Why all the hate on dual wielding?

[Rogerdodger557]

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.

[The Shadowdove]

I think people have just done the math a good few times over and found that dual wielding starts off strong but loses to damage against other styles around level 10/11.

There's nothing wrong with it. It's still completely viable and should be played by people who enjoy the playstyle without caring for a bit of optimization.

[Aett_Thorn]

I think that it mainly boils down to the following:

1) Action Economy
2) Feats + Fighting style seem like they should be switched
3) Action Economy
4) Only ever get one additional attack, no matter how many main attacks you get
5) Action Economy
6) ??
7) Action Economy


There are just so many things competing for that bonus action usually, unless you're a straight up fighter, that it can be hard to justify using a single attack instead.

[Kryx]

I think people have just done the math a good few times over and found that dual wielding starts off strong but loses to damage against other styles around level 10/11.

TWF is equal at level 1-4, but falls off a cliff at level 4 when GWM and PAM occur. As a comparison TWF does about 55-75% of GWM at level 4 and later.

[Rogerdodger557]

TWF is equal at level 1-4, but falls off a cliff at level 4 when GWM and PAM occur. As a comparison TWF does about 55-75% of GWM at level 4 and later.

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

[gameogre]

No Hate. Dual is ok it just uses bonus action and so does like EVERYTHING else so......either you would already get another attack with bonus action with another ability but with higher damage with a two hander or with a higher AC or you can't use the bonus action to attack because you are using it to do something better.

Really, there is nothing wrong with Dual Wielding. It's not a case of it's not sometimes good, it is! It's just also a case of it not being as good as it seems a lot of the time.

No worries though, if you use it and you like it, Great! More power to you man!

[Jallorn]

Well, I can tell you it's not always great for Rangers, despite the archetype of the dual wielding ranger, because they'd usually rather spend the bonus action casting or re-targeting Hunter's Mark, and as they get more spells they get a few other options as well that are pretty decent. Now there are some in-between rounds when they have a free bonus action, so it's not a bad build, but there are more efficient builds. Mainly ranged.

Really that's it. Dual wielding isn't bad, it's just generally sub-par. It requires a lot of investment to get up to snuff, and even then, it gives diminishing returns for that investment over time as you get more attacks. At the same time, the cost, a bonus action, goes up as there are more and more better things to do with the bonus action.

At lower levels there are simply better builds, like a great weapon master barbarian employing reckless attack and rage to dish out massive damage and get a bonus action attack that does way more damage, and at higher levels, there are better things to do with a bonus action most of the time (or other ways to get a bonus action attack) and that one attack is less of your damage output anyway.

If it fits the character you're playing, all power to you, I say. It isn't broken bad, it's just on a forum that mostly talks about optimization and the best numerical choice, dual-wielding is just less powerful.

And frankly, I think it should be. Dual wielding really isn't a great idea in battle, it just doesn't work out that well. In most situations, a shield would serve better than a second weapon.

[Boci]

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

Harder to compare I imagine, since they get +3 AC. TWF vs. GWF is a cleaner comparison, since its just damage (though its worth noting ofcourse that TFW also eats your bonus action).

And frankly, I think it should be. Dual wielding really isn't a great idea in battle, it just doesn't work out that well. In most situations, a shield would serve better than a second weapon.

D&D is a game about having fun, not a realistic fight simulator.

[Cap'm Bubbles]

It's not really hated, just sub-optimal.

Before everyone has multi-attack, it is actually the superior choice.
At level 5, it keeps pace with GWM (when not using -5/+10) as slightly better or slightly worse depending on class and archetype.
At level 11, you can't justify it for fighter anymore for DPR.
Once at level 11, dual wielding is only superior to GWF if you have an ability that can activate on every hit, so more hits is better than total number of hits.

This is the case for Paladin (3 smites per turn instead of 2), Battlemaster Fighter (3 maneuvers instead of 2), and a half-orc barbarian at level 13 (where a critical hit is effectively 5x number of dice rolled instead of 2).

The utility of an off-hand whip for certain spells and the Sentinel feat remain due to the weapon's reach.

[Easy_Lee]

But where do sword and board fighter come out of this?

On a fighter, sword and board pull ahead of TWF at 11 due to the shield. Without feats, the damage will be slightly in favor of S&B. With feats, shield master will give S&B the edge.

On rangers and barbarians, TWF is feasible, but there are better options. Rangers have too much to do with their bonus, barbarians want a big weapon because they don't get the fighting style.

On rogues, TWF is useful, but crossbow expert makes a hand crossbow better in every way.

Blade Warlocks can only have one pact weapon, and want their free hand for casting anyway if they don't have war caster. Besides that they don't get the fighting style.

Valor bards are in the same boat as warlocks.

Paladins, who might conceivably TWF for extra smites, don't get it as a fighting style option.

TWF sucks this edition.

[Rogerdodger557]

Once at level 11, dual wielding is only superior to GWF if you have an ability that can activate on every hit, so more hits is better than total number of hits.

This is why I specified I was over level 13. Since I have access to Eldritch Strike, more attacks per turn helps me, especially now that I can cast Fireball.

[WickerNipple]

I am curious as to why there is so much hate.

Hate? I don't see much dual-wield hate. Just disappointment after the early levels and the boring mediocrity of having to spend your bonus action every turn to keep up with expected damage.

[Kryx]

On a fighter, sword and board pull ahead of TWF at 11 due to the shield. Without feats, the damage will be slightly in favor of S&B. With feats, shield master will give S&B the edge.

S&B pulls ahead at 5th level by my calculations.

Let me restate that: TWF is doing less damage than Sword and Board only counting the fighter, not counting the advantage the figher gives to his allies by making the enemy prone.

TWF sucks this edition.

100% this and why (you and) I have tried to bring this up in every TWF thread.

[utopus]

I personally love the idea of TWF. The only problem is that it's badly designed in its current state, and the damage that's lost by building a TWF is simply too staggering to even consider playing

[EvilAnagram]

This is why I specified I was over level 13. Since I have access to Eldritch Strike, more attacks per turn helps me, especially now that I can cast Fireball.

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

[Boci]

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

I think what they means is that they can hit multiple creatures, then catch them all with fireball. Eldritch strike gives every creature hit disadvantage on the save, so two weapon fighting helps with that, guaranteeing an extra attack. Seem niche, but it is an advantage.

[Rogerdodger557]

Does it, though? You already have a bonus action attack when you're casting, and dual wielding relies on your bonus action to make an offhand attack. In fact, unless you action surge, your dual wielding cannot come into play if you cast a spell during your turn.

That is what I was referring to, and when I level up whenever I action surge I get a free 30 ft teleport, allowing potentially four enemies to have disadvantage on their saving throws.

Edit: The disadvantage lasts until the end of my next turn as well. I wouldn't even have to action surge if I don't want to.

[Easy_Lee]

S&B pulls ahead at 5th level by my calculations.

Let me restate that: TWF is doing less damage than Sword and Board only counting the fighter, not counting the advantage the figher gives to his allies by making the enemy prone.

Most of my calculations are back of the envelope, so I'll defer to yours. And yes, good point about prone benefiting the rest of the party.

A few more things:

If your campaign has magical weapons, the TWF player needs twice as many as everyone else to receive the same proportional benefit. That sucks.

Another consideration: spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon only target one weapon. One more point against TWF.

Finally, reaction attacks. Since you only get one attack, players who rely on multiple attacks will deal less damage with their reaction, since it only allows one attack. That hurts fighters in general, but TWF fighters most.

[Boci]

That is what I was referring to, and when I level up whenever I action surge I get a free 30 ft teleport, allowing potentially four enemies to have disadvantage on their saving throws.

Edit: The disadvantage lasts until the end of my next turn as well. I wouldn't even have to action surge if I don't want to.

Yeah, but unless your wielding a whip, that 4 enemies enemies that have to be standing pretty close together, or you'll be eating OA to get to them, and a TWF can do the same, they only have 25% less attacks.Plus this trick, whilst neat, does spread damage out, which is a subpar strategy most of the time. Though if the spell also debuffs it may be more useful.

[Rogerdodger557]

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.

[Rogerdodger557]

Most of my calculations are back of the envelope, so I'll defer to yours. And yes, good point about prone benefiting the rest of the party.

If your campaign has magical weapons, the TWF player needs twice as many as everyone else to receive the same proportional benefit. That sucks.

Another consideration: spells like elemental weapon and magic weapon only target one weapon. One more point against TWF.

Finally, reaction attacks. Since you only get one attack, players who rely on multiple attacks will deal less damage with their reaction, since it only allows one attack. That hurts fighters in general, but TWF fighters most.

For magic items in general, if two or more players want the same item and have the same amount of magic items, they roll for it. This is how I got both +1 weapons in Lost Mines.

I don't use elemental weapon or magic weapon. They are, quite honestly, a waste of spells known for eldritch knights(at least in my opinion).

My reaction is mainly used for either Shield or Absorb Elements. And with war caster, I would just use a cantrip. A lot easier, and at least three damage die are rolled if I hit.

[denthor]

I have to consistently roll higher on the d20 to hit. If you dice go cold the extra attack does very little if you hit.

Light off hand weapon less damage lower armor class compared two shield.

Now I do like a two handed weapon with 1 1/2 times strength damage.

[Rogerdodger557]

Yeah, but unless your wielding a whip, that 4 enemies enemies that have to be standing pretty close together, or you'll be eating OA to get to them, and a TWF can do the same, they only have 25% less attacks.Plus this trick, whilst neat, does spread damage out, which is a subpar strategy most of the time. Though if the spell also debuffs it may be more useful.

OA?

And for spells, I try and get spells that have secondary effects(frostbite and the like). Or just Fireball. 8d6 is still pretty nice.

[Boci]

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

Pretty much this. People don't hate two weapon fighting generally, but its mechanically subpar, for fighter it generally doesn't do anything better than another fighting style, and fluff-wise some people dislike it because historically it was not as valid a fighting style as the others.

But yeah, if you like it, go for it and have fun.

OA?

Opportunity attack, for moving outside a creature's threaten range. I sometimes confuse editions.

And for spells, I try and get spells that have secondary effects(frostbite and the like). Or just Fireball. 8d6 is still pretty nice.

Frostbite isn't an area effect, so it won't be better on a two weapon fighter, and yeah, 28 fire damage is pretty good, but again, TWF isn't adding that much to the combo.

[Easy_Lee]

The issue isn't that dual wielding can't work, just that it's inferior to everything else past level 5. You may use it and like it, but that's not the point.

[Aett_Thorn]

I have to consistently roll higher on the d20 to hit. If you dice go cold the extra attack does very little if you hit.

Light off hand weapon less damage lower armor class compared two shield.

Now I do like a two handed weapon with 1 1/2 times strength damage.

Are you sure you're in the right addition? What 1.5x Str two-handed weapons?

[Rogerdodger557]

Frostbite isn't an area effect, so it won't be better on a two weapon fighter, and yeah, 28 fire damage is pretty good, but again, TWF isn't adding that much to the combo.

While it isn't a AOE spell, if were going up against a singular, powerful threat like an adult dragon(as we have), disadvantage to hit on their first attack is always useful.

[Boci]

While it isn't a AOE spell, if were going up against a singular, powerful threat like an adult dragon(as we have), disadvantage to hit on their first attack is always useful.

Right, but that's not relevant to your fighting style, any eldritch knight can do that, and against a singular, more powerful opponent, TWF is better, at least mechanically.

[Specter]

I hope those counting GWM and PAM styles are also accounting for the Dual Wielder feat, which would give you +1AC and +1 damage to all attacks. Otherwise, it's moot.

[Temperjoke]

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.

"Hate" is a strong word. It's more that it's not optimal, and most of the discussion on these forums tend to center around min-maxing, where not optimal things are disliked.