TWF Barbarian is about as good as other options

[J-H]

Note: This discussion excludes GWM as GWM is just flat better...and as some tables change or don't have GWM as a result.

Assuming no impact on bonus actions from subclasses (Totem, Ancestral Guardian, and Zealot don't have any)...

At level 5, a barbarian who started at Str 16, put his ASI into +2 STR, and uses a greatsword....
Attacks twice for 4d6+12 damage (+4 str, +2 rage), for a damage range of 16-36.

At level 5, a barbarian who started at Str 16, put his ASI into the Dual Wielder feat, and uses a pair of d8 one-handed weapons...
Attacks twice for 2d8+10 (+3 str, +2 rage) damage + once for 1d8+2 (rage) damage, for a damage range of 15-36.
Has 1 additional point of AC from the feat.

I was surprised at how mathematically equal the two options are. That's the point of my post.

Without the DW feat, the two-hander's damage range is 3d6+12 for a range of 15-30.

Brutal critical also benefits from dual wielding.
A big weapon wielder using Reckless Attack rolls 4 d20s to attack, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 20% per round, for 1d8, 2d8, or 3d8 damage depending on level.
A TWFer using Reckless attack rolls 6d20s, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 30% per round, or about 50% more crits.


Notes:
-This is in a white-room/no-other feat scenario. Polearm Master at level 4 nets 2d10+10 + 1d4+5 for a damage range of 18-39, putting it as marginally superior to the greataxe/greatsword or TWF, although TWF does have +1 AC.
-I used round numbers for crit calculations. The real number is something like 4.9% per d20 rolled, because there's a chance of getting 2 20s on the same attack roll.
-We're still excluding GWM. It's just flat better (and thus boring).
-If you have to throw javelins, the TWF character can throw 3 javelins instead of two, giving a versatility advantage until you run out of javelins.
-As a barbarian, you really roll with whatever magic items you can get. Whatever time of Flame Tongue the DM drops, that's what you're wielding. If you can get two Swords of Sharpness...dual wield.

[Kane0]

Okay, but youre discounting a whole lot. You need a Bonus Action to rage firstly, you could be taking one of those feats you excluded instead, your subclass might conflict or offer a better option, you miss out on the fighting style (no big loss honestly), etc

Spoiler: This may or may not be helpful

Show

Edit: You know, i'd be curious how swapping Dual Wielder for Savage Attacker compares, all other things above being equal.

[CTurbo]

TWF is competitive at low levels, but you're comparing a build that takes +2 Str to a build that takes a feat. The feat build should be better. Dual Wielder is not a terrible feat, but it's not great either. Fighting Initiate for TWF Style would be better in the long run.

Assuming level 5
18 Str + Greatsword = 4d6+3+3+2+2= 24 on average
16 Str + Dual Wielder = 3d8+3+3+2+2+2= 25.5 on average
16 Str + TWF style = 3d6+3+3+3+2+2+2= 25.5 on average
16 Str + PAM = 2d10+1d4+3+3+3+2+2+2= 28.5 on average

Fast forward to level 12
20 Str + Greatsword = 4d6+5+5+3+3= 30 on average
20 Str + Dual Wielder = 3d8+5+5+3+3+3= 32.5 on average
20 Str + TWF = 3d6+5+5+5+3+3+3= 34.5 on average
20 Str + PAM = 2d10+1d4+5+5+5+3+3+3= on average 37.5 on average

PAM is superior and probably the only one of the 3 feats really worth taking outside of for flavor.

[Frogreaver]

I'm a big proponent of the dual wield Barbarian.

1. It allows for easy swap to free hand for grapple.
2. As you note, it's competitive for damage, though obviously damage feats can perform better IF you find the right magical weapon.
3. Less Damage per hit means less overkill damage, meaning the damage you do is less 'wasted'. This usually has a bigger impact than most give credit for.
4. You don't have any feats that should really need to be taken for damage - freeing up some ASI's and also meaning you are more likely to benefit from whatever magic weapons are found. This can matter greatly if the DM doesn't provide item shops and/or push looted magical items toward weapon types that align with your feats.

All said, Dual wield is a solid choice!

TWF is competitive at low levels, but you're comparing a build that takes +2 Str to a build that takes a feat. The feat build should be better. Dual Wielder is not a terrible feat, but it's not great either. Fighting Initiate for TWF Style would be better in the long run.

Assuming level 5
18 Str + Greatsword = 4d6+3+3+2+2= 24 on average
16 Str + Dual Wielder = 3d8+3+3+2+2+2= 25.5 on average
16 Str + TWF style = 3d6+3+3+3+2+2+2= 25.5 on average
16 Str + PAM = 2d10+1d4+3+3+3+2+2+2= 28.5 on average

Fast forward to level 12
20 Str + Greatsword = 4d6+5+5+3+3= 30 on average
20 Str + Dual Wielder = 3d8+5+5+3+3+3= 32.5 on average
20 Str + TWF = 3d6+5+5+5+3+3+3= 34.5 on average
20 Str + PAM = 2d10+1d4+5+5+5+3+3+3= on average 37.5 on average

PAM is superior and probably the only one of the 3 feats really worth taking outside of for flavor.

GWM and using the -5/+10 along with the bonus action on crit/kill is arguably stronger than PAM. PAM taking your bonus action really hurts it's damage progression in combat. The reaction attack can make up for it, but that's a bit more sporadic.

[CTurbo]

I'm a big proponent of the dual wield Barbarian.

1. It allows for easy swap to free hand for grapple.
2. As you note, it's competitive for damage, though obviously damage feats can perform better IF you find the right magical weapon.
3. Less Damage per hit means less overkill damage, meaning the damage you do is less 'wasted'. This usually has a bigger impact than most give credit for.
4. You don't have any feats that should really need to be taken for damage - freeing up some ASI's and also meaning you are more likely to benefit from whatever magic weapons are found. This can matter greatly if the DM doesn't provide item shops and/or push looted magical items toward weapon types that align with your feats.

All said, Dual wield is a solid choice!



GWM and using the -5/+10 along with the bonus action on crit/kill is arguably stronger than PAM. PAM taking your bonus action really hurts it's damage progression in combat. The reaction attack can make up for it, but that's a bit more sporadic.

I 100% agree that GWM is the best option for Barbs especially due to Reckless Attack. I was comparing PAM vs Dual Wielder vs TWF

[Frogreaver]

I 100% agree that GWM is the best option for Barbs especially due to Reckless Attack. I was comparing PAM vs Dual Wielder vs TWF

Sorry.

I agree that PAM vs TWF (feat) vs Dual Wielder that PAM is better. That said, if I'm two weapon fighting it's because I don't want to spend a feat on damage. I want the versatility of being able to take another feat, easily switch to grappling, etc. Alert comes to mind, so does inspiring leader, lucky, resilient (wis), sentinel, slasher, skill expert (athletics), etc.

Also, not taking a damage feat leaves you a better selection of magic weapons, this is an important and oft overlooked consideration.

So while I agree with your comparison of those 3 feats, I think it's missing important context.

[Osuniev]

Brutal critical also benefits from dual wielding.
A big weapon wielder using Reckless Attack rolls 4 d20s to attack, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 20% per round, for 1d8, 2d8, or 3d8 damage depending on level.
A TWFer using Reckless attack rolls 6d20s, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 30% per round, or about 50% more crits.

Except the big weapon wielder will use a Greataxe, for +1d12, 2d12 and 3d12 resp.

And of course, everytime they rage, the TWFer loses one attack (and a 30% chance of a crit)

[diplomancer]

Sorry.

I agree that PAM vs TWF (feat) vs Dual Wielder that PAM is better. That said, if I'm two weapon fighting it's because I don't want to spend a feat on damage. I want the versatility of being able to take another feat, easily switch to grappling, etc. Alert comes to mind, so does inspiring leader, lucky, resilient (wis), sentinel, slasher, skill expert (athletics), etc.

Also, not taking a damage feat leaves you a better selection of magic weapons, this is an important and oft overlooked consideration.

So while I agree with your comparison of those 3 feats, I think it's missing important context.

But TWF without the TWF feat, your weapon selection is still limited, only light weapons allowed; it's an often overlooked advantage of the feat

[Kane0]

But TWF without the TWF feat, your weapon selection is still limited, only light weapons allowed; it's an often overlooked advantage of the feat

Meh, you're usually going from d6 weapons to d8, and giving up the ability to throw most of them in the process. Magic weapon flexibility is likely a bigger deal than that extra 1 or 2 damage. Much like the TWF fighting style only adding its extra damage once per turn on the specific attack that you use your bonus action on, its not a huge bump in damage per turn (or combat) compared to the investment.

[stoutstien]

To echo others the best part of twf is it doesn't take any investment to get the best parts of it. The fighting style and feat are..ok.. for some but as a general rule just turning a mostly open bonus action into an attack is the bulk of it. More so if you add any riders like sneak attack or smite dice.

[diplomancer]

Meh, you're usually going from d6 weapons to d8, and giving up the ability to throw most of them in the process. Magic weapon flexibility is likely a bigger deal than that extra 1 or 2 damage. Much like the TWF fighting style only adding its extra damage once per turn on the specific attack that you use your bonus action on, its not a huge bump in damage per turn (or combat) compared to the investment.

Yeah, it's the magic weapon availability I meant. If you're playing a module and your DM does not customize it to the party, or if he goes for random loot, TWF feat gets a lot better

[Frogreaver]

But TWF without the TWF feat, your weapon selection is still limited, only light weapons allowed; it's an often overlooked advantage of the feat

Without a feat investment a Barbarian can use any magical melee weapons he finds. He may not can keep TWF while using them, but he can use them. Whereas once a damage feat dependent on weapon choice is chosen, it feels really bad to deviate from those kinds of weapons.

Such a Barbarian might decide to make the feat selection after finding a pair of very good magic battleaxes. If it was a greataxe he might choose GWM. A spear he might choose PAM. It's one thing to lock your weapon choice down early game, it's another to lock it down after finding a great magic weapon.

[Rerem115]

If they keep the new Light weapon rules from the recent UA, two-weapon fighting is going to get a huge bump. As of the playtest rules for 6e, the extra attack from dual wielding is folded into the Attack action, and no longer requires a bonus action.

[Frogreaver]

If they keep the new Light weapon rules from the recent UA, two-weapon fighting is going to get a huge bump. As of the playtest rules for 6e, the extra attack from dual wielding is folded into the Attack action, and no longer requires a bonus action.

Yea. I look for TWF to be the go to style in 6e. Taking away the OP damage feats and eliminating a bonus action for TWF will likely bump it to the top of the pile.

[stoutstien]

If they keep the new Light weapon rules from the recent UA, two-weapon fighting is going to get a huge bump. As of the playtest rules for 6e, the extra attack from dual wielding is folded into the Attack action, and no longer requires a bonus action.

Depends on what the warrior classes shake out to look like. I'm curious how they are going to approach reconciliation of keeping twf off the BA but have stuff like martial arts.

[Frogreaver]

Depends on what the warrior classes shake out to look like. I'm curious how they are going to approach reconciliation of keeping twf off the BA but have stuff like martial arts.

Martial Arts could require a free hand. Though there's likely other currently bonus action attacks that could be an issue.

Alternatively they could call all the bonus action attacks 'swift attacks' or something and you only get 1 of those per turn (but they don't use your bonus action).

[stoutstien]

Martial Arts could require a free hand. Though there's likely other currently bonus action attacks that could be an issue.

Alternatively they could call all the bonus action attacks 'swift attacks' or something and you only get 1 of those per turn (but they don't use your bonus action).

We'll see though it's more a passing curiosity for myself.

I'm well on my way to get my last 2 tables to move past DND/PF.

[Psyren]

If I had to guess - Martial Arts won't use your BA anymore (keeping its theme of being lossless TWF for monks), but flurry still will.

[Witty Username]

Brutal critical also benefits from dual wielding.
A big weapon wielder using Reckless Attack rolls 4 d20s to attack, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 20% per round, for 1d8, 2d8, or 3d8 damage depending on level.
A TWFer using Reckless attack rolls 6d20s, yielding a crit chance of somewhere around 30% per round, or about 50% more crits.

A note, depending on the big weapon it will be anywhere from 1d6 to 1d12 for brutal crit damage. Generally if one is using something like a halberd or a greataxe, crit damage is going to be a little higher, maul or greatsword a little less.

Standard MMO considerations if they use the WoW shell (at least as far as I know, hearsay from when I played LoTRO), two-weapon fighting crits more often, two-handed weapon fighting crits harder.

[RogueJK]

Except the big weapon wielder will use a Greataxe, for +1d12, 2d12 and 3d12 resp.

The flip side being that a TWF Barbarian with the Piercer feat and shortswords could be dealing an additional d6 of damage on a crit. So on their crits they could be dealing 3d6 (10.5) base damage versus 2d12 (11) base damage, and they will crit 33% more often. So Piercer puts TWF ahead a bit in crit damage specifically, at least until the 1/2/3 additional Brutal Critical dice starting at Barbarian 9 starts to cause the Greataxe to pull a bit further away again in crit damage thanks to their bigger additional dice eventually outweighing TWF's increased crit chance.


That 33% greater crit chance plus the third chance to apply damage, makes the overall damage output pretty equivalent, with TWF ahead by a nose even without the Dual Wielder feat, especially with Piercer. For example, a Level 5 Barbarian with 18 STR:

TWF Shortswords: 1d6+6, 1d6+6, 1d6+2 = 24.5 average damage, with +3.5 damage on a crit or +7 if you have Piercer. (Plus keep in mind that Piercer lets you reroll a damage dice once per turn, which would likely bump that average damage up a bit more by a point or two.)

Greataxe: 1d12+6, 1d12+6 = 25 average damage, with +6.5 damage on a crit

Therefore, once we factor in TWF's 33% greater chance of a crit, TWF is ahead overall, especially if you take Piercer. Taking the Dual Wielder feat instead of Piercer would add 3 additional average damage, which isn't nothing, but likely isn't as much of an impact overall as Piercer' damage reroll and doubled crit output. And Piercer is a STR half-feat too. Though Dual Wielder does grant your +1 AC and open up your weapon options.


However, we also have to remember that PAM is a thing....
PAM Polearm: 1d10+6, 1d10+6, 1d4+6 = 31.5 average damage, with +5.5 on a crit . And PAM has just as many chances to crit as TWF. So PAM is the clear winner, if that is an option.


Now, those average damage numbers above are assuming all hits. But even once we start factoring in hit percentages, overall damage output throughout an adventuring day would trend slightly more in favor of TWF or especially PAM, because of the third attack and its third chance to hit.

Greataxe Extra Attack has four possible outcomes: Hit/Hit, Hit/Miss, Miss/Hit, Miss/Miss. 3/4 of those involve at least one hit.

PAM or TWF Extra Attack has twice as many possible outcomes: Hit/Hit/Hit, Hit/Hit/Miss, Hit/Miss/Hit, Miss/Hit/Hit, Miss/Miss/Hit, Miss/Hit/Miss, Hit/Miss/Miss, and Miss/Miss/Miss. 7/8 of those involve at least one hit.

So your chances of landing at least some damage in a round is slightly higher with TWF or PAM than with a Greataxe, with less of a chance of you missing all attacks and dealing 0 damage. Furthermore, this fact has even more value for Barbarian subclasses with abilities that require hitting an enemy each turn, like Zealot's Divine Fury or Ancestral Guardian's Ancestral Protector.


So I agree with the OP's premise, with some caveats: In a campaign where GWM isn't a thing, TWF is just as good or even a bit better for a Barbarian than using a big 2H weapon, especially if you take the Piercer or Dual Wielder feat, but only until higher level Brutal Criticals eventually causes the bigger weapon to outpace TWF overall, and only if you can't or don't want to take PAM and use a polearm.


TL;DR: If we take GWM out of the equation and we're not playing in Tier 3-4, the Greataxe is actually a a less optimal option for a Barbarian compared to TWF or PAM, especially if you combine TWF with Piercer or Dual Wielder, and/or take a subclass whose abilities are triggered by hitting an enemy.

[Osuniev]

TL;DR: If we take GWM out of the equation and we're not playing in Tier 3-4, the Greataxe is actually a a less optimal option for a Barbarian compared to TWF or PAM, especially if you combine TWF with Piercer or Dual Wielder, and/or take a subclass whose abilities are triggered by hitting an enemy.

I mean, that's technically true, but only because :
- you didn't account for the absence of an off-hand attack on the turn when you rage,
- you removed the one feat that makes using an Heavy weapon interesting,
- you added the feats that made TWF competitive.

Sure, Dual Wielder and Piercer make using shortswords more attractive, but unless the Greataxe-User decided to spend his ASI in Charisma, he got something proably just as good in exchange of these two feats.

[RogueJK]

- you removed the one feat that makes using an Heavy weapon interesting,

A condition that was established from the start by the OP, because they acknowledged that GWM makes 2H strictly better, but GWM isn't always an option.

[JNAProductions]

A condition that was established from the start by the OP, because they acknowledged that GWM makes 2H strictly better, but GWM isn't always an option.

If it’s not an option, why is it assumed other feats ARE?

[RogueJK]

Even if they aren't allowed, TWF is competitive. As stated, Piercer and/or Duel Wielder just push it a bit ahead.

See my above TWF vs Greataxe comparison discussion, which don't include Piercer in the initial damage output, only discusses how Piercer would add on to it further.

Feat-free, it works out to:

TWF Shortswords: 1d6+6, 1d6+6, 1d6+2 = 24.5 average damage, with +3.5 damage on a crit (and a greater likelihood of a crit)

Greataxe: 1d12+6, 1d12+6 = 25 average damage, with +6.5 damage on a crit


Plus my discussion of TWF being less likely to deal 0 damage in a turn, and more likely to trigger subclass abilities or bonus damage, still applies regardless of feats too.

So I stick by my statement. In a feat-free game or one where GWM specifically isn't allowed, that's mostly going to be Tier 1 and 2, I wouldn't hesitate to play a TWF Barbarian instead of a 2H Barbarian, especially if going Ancestral Guardian or Zealot.

Unless you somehow end up with a lot of 1 and 2 round combats, even with TWF's loss of the third attack in rounds when you Rage, you're going to equal or slightly exceed the Greataxe's damage output overall thanks to the increased number of crits, plus be more likely to apply subclass stuff.

Any access to Piercer and/or Dual Wielder is just gravy, if available. But if available, GWM and/or PAM are strictly better from an optimization standpoint, of course.

[Kane0]

TWF is viable and even in some cases optimal as a no-investment bonus action attack, and having any sort of additional attack is especially potent in Tier 1.
It starts losing this advantage when other, better means of additional attacks become available and things start competing more heavily for your bonus action as you level up. The fact that two other weapon-style feats offer bonus action attacks (and one more an attack substitute) adds insult to injury.

[Witty Username]

A brief note that TWF does have a damage loss on rage (time will tell if One D&D commits) this is 5.5 damage to the average.
This will depend on how long combats go and how many combats one has, generally speaking the longer the day goes the less this will matter.
--
I tend to prefer PAM in concept, but that is more because I like reach weapons and the reaction attack. I would probably use a halberd even if it was a featless game, even if that represents a damage hit.

[RogueJK]

A brief note that TWF does have a damage loss on rage (time will tell if One D&D commits) this is 5.5 damage to the average.
This will depend on how long combats go and how many combats one has, generally speaking the longer the day goes the less this will matter.

Plus you won't be Raging in every combat, especially in Tier 1 and 2.

And there are some additional niche scenarios where the third attack pays even further dividends, such as being under the influence of a spell like Crusader's Mantle or Enlarge that gives a damage boost to every attack.

[Witty Username]

Plus you won't be Raging in every combat, especially in Tier 1 and 2.

Er, yeah, sorry that is what I was talking about with long days.
If you have only a couple of combats a day, rage will be plenty available in Tier 1, If you have 6 a day, rage is not going to be available.

My games have recently been trending towards 3 a day average (our party is for lack of a better word cowardly), so 2 rages can definitely get a table through an adventuring day, even if that day is weird.

[Bosh]

I think a good niche for TWF barbs is barbarogues, which is a beautiful multiclass. The other main option for a barbarogue is rapier and shield, and two short swords are a solid alternative to that since they allow a barbarogue to grapple much more easily (something that they tend to be very good at due to the combination of rage and expertise).

[RogueJK]

I think a good niche for TWF barbs is barbarogues, which is a beautiful multiclass.

Agreed. A STR-based Ancestral Guardian Barbarian 5/Soulknife Rogue X is a fantastic TWF build from level 6+ (Barbarian 3/Rogue 3), and can even effectively tank from 60' away when needed, which makes it one of the only examples of an effective "ranged tank" in 5E.