What is wrong with TWF?

[ExtravagantEvil]

Ok, recently, I checked in on the thread here concerning TWF in conjunctuon with Arcane Strike, and this got me wondering, what is unoptimized about TWF, I've heard mention of excessive feats to make it capable, but I'd like to know as to why it is incapable of standing without TWF on its own, and why it is suboptimal. Thanks for the assistance
--- ExtravagantEvil

[BeholderSlayer]

Build point expenditure, feat expenditure, you need to buy twice as many weapons (you have less money to spend on other stuff), you have lower attack, you don't get enough extra attacks to offset the major benefits of strength-and-a-half and double BAB Power Attack that two handed fighting enjoys, damage reduction makes you cry.

that's probably the short list, but all i could come up with right now.

[Tvtyrant]

You have to take feats to add extra iterative attacks, which are at a penalty. A two handed weapon adds 1.5 Str bonus to its attacks and the weapon does more based damage, while TWF has two low base damage weapons that get less strength bonus and are less likely to hit.

TWF is great when you are trying to hit as often as possible (Sneak attack, Arcane Strike, poisoned blades) because it allows you to deliver other forms of damage, but it doesn't do much damage on its own. Also, it doesn't work without a full round attack, which means the lightly armored person whose weapons don't get full strength bonuses has to stand there and take it in order to get off the feat intensive barrage of attacks.

[Sucrose]

In addition to the severe feat tax issue, you always take a -2 penalty to your attacks unless you have invested somehow in negating the penaty. Your attacks, without bonus damage, do W+Str and W+1/2Str, where W is your weapon damage dice.

Meanwhile, a warrior using a two-handed weapon has a bigger damage dice, usually fairly close to 2W, and gets Str*1.5 on each attack, so each of his blows are worth one from both your main and off-hand. Essentially, you're paying 3 out of the precious 7 feats you will ever get in your adventuring career in order to get a -2 to hit versus someone who spent the feats on Skill Focus and picked up a greatsword.

That said, TWF can still be decent, if you have a source of bonus damage that changes the equation, so your two attacks do W+Str+Bonus and W+1/2Str+Bonus, thus double-dipping your bonus damage. Still feat-intensive, but possibly worthwhile.

[Psyren]

damage reduction makes you cry

This one bears repeating, it is easily forgotten by TWFers.

[Amphetryon]

Some reasons TWF gets a bad rap:

THF requires good STR and probably good CON. TWF requires DEX 15 in addition, unless dipping ranger (or limited other obscure options).

While it is possible to make the damage from TWF at least theoretically comparable to that of THF, that does not take into account the fact that the TWF is unlikely to hit on all of his iterative attacks as the Attack Bonus diminishes, thereby reducing damage expectancy.

DR and various common resistances, which are of minimal concern when the damage comes from one or two huge hits, further reduce the damage expectations per round when your damage is the result of multiple smaller hits.

Finally, because TWF relies on a higher DEX score, practitioners of that style are likely to want lighter armor options to fully utilize the DEX bonus, which works at odds with obtaining a decent AC at low-mid levels where normal, armor-based AC is still a solid defense.

[DukeofDellot]

Something I've been pondering. Experience has taught me that amazing dexterity is not necessary for two weapon fighting (though the same experience has taught me that STR does not equal chance to hit so take this as you may).

But if we removed... or at least reduced the Dex requirement (say 11/13/15 instead) would TWF become viable?

I've had a lot of players ask me about wielding two weapons only to be turned down by the DEX requirements, and it would be nice to tell them "sure" as apposed to "No, it needs to be a decision you make in the beginning."

[tyckspoon]

Something I've been pondering. Experience has taught me that amazing dexterity is not necessary for two weapon fighting (though the same experience has taught me that STR does not equal chance to hit so take this as you may).

But if we removed... or at least reduced the Dex requirement (say 11/13/15 instead) would TWF become viable?

I've had a lot of players ask me about wielding two weapons only to be turned down by the DEX requirements, and it would be nice to tell them "sure" as apposed to "No, it needs to be a decision you make in the beginning."

Wouldn't fix it, but it would be helpful; at least remove the increasing Dex requirement for the Improved/Greater parts of the chain. Dex 13 for Two Weapon Fighting, and that's all you have to worry about. All the 17/19 Dex requirements really did was put another roadblock in the way of people who didn't want to do a Finesse build.

[SaintRidley]

Better to just fold all the feats into one which scales as you level.

[DukeofDellot]

Wouldn't fix it, but it would be helpful; at least remove the increasing Dex requirement for the Improved/Greater parts of the chain. Dex 13 for Two Weapon Fighting, and that's all you have to worry about. All the 17/19 Dex requirements really did was put another roadblock in the way of people who didn't want to do a Finesse build.

13, like Dodge and Combat Expertise, probably a good number... hey, and you still get you're full Dex to AC in Full Plate.

Better to just fold all the feats into one which scales as you level.

I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats. Besides, I play Pathfinder which gives you a few extra feats here and there.

[Zaq]

I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate a little bit? (Also, why not use AoOs? That kind of shuts down the vast majority of melee characters who want to do anything other than charge and/or power attack.)

[Gorgondantess]

Think of it this way: with a greatsword, you get 2d6+1.5x str mod to damage, plus any weapon enchantments.
With TWF, you have a shortsword & a longsword that deal 1d6+.5x str mod & 1d8+str mod, respectively, plus half the enchantments on each. This averages only one more damage over the greatsword, and then you also have to deal with the lost feat and the -2 to attack.
The only places TWF is good is when you gain additional damage regardless of amounts of attacks, like sneak attacking, and then it's still often not worth it. In the end, it's just a flat out poorly thought out system, no more, no less.

[Eldariel]

It's really just:
- You need high Dex for TWF feats.
- You either need high Str for damage, or some feat that transfers Dex to damage (doesn't exist in Pathfinder).
- You need to pay a feat to be equivalent with a two-hander who hasn't spent a feat. You further need to spend additional feat every 5 levels, each further feat worse and harder to qualify for than the last (first feat got you an attack at full bonus, latters come with -5 each).
- Your weapon selection is worse (two-handers contain reach weapons, weapons with decent base damage scaling with size [Greatsword is 6d6 at Gargantuan, for example], tripping weapons, etc. while one-handers...simply don't).
- You gain lesser benefit from everything that only grants you one attack (single attacks on either charge or after movement; you get "half" attack compared to a two-hander - Haste/similar spells; you only get one weapon attack from those - Attacks of Opportunity; again, you only get "half" the attack each).
- It costs you more to get your weapons (but comparatively, weapon enhancements are ultimately better for you since you apply them more often so not so bad that there isn't something good there).
- You get -2 to all attacks for all this.

So, it eats tons more resources than two-handed fighting for lesser gain. You need a significant number of bonus damage sources that get applied on every attack to offset all that.

Ultimately, if you play something that simply doesn't have feats worth taking whatsoever (like Pathfinder Core without AoOs, which axes most feats that are worth anything more than once per adventure), then yeah, it's an alright option, though two-hander still comes out ahead. It's not like you could get anything else useful with all those feats anyways so you aren't missing out on much (hope to god you aren't playing a Fighter since otherwise you get even MORE feats that do nothing).

But if you had an array of powerful feats to pick up, you'd suddenly be much better off as a two-hander again. Simply put, two-weapon fighting places a huge, unnecessary feat tax on you. If it was one feat the whole chain and didn't have all those movement-related issues, it would be very good.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Despite all the issues everybody just listed, I feel that a character TWF'ing with a scimitar and a spiked sheild is about twelve different kinds of epic.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm gonna go ahead and be that guy here, and say that there's nothing wrong with twf. If that's what you wanna do with a character, then by all means do it. It is inarguably a sub-optimal choice if you don't have some form of bonus damage, as has been stated above, and will be stated below.

[Coidzor]

I've thought of that, but since our group doesn't use Attacks of Opportunity, which always seemed to me to be a big reason to stick to a single weapon, I'd feel more comfortable with the three feats. Besides, I play Pathfinder which gives you a few extra feats here and there.

What? You feel that's the big issue? That's... a passing concern at best in most analyses I've seen.

[Just_Ice]

Lots is wrong with TWF. On top of all that's already said, you have two weapons that can be lost or broken instead of just one, you have to drop something to chug a potion or w/e (whereas two-handed weapons you can cling to or monkey grip if you must), without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff, Almost all of the specific Two-weapon styles are downright terrible (high sword low axe, anyone?)

This is DnD, though. Any reasonable DM should take pity on you. Go ahead and take TWF if it makes sense for your character, it's a fun feat.

[Eldariel]

Lots is wrong with TWF. On top of all that's already said, you have two weapons that can be lost or broken instead of just one, you have to drop something to chug a potion or w/e (whereas two-handed weapons you can cling to or monkey grip if you must), without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff, Almost all of the specific Two-weapon styles are downright terrible (high sword low axe, anyone?)

This is DnD, though. Any reasonable DM should take pity on you. Go ahead and take TWF if it makes sense for your character, it's a fun feat.

High Sword Low Axe is actually quite good. Just, it costs about 300 feats too much, like basically all the Style-feats. So...meh. Still, an effective extra attack per every two attacks you make is quite nice.

[ericgrau]

Boiled down it does slightly less damage than THF in core (including all the extra feats and magical enchantments the THFer gets), and much less damage once you bring in splatbook options. Really it's no big deal and in practice most groups don't notice the difference in damage between TWF and THF.

If you want to really optimize for TWF then try going for per-attack or per-hit effects. Touch attacks like tripping that work even with attack roll penalties and/or on cheap weapons are a nice options too. Spell storing weapons, any save based effect, bonus damage of course and poison (yes, it does work well at mid levels just not high levels) are some other examples. Do watch your attack bonus rather than going for a billion attacks though; most of the multi-armed, flurry, etc., etc. builds I see decrease the number of actual hits you get. TWF and haste are probably enough; I might not even bother with GTWF due to the -10 penalty.

[Makiru]

My latest character in D20 Future came about with the question, "What if Kratos used chainsaws?"

The rest, as they say, was history.

Yeah, I knew TWF was bad going into it, but I had never done that kind of build yet and felt like messing around. Of course, I also made things more needlessly complicated by picking an amorphous blob for race so I could potentially wield up to six weapons without impairing my move speed. (Having one leg still nets full speed on a dralasite. Who knew?) I've had my ups and downs with the character. Seeing as I currently roll around nine attacks on a full attack, at least one hits, and the thought of this whirling ball of death feels pretty cool.

So, yeah, don't go TWF if you actually care about your damage and accuracy, etc, and you want to be useful before level 5 when the mages start their exponential jump to battlefield domination (something else D20 Modern fixes to an extent). However, if you're like me and adore the silly, impractical builds, it might just be up your alley.

[Curmudgeon]

Two-weapon fighting just costs too much.

Feat cost: The Two-Weapon Fighting tree provides one extra attack with +½ STR bonus damage per hit, each feat, whereas two-handed fighting automatically gives +1½ STR damage each hit, costing no feats. Because each successive iterative attack has a lower chance of hitting, the expected boost to damage from each successive TWF feat is lower; i.e., you start with a poor feat and each feat that follows is worse than the one before. Just think of what you're giving up by not getting to pick some other feats that could give your character greater benefits. If you want to use TWF with thrown weapons, add the expense of Quick Draw as well.

Money cost: You need at least twice as many weapons, with twice or more the expense for enhancements. (See action cost (2) below.)

Action cost (1): You can only use TWF on a full attack. In a surprise round: you get no benefit. If you've got to use a move action (typically because your enemies don't obligingly stay in one place): you get no benefit. (The enemies don't need to be combat geniuses to see two weapons and decide to use hit-and-move tactics to thwart you, so don't complain to your DM when this happens every single combat.) If you're using a decent missile weapon: you get no benefit. On an attack of opportunity: you get no benefit.

Action cost (2): You're going to need a hand for something else occasionally. There's no "Quick Sheathe" feat, so you'll be forced to drop at least one of your weapons. If you later want to resume TWF you'll need yet another weapon to draw. Then of course you're going to need to spend the time to retrieve dropped weapon(s) later (assuming they haven't been picked up by an enemy and used against you).

Miss cost: All of your attacks are at -2 to hit. Compare this to a Haste spell or Boots of Speed, which give an extra attack with a bonus to all attacks rather than a penalty.

Weapon choice cost: You're going to be forced to use a light weapon in your off hand, or else your miss cost will be even higher (or your feat cost to avoid that). There are poorer choices in the light weapon category, and you'll have to trade off either damage or critical threat range.

[ShadowFighter15]

The only way I know of to make TWF useful is with the Tome of Battle; hell, dual-wielding is what the Tiger Claw style uses as much as animalistic ferocity.

[Aotrs Commander]

We've always ruled TWF gets full strength off-hand. Which gives it a bit of a boost, not much, but it's a start. We nearly always have at least one TWF in any party (most of us think it's really awesome) and they don't generally seem to fair too badly compared to the THF, though granted, they're not Shock Troopering level. But sometimes the fact they can't PA isn't always a disadvantage, since they are thus less reliant on PA for extra damage and so have a more consistent level of damage output on targets of any AC. (Whereas PA often works best on lower AC targets, or with the aforementioned Shock Trooper.)

[shadow_archmagi]

Compare:

1. Greatsword fighter is going on +5 to hit, and deals 2d6+6 (average 13) damage, because he has +4 STR.

2. Longsword Shortsword fighter is going on +3 to hit, and deals 1d8+4 and 1d6+2 (average 14) damage.

Congrats, your to-hit is now 10% lower, and you've spent a feat. Damage Reduction now makes you cry. Keeping your weapon enchanted is now twice the effort. You can't be as easily buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.

Keep in mind that 10% lower chance to hit can be a lot more than 10%. If you're fighting a monster with, say, 22 AC, then Greatsword fighter will hit it on a 17 and you'll hit it on a 19. You went from having four good numbers to having two. Your damage dealt per round got cut in half by your TWF.


TWF thrives if you have a source of extra damage. A rogue, for example, might get +4d6 sneak attack, so then TWF would make sense, because he's dealing an extra 14 damage per attack so more attacks is good.

[Fitz10019]

Lots is wrong with TWF....without quick draw it takes more actions to draw stuff...

Actually, that's one thing that is not wrong with 2WF. The Draw or Sheathe a weapon rules state that with 2WF, you may draw both weapons combined with a regular move, just like everyone else may draw one weapon during a regular move. It's one of those painful editing oversights that it isn't mentioned in the feat description.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/act...SheatheaWeapon

[Fitz10019]

Compare:

1. Greatsword fighter is going on +5 to hit, and deals 2d6+6 (average 13) damage, because he has +4 STR.

2. Longsword Shortsword fighter is going on +3 to hit, and deals 1d8+4 and 1d6+2 (average 14) damage.

Congrats, your to-hit is now 10% lower, and you've spent a feat. Damage Reduction now makes you cry. Keeping your weapon enchanted is now twice the effort. You can't be as easily buffed with the Magic Weapon spell.

Keep in mind that 10% lower chance to hit can be a lot more than 10%. If you're fighting a monster with, say, 22 AC, then Greatsword fighter will hit it on a 17 and you'll hit it on a 19. You went from having four good numbers to having two. Your damage dealt per round got cut in half by your TWF.


TWF thrives if you have a source of extra damage. A rogue, for example, might get +4d6 sneak attack, so then TWF would make sense, because he's dealing an extra 14 damage per attack so more attacks is good.

Right, except that rogue has another 5% lower chance to hit, because of his BAB.

[Duke of URL]

Weapon choice cost: You're going to be forced to use a light weapon in your off hand, or else your miss cost will be even higher (or your feat cost to avoid that). There are poorer choices in the light weapon category, and you'll have to trade off either damage or critical threat range.

Don't forget that if you take any weapon-specific feats, you're also forced to wield (the same) light weapons in both hands, or forfeit the benefits of those feats for a good number of your attacks.

The money cost is, I think, overblown. First of all, it gives you a use for more of the "junk" magic weapons that you run across, especially light weapons for the off-hand. Secondly, look at it this way -- a +8 weapon costs 64k (plus base weapon cost), which gives you a net +7 of useful enhancements (because enhancement bonuses are a waste if someone in the party can cast greater magic weapon). A pair of weapons at +6/+5 costs 61k (plus base weapon costs), and provides a net +9 of useful enchantments -- so you technically get more out of those weapons for less cost, although each one only applies to some of your attacks.

[Curmudgeon]

Secondly, look at it this way -- a +8 weapon costs 64k (plus base weapon cost)

Off by half here. A +8 weapon costs 128,000 gp. See the table.

[panaikhan]

We had a party where the fighter went TWF with whip-daggers and spiked armour. getting away from that guy proved interesting.

Also, where does it say you only get multiple attacks using TWF during a full attack action? We've missed that entirely.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, where does it say you only get multiple attacks using TWF during a full attack action? We've missed that entirely.

Combat chapter, under "Full-Round Actions":

Full Attack

If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks.