Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Willie the Duck]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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