PDA

View Full Version : Dual wield



Spacehamster
2014-09-22, 04:37 PM
so am I the only one that thinks making the offhand attack a bonus action quite stupid?
Cant really see any point of going dw when you can just get a bonus action attack with mainhand or
two hand from quite a few sources? Am I missing something that is really good with it or is it the
usual with making it sub par compared to other styles? :)

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

Edge of Dreams
2014-09-22, 04:44 PM
Dual Wielding is one of the only ways to get an additional attack at very low levels, especially before anyone has feats (yes, you can Variant Human at level 1, but not everyone wants to or will allow it). For Rogues, it's particularly nice because it means you've got twice as many chances to get your Sneak Attack damage (even though it's only applied 1/turn), and Rogues don't get an Extra Attack class feature.

Spacehamster
2014-09-22, 04:48 PM
True but feels like a waste of it only beeing good to level 5 or for 1 attack/turn classes. :-/
Think I will houserule it that its part of your full attack that you can get a extra bonus attack
in addition to the offhand attack. Makes no sense that for example a level 11 fighter with
a two hander and a dual wielding level 11 fighter get the same amount of attacks.
Two lighter weapons should be more swings then one big and bulky heavy one no?

Felcat
2014-09-22, 04:51 PM
True but feels like a waste of it only beeing good to level 5 or for 1 attack/turn classes. :-/
Think I will houserule it that its part of your full attack that you can get a extra bonus attack
in addition to the offhand attack. Makes no sense that for example a level 11 fighter with
a two hander and a dual wielding level 11 fighter get the same amount of attacks.
Two lighter weapons should be more swings then one big and bulky heavy one no?

The Dual Wielding Fighter will still get 1 more swing, at the opportunity cost of his Bonus Action. How useful that attack will be can be questioned, but it's still going to be 1 more.

Spacehamster
2014-09-22, 04:58 PM
The Dual Wielding Fighter will still get 1 more swing, at the opportunity cost of his Bonus Action. How useful that attack will be can be questioned, but it's still going to be 1 more.

You can only get one bonus action attack tho no? which can be gained by the great weapons master or from frenzy rage for example?

Easy_Lee
2014-09-22, 05:09 PM
so am I the only one that thinks making the offhand attack a bonus action quite stupid?
Cant really see any point of going dw when you can just get a bonus action attack with mainhand or
two hand from quite a few sources? Am I missing something that is really good with it or is it the
usual with making it sub par compared to other styles? :)

Spacehamster to infinity and beyond!

No, you're right that it's sub par because of the bonus action requirement. It's hard to house rule, too. The problem is that just adding an extra offhand attack potentially overperforms or underperforms depending on level, stats, and gear.

The rules for TWF state that you don't add your attribute bonus and have to use light weapons. From that fact, it seems like they originally intended dual wielders to get an extra attack roll every time they made an attack. Assuming no magic, that would balance TWF against 2h since 1d6 + 1d6 + attribute = 2d6 + attribute.

But wait, using the dual wielder feat for 1d8s or having magic weapons (extra magic damage or magic effect) would make dual wielders deal better damage in the end. It also makes dual weilders force extra concentration checks for wizards. Good luck concentrating on a spell when a fighter runs up and action surge attacks you 16 times in one round without using his bonus.

Rather than let dual wielders have the advantage in some cases but not others, they removed the possibility for TWF to ever have an advantage in almost any circumstance.

Using the TWF fighting style let's you do slightly better damage at level 1 than a 2h fighter with no feat and no use for his bonus action. And taking TWF style and dual wielder at level 1 produces good results if you never get past level 1 (Assuming attr bonus of 5, (1d8 + 5)x2 = 18 average). But you give up your bonus, and the moment multiple attacks, GWM, or Polearm master comes online, 2h wins, especially since that doesn't take a fighting style just to compete. Also, a polearm master fighter does one less damage at level 1 ((1d10+5) + (1d4+5) = 18), but with reach and extra opportunity attacks. He also benefits more from haste, magic weapon, and many other effects. Plus he's probably rerolling 1's and 2's because of the fighting style.

Also, rogues can't get more than one sneak attack per round anymore, so they don't even benefit much. A rogue with a hand crossbow and the crossbow feat is doing more damage than a TWF rogue in all situations (and by RAW, only needs one crossbow to do it), again from range.

TWF sucks this edition.

Pex
2014-09-22, 05:17 PM
You can only get one bonus action attack tho no? which can be gained by the great weapons master or from frenzy rage for example?

So those characters don't need to dual wield. However, for characters who don't get a bonus action for an attack by class feature, they can dual wield. For something to be good it is not a requirement that everyone must benefit from it.

edge2054
2014-09-22, 05:41 PM
Using the TWF fighting style let's you do slightly better damage at level 1 than a 2h fighter with no feat and no use for his bonus action. And taking TWF style and dual wielder at level 1 produces good results if you never get past level 1 (Assuming attr bonus of 5, (1d8 + 5)x2 = 18 average). But you give up your bonus, and the moment multiple attacks, GWM, or Polearm master comes online, 2h wins, especially since that doesn't take a fighting style just to compete. Also, a polearm master fighter does one less damage at level 1 ((1d10+5) + (1d4+5) = 18), but with reach and extra opportunity attacks. He also benefits more from haste, magic weapon, and many other effects. Plus he's probably rerolling 1's and 2's because of the fighting style.


Sorry to be nitpicky but Polearm Master and an attribute of 20 isn't possible at level one is it?

Anyway a variant human can pick up Polearm Master at level 1. Coupled with a quarterstaff and dueling style you can have an AC of 18 and 1d6+5/1d4+5 plus a 1d6+5 reaction when someone moves into your reach using the standard spread.

A ranger loses a bit of AC but it can do something quite similar at level 2. The damage gets really ridiculous when you start adding Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer into the mix.

Spacehamster
2014-09-22, 06:08 PM
So those characters don't need to dual wield. However, for characters who don't get a bonus action for an attack by class feature, they can dual wield. For something to be good it is not a requirement that everyone must benefit from it.

Still does not mean its a bad rule having a offhand attack as a bonus action. ;)

Easy_Lee
2014-09-22, 07:38 PM
Sorry to be nitpicky but Polearm Master and an attribute of 20 isn't possible at level one is it?

Anyway a variant human can pick up Polearm Master at level 1. Coupled with a quarterstaff and dueling style you can have an AC of 18 and 1d6+5/1d4+5 plus a 1d6+5 reaction when someone moves into your reach using the standard spread.

A ranger loses a bit of AC but it can do something quite similar at level 2. The damage gets really ridiculous when you start adding Hunter's Mark and Colossus Slayer into the mix.

You're not beign nitpicky, you're right. I only used 5 to show optimal conditions and make the math simple, although we can assume that fighters will seldom start with a strength that high.

Regarding the quarterstaff, that's an interesting trick with dueling. Average MH damage is 5.5 plus bonuses, same as any other polearm, while average extra attack damage jumps to 4.5 from 2.5. I'd argue that's better than GWM. It even leaves you with a free hand for doing whatever, such as holding a shield. It's just too bad that quarterstaff isn't finesse, else that brand of fighter wouldn't need much str. WoTC must not like thief-acrobats too much.

Also, nice to see rangers are good at some levels. I'm not too worried about higher levels, since everyone ends up outclassed by casters at higher levels. The out of combat benefits to casting are too stronk, even if the combat benefits weren't so good.

Slipperychicken
2014-09-22, 07:47 PM
Remember that dual-wielding is available to everyone for free, while other ways to get bonus attacks require feats or class levels. I think the bonus-action cost is just a way to keep it in line with the other fighting styles, because extra attacks are strong.

Felcat
2014-09-23, 09:27 AM
You can only get one bonus action attack tho no? which can be gained by the great weapons master or from frenzy rage for example?

Those bonus actions have their own specific triggers, and opportunity costs (The Great Weapon Master one isn't going to be happening frequently unless your DM throws tons very low CR's your way). Dual Wielding only requires you to have an appropriate weapon in each hand. There are classes/characters that would benefit very little from Dual Wielding, but I would be careful about big house rule changes too it.

It looks on the weak side, but extra attacks are kind of a big deal. Fighters getting a 3rd and 4th swing in an attack action is kind of a major class feature.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-23, 10:07 AM
Most of the alternatives presented above are strength-based. TWF will let you pump dex instead, which means more AC and initiative. That is a big deal.

Easy_Lee
2014-09-23, 11:40 AM
Most of the alternatives presented above are strength-based. TWF will let you pump dex instead, which means more AC and initiative. That is a big deal.

True, but which classes benefit from TWF which don't benefit from other options?

For the price of one feat, a character with a single hand crossbow (or two, depending on interpretation) can match the damage of a TWF specialized fighter of equal level, but from a much greater range. The fighter might pick up the dual wielder feat to use rapiers (and only rapiers if he wants finesse). That will give an extra 1 damage per attack. But the crossbow guy can get the archery fighting style if he's a fighter, a larger damage bump. Then crossbow guy can get sharpshooter, which is an even larger damage boost.

Both use finesse piercing damage, but the crossbow fighter does more, from a safe distance, and with no penalty or provoked opportunity attacks in melee. And that same fighter might do even better damage as a ranger.

For rogues, it's the same story. Unless your DM only gives out certain magical items, the rogue is always better off with a hand crossbow than dual wielding. He has a free hand, and can use his bonus action hide much more easily from range. The rogue might also pick up skulker, further boosting the crossbow advantage over dual wielding.

Monks have better things to do with their bonus action. Barbarians rely on strength in too many ways to dump it.

Even the duelest-style fighter with a shield approaches the damage of an optimized dual wielder. And he has a shield, with all the niceness that brings, and a leftover bonus action for whatever (shield mastery push).
DW with style, feat, two attacks plus bonus: (1d8+5)*3 = 28.5
Duelest with three attacks, no bonus: (1d8+5+2)*2 = 23, followed by tripping or pushing his target.

It's notable that the sheild master in the above example gets bonus reflex save from sheild AC vs most effects, and gets half the benefits of evasion too (no damage on successful save).

Point I'm trying to get across is that dual wielding is suboptimal under the current ruleset. If you, as a DM, want your players to dual wield effectively, you have to houserule it to hell and back. Combining the dual weilder and defensive duelest feats, which suck, into one strong feat would be a good start.

BW022
2014-09-23, 12:00 PM
so am I the only one that thinks making the offhand attack a bonus action quite stupid?
Cant really see any point of going dw when you can just get a bonus action attack with mainhand or
two hand from quite a few sources? Am I missing something that is really good with it or is it the
usual with making it sub par compared to other styles? :)


Stupid how?

Not realistic? It is a fantasy game. Dual wielding wasn't commonly used and any modern fencer will tell you that it isn't that effective. Most fencers stand sideways and want as much reach as their arm and weapon will allow. Striking with an off-hand weapon (usually small) means exposing your front, getting closer, and swinging with a lot less power. IMO, bonus action and no ability bonus seems to simulate that fair enough.

Game balance. It seems fine. It allows a minor attack in place of a bonus action. This isn't that costly to most martial types -- other than maybe a paladin for a few spells or a rogue who has to decide between this and their bonus disengage, dash, or hide action. Most spell casters aren't in melee so it doesn't really affect them.

Sub-Par? No. Anyone can do it. It doesn't require any feat (such as polearm master) or class (such as monk bonus unarmed attacks). It can be used with some thrown weapons. All fighting styles have advantages and disadvantages. A sword and shield is more AC. A spear and shield is less damage, but a ranged option. A two-handed sword is more damage, but less AC. A glaive is less damage but gives you reach. How good one is, depends more on the player, their tactics, other party members, the opponents you face, etc.

Someone with TWF might be better against lost of small creatures (better able to spread damage out or targets almost dead). It may also be better for emergency ranged attack (a caster levitating 15' up), against something you must hit (such as disrupting a concentration spell from a caster), etc. It is also the only multi-weapon attack option for most non-martial classes and for low-level characters.

Cambrian
2014-09-23, 12:15 PM
Most of the alternatives presented above are strength-based. TWF will let you pump dex instead, which means more AC and initiative. That is a big deal.Absolutely-- TWF has more defensive applications.

With the TWF feat you get half the bonus of a shield, and can use non-light weapons. So of course dual wielding doesn't increase offence as much as using a 2-hander. Instead, once augmented with a feat, it's more like a halfway between a sword-n'-board and a two-hander. With finesse weapons defensive duelist also becomes an option and you can be as well defended as anyone.

Sartharina
2014-09-23, 12:33 PM
Most of the alternatives presented above are strength-based. TWF will let you pump dex instead, which means more AC and initiative. That is a big deal.DEX doesn't do anything for defense that a good suit of armor doesn't do better.

And Duelist outdamages TWF.

hymer
2014-09-23, 12:55 PM
DEX doesn't do anything for defense that a good suit of armor doesn't do better.

Generally speaking, dex could well be said to beat str as a useful attribute. Dex saves are more common, both attributes add to-hit and damage, both will directly or indirectly add to AC, but only dex adds to initiative. Finally, there is only one strength skill, while dex has three.

BRC
2014-09-23, 01:03 PM
A friend of mine did some calculations for the various fighting styles. Great Weapon Fighting came out ahead pretty early on, but even at 20th level it wasn't that far ahead of duel wielding. Enough that a Duel Wielder and a Great Weapon fighter who are not really paying attention to relative totals might not notice that one is dealing more damage than the other. I think it was below 10 damage a round at 20th level, not counting things like magic items.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 01:27 PM
Dual wielding is inferior for any class that gets multiple attacks as they level up.

Example:
At level 20 a fighter has (4) attacks
Greatsword: 8d6+20 = 48
Longswords (dual wielder feat): 5d8+25 = 42.5

It looks like the damage difference is marginal at first, but this isn't even taking into consideration Great Weapon Fighting, or the utilization of the Great Weapon Master feat (which is arguably the best combat feat in the game).

You can make an argument that dual wielding is a good route for Rogues, however; you have to give up your Cunning Action if you make the 2nd attack.

BRC
2014-09-23, 01:32 PM
Dual wielding is inferior for any class that gets multiple attacks as they level up.

Example:
At level 20 a fighter has (4) attacks
Greatsword: 8d6+20 = 48
Longswords (dual wielder feat): 5d8+25 = 42.5

It looks like the damage difference is marginal at first, but this isn't even taking into consideration Great Weapon Fighting, or the utilization of the Great Weapon Master feat (which is arguably the best combat feat in the game).

You can make an argument that dual wielding is a good route for Rogues, however; you have to give up your Cunning Action if you make the 2nd attack.
Yes, it is.
I mean, with Dual Wielding you get an extra attack, which is an extra chance to crit (although that's balanced by the fact that Great Weapons crit harder), and more chances to hit against a high-AC foe (Also more chances to miss, and you deal less damage when you do hit), +1 AC (at the cost of your bonus action each round). Plus, you need to burn a valuable feat on it.

But, at 20th level, 5.5 Damage per attack isn't huge. Dual Wielding may not be the 100% most optimal strategy, but it is VIABLE. You can play a dual wielding fighter in a party with a great weapon fighter and not feel like you're drastically weaker. You probably won't notice an average of 5.5 damage during normal play unless you're sitting down to count thing out.

hymer
2014-09-23, 01:41 PM
You probably won't notice an average of 5.5 damage during normal play unless you're sitting down to count thing out.

There's also an advantage to more, lesser damaging attacks. Compare A with three attacks each dealing 10 damage, and B with four attack each dealing 7. A deals 30, B deals 28. If they are fighting a monster with 21 hp left, B is more likely to kill that monster. And he may even do so with an attack to spare.
B has less overkill. It's pretty minor (especially compared with the comparison between Str 8/Dex 20 with Str 20/Dex8), but I thought I'd mention it.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 01:42 PM
Yes, it is.
I mean, with Dual Wielding you get an extra attack, which is an extra chance to crit (although that's balanced by the fact that Great Weapons crit harder), and more chances to hit against a high-AC foe (Also more chances to miss, and you deal less damage when you do hit), +1 AC (at the cost of your bonus action each round). Plus, you need to burn a valuable feat on it.

But, at 20th level, 5.5 Damage per attack isn't huge. Dual Wielding may not be the 100% most optimal strategy, but it is VIABLE. You can play a dual wielding fighter in a party with a great weapon fighter and not feel like you're drastically weaker. You probably won't notice an average of 5.5 damage during normal play unless you're sitting down to count thing out.

If you dual wield you will 100% notice and/or feel the lack of the great weapon master feat.

Let's say you have advantage, so you decide to take the -5 to hit. With advantage, you are most likely still going to hit - which grants you an additional 10 damage. On top of this, any time you reduce something to zero HP or crit you can to make ANOTHER attack with your bonus action.

The feat is what makes Greatweapons noticeably stronger than dual wielding. Especially with a barbarian where you can essentially grant yourself advantage whenever you like.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 01:44 PM
There's also an advantage to more, lesser damaging attacks. Compare A with three attacks each dealing 10 damage, and B with four attack each dealing 7. A deals 30, B deals 28. If they are fighting a monster with 21 hp left, B is more likely to kill that monster. And he may even do so with an attack to spare.
B has less overkill. It's pretty minor (especially compared with the comparison between Str 8/Dex 20 with Str 20/Dex8), but I thought I'd mention it.

This doesn't account for GWM feat, where overkilling your targeting is a good thing.

hymer
2014-09-23, 01:45 PM
This doesn't account for GWM feat, where overkilling your targeting is a good thing.

In what way?

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 01:46 PM
In what way?

If you outright kill your target with GWM feat you are granted a bonus attack.

hymer
2014-09-23, 01:48 PM
If you outright kill your target with GWM feat you are granted a bonus attack.

Monsters generally die at 0, unless the DM specifically decides against that particular monster dying at 0. The DM is encouraged to make this an exception.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 01:50 PM
Monsters generally die at 0, unless the DM specifically decides against that particular monster dying at 0. The DM is encouraged to make this an exception.

What I mean is, if you kill something with a Greatweapon the GWM feat grants you an additional attack, you don't get this bonus while Dual Wielding.

Therefore, overkilling something isn't a bad thing - in fact it just grants you an additional attack.

BRC
2014-09-23, 01:52 PM
In what way?

IIRC, GFW combined Cleave and Power Attack into one nifty package. Against Low-AC foes, GFW can throw on an extra 10 damage per attack (at a -5 penalty).
If you know you're going to land hits against a high-health low-AC enemy, each GFW hit adds damage equivalent to an average hit from a 1d8 weapon with a +5 bonus.

Mind you, that's situational. -5 is pretty huge, so you could easily end up burning all your attacks whiffing against a high-AC enemy, and unlike with 3.5 power attack, you can't modulate that. It's -5 for +10 or nothing.

But still, it's an option, and it's not like Dual Wielding Fighters have any equivalent way to boost their damage.

hymer
2014-09-23, 01:52 PM
What I mean is, if you kill something with a Greatweapon the GWM feat grants you an additional attack, you don't get this bonus while Dual Wielding.

Therefore, overkilling something isn't a bad thing - in fact it just grants you an additional attack.

You get an attack as a bonus action if you kill your target and have GWM. There is no additional gain if you 'overkill', which isn't a game term.


But still, it's an option, and it's not like Dual Wielding Fighters have any equivalent way to boost their damage.

True. But having the ability to increase damage against enemies you can easily hit is a lot less impressive than doing the same against something you can barely hit. Trading damage for to-hit is not as good against the final boss of the dungeon, as it is against the trash you wipe the floor with anyway. Don't get me wrong, GWM is useful and clearly worth taking. But you'll need to be quick with the calculations (and know your target's AC) to avoid statistically penalizing yourself.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 02:04 PM
You get an attack as a bonus action if you kill your target and have GWM. There is no additional gain if you 'overkill', which isn't a game term.

I'll try to make an example:

Example Monster has say, 25 HP

FIGHTER with 3 attacks.
Greatsword: 6d6+15= 36
Longswords: 4d6+20= 34

Greatsword: Kills in 3 attacks with 11 damage overkill. Bonus Action Attack remaining (2d6+5)
Longsword: Kills in (2) attacks+bonus action with 0.5 overkill. 1 Attack remaining (1d6+5)

This is an example of a situation where it doesn't hurt you to spread the damage over multiple attacks.

My examples suck, my recommendation is to look at some of the complete damage spreadsheets which are extremely detailed and take into account any variable you can imagine. All roads lead to 2-hander doing the best damage - and in most situations it is head and shoulders above dual wielding for Fighters and especially Barbarians.

hymer
2014-09-23, 02:16 PM
@ Chubbs Malone: I never claimed that two-weapon fighting was generally superior, or that two-handed fighting isn't strengthened by GWM. I merely pointed to a (to me interesting) kind of case where the difference is lessened, and where there is advantage to spreading the damage out over more attacks.

BRC
2014-09-23, 02:16 PM
One advantage Duel Wielding does have (at the cost of using Rapiers or 1d6 weapons), is that you can do it with Dex, which is generally more versatile. A strength based GWF fighter is limited to stomping around in big armor and hitting things with the biggest weapon they can find.

A Dex based fighter duel wielding has the option of switching to a bow or crossbow when need be while holding on to their damage. They also have the ability to use stealth, or fight well in situations when they are deprived of their armor, and they get a good bonus on one of the three big saves.

It's a tradeoff for the raw damage of Great Weapon fighting, but it kind of balances out in the end.

Chubbs Malone
2014-09-23, 02:31 PM
@ Chubbs Malone: I never claimed that two-weapon fighting was generally superior, or that two-handed fighting isn't strengthened by GWM. I merely pointed to a (to me interesting) kind of case where the difference is lessened, and where there is advantage to spreading the damage out over more attacks.

No, no - I understand what you're saying man. It's all good :smallsmile:

Easy_Lee
2014-09-23, 02:44 PM
One advantage Duel Wielding does have (at the cost of using Rapiers or 1d6 weapons), is that you can do it with Dex, which is generally more versatile. A strength based GWF fighter is limited to stomping around in big armor and hitting things with the biggest weapon they can find.

A Dex based fighter duel wielding has the option of switching to a bow or crossbow when need be while holding on to their damage. They also have the ability to use stealth, or fight well in situations when they are deprived of their armor, and they get a good bonus on one of the three big saves.

It's a tradeoff for the raw damage of Great Weapon fighting, but it kind of balances out in the end.

A strength based fighter can just as easily switch to a thrown weapon and keep their damage. They also can grapple their targets, something a dex character can't do well. And athletics is more useful, un more situations, than acrobatics.

How often do you plan to be deprived of armor? If the answer is often, why are you not playing a monk or barbarian? If you wanted to use stealth, why are you not playing a crossbow expert rogue or ranger?

No matter how high your dex is, you still take half damage on failed dex saves without evasion. Should have gone rapier duelist shield master for half-evasion, bonus reflex for targetted effects, and 19 AC all the time without having to eat up a reaction from DD, all with comparable damage and no MAD.

Everything good you get from dual wielding, you can have better with crossbow expert plus sharpshooter. And if you just want damage and high AC, a halforc GWF barbarian is your choice. 20AC naked with max stats, maximum hit points, damage resistance, bonus rage damage, bonus dice rolls.

Why did you spell dual "duel"?

hymer
2014-09-23, 03:16 PM
A strength based fighter can just as easily switch to a thrown weapon and keep their damage.

Longbows have a range of 150/600. Thrown weapons have 20/60. That can be pretty significant. There's also the difference between a magical bow and a magical dagger or javelin, in that the throwing weapons need a returning quality of some sort to be really useful.


How often do you plan to be deprived of armor? All night every night?


If you wanted to use stealth, why are you not playing a crossbow expert rogue or ranger? Having the option of stealth is one thing. Having it as a main feature of your character is another. Sometimes people want to play fighters, but also want to be able to sneak. What's wrong with that?


No matter how high your dex is, you still take half damage on failed dex saves without evasion. Should have gone rapier duelist shield master for half-evasion, bonus reflex for targetted effects, and 19 AC all the time without having to eat up a reaction from DD, all with comparable damage and no MAD.

Half damage is still a good thing, though. Where's the MADness in a dex fighter?


Everything good you get from dual wielding, you can have better with crossbow expert plus sharpshooter.

Apples and oranges. If you want to melee, or if you don't want to spend two feats but just one, or if you're going for mage slayer, etc.


And if you just want damage and high AC, a halforc GWF barbarian is your choice. 20AC naked with max stats, maximum hit points, damage resistance, bonus rage damage, bonus dice rolls.

And what if I just want to play a two-weapon dex fighter?

Falka
2014-09-23, 03:26 PM
DEX doesn't do anything for defense that a good suit of armor doesn't do better.

And Duelist outdamages TWF.


Better Dex Saves.

Better Initiative rolls, so I can pick fights better.

Armors that allow a high Dex bonus do not impose Stealth roll Disadvantage

And Duelist doesn't add more damage, it's just a safer choice. You can miss the TWF attack, but if it hits, you'll always outdamage Duelist.

1pwny
2014-09-23, 04:08 PM
Also, a big part of it is that D&D is an RPG. Literally, a role-playing game. I mean, if you guys take pleasure in optimizing, that's fine. But the fact of the matter is that some people just want to hit things with two swords. That D&D has now made that a viable, if not overpowered, option is great.

Easy_Lee
2014-09-23, 04:39 PM
the fact of the matter is that some people just want to hit things with two swords.

And nobody is telling you that you can't. There's more support for it this edition than there was in previous (except for rogues, who have better things to do with their bonus).

But don't pretend that it's an optimal choice. There are many better options, such as fighter with duelist, polearm master, a quarterstaff and shield; or a ranger/rogue with sharpshooter and crossbow expert; or a GWF barbarian; or an open hand monk with sentinel. Don't complain when these martials show you up.

But sure, if you want to 1v1 somebody as a Drizzt clone, it's easier now than it used to be. Go right ahead.

MustacheFart
2014-09-23, 05:04 PM
And nobody is telling you that you can't. There's more support for it this edition than there was in previous (except for rogues, who have better things to do with their bonus).

But don't pretend that it's an optimal choice. There are many better options, such as fighter with duelist, polearm master, a quarterstaff and shield; or a ranger/rogue with sharpshooter and crossbow expert; or a GWF barbarian; or an open hand monk with sentinel. Don't complain when these martials show you up.

But sure, if you want to 1v1 somebody as a Drizzt clone, it's easier now than it used to be. Go right ahead.

Wow, take a breath my man. It's not that big of a deal lol.

Besides we don't know what magic items are going to be released. For all we know, wands might be good enough that a Rogue Thief dual wielding wands might be a potent combination.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-23, 06:18 PM
A strength based fighter can just as easily switch to a thrown weapon and keep their damage. They also can grapple their targets, something a dex character can't do well. And athletics is more useful, un more situations, than acrobatics.

How often do you plan to be deprived of armor? If the answer is often, why are you not playing a monk or barbarian? If you wanted to use stealth, why are you not playing a crossbow expert rogue or ranger?

No matter how high your dex is, you still take half damage on failed dex saves without evasion. Should have gone rapier duelist shield master for half-evasion, bonus reflex for targetted effects, and 19 AC all the time without having to eat up a reaction from DD, all with comparable damage and no MAD.

Everything good you get from dual wielding, you can have better with crossbow expert plus sharpshooter. And if you just want damage and high AC, a halforc GWF barbarian is your choice. 20AC naked with max stats, maximum hit points, damage resistance, bonus rage damage, bonus dice rolls.


Thrown weapons have terrible range. A thrown weapon with range 20 isn't close to the same thing as a weapon with range 150.

Stealth is not some niche thing that you need to build a character concept around. Stealth is useful in a ton of situations, and even a martial character can get stealth with backgrounds or whatnot.

Half damage is way, way better than full damage.

Your hypothetical crossbow expert + sharpshooter requires 2 feats, putting you 4 attribute points behind a TWFer with no feats and 2 attribute points behind a TWFer with Dual Wield (who has +1 AC on top of the +2 to an attribute)

But sure, if you want to 1v1 somebody as a Drizzt clone, it's easier now than it used to be. Go right ahead.


What exactly did he say that justifies you being so condescending in your response?

Falka
2014-09-24, 01:08 AM
And nobody is telling you that you can't. There's more support for it this edition than there was in previous (except for rogues, who have better things to do with their bonus).

But don't pretend that it's an optimal choice. There are many better options, such as fighter with duelist, polearm master, a quarterstaff and shield; or a ranger/rogue with sharpshooter and crossbow expert; or a GWF barbarian; or an open hand monk with sentinel. Don't complain when these martials show you up.

But sure, if you want to 1v1 somebody as a Drizzt clone, it's easier now than it used to be. Go right ahead.

He didn't say he's playing the most optimal choice. Also, you don't build to 1vs1 people. Dude, this is D&D, not a battle arena.

Easy_Lee
2014-09-24, 01:33 AM
He didn't say he's playing the most optimal choice. Also, you don't build to 1vs1 people. Dude, this is D&D, not a battle arena.


What exactly did he say that justifies you being so condescending in your response?

I wasn't trying to be condescending. One vs. one fights are the only real area where dual wield shines, hence my comment.

Damage of a dual wielder falls behind, but they are capable of many attacks.
If it's a dex build, it probably won initiative vs the berserking fighter.
Assuming you can get your AC as high as the other guy's AC from armor or unarmored defense, you can push yours higher still using your reaction with defensive duelist and +1 from dual wielder

A mithril breastplate or some magic armor is probably something we can assume will show up given time. I'll assume it's possible to hit 19 armored AC with light armor, then 20 with dual wielder to match the maximized barbarians and monks. So a character with a build like this, while less effective than other builds in general combat, can none-the-less win a melee duel with another humanoid melee fighter.

The odds of being hit are low with high AC.
If one of your foe's attacks hits you, you can turn it into a near-guaranteed miss once a round by adding proficiency to AC. It negates your foe's proficiency bonus, assuming it's the same as yours.
Your better defenses will push your opponent's DPS lower than yours, on the average.
If you picked dark elf, you can cast faerie fire once per day from level 3. Your attacks have advantage vs your opponent.

See how clever WoTC was with this edition? Drizzt, even though he's a generalist who does less damage than Wulfgar and can't defend his allies as well as Bruenor, can still take either of them in a fight. And the above is, in all honesty, not a terrible build. It's just not optimal, and will usually fall behind the optimal builds in general combat. But not so far behind that you'll be ridiculed for picking it (other than being a Drizzt clone).

Hope that explains my post a bit better.

hecetv
2014-09-24, 02:19 AM
Aside from all of the excellent points brought up by people about the advantages of dex over str aside from in the huge single hit damage category, what about poison application, on hit profs of magic items, disrupting spells, etc.? You can have two different magic weapon effects, one in each hand. Good luck topping that. It seems unlikely in this universe, but then so are level 20 characters anyway.

There's so many variables and conditions where an extra attack could add so much more as to be way better than not dual wielding. That said there are also the same conditions and variables which could make dual wielding worse, such as the capacity to disable bonus actions. Good luck fighting a guy whose maul can shocking strike to disable bonus actions on hit or whatever. I think dual wielding is just as powerful.

Or rather we just don't know.

Rilak
2014-09-24, 04:09 AM
A mithril breastplate or some magic armor is probably something we can assume will show up given time. I'll assume it's possible to hit 19 armored AC with light armor, then 20 with dual wielder to match the maximized barbarians and monks.

Barbarians max out at 24 AC with a non-magical Shield. 25 AC with bracers of defense and a heavy weapon or TWF. With 24 CON 20 DEX, I guess their STR is pretty okay still if they start at 16 (with capstone it is still 20).

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-24, 07:37 AM
Hope that explains my post a bit better.
Indeed; thanks for clarifying and sorry for the misunderstanding

Grayson01
2014-09-24, 08:14 AM
Also the GWF over dual wielding is based on two alternate rules. You can't even get GWF and 20 STR until at least 8th level. Where in the main rules you can Dual wield without feats and with max dex or STG by 4th level and the extra attacks and extra damage of GWF are gone.

MadBear
2014-09-24, 08:52 AM
Out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the math from a character that is adding consistent extra damage on each attack (rangers hunters mark for example), because in that instance it seems like TWF should pull a bit closer to even then otherwise. Heck, a Paladin of vengeance with 1 level in fighter (yeah, you lose the capstone, but you don't always get there anyways), would be adding an additional 1d8 (radiant damage from level 11) +1d6 (hunters mark) to every attack.

MustacheFart
2014-09-24, 09:53 AM
Also the GWF over dual wielding is based on two alternate rules. You can't even get GWF and 20 STR until at least 8th level. Where in the main rules you can Dual wield without feats and with max dex or STG by 4th level and the extra attacks and extra damage of GWF are gone.

That's not entirely true. If you roll your character's stats and play a variant human you can have it by level 4.

edge2054
2014-09-24, 10:09 AM
Out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the math from a character that is adding consistent extra damage on each attack (rangers hunters mark for example), because in that instance it seems like TWF should pull a bit closer to even then otherwise. Heck, a Paladin of vengeance with 1 level in fighter (yeah, you lose the capstone, but you don't always get there anyways), would be adding an additional 1d8 (radiant damage from level 11) +1d6 (hunters mark) to every attack.

It doesn't favor TWF as much as it looks like except on targets with large hit point pools.

Consider a duelist ranger with a longsword. As a bonus action the duelist can cast or move hunter's mark every turn. It swings once per turn but deals 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 damage when it connects.

Now consider a TWF ranger using scimitars. Without hunters mark it swings 1d6 + 3 and 1d6 +3 and has a better chance of dealing at least some damage each turn. But on the turn that it casts hunter's mark or has to change marked targets it only swings once and deals 2d6 + 3 damage when it connects.

Against large hit point targets the TWF ranger pulls ahead of the longsword duelist. At two rounds it's about even but it favors the TWF more and more the longer the target lives.

I have no idea on GWF or Two-Handed polearm builds though. The play style doesn't appeal to me so I haven't looked much at the numbers. I think it was this thread though that I mentioned the one-handed Polearm Master build which combines the best of both worlds, especially on a ranger.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-24, 10:19 AM
Consider a duelist ranger with a longsword. As a bonus action the duelist can cast or move hunter's mark every turn. It swings once per turn but deals 1d8 + 1d6 + 5 damage when it connects.

Now consider a TWF ranger using scimitars. Without hunters mark it swings 1d6 + 3 and 1d6 +3 and has a better chance of dealing at least some damage each turn. But on the turn that it casts hunter's mark or has to change marked targets it only swings once and deals 2d6 + 3 damage when it connects.

Against large hit point targets the TWF ranger pulls ahead of the longsword duelist. At two rounds it's about even but it favors the TWF more and more the longer the target lives.


So, on rounds in which the ranger has to move Hunter's Mark, the Duelist does 13 damage average compared to the TWFer's 10 (assuming all hits)

On rounds in which you need not move hunter's mark, the TWFer does 4d6+3 = 17 damage average. At levels beyond ~4 (e.g. when feats would be in play, variant human aside), it seems like not needing to move hunter's mark would be the average case.

Also, i'm AFB, but don't some of the ranger abilities like colossus slayer scale better with multiple attacks?

edge2054
2014-09-24, 10:28 AM
Colossus Slayer is like Sneak Attack. Once per turn. Horde Breaker is the same.

Both can trigger off reactions though. Hence the one-handed polearm master build.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-24, 10:34 AM
Colossus Slayer is like Sneak Attack. Once per turn. Horde Breaker is the same.

Both can trigger off reactions though. Hence the one-handed polearm master build.

Seems like TWF would have a slight edge here as well, then - an extra attack per round is an extra opportunity to trigger it.

edge2054
2014-09-24, 10:50 AM
Personally I think TWF is a really strong build on a ranger and that it will get stronger as magic items are introduced.

The polearm master/quarterstaff build is definitely stronger but it costs a feat and is kinda cheesy (imo). By RAW I would probably allow it as a DM but it's something I suspect will show up in errata especially as it catches on. Personally I just can't envision having the leverage to pull off a blunt thrust with a quarterstaff when using it one-handed, so I wouldn't play it even though I've been very tempted.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-24, 11:08 AM
On rounds in which you need not move hunter's mark, the TWFer does 4d6+3 = 17 damage average. At levels beyond ~4 (e.g. when feats would be in play, variant human aside), it seems like not needing to move hunter's mark would be the average case.

Also, i'm AFB, but don't some of the ranger abilities like colossus slayer scale better with multiple attacks?


Actually, I miscalculated this. A TWF ranger will presumably have the TWF fighting style, meaning they add their ability score to the damage of the off-hand attack.

That makes the average damage in a round 20 in my above calculation.

edge2054
2014-09-24, 11:32 AM
So it only takes a single round for the TWF Ranger to edge out the Longsword Duelist with a margin of 4 if you assume every attack hits. More often though every attack won't hit which favors the TWF even more.

Someone mentioned on EN in another thread I was just reading that they have a Ranger in their group that leverages TWF, Colossus Slayer, and Hunter's Mark like we've been talking about that out damages their fighter by a large margin at level 5. I'm guessing at higher levels the Ranger would lose some steam as neither CS or HM scale. Still looks like a really strong build for low level games.

Demonic Spoon
2014-09-24, 11:35 AM
So it only takes a single round for the TWF Ranger to edge out the Longsword Duelist with a margin of 4 if you assume every attack hits. More often though every attack won't hit which favors the TWF even more.

Someone mentioned on EN in another thread I was just reading that they have a Ranger in their group that leverages TWF, Colossus Slayer, and Hunter's Mark like we've been talking about that out damages their fighter by a large margin at level 5. I'm guessing at higher levels the Ranger would lose some steam as neither CS or HM scale. Still looks like a really strong build for low level games.

And there are other considerations, like Duelist allowing a shield. It certainly isn't weak on the ranger, though.l

Grayson01
2014-09-24, 11:49 AM
That's not entirely true. If you roll your character's stats and play a variant human you can have it by level 4.

Yes with if you add in another alternate optional DM rule you can get it at 4th.

edge2054
2014-09-24, 11:53 AM
If we're comparing feats, which seems to be a lot of the hang up with TWF vs. GWF or Polearm Master builds, I'm curious what the best feat options would be for our TWF ranger.

Sentinel and Mage Slayer give you more options for reaction attacks which let you use Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker more often. Dual Wielder gives +1 AC and lets you bump the damage die up to 1d8 (but you're forced into a Strength build at that point).

Not the strongest choices. Personally I'd probably grab Sentinel. If my math is right that's another ~14 damage a round if the target is marked, is at less than full hit points, and attacks someone other than you.

Grayson01
2014-09-24, 11:57 AM
If we're comparing feats, which seems to be a lot of the hang up with TWF vs. GWF or Polearm Master builds, I'm curious what the best feat options would be for our TWF ranger.

Sentinel and Mage Slayer give you more options for reaction attacks which let you use Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker more often. Dual Wielder gives +1 AC and lets you bump the damage die up to 1d8 (but you're forced into a Strength build at that point).

Not the strongest choices. Personally I'd probably grab Sentinel. If my math is right that's another ~14 damage a round if the target is marked, is at less than full hit points, and attacks someone other than you.

You are not forced into a STR build, just forced into a a Rapier build.

Edit: Rapier build if you still want DEX.

edge2054
2014-09-24, 12:04 PM
haha.. true, my personal bias against double rapier builds shined through in that post.

Easy_Lee
2014-09-24, 12:07 PM
If we're comparing feats, which seems to be a lot of the hang up with TWF vs. GWF or Polearm Master builds, I'm curious what the best feat options would be

"Best" feats are probably crossbow expert and sharpshooter with a dex build, since it avoids MAD completely and lets you pick up more feats in the future instead of attribute boosts. Handcrossbow, archery, dex to damage, long range, free bonus attack, what's not to love?

MadBear
2014-09-24, 12:48 PM
Well to be fair, I early was talking about a Vengeance Paladin with 1 level dip in fighter. You can have both TWF, and Protection.

By level 12, you'll make 2 attacks normally, and can add in a 3rd with TWF.

In this cast with hunters mark you'll do 1d8 (weapon) + 1d8 (radiant always on) + 1d6 (hunters mark)+5.

In this case an extra hit nets you a decent amount of bonus damage.

Also, in this niche case, single target damage is this guys specialty anyway (with smite Paladins are great at going nova vs single targets).

Grayson01
2014-09-24, 12:55 PM
haha.. true, my personal bias against double rapier builds shined through in that post.

I agree with you on the lack of style points for doing it But it is still an option lol