking a different fighting style and getting PAM?

Note that there remains a slight reason to take Dual-Wielder rather than Fighting Initiate: if you don't have the martial weapon proficiency required. But this would make Dual-Wielder mostly just a rider on the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. Were it not a late-game "patch," I'd just eliminate the feat and replace it with Fighting Initiate.

[Danielqueue1]

I stand corrected on reach weapons and close-in attacks.


That said, I'm curious about the bolded part of my last post: If the two-weapon fighting style gave the Dual-Wielder Feat as well as its current benefit, would it be too good? Would it be just right? Still not as good as taking a different fighting style and getting PAM?

Note that there remains a slight reason to take Dual-Wielder rather than Fighting Initiate: if you don't have the martial weapon proficiency required. But this would make Dual-Wielder mostly just a rider on the Two-Weapon Fighting Style. Were it not a late-game "patch," I'd just eliminate the feat and replace it with Fighting Initiate.

Well we would definitely need to remove the +1 ac bit or defense would be stepped on.

[stoutstien]

Well we would definitely need to remove the +1 ac bit or defense would be stepped on.

Just combine protection and defense into a single style.